|
|
Post by franko on Nov 9, 2008 18:46:00 GMT -5
Identifying Jimmy Jones with Obama? Sure they both have strong personalities and people follow them, but there's a little difference between a guy with a persecution complex claiming to be the messiah and a guy with bold ambition climbing the presidential ladder quicker than expected. . Are you going to tell me he did not cultivate his image as a "saviour"? Those practiced "far away" looks while spouting fifty "I will" a minute? The looks into the sky? "I'm on a journey"? "Follow me"? The mere fact that he keeps claiming that the country is "adrift" and salvation lays in following him? Sounds like most politicians to me. Some are just better at it than others. He was able to follow his script better than others. And he was smarter and more polished than McCain and Palin, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 9, 2008 19:08:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 9, 2008 19:42:09 GMT -5
Just read a MacLean's article that stated many Americans are comparing Obama's popularity to JFK's.
Sincerely hope there's a different outcome.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 9, 2008 20:34:51 GMT -5
HA....if you know where the "follow me", "I will", "salvation" vids are....would you post them please?
Thanks....
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 9, 2008 21:33:01 GMT -5
Just read a MacLean's article that stated many Americans are comparing Obama's popularity to JFK's. Sincerely hope there's a different outcome. Cheers. Seemed that the comparison was bound to come . . . and I [think I] posted elsewhere about the possibility of the very outcome are thinking about. Which will make him not only HA's saviour, but martyr for the cause as well. |
|
|
|
Post by gy on Nov 9, 2008 22:30:44 GMT -5
The Americans finally seem to have gotten over the absurd notion that they should be led by shallow, mediocre, intellectually incurious presidents who appoint unqualified Texas cronies to key posts. It took the sum of blindness to the possibility of a 9/11; an ill-considered invasion of Iraq based on lies, deception, and cover-ups; Katrina; Abu Ghraib; a loss of jobs overseas; deterioration of the environment and infrastructure; and a mother of all bank failures and recessions that recalls 1929 that ultimately led them to flush George W. Bush (and his would-be successors) down the toilet. If they had had a parliamentary system, he would have received a vote of no confidence before this. After all, his approval rating was under 30%.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 9, 2008 22:57:01 GMT -5
(I saw an interview of her last night when she got off the plane in Alaska. The reporter asked her if she was gearing up for 2012. Her reply "I haven't given that ...ahhm.. notion much time in the context ... uhmm....of giving it any thought" ..... It's that sort of muddle circular answers that women shied away from IMO ... thankfully too. If you think that Palin is bad, what do you say about the three point seven million "uhhs" that the Messiah sputters per hour? For me, he looks like the village idiot and just as bad as Dubya. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk5aAB7YlgUwww.youtube.com/watch?v=dtT5qnfKHEgMy point on Palin wasn't the pauses ... at least Obama gets to an eventual point ... if you take out the pauses in Palin's response it still doesn't make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 9, 2008 22:59:08 GMT -5
The Americans finally have their first unrigged election in 8 years ..... the far right are in shock.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 10, 2008 0:15:51 GMT -5
Seemed that the comparison was bound to come . . . and I [think I] posted elsewhere about the possibility of the very outcome are thinking about. Which will make him not only HA's saviour, but martyr for the cause as well. You want to explain your last sentence? It's deliberately vague. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 10, 2008 8:21:18 GMT -5
not deliberate.
"saviour" -- shoulda put the word in quotes
the cause -- "gotta finish what Obama started"
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 10, 2008 8:24:49 GMT -5
The Americans finally have their first unrigged election in 8 years ..... the far right are in shock. It's the same old song and dance, isn't it? Rush Limbaugh is a good example of that far-right thinking. He hates anyone non-Republican....and loves everyone Republican...no matter who it is. He is demeaning and discrediting Obama on a daily basis. Meanwhile, he defended Sarah Palin to the nth degree. Guaranteed, if Palin was a Democrat, Limbaugh would have had a heyday ridiculing her. ----------------------------------------- The left-wing radio/TV personalities do the same to the Republicans. ------------------------------------------ It's beyond predictable....and it's hard to believe people can be so narrow-minded. ------------------------------------------ Limbaugh even defended Bush on his response to Hurricane Katrina..... I know the commentary on this clip is from The Young Turks (a left-wing show).....but listen to Limbaugh's comments on their own. Pretty reprehensible to defend the Bush administration's response....but he even goes to the point of saying it would have been worse had Gore been in the White House. That's what I'm talking about. How far will some people go to defend their party...and demean other parties? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the fervent Obama supporters are just as guilty of this spin. Know what I haven't seen for about 10 seconds? A clip of Oprah in tears..... On election night, she was leaning on a guy in front of her and crying on his shoulder. The public/press interest in who that man was led Oprah to having him on her show last Friday. And it was shown in clip after clip on the weekend. What the? Here's an example. Why is this newsworthy? What a celebrity-driven, idolizing society we live in. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 10, 2008 11:57:12 GMT -5
The Americans finally have their first unrigged election in 8 years ..... the far right are in shock. Are you suggesting both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged so GWB could win? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 10, 2008 12:14:59 GMT -5
The Americans finally have their first unrigged election in 8 years ..... the far right are in shock. Are you suggesting both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged so GWB could win? And let's not forget how he is responsible for 9/11. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 10, 2008 12:22:49 GMT -5
not deliberate. "saviour" -- shoulda put the word in quotes the cause -- "gotta finish what Obama started" I still don't understand what you are saying in this post. Just read a MacLean's article that stated many Americans are comparing Obama's popularity to JFK's. Sincerely hope there's a different outcome. Cheers. Seemed that the comparison was bound to come . . . and I [think I] posted elsewhere about the possibility of the very outcome are thinking about. Which will make him not only HA's saviour, but martyr for the cause as well. Dis says that he is concerned and hopes for a different outcome from what happened to JFK. Then you say that you are thinking of the possibility of that outcome. Then you add that it would be my saviour? Who will be my "saviour"? If somone assasinates him? A martyr of which cause? I am not even sure of what you are saying but I certainly hope you are not implying that I would celebrate Obama's assassination. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 10, 2008 13:09:10 GMT -5
I still don't understand what you are saying in this post. I'll do what I can to try and clear things up. Seemed that the comparison was bound to come . . . and I [think I] posted elsewhere about the possibility of the very outcome are thinking about. Which will make him not only HA's saviour, but martyr for the cause as well. Dis says that he is concerned and hopes for a different outcome from what happened to JFK. Then you say that you are thinking of the possibility of that outcome. Then you add that it would be my saviour? Who will be my "saviour"? If somone assasinates him? A martyr of which cause? I am not even sure of what you are saying but I certainly hope you are not implying that I would celebrate Obama's assassination. Part one: you suggest that many people see Obama as the one who will fix everything wrong with the world up, which makes him the saviour. You disagree that he is one; that he is your (political) "saviour" is sarcastic. Part two: Dis is concerned that Obama may be targeted for assassination. I reply that I posted something like this [though more obliquely] in an earlier post. Should this happen it will build upon Obama's mystique and he will become a martyr for the "hope and change" cause and will rally the more leftist agenda [aside: I think he's more centrist than leftist when it comes down to it]. Thought you knew me better than that I would suggest that you would rejoice in an assassination! You may disagree with someone politically but you aren't that extreme! further aside: I did not vote for Mr. Dion!Is this better? Clearer? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 10, 2008 23:59:20 GMT -5
The Americans finally have their first unrigged election in 8 years ..... the far right are in shock. Are you suggesting both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged so GWB could win? They weren't? Hanging chads votes were discounted even though it was clear who the vote was for ... and then good ol Florida has "irregularities in voting" again in 2004, after the fact it shows that Kerry in all likelihood won Florida. Then the Supreme Court rules that Bush is the winner ... yet the Democrat contolled Senate stayed complicit in the guise of "for the good of the country" ... whatever, Kerry won the Presidency. And those voting machines cost Gore it in 2002. EDIT: (Not directed to you TNG, but to the board in general) And before I am labelled a "brain-washed Liberal", I didn't vote Liberal ... and I even gave Harper my vote once. (Once, but never again!) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 11, 2008 0:00:05 GMT -5
Are you suggesting both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged so GWB could win? And let's not forget how he is responsible for 9/11. Who said he was ... anyone here? It is this over the top crap stuff that belittles your point. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 11, 2008 1:12:10 GMT -5
Are you suggesting both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged so GWB could win? They weren't? Hanging chads votes were discounted even though it was clear who the vote was for ... and then good ol Florida has "irregularities in voting" again in 2004, after the fact it shows that Kerry in all likelihood won Florida. Then the Supreme Court rules that Bush is the winner ... yet the Democrat contolled Senate stayed complicit in the guise of "for the good of the country" ... whatever, Kerry won the Presidency. And those voting machines cost Gore it in 2002. The 2000 election was one of the closest in history. I think someone did the math to show that as few as 500 votes could've changed the outcome. However, it should be noted that if hadn't been close to begin with, Florida wouldn't have made much difference (for example, it probably would've helped Gore a lot to have won (his home state of) Tennessee). It seems to be that, if I was planning on stealing an election, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on the turn of one state, even if it was an electoral vote rich state. Or to be counting on some conspiracy that involves the Supreme Court and Congress keeping quiet (and no one reputable in the media finding out about it - the same media that was more than happy to endanger the life of a CIA agent and reported wantonly on various indiscreet actions by members of the house and senate). 2004 was not even close. I've heard some complaints about voting in Ohio, and electronic voting machines (as someone in IT, I readily admit this is a terrible idea) . But nothing specific and nothing that could have mustered the vote counts Kerry would've required to beat GWB. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 11, 2008 2:00:01 GMT -5
And let's not forget how he is responsible for 9/11. Who said he was ... anyone here? It is this over the top crap stuff that belittles your point. Reflexive, superficial "Bush did it" is kind is getting boring.... Let's see..... Hanging chads votes were discounted even though it was clear who the vote was for ... and then good ol Florida has "irregularities in voting" again in 2004, after the fact it shows that Kerry in all likelihood won Florida. Then the Supreme Court rules that Bush is the winner ... yet the Democrat contolled Senate stayed complicit in the guise of "for the good of the country" ... whatever, Kerry won the Presidency. And those voting machines cost Gore it in 2002. Care to counter the Supreme Courts decision with new insight of US Consitutinal Law? Care to produce non-partisan evidence of Democratic complicity? Reality is that the US voting is controlled by the individual states. With that, there are a myriad of what voting rights, regulations and technical differences. Compound that with special interest that are ready to lauch legal challanges on anything that doesn't suit their agenda and you have the making of a massive cluster pile-on. Had the current election been close, there would have been thousands of court challanges. In Florida alone, the Democrats had 5,000 lawyers at the ready. To selectivly pick through or to distill problems to simple "Bush did it" utterings is to ignore the shear complexity of the issues. The current economic problems alone travels from the Carter era, through three more presidents, several hundred congressman and senators before it even hits Bush's office. Not even considering how many special interest poverty groups worked to corrupt the system or people ready to abuse it. Yet, Bush did it. Bush administration was a failure on many fronts yet the pile-on of unsubstantiated or supercficial accusations is a failure of objectivity and reasoned thought. . |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 11, 2008 2:07:20 GMT -5
TNG, Are you still getting your monthly stipend from the Republican Party? I didn't get mine this month.   |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 11, 2008 2:17:32 GMT -5
2004 was not even close. I've heard some complaints about voting in Ohio, and electronic voting machines (as someone in IT, I readily admit this is a terrible idea) . But nothing specific and nothing that could have mustered the vote counts Kerry would've required to beat GWB. Had this one been close, I wish I had shares in legal offices. Something like 60,000 lawyers. With ACORN's shenanigans, it would of taken four years just to sort though the mess.....while mouthpieces would be fueling protests and riots across the inner cities. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 11, 2008 2:19:56 GMT -5
I still don't understand what you are saying in this post. I'll do what I can to try and clear things up. Dis says that he is concerned and hopes for a different outcome from what happened to JFK. Then you say that you are thinking of the possibility of that outcome. Then you add that it would be my saviour? Who will be my "saviour"? If somone assasinates him? A martyr of which cause? I am not even sure of what you are saying but I certainly hope you are not implying that I would celebrate Obama's assassination. Part one: you suggest that many people see Obama as the one who will fix everything wrong with the world up, which makes him the saviour. You disagree that he is one; that he is your (political) "saviour" is sarcastic. Part two: Dis is concerned that Obama may be targeted for assassination. I reply that I posted something like this [though more obliquely] in an earlier post. Should this happen it will build upon Obama's mystique and he will become a martyr for the "hope and change" cause and will rally the more leftist agenda [aside: I think he's more centrist than leftist when it comes down to it]. Thought you knew me better than that I would suggest that you would rejoice in an assassination! You may disagree with someone politically but you aren't that extreme! further aside: I did not vote for Mr. Dion!Is this better? Clearer? Apologies. I misinterpreted what you meant. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 11, 2008 2:39:10 GMT -5
I almost forgot about this....
About five years ago, one of my customers went under. Long story short, the son took over a moderately successful company and ran it into bankruptcy by taking off Friday's, month long golfing vacations and stripping the company through cash sales. Along with my $43,000 he took down almost 10 million dollars in loans and debts. At the debtors meeting he blamed his failure on......Bush. *sigh*
Mehh.....maybe that is why I have this reflexive head snap when I hear "Bush did it".
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 11, 2008 6:52:43 GMT -5
Are you suggesting both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged so GWB could win? They weren't? Hanging chads votes were discounted even though it was clear who the vote was for ... and then good ol Florida has "irregularities in voting" again in 2004, after the fact it shows that Kerry in all likelihood won Florida. Then the Supreme Court rules that Bush is the winner ... yet the Democrat contolled Senate stayed complicit in the guise of "for the good of the country" ... whatever, Kerry won the Presidency. And those voting machines cost Gore it in 2002. I think the word you were looking for was "stolen", not "rigged". |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 11, 2008 8:53:41 GMT -5
TNG, Are you still getting your monthly stipend from the Republican Party? I didn't get mine this month. You mean I can get paid for this? Dammit! |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 11, 2008 10:21:12 GMT -5
maybe that is why I have this reflexive head snap when I hear "Bush did it". And you should.....because it was Cheney.   Really though....you go all the way back to 1976 to point to Carter's Democratic term as starting this whole economic mess. Yet 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush Sr. couldn't rectify it? If they did, I'm sure Clinton messed it up again. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not that easy. It's not Leafs vs. Habs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we knew the truth about what goes on in that sphere....it would likely blow our minds. And if we had the power to change it for the better, we'd soon have trouble with our brake lines. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 11, 2008 14:02:51 GMT -5
Who said he was ... anyone here? It is this over the top crap stuff that belittles your point. Reflexive, superficial "Bush did it" is kind is getting boring.... Let's see..... Hanging chads votes were discounted even though it was clear who the vote was for ... and then good ol Florida has "irregularities in voting" again in 2004, after the fact it shows that Kerry in all likelihood won Florida. Then the Supreme Court rules that Bush is the winner ... yet the Democrat contolled Senate stayed complicit in the guise of "for the good of the country" ... whatever, Kerry won the Presidency. And those voting machines cost Gore it in 2002. Care to counter the Supreme Courts decision with new insight of US Consitutinal Law? Care to produce non-partisan evidence of Democratic complicity? Reality is that the US voting is controlled by the individual states. With that, there are a myriad of what voting rights, regulations and technical differences. Compound that with special interest that are ready to lauch legal challanges on anything that doesn't suit their agenda and you have the making of a massive cluster pile-on. Had the current election been close, there would have been thousands of court challanges. In Florida alone, the Democrats had 5,000 lawyers at the ready. To selectivly pick through or to distill problems to simple "Bush did it" utterings is to ignore the shear complexity of the issues. The current economic problems alone travels from the Carter era, through three more presidents, several hundred congressman and senators before it even hits Bush's office. Not even considering how many special interest poverty groups worked to corrupt the system or people ready to abuse it. Yet, Bush did it. Bush administration was a failure on many fronts yet the pile-on of unsubstantiated or supercficial accusations is a failure of objectivity and reasoned thought. . Show me once where I said "It's Bush's fault"....just once please.... Your "Let's see" is not one, because I said it was a rigged election ... I never said Bush had a hand in it. But alas, his brother being governor of the state that gave him the presidency twice (and was suppose to be the heir apparent to the Republicans) ... well thats fishy. Again, I reiterate, Bush did not have a hand in this - but to look past the discrepancies at the "stolen" (thanks franko) election is pretty partisan. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Nov 11, 2008 14:13:38 GMT -5
But alas, his brother being governor of the state that gave him the presidency twice ... well thats fishy. If I may.... ...you're correct in stating the deciding state in election #1 was Florida, however if I remember correctly, in election #2 Virginia "going red" sewed it up for the Republicans. Either way, your point is well taken. Oh, BTW...have I mentioned that "W" is a twit? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 11, 2008 15:22:09 GMT -5
Show me once where I said "It's Bush's fault"....just once please.... Your "Let's see" is not one, because I said it was a rigged election ... I never said Bush had a hand in it. But alas, his brother being governor of the state that gave him the presidency twice (and was suppose to be the heir apparent to the Republicans) ... well thats fishy. Again, I reiterate, Bush did not have a hand in this - but to look past the discrepancies at the "stolen" (thanks franko) election is pretty partisan. You're saying "it's the republicans" is no different than saying "it was Bush". Different name, same ideal - a person or group of people conspired together to (successfully) steal the Presidency of the U.S.A. But let's look at your claims. You use voting "irregularities" as proof positive that the election was rigged/stolen etc. Since there were also voting irregularities this year (including in Florida, where some voters were unable to vote due to long lineups) I guess we can say that Obama has stolen this most recent election. The fact of the matter is that only in a theoretical total recount of the state of Florida (including re-polling the populace - essentially means re-running the election) does Al Gore have a shot at a win in 2000. If you look at the recounts, even the suspended recounts that Gore wanted, the numbers were not going his way. The margins were slimmer, but he would not pick up enough votes to win the state. In Florida, elections have a tendency not to run smoothly. I remember there being a hubbub about midterm elections two years ago. But because GWB won, and his brother is the governor, and you dislike Bush (how could any rational person not) it was obviously stolen. Hey, George and Jeb's daddy used to be the head of the CIA. I bet they went around "silencing" dissenters too. I mean if you're going for a conspiracy theory, why not go whole hog? |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Nov 11, 2008 22:29:37 GMT -5
Show me once where I said "It's Bush's fault"....just once please.... Your "Let's see" is not one, because I said it was a rigged election ... I never said Bush had a hand in it. But alas, his brother being governor of the state that gave him the presidency twice (and was suppose to be the heir apparent to the Republicans) ... well thats fishy. Again, I reiterate, Bush did not have a hand in this - but to look past the discrepancies at the "stolen" (thanks franko) election is pretty partisan. You're saying "it's the republicans" is no different than saying "it was Bush". Different name, same ideal - a person or group of people conspired together to (successfully) steal the Presidency of the U.S.A. But let's look at your claims. You use voting "irregularities" as proof positive that the election was rigged/stolen etc. Since there were also voting irregularities this year (including in Florida, where some voters were unable to vote due to long lineups) I guess we can say that Obama has stolen this most recent election. The fact of the matter is that only in a theoretical total recount of the state of Florida (including re-polling the populace - essentially means re-running the election) does Al Gore have a shot at a win in 2000. If you look at the recounts, even the suspended recounts that Gore wanted, the numbers were not going his way. The margins were slimmer, but he would not pick up enough votes to win the state. In Florida, elections have a tendency not to run smoothly. I remember there being a hubbub about midterm elections two years ago. But because GWB won, and his brother is the governor, and you dislike Bush (how could any rational person not) it was obviously stolen. Hey, George and Jeb's daddy used to be the head of the CIA. I bet they went around "silencing" dissenters too. I mean if you're going for a conspiracy theory, why not go whole hog? Much like your "saviour" conspiracy theory (IMO, that "theory" was the hog and his entire family)... you don't like Obama because his rise is quick and now tens of millions of Americans have some sort of illusions of grandeur complexes.... well I can not like Bush over something silly like starting wars and winninf fishy elections. |
|
