Amazing how certain constituents of a party remember the opposing one's campaign pledges and not their own. The last statement was in reference to George HW Bush........and in conclusion, read my lips......no new taxes". We all know what happened after that. Fair exchange, if you bring up one politician, you need to include all of em'.
murphy is a caricature of american politcs. however yanks are about to elect a muppet along the same old horseshit eddie's giving out. abd at the end of the day the joke's on the american people!!!!
Amazing how certain constituents of a party remember the opposing one's campaign pledges and not their own. The last statement was in reference to George HW Bush........and in conclusion, read my lips......no new taxes". We all know what happened after that. Fair exchange, if you bring up one politician, you need to include all of em'.
only to prevent you from transmiting wrong information, the Tudeh Party was accused of plotting against the Shah in 1949 ,which led to its BANNING form Iranian politics. The coup from 1953 had nothing to do with Tudeh but with the National Front of Iran, the prime-minister's party
If you want to believe in this madness please do it. Just try to read what i posted. I don't wanna argue with you anymore, this will lead to nowhere. So, if you think the coup was made in order to defend America from Soviet Union, even though Iran wasn't even allied with Reds, fine, no problem. You are absolutely right. USSR and Mosadeq had nothing to do with each other. Economic interests forced the coup and not FREEDOM, this one Iranians lost in 53
It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention..." Mohammed Mosaddeq - June 21, 1951, Iranian Parliament.
Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provide that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation...
Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries... have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced.
Man, I really don't want keep this conversation, so after that, if you want to write something only to say you had the last word, fine by me. But I suggest you to read something about Mohammed Mosaddeq, and his government plans. He was a secular ruler, a nationalist, not a communist, that intended to nationalize Iranian oil fields. After he announced that America and Great Britain decided to finance (guess what) the Ayatollahs oposition, and eventually a coup d'etat was made.
"The notion that FREEDOM can be established by the FORCE of arms is preposterous" yes man that's my quote. My freedom, and your freedom, and Mr. Bush' freedom were not defended in Iran in 53, Iraq in 1963 or any other war of intervention. As Jim Webb said a few time ago, I believe there are many trotskyists in the White House today, because the notion of forcing a strange regime on foreign nations is the core of the communist ideals.
They can do it when they live under the rule of an opressive power of some kind (an occupation army, a dictatorship, a tyranny) and when these boys have lost everything they have (their houses, their families, their beloved ones). And here is where America enters, destroying cities, financing secret police forces, and death squads, forcing these already devastating regimes to open their doors to American companies, which will explore their cheap labor force with no mercy
And lats finish this talk, we clearly don't agree on things and it's not me who is going to convince you of anything, I suppose. But yes, fanatics will always hate America; fanatics will always hate gays; fanatics will always preach against abortion, inter-racial relationships, etc; the point is: when do these fanatics (that go from David Koresh to Osama bin Laden) gain support for their beliefs, how can they convince a boy to blow himself up in a gocery store?
And by the way, I'm not a left-wing guy, but i'm also not an idealist that thinks actions don't generate consequences. But let me just tell you two things: first, yes you were right about the budget cuts; second, I'm sorry if it took too long for me to answer but I had to face some family problems
Man, the Shah used torture techniques developed by the nazis, killed hundreds, if not thousand. And, guess what, destroyed the secular oposition (liberals, conservatives, communists, you name it) So, how do you think the islamic clerk gained so much power under his rule and became able to deposed his regime? Because of how America and the Shah himself acted
And you are twisting my words. i never said wars don't work or that they are never in the name of freedom. What I said was INTERVENTION, like the ones in Granada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba (not 1961, but all the previous interventions under the Platt Emmendment), East Guinea, Iran, Iraq (when America supported the Baat), Philipines and others. Not a single one of these wars helped defending freedom, either in America or any of these countries
You cannot compare American Civil War or 1812, or even the Independence War with WWI, for instance, which was caused by the imperialistic tension generated between England and Germany, while pursuing colonies inAfrica, and between Russia and the Turkish Empire in Yugoslavia.
And for last. Bush is not negotiating with North Korea, a country that tortures pretgnant women because he wants to protect America, so desperately, from a country that couldn't even make a decent long range missile like the Iranians, but because he is interested in its economical potential (there are no independent unions, no actual social or labor legislation), just like China under Deng Xiaoping: a dictatorship that can provide enough security to foreign capital
I also used facts. I'm sorry I didn't receive your video too. My point is, even with all these cuts, they will send huge sums of money to the military industries and to finance military operations. Clinton sabotaged Iraq for his entire eight years in office (let's not forget the bombings in 98). He did intervened in Serbia, Kosovo and Somalia, where he did use military force
So let's see, the military coup that implemented the Shah dictatorship was made in 1953, therefore creating the circumstances for the Revolution, so Eisenhower's involvement LED to the modern day islamic State that we NOW have to deal with.
Example: NAFTA was planned by George H. W. Bush and implemented by the Clinton adimnistration, does that prove that Bush is from the same "democrat wing" than Clinton? Of course not, that simply proves both fight for the same economical agenda.
And the video I was trying to post you can find looking for "Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup?" on youtube. Don't even mind about listening to him, the video is just part of a documentary form 1984 about the Iranian Revolution, and how American intervention in the region actually led to Khomeini's victory
And for last, no I would never support a war against Iran, because that's simply a stupid idea, which began to get shaped during the current administration. The notion that freedom can be established by the force of arms is preposterous, this kind of intervention is always made under finnancial interests and nothing else, and all the time ends up with terrible messes, like (yes) Iraq.
And you mentioned that Carter helped the north koreans to have a nuclear reactor, even though he wasn't preseident anymore. Ok, what's the problem? What I'm saying is exactly that, if Bush can negotiate with the North Koreans (and don't fool yourself thinking that he is only doing this because liberal Jimmy has forced him into it) why can't others do the same? Bush has started negotiations because the country shows the same potential as China: a great place for foreign investiments
they agreed on basically everything except who should be the candidate (in Bill's case Hillary). Everyone from Obama's staff comes form the clinton administration, with all its foreign interventions (Somalia, Serbia, Kosovo and even Mexico, in 1994, when Clinton financed the military aparatus in order to suffocate the Chiapas uprising). So, even with all the budget cuts, Clinton served well to the military industrial complex
Hey, I'm back. You said that Obama and Clinton are not from the same party wing, I disagree, they come from the so called "new" Democrats, that try to deny men like Jimmy Carter for instance (these democrats are quite similar to the neoconservatives). They defend free-market economy, even if this has to be embraced with some protectionist and social programs, they carry the banner of spreading democracy by force or diplomacy
U.S. always had a polcy of supporting Bahat in the 70's (actually since the 50's, when the bahatists supported a coup against Karim Qassim), so you cannot use the support towards Iraq as an element that made them release the hostages, why? Because the American policy was always like that! Untill at least 2003, of course
"Blocking of domestic oil drilling"? If you remember McCain was against that too, untill the polls started showing that people wanted that, so he started saying that he wants that too.
"Negotiate with our enemy"? I thought Bush was the one doing this by negotiating with North Korea. "Breaking our defense"? Neither Clinton nor obama ever promised or did this (in the Senate Obama didn't even had the guts to vote "no" to fund the war).
I'm not talking in military terms, but humanitarian ones. Why should we think only about Israel and U.S. and forget, for instance, the millions of Iranians that have been suffering for decades in the hands of two dictatorships?
I'm talking Clinton because Obama is part of his wing in the Democratic party and not Carter's. He never said anything about amnesty (just as Hillary - probably because he is not going to do one, but cannot afford to loose the latino vote)
As i said, this is the media explanation. Reagan wasn't some God that scared fanatics just by saying he wouldn't negotiate. Carter knew how to play with the moderate wing of the Revolution, which was very concerned about what the radical students had done by invading the embassy. And its very wrong to say that the Shah wasn't a "problem" for America. The Shah was a problem for the human race. He was ahead of a corrupt government, created by a coup d'etat against Iranian Parliament
Third: Clinton has never been a carter type of democrat, neither Obama. Both accept free-market economy policies (NAFTA), both are against any support to negotiations between Hamas and Israel (supported by the majority of Israeli population), both supported sanctions against Iraq in the 90's. So, where is the Carter agenda besides in McCain and bush's speechs?
Second. The Sha wasn't that scared of Reagan in the first place (let's not forget what Iran-Contra was all about: selling weapons to Khomeini in order to finance drug-dealers in Nicaragua). If it wasn't for Carter's policy of negotiation, believe me, those men and women would have never seen the light of day again.
What you are doing is simply accept the media explanation about it. First of all: the Sha was the head of a dictatorship that even used nazi techniques of torture. The only thing it did was to create the circumstances for its own defeat (no right to vote, no partu, no elections and persecution to both secular and religious oposition).
"nobody has ran it (change) into the ground like him" that's wrong. Remember Reagan in 1980 as you said, Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976, Clinton 1992, and Bush in 2000
It seems you didn't like for me to call you Dude, that's fine for me. But don't fool yourself based on what some republican strategists created ("Jimmy Carter agenda") his people are the same guys that supported Clinton, who was far from beign like Carter, a man who defended the welfare state, was able to negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel and was able to release the hostages in Iran (in Reagan's inauguration day)
Dude, you can watch "The War Room" where they show Clinton' slogan was Change, at least in the primaries ("Mr. Chairman, Ohio wants Change, America wants Change, therefore we are gonna cast our votes in Bill Clinton" - in 92 convention). And what "agenda" is he hiding? He is not a communist, nor a muslim. I'm not saying I support him but I'm far from being scared of him
It's still kind of funny, albeit Murphy was on the downslide of his career then. However, other than him being black and using the word "change", I see nothing identical with Barack.
People have been joking that this "looks a lot with Obama speechs", but I think that's just because it's a black comedian and not a white one. That's because, back then people already knew EVERY politician talks about change, Reagan did, Clinton did, Bush did, and all the present candidates are doing, not just Obama. But if it was Bill Murray in the movie noone would compare with him if it was Bill Murray in the part.
Now we know where obama got his rhetoric from.
lemonjellies 2 months ago
The only thing missing is him bald and spewing asinine "freedom" rhetoric and platitudes. Then the full spectrum would be covered.
Zimx02 6 months ago
At least he is funny opposed to Obama.
Ebareebaveebeedee 6 months ago
THAT'S RIGHT AMERICA....YOU'RE LIVING IN AN EDDIE MURPHY FILM.
THAT MAKES YOU THE DUMB WHITE GUY THAT IS OPENLY MOCKED BY THE BLACK HIPSTERS IN THE MOVIE.
DON'T BE THAT CHRIS FARLEY.
WAKE THE f@#k UP AMERICA!
Archonis 6 months ago 2
sounds like a cross between Tom Cruise's scientology rants and Barack Obama's election campaign speeches
baroh2413 1 year ago 2
Sounds like Sarah Palin
kliff215 1 year ago
Amazing how certain constituents of a party remember the opposing one's campaign pledges and not their own. The last statement was in reference to George HW Bush........and in conclusion, read my lips......no new taxes". We all know what happened after that. Fair exchange, if you bring up one politician, you need to include all of em'.
O1DJKb 1 year ago 2
Eddy Murphy played a black politician and Obama is one, let's compare the two, that would be fucking clever.
NickNapalm 1 year ago 6
why do people hate obama so much???
TheDinnerTimeBoys 1 year ago
All you Fuckers who hate on Obama Fuck off dumb fucks
buddymorganjr 1 year ago
I guess this is where Obama got his Hope & Change slogan from.
360whiplash 2 years ago 2
Is that Michell Obama at the lower left side?
reveddierivero 2 years ago
He is making coherent sentences without a teleprompter, so it cant be Obama.
Cattlehawk 2 years ago 2
Can someone tell me what movie this is?
zada1992 2 years ago
Its all in the title
elijah5674 2 years ago
i found that out as soon as i finished watching this clip lol..
I thought that it was just the title for this video, because i never seen this film before or heard of it..
but thanks!!!
zada1992 2 years ago
That was bloody hilarious. I damn near fell off the chair when he said "And the issue, is change"
Many thanks for posting this clip yussef18
ratmaaan 3 years ago
Yes we can Eddie Murphy!
Hope from the Messiah Obama!
YalkOne 3 years ago 3
How freakin' prophetic is this?
ROPdude 3 years ago 4
murphy is a caricature of american politcs. however yanks are about to elect a muppet along the same old horseshit eddie's giving out. abd at the end of the day the joke's on the american people!!!!
NONE OF THE ABOVE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
cheapy2006 3 years ago 14
eddie murphy was the original OBAMA
ashamay100 3 years ago 2
Eddied sounds like Sarah Palin with Couric.
sweetjones06 3 years ago
Eddie Murphy as Obama.
rodneykingstrikesbck 3 years ago
A taxpayer voting for Barack Hussein Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders...
jebstersr 3 years ago
Ok hater.
HaloedG 3 years ago
Why do you folks keep sticking his middle name in there, as if having the name Hussein is a bad thing.
bigtruckguy3500 3 years ago 3
Obama has a new haircut?
caoquemordeuhomem 3 years ago 4
Is there any one that can post the hunting scene from this film? That scene is freaking hilarious!!!!!
brav0wing 3 years ago
Sounds like Obama. Says a bunch of fancy things and yells "change change change"
joshjhutton 3 years ago 17
This has been flagged as spam show
@joshjhutton
Amazing how certain constituents of a party remember the opposing one's campaign pledges and not their own. The last statement was in reference to George HW Bush........and in conclusion, read my lips......no new taxes". We all know what happened after that. Fair exchange, if you bring up one politician, you need to include all of em'.
O1DJKb 1 year ago
only to prevent you from transmiting wrong information, the Tudeh Party was accused of plotting against the Shah in 1949 ,which led to its BANNING form Iranian politics. The coup from 1953 had nothing to do with Tudeh but with the National Front of Iran, the prime-minister's party
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
If you want to believe in this madness please do it. Just try to read what i posted. I don't wanna argue with you anymore, this will lead to nowhere. So, if you think the coup was made in order to defend America from Soviet Union, even though Iran wasn't even allied with Reds, fine, no problem. You are absolutely right. USSR and Mosadeq had nothing to do with each other. Economic interests forced the coup and not FREEDOM, this one Iranians lost in 53
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention..." Mohammed Mosaddeq - June 21, 1951, Iranian Parliament.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence. The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provide that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation...
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries... have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
But if you want to believe that an elected parliamentary regime was trying to make a communist revolution go ahead. But try to read this before
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Man, I really don't want keep this conversation, so after that, if you want to write something only to say you had the last word, fine by me. But I suggest you to read something about Mohammed Mosaddeq, and his government plans. He was a secular ruler, a nationalist, not a communist, that intended to nationalize Iranian oil fields. After he announced that America and Great Britain decided to finance (guess what) the Ayatollahs oposition, and eventually a coup d'etat was made.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
I'm glad I'm not the kind of guy that spreads this kind of... left-wing garbage around
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
"The notion that FREEDOM can be established by the FORCE of arms is preposterous" yes man that's my quote. My freedom, and your freedom, and Mr. Bush' freedom were not defended in Iran in 53, Iraq in 1963 or any other war of intervention. As Jim Webb said a few time ago, I believe there are many trotskyists in the White House today, because the notion of forcing a strange regime on foreign nations is the core of the communist ideals.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
They can do it when they live under the rule of an opressive power of some kind (an occupation army, a dictatorship, a tyranny) and when these boys have lost everything they have (their houses, their families, their beloved ones). And here is where America enters, destroying cities, financing secret police forces, and death squads, forcing these already devastating regimes to open their doors to American companies, which will explore their cheap labor force with no mercy
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And lats finish this talk, we clearly don't agree on things and it's not me who is going to convince you of anything, I suppose. But yes, fanatics will always hate America; fanatics will always hate gays; fanatics will always preach against abortion, inter-racial relationships, etc; the point is: when do these fanatics (that go from David Koresh to Osama bin Laden) gain support for their beliefs, how can they convince a boy to blow himself up in a gocery store?
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And by the way, I'm not a left-wing guy, but i'm also not an idealist that thinks actions don't generate consequences. But let me just tell you two things: first, yes you were right about the budget cuts; second, I'm sorry if it took too long for me to answer but I had to face some family problems
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And again, Obama has said that he is against negotiating with hamas, Carter is pro. That's just one example on how things go with the "new democrats"
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Man, the Shah used torture techniques developed by the nazis, killed hundreds, if not thousand. And, guess what, destroyed the secular oposition (liberals, conservatives, communists, you name it) So, how do you think the islamic clerk gained so much power under his rule and became able to deposed his regime? Because of how America and the Shah himself acted
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And you are twisting my words. i never said wars don't work or that they are never in the name of freedom. What I said was INTERVENTION, like the ones in Granada, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba (not 1961, but all the previous interventions under the Platt Emmendment), East Guinea, Iran, Iraq (when America supported the Baat), Philipines and others. Not a single one of these wars helped defending freedom, either in America or any of these countries
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
You cannot compare American Civil War or 1812, or even the Independence War with WWI, for instance, which was caused by the imperialistic tension generated between England and Germany, while pursuing colonies inAfrica, and between Russia and the Turkish Empire in Yugoslavia.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And for last. Bush is not negotiating with North Korea, a country that tortures pretgnant women because he wants to protect America, so desperately, from a country that couldn't even make a decent long range missile like the Iranians, but because he is interested in its economical potential (there are no independent unions, no actual social or labor legislation), just like China under Deng Xiaoping: a dictatorship that can provide enough security to foreign capital
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
I also used facts. I'm sorry I didn't receive your video too. My point is, even with all these cuts, they will send huge sums of money to the military industries and to finance military operations. Clinton sabotaged Iraq for his entire eight years in office (let's not forget the bombings in 98). He did intervened in Serbia, Kosovo and Somalia, where he did use military force
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
So let's see, the military coup that implemented the Shah dictatorship was made in 1953, therefore creating the circumstances for the Revolution, so Eisenhower's involvement LED to the modern day islamic State that we NOW have to deal with.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Example: NAFTA was planned by George H. W. Bush and implemented by the Clinton adimnistration, does that prove that Bush is from the same "democrat wing" than Clinton? Of course not, that simply proves both fight for the same economical agenda.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And the video I was trying to post you can find looking for "Is Ron Paul serious? Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup?" on youtube. Don't even mind about listening to him, the video is just part of a documentary form 1984 about the Iranian Revolution, and how American intervention in the region actually led to Khomeini's victory
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And for last, no I would never support a war against Iran, because that's simply a stupid idea, which began to get shaped during the current administration. The notion that freedom can be established by the force of arms is preposterous, this kind of intervention is always made under finnancial interests and nothing else, and all the time ends up with terrible messes, like (yes) Iraq.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And you mentioned that Carter helped the north koreans to have a nuclear reactor, even though he wasn't preseident anymore. Ok, what's the problem? What I'm saying is exactly that, if Bush can negotiate with the North Koreans (and don't fool yourself thinking that he is only doing this because liberal Jimmy has forced him into it) why can't others do the same? Bush has started negotiations because the country shows the same potential as China: a great place for foreign investiments
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And by the way, I'm only using the term (military industrial complex) as an example, I'm not a Ron Paul fanatic and not even a Conspiracy theorist.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
they agreed on basically everything except who should be the candidate (in Bill's case Hillary). Everyone from Obama's staff comes form the clinton administration, with all its foreign interventions (Somalia, Serbia, Kosovo and even Mexico, in 1994, when Clinton financed the military aparatus in order to suffocate the Chiapas uprising). So, even with all the budget cuts, Clinton served well to the military industrial complex
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Hey, I'm back. You said that Obama and Clinton are not from the same party wing, I disagree, they come from the so called "new" Democrats, that try to deny men like Jimmy Carter for instance (these democrats are quite similar to the neoconservatives). They defend free-market economy, even if this has to be embraced with some protectionist and social programs, they carry the banner of spreading democracy by force or diplomacy
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
U.S. always had a polcy of supporting Bahat in the 70's (actually since the 50's, when the bahatists supported a coup against Karim Qassim), so you cannot use the support towards Iraq as an element that made them release the hostages, why? Because the American policy was always like that! Untill at least 2003, of course
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
"Blocking of domestic oil drilling"? If you remember McCain was against that too, untill the polls started showing that people wanted that, so he started saying that he wants that too.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
"Negotiate with our enemy"? I thought Bush was the one doing this by negotiating with North Korea. "Breaking our defense"? Neither Clinton nor obama ever promised or did this (in the Senate Obama didn't even had the guts to vote "no" to fund the war).
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
I'm not talking in military terms, but humanitarian ones. Why should we think only about Israel and U.S. and forget, for instance, the millions of Iranians that have been suffering for decades in the hands of two dictatorships?
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
I'm talking Clinton because Obama is part of his wing in the Democratic party and not Carter's. He never said anything about amnesty (just as Hillary - probably because he is not going to do one, but cannot afford to loose the latino vote)
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
As i said, this is the media explanation. Reagan wasn't some God that scared fanatics just by saying he wouldn't negotiate. Carter knew how to play with the moderate wing of the Revolution, which was very concerned about what the radical students had done by invading the embassy. And its very wrong to say that the Shah wasn't a "problem" for America. The Shah was a problem for the human race. He was ahead of a corrupt government, created by a coup d'etat against Iranian Parliament
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
I'm sorry in "Second" I meant Khomeini wasn't that scared of Reagan. And in "first" there were no parties
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Third: Clinton has never been a carter type of democrat, neither Obama. Both accept free-market economy policies (NAFTA), both are against any support to negotiations between Hamas and Israel (supported by the majority of Israeli population), both supported sanctions against Iraq in the 90's. So, where is the Carter agenda besides in McCain and bush's speechs?
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Second. The Sha wasn't that scared of Reagan in the first place (let's not forget what Iran-Contra was all about: selling weapons to Khomeini in order to finance drug-dealers in Nicaragua). If it wasn't for Carter's policy of negotiation, believe me, those men and women would have never seen the light of day again.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
What you are doing is simply accept the media explanation about it. First of all: the Sha was the head of a dictatorship that even used nazi techniques of torture. The only thing it did was to create the circumstances for its own defeat (no right to vote, no partu, no elections and persecution to both secular and religious oposition).
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
And by "his people" I mean Obama's staff
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
"nobody has ran it (change) into the ground like him" that's wrong. Remember Reagan in 1980 as you said, Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976, Clinton 1992, and Bush in 2000
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
It seems you didn't like for me to call you Dude, that's fine for me. But don't fool yourself based on what some republican strategists created ("Jimmy Carter agenda") his people are the same guys that supported Clinton, who was far from beign like Carter, a man who defended the welfare state, was able to negotiate peace between Egypt and Israel and was able to release the hostages in Iran (in Reagan's inauguration day)
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Dude, you can watch "The War Room" where they show Clinton' slogan was Change, at least in the primaries ("Mr. Chairman, Ohio wants Change, America wants Change, therefore we are gonna cast our votes in Bill Clinton" - in 92 convention). And what "agenda" is he hiding? He is not a communist, nor a muslim. I'm not saying I support him but I'm far from being scared of him
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
Barack is a fraud. Obama's campaign slogan "Yes we Can" was stolen from the Iran president when he was elected the last time.
hellnobama . com
wookieroar 3 years ago
It's still kind of funny, albeit Murphy was on the downslide of his career then. However, other than him being black and using the word "change", I see nothing identical with Barack.
MPA2000 3 years ago
LOL when did eddy murphy do a movie about barack obama?!
greatgallon 3 years ago
People have been joking that this "looks a lot with Obama speechs", but I think that's just because it's a black comedian and not a white one. That's because, back then people already knew EVERY politician talks about change, Reagan did, Clinton did, Bush did, and all the present candidates are doing, not just Obama. But if it was Bill Murray in the movie noone would compare with him if it was Bill Murray in the part.
vulcanicoliose 3 years ago
this is one of the funniest clips from a film ever
slavedondope 3 years ago
Obama told me I shuld get more cake if I voted for him. Anyone know whether this is true?
elbuggo 4 years ago
UMMMM... more PLAGIARISM??
Parspatou 4 years ago
Now we know what Barak not-that-Hussein Obama's favorite movie is...
Archonis 4 years ago 2
Dear God, that was so close to what Obama sounds like it's scary!
Yakko77 4 years ago 5
You mean Obama won't give me a million if he promises it to me ?
SixDayWar67 4 years ago 2
You mean if Obama promises me a new Porsche and free this or that I should,nt believe him.
I always beleive it when politicians promise me things !
SixDayWar67 4 years ago 2