Chris Matthews pummels conservative talk show host

[OCinBuffalo]

Yeah, the folks you just dismissed are all dreadful.

 

 

They should all be forced to hear the libritaitard/Con viewpoint (what's a libertairian besides a republican too afraid to mention he'a a conservatard?) in a Ben Stein documentary about evilution.

 

 

Ya git wot u deserve

What a shocker, instead of replied to any of the content, we get to hear:

1. A dismissal of a dismissal without any comment as to why

2. A false premise that equates my rational thought with compulsory indoctrination.

 

Sorry dude, but the facts I have laid out are what they are. Attack all you like but, obviously, don't try to actually dispute any of them reasonably. Why should we expect you to? When do you guys ever not respond with emotion? And let's bring up a movie that has nothing to do with what I am talking about as well.

 

Great communication skills + a withering command of the facts..... Once again, we see that when far-left people are confronted wit reality and reasonable set of positions based on knowledge, experience, and logic, they are left with.....what exactly, Ben f'ing Stein?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Once again, we see that when far-right people are confronted with reality and reasonable set of positions based on truth, facts, and logic, they are left with.....what exactly, Sean F'ing Hannity?

Fixed

[OCinBuffalo]

Fixed

Sorry but your changes don't really work. Swing and a miss, another strike, maybe Molson will get in on this for a retard strike out. Looks like you need to go re-read Jack's books before you use him in your signature line.

 

Try again: The point I am making is that in this thread, I have made a clear, logical position for why raising taxes in midst of an economic slow down is fundamentally a bad idea, and when confronted with that logic, we end up with some tool talking about Ben Stein. What does that even mean? Should we assume that you guys are accepting what I am saying and just trying to grab any port in the storm? It's hysterical that you are proving my point for me by your response. Far left liberals vs. clearly superior ideas = crazy liberals(there are sane ones) play word games, bring up nonsense points and attack random targets like Ben Stein and Hannity. Or, have you simply not taken economics or finance in college yet? maybe still in high school?

 

I am really going to enjoy this political season, and I'll be howling laughing at this stupidity in November. Can't wait for the standardized, crazy left, blame game methodology to game to start if McCain gets elected. The media is already setting it up, this way they can say that the only reason McCain got elected is because the Democrats tore themselves up. So, the media gets defer all blame for basically creating this mess in the first place. They never took any time to vet Obama and instead immediately anointed him, they scolded Hillary, and they tried to ignore McCain....

 

...now Obama has 4 albatrosses hanging around his neck and we haven't even gotten to his quesitonable tax, health care and defense policies yet. Hillary now looks to me like the best candidate(from an electable standpoint), but she isn't even gonna get a chance to play in the big game. McCain has been doing nothing but running unopposed on the cheap, raising money, getting his people together, and looking very Presidential the entire time. He is an expert politician and you dumbasses are giving him every opportunity to crush you(hint: he doesn't really need your help to do that). He's basically running against nothing = zero substance, shallow, barely considered and poorly thought out/constructed policies that appear to be the work of a college sophomore.

 

Not very smart, it's like continuing to fumble the ball on your own 20 against the Colts, but why should we expect sound thinking from a party that has been taken over by people who think emoticons and/or snarky comments = workable ideas? The debates are going to be real entertainment. If Obama can't even debate Hillary, what do you think he's going to do against McCain(whiff, another strike)?

 

How much do you want to bet that as soon as the general election really starts, the Obama = JFK crap comes out from the media? Nothing could be more phony, but why should we expect anything else from people like Chris Matthews? After all, he gets inspirational feelings up his leg whenever Obama says anything.

 

Like I said, there were going to be 2 major upsets/choke jobs this year, and we have already seen one. And, they will happen for the same reason: hubris. Obama lovers acting like they have already won = going for it on 4th and 13 in the 1st half. I hope you are enjoying yourselves now, because even if Obama wins he will come into office very, very weak, and it's likely we will all suffer during his 1(single) term.

[Philly McButterpants]

Because Democrats have never been about the middle class, they are about giving away free shitt to the poor in exchange for votes. They talk about the middle class, but they have no problem dropping tax bombs on them to pay for their grossly overblown, ridiculously poorly managed spending projects that accomplish little in terms of solving the problems they were intended to fix.

 

This is quite possible the most accurate description of the Democratic Party that I have ever read. Hat's off to you OC. . .

[Kelly the Dog]

Sorry but your changes don't really work. Swing and a miss, another strike, maybe Molson will get in on this for a retard strike out. Looks like you need to go re-read Jack's books before you use him in your signature line.

 

Try again: The point I am making is that in this thread, I have made a clear, logical position for why raising taxes in midst of an economic slow down is fundamentally a bad idea, and when confronted with that logic, we end up with some tool talking about Ben Stein. What does that even mean? Should we assume that you guys are accepting what I am saying and just trying to grab any port in the storm? It's hysterical that you are proving my point for me by your response. Far left liberals vs. clearly superior ideas = crazy liberals(there are sane ones) play word games, bring up nonsense points and attack random targets like Ben Stein and Hannity. Or, have you simply not taken economics or finance in college yet? maybe still in high school?

 

I am really going to enjoy this political season, and I'll be howling laughing at this stupidity in November. Can't wait for the standardized, crazy left, blame game methodology to game to start if McCain gets elected. The media is already setting it up, this way they can say that the only reason McCain got elected is because the Democrats tore themselves up. So, the media gets defer all blame for basically creating this mess in the first place. They never took any time to vet Obama and instead immediately anointed him, they scolded Hillary, and they tried to ignore McCain....

 

...now Obama has 4 albatrosses hanging around his neck and we haven't even gotten to his quesitonable tax, health care and defense policies yet. Hillary now looks to me like the best candidate(from an electable standpoint), but she isn't even gonna get a chance to play in the big game. McCain has been doing nothing but running unopposed on the cheap, raising money, getting his people together, and looking very Presidential the entire time. He is an expert politician and you dumbasses are giving him every opportunity to crush you(hint: he doesn't really need your help to do that). He's basically running against nothing = zero substance, shallow, barely considered and poorly thought out/constructed policies that appear to be the work of a college sophomore.

 

Not very smart, it's like continuing to fumble the ball on your own 20 against the Colts, but why should we expect sound thinking from a party that has been taken over by people who think emoticons and/or snarky comments = workable ideas? The debates are going to be real entertainment. If Obama can't even debate Hillary, what do you think he's going to do against McCain(whiff, another strike)?

 

How much do you want to bet that as soon as the general election really starts, the Obama = JFK crap comes out from the media? Nothing could be more phony, but why should we expect anything else from people like Chris Matthews? After all, he gets inspirational feelings up his leg whenever Obama says anything.

 

Like I said, there were going to be 2 major upsets/choke jobs this year, and we have already seen one. And, they will happen for the same reason: hubris. Obama lovers acting like they have already won = going for it on 4th and 13 in the 1st half. I hope you are enjoying yourselves now, because even if Obama wins he will come into office very, very weak, and it's likely we will all suffer during his 1(single) term.

Wanna bet $100 tax free money that the great politician John McCain with the sound tax policy loses to the empty suit nobody Obama?

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Sorry but your changes don't really work. Swing and a miss, another strike, maybe Molson will get in on this for a retard strike out. Looks like you need to go re-read Jack's books before you use him in your signature line.

 

Try again: The point I am making is that in this thread, I have made a clear, logical position for why raising taxes in midst of an economic slow down is fundamentally a bad idea, and when confronted with that logic, we end up with some tool talking about Ben Stein. What does that even mean? Should we assume that you guys are accepting what I am saying and just trying to grab any port in the storm? It's hysterical that you are proving my point for me by your response. Far left liberals vs. clearly superior ideas = crazy liberals(there are sane ones) play word games, bring up nonsense points and attack random targets like Ben Stein and Hannity. Or, have you simply not taken economics or finance in college yet? maybe still in high school?

Well, there's a few holes in your big bang theory...

 

* At $200B or so per year for Iraq and another in $200-$400B in McCain tax cuts whose costs are verified by his own staff, how in the hell do you pay for it? The answer is significantly increased deficit spending. And please don't quote your trickle down, supply-side theories. That's like Clinton telling us we're gonna return to the same economic prosperity we had during her husband's terms. $200-400B for more tax cuts that mostly target the wealthy and large corporations? That'll work in 2008. NOT! Obama will cut the tax for middle class America and raise taxes for the wealthy. Yeah, nobody will vote for that, will they?

 

* 76-80% of the American people hate the war in Iraq! They won't elect another president who will continue the same failed policies.

 

* Albatrosses? Most of what plagued Obama is old news and Americans don't wanna hear about it. Reverend Wright, flag pins, Bill Ayers, Bittergate? Come on, I really do hope the GOP tries to run a negative campaign by highlighting these tired stories. It will fall on its face, and sounds like McCain already knows it. Wait till all of the flip flopping by McCain is reinforced on a daily basis. Or great ideas like his Gas Tax Holiday. I'm guessing that Obama is rubbing his hands in anticipation of a debate with McCain where not only does he lose his temper, but spews all of the attributes of a 3rd Bush term.

 

* The Republican brand, philosophy, tactics, and strategy are in the toilet; worse than any other time in modern history, with the possible exception of Watergate. They are not only gonna lose the White House, they're about to lose 20 or more seats in Congress.

 

* Americans are also sooooo tired of the old school Washington, DC, with its powerful lobbyists and special interests. They want a change and that change is embodied in Barack Obama. Will he be successful? Impossible to say, but he's got a shot at making a huge difference in the way Washington has operated for way too long.

 

* The isolationist, tough guy, and lack of diplomacy (for the most part) foreign policy strategy has made America the enemy and the laughing stock of the world. It will take many years to repair our image and achieve success in our foreign policy initiatives after the damage done. Attacking Obama for wanting to negotiate without preconditions is laughable given the failures of this policy in the past 2 presidential terms. What's even more funny is that the current administration did the very same thing they ridicule Obama about with Sudan, a country they tie to genocide. So all that experience in GOP-style foreign policy is a liability, not an asset my friend.

 

There's so much more with respect to the economy, energy, and business as usual...

 

You can throw all the dirt you want about left wing politics, Obama, and how great your holier than thou conservatism is, because you're not only gonna lose, you're gonna lose big time.

[OCinBuffalo]

This is quite possible the most accurate description of the Democratic Party that I have ever read. Hat's off to you OC. . .

It really is too bad, because they weren't always this way. It used to be about supporting workers only and giving people a fighting chance, not coddling non-workers/half-ass workers by giving away things that come as a result of doing a good job for free = entitling the undeserving. Or, lining up incentives not to work or do more because doing so = no free money or more taxes = why bother?

 

It used to be about standing up to our enemies, every day all the time, and yes, fighting preemptive wars that we knew we were going to have to fight sooner or later(Wilson, FDR, JFK). For example, it used to have presidents who would go over to any enemy's doorstep and give him the bird(JFK in Berlin), or, confronting the Japanese about their activities in China, knowing full well that it would lead to war(FDR's whole 1939-40 gameplan).

 

Mostly it used to be about taking on the problems we face head on and actually doing something that would solve those problems, not spending all its time propping up failed programs because they get votes out of the deal, or playing CYA if what they said ends up wrong. It's great foreign policy presidents were men of action based on character(Truman), not men of words based on political expediency(LBJ, Carter, Clinton).

 

What started out as a set of temporary policies designed to get us out of the trouble that was the Great Depression, have been bastardized(LBJ, Carter) into a way to send us right back there. Hell, Carter almost did it. Couple that with a way, way, way, over-developed ego, a smugness that borders on comical, and an absolute certainly on so many issues that merely betrays their ignorance of them, and you have the new Democrats, hooray. Instead of the party that was about thinking, coming up with ideas and leading the way with those ideas, it's now about bitching, repeating slogans over and over, and pointing fingers while solving nothing. We need look no further than the wonderful 2006 Democratic Congress, look at their results and therefore approval rating, to see that the difference is obvious.

 

It really is too bad.

[OCinBuffalo]

Wanna bet $100 tax free money that the great politician John McCain with the sound tax policy loses to the empty suit nobody Obama?

So you do want to go for it on 4th and 13 in the first half, huh?

 

Sure, but let's wait until after the first debate. I don't want to take advantage of you. That you would start betting now, when they haven't really gone toe to toe yet, merely proves my point, again. I really don't understand why anybody thinks Obama is even close to having this locked up, especially when Democrats have given McCain the head start they have. I just listened to a speech earlier, and despite the best attempts of "protesters" = obviously plants, he sounds pretty darn formidable, while everything I have heard from Obama lately sounds pretty darn weak. But, like I said, let's wait till after the first debate so we can see apples to apples first.

[Kelly the Dog]

So you do want to go for it on 4th and 13 in the first half, huh?

 

Sure, but let's wait until after the first debate. I don't want to take advantage of you. That you would start betting now, when they haven't really gone toe to toe yet, merely proves my point, again. I really don't understand why anybody thinks Obama is even close to having this locked up, especially when Democrats have given McCain the head start they have. I just listened to a speech earlier, and despite the best attempts of "protesters" = obviously plants, he sounds pretty darn formidable, while everything I have heard from Obama lately sounds pretty darn weak. But, like I said, let's wait till after the first debate so we can see apples to apples first.

First, I already bet someone, so I am already quite sure.

 

Second, nice try declining a wager by saying you don't want to take advantage of me. That's embarrassing to you. I now know you have no confidence in your own man. But to avoid even more embarrassment here, you'll have to now say "Okay, let's bet the $100 now before the debate."

[OCinBuffalo]

Well, there's a few holes in your big bang theory...

 

* At $200B or so per year for Iraq and another in $200-$400B in McCain tax cuts whose costs are verified by his own staff, how in the hell do you pay for it? The answer is significantly increased deficit spending. And please don't quote your trickle down, supply-side theories. That's like Clinton telling us we're gonna return to the same economic prosperity we had during her husband's terms. $200-400B for more tax cuts that mostly target the wealthy and large corporations? That'll work in 2008. NOT! Obama will cut the tax for middle class America and raise taxes for the wealthy. Yeah, nobody will vote for that, will they?

Well, apparently you didn't think this one through very well, which isn't much of a surprise. First of all, you don't seem to know that 75% of the Federal budget is spent on ENTITLEMENT programs. I noticed that nowhere in your post you include the estimated $500-$1Trillion( with a T )cost of free health care, and I even think that's a laugher, it's likely to cost $2Ts yearly when all is said and done. That new money is supposed to come from where, exactly? You can't tax the rich any further without open revolt, and you won't make poor people pay anything, so who does that leave? THE MIDDLE CLASS! The inability of Far-Left people to see the whole problem for what it is never ceases to amaze. But, of course, why let something like proportion and reason get in the way of:

 

Bumper sticker #1 = WE TAX RICH PEOPLE....first....then....yeah, then we basically tax everybody.

 

* 76-80% of the American people hate the war in Iraq! They won't elect another president who will continue the same failed policies.

Newsflash: people don't like war! Wow, now this was a poll worth every penny, huh? See, if you took the same poll in 1944, I wonder what the answer would be? OMG, 76-80%! The difference: people didn't bother with needing to take a poll to know that nobody likes war then. But, this is a different time, and apparently we need to be reminded of the obvious. The funny part is if I was asked that question in that poll, I would also say I hate the war in Iraq, as I hate all war. The difference, I think, is that I don't phony up and pretend like war is not a necessary evil, especially when you are dealing with an irrational enemy. I'm sure if Al Gore decided to go to war in Iraq you'd be just as pissed, right? But, of course, why let reality and prudent thought get in the way of:

 

Bumper sticker #2 = PEOPLE HATE THIS WAR MORE THAN ANY OTHER WAR. Right, and all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal, sure.

 

* Albatrosses? Most of what plagued Obama is old news and Americans don't wanna hear about it. Reverend Wright, flag pins, Bill Ayers, Bittergate? Come on, I really do hope the GOP tries to run a negative campaign by highlighting these tired stories. It will fall on its face, and sounds like McCain already knows it. Wait till all of the flip flopping by McCain is reinforced on a daily basis. Or great ideas like his Gas Tax Holiday. I'm guessing that Obama is rubbing his hands in anticipation of a debate with McCain where not only does he lose his temper, but spews all of the attributes of a 3rd Bush term.

Right, so the American Democrats who handed Obama 30 point losses in the swing states that are going to really count in November, don't wanna hear about it? This is laughable. McCain has done a fine job of deflecting:

 

Bumper sticker #3 McCAIN = BUSH...even though pretty much the reason McCain wasn't the nominee in 2000 was that McCain had broken ranks with the people that supported Bush, multiple times, and was attacked for it, let's pretend that didn't happen.

 

But sure, we're on a roll and denial of fact is a pattern for you in this post. McCain = Bush is such BS that again, I find myself laughing at this pitiful attempt at a pivot. This is why I said above that so far it appears to me that a college sophomore is acting as Obama's Karl Rove. If they keep this up, when all we have heard about McCain is that he bucks the Republicans every time he does it, for the last 15 years, it's going to get even more funny. So please, by all means don't let me stop you. I love a good laugh.

* The Republican brand, philosophy, tactics, and strategy are in the toilet; worse than any other time in modern history, with the possible exception of Watergate. They are not only gonna lose the White House, they're about to lose 20 or more seats in Congress.

I love this "brand" thing. The next once-useful word to suffer the cliche beating of the uniformed and/or wanna-bes. "Brand" soon to join "Mission Statement", "Out of the box", "Issue", "Don't go there" and "Jump the Shark" as utterly meaningless thanks to retards, film at 11.

 

Of course, the current 9% approval rating of the Democratic Congress and the fact that they have yet to keep 1 of the promises they made won't factor into any of your thinking, and why should it? Why indeed? As always, you guys start with the conclusion and then go chase facts to back it up.

 

You are entitled to your opinion of how things are going to go, what you aren't entitled to is ignoring the truth about how the availability of capital effects economic growth. Much smarter people than both of us have figured out these rules, and confirmed them, for years. But, of course, why should sound business principles and historical fact get in the way of:

 

Bumper Sticker #4 REPUBLICANS ARE DEAD...but the ideas that run business are....not...so...if the ideas aren't dead, because they are true, then...hmm, somebody is bound to come along, pick them up and start all over again huh? I remember Laura Ingraham saying something like this after the 2002 election, which made history because for the first time a new president's party picked up seats, and I remember thinking that was cocky.

 

You, talking smack about a Congress that has a 9% approval rating and doesn't even try, that's not cocky, that's just funny.

* Americans are also sooooo tired of the old school Washington, DC, with its powerful lobbyists and special interests. They want a change and that change is embodied in Barack Obama. Will he be successful? Impossible to say, but he's got a shot at making a huge difference in the way Washington has operated for way too long.

Americans have been tired of these issues since John Adams became the President and didn't fire the old cabinet. The fact is, to be good, the President needs everybody sooner or later, and that includes support from trial lawyers some days, and Wall Street the next. Why? Because he represents everybody, and because we live in a republic, which, by definition, means that somebody is always coming around representing the interests of somebody else, who is "paying" them in one way or another to do so, elected official or lobbyist. That's reality. I think it's blatantly naive to assume that this is going to change when we have had 200 years of it mostly working properly. Fundamentally, this comes down to getting ideas to the people you think need to hear them.

 

So I ask you, what will replace the current system? It's one thing to talk about change, or positive change for that matter. So I am asking, change to what, and how will that what be better? What's the alternative we are going to change to? Email? How do we expect Congress to understand a complex issue that's important to us unless we send somebody/go down there to talk with them about it? Osmosis? Oprah? Fox News?

 

So, what replaces the current discussion/communication system? And, as a project manager, who has seen the government screw up project after project, even 2 car funeral gigs, please don't tell me that they are going to do an IT play that's actually going to work. But, of course, why let a reasonable question get in the way of:

 

Bumper Sticker #5 WE GOING TO CHANGE....to something....we just don't know what it is yet, or whether it will make things better, but let's say the word change over and over again....while we rush around and try to find something substantive to hang our hat on.

* The isolationist, tough guy, and lack of diplomacy (for the most part) foreign policy strategy has made America the enemy and the laughing stock of the world. It will take many years to repair our image and achieve success in our foreign policy initiatives after the damage done. Attacking Obama for wanting to negotiate without preconditions is laughable given the failures of this policy in the past 2 presidential terms. What's even more funny is that the current administration did the very same thing they ridicule Obama about with Sudan, a country they tie to genocide. So all that experience in GOP-style foreign policy is a liability, not an asset my friend.

Let me make this as absolutely clear to you as I can. Nobody is laughing at us right now, especially Europe, who now fully understands that they hold 0 sway over the Middle East. You can say that we failed in Iraq for a while, but even you can't say it anymore. And the message you didn't get out of this is this: nobody will will be calling our bluff for a long time, because we have proven that we will use force, and even invade your country, if we have to. That, my friend, is the original Teddy Roosevelt speak softly, carry a big stick diplomacy gameplan that we have been using to great effect for years. Unfortunately, when you carry a big stick, every 20-30 years or so, some ahole starts thinking you don't have the guts to use the stick, or that that stick isn't so big, and you have to smack him around with to make an example of him.

 

My point is this: without the big stick, nobody cares how you speak. Say what you want, but for the next 20 years every little piss ant dictator now knows that we have no problem going to military options as a last resort and that those options are real, not just talk. That creates a realistic setting for our diplomats to do their jobs and keep us out of war in the first place. So, your analysis is flawed once again, my friend. B word all you want, but the reality that the threat of force against this country must be met with the certain threat of reciprocity has been proven out once again, as it has about 30 times already.

 

As a one of my history professors used to say: Vietnam was just unlucky, that war was going to get fought someplace, and it ended up being there, and she's right.

There's so much more with respect to the economy, energy, and business as usual...

 

You can throw all the dirt you want about left wing politics, Obama, and how great your holier than thou conservatism is, because you're not only gonna lose, you're gonna lose big time.

Yeah there's the Great and Knowledgeable Democratic Congress': 0 energy policy, the 0 drilling for oil in our own backyard that the Saudis don't understand = why are we bitching at them when we can get our own oil, and why it's OK for Cuba and not us, the shale oil moratorium they just voted for that I honestly have no idea what they are thinking, since we can get a s_load of oil from that and we have an s_load of shale, to name a few things...

 

See that's the difference I am not throwing dirt, I am simply addressing the issues as issues. You're not going to hear me talk about what Rev. Wright said, you're going to hear me say: how can Obama, or his people, or both be so stupid as to let that become an issue? And, if they are that ineffective on an easy one, why should I trust him/them with dealing something of massive import, like China?

 

Apparently you haven't read many of my posts because I am far from a Conservative. I am pro: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Legalized Drugs, Realistic Immigration policy that doesn't start by calling 12 million illegals criminals, tougher emission standards, and for doubling the R&D grants we give out asap as a way to get people into energy alternatives.

 

All of the above simply stands to REASON(meaning I actually thought about each issue for myself without someone telling me what to think using bumper stickers). I am against things like raising taxes in an economic slowdown, not building nuclear power plants, or cutting and running in Iraq because they do not stand to reason. Period.

 

I couldn't care less who is in power, but it appears to me that Democrats right now are absolutely fooling themselves with how they think us independents perceive them, and BTW, we are the votes that win elections, not the ideology retards who cancel each other out.

[OCinBuffalo]

First, I already bet someone, so I am already quite sure.

 

Second, nice try declining a wager by saying you don't want to take advantage of me. That's embarrassing to you. I now know you have no confidence in your own man. But to avoid even more embarrassment here, you'll have to now say "Okay, let's bet the $100 now before the debate."

Sorry, 2 things wrong here, I'm not declining, and McCain isn't my man. For me this is like betting on a Seahawks vs. 49ers game, and I simply want to watch them play in a real game before I bet.

 

And buddy, I have no idea where you got such a high opinion of yourself that somehow you think anything you, or anybody you know, will ever do/say anything for the rest of your lives that will cause me to be embarrassed. Now that is funny. Time to take stock of your actual relevance, pal. No doubt you're a good poster here, but really? Embarrassed? Come on. But, then again, it's not surprising given the obvious trend here among far left people who somehow think they are superior to the average person.

 

I don't care, if you want to bet after the first debate, great, if you don't, that's fine too, but those are my terms.

[Kelly the Dog]

Sorry, 2 things wrong here, I'm not declining, and McCain isn't my man. For me this is like betting on a Seahawks vs. 49ers game, and I simply want to watch them play in a real game before I bet.

 

And buddy, I have no idea where you got such a high opinion of yourself that somehow you think anything you, or anybody you know, will ever do/say anything for the rest of your lives that will cause me to be embarrassed. Now that is funny. Time to take stock of your actual relevance, pal. No doubt you're a good poster here, but really? Embarrassed? Come on. But, then again, it's not surprising given the obvious trend here among far left people who somehow think they are superior to the average person.

 

I don't care, if you want to bet after the first debate, great, if you don't, that's fine too, but those are my terms.

Nice reading comprehension. I said "it's embarrassing" to you, and you will suffer from more embarrassment, which is probably happening right now as anyone else reads this. People that embarrass themselves don't need to be embarrassed themselves, moron. In fact, the fact that they're not embarrassed themselves is one of the main reasons they're embarrassing themselves.

 

And what possible scenario could there be after the first debate that would make you not wish to make the bet? That McCain "embarrassed himself" against a total empty suit whose programs will bankrupt and ruin America? If your Republican "brand" can't beat someone from nowhere who says and stands for nothing and will ruin the country, what does that say about the Republican brand?

 

The real fun is reading your blather about lefties feeling superior to other people when pretty much every single one of your 760-odd posts is drenched in a runaway superiority complex. Thanks for the laugh.

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

Well, apparently you didn't think this one through very well, which isn't much of a surprise. First of all, you don't seem to know that 75% of the Federal budget is spent on ENTITLEMENT programs. I noticed that nowhere in your post you include the estimated $500-$1Trillion( with a T )cost of free health care, and I even think that's a laugher, it's likely to cost $2Ts yearly when all is said and done. That new money is supposed to come from where, exactly? You can't tax the rich any further without open revolt, and you won't make poor people pay anything, so who does that leave? THE MIDDLE CLASS! The inability of Far-Left people to see the whole problem for what it is never ceases to amaze. But, of course, why let something like proportion and reason get in the way of:

 

Bumper sticker #1 = WE TAX RICH PEOPLE....first....then....yeah, then we basically tax everybody.

 

 

Newsflash: people don't like war! Wow, now this was a poll worth every penny, huh? See, if you took the same poll in 1944, I wonder what the answer would be? OMG, 76-80%! The difference: people didn't bother with needing to take a poll to know that nobody likes war then. But, this is a different time, and apparently we need to be reminded of the obvious. The funny part is if I was asked that question in that poll, I would also say I hate the war in Iraq, as I hate all war. The difference, I think, is that I don't phony up and pretend like war is not a necessary evil, especially when you are dealing with an irrational enemy. I'm sure if Al Gore decided to go to war in Iraq you'd be just as pissed, right? But, of course, why let reality and prudent thought get in the way of:

 

Bumper sticker #2 = PEOPLE HATE THIS WAR MORE THAN ANY OTHER WAR. Right, and all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal, sure.

 

 

Right, so the American Democrats who handed Obama 30 point losses in the swing states that are going to really count in November, don't wanna hear about it? This is laughable. McCain has done a fine job of deflecting:

 

Bumper sticker #3 McCAIN = BUSH...even though pretty much the reason McCain wasn't the nominee in 2000 was that McCain had broken ranks with the people that supported Bush, multiple times, and was attacked for it, let's pretend that didn't happen.

 

But sure, we're on a roll and denial of fact is a pattern for you in this post. McCain = Bush is such BS that again, I find myself laughing at this pitiful attempt at a pivot. This is why I said above that so far it appears to me that a college sophomore is acting as Obama's Karl Rove. If they keep this up, when all we have heard about McCain is that he bucks the Republicans every time he does it, for the last 15 years, it's going to get even more funny. So please, by all means don't let me stop you. I love a good laugh.

 

I love this "brand" thing. The next once-useful word to suffer the cliche beating of the uniformed and/or wanna-bes. "Brand" soon to join "Mission Statement", "Out of the box", "Issue", "Don't go there" and "Jump the Shark" as utterly meaningless thanks to retards, film at 11.

 

Of course, the current 9% approval rating of the Democratic Congress and the fact that they have yet to keep 1 of the promises they made won't factor into any of your thinking, and why should it? Why indeed? As always, you guys start with the conclusion and then go chase facts to back it up.

 

You are entitled to your opinion of how things are going to go, what you aren't entitled to is ignoring the truth about how the availability of capital effects economic growth. Much smarter people than both of us have figured out these rules, and confirmed them, for years. But, of course, why should sound business principles and historical fact get in the way of:

 

Bumper Sticker #4 REPUBLICANS ARE DEAD...but the ideas that run business are....not...so...if the ideas aren't dead, because they are true, then...hmm, somebody is bound to come along, pick them up and start all over again huh? I remember Laura Ingraham saying something like this after the 2002 election, which made history because for the first time a new president's party picked up seats, and I remember thinking that was cocky.

 

You, talking smack about a Congress that has a 9% approval rating and doesn't even try, that's not cocky, that's just funny.

 

Americans have been tired of these issues since John Adams became the President and didn't fire the old cabinet. The fact is, to be good, the President needs everybody sooner or later, and that includes support from trial lawyers some days, and Wall Street the next. Why? Because he represents everybody, and because we live in a republic, which, by definition, means that somebody is always coming around representing the interests of somebody else, who is "paying" them in one way or another to do so, elected official or lobbyist. That's reality. I think it's blatantly naive to assume that this is going to change when we have had 200 years of it mostly working properly. Fundamentally, this comes down to getting ideas to the people you think need to hear them.

 

So I ask you, what will replace the current system? It's one thing to talk about change, or positive change for that matter. So I am asking, change to what, and how will that what be better? What's the alternative we are going to change to? Email? How do we expect Congress to understand a complex issue that's important to us unless we send somebody/go down there to talk with them about it? Osmosis? Oprah? Fox News?

 

So, what replaces the current discussion/communication system? And, as a project manager, who has seen the government screw up project after project, even 2 car funeral gigs, please don't tell me that they are going to do an IT play that's actually going to work. But, of course, why let a reasonable question get in the way of:

 

Bumper Sticker #5 WE GOING TO CHANGE....to something....we just don't know what it is yet, or whether it will make things better, but let's say the word change over and over again....while we rush around and try to find something substantive to hang our hat on.

 

Let me make this as absolutely clear to you as I can. Nobody is laughing at us right now, especially Europe, who now fully understands that they hold 0 sway over the Middle East. You can say that we failed in Iraq for a while, but even you can't say it anymore. And the message you didn't get out of this is this: nobody will will be calling our bluff for a long time, because we have proven that we will use force, and even invade your country, if we have to. That, my friend, is the original Teddy Roosevelt speak softly, carry a big stick diplomacy gameplan that we have been using to great effect for years. Unfortunately, when you carry a big stick, every 20-30 years or so, some ahole starts thinking you don't have the guts to use the stick, or that that stick isn't so big, and you have to smack him around with to make an example of him.

 

My point is this: without the big stick, nobody cares how you speak. Say what you want, but for the next 20 years every little piss ant dictator now knows that we have no problem going to military options as a last resort and that those options are real, not just talk. That creates a realistic setting for our diplomats to do their jobs and keep us out of war in the first place. So, your analysis is flawed once again, my friend. B word all you want, but the reality that the threat of force against this country must be met with the certain threat of reciprocity has been proven out once again, as it has about 30 times already.

 

As a one of my history professors used to say: Vietnam was just unlucky, that war was going to get fought someplace, and it ended up being there, and she's right.

 

Yeah there's the Great and Knowledgeable Democratic Congress': 0 energy policy, the 0 drilling for oil in our own backyard that the Saudis don't understand = why are we bitching at them when we can get our own oil, and why it's OK for Cuba and not us, the shale oil moratorium they just voted for that I honestly have no idea what they are thinking, since we can get a s_load of oil from that and we have an s_load of shale, to name a few things...

 

See that's the difference I am not throwing dirt, I am simply addressing the issues as issues. You're not going to hear me talk about what Rev. Wright said, you're going to hear me say: how can Obama, or his people, or both be so stupid as to let that become an issue? And, if they are that ineffective on an easy one, why should I trust him/them with dealing something of massive import, like China?

 

Apparently you haven't read many of my posts because I am far from a Conservative. I am pro: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Legalized Drugs, Realistic Immigration policy that doesn't start by calling 12 million illegals criminals, tougher emission standards, and for doubling the R&D grants we give out asap as a way to get people into energy alternatives.

 

All of the above simply stands to REASON(meaning I actually thought about each issue for myself without someone telling me what to think using bumper stickers). I am against things like raising taxes in an economic slowdown, not building nuclear power plants, or cutting and running in Iraq because they do not stand to reason. Period.

 

I couldn't care less who is in power, but it appears to me that Democrats right now are absolutely fooling themselves with how they think us independents perceive them, and BTW, we are the votes that win elections, not the ideology retards who cancel each other out.

Obviously you're in denial about most of the problems facing this country and you sell the American people short for assuming they're as blind as you. Responding point by point is a waste of bits, since it will fall on deaf ears.

 

Independents who follow McCain are probably no better than GOP congressmen and women that drank the Bush/Cheney kool-aide. Now they're fighting for their respective political lives.

 

Democrats don't have all the answers and will probably screw up their share of issues in 2009 and beyond, but they're orders of magnitude ahead of the destruction of American ideals, our economy, and our leadership on the world stage we have suffered at the hands of the GOP. Together we can probably fix anything, but first we have to agree there's a problem.

 

Watch what happens when Democrats sweep the White House and the congress in November.

[OCinBuffalo]

Nice reading comprehension. I said "it's embarrassing" to you, and you will suffer from more embarrassment, which is probably happening right now as anyone else reads this. People that embarrass themselves don't need to be embarrassed themselves, moron. In fact, the fact that they're not embarrassed themselves is one of the main reasons they're embarrassing themselves.

 

And what possible scenario could there be after the first debate that would make you not wish to make the bet? That McCain "embarrassed himself" against a total empty suit whose programs will bankrupt and ruin America? If your Republican "brand" can't beat someone from nowhere who says and stands for nothing and will ruin the country, what does that say about the Republican brand?

 

The real fun is reading your blather about lefties feeling superior to other people when pretty much every single one of your 760-odd posts is drenched in a runaway superiority complex. Thanks for the laugh.

I don't suffer from embarrassment much, and certainly not due to whatever a message board hero says, thinks or does. Like I said, try getting even a slight modicum of real world, not message board, relevance, please, and I might start to care what you think...which btw, is the only reason anyone becomes embarrassed, ever. I.E., I'm not embarrassed if you see my thing, if I am using it to piss on you. Besides, I have no idea why you care what I think, but apparently it's important to you since you have taken the time to read all my 760-odd posts, so as not to disappoint, I will continue....

 

What I see is a whole s_load of poorly cloaked insecurity coming from people who support Obama. I also think that at the start of this, the Democrats had every reason to think that the Republican nominee was a sitting duck, but that they couldn't have handled this worse since then. I also see that the media is the reason Obama is where he is now, and I am not sure if they are going to be able to dig him out of the debate hole he created for himself against Hillary in the last? one, again.

 

So, my very reasonable scenario is this: I have no interest in taking a bet on a game that isn't going to be won by one of the teams, but rather, the supposed referees. I want to see apples to apples in a straight up competition that is about the candidates competing, not on the media throwing the game or playing CYA one way or the other.

 

You can't argue: Chris Matthews, and the rest, talking about about the funny feeling he has up his leg was totally inappropriate. I saw that live and right then I started thinking McCain was going to win because Obama was getting a pass, and that he wasn't going to be ready for the big show. Since that day, everything has been pointing to that, other than a few great speeches here and there. I'm just saying that this is objectively what I see happening. You can get angry at me because I am laughing at shitt talkers about to get smoked, but I have been doing that since I can remember and I ain't changing.

 

 

 

Aside:

What does the word brand have to do with politics? I honestly have no idea how a term that started out getting over used about a year ago in business now seems necessary to over-use in politics. Doesn't anybody realize that over-using this word is merely one more way marketing people try to make themselves sound important in meetings? Christ, I have been scoffing at this for years, but suddenly now it catches on...weird.

 

Seriously, you don't think it's laughable that a party who says they are for gay rights, acts stupidly, and ends up getting 34+ state laws banning gay marriage, somehow = to a "brand"? Which brand would that be? ScrewGaysOver.com? Sponsored by HelpIDon'tNeed.net? Why are ideas that 100% party people don't fully agree with even within the highest levels of a political party suddenly being looked at as homogenized products? or lines? Sorry but this brand thing is, like I said, just one more cliche in a long line that is picked up by wanna-bes and over used for everything when they hear someone say it effectively once.

 

What all this "branding" discussion says is that nobody has any f'ing clue what is happening with this election cycle. But, as always, everybody thinks that their wish = reality. What is actually happening, which is ground most of the political folks have never been on before, and what they are trying to say is happening, again, having never been here before, are far and away 2 different things, but they are using a new term to at least make it sound like they know what they are talking about.

[OCinBuffalo]

Obviously you're in denial about most of the problems facing this country and you sell the American people short for assuming they're as blind as you. Responding point by point is a waste of bits, since it will fall on deaf ears.

Wrong. I'd would find it very interesting for you to respond to any of it, but I doubt you can, hence the cop-out. Who knows? Maybe you have something reasonable to say. I would be very interested in how you think the middle class aren't going to end up paying for free health care, very soon, like a year after it goes into effect. And, I would also like to hear how you figure that the fact that the rules of business and economics suddenly go out the window because of what appears to be a guy who is good at giving speeches says. I'm not saying he can't do more, I am saying that I don't understand how you draw that conclusion based on what we have seen so far.

Independents who follow McCain are probably no better than GOP congressmen and women that drank the Bush/Cheney kool-aide. Now they're fighting for their respective political lives.

Que? So what does that make independents who followed Gore or Kerry? Better yet, if Bush and his people are so easily dismissed, but beat you twice, what does that make people who couldn't find a way to beat this supposed great liar, idiot? I supposed it only makes sense to dismiss them as worthless as well. Some introspection may be in order...and it's not my fault or anybody else who chose not vote for Turd or Douche in 2000, nor it is Karl Rove's fault.

Democrats don't have all the answers and will probably screw up their share of issues in 2009 and beyond, but they're orders of magnitude ahead of the destruction of American ideals, our economy, and our leadership on the world stage we have suffered at the hands of the GOP. Together we can probably fix anything, but first we have to agree there's a problem.

Now we're talkin'. Perhaps it's not as simple as Bush Lied! or What did he know, when did he know it, now is it? Defining the problem is the toughest part, but, I guarantee that the best way to do that = analysis phase, is not to only listen to what people who are your clones think, and to definitely reserve judgment on what is actually happening until after you've purposely and genuinely talked to everyone who has a direct impact on the problem. I have no idea if Obama will do that. Not saying he won't, we simply don't know. McCain has done it, on multiple issues, so I don't see a problem for him there.

Watch what happens when Democrats sweep the White House and the congress in November.

Oh of course I will, and how much do you want to bet that if that happens, it will be 2000, 2002 all over again just more stupidity in another flavor? Things are best when there is a Republican Congress and a Democratic President, because they both end up fighting for air time over who has been better at cutting spending and taxes. The reverse = what we have now, a whole lot of talk and nothing getting done. The worst is when one party has it all because then stupid ideas get a pass because nobody wants to make waves.

[Kelly the Dog]

The Obama hasn't done anything argument is pretty amusing to me on several fronts.

 

1] To get from where he was 10 years ago, to the brink of becoming the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful job in the world, as well as the first black President of the United States is a greater achievement than anything Hillary Clinton or John McCain has ever done in their life. McCain's true heroism in Vietnam was far tougher on the mind and body, without question, and far more heroic, but I don't think greater or more unlikely.

 

2] And he did it by being Barack Obama, who he is, what he says, what he stands for, what he sounds like, what he actually does like putting a team together and running a campaign. That's him. That's not the media. People didn't just decide "Let's find a half-black guy from nowhere and make him President." The campaign he has engineered is nothing short of historic. The money he has been able to raise. The decisions he had to make after hearing from his advisors he chose, has been absolutely phenomenal. His meteroic rise is an enormous accomplishment, as phenomenal and unlikely as anything.

 

3] The media didn't create him, they gave him very little chance at all. Hillary was annointed the crown for a full year or so by virtually all media, until Obama did something, like win. It wasn't until he actually won a primary because of his team, decisions, money he raised and charismatic ability to get people excited. Even blacks didn't give him a chance until he won. The free pass by the press is just crap. McCain is beloved by the press and has been given a far easier time and free pass than Obama. He changes his stance on all kinds of things and issues and politics everywhere, and yet this "straight talker" and "maverick" label is still stuck to him everywhere the press goes. Even the liberal media gushes all over him.

 

4] Obama is not ready to be President of the United States because he has no experience. There is no question about it. Inarguable. Hey, guess what? McCain isn't ready either. Hillary isn't ready either. There is no apprenticeship for it. It's like being an NFL head coach for the first time, there are 100 things you have to deal with that you never had to deal with before regardless of what your experience was or wasn't. Obama may turn out to be a terrible President or a great one or a run of the mill one, but it won't be because he had no experience. It will be the decisions he makes, the people he surrounds himself with, the things he deals with that he has little control over, his ability to unite rather than divide, his ability to get the rest of the world back in our good graces, etc.

[pBills]

The Obama hasn't done anything argument is pretty amusing to me on several fronts.

 

1] To get from where he was 10 years ago, to the brink of becoming the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful job in the world, as well as the first black President of the United States is a greater achievement than anything Hillary Clinton or John McCain has ever done in their life. McCain's true heroism in Vietnam was far tougher on the mind and body, without question, and far more heroic, but I don't think greater or more unlikely.

 

2] And he did it by being Barack Obama, who he is, what he says, what he stands for, what he sounds like, what he actually does like putting a team together and running a campaign. That's him. That's not the media. People didn't just decide "Let's find a half-black guy from nowhere and make him President. The campaign he has engineered is nothing short of historic. The money he has been able to raise. The decisions he had to make after hearing from his advisors he chose, has been absolutely phenomenal. His meteroic rise is an enormous accomplishment, as phenomenal and unlikely as anything.

 

3] The media didn't create him, they gave him very little chance at all. Hillary was annointed the crown for a full year or so by virtually all media, until Obama did something, like win. It wasn't until he actually won a primary because of his team, decisions, money he raised and charismatic ability to get people excited. Even blacks didn't give him a chance until he won. The free pass by the press is just crap. McCain is beloved by the press and has been given a far easier time and free pass than Obama. He changes his stance on all kinds of things and issues and politics everywhere, and yet this "straight talker" and "maverick" label is still stuck to him everywhere the press goes. Even the liberal media gushes all over him.

 

4] Obama is not ready to be President of the United States because he has no experience. There is no question about it. Inarguable. Hey, guess what? McCain isn't ready either. Hillary isn't ready either. There is no apprenticeship for it. It's like being an NFL head coach for the first time, there are 100 things you have to deal with that you never had to deal with before regardless of what your experience was or wasn't. Obama may turn out to be a terrible President or a great one or a run of the mill one, but it won't be because he had no experience. It will be the decisions he makes, the people he surrounds himself with, the things he deals with that he has little control over, his ability to unite rather than divide, his ability to get the rest of the world back in our good graces, etc.

 

 

 

:thumbsup:

[OCinBuffalo]

The Obama hasn't done anything argument is pretty amusing to me on several fronts.

 

1] To get from where he was 10 years ago, to the brink of becoming the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful job in the world, as well as the first black President of the United States is a greater achievement than anything Hillary Clinton or John McCain has ever done in their life. McCain's true heroism in Vietnam was far tougher on the mind and body, without question, and far more heroic, but I don't think greater or more unlikely.

So does this mean that the Mayor Daley/Chicago political machine that is largely recognized as one of, if not the, best in the country apparently had nothing to do with this? Are we to assume that Barack is simply a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type that "achieved" this grand meteoric rise all by his lonesome, with his lovely wife and $3000 dollars, starting out running for school board? Ya see, this is what I am talking about when I say the media didn't do its job. How about some reality: he's been running in the South Side of Chicago the entire time and hasn't ever faced a tough race. His state Senate seat was so obviously a machine decision on a seat they have controlled for the last 100 years. But, that's an accomplishment?

 

How about his race for the US senate, where his real opponent dropped out for trying to get 7 of 9(his wife at the time) to do the nasty? So being the only guy to not do something blatantly stupid, is an accomplishment? He won his primary by 29 points, but I am sure Daley machine had nothing to do with any of that either. I guess the accomplishment bar is pretty low these days.

 

Putting all these "accomplishments" up against what Hillary or especially McCain has done at the Federal level, for years, is, how else do you say this? Absurd? Better yet, what usually happens when you prepare the path for the kid, instead of the kid for the path? No sir, he has had way, way, way too much help and has competed in districts that were his from the get go, or not had to compete at all, but we wonder why he got soundly beat at the debates, and your are trying to tell me that he has accomplished something more significant than McCain has? Again, absurd in the extreme.

 

Again, I agree fully that the guy knows how to work a room/crowd. There is no doubting that. But having a talent and possibly a lot of potential, and having a long standing track record of using that talent to get meaningful things done, and/or winning tough elections, are too different things.

2] And he did it by being Barack Obama, who he is, what he says, what he stands for, what he sounds like, what he actually does like putting a team together and running a campaign. That's him. That's not the media. People didn't just decide "Let's find a half-black guy from nowhere and make him President." The campaign he has engineered is nothing short of historic. The money he has been able to raise. The decisions he had to make after hearing from his advisors he chose, has been absolutely phenomenal. His meteroic rise is an enormous accomplishment, as phenomenal and unlikely as anything.

You're right. Random "people" didn't decide that, the Daley machine did. You're serious about this "he did it all thing", huh? Well, we are certainly going to see the truth come out when the big game starts.

 

I thought Howard Dean was the "historic" campaigner, or....was is Clinton? Does this mean that every time there's Democratic primary going forward we are supposed to believe that one of the candidates is by default, historic and phenomenal? Does Howard Dean's ability to raise money mean he is/should be president? I wonder where that all went.....

 

So I am supposed to believe that the game plan that Daley and his boys, Barack being one, has been running creates "unlikely" results in a town the completely control. Sorry but we crossed the "matter of perspective" border, and now we are getting way to far into BS country for me to listen to much more of this.

3] The media didn't create him, they gave him very little chance at all. Hillary was annointed the crown for a full year or so by virtually all media, until Obama did something, like win. It wasn't until he actually won a primary because of his team, decisions, money he raised and charismatic ability to get people excited. Even blacks didn't give him a chance until he won. The free pass by the press is just crap. McCain is beloved by the press and has been given a far easier time and free pass than Obama. He changes his stance on all kinds of things and issues and politics everywhere, and yet this "straight talker" and "maverick" label is still stuck to him everywhere the press goes. Even the liberal media gushes all over him.

So I am not supposed to believe my own eyes and ears for the last 6 months and take your word that I didn't see what I saw for myself? How very far-left of you. If you are talking about only the primary, then I marginally agree. But you can't be serious about the media's treatment of him since. He has gotten a pass, and I think it's because nobody wanted to be seen as the guy who was "picking on the black guy". If that's not a pass I don't know what is.

 

Oh, and if the media has been tough on him the whole time, how come the far-left bloggers freaked out when he was finally asked some tough question at a debate and punted? Or did you forget about that hard core, Right winger George Stephanopolis set of questions? I watched almost every debate, on both sides, and you have got to be fooling yourself if you think Obama was asked tough questions by the media, until old Nazi George started in with his terribly biased questions.

 

Um, the absurd bell is going off again. Especially when you compare Obama's treatment with the media was telling us that McCain was done forever about a 9 months ago.

4] Obama is not ready to be President of the United States because he has no experience. There is no question about it. Inarguable. Hey, guess what? McCain isn't ready either. Hillary isn't ready either. There is no apprenticeship for it. It's like being an NFL head coach for the first time, there are 100 things you have to deal with that you never had to deal with before regardless of what your experience was or wasn't. Obama may turn out to be a terrible President or a great one or a run of the mill one, but it won't be because he had no experience. It will be the decisions he makes, the people he surrounds himself with, the things he deals with that he has little control over, his ability to unite rather than divide, his ability to get the rest of the world back in our good graces, etc.

This is all true in the general sense. Nobody really knows how to do everything. Maybe Hillary can empathize a bit more having been right in front of it, but nobody really knows about it personally. However, you can look at the skill set we are pretty sure needs to be there and compare the candidates proven results against it. It's pieces and parts, but still. I dunno, from where I sit, proven results wise, especially regarding getting things done across the aisle, it's hard to argue that any of them are better at that skill than McCain. Like we talk about on TSW, "yeah but will it translate to the pro level?" I agree it's really a toss up for any of them, once they actually get there.

[Kelly the Dog]

So does this mean that the Mayor Daley/Chicago political machine that is largely recognized as one of, if not the, best in the country apparently had nothing to do with this? Are we to assume that Barack is simply a Mr. Smith goes to Washington type that "achieved" this grand meteoric rise all by his lonesome, with his lovely wife and $3000 dollars, starting out running for school board? Ya see, this is what I am talking about when I say the media didn't do its job. How about some reality: he's been running in the South Side of Chicago the entire time and hasn't ever faced a tough race. His state Senate seat was so obviously a machine decision on a seat they have controlled for the last 100 years. But, that's an accomplishment?

 

How about his race for the US senate, where his real opponent dropped out for trying to get 7 of 9(his wife at the time) to do the nasty? So being the only guy to not do something blatantly stupid, is an accomplishment? He won his primary by 29 points, but I am sure Daley machine had nothing to do with any of that either. I guess the accomplishment bar is pretty low these days.

 

Putting all these "accomplishments" up against what Hillary or especially McCain has done at the Federal level, for years, is, how else do you say this? Absurd? Better yet, what usually happens when you prepare the path for the kid, instead of the kid for the path? No sir, he has had way, way, way too much help and has competed in districts that were his from the get go, or not had to compete at all, but we wonder why he got soundly beat at the debates, and your are trying to tell me that he has accomplished something more significant than McCain has? Again, absurd in the extreme.

 

Again, I agree fully that the guy knows how to work a room/crowd. There is no doubting that. But having a talent and possibly a lot of potential, and having a long standing track record of using that talent to get meaningful things done, and/or winning tough elections, are too different things.

 

You're right. Random "people" didn't decide that, the Daley machine did. You're serious about this "he did it all thing", huh? Well, we are certainly going to see the truth come out when the big game starts.

 

I thought Howard Dean was the "historic" campaigner, or....was is Clinton? Does this mean that every time there's Democratic primary going forward we are supposed to believe that one of the candidates is by default, historic and phenomenal? Does Howard Dean's ability to raise money mean he is/should be president? I wonder where that all went.....

 

So I am supposed to believe that the game plan that Daley and his boys, Barack being one, has been running creates "unlikely" results in a town the completely control. Sorry but we crossed the "matter of perspective" border, and now we are getting way to far into BS country for me to listen to much more of this.

 

So I am not supposed to believe my own eyes and ears for the last 6 months and take your word that I didn't see what I saw for myself? How very far-left of you. If you are talking about only the primary, then I marginally agree. But you can't be serious about the media's treatment of him since. He has gotten a pass, and I think it's because nobody wanted to be seen as the guy who was "picking on the black guy". If that's not a pass I don't know what is.

 

Oh, and if the media has been tough on him the whole time, how come the far-left bloggers freaked out when he was finally asked some tough question at a debate and punted? Or did you forget about that hard core, Right winger George Stephanopolis set of questions? I watched almost every debate, on both sides, and you have got to be fooling yourself if you think Obama was asked tough questions by the media, until old Nazi George started in with his terribly biased questions.

 

Um, the absurd bell is going off again. Especially when you compare Obama's treatment with the media was telling us that McCain was done forever about a 9 months ago.

 

This is all true in the general sense. Nobody really knows how to do everything. Maybe Hillary can empathize a bit more having been right in front of it, but nobody really knows about it personally. However, you can look at the skill set we are pretty sure needs to be there and compare the candidates proven results against it. It's pieces and parts, but still. I dunno, from where I sit, proven results wise, especially regarding getting things done across the aisle, it's hard to argue that any of them are better at that skill than McCain. Like we talk about on TSW, "yeah but will it translate to the pro level?" I agree it's really a toss up for any of them, once they actually get there.

The Daley machine thing is a better laugh than anything. Of course they helped a ton. Of course he didn't do it all himself. But if they are this powerful machine, why in 40 years did they not do it with someone else? If they can just take a nobody who knows nothing why couldn't they take a smart guy, a white guy, and just make him President?

 

Oh, yeah, I know this one.

 

Because they can't.

 

The better analogy is that Bill Walsh took Joe Montana and made him the most successful and arguably the greatest QB of all-time. He also tried it with Steve Young and made him an all-time great. Steve Young had more talent than any QB ever IMO. And Walsh tried it with 40 other guys who went nowhere. Joe Montana became the great player he was by making the great decisions, making the great plays, doing what he was taught and applying it, and excelling at all the most essential elements of the position and sport at the highest level at the most important time on the biggest stage.

 

Howard Dean didn't come close to where Obama has got. There are 3-4 Howard Deans every election.

[OCinBuffalo]

The Daley machine thing is a better laugh than anything. Of course they helped a ton. Of course he didn't do it all himself. But if they are this powerful machine, why in 40 years did they not do it with someone else? If they can just take a nobody who knows nothing why couldn't they take a smart guy, a white guy, and just make him President?

 

Oh, yeah, I know this one.

 

Because they can't.

 

The better analogy is that Bill Walsh took Joe Montana and made him the most successful and arguably the greatest QB of all-time. He also tried it with Steve Young and made him an all-time great. Steve Young had more talent than any QB ever IMO. And Walsh tried it with 40 other guys who went nowhere. Joe Montana became the great player he was by making the great decisions, making the great plays, doing what he was taught and applying it, and excelling at all the most essential elements of the position and sport at the highest level at the most important time on the biggest stage.

 

Howard Dean didn't come close to where Obama has got. There are 3-4 Howard Deans every election.

So now Trent Edwards = Joe Montana? Really? Because that is precisely what your analogy means. State Senate = college, 1st term Senate run only opposed by a tool with no money = draft/rookie season and beating the Dolphins. Primary = OTAs. We haven't even got to training camp, but you already want to put Obama in the hall of Fame?

 

Your ignorance of the Daley machine, or what is now called that, is quite telling. You want to know why they haven't run a candidate for President for 40 years? Hmmm. Or, maybe you know what I am talking about but are just being disingenuous? Why did you pick an estimate of 40 years? Not 30 or 50? Wouldn't have anything to do with 1962 would it? And you say they can't?

 

Oh yes they can. Every hear of JFK? It's a historical fact that Chicago won him the election against Nixon by stuffing ballot boxes. It's also a historical fact that the Daley machine has been "connected" since the beginning, and not just with the mob: the Kennedy's too. I don't think I need to remind you what Joe Kennedy did before becoming royalty and all, nor do I need to remind you of how that business operated and how Chicago factored into all of it.

 

So, the Daley's like Obama, he does their bidding, and whamo, the Kennedy's come out in full force. "Surprising" everyone with their willingness to throw HRC under the bus with such speed and so strongly. But, I know, I'm delusional and this is all just a coincidence right?

 

However, I could be wrong, and things could have run in reverse, meaning that the Kennedy's once again are the ones telling their Chicago cousins who they want them to support. I read a few articles that seem to support this line of thinking rather than the other.

 

But, in all cases, let's stop kidding ourselves here that Obama isn't the Kennedy's and Daley's boy, irony and all(Irish supporting Black, well Mulatto - doesn't happen often, and this is coming from a politically raised Irish guy and that's what I heard and saw growing up). And why not? They both need somebody they can control, and they both need somebody who will owe them something after he is elected. HRC offers them no chance of either, while Obama gives them a great chance for both. And if you think for one second that he would be "accomplishing" any of this, including Iowa, without the Kennedy's and Daley's, well, we have again crossed into BS country.

 

The fact is, besides getting exposed for bringing in Illinois for JFK illegally and having to lay low for a long time nationally, the Daley machine doesn't normally see itself as a President picker. Quite the opposite. They let everybody else do the picking and then name their price for their support. For them, Chicago is like it's own country and their priorities are: their elections and how to make money from them, thereby guaranteeing their power. That's their focus. They know that if nobody pays them off, they can choose to sit out, and Illinois goes to the Republicans. However, in Obama's case they saw an opportunity and they broke with tradition, or, like I said, they got the phone call, and the offer sheet, from the Kennedys and got in line.

 

The real reason they don't normally run presidential candidates is easy: none of their people could ever get elected. Not with the number of shady deals, corruption and patronage you have to agree to if you want to get elected to anything in that town. No way, especially if the national press scrutinized their people like they do with a potential President. Obama isn't one of their standard people, or is he? Like I said, the media has spent so much time with their funny feelings up their legs that they haven't bothered to do any real work on him and nobody really knows.

 

If anything, Obama deserves our respect for somehow negotiating his existence along side the Daley machine(hopefully, for his sake that's all it is). But, if he is actually one of their guys, all the way, the Republicans probably already have all the dirt they need to crush him. And, while I usually would be annoyed by that, I wouldn't in this case because the last thing this country needs is a Daley drone in the White House.

 

The one thing Obama supporters have going for them regarding this is that maybe Barack hasn't been around long enough to have gotten jammed up, or done too many deals, or maybe he actually has integrity and told them to F off.

 

Now that would be a real accomplishment.