What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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!

*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (3 Viewers)

Good to see McCain pulling the gloves off finally. He has started to come around to what the rest of us have know for a long time. If he doesn't show the world what Obama really stands for, and chooses to allow Obama to hide behind his flowery language and empty rhetoric, he will lose this election. With three months to go and the conventions coming up, I would say that McCain is right on schedule. You can hear the anxiety in the Democratic strategists voices when they are asked to explain the erosion of Obama's polling numbers by 15-20% in some states and demographics over the last 3 months. Their only response is that Obama is doing a great job, he's staying on point, and he's giving the American people what they want without getting into gutter politics. Clearly that isn't the case. And now Luda' has become the next scumbag that Obama has called an inspiring figure in the past, to come forward and show the world his true colors (although I'm not sure he ever tried to hide them), embarrassing the Junior Senator in the process, the process of Obama trying to backpedal out of past comments begins again. I'm guessing there are some other skeletons in that closet and as long as America is constantly seeing this guy for what he truly is, I'm happy. Wright, Pflager, Luda, Unrepentant, clinging to their g**s and religion, etc. The list goes on and on and on. And now this new book is about to be released that is destined to be a New York Times bestseller, which will detail Obama's socialist past, his family and their rebellious history, and many truths about who and what Obama really stands with/for.
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. :thumbdown:
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.
So you're cool with McCain's hypocrisy? Good to know.:noted:
 
Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.
:) I see OH as a tight race, but if I had to wager on it, I would put it in Obama's corner.

.
OH will be close, but I disagree that NV should be in red. McCain is going to lose that state if nuclear power becomes even a second-tier issue in the campaign, which it probably will.
 
Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.
:) I see OH as a tight race, but if I had to wager on it, I would put it in Obama's corner.

.
OH will be close, but I disagree that NV should be in red. McCain is going to lose that state if nuclear power becomes even a second-tier issue in the campaign, which it probably will.
Which is ironic, because Las Vegas needs like 5 nuclear reactors just for itself.
 
Not sure if this was posted elsewhere, but here's Obama really perfectly handling a heckler in Cleveland.

http://videos.cleveland.com/plain-dealer/2..._on_pledge.html
Heckler = crazy guy.
Yeah he needs help. I wonder if he's been going around making sure the pledge is said before every McCain town hall meeting? Obama handled him like a pro though.
He should went with "If I wanted to hear from an #######, I'd fart"
 
Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.
I'm beginning to think that there is actually a decent shot at a 169-169 electoral vote tie. Taking a look at RCP's electoral college map, Obama is up over McCain 238-163, with 137 toss-up. Of the current toss-up states, I can see Obama taking Michigan and New Mexico, while McCain takes Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. That would give them a 160-160 tie, with Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), and Nevada (5) hanging in the balance. If one takes Colorado and the other takes New Hampshire and Nevada, we're at a 169-169 tie. Of course, McCain could very well lose Ohio or Virginia and Obama could lose Michigan, which would change everything.)As for what would happen in the event of a tie, there is a pretty good analysis here.

 
Good to see McCain pulling the gloves off finally. He has started to come around to what the rest of us have know for a long time. If he doesn't show the world what Obama really stands for, and chooses to allow Obama to hide behind his flowery language and empty rhetoric, he will lose this election. With three months to go and the conventions coming up, I would say that McCain is right on schedule. You can hear the anxiety in the Democratic strategists voices when they are asked to explain the erosion of Obama's polling numbers by 15-20% in some states and demographics over the last 3 months. Their only response is that Obama is doing a great job, he's staying on point, and he's giving the American people what they want without getting into gutter politics. Clearly that isn't the case. And now Luda' has become the next scumbag that Obama has called an inspiring figure in the past, to come forward and show the world his true colors (although I'm not sure he ever tried to hide them), embarrassing the Junior Senator in the process, the process of Obama trying to backpedal out of past comments begins again. I'm guessing there are some other skeletons in that closet and as long as America is constantly seeing this guy for what he truly is, I'm happy. Wright, Pflager, Luda, Unrepentant, clinging to their g**s and religion, etc. The list goes on and on and on. And now this new book is about to be released that is destined to be a New York Times bestseller, which will detail Obama's socialist past, his family and their rebellious history, and many truths about who and what Obama really stands with/for.
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. :thumbdown:
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.
That's what I said...perfect definition of hypocrisy. Congrats :thumbup:
 
Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.
I'm beginning to think that there is actually a decent shot at a 169-169 electoral vote tie. Taking a look at RCP's electoral college map, Obama is up over McCain 238-163, with 137 toss-up. Of the current toss-up states, I can see Obama taking Michigan and New Mexico, while McCain takes Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. That would give them a 160-160 tie, with Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), and Nevada (5) hanging in the balance. If one takes Colorado and the other takes New Hampshire and Nevada, we're at a 169-169 tie. Of course, McCain could very well lose Ohio or Virginia and Obama could lose Michigan, which would change everything.)As for what would happen in the event of a tie, there is a pretty good analysis here.
538 puts the chances of a tie at .73%
 
Good to see McCain pulling the gloves off finally. He has started to come around to what the rest of us have know for a long time. If he doesn't show the world what Obama really stands for, and chooses to allow Obama to hide behind his flowery language and empty rhetoric, he will lose this election. With three months to go and the conventions coming up, I would say that McCain is right on schedule. You can hear the anxiety in the Democratic strategists voices when they are asked to explain the erosion of Obama's polling numbers by 15-20% in some states and demographics over the last 3 months. Their only response is that Obama is doing a great job, he's staying on point, and he's giving the American people what they want without getting into gutter politics. Clearly that isn't the case. And now Luda' has become the next scumbag that Obama has called an inspiring figure in the past, to come forward and show the world his true colors (although I'm not sure he ever tried to hide them), embarrassing the Junior Senator in the process, the process of Obama trying to backpedal out of past comments begins again. I'm guessing there are some other skeletons in that closet and as long as America is constantly seeing this guy for what he truly is, I'm happy. Wright, Pflager, Luda, Unrepentant, clinging to their g**s and religion, etc. The list goes on and on and on. And now this new book is about to be released that is destined to be a New York Times bestseller, which will detail Obama's socialist past, his family and their rebellious history, and many truths about who and what Obama really stands with/for.
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. :thumbdown:
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.
That's what I said...perfect definition of hypocrisy. Congrats :thumbup:
Please. Obama is throwing the race card out there as well. Both sides are going to do what it takes to win. Yes, even Obama will. Shocking.
 
Obama vows NASA support during visit to Florida

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president, held a town hall meeting near the Kennedy Space Center today and vowed strong support for NASA, saying he favors at least one shuttle flight beyond the 10 missions left on the agency's manifest. Obama also said he would work to close the gap between the end of shuttle operations in 2010 and the debut of the Orion spacecraft that will replace it and said earlier reports that he would divert money from NASA's next manned spacecraft to education were unfounded.

Obama was introduced to an enthusiastic crowd of about 1,300 at the Brevard Community College by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), who flew as a payload specialist aboard the shuttle Columbia in 1986. In his opening remarks, Obama delivered his most detailed statement yet on space policy as NASA implements the Bush administration's drive to complete the space station and retire the shuttle fleet by the end of fiscal 2010.

NASA hopes to replace the shuttle with smaller Orion capsules and huge, unmanned cargo boosters, known collectively as the Constellation program. The goal is to use Orion spacecraft to carry astronauts to and from the station while developing the heavy-lift Ares 5 rocket that will help NASA establish a moon base around 2020.

Under the Bush administration's plan, the money to pay for the Constellation program primarily will come from funds that now go to the shuttle and space station programs. The Orion spacecraft and its Ares 1 booster are under development, but near-term funding shortfalls will result in a four- to five-year gap between the end of shuttle operations and the advent of routine operations with Orion. During that gap, U.S. astronauts will be forced to hitch rides to the station aboard Russian Soyuz spacecraft.

It has been widely reported in space circles that Obama earlier vowed to reduce spending for the Constellation program in favor of education initiatives. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, said in a statement last week marking NASA's 50th anniversary that "under current plans, the United States will retire the space shuttle in 2010 after its final mission to the international space station, and thus lose the capability to send on our own, an American to space."

"While my opponent seems content to retreating from American exploration of space for a decade, I am not," McCain said in the statement. "As president, I will act to make ensure our astronauts will continue to explore space, and not just by hitching a ride with someone else. I intend to make sure that the NASA Constellation program has the resources it needs so that we can begin a new era of human space exploration. A country that sent a man to the moon should expect no less."

Today, Obama said he supports the Constellation program and will work to narrow the gap between the end of shuttle operations and the advent of Orion.

"I know it's still being reported that we were talking about delaying some aspects of the Constellation program to pay for our early education program," he said. "I told my staff we're going to find an entirely different offset because we've got to make sure that the money that's going into NASA for basic research and development continues to go there. That has been a top priority for us. This is an administration that's been anti-science. Whether it's on stem cell research, whether it's on climate change, they have rejected science. I want to reverse that trend, I want us to be a science-based society and I want us to invest in science."

Obama expanded on that theme in his opening remarks today, saying "we've got to rebuild our economy in a much more fundamental way. We've got to secure our long-term prosperity and strengthen our economy for the 21st century."

"One of the areas where we're in danger of losing our competitive edge is in science and technology and nothing symbolizes that more than our space program," Obama said. "I've written about this in my book, I grew up in Hawaii and I still remember sitting on my grandfather's shoulders as some of the astronauts were brought in after their capsules had landed in the middle of the Pacific. I could just barely see them, I was waving, I had an American flag, and I remember my grandfather explaining to me this is what America's all about, we can do anything when we put our mind to it.

"And that was what the space program described, that sense of possibility and always reaching out to new frontiers. When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements that we're still proud of. And today we have an administration that sets ambitious goals for NASA without giving NASA the support it needs to reach them. As a result, NASA's had to cut back on research, trim their program, which means that after the space shuttle shuts down in 2010 we're going to have to rely on Russian spacecraft to keep us in orbit.

"So let me be clear," he said. "We cannot cede our leadership in space. That's why I'm going to close the gap, ensure that our space program doesn't suffer when the shuttle goes out of service. We may extend an additional shuttle launch, we're going to work with Bill Nelson to add at least one more flight beyond 2010 by continuing to support NASA funding, by speeding the development of the shuttle's successor, by making sure that all those that work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the shuttle is retired. Because we cannot afford to lose their expertise."

The additional shuttle flight presumably would be devoted to launching the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, a major physics experiment that lost its ride to the space station in the push to finish the station and retire the shuttle by the end of fiscal 2010. Nelson and other NASA supporters in Congress favor the additional flight, but the Bush administration opposes the additional expense.

"But more broadly, we need a real vision for the next stage of space exploration," Obama continued. "And to help formulate this vision, I'm going to re-establish the national aeronautics and space council so we can develop a plan to explore the solar system, a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, enlist both international partners and the private sector. And as America leads the world in the long-term exploration of the moon and Mars and beyond, let's also tap NASA's ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change.

"Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world once again and make America stronger and it's going to help grow the economy right here in Brevard County and right here in Florida. That's what we're going to do. That's what this election's all about. It's about raising our sights, seizing the moment, reclaiming our destiny."
ArticleI'm glad to see his support for NASA. There have been rumblings and I am happy he put them to rest.
Good news, NASA is a very important program.
 
Let's take a look at the electoral map. As of right now, there are legitimately 14 swing states that could go either way this November. They are (by order of electoral votes): FL, OH, MI, NC, VA, IN, MO, MN, CO, NV, NM, NH, MT, ND. (I'm not including either PA or former red state IA as swing states because the polling seems very strong for Obama there)

Of those 14 states, only 2 went blue in the 2004 election (Michigan and Minnesota). Bush only won with 286 electoral votes. A switch of just 17 votes blue means Obama wins. That means that if everything stays the same, but either Ohio or Florida switches, then Obama wins.

There's also plenty combinations of likely results that are bad for McCain. Now, I'd be very surprised if Obama manages to take Missouri, North Carolina, or Indiana. I also doubt Obama loses either Minnesota or Michigan. If true, then McCain is having to fight a defensive campaign to hold on to Republican states, and could even lose the election with just a few states defecting (say Nevada, New Hampshire, and Colorado; or New Hampshire and Virginia).

I kind of like that last scenario. We could see whether Obama wins the election relatively early in the evening. VA, NH, MI, MN. All Obama? Then election's over.
I'm beginning to think that there is actually a decent shot at a 169-169 electoral vote tie. Taking a look at RCP's electoral college map, Obama is up over McCain 238-163, with 137 toss-up. Of the current toss-up states, I can see Obama taking Michigan and New Mexico, while McCain takes Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio. That would give them a 160-160 tie, with Colorado (9), New Hampshire (4), and Nevada (5) hanging in the balance. If one takes Colorado and the other takes New Hampshire and Nevada, we're at a 169-169 tie. Of course, McCain could very well lose Ohio or Virginia and Obama could lose Michigan, which would change everything.)As for what would happen in the event of a tie, there is a pretty good analysis here.
538 puts the chances of a tie at .73%
Not scientific by any stretch, but I'd put it at closer to a 1 in 25 shot.
 
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.
All McCain needs to do to win is to hand Obama a microphone and get out of the way.Here's an interesting point for those who think McCain is running a bad campaign. McCain has been polling stronger than any republican since Reagan in 1984. Bush in 88, Bush in 92, Dole in 96, Bush in 00, and Bush in 04 all performed worse than McCain has to this point.
 
Both sides are going to do what it takes to win.
I never said they wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact you thought it was ok for McCain to take the gloves off after he said he wouldn't, but it wasn't ok that Obama took the gloves off when he said it wouldn't. I get that you want to deflect away from this (assuming that's why you threw the race issue out there), but the real issue really isn't up for debate...just accept it and move on.
 
Both sides are going to do what it takes to win.
I never said they wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact you thought it was ok for McCain to take the gloves off after he said he wouldn't, but it wasn't ok that Obama took the gloves off when he said it wouldn't. I get that you want to deflect away from this (assuming that's why you threw the race issue out there), but the real issue really isn't up for debate...just accept it and move on.
McCain is a politician, Obama has tried to convince the public that he's above modern day politics. I think it is a tad bit hypocritial when he says he's for a new form of politics, but reverts back to the old ways of doing things. Which is it?
 
Both sides are going to do what it takes to win.
I never said they wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact you thought it was ok for McCain to take the gloves off after he said he wouldn't, but it wasn't ok that Obama took the gloves off when he said it wouldn't. I get that you want to deflect away from this (assuming that's why you threw the race issue out there), but the real issue really isn't up for debate...just accept it and move on.
McCain is a politician, Obama has tried to convince the public that he's above modern day politics. I think it is a tad bit hypocritial when he says he's for a new form of politics, but reverts back to the old ways of doing things. Which is it?
I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject. I am not defending either guy for being better than the other. I am focused on your hypocrisy that it's ok for one to go back on his word and it isn't for the other. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
Both sides are going to do what it takes to win.
I never said they wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact you thought it was ok for McCain to take the gloves off after he said he wouldn't, but it wasn't ok that Obama took the gloves off when he said it wouldn't. I get that you want to deflect away from this (assuming that's why you threw the race issue out there), but the real issue really isn't up for debate...just accept it and move on.
McCain is a politician, Obama has tried to convince the public that he's above modern day politics. I think it is a tad bit hypocritial when he says he's for a new form of politics, but reverts back to the old ways of doing things. Which is it?
I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject. I am not defending either guy for being better than the other. I am focused on your hypocrisy that it's ok for one to go back on his word and it isn't for the other. Why is that so hard to understand?
Speaking of McCain, he probably didn't have to bring in Brittney or Paris for the commerical, but I do think it's effective and FAIR to question whether Obama is qualified to be President, given his extremely thin resume. You can have a debate over his method of delivering the message - obviously, you thought it was out of bounds, but the message itself was extremely fair.
 
Both sides are going to do what it takes to win.
I never said they wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact you thought it was ok for McCain to take the gloves off after he said he wouldn't, but it wasn't ok that Obama took the gloves off when he said it wouldn't. I get that you want to deflect away from this (assuming that's why you threw the race issue out there), but the real issue really isn't up for debate...just accept it and move on.
McCain is a politician, Obama has tried to convince the public that he's above modern day politics. I think it is a tad bit hypocritial when he says he's for a new form of politics, but reverts back to the old ways of doing things. Which is it?
I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject. I am not defending either guy for being better than the other. I am focused on your hypocrisy that it's ok for one to go back on his word and it isn't for the other. Why is that so hard to understand?
Speaking of McCain, he probably didn't have to bring in Brittney or Paris for the commerical, but I do think it's effective and FAIR to question whether Obama is qualified to be President, given his extremely thin resume. You can have a debate over his method of delivering the message - obviously, you thought it was out of bounds, but the message itself was extremely fair.
Did you even read my last post. I am not defending either guy. I am focused on YOUR hypocrisy. Am I not saying it right or something? This has nothing to do with either candidate other than them being the subjects of your displayed hypocrisy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both sides are going to do what it takes to win.
I never said they wouldn't. That doesn't change the fact you thought it was ok for McCain to take the gloves off after he said he wouldn't, but it wasn't ok that Obama took the gloves off when he said it wouldn't. I get that you want to deflect away from this (assuming that's why you threw the race issue out there), but the real issue really isn't up for debate...just accept it and move on.
McCain is a politician, Obama has tried to convince the public that he's above modern day politics. I think it is a tad bit hypocritial when he says he's for a new form of politics, but reverts back to the old ways of doing things. Which is it?
I don't know why you keep trying to change the subject. I am not defending either guy for being better than the other. I am focused on your hypocrisy that it's ok for one to go back on his word and it isn't for the other. Why is that so hard to understand?
Speaking of McCain, he probably didn't have to bring in Brittney or Paris for the commerical, but I do think it's effective and FAIR to question whether Obama is qualified to be President, given his extremely thin resume. You can have a debate over his method of delivering the message - obviously, you thought it was out of bounds, but the message itself was extremely fair.
Did you even read my last post. I am not defending either guy. I am focused on YOUR hypocrisy. Am I not saying it right or something? This has nothing to do with either candidate other than them being the subjects of your displayed hypocrisy.
:lmao: :) :lmao:
 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?

 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :shrug:

 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :shrug:
5 million X $30k = $150 billionIt's certainly possible especially if most of that money is coming from energy that would have instead been used to purchase foreign oil.

 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :rolleyes:
But what does that mean -- pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy? Is he going to give companies lots of money to set up alternative energy? Or set up a new gov't agency for alternative energy?What are his plans on this?

 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :goodposting:
But what does that mean -- pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy? Is he going to give companies lots of money to set up alternative energy? Or set up a new gov't agency for alternative energy?What are his plans on this?
I haven't read it all, but his page actually has detail and is probably a good place to start:http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_e...eech_080308.pdf

 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :shrug:
No, it will cost as many jobs as it creates. He's not coming up with the billions on his own. He's directing the money from one place to another. That doesn't create jobs; if shifts them.
 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :cry:
No, it will cost as many jobs as it creates. He's not coming up with the billions on his own. He's directing the money from one place to another. That doesn't create jobs; if shifts them.
Shifts them from where? Saudi Arabia?
 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :cry:
No, it will cost as many jobs as it creates. He's not coming up with the billions on his own. He's directing the money from one place to another. That doesn't create jobs; if shifts them.
This isn't necessarily true. It assumes, as you point out, that the money is shifted from one place to another. In and of itself that may or may not be true. In fact the government routinely does come up with money on its own in the form of budget deficits, which aren't generally considered a bad thing during periods of economic slowdown. If the deficit spending stimulates economic growth through job creation and increased consumption (which makes up 70% of GDP), the expansion of the economy keeps the long term debt/GDP ratio in check. Of course the deficits, as we know, become a larger problem if you can't stay away from them during more prosperous economic periods.I'd also say that I don't think there is 1:1 ratio on job creation for every dollar the government spends (or doesn't tax). Of course the majority of jobs created would really be coming from private industry; 150 Billion dollars sounds like a lot but in GDP terms and over 10 years it isn't. I guess the bigger question is does the growth of the renewable energy industry come at the direct expense of conventional energy? I would say that long term it does, but those effects are unlikely to be felt for many years.

 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :confused:
No, it will cost as many jobs as it creates. He's not coming up with the billions on his own. He's directing the money from one place to another. That doesn't create jobs; if shifts them.
Shifts them from where? Saudi Arabia?
The United States, obviously (since that's where the billions are coming from).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In fact the government routinely does come up with money on its own in the form of budget deficits, which aren't generally considered a bad thing during periods of economic slowdown.
Running a deficit isn't making money; it's taking out a loan. When the government does it, interest rates increase, which causes others to borrow less. So the net effect, again, would seem to be just rearranging things between the public and private sectors, not actually creating anything.
I'd also say that I don't think there is 1:1 ratio on job creation for every dollar the government spends (or doesn't tax).
Right. It's worse than that because of the transaction costs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :goodposting:
No, it will cost as many jobs as it creates. He's not coming up with the billions on his own. He's directing the money from one place to another. That doesn't create jobs; if shifts them.
This isn't necessarily true.
Yes it is. If you want a different way of thinking about this, think about it in terms of people employed as opposed to dollars. It's not like there's this huge sea of people who are just sitting around doing nothing. Generally speaking, people who don't have a job either don't want one (full-time students, stay-at-home-mons, retirees), can't find one because the economy is temporarily bad (a temporary problem that goes away on its own) or simply going through the normal job search process (intrinsic to any labor market). In an environment like this, it isn't possible to "create" jobs without destroying jobs elsewhere. Everybody who you employ building windmills, say, is a person who is no longer doing whatever it is they did before they started working at the local windmill factory.

Now, this might be a good thing. Maybe building wind turbines is pretty easy so that windmill-builders are drawn from people who used to pick fruit. We then outsource our fruit-picking jobs to people from other countries, and we gained some nice jobs in the process. But maybe people who go into windmill-building used to be auto-makers, or ship-builders, or something like that. In that case, all we're doing is shifting workers from one good-but-not-great blue-collar job into another similar job.

"Creating jobs" in green industries necessarily means destroying jobs elsewhere. The question you should ask is "Do we want to trade jobs in other industries for jobs in alternative fuels?" The answer you give may very well be "yes," and that's fine, but that's a more realistic way of framing the issue.

Edit: Just to be clear, I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources, so I don't mean for this post to sound like I'm being critical of Obama. It's just that presidents don't really "create" jobs out of the blue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In fact the government routinely does come up with money on its own in the form of budget deficits, which aren't generally considered a bad thing during periods of economic slowdown.
Running a deficit isn't making money; it's taking out a loan. When the government does it, interest rates increase, which causes others to borrow less. So the net effect, again, would seem to be just rearranging things between the public and private sectors, not actually creating anything.
I'd also say that I don't think there is 1:1 ratio on job creation for every dollar the government spends (or doesn't tax).
Right. It's worse than that because of the transaction costs.
1. Of course, which makes capital available in the present that wouldn't otherwise be there. As you said, the money has to come from somewhere and one of those places is from future budgets, which in the abstract is where deficit spending comes from. I'm not really arguing for deficit spending here (or increasing it anyway), and since Obama has in the past been in favor of PAYGO principles it seem unlikely that is a path he will go down. However, money/capital can be made available without it coming at the expense of other current activities. 2. I wasn't clear in what I was saying. I'm not suggesting that the government can distribute capital more efficiently than the market can; I'm saying that not every dollar the government collects and subsequently spends has the same effect on the economy in general and job creation in particular. Of course it's an oversimplification to say that 5 Million job will be created without any cost, but I also don't think it's clear that the net effect would be trading one job for another.

 
I'm glad to see his support for NASA.
Really? Seems like a pretty big waste of money to me.
NASA has a better ROI than any government investment. I have listed all the things we owe to NASA here many times. It is far from a waste.
If you could link me that'd be great. I had always thought that NASA operates at a huge loss in terms of profit. Still don't see the point in spending billions to put a robot on Mars though.
 
I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources
I think its an extremely bad idea to start to think we should have some sort of central planning that has the power to move our workforce toward different industries. The nation is founded in the principle that the free market is the best judge of these things. That's about as socialist as it gets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm glad to see his support for NASA.
Really? Seems like a pretty big waste of money to me.
NASA has a better ROI than any government investment. I have listed all the things we owe to NASA here many times. It is far from a waste.
If you could link me that'd be great. I had always thought that NASA operates at a huge loss in terms of profit. Still don't see the point in spending billions to put a robot on Mars though.
I'll find the link and post it again. In the meantime I find it hard to understand how learning about our solar system can ever be considered a waste. Further until we get humanity spread out a bit we are just one decent sized asteroid away from extinction as a species. We have to get a little more far flung.
 
Just saw an Obama commercial that said he will create 5 million jobs. How does the President create 5 million jobs?
Here's that commercial.While I think the President is much like a quarterback, taking too much of the credit and the blame, I don't see how it's difficult to understand the claim made in the add. Maybe the exact numbers can be argued, but pumping billions into supporting alternative domestic energy is going to create a lot of jobs. :shrug:
No, it will cost as many jobs as it creates. He's not coming up with the billions on his own. He's directing the money from one place to another. That doesn't create jobs; if shifts them.
This isn't necessarily true.
Yes it is. If you want a different way of thinking about this, think about it in terms of people employed as opposed to dollars. It's not like there's this huge sea of people who are just sitting around doing nothing. Generally speaking, people who don't have a job either don't want one (full-time students, stay-at-home-mons, retirees), can't find one because the economy is temporarily bad (a temporary problem that goes away on its own) or simply going through the normal job search process (intrinsic to any labor market). In an environment like this, it isn't possible to "create" jobs without destroying jobs elsewhere. Everybody who you employ building windmills, say, is a person who is no longer doing whatever it is they did before they started working at the local windmill factory.

Now, this might be a good thing. Maybe building wind turbines is pretty easy so that windmill-builders are drawn from people who used to pick fruit. We then outsource our fruit-picking jobs to people from other countries, and we gained some nice jobs in the process. But maybe people who go into windmill-building used to be auto-makers, or ship-builders, or something like that. In that case, all we're doing is shifting workers from one good-but-not-great blue-collar job into another similar job.

"Creating jobs" in green industries necessarily means destroying jobs elsewhere. The question you should ask is "Do we want to trade jobs in other industries for jobs in alternative fuels?" The answer you give may very well be "yes," and that's fine, but that's a more realistic way of framing the issue.

Edit: Just to be clear, I think it's probably a good idea to move our workforce toward the development of alternative energy sources, so I don't mean for this post to sound like I'm being critical of Obama. It's just that presidents don't really "create" jobs out of the blue.
But the economy does not stay a static size. In terms of output, consumption, and workforce population we grow virtually every year (at least for now). We can direct the growth of one industry over another one, but it still doesn't make the two mutually exclusive. One of the big advantages we have over Europe right now is a population that is still expanding. I want to talk more about the employment part, but need to revisit this later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
dantheman8417 said:
NCCommish said:
dantheman8417 said:
I'm glad to see his support for NASA.
Really? Seems like a pretty big waste of money to me.
NASA has a better ROI than any government investment. I have listed all the things we owe to NASA here many times. It is far from a waste.
If you could link me that'd be great. I had always thought that NASA operates at a huge loss in terms of profit. Still don't see the point in spending billions to put a robot on Mars though.
I'll find the link and post it again. In the meantime I find it hard to understand how learning about our solar system can ever be considered a waste. Further until we get humanity spread out a bit we are just one decent sized asteroid away from extinction as a species. We have to get a little more far flung.
Honestly if we leave government in charge of all things to do with outer space we're probably screwed on that front then. I don't you don't want to hear it but if stopping asteroids from killing us all is that important to you, the solution is to shut down NASA and deregulate space exploration. Let the people in the private sector try their own ideas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
dantheman8417 said:
NCCommish said:
dantheman8417 said:
I'm glad to see his support for NASA.
Really? Seems like a pretty big waste of money to me.
NASA has a better ROI than any government investment. I have listed all the things we owe to NASA here many times. It is far from a waste.
If you could link me that'd be great. I had always thought that NASA operates at a huge loss in terms of profit. Still don't see the point in spending billions to put a robot on Mars though.
I'll find the link and post it again. In the meantime I find it hard to understand how learning about our solar system can ever be considered a waste. Further until we get humanity spread out a bit we are just one decent sized asteroid away from extinction as a species. We have to get a little more far flung.
Honestly if we leave government in charge of all things to do with outer space we're probably screwed on that front then. I don't you don't want to hear it but if stopping asteroids from killing us all is that important to you, the solution is to shut down NASA and deregulate space exploration. Let the people in the private sector try their own ideas.
They are. However everything can't be driven strictly by profit motive. I know you don't want to hear that but it's true.
 
Obama gives Clinton top billing on convention's 2nd night, women's right to vote anniversary

By NEDRA PICKLER , Associated Press

HONOLULU - Hillary Rodham Clinton will headline her own night at the Democratic National Convention, Barack Obama's campaign announced Sunday in a nod to her strong second-place showing in the party's presidential primary.

The former first lady will speak on the second night, Tuesday, Aug. 26 — the 88th anniversary of the women's right to vote. The campaign and convention committee in a statement called her "a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today."

The Obama campaign is trying to avoid hard feelings among Clinton's supporters at their carefully orchestrated convention. But they still haven't reached a deal on whether Clinton will be included in the roll call vote for the nomination, which could make the party appear divided heading into the final stretch of the White House race.

The campaign said Obama's wife, Michelle, is slated to headline the opening night on Aug. 25. The high-profile appearance at the kickoff is a chance for the potential first lady, who has been attacked by critics, to get more positive exposure. Even more importantly, she can help explain her husband to voters in the most personal terms.

The yet-to-be-named vice presidential pick will speak on the third night, as is the tradition. Democratic officials say Bill Clinton is also scheduled to speak that night, but only the headliners were listed in Sunday's official announcement, made while Obama was vacationing in his native state of Hawaii.

The former president plans to be in the audience Tuesday to watch his wife's speech. Democratic officials say she has not decided who will introduce her, but one option is her daughter, Chelsea.

One Clinton adviser, speaking on a condition of anonymity because speech preparations are being kept private, said she wants to deliver a "forward-looking" speech that pays homage to the historic nature of the primary between a black candidate and a woman candidate without dwelling on the divisions.

John Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee who finished a distant third in the primary, was left off the speakers list as he grapples with revelations that he had an affair with a woman hired to produce campaign videos.

Obama is expected to become the party's first black presidential nominee on the fourth and final night as the convention moves from Denver's indoor Pepsi Center to a bigger venue at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium. It happens to be the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech.

Clinton told supporters she is seeking a way for her delegates to be heard at the convention and be united after the hard-fought nominating contest.

"Because I know from just what I'm hearing, that there's incredible pent up desire. And I think that people want to feel like, 'OK, it's a catharsis, we're here, we did it, and then everybody get behind Sen. Obama.' That is what most people believe is the best way to go," she said, according to video of the remarks taken by an attendee and posted on YouTube last week.

Obama told reporters Thursday he thought the negotiations with Clinton aides had gone "seamlessly," but he also rejected the notion that there might be a need for emotional release on the part of some Democrats.

"I don't think we're looking for catharsis," said Obama. "I think what we're looking for is energy and excitement."

Advisers to the New York senator said she will almost certainly not ask to have her name placed in formal nomination at the convention to avoid a divisive vote.

Under DNC rules, Clinton must submit a signed, written request to have her name placed in nomination, accompanied by a petition signed by at least 300 delegates. Some Clinton delegates have circulated such petitions, but the effort is meaningless without Clinton's signed request.

Delegates are not formally pledged to any candidate so Clinton does not need to "release" them to Obama. The rules also say delegates may vote for the candidate of their choice whether or not the name of such candidate was placed in nomination.

Good move here by Obama he needs the Clinton supporters to win this thing :shrug:

 
Ok, it's obvious I support Obama, but this is a bit over the top:

Dear Adonis --

Be the First to Know Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.

You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.

Sign up today to be the first to know:

http://my.barackobama.com/vp

You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.

Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.

No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.

Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe

Campaign Manager

Obama for America
Now seriously, there are likely good reasons why no other campaign has done this before.
 
Ok, it's obvious I support Obama, but this is a bit over the top:

Dear Adonis --

Be the First to Know Barack Obama is about to make one of the most important decisions of this campaign -- choosing a running mate.

You have helped build this movement from the bottom up, and Barack wants you to be the first to know his choice.

Sign up today to be the first to know:

http://my.barackobama.com/vp

You will receive an email the moment Barack makes his decision, or you can text VP to 62262 to receive a text message on your mobile phone.

Once you've signed up, please forward this email to your friends, family, and coworkers to let them know about this special opportunity.

No other campaign has done this before. You can be part of this important moment.

Be the first to know who Barack selects as his running mate.

Thanks,

David

David Plouffe

Campaign Manager

Obama for America
Now seriously, there are likely good reasons why no other campaign has done this before.
So you signed up, right?
 
This thread will do. I don't want to start a new one.

I know a guy whose son is secret service. I don't know the guy well. I don't know if he's generally a BSer or not. He is politically very conservative. I don't know about his son's political views.

His son said (according to the dad's retelling) that Obama, on a personal level, is generally very nice.

This is in sharp contrast to Hillary. The two Hillary stories I got from the dad are these.

1. You know the famous Bill Clinton haircut on board the Air Force One at LAX? It wasn't just a matter of style. Hillary got mad at Bill and hit him in the head with a coffee cup. Bill required stitches. That was the haircut.

2. The son once said "Good Evening, Mrs. Clinton" as she walked by. She stopped, turned around, and said to him: "I have to stare at your ugly mug all day. I don't have to listen to it as well!!"

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top