# How Obama Got Elected



## The Paperboy (Nov 18, 2008)

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mm1KOBMg1Y8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mm1KOBMg1Y8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Link to Zogby Poll Results here


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

and Republicans thought the dummies would carry them to victory.... see what they know...


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Hm.. That's frightening, but I am sure the lefties can spin this into something reassuring.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> and Republicans thought the dummies would carry them to victory.... see what they know...



When the media starts wholesaling propaganda, here are your results. A dumbed down electorate. But surely the ends justifies the means. There are none so blind, silence.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> Hm.. That's frightening, but I am sure the lefties can spin this into something reassuring.



nothing frightening at all.  I bet if you did the same thing to random McCain supporters they wouldn't know shit either.  Most people don't have a fucking clue who is in Congress or who controlls Congress.  Not everyone is a political junkie like the people on this board.


----------



## editec (Nov 18, 2008)

How did Obama get elected?

The Republicans elected and then re-elected the worst POTUS in US history.

Americans punished the party for being so dumb.

End of story.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> When the media starts wholesaling propaganda, here are your results. A dumbed down electorate. But surely the ends justifies the means. There are none so blind, silence.



Do you honestly think the Republicans are smarter?  C'mon.... they voted for a ticket that had Sarah Palin on it for pity sake.  The woman came off as a doorknob.  "I'll go find em and bring em to ya"   

and all that matters is that Obama is smart and he's brilliant compared to the dumbass we've had in office for the last 8 years.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> nothing frightening at all.  I bet if you did the same thing to random McCain supporters they wouldn't know shit either.  Most people don't have a fucking clue who is in Congress or who controlls Congress.  Not everyone is a political junkie like the people on this board.



They weren't simply uninformed, they were brain washed. They mimicked exactly what they've heard in the media. And I must say, in some cases, they were pretty smug with their knowledge.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> They weren't simply uninformed, they were brain washed. They mimicked exactly what they've heard in the media. And I must say, in some cases, they were pretty smug with their knowledge.



 brainwashed... I love it.  OMG that's funny.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> Do you honestly think the Republicans are smarter?  C'mon.... they voted for a ticket that had Sarah Palin on it for pity sake.  The woman came off as a doorknob.  "I'll go find em and bring em to ya"
> 
> and all that matters is that Obama is smart and he's brilliant compared to the dumbass we've had in office for the last 8 years.




Indeed, here we go with the who is smarter discussion. I rest my case. 

Check out the zogby poll, it reaffirms the sampling in the video.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> They weren't simply uninformed, they were brain washed. They mimicked exactly what they've heard in the media. And I must say, in some cases, they were pretty smug with their knowledge.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

editec said:


> How did Obama get elected?
> 
> The Republicans elected and then re-elected the worst POTUS in US history.
> 
> ...



I agree that the Republicans failed to lead and in to some extent the party was punished. But I also believe that the media did not responsibly report facts or news. Why do I believe that? Anecdotal conversations with online and offline people before and after the election.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> brainwashed... I love it.  OMG that's funny.



While you're chuckling it up go dig up some proof that Obama is smart and brilliant. Published articles, legislation he has authored and introduced, academic records. Go along, I have all day.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

I went back and rewatched it...the questioner worded the questions in a dishonest way.  No one said that the gov should "redistribute the wealth"  and none of those people watch the news clearly.  Cuz if they did they would've known at least who Nancy Pelosi is...


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> While you're chuckling it up go dig up some proof that Obama is smart and brilliant. Published articles, legislation he has authored and introduced, academic records. Go along, I have all day.



pssst... I don't need to prove anything... he won.


----------



## Red Dawn (Nov 18, 2008)

Sadly, I have to agree with you wingnuts. 

The fact that in the past two years Dems have won 51 House seats, 13 Senate seats, and won a presidential election in a blowout that approaches the 1988 blowout of Michael Dukkakis is merely a function of a biased media, and stupid american voters.    

The GOP should become even more rightwing, should push for more corporate deregulation, and should keep employing harsh rhetoric on hispanics and illegal immigration.   Its merely a matter of finding a national candidate who can sell those themes.  That would be really smart.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

> The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isnt so."






Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> pssst... I don't need to prove anything... he won.



You failed to make your point. The point being that people voted for Obama because he was smart and brilliant when obviously there exists evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> I went back and rewatched it...the questioner worded the questions in a dishonest way.  No one said that the gov should "redistribute the wealth"  and none of those people watch the news clearly.  Cuz if they did they would've known at least who Nancy Pelosi is...



Trick questions.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Hence the term "Obamabots"

Kinda like the temple members in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom... it wasn't about right or wrong... just following their programing


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 18, 2008)




----------



## jillian (Nov 18, 2008)

editec said:


> How did Obama get elected?
> 
> The Republicans elected and then re-elected the worst POTUS in US history.
> 
> ...



And it wasn't a link to Zogby either. He, as usual, misrepresented it. It was some freaksite called "howobamagotelected.com" which purports to string together unrelated things to make the people who voted look ignorant.

Schmucks. THIS is why they lose elections. People who aren't rightwingnuts, but whose votes they COULD get if they picked someone good, have no patience for that type of stupidity.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 18, 2008)

editec said:


> How did Obama get elected?
> 
> The Republicans elected and then re-elected the worst POTUS in US history.
> 
> ...



You're right.  Now we're stuck with Obama who has little experience and ties to some very questionable characters.  I blame the Republicans and Obamabots for getting us into this mess.


----------



## Andrew2382 (Nov 18, 2008)

Majority of the people don't know shit about the government.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> You failed to make your point. The point being that people voted for Obama because he was smart and brilliant when obviously there exists evidence to the contrary.



present your evidence to the contrary that Obama is smart.  Everyone, even those who disagree with him politically, say that Obama is brilliant.  

Those sour grapes must taste good since you cons have been sucking on them for the last two weeks.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> You're right.  Now we're stuck with Obama who has little experience and ties to some very questionable characters.  I blame the Republicans and Obamabots for getting us into this mess.






and it's a really really big mess,, bawney fwank is on c-span this morning talking with athawaty,,, i puke!


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

some of em,, dems of course are actually bitching cause "people can't borrow money"


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> present your evidence to the contrary that Obama is smart.  Everyone, even those who disagree with him politically, say that Obama is brilliant.
> 
> Those sour grapes must taste good since you cons have been sucking on them for the last two weeks.



I would not personally say the guy is brilliant... very few in this world are brilliant... and this guy is no Stephen Fucking Hawking

But I have no doubt he is "smarter than the average bear"


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> Ronald Reagan.



Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt.

Say it isn't so, Ronnie!

ReaganBushDebt.org


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Chris said:


> Reagan and Bush are responsible for 90% of the National Debt.
> 
> Say it isn't so, Ronnie!
> 
> ReaganBushDebt.org



Look... kirkytroll posting the same exact bullshit link post.. for the 3724th time


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Look... kirkytroll posting the same exact bullshit link post.. for the 3724th time



Reagan and Bush bankrupted America.

Time for the adults to run the store now.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Chris said:


> Reagan and Bush bankrupted America.
> 
> Time for the adults to run the store now.



No president has run in the black since the 1940's.... No prez can also spend a dime without congressional approval of the budget

You're little splattercast link has been blown out of the water so many times and in so many ways... it is not even funny anymore

But as we see in the healthcare thread and elsewhere... it does not stop you from posting your incredible biased and discredited partisan site links


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> present your evidence to the contrary that Obama is smart.  Everyone, even those who disagree with him politically, say that Obama is brilliant.
> 
> Those sour grapes must taste good since you cons have been sucking on them for the last two weeks.



I base my opinion on the evidence available. Nothing has proven to me that he is brilliant. Since you were so cocksure that he was brilliant, I thought you were privy to some information. But apparently you were talking out of your azz.


----------



## Caligirl (Nov 18, 2008)

If Obama won because people were brainwashed, then I wonder if bush used similar tactics?  

Were people *less *brain-washable in 2000 and 2004? 

Help me out with this please.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> If Obama won because people were brainwashed, then I wonder if bush used similar tactics?
> 
> Were people *less *brain-washable in 2000 and 2004?
> 
> Help me out with this please.



Actually.. I fully believe Bush won in 2000, partly due to one of the reason's Obama won this year... a group of people sick of an administration/party that was taking America down a wrong path... and both were due to the turn in the national economy.... granted not all was the Prez's fault, but he is the visible person and it is a big hyped election

In 2004 I think we have a different story... Bush was doing an OK job... having a strong showing on national security... and Kerry was a buffoon... not a hard election to win....


----------



## Caligirl (Nov 18, 2008)

Personally i think Obama won because he ran a tight campaign, leaks were minimal, his decisions were thought through, and he inspired people to see the future with his vision.

These are all good qualities for pres, I don't know about intelligence though a certain amount is necessary, I would think 'very bright' would be sufficient there, but non-ideological would also be important. 

Clinton and McCain ran disorganised campaigns that in hindsight look very similar to one another, as though they were scrambling to find the right message, pandering, and imploding and leaking all over the place. Not a reassuring image for POTUS.


----------



## Caligirl (Nov 18, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Actually.. I fully believe Bush won in 2000, partly due to one of the reason's Obama won this year... a group of people sick of an administration/party that was taking America down a wrong path... and both were due to the turn in the national economy.... granted not all was the Prez's fault, but he is the visible person and it is a big hyped election
> 
> In 2004 I think we have a different story... Bush was doing an OK job... having a strong showing on national security... and Kerry was a buffoon... not a hard election to win....



I don't disagree with that, and I am sure there are many factors in it. 

I think brainwashing is seen as a valid tactic on either side, just as canvassing and get out the vote and organising and the darker elements of elections - vote suppression - is. 

Vote suppression happens from every level to trying to demoralize the opposition to actually disenfranchising as much as possible. I am sure these tactics happen on either side.

FTR I think Bush cheated electronically both times but you probably know that I think that.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> FTR I think Bush cheated electronically both times but you probably know that I think that.



Too many people do... and it is part of the whole BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)...

It is actually amusing that it is Bush being associated with "stealing" an election... when it was the DEMs who were trying underhanded means, especially in FLA in 2000...

Personally... I don't think there was any vote tampering on either side... but I do think that the angry DEMs did try some sneaky stuff on the "voter intent" front when trying to go for recounts in FLA


----------



## Caligirl (Nov 18, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Too many people do... and it is part of the whole BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)...
> 
> It is actually amusing that it is Bush being associated with "stealing" an election... when it was the DEMs who were trying underhanded means, especially in FLA in 2000...
> 
> Personally... I don't think there was any vote tampering on either side... but I do think that the angry DEMs did try some sneaky stuff on the "voter intent" front when trying to go for recounts in FLA



It's possible you are right, and I expect our democracy does best when people who suspect foul play are vocal about it.   Goes for both sides.


----------



## RoadVirus (Nov 18, 2008)

Chris said:


> Reagan and Bush bankrupted America.


Reagan may have bankrupted America, but at least he restored our dignity after the agonizing Carter era.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> I base my opinion on the evidence available. Nothing has proven to me that he is brilliant. Since you were so cocksure that he was brilliant, I thought you were privy to some information. But apparently you were talking out of your azz.



He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard, he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, he was a professor of constitutional law, he beat the shit out of Clinton AND the Republican party...I'd say he's pretty fucking brilliant


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 18, 2008)

jillian said:


> And it wasn't a link to Zogby either.



There ya go again, Jillian. Wipe the foam from your mouth and read what is written: "Link to Zogby Poll Results here"


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> No president has run in the black since the 1940's.... No prez can also spend a dime without congressional approval of the budget
> 
> You're little splattercast link has been blown out of the water so many times and in so many ways... it is not even funny anymore
> 
> But as we see in the healthcare thread and elsewhere... it does not stop you from posting your incredible biased and discredited partisan site links



The only discredited link is between your ears.

Reagan and Bush added $9 trillion dollars to the National Debt. 

The link I provided leads to the Treasury website.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Chris said:


> The only discredited link is between your ears.
> 
> Reagan and Bush added $9 trillion dollars to the National Debt.
> 
> The link I provided leads to the Treasury website.



And then attempts to alter the numbers with faulty logic and calculations...

Nice try... but you've had your little link discredited many times on this board... yet you continue to post it from your little biased partisan org site


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And then attempts to alter the numbers with faulty logic and calculations...
> 
> Nice try... but you've had your little link discredited many times on this board... yet you continue to post it from your little biased partisan org site



Right...

You know lying about something doesn't make it true. Prove me wrong with links. Here are the links to the Treasury websites....

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2008)

Here's a graph of the National Debt as a percentage of GDP...


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 18, 2008)

Another little graph that libs post (continually) that has been completely debunked

try reading his blog... he's about as biased as they come...

nice try again though


----------



## jillian (Nov 18, 2008)

Awwwwwwwwww.... looky looky... push polling against the president-elect?

what retards.... this pretty much finishes off Zogby. Knew something was weird there pre-election.



> Zogby Engages in Apparent Push Polling for Right-Wing Website
> The conservative website HowObamaGotElected.com reports that it has commissioned Zogby International to conduct a poll of 512 Barack Obama voters as part of what can best be described as a viral marketing effort to discredit the intelligence of Obama supporters.
> 
> The website, created by former radio talk show host John Ziegler to promote a forthcoming documentary, features a YouTube clip of interviews with 12 Obama voters who "were chosen for their apparent intelligence/verbal abilities and willingness to express their opinions to a large audience". The clip portrays the Obama supporters as giving "incorrect" answers to political questions such as "which candidate said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket". Of the 12 Obama supporters interviewed for the clip, 7 (58%) are black; nationwide, about 23% of Obama supporters were black according to the national exit poll.
> ...



FiveThirtyEight.com: Politics Done Right


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 18, 2008)

Seems Obama people can't take even the slightest bit of criticism without getting their panties in a knot. Hopefully our new President's skin will be a bit thicker than his followers.

From Zogby:



> "We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby
> 
> Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.



Link here


----------



## jillian (Nov 18, 2008)

Sorry, dude, you got found out... push pollin' the president elect. 
RAFLMAO... 

Damn, you're even more pathetic now than you were before the election.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/elections-2008/64439-how-obama-got-elected-4.html#post903273

you need to sit back, grab a cup of chamomile tea to calm you and keep reminding yourself

365 electoral votes... 365 electoral votes.

You might be more credible if you actually wait til you've disagreed with something he does.

But nah... why would the rightwingnuts do that.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 18, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Seems Obama people can't take even the slightest bit of criticism without getting their panties in a knot. Hopefully our new President's skin will be a bit thicker than his followers.



And that's why they're called *Obamabots*.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Seems Obama people can't take even the slightest bit of criticism without getting their panties in a knot. Hopefully our new President's skin will be a bit thicker than his followers.
> 
> From Zogby:
> 
> ...


----------



## glockmail (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> nothing frightening at all.  I bet if you did the same thing to random McCain supporters they wouldn't know shit either.  Most people don't have a fucking clue who is in Congress or who controlls Congress.  Not everyone is a political junkie like the people on this board.


 How do you then explain that 82% of them said Palin spent $150,000 on clothes?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 18, 2008)

jillian said:


> Sorry, dude, you got found out... push pollin' the president elect.
> RAFLMAO...
> 
> Damn, you're even more pathetic now than you were before the election.
> ...


  Which Obamite were you?


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 18, 2008)

jillian said:


> Sorry, dude, you got found out... push pollin' the president elect.



Silly, silly Jillian. Like I said, I sure hope Obama's skin is thicker than yours and his intelligence significantly higher.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

glockmail said:


> How do you then explain that 82% of them said Palin spent $150,000 on clothes?



Yeah that's a good question.  I guess you could chalk it up to the questions asked about Obama regarding where he supposedly started his career, how he won his first election and the remark about coal industry weren't recent news stories or relevant to the election according to the national polls.  

I guess it could also be that it's easier to retain negative information about the party in power when their approval rating is so low.  

I think it's hysterical that you all think it matters how smart the Obama voters are.  

Do you consider the McCain/Palin supporters vastly more knowledgeable?  I mean seriously, how many of them still believe Obama is a muslim?  

All that matters is that Obama won the election.  It's over.  Stop crying about it.  maybe next time your party can appeal to the truly uninformed... just like in 2000 and 2004.


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2008)

glockmail said:


> How do you then explain that 82% of them said Palin spent $150,000 on clothes?



Because she did.

GOP spends $150K+ on Palin's clothes, makeup, accessories; will donate to charity after election : Election : Naples Daily News


----------



## Dis (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> Yeah that's a good question.  I guess you could chalk it up to the questions asked about Obama regarding where he supposedly started his career, how he won his first election and the remark about coal industry weren't recent news stories or relevant to the election according to the national polls.
> 
> I guess it could also be that it's easier to retain negative information about the party in power when their approval rating is so low.
> 
> ...




Actually, it should matter how smart all voters are.  There should be a 3-5 question quiz regarding your knowledge of your chosen party, and what it stands for, as well as what the key issues are that you're required to take prior to being able to vote.  If you miss even 1 question, you don't get to vote, period.

You'd be surprised at how many people don't know shit about what they're voting for.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> Yeah that's a good question.  I guess you could chalk it up to the questions asked about Obama regarding where he supposedly started his career, how he won his first election and the remark about coal industry weren't recent news stories or relevant to the election according to the national polls.
> 
> I guess it could also be that it's easier to retain negative information about the party in power when their approval rating is so low.
> 
> ...






we will,, maybe some day four years from now! not now though, we are gonna whine and bitch a blue streak,, just like youse guys did for 8 solid unremitting years.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 18, 2008)

Dis said:


> Actually, it should matter how smart all voters are.  There should be a 3-5 question quiz regarding your knowledge of your chosen party, and what it stands for, as well as what the key issues are that you're required to take prior to being able to vote.  If you miss even 1 question, you don't get to vote, period.
> 
> You'd be surprised at how many people don't know shit about what they're voting for.



My vote goes to the highest bidder.  Whoever gives me the most hand-outs gets my vote.


----------



## Dis (Nov 18, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> My vote goes to the highest bidder.  Whoever gives me the most hand-outs gets my vote.



...and thus, Obama wins by a landslide!


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

Dis said:


> Actually, it should matter how smart all voters are.  There should be a 3-5 question quiz regarding your knowledge of your chosen party, and what it stands for, as well as what the key issues are that you're required to take prior to being able to vote.  If you miss even 1 question, you don't get to vote, period.
> 
> You'd be surprised at how many people don't know shit about what they're voting for.



  sorry dude that's just ridiculous.  

I will agree with you though that a lot of people don't have a clue what they are voting for... they are still entitled to vote.  Don't whine and complain just because this time the supposedly "uninformed" voted for the Dems.  It's usually the Republicans who they flock to.


----------



## Silence (Nov 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> we will,, maybe some day four years from now! not now though, we are gonna whine and bitch a blue streak,, just like youse guys did for 8 solid unremitting years.



 something to look forward to. 

I expect ya'll will report when you return the income tax refunds given to you by the Obama administration and you'll also forgo any benefits brought about by changes he makes to healthcare and education too.  

oh and when your sons or daughters come home from iraq alive..be sure to lock the door and tell them they should've stayed UNTIL THEY WON that war.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> something to look forward to.
> 
> I expect ya'll will report when you return the income tax refunds given to you by the Obama administration and you'll also forgo any benefits brought about by changes he makes to healthcare and education too.
> 
> oh and when your sons or daughters come home from iraq alive..be sure to lock the door and tell them they should've stayed UNTIL THEY WON that war.





I doubt obamalama will send me any income tax refunds,, doubt it,, I also doubt I will get healthcare just like his,, I also doubt education will get any better,, and I doubt that a lot of American sons and daughters will come back alive,, yep! that's why I wasn't snookered into voting for the obamalama,, he can't possibly do any of that while cutting taxes for 95% of the Americans.. even a nitwit like I am can figure that out.. doh! I do however think he will empty the contents of Gitmo right into our civillian courts.. Yep I do


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 18, 2008)

Chris said:


> Because she did.



Actually, no, she didn't. Palin has never stepped foot in the stores "the clothes" were purchased from. They were purchased prior to her arrival at the Republican National Convention by the Republican National Committee. They included clothes for eight family members. 1/3 of the clothes were returned right away. Another 1/3 were never used and at the end of the campaign all clothes were returned to the RNC. The dollar figure is also in dispute. This was nothing but a media driven smear job.

But did we hear the media report that Obama got his house for $300,000.00 below market value with the help of a convicted felon? Of course not. That would be the politics of personal destruction by the vast right wing conspiracy.


----------



## xsited1 (Nov 18, 2008)

Dis said:


> ...and thus, Obama wins by a landslide!



That's the general idea.  And to sweeten the deal, they've destroyed the educational system so most people are too stupid to know the difference.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Actually, no, she didn't. Palin has never stepped foot in the stores "the clothes" were purchased from. They were purchased prior to her arrival at the Republican National Convention by the Republican National Committee. They included clothes for eight family members. 1/3 of the clothes were returned right away. Another 1/3 were never used and at the end of the campaign all clothes were returned to the RNC. The dollar figure is also in dispute. *This was nothing but a media driven smear job.*
> But did we hear the media report that Obama got his house for $300,000.00 below market value with the help of a convicted felon? Of course not. That would be the politics of personal destruction by the vast right wing conspiracy.






as was almost everything else that was ever said about her!


----------



## Chris (Nov 18, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> Actually, no, she didn't. Palin has never stepped foot in the stores "the clothes" were purchased from. They were purchased prior to her arrival at the Republican National Convention by the Republican National Committee. They included clothes for eight family members. 1/3 of the clothes were returned right away. Another 1/3 were never used and at the end of the campaign all clothes were returned to the RNC. The dollar figure is also in dispute. This was nothing but a media driven smear job.
> 
> But did we hear the media report that Obama got his house for $300,000.00 below market value with the help of a convicted felon? Of course not. That would be the politics of personal destruction by the vast right wing conspiracy.



Right....

The clothes purchase was listed on the documents that McCain's campaign filed. That's where the reporter who broke the story found the info.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 18, 2008)

Isolde said:


> While you're chuckling it up go dig up some proof that Obama is smart and brilliant. Published articles, legislation he has authored and introduced, academic records. Go along, I have all day.



Oh yeah, you need proof of how brilliant a lawyer President Obama is?  You want to see the kinds of cases he blew out of the water?  Proof?  You want proof?  

Take a gander at this article from the LA Times:

A look back on Obama's law years -- OrlandoSentinel.com


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 18, 2008)

Chris said:


> Right....
> 
> The clothes purchase was listed on the documents that McCain's campaign filed. That's where the reporter who broke the story found the info.



Exactly. Palin didn't buy them. They were bought for her and her family prior to her arriving at the convention. If there is a story it should have been about the idiots who did buy them. But that would require a reporter actually doing some work. We can't have that when the editor already has the story written.


----------



## The Paperboy (Nov 18, 2008)

PoliticalChic said:


> Oh yeah, you need proof of how brilliant a lawyer President Obama is?  You want to see the kinds of cases he blew out of the water?  Proof?  You want proof?
> 
> Take a gander at this article from the LA Times:
> 
> A look back on Obama's law years -- OrlandoSentinel.com



Spare me. Obama may be qualified to be President but it is certainly not based on his work as a lawyer or legislator.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> .....
> All that matters is that Obama won the election.  It's over.  Stop crying about it.  .....


  Wow how many times do I have to go on record that I am looking forward to Carter II so we can have Reagan II in '12? Go as far left as you cab Obama-Pelosi-Reid- I dare you.


----------



## Caligirl (Nov 18, 2008)

Nah, he won't be carter two.  Carter was too wimpy militarily and that's what sunk him, Obama is going to be sure to not make that mistake. 

Demographics, baby, demographics - Obama got the latino vote, the urban vote, other votes --- The republicans need to change their appeal if they want to get back in, the country is getting MORE diverse and MORE developed not less, and although reagan's vision of a shining city on a hill is what Obama ran on, (heh the irony) reagan mark 2 has to reach out to diversity, and urbanites. 

It'll be fun to see what happens next. I *want* the republicans to get greener, and meaner and leaner, back to basic principles (fiscal conservatism would be nice) and I think our best days are ahead if they can do that, which I haven't thought for a while now.


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> Ronald Reagan.



I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself. 
Ronald Reagan 

But there are advantages to being elected President. The day after I was elected, I had my high school grades classified Top Secret. 
Ronald Reagan


----------



## Your Overlord (Nov 18, 2008)

The Paperboy said:


> [youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mm1KOBMg1Y8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mm1KOBMg1Y8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
> 
> Link to Zogby Poll Results here


Brilliant find



Isolde said:


> Hm.. That's frightening, but I am sure the lefties can spin this into something reassuring.



Yup  but they wont spin it into something happythis will be a false poll that was devised by those on the right to dissenfranchise voters.



editec said:


> How did Obama get elected?
> 
> The Republicans elected and then re-elected the worst POTUS in US history.
> 
> ...



that is more than half true, but it is also true that the media overblew all the negatives on the mcCain side and virtually ignored them on the Obama side.
But Republicans are supposed to understand the bias and work around it, core Republicans supported McCain primarily because he was going agains Obama not do much because they liked McCain. so the usual Grass Roots channels around mainstream media were not as good as usual.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 18, 2008)

Silence said:


> Everyone, even those who disagree with him politically, say that Obama is brilliant.



Oh my, everyone? That's a little much, isn't it?  

For what it's worth, I believe Obama to be above average intelligence, but there has been absolutely nothing that he has said or that I have personally seen that demonstrates his brilliance or genius. The media telling me that he is brilliant without showing substantive proof, doesn't make it so in my world.


----------



## Chris (Nov 19, 2008)

Isolde said:


> Oh my, everyone? That's a little much, isn't it?
> 
> For what it's worth, I believe Obama to be above average intelligence, but there has been absolutely nothing that he has said or that I have personally seen that demonstrates his brilliance or genius. The media telling me that he is brilliant without showing substantive proof, doesn't make it so in my world.



Your fantasy world?

Obama was head of the Harvard Law Review, wrote two books, got elected to the Illinois house, got elected to the U.S. Senate, and ran the best grassroots campaign for president in the history of the United States. 

Yea, I'd say he has above average intelligence.


----------



## jillian (Nov 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> Your fantasy world?
> 
> Obama was head of the Harvard Law Review, wrote two books, got elected to the Illinois house, got elected to the U.S. Senate, and ran the best grassroots campaign for president in the history of the United States.
> 
> Yea, I'd say he has above average intelligence.



She's certainly entitled to her opinion. The problem is, she'd have cast a ballot for Sarah Palin.... which pretty much puts any notion of discernment or high standards to rest.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> Your fantasy world?
> 
> Obama was head of the Harvard Law Review, wrote two books, got elected to the Illinois house, got elected to the U.S. Senate, and ran the best grassroots campaign for president in the history of the United States.
> 
> Yea, I'd say he has above average intelligence.



Unfortunately.. none of which you post as evidence truly is evidence of intelligence... do not confuse popularity with intelligence

As stated before.. there is no reason to think he is a stupid man... just no real evidence of anything to quantify people calling him "brilliant"


----------



## Isolde (Nov 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> Your fantasy world?
> 
> Obama was head of the Harvard Law Review, wrote two books, got elected to the Illinois house, got elected to the U.S. Senate, and ran the best grassroots campaign for president in the history of the United States.
> 
> Yea, I'd say he has *above average intelligence*.



Isn't that what I said? 

Well, I'm certainly not impressed that he has been a successful politician considering the boobs we have in office. What would be helpful are academic records, papers written, or anything else that would speak to this supposed brilliance that he possesses. Why is he not forthcoming with that information? Would you extend the same benefit of doubt to anyone else? You surely didn't give old Joe the plumber a break, did you.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 19, 2008)

jillian said:


> She's certainly entitled to her opinion. The problem is, she'd have cast a ballot for Sarah Palin.... which pretty much puts any notion of discernment or high standards to rest.



Say what you will, walking the walk goes a long way. Sarah Palin had a record as a reformer and that's what appeals to me. 

Unlike the Dems who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Tell me how can you be both against evil corporations and at the same time be in favor the largest corporate welfare bailout in the history of the world? While you are rationalizing that, I am going to go to work.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Unfortunately.. none of which you post as evidence truly is evidence of intelligence... do not confuse popularity with intelligence
> 
> As stated before.. *there is no reason to think he is a stupid man*... just no real evidence of anything to quantify people calling him "brilliant"






I wouldn't call him stupid but I wouldn't call him brilliant by any stretch,, why? because of the nefarious people he chooses to associate himself with..


----------



## editec (Nov 19, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Unfortunately.. none of which you post as evidence truly is evidence of intelligence... do not confuse popularity with intelligence


 
You are _so _clueless.  

Do you really think that the people who voted him editor of the Harvard review elected him because _he was popular?_




> As stated before.. there is no reason to think he is a stupid man... just no real evidence of anything to quantify people calling him "brilliant"


 
_There are none so blind as those too stupid to see._​ 
Jesus said that, I think


----------



## Isolde (Nov 19, 2008)

editec said:


> You are _so _clueless.
> 
> Do you really think that the people who voted him editor of the Harvard review elected him because _he was popular?_



And from what I have heard, not a single published work authored by him during his tenure as editor. Isn't that... well... incredulous? 

I know you must have some rationale for how that happens in the real world. I shall abide patiently while you formulate your response.


----------



## Murf76 (Nov 19, 2008)

In a recent news article from The Telegraph it's been reported that in Russia the propaganda is still so thick that average Russians have no idea that their economy has tanked.



> *
> Russia's crumbling economy provides stiffest test yet for autocratic leader*
> Subjected to more than a century of propaganda masquerading as news, Russians often seem to live in a different reality from the rest of us
> By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow
> ...



But here in America... we have a free and neutral press, as witnessed by how knowledgeable our citizens are.

Oh wait... 

See... that's the problem with the majority of libs.  They treat politics as if it were some sort of "team sport", where the MOST IMPORTANT thing is making sure that their jersey beats the other guy's jersey.  And they get so busy doing that, they don't see THE JOB that's been done on them.

Libs constantly complain about "corporatism".   It's one of their favorite themes.  But as long as the media is spitting out the propaganda they like best... they don't bother to look at the fact that there's just a handful of CORPORATIONS deciding what we'll hear in the mainstream.
Digital TV Project: Who Controls the Media


Frankly, it shouldn't matter if you're liberal or conservative... EVERYBODY ought to be pissed that they have to go to the internet and wrangle up the news for themselves.  EVERYBODY ought to be pissed that it's nearly impossible to get _"just the facts, ma'am"_ from our newspapers.  Everybody ought to be pissed that what we once referred to as "yellow journalism" is today's modern standard.  And for you 'non-corporatist' Obama supporters, maybe you ought to be wondering right about now... WHY a handful of corporations decided your guy was THEIR guy.


----------



## DiamondDave (Nov 19, 2008)

editec said:


> You are _so _clueless.
> 
> Do you really think that the people who voted him editor of the Harvard review elected him because _he was popular?_
> 
> ...



Vote... AKA winning a contest via popular selection... does not mean he was the most brilliant student, lawyer, or anything else

Again... nothing he has shown, proves any brilliance... Stephen Fucking Hawking, this man is not


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Nah, he won't be carter two.  Carter was too wimpy militarily and that's what sunk him, Obama is going to be sure to not make that mistake. .....



 Sure, that's why he campaigned on declaring defeat in Iraq, and meeting with rouge natioNs without preconditions, because he's A TOUGH GUY. 

What's he going to do, pull a Chicago gangster routine on these guys?


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Sure, that's why he campaigned on declaring defeat in Iraq, and meeting with rouge natioNs without preconditions, because he's A TOUGH GUY.
> 
> What's he going to do, pull a Chicago gangster routine on these guys?






lol,, AlQada gave him the finger today! we will see what happens next!


----------



## Chris (Nov 19, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> I wouldn't call him stupid but I wouldn't call him brilliant by any stretch,, why? because of the nefarious people he chooses to associate himself with..



I agree!


----------



## Chris (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Sure, that's why he campaigned on declaring defeat in Iraq, and meeting with rouge natioNs without preconditions, because he's A TOUGH GUY.
> 
> What's he going to do, pull a Chicago gangster routine on these guys?



I saw a terroist expert today saying that the election of Obama was "Al Qeada's worst nightmare." Bush was AQ's greatest recruiter.

Likewise the Iranians have suddenly had to backpeddle from their pledge to negotiate with the U.S. because Obama called their bluff. You rightees don't understand how to win the "war on terror" at all. Bin Laden said his goal was to "bankrupt America." The only way that can happen is if we get involved in a protracted land war in Asia. AQ has no army, no navy, and no air force. They can't do any real damage to a country of 300 million people unless we let fear control us, and Bush-Cheney was all about fear.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> ...a terroist expert ...


  Some expert.


----------



## Isolde (Nov 19, 2008)

glockmail said:


> Some expert.



A terrorist expert who spoke on the conditions of anonymity.....


----------



## bk1983 (Nov 19, 2008)

Isolde said:


> Say what you will, walking the walk goes a long way. Sarah Palin had a record as a reformer and that's what appeals to me.
> 
> Unlike the Dems who speak out of both sides of their mouths. Tell me how can you be both against evil corporations and at the same time be in favor the largest corporate welfare bailout in the history of the world? While you are rationalizing that, I am going to go to work.



You mean like the same way you can be for the bridge to nowhere while 

simoutaneously being against it?


----------



## Vel (Nov 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> I saw a terroist expert today saying that the election of Obama was "Al Qeada's worst nightmare." Bush was AQ's greatest recruiter.
> 
> Likewise the Iranians have suddenly had to backpeddle from their pledge to negotiate with the U.S. because Obama called their bluff. You rightees don't understand how to win the "war on terror" at all. Bin Laden said his goal was to "bankrupt America." The only way that can happen is if we get involved in a protracted land war in Asia. *AQ has no army, no navy, and no air force. They can't do any real damage to a country of 300 million people* unless we let fear control us, and Bush-Cheney was all about fear.




Gee.. Why don't you tell that to the families of the three thousand people that died on 9/11.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 13, 2008)

Vel6377 said:


> Gee.. Why don't you tell that to the families of the three thousand people that died on 9/11.



Why don't you tell me why Bush stated that "Clinton seems to have a fixation concerning Bin Laden" prior to 9-11? Why don't you tell me why Bush stated six months after the attack, "Bin Laden is not a concern of mine". And why don't you tell me why it is now over seven years since 9-11, and Bin Laden is still alive and free. Perhaps had we regarded this as a police case from the start and sent some special people out to bring Bin Laden in, we would have saved over 4000 American lives, and over half a million Iraqi lives. Perhaps we would not be experiancing the economic debacle that is upon us, either. 

Actions have consequences, and the actions of the Bush administrations have severly damaged this nation and, indeed, the whole world.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 13, 2008)

Silence said:


> and Republicans thought the dummies would carry them to victory.... see what they know...


no, we knew they would vote for YOUR guy


----------



## Chris (Dec 17, 2008)

Vel6377 said:


> Gee.. Why don't you tell that to the families of the three thousand people that died on 9/11.



Somebody needs to.

Terrorism is a minor threat. 

China and Russia are much bigger threats.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> Somebody needs to.
> 
> Terrorism is a minor threat.
> 
> China and Russia are much bigger threats.


really?
how many Russians have killed American civilians?
how many Chinese have killed American civilians?


more proof that you are a MORON


----------



## IHateEverything (Dec 18, 2008)

what, are you surprised? you think it woulda been any different with mccain supporters? Is this a joke?


----------



## irie (Dec 18, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> some of em,, dems of course are actually bitching cause "people can't borrow money"



Shit. noone call my bank please..I just refinanced at 4.5% !!!!!!


----------



## Vel (Dec 19, 2008)

Old Rocks said:


> Why don't you tell me why Bush stated that "Clinton seems to have a fixation concerning Bin Laden" prior to 9-11? Why don't you tell me why Bush stated six months after the attack, "Bin Laden is not a concern of mine". And why don't you tell me why it is now over seven years since 9-11, and Bin Laden is still alive and free. Perhaps had we regarded this as a police case from the start and sent some special people out to bring Bin Laden in, we would have saved over 4000 American lives, and over half a million Iraqi lives. Perhaps we would not be experiancing the economic debacle that is upon us, either.
> 
> Actions have consequences, and the actions of the Bush administrations have severly damaged this nation and, indeed, the whole world.




What does George Bush's thoughts about Clinton and Bin Laden have to do with the current statement of "*AQ has no army, no navy, and no air force. They can't do any real damage to a country of 300 million people *"? No matter what Bush, Clinton or my friend the Tooth Fairy think of Al Qaeda changes the fact that they are certainly capable of doing severe and crippling damage to this nation of 300 million.


----------

