RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus

RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (Full Version)

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

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:30:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius I guess this is a good place to start. First, you do realize that Bush's approval ratings are higher than the Dem run congress? And the 10% number is something you grabbed out of mid air. Currently Bush has ticked back up to 33%, which is low for a president. Also Bush isn't running, as has been pointed out. This is self serving analysis and bit cheeky. Bush`s ratings are at an all time low(and have been)because of the Iraq debacle(for the most part). People aren`t dissatisfied with congress b/c they lied us into Iraq.They`re pissed off that congress hasn`t done anything about the fuck-up neo-cons to get us out of Iraq. That`s why they`re pissed at congress.Not for getting us in,but for not getting us out. It`s an important distinction.

pahunkboy -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:31:18 AM)
'experience" ...in terms of anything to do with "Washington"... means, more of the same of fabulous today. fabulous I say!

Sanity -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:33:38 AM)
Post 42, mike. If that wasn't what you meant, then please explain your statement in that post. quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Anyone who says he likes inexperienced leadership - is probably an Obama person. On second thought Sanity I prefer to argue with those that actually bring something to the table,please show me where I said I liked inexperienced leadership...I will await this revelation!!!

Smith117 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:33:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius First, you do realize that Bush's approval ratings are higher than the Dem run congress? And the 10% number is something you grabbed out of mid air. Currently Bush has ticked back up to 33%, which is low for a president. Also Bush isn't running, as has been pointed out. Yep, I'm aware that the 10% was something I pulled out of the air because a blackberry wireless device makes it rather tough to reply to a message while simultaneously looking up information. The real issue isn't what Bush's approval rating is.....it's' how far it's PLUMMETED in such a short time. After 9/11, most of the country was with him. Now, most want to be rid of him. And yes of course he's not running this time. But as I and others have already indicated, his lil pet republican-status-quo-maintainer, McCain is running. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Now, on to the issue of fraud. Are you suggesting that somebody voting or caucassing across party lines is fraud? I think you should recheck the laws, it is perfectly legal to do so in those states. It is however a violation of election laws and the rules of the party for out of state folks to vote or caucas in a different state. I don't think I need to mention how it was caucasses that won the primaries for Obama, and not actual votes. Hillary has stated enough about that already. Again, yes I do think what the republicans did was fraud. They fear McCain going up against Obama and tried under-handed tricks to thwart it. Can those tricks be considered legal fraud? Probably not. They are still chickenshit tactics, no matter how you slice it. So, met with chickenshit tactics, one must fight fire with fire (assuming the OP article was even true, which I doubt). If you and I are having a one-on-one pistol duel and I hear from a reliable source that you plan to have a sniper behind me to shoot me in the back, should I 'take the high road' and die, or should I have my own sniper behind you AS WELL AS another one looking for yours? I believe you can count on me to do the latter every day and twice on Sundays. Crying foul over fraud that was (allegedly) done to counter another fraud is simply crying because the original fraud was caught. Nothing more. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius How about the pacifist claims... and threats to other nations. Is my memory slipping or was it Obama that proposed invading Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda? Isn't Obama talking about a plan for Afghanistan that involves, what was the word, oh yeah SURGE. Obama is also talking in the exact same language about Russia as McCain, picture that. Actually, no. Obama has not said he would "invade" Pakistan. Invasion is what Bush did to iraq while the men and women already under fire in Afghanistan were left hung out to dry. What Obama said, is that he would have no issue crossing the border into Pakistan to get Al-queda. In fact, a paraphrased (again blackberry limitations) quote from him said something like "If we had intel that Al-queda was across the border into Pakistan we would try and work with Pakistan officials. Barring cooperative efforts, however, we would still go in, get the terrorists, and get back out again as quickly as possible." Between McCain wanting 100 years in iraq, Hilary wanting to attack Iran and Obama wanting to finish what we started in afghanistan......I'll take Obama, thanks.

Sanity -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:35:35 AM)
No one has claimed that, smith. There are levels of experience, and that's what's being discussed. Obama hasn't had any, he's a junior Senator with no leadership experience. None. quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 And anyone who claims that ANY president is experienced in being PRESIDENT prior to taking office for the first time is only fooling themselves.

Smith117 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:38:50 AM)
And that, Sanity, is a matter of opinion. I think he will do just fine. Ya' know. . . Arnie and Jesse had no experience leading either. . . . They seem to have done a good job.

Owner59 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:47:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No one has claimed that, smith. There are levels of experience, and that's what's being discussed. Obama hasn't had any, he's a junior Senator with no leadership experience. None. quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 And anyone who claims that ANY president is experienced in being PRESIDENT prior to taking office for the first time is only fooling themselves. No ones says that McCain doesn`t have more government/bureaucracy/WashingtonDC/lobbyist/leadership experience. It`s that after voting with Bush 95% of the time and running to the right of Bush now,he`s the wrong leadership,leading us in the wrong direction. In fact,Mr Obama plays up McCain`s many years in Washington,him being the lobbyist connected, Wasington insider that the Senior Senator is,and how he`s helped get us in the mess we`re in now. It`s a plus for Obama,to not be the Washington insider.

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 10:56:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity A more experienced leader could have possibly averted the need for a civil war altogether, or found a way to win it convincingly much earlier. Point is, if anything, Lincoln's tenure speaks for the need to have experienced leaders, not against it. Do you disagree with that? Wholeheartedly! And I would invite you to visit the munument built to this inexperienced man someday... Sanity this is post #42 in its entirety,please explain how this in any way speaks to a general preference for inexperiance...Take your time,no rush at all I have things to do.

Sanity -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 11:04:32 AM)
If you don't think post 42 pins you as someone who prefers inexperienced leadership we'll just have to disagree, mike. I don't think you really do prefer inexperience in someone who would lead the nation, I think you just say that because you're a die-hard Obama fan. But again, we may have to just disagree.

Thadius -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 11:21:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius First, you do realize that Bush's approval ratings are higher than the Dem run congress? And the 10% number is something you grabbed out of mid air. Currently Bush has ticked back up to 33%, which is low for a president. Also Bush isn't running, as has been pointed out. Yep, I'm aware that the 10% was something I pulled out of the air because a blackberry wireless device makes it rather tough to reply to a message while simultaneously looking up information. The real issue isn't what Bush's approval rating is.....it's' how far it's PLUMMETED in such a short time. After 9/11, most of the country was with him. Now, most want to be rid of him. And yes of course he's not running this time. But as I and others have already indicated, his lil pet republican-status-quo-maintainer, McCain is running. So you admit that you just pull facts out of thin air... that makes the rest of your claims sound pretty reliable, eh? Trying to run against Bush is going to be a serious mistake. Especially with everthing that these same folks have said over the years about McCain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpcxkKlEFA quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Now, on to the issue of fraud. Are you suggesting that somebody voting or caucassing across party lines is fraud? I think you should recheck the laws, it is perfectly legal to do so in those states. It is however a violation of election laws and the rules of the party for out of state folks to vote or caucas in a different state. I don't think I need to mention how it was caucasses that won the primaries for Obama, and not actual votes. Hillary has stated enough about that already. Again, yes I do think what the republicans did was fraud. They fear McCain going up against Obama and tried under-handed tricks to thwart it. Can those tricks be considered legal fraud? Probably not. They are still chickenshit tactics, no matter how you slice it. So, met with chickenshit tactics, one must fight fire with fire (assuming the OP article was even true, which I doubt). If you and I are having a one-on-one pistol duel and I hear from a reliable source that you plan to have a sniper behind me to shoot me in the back, should I 'take the high road' and die, or should I have my own sniper behind you AS WELL AS another one looking for yours? I believe you can count on me to do the latter every day and twice on Sundays. Crying foul over fraud that was (allegedly) done to counter another fraud is simply crying because the original fraud was caught. Nothing more. So you doubt the original posts claims, yet you blindly believe that the Republicans tipped the balances towards Hillary. If that is the case, then Obama has alot more problems, than has been suggested. What you are suggesting is that many of the votes cast in the Dem primaries are actually Republicans, and therefore will not be voting for Obama or any other Dem in Nov. Think about that one for a minute. It may even explain why Obama has yet to pull away from McCain in a year that an anti-war Dem should win by a landslide. Scary shit, eh? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius How about the pacifist claims... and threats to other nations. Is my memory slipping or was it Obama that proposed invading Pakistan to go after Al Qaeda? Isn't Obama talking about a plan for Afghanistan that involves, what was the word, oh yeah SURGE. Obama is also talking in the exact same language about Russia as McCain, picture that. Actually, no. Obama has not said he would "invade" Pakistan. Invasion is what Bush did to iraq while the men and women already under fire in Afghanistan were left hung out to dry. What Obama said, is that he would have no issue crossing the border into Pakistan to get Al-queda. In fact, a paraphrased (again blackberry limitations) quote from him said something like "If we had intel that Al-queda was across the border into Pakistan we would try and work with Pakistan officials. Barring cooperative efforts, however, we would still go in, get the terrorists, and get back out again as quickly as possible." Between McCain wanting 100 years in iraq, Hilary wanting to attack Iran and Obama wanting to finish what we started in afghanistan......I'll take Obama, thanks. Let me get this straight, you are claiming that sending troops into a country without that country's permission is not an invasion? More fun with Democrats.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc4qnpu3N0M http://www.nypost.com/seven/08022007/news/nationalnews/obama__id_invade_ally_nationalnews_charles_hurt____________bureau_chief.htm http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece quote: Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government. Just one more link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2DECDKOFnw Enjoy.

Smith117 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 11:39:30 AM)
Going after terrorists that Pakistan agrees are terrorists is not invading Pakistan. And, even if history decides that it is, I'm fine with that. The fact is, we were in Afghanistan first, we know some of the terrorists fled into Pakistan and if we have to cross a border to get them, so be it. It's better than continuing to let our troops in Afghanistan to flounder while we start a war with Iran just like we did in Iraq. As for your efforts to invalidate my opinion based on the 10% thing . . . Well, I already stipulated that it was just a number and that I am posting in a limited capacity due to the medium in which I post. If you want to cling to that as your only way of invalidating my words, be my guest. Polls can show many things when you are MONTHS away from election day. The early democrat polls had Hillary as the clear democratic candidate. See what happened there did ya'?

slvemike4u -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 11:49:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If you don't think post 42 pins you as someone who prefers inexperienced leadership we'll just have to disagree, mike. I don't think you really do prefer inexperience in someone who would lead the nation, I think you just say that because you're a die-hard Obama fan. But again, we may have to just disagree. Oh Sanity ,I did implore you to take your time,did I not.Had hopes you could do better than this ,alas if this is what you came up with let me answer.What post 42 showed is a)I think Lincoln did a bang-up job...and b)nothing else...just that, any thing else is your own inference ....Thanks for playing "WHAT DID HE MEAN....come back again real soon...

Thadius -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 11:52:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Going after terrorists that Pakistan agrees are terrorists is not invading Pakistan. And, even if history decides that it is, I'm fine with that. The fact is, we were in Afghanistan first, we know some of the terrorists fled into Pakistan and if we have to cross a border to get them, so be it. It's better than continuing to let our troops in Afghanistan to flounder while we start a war with Iran just like we did in Iraq. As for your efforts to invalidate my opinion based on the 10% thing . . . Well, I already stipulated that it was just a number and that I am posting in a limited capacity due to the medium in which I post. If you want to cling to that as your only way of invalidating my words, be my guest. Polls can show many things when you are MONTHS away from election day. The early democrat polls had Hillary as the clear democratic candidate. See what happened there did ya'? I actually do, that is what the original post is about. Obama bussing folks in from out of state for caucasses... I would love for you to explain something that came about in the last couple of days... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10 Oh and one more thing, don't forget that traditionally Dems poll higher than actual turnout, and Reps poll lower than actual turnout. Obama should be way ahead right now, he is an intelligent, articulate, good looking Democrat talking about change and hope, in a year where folks are suggesting most Americans are tired of the mistakes of the last 8 years. Obama is polling 10-15% points behind other Democrats, something is going on here. Just my opinions, Thadius P.S. I don't need to discredit your opinions, especially on the 10% issue, I am waiting for you to address the honesty issues as well. Then we can move on to more pressing things. [;)]

Sanity -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 11:56:54 AM)
Declare yourself winner, declare yourself pope, it all means about the same thing, mike. Have fun.

Smith117 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 11:59:04 AM)
Tell you what Thadius, when you get all the republicans to own up to their lies and deceitful tactics and promise never to do them again (and mean it) then we can talk about the democrats, k?

Thadius -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 12:17:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 Tell you what Thadius, when you get all the republicans to own up to their lies and deceitful tactics and promise never to do them again (and mean it) then we can talk about the democrats, k? I see, you don't wish to discuss issues then. It must be "above your paygrade". That is a pretty broad generalization there, all republicans, eh? How about we discuss just the 2 candidates from the major parties, I suppose we could expand that to the other parties candidates as well. Aww, I am not an unreasonable man, let's try a softball question. What did you think of Obama meeting with T. Boone Pickens yesterday?

Smith117 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 12:25:36 PM)
I don't want to discuss the issues? And what was the republican funded commercial comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? What possible political issue is Obama's perceived celebrity status? As for your question about the meeting - I think a candidate is smart to meet with people who can help with a plan he's working on.

Thadius -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 12:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Smith117 I don't want to discuss the issues? And what was the republican funded commercial comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? What possible political issue is Obama's perceived celebrity status? Nice dodge. Care to answer a question posed to you?

Smith117 -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 12:34:48 PM)
Nice dodge to you as well. I answered yours. Now you answer mine.

pahunkboy -> RE: Obama = FRAUD, statical caucus (8/20/2008 12:39:53 PM)
Guys- the GOP has very little to do with the piece. I numbers, when factoring statistics are flawed. THAT is the point. At the least there is confusion in the process, more then that- something "political" has happened. Based on the fundamentals of statistical theory. Re-read the piece if you are confused.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875