This is why I support Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYCEnVmNkpE

Brotha can BALL yo

2/26/2008 4:19:24 PM

um. you posted that five pages ago.

ha. i assumed it was the three pointer

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2008 4:25:56 PM

Believe it or not, THIS is exactly why people vote Obama.
I mean, who would you rather have a beer with?
John McCain can't even lift his arms above his head, let along shoot hoops.

If you disagree, I recommend you scroll back through this thread. In 9 pages only a handful of people have offered actual policies of Obama's they supprt. And each of those individuals do so without doing much research and after a great deal of prodding.

2/26/2008 4:47:05 PM

i remember when that video was originally posted i said something to the effect of

The jumpshot was Obama's white half...his black half would've driven in and dunked it

(cause he has one white parent and one black parent)

2/26/2008 4:48:32 PM

Just tell people to go look through, if they want, then they will. Why do you feel the need to blah blah blah about "In 9 pages only a handful of people have offered actual policies of Obama's they supprt. And each of those individuals do so without doing much research and after a great deal of prodding." unless you know you're full of shit?

2/26/2008 4:50:02 PM

go through nearly every thread in soap box and you'll only find a handful of insightful posts, especially in regard to politics.

2/26/2008 4:51:06 PM

^ Well, I could re-post that photage of the Texas State Sen. that couldn't name a single one of Obama's legislative achievements. But I thought that seemed played out.

I'm still looking for someone, anyone, that supports BHO on his policies and not his rhetoric.

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ``]

2/26/2008 4:55:58 PM

then just read back through the 9 pages yourself and see where people have done just that. of course you dismiss it all because you didn't want to hear it to begin with. you just wanted to disagree with people.

2/26/2008 4:57:37 PM

Quote :

"I'm still looking for someone, anyone, that supports BHO on his policies and not his rhetoric. "

You are just saying that because you know it's all over this thread and all other obama threads... but you want people to see your comment here and believe that none of us know and agree with his policies. Go fuck off, Hillary

2/26/2008 5:08:43 PM

Quote :

""I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud ap-proach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," leading Democratic presidential contender Illinois Senator Barack Obama said Sunday. "If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress," he said. He also criticized the notion that anyone who asks tough questions about advancing the peace process or tries to secure Israel by anyway other than "just crushing the opposition" is being "soft or anti-Israel.""

i saw this earlier today and was pleased.

2/26/2008 5:22:35 PM

Well, actually, I have not disagreed with everyone. I actually said on the first page that hadrian's reasoning for Obama was sound and almost convincing (though not strictly policy oriented). Everyone else has only offered policies after I goaded them into it and even then, their knowledge of the subject is lacking. I seek to educate them.

sari, now that is actually a good stance on Israel and part of a good reason to vote for Obama if you deeply care about israel. Of course, it isn't an actual description of how he will approach israel, only that he thinks we don't need to be their constant cheerleaders. A good start at least.

2/26/2008 5:31:37 PM

What do you supporters think of him not releasing the details of his earmarks?

[Edited on February 26, 2008 at 5:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2008 5:50:40 PM

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

google much?

2/26/2008 5:53:07 PM

He's referring to 2005 and 2006....which is something McCain is grasping over.

2/26/2008 6:03:29 PM

The Washington Post, just last week: "Since last year, he has publicly released the letters he submits to the Appropriations Committee seeking support for the spending items, but has not released those submitted to the committee in 2005 and 2006."

Lynn Sweet, the Chicago Sun-Times Obama bird-dogger: "Obama has supported more earmark disclosure to bolster government transparency. Last June, Obama disclosed the earmarks he requested for Illinois and national interests. However, his office, after repeated requests since June, has yet to disclose earmarks Obama sought in 2006, before he was running for president."



Grasping over? He dodged the question during the debate. And claims to want transparency but then wont release his own records.

2/26/2008 6:14:06 PM

MSNBC is failing at streaming this debate

2/26/2008 9:16:55 PM

Hillary is being a little bitch. She is speaking too long, keeps interrupting and is attempting to make herself off as this pick on widdle baby.

2/26/2008 9:20:06 PM

i hope this gets posted somewhere, it's unwatchable on msnbc's webpage

cnn handles their shit so much better

2/26/2008 9:22:50 PM

HAHAHA Tim Russert called Clinton out on NAFTA

2/26/2008 9:26:09 PM

This what I always hate about Democrat debates--Free Tade. It's always a race to declare who wants to restrict our freedom to trade more.

I miss Bill Clinton. His support for free-trade was often founded on faulty notions of "competitiveness", but at least he a TRUE New Democrat. Despite media reports, Obama has more in common with Mondale than he does BC.

2/26/2008 9:54:20 PM

I can't wait to see Chris Rock's 2009 Special, when he calls our President a crackhead and he really meant it!

2/26/2008 11:47:47 PM

tim russert was pretty much unbearable in this debate.

2/27/2008 12:22:16 AM

We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?
By Charlotte Allen
Sunday, March 2, 2008; B01

Quote :

"Here's Agence France-Presse reporting on a rally for Sen. Barack Obama at the University of Maryland on Feb. 11: 'He did not flinch when women screamed as he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female's cry of "I love you, Obama!" with a reassuring "I love you back."' Women screamed? What was this, the Beatles tour of 1964? And when they weren't screaming, the fair-sex Obama fans who dominated the rally of 16,000 were saying things like: 'Every time I hear him speak, I become more hopeful.' Huh? 'Women "Falling for Obama,"' the story's headline read. Elsewhere around the country, women were falling for the presidential candidate literally. Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich has counted five separate instances in which women fainted at Obama rallies since last September. And I thought such fainting was supposed to be a relic of the sexist past, when patriarchs forced their wives and daughters to lace themselves into corsets that cut off their oxygen. I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, 'we women,' of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women 'are only children of a larger growth,' wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right? I'm not the only woman who's dumbfounded (as it were) by our sex, or rather, as we prefer to put it, by other members of our sex besides us. It's a frequent topic of lunch, phone and water-cooler conversations; even some feminists can't believe that there's this thing called 'The Oprah Winfrey Show' or that Celine Dion actually sells CDs. A female friend of mine plans to write a horror novel titled 'Office of Women,' in which nothing ever gets done and everyone spends the day talking about Botox."

Quote :

"I am perfectly willing to admit that I myself am a classic case of female mental deficiencies. I can't add 2 and 2 (well, I can, but then what?). I don't even know how many pairs of shoes I own. I have coasted through life and academia on the basis of an excellent memory and superior verbal skills, two areas where, researchers agree, women consistently outpace men. (An evolutionary just-so story explains this facility of ours: Back in hunter-gatherer days, men were the hunters and needed to calculate spear trajectories, while women were the gatherers and needed to remember where the berries were.) I don't mind recognizing and accepting that the women in history I admire most -- Sappho, Hildegard of Bingen, Elizabeth I, George Eliot, Margaret Thatcher -- were brilliant outliers."

Quote :

"So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home. (Even I, who inherited my interior-decorating skills from my Bronx Irish paternal grandmother, whose idea of upgrading the living-room sofa was to throw a blanket over it, can make a house a home.) Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902992_pf.html

Oh shit! Remember: She said it--I didn't.

3/3/2008 3:58:59 PM

i dont think obama will lead us into iran

3/3/2008 4:04:20 PM

^^yeah that article has been pretty much universally debunked by everyone.

3/3/2008 4:34:55 PM

Leave him alone *he took a class*

3/3/2008 4:39:54 PM

^^ How was the author's opinion "universally debunked by everyone" (sic) in just one day?

^ Um. . .(1) it's not my opinion, and (2) you need to take a class on how to correctly spell Buffett, douche bag.

Quote :

"hooksaw disagrees with Buffet [sic]. hooksaw took a class so he knows."

SkankinMonky

/message_topic.aspx?topic=500489&page=9

[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2008 4:51:40 PM

i've seen MANY different sources respond to it already. not to mention it's a fucking retarded article. the washington post kinda apologized for it today.

3/3/2008 5:02:50 PM

^

Quote :

"kinda"

Could you post that apology please?

3/3/2008 5:06:26 PM

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/good_save.php

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0308/Wash_Post_editor_says_controversial_piece_was_tongueincheek.html

maybe apologized was the wrong way to put it. more like backpedaled.

[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2008 5:08:56 PM

i dont

3/3/2008 6:30:16 PM

You obama supporters concerned that he lied about the meeting with canada over NAFTA.

3/4/2008 10:10:34 AM

um, even Canada said he didn't lie... and they have no incentive to lie for him

it's funny because people who have been saying this are the liars themselves

3/4/2008 10:33:27 AM

"Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation."

3/4/2008 10:41:36 AM

3/4/2008 10:42:42 AM

^^ oh my god

idiot.

3/4/2008 10:56:48 AM

Quote :

"^^ oh my god idiot. "

Very convincing arguement there terp. Yeah, to say there was no meeting one day, then, after some evidence proves there was a meeting admit there was...is lying. right?

3/4/2008 11:07:07 AM

^ It's only lying if the Clintons or Republicans do it.

3/4/2008 11:08:22 AM

Please show me where he denied the meeting ever happened.

3/4/2008 11:11:37 AM

Quote :

"Please show me where he denied the meeting ever happened. "

Like it would matter, but here you go.

"In Carrollton, Texas, Obama told reporters: "Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to assure them of anything."

Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Obama said: "That was the information I had at the time."


Here is the link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_nafta

Oh, and here. "initially the Obama camp denied that the meeting took place."
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/03/obama_camp_concedes_canada_meeting/5520/


However, I just imagine you will blow it off or not respond to it at all terp.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 11:26:53 AM

Friday, Feb 29, 2008.

Quote :

"Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. "

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=TopStories

Monday, March 3, 2008.

Quote :

"According to the memo obtained by The Associated Press, Obama's senior economic adviser told Canadian officials in Chicago that the debate over free trade in the Democratic presidential primary campaign was "political positioning" and that Obama was not really protectionist. The adviser, Austan Goolsbee, said his comments to those officials were misinterpreted by the author, Joseph DeMora, who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicago and attended the meeting.... Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Obama said: "That was the information I had at the time.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_nafta

IOW: Either Obama was lying and your opinion of him should marginally decline. OR Obama's camapgin is not very well run (despite your earlier claims to the contrary) and your opinion of him should marginally decline.

Something tells me neither of these will happen. Here's how I bet you will respond "No one cares about trade or honesty anyways, so Obama should be forgiven any fault in this matter". Count down in 5,4,3,2....

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 11:31 AM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 11:30:21 AM

Wait, so this is going to be OK because Obama was responding to the inquiries based on the information available to him at the time?

Making decisions based on faulty intelligence is OK for Obama, but not anyone else.

3/4/2008 11:42:25 AM

Quote :

" "This is being reported as if somehow this is an official meeting of an Obama representative and the Canadian government," Plouffe said. "That was not the case. He was essentially doing a walking tour and was essentially having a casual conversation and the report on that conversation was not accurate." In a statement Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington said, "There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Sen. Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.""

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/03/democrats.primaries/index.html

so ok, the meeting took place, but apparently whatever comments were made were blown way out of proportion.

and I don't see why obama should be held accountable for something an adviser said when it seems it didn't have anything to do with the actual campaign. The guy wasn't actually representing obama at the time.

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : .]

3/4/2008 11:45:13 AM

socks and eyedrb are just 2 of the people dumb enough to fall for the recent smearing.

waa waa waa, he lied. we have no proof, there is no story, but I know he lied!

I hope Obama wins without smearing anybody... I like how he's stayed positive with the Clinton and McCain camp's consistent smearing.... and idiots like socks and eyedrb either falling for it, or just trying to perpetuate it

btw - he raised 50 million dollars last month. suck on that.

3/4/2008 11:51:55 AM

^terpball

If he didn't lie, then he must not have known about the conversation. That means senior level members of his campaign are speaking to America's 2nd biggest trading partner without his knowledge. That is not a very good way to run his campaign.

Does this mean you are admitting he is not running his campaign well? Or at the least was not as on the ball as he should have been?

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ``]

3/4/2008 11:56:45 AM

Quote :

"This is being reported as if somehow this is an official meeting of an Obama representative and the Canadian government," Plouffe said. "That was not the case. He was essentially doing a walking tour and was essentially having a casual conversation and the report on that conversation was not accurate."

It had nothing to do with his campaign, the guy just happened to be meeting with some people. How does that mean he doesn't run his campaign well?

3/4/2008 12:04:39 PM

The problem nacstate, is that they first denied the meeting happened. But when the evidence was shown it did, they admitted it.

Now they are saying they didnt reassure canada on the trade talk. But if you read the memo, thats exactly what they did.

"Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign," the memo said. "He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."


Terp, he raised 50million last month? Great, maybe he can use his money for his spending plans and leave my alone.

3/4/2008 12:06:32 PM

are you quoting one of Hillary's smear e-mail chains?

^ What do you do for a living? I don't understand how you could spend so much time on TWW's soap box

[Edited on March 4, 2008 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2008 12:13:24 PM

3/4/2008 12:16:14 PM

^thats the actual memo terp. jesus kid

Well you asked me to show you where they denied the meeting, and they did. Now im on a hillary email? They are both socialist, imo, and I wouldnt give either my email address or my vote.

Terp, I imagine there is alot in life you dont understand.

3/4/2008 12:16:38 PM