Limbaugh: Obama a "classic case of affirmative action rearing it's ugly head" - Page 2

DosEquis · 08-26-2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

well, obama is the first *clean* black guy

Oh right! I forgot about that

and jesse wants to cut off his nuts.

TankRizzo · 08-26-2008, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Bill Clinton did it. He was just as unknown as Barack Obama.

He did what?

In '88 he was pretty much booed off the stage at the DNC.

Scrum · 08-26-2008, 03:16 PM

And actually, the only qualification you need to be President is to be a natural born citizen of age and have the votes to put you in office. Notice how the constitution doesn't have anything else?

What again was someone like Regans qualifications? That he had won a prior state election? Obama has done that as well.

DosEquis · 08-26-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

He did what?

In '88 he was pretty much booed off the stage at the DNC.

Ran for president and won, as basically an unknown person just as Obama is. Bill didn't get ahead because he was black.

They both gave a speech at the DNC when nobody knew who they were. Barack did in 2004.

Swift-Bass · 08-26-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Bill Clinton did it. He was just as unknown as Barack Obama.

But seriously. Who were people that were actually "well known" at the beginning of this past primary season? Hillary, Rudy, John Edwards, John McCain. That's really about it. Nobody in the country had heard of Obama because there was no reason to hear of him.

Then he came on the scene and was a unique fresh approach to the primary process. But not to politics in general.

His ability to attain superstar status is to his credit. But that's really all I give to his credit. Outside of that, what is new or fresh? Seriously? He's playing the gotcha game with McCain just like the Clintons did with Bush senior. He has the same ideas for universal healthcare that Hillary had just slightly tweaked. He won't answer a straight question on almost any subjective issue. He even goes to other countries and apologizes for what America has done. That's really not new. We've seen Jimmy Carter do that for decades.

TankRizzo · 08-26-2008, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

And actually, the only qualification you need to be President is to be a natural born citizen of age and have the votes to put you in office. Notice how the constitution doesn't have anything else?

What again was someone like Regans qualifications? That he had won a prior state election? Obama has done that as well.

He won a prior state election and actually did the job for 10 years rather than getting his foot in the door and doing less than 150 days worth of work and then running for president.

Swift-Bass · 08-26-2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

He won a prior state election and actually did the job for 10 years rather than getting his foot in the door and doing less than 150 days worth of work and then running for president.

That was my general thought as well.

7960 · 08-26-2008, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

And actually, the only qualification you need to be President is to be a natural born citizen of age and have the votes to put you in office.

The only LEGAL requirement is natural born citizen and 35 years old. there are plenty of intangibles that someone needs if he's going to be president.

I can't believe I had to type that.

DosEquis · 08-26-2008, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

But seriously. Who were people that were actually "well known" at the beginning of this past primary season? Hillary, Rudy, John Edwards, John McCain. That's really about it. Nobody in the country had heard of Obama because there was no reason to hear of him.

Then he came on the scene and was a unique fresh approach to the primary process. But not to politics in general.

His ability to attain superstar status is to his credit. But that's really all I give to his credit. Outside of that, what is new or fresh? Seriously? He's playing the gotcha game with McCain just like the Clintons did with Bush senior. He has the same ideas for universal healthcare that Hillary had just slightly tweaked. He won't answer a straight question on almost any subjective issue. He even goes to other countries and apologizes for what America has done. That's really not new. We've seen Jimmy Carter do that for decades.

As a party they are going to have comparable ideas. I happen to like his version of healthcare because it is not mandated and people still have a choice.

He answered about any question i've heard, but he suffers from what a lot of democrats suffer from...answers that are not a yes/no. Some times when they get done answering you feel like "what? so what did he say?". George Bush exploited it a bit in one of the town hall meetings he had with kerry. A woman asked "would tax money be used to pay for some embryo stem cell research". Kerry's answer was a bit long winded and explained certain times where funding would be used. Bush cuts in and is like "The answer he gave you is Yes, hehehehe...the answer with me is No."

TankRizzo · 08-26-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Ran for president and won, as basically an unknown person just as Obama is. Bill didn't get ahead because he was black.

They both gave a speech at the DNC when nobody knew who they were. Barack did in 2004.

...but again, he actually ran, won and held a fairly important political position for about a decade. What has Obama done to prove himself worthy of being the leader of the free world?

Swift-Bass · 08-26-2008, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

As a party they are going to have comparable ideas. I happen to like his version of healthcare because it is not mandated and people still have a choice.

He answered about any question i've heard, but he suffers from what a lot of democrats suffer from...answers that are not a yes/no. Some times when they get done answering you feel like "what? so what did he say?". George Bush exploited it a bit in one of the town hall meetings he had with kerry. A woman asked "would tax money be used to pay for some embryo stem cell research". Kerry's answer was a bit long winded and explained certain times where funding would be used. Bush cuts in and is like "The answer he gave you is Yes, hehehehe...the answer with me is No."

Comparable ideas are one thing. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend all that political stuff that has messed up Washington. That's my problem. This time last year he was all about, "We have to clean up Washington! America deserves a change and a chance for hope!" and so on. So...where's the hope, change and cleaning up? From what I've seen and heard from him, especially at that Saturday at the Saddle back church, I'm quite sure he's not presidential material.

BTW, he didn't answer the question about when life begins because it's above his pay grade. He's going to make more money if he becomes president. Will it STILL be above his pay grade?

TankRizzo · 08-26-2008, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

BTW, he didn't answer the question about when life begins because it's above his pay grade. He's going to make more money if he becomes president. Will it STILL be above his pay grade?

I think that all depends on the price of arugula.

DosEquis · 08-26-2008, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

...but again, he actually ran, won and held a fairly important political position for about a decade. What has Obama done to prove himself worthy of being the leader of the free world?

I am not sure you are going to find anyone 'worthy'. I think with every election we settle. We try to find someone that is intelligent and would as closely as possible... represent us and our views. Originally the office of presidency was only intended to be leader of the United States. We still base our elections off that model and not include "free world".

With that in mind he graduated from Columbia university in 1983, later to go on to Harvard where he would become president of the harvard law review. He used to teach constitutional law courses in chicago.

To me, that indicates the man is very intelligent.

As far as his views he has stood up for people who have trouble being heard. The people who can't afford their own lobbyist, the middle class and poor people. His views on Iraq, healthcare, taxes, jobs, and selecting Joe Biden as a VP all correspond with my views.

Given that... he will get my vote to represent me as leader of the united states, and coincidentally..the free world.

DosEquis · 08-26-2008, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

BTW, he didn't answer the question about when life begins because it's above his pay grade. He's going to make more money if he becomes president. Will it STILL be above his pay grade?

He did answer it. His answer was equivilant to "I dont know".

McCains answer was "conception".

Its the democrat problem of not being able to answer a question with yes or no.

Swift-Bass · 08-26-2008, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

He did answer it. His answer was equivilant to "I dont know".

McCains answer was "conception".

Its the democrat problem of not being able to answer a question with yes or no.

Then why didn't he just say, "I don't know. But I support a womans right to chose"? Or was he trying to make it so he could not contradict his state senate record when it came to helping babies born from botched abortions? There were three bills proposed to help babies born from botched abortions and he opposed and kille dall three of them.

How could you NOT support that. A child is born, it is now a child no matter your opinion of abortion because it is outside the body of the mother. It's trying to breathe and the medical staff isn't not supposed to do all it could to help the child? Can you, as an Obama supporter, explain that position please?

DosEquis · 08-26-2008, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Swift-Bass

Comparable ideas are one thing. But I thought Obama was supposed to transcend all that political stuff that has messed up Washington. That's my problem. This time last year he was all about, "We have to clean up Washington! America deserves a change and a chance for hope!" and so on. So...where's the hope, change and cleaning up? From what I've seen and heard from him, especially at that Saturday at the Saddle back church, I'm quite sure he's not presidential material.

The first steps involve taking the lobbyist hand out of the cookie jar. He is only accepting money to correspond with that policy. He was also an advocate of public financing until (i'll admit) he found out he could raise more money on his own through individual contributions. However, it is still complying with the anti-lobbyist agenda. That is a HUGE portion of it, and I mean huge part of the problem washington has today.

TankRizzo · 08-26-2008, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am not sure you are going to find anyone 'worthy'. I think with every election we settle. We try to find someone that is intelligent and would as closely as possible... represent us and our views. Originally the office of presidency was only intended to be leader of the United States. We still base our elections off that model and not include "free world".

With that in mind he graduated from Columbia university in 1983, later to go on to Harvard where he would become president of the harvard law review. He used to teach constitutional law courses in chicago.

To me, that indicates the man is very intelligent.

As far as his views he has stood up for people who have trouble being heard. The people who can't afford their own lobbyist, the middle class and poor people. His views on Iraq, healthcare, taxes, jobs, and selecting Joe Biden as a VP all correspond with my views.

Given that... he will get my vote to represent me as leader of the united states, and coincidentally..the free world.

It's not so much "worthy" as I think everyone would like for him to have a little more experience under his belt. He's done virtually NOTHING as an elected official at a high position.

...and the fact that he's essentially done a 180 on most of the issues that got him to where he is, why would you want to take him at his word? You can't exactly look back at his career and see a body of work where he's fulfilled promises or how he votes or what he's done.

Swift-Bass · 08-26-2008, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

The first steps involve taking the lobbyist hand out of the cookie jar. He is only accepting money to correspond with that policy. He was also an advocate of public financing until (i'll admit) he found out he could raise more money on his own through individual contributions. However, it is still complying with the anti-lobbyist agenda. That is a HUGE portion of it, and I mean huge part of the problem washington has today.

Yeah, that was really slick. Pushed for it, found out he could probably make 5 times that through donations and dropped it. Again, how is it new or fresh to make a desicion like that?

I do agree about the lobbyist problem in Washington though, on both sides of the isle.