RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (Full Version)

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



Message


lronitulstahp -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:07:21 AM)

oops...apparently, i couldn't find anything saying he'd been married prior to Michelle.  Guessi read something too quickly once.




xXLithiumXx -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:16:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: xXLithiumXx

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

"Caecorum in patria luscus rex imperat omnis"


So what happens when you have 2?


The Latin quote means: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."


I got that. Which is why I asked what happens when you have 2?




xXLithiumXx -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:17:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp

oops...apparently, i couldn't find anything saying he'd been married prior to Michelle.  Guessi read something too quickly once.



I think thats what happened when I said the thing about the middle east. Lol. It must be an epidemic I have started.




cjan -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:41:55 AM)

Sadly, I agree that Obama will probably not be the first black American president. Despite gains over the last generation or two, Amerika is still a racist society. Although it's no longer socially acceptable for governors to stand in the doorways of schools to bar integration or to set dogs on peaceful civil rights protestors. racism has, for the most part, gone underground in the good ole USA. I'm afraid that , in November, when many white voters are in the privacy of that voting booth, that prejudice will be expressed. 




kittinSol -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:42:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xXLithiumXx

I think thats what happened when I said the thing about the middle east. Lol. It must be an epidemic I have started.



I think it's more that it's contagious [8D] .




kittinSol -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:43:08 AM)

Nice new picture, cj - were you off to a 'Ninjas in Shorts' party?




cjan -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:44:18 AM)

Naw, kitt, just off for a bike ride, but, thanks.




kittinSol -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:45:00 AM)

Damn. There goes my fantasy [&o] .




cjan -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:48:26 AM)

Ok, ok, I admit it....I was, ummm, going out on a ninja assasination assignment, 'mkay ? Off to off right wing racist motherfuckers. That work for ya ?

Now, how about some new ones of yerself ? Some gash is always appreciated.




kittinSol -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 9:57:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

Now, how about some new ones of yerself ? Some gash is always appreciated.



Sure you're not Domiguy in disguise? Just wondering, because of the word 'gash'... you sound remarkably like him.




cjan -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 10:06:31 AM)

I am quite sure I'm not domiguy, although I take the comparison as a compliment. "Gash" as you may not be aware , in the rarified, PC, pinko, Northeastern cradles of liberalism in which you reside, has become a term in common usage in the rest of the nation. Lenny Bruce would have loved it, as, I'm sure,Eddy I. would as well.




popeye1250 -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 10:17:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

Both parties are to blame for it. Clinton started it with NAFTA and making China a "favored nation" trading status. And then Bush put the whole deal on steroids.


Surely it is time developed countries realized they have to compete and to compete they have to produce premium products that people will pay good money for. If you are saying the US is suffering because it can't manufacture cheap TVs or fridges anymore, the US economy is in a worse state than most of us thought.


Meat, we're not "competing" now.
The U.S. and Europe to a lesser extent gives "foreign aid" to in excess of 130 countries!
Every single country in the Carribean gets foreign aid.
We give "favored  nation status" to many countries including China.
Wouldn't "favored nation" mean,.....one nation? Not 20 or 30 or...50?
At least Europe takes care of their workers.
All the above doesn't sound like "competition" to me!
They tell us that all this stuff is "developing new markets."
Well, we've been "developing new markets" for 40 some-odd years now, isn't it time to end this stuff?
And where are all the new "High paying manufacturing jobs" that Clinton promised us 13 years ago if we passed "NAFTA?"
It's time to get O-U-T of these "trade deals" and start really competing.




kittinSol -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 10:37:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

At least Europe takes care of their workers.



Un point!




slvemike4u -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 10:46:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

best, could you clarify that ? How is it the end of small business ?

T

Because small business can't afford Obama's tax to end poverty overseas.



[sm=rofl.gif]You are funny.

But small businesses can afford to pay for imperial adventures on behalf of multinational corporations.[:D]
Well to be fair to the Republicans they don't ask small businesses to pay for those things...that's what they believe our children and grandchildren are for....




cjan -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 10:57:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Nice new picture, cj - were you off to a 'Ninjas in Shorts' party?


Btw, can't you keep on topic instead of fantasizing about getting into my ninja shorts ?

Tart




leadership527 -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 10:59:08 AM)

OK, for the record, I am both PRO-obama (in a vacuum) and, in general, rabidly against the republican party (in general).   That being said, I find the following statements both unfair and uncalled for...

quote:

ORIGINAL:  xxLithiumxx
Like I said in the post before this one, McCain has a some what shady history. As a woman, I wouldnt trust a man who uses his record shamlessly to win a seat in office, which he has tried to do in this election. (I have seen several ads about wouldnt you like to have a veteran on your side, or some such drizzle) Nor, would I trust a man who met one wife while still with a wife. It seems to me from that stand point that he doesnt know what he wants. NOR, would I trust a man who is known for his temper, and his love of war


Insofar as him using his record to win a seat, what else WOULD you have him use?  As far as I am concerned, McCain's record in the armed forces is commendable and a valid part of who he is and perfectly appropriate to bring up in an election discussion.  Insofar as his wife situation, that's none of my business, mostly because these things are almost always too tangled to understand from the outside.  I didn't like it when the republican's brought similar issues up with Clinton and I like it even less with the McCain situation.  I cannot comment on his temper adequately, but I somehow sincerely doubt that anyone with his history "loves war".

Just because I dislike the man's personal political views and those of his party doesn't mean he ought to be demonized.




kittinSol -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 11:12:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Nice new picture, cj - were you off to a 'Ninjas in Shorts' party?


Btw, can't you keep on topic instead of fantasizing about getting into my ninja shorts ?

Tart



Last time I mention your shorts, but if you didn't shamelessly flashed your shorts around on your avatar, I wouldn't have such a tendency to focus on your shorts [:-] .

Tease.




Termyn8or -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 11:15:41 AM)

popeye, me thinks thou dost spout NAFTA too much, but in this case it should be considered applicable. As we were promised all sorts of gain, and both parties passed it, it was one of the worst things they did. By "they" I mean people in both "parties" and party in a very applicable word because "they" mostly have never worked a day in their life.

Yes NAFTA was wonderful, as we watched Buick move to Canada and Zenith move to Mexico. Giving China MFN status was also great, it did We The People absolutley no good at all but lined the pockets of those who get million dollar welfare checks.

They are all to blame, and it is not enough to say that one party is as bad as another, now it seems appropriate to say that they are worse than each other. That may sound illogical but if you look at the history of the matter, it seems all they want to do is destroy us.

These people go to school and college. I am a highschool dropout, but I can see that free trade agreements with countries with vastly different demographics than ours were highly dangerous to our way of life. Without proper tarriffs and regulation, they put US businesses at a terrible disadvantage. Under the conditions that were and are extant in the world, free trade is in no way fair trade.

Enjoy your Chinese TV, your Japanese car, your Malaysian monitor, your Singaporean harddrive, your Mexican motherboard and your food from who knows where. The people who spearheaded this disaster are enjoying their money.

I trust none of them. The ONLY reason I dislike Obama less is because he might change a few things, but don't expect anything drastic. Our problems will continue until We The People take matters into our own hands and refuse to buy foreign goods, at least a good portion of us.

There is a book out telling how we can "buy American" but you can't do it completely unless you want to live without just about every modern convenience there is. You can't even buy a car built in the US with all US components. Even if you can't see them, the fuel injectors are likely made by Bosch. Bosch is not in the US, but Germany.

I'll go really off the wall here and say that in lieu of either of the candidates I would rather see Chris Rock get the big chair. Submit a proposal to him he might say "If we do that we are going to get fucked out of so much money we'll feel like we got fucked up the ass with a fire hydrant". However if you propose it to these suits we elect, they will first consider their own well being, and if they give a moment's concern to the good of the country they will dismiss the notion and act in their own self interest.

What would YOU do ?

T




Irishknight -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 11:22:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

Insofar as him using his record to win a seat, what else WOULD you have him use?  As far as I am concerned, McCain's record in the armed forces is commendable and a valid part of who he is and perfectly appropriate to bring up in an election discussion.  Insofar as his wife situation, that's none of my business, mostly because these things are almost always too tangled to understand from the outside.  I didn't like it when the republican's brought similar issues up with Clinton and I like it even less with the McCain situation.  I cannot comment on his temper adequately, but I somehow sincerely doubt that anyone with his history "loves war".

Just because I dislike the man's personal political views and those of his party doesn't mean he ought to be demonized.


Well said.  It is amazing how many "civilized" people can't get through a single conversation without demonizing the other side.  If they could spend half as much energy explaining the good things about their candidate, they might change more minds.   As it is, hate politics chases away more people than it attracts.




philosophy -> RE: Why Obama cannot win in 2008 (9/4/2008 11:34:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Without proper tarriffs and regulation, they put US businesses at a terrible disadvantage. Under the conditions that were and are extant in the world, free trade is in no way fair trade.



.......then i assume you and Popeye support the right of the EU to puts barriers in the way of US exports of GM food to Europe?




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125