Obama's women reveal his secret

[fatman]

I think there is a sea change coming in american politics, at least for this race. I think the voting public is tired of rant by rote partisan bickering.

As far as i know neither front runner, McCain or Obama has gone negative to this point, even though they were trailing badly at various stages of the race.

Hillary started freefalling when Bill entered  the campaign. Huckabee started falling when he attacked Romney's religion.

Time will tell if i am correct.

I hope that you are correct BT.  The people are growing tired of these smashmouth tactics, with the exception of extreme partisans on either side.  It seems like the past few election cycles haven't been about why one candidate is a better leader or more qualified, but whether or not they are as bad as their opponent.

[fatman]

rich if parents are off-limits why were Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's parents brought up during his campaign?

Does that somehow make it right?  Do you want to take your campaign strategy from the DNC handbook?  For the record, I like Arnold.  I'd vote for him as my governor over Christine "The Hag" Gregoire any day of the week.

The "they started it" argument didn't work when you were five years old and bickering with your siblings.  What makes you think that it's effective now?

[Christians4LessGvt]

Does that somehow make it right?

Who said anything about it being right?
I simply asked a question.
Arnold's parents were brought up as a campaign issue.
Now Obama's parents are and there is outrage.

The "they started it" argument didn't work when you were five years
old and bickering with your siblings.  What makes you think that it's effective now?

I am not making an argument. I am not trying to "make anything work".  I am stating fact.
Why are you ASSuming the worst about a simple question?
You are DEAD WRONG.
Words don't lie. I never stated either case was right.
If I did please show mr. ASSumption?
You can't.
The only thing you can show is you jumping to conclusions to fit your pigoen-hole needs.
My words are my words, not yours, and I never said what you ASSume my words mean.
Quit ASSuming because when you do you get your ASS kicked.
capiche?

[Xavier_Onassis]

The reason all campaigns go negative, especially in the national elections, is quite simply because it it easier to convince someone to vote AGAINST a candidate than FOR one. Olebush spend about half his campaign money against Dukakis denouncing the ACLU and suggesting that Dukakis was all about turning rapists lose.

Once he was president, not one peep was heard about either the ACLU and how it should be punished (because doing so would have been both unconstitutional and impossible, given the legal clout of the ACLU) and protecting the people from rapists.

Had Dukakis been elected, bneither issue would have been mentioned, either.

Olebush's minions also spent a lot of time showing how silly Dukakis looked driving a tank. He did, and should never have posed for the film clip, but being president has absolutely NOTHING to do with riding around in a tank.
===================================
McCain offers more of the same. More wars, more deficits due to fighting wars on credit, more secrecy for the government and less privacy for us the citizens.

Both Obama and Clinton would be as big a change as we have had for many years in the presidency.
Obama's presidency would be determined on whom he would choose for advisers. I suspect they would be more conservative than Clinton's advisers.

A second Clinton presidency would be a lot like the Bill Clinton presidency, but without the Monica scandal. The stock market would certainly rally for a period, as it does when a sooner peace and a known quantity is elected.

I think that we can most surely count on the clowns that sabotaged Carter as well as Bill Clinton trying to destroy Hillary or Obama at every opportunity. We have people making huge money on mining federal lands, not cleaning up pollution, not submitting records about what their businesses are doing to their customers (screwing them) and the environment (messing it up). Rush and Sean will be working overtime to wreck any positive motion forward toward healthcare, energy independence, and peace, because their handlers make huge money from these.

If you don't like negative campaigns, don't vote for those who do it.

[fatman]

The implication is there, and the implication is clear.  I'm not going to go over semantics with you so that you can say "Oh, but I never said that" when clearly your innuendo points otherwise.  Why bring up the matter at all unless that was your intent?  And if you think you're "kicking someone's ass" by using semantics, you might want to remember that semantics are a rather weak form of debate utilized by *gasp* lawyers and politicians.

Now Obama's parents are and there is outrage.

Evidently not by everyone.  You seem to think that it's okay, and Rich didn't have any problem posting the article.  Why do you think that is?

The only thing you can show is you jumping to conclusions to fit your pigoen-hole needs.

I don't have pigeon hole needs, frankly I could give a shit less.  Like I said, why bring up the matter at all if it wasn't your intent to point out that Dems = bad for going after Arnold's parents?  Are you trying to say that you like to think like a Democrat?

My words are my words, not yours, and I never said what you ASSume my words mean

And there's that semantic BS again.  Any half-wit can and does use innuendo and implication as a qualifier to a statement, so that they may back out when challenged upon it.  It doesn't take an assumption to figure that one out.

capiche?

Here's what I capiche:  The opinion of a person such as yourself, who will cross party lines to vote in a primary without thinking twice, and then complains that people of that opposite party that he crossed the line to vote for reek of BO and don't shower, is on a par with the opinion of someone with serious brain damage debating quantum physics.

Capiche?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think there was a certain amount of justice involved in poor C4LG having to sniff the foul-smelling Democrats in his crafty attempt to elect McCain. I find it also a sort of poetic justice that John McCain is not any sort of Christian, and has no intention of making government smaller. He will run up the debt, bugger the currency, borrow from the Chinese to squander it away on an unwinnable war at the same time spouting how we cannot afford decent healthcare for Americans, any sort of subsidies of the sort that are essential for a decent energy policy, or making the government more transparent and less secretive.

By 2012, the dollar will be worth 32?, the war in Iraq will be raging on, the number of uninsured Americans will have increased, and John McCain will have the legal authority and ability to install a rectal minicam in C4LG's rectum to spy on his polyps.

[fatman]

I think there was a certain amount of justice involved in poor C4LG having to sniff the foul-smelling Democrats in his crafty attempt to elect McCain. I find it also a sort of poetic justice that John McCain is not any sort of Christian, and has no intention of making government smaller. He will run up the debt, bugger the currency, borrow from the Chinese to squander it away on an unwinnable war at the same time spouting how we cannot afford decent healthcare for Americans, any sort of subsidies of the sort that are essential for a decent energy policy, or making the government more transparent and less secretive.

I'm willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt.  He has an independant streak, and that could be good or bad, depending on your perspective and the legislation and policies that he ends up supporting.  Personally, I see Hillary as shrewd and conniving, a modern day Machiavelli or Metternich.  Obama is an empty suit who hasn't laid out any plans to accomplish this change he's always talking about.  To me, that's all hat and no cattle.  Huckabee scares the crap out of me and I couldn't see voting for him if he were the last candidate on earth.  My vote isn't set in stone, but that's how I've been leaning for awhile now, ever since Richardson dropped out.  If he was picked as a VP, I'm not sure which way I'd go.

And I think McCain is an Episcopalian.

[Rich]

>>Yes.....and?  Both smoked, my Dad drank, and hit my mom a lot when I was young.  And your point would be?  We become carbon copies of our parents??  FYI, I've never smoked or hit a woman in my life, but yes, parents CAN provide SOME influence on the adult child's actions.<<

Parent CAN have SOME influence? Don't say something like that just to appease the left sirs. So you've taken the position that it takes a village?

We know parents environment influences behavior, as do parents. Looking at how a person is raised in certainly a valid method in determining why a person thinks and acts the way they do. Every President as been analyzed in a similar manner. This isn't to say he's anything like his parent's, or his wife. Although is would be hard to believe he's much differnet than his spouse simply because he's married to her. Then there's the racist theme of the church he belongs to. These things are all relavant in trying to figure out what this man actually believes because he's certainly not been forthcoming.

[sirs]

>>Yes.....and?  Both smoked, my Dad drank, and hit my mom a lot when I was young.  And your point would be?  We become carbon copies of our parents??  FYI, I've never smoked or hit a woman in my life, but yes, parents CAN provide SOME influence on the adult child's actions.<<

Parent CAN have SOME influence? Don't say something like that just to appease the left sirs. So you've taken the position that it takes a village?

I think you know better than that, Rich.  Again, are you trying to lay claim that we are our parents??  When should I expect to start hitting my wife? 

[Rich]

Please sirs, don't start basing your arguments on a false premise. You correctly deride the left for doing so.

Now, I don't know when you're going to start hitting your wife. When do you think this will happen?

See ... it's ridiculous to conclude that's what I'm saying based on what I've said. I would guess, based on the time I've known you here, it's ridiculous to think you would do such a thing. But most people don't have parents who did such things. Certainly your parents influenced you in some way, isn't that what we as Conservatives believe? Does it really take a villiage? Don't we want to be the one's who shape our children, not the State? Isn't that something we constantly battle the left about?

Or don't you think parents should be the people raising their children?

[Christians4LessGvt]

The implication is there, and the implication is clear.
Yeah sure now you know my words better than I do?
Are you like living in fantasy land?

I'm not going to go over semantics with you so that you can say "Oh, but I never said that" when clearly your innuendo points otherwise. 

Yeah why bother with details and facts when it's easier not too?

Why bring up the matter at all unless that was your intent? 

Because I have a point to make and it's a free forum to do that.
It's my point, not yours to hijack and pretend I am making a different point.

And if you think you're "kicking someone's ass" by using semantics,

The truth kicks ass, not I.

Evidently not by everyone.

Obviously

You seem to think that it's okay,

I don't think it is an outrage to discuss a candidate's background and that
can involve their unbringing as long as it is truthful and accurate.

and Rich didn't have any problem posting the article.  Why do you think that is?

I don't know, ask Rich, I can't speak for him

I don't have pigeon hole needs, frankly I could give a shit less.

In my opinion you jump to conclusions so you can pigeon-hole people you
disagree with rather than face the facts. It's easier that way.

Like I said, why bring up the matter at all

I didn't bring it up

if it wasn't your intent to point out that Dems = bad for going after Arnold's parents?

My intent to bring it up, which by the way I OWN not you, was to show there is a
double standard.

Are you trying to say that you like to think like a Democrat?

I am not prone to mental illness.

And there's that semantic BS again. 

semantics bs aka facts

Any half-wit can and does use innuendo and implication as a qualifier to a statement, so that
they may back out when challenged upon it.  It doesn't take an assumption to figure that one out.

Yes and any half-wit can dismiss a simple question has some huge innuendo conspiracy.

Here's what I capiche:  The opinion of a person such as yourself, who will cross party lines to vote in a primary without thinking twice

I am not following this, does this mean you have a problem with an American voting in the primary he so chooses?

and then complains that people of that opposite party that he crossed the line to vote for reek of BO and don't shower, is on a par with the opinion of someone with serious brain damage debating quantum physics.

So let me follow this logic. If an American citizen decides to vote in a free and open primary of his choice
he is not to comment/complain or have an opinion on if the people he is standing in line with smell like shit?

Capiche?

Oh can't you come up with your own line in this thread?

[Xavier_Onassis]

THe most effective president in recent history was without a doubt LBJ. He was the epitome of shrewd and conniving. If you want things done, this is essential. Compromise is the essence of politics. Hillary has Bill and Bill knows how to get things done better than either Obama or McCain, based on experience. Of course, the greatest danger to Hillary and Obama is the subversion that the oligarchy will try to hit them with. This could also be a problem for McCain if he doesn't behave.

McCain, for me, just PRETENDS to be independent. Examine carefully how his protest against torture went. He blustered and he fussed and bitched and stewed, and nothing was really accomplished. The new Attorney General refuses to label waterboarding as torture and pretty much reserves the right to do anything he damn well chooses.

For me, McCain might act like a tiger, but he's just a big pussy. If he is pushed, he will always back down and do as he's told.

Hillary's biggest problem is mainly that the oligarchy has spent the past dozen years in an active campaign to convince people that she is poison. People say they don;t trust her, but they can't say why. Her only reral blunder was her healthcare plan. It was a defeat, burt so was Cheney's Energy Plan, unless its real purtpose was to keep us hooked o petroleum and to double prices and triple profits, and no one even MENTIONS this. Why? Because there is no immense ad campaign to remind us what an utter disaster it was. But the campaign tyo make people hate Hillary, it has been a daily thing for a long, long time.

The GOP, and that party includes McCain, who campaigned for the unspeakably incompetent Juniorbush and the personification of the Military Industrial Complex, Dick Cheney, screwed up worse than any party in history. They do not deserve to be re elected, and I certainly am not voting for anything they nominate that does not publicly denounce Juniorbush Cheney and all that they stand for on primetime TV

[Rich]

>>rich if parents are off-limits why were Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger's parents brought up during his campaign?<<

Because the left is full of double standards. This is just one reason you can't trust them and we should never assume they have good intentions. Look at John McCain. The New York Enquirer (a nod to sirs) endorsed him for the Republican nominee. Then they slimed him with a political smear job Stalin would appreciate.

It's like liberals whining about people going after Chelsea Clinton. They had no problem going after the Bush twins did they?

The left is unethical and dirty. They won't let anything get in the way of their socialist utopian dream, so I suggest trusted them to be anything but what they are is dangerous.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Capiche?

Oh can't you come up with your own line in this thread?
=============================================
This is a line too stale for Tony Soprano or "Big Pussy" Bompisero to use.

[sirs]

Please sirs, don't start basing your arguments on a false premise. You correctly deride the left for doing so.   Now, I don't know when you're going to start hitting your wife. When do you think this will happen?

You tell me.  You're the one implying that our parents are somehow instrumental, via this article, in our being like them.

See ... it's ridiculous to conclude that's what I'm saying based on what I've said. I would guess, based on the time I've known you here, it's ridiculous to think you would do such a thing.

You're right, it is.......but that hasn't stopped you from trying to lay a similar deduction of Obama, based on his parents, who from what I've been lead to believe aren't even alive any more.  If that's true, it's all the more reason to consider this thread largely moot.  Now, if you started one regarding Obama's current pastor, THEN, you'd have some meat to your arguement

Certainly your parents influenced you in some way, isn't that what we as Conservatives believe?

Isn't that what I've said already?  Some, yes.  You seem to be picking out the worst of Obama's parents and have concluded some transferrence of those (such as my reference to wife beating), without any shred of support, outside of the notion that parents CAN have SOME influence on their adult children.  How you can make such a leap is what's putting you on the defensive here. 

Or don't you think parents should be the people raising their children?

Raise, yes.  Make them clones of themselves, no.  But at least now I know from what part of left field that reference to "village" came from