Just donated $250 to Obama campaign

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.

Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.

I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.

In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.

Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

 

[Craig234]

Yet more lies from the McCain campaign - from CNN:

McCain's campaign released a television ad, titled "Disrespectful," that accuses McCain's Democratic rival of launching desperate attacks and smears against Palin.

In the McCain ad, the announcer says the Obama camp had "lashed out at Sarah Palin" and dismissed Palin as "good-looking" as the Democratic nominee's face appears on the screen. The announcer also says the Democrats had said Palin was doing "what she was told" and had "desperately" called her a liar.

"How disrespectful," the announcer says. "And how Gov. Sarah Palin proves them wrong, every day."

Obama never made any of the statements the McCain camp released to support the ad, and the comment that Palin was "good-looking" was made by the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, in a self-deprecating joke when he was asked what the obvious differences were between the two vice presidential nominees. Watch the McCain ad »

Biden repeatedly has said on the campaign trail that he respected Palin and that he thought she was qualified for the vice presidency.

FactCheck.org pointed out the quote from an Obama adviser that Palin was doing "what she was told" was taken out of context. The quote is taken from the response of Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, in which he said Palin had misrepresented Obama's legislative record. "Maybe that's what she was told" about his voting record, Axelrod said.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.

Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.

I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.

In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.

Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make nearly as many false promises.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: irishScott
Fanaticism is always wrong.

Is extremism in the defense of liberty wrong?

Aren't you the guy who said that if we lost 1000 people a year to terrorism you wouldn't see it as a major issue?

And you talk about defense of liberty?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

Like I said earlier, just read the web pages of each candidate, or listen to them talk if that suits you better.

On Obama's site, everything is "Obama will". Read his "blueprint for change". Almost everything starts with "Obama will". Like he's going to wave some magic change wand. 34 pages of things Obama will do, virtually all beginning with "Obama will".

McCain has some of that, but there's a lot more "McCain proposes", "McCain supports", "McCain believes" etc
Hell of a lot more realisitic.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

Like I said earlier, just read the web pages of each candidate, or listen to them talk if that suits you better.

On Obama's site, everything is "Obama will". Read his "blueprint for change". Almost everything starts with "Obama will". Like he's going to wave some magic change wand. 34 pages of things Obama will do, virtually all beginning with "Obama will".

McCain has some of that, but there's a lot more "McCain proposes", "McCain supports", "McCain believes" etc
Hell of a lot more realisitic.

He said the same things Dubya said back in 2000... and look how much of that came true. :roll:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

Like I said earlier, just read the web pages of each candidate, or listen to them talk if that suits you better.

On Obama's site, everything is "Obama will". Read his "blueprint for change". Almost everything starts with "Obama will". Like he's going to wave some magic change wand. 34 pages of things Obama will do, virtually all beginning with "Obama will".

McCain has some of that, but there's a lot more "McCain proposes", "McCain supports", "McCain believes" etc
Hell of a lot more realisitic.

That is perhaps the dumbest analysis I've ever read on this forum. Congrats.

You're voting for McCain because he used the terms "believe" and "supports" instead of "will". Brilliant.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

Like I said earlier, just read the web pages of each candidate, or listen to them talk if that suits you better.

On Obama's site, everything is "Obama will". Read his "blueprint for change". Almost everything starts with "Obama will". Like he's going to wave some magic change wand. 34 pages of things Obama will do, virtually all beginning with "Obama will".

McCain has some of that, but there's a lot more "McCain proposes", "McCain supports", "McCain believes" etc
Hell of a lot more realisitic.

That is perhaps the dumbest analysis I've ever read on this forum. Congrats.

You're voting for McCain because he used the terms "believe" and "supports" instead of "will". Brilliant.

Actually, I also agree with him on a lot of his potential policies for technical reasons I'd have to write an essay about to argue properly. I simplify everything I say here.

I also agree with Obama on a few major issues, and disagree with him heavily on others.


That said, "will", "believe", and "supports" are not synonymous. I've stated my argument here twice now. A "will" is a promise. The others are not. That's a simple fact and the words and context are too simple to be twisted any other way.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

Like I said earlier, just read the web pages of each candidate, or listen to them talk if that suits you better.

On Obama's site, everything is "Obama will". Read his "blueprint for change". Almost everything starts with "Obama will". Like he's going to wave some magic change wand. 34 pages of things Obama will do, virtually all beginning with "Obama will".

McCain has some of that, but there's a lot more "McCain proposes", "McCain supports", "McCain believes" etc
Hell of a lot more realisitic.

He said the same things Dubya said back in 2000... and look how much of that came true. :roll:

Well, 9/11 did interfere with that.

Maybe some of it will happen, maybe none of it will happen. However, IMO McCain has a much better chance of making it happen than Obama ever will.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

Like I said earlier, just read the web pages of each candidate, or listen to them talk if that suits you better.

On Obama's site, everything is "Obama will". Read his "blueprint for change". Almost everything starts with "Obama will". Like he's going to wave some magic change wand. 34 pages of things Obama will do, virtually all beginning with "Obama will".

McCain has some of that, but there's a lot more "McCain proposes", "McCain supports", "McCain believes" etc
Hell of a lot more realisitic.

That is perhaps the dumbest analysis I've ever read on this forum. Congrats.

You're voting for McCain because he used the terms "believe" and "supports" instead of "will". Brilliant.

Actually, I also agree with him on a lot of his potential policies for technical reasons I'd have to write an essay about to argue properly. I simplify everything I say here.

I also agree with Obama on a few major issues, and disagree with him heavily on others.


That said, "will", "believe", and "supports" are not synonymous. I've stated my argument here twice now. A "will" is a promise. The others are not. That's a simple fact and the words and context are too simple to be twisted any other way.

So when he's out campaigning and replaces the words "believe" and "support" with "will", does that make you suspicious? I ask because you must think we're stupid if those are the reasons why you support a certain candidate, rather than supplimentary evidence that supports your belief.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: irishScott
Wait my research, which involves taking the candidates' views on issues from the candidates' own web page(s) sucks? Lol.
Your sources do the exact same thing by the way.
I don't care what Obama says on a lot of stuff. He's simply not going to be able to accomplish most of it. Empty promises.
In any case, you seem to be voting for Obama because he'll give you more money.

All candidates show plans before getting elected. It shows what they intend to to , not what the are doing.
Reading their intent gives the voter a chance to evaluate which direction they will take if elected and their position ob the issues. If you think ANY candidate can accomplish what they say they want to do you are mistaken.

I know. But McCain stands a better chance of getting things done than Obama IMO. He also doesn't make as many false promises.

I assume you have some evidence of this...

Like I said earlier, just read the web pages of each candidate, or listen to them talk if that suits you better.

On Obama's site, everything is "Obama will". Read his "blueprint for change". Almost everything starts with "Obama will". Like he's going to wave some magic change wand. 34 pages of things Obama will do, virtually all beginning with "Obama will".

McCain has some of that, but there's a lot more "McCain proposes", "McCain supports", "McCain believes" etc
Hell of a lot more realisitic.

That is perhaps the dumbest analysis I've ever read on this forum. Congrats.

You're voting for McCain because he used the terms "believe" and "supports" instead of "will". Brilliant.

Actually, I also agree with him on a lot of his potential policies for technical reasons I'd have to write an essay about to argue properly. I simplify everything I say here.

I also agree with Obama on a few major issues, and disagree with him heavily on others.


That said, "will", "believe", and "supports" are not synonymous. I've stated my argument here twice now. A "will" is a promise. The others are not. That's a simple fact and the words and context are too simple to be twisted any other way.

So when he's out campaigning and replaces the words "believe" and "support" with "will", does that make you suspicious? I ask because you must think we're stupid if those are the reasons why you support a certain candidate, rather than supplimentary evidence that supports your belief.

This guy cracks me up. That is literally one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen in politics, and I've seen a lot of dumb shit.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: irishScott
[Personally I see Obama as the anti-Bush. Bush screwed us one way, Obama will simply screw us in the opposite direction.

Kind of like an anti-biotic is the anti-disease. The disease hurts you one way, and the anti-biotic the opposite way. Oh, wait.

McCain also has quite the bi-partisan semi-moderate record, Obama has the exact opposite. Both of these facts are on record and undeniable.

Complete BS.

I recently saw it said well, talking about 'McCain's one token vote a year against a Republican issue to give him something to use for maverick propaganda'.

McCain's a hard right-winger on most issues, with a few partial exceptions.

1. You know damn well what I meant.

Happily, I hope I don't, but I responded to what it appeared you said. Your point?

2. Said by whom? Please cite sources; and HTF do you know it's all "propaganda"? I could turn it around and say that Obama is all liberal propaganda designed to lead the US to a socialist state and an Orwellian future.

That's the thing with issues that aren't as objective as counting beans in a jar - you can say any damn thing you like, however untrue and absurd.

That's why we get ideologies and cults that are completely wrong and harmful, like the 'trickle-down' theorists who cause the concentration of wealth to increase.

But that's the difference with having an informed opinion, where the comments actually have some value.

If you don't know what the hell you're talking about, you might say "they hate us for our freedoms". More likely, you will believe a liar who knows it's propaganda and says it to you.

On the other hand, if you do know what the hell you're talking about, you might talk about a reason for the 9/11 attacks being Osama bin Laden making a power grab for a leadership role in the middle east, trying to destabilize his enemy Saudi Arabia - which is what Salman Rushdie said his opinion is last night on HBO.

Either of those statements makes equal sense to someone who has no idea what the hell they're talking about, and you can say what you like.

Whether I think you have shown the aptitude and interest to try to bother explaining something is the next question.

By the way, quoting 'a nice phrase' doesn't require source attribution to prove anything; I'm not asking you to believe the speaker, I'm just saying I didn't invent the phrase.

But, you sure seem quick to misuse the 'name your source' demand, to falsely imply that I'd posted something that should have had a source.

In other news:
http://2parse.com/?p=1010#footnote_0_1010
http://www.mercurynews.com/nationworld/ci_10186097
http://www.npr.org/templates/s...y.php?storyId=92111942

Then again, I'm pretty sure you see the above sources as large demonic corporations pressing their own agenda of promoting their favored candidate, right?

You're wrong about what you're 'pretty sure' of on my opinion. NPR a large demonic corporation? That's an odd one, since it's government-funded with a culture of independance in its editorial direction, completely apart from its corporate sponsors, unlike the normal corporate media. But I don't think those articles prove what you think they do.

My positition is that McCain has an act of being a 'maverick' for which he does this and that to have anything to back up the claim with. Any number of his positions might be sincere. But I don't think his positions begin to justify the 'maverick' label; I view him as very much a right-winger, with the occassional different position taken on some issue like his bold agreeing with nearly every climate scientist in the world that the Republican's corrupt oil-funded position on global warming might not be entirely right.

And even on his flagship 'maverick' issues, he's repeatedly flip flopped and compromised, like Bush's #1 domestic priority, the borrowed tax cuts, that McCain opposed when he wasn't running for president, and reversed position on, or even torture of all things, which he compromised a lot on, way too far IMO.

1. Fine. Let me spell it out for you. Obama will screw the US, he'll just screw it differently than Bush. Is that helpful?

2. This is a logical debate. If you intend to convince me of something, then you need to cite it. If you don't then you're just projecting, and this conversation is worthless.

2a. Your sarcasm meter needs some recalibration.

2b. It's not so much that you view McCain as a right-winger. That's arguably true. It's the fact that you view Obama as a moderate that makes my jaw drop.

2c. I don't mind flip-flopping as long as the reasoning is explained and makes sense.

 

[Pandaren]

I gave $ to the Obama campaign. I agree with Obama on tax and health care policies. Nothing personal against McCain, I just don't agree with his solutions.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: Dari

So when he's out campaigning and replaces the words "believe" and "support" with "will", does that make you suspicious? I ask because you must think we're stupid if those are the reasons why you support a certain candidate, rather than supplementary evidence that supports your belief.

This guy cracks me up. That is literally one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen in politics, and I've seen a lot of dumb shit.

Did either of you read my previous post? I'm simply pointing out an example that's compact enough to fit into this forum.

Also, everything on those sites and and everything that comes out of a candidate's mouth is obviously politically biased (to say the least) and arguably bullshit. However, if McCain says he "will" do something, I'm more inclined to believe him. The man has resources Obama lacks.

Never mind the fact that when either candidate uses "will" in a speech it's generally directed at a generality (ie: We will fight corruption and pork-barrel politics).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: irishScott

1. Fine. Let me spell it out for you. Obama will screw the US, he'll just screw it differently than Bush. Is that helpful?

Not really. Specifics are part of the 'logical argument' you say you're making. But we're on to a new point here than the earlier one.

2. This is a logical debate. If you intend to convince me of something, then you need to cite it. If you don't then you're just projecting, and this conversation is worthless.

You're not getting this one. It was a *nice phrase*, not an authoratative quote.

An analogy:

Version 1:

"Based on my review of McCain's voting history, I think he will mostly continue the core economic and foreign policies of Bush."

Version 2:

"Based on my review of McCain's voting history, when it comes to his similarity to Bush on domestic and foreign policy, we can expect what someone called "McSame".

See there, in version 2, I cited without attribution the 'nice phrase' for the point - but the point is mine, not saying you need to accept the quoted person's opinion.

That does not need attribution, other than to give them credit for the phrase.

2a. Your sarcasm meter needs some recalibration.

Or the sarcasm does, but I'm not going to look at this one at the moment.

2b. It's not so much that you view McCain as a right-winger. That's arguably true. It's the fact that you view Obama as a moderate that makes my jaw drop.

I'll clarify, that he appears to be a 'moderate', which I hope he's not. I'm hoping he is playing one on TV for the election.

He's disappointed liberals in every policy decision since getting the nomination and some before, from citing Reagan for praise (and Clinton for condemnation!), to his abandoning of his commitment to filibuter telecome amnesty, to his opinions on recent Supreme Court decisions which sided with the right wing, to his hard line on Iran including military strikes, and other issues. I've seen pretty much nothing for the liberals. No talk of corporatism as a problem, no talk of the military being bloated.

He had the chance to agree with Dennis Kucinich's issues, to side with John Edwards against poverty, and he avoided both.

I'm pretty concerned about how he'll govern, as I want a real liberal president, not another Bill Clinton (Telecommunications Act, pro-corporatist free trade, etc.), or worse.

2c. I don't mind flip-flopping as long as the reasoning is explained and makes sense.[/quote]

Me neither, I favor it. McCain's appears to be abandoning principle for politics.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays

Originally posted by: Dari

So when he's out campaigning and replaces the words "believe" and "support" with "will", does that make you suspicious? I ask because you must think we're stupid if those are the reasons why you support a certain candidate, rather than supplementary evidence that supports your belief.

This guy cracks me up. That is literally one of the dumbest takes I've ever seen in politics, and I've seen a lot of dumb shit.

Did either of you read my previous post? I'm simply pointing out an example that's compact enough to fit into this forum.

Also, everything on those sites and and everything that comes out of a candidate's mouth is obviously politically biased (to say the least) and arguably bullshit. However, if McCain says he "will" do something, I'm more inclined to believe him. The man has resources Obama lacks.

Never mind the fact that when either candidate uses "will" in a speech it's generally directed at a generality (ie: We will fight corruption and pork-barrel politics).

What resources does he have? You do realize that the major supporters of his campaign are lobbyists, the same way it was with Bush right? You do realize Bush said the exact same things before he got elected, then flip-flopped and became one of the worst presidents in our history right?

I'm going to put it bluntly, you're not making any sense. You're not giving any real or tangible evidence as to why McCain would be a better candidate than Obama. Quite frankly unless you educate yourself on the issues my opinion is that you do not vote. You're wasting your vote when you refuse to educate yourself.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I think he may need a bit more, certain people on this forum still think he's a Muslim.

Another great post that is on topic (as usual).
Feel free to contribute to this thread or any other when you are good and ready

On topic and factual, I didn't try to attack the OP and derail the thread.

BTW (this may be a bit off topic but I don't want to start a new thread, and I would appreciate your opinion) If the Dem's lose yet another election even thought I thought it would be impossible a month ago, do you think voter fraud accusation and law suits will ensue?

Well if recent history is any indication I think you could put money on it. I think if the Dems win a close election we'll hear the same from some Republicans.

How do you think Obama is doing overall with the tools he has to work with?

I think he's doing fine. While the Candidates on the Republican side might be weak the Republican Political machine isn't. Hey it got a weak candidate elected twice.

I'm not an Obamabot, I'm anti Republican. I think a lot of those voting for McCain are not so much a McCain fan as they are anti Democrat. I do think that there are more Fans of Obama than there are of McCain and Palin but I think there are way more people voting against one or the other of the candidates than are those that are voting for

Obama had everything going in his favor (after the primary's) and it seems like things are going down hill fast. I don't think the democratic party vetted Obama well because the skeletons in his closet are better than the RNC could have ever hopped for. I agree that McCain is a weak candidate and Obama could have had the knock out punch with Hillary (instead he chose the Washington he was campaigning against)but Obama decided to revive the Republican party, McCain has done one (and only one) smart move by choosing Palin.

I don't want to get into the specifics but his pastor, his wife, Bill Ayers and his foot in mouth disease are all working in the Republicans favor. The approval numbers for Bush are bad so it should have been a cakewalk for the Democrats but it seems that Obama (because of his past) is making it a lot more difficult than it had to be.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Druidx

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I think he may need a bit more, mods on this forum still think he's a Muslim.

Reread that thread; jpeyton is ridiculing a Moron in Florida who called Senator Obama a "half-breed Muslin". Note carefully the last letter in the word "muslin" and jpeyton's link to the fabric.

Just because jpeyton can't spell does not make him a moron so please stop.

You're absolutely right, other things make him a moron.

I'm not one to argue.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I think he may need a bit more, certain people on this forum still think he's a Muslim.

Another great post that is on topic (as usual).
Feel free to contribute to this thread or any other when you are good and ready

On topic and factual, I didn't try to attack the OP and derail the thread.

BTW (this may be a bit off topic but I don't want to start a new thread, and I would appreciate your opinion) If the Dem's lose yet another election even thought I thought it would be impossible a month ago, do you think voter fraud accusation and law suits will ensue?

I think that depedns whether there's evidence of voter fraud, as there was in 2000/2004.

Can we agree that anytime democrats/acorn are involved you will have voter fraud?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Barack is not taking public funding so everyone's donation helps.

When all is said and done I want to be able to say, if Obama does not win, that I tried and did all I could to make America a better place. I couldn't say that in '04.

I don't think you've done enough, don't you love your cou...er..like, never mind.

You should give more, he is losing in the polls...please help.

 

[Obsoleet]

I first gave money to Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

I'm now giving money to Kucinich, who I will never abandon.. and now Obama as well.

 

[Thegonagle]

My wallet has been a little light to give $250, but I've outright donated a total of $65, and ordered about $40 in merchandise from the store, including a yard sign, a T-shirt, and three times as many bumper stickers as I have cars so I can give some away.

 

[monovillage]

Get ready for the blizzard of mail you're gonna get after Obama sells his mailing list.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Budmantom
I think he may need a bit more, certain people on this forum still think he's a Muslim.

Another great post that is on topic (as usual).
Feel free to contribute to this thread or any other when you are good and ready

On topic and factual, I didn't try to attack the OP and derail the thread.

BTW (this may be a bit off topic but I don't want to start a new thread, and I would appreciate your opinion) If the Dem's lose yet another election even thought I thought it would be impossible a month ago, do you think voter fraud accusation and law suits will ensue?

I think that depedns whether there's evidence of voter fraud, as there was in 2000/2004.

Can we agree that anytime democrats/acorn are involved you will have voter fraud?

Well, if you mean by that because there are Republicans against them, you might have a point, but IMO, most elections with Republicans are not fraudulent. Some are.

In the old days, democrats had their fair share of fraud. Today, things have changed quite a bit.

Why don't you explain, if you disagree, for example, Jeb Bush's illegal denial of voting rights to tens of thousands of ex-felons who had the legal right to vote, ignoring court orders, until after the 2000 election, and his secretary of state's office then lying about their policy, putting out a forged memo in response to queries that said the opposite of what the real memo they had sent registration offices, showing a clear consciousness of guilt? Iin 2004, he restored their right to vote.