1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Nancy Pelosi's and Obama's agenda

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by XCALIDEM, Jun 26, 2008.

  1. XCALIDEM

    XCALIDEM Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Being a democrat myself, I'm begining to doubt what my party stands for. I had a feeling that Pelosi had something to do with Obama's nomination. After listening to this interview she really proved my theory.

    In interview with Greta Van Susteren, she tells her that Obama's lack of experience is better for her to create change since he hasn't been exposed to Washington's politics. This is really stupid that we will elect a person with no experience to run the # 1 country in the world.

    People have rumored this guy (Obama) as a "Manchurian Candidate". This clip has proven to me what Pelosi and the party are after....

    http://www.foxnews.com/video/index....alObject=1747207&referralPlaylistId=undefined

    Here's another reason of why I believe the liberal media has been helping Obama thoughout his campaing:

    Here's the entire article from the L.A. Times:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/23/business/fi-fairness23

    It appears to me the party already has a liberal agenda and they knew that Hillary wasn't going to buy into it..... :eek:
     
  2. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I saw the interview too, what a nice spin. She admits he is more inexperienced than any before him but that’s nice and new and fresh and we need inexperience now.

    These people have been smokin something; just the kool-aid can not get you this high!
    And no one can be this dumb naturally
     
  3. SW85

    SW85 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Messages:
    528
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Maryland
    Somewhere around here I have a Word document tracking various members of the House and Senate expressing their support for the Fairness Doctrine.

    Universally, it happens around the time whenever popular will thwarts a favored decision of the establishment. It reached a fevered pitch when the big immigration bill was defeated a few years back and Trent Lott declared that something "had to be done" about talk radio. I'm assuming the big thing now is talk radio's (well, Limbaugh's) involvement in dragging out the Democratic primary.

    Also, worth note -- the first person I've found to endorse the revival of the Fairness Doctrine was Dennis Kucinich about a year before everyone else jumped on the bandwagon, proof that what begins on the fringes of the left winds up in the mainstream before too long.
     
  4. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    18 million of us are keeping track of which delegates are going to formally shove Obama down our throats this August. I think it might be time for a career change for them..:)

    Meanwhile there is one flaw in the opening post here. It isn't/wasn't the liberal media promoting Obama.

    PSYOPS stands for "psychological operations", carried out usually by the CIA in conjunction with certain military personelle. They are still inflitrated in "various sectors of society"..and you'd better believe their presence in BigMedia and BigMedia's shameless promotion of Obama as the democratic/Obama trap are directly connected.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you have a hand at selecting one of two opponents you'll have to go up against and actually have the ability to help promote or defeat them via Media outlets, who would you pick to promote over the other? The one who you fear you will lose to or the one you know you can beat?

    The Obama trap: divide and conquer. Obama cannot unite the democratic party because he is fundamentally unqualified to run the country in these troubled times. He is "risky" as former VP Dan Quayle accurately commented in an interview recently. And a risky candidate in risky times spells ultimate defeat behind voter-booth curtains this November. Sure there be tweaking of polls between now and then and the press, surprise surprise, will continue to promote Obama until after his nomination is in stone this September. Then suddenly and viciously the very non-liberal BigMedia will tear him systematically to shreds much to the horror and dismay of shocked and surprised democrats....like an animal once it hears the "SNAP" of the bear trap lock around it's ankles...

    There are some dems and disgruntled republicans who won't be walking right into this trap. We are writing-in Hillary Clinton this Fall no matter what anyone tries to tell us to do...including Clinton herself.
     
  5. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Of course the real story is that liberal media WAS promoting someone at all. Namely the queen herself.

    They are promoting him now only because their queen b**** failed.

    Fundamentally? He's a perfect fit for the democrap party. He's got the same brainless policies... the same non-responses to questions, the same empty theories that will have no solutions. It's a perfect match! No solutions, tons of ideas, and a bunch of empty rhetoric.

    Issues: The quotes are my quick and dirty translation based on what he said.

    The war: "it's bad!"
    International threats to the world: "let's talk over a spot of tea"
    Oil prices: "Tax Corps, CEOs suck"
    Health Care: "Socialism fails everywhere. Let's do it here!"
    Taxing income: "More is better"
    Economy: "We should increase federal spending on social programs to spur the economy"
    National debt: "We should increase taxes to reduce the national debt"

    I have yet to hear a democrap with a better, empty, pointless, useless plan, than these responses. To me, Obama is perfect for the DNC.
     
  6. XCALIDEM

    XCALIDEM Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    At least she admits that he lacks experience. Can you say Obama Puppett. She didn't have any balls to go against bush. I'm really pissed @ the congress and her.

    She preferred an inexperienced bozo than having to deal with another woman with PMS...

    I'm a democrat, But I pray to God that this guy doesn't get elected...:mad:
     
  7. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    On what?
     
  8. Sihouette

    Sihouette Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The liberal media is not liberal...it's insidious if you want the correct adjective.

    When you read the article on PSYOPS and CNN you'll see that it is also infiltrated. So we have a neocon insidious and infitrated media. Let's get our facts straight there...:)

    It's very possible that one way experienced political entities like Pelosi can punish a DNC they are angry and concerned with would be to wish Obama on them. After all the objections from so many millions of people in the democratic party to Obama's nomination, if the DNC goes ahead and nominates him anyway to lose in the Fall when October surprise happens, the democratic party will see a loss in its ranks of epic proportions...and Pelosi et al can say, "I told you so."

    On the flip side, champagne corks will be popping in every GOP camp around the nation as they finally rise to the level of unopposed power they've been aspiring to for decades. Organized crime will finally own our country lock, stock and (oil) barrell.

    I guess there is a point at which you cannot talk sense into people (the DNC). They have nibbled on the lovely bit of cheese (Obama) and it tastes so different (change) from the old Velveeta that they just cannot stop...even when their beady little shining eyes fall on the copper bar and the trap spring right in front of their noses..

    Those would be the ones who aren't already aware of the Obama trap and participated in setting it from within..
     
  9. XCALIDEM

    XCALIDEM Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    to stop the war and many other issues....
     
  10. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I think Obama is leading her to think she could have more power if he were president. but I also think he would go back on his word and run the country exactly like he wants to..............to the ground.
     
  11. Andy

    Andy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,497
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    48
    What are you smoking? Hilliary Clinton was part of the original group of war hawks in 1998. Two full years before Bush was even a real contender for president. Captain Underpants, her "husband" in the loosest meaning, was the first to say that Saddam had to be stopped. And for the first time in his entire political career, he didn't lie.

    In 1998 all the democraps, including HillyBilly, said that an invasion of Iraq was a must. They supported it then, they supported it in 2001. They supported everything because it was the right and correct move for the security of the nation.

    You act like she "didn't have the balls" as if she knew it was all wrong and just didn't stand up to Bush.... ERRRR! Wrong... Answer.... She supported it all the way.

    The ONLY reason she is against it now is because her political power is now top priority, over security of the nation. She is against the war because it is politically advantageous to be so.

    Just like in 1998 when we prepared for war, Captain Underpants found that his political base was shaken by his policy that Saddam needed dealt with. Since he was being investigated at the time, his political and personal survival became a higher priority than national security, so he canceled war plans... not because he no longer believed Saddam was attempting to gain WMDs, or because he didn't think he was a future threat... no, simply because it was politically advantageous to do so.

    If you want to know what democraps stand for, it's very simple. Power... Control... Socialism. All the same. Democraps will do whatever is politically advantageous at the time, with ultimate goal being the same... power... control... Socialism.
     
  12. Pandora

    Pandora Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    11,790
    Likes Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The people's republic of Eugene
    I have to agree with you sil!
     
  13. DemocratLupis

    DemocratLupis New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We must stop Obama...
     
  14. XCALIDEM

    XCALIDEM Active Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,052
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38

    SHE WAS ELECTED TO HER POSITION, AS WELL AS MANY DEMS 2 YEARS AGO UNDER THE THEME THAT THEY WOULD BRING BACK THE TROOPS IN A YEAR. THE SAME BS THAT NOBAMA IS RUNNING UNDER!!!!

    SHOW ME WHERE BILL WANTED TO ATTACK IRAQ IN 98. HE WAS TRYING TO SAVE HIS ASS FROM IMPEACHMENT AT THAT TIME.... :mad:
     
  15. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    Not only did he want to, he did.
     
Loading...

Share This Page