RE: Obama wins BIG in SC

RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 9:53:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy There seems to be a theory going on that Mr's Clinton wanted to lose by a big margin to Senator Obama, so she could galvanize white voters to her on Super Tuesday. We will have to see how it play out but for true liberal voters, Senator Obama seems like a dream coming true. I hear Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Obama tomorrow with a call to her father's legacy. Yeah, Rush is a dope, he says the dumbest things.And then there`s those who echo him.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 10:00:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 The loudest whining going on is your explanation of why the Dems haven't stopped the war. "but we only have the majority wah wah wah, we can't make our memebers vote together wah wah wah. Pelosi can't order them to vote..." Pelosi herself has the power to end it. She could refuse to put a funding bill on the floor, and it never get voted on. She of course knows she would cease to be the speaker 2 hours later, because that is not what the public wants done. I know,it`s not easy being luckydog.But you made your bed and now you must sleep in it. Thanks for an occupation that never ends,lucky. Misery accomplished.

luckydog1 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 10:10:08 AM)
And again we see that the Dems have nothing but silly rhetoric and personal comments. The fact is the Dems could have stopped the occupation. Since that is unrefutable, owner wants to talk about me, isn't that cute. "The occupation that never ends" is a present from the people who voted for it, like Senator Clinton. Because everything she heard was 100% in sync with what her husband told her and killed people over.

MissSCD -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 12:10:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Obama vs McCain.......... hmm. *Ain't that scary, Level?* *Regards, MissSCD*

Owner59 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 12:13:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 And again we see that the Dems have nothing but silly rhetoric and personal comments. The fact is the Dems could have stopped the occupation. Since that is unrefutable, owner wants to talk about me, isn't that cute. "The occupation that never ends" is a present from the people who voted for it, like Senator Clinton. Because everything she heard was 100% in sync with what her husband told her and killed people over. "Since that is unrefutable" Well she could have cheated and lied ,bribed/threatened and/or clubbed her members,the way Tom DeLay did for the last 7 years. On September 30, 2004, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the "Ethics Committee") found that DeLay had violated House rules in 2003 in his efforts to pass a bill concerning health care. The committee admonished DeLay for having made an offer to Representative Nick Smith, who was retiring, that DeLay would endorse Smith's son for the seat if Smith would vote in favor of the bill. This admonishment caused the conservative-leaning Judicial Watch to issue a call for DeLay to resign as Majority Leader. http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/Tom_DeLay Delay,after learning that Smith wasn`t going to play ball,then threatened Smith,with supporting Smith`s Son`s opponent.1st the bribe attempt,then the threat,like a mafia thug would do,in that order,to get what he wanted. If your point is that Pelosi hasn`t used low down,dirty dog tricks ,to get her way,I`d agree. Delay was under criminal indictment,and the neo-cons changed the frick`n rules,so he could stay in power.That`s how corrupt the republican house leadership was,and why they could do pretty much what they wanted. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/05/politics/05cong.html Pelosi won`t "game" the rules,change the rules,break the rules or break the law,in order to get her way. The democrats have way more class and integrity than to stoop to that level. DeLay was and did stoop that low,that`s why he`s in trouble and had to resign. As for getting personal,lucky,you`re no angle,lol. Your fake outrage is amusing,so is using you as my whipping bio.You`re so good to me,lucky,thanks.

Alumbrado -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 3:49:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy There seems to be a theory going on that Mr's Clinton wanted to lose by a big margin to Senator Obama, so she could galvanize white voters to her on Super Tuesday. We will have to see how it play out but for true liberal voters, Senator Obama seems like a dream coming true. I hear Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Obama tomorrow with a call to her father's legacy. Yeah, Rush is a dope, he says the dumbest things.And then there`s those who echo him. So now the Kennedys are neo con stooges of Limbaugh? That is fantastic[sm=biggrin.gif]

FatDomDaddy -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 4:06:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy There seems to be a theory going on that Mr's Clinton wanted to lose by a big margin to Senator Obama, so she could galvanize white voters to her on Super Tuesday. We will have to see how it play out but for true liberal voters, Senator Obama seems like a dream coming true. I hear Caroline Kennedy is endorsing Obama tomorrow with a call to her father's legacy. Yeah, Rush is a dope, he says the dumbest things.And then there`s those who echo him. Did you hear Rush say this? I heard Dick "Top Bubba Clinton Advisor" Morris say it but not Rush.

CuriousLord -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 5:18:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol 'White man whining', because in the light of this country's racial history, I found your complaint regarding the voters in South Carolina rather pathetic. It's a political jab, not a sexist, nor racist, one. Political jab? You know I'm for Obama, right? In SC, black people voted for him irregularly much and white people voted against him irregularly much. That points to the election there being strongly influced by racism both ways. Me? I think that's revolting.

popeye1250 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 5:27:09 PM)
Obama's on the News right now talking about amnesty for illegal aliens. More than 90% of Americans are against that. Ok, he's for amnesty for illegal aliens against the wishes of almost all of the American People and,.......Ted Kennedy endorsed him. And this guy really thinks he has a snowball's chance in hell?

CuriousLord -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/28/2008 5:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSCD *How dare you refer to my state as racists. We have a heavy population of African Americans here. This does not make us racists.* *You need to grow up. Every time I read any post of yours, it is nothing but a flame. Why is it that you are the only one whose shit doesn't stink?* To quote the article.. "Exit polls showed Obama won four of every five black voters, who made up more than half of the state's electorate. He also won one-quarter of white votes, higher than many had predicted. Edwards and Clinton split the remaining white vote. " So, that would be Obama winning, what, 80% of the black vote and 25% of the white vote? Does it not strike you that there was at least a little bit of a racial thing going on there? Look, I'm just going off the numbers and pointing out that it really looks like racism played a role. I'll tease you for the over-the-top reaction later. :P (Honestly, I'm running a 102 fever with a flu right now, so I'm having difficulty caring about the board.)

MissSCD -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/29/2008 8:44:36 AM)
Curious Lord: It may be suspicious, but you have to consider the republican primary in the state as well. It is the Southern Baptist convention who primarily pushes the republican vote in the state. What difference does it make it Obama takes the majority of the black vote. Maybe it was a poor choice of words, but you referred to our state as being racist. That calls for an apology to me and my state. Regards, MissSouthCarolinaDomina to you my friend.

luckydog1 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/29/2008 10:53:40 AM)
owner so you are saying Pelosi would have to force the Democratis Representatives to vote to stop the war. They did not want to vote that way. Which is of course what my and Firms point was. Why would Pelosi have to force her members to vote against the war? You can call me an angle (or even a triangle if you like), why not just explain why Pelosi would have to Force the Dems to vote against the continued occupation of Iraq?

CuriousLord -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/29/2008 11:41:25 AM)
It's funny how you're far more decent here than in the ill-mannered messages you've been sending me on the other side. Ah wells, no matter. You may have to explain to me how Republicans induce such a powerful effect on the racial divide in what I believed to be a Democrat-only election.

popeye1250 -> RE: Obama wins BIG in SC (1/30/2008 4:31:13 PM)
Ted Kennedy; "I ah,.... ah... "endorsed" someone for "President?" "The last ah,.. ah, ...thing I can remember doing is having a cocktail!"

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125