Inside Barack Obama's Dream Machine

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Pabster

And for UberNeuman, get over yourself. If a state like Iowa with less black folks than some cities elsewhere can vote overwhelmingly for a black man, I don't see prejudice playing a part in 2008. I think we've moved far enough ahead in this country, to the point where a black man and/or a woman CAN be President.

I'm not speaking of the fair folks of Iowa, I was speaking of you...

Come election day, your little hand will be pushing the button to vote whom ever the Gop nom is...

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
Pabster -- You're posting thread after thread about Democrats like Hillary and Obama. Why is a dogmatic Bushwhacko neocon sycophant like you the least bit concerned about who the Democratic Party's nominee will be? :roll:

Because I'm not a looney left-wing partisan hack?

Neither am I. I post the truth, and I include links to prove what I say and to disprove your lies. That's something ass sniffing neocon Bushwhacko sycophants like you can't do for one good reason. The facts don't support your bullshit.

Go ahead. No matter how names you call me, repeating the same lies won't make them anymore true.

I care deeply about our Democracy. Not the letters behind someone's name.

You say the words, but you lie with every breath. You blatantly support your TRAITOR IN CHIEF, a facist wanna be Hitler and his wannabe fourth reich as they shred the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution, continue the daily MURDER of American troops in their war of LIES and commit CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY with their TORTURE.

BULLSHIT! If you were any kind of concerned American with any kind of concern about our nation, you'd speak up against such horrific crimes. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Continuing to lie and deny the Bushwhackos' crimes despite all the documented evidence against them means either you're one of the lying murderers and traitors, or you're functionally brain dead.

I asked you twice before, and I'll ask it again... Which is it? :roll:

:clock:

:clock:

:clock:

< crickets >

Is this guy for real?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Is this guy for real?

Absolutely! Are you?

 

[yankeesfan]

Too bad there couldn't ever be an Obama/McCain or McCain/Obama ticket.

 

[Noobtastic]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Is this guy for real?

Absolutely! Are you?

Lolz.

I've never seen someone gets so horny when talking about Bush's failings. Politicians love people like you.

 

[Lemon law]

There might have been a Kerry McCain ticket, but so Rumor has, McCain said no perhaps betting that if he kissed GWB's hand like a whipped dog, 2008 would be his year. Now its not looking all that bright for McCain's chance of getting the Republican nomination and even less bright for McCain's chances of winning the general election if he gets the nomination.

By 2012, McCain will be way too old to run again so 2008 is probably his last Harrah. Maybe he can be like Harold Stassen and always get a few token votes at post 2008 GOP conventions.

And can finally fade away with the I could have been a contender if I had had the courage to tell the truth.

The straight talk express, I don't think so.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There might have been a Kerry McCain ticket, but so Rumor has, McCain said no perhaps betting that if he kissed GWB's hand like a whipped dog, 2008 would be his year. Now its not looking all that bright for McCain's chance of getting the Republican nomination and even less bright for McCain's chances of winning the general election if he gets the nomination.

By 2012, McCain will be way too old to run again so 2008 is probably his last Harrah. Maybe he can be like Harold Stassen and always get a few token votes at post 2008 GOP conventions.

And can finally fade away with the I could have been a contender if I had had the courage to tell the truth.

The straight talk express, I don't think so.

He who sells his soul for fame loses his soul and his fame.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There might have been a Kerry McCain ticket...

And thank god there wasn't. Although the two are made for each other. Both political opportunists of the worst degree, flipping and flopping whichever way the winds are blowing.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
There might have been a Kerry McCain ticket...

And thank god there wasn't. Although the two are made for each other. Both political opportunists of the worst degree, flipping and flopping whichever way the winds are blowing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pabster ignores the fact that both Kerry and McCain have some core principles and were authentic military hero's who put their lives on the line. And unlike a broken clock that is right only twice a day, they are better flip flops that are more than sometimes right.

Unlike GWB&co. who are always flops. We have been there done that on many threads, its just damn hard to name a single thing GWB&co has done right. As I recall, the last time the subject came up, we only came up with the sea areas set aside in the Hawaiian Islands and nothing else for GWB&co. And they ain't done a damn thing right since.

Thats the funny thing about you pabs, you can see the sins in others but you can't see those same sins exist in far greater amounts in those people you tout.

You need either an eye examination or a brain transplant Pabster and I very much suspect the latter.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pabster ignores the fact that both Kerry and McCain have some core principles and were authentic military hero's who put their lives on the line. And unlike a broken clock that is right only twice a day, they are better flip flops that are more than sometimes right.

Yes, because military experience is the defining criteria for POTUS. I'm sure you felt the same way in 1992...and 1996.

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'd be happy voting for Obama.

it'd be a tough choice for me if it were Obama v McCain, though, and would likely boil down to their running mates.

How interesting that their VP choice should matter one bit.

because whoever their VP choices are, it stands to reason that they'd be the presumptive runners after either presidents term, not to mention the fact that they'd be a heartbeat away from the presidency anyways (might be more important in McCain's case, though he's about the same age as Reagan and his faculties seem in significantly better shape than RR's did)

It was just surprising to me because I think those 2 would be very different Presidents and there should be plenty of OTHER things to base your choice on.

 

[Lemon law]

And Pabster says---Yes, because military experience is the defining criteria for POTUS. I'm sure you felt the same way in 1992...and 1996.

And GWB has military experience as a national guard no show---or shall we talk about five deferment Cheney or the rest of the neocons who idea of military service is thats for the little people.

Granted Clinton didn't have any military service but he didn't get thousands of our military personnel killed or maimed. Or Carter who was only an Annapolis Grad and in charge of a boomer with his distinguished military career. Or maybe we should talk about Reagan who came no closer to military uniforms than a Hollywood prop room. But like Clinton, at least Reagan did not get us caught in any quagmires unless you want to talk about selling arms to Iran.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: loki8481
I'd be happy voting for Obama.

it'd be a tough choice for me if it were Obama v McCain, though, and would likely boil down to their running mates.

How interesting that their VP choice should matter one bit.

because whoever their VP choices are, it stands to reason that they'd be the presumptive runners after either presidents term, not to mention the fact that they'd be a heartbeat away from the presidency anyways (might be more important in McCain's case, though he's about the same age as Reagan and his faculties seem in significantly better shape than RR's did)

It was just surprising to me because I think those 2 would be very different Presidents and there should be plenty of OTHER things to base your choice on.

I think they'd be different in different ways.

I wish there was some way to merge the democrat domestic platform with Richardson's resume, Biden's foreign policy experience, John McCain's temperament/personality and Edwards' not-unattractive face.

if McCain were to get the R nod, I'd have to do some soul searching if Huckabee were the VP. I like Huckabee's domestic policies, assuming we get Governor Huckabee and not some completely new entity (see also: GW's transformation from bipartisan Governor Bush to The Decider), but I have great reservations on his social conservatism.

while I more than trust McCain not to try and legislate his morality, I'm not sure I could say the same of a minister.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And GWB has military experience as a national guard no show---or shall we talk about five deferment Cheney or the rest of the neocons who idea of military service is thats for the little people.

Why don't you show me those phony documents and prove it?

Granted Clinton didn't have any military service but he didn't get thousands of our military personnel killed or maimed. Or Carter who was only an Annapolis Grad and in charge of a boomer with his distinguished military career. Or maybe we should talk about Reagan who came no closer to military uniforms than a Hollywood prop room. But like Clinton, at least Reagan did not get us caught in any quagmires unless you want to talk about selling arms to Iran.

Precisely. Which is why I asked you about 1992 and 1996. You must have voted for George H.W. Bush in '92 and Bob Dole in '96...After all, they have the military experience. Right?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And GWB has military experience as a national guard no show---or shall we talk about five deferment Cheney or the rest of the neocons who idea of military service is thats for the little people.

Why don't you show me those phony documents and prove it?

Granted Clinton didn't have any military service but he didn't get thousands of our military personnel killed or maimed. Or Carter who was only an Annapolis Grad and in charge of a boomer with his distinguished military career. Or maybe we should talk about Reagan who came no closer to military uniforms than a Hollywood prop room. But like Clinton, at least Reagan did not get us caught in any quagmires unless you want to talk about selling arms to Iran.

Precisely. Which is why I asked you about 1992 and 1996. You must have voted for George H.W. Bush in '92 and Bob Dole in '96...After all, they have the military experience. Right?

Dance all you want but you will never convince me this country wouldn't have been better off with McCain at the Helm in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: Pabster
If a state like Iowa with less black folks than some cities elsewhere can vote overwhelmingly for a black man, I don't see prejudice playing a part in 2008. I think we've moved far enough ahead in this country, to the point where a black man and/or a woman CAN be President.

We'll find out in November.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Dance all you want but you will never convince me this country wouldn't have been better off with McCain at the Helm in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.

We'll never know. And why sit here talking about what might have been...or what could have been? This country needs to look forward, not backwards. I respect McCain for his service to this country, but he's emblematic of the corrupt establishment that controls Washington and locks out the average Joe. He's shown himself time and time again to be a political opportunist who will sway whichever way the wind blows. Just like Kerry.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Dance all you want but you will never convince me this country wouldn't have been better off with McCain at the Helm in 2000 or Kerry in 2004.

We'll never know. And why sit here talking about what might have been...or what could have been? This country needs to look forward, not backwards. I respect McCain for his service to this country, but he's emblematic of the corrupt establishment that controls Washington and locks out the average Joe. He's shown himself time and time again to be a political opportunist who will sway whichever way the wind blows. Just like Kerry.

In order to know where your going it helps to know where you've been.

 

[Nitemare]

Obama is definitely the only rose among the current democrat hopefuls.
I'd vote Paul, Huckabee or Obama..probably in that order.

 

[Pabster]

Paul or Obama...sure. Huckabee? No thanks. I don't want another "man of God" at the helm.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Paul or Obama...sure. Huckabee? No thanks. I don't want another "man of God" at the helm.

he supports the fairtax...so that kind of cancels out part of the negatives

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
he supports the fairtax...so that kind of cancels out part of the negatives

Which is going nowhere. Huckabee supports a lot of taxes, in fact. Another negative.

The last thing this country needs is another save-the-world man from Hope, Arkansas at the helm.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Nitemare
he supports the fairtax...so that kind of cancels out part of the negatives

Which is going nowhere. Huckabee supports a lot of taxes, in fact. Another negative.

The last thing this country needs is another save-the-world man from Hope, Arkansas at the helm.

the fairtax would eliminate most of the IRS, would make taxtime a breeze and would stop letting the middle class get fvcked over.

The IRS employees over 100,000 workers and has an operating cost of over 10 billion per year. Trimming the fat and spending 10-11 billion on anything else would be better for the US.


Not to mention that a federal income tax is unconstitutional.

 

[nageov3t]

as much as I rag on Fred Thompson, I actually liked what he had to say about his tax idea in the debate last night.

of course, I barely passed econ 101 in college, so take that for what you will

 

[StageLeft]

I have not YET seen (and hopefully won't) any evidence that makes me think he's just another washed up POS politician scum bag. And to say that this late in the game is something good (or I'm ignorant, or both; probably both). I don't know how biased I am with president palmar from 24 (black dude), but it's POSSIBLE that Obama will be one of the better presidents in a long time and he's really looking strong right now toward becoming one.