http://www.politicallink.com
http://www.zombo.com
http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com
Look, I can discuss too!
http://www.zombo.com
http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com
Look, I can discuss too!
Barack Obama is the Antichrist
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
- Status
I saw a bunch of people talking and no evidence. Whoever this tard is generating buzz he better have hard evidence. The two "Anglo" (who the **** uses that seriously) males that came in and snatched the **** and started trouble? Where is the video? I've never seen a documentary with so much talking and no hard evidence before in my life.
lol what you think that's the only instance where things like that happened? Now all the sudden you have faith and hope that Barack Obama and his followers are all saints and that it is impossible that he can do wrong? It's amazing how the usually uber-cynical, anti-politician, anti-establishment BUF members (the majority) get all bent out of shape when someone attacks the prophet Obama.
^^ no kidding. it's ok to take all the cheap shots in the world at conservatives, but they get all upset at this video that makes a point through humor...
Conservatives know that they will be beaten in the election if the debate remains focused on the issues, because of the last 7-8 years of incompetence under their rule.
Therefore their only angle of attack is Obama's popularity, using comparisons that lump him in with everyone from vapid tabloid celebrities to prophets such as Moses and even God Himself (who was surely offended at being associated with Paris Hilton).
So the message is, apparently, that by definition he's no good because lots of people are excited about the prospect of him becoming president.
I have (had?) a ton of respect for McCain, but that's just stupid, and I would have thought nonsense like that was beneath him.
If Obama is unfit to lead, then show examples of inferior judgment and decision making. Instead, lately it's just been wedge-driving, Bush league politicking, exploiting fear and ignorance to galvanize anti-opinions that are based on nothing substantial.
Therefore their only angle of attack is Obama's popularity, using comparisons that lump him in with everyone from vapid tabloid celebrities to prophets such as Moses and even God Himself (who was surely offended at being associated with Paris Hilton).
So the message is, apparently, that by definition he's no good because lots of people are excited about the prospect of him becoming president.
I have (had?) a ton of respect for McCain, but that's just stupid, and I would have thought nonsense like that was beneath him.
If Obama is unfit to lead, then show examples of inferior judgment and decision making. Instead, lately it's just been wedge-driving, Bush league politicking, exploiting fear and ignorance to galvanize anti-opinions that are based on nothing substantial.
"Obama is the antichrist"
Oh it's much worse than that, he's black
Worse still, he's a Muslim.
So technically he's the antimuhammad.
I think you're misunderstanding the argument here. It isn't a defense of Obama so much as a demand for the supposed evidence. If you say that you have access to a video that shows someone doing something wrong, you can't just leave it at that--you have to present that evidence; and this video has lots of claims to evidence without anything ever being presented. It also doesn't help that it was presented by the same lady who stole the book with the registered complaints...This video isn't crap because it attacks Obama, it's crap because it claims to have facts and then refuses to furnish them. It actually manages to be worse than Michael Moore "documentaries" in that aspect, and that's something.
Anywho, I think the whole argument in this thread is pretty hilarious.
~Jason
Last edited:
Worse still, he's a Muslim.
I heard from a friend that his mom's a jew.
Worse still, he's a Muslim.
Sh*t, you said Muhammad; now you're gonna get BUF bombed....
Great going...
I heard from a friend that his mom's a jew.
Well, I guess he's lost Walt Disney's vote...
Last edited:
Honestly, I think you're wrong in that regard. McCain has proven time and again to be a staunch critic of Bush and his policies. He opposed the tax rebates (or whatever you want to call them) due to the lack in cuts in spending and he opposed how Iraq was handled when not enough troops were put in to quell the aftermath of the occupation. I don't see how you can say that Obama would win on issues because he's like a reed in the wind, he changes direction every time the issues blow in his direction. Obama is constantly having to make excuses for what he has said and he has made many contradictory statements. Here's just another video about Obama and the democratic primary, and keep in mind, this is info coming from Democrats, not Republicans.
Last edited:
Circa 2002, maybe. Now he's looking to keep them in place, including those for corporations and the obscenely wealthy.
With the current political climate, on issues alone the Democrats are more in line with the public will. The overwhelming victories in the House and Senate in 2006 speak for themselves, and those margins are widely predicted—even amongst Republicans—to be padded even further after this year. Those are just facts.
As for Obama being the lone reed in the wind, respectfully, I think you're wrong in that regard. I don't find either candidate flip-flopping to a substantially greater degree than the other. For every shift in one person's position, a similarly significant one in the position of the other candidate can be provided. Since you characterize Obama as the only one of the two who's beholden only to the breeze, consider:
McCain now opposes his own immigration plan, he's calling for a lift of the ban on offshore drilling that he opposed when he ran in 2000, he supports—now that we've got six years of war purchased on credit that we have to pay off—the tax cuts he once lambasted, he has a campaign staff teeming with the very lobbyists and special interests he used to rail against, he now gets into bed with the worst of the televangelist bigots he once despised, in order to curry their favor and get-out-the-vote influence over their ultraconservative flocks....
Suffice it to say, for either candidate, the list is lengthy for anyone who's willing to follow it. In fact if you did, you might even be surprised to find whose list is actually longer.
And? Total non sequitur.
Obama funded several Democratic politicians' PACs; Hillary wasn't able to fund as many. Not exactly news, now is it. That's been standard operating procedure for years, and it's not entirely problematic, either: it does stand to reason that the candidate able to raise more in grassroots donations is the one whose policies are representative of a larger segment of the population, and that, by means of either direct influence or just mutually aligned policy, that candidate deservedly receives a larger share of political support from the superdelegates.
Moreover, this clip also showed data for PAC and other contributions for a small fraction of the 800+ superdelegates; without assigning my imaginary crack research team to verify all the data, let it stand as a safe assumption that the most sensational examples were cherrypicked so as to appear to form a basis of support for the premise of the video. No real correlation was established between political endorsements and financial considerations, either. Also, it should be noted that this clip was produced, yes by Democrats, but specifically a Hillary supporter, and a whole five months ago back when the primary season was in full swing—at a time when the Hillaryheads were obviously unhappy with the direction of the campaign.
- Status