PDA

View Full Version : Obama bulding a religion and helping with parenting advice...


memyselfI
02-29-2008, 09:44 PM
is there anything HE can't do?


<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xtNr5-up0U&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xtNr5-up0U&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/28/parenting_tips_from_obama_plea.html

Obama added, "Can I make this one last point?"

"It's not good enough for you to say to your child, 'Do good in school.' And then your child comes home, you've got the TV set on, you've got the radio on, you don't check their homework, there's not a book in the house, you've got the video game playing."

The crowd cheered. Women started dancing at their seats, fists waving.

"So, turn off the TV set, put the video game away, buy a little desk," Obama continued. "Watch them do their homework. If they don't know how to do it, give them help. If you don't know how to do it, call the teacher. Make them go to bed at a reasonable time. Give them some breakfast."

His words became almost inaudible as the audience shrieked in delight.

"Can I get an 'Amen' here?" Obama joked.

"All right, all right. Since I'm on a roll, if your child misbehaves in school, don't cuss out the teacher. You know I'm right about that. Don't cuss out the teacher, do something with your child. I'm speaking the truth. I'm telling you, I won't just tell you what you want to hear."

Revved up by the reception to his lecture on raising good students, Obama turned to another parenting challenge, healthy eating habits. This time he addressed African Americans directly.

"Here's an example where once again I gotta talk about us a little bit. We, we can't keep on feeding our children junk all day long, giving them no exercise," he said. "They're overweight by the time they're four or five years old and then we're surprised when they get sick. And then we expect that they're going to get treated for things like adult diabetes that children never used to get. I mean, that's why it was called adult diabetes. But now kids as young as 8, 9, 10 years old are getting it because they are obese. So part of what my health care plan does then is we work with parents, work with families to change nutrition habits."

Just as before, the crowd loved it.

"Look," Obama continued, "I gotta 9-year-old daughter and a 6-year-old daughter, so I know how hard it is to get kids to eat properly, but I also know that if we are, if folks are just letting kids drink eight sodas a day, -- which some parents do -- or you know, eat a bag of potato chips for lunch or Popeye's for breakfast -- y'all have Popeye's down in Beaumont? Alright. I know some of you all, you get that cold Popeye's out for breakfast! I know! That's why you all laughing. I caught you out. You can't do that! Children have to have proper nutrition."

irishjayhawk
02-29-2008, 09:47 PM
Is anyone who has a following of people a person forming or heading a religion?

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 09:49 PM
I know you hate him because he can appeal to people who aren't stupid like you, but that's one of his assets.

His ability to talk about self-reliance is something most Democratic candidates can't pull off. It'll help him attract some moderate Conservatives and even some social ones. He'll be better at talking about the importance of family and what not than McCain.

Mr. Laz
02-29-2008, 09:54 PM
obsessed much?

mikey23545
02-29-2008, 09:54 PM
Bill Cosby gets roasted for saying shit like that.

memyselfI
02-29-2008, 09:55 PM
Is anyone who has a following of people a person forming or heading a religion?

No, not at all. But this guy certainly is doing his damnedest to try.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/Obamachurchjpb.jpg

memyselfI
02-29-2008, 09:57 PM
Bill Cosby gets roasted for saying shit like that.

Bill Cosby probably wasn't speaking to a predominantly white crowd when he said it. :doh!:

He probably wasn't addressing a room full of lemmings either...

Logical
02-29-2008, 10:00 PM
is there anything HE can't do?



<OBJECT height=373 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xtNr5-up0U&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></OBJECT></P>

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/28/parenting_tips_from_obama_plea.html

DEnise is going to be plenty embarrassed in a few months when she is supporting him and someone brings this thread back to the top.:spock:

memyselfI
02-29-2008, 10:03 PM
DEnise is going to be plenty embarrassed in a few months when she is supporting him and someone brings this thread back to the top.:spock:

I'm not going to support him.

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 10:03 PM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/Obamachurchjpb.jpg

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

Logical
02-29-2008, 10:05 PM
I'm not going to support him.
We will see, we will see?

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 10:05 PM
Bill Cosby probably wasn't speaking to a predominantly white crowd when he said it. :doh!:.

Wow, you're an idiot. Have you even seen the clip? It was a predominantly black audience.

You think he was talking about Popeyes with a white audience? LMAO

memyselfI
02-29-2008, 10:07 PM
We will see, we will see?

I will write in Al Gore or won't vote for POTUS but will vote the rest of the ticket. I will not be aparty to this trainwreck.

memyselfI
02-29-2008, 10:08 PM
Wow, you're an idiot. Have you even seen the clip? It was a predominantly black audience.

You think he was talking about Popeyes with a white audience? LMAO

No, I haven't seen the clip. Then Mikey's right. Bill Cosby was treated horribly for saying the same things. :shake:

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 10:12 PM
We will see, we will see?

It's sad that memeinkampfI was preaching 'democratic party loyalty' when she thought Hillary was going to get the nomination. And despite that, she's still yet to articulate why she could vote and support her or Edwards, but hates Obama. Even said she'd vote for Chuck Hagel. Makes you wonder.

Logical
02-29-2008, 10:14 PM
First the video is quite catchy. I just read the text underneath and it seems to be great common sense, how could anyone object to that speech?

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 10:17 PM
First the video is quite catchy. I just read the text underneath and it seems to be great common sense, how could anyone object to that speech?

Common sense = the opposite of whatever Meme's thinking.

Logical
02-29-2008, 10:25 PM
You would think someone who has had this much obvious cosmetic surgery on her face would have paid to have that double chin removed. You would think they would have thrown that in for free when they tightened her face to get those pronounced cheeks on a 60 year old lady.ROFLhttp://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080228/i/r315812455.jpg?

beer bacon
02-29-2008, 10:29 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080228/i/r315812455.jpg?x=400&y=307&sig=8rYHTMnbyW0zvTfAYVf_hw--

welp

Ultra Peanut
02-29-2008, 10:57 PM
Didn't Hillary write an entire goddamned book about raising children, you silly bint?

Ultra Peanut
02-29-2008, 10:59 PM
also this

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sA-451XMsuY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sA-451XMsuY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

ClevelandBronco
02-29-2008, 10:59 PM
I know you hate him because he can appeal to people who aren't stupid like you, but that's one of his assets.

His ability to talk about self-reliance is something most Democratic candidates can't pull off. It'll help him attract some moderate Conservatives and even some social ones. He'll be better at talking about the importance of family and what not than McCain.

He may attract idiots who think they're conservatives.

Obama for homeroom parent! (Sorry, no cupcakes. Carrots and celery with neufchatel dip for everybody!)

ClevelandBronco
02-29-2008, 11:03 PM
Wow, you're an idiot. Have you even seen the clip? It was a predominantly black audience.

You think he was talking about Popeyes with a white audience? LMAO

Oh, yeah. You have to speak differently if you're addressing a predominantly African-American audience because...

uh...because...

ummm...

huh?

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 11:09 PM
If more parents would raise their children the way he suggests...

the world would, undoubtedly be a better place. :clap:



Unfortunately, he a Bill Cosby alone can't undo the damage done by Dr. Spock and the 60's feel-good be-your-kid's best friend approach to parenting.

:shake:

Ultra Peanut
02-29-2008, 11:10 PM
Popeyes' Chicken. Come the hell on.

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 11:12 PM
Popeyes' Chicken. Come the hell on.

I gotta admit, I was offended by that part; cold Popeye's for breakfast (especially Cajun style) is the shit...good eatin'.

Ultra Peanut
02-29-2008, 11:13 PM
No, not at all. But this guy certainly is doing his damnedest to try.


http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/Obamachurchjpb.jpgHe was speaking at a church. Holy shit.

THIS JUST IN: BARACK OBAMA CLAIMS TO HAVE SUPER POWERS!

http://i25.tinypic.com/2v9ozr8.jpg

Ultra Peanut
02-29-2008, 11:13 PM
I gotta admit, I was offended by that part; cold Popeye's for breakfast (especially Cajun style) is some the shit...good eatin'.But if you keep the kids away from it, that's all the more for YOU. His strategy is impeccable.

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 11:18 PM
Oh, yeah. You have to speak differently if you're addressing a predominantly African-American audience because...

uh...because...

ummm...

huh?

You're going to speak about different things depending on what your audience is, obviously.

My point had more to do with Meme clearly not reading and/or comprehending the very article she posted.

ClevelandBronco
02-29-2008, 11:19 PM
If more parents would raise their children the way he suggests...

the world would, undoubtedly be a better place. :clap:



Unfortunately, he a Bill Cosby alone can't undo the damage done by Dr. Spock and the 60's feel-good be-your-kid's best friend approach to parenting.

:shake:

Parents who give a damn are well ahead of Barack's sage advice. Parents who don't give a damn are unlikely to experience an epiphany.

Thanks anyway, Sen. Obama.

Mr. Laz
02-29-2008, 11:22 PM
i still don't understand where all the venom and hatred comes from .....

wow i mean if you don't like him as a candidate, then don't vote for him. If you don't like his politics then share those opinions.

but i have yet to see anything from McCain or Obama that would warrant "HATE"

:shake:


seems to me like she is just pissed because her "girl" is gonna lose and just doesn't know how to deal with it.

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 11:23 PM
Parents who give a damn are well ahead of Barack's sage advice. Parents who don't give a damn are unlikely to experience an epiphany.

NO, WE CAN'T

NO, WE CAN'T

NO, WE CAN'T

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 11:26 PM
Parents who give a damn are well ahead of Barack's sage advice. Parents who don't give a damn are unlikely to experience an epiphany.

Thanks anyway, Sen. Obama.

And it's NOT in the best interests of society, to try to educate those parents who seem to not give a damn....?

:spock:

Oh, I see....you must be one of those who would prefer see our schools and government engage in social engineering?

Oh no, that's not it....because of course, let's lower taxes on the rich even more, because we shouldn't pay for those sorts of silly programs. Or if we do, let's "charge" it and pass the tab onto our grandchildren??? Sorry, I forgot; my bad.

Ooopps. Wait. Maybe I screwed up. Perhaps I'm wrong...but maybe you are....you are one of the, "fugg all the kids who have bad parents or home life; screw 'em. Let the stupid fuggers fall through the cracks. Serves 'em right, anyway" types???

So, which is it? :hmmm:

Logical
02-29-2008, 11:29 PM
also this


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sA-451XMsuY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT></P>What these two videos do for me is tell me that there are some talented mofos on the interweb with way two much time on their hands. I tell you where is Clayton when I need him to do a spoof on Shillary?

dirk digler
02-29-2008, 11:30 PM
i still don't understand where all the venom and hatred comes from .....

wow i mean if you don't like him as a candidate, then don't vote for him. If you don't like his politics then share those opinions.

but i have yet to see anything from McCain or Obama that would warrant "HATE"

:shake:


seems to me like she is just pissed because her "girl" is gonna lose and just doesn't know how to deal with it.

Yep totally agree Laz. I think Obama has now passed Bush as her #1 target and I only think it gets worse from here on out.

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 11:30 PM
i still don't understand where all the venom and hatred comes from .....

wow i mean if you don't like him as a candidate, then don't vote for him. If you don't like his politics then share those opinions.

but i have yet to see anything from McCain or Obama that would warrant "HATE"

:shake:


seems to me like she is just pissed because her "girl" is gonna lose and just doesn't know how to deal with it.

As for Duhnise, she needs someone new to hate.

As for Hillary, it's all about....she felt entitled. She thought she had earned it; as the front-runner, it was her time.

As for the rest, it's just purely and simply....fear. They are worried his momentum will carry over to November, and he'll beat McCain. Personally, I think that will be a real dog fight; I'm not sure who I'll vote for at this point....but they fear his appeal and his momentum and his message.

ClevelandBronco
02-29-2008, 11:36 PM
And it's NOT in the best interests of society, to try to educate those parents who seem to not give a damn....?

:spock:

Oh, I see....you must be one of those who would prefer see our schools and government engage in social engineering?

Oh no, that's not it....because of course, let's lower taxes on the rich even more, because we shouldn't pay for those sorts of silly programs. Or if we do, let's "charge" it and pass the tab onto our grandchildren??? Sorry, I forgot; my bad.

Ooopps. Wait. Maybe I screwed up. Perhaps I'm wrong...but maybe you are....you are one of the, "fugg all the kids who have bad parents or home life; screw 'em. Let the stupid fuggers fall through the cracks. Serves 'em right, anyway" types???

So, which is it? :hmmm:

Since you've limited me to a very narrow group of choices, I guess this is the way it'll end up:

..."fugg all the kids who have bad parents or home life; screw 'em. Let the stupid fuggers fall through the cracks. Serves 'em right, anyway"...

It's a pity. I was hoping for more for these kids, but I guess they are really doomed without a junior senator from Illinois who has been sent to enlighten their neglectful parents.

Thank goodness we have a profitable privatized prison system.

Logical
02-29-2008, 11:39 PM
As for Duhnise, she needs someone new to hate.

As for Hillary, it's all about....she felt entitled. She thought she had earned it; as the front-runner, it was her time.

As for the rest, it's just purely and simply....fear. They are worried his momentum will carry over to November, and he'll beat McCain. Personally, I think that will be a real dog fight; I'm not sure who I'll vote for at this point....but they fear his appeal and his momentum and his message.

Hell I like him because he has ran out on the playground and stole Hillary's ball right out from under her. I will be the first to admit I want to know more about him before voting for him in November, but dude is smart and a hellacious speaker. I am favorably impressed to date.

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 11:41 PM
Hell I like him because he has ran out on the playground and stole Hillary's ball right out from under her. I will be the first to admit I want to know more about him before voting for him in November, but dude is smart and a hellacious speaker. I am favorably impressed to date.

Pick up one of his books.

ClevelandBronco
02-29-2008, 11:42 PM
...but they fear his appeal and his momentum and his message.

And his utter lack of experience in almost anything that would qualify him for the job.

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 11:42 PM
Since you've limited me to a very narrow group of choices, I guess this is the way it'll end up:

It's a pity. I was hoping for more for these kids, but I guess they are really doomed without a junior senator from Illinois who has been sent to enlighten their neglectful parents.

Thank goodness we have a profitable privatized prison system.

Well, I appreciate your candor.

Karmas a bitch though; don't forget that....

;)


:)

Mr. Laz
02-29-2008, 11:43 PM
Yep totally agree Laz. I think Obama has now passed Bush as her #1 target and I only think it gets worse from here on out.
yea ... but i think in many people's eyes George Bush has EARNED much of the harsh feelings he gets.

imo Obama and McCain both seem to be quality people with sincere ideas for the presidency.


disagree ... ok
hate ........ WTF?


how can anyone hate Obama already?

Logical
02-29-2008, 11:43 PM
Pick up one of his books.
Which one would you recommend as the best? I might be at a bookstore this weekend.

Logical
02-29-2008, 11:45 PM
Since you've limited me to a very narrow group of choices, I guess this is the way it'll end up:



It's a pity. I was hoping for more for these kids, but I guess they are really doomed without a junior senator from Illinois who has been sent to enlighten their neglectful parents.

Thank goodness we have a profitable privatized prison system.
I assume you are joking, but don't you think that parents can be advised and improve? Was Bill Cosby wasting his time IYO?

dirk digler
02-29-2008, 11:46 PM
yea ... but i think in many people's eyes George Bush has EARNED much of the harsh feelings he gets.

imo Obama and McCain both seem to be quality people with sincere ideas for the presidency.


disagree ... ok
hate ........ WTF?


how can anyone hate Obama already?

I don't get how anyone could hate either of those 2 guys and really only the people that have mental problems hate either one.

Mr. Kotter
02-29-2008, 11:46 PM
And his utter lack of experience in almost anything that would qualify him for the job.

Many critics said similar things about a small town lawyer from Springfield, Illinois about 148 years ago...about a Princeton professor/dean about 96 years ago....a failed businessman and small time political party machine hack about 56 years ago.....and about a former B-rate Hollywood star who lucked into a California governorship mostly on name recognition about 28 years ago....too.

:hmmm:

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 11:55 PM
Which one would you recommend as the best? I might be at a bookstore this weekend.

Probably "Dreams from my Father" if you're looking in getting to know more about him. It's got more to do with the story of his upbringing.

'Audacity of Hope' is more politics-oriented, though you may be interested in that too.

HolmeZz
02-29-2008, 11:57 PM
And his utter lack of experience in almost anything that would qualify him for the job.

He needs to own a baseball team and run a couple businesses into the ground first.

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2008, 12:01 AM
</P>What these two videos do for me is tell me that there are some talented mofos on the interweb with way two much time on their hands. I tell you where is Clayton when I need him to do a spoof on Shillary?
http://youtube.com/user/CamPain2008

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mh79iiGX8GI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mh79iiGX8GI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Be sure to check out Romney Visits Gilligan's Island (http://youtube.com/watch?v=XbksbW4AhTs).

ClevelandBronco
03-01-2008, 12:02 AM
I assume you are joking, but don't you think that parents can be advised and improve? Was Bill Cosby wasting his time IYO?

You have two questions, then. (And I'm joking only to the extent that I won't be boxed in to Kotter's silly choices.)

First question: Yes. Parents who care will take advice and they can and will improve. I have taken parenting classes at my church and at my children's schools. I will continue to invest my time in that effort. It's one of the most important tasks that has been entrusted to me.

Second question: Yes. Bill Cosby was wasting his time and his breath for the most part. The (multicultural) audience that really needed to hear him wasn't listening. To the extent that he reinforced the efforts of involved parents, I applaud him. To the extent that he thought he could change the minds of indifferent parents, I am saddened.

Some care. Some don't. The causes for caring or not caring stretch far beyond words, IMO.

Again, IMO, Sen. Obama is simply trying to appeal to folks who already feel good about the way they parent their children. Those people are more likely to vote than are the people who are irresponsible about their children.

Do the math.

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2008, 12:02 AM
He needs to own a baseball team and run a couple businesses into the ground first.No no no, CEO experience is cool, but knowing a lot about the Constitution and working in the community doesn't count for shit.

ClevelandBronco
03-01-2008, 12:05 AM
He needs to own a baseball team and run a couple businesses into the ground first.

If you're convinced by Pres. Bush's inexperience that it's time to try it again, I encourage you to vote for inexperience.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 12:07 AM
If you're convinced by Pres. Bush's inexperience that it's time to try it again, I encourage you to vote for inexperience.

Who'd you vote for in 2000 and 2004?

Nevermind, I have my answer.

Bush 2000. Bush 2004. I don't regret either vote at all.

I'm sure you voted for Bush because you thought he was 'more qualified' for the job than Gore or Kerry.

Fat Elvis
03-01-2008, 12:18 AM
I will write in Al Gore or won't vote for POTUS but will vote the rest of the ticket. I will not be aparty to this trainwreck.

Thank God. You have posted many times in the past that if you don't vote, you can't bitch. Now it is time to live up to your words.

Fat Elvis
03-01-2008, 12:24 AM
is there anything HE can't do?

It takes a village to raise a child, but it takes a nation of idiots to get Hillary the nomination.

irishjayhawk
03-01-2008, 12:27 AM
Many critics said similar things about a small town lawyer from Springfield, Illinois about 148 years ago...about a Princeton professor/dean about 96 years ago....a failed businessman and small time political party machine hack about 56 years ago.....and about a former B-rate Hollywood star who lucked into a California governorship mostly on name recognition about 28 years ago....too.

:hmmm:

QFT

ClevelandBronco
03-01-2008, 12:40 AM
Many critics said similar things about a small town lawyer from Springfield, Illinois about 148 years ago...about a Princeton professor/dean about 96 years ago....a failed businessman and small time political party machine hack about 56 years ago.....and about a former B-rate Hollywood star who lucked into a California governorship mostly on name recognition about 28 years ago....too.

:hmmm:

Pres. Lincoln wasn't interested in change for change's sake. The Unionists and Abolitionists came long before Lincoln. In fact he stomped the living crap out of those who wanted to "change" the compact (as he saw it) that bound these United States forever.

Pres. Wilson, your Princeton professor, wasn't interested in change for change's sake either. He was a man who failed to keep his promises to the American people first (before the Great War), and then to the League of Nations (after the war).

Pres. Reagan finally embarked on a mission of change for change's sake. He seemed to be interested in reversing the course of what he saw as a deteriorating position of the U.S. in the shadow of the absolute ineffectiveness of our withdrawal from the war in Vietnam, the lingering questioning of ourselves in the light of of Pres. Nixon's resignation, stagflation, outrageous short- and long- term interest rates, the taking of hostages in Iran, and our failed attempt to rescue them, among so many other causes.

But there is Sen. Obama. He has served a term.

A term.

The world is too big for a man as small as Sen. Obama, even though he has a voice that seems to empower himself and his voters.

Give him time. He (and we) need that before Sen. Obama is ready.

ClevelandBronco
03-01-2008, 12:44 AM
I'm sure you voted for Bush because you thought he was 'more qualified' for the job than Gore or Kerry.

It's mainly because I thought that the democrat party had once again nominated fools.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 12:45 AM
It's mainly because I thought that the democrat party had once again nominated fools.

Fools who were much more 'qualified' than the guy you voted for twice. So how can you complain about people voting for someone who you don't see as qualified?

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2008, 12:49 AM
Pres. Lincoln wasn't interested in change for change's sake. Obama isn't either, except in the minds of those who've already made theirs up.

But hey, why should you people be interested in a shift away from divisive, win-at-all-costs politics? It's served your side, if not the country, pretty well.

He's interested in (and has a track record showing) coalition-building. He wants to unite the country behind issues like health care coverage for all. Just because you disagree with his positions doesn't mean he lacks them.

ClevelandBronco
03-01-2008, 01:08 AM
Fools who were much more 'qualified' than the guy you voted for twice. So how can you complain about people voting for someone who you don't see as qualified?

The "fools" we are discussing (V.P. Gore and Sen. Kerry) never held the highest executive offices in their chosen fields of government. They were unqualified, and they lost elections. It was all very sad, I know.

Now we have problem. It appears that we are left with two men who have no executive qualifications for the office except that...

Oh, hell, you finish it.

One candidate has dedicated his life for this nation.

The other has "sacrificed" himself so far as to be elected to one term in the Senate.

ClevelandBronco
03-01-2008, 01:12 AM
Obama isn't either, except in the minds of those who've already made theirs up.

But hey, why should you people be interested in a shift away from divisive, win-at-all-costs politics? It's served your side, if not the country, pretty well.

He's interested in (and has a track record showing) coalition-building. He wants to unite the country behind issues like health care coverage for all. Just because you disagree with his positions doesn't mean he lacks them.

You are historically illiterate. Please keep your comments on the level of something such as:

"OMGODZ!!! They's thinking slavery AGINZ!" Then post a Googled jpeg image.

That's really your only role here.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 01:12 AM
The "fools" we are discussing (V.P. Gore and Sen. Kerry) never held the highest executive offices in their chosen fields of government. They were unqualified, and they lost elections. It was all very sad, I know.

No no no no no. You're not getting away that easily. Please tell me how Bush was more qualified for the Presidency than either Gore or Kerry.

And feel free to use the "dedicated his life to his country" reasoning for Kerry that you're using to defend why you'll vote for McCain.

Logical
03-01-2008, 01:16 AM
http://youtube.com/user/CamPain2008


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>
&ampnbsp
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mh79iiGX8GI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT>

Be sure to check out Romney Visits Gilligan's Island (http://youtube.com/watch?v=XbksbW4AhTs).Both really good, for all of us who like childhood humor here at ChiefsPlanet

<OBJECT height=355 width=425>
&nbsp
<embed src="<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/DlkxQMxJmEU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/DlkxQMxJmEU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT>

Logical
03-01-2008, 01:19 AM
Probably "Dreams from my Father" if you're looking in getting to know more about him. It's got more to do with the story of his upbringing.

'Audacity of Hope' is more politics-oriented, though you may be interested in that too.
Thanks

Taco John
03-01-2008, 01:37 AM
is there anything HE can't do?


<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xtNr5-up0U&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8xtNr5-up0U&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/28/parenting_tips_from_obama_plea.html



Personally, I thought it was a great speech. It was nice to hear a Democrat talking about people taking personal responsibility for their lives and not tie it to a government program that he was trying to sell. On the contrary -- He was asking people to get more personally involved in their lives and take more responsibility for themselves.

What a breath of fresh air, especially coming from a Democrat.

ClevelandBronco
03-01-2008, 01:37 AM
No no no no no. You're not getting away that easily. Please tell me how Bush was more qualified for the Presidency than either Gore or Kerry.

And feel free to use the "dedicated his life to his country" reasoning for Kerry that you're using to defend why you'll vote for McCain.

Certainly you're correct. Bush II didn't dedicate his life for our country, so let's dispense with that straw man immediately..

But here's the problem that I see. (Keep in mind that perhaps I'm biased because I've been running my own business for more than a decade.)

Obama is just the lastest savior you've run past us.

Gore ran nothing. Ever. Never under any circumstances. Well, maybe he ran from Tipper's point of view, but that doesn't count. Mrs. Gore led the inquiries into such subversive figures as Frank Zappa, et. al.

On the other hand, there is Sen. McCain.

Forgive me if I don't support him unconditionally.

Then there's Sen Kerry.

There's no way you want to compare their merits.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2008, 01:47 AM
I will write in Al Gore or won't vote for POTUS but will vote the rest of the ticket. I will not be aparty to this trainwreck.

Whatever happened to "We should just support whoever the nominee is" whenever it looked like Hillary was going to win after NH??

You are ten pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a five pound bag.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-01-2008, 01:48 AM
You're not getting away that easily. Please tell me how Bush was more qualified for the Presidency than either Gore or Kerry.

He was a republican.

Taco John
03-01-2008, 01:49 AM
You are ten pounds of monkey shit stuffed into a five pound bag.



That's one I never tire of... It's such a visual zinger. Just how I like 'em.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 02:07 AM
Certainly you're correct. Bush II didn't dedicate his life for our country, so let's dispense with that straw man immediately..

But Kerry did, so certainly that and the fact that he was certainly more 'experienced' than Bush would've led him to get your vote.

Obama is just the lastest savior you've run past us.

If by 'latest' you mean the 'only' candidate I've cared enough to give a shit about.

I know old folks, by nature, think they've been around the block and seen it all, but they haven't. And the way they write-off the enthusiasm Obama's generated is about as 'unpatriotic' as anything either side accuses the other side of doing. It shows a disdain for the concept of Democracy.

Gore ran nothing. Ever. Never under any circumstances. Well, maybe he ran from Tipper's point of view, but that doesn't count. Mrs. Gore led the inquiries into such subversive figures as Frank Zappa, et. al.

On the other hand, there is Sen. McCain.

Forgive me if I don't support him unconditionally.

Then there's Sen Kerry.

There's no way you want to compare their merits.

So just running anything qualifies them enough? A mayor is more qualified to run the country than a Vice President?

You still haven't made your case for having voted for Bush twice and 'not regretting it at all'. He owned a baseball team, was a bad businessman, and was Governor of Texas for a little bit. What did he accomplish as Governor that earned him your vote?

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2008, 05:10 AM
You are historically illiterate. Please keep your comments on the level of something such as:

"OMGODZ!!! They's thinking slavery AGINZ!" Then post a Googled jpeg image.

That's really your only role here.Ah, smug condescension. Truly the most convincing of all arguments.

FAX
03-01-2008, 05:44 AM
Ms. Ultra Peanut is the least of our worries, Mr. ClevelandBronco. This from Stewart Best's website extravaganza:

The next item that is most interesting comes from the Catholic Sorcha Faal Order, which is a world wide Catholic organization that appears to get most of its intelligence from the Russian military and Intelligence agencies. We post this only for your consideration, for it is most interesting if true.

The basic thrust of the article is that of a prophecy uttered in 1912 concerning the United States of America (Babylon the Great) from a great prophet in Kenya. The sum total was this:

1. America would go evil and become a wicked nation.
2. America would undergo terrible judgments:
a) Her great cities will burn
b) Her crops and livestock will get sick and perish
c) Her babies and young children will come down with unknown disease and perish, evidently by the hundreds of thousands.

Here is the most interesting part of the prophecy - it would come from the hands of a SON OF KENYA, that is, someone who is a descendent from Kenya - and Sorcha Faal claims that

BARACK OBAMA IS THAT DESCENDENT!! Could it be?

http://www.truinsight.com/

FAX THE MESSENGER OF ODD YET SOMEWHAT TROUBLING INFORMATION

Logical
03-01-2008, 05:51 AM
Ms. Ultra Peanut is the least of our worries, Mr. ClevelandBronco. This from Stewart Best's website extravaganza:

The next item that is most interesting comes from the Catholic Sorcha Faal Order, which is a world wide Catholic organization that appears to get most of its intelligence from the Russian military and Intelligence agencies. We post this only for your consideration, for it is most interesting if true.

The basic thrust of the article is that of a prophecy uttered in 1912 concerning the United States of America (Babylon the Great) from a great prophet in Kenya. The sum total was this:

1. America would go evil and become a wicked nation.
2. America would undergo terrible judgments:
a) Her great cities will burn
b) Her crops and livestock will get sick and perish
c) Her babies and young children will come down with unknown disease and perish, evidently by the hundreds of thousands.

Here is the most interesting part of the prophecy - it would come from the hands of a SON OF KENYA, that is, someone who is a descendent from Kenya - and Sorcha Faal claims that

BARACK OBAMA IS THAT DESCENDENT!! Could it be?

http://www.truinsight.com/

FAX THE MESSENGER OF ODD YET SOMEWHAT TROUBLING INFORMATIONVery interesting Mr. FAX just another reason you are so valuable to the BB.

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 08:00 AM
It's sad that memeinkampfI was preaching 'democratic party loyalty' when she thought Hillary was going to get the nomination. And despite that, she's still yet to articulate why she could vote and support her or Edwards, but hates Obama. Even said she'd vote for Chuck Hagel. Makes you wonder.

Yes, it is sad. It's sad that it's not Democrats who are handing the Obama the nomination but cross overs. According to most polls, Hillary is still winning the Democratic vote. The recent Pew poll and even the politico master himself, Karl Rove, have pointed out that Obama's numbers are solidly based on that crossover support.

To me, this isn't all about winning at any cost. It's about choosing the right person for the job. As a Democrat, I'd rather lose than put someone in place who will be ineffective and possibly hand the keys to the CONS for another decade or two. The CONS are BANKING on this happening that is why they are happy Obama is going to be the nominee and will be happy if he wins. They are not enamored with him and see how he's been set up and set himself up to fail.

Thus, I have no problem with not supporting him as the nominee because he's not getting there as the choice of Democrats but as the choice of CONS/Indies who've gamed the system (within their right to do so) to choose a candidate who is the least qualified but most likely to be Homecoming King.

I've decided it's a matter of principle over party loyalty. Many Dems went along with the Iraq war when they felt it was a matter of loyalty over principle. I didn't follow the flock then because it was wrong. Likewise, here. I will not support Obama if he's the nominee.

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 08:06 AM
i still don't understand where all the venom and hatred comes from .....

wow i mean if you don't like him as a candidate, then don't vote for him. If you don't like his politics then share those opinions.

but i have yet to see anything from McCain or Obama that would warrant "HATE"

:shake:


seems to me like she is just pissed because her "girl" is gonna lose and just doesn't know how to deal with it.


Actually, I don't care if Hillary loses. She shouldn't have run in the first place. She was not my first choice. She was down on the list of candidates I would have chosen as well.

The dislike of Obama does not translate into Hillary love. I simply believe she's the more qualified and less of the two evils.

And the 'hate' comes from the fact that the American people are about to elect someone they like over someone who is more qualified. This entire Obama phenomenon is the logical sequal to the same idiots electing George W. Bush TWICE.

This time they can feel better because it's a different party label and even a different race but the reasons they are chosing him are still the exact same simpleton and ignoramus reasons they chose W...

Wanting to change parties and they liked him. Same shit, different Dude.

mlyonsd
03-01-2008, 08:09 AM
Yes, it is sad. It's sad that it's no Democrats who are handing the Obama the nomination but cross overs. According to most polls, Hillary is still winning the Democratic vote. The recent Pew poll and even the politico master himself, Karl Rove, have pointed out that Obama's numbers are solidly based on that crossover support.

To me, this isn't all about winning at any cost. It's about choosing the right person for the job. As a Democrat, I'd rather lose than put someone in place who will be ineffective and possibly hand the keys to the CONS for another decade or two. The CONS are BANKING on this happening that is why they are happy Obama is going to be the nominee and will be happy if he wins. They are not enamored with him and see how he's been set up and set himself up to fail.

Thus, I have no problem with not supporting him as the nominee because he's not getting there as the choice of Democrats but as the choice of CONS/Indies who've gamed the system (within their right to do so) to choose a candidate who is the least qualified but most likely to be Homecoming King.

I've decided it's a matter of principle over party loyalty. Many Dems went along with the Iraq war when they felt it was a matter of loyalty over principle. I didn't follow the flock then because it was wrong. Likewise, here. I will not support Obama if he's the nominee.

Are you saying the republicans want Obama as the nominee because they will beat him in the general election or that they want him to win the presidency because his policies will fail and eventually hand the reigns back over to them? I'm confused.

btw you really threw me for a loop not supporting Obama. I think I even like him more than you, but not for the reasons you list.

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 08:15 AM
Are you saying the republicans want Obama as the nominee because they will beat him in the general election or that they want him to win the presidency because his policies will fail and eventually hand the reigns back over to them? I'm confused.

btw you really threw me for a loop not supporting Obama. I think I even like him more than you, but not for the reasons you list.

It's a win/win for them either way. Going in, it was a long shot at best they could win the WH. Thus, best case scenario for them is a Jimmy Carter type of person who the people like but the problems are bigger than what a nice guy can fix.

In addition, in their minds they neutralize the one large force that the Dems had hung their hats on as being a pillar of Democratic success, the Clintons. Thus, if Obama gets elected the Clintons as a factor are marginalized and the Dems have hung their hat on a a one term, one hit wonder. The Cons are elated at this prospect. They are hitting two birds with one stone and they basically have to just lose this election for it to happen. And truth be told, whoever is in power is going to have a difficult time the next four years making fundamental changes. But, Obama's convinced people that it's going to be quick and painless.

Thus, they are banking on token changes and inefficiency so they can point out how Obama conned everyone. And with all the lofty rhetoric and levitating by Obama it won't be a hard sell for them in four years.

And it's my opinion that Obama's popularity isn't as deep as it is wide. Meaning alot of people have jumped on board not knowing about him but know that everyone else likes him so he must be good. But these people are easily disappointed because their support of him is not based truly on HIM but on what they perceive others are seeing.

mlyonsd
03-01-2008, 08:24 AM
It's a win/win for them either way. Going in, it was a long shot at best they could win the WH. Thus, best case scenario for them is a Jimmy Carter type of person who the people like but the problems are bigger than what a nice guy can fix.

In addition, in their minds they neutralize the one large force that the Dems had hung their hats on as being a pillar of Democratic success, the Clintons. Thus, if Obama gets elected the Clintons as a factor are marginalized and the Dems have hung their hat on a a one term, one hit wonder. The Cons are elated at this prospect. They are hitting two birds with one stone and they basically have to just lose this election for it to happen.

Thus, they are banking on token changes and inefficiency so they can point out how Obama conned everyone. And with all the lofty rhetoric and levitating by Obama it won't be a hard sell for them in four years.

So you're saying Obama has no real chance to succeed as the president? His policies are that bad?

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Considering his closest comparison will be his predecessor with such a poor approval rating?

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 08:38 AM
So you're saying Obama has no real chance to succeed as the president? His policies are that bad?

Don't you think that's a little harsh? Considering his closest comparison will be his predecessor with such a poor approval rating?

His policies are not 'that bad.' They are 'just blow with the wind 'and say what people want to hear rhetoric. But the coalition of his 'movement' has diametrically opposed beliefs and goals. Obama has constructed his message as such so that people can see and hear what they want to see and hear from him. Thus, this has the potential of alienating everyone. It's my contention that in order to avoid doing that he will go the safe route and choose nothing but token changes.

Apparently he actually predicted this in his latest book:


Undoubtedbly, some of these views will get me in trouble, I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views. As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2008, 08:53 AM
The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of Hillary's biggest backers during the Hillarycare debacle, Jay Rockefeller, just endorsed Obama. Just another college-age sucker who wants a hip imaginary black friend, obviously.

“The indisputable fact is Barack Obama was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong. It was a tough call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time.”

They are 'just blow with the wind 'and say what people want to hear rhetoric. But the coalition of his 'movement' has diametrically opposed beliefs and goals. Obama has constructed his message as such so that people can see and hear what they want to see and hear from him. Thus, this has the potential of alienating everyone.So you hate Obama because he's wrapping the conservatives' heartworm medicine in delicious biscuits, but you're totally cool with Mrs. What-Do-The-Polls-Say-Today? What the **** is WRONG with you?

It's my contention that in order to avoid doing that he will go the safe route and choose nothing but token changes.Have you found any evidence of him doing that in Illinois? Because he sure as hell seemed pretty adept at getting people behind him when it came to contentious issues like videotaping police interrogations and expanding children's health care coverage.

Apparently he actually predicted this in his latest book:Yeah, he's pretty good at predicting things.

mlyonsd
03-01-2008, 08:55 AM
His policies are not 'that bad.' They are 'just blow with the wind 'and say what people want to hear rhetoric. But the coalition of his 'movement' has diametrically opposed beliefs and goals. Thus, this has the potential of alienating everyone. It's my contention that in order to avoid doing that he will go the safe route and choose nothing but token changes.

Interesting. Although I still fail to see why you wouldn't support him if he was the dem nominee.

Every candidate speaks to his base during the race for his party's nomination. It's why I pay little attention to this part of the campaign.

Once the true general election begins and the candidates start sparring with each other is when real positions on issues are brought to light..IMO.

I think the jury is still out on Obama, but in my mind he's got tons more character than his witch of an opponent.

FAX
03-01-2008, 09:09 AM
Very interesting Mr. FAX just another reason you are so valuable to the BB.

Although I sense a smidge of facetiousness in your tone, Mr. Ill-Logical, you have to admit that few Planeteers go out of their way to document the predictions of hallucinating, spirit-possessed, African soothsayers who support the arguments proffered by Ms. memyselfI.

Although, I have to admit, there are far more hallucinating, spirit-possessed, African soothsayers who agree with her point of view than I would have previously guessed.

FAX

Baby Lee
03-01-2008, 09:19 AM
I gotta admit, I was offended by that part; cold Popeye's for breakfast (especially Cajun style) is the shit...good eatin'.

Does papa get the big piece of chicken?

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 09:21 AM
Interesting. Although I still fail to see why you wouldn't support him if he was the dem nominee.

Every candidate speaks to his base during the race for his party's nomination. It's why I pay little attention to this part of the campaign.

Once the true general election begins and the candidates start sparring with each other is when real positions on issues are brought to light..IMO.

I think the jury is still out on Obama, but in my mind he's got tons more character than his witch of an opponent.

Because to do so would be giving my stamp of approval to something I disagree with and feel intuitively is a bad move. As such, I can be an enabler and go along with what I feel is a mistake or I vote 'present' in true Obama fashion. Afterall, that does seem quite fitting, doesn't it?

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 09:25 AM
The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of Hillary's biggest backers during the Hillarycare debacle, Jay Rockefeller, just endorsed Obama. Just another college-age sucker who wants a hip imaginary black friend, obviously.



So you hate Obama because he's wrapping the conservatives' heartworm medicine in delicious biscuits, but you're totally cool with Mrs. What-Do-The-Polls-Say-Today? What the **** is WRONG with you?

Have you found any evidence of him doing that in Illinois? Because he sure as hell seemed pretty adept at getting people behind him when it came to contentious issues like videotaping police interrogations and expanding children's health care coverage.

Yeah, he's pretty good at predicting things.

I'm against Obama and not FOR Hillary. I think she is better suited for the job even though I don't like her. I don't trust Hillary or Obama but with Hillary we know what we can't trust and with Obama we have to learn...

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2008, 10:04 AM
You can't just say, "Yeah, his opponent embodies everything that's awful about politics, but uh... hey, he MIGHT turn out to be like that, too!"

Well, you can. But it's dumb.

irishjayhawk
03-01-2008, 10:12 AM
And his utter lack of experience in almost anything that would qualify him for the job.

The "fools" we are discussing (V.P. Gore and Sen. Kerry) never held the highest executive offices in their chosen fields of government. They were unqualified, and they lost elections. It was all very sad, I know.

Now we have problem. It appears that we are left with two men who have no executive qualifications for the office except that...

Oh, hell, you finish it.

One candidate has dedicated his life for this nation.

The other has "sacrificed" himself so far as to be elected to one term in the Senate.

Certainly you're correct. Bush II didn't dedicate his life for our country, so let's dispense with that straw man immediately..

But here's the problem that I see. (Keep in mind that perhaps I'm biased because I've been running my own business for more than a decade.)

Obama is just the lastest savior you've run past us.

Gore ran nothing. Ever. Never under any circumstances. Well, maybe he ran from Tipper's point of view, but that doesn't count. Mrs. Gore led the inquiries into such subversive figures as Frank Zappa, et. al.

On the other hand, there is Sen. McCain.

Forgive me if I don't support him unconditionally.

Then there's Sen Kerry.

There's no way you want to compare their merits.


I'd love to see you post what "experience" people need in my thread.

Apparently, being the closest to President does not qualify you for anything. So, now I'm really confused.

So far I have:

- Served in military.
- Ran some sort of something.
- Served more than 1 term in the Senate.

Any others?

I contend that 2 of those are utter bullshit. No one MUST have served in the military. But more idiotic is the statement that they need more than 1 term in the Senate. Why exactly? So they can get in bed with lobbyists? So they can go corrupt? So they can pass bills that could be used against them but they cannot explain their rationale? So what exactly?

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 11:20 AM
Yes, it is sad. It's sad that it's not Democrats who are handing the Obama the nomination but cross overs. According to most polls, Hillary is still winning the Democratic vote. The recent Pew poll and even the politico master himself, Karl Rove, have pointed out that Obama's numbers are solidly based on that crossover support.


So what's your excuse for him leading in the national polls?

irishjayhawk
03-01-2008, 11:35 AM
So what's your excuse for him leading in the national polls?

He's black and people feel guilty not voting for him. :)

patteeu
03-01-2008, 11:50 AM
First the video is quite catchy. I just read the text underneath and it seems to be great common sense, how could anyone object to that speech?

I don't blame Obama for the way his dopey followers worship him as though he were a religious figure, but something else does bother me about his remarks. Against the backdrop of his affiliation with a race-preoccupied church (to put it politely), his characterization of black people as "us" (which of course implies that other races are "them") bothers me.

...This time he addressed African Americans directly.

"Here's an example where once again I gotta talk about us a little bit. We, we can't keep on feeding our children junk all day long, giving them no exercise," he said.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 11:56 AM
I don't blame Obama for the way his dopey followers worship him as though he were a religious figure, but something else does bother me about his remarks. Against the backdrop of his affiliation with a race-preoccupied church (to put it politely), his characterization of black people as "us" (which of course implies that other races are "them") bothers me.

Yeah, he should've said "you people".

patteeu
03-01-2008, 12:06 PM
Fools who were much more 'qualified' than the guy you voted for twice. So how can you complain about people voting for someone who you don't see as qualified?

In 2004, President Bush had 4 years of experience as POTUS, most of it during wartime.

In 2000, Bush was inexperienced, but he was running against a VP from an administration that sported a POTUS who, for only the 2nd time in our history, had earned an impeachment. And to top it all off, he was less significant in that administration than the unelected, first lady.

patteeu
03-01-2008, 12:09 PM
No no no no no. You're not getting away that easily. Please tell me how Bush was more qualified for the Presidency than either Gore or Kerry.

And feel free to use the "dedicated his life to his country" reasoning for Kerry that you're using to defend why you'll vote for McCain.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to compare Kerry with McCain.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2008, 12:11 PM
... his characterization of black people as "us" (which of course implies that other races are "them") bothers me.

Are you sure you aren't mischaracterizing his references? Most of the time I hear him say "us".....I've assumed he's talking about the collective, "we"....as in the American people. Interesting how we hear what we want to hear, I guess.

:hmmm:

OTOH....IMO minorities, as a historically subjegated class, deserve some latitude for invoking "us" given the fact they, for so long, had been cast as "you people." :shrug:

irishjayhawk
03-01-2008, 12:15 PM
In 2004, President Bush had 4 years of experience as POTUS, most of it during wartime.

In 2000, Bush was inexperienced, but he was running against a VP from an administration that sported a POTUS who, for only the 2nd time in our history, had earned an impeachment. And to top it all off, he was less significant in that administration than the unelected, first lady.

Al Gore was not a good candidate because Clinton had a bj?

Cochise
03-01-2008, 12:16 PM
In 2004, President Bush had 4 years of experience as POTUS, most of it during wartime.

In 2000, Bush was inexperienced, but he was running against a VP from an administration that sported a POTUS who, for only the 2nd time in our history, had earned an impeachment. And to top it all off, he was less significant in that administration than the unelected, first lady.

No kidding... the most notable thing Al Gore did as VP was take an extended piss at a Buddhist temple

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 12:19 PM
It takes a lot of chutzpah to compare Kerry with McCain.

You don't believe Kerry has dedicated his life to his country?

patteeu
03-01-2008, 12:24 PM
Are you sure you aren't mischaracterizing his references? Most of the time I hear him say "us".....I've assumed he's talking about the collective, "we"....as in the American people. Interesting how we hear what we want to hear, I guess.

:hmmm:

OTOH....IMO minorities, as a historically subjegated class, deserve some latitude for invoking "us" given the fact they, for so long, had been cast as "you people." :shrug:

I'm sure that I'm accurately characterizing the reference based on what the article says. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article's author.

patteeu
03-01-2008, 12:25 PM
You don't believe Kerry has dedicated his life to his country?

I don't believe that what Kerry has done with his life in service to his country can be compared to what McCain has done.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 12:30 PM
I don't believe that what Kerry has done with his life in service to his country can be compared to what McCain has done.

That wasn't the question. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the original post of mine you quoted.

alanm
03-01-2008, 01:40 PM
Are you saying the republicans want Obama as the nominee because they will beat him in the general election or that they want him to win the presidency because his policies will fail and eventually hand the reigns back over to them? I'm confused.

btw you really threw me for a loop not supporting Obama. I think I even like him more than you, but not for the reasons you list.
I sometimes think everything is a conspiracy with democrats.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2008, 02:09 PM
Pres. Lincoln wasn't interested in change for change's sake. The Unionists and Abolitionists came long before Lincoln. In fact he stomped the living crap out of those who wanted to "change" the compact (as he saw it) that bound these United States forever.

Pres. Wilson, your Princeton professor, wasn't interested in change for change's sake either. He was a man who failed to keep his promises to the American people first (before the Great War), and then to the League of Nations (after the war).

Pres. Reagan finally embarked on a mission of change for change's sake. He seemed to be interested in reversing the course of what he saw as a deteriorating position of the U.S. in the shadow of the absolute ineffectiveness of our withdrawal from the war in Vietnam, the lingering questioning of ourselves in the light of of Pres. Nixon's resignation, stagflation, outrageous short- and long- term interest rates, the taking of hostages in Iran, and our failed attempt to rescue them, among so many other causes.

But there is Sen. Obama. He has served a term.

A term.

The world is too big for a man as small as Sen. Obama, even though he has a voice that seems to empower himself and his voters.

Give him time. He (and we) need that before Sen. Obama is ready.

If you think Obama's only appeal is his mantra for 'change,' you are either naive, disingenuous, or....being silly. I'll assume it's the latter. Besides, Lincoln, Wilson, and Reagan each advocated significant change as well: Lincoln, ending slavery; Wilson, finishing Progressive reforms neglected by Taft; and Reagan, slowing government expansion of the New Deal and Great Society.

Also, as for Lincoln, Wilson, and Reagan....I think you missed the point. The point is, critics argued their lack of qualifications and experience in national politics would hamstring them as President.

Though historians may disagree, I think it's pretty clear by any objective analysis....all three were up to the job, even if we may disagree over the merits of their accomplishments and policies. Each was vilified by critics as "not ready" to be President. However, each ushered the nation through some very important times.

jettio
03-01-2008, 02:12 PM
DEnise is going to be plenty embarrassed in a few months when she is supporting him and someone brings this thread back to the top.:spock:


You obviously don't understand her.

She saw John Edwards wiggle his cute little ass. Obama has committed the unpardonable sin of getting more votes than her crush.

She will be badmouthing Obama until the end of his second term in 2017, unless Edwards gets an offer for a cabinet post.

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 02:19 PM
You obviously don't understand her.

She saw John Edwards wiggle his cute little ass. Obama has committed the unpardonable sin of getting more votes than her crush.

She will be badmouthing Obama until the end of his second term in 2017, unless Edwards gets an offer for a cabinet post.

I hope Edwards doesn't get an offer and if he does then I hope he rejects it lest he be caught up in the trainwreck we are about to endure. He thinks Obama is a fake as well so I'd be really disappointed in him if he endorses him or works for him. It would be enough for me to write him off as a phony as well.

That being said, this personal attack on me vs. defending your candidate or his positions is the same shit I faced being one of the lone dissenters on this board against the Iraq War. It doesn't phase me and in the end will make those dishing it out look foolish when my predictions become true once again...

Hopefully the archive won't crash so we will have the ability to document who saw this phony for what he is and who bought it hook, line, and stinker.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 02:21 PM
He thinks Obama is a fake as well.

Evidence. Show.

Thig Lyfe
03-01-2008, 02:30 PM
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20080228/i/r315812455.jpg?x=400&y=307&sig=8rYHTMnbyW0zvTfAYVf_hw--

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 02:51 PM
Evidence. Show.

Ok, so the word fake and something more descriptive and less flattering is used but the sentiment is the same. ROFL

ABC's reporting that Edwards soured on Obama and questioned his toughness would seem to be supported by comments by Time's Mark Halperin, who recently apologized after saying in a radio interview that Edwards "thinks Obama is kind of a pussy. He has real questions about Obama's toughness, his readiness for the office. He has real doubts about Obama, not just as a president, but as a general election candidate."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/02/14/edwards/

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 02:53 PM
I wonder if Jack thinks Obama is a puzzy?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6mOa3sXjqE4&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6mOa3sXjqE4&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 03:08 PM
Ok, so the word fake and something more descriptive and less flattering is used but the sentiment is the same. ROFL

So you can't back up the claim? Well it's not like you've ever said anything unsubstantiated before.

You really think this guy has the balls to question another man's toughness?

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2AE847UXu3Q"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2AE847UXu3Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

A guy who spends $400 on his haircut. Really?

patteeu
03-01-2008, 03:20 PM
That wasn't the question. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the original post of mine you quoted.

If you're talking about the post I quoted in post #94, you didn't ask a question. You want to restate what it is that I missed?

Logical
03-01-2008, 03:22 PM
So you can't back up the claim? Well it's not like you've ever said anything unsubstantiated before.

You really think this guy has the balls to question another man's toughness?


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>
&nbsp
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2AE847UXu3Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT>

A guy who spends $400 on his haircut. Really?OMG ROFL

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 03:24 PM
If you're talking about the post I quoted in post #94, you didn't ask a question.

You aren't that impaired, Pat. The post you had just responded to was the question.

The original post you quoted was me saying CB's logic should apply to Kerry if he's using it as his reason for voting for McCain. You said I was saying Kerry's service was equal to that of McCain's(which I wasn't). I asked you if Kerry had lived his life for his country(which was the point I was making) and you dodged that question.

Logical
03-01-2008, 03:26 PM
I wonder if Jack thinks Obama is a puzzy?


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6mOa3sXjqE4&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT>So now we should line up endorsers for candidates like pimps at the station?</P>

jettio
03-01-2008, 04:09 PM
I hope Edwards doesn't get an offer and if he does then I hope he rejects it lest he be caught up in the trainwreck we are about to endure. He thinks Obama is a fake as well so I'd be really disappointed in him if he endorses him or works for him. It would be enough for me to write him off as a phony as well.

That being said, this personal attack on me vs. defending your candidate or his positions is the same shit I faced being one of the lone dissenters on this board against the Iraq War. It doesn't phase me and in the end will make those dishing it out look foolish when my predictions become true once again...

Hopefully the archive won't crash so we will have the ability to document who saw this phony for what he is and who bought it hook, line, and stinker.


You are just a hateful person. And you were not a lone dissenter on Chiefs Planet on the Iraq war.

Even though your ass-wiggling hero voted in the US Senate to give B*sh a blank check there were others, including me, who knew that a war was unnecessary.

You just have a poisoned soul. I am going to put your bitter poisoned soul on ignore, while you root against our country.

What exactly do you think you are predicting as to phoniness? Your ass-wiggling hero went on the campaign trail railing against everything that he had voted for while he was a Senator. As far as inconsistency, your ass-wiggling hero has example upon example of inconsistency.

Obama has a decade of elected office, an autobiography, and an entire lifetime that shows a principled person. He is a lot more genuine than your ass wiggling hero.

And he is a lot better person than you by far.

You keep hoping against hope that our country gets the worst of it. I will put your hateful poisoned soul on ignore, while Obama proves your hateful poisoned soul wrong.

Maybe you ought to go to church.

Adept Havelock
03-01-2008, 04:46 PM
Maybe you ought to go to church.

Hey, I'm no fan of organized religion, but even I wouldn't wish something that horrible on any church.

Well, maybe the Phelpstards. They would probably deserve each other. :p

patteeu
03-01-2008, 04:55 PM
If you're talking about the post I quoted in post #94, you didn't ask a question. You want to restate what it is that I missed?

I don't know whether Kerry has dedicated his life to his country or not, but I do know that the price he's paid for his country can't be compared to that which John McCain has paid. If that misses the point you were trying to make then I apologize.

Can we at least agree that George W. Bush blew John Kerry away when it comes to the experience question?

Adept Havelock
03-01-2008, 05:03 PM
Can we at least agree that George W. Bush blew John Kerry away when it comes to the experience question?

Of course any incumbent is going to have experience over a challenger.

I'd call it a wash. 19 years as a congresscritter vs. 6 years as the Gov. Of Texas (where most of the power is in the Lt. Govs office) and 4 as President. :shrug:

Not that either candidate in '04 was worth a bucket of warm spit, IMO.

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 05:08 PM
I don't know whether Kerry has dedicated his life to his country or not.

Yeah, I'm sure you would if he had an R next to his name. Come on now, Patty.

memyselfI
03-01-2008, 05:10 PM
You are just a hateful person. And you were not a lone dissenter on Chiefs Planet on the Iraq war.

Even though your ass-wiggling hero voted in the US Senate to give B*sh a blank check there were others, including me, who knew that a war was unnecessary.

You just have a poisoned soul. I am going to put your bitter poisoned soul on ignore, while you root against our country.

What exactly do you think you are predicting as to phoniness? Your ass-wiggling hero went on the campaign trail railing against everything that he had voted for while he was a Senator. As far as inconsistency, your ass-wiggling hero has example upon example of inconsistency.

Obama has a decade of elected office, an autobiography, and an entire lifetime that shows a principled person. He is a lot more genuine than your ass wiggling hero.

And he is a lot better person than you by far.

You keep hoping against hope that our country gets the worst of it. I will put your hateful poisoned soul on ignore, while Obama proves your hateful poisoned soul wrong.

Maybe you ought to go to church.

ROFL Ok.

Obama better succeed because alot of people like yourself are going to look like big foolish, gulible, azzholes if he doesn't...and the country will be worse off because we wasted time on the Obamessiah experiment.

If he does, I look like one and the country is better off so it's not a big deal.

patteeu
03-02-2008, 01:06 PM
Of course any incumbent is going to have experience over a challenger.

I'd call it a wash. 19 years as a congresscritter vs. 6 years as the Gov. Of Texas (where most of the power is in the Lt. Govs office) and 4 as President. :shrug:

Not that either candidate in '04 was worth a bucket of warm spit, IMO.

We'll have to settle for disagreement here then. 19 years as a do-nothing, coat-tail riding, social climbing Senator doesn't count for much in my world. OTOH, my assessment of GWBush, while mixed, is positive on balance and that clearly puts him ahead of a bucket of warm spit in my mind. I'm sure this will come as no surprise.

patteeu
03-02-2008, 01:12 PM
Yeah, I'm sure you would if he had an R next to his name. Come on now, Patty.

I don't think so. I'm not sure I'd say that McCain has dedicated his life to his country either, but it's clear to me which one has paid a higher price. Let's just say that I'm not sure serving decades in the Senate is necessarily dedicating one's life to the country. It's a pretty sweet job and no one ends up broke after spending a couple of terms in the Senate. Maybe I'm just too cynical. :shrug:

Logical
03-03-2008, 12:18 AM
I don't think so. I'm not sure I'd say that McCain has dedicated his life to his country either, but it's clear to me which one has paid a higher price. Let's just say that I'm not sure serving decades in the Senate is necessarily dedicating one's life to the country. It's a pretty sweet job and no one ends up broke after spending a couple of terms in the Senate. Maybe I'm just too cynical. :shrug:
So being a POW is the price to be considered as a dedicated life candidate?

patteeu
03-03-2008, 07:40 AM
So being a POW is the price to be considered as a dedicated life candidate?

I don't understand your question.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 08:25 AM
If you think Obama's only appeal is his mantra for 'change,' you are either naive, disingenuous, or....being silly. I'll assume it's the latter. Besides, Lincoln, Wilson, and Reagan each advocated significant change as well: Lincoln, ending slavery; Wilson, finishing Progressive reforms neglected by Taft; and Reagan, slowing government expansion of the New Deal and Great Society.

Also, as for Lincoln, Wilson, and Reagan....I think you missed the point. The point is, critics argued their lack of qualifications and experience in national politics would hamstring them as President.

Though historians may disagree, I think it's pretty clear by any objective analysis....all three were up to the job, even if we may disagree over the merits of their accomplishments and policies. Each was vilified by critics as "not ready" to be President. However, each ushered the nation through some very important times.

I like your points and the case you've been making ( although I see merit in both sides) but Lincoln didn't advocate ending slavery. That may have been a result of the Civil War and he didn't want it to expand into new territory. Lincoln said that the Constitution prohibited the federal government from abolishing slavery where it already existed.

BucEyedPea
03-03-2008, 08:29 AM
So being a POW is the price to be considered as a dedicated life candidate?

That, by logic, would mean all the other POWs qualify, which they don't.
I think being a POW is unfortunate, and such folks risked their liberty for some other country and all but, at least to me, it does not make a person qualified to be President. In fact, in some respects, it can be a disqualifier, as they suffer from PTS syndrome. The traits of this syndrome, per what I've read recently by a psych, are severe distemper. That's one of McCain's most well known and distinquished traits even before being a POW. I say he's not mentally fit for the job because he has access to the button. People say this was claimed of RR, but RR was a cheerful, upbeat good natured man.