Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

How would you vote in the 2008 US Presidential Election?

  • Obama-Biden (Democrat)

    Votes: 67 59.3%

  • McCain-Palin (Republican)

    Votes: 18 15.9%

  • Barr-Root (Libertarian)

    Votes: 14 12.4%

  • Nader-Gonzales (Independent-Ecology Party / Peace and Freedom Party)

    Votes: 5 4.4%

  • McKinney-Clemente (Green)

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Baldwin-Castle (Constitution)

    Votes: 7 6.2%

  • Gurney-? (Car & Driver)

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Other...

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    113
  • Poll closed .
FoolKiller
You would just be trying to solve the problem by doing the same thing, on a much, much bigger scale.
Click to expand...

My apologies on the understanding of that suggested bill, I was under the impression (for some reason) that they were going to do a limited spending deal, not the "insurance" way of backing up money.

Hmmm. Guess I don't really like any of them. Too bad Senator Schumer's idea of giving out money incrementally didn't go through...

=====

JoeyD
And McCain's debate thing was nothing more then a publicity stunt to get people talking about him. I think it was rather lame too.
Click to expand...

FoolKiller
Quick, show of hands. Who is surprised?
Click to expand...

Not I. That, and Joey hit the nail on the head...
 
Solid Fro
And the debate itself is not publicity stunt?
Click to expand...

It lets the candidates show where they stand on the issues, but in a way yes. However, not in the same context in which McCain felt the need to act like he wasn't going to go because he was so concerned with the economy (which he thinks is fundamentally strong). He just wanted more attention on himself.
 
YSSMAN
My apologies on the understanding of that suggested bill, I was under the impression (for some reason) that they were going to do a limited spending deal, not the "insurance" way of backing up money.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the loan idea. We would be solving banks in trouble due to bad loans by giving those same banks bad loans.

Hmmm. Guess I don't really like any of them. Too bad Senator Schumer's idea of giving out money incrementally didn't go through...
Click to expand...
I voted for Ron Paul in the Republican primary and I voted for Jim Bunning for Senator here in Kentucky. Both have said they are opposed to anything.

Now, if only McConnell would get his head back on the proper side of his body.
 
Biden meets with Georgian president without press

MILWAUKEE - Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden met with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili on Friday but didn't let reporters in as the pair posed for photographers at the beginning of the session.

The decision to allow only photographers, and no reporters, into the meeting briefly at its start recalled a similar move by Biden's Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, earlier this week. Some of the reporters that cover Palin's vice presidential campaign protested and got the restriction dropped.
Phil Walzak, a spokesman for Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign, said, "It's a private meeting between the senator and a head of state." He said Biden was expected to issue a statement after the meeting.

Walzak said he did not know why Saakashvili was in Milwaukee or the nature of the discussion with Biden, who was campaigning in Wisconsin.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7K20RiBJeMQhhTZUST64ABObHjAD93EH1LG0

Any b***ching from the Mainstream Media?

Not a damn thing.

Edit: It seems that the AP is trying to correct their original story. Changing not only the headline, but most of the report. The AP claims that not all reporters were barred from the meeting. Well... not all reporters were barred from Palin's meeting. :dunce:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_el_pr/biden;_ylt=AgucrG6_1a.oF6E0TUq8PY_Zn414
 
I'm too lazy to get into discussion with Solid Fro on anything. Actually, I just don't give a damn about anything he says. I may be P. Diddy, but Solid Fro is Elizabeth Hasslebeck.

Oh, and I still don't want a hockey mom potentially being my prez. Seriously, wtf.

Obama for prez.

Cheers Fro now.
 
Last edited:
Matt R
I'm too lazy to get into discussion with Solid Fro on anything. Actually, I just don't give a damn about anything he says. I may be P. Diddy, but Solid Fro is Elizabeth Hasslebeck.

Oh, and I still don't want a hockey mom potentially being my prez. Seriously, wtf.

Obama for prez.

Cheers Fro now.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to have a discussion, then shut your pie-hole. Don't make insolent remarks and childish statements and then leave.
 
I am Elizabeth Hasselbeck. I sit at a table with social retards.

Mmm, Hasselbeck is so fine. I've been in love with her since Survivor.

320_ehasselbeck_070430_bbedder_71515346.jpg
 
Could she be any more vague? Frankly, she comes across as a blithering lightweight. Of course, that is part of her appeal, apparently.

Here's a bit more...



:ill:
 
Last edited:
Jack Cafferty's take:



That's what happens when you get a pageant queen to tote the party/campaign line. I wonder what she would've said if she was being honest.
 
Solid Fro
I am Elizabeth Hasselbeck. I sit at a table with social retards.

Mmm, Hasselbeck is so fine. I've been in love with her since Survivor.

320_ehasselbeck_070430_bbedder_71515346.jpg
Click to expand...

Why thank you!

edit: Sorry for the double post.
 
Whether or not you agree with the viewpoints of someone like Sarah Palin, isn't it just a tad bit unsettling that someone who could very possibly preside over the United States believes that people and dinosaurs coexisted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html

I guess the article could have it wrong and the whole story is bogus, but that this is even an issue with someone in this position is ****ing scary as hell.
 
Klostrophobic
Whether or not you agree with the viewpoints of someone like Sarah Palin, isn't it just a tad bit unsettling that someone who could very possibly preside over the United States believes that people and dinosaurs coexisted?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html

I guess the article could have it wrong and the whole story is bogus, but that this is even an issue with someone in this position is ****ing scary as hell.
Click to expand...

The "story" is bogus.



You might want to start reading respectable political sites, not Liberal garbage such as The Huffington Post.

Total epic fail. 👎
 
But that this could even get to this point where it is somewhat believable? All these rumors about her banning books and this, there must be something behind it all, no? It's not all just made up bull****, is it?

Why is it bad to read political work from both sides of the fence? I mean, besides the fact that liberals are scum?
 
Klostrophobic
But that this could even get to this point where it is somewhat believable? All these rumors about her banning books and this, there must be something behind it all, no? It's not all just made up bull****, is it?

Why is it bad to read political work from both sides of the fence? I mean, besides the fact that liberals are scum?
Click to expand...

It's definitely not. I just try to keep in perspective who's writing it.

Remember, no matter who you're reading, it's a safe bet that they're conservative garbage or liberal scum to someone.
 
Klostrophobic
But that this could even get to this point where it is somewhat believable? All these rumors about her banning books and this, there must be something behind it all, no? It's not all just made up bull****, is it?
Click to expand...

It plays into the view Liberals have of Conservatives, even if it's not true.

Why is it bad to read political work from both sides of the fence? I mean, besides the fact that liberals are scum?
Click to expand...

Liberal sites (HuffPo, dKos, democratic underground, crooks and liars, etc.) tend to divulge in hate, smears, and lies rather than accurate political stories or opinions. The article that you posted is completely fabricated, yet it remains on HuffPo.
 
Name one Conservative blog that created a story to smear a candidate.

Conservative blogs pride themselves for being hard hitting, yet accurate (believe me, I read them!). Far from the practices of Liberal blogs which post every slime under the sun, without fact checking, as The Huffington Post has done.
 
Last edited:
Name one conservative blog that isn't biased or over looking facts? They all do it to a degree based on the nature of their content. I agree that liberal blogs do the same thing. It's a blog, it's not a valid source of information. Conservative blogs are accurate to you because you subscribe to their ideology, whereas with others they will see liberal blogs more accurate.

Seriously saying conservative blogs are fair and balanced is about as funny as saying the same thing about Fox News.
 
The Huffington Post was 0% accurate. 👎

Joey D
Name one conservative blog that isn't biased or over looking facts?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be called a Conservative blog if it wasn't Conservative, would it? :dunce:

There are plenty of Conservative blogs who use factual information to form their Conservative opinions. Maybe the Liberals have something to learn from them. Little Green Footballs (link in my sig), a Conservative website, is a prime example. It exposed CBS News' manufacuring of the Killian documents during the 2004 election, Reuter's fauxtography during the Israel/Lebanon conflict, and Iran's fauxtography of it's medium-range missile test. No right-wing NeoCon warmonger nut smears, just the facts.
 
Last edited:
How can you argue it's not biased if it's conservative or liberal though? Wouldn't that imply bias?
 
Yes, they are Conservative, however they use factual information to form Conservative opinions. I am certainly not rooting for Obama, but I sure don't fabricate stories just because I disagree with him.
 
Do you still not understand that not all liberal blogs are like the select few you posted, just as not all conservative blogs are like the ones you posted. I agree that there are some that are better than others and there will always be people using the internet to try and put forth a message of hate. I've seen enough very conservative blogs that rip on homosexuals, atheists, evolutionist, and Barack Obama for being black and coming from a Muslim background (despite being Christian). I'm not going to post them as their content could violate the AUP.
 
Solid Fro
You might want to start reading respectable political sites, not Liberal garbage such as The Huffington Post.

Total epic fail. 👎
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can calm down a bit and realize that it is important to read a little bit of everything to get the best picture of whats going on in our world today. While I may wince at the thought of actually watching the overly Conservative Fox Noise, I do on occasion to attempt to rationalize how they think (I fail every time).

As I stated before in the Media thread, you're likely to get a far-better picture of whats going on from the BBC (or any other foreign media outlet) than you are with what is at home. I enjoy the Huffington Post for doing that "hard hitting" thing that you seem to prefer, and whie they occasionally will run a story from The Daily Kos (which is well-known as an extremist website), they will correct their stories when proven wrong.

My usual rundown during the day?

BBC World News, MSNBC, Slate.com, Huffingtonpost.com, and Politico.com.
 

Latest Posts

Back