Obama '08?

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

woiyo, You "still" don't understand how most campaigns are financed?

I understand perfectly. By me having facts, I can draw a conclusion and my conclusion is I do not like public financed candidates who do not put their "OWN" assets at stake. Now by public financed, I mean the way Obama, McCain and every other politician goes out and bribes the PUBLIC for money without putting up their own assets.

When someone stands before me and says I am putting up millions of my own assets, that tells me they actually believe in what they are saying.

Obama has nothing at risk except your money. Therefore he will say and or do anything you want him to say or do so you will give him more of your money.

God, you must have really believed Mitt Romney

Cycloptichorn

Just becuase you put up your own money, does not mean I AGREE with your position.

You really are a jerk. I find nothing about your comment funny. Get back with the rest of the herd of sheep.

I didn't say you supported him, just that you must have believed that he was honest, as he dumped more then 45 million into his candidacy.

You just don't like the fact that I do not hesitate to call your bullshit out. And that isn't going to change.

Cycloptichorn

That begins with recognizing that the single most important factor in determining a child's achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it's not who their parents are or how much money they have. It's who their teacher is.

This is interesting.
According to Obama, the single most important person in a childs life is their teacher.
Not their parents, not their pastor or anyone else, but their teacher.

What idiocy is this coming from him?

http://thepage.time.com/obamas-remarks-to-the-aft/

Quote:

That begins with recognizing that the single most important factor in determining a child's achievement is not the color of their skin or where they come from; it's not who their parents are or how much money they have. It's who their teacher is.

Hmm, I agree with Obama on this one. Without great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you won't be able to do well in life. With great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you WILL be able to do well in life.

I fail to see the controversy here.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hmm, I agree with Obama on this one. Without great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you won't be able to do well in life. With great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you WILL be able to do well in life.

I fail to see the controversy here.

Cycloptichorn

Good teachers are as important as good parents, I agree with that.
But they are not MORE important then good parents.

Obama is saying they are more important.
I disagree with that statement.

When it comes to success in life, who your teachers are is more important then who your parents are.

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hmm, I agree with Obama on this one. Without great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you won't be able to do well in life. With great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you WILL be able to do well in life.

I fail to see the controversy here.

Cycloptichorn

Good teachers are as important as good parents, I agree with that.
But they are not MORE important then good parents.

Obama is saying they are more important.
I disagree with that statement.

When it comes to success in life, who your teachers are is more important then who your parents are.

Now, it can be argued that parents act as teachers in many areas of life; but it's fair to say that there are plenty of people out there, who had shitty parents but great teachers, and came out ahead in life; and I doubt the converse is as true. Without proper education, people face major problems later on, no matter what family they are born into. That's Obama's point.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Hmm, I agree with Obama on this one. Without great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you won't be able to do well in life. With great teachers, it doesn't matter who your parents are, you WILL be able to do well in life.

I fail to see the controversy here.

Cycloptichorn

Good teachers are as important as good parents, I agree with that.
But they are not MORE important then good parents.

Obama is saying they are more important.
I disagree with that statement.

When it comes to success in life, who your teachers are is more important then who your parents are.

Now, it can be argued that parents act as teachers in many areas of life; but it's fair to say that there are plenty of people out there, who had shitty parents but great teachers, and came out ahead in life; and I doubt the converse is as true. Without proper education, people face major problems later on, no matter what family they are born into. That's Obama's point.

Cycloptichorn

This is just BS. You are suggesting that students who have the same teachers will have the same acheivement level and that is just absolute BS.

Success in life is based on the ability to outperform the person next to you. It's that way in high school, college and the workplace.

If the guy next to you has shitty teachers, he's not likely to succeed either. I'm suggesting that quality of teachers is a large factor in the success of students, if not the biggest.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the guy next to you has shitty teachers, he's not likely to succeed either. I'm suggesting that quality of teachers is a large factor in the success of students, if not the biggest.

Cycloptichorn

I'd say that quality of parents is a larger factor. Obama disagress and that's one of the reason"s I won't vote for him. You agree with him and thatis why he will get your vote.

Democracy in action.

If a parent has poor reading, math and other basic educational skills, how are they going to help the student who has a poor quality teacher learn the skills they will need to know to succeed in life?

A new Rasmussen poll suggests that Barack Obama has moved into a narrow lead in the perennial swing state of Nevada, in line with his campaign's goal of aggressively advertising in Western states.

The numbers: Obama 47%, McCain 45%, within the ±4.5% margin of error. A month ago, John McCain was ahead by three points. from the same site:

Feel free to post rebuttals with facts, boys. Complaining that it is a McCain ad (when it is clearly identified as one) and saying it's 'lame' is....well.....pretty lame. If the McCain campaign got it wrong, you can surely come up with evidence showing the discrepancies.

Otherwise, the ad stands as Obama's words. Disprove them if you can.

Foxfyre wrote:

Feel free to post rebuttals with facts, boys. Complaining that it is a McCain ad (when it is clearly identified as one) and saying it's 'lame' is....well.....pretty lame. If the McCain campaign got it wrong, you can surely come up with evidence showing the discrepancies.

Otherwise, the ad stands as Obama's words. Disprove them if you can.

There's no need to. If you go read my first link, you will see that pretty much all of the so-called 'inconsistencies' really are nothing of the sort.

Kicky pointed out a great video, that you oughta watch - IF you care about what you claim to care about, which frankly I doubt you do, in the slightest.

Cycloptichorn