Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TULedHead

The Next President of the USA will be?

Who will win the Presidency in 2008?  

282 members have voted

  1. 1. Who Wins in 2008?

    • Hillary Clinton
      47
    • Rudy Giuliani
      9
    • John Edwards
      7
    • Mike Huckabee
      7
    • John McCain
      42
    • Barack Obama
      136
    • Ron Paul
      21
    • Mitt Romney
      9
    • Bill Richardson
      1
    • Fred Thompson
      3


Recommended Posts

I didn't vote in Idaho's primary today.

My cousin's funeral was today, and I was at my aunt's house all day long. I totally forgot to go and vote--but for a good reason.

So far, my boy Obama is winning the democratic primary-- 57% to Hilary's 39%.

...don't think you want to be using that term in conjunction with obama!!! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about Scott McClellan's book! Wow, even though it exposes the Bush Admin. to be exactly how we all knew they were, it really just solidifies it from an insider. McCain will really distance himself now from Bush.

As for Barack's mis-spoken word, kinda surprising that he gets those camps mixed up, But totally understandable.

It appears everyone forgives John McCain for not knowing the differences between Iraq and Iran.(which appears a little more important to me) But hey, they are all under a lot of pressure to always get it right. Getting it right all the time just doesn't happen.

Barack Obama has this Presidency already. The Republicans have too many issues.... starting with George Bush and Dick Cheney... then onto more of same with John McCain, and then people like Hickabee making a really stupid "joke" about Barack in front of an NRA crowd. Mitt Romney is their only strength.. and he's just not enough at this point. They're done..... Thank you Scott McClellan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thoughts:

2.Other than name recognition (Auschwitz obviously being more recognizable than Buchenwald..who the fuck wants to give a history in the middle of a stump speech to make a point) how exactly is this bullshit?

So he using the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust for his political gain. that is what you are saying. because Auschwitz is more recognizable than Buchenwald. To me this is no better than Hillary Bosnia. They both used somebody eles sacrifice for their political gain. Maybe since this bullshitting motherfucker is campaigning on his fucking words of change, maybe he should study history a little bit.

Listen to the speech, it took him 5 min to say those 25 words. So he had time to think.

Edited by Pb Derigable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...don't think you want to be using that term in conjunction with obama!!! :lol:

:blink:

What?

Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHAT?

How is boy racist?

WTF?

Because I'm using it as a diminuitive?

Edited by manderlyh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHAT?

How is boy racist?

WTF?

Because I'm using it as a diminuitive?

It's not racist to anyone who's normal

But rednecks (who the media associates boy with) always call black people boy. In movies you'll hear "Look at me when I'm talkin to you boy." or something like that. The media just makes boy seem racist when a white person calls a black person boy. I'm not saying it is, just pointing out what marolyn was saying (or what I thought she meant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh.

I've never really heard it like that in today's world.

BUT you're right--black people have been called things like "boy" even when they're 60 years old and the person speaking is 20 as a form of showing disrespect. I just didn't think about it becuase I guess I'm "normal." LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So he using the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust for his political gain. that is what you are saying. because Auschwitz is more recognizable than Buchenwald. To me this is no better than Hillary Bosnia. They both used somebody eles sacrifice for their political gain. Maybe since this bullshitting motherfucker is campaigning on his fucking words of change, maybe he should study history a little bit.

Listen to the speech, it took him 5 min to say those 25 words. So he had time to think.

The difference here is his uncle did help liberate Buchenwald and he misspoke about it one time during a speech. Hillary repeatedly stated during several speeches she was under sniper fire when arriving in Bosnia. It was only after it was obvious to the public she was lying that she apologized and said she was taken out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not racist to anyone who's normal

But rednecks (who the media associates boy with) always call black people boy. In movies you'll hear "Look at me when I'm talkin to you boy." or something like that. The media just makes boy seem racist when a white person calls a black person boy. I'm not saying it is, just pointing out what marolyn was saying (or what I thought she meant)

It's not racist in the context it was used. Yes, calling a black person "boy" in the context of talking down to them is racist. But saying someone is "my boy", means he's your pal. Completely different meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not racist to anyone who's normal

But rednecks (who the media associates boy with) always call black people boy. In movies you'll hear "Look at me when I'm talkin to you boy." or something like that. The media just makes boy seem racist when a white person calls a black person boy. I'm not saying it is, just pointing out what marolyn was saying (or what I thought she meant)

you got it...

...just had to point it out as one who thrives on political (in)correctness!!! B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So he using the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust for his political gain. that is what you are saying. because Auschwitz is more recognizable than Buchenwald. To me this is no better than Hillary Bosnia. They both used somebody eles sacrifice for their political gain. Maybe since this bullshitting motherfucker is campaigning on his fucking words of change, maybe he should study history a little bit.

Listen to the speech, it took him 5 min to say those 25 words. So he had time to think.

Well no shit sherlock...the whole point of doing stump speeches is to accumulate political gain.

Out of like whatever amount of people where there...how many people would recognize Buchenwald as a death camp? Like 10%? Are you really going to pause in the middle of stump speech to teach ww2 history? "ok, there was dachau, belsen, treblinka, and also...buchenwald!"

The point was that the guy liberated a nazi death camp. Unless that didn't happen, you're really grasping at straws.

Of course if a republican said this, you'd say the name of the camp isnt important..but the point was america fought tyranny, or something...because well..conservatives love america more and would never use Jews/Israel for political gain..... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i want obama. he seems to be against war and that's the main thing. i think it is the best thing for europe. the probleme is that he has no real concept and we don't exactly know what he'll do.

BUT NOT ANOTHER REPUBLICAN! PLEASE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the probleme is that he has no real concept and we don't exactly know what he'll do.

...you could go to his website and find out, seeings how you're on the interweb and such.

just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about Scott McClellan's book! Wow, even though it exposes the Bush Admin. to be exactly how we all knew they were, it really just solidifies it from an insider.

They're done..... Thank you Scott McClellan!

finally saw the light...too bad it took him so long to see what was right in front of his face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean......the war on Iraq was sold to us like a piece of propaganda (with the help of a PR firm) and actually had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war on terror???? :o WHO COULD HAVE IMAGINED IT???

Hey, is this 2003 or 2008?

:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, is this 2003 or 2008?

I wish it were 2003 and we had our eyes open this time around.

The American dollar wouldn't be worth shit in the foreign market and we'd all be wealthier than we are now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mcclellan said bush made his decisions "from the gut"...can't wait for colbert tomorrow night... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think nobama just repeated the story as he heard/ remembered it, I don't think he lied or BS'ed about it. Why he brought it up in the first place is another issue. Probably just trying to burnish his nonexistent military connections I guess.

In my opinion, this event falls somewhere between McCains mistake when he said al-qaeda when he meant insurgent/ extremist and Hillarys pack of lies about Bosnia. If he's going to tell stories he should make sure they are correct before doing so.

Scott McClellan? I'm not surprised that little weasel turned out to be a back stabber as well, I never liked him a bit. What's funny is, when he was the press secretary he was widely regarded by the media as a "lightweight" and "in over his head" , "not very bright" etc, it will interesting to watch them change their feelings now that he's saying things they agree with. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott McClellan? I'm not surprised that little weasel turned out to be a back stabber as well, I never liked him a bit. What's funny is, when he was the press secretary he was widely regarded by the media as a "lightweight" and "in over his head" , "not very bright" etc, it will interesting to watch them change their feelings now that he's saying things they agree with. :rolleyes:

How would it be interesting?

Would it be anymore interesting like you now calling a former official mouthpiece of the administration, a backstabbing weasel? That doesn't seem interesting at all...it's pretty obvious actually.

With the publication next week of "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and What's Wrong with Washington," McClellan becomes the latest in a long line of Bush administration figures to tell their stories, particularly about the Iraq war and the handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Those who have written books include former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke ("Against All Enemies" and the new "Your Government Failed You"), former Environmental Protection Agency chief and former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman ("It's My Party, Too"), former economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey ("What a President Should Know") and L. Paul Bremer, former U.S. administrator in Iraq ("My Year in Iraq").

Other administration figures, notably former Chief of Staff Andrew Card and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, are believed to have been primary sources for books by such journalists as Bob Woodward ("State of Denial").

McClellan latest White House figure to leave and tell

McClellan just joined the non-exclusive club of fmr admin people who feel Bush fucked them/the country/the world over....at what point can a conservative conclude there's validity in believing that the admin is shit? Is there a magic number of defectors that need be reached?

Yay...like superdelegates!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McClellan just joined the non-exclusive club of fmr admin people who feel Bush fucked them/the country/the world over....at what point can a conservative conclude there's validity in believing that the admin is shit? Is there a magic number of defectors that need be reached?

Yay...like superdelegates!

let's not forget all of the military generals as well...

generals speak out on iraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think nobama just repeated the story as he heard/ remembered it, I don't think he lied or BS'ed about it. Why he brought it up in the first place is another issue. Probably just trying to burnish his nonexistent military connections I guess.

In my opinion, this event falls somewhere between McCains mistake when he said al-qaeda when he meant insurgent/ extremist and Hillarys pack of lies about Bosnia. If he's going to tell stories he should make sure they are correct before doing so.

Scott McClellan? I'm not surprised that little weasel turned out to be a back stabber as well, I never liked him a bit. What's funny is, when he was the press secretary he was widely regarded by the media as a "lightweight" and "in over his head" , "not very bright" etc, it will interesting to watch them change their feelings now that he's saying things they agree with. :rolleyes:

yeah, McClellan dropped some big bombshells :thumbsup:

He said bush fucked up Katrina, Iraq, and the CIA leak

Like half of the population believe in that allready.

The guy basically wrote a book about what everybody eles thought.

I'm sure Hillary will write a book where she will state she thinks bill cheat's and everybody will think thats news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, McClellan dropped some big bombshells :thumbsup:

He said bush fucked up Katrina, Iraq, and the CIA leak

Like half of the population believe in that allready.

The guy basically wrote a book about what everybody eles thought.

...and now we have confirmation from yet another insider.

I'm sure Hillary will write a book where she will state she thinks bill cheat's and everybody will think thats news.

Dude was convicted of perjury and impeached by the house of reps.

You need a better example.

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, because opinions from retired generals having never been involved with the topic they are talking about, are really credible. :rolleyes:

did you....like....read the article?

Army Major General Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training of Iraqi army troops in 2003 and 2004 before retiring, has been critical of Rumsfeld, as has Retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, the former commander of CENTCOM, the Central Command. In 2002, he was selected to be a special envoy for the United States to Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

those guys sound really fucking involved and credible to me.

But clearly thats because I agree with them... <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...