Obama was a fraud from the very beginning....

BO rose to prominence when he was selected to give a speech at the 2004 Dimocrat Convention. He was picked because he supposedly had a good back story. The back story turned out to be a pack of lies...Kennedy sponsoring his father, his parents meeting at a civil rights march, his uncle & those war stories...but he could deliver a speech on cue. Suddenly he was on the national stage.
It was a foregone conclusion that Hillary would be the nominee in 2008 until something happened along the way. Ted Kennedy found out he was dying & knew that Hillary wouldn't be able (or willing) to get universal healthcare passed before he did. UHC was Kennedy's passion & he wanted it to be his legacy. In BO, Kennedy found his Manchurain candidate, an empty suit who was willing to do or say anything he was told in exchange for the White House. BO sold his soul to get the nomination. This explains why Bill Clinton & the Kennedys had such a fast fallout & why BO went to the lengths he did to make sure some form of gov't controlled healthcare got passed.

 

From what I can find on the Kennedy accusation, which I'm not completely convinced is accurate*, Obama lied by linking his parents to the Kennedys.

*I blame the Republican's lol It's their fault for making so many false accusations... it's hard to find the truth sometimes when there is so many made-up stories to wade through. (see "cry wolf")

The Health-Care connection your making sounds an awful lot like some of Kat's paranoid postings (sorry Kat, but if the government wanted you dead they wouldn't need to make Earthquakes to do it... still love to hear from you though lol). Be careful when you say he "sold his soul" though... disliking someone is one thing, and it's your right... but demonizing someone is never a good idea, see " * " above for how others who demonized Obama led to your potential point being possibly lost.

 

Well, see, now, you're off to a bad start here. There's no such thing as the Dimocrat Convention. Since you don't engage in name-calling, I have to assume your information is faulty. Perhaps you mean the Democratic Convention?

Not only did he have a good backstory, he was representing the State of Illinois (as a State Senator) as a candidate for the US Senate at the Democratic Convention. Considering the level of research you've already demonstrated, I sincerely doubt you did any unbiased digging whatsoever to confirm/debunk these 'lies'. If you're going to sling accusations like this, then I reserve judgment on the veracity until you produce reliable proof. Oh, and 'everybody knows' won't cut it as an excuse. If it's common knowledge, then it shouldn't be difficult to meet that reasonable request, should it?

Yeah, giving the keynote speech at the quad-annual event tends to have that outcome.

Wow, Ted Kennedy was psychic?!? He KNEW Hillary couldn't/wouldn't deliver on UHC...? AND, when he was going to die BEFORE she couldn't/wouldn't deliver? Geez, if he had those kind of powers, you'd think he'd never have taken a fateful drive or lost three brothers.

My money would be on the fact that Obama had the poll numbers and the Democrats didn't want divided support going into the General Election. But, that's probably too boring a version for you.

UHC was indeed Kennedy's passion & hoped for legacy. Sounds like he wanted the American people to be healthy without going bankrupt. I can think of worse choices. (Bush/Cheney with a legacy of greed, destruction, ineptitude, and death.)

The Manchurian Candidate (1959), by Richard Condon, is a political thriller novel about the son of a ​

prominent US political family who is brainwashed into being an unwitting assassin for the Communist Party. ​

(Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate)​

I don't think Manchurian Candidate means what you think it means. How can you sell your soul if you're brainwashed? You might want to re-think using this talking point, because it just makes you look silly. Oh, and it's also a 'tell' for your media choices.

I didn't know you travelled in the same circles as Clinton & the Kennedys! Was it at one of the DC dinner parties you picked up this little tidbit? C'mon, give us the 'dish' on how you got on the A-list..... I'm sure we'd all be green with envy!

 

Apparently I've struck a nerve? I'll give you a D for your defense of the failure that is BO. It should be an F based on substance but you get a bit of credit for at least trying to defend him (that's waayyy more than any of your fellow Obamabots are willing to do this far into his abysmal attempt at being the President).

 

Did you notice that he didn't bother to counter your post in the least? He just said that you failed to defend Obama but never bothered to offer a counter argument. Welcome to Partisan Lines and what passes for debate from the Right-wingers here. You simply have to lower your standards of debate to equal those of the nearest elementary school if you plan to stick around. They won't disappoint.

 

And back at you- neither you nor gypsy/clembo offered anything more than vague commentary

 

Dimocrat Convention - That is funny.

Gypsy - they only call it class war when we fight back. love it.

I truly despise obama a fake, a phoney, an agent of Saudi Arabia.

 

The only 'nerve' you struck was the one in my funny bone. The ridiculousness of your assertions are obvious to anyone who can string two logical thoughts together. Of course, your little fantasy world doesn't operate on logic or facts. It's based on pure emotion - hatred of the man who won the last Presidential election (by a huge margin, I might add). That's why, if you can marshall all your cognitive skills, you'll notice I wasn't defending Pres. Obama. I was mocking your silly statements. Which is why you choose to fling accusations instead of responding to my points. That just proves you know that you can't back up your claims.

Same as it ever was....

 

Yeah, I pretty much expected that. Everytime I ask one of these folks for proof of their outrageous claims, they either change the subject or run away. David appears to favor the former. It's like they think if they keep talking long enough, it'll make their warped views valid. Personally, I think it's an attempt to convince themselves they're not a part of the problem in supporting regressive policies. So much for that 'personal responsibility' mantra, eh?

 

~ ~ ~ ~

'Dimocrat' is no funnier than 'TeaThuglican' or 'RePug'. It's not worthy of an adult conversation and does nothing to solve our most pressing problems. Although, I'm not above using sarcasm to cut through a lot of the silliness flying around our political discussions in recent years.

I fully support the Occupy Movement for their work in pointing out where our problems are emanating from and that The People of this country are sick of struggling against a system rigged in favor the wealthy.

So you despise Obama. That's your choice. Pretty vague and unsupported reasoning, though. Perhaps you'd have the proof to back up those assertions or are you like our friend, David, who dodges the request?

 

Bwahahahahahahaha! That's the best you got? I included a link to back up a definition that you mangled. Evidently, that little tidbit bounced off your blinders. You made the initial (faulty) assertions regarding Pres. Obama, so the burden is on you to back it up. You can't, so you dodge and fingerpoint in an effort to distract from your inability to produce support. Old, over-used tactic and it doesn't work on me.

Care to explain the 'gypsy/clembo' reference? I don't see anyone by that name in this discussion.

 

He has many detractors.

 

Obama bad man. Very bad.

 

Ahhh, another non sequitur as a diversionary tactic. Thanks for the illumination.

 

Still no evidence I see. Only lame assertions. Proves my point that only emotion is fueling these claims.

 

Holder, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the national debt, the unemployment, Obamacare, the economy, etc. And with all of that, he calls us "lazy"? Right!!

 

As a progressive I'm not happy with what Obama's performance. I understand that he had a very very bad situation going in. And having the half the government engaging in obstructionism only makes things worse. But in his actions he has went further to the right than even Bush did on a lot of things. But I'm still glad McCain and the Bimbo didn't get in.

 

I said bad two times. The first one was backed by a second reference. That is conculsive proof by the left wing media standards.

Conculsive - putting an end to debate or question especially by reason of irrefutability.

Be glad to debate other issues as well with you but not with the monkey holding the gun. Moen likes him and that scares me.

Have a nice day.

 

Hahahh. The monkey holding the gun! Maybe that's indicative of the left's tendency toward violence? What's next? Bullseyes on Republican Congressional districts? Oh my!!

 

Right! It's all that NRA money pouring into the coffers of the Left that just juices us up. Tell yourself what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night...assuming you even have a conscience.