|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 30, 2008 13:52:00 GMT -5
Bwwwwwaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha "not an Angry Black man.."
Pffffffffffffffffffffffffft
Funniest sh*t you have said in days..thanks I now have to wipe water off my monitor.
Hope for what?
Unicorn Factories?
Pegasus Public transportation system?
Machinery Powered by love?
Massive cuts in our way of living?
Talks with known terrorists?
Poking at a nuclear capable Pakistan?
MOST people just hope he doesn't get elected.
TOUT ALL THE POLLS ON EARTH - say "EVERYONE' "THE MAJORITY" etc etc etc..want B. Hussein Obama. When you KNOW full well polling college kids who WONT ACTUALLY END UP VOTING, wont win him the election.
Obama's WHOLE campaign lies with the youth----Thank God!
Puffy can say vote til he is purple in the face...as we ALL KNOW the youth don't get out. Even when they get out in "Record Numbers" it's still not enough, and not nearly the numbers that could/should be getting out to vote. Which even I will admit is a sad thing but true =)
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 30, 2008 14:22:13 GMT -5
If you read his books, yours would be a difficult position to defend.
Sick & pathetic describes the philosophies of his closest friends & "spiritual advisors".
Oh, and I did not inject race into this campaign, B. Hussein Obama did.
Ignorant describes his grasp of the world ( as it really is).
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 14:34:22 GMT -5
What a sick and pathetic post harpman. Obama is well qualified to lead this nation, no matter if he's black, white, brown, yellow, etc. Why would you bring the guy's race into it. You just make yourself look ignorant. Obama is not an "angry black man." He is giving this country something to hope for after 8 years of a downward spiral. Typical liberal response. It is wrong to notice the color of someone's skin? I thought we were only supposed to not judge them by the color of their skin, but instead by the content of their character. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 30, 2008 14:35:06 GMT -5
Ignorant describes the Republican's view of the world. Hawkish preoccupation with war, failed economic policies, a failed health care system, and business and usual in Washington just aren't going to stand. McCain will be defeated in a landslide come November. Your party shot themselves in the foot when they elected Bush.
You can paint Obama any way you'd like but the truth is he does just as well with educated white people as he does with youth. And the latest polls from unbiased, reliable sources like Gallup (not college campuses or Fox News) have Obama leading McCain by a couple of percentage points. Watch Obama's lead skyrocket between now and November.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 30, 2008 14:43:58 GMT -5
An interesting post saunterelle, but entirely incorrect. Take a look at the economic trends of this country over the last ten years and what do you see? The economy was floundering at the end of 1997 and it continued through 2000.
The economy began to rebound in 2000, with the election favoring George W. Bush, but the stock market did not recover from its fall in 2000 until after George W. Bush was elected. From there, it maintained a fairly steady pace, with some peaks and valleys, with the biggest valley in 2001, after 9/11. Still, it recovered fairly quickly and continued strong through 2006, until the Democrats were elected. Then, our economy began a nose dive.
Now, can you not extrapolate from that it is really the Democrats that are the ones who are failing our economy? If not, then perhaps you should reconsider a course in economics, because you need it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 30, 2008 15:03:15 GMT -5
Saunterelle----
Your party?
Have I told you MY Party?
I'm a resgistered Independent.
And I am an educated half white person, I have degrees in Textile Chemistry/Polymer Sciences and another BA in Music Industry Management.
The man is the WORST possible choice for leader of these United States bar none. Voting on emotion is ridiculous, and the man has ZERO TRACK RECORD OR EXPERIENCE...therefore no one can vote on ANYTHING BUT emotion.
Funny you never reply to my queries about ANYTHING.
Again during GWB's first run the DEMOCRATS HARPED on his LACK OF EXPERIENCE constantly..I am sure you were in this group.
Why is it okay for the Junior Senator (more like jester) to lead our nation, with EVEN LESS experience?
WAIT --Did GWB's administration BREAK the in YOUR OPINION "failed health care system"...My healthcare is fine PAY FOR IT.
Or has the system always been flawed (your words)...ie not Socialized..just wondering..funny how GWB gets credit for so much.
Bush derangement syndrome much?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 30, 2008 20:28:35 GMT -5
Ignorant describes the Republican's view of the world. Hawkish preoccupation with war, really? and WJ clinton's obsession with the balkans was not a hawkish preoccupation? |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Jun 1, 2008 20:37:16 GMT -5
TNG:
" your party helped elect bush, twice. reverend wright and father pfleger are shooting obama in the foot. obama will be embarassed in november. real americans (the sheepdogs of this nation) will ensure the right man takes the oath in january."
-__________________________________________________
Here we go again, typical bush regime jive. "If you say it, they will believe it" jargon. Bush was selected twice not because he had enough voters, but both elections were rigged.
The Neo-cons have and will continue to tie Sen. Obama to these two reverends. Has it changed his numbers any?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jun 1, 2008 22:14:32 GMT -5
but both elections were rigged. again, i emplore you to provide ONE speck of evidence to support this. are you saying that the man you consider as dumb as a bag of hammers was actually smart enough to dupe nearly everyone in congress into OEF and OEF and also smart enought to have "stolen" two elections? if herr goebels were still alive he'd surely be a democrat. have you watched the democratic primary race in the last few weeks? hillary has been clobbering obama lama ding dong. i'd say it's having a significant effect. i think rev. wright and father pfleger should have their own cable channel! |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 2, 2008 0:16:22 GMT -5
Along the lines of "If you say it, they will believe it" jargon", see your comment: "Bush was selected twice not because he had enough voters, but both elections were rigged."
Progressives are real good at the sound-bite lies. I can't wait until they tell me how much they will respect us in the morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintjoeeric on Jun 2, 2008 1:37:44 GMT -5
Obama is half-White  That may be true, but Mr. Spock is half-Vulcan, and resembles a 100 percent Vulcan much more than a 100 percent human! ;D Seriously, I'm just amazed at how so many have done a total presto chango! during the past 20 years, first citing Dan Quayle's supposed inexperience and intoning darkly that "he would be just a heartbeat away from the Presidency," then falling all over themselves to get a total empty suit elected not Vice President, but President! Quayle had much more experience in elected office in 1988 than Obama currently has. Not to mention better judgment and prudence. Ah, but Obama would bring "hope" and "change." Niiiiiiiccccce.  |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 2, 2008 14:10:47 GMT -5
I don't think either election was "rigged" per se, but there was some shady stuff going on in Florida in 2000.
As I see it, Bush never should have won either election, not because of cheating but because it seems the American people are too easily fooled. Over the past 8 years I have lost my faith in the American voter. The average voter no longer does research into who will be the best candidate to represent them in office but instead they buy into blatant fear mongering and smear campaigns. That's the real reason why Bush won, Karl rove won it for him.
If you look at who voted for him, many were poor, white voters in the South. Bush certainly didn't represent their interests economically so what we were left with for an explanation was they voted for "moral reasons." I guess this included the fact that evangelicals flocked to the polls for Bush, as did gun rights activists. Thus, Obama is correct when he says "they cling to their guns and cling to religion." Saying these voters are "bitter" is putting it lightly. They were downright naive and gullible! Now these same voters are complaining because they are struggling to stay afloat economically, their sons and neighbors are dying in Iraq, and all the while oil companies are making record profits. Would their right to bear arms be any different if Gore or Kerry had been elected? No. Would the blurring of the line between church and state be less severe? Probably.
So, hopefully, in this election American voters can peel themselves away from their guns and religion long enough to make a rational, informed decision on who our next President should be. If they do, they will see through the "swiftboating" and find that Obama will benefit them much more than McCain would. <fingers crossed>
|
|
