Obama

[Floyd Lawson]

Your arguments are week at best. First, an unsubstantiated rumor and now a link to a negative Obama article on a right wing so-called "News" source. Is this is the best that McCain supporters can come up with?

Who said I was a McCain supporter?

Here's a NYT column for you, can't get much more liberal than that!

[NLPRacing]

Who said I was a McCain supporter?

Here's a NYT column for you, can't get much more liberal than that!

 

I guess I just assumed. How about Obama non-supporter, better?

 

An article from another self proclaimed right wing website (NewsBusters - “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”), big surprise coming from you...

 

Do you do everything that Rush & Hannity tell you to do?

[stephenhawkings]

i didn't read all the replies but i bet hes too much of a puss to 'bomb bomb bomb iran' and besides that his arms are much too long just look at mccains they're nice and short !

[fmccap]

I guess I just assumed. How about Obama non-supporter, better?

The thing I see from all of you is that you guys have nobody to vote "for", just two to vote "against".

[Floyd Lawson]

I guess I just assumed. How about Obama non-supporter, better?

 

An article from another self proclaimed right wing website (NewsBusters - “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”), big surprise coming from you...

 

Do you do everything that Rush & Hannity tell you to do?

Stop dodging. Makes no difference where to article was quoted, it was from the NYT's:

 

You can now add New York Times columnist Bob Herbert to the growing list of liberal media members so concerned with the recent flip-flops by presumptive Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama that they're willing to publicly express their angst for all to see.

[NLPRacing]

The thing I see from all of you is that you guys have nobody to vote "for", just two to vote "against".

 

For many, this may be true. For me, I finally got to vote in the primary and have it count for someone that I want to vote for and I get to vote again for him in November.

 

Stop dodging. Makes no difference where to article was quoted, it was from the NYT's:

 

What am I dodging? You're the one that can't validate your rumor about Obama & BAM Racing and your other "reasons" are typical talking points from right wing media sources. You're starting to bore me...

[Floyd Lawson]

For many, this may be true. For me, I finally got to vote in the primary and have it count for someone that I want to vote for and I get to vote again for him in November.

 

 

 

What am I dodging? You're the one that can't validate your rumor about Obama & BAM Racing and your other "reasons" are typical talking points from right wing media sources. You're starting to bore me...

I willing to lay aside the BAM story, I can't reveal my source and I told you it doesn't matter to me whether you believe or not. But when I provide the link quoting the NY Times, you dismiss it as right wing. You obviously are not willing to discuss Obama's failings as a candidate, thus the "bore me" comment. Far be it from me to bore you, may I suggest that you exercise a lillte restraint and not reply to this post.

[NLPRacing]

...may I suggest that you exercise a little restraint and not reply to this post.

 

I sure will...

 

I don't necessarily dismiss it, I just have a hard time putting stock into something that is coming from an admitted biased source, that's all. I tried finding the original article on the New York Times, but couldn't find anything. So he may not be a perfect candidate for you, that's great.

 

I'm just questioning the basis of your arguments. If an article from the WeHateRepublicans.com website said McCain said we should bomb Canada (which is untrue) and therefore that's a reason not to vote for him, wouldn't you challenge it? What if their source was a secret insider and they didn't care if you believed it or not?

 

I had to reply, I couldn't let you get the last word...

[Floyd Lawson]

I sure will...

 

I don't necessarily dismiss it, I just have a hard time putting stock into something that is coming from an admitted biased source, that's all. I tried finding the original article on the New York Times, but couldn't find anything. So he may not be a perfect candidate for you, that's great.

 

I'm just questioning the basis of your arguments. If an article from the WeHateRepublicans.com website said McCain said we should bomb Canada (which is untrue) and therefore that's a reason not to vote for him, wouldn't you challenge it? What if their source was a secret insider and they didn't care if you believed it or not?

 

I had to reply, I couldn't let you get the last word...

I honestly don't believe that you are as naive about Obama's changing positions as you would have me believe. Just Goggle it and you will find a so-called liberal site. It's not that hard, but I suspect that you know that and know such weakness from a candidate is indefensible.

[NickF1011]

Obama Flip-flops

 

Find me a candidate who doesn't flip flop on issues. It's their job to flip flop in order to get votes. All politicians do it, unfortunately.

[Ron W.]

Find me a candidate who doesn't flip flop on issues.

 

 

Is there such a thing?

[fmccap]

Find me a candidate who doesn't flip flop on issues. It's their job to flip flop in order to get votes. All politicians do it, unfortunately.

In the end it's our fault, we are the ones that keep electing them.

[NickF1011]

In the end it's our fault, we are the ones that keep electing them.

 

Indeed. We need a Bulworth-type of candidate to run -- someone who would just rock the foundation of the system to the core. Of course, his candidacy would likely end in a similar manner. It's not kosher to mess with the status quo.

[RangerM]

Find me a candidate who doesn't flip flop on issues. It's their job to flip flop in order to get votes. All politicians do it, unfortunately.

 

Yes, but at least Obama takes less time doing it.

[Imawhosure]

Ranger,

 

You and I seem to disagree on one thing. You contend that BO (Barrack Obama) will win the Presidency.

 

Well my friend, BO has a huge problem besides his flip-flops, lolol.

 

You see, the republicans have (probably unknowingly) uncovered the biggest Achilles heal the dems have---------->one of their largest supporters, THE RADICAL ENVIRO NATION. You see, to pander to these extremists, BO has spoken RECORDED words that will come back to haunt him. Americans don't want to hear that their Messiah wants 5 buck a gallon gas, or that he won't drill for oil, or that he won't convert coal, or that he doesn't stand behind Ford and GM.

 

Trust me when I tell you that very soon on TV, you will see BO speaking these words; although they will be recorded from speeches past.

 

Now then, I want ANYONE to try and convince MR/MRS/Mz America that it is a good thing to pay that many dollars for a gallon of gas! I also want the same people, to convince FREE thinking UAW workers that throwing GM and Ford under the bus for enviro gains is good! Explain Messiahically, how brilliant it is NOT to allow drilling and be obstructionist. Also explain how it is brilliant to make our country ECO-SHANGRI-LA and send smokestack industrys over to China, when China has to shut down its factorys for the Olympics to clear the smog so the judges can see the contestants to rate them.............which could blow back here.

 

No Ranger, BO is in deep doo-doo. If he doesn't try and lie his way out of it and holds on to the ECO TERRORISTS, come November it won't even be close. If he does lie with recorded words in evidence, it may be closer, but his character will come under fire.

 

The best thing the Dems got going for them is their nonsensical (but brilliant) assertion that Mcain is Bush II. But the problem with that is already been taken care of, just not yet aired, lol.

 

The only thing that will hold BO in this race is the youngsters, and there isn't enough of them for him to achieve victory.

 

I believe you are going to see the biggest decline in one who supposedly was on high, since Moses was thrown out of Egypt.

 

Just watch the networks come August, lololololol!!!!!

[Floyd Lawson]

Ranger,

 

You and I seem to disagree on one thing. You contend that BO (Barrack Obama) will win the Presidency.

 

Well my friend, BO has a huge problem besides his flip-flops, lolol.

 

You see, the republicans have (probably unknowingly) uncovered the biggest Achilles heal the dems have---------->one of their largest supporters, THE RADICAL ENVIRO NATION. You see, to pander to these extremists, BO has spoken RECORDED words that will come back to haunt him. Americans don't want to hear that their Messiah wants 5 buck a gallon gas, or that he won't drill for oil, or that he won't convert coal, or that he doesn't stand behind Ford and GM.

 

Trust me when I tell you that very soon on TV, you will see BO speaking these words; although they will be recorded from speeches past.

 

Now then, I want ANYONE to try and convince MR/MRS/Mz America that it is a good thing to pay that many dollars for a gallon of gas! I also want the same people, to convince FREE thinking UAW workers that throwing GM and Ford under the bus for enviro gains is good! Explain Messiahically, how brilliant it is NOT to allow drilling and be obstructionist. Also explain how it is brilliant to make our country ECO-SHANGRI-LA and send smokestack industrys over to China, when China has to shut down its factorys for the Olympics to clear the smog so the judges can see the contestants to rate them.............which could blow back here.

 

No Ranger, BO is in deep doo-doo. If he doesn't try and lie his way out of it and holds on to the ECO TERRORISTS, come November it won't even be close. If he does lie with recorded words in evidence, it may be closer, but his character will come under fire.

 

The best thing the Dems got going for them is their nonsensical (but brilliant) assertion that Mcain is Bush II. But the problem with that is already been taken care of, just not yet aired, lol.

 

The only thing that will hold BO in this race is the youngsters, and there isn't enough of them for him to achieve victory.

 

I believe you are going to see the biggest decline in one who supposedly was on high, since Moses was thrown out of Egypt.

 

Just watch the networks come August, lololololol!!!!!

 

 

Exactly, the Democrats are finding themselves on the wrong side of the energy issue with the American people, and it going to cost them this election. Barry already has a problem with taking many sides of an issue, but when he is quoted as saying he wants $5. gas, is against drilling,coal and nuclear power it resounds with every American when they put fuel in their vehicles. And like you, I believe he'll be quoted saying these things in McCain ads.

[end of time]

After much thought, I realize that I need to quit being hard on the republicans (wanna beeees). It is in the bible. Weak people ask for tough leadership. They need it so they say that they are conserv. (what they mean is they are really weak and need to be led. They want a king. No matter how bad it is. I my self will vote for the big O. As there really is no choice. We can not afford another term of the kick em while there down republicans.

[RangerM]

Ranger,

 

You and I seem to disagree on one thing. You contend that BO (Barrack Obama) will win the Presidency.

 

Well my friend, BO has a huge problem besides his flip-flops, lolol.

 

-deleted for space-

 

I will grant you that if the election were held today (July 18, 2008), BO would likely win. That is not to say that I want him to win.

 

My statement above (Yes, but at least Obama takes less time doing it.) is sarcasm. Any person hoping to be the leader of the country cannot allow himself to be as indecisive as Obama appears to be. (based on his statements)

 

BO's biggest problem is time. A rose only keeps its fragrance for so long.

[Dale143]

After much thought, I realize that I need to quit being hard on the republicans (wanna beeees). It is in the bible. Weak people ask for tough leadership. They need it so they say that they are conserv. (what they mean is they are really weak and need to be led. They want a king. No matter how bad it is. I my self will vote for the big O. As there really is no choice. We can not afford another term of the kick em while there down republicans.

 

In time you will come around.

 

 

Amazing grace! How sweet the sound

That saved a wretch like me!

I once was lost, but now am found;

Was blind, but now I see......

[Floyd Lawson]

After much thought, I realize that I need to quit being hard on the republicans (wanna beeees). It is in the bible. Weak people ask for tough leadership. They need it so they say that they are conserv. (what they mean is they are really weak and need to be led. They want a king. No matter how bad it is. I my self will vote for the big O. As there really is no choice. We can not afford another term of the kick em while there down republicans.

I find your analogy interesting and a bit of truthful. I do like a strong leader. One who will fight and defeat communisim (Reagan) or challenge North Korea and Iran on their nuclear weapons programs and appoints judges who protect or 2nd ammendment rights (Bush) as opposed to a weak one, who when given the chance to take out OBL wussed out (Clinton). Not sure where you get the biblical connection. The opposite of that would be the Democats, who want to government to be their caretaker, providing them with free healthcare, jobs, low interest rate mortgages on homes that they can't afford, and continuation of entitlement programs that discourage personal responsibilty.

[NLPRacing]

I find your analogy interesting and a bit of truthful. I do like a strong leader. One who will fight and defeat communisim (Reagan) or challenge North Korea and Iran on their nuclear weapons programs and appoints judges who protect or 2nd ammendment rights (Bush) as opposed to a weak one, who when given the chance to take out OBL wussed out (Clinton). Not sure where you get the biblical connection. The opposite of that would be the Democats, who want to government to be their caretaker, providing them with free healthcare, jobs, low interest rate mortgages on homes that they can't afford, and continuation of entitlement programs that discourage personal responsibilty.

 

For the record, Clinton did attempt to assassinate Bin Laden. Unfortunately, he was as successful as Bush has been. But, at least Clinton tried. Reagan's accomplishments can be debated since he put this country into debt that we'll never be able to repay. North Korea achieved nuclear weapons under Bush's watch, I would hardly call that an accomplishment. Also, where is this "low interest rate mortgages on homes that they can't afford" coming from? If I'm not mistaken, most of these have been made under the watchful eye of the current administration. You really shouldn't use right wing media talking points as your arguments.

 

It's nice to know that Republicans are still clinging to the "Democats (sic), who want to government to be their caretaker" as their argument for not voting Democratic. We'll see how well that works this November.

[Edstock]

Is there such a thing?

If you've never seen it, check out a movie from the late 60's called "Putney Swope".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putney_Swope

 

 

Truth and Soul, Inc.

[Floyd Lawson]

For the record, Clinton did attempt to assassinate Bin Laden. Unfortunately, he was as successful as Bush has been. But, at least Clinton tried. Reagan's accomplishments can be debated since he put this country into debt that we'll never be able to repay. North Korea achieved nuclear weapons under Bush's watch, I would hardly call that an accomplishment. Also, where is this "low interest rate mortgages on homes that they can't afford" coming from? If I'm not mistaken, most of these have been made under the watchful eye of the current administration. You really shouldn't use right wing media talking points as your arguments.

 

It's nice to know that Republicans are still clinging to the "Democats (sic), who want to government to be their caretaker" as their argument for not voting Democratic. We'll see how well that works this November.

I thought you were bored, but it does seem that you are confused.

This may help.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Floyd Lawson

[suv_guy_19]

For the record, Clinton did attempt to assassinate Bin Laden. Unfortunately, he was as successful as Bush has been. But, at least Clinton tried. Reagan's accomplishments can be debated since he put this country into debt that we'll never be able to repay. North Korea achieved nuclear weapons under Bush's watch, I would hardly call that an accomplishment. Also, where is this "low interest rate mortgages on homes that they can't afford" coming from? If I'm not mistaken, most of these have been made under the watchful eye of the current administration. You really shouldn't use right wing media talking points as your arguments.

 

It's nice to know that Republicans are still clinging to the "Democats (sic), who want to government to be their caretaker" as their argument for not voting Democratic. We'll see how well that works this November.

 

 

Its so strange. Listening to most Republicans, you would think that Democrats weren't American, that they were trying to destroy the country. Its quite a pathetic argument when you really think of it. Just because someone has a different vision doesn't mean they don't like the country or that they're trying to destroy.

[Dale143]

Its so strange. Listening to most Republicans, you would think that Democrats weren't American, that they were trying to destroy the country. Its quite a pathetic argument when you really think of it. Just because someone has a different vision doesn't mean they don't like the country or that they're trying to destroy.

 

And the democratic congress approval rating is what?