• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama’s past could be an issue

schnurrbart

Well-known member
passin thru said:
There we go again with the attack Bush theme in order to defend their side...............never ending tactic that shows weakness in their position.

As for Bush, one man made a claimof coke use with Bush. He made the claim in his book and the piblidsher dropped his book due to credibility problems with this author...........maybe another Dan Rather type.

Back to Obama................do you libs like that he is a coky?

Well, aren't you attacking Obama? Are you trying to say that bush 43 didn't partake when he was young? By all accounts, he was pretty wild into drinking for sure. I think there were probably more than just one person saying something about his drug and drink usage. I wouldn't say that someone who did something at least 20 years ago was anything myself. And that applies to bush also. If he isn't doing it now, so what? Find something legitimate to complain about Obama.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
Find something legitimate to complain about Obama.

I say who really care about Obama one way or another? He is a do nothing, did nothing, insignificant black poster boy for the Democratic party. The man makes no real stands for anything and his only asset is he is black and new, which by the way is also a big part of why he does not have a chance to be President of the U.S. two years after he gets his first duties in Washington.

He is just advertisement for the Dem's they are throwing him out there for attention and to try to show they are a diversified party. They are trying to hold a woman Hillary and a Black man as hopefuls. While all along they know neither has much chance to get the nomination of the Dem party.

We will probably see another Kerry, Edwards or similiar white man. And they will loose no matter who it is.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
schnurrbart said:
Find something legitimate to complain about Obama.

I say who really care about Obama one way or another? He is a do nothing, did nothing, insignificant black poster boy for the Democratic party. The man makes no real stands for anything and his only asset is he is black and new, which by the way is also a big part of why he does not have a chance to be President of the U.S. two years after he gets his first duties in Washington.

He is just advertisement for the Dem's they are throwing him out there for attention and to try to show they are a diversified party. They are trying to hold a woman Hillary and a Black man as hopefuls. While all along they know neither has much chance to get the nomination of the Dem party.

We will probably see another Kerry, Edwards or similiar white man. And they will loose no matter who it is.

You could be right but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
 

schnurrbart

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Red Robin said:
I kind of see it different. I think we should elect the candidates with the highest moral and ethical character. if there was a candidate that had complete control of his morality and ethics all his life, he should gain more respect than a candidate that hasn't. Trouble is we're down to the level of candidates where the length of time since clean or honest comes into play along with the level of drug use or level of dishonesty, because of this, I think it all needs to be heard and is sometimes valuable info.

I agree, if they showed weakness before they might either be still showing it or resort back to it later when the pressures and lifestyle merit even more so. It is good when people make changes and straighten up their lives, but it is even better when they do not make them big mistakes in the first place. I prefer the Better Candidates not the good ones.

Is that why you voted for bush? From all I have read, he was REALLY weak in his younger days and having read and heard some of his really "religious" talk, I don't think he is as righteous as the righties think. I especially liked the statement he made to his secret service guys after some reporters got too close and asked some embarrassing questions. I'm sure you heard that.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
schnurrbart said:
aplusmnt said:
Red Robin said:
I kind of see it different. I think we should elect the candidates with the highest moral and ethical character. if there was a candidate that had complete control of his morality and ethics all his life, he should gain more respect than a candidate that hasn't. Trouble is we're down to the level of candidates where the length of time since clean or honest comes into play along with the level of drug use or level of dishonesty, because of this, I think it all needs to be heard and is sometimes valuable info.

I agree, if they showed weakness before they might either be still showing it or resort back to it later when the pressures and lifestyle merit even more so. It is good when people make changes and straighten up their lives, but it is even better when they do not make them big mistakes in the first place. I prefer the Better Candidates not the good ones.

Is that why you voted for bush? From all I have read, he was REALLY weak in his younger days and having read and heard some of his really "religious" talk, I don't think he is as righteous as the righties think. I especially liked the statement he made to his secret service guys after some reporters got too close and asked some embarrassing questions. I'm sure you heard that.

Bush would never have been my first choice for President. The problem is the two choices the Dem's offered as opponents. No way I would vote for Gore, and even if hell froze over I would not think about even thinking about voting for Kerry! There lies the problem of Bush becoming president. It is not the Republicans fault it is the Dem's fault. They throw us voters crap like Kerry as potentials and you leave the voters no other choice.
 

Latest posts

Top