The Obama Thread (Merged x6)

[jaguarr]

Well goody gum drops for you. And so I guess all the anti-McCain rhetoric on here would be said about any Republican nominee. Or something similar to it...

Excellent. I accept your apology.

jag

[Tron5000]

I was just wondering if perhaps you'd like to respond to it maybe.

I don't respond to individuals who ask "who the hell are you" and refer to me as "pathetic." Sorry, not enough time in the day to respond to such silliness.

[kainedamo]

He basically owned your ass with more evidence.

[Matt]

Enough with the insults Kaine.

[Tron5000]

He basically owned your ass with more evidence.

And I'm crying right in my beer right now. Hope I make it through the night OK. I may need to buy a blanky.

[Marx]

I don't believe him to be phony at all, so no, I don't have to admit that.

You want "phony"? How about attending a church for 20 years and saying you had no idea of what was preached in the church or that the other parishioners support and welcome such preaching? How about saying one day that "Iran is not a serious threat," then proclaiming the next day that "I've always said the threat from Iran is grave"? How about saving hundreds of thousands of dollars on your house because the criminal next door subsidized the purchase of your home by overpaying for the adjacent lot, but claiming you just thought you got a good deal and had no idea these people were conspiring to save you a ton of money? How about securing over $300,000 in earmarks for Father Michael Pfleger, but then claiming you're not even close to him and don't really know him that well (do people often direct $300,000 in taxpayers' money to individuals with whom they are not familiar)?

Does any of this sound "phony" to you?

My discontent of Obama has become widely known...you have just reiterated some of my problems with him.

I just honestly don't see McCain as being any better.

Ouch.

Fresh spankings on the Hype today....:yay:

There's no beat down on me fella's, I agree with him about Obama. So that's that.

[jaguarr]

And I'm crying right in my beer right now. Hope I make it through the night OK. I may need to buy a blanky.

I know how Tron's spending his economic stimulus package check! :D

jag

[Darkly Dexter]

I doubt it will be a big conspiracy. Any rational group knows what the results of sponsoring a presidential assassination would be (and it is likely what you described). If someone takes the shot, my guess is it would be one person, one nut job.

In my opinion, it will all depend on Obama's policies if he gets the presidency.
If he makes or wants to make big changes in the Defense and Foreign policies and he gets shot...I won't doubt for a second who is behind it (it won't be a nut job).

[Tron5000]

He basically owned your ass with more evidence.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Feel free.

[kal-el2006]

Is Mcain trying to look young? no original ideas so copy your opponent ..either case its laughable what hes trying to do..

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-06-04-believe.jpg

[Tron5000]

Is Mcain trying to look young? no original ideas so copy your opponent ..either case its laughable what hes trying to do..

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-06-04-believe.jpg

It's laughable in that he has a web page with his picture that prominently features the colors of red white and blue, and it contains the word "believe"? I was unaware that Obama had trademarked that particular word. Yeah, I'm rolling on the floor right now. Please, someone help before my gut bursts...

[BlackLantern]

I like the "Decision Center"....that is fantastic

[terry78]

Malcolm X, JFK, MLK...all shot. As soon as someone different takes the helm, or attempts to, a few of us here in the states feel we can just go carte blanche and just cap them to showcase how we don't want them in that seat. I can assume no one in this day and age would have the gall to go that route, but...who can say. Like Chris Rock said, first black president, his ass is going to need security 24/7.

[Tron5000]

Malcolm X, JFK, MLK...all shot. As soon as someone different takes the helm, or attempts to, a few of us here in the states feel we can just go carte blanche and just cap them to showcase how we don't want them in that seat. I can assume no one in this day and age would have the gall to go that route, but...who can say. Like Chris Rock said, first black president, his ass is going to need security 24/7.

Pretty sure he will have security 24/7. It's called the Secret something or other...

[Raiden]

I like the "Decision Center"....that is fantastic

At least it's not called the "Decider Center". :cwink:

[Matt]

It's laughable in that he has a web page with his picture that prominently features the colors of red white and blue, and it contains the word "believe"? I was unaware that Obama had trademarked that particular word. Yeah, I'm rolling on the floor right now. Please, someone help before my gut bursts...

Obama created the words change, hope, and believe. He also has the phrase "Yes we can," protected by copyright law.

[kainedamo]

It's laughable in that he has a web page with his picture that prominently features the colors of red white and blue, and it contains the word "believe"? I was unaware that Obama had trademarked that particular word. Yeah, I'm rolling on the floor right now. Please, someone help before my gut bursts...

Hilarious.

[Sebastos]

It's laughable McCain think he'll become President. Not only is he to old, but he also has anger issues. I don't think people would settle for that kind of temper.

It will be great if Obama can pull of the win without the votes being rigged. :o

[Tron5000]

It's laughable McCain think he'll become President. Not only is he to old, but he also has anger issues. I don't think people would settle for that kind of temper.

It will be great if Obama can pull of the win without the votes being rigged. :o

Too old? His mother is approaching the Century mark. How exactly is he too old?

And what is too old? What, in your opinion, should be the cutoff? 62? 65? 69? 70? At what age are you officially too old to be President?

[Raiden]

Too old? His mother is approaching the Century mark. How exactly is he too old?

And what is too old? What, in your opinion, should be the cutoff? 62? 65? 69? 70? At what age are you officially too old to be President?

Not sure what is too old, but if McCain got elected president he'd become the oldest elected president in US history.

[souvlaki]

With Hillary endorsing Obama on Friday we can finally, officially say "so how about that General Election." Huh... that's a nice feeling.

[Sebastos]

Too old? His mother is approaching the Century mark. How exactly is he too old?

And what is too old? What, in your opinion, should be the cutoff? 62? 65? 69? 70? At what age are you officially too old to be President?

In the words of former President Carter "We need someone young for President."

I just don't see it happening and i'm not the only one.

[Tron5000]

Not sure what is too old, but if McCain got elected president he'd become the oldest elected president in US history.

And that's a bad thing? A Presidential candidate who has lived long enough to have seen, learned and experienced more than any previous American President? Heavens, no.

John McCain was fighting for this great nation before Obama was an itch in his daddy's pants.

[Tron5000]

In the words of former President Carter "We need someone young for President."

I just don't see it happening and i'm not the only one.

You said he was too old. "Too" means "in excess." In order for someone to be "too" something, you have to define the terms. If you say he is too old, then at exactly what age has someone become too old for President? If he is too old, there must be a cutoff. Where does this cutoff lie?

[Varient]

You said he was too old. "Too" means "in excess." In order for someone to be "too" something, you have to define the terms. If you say he is too old, then at exactly what age has someone become too old for President? If he is too old, there must be a cutoff. Where does this cutoff lie?

I took it to mean that he wouldn't survive his term,....

[Tron5000]

I took it to mean that he wouldn't survive his term,....

So what is the cutoff for surviving a term?

[BlackLantern]

IMO...When you hit the point where you can't wipe yourself....then you are too old...

[Tron5000]

IMO...When you hit the point where you can't wipe yourself....then you are too old...

When there's no lead left in my pencil, I'll consider myself "too old." That's the end.

[Sebastos]

You said he was too old. "Too" means "in excess." In order for someone to be "too" something, you have to define the terms. If you say he is too old, then at exactly what age has someone become too old for President? If he is too old, there must be a cutoff. Where does this cutoff lie?

Read this sentence again.

It's laughable McCain think he'll become President. Not only is he to old, but he also has anger issues.

Nowhere did I type "too". :o

[Sebastos]

When there's no lead left in my pencil, I'll consider myself "too old." That's the end.

That must be a long pencil you got there then. :hehe:

[Tron5000]

Read this sentence again.



Nowhere did I type "too". :o

I know. You typed "to," so you misspelled it.

[Tron5000]

That must be a long pencil you got there then. :hehe:

Apparently you've spoken to some of my lady friends.

[Sebastos]

I know. You typed "to," so you misspelled it.

Ah, well I still think he's old for President. Sorry but it's just what I think.

Apparently you've spoken to some of my lady friends.

I didn't mean it like that. :lmao:

[Tron5000]

Ah, well I still think he's old for President. Sorry but it's just what I think.



I didn't mean it like that. :lmao:

I would just like to know that if that's what you think, then at what age do you draw the line? Where is the threshold?

So you haven't spoken to my lady friends? Oh, well. Word will get around eventually, I guess...

[Varient]

So what is the cutoff for surviving a term?

:whatever:

What is the CURRENT MAX life expectacy of male human beings? 78?


How old is this guy again?
72 this year?

At BEST he'll make it if he takes care of himself,.... I think there are stats that prove that with few exceptions being president shortens your lifespan.

So I still feel that when folk think he's "too old" they mean he may deterioate in office and die before finishing.

.......................... Just Saying.

[Sebastos]

I would just like to know that if that's what you think, then at what age do you draw the line? Where is the threshold?

Perhaps before 70. McCain is too old now and who knows what kind of health problems he could get over the course of years. I don't think anyone needs that kind of burden.

So you haven't spoken to my lady friends? Oh, well. Word will get around eventually, I guess...

I don't have to, I have enough lady friends. :cool:

[Tron5000]

:whatever:

What is the CURRENT MAX life expectacy of male human beings? 78?


How old is this guy again?
72 this year?

At BEST he'll make it if he takes care of himself,.... I think there are stats that prove that with few exceptions being president shortens your lifespan.

So I still feel that when folk think he's "too old" they mean he may deterioate in office and die before finishing.

.......................... Just Saying.

Just saying...his mother is in her 90s. McCain appears to be in very good health for his age. And Ronald Reagan was 77 when George Bush was sworn in.

My grandfather is 76 and is very fit and as sharp as a tack. I trust his advice and guidance on every issue. I see McCain's age (and experience) to be an asset, rather than a deterrent.

[Sebastos]

If McCain manages to take the White House, he's going to be another easily manipulable presidential puppet like his immediate predecessor, George w. Bush.

[Tron5000]

Perhaps before 70. McCain is too old now and who knows what kind of health problems he could get over the course of years. I don't think anyone needs that kind of burden.



I don't have to, I have enough lady friends. :cool:

Like I said, his mother is approaching 100. He seems to keep himself in very good shape.

I won't shy away from voting for him because his age says he may have health problems at some point in the next 4 years. Should people shy away from Obama because he is black and some nutjob attempt to assassinate him, thus keeping him from finishing his term?

[Tron5000]

If McCain manages to take the White House, he's going to be another easily manipulable presidential puppet like his immediate predecessor, George w. Bush.

McCain has earned the moniker of "maverick" due to his lack of voting straight down the Republican party line. He has crossed the aisle and defied the President on a number of occasions. What leads you to believe that he would be a "manipulable presidential puppet"?

[Nakon]

McCain bugs the hell out of me the things he does and the way he does them.

Obama 08'!

[Tron5000]

Perhaps before 70. McCain is too old now and who knows what kind of health problems he could get over the course of years. I don't think anyone needs that kind of burden.



I don't have to, I have enough lady friends. :cool:

Well, Reagan was 2 weeks away from 70 when sworn in, and I think he did a pretty good job.



Good. Stay away from mine. But we could work out some sort of time-share or something.

[Tron5000]

McCain bugs the hell out of me the things he does and the way he does them.

Obama 08'!

My, such insightful analysis. I eagerly await your next offering.

[Excel]

It's laughable McCain think he'll become President. Not only is he to old, but he also has anger issues. I don't think people would settle for that kind of temper.

It will be great if Obama can pull of the win without the votes being rigged. :o

Heh, just wait till the story about him calling his wife a c*nt infront of reporters breaks :hehe:

[Excel]

No age is too old; Reagan showed you can act young even when youre old; however McCain is far too old grandfatherly type old...it just brings with it a bit of baggage..being so old, being a senators son...it wont be hard for Obama to paint him as old politics of the past; while Obamas life story is the American dream...

[Tag279]

I am very interested in seeng what Hillary says on Friday.

Obama needs a strong willed person with Foreign policy credentials that is not Hillary. And is willing to fall in line with Obama's plan.

[Sebastos]

Like I said, his mother is approaching 100. He seems to keep himself in very good shape.

I won't shy away from voting for him because his age says he may have health problems at some point in the next 4 years. Should people shy away from Obama because he is black and some nutjob attempt to assassinate him, thus keeping him from finishing his term?

His age plays a factor for me. I'm also not voting for him cause all he'll do is continue what Bush started for another 4 years. :o We need change.

McCain has earned the moniker of "maverick" due to his lack of voting straight down the Republican party line. He has crossed the aisle and defied the President on a number of occasions. What leads you to believe that he would be a "manipulable presidential puppet"?

Read my post above, it's fact. :ninja:

Well, Reagan was 2 weeks away from 70 when sworn in, and I think he did a pretty good job.



Good. Stay away from mine. But we could work out some sort of time-share or something.

I wasn't fond of Reagan.

If they have assests i'm attracted to, sure. :grin:

[Nakon]

I am very interested in seeng what Hillary says on Friday.

Obama needs a strong willed person with Foreign policy credentials that is not Hillary. And is willing to fall in line with Obama's plan.That's one of my points. Perfect explaining and i agree 100%. :whatever:

[Sebastos]

Heh, just wait till the story about him calling his wife a c*nt infront of reporters breaks :hehe:

Or something else. :hehe: I count the days. :hehe:

[Tron5000]

No age is too old; Reagan showed you can act young even when youre old; however McCain is far too old grandfatherly type old...it just brings with it a bit of baggage..being so old, being a senators son...it wont be hard for Obama to paint him as old politics of the past; while Obamas life story is the American dream...

Yes. That's my dream. To become extremely wealthy while telling others to devote their lives to civic service. To join a church for political expediency, and after a 20-year membership, lie about my knowledge of said church's beliefs for even more political expediency. To have a wife who reaches her 40s before being proud of America. To have 2 beautiful daughters but to view the possibility of them getting pregnant as a punishment. To agree to meet with leaders of terrorist-sponsoring nations, that are actively killing our brave soldiers, without preconditions.

The American Dream, indeed. What a country.

[Tron5000]

His age plays a factor for me. I'm also not voting for him cause all he'll do is continue what Bush started for another 4 years. :o We need change.



Read my post above, it's fact. :ninja:



I wasn't fond of Reagan.

If they have assests i'm attracted to, sure. :grin:

Is his age really a factor, or is it something upon which you can hang your lack of support for McCain?

And I think McCain differs greatly from President Bush. They've disagreed on numerous issues, both before and during the Bush Presidency.

I definitely consider Reagan the best President of my lifetime. He was courageous, honest, and compassionate.

Of course they have these assets. If the horse can't run, why keep it in your stable?

[Excel]

Yes. That's my dream. To become extremely wealthy while telling others to devote their lives to civic service.

But how he got extremely wealthy is where the American Drean and Obama collide.

To have a wife who reaches her 40s before being proud of America.

Not every first lady can be a beer heiress and trophy wife.

To agree to meet with leaders of terrorist-sponsoring nations, that are actively killing our brave soldiers, without preconditions.


Well, maybe, just maybe, by meeting with them we could become friends...and than maybe they wont kill our brave soldiers anymore :yay:

The American Dream, indeed. What a country.

No doubt :up:

[Tron5000]

But how he got extremely wealthy is where the American Drean and Obama collide.



Not every first lady can be a beer heiress and trophy wife.



Well, maybe, just maybe, by meeting with them we could become friends...and than maybe they wont kill our brave soldiers anymore :yay:



No doubt :up:

He got extremely wealthy through such means as saving hundreds of thousands on his home because the purchase was subsidized by the criminal next door overpaying for the adjacent property to give Obama a sweetheart (illegal) deal.

No, Michelle is much more than a trophy wife. Read her college papers and you'll quickly discover that.

Do you want to "become friends" with those who deny the Holocaust, seek to effect another one, refer to the US as "The Great Satan" and to Jews as "pigs"? Personally, that's not someone I would like to have as a "friend." But Obama has definitely shown a lack of judgment in those with whom he chooses to associate.

[Excel]

I would like to be "friends" with everybody; doesnt you gotta hang out with them if you get what I am saying.

[BlackLantern]

Throughout the history of the world...one country has been the big bully and carried the big stick....its our turn right now....You can't make friends with people who BELIEVE that everyone who isn't a Muslim should either be subjugated or killed....I have issue with that

[Tron5000]

I would like to be "friends" with everybody; doesnt you gotta hang out with them if you get what I am saying.

Well, I have had friends that I cut away from my circle because I knew that associating with them was detrimental to me.

No, I don't get what you're saying. I spend time with my friends. Other people are just numbers in my cell phone. We can reach Iran any time we want. But we should not count them among the "friends" of the US.

[Excel]

Maybe people who hate us wont hate us if we talk to them, does that make a bit of sense or I am really talking to a wall?

[BlackLantern]

Maybe people who hate us wont hate us if we talk to them, does that make a bit of sense or I am really talking to a wall?

I don't think you are listening....They hate us because they BELIEVE we are infidels, because we aren't Muslim....They hate us because in their twisted interpretation of the Koran they are to hate everyone who is not a Muslim...

No amount of talking will shake a BELIEF if it is firm enough

[Tron5000]

Maybe people who hate us wont hate us if we talk to them, does that make a bit of sense or I am really talking to a wall?

Solid brick.

Do you think Iran hates us because we won't "talk to them," or because we are a non-Muslim nation built on freedom of religion and the belief that tyrannical, despotic dictators should not be allowed to do things like proliferating their nuclear weapons programs unchecked?

[Tag279]

Speaking with our enemies is one thing hanging out with them is something entirely different.

Bush's policy of sabre rattling is not working why stay with it? I say at least try to talk if aggressive negotiations don't work. Then to quote Obi Wan...

"Aggressive negotiations with a light sabre..." Or thermobarric bombs thats me... ; - )

[Tron5000]

Speaking with our enemies is one thing hanging out with them is something entirely different.

Bush's policy of sabre rattling is not working why stay with it? I say at least try to talk if aggressive negotiations don't work. Then to quote Obi Wan...

"Aggressive negotiations with a light sabre..." Or thermobarric bombs thats me... ; - )

Yes. Let's quote the genius of George Lucas and the Jedi whilst discussing (real-life) American politics.

[Sebastos]

Is his age really a factor, or is it something upon which you can hang your lack of support for McCain?

And I think McCain differs greatly from President Bush. They've disagreed on numerous issues, both before and during the Bush Presidency.

I definitely consider Reagan the best President of my lifetime. He was courageous, honest, and compassionate.

Of course they have these assets. If the horse can't run, why keep it in your stable?

Age and other numerous things.

They may have disagreed, but the point is we're still going to get the same crap we've been getting with Bush if McCain wins.

Perfect. The horse has to run, all night. :ninja:

[terry78]

Yes. Let's quote the genius of George Lucas and the Jedi whilst discussing (real-life) American politics.

We're film geeks, that's what we do. Every real life thing can be related to a movie.

[Darkly Dexter]

Solid brick.

Do you think Iran hates us because we won't "talk to them," or because we are a non-Muslim nation built on freedom of religion and the belief that tyrannical, despotic dictators should not be allowed to do things like proliferating their nuclear weapons programs unchecked?

The most of the world (Iran included) doesn't hate The United States because it is a Democratic, non-muslim country built on freedom of religion and speech.

There are A LOT of countries more democratic than the US, and the world doesn't hate them. If you really want to know why that happens, just get a book of history and read the last 60 years of american foreign policies.

[Tag279]

Yes. Let's quote the genius of George Lucas and the Jedi whilst discussing (real-life) American politics.

Your sarcasm is duely noted. However there is no need for it excuse me from introducing a bit of levity.

So let me say it this way if agressive negotiations do not work then we need to express our political will by other means.

A thermobaric weapon pulls away all of the surrounding available Oxygen and super heats it to about 3000 degrees. The explosion generates exponential force. Thermobarics are the most powerful non-nuclear weapons.

[That'ssuper!]

Is it true that Obama's nomination victory speech was in the middle of a rock concert?

[Tag279]

Is it true that Obama's nomination victory speech was in the middle of a rock concert?

No it is not true. In Oregon after the rally the Obama campaign set up a concert.

[Superman]

And I think McCain differs greatly from President Bush. They've disagreed on numerous issues, both before and during the Bush Presidency.McCain "disagreed" with Bush and the party so much that he voted with Bush and the Republicans 88.3% of the time in this Congress alone.:whatever:

[Matt]

Heh, just wait till the story about him calling his wife a c*nt infront of reporters breaks :hehe:

Ah, Excel, always the pillar of objectivity. That story has been debunked numerous times.

[Crowforge]

Any news on the world reaction?

[Matt]

Any news on the world reaction?

I really don't think it is going to be as large as people think. The entire world is not sitting around thinking "OMGZ! OBAMA PWNS!" A few enthusiasts may like him, but for the most part, the international community worries about their own country.

[Excel]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/umedia/20080605/cp.51098bca6a9e67c2a11780e5dc68cdd1

[Crowforge]

http://www.comics.com/editoons/varvel/archive/images/varvel2004075380604.gif

[Knives]

McCain "disagreed" with Bush and the party so much that he voted with Bush and the Republicans 88.3% of the time in this Congress alone.:whatever:

Wow! What a maverick! My friend!

[Superman4ever]

I don't respond to individuals who ask "who the hell are you" and refer to me as "pathetic." Sorry, not enough time in the day to respond to such silliness.

Awe, baby can't back his comments up with real facts. Fantasy Island ahoooooy!

[Marx]

Any news on the world reaction?

I saw a celebration on the news from Kenya. (Where Obama's father is from.) Beyond that, I haven't seen anything.

[Knives]

I havent seen any world response either. I'm sure the republicans will soon begin saying Al-Queda is having wild parties over this, just as they were when Kerry got the nomination and was briefly winning in 04.

[Crowforge]

some reaction
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/world/05react.html?em&ex=1212724800&en=b9dba68019fd4af9&ei=5087%0A

[Tron5000]

Awe, baby can't back his comments up with real facts. Fantasy Island ahoooooy!

Consider yourself served.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

[ANTOINE X]

Finally :whatever:... Look Obama now, instead of kicking Hillary out he wants her to work as his personal B**** Man will never change!:grin:

[Tron5000]

I havent seen any world response either. I'm sure the republicans will soon begin saying Al-Queda is having wild parties over this, just as they were when Kerry got the nomination and was briefly winning in 04.

Or maybe Republicans will say that Hamas is supporting Obama.

Cause they are. And I don't think it's because they think he will be tough on terrorism.

[Superman4ever]

Wow! What a maverick! My friend!

Chicken-hawk "news": President Ahmedinijad, flew in to congratulate Obama personally. Meanwhile, terr'rrists [insert flash: OSAMA] from all over the world [insert flash: WORLD ON FIRE!] did the conga...it was recorded as the largest gathering of terr'rrists to do the conga since, EVER!

[Tron5000]

Chicken-hawk "news": President Ahmedinijad, flew in to congratulate Obama personally. Meanwhile, terr'rrists [insert flash: OSAMA] from all over the world [insert flash: WORLD ON FIRE!] did the conga...it was recorded as the largest gathering of terr'rrists to do the conga since, EVER!

That is not at all ridiculous or offensive. Nice work.

[Crowforge]

Consider yourself served.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Oh yeah, that looks like a real non-partisan site...

[hippie_hunter]

Obama better watch out (http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/441991)

[Tron5000]

Oh yeah, that looks like a real non-partisan site...

May I offer you a suggestion?

Perhaps you could checkk out the information contained on the site, rather than simply judging it based on the first glance.

[Superman4ever]

Consider yourself served.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Oh, don't get me wrong I saw it...and did several barrel rolls of laughter...but just to entertain a thought, I'll play. Most of that reporting, if one can call it that, has to do with Palestinian terr'rrist organizations NOT Al-qaida, which, of course, was NOT one of the lies given to justify this illegal war (the reason(s) for war was terr'rrist link WITH AL-QAIDA that turned to WMD that evolved to "freedom" via occupation).

The portion dealing with Al-Qaida rely on OLD [seriously dude...it's pathetic] news, mainly from 2001, when the march to war was underway...and the Bush administration was STEEP in the propaganda machine.

ALL of the "evidence" on your silly ass site was DEBUNKED by 2003 by the Administration itself.

We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)
That's why it's pathetic. You and your chicken-hawk lackeys cling on to the edifice of a poorly constructed lie; a lie whom it's own constructors have run away from.

The main article of "evidence" provided was the false assertion that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi diplomat Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, which was reported in December of 2001 by Czech officials.

In actuality when people (the Pentagon, Defense Dept., CIA, British Agencies) took a step back to actually INVESTIGATE the claim they found that it WASN'T Mohammad Atta...or it wasn't the Mohammad Atta we wanted. It was a DIFFERENT MOHAMMAD ATTA.

This Mohammad Atta, according to Czech Interior ministry: Didn't have the same ID Card Number as the terr'rrist Atta; there was a GREAT difference in age; the nationality didn't match up. According to the pentagon it was "SOMEONE ELSE".

Moreover, there was another man who met the former Iraq official who they thought could be the terr'rrist version of Moe Atta. Turned out that man was an Iraqi national, by the name of "Saleh". No terr'rrist!

Finally, the BBC reported that terr'rrist Mohammad Atta was in Prague, but a YEAR before the alleged meeting took place, and that the Iraqi official and the terr'rrist Moe Atta were NEVER (again NEVER EVER) in Prauge at the same time. They were in the same city, but with MORE than a year in time difference!


Click here: If you wish to "learn." It's a book with what sane, rational people like to call "evidence." Can you say Evv--ee--dance? Come on sweety, you can do it! (http://books.google.com/books?id=oFeRshPZ-WIC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Iraqi+diplomat+Ahmad+Khalil+Ibrahim+Samir+al-Ani&source=web&ots=tpkDfLfE-u&sig=Gt3iWRPGTxLu8pfB1eWyP1ysRuk&hl=en#PPA130,M1)

In fact the pentagon claims the terr'rrist Atta NEVER (again, NEVER EVER EVER) left the United states in 2001...which of course, I'm SURE, you are aware is the year that terr'rrist Atta supposedly met an Iraqi "official".

http://tvnewslies.org/html/al_qaeda_links.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
http://books.google.com/books?id=oFeRshPZ-WIC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Iraqi+diplomat+Ahmad+Khalil+Ibrahim+Samir+al-Ani&source=web&ots=tpkDfLfE-u&sig=Gt3iWRPGTxLu8pfB1eWyP1ysRuk&hl=en

Oh and just to put a stake to ANY bullcrap that you might try to twist on this debunked (piece of propaganda) "meeting," the Bush Administration (it was that war-mongering Psycho Cheney that was the one to first debunk it, I think), in 2002, ALSO discredited the "meeting." (http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/16/cheney_reasserts_already_debunked_atta_iraq)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E7DA1F3DF932A15753C1A9649C8B 63
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE3DD1330F93AA35756C0A9649C8B 63

I'm not as hip as you chicken-hawks but I believe that's called, in response to your, lacking, service, "game, set, match."

However, if you need more sources, with real (credible and recognized) facts to be spoon-fed to you, I'm more than happy to feed ya, baby! And if, baby don't like, and since I know how to, I'm more than willing to insert a feeding tube...either way, sugar. ;)

[Excel]

world reaction=AMAZED

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402360.html?hpid=topnews

[Superman4ever]

world reaction=AMAZED

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402360.html?hpid=topnews

The HUSSEINS are coming to get us! :indy:

[Tron5000]

Of course there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. There is, however, evidence that Saddam provided haven and funding to members of al-Qaeda. There is also evidence of high-level Iraqi officials meeting with members of al-Qaeda.

Yes, most of the evidence on that site points to Saddam's ties with other organizations. However, there is also evidence for the meetings with al-Qaeda officials. Most does not equal all.

[Darthphere]

world reaction=AMAZED

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060402360.html?hpid=topnews

:whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever:

[DorkyFresh]

i can't wait for the debates. Obama's gonna mop the floor with McCain.

[Darthphere]

i can't wait for the debates. Obama's gonna mop the floor with McCain.

What gives you that idea? Obama hasn't fared well in any of the debates, not IMO, and not in the opinion of many political analysts.

[DorkyFresh]

yeah, but in those debates...was he going up against McCain?

[Darthphere]

yeah, but in those debates...was he going up against McCain?

I for one, am not going to be the one to underestimate McCain at this point. Sure, Obama speaks very eloquently, but McCain knows what the **** he's talking about.

[jaguarr]

I for one, am not going to be the one to underestimate McCain at this point. Sure, Obama speaks very eloquently, but McCain knows what the **** he's talking about.

Wait. He does? When did this happen? :huh:

jag

[Darthphere]

Wait. He does? When did this happen? :huh:

jag

He got better speech writers.:o

[BlackLantern]

so now 25 percent of Clintons supporters are jumping to McCain....? says a lot about people....

[DorkyFresh]

Wait. He does? When did this happen? :huh:

jag
lol! i was gonna post the same thing. honestly, i haven't followed either man enough to say whether or not they know what they are talking about, but McCain's last speech left me with the impression that he didn't know what the hell he was doing.

He got better speech writers.:o
for his sake, i hope his last speech didn't come from the 'better' speech writers...

[jaguarr]

He got better speech writers.:o

Only when they broadcast from Bizarro World. "Me am not George Bush!" :oldrazz:

jag

[Tron5000]

:whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever:

Recent polls show that a majority of Europeans want a "weaker" US. And now we're seeing that a majority of Europeans want Obama to become President?

Interesting. I wonder if, perhaps, there is any correlation there...

[DorkyFresh]

i wonder how many Europeans voted for that poll and what their reasons were for wanting a weaker US. regardless, i could see why foreigners would want to see a weaker US. our government is so powerful that they've been getting away with dividing the world apart for the last several years. for the last several years, the US government hasn't been using their power with reflecting responsibility.

[Excel]

Obama will own McCain in debates; they speak so differently...I can easily imagine McCain becoming flustered and angry when Obama doesnt play his game and the crowd turns on him.

Both know what they are talking about, wether the people biased against them like it or not. However, Obama connects with audiences on a totally different level than McCain. Obama doesn't play the trash talk games in debates and it'll make McCain look bad when he does to the audience, same wayit did Clinton; and those are games McCain will HAVE to play, especially if he continues to trail in polls.

:whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever::whatever:

I was being sarcastic :rolleyes:

[BlackLantern]

Owning someone in a debate doesn't matter....all most Americans will see is a colored man against a white man....

[Crowforge]

... or rather the future vs the past.

[Excel]

Yeah, and they'll all vote for McCain over a black guy :rolleyes:

[BlackLantern]

Yeah, and they'll all vote for McCain over a black guy :rolleyes:

It could happen.....a chunk of Clinton supporters (Democrats) are going to support a white male Republican.....and Middle America is still afraid of black people....He doesn't have the blue collar vote either....so Obama is fighting an uphill battle

[Superman4ever]

Of course there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. There is, however, evidence that Saddam provided haven and funding to members of al-Qaeda. There is also evidence of high-level Iraqi officials meeting with members of al-Qaeda.

Yes, most of the evidence on that site points to Saddam's ties with other organizations. However, there is also evidence for the meetings with al-Qaeda officials. Most does not equal all.

You're worse than a conspiracy theorist. At least, no matter how ludicrous the claim, they give some type of evidence. Bigfoot's footprint in plaster, recently, the "X" on moon rocks, the eye of providence.

Where? Where is this evidence? Back up your ******** with something reliant. The DAMN administration gave up on this bullcrap a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago.

The ADMINISTRATION, the Pentagon, the DD, the CIA ALL have stated...that there was NO evidence. So, show me...PLEASE, so I can at least send an email to Bush, boost his ratings a little. "You were right Mr. President".

Tron = the Hype's David Icke! Ewwwwww...:liz:

[Superman4ever]

I for one, am not going to be the one to underestimate McCain at this point. Sure, Obama speaks very eloquently, but McCain knows what the **** he's talking about.

*Ahem"Iran training Al-qaida"ahem...*

*Cough"Iran training Al-qaida"cough...*

*Fart"Iran training Al-qaida"fart...*

[Spider-Bite]

*Ahem"Iran training Al-qaida"ahem...*

*Cough"Iran training Al-qaida"cough...*

*Fart"Iran training Al-qaida"fart...*
Iran is not training Alquida. They are training *****e militias in Iraq, who are not in good relations with Alquida.

[Crowforge]

It could happen.....a chunk of Clinton supporters (Democrats) are going to support a white male Republican.....and Middle America is still afraid of black people....He doesn't have the blue collar vote either....so Obama is fighting an uphill battle
Didn't middle america win him the nomination?

[BlackLantern]

Didn't middle america win him the nomination?

Pockets of liberals in Middle America yes....but when it comes down to it....those red staters vote with a lot more frequency than anyone else....

Honestly, I think it will be close, but fear of change...coupled with worries about the economy....I see Obama losing a close one.....

[Matt]

Obama will own McCain in debates; they speak so differently...I can easily imagine McCain becoming flustered and angry when Obama doesnt play his game and the crowd turns on him.

Kinda like Obama did any time he was asked a question he didn't like in the debates?

[kane9321]

I for one, am not going to be the one to underestimate McCain at this point. Sure, Obama speaks very eloquently, but McCain knows what the **** he's talking about.

WTF...HE DOES:wow:

[kane9321]

Yeah, and they'll all vote for McCain over a black guy :rolleyes:

It wouldnt surprise me one bit

[terry78]

All McCain knows is what time they're serving the early bird at Denny's. That's right, I went there.

[kane9321]

Ohh Dayum That Was Funny

[Superman4ever]

Iran is not training Alquida. They are training *****e militias in Iraq, who are not in good relations with Alquida.

I know, I was responding to Darthphere saying that John McCain KNOWS what he's talking about.

There's a reason that senile idiot is called McSame. Same fear-mongering tactics. Same BULLS**T he can't prove. Same Lies. Same same same!

Nothing about McCrazy is about change. 100 years in Iraq? That's not change.

[Darthphere]

I know, I was responding to Darthphere saying that John McCain KNOWS what he's talking about.

There's a reason that senile idiot is called McSame. Same fear-mongering tactics. Same BULLS**T he can't prove. Same Lies. Same same same!

Nothing about McCrazy is about change. 100 years in Iraq? That's not change.

Who calls him McSame?:huh::huh::huh::huh::huh:

[Superman4ever]

Of course there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. There is, however, evidence that Saddam provided haven and funding to members of al-Qaeda. There is also evidence of high-level Iraqi officials meeting with members of al-Qaeda.

LMAO! LMFAO!

Actually did your illiterate self READ my response. There is NO evidence to support that Iraqi officials met with Al-Qaida. NONE!

Actually I disproved it...earlier. But hopefully repetition breads retention in your case.

Consider yourself served.

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Oh, don't get me wrong I saw it...and did several barrel rolls of laughter...but just to entertain a thought, I'll play. Most of that reporting, if one can call it that, has to do with Palestinian terr'rrist organizations NOT Al-qaida, which, of course, was NOT one of the lies given to justify this illegal war (the reason(s) for war was terr'rrist link WITH AL-QAIDA that turned to WMD that evolved to "freedom" via occupation).

The portion dealing with Al-Qaida rely on OLD [seriously dude...it's pathetic] news, mainly from 2001, when the march to war was underway...and the Bush administration was STEEP in the propaganda machine.

ALL of the "evidence" on your silly ass site was DEBUNKED by 2003 by the Administration itself.

We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)
That's why it's pathetic. You and your chicken-hawk lackeys cling on to the edifice of a poorly constructed lie; a lie whom it's own constructors have run away from.

The main article of "evidence" provided was the false assertion that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi diplomat Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, which was reported in December of 2001 by Czech officials.

In actuality when people (the Pentagon, Defense Dept., CIA, British Agencies) took a step back to actually INVESTIGATE the claim they found that it WASN'T Mohammad Atta...or it wasn't the Mohammad Atta we wanted. It was a DIFFERENT MOHAMMAD ATTA.

This Mohammad Atta, according to Czech Interior ministry: Didn't have the same ID Card Number as the terr'rrist Atta; there was a GREAT difference in age; the nationality didn't match up. According to the pentagon it was "SOMEONE ELSE".

Moreover, there was another man who met the former Iraq official who they thought could be the terr'rrist version of Moe Atta. Turned out that man was an Iraqi national, by the name of "Saleh". No terr'rrist!

Finally, the BBC reported that terr'rrist Mohammad Atta was in Prague, but a YEAR before the alleged meeting took place, and that the Iraqi official and the terr'rrist Moe Atta were NEVER (again NEVER EVER) in Prauge at the same time. They were in the same city, but with MORE than a year in time difference!


Click here: If you wish to "learn." It's a book with what sane, rational people like to call "evidence." Can you say Evv--ee--dance? Come on sweety, you can do it! (http://books.google.com/books?id=oFeRshPZ-WIC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Iraqi+diplomat+Ahmad+Khalil+Ibrahim+Samir+al-Ani&source=web&ots=tpkDfLfE-u&sig=Gt3iWRPGTxLu8pfB1eWyP1ysRuk&hl=en#PPA130,M1)

In fact the pentagon claims the terr'rrist Atta NEVER (again, NEVER EVER EVER) left the United states in 2001...which of course, I'm SURE, you are aware is the year that terr'rrist Atta supposedly met an Iraqi "official".

http://tvnewslies.org/html/al_qaeda_links.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
http://books.google.com/books?id=oFeRshPZ-WIC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=Iraqi+diplomat+Ahmad+Khalil+Ibrahim+Samir+al-Ani&source=web&ots=tpkDfLfE-u&sig=Gt3iWRPGTxLu8pfB1eWyP1ysRuk&hl=en

Oh and just to put a stake to ANY bullcrap that you might try to twist on this debunked (piece of propaganda) "meeting," the Bush Administration (it was that war-mongering Psycho Cheney that was the one to first debunk it, I think), in 2002, ALSO discredited the "meeting." (http://www.democracynow.org/2003/9/16/cheney_reasserts_already_debunked_atta_iraq)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E7DA1F3DF932A15753C1A9649C8B 63
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE3DD1330F93AA35756C0A9649C8B 63

I'm not as hip as you chicken-hawks but I believe that's called, in response to your, lacking, service, "game, set, match."

However, if you need more sources, with real (credible and recognized) facts to be spoon-fed to you, I'm more than happy to feed ya, baby! And if, baby don't like, and since I know how to, I'm more than willing to insert a feeding tube...either way, sugar. ;)

[Matt]

Didn't middle america win him the nomination?

Not really. Obama has been resoundingly unpopular with middle America. His base is young voters (18-25), what people consider the "elitist" or babyboomer base, and the black vote. Middle America (at least the traditional view of it) is not really represented in any of those demographics.


If you really want to know what led to Obama's victory it can essentially be summed up as caucuses. Obama had a young, energetic base going into Iowa and they were able to pull the Iowa caucus in his favor. Chances are had Iowa been a statewide, all day vote, Edwards would've won by a slim margin. Clinton would've taken NH, and Edwards would've used the momentum of a Iowa win to take South Carolina, at which point, Obama would've dropped out, I'd imagine. If Edwards could've gone on to take either New York, California, Massachussettes, or Jersey on Super Tuesday, he would've won the nomination, I think.

[Matt]

I know, I was responding to Darthphere saying that John McCain KNOWS what he's talking about.

There's a reason that senile idiot is called McSame. Same fear-mongering tactics. Same BULLS**T he can't prove. Same Lies. Same same same!

Nothing about McCrazy is about change. 100 years in Iraq? That's not change.

Christ, I do not intend to vote for McCain but I am so sick of Obama supporters flaunting the 100 years statement which has been so far removed from its original context its not even funny.

[Darthphere]

Not really. Obama has been resoundingly unpopular with middle America. His base is young voters (18-25), what people consider the "elitist" or babyboomer base, and the black vote. Middle America (at least the traditional view of it) is not really represented in any of those demographics.


If you really want to know what led to Obama's victory it can essentially be summed up as caucuses. Obama had a young, energetic base going into Iowa and they were able to pull the Iowa caucus in his favor. Chances are had Iowa been a statewide, all day vote, Edwards would've won by a slim margin. Clinton would've taken NH, and Edwards would've used the momentum of a Iowa win to take South Carolina, at which point, Obama would've dropped out, I'd imagine. If Edwards could've gone on to take either New York, California, Massachussettes, or Jersey on Super Tuesday, he would've won the nomination, I think.

Matt, wake up, you'll be late for school....

[Matt]

Matt, wake up, you'll be late for school....
lol, well its true. Had Iowa used an election system Edwards would've won it and that would've changed the entire face of this election.

[Darthphere]

Christ, I do not intend to vote for McCain but I am so sick of Obama supporters flaunting the 100 years statement which has been so far removed from its original context its not even funny.

Better start getting used to it.

I mean, seriously, the notion of Obama somehow destroying McCain in a debate is laughable. McCain hasn't gone this long in politics and this far in his career to somehow get his ass beat in a debate. Even if I concede that he doesn't always know what he's talking about, he damn sure knows what he's doing.

[Darthphere]

lol, well its true. Had Iowa used an election system Edwards would've won it and that would've changed the entire face of this election.

I hate the idea of caucuses. I mean, there's so much put into them when in the general election Iowa really is irrelevant.

[Matt]

Better start getting used to it.

I mean, seriously, the notion of Obama somehow destroying McCain in a debate is laughable. McCain hasn't gone this long in politics and this far in his career to somehow get his ass beat in a debate. Even if I concede that he doesn't always know what he's talking about, he damn sure knows what he's doing.

As do I. Excel and other Obama supporters assume that charisma is the only aspect of public speaking and debating, when it is only one aspect and in debates, a relatively small one. John Kerry had no charisma and wiped the floor with G.Dub. Now this is where Excel will come in and say "George Bush is no Barack Obama!" but quite the contrary. Bush is a very charasmatic speaker in a different way than Obama. Obama has a very powerful presence, however, Bush has very down to earth tone and very good at making a connection with his audience and then being able to play that connection throughout his speech. McCain is similiar in that regard.

Furthermore, McCain has been in politics for a long time. Experience will go much further in a debate than being charasmatic. It is the experience that helps you get through the tough questions that you were not prepared to answer. It is experience that helps you respond when your opponent calls you out, etc. McCain has the experience of Kerry in debates combined with the down to earth charisma of Bush. In that regard, McCain has the edge in debating.

To assume Obama will wipe the floor with McCain because he is charasmatic is ridiculous and naive. Obama is very good at giving speeches. His debate performances on the other hand have been abysmall. He does not seem to like being question and fell apart in the one debate where the moderators actually drilled him on some tough character issues (PA). That is not to say that Obama has no edge in the debate. The debates will be very interesting to watch, because they will be very competitive. Its not going to be one sided as Excel would like to think.

[Superman4ever]

Who calls him McSame?:huh::huh::huh::huh::huh:

Me, the news, bloggers, MOST of us hypers, Hilary Clinton, Obama, MOST of the Democrats, a LOT of republicans (well the one who disagrees with him); The republicans that AGREE with him, Ron "mother flippin" PAUL, America, nearly ALL (actually ALL of them) my professors, my gen. surg attending, the President of the hospital where I work has a few choice words for McSame and Bushie...:wow:...um, my neighbors, I guessing Seattle, Blue states, some red states, God, Michael Moore, Hollywood's A-list, news pundits, newspapers (they don't use that word, but they make a good case), the Fairtax, The Founding Fathers, Dave Chappelle, The religious right (but they want McSame to be the same as Bush...so it's "all part of the plan."); President Bush probably considers him a recent clone, which is kinda ironic giving his stance on cloning;

Um, let see, short of nearly the majority of the world that's all I can think of right now!

[Crowforge]

I always hear McBush

[Darthphere]

Me, the news, bloggers, MOST of us hypers, Hilary Clinton, Obama, MOST of the Democrats, a LOT of republicans (well the one who disagrees with him); The republicans that AGREE with him, Ron "mother flippin" PAUL, America, nearly ALL (actually ALL of them) my professors, my gen. surg attending, the President of the hospital where I work has a few choice words for McSame and Bushie...:wow:...um, my neighbors, I guessing Seattle, Blue states, some red states, God, Michael Moore, Hollywood's A-list, news pundits, newspapers (they don't use that word, but they make a good case), the Fairtax, The Founding Fathers, Dave Chappelle, The religious right (but they want McSame to be the same as Bush...so it's "all part of the plan."); President Bush probably considers him a recent clone, which is kinda ironic giving his stance on cloning;

Um, let see, short of nearly the majority of the world that's all I can think of right now!

What about gay construction workers?

[Matt]

I hate the idea of caucuses. I mean, there's so much put into them when in the general election Iowa really is irrelevant.

Which is why I support a single national primary day.

As for caucuses, they are ridiculously undemocratic. Voting day is not the time for debate. People should be able to cast their votes in private. They should not be forced to do it in any kind of public setting, while being told they are wrong by the other side's supporters. Plus some of these horror stories I've heard are astounding. I've heard reports of 90 year old women who went to the Clinton or Edwards side of the room only to have young, college aged Obama supporters follow them, get up in their faces, and scream at them until they changed sides or left in tears. That is how caucuses work, however. The founding fathers must be so proud of caucus states.

[kainedamo]

Recent polls show that a majority of Europeans want a "weaker" US. And now we're seeing that a majority of Europeans want Obama to become President?

Interesting. I wonder if, perhaps, there is any correlation there...

Where the hell do you pull this nonsense from?

Europeans want the US to stop being so damn overbearing and getting the west into dirty wars.

[Darthphere]

Where the hell do you pull this nonsense from?

Europeans want the US to stop being so damn overbearing and getting the west into dirty wars.

Kainedamo speaks on behalf of all of Europe.

[kal-el2006]

Big O in control..
"The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people's priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests."

[Superman4ever]

Christ, I do not intend to vote for McCain but I am so sick of Obama supporters flaunting the 100 years statement which has been so far removed from its original context its not even funny.

Removed from it's context?

Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and is receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/19/mccain-mistakenly-says-iran-allowing-al-qaeda-fighters-into-country-later-corrects-error/)

"We continue to be concerned about Iranian taking Al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.’’ (http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180007)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/mccain-misspeaks-on-iran-al-qaeda/

common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known. And it's unfortunate

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/9238/mcsameqi4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Yeah, it's so "far removed" contextually speaking that it's not even funny anymore. You are SOOOOO right Matt! SOOOO right! The media just...just made it up. Like WMDs, or Iraq=Al-Qaida connection...just made it up, a "left" conspiracy it is.

[kainedamo]

Kainedamo speaks on behalf of all of Europe.

Haha.

Well, the idea that Europeans want a weaker US is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. I;d like to know what "polls" Tron5000 saw that shows the majority of Europeans want the US to be weak. The MAJORITY of Europeans :wow:

[kal-el2006]

This has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama. Put it in its own thread.

---Matt

[DorkyFresh]

not....surprised.....one....single....bit....

[Superman4ever]

What about gay construction workers?

Well, when you go to work tomorrow ask, I'm sure your GCW union rep could tell you.

Just be careful drilling in those short-shorts!

[LuiECuomo]

Can't wait for the debates. McCain is going to completely slaughter Obama. 8-)

[PyroChamber]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-barack-obama-fist-bump-080605-ht,0,4475001.story

Can you believe some people made a big deal about this? Man can't give his wife dap?

[Superman4ever]

^^ I thought the fist bump was one of the CUTEST things I've seen in a while. I haven't heard anything negative about it though. Yesterday on CNN and MSNBC it was all the rage.

Brian Williams said it was his favorite part.

Oh, some people are complaining that he patted her on the bottom after, but there have been several witnesses that were there to discredit that claim. Either way, people are going to complain about the stupidest things...

[DACrowe]

As do I. Excel and other Obama supporters assume that charisma is the only aspect of public speaking and debating, when it is only one aspect and in debates, a relatively small one. John Kerry had no charisma and wiped the floor with G.Dub. Now this is where Excel will come in and say "George Bush is no Barack Obama!" but quite the contrary. Bush is a very charasmatic speaker in a different way than Obama. Obama has a very powerful presence, however, Bush has very down to earth tone and very good at making a connection with his audience and then being able to play that connection throughout his speech. McCain is similiar in that regard.

Furthermore, McCain has been in politics for a long time. Experience will go much further in a debate than being charasmatic. It is the experience that helps you get through the tough questions that you were not prepared to answer. It is experience that helps you respond when your opponent calls you out, etc. McCain has the experience of Kerry in debates combined with the down to earth charisma of Bush. In that regard, McCain has the edge in debating.

To assume Obama will wipe the floor with McCain because he is charasmatic is ridiculous and naive. Obama is very good at giving speeches. His debate performances on the other hand have been abysmall. He does not seem to like being question and fell apart in the one debate where the moderators actually drilled him on some tough character issues (PA). That is not to say that Obama has no edge in the debate. The debates will be very interesting to watch, because they will be very competitive. Its not going to be one sided as Excel would like to think.

i wholeheartedly agree not to count John McCain out and am very annoyed when Obama supporters (or 3/4 of television pundits) act like this race is already over and Obama is president-elect. It is ridiculous.

But i think Obama has more going for him than just charisma. He has an image he can push and sell. He simply has to compare and contrast himself with McCain and tie the anchor that is George W. Bush around McCain's neck. In that regard I think Obama and McCain are on even footing. I think McCain may have been around the block a lot more than Obama, but Obama has to sell his message and tie McCain's feet to past political mistakes to win the debates or at least avoid any collapse in them and fight to draws. It worked on Hillary Clinton most of the time.

Not that the debates will be the huge decider of who gets elected. I mean I'd say Kerry won 2 out of 3 of his debates with Bush and fought the middle one to a draw and still lost the election. But debates can have an effect. And don't count out appearance and charisma as small factors. I think JFK sitting across from Richard Nixon in 1960 was very detrimental to the vice president's campaign.

[BlackLantern]

I'm sure after all was said and done and Barack and his wife had some time alone there was plenty of "bumping" going on.....I bet he made her call him "Mr. President"

[comicgirl]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-barack-obama-fist-bump-080605-ht,0,4475001.story

Can you believe some people made a big deal about this? Man can't give his wife dap?
Hell, I'd bump it.....the media's ridiculous

[DACrowe]

Which is why I support a single national primary day.

As for caucuses, they are ridiculously undemocratic. Voting day is not the time for debate. People should be able to cast their votes in private. They should not be forced to do it in any kind of public setting, while being told they are wrong by the other side's supporters. Plus some of these horror stories I've heard are astounding. I've heard reports of 90 year old women who went to the Clinton or Edwards side of the room only to have young, college aged Obama supporters follow them, get up in their faces, and scream at them until they changed sides or left in tears. That is how caucuses work, however. The founding fathers must be so proud of caucus states.

I agree with you on caucuses but disagree with "national primary day." It means, like election day, the politicians will focus on high population centers (major cities in largely populated states) and ignore the rest of the country. At least for the primaries, our system makes them have to go into the heart of America and see different states and peoples' values and earn their votes.

Now the DNC either need to get rid of superdeglegates and make it a "winner-take-all" system or change it to whoever has the most pledged delegates at the end of primary season is the winner (which it ended up being, anyway). But the superdelegate concept allows competitors to stay in the race way past their loss in a hope an elitist group of party leaders will overrule the democratic decision and process.

[Marx]

As do I. Excel and other Obama supporters assume that charisma is the only aspect of public speaking and debating, when it is only one aspect and in debates, a relatively small one. John Kerry had no charisma and wiped the floor with G.Dub. Now this is where Excel will come in and say "George Bush is no Barack Obama!" but quite the contrary. Bush is a very charasmatic speaker in a different way than Obama. Obama has a very powerful presence, however, Bush has very down to earth tone and very good at making a connection with his audience and then being able to play that connection throughout his speech. McCain is similiar in that regard.

Furthermore, McCain has been in politics for a long time. Experience will go much further in a debate than being charasmatic. It is the experience that helps you get through the tough questions that you were not prepared to answer. It is experience that helps you respond when your opponent calls you out, etc. McCain has the experience of Kerry in debates combined with the down to earth charisma of Bush. In that regard, McCain has the edge in debating.

To assume Obama will wipe the floor with McCain because he is charasmatic is ridiculous and naive. Obama is very good at giving speeches. His debate performances on the other hand have been abysmall. He does not seem to like being question and fell apart in the one debate where the moderators actually drilled him on some tough character issues (PA). That is not to say that Obama has no edge in the debate. The debates will be very interesting to watch, because they will be very competitive. Its not going to be one sided as Excel would like to think.

Unfortunately, that is how he gained the nomination. :whatever:

[comicgirl]

Matt, wake up, you'll be late for school....http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/geno/rofl.gif

[Addendum]

Unfortunately, that is how he gained the nomination. :whatever:

Awww :sarcasm

http://www.cluttercontrolfreak.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/kleenex.jpg

[BlackLantern]

Awww :sarcasm

http://www.cluttercontrolfreak.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/kleenex.jpg

Something required after watching Michelle Malkin

[Spider-Bite]

Which is why I support a single national primary day.

As for caucuses, they are ridiculously undemocratic. Voting day is not the time for debate. People should be able to cast their votes in private. They should not be forced to do it in any kind of public setting, while being told they are wrong by the other side's supporters. Plus some of these horror stories I've heard are astounding. I've heard reports of 90 year old women who went to the Clinton or Edwards side of the room only to have young, college aged Obama supporters follow them, get up in their faces, and scream at them until they changed sides or left in tears. That is how caucuses work, however. The founding fathers must be so proud of caucus states.

A single national primiary day, would be counter productive to democracy. It would prevent new comers from ever having a chance against already established figures. It would keep the people in power, in power, and the people out of power, out of power. You get in, secured, with connections, and lobbyists, and when a new guy comes along with a good idea, he or she wouldn't get the time necessary to campaign, raise money or be heard.

If we had a national single primary day, Hillary would have won. But Obama was given a chance to fight, and he won.

[Spider-Bite]

As do I. Excel and other Obama supporters assume that charisma is the only aspect of public speaking and debating, when it is only one aspect and in debates, a relatively small one. John Kerry had no charisma and wiped the floor with G.Dub. Now this is where Excel will come in and say "George Bush is no Barack Obama!" but quite the contrary. Bush is a very charasmatic speaker in a different way than Obama. Obama has a very powerful presence, however, Bush has very down to earth tone and very good at making a connection with his audience and then being able to play that connection throughout his speech. McCain is similiar in that regard.

Furthermore, McCain has been in politics for a long time. Experience will go much further in a debate than being charasmatic. It is the experience that helps you get through the tough questions that you were not prepared to answer. It is experience that helps you respond when your opponent calls you out, etc. McCain has the experience of Kerry in debates combined with the down to earth charisma of Bush. In that regard, McCain has the edge in debating.

To assume Obama will wipe the floor with McCain because he is charasmatic is ridiculous and naive. Obama is very good at giving speeches. His debate performances on the other hand have been abysmall. He does not seem to like being question and fell apart in the one debate where the moderators actually drilled him on some tough character issues (PA). That is not to say that Obama has no edge in the debate. The debates will be very interesting to watch, because they will be very competitive. Its not going to be one sided as Excel would like to think.

McCain's experience will be counter balanced by the fact that Americans are nervous about putting a man that old in the white house. The mind starts to go at an old age, and you age very quickly in the white house. It's stressful and demanding, and McCain's brain is probably not up to the challenge for an entire four years.

the only angle for McCain to go after Obama is patriotism. Obama has him beat on

economy
foreign policy
health care
debate skills
speech performance
looks
personality
donors

Several of those should not be a factor, but they are. And Obama is a good debater. He's just not as good as Hillary Clinton. And wait untill McCain's flip flopping gets brought into the debate. How do you think they will look next to each other when that comes up? That will effect their character.

and honestly, McCain looks really boring next to Obama. Obama has the majority of the factors on his side.

[BlackLantern]

McCain is what people are used to.....he puts most Americans in a comfort zone....Obama scares people....the whole idea of widespread change freaks people out

[Spider-Bite]

Unfortunately, that is how he gained the nomination. :whatever:

There is ususally more than one factor. One could easily argue that Bill Clinton's charisma, which led to him being President, is the biggest, if not the only reason, Hillary ever made it to second place.

the single biggest reason, Obama is the nominee, is that he was against the Iraq war, and Hillary was for it. If she had opposed this from the beginning, she'd have been labeled by the media, as the change candidate. Obama would never have stood a chance.

She made a calculated mistake. She thought voting for the Iraq war would make her look strong on defense, but it only made her look like part of old Washington. America wanted a new, younger, more cutting edge, generation to take over, and they are getting it.

[Spider-Bite]

McCain is what people are used to.....he puts most Americans in a comfort zone....Obama scares people....the whole idea of widespread change freaks people out

If that was true, Obama would have lost. You guys aren't paying attention to the political landscape.

[BlackLantern]

Now its not the Democrats deciding amongs themselves....its Dems V. Republicans now....red vs blue....

[hippie_hunter]

McCain's experience will be counter balanced by the fact that Americans are nervous about putting a man that old in the white house.
Proof?

economy
foreign policy
health care
debate skills
speech performance
looks
personality
donors
Obama beating McCain in the economy, foreign policy, and health care is a matter of opinion. Right now Americans are more aligned with McCain's ideas for the economy and foreign policy. And based on Obama's abysmal performances in debates, you can't say he has the upper hand over McCain in that part either.

Several of those should not be a factor, but they are. And Obama is a good debater. He's just not as good as Hillary Clinton. And wait untill McCain's flip flopping gets brought into the debate. How do you think they will look next to each other when that comes up? That will effect their character.
No he isn't. Obama's a horrible debater. It's why he refused to debate anymore after his last one with Hillary Clinton. Maybe his skills will improve but if continues the way he is now, McCain will slaughter him because McCain is far better than Obama when it comes to specifics.

[SentinelMind]

Now its not the Democrats deciding amongs themselves....its Dems V. Republicans now....red vs blue....

Exactly! People are confusing liberals (<33% registered voters) excitement over Barack Obama with the general historical attitude across this country to prefer the status quo...or gradual change....over radical change. If you think this country is going to easily do a 180 ...let's go where we've never gone before with Obama, you guys need to wake up....and don't underestimate John McCain.

[SentinelMind]

If that was true, Obama would have lost. You guys aren't paying attention to the political landscape.


You mean same political landscape that went for George Bush second term after all polls the night before were predicting John Kerry winning Virginia...after John Kerry "won" all the debates?

The same political landscape where Obama lost a majority of the final 10 primaries, even when it was given he'd be the nominee?

[terry78]

Here's what it comes down to. Old people vote. Young people don't. Old people stick with what they know. Other old people that look like them. The people that Obama wants to reach aren't even registered to vote, sad as that sounds.

[rdh007]

Americans are more aligned with McCain's ideas for the economy and foreign policy.
Really? Maybe foreign policy, though certainly not Iraq and his being okay with 100 years war. If he knew anything about the economy or had a stance, maybe. But I just have to disagree with that. But then again, I'm typing this from the Murder Mitten, where we aren't exactly humming along.

[Marx]

There is ususally more than one factor. One could easily argue that Bill Clinton's charisma, which led to him being President, is the biggest, if not the only reason, Hillary ever made it to second place.

the single biggest reason, Obama is the nominee, is that he was against the Iraq war, and Hillary was for it. If she had opposed this from the beginning, she'd have been labeled by the media, as the change candidate. Obama would never have stood a chance.

She made a calculated mistake. She thought voting for the Iraq war would make her look strong on defense, but it only made her look like part of old Washington. America wanted a new, younger, more cutting edge, generation to take over, and they are getting it.

You're right there is more than one thing. Aside from his "charisma," he gives great speeches and was painted as a rock star by the media.

[Addendum]

As opposed to laying out the red carpet for Hillary and handing her the keys to everything

[hippie_hunter]

Really? Maybe foreign policy, though certainly not Iraq and his being okay with 100 years war. If he knew anything about the economy or had a stance, maybe. But I just have to disagree with that. But then again, I'm typing this from the Murder Mitten, where we aren't exactly humming along.

Yeah really.

First of all, McCain never said anything about waging a 100 year war in Iraq. He was refering to a peacetime presence like we have in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Also more Americans were polled to trust McCain over Obama on Iraq.

As for the economy, Americans have been polled to where a clear majority opposes like McCain does on increasing the capital gains tax while Obama favors increasing it. Americans have been polled to where a clear majority say that tax hikes are bad for the economy, a view that McCain states and Obama favors upon Americans with higher incomes. Most Americans support the gas tax holiday which McCain supports and Obama opposes. And when polled McCain has a rather decent advantage with voters when it comes to trust on the economy and taxes.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/mccain_trusted_more_than_obama_on_economy_iraq_nat ional_security

I like to call this retort research. It's a good thing to have when I make bold claims such as Americans are more in line with McCain than Obama when it comes to trusting him and agreeing with him on foreign policy and the economy. That way I don't look like a fool when I make them :oldrazz:

[Marx]

As opposed to laying out the red carpet for Hillary and handing her the keys to everything

The same thing was done for Obama.

[Superman4ever]

The same thing was done for Obama.

So then it was fair and balanced.

If the media rolled out the carpet for Hilary AND Obama, both got equal treatment. Hmm.

[hippie_hunter]

the single biggest reason, Obama is the nominee, is that he was against the Iraq war, and Hillary was for it. If she had opposed this from the beginning, she'd have been labeled by the media, as the change candidate. Obama would never have stood a chance.

It wasn't the Iraq War that gave Obama victory. There were three factors that gave Obama victory. If any of them were different, I think Clinton would have been the one who would have gotten the nomination instead of Obama.

1. Hillary expected the nomination to be handed to her. She didn't take Obama seriously at all until it was too late. A grave miscalcuation on her part.

2. Her campaign message was horrible "I'm ready on day one!" She portrayed herself as the candidate of experience even when her likely opponent John McCain completely annihilated her in that category and it's a known fact that First Ladies really don't do all that much. If she took the populist root that she took later on in the campaign and was very successful in the very begining she would have likely won.

3. The caucus process. The caucus process really helped Obama out in the Midwest. If Iowa were a primary, John Edwards would have won it no doubt and Obama would have never won the black vote which allowed him to win the Southern primaries and he would have never gotten the nomination. Undemocratic caucuses really favored Obama's superior grassroots organization.

[Marx]

So then it was fair and balanced.

If the media rolled out the carpet for Hilary AND Obama, both got equal treatment. Hmm.

I am talking about the entire field of Democratic candidates. Obama and Clinton were painted as rock stars and all of the others were pushed to the background. I'm not quite sure how you can actually deny that.

[Addendum]

I liked a couple of the other Democratic candidates (Biden and Kucinich), but I knew going in that neither was going to last. Only the most fanatical of supporters would have thought that their candidate was going to last longer than Hillary or Obama.

[Tag279]

McCain is what people are used to.....he puts most Americans in a comfort zone....Obama scares people....the whole idea of widespread change freaks people out

You just spoke volumes BL.

The old white guy is not frightning. Young educated black guy...public enemy number one.

I hope America is better than that paradigm of thought.

[Marx]

You just spoke volumes BL.

The old white guy is not frightning. Young educated black guy...public enemy number one.

I hope America is better than that paradigm of thought.

I wouldn't hold your breath. We'll see in November though.

[Tag279]

You're right there is more than one thing. Aside from his "charisma," he gives great speeches and was painted as a rock star by the media.

You have got to be kidding me; when this campaign started Obama was not expected to do squat. Hillary supposedly had it locked up.

Obama's charisma coupled with a superior grass roots organization and effectively targeting young voters with his message got him the nomination.

How the heck do you think Kennedy became President?

Rock star? a black guy out of with an African name out of Chicago; come on now.

Obama has more ability, intellect, and saavy than you all give him credit for.

[BlackLantern]

You just spoke volumes BL.

The old white guy is not frightning. Young educated black guy...public enemy number one.

I hope America is better than that paradigm of thought.

We, as a society, are not as progressive as we'd like to think....I certainly hope I am proven wrong someday...

[Marx]

You have got to be kidding me; when this campaign started Obama was not expected to do squat. Hillary supposedly had it locked up.

Obama's charisma coupled with a superior grass roots organization and effectively targeting young voters with his message got him the nomination.

How the heck do you think Kennedy became President?

Rock star? a black guy out of with an African name out of Chicago; come on now.

Obama has more ability, intellect, and saavy than you all give him credit for.

Hillary was basically the nominee until she lost Iowa. After that, the both of them were painted as rock stars and everyone else (no matter how qualified) became "normal" and were pushed to the background. The fact that you can't see that is quite disturbing.

[Spider-Bite]

You're right there is more than one thing. Aside from his "charisma," he gives great speeches and was painted as a rock star by the media.

See now your just being bitter with that response. You can't even admit that Iraq was the catapult of his campaign. It's most of the reason MSNBC painted him as a rock star in the first place.

I will take back my comment about Bill possibly being the only reason Hillary is where she is today. She did work hard while Bill was President, and if anybody doubts that, I ask "where are all the other first ladies?"

[Tag279]

BL, I am the first and only black fire inpector in my city and department's history (125-years). I live in Mississippi and my first two years, i'm on my 6th now, was rather difficult. I was met with hostilty I was called "that black college boy" or "That smart colered inspector", etc.

Now that people have found that I base my decisions on the Fire Code and I am no respector of person things have gotten better.

But I still encounter resistance to my authority based on my color.

[Marx]

See now your just being bitter with that response. You can't even admit that Iraq was the catapult of his campaign. It's most of the reason MSNBC painted him as a rock star in the first place.

I will take back my comment about Bill possibly being the only reason Hillary is where she is today. She did work hard while Bill was President, and if anybody doubts that, I ask "where are all the other first ladies?"

That was not the reason he was propelled into rock star status, and you know it.

[Spider-Bite]

It wasn't the Iraq War that gave Obama victory. There were three factors that gave Obama victory. If any of them were different, I think Clinton would have been the one who would have gotten the nomination instead of Obama.

1. Hillary expected the nomination to be handed to her. She didn't take Obama seriously at all until it was too late. A grave miscalcuation on her part.

2. Her campaign message was horrible "I'm ready on day one!" She portrayed herself as the candidate of experience even when her likely opponent John McCain completely annihilated her in that category and it's a known fact that First Ladies really don't do all that much. If she took the populist root that she took later on in the campaign and was very successful in the very begining she would have likely won.

3. The caucus process. The caucus process really helped Obama out in the Midwest. If Iowa were a primary, John Edwards would have won it no doubt and Obama would have never won the black vote which allowed him to win the Southern primaries and he would have never gotten the nomination. Undemocratic caucuses really favored Obama's superior grassroots organization.


None of those got the media, the liberals, or the youth of America on Obama's side. It was Iraq.

Why didn't Hillary do good in the caucusses?


2. Her campaign message was horrible "I'm ready on day one!"

It wasn't horrible. It was a good message for a person in her position, going up against a new comer with little experience. It highlighted that fact. The problem with her message, was that it was not as good as Obama's.

"Yes We Can", "Let's go change the World." Obama appealed to the hope and vision of liberals for a better tomorrow, with phrases like "I believe in a future where a college education is not just a privelege for the few, but a birthright for all."

Those are the kinds of things we believe in. We make up the base of the party, and he took sides with us, where as Hillary took sides with the moderates. It'd have worked for her, had she run in 2004, but the country no longer wants slight change. It wants massive change. Even the Republican nominee, whom I have deep respect for, McCain is calling for change.

[Spider-Bite]

Really? Maybe foreign policy, though certainly not Iraq and his being okay with 100 years war. If he knew anything about the economy or had a stance, maybe. But I just have to disagree with that. But then again, I'm typing this from the Murder Mitten, where we aren't exactly humming along.


Iraq is at the forefront of foreign policy in the eyes of Americans today. it's like the only issue almost where McCain acts like a republican.

[Tag279]

Hillary was basically the nominee until she lost Iowa. After that, the both of them were painted as rock stars and everyone else (no matter how qualified) became "normal" and were pushed to the background. The fact that you can't see that is quite disturbing.

Of course they recived the most media attention Bush's approval rating is somewhere below the toilet and they are from the opposite party.

Hillary is a former President's wife who left office with a better than 50% approval rating after they found out Monica was under his desk.

And Obama was the most charasmatic speaker in the field and he recived strong support from new and young voters.

If you were the media who would you watch?

[Marx]

Of course they recived the most media attention Bush's approval rating is somewhere below the toilet and they are from the opposite party.

Hillary is a former President's wife who left office with a better than 50% approval rating after they found out Monica was under his desk.

And Obama was the most charasmatic speaker in the field and he recived strong support from new and young voters.

If you were the media who would you watch?

Have you seen Obama speaking in the beginning of this campaign? Edwards was the most charismatic, not Obama.

[BlackLantern]

Edwards is a damn good speaker....he could sell hot dogs at a vegan convention

[Spider-Bite]

That was not the reason he was propelled into rock star status, and you know it.

Tell me what I know now? that's a horrible argument. I think I can read my mind a little better than you can.

the media wanted him as the nominee because many within the media, chirs Matthews included, is very angry about the Iraq war. He opposed it from the beginning, and he even said the other day, that the media, which includes him, would have made her the change candidate, had her and her husband, become harsh critics of the war before it happened, putting pressure on their fellow democrats in the senate to not authorize the war. His words were "they could have stopped this."

Honestly if you can't acknowledge how signifigant Iraq is in all of this, your just going to come out looking like a liar. We all know what a role Iraq has played in not just this primary season, but the 06 election. Iraq is the big kahuna.

[Tag279]

Have you seen Obama speaking in the beginning of this campaign? Edwards was the most charismatic, not Obama.

Edwards couldn't touch him now :cwink:

[Marx]

Edwards is a damn good speaker....he could sell hot dogs at a vegan convention

Yeah...but unfortunately people like Edwards somehow became "the norm" and never had a chance. :csad:

[Marx]

Edwards couldn't touch him now :cwink:

That's a matter of opinion Tag.

[Mr Sparkle]

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Feel free.

So, if the Pentagon, the Defense Dept., says there is NO link, which most of us suspected before this bloody atrocious war, who the hell are you to claim that the link was there?

um. look, that's a part of the post that contains no insults, and factual evidence, unless you are able to prove otherwise then your claims are unsubstantiated, thus are to be ignored.:cwink:

[BlackLantern]

for what Edwards wants to do....I think he can accomplish more as an activist than being in office....

[Marx]

Tell me what I know now? that's a horrible argument. I think I can read my mind a little better than you can.

the media wanted him as the nominee because many within the media, chirs Matthews included, is very angry about the Iraq war. He opposed it from the beginning, and he even said the other day, that the media, which includes him, would have made her the change candidate, had her and her husband, become harsh critics of the war before it happened, putting pressure on their fellow democrats in the senate to not authorize the war. His words were "they could have stopped this."

Honestly if you can't acknowledge how signifigant Iraq is in all of this, your just going to come out looking like a liar. We all know what a role Iraq has played in not just this primary season, but the 06 election. Iraq is the big kahuna.

What was his platform before Super Tuesday? Do you know? Did he even have one? Considering that everyone else in the field was a caucasian male, you tell me how the two front runners (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) came to be?





(I realize Richardson is latino, but he never had a chance anyway.)

[Tag279]

That's a matter of opinion Tag.

Whether you want to admit it or not Obama IS a gifted and talented speaker.

I personally know people black and white that heard Obama speak a couple of times and registered to vote and cast their vote for him.

[Addendum]

Edwards couldn't touch him now :cwink:

Except when they ride in the backseat. Then you'll hear "Mom, Obama's touching me" "That's because John is on my side" "No I'm not, Obama is" and then Dad stops the car and says "If I hear another word from you two, I'm turning this car around and going home. Now we're going on this vacation and damnit we're going to enjoy it and have some fun, even if it kills the both of you"

[BlackLantern]

Voting for someone because they got a purty mouth is hardly an informed decision...but as long as people are getting out and voting, I guess??

[Marx]

for what Edwards wants to do....I think he can accomplish more as an activist than being in office....

I can still see him as Attorney General if the opportunity arises.

[Addendum]

Voting for someone because they got a purty mouth is hardly an informed decision...but as long as people are getting out and voting, I guess??

When Mary Carey ran for governor of California, she got some votes

[hippie_hunter]

None of those got the media, the liberals, or the youth of America on Obama's side. It was Iraq.
It was more than just Iraq. The media and liberals started comming over to him after he won Iowa and looked like he had a chance. He is also a very proven liberal. It was his image that sold him not his policies.

Why didn't Hillary do good in the caucusses?
Frankly, that all came down to organization which Obama excelled at.


It wasn't horrible. It was a good message for a person in her position, going up against a new comer with little experience. It highlighted that fact. The problem with her message, was that it was not as good as Obama's.
It was horrible, she came off as stupid because McCain beat her in experience by far and she really didn't have a whole lot of actual experience outside of her one term as Senator. She came off as a ***** that was entitled to the nomination with it.

"Yes We Can", "Let's go change the World." Obama appealed to the hope and vision of liberals for a better tomorrow, with phrases like "I believe in a future where a college education is not just a privelege for the few, but a birthright for all."
Now those are good slogans.

Those are the kinds of things we believe in. We make up the base of the party, and he took sides with us, where as Hillary took sides with the moderates. It'd have worked for her, had she run in 2004, but the country no longer wants slight change. It wants massive change. Even the Republican nominee, whom I have deep respect for, McCain is calling for change.
Hillary pandered. It was kinda disgusting. But it would have worked if she took up that populist moderate route in the begining instead of when it was too little too late.

[Mr Sparkle]

Frankly, that all came down to organization which Obama excelled at.


seems promising huh?

[Spider-Bite]

That's a matter of opinion Tag.
oh come on, have you not seen their speeches? I watched them both closely. Edwards was my second pick for the nomination. If it wasn't for a divided party, I'd want him as VP. I thought his ideas on fighting poverty, and alternative energy, were big and bold, but I have to admit, Obama is out of his league with charisma, debate skills, and especially speeches.

Edwards was good, maybe great, but Obama is exceptionally gifted at that stuff.

[hippie_hunter]

I think Edwards has it locked for AG.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=hippie_hunter;14961219]It was more than just Iraq. The media and liberals started comming over to him after he won Iowa and looked like he had a chance. He is also a very proven liberal. It was his image that sold him not his policies.

That's not true. MSNBC was on his side way before the first vote was ever casted. I'm all for Obama, but I will admit, they would spin it however they could to help him, and often times it was unfair. I remember Chris Matthews referring to Obama as the guy who's never done anyting wrong in his life, without a sinlge bad association or connection. We know those were not true. And this was before Obama even announced he was running.

Frankly, that all came down to organization which Obama excelled at.
That's what I believed, but I'm not an expert on that angle, and even though I heard the media say that, I don't take it at face value, becuase they treat him like Jesus, which I am grateful for, even though I admit it's unfair. I feel bad saying this, but if I was a journalist, I'd have done it too.



It was horrible, she came off as stupid because McCain beat her in experience by far and she really didn't have a whole lot of actual experience outside of her one term as Senator. She came off as a ***** that was entitled to the nomination with it.

That is true, but like all messages, some will see it one way and like it and some wont. You can never please everybody. A lot of people saw it that way, but it made some people nervous about Obama.
Now those are good slogans.



Hillary pandered. It was kinda disgusting. But it would have worked if she took up that populist moderate route in the begining instead of when it was too little too late.
I admit we have to ask "Is hillary a moderate or a liberal?" Nobody really knows for sure. Back in the 90's she was seen as a liberal, then she turned into a moderate, than late in this campaign, she tried to bring herself to the left. She will go anywhere, anytime to win an election.

If she had won the nomination, I'd have grudginly voted for her, but I honestly think McCain cares more about his country. He panders, but not nearly as much. Look at his stance on gay rights, immigration, the environment. This guy has stared his party square in the eyes and said no, even when we thought his campaign was dead in the water. He did not waiver.

I honestly hate Bush. I could never shake his hand, but I'd be honored to shake McCain's hand. I will not forget his sacrifice to his country, or when him and Obama worked together, co sponsored the campaign fiance bill, which led to the arrest of Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff and countless others, mostly memeber of John's own party.

I hope this campaign does not get too ugly, because I respect both nominees. I don't want them to sling too much mud, becaus for once I'm not picking the lesser of two evils. I'm picking the better of two candidates. This is historic.

[Marx]

I admit we have to ask "Is hillary a moderate or a liberal?" Nobody really knows for sure. Back in the 90's she was seen as a liberal, then she turned into a moderate, than late in this campaign, she tried to bring herself to the left. She will go anywhere, anytime to win an election.


As will any other politician, including Barack Obama.

[Mr Sparkle]

As will any other politician, including Barack Obama.

I politely ask "what's your point?" I think anyone with marginal intelligence knows how politicians work.
so, what's the point in the constant "Barak is the same as any other politician"
sure he might engage in the some of the same antics as many, this is in no way pertinent to the discussion of his candidacy, is you feel like criticizing his stance on something, do so, but quit the " he was made out to be a messiah/rockstar/savior" line that has been pretty much one of the few stances you have taken.

you know, I feel privileged to a point, because today I was talking to a friend who was in Washington last night for some event held in the Jewish community, he heard them speak both and though he is going to vote for McCain he admitted that Obama was a political force to be reckoned with and also admitted that he has great ideas for the US.
he just thinks McCain's ideas are better, it helps that he is filthy rich and thus wants to keep his money instead giving to the government in taxes, sure, but still I was able to totally see his point about McCain, as I hope he was able to see mine about the possibility of a man who, as Hippie pointed out ,seems good at organizing things, being able to shape up both the economy and the foreign policy of the US that has suffered damaged in the last 8 years, not beyond repair, but certainly mentionable.
sure, we get it, a lot of people just dislike Obama, but we'd get further along in the discussion if we were able to set that aside and use our heads to analyze and evaluate the candidates and their actual policies.

I mean, McCain has said he has this great plan for the economy and no one here, either in this or McCain's own thread mentioned that this well outlined planned has already been labeled as misleading by Factcheck.org
in the end, Plans and proposals are just that, if you give them anymore validity then you are certain to get lost in the unimportant sidelines of "opinion" I just ask that you and others in here are honest about their feelings and their motivations, I mean, I can understand that Darth hates the man, I'm just not sure why, but Darth has been kind enough to say so.
in closing.
I get it, Obama was hailed as a savior.
so what?
Bush was deemed a hero/a genius/a strategist/a diplomat/sane
all of these things he is not, but my arguments against him have rarely been fueled by these public perceptions of him, they are infact based upon HIS actions and policies.

[Tag279]

Thought provoking post Mr. Sparkle.:word::cool:

[Spider-Bite]

As will any other politician, including Barack Obama.
not to that degree, especially Barack Obama. He opposed Iraq from the beginning unlike those who supported it when it was popular, and opposed it when it wasn't.

Obama is about as opposite of that assessment as it gets. You can deny it, but you can also say the sky isn't blue very often. It's obvious and it's staring you in the face. You don't have to lie, just because your candidate lost. Obama stood his ground, and he's been rewarder for it.

i understand you will vote for Obama over McCain, but honestly, you sound out of touch with the political winds of today. You somehow got left behind, and don't understand the way things are moving in this country. Were moving forward. We don't have somebody pretending to be a moderate running for President. We have a far left liberal, who was singing it proud and loud last tuesday night. Liberal ideals and values are the base of his campaign message. He ran a positive campaign, in comparison to the others. He has inspired Americans. He's got the youth caring about politics, and blacks now feel included in the process, where as before they thought it was a white man's world. When he wins the white house, we have countless african Americans voting democrat for elections to come. That is just one example of him uniting this country.

Obama has a lot of shine that a lot of politicians lack. That is why so many people are so excited. This level of enthusiasm is comparable to Howard Dean's supporters.

[Marx]

not to that degree, especially Barack Obama. He opposed Iraq from the beginning unlike those who supported it when it was popular, and opposed it when it wasn't.

Obama is about as opposite of that assessment as it gets. You can deny it, but you can also say the sky isn't blue very often. It's obvious and it's staring you in the face. You don't have to lie, just because your candidate lost. Obama stood his ground, and he's been rewarder for it.

i understand you will vote for Obama over McCain, but honestly, you sound out of touch with the political winds of today. You somehow got left behind, and don't understand the way things are moving in this country. Were moving forward. We don't have somebody pretending to be a moderate running for President. We have a far left liberal, who was singing it proud and loud last tuesday night. Liberal ideals and values are the base of his campaign message. He ran a positive campaign, in comparison to the others. He has inspired Americans. He's got the youth caring about politics, and blacks now feel included in the process, where as before they thought it was a white man's world. When he wins the white house, we have countless african Americans voting democrat for elections to come. That is just one example of him uniting this country.

Obama has a lot of shine that a lot of politicians lack. That is why so many people are so excited. This level of enthusiasm is comparable to Howard Dean's supporters.

First of all, I've not said who I will vote for. And secondly, don't ever say that I am "out of touch" with the way the "political winds go today." You have no clue how much I pay attention and actually know what's going on.

And just for the record, Obama is not screaming from the rooftops that he is the most liberal member of the Senate. If you can find something that suggests otherwise, then show me.


I politely ask "what's your point?" I think anyone with marginal intelligence knows how politicians work.
so, what's the point in the constant "Barak is the same as any other politician"
sure he might engage in the some of the same antics as many, this is in no way pertinent to the discussion of his candidacy, is you feel like criticizing his stance on something, do so, but quit the " he was made out to be a messiah/rockstar/savior" line that has been pretty much one of the few stances you have taken.

you know, I feel privileged to a point, because today I was talking to a friend who was in Washington last night for some event held in the Jewish community, he heard them speak both and though he is going to vote for McCain he admitted that Obama was a political force to be reckoned with and also admitted that he has great ideas for the US.
he just thinks McCain's ideas are better, it helps that he is filthy rich and thus wants to keep his money instead giving to the government in taxes, sure, but still I was able to totally see his point about McCain, as I hope he was able to see mine about the possibility of a man who, as Hippie pointed out ,seems good at organizing things, being able to shape up both the economy and the foreign policy of the US that has suffered damaged in the last 8 years, not beyond repair, but certainly mentionable.
sure, we get it, a lot of people just dislike Obama, but we'd get further along in the discussion if we were able to set that aside and use our heads to analyze and evaluate the candidates and their actual policies.

I mean, McCain has said he has this great plan for the economy and no one here, either in this or McCain's own thread mentioned that this well outlined planned has already been labeled as misleading by Factcheck.org
in the end, Plans and proposals are just that, if you give them anymore validity then you are certain to get lost in the unimportant sidelines of "opinion" I just ask that you and others in here are honest about their feelings and their motivations, I mean, I can understand that Darth hates the man, I'm just not sure why, but Darth has been kind enough to say so.
in closing.
I get it, Obama was hailed as a savior.
so what?
Bush was deemed a hero/a genius/a strategist/a diplomat/sane
all of these things he is not, but my arguments against him have rarely been fueled by these public perceptions of him, they are infact based upon HIS actions and policies.

You and I hardly agree on anything. I will continue saying what I am saying (which is my right to do) just as everyone else states their opinions. I've grown tired of people saying that Obama is the "great change that this country needs." Like he is so different than anyone else who has come before him. So tell me Sparkle, what is so different about him aside from the obvious factors? What makes him so much different from the politicians of the past?

[Cosmic]

I just watched the victory speech. It was pretty damn good. I can't imagine having to give a speech like that. I'd probably have a nervous breakdown, or a heart attack. I'd definitely forget at least half of what I originally meant to say. At best, I might look like Mccain during his victory speech. :o

[hippie_hunter]

Obama is meeting with Clinton in her home right now.

[Marx]

Obama is meeting with Clinton in her home right now.

I actually just read that. I wonder what they're talking about... :cwink:

[BlackLantern]

Obama is trying to talk her into a threesome with him and Michelle....

[Marx]

Obama is trying to talk her into a threesome with him and Michelle....

Thanks BL...that's really a picture that I wanted in my head! :cmad::hehe:

[Mr Sparkle]

You and I hardly agree on anything. I will continue saying what I am saying (which is my right to do) just as everyone else states their opinions. I've grown tired of people saying that Obama is the "great change that this country needs." Like he is so different than anyone else who has come before him. So tell me Sparkle, what is so different about him aside from the obvious factors? What makes him so much different from the politicians of the past?

so, essentially you're saying you're tired of people saying something and your response, is rather than prove your point with arguments or facts, be as tedious as they are?

well, it is certainly your right to do so.

as to why Obama is perceived as a great opportunity for change?
his positions are Liberal, both socially and the economics solutions he offers are in opposition to McCain's.
else, if they were not, then surely Obama would be more qualified to run as he is less likely to drop dead at any second.
is Obama different than the politicians of the past? surely, as he is from a a new breed of politician, and the fact that he is black is certainly important from a symbolic standpoint.
is he the most qualified politician?
nope, but hey, neither are McCain or Clinton for that matter and I don't see anyone jumping down their throats because of it.
he is, like ALL Presidential candidates, the winner of a popularity contest, and let me tell you, the fact that he had the charisma to get were he is, well that's quite important, charisma is an underexploited quality in a leader, especially in the US were the "we'll bomb you further into the stone age" school of diplomacy has taken a deep root.
I however, would argue, that If Obama is like any other politician, then it lies with you to deal with it, as...guess what! everybody else is running purely on ********.
wow, politics runs on ********? yes, Virginia it really does.
you know who I wanted to be president of the US?
Richardson.
you know WHY it would never happen? because he is really ugly, an the only people that have ug-o's for leaders are planted squarely on the eastern block expecting the arrival of the pillsbury doughboy....any minute now.
nevermind he was a good choice, he was ugly, and not just WASP-y ugly, but Mexican ugly.
so, why isn't he running? why was the main attack on Kerry in 2004 the fact that he looked like Herman Munster?
I could go on, and you know I could, but what's the point, if your objectivity is so far removed that you need to completely demonize one person to justify your views, then, pity but not really a concern.
yes, I have heard a ton of things about his church.
oooh, they hated white people....ooh, but really all I saw was a pastor that says outrageous things, like the one backing McCain, that surely casts doubt on HIS judgment.
he stayed there for 20 years? well, Hillary has stayed in a horrible marriage for decades as well, is that a reflection on her judgment?
nah, seems more like noise from their lives that is irrelevant (well, the McCain thing not so much, but hey...he is old, so he gets a pass, sorta) when the reality is "what can they do for the US?"
that is not a question I can answer for you, it's a question you have to ask yourself.

[Spider-Bite]

[quote=TheMarx;14961828]First of all, I've not said who I will vote for.

just the other day you asked what I would say if Obama lost, and somebody posted a link to an analysis of the lectoral map, and you said "good then Obama wins, as I still prefer Obama over McCain.


And secondly, don't ever say that I am "out of touch" with the way the "political winds go today." You have no clue how much I pay attention and actually know what's going on.
It's pointless to say "don't ever say." Obviously I'm going to say it. I know that you have claimed to be in the business of politics, but that doesnt' change the fact that like Hilllary, you are out of touch with the political winds of today. you don't understand that America believes in a dream, and they want Obama to fullfill that dream. that is why he won the nomination. He helped people believe that great things are possible.


And just for the record, Obama is not screaming from the rooftops that he is the most liberal member of the Senate. If you can find something that suggests otherwise, then show me.


ummm, uhhhh, ummmm, Are you serious? I wouldnt' even expect you to say that. I would expect you to say that he has to get back to the center in order to win, but I wouldn't expect you to claim that he is hiding from his liberal beliefs.

"I believe in one America, where it doesn't matter if your black, white, man, women, rich or poor, or gay or straight." How would you intrepet that? Do you think he sounded like a moderate when he said "I believe in a future where a college education is not a privelege for the few, but a birthright for all." This guy has the most liberal voting record in the entire senate. What more do you want from the guy? A tattoo that says liberal on his forehead? Geez.



You and I hardly agree on anything. I will continue saying what I am saying (which is my right to do) just as everyone else states their opinions. I've grown tired of people saying that Obama is the "great change that this country needs." Like he is so different than anyone else who has come before him. So tell me Sparkle, what is so different about him aside from the obvious factors? What makes him so much different from the politicians of the past?

Iraq, Iran, oh and the part about running a positive campaign.

[Marx]

just the other day you asked what I would say if Obama lost, and somebody posted a link to an analysis of the lectoral map, and you said "good then Obama wins, as I still prefer Obama over McCain.


I don't recall saying that. It's no secret that I normally do vote democratic...but I have not decided what I'm going to do yet.


It's pointless to say "don't ever say." Obviously I'm going to say it. I know that you have claimed to be in the business of politics, but that doesnt' change the fact that like Hilllary, you are out of touch with the political winds of today. you don't understand that America believes in a dream, and they want Obama to fullfill that dream. that is why he won the nomination. He helped people believe that great things are possible.


I am not out of touch Spider. I get why Obama gained the nomination. I understand that all of these people that support him think he is some great change maker and that he will finally turn the page on the mess of the last 8 years. I get it. I get all of it. I'm just not sold on Obama. I'm not sure that anyone can live up to the hype that he has become. I just hope to God that he doesn't become a catastrophic failure if he gets elected. Because if that happens, the democrats won't be seeing the White House for a very long time.


ummm, uhhhh, ummmm, Are you serious? I wouldnt' even expect you to say that. I would expect you to say that he has to get back to the center in order to win, but I wouldn't expect you to claim that he is hiding from his liberal beliefs.


I've never said that he is hiding who he is. I'm just saying that he isn't screaming it from the rooftops as some would like to think.


"I believe in one America, where it doesn't matter if your black, white, man, women, rich or poor, or gay or straight." How would you intrepet that? Do you think he sounded like a moderate when he said "I believe in a future where a college education is not a privelege for the few, but a birthright for all." This guy has the most liberal voting record in the entire senate. What more do you want from the guy? A tattoo that says liberal on his forehead? Geez.


I hear a bunch of buzzwords, if you want my honest opinion. Both McCain and Obama's records will come out before the country and be displayed for all to see, so I'm not really all that concerned.


Iraq, Iran, oh and the part about running a positive campaign.

I quoted Sparkle on that one. Not you.

[Matt]

See now your just being bitter with that response. You can't even admit that Iraq was the catapult of his campaign. It's most of the reason MSNBC painted him as a rock star in the first place.

I will take back my comment about Bill possibly being the only reason Hillary is where she is today. She did work hard while Bill was President, and if anybody doubts that, I ask "where are all the other first ladies?"

Don't be naive. He was catapulted into the spot light because he was the first legitiment back candidate just as Clinton was because she was the first legit woman candidate. Even when Edwards was winning all Iowa polls, the media declared it to be a two way race between Obama and Clinton. The media turned this into the woman vs. the black guy because thats what gets ratings.

[Superman4ever]

Edwards is a damn good speaker....he could sell hot dogs at a vegan convention

Oh, absolutely. I HOPE to G-d Obama chooses Edwards as his running mate!

[Mr Sparkle]

Don't be naive. He was catapulted into the spot light because he was the first legitiment back candidate just as Clinton was because she was the first legit woman candidate. Even when Edwards was winning all Iowa polls, the media declared it to be a two way race between Obama and Clinton. The media turned this into the woman vs. the black guy because thats what gets ratings.

actually no, people were talking about him as an "if only HE were running..." candidate during the last election.
Hillary was already set to become candidate as well, the people behind the Democratic party turned it into a race between them, not "the media".

[souvlaki]

Oh, absolutely. I HOPE to G-d Obama chooses Edwards as his running mate!

I don't know that he brings much to the ticket. I love the guy, but he couldn't even deliver his home state in the last election. Of course that was as much Kerry's fault as Edwards' I suppose. He'd probably be a better Attourney General. I wouldn't be disappointed if he ends up being a VP slot though.

[Matt]

actually no, people were talking about him as an "if only HE were running..." candidate during the last election.
Hillary was already set to become candidate as well, the people behind the Democratic party turned it into a race between them, not "the media".

Whatever you say. How much access did you have to the AMERICAN media again, Sparkle? The media was declaring Edwards a non-factor in Iowa when he was creaming both of them in every poll. If that is not the media influencing an election, by calling the leading candidate an inevitable loser, I do not know what is.

[Mr Sparkle]

Whatever you say. How much access did you have to the AMERICAN media again, Sparkle? The media was declaring Edwards a non-factor in Iowa when he was creaming both of them in every poll. If that is not the media influencing an election, by calling the leading candidate an inevitable loser, I do not know what is.

you're right , whatever I say. though your condescension is cute, it's actually misdirected, as I have stated before I pretty much watch about as much "AMERICAN" media as you do (you are aware I live pretty close to the US right) regularly watching both "Fox News Sunday" and "Meet The Press" and doing so way before this and the last election, infact, doing so way before 9-11.
so, yeah I had tons of access to the Media, you're trying to pass off your biased perception as reality without factoring in stuff that happened years before, when most shows were calling Barak Obama one of the strongest candidates for the 2008 race.
why some people forget that is beyond me.
like the fact that Obama has won a pretty decisive Victory in the senate the year he delivered the keynote speech at the DNC (against another black man, in case you're wondering) as to what happened AFTER 2004 if I really have to tell you about it or give you a time line, then it was probably you who lacked access to the media.

sorry Matt, you're wrong.

[hippie_hunter]

Oh, absolutely. I HOPE to G-d Obama chooses Edwards as his running mate!

Horrible choice. The amount of experience on that ticket of two guys who haven't even finished a single term in the Senate would be ridiculed by the Republicans.

[DorkyFresh]

i'd love to see Barack Obama/Jim Webb.

[hippie_hunter]

call me ignorant, but i'd love to see Barack Obama/Jim Webb.

Webb would be a good choice on the outside but again, they'd be rediculed on the experience angle. Webb didn't even serve as Secretary of the Navy for a year and Reagan hated him, and he hasn't served a full term in the Senate either.

That said, I do love Webb, we need more politicians like him.

[Darthphere]

I hope I have a cool wife that I can fist bump in more ways than one.

[DorkyFresh]

Webb would be a good choice on the outside but again, they'd be rediculed on the experience angle. Webb didn't even serve as Secretary of the Navy for a year and Reagan hated him, and he hasn't served a full term in the Senate either.

That said, I do love Webb, we need more politicians like him.

good points, but would you, personally, want to see that happen?

[hippie_hunter]

good points, but would you, personally, want to see that happen?

In the future, I would, but right now no. With Obama having very little experience, I'd like to see the ticket balanced out with someone with more experience in the event that he actually does win the Presidency.

[Varient]

Obama is trying to talk her into a threesome with him and Michelle....

((((SHUDDER))))

[DorkyFresh]

In the future, I would, but right now no. With Obama having very little experience, I'd like to see the ticket balanced out with someone with more experience in the event that he actually does win the Presidency.

alright, alright...what about Wesley Clark? i don't know much about the guy, but supposedly he has an impressive military record.

[hippie_hunter]

alright, alright...what about Wesley Clark? i don't know much about the guy, but supposedly he has an impressive military record.

Clark's good with the experience, but he was a Clinton supporter right from the get-go. Obama needs someone who was an Obama supporter without being a previous supporter of Edwards or Hillary Clinton and have a decent amount of experience under their belt. It's why I think that Kathleen Sebelius is Obama's only viable choice right now.

[Superman4ever]

Horrible choice. The amount of experience on that ticket of two guys who haven't even finished a single term in the Senate would be ridiculed by the Republicans.

It's not going to happen anyways. (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080606/Spain.US.Politics.Edwards/)

[hippie_hunter]

It's not going to happen anyways. (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20080606/Spain.US.Politics.Edwards/)

Didn't think so, if Obama wins he's got the AG spot.

[BlackLantern]

Edwards would be quite a change of pace as the AG.....

[Tron5000]

This article pretty much sums up one of my major reasons for choosing not to vote for Obama.

Yes, it is by Thomas Sowell, a Conservative. But he is much more than that; he is also one of the leading economic and philosophical minds in America today. So don't kill the messenger, but pay attention to the message.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obama_and_mccain.html


Obama and McCain and Iran
By Thomas Sowell

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When election day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter.

Just as the Nazis did not find it enough to simply kill people in their concentration camps, but had to humiliate and dehumanize them first, so we can expect terrorists with nuclear weapons to both humiliate us and force us to humiliate ourselves, before they finally start killing us.

They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East.

They have already telegraphed their intention to dictate to us with such things as Osama bin Laden's threats to target those places in America that did not vote the way he prescribed in the 2004 elections. He could not back up those threats then but he may be able to in a very few years.

The terrorists have given us as clear a picture of what they are all about as Adolf Hitler and the Nazis did during the 1930s-- and our "leaders" and intelligentsia have ignored the warning signs as resolutely as the "leaders" and intelligentsia of the 1930s downplayed the dangers of Hitler.

We are much like people drifting down the Niagara River, oblivious to the waterfalls up ahead. Once we go over those falls, we cannot come back up again.

What does this have to do with today's presidential candidates? It has everything to do with them.

One of these candidates will determine what we are going to do to stop Iran from going nuclear-- or whether we are going to do anything other than talk, as Western leaders talked in the 1930s.

There is one big difference between now and the 1930s. Although the West's lack of military preparedness and its political irresolution led to three solid years of devastating losses to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, nevertheless when all the West's industrial and military forces were finally mobilized, the democracies were able to turn the tide and win decisively.

But you cannot lose a nuclear war for three years and then come back. You cannot even sustain the will to resist for three years when you are first broken down morally by threats and then devastated by nuclear bombs.

Our one window of opportunity to prevent this will occur within the term of whoever becomes President of the United States next January.

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure-- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

[Matt]

you're right , whatever I say. though your condescension is cute, it's actually misdirected, as I have stated before I pretty much watch about as much "AMERICAN" media as you do (you are aware I live pretty close to the US right) regularly watching both "Fox News Sunday" and "Meet The Press" and doing so way before this and the last election, infact, doing so way before 9-11.
so, yeah I had tons of access to the Media, you're trying to pass off your biased perception as reality without factoring in stuff that happened years before, when most shows were calling Barak Obama one of the strongest candidates for the 2008 race.
why some people forget that is beyond me.
like the fact that Obama has won a pretty decisive Victory in the senate the year he delivered the keynote speech at the DNC (against another black man, in case you're wondering) as to what happened AFTER 2004 if I really have to tell you about it or give you a time line, then it was probably you who lacked access to the media.

sorry Matt, you're wrong.


Obama's senate win had very little to do with the keynote address and more to do with the fact that his opponent dropped out a few months before the election in the midst of a sex scandal. He won by a huge margin because of that, not because he is some sort of revolutionary campaigner who transcends all basic rules of politics. The only thing the keynote address did was give the media a hard-on for him. From that point on he could not have an interview without being asked if he was running for President. Before his senate term even started he was being asked if he was running for President in 2008. Once he actually joined the election the media hailed him as the automatic Democratic dark horse who was destined to rally minority and young voters and overthrow Clinton. After he won Iowa, he got a total free pass. No one in the media ever questioned his lack of experience when just four years ago Edwards was torn apart for it. Following the Wright scandal, Obama was compared to JFK and MLK, while Clinton, still months afterwards was condemned by pundits for Gerry Ferarro's comments. To claim the media did not build Obama is simply absurd. Just as it is absurd to say they were not building up Clinton since she entered senate in 2001 until a more rating-sexy candidate appeared.

[BlackLantern]

Ya Obama won his seat with a bow on it basically

[Mr Sparkle]

This article pretty much sums up one of my major reasons for choosing not to vote for Obama.

Yes, it is by Thomas Sowell, a Conservative. But he is much more than that; he is also one of the leading economic and philosophical minds in America today. So don't kill the messenger, but pay attention to the message.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obama_and_mccain.html

God I'm tired of people being Ignorant.......:whatever: Jesus, the fact that this day and age ANYONE gets away with being ignorant is beyond me.
I mean, a virtual library available at their very fingertips and they squander it looking for people that agree with their un-informed preconceived notions.

"Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists nuclear bomb"
that's just the kind of fear mongering stupidity, you know what gave terrorist more raw material to build nuclear devices, even portable ones?

the fall of the Russian empire, something that the SU celebrated as a victory.
infact, a Russian official said that at least 100 portable nuclear devices are missing from former soviet arsenals, and do we really doubt it, when most weapons being sold all over the world, including those used by the drug cartels are of Russian descent.

"They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East."
?

really, that's an indication of intent?
wow, then maybe the US should look closer at it's relationship with Saudi Arabia whose practices also include public beheading and human rights violations all over the place.
infact, the Saudi government censors the internet and forbids trade unions. no religious tolerance except if...you know, you don;t mention you 're from another religion, surely sowell has written extensively about this right?
well aside from using it as an example of why the US shouldn;t tax their people as much, he is not as concerned about them apparently.
or the fact that the US government (the current administration) simply ignores the same thing he is equating to "telegraphing " of punches in some other nation.

"Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America."

ah. the true call of the political shill.
not only did he imply in his little letter that Osama wanted Kerry to win in 2004. when in reality, he just said "Bush is a moron" (well, pretty much "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the country would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important".) and pretty much said what all rational people thought every time Bush said the US was attacked because the terrorists hated freedom
"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden"
oh snap, and this was Osama himself saying this, though for reason it doesn't seem to resound too much with the people concerned.

go fig.

now , he implies with this that Obama has somehow spent "decades" aiding and abetting people who hate America? didn't he like...start his career after 9-11?
I don't think the dude would've gotten too far in the political arena if he began his bid for politics with an "I luv terror" platform, I mean, it was 2002 for god's sake.
:whatever:

seriously, if Sowell is indeed one of the leading "philosophical" minds he should write with much more honesty and less political bias, else he might lose his "philosopher" label and become just another pundit.

[Mr Sparkle]

Obama's senate win had very little to do with the keynote address and more to do with the fact that his opponent dropped out a few months before the election in the midst of a sex scandal. He won by a huge margin because of that, not because he is some sort of revolutionary campaigner who transcends all basic rules of politics.

oh matt, do learn to read.
this is what I said

like the fact that Obama has won a pretty decisive Victory in the senate the year he delivered the keynote speech at the DNC (against another black man, in case you're wondering)

I don't know where you got the Idea that I had his senate career had anything to do with his keynote address, that merely got him noticed by people who became convinced that he was viable candidate for 2008, many even asked why HE wasn't running back then.

so thanks for the history lesson but I already knew that:cwink:

The only thing the keynote address did was give the media a hard-on for him. From that point on he could not have an interview without being asked if he was running for President. Before his senate term even started he was being asked if he was running for President in 2008.

uh, thank you for basically saying what I said :up:

actually no, people were talking about him as an "if only HE were running..." candidate during the last election.



Once he actually joined the election the media hailed him as the automatic Democratic dark horse who was destined to rally minority and young voters and overthrow Clinton. After he won Iowa, he got a total free pass. No one in the media ever questioned his lack of experience when just four years ago Edwards was torn apart for it.

so what, that doesn't mean that this alone was responsible for his successful run, the "media" didn't question McCain's or clinton's personal affiliations with as much zeal as they did Obama's, nor McCain's continuous and baffling "flip-flopping" so what?

so.

freaking.

what?

you know, I can recognize the fact that the Media plays a part in this, but to remove all charisma from a guy that gathered so much attention four years prior is childish.

Following the Wright scandal, Obama was compared to JFK and MLK, while Clinton, still months afterwards was condemned by pundits for Gerry Ferarro's comments. To claim the media did not build Obama is simply absurd. Just as it is absurd to say they were not building up Clinton since she entered senate in 2001 until a more rating-sexy candidate appeared.

yeah, sure, God knows there was not enough backlash from the Wright thing.
of course if you think so, you're either blind ir have no actual access to the Media which had the Wright scandal pretty much playing non-stop for weeks on end. this board alone was abuzz with dull, uneventful "OMGZ! OBaMA iS Teh Racizts!!!!" comments like there was nothing else happening in the news, so, again.

no, Matt, you're wrong.

[kainedamo]

This article pretty much sums up one of my major reasons for choosing not to vote for Obama.

Yes, it is by Thomas Sowell, a Conservative. But he is much more than that; he is also one of the leading economic and philosophical minds in America today. So don't kill the messenger, but pay attention to the message.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obama_and_mccain.html

"Vote for a Republican or we're all gonna die"

:(

[BlackLantern]

Obama has never been involved in a political dogfight before, be it for his Senate seat or anything else....now he is competing for the highest office in the land, and the other guys isn't going to drop out or be embroiled in a sex scandal anytime soon....If Obama wants this, he is going to have to throw down the hammer

[Matt]

oh matt, do learn to read.
this is what I said

like the fact that Obama has won a pretty decisive Victory in the senate the year he delivered the keynote speech at the DNC (against another black man, in case you're wondering)

I don't know where you got the Idea that I had his senate career had anything to do with his keynote address, that merely got him noticed by people who became convinced that he was viable candidate for 2008, many even asked why HE wasn't running back then.

so thanks for the history lesson but I already knew that:cwink:

And by people I assume you mean media who began to flaunt over him day and night following that speech?


uh, thank you for basically saying what I said :up:

actually no, people were talking about him as an "if only HE were running..." candidate during the last election.





so what, that doesn't mean that this alone was responsible for his successful run, the "media" didn't question McCain's or clinton's personal affiliations with as much zeal as they did Obama's, nor McCain's continuous and baffling "flip-flopping" so what?


Of course they did. Clinton and McCain spent about a year being torn apart by the media when they were still the respective front runners.


so.

freaking.

what?

you know, I can recognize the fact that the Media plays a part in this, but to remove all charisma from a guy that gathered so much attention four years prior is childish.

You're comparing two seperate things. Obama's charisma had jack to do with the media building up the black guy because he made for better ratings. I will admit he is charasmatic. That has jack to do with what we are discussing.


yeah, sure, God knows there was not enough backlash from the Wright thing.
of course if you think so, you're either blind ir have no actual access to the Media which had the Wright scandal pretty much playing non-stop for weeks on end. this board alone was abuzz with dull, uneventful "OMGZ! OBaMA iS Teh Racizts!!!!" comments like there was nothing else happening in the news, so, again.

no, Matt, you're wrong.

I'll talk to you again when you go back to debating like an adult. Mmk?

[Mr Sparkle]

And by people I assume you mean media who began to flaunt over him day and night following that speech?

well clearly I don't mean "JUST" the Media, the Media, as any politician will tell you, is instrumental, but in the end, it comes down to your appeal with the people.
I mean, who lost the election in 2004, Kerry, or the supposed liberal Media?


Of course they did. Clinton and McCain spent about a year being torn apart by the media when they were still the respective front runners.

some of the scandals I'm talking about were post-wright so....uh...no they weren't.


You're comparing two seperate things. Obama's charisma had jack to do with the media building up the black guy because he made for better ratings. I will admit he is charasmatic. That has jack to do with what we are discussing.

no, you're compartmentalizing because there's no rationale to your argument. regardless of what you think the Media is doing it's the candidates Charisma that carries him through, despite him being "black"
if the Media alone was responsible for securing the candidacy then Jesse Jackson or Alan Keyes would've secured nominations.
they didn't. surely AL Sharpton would rule us all by now, but he doesn't.
unlike you, like I said, I don't discount the influence of the Media, but I'm also not foolish enough to ascribe it magical powers it doesn't posses.

I'll talk to you again when you go back to debating like an adult. Mmk?

hmmm, I'm going to go ahead and guess you have no actual argument to what I was saying about the Wright backlash. but then, of course both using south park references and posting things like these:

You're comparing two seperate things. Obama's charisma had jack to do with the media building up the black guy because he made for better ratings. I will admit he is charasmatic. That has jack to do with what we are discussing.

are apparent benchmarks of adult discussion in your rather funny and skewed world view.
need I really add how wrong you are Matt?:huh:

[Marx]

Edit

[Excel]

Obama has never been involved in a political dogfight before, be it for his Senate seat or anything else....now he is competing for the highest office in the land, and the other guys isn't going to drop out or be embroiled in a sex scandal anytime soon....If Obama wants this, he is going to have to throw down the hammer

Appearently you missed the last 6 months...

[Tron5000]

"Vote for a Republican or we're all gonna die"

:(

My, such an oversimplification of rational thoughts presented in a coherent and understandable manner by a noted and respected economist and philosopher.

Nice one.

[BlackLantern]

Appearently you missed the last 6 months...

my meaning was prior to his candidacy.....sorry I was not clear

[Mr Sparkle]

My, such an oversimplification of rational thoughts presented in a coherent and understandable manner by a noted and respected economist and philosopher.

Nice one.

I didn't oversimplify it:cwink:

God I'm tired of people being Ignorant.......:whatever: Jesus, the fact that this day and age ANYONE gets away with being ignorant is beyond me.
I mean, a virtual library available at their very fingertips and they squander it looking for people that agree with their un-informed preconceived notions.

"Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists nuclear bomb"
that's just the kind of fear mongering stupidity, you know what gave terrorist more raw material to build nuclear devices, even portable ones?

the fall of the Russian empire, something that the SU celebrated as a victory.
infact, a Russian official said that at least 100 portable nuclear devices are missing from former soviet arsenals, and do we really doubt it, when most weapons being sold all over the world, including those used by the drug cartels are of Russian descent.

"They have already telegraphed their punches with their sadistic beheadings of innocent civilians, and with the popularity of videotapes of those beheadings in the Middle East."
?

really, that's an indication of intent?
wow, then maybe the US should look closer at it's relationship with Saudi Arabia whose practices also include public beheading and human rights violations all over the place.
infact, the Saudi government censors the internet and forbids trade unions. no religious tolerance except if...you know, you don;t mention you 're from another religion, surely sowell has written extensively about this right?
well aside from using it as an example of why the US shouldn;t tax their people as much, he is not as concerned about them apparently.
or the fact that the US government (the current administration) simply ignores the same thing he is equating to "telegraphing " of punches in some other nation.

"Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America."

ah. the true call of the political shill.
not only did he imply in his little letter that Osama wanted Kerry to win in 2004. when in reality, he just said "Bush is a moron" (well, pretty much "It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the country would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important".) and pretty much said what all rational people thought every time Bush said the US was attacked because the terrorists hated freedom
"If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden"
oh snap, and this was Osama himself saying this, though for reason it doesn't seem to resound too much with the people concerned.

go fig.

now , he implies with this that Obama has somehow spent "decades" aiding and abetting people who hate America? didn't he like...start his career after 9-11?
I don't think the dude would've gotten too far in the political arena if he began his bid for politics with an "I luv terror" platform, I mean, it was 2002 for god's sake.
:whatever:

seriously, if Sowell is indeed one of the leading "philosophical" minds he should write with much more honesty and less political bias, else he might lose his "philosopher" label and become just another pundit.

[Superman4ever]

This article pretty much sums up one of my major reasons for choosing not to vote for Obama.

Yes, it is by Thomas Sowell, a Conservative. But he is much more than that; he is also one of the leading economic and philosophical minds in America today. So don't kill the messenger, but pay attention to the message.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obama_and_mccain.html

Oh, Moses. :whatever:

Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. Forget it. You want to believe in this drivel...fine.

Man have the conservatives ALWAYS been this stupid or is the stupidity ratio an exponent of time?

Let's ignore the fact, as conservatives (well, these neo-con propagandists) LOVE to do, the fact that Iran, VIA THE PENTAGON AND DD, stopped it's nuclear program in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

And with most estimates that it CAN NOT (CANNOT) produce enough uranium for a bomb, until 2015...granted IF it restarts the campaign. The probability of them producing a bomb before that is highly unlikely. Where's the imminent danger? You're telling me diplomacy...and I'm talking REAL diplomacy, not threats of sanctions and isolationism, can't work in 8-9 years. We can't do that?

This is the flippin' USA we can DO anything, but apparently we can't talk?

Dammit to hell. This is the country where Kennedy said we'd go to the moon by the end of the decade, and we did that in less than 8 years. And you war/fear-mongering idiots are telling me that diplomacy can't work?

I find it that it's these sick neo-cons who talk infinitely about America's brilliance believe SO little in it's potential. It really feels like they want to destroy this country. Forget about how they treat the constitution and the laws of our land. Look at how they our foreign "policy". "You're either with us or against us." Up until the mid-70 the Mid-East, in general, looked up to America, and considered them with high regards (and it's not the terr'rrst doing...they're a result of our policy). Now we're just a big ignorant, hypocritical bully.

Whatever...

[Comicfilmer]

Oh, Moses. :whatever:

Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. Forget it. You want to believe in this drivel...fine.

Man have the conservatives ALWAYS been this stupid or is the stupidity ratio an exponent of time?

Let's ignore the fact, as conservatives (well, these neo-con propagandists) LOVE to do, the fact that Iran, VIA THE PENTAGON AND DD, stopped it's nuclear program in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

And with most estimates that it CAN NOT (CANNOT) produce enough uranium for a bomb, until 2015...granted IF it restarts the campaign. The probability of them producing a bomb before that is highly unlikely. Where's the imminent danger? You're telling me diplomacy...and I'm talking REAL diplomacy, not threats of sanctions and isolationism, can't work in 8-9 years. We can't do that?

This is the flippin' USA we can DO anything, but apparently we can't talk?

Dammit to hell. This is the country where Kennedy said we'd go to the moon by the end of the decade, and we did that in less than 8 years. And you war/fear-mongering idiots are telling me that diplomacy can't work?

I find it that it's these sick neo-cons who talk infinitely about America's brilliance believe SO little in it's potential. It really feels like they want to destroy this country. Forget about how they treat the constitution and the laws of our land. Look at how they our foreign "policy". "You're either with us or against us." Up until the mid-70 the Mid-East, in general, looked up to America, and considered them with high regards (and it's not the terr'rrst doing...they're a result of our policy). Now we're just a big ignorant, hypocritical bully.

Whatever...

I'm going nod my head in agreement here. Good post, Superman4ever.

[souvlaki]

Oh, Moses. :whatever:

Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda. Forget it. You want to believe in this drivel...fine.

Man have the conservatives ALWAYS been this stupid or is the stupidity ratio an exponent of time?

Let's ignore the fact, as conservatives (well, these neo-con propagandists) LOVE to do, the fact that Iran, VIA THE PENTAGON AND DD, stopped it's nuclear program in 2003.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

And with most estimates that it CAN NOT (CANNOT) produce enough uranium for a bomb, until 2015...granted IF it restarts the campaign. The probability of them producing a bomb before that is highly unlikely. Where's the imminent danger? You're telling me diplomacy...and I'm talking REAL diplomacy, not threats of sanctions and isolationism, can't work in 8-9 years. We can't do that?

This is the flippin' USA we can DO anything, but apparently we can't talk?

Dammit to hell. This is the country where Kennedy said we'd go to the moon by the end of the decade, and we did that in less than 8 years. And you war/fear-mongering idiots are telling me that diplomacy can't work?

I find it that it's these sick neo-cons who talk infinitely about America's brilliance believe SO little in it's potential. It really feels like they want to destroy this country. Forget about how they treat the constitution and the laws of our land. Look at how they our foreign "policy". "You're either with us or against us." Up until the mid-70 the Mid-East, in general, looked up to America, and considered them with high regards (and it's not the terr'rrst doing...they're a result of our policy). Now we're just a big ignorant, hypocritical bully.

Whatever...

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8894/kaneklapqo6.gif

[DorkyFresh]

lol...i love that gif. it also fits that post perfectly.

[BlackLantern]

I understand one of Obamas' big things is higher education....but let me play the Devil here for a second...

America needs underacheivers .we need people to work at Wal-Marts, grocery stores, and car washes... We need people that are going to clean our office bathrooms, empty our trash, and change our sheets when we stay in hotels.....

[souvlaki]

I understand one of Obamas' big things is higher education....but let me play the Devil here for a second...

America needs underacheivers . we need people to work at Wal-Marts, grocery stores, and car washes... We need people that are going to clean our office bathrooms, empty our trash, and change our sheets when we stay in hotels.....

Yeah, those people are called teenagers, and college students (minus the underacheiver part).