got it right that time ferd, the libs just love obama, the socialist, when he is done with them they can live on welfare, the real americans will still have to work to pay the bills, dt
DT, that is an wildly outrageous statement. There are many wealthy, successful, educated, hard-working people who are not voting for McCain. Is it your beliefe that the only people who support themselves are Republicans? I have been hearing the phrase "Real Americans" thrown around a lot in the last few weeks and I don't like where that kind of talk can take us.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
think what you will bro, you are entitled, when i say real americans i mean people who are not socialist and believe in working hard and taking care of themselves, they dont want or need the govt, to take care of them or handle there affairs, as i dont, dt
__________________
A product of a pentecostal raisin, I am a hard man, just ask my children
think what you will bro, you are entitled, when i say real americans i mean people who are not socialist and believe in working hard and taking care of themselves, they dont want or need the govt, to take care of them or handle there affairs, as i dont, dt
So in your mind everyone who does support Obama does so so they can live on welfare?
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
no i didnt say that , but many of them want him to be big daddy and take care of them, that is not what i call the american way, dt
Well, your original post that I responded to did seem to say that. I'm just saying that when we say things like that, it makes people think that we just don't even have a real grasp and that we are just saying things in opposition to Obama. That original comment just does not jive with the amount of educated and successful people who are Obama supporters. In fact, on the national level, he may actually be ahead in that demographic.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
it is not my problem if even so called educated people want obama a true socialist to be president, it is sad, and dont be fooled by the rhetoric he is pro abortion truly, i could never support anyone, no matter what party that is in that camp, dt
__________________
A product of a pentecostal raisin, I am a hard man, just ask my children
First Mr. Smarty pants, my point was that LBJ wasn't a gov.
both Nixon and Bush were Vice Presidents... I should have been more clear on that point... but you bring up a good point here!
even the idiot LBJ was a VP so you have to go back to Kennedy to find a Senator that got elected President without being either a Gov. or a VP.
Thanks for the assist.
it further makes my point. When it comes what the American people have historically preferred, Senators are way down the list while Gov. are pretty high on that list.
and no, not apologizing as I was NOT DEAD WRONG, But I did amend the comment.
As for Gerald Ford, he further proves MY point not yours! I was talking about the preference of the American PEOPLE, not who has been president. In fact Ford came to my mind. Ford was appointed VP and became president when Nixon resigned. He was BEATEN by a lowly governor Carter in 1976. The American people never picked Ford.
So looks like by your standard we are both DEAD WRONG.... or maybe we are slightly off.
I have amended my remarks. lets say it this way.
in the last 11 election cycles, when the American people have made the choice between a senator and a governor, they have without fail picked the governor.
hows that? make you feel better?
Uh ... I helped your point?
I think not.
The point I made - and the one you're trying to forget AND camoflauge by blowing smoke - is that you gave patently false information as fact.
"Every president since LBJ has been a governor."
This is what you said, isn't it?
Now, when at least four presidents since LBJ have NOT been governors, that shows how little research you do before slinging things out there you think proves your point.
Now, I couldn't care less as far as what you are trying to "prove" ... but since your assertion is that governors are more qualified than senators and the American people are smart to see that ...
... then if it applies to Obama/Palin - THEN it meant Clinton was more qualified than Dole.
Now if not ... why not?
Your entire line of reasoning here is laughable but THAT wasn't my point.
My point was ... like a lot of right wing reactionaries this election - you are hysterically throwing out patently false information to try and prove your points.
And that shoots your crediblitly to shreds.
And THAT point won't go away and you can just wrestle with it all you want to.
Uh ... I won't return the favor and ask if that makes you feel better because I'm sure you're feeling a bit queasy now.
Ferd, you're not even addressing the whole point of my post. The point here is that Karl Rove had some very specific things to say about the mere prospect of a Kaine pick. He stated that it would clearly be a political pick and would reflect that Obama is not interested in the best interests of the nation or in its proper governance. The reasons he gives for this are very clear and very specific. One week later, McCain picks someone who happens to mirror these very same factors perhaps better than any living American. Short term governor (except that her term was significantly shorter) and mayor of a small insignificant town (except that her town was exponentially smaller). There is perhaps no other person alive that McCain could have picked who fell in the exact same category as Kaine who he ripped the week before. It turns out that Obama did not make the pick that Rove categorized as intensely political and not showing the best interest of the nation...but McCain did.
My point is that partisan idiocy mandates that one week after this interview, Rove must find a way to completely throw out all his logic, reasoning, accountabilty, and what I see as a very astute observation, and praise the Palin pick. It is all ridiculous to me and so many people who hard line constituents look up to are becoming laughing stocks to most observers.
I know that you have to find a way to spin it into a positive for McCain . But the basic context of the video is clear. Rove basically astutely categorized a pick like Palin as an intensely political pick and one that does not properly consider the issue of the actual governance of the American people and the best ineterest of the nation...those were his words.
That has been my opinion as well from the beginning and I have said it consistently...I just didn't realize that Rove agreed until I saw this clip
Stew, I saw several Rove interviews where he made those comments about Kane. in all instances the fact that Obama has very little experience was part of the reason why Kane would be such a political pick.
McCain doesnt have that problem. Was Palin a political pick? sure. but McCain having vastly more experience can do that without it jepordizing the nation. Obama did not have that wiggle room.
and NO that isnt spin. that is fact.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
. But the basic context of the video is clear. Rove basically astutely categorized a pick like Palin as an intensely political pick and one that does not properly consider the issue of the actual governance of the American people and the best ineterest of the nation...those were his words.
Linear Mode
