Obama '08?

It is clear that Obama is an "unprincipled" hack politician.

Larry Elder, an African-American columnist reported:
quote
But a reporter raised an issue about which Obama possesses more influence -- dealing with American protectionism that hurts Kenyan farmers. Why, asked the reporter, do Americans retain farm subsidies and tariffs that prevent Kenyan farmers from competing in the world's biggest market?

Obama's response? He talked about the soybean farmers in Illinois, and said, "It's important to me to be sure I'm looking out for their interests. It's part of my job." Absolutely incredible.

For, in July, the European Union and five nations, including the United States and Japan, met in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss the elimination of farm subsidies and agricultural tariffs. After all, in 2002, the World Bank estimated that African exports would increase by almost $2.5 billion if the U.S., Europe, Japan and Canada eliminated their agricultural tariffs. This is especially true as to peanuts and tobacco. African farmers run up against farmers in wealthy nations whose laws ensure their success at the expense of Third World farmers.

What should Obama have said? "You're right. America is a rich nation. You are a poor one. Poor nations generally turn into rich ones by starting out with agriculture. So when I get back to Washington, I'm going to tell my colleagues about the devastating real-world effect American protectionism has on poor nations."

end of quote
What a lily livered slimeball Obama has become!!!!

I am not the author of this thread, nor is it clear to me what argument of mine you are addressing, specifically, with this post that you have repeated about a dozen times now. I never said that I thought Obama was going to win, if he ran.

Our exhaustive research has found just the right book for you, our resident appreciator of fine literature and rigorous attention to detail...

http://www.amazon.com/Architect-Karl-Master-Absolute-Power/dp/0307237923

Nimh- You posted a poll. I said it was bogus. The poll( six hundred people) gave Obama a 72% Approval Rating. He does not have that kind of backing!!! The Poll is bogus. The failure of African Americans in elections all over the USA show that fakes like Obama can only be elected in special circumstances---One African American against another!!!

If a poll I posted that was based on 600 people in one state was bogus, then what are the many polls you've posted that are based on some 1,000 people to represent the entire USA?

Again, Nimh, you forget the disclaimer made by that poll with regard to the fact that there were numerous non-respondents>

We shall see just how popular African-American candidates who run in large venues which are not majority African-American do in Nov. 2006.

The only candidate who may do well would be a candidate who is running against another African-American AS WAS THE CASE WHEN OBAMA RAN!

Obama would have been beaten decisively by Senator Fitzpatrick, who, unfortunately resigned from the Senate.

I hold that Polls are often close to the mark BUT NOT WHEN THE POLLS INVOLVE AFRICAN-AMERICAN CANDIDATES!

It is considered "racist" to have a negative view of any African-American and reveal it in a poll BUT THE VOTING BOOTH PROVIDES A PLACE OF SECRECY!


And, THAT, Nimh, is why African-Americans can't win in districts that are not majority African-American.

Millions of Americans have noted the race-carders--Jesse Jackson--Al Sharpton--Minister Farrakhan--work to subvert everyone but their own group!

That is why, Nimh, African-Americans are doomed to political obscurity!!!

The same disclaimer would hold true to any poll - including the many that you post here regularly.


I would hardly say that being a Senator of a major state - and one of the country's Senators that is best at fundraising, most covered in the media, and most asked by fellow politicians to visit their constituency or campaign events - equates to "political obscurity".

Why do you keep talking about Fitzpatrick rather than Jack Ryan, who is the white man that Obama was actually running against? Obama was doing quite well against Ryan when he (Ryan) stepped down from the race and Keyes stepped in for him.

Here is an article from June 2004, when Ryan was still the contender and the whole sex club thing was not yet an issue. It says:



22 percentage points. That's well beyond the margin of error you describe in the difference between how people say they'll vote and how they'll actually vote.

Obama would've beaten a white man to get where he is if that white man hadn't happened to do some stupid things that came out in the race. Keyes was chosen specifically to run against Obama -- presumably they (Republican strategists) were hoping that the fact that Keyes is also black would negatively impact some of Obama's numbers. It didn't.

It is difficult to imagine how someone could fit so many errors into such a short sentence, but Possum has clearly outdone himself here.

1. It isn't likely that Obama would have been "beaten decisively by Senator Fitzpatrick," for the very simple reason that there was no Senator Fitzpatrick. Possum, no doubt, is thinking of Senator Peter Fitzgerald.

2. Fitzgerald didn't resign from the senate. Instead, he simply chose not to run for re-election. He did, however, serve out his full term.

3. It is pretty well accepted around here that Fitzgerald chose not to run for re-election because he wasn't sure he could win -- and not just in the general election, but in the Republican primary as well. Fitzgerald had very poor relations with the state GOP, and it was probable that the party regulars would have fielded a candidate against him in the primary election. I explained it all in this post about two years ago, back when Possum was ... oh, I don't know, Mortkat or something.

Betcha a dollar massagatto won't directly address your post.

I'm afraid you're a moron for saying such ignorance, Possum will explain why Posner had a better grasp of the details of constitutional law as well as various brands of spreadable cheeses. What Possum won't respond to is why he continues to piss in the sink.

six 'a one, half dozen 'a the other.....

snood, I hear you been bad-mouthin' me.

What's up with that?

I'M COMIN' AFTER YOU, BITCH!!!! YOU SHALL FEEL MY WRATH!!!!

What's that, Slappy? It wasn't snood?

Who the hell is scood?


Uh, snood.... still buddies?

I love you like a brother, man.

That's right, Tex - and if'n ya want tah settle it like men, you'll meet me at high noon


<hope you're jokin - cause I don't remember sayin anything about you...>

What Joe from Chicago should know as a resident of Chicago but does not know is that although the present mayor, Richard Daley has had many scandals during his term of office, he will beat the living sh.t out of a race carder like the poorly educated Jesse Jackson Jr.

What Joe from Chicago should know as a resident from Chicago is that the Hispanics will NEVER vote for an African-American.

What Joe from Chicago should know as a resident from Chicago is that Hispanics, WHO ARE A LARGE VOTING BLOC, will never vote for an African-American because the positively INSIST that their children cannot and will not be bused to African-American schools in which they are afraid, with very good reason, that their children will be beaten, harrassed and extorted.

What Joe from Chicago should know as a resident from Chicago is that the bogus fake, Stroger's son, who is running for the Presidency of Cook Country may lose to an unknown, Pereica, from the suburbs, because very few Caucasians and not many Hipanics will vote for an African-American for that position despite the fact that the fake Stroger will get almost every single African-American vote.

What Joe from Chicago should know as a resident from Chicago is that one of the worst times in Chicago History is when Chicago erroneously elected a fag as mayor, named Harold Washington. Despite that error, there have been no viable African-American candidates since then.

What Joe from Chicago should know as a resident from Chicago is that if a well spoken Hispanic Candidate runs for Senator in 2010, he could very well beat the do nothing Obama!

What Joe from Chicago should know but does not know, is that Hispanic numbers in Chicago and suburbs will DROWN the African-American vote and that the Hispanic vote will NEVER go the way of the African-Americans since the Hispanics are adamantly opposed to living close to that group or going to school with them in any section of Illinois.

What Joe from Chicago should know but does not know( and he, as a lawyer should know this) is that Obama is an admitted Cocaine User( he wrote that in his autobiography) and that he attended two years in a Muslim School in Hawaii( he wrote that in his autobiography) and that he was labelled by his colleagues in law school as an ineffective leader who was friendly and outgoing but not "tough" enough.

What Joe From Chicago should know but does not know is that Obama's trip to Africa is on the public dole. Obama got support from the Department of Defense and the State Department for a CODEL. HE USED TAXPAYER MONEY TO VISIT HIS RELATIVES!

What Joe from Chicago should know but does not know is the truth about Obama. The truth about Obama was written in a column in the Sun-Times by Neil Steinberg.

Steinberg wrote:

QUOTE

"When does Barack Obama go home to Kansas? Because that's an odyssey I'd like to see.

Sure, it's very dramatic and spiritual to return to the Kenyan village of his father. But what about the heartland town of his mother? Why is that not on the calendar? Doesn't that half count? Maybe being white isn't cool. I know I am no perilous ground here. Black people prefer to be the sole arbitrers of all things racial, But they aren't making choices in a vacuum.Obama says he is black because society says he is black,. It's true. But he also has free choice. The standard view doesn't have to be automatically embraced. There is the Tiger Woods way: rejection of hackneyed racial attitudes, a demand to be viewed as an individual and not in terms of competing racial sterotypes.

Compared with that, Obama's way--I'm sorry--Seems to smack of heteful, repudiated notions of race of black blood trumping white and a person being black if a parent or grandparent or even great grandparent was black.
I thought we were past all that, past mulattos and octoroons and tainted blood. I hate to rain on Obama's triumphant homecoming. But I have to point out that he wouldn't be doing it if it weren't politically beneficial, and since race is so often cast one way only---as a handicap in a deeply racist society--by those who benefit from such a view, we have to remind ourselves that Obama underscores one side of his upbringing over the other for a reason. He sure ain't schlepping through Kansas with the press in tow. Maybe next year>"

end of quote


I will be working against Obama in 2010 and I hope to have the honor of being on the team which removes the "Accident" from Illinois. Of, Course, Ryan, who had a terrible scandal that hobbled him could not compete with Obama. The only way Obama could win was to be matched with another African-American, Alan Keyes, who was much too extreme in his views as well as a carpet bagger.

Point to Snood - Bernard indeed did not directly address a single thing Joe actually wrote.

For a second there, I was getting a boner.

<smiling weakly and slowly backing toward the door>


Yes fellas, that's real funny! Do you want some money, or anything! ?!

Good news, good news.