PDA

View Full Version : We've got about 6 months to go before the General Election



JohnnyMack
5/10/2008, 10:40 PM
Most of you hawks and elephants have yourselves convinced that John McCain will win this thing. That or you have your fingers pressed too far into your ears and your eyes clamped so tightly shut that you're doing everything possible to remain numb to the momentum that is Barack Obama. But we've got six months to go. Six long months.

I'd just like to point out that six months ago HRC had over a 20 point lead in national polls. She was the presumptive nominee. She had a massive war chest, the right name and was going to cruise to the nomination. She was the agent of change. An inevitability most called it.

Six months ago Mike Huckabee had an ever so slight lead over John McCain in the national polls.

StoopTroup
5/10/2008, 10:43 PM
6 months ago...gas seemed really expensive.

85Sooner
5/10/2008, 11:16 PM
They are all of the Same. BAD FOR THE U.S. because we have an ignorant popultion that somehow learned/believes that Gov was/is supposed to take care of them/us and alot of Socialist/Communist (read environmentalist and their ilk) ,citizens who hate this country and want it taken down. Don't know where they would go though:) I will be gracious enough to send them there and they can party with the muslim extremists. Hell, most of the might be virgins !

Okla-homey
5/11/2008, 07:13 AM
This country will not elect that man to the presidency. There are many reasons. Some are fair, some aren't. Nevertheless, it won't.

Here's a little story that happened just this weekend. I'm waiting on a haircut. These two white ladies were talking. Both were apparently school teachers. I overheard them discussing the fact they were donks, but neither could vote for BHO because he "scared them." I think he scares a lot of people.

SoonerBorn68
5/11/2008, 07:27 AM
I'd just like to point out that the William Ayers story will be out in all it's glory in a few months, Obama's real estate indecretions will be front page news, the Pubs haven't even started with the Rev. Wright association, & prolly a few more surprises that will make Barrackie Boy unelectable.

Besides, he's a full blown Marxist.

Jus' sayin'.

King Crimson
5/11/2008, 07:42 AM
Obama is not a Marxist, he's an Islamofascist Black Panther.

Okla-homey
5/11/2008, 07:51 AM
Obama is not a Marxist, he's an Islamofascist Black Panther.

That's right. Barack Hussein Bin Laden Obama.;)

Rogue
5/11/2008, 08:41 AM
6 months a long time. If the election were 4 months ago, BHO was doing great. Then HRC fired up the Democratic Self-Destruction machine that has been one of the most effective political forces of all time.

King Crimson
5/11/2008, 08:59 AM
6 months a long time. If the election were 4 months ago, BHO was doing great. Then HRC fired up the Democratic Self-Destruction machine that has been one of the most effective political forces of all time.

you can always count on the Dems to screw it up. if anything the last two POTUS elections have shown that they are totally inept at "success", most of all.

i don't know, Obama may "do it" (and not with the limo driver), but he might be George McGovern in 72 and get steamrolled in the big show.

one thing is for sure: he's gonna face a sh*t-stick of a decision with making a VP decision. the HRC "dream team" thing is creepy. i'd get as far away from her as possible, if it were me. maybe that's the only way they think they can win.

personally, i'd dump her and take my chances. if you take her on as VP, that just shows the world you are a creature of the Party...and not your own man.

Ash
5/11/2008, 09:38 AM
nm

Rogue
5/11/2008, 10:17 AM
you can always count on the Dems to screw it up. if anything the last two POTUS elections have shown that they are totally inept at "success", most of all.
...



Her campaign is dead, and she somehow finds a way to make it worse. (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-ushill0511,0,1624729.story)


Clinton said Obama's support among "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" was weak in comparison to her own.


Yup, sure as God made little green apples, the Dems will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Okla-homey
5/11/2008, 10:38 AM
The DNC courted and won the black vote forty years ago. In fact, statistically, >90% of black folks vote Donk.

Thus, there is a touch of irony in the fact that the #1 Donk woman in America lost her bid for the WH because those same black folks decided to vote for a fellow black person instead of her. Creamy and delicious schadenfruede. :D

...especially since HRC would have been harder for JSM to beat.

King Crimson
5/11/2008, 11:00 AM
The DNC courted and won the black vote forty years ago. In fact, statistically, >90% of black folks vote Donk.

Thus, there is a touch of irony in the fact that the #1 Donk woman in America lost her bid for the WH because those same black folks decided to vote for a fellow black person instead of her. Creamy and delicious schadenfruede. :D

...especially since HRC would have been harder for JSM to beat.

see: this argument is bull****. i actually know "black people" and they don't think like this. it's way too easy to conflate race and politics.

it's ironic that GOP "freethinkers" act like "black voting for black" is some heinous counter-freedom crime against the Republic.

it's truly sad that we've all been taught to think all issues in terms of left/right

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2008, 11:12 AM
i don't know, Obama may "do it" (and not with the limo driver), but he might be George McGovern in 72 and get steamrolled in the big show.

one thing is for sure: he's gonna face a sh*t-stick of a decision with making a VP decision. the HRC "dream team" thing is creepy. i'd get as far away from her as possible, if it were me. maybe that's the only way they think they can win.

personally, i'd dump her and take my chances. if you take her on as VP, that just shows the world you are a creature of the Party...and not your own man.I think hellery can beat McCain. Obama prolly can't beat mcCain. (the dems will fail by nominating Obama)

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 12:38 PM
Most of you hawks and elephants have yourselves convinced that John McCain will win this thing. That or you have your fingers pressed too far into your ears and your eyes clamped so tightly shut that you're doing everything possible to remain numb to the momentum that is Barack Obama. But we've got six months to go. Six long months.

I'd just like to point out that six months ago HRC had over a 20 point lead in national polls. She was the presumptive nominee. She had a massive war chest, the right name and was going to cruise to the nomination. She was the agent of change. An inevitability most called it.

Six months ago Mike Huckabee had an ever so slight lead over John McCain in the national polls.

I'd like to make this point very clear. Hillary Clinton and Huckabee are not John McCain.

McCain should have been elected back in 2000. If it weren't for the most negative smear campaign I've ever seen in the South by Karl Rove, which I applaud as a matter of strategy, McCain was winning.

Bush, not McCain has set the GOP back. I have no doubt that McCain's intelligence and moderate nature will be a safe, warm place for voters to go in November.

Okla-homey
5/11/2008, 02:04 PM
see: this argument is bull****. i actually know "black people" and they don't think like this. it's way too easy to conflate race and politics.

it's ironic that GOP "freethinkers" act like "black voting for black" is some heinous counter-freedom crime against the Republic.

it's truly sad that we've all been taught to think all issues in terms of left/right

I know people vote the way they do for many reasons. Sometimes those reasons don't make much sense and aren't grounded in reason.

I've lived much of my life in the Deep South (e.g. SC, NC, TN, GA, AL, TX, AR, Southern OK east of I-35 and south of I-40) and I know something else.

Trust me, black folks there vote overwhelmingly Donk. Period.

Much of the reason they do is because they've been taught from Pulpit and Party the GOP and the Party of Lincoln is the "Republi-Klan" party. Never mind the fact all the great Segregationists of the 50' and 60's were Donks.

Thus, if anyone conflated race and politics, its black preachers who did so. IMH, but considered, opinion, southern black folks would vote for an ex-Confederate general if he was the Donk candidate over Jesus himself if He ran with an (R) after His name. How else do you explain Robert Byrd? That also partially explains why Clarence Thomas does not enjoy wide respect and admiration in the black community notwithstanding the fact he is only the second black American to serve on the highest court on the planet.

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 02:14 PM
Thus, if anyone conflated race and politics, its black preachers who did so.Which alone makes this election so ironic. It's been ok to be a black racist, even behind the pulpit but thats okay in th urban area in big cities. That **** don't sell outside of those places.

It may be indirect or direct but Obama's 20 year relationship with a church like that is going to be enough for some on the fence to pass on him.

Not this time. Not this guy. No way. No how.

I do believe is paving the way for future mulatto/Black candidates from both party's.

Okla-homey
5/11/2008, 02:22 PM
Which alone makes this election so ironic. It's been ok to be a black racist, even behind the pulpit but thats okay in th urban area in big cities. That **** don't sell outside of those places.

It may be indirect or direct but Obama's 20 year relationship with a church like that is going to be enough for some on the fence to pass on him.

Not this time. Not this guy. No way. No how.

I do believe is paving the way for future mulatto/Black candidates from both party's.

Personally, I'd vote for JC Watts, Colin Powell, Alan Keyes or even Artur Davis from Alabama in a heartbeat. BTW, I like that Army lieutenant general they brought in to restore order in NOLA too. Can't remember his name.

King Crimson
5/11/2008, 02:24 PM
history don't mean dick anymore Homey. Lincoln, whigs, the formation of the Republican Party out of anti-colonialism newspapers....the power of the independent press to win the right of nationhood.

the GOP of Karl Rove and Wolfawitz is NOT the same as Lincoln. it's closer to Lenin's "vanguard party" than Plato or good-mannered concord of the orders (Cicero).

and to be honest, this "pulpit to the party" thing is SO overstated....I suspect, like the majority rest of the American population, the "black people" make their political estimation on everyday life, secular realities, and not religious issues.....not organized by some Rasputin from the Black Panthers or Black Islam.

Okla-homey
5/11/2008, 02:32 PM
history don't mean dick anymore Homey. Lincoln, whigs, the formation of the Republican Party out of anti-colonialism newspapers....the power of the independent press to win the right of nationhood.

the GOP of Karl Rove and Wolfawitz is NOT the same as Lincoln. it's closer to Lenin's "vanguard party" than Plato or good-mannered concord of the orders (Cicero).

and to be honest, this "pulpit to the party" thing is SO overstated....I suspect, like the majority rest of the American population, the "black people" make their political estimation on everyday life, secular realities, and not religious issues.....not organized by some Rasputin from the Black Panthers or Black Islam.

I realize and respect your right to your opinion. I'm just saying we must agree to disagree on this one. I spent a great deal of time sweating in the Deep South mugginess where I learned that black = Democrat. Now, that said, "southern white male" generally = 'Pub, but not by nearly as a high a percentage. Those guys will vote Donk if they happen to be teachers or members of trade unions.

King Crimson
5/11/2008, 02:46 PM
I realize and respect your right to your opinion. I'm just saying we must agree to disagree on this one. I spent a great deal of time sweating in the Deep South mugginess where I learned that black = Democrat. Now, that said, "southern white male" generally = 'Pub, but not by nearly as a high a percentage. Those guys will vote Donk if they happen to be teachers or members of trade unions.

i hear you. i'm saying the real problem is much deeper and almost nothing to do with race as political party manifestion or this ridiculous bifurcation of either/or.

what i'm saying is in part, the "automatic" nature of blacks voting for Obama is talked about as inauthentic "groupthink"--that's why he won in the south against HRC. that's just nonsense. it's OK to think about blacks as "single thinking mass"....but whitey is all about sophistication and tender differences in terms of political ideology?

edit: yes i did edit it

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2008, 02:56 PM
IF THE ELECTION WAS RIGHT NOW: If the Dems pick Hillary, they have a chance to win. I don't think Obama can do it.
COMES THE ACTUAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER: If the media does the job I'm counting on them to do against McCain, even Obama could win. If they can't destroy McCAin, I think he fairly easily beats Obama.

Rogue
5/11/2008, 03:59 PM
NSFW language, but funnier'n hell :

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa150/Sleepercp/th_RedStateUpdate-Video.jpg (http://s201.photobucket.com/albums/aa150/Sleepercp/?action=view&current=RedStateUpdate-Video.flv)

Heh! :D :D :D (redstateupdate.com)

Rogue
5/11/2008, 04:01 PM
More from Jackie and Dunlap from Murfreesboro - :D :D :D (www.redstateupdate.com) Funny elephants.

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 04:07 PM
i hear you. i'm saying the real problem is much deeper and almost nothing to do with race as political party manifestion or this ridiculous bifurcation of either/or.

what i'm saying is in part, the "automatic" nature of blacks voting for Obama is talked about as inauthentic "groupthink"--that's why he won in the south against HRC. that's just nonsense. it's OK to think about blacks as "single thinking mass"....but whitey is all about sophistication and tender differences in terms of political ideology?

edit: yes i did edit itYou just aren't paying attention or something. Blacks vote anywhere from 85% -99% Democratic. That's not racist, it's a fact.

What would be your guess as to why Hillary won every "Big" state in the Democratic primary?

Frozen Sooner
5/11/2008, 04:27 PM
You just aren't paying attention or something. Blacks vote anywhere from 85% -99% Democratic. That's not racist, it's a fact.

What would be your guess as to why Hillary won every "Big" state in the Democratic primary?

You mean except for Texas, where Obama got more delegates than Hillary (99 to her 90), and North Carolina, where she was trounced handily? Or Illinois (Granted, it's Obama's home state, but New York is Hillary's and that one counts for her)? Or Georgia, where Obama won by 30 points?

In fact, out of the top ten states by population, Hillary won six of them-and one of those was a state where Obama's name didn't even appear on the ballot.

Chuck Bao
5/11/2008, 04:41 PM
I agree that it is still way too early to write-off Obama. I think he is the best candidate running and it will become much more obvious to everyone as the campaign gears up

I'm waiting to see the choices of VP, not that the VP matters much after the election. Instead, it will be a very clear indication if their administration will shift to the center or move further out on the fringe.

I fully suspect that McCain will move crazy right wing and Obama will move to the center.

Those people scared now, well they won’t be when they actually listen to him..

It is an Obama win in November and we will all be celebrating like crazy because the only sane candidate gets the job.

God bless America.

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 04:43 PM
California is a prize. Let's just say Hillary has won the most "Big" states, she won Texas' primary election, BHO won the caucus'.

Most, if not all of the states in the south that Obama won, he won because blacks make up significant portions of the potential votes. In the general, those states will go to McCain, where the black vote isn't nearly a significant factor.

Chuck Bao
5/11/2008, 04:45 PM
California is a prize. Let's just say Hillary has won the most "Big" states, she won Texas' primary election, BHO won the caucus'.

Most, if not all of the states in the south that Obama won, he won because blacks make up significant portions of the potential votes. In the general, those states will go to McCain, where the black vote isn't nearly a significant factor.

So, Big Red Ron, who would you vote for if your only choice is Obama or Clinton?

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 04:50 PM
I agree that it is still way too early to write-off Obama. I think he is the best candidate running and it will become much more obvious to everyone as the campaign gears up

I'm waiting to see the choices of VP, not that the VP matters much after the election. Instead, it will be a very clear indication if their administration will shift to the center or move further out on the fringe.

I fully suspect that McCain will move crazy right wing and Obama will move to the center.

Those people scared now, well they won’t be when they actually listen to him..

It is an Obama win in November and we will all be celebrating like crazy because the only sane candidate gets the job.

God bless America.Wow, pass me some of what your smokin. Why would McCain "move crazy right?" He has the nomination.

You know where he's been this whole time the Dem's have been fighting? Talking to steel workers in the rust belt, swollen stomachs in Appalachia and poor blacks in the south.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised, at all, to see McCain choose a high ranking woman or black in the Republican party for veep. Hide and watch.

Obama has less of a chance against McCain than Hillary.

Rogue
5/11/2008, 04:51 PM
I don't get why people are "scared" of Obama. :confused:

I'm not "scared" of Hillary, I just think that if she won, we would have 4 more years of mean-spirited divisiveness. 15 years (in a row) of that has been enough for me.

None of the candidates scare me. McCain and BO have proven themselves independent of party-lines when they believed differently.

Is it BO's inexperience that scares folk?
His name?
What?

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 04:54 PM
So, Big Red Ron, who would you vote for if your only choice is Obama or Clinton?Clinton. She would at least be able to lean on Bill when times got tough.

She's also smart enough to do the right thing, even when it goes against her philisophical grain. Like when they signed 9 out of the 10 items on the "Contract with America."

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 05:00 PM
I don't get why people are "scared" of Obama. :confused:

I'm not "scared" of Hillary, I just think that if she won, we would have 4 more years of mean-spirited divisiveness. 15 years (in a row) of that has been enough for me.

None of the candidates scare me. McCain and BO have proven themselves independent of party-lines when they believed differently.

Is it BO's inexperience that scares folk?
His name?
What?I haven't ever heard of anyone fearing BHO. I work in Republican campaigns, at a high level. Actually, a pollster by trade. I promise you, the only reason why Hillary is still in the race is because the people that run campaigns in the Democratic party know that Obama isn't likely to win.

It's her only reason. State by state, electoral college accounting polls shows Obama has only a small chance at earning more votes than Kerry did.

McCain on the other hand has shown a propensity to lure Independent voters and working class Democrats.

Chuck Bao
5/11/2008, 05:06 PM
Wow, pass me some of what your smokin. Why would McCain "move crazy right?" He has the nomination.

You know where he's been this whole time the Dem's have been fighting? Talking to steel workers in the rust belt, swollen stomachs in Appalachia and poor blacks in the south.

As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised, at all, to see McCain choose a high ranking woman or black in the Republican party for veep. Hide and watch.

Obama has less of a chance against McCain than Hillary.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I hope you are right about McCain, because that would make the outcome, no matter who wins, more palatable. The proof of his ability to hold course with his views will depend on his VP selection, in my view.

I don't really care much, as long as America gets back on the right track after the eight years of the Bush administration.

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 05:12 PM
I'm an Obama supporter, but I hope you are right about McCain, because that would make the outcome, no matter who wins, more palatable. The proof of his ability to hold course with his views will depend on his VP selection, in my view.

I don't really care much, as long as America gets back on the right track after the eight years of the Bush administration.
Here's to good, fair debate of good ideas. May the better man win.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/11/2008, 05:41 PM
The Dems are going to give the election to McCain by nominating Obama. The media will have their work cut out for them to make McCain scarier than Obama

Chuck Bao
5/11/2008, 06:17 PM
Well sometimes change can be scary. Rush, I'll hold your hand if you need it.

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 06:37 PM
Well sometimes change can be scary. Rush, I'll hold your hand if you need it.
See, every election is about change. McCain was the "Change" candidate in 2000 and just because Obama printed up a bunch of signs that say "Change" on them wont seperate his "Tax the rich" ideas for change from those of the 60's that he represents.

McCain on the other hand is, without question a moderate Republican. Obama's just another liberal.

I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be inflamitory. Just look at the two guys and the things they represent.

Okla-homey
5/11/2008, 06:51 PM
See, every election is about change. McCain was the "Change" candidate in 2000 and just because Obama printed up a bunch of signs that say "Change" on them wont seperate his "Tax the rich" ideas for change from those of the 60's that he represents.

McCain on the other hand is, without question a moderate Republican. Obama's just another liberal.

I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be inflamitory. Just look at the two guys and the things they represent.


The way I see it is this.

You know how you have achieved a just outcome in a lawsuit? Both sides think they lost because neither side got what they wanted.

JSM is the kinda guy who has the sand to make both sides take their medicine.

OTOH, BHO promises he will make all your dreams come true.

I trust the American people have the wisdom to know the difference, because in the end, a people get the kind of government they deserve.

Like it or not, this thing is going to be about race. I hope we're ready.


Democratic country keeps its distance from Obama
By Andrew Ward

Published: May 11 2008 20:13 | Last updated: May 11 2008 20:13

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

Mr Simpson’s remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday’s primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.

A landslide victory for Mrs Clinton in West Virginia will do little to improve her fading hopes of winning the Democratic nomination, because Mr Obama has an almost insurmountable lead in the overall race. But Tuesday’s contest is likely to reinforce Mrs Clinton’s argument that she would be the stronger opponent for Mr McCain in November, and raise fresh doubts about whether the US is ready to elect its first black president.

Occupying a swathe of the Appalachian Mountains on the threshold between the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt, West Virginia is a swing state that voted twice for George W. Bush but backed Democrats in six of the eight prior presidential elections.

No Democrat has been elected to the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916, yet Mr Obama appears to have little chance of winning there in November. Recent opinion polls indicate that Mrs Clinton would narrowly beat Mr McCain in the state but Mr Obama would lose by nearly 20 percentage points.

West Virginia is hostile territory for Mr Obama because it has few of the African-Americans and affluent, college-educated whites who provide his strongest support. The state has the lowest college graduation rate in the US, the second lowest median household income, and one of the highest proportions of white residents, at 96 per cent.

King Crimson
5/11/2008, 08:11 PM
if you post an article, post the link and source. and the "Homey" "Obama is gonna lose because of reason X train" is getting pretty full at this point....how many posts/new threads? :D

Frozen Sooner
5/11/2008, 08:24 PM
You know, Homey, your boy polled a whopping 1% in West Virginia.

Just sayin'.

soonerscuba
5/11/2008, 08:32 PM
I think, as a nation, we should listen to whatever it is that West Virginia wants to do, then do the opposite. This is a state that is represented by a former Klansman, that's ****ing insane.

I personally think Obama carries every state Kerry did with ease. It will be interesting to see what happens as to Obama's ability to mobilize the electorate, this is a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama that just brought down the most powerful Democratic family since the Kennedys, ignore him at your own peril.

Big Red Ron
5/11/2008, 08:37 PM
I think, as a nation, we should listen to whatever it is that West Virginia wants to do, then do the opposite. This is a state that is represented by a former Klansman, that's ****ing insane.

I personally think Obama carries every state Kerry did with ease. It will be interesting to see what happens as to Obama's ability to mobilize the electorate, this is a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama that just brought down the most powerful Democratic family since the Kennedys, ignore him at your own peril.I would like to note that said former clansman is a Democrat.

BTW - No Democrat has won the presidency without also carrying WV since the early 20th century.

Also, if Barrack only carries the states that Kerry did, he loses. I don't think he will carry Colorado and will have real problems in PA and Ohio.

Okla-homey
5/12/2008, 06:05 AM
if you post an article, post the link and source. and the "Homey" "Obama is gonna lose because of reason X train" is getting pretty full at this point....how many posts/new threads? :D

Jawoil!

and, for the record, this thread wasn't started by yours truly.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a50425a-1f86-11dd-9216-000077b07658,s01=1.html

JohnnyMack
5/12/2008, 12:10 PM
So I went back and read the responses and it's pretty much the rhetoric and hyberbole we've all come to expect.

I fully expect the "Swift-boating" of BHO to begin shortly.

Once again the people of America will prove how selfish, lazy and self-serving they can be when it comes to electing their leaders. I foresee plenty of chatter about "Jerermiah Wright", "Bill Ayers", "Tony Rezko" but little about Obama's plans to do what the majority of the country wants and get us out of Iraq. There will be John McCain feigning disdain over the latest attack ad pointed towards BHO. Some ad paid for by an "anonymous" group of his supporters that he'll shake his finger at disapprovingly in front of the cameras but will be very happy to have behind closed doors.

We'll see a viral attack launched at BHO in regards to the more obnoxious fallacies such as "he's a terrorist", "he's a muslim you know", "he don't love America", "he's gonna enslave the white race". You Tube will be proliferated with slanderous material that no one seems to want to claim. Your inbox will be dotted with e-mails telling you how concerned you should be about electing him. Words like scary, different, unamerican and unpatriotic will be raining down on you like scud missles.

All the while team McCain will do its best to remain quiet, low key and unassuming. He'll continue his tour of America with that aww shucks grin he has, saying just enough so you'll remember who it is you're supposed to vote for.

That's because in the end the Republicans don't want to talk about policy in this campaign. They don't want to roll up their sleeves and address the issues, because if they do, BHO will eat McCain's lunch. I'll admit that Obama's ideas about socialized medicine are silly. But I don't honestly think we'll ever have socialized medicine. Too many powerful people will prevent that from ever happening. But as a man working in a small company and having two young kids, I can tell you that the health care industry isn't what it's capable of being. What I'm forced to pay out each month is offensive. What I want is someone who'll acknowledge that it needs to be reworked and someone who will try and cross the aisles to make an effort at change. Not someone who will pat the people on their collective head and say, "it's not so bad, suck it up, I was a POW for five years".

They want to wait for the swarms of half-truths and outright lies to continue to assail Barack Obama and then put forth a candidate who's just centered enough without being polarizing. They want to roll out a man who isn't unlikeable, who isn't untrustworthy and would honestly make a decent President. But he lacks both the charisma to inspire the people and the vision to make a sincere effort at change. So in the end he'll sit back, wait for the buzzards to tear at Obama and then kind of shrug his shoulders and say, "Golly, thanks."

So in the end I can say that I hope that BHO continues to run a campaign that efforts at inspiring and talking about making changes. I hope he avoids the mud and that he sticks to policy. If he does that, and still loses, I can live with that.

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 01:42 PM
“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,”

Nothing like relying on uninformed bigotry to win an election.

C&CDean
5/12/2008, 02:03 PM
So I went back and read the responses and it's pretty much the rhetoric and hyberbole we've all come to expect.

I fully expect the "Swift-boating" of BHO to begin shortly.

Once again the people of America will prove how selfish, lazy and self-serving they can be when it comes to electing their leaders. I foresee plenty of chatter about "Jerermiah Wright", "Bill Ayers", "Tony Rezko" but little about Obama's plans to do what the majority of the country wants and get us out of Iraq. There will be John McCain feigning disdain over the latest attack ad pointed towards BHO. Some ad paid for by an "anonymous" group of his supporters that he'll shake his finger at disapprovingly in front of the cameras but will be very happy to have behind closed doors.

We'll see a viral attack launched at BHO in regards to the more obnoxious fallacies such as "he's a terrorist", "he's a muslim you know", "he don't love America", "he's gonna enslave the white race". You Tube will be proliferated with slanderous material that no one seems to want to claim. Your inbox will be dotted with e-mails telling you how concerned you should be about electing him. Words like scary, different, unamerican and unpatriotic will be raining down on you like scud missles.

All the while team McCain will do its best to remain quiet, low key and unassuming. He'll continue his tour of America with that aww shucks grin he has, saying just enough so you'll remember who it is you're supposed to vote for.

That's because in the end the Republicans don't want to talk about policy in this campaign. They don't want to roll up their sleeves and address the issues, because if they do, BHO will eat McCain's lunch. I'll admit that Obama's ideas about socialized medicine are silly. But I don't honestly think we'll ever have socialized medicine. Too many powerful people will prevent that from ever happening. But as a man working in a small company and having two young kids, I can tell you that the health care industry isn't what it's capable of being. What I'm forced to pay out each month is offensive. What I want is someone who'll acknowledge that it needs to be reworked and someone who will try and cross the aisles to make an effort at change. Not someone who will pat the people on their collective head and say, "it's not so bad, suck it up, I was a POW for five years".

They want to wait for the swarms of half-truths and outright lies to continue to assail Barack Obama and then put forth a candidate who's just centered enough without being polarizing. They want to roll out a man who isn't unlikeable, who isn't untrustworthy and would honestly make a decent President. But he lacks both the charisma to inspire the people and the vision to make a sincere effort at change. So in the end he'll sit back, wait for the buzzards to tear at Obama and then kind of shrug his shoulders and say, "Golly, thanks."

So in the end I can say that I hope that BHO continues to run a campaign that efforts at inspiring and talking about making changes. I hope he avoids the mud and that he sticks to policy. If he does that, and still loses, I can live with that.

Has your boy told you how he's getting us out of Iraq? Is he going to have everybody home to celebrate his inauguration? Has he told you yet what all this "change for change's sake" mumbo jumbo really means? Do you really believe all his "inspiring rhetoric" adds up to more than a big ol' steaming pile of horse****?

I've asked it a hunnert times in these political threads for somebody to tell me exactly what it is Obama's gonna do if elected. All I've heard is "change." Change what? His socks? The presidential limo? WTF is he going to change, and how is he going to change it? Regardless of who goes into the White House next November, we will still have troops in Iraq when he/she/it comes up for re-election four years later. Bank on it.

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 02:22 PM
Has your boy told you how he's getting us out of Iraq? Is he going to have everybody home to celebrate his inauguration? Has he told you yet what all this "change for change's sake" mumbo jumbo really means? Do you really believe all his "inspiring rhetoric" adds up to more than a big ol' steaming pile of horse****?

I've asked it a hunnert times in these political threads for somebody to tell me exactly what it is Obama's gonna do if elected. All I've heard is "change." Change what? His socks? The presidential limo? WTF is he going to change, and how is he going to change it? Regardless of who goes into the White House next November, we will still have troops in Iraq when he/she/it comes up for re-election four years later. Bank on it.

Ten seconds of time on www.barackobama.com reveals the following about troop withdrawal from Iraq:

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

For the more detailed plan:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/IraqFactSheet.pdf

For what Obama means when he talks about change:

Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf)

C&CDean
5/12/2008, 02:40 PM
"if Al Qaedo attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda...."

Some of you Obama lovers need to hone up on what the BS he's saying actually means. A couple brigades a month coming home? Riiiiight.

Are people really this gullible? Wait, don't answer that.

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 02:48 PM
Are people really this gullible? Wait, don't answer that.

Well, they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11...

King Crimson
5/12/2008, 02:53 PM
Well, they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11...

like everyone else, "Saddamn" was jealous of all the freedoms we have here in the US. that's what motivates most terrorists.

much like Ronaldus Maximus, blue jeans and rock and roll won the Cold War.

Harry Beanbag
5/12/2008, 06:11 PM
So I went back and read the responses and it's pretty much the rhetoric and hyberbole we've all come to expect.



I agree.

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 06:24 PM
That's because in the end the Republicans don't want to talk about policy in this campaign. They don't want to roll up their sleeves and address the issues, because if they do, BHO will eat McCain's lunch. I'll admit that Obama's ideas about socialized medicine are silly. But I don't honestly think we'll ever have socialized medicine. Too many powerful people will prevent that from ever happening. But as a man working in a small company and having two young kids, I can tell you that the health care industry isn't what it's capable of being. What I'm forced to pay out each month is offensive. What I want is someone who'll acknowledge that it needs to be reworked and someone who will try and cross the aisles to make an effort at change. Not someone who will pat the people on their collective head and say, "it's not so bad, suck it up, I was a POW for five years".


Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe if there was a cap on medical lawsuits & maybe if there weren't so many illegal aliens abusing the health care system your insurance might be more affordable.

So, you're voting for Obama because your health care costs are too high. If my two points were addressed and dealt with health care would be much more affordable. Apparently you just want me to fork over more of my hard earned money to help pay for your health care.

Nice.

85Sooner
5/12/2008, 06:26 PM
Well, they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11...

I don't know anyone who believes SH was responsible for 9/11. Regime change was a call made before W was in the house.

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 06:35 PM
Well, they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11...That was never a point made by the administration. See we stopped short of overthrowing Saddam Hussein Obama (j/k) with a peace treaty. He had to follow the rules of that contract or pay the price. When he stopped letting UN inspectors, inspect, he was toast. IMHO, we would have gone into Iraq even if 911 hadn't happened.

Nobody EVER said Saddam was responsible for 911.

I can promise you this, the region is MORE stable with us there, AS IT IS NOW, than it would have been, if we would have just run the Taliban out of Afghanistan.


BTW, Obama has already laid the rhetorical groundwork for his excuse for not bringing the troops home as fast as he's promised the gullible and inexperience voters that are voting for him. Kinda like Bill Clinton's "Middle class tax cuts" pledge in 1992. Then he went and raised their taxes.

You may not like what McCain says but at least you know he'll do what he says.

Octavian
5/12/2008, 06:51 PM
I personally think Obama carries every state Kerry did with ease.


I dunno. The electoral map could look differently than the last two. Obama will have a tough time winning Jersey and Michigan (especially since his stance on Michigan primary vote).


But he could put into play Colorado...North Carolina...and maybe Virginia.


OTOH, McCain could seize Pennsylvania, Massachusetts (no joke, look at the polls), and he'll lock down Florida, the Southwest, and run surprisingly well in California.



...this is a guy named Barrack Hussein Obama that just brought down the most powerful Democratic family since the Kennedys, ignore him at your own peril.


agreed.


But the Clintons were the most powerful Democratic family since the Kennedys for a reason: they won the Reagan/Bush voters as well as the Kennedy/Dukakis voters.


As of today, about half of the Clinton supporters loathe Obama. They don't like that Barack Hussein Obama and his passive-aggressive tactics and media allies "took down" the family they've liked so much for the last 2 decades. Many of them aren't particularly ideological people -- and they won't hesitate to pull the trigger for John McCain.

Sooner_Havok
5/12/2008, 06:58 PM
Well, they believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11...

And that going in and killing people's pa don't create more terrorists. And that Saddam had Yellowcake. And that we would be "greeted as liberators." And that ANWAR is our salvation. And that there is no recession. And that CO2 is a harmless gas. But hey, other than that...:rolleyes:

Octavian
5/12/2008, 07:12 PM
So I went back and read the responses and it's pretty much the rhetoric and hyberbole we've all come to expect.

I fully expect the "Swift-boating" of BHO to begin shortly.

Once again the people of America will prove how selfish, lazy and self-serving they can be when it comes to electing their leaders. I foresee plenty of chatter about "Jerermiah Wright", "Bill Ayers", "Tony Rezko" but little about Obama's plans to do what the majority of the country wants and get us out of Iraq. There will be John McCain feigning disdain over the latest attack ad pointed towards BHO. Some ad paid for by an "anonymous" group of his supporters that he'll shake his finger at disapprovingly in front of the cameras but will be very happy to have behind closed doors.

We'll see a viral attack launched at BHO in regards to the more obnoxious fallacies such as "he's a terrorist", "he's a muslim you know", "he don't love America", "he's gonna enslave the white race". You Tube will be proliferated with slanderous material that no one seems to want to claim. Your inbox will be dotted with e-mails telling you how concerned you should be about electing him. Words like scary, different, unamerican and unpatriotic will be raining down on you like scud missles.

All the while team McCain will do its best to remain quiet, low key and unassuming. He'll continue his tour of America with that aww shucks grin he has, saying just enough so you'll remember who it is you're supposed to vote for.

That's because in the end the Republicans don't want to talk about policy in this campaign. They don't want to roll up their sleeves and address the issues, because if they do, BHO will eat McCain's lunch. I'll admit that Obama's ideas about socialized medicine are silly. But I don't honestly think we'll ever have socialized medicine. Too many powerful people will prevent that from ever happening. But as a man working in a small company and having two young kids, I can tell you that the health care industry isn't what it's capable of being. What I'm forced to pay out each month is offensive. What I want is someone who'll acknowledge that it needs to be reworked and someone who will try and cross the aisles to make an effort at change. Not someone who will pat the people on their collective head and say, "it's not so bad, suck it up, I was a POW for five years".

They want to wait for the swarms of half-truths and outright lies to continue to assail Barack Obama and then put forth a candidate who's just centered enough without being polarizing. They want to roll out a man who isn't unlikeable, who isn't untrustworthy and would honestly make a decent President. But he lacks both the charisma to inspire the people and the vision to make a sincere effort at change. So in the end he'll sit back, wait for the buzzards to tear at Obama and then kind of shrug his shoulders and say, "Golly, thanks."

So in the end I can say that I hope that BHO continues to run a campaign that efforts at inspiring and talking about making changes. I hope he avoids the mud and that he sticks to policy. If he does that, and still loses, I can live with that.


1. Whats his plan about Iraq? We know he gave a speech against it in 2003. So did a lot of other people. What's he gonna do now? He says his plan is to pull out the troops....and then put them on the border so he can re-inject them if anything should go wrong. That's a ridiculous idea. There are college undergrads that could come up with something better than that.


2. Eat McCain's lunch...how? In a debate? Because HRC ran circles around him in their debates....time and again. When he was actually pressured by the media in his last debate, he pouted and blamed them for asking questions. Then...he refused to debate again. Obama isn't good in debates...or talking about issues...which is why he does an effective job at minimizing his exposure to both -- he's good when he's surrounded by screaming fans during his laser light show speeches.


3. Please define "change." Just once, I'd like one of the Obama fans to define change that has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate himself...how one "came to know" Obama...or how he makes you feel deep inside. Please tell us, specifically, what sort of policies he would implement that would be able to unite the country and bring about "real change" like he and his supporters constantly claim.


4. Again...aside from inspiration and the amorphous (and conveniently undefined) concept of change...what does this man offer? We're electing the President of the United States -- not a national motivational speaker. He was still a state legislator two years ago to this day. He was in the Senate for a year and a half before announcing his intention to run for the White House. A state legislator....2 years ago today.


5. And that's the kicker. The Obama fanbase genuinely disbelieves that Barack engages in run-of-the-mill political tactics (how could he?...he's Barack, man). They honestly and sincerely look at him as someone who has never --nay, would never-- stoop down to the level of normal politics. It's safe to say...they haven't been watching the primaries from the p-o-v of the Clintons...who are now the modern equivalent of Bull Connor and David Duke rolled into one.

Harry Beanbag
5/12/2008, 07:12 PM
Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe if there was a cap on medical lawsuits & maybe if there weren't so many illegal aliens abusing the health care system your insurance might be more affordable.

So, you're voting for Obama because your health care costs are too high. If my two points were addressed and dealt with health care would be much more affordable. Apparently you just want me to fork over more of my hard earned money to help pay for your health care.

Nice.



If by some miracle Barack was able to wave his magic wand and make everyone's healthcare cheaper, it would be more than offset with the new taxes we'll be paying. Doesn't sound like a great deal to me.

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 07:22 PM
Best two posts in this thread.


1. Whats his plan about Iraq? We know he gave a speech against it in 2003. So did a lot of other people. What's he gonna do now? He says his plan is to pull out the troops....and then put them on the border so he can re-inject them if anything should go wrong. That's a ridiculous idea. There are college undergrads that could come up with something better than that.


2. Eat McCain's lunch...how? In a debate? Because HRC ran circles around him in their debates....time and again. When he was actually pressured by the media in his last debate, he pouted and blamed them for asking questions. Then...he refused to debate again. Obama isn't good in debates...or talking about issues...which is why he does an effective job at minimizing his exposure to both -- he's good when he's surrounded by screaming fans during his laser light show speeches.


3. Please define "change." Just once, I'd like one of the Obama fans to define change that has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate himself...how one "came to know" Obama...or how he makes you feel deep inside. Please tell us, specifically, what sort of policies he would implement that would be able to unite the country and bring about "real change" like he and his supporters constantly claim.


4. Again...aside from inspiration and the amorphous (and conveniently undefined) concept of change...what does this man offer? We're electing the President of the United States -- not a national motivational speaker. He was still a state legislator two years ago to this day. He was in the Senate for a year and a half before announcing his intention to run for the White House. A state legislator....2 years ago today.


5. And that's the kicker. The Obama fanbase genuinely disbelieves that Barack engages in run-of-the-mill political tactics (how could he?...he's Barack, man). They honestly and sincerely look at him as someone who has never --nay, would never-- stoop down to the level of normal politics. It's safe to say...they haven't been watching the primaries from the p-o-v of the Clintons...who are now the modern equivalent of Bull Connor and David Duke rolled into one.

Allow me to give it up to myself.


That was never a point made by the administration. See we stopped short of overthrowing Saddam Hussein Obama (j/k) with a peace treaty. He had to follow the rules of that contract or pay the price. When he stopped letting UN inspectors, inspect, he was toast. IMHO, we would have gone into Iraq even if 911 hadn't happened.

Nobody EVER said Saddam was responsible for 911.

I can promise you this, the region is MORE stable with us there, AS IT IS NOW, than it would have been, if we would have just run the Taliban out of Afghanistan.


BTW, Obama has already laid the rhetorical groundwork for his excuse for not bringing the troops home as fast as he's promised the gullible and inexperience voters that are voting for him. Kinda like Bill Clinton's "Middle class tax cuts" pledge in 1992. Then he went and raised their taxes.

You may not like what McCain says but at least you know he'll do what he says.

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 07:26 PM
Nobody "ever" claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible or linked to 9/11?

Really?

You standing by that one?

Sooner_Havok
5/12/2008, 07:27 PM
Nobody "ever" claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible or linked to 9/11?

Really?

You standing by that one?

Until you can find the Youtube videos, yes :D

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 07:32 PM
YouTube is blocked at work. Will a Washington Post article work?

Iraq, 9/11 Still Linked By Cheney
By Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post

Monday 29 September 2003

In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence agent met with a Sept. 11, 2001, hijacker five months before the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under scrutiny by the FBI, CIA and the foreign government that first made the allegation.

The alleged meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was the single thread the administration has pointed to that might tie Iraq to the attacks. But as the Czech government distanced itself from its initial assertion and American investigators determined Atta was probably in the United States at the time of the meeting, other administration officials dropped the incident from their public statements about Iraq.

Not Cheney, who was the administration's most vociferous advocate for going to war with Iraq. He brought up the connection between Atta and al-Ani again two weeks ago in an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press" in which he also suggested links between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.

Cheney's staff also waged a campaign to include the allegation in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's speech to the United Nations in February in which he made the administration's case for war against Iraq. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.

When State Department and CIA officials complained about Libby's proposed language and suggested cutting large sections, Cheney's associates fought back. "Every piece offered . . . they fought tooth and nail to keep it in," said one official involved in putting together the speech.

The vice president's role in keeping the alleged meeting in Prague before the public eye is an illustration of the administration's handling of intelligence reports in the run-up to the war, when senior officials sometimes seized on reports that bolstered the case against Iraq despite contradictory evidence provided by the U.S. intelligence community.

Cheney's office declined to comment. Mary Matalin, a former senior aide to Cheney who still provides the vice president with advice, said Cheney's job is to focus on "the big picture." His appearance on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 14, she said, was intended to "remind people that Iraq is part of a bigger war that will require patience and sacrifice."

Cheney does not fully vet his speeches or public statements with the CIA or the wider intelligence community for accuracy, according to several administration officials, but usually gives the CIA a list of possible points or facts that might be used in a speech or appearance.

Matalin said Cheney "doesn't base his opinion on one piece of data," but has access to information that cannot be declassified because it would harm national security or compromise sources. "His job is to connect the dots in a way to prevent the worst possible case from happening," she said, but in public "he has to tiptoe through landmines of what's sayable and not sayable."

The claim that Atta, an Egyptian and Sept. 11 hijacker, had met with al-Ani in early April 2001 has been a constant element of the vice president's case against Iraq. Surveillance cameras at the Radio Free Europe building in Prague had picked up al-Ani, an intelligence officer at the Iraq embassy, surveying the building in April, five months before the Sept. 11 attacks. The tape was made available to Czech intelligence. Al-Ani was expelled at the U.S. government's request soon afterward for conduct incompatible with his diplomatic status.

In October 2001, after pictures of Atta had circulated publicly, an Arab student who worked as an informant for BIS, the Czech Security Information Service, told the service he had seen Atta meeting with al-Ani in April.

That November, Stanislav Gross, the Czech Republic's interior minister, said publicly that al-Ani and Atta had met in Prague. A short while later, Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told Powell that the two had discussed targeting the Radio Free Europe building, not the Sept. 11 targets.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."

But that same month, Czech President Vaclav Havel was retreating from the more definitive accounts provided by his government, saying there was "a 70 percent" chance the meeting took place. Indeed, while Czech officials never officially backed away from their initial stance, officials at various agencies say that, privately, the Czechs have discredited the accuracy of the untested informant who came to them with the information. According to one report, Havel quietly informed the White House in 2002 there was no evidence to confirm the meeting.

The Czechs had reviewed records using Atta's name and his seven known aliases provided by the CIA and found nothing to confirm the April 2001 trip. Meanwhile, CIA and FBI officials were running down thousands of leads on Atta and the other 18 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 plot.

U.S. records showed Atta living in Virginia Beach in April 2001, and they could find no indication he had left Virginia or traveled outside the United States.

Even so, on March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

A few weeks later, in April, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a San Francisco audience, "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." The FBI, he said, could find no evidence that Atta left or returned to the United States at the time.

In May, senior FBI and CIA analysts, having scoured thousands of travel records, concluded "there was no evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.," according to officials at the time.

But on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center."

"What does the CIA say about that?" asked host Tim Russert. "Is it credible?"

"It's credible," Cheney replied. "But, you know, I think the way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."

As war loomed closer, the Atta allegation generally began to disappear from the administration's public case against Iraq. Bush did not mention Atta or the Prague meeting in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, when he sought to show Iraq's links to terrorism.

But behind the scenes, the Atta meeting remained tantalizing to Cheney and his staff. Libby -- along with deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, a longtime Cheney associate -- began pushing to include the Atta claim in Powell's appearance before the U.N. Security Council a week after the State of the Union speech. Powell's presentation was aimed at convincing the world of Iraq's ties to terrorists and its pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

On Jan. 25, with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room. "We read [their proposal to include Atta] and some of us said, 'Wow! Here we go again,' " said one official who helped draft the speech. "You write it. You take it out, and then it comes back again."

Libby described the material as a "Chinese menu," simply the broadest range of options, according to several administration officials. "The papers were designed to assist [Powell's] preparation by organizing a lot of materials so that he could choose the order and evidence he found most compelling, although some of it, in the end, could not be declassified," said one administration official.

But other officials present said they felt that Libby's presentation was over the top, that the wording was too aggressive and most of the material could not be used in a public forum. Much of it, in fact, unraveled when closely examined by intelligence analysts from other agencies and, in the end, was largely discarded.

"After one day of hearing screams about who put this together and what are the sources, we essentially threw it out," one official present said.

Cheney's staff did not entirely give up. Late into the night before Powell's presentation, Libby called Powell's staff, waiting at the United Nations in New York, to question why certain material was not being included in the terrorism section, according to two State Department officials.

Earlier this month, on his most recent "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney once again used Atta to subtly suggest a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, 2001.

"With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story . . . the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."

Defense and intelligence officials say al-Ani, who was apprehended by U.S. forces earlier this year, has denied meeting with Atta.

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 07:34 PM
Nobody "ever" claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible or linked to 9/11?

Really?

You standing by that one?

Whoa now. I thought the federal government was responsible--or was it Israel? There's so many credible sources out there I'm confused. :confused:

mdklatt
5/12/2008, 07:34 PM
Apparently you just want me to fork over more of my hard earned money to help pay for your health care.



It amuses me when Republicans act like they don't suck the government teat just as hard as everybody else.

Sooner_Havok
5/12/2008, 07:36 PM
YouTube is blocked at work. Will a Washington Post article work?


You and your damed evidence! :D

mdklatt
5/12/2008, 07:39 PM
That was never a point made by the administration.

They certainly didn't go out their way to correct anybody who thought otherwise.



Nobody EVER said Saddam was responsible for 911.


And yet somehow a majority of Americans one point thought that he was.

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 07:39 PM
It amuses me when Republicans act like they don't suck the government teat just as hard as everybody else.

It amuses me when a liberal democrat is totally freaking clueless and casts stones just to cast stones. Did I mention either party? Both suck at both issues I brought up. I don't care WTF fixes the problem, just fix it--and don't take my money and give it to somebody else.

None of the three candidates will fix either problem.

85Sooner
5/12/2008, 07:42 PM
You and your damed evidence! :D


Washington Post is a dichotomy to Evidence. There were terrorists training in Iraq and SH was funding suicide bombers in Israel.yes? However the Terrorists were not directly linked to 9-11 other than to say that the war after 9-11 was a global war on terror and Iraq was a major player inthe terrorist business.

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 07:44 PM
Nobody "ever" claimed that Saddam Hussein was responsible or linked to 9/11?

Really?

You standing by that one?Wow, stating the obvious and since proven point that terrorists were and are in Iraq. I did not read in the article that he said Saddam was responsible for 911.

Sooner_Havok
5/12/2008, 07:49 PM
Wow, stating the obvious and since proven point that terrorists were and are in Iraq. I did not read in the article that he said Saddam was responsible for 911.

responsible/linked
:D

mdklatt
5/12/2008, 07:50 PM
Did I mention either party?

So you are not a Republican?



and don't take my money and give it to somebody else.

And you didn't say this? Again?


Do you deduct the interest on your mortgage? Do you deduct children? Did children ever go to a public school? How often do you drive on US or Interstate highways? Or any public roads for that matter. Don't you work for an oil company?

JohnnyMack
5/12/2008, 07:51 PM
Hmmm. Maybe, just maybe if there was a cap on medical lawsuits & maybe if there weren't so many illegal aliens abusing the health care system your insurance might be more affordable.

So, you're voting for Obama because your health care costs are too high. If my two points were addressed and dealt with health care would be much more affordable. Apparently you just want me to fork over more of my hard earned money to help pay for your health care.

Nice.

Not to sound all Bruce-like, but I don't need you handing me anything. I can take care of my family just fine. I happen to think that the way for profit health care is run is a travashamockery.

Sooner_Havok
5/12/2008, 07:52 PM
Heh, I like when I can stay above the fray and watch as someone else says what I was about to say. This is fun!:D







:pop:

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 07:56 PM
They certainly didn't go out their way to correct anybody who thought otherwise.



And yet somehow a majority of Americans one point thought that he was.Well, at one point most of Americans were caught up with Clay Akin and believe that UFOs are visitors from other planets.

I don't put much stock in what people think.

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 07:56 PM
So you are not a Republican?

Do you deduct the interest on your mortgage? Do you deduct children? Did children ever go to a public school? How often do you drive on US or Interstate highways? Or any public roads for that matter. Don't you work for an oil company?

No. I registered Independent because I'm a conservative & the Republicans are more interested in the party instead of the people.

Yes. It's in the tax code so I take advantage of it.

Yes...and I pay property taxes.

Yes. Enough to pay mucho in taxes.

No. What does that have to do with anything. If I did work for evil oil should I have to redistribute my income through higher taxes?

mdklatt
5/12/2008, 07:56 PM
I happen to think that the way for profit health care is run is a travashamockery.

You think paying $1000 for somebody's ER visit rather than $100 for a doctor visit is a bad idea? And I kind of like how my employer chooses my doctors for me.

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 08:00 PM
You think paying $1000 for somebody's ER visit rather than $100 for a doctor visit is a bad idea? And I kind of like how my employer chooses my doctors for me.

Ya know, your employer is nice enough to pay at least some of you medical insurance costs & pays the administation fees on it. You could go out and get your own insurance and pay for everything--then you could call all the shots. Sounds like you're just bitching now.

Harry Beanbag
5/12/2008, 08:01 PM
Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link


US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks.


Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.

Despite his stated rejection of any clear link between Saddam Hussein and the events of that day, Mr Bush continues to assert that the deposed president had ties with al-Qaeda, the terrorist network blamed for the 11 September attacks.

BBC News Online looks at some of the remarks made by Mr Bush and members of his administration both in the run-up to war and after hostilities had officially ended.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
--President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2002. The speech was primarily concerned with how the US was coping in the aftermath of 11 September.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On 11 September, 2001, America felt its vulnerability - even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.
--President Bush speaking in Cincinnati, Ohio, in October, 2002, in which he laid out the threat he believed Iraq posed.

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
--President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The terrorists have lost a sponsor in Iraq. And no terrorist networks will ever gain weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein's regime.
--President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.

For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.
They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.
We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
--President Bush in a televised address to defend his administration's policy on Iraq, September 2003.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of 11 September.
--US Secretary of State Colin Powell in a presentation to the UN Security Council, setting out the US case against the Iraqi regime, February 2003.

We don't know.
--Vice-President Dick Cheney when pressed on whether there was a link between Iraq and 11 September during a TV interview, September 2003.

We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
--Mr Cheney in the same interview, commenting on the war against Iraq.

We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it.
--Mr Cheney in the same interview, while recounting the controversial claim that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met an Iraqi official in Prague before the attacks.

[Saddam Hussein posed a risk in] a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged. --National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice defending the reasons why the US went to war against Iraq, September, 2003.




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm


The way I read these quotes, they were saying there was a link between Iraq and al Queda, not a link between al Queda and 9/11. Maybe some people have trouble comprehending what they hear/read.

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 08:01 PM
Not to sound all Bruce-like, but I don't need you handing me anything. I can take care of my family just fine.

Glad to hear you say that. It's the first step in becoming a conservative. ;)

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 08:01 PM
Not to sound all Bruce-like, but I don't need you handing me anything. I can take care of my family just fine. I happen to think that the way for profit health care is run is a travashamockery.Careful, starting to sound a Little Republican here. Unless of course you're looking at some type of socialized medicine as an answer. Instead of lawsuit reform and increased competition through less regulation.;)

JohnnyMack
5/12/2008, 08:03 PM
Glad to hear you say that. It's the first step in becoming a conservative. ;)

Oh I'm light years more conservative than I had been. I just think McCain isn't the answer this time.

I actually joined the young republicans my freshman year at OU. Heh.

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 08:04 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm


The way I read these quotes, they were saying there was a link between Iraq and al Queda, not a link between al Queda and 9/11. Maybe some people have trouble comprehending what they hear/read.


Just in case anyone missed it.



Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 08:06 PM
Just in case you missed it

DIRECTLY

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 08:06 PM
Oh I'm light years more conservative than I had been.

Having kids'll do that to you. :)

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 08:08 PM
Just in case you missed it

DIRECTLY

So if I alluded that Mongo was a dooshrocket but didn't directly say it, it's still considered fact?

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 08:08 PM
Bush-cronies: "Man! al-Qaeda was in Iraq! Iraq provided support to al-Qaeda! al-Qaeda attacked us! We have to invade Iraq!"

Six years later: "We never said that Iraq was involved with 9/11!"

mdklatt
5/12/2008, 08:08 PM
No. I registered Independent because I'm a conservative & the Republicans are more interested in the party instead of the people.

Well color me wrong then. BTW, I'm not nearly the liberal that people here think. The only reason I bitch about the Republicans is because they're the ones screwing things up right now. In the 90's you would have thought my user name was RLIMC's Clone.




Yes. It's in the tax code so I take advantage of it.


Why should those who don't have mortgages or children subsidize those that do?



Yes...and I pay property taxes.


I pay property taxes too, but I don't have kids.



Yes. Enough to pay mucho in taxes.


Fuel taxes only pay 2/3 of the highway budget. The rest comes from the general fund, i.e. plenty of people that drive less than you do.


I'm just pointing out that everybody benefits from government spending in ways they don't even realize.




If I did work for evil oil should I have to redistribute my income through higher taxes?

Remember when OK raised the state gas tax to prop up the oil industry back in 2000 or so? Do you think the oil industry ever paid that back? Maybe they did, but I doubt it. I'm not even sure that tax subsidy isn't still in place. So there's another myth about government spending, that corporations aren't government money whores just like everybody and everything else.

Everybody complains about taxes, but have you ever met anybody who turned down government spending in their favor? I think the "stimulus payments" won't do much but run up the debt, but I'm certainly not going to give it back.

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 08:09 PM
Just in case you missed it

DIRECTLYWhich has been the point the entire time. I SAID THEY NEVER SAID HUSSEIN WAS RESPONSIBLE.

THANKS FOR PLAYIN'

Mongo
5/12/2008, 08:10 PM
So if I alluded that Mongo was a dooshrocket but didn't directly say it, it's still considered fact?

Mike already knows I am a dooshrocket, that is a fact.

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 08:11 PM
So if I alluded that Mongo was a dooshrocket but didn't directly say it, it's still considered fact?

More like if you spend a bunch of time saying things like "Man, Mongo hangs out with dooshrockets" and "Man, people who hang out with dooshrockets are probably dooshrockets" then the inference could be made that you're trying to convince me that Mongo is a dooshrocket without coming right out and directly saying so.

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 08:13 PM
Which has been the point the entire time. I SAID THEY NEVER SAID HUSSEIN WAS RESPONSIBLE.

THANKS FOR PLAYIN'


Big Red Ron spent some time near a girl.

Later, that girl was raped.

BIG RED RON SHOULD GO TO JAIL, PEOPLE! HE MIGHT HANG OUT WITH OTHER GIRLS WHO WILL THEN BE RAPED! WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END???

Oh, I never said that Ron was responsible or had anything to do with the raping.

And actually, as it happens, the ORIGINAL point was that people are gullible as ****, because at one point, for whatever reason, 70% of them believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

YOU'RE the guy who brought Bush into the discussion.

mdklatt
5/12/2008, 08:13 PM
Mike already knows I am a dooshrocket, that is a fact.

Can you get baned for calling yourself a name?

*crosses fingers*


:D

SoonerBorn68
5/12/2008, 08:15 PM
Can you get baned for calling yourself a name?

*crosses fingers*


:D

Actually by the appearace of Mongo's post Mike called him one. :D

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 08:17 PM
Crap. See you guys later. *poof*

Mongo
5/12/2008, 08:18 PM
Can you get baned for calling yourself a name?

*crosses fingers*


:D

I was just yellow carded for a personal attack against myself.

I have learned my lesson and wont beat myself up anymore

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 08:18 PM
More like if you spend a bunch of time saying things like "Man, Mongo hangs out with dooshrockets" and "Man, people who hang out with dooshrockets are probably dooshrockets" then the inference could be made that you're trying to convince me that Mongo is a dooshrocket without coming right out and directly saying so.Jeez, I think you have a warped memory. So, you can post a few new stories about some talk about the PROVEN FACT that Al Quaida had people visit Iraq.

SHOW ME A LINK TO ANYTHING THAT SAYS, "WE ARE GOING TO IRAQ BECAUSE OF THE CONNECTION TO AL Quaida."

ONE.

mdklatt
5/12/2008, 08:20 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm[/U]


The way I read these quotes, they were saying there was a link between Iraq and al Queda, not a link between al Queda and 9/11. Maybe some people have trouble comprehending what they hear/read.

Just below the paragraph you bolded:


Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington, but he has repeatedly associated the two in keynote addresses delivered since 11 September. Senior members of his administration have similarly conflated the two.

A recent opinion poll suggests that 70% of Americans believe the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks

Whenever the administration wanted to say something "bad" about the war (no link to 9/11, no evidence of WMD) they didn't exactly shout it from the rooftops. In the time honored tradition of PR, such announcements were usually buried on Friday afternoons where news goes to die.

Somebody was responsible for making 70% of us think that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and that many people don't watch Fox News.

Big Red Ron
5/12/2008, 08:39 PM
Top O' the page. Old skool kickin it.

Harry Beanbag
5/12/2008, 09:29 PM
I was just yellow carded for a personal attack against myself.

I have learned my lesson and wont beat myself off anymore


I don't believe you.

Harry Beanbag
5/12/2008, 09:39 PM
Just below the paragraph you bolded:

Actually, I didn't bold it. It was the headline so it was already in bold.




Somebody was responsible for making 70% of us think that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and that many people don't watch Fox News.

Somebody was. I would guess it was the media who played a bigger part than you think. Most people don't go to White House press conferences, they hear what the reporters tell them happened in those press conferences.

I think you can also agree that the average person carries around a Jump to Conclusions mat with them at all times. 9/11 happened, then we invade Afghanistan to go after Bin Laden, then we invade Iraq. People who don't pay much attention could logically draw the conclusion that Iraq was also part of the 9/11 Revenge Tour when actually it was another prong in the War on Terror.

I've never said that the Administration has handled all of this properly, far ****ing from it. But the lies that the haters perpetuate to them are crazy.

Harry Beanbag
5/12/2008, 09:44 PM
Bush-cronies: "Man! al-Qaeda was in Iraq! Iraq provided support to al-Qaeda! al-Qaeda attacked us! We have to invade Iraq!"

Six years later: "We never said that Iraq was involved with 9/11!"



Surely a bright guy like yourself can see that both of these statements can be(and are) true. They have relationship questions like these on the SAT.

And Bush said over 5 years ago that Saddam wasn't responsible for 9/11.

And if "Bush cronie" is directed at me, I'm not sure where you got that idea, because I'm not one.

Frozen Sooner
5/12/2008, 10:44 PM
Actually, it was in vocabulary. As in, "which of these actions is best described as 'disingenuous'."

And no, I wasn't calling you a Bush crony. Rumsfeld, Cheney, those guys.

JohnnyMack
5/13/2008, 08:42 AM
Mike already knows I am a dooshrocket, that is a fact.

You're more like a doosh-sputnik.

SoonerProphet
5/13/2008, 09:20 AM
I think the support of pan-Arab and secular nationalist groups was more Saddam's style. It is pretty obvious why that he, as well as other Arab leaders, are very leary of radical Islam as a force of change. As such, he was not even close to being cozy with AQ orany group of their ilk. I realize nuance is tough for some.

r5TPsooner
5/13/2008, 09:22 AM
Most of you hawks and elephants have yourselves convinced that John McCain will win this thing. That or you have your fingers pressed too far into your ears and your eyes clamped so tightly shut that you're doing everything possible to remain numb to the momentum that is Barack Obama. But we've got six months to go. Six long months.

I'd just like to point out that six months ago HRC had over a 20 point lead in national polls. She was the presumptive nominee. She had a massive war chest, the right name and was going to cruise to the nomination. She was the agent of change. An inevitability most called it.

Six months ago Mike Huckabee had an ever so slight lead over John McCain in the national polls.

I hate to say it but I feel that Obama wins in a landslide over McCain. God, I hope I'm wrong though.

Okla-homey
5/13/2008, 09:35 AM
I hate to say it but I feel that Obama wins in a landslide over McCain. God, I hope I'm wrong though.

Not gonna happen. God won't let it. (I'm only half foolin')

C&CDean
5/13/2008, 11:01 AM
Funny. Two or three pages about Bush and Saddam which added up to absolutely 0. All in response to how gullible people are for believing Brack about bringing the troops home and making us some change.

Funny.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
5/13/2008, 11:11 AM
I hate to say it but I feel that Obama wins in a landslide over McCain. God, I hope I'm wrong though.With Bob Barr now in as a third party conservative, coupled with the sh*t-storm media attacks on McCain that are sure to come, I now believe either democrat could win. C'mon Hillary, get it done!

Sooner_Havok
5/13/2008, 12:14 PM
Mike already knows I am a dooshrocket, that is a fact.

Can we have a whole thread dedicated to this?:D

picasso
5/13/2008, 01:31 PM
Obama is not a Marxist, he's a spread the wealth socialist who's never passed any legislation, hasn't been a uniter in Congress and is basically unqualified but yet he's a charismatic speaker who says a whole lot about nothing other than what we've already heard and been promised before.

fixed.

JohnnyMack
5/13/2008, 01:59 PM
1. Whats his plan about Iraq? We know he gave a speech against it in 2003. So did a lot of other people. What's he gonna do now? He says his plan is to pull out the troops....and then put them on the border so he can re-inject them if anything should go wrong. That's a ridiculous idea. There are college undergrads that could come up with something better than that.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

At its endpoint, our efforts in Iraq will be a failure. This particular foray into nation building isn't going to end well for the USA. The people of Iraq have shown little interest in governing themselves. They've done a poor job of establishing anything concrete that won't evaporate once our boots aren't on that sand anymore. We would have been much better served over the last 7 years at spending our resources smashing Al Qaeda to bits and keeping an inept, militarily powerless strongman in power in Iraq.


2. Eat McCain's lunch...how? In a debate? Because HRC ran circles around him in their debates....time and again. When he was actually pressured by the media in his last debate, he pouted and blamed them for asking questions. Then...he refused to debate again. Obama isn't good in debates...or talking about issues...which is why he does an effective job at minimizing his exposure to both -- he's good when he's surrounded by screaming fans during his laser light show speeches.

That debate on ABC was a joke. Charlie Gibson and Clinton's little trained monkey weren't interested in talking about policy, they wanted to talk about things that don't matter when it comes to the day to operations of how this country is governed. That debacle was a prime example of what's wrong with politics in America.

Obama and HRC have had 21 debates. He's not ducking anyone. Getting into a street fight with a desperate Clinton would have been more time in the mud and less time talking about her Gas Tax Fantasy.


3. Please define "change." Just once, I'd like one of the Obama fans to define change that has absolutely nothing to do with the candidate himself...how one "came to know" Obama...or how he makes you feel deep inside. Please tell us, specifically, what sort of policies he would implement that would be able to unite the country and bring about "real change" like he and his supporters constantly claim.

His attitude towards embracing diplomacy on the geo-political landscape is certainly a change when compared to the current administration. His efforts at reforming the health care industry is certainly a change from the way things are handled now. His efforts at making government more transparent than it is today is a change for sure. He wants to eliminate the tax breaks for companies that continue to ship our jobs overeas which would be a change.

I could keep going, or you could read this:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf


4. Again...aside from inspiration and the amorphous (and conveniently undefined) concept of change...what does this man offer? We're electing the President of the United States -- not a national motivational speaker. He was still a state legislator two years ago to this day. He was in the Senate for a year and a half before announcing his intention to run for the White House. A state legislator....2 years ago today.

I think the fact that he's only been in the Senate for 2 years is a positive. I don't know that having someone who's spent the last 25 years inside the beltway as a POTUS is a good thing. This relates to the change topic. You don't think having a Jr. Senator elected President would be a change? I think his experience is different than what we're used to seeing, but I think he's seasoned enough to handle the job.


5. And that's the kicker. The Obama fanbase genuinely disbelieves that Barack engages in run-of-the-mill political tactics (how could he?...he's Barack, man). They honestly and sincerely look at him as someone who has never --nay, would never-- stoop down to the level of normal politics. It's safe to say...they haven't been watching the primaries from the p-o-v of the Clintons...who are now the modern equivalent of Bull Connor and David Duke rolled into one.

Clinton lost the Democratic race because she went into assuming she had already won it. She expected it to be a coronation, not a fight. By the time she realized her campaign was getting out hustled by a campaign that had a better message than hers it was too late. She has no one to blame but herself.

shaun4411
5/13/2008, 02:24 PM
mccain - lieberman wooooo

shaun4411
5/13/2008, 02:27 PM
i think obama rising this quickly is indicitive of the people behind the scenes pushing him up. he's shook hands and has made friends. i just wonder what has went down to get him where he is in such a short period of time. being an excellent orator only gets one so far.

picasso
5/13/2008, 02:36 PM
John Mack, dude what world do you live in? Obama has had a free ride up until now. He'd better brush up on his defenses because it will get more difficult for him. Blue jeans and all...

C&CDean
5/13/2008, 02:55 PM
Daaaang. JM not only drank the koolaid, he's gotten out his fork and spoon and is binge eating the steaming pile of poo like a starving man. Get a ****ing grip man.

JohnnyMack
5/13/2008, 03:04 PM
Daaaang. JM not only drank the koolaid, he's gotten out his fork and spoon and is binge eating the steaming pile of poo like a starving man. Get a ****ing grip man.

And then I washed it down with some Arrogant Bastard! :D

Civicus_Sooner
5/13/2008, 03:42 PM
i think obama rising this quickly is indicitive of the people behind the scenes pushing him up. he's shook hands and has made friends. i just wonder what has went down to get him where he is in such a short period of time. being an excellent orator only gets one so far.It's called the Chicago political machine. It's crooked. Look it up. Michelle "Finally proud to be an American" Obama is/was part of the Mayor Daley political machine, one only surpassed by Huey P. Long's in political corruptness.

mdklatt
5/13/2008, 03:44 PM
the Mayor Daley political machine, one only surpassed by Huey P. Long's in political corruptness

I'm not even sure that's true. :D

Civicus_Sooner
5/13/2008, 04:03 PM
I'm not even sure that's true. :D
You might be right. ;) Huey was once said to be so crooked that you had to go south to get north with him.

However, Huey was never caught buying liquer for the homeless to go vote either. ;)

JohnnyMack
5/14/2008, 04:43 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html

John Edwards to endorse Obama.

Harry Beanbag
5/14/2008, 05:32 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/edwards.obama/index.html

John Edwards to endorse Obama.


Is that supposed to help or hurt Obama?

Sooner_Havok
5/14/2008, 05:34 PM
Is that supposed to help or hurt Obama?

Blue Collar workers (middle class white people) like him

Civicus_Sooner
5/14/2008, 05:42 PM
Blue Collar workers (middle class white people) like him
Yet they didn't vote for him.

Harry Beanbag
5/14/2008, 05:46 PM
Blue Collar workers (middle class white people) like him


I don't. He's just as big of a fraud and lunatic as the rest of the main players right now.

Sooner_Havok
5/14/2008, 06:00 PM
I don't. He's just as big of a fraud and lunatic as the rest of the main players right now.

Let me clear this up. White Donks like him.

Harry Beanbag
5/14/2008, 06:07 PM
Let me clear this up. White Donks like him.


That doesn't really clear anything up, just brings up other troubling issues. ;)

Sooner_Havok
5/14/2008, 06:19 PM
At this point, I have chosen the devil I know to often, I am going with the devil I don't know. That's right folks, I am stating that I think Obama is just as corrupt as any other politician. But hell, when they're all crookeder than a dog's hind leg, I figure I may as well go for the guy who hasn't been exposed YET.

That's right, I said yet. He ain't special, he's just something different.

Harry Beanbag
5/14/2008, 06:24 PM
That's right, I said yet. He ain't special, he's just something different.



http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5849/thatsracistdk6.gif

Sooner_Havok
5/14/2008, 06:25 PM
http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5849/thatsracistdk6.gif

What, I ain't voting for the guy with the shriveled sack, or McCain. :D

Harry Beanbag
5/14/2008, 07:31 PM
What, I ain't voting for the guy with the shriveled sack, or McCain. :D


No, because you said he's "different". I find that offensive.



Of course I really don't, I was just following your overly hyperbolic racism rant from the other thread. ;)

Sooner_Havok
5/14/2008, 07:47 PM
No, because you said he's "different". I find that offensive.



Of course I really don't, I was just following your overly hyperbolic racism rant from the other thread. ;)

:P