Text Size

No Holds Barred

Dear Mr. Obama

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

Dear Mr. Obama

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:51 pm

A video message from a veteran of the Iraq War. Watch it until the end.

This is not a paid advertisement from McCain. The soldier decided to make it himself.

From what I understand, Obama is this young man's Senator. He is from Lake County, Illinois.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8[/youtube]
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Ziner » Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:55 pm

saw this earlier today, I loved it. It wasnt rude, angry or mean. It was just a person who has given more than most (any of us here?) and not complaining because he believed in it. Obama's putting down of the military is unacceptable. I absolutely HATE it when he says the war is a mistake and it is the wrong mission blah blah blah, but he supports the troops... if he supported the troops he wouldnt continually undermine the troops for the sake of his own political gain.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby buckeye319 » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:53 am

I guess this guy's view is more important than those that support Obama? I have a brother over there who thinks McCain's overuse of the American soldier to promote his campaign is way out of bounds - and I can assure he is not alone in that thinking.

The American military is as diverse as the electorate. To assume otherwise is seriously misguided.
User avatar
buckeye319
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:26 am
Location: the Rockies
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: Stephen A. Smith

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:13 am

buckeye319 wrote:I guess this guy's view is more important than those that support Obama? I have a brother over there who thinks McCain's overuse of the American soldier to promote his campaign is way out of bounds - and I can assure he is not alone in that thinking.

The American military is as diverse as the electorate. To assume otherwise is seriously misguided.


It's his opinion and he decided to share it.

And how is McCain overusing the American soldier? He has referenced his own experience as a Naval officer but I don't see him bringing up soldiers on stage, etc. His own experience helped to form his character and that's why he's shared it.

The military is not as diverse as the electorate. They have very strongly backed Republican Presidential candidates since at least the time of Reagan. That's why the Democrats have tried to get military ballots thrown out on several occasions. We saw that attempt here in Florida back in 2000.

And, as I said, this is not a McCain ad. This was the soldier deciding to make his viewpoint known.

I know several people who serve at CentCom over at MacDill AFB. They have shared that they think McCain has been quite good about not trying to drag the current soldiers into his campaign. They do think that Obama has tried to paint members of the Armed Forces as victims too often, but the Democrats tend to try to make everyone who's not wealthy out as a victim. That's been their modus operandi since the 1960s.

This man has some very good reasons that he wants to share for supporting McCain. He's not a paid McCain supporter. He made the video himself and wanted to share it. He's clearly upset that Obama thinks his own sacrifice was a mistake. That shows poor judgement on Obama's part that is quite apparent when you parse what he says and does.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby mrburns » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:36 pm

Mac, the majority of the military donations have gone to Ron Paul, and he was one of the few candidates who would have ended the war and brought the troops home right away. In fact, Paul was largely an isolationist. While the military has been largely right-leaning for a long time, it's pretty presumtuous to assume that the majority of the military is falling in line lock step with the neoconservative agenda, and that's evidenced in their massive support of Paul.

I'd also like to point out how ridiculous the political threads on No Holds Barred have become. It's basically tons of righties gushing over McCain and Palin, and whenever someone either in the middle or to the left suggests something even remotely to the contrary, you guys all gang up on them and try to beat the shit out of them. It's why I hardly ever post on this board anymore. If you're actually trying to have legitimate discussions, that's not the way to do it.
User avatar
mrburns
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:55 pm
Location: Erie, PA
Favorite Player: Rusty Branyan
Least Favorite Player: Rapist QBs

Unread postby winker » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:56 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:His own experience helped to form his character and that's why he's shared it.


What character? The man has run a foul campaign containing nothing but lies. That's NOT character, that's disgusting behavior. Even worse is when he gets called on the lies, he continues to repeat them. McCain was once an honorable military man. Now he's a senile old liar.
User avatar
winker
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: My chair
Favorite Player: Jim
Least Favorite Player: Mike

Unread postby Ziner » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:00 pm

Mr. Burns wrote:Mac, the majority of the military donations have gone to Ron Paul, and he was one of the few candidates who would have ended the war and brought the troops home right away. In fact, Paul was largely an isolationist. While the military has been largely right-leaning for a long time, it's pretty presumtuous to assume that the majority of the military is falling in line lock step with the neoconservative agenda, and that's evidenced in their massive support of Paul.

I'd also like to point out how ridiculous the political threads on No Holds Barred have become. It's basically tons of righties gushing over McCain and Palin, and whenever someone either in the middle or to the left suggests something even remotely to the contrary, you guys all gang up on them and try to beat the shit out of them. It's why I hardly ever post on this board anymore. If you're actually trying to have legitimate discussions, that's not the way to do it.


Not for the easily offended... I might try to beat the shit out of people, but I will step up for Mac because he beats down every one of your arguements with facts and rational arguments.

Now on to your discussion. The majority of military donations have not, no way in hell, gone to Ron Paul. Ron Paul got a miniscule portion of the votes... how then did he get a majority of the military money?

Another issue, I spoke with someone in the military who told me there are a lot (by alot, he means not a majority, but more than you would think) of people on his base that are voting for Obama so they dont have to go to Iraq or go to war. Sure that sounds reasonable right? Well he said they admitted they werent doing it for the right reason, they didnt care about whether the mission was right or wrong, they just wanted their money, their student loans and all the other perks (and there are alot) that go with being in the military and not have to serve.

Personally I dont have a whole hell of alot of respect for people like that, and I would venture to guess that if they werent in the military they would vote Democrat anyways because that is right up their alley.... nothing like taking advantage of the government to get what you want then giving nothing in return.

Also, do not misinterpt this... this is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with the war, which is fine, and doing what these people are.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Ziner » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:03 pm

winker wrote:
Mr. MacPhisto wrote:His own experience helped to form his character and that's why he's shared it.


What character? The man has run a foul campaign containing nothing but lies. That's NOT character, that's disgusting behavior. Even worse is when he gets called on the lies, he continues to repeat them. McCain was once an honorable military man. Now he's a senile old liar.


Call him on one since you are so confident...

Then please assure me that Barack Obama has not lied in his campaign...
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:17 pm

Mr. Burns wrote:Mac, the majority of the military donations have gone to Ron Paul, and he was one of the few candidates who would have ended the war and brought the troops home right away. In fact, Paul was largely an isolationist. While the military has been largely right-leaning for a long time, it's pretty presumtuous to assume that the majority of the military is falling in line lock step with the neoconservative agenda, and that's evidenced in their massive support of Paul.


Massive? Last I looked at military donation numbers they were fairly paltry and represented only a very small percentage of the men and women in the Armed Forces. To assume that the whole military loves Ron Paul because 1% of their personnel donated to him is ridiculous.

I'd also like to point out how ridiculous the political threads on No Holds Barred have become. It's basically tons of righties gushing over McCain and Palin, and whenever someone either in the middle or to the left suggests something even remotely to the contrary, you guys all gang up on them and try to beat the shit out of them. It's why I hardly ever post on this board anymore. If you're actually trying to have legitimate discussions, that's not the way to do it.


I think we are having some legitimate discussions. The problem is that many of the attacks on Palin are not very legitimate and are easily discredited. I'm more than willing to have a discussion on Obama's policies, though you have to try to pin them down first. They've been changing quite a bit over time.

As for Ron Paul, we can talk about him but so few people support him for a reason. Most Americans are not isolationists anymore. It's just not a very realistic option at the present to retreat into our country and cower from the rest of the world. My bet is that most military personnel would agree with me on that. If they don't then why even bother to join the military nowadays?
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:27 pm

winker wrote:
What character? The man has run a foul campaign containing nothing but lies. That's NOT character, that's disgusting behavior. Even worse is when he gets called on the lies, he continues to repeat them. McCain was once an honorable military man. Now he's a senile old liar.


What lies?

Lies like taking a joke about what makes someone rich ($5M) and treating that as a true statement from the opponent?

Wait. That was Obama.

What about the guy who keeps on reminding people that he's black and that his opponent will use that against him though he's never been able to provide evidence that they ever have?

Oh right. That's Obama too.

What about the guy who asks for McCain and Palin to disclose their private documents while refusing to release the documents on his suspicious housing deal ($300K discount because Tony Rezko helped him out and bought the adjacent lot at asking price) and refuses to release specifics about his involvement in a organization that received $150M in Federal grants and had nothing to show for it?

Wait. That's Obama too.

Yeah, McCain is the slimy one. You're right. The guy who has never asked for an earmark is much for slimy than the guy (Obama) that has asked for over $1 Billion in earmarks in his short Senate career.

Yeah, McCain is much worse than the guy (Obama) who got a $1 million earmark handed to his wife's employer soon after they gave her a big raise.

Yeah, McCain is much worse than the guy who said the surge would fail (Obama) and now admits that it is a great success yet he still says he would vote against it. Sounds like stubbornness that George W. Bush would be proud of.

Yeah, McCain is much worse than a guy who has shown no ability to take criticism and whines that people are being unfair to him when they use anything he says against him. Yet he had no problem attacking Hillary Clinton in the primaries. He had no problem getting legit petition signatures thrown out in Illinois so he could run unopposed for that State Senate seat. What a classy guy.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby winker » Fri Sep 12, 2008 1:51 pm

Ziner wrote:Call him on one since you are so confident...


McCain says, "Obama's (health care) plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

FactCheck.org says: The plan exempts small businesses, and people who have insurance now would be able to keep the coverage they have.
User avatar
winker
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: My chair
Favorite Player: Jim
Least Favorite Player: Mike

Unread postby Ziner » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:09 pm

winker wrote:
Ziner wrote:Call him on one since you are so confident...


McCain says, "Obama's (health care) plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

FactCheck.org says: The plan exempts small businesses, and people who have insurance now would be able to keep the coverage they have.


He's probably talking about the taxes that Obama is going to raise on small businesses (or as democrats like to call them, the wealthy).

Do you disagree that raising taxes on the wealthy small business owners will in fact do everything McCain laid out? I dont at all. And before say it, it exempts small business blah blah... tell me what constitutes a small business and what about the small businesses who dont have insurance that will now be forced to. wont that cost jobs?

By the way nice response to Mac's list... umm... none... next lie McCain told please.
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby skatingtripods » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:18 pm

winker wrote:McCain says, "Obama's (health care) plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

FactCheck.org says: The plan exempts small businesses, and people who have insurance now would be able to keep the coverage they have.


Find me the people that will turn down free health care to keep paying for what they currently have.

Is FactCheck.org affiliated with MoveOn.org? I'm just curious, that's not a sarcastic comment.


How can you "exempt" small businesses without creating another government bureaucracy to oversee the exemptions?

And a bureaucrat would stand between you and your doctor. So would a 6 month wait to see a physician.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:47 pm

winker wrote:McCain says, "Obama's (health care) plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

FactCheck.org says: The plan exempts small businesses, and people who have insurance now would be able to keep the coverage they have.


Yes, except to pay for his health care plan he wants to raise taxes on businesses, including a hike in payroll taxes. That will force them to cut employment and reduce wages.

I've talked to several small business owners that are scared to death he will raise the payroll taxes on them from 6.5% to 9% and that would hurt them dramatically. At best it will mean higher prices for everyone to cover the cost.

But it also goes up the ladder. These small businesses buy from large businesses that will not be exempted and will have to cahrge more for their products and services, costing the small business more.

In the end Obama's plan means higher prices for the American people and it will increase inflation even further. Those business tax hikes just get passed on to the consumer in higher prices.

The best idea is to drastically cut corporate taxes and I also think cutting payroll taxes would be beneficial. This would allow for GDP growth and an actual increase in overall revenue because of the growth of the GDP. We need to get more businesses back into this country and encourage more manufacturing by making it easier to build things here.

How's about we also take an idea from the Japanese and other nations. Let's rebate corporate taxes on exports. Let's say the rate is reduced to 25% for corporate taxes. Why not reduce it to 10% on exports? Any item that is made here and sold abroad for profit will see the taxes on that product rebated to the company. So let's say 75% of a car by any car company is built here and that portion of the profit for that car is $2000. The $500 tax on that is reduced to $200. So for every 100,000 units sold overseas the company gets to keep an additional $30M they wouldn't have kept before. Nice enticement for exporting, eh? That creates more jobs here and helps to thin down the trade deficit - AND most of those products likely would not have been made here prior to the tax rebate, so it actually turns into increased revenue.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Ziner » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:51 pm

Good article about Obama, it isnt long I suggest reading it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 735295.ece
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:15 pm

Ziner wrote:Good article about Obama, it isnt long I suggest reading it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 735295.ece


Great find, Ziner.

Baker is usually quite perceptive on these issues for the Times of London. He's an outsider observing our politics and understands it much more than the rest of Europe does.

The payoff is quite excellent:

Here's the real problem with Mr Obama: the jarring gap between his promises of change and his status quo performance. There are just too many contradictions between the eloquent poetry of the man's stirring rhetoric and the dull, familiar prose of his political record.

It's been remarked that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is religion: ignorant Americans cling to faith; enlightened Europeans long ago embraced the liberating power of reason. Yet here's an odd thing about this election. Europeans are asking Americans to take a leap of faith, to break the chains of empiricism and embrace the possibility of the imagination.

The fact is that a vote for Mr Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.


That's Obama's huge problem. His record is one of partisanship and allegiance to the Chicago Machine. He had a chance in 2006 to back a progressive candidate in Illinois that even conservative Republicans had gotten behind because of his record for cleaning up corruption. He chose to back Daley's man instead and squashed a real chance for cleaning up Chicago politics.

Barack Obama was made by the Chicago Machine. He has gotten opponents thrown off ballots and just happened to have his opponent for the US Senate seat suffer the unfortunate fate of having his private divorce records made public, making him not have to face any real opposition for the seat.

He harps on McCain for voting with Bush 90% of the time when he has voted with his party 97% of the time. He never brings that up because it shows his partisanship.

He is the #1 rated liberal Senator and is running with the #3 liberal. Both have been champions for massive government spending and both have been on the wrong side of foreign policy more than I can count.

He says he's an agent of change yet has no record of any change. His opponents both DO have a record on shaking up THEIR OWN party. He has just voted with his 97% of the time and did not make any effort to go against his party big wigs when he had the chance to actually fight for some change (like the bipartisan ethics reform bill that he stabbed McCain in the back on).

He then reached into the past for his running mate as opposed to McCain reaching for the future. McCain has charted the course for the GOP now; a course of reform, low taxes, and traditional values. Obama has charted the course for the Democrats too; a course for more entrenched bureaucracy, higher taxes, higher inflation, higher fuel costs, and more partisan politics.

Americans aren't stupid, no matter what the Europeans believe. I think it is much easier to pull the wool over their eyes than ours. Obama is a huckster, an empty suit that represents a major left turn for the Dems. They have always had a better chance of winning when they move towards the center like Clinton had to after the GOP took control in 1994. Kennedy and Truman were closer to the center as well while FDR was only elected because the nation was despairing and too much blame fell on Hoover.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Ziner » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:55 pm

winker wrote:
Ziner wrote:Call him on one since you are so confident...


McCain says, "Obama's (health care) plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

FactCheck.org says: The plan exempts small businesses, and people who have insurance now would be able to keep the coverage they have.


did you take your ball and go home or what? Its then end of the day on a friday and I am officially not doing anymore work...could use some debating to pass the time
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:36 pm

Even more hypocrisy from Mr. Obama.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -sena.html

Looking over public records shows that the women who work for McCain actually earn more than the men who work for him. The women earn $1.04 to every dollar a man makes.

The women who work for Obama are paid less than the men. 83 cents for every dollar a woman earns.

The Obama campaign does not dispute this and says it is much different on his presidential campaign, though they have yet to release the salary figures there.

Another case of Obama campaigning for one thing while his past actions dictate something completely different. If the man was so big on the equal pay for equal work propaganda then you'd think he'd apply it to a budget that he controls, but he did not.

How can we believe any of the promises that this man makes us when his history reveals that he has never backed up his rhetoric? He's far from a bold agent of change. He's another go along to get along politician who will promise the heavens to voters and only deliver a pebble, if that. The only thing he ever has shone any kind of backbone on was when he spoke up as an advocate of killing babies that survived late term abortions, a position that even Barbara Boxer doesn't agree with. Of course, when the time came to vote on the issue he could only muster the courage to vote "present". He really has no spine, no new ideas, and no evidence that he is capable of leading anything.

Empty suit.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby FUDU » Fri Sep 12, 2008 6:55 pm

nm
Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect.
"I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

2011 TCF Stratomatic Champ
User avatar
FUDU
 
Posts: 13356
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 2:02 am
Favorite Player: Me
Least Favorite Player: You

Unread postby jfiling » Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:18 pm

Thanks for the article, Ziner. My favorite (ugh) passage:
Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.

I really don't see how anyone could oppose that. I'm agnostic on abortion, leaning to pro-choice, but seriously, how could anyone oppose a doctor being required to treat a living, out-of-the-womb human being? Once it's out, it's negligent homicide if you don't treat it and it is still alive. Obama sickens me.
jfiling
Old School Writer
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:14 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio
Favorite Player: Silky Johnston
Least Favorite Player: Buck Nasty

Unread postby Ziner » Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:44 pm

I would guess Obama could do that, they same way they produce an ad that make fun of McCain for not using a computer.... oh that is funny isnt it... except because of war injuries he can not use a keyboard.... HAHAHA hysterical!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2I0t_Twk0[/youtube]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... NjNjkxZmM=

Man, McCain you are one pathetic loser...
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby buckeye319 » Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:55 pm

Ziner wrote:I would guess Obama could do that, they same way they produce an ad that make fun of McCain for not using a computer.... oh that is funny isnt it... except because of war injuries he can not use a keyboard.... HAHAHA hysterical!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2I0t_Twk0[/youtube]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... NjNjkxZmM=

Man, McCain you are one pathetic loser...


I'll be waiting for you to link McCain's ad accusing him of advocating sex ed for 4 year olds.
User avatar
buckeye319
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:26 am
Location: the Rockies
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: Stephen A. Smith

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:22 am

buckeye319 wrote:I'll be waiting for you to link McCain's ad accusing him of advocating sex ed for 4 year olds.


It's not an accusation, it's a fact. Obama voted for the bill and is on record talking about it.

This is from July of 2007:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar ... -kind.html

Now, Obama says he wants "age appropriate" sex ed but fails to define it. He does mention inappropriate touching, which many agree with teaching, but it's hard to say that that alone would would constitute "comprehensive" sex ed. He's tried to cover for this before, though Alan Keyes wasn't much of an opponent for the Senate seat so he didn't take much of a hit.

Sounds to me from his quotes here that he's all for trying to explain to a five year old specifically where babies come from. Will the schools use diagrams to show the organs and what happens? I think there's a good reason why parents have been leery over time about bringing this up at that early of an age. I know I knew nothing of it at that age and I didn't need to know it. By the time I finished elementary school I did have an idea about where babies came from, though it wasn't anywhere near as complete as it would become by the time I became a teenager and the hormones started really kicking in.


Sex ed for Kindergartners. Leaving babies that survive abortions to die. These are things that he has supported. There's a reason that sex ed bill didn't pass - even the liberals balked at it. It shows just how far left this guy is - further than anyone that has ever run for one of the two big parties, and maybe even further left than Eugene V. Debs ever was.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby jfiling » Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:23 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ6vZRy62KY[/youtube]
jfiling
Old School Writer
 
Posts: 3874
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:14 pm
Location: Akron, Ohio
Favorite Player: Silky Johnston
Least Favorite Player: Buck Nasty

Unread postby Ziner » Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:47 am

buckeye319 wrote:
Ziner wrote:I would guess Obama could do that, they same way they produce an ad that make fun of McCain for not using a computer.... oh that is funny isnt it... except because of war injuries he can not use a keyboard.... HAHAHA hysterical!!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2I0t_Twk0[/youtube]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... NjNjkxZmM=

Man, McCain you are one pathetic loser...


I'll be waiting for you to link McCain's ad accusing him of advocating sex ed for 4 year olds.


First, making fun of someone disability caused from being a POW is signifiganty different than using somoenes own words against them.

Second, now that you have it in his words posted before I could get to you, how do you defend it. Please tell us what he meant if that wasnt what he meant. He was talking to Planned Parenthood, and in the audience were people who probably were 100% in favor of his stance so he said it. If he doesnt believe it now than he should just admit his mistake and say he once believed that way but dont anymore.

Finally, you have try to refute alot of things we have posted with no luck, are you starting to come around to see what a bag of air Obama is? I would think eventually you have to quit being so stubborn and look at it objectively. We are still rooting for you :P :-P :razz:
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby buckeye319 » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:21 am

From FactCheck.org, a bipartisan project from the Anneburg School of Public Policy at Penn. They critique Obama often as well. I thought that Obama add was in poor taste (though they were targeting his age, not his POW injuries - which would be political suicide), and McCain's add is ridiculous.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ex_ed.html

And sorry, I don't think much of the talk on this board is proving anything. Though, I am glad you care about me Ziner. :mrgreen:
Last edited by buckeye319 on Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
buckeye319
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:26 am
Location: the Rockies
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: Stephen A. Smith

Unread postby projectmayhem » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:21 am

didn't see the one leg coming... hit kinda hard not gonna lie...
User avatar
projectmayhem
 
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:11 pm
Favorite Player: Grady Sizemore
Least Favorite Player: Tim Tebow

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:56 am

buckeye319 wrote:From FactCheck.org, a bipartisan project from the Anneburg School of Public Policy at Penn. They critique Obama often as well. I thought that Obama add was in poor taste (though they were targeting his age, not his POW injuries - which would be political suicide), and McCain's add is ridiculous.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ex_ed.html

And sorry, I don't think much of the talk on this board is proving anything. Though, I am glad you care about me Ziner. :mrgreen:


Actually, that article is a load of crud because they claim that McCain's ad said that Obama wanted explicit sex education. The ad said no such thing. It just said he wanted comprehensive sex ed, which Fact Check verified. Unfortunately, Fact Check decided to make it sound like McCain was implying explicit sex ed. He wasn't. He just used the words of the bills Obama has supported.

No definition from Obama what is age appropriate. They'll let your local bureaucrats decide, right?

I think Fact Check is beginning to lose its credibility. Yes, they will go after Obama on some things, but they clearly looked at this ad through Obama-tinted glasses.

And funny that the Annenberg School does this and Obama was a part of the Annenberg Challenge and may have funneled money to the very people who run Factcheck.org. Hmm, food for thought.

Tell me, where does the McCain ad say that Obama wanted to teach explicit sex ed? It says he wants to teach comprehensive sex ed, a point he admits. He then goes and whines that he's not being treated fairly or his words are taken out of context.

Please. It's apparent that you're so in the tank that you couldn't see the truth if it were sitting right in front of you.

Keep relying on Factcheck.org and let them do the thinking for you. No reason for you to use your own brain here.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby buckeye319 » Sun Sep 14, 2008 2:53 am

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Please. It's apparent that you're so in the tank that you couldn't see the truth if it were sitting right in front of you.

Keep relying on Factcheck.org and let them do the thinking for you. No reason for you to use your own brain here.


I had a whole response set out, but there's simply no point - the hypocrisy of you writing that statement above is so great that it speaks for itself.

Should've listened to Burns' warning of this board's direction of late and not posted here. In that sense, you're right...I'll have to start using my brain and stay away. Keep it up though, dude. Before you know it, it'll be just like talking to yourself.
User avatar
buckeye319
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:26 am
Location: the Rockies
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: Stephen A. Smith

Unread postby winker » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:49 am

It's hilarious how Mr. MacParrot, regurgitates every Limbaugh rant, and accuses others of not thinking for themselves. Priceless!
User avatar
winker
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: My chair
Favorite Player: Jim
Least Favorite Player: Mike

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:44 am

winker wrote:It's hilarious how Mr. MacParrot, regurgitates every Limbaugh rant, and accuses others of not thinking for themselves. Priceless!


I actually tend to come to these conclusions on my own.

I find it funny that that's the best argument you can make. No refutation of the facts, just calling someone a name and taking your ball and going home.

Nice.

Once again, I challenge you to show me how that McCain ad accused Obama of wanting to teach explicit sex ed to Kindergartners. That's what factcheck.org accused him of, but I don't see it in the ad.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby skatingtripods » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:49 am

It's hilarious how claims about McCain get refuted by facts and people like Ziner, Mac, and other Conservatives/McCain supporters are lying assholes.

Meanwhile, truthful, factual claims about Obama are regurgitations of Rush Limbaugh, who opposed McCain and supported Hillary, and lies, all damn lies.

Hysterical. Some liberals are so FUBARed when it comes to their ideological notions. Everything's there in voting records and soundbites, but it's still a lie.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:45 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:
Meanwhile, truthful, factual claims about Obama are regurgitations of Rush Limbaugh, who opposed McCain and supported Hillary, and lies, all damn lies.


The Limbaugh comment always makes me crack up. You bring up facts either here or in discussion with others elsewhere and the best they can do is just say I'm parroting Limbaugh. No need to talk facts, they just go right to character assassination.

It's just how intellectually bankrupt the left has become. If they can't refute the claims of an opponent they attempt to destroy them. Witness what they and their media hacks have attempted on Palin. All the lies that have been spread viciously and yet you don't see here complain. Obama has his own words used against him and whines about it not being fair. People question how he could have sat for twenty years in the pew of a radical church and not known the hate-filled message that was being spewed and that's unfair. People question his long time friendship and close association with an unrepentant terrorist and that's not fair.

Do as I say, not as I do, right?

They can dish it out but they can't take it.

And then some of the guys here complain about how Obama is getting hit hard by a few of us here. Hey, refute it. Show me the facts to show my conclusions are wrong and let's have a sane discussion on it. Show me where Obama didn't support comprehensive sex ed for Kindergartners - but they can't. And if you can't then argue for why Obama's stance is a positive and not a negative. We can have a discussion on that, though Obama clearly doesn't want to discuss it unless he's talking in front of fellow supporters like Planned Parenthood, the organization that was founded to support eugenics. Funny that black families have been the ones most destroyed by abortion. The founders of Planned Parenthood would be proud because that was one of their goals - reduce the black population.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby idoctribefan » Sun Sep 14, 2008 7:12 pm

winker wrote:It's hilarious how Mr. MacParrot, regurgitates every Limbaugh rant, and accuses others of not thinking for themselves. Priceless!


How do you know that's what he's doing?.....I'm assuming you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, correct?
"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe
User avatar
idoctribefan
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Joe Haden
Least Favorite Player: #6

Unread postby winker » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:28 pm

There can be no character assassination of McCain or Palin, or their supporters, because they have no character. McCain and Palin are both adulterers and liars. While I don't know if their supporters are also adulterers, I do know that they are liars. They throw out absurd comments and congratulate each other on the talking points. Problem is those talking points are lies.

For example: "The founders of Planned Parenthood would be proud because that was one of their goals - reduce the black population."

Pure lie, like everything else McCain & his supporters spew.
User avatar
winker
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 4:21 pm
Location: My chair
Favorite Player: Jim
Least Favorite Player: Mike

Unread postby idoctribefan » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:06 pm

winker wrote: McCain and Palin are both adulterers and liars.


I would be interested to see evidence that Sarah Palin is an adulterer. Might be true, I don't know. Apparently you have evidence though.

Barack Obama is lying by saying he is not for a socialist economy. But then when he describes it, that's what it is. So is that lie, or just misleading?

Oh and he is friends with an admitted terrorist and another man who is part of the Chicago mob.

But you're right, McCain and Palin have the character issues. :roll :roll:
"And three of the better guys in franchise history, Daugherty, Z and now Kyrie could get hurt in a rubber room full of cotton balls." - Leadpipe
User avatar
idoctribefan
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: NE Ohio
Favorite Player: Joe Haden
Least Favorite Player: #6

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:24 pm

winker wrote:There can be no character assassination of McCain or Palin, or their supporters, because they have no character. McCain and Palin are both adulterers and liars. While I don't know if their supporters are also adulterers, I do know that they are liars. They throw out absurd comments and congratulate each other on the talking points. Problem is those talking points are lies.

For example: "The founders of Planned Parenthood would be proud because that was one of their goals - reduce the black population."

Pure lie, like everything else McCain & his supporters spew.


Did you even bother to look at the link. It's not a lie at all. It's a known fact. That doesn't mean that that's the goal of the organization now, but those are the principles it was founded on. You can read the writings of its founders just as you can read about the founders of the ACLU and find out that their goal was to destroy the US government and create a communist society.

And once again you prove the point anyways. All you can do is come back with slanders. Look up the data on the Planned Parenthood founders and show me I'm wrong.

Instead the best you can do is say I'm a liar, that McCain's an adulterer (true enough, though he has admitted this and says it was the greatest mistake in his life - he admits the mistake unlike Obama).

Refute what we're saying instead of just claiming we're all liars. You want to debate then you need to bring some facts.

Like I said, all you're doing is validating my statement that those on the left don't have the truth on their side so all they can do is resort to name calling and smear tactics. With every bad thing you call me without any documentation to back it up you actually support my statement.

As for the liar statement - that's really true of every one. I doubt there's and person living who has not lied or will not lie. However we also must define a lie. It's when someone knowingly tells an untruth. Lefties don't seem to understand that because they levy the liar accusation at Bush over WMDs and the evidence suggests that that was not a lie at all. US intelligence, British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, and Israeli intelligence all reported that he had them. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden are all on record thinking that he had them. The blind hatred of Bush just makes lefties ignore all this and levy baseless accusations instead of trying to actually argue with facts.

Either lefties don't know how to argue (possible - many seem to never have grown up so they stick to the whiny 8 year old way of arguing, the "you're a poopyhead" method) or they have nothing to back up their arguments. I think it's a mixture of both. I do know that the facts about socialism aren't very rosy from prior implementations, so big government advocates tend to shy away from the data.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Bayou Tribe » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:48 pm

McCain and Palin are both adulterers and liars.


So that's what rock bottom looks like? Damn. You were doing ok for a second or two before you discredited everything you have and ever will say on this board.


ETA -- If you go about logically proving this statement I'll apologize and give you your due.
User avatar
Bayou Tribe
"Rickey wants to play baseball"
 
Posts: 2817
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:47 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Favorite Player: Drew Brees
Least Favorite Player: Steve Smith

Unread postby Ziner » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:57 am

winker wrote:There can be no character assassination of McCain or Palin, or their supporters, because they have no character. McCain and Palin are both adulterers and liars. While I don't know if their supporters are also adulterers, I do know that they are liars. They throw out absurd comments and congratulate each other on the talking points. Problem is those talking points are lies.

For example: "The founders of Planned Parenthood would be proud because that was one of their goals - reduce the black population."

Pure lie, like everything else McCain & his supporters spew.


This post is ironic for so many reasons... too bad you dont realize why
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:06 pm

Ah, winker's here. The Rantification of this board is nearly complete.
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Unread postby Ziner » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:07 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:Ah, winker's here. The Rantification of this board is nearly complete.


Winker disappeared, he apparently doesnt know how to debate when there are facts used...
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:12 pm

Bayou Tribe wrote:
McCain and Palin are both adulterers and liars.


So that's what rock bottom looks like? Damn. You were doing ok for a second or two before you discredited everything you have and ever will say on this board.


ETA -- If you go about logically proving this statement I'll apologize and give you your due.


Its winker, so there's no harm in passing over his posts. However, its fairly well-known that McCain was having an affair with the current Mrs. McCain while he was still married to the previous Mrs. McCain. There's also rumors about Palin's love life, but nothing solid has shown up yet. (And I doubt it ever will.)
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Unread postby Ziner » Mon Sep 15, 2008 1:27 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:
Bayou Tribe wrote:
McCain and Palin are both adulterers and liars.


So that's what rock bottom looks like? Damn. You were doing ok for a second or two before you discredited everything you have and ever will say on this board.


ETA -- If you go about logically proving this statement I'll apologize and give you your due.


Its winker, so there's no harm in passing over his posts. However, its fairly well-known that McCain was having an affair with the current Mrs. McCain while he was still married to the previous Mrs. McCain. There's also rumors about Palin's love life, but nothing solid has shown up yet. (And I doubt it ever will.)


There is also a little bit of grand jury testimony that says Clinton was an adulterer and he is still your savior. Trying to paint republicans as hypocrites doesnt really prove much. Do normal people think it was a wise decision to cheat on his wife? Just like sane people didnt freak out about Clinton cheating on Hillary until he lied under oath. That is where I dont understand how they try to compare every Republican who cheated to Clinton's beatdown he took. Clinton lied under oath that is the difference, oh that and the BJ in the oval office... sorry that was off topic.

However my point is only this. Republicans are not going to not vote for McCain because he is a adulterer anymore than Democrats wouldnt vote for Clinton for being one.

Concerning Palin, lets wait until something actually comes out before we burn her at the stake...
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Madre Hill, Superstar » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:54 pm

Ziner wrote:There is also a little bit of grand jury testimony that says Clinton was an adulterer and he is still your savior.


Wow. All I do is answer Bayou's request and not only does the Clenis get inserted, but he also becomes my "savior". Hell, I didn't even mention what I thought of McCain or Clinton's affairs, but apparently I'm part of some Liberal Borgmind where we all think the same things.

(For the record, they're both scummy acts, but I only find McCain's affair slightly scummier because I expect more from an Annapolis grad. Not that either of their infidelities weighs anything on whether or not they were or are worthy of my vote.)

However my point is only this. Republicans are not going to not vote for McCain because he is a adulterer anymore than Democrats wouldnt vote for Clinton for being one.

Concerning Palin, lets wait until something actually comes out before we burn her at the stake...


A long way to get to those points, but I do agree.
"The fucking Who...... If I want to watch old people run around ill go set fire to a nursing home." - CDT
User avatar
Madre Hill, Superstar
Eternal Optimist
 
Posts: 4656
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:06 am
Location: Parma, OH
Favorite Player: The Playa
Least Favorite Player: The Game

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:07 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:(For the record, they're both scummy acts, but I only find McCain's affair slightly scummier because I expect more from an Annapolis grad. Not that either of their infidelities weighs anything on whether or not they were or are worthy of my vote.)


They are both scummy acts. I find Clinton scummier because he did it multiple times and then lied about it to a Grand Jury, committing perjury in the process.

McCain has admitted that it was selfish and one of the things he regrets most in his life. I'm not sure that Clinton feels the same way. I will admit to thinking more highly of McCain as a human being than Clinton. I'm not a Bill Clinton hater or lover, though I didn't vote for him in the first election I could vote in (1996). I thought that his affairs were not odd and really didn't pay much mind to them until he lied about one under oath. Before that I considered it to be a moral failing but not something that needed to be hammered on all the time. It certainly is fair game during an election because it does show judgment issues, especially if you are not too sorry or regretful. Though it is different when something occurred 25-30 years ago as compared to more recently in Clinton's case.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Ziner » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:47 pm

Madre Hill, Superstar wrote:
Ziner wrote:There is also a little bit of grand jury testimony that says Clinton was an adulterer and he is still your savior.


Wow. All I do is answer Bayou's request and not only does the Clenis get inserted, but he also becomes my "savior". Hell, I didn't even mention what I thought of McCain or Clinton's affairs, but apparently I'm part of some Liberal Borgmind where we all think the same things.


The intention behind that wasnt nearly as angry as it sounded... when I re-read it, it did seem a little hostile. Also, when I said you, I didnt mean you in paticular, it was directed more towards liberals and democrats in general... you have to admit that Clinton is the current godfather of democratic party. In the eyes of Democrats he can do no wrong
In the end, we're all "only for a limited time," you guys.
User avatar
Ziner
Tot-Lovin' Hippy
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Favorite Player: Tater Tots
Least Favorite Player: Yam Fries

Unread postby Bayou Tribe » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:02 pm

Madre and I are e-homies, I know he wouldn't come at me like that.
User avatar
Bayou Tribe
"Rickey wants to play baseball"
 
Posts: 2817
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:47 pm
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Favorite Player: Drew Brees
Least Favorite Player: Steve Smith

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:24 pm

Ziner wrote:you have to admit that Clinton is the current godfather of democratic party. In the eyes of Democrats he can do no wrong


I don't think that's the case right now. Look at how he was treated after he made critical comments on Obama in the primaries. He's not their golden boy anymore and that's why he also got nastier.

Also remember how Gore backed away from him in 2000 and I don't recall Kerry using him much in 2004. You'd think they'd want to trot the first Democrat President elected to two consecutive terms since FDR out and about, but they haven't done that much since he left office.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby CP » Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:15 am

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:Also remember how Gore backed away from him in 2000 and I don't recall Kerry using him much in 2004. You'd think they'd want to trot the first Democrat President elected to two consecutive terms since FDR out and about, but they haven't done that much since he left office.


Part of me thinks that Bill wants to die as the "last Dem President" and the party knows it. Consciously or not, he opens his mouth enough to sabotage their candidates time and time again, and they know they can't control him.

The only way he could have been appeased and kept at bay was for a Hillary win in the primaries, and that didn't happen. The way the left trashed her in the primaries to elevate Obama and give him credibility, they can't ever trust Bill not to screw them at the worst possible moment.

Guy has an ego on him the size of the women he typically had affairs with, and it's enough for them to keep him on the sidelines as much as possible.
User avatar
CP
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:44 am
Location: Stow, Ohio
Favorite Player: Bernie Kosar
Least Favorite Player: Colt McCoy

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:02 am

CP wrote:
Part of me thinks that Bill wants to die as the "last Dem President" and the party knows it. Consciously or not, he opens his mouth enough to sabotage their candidates time and time again, and they know they can't control him.

The only way he could have been appeased and kept at bay was for a Hillary win in the primaries, and that didn't happen. The way the left trashed her in the primaries to elevate Obama and give him credibility, they can't ever trust Bill not to screw them at the worst possible moment.

Guy has an ego on him the size of the women he typically had affairs with, and it's enough for them to keep him on the sidelines as much as possible.


I do think the Dems know that Hillary and Bill want to continue to dominate their party's politics and be the central figures of it. An Obama loss keeps them front and center for the Dems, especially if they have to face another four years out of the White House. It's also why they're attacking Palin, because she presents them with the prospect of 16-20 years out of the White House. That hasn't happened since the early 1900s, though the GOP has had 16 years straight in the White House twice since its formation (Grant-Arthur and McKinley-Taft).
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Next

Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests