Why can't Obama finish off Hillary ?

Grizbacker1

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Bronco wrote:

We're going to have a Dem Congress. I remember posters saying how important it was to have a Dem congress with a Bush presidency...so is it still important to you to have it split? If so... you should be supporting J.M.

I think that was BAC's point, and it's probably why he has suggested that he will vote McCain.

This election may boil down to that desire of independent voters to keep both parties in play versus how dissappointed they are at the Republicans for the last 8 years.

Is that why Congress under Dems Pelosi and Reid have 17% approval ratings? You simply cannot stay on topic because your agenda is purely to take shots at Reps? Too bad you can't look at your own party in the same manner. #lame

The dems deserve that rating because they're almost as bad. But that doesn't mean that the recent history of the Republican party is irrelevant.

Topic nazi.

Someone has to bitch slap you to keep you in line.

Bay Area Cat

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC..you are too easy man.

Smug arrogant prick- as usual- thanks for proving yet again.

#lame

chicken shit big man witht he big bank account, how would i ever collect from you when you run from every post anyone calls you out on?

I can mail a check (or cash) to an agreed-upon poster to hold if you are worried about collecting. You could do the same.

If you don't possess the, ummm, "desire" to engage in a real bet, and only intended your post to be internet smack, that's cool. Just say so. I don't care either way.

I just saw what looked like easy money, and I like easy money.

kalm

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Grizbacker1 wrote:

kalm wrote:

Quote:

Bronco wrote:

We're going to have a Dem Congress. I remember posters saying how important it was to have a Dem congress with a Bush presidency...so is it still important to you to have it split? If so... you should be supporting J.M.

I think that was BAC's point, and it's probably why he has suggested that he will vote McCain.

This election may boil down to that desire of independent voters to keep both parties in play versus how dissappointed they are at the Republicans for the last 8 years.

Is that why Congress under Dems Pelosi and Reid have 17% approval ratings? You simply cannot stay on topic because your agenda is purely to take shots at Reps? Too bad you can't look at your own party in the same manner. #lame

The dems deserve that rating because they're almost as bad. But that doesn't mean that the recent history of the Republican party is irrelevant.

Topic nazi.

Someone has to bitch slap you to keep you in line.

It's good to know I can count on you.

kalm

Quote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

This action may mess with my prediction...man the Dem's are as nervous as a Whore in Church on Sunday, they must feel this thing is really starting to slip away, and fear a complete Democratic party meltdown if Hillary ends up winning this thing

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Reid_Pelosi_Dean_m ay_intervene_in_nomination.html

I've said it since the crying episode in NH...she is going to take this thing, IF the Dems rules and system are allowed to play out.

Either way, Howard Dean history, what a nightmare he is.

I love it. #laugh

Depends on who's nightmare you're talking about. He did institute the 50 states strategy and engineered the 2006 Democratic comeback. He's one 1-0.

jagur1

[quote="kalm"]

Quote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

This action may mess with my prediction...man the Dem's are as nervous as a Whore in Church on Sunday, they must feel this thing is really starting to slip away, and fear a complete Democratic party meltdown if Hillary ends up winning this thing

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0408/Reid_Pelosi_Dean_m ay_intervene_in_nomination.html

I've said it since the crying episode in NH...she is going to take this thing, IF the Dems rules and system are allowed to play out.

Either way, Howard Dean history, what a nightmare he is.

I love it. #laugh

Depends on who's nightmare you're talking about. He did institute the 50 states strategy and engineered the 2006 Democratic comeback. He's one 1-0.[/quote

The 06 election was like the Griz playing Fort Lewis.

Downwiththefoe

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC..you are too easy man.

Smug arrogant prick- as usual- thanks for proving yet again.

#lame

chicken shit big man witht he big bank account, how would i ever collect from you when you run from every post anyone calls you out on?

I can mail a check (or cash) to an agreed-upon poster to hold if you are worried about collecting. You could do the same.

If you don't possess the, ummm, "desire" to engage in a real bet, and only intended your post to be internet smack, that's cool. Just say so. I don't care either way.

I just saw what looked like easy money, and I like easy money.

I'll make it a real bet- under my terms, I'm not going to bet any cash on two waste of breath like these people (who are planning on spending enough of my money as it is)...but I will bet you under my terms just to prove you are wrong and make you have to kiss my arse publicly for a while.

Bronco

When the Dems were running in 2006 to take back Congress Pelosi said she had a plan to lower gas prices......what was the plan?

The price of gasoline has gone up $1.18 since Democrats took over.

tampa_griz

Bronco wrote:

When the Dems were running in 2006 to take back Congress Pelosi said she had a plan to lower gas prices......what was the plan?

The price of gasoline has gone up $1.18 since Democrats took over.

I understand it involves raising their corporate taxes. And any smart economist will tell you that when a company's operating expenses are increased, the price of their products usually goes down. Right?

Actually, I do kind of think it's shitty that they get tax breaks other companies don't get.

Bay Area Cat · Last edited by Bay Area Cat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:53 pm; edited 1 time in total

Bronco wrote:

When the Dems were running in 2006 to take back Congress Pelosi said she had a plan to lower gas prices......what was the plan?

The price of gasoline has gone up $1.18 since Democrats took over.

Google took me 20 seconds to find the answer:

Quote:

In a press release dated April 24, 2006, Pelosi said, “Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.” The letter cited policies put in place during the GOP control of Congress that the Speaker claimed had raised prices on American consumers to benefit oil companies.

I believe that was the plan, in large part, that the Dems have tried to pass several times already, but it has been blocked by threat of veto from Bush.

Would it work? Probably not. But criticizing them for not getting it passed is kind of idiotic, seeing as how the Democrats alone don't have the votes to override a veto. And it's doubly idiotic to criticize her for not having a plan, when they've already laid out the plan and tried to get it passed.

thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-challenges-pelosi-for-g as-price-plan-2008-04-22.html

You could also just post the link as opposed to making it appear as though you thought that up all by yourself and were actually making a point of some kind as opposed to merely reciting GOP talking points.

Although it is quite funny seeing the GOP try to pin the continued increase in gas prices on the Democrats in that letter. Politics as usual ... all fluff and no substance.

Bay Area Cat

tampa_griz wrote:

Bronco wrote:

When the Dems were running in 2006 to take back Congress Pelosi said she had a plan to lower gas prices......what was the plan?

The price of gasoline has gone up $1.18 since Democrats took over.

I understand it involves raising their corporate taxes. And any smart economist will tell you that when a company's operating expenses are increased, the price of their products usually goes down. Right?

Actually, I do kind of think it's shitty that they get tax breaks other companies don't get.

And just to clarify ... price is set by supply and demand. Raising or lowering a corporation's income taxes by a few points will have zero impact on the price they are able to sell their product for in the open market.

Bronco

From the article: B.H.O’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However…oil company employees can make donations.

B.H.O is just another Bill Clinton. He’ll split hairs on the ‘factually correct’ statement he made in order to off-set any criticism that he lied.
Or, maybe he just misspoke.

Barack Obama still takes in oil money
Los Angeles Times ^ | April 23, 2008 | Dan Morain

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...

Grizbacker1

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC..you are too easy man.

Smug arrogant prick- as usual- thanks for proving yet again.

#lame

chicken shit big man witht he big bank account, how would i ever collect from you when you run from every post anyone calls you out on?

I can mail a check (or cash) to an agreed-upon poster to hold if you are worried about collecting. You could do the same.

If you don't possess the, ummm, "desire" to engage in a real bet, and only intended your post to be internet smack, that's cool. Just say so. I don't care either way.

I just saw what looked like easy money, and I like easy money.

I'll make it a real bet- under my terms, I'm not going to bet any cash on two waste of breath like these people (who are planning on spending enough of my money as it is)...but I will bet you under my terms just to prove you are wrong and make you have to kiss my arse publicly for a while.

I would have been willing to hold onto the cash you boys wagered, but leave me the hell out of anything to do with you guys kissing arse. I can see it on youtube though. #tounge

Bay Area Cat

So of the $100 million or so he has raised, a whopping $260K comes from people who work for oil companies?

Wow, man. Wow. That's, like, about the ratio one would expect given the numbers of people who work in that industry.

So if, say, McCain were to get political contributions from employees of hardcore porn companies, does that mean he gets contributions from the porn industry?

Quote:

Obama spokesman Ben Labolt said unlike Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and McCain, Obama refused to take money from federal lobbyists and political action committees.

"He accepted no contributions from oil and gas company political action committees, or from those who are paid to lobby Congress on behalf of oil and gas companies -- the money that is intended to purchase influence and access on behalf of corporate interests," Labolt said.

I think the operative idea here is that he hasn't accepted any money that is officially tied to corporations ... meaning lobbyists. Getting money from individuals who happen to work in an industry is not the same thing at all ... especially when the person is putting forth policies that are opposed by every oil company.

Bay Area Cat

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC..you are too easy man.

Smug arrogant prick- as usual- thanks for proving yet again.

#lame

chicken shit big man witht he big bank account, how would i ever collect from you when you run from every post anyone calls you out on?

I can mail a check (or cash) to an agreed-upon poster to hold if you are worried about collecting. You could do the same.

If you don't possess the, ummm, "desire" to engage in a real bet, and only intended your post to be internet smack, that's cool. Just say so. I don't care either way.

I just saw what looked like easy money, and I like easy money.

I'll make it a real bet- under my terms, I'm not going to bet any cash on two waste of breath like these people (who are planning on spending enough of my money as it is)...but I will bet you under my terms just to prove you are wrong and make you have to kiss my arse publicly for a while.

Yet you were the one who first brought up the prospect of "wagers" on exactly these two people running for the Democratic nomination.

If you don't have the balls to put your money where your mouth WAS ... that's cool. But if you are going to backtrack as fast as you are, please avoid talking smack while doing so ... it's unbecoming.

Like I said, I'm not interested in shits and giggles and betting over signature lines. If somebody challenges me to a wager on a subject, it's cash or nothing. I have no use of anything else you have to offer me.

Downwiththefoe

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC..you are too easy man.

Smug arrogant prick- as usual- thanks for proving yet again.

#lame

chicken shit big man witht he big bank account, how would i ever collect from you when you run from every post anyone calls you out on?

I can mail a check (or cash) to an agreed-upon poster to hold if you are worried about collecting. You could do the same.

If you don't possess the, ummm, "desire" to engage in a real bet, and only intended your post to be internet smack, that's cool. Just say so. I don't care either way.

I just saw what looked like easy money, and I like easy money.

I'll make it a real bet- under my terms, I'm not going to bet any cash on two waste of breath like these people (who are planning on spending enough of my money as it is)...but I will bet you under my terms just to prove you are wrong and make you have to kiss my arse publicly for a while.

Yet you were the one who first brought up the prospect of "wagers" on exactly these two people running for the Democratic nomination.

If you don't have the balls to put your money where your mouth WAS ... that's cool. But if you are going to backtrack as fast as you are, please avoid talking smack while doing so ... it's unbecoming.

Like I said, I'm not interested in shits and giggles and betting over signature lines. If somebody challenges me to a wager on a subject, it's cash or nothing. I have no use of anything else you have to offer me.

again, smug arrogant prick of the century.

congrats-I'm not talking smack-

bring your liberal little Bay area pussy-cat illegal alien loving ass on up to Kalispell....and we can discuss my lack of balls (or not) face to face.

Bring your camera- we can settle a different wager of sorts and see who won and who lost, but remember not to bring your illegal immy friends up here...hate to see em get deported - its onl;y 60 miles away to Eureka

Bay Area Cat

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC..you are too easy man.

Smug arrogant prick- as usual- thanks for proving yet again.

#lame

chicken shit big man witht he big bank account, how would i ever collect from you when you run from every post anyone calls you out on?

I can mail a check (or cash) to an agreed-upon poster to hold if you are worried about collecting. You could do the same.

If you don't possess the, ummm, "desire" to engage in a real bet, and only intended your post to be internet smack, that's cool. Just say so. I don't care either way.

I just saw what looked like easy money, and I like easy money.

I'll make it a real bet- under my terms, I'm not going to bet any cash on two waste of breath like these people (who are planning on spending enough of my money as it is)...but I will bet you under my terms just to prove you are wrong and make you have to kiss my arse publicly for a while.

Yet you were the one who first brought up the prospect of "wagers" on exactly these two people running for the Democratic nomination.

If you don't have the balls to put your money where your mouth WAS ... that's cool. But if you are going to backtrack as fast as you are, please avoid talking smack while doing so ... it's unbecoming.

Like I said, I'm not interested in shits and giggles and betting over signature lines. If somebody challenges me to a wager on a subject, it's cash or nothing. I have no use of anything else you have to offer me.

again, smug arrogant prick of the century.

congrats-I'm not talking smack-

bring your liberal little Bay area pussy-cat illegal alien loving ass on up to Kalispell....and we can discuss my lack of balls (or not) face to face.

Bring your camera- we can settle a different wager of sorts and see who won and who lost, but remember not to bring your illegal immy friends up here...hate to see em get deported - its onl;y 60 miles away to Eureka

Ahhhh, isn't that cute. You are angry because I accepted your offer to have a wager but wanted to use real money? Yes, how arrogant of me ... not getting excited about swapping signatures and "egriz dollars." Oh, maybe next you can propose we bet using which wrist we get to wear our friendship bracelets as the prize, eh?

Look, I'm sorry if your checkbook can't cash the checks your mouth writes ... I had assumed from your past posts that you were quite a financially successful guy (and probably one whose tax dollars were subsidizing the rest of us, as per your own boasting). And due to my assumption that you were as successful as you previously claimed to me, I figured that you just might be foolish enough to actually accept a bet on the premise that you had boasted we could "take it to the bank" (that's where they keep real money, right? Or does your bank only accept egriz dollars?)

I'm not really sure what you threatening to beat me up (how very retro grade school playground, by the way) has anything to do with our conversation. The name calling was pretty funny, though, so thanks for that. I'll be sure to let all of my illegal alien friends know that you are looking for them. #laugh

So again, if you want to make a wager like grown-ups do (with real grown-up money and everything), I'm game. If you're not willing to risk that much, then just pipe down, okay?

There's no shame in not thinking something is worth risking losing money over (which is the obvious conclusion you have reached, even if you are not willing to admit it). It's only shameful when you act like such a child when presented such an offer (the armchair shrink would note more than a whiff of insecurity in your responses to me so far -- most of us try to mask those sorts of things a bit better). Just say, "no thanks," and move on.

AtHomeInTheDahlbergDen

Obama can't finish off hillary bc she's too stubborn. I mean look at how easily romney bowed out... that's how hillary should've gone.

Downwiththefoe

BAC - ask Big-O - who's been by my house, and knows what i do for a living, I can buy you twice.

#laugh

but thanks... for continuing to prove my point about being an arrogant liberal asswipe

Bay Area Cat

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC - ask Big-O - who's been by my house, and knows what i do for a living, I can buy you twice.

#laugh

but thanks... for continuing to prove my point about being an arrogant liberal asswipe

Wow, you are quite wealthy then, huh? Excellent. Then how much do you care to bet on your claim that Hillary will win the nomination?

Now that you have claimed to have a huge bankroll, the only possible reason you have to bail out of this bet is a complete and total lack of balls ... or a complete lack of faith that your claim will come true. Which is it?

Ya kinda painted yourself in a corner on this one, didn't you?

So, how much do you want to wager? I trust GB1 to hold the cash. Are you agreeable to that arrangement as well? Or do you have another suggestion?

Grizbacker1

Bay Area Cat wrote:

Downwiththefoe wrote:

BAC - ask Big-O - who's been by my house, and knows what i do for a living, I can buy you twice.

#laugh

but thanks... for continuing to prove my point about being an arrogant liberal asswipe

Wow, you are quite wealthy then, huh? Excellent. Then how much do you care to bet on your claim that Hillary will win the nomination?

Now that you have claimed to have a huge bankroll, the only possible reason you have to bail out of this bet is a complete and total lack of balls ... or a complete lack of faith that your claim will come true. Which is it?

Ya kinda painted yourself in a corner on this one, didn't you?

So, how much do you want to wager? I trust GB1 to hold the cash. Are you agreeable to that arrangement as well? Or do you have another suggestion?

If you are going to wager some real cash, might I suggest the loser has to make a donation to the other school's athletic department. I would love to see a Brad Bergum check hit the UM Griz coffers.

		Terms of Service		Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group & phpBB SEO Copyright ©2001-2008 by Missoula Media, LLC.
		eGriz.com \| BigSkyFans.com \| ChampionshipSubdivision.com