Balta1701 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 That meeting that Obama/Edwards called off on Monday to avoid the press frenzy seems to be happening as I write this post (and thus, happening as I expand the press frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I finally found a reason to vote for Hillary. Sorry Barack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigEdWalsh Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 11:53 PM) I finally found a reason to vote for Hillary. Sorry Barack. If I were going to vote for Hillary I don't think I could after listening to and watching that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo's Drinker Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 12:53 AM) I finally found a reason to vote for Hillary. Sorry Barack. You gotta be f'in kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 17, 2008 -> 04:53 PM) dinosaur? dude they are stealth fighter jets, not really a primitive technology. they are totally badass too. I'm not knocking the technology - it is the mindset that is outmoded. They are intended for air-to-air combat with a Cold War superpower that no longer exists. Our enemy now doesn't fly hundred-million dollar jet planes. they plant $25 roadside bombs and strap explosives to themselves. Rolling out more B-22s is an excellent way of tackling that problem, and highly cost effective too. With all the US soldiers dying because their body armor sucks and their vehicles aren't armor-plated, I for one think the $300 million a pop for B-22s could be better spent actually equipping our soldiers for fighting today's enemy, not the enemy of 20 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 12:53 AM) I finally found a reason to vote for Hillary. Sorry Barack. I do like seeing the kids involved. And great use of "change" in the song. Also, looking over some of the coverage and campaign spots, I noticed I like her a lot more when "he's" not around. So for at least this voter, the campign would do better to provide some distance from "him". And Obama isn't do any favors by having Ted Kennedy campaign for him. Not certain that's going to help him in my eyes. But I will try to get over to the Obama rally Wednesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 12:53 AM) I finally found a reason to vote for Hillary. Sorry Barack. Wow. That was so bad, I don't have the proper reply for it. Boggles the mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 07:15 AM) I'm not knocking the technology - it is the mindset that is outmoded. They are intended for air-to-air combat with a Cold War superpower that no longer exists. Our enemy now doesn't fly hundred-million dollar jet planes. they plant $25 roadside bombs and strap explosives to themselves. Rolling out more B-22s is an excellent way of tackling that problem, and highly cost effective too. With all the US soldiers dying because their body armor sucks and their vehicles aren't armor-plated, I for one think the $300 million a pop for B-22s could be better spent actually equipping our soldiers for fighting today's enemy, not the enemy of 20 years ago. You are glossing over the fact that Russians and Chinese have been working on Stealth technology as well as fighter jet improvements. And that these countries sell to a lot of countries that we have issues with. But sure we should keep rolling with 30 year old F14s and F15s because of the cost. The fleet is old and its time to upgrade. We wont be fighting opponents that have a roadside bomb all the time. Some of them actually have an army and fight with military strength. Its like any company doing R&D, you make an investment for the future because you dont want the future to become to present and you find yourself in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Talk about contradicting polls... I should note ARG is the same group who had Hillary +9 in Iowa the day before the iowa caucus, which Obama won by 7 points and clinton finished 3rd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Hillary the Hypocrite the Obama campaign hosted a competing conference call, during which campaign manager David Plouffe said Clinton was "denigrating the power of words." The Obama camp also said Clinton had a pattern of borrowing some of the Illinois senator’s signature phrases, including “Yes, We Can” and “Fired Up, Ready to Go.” They also circulated a YouTube video and list of these alleged instances to reporters still listening to Wolfson. "…We have seen thousands and thousands of Iowans over the last week and we are fired up and we are ready to go because we know America is ready for change and the process starts right here in Iowa," says Clinton in the pre-Iowa caucuses clip circulated by the Obama campaign Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Obama is claiming he coined the phrase fired up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo's Drinker Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 12:53 AM) I finally found a reason to vote for Hillary. Sorry Barack. Was that at halftime of a WNBA game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) Obama is claiming he coined the phrase fired up? No, not at all. He s saying that in a campaign, it's pretty disingenuous to say one opponent is stealing someone else's speech (even though he isnt) while all along using his "slogans" for her own gain. He never coined "change", or "yes we can" or fired up", but he IS the one using them in this campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 07:15 AM) I'm not knocking the technology - it is the mindset that is outmoded. They are intended for air-to-air combat with a Cold War superpower that no longer exists. Our enemy now doesn't fly hundred-million dollar jet planes. they plant $25 roadside bombs and strap explosives to themselves. Rolling out more B-22s is an excellent way of tackling that problem, and highly cost effective too. With all the US soldiers dying because their body armor sucks and their vehicles aren't armor-plated, I for one think the $300 million a pop for B-22s could be better spent actually equipping our soldiers for fighting today's enemy, not the enemy of 20 years ago. I disagree. Having air superiority is still very important. But I also don't think the US should be in countries policing things, so in my world view we wouldn't be in countries facing roadside bombs and stuff. If we are doing that stuff, we obviously should have proper equipment for troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 12:53 AM) I finally found a reason to vote for Hillary. Sorry Barack. that has to be fake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(mr_genius @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 12:58 PM) that has to be fake well, yes and no. It's a legit video, but the Clintons want nothing to do with it. Apparently someone in the campaign was asked if they had anything to do with it, they said a resounding "no". This in comparison to the "Yes We Can" video that he Obama campaign endorsed and featured on their webpage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 I heard something interesting earlier today. A commentator thought that maybe Clinton is going so negative in WI to see if it'll work. S.C. was "racial" negativity, but not negative on the issues. However, in WI she is going flat at him on the issues. We could argue she is lying, but that is not my point here. If she wins WI after going negative, it's a big win for her and might prove to them it will work in TX, OH, and PA. If it DOESNT wrk, they can spin it and say we were behind and we made it close (even though they lead up until earlier this month, so you could argue ANY lose is a flat out lose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 PS: just heard an interview on MSNBC of a Clinton surrogate who played the "wooh is us" card. The big bad media isnt pressing Obama. He's getting a free pass. They arent asking him about the issues. Give me a break. Dont go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8021702461.html Several top Clinton strategists and fundraisers became alarmed after learning of the state's unusual provisions during a closed-door strategy meeting this month, according to one person who attended. What Clinton aides discovered is that in certain targeted districts, such as Democratic state Sen. Juan Hinojosa's heavily Hispanic Senate district in the Rio Grande Valley, Clinton could win an overwhelming majority of votes but gain only a small edge in delegates. At the same time, a win in the more urban districts in Dallas and Houston -- where Sen. Barack Obama expects to receive significant support -- could yield three or four times as many delegates. How is she ready to lead from day one? Her campaign didnt even know the RULES to a primary-caucus. They've had over a YEAR to figure this out and they JUST learned the rules? She is NOT ready to lead from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8021702461.html How is she ready to lead from day one? Her campaign didnt even know the RULES to a primary-caucus. They've had over a YEAR to figure this out and they JUST learned the rules? She is NOT ready to lead from day one. Maybe it's just that Texas's rules are that messed up (And from what I've read, they are.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 03:10 PM) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8021702461.html How is she ready to lead from day one? Her campaign didnt even know the RULES to a primary-caucus. They've had over a YEAR to figure this out and they JUST learned the rules? She is NOT ready to lead from day one. stretching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 04:06 PM) Maybe it's just that Texas's rules are that messed up (And from what I've read, they are.) Delegates are proportioned by state rep districts. The better the turnout in a district, the more delegates that area gets. Very similar to the electoral college. As I posted yesterday, a candidate could win the popular vote in Texas and not receive as many delegates as the second place finisher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 04:06 PM) Maybe it's just that Texas's rules are that messed up (And from what I've read, they are.) But to JUST find out that these are the rules? It was written as if they assumed it was just a straight forward primary and now they are like "oh crap. there is this caucus thing too!" It really shows their ineptitude and "assumption" this would be wrapped up on Super Tuesday and they would have to worry about these other states. Edited February 18, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 05:14 PM) But to JUST find out that these are the rules? It was written as if they assumed it was just a straight forward primary and now they are like "oh crap. there is this caucus thing too!" It really shows their ineptitude and "assumption" this would be wrapped up on Super Tuesday and they would have to worry about these other states. This is very minor stuff. Every candidate has stuff like this happen. Kind of like Obama accidentally using phrases from another candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 18, 2008 -> 05:23 PM) Kind of like Obama accidentally using phrases from another candidate. Which candidate is he using phrases from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts