Jump to content

DEM Primaries/Candidates thread


NorthSideSox72
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:44 AM)
I just don't get the complete hatred you have for him. I'm by no means a fan of his but you make him out to be the worst human being on Earth.

 

With some of the stuff I read here on a daily basis about people, I can't believe you are asking that! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:50 AM)
Because he is the biggest hypocrite of hypocrites (in both parties) in the presidential field. And I can't stand that trait.

 

I look at his charitable contributions and think he's less hypocritical than a lot of people in the field. Where do you put Rudy G.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:54 PM)
I look at his charitable contributions and think he's less hypocritical than a lot of people in the field. Where do you put Rudy G.?

He's a douche too. I pretty much can't stand the entire field, on either side. It makes me sick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks in no small part to the actions of Sen. Dodd, and the online blitz that was being readied by pretty much every online left leaning group, Obama is now clearly saying he will support a filibuster of any FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies for having broken the law.

 

While this is good...it'd still be a lot more impressive if Barack were actually leading on any of these issues and not just following Sen. Dodd once his staffers realize he'll take a hammering on something that a more ballsy senator has already stepped forwards on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:31 AM)
Thanks in no small part to the actions of Sen. Dodd, and the online blitz that was being readied by pretty much every online left leaning group, Obama is now clearly saying he will support a filibuster of any FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies for having broken the law.

 

While this is good...it'd still be a lot more impressive if Barack were actually leading on any of these issues and not just following Sen. Dodd once his staffers realize he'll take a hammering on something that a more ballsy senator has already stepped forwards on.

 

Give Obama about 8 years and he may be a qualified candidate. He's not at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 12:31 PM)
Thanks in no small part to the actions of Sen. Dodd, and the online blitz that was being readied by pretty much every online left leaning group, Obama is now clearly saying he will support a filibuster of any FISA bill giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies for having broken the law.

 

While this is good...

Why is that a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 12:15 PM)
In eight years he will have too much of a voting record to be a viable candidate. They will take it apart and use it to rip him apart.

 

No. I disagree. He'll be coached and guided as the great black hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am a White Sox fan," declared Obama, raising a mass groan. "You don't want somebody who pretends to be a Red Sox fan to be president of the United States." Obama said he was a "principled" sports fan, a slap, perhaps, at chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, who switched allegiance from Chicago to New York teams when she started her run for the Senate.

 

From this article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:54 AM)
I look at his charitable contributions and think he's less hypocritical than a lot of people in the field.

 

The amount he donates is very small compared to income and net assets. For someone who is constantly on his soap box pointing his finger at everyone else, he gives basically nothing. I donate more of my annual salary to charity than he does, so take that, John Edwards. :headbang

 

ps. Please spare me the obligatory "but he raises awareness" post. Everyone is aware of poverty, he is grandstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:20 PM)
The amount he donates is very small compared to income and net assets. For someone who is constantly on his soap box pointing his finger at everyone else, he gives basically nothing. I donate more of my annual salary to charity than he does, so take that, John Edwards. :headbang

 

ps. Please spare me the obligatory "but he raises awareness" post. Everyone is aware of poverty, he is grandstanding.

Please tell us who you plan to vote for and the percentage of net income they donate to charity each year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 08:25 PM)
Please tell us who you plan to vote for and the percentage of net income they donate to charity each year.

That's not the point. John Edwards is the one with the "two americas" platform. I won't go on any further from there.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:28 PM)
That's not the point. John Edwards is the one with the "two americas" platform. I won't go on any further from there.

Why isn't that the point? He talks about poverty AND donates thousands of dollars to charity. It's not enough according to you and mr_genius so I wonder since this is so important to you how much is your candidate donating to charity? Does your candidate even care about poverty? What do they plan to do about it? What are there stances? Do they even have a message?

Edited by BigSqwert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:25 PM)
Please tell us who you plan to vote for and the percentage of net income they donate to charity each year.

 

the candidate I plan to vote for isn't preaching to everyone else about how they aren't doing enough to stop poverty. The Edwards issue is that of hypocrisy and lack of leadership. If he wasn't making "look how great I am too poor people" a centerpiece of his campaign I don't think anyone would be calling him out on his lack of generosity and his large speaking fees .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:32 PM)
the candidate I plan to vote for isn't preaching to everyone else about how they aren't doing enough to stop poverty. The Edwards issue is that of hypocrisy and lack of leadership. If he wasn't making "look how great I am too poor people" a centerpiece of his campaign I don't think anyone would be calling him out on his lack of generosity and his large speaking fees .

So exactly how much is he supposed to give for you to be happy? 100% of his income? Is he supposed to become homeless in order for you to not think he's a hypocrite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:31 PM)
Does your candidate even care about poverty? What do they plan to do about it? What are there stances? Do they even have a message?

 

I think every candidate cares about poverty. He stances and policies are all about everyone else paying for his programs, even though he sure as hell doesn't give any substantial portion of his fortune to end poverty. It is legitimate to criticize someone running for president who takes no leadership by example. He's a phony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:34 PM)
So exactly how much is he supposed to give for you to be happy? 100% of his income? Is he supposed to become homeless in order for you to not think he's a hypocrite?

 

how about 20%? Your arguments always veer off into ridiculous statements like "Why do you think he should donate 100% of his income!". No one has said that, you aren't even addressing any of our statements with a legitimate counter.

Edited by mr_genius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:41 PM)
how about 20%? Your arguments always veer off into ridiculous statements like "Why do you think he should donate 100% of his income!". No one has said that, you aren't even addressing any of our statements with a legitimate counter.

 

Is 20% any less arbitrary than what he currently gives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:49 PM)
Is 20% any less arbitrary than what he currently gives?

 

It would be a huge improvement. Between 1994 -2003 he earned roughly $40,000,000. 20% of that would help a lot of people. If he truly wants to help the poor a large donation such as that would show he truly wants to be a positive factor is ending the problem, not just some phony politician. Any number will be arbitrary, but certain levels of generosity do show a true intent of help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 08:34 PM)
So exactly how much is he supposed to give for you to be happy? 100% of his income? Is he supposed to become homeless in order for you to not think he's a hypocrite?

It's not the amount of money, it's the message that he is sending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 09:58 PM)
John Edwards donated, a shade under 9% of his income between 1994 and 2003 to charity - 3.3 million dollars.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/03/...urns/index.html

See, that's honorable, and what Limbaugh did is shennanigans. rolly.gif

 

BTW Rex, that's not directed at you, but the consensus that's out there surrounding "charitable contributions".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...