so i decided to do some encyclopedia dramatica searching, and on a whim i wanted to know what anonymous thought of Obama.
seems they don't like the guy, and i was curious as to why.
To me, if Ron Paul and Obama were head to head in the presidential election, it would be a tough decision. what knowledge would you like to impart upon me?
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 4:30
Ron Paul.
Obama just talks about change and doesn't mention what kind...
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-04 4:31
I'm against Obama because:
- he's a nigger
- he's too young and has little experience
- he was elected in the most politically corrupt state in the US; illinois
- he's got far left ties
- he's from a black nationalist church
- he was a Muslim
- he's a scumbag lawyer by profession
- AA probably got him into Harvard at the expense of some more capable white guy
- he doesn't even have any stances on issues, he remains vague or in the middle ground
- he talks about "change" but has no actual new policies
- he's got way too many Jews on his campaign team
- did I mention he was a nigger?
He's not the worst thing since Nixon but he is less experienced (and less black) than black republicans like Alan Keyes and Condoleeza Rice, yet democraps market him as the only chance to put a "black face" in the list of presidents, which is not only racist but goes against the idea that people should be judged by their merit and character. If voters wanted a black face so bad why are they voting in someone who is half black and why didn't they support Alan Keyes in 1996 and 2000?
I also fail to see how the core reasonning for putting "black faces" is logical. People who are racist aren't going to change when they see a black president and if a president gets a large number of votes just for being black that may make people who are not racist or apathetic to race become interested in racist arguments.
So it's less to do with racism on anonymous' part and more to do with racism on the democrat's part.
Can someone tell me why the Democrats (Obama and Clinton) get 95% of the coverage relating to the election? It seems like the press can barely hide their left wing fanaticism.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-13 3:01
Maybe they're too afraid of looking biased in one direction, so they overcompensate towards the other? Or maybe those two just pay enough money. *nods*
Name:
Alan2008-02-13 8:16
Ron Paul is the biggest idiot in the world. He wants to take the US out of the UN, WTO, NATO and pretty much evrything else. The US need to remain in these organisations if they want to remain "leaders" of the free world. Someone who believes getting rid of income tax is a pretty bad leader in my book.
Name:
Alan2008-02-13 8:16
Ron Paul is the biggest idiot in the world. He wants to take the US out of the UN, WTO, NATO and pretty much evrything else. The US need to remain in these organisations if they want to remain "leaders" of the free world. Someone who believes getting rid of income tax is a pretty bad leader in my book.
LIBERTARYAN IZ DA BEST!!! IF YOU DON'T HAVE TAXES, YOU WILL BE FREE, AMERICANS - DON'T LISTEN TO THOSE COMMIE SMARTASSES AND THEIR SCIENTIFIC BULLSHIT, STATE GIVES YOUR MONIES TO NIGGERS!!!!!!!! VOTE RON PAWL!!!!!
Love, Europe.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-13 19:13
>>16 >>17
Ron Paul is batshit insane, but the Libertarian party has a chance to grow into something solid. They've already shucked off some of their more extreme elements (i.e. their Kennedys and their Thurmonds). My hope is that in 2010 we see more independent and libertarian candidates for Congress. Anything is preferable to the bloated political duopoly.
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-14 16:12
>>18
HAY GUYS, CHOLERA AND CANCER SUCKS - I'M SURE IF WE ADD AIDS IN THE EQUATION, IT WILL BE SO MUCH BETTER!
Name:
Anonymous2008-02-15 10:44
>>19
FEDERAL FUNDS POOL CLOSED DUE TO RAMPANT JEW GOLD