Clinton supporters inspired after Saturday's rally

[Fearless and Happy]

To Bahama Mama..

Who wrote "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,"

[Jim]

Fearless and Happy wrote:

To Bahama Mama..
Who wrote "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,"

May I answer please? It was Barack Obama!

[Jim]

Fearless and Happy wrote:

To Bahama Mama..
Who wrote "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction,"

Can you believe that these Obamanators on here gave you and I all kinds of nutty symbols when all you did was to give a direct quote from Obama. I guess the truth is something that they don't want to hear, because whenever the truth is told their candidate diminishes.

[john meoff]

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you believe that these Obamanators on here gave you and I all kinds of nutty symbols when all you did was to give a direct quote from Obama. I guess the truth is something that they don't want to hear, because whenever the truth is told their candidate diminishes.

The Clintons are truth? WTF are you talking about? Lies, scandals, their sham marriage, impeachment, the goo glue on a 20 year old's navy blue, those lying, no god, no good, rotten bastards have the gall to ask for anyone's vote? Day one will begin with a special prosecutor investigating the vote counting procedures in Pennsylvania.

[Fearless and Happy]

john meoff wrote:

<quoted text>The Clintons are truth? WTF are you talking about? Lies, scandals, their sham marriage, impeachment, the goo glue on a 20 year old's navy blue, those lying, no god, no good, rotten bastards have the gall to ask for anyone's vote? Day one will begin with a special prosecutor investigating the vote counting procedures in Pennsylvania.

John, I am confused as I don;t recall Jim saying anything about the Clinton's and truth. Please refereence the post number in which jim made that comaprison. I very seriously doubt he did.

[Fearless and Happy]

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
May I answer please? It was Barack Obama!

Sure, I was hoping Bahama mamma would answer. I seriously doubt she would believe Obama would have said that in his book "THE AUDACITY OF HOPE"

[Fearless and Happy]

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you believe that these Obamanators on here gave you and I all kinds of nutty symbols when all you did was to give a direct quote from Obama. I guess the truth is something that they don't want to hear, because whenever the truth is told their candidate diminishes.

Yep, I suppose they do not believe that "the truth will set them free". Actually they are not willing to research the facts. They want to believe the lies, half truths and inuendos on blind faith without verification.

[Jim]

john meoff wrote:

<quoted text>The Clintons are truth? WTF are you talking about? Lies, scandals, their sham marriage, impeachment, the goo glue on a 20 year old's navy blue, those lying, no god, no good, rotten bastards have the gall to ask for anyone's vote? Day one will begin with a special prosecutor investigating the vote counting procedures in Pennsylvania.

I believe that I have often stated on this and other threads that Hillary Clinton is an evil, corrupt woman. That until recently I thought she would be the worst thing that could happen to our country if she were elected president. It took Obama to convince me otherwise, she is the second worse thing that could happen to us, Obama, as hard as it is to believe possible, is much worse than she. Don't for a second think that I would vote for her though. I will vote against whomever it is from the Marxist left, her or Obama. I do have to thank the democrats for running the two worse candidates in American history, this way I don't have to throw up while voting for McCain. Compared to them McCain looks very good, that too is a miracle because he is a liberal democrat calling himself a republican.

[Jim]

Fearless and Happy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, I suppose they do not believe that "the truth will set them free". Actually they are not willing to research the facts. They want to believe the lies, half truths and inuendos on blind faith without verification.

LOL, did you see the "symbols" that they put on your reply above? I am learning to look for the nutty, clueless, spam, and disagree symbols while scanning down this and other threads, it is a good clue that a post is worth reading. The posts with facts, thought, and intellectual worth seem to be the ones that are labeled so more than not. I would assume it is due to the fact that they have no answers for them so they simply label them. Hey, that is just like talking to a liberal, it only takes a few exchanges before they are out of talking point scripts and have no answers, that is when they start calling you a racist, homophobic, fascist, or whatever it matters not if any are applicable or true, it seems to be all they can figure out to say.

[Bill Clinton]

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, did you see the "symbols" that they put on your reply above? I am learning to look for the nutty, clueless, spam, and disagree symbols while scanning down this and other threads, it is a good clue that a post is worth reading. The posts with facts, thought, and intellectual worth seem to be the ones that are labeled so more than not. I would assume it is due to the fact that they have no answers for them so they simply label them. Hey, that is just like talking to a liberal, it only takes a few exchanges before they are out of talking point scripts and have no answers, that is when they start calling you a racist, homophobic, fascist, or whatever it matters not if any are applicable or true, it seems to be all they can figure out to say.

Its in their Cindy Sheehan code of conduct when debating.
Their bong hit antics pretty much reflects their state of mind or inability to debate.

[Obama-the One]

Mission accomplished "ongoing" - what constitutes
victory oh doddering ol chap?

whitey scot irish locked in hate as like NI and
ME model.

On Repugs watch - CHAOS - the racist sheep will probably hurt themselves and all of us again.

Who better serves Osama's cause.
Think it through.

a person whose name buries the name of
Usama Bin Laden
a person who is unable to explain the
Shia versus Sunni difference.

the current McSame who is viewed as difficent
at all levels

the downward spiral of the US and the effect
it has on our few friends / communists.

Barak, a real uniter, is the last one that such
an enemy would wish to see positioned. A colored
person who would excite the world's people and one who represents 85% of people of our planet.
What an opportunity presents itself.

Just say you're rooting for an opposite effect.
Those wishing to see someone other than Barak
Hussein Obama: like Hamas, Hesbollah, Iran and yes even friend Israel who gains all attention when
and most especially at election time - it sickenly
about the zionists cause, that occupies most of
the gandy dancing performances that our candidates are obliged to engage in.
We their slaves had better keep our mouths shut.

Barak needs to show a little bit more fire. I know the fine line that he needs
to tread.
Being incapable of diplomacy the McSames (Bushy/Whistler he he he'er).
Barak needs to cite their inability: that Bushy's solidarity speech within
the US of Israel and the chutzpah of then going to the Saudis begging for oil
took the cake.
Barak needs to emphasise Bush/McSame time and time they are totally
joined at the hip in service to and abetted with Lieberman's guile. Again
knowing the tightrope walking required.

Here again if Barak has to counter every time he'll be called the crybaby.

Those friends of blacks of yore who joined forces with such downtrodden /abused but had hidden agendas that served them well - now we know were their true interests lie. Sweet land of theirs.

http://www.angelfire.com/ny/awake/elect.html

[john meoff]

john meoff wrote:

<quoted text>The Clintons are truth? WTF are you talking about? Lies, scandals, their sham marriage, impeachment, the goo glue on a 20 year old's navy blue, those lying, no god, no good, rotten bastards have the gall to ask for anyone's vote? Day one will begin with a special prosecutor investigating the vote counting procedures in Pennsylvania.

Sorry, I took post #718 the wrong way, meaning that Clinton is more truthful than Barack, I stand corrected.

[Fearless and Happy]

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, did you see the "symbols" that they put on your reply above? I am learning to look for the nutty, clueless, spam, and disagree symbols while scanning down this and other threads, it is a good clue that a post is worth reading. The posts with facts, thought, and intellectual worth seem to be the ones that are labeled so more than not. I would assume it is due to the fact that they have no answers for them so they simply label them. Hey, that is just like talking to a liberal, it only takes a few exchanges before they are out of talking point scripts and have no answers, that is when they start calling you a racist, homophobic, fascist, or whatever it matters not if any are applicable or true, it seems to be all they can figure out to say.

Yep,I consider it an honor to be judged by the naieve, poorly informed, poorly educated and factless. They have no idea of history, national and world, and are not interested enough to educate themseleves by researcing the true and easily available facts. The democrat left wingers have done an excellent job of dumbing down America. What is sad is that many of the teachers and instructors have been dumbed down and are not capable of reversing the trend. Back on November 18, 1956 at the Polish embassy in Moscow Nikki K. said that "We will bury you" meaning Socialism will come to America. Also his famous shoe antic in the early 60's. Unfortunately those that do not know their history are comdemned to repeat it. We are seeing it now and folks it won't be pretty.

It is sad that the libs will not try to verify my facts and will dismiss them as false. Facts cannot be disproved folks no matter what your naievity may tell you that you can.

[Fearless and Happy]

Obama-the One wrote:

Mission accomplished "ongoing" - what constitutes
victory oh doddering ol chap?
whitey scot irish locked in hate as like NI and
ME model.
On Repugs watch - CHAOS - the racist sheep will probably hurt themselves and all of us again.
Who better serves Osama's cause.
Think it through.
a person whose name buries the name of
Usama Bin Laden
a person who is unable to explain the
Shia versus Sunni difference.
the current McSame who is viewed as difficent
at all levels
the downward spiral of the US and the effect
it has on our few friends / communists.
Barak, a real uniter, is the last one that such
an enemy would wish to see positioned. A colored
person who would excite the world's people and one who represents 85% of people of our planet.
What an opportunity presents itself.
Just say you're rooting for an opposite effect.
Those wishing to see someone other than Barak
Hussein Obama: like Hamas, Hesbollah, Iran and yes even friend Israel who gains all attention when
and most especially at election time - it sickenly
about the zionists cause, that occupies most of
the gandy dancing performances that our candidates are obliged to engage in.
We their slaves had better keep our mouths shut.
Barak needs to show a little bit more fire. I know the fine line that he needs
to tread.
Being incapable of diplomacy the McSames (Bushy/Whistler he he he'er).
Barak needs to cite their inability: that Bushy's solidarity speech within
the US of Israel and the chutzpah of then going to the Saudis begging for oil
took the cake.
Barak needs to emphasise Bush/McSame time and time they are totally
joined at the hip in service to and abetted with Lieberman's guile. Again
knowing the tightrope walking required.
Here again if Barak has to counter every time he'll be called the crybaby.
Those friends of blacks of yore who joined forces with such downtrodden /abused but had hidden agendas that served them well - now we know were their true interests lie. Sweet land of theirs.
http://www.angelfire.com/ny/awake/elect.html

Good old 57 states Barack. He then tried to correct his error and said he had been in 47 states with two to go. First, what seven countries has he admitted to the Union? Secondly, which state did he kick out of the Union? He cannot get 50 states correct no matter how hard he tries.

[Fearless and Happy]

john meoff wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry, I took post #718 the wrong way, meaning that Clinton is more truthful than Barack, I stand corrected.

Thanks for the correction.

[Jim]

Fearless and Happy wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep,I consider it an honor to be judged by the naieve, poorly informed, poorly educated and factless. They have no idea of history, national and world, and are not interested enough to educate themseleves by researcing the true and easily available facts. The democrat left wingers have done an excellent job of dumbing down America. What is sad is that many of the teachers and instructors have been dumbed down and are not capable of reversing the trend. Back on November 18, 1956 at the Polish embassy in Moscow Nikki K. said that "We will bury you" meaning Socialism will come to America. Also his famous shoe antic in the early 60's. Unfortunately those that do not know their history are comdemned to repeat it. We are seeing it now and folks it won't be pretty.
It is sad that the libs will not try to verify my facts and will dismiss them as false. Facts cannot be disproved folks no matter what your naievity may tell you that you can.

The left, democrats and socialists, can only gain power if the voting public is poorly informed in the subjects of civics, economics, and history. It appears that is why they took over the educational systems in this country decades ago. Look at the results, we have an amazingly uneducated electorate today.
The opposite is the conservatives and republicans can only win with an educated public. That is why I believe instead of getting in the gutter to run negative campaigns as the democrats have always done, we need to do teaching commercials on the lines of School House Rocks to teach the public what are beliefs are, why and how they work.

[Stuck in Marion County]

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
The left, democrats and socialists, can only gain power if the voting public is poorly informed in the subjects of civics, economics, and history. It appears that is why they took over the educational systems in this country decades ago. Look at the results, we have an amazingly uneducated electorate today.
The opposite is the conservatives and republicans can only win with an educated public. That is why I believe instead of getting in the gutter to run negative campaigns as the democrats have always done, we need to do teaching commercials on the lines of School House Rocks to teach the public what are beliefs are, why and how they work.

Actually - the dems best chance of winning comes when the republicans act like politicians instead of conservatives. When they are running for office, R's talk about smaller government, less pork, less regulation and lower taxes - then they get to Washington and the only "issues" where they actually follow through on their campaigns are abortion and guns - two topics that generate a lot of noise from both sides but that really aren't going to change anytime soon. When Republicans give long winded speeches at congressional hearings that are designed to show "how moralistically superior they are" they look and sound an awful lot like Teddy and the gang, and help convince voters that there really isn't a difference between the parties so the only decision is whether we want fresh linens.

[Jim]

Stuck in Marion County wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually - the dems best chance of winning comes when the republicans act like politicians instead of conservatives. When they are running for office, R's talk about smaller government, less pork, less regulation and lower taxes - then they get to Washington and the only "issues" where they actually follow through on their campaigns are abortion and guns - two topics that generate a lot of noise from both sides but that really aren't going to change anytime soon. When Republicans give long winded speeches at congressional hearings that are designed to show "how moralistically superior they are" they look and sound an awful lot like Teddy and the gang, and help convince voters that there really isn't a difference between the parties so the only decision is whether we want fresh linens.

We agree on this issue for sure. The last three seats that we have lost were all lost to democrats running as conservatives. In 2006 we lost the House against democrats running as conservatives. Unfortunately, when McCain wins this fall too many republican politicians will believe it due to his moderate to liberal views being able to reach across the aisle, and to attract both independent and moderate democrats. This could set the party back further if they believe that McCain won the election due to anything he did, instead of him being the recipient of being in the right place at the right time as the democrats run the worst possible candidate in a national election.

[Stuck in Marion County]

Jim wrote:

<quoted text>
We agree on this issue for sure. The last three seats that we have lost were all lost to democrats running as conservatives. In 2006 we lost the House against democrats running as conservatives. Unfortunately, when McCain wins this fall too many republican politicians will believe it due to his moderate to liberal views being able to reach across the aisle, and to attract both independent and moderate democrats. This could set the party back further if they believe that McCain won the election due to anything he did, instead of him being the recipient of being in the right place at the right time as the democrats run the worst possible candidate in a national election.

The MS loss was especially informative. R's trotted down the Pres, the Veep, and a host of Washington fat cats and tried everything short of claiming that a vote for the Dem was a vote to have Obama date your daughter.

When one side provides such an easy and obvious target, running against "politics as usual" and the "Washington insider mentality" is a campaign even I could manage and win. Any R that wants to win in December will focus on real local issues instead of another failed attempt at making every race a referendum on Pelozi.(and hope that their opponent tries to make it a referendum on Bush - a popular topic that will have limited actual voting impact)

Speaking of McCain - he needs to rethink his stratgey or he'll be sitting next to Hillary with each of them asking the other "what happened". He's not inspiring enough as a speaker to win on the "guns and god" message that he seems to be drifting towards. His real strength has always been when he has been willing to speak his mind - and if that means that he has to disagree with a Bush policy so be it (in fact so much the better). He doesn't need Bush's support to win - he needs support from conservatives and independents that aren't sold on Obama but have been sorely disappointed by some of Bush's actions.

[Jim]

Stuck in Marion County wrote:

<quoted text>
The MS loss was especially informative. R's trotted down the Pres, the Veep, and a host of Washington fat cats and tried everything short of claiming that a vote for the Dem was a vote to have Obama date your daughter.
When one side provides such an easy and obvious target, running against "politics as usual" and the "Washington insider mentality" is a campaign even I could manage and win. Any R that wants to win in December will focus on real local issues instead of another failed attempt at making every race a referendum on Pelozi.(and hope that their opponent tries to make it a referendum on Bush - a popular topic that will have limited actual voting impact)
Speaking of McCain - he needs to rethink his stratgey or he'll be sitting next to Hillary with each of them asking the other "what happened". He's not inspiring enough as a speaker to win on the "guns and god" message that he seems to be drifting towards. His real strength has always been when he has been willing to speak his mind - and if that means that he has to disagree with a Bush policy so be it (in fact so much the better). He doesn't need Bush's support to win - he needs support from conservatives and independents that aren't sold on Obama but have been sorely disappointed by some of Bush's actions.

If I was managing McCain's campaign I would put him on a private island until election night. Right now, Obama is the perfect candidate to run against in a National election. If McCain can just keep from saying something stupid he is in. If the GOP takes the high road and runs School House Rocks type of ads explaining policies along with civics, economics, and history in relationship to them, and allow the 527s to blast Obama, it will be President McCain next year.