<p>[ quote]No. He didn't.
PolitiFact | Yes, oil company employees have donated to Obama
Once again, employees != lobbied money.
[/quote]
Spouses of prominent oil employees did donate money. They basically funneled their donations through their wives/husbands.
The whole point I am making is, ACCEPTING MONEY FROM OIL LOBBYISTS IS ILLEGAL. No candidate accepts the monies, but BO has accepted money from prominent employees and their spouses, so he has accepted money from oil.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Don't try and get snarky, it'll lessen your credibility. Again, what are you trying to prove here? Did I ever say he didn't attend a Muslim school in Indonesia (I didn't)? Or are you trying to say he's a Muslim (far from the truth, though that shouldn't matter anyways)? You can't just throw up a bunch of links without explaining what you're trying to prove.
[/quote]
I don't know HOW many times I must tell you this, but the OP was directed to another member addressing prominenet lies and contradictions BO made. I am tired of trying to explain that to you. Go back a few pages to where I answered a comment that in essence said "what lies/contradictions/inconsitencies has BO made". It has no bearing of what I think is extremely important/unimportant, just obvious statements he has made that are not true. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"[Obama would] "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican candidate for both candidates to use public financing." Again, he never flat-out said he would accept public financing. Now, I'm not going to sit here and tell you he's declining public financing because he's a Saint - he's not. It's going to give him an edge, it seems like a very logical and smart move; he'd be dumb not to do it. I don't see much wrong with it ethically, mainly because he doesn't take money from lobbyists and is getting funded by the people. I see where people are coming from for this being a "flip-flop," though.
[/quote]
Once again, he did not agressively make an agreement with McCain, because BO knew he could raise around $200 mill. He raided his hand to singnify he AGREED with public financing in a debate, checked yes on a survey. Regardless, he had NO INTENTION of keeping his word when he realized his fund raising potential. He was not being completely honest, and then made some bull **** statement about why he reneged on his earlier promise. It is dishonest, and he will not just come out and say WHY he refusded to agressively reach an agreement.
[quote]
Most of this is covered in the section above this quote, so reference that. However, I take issue with trying to switch this as a "what if a white person said 'a typical black person.'" Yes, there is a difference between a majority and a historically repressed minority. Are you also going to ask why there isn't a WET channel or a White History Month? This claim is ridiculous and out of line.
[/quote]
Why is it "out of line"? I was offended because BO called his RACIST g ma a typical white person, and that is in NO WAY represetative of the MAJORITY of white grandmothers. My grandparents were SUBJECTED to discrimination because of their nationality, but, according to BO, my grandparents are racist...
Are black people held to a different standard just because some of them were oppressed almost 200 years ago? Why SHOULD there be a BHM? Do you honestly think if Hillary called person x a "typical black person" no one would care? No. Be honest for a second. White people are accused of being racist at a completely different standard than black people. This is astandard stance of people who are extremely liberal.
Do you support Affirmitive Action?
If you do, than you support discrimination.
OK, blacks had some hardships 200 years ago, it's time to move on. Eurpoe has moved on from the Holocaust so much quicker than blacks and slavery, so the whole oppressed minorty thing is really getting old. Anyone whose family came to the US during the Gilded Age or WW has experianced being an oppressed minority, but I don't feel as if I am owed a damn thing. I am SICK of the double standard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Okay, so the first link is Clinton releasing a memo trying to bash Obama without any rebuttal (therefore, ridiculously biased). The second link doesn't prove anything? You do know fund raising events were permitted, correct? The third link deals with a quick word exchange he had with a no-name reporter - you can barely find any information on it. I wouldn't call that a breach of the pledge (if it was, there would've been an uproar, as with the ads - but I already talked about how the ad couldn't be pulled, so we won't go back into that).
[/quote]
he made a pledge to NOT CAMPAIGN in FL. He aired campaign ads in FL after he made a clear pledge to NOT CAMPAIGN. Fundraising and campgining are two different issues, a campaign event can also accept donations. Then maybe you should do YOUR OWN RESEARCH if 3 sources is not enough for you. One again, you are holding a double standard. I provide 3 sources, whch you claim bogus, and you provise 1 source of some 2nd teir online publication and claim it is reputable. Kudos for denying facts!
Oh, and for the Muslim women thing - his campaign didn't do that, volunteers did. The campaign scolded and spoke out against that action. You can't keep making outright lies like this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, being immature isn't helping your cause.
[/quote]
How am I being immature? By being objective to Bo and his inconsitent message? By not just buying into hope and change because his policies are extremely questionable? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's called the burden of proof - you can't make a claim about 'X' and expect me to do all the grunt-work to prove 'X' is false - you have to prove 'X' is true. As a side note, I obviously did Google sources, as I cited a number of them - so your backhanded insult fell short.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sorry, this isn't a court of law. You cited 1 per argument, I have sited about 30. A number of your sources equaled ABOUT 5, and I find many of them as, once again, 2nd teir internet publications that are barely legitmete sources of news. Again, you set up a double standard. I have cited FAR more sources than you. FAR more. If you do not wish to be objective, or hold yourself to the standard you set for others, than you are just denying reality. Reality is saying BO has lied, and instead you will do anything to lie to yourself and justify his actions. Every candidate is flawed, including BO, and he is just another politician. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, anecdotal evidence isn't going to be of much help in this argument, as it sidesteps the point: whether you want to believe it or not, older generations have "a reaction thats been bred in [their] experiences that dont go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and thats just the nature of race in our society." That doesn't seem too divisive of a statement. Nor does, "We have to break through it, and what makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling a little less like that, and thats powerful stuff," which is the context of the "typical white person" sound bite
[/quote]
Once again, you are making an assumption about a incredibly large demograph. Many "older" generations are first generation Americans, and were not in the US during the slavery era, and were in the norh/west during Jim Crow. The VAST majority of the so called "older generation" was the subject of discrimination as first generation Germans, Italians or Irishman. The statement about older generations is not very accurate if you are objective and understand immigrations patterns int he US. I guess you never took the time to disect the demographs of our grandparents generation.</p>
<p>You provided 4 links, two of which are from the same site, one of which is not even reputable. The NY Times is the only one that is respected as a real news source. Try providing some less biased, non political party affiliated news, and maybe I will re consider your stance. Provide two reputable, trusted news sources per argument, and I will re address your points. If you are unable to provide the same amount of sources as I have, DO NOT RESPOND.</p>
<p>BO orginally DENIED the NAFTA meeting, which was a LIE. He since admitted to it when the memo was released. If you think snopes is not a "real" source, Free Democracy is not either. Use a less biased source. </p>
<p>And, for the 3rd time in this post, just to assure you will understand, the links to lies/inconsitiencies I posted was in response to a memebers question of untruths of BO. It has nothing to do with ANYTHING you have said. So don't do that crap "when did I say I didn't" when it CLEARLY was addressed to the original memeber in response to BO lies. </p>
<p>CMH-
Do not accuse me of taking your statements our of context, because you are using incredibly general terms, such as "we", and are not specific as to which countries/peoples you are referring to. In futher posts, to avoid ambiguaty, please specificly mention who/what country you are talking about, and refrain from "we", "us" or "they".</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if they choose to let another dictator take power, I won't be surprised
[/quote]
You clearly used the termc choose to allow a dictator. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I can see not wanting the government to get involved in Africa but I really don't understand your lack of sympathy.
[/quote]
When did I say I didn't feel bad for those people?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You have reiterated that the terrorists in the Middle East are a small minority but you don't seem to realize that these rapists, kidnappers, and generally bad people are also a minority and we have them here in our own country.
[/quote]
Thank you captain obvious. I never said they were the majority. My point is there response to certain situations is almost barbaric.
[quote[Information isn't always available. Sure we can hand out condoms, but it's hard to see immediate change. Like I said, it took a long time for Americans to use contraception.
[/quote]
Once again, you mis interpeted my point. I've watched doc's on Africa, and people WHO KNOW about condoms and HIV CHOOSE to have unprotected sex. Again and again, and that mind set is very prevelant in parts of Africa. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why should we give them money? I don't know, maybe so innocent children don't starve to death or so people can get some decent medical care. Or maybe so this doesn't weigh on my conscience, or the consciences of future generations. Maybe it's just me, but I'm still pretty humiliated to think that my country held onto slavery for so long and turned away Jewish refugees
[/quote]
So what EXACTLY is your stance on foriegn intervention? You don't support Iraq despite the humantarian problems, correct? But Africa is ok?
Slavery doesn't weigh on my conscious because my family wasn't in the US until after WW2.
Slavery issue: We held on to it so long to prevent a Civil war and the death of Americans. At least the freed slaves and their families are here and not in Sudan or New Guinia or Kenya or Zimb. It was wrong, but it was a 150 years ago, and it's time to move on. It probably is just you that is "humiliated" that we had slaves. Maybe you should move out of the US.;
You allow it to weigh on your conscious? Why? It's NOT OUR FAULT Africa has had the problems it has had and continues to respond in violence instead of peace. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I did pass the third grade. If you recall, I stated that Roosevelt was a war time president. I still don't think war is the right decision but I respect the way he carried it out and the obvious toll it took on his conscience.
[quote]
So how do you think the US should have responded to the Holocaust, Hitler and Pearl Harbor? Just sit back and allow Hitler to take over Europes, kill all millions of innocent people? That wouldn't weigh on your conscious at all, right?
[quote]
You could see that every decision weighed heavily on him. Some would argue that it killed him to make those difficult choices. He certainly wasn't bopping down to his ranch every weekend. You'll also recall that Roosevelt didn't order the dropping of the bombs. That was Truman.
[/quote]
When did I EVER say FDR dropped the a bomb? He oversaw the constuction of the A bomb, and Truman only found out about it after FDR died. The real reason we recovered economically from the GD was us entering WW2, aka the military industrial complex. Withour us going into ww2, FDR's legacy would have been far different, because the US may not have fully recovered.</p>