On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Francis Drouillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
>
> On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Michael Luscombe wrote:
>
> >
> > Obama was never the hyper-left liberal terrorist that Republican
> > fearmongers made him out to be (hi Francis). He ran on a very non-
> > partisan, left-to-center platform, and that's why he was elected.
>
> Eeeww, boy.
>
> There you go attributing statements and implications to me that I did
> not make. It's childish and unnecessary.
>
> Had you been paying attention or actually read what I wrote during
> the campaign you'd know that most of my criticism was directed at the
> media and the ignorant that voted for Obama because they projected
> their political beliefs onto him.


you mean, like the nonsense that elected the current administration, too?


> And by ignorant I don't mean
> stupid. Give folks faulty info and they make faulty choices. (And by
> faulty choices, I don't mean Obama is wrong for our country.)
>
> No one knew how Obama would govern.


aren't you speaking from the wrong tense, here?
or have you already pre-judged?



> Not even a know-it-all like you.
> His only administrative experience was kept secret with the willing
> participation of the media.


secret?...what are you on about?


>
>
> The media gave away their credibility to get Obama elected, which
> they didn't need to do. They could have "vetted" him more vigorously
> and it is likely he would have won anyway. Now that media is paying
> the price. Without journalist integrity or credibility, they have
> nothing worth reading and no value to their advertising. Serves them
> right in my book.


cAre to be specific which media you are referring to?
...surely, not hannity the manatee ? [that cracks me up, every time i hear
it].



>
>
> Before you keep extolling the virtues of compromise, you might want
> to bone up on your perspicacity. Clearly understanding your
> opponent's position is absolutely necessary to achieve compromise. In
> the meantime, I'll work on my perspicuity. Or have another brandy.
>
> Say, why don't you take your arguments to websites that long
> supported Obama. That'd be real ballsy, kind of like Prop. 8
> supporters storming a mosque to protest the religious beliefs of
> muslims during services on their holy day.
>
> > My hope, and I'm assuming most people's hope, is that Obama makes
> > intelligent, informed decisions for the ENTIRE country, and not run
> > the office for his party and corporate patrons.
> >
> > I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Obama is calm and collected.
> > Anyone that expected him to roll into office and toss the rest of the
> > bums out should be reevaluating their delusions. I hope that he
> > shakes a lot of hands and convinces both parties to come to mutually
> > acceptable compromises on key issues.
> >
> > You know, like adults. Mature, calm, collected, reserved. You need to
> > remove the stigma from the word "compromise", as the Republicans have
> > done a great job of convincing folks that it means "surrender".
> >
> > "Not immediately" is not "never", btw.
> >
> > Out of Iraq? Absolutely, but it would be irresponsible to just pack
> > them into planes and be done with it.
> >
> > Change the tax plan? Absolutely, but not in one day.
> >
> > Health care? Absolutely, but in a measured way. He couldn't just roll
> > into office and shut down private health insurance companies on day
> > one, the infrastructure isn't there.
> >
> > I'm sure there are some Republicans that are pissed that Bush didn't
> > bomb Iran. No one can go far enough for some.
> >
> > Drastic change right out of the gate would simply reaffirm republican
> > propaganda about what a radical he is. Everyone that read the guy
> > right knew that was never going to happen, wishful thinking aside.
> >
> > --
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On 8-Dec-08, at 4:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Try as you might, you can't attribute those discrepancies to Bush.
> >> They're Obama's, pure and simple.
> >>
> >> So, when are you going to start the "Obama Lied!" campaign? Or is
> >> that only for folks with an "R" after their name?
>

uhhh...rush?


>
> >>
> >> Subject: [Stratalist-ot] Re: So much for change you can believe in
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Did he run for or against a 3rd Bush term? Or was it the 3rd
> >>>> Clinton term?
> >>>> Who knows, I'm just glad he's pissing off the far left:
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16292.html>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> uh, yeah
> >>> let's ignore the most recent negative economic developments and a
> >>> lame ass
> >>> administration that isn't doing a hell of a lot...as they let the
> >>> door hit
> >>> them in the ass on their way out.
> >
> > >
>
>
At 11:23 AM -0600 11/29/08, Chris Bischoff said:
Just nod and smile, that's a smart pair you have there.

Mugsy replies:
why thanks, (blush).

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"StrataList-OT" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to