Barack Obama or John McCain?

[Incorrigible1]

Well, I'm not one of those younger folks you speak of. I prefer to set the record straight, and saying Obama disrespects his country is pure nonsense, or as you would say, idiotic. If anyone has a legitimate argument against Obama, I will not and have not respond/ed with outrageous criticism of McCain. I like John McCain, to be honest. But I don't think he is right for America. So, please don't lump me in with whoever you are speaking of simply because I set the record straight regarding the hand over chest bit.

Excellent! Thank you for that. And you'll be fine, should John McCain assume the presidency?

The reason I ask this is that you've shown a propensity to cling to all things Obama. I just wish to ask you, as you've calmly responded in your last posting, that should John McCain win the presidency, you'll wish the man the very best?

Again, I'm here to declare that I've fair confidence that, whichever candidate wins the presidency, that things shall improve vastly in this country.

So c'mon, (female dog) at me for my beliefs! In fact, I'm Libertarian enough that I'm going to cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate, in my state. So, Nyaaah! to all of you, wishing to (female dog) to me about my voting choice. I bare my behind to all of you, and cordially invite you to kiss it.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Incorrigible1

[The Unseen]

Very true, one hasn't done anything, the other doesn't know how many houses he owns

Man thats great,Your right though,Very true indeed.

[IrishAidan07]

Excellent! Thank you for that. And you'll be fine, should John McCain assume the presidency?

Yes, I'll be fine. I simply prefer Obama.

The reason I ask this is that you've shown a propensity to cling to all things Obama. I just wish to ask you, as you've calmly responded in your last posting, that should John McCain win the presidency, you'll wish the man the very best?

I'll support him. As I said, he's not a bad guy. I just prefer Obama.

Again, I'm here to declare that I've fair confidence that, whichever candidate wins the presidency, that things shall improve vastly in this country.

No argument on that one.

So c'mon, (female dog) at me for my beliefs! In fact, I'm Libertarian enough that I'm going to cast my vote for the Libertarian candidate, in my state. So, Nyaaah! to all of you, wishing to (female dog) to me about my voting choice. I bare my behind to all of you, and cordially invite you to kiss it.

I don't care who you vote for. If you want to vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate (I believe), that's your right. I prefer Obama and it's my right to do so. If he should lose, fine. If he wins, even better. But I don't like being lumped in with group A simply because I share the belief that a certain candidate is better.

Edited August 28, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Incorrigible1]

Yes, I'll be fine. I simply prefer Obama.

I'll support him. As I said, he's not a bad guy. I just prefer Obama.

No argument on that one.

I don't care who you vote for. If you want to vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate (I believe), that's your right. I prefer Obama and it's my right to do so. If he should lose, fine. If he wins, even better. But I don't like being lumped in with group A simply because I share the belief that a certain candidate is better.

Thank you, sir. You've gained my respect, for whatever that might be worth to you!

Edit: Oh, and the Huskers would have whupped up upon the '97 Vulverines, had they met, post bowls. We soundly thrashed the Peyton Manning led Volunteers 42-17, whilst your Vulves squeaked out a 21-16 win over Washington. Oh, should we mention the '05 Alamo Bowl? Didn't think so.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Incorrigible1

[IrishAidan07]

Thank you, sir. You've gained my respect, for whatever that might be worth to you!

I always enjoy having the respect of anyone. Especially people more experienced than myself.

Edit: Oh, and the Huskers would have whupped up upon the '97 Vulverines, had they met, post bowls. We soundly thrashed the Peyton Manning led Volunteers 42-17, whilst your Vulves squeaked out a 21-16 win over Washington. Oh, should we mention the '05 Alamo Bowl? Didn't think so.

YOU WISH!!!!!!!! My '97 Wolverines would have destroyed those corn chuckin' fools. Although, I was supporting the Huskers against U.S.C., was it last year? I hate U.S.C.

Edited August 28, 2008 by IrishAidan

[Harte]

... wow... if you're going to make wild statements, root them in some truth. The CIA is not going to kill Obama. There'd be no reason to kill him. It's incredible how stupid some of these posts are...

Agreed.

Did you see this one?:

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person [the deponent, in this case, Clinton] engages in sexual relations when the person [Clinton] knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person [that is, any other person, in this case, Monica Lewinsky] with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [Lewinsky];

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

The parts in the quote that appear between brackets were inserted by the poster in order that he might use the above to "prove" that Clinton did not commit perjury. The above "definition" could be used to "prove" that Lewinski had sex with Clinton while simultaneously Clinton did not have sex with Lewinski!

Hmmm. Wonder why he was stripped of his credentials by the Arkansas bar?

Obviously, even under the above "definition," Clinton had sex with Lewinski. He did "cause ...contact with the genitalia [HIS OWN]... with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [HIMSELF].

Duh.

I took the liberty of inserting my own "brackets," as the practice seems common in the other poster's assertions.

The question is not whether one cares if the Prez has sex or an affair. The question (in my mind) is how did this smart guy let himself get into this idiotic situation and what does that say about his judgement in areas other than the area of "how do I get re-elected?"

Not to beat a dead horse, but the guy that made that stupid claim about Clinton ought to get a job as his spokesperson, if he's not already employed thusly.

Harte

[stevewinn]

its great reading all the posts in the election section, (hey that rhymed, am a poet and i didn't know it. )

the rivalry between the two parties, it reminds me of when i was in the school playground, my dads bigger than your dad debate, but just remember they're both lying to you all, politicians never deliver on their promises. and they'll say anything to get into office and then they'll be just has bad as the last lot,.(i admit Georgie is going to take some beating for that title tho.)

[BlindMessiah]

Agreed.

Did you see this one?:

The parts in the quote that appear between brackets were inserted by the poster in order that he might use the above to "prove" that Clinton did not commit perjury. The above "definition" could be used to "prove" that Lewinski had sex with Clinton while simultaneously Clinton did not have sex with Lewinski!

Hmmm. Wonder why he was stripped of his credentials by the Arkansas bar?

Obviously, even under the above "definition," Clinton had sex with Lewinski. He did "cause ...contact with the genitalia [HIS OWN]... with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person [HIMSELF].

Duh.

I took the liberty of inserting my own "brackets," as the practice seems common in the other poster's assertions.

The question is not whether one cares if the Prez has sex or an affair. The question (in my mind) is how did this smart guy let himself get into this idiotic situation and what does that say about his judgement in areas other than the area of "how do I get re-elected?"

Not to beat a dead horse, but the guy that made that stupid claim about Clinton ought to get a job as his spokesperson, if he's not already employed thusly.

Harte

Yes, I saw the post, I was arguing against that person in that subject.

[Guardsman Bass]

Would you like another argument against McCain? How about that he tends to act stupidly until he gets a very firm kick in the *** to push him in the right direction?

Think about McCain the Senator. For most of the 1980s, he was an orthodox Republican Senator; he disagreed with Reagan on the Lebanon intervention, but he never really fought with his party. That is, until he got a firm ***-kicking in the form of the Keating Five Scandal, which almost destroyed his political career. He recovered to fight another day, and continued - until he got another ***-kicking in the form of the Bush Campaign in 2000. He then continued along - until he got yet another ***-kicking in the form of running his campaign nearly into the ground in 2007, from which he recovered.

That's all nice and well, but do you really want that style of learning in the White House? The mistakes McCain could make as President are an order of magnitude larger than what he's made as a Senator, and far more long-lasting in terms of potential damage. At least Obama has been willing to pick advisors who know something about their areas of specialty to make up for it in case he runs into this type of thing - what has McCain done?

[Harte]

At least Obama has been willing to pick advisors who know something about their areas of specialty to make up for it in case he runs into this type of thing - what has McCain done?

Hmmm. You mean he surrounded himself with "experts" the way W. did with Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz?

Harte