Not voting for Obama? Guess Your a Racist

you're*

OBAMA'S GOING TO TURN THE COUNTRY AGAINST US AND SHOOT EVERYONE IN THE HEAD ONCE HE'S PRESIDENT!1!!1!11!!3

FreeEnterprise wrote: I am so glad that Obama will be partisan.

Yeah, just ask Republican Sen. Richard Luger how much of a partisan hack that Hussein Obama is.


From Wikipedia:

On the day of the final presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, Lugar gave a speech at the National Defense University praising Obama's foreign policy approach, and warning against the isolationist, reactive policies espoused by Senator McCain.[7] At that debate, Obama also listed Lugar as among the individuals "who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House."[8]

Edited by agentwhale007 - 31 October 2008 at 1:55pm

tallen702 wrote: TheDude wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote:   On another note. I am so glad that Obama will be partisan. Even his new selection for chief of staff fits that category. Willing to work across the isle. Illinois <span id="lw_1225450341_1">Rep. Rahm Emanuel</span> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp _131 "Emanuel is among the most vitriolic and partisan people in American politics," said Alex Conant, a <span id="lw_1225450341_11">Republican National Committee spokesman</span>. "Reports that Obama wants him to be <span id="lw_1225450341_12">White House chief of staff</span> undercut any claims to unity and bipartisanship, and should alarm every voter." Oh I get it, he considers someone from his own party to be chief of staff, and all of a sudden he's an elitist partisan. Your arguments have the emotional tenacity of a 4 year old. Don't be so harsh or extreme. Jesus. What's even funnier is that he cites a source that is extremely partisan in it's own right, possibly more partisan. FreeEnterprise, you sir, are a moron. And this is coming from a registered republican. All of your sources come from the internet and mainly from biased organizations. What's more, you never even attempt to present the opposing side's case. You are nothing more than a lackwit zealot with poor grammar and even worse reasoning skills. You, and people like you, are the reason that the republican party hasn't been able to put up a worthwhile candidate since the Regan/Bush Sr. years. Furthermore, you blatant rhetoric does nothing more than solidify votes for your opponent. If you think you're going to change anyone's mind on the matter of this election, regardless of your tactics, you need to take a good hard look at human nature and psychology. I'll be voting for McCain this Tuesday, but it sickens me to think that I have to toss in with your lot.

Can he have his old title back?

TheDude wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote:   On another note. I am so glad that Obama will be partisan. Even his new selection for chief of staff fits that category. Willing to work across the isle. Illinois <span id="lw_1225450341_1">Rep. Rahm Emanuel</span> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp _131 "Emanuel is among the most vitriolic and partisan people in American politics," said Alex Conant, a <span id="lw_1225450341_11">Republican National Committee spokesman</span>. "Reports that Obama wants him to be <span id="lw_1225450341_12">White House chief of staff</span> undercut any claims to unity and bipartisanship, and should alarm every voter." Oh I get it, he considers someone from his own party to be chief of staff, and all of a sudden he's an elitist partisan. Your arguments have the emotional tenacity of a 4 year old. Don't be so harsh or extreme. Jesus.

What's even funnier is that he cites a source that is extremely partisan in it's own right, possibly more partisan.

FreeEnterprise, you sir, are a moron. And this is coming from a registered republican. All of your sources come from the internet and mainly from biased organizations. What's more, you never even attempt to present the opposing side's case. You are nothing more than a lackwit zealot with poor grammar and even worse reasoning skills. You, and people like you, are the reason that the republican party hasn't been able to put up a worthwhile candidate since the Regan/Bush Sr. years. Furthermore, you blatant rhetoric does nothing more than solidify votes for your opponent. If you think you're going to change anyone's mind on the matter of this election, regardless of your tactics, you need to take a good hard look at human nature and psychology.

I'll be voting for McCain this Tuesday, but it sickens me to think that I have to toss in with your lot.

FreeEnterprise wrote:   On another note. I am so glad that Obama will be partisan. Even his new selection for chief of staff fits that category. Willing to work across the isle. Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081031/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp _131 "Emanuel is among the most vitriolic and partisan people in American politics," said Alex Conant, a Republican National Committee spokesman. "Reports that Obama wants him to be White House chief of staff undercut any claims to unity and bipartisanship, and should alarm every voter."

Oh I get it, he considers someone from his own party to be chief of staff, and all of a sudden he's an elitist partisan. Your arguments have the emotional tenacity of a 4 year old. Don't be so harsh or extreme. Jesus.

I've never looked at anything "al jazeera". So I wouldn't know.

but, Politico feels that Fox is "Fair and balanced".

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15047.html

"During the primary process, Hillary Rodham Clinton and several Democratic surrogates heaped praise on Fox as being more balanced in political coverage than cable rivals CNN or MSNBC.

But for many liberals, the Fox coverage has been a study in slant."

jmac3 wrote: even AL Jazeera reports more news.

Al Jazeera is actually a pretty good news source.  I hate their web layout, but content-wise it is solid, and so is their TV coverage.  Good to get a different perspective on things.

Why wouldn't you ask three reporters that supported your opponent to not fly with you?