While any explanation by Obama (to not accept public funds) other than he is raising more money outside of the constraints the system, can be considered disingenuous, I find it interesting that the article does not address the 527 group concerns (swiftboating) whose revenue base is not regulated and potentially unlimited.
FACTCHECK.ORG
Obama's Lame Claim About McCain's Money
Obama says McCain is "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs, but those sources account for less than 1.7 percent of McCain's money.
Jun 20, 2008 | Updated: 11:20 a.m. ET Jun 20, 2008
-
Posted By: Michael08 @ 08/06/2008 10:16:02 PM
-
Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 07/01/2008 7:25:29 PM
KOOL-AID??????..From the kitchen of the obama sheeple!! take one heaping spoonful of an inexperienced elitist white male seeking self validation through exploitation of his african-american genetics. Combine two parts black liberation theology clerics spewing intolerance! With two parts of unrepentant intellectuals committed to the destruction of America. Stir in one cup of militant black wife harboring the overwhelming desire to stick it to whitey and one spoonful of typical white person grandmother mix well. Pour a gallon of anti-patriotism into tall glasses and sprinkle with naïve foreign policy ideations. Serve on a platter of meaningless oratorical hyperbole with a generous dollop of wealth re-distribution. Sprinkle liberally with zest of white guilt flip it and flop it till it tastes right. Serve large portions to the undiscerning and spellbound masses convinced that the Second Coming is upon America and now you have a complete recipe for disaster!
-
Posted By: cr78704 @ 06/24/2008 3:01:47 PM
Very surprised to see a critical Obama article in Newsweek.
-
Posted By: cr78704 @ 06/24/2008 2:59:37 PM
Very surprised to see a critical Obama atricle in Newseek. I guess change is a comin'
-
Posted By: 14lesscrazypeople @ 06/23/2008 9:38:35 AM
Let's do the basic math here and see if Mr. Obama is telling the truth...
"grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans" x ($5,$10,$20) does not equal $265M that was reported to be raised by last month. If we take this example and even use the greatest contribution stated we're still missing $235M. I don't think that money came from "grassroots" contributions of $20. Bottom line, he didn't want to hold true to his own stated political agenda from the beginning of his campaign because it would mean giving up too much in resources. Please wake up to the fact that the guy is promising things well out of his ability to accomplish. He doesn't have enough experience to know better and two he is being a hypocrite by being a typical politician. Between bringing the troops back from Iraq within the first 30 days of his campaign (give me a break, the US doesn't even come close to having the resources to accomplish that) to $13 an hour for minimum wage (hmmm, what does that make my salary worth all of a sudden). The house and senate will be running this country because they will use their experience to run rough shod right over the top of him. Go back, get more experience and come back when your training wheels have come off and you can make political promises that have at least a small chance of happening. Final note, I am not a 60 year old jaded man from wars past either. I am a 31 year old female with an MBA and no, I would not have voted for Hilary either. I would like someone who has a political agenda not a personal one. This election is so far off of the issues, it has lost all bearings and unfortunately every one of us is going to lose in this deal.
-
Posted By: 14lesscrazypeople @ 06/23/2008 9:38:22 AM
Let's do the basic math here and see if Mr. Obama is telling the truth...
"grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans" x ($5,$10,$20) does not equal $265M that was reported to be raised by last month. If we take this example and even use the greatest contribution stated we're still missing $235M. I don't think that money came from "grassroots" contributions of $20. Bottom line, he didn't want to hold true to his own stated political agenda from the beginning of his campaign because it would mean giving up too much in resources. Please wake up to the fact that the guy is promising things well out of his ability to accomplish. He doesn't have enough experience to know better and two he is being a hypocrite by being a typical politician. Between bringing the troops back from Iraq within the first 30 days of his campaign (give me a break, the US doesn't even come close to having the resources to accomplish that) to $13 an hour for minimum wage (hmmm, what does that make my salary worth all of a sudden). The house and senate will be running this country because they will use their experience to run rough shod right over the top of him. Go back, get more experience and come back when your training wheels have come off and you can make political promises that have at least a small chance of happening. Final note, I am not a 60 year old jaded man from wars past either. I am a 31 year old female with an MBA and no, I would not have voted for Hilary either. I would like someone who has a political agenda not a personal one. This election is so far off of the issues, it has lost all bearings and unfortunately every one of us is going to lose in this deal.
-
Posted By: Pete Kent @ 06/22/2008 12:10:15 PM
It is coming out of Obam's big ears!
This is a change for the worse. Obama likes to trumpet his support from 1.5 million donors, 90% of which gave less than $100. The fact he doesn't mention is that most of the real money, way over a majority of what he has raised is from fat cats and it is from those fat cats on the left (the monied folks of New York, San Francisco and Hollywood) that he will raise the money for his "people's" campaign.
Remember if you listen to Obam's speeches most folks in this country are working three jobs and still can't pay for their chronically ill sister's helath insurance! How can they afford to give more to him.
Now his buddies George Soros and Warrne Buffet have billions to give. That's where he will get his money.
He is the liberal Mussolini and will destroy this nation if we let him and continue to buy into his lies.
Watch him on Iraq the next big flip flop is coming!-
Posted By: rosecc @ 06/22/2008 7:56:09 PM
Obama is a great paradox: a cocky empty suit full of lies; a big flip flopper, too.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 10:45:18 PM
Maybe you should look up the definition of paradox and try again. In the meantime, let me show you how it is properly used:
McCain is a paradox, on the one hand he speaks to how is military experience helped to shape his sense of honor, but on the other hand, he left his disabled wife for a much younger woman.
See how that works?
-
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 6:19:55 PM
Well, I am afraid it is only going to get worse. Why? Because many of those people who donated less than a $100 signed up for monthly donations all the way to November.
Maybe they don't have great healthcare due to 8 years of Republican mismanagement of this country, but what little they have they are willing to donate to Obama.
That's what really has the Republican's worried. Their key to power has always been the apathy of the masses. Obama has changed that. Be afraid, be very afraid. -
Posted By: HDavidson @ 06/22/2008 1:55:58 PM
Desperation is a stinky perfume.
-
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 4:55:24 PM
THE RUIN OF AMERICA
1) ABORTION (Murder)
2) DRUGS/ALCOHOLISM
3) GANGS
4) HOMOSEXUALITY (whether you're for it or against it doesn't matter)
5) GREED
6) PORNOGRAPHY
In short: Turning our backs on God! It's time for a change, alright! TURN so you don't BURN!-
Posted By: Rocker68 @ 06/20/2008 5:14:06 PM
1 - War (murder)
2 - Church (pedophile priests)
3 - Religion (intolerance, bigotry, polygamy)
4 - Evangelicals (adulterers, greed, lies)
5 - Clergy (rapists, alcoholics, adulterers)
6- Followers (morons, idiots, witch hunts)
I'm on Fire!!-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 5:32:13 PM
I did not say we were without sin! I am just a sinner SAVED by GRACE! But the part you misunderstood was: Jesus said "You are either FOR me or you're AGAINST me". No one is without sin! The point is , we ALL need to TURN from sin! Christians are not intolerant. We are trying to live what Jesus Christ taught His followers to live. We do not say we are above anyone! No one but God, the Father is going to judge the sins of the people of the earth. Jesus can save anyone! A murderer, a pediphile, a homosexual, even an atheist. Christians do not live to hate or judge anyone. WE are the ones being ridiculed for how WE live! But that's ok. Jesus said it would be that way! He loves you and me anyway!
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 5:52:49 PM
The phrase "You're either FOR me or AGAINST me" can't be considered factual in any circumstance. It makes a statement about the truth of another's intentions, when in reality the other person may neither be for or against the speaker. In reality, what is almost always meant is, "If you do not ally with me, I will declare you an enemy."
The SPEAKER is the one who is declaring war, so to speak, not the person spoken to, yet the statement seeks to cast the responsibility, and thus the blame, for this declaration onto the person spoken to in order to conceal his own declaration of hostile intent by assigning it to his/her opponent.
It's a bad fallacy. It provokes war.
And no one is ridiculing you for the way you live, at least not me. I believe in "live and let live", and have nothing against anyone for their beliefs UNLESS one of those beliefs is that they attempt to force their beliefs onto others.-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 6:09:13 PM
All I know is that I believe what I believe! Whether it provokes anyone or not is up to them. Jesus was without sin and the priests still tried to turn what He said around on Him to fit their beliefs. I would never try to push my beliefs on anyone. It's up to the person whether they want to open the door or not. What I do know is that one day, we will all stand accountable for ourselves, the lives we've lived, and if we've stood up for what we believed. If you know anything about Jesus' teachings, He taught that "I am the way, the truth , and the life". Everything else is false. That's not trying to force my beliefs on anyone, it's just the simple TRUTH. If you want to believe it or not, it's still the TRUTH!
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 6:19:26 PM
You may believe as you wish. "Congress shall make no law respecting an institution of religion, nor preventing the free exercise thereof." That's the First Amendment, and it's one of the principles I believe in to guide my own actions, though I am not a member of Congress.
Something I find interesting, however, is that while the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain the phrase "Whosoever is not for me, is against me", the Gospel of Mark omits that phrase in retelling exactly the same episode. Nobody knows now which version is the true, historical version - if any - but I personally find it hard to believe that a teacher who advocated peaceful resistance to one's oppressors would have said such a divisive remark.
At the very least, you may wish to go read Matthew 12, Luke 11, and Mark 3 and decide for yourself what can be understood of each text.-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 6:43:10 PM
Point taken. Can I ask you this? Should we then, take different parts of the Bible, at liberty , to fit us? If we don't like what one part of the Bible says, then we can just go to another book and find something different to fit us that day? Just asking.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:20:40 PM
Bingo! The Bible is full of so many contradictions there must have not been an editor involved. Nobody can agree on what it means. How then can self-righteous folks claim to know what the Bible means? It's all nonsense anyway.
People the world over have religions. It fulfills some basic need inside us to make meaning of our existence. Thankfully, I'm one of the few who has no desire to self-delude in order to feel good about my life. For the rest of you, I understand your pain even as I can't condone your wishful thinking.
Love the religious nut, hate the delusion.-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 7:55:37 PM
You're postulating just as intolerant a viewpoint as the "self-righteous" people you denounce.
The Bible does indeed have a lot of contradictions, but as I've said below, it has *human* authorship. None of the Bible's authors claimed to be God themselves. They were human, and every religious tradition notes that humans can indeed err.
I don't think the right answer is throwing the baby out with the bath, so to speak - whether or not you believe in the divinity of the work, and I make no claims on the subject either way myself, it's intolerant to throw out every part of it because you have issues with some priests' claims about the origins and divinity of the same. As history tells us through multiple examples, from the Pharisees' claimed stranglehold on divine right to the 16th-century Catholic priests' claim of the same and corrupt sale of "indulgences" to fatten the pockets of the Church, priests are very, very human too, and make mistakes.
But if you start to claim that they're wrong across the board for believing in something divine, you're ignoring their humanity to the exact same extent that a fundamentalist might ignore yours because of your stated belief that religion is "self-delusion".
Something tells me that you have no real proof on the subject one way or another yourself, just the usual argument against religion that you find no direct evidence of it, so therefore it must be nonsense. Science - if nothing else - tells us that a lack of observatory proof is absolutely no guarantee that there's nothing there. It says that one cannot prove - or disprove - the existence of that belief or model.
Remember, the world was once "flat" too.-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:06:24 PM
I can't "prove" there is no god. But probability tells me that it's not likely. The fact that there are so many religions with such divergent beliefs tells me that the overwhelming likelihood is that they are all wrong. I'm not denying that spirituality doesn't have it's allure. So does heroin. Those high on heroin have probably forgotten their mortality and frailty for a bit, but are only fogging their chance to observe things as they are not as they want them to be. Luckily for religious folks, their little detour around reality can last longer. Myself, I'll take cold hard reality over wishful thinking any day of the week.
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 10:00:31 PM
I've seen plenty of people "high" on religion as you've mentioned. I tend to think our current chief executive is usually very, very high on John 3:16, so to speak, which keeps him in the bubble that McClellan has alleged and prevents him from really seeing what's going on or really caring for his charges (which is to say, us). So I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said.
It might also just be my opinion, though, but it seems like you're bullyragging a bit on certain comments in this thread, as well as posting some bright, well-reasoned, respectful, complimentary posts on many other comments (most of which outweigh the bullyragging). Most of what you're writing is wonderful. But again, just a thought...you might want to try to leave the more derogatory comments behind, because at least for me, they make me want to deny some of the influence that the rest of your, very respectful, well-reasoned, analytical comments deserve.
I have a friend who's much in agreement with you as far as organized religion goes, and dogma, and doctrine. But what he said to me that day as we were driving around talking about God - and it stuck with me - was, "That doesn't necessarily mean there's no God." I don't even like the word "God" sometimes because it carries with it a lot of historical, scriptural, and beliefwise baggage. But all I'd say would be in the vein of repeating my earlier comment on religion - particularly organized religion and churches - being very human institutions. They're often infuriating, frequently very controlling, sometimes judgemental, and usually quite dogmatic - but 1. like any human experience, nothing is usually 100% bad or good, and 2. if one does take a completely secular viewpoint, which is as valid as any other set of beliefs, I still think it's important to remember they *are* human - they're still people - and still deserve a measure of human respect. Some of the worst abuses of religion are the ones in which this particular principle gets forgotten, but I don't think it does any good anywhere.
That's all. Hope I'm not being sanctimonious in any way - I respect your views and appreciate the civilized debate. All the best.-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/22/2008 9:07:45 PM
For the sake of debate here, People thought Jesus was "radical" too I believe.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 7:11:11 PM
I don't believe in throwing out any part of the Bible that's been verified to have been written in a legitimate Christian tradition. I'm not denying the existence of the passage in Matthew and Luke. However, interpretation is a different story to me, and I will explain why I think so.
In terms of the context of *reading* a work, as you say, one can't cut out half of it and selectively take the other half, or one isn't really reading the original work but instead a mangled version of it.
In terms of interpretation, I think the corollary to the above statement - that one cannot disregard any part of a work in beginning a reading of it - is that one cannot be forced to accept every part of it without his/her own consent. Otherwise, the *reader* is denied the same ability to bring certain parts of his/her own intelligence and judgement to the scene in trying to make sense of it. In essence, the person as an individual has parts of him/herself taken away in exactly the same way as the original work has things taken away if one mangles it - the person is not him/herself anymore. Forced acceptance of anything isn't comprehension, just repetition.
In terms of this specific work, while it may seem arrogant to interpret parts of a widely accepted text, I think there's a very important point here - whether or not the Books of the Bible were divinely inspired or not, each one was written by a human. I believe even Jesus would have said that the authorship of the Books was by mortals - to do otherwise is to say that the Apostles themselves were God, which as I understand it, is not something accepted within any Christian tradition. God is often understood not to err, but all traditions do maintain that people can err.
Early Christians faced intense persecution, including torture and execution. Since the Apostles are often considered to have been written about seventy years after the death of Christ, in the context of some of the worst persecution out there, I do believe there is a possibility that Matthew and Luke may have begun to misremember His words and that such language might have slipped into their thinking as their own people were being executed and tortured. I don't deny at all that they wrote as they wrote. But it does seem odd to me that Jesus would have said something like "if you're not for us, you're against us", which has the end effect of splitting everyone into two sides, and forcing those who might disagree with His teachings into the position of conflict with His followers and alliance with His violent enemies when otherwise they might have remained peaceful. Seems to me they could be saved either way, so to speak.
But thanks for not doing your best to see me as an enemy, in the best intentions of this discussion.
-
-
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 6:40:04 PM
When you are raptured, can I have your car?
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 6:50:10 PM
Sure you can! I won't need it where I'm going! I'll have everything I need! It's a worn-out minivan, though! I'm sure you'd like something much more "sporty" than that!!!
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:15:33 PM
Crap. I need a car with good mileage too.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 7:45:30 PM
Get a hybrid!
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:01:53 PM
Hopefully, some Christ-loving person will get raptured and I can take it.
Unfortunately, there are no free rides and no rapture. You guys are going to die here and rot like the rest of us.-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/22/2008 9:02:48 PM
Jesus Christ will have the last say! NOT you, not me, not anyone else on earth! He will be coming as SOVEREIGN! KING of KINGS and LORD of LORDS! He will NOT be coming as a doormat for sinners to walk on, spit at, or crucify anymore!!!! The time is now to realize we can't do it all ourselves! We must have Him! You decide! Would you rather die and rot or would you rather be with Him forever ? He can still save! He will save you. All you have to do is ask Him to come into your heart and save you and forgive you of your sins and unbelief. Put down your pride and surrender to Him!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/20/2008 5:39:50 PM
One of the greatest gifts our founding fathers gave to this country was the separation of church and state. And you prove how important it is.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 5:46:41 PM
Yep! All of our problems started when they took prayer out of school!
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/20/2008 6:16:54 PM
Was that prayer to God, Jesus, Budda, Mohamand? I fully support your right to worship as you please - but not your attempts to force it on everyone else. If Jesus were here today, you Christian fundamentalists would be in for such a big surprise.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 6:20:23 PM
How do you know? You may be the one in for a surprise!
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:15:05 PM
No. You would be. People have warped Christ's message. Christ was a liberal. At least he had that going for him. That doesn't mean he's a god, just that he was right.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 9:28:03 PM
If you believe He was RIGHT, why don't you believe in Him? You don't have to believe in religion to believe in Him. Jesus didn't say follow religion, He said follow Me.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 7:44:44 PM
Father, forgive them for they know NOT what they do!
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:00:27 PM
I know exactly what I do. I don't believe in imaginary men, even the beloved Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Religion is an unfortunate side effect of human nature. I believe it's due to our unique understanding of our own demise. Due to this fear we've invented religion in its many forms.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 6:39:14 PM
Exactly. That's when the militant christo-fascists started to get politically active and subverting our political system. Thankfully, their influence is waning.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 7:43:59 PM
Do we have to beat the Christo-fascist dead horse again?!!
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:58:49 PM
Are you a christo-fascist? Your statements have me worried. All this "Jeebus this" and "Jeebus that".
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 9:20:39 PM
Why should you be worried? You seem to have it all figured out. I'm just giving an opinion the same as you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/20/2008 5:58:27 PM
Please don't!
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 6:14:27 PM
Somebody has to!!!!
-
-
-
Posted By: mcleodmn @ 06/20/2008 5:03:39 PM
one4Christ - Your twisted sense of right and wrong makes me sick. Go back to your compound and impregnate children with babies, intolerance and ignorance. If there was a god you wouldn't be able to reproduce, and if Jesus were here he'd be a pot smoking liberal. But I realize thats not possible because neither ever existed.
-
Posted By: BarS3sons @ 06/20/2008 5:37:04 PM
mcleodmn- So you think/believe that being immoral or amoral is right? Do you honestly believe that our society and nation will survive if we continue the downward spiral by the acceptance of murder and abortion, homosexuality, pornography, drugs as a "normal" way of life? That we should allow a person without credibility, the inability to tell the truth, a fabricator of lies and hate-mongoring, that is beholding to how many known terrorists and subversive organizations, as well as known criminals? A person who has stated that he will take sides with a foreign nation or despot rather than defend America? One whose wife has spewed racial denigrations at another race, who is not "proud of our country"? barack Hussein obama is nothing but a cheesey politician, a true through and through liar and coward, a muslim wanna-be and a pretender of Christian faith solely for political gain. When his time of reckoning and judgement comes, Jesus will answer His Father, I do not know this person and I spew his name from my mouth. Much the same as He will when your time comes, unless you can change your heart. So sad, for you.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 6:30:06 PM
So nice to see that America still has some who will stand up FOR Jesus! Where are all these haters coming from? They can judge us all day long, but we can't stand up for what we believe? And the last time I looked, it still was a FREE country. If we don't agree with YOUR views, WE'RE wrong? We, that is , followers of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have a right to stand for Him! I don't get where you're trying to say we're FORCING you to believe anything! I didn't say you had to agree with me! I said what Jesus said to His followers. You know, in the Bible. Pick it up sometime and check it out for yourselves. You may be surprised by what you read.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:13:36 PM
Why does Jesus need to be stood up for? Can't he hold his own? Is that big of a wimp? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is no wimp. He doesn't need me to stand up for him. If he did, I wouldn't worship him.
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/20/2008 7:43:04 PM
Will the flying spaghetti monster be there for you when you answer to God ? My JESUS will be there for me! Go find someone else to pick on! You can deny the truth all you want . In the end, you will be brought to your knees!
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:57:39 PM
He is god.
Sorry I won't get on my knees for anyone, even The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/22/2008 8:55:21 PM
Sad! Really sad!
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 6:36:08 PM
http://www.fightthesmears.com
-
-
Posted By: one4Christ @ 06/22/2008 8:54:25 PM
o, let me get this straight....Just because I believe in Jesus, I must be a radical Christian who lives in a compound? Puleese!!! I don't have to justify my beliefs to you or anyone else. I will continue to live for Christ and do the will of the Father. If you can't handle that, sorry! He gives me the strength to live side by side with those of you who are angry that there are Christians trying to live the way of Jesus instead of the way of the world! He did say we would be persecuted for our faith! He was, is, and will continue to be RIGHT!!
-
-
Posted By: nopartyaffiliation123 @ 06/21/2008 3:26:42 PM
It's funny, just reading blogger's grammar indicates who is supporting who. People with poor grammar and spelling tend to support McCaint. Just an observation....
-
Posted By: onepoker @ 06/21/2008 3:31:00 PM
ITs Cuz wer all Dumb but atleast we aint con de sending.
-
Posted By: nopartyaffiliation123 @ 06/21/2008 3:43:22 PM
Maybe not, just uneducated. How do you justify (with factual statements) voting for McCaint if we are to regain the strengths as the world's only superpower that we lost the past 8 years? How do you justify that the majority of the population in the richest country in the world has trouble making ends meet?
-
Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/21/2008 4:25:53 PM
in the last 8 years we've been attacked and are fighting two wars and have been through some of the worst natural disasters in u.s history and the federal goverment has came through for all of them with albeit many problems and mistakes but we are still here and still the best damn country in the world !! SO QUIT TRYING TO BULL *** PEOPLE TALK FACTS AND QUIT THE FINGER POINTING we know bush screwed up and we know the goverment needs some changing but not just on the right the left is real bad too and until you all can fess up and admit it nothing will change !!!
-
Posted By: nopartyaffiliation123 @ 06/21/2008 4:33:29 PM
Still here??? This is th world's only superpower and people are struggling to make ends meet because of the policies you are supporting. Do you go outside, talk to people or are you just comfortable in your million dollar home and your 6 figures salary that you don't even give a damn about the majority of the population. Oh, and had we not spend all our money on a unnecessary war, we would have had plenty of cash to build proper infrastructure to prevent natural disasters fom having the damages they had.
-
Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/21/2008 4:45:28 PM
yep still here and i'm no millionaire and yes i go out and talk to people i know what is going on and i feel the pinch too but i'm not a moron thinking a man with no experiance can fix the problem that this country has i would not let a dog catcher do surgery on my dog would you ?? this is the think okay ! if the dems had a better canidate them i would be all for it but the one they have now i just don't see what all the fuss is about he's a jr senator for gods sake even you know that !!
-
Posted By: rosecc @ 06/22/2008 8:41:46 PM
Obama is a great paradox: a cocky empty suit full of lies, and a big flip-flopper
-
Posted By: nopartyaffiliation123 @ 06/21/2008 4:52:17 PM
Still here (I was referring to your comment). What has McCain't done? What experience does he have in restoring a country's economic power?
You said you are feeling the pinch, would you admit that Bush's policies made things worse for us? If so, why would you vote for someone that sided with him 91% of the time?-
Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/21/2008 5:08:25 PM
i think bush did fine up until his second term and as far as mCcain goes he's been to the other side of the asile more that anyone has so i think out of the choices of dumb and dumber i'll take mCcain !!
-
Posted By: nopartyaffiliation123 @ 06/21/2008 5:19:40 PM
Really, now Obama is dumb??? Ok, my friend, you just showed me that you have no credibility whatsoever.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: biscuit @ 06/21/2008 9:30:06 PM
Obama, is that you?
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:48:30 AM
Biscuithead - it's you! I was wondering where you went. Now do us a favor and say something relevant.
-
-
-
Posted By: tismondo @ 06/22/2008 8:33:30 PM
Wait a minute... Obama's real problem isn't that McCain is receiving from special interests and PACs (the 1.7% of total mentioned here) His concern is that the money those groups raise individually is going to be used to "swift boat" him.
Obama is rightly concerned about the proxy battles that tore Kerry to shreds. In order to fend of those group's attacks, he will need money in sums that public financing just can't possibly provide.
To be fair, I think Obama did a poor job of explaining his reasoning in his official release, though he has made exactly this point countless other times in speeches and other announcements.
Factcheck checked ONLY Obama's verbatim release while ignoring all the other times he's cited proxy attacks as a major issue
-
Posted By: tismondo @ 06/22/2008 8:32:40 PM
Wait a minute... Obama's real problem isn't that McCain is receiving from special interests and PACs (the 1.7% of total mentioned here) His concern is that the money those groups raise individually is going to be used to "swift boat" him.
Obama is rightly concerned about the proxy battles that tore Kerry to shreds. In order to fend of those group's attacks, he will need money in sums that public financing just can't possibly provide.
To be fair, I think Obama did a poor job of explaining his reasoning in his official release, though he has made exactly this point countless other times in speeches and other announcements.
Factcheck checked ONLY Obama's verbatim release while ignoring all the other times he's cited proxy attacks as a major issue
-
Posted By: jbjd @ 06/22/2008 1:29:27 PM
Enough with the hyperbole. If you think your take on Senator Obama's current position on financing his campaign in the general election merits consideration, back it up with the facts. The rest is spin. For example, the fact is, Senator Obama is now opting out of public campaign financing in the general election, a move he concedes appears to reverse his previous position to subject his campaign to public financing . Fact is, to support this policy reversal, he stated the campaign finance system is broken. Fact is, he neither noted that this fault in the system existed when he previously agreed to support the system; nor noted any aspect of the existing campaign finance system that had changed since his previous statement he would abide by that same system. Fact is, he now announced he would opt out of the publicly financed system not only because Senator McCain was using 527's to oppose him; but also because he would not tell these 527's to cease and desist. Fact is, Senator Obama failed to point to any existing Republican 527's - there are none - and, even if there were, fact is, by law, any direct nexus between the candidate and the 527 is prohibited by federal law. Fact is, Senator Obama now characterizes his present campaign contributions as in line with a public system, anyway. Fact is, legally, the candidate is not obliged to record identifying information on donors who give less than $200 to the campaign. Plus, fact is, adhering to a publicly financed system under federal law allows each candidate vying for the Office of President of the United States to spend no more than the amount of money allocated by that system, currently, around $81 million.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 6:10:51 PM
People in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks:
The media has been abuzz over speculation that John McCain will accept public financing in the general election. The attention has overshadowed a new fund structure that will allow the McCain camp to collect significantly more money than the individual limits placed by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.
The Wall Street Journal reports on the details of McCain's fund:
Campaign manager Rick Davis released the details of the "McCain Victory 08" fund on Friday. He said the entity is a joint committee, combining the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and four key states under a "hybrid legal structure."
The idea is to tap donors for more than the $2,300 limit set by campaign finance laws. Under legislation pushed by McCain in his role as a senator from Arizona, an individual can donate a maximum of $2,300 to a presidential primary campaign and the same amount to the general election campaign. Although McCain received the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination in March, he will not be the party's official nominee until the convention in September--so he is still running a primary campaign.
The new structure allows up to $70,000 in individual contributions by channeling the money into different McCain-centric funds. The first $2,300 of that would go to McCain's primary campaign. The Republican National Committee would receive $28,500 of the donation. The remaining funds would be divided equally, up to $10,000 a piece, among four states the campaign has designated as battlegrounds for November: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico.
For the full article go to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/mccain-financing-structur_n_97816.html -
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 6:03:10 PM
Enough with the double posts. Laughing at you once was enough - twice, and I might injure myself.
-
-
Posted By: College Dad @ 06/21/2008 7:19:16 PM
McCain has no right to complain about Obama on this issue. McCain has already flip flopped earlier when he said he needed public financing before the primary began, and then subsequently opted out of the public financing system.
Obama has to have the resources to fight the Republican smear machine that, like the SwiftBoaters did in '04, contiunes to spew lies about Obama. Anyone who says the Republican lying smear machine won't be a factor in '08 is flat out wrong. These smears have already started and will intensify soon.
Good for Obama for asking ordinary Americans to help him fight the dishonest Republican smear machine.
Go Obama!-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 8:04:46 PM
Your right, McCain did opt out of public financing for the PRIMARY, not for the GE. Obama on the other hand said he would "talk" to the other side, being McCain, about public financing. The funny thing is Obama never did talk to McCain or his camp. Obama just decided because he has a whole lot of money, that he could back out.
To the Obama supporters, they say nothing wrong about Obama backing out of his promise, because it's pragmatic.
To the others, it's another example of Obama saying one thing and doing the other when its political expedient.
The question remains as to how the independents and Clinton Dems see it. These are the groups that are going to make or break Obama's chances.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 12:35:15 AM
Waaaaa! How many Presidential campaigns have the Republican's enjoyed the financial advantage? The answer is too many. And now, suddenly, they don't, and they're whining like a bunch of babies.
Obama has so much money because the American people believe in him - millions of people making that $20, $50 or $100 donation. You Republicans should be less concerned about the money and more concerned about the people behind it ... because it is going to be those very people that dump McCain and the Republican's on their collective @sses come November.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 1:03:07 AM
First of all I'm not nor ever will be a Republican. I'm a Clinton Dem that never drank the Kool Aid. I'm too weary of cults to drink anything they give you.
Here straight from the horses mouth:
Jan. 24, 2007 Shortly before Obama officially declares his candidacy, talk show host Larry King asks Obama if he is going to stay in the public financing system.
OBAMA: Well, you know, this is something that, obviously, we are going to have to take a careful look at. I'm a big believer in public financing of campaigns. And I think that for a time, the presidential public financing system works.
That was of course before he knew how big of saps, most Democrats are and before he knew how much he could take them for. Makes you wonder, with prices going up and people getting laid off, can these people afford to give Barry money?-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:47:09 AM
So, what's your point? He changed his position - every politican does it during their career. There was nothing in his statements that was a promise or a firm committment that he would use public financing. All he said was he is a big believer in it and that he things it works.
I'm a big believer in public transportation and I think that it works - but that doesn't mean that I am going to use it if it is not to my benefit. That's all Obama is doing. Public financing works, but in this case, private finacing is going to work better for him. And he is not compromising his integrity because he is refusing money from PAC's and lobbyists. Whether the money comes from the voters through the Government for directly from the voters, who cares.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:51:10 AM
The point is that by Obama's own statements he doesn't live up to his own Standard.
He keeps talking about change and hope and new politics but has shown nothing. This is only the latest example of it.
It shows that yes he is a typical politician. Being a typical politician, when one of his promises get broken it makes you wonder what is next. So whats the next promise he is going to break?
What are you going to say when he comes out in favor of Nuclear Power? He already laid the ground work for that in the abc debates.... thats going to screw with all the greenpeace groupies out there backing him.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:10:41 AM
Standards? How about McCain? He co-sponsored a campaign finance bill which he is now working to circumvent. You Reubplicans are all the same - hypocrits.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:26:23 AM
Normally I don't criticize a person's spelling but in light of your total lack of reading comprehension, I think you need to get some sleep and come back when you can actually have a rational discussion.
So what about McCain? Can you supply links or references to your wild accusations?-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:55:38 AM
No need to apologize, when people have been out -thought, they usually turn to criticizing things like grammer or telling people "to get that c@$k out of your mouth" like you did in another post. You really shouldn't let me get into your head like that (but know that I'm in here, I have to say there isn't much to see).
As far as support, here you go (I thought I would show you how it is done since you seem to be struggling with the concept):
The media has been abuzz over speculation that John McCain will accept public financing in the general election. The attention has overshadowed a new fund structure that will allow the McCain camp to collect significantly more money than the individual limits placed by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.
The Wall Street Journal reports on the details of McCain's fund:
Campaign manager Rick Davis released the details of the "McCain Victory 08" fund on Friday. He said the entity is a joint committee, combining the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and four key states under a "hybrid legal structure."
The idea is to tap donors for more than the $2,300 limit set by campaign finance laws. Under legislation pushed by McCain in his role as a senator from Arizona, an individual can donate a maximum of $2,300 to a presidential primary campaign and the same amount to the general election campaign. Although McCain received the number of delegates necessary to secure the nomination in March, he will not be the party's official nominee until the convention in September--so he is still running a primary campaign.
The new structure allows up to $70,000 in individual contributions by channeling the money into different McCain-centric funds. The first $2,300 of that would go to McCain's primary campaign. The Republican National Committee would receive $28,500 of the donation. The remaining funds would be divided equally, up to $10,000 a piece, among four states the campaign has designated as battlegrounds for November: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado and New Mexico.
For the full article go to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/mccain-financing-structur_n_97816.html
Notice the link actually takes you to a RELEVANT web page. i think that's what you've been missing.
I hope it helps!-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 5:05:01 AM
No worries...I really can't stop laughing though...
Your right... McCain is sidestepping it a bit...but to use the Obama supporter response... he is just being pragmatic because he knows Obama is going to try and outspend him 10 to 1.
I said before I don't agree with McCain on everything but I like him better than Obama. Still do. So I'm still going to vote for him.
Just like no matter what anyone says about Obama, your still going to vote for him. Am I right?-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 5:08:11 AM
As much as it pains me to say it - yes.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 5:36:42 AM
Ok.. I forgive ya... no harm no foul....really this was fun... made the night go by faster...
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 6:09:09 PM
On that we agree.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: jbjd @ 06/22/2008 1:29:19 PM
Enough with the hyperbole. If you think your take on Senator Obama's current position on financing his campaign in the general election merits consideration, back it up with the facts. The rest is spin. For example, the fact is, Senator Obama is now opting out of public campaign financing in the general election, a move he concedes appears to reverse his previous position to subject his campaign to public financing . Fact is, to support this policy reversal, he stated the campaign finance system is broken. Fact is, he neither noted that this fault in the system existed when he previously agreed to support the system; nor noted any aspect of the existing campaign finance system that had changed since his previous statement he would abide by that same system. Fact is, he now announced he would opt out of the publicly financed system not only because Senator McCain was using 527's to oppose him; but also because he would not tell these 527's to cease and desist. Fact is, Senator Obama failed to point to any existing Republican 527's - there are none - and, even if there were, fact is, by law, any direct nexus between the candidate and the 527 is prohibited by federal law. Fact is, Senator Obama now characterizes his present campaign contributions as in line with a public system, anyway. Fact is, legally, the candidate is not obliged to record identifying information on donors who give less than $200 to the campaign. Plus, fact is, adhering to a publicly financed system under federal law allows each candidate vying for the Office of President of the United States to spend no more than the amount of money allocated by that system, currently, around $81 million.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 6:06:52 PM
So, what's your point? He changed his position - every politican does it during their career. There was nothing in his statements that was a promise or a firm committment that he would use public financing. All he said was he is a big believer in it and that he things it works.
I'm a big believer in public transportation and I think that it works - but that doesn't mean that I am going to use it if it is not to my benefit. That's all Obama is doing. Public financing works, but in this case, private finacing is going to work better for him. And he is not compromising his integrity because he is refusing money from PAC's and lobbyists. Whether the money comes from the voters through the Government for directly from the voters, who cares.
-
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 12:18:02 AM
McCain opposed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 saying it was larded with billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.
Obama voted for the 2.8 billion dollar tax cut for the wealthy oil companies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005
George Bush signed the 2.8 billion dollar tax cut for the wealthy oil companies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law.
Now we are stuck with high gas prices and an exploding deficit.
Obama, the 3rd term of George Bush.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 12:30:18 AM
Obama, the 3rd term of Bush? As compared to McCain? Wow, and here I thought the stuff I was smoking was good.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 12:41:47 AM
Hey if its good for the goose. Obamabots keeps trying to tie McCain to Bush. I think we should keep it level and start to look at how Obama stacks up against Bush. Seems fair right?
Bush campaigned as a uniter. Divided the country right down the middle, more partisan than ever
Obama campaigns as a uniter. Divided the Democratic Party down the middle, with his supporters calling a lot of people that don't support him, racist.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 12:50:52 AM
Sorry you probably want some source for my claim about Obama supporters...http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=116583
???Racist???: Former Clinton Volunteer Now Supporting McCain Claims Threats by Obama Supporters
I wouldn't want you to call me a liar again.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:36:28 AM
I took a look at the video - I think she falls into the angry and bitter category. There is also something about the way she spoke and her body language that struck me as disingenous. I think the "threats" against her family are an exaggeration. She just didn't seem credible to me.
As far as the racist label - I don't know. I don't know what she said on the call or in other forums. I know a lot of Clinton supporters who were calling Obama supporter sexist. Wouldn't doubt for a minute that the sexist label has passed her lips on a number of occasions. I don't think it is fair to label people racist or sexist unless they say or do something specific to warrant the label.
Personally, I think she's an idiot. I love the comment about Clinton and Obama being more alike only if you look at things as narrowly as the issues. Come on, that's what this campaign is about, the issues.
I think she is just mad and spiteful - and one myopic Clinton supporter does not constitute a trend.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:46:15 AM
Ha ha knew you were gonna say something like that. Go ahead and try to discredit her because thats all you got. I'm sure you've been on these blogs long enough to have seen all the racist banter coming out of the Obama supporters. Accusing Clinton supporters now McCain supporters of being racist
As for Mrs. Abeles.... here is where she was accused by Olbermann none the less....
OLBERMANN: And we need to be very careful to be very circumspect and not conclude this of all or even a large percentage, maybe even a measurable percentage of Clinton supporters who now have gone to McCain.
But at least might the case of this Paulie Abeles woman who we now know organized against letting Sally Hemings??? descendents join the Jefferson family gatherings, does this begin to make a lot more sense than just some sort of knee-jerk reaction?
KURTZ: Well, I???m not sure what you mean by making a lot more sense.
What do you mean?
OLBERMANN: It would seem to me that???that it???s an extraordinary coincidence that somebody who would have objected to the presence of the black descendants of Thomas Jefferson at the Jefferson family reunion, suddenly bolting the Democratic Party because her candidate did not get elected and going over to the Republicans. It would seem that these things are of a narrow vision. I???m not assuming racism here, but there seems to be a narrow vision of what is???what this country is in the 21st century.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 3:47:18 AM
Just when I think you can't possibly be any dumber, you prove me wrong. Did you even read your post before submitting it?
There is an organization based on the descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings was a slave owned by Jefferson and she bore children from that relationship. Paulie Abeles, the poor Hillary supporter you referenced earlier - the one being called a racist and threatened by all of us evil Obama supporters for going over to McCain - is the same woman who is actively organizing to deny the descendants of Sally Hemings into the Thomas Jefferson organization.
In my earlier post, I said I didn't know if she was a racist, but based on this new information you so kindly provided, I think there is a possibility that she is.
And all Olbermann says is "It would seem to me that it's an extraordinary coincidence that somebody who would have objected to the presence of the black descendants of Thomas Jefferson at the Jefferson family reunion, suddenly bolting the Democratic Party because her candidate did not get elected and going over to the Republicans. It would seem that these things are of a narrow vision. I'm not assuming racism here, but there seems to be a narrow vision of what this country is in the 21st century.
He specfically says he is not assuming racism - what he is pointing out is a very interesting coincidence. And you know what, it is very interesting.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:59:50 AM
Ha and you think Olbermann is credible? HA HA HA HA He is about as credible as Bill O....they both stink and have no journalistic integrity.
In know your reading comprehension skills are lacking, probably a product of high school education, but here let me break it down for you.
Olbermann is to insuniate that the only reason Abeles is leaving the DNC is because she is racist. Like the majority of the Obamabots, failing to realize that Obama hasn't unified the democratic base towards him. Clinton has about 18 million supporters, more and more groups and big name people are coming out saying they won't support Obama.
You obamanaics can say anything you want, try to slander and libel them all you want but that isn't going to win them back. Its only going to drive them away. Something you must not realize.
Who knows if Abeles is a closet racist, I really don't care. You could be a closet racist for all i know, doesn't matter to me. Your the one that has to live with yourself.
The point I was making and I did make is that. Obamabots are trying to discredit anyone that doesn't fall in line with Obama....you even helped prove my point with your name calling and slander...
Thank you-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:08:50 AM
Go home chaos member - you've been exposed. Better luck next time.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:24:47 AM
Oh so that's the new one... since I don't support Obama, I must be an Op Chaos plant?
Your really grasping here... I'm sorry if I scare you....but really get a grip man.
Hey Pia, will you assure ZigZug here that I am a Clinton Supporter through and through...-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:30:39 AM
I'm just going with the odds. A Clinton supporter just couldn't be that stupid.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:54:08 AM
Your right a Clinton supporter isn't that stupid...you seem to be that stupid though... so I know you were never a clinton supporter...
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 5:06:30 AM
My, aren't we the witty one. What next? I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever bounces off me sticks on you? Or maybe you'll just go with the simpler "No I'm not, you are"
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 5:15:18 AM
Ha ha sounds about right... how bout we rock paper scissor for it?
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 5:22:16 AM
O.K. - you go first :-)
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 5:36:00 AM
Um....no.... but hey this was fun.. I have to go finish my reports before I go home.... thanks for the laughs though.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 6:05:54 PM
Ditto!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 12:44:10 AM
I hope you saw my response to you calling me a liar... =)
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:25:48 AM
Actually, I never called you a lair - I asked you to post the source so I wouldn't have to.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 3:27:00 AM
Actually - now I can call you a liar, because your sources were completely wrong. Are you so stupid that you didn't think anyone would check? And yes, you are quite sad, and pathetic, and stupid, and ....
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:41:04 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
Keep on spewing the hate. I love it. The more you spew the more Clinton Dems will be voting McCain or Nader.... not Obama... ha ha ha-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:06:01 AM
I don't hate you ... I just think you are a moron. And you are definitely no Hillary supporter, just another Republican stooge and chaos member. Well, I guess you need to go back to your Republican handlers, tell them you have been exposed, get a new screen name, and try again. Can I suggest Zombiedoofus? Oh, and I would have them send you back to training, because you are really bad at this.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:13:31 AM
Wow news to me.. I didn't know I wasn't a Clinton Supporter.... news to me. I'm sure in the morning you will get ample evidence of my support of Clinton.... I know Pia will vouch for me there.
I find it really hard to believe you would be a Hills supporter. To much hatred.
No I think I'll keep my handle here...you might want to change yours though...-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:23:25 AM
Pretty sure Pia would say you're an idiot.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:48:54 AM
You will have to ask her next time you see her then.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 6:05:00 PM
Pia is a sweetie - she would never hang out with a lout like me :-)
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:01:42 AM
And once again, I have to make you look stupid. Let's start with your original post:
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 21:34:28
Comment: The same Newsweek poll that had Obama up by 20 points 3 days before PA primary? Yeah, real credible.
First you back it up with some website that has nothing to do with Newsweek Polls, and the Polls the website has on PA have 72 out of 76 showing Clinton ahead.
Then you try to back it up with this website - which talks about a 20 point lead for Obama taken on a national poll, which has nothing to do with PA.
You do understand the difference between PA and the Nation? Maybe not.
Idiot.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:18:34 AM
Ha ha thank you for copying my original post....saves me the trouble....hmmm I know you don't do reading comprehension all that well....but where oh where in my post did I say that the newsweek was a PA only poll?
I was calling into question the credibility of the newsweek poll that had Obama up....I don't see me saying anything about a national or primary do you... I was just talking about the Poll.... I gave you the link from realclearpolitics... you must have misinterpreted what I said... maybe thats why you couldn't see your a&$ from a hole in the ground.... so I gave you the article's link.... the one I was questioning... and you still don't believe it?
What are you 12?
Do you realize how dumb your making yourself look?
Makes my job so much easier when you do it for me... thanks-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:25:54 AM
Hello? Hello? Let me copy it for you again:
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 21:34:28
Comment: The same Newsweek poll that had Obama up by 20 points 3 days before PA primary? Yeah, real credible.
See the key words - PA primary. I realize they are not in crayon, but you should still be able to read it.
Idiot-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:53:13 AM
ha ha ha Key words....Newsweek poll...3 days before PA primary... thats the link I sent you... the newsweek pool that had Obama up by almost 20....a few days before the PA primary... ha ha really... is it that hard for you to read?
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 5:03:38 AM
Now I want you to read very slowly - it's O.K. to move your lips.
No ... the link you sent me referenced a national poll .. it had nothing to do with PA or its primary.
Let me help you. National - the whole country, you remember, Pacific Ocean on one side, Atlantic Ocean on the other side, Canada up north, Mexico down south. As compared to Pennsylvania, much smaller, Ohio on one side, New Jersey on the other side, New York up north, Maryland and West Virginia to the south.
Come on, you can do it. Work those last brain cells.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 5:14:34 AM
Wow you know geography... I'm impressed.
"The same Newsweek poll that had Obama up by 20 points 3 days before PA primary?"
Please tell me where in that sentence do I say that the Newsweek poll is specifically a Pennsylvania only poll?
My original sentence, I was referring to a Newsweek poll that was published a few days before the Penn Primary. That is the Poll I gave you the link to. I know its hard for you to admit that you made a mistake. I'll let you off the hook now. No hard feelings.
Sorry this is an argument you will fail, epic fail.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 5:20:35 AM
So why mention PA at all? And the national poll, at the time it was taken, was accurate. Unless, of course, it was you intention to try a deceive people. Nice try, but no.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 5:34:55 AM
Whats this are you backing off?
My original post was to question the credibility of the Newsweek poll thats all... you obviously had something else in mind. Whatever... keep believing whatever you want.
And no that Newsweek poll was not accurate... go back at the original RCP link I gave you and look at the number from the other polls at that time... Newsweek's poll was the outlier.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:30:44 PM
And click on the Newsweek poll itself. The poll was stastically valid. Just because you didn't like what it said doesn't mean it wasn't accurate. You're such a fool.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:49:21 AM
That Z across your chest sure has to hurt.... ouch!!!
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:07:21 AM
Not as much as the pain in my head from all your moronic posts.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:10:34 AM
Moronic....would have expected more from you... ha ha Thanks for making this night go by faster.... I needed some good laughs.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:27:07 AM
Well, just keep reading your own posts.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:36:21 AM
oh sorry you threatened to call me a liar...to bad for you I have sources to back me up.... sorry too bad so sad for you.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:28:55 AM
No more threatening - you are a liar. Or just incredibly stupid. Not sure which one.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 6:24:02 AM
That's all you got? Seriously, you and alvy need some alone time he'll make a man out of you!!!
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:31:35 PM
Well, as Alvy says, you can't fix stupid ... stupid.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 5:38:26 AM
I finally figured it out - there are three people sharing the User ID Zombiehero. The first person can be logical from time to time, the second person is an idiot, and the third person is smoking dope (kind of like the third person best). It explains so much!
Well, time for bed.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 6:22:37 AM
Obama's the one sniffing something...maybe that's what his change is all about....
Aww too much for you...don't forget to drink your Kool Aid before bed now...-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:28:44 PM
Oops, I forgot to mention, all three people are in the same body. But don't worry, Obama has you covered on the health care front as well. He'll make sure you get the proper treatment.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 7:26:07 PM
How Hypocritical is Obama.
"John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs," he explained. He expects "smears and attacks" from Mr. McCain's "allies" who will "spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations." In fact, they made him do it: "We face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system."
Well what about MoveOn.org, a PAC, newest smear ad? Oh its ok as long as they are on your side, Mr Obama?-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:33:37 PM
What "smear" ad? Please enlighten us. The word smear is thrown about so much these days without thought to its actual meaning.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 7:48:30 PM
A young mother sits with her baby son on her lap and says: "Hi, John McCain. This is Alex. And he's my first. . . . John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."
Factcheck.org already debunked the 100 year quote: That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded.
Would you like the full quote instead?
Truth is, Obama is playing the same old style politics that he has repeatedly said he wouldn't. That is a hypocrite.-
Posted By: Iamnotamused @ 06/20/2008 7:54:02 PM
Maybe people are hard of hearing or they just can't read past their "Dick and Jane" adventures.
Barack Obama does not have anything to do with the MoveOn.org ads. Is that so hard to comprehend? I mean seriously people.
Also, he never "promised" to take federal funds like everyone said. He filled out a QUESTIONNAIRE and said on it he would but he also said he would pursue the Republicans to do the same.
The man is entitled to change his mind, yet people call it "flip flopping". He didn't promise anything with filling out a questionnaire.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 8:17:05 PM
You accuse McCain of the same thing and call him a flip-flopper, why should it be any different for Obama?
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:22:42 PM
The 527s on both sides are independent of the candidates.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 8:41:33 PM
Yet Obama has specifically called out the GOP's 527 as old politics but hasn't said anything about the DNC's 527's. Why is that?
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:47:19 PM
It's not his job to attack folks that aren't attacking him. Where has McCain came out specifically against con 527's? It's a wash.
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 06/20/2008 11:46:51 PM
Actually, John McCain DID attack the North Carolina Republican party who were prepared to unveil a television ad which was to function on two levels: paint Obama as "extreme" for attending Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago where Rev. Wright made incendiary comments and knock Democrats Bev Perdue and Richard Moore for endorsing someone as "extreme" to North Carolina as Obama.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, moved quickly on Wednesday to reject the ad. "I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats," said McCain in a letter to the North Carolina Republican Party Chair Linda Davis.
McCain demanded that Davis discontinue plans to run the ad: "It is imperative that you withdraw this offensive advertisement."
Here is the video (attack ad) that Mccain voiced his objection to that the North Carolina GOP created::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXxkctYRAZQ-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/21/2008 5:08:00 PM
You're right - and I respected McCain for that. I think both he and Obama have the same views on the 527's, which is a good thing for politics. So can we get back to debating other topics, such as McCains complete and total lack of understanding on social issues?
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 8:46:33 PM
Or Obama's complete and lack of being able to keep his promises.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:17:07 AM
Well, if you want to take the debate that direction, you're going to have to throw McCain in there too. I think there is a lot more material on McCain than Obama.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:35:26 AM
you want to talk about Emil Jones, how Obama never did anything in the Illinois Senate because Emil and Obama took credit for bills that they never put forward....how Obama tried to do the same thing in the US Senate, but Sen Dodd didn't let him?
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print
I'll have to look for the Dodd one but it was on abc news somewhere.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 3:19:47 AM
Once again, your reference is nonsense. It is a story that ran in February about a conversation the reporter had with Obama 8 YEARS AGO. The story references several people's opinions - but those opinions are just that - opinons, and they sound like sour grapes to me.
So I'll say it again - you're an idiot.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:37:37 AM
Have you seen Obama's Illinois record?
you keep asking for proof, I give you links but you refuse to see whats there. Why should anyone even bother to try and debate you....anything that doesn't fit your preconceived concept of reality is thrown out... ever heard of cognitive dissonance.
And I was really starting to like you, but your just like any other Obamabot.... when faced with anything contradictory to your Obama bias... you have to lash out, name call....whatever to make you feel bigger.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:20:20 AM
Links? What links? As I've shown in other posts, you're links are completely ridiculus. Maybe you would have better luck if you just made up your own website - just like you do with all your posts.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:39:02 AM
So I provide link to credible sites.... well a newsweek poll...not all that credible...but you refuse?
Ok... good to know that you can't back any of your crap up.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:37:26 PM
Hmmm ... which of your three personalities is speaking now? Or maybe there's a fourth. Not to worry, we'll get you some help once Obama is in office. In the meantime, we'll ask Hillary to bake you some cookies. I hear she has plenty of time on her hands these days.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 9:38:31 PM
Hasn't Obama repeatedly said that he doesn't want to go down the negative politics path? Wasn't that a central tenant to his campaign, that he is above all that. So he attacks McCain, for doing what Obama has done, nothing. Ha Its hypocritical. Obama attacks McCain because McCain doesn't do anything, but Obama hasn't done anything either. Now I would fault Obama for that but it goes against one of his central themes for his Presidential Campaign.
Sorry but your not going to convince me that Obama is good and McCain is bad. I guess we should just stick to Energy issues....yeah Obama has a winner there. lol
-
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 06/20/2008 11:15:28 PM
Obama hasn't called out an objection to the Baby Alex distorted ad that moveon.org recently released either. But then, moveon.org is a group that Obama originally sought out and endorsed as a great group that has grown and that he supports MoveOn.org.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 06/20/2008 10:44:27 PM
Your statement is not true. Barack Obama SOLICITED and ACCEPTED the ENDORSEMENT of MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org???s record: * Publication of an insult to General David Petraeus. We find the very concept of General Petraeus, a distinguished officer, having to call Barack Obama ???Sir??? after this totally repugnant. Come to think of it, we find sickening and repulsive the idea of a buck private having to address as ???Sir??? an individual who has accepted this organization???s endorsement. An individual who joins in an insult to our men and women in uniform, which Obama has done by lending credibility to MoveOn.org, is totally unfit to be our Armed Forces??? Commander in Chief.
* MoveOn.org published an anti-Catholic hate cartoon that shows Pope Benedict waving a gavel in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. This cartoon is unmistakably similar to the anti-Catholic cartoons of the infamous 19th century cartoonist Thomas Nast, so Catholics just might find Obama???s empowerment and enablement of MoveOn.org a wee bit offensive to say the least.
* MoveOn.org exercised editorial control in favor of anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic hate speech at its now-disgraced Action Forum (which was shut down in 2006 because of the scandal). The hate speech included an outright blood libel of Jews, denigration of Catholics as pedophiles, accusations that Evangelical Christians participated in voter fraud, racist comments about prominent African-Americans, and 9/11 conspiracy theories.-
Posted By: Inaru @ 06/21/2008 2:17:28 AM
Wrong, MoveOn just took down their 527 and has simply played back McCain' s own words, they won't do negative attack ads since they endorsed Obama. McCain's wife and children won't be attacked,as they were by Republican Swiftboaters, remember them? They're now working for McCain, what a funny turn, don't you think?
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 06/21/2008 2:38:27 AM
Can you provide the source of reference that confirms thatA the baby Alex ad has since been taken down(from where, Internet?) or has now been pulled from TV ads? If so, that is a good thing, I just have not seen anything to that effect being promoted as being done.
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:51:38 PM
Truth is, the American people don't want to be in Iraq for 100 years whether we are being shot at or not. McCain can parse his own words, but his '100 years' statement along with his recent "That's not too important" comment show that he really doesn't understand the pain that Iraq represents to the average American.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 8:16:27 PM
Hey if you want a man, Obama, that will tell you one thing, then change his story depending on which way the political wind blows, fine with me. Feel free to vote for him. And what pain have you occurred because of Iraq? Are you mad cause your paying too much for gas, got news for ya. The Dems in congress haven't done a damn thing the last two years to help. Wasn't that their "Mandate?"
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:26:04 PM
What pain? My nephew served there and my brother-in-law was blown up by an IED. Thankfully, the doctors were able to effectively replace his spine with titanium. You can say I have a personal connection.
My biggest fear is for my 11 year old and my three month old. Our overstretched military cannot sustain the Iraq deployment long-term without a draft.
McCain has flip-flopped on all of the important issues in order to court favor with the hard-right he mistakenly believes hold the cards in his party. This is a fact.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 8:47:08 PM
I agree McCain has moved a bit to the right too much for me, but his Iraq stance has remained firm. Not as much can be said for Obama. If Bush has listened to his Generals and not Rummy, this war would probably be close to over by now and we would be in a state of occupation like we are in Germany and Korea. McCain advocated the firing of Rummy long before 2004. Putting himself at great risk withing the GOP, has Obama done anything to put himself at risk?
I have friends in Iraq too. I worry about them all the time, but every time I talk to them via email or when they come back for a year, they say the same thing. We can't leave those people, not with Iran, Al-Qeada and all the insurgents running around causing chaos. I believe that too, even though I'm more liberal on social and some fiscal issues.
Sorry bout you not having any stake, usually the anti war nuts are kids fresh out of college with no clue whats going on in the world.-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:53:14 PM
We are in a state of occupation. It has been for a long time.
I'm confident that if you could measure flip-flops effectively, McCain would lead that tally by far.
Thanks for calling me an "anti-war nut". I'm nothing of the sort. I supported our war in Afghanistan. I, like Obama, recognized the Iraq war as wrong on many levels. McCain is a war monger. He represents a failed foreign policy approach that this country cannot afford to continue. If Obama were John Kerry, I'd still support him against McCain. Obama, however, is so much more.
This is our opportunity. I'm confident it won't be for nothing.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 9:50:19 PM
I'm sure if we could measure flip flop Obama would be in the lead. Its all subjective, your blowing hot air up the wrong tree here.
So it goes back to the reasons for war. I agree we never should have gone into Iraq until Afghanistan was secure. That's another strike against Bush. But trying to link McCain to Bush is a far stretch and only the Obama religious left will believe it. McCain a war monger, that's cute. Hasn't Obama said that he would use "any means necessary" to defend Israel if Iran attacked. The very same words Bush used on Iraq? They could be construed as war mongering too. I know Barry would never do that, he'd probably let Israel nuke Iran and then blame Israel for all the mess that would ensue. Sorry I don't think Barry is as staunch a supporter of Israel as he needs everyone to believe.
So you would have the US having presidential level meetings with any terrorist or dictator on the planet to have a big hug-fest and that will solve all the worlds problems? Sorry I don't buy it either. At least McCain, has admitted to mistakes, something Barry hasn't done.-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 10:26:25 PM
You're putting a lot of words in people's mouths here, and it doesn't seem like you have any understanding of what international diplomacy is really like.
No one who's ever studied any form of diplomacy would call it a "hug-fest", ever. It's almost always a dangerous process, played for very, very high stakes. Usually both sides are balancing on a knife-edge, even small concessions must be skillfully fought for, and the slightest mistake can cost one side even more than a minor war might. In no case is it *ever* easy.
I have to believe Obama - and a good deal of his supporters - are well aware of this. I know I am. And I think it takes a lot more courage to call for peace than war. Given the nature of many responses on this board, it seems to me that it provokes far more anger, and makes more enemies.
Also, just to bring some reality back to your rhetoric - the U.S. currently has no official diplomatic relations with five countries (other than the two we are conducting wars in). These are Iran, Bhutan, Cuba, Somalia, and North Korea, and we also fail to have an embassy in Taiwan (which is not quite a country). That means we still have embassies in both Zimbabwe - ruled by Robert Mugabe, rated one of the most repressive dictators on the planet by just about everybody - and Burma, whose military ruling junta prevented military aid to millions and contributed to about 100000 needless deaths after its cyclone. I'm not listing probably several dozen, less flagrant, cases where your stated diplomatic criteria are not quite in evidence.
The idea that the U.S. doesn't deal with countries ruled with repressive dictators in any way is a nice piece of speechmaking, but it's only that. It's not borne out in reality - you can look up the facts I presented, and go to the website of both the U.S.-Zimbabwe and U.S.-Burma embassy if you so choose.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 10:44:29 PM
Thats what the UN is for. How's that track record.
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/21/2008 1:00:15 AM
You've failed to adequately respond to why we should threaten to remove diplomatic negotiations with some dictators and not others. So I will repeat my question - if the U.S. position truly is hardline as far as not dealing diplomatically with despotic regimes, why are there still embassies in Burma and Zimbabwe?
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 1:17:29 AM
Easy, the embassies were established before those government came into power. So how is having a state department embassy the same as Presidential Level talks? Embassies are there more for American citizens than for diplomacy.
Please enlighten me.-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/21/2008 12:35:49 PM
It isn't; I never claimed it was, and again you're trying to misrepresent me rather than engaging in above-board debate. However, my point still stands that for all the current rhetoric about the U.S. "not dealing with terrorists and despots", the reality is that we tend to do so quite often, and only stop when it becomes *politically* disadvantageous.
The current stock-in-trade phrase of those who advocate a complete lack of diplomacy with Iran is not It's not "we will continue to have embassies in countries with dubious records but presidential visits are off the table". It's "we don't deal with terrorists and despots" - all or nothing, hard-line, designed to give the appearance of fearlessness and toughness. But the reality is that it's politically motivated and designed to exploit whatever the current hatreds are.
And just as a final point - the embassy in Iran was established before the Ayatollah came to power there as well, yet we still pulled it out. So your argument about pre-existing embassies doesn't wash.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 06/20/2008 11:11:08 PM
Here is the convulated ad that moveon.org recently released that totally distorts (cuts short) the comment that McCain ,made awhile back that moveon.org totally distorted/took out of context about McCain talking about some presence in Iraq; he did not in any way state that he would keep the IRAQ going with more fighting, dying for 100 years. Pretty cheesy and pathetic ad as everyone knows what McCain really meant in his comment. :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS-LYtEFHjo
-
-
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 7:37:19 PM
Boy the Obama apologists are out in full force today, must be pay day.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 7:47:22 PM
Does Rush Limbaugh pay you cash or just in oral services?
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 8:14:25 PM
I hate Rush. I'm a one of those Clinton Democrats, that is going to vote for McCain this year, just to piss you people off... ain't democracy grand.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:33:37 PM
Fine with me. For every one of you, there's two independents or Obamcans on our side.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 8:40:41 PM
How many of us Clinton Dems are going to vote for McCain? Remember that for every one of us that votes McCain is a net loss of two votes for Obama.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/21/2008 5:03:09 PM
You're right, so the total will be 10, not 5, come November. I think we'll be O.K.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 8:37:18 PM
Yep that why Obama is trying so hard to get the Jewish vote...would have been a nobrainer for HIllary. Obama just can't unify his party.... bad for him.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 12:44:13 AM
And of course Hillary would have been such a great unifier. I am sure all those young people who flocked to Obama's campaign would have just leapt to hers. Somehow I don't think so.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 1:07:31 AM
Either that or vote for McCain....who would you have voted for? McCain or Clinton?
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 2:00:53 AM
If given a choice between McCain and Clinton - that's a no brainer - Clinton.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:21:42 AM
Thank you for proving my point. Hillary would have gotten your vote and all the Obama vote. Too bad the same can't be said of Obama. =)
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 2:46:23 AM
So what you're saying is Hillary should have won the nomination because her supporters were going to be angry and bitter if she lost but Obama supporters would have been reasonable in the reverse situation? Sounds like the only point is on the top of your head.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:07:39 AM
Still trying delude yourself, did you finally see that poll?
No the point that you made for me was that if Hills got the nomination, Obamabots like you would still have voted for her, however disgruntled. She would have won Florida, Ohio, Virginia, PA as well as all the state Obama will win, giving her and easy victory.
But with Barry, there is a lot of "bitter" Clinton Dems that are thinking of voting for McCain. When Obama supporters start accusing them of racism, yeah thats going to make them back Obama. Some unity.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:16:28 AM
Sorry sweetie - can't reward you for being angry and bitter. Oh wait, I forgot, you're not even a real Hillary supporter. Just another Republican doofus.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:32:28 AM
Sweetie? Are you on the down low too because I'm not... if you want c@&K I suggest you go talk to Alvy.
GODS....you really can't help making yourself look like a fool.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 5:26:40 AM
After the OMG reference, I figured you must be gay. Nothing to be ashamed of - just one more reason to support Obama - sweetie.
And you better hope Alvy doesn't see this post - you think I smacked you around tonight - wait to Alvy gets done with you.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 6:20:08 AM
Ohhhh the name calling.... I thought you Obama lot were supposed to be the tolerant ones?
What's Alvy gonna do....call me names.... oh so scared. If he scares you...that's not saying much...maybe you should grow a pair.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:34:44 PM
No name calling - just a reasonable observation based on the facts.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:46:10 PM
I don't know. Obama is leading McCain in national polls. If you folks are making an impact, you could fool me.
An Obamacan counts as two votes as well, as does a right-leaning independent.-
Posted By: McCainwillwin @ 06/20/2008 8:50:28 PM
Polls this far out are meaningless. BTW, right-leaning independents are going to support McCain, not osamabama.
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:55:38 PM
Polls are only meaningless if you don't like the result. Gotcha.
Right-leaning independents are coming to Obama because they are tired of the Republican party being hijacked by the extreme right. They recognize, correctly, that if Republicans continue on the current course they will be a minority party for at least a generation. They are responsible and true "conservatives", not the authoritarian conservatives that have taken over and destroyed a decent party.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 9:34:28 PM
The same Newsweek poll that had Obama up by 20 points 3 days before PA primary? Yeah, real credible.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/21/2008 5:04:48 PM
Can you posts the specifics on that poll? We wouldn't want people to think you are a liar as well as an idiot.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 8:41:23 PM
Why yes I can....
Newsweek 04/16 - 04/17 588 RV 54 35 Obama +19.0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
Sorry got egg on yoru face.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:01:37 AM
Actually, I took a look at the website I referenced. Here's what I found out:
1. There is no reference to a newsweek poll, as you claim.
2. I looked at all the polls for the PA primary, of the 76 taken only three had Obama in the lead, and only by 2 or 3 points (not the 20 you claim), and one showed a tie. The remaining 72 all had Clinton in the lead.
So there is no egg on my face, but let me hand you a napkin for yours.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:26:15 AM
Haha refuse to face the facts....its right there on Real Clear...I'm looking at it right now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/
president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
Are seriously so blinded by your adoration of Obama that you can't see straight?-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 3:00:16 AM
O.K., now I am going to have to make you look stupid - which is not that difficult to do. Cutting and pasting from the website you reference:
Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Spread
InsiderAdvantage 04/21 - 04/21 712 LV 49 42 Clinton +7.0
Zogby 04/20 - 04/21 675 LV 51 41 Clinton +10.0
InsiderAdvantage 04/20 - 04/20 747 LV 49 39 Clinton +10.0
Rasmussen 04/20 - 04/20 722 LV 49 44 Clinton +5.0
PPP (D) 04/19 - 04/20 2338 LV 46 49 Obama +3.0
Suffolk 04/19 - 04/20 600 LV 52 42 Clinton +10.0
Zogby Tracking 04/19 - 04/20 602 LV 48 42 Clinton +6.0
SurveyUSA 04/18 - 04/20 710 LV 50 44 Clinton +6.0
Quinnipiac 04/18 - 04/20 1027 LV 51 44 Clinton +7.0
Strategic Vision (R) 04/18 - 04/20 1200 LV 48 41 Clinton +7.0
Zogby Tracking 04/18 - 04/19 607 LV 46 43 Clinton +3.0
So let's go back to your original post - that a Newsweek Poll had Obama leading by 20 points 3 days prior to the PA primary and hence, the conclusion Newsweek is unreliable. For proof, you provided a website address. Hmmm
1. Newsweek Poll - No
2. 20 Point Marigin on ANY of the Polls provided - No
New conclusion - you're an idiot ... and a liar.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:32:06 AM
Ok since you started with the name calling.... your an Idiot and a Liar that won't see the truth if it slapped you across the face and squirted in your eye......
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
There is the article with the poll that you refuse to acknowledge.....a simple my bad is all I ask for.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:02:47 AM
And once again, I have to make you look stupid. Let's start with your original post:
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 21:34:28
Comment: The same Newsweek poll that had Obama up by 20 points 3 days before PA primary? Yeah, real credible.
First you back it up with some website that has nothing to do with Newsweek Polls, and the Polls the website has on PA have 72 out of 76 showing Clinton ahead.
Then you try to back it up with this website - which talks about a 20 point lead for Obama taken on a national poll, which has nothing to do with PA.
You do understand the difference between PA and the Nation? Maybe not.
Idiot.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 4:33:15 AM
I won't copy paste... so read up top.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/21/2008 5:26:09 PM
O.K., that was probably a little harsh - although I would like to see the article.
I've read some of your posts further down which were actually well thought out and articulate - I don't agree with them, but I can respect the logic behind them.
I'm still having a hard time with Clinton supporters voting for McCain. If you really believed in Clinton, you would vote for Obama - because his views are much closer to her's than McCain. You might grimace while doing it, but if you really believe in her message, you'll do it none the less.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 8:45:38 PM
Its only hard from your perspective, I'm assuming your a far left liberal, am I right?
I'm much more towards the center but still lean Left. That's why I loved Hillary and probably why you hated her.
Although McCain is on the right, he still is much more centered than most of the other members of the GOP, Olympia Snowe is the only one more centered than him.
While I don't agree with McCain on a some issues, I don't agree with Obama either.
But McCain will be tempered by a Democratic majority in Congress and Senate.
Obama will not, he will have full run to implement any and all of his good and bad policies.
McCain will HAVE to compromise, and he has shown that he can do that. So for me the choice is clear, McCain to bring some balance to Washington.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:14:59 AM
Actually, I'm not. I voted for Regan both terms and Bush senior during his first term. I voted for Bill Clinton both terms, followed by Al Gore and John Kerry (although I had a tough time pulling the lever for Kerry - I couldn't believe the Democrats couldn't find someone better than that).
This time around, I was leaning towards Obama - but not by a wide margin. He and Hillary see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues that are important to me - I actually agree more with Hillary on the health care issues. I didn't particularly care for the way she ran her campaign at the very end - I thought there were a fair number of half-truths and revisionist history when she didn't like the way things were turning out - but had she managed to pull the nomination, I would certianly have voted for her. I would have also been steadfastly defending her against the Obama supporters as well as the McCain supporters.
For me, the most important thing is to have a Democrat in the White House and strong control over both the Senate and the House. I think that is the only way we are going to clean up the 8 years of disaster that was the Bush administration. I also think the Republican party needs a wake up call that they let Bush and his cronies take the party way to far to the right. If they truly move more to the center, who knows, maybe I will vote that way sometime in the future. As for McCain, I disagree with him on too many issues and I think he is too out of touch with were this country really is right now. For me, that's a much bigger risk than any arguments about Obama's inexperience. Interestingly enough, if the Republicans had chosen Mitt Romney, I would have had a lot more to think about.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:32:40 AM
See I don't think its of the utmost importance to have a Dem in the White House. Look what Carter did? Obama is a lot like Carter you know. Total flop of a president.
So your mad at the GOP for going so far right but your going to vote for Obama, the most liberal leftist Senator in Congress.... yeah way to show them.
For me Obama's lack of judgment and complete lack of any responsibility trumps anything else. Just like Bush, Obama refuses to take the blame or accept responsibility for his bad judgments. He threw his own granny under the Bus before Wright. Can you honestly say that Rev. Wright was a paragon of virtue? How long would it have taken you to throw him out?-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 3:05:48 AM
I would take the time to respond, but I now realize that I was not too harsh. You're an idiot and a liar. You have no factual basis for any of your points, and when you provide one, you lie about it - hoping that no one will actually check it out. I also don't think you were every a Hillary supporter - you're just some Republian stooge trying to stir things up - and you're not even that good at it. Go home - you're completely out of your league.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:33:15 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
Sorry but you really need to get that c@$k out of your mouth cause you can't see straight.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 4:18:25 AM
And once again, I have to make you look stupid. Let's start with your original post:
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 21:34:28
Comment: The same Newsweek poll that had Obama up by 20 points 3 days before PA primary? Yeah, real credible.
First you back it up with some website that has nothing to do with Newsweek Polls, and the Polls the website has on PA have 72 out of 76 showing Clinton ahead.
Then you try to back it up with this website - which talks about a 20 point lead for Obama taken on a national poll, which has nothing to do with PA.
You do understand the difference between PA and the Nation? Maybe not.
Idiot.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: McCainwillwin @ 06/20/2008 9:01:37 PM
No gotcha. Just wait for the election and you'll see that these polls are meaningless. McCain is going to smoke osamabama!
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/21/2008 5:27:40 PM
You, on the other hand, are just an idiot.
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Skypoint @ 06/20/2008 9:06:03 PM
I know a lot of women as well as some Jewish folk that are voting Repulican for the first time in their lives!
-
Posted By: Spinner @ 06/20/2008 9:23:42 PM
II know a lot of women and Jewish people who are voting for Sen. Obama this time around. Why shouldn't we?
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 10:45:53 PM
There's a sizable contigent of Jewish folks out there who believe that Obama's opposition to the Iraq war represents a failure to have Israel's best interests at heart, as any aversion to further action against Muslims is seen as weakness and a failure to properly persecute Israel's enemies. I'm glad it's not universal among the Jewish population - it's very polarizing thinking.
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 06/20/2008 10:38:50 PM
http://jewagainstobama.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/why-wont-whites-jews-and-catholics-vote-for-obama/
-
-
-
Posted By: Skypoint @ 06/20/2008 9:13:40 PM
And please, explain to me what appeals to you about Obama, other that his proclacmation of change, which he has yet to define!
Were waiting!-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 9:32:41 PM
You should read a bit better, I'm voting for McCain not Obama. Obama has no appeal to me.
-
-
-
Posted By: sharenews @ 06/20/2008 10:28:21 PM
Im an independent and am also leaning towards McCain. There are many independents also voting for McCain, not just Obama you know.
-
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/21/2008 5:02:12 PM
Lucky for the us Obama supporters, the ranks of the angry and bitter Clinton supporters are thinning rapidly. By November, you'll just be an amusing anecdote
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 8:36:24 PM
Hey keep on "hoping" for that. Cause when you get proven wrong, your gonna be crying.
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 12:47:57 AM
There's no hoping about it - it's going to happen. Just wait for the debates. Most of the Hillary supporters who are still on the fence at that point will hop right off and onto Obama's side of the yard. Of course, there be a few that hold out just for spite. But you're not one of them - you've always been a Republican, haven't you.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 1:06:58 AM
Did you watch any of the previous Debates? Obama got spanked by Hills. Obama sucks when he isn't in front of a teleprompter. Why won't he do some town halls. You split the room down the middle, with Obama people on one side, McCain's on the other. Then pick the same number of questions from both sides for both candidates. Isn't that fair?
-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 1:59:48 AM
I watched the debates - although I happened to have my eyes and ears open. Hillary did a good job, and so did Obama - no one got spanked, although I could have done without Hillary whining about always being asked the first question. McCain is an imbecile - and he is going to look like one when it is time for the debates.
As far as the town halls go, that's just a McCain trick. He likes town halls where he will have lots of support, because he is afraid to debate Obama one-on-one. And the "town halls" McCain has done so far are a joke - invitation only, all Republicans. Some town hall.
And for the record, Obama hasn't refused to do them.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/13/no_agreement_on_obama-mccain_t.html-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 2:20:56 AM
Man, total Obama apologist....So I was right, you hated Hills now you hate McCain. Are you a ideological purist?
Obama looked a fool at the Debate. He could say "I agree with Clinton" enough because he couldn't think of anything else to say.
We will just have to wait until the Debates to see who wins, McCain or Obama. My money is on McCain. I'm sure Obamabots will whine and complain about the questions calling them distractions because they show Obama to be a fool or worse.... a typical politician.
Oh I know he hasn't come to an agreement....kinda like how he didn't come to an agreement on Campaign Finance...because he never bothered to talk....ha ha
You know Obama won't do them, you know it because Obama can't do unteleprompted speeches.-
Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/22/2008 2:43:26 AM
Ahhh ... you didn't read far enough down - never hated Hills - would have voted for her if she had gotten the nomination.
You can't possibly think that McCain is going to be able to outdo Obama in a debate. The guy is a fossil and completely out of touch.
For crying out loud, he believes the only sex education that should be taught in schools is abstinence. Abstenence? Come on, how out of touch can you be?-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/22/2008 3:03:55 AM
Out of touch... ha Obama doesn't want his kids punished with a baby.
Did you see the article about the HS kids making a prego pact in Mass?
Yes I do think McCain will out do Obama in a debate. Obama can't debate. Obviously you don't believe me so we will just have to wait and see.
Yes I did read that you liked Hills' healthcare, but when you talk about Hills' whining...that's a straight Obamabot statement. So I'm not so sure... just gonna have to take your word on that.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: McCainwillwin @ 06/20/2008 7:52:06 PM
How long have you been a member of Jeremiah Wright's church?
-
Posted By: Johnsonium @ 06/20/2008 8:12:11 PM
I don't belong to any church. I leave the superstitions to others.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 8:26:06 PM
At least your a man of reason, I respect that. We just have differing views on politics.
-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/20/2008 9:53:12 PM
sorry to to take that back, your just the same old Obama supporter, when you can't win them over with candy, try and be little and attack. Hey at least you haven't used the racist card yet.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Pearl Harbor @ 06/22/2008 1:18:30 PM
WHAT IS PAINFUL TO HEAR FROM SEN. OBAMA IS HIS SERMON OF AUDACITY OF HOPE.
WHY CAN'T HE JUST ADMIT THAT HE IS IN POLITICS AND HE IS JUST LIKE ONE OF THEM... AND ONE NY TIMES REPORTER EVEN SAID, THE BEST OF THEM ALL.
BUT THIS WILL ALSO LIKE THE REST OF THE ISSUES POINTED TO OBAMA. THE MSM WILL SHY AWAY FROM ELABORATING THE SAME.
IF MSM COULD ONLY DIRECTLY ELECT A PRESIDENT, OBAMA WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN A PRESIDENT SINCE 2007.
-
Posted By: Jo Chicago @ 06/20/2008 10:12:19 PM
Obama is the biggest phony panderer I have ever seen in my 51 years. He is responsible for nothing and, as Mona Charen brilliantly pointed out, uses the passive voice to explain away his flip-flops, outright lies, and politically expedient decisions. Please, oh please, Republican oppo researchers, please find something horrible about him so we can have a re-do. I would much rather see a Hillary-Mc Cain battle than see the mesmerized masses vote for Obimbo who has done nothing and says whatever suits the moment. NO OBAMA!
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/20/2008 10:39:03 PM
This is just about the most negative thing I've read in politics. You deliberately support smear tactics and dubious opposition research? Is there any room for issues, principles, and solutions in your political understanding?
Madam, I hope *fervently* that you are never elected to political office.-
Posted By: McCainwillwin @ 06/20/2008 11:59:48 PM
I'd vote for her.
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/21/2008 12:55:31 AM
What makes you think she would have the capabilities for political office? Or, to put it another way, how did she just "win" your vote? I'm a bit curious.
-
Posted By: McCainwillwin @ 06/21/2008 1:33:24 AM
The same could be asked about how osamabama has won your vote. What makes you and the liberal minions think he has the capabilities for president? I'm a bit curious.
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/21/2008 12:56:28 PM
Okay, to wrap this up quickly - because I have a life to get back to - my reasons for supporting Obama:
1. Regarding what's discussed in this article, Obama's decision to disregard public financing is a massive plus for me, and not a minus in any way. Public funding is collected from taxpayers who have no say in the short term of whether or not to pay said taxes; if they were to attempt to withhold it on reasons of disagreement they'd be jailed. This way Obama's money is coming from voluntary donations from citizens who are giving freely out of their own desires - a very large amount of small-dollar donations from citizens of many different income levels, as opposed to the more massive gifting by a small number of parties that forms the backbone of Washington insiders. It's reflective of a connection with the masses that I believe is a rarity in politics of any kind.
2. I support his calls for diplomacy as opposed to military action. Declaring war is relatively easy to do in this country; attempting peaceful resolutions is hard. The diplomatic solution does not preclude a military solution if diplomacy fails, however, the converse is not true, and once military action has been instigated it's very hard to get it off the table again.
3. His opposition to the Iraq War has been unwavering, as opposed to the majority of Congress who simply have gone along with the prevailing mentality - first for invasion, then for opposition to the occupation once things went to hell. Both he and McCain are alike in that they've stood their principles, but I believe McCain is dead wrong about our occupation ever becoming successful. If you caught the recent 200+ fatality bombing a few days ago, you may note that it's hard at this point to have *any* faith that those kinds of attacks won't simply continue.
4. Obama has focused more on defending himself and projecting his own qualifications, while both Hillary and McCain have had a bad tendency to define themselves in terms of their attitudes towards the opposition. All the candidates have engaged in attacks to a certain extent, and Obama's attacks on McCain haven't won any respect from me (vice versa as well, obviously), because defining oneself in terms of one's opposition leaves a gaping void after election day once that opposition disappears. But of the candidates, he's done the best job of standing by his issues rather than his opposition to others' issues.
5. McCain occasionally has a seriously bad temper and doesn't handle those situations that he can't directly control very well. Obama is almost universally patient and measured when speaking.-
Posted By: Zombiehero @ 06/21/2008 8:35:38 PM
Good for you. For all the points you made are reasons why I'm not voting for Obama.
1. He opted out because he knows the only way he can win is to out spend McCain. He tried that in OH and PA against Hillary and lost, so I guess he figures just throw more money at it.
2. He has backtracked on that issues too. First calling for Presidential Level talks. Then saying oh no I didn't really mean that, I meant this. Watch the youtube debate. The question was direct and his answer was clear. Now he is flip flopping. Although I agree, diplomacy must be used, Presidential level is not. Like we talked about earlier, embassies are cool and the UN can do its thing, but I firmly believe that Kim Jong Il, and Ahmenidajad should never have an audience in the White House.
3. Unwavering? Why did he say in 2003, that he would have voted exactly like bush? Why did he say "What would I have done? I don't know..."? Why has be kept supporting war funding, instead of voting nay and sponsoring a "troop only budget bill" instead of a blank check to Bush and Rummy?
The only candidate that has any right to be called "Unwavering" is Kucinich.
4.So subjective, I see Obama's whole campaign strategy is how he is different from the other candidate. Look at how he ran his Primary race, while He and Hillary had the same stances on most of the issues. Obama made Nafta and issue saying how "unlike Hillary" he didn't support it. Oh yeah now he flip flopped on that issue too.
5. Obama only sounds good when in front of the teleprompter. Thats why all his debates sucked. Why he didn't want to debate Hillary after he got hammered by ABC. Why he doesn't want to do town halls, why when his teleprompter died he looks lost like deer in headlights. McCain isn't a good speaker but hell I'm not voting for a person because how he speaks in front of a camera. If that were the criteria, I'd be voting for Sam Jackson or Christopher Walken.-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/22/2008 11:09:00 AM
1. I firmly believe McCain would have done the reverse in Obama's position, and my point about a level of mass support via small-dollar donations still stands. Still can't see that as a negative.
2. Believe it or not, I can see common ground with you on this. My opposition is to the hardline no-diplomacy rhetoric. I'm personally perfectly fine with denying Ahmadinejad and Jong Il presidential-level talks until they agree to less threats and more cooperation on the world scene.
3. Obama's support for the war appropriations he's voted for was meant to attempt to ensure that the troops had the supplies they needed. Sadly, the war appropriation bills in reality have mostly ended up lining the pockets of contractors, with our troops languishing. I would have preferred it had he opposed it completely, but between him and McCain, I'll still take his stance.
4. Yes, I'll give you this to a certain extent, at least with respect to McCain. It is subjective, but I would still give Obama an edge on self-defense rather than attack, as McCain hasn't done much to repudiate the Fox News propaganda machine (run by Roger Ailes, who was Nixon's campaign manager). I was mostly referring to the Democratic primaries there, where Hillary just blew her own foot off with consistent, ugly attacks.
5. I do disagree with this one. I believe McCain has a temper problem that goes deeper than the public speaking aspects of the issue; I've seen interviews he's given where he seems rebellious and combative. And I might ask you to rethink on this, as speechmaking is a *big* deal for any president, whose job has a lot to do with national morale and international appearances. Bush has been horrid at this. Conversely, it's one of the reasons Reagan was so good at his job.
But I want to thank you. I'd gladly debate more issues with you like this, because *you're not calling names and attacking me personally here*. You've got me thinking more deeply about what you mentioned, and - shockingly! - we even found something to agree on in talking point 2. There are a lot of good points you make, and if you can *keep the name-calling* out of it, we might be able to find even more common ground.
All the best.
-
-
-
Posted By: TheVigil @ 06/21/2008 1:38:43 AM
I'm very willing to qualify how Obama won my vote. Very glad to tell somebody how and why I was impressed by his attitudes and what convinces me of his competence, I truly am. I'll do it tomorrow after I've had some sleep. But I'd be curious to hear your response regarding how this woman won your trust as well.
-
-
-
-
-
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
- I'm not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have to say. Holder on terror trialsREUT
- The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist. Sarah Palin on the magazine coverCSM
Discuss