Obama, after Saddleback.

A possible future meeting based upon Saturday’s debate at Saddleback.

Please note the differences.


That was really stupid I thought

It’s a story and should have started out once upon a time. Whats your point?

Don’t you think it was in keeping with the two people’s thinking?

Obama stated that Thomas, at the time of his nomination, was not experienced or a good legal thinker.

So, we have a U.S. senator, who served one uneventful year in the Senate, who is calling Thomas “unexperienced” even though Thomas, at the time, had served in various executive governmental positions and had served, with great distinction, on the D.C. Apeallate court.

Oh, I forgot, Obama “taught” law at U of C for a couple of years (not a full professor) and was a Chicago ward heeler for a couple of years and served as a coffee fetching junior Illinois state representative.

In my opinion, Obama is clearly trying to appeal to everyone and offend no one. Just what we complain about in politicials.

Thomas, on the other hand, has proven to be a great legal mind and concerned with the law, not politics.

That was my point.

Plus, I thought that the article was funny.

LOL… Funny!:stuck_out_tongue:

The story was indeed funny.

Will you are a McCain backer, and as such your slant appeals only to those whom already are voting for McCain.

McCains response to most questions , scared the hell out of me as they all seemed to relate to Military and being a hawk.

I do not want that type of primitive thinking leading Me or my children.

Did I hear someone request a Coke?

The new Saturday Night Live!! :smiley: :smiley:

I like the old one better! :mrgreen:

Some people just scare easier than other.

You should be scared.
Very scared.

Sharing: A lesson on human nature

I was talking to a friend of mine’s little girl the other day. I asked
her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, ‘I want to
be President!’ Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were
standing there. So then I asked her, ‘If you were President what would
be the first thing you would do?’

She replied, ‘I’d give houses to all the homeless people.’

‘Wow - what a worthy goal.’ I told her, ‘You don’t have to wait until
you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull
weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over
to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give
him the $50 to use toward a new house.’

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her
Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked, ‘Why
doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay
him the $50?’

And I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.’

Her folks still aren’t talking to me.


I am a McCain backer, that’s true. But you are a Chicago guy, like me. You know how politics goes one around here. As such, you already know that Obama is just a cheap ward heeler. Kinda like Jesse Jackson, but without the “hate whitey” innuendo.

As to the “military” relation:

  1. You have to admit that the biggest threat, now, is a military one. Terrorists are rampent and, clearly, state that they want to take the U.S. down. Job one, for the government, is to protect the country from exterior threats.

  2. Add to this the more recent threat from the resurging Russia. They pretty much have shown their real colors. It’s just like the old Soviet Union, but without the communism. Remember, Nationalistic Socialism, without the Marxist-Leninism, equals fascism. Putin wants to dominate Europe and control oil.

  3. Please note that both the Islamo-Fascists and the Russian Fascists are BOTH consentrating on OIL. Control the energy and control the other countries. Since "diplomacy: has proven itself (for about 15 years now) to not work, that only leaves the military option. Given that, do you want a President who knows all about the military (and how to use it AND control it) or someone who views the military with contempt?

  4. McCain and Obama are very clear on their positions on Energy, and they differ very much in their positions. Easy choice.

  5. At Saddleback, check out the answeres. Obama answered like a lawyer (answer a simple question complex) taking no real position and making sure that he had plenty of wiggle room. Mccain answered clearly. Straight talk.

  6. A president should be a LEADER. One chooses to wait until all the opinion polls are in and shape his policy to the result. The other has his beliefs (based upon his experience) and states his position, clearly. If you don’t agree with them, that’s OK. But the other one, really, has no personal position. He just changes with the wind.


That is funny! :smiley: :smiley:


Check out this article, very telling with regards to then “income redistribution” that Obama supports:


add to that this article, which kinda shows how the Chicago Politics connection runs:


My question. This is all out there, for any “journalist” to find and report on. So why don’t they. Seems that the most knowledgable journalist out there, the best expert of Chicago politics, John Kass, of the Chicago Tribune, has been sounding this horn for over a year.

Wonder why it doesn’t hit the MSM?

A good leader listens.
McCain just talks.

He sits in a church reflecting on Military.(I am sure G-D will help us choose)


Read this. Which Presidential candidate do you think would be best abe to deal with this? And, please note, the date of the lecture.


Then, read this:


Kinda telling, ain’t it?

A good leader listens.

McCain, like Bush, listens. He (and Bush) just choose to not accept all they hear as valid. There is a difference between listening (and understanding) and accepting everything that people tell you as true.

McCain just talks.

But, as displayed in the Saddleback debate, he answers questions clearly, plainly and with a lot less words than Obama does. There is talk, for the sake of talk (and to make everyone think that you are addressing them when, in reality, you aren’t saying anything) and there is clear, plain talk.

You choose which one you want.


he answers questions clearly, plainly and with a lot less words than Obama does. There is talk, for the sake of talk (and to make everyone think that you are addressing them when, in reality, you aren’t saying anything) and there is clear, plain talk.

You choose which one you want.

Now wait a minute.
Are we talking them or us:)

I did not click as I kinda figure it is either a who do you wanna wake up at 3 am or a video of a little girl picking daisy’s before the mushroom cloud.

I hope it is not a shot of Obama in a little tank.

Guess I am getting sick of scare tactics , that deep down only hurt our country.