Vick and Obama, BFF's!

[LogGrad98]

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/s...-owner-to-congraulate-him-for-?urn=nfl-300632

"After what could be termed a rough two years in office, the president is looking for a second chance from the people who have turned against him over the past two years. Supporting a huge star like Vick could help with the president's recent image problems. It may not register much nationally, but it couldn't hurt in Pennsylvania. After all, it's a swing state and 2012 is just around the corner."

And Nero continues to fiddle...ok ok played the lyre...

 

[The-Joker]

https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/s...-owner-to-congraulate-him-for-?urn=nfl-300632

"After what could be termed a rough two years in office, the president is looking for a second chance from the people who have turned against him over the past two years. Supporting a huge star like Vick could help with the president's recent image problems. It may not register much nationally, but it couldn't hurt in Pennsylvania. After all, it's a swing state and 2012 is just around the corner."

And Nero continues to fiddle...ok ok played the lyre...

And palin would have been better why?

 

[LogGrad98]

And palin would have been better why?

Where the hell did you come up with Palin? Is she in your dreams or something? Obama faces some large looming issues and goes for the re-elect me please publicity stunt? Seems there are more important things on his plate. Sure makes me wonder about what he is dedicated to. Serving the best interests of the country, or serving the best interests of Obama?




Palin? Seriously dude WTF?

 

[The-Joker]

Where the hell did you come up with Palin? Is she in your dreams or something? Obama faces some large looming issues and goes for the re-elect me please publicity stunt? Seems there are more important things on his plate. Sure makes me wonder about what he is dedicated to. Serving the best interests of the country, or serving the best interests of Obama?




Palin? Seriously dude WTF?

In a reality where the Republicans win the 2008 election... the alternative to the scenario of Obama campaigning for reelection, you happen to be criticizing....

Sarah Palin was one heart attack in a 70 something y/o prisoner of war. From being the leader of the free world.

And you call Obama, Nero.

That's my reasoning anyway.

I like it when Obama does things like this, another example being congratulating Geno Auriemma about his 88th win in a row. It makes me feel like someone on my side is sitting in the white house. Not some elitist texan retard.

 

[LogGrad98]

In a reality where the Republicans win the 2008 election... the alternative to the scenario of Obama campaigning for reelection, you happen to be criticizing....

Sarah Palin was one heart attack in a 70 something y/o prisoner of war. From being the leader of the free world.

And you call Obama, Nero.

That's my reasoning anyway.

I like it when Obama does things like this, another example being congratulating Geno Auriemma about his 88th win in a row. It makes me feel like someone on my side is sitting in the white house. Not some elitist texan retard.

The tough thing about that argument is 1) Obama won the election and 2) I actually voted for an independent so I was by no means comparing what he is doing to what Palin may/may not have done. That is a creation of your own so feel free to postulate. I think both parties put up crappy candidates in that election. So my assessment had to do purely with what Obama has/has not done in his presidency and the problems facing our country now vs. what he is doing now that the elections are creeping up on him.

If I had to think about what Palin would be doing in his spot if she had become president due to McCain's untimely demise it would make me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon. A dull spoon.

 

[The-Joker]

The tough thing about that argument is 1) Obama won the election and 2) I actually voted for an independent so I was by no means comparing what he is doing to what Palin may/may not have done. That is a creation of your own so feel free to postulate. I think both parties put up crappy candidates in that election. So my assessment had to do purely with what Obama has/has not done in his presidency and the problems facing our country now vs. what he is doing now that the elections are creeping up on him.

If I had to think about what Palin would be doing in his spot if she had become president due to McCain's untimely demise it would make me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon. A dull spoon.

I agree with the last line.

I, ultimately, hate the American system since there is such little change, anyone can actually make. And any change that does occur it likely to have to play a game of Judicial candyland until me, the commoner, actually sees results. Putting blame on Obama I think is beyond retarded, because the office of the presidency is pretty much nothing beyond a title. However, Obama believes that another 4 years of gridlock with him at the helms will be beneficial to the country in someway, so little cutesy acts like these... eh.... they're alright.

 

[TheMulletMutilator]

In a reality where the Republicans win the 2008 election... the alternative to the scenario of Obama campaigning for reelection, you happen to be criticizing....

Sarah Palin was one heart attack in a 70 something y/o prisoner of war. From being the leader of the free world.

And you call Obama, Nero.

That's my reasoning anyway.

I like it when Obama does things like this, another example being congratulating Geno Auriemma about his 88th win in a row. It makes me feel like someone on my side is sitting in the white house. Not some elitist texan retard.

Let me make myself clear on this issue. Palin needs to step away in my opinion and not run in 2012. Like her or dislike her she riles up the left and the are issues with her chances of being elected. That being said, your argument is very short sighted. When someone puts forth the argument that she was a heart attack away from the Presidency yet doesn't acknowledge that Obama had next to no experience himself then there is bias at work. She had more governing experience than Obama as a Governor and not a Senator who spent half of the 4 years he served as a Senator campaigning for the Presidency. I just want to point out that bringing up the experience angle isn't a fair one unless you actually point out that our current President had less experience. Unless you count being a community organizer as being a big experience(I don't).

 

[Fesenk's Hoe]

Not some elitist texan retard.

Obama, not an elitist? Ha.

 

[Sloanfeld]

Obama has NO CHANCE in PA. He lost last time, we just elected a Republican governor to replace the two term incumbent Democrat, Republicans won BIG in the house in PA, and the Democratic incumbent senator lost in the PRIMARY (the Republican won the seat). And the 26 year incumbent congressman in my district got OWNED by one of the finest politicians in the country (R). Also, PA has the second largest population of seniors in the USA, and seniors HATE Obama!!!! Just like last time, I told you this clown wouldn't win here. Hell, even the mayor of Philadelphia voted for Hillary in the democratic primary, and he's black!

 

[The-Joker]

Obama has NO CHANCE in PA. He lost last time, we just elected a Republican governor to replace the two term incumbent Democrat, Republicans won BIG in the house in PA, and the Democratic incumbent senator lost in the PRIMARY (the Republican won the seat). And the 26 year incumbent congressman in my district got OWNED by one of the finest politicians in the country (R). Also, PA has the second largest population of seniors in the USA, and seniors HATE Obama!!!! Just like last time, I told you this clown wouldn't win here. Hell, even the mayor of Philadelphia voted for Hillary in the democratic primary, and he's black!

Again the thing about your opinion, and I'm sorry I'm the one that has to keep telling you this.

It's wrong. And not necessarily because of the likelihood of the outcomes that you predict... because infact they may be quite high. It's your reasoning. If you turn out to be correct, it's not because you were right. It's because of outside factors that are too complicated for you to understand (don't worry, it's complicated for a lot of people to understand).

But never the less the idea that Republican governor = red state is completely absurd. Especially since oh so much can happen in 2 years.

Think about where Barack Obama was in 2006... two years before he was to be elected prez. He was a DNP longshot who was just barely banking in on some fame, after a glorious speech at the 2004 DNC.

 

[babe]

Sloanfeld's Right

Obama got his foot in the door by licking the boots of elitists, while pretending to be for the little guy. To know this, you just need to know who the folks were standing behind him on all the podiums and press conferences.

Kissing up to the Philadelphia fans is a kick in the face to the Steeler's fans.

There are more folks, rep and dem, who love their dogs than who love the dems, and none of them are gonna put this down in the plus for Obama, so it's a lose/lose stupid stunt.

Obama loses more support over this than any elitist/cartel pet project like the takeover of medical care or some useless war we don't even know what we're doing in.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Obama's Nero because he's a proxy Rebublican. All of the failures of this presidency are because he lets the Elephants win even when he doesn't have to. Bear that in mind.

 

[NUMBERICA]

I didn't read the article but if there's any semblance of truth to what I'm assuming, this spineless chump is a one-term president. I can't understand how someone so smart and so steadfast in his previous life could be such a pure politics-driven cave-bot. As of right now, I'm ashamed I ever supported him. He had opportunities to make the change he advertised, and instead, we'll see such a backlash to his supposed liberalism these issues might not come back up again to be fixed for several decades.

 

[NUMBERICA]

And Michael Vick can rot in hell. I would smile if he was chewed to death by dogs. No amount of impressive football overrides the behaviors only a monster could exhibit.

 

[franklin]

Obama + Vick? When did Vick cheat on his taxes or bomb cops?

 

[Inn Dawn]

And Michael Vick can rot in hell. I would smile if he was chewed to death by dogs. No amount of impressive football overrides the behaviors only a monster could exhibit.

Nah, he did the time and is just fine now. I root for him.

 

[LogGrad98]

Obama's Nero because he's a proxy Rebublican. All of the failures of this presidency are because he lets the Elephants win even when he doesn't have to. Bear that in mind.

The really funny thing about this post is that it shows 1) how indoctrinated you are in the gospel of the left and 2) how clueless you are as to the role of politics in this country (as in the role they SHOULD play). It is not about one single side always winning or losing, it is about finding the middle ground where most often the correct and best answers lie. No one side has a monopoly on All Truth and Righteousness (cue the lame tired boring mormon jokes). That thinking is exactly what is destroying america as we know it. Demos will do all they can to destroy the right, no matter the issue, instead of listening to their ideas and trying to find a workable solution. Same goes for the right, although usually with less vehemence and vitriol. If you really truly bindly believe that the demos have all the answers to every question exactly right, then you seriously have blinders on, and don't listen to half the country. The election is 2000 shows how evenly divided the country is. You make it sound like everyone except the guys in congress are all democrats and want everything the demos want. Or they should or else they are stupid, moronic, liars, or evil. What a great way to run the country, with those thoughts in mind. Sure will bring us all together. Believe like I believe or we will make sure everyone knows you are the eptiomy of evil, and stupid to boot. Nice thinking from the "tolerant" party right? But I hear this more and more, on both sides but especially from the left.

By no stretch am I giving the repubs a pass. They do the same things but with different tactics. The reality is that most people in this country are moderates, with maybe leanings to the left or right, but more and more the extremists on both sides are taking control of the parties and pretending to be moderates to get elected. And then they are fighting for single-sided solutions to multi-faceted issues. This system can't work for long.

Personally I like that they are at least talking and in some ways compromising. The solutions are far from perfect, but somehow they have to try.

Lincoln said "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and that is as correct today as it was when he was trying to free the slaves.

 

[NUMBERICA]

The really funny thing about this post is that it shows 1) how indoctrinated you are in the gospel of the left and 2) how clueless you are as to the role of politics in this country (as in the role they SHOULD play). It is not about one single side always winning or losing, it is about finding the middle ground where most often the correct and best answers lie.

I stopped reading here so I'll address that much.

I understand compromise and moderation. The Republicans have refused to compromise on any point. The health care debate and bill that barely got through shows precisely what I'm talking about and is a joke and slap to the face to millions of people that simply are not able to afford insurance in the most affluent country on earth. If a bunch of Fox junkies and pocket-constitution Palin supporters want to fight against their own interests, that's their right. Every historical or financial indicator you can dig up not funded by the Heritage Foundation (or equivalent) points out what an ineffective, cash-driven juggernaut the collective of U.S. health care is.

I don't believe in a public option or universal health care or whatever you want to call it because I align with liberal or leftist ideals. I believe in it because it is plainly absurd and wrong that an enlightened and prosperous people continue a model that has rapidly been falling apart and is not meeting the needs of its people. That means this nation is either not enlightened or not prosperous, and I tend to think that it's more of the former than it is the latter.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Nah, he did the time and is just fine now. I root for him.

Fulfilling a statutory debt hardly means what he did wasn't atrocious and I have this antiquated notion that there are things bad enough that society should not champion you thereafter.

 

[LogGrad98]

I stopped reading here so I'll address that much.

I understand compromise and moderation. The Republicans have refused to compromise on any point. The health care debate and bill that barely got through shows precisely what I'm talking about and is a joke and slap to the face to millions of people that simply are not able to afford insurance in the most affluent country on earth. If a bunch of Fox junkies and pocket-constitution Palin supporters want to fight against their own interests, that's their right. Every historical or financial indicator you can dig up not funded by the Heritage Foundation (or equivalent) points out what an ineffective, cash-driven juggernaut the collective of U.S. health care is.

I don't believe in a public option or universal health care or whatever you want to call it because I align with liberal or leftist ideals. I believe in it because it is plainly absurd and wrong that an enlightened and prosperous people continue a model that has rapidly been falling apart and is not meeting the needs of its people. That means this nation is either not enlightened or not prosperous, and I tend to think that it's more of the former than it is the latter.

Yet another who takes things out of context, but at least you admit to it.

Go back and read your post that spurred this response. You specifically point to Obama giving in to republicans when he doesn't have to. You laid it out there pretty plainly that Obama has the answers and republicans do not. Your response above seems to assert the same thing, that this health care bill was the answer.

Did you actually read any part of the health care bill or see the evolution of it? It changed several times, with each side giving some, but with Dems mostly getting what they wanted and Repubs largely shut out. The really intersting thing is most republicans opposed it because of your issue with healthcare: people cannot afford it the way it is laid out in that bill. They wanted to look at how to make it more affordable, but the dems were on a timetable to get it passed, another political move not based in what is best for the country.

You say your understand compromise and moderation, but your comments don't support that.