Hillary Supporters unite....no bashing please! only smiles

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't know that there are a lot of people angry at him. Those that are may well be because, (1) they still believe that he is a Muslim, (2) he isn't a patriot because he doesn't wear a flag pin, or (3) because he is not a white male

But, you made the statement. Why do you believe that?

Scat troll!!.....

BO would be disappointed in a supporter that:

- Implied someone of racism. (with no proof whatsoever.)
- Came into a Hillary thread & threw that cr*p around.
- Assumed that 100% of all democrats support his candidacy (he's not dumb).

BO is a pro, but sometimes i wonder about his supporters....jeez.

& for what it's worth BO is multi-racial, so i guess he is technically part caucasion......irregardless.....TROLL, BEGONE.
 
I don't know that there are a lot of people angry at him. Those that are may well be because, (1) they still believe that he is a Muslim, (2) he isn't a patriot because he doesn't wear a flag pin, or (3) because he is not a white male

Ohhhh so that is why I dont like him...thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought it was due to his squeeky clean persona...not.....this remark seems a little shallow to me and a whole lot of point missing to it also. You cant honestly believe that that is why so many Hillary folks dont like him :confused3
that were all just a bunch of racists...

A) I know he's not a muslim.
B) I don't give a damn about a pin
C) I don't give a damn what race he is either

D) You're kind of a jerk to imply any of the above.

popcorn:: :santa:
 
[QUOTE="Got Disney";23664419]Ohhhh so that is why I dont like him...thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought it was due to his squeeky clean persona...not.....this remark seems a little shallow to me and a whole lot of point missing to it also. You cant honestly believe that that is why so many Hillary folks dont like him :confused3
that were all just a bunch of racists...



popcorn:: :santa:[/QUOTE]

Well I know that I'm only voting for Hillary because she is white. :rotfl: I would like her much better if she was a middle aged white man. After all, how can a woman run a country, especially if she's not white. :lmao:

God, profdisny you made my night. You can troll on this thread anytime.
 
Well I know that I'm only voting for Hillary because she is white. :rotfl: I would like her much better if she was a middle aged white man. After all, how can a woman run a country, especially if she's not white. :lmao:

God, profdisny you made my night. You can troll on this thread anytime.


profdinsy is not a troll just a Obama supporter. And lives on the liberal and love Obama thread.....although the liberal thread is the same as the Obama thread these days.

that has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heared about Obama.....and the Obama supporters say we have no brains......
 

[QUOTE="Got Disney";23664666]profdinsy is not a troll just a Obama supporter. And lives on the liberal and love Obama thread.....although the liberal thread is the same as the Obama thread these days.

that has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heared about Obama.....and the Obama supporters say we have no brains......[/QUOTE]

He may not be your garden variety troll, but that post was classic troll bait. :rotfl:

OK, sorry.

I'm going to bed now.
 
He may not be your garden variety troll, but that post was classic troll bait. :rotfl:

OK, sorry.

I'm going to bed now.

O yes for sure the remark was...it was posted as for to try to make trouble but when a remark is so troll like you cant help but laugh at it:rotfl2:
 
He may not be your garden variety troll, but that post was classic troll bait. :rotfl:


Yeah it was. And it's also a perfect example of why so many people are disgusted with some of the Obama supporters and Obama as well. They are never able to consider they they might be wrong. Instead they arrogantly claim perfection and accuse others of racism. Meanwhile they pass around memos calling their enemies "Punjab" and "Monster"

If I get points for responding to that troll - they'll be my first ever and I guess, deserved. But how dare someone that's never met me insinuate that I'm a racist. How dare he. All because I don't believe Obama has sunshine pouring from every orifice.
 
/
I wonder, reading the Liberal thread...am I the only person in the world who cannot see what Hillary has done that is so terrible and underhanded? It seems to me that she is bringing up points about Obama's inexperience and lack of a concrete plan. She has been doing this from the beginning, but it is only as of Tuesday that she became such a "monster." Before that, posters were coming over to this thread to offer condolences and tell us what a good campaign she had run.

No you are not the only person........

What I see happening? Supposedly Obama is taking the high road - but his supporters aren't...... (ie monster comment) But its ok to rip Hillary to shreds - but we can't do the same to Obama? By way of the issues of course

I tried posting "liberal" subjects on the liberal thread last night - thinking we could discuss them like the old days -

1. Should caucuses be eliminated....
2. A potential electoral map - showing both could beat McCain

Both were ignored to trash Hillary.

I won't be posting there for a while - and that's a shame - I used to enjoy it.
 
A) I know he's not a muslim.
B) I don't give a damn about a pin
C) I don't give a damn what race he is either

D) You're kind of a jerk to imply any of the above.

EXCUSE ME? I DIDN'T SAY YOU THOUGHT THAT WAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T STAND HIM. YOU ARE OVER THE TOP.
 
Some Hillary News:

Canadian PM's Office: Hillary Camp Made No Secret Assurances on NAFTA

I'm starting to think that covering American politics is far easier than covering Canadian politics. But trying to cover the interplay between them both? A challenge of an entirely different magnitude.

This NAFTA story offers no easy answers, no obvious heroes, and a passel of possible villains pointing their fingers at each other.

Here's the latest from the Canadian Press:

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton never gave Canada any secret assurances about the future of NAFTA such as those allegedly offered by Barack Obama's campaign, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office said Friday.

With the NAFTA affair swirling over the U.S. election and Canadian officials skittish about saying anything else that might influence the race, it took the PMO two days to deliver the information.

After being asked whether Canadian officials asked for — or received — any briefings from a Clinton campaign representative outlining her plans on NAFTA, a spokeswoman for the prime minister offered a response Friday.

"The answer is no, they did not," said Harper spokeswoman Sandra Buckler.

That response will come as a relief to the Clinton campaign, which has angrily denied that it has engaged in the kind of double-talking hypocrisy of which it accuses Mr. Obama.

--David Kurtz

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
 
Some Obama Analysis from realclearpolitics. Bolding - my emphasis....


March 07, 2008
Obama is Weak in Key Gen. Election States
By Steven Stark

Two weeks ago we noted that, in spite of all the press hype promoting Barack Obama, the Democrats were only two steps away from chaos in their nomination process.

Now make that one step.

An Obama sweep this past Tuesday was probably never in the cards, given Hillary Clinton's strength among working-class voters and Hispanics, which she's had virtually all along. But a Clinton sweep of Texas and Ohio is something the media did not prepare for, as they ignored the evidence staring them in the face and essentially drove Obama around the track for a victory lap before the race had ever taken place.

Now the party has a huge problem. Sure, Obama has a narrow lead among elected delegates -- a margin he's likely to hold after the run of primaries ends in June. And, on paper, he's still the current favorite to win the nomination in August.

But if Obama emerges as the nominee, it's now clear his campaign is headed into the autumn homestretch with some enormous holes.

Foremost among them is that Obama has yet to win a major state other than his own (Illinois) because he's still having trouble appealing to both Hispanics and working-class Democrats --those so-called Reagan Democrats. As early as this past November, the Pew Forum was picking up signs in its polls that Obama was running significantly worse among Catholics than he was among virtually any other demographic group in the electorate.

That's still true. Unfortunately for Obama, Hispanics and working-class voters are two groups with some affinity for John McCain. In recent head-to-head polls, for example, McCain handily beat Obama by double digits in Florida -- a state once considered a key toss-up. In another poll, the presumed GOP nominee is slightly ahead of Obama in New Jersey, a blue state in which John Kerry defeated George Bush by seven percentage points in 2004.

Color by numbers

These are worrying signs for the Democrats, should Obama be the nominee, especially now that it appears the Obama-Clinton contest could drag on for months, further weakening whoever emerges as the Democratic candidate. Michael Barone, the ace principal author of The Almanac of American Politics, recently wrote that an Obama-McCain race would redraw the red-state-blue-state map of the past few elections. But a more accurate analysis is that while McCain would be competitive in many states -- even California -- once considered safely Democratic, it's hard to see as many comparable states where Obama might do the same.

In addition to California, McCain has a reasonable shot at winning blue states Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and maybe even Wisconsin and Michigan, not to mention the key swing state of Ohio. Obama, on the other hand, has a shot at red states New Mexico, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia. McCain has the better hand to play.

This general-election weakness for Obama is sure to be an argument pressed by the Clinton forces in the days ahead. True, she probably wouldn't have a chance in any of the red states that Obama might contest, either. But in her favor is the fact that, while her appeal to Independents is limited, she'd be far likelier to run stronger against McCain in Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California.

The obvious problem now is that the longer the two front-runners engage each other, the less time either has to shore up weaknesses before the fall campaign. With the news that Florida governor Charlie Crist will consider allowing Democrats to restage their primary, this is now a process that could go into July without a clear winner. The few upcoming large states -- Pennsylvania and, now, maybe Florida -- favor Clinton. The longer Obama remains subject to attack by his opponent and a press anxious to repent (once again) for having gotten it all wrong, the weaker he will become. And once the primaries end, no one will have a clear majority, meaning there could well be a fierce contest for the superdelegates, triggering a contentious party civil war. McCain is thanking his lucky stars.

Boston Phoenix
 
EXCUSE ME? I DIDN'T SAY YOU THOUGHT THAT WAY. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T STAND HIM. YOU ARE OVER THE TOP.

I read your post as race baiting.

If i read it wrong (or if you didn't communicate your opinion clearly), please clarify.

I don't think Kiki was "over the top" because she (& I & others) read it the same way.

Please respond profdsny, & if my read is inaccurate i'll personally breathe a huge sigh of relief. (& retract my troll comment).

.
 
From Peter Daou - at Hillary's Blog

How Does this Help Hillary in the General Election?
by Peter Daou
3/7/2008 4:48:21 PM

I've seen a number of blog posts criticizing Hillary for drawing a contrast on national security with Sen. Obama. The claim is that by suggesting that she and Sen. McCain cross the commander-in-chief threshold and that Sen. Obama should be asked about it, Hillary is undercutting Sen. Obama's prospects in a general election were he to become the nominee.

The hand-wringing on this is excessive. What Hillary is saying is that with Sen. McCain as the nominee, national security is the terrain that Republicans will play on. We saw it in 2004 and we'll see it again in 2008. Democrats know that. Winning in November means defeating John McCain and it is not only legitimate but essential for Hillary to make the case that she is the Democrat who can stand toe-to-toe with Sen. McCain on national security.

Now if you want an example of a false negative attack that provides fodder to the GOP, look no further than the Obama campaign's repeated allegation that Hillary will "say anything" to get elected. Hillary has demonstrated a lifelong commitment to core Democratic values and has fought tirelessly for the issues that matter to Democrats and progressives. To allege that she'll "say anything" to get elected when she has spent this entire campaign talking about universal health care, ending the Iraq war, and a host of critical issues and when she's made the case for why she thinks she can make America a better place for all of us, is to engage in a needless, unfounded character attack.

So my question to fellow bloggers is this: if drawing a contrast on national security is so destructive to a candidate in a general election, how does it help to make the patently false claim that your Democratic opponent will "say anything" to get elected?
 
Man I'll tell ya Obama needs to watch his campaign advisers....2 of them... One telling BBC that his ranting about pulling out of the war is just plan ranting and did not mean it (my words not her's and also the other in Canada telling a different story abroad about NAFTA...which I believe is true and that it was said but the Canadians do not want to make a rif incase he does come the POTUS....

Do we see a pattern.....

and I agree it's not Obama that is irritating me( although think he is showing his inexperience and to me it is showing more in the way of trust) it is his supporters.

There is no way I can go back into the liberal thread and if Obama gets the nod I will start a new thread that reads something like....From Hillary to Obama....lets try to find the love :rotfl2:

So was listening to the news ...of course...and they said that as of right know Hillary has won the popular vote in Texas by over 100,000 votes yet she has lost the caucuses and he has 3 less delegates than Obama....so that shows you how the caucus is unfair. How can you win by more then 100,000 votes yet loose the caucus....well because she gets more of the elder vote and working families that have to be home and Latinos that don't speak English and do not attend the caucus...this is according to to news.

I was just reading the OB thread and they keep saying how bad we are over here...cant they see that they are just as bad over there about Hillary!!!!! we are aware of Hillary tactics yet they are in such denial of Obamas....it's like all they can see in him is rainbows and lilipops.

Sure hope when all this is over that the party comes back together. Hillary and Obama are going to have to help us all mend fences....

the party keeps going back and forth..they say well the person with the most votes should be the winner...than it is the candidate with he most delegates...well there is not one that will meet the designated amount. So what will they do if say when all is said and done that Obama has more delegates and Hillary has won the popular vote , what do they do than. If you have more votes have the people not spoken ...but what about the delegates...that is just as much important....I would hate and love to be a SD at this time in history. But remember most of the SD are elected officials/politicians......and they also say that the SD better vote with there State so what happens with Kerry and Kennedy...

Mam this is so messed up...by the way if you count MI and Florida at this moment Obama has only 3,000 ,ore votes than Hillary yet she has more of the blue states....
 
interesting video attached...be sure to watch

Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary
Pennsylvania: Clinton 52% Obama 37%

Thursday, March 06, 2008
In Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has opened a fifteen percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Clinton attracting 52% of the vote while Obama earns 37%. (See Video)
 
His campaign as made some 'rookie" mistakes.

This is precisely what concerns me. Running a Presidential Campaign is equivilant to running a Corporation. From what I know Obama has never even been a night manager at Mickey D's. Why should we entrust him to lead the country?
Under NORMAL circumstances this would not really bother me too much. But this country is in such a horrid mess, in so many areas, we really can't afford "rookie" mistakes.
Now is NOT the time to roll the dice and hope (no pun intended) for the best!
 
Just for the record, I think caucuses should go the way of the Edsel.

Me too.

Do you think anything will change 4 years from now? ;)

It seems to be up to each individual state.

So Texans - let your party know how silly your system is!!!!!!
 
I don't know that there are a lot of people angry at him. Those that are may well be because, (1) they still believe that he is a Muslim, (2) he isn't a patriot because he doesn't wear a flag pin, or (3) because he is not a white male

But, you made the statement. Why do you believe that?
Wow, just wow. I never thought I would see anything like that! :sad2: Luckily Obama himself isn't about that or at least doesn't appear to be.

I hate the system inTexas too. It's weird, pointless and unfair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

PixFuture Display Ad Tag












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top