30 Oct 08
Originally posted by caissad4I think your definition needs revision. For instance: The Islamist fundamentalists who set off a series of bombs Thursday through Assam, in northern India, killing 62 people and wounding 300, are Nazi terrorists. The Islamist fundamentalists who kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and cut his head off and broadcast it across the Internet are Nazi terrorists. The Islamist fundamentalists who hi-jacked three jets and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, killing over 3,000 people are Nazi terrorists. Rush Limbaugh is a radio personality who entertains millions of people every day.
I am suprised that a profound republican, such as yourself, was not familiar with why Hillary got so many votes, but lost the caucus vote.
The right wing terrorist, Rush Limbaugh, launched a Vote for Hillary campaign on his radio show with the intent to cause "rioting in the streets of Denver" during the Democratic convention.
Rush is indeed a Nazi terrorist.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyI never heard you have a problem with the electoral college before. I wouldn't fret about; I think Obama will win the popular vote by about 5%.
The electoral college and the sources of money that pours into his campaign.
2.5 million Americans have contributed to Obama's campaign. The "powers that be" are going to be the voters next Tuesday.
31 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWow!! Just think, all that wealth that "W" created in the US is now going to Obama and company. Well I guess that is what you get when you allow the populace that much voice. I wonder if Obama will retain their power like Bush did?
I never heard you have a problem with the electoral college before. I wouldn't fret about; I think Obama will win the popular vote by about 5%.
2.5 million Americans have contributed to Obama's campaign. The "powers that be" are going to be the voters next Tuesday.
As for the electoral college, I have a problem with the party giving the nomination to someone who does not have the popular vote therein let alone the national election.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyI thought all the wealth "W" created in the US was busy being sent to Iraq?
Wow!! Just think, all that wealth that "W" created in the US is now going to Obama and company. Well I guess that is what you get when you allow the populace that much voice. I wonder if Obama will retain their power like Bush did?
As for the electoral college, I have a problem with the party giving the nomination to someone who does not have the popular vote therein let alone the national election.
Do you think the election should be based on popular vote?
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWell, according to Marauder the bulk of the money is from the average Joe. Although I find this laughable, I was just playing along. Don't tell me you believe this as well?
[b]I thought all the wealth "W" created in the US was busy being sent to Iraq?
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeykind of like when Bush stole the 2000 election? remember that? Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college because of the florida fiasco. $hit happens and "elections have consequences" do remember that little beauty? Rethuglicans are about to get a taste of their own medicine...enjoy😀
Of course, the electoral college seems to be in the bag but perhaps they are concerned with the popular vote. After all, it would be embarrassing if he won the election without the popular vote. Kinda like how the popular vote seemed to favor Hillary even though she ended up losing.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyWhy is it laughable? I'm one of the 2.5 million people who contributed to Barack. I gave roughly 80 dollars to his campaign (I am poor). If everyone of those 2.5 million donors gave as little as I did, that would be roughly $200,000,000.00. However, I believe the average donation was something like $200. Calculate that and you come up with a far more staggering number: something like $500,000,000.
Well, according to Marauder the bulk of the money is from the average Joe. Although I find this laughable, I was just playing along. Don't tell me you believe this as well?
It's a legitimate political revolution. Grassroots fund-raising. Howard Dean scratched the surface in '04 and the Obama campaign perfected it in '08. I guarantee you the Republicans will be trying their hand at it in 2012. If you ask me, it's a good thing. Anything to weaken the grip of special interest groups.
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeySuggesting that the bulk of the money is from the average Joe implies most. Marauder did not say that at all. He can defend himself, but you probably would do your own case better without misrepresenting what others say.
Well, according to Marauder the bulk of the money is from the average Joe. Although I find this laughable, I was just playing along. Don't tell me you believe this as well?
He did say that the received donations from 2.5 million americans. Is that true? I don't know. I do know that Obama has done an amazingly impressive job of mobilizing people up and down the income chain.
Do you think that Obama's ability to fund raise is somehow a reason to not vote for him?
31 Oct 08
Originally posted by whodeyI find your constant intellectual dishonesty laughable. It is a FACT that over 2.5 million people have contributed to the Obama campaign. It is also a FACT (one that you seem to be unaware of), that a single donor cannot give more than $2300 total. Obama's money is coming from the people (granted people with some disposable income).
Well, according to Marauder the bulk of the money is from the average Joe. Although I find this laughable, I was just playing along. Don't tell me you believe this as well?
You're a complete Republican shill who is woefully ignorant. They definitely go together. The fact that you stubbornly won't believe things that are true is your problem.