Poster is very correct. Obama did NOT beat Clinton
Posted By: but nominated anyway... ???? on 2008-10-15
In Reply to: Very well said by a poster on another - board................sm
And NOW, this big fiasco with the global banking system, concidentally just a month before this orchestrated election?
I've always wondered why everything got so hush hush when it was obvious Hillary Clinton had won the nomination but was suddenly pushed to the side and here's this man who has extremely concerning ties with people you would tell your own relative to stay away from.
And the millions of dollars he gets from unknown sources OUTSIDE this country.
I'm just glad McCain hasn't stooped to betraying his country like Obama. Something is very stinky in Denmark!!!
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
Poster is correct
If someone gets on this board and says anything about Obama you don't like, O lovers go ballistic. They want facts, they get facts, and then instead of admitting they weren't aware, they just attack because that's all they got.
I'm not even republican and I can see how close-minded you are. You believe anything said about Obama is a lie, even if the facts are out there. You immediately call the poster a liar without even looking at the source posted, etc.
Please do not try to sound so open minded.....you are not!
Okay...then the initial poster was correct.
Just wanted to make sure I understood you.
Dear poster: at least get the grammar correct in
nm
Here Macula, Correct link - thanks to poster below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE
To a great extent, it is Frank's fault, previous poster correct.
Barney Frank and the rest of the democrats in charge of Congress now, will be laughing at you, too....at all of us.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure if Bill Clinton signed this into law, but it surely came to be
under his watch.
Unlike the "Bush supporters" of this day and time, I can and will admit when a president I admired (Bill Clinton) has done something I disagree with.
Ah, correct me if I am wrong, but Obama...sm
was president of the Harvard Law Review, not the job for someone who needs notes and a teleprompter to make an intelligent speech.
I thought poster had remarked about Obama
xx
Clinton v Obama
Anyone know anything about Jimmy Carter? Most people (even Republicans) agree that he was/is an exceptionally good man, maybe the most moral man in recent years. From what I have read, though, he was not a 'beltway insider" and therefore not able to get anything done.
Having said that, I thing Obama is a good man and I think Hillary is bascially a good woman. However I am afraid Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, a truly good man who is unable to be very effective.
Just my thoughts!
Clinton if FL and MI get revote, Obama if they don't
x
Still more than Obama has. As much as Bill Clinton had...
when he was elected President, not VP. If he had enough experience to be Pres with only experience as a governor, so has she. Can't have it both ways.
As Clinton said, the Obama dream is a
nm
The group that met with Obama & Clinton in Chantilly, VA? nm
z
That would explain why you slam Obama, hate Clinton
nm
LOL! You beat me to it!
I was going to post that on this board so that those who were interested would watch it.
I'm not only going to watch it, I've got my VCR set to record it, as well. I believe it will be very interesting and revealing.
Don't beat yourself up too much GP sm
I remember your prediction that McCain would win. I had serious doubts at that time because of the way Obama "won" the nomination over Hillary. It just seemed too easy, like it was all orchestrated. Then the election night...same thing. I really think McCain conceded too prematurely, not that he would have won had he not conceded but that it seemed a little early in the evening.
I believe there has been a long sequence of events dating back who knows how far that have led up to Obama's soon-to-be presidency. I also don't believe that he is the vehicle of change that 52% of this country thinks he is but rather a puppet on a string. I believe and have believed since he won the election that he is a pawn in a larger game, one that the American people have no idea how big or how sinister it really is. Anytime a politician rockets from obscurity into the limelight as fast as Obama did, you can bet your bottom dollar that there is someone or something behind him that caused that. I have long said that there is more going on in DC than meets the eye...or is even imagined in the mind...of the American people. It goes further than "what happens in DC stays in DC."
There are dead beat
dads all over, white, black, hispanic, etc. Honestly, there are a lot of dead beat moms out there too.
One thing I don't get and maybe I don't get cause I'm white.....but Jesse Jackson made a comment about Obama not doing anything about blacks in prison. What the heck is Obama supposed to do? I mean....you do the crime.....you do the time. So what is it that Obama is supopsed to do here.....or anyone for that matter?
As much as that "our God should beat their god(s)"
Plenty of pastor shame to go around. Why do you suppose McCain has put Rev. Wright on his "off limits" list?
This was fun, you guys beat me, I got a
67%, but it was fun, Thanks!
Probably because we beat the streets
What did you do for your candidate?
Unity!...not! They are also preparing to beat the
nm
And the beat goes on...$21M from feds for airport
...that already has an airport!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/25/federal-government-funds-new-million-airport-alaska-town-residents/
Never think that you've seen the stupidest waste of our money by the government. There's something even dumber coming tomorrow.
You have outlined a perfect example why we were beat in November. sm
People are tired of the dirty fighting. If you want to fight, don't act like a bunch of 3 year olds on a chat board. Namecalling and wishing people ill is not going to win you anything but disdain. I certainly don't want you representing me on the left. Do you know what they are talking about on the conservative board? Current affairs and dying war heroes. In other words, SUBSTANTIAL stuff. How about trying that here for a change instead of the totally ridiculous Google searches. My God.
What? The Bible has beat out Ann Coulter for top book sales?
How could that be? 
Oh, I can beat that. A picture of liberal tolerance and love for the troops. SM
I can't beat comparison but I like the fact she knows, it amazes me you call some of these people
NM
Let's blame Clinton...Let's blame Obama.
The FACT is that Bush BECAME prez on 01/20/01. He was told by Clinton to beware!! It was Bush's duty to know, to care what was going on.... the FACT is he didn't give a rat's patooty!!! FACT is he was on vacation most of his first 7 months in office. The FACT is he stared into space for 7 minutes after being told America was under attack while kindergarteners were reading "MY PET GOAT." I am so sick of the LIES you people want to ram down my throat. And when Obama takes office, God-willing, I am positive he will be under a microscope like NO president has ever been as there is a different standard set for him and never has a president-elect undergone so much criticisizm BEFORE taking office.
You are correct
the thing is we can find common ground with people who we don't always agree with 100%. Blair tends to be more socialistic, but he is unified in the fact that terrorism is the worst threat to our world right now, and we have to stop it at all costs. Social agendas come second to him. Safety is 1st.
You are correct
I'm sure there are some wonderful people in Iran!! You included. It's good that you can the government is scary though. Here are some words from Iranian president AhMADinejad from just yesterday...
Ahmadinejad warned the West that trying to force it to abandon uranium enrichment would cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians.
From your comments it sounds as if this a false statement since you love America. You of all people I'm sure appreciates America!!
Yes, of course you are correct
However, my post topic was literally just a couple posts below yours and it seemed unlikely that you would have not noticed the duplication in monikers. This board may indeed be available world-wide, however, there is a fairly small group of folks who routinely post.
My point was simply that your posting may have erroneously led folks to believe that I was posting both pro and anti-liberal messages within a few posts of each other. That would be rather confusing to say the least and it would be thoughtless to confuse and/or mislead anyone who might be using this board, whether in the U.S. or outside of the U.S.
You are correct about the $40K....
that is the SCHIP program as it has been over the past 10 years (although income levels have gone up some from the start of it). The expansion of the program was to include the $80K families. This bill was about expansion of the program. Letting the program continue as it was was not the issue. The expansion was the issue. Bush would not have vetoed it if they had not sought to expand it that much. They knew he would veto it if they left that in, and they wanted him to veto it to score political points. That I do not understand. Yes, some Republicans voted for it too, also for political reasons, so if the fallout was really bad they could come back and say "Oh i voted FOR it." Kinda like the Iraq war resolution...lots of Dems voted for it...yada yada.
I want to correct myself on the above...
I was wrong about the poverty level. The figure quoted for a family of four at 300% of the poverty line is $62,000 so he was close on that. However, the bill does not state those people over that level will not get on it. It says the matching rate from the feds might not be available. Then we have the EXCEPTION...the waiver. That opens the door for New York and every other state who wishes to, to expand the program as high as they want to go. That is what Bush was talking about. The waiver makes it possible, and not only possible, probable.
Just wanted to be sure my facts were correct.
Thanks.
Yes you are 100% correct!!!
By george you are right!!! EVERY SINGLE POSTER ON THIS BOARD IS ME!!!!!! Except for Observer, of course, and a few old American Girl postings! I admit it, I am guilty, you have caught me. I have authored every single post you read on here. It keeps me very very busy but it's worth it!!!
There I have "fessed up and I feel sooooooooo much better. Whew! Thank you Observer for helping me to do the right thing.
You are correct - however, you were the one...
Yes, you are correct, a lot of people don't give middle names second thoughts, and certainly there is nothing to worry about when mentioning his name in full, but when you smear it like its a dirty word, I call that a dirty shame. I was simply stating why don't you say Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton or John Sydney McCain, no you don't, therefore it seems when people don't treat one candidate equal to the other they are up to something. I have no problem with his middle name. I think its a beautiful name. I also think Sydney is a beautiful name.. Second just because someone posts a long post does not mean they copy from other articles. I happened to write the post myself, however, if you would like a much longer one there are plenty that I can copy and paste from - just let me know....happy to oblige. :-)
Correct!
Strange how it's permissible to spread all kinds of rumors about McCain but off limits to mention the facts about Obama's past and present associates, such as the Reverend whose sermons he claimed he never heard.
Sam would be correct
nm
You are correct and I think you are going to see it...
more and more as this campaign goes on. I think it has finally happened. The slumbering lion is waking up. :)
I am sure you are correct, but please,
be specific as me was.
Well.....if you are correct in
assuming that she and her husband aren't working their butts off....at least she isn't living beyond her means regardless of how many hours she works. At least she doesn't want a handout from the government and money given to her that she hasn't earned. There are people making as much as she does a year and are well beyond their means with toys, cars, homes, etc. Crying that they are victims and requesting a handout.
The most disgusting thing that I have ever seen was during Christmas. Every year my church does an angel tree. Every year I would take names of children and their ages and their interest and go out and buy them gifts so they would have something for Christmas. I wanted to help. What kid doesn't deserve a nice Christmas....ya know. So I went out and spent a lot of money on these kids. Come to find out....these kids weren't poor. Their parents drove newer and more expensive cars than I drove. The parents were only out for a free handout....and that sickens me. I felt used. I so wanted to help people who really needed help. Not people who were just looking for a free handout come Christmas time.
Unfortunately you are correct. s/m
Unions don't have any clout anymore thanks to the Reagan years. Without the ability to strike, what can they do? While my husband, as a retiree, has excellent benefits, it is something that is not available to workers retiring now and in the future. Fact is, we are worried that his benefits may be cut. They have raised the retirement age and will have to pay more for their medical insurance. Why? Because they have lost members. People who worked at CF with my husband and weren't of retirement age for the most part had to take non-union jobs which paid far less causing many of them to lose their homes and file bankruptcy. Did anyone hear about them? I guess not. That was in 2001 and truckers are worse off today than they were then as are most American workers.
People have let the unions that people fought for go down the tubes. American workers bought into the "unions have outlived their usefulness, aren't needed any more" from the Reagan years. Unhuh and we see how much the employers care about their employees now. Unions are no different than politics. They are no better or worse than the people who support them. Basically the clout of the unions came from people that had the fortitude to stand up for their rights and stand together. Unfortunately we don't have that any more, it's more like, "I've got mine, sorry about you."
Unfortunately, since McCain says Reagan is his hero, I expect if he is elected the American workers can expect to be further shafted. JMO of course.
You are correct on that one.
Consider that the tax issue will have to pass Congress unless my memory fails me. I would say middle-class is more like $80,000 to $150,000, depending on whether you fall at the lower or upper end. As I understand it what Obama is seeking to do is do away with Bush's tax cuts, which WILL affect just about everyone. The tax cuts, as many of Bush's policies, was a bad idea in the beginning. Now because of his poor management of the economy EVERYONE is going to pay more taxes and many of those free loaders we talk about may get told to get to work as they should be. Obama's plan appears to be to be nothing more than rolling back Bush's ill advised tax cuts in the first place.
You are correct..........sm
Arnold can run for Senate (provided he has his citizenship papers in order, and I believe he probably does. Not sure what the laws are in Kollyfawnya.) but he could never run for the POTUS or VPOTUS.
you are correct..it's still that way,
born and raised there, it doesn't change.
You are 100% correct. n/m
x
I would say you are correct
Is anyone really so ignorant that they think that if there was anything illegal about Obama's run for the presidency, that HILLARY first would not have exposed it? Certainly if she didn't McCain would have. Why do you suppose THEY let it go? Because it wasn't going to bear any fruit for them, that's why.
M is correct below - no, they did not
Bush gave his acceptance speech (like everyone does) then had respect for Clinton to finish out his term. Even though Clinton was a disaster too, Bush had the decency to wait until he was sworn in. I do remember hearing about who he was picking for cabinet members but he never held the press conferences that OMessiah is. Also, Clinton did not either. He too had respect for Bush Sr. This is just something you don't do. It is very disrespectful no matter how much you don't like or disagree with the outgoing president. You DON'T do it. They are not president yet and as far as I know the electorates have not even voted yet. So it is still not "cinched" that he is going to get in there. I do believe however he is giving so many press conferences (as many as he can get his face on the camera for) because can you imagine the outcry if the electorates do not vote him in. He's already preparing people to riot if he does not get elected. My take is that the more he gets his face on the camera, the more the idi@ts will believe he is already president. Then it puts pressure on the electorates and others that still have not voted him in yet that if they do anything to disrupt this there will be he!! for them to pay. O'Messiah knows what he's doing alright, but it doesn't make it right.
That is correct, but....(sm)
the middle man (the stores) get a share of that. As far as computers go, a lot of the components are made overseas, but there are some places here where they put them together. Then you have companies like Intel, who make computer chips, who have decided to move their stuff back to the US. Hopefully more will follow.
Correct
I do stand corrected. Thank you.
You are most definitely correct -
Many things our founding father said we should be listening to and following advice of, but they don't. They have an agenda to destroy all that is good in our country and they don't care anything about what the founding fathers went through to make this a great country. They understood very well what was happening and it's happening once again.
I should correct what I said about
straight people. I think that SOME straight people don't get marriage. Sorry if I offended anyone.....that wasn't my intention.
Yep....that's correct....(sm)
If the quotes above are from them, then I would say they either sucked at reading or weren't very good Muslims. And I'm sure noone from YOUR church would have a lopsided view of anything. But we wouldn't know anything about that, because all we know is what YOU say, and so far you're heading towards strike three on that count.
|
