# He's running!.... maybe



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Barack Obama has announced that he has filed papers and formed an exploratory committee to help him decide whether to run for President in 2008. He will make a formal announcement on February 10.

Check out the video here: http://www.barackobama.com/video/

Regardless of what a person thinks about Barack's politics, they surely agree that he is a refreshing presence in U.S. politics. He is a young, energetic, and intelligent man who worked his way up on his own accord.

As we learn more about his positions on key issues and proposed solutions to problems, I only hope that his substance is as great as his hype.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

I suppose it would be too much, to hope that he would waste only his own money on a run for the presidency.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I seen a report that his vote record was 87% liberal. Very far left as I understand. He is a very likeable man, but also very liberal. He would make an excellent friend, but a poor president.


----------



## IAfishnhunt (Jan 6, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> I seen a report that his vote record was 87% liberal. Very far left as I understand. He is a very likeable man, but also very liberal. He would make an excellent friend, but a poor president.


Maybe in your opinion, but my opinion is still forming and may be different than yours, along with millions and millions of other Americans. A refreshing change might be just what this country needs.

I'm still investigating his stance on certain issues but I must say, the more information I get on this guy, the more I like him........so far.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> A refreshing change might be just what this country needs.


My point was that it is no change at all. Same ol same ol. He votes right in there with Kerry and Kennedy. Further left than Hillary. Is that what you call a refreshing change? I would like to get my hopes up also, but I'm not willing to go politically blind to achieve nirvana.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman wrote:



> Very far left as I understand. He is a very likeable man, but also very liberal. He would make an excellent friend, but a poor president.


I disagree. Obama is smart, articulate, charismatic, and likeable. This is a refreshing change, especially compared to the President holding office now.

Part of the reason that I like Obama is because he is liberal. Frankly, I've had enough of the conservative talking heads in DC.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Far too early for me to even begin to care ...

Give me another year and a half :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman -


> He is a very likeable man


Bigdaddy -


> I disagree. Obama is smart, articulate, charismatic, and likeable.


Not much of a disagreement there Bigdaddy.

Plainsman -


> but also very liberal.


Bigdaddy -


> Part of the reason that I like Obama is because he is liberal.


Are you certain you disagree with me Bigdaddy? It looks like we think the same thing about him. I just don't want another liberal threatening the second amendment. Most do when they vote right in there with Kerry and Kennedy. 
The only reason I can see a hunter voting for a liberal is if they have priorities greater than their constitutional rights. Maybe they see funding for their work, welfare, gay marriage, freedom from religion, maybe they want higher taxes, maybe they like their firearms but are afraid if anyone else owns some, I don't know why would a sportsman like a liberal. Not being a smart a$$, someone please explain it to me.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Good questions, Plainsman. Let me take a crack at answering them.

First, you make the assumption that "liberal" automatically equates to a threat on the 2nd amendment. I disagree. While there are pro control liberals, I think that you can also find liberals that are for strong 2nd amendment rights. Until I see Obama's position on the 2nd amendment, I will not assume that he is for lessening our gun ownership rights.

Second, I am not a one-issue voter. I had this conversation with my sister-in-law awhile back who is very much pro life. This is the only issue that she considers when she hits the polls. This is frankly not me.

I have a variety of factors that I consider when I decide who to vote for. These include a candidate's ideas for growing our economy, their position on the environment, their leadership skills, their foreign policy ideas, their postion on education (and the funding thereof), their position on civil liberties, and yes, their position on the 2nd amendment. However, for me, a candidate's position on the 2nd amendment does not supercede all the other factors described above.

That is why I am a sportsman and a liberal.


----------



## IAfishnhunt (Jan 6, 2007)

Excellent post Big Daddy. I can see you and I think a lot alike.

I personally have never voted in the 20 years I've been able to, I just never felt comfortable voting for the "lesser of two evils" in past elections, that and the fact I felt I was never informed enough to feel comfortable in voting for any certain candidate or party. As I get older I am wanting to get more involved into American politics and the issues that affect us as citizens. I do NOT blindly accept any written or spoken word for "truth" that is put out there and I find myself doing my own independent research into the stances that individual politicians take on issues now.

So far I like what Mr. Obama is saying and most (but not all) of his past stances on issues that he has dealt with. He IS a very intelligent and articulate man that speaks with a common sense that is getting harder and harder to find in todays politicians unfortunately.

Just today I sent an email to his office requesting his stance on gun control/gun rights and I am hoping to get a response soon as that is one of my own personal "hot" button issues, but it is not the only issue that I feel is important. I have 5 or 6 issues that are the most important to me and if and when I find a politician that is in alignment with myself concerning most of these issues, then I might register and vote for the first time in my life. To date, I've found myself agreeing with about 60% of what the Democratic party represents, and about 30% of what the Republican party represents, and the other 10% I believe neither party has an upper hand on.

I would say Mr. Obama is over halfway there for me to consider voting for him IF he runs for the Presidency in '08. When I get my research done he might be the one I vote for, IF I vote. Right now he is by far and away the leader of the pack as far as candidates go (if he actually becomes a candidate) as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hell hes a phony, lies and doesn't believe people should have the right to defend themselves in their home with a handgun.

He is a charismatic and gifted public speaker who just might be the Democrats' best hope of electing another president someday, has a bit of a problem. You see, it would appear the good Senator doesn't practice what he preaches. I know .. what a surprise for a politician! This has long been a problem for those on the Left, with Al Gore being one of the biggest offenders. :roll:

At any rate, Obama was giving a speech recently at one of his town hall meetings in which he said that global warming was caused by gas guzzling vehicles. *He said people should switch to hybrids*, and that "It would save more energy, do more for the environment and create better world security than all the drilling we could do in Alaska." Yeah ... and if we all walked think of how much oil we could save! Anyway ... moving right along here .....

*So after the speech,* did the good Senator go outside, get into his Toyota Prius and zip off toward home? Uh..no. *The media caught him getting into....you guessed it...an SUV.*

A GMC Envoy, to be exact. Obama even admitted that he liked SUVs  . It would seem we have a bit of hypocrisy on our hands.

Now to the lie.....
When called out on it, Obama's staff went into spin overdrive...claiming that the Envoy was a Flexible Fuel Vehicle that can run on E85, or ethanol-based fuels. In fact, they say the Senator fills the SUV up with ethanol whenever he can!

*But there's a problem with that, too. The GMC Envoy is not E85-ready. Ooops*. Sounds like somebody dug the hole just a bit deeper on that one. As the saying goes, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. 
Just once I would love to hear a politician admit he did something he was cought red handed doing, they all are liars and if they are Dems the media gives them apass.

HE also voted against SB 2165 which was a bill that would allow residents to defend themselves in their homes with handguns, like all GOVT loving Politicians he wants you to wait for the authorities. :******:

I would bet a lot of money he has a gun in his house.

He has everything Democrats like though, touchy feely good things to say and nothing of substance to offer, he will probably be the next president.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> First, you make the assumption that "liberal" automatically equates to a threat on the 2nd amendment. I disagree.





> Plainman from another post: Not all liberals are anti firearms, but nearly all anti firearms people are liberal.


Bigdaddy, the assumption is yours.



> I am not a one-issue voter.


I know many people who see themselves as sophisticated often state this. My response is I would like to not be a one-issue voter, but sometimes one is forced into it if you believe it is important enough. As a hyperbole to make a point, if a candidate was for bringing back slavery would you be a one issue voter, or would you vote for him because he had some good ideas?



> for me, a candidate's position on the 2nd amendment does not supercede all the other factors described above.


For me it does. If he wants my vote he must change to my position, I will not except violation of the constitution to get something else I want.

What do you mean you will wait to see what Obama's stand is on the second amendment? If you have truly looked into this man you already know.



> I personally have never voted in the 20 years I've been able to


After making such an irresponsible statement I'll bet Bigdaddy will argue with your assumption that you think alike. If you don't vote you have no right to complain. I would question your motive for posting in a political form given your disinterest.



> and the fact I felt I was never informed enough


But you are now?????



> I do NOT blindly accept any written or spoken word for "truth" that is put out there and I find myself doing my own independent research


Your confusing the heck out of me Iafishhunt. So what do you do question these people personally?



> I have 5 or 6 issues that are the most important to me


I'm getting more confused by the minute. Every time we gave our kids a cooky they said it was their favorite. I tried explaining to them at three years old that not everything can be their favorite. Explain to me which issue is most important to you. Or explain to me which are your five or six more important issues.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Plainsman, finally can't resist

"Quote:
for me, a candidate's position on the 2nd amendment does not supercede all the other factors described above.

For me it does. "

If this is true, you would vote for a candidate who voted 100% of the time for the second amendment, but voted against the first amendment.

As I argue with our mutual respective friend, what is the tipping point? 
How many positions by that candidate must disagree with your other personal position before you will not vote for that candidate?

As an example, votes 100% second amendment, votes to eliminate funding for all natural resource programs, votes to eliminate hunting,
thinks we should all hunt on game farms, etc. etc. etc.

Alternatively, votes in line with your positions on every vote but votes against guns 100% of the time.

A final example is many of the pro lifers I talk to are opposed to hunting consistent with their convictions.

I'll grant you that this is hardly ever the usual case.

However, IMHO, single issue voting has many unintended consequences, many of which, single issue voters never consider before voting


----------



## IAfishnhunt (Jan 6, 2007)

Bob M.............I'm guessing the environment is your top issue. Guess what, I too believe in alternative fuels and doing what I can to conserve, but I too drive an SUV............silly me. :eyeroll: Do all politicians lie? Probably? Do you? Probably. Do I? Yes. Would I love a politician that he/she and their entourage spoke the truth 100% of the time? Probably not. Aint politics fun? A pain in the arse I know, but still fun. I'm still a rookie at political discussions since I've mostly stayed out of the fray up until the last few years so take my $.02 at face value, it's probably not worth much more than that. :wink:

Plainsmen...........the last sentence of indsport's post says a lot. Re-read it please.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> For me it does. If he wants my vote he must change to my position, I will not except violation of the constitution to get something else I want.


Indsport, to date I have sometimes voted on single issues. That is because that single issue swayed me. Also, things have not yet been radical enough that I must vote for someone against the second amendment. I have many issues I am interested in, but I have them prioritized. I see your point however. Perhaps one day I will have to make the difficult decision you allude to. I certainly would not like to loose freedom of speech or any other constitutional right. Currently there is only one that is under constant attack.
To date I have not been forced to be single issue because I agree with much more of the conservative issues than liberal. However as I explained in my example of slavery I could become single issue, and if people are honest with themselves we all could find ourselves voting single issue if that issue is important enough to us.



> If this is true, you would vote for a candidate who voted 100% of the time for the second amendment, but voted against the first amendment.


It's funny you would bring this up considering the left has been trying to quash talk radio because they fail at it while conservatives are very successful with talk radio. I see kucinich wants to enact an old 1930's fairness in broadcasting. It's not hard to see what he really wants to do. If they can't have successful liberal talk radio then take away successful conservative talk radio. I remember when this same fellow and his ilk wanted to take Rush Limbaugh off the radio programming provided to our soldiers in Iraq. It's what most soldiers wanted, but liberals wanted to take it away. Ya, that's freedom of speech.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

IMHO I see most of the constitution and the bill of rights under constant attack rather than "Currently there is only one that is under constant attack. "
Examples abound in states rights issues, right to privacy issues, right to freedom of assembly, freedom of speech ad nauseum, and my favorite, freedom of (from) religion. I cherish all my constitution and bill of rights equally.

I wasn't sure that prohibition ranked equally and rather pleased it was rescinded and I sure wouldn't want to argue with my wife on her right to vote and say my guns were more important to me than her right to vote.

Prioritize if you must, even I have priorities which tip my final vote but I refuse to let a single issue determine the outcome.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Prioritize if you must, even I have priorities which tip my final vote but I refuse to let a single issue determine the outcome.


Isn't that statement itself blind stubborness? We all prioritize every day. If you think about it I doubt you would refuse a single issue determining the outcome. You just have not encountered an issue important enough yet. I would guess the Jewish people at Auschwitz had a single issue that outweighed all others. You will encounter these in your lifetime also indsport. To think otherwise is looking at the world through rose colored glasses.

In my view the single issue debate is a debate tactic to steer the discussion in a different direction when your opinion is indefensible. I hear it nearly every time from my liberal friends. It's their way of saying I am more sophisticated than you. Condescending at best, but oh well.

Indsport what other portions of the constitution and bill of rights do you see under attack other than the first and second. Although I value the entire constitution I also prioritize it and see some parts as more important than others. How do you ensure the survival of the first amendment without the preservation of the second amendment? I am speaking in terms of the attitude of the formers of the constitution.


----------



## nickwesterholm (Nov 16, 2006)

when it comes to second ammendment rights i wouldn't classify that as one issue voting. with something as sacred as the right to carry arms you can't take that away from americans. you say he might not be for gun control issues, but if he is in office and the dem's propose an issue like this it has a lot better chance of getting through. i'm not saying i'm against obama, but i am a republican in many issues not just one. and i am also a sportsman and the day someone takes my gun from me is the day i leave this country for somewhere that will allow me to have my gun. when this country was founded it was very important to be able to carry arms, and it still is. any sportsman who votes democrat is not truely a sportsman.


----------



## IAfishnhunt (Jan 6, 2007)

I was with you up until this:



nickwesterholm said:


> any sportsman who votes democrat is not truely a sportsman.


That's your opinion but I whole-heartedly disagree.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

IAfishnhunt said:


> I was with you up until this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would guess that again it is priorities. What is more important, hunting this fall, keeping my firearms, or (insert liberal priorities of your own)? For many life is more enjoyable being able to hunt. Others may enjoy dinning out, going to a movie, visiting with friends in the city etc more. It depends on whether hunting is a major motivation, or a minor motivation. 
Only the most dense don't understand that between the two parties the liberals are the ones who will introduce firearms control. If a party introduces more restrictions on firearms it will not be the republican party, nor will it be a conservative democrat. Therefore to support people like Kerry, Kennedy, Hillary, Al Schumer, Feinstein, or our gal pal Nancy, hunting, firearms, and second amendment can not be your number one priority. This isn't saying some people have their priorities wrong, it's simply saying that some people have other priorities more important to them than hunting, firearms, and the second amendment. We just don't know what they are. Surely there are other deciding factors, but those factors allow them to put aside what we pro hunters, firearms owners, and second amendment people find very important.

If you don't believe this let me make a bet with you. What do you think the chances are of the democrats introducing a firearms control bill in the next four years? I would say 100%. Any of you liberalsl want to put money on 0%? Further, I will bet you that at least one of the names I used above will be on that bill as a sponsor. Thanks in advance, I think I'll book my cruise now. :beer:


----------



## nickwesterholm (Nov 16, 2006)

might as well include dorgan's name


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bob M.............I'm guessing the environment is your top issue


 :lol:

I want a clean environment but thats got nothing to do with my post

the point I was making is Obama's a phony,almost all politicians are.

No I don't lie, I am wrong sometimes but never intentionally lie or mislead anyone.

I cannot abide a liar.


----------



## IAfishnhunt (Jan 6, 2007)

> the point I was making is Obama's a phony,almost all politicians are.


I fully agree that most politicians are phony. I have a feeling most of them never really state their "true" beliefs because they're afraid it would be political suicide. They have a tendency to believe whatever they think will get them the most votes. :eyeroll:

It's a good thing none of us are running huh? We'd be tarred and feathered and hung by now .......... LOL. :lol:

If you are saying you never even tell a "little white lie".........then I think you might be the first one in all of mankind.........ever. :roll: But if you say it's true, since I have no reason to doubt you yet, then I guess I'll believe you. :wink:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Very Interesting from NewsMax.com

Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., made his first misstep a few days ago when he joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls.

Obama has not heard the last of this vote. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who opposes wives cashing in on their husbands' positions, voted righteously in favor of the reform and will probably use the Illinois senator's vote against him in the presidential primaries.

When a legislator hires his or her spouse on the campaign or PAC payroll, he is effectively converting contributions to his campaign committee into personal income that flows into the family's checking account, blurring the line between contribution and bribe.

In the past, senators and House members routinely hired their spouses and other family members on their public payrolls. In the early 1940s, for example, Harry S. Truman hired his wife, Bess, to work on his Senate staff. She got $2,500 a year in salary at a time when senators themselves only earned $8,500. But nepotism on the public payroll is now banned. So inventive congressmen and senators have filled the void by hiring family on their campaign or PAC payrolls.

Hiring family members and paying them with campaign donations is, if anything, more pernicious than doing so with public funds. Where tax money is involved, the sin is against the taxpayer for wasting his funds. But where campaign contributions are involved, the congressman is profiting personally from the largesse of special interest donors. In plain English, that's a payoff.

There is, of course, a certain hypocrisy in the Senate action since very few senators, in fact, hire their families on their payrolls.

It is, though, widely practiced in the House of Representatives, where 30 members have their families on their payrolls. But senators are much less likely to do so. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who voted "present" on the reform, hired her son, Douglas, a lobbyist, to manage her PAC, paying him $130,000 over a four-year period. Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, then a Democrat, hired his son, Matthew, for $34,000 and his daughter, Rebecca, for $36,000 to work on his 2004 presidential campaign.

So the congressional ethics reform of 2007 boils down to this: The House banned the use of corporate jets but the Senate did not, even though senators are more likely to avail themselves of the luxury than is the average House member. The Senate banned hiring family members but the House did not, even though House members are far more likely to hire their significant others to work for them.

Obama's inexplicable pro-nepotism vote may have been cast in sympathy with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., whose hiring of his wife, Sandi, to work on his campaign prompted an FEC ruling allowing the practice. Jackson might be afraid that the Senate action will catalyze a similar reform in the House, which could cut way back on his disposable family income.

But whatever the reason for his vote, Obama has screwed up. The public will not take kindly to a senator who pledged to clean up the political process voting to allow wives to be hired with special-interest campaign funds.

The FEC required, in allowing the practice, that the contract for the services of the family member contain the language customarily used between campaign committees and consultants. The FEC also ruled that any payment to a family member in excess of the fair market value of the services would be considered to be a "personal use of campaign funds."

But, as usual, the FEC has missed the point. Any payment from campaign money to a spouse is, in fact, an appropriation of campaign funds by the member of Congress for his own personal use, however camouflaged or disguised. The Senate was right to ban the practice and the House should follow suit.

Let the Games begin


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

George W was a charismatic guy and he got elected!! It takes more than charisma! Oh, and don't run as the great unifier. Been there and done that! Too early for me to commit. Besides that there are many elimination rounds before the election. Let me hear what they have to say!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

If the GMC Envoy had the upgraded 5.3 engine in it instead of the 4.2 I6, then it would be E-85 compatible.

Even so, you can't preach to people to buy gas saving vehicles and drive away in a mid sized SUV.

We heard the same thing from our wonderful Governor here. He upgraded from a car to a Suburban which is quite a bit bigger than the Envoy and he tried covering himself as welll saying it was E-85 compatible.

How do we know when a politician is lying? His/Her lips are moving.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> .
> 
> I have a variety of factors that I consider when I decide who to vote for. These include a candidate's ideas for growing our economy, their position on the environment, their leadership skills, their foreign policy ideas, their postion on education (and the funding thereof), their position on civil liberties, and yes, their position on the 2nd amendment. However, for me, a candidate's position on the 2nd amendment does not supercede all the other factors described above.
> 
> That is why I am a sportsman and a liberal.


Thats sweet, too bad experiance is not one of the traits you look for. Don't forget Big Daddy when they get your guns all the other rights will soon follow. Maybe they will even sew a star on your shirt one day!! To be a Liberal is to spit in the face of the Constitution for a quick gimme self gain. Thats how I see it!!


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

nickwesterholm said:


> any sportsman who votes democrat is not truely a sportsman.


Not truely an American either!!


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Triva question time. What is Barack Obama's middle name ?!! Your gonna uke: when you find out or should I say don't go their you will not like what you will find!! :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hussein


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

Not true live2hunt my ENVOY has a 5.3 and it is not E-85 compatible. It was a bunch of extra money for the E-85.
Bore 224 wrote
Thats sweet, too bad experiance is not one of the traits you look for. Don't forget Big Daddy when they get your guns all the other rights will soon follow. Maybe they will even sew a star on your shirt one day!! To be a Liberal is to spit in the face of the Constitution for a quick gimme self gain. Thats how I see it!!
AMEN!


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Not true live2hunt my ENVOY has a 5.3 and it is not E-85 compatible. It was a bunch of extra money for the E-85.


huh??? So it is an option for the Envoy or isnt' it?


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> Hussein


Bravo Plainsman "Barack Hussein Obama" . Sound more like a current enemy than commander in cheif! He has no experiance and he is evrywhare in the news "what the hell is going on" !!!!?????


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

E-85 is crap anyway. It gets worse mileage, has less power, and requires the burning of fossil fuels to make it!

Now if he drove away in an electric car, recharged with power from a solar cell, wind generator, hydroelectric dam, or nuclear power, then maybe he'd be in the right


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

Yes it is an option, but it's not worth the $2700.00.(2005) You figure the mileage with real gas vs E85 and it's going to be in favor of real gas. Not by much but it was. Then figure how many miles it's going to take to pay for that E-85 engine. It was about 425,000 miles of E-85 to pay for the savings of E-85. Even I am not that conservative.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

umm. I think you are missing the point of the post. Bobm said Obama drove away in a GMC Envoy claiming it didn't have an E-85 engine. I was just stating that it "could" have been an Envoy with an E-85 engine.

I am not disputing mileage. I am just saying that Obama "could" have driven away in a E-85 GMC Envoy. Bobm claimed that wasn't possible in his post.

Now Magnum, I know you voted for our ellustrious Governor Hoeven. He also claimed we needed to cut back our dependency on oil, yet traded his car in for an SUV. When critized about it, he cleverly claimed "Oh, but it is E-85 compatible".

Just goes to show you that both D's and R's can be sneaky politicians.


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

yes, I missed that in bobs post I will admit that. I would vote for a dem. if there was one worth the vote. Hoeven has been a pretty desent Gov. Really you shouldn't complain he's has given you funding hasn't he?
I am telling you that it's not worth the extra coin for the E85 engine. Why shouldn't the gov. of N.D. ride in comfort you do.
I doubt that this Obama dude is driving a E-85 v-8. But I guess he could be


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I said Obamas people claimed it was E 85 compatible, I didn't think that it was possible from what i read it wasn't available as an option, but I've never talked to the dealers about it so I was probably wrong about the e 85 part.

It's still funny to watch all these phonies give speeches about driving little cars, global warming blah blah and then climb into their limos, suv's ect.

They are all ( R's an D's) such phonies.

I guess what they really mean is the great unwashed common folks like us should drive lttle cars so they can drive SUV's :wink:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> Hoeven has been a pretty desent Gov. Really you shouldn't complain he's has given you funding hasn't he?


No he hasn't.



> Why shouldn't the gov. of N.D. ride in comfort you do.


I don't get in front of the camera and tell North Dakotans we need less dependency on oil and that everyone should be driving better fuel economy vehicles.

I wonder if Governor Schwarnegger (sp?) is still driving his H1 Hummer Wagon. I think they get 8 miles to the gallon.


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

Well maybe we should take all the higher ed. money and put it into our state highway system and let the hole burden of Collage be on the students and there families then. We could cut the tax on gas and still have some highway funds. 
Boy's, I should be in office for my backwards ways of thinking.

Live2hunt, Working for the state for a decent wage and still complaining. Talking about the waste of tax dollars while on state time on a state computer. Smooth.


----------



## IAfishnhunt (Jan 6, 2007)

Bore.224 said:


> nickwesterholm said:
> 
> 
> > any sportsman who votes democrat is not truely a sportsman.
> ...


 :roll: whatever :roll:

BTW......I've never voted for a Democrat.


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

Live2 hunt I trully am sorry for my last post I didn't mean to attack you personally.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Bore.224 said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Hussein
> ...


Does this not worry anyone a tad? I sure does me. Thats what worries me about this country. This guy could be a full fledged muslim and American people would still vote him in becuase he's a smooth talker.

This might be a little extreme for some
ISLAM= Deception
How soon we forget. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

THe hillary people are supposedly goign to expose he was educated in a madrassa (sp?) and if that true that is the most radical form of education in Islam.

Be interesting to watch the story unfold with our media who can believe anything


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Does this not worry anyone a tad? I sure does me. Thats what worries me about this country. This guy could be a full fledged muslim and American people would still vote him in becuase he's a smooth talker.


Obama has stated repeatedly that he is a Christian and that he and his family are active members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

You guys are amazing! You are raising concern that his middle name is Hussein and that he might be a Muslim in disguise! Wow! I want some of what you are smoking.

Let's see... a guy has a father from Kenya, he is Black, his name "Obama" sounds remotely like "Osama", his middle name is "Hussein".... yep, he's a Muslim alright.

On the other hand, Bush has also stated that he is a Christian. In fact, he has stated that God talks to him and told him to invade Iraq. Yep, that's one heck of a Christian thing to do. However, you believe him without question.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

BigDaddy said:


> > Does this not worry anyone a tad? I sure does me. Thats what worries me about this country. This guy could be a full fledged muslim and American people would still vote him in becuase he's a smooth talker.
> 
> 
> Obama has stated repeatedly that he is a Christian and that he and his family are active members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.
> ...


Big Daddy let me in on what your smoking, you dont think we have reason to think twice about a guy with the name Hussein??!! Now they say Obama is Black is he not white as well? If obama was 100% Europeon decent "WHITE" none of us would even know his name right now!!! Do we Believe Bush without question "WHAATTT"!!!

No Big Daddy you are the amazing one! Obama has no experiance and is running a simular campaine as Patrick Deval has done in Massachusetts. They whole stratigy will be change but here is the catch they will never say change for the better! You will hear Obama say "Tired of politics as usual, its time for change" but he will not say what he will do just watch and see!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> In fact, he has stated that God talks to him and told him to invade Iraq.


Whaaaaat????? You had to make that one up. I have never heard Bush say God told him to invade Iraq. Some of you guys are getting goofy.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Whaaaaat????? You had to make that one up. I have never heard Bush say God told him to invade Iraq. Some of you guys are getting goofy.


Here's a few URLs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article317805.ece


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think those articles are about as accurate as the rags in the grocery check-out. I think these guys heard this while on board the mother ship. I can't believe people think this is credible. Why have we not seen it on the news here. Our liberal media would eat it up. I'll tell you why we haven't heard it, because I doubt the words were ever spoken. I can't believe your serious about this. I am sure your jerking my leg and yuking it up. Nice try though, it is funny.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Barack Obama has weighed in on the war in Iraq. He wants the troops home by March of 2008. As Islamic terrorists cheer at the idea, one has to wonder...why March of 2008? Why not March of 2007? Or at least July? Do I hear September?

Obama says it's time to stop the foreign policy disaster, but he won't support cutting off funds for the war. Aww...come on..why not? If the war is so terrible and such a mistake, why not put a stop to it? Instead of doing that, Barack Hussein Obama has introduced a bill. Hey..this is his first piece of legislation anybody actually knows about.

According to General Obama, we should cap the troop levels at 130,000 in Iraq. Why 130,000? Why not 125,000? I guess Obama has decided that the 130,000 is a good number. Obama's phased surrender would call for bringing the troops home starting in May and having all of them home by March of 2008. By the way....do you know where Obama says the troops should be sent?

What we have here is Obama trying to make himself look more knowledgeable than he really is. He wants to be president, so he has to look like he can make presidential decision. "Let's see .. I need to look presidential here. I'm slipping in the polls. So .. I'll just say the troops should be home by March of 2008. There's no strategic thought process behind this, I know. But it just sounds like something a president would say ... so I'll just go with it."

Yeah ... Barack. You da man!

OH .. by the way. How long is it going to be before we learn, probably from Al Sharpton, that if you're not a Barack supporter then that means you're a racist? :roll:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Bob or anyone can you post the Joe Biden comment/quote from today. I only heard it on radio. Boy did he sound like a racist, yet the left is silent. They protect their own :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."


Not so sure I would look at it as a racist comment. More on the side of truth than anything. I mean, after all what other black people have run for President. Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton but I don't see where any of them would qualify as mainstream, articulate, bright, nice looking, and certainly not clean.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon your right, but Biden said it like no black person existed with these attributes. If the racist looks a little closer he might see they are very numerous.

After all he said "you got the *first*"


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

This is exactly what he said, according to an interview with the New York Observer:


> "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."


I don't for aminute theink Biden is a racist, but the PC reation to this little brain fart is hysterical The PC police are out in force :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now, Biden says what he meant was Obama was a clean-cut guy...you know, on the straight and narrow. He also says the New York Observer took it out of context.

*Who cares....the real story here is the hysterical overreaction by the offended race warlords*. :lol: :lol:

They think since Biden thinks Obama is clean-cut, perhaps he meant other black candidates for president in the past were not. Who would he be talking about? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? The best quote in all of this was from Sharpton, who issued a statement yesterday, said he told Biden when he called to apologize:


> "I told him I take a bath every day."


 :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Sloganmaster said he was similarly confused: "I don't know whether it was an attempt to diminish what I had done in '88, or to say Barack is all style and no substance." Diminish what Jackson did in 88? Someone refresh my memory? What has Jackson ever really done in any presidential election? His forte is blackmailing corporations ... a world-class expert.

This is all just too much fun. And the more Biden apologizes, the deeper it gets. *And they're all Democrats...does it get any better than this?*

I love this can you imagine the howling if Bush or any republican said this, the media would imply they are the head of the Clan...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I find politically correctness an exercise for morons, but it is hilarious when a hypocrite shoots himself in the foot. In all reality I think liberals are much more racist than conservatives. They talk about equality more, but it's all a political scam. Look at the more successful minorities over the past 20 years and see which party they are in. 
Conservatives give minorities the same respect as anyone else. Liberals think minorities need affirmative action because they are not capable of competing. Nothing is more racist than affirmative action. The people hired under it, even if exceedingly qualified, are always looked at as another liberal quota filled. This has to be terrible for those people. 
Conservatives look at everyone as equal, while liberals (through their actions not their words) have shown us over and over how prejudice they are. 
I wouldn't say that about local North Dakota liberals, but it is true in Washington. 
If you truly respect an individual or a race you don't look at them as more or less, you simply look at them as another person.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> "After all he said "you got the first"


Yes but you are chopping off the word "mainstream" which has a whole different meaning to the rest of his statement. Personally I think all he was saying was the Democrats are falling all over themselves over the first black American that represented something close to mainstream and not of the Jackson and Sharpton crowd, and they are doing it despite his lack of qualifications. At least that is the way I read it and I'm no fan of Biden.


----------

