The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[The Senator]

I realize that. What Jman doesnt understand is Obama is NOT smearing, thats what he said he was above. He's above "silly season". He's going to go critical on her record, which is not smearing at all. SMEARING is Bush's **** like McCains adopted child is hsi illegitmate black one or Hillarys people saying Barack is a muslim who wants to take over the counry.

Saying she doesnt have expirience she claims to have is far from smearing. Hillarys done it all along and nobodys bothered by it.

I'm not going to get into the politics of smearing or attacking with you. Point is-- he's failing to prove that he's holier-than-thou by knocking himself to Hillary's level. If you think he's so clean, so amazing, so above the fray, then you're completely blind to the political system in this country.

Hillary never said Barack was a Muslim, either. Everyone assumes that just because he wore Muslim garb on a trip to Kenya, or because his middle name is Hussein, that people are implying he's a Muslim extremist every time both of those issues are brought up. That's what's so silly about this campaign. Non-issues over take the real issues, and when the real issues are brought back up, both sides resort to the non-issues to sway voters. Only thing is, those non-issues don't seem to work...

[Lightning Strykez!]

she stoops to conquer..great read lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beth-broderick/she-stoops-to-conquer_b_90122.html



^ Yeah I saw that earlier. :p

Anyway, I'm off to bed...it's been unreal. Jman, I will deal with your post tommorrow.

Goodnight Hip-Hip and Excel.

[Excel]

You're right-- presidential candidates are responsible for their staff. And she's shown how responsible she is by firing everyone who spread around those emails, questioned his drug use, or leaked [public] photos of him dressed in Muslim garb.

She was real responsible when she had them hired, too :whatever:

Thats what Hillary doesnt. It is not about FIXING mistakes. Its about NOT MAKING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Like supporting nafta, voting to go to war, or in this case, hiring retards to work for her, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Excel]

I'm not going to get into the politics of smearing or attacking with you. Point is-- he's failing to prove that he's holier-than-thou by knocking himself to Hillary's level. If you think he's so clean, so amazing, so above the fray, then you're completely blind to the political system in this country.

He's not knocking himself to Hillarys level because he wont smear and she has.

Hillary never said Barack was a Muslim, either. Everyone assumes that just because he wore Muslim garb on a trip to Kenya, or because his middle name is Hussein, that people are implying he's a Muslim extremist every time both of those issues are brought up. That's what's so silly about this campaign. Non-issues over take the real issues, and when the real issues are brought back up, both sides resort to the non-issues to sway voters. Only thing is, those non-issues don't seem to work.]

Her own people leaked that photo and coincidentally, the only time he went somewhat negative and released the whole "she does anything to get elected" ad was right before and after FEB 5-right when he pulled ahead...

[The Senator]

She was real responsible when she had them hired, too :whatever:

Thats what Hillary doesnt. It is not about FIXING mistakes. Its about NOT MAKING THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.


How is her campaign going to know in advance what people may say or do? Do you know how people get hired in politics? It's like any other job in the world: They submit a resume, complete with personal references, letters of recommendation, etc. You can't tell that someone is going to send around emails which hint that Obama is a Muslim drug-dealing terrorist from the interview process. You have to get into their head-- and even then you won't be able to tell what that person might say or do.

That's like saying... God, I can't even come up with an example because your post was so trite.

[The Senator]

He's not knocking himself to Hillarys level because he wont smear and she has.

He has smeared, he has attacked, and he will continue doing so until he can get the advantage he's looking for. He's going to do himself in because of it.

You don't think implying that Hillary is going to spend her Presidency at war with other nations is a smear? You don't think implying that she's beneath him because she accepts money from lobbyists is a smear? Really.... :whatever:

[Excel]

How is her campaign going to know in advance what people may say or do? Do you know how people get hired in politics? It's like any other job in the world: They submit a resume, complete with personal references, letters of recommendation, etc. You can't tell that someone is going to send around emails which hint that Obama is a Muslim drug-dealing terrorist from the interview process. You have to get into their head-- and even then you won't be able to tell what that person might say or do.

That's like saying... God, I can't even come up with an example because your post was so trite.

You misunderstood. All reports have Hillary hiring based on loyalty and personality. So the kind of people she likes to hire are the kind who send emails out of the candidate in turban and try to play it off like hes a terrorist.

[Excel]

He has smeared, he has attacked, and he will continue doing so until he can get the advantage he's looking for. He's going to do himself in because of it.

You don't think implying that Hillary is going to spend her Presidency at war with other nations is a smear? You don't think implying that she's beneath him because she accepts money from lobbyists is a smear? Really.... :whatever:

Nope. Smears are personal. Saying she accepts money from lobbysts defiently isnt because 1)its true and 2)its about politics.

[The Senator]

You misunderstood. All reports have Hillary hiring based on loyalty and personality. So the kind of people she likes to hire are the kind who send emails out of the candidate in turban and try to play it off like hes a terrorist.

A Lesson in How Campaigns Hire Staff

1) Candidates hire senior staff based on loyalty. That makes sense-- you don't want John McCain's former LA working as your regional adviser.

2) All lower staff-- volunteered or paid-- are hired based on experience, loyalty and personality. I volunteered for Clinton last fall because I volunteered for her Senate campaign and knew how her campaigns function, in addition to my familiarity with her politics in New York. Last fall, when it wasn't exactly crunch time, the senior staff actually rejected field volunteers (which have different responsibilities than just handing out signs and whatnot) who didn't have adequate experience or didn't know who the Senator was.

3) The people in charge of hiring staff don't run their choices by the candidate, which makes sense since she has hundreds of thousands of people working for her in her various operations. Obama is the same way...

4) Personality has many definitions. In a campaign environment, you want someone who is focused on how to win, in addition to someone who has a lust for politics which coincides with a nice, attractive personal demeanor.

5) No one asks "do you think Obama is a terrorist" or "in six months, do you see yourself sending an email which features a photo of Obama in Muslim garb to the Drudge Report?"

Campaigns aren't perfect; they're like any other work environment.

[The Senator]

Nope. Smears are personal. Saying she accepts money from lobbysts defiently isnt because 1)its true and 2)its about politics.

Obama's campaign is chaired by lobbyists across the board. Former Senator Tom Daschle works for one of the largest lobbyist firms in the country. His New Hampshire campaign was chaired by a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical industry. And I believe his campaign in one of the smaller caucus states was chaired by an agribusiness lobbyist. Quite frankly, the fact that lobbyists chair his campaign should be seen as far worse a trait, considering the chairs have direct influence in how his campaign is run.

So yes, he's smearing Clinton because he's presenting a truth about Clinton while hinting that he's better than her in that area, even though that isn't the case.

[Excel]

And hes run a much better campaign than she has so its pretty obvious that he hired those guys because he thought they'd help him win.

[The Senator]

And hes run a much better campaign than she has so its pretty obvious that he hired those guys because he thought they'd help him win.

You're working in backwards logic, like always.

If Clinton had lobbyists chairing her campaign, why, that would be a travesty.

But Obama does it... then it's fine, because he's got a "better campaign."

:sigh:

[Excel]

Oh poor poor Hillary it the world against her shes just a woman trying to get ahead in life :csad: :csad: :whatever:

That isnt what I said, stop taking it out of context. It all depends on why they are there. He hasnt taken money fromthem and she has and thats the issue.

it isnt hard to understand :huh: :huh:

[The Senator]

Oh poor poor Hillary it the world against her shes just a woman trying to get ahead in life :csad: :csad: :whatever:

That's certainly not what I said, nor is that how I feel. But once again, you're acting like a child, and not saying anything of substance to prove yourself intellectually capable of carrying this debate any further.

That isnt what I said, stop taking it out of context. It all depends on why they are there. He hasnt taken money fromthem and she has and thats the issue.

No, actually, the issue was that Clinton's campaign was funded and controlled by special interests, because they donated money to her campaign. But I dare ask you... who has more influence: A lobbyist who donates money to a campaign, or a lobbyist who controls which policy agendas you're going to advance on a state or national level?

That's what's so hypocritical about it.

[redfirebird2008]

She has earned every bit of recognition, respect, and admiration that she gets. It's not her problem that The Clinton's are so prominent in the Democratic party...it's Obama's problem.

She's earned what? Her name has nothing to do with her own accomplishments. It only represents the fact that she is married to a former POTUS. That brand name goes down considerably if she drops it to Rodham. :cwink:

[hippie_hunter]

She's earned what? Her name has nothing to do with her own accomplishments. It only represents the fact that she is married to a former POTUS. That brand name goes down considerably if she drops it to Rodham. :cwink:

I'd agree, the only reason why she even has a political career is because she used to bone the leader of the free world and still keeps his last name.

[sinewave]

That made me laugh.

I find it funny how Obama supporters outside of these forums don't really trample all over Clinton supporters for not supporting him. I mean, I'm dating an Obama supporter, and never has their been a single moment where we've despised each other for supporting the "other" candidate. Most of my friends are Obama supporters too, and they don't seem to care that I support Clinton, nor do they act hostile towards me because I feel she should win by any means necessary.

Then again, all of us are in politics in some way, shape or form, so perhaps we don't act that way because we have ample knowledge on how the American political system tends to work? Hmmm.

ummm, you seem to be the one on the attack here. i can't speak for other obama supporters, but i'd be fine with either candidate winning the nomination. however, i prefer obama over clinton. i don't think pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of either candidates is considered "tampling" all over them. since this thread first opened i've seen you get very, very defensive any time someone has mentioned something they don't like about clinton. maybe you shouldn't take this campaign so personally.

No, actually, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama's campaign and the level of hypocrisy on behalf of his supporters.

See, in their eyes, it's a travesty and an embarrassment when Clinton attacks Obama.

But when Obama attacks Clinton, that's all fine and dandy.

I thought Obama was above these tactics? I mean, hasn't that been the counter-argument raised almost every time Clinton's attacks were brought up? "Obama doesn't have to attack Clinton to look strong" or "Obama is better than Clinton because he's not resorting to her negative attacks." Then, when he does it, the argument is "Clinton did it first!" or "the gloves are off!"

Seriously, you guys who can't seem to understand that he's not above the same political culture as every other politician astound me. Even when he does the exact same thing Clinton has done throughout her campaign, you brush it off as if "well, now's his time to do to her exactly what she did to him!" Shouldn't he continue to run a positive campaign? This can't help him in the eyes of independent voters, especially those in states like PA or NC where he had been doing so well because he didn't represent the negativity Hillary seemed to embody. It's baffling.

in a contest to decide the party's nominee, i'd rather not see it get ugly, since you know the republicans are just going to use those same attacks later on in the general election. why give them more ammunition? i didn't like it when obama attributed that NAFTA quote to clinton and definitely don't like it when clinton's campaign releases photos of him in traditional kenyan garb in an attempt to convince voters he's some closeted jihadist. my question to you would be, why do you tolerate negativity from clinton's campaign but bristle at even the tamest challenge to clinton's character or voting record from the obama camp?


The fact is, Obama was doing good because he didn't have to resort to smear tactics. Hillary's ads were really smear-by-proxy. They hinted at a level of inexperience on Obama's behalf, but they didn't outright mention him. Obama is planning on making Hillary's tax records a major issue. He will attack her directly and go for her jugular in the process. That is a direct attack, and that will really crush the image of him being a positive, uplifting candidate.

Obama can win a majority of the delegates and actually pull off the minimum number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination if he wins the remainder of the contests with 55% of the vote. That's a fact (I used CNN's now-missing delegate calculator). But if he loses, or gets less than that number, he may have more delegates than Clinton... but he won't have that crucial 2025. Going after Clinton is going to hamper his campaign's positive image, and will hurt his chances of reaching the magic 2025.

making fun of obama and his supporters and hinting at them being naive for having hope or wanting things to be better off in this country isn't going personal?

she didn't just hint at his inexperience, she made it a clear message and in doing so opened herself up to the same scrutiny for him camp and the media, and rightly so. why do you hold such a double-standard for clinton?

I've admitted that this is an election. And what happens in elections? People attack each other. Never has there been an election, primary or general, where a candidate hasn't attacked another candidate to try to gain an edge. So when she started doing it, it wasn't out of the fray. It was perfectly normal. Considering she aligned with me ideologically, I didn't mind.

What I mind is when people try to paint a candidate as being above politics. Someone who represents "change" shouldn't resort to the same, dated tactics every candidate has resorted to for the past two hundred and eight years. He's not some sort of mystical savior, he's not a perfect Messiah... he's a politician who acts politically so he can win.

So yes, it is a strike against him, because he's doing everything his supporters and his own campaign says he's above. He's proved that he's like every other politician seeking the presidency, only with less experience and sharper speaking abilities.

so as long as someone aligns with your political ideology it's ok for them to get as down and dirty as they want? that's pretty hypocritical.

obama hasn't really slung any serious mud. he's questioned her on a number of issues, which is to be expected, but he's never made fun of her supporters or claimed that the states she won primaries in don't really matter. that resonates with voters.

Then he should continue to take the high road, otherwise voters are going to be unable to see the differences between both campaigns-- especially if there's a cloud of negativity hovering around both candidates' heads.

Besides, shouldn't he continue to stay positive? Look at this way: Doesn't attacking Clinton allow her to lay low and act as the "victim" in this situation? If he constantly attacks her over her taxes, or her vote for Iraq, or her stances on other issues such as NAFTA... don't you think voters are going to become more and more disgruntled? What if Hillary lays low? What if she doesn't attack back, or doesn't attack as caustically as she has in the past?

This will tarnish Obama's image and benefit Clinton, if not because the lines will blur between both campaigns, but because she can act as being victimized while he's standing at the podium spouting attack after attack.



Obviously for his campaign, attacking her on the issues isn't good enough. Now he has to attack her personally.

But he's still a better person :whatever:



Wrong again. She never attacked him directly on that or made it an issue. Associates from within her campaign did it, and they were promptly fired for it.

historically, the underdog has usually gone on the attack to try to turn their campaign around. whether you choose to believe it or not, hillary is the underdog due to her pledged delegate count. i don't see obama sinking to her level anytime soon, if at all. he knows people respond to the high road-approach more than the mudslinging, so i think he'll continue to challenge her on things without letting it get dirty.

I have not encountered anything hostile outside these forums with regard to politics. I'm not exactly sure what the dynamic is in here or what's going on, but everyone OUTSIDE these forums couldn't be happier that there are two equally strong candidates and would be happy with either winning the nomination.

agreed. all this he-said-she-said bickering isn't doing the party any favors. we should be thrilled that we've got two great candidates that match up very well against the republicans and leave it at that. hopefully it will be over soon...

1. He lied to the voters about NAFTA and it cost him the Ohio election and will cost him the primaries in all the other Rust Belt states. He said he'd try to reform NAFTA or pull out but told the Canadian government it was just political posturing to get votes. He lied about his advisor meeting the Canadian government. And the advisor did not act on his own accord because if he did, he would have been fired.

2. He mistates Clinton's positions on NAFTA, he tried to make her look like a total NAFTA supporter despite her retoric and biographers saying that behind closed doors was leery of NAFTA.

He mistates McCain's quotes on Iraq by telling his supporters that McCain will keep fighting there for 100 years even though that is not at all what McCain meant.

He lies about the resolution in Congress that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist sponsoring group as a step towards war with Iran even though it did not have anything to do with going to war with Iran, it was declaring a part of the Iranian government a terrorist group for guess what? Supporting terrorism in Iraq.

3. He criticises Hillary Clinton's vote on the war, yet he votes to keep fully funding it so it can go on. He wasn't in the Senate when they voted to authorise the use of force against Iraq, he wasn't privy to all the information had access to or the political pressure that she and many other Democrats went through during the vote. He criticises Clinton's vote on the resolution that declared the Revoultionary Guard a terrorist group but he didn't even bother voting on it.

4. He's made attack ads before such as the one that said that Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Granted that it is true.

5. It was nothing but mudslinging during the South Carolina primary and Nevada caucuses between Obama and Clinton.

6. He acts as if he's a fresh outsider who can fix Washington and bring such drastic change, yet he's a part of the damn system by being a Senator who works in Washington and acts like the same-old, same-old politicians that we see everywhere else. He lies. He has lobbyists. He has ties to crooked people. He mudslings. He attacks. And he's done nothing drastic in his Senate career, especially since he hasn't spent a full term yet and he's spent half of that running for damn President.

7. He criticises lobbyists yet he has them running his damn campaign.

So yeah, that's what I mean since you want an explainatino. And that's why I can't stand Obama. He puts himself on this non-existent high pedestal.

didn't the canadian government clarify that they sought him out and not the other way around, in regards to that NAFTA issue? i'm not sure why this is a big deal. it seems like their conservative leaders leaked this story to try and influence the election process, but i could be reading too much into it.

that maccain thing is nothing more than a sound bite. i think people realize what both sides meant when they made their points about that statement. i have seen some pundits mischaracterize it as actually fighting this war for 100 years, which is obviously not what mccain meant, but at the same time, it was a stupid thing for him to say and very premature because even if he meant just establishing a permanent base there to support the iraqis as our allies, nobody want to hear the words "iraq" "stay" and "100 years" in the same sentence.

as far as voting to get us our of iraq, there's no possible way that would have passed and it would just reflect badly on the dems as a whole if the republicans played the "they don't support our troops" card if we failed to fund them over there.


She did focus on the issues this time around. She questioned Obama's foreign policy experience. She questioned his ability to lead. Both of which are becoming more and more critical now that we're involved in that fiasco in Iraq and under the questionable leadership of George W. Bush. On top of that, we're still under terrorist threats, we still face enemies abroad... who do you want confronting these threats? Someone who has proven she's a hawk on foreign policy issues, or someone who has vowed to discuss critical issues over tea and crumpets with slimeballs who have threatened to wipe entire countries off the map? That played well with voters, and wasn't a direct attack on his personal life, unlike these claims about her financial record.

You're right-- presidential candidates are responsible for their staff. And she's shown how responsible she is by firing everyone who spread around those emails, questioned his drug use, or leaked [public] photos of him dressed in Muslim garb. She took responsibility for her campaign's actions by removing one of her biggest fundraisers and surrogates off her New Hampshire campaign. She's disassociated herself from a few of her extreme supporters who have made his race an issue. So she's acting responsibly, even though in some of these cases she shouldn't have to.

But to expand upon this further:

Say I worked for a United States Senator-- Senator X--who I never see, but he's actively campaigning against a bill proposed by Senator Y. Then one day, I sent an email to a co-worker stating "I think Senator Y is a terrorist!" Word gets out that someone in Senator X's office thinks Senator Y is a terrorist. Is it wrong for the public to connect Senator X to my comments made about Senator Y? No. But is Senator X responsible for my comments because they were made in his office? No. I am responsible for them. If Senator X fires me, he made the right move, by disassociating himself from that attack which he obviously doesn't believe is true. Same thing in Clinton's campaign-- everyone is responsible for their own actions. It is up to the candidate to decide which actions are acceptable or not, and act accordingly. She acted the way she felt was best, and made a good decision to fire those people, thereby proving she didn't think those things and that she didn't want to make it an issue.

so it's called "questioning his experience" when she does it but it's a "direct personal attack" when he does it? how's that work?

she stoops to conquer..great read lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beth-broderick/she-stoops-to-conquer_b_90122.html

who knew the hot aunt from sabrina the teenaged witch could talk politics?

He has smeared, he has attacked, and he will continue doing so until he can get the advantage he's looking for. He's going to do himself in because of it.

You don't think implying that Hillary is going to spend her Presidency at war with other nations is a smear? You don't think implying that she's beneath him because she accepts money from lobbyists is a smear? Really.... :whatever:

would implying that he's not ready to lead this country "on day 1" or that he's severly underexperienced compared to her qualify as being "smeared and attacked", too? you can't have it both ways, dude.

Obama's campaign is chaired by lobbyists across the board. Former Senator Tom Daschle works for one of the largest lobbyist firms in the country. His New Hampshire campaign was chaired by a lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical industry. And I believe his campaign in one of the smaller caucus states was chaired by an agribusiness lobbyist. Quite frankly, the fact that lobbyists chair his campaign should be seen as far worse a trait, considering the chairs have direct influence in how his campaign is run.

So yes, he's smearing Clinton because he's presenting a truth about Clinton while hinting that he's better than her in that area, even though that isn't the case.

You're working in backwards logic, like always.

If Clinton had lobbyists chairing her campaign, why, that would be a travesty.

But Obama does it... then it's fine, because he's got a "better campaign."

:sigh:

what's worse, using lobbyists (many of whom are former politicians) as political strategists in a campaign or having a history of taking a higher amount of money from lobbyists than almost any other democrat over her senatorial career?

i typed all this out in a hurry so i apologize for any typo's or mistakes i might have made.

[Varient]

It's a sad statement that spelling and word placement can be used as an excuse to discount intelligent thought or opinion.

V.

[jaguarr]

she stoops to conquer..great read lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/beth-broderick/she-stoops-to-conquer_b_90122.html

Damn, that was a great article. The other one that Huffington Post put up by Evan Handler was really good, too. I'm becoming impressed not only by that site but by the caliber of the people they are choosing to write for them; people that you never really stopped to think had such interesting insight and an ability to express it so well.

jag

[jaguarr]

It's a sad statement that spelling and word placement can be used as an excuse to discount intelligent thought or opinion.

V.

Well I'M not gonna read all that jibba-jabba that sinewave scrawled out on his keyboard if he didn't spell everything correctly! :p

jag

[hippie_hunter]

didn't the canadian government clarify that they sought him out and not the other way around, in regards to that NAFTA issue? i'm not sure why this is a big deal. it seems like their conservative leaders leaked this story to try and influence the election process, but i could be reading too much into it.
I don't think they've mentioned Obama seeking them out or the Canadian government seeking him out. All that was really said was that they've met and his economic adivsor said it was just political posturing, nothing of real substance. Obama denied it and it turned out it was true.

As I said before, the advisor did not act on his own accord and say that because if he did, he would have been fired.

Obama is royally f'ed in the a now in the Rust Belt states IMO because of that.

that maccain thing is nothing more than a sound bite. i think people realize what both sides meant when they made their points about that statement. i have seen some pundits mischaracterize it as actually fighting this war for 100 years, which is obviously not what mccain meant, but at the same time, it was a stupid thing for him to say and very premature because even if he meant just establishing a permanent base there to support the iraqis as our allies, nobody want to hear the words "iraq" "stay" and "100 years" in the same sentence.
I completely agree with you there. If there's one problem with McCain's campaign it's his rather poor choice of words in multiple circumstances. But have you watch Obama's speeches where he tells his audiences that McCain wants to keep on going for 100 years. He completely misstates his opponent to rile his supporters up.

as far as voting to get us our of iraq, there's no possible way that would have passed and it would just reflect badly on the dems as a whole if the republicans played the "they don't support our troops" card if we failed to fund them over there.
Funding the body armor and other supplies needed for the troops while not funding combat operations could give the Democrats some moral support, especially since the Iraq War is still unpopular even though people have been seeing things improving.

[redfirebird2008]

Hippie, stop propagating BS about the NAFTA thing. Goolsbee and Obama have both said that the memo, your supposed proof, incorrectly portrayed Goolsbee's comments on the matter. But of course I guess we should just believe the memo. LOL.

[hippie_hunter]

Like I'm going to take the Obama camp's own word on that. Sorry that your precious candidate was caught in a lie like all the rest of them, and trying to pander to get votes :rolleyes:

[kal-el2006]

Clinton lied about Nafta?

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/clintons_role_in_naftagate.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0562494220080306

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/?cid=al_gam_mostdiscuss

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/did-clinton-win-ohio-on-a_b_90254.html

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie [Harper's chief of staff] was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

Since 75 percent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from [Hillary] Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

The damage to Obama came when more details emerged about a specific meeting; a lot of reporters are chasing that detail in Hillaryland today.

story is heating up..who knows what will happen later on today

[sinewave]

I don't think they've mentioned Obama seeking them out or the Canadian government seeking him out. All that was really said was that they've met and his economic adivsor said it was just political posturing, nothing of real substance. Obama denied it and it turned out it was true.

As I said before, the advisor did not act on his own accord and say that because if he did, he would have been fired.

Obama is royally f'ed in the a now in the Rust Belt states IMO because of that.

his advisor never said that, though. here's a link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/obama.nafta.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch) to the article and an excerpt:

The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who works for the consulate and attended the meeting.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said.

"He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Goolsbee disputed the characterization from the conservative government official.

"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," he said.

i really don't see how this is an issue. if this is the worst they can do to smear him, i like his odds in the general election.

I completely agree with you there. If there's one problem with McCain's campaign it's his rather poor choice of words in multiple circumstances. But have you watch Obama's speeches where he tells his audiences that McCain wants to keep on going for 100 years. He completely misstates his opponent to rile his supporters up.

i've seen obama mention it in a few speeches and all i recall him saying was something like "senator mccain says we should stay in iraq for 100 years". he doesn't outright say we'll be embroiled in a bloody war for 100 years, just that we'll be there. there may be some implication behind it, but i haven't seen him misquote mccain on it, yet.

Funding the body armor and other supplies needed for the troops while not funding combat operations could give the Democrats some moral support, especially since the Iraq War is still unpopular even though people have been seeing things improving.

i agree, but how do you divide that money so it only goes towards the important stuff without funding more combat operations? i thought you either gave them the money and let them sort it out or you didn't? no matter what the dems proposed, though, they don't have the numbers to overrule a fillibuster or bush's veto.

[Excel]

Exactly. We're at war, and until Obamas president there is nothing he can do that he hasnt already done. It would be very stupid to deprive troops of equipment, which is where all the funding goes.

[Marx]

Hippie, stop propagating BS about the NAFTA thing. Goolsbee and Obama have both said that the memo, your supposed proof, incorrectly portrayed Goolsbee's comments on the matter. But of course I guess we should just believe the memo. LOL.

Like I'm going to take the Obama camp's own word on that. Sorry that your precious candidate was caught in a lie like all the rest of them, and trying to pander to get votes :rolleyes:

I do have to agree with Hippie on this one Redbird. No one is going to believe Obama or Goolsbee. Why should they? Of course the two of them are going to say it's all a lie. I think your support for Obama might be clouding your perspective on this. The honeymoon with Obama appears to be ending. And in all honesty, I'm glad. It's about time that people really started to look past all the rockstar rallies, speeches, and rhetoric, and look beneath the surface. Hillary and McCain have both been "raked over the coals" throughtout their respective careers. It's time Obama was scrutinized a little bit too.

[Matt]

If the Democrats cut off funding, Bush would still have tons of money to keep the troops fed, clothed, and sheltered as well as provide them armor and the neccessary protections. The fact is, Mr.Anti-War Poster Boy Obama didn't have the balls to vote to end it. Try to justify it however you'd like. Just like with NAFTA, he says one thing, and does another.

[Excel]

The fact is, Mr.Anti-War Poster Boy Obama didn't have the balls to vote to end it. Try to justify it however you'd like. Just like with NAFTA, he says one thing, and does another.

Does another?

Matt he spoken out against it on many occasions and that, unlike his vote, actually can influene a lot of people. He says he doesnt like the war, and does specches to get mass groups to agree with him. He couldnt do anything else effective.

[redfirebird2008]

If the Democrats cut off funding, Bush would still have tons of money to keep the troops fed, clothed, and sheltered as well as provide them armor and the neccessary protections. The fact is, Mr.Anti-War Poster Boy Obama didn't have the balls to vote to end it. Try to justify it however you'd like. Just like with NAFTA, he says one thing, and does another.

He supports the troops, not the war.

[sinewave]

If the Democrats cut off funding, Bush would still have tons of money to keep the troops fed, clothed, and sheltered as well as provide them armor and the neccessary protections. The fact is, Mr.Anti-War Poster Boy Obama didn't have the balls to vote to end it. Try to justify it however you'd like. Just like with NAFTA, he says one thing, and does another.

and clinton supporters complain about people attacking her? why the vehemence towards him? i honestly don't get it. did hillary vote to cut off funding for the war? can you prove goolsbee said those things to the canadian officials about NAFTA?

[Marx]

and clinton supporters complain about people attacking her? why the vehemence towards him? i honestly don't get it. did hillary vote to cut off funding for the war? can you prove goolsbee said those things to the canadian officials about NAFTA?

The truth is Sinewave that Obama has placed himself ridiculously high up on a pedestal and cliams to be above all the negative, name calling, smear tactics, say-one-thing-do-another politics...but he really isn't all that different. He has flaws and skeletons just like everyone else. But he pushes off this image of being "holier than thou."

And don't jump me saying that I'm just another Obama-hater because I'm not. Far from it. I actually have alot of respect for him. I just think he has put himself too high up on his own pedestal for his own good. It's going to be his undoing if he isn't careful. The honeymoon with him seems to be ending.

[hippie_hunter]

and clinton supporters complain about people attacking her? why the vehemence towards him?
Because he really says nothing, he acts like a normal politician yet he places himself on this non-existant high pedestal, and people are swooning over him falling for his words.

did hillary vote to cut off funding for the war?
No, but Obama is trying to create this image that he's fought so hard against the Iraq War when he essentially did nothing.

can you prove goolsbee said those things to the canadian officials about NAFTA?
Ummmm....the memo that created NAFTAGate :dry:

[Memphis Slim]

http://www.eveningtalk.com/2008/03/03/snl-tv-funhouse-the-obama-files-cartoon/


Please tell me someone saw this!! This is the funniest political satire I've seen in a long time!!:woot: :woot: :woot: :ikyn :funny:

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.eveningtalk.com/2008/03/03/snl-tv-funhouse-the-obama-files-cartoon/


Please tell me someone saw this!! This is the funniest political satire I've seen in a long time!!:woot: :woot: :woot: :ikyn :funny:

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. That's actually one of the least funny political satires I've seen. The debate thing was funny, this isn't.

[Memphis Slim]

Please tell me you're being sarcastic. That's actually one of the least funny political satires I've seen. The debate thing was funny, this isn't.


Man this is hilarious! :woot:

[sinewave]

The truth is Sinewave that Obama has placed himself ridiculously high up on a pedestal and cliams to be above all the negative, name calling, smear tactics, say-one-thing-do-another politics...but he really isn't all that different. He has flaws and skeletons just like everyone else. But he pushes off this image of being "holier than thou."

And don't jump me saying that I'm just another Obama-hater because I'm not. Far from it. I actually have alot of respect for him. I just think he has put himself too high up on his own pedestal for his own good. It's going to be his undoing if he isn't careful. The honeymoon with him seems to be ending.

people keep insisting that he's put himself on a pedestal, it's like a rally cry or something. has he ever come out and said, "i'm better than all the other politicians." or, "i'm above this petty smearing."? not that i recall. he tries to lead by example, and he's been pretty successful at it so far. he hasn't really gone off on any tangents like clinton's "shame on your barak" tirade. he's maintained an easy-going, level-headed attitude this whole campaign. that's good enough for me. i'm sure he's got a few skeletons in his closet, but he's either exposed them already (drug use, rezko) or hid them so well that nobody has been able to find them. i'll take that over clinton's reputation as a conniving, corrupt, career politician any day of the week. please don't take this as me bashing clinton. i like her just fine, but she does have that kind of reputation and there may be some truth to it.

[Marx]

people keep insisting that he's put himself on a pedestal, it's like a rally cry or something. has he ever come out and said, "i'm better than all the other politicians." or, "i'm above this petty smearing."? not that i recall. he tries to lead by example, and he's been pretty successful at it so far. he hasn't really gone off on any tangents like clinton's "shame on your barak" tirade. he's maintained an easy-going, level-headed attitude this whole campaign. that's good enough for me. i'm sure he's got a few skeletons in his closet, but he's either exposed them already (drug use, rezko) or hid them so well that nobody has been able to find them. i'll take that over clinton's reputation as a conniving, corrupt, career politician any day of the week. please don't take this as me bashing clinton. i like her just fine, but she does have that kind of reputation and there may be some truth to it.

I'm not talking it that way at all Sine. I'm just saying that he portrays a level of arrogance by the catch 22 position he has put himself into. Like I said, I honestly do have a tremendous amount of respect for him, but that theme he has will be his undoing if he isn't careful.

[sinewave]

Because he really says nothing, he acts like a normal politician yet he places himself on this non-existant high pedestal, and people are swooning over him falling for his words.

can we put an end to this "he put himself on a pedestal" buzz-term that's floating around now, please? he hasn't done any such thing. he's tried to stay above the negativity that plagues politics, but at the same time, he's not going to just lay there and take it when someone attacks him. maybe people are "swooning over him" and "falling for his words" because he's intelligent enough to be able to relate to people and address their needs. is it his fault he's a brilliant speaker with a ton of charisma? is that a fault now?

No, but Obama is trying to create this image that he's fought so hard against the Iraq War when he essentially did nothing.

i don't know about creating an image, but he's been against the war from the beginning and i believe him when he says that. maybe i'm naive, i don't know. the reality of ending the war immediately or just cutting off funding is an extremely complex issue. with the surge partially working and the chance to take over the white house this year, i don't think the dems wanted to chance cutting off funding for the war and have it backfire on them in the general election. i really don't see who you can say clinton isn't also running on the same platform of bringing the troops home. she's stated as much on several occasions since her campaign began. why hold him to a different standard?

Ummmm....the memo that created NAFTAGate :dry:

you mean the one that the canadian government said this about?

"In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA,"

[Marx]

can we put an end to this "he put himself on a pedestal" buzz-term that's floating around now, please? he hasn't done any such thing. he's tried to stay above the negativity that plagues politics, but at the same time, he's not going to just lay there and take it when someone attacks him. maybe people are "swooning over him" and "falling for his words" because he's intelligent enough to be able to relate to people and address their needs. is it his fault he's a brilliant speaker with a ton of charisma? is that a fault now?



i don't know about creating an image, but he's been against the war from the beginning and i believe him when he says that. maybe i'm naive, i don't know. the reality of ending the war immediately or just cutting off funding is an extremely complex issue. with the surge partially working and the chance to take over the white house this year, i don't think the dems wanted to chance cutting off funding for the war and have it backfire on them in the general election. i really don't see who you can say clinton isn't also running on the same platform of bringing the troops home. she's stated as much on several occasions since her campaign began. why hold him to a different standard?



you mean the one that the canadian government said this about?

The "pedestal" thing is more than a buzz-term. While he may not have directly said or done anything to suggest such a pedestal (which is a matter of opinion,) it is there. Hillary is against the war as well. She voted for the authorization to go to war as a last resort, she never voted "yes" to Bush manipulating everyone and everything and rushing to war. Call that naive or not, but that is how she voted. She took the President on his word, as anyone would, that it would indeed be the last resort. Bush sadly turned it into the first and only resort. Don't fault her for George W. Bush's tactics.

[sinewave]

I'm not talking it that way at all Sine. I'm just saying that he portrays a level of arrogance by the catch 22 position he has put himself into. Like I said, I honestly do have a tremendous amount of respect for him, but that theme he has will be his undoing if he isn't careful.

i understand what you're saying, but don't most people think that politicians are greedy, corrupt swindlers who will say whatever they need to stay in power? why would it come off as arrogant if he tries to stay above the fray? i'd think that'd be a good thing, wouldn't you? i like his candor. i like his thoughtful, easy-going personality. i like the way he can relate to people. i like that he's not another out-of-touch old white guy in a suit. i like that he's a self-made man. i like his intelligence and the way he's carried himself with a certain quiet dignity this whole campaign. maybe i've been duped by the most duplicitous, conniving politician we've ever seen in this country's history, but i honestly don't think that's the case with this guy. i can understand and respect people if they're jaded by crooked politicians, i really can, but i still don't understand the sheer animosity that people from the clinton camp seem to have towards him.

[Zen]

i don't understand how the canadian government saying what it has, hasn't put nafta gate to rest...


do i just have terrible reading comprehension?

[redfirebird2008]

Don't fault her for not realizing GWB was a douche bag long before he ever started the war? C'mon man. Hillary is a smart gal. She, like many of her fellow Dems in Congress, went with what was popular in the polls. I don't think she ever truly trusted him, nor should she have. I never did and I know plenty of people who didn't.

[sinewave]

The "pedestal" thing is more than a buzz-term. While he may not have directly said or done anything to suggest such a pedestal (which is a matter of opinion,) it is there. Hillary is against the war as well. She voted for the authorization to go to war as a last resort, she never voted "yes" to Bush manipulating everyone and everything and rushing to war. Call that naive or not, but that is how she voted. She took the President on his word, as anyone would, that it would indeed be the last resort. Bush sadly turned it into the first and only resort. Don't fault her for George W. Bush's tactics.

i've heard that, too, and i'm not sure how i feel about it. i really want to believe her, but everyone who voted for it had to know who they were dealing with. they also should have done their due diligence and investigated the intelligence findings on their own instead of trusting the bush administration. i know, hindsight is 20/20, but that's a HUGE gaffe. everyone was bloodthirsty and revenge-happy after 9/11 and i'm sure the administration preyed on that bloodlust when making their case for invading iraq, but i still will never fully forgive anyone who voted to authorize military force there.

[Marx]

i understand what you're saying, but don't most people think that politicians are greedy, corrupt swindlers who will say whatever they need to stay in power? why would it come off as arrogant if he tries to stay above the fray? i'd think that'd be a good thing, wouldn't you? i like his candor. i like his thoughtful, easy-going personality. i like the way he can relate to people. i like that he's not another out-of-touch old white guy in a suit. i like that he's a self-made man. i like his intelligence and the way he's carried himself with a certain quiet dignity this whole campaign. maybe i've been duped by the most duplicitous, conniving politician we've ever seen in this country's history, but i honestly don't think that's the case with this guy. i can understand and respect people if they're jaded by crooked politicians, i really can, but i still don't understand the sheer animosity that people from the clinton camp seem to have towards him.

I think it is the fact that he was basically an unknown a few years ago, has come in proclaming to be like a knight in shining armor and people seem to take his word for it and don't press him on anything. Until here recently, he's been rather untouched. For someone like Hillary (or McCain for that matter) to be raked over the coals for their entire careers respectively, it's a bitter pill to swallow. And rightfully so, in my opinion.

[sinewave]

i don't understand how the canadian government saying what it has, hasn't put nafta gate to rest...


do i just have terrible reading comprehension?

we both must, because i'm right there with you.

[sinewave]

I think it is the fact that he was basically an unknown a few years ago, has come in proclaming to be like a knight in shining armor and people seem to take his word for it and don't press him on anything. Until here recently, he's been rather untouched. For someone like Hillary (or McCain for that matter) to be raked over the coals for their entire careers respectively, it's a bitter pill to swallow. And rightfully so, in my opinion.

i guess so, but that seems more like sour grapes than anything legitimate. she's been riding her husband's name for years, so she's no better than him.

[Marx]

i've heard that, too, and i'm not sure how i feel about it. i really want to believe her, but everyone who voted for it had to know who they were dealing with. they also should have done their due diligence and investigated the intelligence findings on their own instead of trusting the bush administration. i know, hindsight is 20/20, but that's a HUGE gaffe. everyone was bloodthirsty and revenge-happy after 9/11 and i'm sure the administration preyed on that bloodlust when making their case for invading iraq, but i still will never fully forgive anyone who voted to authorize military force there.

You've hit the nail on the head Sine. Truth is, I believe that IS how she voted. She has said as much many times. She did her research, as everyone did, but point is - she didn't vote FOR the war. Bush turned it into the only option once he got the go ahead. While it may be naive IN HINDSIGHT, no one knew at the time, Bush was like that. Sure we all do now. But then...no one would have thought it.

[Marx]

i guess so, but that seems more like sour grapes than anything legitimate. she's been riding her husband's name for years, so she's no better than him.

Her husband's name is hers as well. She has done alot on her own. Sure it got the attention because she is a Clinton, but that shouldn't take away anything that she has accomplished or tried to do.

[Excel]

You've hit the nail on the head Sine. Truth is, I believe that IS how she voted. She has said as much many times. She did her research, as everyone did, but point is - she didn't vote FOR the war. Bush turned it into the only option once he got the go ahead. While it may be naive IN HINDSIGHT, no one knew at the time, Bush was like that. Sure we all do now. But then...no one would have thought it.

i wont take points away for not realizing what gwb would do, but obama did, so score 1 for barack.

[sinewave]

You've hit the nail on the head Sine. Truth is, I believe that IS how she voted. She has said as much many times. She did her research, as everyone did, but point is - she didn't vote FOR the war. Bush turned it into the only option once he got the go ahead. While it may be naive IN HINDSIGHT, no one knew at the time, Bush was like that. Sure we all do now. But then...no one would have thought it.

you make a very good point. maybe some day i'll be able to fully forgive them...

[redfirebird2008]

You've hit the nail on the head Sine. Truth is, I believe that IS how she voted. She has said as much many times. She did her research, as everyone did, but point is - she didn't vote FOR the war. Bush turned it into the only option once he got the go ahead. While it may be naive IN HINDSIGHT, no one knew at the time, Bush was like that. Sure we all do now. But then...no one would have thought it.

LOL, he really did fool a bunch of you people then. I knew what a dip**** he was as soon as he took office. I say "you people" meaning everyone outside of Texas.

[sinewave]

Her husband's name is hers as well. She has done alot on her own. Sure it got the attention because she is a Clinton, but that shouldn't take away anything that she has accomplished or tried to do.

true, but would she have gotten as far as she has on her own? she's obviously very smart and capable, but it's extremely tough to get to that level of government as fast as she did without a significant advantage.

i wont take points away for not realizing what gwb would do, but obama did, so score 1 for barack.

feingold, kucinich and a few others did as well.

[Marx]

you make a very good point. maybe some day i'll be able to fully forgive them...

I hope that you can. I just hate seeing her being beaten upside the head with that vote when the circumstances surrounding that vote were they way they were. The Bush Adminstration fooled everyone. (Maybe not Barack Obama EX, but that's debatable.)

[Marx]

LOL, he really did fool a bunch of you people then. I knew what a dip**** he was as soon as he took office. I say "you people" meaning everyone outside of Texas.

true, but would she have gotten as far as she has on her own? she's obviously very smart and capable, but it's extremely tough to get to that level of government as fast as she did without a significant advantage.



feingold, kucinich and a few others did as well.

I think alot of the "fooling became convincing" when Powell made his "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction pitch" to the United Nations. It was all very believable. Powell was also very well respected AT THE TIME. Again, in hindsight, we all know it was a very well wrapped pack of lies.

[sinewave]

I think alot of the "fooling became convincing" when Powell made his "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction pitch" to the United Nations. It was all very believable. Powell was also very well respected AT THE TIME. Again, in hindsight, we all know it was a very well wrapped pack of lies.

another good point. powell said that's his biggest regret in politics. the bush administration just used him and discarded him.

[comicgirl]

another good point. powell said that's his biggest regret in politics. the bush administration just used him and discarded him.don't count him out yet

[sinewave]

i'd love to see him as someone's running mate, especially one of the dems. though an obama/powell ticket doesn't sound like it'll appeal to the white southern voters.

[Raiden]

i'd love to see him as someone's running mate, especially one of the dems. though an obama/powell ticket doesn't sound like it'll appeal to the white southern voters.

Yeah, it's too bad because I'd love to have the Dems pick him as VP.

[Excel]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/Goosehunter55/obama.jpg


Article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope

:applaud :applaud :applaud

[redfirebird2008]

That picture is ridiculous. Feeds into the messianic crap that's being hurled at Obama and his supporters.

[Excel]

Its more superman-esque and kind of ridiculous but I like it, however I love the article. It says everything I wish Obama himself would say.

[redfirebird2008]

Have you ever seen the movie Almost Famous? Jann Wenner is in that movie (not literally but as a character). He founded Rolling Stone when he was 21. That's just crazy. LOL.

[Excel]

Wait, the guy who wrote that article is the FOUNDER of Rolling Stone?

[redfirebird2008]

Wait, the guy who wrote that article is the FOUNDER of Rolling Stone?

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jann_Wenner

[Marx]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/Goosehunter55/obama.jpg


Article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope

:applaud :applaud :applaud

I just wanted to add another little wonderful piece of information (as if THIS cover wasn't enough to prove the media bias)

The CNN Panelist's on election night said that if "Hillary decides to continue on with her strategy and go negative it would be like killing Santa Claus on Christmas morning in front of the kids."

I'm really getting sick of this crap. I think it's kind of refreshing that the voters rebuked him on Super Tuesday 2. He is no saint, he is no messiah...give me a break.

[Marx]

i'd love to see him as someone's running mate, especially one of the dems. though an obama/powell ticket doesn't sound like it'll appeal to the white southern voters.

Colin Powell committed political suicide and lost all credibility when he pitched his "Iraq has WMD" speech to the United Nations. He will never be a VP.

[redfirebird2008]

Hey, I'm getting sick of her making negative attacks and then accusing Obama of Rove and Ken Starr tactics when she's using them herself, in fact she's using them far more often than him. Asking someone to release their tax returns is a Ken Starr tactic? C'mon! LOL.

The worst thing she has done lately is repeatedly throwing him under the bus and PRAISING McCain. She did it again today and talked about how both she and McCain have crossed the "threshold of commander in chief" and how she and McCain are good friends, blah blah blah. It's pretty comical really. Give me a break. Here we have Clinton claiming she wants a ticket with Obama yet she's throwing him under the bus and praising McCain? Perhaps she should get a ticket with McCain since she likes him more.

[Marx]

Hey, I'm getting sick of her making negative attacks and then accusing Obama of Rove and Ken Starr tactics when she's using them herself, in fact she's using them far more often than him. Asking someone to release their tax returns is a Ken Starr tactic? C'mon! LOL.

The worst thing she has done lately is repeatedly throwing him under the bus and PRAISING McCain. She did it again today and talked about how both she and McCain have crossed the "threshold of commander in chief" and how she and McCain are good friends, blah blah blah. It's pretty comical really.

I'm not talking about her "negative campaigning." This is about the media's projection of image. You cannot honestly sit there Firebird and tell me that that Rolling Stone cover of an "angelic Obama" doesn't suggest the kind of bias that all kinds of people are talking about and pointing out. Democrat and Republican alike.

[Excel]

Obama is the closest thing we're going to have to a "messiah" as a President any time soon. He can motivate and bring people together his camapign is perfect evidence. Maybe it has to do with his skin color but that doesnt matter, the fact is he DOES IT.

[redfirebird2008]

You cannot honestly sit there Firebird and tell me that that Rolling Stone cover of an "angelic Obama" doesn't suggest the kind of bias that all kinds of people are talking about and pointing out. Democrat and Republican alike.

Dude, I already pointed out that I don't like it because it gives more crap for his detractors (including you) to claim the messianic junk that keeps on getting thrown at him and his supporters. I hate that cover. The magazine itself can do what it damn well pleases, just like I'm sure women's magazines are endorsing Hillary. Jann Wenner is pandering to his demographic. Who buys Rolling Stone? Kids: teenagers and college aged "young adults." Who does that demographic like best? Obama by far.

[Marx]

Obama is the closest thing we're going to have to a "messiah" as a President any time soon. He can motivate and bring people together his camapign is perfect evidence. Maybe it has to do with his skin color but that doesnt matter, the fact is he DOES IT.

I understand that Ex. You have to look at things below the surface though. (When I say you, I don't necessarily mean YOU, I mean everyone.) The man is an exceptional speaker yes, but that doesn't make everything else fall into place. You have to be able to back it up. This country has been "moved" by many different messages of "change." I don't mean to borrow a line from Hillary's campaign, but it is true. People don't need speeches, they need solutions. People need answers. And most importantly, people need action.

[Excel]

No offense Marx but its time you guys realized...the media coverage of Barackis all because they are anti Hillary.

Some of them are actually Pro Obama you know...they aren't just making it up. Theres a reason they like him so much

[redfirebird2008]

I understand that Ex. You have to look at things below the surface though. (When I say you, I don't necessarily mean YOU, I mean everyone.) The man is an exceptional speaker yes, but that doesn't make everything else fall into place. You have to be able to back it up. This country has been "moved" by many different messages of "change." I don't mean to borrow a line from Hillary's campaign, but it is true. People don't need speeches, they need solutions. People need answers. And most importantly, people need action.

And I am waiting for Hillary to provide an ounce more of substance than Obama. I've done the research on both candidates and she is no more substantive than him. She has not proven to be a person of action in her political career. In fact, her time in the Senate has been pretty worthless. Ask the people of New York how her promise of 200,000 new jobs has turned out. She blames Bush, just like she blames him for everything. But the buck has gotta stop somewhere.

[Marx]

Dude, I already pointed out that I don't like it because it gives more crap for his detractors (including you) to claim the messianic junk that keeps on getting thrown at him and his supporters. I hate that cover. The magazine itself can do what it damn well pleases, just like I'm sure women's magazines are endorsing Hillary. Jann Wenner is pandering to his demographic. Who buys Rolling Stone? Kids: teenagers and college aged "young adults." Who does that demographic like best? Obama by far.

I must've missed where you said you didn't like it. My apologies. I wouldn't necessarily say that I am a detractor. As I have said many times, I have an enormous amount of respect for him. But at some point, the messages need to be more than talk, more than a great speech and rockstar rallies. If that makes any sense.

[Marx]

No offense Marx but its time you guys realized...the media coverage of Barackis all because they are anti Hillary.

Some of them are actually Pro Obama you know...they aren't just making it up. Theres a reason they like him so much

I take no offense at all Ex. I'm just saying that people need to look below the "gleaming armor" and really, seriously, take a look at him.

[redfirebird2008]

I must've missed where you said you didn't like it. My apologies. I wouldn't necessarily say that I am a detractor. As I have said many times, I have an enormous amount of respect for him. But at some point, the messages need to be more than talk, more than a great speech and rockstar rallies. If that makes any sense.

They have been, the media just isn't covering them. He does town halls more often than Hillary and if you haven't noticed, half her speeches are just that, speeches attacking him for his lack of substance. Where is HER substance? As I mentioned in a previous post, I've researched the candidates, listened to their speeches, and I've determined she is no more substantive than him despite her claims.

[Kelly]

But he's the messiah.......*winks*

[Excel]

I understand that Ex. You have to look at things below the surface though. (When I say you, I don't necessarily mean YOU, I mean everyone.) The man is an exceptional speaker yes, but that doesn't make everything else fall into place. You have to be able to back it up. This country has been "moved" by many different messages of "change." I don't mean to borrow a line from Hillary's campaign, but it is true. People don't need speeches, they need solutions. People need answers. And most importantly, people need action.

Obamas the guy who turned wealthy lawyer positions to help ghetto drug addicts find jobs. Solutions...think about it Marx. How does one get to a solution? Its your point of view and your judgement of the facts.

Obamas hads demonstrated suprmeme judgement on more than one occasion, hillary hasnt. Thats why I trust whaever solution Obama comes up with over hers. She 35 years of expirience, shes right, but its 35 years of expirience in making bad decisions, turning people off and not taking help out of stubburness.

That is the worst quality we can have in a president-stubburness. Bush has it. McCain has, hillary does and Obama doesnt.

And theres a large difference between stregnth, such as barack speaking out against the war in 2002, and stubburness, which is mccain refusing to remove troops despite the farrr majorityof the country hating the war.

The Presidents there to do what the people want and help us out, not run your own show, and thats what Hillary, McCain would do, and its what Bush has done. Im not saying theydidnt have noble intentions, just misguided judgement that led to poor decisions; all 3 of em.

Obama doesnt share that quality.

[redfirebird2008]

But he's the messiah.......*winks*

:woot::woot::woot::woot:

[Excel]

I take no offense at all Ex. I'm just saying that people need to look below the "gleaming armor" and really, seriously, take a look at him.

A lot of people already have; they are his supporters :up:

[Marx]

A lot of people already have; they are his supporters :up:

Ugh. While I understand your loyalty to your candidate, I'm just asking that everyone look beneath the speeches. Not that I am trying to compare him to Bush, but Dubya did run on a "let's all be friends" unity message as well. If I remember correctly. (And look what happened.) I have tried not to remember too much from that horrible election. It's a very bad memory.

[Excel]

Heh, thats answer half serious ;)

Except this, history matches the terms. Again, Barack is the guy who upon graduating Harvard Law School as a star and recieving heavy recruitments from powerful law firms....decided to go home to Chicago and poor, old ghetto crackheads find jobs so they wouldnt be homeless.

Not trying to sound like a *****, but Obamas the closest thing to a living american dream that we will ever have run for president, thats why he is different.

[Marx]

Heh, thats answer half serious ;)

Except this, history matches the terms. Again, Barack is the guy who upon graduating Harvard Law School as a star and recieving heavy recruitments from powerful law firms....decided to go home to Chicago and poor, old ghetto crackheads find jobs so they wouldnt be homeless.

Not trying to sound like a *****, but Obamas the closest thing to a living american dream that we will ever have run for president, thats why he is different.

And Hillary also decided to take a similiar route helping hispanics register to vote in south Texas when she was just starting out. What's your point?

[redfirebird2008]

Ugh. While I understand your loyalty to your candidate, I'm just asking that everyone look beneath the speeches. Not that I am trying to compare him to Bush, but Dubya did run on a "let's all be friends" unity message as well. If I remember correctly. (And look what happened.) I have tried not to remember too much from that horrible election. It's a very bad memory.

Have YOU looked beyond the speeches? I already explained to you that I researched both candidates and she is no more substantive to me than he is.

[Excel]

Wasnt that working on George McGoverns campaign though?

[comicgirl]

one thing's for sure....the reps are laughing their a$$ off at this.

[redfirebird2008]

one thing's for sure....the reps are laughing their a$$ off at this.

yep :woot:

[rdh007]

Ugh. While I understand your loyalty to your candidate, I'm just asking that everyone look beneath the speeches. Not that I am trying to compare him to Bush, but Dubya did run on a "let's all be friends" unity message as well. If I remember correctly. (And look what happened.) I have tried not to remember too much from that horrible election. It's a very bad memory.

I see what you're saying here, but I think that you can't get much farther away from Dubya than Obama. Anyone who bought that Shrub was serious about being a "compassionate conservative" was foolish at best. Dude had no history of being anything but being inept and the son of privilege. Obama may not pull it off, but I believe he'll try.

[Marx]

Have YOU looked beyond the speeches? I already explained to you that I researched both candidates and she is no more substantive to me than he is.

Yes I have Firebird. And to alot of people, she has a record of doing what she says. She doesn't just say things. She acts on them. With Obama, he doesn't have alot to go off of. That's the deal breaker to alot of people.

[redfirebird2008]

Yes I have Firebird. And to alot of people, she has a record of doing what she says. She doesn't just say things. She acts on them. With Obama, he doesn't have alot to go off of. That's the deal breaker to alot of people.

Please provide some specific proof instead of her campaign rhetoric. I've looked at her Senate record and I am NOT impressed at all.

[Memphis Slim]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/Goosehunter55/obama.jpg


Article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope




:applaud :applaud :applaud


SNL will have field day with this!!:lmao: :funny:

[Marx]

I see what you're saying here, but I think that you can't get much farther away from Dubya than Obama. Anyone who bought that Shrub was serious about being a "compassionate conservative" was foolish at best. Dude had no history of being anything but being inept and the son of privilege. Obama may not pull it off, but I believe he'll try.

I'm just saying that their messages are/were similiar in tone. Everyone runs on a message of change, in some form or another. That's the way it's always been.

[comicgirl]

I see what you're saying here, but I think that you can't get much farther away from Dubya than Obama. Anyone who bought that Shrub was serious about being a "compassionate conservative" was foolish at best. Obama may not pull it off, but I believe he'll try.I think he'll do it. If the DNC actually allows Fl and MI to cast in after everyone (Hillary too, for all her *****in' now) agreed not to, it'll look like dirty pool. If she were in Obama's position, would she be up in arms about a "re-do"? This whole thing stinks.

[redfirebird2008]

I think he'll do it. If the DNC actually allows Fl and MI to cast in after everyone (Hillary too, for all her *****in' now) agreed not to, it'll look like dirty pool. If she were in Obama's position, would she be up in arms about a "re-do"? This whole thing stinks.

Obama has agreed to a re-do. He doesn't want them seated as is, however. It's not fair the way those elections were run the first time.

[Marx]

Please provide some specific proof instead of her campaign rhetoric. I've looked at her Senate record and I am NOT impressed at all.

You have to look at her days in Arkansas, in the White House, and in the Senate. While she may not have always been able to vote on legislation, she has always been very influencial.

[Marx]

I think he'll do it. If the DNC actually allows Fl and MI to cast in after everyone (Hillary too, for all her *****in' now) agreed not to, it'll look like dirty pool. If she were in Obama's position, would she be up in arms about a "re-do"? This whole thing stinks.

She has wanted them to count long before she ever lost the delegate lead.

[comicgirl]

SNL will have field day with this!!:lmao: :funny:SNL hasn't been funny in years. QVC gets higher Sat. eve. ratings.

[redfirebird2008]

You have to look at her days in Arkansas, in the White House, and in the Senate. While she may not have always been able to vote on legislation, she has always been very influencial.

A New York Times article suggests that her time in the White House wasn't as influential as many people have assumed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I think her experience claims, not challenged until this week by Obama, are just as misleading as his "change" message.

[comicgirl]

She has wanted them to count long before she ever lost the delegate lead.Still, both she, Obama and Edwards agreed with the DNC's ruling. It looks desperate and grabby now

[redfirebird2008]

She has wanted them to count long before she ever lost the delegate lead.

Yeah, because they benefited her. You cannot honestly say it's a fair election when one candidate has a former POTUS' last name and none of the candidates campaign in the state, or even worse, when that same candidate is the only one on the ballot in another state. Neither one of those elections were fair and I am all for a re-do. There is a strong chance she will win them both again and I do feel the voters deserve a shot to have their voices heard, but those elections were not representative of our electoral process.

[Marx]

A New York Times article suggests that her time in the White House wasn't as influential as many people have assumed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I think her experience claims, not challenged until this week by Obama, are just as misleading as his "change" message.

Again it's the NY Times (who also endorsed Hillary Clinton.) The same paper who endorsed John McCain then stabbed him in the back when they ran the "lobbyist scandal" shortly thereafter.

[Memphis Slim]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/Goosehunter55/obama.jpg


Article: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/19106551/a_new_hope

:applaud :applaud :applaud


See...it's over-the-top stuff like that that kills a candidate. That picture is gonna hurt him. Just watch.... The average fringe guy is gonna wake up and say..."Whoa!! uh,....what the heck is this?"

This goes too far. This may be the Howard Dean moment. Obama may choke on his own idol worshipping fans.

[Excel]

Nobody questions wether she had a say in the white house, the question is if the impact was positive or negative?

Again, things that worked...she says she was invovled with. Things that didnt, like Nafta, she says she wasn't. Now she says whatever looks best but of course, if you look back, she said different at the time.

I fail to see how the hell anybody trusts what she says. I trust Barack and I trust McCain. How canyou trust her?

[Marx]

Yeah, because they benefited her. You cannot honestly say it's a fair election when one candidate has a former POTUS' last name and none of the candidates campaign in the state, or even worse, when that same candidate is the only one on the ballot in another state. Neither one of those elections were fair and I am all for a re-do. There is a strong chance she will win them both again and I do feel the voters deserve a shot to have their voices heard, but those elections were not representative of our electoral process.

I understand your point. Truth is - those voter's voices must be heard. If a redo is what is required, then a redo is what should happen. Voter suppression benefits no one.

[redfirebird2008]

Again it's the NY Times (who also endorsed Hillary Clinton.) The same paper who endorsed John McCain then stabbed him in the back when they ran the "lobbyist scandal" shortly thereafter.

Oh don't try to play that BS angle. Seriously, she has over-exaggerated her experience just like Obama has over-exaggerated his change message. The 35 years claim is an outright lie. I consider her relevant experience to be 15 years.

[redfirebird2008]

I understand your point. Truth is - those voter's voices must be heard. If a redo is what is required, then a redo is what should happen. Voter suppression benefits no one.

I agree. Something will be worked out, though I believe if they seat them based on the current election results, there will be a penalty. I think 25% in Florida and 50% in Michigan would be fair. The best outcome would be a re-do and give them 100% of their delegates at the convention.

[Excel]

But Obamas not even on michigans ballots...how the hell could that work?

[Marx]

See...it's over-the-top stuff like that that kills a candidate. That picture is gonna hurt him. Just watch.... The average fringe guy is gonna wake up and say..."Whoa!! uh,....what the heck is this?"

This goes too far. This may be the Howard Dean moment. Obama may choke on his own idol worshipping fans.

I agree Slim. It is exactly stuff like this that people are having a hard time swallowing. It will hurt him in the end. I believe it already is damaging his campaign. Things like this only add fuel to any opposition.

[Marx]

Oh don't try to play that BS angle. Seriously, she has over-exaggerated her experience just like Obama has over-exaggerated his change message. The 35 years claim is an outright lie. I consider her relevant experience to be 15 years.

So long as we're clear. But you cannot dispute she has more experience than he does, regardless if it's 35 years, or 15.

[redfirebird2008]

So long as we're clear. But you cannot dispute she has more experience than he does, regardless if it's 35 years, or 15.

But 8 of that 15 is questionable in my opinion. Was she more important than Laura Bush? Yes, but she has overplayed her role as First Lady in this campaign.

[Marx]

I agree. Something will be worked out, though I believe if they seat them based on the current election results, there will be a penalty. I think 25% in Florida and 50% in Michigan would be fair. The best outcome would be a re-do and give them 100% of their delegates at the convention.

I really don't see how you would say Michigan would get more percentage, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. I think there is going to have to be a new primary. Someone is going to have to foot the bill though, and right now there is a complete stalemate.

[redfirebird2008]

And let me be clear. I think Obama is more of an agent of change than Clinton, but still a typical politician. He still has to play by the rules of the two-party system just like she does. The TRUE agent of change would be Nader.

[redfirebird2008]

I really don't see how you would say Michigan would get more percentage, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. I think there is going to have to be a new primary. Someone is going to have to foot the bill though, and right now there is a complete stalemate.

I mean a 50% PENALTY, as in Florida gets 75% of their delegates at the convention and Michigan gets 50%. Michigan deserves more of a penalty because only one person was on the ballot and the state politicians are still trying to get those delegates seated. That's a crock of garbage and screams communism/fascism to me. They deserve a bigger penalty, no question. If we can get this mess sorted out and have a re-do, it's fine to give both states 100% of their delegates.

[Excel]

Well you know, there are a lot of people who over estimate just how much change we need. If Washington ran the way it was supposed to it would be fine. Nader doesnt fit that bill.

[Marx]

But 8 of that 15 is questionable in my opinion. Was she more important than Laura Bush? Yes, but she has overplayed her role as First Lady in this campaign.

That is your opinion. And you have a right to have that opinion, but one cannot deny the respect and admiration the Clinton's have within the Democratic party.

[quote=redfirebird2008;14249793]And let me be clear. I think Obama is more of an agent of change than Clinton, but still a typical politician. He still has to play by the rules of the two-party system just like she does. The TRUE agent of change would be Nader.[quote]

*Proceeds to bang head against the wall* :wow:

[comicgirl]

And let me be clear. I think Obama is more of an agent of change than Clinton, but still a typical politician. He still has to play by the rules of the two-party system just like she does. The TRUE agent of change would be Nader.Maybe in '99-'00. Nah, he reminds me of my crazy psych prof. Everyone else would be fine if only they listen to him. Pfffft!

[redfirebird2008]

Marx, you think Nader isn't a true agent of change compared to the two-party politicians? For one, Obama is full of crap regarding lobbyist money. He doesn't take as much as Clinton or McCain, but he still takes it. He's also full of crap regarding the corporations. Nader is about as anti-corporation as any politician out there, which makes him immediately unfit for the two parties that dominate this country. He's 100% anti-lobbyist as well.

[Marx]

I mean a 50% PENALTY, as in Florida gets 75% of their delegates at the convention and Michigan gets 50%. Michigan deserves more of a penalty because only one person was on the ballot and the state politicians are still trying to get those delegates seated. That's a crock of garbage and screams communism/fascism to me. They deserve a bigger penalty, no question. If we can get this mess sorted out and have a re-do, it's fine to give both states 100% of their delegates.

I follow now. I think it will come down to new primaries. That is the only real way for it to be fair, or appear fair.

[Excel]

I follow now. I think it will come down to new primaries. That is the only real way for it to be fair, or appear fair.

well, what happens if obama wins them? what is hillary going to do?

[Marx]

Marx, you think Nader isn't a true agent of change compared to the two-party politicians? For one, Obama is full of crap regarding lobbyist money. He doesn't take as much as Clinton or McCain, but he still takes it. He's also full of crap regarding the corporations. Nader is about as anti-corporation as any politician out there, which makes him immediately unfit for the two parties that dominate this country. He's 100% anti-lobbyist as well.

I never said he wouldn't bring change. Ralph Nader has absolutely zero credibility to me. The first time he ran, yeah he was respectable and credible. The second time, yeah. Third, Fourth, and now Fifth? No. I'd really rather not get into the Nader Topic. I just get really frustrated and angry. Besides there are other threads involving him. :cwink:

[redfirebird2008]

I follow now. I think it will come down to new primaries. That is the only real way for it to be fair, or appear fair.

Well, assuming they can come to an agreement on paying for it. That's the biggest roadblock right now. I think everyone is OK with a re-do, but no one wants to foot the bill. :shock

If they can't come to an agreement on paying for a re-do, then they should seat the delegates with some kind of penalty (with Michigan receiving the harsher of the two penalties). This should be the last resort though. There's no reason they can't get this straightened out and get a re-do primary set up for each state.

[Marx]

well, what happens if obama wins them? what is hillary going to do?

I don't think he will.

[comicgirl]

well, what happens if obama wins them? what is hillary going to do? whine about media bias

[Marx]

Well, assuming they can come to an agreement on paying for it. That's the biggest roadblock right now. I think everyone is OK with a re-do, but no one wants to foot the bill. :shock

If they can't come to an agreement on paying for a re-do, then they should seat the delegates with some kind of penalty (with Michigan receiving the harsher of the two penalties). This should be the last resort though. There's no reason they can't get this straightened out and get a re-do primary set up for each state.

If they value the party and the voters, it will be fixed.

[Excel]

I don't think he will.

But what it? Are we going to have to listen to complain about the other 2 should count?

I hate suppressing voters, but they voted for the people who screwed em over. Every other state was able to follow the rules besides these 2. Either way is unfair, but reaching a conclusion following the rules is always more fair the getting one by ignorning them.

[comicgirl]

The only reason this is being bandied about is because of pressure from the Clintons. Howard Dean is a wuss.

[Excel]

I thought he said they were not gong to count them no matter what?

[redfirebird2008]

The only reason this is being bandied about is because of pressure from the Clintons. Howard Dean is a wuss.

No, I think it's important to let the voters' voices be heard because you risk losing their support in November. Suddenly they jump ship to the Republican side and bye bye to a bunch of electoral votes from two fairly large states.

[BlackLantern]

Again it's the NY Times (who also endorsed Hillary Clinton.) The same paper who endorsed John McCain then stabbed him in the back when they ran the "lobbyist scandal" shortly thereafter.

How is that back-stabbing? Is a paper that endorses a specific candidate supposed to ignore indiscretions and what-have-you of that candidate?

[Marx]

The only reason this is being bandied about is because of pressure from the Clintons. Howard Dean is a wuss.

Do you support voter suppression then ComicGirl? Not recognizing these two states in any way is not acceptable to the PARTY, the VOTERS, or the SYSTEM. Look beyond your hatred of Hillary and look at the bigger picture.

[BlackLantern]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules....no one is saying their votes won't be counted at Election Day.....but they ****ed up and should have to deal with the consequences.

[Excel]

Do you support voter suppression then ComicGirl? Not recognizing these two states in any way is not acceptable to the paty or the system. Look beyond your hatred of Hillary and look at the bigger picture.

of course not, but it cant go both ways. if superdelegates give the person whose not leading in votes or delegates, they have suppressed every voter in every state :o

[Marx]

Michigan and Florida broke the rules....no one is saying their votes won't be counted at Election Day.....but they ****ed up and should have to deal with the consequences.

I never said that they shouldn't have to face the consequences. But not recognizing the voters of those states because their party leaders broke the rules is flat out stupid. They might as well hand the election to McCain in the fall if it doesn't get fixed.

It will get fixed though, as it should.

[BlackLantern]

well McCain is winning anyway, I have resigned myself to that fact

[The Senator]

I'm all in favor of giving Michigan and Florida their say. However, I believe Michigan should do a caucus, considering only Hillary, Dodd and Kucinich appeared on the Democratic ballot. I have no solution for Florida, unfortunately, considering all the candidates were on the ballot and turnout in Florida was at an all-time high for the Democrats. Perhaps to avoid all the frustration and extra costs, the DNC should count the Florida primary as is, or allow a mail-in-vote like what was considered a few weeks ago.

[The Senator]

I never said that they shouldn't have to face the consequences. But not recognizing the voters of those states because their party leaders broke the rules is flat out stupid. They might as well hand the election to McCain in the fall if it doesn't get fixed.

It will get fixed though, as it should.

Ignoring Michigan may be fatal. I don't know if ignoring their primary results directly affects this, but McCain leads both Obama and Clinton in that state by about five points, which is rare considering Michigan is one of the more reliably Democratic states in the midwest. The DNC may want to avoid putting that state in play...

[redfirebird2008]

Do you support voter suppression then ComicGirl? Not recognizing these two states in any way is not acceptable to the PARTY, the VOTERS, or the SYSTEM. Look beyond your hatred of Hillary and look at the bigger picture.

I agree with you 100% on this. Now if Hillary would look at the bigger picture and stop praising McCain while throwing Obama under the bus, I'd be considerably less annoyed at her right now. The bigger picture is November and she's ignoring that right now with some of these comments that build up McCain and tear down Obama in the same sentence. Either way, we gotta look forward to November first and foremost, and that means making sure that Florida and Michigan voters get their voice heard in the primary process.

[Marx]

I'm all in favor of giving Michigan and Florida their say. However, I believe Michigan should do a caucus, considering only Hillary, Dodd and Kucinich appeared on the Democratic ballot. I have no solution for Florida, unfortunately, considering all the candidates were on the ballot and turnout in Florida was at an all-time high for the Democrats. Perhaps to avoid all the frustration and extra costs, the DNC should count the Florida primary as is, or allow a mail-in-vote like what was considered a few weeks ago.

The only problem with a caucus Jman is that it isn't an accurate representation of the state itself. You would have significantly less voters and very little time to participate. A primary would allow for the whole day and a better representation of the actual electorate.

[redfirebird2008]

Ignoring Michigan may be fatal. I don't know if ignoring their primary results directly affects this, but McCain leads both Obama and Clinton in that state by about five points, which is rare considering Michigan is one of the more reliably Democratic states in the midwest. The DNC may want to avoid putting that state in play...

No, Hillary has said she will not accept caucuses. I agree with her. Their original process was a primary so they should re-do the primary.

[The Senator]

Here's an interesting look at how the election may play out in November, according to SurveyUSA, which has compiled state polls for both Clinton and Obama against McCain (detailed results can be found at www.surveyusa.com):

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-clinton-final.png

http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png

[redfirebird2008]

How about this idea? Keep the current vote totals and tell anyone who didn't vote the first time that they can if they want to. Seems like a pretty cool idea to me because then the results of those days are included and any voters that did not vote because they thought it would be a waste of time (due to the DNC's ruling) gets a chance to have their voice heard. You could email or call the 40% of uncommitted voters in Michigan and ask them to decide between Clinton, Obama, or to stay undecided.

[redfirebird2008]

Nebraska does it how the rest of the country should (same way the Democratic primaries are done). Proportional electoral votes would be so much more representative of the actual vote I think.

[The Senator]

How about this idea? Keep the current vote totals and tell anyone who didn't vote the first time that they can if they want to. Seems like a pretty cool idea to me because then the results of those days are included and any voters that did not vote because they thought it would be a waste of time (due to the DNC's ruling) gets a chance to have their voice heard. You could email or call the 40% of uncommitted voters in Michigan and ask them to decide between Clinton, Obama, or to stay undecided.

I don't think that works, because you're allowing one group of people the opportunity to vote again, while leaving out those who may want to change their minds as well.

[Excel]

oh my god...this is too funny.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UsD-fZzae-s

not saying its accurate but the pics....:applaud

though nothing will ever top "i inhaled frequently"

[redfirebird2008]

I don't think that works, because you're allowing one group of people the opportunity to vote again, while leaving out those who may want to change their minds as well.

Well I was going to suggest that but I figured people would cry foul that it's not representative of what people were thinking back then (which was before Obama had as much momentum as he gained in February). I figure Clinton's camp would not want those voters changing their minds because the initial results were heavily in their favor.

[The Senator]

Nebraska does it how the rest of the country should (same way the Democratic primaries are done). Proportional electoral votes would be so much more representative of the actual vote I think.

I agree with that. But wouldn't it just be easier to get rid of the electoral college instead?

[redfirebird2008]

I agree with that. But wouldn't it just be easier to get rid of the electoral college instead?

Even better. :woot:

[BlackLantern]

I happen to like the electoral college....it gives each state equal weight, as opposed to the popular vote which would favor more populous states

[redfirebird2008]

I happen to like the electoral college....it gives each state equal weight, as opposed to the popular vote which would favor more populous states

Each state is NOT equal. It gives the more populous states a bigger say, but smaller states have more of a say than they would if it was just a straight up popular vote. Check out the 2000 election. Bush won 30 states, Gore won 20 (plus Washington, D.C.) but Bush barely won the electoral vote because states like New York and California have a much bigger say than the likes of Oklahoma and Kansas.

[BlackLantern]

or South Dakota....I would hope some kind of system can be set up where each state is represented equally in a presidential election....having an even number of states screws things up LOL

[dnno1]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080228/i/r315812455.jpg?x=400&y=307&sig=8rYHTMnbyW0zvTfAYVf_hw--
Clinton in Ohio

Did I see this right?

[Knives]

Nobody questions wether she had a say in the white house, the question is if the impact was positive or negative?

Again, things that worked...she says she was invovled with. Things that didnt, like Nafta, she says she wasn't. Now she says whatever looks best but of course, if you look back, she said different at the time.

I fail to see how the hell anybody trusts what she says. I trust Barack and I trust McCain. How canyou trust her?

I dont trust her at all. The crap that she keeps spewing about Obama, saying that only her and McCain are experienced to be president? McCain? Is she a complete idiot? Is she THAT desperate to win this nomination that she will rip her opponent down so far as to promote the candidate in the OTHER PARTY before the one in her own party? I understand trying to win your parties nomination,b ut dont **** it up to the point where you cost your party the entire ELECTION! She would happily destroy her own party before letting someone else win. This has always been the Clintons problem. They look out for themselves before anybody. What an idiotic thing to say. And if he wins the nomination, then what? She's burried him! What is she gonna do, say OOPS! I was wrong! Vote for this guy despite what I said? The crap that comes out her mouth these days, it seems like she wants to be MCCAINS running mate. It's pathetic. I have just about no respect left for her at all. It's getting to the point that if she wins the nomination, I may not even bother voting for her if she wins. My distate for her and her tactics just about is leveled with my distaste for McCain.

[StorminNorman]

People using tolling from today to predict the election in November do themselves a disservice. They are worthless.

My father was Communications Chair for the RNC during Ford's Convention. All of the data showed that Ford had no shot of coming close to Carter. Well he did and in fact there was enough voter irregularities in a certain state that if challenged, the election would of been given to Ford. Ford said to not ask for the recount, the country had enough.

The moral is - polls this far out mean nothing.

[Varient]

*No Comment*


Last Warning to American People

March 2006

From: "the one who thirsts for the blood of the Crusaders, the secret soldier of Al-Qaeda,

"Rakan Ben Williams, Al-Qaeda under cover soldier, USA"



"Two Operations Will Occur; unlike after the 9/11, Madrid, and London attacks, which are still being investigated … [after] the coming attack there will be no one to analyze and investigate, because the mind and the heart will be unable to comprehend it

… This will not be a single operation but two; one bigger than the other, but we will begin with the big one and postpone the bigger one, in order to see [how] diligent the American people is [in preserving] its life.

If it chooses life, [it must] carry out the demands of the Muslims, and if it chooses death, then we are its best perpetrators.

-

- "O’ you helpless Americans, especially those living in States far away from Washington, D.C.! … States Far Away From Washington, D.C. such as Arizona Will Be Hit;

We swear by Allah that there are so many tricks and tactical maneuvers that will make your heads spin, by the grace of Allah ...



"This is the last warning you will receive from us. Consequently, if you ignore it,

we regret to inform you that

we will carry out devastating operations

against the States of America

and we will not show mercy whatsoever …



"We Await Orders

From Our Commander Osama Bin Laden;

America Will Be Brought to its Knees.”



Read the full report of this threat posted on March 10, 2006, by the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF) on various Islamic websites. CLICK.

[redfirebird2008]

Varient, why are you posting that in the Obama thread?

[Varient]

Varient, why are you posting that in the Obama thread?

My main malfunction with both is their stand on Terrorism in regards to US action.

Hence my inability to pick a canidate for president. I can find this stuff too easily online,... yet both Clinton and Obama act as though it is not a "real" concern.

[redfirebird2008]

You mean Obama's stand that we should be kicking ass in Afghanistan trying to get Osama rather than wasting money, soldiers, and time in Iraq? Or his ideas on taking out Al Quaeda leaders in Pakistan without asking the Pakistani government? He got heavily criticized for this position by McCain and others, and then the Bush administration successfully did exactly what Obama proposed and recently took out a high-ranking Al Quaeda member in Pakistan. Obama knows the threat is real and so does Clinton. You make assumptions about them without actually checking their record and statements on the matter.

[The Chairman]

Security is the one worry I have on Obama.

The threat of another attack still lingers, and we do need someone who's well prepared for such an issue, and is known for being a major force in the field (sadly, the best we have is McCain) which is why Obama should pick someone who's know for a strong defense record.

I liked jmanspice's choice for Anthony Zinni. I was tempted to e-mail the suggestion to Obama's website.

[redfirebird2008]

Security is the one worry I have on Obama.

The threat of another attack still lingers, and we do need someone who's well prepared for such an issue, and is known for being a major force in the field (sadly, the best we have is McCain) which is why Obama should pick someone who's know for a strong defense record.

I liked jmanspice's choice for Anthony Zinni. I was tempted to e-mail the suggestion to Obama's website.

Agreed. An older foreign policy "expert" as his VP would be his best bet if he gets the nomination.

[Excel]

From Rasmussen:
Florida (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/florida/election_2008_florida_democratic_primary)
Clinton - 55%
Obama - 39%

It would close, it wouls be a cali/ogio sized 10% victory for her.

Michigan (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_democratic_presidential_pri mary)
Clinton - 41%
Obama - 41%

with campaigning, obama would win

From ARG:
Mississippi (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)
Obama - 58%
Clinton - 34%

if Obama takes mississippi like that hell erase that 13 delegate gain she got on him from tuesday.

[Varient]

You mean Obama's stand that we should be kicking ass in Afghanistan trying to get Osama rather than wasting money, soldiers, and time in Iraq? Or his ideas on taking out Al Quaeda leaders in Pakistan without asking the Pakistani government? He got heavily criticized for this position by McCain and others, and then the Bush administration successfully did exactly what Obama proposed and recently took out a high-ranking Al Quaeda member in Pakistan. Obama knows the threat is real and so does Clinton. You make assumptions about them without actually checking their record and statements on the matter.

Sigh.
Don't go there with me unless you want an arguement.

No.
He's on record on being hack-eyed in regards to how to resolve the issues in Iraq - As in he wants to leave any stable resolution UNFINISHED. Even if it were a waste,... you don't make the problem worse and set in motion the deaths of hundreds by acting like a child and just dropping the issue that you stirred up.
Quotes:


"On military matters we know that he wants to pull troops out of Iraq at the greatest pace possible, but would leave troops to rapid deploy against Al Qaeda and to protect our Embassy. In a debate he made a point of stating that he would send troops back into Iraq if Al Qaeda were to build a base in Iraq – they have a base there now. We know that he would like to spend all the money we are spending on Iraq here on domestic programs."
Source: http://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/what-does-senator-obama-stand-for-in-matters-of-defense/

"While Obama supports bringing “the Iraq war to a responsible end” and backs the Iraq Study Group’s peg of March 31, 2008, for the beginning of a “phased withdrawal,” these pledges are hedged with all sorts of qualifications. “This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political and economic benchmarks to which is has committed,” he writes."
Source: http://www.socialistworker.org/2007-2/638/638_09_Obama.shtml



I am well aware of his idea's on what he says he may do if president,... I've YET to read anything about our domestic security from him,... just stuff about terrorism abroad and better treatment of war prisoners here. He's talking heap big mess on leading the world, but is leaving too many holes in his explanations to give me the warm and fuzzies.

Please post a link as far as how he KNOWS where we should be attacking terrorism (Afghanistan?) don't just ride the band-wagon and swallow the pap that points to not checking behind the scenes.

Just like Clintons Health care, and wishywashy stand on the war, and smear mess on her fellow dem by saying she or the repub are a better choice,
Obama promising change while promoting a more organized, tactful, "Bush-speak" (In regards to leading the world), while bowing to the non-thinkers who want to leave Iraq a mess and wander off to stir stuff up somewhere else,..

Leaves me with no choices in regards to a canidate.


V.

[The Senator]

Security is the one worry I have on Obama.

The threat of another attack still lingers, and we do need someone who's well prepared for such an issue, and is known for being a major force in the field (sadly, the best we have is McCain) which is why Obama should pick someone who's know for a strong defense record.

I liked jmanspice's choice for Anthony Zinni. I was tempted to e-mail the suggestion to Obama's website.

I think the Obama camp knows who he is...

[Marx]

Security is the one worry I have on Obama.

The threat of another attack still lingers, and we do need someone who's well prepared for such an issue, and is known for being a major force in the field (sadly, the best we have is McCain) which is why Obama should pick someone who's know for a strong defense record.

I liked jmanspice's choice for Anthony Zinni. I was tempted to e-mail the suggestion to Obama's website.

I think both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said that they will take pretty hardline stances on the threat of Terrorism. I've grown extremely tired of Republicans painting the Democrats as "weak" on defense. Any suggestion of a Democrat's inability to defend this country the way in which it should be defended are completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying that Chairman said this, it's more of a "soapbox statement" that I wanted to address.

[sinewave]

I think both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said that they will take pretty hardline stances on the threat of Terrorism. I've grown extremely tired of Republicans painting the Democrats as "weak" on defense. Any suggestion of a Democrat's inability to defend this country the way in which it should be defended are completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying that Chairman said this, it's more of a "soapbox statement" that I wanted to address.

i agree completely.

[Memphis Slim]

I found this article eye-opening. Disturbig as well. It shows just how little we know about this guy.


How Does Obama Feel About America?
By Mona Charen
Friday, March 7, 2008


Barack Obama's words are often attractive but oddly concealing. His speeches are all balm and mood. It's all very well to seek, as Obama claims, to transcend old categories, to reject the "old politics." But then what? This graceful rhetorician leaves you wondering: Who is he really? What does he want for himself and for his country?

In search of answers that go deeper than the Congressional Record, I read his first book, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance." Once you get past the happy surprise of finding a politician who can actually write, the book contains some disquieting elements.
Obama is the product of a union between a white Kansan and a black Kenyan who met in Hawaii. I had assumed, before reading his memoir, that Obama viewed himself as a natural bridge between the races and that his message of unity sprang in part from his biology. That was wrong. From his earliest years, Obama engaged in a preoccupying internal struggle to make himself a fully authentic black man.

Young Barack hardly knew his father because the elder Obama left when he was 2. One meeting when Barack was 10 and a few letters were all he had. Only much later would Obama discover that his father had many wives and many children -- all of whom wound up disappointed in him. Barack's mother, Ann, went on to marry another non-American, an Indonesian named Lolo, and took the young Barack to live in Jakarta. Perhaps she was hoping to live some sort of Third World idyll. Obama never reveals her political views nor her feelings about America. But we get one glimpse in this passage:

"Looking back, I'm not sure Lolo ever fully understood what my mother was going through ... why the things he was working so hard to provide for her seemed only to increase the distance between them ... He landed a job in the government relations department of an American oil company. ... Sometimes I would overhear him and my mother arguing in their bedroom, usually about her refusal to attend his company dinner parties, where American businessmen from Texas and Louisiana would slap Lolo's back and boast about the palms they had greased to obtain the new offshore drilling rights, while their wives complained to my mother about the quality of Indonesian help. He would ask her how it would look for him to go alone, and remind her that these were her own people, and my mother's voice would rise to almost a shout.
'They are not my people.'"

Grasping, insensitive Americans? Businesspeople? Or just Americans? Whom did she reject?
Whom does he reject -- or what? Left-wing ideas are not so much articulated in this memoir as presumed. Obama has claimed that his experience living abroad gives him a valuable perspective for a chief executive. Yet his reflections on the effect Western capitalism has had on Jakarta and Chicago's south side sound like warmed over Herbert Marcuse.
"How could we go about stitching a culture back together after it was torn? How long might it take in this land of dollars? The very existence of the factories, the timber interests, the plastics manufacturer, will have rendered their culture obsolete; the values of hard work and individual initiative turn out to have depended on a system of belief that's been scrambled by migration and urbanization and imported TV reruns."
Obama's self-portrait in this book is that of a searching, nonjudgmental young man attempting to find his rightful place after a confusing start in life. But he is attracted by the harshly ideological Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church he joins. Wright peddles racial grievance religion. Following 9/11, he said, "[W]hite America got a wake-up call ... White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."

says he doesn't agree with Wright about everything. Fine. And maybe he doesn't agree with his wife when she (twice) said that she'd never been proud of her country until its people began to support her husband. But then, what did he mean when he said on March 4 that making a little girl proud to say she is an American is the "change we are calling for"?
One suspects that beneath the soothing talk, there is bitterness in the man that we'd best learn more about before voting.


[I]Mona Charen is a syndicated columnist

[The Chairman]

That article wreaks of neo-con bias.

[Marx]

That article wreaks of neo-con bias.

I am curious, where did that article come from Slim?

[Arc-Light]

I am curious, where did that article come from Slim?

Mona Charen is a bias known liberal hater.......just like the slickdog.

[Marx]

Mona Charen is a bias known liberal hater.......just like the slickdog.

That must be why I'm not familiar with her. I don't care for people like that. I am familiar with all the other idiots like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., etc.

[The Chairman]

I identify myself as a liberal, but I can't stand the extreme leftists. Nor do I care for the extreme right wingers.

[The Chairman]

I think both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have said that they will take pretty hardline stances on the threat of Terrorism. I've grown extremely tired of Republicans painting the Democrats as "weak" on defense. Any suggestion of a Democrat's inability to defend this country the way in which it should be defended are completely ridiculous.

I'm not saying that Chairman said this, it's more of a "soapbox statement" that I wanted to address.

Oh, I agree completely. I don't think the Democrats are weak, I just think that McCain is so far the most involved in the field (though his experience isn't anything to write Congress about).

[Marx]

I identify myself as a liberal, but I can't stand the extreme leftists. Nor do I care for the extreme right wingers.

The extremes of anything always make the entire group look bad. People see idiots like Ann Coulter and generalize the whole party as sharing her beliefs. The same can be said for the Democratic Party and religious extremists. When in all reality, the extremists do not represent the larger aspect of their respective groups. They just have the loudest voice. Unfortunately.

[The Chairman]

The extremes of anything always make the entire group look bad. People see idiots like Ann Coulter and generalize the whole party as sharing her beliefs. The same can be said for the Democratic Party and religious extremists. When in all reality, the extremists do not represent the larger aspect of their respective groups. They just have the loudest voice. Unfortunately.

True. I hope one day liberalism can be seen for more than just spending money irresponsibly and getting our knickers in a ****ing twist every time we see the words "Merry Christmas" (the ACLU has become a bit too PC these days).

[Marx]

True. I hope one day liberalism can be seen for more than just spending money irresponsibly and getting our knickers in a ****ing twist every time we see the words "Merry Christmas" (the ACLU has become a bit too PC these days).

Very true Chairman. Here's hoping!

[BlackLantern]

and hopefully the demonizing of ones' opponent can stop one day as well...

[hippie_hunter]

From ARG:
Mississippi (http://americanresearchgroup.com/)
Obama - 58%
Clinton - 34%

if Obama takes mississippi like that hell erase that 13 delegate gain she got on him from tuesday.

Here's another poll from Mississippi from InsiderAdvantage done two days ago:

Obama: 46%
Clinton: 40%

[Marx]

Here's another poll from Mississippi from InsiderAdvantage done two days ago:

Obama: 46%
Clinton: 40%

That's ALOT closer than I thought it would be. Wow...:shock

[Lightning Strykez!]

That must be why I'm not familiar with her. I don't care for people like that. I am familiar with all the other idiots like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., etc.

Heh! :cool::up:

[jaguarr]

True. I hope one day liberalism can be seen for more than just spending money irresponsibly and getting our knickers in a ****ing twist every time we see the words "Merry Christmas" (the ACLU has become a bit too PC these days).

Merry Christmas! :)

jag

[Memphis Slim]

I am curious, where did that article come from Slim?


You know....this a typical deflection away from the legitimate point raised in the article. She's quoting Barak from his own book. She's quoting his mother. Mona is reporting this article more than she is telling about this guy's background.

Now, I think the real problem is that you don't like what you hear. And instead of taking a long hard look at the facts, you attack the messenger. I read all the comments since I posted that article. Not one of you addressed even this:


Obama's self-portrait in this book is that of a searching, nonjudgmental young man attempting to find his rightful place after a confusing start in life. But he is attracted by the harshly ideological Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose church he joins. Wright peddles racial grievance religion. Following 9/11, he said, "[W]hite America got a wake-up call ... White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."



Now come on. Why would he hook up with a church like this for years??

[rdh007]

You know....this a typical deflection away from the legitimate point raised in the article. She's quote Barak from his own book. She's quoting his mother. Mona is writing this article more than she is telling about this guy's background.

Now, I think the real problem is that you don't like what you hear. And instead of taking a long hard look at the facts, you attack the messenger. I read all the comments since I posted that article. Not one of you addressed even this:



Now come on. Why would he hook up with a church like this for years??

Firstly, the messenger is quite relevant. This woman was a speech writer for Jack Kemp. This immediately discredits her as a thinker and a writer. Kemp was not exactly known for lighting up crowds with his electric oratory. :down

Secondly, I can't see anything in there that is of relevance. She paints his father as a ghetto-Johnny Appleseed. I say he was a Kenyan scholar. Could be worse, he could've left his wife for someone 18 years younger who was wildly rich and with whom he could finance a campaign to be Senator of Arizona...

Thirdly, I believe his mother objected to this mindset we have in this country that CEOs are worth 98x what the person who actually works for a living is worth. She probably didn't want to hang out at the country club and I don't blame her. I rejected an offer from my brother in law to join a country club for this same reason. And no one loves America more than me. Except Stephen Colbert.

Lastly, his preacher said some stuff he disagreed with. My wife is a Catholic and she is pro-choice (I am not Catholic and I'm pretty close to being anti-choice). Again, these things happen.

Come back when you've got something.

Oh, and Mona Charen makes MAnn Coulter look hot.

[SentinelMind]

Firstly, the messenger is quite relevant. This woman was a speech writer for Jack Kemp. This immediately discredits her as a thinker and a writer. Kemp was not exactly known for lighting up crowds with his electric oratory. :down

I know you're trying to be semi-facetious, but I want to emphasize that all argument should be judged on the merits of the argument (factually and logically) and not based on the background of the person making the argument. 1 + 1 = 2 is not more accuate based on who says it.

Secondly, I can't see anything in there that is of relevance. She paints his father as a ghetto-Johnny Appleseed. I say he was a Kenyan scholar. Could be worse, he could've left his wife for someone 18 years younger who was wildly rich and with whom he could finance a campaign to be Senator of Arizona...

The author is trying to understand Obama's relationship with his father and what type of person Obama's father, which are fair questions. Is she not quoting his book? And yeah yeah....McCain is no better, so let's not ask questions of Obama. check.

Thirdly, I believe his mother objected to this mindset we have in this country that CEOs are worth 98x what the person who actually works for a living is worth. She probably didn't want to hang out at the country club and I don't blame her. I rejected an offer from my brother in law to join a country club for this same reason. And no one loves America more than me. Except Stephen Colbert.

It is very important question to find out how Obama views the class of company executives that run the world's entire energy industry. Does he view them as a "necessary evil" -a necessity to keep our capitalistic society moving, or as a evil class that we should get rid of and CAN do without. That's the question, a very important question that assesses the candidate's view of our economy. Furthermore, no offense to you, but I would question the open-minded of someone who outright refuse an invitation to meet an entire class or network of people based on their background if they've never met the people. If someone thinks a group of people who are just as much a part of the economy as laborers, are expendable, then it gives a glimpse into what type of strategy the person would use in dealing with those group of people and his mindset of our capitalistic structure.

Lastly, his preacher said some stuff he disagreed with. My wife is a Catholic and she is pro-choice (I am not Catholic and I'm pretty close to being anti-choice). Again, these things happen.

Well, given the amount of coverage over Romney's Mormonism (who in my opinion probably loves his faith but probably would have done a good job separating his Mormon faith from his professional world....Romney strikes me as a all-business, get the job-done guy, not an ideologue) i think its fair game to ask questions about what drew Obama to this particular church as opposed to several others. True, you don't have to agree with everything a pastor says, but there is an ideological theme from this particular church that Obama must have foudn appealling and people have a right to ask questions about what this theme is. Whether or not one public policy issue fits in with the Catholic theme is one thing. Obama's gonna have to confront what it is about this church that drew him towards it and what he agrees and disagrees with.

[rdh007]

I know you're trying to be semi-facetious, but I want to emphasize that all argument should be judged on the merits of the argument (factually and logically) and not based on the background of the person making the argument. 1 + 1 = 2 is not more accuate based on who says it.
If she is putting forth an examination of a candidate, then her thinking is in question. If she couldn't understand that Jack Kemp was a half-wit, how can she properly dissect any candidate?

The author is trying to understand Obama's relationship with his father and what type of person Obama's father, which are fair questions. Is she not quoting his book? And yeah yeah....McCain is no better, so let's not ask questions of Obama. check.
Obama's relationship with his father is no more relevant than McCain or Clinton's philandering. In fact, I'd take a dude with daddy issues over a dude with a wandering eye, but that may just be me. All she's doing here is reminding us that Obama doesn't come from the Cleaver family in order to scare the two-toothers among us. She's basically reminding us that "he's a typical Negro with an absent father that had several women and a mother that could barely keep it together". The quotes are because this is not what I believe, but what I believe her to be saying.

It is very important question to find out how Obama views the class of company executives that run the world's entire energy industry. Does he view them as a "necessary evil" -a necessity to keep our capitalistic society moving, or as a evil class that we should get rid of and CAN do without. That's the question, a very important question that assesses the candidate's view of our economy. Furthermore, no offense to you, but I would question the open-minded of someone who outright refuse an invitation to meet an entire class or network of people based on their background if they've never met the people. If someone thinks a group of people who are just as much a part of the economy as laborers, are expendable, then it gives a glimpse into what type of strategy the person would use in dealing with those group of people and his mindset of our capitalistic structure.
Firstly, we're talking about his mother's viewpoint here. My mother believes there is no God. I disagree. My father believes that George Bush can read. I disagree. Just because his parents believe in something doesn't mean he does. Also, Obama is plenty friendly to big business. Too much for my tastes, but I'll take him over Clinton because she shares his pro-business, anti-labor stance while also feeling she has to support more wars to prove her ability to command.

Secondly, I suppose it is a bit close-minded of me to not join a country club because I don't intend to truck with the "haves". I simply have no interest spending my hard-earned money to a)have status and b)play a marginally better golf course than I already can.



Well, given the amount of coverage over Romney's Mormonism (who in my opinion probably loves his faith but probably would have done a good job separating his Mormon faith from his professional world....Romney strikes me as a all-business, get the job-done guy, not an ideologue) i think its fair game to ask questions about what drew Obama to this particular church as opposed to several others. True, you don't have to agree with everything a pastor says, but there is an ideological theme from this particular church that Obama must have foudn appealling and people have a right to ask questions about what this theme is. Whether or not one public policy issue fits in with the Catholic theme is one thing. Obama's gonna have to confront what it is about this church that drew him towards it and what he agrees and disagrees with.
Romney was my favorite candidate for those guys, precisely because of what you said. I disagreed with just about everything he stood for, but he seemed more competent than any of the others. Unfortunately, the newly spineless McCain got the nom and now I may have to vote for Hillary in November. It was unfair to do this sort of thing to Romney, and it's unfair to do it to Obama, Clinton, Ron Paul, or anyone else.

[Marx]

You know....this a typical deflection away from the legitimate point raised in the article. She's quote Barak from his own book. She's quoting his mother. Mona is writing this article more than she is telling about this guy's background.

Now, I think the real problem is that you don't like what you hear. And instead of taking a long hard look at the facts, you attack the messenger. I read all the comments since I posted that article. Not one of you addressed even this:



Now come on. Why would he hook up with a church like this for years??

First of all Slim, I had no hidden motive in asking that question. I was not deflecting from the point. I genuinely wanted to know where that came from and who this person is making the claims. I happen to enjoy looking a little further into things than surface value. I don't just take some random person's word on anything. If I blindly believed everything that was said about this or that, Ann Coulter wouldn't be the hate-mongering b**** that she is.

I'm no sheep. (With all due respect.)

[Memphis Slim]

I know you're trying to be semi-facetious, but I want to emphasize that all argument should be judged on the merits of the argument (factually and logically) and not based on the background of the person making the argument. 1 + 1 = 2 is not more accuate based on who says it.



The author is trying to understand Obama's relationship with his father and what type of person Obama's father, which are fair questions. Is she not quoting his book? And yeah yeah....McCain is no better, so let's not ask questions of Obama. check.



It is very important question to find out how Obama views the class of company executives that run the world's entire energy industry. Does he view them as a "necessary evil" -a necessity to keep our capitalistic society moving, or as a evil class that we should get rid of and CAN do without. That's the question, a very important question that assesses the candidate's view of our economy. Furthermore, no offense to you, but I would question the open-minded of someone who outright refuse an invitation to meet an entire class or network of people based on their background if they've never met the people. If someone thinks a group of people who are just as much a part of the economy as laborers, are expendable, then it gives a glimpse into what type of strategy the person would use in dealing with those group of people and his mindset of our capitalistic structure.



Well, given the amount of coverage over Romney's Mormonism (who in my opinion probably loves his faith but probably would have done a good job separating his Mormon faith from his professional world....Romney strikes me as a all-business, get the job-done guy, not an ideologue) i think its fair game to ask questions about what drew Obama to this particular church as opposed to several others. True, you don't have to agree with everything a pastor says, but there is an ideological theme from this particular church that Obama must have foudn appealling and people have a right to ask questions about what this theme is. Whether or not one public policy issue fits in with the Catholic theme is one thing. Obama's gonna have to confront what it is about this church that drew him towards it and what he agrees and disagrees with.


Bingo. Especially on your first point! Examine what is said. She's quoting Barak for crying out loud. She's quoting his mother. How he views life is shaped by all of that. This Messiah has some issues that we need to examine. The media has given him a pass......it's time to turn up the heat.

And his Pastor's anti-white folk message bears some explanation. I would never sit under someone like that, knowing full well that it contradicts the gospel.


Bush got more scrutiny about his Natl Guard service. Bet no one on these boards objected to that.

[Memphis Slim]

] Rdh007:[/B]
Obama's relationship with his father is no more relevant than McCain or Clinton's philandering. In fact, I'd take a dude with daddy issues over a dude with a wandering eye, but that may just be me. All she's doing here is reminding us that Obama doesn't come from the Cleaver family in order to scare the two-toothers among us. She's basically reminding us that "he's a typical Negro with an absent father that had several women and a mother that could barely keep it together". The quotes are because this is not what I believe, but what I believe her to be saying.



You know...maybe that's what's in your mind. Maybe you're the racist here. Why is a fatherless "negro" typical in your mind? :huh: Because that article didn't say anything of the sort. Maybe you got some stereotypes to sort thru. Matter of fact Bill Clinton's young life was the same. No dad. Single-mom.....step-dad beat his mom..... heck....that sounds "worse" than Barak's life.

This ain't a "color" article. It's about "ideals" and "beliefs". What does this guy believe??? WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW!

[Memphis Slim]

First of all Slim, I had no hidden motive in asking that question. I was not deflecting from the point. I genuinely wanted to know where that came from and who this person is making the claims. I happen to enjoy looking a little further into things than surface value. I don't just take some random person's word on anything. If I blindly believed everything that was said about this or that, Ann Coulter wouldn't be the hate-mongering b**** that she is.

I'm no sheep. (With all due respect.)


Then I apologize.

[rdh007]

You know...maybe that's what's in your mind. Maybe you're the racist here. Why is a fatherless "negro" typical in your mind? :huh: Because that article didn't say anything of the sort. Maybe you got some stereotypes to sort thru. Matter of fact Bill Clinton's young life was the same. No dad. Single-mom.....step-dad beat his mom..... heck....that sounds "worse" than Barak's life.

This ain't a "color" article. It's about "ideals" and "beliefs". What does this guy believe??? WE REALLY DO NOT KNOW!
I have plenty of issues. That is true. However, what this seems to me is an article by a partisan. A good partisan will use whatever he or she can to gain an advantage, plant doubt, play on people's fears, their preconceived notions. These are the most powerful emotions to use--the negative ones. My point was exactly that--she doesn't come out and say it because she doesn't have the guts. Instead, she uses the subtle prejudice that is present everywhere I look.

What I'm looking at is why would a partisan frame the article in the way she does? I believe that it is an attempt to get the two-toothed fishbellied idiots I call "cousin" to doubt, loathe, and to some extent fear Obama.

If she was non-partisan, perhaps I'd see it differently. Which is, of course, why the source matters here. She wrote a book subtitled "How liberals got it wrong in the cold war and still blame America first" for goodness sake. If I'd written a book that was subtitled "Why Republicans all want to eat babies and kill people that look different from them" and then wrote an article attacking John McCain because he is a philanderer, the source wouldn't matter?

And I agree, Clinton's background was very similar.

We do know what Obama believes because he's told us. Unless you think he's a liar. Which would be a whole different discussion than his family background.

[The Senator]

WHY DO YOU GUYS FEEL THE NEED TO GIVE SLIM ANY MORE AMMO THAN HE DESERVES? Stop Responding To Him. Put Him On Ignore. If You Don't Respond To Him, You Won't Have To Put Up With The Mind-numbing Frustration Which Accompanies Every Debate With Him.

[rdh007]

WHY DO YOU GUYS FEEL THE NEED TO GIVE SLIM ANY MORE AMMO THAN HE DESERVES? Stop Responding To Him. Put Him On Ignore. If You Don't Respond To Him, You Won't Have To Put Up With The Mind-numbing Frustration Which Accompanies Every Debate With Him.
Dammit, I was bored I said!
You're right, though. :( I feel dirty for wallowing in the muck. I'm banning myself until 10pm.

Seacrest Out!

[jaguarr]

Ooooh! A conspiracy theory!

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/rush.html

jag

[Memphis Slim]

I have plenty of issues. That is true. However, what this seems to me is an article by a partisan. A good partisan will use whatever he or she can to gain an advantage, plant doubt, play on people's fears, their preconceived notions. These are the most powerful emotions to use--the negative ones. My point was exactly that--she doesn't come out and say it because she doesn't have the guts. Instead, she uses the subtle prejudice that is present everywhere I look.


Tell me WHO IS NOT A PARTISAN??? If you show me one, I'll show you a fat liar. But this article is quoting Barack and his mom. This something you still do not address. You mention "negative".... So you find things in the article negative? Fears?? Only a fool has no fear at all. A healthy Fear makes us examine things more closely. But that's not what I seeing from Barak fanatics. He's offered nothing but "change". Change what? Change how? Change and then what?? Nothing.



What I'm looking at is why would a partisan frame the article in the way she does? I believe that it is an attempt to get the two-toothed fishbellied idiots I call "cousin" to doubt, loathe, and to some extent fear Obama.

If she was non-partisan, perhaps I'd see it differently. Which is, of course, why the source matters here. She wrote a book subtitled "How liberals got it wrong in the cold war and still blame America first" for goodness sake. If I'd written a book that was subtitled "Why Republicans all want to eat babies and kill people that look different from them" and then wrote an article attacking John McCain because he is a philanderer, the source wouldn't matter?

And I agree, Clinton's background was very similar.

Worse, in fact. that's why I don't know why you injected "race" into this agument.

We do know what Obama believes because he's told us. Unless you think he's a liar. Which would be a whole different discussion than his family background.

Did he say why he followed that racist pastor for so long? Did he tell us how he's going to stop the mass slaughters of thousands of Iraqis went he pulls the troops out? What has he said besides "Change"??

[Memphis Slim]

WHY DO YOU GUYS FEEL THE NEED TO GIVE SLIM ANY MORE AMMO THAN HE DESERVES? Stop Responding To Him. Put Him On Ignore. If You Don't Respond To Him, You Won't Have To Put Up With The Mind-numbing Frustration Which Accompanies Every Debate With Him.


That is so childish......
be a man.

[jaguarr]

David Bromwich has a really nice piece up over at Huffington Post about how Obama can fight Clinton AND McCain all at once without playing dirty:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obamas-run-against-mccai_b_90538.html


I'm really starting to enjoy that online publication.

jag

[Excel]

Looks Obama should take wyoming and missippi heavily; he lead will be LARGER than it was prior to tuesday heading into pennsylvania.

[Memphis Slim]

David Bromwich has a really nice piece up over at Huffington Post about how Obama can fight Clinton AND McCain all at once without playing dirty:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obamas-run-against-mccai_b_90538.html


I'm really starting to enjoy that online publication.

jag

Huffington Post Article:
Obama's campaign is haunted by a fear of "going negative." Obama, it is said, has made a certain high-mindedness his touchstone. Yet to mount a strong attack on the "war presidency" will hardly undercut his proper fame as a politician of greater candor, probity, and gentleness than Senator Clinton. Hillary Clinton's sharpest attacks will always be directed against Obama, and those attacks will have to be sharply answered--Obama cannot play the part of the statesman above the battle until he is elected. And there are occasions (such as the mental and moral lowness of the "red phone ad") when a mere concern for truth warrants an impassioned response. But her attacks on him should not distract him from his larger work of opposing McCain.



See....that's the bias that Barack is getting from the media. The writer of that article is clearly in Barak's camp. Clinton is "low" for the red phone ad?? How is that negative?? Mental and moral lowness? :applaud That's funny! To show any contrast between her and Obamam is negative? This is a fight for the White House. I don't want John Lennon in the Oval Office. Obama is a peacenik.

He has no experience at all!! He hasn't even done his Senate job yet. And these are dangerous times. At least Bill use to be President! You know he'll be in her ear with advice. The red phone was very good. These are not good times in the world.

[jaguarr]

Slim, I know you have a hard-on for Obama because you think he MIGHT be a Muslim, but that last post of yours pretty clearly illustrates how you really just don't "get" the liberal mindset or how the things that have gone on in these primaries undermine politics in general, my friend. At any rate, experience by proxy is still not experience. Seems McCain and Hillary have at least that in common. ;)

jag

[Excel]

Barack has officially ruled out being Hillarys VP

[The Chairman]

I don't want John Lennon in the Oval Office. Obama is a peacenik.

Why? Because he realizes torture is illegal and for the most part ineffective? Because he wants to put an end to soldiers dying in Iraq? Give me a break. I'm pretty sure Obama isn't just going to sit around and do nothing if we're attacked again. He'll react, and I'm sure he realizes that certain people in the public are skeptical on his security stance, so he'll most likely be smart enough to put an expert in that field in a high position of his cabinet, most likely VP.

Also, the John Lennon comment was uncalled for.

[jaguarr]

The irony of a devout Christian using the term "peacenik" as if it were a negative is not lost on me, btw.

jag

[Raiden]

Barack has officially ruled out being Hillarys VP

Good, I don't think it will work out well anyway. Both Hillary and obama would use a military officer or someone who can balance out their ticket as their running mate.

[Marx]

Then I apologize.

Apology accepted Slim. :cwink:

[Marx]

Barack has officially ruled out being Hillarys VP

Based on what? When did this happen? If he has said that, he is only saying it now because he wants nothing less than the Presidency. Typical politics.

[The Chairman]

The irony of a devout Christian using the term "peacenik" as if it were a negative is not lost on me, btw.

jag

True. Where's Matt when you need him to post the image of Jesus's quotes being used as a hypothetical attack against him by the Bush camp? It was brilliant.

As a lifelong Catholic and proud American, I'm able to see that Bush's methods not only contradict his religious teachings, but also the values of the country he's governing.

[Memphis Slim]

Why? Because he realizes torture is illegal and for the most part ineffective? Because he wants to put an end to soldiers dying in Iraq? Give me a break. I'm pretty sure Obama isn't just going to sit around and do nothing if we're attacked again. He'll react, and I'm sure he realizes that certain people in the public are skeptical on his security stance, so he'll most likely be smart enough to put an expert in that field in a high position of his cabinet, most likely VP.

Also, the John Lennon comment was uncalled for.


Is Lennon your cousin or something. I can use his example if I think it's applicable.

We all want soldiers to stop dying in Iraq. But by pulling them out now, you leave innocent Iraqis to die at the hands of the terrorists. The issue is now!! We are there now. And we must finish this job.

[Excel]

Based on what? When did this happen? If he has said that, he is only saying it now because he wants nothing less than the Presidency. Typical politics.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamasays-novp.html

No, hes saying it cause Hillarys saying she might use Obama as vp to lure undediced. Now people know...if they want Obama, they have to vote for him as thats the only way.

[Memphis Slim]

The irony of a devout Christian using the term "peacenik" as if it were a negative is not lost on me, btw.

jag


Jag...if you truly understood Christianity beyond the popular sound bites, you know that self-defense is Biblical. You'd also know that there is a time for war and a time for peace.

Peacenik is a bad thing when to fight, is the solution. Sadly , there are times to fight.

[The Chairman]

Is Lennon your cousin or something. I can use his example if I think it's applicable.

We all want soldiers to stop dying in Iraq. But by pulling them out now, you leave innocent Iraqis to die at the hands of the terrorists. The issue is now!! We are there now. And we must finish this job.

No, but it just shows how you pigeon hole liberals in the same group of peaceniks. Also, I doubt the man in your avatar would approve of our government's current tactics, either. Did he not advocate nonviolence?

Iraqi civillians are being killed there with us anyway. By being there, we're just adding more ammo (literally and figuratively). The conflict has been going on for awhile, long before us, and I highly doubt it'll end any time soon. We may as well as let them fight it out. Is it a risk? Yes, but we had no business to be their in the first place (well, I'll admit Sadaam needed to be taken care of, although we went in on the wrong grounds).

[The Chairman]

Jag...if you truly understood Christianity beyond the popular sound bites, you know that self-defense is Biblical. You'd also know that there is a time for war and a time for peace.

Peacenik is a bad thing when to fight, is the solution. Sadly , there are times to fight.

While this is true, I doubt Jesus would want us to attack any random country. He'd want us to fight the enemy, not who we assume to be the enemy.

[Marx]

No, but it just shows how you pigeon hole liberals in the same group of peaceniks. Also, I doubt the man in your avatar would approve of our government's current tactics, either. Did he not advocate nonviolence?

Iraqi civillians are being killed there with us anyway. By being there, we're just adding more ammo (literally and figuratively). The conflict has been going on for awhile, long before us, and I highly doubt it'll end any time soon. We may as well as let them fight it out. Is it a risk? Yes, but we had no business to be their in the first place (well, I'll admit Sadaam needed to be taken care of, although we went in on the wrong grounds).

It is my belief that we are just prolonging the inevitable - which is a full-scale civil war.

[jaguarr]

Jag...if you truly understood Christianity beyond the popular sound bites, you know that self-defense is Biblical. You'd also know that there is a time for war and a time for peace.

Peacenik is a bad thing when to fight, is the solution. Sadly , there are times to fight.

Okay, well call me when Iraq has actually attacked us. Kay? :up:

jag

[Memphis Slim]

And no....I don't think he's a Muslim.

But I find it strange that everybody is so sensitive about people using his middle name. I think you guys have the fears.

Hussein?? Hey...it's his name. :whatever:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt? William Jefferson Clinton? John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

so when can we say his whole name? After he's in office??

[Memphis Slim]

Okay, well call me when Iraq has actually attacked us. Kay? :up:

jag

Sometimes you don't wait to be hit first. You do know that don't you?

[The Chairman]

And no....I don't think he's a Muslim.

But I find it strange that everybody is so sensitive about people using his middle name. I think you guys have the fears.

Hussein?? Hey...it's his name. :whatever:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt? William Jefferson Clinton? John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

so when can we say his whole name? After he's in office??

Maybe because it's blatantly obvious the far right is using his name as a scare tactic. And they don't even use his full name. They say B. Hussein Obama, as to empasize his middle name.

You can't be this ignorant. Please tell me you're not this ignorant.

[Memphis Slim]

Maybe because it's blatantly obvious the far right is using his name as a scare tactic. And they don't even use his full name. They say B. Hussein Obama, as to empasize his middle name.

You can't be this ignorant. Please tell me you're not this ignorant.


Why should his middle name scare anyone? It's just a harmless wittle name.

[jaguarr]

Sometimes you don't wait to be hit first. You do know that don't you?

LOL! You're hilarious!

jag

[Memphis Slim]

He can't stand on his own birth name and he wants to be President??? What kinda crap is that??

[The Chairman]

Sometimes you don't wait to be hit first. You do know that don't you?

Oh. My. Gosh. You can't be serious.

[Memphis Slim]

He can't stand on his own birth name and he wants to be President??? What kinda crap is that??


That's the least of the problems he'll have to address as Prez. If he's gotta have people protecting him from his own middle name, that's just wuss. Sorry.

[Marx]

Maybe because it's blatantly obvious the far right is using his name as a scare tactic. And they don't even use his full name. They say B. Hussein Obama, as to empasize his middle name.

You can't be this ignorant. Please tell me you're not this ignorant.

Why should his middle name scare anyone? It's just a harmless wittle name.

Give me a break Slim! You can't possibly sit there and say that you don't know how the Republican Spin Machine works. They do nothing but play off of the fears of people. To a large number of people, his middle name is nothing more than his middle name. But to another group of people, who unfortunately can't differenciate between the name Hussein and radical islamic terrorism, the RSM capitalizes. It's really sad...and pathetic.

Thankfully after these last few years, more and more people see that Spin Machine for what it really is.

[The Chairman]

That's the least of the problems we'll have to address as Prez. If he's gotta have people protecting him from his own middle name, that's just wuss. Sorry.

Funny. I never heard him say "Please don't say my middle name." He doesn't want his name abused as some tactic to fight for the other side. In politics, you need to do everything in your power to get elected. If that means making a big deal over something like this, then he needs to do it. What if Cheney's middle name was Hitler?

[Memphis Slim]

Oh. My. Gosh. You can't be serious.


as a heart attack.

[The Chairman]

Give me a break Slim! You can't possibly sit there and say that you don't know how the Republican Spin Machine works. They do nothing but play off of the fears of people. To a large number of people, his middle name is nothing more than his middle name. But to another group of people, who unfortunately can't differenciate between the name Hussein and radical islamic terrorism, the RSM capitalizes. It's really sad...and pathetic.

Thankfully after these last few years, more and more people see that Spin Machine for what it really is.

Not only that, but he's had the name since birth. Sadaam was probably still trying to grow his now famous mustache when Barrack was given his name.

[Memphis Slim]

LOL! You're hilarious!

jag

:hoboj:

[Kelly]

It is my belief that we are just prolonging the inevitable - which is a full-scale civil war.


Unfortunately that probably is the inevitable, and us being there will not allow it to play itself out on a course of true revolution....

The people of Iraq, along with the government, along with the moderate Muslims have to stand up, speak out, and begin this revolution.....until that happens........we are the crutch for a legless nation.

[The Chairman]

as a heart attack.

Okay, so hypothetically, if the Yakuza put a hit out on me, I should randomly attack every Asian who crosses my path.

[Marx]

Not only that, but he's had the name since birth. Sadaam was probably still trying to grow his now famous mustache when Barrack was given his name.

It just really bothers me when people can't see what the Republicans are doing. Obama has never said "Oh don't use my name, we have to hide it, no one can know it!" He does not want it to be used in the way that it was used. You are absolutely correct Chair.

[Memphis Slim]

Maybe because it's blatantly obvious the far right is using his name as a scare tactic. And they don't even use his full name. They say B. Hussein Obama, as to empasize his middle name.

You can't be this ignorant. Please tell me you're not this ignorant.


So who is using the "B. Hussein" line??

Name some people.

[Kelly]

Funny. I never heard him say "Please don't say my middle name." He doesn't want his name abused as some tactic to fight for the other side. In politics, you need to do everything in your power to get elected. If that means making a big deal over something like this, then he needs to do it. What if Cheney's middle name was Hitler?

Not only that, but he's had the name since birth. Sadaam was probably still trying to grow his now famous mustache when Barrack was given his name.

Only serial killers are proud of their middle name....:cwink:


And the name Hussein is very much like Smith.....it is very common in the Arabic world among secular as well as muslim families.....so really its not that big of a deal.

[The Chairman]

It just really bothers me when people can't see what the Republicans are doing. Obama has never said "Oh don't use my name, we have to hide it, no one can know it!" He does not want it to be used in the way that it was used. You are absolutely correct Chair.

Exactly.

I mean, let's say Kennedy was trying to stop people from using his middle name because Nixon was sway people over to his side because he was trying to remind people Kennedy was a Catholic. It would be the same thing.

[Marx]

Exactly.

I mean, let's say Kennedy was trying to stop people from using his middle name because Nixon was sway people over to his side because he was trying to remind people Kennedy was a Catholic. It would be the same thing.

Yes it would.

[Memphis Slim]

Funny. I never heard him say "Please don't say my middle name." He doesn't want his name abused as some tactic to fight for the other side. In politics, you need to do everything in your power to get elected. If that means making a big deal over something like this, then he needs to do it. What if Cheney's middle name was Hitler?

If it was "Hitler" you better believe the liberal media would use it everyday! That's why I find their protection of Obama hilarious! He'll never say that. But he's got enough people trying to protect him from his own name! He doesn't need to say anything. :applaud

[The Chairman]

Yes it would.

Indeed. Slim's ignorance in this regard, and just about all others, is astounding.

[jaguarr]

So who is using ghte "B. Hussein" line??

Name some people.

Bill Cunningham sends you hugs and kisses, Slim. But not in a gay way. :up:

jag

[The Chairman]

If it was "Hitler" you better believe the liberal media would use it everyday! That's why I find their protection of Obama hilarious! He'll never say that. But he's got enough people trying to protect him from his own name! He doesn't need to say anything. :applaud

That could be true. But it's just a name in the end, right? No harm. Would you call Cheney out for trying to stop his name from being used in a negative light? No, of course not.

[The Chairman]

As for the B. Hussein Obama line, check out Ms. (Mr.?) Anne Coulter. Did you have fun dating her in college, Slim?

[Memphis Slim]

Okay, so hypothetically, if the Yakuza put a hit out on me, I should randomly attack every Asian who crosses my path.



You should find and attack the Yakusa. Now...in the process some others might get hurt. But that would also happen if you "waited" for them to attack you.

I'll take my chances with a good offense....because a good offense is a good defense. :woot:

[The Chairman]

You should find and attack the Yakusa. Now...in the process some others might get hurt. But that would also happen if you "waited" for them to attack you.

I'll take my chances with a good offense....because a good offense is a good defense. :woot:

Iraq had no plans to attack us. They had NOTHING to do with 9 / 11.

[jaguarr]

I'll take my chances with a good offense....because a good offense is a good defense. :woot:

Who are you? Mel, the cook from Alice? : oldperson'sjoke:

jag

[Kelly]

Chill on the personal, let us keep to the facts and opinions about the "subject" at hand....not those that are debating the subject......shall we gentlemen?


Thank you......




Continue with this VERY interesting debate.....:applaud I'm enjoying it very much....

[Memphis Slim]

As for the B. Hussein Obama line, check out Ms. (Mr.?) Anne Coulter. Did you have fun dating her in college, Slim?


Naaah........I like my women with curves. :woot:


But you know Coulter likes to stir the pot. Who in the media is the B. Hussein thing. Nobody. They're not even using it the right way. Why? For fear of being accused of what you're saying right now.

[Memphis Slim]

Bill Cunningham sends you hugs and kisses, Slim. But not in a gay way. :up:

jag


I heard him say "Barak Hussein Obama".........not the B. Hussein line. Which is it? :yay:

[jaguarr]

I heard him say "Barak Hussein Obama".........not the B. Hussein line. Which is it? :yay:

Either usage has the same intent, Mel.

jag

[Memphis Slim]

Iraq had no plans to attack us. They had NOTHING to do with 9 / 11.

Maybe so. But 911 changed everything. and we couldn't take that chance. Just ask this guy..... :woot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME

[Varient]

We all want soldiers to stop dying in Iraq. But by pulling them out now, you leave innocent Iraqis to die at the hands of the terrorists. The issue is now!! We are there now. And we must finish this job.


People dance around this.

They ignore history in regards to what has happened in the past when we departed w/o finishing what we started because they won't be the ones suffering and dying by the US just dropping everything and leaving.

Tsk.

Why bother argueing if folk who are for or against someone insists on picking and choosing what they will address.
:sleepy:

[Memphis Slim]

Chill on the personal, let us keep to the facts and opinions about the "subject" at hand....not those that are debating the subject......shall we gentlemen?


Thank you......




Continue with this VERY interesting debate.....:applaud I'm enjoying it very much....

A moderator that stays above the fray!! Refreshing!:applaud

[The Chairman]

Maybe so. But 911 changed everything. and we couldn't take that chance. Just ask this guy..... :woot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2iOVqYBqME

But they had no nuclear weapons. They were destroyed.

Had we gone in on the grounds that Sadaam was breaking UN laws by ignoring the resolutions and whatnot, the war would've been justified, though not entirely necessary. But we went in on unproven grounds that have since been verified as false.

[Memphis Slim]

Either usage has the same intent, Mel.

jag


The "B. Hussien" one is definitely blatant. Only because of the clear emphasis.
2. Everybody calls him Barak...not "B."

So that's too obvious. :whatever:

[jaguarr]

The "B. Hussien" one is definitely blatant. Only because of the clear emphasis.
2. Everybody calls him Barak...not "B."

So that's too obvious. :whatever:

Mel, kiss my grits. :up:

jag