One BIG difference....O's negative campaign
Posted By: focus is on issues and on 2008-11-03
In Reply to: I'm speechless -- - sm
the SCARIEST notion of all...4 more years of 90%. He has not engaged in character assassination. He has criticized McC's policies, which is what ANY candidate from ANY party is entitled to do.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN ADS
Obama has had 61% of his ads negative throughout his ENTIRE campaign........... McCain only for one week.
Obama spent 47 million on negative ads.....McCain 27 million.
Yea, poor 'ole Obama....... just keeping believing in this guy. He'll sell you to the middle east and you'll be feeding their camels.
Obama's campaign called McCain's campaign.
This was reported an hour or two before McCain had his little news conference. Shouldn't take to heart too much of what McCain says as he is a known liar.
I don't see it as a negative. SM
As a matter of fact, it was a case he was assigned when he was in a law firm and his law firm, from what I understand, took pro bono cases from time to time.
A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Judge Roberts's involvement was minimal. "As in any other case," Ms. Healy said, "it is wrong to equate legal work product with personal opinions."
Don't get too excited. In any case, I don't really care.
okay, not only negative but arrogant!
A bit of humility would be in order.
Good breeding consists of concealing how much we think of ourselves and how little we think of the other person. - Mark Twain
cant prove a negative
pure speculation. Not been attacked by little green people from Mars either.
what a bunch of negative
nellies. Why even bother getting up in the morning with that burden of resentment on your shoulders?
Funny. I think CNN is negative.
x
Ever try to prove a negative?
The government can ''guestimate'' a number and send you a bill for what you ''owe''. Then I guess it's up to you to prove they're wrong? Not an enviable position to be in.
You are the most unhappy, negative person I have ever seen! nm
You are such a negative person - I saw your other posts.
So hmmmmmm
Iim ignoring all the negative dem psychobabble....
...doesn't change anything for me.
Sam = I'm ready for her to hit a home run tonight. It's the most important speech of her life. Can hardly wait....
Watched Romney talk earlier today, and he is such a class act. Looking forward to his speech tonight, too.
and to anyone thinking it....no, I won't read any negative posts after mine, so don't bother....
Bush's "Active/Negative" Presidency
Bush's Active/Negative Presidency
Recent events provide an especially good illustration of Bush's fateful - perhaps fatal - approach. Six generals who have served under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have called for his resignation - making a strong substantive case as to why he should resign. And they are not alone: Editorialists have also persuasively attacked Rumsfeld on the merits.
Yet Bush's defense of Rumsfeld was entirely substance-free. Bush simply told reporters in the Rose Garden that Rumsfeld would stay because I'm the decider and I decide what's best. He sounded much like a parent telling children how things would be: I'm the Daddy, that's why.
This, indeed, is how Bush sees the presidency, and it is a point of view that will cause him trouble.
Bush has never understood what presidential scholar Richard Neustadt discovered many years ago: In a democracy, the only real power the presidency commands is the power to persuade. Presidents have their bully pulpit, and the full attention of the news media, 24/7. In addition, they are given the benefit of the doubt when they go to the American people to ask for their support. But as effective as this power can be, it can be equally devastating when it languishes unused - or when a president pretends not to need to use it, as Bush has done.
Apparently, Bush does not realize that to lead he must continually renew his approval with the public. He is not, as he thinks, the decider. The public is the decider.
Bush is following the classic mistaken pattern of active/negative presidents: As Barber explained, they issue order after order, without public support, until they eventually dissipate the real powers they have -- until nothing [is] left but the shell of the office. Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all followed this pattern.
Active/negative presidents are risk-takers. (Consider the colossal risk Bush took with the Iraq invasion). And once they have taken a position, they lock on to failed courses of action and insist on rigidly holding steady, even when new facts indicate that flexibility is required.
The source of their rigidity is that they've become emotionally attached to their own positions; to change them, in their minds, would be to change their personal identity, their very essence. That, they are not willing to do at any cost.
Wilson rode his unpopular League of Nations proposal to his ruin; Hoover refused to let the federal government intervene to prevent or lessen a fiscal depression; Johnson escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam while misleading Americans (thereby making himself unelectable); and Nixon went down with his bogus defense of Watergate.
George Bush has misled America into a preemptive war in Iraq; he is using terrorism to claim that as Commander-in-Chief, he is above the law; and he refuses to acknowledge that American law prohibits torturing our enemies and warrantlessly wiretapping Americans.
Americans, increasingly, are not buying his justifications for any of these positions. Yet Bush has made no effort to persuade them that his actions are sound, prudent or productive; rather, he takes offense when anyone questions his unilateral powers. He responds as if personally insulted.
And this may be his only option: With Bush's limited rhetorical skills, it would be all but impossible for him to persuade any others than his most loyal supporters of his positions. His single salient virtue - as a campaigner - was the ability to stay on-message. He effectively (though inaccurately) portrayed both Al Gore and John Kerry as wafflers, whereas he found consistency in (over)simplifying the issues. But now, he cannot absorb the fact that his message is not one Americans want to hear - that he is being questioned, severely, and that staying on-message will be his downfall.
Other Presidents - other leaders, generally - have been able to listen to critics relatively impassively, believing that there is nothing personal about a debate about how best to achieve shared goals. Some have even turned detractors into supporters - something it's virtually impossible to imagine Bush doing. But not active/negative presidents. And not likely Bush.
The Danger of the Active/Negative President Facing A Congressional Rout
Active/negative presidents -- Barber tells us, and history shows -- are driven, persistent, and emphatic. Barber says their pervasive feeling is I must.
Barber's collective portrait of Wilson, Hoover, Johnson and Nixon now fits George W. Bush too: He sees himself as having begun with a high purpose, but as being continually forced to compromise in order to achieve the end state he vaguely envisions, Barber writes. He continues, Battered from all sides . . . he begins to feel his integrity slipping away from him . . . [and] after enduring all this for longer than any mortal should, he rebels and stands his ground. Masking his decision in whatever rhetoric is necessary, he rides the tiger to the end.
Bush's policies have incorporated risk from the outset. A few examples make that clear.
He took the risk that he could capture Osama bin Laden with a small group of CIA operatives and U.S. Army Special forces - and he failed. He took the risk that he could invade Iraq and control the country with fewer troops and less planning than the generals and State Department told him would be possible - and he failed. He took the risk that he could ignore the criminal laws prohibiting torture and the warrantless wiretapping of Americans without being caught - he failed. And he's taken the risk that he can cut the taxes for the rich and run up huge financial deficits without hurting the economy. This, too, will fail, though the consequences will likely fall on future presidents and generations who must repay Bush's debts.
For the whole article go to: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060421.html
I do not think there will be anything negative from family values voters...
I do not believe they will react negatively to this. What kind of man would McCain have been to decide not to choose her just because her daughter was pregnant and not married. What if she was pregnant and married? This whole thing just reeks. Like Obama said...children should not be involved in politics and this will not affect her ability to function as governor or as vice president. At least one on the left is being decent about this.
I agree totally with you. A very negative message. nm
.
I find it interesting that anything negative about Obama is
desperate and anything negative about McCain is truth--yet you call McCain supporters hyprocrites.
By my read, not a single negative response among them.
x
Obama's Approval Index hits negative territory
The approval index is computed by subtracting the percentage of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from those who strongly approve of it.
Once sporting an index in the +30 range, the Big BO (you may interpret "BO" however you wish) has in a matter of a mere handful of months fallen like Lucifer from Heaven. May his end be similarly appropriate, politically speaking. Let's make this goofy clown a one-term bozo.
The only difference between
Rudolph and Osama bin Laden is that one is Christian and one is Muslim. Other than that, there is no limit to their hatred.
To say that clinic workers at an abortion clinic are just as guilty as Rudolph is, at its best, INSANE. Those clinic workers broke no laws. Rudolph not only broke the law, he violated the "Thall shalt not kill" commandment that you all claim to believe in.
But, as with Bush in Iraq, it's okay if people kill, as long as they're the people you worship. I truly don't understand people like you, and I don't wish to. Frankly, you all frighten me, and I won't be reading your posts any more because I find them too disturbing.
Difference
I think it is a little bit different when it is coming from the president of the USA than someone driving on a freeway. At least, that is my opinion. Maybe you dont have high expectations for the leaders, I do.
big difference
The attorney is helping the person wronged by the corporation. The corporation is paying lobbyists to change laws so the little hurt guy cant get any satisfaction in court for being hurt. That is the difference. Big difference, if you ask me. Do you think Kenneth Lay lost sleep over all of his employess who lost jobs because of his criminal activity? He says he did but I doubt it.
I see the difference
The government is corrupt. The people are good. I'm so glad that you are posting here. I'm sure the people of Iran only want peace and freedom and to be out from under the rule of mean, evil people. Some people in the United States cannot comprehend what being under a tyrannical leader is all about. They have not experienced it like many countries in the Middle East have. We have a good leader, but many have been led to believe that he is not good. They don't understand that people around the world are being brutally killed and terorized by their own leaders who are supposed to have their best interests in mind. They are the truly oppressed and I pray for them daily. I pray that a peaceful solution will happen in Iran, and that the president will come to understand that he cannot win a war with the rest of the free world who will not let him have nuclear weapons because he has proven to be a man most untrustworthy and threatening to many countries including Israel and the U.S.
I believe the difference...
is between free speech and slander/libel. Everyone has a right to an opinion and to voicing that opinion as long as one does not libel and/or slander a particular individual(s). Since the widows were named and The ***WTC victims*** were not, one is free speech, albeit lunatic fringe free speech, and one is not.
To weigh in on the subject of Coulter; she makes her living saying and writing outrageous stuff. She is a shock jock. If she started writing books like William Safire does, no one would read them and she would not be on every talk show on the airwaves. It is her job to be repugnant and she does it quite well. I don't listen to her, don't read her books. I don't listen to Howard Stern either; nor Rush, nor Grover, nor anyone who makes my blood boil. It is an exercise in futility to try to change anyone's mind on the stuff these people say. You love them or hate them and so I just avoid them.
Same difference
Within 24 hours of taping? I reiterate the point I made above. And when you buy things from a private company unless they state it outright they might turn around sell your information to other advertisers. Unless you can produce where you signed a waiver of privacy, like you do at a doctor's office, you are not guaranteed that your information will be kept private.
I guess any good consumer could elect not to have phone service. That's one way to keep your conversations private. It's a bummer when it comes to communcation, but unless your plotting something illegal you really shouldn't have a problem should you?
Here's the difference between you and I.
I don't expect an apology. I do wonder though, why you rail so against Ann and had not a word to say about Ward Churchill. I would have liked some liberal input on that post and got none. I think what he said was a lot worse.
What's the difference?
It's okay for President Bush to get political but it's not okay for his employers (the American citizens) to do the same thing? That would be the norm in a fascist government ruled by a dictator like Iran. Is that where we're heading in America today?
Grandma's comment regarding the number of American troops killed in Iraq approaching the number of civilians killed on 9/11 was a very relevant comment, considering Bush himself exploited 9/11 in order to justify invading and occupying Iraq when it turns out Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
there IS a difference
i just stated in my above reply that yes I should have clearly stated I meant the people that use it as a form of birth control, who does THAT? not for medical reasons. I see there is a reason for it sometimes, of course.
the difference is
UAW workers were offered the same as workers in the U.S. who work for Honda, Toyota, etc. (not what they are paid working in foreign countries)
Yes, but there's a big difference between - sm
working in the government while concurrently believing in and practicing one's religion for their OWN USE.
What I have a huge problem with is when people use it to try to CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE.
Unfortunately, too many overzealous religious groups worldwide are doing just that.
key difference
Obama has proven himself over and over as thoughtful, knowledgible, and decent. SP has shown she has been heavily coached and has no real understanding or knowledge about foreign affairs. She has to have a teleprompter or a speech written for her. You in fact stated she kept the money from the Bridge to Alaska, confirming she has been repeating a lie about rejecting it on the campaign trail everyday..As far as Obama on O'Reilly. Of course I did not watch. The last thing I watched about Bill O'Reilly was where he threw the temper tantrum and ripped off the mike and threw on the counter and shouted obscenities at the staff because he did not understand the cue card.
I do believe him. What is the difference in....
believing him and believing what Obama says? Obama had lobbyists working for him; until just a month ago Joe biden's son was a professional lobbyist. Indeed, let's try to be objective here.
What's the difference?
xx
difference
One of the big differences between Palin and Clinton was their educations and years of experiences. How many years and how many colleges did it take Palin to get a journalism degree? Shows me that she really isn't that bright.
The difference is......
If it's not being put on this country's balance sheet as a HUGE debt, which is proper protocol for any business, that means they are saying it doesn't exist, it will just go away, and it will not be counted as liability. Who in the heck does that? You take your books to your local CPA and tell him you want him to do that and watch the look he gives you....... the look will be "fraud", and his response will be, "Uh, no, that is illegal", I don't do that".
If they want to pretend it is not our country's debt, then ask yourself who is overlooking the debt and what are they really doing with it......or better question, ask what they are really doing with your money? Without it being on the top line of the balance sheet, there is nothing that regulates they have to pay anything off. Get it?
There is a difference between the two
The consertatives you list are political commentators. They can have their own shows and columns, etc. Many liberals do.
Huffington Post puts itself out there as a newspaper, a NEWS source if you will. Problem is, they are all biased to the left so it's not being fair. Should not be called a newspaper if they can't be fair on both sides.
JMHO.
The difference is you believe her, I don't. S/M
And please, Sam, spare me the "sheeshes" and "good griefs." I don't belittle YOU because YOU don't agree with me. I never said anything about throwing her under the bus. She is looking out for herself and I feel sure her eyeballs are on the nomination for the 2012 election. If they are elected and I am wrong about them, you'll see me here fessing up.
What's the difference?
Investigating voter fraud and/or fraudulent candidate is one way to fix the economy. Do you really want someone in charge of your money that has paid a corrupt organization to pay people to go out and enlist voters, the same voter over and over, which by the way is illegal, as well as doctor documents and fraudulently sign people up that do not exist, including those already deceased, just to get the job? Anyone who would want that deserves whatever economy they get I suppose.
Obama's taxing us more to pay for all his social programs sure as heck isn't a way to fix the economy or have you overlooked that very significant point?
I think even you know the difference between the
xx
For those of you who don't know the difference...
between American news and real world news, here's a suggestion:
http://www.linktv.org/
Before you start in by saying, well that's just more liberal media, look who contributing authors are and where they are from. This is just one example of real world news. Step outside of the box for a while.
Big difference there
You are talking about a city of rapists, they raped men and women. This is not a story about a gay couple living as a married couple.
There's a difference...(sm)
Electing a president -- constitutional
Taking away civil rights -- unconstitutional.
If the majority were to rule in all instances, you would not have had the right to vote.
Big difference in an HMO and the
provision in this bill. Don't like the HMO, you can go somewhere else. With total government control, where will you go? No where, just kow tow. I don't know anyone who could think it is right to withhold medical care from the infirm, the elderly, and children with devastatinly incurable diseases, anyone not deemed by government as being a productive citizen worthy of having medical care, those who will be a drain on the healthcare system. I don't want to know anyone who could support withholding medical care from the most vulnerable in our country.
See, maybe that's the difference.
Mom made it without any meat in it, which I guess really shouldn't be considered chili, but that's what she called it. It was more tomato base and chili powder with beans and macaroni. Not really tasty at all and I still can't pass chili at the store or at a restaurant without cringing.
But the difference is..
He had, what? 8 years to put us in this mess?
You people are so excited about seeing PRESIDENT Obama fail, that you practically shout with glee when you think he is over his head.
He is very intelligent, unlike the past president, and will get us out of this mess.
The difference between me and you...(sm)
is that you think it's the end of the world if you have to help someone else, while I consider it a privilige to be in the position to do so. Greed isn't going to make all our problems go away. It didn't help anything over the last 8 years and it won't help in the future. The sooner people figure that out, the sooner we have a chance at actually restoring this country to what it should be.
What would be the difference ?
She said she was trying to end her pregnancy..........
but if she had been trying to commit suicide, the baby would have died as well. So where are the boundaries? The mother may have lived but the baby die or still end up born and in critical condition. What's the difference? They would no doubt go after her anyway for injury to her now born child but abortion is still perfectly okay because our government has no problem with the mother ending her pregnancy with the help of a physician but they do have a problem with a mother trying to end her pregnancy herself WITHOUT the aid of a doctor.
Go figure!!
How sorry for you that you don't know the difference!!!
nm
One big difference.
I am not telling this person what to do like you are. I am defending this person's right to choose. What she chooses to do is her business, not your business, my business, or anyone else's business.
There's no difference in what was in there before
And what is in there now. The same people running the country before are still running the country now.
Your point on foreign policy...let's see...the annointed one still is sending troops in an unjustified war. Since you think he's so much better than Bush was and it was all Bush's fault that 911 happened, then the O should pull our troops back because now that he's president nothing like that will ever happen again. Therefore we don't need to be at war anymore. The annointed one's plan for being at war, sending more troops to war, not having a timeline to bring our troops home, etc, etc, really shows the lack of experience and knowledge he has in foreign affairs. And so much for being the savior of the world as he was told at the G20 that "not no, but he!! no are we going to send our troops to a war you insist on continuing with".
I would not dismiss the whole torture thing yet, but am sure if it continues on you'll be fine with it because it's being done under the O's watch and that's just fine with you.
Then there is trippling the deficit, continued layoffs, the "hope" campaign tactic totally forgotten now that he's in. Americans have nothing to hope for or plan for. And this goes to show how little knowledge and experience he has in domestic affairs.
The time for "I feel your pain" is over. The time for him to keep his campaign promises is here. I often wonder if the girl (who boasted on TV that she doesn't have to worry about paying her rent, gas, or bills anymore). I wonder if she's gotten her checks from the O yet. I doubt it.
Growing government twice the size or more of what we had. Not honoring his promise to do away with the patriot act, but instead he's signed it and it's worse than it ever was under the Bush administration. Forcing young adults 18-24 to be drafted (but calling it volunteer mandatory - an oxymoron), not taxing people under 250K, oops I mean 225K, oops I mean 200K, oops I mean 150K. Any hopes I had for a decent person to hold the office, decent people in congress to work for the people and not for themselves, and any hopes for a future have fast dwindled.
And you posted an MSLSD article? Pleeeeaase. They lost any credibility a long time ago. Now they are just a bunch of whiny children because they are losing so many viewers.
The difference is............ sm
that "teabagging" or "teabaggers" is considered an offensive sexual term whereas Kool-aid drinkers and Obamatrons is not. I know you know the difference based on the last paragraph of you post.
Do you not know the difference...(sm)
between speech that incites violence versus voicing one's opinion? On Hannity's website he listed 3 types of revolutions (all of which would be violent -- as in no option for a peaceful revolution) and asked which one would you choose. That would be the same as asking someone would you like to stab, drown or suffocate this person? What do you honestly think the implication is with this type of rhetoric? Get a clue.
there is a big difference
A business is there to make money; a church or religious gathering is there to worship. Congregations of people do not form the basis of a business, the intent to make a profit does.
|
