I honestly hope...

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:53 am

But when both ie7 and firefox 2.0 have built-in spell-checkers. . .enh, who cares? It's a losing battle to expect people to express themselves eloquently or in a clean and concise manner--especially when they want to be taken seriously.

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:14 am

Garr wrote:It's a losing battle to expect people to express themselves eloquently or in a clean and concise manner--especially on the instantaneous font of clever internet.

bwohlgemuth · Post by **bwohlgemuth** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:52 am

Obama is probably going to win. If he wins one of the states, it's essentially over at that point. Hillary may go on, but she's looking pretty worn out from the process.

And Obama "shutting out" Fox is pretty much childish. The Madrassa story is a load of crap, but it's nothing worse than what the media has put out on hit pieces for Republicans for the last three decades.

Obama will get into office, his economic advisors will tell him "taxing the rich will drive them out of the tax base" and tank the economy. If he decides to ignore that, well, I doubt anything would get passed. Remember Universal Health Care and Clinton's SOTU speech where he had that little card? A decade later and we all aren't carrying around that little card (thank goodness).

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:18 am

bwohlgemuth wrote:Obama is probably going to win.

agreed

bwohlgemuth wrote:Obama "shutting out" Fox is pretty much childish.

No more childish than the admittedly partisan blowhards populating that channel. Why go on a a network that is going to do nothing but take shots at you?

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:59 pm

Republicans have done it for 50 years...

on a more serious note...

If he can't face down Sean Hannity, how in the hell are we supposed to seriously believe he'll handle the next 9-11 crisis or bay of pigs with strength? If he can't handle Baba O'Reilly, how are we supposed to have any confidence in his ability to handle Raul Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, whoever the hell's running Iran now, etc...?

Sankofa · Post by **Sankofa** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:21 pm

bassjones wrote:Republicans have done it for 50 years...

whine me a conspiracy theorist river. This nation's media is scared to tackle anything and this is in the land of the free, where I need to read British journalists to learn something.

how in the hell are we supposed to seriously believe he'll handle the next 9-11 crisis

Not invading another country, destabilizing an entire region, and draining our military and fiscal resources on a false pretext would be a great start.

how are we supposed to have any confidence in his ability to handle Raul Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, whoever the hell's running Iran now, etc...?

Might want to do something foreign to the current administration and try diplomacy.

Morphine Child · Post by **Morphine Child** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:28 pm

bassjones wrote:Republicans have done it for 50 years...

on a more serious note...

If he can't face down Sean Hannity, how in the hell are we supposed to seriously believe he'll handle the next 9-11 crisis or bay of pigs with strength? If he can't handle Baba O'Reilly, how are we supposed to have any confidence in his ability to handle Raul Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong Il, whoever the hell's running Iran now, etc...?

Except that O'Reilly doesn't give a sh*t what anyone that isn't him has to say. He talks over them to the point that their points are never made, and in turn makes them look bad and makes him look like he knows what he is talking about. Watch the O'Reilly and Richard Dawkins interview. Dawkins never even gets the chance to say what he is trying to defend, it's just O'Reilly cutting him off and assuring that he cannot be refuted through not even letting the other person get a point across. He's a pompous-ass. Why would a Democrat of Obama's stature give him the time of day when they know exactly how an interview will play out? Obama would have to remain composed and non-confrontational, and that doesn't work with O'Reilly. You have to talk over him.

Clinton utilized balls a few years back when he tore into that Fox news reporter, but he didn't have to try and save face anymore as a "calm and polite" presidential nominee. He told it how it was, and that he was fighting Al Quida and Iraq, and if folks don't believe it, they need only research for a few minutes. Did he declare war? No. Did he retaliate with small operations that didn't get us stuck in a 3rd world country for 20 - 50 years? Yes. Did it stop terrorist? No. Did this war stop terrorist? NO. Problem is, terrorism wasn't the "hot issue" of the moment. So he didn't put 100% of his presidency and time into it. So according to Republicans, he didn't do anything. Sound logic. About as sound as Huckabee and his creationist views.