Could John Edwards Decide the Democratic Nominee for President? - Page 7

Kanadesaga · 02-11-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

Disclaimer - nothing in this post is directly attacking DRS nor his positions.

well that's no fun!

Teri B. · 02-11-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThetaBurst

Well, we'll get back to Frank Rich in a moment but, first, it seems the only thing you've actually perused is your animosity towards others who won't let you get away with your transparent anti-Obama malice.

This thread --and your latest attempt to spit on Obama-- has nothing to do with John Edwards. It's as veiled an anti-Obama commentary as was your miserably failed Rezko thread. I'm sure you remember that barn burner.

Anyway, since you perused the Frank Rich article, perhaps you wouldn't mind sharing with our fellow readers the entire article. Let's peruse them together, shall we? I've highlighted in bold the more interesting comments.

Now, Teri, what were you saying about this article, again?

Hey, you even managed to get in one of your little cute emoticons! Awww. It's so cute! You're confused, are you? Thank goodness for that emoticon. It helps us understand that you're confused.

Of course you did.

And nothing in that op ed is new, just conveniently slanted. I'm supposed to take this twit's opinion as fact? Hardly.

I'll spit on him, question his positions, or anything else I FUCKING feel like. He's not my sacred cow. He's a guy we're voting to decide whether we're going to give the most important job in the world. Cry, whine, slander, and personally attack me all you want. That doesn't mean I'll stop questioning who this guy is and what he's about. It's IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO.

itsmeeeeeee · 02-11-2008, 09:18 AM

teri -

i only know two clinton supporters - and the ONLY reason they support her is because she's a woman. they can't defend her lobbiest funding, they can't support her votes and positions, they don't even like her mandated health care because they hate the idea that it could garnish a person's wages, and they don't give a damn that there's a possibility that she could lose the general because she motivates neocons - hell, they even admit that her claim to 35 years of experience is a stretch and pretty disengenuous.

the ONLY REASON they want her is because they think it's high time a woman was in the white house.

now, to me, THAT'S just plain irresponsible reasoning.

Teri B. · 02-11-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

teri -

i only know two clinton supporters - and the ONLY reason they support her is because she's a woman. they can't defend her lobbiest funding, they can't support her votes and positions, they don't even like her mandated health care because they hate the idea that it could garnish a person's wages, and they don't give a damn that there's a possibility that she could lose the general because she motivates neocons - hell, they even admit that her claim to 35 years of experience is a stretch and pretty disengenuous.

the ONLY REASON they want her is because they think it's high time a woman was in the white house.

now, to me, THAT'S just plain irresponsible reasoning.

Well since their completely deadlocked in the election, I'd say there are more than two of them. Even though they're scarcely represented on this board, they exist.

itsmeeeeeee · 02-11-2008, 10:08 AM

and you propose what, again?

that obama and clinton suspend their separate campaigns and run one together?

doesn't that completely undercut the voter's right to choose the candidate?
i mean, since even THEY admit that they have similar platforms, doesn't this heated race boil down to who the people think could get more done, be more effective in office, and who could win the general election?

ThetaBurst · 02-11-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

And nothing in that op ed is new, just conveniently slanted. I'm supposed to take this twit's opinion as fact? Hardly.

Oh, Teri.

And your week was looking so promising, LOL.

Alright, let's do this; since you characterize the Frank Rich op/ed as "slanted" and call into question his credibility, why don't you take a moment and explain to us exactly what in that article is factually incorrect?

Quote:

I'll spit on him, question his positions, or anything else I FUCKING feel like.

My, my.

Temper, temper.

Does this mean Mount Teri is about to erupt?

Why, I do believe it does.

Quote:

That doesn't mean I'll stop questioning who this guy is and what he's about. It's IRRESPONSIBLE NOT TO.

Teri, Barack Obama has been the subject of intense scrutiny since he announced his candidacy in February of last year.

Welcome to 2007.

What, just because the Clintons haven't found anything on him, you're gonna bust the case wide open today, with a few clicks on Google?

This is going to be such fun.

ThetaBurst · 02-11-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

Well since their completely deadlocked in the election, I'd say there are more than two of them. Even though they're scarcely represented on this board, they exist.

Not in these states, LOL

Louisiana

Washington

Nebraska

Maine

DanS. · 02-11-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teri B.

So did Obama - accept he wasn't in the Senate during the first vote.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

And yes, Hillary panders, I don't like that, and I've said so repeatedly. But don't kid yourself, so does Obama. That remark about him being a transformational president like Reagan was aimed directly at sucking in independents and conservatives.

Teri...I don't have to like Obama to trash Hillary. Right?

Quote:

Disclaimer - nothing in this post is directly attacking DRS nor his positions.

Teri B. · 02-11-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

Teri...I don't have to like Obama to trash Hillary. Right?

Nah, I guess you were just ahead of the trend.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode