|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Aug 1, 2008 6:48:19 GMT -5
I think television is McCain's worst enemy. He just seems to keep shooting himself in the foot. He's now managed to piss off some of his greatest contributers - the Hiltons - by equating their granddaughter with Obama. Plus, his attempts to be "hip" just come off as sad and desperate.
I think Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates. It doesn't have anything to do with how I lean politically. Obama is just the better speaker/debater. McCain couldn't even cut it against his fellow Republicans. I remember the republican debates at the Reagan Library. Romney would catch McCain in a lie, and he'd just keep going like he didn't even realize he got caught! The man's got no substance to him. Everything he says seems fake and rehearsed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasbow on Aug 1, 2008 7:01:18 GMT -5
I think television is McCain's worst enemy. He just seems to keep shooting himself in the foot. He's now managed to piss off some of his greatest contributers - the Hiltons - by equating their granddaughter with Obama. Plus, his attempts to be "hip" just come off as sad and desperate. I think Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates. It doesn't have anything to do with how I lean politically. Obama is just the better speaker/debater. McCain couldn't even cut it against his fellow Republicans. I remember the republican debates at the Reagan Library. Romney would catch McCain in a lie, and he'd just keep going like he didn't even realize he got caught! The man's got no substance to him. Everything he says seems fake and rehearsed. Apparently you haven't seen Obama when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him. I expect to hear a whole lot of stammering from both candidates during their debates. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Aug 1, 2008 7:06:55 GMT -5
I agree. However, when unscripted McCain is a much better speaker than Obama. Obama stutters and can't come up with a coherent sentence (much like Bush).
|
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Aug 1, 2008 7:08:33 GMT -5
I think television is McCain's worst enemy. He just seems to keep shooting himself in the foot. He's now managed to piss off some of his greatest contributers - the Hiltons - by equating their granddaughter with Obama. Plus, his attempts to be "hip" just come off as sad and desperate. I think Obama is going to destroy McCain in the debates. It doesn't have anything to do with how I lean politically. Obama is just the better speaker/debater. McCain couldn't even cut it against his fellow Republicans. I remember the republican debates at the Reagan Library. Romney would catch McCain in a lie, and he'd just keep going like he didn't even realize he got caught! The man's got no substance to him. Everything he says seems fake and rehearsed. Apparently you haven't seen Obama when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him. I expect to hear a whole lot of stammering from both candidates during their debates. He has his ups and downs, that's for sure. I was just expecting so much more from him, but he's proved that he's just politics as usual. Now more than ever did we need a really good candidate, but the ruling party that pretends to be two decided to give us some more snoozers this year. |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Aug 1, 2008 7:12:01 GMT -5
I agree. However, when unscripted McCain is a much better speaker than Obama. Obama stutters and can't come up with a coherent sentence (much like Bush). You should have seen Bush in the 90's. Totally different than he is today. Seriously, the man was SHARP. Check out this video: |
|
|
|
Post by dasbow on Aug 1, 2008 7:13:39 GMT -5
Apparently you haven't seen Obama when he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him. I expect to hear a whole lot of stammering from both candidates during their debates. He has his ups and downs, that's for sure. I was just expecting so much more from him, but he's proved that he's just politics as usual. Now more than ever did we need a really good candidate, but the ruling party that pretends to be two decided to give us some more snoozers this year. No kidding. I was hoping for way better than McCain. Reminds me of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Aug 1, 2008 7:17:25 GMT -5
He has his ups and downs, that's for sure. I was just expecting so much more from him, but he's proved that he's just politics as usual. Now more than ever did we need a really good candidate, but the ruling party that pretends to be two decided to give us some more snoozers this year. No kidding. I was hoping for way better than McCain. Reminds me of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Was it just me who found it really strange Romney dropped out when he did? He was behind, sure, but McCain's lead wasn't insurmountable. Romney would have made a far better executive than McCain, that's for damn sure. I even kind of liked Mike Huckabee other than his quote about changing the constitution to bring it more in line with Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 1, 2008 7:27:12 GMT -5
I agree. However, when unscripted McCain is a much better speaker than Obama. Obama stutters and can't come up with a coherent sentence (much like Bush). You should have seen Bush in the 90's. Totally different than he is today. Seriously, the man was SHARP. Check out this video: If nothing else, this is a ringing endorsement for cocaine. |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Aug 1, 2008 9:15:27 GMT -5
No kidding. I was hoping for way better than McCain. Reminds me of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Was it just me who found it really strange Romney dropped out when he did? He was behind, sure, but McCain's lead wasn't insurmountable. Romney would have made a far better executive than McCain, that's for damn sure. I even kind of liked Mike Huckabee other than his quote about changing the constitution to bring it more in line with Christianity. Or him denying evolution? The dude is fucking crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Aug 1, 2008 10:17:00 GMT -5
I liked romney as well, if nothing else, the dude definetly looked presidential....albeit with bulletproof hair.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasbow on Aug 1, 2008 12:32:25 GMT -5
No kidding. I was hoping for way better than McCain. Reminds me of the South Park episode where they had to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich. Was it just me who found it really strange Romney dropped out when he did? He was behind, sure, but McCain's lead wasn't insurmountable. Romney would have made a far better executive than McCain, that's for damn sure. I even kind of liked Mike Huckabee other than his quote about changing the constitution to bring it more in line with Christianity. Huckabee colluded with McCain in a couple states, W Va being one if I remember correctly, keeping Mitt from winning those states outright. He was never going to be able to make up the delegates. I liked Mitt, because he had a lot of solid executive experience as a governor and running the US Olympic Committee. Plus, as governor of Massachusetts, he proved he could work with an overwhelmingly Democratic State House and Senate. Maybe a bit of a stiff shirt, but also a highly competent executive. |
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Aug 8, 2008 0:51:21 GMT -5
I agree. However, when unscripted McCain is a much better speaker than Obama. Obama stutters and can't come up with a coherent sentence (much like Bush). 100% Correct! Barack might sound like a great speaker but the SNL impersonator sounds better. That's how much he sucks. Look up the video of John McCain with George Stephanapolis (or however he spells it) and George Stephan... challenged McCain and McCain started to lose his temper with the ex-communications director for Bill Clinton. He won that fight and if he can do the same against Obama, McCain will be the winner of atleast one of the debates. Obama couldn't debate against Hillary Clinton! Hopefully John McCain will lose his temper with Barack and make people realize what a joke Barack Obama really is! |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Aug 8, 2008 19:03:37 GMT -5
Obama couldn't debate against Hillary Clinton! 1. Yes he could. 2. Is this supposed to be an insult? Is Hillary Clinton some sort of slouch? Do you have anything to offer, other than blustering on about how evil Obama is without actually adding anything of substance to back it up? |
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Aug 8, 2008 21:02:44 GMT -5
Obama couldn't debate against Hillary Clinton! 1. Yes he could. 2. Is this supposed to be an insult? Is Hillary Clinton some sort of slouch? Do you have anything to offer, other than blustering on about how evil Obama is without actually adding anything of substance to back it up? Let me just say that Hillary Clinton is much better than Obama. This is a complement to Hillary Clinton. If it was Clinton vs. McCain I would have a hard time deciding who to vote for. Barack Obama does not answer the questions that could clear his name. Anytime I hear him speak, he dances around the answers the questions that would clear his name from all the doubts (Rev. Wright, his muslim turned atheist father that abandoned him, the fact that he was completely lost when he was young and spent many hours in the back of churches trying to find himself, lack of experience, being too soft) from people who try to understand him and get to the bottom of who this man really is. But instead he sits there and takes the question and re-words it for the moderator without answering it. Just go back and watch some of the debates. All the doubts all have been talked about in all the news articles, politcal talk shows, etc. Go back and look at them. There was a particular article in the July 21 edition of Newsweek that leaves me scratching my head. www.newsweek.com/id/145971 www.newsweek.com/id/151233There also have been many books written all about the point I am trying to make. www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-ap-books-anti-obama,0,5183489.story And Some more: www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13657Also check these out: Day 1: Obama's Great Lie "Barack Obama's message that he is a reformer is a great lie," says National Review's David Freddoso. His new book The Case Against Barack Obama states, "If Barack Obama is a reformer, he may be the first reformer ever to become president of the United States before doing anything serious in the name of reform." A quick look at Obama's record demonstrates his lack of willingness to engage in change and reform, dating from the beginning of his political career and continuing in his current service as U.S. senator. Obama has a history of sidestepping controversial issues and votes–indeed, he voted "present" nearly 130 times while in the Illinois state senate, rather than take a stand and vote "yay" or "nay." Recently reformers in Obama's home state asked for help in breaking a log jam blocking the passage of several anti-corruption bills to help clean up Illinois's state government-bills that mirror proposals Obama has promised as a presidential candidate. Obama could've done so with one phone call to his close friend and political godfather, but instead did nothing. Because of his refusal to take any action for reform, the bills were killed and only a weakened version of one of the seven reforms passed. Barack Obama has clearly demonstrated his ability to play the Chicago political crony game in order to move himself up in the ranks of Democratic leadership. He refused to engage in controversial issues and votes and his record is a sign to all voters that one thing is true: Barack Obama is in no way the great reformer he claims to be. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day 3: Obama the Slumlord Senator During his time in Illinois, some of Barack Obama’s most important donors and fundraisers were slumlords, including convicted felon Tony Rezko, who lined their pockets with taxpayers’ money from public projects Obama pushed through the legislature. In his new book, The Case Against Barack Obama, journalist David Freddoso exposes Rezko and other Obama cronies who financed Obama’s political career, contributing several hundred thousand dollars to his campaigns, while Obama helped funnel government subsidies to these Chicago slumlords to help them build low-income housing. So what did the Illinois taxpayers get out of these deals? * Allison Davis, Obama’s former law firm boss, built several slums which were famous for the chronic plumbing failures that caused sewage to back up into residents’ sinks. Obama actually wrote letters to city and state officials supporting a bid by Rezko and Davis to get $14.6 million from the taxpayers to fund housing for seniors. * Cecil Butler, another Obama donor, had one of his apartment complexes confiscated by the government when city inspectors found over 1,800 code violations. * Valerie Jarrett, an Obama fundraiser and advisor, was the chief executive of a company that managed a housing complex that became so run-down it was seized by the federal government. * Tony Rezko’s housing company, Rezmar, raked in more than $100 million in loans from the city, state and federal government to fix up 30 Chicago buildings for low-income housing. All of the buildings have failed financially: As of 2007, 17 have gone into foreclosure, and 6 have been boarded up. Meanwhile, the city of Chicago has sued Rezmar at least a dozen times for failing to heat its buildings. Obama’s support for slumlords and corrupt developers proves once again that his claim to be a “reformer” is, as author David Freddoso points out, a great lie. |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Aug 9, 2008 10:26:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Aug 10, 2008 20:01:22 GMT -5
I am no sensationalist and I don't think the books are 100% accurate. But if you read the Newsweek articles about how lost he was when he was young, does not make me feel safe. There are just too many questions about Barack Obama and that's one of the reasons why I will never vote for him. What I don't understand is why anyone would fall head over heels for a candidate who has very little, next to no experience in the Senate. |
|
|
|
Post by dasbow on Aug 11, 2008 9:43:39 GMT -5
I am no sensationalist and I don't think the books are 100% accurate. But if you read the Newsweek articles about how lost he was when he was young, does not make me feel safe. There are just too many questions about Barack Obama and that's one of the reasons why I will never vote for him. What I don't understand is why anyone would fall head over heels for a candidate who has very little, next to no experience in the Senate. He's got a whole 143 days work experience in the Senate. You couldn't get promoted to manager at McDonald's after only 143 days on the job. |
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Aug 11, 2008 10:25:20 GMT -5
I am no sensationalist and I don't think the books are 100% accurate. But if you read the Newsweek articles about how lost he was when he was young, does not make me feel safe. There are just too many questions about Barack Obama and that's one of the reasons why I will never vote for him. What I don't understand is why anyone would fall head over heels for a candidate who has very little, next to no experience in the Senate. He's got a whole 143 days work experience in the Senate. You couldn't get promoted to manager at McDonald's after only 143 days on the job. You can(be a McManager), if you speak Spanish. ;D |
|
