PoliGAF Interim Thread of Tears/Lapel Pins (ScratchingHisCheek-Gate)

Status
Not open for further replies.
APF said:
So say people arguing for a candidate who is more talk than accomplishment, whose platform is based on evanescent concepts of "change" and "hope," whose supporters sputter and fizzle whenever his ascendancy or perfection is challenged.

? Both candidates are more talk then accomplishment, unless "First Lady" is a real accomplishment making her a better candidate
 
mrmyth said:
Matrix_architectsittingandchatting.gif

:lol :lol :lol


Hopefully a mod can make this APF's permanent avatar. Some people just like to hear themselves talk.

Stop quoting and/or responding to him and maybe he'll go away.
 
gcubed said:
? Both candidates are more talk then accomplishment, unless "First Lady" is a real accomplishment making her a better candidate
What if the phone rings at 3am and someone wants tea and biscuits? What would you do Obama? What. Would. You. Do?
 
bob_arctor said:
:lol She does get majorly defensive whenever I bring up Hill vs Obama but so far it hasn't turned all Lysistrata on me.

My wife's an Obama fan so it's all good on my end. :D

Currently teaching my one year old daughter to say "Obama".
 
APF said:
So say people arguing for a candidate who is more talk than accomplishment, whose platform is based on evanescent concepts of "change" and "hope," whose supporters sputter and fizzle whenever his ascendancy or perfection is challenged.
Certainly is your opinion, though you cant be more wrong. Most posters here know about Obama's policies than the average voter so for the sake of you yet again embarrassing yourself you should talk about such people as if they are not present.

I still content that supporting a candidate who at least has a vision for the future is better than supporting one that is from the past and whose past experience is the only thing he can run on because he doesn't have any ideas of his own.
 
APF said:
What if the phone rings at 3am and someone wants tea and biscuits? What would you do Obama? What. Would. You. Do?
Barack: Michelle honey... I'm awake, your awake... think maybe..

Michelle: No.

Barack: I'm the motherfucking president!

Michelle: No.

Barack: Good night dear.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
Barack: Michelle honey... I'm awake, your awake... think maybe..

Michelle: No.

Barack: I'm the motherfucking president!

Michelle: No.

Barack: Good night dear.

haha, beat me... and better then i was gonna say it
 
maximum360 said:
Everyone says Hillary is tough but Michelle Obama would own her. In fact, I'm sure she could take on Barack any day...and win.

Her quote today was hilarious.

"I'm a big fan of accesories, and I'm married to a great one"
 
maximum360 said:
Everyone says Hillary is tough but Michelle Obama would own her. In fact, I'm sure she could take on Barack any day...and win.
John Kerry's wife >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
 
pxleyes said:
Certainly is your opinion, though you cant be more wrong. Most posters here know about Obama's policies than the average voter so for the sake of you yet again embarrassing yourself you should talk about such people as if they are not present.
I'm not sure what posters here have to do with the Candidate's message, but for the sake of you not presenting yourself as a hypocrite perhaps you should not abide by people discussing Hillary supporters as though they're ignorant proles as well.
 
APF said:
I'm not sure what posters here have to do with the Candidate's message, but for the sake of you not presenting yourself as a hypocrite perhaps you should not abide by people discussing Hillary supporters as though they're ignorant proles as well.
I don't, and I never have. Show me where I have.
 
ari said:
John Kerry's wife >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all

Nah. I think Michelle has juts been low key to make Barack seem more manly but I'm sure she wears the pants. I'm very confident that she'll be an excellent first lady.
 
maximum360 said:
Nah. I think Michelle has juts been low key to make Barack seem more manly but I'm sure she wears the pants. I'm very confident that she'll be an excellent first lady.

Someone brought up a part in Audacity of Hope where Obama was driving home and talking to his wife about a major decision about something nuclear, and Michelle was like "Yeah, yeah, bring home ant traps." Pretty funny. I think Michelle's going to be a great first lady. Very sharp woman.
 
APF said:
Oh! In that case point me to the posts where you argued against people here discussing Hillary supporters as such.

Wait, is the equivalent of asking why Muslims don't condemn radical-Islamofascist-bomber dudes more often and more vocally?
 
Went down to the local Obama office earlier to see if I can help out on the weekends for a couple of hours or so.
 
APF said:
Oh! In that case point me to the posts where you argued against people here discussing Hillary supporters as such.

APF said:
Your suggestion is that someone who professes themselves to be a certain thing needs to be held to a higher standard of behavior than someone who does not make such claims.

APF said:
Uh, there's plenty of reportage out there, including a response from Wright affirming the truth of such conversations

APF said:
By making such a disingenuous and distorted argument

APF said:
His point was more, he wouldn't have a problem with a peaceful presence in the country, and overall he doubts many Americans would either. As to whether he believes such a thing is feasible,...


APF said:
Uhh, I responded to the idea that McCain's hypothetical situation revealed him to be ignorant of the socio-cultural situation in Iraq, by providing a transcript of him saying he felt such a standing...

APF said:
What's fascinating is that someone with such unlimited anger and venomous hatred is such a staunch supporter of the make-nice candidate of Hope and togetherness.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
 
APF said:
Oh! In that case point me to the posts where you argued against people here discussing Hillary supporters as such.

Why do you always expect people to take time out of their day to research their post history if you're not willing to do the same when asked first?
 
harSon said:
Why do you always expect people to take time out of their day to research their post history if you're not willing to do the same when asked first?
An insight into the anatomy of a conversation with APF:
APF: blah blah blah you said this
Innocent poster: Show me where I said that.
APF: No, you show me something else that I never said!
Innocent poster: WTF?
APF: You're a hypocrite.
Innocent poster: WTF? You're a hypocrite.
APF: Blah blah blah....so you admit you're a hypocrite.
Innocent poster: You're a troll
APF: quit trolling you hypocrite.
etc., etc., etc.
 
Dahellisdat said:
An insight into the anatomy of a conversation with APF:
APF: blah blah blah you said this
Innocent poster: Show me where I said that.
APF: No, you show me something else that I never said!
Innocent poster: WTF?
APF: You're a hypocrite.
Innocent poster: WTF? You're a hypocrite.
APF: Blah blah blah....so you admit you're a hypocrite.
Innocent poster: You're a troll
APF: quit trolling you hypocrite.
etc., etc., etc.

Pretty much :lol
 
APF said:
Oh! In that case point me to the posts where you argued against people here discussing Hillary supporters as such.
That's ok. I know my position and my views. It isn't my responsibility for you to pay attention to my views. Of course you have no problem assuming mine.
 
Dahellisdat said:
An insight into the anatomy of a conversation with APF:
APF: blah blah blah you said this
Innocent poster: Show me where I said that.
APF: No, you show me something else that I never said!
Innocent poster: WTF?
APF: You're a hypocrite.
Innocent poster: WTF? You're a hypocrite.
APF: Blah blah blah....so you admit you're a hypocrite.
Innocent poster: You're a troll
APF: quit trolling you hypocrite.
etc., etc., etc.

:lol :lol :lol
 
pxleyes said:
That's ok. I know my position and my views. It isn't my responsibility for you to pay attention to my views. Of course you have no problem assuming mine.
I think you're arguing past me and into your own world. Why is it that you feel there is a legitimacy in arguing the above while at the same time trying to criticize me for holding what are also my own positions and views? Your attack here was been nonsensical from the beginning, starting with a red herring and now leading up to this passive foolishness. Why start a confrontation about who-and-what is valid to say or decry, while demurring when the same is put to you?


harSon: huh? Who asked what?
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/09/clinton-camp-its-a-miracl_n_95883.html

Clinton Camp: It's A Miracle We're Not Behind In Pennsylvania

If you were operating off of the tone of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign it's a downright political miracle that the she isn't trailing Barack Obama by 20 points in the current Pennsylvania polls.

In a Wednesday conference call with reporters, aides to the New York Democrat offered a heaping dose of expectations-setting roughly two weeks before Pennsylvanians hit the polls.

"The fact that we still maintain a lead after Sen. Obama spent six days here and got the backing of [Pennsylvania] Sen. [Bob] Casey, and in light of being outspent, I think it is remarkable that we still maintain a lead," said T.J. Rooney, the state's Democratic Party chairman. "We don't think we have any weaknesses in this state. It has been said before and it bears repeating: we are being outspent financially."

And indeed, Obama is pouring massive resources into the state. Estimates have him outspending Clinton by a margin of three-to-one in Pennsylvania, and his campaign has been flooding the airwaves with advertisements. With these advantages, Clinton's aides say, its remarkable that Clinton is even hanging on.

"If Senator Obama is not able to win Pennsylvania with all the resources he has thrown at the state... it will again demonstrate that he has serious problems winning the large states and closing the deal with voters," said Clinton's spokesman Howard Wolfson. "We all now that the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue runs through Pennsylvania. If Sen. Obama, outspending us three to one in the state, is unable to win Pennsylvania it would be another sign that his campaign is not the best to face Sen. McCain in the fall."

The reality, of course, is much more nuanced. For weeks Clinton supporters have been predicting her victory in the state, some by double-digit margins. As recently as yesterday, a poll had the Senator besting Obama by 16 points, although that could be an outlier; the distance between the two candidates has narrowed sharply. And Pennsylvania's political landscape - with more blue collar white voters - and its primary structure - which is limited to only Democrats - lend itself more favorably to Clinton's candidacy.

That said, Obama has devoted myriad resources to besting Clinton in the Keystone State, in what would perhaps be a knockout win. As Wolfson told the reporters, referencing to the 37-point score Obama recently rolled at a bowling alley: "He has been willing even to put his bowling skills on display in an effort to do well here."

The pre-primary spin begins once again. It'll be interesting to see if Pennsylvania fall for the same thing (as did voters in Ohio). She's plays the victim and I'm the underdog right before every primary despite in this case she has the full Clinton machine/establishment behind her in PA.

Now watch the media eat this up and change the narrative from "Hillary has to win in PA" to "Obama must win in PA and there's no way he should lose because of.....". [/Wolf"spin"Blitzer]
 
Hey, APF, I have a question; it's just something that's been bothering me. In this election, given your remaining choices (including any third-party candidates you might like, of course), who do you support? If you do not actively support anyone, who is the least objectionable? And secondly, why is that candidate your preference?

Thanks! :D
 
APF said:
I think you're arguing past me and into your own world. Why is it that you feel there is a legitimacy in arguing the above while at the same time trying to criticize me for holding what are also my own positions and views? Your attack here was been nonsensical from the beginning, starting with a red herring and now leading up to this passive foolishness. Why start a confrontation about who-and-what is valid to say or decry, while demurring when the same is put to you?


harSon: huh? Who asked what?

The answer is in the post you responded to.
 
harSon said:
The answer is in the post you responded to.
Wait I know this one from the Iraq war protests: how can I prove a negative? How can I point to non-existent posts?


Mumei: I've answered this question a bunch of times here; I assume you mean, when Obama is the Dem nominee, will I vote for him? Yes, but I might just stay home instead. If I lived in a state where my vote really counted, I'd definitely vote for him. Otherwise I see no reason to, since I'm really not a strong supporter of his candidacy.
 
You know, if Obama himself entered this thread and began posting, he'd maybe get as much attention and responses as APF seems to do.

Maybe.
 
bob_arctor said:
You know, if Obama himself entered this thread and began posting, he'd maybe get as much attention and responses as APF seems to do.

Maybe.
I'm APF and I approve this message.


Here's what would happen though: Obama enters the thread; fawning commences; I debate in my head whether or not to take the opportunity to challenge him one-on-one; I decide it's worth it, and ask challenging questions; I get banned in 0.000001 seconds.
 
all i know is I heard a Hillary attack ad on the radio today. I thought it was pretty effective, even though it was again being misleading with how it painted Obama's vote on the "BUSH-CHENEY ENERGY BILL" (they attached their name on it, after all!)
 
On NPR today Hillary claimed there has been a "double standard throughout this campaign" and refused to elaborate. Chris Matthews said something to the effect that there comes a point when a candidate needs to start being a winner and stop being a victim,
 
npm0925 said:
Chris Matthews said something to the effect that there comes a point when a candidate needs to start being a winner and stop being a victim,
Which is weird advice, considering Hillary is far from being a "winner" in this campaign by any measure, and all she has is her desperate clinging to the smallest microscopic hope in the possibility of total calamity.
 
APF said:
Which is weird advice, considering Hillary is far from being a "winner" in this campaign by any measure, and all she has is her desperate clinging to the smallest microscopic hope in the possibility of total calamity.

Nah, Matthews was making the point that she should stop playing like a victim if she's also going to play like a winner.
 
First off, hello lovelies.

Second, Chris Matthews didn't air all of Hillary's comments. (Anti-Clinton bias from MSNBC, what else is new.)

Third, that Oregon poll is great: It reassures what I thought -- Oregon should not be ceded to Obama based on the results of the California and non-bonding Washington primary.

Fourth, that SurveyUSA poll is wonderful, wonderful stuff. I'm now super confident Hillary IS going to win by 12-14%.
 
APF said:
I think you're arguing past me and into your own world. Why is it that you feel there is a legitimacy in arguing the above while at the same time trying to criticize me for holding what are also my own positions and views? Your attack here was been nonsensical from the beginning, starting with a red herring and now leading up to this passive foolishness. Why start a confrontation about who-and-what is valid to say or decry, while demurring when the same is put to you?


harSon: huh? Who asked what?
I love hypocrisy. You also don't have a damn clue when you are being played at all do you?
 
APF said:
So say people arguing for a candidate who is more talk than accomplishment, whose platform is based on evanescent concepts of "change" and "hope," whose supporters sputter and fizzle whenever his ascendancy or perfection is challenged.

Only one of them is the "experience" candidate.
 
Also, a new Insider Advantage PA poll that is super bad for Obama:

Clinton 48%

Obama 38%

Undecided 13%*

Why is it so bad?

Because it backs up SurveyUSA's showing of Obama not even crossing the 40% threshhold.
 
CoolTrick said:
Also, a new Insider Advantage PA poll that is super bad for Obama:



Why is it so bad?

Because it backs up SurveyUSA's showing of Obama not even crossing the 40% threshhold.

Hey, welcome back! And with cutting analysis!
 
Francois the Great said:
cooltrick, do you really think clinton can still win the nomination?

honestly?

Bribing superdelegates with better positions in government is part of the democratic process!
 
pxleyes said:
I love hypocrisy. You also don't have a damn clue when you are being played at all do you?
Well, you've succeeded in making me have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, so yay you I guess... Normally people don't admit, like you are, that they're baiting and trolling people however.


mashoutposse: so only that candidate should have her decisions and history analyzed? I don't see your point here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom