Story Comments
Posted by: memestryker 1 year, 6 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm with TheRealizer on this one. Obama has beautiful rhetoric, for sure. He also had no positions on issues when he started campaigning, and voted "present" instead of making decisions on hard issues in the senate
He's also supporting what democratic author Naomi Wolf warns against. He is very anti-second amendment (although he's tried to downplay it), and has served on a foundation that actually funds key gun-ban advocates.
I don't trust anyone who thinks s/he knows more than Thomas Jefferson, and I don't feel very comfortable with any one of the candidates.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I'm with TheRealizer on this one. Obama has beautiful rhetoric, for sure. He also had no positions on issues when he started campaigning, and voted "present" instead of making decisions on hard issues in the senate"
--You sound extremely dangerously misinformed (like someone who has been reading right wing campaign literature without using your brain even once to research the other side). Lots of talking points in your post which makes you sound like an obvious plant or a conned sheep. What have you bothered to do in the way of research to understand why Obama holds the positions he does? I suspect very, very little. ;-(
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's an interesting change of tactics. The anti-Obama crowd use to claim Obama has no substance and that he has no clear policy direction. Now that it is obvious he DOES, they are switching to, "We'll he HAD no positions early in his campaign."
WTF?
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hear ya...I'm always suspicious of posters whose comments are spiked with stale sound bites about Obama. For instance, why must I read for the million time (and yet phrased in a way that clearly suggest the poster believes he or she originated the observation) that Obama is articulate? Or about this voting "present" nonsense (which he has responded to repeatedly)? LOL Is there a living soul left on the planet who doesn't know that Barack Obama is a liberal? That Obama "has beautiful rhetoric" isn't some groundbreaking news and when I see simplistic CRAP like that post, I don't have to wonder how our country has deteriorated to the sh*thole it is today. WTF, indeed.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
meso, I've reviewed every bill he's sponsored and many he has cosponsored at the national and state levels; read his own words; reviewed his activity with groups such as the Joyce Foundation, the U.N., etc.; and pretty much read everything I find about him.
On key presidential-level policy, he pretty much parroted Clinton until he found his own legs (which he did). "Change we can believe in" just seems empty to me.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. I'm flattered you read my post.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"meso, I've reviewed every bill he's sponsored and many he has cosponsored at the national and state levels; "
--I see...I find it breathtaking that, after reading all of the more than 800 bills he submitted in the Illinois State Senate, somehow you were still left with the impression that he "had no positions on issues." Fascinating. Even more intriguing is the fact that you are perplexed that Hillary and Obama hold similar (if not identical) views on certain issues. You see, the problem I have with your post above is that there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that you've done any kind of fact checking about Obama. I've lost track of the number of times the question of his voting "present" came up in interviews and debates, but you write as if you're just learning of his voting record today. And why are you pretending that you're *completely* clueless regarding the Democratic Party's political agenda? This is the part I don't get...
Reply-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MD-btw, I didn't say "read," I said "reviewed." I have no idea how many there are--I just looked up his name and the bills he sponsored and skimmed through them. You can stop putting words in my mouth, if you don't mind. And you seem clueless yourself if you think all the democrats follow the same political agenda. That's one reason we have primaries. The nuances can be significant even if a candidate adopts an entire general platform.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How can he have no positions on issues, but be very anti-second amendment? I hear that a lot, in variations.
Does that go with him being an elitist but a socialist?
And Obama probably feels he knows better than Jefferson, on at least one subject.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
memestryker's post reminds me of one of those cute little campaign postcards some candidates send out at election time. You know, the ones with a photo of the candidate kissing a baby or hugging a bunny or planting a rainforest or whatever politicians do to appear human these days and with a handful of bullets listing their opponent's shortcomings. Anyway, it's as if some people read the bulleted statements on the card but the critical thinking switch in their brain (the one that in normal people says, "find out what the opponent is saying in his or her defense) shorts out and remains stuck in the off position. Wow...
Reply -
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He was weak on major issues like healthcare at the beginning of his campaign, and then started to sound like Clinton before he finally developed it later in the game.
He's been doggedly anti-second amendment, even serving as a board member on the Joyce Foundation, which spends huge sums of money funding the most extreme anti-second amendment organizations, and he supports the U.N.'s citizen disarmament program (see their Millenium Declaration at http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares55...
Elitists like to disarm everyone else. Here is a taste of what others might be calling his "socialism": http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He's been doggedly anti-second amendment, even serving as a board member on the Joyce Foundation, which spends huge sums of money funding the most extreme anti-second amendment organizations"
--See, again you're writing as if these are bombshells. I believe the majority of Democrats support some degree of gun control and, in general, Democrats are for diplomacy over senselessly funding the military industrial complex. These aren't issues that require super sleuthing to learn what his positions are. Yet, based on your words, it would seem that this was the first Presidential election in the entire history of elections and you're discovering the Democratic party's platform this year. Are you a new citizen? I'm just curious...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No problem.
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think he's unbeatable, with the right running mate. He's well-spoken and inspirational. I honestly hope he's as good as people believe he is and not just another Jimmy Carter.
I knew he was in the game when he clearly and publicly stated his own opinion with respect to those expressed by Pastor Wright. He took care of business.
I think I already provided links and data to support my "allegations" in an earlier post. Let me know if there is something specific I missed.
Don't get me wrong--I may well vote for him (after I see his running mate).
Prohibition (alcohol, abortion, guns, or most products and services) simply pushes items onto the black market. I remember when abortion was illegal--and common. Restrictions are moving it back into the black market. Drugs are illegal and common. Guns are easy to make, so criminals would love to capture that market. I'd like to see Obama state the obvious.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Blackacereturn1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would be especially FOR my constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense if I lived on the West Side of Chicago.
Do some homework on his involvement with the Joyce Foundation (who funds anti-gun extremists who pose as "non-violence educators to get 501(c)3 non-profit status so donors can make tax-deductible donations); his support of disarming the U.S. under the auspices of the U.N. in the Millenium Declaration; his endless attempts to ban semi-automatics, handguns, and rifles (using Horwitz' "assault weapon" terminology to scare people), and it goes on.
I am totally with Mr. O on many issues, but I think he is dead wrong on thinking that disarming law-abiding citizens or making laws that turn them into instant felons is going to stop lunatics and criminals from manufacturing, distributing, possessing, and using guns. Prohibition doesn't work for abortion, for alcohol, for drugs, and it won't work for guns. Period.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Americans in general are too violent and poorly educated for us to distribute guns to everyone as if it were candy. If the people in Congress pushing for expanded gun rights were as enthusiastic about extending statehood rights to DC where I live (instead of imagining that every black person they see is armed and dangerous) their motives wouldn't be so questionable. By no means do I want to see more and bigger guns in the hands of people who voted for Bush. It's terrifying enough knowing they actually have the right to vote.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
MD, Thomas Jefferson and a lot of other very bright people disagreed with you. They thought ordinary citizens were trustworthy, and would normally do the right thing. We've seen it play out repeatedly--at Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, New Life Ministries in Colorado, etc. See, for example, http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-m...
The Supreme Court actually upheld a lower court's ruling that the police have no duty to protect you. Citizens are responsible for their own self-defense. See http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protec...
Concealed carry weapon permitholders are less likely to commit crimes than the general population. Prior to the late 1960s, when most children were routinely taught safe firearms handling and played with toy guns, were around their family's hunting rifles and shotguns and dad's service pistol; drew them in school; could buy them at 14, etc., accidents and violence were rare.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I should add that, given the number of guns in private hands, accidents and violence is still very rare. Certain groups commit most of the violence, and it's not families that hung on to dad's pistol they once kept loaded in a drawer in case of home invasion (now it's locked up and unuseable in an emergency).
The statistics on dropped 911 calls are horrific--and 911 is useless if a violent crime is in progress. Most rapes and child molestations don't involve guns, and I consider those the most heinous crimes of all. Also--something that amazed me--about 95% of the time, all one has to do is show a gun--not even point it or use it, and the attacker will retreat or be controllable until police arrive.
Criminals and lunatics are the ones breaking the law, so abridging the constitutionally-protected rights of law-abiding citizens jeopardizes their safety and is unconstitutional.
Kids used to make guns in shop class, so banning them won't stop criminals from manufacturing them.
Reply-
Neutral
memestryker1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In all fairness to McCain and Obama, until recently we didn't have the statistics to show this. We still have funny stats floating around because of all the so-called "anti-violence" groups that are shills for gun-ban orgs so they can keep collecting those tax-deductible donations while they attack our Bill of Rights and give the U.N. more power over us.
Take the time to read the federalist/anti-federalist history to see what the Second Amendment means. The Supreme Court knowingly used their popular "judicial activism" in the 1930s to sideline the 2nd.
We're talking about the same SCOTUS that upheld unwarranted searches, seizures of private property with guilty until the accused proves himself innocent, and freedom of those providing tax-payer funded services to hire and fire based on religion.
Clinton knows the assault weapons ban was an abject failure and the stats never supported it to begin with, yet she's still for it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Ciera-Marie
moribull
oldgringo
vidman04
djrevelky
nostalgia
automan909
Wolfie2007
Shadowolf
ProudBlueTexan
dunkirk
scott4261
IneedIwantIgottahave
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.