Jump to content

Barack Obama Elected President!


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

LOL not as many as other people in the campaign did ;)...I also did not get a whole lot of "yes" votes in Texas. Most of them hung up early. Why hang up on me? ;)

I am going to make calls to Pennsylvania for BOTH Obama and Hillary....hey I love them both so I got to help both of them out ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey Kwing...you know I love talking politics with you so here it goes ;). I have to agree that a lot of Obama is talking with regards to policy but not enough emphasis on how he will go about bringing that policy into The White House. It is clear that Hillary is putting forth her ideas, giving specifics, while Obama is touting the "change" card a whole lot. Now Obama has substance in him, at least in my opinion. To me, he has been a welcome addition for the Democrats in the U.S. Senate as well as basically a breath of fresh air. I was inspired by his speech at the 2004 Democrat National Convention where he became famous...it only got better once he entered the U.S. Senate.

I just like both Hillary and Obama a lot and am now volunteering to help both of them in upcoming states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

You are right, he is a great spokesman for the DNC and he makes great speeches.

But there is NO substance.

He has nothing to go on. Except his tired old "A Change is a coming". Which is pretty pathetic. Every candidate talks about change, and when every candidate gets to office, nothing changes.

Why is he different? Because he made one or two good speeches? What is his record? Why is he afraid to talk to the National Media?

Clinton has been getting the shaft. I honestly feel bad for her, and you know I do not like her one bit. She has, to me, become way more likeable as a person and a candidate and to be honest, I would rather see her in the White House than Do Nothing Obama.

The Dem party is in chaos though.

They always want all votes counted, but now they don't want Michigan and Florida counted because they moved up their primary....BOOO HOOO. Count the votes.

But what is funny about this...the same party that brought about this mess in MI and FL also has that whole superdelegate mess.

Barack does not want MI and FL counted because its wrong, but he thinks that all SuperDelegets should automatically vote for him....thats ironic.

Clinton is only 100 some delegates behind.

Anyone find it interesting that the media was all over Huckabee and him standing his ground, supporting his continued run when he had NO chance? But Hillary who is only a hundred or so delegates behind is made out to look like world war 3 because she wants to stay and fight, and rightfully so? Bias? I think so.

And to whomever cried about Rush urging Repubs to vote for Hilary...he may think Hil would be easier to beat, I think otherwise. America if finally waking up from their Obama induced sleep and seeing that he really has nothing but words....thats it.

But, if it was wrong for Rush to urge Repubs to vote for Hillary, was it wrong for the Dem party to call on Repubs to vote for Romney because they were afraid of McCain??? Because that happened, but you do not seem upset about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It shouldn'e be that hard of a choice bro.

Any candidate that pissed off the biggest portion of his base is worth voting for. Why? Because they WILL work with both sides, like they always have.

You do not need a Liberal or a Conservative as President you need a centrist or a moderate. Plain and simple.

The left and the right cause too much hate....us centrists and moderates know what it takes to bring about change..and change starts by working together...not against.

Obama does not know foreign policy at all, he already said he would attack Pakistan...you are right , not a hard choice there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Getting people to the polls is not the mark of a great or competent leader. On that logic, Karl Rove should run for President.

BTW, I disagree that Obama lacks substance. The trouble is that his substance amounts to the same stale class politics that his party have been been pimping for years. He claims to be a bridge builder yet his voting record is the most left-wing of anyone in the Senate. And he rails against 'special interests' yet (unlike McCain) has shown no courage to face down the interest groups in his own party. Rhetoric aside, there's no evidence to suggest Obama would be a uniting/bi-partisan type leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Not at all, given the circumstances he clearly said he would attack Pakistan under. Let's tell it all if we're going to tell it. Working with the Republicans is a necessary evil, but what would be his inspiration to do so? They hate science, love war, claim no fiscal responsibility, promote bigotry. Because Obama isn't exactly what some bargained for as a Democrat, why would anyone completely change their values and adopt THOSE instead? Obama isn't going to fall in line with tactics like that, and I personally see a lack of patriotism when the GOP is considered a better alternative to him after what they've done for 7 years and still plan to do. And if Clinton is so much better at bipartisanship then why is her health care mission tainted by shutting out conservatives in the 90's? She talks about how Republicans derailed her efforts, but not her own contribution to the failure, which Obama pointed out in the last debate. She touts the successes of an administration she was neither elected into or appointed to a cabinet position in. Then she has the nerve to suggest that he can't provide national security, when she helped authorize a war that has depleted the morale and resources of the armed forces, and helped to fund it every time Bush wanted to. How can she not see that those decisions compromised our readiness for war breaking out here? It's the same as Republicans making no connection between the war and the horrid economy. As far as speeches, if they're such a problem for her then she should shut up until she's in the oval office and implementing those solutions she's fond of. Is Obama supposed to pull us out of Iraq on the campaign trail?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh. So because you don't agree with some of his points, BRO, they are laughable.

Amazing how he generalizes republicans.....but you NEVER do that to democrats (Which you did in one of your previous posts).

It's nice to see that repsect others opinions. I guess now you'll tell me you're not a republican but a fair minded person (If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that one)......

And, on most republicans n that party, Stenbeck may have it right. It's that party that is out of touch. Fiscal conservatives........who created a record deficit. Not involved in nation building.........while doing it in Iraq. And a president who was actually surprised that gas is 4 dollars a gallon on the west coast.......this is before he was taped tap dancing with a huge smile on his face.

That is what sounds out of touch to me.

And to me, getting people to the polls who have never believed in the democratic process is a mark of a great leader. What I find silly is someone who counts her "35 years of experience" even though she's been a senator from NY for 6 years? And I'm not talking about being married to Bill, because if that is the case.....

Why haven't Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Lady Bird Johnson or Jackie Kennedy not ever ran for president?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Kwing,

I wasn't crying when I said it, but I find it interesting that the republicans are pushing for hillary when majority don't even like her. The reason is they can easily smear her campaign, with obama that won't work. I have to agree with you about obama though, he talks about change too much instead of discussing the issues. I happen to like Hillarys ideas more. So we are stuck back in square one with either voting for the more likeable candidate or the more experienced candidate? An when were the dems pushing for Romney? Because all the liberal talks shows I listen to don't even like him. If anything the dems were pushing for McCain and making fun of his age/100 years at war strategy/no plan for the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Errol already confirmed she is back at Y&R and in a non-producing role; this alludes to she is not credited for the role she has.
    • I don't think Lisa served a purpose after the serial killer storyline. The writers never gave her anything to do but be Vicky's nemesis. Joanna Going deserved better. Another example of a character taking over the show and then the writers not having a longterm plan for the character.  Exhibit B: Sally Spencer. Such a missed opportunity. It really angers me how they misused her. She could sing and act and they just threw her away in that sexist nonsense storyline. Once the story was over, they wrote her off. The McKinnons should have lasted for years. I will give the show credit for how they introduced Sandra Ferguson as Amanda. I thought it was expertly done. She comes in and she immediately connected to RKK's Sam. She has chemistry with Matthew and she has realistic conversations with MAc and Rachel. That's how it is done. 
    • Great points, and it has not completely vanished. Leslie on Beyond the Gates fits the trope (she's still not over that Ted lovin' two decades later), though I will say there does seem to be an effort to make her more complex.
    • I understand why people speculate, but I have to say it doesn’t sound very plausible that Jill Farren Phelps would be working at Y&R in any uncredited role. CBS daytime shows are tightly bound by union contracts and corporate oversight, and that kind of informal arrangement would be a major liability in 2025. Before the mergers of SAG-AFTRA and the two WGA branches, it may have been easier to hire someone quietly or off the books. But those days are behind us. With digital payroll, tighter pension tracking, and increased scrutiny from legal and compliance departments, it’s just not the kind of thing anyone can get away with anymore. Most union members, especially producers nearing retirement, would not risk their eligibility or benefits to take an uncredited role. The Producers Guild of America is also very clear about crediting. To even receive the PGA mark, a producer has to be verified through a formal review process. According to their credit certification guidelines (source), "only individuals who performed a majority of the producing functions on a motion picture or television production" are eligible for credit, and those credits must be official and recorded. If someone is functioning in that capacity, they are not supposed to be uncredited. Studios that are union signatories, like CBS and Sony, know better than to skirt those rules. If anyone has a legitimate, primary source confirming that CBS is hiring someone like Phelps in an uncredited production role, I’d honestly be curious to read it. But without that, this just feels like rumor—not reality.
    • I keep thinking about the persistent trend of eroticizing mental illness on Guiding Light. Sonni and Annie were never more compelling, or more attractive to the show, than when they were manic. It played into a recurring theme: strong women undone by their unhinged reaction to sex. The writers were likely inspired by Basic Instinct and the broader wave of neo-noir films in the late '80s and early '90s, where female sexuality was often equated with instability. The result was a crude portrayal, not just of mental illness, but of womanhood itself. Both Sonni and Annie were introduced as sharp, capable women, brought in specifically as formidable antagonists to Reva. They were logical and composed, standing in contrast to Reva’s emotional volatility. That difference made them threatening, but not especially “sexy”—until desire became their undoing. In a very male fantasy, their strength unraveled the moment they slept with Joshua. As soon as they got a taste of Lewis lovin’, they spiraled into scheming lunatics, willing to torch everything to hold on to him. It was part of a larger trend in the culture. Fatal Attraction, Single White Female, and The Hand That Rocks the Cradle all traded on the idea that female desire was dangerous, barely held in check, and always teetering on the edge of madness. Looking back, it's a pretty grim trope. And while it's not completely vanished, I'm grateful we don't see it quite as often today.
    • Elements of it were silly, but it was a small price to pay to get Zas back. I should say there's a difference between in town and out of town returns. It's understandable for Roger to skulk around town in a bad wig and clown suit when he's in Springfield and running the risk of bumping in to people he knows.  Taking us out of town to find someone always has a short shelf life. Then it usually becomes about another character knowing X is alive but determined to keep them out of Springfield. Like Alan discovering Amish Reva. I don't know how long it went on, but it was probably twice as long as necessary.
    • Elizabeth Dennehy complained on the Locher Room about how ridiculous so much of the writing was for Roger's return. She laughed at so much of Roger's antics and how it was hard for her to take them seriously. Probably another reason she was fired as she didn't play the game.  
    • Only thing I enjoyed was Abby / Olivia, etc., and the addiction storyline. Otherwise, I could do without the season.
    • Right? Vanessa had a ball gown for every occasion.
    • Roger's return storyline may have been silly but Roger's return was what lead to GL's last golden era.  It was the combination of Roger's return and Robert Calhoun becoming EP that got GL to finally hit it's stride after some really bad years. It will always disappoint me that the ratings during Robert Calhoun's run didn't reflect the quality of the show.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy