Forget Obama's preacher, check out McCain's.....

[molson_golden2002]

1) How exactly does that not prove my point? I can't wait for your salon.com retort.

 

2) Here's a little exercise for you: Put together 5 significant legislative accomplishments championed by the Clinton Administration and tie them into the economy of the 1990s. It should be really easy, since he was the President and that's an all powerful position here in these United States.

 

Ooh, that stings.

1) Sorry, Salon doesn't waste time with idiots like you. So I guess the tax increase wasn't so bad, huh?

 

2) Oh brother, that's difficult! NAFTA, GATT and other free trade deals. Yawn.... You do realize that the l;iberalization of trade has been a boon to the world economy, ya?

 

 

Mr. Constitutoionalist, you are too easy. Have a good night

[VABills]

Yikes, your scaring me that your still stuck on that.

 

It must be important for you to belive that Hamas and Obama are connected.

 

It seems strange to me,

 

that you don't even seem slightly bothered by the remarks of a minister that supports McCain strongly.

Yet, Hamas has endorsed Obama. How come he hasn't renounced that endorsement?

[Chilly]

Yet, Hamas has endorsed Obama. How come he hasn't renounced that endorsement?

 

Which raises another question: Should he even acknowledge Hamas by renouncing the endorsement? Doing so would validate that Hamas might have some effect on the American campaign, and provide them with more power than if he just ignores it...

[OCinBuffalo]

Which raises another question: Should he even acknowledge Hamas by renouncing the endorsement? Doing so would validate that Hamas might have some effect on the American campaign, and provide them with more power than if he just ignores it...

This is a good point. Why shouldn't we simply ignore them? I doubt even the most ardent Conservative wants to legitimize those idiots. I will be pissed if they do, because it is flat out bad for the country. McCain's too smart to pull that one out unless he is desperate, and he's leading both Dems right now, so why bother?

 

Edit: Oh, and hey In a Space...., nobody can forget about Obama's pastor because he says idiotic things, goes out and says even more stupid things when he should be apologizing, and refuses to STFU = the best thing he could do. You can wish that we forget about him, but we can't as long as he keeps talking. He's digging himself a hole, he just keeps digging it deeper and deeper, and nobody can ignore this Moron Grand Canyon anymore. I posted before that I wanted to ignore this. How can I when nobody(except Hillary) on the Democratic side will call this guy the idiot that he so blatantly is?

 

I think Wright is on the Clinton payroll. Nothing else makes much sense, does it?.

[Alaska Darin]

1) Sorry, Salon doesn't waste time with idiots like you.

Ooh, got me again.

So I guess the tax increase wasn't so bad, huh?

In that it had no direct effect on the economy of the 1990s? No, it didn't have a major effect positively or negatively at that time. Not that you understand why or anything.

2) Oh brother, that's difficult! NAFTA, GATT and other free trade deals. Yawn.... You do realize that the l;iberalization of trade has been a boon to the world economy, ya?

Ah, so I ask for specific policies and you come with a NAFTA, a bipartisan law sent forward by President George Herbert Walker Bush (and "other free trade deals" whateverthefukk those might be) and finally signed into law by Mr. Clinton - AFTER passing both Houses with a super majority. I forgot what a savant I was dealing with. I'm surprised you left out "he expanded NATO".

Mr. Constitutoionalist, you are too easy. Have a good night

The irony of you not being able to spell "Constitution" ought not be lost on anyone.

[VABills]

Which raises another question: Should he even acknowledge Hamas by renouncing the endorsement? Doing so would validate that Hamas might have some effect on the American campaign, and provide them with more power than if he just ignores it...

How is your response any different then Mccain. Don't acknowledge. Seems pretty hypocritical to ask one to ignore and the other to renounce.

[Chilly]

How is your response any different then Mccain. Don't acknowledge. Seems pretty hypocritical to ask one to ignore and the other to renounce.

 

You don't see any difference between an enemy endorsing you and a citizen endorsing you?

[molson_golden2002]

Ah, so I ask for specific policies and you come with a NAFTA, a bipartisan law sent forward by President George Herbert Walker Bush (and "other free trade deals" whateverthefukk those might be) and finally signed into law by Mr. Clinton - AFTER passing both Houses with a super majority. I forgot what a savant I was dealing with. I'm surprised you left out "he expanded NATO".

The "do-nothing" Mr. Clinton you speak of got through Congress hundreds of trade agreements, actually. And he had to stand up to a large block of voters in his own party to do it. You asked for examples, I have given them to you. Thank you

[VABills]

You don't see any difference between an enemy endorsing you and a citizen endorsing you?

Why recognize either?

 

Also, as Darin pointed out it's about votes. How many germans, and muslims hate the jews and will now vote for Obama because he is a terrorist boy.

 

Same goes for mccain, the wacky radical "pseudo christians" will vote for him, why piss them off.

 

If Obama denounces terroism, he might lose all of the nazi and muslim vote.

 

Mccain risks losing the radical religious groups.

 

I'd say Obama has more votes to lose if he renounced.

[GG]

GATT was an INTERNATIONAL treaty, which had its foundings in 1947 and was replaced by WTO in '95. How you can distort facts to give Clinton credit for its being is hilarious, notwithstanding his wife's efforts to kill free trade.

[molson_golden2002]

GATT was an INTERNATIONAL treaty, which had its foundings in 1947 and was replaced by WTO in '95. How you can distort facts to give Clinton credit for its being is hilarious, notwithstanding his wife's efforts to kill free trade.

[Chuckle] You want to talk about trade??? Funny!

[pBills]

GATT was an INTERNATIONAL treaty, which had its foundings in 1947 and was replaced by WTO in '95. How you can distort facts to give Clinton credit for its being is hilarious, notwithstanding his wife's efforts to kill free trade.

 

 

 

I don't think that anyone wants to "kill" free trade. It's more about making it fair for all sides.

[Wacka]

[Chuckle] You want to talk about trade??? Funny!

 

 

Your knowledge of trade is trading cards with your buddies in mom's basement.

[GG]

[Chuckle] You want to talk about trade??? Funny!

 

You mean "talk" as in knowing the difference between unilateral, bilateral, multilateral and how the President can affect each one, and what powers he has and what the 400+ idiots on the Hill can do to block it? Sure. Can you?

[GG]

I don't think that anyone wants to "kill" free trade. It's more about making it fair for all sides.

 

Then it ceases to be free. But don't let that stop your logic. (Never mind that both D candidates wink at their potential trade partners that their posturing is just to get the Rust Belt votes)

[molson_golden2002]

Then it ceases to be free. But don't let that stop your logic. (Never mind that both D candidates wink at their potential trade partners that their posturing is just to get the Rust Belt votes)

This topic is way over your head. Stick to trying to figuring out a way to beating a two year old at tic tac toe. Someday you might do it!

[In space no one can hear]

This is a good point. Why shouldn't we simply ignore them? I doubt even the most ardent Conservative wants to legitimize those idiots. I will be pissed if they do, because it is flat out bad for the country. McCain's too smart to pull that one out unless he is desperate, and he's leading both Dems right now, so why bother?

 

Edit: Oh, and hey In a Space...., nobody can forget about Obama's pastor because he says idiotic things, goes out and says even more stupid things when he should be apologizing, and refuses to STFU = the best thing he could do. You can wish that we forget about him, but we can't as long as he keeps talking. He's digging himself a hole, he just keeps digging it deeper and deeper, and nobody can ignore this Moron Grand Canyon anymore. I posted before that I wanted to ignore this. How can I when nobody(except Hillary) on the Democratic side will call this guy the idiot that he so blatantly is?

 

I think Wright is on the Clinton payroll. Nothing else makes much sense, does it?.

 

 

I agree that Wright dug himself a hole, but it is his hole, not Obama's.

 

As someone that has lived in Chicago, I know personally,

 

that Wright's church, (that he expanded greatly), has provided an incredible array of much needed services to people in the community.

 

I also know that from listening to them, that "his original" controversial remarks were taken out of context.

 

Adding to his good works in the community, knowing that his served for many years in The Marine Corps, I was quick to defend him.

 

His recent remarks were pathetic, egomanical and shows that he is just too much of a narcissist to know when to shut up.

 

It had to be difficult for Obama to "distance himself" from Wright. But actually I don't see it as distancing as much as Obama being abandonded by a father yet again.

[GG]

This topic is way over your head. Stick to trying to figuring out a way to beating a two year old at tic tac toe. Someday you might do it!

 

It's not surprising that you would use tic tac toe as an example, as apparently it's the way you still sign your name on the dotted line. Come back when you graduate to hangman.

[Sketch Soland]

Molson, I love you.

[Chilly]

Why recognize either?

 

Also, as Darin pointed out it's about votes. How many germans, and muslims hate the jews and will now vote for Obama because he is a terrorist boy.

 

Same goes for mccain, the wacky radical "pseudo christians" will vote for him, why piss them off.

 

If Obama denounces terroism, he might lose all of the nazi and muslim vote.

 

Mccain risks losing the radical religious groups.

 

I'd say Obama has more votes to lose if he renounced.

 

I don't think McCain should renounce either actually, I just thought you were trying to stretch the same logic to McCain that I used with Obama.