More Change From Obama...NOT!! - Page 15

Kanadesaga · 06-21-2008, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericgtr

So if we don't raise taxes where exactly do you propose that we continue to get the $10 million a month to support this war, China? It's funny how everyone thinks we can just sustain a rich economy without having to pay for it.

We already are borrowing from China for this war. It is to the tune of $5 BILLION a month to sustain current levels? (edit: not sure what % is chinese funded)

Quote:

Democrats actually do concern themselves with matters within America and not the actions of a bunch of other countries that have nothing to do with us. And yes, they do need to worry about money because without it there is no way to fight the vicious attacks that only the fucking hateful republicans are capable of.

It isn't just the Reps that can throw dirt. They just do it better.

Quote:

Like it or not they are going to spew the most vile shit possible and it's all going to target Obama. If he has to take a few shots for not accepting public funding in order to deal with them, then it's worth it. Besides those of who follow politics closely nobody is even going to care about this anyway.

Like the rest of his campaign, it is historic. How it plays out is to be seen. I'm not happy with his stance on the telecoms.

Quote:

So while you see this as an unfair shot at republicans or that Obama went back on his word, the rest of the world will see Obama outspending McCain at least three to one. He has the resources to do it and McCain will have to spend all of his resources combating it, not fighting hateful attacks from hateful old time bigots, but policies.

But the RNC is capable of matching Obama and then some.

Quote:

Obama is now and will continue to ramp up the attacks on "policies" not race, what church he went to, what his wife said, or any of that. Just policies. And McCain will not be able to keep up on neither money or campaign stops because Obama will have him on his toes from now until the election. That is something you should probably get used to.

As long as the dottering old fool gets a free pass from the MSM, no amount of money is going to be enough.

lrrp · 06-21-2008, 11:14 PM

Remember too, that the smear machine that is Ronnie's Nearsighted Crusaders hasn't even gotten rolling yet. Hillary helped them a little, but they will start digging in earnest now. When you have hundreds of people digging like that, they will find something sooner or later, and this promises to be a bare knuckles brawl...

OldManOnFire · 06-23-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

i like how they didn't mention the fact that the canadian government admitted publically that the goolsbee memo did not accurately reflect what goolsbee said at that meeting...

or go into the FACT that obama's basic policy towards nafta really HASN'T changed.

i should think anyone who's honestly familiar with obama on nafta, who's listened to his speechs, checked out his official nafta policies, knows enough about his stand on nafta to react to this article with a "pffffffft!"

Quote from February 26, 2007 Democratic debate:

SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.

julia · 06-23-2008, 12:39 PM

It is very likely that the contaminated tomatoes that have sickened +500 have come from Mexico.

The largest producers in the US, Ca and Fla, have traceability programs for their tomato growers while Mexico does not.

There is nothing wrong with tweaking nafta b/c there are obviously some flaws in it...unless you like getting sick from tomatoes, etc.

OldManOnFire · 06-23-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winthrop

Mr. Obama will find himself shifting, some slightly, some more, other
priorities when or if he succeeds to the White House. But the more
interesting thing in this example is his willingness to acknowledge this
inevitability and the nature of campaign rhetoric.
This is something that should be celebrated about Mr. Obama, not
criticized or reacted to defensively.

Well...NAFTA has been in place since 1994, and it's a simple agreement well understood by most people, and there have been data that support both the so-called positive and negative effects of NAFTA. There has been on-going discussion about the program, it's been analyzed by the best, and the jury is out as to whether or not the current policy is flawed or not. There is nothing new today versus a year ago for Obama or anyone else to suddenly change their minds.

In February 2007 Obama stated he has 'strong opposition to NAFTA' and this article shows a different position.

OldManOnFire · 06-23-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Quote: Originally Posted by DRS112
More whining....what a sad, pathetic, bitter oldman you've turned into.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericgtr

OldManHatesObama?

OldManOnFire hates condescending ignorance. Both of you are incapable of following your own rules and your ignorant writings serve as examples filled with contempt and arrogance. If anything is sad and pathetic, it's the way in which you grossly disrespect the very people who create the success of your site.

DanS. · 06-23-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

OldManOnFire hates condescending ignorance.

Yet you are the biggest perpetrator of showing condescending ignorance...oh the irony

Quote:

Both of you are incapable of following your own rules and your ignorant writings serve as examples filled with contempt and arrogance.

Feel free to report any posts that you feel break the rules...but remember this...Eric pays for this site, not you...he can pretty much do whatever he wants with the rules

Quote:

If anything is sad and pathetic, it's the way in which you grossly disrespect the very people who create the success of your site.

No...there is nothing more sad and pathetic than somebody still crying over the loss of Hillary...

But if your threads are a measure of success, way to set the bar low for everybody else.

winthrop · 06-23-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldManOnFire

Well...NAFTA has been in place since 1994, and it's a simple agreement well understood by most people, and there have been data that support both the so-called positive and negative effects of NAFTA. There has been on-going discussion about the program, it's been analyzed by the best, and the jury is out as to whether or not the current policy is flawed or not. There is nothing new today versus a year ago for Obama or anyone else to suddenly change their minds.

In February 2007 Obama stated he has 'strong opposition to NAFTA' and this article shows a different position.

Yes, I understand that.
Unlike Bush, Obama is willing to reconsider his original position in
light of different or new information. Given what "steadfastness" has
given us lo these past seven and one half years, I find that refreshing.
True, it opens him up to accusations of "flip flop", which the McCain
Media will obsess over while ignoring their man's reversals.

I will add, however, I am troubled by Mr. Obama's take on the FISA
bill, by his support of the bill itself, while promising he will remove
the telecom immunity elements. It is my own preference that he
oppose the bill altogether.

OldManOnFire · 06-23-2008, 01:28 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericgtr

War mongering against Iran eh, did he use the term obliterate? For those with memory issues the answer to that is NO, Hillary Clinton did but go ahead and conveniently leave that out. It only counts if Obama has a stance on it, I know.

You and others ran Hillary out of town yet you refuse to end your constant referrals to her as if they make some relevant point. She is gone--get over it.

Quote:

As a democrat who wants our democratic candidate to win I personally glad to see him decline public financing. Are you going to tell me that if an opportunity arises for the republicans that they would be the saints they are and not take advantage of it? I think not. There is no way in hell the McCain can raise the money or enthusiasm that Obama can, don't act all high and mighty because McCain wants Obama to run on limited funds. You talk like a freeper man.

Obama made an agreement with McCain. Is winning more important than one's ethics or standards or loyalty to their commitments?? For you they obviously are...but not for me.

And how jealous you appear of McCain and the Republicans?? Why do you believe they can raise any more money, in any more questionable ways than the Democrats can? Any loophole the Reps can do so can the Dems.

You and your win-at-all-costs has been one of the detriments of the USA in recent years. Just when the Dems believe they have a candidate who is 'different' from the typical 'wheelers and dealers in Washington' Obama proves himself to be like all the others...

OldManOnFire · 06-23-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericgtr

All anyone supporting our nominee needs to know is that by declining public funding he is getting the upper hand on McCain, why do you think McCain and the republicans are freaking out about it?

Would you have Obama agree to something that is going to hurt him in the GE? I don't care what he said or signed, if it's not binding they can go to hell.

You sound like one of those pathetic fathers at little league baseball who rant and rave about how winning is everything and screw sportsmanship and fairness and loyalty and rules...you must win at all costs.

If Obama made an agreement with McCain then Obama should live up to that agreement. Anything less is nothing more than self-serving. And we just had over seven years of self-serving insane-Bush and now you cheer for another one just like him...amazing...

06-21-2008, 11:14 PM	#142 (permalink)
lrrp Senior Member Alchol Test Champion! Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Evergreen, Colorado Posts: 1,602 My Mood: Thanks: 24 Thanked 57 Times in 32 Posts	Remember too, that the smear machine that is Ronnie's Nearsighted Crusaders hasn't even gotten rolling yet. Hillary helped them a little, but they will start digging in earnest now. When you have hundreds of people digging like that, they will find something sooner or later, and this promises to be a bare knuckles brawl...
	Top

06-23-2008, 12:39 PM	#144 (permalink)
julia Sassy Lipstick Maverick Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 3,795 Blog Entries: 7 Thanks: 271 Thanked 272 Times in 164 Posts	It is very likely that the contaminated tomatoes that have sickened +500 have come from Mexico. The largest producers in the US, Ca and Fla, have traceability programs for their tomato growers while Mexico does not. There is nothing wrong with tweaking nafta b/c there are obviously some flaws in it...unless you like getting sick from tomatoes, etc.
	Top

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