Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 03:05:01 PM

Title: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 03:05:01 PM
1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want constitution back.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: dsetterl on June 07, 2008, 03:06:28 PM
1. obama is smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans are much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want their constitution back.

The title should be "Why Obama Will Win"
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 03:07:22 PM
not mock handicapped.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: dsetterl on June 07, 2008, 03:08:51 PM
I am not mocking you at all. Just curious as to why you always leave out words.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 03:09:55 PM
brain cloud.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: dsetterl on June 07, 2008, 03:13:39 PM
You do not use possessive pronouns, you speak in 3rd person, and you struggle with "to-be" verbs. What gives?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 04:16:24 PM
brain cloud, numbnuts.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 09, 2008, 10:19:17 AM
1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want constitution back.

Hi Julie.  It's nice to see that you haven't given up the schtick.

1) Obama is smart and ran an excellent campaign.
2) Americans are much more stupid than commonly believed.  Obama won by stealing the 'hope' message, one created and already sold by david axelrod to his other clients.  His platform is empty and no one knows what his actual plans are.  He has no legislative history, no accomplishments to speak of, and lots of ties to unsavory people.
3)  After 7 years of MSM beatdowns, only a nation of fools would 'trust' the left more than the right.  The MSM, bought and sold by hardcore liberals, beat down our sitting president, leaving a bad impression on the world.  Essentially, the message was 'we hate bush, you should hate him too.  And by the way, feel free to hate us too for not having the nuts to do anything about it.'  Then the 'trusted' democrats took over congress and proceeded to do nothing, except for earning the lowest approval rating in the history of congress - a number far below the Presidents own dismal number.
4) What does the constitution and Obama have in common again?  What did he promise?  What bills has he sponsored?  What action has he taken that leads you to believe that he is FOR the constitution in any way?  More importantly, what rights guaranteed by the constitution can you give examples of that have been restricted or taken away?  I love to hear people talk about the loss of civil liberties and how the constitution has been trampled upon.  How?  Give me an example.  None have, by the way.  No one can give an example of a time when their freedoms have been restricted. 
Hot air is fun.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 09, 2008, 03:13:23 PM
1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want constitution back.

5. "...The first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 09, 2008, 03:31:10 PM
Give me an example.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."


Edit to add:

Back on topic.  Obama will win because McCain will often make a fool of himself while speaking in public.  He's very good at that.  Whether people trust the right or the left is irrelevant.  People, at least those people who matter, will learn to distrust McCain himself.  Simple.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 09, 2008, 03:50:41 PM
I dunno, Piggy. Bush has made so many laughable errors in public speaking that the country may be immune to it by now.

True.  Besides, we all know they're going straight to the Republican playbook rather than risk letting McCain screw things up by talking.  If anyone pays attention, they might notice that McCain has been forced to give up the things that were his essence a few years ago, or that he's too befuddled to notice.  Either way, it's sad.  But I hope people are paying attention.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2008, 05:51:44 PM
1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want constitution back.

Hi Julie. It's nice to see that you haven't given up the schtick.

1) Obama is smart and ran an excellent campaign.
2) Americans are much more stupid than commonly believed. Obama won by stealing the 'hope' message, one created and already sold by david axelrod to his other clients. His platform is empty and no one knows what his actual plans are. He has no legislative history, no accomplishments to speak of, and lots of ties to unsavory people.

wow.  davie axelrod invent hope?  did he copyright it?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2008, 05:53:37 PM
3) After 7 years of MSM beatdowns, only a nation of fools would 'trust' the left more than the right. The MSM, bought and sold by hardcore liberals, beat down our sitting president, leaving a bad impression on the world. Essentially, the message was 'we hate bush, you should hate him too. And by the way, feel free to hate us too for not having the nuts to do anything about it.' Then the 'trusted' democrats took over congress and proceeded to do nothing, except for earning the lowest approval rating in the history of congress - a number far below the Presidents own dismal number.

yes, julie notice how press really take on preznit gump.  you seem afraid dems actually do it someday.  julie can feel your shaking from here.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2008, 05:58:45 PM
4) What does the constitution and Obama have in common again? What did he promise? What bills has he sponsored? What action has he taken that leads you to believe that he is FOR the constitution in any way? More importantly, what rights guaranteed by the constitution can you give examples of that have been restricted or taken away? I love to hear people talk about the loss of civil liberties and how the constitution has been trampled upon. How? Give me an example. None have, by the way. No one can give an example of a time when their freedoms have been restricted.
Hot air is fun.

for starters, obama seem actually heave read constitution, whereas gump not even read.  julie take someone like him who at least say he correct gump's violations over someone like, well, gump mccain.  julie willing give him chance.

and you serious about what rights?  let's start with julie's phone company accomodating spying on her. you such dipshit, and your dipshitosity about be soundly repudiated at polls. grab yer ankles, son!
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2008, 05:59:22 PM
1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want constitution back.

5. "...The first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Joe Biden

spoken like true cracker!
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 09, 2008, 06:00:11 PM
Give me an example.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."


Edit to add:

Back on topic. Obama will win because McCain will often make a fool of himself while speaking in public. He's very good at that. Whether people trust the right or the left is irrelevant. People, at least those people who matter, will learn to distrust McCain himself. Simple.

yes.  there signs most americans tired of cretin in white house.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 09, 2008, 07:13:50 PM
I miss non-cavewoman Julie  :(
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: 54826 on June 09, 2008, 07:49:08 PM
OBAMA = TOOHEY
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: dsetterl on June 09, 2008, 08:40:27 PM
I miss non-cavewoman Julie  :(

second that,
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 09, 2008, 09:32:27 PM
OBAMA = TOOHEY

Fountainhead reference for the win?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 06:21:29 AM
I miss non-cavewoman Julie :(

julie guessing you missing plenty female companionship.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 06:22:08 AM
I miss non-cavewoman Julie :(

second that,

you not recognized by chair, so sit down.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 07:38:21 AM
I miss non-cavewoman Julie :(

julie guessing you missing plenty female companionship.

Hey, thats an actual picture of me as my avatar. You of all people should know women cannot resist the advances of a bespectacled ginger kid...
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 08:06:56 AM
yep. you lonely.

maybe if you not cracker...
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 08:14:13 AM
he could sue parents for damages.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 08:19:18 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/us/politics/09cnd-obama.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1213107381-mjPNnjUAJx9d4JaJipROBw
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 08:35:48 AM
yep. you lonely.

maybe if you not cracker...

Hey, I'd probably be bitter enough to be a Republican too, if every time I walked by a mirror I was rickrolled by God.

One time I was at a bar with some friends, and a friend of mine showed the bartender the rick roll video for the first time. The bartender actually thought it was me and was amazed by the quality of production.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 08:40:21 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/us/politics/09cnd-obama.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1213107381-mjPNnjUAJx9d4JaJipROBw

shocking, the NY times is rallying for Obama  ::). Ask any of your economics professors who they think has better economic policy, McCain or Obama.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 08:46:39 AM
and what wonderful results he and his ilk achieved.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 08:54:23 AM
and what wonderful results he and his ilk achieved.

Are you talking about Rick Astley or the Republicans?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 09:34:36 AM
this question need not be asked.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 09:44:27 AM
Hmm... I just can't see why you don't like Mr Astley  ???
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 10, 2008, 11:33:23 AM
shocking, the NY times is rallying for Obama  ::). Ask any of your economics professors who they think has better economic policy, McCain or Obama.

oh noez, NYTimes r librul!  Some1 tell Fox!

Obama wants certain tax cuts to expire, which is not a decision in his hands if he's President instead of Senator.  Obama wants rebates and/or tax cuts for the "middle class," which is likewise not a decision in his hands if he's President instead of Senator.  What it comes down to is this: the President has very little power over actual economic measures other than to set an optimistic tone.  Obama will thump McCain in that contest.

edit to add:

McCain, from what I've read, just wants to keep cutting taxes, especially for the richest and for investments, which is an economic policy that makes good sense under certain circumstances.  When Reagan came into office, it made good sense.  However, despite what Republicans would like us to believe, cutting taxes is not always the best choice.  At some point, a cut fails to generate economic activity to pay for itself.  Economists will argue about where that point is, of course.  If we're to the "left" of that point (visually, on a graph), a tax cut has to be weighed and considered just like any other economic policy.

::prepares for lashing::
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 12:18:20 PM
shocking, the NY times is rallying for Obama  ::). Ask any of your economics professors who they think has better economic policy, McCain or Obama.

oh noez, NYTimes r librul!  Some1 tell Fox!

Obama wants certain tax cuts to expire, which is not a decision in his hands if he's President instead of Senator.  Obama wants rebates and/or tax cuts for the "middle class," which is likewise not a decision in his hands if he's President instead of Senator.  What it comes down to is this: the President has very little power over actual economic measures other than to set an optimistic tone.  Obama will thump McCain in that contest.

edit to add:

McCain, from what I've read, just wants to keep cutting taxes, especially for the richest and for investments, which is an economic policy that makes good sense under certain circumstances.  When Reagan came into office, it made good sense.  However, despite what Republicans would like us to believe, cutting taxes is not always the best choice.  At some point, a cut fails to generate economic activity to pay for itself.  Economists will argue about where that point is, of course.  If we're to the "left" of that point (visually, on a graph), a tax cut has to be weighed and considered just like any other economic policy.

::prepares for lashing::

I really love this board, it's the only place on the internet you can find well thought out replies and discussion.

Although the decision is in the hands of the senate, the president does dictate policy to some degree and influences the senate (if he is good, or he can influence the senate in the opposite direction like the current Prez). However, many of Obama's other policies are economically bankrupt, such as his new health care plans. Moreover, generally speaking Democrats and the left wing support more social programs that are a burden on tax payers. One of McCains huge talking points is his oppoisition and record of stopping government spending and pork projects.

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/VoteCenter?location=S&page=congScorecard links to the Citizens Against Government Waste, a nonprofit that advocates against wasteful government spending. That link is to an unbaised chart that ranks Senators based on their voting record for bills they consider wasteful. From a score of 0(very wasteful) to 100(did not vote for any of the wasteful bills) Obama scores a 30% while McCain scores a 95%. McCains record and rehetoric proves he will defeat Obama on the economic front.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:19:37 PM
like, like gump's record has improved economy.

not gonna work, sparky.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:26:54 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/10532/8283/610/533309
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:33:15 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/132924/858/527/533416
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:34:16 PM

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/9/9418/79016/230/532680
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 10, 2008, 12:34:54 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/10532/8283/610/533309

omg Kos is more librul than teh NYTimes!  Some1 tell Rush!

 :P
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:35:55 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/obama-could-raise-100-mil_n_106169.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 12:36:11 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/10532/8283/610/533309

If we are going to stay objective, I'll agree not to post news and articles from GOP.com and you can't post false news and untrue articles from dailykos.com
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:39:36 PM

http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/10/the_mccain_girls_are_back_with_1_7039.php
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:41:19 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/10/mccain-again-pledges-to-s_n_106195.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:45:23 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrvLsnV7No8&eurl=http://www.eschatonblog.com/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:49:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKVsFhfQrA&feature=bz301
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 12:50:27 PM

http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/10/the_mccain_girls_are_back_with_1_7039.php

I'm a McCainiac!

Although I'd say Obama Girl > The Mcain Girls
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:50:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPsn2a2pMMU&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:51:14 PM

http://www.236.com/news/2008/06/10/the_mccain_girls_are_back_with_1_7039.php

I'm a McCainiac!

Although I'd say Obama Girl > The Mcain Girls

you one in middle, right?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:52:37 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x28HuYCFoMY&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 12:55:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ymHdbd_tU&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 10, 2008, 12:58:27 PM
Julie needs a hobby
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:01:19 PM
exactly.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:01:43 PM
how julie doing?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:06:44 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:09:58 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:13:04 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:15:44 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQU0TF18ZfI&NR=1
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:16:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvrJRYP9zsM&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:17:47 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWh5jO2Dxo&feature=related
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:21:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 10, 2008, 01:22:04 PM
i really hope one of those is a rickroll.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 01:23:30 PM
no, but pat buchanan and faux news in there somewhere.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 10, 2008, 02:41:47 PM
1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want constitution back.


1) Obama is smart and ran an excellent campaign.
2) Americans are much more stupid than commonly believed. Obama won by stealing the 'hope' message, one created and already sold by david axelrod to his other clients. His platform is empty and no one knows what his actual plans are. He has no legislative history, no accomplishments to speak of, and lots of ties to unsavory people.

wow.  davie axelrod invent hope?  did he copyright it?

No, but David Axelrod used the exact same message, with some success, before.
Exact.
Down to the exact words and organization of Obama's speeches.
Here comes the youtube.  Even a jokester like you can't ignore this evidence:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eqOaVbznE5o
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SG471ElM1TY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v5tIb9-s91U

Now some of you say that you hope america is paying attention.  Guess what?  They aren't.  Blinded by anger and prodded by the left wing in this country, many american's are happy to keep their eyes and ears shut.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 10, 2008, 02:45:00 PM
3) After 7 years of MSM beatdowns, only a nation of fools would 'trust' the left more than the right. The MSM, bought and sold by hardcore liberals, beat down our sitting president, leaving a bad impression on the world. Essentially, the message was 'we hate bush, you should hate him too. And by the way, feel free to hate us too for not having the nuts to do anything about it.' Then the 'trusted' democrats took over congress and proceeded to do nothing, except for earning the lowest approval rating in the history of congress - a number far below the Presidents own dismal number.

yes, julie notice how press really take on preznit gump.  you seem afraid dems actually do it someday.  julie can feel your shaking from here.

"Someday"?
What the hell have they been doing since they took congress?  Oh yeah, not much besides whine.
I'm curious when you think 'someday' will come?
The democrats achilles heel has always been and will always be that they don't have the guts to do the actual work.  Words are words and action is action. If they had anything, they'd have used it.  Instead, they are busy with witchhunts and secretly taking the power away from their constituents by installing superdelegates who have the power to actually decide who will run on their ticket.
That shaking you feel must be the fear that comes from the realization that once again, a republican will take the white house.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 02:49:49 PM
yes, but notice who need taking care of.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 10, 2008, 02:52:02 PM
shocking, the NY times is rallying for Obama  ::). Ask any of your economics professors who they think has better economic policy, McCain or Obama.

oh noez, NYTimes r librul!  Some1 tell Fox!

Obama wants certain tax cuts to expire, which is not a decision in his hands if he's President instead of Senator.  Obama wants rebates and/or tax cuts for the "middle class," which is likewise not a decision in his hands if he's President instead of Senator.  What it comes down to is this: the President has very little power over actual economic measures other than to set an optimistic tone.  Obama will thump McCain in that contest.

edit to add:

McCain, from what I've read, just wants to keep cutting taxes, especially for the richest and for investments, which is an economic policy that makes good sense under certain circumstances.  When Reagan came into office, it made good sense.  However, despite what Republicans would like us to believe, cutting taxes is not always the best choice.  At some point, a cut fails to generate economic activity to pay for itself.  Economists will argue about where that point is, of course.  If we're to the "left" of that point (visually, on a graph), a tax cut has to be weighed and considered just like any other economic policy.

::prepares for lashing::

Yeah, it'll be great when Obama refuses to veto the largest tax increase in the history of this country, the jobless rates climb, and more businesses ship their workforce overseas, further crippling the economy.
Job growth ONLY occurs when the rich can afford to employ the poor.  Take that away, and the jobs go away.
And, by the way, it should be noted that the major influence hurting the economy is the sub-prime loan meltdown, inspired and directly attributable to demorats in congress demanding that financial institutions loan money to people who, in reality, have no business owning homes and couldn't afford it in the first place.  when the lenders are upside down, owning more notes than actual capital, it effects everyone, making the economy turn down.
And what is Obama's plan for this?  Oh yes, stealing money from companies hard efforts, increasing taxes across the board, and continuing to force lending institutions to extend credit to people who aren't creditworthy.
Good plan.  If your boy gets elected, prepare for a massive recession.
The President DOES have a responsibility when it comes to economic policy because he has to sign bills into law.
 
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 10, 2008, 02:54:35 PM
By the by, I asked for evidence of constitutional restrictions.  Examples.  Not a quote about civil liberties, but an actual example of an american citizen who lost his rights.
I'll wait.
Know anyone who was arrested for something they said or did that was what you would consider an unlawful arrest?  Know anyone who rights were trampled upon due to a violation of the writ of habeus corpus?
Furthermore, should we be extending rights reserved for american citizens on citizens of other countries?  I want to undestand how the left thinks....
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 04:06:51 PM
1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.

4. americans want constitution back.


1) Obama is smart and ran an excellent campaign.
2) Americans are much more stupid than commonly believed. Obama won by stealing the 'hope' message, one created and already sold by david axelrod to his other clients. His platform is empty and no one knows what his actual plans are. He has no legislative history, no accomplishments to speak of, and lots of ties to unsavory people.

wow. davie axelrod invent hope? did he copyright it?

No, but David Axelrod used the exact same message, with some success, before.
Exact.
Down to the exact words and organization of Obama's speeches.
Here comes the youtube. Even a jokester like you can't ignore this evidence:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eqOaVbznE5o
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SG471ElM1TY
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v5tIb9-s91U

Now some of you say that you hope america is paying attention. Guess what? They aren't. Blinded by anger and prodded by the left wing in this country, many american's are happy to keep their eyes and ears shut.

you forgot this one, numbnuts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB0Y5qX-YH8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4t5e90S9h

and read these, too:  http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4310143
                      http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/178957.php

that really all you got?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 04:10:07 PM
By the by, I asked for evidence of constitutional restrictions. Examples. Not a quote about civil liberties, but an actual example of an american citizen who lost his rights.
I'll wait.
Know anyone who was arrested for something they said or did that was what you would consider an unlawful arrest? Know anyone who rights were trampled upon due to a violation of the writ of habeus corpus?
Furthermore, should we be extending rights reserved for american citizens on citizens of other countries? I want to undestand how the left thinks....

julie gave you one and you ignore it.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 10, 2008, 04:43:15 PM
Furthermore, should we be extending rights reserved for american citizens on citizens of other countries?  I want to undestand how the left thinks....

Where does it say non-citizens don't get the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?  and where does it say it can only be not-suspended for citizens?

Considering the constitution expressly addresses situations in which non-citizens are involved in our courts, I'd suggest that a textualist reading would support the idea that writ does apply to non-citizens.

But what do I know.

I hate textualism too.

 :)
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 12, 2008, 05:39:16 AM
this just keep getting better:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/new-gang-of-14-wont-back-mccain-2008-06-11.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 12, 2008, 06:45:24 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25096620/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 12, 2008, 03:29:59 PM
Furthermore, should we be extending rights reserved for american citizens on citizens of other countries?  I want to undestand how the left thinks....

Oops.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/preliminary-reactions-to-boumediene/

"The Court held 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the petitioners at GTMO have a constitutional right to petition for habeas corpus and that the DTA/MCA process of D.C. Circuit review from CSRT decisions is not an adequate alternative to habeas."

Edit to add:

Full opinion here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/06-1195.pdf)


Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 12, 2008, 08:40:06 PM
yes, those famous leftists like justice kennedy.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on June 12, 2008, 08:42:12 PM
yes, those famous leftists like justice kennedy.

Yeah.  We all know he's a closet commie.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 05:29:34 AM
bump and grind.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 19, 2008, 08:24:15 AM
bump and grind.

Shameless
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 19, 2008, 11:10:05 AM
Tim -

You spelled believe wrong under your avatar.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 19, 2008, 11:32:18 AM
Tim -

You spelled believe wrong under your avatar.



I need to use Firefox all the time, so many spelling errors.. thanks!
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 03:50:14 PM
Tim -

You spelled believe wrong under your avatar.



and you use adjective instead of adverb.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 19, 2008, 06:11:05 PM
Tim -

You spelled believe wrong under your avatar.



and you use adjective instead of adverb.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 07:10:29 PM
you start it, numbnuts. 
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 20, 2008, 09:40:43 AM
you start it, numbnuts. 

I was being nice to Tim.  You're just an ass that no one likes.
@#!* off.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 20, 2008, 05:07:19 PM
sure, right.  if that true, then you send personal message.

and julie put her popularity up against yours anytime, warmonger.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 20, 2008, 05:17:07 PM
newsweek have obama by 15:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465?from=rss
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 21, 2008, 10:16:47 AM
sure, right.  if that true, then you send personal message.

and julie put her popularity up against yours anytime, warmonger.

Whatever you say, commie hippie.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2008, 10:29:05 AM
once again:  if we not warmongers, we traitors, eh?

you just insulted most americans.

thanks for showing where you really coming from.  you doing julie's job for her.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on June 21, 2008, 10:47:49 AM
once again:  if we not warmongers, we traitors, eh?

you just insulted most americans.

thanks for showing where you really coming from.  you doing julie's job for her.

And once again, you inject ideas that are meritless and exist only in your head.
You called me a warmonger, implying that if I disagree with you that I am a warmonger.
I am not.  So, to point out your ridiculous statement, I called you a commie hippie.  In no way does the word "commie" or "hippie", either implicityly or explicity, mean traitor.
You are a traitor because you hate our military.  You are a traitor for calling our soldiers murderers.  You are a traitor for giving our enemies comfort.  But you are not a traitor for being a hippie, a peacenik, or a commie.
If your 'work' is jumping to conclusions and making rash judgements about people and topics, well - you are doing great.  And it explains why you have no credibility.  And why you come off as such an uninformed loser.
I am a warmonger for supporting our troops and believing that we should finish the job we started and you are a patriot for calling our president a retarded moron and our troops murderers.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 21, 2008, 11:54:33 AM
once again:  if we not warmongers, we traitors, eh?

you just insulted most americans.

thanks for showing where you really coming from.  you doing julie's job for her.

Obviously Jeff and my political views are in close sync, however, as future or current law students we should strive to avoid ad hominem attacks and debate issues with fact and reason. We are all adults, lets put ourselves above petty name calling. That being said, I can see why Jeff says the things he does, Julie you do post way too much antibush stuff and say McCain is a war monger in your profile. Clinton and a majority of the democrats voted for the war too. If you say they were lied too, I disagree with that, but if it is true they still commited soilders lives to a lie that they could have investigated more. That got caught up in the war propaganda, too. I was against the Iraq war from the start, but we can't just leave the region in shambles. We have occupied countries and cities for decades to supress insurgencey, its just a part of invasion. A democratically and popular invasion

Which brings me to the reason I'm posting, you are saying calling someone a traitor for not supporting the war is wrong because that would insult most Americans, implying that most people disagree with the war. I agree calling people traitors because they are in dissent to a current war is wrong. Just like I believe calling people warmongers because they support a war is wrong.

Anyway, heres some national opinion polls about the Iraqi war:

March 2003: An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war

April 2003: A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found.

May 2003: A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war

All this stuff was pulled here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq#February_2001 don't give me any crap about Wikipedia, all those polls are cited with a link to the news networks article with the information.

So, the war is wildly unpopular now, does that mean we should pull out? No! We can't go into a country and tear it apart then leave. Occupation after an invasion can last decades, our elected representitives knew about that when the voted for the war. The American population was in favor for the war by a 3/4 majority at the begining of the war. You can't commit soilders live to fickle public opinion, if we decide to go Democratically than we should only do so if we have to resolve to see it out. Thousands of our soilders are dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Was the war I mistake? I think so, I thought it was from the begining. However, I believe in Democracy, if we vote to do something in an overwhelming majority than we have to do it. But when it comes to war, you can't half-ass it. You can't destroy hundreds of thousands peoples lives, livlihood, country, economy, governmeny and then leave a mere 5 years later.

The sad thing is, this has all happened before in Vietnam. That war was mismanaged, targets were banned and public opinion shifted. We should have known after that cluster-f*** we can't commit ourselves to war unless we intend to see it through. I just hope the same thing dosen't happen again fourty years from Iraq.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2008, 03:12:32 PM
once again: if we not warmongers, we traitors, eh?

you just insulted most americans.

thanks for showing where you really coming from. you doing julie's job for her.

And once again, you inject ideas that are meritless and exist only in your head.
You called me a warmonger, implying that if I disagree with you that I am a warmonger.
I am not. So, to point out your ridiculous statement, I called you a commie hippie. In no way does the word "commie" or "hippie", either implicityly or explicity, mean traitor.
You are a traitor because you hate our military. You are a traitor for calling our soldiers murderers. You are a traitor for giving our enemies comfort. But you are not a traitor for being a hippie, a peacenik, or a commie.
If your 'work' is jumping to conclusions and making rash judgements about people and topics, well - you are doing great. And it explains why you have no credibility. And why you come off as such an uninformed loser.
I am a warmonger for supporting our troops and believing that we should finish the job we started and you are a patriot for calling our president a retarded moron and our troops murderers.

you truly off your meds.

you warmonger because you cheerlead for senseless war.  you "support" troops by sending them to senseless slaughter.  you just plain unobservant by believing preznit gump anything but moron.

to accuse americans of being less patriotic than you simply because actually, say, defend constitution show just how little you get this country.  hitler would've loved having you on his side.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2008, 03:15:24 PM
once again: if we not warmongers, we traitors, eh?

you just insulted most americans.

thanks for showing where you really coming from. you doing julie's job for her.

Obviously Jeff and my political views are in close sync, however, as future or current law students we should strive to avoid ad hominem attacks and debate issues with fact and reason. We are all adults, lets put ourselves above petty name calling. That being said, I can see why Jeff says the things he does, Julie you do post way too much antibush stuff and say McCain is a war monger in your profile. Clinton and a majority of the democrats voted for the war too. If you say they were lied too, I disagree with that, but if it is true they still commited soilders lives to a lie that they could have investigated more. That got caught up in the war propaganda, too. I was against the Iraq war from the start, but we can't just leave the region in shambles. We have occupied countries and cities for decades to supress insurgencey, its just a part of invasion. A democratically and popular invasion

Which brings me to the reason I'm posting, you are saying calling someone a traitor for not supporting the war is wrong because that would insult most Americans, implying that most people disagree with the war. I agree calling people traitors because they are in dissent to a current war is wrong. Just like I believe calling people warmongers because they support a war is wrong.

Anyway, heres some national opinion polls about the Iraqi war:

March 2003: An ABC News/Washington Post poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war

April 2003: A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found.

May 2003: A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war

All this stuff was pulled here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq#February_2001 don't give me any crap about Wikipedia, all those polls are cited with a link to the news networks article with the information.

So, the war is wildly unpopular now, does that mean we should pull out? No! We can't go into a country and tear it apart then leave. Occupation after an invasion can last decades, our elected representitives knew about that when the voted for the war. The American population was in favor for the war by a 3/4 majority at the begining of the war. You can't commit soilders live to fickle public opinion, if we decide to go Democratically than we should only do so if we have to resolve to see it out. Thousands of our soilders are dead and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. Was the war I mistake? I think so, I thought it was from the begining. However, I believe in Democracy, if we vote to do something in an overwhelming majority than we have to do it. But when it comes to war, you can't half-ass it. You can't destroy hundreds of thousands peoples lives, livlihood, country, economy, governmeny and then leave a mere 5 years later.

The sad thing is, this has all happened before in Vietnam. That war was mismanaged, targets were banned and public opinion shifted. We should have known after that cluster-f*** we can't commit ourselves to war unless we intend to see it through. I just hope the same thing dosen't happen again fourty years from Iraq.

impossible criticize gump too much.

and would war have even started if gump had told truth?  julie not think so.

so let people like you fight it.  what that you say?  have other plans?

what shock!  just like gump, cheney, and rummie.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Steve Jones on June 21, 2008, 03:27:16 PM
Well, whaddaya know...it's the left wing's answer to Ann Coulter
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2008, 03:31:46 PM
Well, whaddaya know...it's the left wing's answer to Ann Coulter

nonsense.  julie never commit vote fraud in her life.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on June 21, 2008, 04:18:02 PM
Well, whaddaya know...it's the left wing's answer to Ann Coulter

The reference it apt!! APT!!!!!

Anyway, I'm done arguing with Julie. She is definatly the left wing's Ann Coulter. She peppers in weak poltical commentary and one-liners in a comical way. Her avatar even looks like Coulter. Plus, shes unabashedly partisan. I'm a very strong conservative, but I at least have the ability to see the lefts point of view and their rationale. Partisan politics are tearing this country apart and is completely mindless. So mindless I hear the more partisan you are the less ability you have to form sentances correctly.....
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2008, 04:20:59 PM
no, apt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dipshits flock together, julie figure.

julie not partisan, she just know scum-sucking, constitution-wrecking, moronic preznit when see one.  sorry if truth hurt, you non-partisan kind fellow you.

and not mock handicapped, cracker.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Finesse on July 13, 2008, 03:48:46 PM
The polls all show Obama is way ahead. No one wants another four years of a racist dictator like Bush.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 13, 2008, 06:44:06 PM
in all fairness, mccain not got another four years.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 13, 2008, 07:18:59 PM
The polls all show Obama is way ahead. No one wants another four years of a racist dictator like Bush.

Ah yes, one need only look at Bush's all white cabinet, all white advisors, and all white military leaders to see that he is a racist.  And he is a fabulous dictator who was elected twice.
Dictator: A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.

No saintly democrat has bothered to restrict Bush, he isn't bound by any laws, and ignores the constitution.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Slowbama will lose unless he continues turning his back on the hard core lefties who propelled him into the race and becomes more and more moderate.  Of course, then he loses the hard-core lefties, eager to destroy anyone who deviates from their platform of racism and total dependance on big government and high taxation.
Obama can only win one way - and he knows it.  He needs to prove that he isn't a radical lefty.  But folks like you will always whine about Bush until someone else is President - then you'll whine about them.
Maybe he can pull a Clinton and co-opt the republican agenda.  Then you'll call him a saint, even if he commits perjury, has sex with multiple women while married, and ignores national security threats.
Tell me, were you one of the many dailykossacks who wished Tony Snow would die from colon cancer?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 13, 2008, 07:25:37 PM
The polls all show Obama is way ahead. No one wants another four years of a racist dictator like Bush.

Ah yes, one need only look at Bush's all white cabinet, all white advisors, and all white military leaders to see that he is a racist.  And he is a fabulous dictator who was elected twice.
Dictator: A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.

No saintly democrat has bothered to restrict Bush, he isn't bound by any laws, and ignores the constitution.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Slowbama will lose unless he continues turning his back on the hard core lefties who propelled him into the race and becomes more and more moderate.  Of course, then he loses the hard-core lefties, eager to destroy anyone who deviates from their platform of racism and total dependance on big government and high taxation.
Obama can only win one way - and he knows it.  He needs to prove that he isn't a radical lefty.  But folks like you will always whine about Bush until someone else is President - then you'll whine about them.
Maybe he can pull a Clinton and co-opt the republican agenda.  Then you'll call him a saint, even if he commits perjury, has sex with multiple women while married, and ignores national security threats.
Tell me, were you one of the many dailykossacks who wished Tony Snow would die from colon cancer?

Bush is the worst thing to happen to the country.

Mission accomplished.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 13, 2008, 10:55:58 PM
The polls all show Obama is way ahead. No one wants another four years of a racist dictator like Bush.

Ah yes, one need only look at Bush's all white cabinet, all white advisors, and all white military leaders to see that he is a racist.  And he is a fabulous dictator who was elected twice.
Dictator: A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.

No saintly democrat has bothered to restrict Bush, he isn't bound by any laws, and ignores the constitution.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Slowbama will lose unless he continues turning his back on the hard core lefties who propelled him into the race and becomes more and more moderate.  Of course, then he loses the hard-core lefties, eager to destroy anyone who deviates from their platform of racism and total dependance on big government and high taxation.
Obama can only win one way - and he knows it.  He needs to prove that he isn't a radical lefty.  But folks like you will always whine about Bush until someone else is President - then you'll whine about them.
Maybe he can pull a Clinton and co-opt the republican agenda.  Then you'll call him a saint, even if he commits perjury, has sex with multiple women while married, and ignores national security threats.
Tell me, were you one of the many dailykossacks who wished Tony Snow would die from colon cancer?

Bush is the worst thing to happen to the country.

Mission accomplished.

Yeah.  His administration sure trumps the economic and foreign policies of Carter's administration.  Why just today I sat in line all day to try and find gas to put in my car while checking my empty bank account and thinking about that guy I heard about in the news who has been sitting as a hostage in a foreign country that has declared war on our nation while we do nothing about it for FOUR YEARS and wondered how the hell I was going to be able to afford a home when the bank wants 19.99% on a 30 year home loan.

Bush sure is worse than James Buchanan, who publicly lobbied to continue slavery and sent the US military at war with Brigham Young and the Mormons - the most expensive, meaningless, inconsequential war (which he fought against his own citizens) in US history up to that time.  Oh yeah, and by the way - while off fighting the mormons, he was actively ignoring the southern militia's (who were stirring up trouble and got people talking about seceeding from the nation).  Of course, then he made a wonderful speech saying, essentially, that while it would be illegal to seceede, the federal government had no right to prevent it.   17 days later, south carolina left the union and was soon followed by the remaining 6 states, which later created the confederacy.  By the time Buchanan was getting ready to leave the office, most of the military strongholds, fortifications, artillery and bases had been overrun and the civil war was inevitable.  He was FAR better than Bush....  If you don't know anything about history.

Bush was less than ideal, but the 'worst president ever' nonsense is greatly exagerrated by those who don't care to check before they say things.  I know, why look at history when making grandiose, pop-culture statements?

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: $Bill on July 13, 2008, 11:11:37 PM
I feel so left out for loathing the democrats social policies, the republicans foreign policies (or rather their competance and pr in the matter) and almost 95% of the politicians I see on cspan.  I really hate both parties with a passion for different reasons.

Obama will win based purely upon the endless series of Bush administration scandals.  This administrations 2nd term had so much dirty laundry it makes Grants administration look like Eisenhowers.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 13, 2008, 11:34:36 PM
The polls all show Obama is way ahead. No one wants another four years of a racist dictator like Bush.

Ah yes, one need only look at Bush's all white cabinet, all white advisors, and all white military leaders to see that he is a racist.  And he is a fabulous dictator who was elected twice.
Dictator: A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.

No saintly democrat has bothered to restrict Bush, he isn't bound by any laws, and ignores the constitution.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Slowbama will lose unless he continues turning his back on the hard core lefties who propelled him into the race and becomes more and more moderate.  Of course, then he loses the hard-core lefties, eager to destroy anyone who deviates from their platform of racism and total dependance on big government and high taxation.
Obama can only win one way - and he knows it.  He needs to prove that he isn't a radical lefty.  But folks like you will always whine about Bush until someone else is President - then you'll whine about them.
Maybe he can pull a Clinton and co-opt the republican agenda.  Then you'll call him a saint, even if he commits perjury, has sex with multiple women while married, and ignores national security threats.
Tell me, were you one of the many dailykossacks who wished Tony Snow would die from colon cancer?

Bush is the worst thing to happen to the country.

Mission accomplished.

Yeah.  His administration sure trumps the economic and foreign policies of Carter's administration.  Why just today I sat in line all day to try and find gas to put in my car while checking my empty bank account and thinking about that guy I heard about in the news who has been sitting as a hostage in a foreign country that has declared war on our nation while we do nothing about it for FOUR YEARS and wondered how the hell I was going to be able to afford a home when the bank wants 19.99% on a 30 year home loan.

Bush sure is worse than James Buchanan, who publicly lobbied to continue slavery and sent the US military at war with Brigham Young and the Mormons - the most expensive, meaningless, inconsequential war (which he fought against his own citizens) in US history up to that time.  Oh yeah, and by the way - while off fighting the mormons, he was actively ignoring the southern militia's (who were stirring up trouble and got people talking about seceeding from the nation).  Of course, then he made a wonderful speech saying, essentially, that while it would be illegal to seceede, the federal government had no right to prevent it.   17 days later, south carolina left the union and was soon followed by the remaining 6 states, which later created the confederacy.  By the time Buchanan was getting ready to leave the office, most of the military strongholds, fortifications, artillery and bases had been overrun and the civil war was inevitable.  He was FAR better than Bush....  If you don't know anything about history.

Bush was less than ideal, but the 'worst president ever' nonsense is greatly exagerrated by those who don't care to check before they say things.  I know, why look at history when making grandiose, pop-culture statements?



Well, he's definitely in the conversation.  And I'm not alone. Check here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html),  and here (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history) for starters.
  If you want to talk about meaningless and costly wars, Iraq is a prototype for all president's to follow.  Less safe and less free with a huge bill.

  As far as ignoring the rule of law, consider that Bush wanted to imprison people indefinitely  with no trial, judge, jury or process of any kind.  Thank heaven the Supreme Court rejected him on that one.

 Also, lets not forget about using torture and the politicization of the Department of Justice.  And all the talk about how he's trying to protect us and national security this and national security is precluded by his administration's outing of Valerie Plame.

He should be prosecuted for war crimes for his policy of torture.  When that happens, there will be no question at all who is the worst of all time.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: sheltron5000 on July 14, 2008, 12:09:00 AM
If bush is NOT the worst president ever, then who is? Hoover, is a close second, but even Nixon had more responsible policies.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 14, 2008, 06:55:18 AM
The polls all show Obama is way ahead. No one wants another four years of a racist dictator like Bush.

Ah yes, one need only look at Bush's all white cabinet, all white advisors, and all white military leaders to see that he is a racist. And he is a fabulous dictator who was elected twice.
Dictator: A ruler who is not restricted by a constitution, laws or any opposition.

No saintly democrat has bothered to restrict Bush, he isn't bound by any laws, and ignores the constitution.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
Slowbama will lose unless he continues turning his back on the hard core lefties who propelled him into the race and becomes more and more moderate. Of course, then he loses the hard-core lefties, eager to destroy anyone who deviates from their platform of racism and total dependance on big government and high taxation.
Obama can only win one way - and he knows it. He needs to prove that he isn't a radical lefty. But folks like you will always whine about Bush until someone else is President - then you'll whine about them.
Maybe he can pull a Clinton and co-opt the republican agenda. Then you'll call him a saint, even if he commits perjury, has sex with multiple women while married, and ignores national security threats.
Tell me, were you one of the many dailykossacks who wished Tony Snow would die from colon cancer?

Bush is the worst thing to happen to the country.

Mission accomplished.

Yeah. His administration sure trumps the economic and foreign policies of Carter's administration. Why just today I sat in line all day to try and find gas to put in my car while checking my empty bank account and thinking about that guy I heard about in the news who has been sitting as a hostage in a foreign country that has declared war on our nation while we do nothing about it for FOUR YEARS and wondered how the hell I was going to be able to afford a home when the bank wants 19.99% on a 30 year home loan.

Bush sure is worse than James Buchanan, who publicly lobbied to continue slavery and sent the US military at war with Brigham Young and the Mormons - the most expensive, meaningless, inconsequential war (which he fought against his own citizens) in US history up to that time. Oh yeah, and by the way - while off fighting the mormons, he was actively ignoring the southern militia's (who were stirring up trouble and got people talking about seceeding from the nation). Of course, then he made a wonderful speech saying, essentially, that while it would be illegal to seceede, the federal government had no right to prevent it. 17 days later, south carolina left the union and was soon followed by the remaining 6 states, which later created the confederacy. By the time Buchanan was getting ready to leave the office, most of the military strongholds, fortifications, artillery and bases had been overrun and the civil war was inevitable. He was FAR better than Bush.... If you don't know anything about history.

Bush was less than ideal, but the 'worst president ever' nonsense is greatly exagerrated by those who don't care to check before they say things. I know, why look at history when making grandiose, pop-culture statements?


feel better if name couple sewage treatment plants after buchanan?  never say julie not open compromise.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: $Bill on July 14, 2008, 07:38:18 AM
Bush, Grant, Hoover.

Nixon may have tended towards being a monster but he knew how to hire very smart people. 
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 14, 2008, 10:14:24 AM

Well, he's definitely in the conversation.  And I'm not alone. Check here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html),  and here (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history) for starters.
  If you want to talk about meaningless and costly wars, Iraq is a prototype for all president's to follow.  Less safe and less free with a huge bill.

  As far as ignoring the rule of law, consider that Bush wanted to imprison people indefinitely  with no trial, judge, jury or process of any kind.  Thank heaven the Supreme Court rejected him on that one.

 Also, lets not forget about using torture and the politicization of the Department of Justice.  And all the talk about how he's trying to protect us and national security this and national security is precluded by his administration's outing of Valerie Plame.

He should be prosecuted for war crimes for his policy of torture.  When that happens, there will be no question at all who is the worst of all time.

Who was Bush 'wanting' to imprison indefinitely without habeus corpus?  Oh yeah, foreign nationals suspected of terrorism.  Not American citizens.  I'm sorry, but some very intelligent, rational people believe that the supreme court decision weakened America and made us less safe, me included.

The war isn't meaningless, unless you buy the nonsense from the anti-war folks with an agenda.  In their skewed world there are no wars worth fighting.  These are the same people who opposed WWII and every other war that has ever been fought.  Why not go try to find the meaning of the war rather than only reading stories from the NYT and Rolling Stone?  What amazes me is that people who tend to hold leftist views tend to only read leftist reporters and pundits, then wonder why they can't handle a discussion with anyone but their closest leftist friends (the same is true for people who stray too far to the right, by the way).  The difference between this war and others wars is that we are going to actually finish the job and stand up a free Iraq.  We didn't do that in Iraq I, Kosovo, Korea, or Vietnam.  In the last Iraq war, a President looking to avoid a long, costly war, pulled out of the country - abandoning the groups of militia men we had encouraged to fight against Saddam and his army.  We sentenced them to death and Saddam was happy to dole out the sentence.  Incidentally, this is why he was executed.  The estimates are just that - estimates- because no one really knows how many Iraqi's Hussein killed when we accepted surrender, but let him gas his own people as we withdrew our own. 
Another unavoidable truth that the left likes to ignore is that we don't need more enemies to be created by our historical policy of kicking ass and leaving town.  When Afghanistan was at war with the Soviet's (the soviet's vietnam), we sent troops to train and equip the resistance.  What we did there was a good thing and very necessary.  But then we left them to die and did nothing to aid the afghan people after the war.  This pissed off quite a few people, inlcuding Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible for 9/11 and other attacks against the US.  There is a point to what we are doing.
I love it when people bring up Valerie Plame.  She was not a covert operative.  Everyone knew who she was.  Her husband did more to 'out' her than anyone from the bush administration did.  That was a joke.  The entire plame scandal was an ridiculous farce and most people who matter know that.
I see no evidence of any war crimes whatsoever.  And the mere fact that you would entertain such and idea only shows a complete lack of understanding of what a war crime is or a complete misinterpretation fueled by your own partisanship.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 14, 2008, 10:19:04 AM
If bush is NOT the worst president ever, then who is? Hoover, is a close second, but even Nixon had more responsible policies.

I take it you didn't read my post where I discussed two that were imminently more qualified for the title.

James Buchanan.
Jimmy Carter.

In my book, they go 1,2 hands down.
Hoover belongs in the top 5, but I think Bush probably does too.
Usually people accuse Bush of being the worst president ever because they don't realize that there have a been a few more than just Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Trust me.  There have been far worse Presidents.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 14, 2008, 01:09:09 PM

Well, he's definitely in the conversation.  And I'm not alone. Check Thereith the Soviet's (the soviet's vietnam), we sent troops to train and equip the resistance.  What we did there was a good thing and very necessary.  But then we left them to die and did nothing to aid the afghan people after the war.  This pissed off quite a few people, inlcuding Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible for 9/11 and other attacks against the US.  There is a point to what we are doing.
I love it when people bring up Valerie Plame.  She was not a covert operative.  Everyone knew who she was.  Her husband did more to 'out' her than anyone from the bush administration did.  That was a joke.  The entire plame scandal was an ridiculous farce and most people who matter know that.
I see no evidence of any war crimes whatsoever.  And the mere fact that you would entertain such and idea only shows a complete lack of understanding of what a war crime is or a complete misinterpretation fueled by your own partisanship.
Imprisoning people, now matter who they are, without a trial, jury or hearing is anathema to the rule of law and Amercian principles of justice.  Fair is fair.  It drives me crazy that citizens like yourself are willing to do anything to "make us safer" even if it compromises our legal and moral principles.  Allowing police to search a home without a warrant would also make us safer, and I'm sure you'd argue for that too.

As far as the Iraq war, the justification for it has shifted so many times it makes my head spin.  Whatever the justification, it was not worth the costs in lives, money and political clout.  Bush ran on a platform of no nation building and the Repubs were in an uproar when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia, what's their justification for their hypocrisy now?

The point about Valerie Plame is that the administration retaliated against her for her husband's debunking their false claims about Iraq.  Whether she was undercover or not has become a disputed issue, but the retaliation and coverup are not disputed.

You didn't respond to the politicization of the Department of Justice and their discrimination against people for their political views.  I bet that's not where this ends.

The Bush administration authorized the use of torture, no question about that.  The war crimes charges are coming:

"Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges.

...
So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?em&ex=1216180800&en=0261ed250e2d7aab&ei=5087%0A

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 14, 2008, 01:42:07 PM
well, let's see.  start with terrorism.

when our nation attacked by terrorists, did gump actually do much about it?  no, he just pretend.  instead, he ignore warnings from own people about impending attacks.  instead, he put most resources into fighting people who not have any connection to attacks, but who fit into his idiot advisors' preconceived grand theories about world domination--and also, apparently, get some revenge for his pappy.  instead, he violate constitution by eavesdropping on americans without warrants, unwilling abide by even minimal checks by judiciary;  had this actually caught any terrorists, julie sure we would've heard about it, as certainly gump has pretended caught actual terrorists at other times.  instead, he torture and imprison indefinitely suspected terrorists whose link to terorism so weak he going let most go rather than offer even minimal evidence justify holding them these many years.  instead, he torture prisoners so that now that what u.s. p.o.w.s can expect elsewhere.  instead, he give us record deficits support this, making sure line cronies' pockets.  and especially, instead, he and his chumps question patriotism and even loyalty of anyone who question what he do.

at least buchanan not attack canada and pretend he doing something.

game already over.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 14, 2008, 02:29:14 PM
"Allowing police to search a home without a warrant would also make us safer, and I'm sure you'd argue for that too."

Why is it when we talk about the Bush administration and detention of enemy combatants, the best arguments are made using US citizens and hypothetical abuse of their rights?  I would NOT argue for allowing police to search homes without warrants.  But those homes are in the US.  I have no problem with the US military doing the same in Iraq, afghanistan or any other country where we have troops.  Which is why your argument is false.  Have you seen reports of US citizens being detained without habeus corpus rights or are you just not able to seperate the rights of US citizens and the rights of enemy combatants who are foreign nationals?  Do they have the same rights in your book?  Does Khalid Sheik Muhammed or Osama bin Laden have the same rights as Joe American?

"Whatever the justification, it was not worth the costs in lives, money and political clout."
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  I respect it and wouldn't dare think less of you for it.  But I disagree completely.  And of the soldiers and veterans I've spoken to, few agree with you.  But that's what's great about this country - you and I can disgree without fear of dismemberment or rioting.

"The point about Valerie Plame is that the administration retaliated against her for her husband's debunking their false claims about Iraq.  Whether she was undercover or not has become a disputed issue, but the retaliation and coverup are not disputed."

Yeah, ok.  Forget the fact that he didn't debunk anything, nor was he qualified to make such an assertion.  He went, spoke to one guy who said that while he wasn't aware of any uranium purchases, he had been approached by an iraqi official about potentially purchasing uranium.  And they didn't retaliate against him for what he said.  If anything, he used an op-ed piece in the newspaper to trash the administration.  And if you look at the case, most of the charges were unfounded and thrown out.  They got him on some bull perjury, obstruction and making false statements charges.  Patrick Fitzgerald was so embarrassed that he tucked tail and returned to chicago to his 'day job'.  The retaliation and coverup are hardly settled, legally speaking, and no charges related to either were proven.  But revisionist history IS more fun than the truth, I guess.

"You didn't respond to the politicization of the Department of Justice and their discrimination against people for their political views.  I bet that's not where this ends."
Sorry about that.  I find it rather boring of a subject because it makes no sense.  But I can explain.  Bush didn't politicize the DOJ.  He politicized the USAG's office, an office full of political appointees that has always been politicized.  Bush's mistake was keeping on Clinton's people for so long.  See, USAG's are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President.  I'm sorry so few like this fact, but it is hardly new.  When Clinton took office, he fired the lot and put members of the democrat party into those positions.  The USAG's who were fired refused to investigate democrat corruption, voter fraud, and other alleged crimes.  Boo-hoo.  The way I see it, these people were under Bush's thumb and if you or I refused to do the work our supervisor gave us, we'd be out of jobs too.

"The Bush administration authorized the use of torture, no question about that."
Only if you define the word 'torture' in a way that makes it convenient to come to that conclusion.  Waterboarding, the evil pointed to by so many on the left, simply isn't torture.  I've seen the video of reporters undergoing it and moments later, they are fine.
As a matter of fact, here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227357,00.html#
And while some whine about 'controlled conditions' etc., understand that this is done by trained operatives with medics on the ready in a controlled environment.  The operatives are not angry.  They are calm and do their jobs carefully.

""Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges. "

Ok. That's his opinion.  He's entitled to it.  did you know that was supposed to be a classified report?  Amazing that it got leaked, no?  When they do investigations, especially classified one's, they send more than one person to compile more than one report.  Funny how the other reports didn't get 'leaked' no?  Or did you think that this country, investigating possible torture, would send one guy to write one report?  When a laptop got stolen at my job last year, 15 people investigated the matter and it generated 3 reports, each with different conclusions.  None were 'leaked'.  A $900 laptop.

"So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.”"

Who cares what he advised?  Are they listening?  Are they concerned?  Is their any voracity to this advice?
I advise you not to travel to a US military base because of your criticism of the war.  Does that mean that advice means anything, or are they just words I use to make a fantastic point?  words.  How's those indictment papers from the international courts coming along?  Can they just be snatched up in the middle of the night at their hotel rooms by international police?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 14, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
well, let's see.  start with terrorism.

when our nation attacked by terrorists, did gump actually do much about it?  no, he just pretend.  instead, he ignore warnings from own people about impending attacks.  instead, he put most resources into fighting people who not have any connection to attacks, but who fit into his idiot advisors' preconceived grand theories about world domination--and also, apparently, get some revenge for his pappy.  instead, he violate constitution by eavesdropping on americans without warrants, unwilling abide by even minimal checks by judiciary;  had this actually caught any terrorists, julie sure we would've heard about it, as certainly gump has pretended caught actual terrorists at other times.  instead, he torture and imprison indefinitely suspected terrorists whose link to terorism so weak he going let most go rather than offer even minimal evidence justify holding them these many years.  instead, he torture prisoners so that now that what u.s. p.o.w.s can expect elsewhere.  instead, he give us record deficits support this, making sure line cronies' pockets.  and especially, instead, he and his chumps question patriotism and even loyalty of anyone who question what he do.

at least buchanan not attack canada and pretend he doing something.

game already over.

I was sure we went into afghanistan to shut down al-qaeda and hunt Bin Laden.  Maybe I was dreaming.  No, wait.  I had a friend who went there with a group called "The U.S. Military". 

I know it's easy to confuse everything, but we went into Afghanistan (we're still there).  AND we went into Iraq.  Intelligence, which the international community and the US congress believed at the time, said that Hussein was arming and financing terror organizations, had met with Bin Laden's people, and had WMD's.  He was also refusing to follow the terms of the cease fire agreement Saddam signed.  And he was killing his own people.

Try taking off your hard core, anti-war, lefty hat for a few minutes and read something other than articles written by anti-war lefties for a change.  You might learn something.

Who am I kidding.  You don't care about the truth.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 14, 2008, 02:37:55 PM
yes, this certainly gump's line of propaganda on iraq, and we all heard it many times before.  julie not refer to afghanistan, except we certainly seem have bungled that pretty well.

so, your argument "guilty, but with lame excuse."

worst.  president.  ever.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 14, 2008, 02:40:41 PM
yes, this certainly gump's line of propaganda on iraq, and we all heard it many times before.  julie not refer to afghanistan, except we certainly seem have bungled that pretty well.

so, basic`ally, your argument "guilty, but with lame excuse."

worst.  president.  ever.



Nice to see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved at all.  YOUR argument may be 'guilty, but with lame excuse', but certainly not mine.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 14, 2008, 02:42:17 PM
ha ha.  even james buchanan know you wrong.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 14, 2008, 02:54:23 PM
"Allowing police to search a home without a warrant would also make us safer, and I'm sure you'd argue for that too."

Why is it when we talk about the Bush administration and detention of enemy combatants, the best arguments are made using US citizens and hypothetical abuse of their rights?  I would NOT argue for allowing police to search homes without warrants.  But those homes are in the US.  I have no problem with the US military doing the same in Iraq, afghanistan or any other country where we have troops.  Which is why your argument is false.  Have you seen reports of US citizens being detained without habeus corpus rights or are you just not able to seperate the rights of US citizens and the rights of enemy combatants who are foreign nationals?  Do they have the same rights in your book?  Does Khalid Sheik Muhammed or Osama bin Laden have the same rights as Joe American?

"Whatever the justification, it was not worth the costs in lives, money and political clout."
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  I respect it and wouldn't dare think less of you for it.  But I disagree completely.  And of the soldiers and veterans I've spoken to, few agree with you.  But that's what's great about this country - you and I can disgree without fear of dismemberment or rioting.

"The point about Valerie Plame is that the administration retaliated against her for her husband's debunking their false claims about Iraq.  Whether she was undercover or not has become a disputed issue, but the retaliation and coverup are not disputed."

Yeah, ok.  Forget the fact that he didn't debunk anything, nor was he qualified to make such an assertion.  He went, spoke to one guy who said that while he wasn't aware of any uranium purchases, he had been approached by an iraqi official about potentially purchasing uranium.  And they didn't retaliate against him for what he said.  If anything, he used an op-ed piece in the newspaper to trash the administration.  And if you look at the case, most of the charges were unfounded and thrown out.  They got him on some bull perjury, obstruction and making false statements charges.  Patrick Fitzgerald was so embarrassed that he tucked tail and returned to chicago to his 'day job'.  The retaliation and coverup are hardly settled, legally speaking, and no charges related to either were proven.  But revisionist history IS more fun than the truth, I guess.

"You didn't respond to the politicization of the Department of Justice and their discrimination against people for their political views.  I bet that's not where this ends."
Sorry about that.  I find it rather boring of a subject because it makes no sense.  But I can explain.  Bush didn't politicize the DOJ.  He politicized the USAG's office, an office full of political appointees that has always been politicized.  Bush's mistake was keeping on Clinton's people for so long.  See, USAG's are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President.  I'm sorry so few like this fact, but it is hardly new.  When Clinton took office, he fired the lot and put members of the democrat party into those positions.  The USAG's who were fired refused to investigate democrat corruption, voter fraud, and other alleged crimes.  Boo-hoo.  The way I see it, these people were under Bush's thumb and if you or I refused to do the work our supervisor gave us, we'd be out of jobs too.

"The Bush administration authorized the use of torture, no question about that."
Only if you define the word 'torture' in a way that makes it convenient to come to that conclusion.  Waterboarding, the evil pointed to by so many on the left, simply isn't torture.  I've seen the video of reporters undergoing it and moments later, they are fine.
As a matter of fact, here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227357,00.html#
And while some whine about 'controlled conditions' etc., understand that this is done by trained operatives with medics on the ready in a controlled environment.  The operatives are not angry.  They are calm and do their jobs carefully.

""Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated detainee abuse for the Army, concluded that “there is no longer any doubt” that “war crimes were committed.” Ms. Mayer uncovered another damning verdict: Red Cross investigators flatly told the C.I.A. last year that America was practicing torture and vulnerable to war-crimes charges. "

Ok. That's his opinion.  He's entitled to it.  did you know that was supposed to be a classified report?  Amazing that it got leaked, no?  When they do investigations, especially classified one's, they send more than one person to compile more than one report.  Funny how the other reports didn't get 'leaked' no?  Or did you think that this country, investigating possible torture, would send one guy to write one report?  When a laptop got stolen at my job last year, 15 people investigated the matter and it generated 3 reports, each with different conclusions.  None were 'leaked'.  A $900 laptop.

"So hot is the speculation that war-crimes trials will eventually follow in foreign or international courts that Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, has publicly advised Mr. Feith, Mr. Addington and Alberto Gonzales, among others, to “never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel.”"

Who cares what he advised?  Are they listening?  Are they concerned?  Is their any voracity to this advice?
I advise you not to travel to a US military base because of your criticism of the war.  Does that mean that advice means anything, or are they just words I use to make a fantastic point?  words.  How's those indictment papers from the international courts coming along?  Can they just be snatched up in the middle of the night at their hotel rooms by international police?

Why should anyone be locked up without evidence for the rest of their lives?  Does it even matter where they were born?  Leaving the Constitution aside, does it make moral sense?  Dont give me that it makes us safer bit, because that could be said about many many immoral and illegal practices.  Whatever happened to that chining city on the hill that was above abusing its power?

As far as the DOJ, I'm talking about the hiring, firing AND prosecution practices based on party affiliation.  If justice is justice, then it doesnt matter what political leanings one has. 

Um, President Bush said Iraq tried to get uranium from Africa in his state of the union speech, did he not?  That was a blatant lie. How did they not retaliate against him?  And how did they not cover it up?  Didn't the White House deny any involvement when the top aide to the VP was intimately involved?  And if Perjury is no big deal, then why did the Repubs make a huge deal of it with Clinton?

Iraq was not threatening us and had nothing to do with 9-11.  The justification was not there, but the emotional response of getting revenge was.  Whoever approved the war will be shamed by history, Dems and Repubs.

Iraq has cost lots and lots of money that we don't have and innocent Iraqi lives that were caught in the crossfire.  Republicans gripe about government waste, but this is the prime example of a double standard.  Do you have any concept of what we could have done with that money? 

As far as torture: First, how is physical coercion ever appropriate to get a confession?  Second, waterboarding is torture.  Third, the practices they use are modeled after China's, and we called it torture back then.  Fourth, someone who worked for the U.S., was privy to all the information and investigated the issue says that it was torture. Finally, there should be no debate whether interrogation measures used are torture or not, if they are even close, then they shouldn't be used because of the likelihood of getting false information and basic human decency.  Ask yourself, would you want an American troop to be treated the way we treat our detainees?  I should hope not, but that is what we are setting them up for and will have no grounds for complaining when it happens.

I'll be throwing one party when he leaves office and another when his associates are charged with war crimes.

Worst. President. Ever.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Donkey on July 14, 2008, 02:59:31 PM
Obama will win because the country gets a populist urge every 30 years or so. This time the Republicans have become such big government guys that no one will stop him.

And when Obama's socialist tax hikes fail to fix anything, just remember that you were told. If you want proof, think back to the Great Society that wasn't. Again, the Great Society was a failure, so why would socialism magically work this time?

Bush may be a fairly terrible President, but he's basically like Clinton, except W wasted money on a war and not useless social programs. The result is the same; we get no actual return on either.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 14, 2008, 03:02:41 PM
fix things?  julie happy this point not see whole country go hell.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 14, 2008, 06:14:08 PM
"Ask yourself, would you want an American troop to be treated the way we treat our detainees?  I should hope not, but that is what we are setting them up for and will have no grounds for complaining when it happens."

You mean terrorists might start doing things to our soldiers, like beheading them or cutting off their genetalia and shoving it down their throats?
Boy.  That would be terrible if it wasn't already happening well before we tortured anyone.
What you are doing is equivocating us with them, and that's your mistake in this situation.  We are responding to terrorists who hide behind the people they claim to be fighting for, who use children as shields and who set IED's with the intent to maim anyone they don't manage to kill.  For being there.  In Iraq. 

"I'll be throwing one party when he leaves office and another when his associates are charged with war crimes.

Worst. President. Ever."

Sounds more like the most boring parties ever.
There will be no war crime charges.  And Obama won't win.  The reason he won the primary was because of his ability to unify the far left fringe.  Now that he's starting to soften his stances and move his campaign towards the center, he loses his advantage.
Of course if he wins, get ready to get raped on taxes when you manage to pass the bar - his tax hikes are likely to hit you harder than anyone, especially if you manage biglaw.
An Obama presidency is nothing more than a new old policy that failed before and will fail again.  At least with McCain, we have a chance to avoid the massive depression that would be the result of an Obama Presidency.  Gas prices are higher than ever, people's homes are worth less than they were 6 months ago, mortgage rates are rising, and spending is down.  Obama wants to raise taxes, which will leave the average american with even less disposable income, causing a further dip in consumer confidence and an even worse economy.  Food prices will rise significantly as the cost of living rises, production drops and unemployment skyrockets, directly proportional to the effect taxes will have on the american small business owner (many of whom will be forced to either reduce staff or go bankrupt). 
If you don't like Bush, that's ok.  But the Obamessiah won't save or solve any single problem that you think is important.  Not one.  He's now changed his stance on Iraq and afghanistan so much that it seems quite similar to McCain's plan.
Obama won't win, and if he does it will be a very difficult, depressing 4 years followed by a Republican President and Congress.
Did anyone notice or care that the democrat run congress has beaten their own low score on the congressional rating, a new record low in the history of that rating?
Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!
See you in November.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 14, 2008, 06:38:46 PM
"Ask yourself, would you want an American troop to be treated the way we treat our detainees?  I should hope not, but that is what we are setting them up for and will have no grounds for complaining when it happens."

You mean terrorists might start doing things to our soldiers, like beheading them or cutting off their genetalia and shoving it down their throats?
Boy.  That would be terrible if it wasn't already happening well before we tortured anyone.
What you are doing is equivocating us with them, and that's your mistake in this situation.  We are responding to terrorists who hide behind the people they claim to be fighting for, who use children as shields and who set IED's with the intent to maim anyone they don't manage to kill.  For being there.  In Iraq. 

"I'll be throwing one party when he leaves office and another when his associates are charged with war crimes.

Worst. President. Ever."

Sounds more like the most boring parties ever.
There will be no war crime charges.  And Obama won't win.  The reason he won the primary was because of his ability to unify the far left fringe.  Now that he's starting to soften his stances and move his campaign towards the center, he loses his advantage.
Of course if he wins, get ready to get raped on taxes when you manage to pass the bar - his tax hikes are likely to hit you harder than anyone, especially if you manage biglaw.
An Obama presidency is nothing more than a new old policy that failed before and will fail again.  At least with McCain, we have a chance to avoid the massive depression that would be the result of an Obama Presidency.  Gas prices are higher than ever, people's homes are worth less than they were 6 months ago, mortgage rates are rising, and spending is down.  Obama wants to raise taxes, which will leave the average american with even less disposable income, causing a further dip in consumer confidence and an even worse economy.  Food prices will rise significantly as the cost of living rises, production drops and unemployment skyrockets, directly proportional to the effect taxes will have on the american small business owner (many of whom will be forced to either reduce staff or go bankrupt). 
If you don't like Bush, that's ok.  But the Obamessiah won't save or solve any single problem that you think is important.  Not one.  He's now changed his stance on Iraq and afghanistan so much that it seems quite similar to McCain's plan.
Obama won't win, and if he does it will be a very difficult, depressing 4 years followed by a Republican President and Congress.
Did anyone notice or care that the democrat run congress has beaten their own low score on the congressional rating, a new record low in the history of that rating?
Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!  Blame Bush!
See you in November.

You prove my point exactly.  Coercion is never appropriate to gain a confession, not when they do it, not when we do it.

No, it will be a great party.  I'll start a facebook invite, maybe we can have a nationally coordinated party.  You're invited of course :)

and I think Obama will win because McCain is just more of the same failed Bush policies.  And you are wrong about his tax policy because he will only raise it on people making over $250,000 per year, so forgive me if I dont shed a tear for their life of hardship.  BTW, how else can the govt oercome the deficit that Bush has created with his reckless war?  Cut spending?  He'll do that too, but you have to admit that sometimes raising taxes is appropriate to offset overspending. 
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 14, 2008, 06:46:51 PM

See you in November.

julie figure you get eaten first by pissants.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 15, 2008, 10:20:00 AM
who eliist now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjJGudkju0g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f6RZwumPws&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/15/111248/275/274/551951
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 15, 2008, 02:11:49 PM
Neither video proves or alludes to any elitism whatsoever.
You are not elitist by the mere fact that you are wealthy.  But I am not surprised one bit that a democrat doesn't understand what the word means either.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 15, 2008, 02:17:17 PM
Neither video proves or alludes to any elitism whatsoever.
You are not elitist by the mere fact that you are wealthy.  But I am not surprised one bit that a democrat doesn't understand what the word means either.

Here's the issue: Being an "elitist" has nothing to do with anything!!!!  I know the Repubs started it, but Dems need to lay off it too. 

Btw, what's wrong with being educated?  Having high standards?  WTF does it have to do with anything? 
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 15, 2008, 02:22:57 PM
Neither video proves or alludes to any elitism whatsoever.
You are not elitist by the mere fact that you are wealthy. But I am not surprised one bit that a democrat doesn't understand what the word means either.

"only way get around arizon a by small plane?"  please.

certainly mccain not elitist by virtue educational achievement or rising socioeconomically, unless oount dumping wife marry rich girl.

gop raise issue, now lets see if can rifde that bronc.  julie not think so.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 15, 2008, 02:40:28 PM
Bush is the worst.  Trying to indefinitely detain someone without any kind of process on the mere acusation of "terrorism" offends me to the core.  I cannot wait for him to be charged with war crimes.  At least they'll give him the chance to defend against the charges.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 16, 2008, 08:47:59 AM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/15/are_facts_obsolete?page=full&comments=true

Obama won't win when his half-cocked supporters wake up and smell what the rock was cooking.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 16, 2008, 11:39:10 AM

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807140006
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 16, 2008, 11:53:21 AM
john mccain, comedian:  http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/15/mccain-finds-rape-hilarious/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: $Bill on July 16, 2008, 01:16:44 PM
See the new JibJab Julie?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 16, 2008, 02:38:58 PM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/15/are_facts_obsolete?page=full&comments=true

Obama won't win when his half-cocked supporters wake up and smell what the rock was cooking.

Is anyone else having a problem with this link, i.e., it is hijacking your browswer?  Say it aint so Jeff
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 16, 2008, 03:02:10 PM
See the new JibJab Julie?

no.  got link for julie?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 16, 2008, 07:24:40 PM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/07/15/are_facts_obsolete?page=full&comments=true

Obama won't win when his half-cocked supporters wake up and smell what the rock was cooking.

Is anyone else having a problem with this link, i.e., it is hijacking your browswer?  Say it aint so Jeff

It doesn't hijack your browser, it just takes a few seconds to load.....
I don't spread bad links.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 16, 2008, 07:28:39 PM
mccain such doofus:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_camps_new_attack_obama.php
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 16, 2008, 07:52:52 PM
mccain such doofus:

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/mccain_camps_new_attack_obama.php

lol.

Now that's a new one.  I dont see it sticking, but its great to hear repubs attack Bush.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 17, 2008, 06:45:43 AM
eat *&^%, mccain:

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1720548620080717
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 18, 2008, 07:06:00 AM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/hearing-gate-ex.html

Hearing-Gate Exposed! McCain Has Worse Afghanistan Hearing Record Than Obama


July 17, 2008 6:13 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports from Capitol Hill: The McCain campaign criticism of Sen. Barack Obama's hearing record on Capitol Hill led us to put the shoe on the other foot.

It turns out that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has attended even fewer Afghanistan-related Senate hearings over the past two years than Obama's one. Which is a nice way of saying, McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has attended zero of his committee's six hearings on Afghanistan over the last two years.

Meanwhile, Obama attended the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Afghanistan in March 2007, although he used the opportunity to ask Gen. James L. Jones, then the commander of NATO, about Pakistan.

Jones also came before the Senate Armed Services Committee that week. But McCain was a no-show.

The findings are surprising given the fact that the McCain campaign loudly criticized Obama this week for failing to schedule any hearings on Afghanistan in the last year and a half.  Obama chairs the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which has oversight of military operations in Afghanistan.

“As the situation in Afghanistan grows more tense, it is time for us to hold a hearing on the mission there,” Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a McCain surrogate and ranking member of Obama's subcommittee wrote in a letter to the Illinois senator. “The success of Afghanistan is critical to the future of NATO and vital to our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

Of the three Afghanistan-related hearings that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has had over the past 22 months, Obama, the presumptive Democratic candidate, has only attended one.

Meanwhile, DeMint, who most recently attacked Obama over Afghanistan, didn't attend any. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, missed one of the Afghanistan hearings too -- while he was in the midst of his own presidential campaign.

A review of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings as listed on the committee Web site for the past two years reveals that McCain's committee has held six hearings that included the word "Afghanistan" in the title or Central Command -- which overseas U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

McCain missed them all.

He missed the hearings with Adm. William Fallon, then the CentCom commander, with authority over Afghanistan, on March 4, 2008, and May 3, 2007.

There was also hearing on June 7, 2007, on the nomination of Gen. Douglas Lute to be the White House war czar with oversight over Afghanistan.

Gen. Jones testified before the Armed Services Committee on Sept. 6, 2007, but that hearing was on Iraq and while McCain showed up late for his opening statement, he was there.

But he missed the hearing on Afghanistan strategy Feb. 14 with representatives from the State Department and Marine Lt. Gen. John Sattler.

He also missed the hearing April, 10, 2008 on the war in Iraq and the "situation in Afghanistan" where Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen both testified.

McCain also missed the Feb. 6, 2008 hearing where the committee considered the fiscal year request for authorizations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But McCain gets a pass for the most egregious Afghanistan-related hearing we could find. In February, 2006 when Republicans were in charge of Congress, Gen. Jones testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and only two senators -- both Republicans -- showed up.

Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., were the only senators who spoke at the hearing. No Biden. No Dodd. No Obama. No DeMint, although to be fair he was not on the committee at that time.

The finger pointing about who attended what hearing when seems besides the point anyways.

Both men have been AWOL from their day jobs for most of the past two years while they are running for president.

Update: McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers, in a statement to ABC News, argued that McCain's years of previous foreign policy experience make up for his recent lack of attendance at hearings.

"The point is that Obama claims to be a leader on Afghanistan, but had the power to hold hearings on our NATO operations there and failed to do so," wrote Rogers in an e-mail, although he did not say why McCain missed his own Armed Services Committee hearings over the past two years.

"John McCain has visited Afghanistan four times, spent 22 years in the military, served for years on the Armed Services Committee, and is a recognized international leader on national security policy," he said. "Obama has never visited Afghanistan once before this week and has no other foreign policy or national security experience to speak of. It isn’t even close."

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on July 18, 2008, 10:53:28 PM
'and the times, they are a-changing'

Obama always said he wanted 'change'.  This week, he got some.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108910/Gallup-Daily-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx

' For the first time in more than two weeks, Gallup Poll Daily tracking finds support for Barack Obama falling outside the 46% to 48% zone that had given him a consistent lead over John McCain since late June.'
'Obama still holds a slight edge, but with just 45% of registered voters saying they would vote for him in November, versus 44% for McCain. '

Try to think back a little.  Just a few months ago, the media had picked Shrillary as the guaranteed winner of the democrat primaries.
And she lost.  Obama tested further left than Shrill, and this energized the loudest group of the democrat base - the far left liberals who vote in the primaries, then stay home during the actual election after realizing that the guy they chose gradually moved towards the center and wouldn't actually be pushing soft socialism.
And now, as we begin the home stretch - SURPRISE - Obama softens his positions and moves center as the far left liberals grow more and more wary of the new, politics as usual, just left of center Obama.  They don't like him.  So they will stay home, making it even more of a reality that the barely conservative McCain wins the election.
What happened to the 'massive' lead Obama had?  The guaranteed victory?
This is Bush v Kerry II, where the democrat loses steam, tries to push towards the center, and loses support.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 19, 2008, 01:18:09 AM
If the electorate choses McSame then they are stupider than I thought, which is saying a lot.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 19, 2008, 03:58:37 AM
'and the times, they are a-changing'

Obama always said he wanted 'change'. This week, he got some.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108910/Gallup-Daily-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx

' For the first time in more than two weeks, Gallup Poll Daily tracking finds support for Barack Obama falling outside the 46% to 48% zone that had given him a consistent lead over John McCain since late June.'
'Obama still holds a slight edge, but with just 45% of registered voters saying they would vote for him in November, versus 44% for McCain. '

Try to think back a little. Just a few months ago, the media had picked Shrillary as the guaranteed winner of the democrat primaries.
And she lost. Obama tested further left than Shrill, and this energized the loudest group of the democrat base - the far left liberals who vote in the primaries, then stay home during the actual election after realizing that the guy they chose gradually moved towards the center and wouldn't actually be pushing soft socialism.
And now, as we begin the home stretch - SURPRISE - Obama softens his positions and moves center as the far left liberals grow more and more wary of the new, politics as usual, just left of center Obama. They don't like him. So they will stay home, making it even more of a reality that the barely conservative McCain wins the election.
What happened to the 'massive' lead Obama had? The guaranteed victory?
This is Bush v Kerry II, where the democrat loses steam, tries to push towards the center, and loses support.


polls right now not mean so much, but to whatever extent thewy significant:  obama ahead.  gallup give him smallest lead of all national polls.

and maybe you heard of little thing called electoral college, where obama looking very good.  and let's not forget such secondary indicators as presidential approval ratings, where picture not be brighter.

this where you resume whistling in dark.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 19, 2008, 04:01:13 AM
If the electorate choses McSame then they are stupider than I thought, which is saying a lot.

we are talking country that chose gump twice--once, anyway.  that grandpa mccain's biggest cause optimism.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 22, 2008, 04:53:20 PM
people catching on:

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/mccain-gaffes-pile-up-critics-pile-on/94168
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 22, 2008, 10:49:14 PM
um mccain is an independent, archie...
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 22, 2008, 10:51:01 PM

1. obama smart, well-informed, and well-organized.
  true

2. americans much more liberal than commonly believed.
false

3. most americans trust democrats much more than gop.
not an issue...not important...obama and mcain not seen in these terms. one is framed as a former pow and a decorated war-hero...the other is seen as an enigmatic, young statesman...you are obviously a hiliary clinton supporter...so sorry for you...boo-hoo.


4. americans want constitution back...
:D :D :D...where did it go?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Procedure on July 22, 2008, 10:52:02 PM
Bush used his gaffe's to his advantage.  Odd, but true.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 22, 2008, 11:14:16 PM
Bush used his gaffe's to his advantage.  Odd, but true.

bush will be revered for his "wrangler politics"...gaffes are his advantage...choppy language...and code language...he made his swagger and mangled speech work for him.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 23, 2008, 05:35:35 AM
um mccain is an independent, archie...

guess that explain why his head so far up gump's ass.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 23, 2008, 05:37:04 AM
Bush used his gaffe's to his advantage. Odd, but true.

bush will be revered for his "wrangler politics"...gaffes are his advantage...choppy language...and code language...he made his swagger and mangled speech work for him.

absolutely.  gump must have at least 15 supporters left.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 23, 2008, 03:52:35 PM
new constituency arise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kj9M9o6fNo&NR=1
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 24, 2008, 07:59:54 AM
Obama's Overseas Success: What's His Secret?
By M.J. Rosenberg - July 23, 2008, 1:20PM

I think I have read every word Barack Obama uttered on his visits to Israel and Palestine and I'm struck by his ability to navigate this tricky issue with such dexterity. After all, everybody is just waiting for him to trip up on the Arab-Israeli issue. Joe Lieberman, the Israeli media, the right-wing pro-Israel organizations are just waiting to pounce on some misstep.

It didn't happen, just as it didn't happen in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And here's why. He knows his stuff. I worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years and I can tell the difference between a staff driven politician and one who knows what he's talking about. The staff driven pol (McCain is an example) is always capable of the big blunder. He does not mix up Shiites and Sunnis because he "misspoke;" he really doesn't know the difference. Same on the economy, he studies a memo and works to assimilate it. But there is no depth.

The sad fact is that most of our politicians are like that. On the Arab-Israeli issue, all they know is that they need to sound pro-Israel. So they end up mouthing the most superficial pieties. They are afraid to talk about the Palestinians because they might say the wrong thing.

They pander and pander, knowing that they won't get into trouble by just sucking up.

Not Obama.

He is pro-Israel and he supports the two-state solution. He is for keeping Jerusalem undivided but supports resolving Jerusalem's status in negotiations. He acknowledges the Iranian threat to Israel but does not endorse a military response to deal with it.

So what's Obama's secret. He's smart. He reads. He knows his sh*t. And that is why the Republicans who are counting on him to lose this election through some verbal blunder are going to be disappointed.

I'm not saying that McCain cannot win. He can. But he'll have to win it. Obama is not going to hand this election to him by stumbling.

I just talked to a friend who saw Obama in Israel. I asked him what his friends in the Israeli media are saying. "What are they saying? They are saying that he's the next President. And they think he's the smartest American politician they have seen yet."

Me too.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 26, 2008, 10:03:43 PM
Obama's Overseas Success: What's His Secret?
By M.J. Rosenberg - July 23, 2008, 1:20PM

I think I have read every word Barack Obama uttered on his visits to Israel and Palestine and I'm struck by his ability to navigate this tricky issue with such dexterity. After all, everybody is just waiting for him to trip up on the Arab-Israeli issue. Joe Lieberman, the Israeli media, the right-wing pro-Israel organizations are just waiting to pounce on some misstep.

It didn't happen, just as it didn't happen in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And here's why. He knows his stuff. I worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years and I can tell the difference between a staff driven politician and one who knows what he's talking about. The staff driven pol (McCain is an example) is always capable of the big blunder. He does not mix up Shiites and Sunnis because he "misspoke;" he really doesn't know the difference. Same on the economy, he studies a memo and works to assimilate it. But there is no depth.

The sad fact is that most of our politicians are like that. On the Arab-Israeli issue, all they know is that they need to sound pro-Israel. So they end up mouthing the most superficial pieties. They are afraid to talk about the Palestinians because they might say the wrong thing.

They pander and pander, knowing that they won't get into trouble by just sucking up.

Not Obama.

He is pro-Israel and he supports the two-state solution. He is for keeping Jerusalem undivided but supports resolving Jerusalem's status in negotiations. He acknowledges the Iranian threat to Israel but does not endorse a military response to deal with it.

So what's Obama's secret. He's smart. He reads. He knows his sh*t. And that is why the Republicans who are counting on him to lose this election through some verbal blunder are going to be disappointed.

I'm not saying that McCain cannot win. He can. But he'll have to win it. Obama is not going to hand this election to him by stumbling.

I just talked to a friend who saw Obama in Israel. I asked him what his friends in the Israeli media are saying. "What are they saying? They are saying that he's the next President. And they think he's the smartest American politician they have seen yet."

Me too.



um...hiliary clinton was smart too.

aye will be voting for obama a third time...but one trip to israel is not convincing...one speech is not enough...contrived is more like it...if he had done this trip one year ago and were returning...oi vey...this trip leaves my throat a little "vegh klempt"...but hiliary kept her campaign going on too long...time is not a friend this year. :-[  remember hiliary's speech, "obama will be a friend to israel"...perhaps too little too late.

also, aye am disappointed by the backstroke which obama has now begun...he was against the surge and said it would not work...those were his convictions...he is only now changing his tune...he stuck to his guns on iraq in the beginning...but now that he has won the nomination...he is not holding a backbone like he did in the beginning...even though he was against the war and aye knew he was wrong...at least he stuck with his convictions...mccain sticks to his convictions on national security with regard to iraq and pushed for the surge even though it was not the safe political choice...and mccain not bush was advocating it strongly...it irks me that obama focused on the surge...why isn't he stickig to discussions on the economy???? don't talk about the surge, man.

sticking to convictions with regard to national security are a priori...NO BACKSTROKE...it is distressing to see obama wobble.obama wants a rapid timetable for u.s. withdrawal but he leaves out that he means it is conditioned on continuing improvement in the security situation...many americans and our indigo group see through this...it is worrisome....the us cannot afford to lose the gains....
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 27, 2008, 05:13:43 PM
Obama's Overseas Success: What's His Secret?
By M.J. Rosenberg - July 23, 2008, 1:20PM

I think I have read every word Barack Obama uttered on his visits to Israel and Palestine and I'm struck by his ability to navigate this tricky issue with such dexterity. After all, everybody is just waiting for him to trip up on the Arab-Israeli issue. Joe Lieberman, the Israeli media, the right-wing pro-Israel organizations are just waiting to pounce on some misstep.

It didn't happen, just as it didn't happen in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And here's why. He knows his stuff. I worked on Capitol Hill for 20 years and I can tell the difference between a staff driven politician and one who knows what he's talking about. The staff driven pol (McCain is an example) is always capable of the big blunder. He does not mix up Shiites and Sunnis because he "misspoke;" he really doesn't know the difference. Same on the economy, he studies a memo and works to assimilate it. But there is no depth.

The sad fact is that most of our politicians are like that. On the Arab-Israeli issue, all they know is that they need to sound pro-Israel. So they end up mouthing the most superficial pieties. They are afraid to talk about the Palestinians because they might say the wrong thing.

They pander and pander, knowing that they won't get into trouble by just sucking up.

Not Obama.

He is pro-Israel and he supports the two-state solution. He is for keeping Jerusalem undivided but supports resolving Jerusalem's status in negotiations. He acknowledges the Iranian threat to Israel but does not endorse a military response to deal with it.

So what's Obama's secret. He's smart. He reads. He knows his sh*t. And that is why the Republicans who are counting on him to lose this election through some verbal blunder are going to be disappointed.

I'm not saying that McCain cannot win. He can. But he'll have to win it. Obama is not going to hand this election to him by stumbling.

I just talked to a friend who saw Obama in Israel. I asked him what his friends in the Israeli media are saying. "What are they saying? They are saying that he's the next President. And they think he's the smartest American politician they have seen yet."

Me too.



um...hiliary clinton was smart too.

aye will be voting for obama a third time...but one trip to israel is not convincing...one speech is not enough...contrived is more like it...if he had done this trip one year ago and were returning...oi vey...this trip leaves my throat a little "vegh klempt"...but hiliary kept her campaign going on too long...time is not a friend this year. :-[ remember hiliary's speech, "obama will be a friend to israel"...perhaps too little too late.

also, aye am disappointed by the backstroke which obama has now begun...he was against the surge and said it would not work...those were his convictions...he is only now changing his tune...he stuck to his guns on iraq in the beginning...but now that he has won the nomination...he is not holding a backbone like he did in the beginning...even though he was against the war and aye knew he was wrong...at least he stuck with his convictions...mccain sticks to his convictions on national security with regard to iraq and pushed for the surge even though it was not the safe political choice...and mccain not bush was advocating it strongly...it irks me that obama focused on the surge...why isn't he stickig to discussions on the economy???? don't talk about the surge, man.

sticking to convictions with regard to national security are a priori...NO BACKSTROKE...it is distressing to see obama wobble.obama wants a rapid timetable for u.s. withdrawal but he leaves out that he means it is conditioned on continuing improvement in the security situation...many americans and our indigo group see through this...it is worrisome....the us cannot afford to lose the gains....


and how julie's little mcsame sock puppet today?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 29, 2008, 01:22:15 PM
from another thread:

:o


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcICalkczr8
Move on.com Obama ad
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 30, 2008, 06:15:01 AM
even allies beginning realize mcsame's campaign total mess:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1217419449-72aqKkUYLWSPdGeTOx0UeQ
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 30, 2008, 07:25:23 AM
mcsame big liar:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/29/ST2008072902360.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LifsuCdTnXo
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 30, 2008, 07:29:38 AM
this one hoot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgF39TRCPPE&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/29/154028/985/430/558938
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 31, 2008, 07:02:29 AM
and this from conservative:

"is john mccain stupid?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745962594698731.html?mod=todays_columnists
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on July 31, 2008, 07:04:59 AM
regarding mccain's turn to gutter:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article749388.ece
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 01, 2008, 02:18:15 PM
polls referenced to electoral votes:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/1/12401/40833/135/560234
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 02, 2008, 10:06:51 PM
the discussion of what the other guy is doing is a big problem...this is part of the "democratic party psychological" paradigm aye have been trying to convey...in addition...aye point out that focusing on the negatives {which many of you are doing} in this election process and how the 527's {among others}...are baiting the democrats increases internet chatter...then the negatives are compounded geometrically...so a rumor becomes the issue in this day and age...it morphs into an issue...so by all means...suggest something negative about obama and keep it going...or take the bait and run with the negative story...the democrats are going to implode on themselves and take a fine "independent" candidate most certainly out of the posturing for the white house until 2012...

keep it up...keep complaining...keep complaining...keep complaining...keep complaining...

we indigos don't care whether it is barack or john...in either case...we win...understand...

this is the democrat party's election to lose...not obamas...obama can only get the ball so far...and thanks to their buddies hiliary and bubba...and their own naysaying...just like the naysayers re: iraq and bush...the naysayers will lose...

not too mention the more important point which most of you will pretend to ignore...except archie fern bunker...who will probably just tell this uppity trini that aye just need to get a comb through my hair and everything will be fine...

florida...penna...and ohio will decide this election...nothing else...no speeches in california stadiums..nor visits to germany...only stumps and hard campaigning in florida and pennsylvania and ohio will win this commander in chief position...

ps...the congressional democrats should sign off on the offshore drilling or this election is in the bag for the independent candidate...don't say aye didn't warn you...again...aye haven't predicted wrong yet...


px.o.rsta
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on August 04, 2008, 06:30:22 PM
I think it's great that Obama played the race card the other day.
Very Presidential..

""Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," Obama said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

I love it when a racist calls other people racists without evidence or for any good reason.
Thanks Obama!  We appreciate the opportunity to make you look inexperienced and wrong!  Prove that the Republicans are doing this and we'll stop the campaign.....

Mmm hmmm.

How's it feel to watch the guy who portrayed himself as liberal in the primaries in an effort to win soften all of his stances and move to the mainstream at full right rudder?  Do Democrats want leaders who change their positions based on polls at every turn?  Sounds neat!
Just curious.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 05, 2008, 09:36:54 PM
barak but especially the democrat congress has to be in full support of offshore oil drilling and opening up drilling in alaska or else the election will be a sweeping victory for the independent, john mccain...

aye haven't been wrong yet.

ps. baraks support for opening up emergency and security resivoir oil is not prudent...that is not the reserve purpose.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 07, 2008, 04:09:06 PM
talk about blind leading blind here.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 08, 2008, 10:15:20 AM
the real john mcsame:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-08-07/news/postmodern-mccain-the-john-mccain-some-arizonans-know-and-loathe/%20/2
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 08, 2008, 01:42:25 PM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/7/171740/6400/152/564293
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 10, 2008, 06:36:24 AM
debunking mcsame's lies:

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,4011209.160.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 10, 2008, 06:43:18 AM
please tell us again how obama not doing so well:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109348/Gallup-Daily-Obama-47-McCain-42.aspx
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: TimMitchell on August 10, 2008, 12:08:59 PM
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/gallupusa_today_poll_mccain_4.html

Although this is 1/8 polls that have him in the lead. If you like on historical polls Kerry was polling with the same margin last August...
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 10, 2008, 05:18:00 PM
had look hard find that, no?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 11, 2008, 08:02:23 AM
concerning "celebrity":

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/embrace_ad
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 11, 2008, 08:07:14 AM
john ("did i mention i pow?") mcsame, warmonger:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/10/153314/656/229/565225
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 13, 2008, 08:05:16 AM
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/gallupusa_today_poll_mccain_4.html

Although this is 1/8 polls that have him in the lead. If you like on historical polls Kerry was polling with the same margin last August...

you missed this one, sweetie:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109435/Support-ThirdParty-Candidates-Appears-Limited-Thus-Far.aspx

obama by 7.  guess he really getting his ass kicked.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 14, 2008, 11:31:25 AM
wow!  check out all that experience:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/mccains-confusi.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 14, 2008, 01:39:46 PM
get ready for disappointment, obama-haters:

http://www.pollster.com/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 14, 2008, 01:52:41 PM
mcsame on economy:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1185304443?bctid=1726708896
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 14, 2008, 03:01:37 PM
john mcsame's personal accomplishments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEmPZoRVRII&eurl=http://openleft.com/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 15, 2008, 12:33:23 AM
talk about blind leading blind here.


my man, obama's handlers are not helping my brother...why the fxxch did he just take a vacation after he just got off of a tour of europe and mesopoetamia???  the organization of this whole thing is a nightmare...what the fuch are they doing????????????

obama's campaign has become soooooo sloppy....what happened?

how much time does the obama camp have to put in to helping hiliary make a good show at the convention...she and her idiot husband should have been backing obama for at least a month...they are treating obama just like al gore...they are trying to set it up for hiliary to run in four years...the dems are going to waste this fine independent candidate...

what the fuch?????

and archie...aye am an intuitive actuary...aye get paid well for my skills...in case you haven't noticed...aye haven't been wrong yet!!!!

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 06:16:52 AM
golly, for "obama supporter," you sure spends lots energy play down his prospects.

and you not been right yet about anything.  you actually predicted thompson win nomination.

putz.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 06:59:15 AM
mcsame's health plan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3JVzb9E0Ms&eurl=http://www.eschatonblog.com/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 07:01:10 AM
mcsame very scary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J9e-X2Buu0&eurl=http://www.eschatonblog.com/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 15, 2008, 07:42:35 AM
golly, for "obama supporter," you sure spends lots energy play down his prospects.

and you not been right yet about anything.  you actually predicted thompson win nomination.

putz.

how blind and silly you are mistah archie bunker.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 07:46:34 AM
julie think archie's views much more along your lines, except he more honest about them.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 15, 2008, 07:55:34 AM
you are the bigot who thinks aye can't get a comb through my hair mistah bunker...

ya moron.


stop dragging your knuckles on the ground... >:(
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 09:03:05 AM
julie doubt you have hair, green card, or brain.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 09:34:35 PM
every campaign need slogan:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Mh1TZAM-AWU/SKU-s1F9yII/AAAAAAAABOg/aSxaZFJk0WE/s1600-h/edwina.jpg

"That's right. She's standing in front of rows of her designer shoes cutting up sheets of freshly printed U.S. dollar bills with a pair of scissors so she can use them as wrapping paper."
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 16, 2008, 10:03:21 AM
julie doubt you have hair, green card, or brain.

now you have something against immigrants? where does your bigotry end, mistah bunker?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 16, 2008, 05:30:21 PM
oh, immigrants fine.  buy you not even citizens, but you try tell us all about our own government,and you know nothing.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 16, 2008, 11:17:32 PM







oh, immigrants fine.  buy you not even citizens, but you try tell us all about our own government,and you know nothing.

 :D :D :D :D :D

oh, shucks...you a bigot.

aye'm telling ya nothing...it is more than obvious what is happening...

and aye am singular, dipshite. a citizen...not not citizens. moron.





















it just julie not like you.  julie guessing you figitive from trini justice.  probably pedophilia.


well you bigot for sure archie...and we already know you degenerate shorteyes...stop guessing...YOU DON"T HAVE A CLUE!!!!!

you don't kmow me...now step off.






ha ha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1JVDRhy7vI&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/jindal-stumped-when-asked-to-new-big-ideas-that-mccain-is-proposing/

pretty weak, archie.


um...so...mccain fully backs up offshore drilling and opening up alaska...not big idea...small ideas...but american people backing it in voter turnout...and if we get independent war hero mccain...so be it...

this is my major problem with my boy, bam'...he can't continue nuancing this issue...aye want him to take a stand...aye think he is about to do this...thank god...but his recent handlers aren't doing a good job...

offshore drilling and opening up alaska will put a cold chill down the middle of the back of opec...right in the saudi kingdom...cheney told them this would happen with his last visit...this is already an election issue.



Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 17, 2008, 06:15:54 AM
it just julie not like you.  julie guessing you figitive from trini justice.  probably pedophilia.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 18, 2008, 07:43:44 AM
ha ha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1JVDRhy7vI&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/17/jindal-stumped-when-asked-to-new-big-ideas-that-mccain-is-proposing/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 20, 2008, 06:03:36 AM
john mcsame, champion of middle class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP-0pedQeGw&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/19/17728/9908/973/570599
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 21, 2008, 07:02:48 PM
straight talk!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&NR=1
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 22, 2008, 01:14:41 PM
economic genius!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sO0TThszDQ
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on August 25, 2008, 04:18:46 PM
2 words for yet another clear indication that Obama will lose and is just going through the motions:
Joe Biden.

There are only a few worse choices he could have made.  Kucinich would have been too obvious of a gift.  Elmo isn't realistic.  But who better to run as VP than a man who once called Obama 'Articulate' and said that he was 'unqualified' to be President?

What with the HUGE lead Obama has over McCain, it's no wonder Julie's been posting clip after clip, trying to convince everyone how evil McCain is and that Obama has a chance.

Anyone remember John Kerry?  He lost too.

NObama '08
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 25, 2008, 04:47:55 PM
hey, skippy, nice sloganeering!
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 25, 2008, 05:09:34 PM
oh, john, you doodle:

http://tnsmi-cmag.blogspot.com/2008/08/cmags-best-of-2008-political-ad_25.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 26, 2008, 09:49:50 AM
traditional media cover for john mcsame, two-faced liar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1WFGQdV73w&eurl=http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/tpmtv_mccains_patriotism_twost.php
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 26, 2008, 10:53:14 PM
after watching hiLIARy give that speech tonight...aye am convinced that that woman is possessed...she is an evil lying crazy person...she looked like a horror show main character...her speech was shrill...and toned out...aye was waiting for the mask to come of and will smith to come out and "shoot the aliens"

she reminded me of that will farrell character on snl with the "voice modulation and tone problem"...but scary...not funny.

if you want to have some fun...turn the volume down when they replay the speech and watch her...scary stuff.



her eyes are soooooo wide open and her head turns so "exorcist like" she appears genuinely c r a z y...


...thank god hiliary is out of this thing...


at least her speech had obama's name in it more than three times...that was the good part...but probably too little and too late...she has done some serious damage...like 1972 kind of damage...

aye despise that lying evil creature...


"where are the men in black?"  to take the crazy creature away????


...now we hope bubbah will be all about obama...he better stay on script...







hey, looky:  palin know nothing about foreign policy so she going "study" it, hopefully get good before great grandpa keel over!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin



you kneejerk response...how bam handlers expect be president when respond rashly? bashing? obama look bashedly...me not so happily.

but folks look at who on top of ticket with regard to kneejerk response...not care first impressions?

we see smiling feminist/independent/mother of 5.  and also see how failed response from opponent.

but do care about experience at TOP of ticket...

you not hear me warning...

be careful who you reminding people about with regard to experience = top of ticket...

better rethink...not so good with failed response?

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 06:13:41 AM
numbnuts.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 10:54:37 AM
great grandpa john and energy independence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfJ0ynnlMys&eurl=http://www.eschatonblog.com
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 04:34:26 PM
friend of labor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOZKeOauNI&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/27/152544/337/19/576614
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 07:18:47 AM
here we see clarity of republican message (from 8/27/08):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkmgB37xZvs&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 11:11:09 AM
great grandpa's adviser on health insurance:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-Uninsured_27bus.ART.State.Edition2.4dce428.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:50:05 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/02446/8401/564/578111
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:55:22 AM
at least republicans not go with one those babykillers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:58:40 AM
now see why obama's organizing experience plenty relevant:

http://thepoorman.net/2008/08/28/stanley-k-y/

obama not just another pretty face!
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on August 31, 2008, 01:31:19 PM
hey, looky:  palin know nothing about foreign policy so she going "study" it, hopefully get good before great grandpa keel over!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 08:55:45 AM
here what palin's sate legislature think:

http://news.aol.com/elections/article/troopergate-could-dog-palin-on-campaign/154906
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 10:06:58 AM
from general jc christian, patriot:

I'm pleased as punch to turn the blog over to Sen. John McCain, again. Please be good to him in your comments -- Gen. JC Christian, patriot

Thank you, General, and hello, voters.

I'm sure you've heard all the stories about how old and out of touch I am. Nothing could be further from the truth. I've shown you that time and time again. Remember how everyone laughed at me when some dumb bastard leaked that I couldn't use an electrical typing intertubes machine? well, I'm using one now, aren't I. I'm saying these words, Joe Lieberman is typing them; and you're reading them on the General's electrical typing intertubes machine pamphlet.

I proved 'em all wrong didn't I.

They also laughed at me when I said my favorite song was ABBA's Dancing Queen. They said it wasn't hip, but I didn't care. It ranks right up there with Turkey in the Straw and Oh Susannah in my book.

But still, you have to play their game, so I found this guy the Mexican kids like. His name is Daddy Yankee. I like that. It sounds patriotic and reminds me of Steinbrenner. He's kind of like a Daddy Yankee. Funny story. Steinbrenner invited me to his house once and when I got there, I thought it was one of my houses, so I just walked straight in and turned on the teevee. No Matlock. I thought someone had touched the channel changing thing again and reacted in the only way a man can. I kicked in the tee vee screen, tore out a a jagged piece of glass, and drove it deep into George's leg.

It was then that I heard a woman screaming. It was the maid, and she was dressed up in one of those maid outfits, so she couldn't be mine--I require my help to wear Argentine Police Uniforms and stiletto heels regardless of gender. That's when I realized it wasn't one of my houses.

I apologized and George was good about it. So I said goodnight and went off to crawl into bed with his wife (I'd forgotten it wasn't my house again). She was also good about it and helped me add to the sleeping bunker I build throughout the night.

Anyway, I didn't come here to have Lieberman prattle on with his electrical typing thing about Steinbrenner. Let's get back to Daddy Yankee. My people told me an endorsement from him would help me nail the high school vote, and what's hipper than that?

So we take him to a high school class and I introduce him saying his song Gasolina is neato. The kids went wild. It was a great event.

Then, later, someone comes up to me and asks me if I knew what the song was about. "Hell no," I say, it was in Mexican. I'm English-only and proud of it."

"Well," he continued, "there's one line in it, 'Dame tu gasolina,' that is Dominican slang for 'Come all over me.'"

I didn't see anything wrong with that, but my aides started acting weird and Lindsey Graham grabbed Joe's notebook and held it in front of him like he does whenever Charlie Crist comes around. So Isaid to them,"What's wrong with that? It's a hip song. It's might be bad grammar, but it feels like Yankee Daddy is coming all over you when he does that talk-sing thing. Who wouldn't like that? It's not like he's actually standing and walking on you, it's one of those metaphor things. Hell, I want Yankee Daddy coming all over me too."

That made Joe laugh so hard he shot snot out of his nose. Lindsey just scrunched up his eyes real tight and groaned loudly before saying he had to go back and change because he spilled something on his pants. Funny, he was only holding that notebook.

So anyway, as you can see, I'm as hip as anyone.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 10:18:56 AM
hilarious:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/3-variations-on-shorter-sarah-palin-by.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 10:48:29 AM
even republicans think paloin gimmick:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/08/focusedthe_sequel.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 04:21:36 PM
palin lawyers up!

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=8933043
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:11:51 AM
obama doing well with former hrc supporters:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109957/Obama-Gains-Among-Former-Clinton-Supporters.aspx
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:33:07 AM
palin as alleged fiscal conservative:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:34:34 AM
more "fiscal conservatism":

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm?csp=34
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:35:53 AM
oh, will palin's "fiscal conservatism" never stop?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-earmarks1-2008sep01,0,6108885.story
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:39:36 AM
palin last nominated secessionist since jeff davis:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_alaska_independence_party.php
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:44:11 AM
from general jc christian, patriot:

Sen. John McCain's wisdom is once again on full display as we learn that he picked Sarah Palin as his trophy veep in order to solidify the confederate vote. Yes, it is true. Sarah Palin hates America with a John Wilkes Booth kind of fervor. Huzzah for the Confederacy!
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 02, 2008, 10:09:21 AM
I wish to note that it is exceedingly interesting that you obsess with republicans while ignoring the mystery that surrounds Obama.

Why haven't you bothered to look into Obama's string of lies, fabrications, and excuses?  Why haven't you bothered to look into the myriad of allegations surrounding his campaign? 

I guess it's just not interesting.  Like many die-hard liberals, you don't care much about who is in control of your own party.  Instead you focus only on the opposition.  Did you ever consider looking at Obama?

Nah, leave the job of carefully examining both candidates to conservatives, who are proud to do both rather than wallow in partisan hackery....
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 10:29:58 AM
incorrect, oh snotty one.  julie talk about democrats all time, such as how well they doing in polls and stuff.

and conservatives "proud do both"?  thanks for julie's best laugh of day so far. you total hoot!

you got something else say, bring it.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 02, 2008, 11:53:27 AM
incorrect, oh snotty one.  julie talk about democrats all time, such as how well they doing in polls and stuff.

and conservatives "proud do both"?  thanks for julie's best laugh of day so far. you total hoot!

you got something else say, bring it.

Yes, you talk about polls.  But most (overwhelmingly so) of your posts are merely attacks on McCain and/or republicans.
Have you looked into how Obama bought his million dollar mansion?  How does it make you feel that convicted felon Rezko puchased the bulk of his land, then sold it back to Obama for pennies on the dollar in exchange for political favors?  Have you examined the fact that 60's radical and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers launched Obama's campaign in Ayers' home?  I wonder why he would do such a thing when Obama portrays that relationship as extremely limited.  How about Obama's claim of working in a bi-partisan fashion when he hasn't done so to date?  McCain did.  Several times.  How does it feel to you to know that Obama claims to be independant, yet has the most liberal, party alignment in the democrat party, never once taking a stance that is contrary to democrat politics? 

The most dangerous thing liberals can do is ignore the mountain of evidence that proves Obama to be a poll driven, ethically challenged, hack politician that owes big favors to terrorists and felons and votes the polls instead of his conscious.....

It's not like the media cares all that much about Obama's past, writing puff pieces until the right wing media raises enough of a stink that it forces them to actually write a story that isn't complimentary to the Obamamessiah...
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 01:28:55 PM
incorrect, oh snotty one. julie talk about democrats all time, such as how well they doing in polls and stuff.

and conservatives "proud do both"? thanks for julie's best laugh of day so far. you total hoot!

you got something else say, bring it.

Yes, you talk about polls. But most (overwhelmingly so) of your posts are merely attacks on McCain and/or republicans.
Have you looked into how Obama bought his million dollar mansion? How does it make you feel that convicted felon Rezko puchased the bulk of his land, then sold it back to Obama for pennies on the dollar in exchange for political favors?

so let's see your documentation, especially that obama not pay market value.

make it good, chump.  and be sure include obama's response.

and julie respond if, and only if, you admit that mccain cheated on his first wife and dumped her young heiress.  did you already know this, or need proof?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 01:31:43 PM
incorrect, oh snotty one. julie talk about democrats all time, such as how well they doing in polls and stuff.

and conservatives "proud do both"? thanks for julie's best laugh of day so far. you total hoot!

you got something else say, bring it.

Yes, you talk about polls. But most (overwhelmingly so) of your posts are merely attacks on McCain and/or republicans.
Have you examined the fact that 60's radical and unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers launched Obama's campaign in Ayers' home? I wonder why he would do such a thing when Obama portrays that relationship as extremely limited.

ayers' violent past occurred when obama 7.  now, he professor who active in community, so obama know him.

unless you can prove obama advocate violence, that ok with julie.

now, julie's turn:  you admit that mccain seem have reputation among many for having rather bit of temper?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 01:35:25 PM
incorrect, oh snotty one. julie talk about democrats all time, such as how well they doing in polls and stuff.

and conservatives "proud do both"? thanks for julie's best laugh of day so far. you total hoot!

you got something else say, bring it.
How about Obama's claim of working in a bi-partisan fashion when he hasn't done so to date? McCain did. Several times. How does it feel to you to know that Obama claims to be independant, yet has the most liberal, party alignment in the democrat party, never once taking a stance that is contrary to democrat politics?


and how you measure this?

and what mccain buck party on lately?  (he did occasionally say something that seem against gop establishment, but then he alweays foreget this spine.)
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 01:37:22 PM
Hey, aren't the Republicans supposed to be having a convention or something? I haven't seen anything about it. Which is weird, because the Democratic National Convention was on like three networks, plus the nightly news.

last night's prime time essentially cancelled.  try tonight.

in meantime, they trying decide which speaker cause least harm to gop cause.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 02, 2008, 01:40:11 PM
Hey, aren't the Republicans supposed to be having a convention or something? I haven't seen anything about it. Which is weird, because the Democratic National Convention was on like three networks, plus the nightly news.

Unfortunately, a pesky hurricane hit New Orleans, so the RNC cancelled the event.  Ass.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 01:41:41 PM
yes.  great grandpa believe he know marketing opportunity when see one.

or at least chance pretend he president.  (now where we hear that accusation before?)
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 02, 2008, 01:43:42 PM
yes.  great grandpa believe he know marketing opportunity when see one.

or at least chance pretend he president.  (now where we hear that accusation before?)

How sad that you have no faith in human beings (unless they are quasi-communists that is).
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 01:50:44 PM
how dare you say that!

julie also have faith in john mccain when he say he not know much about economics and sarah palin when she say she not know what vice prez do.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 02, 2008, 03:22:27 PM
I think it's time we found out what Lindsay Lohan thinks:

"Political Blog

I've been watching the news all morning, like everyone else - and i keep hearing about the issues related to 'teen pregnancy'- It's all related to Sarah Palin and her 17 year old unmarried pregnant daughter. Well, I think the real problem comes from the fact that we are taking the focus off of getting to know Sarah Palin and her political views, and what she can do to make our country a less destructive place. Its distracting from the real issues, the real everyday problems that this country experiences.

I am concerned with the fact that Sarah Palin brought the attention to her daughter's pregnancy, rather than all world issues and what she believes she could possibly do to change them-if elected. I get Sarah Palin's views against abortion, but i would much prefer to hear more about what she can do for our country rather than how her daughter is going to have a child no matter what.

Maybe focus on delivering some words and policy with stronger impact like Joe Biden.
See below for Barack Obama's thoughts:
From Alexander Marquardt
CNN
MONROE, Michigan (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama said firmly that families are off-limits in the campaign for president, reacting to news that GOP running mate Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter is pregnant.

"Let me be as clear as possible," Obama said. "I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president."

Obama said reporters should "back off these kinds of stories" and noted that he was born to an 18-year-old mother.

"How a family deals with issues and teenage children, that shouldn't be the topic of our politics, and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that's off-limits." »

On another note-the last note- i heard a woman say on TODAY on NBC that teens are feeling as if they have to grow up faster. Really? Because, i think that girls that are CHOOSING to be sexually active and are making a conscious decision to grow up faster….. I think that parents need to recognize how important it is to talk to their children about the things that can result from being sexually active if they aren't protecting themselves (birth control, condoms, etc.)

So-those are my thoughts for the day. Enjoy the music  xoxo

Currently listening :
Forever Young
By Rod Stewart
Release date: By 2005-11-07"


Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 02, 2008, 03:29:05 PM
incorrect, oh snotty one. julie talk about democrats all time, such as how well they doing in polls and stuff.

and conservatives "proud do both"? thanks for julie's best laugh of day so far. you total hoot!

you got something else say, bring it.

Yes, you talk about polls. But most (overwhelmingly so) of your posts are merely attacks on McCain and/or republicans.
Have you looked into how Obama bought his million dollar mansion? How does it make you feel that convicted felon Rezko puchased the bulk of his land, then sold it back to Obama for pennies on the dollar in exchange for political favors?

so let's see your documentation, especially that obama not pay market value.

make it good, chump.  and be sure include obama's response.

and julie respond if, and only if, you admit that mccain cheated on his first wife and dumped her young heiress.  did you already know this, or need proof?


Okay - let's try to stay on topic here.  One scandal at a time please...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

"In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day.

Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land.
The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him."

So, to summarize - Obama and Rezko 'happened' to close on the same day.  Then Rezko sold Obama a strip of land which he paid $625k for.  All for the low, low price of $104,500.  I'm sure there was no ulterior motive by Rezko whatsoever....

Obama's response?

""With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko," Obama said.

"It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," the senator said. "

Mmmm hmmm.  And if this was a land deal done by any Republican, you would have brought it up in one of your repetitive, banal posts that illustrate supposed corruption.  Since it happened to Obama, you're more than happy to ignore it and forgive it.

Partisan Hack.
 
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 02, 2008, 03:36:20 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4111483

"The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time. "

"While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000. "

"An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation. "

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/obamas_rezko_deal_the_view_fro.html

"Thanks to the release of Barack Obama's income tax records, we are finally able to get some necessary perspective on the big favor Tony Rezko did for the Obamas in buying what has been termed in the press "the adjacent, undeveloped lot". It turns out this is a seriously misleading description."

"As can be seen, the house and the adjacent lot are landscaped as one property. There appears to be a wall around both properties together, enclosing the house and its side yard.  There appears to be no access from the street to the property Rezko purchased except through the Obamas' driveway. It is, in other words, the yard of the Obamas' house.


Rather than merely purchasing a separate lot, Rezko appears to have purchased the yard of the Obama manse, and allowed them to live in the house+yard property, amounting to a gift (or loan, if you will) of considerable value.


Reportedly, since purchasing a strip of the Rezko lot for $104,500 when the deal became public, the Obamas have errected a fence on the dividing line between the two properties. That is not visibly reflected in the Google Earth picture, though. "

http://amerpundit.com/2008/03/08/mydd-looks-at-the-rezkoobama-land-deal/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-faustian-bargain-_b_82863.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 05:20:56 PM
Okay - let's try to stay on topic here. One scandal at a time please...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

"In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day.

Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land.
The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him."

So, to summarize - Obama and Rezko 'happened' to close on the same day. Then Rezko sold Obama a strip of land which he paid $625k for. All for the low, low price of $104,500. I'm sure there was no ulterior motive by Rezko whatsoever....

Obama's response?

""With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board. But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko," Obama said.

"It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor," the senator said. "

Mmmm hmmm. And if this was a land deal done by any Republican, you would have brought it up in one of your repetitive, banal posts that illustrate supposed corruption. Since it happened to Obama, you're more than happy to ignore it and forgive it.

Partisan Hack.
 

hey, dipshit:  according your own source, obama bought only strip of rezco's wife's lot.  you try make seem like ms. rezco paid $625,00 and then obama pay $104,500 for same land.  that apparently why obama erect new fence: between his now-enlarged lot and remainder of rezco's.  if entire rezco bought bought by obama, there already fence around entire obama perimeter.  sorry, loser.  julie assume you took your best shot.

now julie's turn:  address mccain's adultery and abandonment, if you have courage.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 08:54:10 AM
any wingnuts out there want tell us again about no bump for obama?  he just crossed magical 50% line with gallup:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13094.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 08:56:50 AM
even palin not that impressed with own service as mayor:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palin-on-her-own-executiv_n_123380.html

man, good news from this lady just never stop.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 11:42:24 AM
here your bounce:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/3/05750/35088/559/584234
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 11:44:07 AM
guess now it time talk about what happen in palin's church:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13098.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 11:45:51 AM
palin's speech written even before she chosen:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/putting_words_in_palins_mouth.html
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 11:50:38 AM
from general jc christian, patriot:

In a recent interview with the Politico, Trophy VEEP, Sarah Palin cited a visit to Ireland as evidence that she had foreign policy experience.Yesterday, a deranged band of libislamunistofascists too issue with that claim after learning it was simply a refueling stop during which she never left the airport terminal.

I can't understand why they'd see that as being a problem. A person can learn a lot about a country by sitting in an airline terminal for an hour or two. Certainly such an experience provides one with what one needs to be the Leader of the Free World.

I know this from my own experience. I learned everything I need to know about Georgia during a two-hour layover I had at the Atlanta Airport in '93. I didn't need to go out into the devastated countryside to see that:


an islamunistofascist dirty-bomb attack forced the citizenry to live their lives sealed in large buildings.

the only form of travel between these buildings is a small hermetically sealed subway train.

food shortages have pushed the cost of hot dogs cost to eight dollars and nachos, seven.

at least five percent of the state's economy is based on the sale of shot glasses emblazoned with the words, "Georgia," on one side and the phrase, "Really love your peaches want to shake your tree," on the other.

and that the Georgia Tourism Board is doomed until it finally deals with its luggage-eating mutant problem.

Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: pig floyd on September 03, 2008, 05:40:33 PM
an islamunistofascist dirty-bomb attack forced the citizenry to live their lives sealed in large buildings.

the only form of travel between these buildings is a small hermetically sealed subway train.

food shortages have pushed the cost of hot dogs cost to eight dollars and nachos, seven.

at least five percent of the state's economy is based on the sale of shot glasses emblazoned with the words, "Georgia," on one side and the phrase, "Really love your peaches want to shake your tree," on the other.

and that the Georgia Tourism Board is doomed until it finally deals with its luggage-eating mutant problem.

177.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:18:36 AM
hrc chime in:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/sen-clinton-statement/
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 05, 2008, 07:19:32 AM
hrc chime in:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/04/sen-clinton-statement/


 :D :D :D...

yeah thanks hiliary...pretty sure she thinks she will have a go at this thing in 2012...

you think that was enough or effective????

dumbnuts...
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 05, 2008, 11:10:56 AM
"A poll released today by CBS News reports that Barack Obama's post-Democratic convention bounce has been erased — and that for the first time, John McCain has drawn even with his Democratic opponent in the network's poll.

Only hours before McCain accepts his party's nomination in what will likely be the most-viewed moment thus far of his presidential bid, the race is knotted at 42 percent apiece, with 12 percent of voters stating that they are undecided, according to CBS. Obama was ahead 48 percent to 40 percent by CBS’ measure following the Democratic convention."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13168.html

Now THAT is funny....
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:06:04 PM
"A poll released today by CBS News reports that Barack Obama's post-Democratic convention bounce has been erased — and that for the first time, John McCain has drawn even with his Democratic opponent in the network's poll.

Only hours before McCain accepts his party's nomination in what will likely be the most-viewed moment thus far of his presidential bid, the race is knotted at 42 percent apiece, with 12 percent of voters stating that they are undecided, according to CBS. Obama was ahead 48 percent to 40 percent by CBS’ measure following the Democratic convention."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13168.html

Now THAT is funny....

surely you not mean this poll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:07:01 PM
or this one:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110065/Gallup-Daily-Obamas-Lead-Now-Points.aspx
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:07:49 PM
and by way, cupcake, it all about state-by-states, where obama lookin' good.

you've heard of electoral college, perhaps?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 06, 2008, 12:36:02 AM
and by way, cupcake, it all about state-by-states, where obama lookin' good.

you've heard of electoral college, perhaps?

please, julie.  you HATE the EC.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 06, 2008, 04:13:39 AM
actually, yes julie do.

but it still there, numbnuts.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 06, 2008, 11:07:02 AM
For the first time since I became aware of your existence, something you said was funny.
Congrats.  I know you try real hard.  Just know that it has paid off.

Lest you get all excited and end up suicidal, try to think back to Kerry - by all accounts, he should have won in a landslide because all the liberals convinced themselves that everyone they knew were going to vote for Kerry.   Poll after poll showed Kerry ahead, pretty much throughout the election cycle.  Then the results came in - Bush won reelection fair and square.  Personally, I was destroyed.  Then I realized something that you should think about:

Who takes polls?  I've never taken a poll.  No one I know has ever taken a poll.  My parents have never taken a poll and no one they know has ever taken a poll.  I've never met or spoken to anyone who's ever taken a poll.  What the hell kind of scam are these 'pollsters' running here?

Housewives and the unemployed.  The elderly and the disabled.  That's who takes polls.  Because those are the only people that are home when the polls are administered.  When you work all day, you don't have time to take a poll.  So how accurate are they really?  Housewives, the unemployed, and the disabled on public aid tend to skew left.

So Julie - have you ever been polled?

That's why polls are so meaningless.  That's why the President of the US has a low approval rating, but when he speaks he is greeted by adoring, clapping admirers.  Because polls are nonsense.  Housewives don't like the president.  The unemployed blame him for being unemployed.  Meaningless numbers generated by people who are invested in getting people to pay attention to their polls so they can earn a living.

My point is this - I don't underestimate the appeal of Obama to the stupid, the uneducated, and the party rabid loyalists.  Don't underestimate the appeal of McCain to the very people who see him as a hero, as someone to look up to, or as an illustration of the american dream.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 06, 2008, 11:54:59 AM
This post is really f-ing stupid.  Too stupid to be quoted, even.  Normally, I would refrain from calling a post really f-ing stupid, but after that whole Obama appealing to the stupid and uneducated bit, I think it's only fair. 

You've never taken a poll, and no one in your immediate family and no one known by anyone in your immediate family have ever taken a poll.  That proves absolutely nothing.  Promise you'll take evidence.  You really, really need it.   

The POTUS is greated by adoring, clapping admirers one, because he's the president, and when the president comes to town, most people generally put aside substantive concerns and just want to meet the person holding the office.  Two, because people who flock to see a particular president are probably in significant part those inclined to support that president.  Three, because this president's handlers are really good at stocking the audience with avowed fans and question plants. 

Thank you for playing, though, and enjoy the parting gifts. 
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 06, 2008, 04:51:45 PM
This post is really f-ing stupid.  Too stupid to be quoted, even.  Normally, I would refrain from calling a post really f-ing stupid, but after that whole Obama appealing to the stupid and uneducated bit, I think it's only fair. 

You've never taken a poll, and no one in your immediate family and no one known by anyone in your immediate family have ever taken a poll.  That proves absolutely nothing.  Promise you'll take evidence.  You really, really need it.   

The POTUS is greated by adoring, clapping admirers one, because he's the president, and when the president comes to town, most people generally put aside substantive concerns and just want to meet the person holding the office.  Two, because people who flock to see a particular president are probably in significant part those inclined to support that president.  Three, because this president's handlers are really good at stocking the audience with avowed fans and question plants. 

Thank you for playing, though, and enjoy the parting gifts. 

So - have you ever taken a poll?  Do you know anyone who has ever been polled?
Just because I can't provide a list of the millions of americans who have never been polled, doesn't make my argument incorrect.  If you look at the polls carefully, you may notice that most polls are conducted amongst a 'random' sampling of no more than 1000-1500.  That's why polls are so silly - it's a polling of a small group of random people who happen to be home and are willing to participate.

As for my comment about Obama appealing to the stupid and uneducated, that's a fact jack.
Pop star likeability has been a core strategy employed by the Obama people.  Virtually ever major news organization has favored his rhetoric over Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain alike.  When Hillary complained about it, the industry pretended to give a crap, then later fought to be allowed to participate in the Obama European Tour.  I wasn't trying to imply that ALL or even MOST of his supporters are uneducated and stupid, but the fact remains that you will find many Obama supporters who will vote for Obama because he's black, he's not Bush, he's a democrat, and/or he represents hope or change or whatever word that sounds groovy.

But none of those reasons make much sense - unless you are a partisan.  Or black.  Or hate Bush and are unable to see that no one in this election is the same as Bush.  Or you are stupid and think words like 'hope' and 'change' are only the province of the democrat party and Barrack Obama.  I have news for those who do: Just words. 

The fact is that the number one issue I have with Obama sits right there - in the words he uses.  Neatly packaged and marketed properly, but without substance - change and hope is great, but McCain represents change too.  And hope.  The difference is in the approach, not the words.  While Obama was a state senator, he did very little.  When he worked on the Annenberg Challenge with Bill Ayers, there were no marked improvements in the schools that participated.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge

"Results suggest that among the schools it supported, the Challenge had little impact on school improvement and student outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and non-Annenberg schools in rates of achievement gain, classroom behavior, student self-efficacy, and social competence."

That's why Obama hasn't tried to use this as executive experience (though had it been successful, would be a fantastic proof of ability).  While a 'lecturer' at U of C law school, well we just don't know how that went.  You'd think a former student of his would be excited to tell the world how Obama was a genius, a patient teacher, a wise beyond his year, inspiration.  23 years he was on the books as a lecturer or senior lecturer and not one law student has been the focal point of a campaign ad or puff piece.  Ever wonder why that is?  If my K prof ran for President in 5 years, you bet your ass I be telling people how impressive he was as a lawyer and a teacher.  I wonder why no one has done that?  Maybe they have.  Maybe I just couldn't find it. 

The point is if you are going to fall for marketing tricks and elect a president who is running on words like 'hope' and 'change' instead of substance and proven history, I would call that uneducated.  That would be tragic.  If you are going to vote for him because you understand and believe what he says, I would say that there is a chance you are mistaken, but respect your position.  But I have a hard time because people rarely can explain how his positions are better.  Do you really buy this nonsense about not increasing taxes on us, the american people?  He plans on the biggest tax increase in 100 + years, aimed squarely at businesses.  When businesses get hit like this, they stop growth, close plants, increase prices, fire workers, and some move out of country.  That will leave more people unemployed, more people dependant on welfare, unemployment and social security and fewer jobs.  People will take paycuts while paying more for gas, groceries, electricity, goods and services.  We don't live in a vaccuum and shifting the tax burden to business ends up with them shifting the burden back to us.

And by the way, many small business owners don't file as businesses.  I know a guy who owns 5 cell stores.  He opened his first store 10 years ago and has grown and been successful.  Last year I pushed him to incorporate.  But there are plenty who never do.  Many will be taxed at the highest bracket and hit the hardest, while taking home far less than the previous year if Obama is elected.  That's a bet.  Small businesses will suffer more than anyone else.

By the by, I really enjoyed your outrage about 'question plants'.  Weren't the democrats embarrassed, severeal times and quite exclusively because of planted questioners?  I don't recall a republican scandal last year - yup, it was the dems.  Come on dude, pay attention.

I knew you'd give me *&^% about 'proving' it, so here you go:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310316,00.html
"Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy."

I know Obama said he'd never do it, but that's not the point.  Most candidates do it.  Most recently a democrat got caught. 

The reason people are excited to see Bush is because I don't think the number of people who hate him is as high as you think it is.  As a matter of fact, I'd wager more than half the country generally likes him, even though some may disagree with him at times.  And we shouldn't get too deep into this line of thought anyway - while Bush's approval rating is low, there is no way a democrat can bring this up because the democrat led congress' approval rating is the lowest ever, and by a lot.  What does THAT tell you about voters?  It should tell you that Bush may not be the favorite, but nobody's too fond of the left either.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 23, 2008, 06:24:13 AM
certainly no one like you.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Elephant Lee on September 23, 2008, 11:24:32 AM
This post is really f-ing stupid.  Too stupid to be quoted, even. 
I thought you were going to call it stupid based on his assumption that no one had though of or dealt with the problem with poll modeling before. For instance:

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-timespollmethod,0,6786437.story

Now, different firms use slightly different techniques--which is one reason they get different results. This idea that polls have no predictive value, however, is nonsense. RealClearPolitics predicted 49 states correctly in 2004 by aggregating poll results. Both parties do their own polling so that they know where they stand, etc.

I think the issue you should be looking at is that early polling data is not as valuable as late polling data. There are fewer undecideds in the later polling data.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on September 23, 2008, 05:35:15 PM
check out pollster.com, which average several polls.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: sluglaw on September 23, 2008, 06:19:18 PM
huh?  you are being mean and using way too many fallacies.

For the first time since I became aware of your existence, something you said was funny.
Congrats.  I know you try real hard.  Just know that it has paid off. 

the ad-hom.  nice opener.

Lest you get all excited and end up suicidal, try to think back to Kerry - by all accounts, he should have won in a landslide because all the liberals convinced themselves that everyone they knew were going to vote for Kerry.   Poll after poll showed Kerry ahead, pretty much throughout the election cycle.  Then the results came in - Bush won reelection fair and square.  Personally, I was destroyed.

http://www.ncpp.org/files/2004%20Election%20Polls%20Review.pdf

The polls were wrong 11% of the time, and with margin of error.  Personally- and this it a totally unscientific and skewed off the cuff analysis- I thought Kerry ran a poor campaign, was totally uncharismatic and never challenged Bush in a way that looked like it would make significant inroads in defeating an incumbent, something historically very hard to do.  Rolling over on the war, which at the time was still somewhat popular, and lacking significant domestic issues to run on, I personally was optimistic and hopeful but never really thought Kerry would win.  Some were hopeful and others resigned to a third Bush term; but as for the polls, your argument seems wrong.

Then I realized something that you should think about: Who takes polls?  I've never taken a poll.  No one I know has ever taken a poll.  My parents have never taken a poll and no one they know has ever taken a poll.  I've never met or spoken to anyone who's ever taken a poll.  What the hell kind of scam are these 'pollsters' running here?


Really?  You don't see the glaring fallacy in your poll of 'every person you have ever met' versus the professional pollers?  You think they are lying to you?  Does your burning anger at pollsters consume you to the point that you feel obligated to ask every person they meet if they have taken a poll recently?  Personally I don't know if anyone in my close family has taken a poll recently.  Saying that no one your parents know has ever taken a poll assumes that a) they asked every person they knew if they took a poll and b) they relayed that information to you.

Housewives and the unemployed.  The elderly and the disabled.  That's who takes polls.  Because those are the only people that are home when the polls are administered.  When you work all day, you don't have time to take a poll.  So how accurate are they really?  Housewives, the unemployed, and the disabled on public aid tend to skew left.

http://media.gallup.com/PDF/FAQ/HowArePolls.pdf

Wrong.  First of all, I have met plenty of disabled persons, housewives, and unemployed folks who vote for the GOP.  Secondly, pollsters are professional statisticians who develop techniques to account for such discrepancies, such as making repeat calls to the same number at different times to account for at-home patterns and make multiple calls to reduce the error of excluding certain groups based at their habits of being close to a phone at any given time.  Your guess that polls only occur 9-5 m-f is simply wrong, as is your assumption that being a working person requires you to only work those hour, because of course the economy shuts down nights and weekends.


That's why polls are so meaningless.  That's why the President of the US has a low approval rating, but when he speaks he is greeted by adoring, clapping admirers.  Because polls are nonsense.


Even if the president had say, a 10% approval rating, that is still 30 million adoring admirers ready to show up to any speaking event he makes.  The Bush-rally-attending GOP card holding loyalists are a statistical outlier and not indicative of the national mood.

Housewives don't like the president.  The unemployed blame him for being unemployed.

Huh?  How about stay-at-home moms who actually enjoy what they do and want to maintain a strong economy and national security so their husbands can continue to support them and their kids stay safe, the same moms who go to church faithfully and believe in hard work and tax cuts?  Or what about the eco-mommas who want nothing but to see an end to war and get solar panels on their roofs and healthy veggie meals at school?  But wait, I'm wrong, any made-up demographic like 'hockey mom' or 'woman' is a monolithic voting bloc.  Sorry, my bad.


My point is this - I don't underestimate the appeal of Obama to the stupid, the uneducated, and the party rabid loyalists.  Don't underestimate the appeal of McCain to the very people who see him as a hero, as someone to look up to, or as an illustration of the american dream.


It cuts both ways.  There are stupid uneducated people voting for McCain and there are others who see Obama as the American Dream as well, in addition to the legions of disgusted and widely disinterested others who will hold there noses and vote for whoever they think will screw them less (which, by my guess, is absolutely everyone).
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: jeffislouie on September 24, 2008, 01:07:25 PM
Slug -

It's obvious you are new here (welcome).  My ad-hominem attack is well deserved.  Go read anything Julie has posted anywhere if you want to see a definition of ad-hominem.  What I wrote was less an attack than a compliment.

So you know people who have participated in polls?  Yes or no.  I still haven't spoken to anyone that has actually participated.  I am surrounded by professionals - mostly lawyers.  Not one has taken part in a poll.  I used to work at a fortune 500.  My team was a fair representation of the average voter - some were rich, some were poor, some had lots of education, some had little.  There were people from every background.  Of the 15 or so on that team that I used to talk politics with, none had participated in a poll.  So I will say it again - polls are relatively meaningless.  They are a snapshot of a group of supposedly random people who agree to be polled and take the time to take the polls, some of which do so with malicious intent to skew the numbers.  Scott Rasmussen was interviewed by a local talk host and he said 'even the a-holes should be represented'.

Don't make the mistake of interpreting my message as being anti-poll.  It isn't.  But like Scott Rasmussen, I understand that polls are a glimpse into a possibility and in no way are actual reliable predictors of anything.  Polls are random.  Some (i would wager quite a few) take the poll with either an intent to skew them or simply don't actually vote.

The economy DOESN'T shut down nights and weekends.  But the average single 9-5 employee is at work during the day.  When they get home, most don't want to talk to pollsters.  If you want to look at polls to try and predict trends or to try and see how a random group feels, that's okay.  But it is clearly more intelligent to view those polls with a grain of salt.  The most important poll we know of is the actual election, which as we both agree is relatively unpredictable.

My theory about housewives is that they tend to skew liberal.  Most of us have priority issues.  Some of us are single issue voters.  The appeal to the lazy for Obama is palpable - he gets the most positive coverage and many in the media have decided to glorify his holiness and attack McCain.  The fact is that many of us simply don't think the media has given McCain a fair shake.  They pretend that they are hard on Palin because they feel it is important to vet candidates.  Unfortunately for them, the facts bear out that these same media outlets all but refuse to vet Obama - to this day.  Obama coverage tends to be favorable, forgiving, and chock full of spin while McCain coverage tends to be critical, harsh, and negative.

The NYT printed a column by Obama which contained no preconditions.  When McCain responded with his own column, all of a sudden preconditions existed.  The NYT leveled unproven allegations against Sarah Palin while ignoring unproven allegations about Obama and Biden.  Hell, the NYT printed a ridiculous hit piece claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.  They knew their source was crap and that the story wasn't true.  Did they print an investigation into Obama's ties with Rezko or Ayers?  Nah, they ignored it until they decided to make excuses for these stories.

And that's just the NYT.  

What about CNN's coverage of the republican convention vs. the democratic conventions?  CNN talked over speeched at the repub conventions and showed images of white people in suits.  Contrast that to the dem's convention, where they showed celebrity after celebrity and ignored the minorities who were hidden in the wings.  Then they complained about a lack of minorities at the repub convention, which they covered with an all-white male panel.

It's theater.

Polls are part of the theater.  Leaders lead.  Followers follow.  The left seems to want to follow the polls.  The right tends to resist it.

It's an observation, nothing more.  The same points are being made.  When I was SURE Kerry was going to win, I was one of those people who didn't understand how the polls showed he was up and the vote returned a different result.  Think what you want, but this thing is going to be a close one, polls be damned.

It IS interesting, however, that the polls don't reflect the enthusiasm the Obama camp claims exists.  If you listened to these folks talk about it, you'd think Obama was up 20 points.  He isn't.  We are looking at a close race.  Does that mean they are deluded?  Possibly.  It might mean that they are trying, with the media behaving like lapdogs, to convince people who don't care enough to find out for themselves that Obama is not only going to win, but the inevitable next POTUS.  Hence, when I say there is an appeal to the stupid I don't mean that true Obama supporters are stupid, but that you average American who DOESN'T care reads and hears every day that Obama is the next coming.

I live in Chicago.  I read both papers.  Neither has bothered to do much investigating of allegations regarding Obama.  Both have jumped in to criticize McCain and investigate Palin.  The media has an important role of impartial investigation to play.  Sadly, they don't care about that anymore and have chosen instead to use their positions to get Obama elected.  There is no impartial media.  Even Hillary admits that Fox news gave her the most fair and balanced coverage.  I think Fox's commentary is skewed right, but that's one station.  NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and most newspapers tend to skew left.  So why the hubub?  Is it because they have a larger audience base?

The left thinks that the power play is to attack Palin as an awful choice.  Palin reenergized the party.  If she was such a bad choice, why is the race this close?  Because the left seems to think that she is a serious threat.  That choice undermined the faux feminism inherent to the overtly sexist democratic leadership.  Theater.

Both sides are guilty.






Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on October 09, 2008, 06:11:35 AM
all wingnuts go way?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on October 15, 2008, 03:00:39 PM
because he going get more votes?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on October 19, 2008, 06:57:50 AM
how about $150 million raised in sept.?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on October 19, 2008, 01:34:53 PM
how about colin powell?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: sluglaw on December 04, 2008, 12:43:10 PM
Slug -

It's obvious you are new here (welcome).  My ad-hominem attack is well deserved.  Go read anything Julie has posted anywhere if you want to see a definition of ad-hominem.  What I wrote was less an attack than a compliment.

Thanks Jeff!  Delayed response here, but yes I have read stuff by Julie since then and am now more fully aware of the need for the ad-hom.  Obnoxious trolls get no love from me.


Quote
So you know people who have participated in polls?  Yes or no.  I still haven't spoken to anyone that has actually participated.  I am surrounded by professionals - mostly lawyers.  Not one has taken part in a poll.  I used to work at a fortune 500.  My team was a fair representation of the average voter - some were rich, some were poor, some had lots of education, some had little.  There were people from every background.  Of the 15 or so on that team that I used to talk politics with, none had participated in a poll.  So I will say it again - polls are relatively meaningless.  They are a snapshot of a group of supposedly random people who agree to be polled and take the time to take the polls, some of which do so with malicious intent to skew the numbers.  Scott Rasmussen was interviewed by a local talk host and he said 'even the a-holes should be represented'.

Yes, I actually do know people who have taken polls.  The point about your small group of 15 people almost reinforces the idea of why polls can work even if they don't reach every person in America, even indirectly- because a small group can be representative of the larger population.  That's how statistics work and what makes polls accurate.  You don't need to be personally connected to a poll for a poll to be able to find a sample demographic similar to yours.  In a country of over 300 million people it is likely that the vast majority will not be polled, but a good professional pollster will be able to still get good results anyways.

Quote
Don't make the mistake of interpreting my message as being anti-poll.  It isn't.  But like Scott Rasmussen, I understand that polls are a glimpse into a possibility and in no way are actual reliable predictors of anything.  Polls are random.  Some (i would wager quite a few) take the poll with either an intent to skew them or simply don't actually vote.

The economy DOESN'T shut down nights and weekends.  But the average single 9-5 employee is at work during the day.  When they get home, most don't want to talk to pollsters.  If you want to look at polls to try and predict trends or to try and see how a random group feels, that's okay.  But it is clearly more intelligent to view those polls with a grain of salt.  The most important poll we know of is the actual election, which as we both agree is relatively unpredictable.

I will agree with your general sentiment here, that polls should be taken with a grain of salt- but disagree with your conclusion that the general election itself is completely unpredictable.  Trends can be seen in the electorate at large and with enough data a very accurate prediction can be made in advance, ie: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/todays-polls-and-final-election.html
Granted a lot of other predictors got it wrong, but most polls I saw before the election were pretty close to accurate with regards to the final results.

Quote
My theory about housewives is that they tend to skew liberal.  Most of us have priority issues.  Some of us are single issue voters.  The appeal to the lazy for Obama is palpable - he gets the most positive coverage and many in the media have decided to glorify his holiness and attack McCain.  The fact is that many of us simply don't think the media has given McCain a fair shake.  They pretend that they are hard on Palin because they feel it is important to vet candidates.  Unfortunately for them, the facts bear out that these same media outlets all but refuse to vet Obama - to this day.  Obama coverage tends to be favorable, forgiving, and chock full of spin while McCain coverage tends to be critical, harsh, and negative.

From an outsiders perspective I can say that Obama ran an objectively better campaign, was better at damage control, more responsive to the media, and had a better message from the start.  Obama had a larger share of the spotlight from the beginning due to the extended length of the democratic primary.  Since 2006 it has been nearly a foregone conclusion that the 08 race was the democrats to lose, and Obama naturally came in with a very large lead that was expanded by the collapsing economy and floundering McCain campaign (I like McCain and still think he ran one of the worst general election campaigns I've seen).  More than anything the media is horse-race driven, the guy who is ahead on the polls will get a natural boost in coverage, not to mention who has a better handle on the media, will by default be received better in the media.  The media was hard on Palin because she is an easy target, an inexperienced unknown who made mistake after mistake yet still received enormous accolades after making an acceptance speech at the convention that in my view was simply average and really nothing more than a mash-up of all the standard attack lines of the GOP to date.  Add to that the first-black-president angle and a skew in coverage is all but inevitable.  Go back to 2004 and you will see that both Kerry and Dean got piled on by the media because they ran horrible campaigns and made very large public relations mistakes, respectively, and were trashed by a well run campaign by W.  There are real palpable reasons for the things you are complaining about, you need to look past conspiracy theories to get your answers.

Quote
The NYT printed a column by Obama which contained no preconditions.  When McCain responded with his own column, all of a sudden preconditions existed.  The NYT leveled unproven allegations against Sarah Palin while ignoring unproven allegations about Obama and Biden.  Hell, the NYT printed a ridiculous hit piece claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.  They knew their source was crap and that the story wasn't true.  Did they print an investigation into Obama's ties with Rezko or Ayers?  Nah, they ignored it until they decided to make excuses for these stories.

And that's just the NYT.

Yes, and Fox News ran piece after piece about Ayers, frequently mixed up Obama/Osama and generally trashed his campaign the whole way.  It shouldn't come as a surprise that the mainstays of ideological reporting report along the lines of their ideologies.

Quote
What about CNN's coverage of the republican convention vs. the democratic conventions?  CNN talked over speeched at the repub conventions and showed images of white people in suits.  Contrast that to the dem's convention, where they showed celebrity after celebrity and ignored the minorities who were hidden in the wings.  Then they complained about a lack of minorities at the repub convention, which they covered with an all-white male panel.

It's theater.

Polls are part of the theater.  Leaders lead.  Followers follow.  The left seems to want to follow the polls.  The right tends to resist it.

All the coverage I saw of both events tried to focus on minorities and people in the crowds.  It just so happens that the GOP is far more white and homogenous than the democratic party.  And they weren't wearing suits, it was bucket hats with oil rigs on them.  Durr.  It is also well known that there are more celebrities in the democratic party than the GOP- esp this year with Barackstar.

Yes politics is theater.  Yes the media is compliant, hypocritical, and absurdly easy to dupe (think Charlie Brown versus the football).  Yes the GOP has been consistently better at shaping public opinion than the democrats.  So?  This doesn't at all support the notion that polls are inaccurate.  You are making a lot of disconnected points that don't support your thesis.


Quote
It's an observation, nothing more.  The same points are being made.  When I was SURE Kerry was going to win, I was one of those people who didn't understand how the polls showed he was up and the vote returned a different result.  Think what you want, but this thing is going to be a close one, polls be damned.

Click on the link I posted above.  The polls were accurate in 04 and generally predicted Kerry's loss.  JK was boring as all heck and impossible to listen to.  I remember hearing him speak during the World Series and my oh my was it bad.  He was unresponsive and stiff- remember Swift Boat?  If he had spine or passion he would have blasted that to hell, some rich GOP backer trashing a decorate Vietnam vet in support of a son-of-an-oilman chicken hawk?  Kerry rolled over and took it.  Kerry also voted to authorize use of force against Iraq and never made a clear differntiation between himself and Bush on war policy.  He failed to get anyone excited about voting for him.  He was just about as exciting as the ketchup that propelled him to the Senate. If you really thought he was going to win you must have been living with your head in the ground.  I also think it is laughable that you thought this election would defy the polls and be close, when it turned out to be on of the swiftest and cleanest elections in a while, it was pretty much done before polls on the West Coast closed.
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: sluglaw on December 04, 2008, 12:43:31 PM

Quote
It IS interesting, however, that the polls don't reflect the enthusiasm the Obama camp claims exists.  If you listened to these folks talk about it, you'd think Obama was up 20 points.  He isn't.  We are looking at a close race.  Does that mean they are deluded?  Possibly.  It might mean that they are trying, with the media behaving like lapdogs, to convince people who don't care enough to find out for themselves that Obama is not only going to win, but the inevitable next POTUS.  Hence, when I say there is an appeal to the stupid I don't mean that true Obama supporters are stupid, but that you average American who DOESN'T care reads and hears every day that Obama is the next coming.

I live in Chicago.  I read both papers.  Neither has bothered to do much investigating of allegations regarding Obama.  Both have jumped in to criticize McCain and investigate Palin.  The media has an important role of impartial investigation to play.  Sadly, they don't care about that anymore and have chosen instead to use their positions to get Obama elected.  There is no impartial media.  Even Hillary admits that Fox news gave her the most fair and balanced coverage.  I think Fox's commentary is skewed right, but that's one station.  NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and most newspapers tend to skew left.  So why the hubub?  Is it because they have a larger audience base?

The left thinks that the power play is to attack Palin as an awful choice.  Palin reenergized the party.  If she was such a bad choice, why is the race this close?  Because the left seems to think that she is a serious threat.  That choice undermined the faux feminism inherent to the overtly sexist democratic leadership.  Theater.

Both sides are guilty.

I've made all the points that I really want to so I'll answer these quickly:

-having a significant lead does not mean a 20% lead, which would be roughly an electoral college near-sweep, a very rare occurance.  I believe it has happened for two presidents this century: Reagan and FDR.  A "solid lead" in an election is 3-5% just enough to be beyond the margin of error, and also enough to consider enough states to cleanly win the electoral college while avoiding another Ohio or Florida fiasco; this is exactly what happened in the election.

-there are significant bias issues with the media but I think outside Fox and NPR (increasingly MSNBC as well) most media outlets can easily be duped one way or the other.  see: iraq.  this year i do think obama was an exception who capitalized on a perfect storm of popularity, uniqueness/newness, and a pathetic showing by his opponent to absolutely dominate the media coverage.  until you show why these things (which I brought up before) are objectively false, I don't see what the problem is with the way the media covered this race.

-the most Palin did was shore up (slightly) the conservative base of the GOP which McCain had managed to completely alienate while simultaneously alienating McCain's moderate base of voters who had trusted him for years but grown increasingly skeptical of his behavior the last 4 (count me in that camp).  She did not make the race close nor is she a 'threat' due to her inability to gain traction outside of the conservative base.  this is not about sexism but about an utter lack of preparedness and qualifications.  her educational background is very unusual for a national candidate.  she has little no national experience.  she has never won a national election, nor has she been in the court of public opinion for any significant period prior to being picked by mccain.  obama has some similarities, yes, but is set apart by his education, his senate seat, and his place in the public light since 2004.

yes, politics is theater.  no, that does not mean that polls are wrong.  explain why fivethirtyeight was able to predict the results so accurately if polls are so bad?


Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on December 04, 2008, 05:36:21 PM
Slug -

It's obvious you are new here (welcome). My ad-hominem attack is well deserved. Go read anything Julie has posted anywhere if you want to see a definition of ad-hominem. What I wrote was less an attack than a compliment.

so julie your...your role model?
Title: Re: why obama win
Post by: Julie Fern on December 04, 2008, 05:38:43 PM
Slug -

It's obvious you are new here (welcome). My ad-hominem attack is well deserved. Go read anything Julie has posted anywhere if you want to see a definition of ad-hominem. What I wrote was less an attack than a compliment.

Thanks Jeff! Delayed response here, but yes I have read stuff by Julie since then and am now more fully aware of the need for the ad-hom. Obnoxious trolls get no love from me.



putzes have be kept line somehow.