The 2008 US Presidential Election Thread

[conversationpc]

Tennessee Representative Steve Cohen...

If you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

Hmmm...Comparing Barack to Jesus and Palin to Pilate, the man who had Jesus crucified. Now THIS statement is outrageous. Can you imagine if a Republican member of Congress had said something like this about Obama?

[Tito]

Well, I'd prefer Ted Nugent to Palin. McCain - Nugent would be unstoppable.

THIS is the ticket my friend:

[strangegrey]

Tennessee Representative Steve Cohen...

If you want change, you want the Democratic Party. Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

Hmmm...Comparing Barack to Jesus and Palin to Pilate, the man who had Jesus crucified. Now THIS statement is outrageous. Can you imagine if a Republican member of Congress had said something like this about Obama?

Why not. If Obama presents himself as a greek god, then why couldn't his fan base develop a Jesus complex about the man. It's only, fair...you know?!

[7 Wishes]

I love this. Obama repeats McCain's thrice-utilized "lipstick on a pig" line and he is drawn and quartered. The next day, the McCain campaign comes out with a new ad that trashes a vote by Barack Obama to protect young kids from sex offenders and uses the most base fears about our children to smear him. But none of you is even slightly outraged by that? Unbelievable. Hypocrisy at its worst.

[Wildfire]

The Presidential election was too close to call. Neither the Republican
candidate nor the Democratic candidate had enough votes to win. There
was much talk about ballot recounting, court challenges, etc., but a
week-long ice fishing competition seemed the sportsmanlike way to settle
things. The candidate that caught the most fish at the end of the week would
win the election.

Therefore, it was decided that there should be an ice fishing contest between
the two candidates to determine the winner.

After much of back and forth discussion, it was decided that the contest take
place on a remote frozen lake in northern Minnesota .

There were to be no observers present, and both men were to be sent out
separately on this isolated lake and return at 5 P.M. with their catch for counting
and verification by a team of neutral parties.

At the end of the first day, John Mc. returned to the starting line and he had ten
fish.

Soon, Obama returned and had no fish. Well, everyone assumed he was just
having another 'bad hair' day or something and hopefully, he would catch up
the next day.

At the end of the 2nd day John Mc. came in with 20 fish and Obama came in
again with none.

That evening, Harry Reid got together secretly with Obama and said, 'Obama,
I think John Mc. is a low-life, cheatin' son-of-a-gun. I want you to go out tomorrow
and don't even bother with fishing. Just spy on him and see just how he is cheating.'

The next night (after John Mc. returns with 50 fish), Harry said to Obama, 'Well, tell
me, how is John Mc. cheating?'

Obama replied, 'Harry, you're not going to believe this, but he's cutting holes in the ice.'

Remember: Experience counts.

[Don]

Some one tried to relieve Obama's Granny of her solar panel. Luckily, It's still attached to her tin roof.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7609872.stm

[Tito]

I love this. Obama repeats McCain's thrice-utilized "lipstick on a pig" line and he is drawn and quartered. The next day, the McCain campaign comes out with a new ad that trashes a vote by Barack Obama to protect young kids from sex offenders and uses the most base fears about our children to smear him. But none of you is even slightly outraged by that? Unbelievable. Hypocrisy at its worst.

The ad IS accurate.

[conversationpc]

I love this. Obama repeats McCain's thrice-utilized "lipstick on a pig" line and he is drawn and quartered. The next day, the McCain campaign comes out with a new ad that trashes a vote by Barack Obama to protect young kids from sex offenders and uses the most base fears about our children to smear him. But none of you is even slightly outraged by that? Unbelievable. Hypocrisy at its worst.

Don't be so quick to cast the hypocrisy label until you have all the information, dunderhead.

If I am recalling correctly, the bill Obama was voting for would teach fairly comprehensive sex education to kindergartners. I heard some of it described last night and it was just a little over the top for kids that young. Something else can be done besides that and I agree with McCain's ad about this subject.

[7 Wishes]

I love this. Obama repeats McCain's thrice-utilized "lipstick on a pig" line and he is drawn and quartered. The next day, the McCain campaign comes out with a new ad that trashes a vote by Barack Obama to protect young kids from sex offenders and uses the most base fears about our children to smear him. But none of you is even slightly outraged by that? Unbelievable. Hypocrisy at its worst.

The ad IS accurate.

No, it isn't. It's hatemongering and fearmongering again, and if you support it and ridicule Obama for the "lipstick" remark then you are incapable of anything other than having your mind made up for you by the right-wing media.

[Tito]

I love this. Obama repeats McCain's thrice-utilized "lipstick on a pig" line and he is drawn and quartered. The next day, the McCain campaign comes out with a new ad that trashes a vote by Barack Obama to protect young kids from sex offenders and uses the most base fears about our children to smear him. But none of you is even slightly outraged by that? Unbelievable. Hypocrisy at its worst.

The ad IS accurate.

No, it isn't. It's hatemongering and fearmongering again, and if you support it and ridicule Obama for the "lipstick" remark then you are incapable of anything other than having your mind made up for you by the right-wing media.

I didn't blast him for the lipstick remark and I don't think I even commented here on that. This goes back to his U.S. Senate race in '04 here. It was the only issue that got any/somewhat traction for Keyes.

[7 Wishes]

I don't mean "you" specifically...the general population "you" Anyway, I just think the ad is way out of line. My niece was abused by her friend's father as a child, and she's still in therapy 20 years later. That information would have helped her BIG TIME back then.

[conversationpc]

I don't mean "you" specifically...the general population "you" Anyway, I just think the ad is way out of line. My niece was abused by her friend's father as a child, and she's still in therapy 20 years later. That information would have helped her BIG TIME back then.

That could have been better served without some of the more comprehensive stuff included in that bill.

[Tito]

Here is what a columnist wrote about it yesterday (an he is an admited lib too):

* My own take: The bill in question was just too hot to deal with at the time, and remains so today. Too often in Springfield, legislators vote for legislation in committee just because it’s supported by a friend, or a fellow party member, or to advance it along because they support the concept but realize that it needs further work.

Obama has said time and again that he supports the concept of teaching sex ed to kindergartners to help them avoid sexual predators, but that’s not completely what this bill was about. If he wanted to just help kids learn the warning signs, he could’ve sponsored a bill to do only that. This bill went beyond that scope.

For instance, here is some of the proposed language…

Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Again, this was all supposed to be age and developmentally appropriate, but the above language had absolutely nothing to do with keeping very young kids safe from sexual predators.

[strangegrey]

Christ!! I have a kindergardener....I can't imagine or stomach his teachers being the person charged with 'educating' my son with comprehensive sex education. I would likely either sue the living shit out of the school or (assuming I or my lawyer couldn't find a law to ride on) travel to the school and pumel the life out of both the teacher and the principal for assuming they can do better than I in such a subject.

For Fuck's sake, my son still loves Mickey Mouse. I don't want that innocence shattered just because Barack Hussein Obama fucked up raising his own children!!!! Forget about the fact that I question the qualifications or the judgment of most kingergarden teachers to do the right thing, with respect to teaching this subject.


Anyone that supports B. Hussein Obama and such an endeavor either needs to have his/her head examined, or clearly doesn't have children.

[conversationpc]

Here is what a columnist wrote about it yesterday (an he is an admited lib too):

* My own take: The bill in question was just too hot to deal with at the time, and remains so today. Too often in Springfield, legislators vote for legislation in committee just because it’s supported by a friend, or a fellow party member, or to advance it along because they support the concept but realize that it needs further work.

Obama has said time and again that he supports the concept of teaching sex ed to kindergartners to help them avoid sexual predators, but that’s not completely what this bill was about. If he wanted to just help kids learn the warning signs, he could’ve sponsored a bill to do only that. This bill went beyond that scope.

For instance, here is some of the proposed language…

Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

Again, this was all supposed to be age and developmentally appropriate, but the above language had absolutely nothing to do with keeping very young kids safe from sexual predators.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

[conversationpc]

I don't want that innocence shattered just because Barack Hussein Obama fucked up raising his own children!!!!

Now that's a little over the top. His kids may be perfectly adjusted decent children for all we know.

[strangegrey]

I don't want that innocence shattered just because Barack Hussein Obama fucked up raising his own children!!!!

Now that's a little over the top. His kids may be perfectly adjusted decent children for all we know.

You're right. It is over the top....However, what kind of lunatic thinks this is apropriate for 5-6 year olds? Jesus Christ. Anyone that supports this clearly has issues as a parent. Irrespective of *what* they are...they clearly have zero concept of true parenting. To that end, Obama clearly seeks to destroy the parent-child relationship at every turn possible. What motivates someone who claims to love america to do such a thing?!

[StoneCold]

There has also been some whacked out accusations that republicans are making fun of Obama and his "change" talk because republicans think that black people are always begging for change on street corners.

Is it wrong that I found that funny? Never heard that before. LOL

[strangegrey]

There has also been some whacked out accusations that republicans are making fun of Obama and his "change" talk because republicans think that black people are always begging for change on street corners.

Is it wrong that I found that funny? Never heard that before. LOL

It's not funny, it's sad. It's a race-baiting acusation by liberals.

[Saint John]

Is it wrong that I found that funny?

No...I found it funny as well. It's so ridiculous you have to laugh.

[conversationpc]

Comments moved from http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... 80#4173780

Wielding 9-11 as a red hot political poker whenever it is electorally convenient is the outrage.

It is perfectly proper and acceptable for a political convention to pause and remember 9/11 in that way. The only one using it as a "red hot political poker" in this case was Olbermann with his out-of-place comments and sanctimonious, feel sorry for me attitude.

Then again, I am talking to someone who prioritizes “skinning grizzlies” over actual foreign policy know-how for choice of VP

You have no clue what Palin knows about foreign policy, do you? Shut your piehole until you have evidence to the contrary.

Apostate political whores…every last one of you.

Damn, another great sig line!

[conversationpc]

Moved from http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... 80#4173780

Newsflash: Just because that is the way you and Olbermann see it, doesn't make it reality, Sir.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlofjKEkSrA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDx80bnFrVs

Olbermann commenting on the Republican's use of 9/11 footage was another low for someone who claims to be a journalist. When you're an anchor, you don't comment on the news, you report it. What a sanctimonious weasel he is.

[conversationpc]

Moved from http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... sc&start=0

Fighting soldiers is one thing...we sign up for it! Bringing the fight to absolutely innocent men, women, and children makes me absolutely sick to my fucking stomache!!! I hope this never happens again, but I'm scared to death to think that if Obama gets elected, that he's gonna want to sit down and talk to these people to settle our differences!?? Wake your asses up America! You can't talk to, negotiate with, or deal with people who would rather slit our throats than talk to us!!!

One post into the thread and a decidedly apolitical national nightmare has been used as a partisan tire iron.
Not surprising, given the rancid tenor of the Republican Convention, but disgusting nonetheless.

You sir are beneath the uniform you claim to serve.

You're a wingnut and have no business telling ANYONE that they are beneath the country they serve.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Why not. If Obama presents himself as a greek god, then why couldn't his fan base develop a Jesus complex about the man. It's only, fair...you know?!

After eight years of a President who claims to have a direct hotline to God (“There is a higher father that I appeal to.") anything less would simply be anticlimactic.

[Rhiannon]

Why not. If Obama presents himself as a greek god, then why couldn't his fan base develop a Jesus complex about the man. It's only, fair...you know?!

After eight years of a President who claims to have a direct hotline to God (“There is a higher father that I appeal to.") anything less would simply be anticlimactic.

Regardless of one's own religious viewpoints, mocking another man's faith is silly. And don't give me separation of church and state... the thought behind that *initially* was to keep the government from telling it's citizens who or what to believe (if anything at all). We were formed under "In God We Trust" not "We're Going to Pretend to be Godless So We Don't Accidentally Offend Someone". The president has a right to his faith, too. The constitution DOES apply to him. I'd rather have a religious zealot in my White House than a Amoralistic cynic.

[Don]

We are a secular nation, we're supposed to treat all equally regardless of faith, even those of us who don't have a particular one or don't wish to be associated with religion at all.

[conversationpc]

Why not. If Obama presents himself as a greek god, then why couldn't his fan base develop a Jesus complex about the man. It's only, fair...you know?!

After eight years of a President who claims to have a direct hotline to God (“There is a higher father that I appeal to.") anything less would simply be anticlimactic.

All believers in the one true God have a "hotline" to him. That doesn't mean they are infallible or are actually hearing voices in their head.

[conversationpc]

We are a secular nation, we're supposed to treat all equally regardless of faith, even those of us who don't have a particular one or don't wish to be associated with religion at all.

I agree with everything you said except the "We are a secular nation" part.

[Rhiannon]

We are a secular nation, we're supposed to treat all equally regardless of faith, even those of us who don't have a particular one or don't wish to be associated with religion at all.

And the flip side to that is, those who do have their faiths and/or whatevers are protected by the Constitution to practice and live so. INCLUDING Christians... which the "wolf"-crying minorities and their lobbyists have tried hard to exacerbate that logic. I'm not allowed to believe in Jesus because it might offend my neighbor, who is Shinto. That's how it seems. Yet, Shinto over there is fully allowed to shove his doctrine in my face, and if *I* speak up then I'm oppressing his rights.

[Barb]

Regardless of one's own religious viewpoints, mocking another man's faith is silly. And don't give me separation of church and state... the thought behind that *initially* was to keep the government from telling it's citizens who or what to believe (if anything at all). We were formed under "In God We Trust" not "We're Going to Pretend to be Godless So We Don't Accidentally Offend Someone". The president has a right to his faith, too. The constitution DOES apply to him. I'd rather have a religious zealot in my White House than a Amoralistic cynic.

Amen, Rhi.