JKOwners Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

3,569 Posts
Yeppers....fresh sushi three times a day....damn...you'd swear you're in Japan.

3,569 Posts
Love it..."Don't start none...won't be none..."........priceless.

1,613 Posts
I found this interesting....please read:

Doesn’t Obama Stand for Change?

While repeating the words “Hope” and “Change” in campaign speeches might be an nice rhetorical trick, one really needs to examine what it really means. Hitler and Lenin where both dynamic speakers and spoke of change in their speeches, but the 60 million people who died due to their utopistic dreams probably would not agree that “change” was a good thing. World history is replete with utopians who promised “change” and instead brought us great misery. Using words like Change and Hope and being a good orator has nothing to do with a person’s actual track record; all voters need to put aside their emotions and find out what a candidate’s actual track record is.

The arrogance shown by Obama should give one pause; anytime one believes they’re the “anointed one” and indeed, “God-like,” be forewarned. All the great despots in history shared this arrogance. When talk show host Chris Matthews referred to the Obama effort as something that should be part of the “New Testament,” and that he was “delivered to us,” and Jesse Jackson Jr. says “another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance,” its time to become alarmed. Obama himself clearly believes he is something divine-like. Here’s one such statement:

We are the ones we’ve been waiting for; We are the change that we seek.

Or how about this incredibly arrogant statement:

A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon
you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you
must go to the polls and vote for Obama.

This is the “2nd coming of the Messiah” attitude which has led so many leaders throughout history to think they know what’s best for the unwashed masses and which encouraged them to embark on authoritarianism. It is this Messiah complex that will lead a President Obama to radically transform our culture and government in order to fulfill some preconceived utopian “vision” that will no doubt lead to a trampling of our constitutional rights.

His campaign even had the audacity to alter the great seal one sees on our currency and transform it into a campaign seal, minus the American flag, AS IF HE IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT. Indeed, a whole website has been created to catalog the Messiah-like statements of the Obama campaign. Go to: http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

But isn’t Obama a reformer like he says he is?

It’s a nice rhetorical trick, but his legislative record really doesn’t reflect the record of a “reformer.” Far from it. He was a standard hard-left Democrat both as a State Senator and a US Senator. He spent all his time on legislation that would create massive new programs, raise taxes, and create new “rights” for criminals, illegal aliens, and union leaders, always at the expense of ordinary Americans. He was a solid vote for every hard-left special interest group and followed the same old big government agenda that leftists have always followed. There’s nothing new here.

Until the media elevated him to Messiah status, he was regarding by his colleagues as a far-left, fairly isolated extremist that believed in wild-eyed racial conspiracy theories and advocated looney things like racial reparations. No one took him seriously.

Capitol Hill’s leading non-partisan vote tracking publication, National Journal, has rated Obama the most Liberal member of the United States Senate, even more liberal than self-declared socialist Senator Bernie Saunders. See here: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings

To be a reformer, one needs to be someone who works both sides of the aisles; far-left extremists are never reformers. Indeed, the Washington Times has studied the legislative record of both candidates and found that Obama’s bills had Republican co-sponsors only 13% of the time while McCain had Democrat co-sponsors 55% of the time. In other words, McCain crossed the aisle more then four times more often than did Obama. Contrary to his rhetoric, Obama is an isolated, far-left member of the US Senate.

Even the platform the Democrats passed at their recent convention – crafted by Obama operatives – called for government takeover of all health care, tons of new programs replicating existing government programs (For example, there are over 150 federal job training programs but Obama is calling for more), attacks the idea that we need to drill for oil (get your bikes out), and promotes all the usual big government solutions – but there’s nothing new or “reform” minded in the platform.

But Wasn’t Obama a reformer in the Illinois State Senate?

Hardly. He was part of the Chicago democratic machine, one of the most corrupt political machines in the country. The big media will tell you every detail about Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter but they won’t tell you anything about this part of his career. After reviewing Obama’s State Senate career, US News and World Report writer Michael Barone asked, “What basis is there in his career to see Obama as a reformer?” Author David Freddoso spent a great deal of time analyzing Obama’s State Senate career and reported this:

The main lesson is that Barack Obama’s record, throughout his career, demonstrates
conclusively that he has never been a reformer, That this image of ‘change and hope’ that
he projects is really a great lie. In fact there’s never been a single time in Senator Obama’s
political Career where he did something that was difficult and would cost him politically for
the sake of needed reforms and change….reformers don’t vote for the bridge to nowhere…
they don’t consistently support corrupt systemic arrangement in every public office they’ve
ever held. . .

The “political machine” is all about using the apparatus of the government treasury, using the
taxpayer’s money to keep yourself in power permanently. You put your political cronies on
the payroll to help yourself get elected and re-elected and then when you’re in power you get
to do things like steer pension funds and investment to benefit your pals. All of this stuff was
going on.

Liberals and conservatives had come together and had the Cook County, Illinois machine on
the ropes but Sen. Obama did not help them. In fact, he ended up endorsing the machine
candidate that year in the competitive general election and called him a good progressive
Democrat. In this case he didn’t support the reformer, because to support the reformer in
that election, he would have upset all the allies of the machine politician. That would have
been against the interests of now-convicted developer Tony Rezko, who was tied closely to
the Stroger family. He would have upset Mayor Daley, he would have to upset Emil Jones. So
he played along like a good machine politician.

All of this has been documented for years in the Chicago newspapers which is why Chicago natives are shocked that anyone would consider Obama a reformer.

Not only that, but his focus was on the bizarre. His spent a great amount of time trying to prove that all police were racists because a disproportionate number of people arrested were minorities. But in neighborhoods with heavy minorities, what would you expect? Duh. He voted against anti-crime bills because he thought they disproportionately affected minorities and were therefore racist. He voted for massive welfare programs because he believed we owed it to minorities (never mind how such programs creating more dependency). He supported racial quotas whenever possible.

Indeed, Illinois ended up with a fiscal crises on its hands “precisely because of his [Obama] penchant for spending” according to Stanley Kurtz of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Journal of Black Studies actually studied all of Obama’s legislation and found that outside of welfare bills, “Obama devoted very little time to other policy areas.”

If the issue didn’t concern race or welfare, he often would just vote “Present” which means he’s sitting in his chair but won’t vote yes or no. He did this 130 times. On 36 occasions, he was the only legislator to vote “present.” Many of these bills he refused to vote on concerned important issues such as abortion, gun control, sexual abuse, etc. This is leadership?

To read more about his bizarre career in the Illinois State Senate, go here:


...to be continued....

3,569 Posts
Yeah...I like Stowe...her reason for existance was to bring out the horror's of slavery...a very "unchristian" thing...it was a shame on christianity....and that is exactly what Obama and his tribe of hate merchansts (Wright, et al), terrorists (Ayers, et al), thieves from F&F Mack who are now his advisors, and socialists who want to spread "my wealth" so that the laziest, and most shiftless in society can reap the rewards of MY ****ing labours...that, my "friends" is mother ****ing un ****ing christian.
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.