Obama Campaign Theatrics --- woman faints @ rallies a scam?

[uofom3]

plan's are over-rated. :) dubya survived 8yrs and he has no fucking clue how to even tie his own shoe-laces

You wrote this while I was typing my previous post - this is exactly what I'm talking about.

[kishg]

"I'd be impressed if he still had some lead in the pencil"

Kishg - I appreciate the points you have made but you really havn't offer anything that is substantiated.

Obviously I encourage you to post and appreciate the differing opinion, but you're pretty much just dropping cliche' taglines here... Not offering counter arguments. Substantiate stuff to help facilitate a better discussion and more understanding.

are you for fucking real? this is r3v OT hello! this the home of pointless banter. im just playing along, don't get your panties in a bunch. i'm not counter arguing, because i don't see the point. they are all the same and frankly after bush the idiot, anyone will be better.

[uofom3]

Nah - I just had Fox Propoganada Channel on a little while ago and Hemmer and Chris Wallace were playing McCain's tune big time. "We have to cover it, because its out there . . ." was the quote at one point. They kept flashing on the ticker below "HUCKABEE: McCAIN IS A DECENT AND HONORABLE MAN".

All you guys just out of or still in College - keep it up with your talking points. You have yet to have much experience in the market and the real world.

You really think there is that big of a difference between McCain and Obama? Other than the war issue (granted that is the big issue), I doubt we would see much different one way or the other from a McCain or Obama administration.

And FWIW, I could care less if McCain put the wood to this lobbyist, unless it truly influenced his decision on what causes to champion. From what I understand, he did nothing more than write a couple of letters to the FCC saying they needed to make a decision on something for one of her clients - he did not attempt to suggest what decision the FCC should make, just that they needed to get off their ass and make a decison. If he fucked her, its no more relevent than what Clinton did with Lewinsky.

Its a non-story to me - that is unless they can find where he was playing favorites for the clients of the supposed paramour.

Dave, C'mon now....

- We all know Fox News is somewhat right biased. It's SUPER right compared to everything else. Anything else out there that is right of center is WAY right, like so right that I can't read it and stand by all of the points made.

- You're right about college, when people get out they will stop being idealistic and become more conservative. You make it sound like none of us have ever had a pay check cut, or worked for the "man". Also - a college student who just got "learn-ed" in economics probably knows more about how it works than 95% of the populous of this country. Nice thing about economics at the fundamental levels (not higher, theoretical stuff) is that it really is the way it works. It's not really up for debate as things like supply and demand, impacts on GDP, Net Exports, etc. are really easily understood and generally accepted as true (from a non-politically biased perspective). I just don't think that argument holds water I guess - that would be like saying the guy who dropped out of hs and started working a job knows more about economic structure by virtue of working for 40 years than someone schooled in the disciline (excluding him educating himself). Everytime you get your paycheck, you probably wish you didn't loose so much of it - no one is above that.

- Shit yes there is a difference. BUT, will it actually change anything in your life at the micro level? No. You can't honestly tell me that your life feels different between Clinton/Bush1/Bush2. The reality is that changes made at the macro level are spread out over 350 million people (i think that's about right for the pop.) and you really may not feel the drastic impact. You might feel more with Bush given that we had 9/11, Katrina, etc... This election, more than any other, I feel will bring about a change that we can really feel and lives will actually be different - and not ultimately for the better.

- I think it speaks to a persons integrity... but that's about it. It's his business, but you can't be liberal and point the finger now after Clinton got falaced in white house (I'm not saying you are, but some will). We can call it even

- It would be massively hypocritical and a career ender if his meddlings resulted in something that was skewed to a point of questionable legality.

[uofom3]

are you for fucking real? this is r3v OT hello! this the home of pointless banter. im just playing along, don't get your panties in a bunch. i'm not counter arguing, because i don't see the point. they are all the same and frankly after bush the idiot, anyone will be better.

I love it when people make my points for me.

[Dave]

Could you enlighten us? My experiance has nothing to do with it. Tell us where we are wrong. Simple logic and a day it economics class is all you need to understand that Obama's plan is a joke.

Look, I am not drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid bowl. His plan is no less of a joke than the Bush tax cuts.

I have not seen in my lifetime a candidate who generated more interest and excitement than Obama. At the same time, I am not sure I have seen one who does a better job of talking so much and saying so little.

His whole "just words" thing he lifted off of the Mass governor is a perfect example. Gee, "Yes we Can" . . . Can what????

No matter who ends up in the Oval office, it will continue to be about whose palms get greased, not what makes economic sense. Big pharma, big oil, big ag.business,etc, etc will still come out good, no matter who is in power.

[Hallen]

Nah - All you guys just out of or still in College - keep it up with your talking points. You have yet to have much experience in the market and the real world.

You really think there is that big of a difference between McCain and Obama? Other than the war issue (granted that is the big issue), I doubt we would see much different one way or the other from a McCain or Obama administration.

No, I have been out of college for a long time and have 15 years of real world experience working in private and publicly held businesses and 20 years of military experience. Those hard lessons teach you something about the behaviour of people.

You are right that the differences between the two front runners will be less in the end than is apparent now. But, that is part of the effect of our three legged governmental system.
However, Obama's proposed economic plans are... (I am struggling for the right words here because I don't want to over state it but I also don't want to just brush past it) they are designed to buy votes by promising money to people who didn't earn it and playing on people's fears and distrust of corporate America. I am not saying that Republicans don't also buy votes... they do via pork barrel politics and via "cooperative deals". But the Republican way is how business gets done in Washington by all parties (which doesn't make it better, it just is what it is for now).

I just find it very offensive and demeaning when a politician blatantly promises to give me money if I will vote for them and damn the consequences of those actions.

Obama (and Clinton) comes across as standing on principle and being there to help the little guy when we all know that is not true. He has principles, I am sure, but no honest and intelligent person could really believe that those economic policies are what is best for America. He is telling us that we are incapable of taking care of ourselves and we have no personal responsibility so therefore, smart people like him need to step in and take care of us. People call the Republican far Right the "thought police" but I would argue that a far bigger portion of the Democratic Left are more egregious offenders of the "thought police" policies than the Republican Right ever has been (but that is not fact, just my opinion).

Anybody remember the last political campaigns and a guy named Dan Rather and a story run about Bush? I am thinking the timing on this and the eagerness of the NY Times to find anything to discredit the obvious front runner for the Presidency probably jumped the gun on this story. Until they come up with witnesses and facts, it is just rumors and innuendo and should not have been published. One source without confirmation does not make news. Since the standards of reporting in this nation went down the tubes after Watergate, it is impossible to believe this type of story (and it is a story, not a report or news).

[LINUS]

are you for fucking real? this is r3v OT hello! this the home of pointless banter. im just playing along, don't get your panties in a bunch. i'm not counter arguing, because i don't see the point. they are all the same and frankly after bush the idiot, anyone will be better.

T's right you're not bringing anything to conversation here.

If you wish to step up, please enlighten us. Otherwise as was mentioned, leave well enough alone in my thread. So far this has been an intelligent, curse-free thread & you aren't helping things. Don't ruin the 1st infant-free political thread by bringing it down to the level that you normally run on. Make your own thread please.

[uofom3]

Look, I am not drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid bowl. His plan is no less of a joke than the Bush tax cuts.

I have not seen in my lifetime a candidate who generated more interest and excitement than Obama. At the same time, I am not sure I have seen one who does a better job of talking so much and saying so little.

His whole "just words" thing he lifted off of the Mass governor is a perfect example. Gee, "Yes we Can" . . . Can what????

No matter who ends up in the Oval office, it will continue to be about whose palms get greased, not what makes economic sense. Big pharma, big oil, big ag.business,etc, etc will still come out good, no matter who is in power.

Fair enough.

And you raise another excellenet point. It's not like big business isn't gettin greased by the dems. That's what cracks me up - at least some of the conservatives are honest about being bought and support the big bidness - whereas the dems still get fed and then shpeel about how they are evil and wrong.

Politics would be a great game if it weren't for the people involved.

[Hallen]

Look, I am not drinking from the Obama Kool-Aid bowl. His plan is no less of a joke than the Bush tax cuts.

I have not seen in my lifetime a candidate who generated more interest and excitement than Obama. At the same time, I am not sure I have seen one who does a better job of talking so much and saying so little.

His whole "just words" thing he lifted off of the Mass governor is a perfect example. Gee, "Yes we Can" . . . Can what????

No matter who ends up in the Oval office, it will continue to be about whose palms get greased, not what makes economic sense. Big pharma, big oil, big ag.business,etc, etc will still come out good, no matter who is in power.

I agree with most of that. I do believe that by leaving money in the hands of people who make it and spend it is better than channeling that money through the government and into the hands of people who didnt earn it. I believe that has a positive impact on the economy as a whole.

Your statement about Obama is true and that is why I fear for America. Not because of Obama's policies, but because so many Americans are swallowing his rhetoric and think it is meaningful. They are voting on emotion. They are voting on surface traits. They are wowed by theatrics. They have successfully suspended disbelief just like they were watching a movie. There are plenty of intelligent, kind people, many of whom I call my friend that have fallen for this drivel. It is very sad.

Obama won't kill America any more than Bill Clinton did when he was elected using exactly the same traits and tactics that Obama is using now. But it is just one more link in the chain that leads to failure.

[Dave]

Yes. Its the same reason a lot of people voted for Bush II in 2004. He played on those emotions by framing the argument that they would not be safe if they did not re-elect him. (never mind that his debacle of a war has made our position/security in the world worse rather than better).

At least Clinton had some experience as an executive, having been Governor. Obama - I still am not sure what the appeal is other than he's a hell of a speaker. If it comes down to him and McCain, I have to say I have a tough choice. I have always voted for the Democrat, going back to 88. But I am not so sure I would in that race.

[Dave]

Just to lighten it up - (Ben, I hope you dont mind) - anyone seen the YouTube video of the guy who claims that he sucked Obama's dick in the back of a limo and that he smoked crack with him?

[uofom3]

Dave, you're making excellent points - and I've heard that video is funny as shit but haven't pulled it up.

Anyone for a reason why you shouldn't have socialized healthcare?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/wo...html?ref=world

[Dave]

Anyone for a reason why you shouldn't have socialized healthcare?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/wo...html?ref=world

I thought we couldn't trust what they write in the NYT????




:p


I watched the video - it came up when I was looking for the one that shows Obama using, word for word, the "Just Words" speech from Deval Patrick. That guy is a nutter for sure.

[uofom3]

I thought we couldn't trust what they write in the NYT????




:p

You have to pander to your audience ;)... If I quoted Fox News - you wouldn't believe me :)

[Hallen]

Yes. Its the same reason a lot of people voted for Bush II in 2004. He played on those emotions by framing the argument that they would not be safe if they did not re-elect him. (never mind that his debacle of a war has made our position/security in the world worse rather than better).

At least Clinton had some experience as an executive, having been Governor. Obama - I still am not sure what the appeal is other than he's a hell of a speaker. If it comes down to him and McCain, I have to say I have a tough choice. I have always voted for the Democrat, going back to 88. But I am not so sure I would in that race.

Dave, you do make many good points, but I can't let this one go by without questioning it.

Where is the evidence to back up your statement that "his debacle of a war has made our position/security in the world worse rather than better"?

I am not trying to debate the decision on the war, but rather you throwing out a statement as fact that is definitely debatable. It sounds a bit too much like the trash that the main stream media spews out rather than something that has any sound reasoning or definitive fact behind it.

It is a can of worms and probably not something that we who don't have real security analysis and access to CIA data, etc could effectively argue though. I am just throwing it out there as a counter point.