Originally Posted by Mikeyy

I was just wondering if it was McCains intention to tear in to Obama's essay. Or make his own case? If it was the latter. I have no problem.

Originally Posted by Michael1

This isn't going to be a very pretty election if media outlets such as the NYTimes continue to blatantly swoon over Obama.

Originally Posted by Idealogically Promiscuous

I think being that it was a rebuttal piece, he had every right to expose half truths and blatant lies in Obama's op-ed.

The NYT has no credibility when it comes to political objectivity.

Originally Posted by bhkad

What am I missing here???

I have posted the news of a bill sponsored by Obama which effective proves that he has a Socialist agenda.

And you guys are still talking about the Op-Ed piece.

It is over.

Obama has lost.

Don't you get it?

Or am I the one who is missing something here?

Please help me out.

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Well here is the thing. When people start throwing around comments like socialist agenda. Or Commie or Nazi or Hitler like some wacky lefties like to call Bush. It just loses its shock value after awhile. Here is the other thing. Lets say he was a socialist. Is the country? Is the congress? I mean he wouldn't be king. He can't do things by decree. So I wouldn't worry too much. If Obama is elected one of 2 things will happen. He will do well and be reelected. Or he will do badly and all of his supports will swear they voted for McCain. But we will survive.

Originally Posted by saltwn

And I thought all the time bhkad was a n Obamakin!
Just shows you can't judge a cover by its contents.

Originally Posted by bhkad

You really do look at us as though we are sheep.

And the same thing could be said about Jimmy Carter. On a few things, he did well. (I can't recall exactly what they were but I know he did some good things.) There were a few things he did really poorly. And some of those things have had a lasting negative effect on America.

Like the Islamic Republic of Iran.

And that was with a President Carter who was undeniably Christian and undeniably pro-America and had probably always been proud of America and wouldn't knowingly hurt America. And who had no other agenda.

We survived his Presidency but he has left a lasting problem for us that we are still trying to successfully deal with. And there is no assurance that we will achieve a peaceful resolution.

So just think of how much damage ONE 4 year term with a committed Socialist Democrat could do to America.

The LBJ War on Poverty was a dismal failure and now it is being expanded to the rest of the world, at OUR expense.

If a man were to rape a woman and tell her not to worry, it won't be so bad. It will be over in a few moments and you will survive, should she just lie back and enjoy those few seconds?

And when she gives birth nine months later and the child takes on his father's characteristics and mannerisms and behaviors and gets into trouble and leads a life of crime but the mother is spared that heartbreak because the rapist gave her AIDS and she dies before the child turns 15. But in that time is his convicted of several crimes.

A few brief moments were enough to cause two generations or more of misery.

And if you think I am exaggerating, read this:



All Obama needs is 4 years to cause untold damage to this country that could affect our grandchildren.

You sound as though you have lived in Marxist/Socialist/Communist countries and support their ideologies.

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

The thing about predictions is that you don't have to prove them in advance. Obama is very likely to have a good presidency despite the doom and gloom scenarios. Every election we are told that if candidate X is elected the end of America will soon follow. Every election. Without fail, And every time they are wrong. Again, Its hard to get too wound up. Our countries framers figured a pretty good way of not letting things get too out of hand. It seems to work for the most part.