"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,"
That is what we need!
Lets get the whole country just lashing out, being emotional and out of control...kind of like many of the children and adults that I work with were taught how to act...this is a way to convince others and solve problems.
Personally I don't want everyone to act like this, we still have some civilized people left in this country...I know Obama would like to change that, but that is another reason to stop him.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Obama tells his supporters to get in people's faces
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
Do you have any objections on policy grounds? Your sniping in this case is childish and immature.
I must thank you for the daily dose of fake outrage.
I am not going to waste my time going over all the things that are wrong with Obama's policies...
If he ever talked about them I would comment on them...
But he runs false ads and ads about someone not using email...those are his issues...because he is an empty suit, all he ever ran as was a rock star, now thats gone and he has nothing left.
So he has to go back to the behavior he must have grown up with. The thought process of the pastors of his church.
Nah, he probably learned it from the Bush campaign's "in your face" tactics during the Florida recount. You remember that, don't you?
No, I live in reality...
Every single group that counted those votes gave Bush the win...sorry you are so lacking in your ability to understand reality
Reality is not a key factor in the entertainment world of "oh no" Obama...or for that matter..in the
world of his unfortunate followers;
it's kind of obvious by the inept responses at this RIGHT ON blog.....Imagine that...
"Every single group that counted those votes gave Bush the win"
wrong again for the umpteenth time. while several counts gave bush the most votes, others, including a full recount and a recount of the undervotes gave gore the win.
ps: you have no clue what obama's policies are. do you?
Anon said -
”wrong again…”
No you’re wrong; this issue was settled long ago, with even leftist admitting defeat. But let me summarize for you, seems how you are too young to actually remember the facts and are relying on twisted internet accounts.
The left kept demanding recounts over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, again, until they got the results they wanted, at which time they said “OK that’s enough”, unfortunately for them, as per our constitution, particularly the sections on separation of powers, the supreme court realized the first half dozen or-so recounts accurately reflected the wishes of Florida’s voters (not withstanding the illegal throwing out of the mail in votes from the military which were overwhelmingly for Bush).
”ps: you have no clue what obama's policies are. Do you?”
They can be summed up as follows: Any problem, you have, have had, may have, or imagine, can be solved by the federal gov’t. And for the problems you can’t even imagine, we’ll invent crises that can only be solved by gov’t because we know what’s better for you, you dumb-ass, gun-toting, bible-thumping hick.
anon:
I've read the Obama Platform. Have you?
Don't worry if you haven't. The liberal media tells us every day about the two Americas (bourgeoisie & proletariat), the always imminent capitalist Apocalypse just right around the corner, how we can establish universal happiness by free love, children raised by the state, taxing the richers, et cetera.
Who cares if these insane ideas create counterproductive consequences! Just believe! Hope! Change! If reform doesn't work, try more reform!
You're too lazy or simply unable to come up with reasoned objections to his policies. They are clearly stated. Read something other than Malkin. Watch something other than Hannity.
Your bitching about this fluff comment is completely asinine.
I understand why you are "anon" you have just been bitch slapped on many levels...not a good start to your morning
You assume every "anon" is the same person.
You are exceedingly immature and intellectually lazy.
blamin, you must live in the same reality that sidney lives in. you are completely wrong about the florida 2000 debacle. (and i'm old enough to have been born when your favorite democratic president was in office.) furthermore my information comes from books and writings of some of the most respected constitutional professors in the country.
There were NOT numerous recounts. there was an automatic machine recount (one) and then an attempt at a hand recount. this was notoriously halted by scalia in an attempt to make the recount miss a deadline that didn't actually exist.
and speaking of our constitution and the separation of powers that you tout, according to the constitution, the us supreme court had no jurisdiction to solve the florida debacle. the constitution says in article II, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." this was a state issue to be adjudicated by the florida supreme court. and if you doubt this (and surely you will), i will remind you that the scotus majority opinion contained the statement that their decision applied ONLY to this case and was NEVER to be used as precedent in any future situation.
and since you once again bring up the military vote LIE, this from a ny times study:
"The Times described how the Bush campaign waged a combined legal and propaganda offensive to pressure canvassing boards in Republican strongholds to accept overseas ballots that, under Florida election laws, were illegal and should have been rejected. At the same time, Bush lawyers pressed canvassing boards in Democratic counties to reject overseas ballots with identical flaws."
don't presume to lecture me about something you obviously know nothing about.
First of all, scotus does have jurisdiction in a national election when it’s deemed the state is not fulfilling its obligations to itself and the nation. If you remember, (And by your answer, you’re having a tough time with recollection) this crap was stretching out way to long (over a month). Also county and state election officials were calling for a halt to the recounts, before the scotus stepped in.
Just like the US is to let states handle certain matters, in Florida, the state is to let counties handle certain matters. The reason the scotus decision is not to be used as precedent is because thankfully, they realized this is initially a state issue, that shouldn’t automatically involve the Fed courts every time there’s hint of fraud. If that was the case, the scotus would find itself bogged down full time investigating ACORN, hell it’d be a full time job just investigating the Chicago chapter of ACORN.
There were several recounts and many organizations, including Florida newspapers and the AP reported that a study that took place after the scotus decision would have Bush with an even larger margin of victory than the “official” count.
In the end, even your precious NY Times admitted that “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush”
But like I said before, this issue was decided long ago. Some mush-heads just can’t let it rest, and as is typical with lefties, they believe an often repeated lie will eventually be accepted as truth. It’ll be accepted by other mush-heads maybe, and even erroneously reported as fact by the MSM, but thankfully there’s enough sane people left in this society that just refuse to drink the kool-aide.
BTW who's my "favorite democratic president"?
i'm having no trouble at all recollecting, blamin'. i remember quite well, and i'm fairly well-read on the subject.
"Also county and state election officials were calling for a halt to the recounts, before the scotus stepped in." yes, the "state election official" was katherine harris, the secretary of state and chairwoman of the florida bush campaign. duh! many counties were gladly holding recounts. others controlled by republicans were not. the reason it was dragging on for weeks was because the bush lawyers were trying everything possible to stop a recount that could have been carried out in 3-4 days at most.
you can deny it as many time as you want, but NOT ALL scenarios gave bush the most votes. however, the one that gore favored DID give bush the most votes. gore's lawyers were lame.
The media reported the results of the study during the week after November 12, 2001. The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. The recount also showed that had there been a full statewide recount of all counties, Al Gore would have received more votes than Bush. However, neither campaign requested such a total statewide recount, and it was never formally carried out. read it here.
your second paragraph is non-sensical. the florida state supreme court was the final arbiter of state law and that was the only law that was in question.
your obsession with supposed voter fraud is laughable in that the bush administration fired a dozen state bush-appointed us attorneys who couldn't find and voter fraud cases to prosecute.
the issue WAS decided long ago. it was a crime and the shame of the supreme court. that doesn't mean i have to ignore what happened.
"and as is typical with [righties], they believe an often repeated lie will eventually be accepted as truth." right back at ya.
don't really know who your favorite democratic president was, but most republicans site truman as theirs.
"cite", that is.
Lets get the whole country just lashing out, being emotional and out of control...kind of like many of the children and adults that I work with were taught how to act...this is a way to convince others and solve problems.
Like this:
Here you go, the liberal groups are ready to commit voter fraud at record levels.
...he is an empty suit who has to have everyone tell him what to say so he doesn't sound stupid.
exposing the far, far left wing Obama with his lack of accomplishments...
Window broken at Obama office.Most likely a liberal trying to stir up the race card pot.
Why do I say that?
Because whenever there is fake racism in the world it is a liberal doing it because they have such a hard time making their view of the world actual reality...they have to create it.
This shows what snobs, what close minded and intolerant people liberals are...
You mean that kind of civilized people that don't get in other peoples faces and make intelligent points on the issues?
Your entire angle is in your face and lashing out.
Why are you incapable of making a point without attaching it to one party or the other or one side or the other. It's small minded my friend and your inability to integrate new thoughts is a clear indication of your ability to think.
Anon,
I find it very telling that you cite certain sources to support your position of voter fraud, and then ignore the very same sources when they admit Bush won the election. You then attempt to rest your case on what you perceive to be a misuse of the Federal courts, who in essence simply accelerated the correct decision (at least according to your impeccable sources).
Favorite Dem Prez? They all had their faults but Woody was pretty good on many issues.
Ron,
Here’s an Obama platform that I can’t quite figure out, maybe you can shed some light.
Obama said he will reduce taxes on 95% of taxpayers. It was pointed out to one of his campaign spokespersons that 40% of income earners don’t even pay income taxes. After much “hemming and hawing” she said Obama would reduce the “employment taxes” on these taxpayers.
The only “employment” taxes these wage-earners pay is social security (FICA and Medicare) taxes.
Seems how social security is in such a sorry state, is he going to reduce the tax paid into the fund? If not, does he expect his increases on employment taxes to the top 5% to make up the difference, or is it a combination of income tax and employment tax increases on the top 5% that he expects to make up the difference.
If it’s both, were does he propose to get the money for his other proposals that would increase spending?
If you can clear this up for me, I’ve a couple questions on his proposals for an increase to investment taxes and corporate taxes.
i rest my case on nothing. i cite my opinion based on the writings of many learned men and women. i don't expect to convince you, but only refute your incorrect assertions.
your last post again is non-sensical. what source am i ignoring that admits bush won the election. bush won the election because the supreme court ruled the way they did and gore was left in an impossible situation and had to concede. the source i cite says that a full recount of all ballots statewide using a standard as set by each county canvassing board gave gore the most votes. to me that means gore got the most votes. the most votes is the winner. the fact that a court stopped this count means that the legitimate recount was denied by a majority of that court, all bush supporters.
bush is the president and has been since january 20th, 20001. and what a great 8 years it's been. how he got there and how i feel about it won't change a thing, but has a student of history, i agree that failure to understand history makes it like that is will be repeated. god forbid.
Anon says “i cite my opinion based on the writings of many learned men and women. How do you define “many” how do you define “learned”? I suspect I know.
No, anon, what you’ve done is to search out those that have reinforced your pre-conceived notions. Makes for a great circle-jerk of self-gratification doesn’t it?
Ron,
I’m anxiously awaiting your clarification of Obama’s nation-saving plans.
man, anon number 2323 you need to take a break...I feel bad for you. Blamin is beating you silly...
I didn't think anyone who was mentally able to live on their own still thought Gore won in 2000...its just so sad
Game,
It is pretty sad isn’t it? Quote biased newspapers to support your supposition, and then ignore those very same papers when they say something you don’t want to hear.
The xtremalibs remind me of my ex-wife, most especially when it comes to the 2000 election. Keep asking the same question over and over again, ignore every answer that’s not what you want to hear, don’t give up, keep asking, keep ignoring, then finally you hear what you wished for, stop all debate, and declare victory.
Anon, you’re own people admit defeat, but nooo, you’re no run of the mill whacko, you’re an xtremawhacko. Keep holding onto, massaging, nurturing, that righteousness, that divine sense of rightness. You know you’re right by god and nobody, I mean, no one, not your own, not the other side, not sources biased to your side, not sources that are neutral is going to convince you otherwise.
I guess we all have our childhood fantasies we resist abandoning. You go man.
you keep saying that i'm ignoring the same source i cite. no, you are misquoting the very source YOU rely on. i'm citing the very study that you claim says that bush got the most votes in every scenario--the one that says that bush won only SOME scenarios.
but what's the point. you are not listening. you are not reading. you are not comprehending. you are witing the same things over and over again. you are accusing me of writing things i'm not writing. you are the one's involved in the "circle jerk" as you call it. you appear to be afraid that somehow bush is going to be thrown out of office because someone is going to "prove" the election was stolen. nobody is trying to do that. as i've said before, one can move on without forgetting what happened. you didn't understand that the FIRST TIME i wrote it and you probably wont understand it the second time.
bush is president. i've never disputed it. i've only lamented the fact.
game, you have this really odd obsession with this "beating you silly" thing. if you think blamin' is beating me silly, good for you. the absurdity of this assertion escapes no one.
btw blamin', where are you citations? and who are YOUR learned sources?
No, Anon, I never said Bush won every recount, I’ve been pretty consistent in putting forth that Bush won every single recount, but one, the one that you wanted to stop on.
No matter that your type wanted to take the ball and run after the game was over.
The rest of your response sounds like the typical, no but, no but, listen to me, pleazzze listen, I’ve got a deep, and simultaneously, super-duper relevant point.
not – it’s the same old, same old, that the NY Times tried to keep alive until they couldn’t even do it without losing face.
Now only the fools and has-beens try to keep the farce alive.
Blamin, I don't know details on Obamas tax plan. I'm not a big supporter. I am only sure he is better than the alternative. I didn't even mention that in my post so I don't know why you are asking me. I must say though if you or his spokespeople or anyone else says 40% of income earners don't pay income tax they are plum loopy and looking to feel sorry for themselves. It's not one of the major issues to me. It's what we do to have a United States. It's part of life. Spending it properly is far more an issue to me than supporting my country.
Ron,
I bought up the tax issue because you were bemoaning that no discussion of issues are happening, no intelligent points being made.
Now you tell me you don’t know what Obama’s policy is, only that ”I am only sure he is better than the alternative.”
What an “intelligent point”!
I don’t blame you for not looking at the details of his policy to deeply, and I admire your candor.
And yes, it’s true, 40% of income earners don’t pay income tax. Some wage earners may have it withheld from their paychecks, but it’s refunded (usually with extra) when filing their returns.
sorry blamin' if i'm conflating you and game. HE is the one who claims EVERY recount done by the media consortium gave bush the most votes.
but bush didn't win every one except one as the consortium study that i cited shows. furthermore, i challenge you to demonstrate that the gore camp tried to halt any recount.
for what it's worth, i don't believe bush won fair and square either, one only has to have witnessed the shenanigans in the florida state building, understand that katherine harris served as elections commissioner during that period, and recall the thugs running the show down there, to put whatever pieces of that puzzle you may be missing, into place, with some degree of clarity
but, that's water under the bridge, i believe there are sane republicans, as well as moderate democrats, who may stand up and demand justice, once all is revealed regarding the bcf, and their plans for us reveal themselves
we need to concentrate on keeping obama out, by any means necessary, or else many of us are in a world of hurt, for, if you do not go along with what obama followers want for you and america, you've got a bullseye hanging on your back
not a pleasant way to go, google "mugabe"
Blamin..you are plum crazy. Everyone I know pays taxes that they don't get back, how about you...oh, don't believe your lyin eyes. You are a huge Kool aid drinker if you think 40% don't pay taxes. That is laugh out loud brainwashed stupid pal. Outrageously dumb. You want to feel sorry for yourself because you pay and you are looking for a reason to look down on poor people. I make under 30 thousand and I pay taxes. God how stupid do you think people are!? And you want to tell ME about tax policy. If people aren't paying it is the rich. As Leona Helmsly said, paying taxes is for the little people. That is most of us.
Obamas policy as I know it is to cut taxes for those under 1 or 2 hundred thousand and increase it for people over that. McCains policy is to cut everybodys, especially the rich. That won't pay the bills. Not that complicated.
Ok, blamin, Sorry for being so harsh. I see the tax advocates foundation website where you get your number. Here's my problem. 1st if you look at their numbers state by state it only reaches 40% in one state. Louisiana. Not a larger state. That makes the statement highly suspect(wrong) right there. 2nd. I am sure there are a lot of part time and fast food workers that don't earn enough to pay. That only makes sense. 3rd, what percentage of non payers are the wealthy? They are the ones that can afford things that allow for tax breaks. Want to increase the number who pay? Pay those low paid workers more and get the part time on to full time. 4th..as I said my own experience tells me this is not true. I have lived all over the country, from Florida to California. From southern NM to Iowa. Because of my business I meet and talk to a lot of people about many things. The vast majority pay taxes. I can believe what somebody prints or believe what I have seen with my own eyes. I prefer first hand knowledge. If that many people didn't pay there wouldn't be so much discussion of it. Huge numbers of corporations pay no taxes. Few pay the 35%. I want them to pay, even if they pass it on. Go right ahead and do that but put the money in the treasury. I can choose to buy their products or not. If you have some good ideas I would be interested in hearing them. If you want to smear the poor don't waste your time.
Post a Comment