Huge Obama Blunder, Possibly Fatal

actions speak louder than words
 
/shrug :rolleyes: A lot of people in middle America are going to be offended that he took the time to go see the rich libs in SF and he doesn't even care about actually debating and dealing with normal people. It sounds to me like he's an elitist.

I think that the sort of person in middle America who gets offended by something like that is the same sort of person who gets offended when the sun comes up. It's pretty much the same sort of person who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

So why should the rest of us care?
 
I think that the sort of person in middle America who gets offended by something like that is the same sort of person who gets offended when the sun comes up. It's pretty much the same sort of person who wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

So why should the rest of us care?

Dude, Fifty's thread is obviously a lampoon of the other threads started about Obama. ;)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=271160
 
New guy same as the old guy.
 
I guess Fifty went out and joined the mafia. The ******** one that is. :D
 
I do not support debates. I am tired of hearing the same old material from both candidates. In fact, we should ban scheduled debates and scheduled questions. Instead, we should treat this like a pledge -- like Greek Week in college.

The candidates will not know when or where, but at one point during the campaign, they will be kidnapped and taken to a random location and drilled with questions from any and every individual in America and outside of America. It will last for twenty-four hours straight with no breaks for food or to go to the bathroom. They do not know what will be asked, and they have to answer every question. They will not get to respond to each other. I am tired of them using each other as shields to deflect questions.

It will be the highest rated show on television. We can even splash the candidates with water for more excitement.

If they survive and seem impressive under these circumstances (instead of the highly polished circumstances of the campaign), they deserve to be president.
 
Let the games begin...

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton activated her entire campaign apparatus to portray Mr. Obama’s remarks as reflective of an elitist view of faith and community. Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mr. Obama saw religious commitment, hunting and concern about immigration as emotional responses to economic strain rather than as deeply embedded values that transcend the moment.

“I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith,” she said at a rally in Indianapolis. “The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling to’ religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”

Later in the day, in Valparaiso, Ind., she recalled how her father taught her how to shoot when she was a young girl. She also said that her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.”

Mrs. Clinton said Mr. Obama’s comments were “not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans,” adding that “Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a constitutional right; Americans who believe in God believe it’s a matter of personal faith.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?hp
 
He wins points with me.

Small town people ARE gun toting, isolationist fundies.

Everyone knows that.
 
I am not an Obama supporter, but I agree, what would a TWENTY-SECOND debate accomplish? Their twenty-first debate is still to come. Spinning this into some sort of weakness on the part of Obama is a real stretch, and as I said, I am not even a supporter.

I was part of the crowd that said there were too few debates (and still are, depending on where and what office), but considering that the 22nd debate is offering nothing new and is just the usual posturing of the first through twenty-first debates, it does make me think when enough will be enough. You could take the text of the last debate verbatim and it may match the next debate. Just change the names of the states when they talk about "well, as true blue values people from THIS state and no other!"

It will rankle a few voters though. "ZOMG he wavers on debating in MY state!"

Eh, once again, New York is left in the wilderness. :lol:
 
/shrug :rolleyes: A lot of people in middle America are going to be offended that he took the time to go see the rich libs in SF and he doesn't even care about actually debating and dealing with normal people. It sounds to me like he's an elitist.

I've heard the full quote in context of his speech, and if that's elitist, well, I guess I am elitist too. What he said, in full, makes alot of sense
 
Should we punish candid honesty on the part of our presidential candidates? Or do we value our presidents . .. .. .. .. .-footing around various issues?
 
I've heard the full quote in context of his speech, and if that's elitist, well, I guess I am elitist too. What he said, in full, makes alot of sense

That's the only tool detractors have against Obama: Selective quoting. If you look at his entire context he's brilliant, if you pick it apart you can make it look like anything from racism to an endorsement of Osama Bin laden. Sad thing being that the selective sound bytes are all people will seek out to hear and not the full speeches..
 
Back
Top Bottom