US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread #6 - Page 17 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2008, 09:55 PM   #321
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Bill Clinton should keep his distance from Obama and Axelrod.


They lied about and distorted his record as President.


Hillary should play ball, she's in the Senate

Obama deserves very little if anything from Bill Clinton.


seems you've got yourself a pair of presidential kneepads.
__________________

Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:45 AM   #322
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:35 PM
(CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama and former President Bill Clinton are expected to meet in the next few days, according to the chairman of Sen. Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful presidential bid.

Terry McAuliffe said the former president was angered by media reports suggesting he bore a grudge against Obama after the sometimes bruising primary campaign and did not plan to actively support Obama in the general election.

"He was angry that these ridiculous stories were out here, and these supposed close friends of the president -- none of the close friends ever got called," McAuliffe said, referring to anonymous sources quoted in some stories. "What happens, a lot of time, is people like to pretend they're close so they can tell the reporters that they're close, but, you know, they're just talking."

McAuliffe said he spoke to Bill Clinton on Sunday morning. The former president recently returned from a trip to Europe.

Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared together Friday in Unity, New Hampshire, where the former first lady said of her ex-rival, "we may have started on different paths ... [but] today our hearts are set on the same destination for America ... to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States of America."

The two had met the night before at a gathering of Clinton's biggest political donors, at which Clinton delivered the maximum legal donations to Obama's campaign from herself and her husband, while Obama and his wife, Michelle, donated the maximum to Clinton's campaign -- which remains mired in debt.

But some analysts read bitterness into the fact that Bill Clinton did not appear at either event and had made no personal comments supporting Obama since his wife conceded the nomination. Instead, the former president released a statement through a spokesman saying he "is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do" for Obama.

McAuliffe said Bill Clinton merely was waiting in order to avoid taking the public's focus off the joint appearances by Obama and Hillary Clinton.

"Any time that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama speak, it's going to be big news," McAuliffe said. "They wanted this out of the way first. Now that that's over, they will speak. And I'll bet you they speak within the next 24 hours, 48 at the most."

He also joked at rumors that the ex-president remains angry at Obama over the Democratic campaign.

"This man doesn't stay mad," he said. "He can get mad for 24 hours. It's his Irish ancestry."
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 10:49 AM   #323
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Wow, it's a trend..

(CNN) — Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democrat-turned-Independent who is a strong supporter of Republican John McCain's White House bid, suggested Sunday the United States will likely face a terrorist attack in 2009.

The controversial comments followed remarks by top John McCain adviser Charlie Black late last week that a terrorist attack leading up the the general election would probably help the Arizona senator's White House hopes.

"Our enemies will test the new president early," Lieberman told CBS Sunday. "Remember that the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration. 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration."

McCain and his supporters have long argued the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is better-suited to handle the country's foreign policy challenges than Barack Obama.

"[McCain] knows the world," Lieberman said. "He's been tested. He's ready to protect the security of the American people."

But Lieberman, who served as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2000, distanced himself from Black's contention that a terrorist attack would boost McCain's chances of winning the Oval Office.

"Sometimes even the best of them say things that are not what they intended to say," Lieberman said. "Certainly the implications there I know were not what Charlie intended. And he apologized for it. Senator McCain said he didn't agree. And, of course, I feel the same way.

Lieberman, who calls himself an "independent Democrat," endorsed McCain in early December.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 06-30-2008, 11:20 AM   #324
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 01:35 PM
^What tune would Lieberman be singing right now if he was the vice president? He's done quite a reversal since the 2000 fiasco.
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 05:20 PM   #325
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 11:35 AM
Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers
by Arianna Huffington

Last Friday afternoon, the guests taking part in Sunday's roundtable discussion on This Week had a pre-show call with George Stephanopoulos. One of the topics he raised was Obama's perceived move to the center, and what it means. Thus began my weekend obsession. If you were within shouting distance of me, odds are we talked about it. I talked about it over lunch with HuffPost's DC team, over dinner with friends, with the doorman at the hotel, and the driver on the way to the airport.

As part of this process, I looked at the Obama campaign not through the prism of my own progressive views and beliefs but through the prism of a cold-eyed campaign strategist who has no principles except winning. From that point of view, and taking nothing else into consideration, I can unequivocally say: the Obama campaign is making a very serious mistake. Tacking to the center is a losing strategy. And don't let the latest head-to-head poll numbers lull you the way they lulled Hillary Clinton in December.

Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the tired Washington model of "I'll do these things for you" with Obama's "Let's do these things together":

"This has been the premise of Barack's politics all his life, going back to his days as a community organizer," Axelrod told me. "He has really lived and breathed it, which is why it comes across so authentically. Of course, the time also has to be right for the man and the moment to come together. And, after all the country has been through over the last seven years, the times are definitely right for the message that the only way to get real change is to activate the American people to demand it."

Watering down that brand is the political equivalent of New Coke. Call it Obama Zero.

In 2004, the Kerry campaign's obsession with undecided voters -- voters so easily swayed that 46 percent of them found credible the Swift Boaters' charges that Kerry might have faked his war wounds to earn a Purple Heart -- allowed the race to devolve from a referendum on the future of the country into a petty squabble over whether Kerry had bled enough to warrant his medals.

Throughout the primary, Obama referred to himself as an "unlikely candidate." Which he certainly was -- and still is. And one of the things that turned him from "unlikely" upstart to presidential frontrunner is his ability to expand the electorate by convincing unlikely voters -- some of the 83 million eligible voters who didn't turn out in 2004 -- to engage in the system.

So why start playing to the political fence sitters -- staking out newly nuanced positions on FISA, gun control laws, expansion of the death penalty, and NAFTA?

In an interview with Nina Easton in Fortune Magazine, Obama was asked about having called NAFTA "a big mistake" and "devastating." Obama's reply: "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified."

Overheated? So when he was campaigning in the Midwest, many parts of which have been, yes, devastated by economic changes since the passage of NAFTA, and he pledged to make use of a six-month opt-out clause in the trade agreement, that was "overheated?" Or was that one "amplified?"

Because if that's the case, it would be helpful going forward if Obama would let us know which of his powerful rhetoric is "overheated" and/or "amplified," so voters will know not to get their hopes too high.

When Obama kneecaps his own rhetoric and dilutes his positioning as a different kind of politician, he is also giving his opponent a huge opening to reassert the McCain as Maverick brand. We know that McCain has completely abandoned any legitimate claim on his maverick image, but the echoes of that reputation are still very much with us -- especially among many in the media who would love nothing more than to be able to once again portray McCain as the real leader they fell in love with in 2000. And the new Straight Talk Express plane has been modeled on its namesake bus, decked out to better recreate the seduction.

The transition between the primaries and the general election -- and from insurgent to frontrunner -- is tricky. Even a confident campaign can be knocked off course. So this is when Obama most needs to remember what got him to this point -- and stick with it.

In a Los Angeles Times article detailing Obama's attempts at "shifting toward the center," Matt Bennett of the centrist think tank Third Way says that Obama is a "good politician. He's doing all he can to make sure people know he would govern as a post-partisan moderate."

But isn't being a "good politician" as it's meant here exactly what Obama defined himself as being against? Instead of Third Way think tankers, Obama should listen to this guy:

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics -- the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.... The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page."

That was Barack Obama in February of 2007, announcing his run for the White House. "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington," he said that day, "but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

Was that just "overheated and amplified" rhetoric?

The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and "change we can believe in." I like that brand. More importantly, voters -- especially unlikely voters -- like that brand.

Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder.

Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 08:52 PM   #326
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:35 AM
I expect to see some flip-flopping on the issue of religious pandering over this
Quote:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised a more active approach to faith-based social programs on Tuesday in a bid to bolster his support among evangelical and religious voters.

Obama visited a community ministry in a conservative region of the election battleground state of Ohio to unveil a plan to reinvigorate faith-based community programs first pioneered by President George W. Bush.

The Illinois senator, who will face Republican John McCain in November's presidential election, said he would put more money and emphasis on strengthening the link between government and community faith programs.

"The fact is, the challenges we face today -- from saving our planet to ending poverty -- are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama said. "We need an all-hands-on-deck approach."

McCain and Obama are gearing up for a pitched battle for evangelical support in November's election. Neither candidate has inspired strong enthusiasm in the religious community, normally a core Republican bloc.

Most polls show McCain beating Obama by 3-to-1 or more among evangelicals, but Obama hopes to do better among the group than Democrat John Kerry did in 2004, when Bush won four of every five evangelicals.

Obama has been hindered by the controversy about the incendiary comments of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and by false Internet rumours that he is a Muslim, as well as Internet whisper campaigns about his patriotism.

But Obama hopes growing concerns among evangelicals about issues like global warming and poverty, and unhappiness with the war and the leadership of Bush and Republicans, give him an opening to court an electorate that accounted for more than 20 percent of voters in 2004.
Obama courts evangelicals with stress on faith | Reuters

Faith is not a virtue, I like it when politicians of all stripes get called on their pandering.
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 08:55 PM   #327
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Have you read his books? He has been absolutely consistent on this point. You may disagree with faith-based initiatives, I may disagree with them but I believe he genuinely believes in them and has always been an advocate. It's disingenuous to call it pandering.
anitram is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 09:07 PM   #328
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Have you read his books?
Have you read my book?

to borrow one of your phases

"For fucks sake"

it is pandering, some might call it smart campaigning

Quote:
"The fact is, the challenges we face today -- from saving our planet to ending poverty -- are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama said. "We need an all-hands-on-deck approach."

This is just plain old nonsense.
So without taxpayer money, churches who are tax exempt, and have tons of money will not help the poor?

and again, with our huge deficits, do we need to give money to Churches

these things that "are simply too big for government to solve" will get solved with less money available?
deep is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 09:14 PM   #329
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:35 PM
I ask you again, HAVE YOU READ HIS BOOKS?

He has talked about these sorts of faith-based initiatives at great detail long before he ran for president. He has also extensively talked about the need for the left to engage in a faith debate so as to not needlessly surrender all those voters to the Republicans by default. I don't think this is pandering, I think he truly and honestly believes that there is value in these tax initiatives.

Do I think there is value in them? I have no idea, but I'm not a huge fan of this sort of thing in principle. I wouldn't support it but I also don't live in a country where this is any kind of an election issue so I chalk this up to another one of those American quirks that the rest of the Western world just doesn't get.

deep what really bugs me is that your over the top, histrionic reactions to just about every single thing about Obama makes me really just want to skip over your posts. Because they read like a hell of a lot of outrage for the sake of being outraged and little substance to boot. I've articulated a number of times what things I disagreed with him on. This tax thing is one. I also said multiple times (and was one of the only people here to do so, I might add) that Hillary's healthcare plan was better than his was. I have no problem criticizing Obama, I'm not some moron groupie. But I really always respected and appreciated your posts. It's just that lately, they've lapsed into a hysteria that I honestly don't comprehend at all. It could be that there is something thought-provoking in them, but frankly, I don't have enough hours in a day to bother and cut through your "the sky is falling because of Obama" routine.
anitram is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 09:28 PM   #330
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Have you read his books? He has been absolutely consistent on this point. You may disagree with faith-based initiatives, I may disagree with them but I believe he genuinely believes in them and has always been an advocate. It's disingenuous to call it pandering.
It doesn't matter if he sincerely believes in faith-based initiatives, it doesn't even matter if they work better than other programs, all that matters is that funneling public funds to religious groups goes against what I consider the intent of a secularism. Religious charity should be funded from private donation not taxpayers money and I don't care if it is from the bigoted right-wing the feel good centre-left: it's wrong in principle.

Are people so forgiving of George W. Bush's infusion of religiousity into politics? Or is his public faith somehow more insincere than someone that comes into a religious community as an adult and benefits from those connections (until of course that Church becomes a liability).
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 09:33 PM   #331
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I ask you again, HAVE YOU READ HIS BOOKS?



deep what really bugs me is that your over the top, histrionic reactions to just about every single thing about Obama makes me really just want to skip over your posts. Because they read like a hell of a lot of outrage for the sake of being outraged and little substance to boot. I've articulated a number of times what things I disagreed with him on. This tax thing is one. I also said multiple times (and was one of the only people here to do so, I might add) that Hillary's healthcare plan was better than his was. I have no problem criticizing Obama, I'm not some moron groupie. But I really always respected and appreciated your posts. It's just that lately, they've lapsed into a hysteria that I honestly don't comprehend at all. It could be that there is something thought-provoking in them, but frankly, I don't have enough hours in a day to bother and cut through your "the sky is falling because of Obama" routine.
alright,

I am sorry I said

"FFS"

It sounds better when you say it.



It seems like most people in here see this election as a clear choice.

Right now, I am only at about 55% leaning to vote for McCain.

A few couple of weeks back, I was leaning to voting for Obama.

My biggest hesitation on Obama, is that there is not any real track record.

His lack of executive experience. When people bring up "race" with me they are so off base. I support affirmative action. I know that people of color, and women are not given equal opportunities.

I also know for these things to get better, we need to have role models from those groups.

I have not read his books. I have not read McCain's books, or Clinton's books.

I have read quite a bit about all of these people and parts from their books.

Honestly, I don't put a lot of credit in these books. W could have had a wonderful book put together in 2000. I still knew I did not want to vote for him.

He had no track record or experience that impressed me at all. His Governorship of Texas was unremarkable.

W has always been in favor of faith based programs, and I know he was pandering for their support.

So, it is in Obama's book. It still can fit the definition of pandering, or smart campaigning.
deep is offline  
Old 07-01-2008, 09:34 PM   #332
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 12:35 PM
This is tricky for Obama. I'm not sure what to make of this "move to the center." I've said before that I think he's actually more centrist than a lot on the left think he is. But at the same time a lot of his recent statements sound a lot like pandering to me. So it's hard to say.

One thing Obama has always been about--that I felt made him different--is about listening to both sides of an issue, talking with the "enemy" and seeing the valid points they may have. Especially in our sound-bite culture this can easily be misinterpreted as being wishy-washy, or pandering. Worse, there is a very real temptation to use that ability to genuinely listen to and identify with different points of view to manipulate people or curry favor. I think that, more than mere, pandering, is the trap Obama may be falling in to.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 07:52 AM   #333
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:35 PM
So I guess Geena Davis helped Sen Clinton too

RENO, Nevada (AP) -- Dennis Haysbert likes to believe his portrayal as the first African-American U.S. president on Fox's "24" may have helped pave the way for Barack Obama.

"If anything, my portrayal of David Palmer, I think, may have helped open the eyes of the American people," said the actor, who has contributed $2,300 to the Illinois Democrat's presidential campaign.

"And I mean the American people from across the board -- from the poorest to the richest, every color and creed, every religious base -- to prove the possibility there could be an African-American president, a female president, any type of president that puts the people first," he said Tuesday.

Haysbert, who now stars on "The Unit" on CBS, made his comments to reporters during a teleconference call promoting the upcoming American Century Celebrity Golf Championship at Lake Tahoe.

Haysbert, who also played Nelson Mandela in the 2007 film "Goodbye Bafana," said his role as President Palmer seemed to "confuse people" who would approach him on the street "every day, almost every hour, and ask me to run."

"I still, even after three seasons into `The Unit' playing Sgt. Maj. Jonas Blaine, I'm still asked by people on the street to run," he said.

Haysbert, 54, said he recently stopped for dinner south of Los Angeles with his daughter in Dana Point, Calif., a town he described as "very wealthy, very white and very Republican."

"I go into this little restaurant with that demographic and a lady comes up to me and says, `You know, I want to vote for you,"' he said. "I don't know if it is a joke or that people just like to say those things. But to me, for them to say it out loud means they are thinking about it."
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 09:21 AM   #334
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:35 PM
In other news. 100 percent of respondents wouldn't even invite GWB over to clean their toilets after the barbecue..

Obama would get more barbecue invitations than McCain

WASHINGTON (AP) — People would rather barbecue burgers with Barack than munch meats with McCain.

While many are still deciding which should be president, by 52 percent to 45 percent they would prefer having Barack Obama than John McCain to their summer cookout, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll released Wednesday.

Men are about evenly divided between the two while women prefer Obama by 11 percentage points. Whites prefer McCain, minorities Obama. And Obama is a more popular guest with younger voters while McCain does best with the oldest.

Having Obama to a barbecue would be like a relaxed family gathering, while inviting McCain "would be more like a retirement party than something fun," said Wesley Welbourne, 38, a systems engineer from Washington, D.C.

Party label means a lot, with three-quarters of Democrats picking the Democrat Obama and the same number of Republicans picking McCain, a Republican. Independents are about evenly split.

"John and I would probably have a lot to talk about," said Republican Michael Mullen, 53, of Merrimac, Mass., like McCain a Navy veteran.

One in six people saying they'd vote for McCain prefer Obama as their barbecue guest; just one in 20 Obama backers would invite McCain.

The AP-Yahoo! News survey of 1,759 adults was conducted online by Knowledge Networks from June 13-23 and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. The margin of sampling error for subgroups was larger.
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 09:58 AM   #335
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
It doesn't matter if he sincerely believes in faith-based initiatives, it doesn't even matter if they work better than other programs, all that matters is that funneling public funds to religious groups goes against what I consider the intent of a secularism. Religious charity should be funded from private donation not taxpayers money and I don't care if it is from the bigoted right-wing the feel good centre-left: it's wrong in principle.

Obama: Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.



Quote:
Are people so forgiving of George W. Bush's infusion of religiousity into politics? Or is his public faith somehow more insincere than someone that comes into a religious community as an adult and benefits from those connections (until of course that Church becomes a liability).

i think this is a situation where the messenger does matter. i'm wary of faith-based programs, but considering Obama's left-of-center track record, i don't think it's likely that he's going to use faith-based programs as a cover to, 1) slash government programs, 2) toss $$$ back to the Christianists who got Bush elected, 3) recruit more evangelicals who tend to be GOP voters.

so long as the secularism is absolutely maintained -- and this includes forbidding, say, Catholic adoption services from discriminating against gay couples -- i suppose this is something i can live with because the messenger -- a liberal Christian -- is fundamentally less scary than Bush's brand of Christianism where Dobson and Haggard got weekly phone calls with the president and input into potential SCOTUS nominees.

in principle, yes, this is an extention of Bush (and Clinton, for that matter). but the real world effects of this will be vastly different.

this is no Trojan Horse to dismantle social safety nets.

and this is smart politics. Obama has made huge, huge inroads with under-30 evangelicals who are disgusted by their parent's focus on abortion and hating gays at all costs. they are far, far more interested in the environment and reducing poverty than their parents. and Obama can talk to them in a way that Gore, Kerry, and McCain can't. and in a way that i couldn't. this culture is alien to me. but i suppose it doesn't have to be necessarily invidious.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:01 AM   #336
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,395
Local Time: 01:35 PM
and as the polls go, as Obama tacks to the Right and goes after GOP groups like Evanglicals, his lead in the polls has solidified, his lead in the swing states has grown, Latinos have flocked to him in enormous numbers, and McCain can't seem to find a line of attack, and all the while the charge that he's "McSame as Bush" is starting to stick.

as it stands, here, in July, it's no wonder that this man beat the Clintons.

and deep, if you want to live in a world where abortion is legal, there is no option.

and to add, if i were voting on a resume, i'd have voted for Richardson. but for some of us, politics and especially the presidency, are more multi-dimensional than that.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:08 AM   #337
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:35 PM


Stephen Baldwin On Fox News: If Obama Wins, I'll Leave The Country - Politics on The Huffington Post
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:10 AM   #338
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
It doesn't matter if he sincerely believes in faith-based initiatives
No, Wanderer, it matters here because YOU posited that he is pandering. That was the crux and point of your post. The fact that he may sincerely believe in the initiatives clearly goes against your very argument.

So if you want to disagree with his position, then you should have done that rather than makign the argument that you made.
anitram is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:11 AM   #339
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 01:35 PM
Is he gonna take Babs with him?
anitram is offline  
Old 07-02-2008, 10:12 AM   #340
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 01:35 PM

__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×