This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
He has been ridiculed as all flash no substance, well here comes the substance. And blocking things can sometimes come back to bite you in the ###. The people he is talking about are not going to be ignored by the American people, Wall Street or the press. Lastly I don't buy the hubris thing. I don't think he has acted inappropriately at this point. When he starts negotiating treaties get back to me.
WHAT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN?? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY????!!!!I'm not that excited about it, Sulla. Just find all the Obama love pretty amusing.
I plan on posting this link around here A LOT.
Just about every Obama supporter on here has been critical of him at one time or another. This is a message board where we discuss things. It's sort of the whole point that someone makes an observation and someone else either agrees or disagrees, and generally speaking nothing in politics is so black and white that it deserves a universal response. What do you expect?
Perhaps you're right. and if you are, I will take back what I have written. But your first statement just doesn't ring true with me. I read McCain supporters critical of him quite often. I also read those who don't really like Obama give him credit from time to time. And vice versa, with Obama fans giving McCain credit. But sorry, I have not read what I would consider the diehard Obama fans here even the slightest bit critical of him. If you are aware of some posts that will contradict me here, I certainly hope you will present them. And every time there IS criticism of Obama, no matter what it is, it ALWAYS gets an immediate reply taking issue with the criticism. That was the point of my previous post.
To be fair, every time Obama says or does anything, someone immediately posts on this forum criticizing it. First it's that he hasn't been to Iraq since 2006, then when he does visit Iraq, it's a publicity stunt, or he's acting "too presidential". For Christ's sake about 80 pages back in this very thread you'll find Bueno ranting about how he bowled a 40-something during the PA primary.
Let's not cloud the issue with reality and stuff.
He's definitely no Tiger Woods on the bowling lanes.
True.
His 3-pointer in front of all the cameras looked pretty sweet.:clutch:
The whining about Obama and not being able to criticize him is getting out of hand. No supporter is stopping any opposing person from posting things about Obama that they don't like.If you think someone is wrong, and you post why you think they're wrong, and someone posts an opposing side, what's the problem here? It's starting to sound like you don't want to have a debate, but rather you want to criticize with impunity.
Wow. Well, I missed that thread the first time around. But you are absolutely right, several of the more vocal Obama supporters including Big Steel Thrill and Adonis are critical of him, so I have to give them credit. I take back what I wrote; I was obviously wrong about this.
Well, he beat Hillary in MN, so I'm not sure how she would help.
I meant "that has gotten the same AMOUNT of press". I think everyone would agree Obama got a lot more media exposure -- positive, negative, neutral -- than McCain last week.
That is absolutely hilarious.
....
....
....
Taken from Wikipedia but updated with current totals:"The filibuster has tremendously increased in frequency of use since the 1960s. In the 1960s, no Senate term had more than seven filibusters. One of the filibusters of the 1960s, was when southern Democratic Senators attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by making a filibuster that lasted for 75 hours. In the first decade of the 21st century, no Senate term had fewer than 49 filibusters. The 1999-2002 Senate terms both had 58 filibusters. In the fall of 2007, the 110th Congress' 1st session broke the record, for filibuster cloture votes, with 68. It is on track to triple the number of such votes in 2008's 2nd session, with 110 through July 27."
I always thought you were secretly Sean Connery.(you were the best Bond, btw)
That Obama's like Britney and Paris?Spidey-sense is off-kilter these days.
Ahh, you're holding out for more from McCain. Wise decision, McCain's all about handouts. He's promising EVERYONE more money if they vote for him, especially the rich.Don't sell your vote short, go for McCain, he's willing to pay you more.
I see OH as a tight race, but if I had to wager on it, I would put it in Obama's corner.
GLGB.
Yeah, it's the closest it's been since early june.Although Rasmussen, looking back on past polls, has always been McCain heavy, when compared to other polls around the same time.But the RCP average is certainly below what it has been of late. McCain is making headway, although I'm not quite sure how this affects the Electoral college votes.
I think it makes my above scenario of McCain having to hold on to red swing states more likely. It also puts Michigan more into play. Obama's in a lot of trouble if he loses Michigan. However, New Mexico looks strongly blue and polling has shown Florida tightening up (both Quinnipiac and Rasmussen has Obama +2). That's mainly because Obama is spending a ton of money there while McCain has assumed Florida is safely red and spent nothing.Also, I was mistaken about one thing above. New Hampshire went blue in '04. I was confused since it went red in '00.
That was my reaction, too, when I first heard of Indiana being a swing state. But there are a lot of people there who are in the Chicago media market, so they've been inundated with Obama for a long time now. The fact that Indiana has a chance of going blue is the main reason why Evan Bayh is still under consideration for Veep.Though I agree, the best bets for swing states going blue are Virginia and Colorado. I think there's a better chance of either Ohio or Florida going blue than Indiana or North Carolina. Missouri just has me confused.
NC is going to be close just because of demographics. If he gets 95% of the black vote and they are 26% of the electorate like they were in 2004, then he probably has a 40-5% shot of winning the state. If he gets that then he's looking at a 70-30 split in white voting to win the state which is doable there with his support in the RDU area.
OMFG that is one of the best video spoofs ever. Imperfectly synced but stil LMAO several times.
I caught that author for a couple of minutes on Fox News yesterday, and he's pretty close to topping Nancy Grace as one of the most horrible people on the planet. The chick that was interviewing him at one point asked "Can't someone read so-and-so's book without buying into what the author thinks?" His answer was an emphatic and angry "No!"
Yeah good to see him go back completely on his promise of a high road campaign. But hey don't hold him to anything he says we only do that to Obama right?
If it is, then it's a justifiable reason to not vote for McCain. They are both part of a government guilty of all the things listed above. Since they are, that "reason" is written down in the con column of each candidate and basically becomes a moot point.
I know I won't get an answer to this, but why is it good to see him pulling off the gloves, but when Obama did the same for a brief time during the primaries, Obama was "going back on his word" and was "just another politican doing what politicians do"?? Seems like the perfect definition of hypocrisy to me.
Most agree that this election is about Obama. The country doesn't know much about him beyond that he's the candidate of hope and change. McCain needs to define him, and, do so strongly in order to change his perception. From my perspective, it's good to see him take off the gloves because Obama is just another politician, only with a thin record. Enough with this talk of uniting the country - he'll only unite those from a liberal perspective. If McCain doesn't make this known, he's in trouble. When Obama gives misleading information about his opponent, he does sound like something he pretends not to be - a politican, and it does play into his message of new politics, not the same old Washington. To those of us not buying into the catchy slogans, he is another politician, but, many are still buying into him as this new wave of optimism.I know I won't get an answer to this, but why is it good to see him pulling off the gloves, but when Obama did the same for a brief time during the primaries, Obama was "going back on his word" and was "just another politican doing what politicians do"?? Seems like the perfect definition of hypocrisy to me.
