Took your advice - went directly to the source -
Posted By: no change on 2008-10-16
In Reply to: Go to the source instead of always depending on grudge..nm - independent
Okay, went to the source. Says the same thing - Obama 49, McCain 47 with likely voters.
Drudge shows the facts. You were okay with them when they favored your candidate.
What I am hearing is if Obama was so much better than McCain he would certainly have a much larger lead (like 20 points or more), but he doesn't, which goes to show that it is a very close race and you need to prepare yourself that either candidate could win.
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
Thanks for the advice.
I would suggest you do the same. It's important.
Again, some advice.
I haven't seen postings here every day that the market has gone down, nor when it has gone up. You're imagining things.
We would have absolutely no problem criticizing Obama's insane fiscal policy at any time, even on a day that the market went up 1000 points, or if it went up a million points, because the criticism isn't based on what the market does. It's based on the terrible bill that's coming due!
I know, it is ADVICE, I don't even know why I am
replying to your nonsense.
Okay, took your advice. None of the "scripts"
I saw were anything different than I have seen in ads or heard on the stump. So I suppose I don't understand the big deal. If people don't like the call...hang up. It's not like Obama doesn't do robocalls...he does. I guess people are just hanging up and not complaining about them?
Excellent advice! - nm
x
Good advice
I really would love to see the political board split in two. They can have the love fest on the liberal side and happy happy joy joy each other all day long while the spin around. They wouldn't have to worry or address any serious conversations because they would all be swept away in euphoria, and the rest of us could have some serious discussions on the conservative side. I think that would really be a good balance.
I like the advice of counting to 10 before replying. Will save a lot in frustratioins.
Reply....and some advice. sm
First, the advice. You never want to put yourself out on a limb like this by crowing over a one-day move in the stock market.
Now, the reply. It's odd to me that the very people who have discounted the idea that there is any "meaning" to stock market movements when the market is crashing would turn around and now propose that we garner some significance from the fact that it has recently had a rally.
Second, there are always rallies during bear markets, just like there are always down moves in bull markets. No market moves straight up or straight down.
Third, I see the markets are back down today.
Fourth, the problems that Obama's budget and bank bailout proposals will cause won't show up today or tomorrow. They'll be a long time coming...but mark my words, they're coming.
Fifth, a small percentage uptick in existing home sales from its previous disastrous levels means virtually nothing.
Sixth, it's very common these days to see even so-called sophisticated financial analysts wax poetic every time there is the slightest bit of "positive" news. They are, after all, in the investment industry and their jobs and incomes depend - even more so than yours or mine - on "things getting better". It's been rather funny, although pathetic, to watch them throughout this whole mess, grasping at every straw. You should pay less attention to them - they have an axe to grind.
It is possible that in time Obama will grow into this job. Every American has reason to hope so. To date, however, he has shown very little leadership, has stumbled badly on both the domestic and world diplomatic stage, and has shown himself to be impulsive and rather inept. So far, the American people aren't sure whether they have a man or a boy (and please, no "PC" comments) in the White House.
In my personal opinion, the President of this country is actually Nancy Pelosi, and Obama is little more than her obedient puppet.
My advice to your party if you want to win elections
start preparing for the future instead of living in the past.
Need advice from Dems and Repubs sm
I am a swing voter. I am one who is on the fence about who to vote for. Here is my problem. I am finding that this year's presidential election is separating people. Republicans seem to be a little angrier lately since Obama leads in the pools. Dems are not as angry BUT they are very firm in their political choice. I am finding that I cannot have a discussion with anyone about this election. If I say anything about Palin, repubs jump all over me. If I question Biden, dems are horrified. I do want to vote. I will figure it all out through my own research. My question for everyone today is how do I stay friends with people during all this? Any words of advice will be appreciated as I found my self in tears this morning.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice (last line)
nm
Advice for Obama --- Put a Sock In It (sm)
I'd go for a little hope right now myself from Obama. But we don't seem to be getting it from him, do we.
FOX News Blogs » FOX Forum » Liz Peek
Liz Peek
January 8th, 2009 11:55 AM Eastern
Advice for Obama: Put a Sock In It
You can thank our incoming president for extinguishing the faint glimmers of optimism that had driven markets higher in recent sessions. Did you happen to notice yesterday’s market sell-off?
The media blamed Wednesday’s market setback on gloomy job loss projections and downbeat profit warnings from Time Warner, Alcoa and Intel. I disagree.
I think investors were put off by Obama’s warnings of “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come” -– an unwelcome reality check from our cheerleader-in-chief
I think investors were put off by Obama’s warnings of “trillion-dollar deficits for years to come” -– an unwelcome reality check from our cheerleader-in-chief who is laying the groundwork for massive spending programs and ultimately for an A+ report card for his administration.
For weeks companies around the globe have had to reduce investor expectations. Any management that has not fessed up to just how ghastly business prospects are has simply been putting off the inevitable –- or else out of touch with field operations. (Beware of those long lines of reporting!) That a Time Warner or Alcoa should be seeing a drop in revenues cannot possibly be construed as a surprise. We’re in a recession for heaven’s sake!
The market came to grips with this reality a couple of months ago. Indeed, more recently such announcements have not jarred investor sensibilities a whit. In other words, bad economic news is not news at all.
There is an irrational but tangible feeling in the air that Obama can deliver miracles… It is singularly deflating, then, when Obama talks trash about the economy.
What is different is the ominous message from our president-elect. The country is ready for a change in tone, for a message of –- dare I say it –- hope. Everyone, including those who didn’t vote for the man, is hoping that Mr. Obama can bring peace and prosperity to this country. There is an irrational but tangible feeling in the air that Obama can deliver miracles, that he is uncorrupted, that he is smart and has solutions to the nation’s ills in his pocket.
It is singularly deflating, then, when Obama talks trash about the economy. His purpose, I imagine, is two-fold: First, he needs to get Americans on board with a gigantic spending program that he feels is necessary to put people to work and breathe some life into the economy. Second, if he prepares people to expect truly dreadful times ahead, anything less horrendous will be added to the plus side of the Obama ledger. Just like corporate managements, Mr. Obama can only win by outperforming expectations.
The problem is that the economy and the markets are fragile beyond imagining right now. We don’t need a dose of gloom and doom. We need a Ronald Reagan–type “morning in America” optimism. Consumer sentiment is in the basement-– is that a leading or lagging indicator? We need people who have money to go out and spend it –- they need to feel confident to do so. We need bankers to approve loans, and companies to invest in new plant and equipment.
None of these things will happen if everyone is focused on how dreadful the next few years will be.
My advice, Mr. Obama, is this: stop scaring Americans to death by telling them how bad things will be if your programs are not enacted. Henry Paulson adopted that approach to the point that every time he came on television the market cratered. With a Congress firmly in the hands of your political compatriots, you will get your stimulus package passed. If Americans see enough tough oversight put in place, they will be supportive, especially if the investments appear to generate jobs. Americans are smart –- they know we’re in trouble and that the times call for unusual measures.
But, they need you to lead, and to be positive. Do not spend the enthusiasm of the electorate with scare-tactics. We need, after all, that ridiculous message of hope that got you elected.
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/08/peek_obama_market/
Well point to the law that directly gives
our military authority over the U.N.? Where is the AGREEMENT that says we have to approve military action through the U.N.? It was not covered in my college political science class or the numerous classes I took between high school and college. We have consulted the U.N. before taking military action AND consulted and worked with the UN for YEARS on the Iraq situation. Iraq/S Saddam consistently and constantly thumbed his nose to the U.N. authorities and broke inspection agreements. I know that not every one in the U.N. supported the war, but if I'm remembering the correctly there was not enough opposition to put up a direct U.N. declaration to oppose the war.
I think we are reading different versions of history and the laws of the land.
Post directly above this
x
Huh? Two of the posters are directly below
_
Really? A lib posted directly under here
and presented an interesting challenge to sm about the Bloomberg article in "while analyzing those millions." Instead of claiming that liberals "always attack the messenger," talking about how they don't want to be educated, making wisecracks about mindreading and trying to belittle them for ALWAYS being on the attack, why don't you pitch in and help sm answer that little puzzler about the FDIC funds referred to in the article? So far, we see no one stepping forward to answer that challenge. It's not that hard. She gave 2 clues.
Well I actually do believe he was talking directly
about the O when he was addressing their failed PM. Two failures in charge of countries. I think if the PM can come sliming here begging for money, this guy should come over and explain to our congress (cos they don't evidentally get it) what they have done to the economy of the world. But the speach he gave might as well been talking right to the enlightened one.
It is at the advice of the office of the attorney general...
of the state of Alaska. It has turned into a political hatchet job. Just a scant few months ago, Hollis French (running the "investigative" committee) said that the governor's office was cooperating and no subpoenas were necessary. Then, when she was picked as the VP candidate and Obama folks descended on Alaska...all of a sudden the "investigation" grew (and the pictures of Obama and Hollis French and the other key democrat on this committee yucking it up surfaced). It has come to light that the investigator they hired is a personal friend of the man he is investigating. No bias there, right? Now that the attorney general is involved, politics can be removed from this and it can be brought to a result, whatever that result is.
What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Flew right past that basic right, eh?
Now son of a Democratic congressman being investigated for hacking her personal email. Wondering how THAT will turn out.
Let's talk again if (and when) he takes cons. advice
It was a reply to the post directly above it...
"In his private career, seems like he did a lot of work for the poor and several civil rights cases. I guess that would make some conservatives a little afraid of him :-)"
It is the taunt I was replying to. Democrats have not in the past had a stellar reputation for championing the civil rights of African Americans and I pointed that out. And they became interested in the poor African American AFTER they finally got the right to vote. Coincidence?
Again, respectfully...replying the the taunt.
To answer your question directly
Would I accept less to save a MTSO, no I would not, but then we're not making near what the auto workers are making, apples and oranges. I feel I pesonally have to take a stand regarding ASR and pay for such. What they're asking us to take is ridiculous. Regardless of global economy, we still live in the good ole US of A and have a certain standard of living to uphold. As long as it is possible I will not do ASR nor will I edit reports being typed abroad. I left MQ last year, refusing to put up with their nonsense. Thankfully I only have a few years til retirement.
I did address it directly. In the post above....
and you proved my point about the attacking. Typical dem.
Thanks for that info. I did go directly to this man's site...
and he talks about his email there also. I don't put much stock in any web-based sites; too much can be fabricated through the guise of anonymity.
I am talking Palin directly
That person who protrayed herself to be so righteous, so godly, Miss Goody-Goody has lots of skeletons in her closet yet to be all shaken out. It was really, really important when all just held onto every little word or piece of clothing that did not belong to her in the first place discussed. I am glad to see her falling off that high horse, yes I am.
I don't require the advice of a popeyed pestilential poop such as yourself, thanks..
x
Bravo Zauber..well said and directly to the point..
I will never understand how people think that opposing an erroneous(in this case fictional and delusional) government policy is unpatriotic and a detriment to our troops. I don't want to see any more die for reasons that do not nor have ever existed.
If someone ever posts something directly about one of Obama's children...
like that nastiness posted about Sarah Palin's daughter, I would be criticizing that as well. THere is absolutely NO reason for bringing a candidate's children into the political battleground. I have seen nothing posted here about lies about Obama's family other than some posters taking shots at the way the two women dress, and Cindy McCain got it as bad as Michelle Obama. I think that is pretty silly on both sides. I saw someone post what Michelle said about being proud of her country. It went away pretty quickly. I saw a lot of worse things about cindy Mcain winning her battle over prescriptin drug addiction, but the posts were much more hateful, mean, and personal.
Michelle Obama was out stumping for her husband and she said something in public people thought she should explain.
Barack Obama used drugs in his youth and was open about it. No one here condemned that. yet they tore the hide of Cindy McCain in strips because she admitted an addiction to prescription drugs because of an injury. do you find that fair? At ALL fair?
Why can't we at the very LEAST leave minor children out of this???
That should read: McCain directly denied
then continue reading the above post. time for another cup of coffee.
Some educational advice. Go to your local hospital and city hall....sm
Ask them how births are recorded. I think you will be surprised. EVERYTHING is now computerized. Even old birth records.
The moderator asked you to stop directly below this post.
You don't know the meaning of the word *respectful.* You want to come here and censor this board and lay down the law about what is *newsworthy* and what isn't, the same way you people want to control every aspect of every American's life. How ya makin' out in that regard? Not too well, eh? 
You and your other sidekick(personality?) below don't come here to debate.
You come here to incite, and regardless of your promises, you'll never leave. Nobody is bothering you on your board, and you have to release your evil vile hatred somewhere or else you will explode, so you come here.
If you want to see vicious, consult the nearest mirror.
Typical pub. Can't address a single issue directly.
nm
Evidently, pubs didn't care that McC directly denied
tried to diffuse all the scare tactics fall-out. What I want to know is why would McC supporters and their campaign turn a blind eye to a frightened senile old woman and keep right on pushing agendas that will produce more such embarrassing moments for their own candidate? Is this the kind of leadership we can expect under a McCain regime? How disconnected is this candidate from his own campaign management and supporters? Is that really the picture you want to paint for him? How much more fuel do you guys intend to use to stoke the fires of ignorance, division and deceit?
McCain seemed really sad last night when he tried to reassure that shaking, frail, senile old woman, but instead of looking presidential, he just looked like a beaten down has-been. Congratuations on an utterly moronic campaign strategy. Enjoy the fall-out.
Yes, the chips exist honey. I was speaking directly to the hysteria evoked
It shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the world and the peoples who inhabit it.
As to those that perpetuate this mythos...well, if you allow anyone to prey on your fears, you give them power over you. People need to investigate all sides of an issue, not just the perspective they agree with or the one spoonfed to them.
Not to mention that the "Jihaad" holy war itself was caused directly from Daddy Bush having to
rush in with Desert Storm in order to secure the oil wells, securing the oil for all his oil baron friends and himself. Bin Laden himself said that when we rushed in, we had "tainted" Muslim soil and felt he had to retaliate. Of course, these are the ravings of a madman, but Bush policies directly inflamed the already hostile Taliban fighters. Also, the Bush and Bin Laden families have a long history in the business world, and the night of September 11th, the government made it pssible for Bin Laden family members in this country to flee and not face retaliation........please look it up in the newgroups, I have seen many amazing documentaries about these facts on Discovery, History Channel, Military Channel, and some of the news channels.
What is the source for this?
.
source?
What is your source for this info? As in, how do you know this is true - did you see it, hear or, what? I really want to know. Where can it be verified or disproved?
There never will be a source on this
nm
Consider the source.
nm
Consider The Source
Sam, this is the same group of people who thought that what Bill did with all those women was okay, or simply a "private" matter.
So nobody in this bunch has ever had a pg teenager? And if any one of these women here would just throw (that's Demspeak for kill) away a DS baby? It's simply a continuation of what they do is okay and what those nasty conservatives do is just criminal!
Wow, that's just classy.
Source: About.com
su
And your source for this is? nm
.
Source please. nm
.
No source? Of course not.
x
what i the source for this??
I have never seen this before. Where does it come from?
And your source is?....nm
x
One source............sm
is the NYT, but you can Google the quote and find it in several articles and blogs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/international/americas/26canada.html
And what source exactly would it take
to satisfy you as being reliable?
SM, you have to consider the source,
this is the network that is fair and balanced, only if you are a democrat. These folks have an Obamachip embedded in their brain. Besides, this is a way to get let the guys and gals on here who are so enamored by their high priest a chance to get their minds off the fact that he could even come close to screwing up something or changing a campaign promise. Don't worry about double standards, they don't apply to Obama.
And your source is????? nm
x
And your source is???? (nm)
x
Well, consider the source............
The majority of those voting for Obama pay NO taxes, never paid a tax in their life, and rarely if ever held down a job...........
So why in the world do they see tax as a bad thing..... they've never paid a tax and will continue to NOT pay taxes and think Obama will just take care of all their needs. This is why they think "rich" is a bad word; they have no ambition, no drive, and never will, so for those that do, they must be punished for succeeding!!??
The lazy and ignorant are running this country through votes they really have no right having.......... IMHO
And your source is????????????? NM
.
|
