High Seas
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 06:01 pm
Mark Penn is one of the most brilliant advertising men of all times. His problem however is the same as that of the ad / marketing chief for the presidential nomination campaign of the late Senator Scoop Jackson - true story follows:

The "strategy" team (aka admen) of Jackson held an emergency meeting about a month after his official candidacy was announced and the head adman said in frustration words to the effect:

"... This is no different than marketing dog food - here we have a great product, superb packaging, stellar merchandising; but we're getting no customers. Why IS that??" and then a little voice from the far end of the table said: "The dogs don't like it."

Guys, the dogs don't like Hillary.

P.S. Literally so as well: her own family's dog, Buddy - so neglected that in spite of hundreds of security persons he wandered outside their grounds and got run over by a car - wouldn't go anywhere near her. Bill Clinton always took him for walks, to the vet, and so on. THINK what it means if your OWN family's dog can't STAND you - neither will the voters Smile
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 06:02 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
nimh wrote:
and getting maporsche to ridicule us all for it again


No need.....they'll be plenty of time to ridicule your choice for our president when/if he becomes president.


Why would you do such a thing?

Yaknow, given that you supposedly support Hillary to such an extent, and their positions on most issues match up almost identically, it's hard to see why you wouldn't be at least partially behind Obama.

Cycloptichorn
.


http://www.wdtprs.com/images/SourGrapesAward.jpg
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 06:25 pm
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Why would you do such a thing?
.

http://www.wdtprs.com/images/SourGrapesAward.jpg


Well, thats an honest answer at least Smile
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 06:42 pm
nimh wrote:
Well, thats an honest answer at least Smile


Thought you guys would like that.

Even if I gave a real answer, you all would chop it up to SG anyway.

[shrugs]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 07:05 pm
What does SG stand for?

And I dunno. I know discussion gets rough here. But yeah, I gotta say I dont get it either. I mean, some of us dont like Hillary, as a person, or as a candidate (I understand that she's a very nice person, I just dont like what she's like as a candidate). Others, like you, dont like Obama. Its a personal thing, you dont like his style, his appeal, his followers. And I can see why - I had to get over some stuff that rubbed me the wrong way as well.

But I mean, yeah - politically speaking, they're very close to each other. Compared to any Republican, they're very much alike: in what they stand for, in what they propose, in their positions. Their policies would both be centre-left to US standards, would both constitute a sharp swing away from Bush politics - and would both stand in stark contrast to McCains.

So I understand being a bit meh about voting for the candidate you didnt really favour - but if you supported Hillary so strongly, how could you then vote for McCain over Obama? I mean, Hillary's and Obama's platforms overlap, like, 80% or more; Hillary's and McCain's programs overlap 10-20% or something. Hell, Hillary's been campaigning in many ways like she's to the left of Obama, with a strident, "fight the Republicans", populist tone (which is something I liked about her, actually) - so how are you all for that, but then would sooner vote for one of them Republicans over a Democratic candidate that shares most of her beliefs and positions? What am I not getting?

OK, I guess I'm now just repeating Cyclo's question... or just rambling... anyhow.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 07:23 pm
nimh wrote:
What does SG stand for?

And I dunno. I know discussion gets rough here. But yeah, I gotta say I dont get it either. I mean, some of us dont like Hillary, as a person, or as a candidate (I understand that she's a very nice person, I just dont like what she's like as a candidate). Others, like you, dont like Obama. Its a personal thing, you dont like his style, his appeal, his followers. And I can see why - I had to get over some stuff that rubbed me the wrong way as well.

But I mean, yeah - politically speaking, they're very close to each other. Compared to any Republican, they're very much alike: in what they stand for, in what they propose, in their positions. Their policies would both be centre-left to US standards, would both constitute a sharp swing away from Bush politics - and would both stand in stark contrast to McCains.

So I understand being a bit meh about voting for the candidate you didnt really favour - but if you supported Hillary so strongly, how could you then vote for McCain over Obama? I mean, Hillary's and Obama's platforms overlap, like, 80% or more; Hillary's and McCain's programs overlap 10-20% or something. Hell, Hillary's been campaigning in many ways like she's to the left of Obama, with a strident, "fight the Republicans", populist tone (which is something I liked about her, actually) - so how are you all for that, but then would sooner vote for one of them Republicans over a Democratic candidate that shares most of her beliefs and positions? What am I not getting?

OK, I guess I'm now just repeating Cyclo's question... or just rambling... anyhow.


Nimh, you're assuming that I agree with the majority of either Clinton's or Obama stances.

In reality I only agree with about 30-40% of their positions. I also agree with 30-40% of McCains positions. 20-40% of my positions aren't offered by either candidate (or at least not offered in entirety).

You see, the same portion of my positions would be equally represented by either side of the isle. They are just different positions.

The big one for me is healthcare. If Obama pushes his plan through, I think we'll be further away from nationalized healthcare then if we elect McCain. McCain and Obama are pretty close on healthcare actually, essentially they both are looking to simply lower costs.

And with Obama and Clinton's push back on the way and bringing our troops home.....well it doesn't look like we're going to get out of Iraq in the next 4 years regardless of who we elect.

Another big one is gun control. If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 07:24 pm
SG = sour grapes

I thought it made sense in the context of our post. I understand that it's not a common acronym.

Sorry.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 08:37 pm
maporsche wrote:
Nimh, you're assuming that I agree with the majority of either Clinton's or Obama stances.

In reality I only agree with about 30-40% of their positions. I also agree with 30-40% of McCains positions. 20-40% of my positions aren't offered by either candidate (or at least not offered in entirety).

You see, the same portion of my positions would be equally represented by either side of the isle. They are just different positions.


OK, fair enough. That makes sense.

It's just that you seemed such a fervent supporter of Hillary! I hadnt gotten that you were really more like halfway between her and McCain, policy-wise.

maporsche wrote:
The big one for me is healthcare. If Obama pushes his plan through, I think we'll be further away from nationalized healthcare then if we elect McCain. McCain and Obama are pretty close on healthcare actually, essentially they both are looking to simply lower costs.


ButbutbutbutMMMMmmmm... <forces himself to refrain from loudly protesting :wink: >

Eh - lets just say that I think you are very wrong here. Hillary and Obama may differ over the role of mandates in achieving the goal of universal health care, but they're both very much wedded to achieving it. They just disagree about how to. McCain - has nothing up with the concept of universal health care. Zilch.

But. Hopefully Soz or Thomas can weigh in on this one, they have more detailed info about it. I did just bookmark an article by a health care expert I greatly trust on the differences between Obama and McCain on the issue, I'll post it here tomorrow...

maporsche wrote:
Another big one is gun control. If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.

Sure. On that one you're definitely better off with McCain, then.

No, I mean - if you're really just kind of halfway between the Dem and Rep camps (or not halfway, perhaps in a different place altogether, but just - equidistant from both), then I can see McCain's attraction.

It's just unusual for an independent like that to be so enthusiastic about Hillary - most Indys prefer, if anything, Barack - so that was part of my confusion, I suppose.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 08:37 pm
maporsche wrote:
SG = sour grapes

I thought it made sense in the context of our post. I understand that it's not a common acronym.

Sorry.

No problem, I'm not always the quickest to catch on :wink:

Off to bed now..
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 08:46 pm
maporsche wrote:
If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.

Really? He voted against the Orwellian named Patriot Act and Protect America Act then, I assume?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 10:14 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
If McCain wins, he will be move favorable to protecting the freedoms of our citizens.

Really? He voted against the Orwellian named Patriot Act and Protect America Act then, I assume?


And what were the Clinton/Obama votes........oh yeah, they voted for it too.

It's not a differentiating factor in this election unfortunately.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 10:22 pm
nimh wrote:

It's just unusual for an independent like that to be so enthusiastic about Hillary - most Indys prefer, if anything, Barack - so that was part of my confusion, I suppose.


I can overlook a lot that I don't like about Clinton (gun control for example) because I'm in favor of her healthcare policy. She also leans further right on the issue of gun control than Obama does, which makes her more appealing.

If I'm not going to get the healthcare plan I prefer, AND I have to deal with Obama's Illinois gun control crap going nationwide, then I might as well vote for McCain and protect my 2nd Amendment rights.

I think in the general election Obama had better watch out for the attacks from the 2nd amendment folks. He's been smart keeping it quiet during the primary, but his stance is WWWWAAAAAYYYYYY out there. THAT will turn off those independents politicians so covet.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Wed 27 Feb, 2008 11:58 pm
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 12:26 am
Ticomaya wrote:
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
He BLACK and he doesn't want to make any more nukes?!?!?!?

Oh, man we gotta stop him!!

I got an email that says when they do in the pledge of alligence in congress he turns to mecca and and preys to Allah.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 07:46 am
nimh wrote:
Best comments:

Quote:
Are those red, white and blue ribbons on the handlebars?

Nice try Obama. Where's your flag pin?


Quote:
Is that one of those little white hats that Muslims wear?


Yes, to your first question. No, that's a little version of a baseball cap, with a small brim. Those were the style for a boy, that age to wear, back then. My son had many matching hats, to go with outfits, just like Barry Obama's. My son is only 1 year younger and the photo depicts, how most chidren were dressed during the spring/summer, of the 60's. Obama, was born in 1961, my son in 62. Both of my boys were dressed in clothes by Health-Tex and Dr. Denton. Same shoes, same bike, with red/white/blue streamers. The bike cost about $7.99, his outfit, about $10.00, shoes between 8-12.00. Things were affordable.

Some of you seem to make something out of nothing! Amused? Well, this is how most kids, who are dressed by their parents, when they are young! He probably could care less what the colors of the streamers, are! You suck! Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 07:48 am
So what?

Amigo wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
"IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA CANNOT WIN A GENERAL ELECTION ... (HE PLANS ON DISARMING AMERICA)"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
He BLACK and he doesn't want to make any more nukes?!?!?!?

Oh, man we gotta stop him!!

I got an email that says when they do in the pledge of alligence in congress he turns to mecca and and preys to Allah.
Mad
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 07:58 am
Teeny, you really need to start picking up on sarcasm... :wink:
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:01 am
nimh wrote:
Teeny, you really need to start picking up on sarcasm... :wink:

Only YOU could find something offensive in a child's photo! Sarcastic? Re-read your own post, first! Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad Cool
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:03 am
This is interesting, Obama now wants to define companies and corporations as "patriotic" or not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120407121574294919.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks&6

Quote:
The legislation takes four pages to define "patriotic" companies as those that: "pay at least 60 percent of each employee's health care premiums"; have a position of "neutrality in employee [union] organizing drives"; "maintain or increase the number of full-time workers in the United States relative to the number of full-time workers outside of the United States"; pay a salary to each employee "not less than an amount equal to the federal poverty level"; and provide a pension plan.


Of course, he wants to raise taxes on any company that doesnt meet his qualifications.

Quote:
Under Mr. Obama's plan, "patriot employers" qualify for a 1% tax credit on their profits. To finance this tax break, American companies with subsidiaries abroad would have to pay the U.S. corporate tax on profits earned abroad, rather than the corporate tax of the host country where they are earned. Since the U.S. corporate tax rate is 35%, while most of the world has a lower rate, this amounts to a big tax increase on earnings owned abroad.

Put another way, U.S. companies would suddenly have to pay a higher tax rate than their Chinese, Japanese and European competitors. According to research by Peter Merrill, an international tax expert at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, this change would "raise the cost of capital of U.S. multinationals and cause them to lose market share to foreign rivals." Apparently Mr. Obama believes that by making U.S. companies less profitable and less competitive world-wide, they will somehow be able to create more jobs in America.


This plan of his doesnt make sense to me at all.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Thu 28 Feb, 2008 08:08 am
This is interesting, and I havent seen much if anything about it reported...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece?token=null&offset=0

Quote:
A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.


Quote:
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.


Quote:
Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a "boneheaded mistake".


This could very well come back to bite him.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 552
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.21 seconds on 07/16/2025 at 12:54:55