Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

[SimonM]

Hayden Panettiere

Young, intelligent, fun, creative, vegan and growing up liberal!

What's there not to like!

Bah, vegan.

Agree with the rest of the statement though.

[1bad65]

Hence he was supportive of some bailouts, in direct contravention of your statement that he was against all bailouts.

I said that?!?!

[1bad65]

Less than three weeks now......and the question is not if Obama is going to win but by how much......

Ok. I agree. Just like it was all over for Truman when he ran against Dewey.

[1bad65]

"'Facts' were posted on Obama's website. They had to be taken down and/or rephrased because they were lies. It's that simple. Some things are black-and-white."

You claim Facts...- now do YOU know for a fact that they ARE FACTS..no...did Obama put them there himself... ? I wouldn't know.

Obama's site referred to them as 'FACTS'. I was just posting what it said word-for word.

So Obama hired someone who was imcompetant? Incapable of understanding what he said? Mis-typed?

Is that the new excuse now?

As for Heroes...not mine. In fact, I would have preferred to see Dennis Kucinich get elected...that would have shaken things up a bit...

Comrade Kucinich?!?! That explains alot.

Did he call for the same income tax policy he ran on in '04?

[Reality_Check]

I said that?!?!

Fair enough. Nevertheless, I've definitely noticed that sometimes you are ferociously resistant to information that does not conform to your assumptions/beliefs. You fought tooth and nail to avoid admitting that John McCain supported the bailout (his words) of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. As a matter of fact, you never actually admitted that you were wrong:

He may use that term, I do not. Bottom line, no matter what it's referred to it is DIFFERENT than the S&L and airline bailouts of the past.

Once I again I submit that it is irrelevant what you think, as that is purely subjective. Objectively, John McCain was for the bailout (once again: his words). As a result, your claims that he was against it, due to your definition of a bailout, were objectively wrong.

[1bad65]

Show me where I've backpeddled or changed my stance on the bailouts.

Every post of mine you find says the same **** thing, they are different kinds of bailouts. Now I admit I am against them all. It appears McCain was against a bailout when first mentioned, but when the bill came out and showed significant differences to the past airline bailouts (like firing the top guys and Gov't owning a share in what they bailed out) McCain supported that type of bailout.

Is it more clear now?

[Reality_Check]

Show me where I've backpeddled or changed my stance on the bailouts.

Every post of mine you find says the same **** thing, they are different kinds of bailouts. Now I admit I am against them all. It appears McCain was against a bailout when first mentioned, but when the bill came out and showed significant differences to the past airline bailouts (like firing the top guys and Gov't owning a share in what they bailed out) McCain supported that type of bailout.

Is it more clear now?

That's a non sequitur. I'm not saying you changed your stance. Nor am I saying that John McCain changed his stance. What I'm saying is that you were objectively wrong when you said John McCain was against the bailout of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. The only thing that matters is whether or not John McCain believes it was a bailout. Clearly he does. Consequently, all your claims that it is not a traditional bailout are meaningless in this context.

[1bad65]

Put it this way, if McCain had lied or flip-flopped Obama would have been over him. Considering Obama said nothing about it, it sure is hard to say the McCain lied or changed his stance.

[Reality_Check]

Put it this way, if McCain had lied or flip-flopped Obama would have been over him. Considering Obama said nothing about it, it sure is hard to say the McCain lied or changed his stance.

Once again that is a non sequitur. I've said nothing about John McCain changing his stance. You claimed he didn't support the bailout (his words) of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac. Clearly he did. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you were/are wrong.

[GLW]

Well, there is how 1bad starts his incomprehension...

I gave some POSSIBLE explanations for a web site that 1Bad NEVER saw the original of...but believes his neocon sites about... as proof that what he is believing are opinions but NOT Facts... And he says that Obama and his campaign are claiming MY possible alternative to his forthing "he LIED - ****** he LIED..."

So, now Bad boy believes that I SPEAK for OBAMA...

And he also proved another point... the drop immediately to an insult.

Oh...pobricito... Can't defend his ideas in any way other than insults.... What is coming next...a big Your Mama?

But, then again, if you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you have always gotten.

So... we KNOW what we get with a McCain win...we don't know with Obama...and 4 more years of Bush in an old man suit is nothing good.

[MysteriousPower]

Maybe.

This may sound uneducated(even though I have a Masters' degree).

I think Obama only beat Hilary because he's black. I haven't heard many people say statements like this probably for fear of being called a racist. But I think that had a lot to do with it. Since Obama's mother is white, he looks sort of hispanic. He has a lead in hispanic votes. Gee! But I'm sure the way he looks has nothing to do with that at all.

If America is ready to elect a black man then fine. But atleast elect someone who has experience. Obama hasn't been in office that long. The liberal media is so skewed I am baffled. They make fun of Palin for being dumb and inexperienced but don't mention anything at all about Obama's short career. That's wrong. Why didn't Saturday Night Live do a skit making fun of Obama? Prejudice in the media is why.

The MAIN reason Obama is winning isn't because of his calm temperament. It's because everyone is angry with Republicans. Everyone is so angry at Republicans that they are trying to elect a man with very little experience. Liberals would've voted for Howard Stern over a Republican if HOward had won the primaries against Hillary. That's how dumb liberals are! They'll elect anything that moves as long as it is Republican.


Mcaine isn't losing as badly as the media is making it sound. It will be a close race but I think Obama will lose because many white people will not vote for a black man in the end.

[1bad65]

I gave some POSSIBLE explanations for a web site that 1Bad NEVER saw the original of...but believes his neocon sites about... as proof that what he is believing are opinions but NOT Facts... And he says that Obama and his campaign are claiming MY possible alternative to his forthing "he LIED - ****** he LIED..."

So you think ABC News is a 'neocon' site, correct?

[BoulderDawg]

Maybe.

This may sound uneducated(even though I have a Masters' degree).

I think Obama only beat Hilary because he's black. I haven't heard many people say statements like this probably for fear of being called a racist. But I think that had a lot to do with it. Since Obama's mother is white, he looks sort of hispanic. He has a lead in hispanic votes. Gee! But I'm sure the way he looks has nothing to do with that at all.

If America is ready to elect a black man then fine. But atleast elect someone who has experience. Obama hasn't been in office that long. The liberal media is so skewed I am baffled. They make fun of Palin for being dumb and inexperienced but don't mention anything at all about Obama's short career. That's wrong. Why didn't Saturday Night Live do a skit making fun of Obama? Prejudice in the media is why.

The MAIN reason Obama is winning isn't because of his calm temperament. It's because everyone is angry with Republicans. Everyone is so angry at Republicans that they are trying to elect a man with very little experience. Liberals would've voted for Howard Stern over a Republican if HOward had won the primaries against Hillary. That's how dumb liberals are! They'll elect anything that moves as long as it is Republican.


Mcaine isn't losing as badly as the media is making it sound. It will be a close race but I think Obama will lose because many white people will not vote for a black man in the end.

Thanks. It's refreshing to see someone express exactly what the vast, vast majority of conservatives think.

In any case, addressing one thing here, Clinton lost because of many factors...Obama being black is not one of them....To start with Clinton was uncovered in the primaries as being nothing really special other than the wife of a former president...Also, she was a pis poor campaigner. She thought she had the elcection in the bag and didn't realize until it was too late that it wasn't a cornation but an election.

[1bad65]

Thanks. It's refreshing to see someone express exactly what the vast, vast majority of conservatives think.

Yeah, we're all racists now.

[1bad65]

But I guess you missed this one.

"Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Barack Obama the White House if the election is close, according to an AP-Yahoo News poll that found one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks -- many calling them "lazy," "violent," responsible for their own troubles."

http://cbs5.com/campaign08/barack.ob....2.822075.html