PDA

View Full Version : Nice Moment At The Obama Rally in Bristol Today



Rogue
6/5/2008, 06:12 PM
My report:

So I took off at lunch and went over to Virginia HS to see BO.
Linkage (http://www.tricities.com/tri/news/local/article/obama_kicks_of_national_campaign_in_bristol_with_p romise_of_affordable_heal/10385/)

It was energetic, felt like walking into a rock concert. He handled a few Q&As and yeah they were mostly softballs. But he did call on a couple of the crazier looking people and it was obvious to me that they weren't planted in the crowd. One guy was really twitchy and BO ended up calling on him for a question.

Touching moment when a 95 year old black man gave Obama a cool carved walking stick as a gift. I was proud of the crowd who seemed to be largely pro-veteran and mostly anti-Iraq war. You know, I really don't know anyone that's against hunting down Osama, and finally we are starting to realize that it's a separate deal from Iraq.

Some of Obama's new material was out and, frankly, it's pretty good. His pay-as-you-go idea is more along the lines of Bill Clinton and when talking about universal healthcare he said that some tough decisions would be made and that one plan really can't cover everything. He joked that if you get liposuction, you will be paying for it yourself.

His spiel about alternative energies went over well in coal country, partly because he included a bit about "clean coal" research. I'll prolly think of more later.

I remain hopeful that whether JM or BO is elected, we can heal some as a country from the 16 years of divisiveness where roughly 49% of the country really couldn't stand the president.

Yeah, I'd go see McCain if he came too and I really think that either candidate will be a huge improvement over GWB.

Optimistically,

-Rogue

Chuck Bao
6/5/2008, 07:07 PM
I like that report, Rogue. That's a good read.

I agree that for the first time in a very long time, we have two good candidates that can lead the country out of the divisive era of politics and the morass of the Bush administration.

Sooner_Havok
6/5/2008, 07:16 PM
I like that report, Rogue. That's a good read.

I agree that for the first time in a very long time, we have two good candidates that can lead the country out of the divisive era of politics and the morass of the Bush administration.

Heh, exact opposite of what Rush Limbaugh was saying this morning. So, they both must be alright if Rush hates em both :D

Harry Beanbag
6/5/2008, 07:38 PM
I remain hopeful that whether JM or BO is elected, we can heal some as a country from the 16 years of divisiveness where roughly 49% of the country really couldn't stand the president.



That would be nice, but unfortunately, I think there is a large percentage of the population, and Washington for that matter, that don't remember it ever being different.

Sooner_Havok
6/5/2008, 08:13 PM
That would be nice, but unfortunately, I think there is a large percentage of the population, and Washington for that matter, that don't remember it ever being different.

I am one of the ones that doesn't remember it ever being different. I do hope that the next POTUS will bring this country together, be it McCain or Obama.

swardboy
6/5/2008, 10:20 PM
Obama - #1 liberal voting record in the Senate
McCain - McNasty

It ain't gettin' any better.....

Big Red Ron
6/5/2008, 10:25 PM
I'll bet anyone here $100 that obama does worse than Kerry. Just peem me. I've looked at some internal polls and Barrack loses the same states Kerry did, doesn't win any that Kerry lost and loses Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Beat. Down.

Curly Bill
6/5/2008, 10:52 PM
I'll bet anyone here $100 that obama does worse than Kerry. Just peem me. I've looked at some internal polls and Barrack loses the same states Kerry did, doesn't win any that Kerry lost and loses Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Beat. Down.

I agree 100%

SouthFortySooner
6/5/2008, 11:33 PM
...you people would have got the wiggies had someone typed, " it was such a touching moment when the little white man gave John". We'll hear this sort of thing over and over and... but its OK. Why?

yermom
6/5/2008, 11:50 PM
uh oh, not "you people" again ;)

yermom
6/5/2008, 11:53 PM
Heh, exact opposite of what Rush Limbaugh was saying this morning. So, they both must be alright if Rush hates em both :D

i'm not overly excited about either one, really, but the fact that the staunch Bush people hate both of them makes me happy


well that and that it's not Hilary

mdklatt
6/6/2008, 12:00 AM
I'm thinking about rooting for Obama (doesn't matter who I vote for--thanks Oklahoma electoral system) simply for the entertainment value it will provide around here if he wins. Call it schadenfraude.

It's like choosing between oSu (pubz) or UT (libz). I can't stand either one, but it's more fun to watch aggy squirm because I don't get to see whorn fans all year round.

SouthFortySooner
6/6/2008, 12:12 AM
uh oh, not "you people" again ;)


...you know who you are. I don't think Rogue wanted us to read any more into it than innocence. Its just, he can be black when its "touching" but not when as a minority all the hills will be higher and why would I want to vote for someone with an extrordinary struggle ahead,... black.

soonerboy_odanorth
6/6/2008, 01:24 AM
That's really how bad it has become then, isn't it? I agree... either candidate is a vast improvement over Dubya.

And I don't think either even scratches the surface of being a true leader for our nation.

Our only real hope is that whoever wins will surprise all of us, and pick this nation up by its bootstraps and start kicking ***.

I sincerely doubt it will happen, though. Our nation has gone soft and gutless. French-like, I would say....

Rogue
6/6/2008, 05:14 AM
Touching moment when a 95 year old black man gave Obama a cool carved walking stick as a gift.

OK, here's more of the context. BO said he would call on people in a "boy/girl/boy/girl" rotation so he wasn't accused of showing favoritism. The man's daughter actually got called on and said that she was here with her 95 y.o. Daddy who has waited 67 years for this moment and he brought a gift that he wanted BO to have. It was sweet. The feller walked slowly up to the front and BO was gracious. Asked him what he ate to live so long and look so young, asked what kind of wood the stick was made from, and then carried it around with him for a bit. Then he called on another lady because the daughter was "frontin" for her Dad.

Okla-homey
6/6/2008, 05:21 AM
That's really how bad it has become then, isn't it? I agree... either candidate is a vast improvement over Dubya.

And I don't think either even scratches the surface of being a true leader for our nation.

Our only real hope is that whoever wins will surprise all of us, and pick this nation up by its bootstraps and start kicking ***.

I sincerely doubt it will happen, though. Our nation has gone soft and gutless. French-like, I would say....

My money's on the old guy. He has vast leadership experience. You don't rise to command a multi-squadron carrier air wing because you can give nice speeches. You get that gig because people, both above and below you, trust your judgment.

BHO on the other hand, has never led anything of consequence. And he is awesome on the stump -- as long as the teleprompter is working.

Just wait til those guys go head-to-head without a script.

Vaevictis
6/6/2008, 06:02 AM
Just wait til those guys go head-to-head without a script.

Heh, if they go head to head without a script.

I'd love to see a real debate, but seeing that I can't recall the last time I've seen a presidential "debate" that's actually worthy of the label... well, I'm just not holding my breath.

JohnnyMack
6/6/2008, 09:20 AM
Just wait til those guys go head-to-head without a script.

I think it's funny that supporters of both sides are saying the same thing, "Just wait until they debate!" Both side thinks the their candidate is going to trounce the others. It will be interesting, I know that.

JohnnyMack
6/6/2008, 09:28 AM
I'll bet anyone here $100 that obama does worse than Kerry. Just peem me. I've looked at some internal polls and Barrack loses the same states Kerry did, doesn't win any that Kerry lost and loses Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Beat. Down.

wtf is an "internal poll"?

Taxman71
6/6/2008, 09:33 AM
Anyone who would run for office is not worth voting for.

Tulsa_Fireman
6/6/2008, 09:53 AM
wtf is an "internal poll"?

I hear you get that if you ever go to prison.

Or Turkey Mountain.

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 10:02 AM
wtf is an "internal poll"?Look it up.

Tell me which state Obama will win that Kerry didn't.

JohnnyMack
6/6/2008, 10:08 AM
After TF's post I'm afraid to.

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 10:24 AM
Internal polls are those that are not released to the public. This particular survey was a comprehensive, state by state survey produced and conducted by a national firm paid for by the McCain Campaign.

The national surveys the media release are statistical samples that don't account for the effects of the electoral college.

It's entirely possible that for the third time in our history, someone wins the popular vote and loses the electoral college.

GrapevineSooner
6/6/2008, 10:30 AM
Which means it's entirely possibly that for the second time in three elections, we'll have to hear about how an election was stolen?

Looking forward to the electoral carnage in about 5 months. :D

OklahomaRed
6/6/2008, 10:34 AM
National Healthcare? 33% budget overun the first year, and they can't get the young and healthy to sign up? Can you blame them? Who wants to pay for someone elses problems? :D

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/06/06/massachusetts-health-care-woes-someone-tell-obama/

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 10:38 AM
Which means it's entirely possibly that for the second time in three elections, we'll have to hear about how an election was stolen?

Looking forward to the electoral carnage in about 5 months. :DDidn't Billery win the popular vote in the Democratic primary but lost the delegate race?

While it may seem crazy that we don't have a simple majority rules type election for the Presidential campaign. It's actually a genius system put in place by the founding fathers.

Imagine if California and NY were able to determine the Presidency every year? We live in a Republic, not a democracy. The only one of it's kind and we're also the greatest country in the world, in part because of it.

The Tyranny of the majority isn't just a phrase.

stoops the eternal pimp
6/6/2008, 10:47 AM
(doesn't matter who I vote for--thanks Oklahoma electoral system)

exactly...This is the reason why I don't get my underroos twisted over politics..it really doesn't matter.

mdklatt
6/6/2008, 10:48 AM
[QUOTE=mdklatt;2310623] (doesn't matter who I vote for--thanks Oklahoma electoral system) [QUOTE]

exactly...This is the reason why I don't get my underroos twisted over politics..it really doesn't matter

I think it matters--look at the last seven years--but Oklahoma is going to vote R no matter what so individual votes make no difference.

GrapevineSooner
6/6/2008, 11:41 AM
Didn't Billery win the popular vote in the Democratic primary but lost the delegate race?

While it may seem crazy that we don't have a simple majority rules type election for the Presidential campaign. It's actually a genius system put in place by the founding fathers.

Imagine if California and NY were able to determine the Presidency every year? We live in a Republic, not a democracy. The only one of it's kind and we're also the greatest country in the world, in part because of it.

The Tyranny of the majority isn't just a phrase.

I'm not really on one side or the other on the Electoral College debate. I'm speaking more to the dolts in 2000 that used that as a legitimate argument in suggesting the election was stolen.

Kind of like how Bob Stoops slapped down the critics in 2003 when he simply stated that everybody knew what the rules were going in.

I think the same principle holds true here. Forget the popular vote because that's not the scoreboard that counts.

JohnnyMack
6/6/2008, 11:50 AM
I'll bet anyone here $100 that obama does worse than Kerry. Just peem me. I've looked at some internal polls and Barrack loses the same states Kerry did, doesn't win any that Kerry lost and loses Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Beat. Down.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e2/ElectoralCollege2004.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege2004.svg.png

While I'm sure McCain is being fed information to keep him happy, I'm not at all convinced this map is any sort of precursor (beyond the obvious ones). I consider VA, PA, OH, IA, FL, GA, VA, NM, CO & NV just off the top of my head to be toss ups.

Here's the RCP breakdown:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Animal Mother
6/6/2008, 12:49 PM
Anyone who would run for office is not worth voting for.

That reminds me of two sayings.

I wouldn't belong to a country club that would have me as a member.

People that want to be in politics shouldn't be and those that don't want to be in politics should be.

Welcome to the Fellini movie we call "Our Political System."
No. This not a saying so I didn't list three.

Rogue
6/6/2008, 04:12 PM
Actually I think BO thinks more quickly on his feet than some of you might. And better'n McCain at it. However, a town-hall type thing favors McCain more than a heads-up debate because of what someone said earlier, mebbe in a different thread - his straight-talk folksy rhetorical style is a proven winner. BO might seem "uppity" if he stays on the intellectual ground and too greenhorn if he gets too common with the language. JM can just plug along with the down home lingo that is his bailiwick and seem genuine AND smart.

LosAngelesSooner
6/6/2008, 05:43 PM
I'll bet anyone here $100 that obama does worse than Kerry. Just peem me. I've looked at some internal polls and Barrack loses the same states Kerry did, doesn't win any that Kerry lost and loses Colorado, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Beat. Down.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Does Barak stand a legitimate chance? Yes.

Will the "Bushies" do everything they can AGAIN to win this one? Yes.

RedstickSooner
6/6/2008, 06:03 PM
BHO on the other hand, has never led anything of consequence. And he is awesome on the stump -- as long as the teleprompter is working.


Yeah. Magna cum laude from Harvard Law. I'm sure he can't think on his feet. :rolleyes:

Chuck Bao
6/6/2008, 06:04 PM
I think that is a good point, LA Sooner.

G.W. Bush desparately needs the executive branch to stay in Republican hands to continue to hide all of his misadventures.

Accountability should be expected and demanded from a president.

I shudder to think that Bush and his cronies can not only profit from their ability to mislead and project fear, but that would become a precedent for future administrations.

It is a pretty easy choice for me.

Okla-homey
6/6/2008, 07:55 PM
Yeah. Magna cum laude from Harvard Law. I'm sure he can't think on his feet. :rolleyes:

doesn't mean a damn thing. just means he could regurgitate stuff onto written tests.

KC//CRIMSON
6/6/2008, 08:17 PM
I think it's going to take McCain all of about one Town Hall meeting to realize:

{Dumping in pants} Holy shizt! I challenged him to how many of these things?

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 09:13 PM
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Does Barak stand a legitimate chance? Yes.

Will the "Bushies" do everything they can AGAIN to win this one? Yes.Yeah, cuz McCain and Bush are such good pals. The Bush's are done.

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 09:16 PM
I think that is a good point, LA Sooner.

G.W. Bush desparately needs the executive branch to stay in Republican hands to continue to hide all of his misadventures.

Accountability should be expected and demanded from a president.

I shudder to think that Bush and his cronies can not only profit from their ability to mislead and project fear, but that would become a precedent for future administrations.

It is a pretty easy choice for me.Do you realize how much hatred there is between Bush and McCain? Think Hillary and Obama.

Oh, and look out you back window the black hellicopters are flying to drop off Fox Moulder to investigate your "theories."
:gary:

Jerk
6/6/2008, 09:50 PM
Anyone who would run for office is not worth voting for.


"Don't vote. You'll encourage the bast*rds!"

Chuck Bao
6/6/2008, 09:57 PM
Do you realize how much hatred there is between Bush and McCain? Think Hillary and Obama.

Oh, and look out you back window the black hellicopters are flying to drop off Fox Moulder to investigate your "theories."
:gary:

Huh?

Heh! Are you kidding? Bush is reportedly very eager to campaign for McCain.

And no matter how much you want to spin that McCain is a maverick, he is still a Washington insider. All you have to do is look at his advisors and who they've served as lobbists.

I highly doubt that McCain, if elected president, will go after Haliburton or any of those big companies supporting the Republicans.

I'm not necessarily thinking about how much they've over-charged for their services, but more importantly criminal charges for their poor work, putting our troops in danger, such as the wiring on the military showers.

If McCain choses Condi as his VP, that pretty much seals the deal.

McCain is already made his position on big business clear.

He is pro free trade (without the conditions Obama is talking about) and apparently amnesty for illegal aliens.

The big business supporters of Bush must be very happy.

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 10:03 PM
The slanderous campaign the Bush's ran against McCain in 2000, when McCain was winning has not been forgotten.

Neither has McCain's pushing for Gen. Petraeus' push for the surge over Bush's advisor's, finally winning that argument and it being successful been forgotten.

Also, McCain voted against the Bush Tax cut plan and helped kill a lot of spending pushed by the administration in the Senate.

Trust me, Bush is an asset in raising money, beyond that they aren't friends.

If you don't think McCain wont go after Haliburton and "big oil" I suggest you take a closer look at McCain's energy policy papers.

Jerk
6/6/2008, 10:21 PM
I love it. McCain used to be the darling Republican of the Democrats. He was the maverick. He would go against his own party and against the evil Bush. He voted with Kennedy on the education bill and supported amnesty that would fundamentally change this country.

Now that he's going against the most liberal senator in congress, all of that doesn't mean much anymore to them. It's not enough.

Just goes to show you: working with the enemy won't gain you any favors and you won't gain a damned thing in return.

And a note to Rogue- you need to look into Obama's record on gun control. He wouldn't even support legislation that would exonerate a home owner for shooting an intruder in self-defense. He is for more than just mere 'gun control.' He is for gun prohibition.

Oh well, the useful idiots aren't bothered by the fact that their messiah doesn't believe in the right of an individual to protect his own life. That's the polices' job, right? Dial 911.

Chuck Bao
6/6/2008, 10:26 PM
The slanderous campaign the Bush's ran against McCain in 2000, when McCain was winning has not been forgotten.

Neither has McCain's pushing for Gen. Petraeus' push for the surge over Bush's advisor's, finally winning that argument and it being successful been forgotten.

Also, McCain voted against the Bush Tax cut plan and helped kill a lot of spending pushed by the administration in the Senate.

Trust me, Bush is an asset in raising money, beyond that they aren't friends.

If you don't think McCain wont go after Haliburton and "big oil" I suggest you take a closer look at McCain's energy policy papers.

I don't think I ever mentioned that they are friends.

And, what I'm talking about goes far beyond those energy policy papers. McCain is certainly more environmentally friendly. I concede that point, but that isn't the key point I was trying to make.

I think I entered this discussion on the note that the Bush administration, cronies and Washington Republican base desparately need McCain to win. By gones and all that, as far as they're concerned. That is pretty much certain in any lame duck administration.

Now, whether McCain will return the newly discovered love is what we are debating.

I would like to see a clean sweep and I hope you are right. And, I'd like to see more accountability.

But, I'm not convinced that will happen. McCain seems too tied in with big business.

Curly Bill
6/6/2008, 10:28 PM
But, I'm not convinced that will happen. McCain seems too tied in with big business.

While Obama has no unsavory ties right? :D

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 10:28 PM
I don't think I ever mentioned that they are friends.

And, what I'm talking about goes far beyond those energy policy papers. McCain is certainly more environmentally friendly. I concede that point, but that isn't the key point I was trying to make.

I think I entered this discussion on the note that the Bush administration, cronies and Washington Republican base desparately need McCain to win. By gones and all that, as far as they're concerned. That is pretty much certain in any lame duck administration.

Now, whether McCain will return the newly discovered love is what we are debating.

I would like to see a clean sweep and I hope you are right. And, I'd like to see more accountability.

But, I'm not convinced that will happen. McCain seems too tied in with big business.:eek: :rolleyes:

Jerk
6/6/2008, 10:32 PM
While Obama has no unsavory ties right? :D

LOL! Who's that terrorist friend of his who bombed the pentagon? William Ayers? To the radical left, that is much less 'evil' than being a businessman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 10:33 PM
We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.

Excuse me, but what the hell business is it of the the government, let alone people living in other countries what I drive, how much or what I eat or what the temperature is at which I set my thermostat?

This is pure adulterated socialist drivel. Class envy and class warfare. Folks, we’re getting a real good look at the real Barack Hussein Obama and it is what it is: an unapologetic, America-bashing, 1960s-style socialist.

Texass Hold em

Jerk
6/6/2008, 10:36 PM
....in which three Weatherman members (Ted Gold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Gold), Terry Robbins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Robbins), and Diana Oughton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Oughton), who was Ayers' girlfriend at the time) were killed while constructing a nail bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_bomb)....

HaHa! I never knew that! That's funny sh** right there. Makes me smirk.

Curly Bill
6/6/2008, 10:36 PM
This Tony Rezko seems like a high character guy to be pals with though.


http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-rezko5-2008jun05,0,864831.story

Chuck Bao
6/6/2008, 10:39 PM
I love it. McCain used to be the darling Republican of the Democrats. He was the maverick. He would go against his own party and against the evil Bush. He voted with Kennedy on the education bill and supported amnesty that would fundamentally change this country.

Now that he's going against the most liberal senator in congress, all of that doesn't mean much anymore to them. It's not enough.

Just goes to show you: working with the enemy won't gain you any favors and you won't gain a damned thing in return.

And a note to Rogue- you need to look into Obama's record on gun control. He wouldn't even support legislation that would exonerate a home owner for shooting an intruder in self-defense. He is for more than just mere 'gun control.' He is for gun prohibition.

Oh well, the useful idiots aren't bothered by the fact that their messiah doesn't believe in the right of an individual to protect his own life. That's the polices' job, right? Dial 911.

Did you see oil prices and Wall Street today?

In the future, we may all need guns to protect our gas tanks at night.

Jerk
6/6/2008, 10:42 PM
Did you see oil prices and Wall Street today?

In the future, we may all need guns to protect our gas tanks at night.

Yes, I did take notice. Evidently, we're not stealing enough of that oil that we invaded Iraq for.

Jerk
6/6/2008, 10:45 PM
You want lower oil prices? Quit buying cheap Chinese sh** from Wal*Mart.

We can also talk about the speculators, but now we're getting over Jerk's head. It seems to me that they make self-fulfilling prophecies. I think there's a lot of inside crap going on there, and George Soros has something to do with it. It's not a market economy; it's cronyism.

Chuck Bao
6/6/2008, 10:48 PM
Excuse me, but what the hell business is it of the the government, let alone people living in other countries what I drive, how much or what I eat or what the temperature is at which I set my thermostat?

This is pure adulterated socialist drivel. Class envy and class warfare. Folks, weíre getting a real good look at the real Barack Hussein Obama and it is what it is: an unapologetic, America-bashing, 1960s-style socialist.

Texass Hold em

Okay, go about your merry own way and I'm happy for you.

How many Americans have zero equity in their homes now? Is that nobody's business? Let's just ignore the fundamentals and say the economy is going to **** because it is nobody's business.

Trust me, there is major, major hurt ahead.

It's all a bit funny to me. The people doing okay are saying it's all fine. Of course they are. Until it isn't.

Do you want a leader who agrees with you up until the point that there is a major crisis or one who says that there is trouble.

Big Red Ron
6/6/2008, 10:52 PM
Okay, go about your merry own way and I'm happy for you.

How many Americans have zero equity in their homes now? Is that nobody's business? Let's just ignore the fundamentals and say the economy is going to **** because it is nobody's business.

Trust me, there is major, major hurt ahead.

It's all a bit funny to me. The people doing okay are saying it's all fine. Of course they are. Until it isn't.

Do you want a leader who agrees with you up until the point that there is a major crisis or one who says that there is trouble.
You must be drinking because nothing I said there is related to what you replied with.

Here's an idea. address the points I made without changing the subject, if you can.

Chuck Bao
6/6/2008, 11:10 PM
You must be drinking because nothing I said there is related to what you replied with.

Here's an idea. address the points I made without changing the subject, if you can.

Heh! Busted.

I think you points were: nobody should tell me what to drive and what temperature to set in my house.

I think my points were: It's a problem on the macro scale. Regardless on the individual case, the fact is that Americans have over-spent and over-extended themselves. I chose to mention home equity because that's just the latest number coming to mind.

Reading back through these posts, I want to confirm that I'm not a do-gooder and I'm not about to tell anyone what car to drive or what temperature to set their home.

On the other hand, I really don't see a problem for a candidate or an elected leader to rag on some of us to conserve more.

My own electricty bill was $250 last month. I'm pretty much ashamed about that, but I refuse to cut my air-con off.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 12:07 AM
Yeah, cuz McCain and Bush are such good pals. The Bush's are done.
Sorry. You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about McCain. I'm not talking about the Bush's (though I think they will work their tails off to keep ANY Republican in the White House). I'm talking about the Bushies. The Bush loyalists. The ones who consider themselves "More American" than other people. The ones who think the "dirty Libs" are in cahoots with the terrorists. The ones who think the Kennedys might as well be named The Hitlers.

Those supreme Bush Loyalists who still have their blinders on and consider Bush to be a good President will do whatever it takes to keep the White House Red.

Trust me. I know how much McCain LOATHES Bush. It's one of the reasons I like the guy.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 02:04 AM
I love it. McCain used to be the darling Republican of the Democrats. He was the maverick. He would go against his own party and against the evil Bush. He voted with Kennedy on the education bill and supported amnesty that would fundamentally change this country.

Now that he's going against the most liberal senator in congress, all of that doesn't mean much anymore to them. It's not enough.

Actually, I'm happier than a pig in **** that the last men standing are who they are. Both seem to be genuinely against PAC money. Both impress me as having a basic command of their native language, American English. And I think both are legitimate public servants. I like McCain 2000 better than McCain 2008, but I like the guy either way.





And a note to Rogue- you need to look into Obama's record on gun control. He wouldn't even support legislation that would exonerate a home owner for shooting an intruder in self-defense. He is for more than just mere 'gun control.' He is for gun prohibition.



The disaster that has been the last 8 years under W will probably satisfy me in one way and that is when SCOTUS rules in our favor on Heller v DC.
And not a moment too soon because, if you look at the records of both JM and BO, neither are very pro-gun.

So, after this SCOTUS gets done with Heller, I'm looking forward to some new blood. I think JM or BO would get some pretty sharp and pretty atypical SCOTUS justices in within 15 months.

Here's what I don't get. There are folks in my office who read the paper every day and STILL think BO is a Muslim. And while I'm disappointed that thier intellect is so easily overrun by their fears, I'm actually disgusted that they think this would be a reason not to vote for someone. Muslim does not = terr'ist. This is still the country founded on, at least in large part, freedom of religion and it really doesn't matter to me which God the guy/gal prays to as long as the job s/he is elected/hired to do gets done well.

Shamrock
6/7/2008, 03:19 AM
My money's on the old guy. He has vast leadership experience. You don't rise to command a multi-squadron carrier air wing because you can give nice speeches. You get that gig because people, both above and below you, trust your judgment.

BHO on the other hand, has never led anything of consequence. And he is awesome on the stump -- as long as the teleprompter is working.

Just wait til those guys go head-to-head without a script.

Maybe having a Dad and Grandpa as Admirals helped too ...

BTW .... Someone in my family knew James Stockdale rather well, and Stockdale hated McCain. Truly hated him. Both were in the Hanoi Hilton together.

I think Obama is a wasted candidate for the Dems, but I'm not going to vote for McCain either. Not sure what I'll do .... but these are the two worst candidates I've seen since I could vote.

RedstickSooner
6/7/2008, 05:41 AM
doesn't mean a damn thing. just means he could regurgitate stuff onto written tests.

Yeah... And being in the NFL just means you lift weights :D

C'mon, Homey -- have at least a *little* intellectual honesty in your arguments.

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 07:58 AM
Yeah... And being in the NFL just means you lift weights :D

C'mon, Homey -- have at least a *little* intellectual honesty in your arguments.

I AM.

Look, I went to an accredited law school and graduated "with honors." I feel that qualifies me to state the following.

1) cum laude (with honors): generally equals GPA over three years > 3.3 (works out to around the top fifteen percent because law schools utilize the curved grading system)
summa cum laude (with highest honors): generally equals GPA over three years > 3.5 (around the top five percent of the class for the same reason)

2) just because a person has such grades, does not mean he or she is capable of impromptu speech or that he or she is "quick on his feet." Frankly, the people with the best grades normally don't even practice law and instead become law professors. The old saw is; "magnas" and "summas" teach, "cums" become judges, and the "C" students? that's where the guys who get rich come from.;)

The simple fact is, this BHO guy has not evidenced the ability to out "speak" any of his Donk rivals. What he has evidenced is an admitted gifted and talented ability to deliver a rousing speech/sermon. That is otherwise known as oratory. Now, whether or not he wrote said speech/sermon or whether it contains any original thoughts is another matter entirely.

That is why I contend that JSM will do well in one-on-one debates with BHO. I'm also counting on the fact this nation will not elect an admitted coke head with a skimpy resume and who kept company for two decades with those who plotted against this country and/or are unapologetic race-haters and who only kicked them to the curb when he was busted on it.

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 08:22 AM
So, after this SCOTUS gets done with Heller, I'm looking forward to some new blood. I think JM or BO would get some pretty sharp and pretty atypical SCOTUS justices in within 15 months.


Atypical I'll give you...


"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom."

"The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."


Notice that apparently knowledge of the law and Constitution don't seem to matter much.

JohnnyMack
6/7/2008, 08:28 AM
homey, you have a lot of nerve talking about coke heads and presidents in the same sentence.

Who did you vote for in the last two elections again?

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 08:30 AM
homey, you have a lot of nerve talking about coke heads and presidents in the same sentence.

Who did you vote for in the last two elections again?

I don't recall ever voting for an admitted coke head.

JohnnyMack
6/7/2008, 08:45 AM
You're turning into a lawyer.

Good jorb.

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 08:54 AM
Homey has been telling us how Obama can't win for many months for this or that reason. in the primary; now, in the general. always with some new theory or primary demographics about how this or that will skew against him.

now, it's the style and no-substance argument. i've addressed this point in another thread about "rhetorical style". anyway, i'm not going to vote for Obama. i'm not a Democrat and never will be. but, let's leave your increasingly partisan logic gymnastics aside, Homey.

i'm going to say this again. what you people are calling "mere oratory" is an important part of the Presidential office. Quick to condemn Obama, but Reagan was inspirational as a speaker? and, as i said before, the "plain talk" style is a powerful rhetorical trope appropriate to systems of self-governance. but, let's not get too committed that McCain is all substance over "style"....the guy has changed positions all over the place. it's well documented. back in 04, we called that "flip flop".

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 09:00 AM
The choice is very simple. Either you want a guy that ****es off both parties or you want a socialist. Everything else is just window dressing and excuses.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 09:23 AM
Homey, I'm enjoying your unabashed bias on this. Usually you try to be so damn reasonable and point out pros and cons on each side. But not here, you really seem to be seeing this as more concrete, black and white, good and bad. And, it will come as no surprise, I disagree.


...2) just because a person has such grades, does not mean he or she is capable of impromptu speech or that he or she is "quick on his feet." ....

The simple fact is, this BHO guy has not evidenced the ability to out "speak" any of his Donk rivals. What he has evidenced is an admitted gifted and talented ability to deliver a rousing speech/sermon. That is otherwise known as oratory. Now, whether or not he wrote said speech/sermon or whether it contains any original thoughts is another matter entirely.

That is why I contend that JSM will do well in one-on-one debates with BHO. I'm also counting on the fact this nation will not elect an admitted coke head with a skimpy resume and who kept company for two decades with those who plotted against this country and/or are unapologetic race-haters and who only kicked them to the curb when he was busted on it.


Really? Really?

Homey I'm seeing BO as quick on his feet. It's a real stength and when he's at his most charming. In fact, it's when he seems more "real" to the crowds. Sure his stump material is rehearsed and sure he delivers it well too, but he really shines when he's actually answering questions and interacting with folks. I think it's a mistake to underestimate his talents here.

I think JM will do well in debates too; at this point I'm giving the edge to BO in debate and improvisation.

Let's come back to this...

I'm also counting on the fact this nation will not elect an admitted coke head with a skimpy resume and who kept company for two decades with those who plotted against this country and/or are unapologetic race-haters and who only kicked them to the curb when he was busted on it.

W's resume in 1999 was anything but impressive to most of the independents, non-committeds, and of course those on the left that I know. He was a failed businessman, a no-show Air-guardsman, a bad governor from a state that wasn't envied by many at the time (except for the roads cause they had great roads then), and Kennebunkport guy who claimed TX as his home and dodged the coke quetion almost as badly as Clinton tried to dodge pot-smoking. The company he kept was with some pretty questionable Saudis and oil men. In fact didn't most of the 9/11 terr'ists come from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq? Pretty sure that's the case. I have no idea if he hung out with race-haters and I happily concede that he's shown me no signs of being or liking racists.

I scored you with 1 point out of a possible 6.

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 09:28 AM
W's resume in 1999 was anything but impressive to most of the independents, non-committeds, and of course those on the left that I know. He was a failed businessman, a no-show Air-guardsman, a bad governor from a state that wasn't envied by many at the time (except for the roads cause they had great roads then), and Kennebunkport guy who claimed TX as his home and dodged the coke quetion almost as badly as Clinton tried to dodge pot-smoking. The company he kept was with some pretty questionable Saudis and oil men. In fact didn't most of the 9/11 terr'ists come from Saudi Arabia and none from Iraq? Pretty sure that's the case. I have no idea if he hung out with race-haters and I happily concede that he's shown me no signs of being or liking racists.

I scored you with 1 point out of a possible 6.


And by most accounts W has been a miserable failure as President. Maybe character, integrity, and honor really do matter after all.

GrapevineSooner
6/7/2008, 09:31 AM
Oh well, the useful idiots aren't bothered by the fact that their messiah doesn't believe in the right of an individual to protect his own life. That's the polices' job, right? Dial 911.

Exactly. Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 09:35 AM
I'm tellin' you guys, neither candidate has a good record on guns if you're pro-gun. My hope is for a swift and decisive SCOTUS opinion this summer because the 2nd amendment issue is a non-starter in this election. Might as well move on to other issues.

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm


GOA Ratings For John McCain

2000
C--

2002
C--

2004
F--

2006
F--

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 09:39 AM
I say again, no woman nor any white man could have been seriously considered for the most powerful job in the world with BHO's resume.

Now, that inarguable fact begs some important questions. Chief among them, why this guy?

Now, that said, I think it'll be close in November, but, barring unforeseen contingencies, I'm counting on the electoral college math working out for my guy.

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 09:47 AM
I kind of agree with you Homey....but GW Bush's resume was what?

outside his last name, post-Nixon Houston oil family and CIA spook/Cheney and the Project for the New American Century connects?

"inarguable fact"....that's an assertion.

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 09:48 AM
I'm tellin' you guys, neither candidate has a good record on guns if you're pro-gun. My hope is for a swift and decisive SCOTUS opinion this summer because the 2nd amendment issue is a non-starter in this election. Might as well move on to other issues.

http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

Don't hold your breath. I had the privilege of a recent discussion with the guy who argued the case before the Court.

After listening to him, here's what I predict. Lets see if I'm right.

The Opinion will be released around June 22. Most likely, the Court will hold gun "keeping" is an individual right and will uphold the lower appelate court opinion that struck down the DC law. They'll likely punt on announcing a standard of review for laws that regulate gun "keeping" like DC's, and will not address the "bear" part of the 2d Amendment calculus at all.

Alternatively, and less likely, they might announce "keeping" it is an individual right but with "rational basis" as the standard of review. If they do that, the status quo remains essentially unchanged. IOW, you have an individual right to keep a gun, but any local, state or federal law that qualifies or limits that right, is okay as long as it is "rationally based" on a government goal or objective -- e.g. making the streets safer.

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 09:52 AM
I kind of agree with you Homey....but GW Bush's resume was what?

outside his last name, post-Nixon Houston oil family and CIA spook/Cheney and the Project for the New American Century connects?

"inarguable fact"....that's an assertion.

GWB resume: Successful two-term governor of one of the largest states.

That, and the fact Mr. Gore was made of wood and constantly re-invented himself before our eyes. Moreover, I think Gore had to contend with a degree of Clinton fatigue.

Historically, when a popular former or incumbent governor faces a senator in presidential races, the governor wins.

This time, its senator v. senator.

Thus, one could reasonably conclude the resume should be dispositive. However, about half the electorate has Bush fatigue. Thus, if McCain is linked to W, he won't get any of those votes.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 09:53 AM
And by most accounts W has been a miserable failure as President. Maybe character, integrity, and honor really do matter after all.

Yup, and that's why I'm so hopeful about this election. I like both choices and won't be terribly disappointed either way.

Y'all know by now that I'm pretty liberal except for a few issues. That said, I really want to see us elect another man that is what I call a "Great Man." Carter, Reagan, and George HW Bush were what I call great men. Men of integrity, men that most of us could really look up to, and when it came right down to it men that were role models who most of us truly believed would make the big decisions based on what they believed was in the best interest in the good ol' US of A.

I know, Carter sucked as a POTUS in many ways. But I love the guy. And I'm proud of our country for electing a man of such integrity and decency.
I loved me some Bill Clinton. But he wasn't what I call a great man. He was smooth, an intellectual giant, and governed well IMO. I don't personally care that he got a blow job. But that he did it in the White House and knew that the consequences of getting caught were what they were, disappointed me. W has risen to the occasion a few times, but Harry B is right. Even the Rep's running this year try to distance from him as much as possible. Too bad we're 4 years late as a country on this. BC and GWB were both draft dodgers. Times were different then and I'm not too judgmental about it but I think it should probabaly disqualify you for public office. Except for 1996, it has always disqualified you from getting my vote. BC and GWB are both selfish baby boomer types that come from that damn "me first" generation that really hasn't lived up to the previous generation and is leaving a bad debt and weakened country for those of us coming after them. Good riddance I say.

Back to my point about great men. I know JM is one. I know he's a little rough around the edges and very few people see him as their "ideal" candidate. But the man has integrity, nothing to lose really, and probably not interested in more than one term. I have no doubt that he'll make decisions based on what he genuinely believes is best for America. I love that another veteran is running. It's about time we elected a veteran again.
BO honestly reminds me of other great presidents like Lincoln and Kennedy.

I have to share something I heard yesterday that was pretty cool. Sort of fatalism. "For whatever reason, we usually elect the president that we need at that time." The speaker talked about how we needed Gerry Ford at the time, needed Carter at the time, etc etc.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 10:00 AM
...Lets see if I'm right.

...Most likely, the Court will hold gun "keeping" is an individual right and will uphold the lower appelate court opinion that struck down the DC law. They'll likely punt on announcing a standard of review for laws that regulate gun "keeping" like DC's, and will not address the "bear" part of the 2d Amendment calculus at all.


Dammit! :mad: :mad: :mad: If you're right then my view of this SCOTUS just dipped even more. Awful, chicken****, dishonest, halfassed, dodgy, and weak! That would be, nearly, the 2nd worst possible outcome. This would open the door much wider for aggressive ammo-rationing, restrictions, etc. and relegating guns to artifacts to be hung on the wall. Yeah, I get a little kooky about this and already hear the black helicopters outside.

So, Harry B was right, the last 8 years from W were just awful.

I need some of BO's hope and change right about now.

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 10:11 AM
Thus, one could reasonably conclude the resume should be dispositive. However, about half the electorate has Bush fatigue. Thus, if McCain is linked to W, he won't get any of those votes.


"bush fatigue" is what we're calling it these days? i agree that it's totally unfair and kind of crass that we will see the "link McCain to Bush" strategy plotted by the Obama campaign....already underway. but, as much as you love the GOP wonks won't admit, this administration had been a joke. and really abused the Constitution and public trust.

if you think for one minute that the Bush Adminstration gives a damn about the people of Oklahoma....that's ridiculous. show me otherwise. Cheney is on TV before the November elections a year ago...and saying the elections, in which the GOP lost like crazy, are "not a public mandate". that's ****ed up.

"reasonably conclude"..."dispostive"....c'mon. you are starting to get ahead of your self as a "rhetor".

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 10:16 AM
Dammit! :mad: :mad: :mad: If you're right then my view of this SCOTUS just dipped even more. Awful, chicken****, dishonest, halfassed, dodgy, and weak! That would be, nearly, the 2nd worst possible outcome. This would open the door much wider for aggressive ammo-rationing, restrictions, etc. and relegating guns to artifacts to be hung on the wall. Yeah, I get a little kooky about this and already hear the black helicopters outside.

So, Harry B was right, the last 8 years from W were just awful.

I need some of BO's hope and change right about now.

lighten up Francis.;)

The modern Court usually doesn't bite off more than it has to.

The argument was framed by the appelee (the party which faces having its "win" at the lower appelate court reversed) to merely address whether or not the DC law exceeds the bounds of allowable infringment of a person's right to keep a gun in his home. That's all.

Actually, all SCOTUS has to do is either 1) uphold (affirm) the lower court ruling, or 2) reverse the lower court ruling.

My money is on number 1. In the unlikely event they reverse, they'll have to write a bunch to explain why. If they affirm, not so much.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 10:20 AM
GWB resume: Successful two-term governor of one of the largest states.


Homey, your Good Morning posts never gave me the idea that you were a revisionist historian. I'm gonna have to take a closer look. The one fact you listed there has some serious turd-polish on it and there are some other important facts missing. ;)

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 10:20 AM
"bush fatigue" is what we're calling it these days? i agree that it's totally unfair and kind of crass that we will see the "link McCain to Bush" strategy plotted by the Obama campaign....already underway. but, as much as you love the GOP wonks won't admit, this administration had been a joke. and really abused the Constitution and public trust.

if you think for one minute that the Bush Adminstration gives a damn about the people of Oklahoma....that's ridiculous. show me otherwise. Cheney is on TV before the November elections a year ago...and saying the elections, in which the GOP lost like crazy, are "not a public mandate". that's ****ed up.

"reasonably conclude"..."dispostive"....c'mon. you are starting to get ahead of your self as a "rhetor".

All I know for sure is this. The US has been safe at home since 9-11. That's the most important job of the President. I think history will be kind to GWB. I really do.

Further, I come from a tradition in which leaders are placed in their position to do what they think is right, not what is popular or what people say they want. Thus, "Darth" Cheney's remarks you cite resonate with me. In fact, I couldn't agree more.

Oh, and that Donk Congress? Lower approval ratings than GWB. How do we account for that?

Rogue
6/7/2008, 10:25 AM
lighten up Francis.;)

The modern Court usually doesn't bite off more than it has to.

My money is on number 1. In the unlikely event they reverse, they'll have to write a bunch to explain why. If they affirm, not so much.

Why not seize the opportunity to do the job really well for a change? Really if your prediction is true I think they will miss their chance and take the easy way out. They have room to do more here and won't likely hear another gun case for a loooooong time.

Well, maybe it's not all doom and gloom after all. I sure would be disappointed though.

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 10:33 AM
All I know for sure is this. The US has been safe at home since 9-11. That's the most important job of the President. I think history will be kind to GWB. I really do.

Further, I come from a tradition in which leaders are placed in their position to do what they think is right, not what is popular or what people say they want. Thus, "Darth" Cheney's remarks you cite resonate with me. In fact, I couldn't agree more.

Oh, and that Donk Congress? Lower approval ratings than GWB. How do we account for that?

i dont' give a flying **** about the donk Congress. they won the elections. scoreboard. same as GW beat Gore. so, that doesn't "nail down" your point. i get your point about "leaders", but do you take that position in terms of civil rights? i suspect you don't since you valorize the soldier above the citizen.

and as far as your comment about Cheney, GOP people are the first to huzzah top to down decisions based in some authority--like God, Nation, Military...and pretty much the first to cry when it doesn't go their way. "Big Government".

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 10:40 AM
That, and the fact Mr. Gore was made of wood and constantly re-invented himself before our eyes.


i want to note this: that political "re-invention" is a negative.

i agree that it's true about Gore. but, i just want to document this as a damning characteristic. for future reference. so called "flip flopping", as we called it in 04.

couldn't possibly apply to the Maverick.

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 10:47 AM
i dont' give a flying **** about the donk Congress. they won the elections. scoreboard. same as GW beat Gore. so, that doesn't "nail down" your point. i get your point about "leaders", but do you take that position in terms of civil rights? i suspect you don't since you valorize the soldier above the citizen.

and as far as your comment about Cheney, GOP people are the first to huzzah top to down decisions based in some authority--like God, Nation, Military...and pretty much the first to cry when it doesn't go their way. "Big Government".


The soldier is a citizen that unselfishly chooses to do more for his country than others.

85Sooner
6/7/2008, 10:48 AM
I am one of the ones that doesn't remember it ever being different. I do hope that the next POTUS will bring this country together, be it McCain or Obama.

I am convinced that there is only one thing that could bring this country together and I still believe it has only a 50/50 chance at best. Its called WW III.

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 10:50 AM
So, Harry B was right, the last 8 years from W were just awful.

I need some of BO's hope and change right about now.


Now you're putting words in my mouth, and I think you missed my allusion to Barack having serious questions about his character, integrity, and honor.

It's interesting that the people who have been railing against Bush as the the anti-Christ the last eight years are the same who are singing Obama's praises while ignoring his flaws. Business as usual I guess, ****ing politics.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 10:51 AM
I am convinced that there is only one thing that could bring this country together and I still believe it has only a 50/50 chance at best. Its called WW III.

I hope you're wrong.

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 10:52 AM
i want to note this: that political "re-invention" is a negative.

i agree that it's true about Gore. but, i just want to document this as a damning characteristic. for future reference. so called "flip flopping", as we called it in 04.

couldn't possibly apply to the Maverick.


It applies to all of them. Politicians are dirty scumbag whores.

Scott D
6/7/2008, 10:54 AM
It applies to all of them. Politicians are dirty scumbag whores.

That need to be executed like the lawyers that most of them are :D

quit leaving out the juicy part, Harry...or back to the sardine can with you. :D

Rogue
6/7/2008, 10:58 AM
And by most accounts W has been a miserable failure as President. Maybe character, integrity, and honor really do matter after all.

Yup, I made the leap. Sorry to misrepresent you. By "miserable failure" you can probably see where I thought you meant that the last 8 years were awful. Not being sarcastic at all here, just saying that I read more into it.

I think that JM and BO are both a huge step up from the last 2 presidents in terms of character and integrity.

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 11:09 AM
The soldier is a citizen that unselfishly chooses to do more for his country than others.

do you think that's always true?

that every soldier volunteers for the selfless opportunity to serve the flag? because the commercials i see on TV phrase it as a way to get ahead in life, go to college, learn and use technology and such. the military is marketed in terms of purely "self-interested" reasons, not "unselfish" ones.

if the commercials exist (and marketing is the cultural law these days), what you say is at partially untrue.

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 11:10 AM
It applies to all of them. Politicians are dirty scumbag whores.

of course. couldn't agree more.

Civicus_Sooner
6/7/2008, 11:13 AM
Originally Posted by Barack Hussein Obama
We canít drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times Ö and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. Thatís not leadership. Thatís not going to happen.





Excuse me, but what the hell business is it of the the government, let alone people living in other countries what I drive, how much or what I eat or what the temperature is at which I set my thermostat?

This is pure adulterated socialist drivel. Class envy and class warfare. Folks, weíre getting a real good look at the real Barack Hussein Obama and it is what it is: an unapologetic, America-bashing, 1960s-style socialist.

Yep, I'm not voting for a chief nanny either.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 11:46 AM
All I know for sure is this. The US has been safe at home since 9-11. That's the most important job of the President. I think history will be kind to GWB. I really do.
I think you couldn't be more wrong.

History is going to paint him as not only one of our WEAKEST Presidents ever, but as an arrogant, petulant, dishonest and manipulative *********.


Oh, and that Donk Congress? Lower approval ratings than GWB. How do we account for that?The "Republicans" (in name only) in Congress set the 2 year filibuster record in 8 months. THAT's how we account for that, partisan un-American hacks.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 11:48 AM
The soldier is a citizen that unselfishly chooses to do more for his country in one manner than others. However there are those out there who are non-soldiers who give just as much to their country in many different ways.
Fixed.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 11:50 AM
W's place in history will be interesting.
I'm not a fan, but I sure don't see him as "weak" or ineffective.
I see him as terribly effective at doing the wrong things and causing harm.
We just witnessed Rogue's "worst case scenario."

And to think, for years I thought I wanted to see what a POTUS and Congress working together could do from either party. Well no more, checks and balances are good.

Rogue
6/7/2008, 11:51 AM
Fixed.

Uh oh.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 11:51 AM
It's interesting that the people who have been railing against Bush as the the anti-Christ the last eight years are the same who are singing Obama's praises while ignoring his flaws.Not me. I was one of the first on here to rip into Bush, and I got called every name you could imagine for it (by people who are now saying the EXACT SAME THINGS THAT I SAID).

And I'm on record as being behind McCain just like I was back in 2000.

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 12:32 PM
do you think that's always true?

that every soldier volunteers for the selfless opportunity to serve the flag? because the commercials i see on TV phrase it as a way to get ahead in life, go to college, learn and use technology and such. the military is marketed in terms of purely "self-interested" reasons, not "unselfish" ones.

if the commercials exist (and marketing is the cultural law these days), what you say is at partially untrue.


Hell, nothing is "always" true. What is true is that everyone who wears the uniform gives up many of his/her God given rights as an American to do so.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 12:38 PM
Sincere question: How so? My understanding (and I will totally admit that I could easily be wrong) is that enlisted men and women have the same rights provided to them and protected by the Constitution as any U.S. citizen. (excepting felons, of course)

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 12:40 PM
Yup, I made the leap. Sorry to misrepresent you. By "miserable failure" you can probably see where I thought you meant that the last 8 years were awful. Not being sarcastic at all here, just saying that I read more into it.

I thought by putting "by most accounts" and "miserable failure" in there, the hyperbole would make my intentions obvious. ;)



I think that JM and BO are both a huge step up from the last 2 presidents in terms of character and integrity.

McCain I agree with, Obama I don't.

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 12:43 PM
Sincere question: How so? My understanding (and I will totally admit that I could easily be wrong) is that enlisted men and women have the same rights provided to them and protected by the Constitution as any U.S. citizen. (excepting felons, of course)

For starters, your right to freedom of speech is squelched some. You also can't up and quit if you don't like it. You have a contract that you can either serve in the field you've been trained for or in the brig. Service members are also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 12:56 PM
For starters, your right to freedom of speech is squelched some. You also can't up and quit if you don't like it. You have a contract that you can either serve in the field you've been trained for or in the brig. Service members are also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.So you don't "give them up" but you "suspend them" for a time, as in the case of "freedom of speech." Though I think most on here would agree that there really isn't a right to "freedom of unlimited speech" in the U.S., anyway. Including for civilians.

Civilians don't have the right to simply break a legal contract just because they want to with no consequences. Don't really see that one...

Now...the Uniform Code of Military Justice is dead on. I forgot about that. Guilty until proven otherwise...

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 01:03 PM
So you don't "give them up" but you "suspend them" for a time, as in the case of "freedom of speech." Though I think most on here would agree that there really isn't a right to "freedom of unlimited speech" in the U.S., anyway. Including for civilians.

Civilians don't have the right to simply break a legal contract just because they want to with no consequences. Don't really see that one....


If you don't want to hear real answers, why bother asking questions?

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 01:35 PM
I wanted to hear the real answer. I'm simply discussing what you said. Is that wrong?

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 02:10 PM
I wanted to hear the real answer. I'm simply discussing what you said. Is that wrong?

You aren't discussing, you're discounting. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 03:09 PM
.

Civilians don't have the right to simply break a legal contract just because they want to with no consequences. Don't really see that one...



when a civilian breaches a contract, he may have to pay damages. He is guilty of no crime.

When a GI breaches his contract with the government, he may be found guilty of committing a felony. If he's deployed and runs away from the enemy without being ordered to do so by his lawful leadership, he may be convicted of a capital offense.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 04:17 PM
You aren't discussing, you're discounting. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
No. I'm giving my opinion regarding the information you provided. Not the same.

Fear of people not agreeing with you is an issue with some people on here. :rolleyes:


when a civilian breaches a contract, he may have to pay damages. He is guilty of no crime.

When a GI breaches his contract with the government, he may be found guilty of committing a felony. If he's deployed and runs away from the enemy without being ordered to do so by his lawful leadership, he may be convicted of a capital offense.
AH!

Now, see? This makes much more sense! I can see how that is very different from either what you originally said or what I stated immediately afterwards. This is definitely different from the way civilians are treated. Thanks for clearing that up, Homey.

Now, to keep the discussion going...would you call that difference a "right?" Or is it merely a difference of law?

Harry Beanbag
6/7/2008, 04:27 PM
No. I'm giving my opinion regarding the information you provided. Not the same.

Your opinion had no bearing on the subject matter.



Fear of people not agreeing with you is an issue with some people on here. :rolleyes:

If I was you I wouldn't confuse somebody laughing at my ignorance as fear.

Vaevictis
6/7/2008, 06:36 PM
So you don't "give them up" but you "suspend them" for a time, as in the case of "freedom of speech." Though I think most on here would agree that there really isn't a right to "freedom of unlimited speech" in the U.S., anyway. Including for civilians.

It's more than this though. The way I understand this is: As a civilian, if the government restricts your rights, you can petition the court and the onus is generally on the government to show that it had the power to do what it did. In the military, it's flipped and the onus is on you to show that the government did NOT have the power to do what it did. And by the way, if you're in the military, the government is given much, much more discretion and deference than usual.

This situation is not restricted to just freedom of speech mind you. I'm sure you can extrapolate and imagine the consequences of such a difference.


Civilians don't have the right to simply break a legal contract just because they want to with no consequences. Don't really see that one...

You're a film geek, yes? You've seen Empire Strikes Back, and the scene where Calrissian says to Vader, "But this wasn't part of the deal!" And Vader responds, "Then pray that I do not alter it further."

All of these vets on here, if WWIII breaks out and we need more soldiers, they're the first guys that are going to get a call to report to the local armory (or whatever their branch equivalent is). This can happen even if their reserve requirement is over and they've been out for 20 years.

You've heard of the 'stop-loss' issue? Same basic idea. We want you here. Yes, I know your contract says you're out, but tough ****, you're not.

So, not only are the consequences for someone in the military greater for breaking their contract than with a civilian (eg, criminal v. civil), but they've entered into a contract with an entity that has the power to alter some of the most material of the terms pretty much at will.

yermom
6/7/2008, 06:41 PM
and you wonder why some people don't want kids recruited in schools with promises of GI Bills and such...

Vaevictis
6/7/2008, 07:02 PM
and you wonder why some people don't want kids recruited in schools with promises of GI Bills and such...

At the same time, it should hardly be surprising that someone who was willing to sign such a contract would have no problem with it, yes?

And you can hardly fault them for it. They did, after all, put their money where their mouth is.

JohnnyMack
6/7/2008, 08:50 PM
I say again, no woman nor any white man could have been seriously considered for the most powerful job in the world with BHO's resume.

Now, that inarguable fact begs some important questions. Chief among them, why this guy?

Now, that said, I think it'll be close in November, but, barring unforeseen contingencies, I'm counting on the electoral college math working out for my guy.

So they gave it to him? Do you remember the machine that was Hillary Clinton in late 2006 and 2007? You would have had to have been a complete and total imbecile to stand opposed to her. Ask Mark Warner and Evan Byah about why they didn't seek the D nomination.

It is my opinion that BHO isn't were he is today because he's black. While you and the rest of the right try to marginalize his presence by saying he got it by some twisted form of affirmitive action, I would argue that he is where is today because of his message and his ability to convey it to people. Like it or not, we live in a country where image matters. Most people don't pay as much attention to politics in this country as you and I do. They're forming their opinions (rightly or wrongly) largely based on the soundbyte. And yes, Obama is a terrific speaker. He's capable of inspiring and motivating people at what you'll have to admit is an impressive rate. Look at the number of people who showed up to vote for him. Look at the crowds he attracts when he's scheduled to speak. Yes he isn't as experienced as McCain, but in today's U.S.A. that is what's helping him. He comes across as fresh and new. His ideas sound exciting and plausible. He is as a man and as a concept a dramatic departure from what we've seen over the last 8 years and believe it or not, their are LOTS of people who live in states not called Oklahoma that want change. I suppose they're running the risk that if he's elected and things get worse, you and Dean can crack a beer at a tailgate, point at me and laugh and tell me how dumb I was, but for me, I looked at then 3 remaining candidates, evaluated what they offered and settled on Obama. It wasn't because he is black.

LosAngelesSooner
6/7/2008, 09:00 PM
Your opinion had no bearing on the subject matter.




If I was you I wouldn't confuse somebody laughing at my ignorance as fear.
Oh, I wasn't laughing at your ignorance. Sorry if you felt that way. :)

Okla-homey
6/7/2008, 09:04 PM
So they gave it to him? Do you remember the machine that was Hillary Clinton in late 2006 and 2007? You would have had to have been a complete and total imbecile to stand opposed to her. Ask Mark Warner and Evan Byah about why they didn't seek the D nomination.

It is my opinion that BHO isn't were he is today because he's black. While you and the rest of the right try to marginalize his presence by saying he got it by some twisted form of affirmitive action, I would argue that he is where is today because of his message and his ability to convey it to people. Like it or not, we live in a country where image matters. Most people don't pay as much attention to politics in this country as you and I do. They're forming their opinions (rightly or wrongly) largely based on the soundbyte. And yes, Obama is a terrific speaker. He's capable of inspiring and motivating people at what you'll have to admit is an impressive rate. Look at the number of people who showed up to vote for him. Look at the crowds he attracts when he's scheduled to speak. Yes he isn't as experienced as McCain, but in today's U.S.A. that is what's helping him. He comes across as fresh and new. His ideas sound exciting and plausible. He is as a man and as a concept a dramatic departure from what we've seen over the last 8 years and believe it or not, their are LOTS of people who live in states not called Oklahoma that want change. I suppose they're running the risk that if he's elected and things get worse, you and Dean can crack a beer at a tailgate, point at me and laugh and tell me how dumb I was, but for me, I looked at then 3 remaining candidates, evaluated what they offered and settled on Obama. It wasn't because he is black.


Heck man, people will stand in line to catch a glimpse of any celebrity de jour. The guy's a rock star. Nothing more, nothing less.

Change? My sainted grandmother taught me a person can find a skillet not to their liking, and flip themselves right into the fire.

As far as his "fresh ideas" go...there's nothing fresh about them. A guy named Karl put a lot of it in this book he wrote in the 19th century entitled "das Kapital".

Anyhoo, where is this new economy coming from to pay for all this Big Rock Candy Mountain stuff anyway? Is he simply going to bless a donated basket of money, and start handing it out to the crowd with baskets of money left over?

How is he gonna give everyone a job and give everyone free health insurance? How is he gonna end the War on Terror? How is he gonna fix the broke down public school system? How is going to lower the price of gas? Suspend the law of supply and demand? That would be a cool trick. I might vote for him if he could do that.

Scott D
6/7/2008, 09:21 PM
Homey, just acknowledge that Obama won because Hillary thought she had the thing wrapped up in a bow on a silver platter the day she announced she was running, and thought that everyone would just get out of her way. Since she didn't put any effort in, and just managed to further marginalize well, everyone in her efforts, it's not a surprise that she failed in her goal.

Chuck Bao
6/7/2008, 09:46 PM
Heck man, people will stand in line to catch a glimpse of any celebrity de jour. The guy's a rock star. Nothing more, nothing less.

Change? My sainted grandmother taught me a person can find a skillet not to their liking, and flip themselves right into the fire.

As far as his "fresh ideas" go...there's nothing fresh about them. A guy named Karl put a lot of it in this book he wrote in the 19th century entitled "das Kapital".

Anyhoo, where is this new economy coming from to pay for all this Big Rock Candy Mountain stuff anyway? Is he simply going to bless a donated basket of money, and start handing it out to the crowd with baskets of money left over?

How is he gonna give everyone a job and give everyone free health insurance? How is he gonna end the War on Terror? How is he gonna fix the broke down public school system? How is going to lower the price of gas? Suspend the law of supply and demand? That would be a cool trick. I might vote for him if he could do that.

Fed Chairman Bernake is already throwing bucket loads of money out of his helicopter window. How is that different from your Rock Candy Mountain? At the end of the day, inflation is essentially a tax, so we are all paying for the mortgage industry bailout.

The Bush administration let this mess develop and clearly has no answers now, except that silly tax refund check scheme. And, I haven't seen where McCain is offering any solutions, either. Trust me, it is going to get much worse before November.

And, I refuse to believe that the idea of offering affordable health care to all Americans makes one a socialist.

With so many Americans losing their homes, exactly how can they afford health insurance for their kids?

America needs to get its priorities straight.

Obama has the priorities right in my opinion and that means I'm voting for the guy.

JohnnyMack
6/7/2008, 09:47 PM
Anyhoo, where is this new economy coming from to pay for all this Big Rock Candy Mountain stuff anyway? Is he simply going to bless a donated basket of money, and start handing it out to the crowd with baskets of money left over?

How is he gonna give everyone a job and give everyone free health insurance? How is he gonna end the War on Terror? How is he gonna fix the broke down public school system? How is going to lower the price of gas? Suspend the law of supply and demand? That would be a cool trick. I might vote for him if he could do that.

I know where he could get 10 billion a month off the bat to start funding parts of it. ;)

He isnt offering everyone free health insurance. He has promised to do more to fight Al Qaida than what we've seen from the current admin. As far as the price of gas goes, I've said for a while now that we as a nation sold our soul to big oil decades ago. It will be a long march out of that particular level of Dante's Inferno. Hopefully he'll point us in the right direction.

StoopTroup
6/7/2008, 10:12 PM
It's on now.

Obamanation! :D :pop:

SouthFortySooner
6/7/2008, 10:38 PM
Obamanation! :D :pop:

I think most of the people when choosing the dem. candidate were swayed by the novelty of the black guy and the woman. A bauble from an asphalt carnival. :cool:

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 10:42 PM
I think most of the people when choosing the dem. candidate were swayed by the novelty of the black guy and the woman. A bauble from an asphalt carnival. :cool:

i don't think that's the case at all. i think that's what a lot of people would like to believe.

so, you are saying John Edwards got PC'd?

SouthFortySooner
6/7/2008, 10:56 PM
i don't think that's the case at all. i think that's what a lot of people would like to believe.

so, you are saying John Edwards got PC'd?

We'll see KC. I'm not sure if I'm still in touch with "the collective" or not.

StoopTroup
6/7/2008, 10:56 PM
I heard Obama had $10,000 to win on Da'Tara today. :D

Scott D
6/7/2008, 11:05 PM
I think most of the people when choosing the dem. candidate were swayed by the novelty of the black guy and the woman. A bauble from an asphalt carnival. :cool:

by that argument it would be 1984 all over again.

King Crimson
6/7/2008, 11:05 PM
We'll see KC. I'm not sure if I'm still in touch with "the collective" or not.

yeah, i have no idea how it will go. i can see a lot of different scenarios.

i kinda like that too.

Harry Beanbag
6/8/2008, 11:31 AM
Oh, I wasn't laughing at your ignorance. Sorry if you felt that way. :)


Apparently you have reading comprehension problems as well. Not surprising at all.

OklahomaTuba
6/8/2008, 12:35 PM
Apparently you have reading comprehension problems as well. Not surprising at all.
:D

Rogue
6/8/2008, 01:00 PM
BO and JM are both pretty savvy policy-wise. I, for one, could use a little hope and change this year.

LosAngelesSooner
6/8/2008, 02:20 PM
Apparently you have reading comprehension problems as well. Not surprising at all.Awww...your widdle ego got bwuised.

I'm sowwy.

StoopTroup
6/8/2008, 02:40 PM
Bo.....lol

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/81/185px-Bo_Duke.jpg

Big Red Ron
6/8/2008, 02:50 PM
Awww...your widdle ego got bwuised.

I'm sowwy.Is that a cold sore on your mouth or did you just leave an Obama "rally?"

http://logo.cafepress.com/3/4962302.3318033.jpg

Harry Beanbag
6/8/2008, 04:34 PM
Awww...your widdle ego got bwuised.

I'm sowwy.


You are a child. And a lame one at that. Is this the best you can do? :rolleyes:

Big Red Ron
6/8/2008, 05:22 PM
Awww...your widdle ego got bwuised.

I'm sowwy.
Seriously, I used to think you were one of the more intelligent liberals on this board. Over the last several months, I've realized; politically, you're just another brainless twit, seeking the path of least resistance.

I'm from Newport Beach/Long Beach and I can honestly say, we're glad we keep your type out. Stay up in LA with the rest of your ilk.

tommieharris91
6/8/2008, 05:35 PM
http://www.pachd.com/free-images/household-images/lock-01.jpg