Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 12:04 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:


LATEST GALLUP!
Obama 52%
Clinton 43%



Yes, Obama will beat Clinton and McCain will beat Obama.


http://www.athenswater.com/images/McCain4Pres.jpg


I believe that your assertion is not based upon any actual logic or analysis, but instead, on nothing at all.

I think that you are 100% incorrect.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 12:05 pm
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 12:07 pm
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


Tell me it was voluntary humor, please!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 12:17 pm
How about Obama being the topic on the Obama thread? I vote for that (and yes I have been guilty of swerving off topic here too).

Here is one issue that is likely to develop at least some legs once Obama is officially crowned the Democrat's nominee:

Obama's Gun Dance
By Robert Novak
Monday, April 07, 2008

Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation's capital is constitutional. But Sen. Obama has not stated his position.

Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well-regulated militia" cited in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the Draconian prohibition for Washington, D.C., fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front-running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.

That is a dance of many Democrats, revealed by my private conversations with the party's strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid re-enacting the fate of many Democratic candidates who lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled off the floor a bill for a District of Columbia congressional seat in order to save Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.

Hillary Clinton has extolled the Second Amendment, though not as far as Obama. Campaigning at Iowa's Cornell College Dec. 5, he asserted that the Second Amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." He repeated that formulation along the primary trail, declaring at a Milwaukee press conference before the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary: "I believe the Second Amendment means something. ... There is an individual right to bear arms."

That implies that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional. Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty's brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia." Consequently, I deduced in a March 13 column about the case that Obama had "weighed in against the D.C. law."

On March 24, a reader e-mailed The Washington Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press account of Obama's Milwaukee press conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said he was: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution."

That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right ... he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," the specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again, without success, last week to learn Obama's position before writing this column.

Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from a radical young state legislator a few years ago. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association (NRA) grades him (and Clinton) at "F."

There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington, D.C.
LINK
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 12:46 pm
Re: Obama '08?
kickycan wrote:
maporsche wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
teenyboone wrote:
You Repugs, whose designated candidate, MCCain, a "born" racist, ...


Ah, that's right. He's a white man, so he was born racist.

Gotcha.

Read whatever you wish! You do, anyway, Mr. one-way street, thinker! Thanks for reading MY mind! Cool


I don't know how you'd read it any other way.

How else can someone be "born" racist, unless you think that ALL white people are racist.


Wrong.

A racist could be born black and hate white people, or be born Norwegian and hate Scottish people, or be born Italian and hate Irish people. There are virtually unlimited possibilities here that prove your hypothesis wrong.



Sorry, this was in reference to McCain even though I said 'someone'. Let me rephrase.



Why would you (teenyboone) think McCain was "born" racist against blacks, unless you think that ALL white people are racist?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 01:19 pm
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

If Obama does win he will tax me and everyone else that $500 and much, much more.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 01:36 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

If Obama does win he will tax me and everyone else that $500 and much, much more.


It is true that Obama proposes to roll back at least some of the Bush administration tax cuts--he refuses to call that a tax increase--and impose other taxes in order to pay for his proposed program.
SEE HERE
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 01:43 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

If Obama does win he will tax me and everyone else that $500 and much, much more.


It is true that Obama proposes to roll back at least some of the Bush administration tax cuts--he refuses to call that a tax increase--and impose other taxes in order to pay for his proposed program.
SEE HERE


Well, it isn't a tax increase.

Obama didn't write the original tax cut bills, which had a sunset clause in them. He didn't even vote on them - wasn't in the senate at the time.

It was the Republicans in congress who wrote the bill, who passed it, and Bush signed it - all with the sunset provisions intact. So when those sunsets pass, and the taxes rise again - that's an increase by Obama?

Not so much.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 01:45 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

If Obama does win he will tax me and everyone else that $500 and much, much more.


so this be translated into "not prepared to put real money on it" ?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 01:48 pm
Cyclop writes
Quote:
Well, it isn't a tax increase.


If I pay in 2009 or 2010 a whole lot more taxes on the same amount of money than I am paying in 2008, I call that a tax increase. I don't care what anybody else wants to call it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 01:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Well, it isn't a tax increase.

Cycloptichorn

Liberal math 101:

Eliminating previous reductions of tax rates is not a tax increase.
And lowering the rate of growth of a yet still growing bureaucratic budget is a "budget cut." Often such cuts also starve children, kill old people, and cause children's education to suffer as never before, so that they can no longer learn to read, etc. etc.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:08 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:


LATEST GALLUP!
Obama 52%
Clinton 43%



Yes, Obama will beat Clinton and McCain will beat Obama.


http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc302/Constantly_Constance/mcsame.jpg


I believe that your assertion is not based upon any actual logic or analysis, but instead, on nothing at all.

I think that you are 100% incorrect.

Cycloptichorn



It's called wishful thinking!
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:11 pm
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.



Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:21 pm
ehBeth wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.

If Obama does win he will tax me and everyone else that $500 and much, much more.


so this be translated into "not prepared to put real money on it" ?


No. I'll put real money on it, but I know collecting my winnings will be a huge ordeal.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/McCain4Pres.jpg
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:22 pm
This isnt about Obama, but its to funny to not post...

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/clinton_man_has_obama_moment.html

Quote:
Was Terry McAuliffe, chairman of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, engaging in his own sort of hedging strategy at a recent meeting of Washington State Democrats? Or was the former Democratic National Committee chair engaging in a kumbayah, all-us-Democrats-are-in-this-together moment?

McAuliffe attended the regional caucuses of the Washington State Democrats over the weekend and graciously posed with some grass-roots Democrats.

What's really interesting, as you can see from these photos, is that McAuliffe posed with supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign and that a beaming McAuliffe helped them hold up their large Obama signs for the camera. McAuliffe is wearing his Clinton button but it's dwarfed by the Obama sign he's holding.


I betcha Hillary had a cow when she saw these pics.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:22 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.



Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.


Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:23 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.



Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.


Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.


Thats what I thought also.
I even had a response all typed out and ready to post, but I decided to delete it instead.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:28 pm
mysteryman wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.



Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.


Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.


Thats what I thought also.
I even had a response all typed out and ready to post, but I decided to delete it instead.


You too? I've been deleting a LOT of stuff I've typed out on several threads today. Smile
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:31 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
H2O_MAN wrote:
blatham wrote:
Well, we'll see if he has the conjones to put $500 bucks on the line.


LOL !!
It's been my experience that looser left wing liberal democrats are almost impossible to collect from.



Yeah the real loose ones are really hard to collect money from. Try collecting from a crack whore.


Wow, pitching the slow ball today? Too easy.


Thats what I thought also.
I even had a response all typed out and ready to post, but I decided to delete it instead.


You too? I've been deleting a LOT of stuff I've typed out on several threads today. Smile


I usually delete ALOT more then I post Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Mon 7 Apr, 2008 02:33 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Cyclop writes
Quote:
Well, it isn't a tax increase.


If I pay in 2009 or 2010 a whole lot more taxes on the same amount of money than I am paying in 2008, I call that a tax increase. I don't care what anybody else wants to call it.


But, you understand that it won't be Hillary or Obama who made that happen. At all. The laws lowering the taxes were written that way by Republicans in Congress, and the bill was signed by Bush in the WH.

It's not as if there will be any legislation passed - there won't be. So it's fallacious to say that it's an increase; it's just returning to the normal state that it was at before Bush signed a LIMITED TIME tax break.

Okie,

Quote:

Eliminating previous reductions of tax rates is not a tax increase.


But, nobody is eliminating anything. The reductions were always a limited-time offer. You understand this, right?

Cycloptichorn
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 739
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 09/20/2024 at 06:24:29