Hope conquered fear.
Change trumped status quo.
I believe this man is humble enough to realize that the message is bigger than him.
At this point, regardless of politics, policies, views, idealolgy, etc. bringing us together as a nation, to me, is OUR number one priority.
We may not accomplish it, but we have to try.
Why did we elect the most extreme member of the Senate if unity was the goal?
Why didn’t we elect the moderate with a history of working with both sides?
[quote]therover wrote:
Hope conquered fear.
Change trumped status quo.
I believe this man is humble enough to realize that the message is bigger than him.
At this point, regardless of politics, policies, views, idealolgy, etc. bringing us together as a nation, to me, is OUR number one priority.
We may not accomplish it, but we have to try. [/quote]
Amen.
Yeah. We didn’t exactly elect a centrist Democrat folks.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did we elect the most extreme member of the Senate if unity was the goal?
Why didn’t we elect the moderate with a history of working with both sides?[/quote]
Because his own party really doesn’t like him.
[quote]therover wrote:
Hope conquered fear.
Change trumped status quo.
I believe this man is humble enough to realize that the message is bigger than him.
At this point, regardless of politics, policies, views, idealolgy, etc. bringing us together as a nation, to me, is OUR number one priority.
We may not accomplish it, but we have to try. [/quote]
LOL!
[quote]therover wrote:
Hope conquered fear.
Change trumped status quo.
I believe this man is humble enough to realize that the message is bigger than him.
At this point, regardless of politics, policies, views, idealolgy, etc. bringing us together as a nation, to me, is OUR number one priority.
We may not accomplish it, but we have to try. [/quote]
Okay, after I got done laughing and the meaninlesness of the above statements, I’ll get serious now…
So here is my questions:
Pat,
Glad you thought it was funny…and meaningless.
Your self-serving attitude is just what the people voted against.
As for number 3…research that dude. There was already legislation passed prior to that vote.
For 4…who said you had to be happy. Not me.
As for brining you into the fold…there’s still hope !
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did we elect the most extreme member of the Senate if unity was the goal?
Why didn’t we elect the moderate with a history of working with both sides?[/quote]
Because the message of unity trumps politics.
You may not like it, but as the campaign was closing, his message resonated of hope and unity. It played very well with the middle class, lower class and I hate to say it…the open minded individuals.
That moderate you speak of put politics first. His campaign slogan may have been Country First, but most didn’t see it that way…hence the result.
[quote]therover wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did we elect the most extreme member of the Senate if unity was the goal?
Why didn’t we elect the moderate with a history of working with both sides?
Because the message of unity trumps politics.
You may not like it, but as the campaign was closing, his message resonated of hope and unity. It played very well with the middle class, lower class and I hate to say it…the open minded individuals.
That moderate you speak of put politics first. His campaign slogan may have been Country First, but most didn’t see it that way…hence the result.
[/quote]
How did he put politics first? I saw about 10 Obama attack ads per McCain ad.
You really got suckered by this guy.
Scary.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I saw about 10 Obama attack ads per McCain ad.
[/quote]
really?
According to your profiles, Zap lives in Pennsylvania (battleground state), while Big Boss lives in Texas (not a battleground state). I’m not surprised that Obama put more ads in PA than he did in TX or CA where I live.
The question is were they all “attack ads”? I guess it depends on what you consider an “attack ad”. Most of the Obama ads that I saw were about McCain’s policies and his record of support for GWB. While those were clearly negative in tone, I don’t consider them “attack ads” because they are focused on policy instead of personality.
[quote]therover wrote:
Pat,
Glad you thought it was funny…and meaningless.
Your self-serving attitude is just what the people voted against.
As for number 3…research that dude. There was already legislation passed prior to that vote.
For 4…who said you had to be happy. Not me.
As for brining you into the fold…there’s still hope ! [/quote]
I did research that. There was federal legislation. The legislation brought by the state of Illinois was to shore it up at the state level. He shot it down 4 times. If there was legislation on the books, why the hell would it be brought up 4 different times? What would be the point? He lied, there is no legislation on the books in Illinois…I challenge you to find it. I can’t because it isn’t there. Next thing you’ll tell me Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood.
I am pro-life, I will never be brought into a culture of death. I don’t believe in it. You cannot give me enough hand outs to make me think that killing children to the tune of 1.2 million a year is a good idea.
What self serving attitude? That I am entitled to keep the money I worked for? I already do charity, I don’t need the government to make me charitable by force.
You failed to answer the question, what is it we are changing and what the fuck are we changing it to?
[quote]therover wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Why did we elect the most extreme member of the Senate if unity was the goal?
Why didn’t we elect the moderate with a history of working with both sides?
Because the message of unity trumps politics.
You may not like it, but as the campaign was closing, his message resonated of hope and unity. It played very well with the middle class, lower class and I hate to say it…the open minded individuals.
That moderate you speak of put politics first. His campaign slogan may have been Country First, but most didn’t see it that way…hence the result.
[/quote]
You must be drunk… That’s the biggest load of horseshit I have ever heard!
Hope! Change! It means nothing. I want facts and truth, I don’t buy bullshit.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
How did he put politics first?
[/quote]
Zap…I stated as the campaign was closing. I agree there were attack ads throughout. What I was stating is that towards the end, Obamas message began to resonate, while McCain was still all over the map. He still had Joe the Plumber for crying out loud, at his rallies ( when he showed up).
Why was there are last ditch effort in Miami, robo-calling Cubans telling them that Castro endorsed Obama ?
I began to see attack ads from McCain in NJ on TV and hear them on the radio 2 days before the election. Prior to that, there weren’t many, if at all.
All I was trying to say is, to use a chess analogy, Obamas endgame was on a grandmaster level while McCains was that of a patzer ( chess term).
[quote]pat wrote:
I did research that. There was federal legislation. The legislation brought by the state of Illinois was to shore it up at the state level. He shot it down 4 times. If there was legislation on the books, why the hell would it be brought up 4 different times? What would be the point? He lied, there is no legislation on the books in Illinois…I challenge you to find it. I can’t because it isn’t there. Next thing you’ll tell me Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood.
I am pro-life, I will never be brought into a culture of death. I don’t believe in it. You cannot give me enough hand outs to make me think that killing children to the tune of 1.2 million a year is a good idea.
What self serving attitude? That I am entitled to keep the money I worked for? I already do charity, I don’t need the government to make me charitable by force.
You failed to answer the question, what is it we are changing and what the fuck are we changing it to? [/quote]
First off, I am glad you are pro-life and stick to those views. If it was state legislation, then does it supercede the federal legislation ? I don’t know on that one. I am not a laywer, he is. All I know is, I am not a woman, but if I was, and got raped by a drunken, malicious, step-dad, and got pregnant, I will NOT be having his baby !!! END OF STORY !!!
Self-serving attitude ? When the fuck did I mention money in my post ? You just proved your self -serving attitude with that statement. Glad you do charity work…so do I.
As for change…possibly a new foreign policy, different views on economics, energy policy. Hey, I never said it would be good or bad…but it will be change.
Therover—“humble”? Are you serious?
He won so I’m hoping for the best but I
don’t see the humility. He strikes me as the most arrogant, self centered guy on the planet. Hope I’m wrong but I think blacks
are in for a big let down—also those people in MI, MN, WI, PA, OH. Just my gut feeling. I don’t claim to claivoyant or intellectual.
[quote]therover wrote:
Pat,
Glad you thought it was funny…and meaningless.
Your self-serving attitude is just what the people voted against.
As for number 3…research that dude. There was already legislation passed prior to that vote.
For 4…who said you had to be happy. Not me.
As for brining you into the fold…there’s still hope ! [/quote]
The man certainly voted present enough in his career. If there was already legislation on the books wouldn’t present serve the cause better.
To answer your question regarding abortion laws, yes states rights supercede fed law. I think it was South Dakota that just made it illegal outside of rape, incest and mothers life situations.
We always hear rape and incest used to justify abortion. What percentage of abortions involve rape or incest?
[quote]sherekahn wrote:
We always hear rape and incest used to justify abortion. What percentage of abortions involve rape or incest?[/quote]
Here is an estimate
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child
The data is from http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html which is as anti-abortion site.