Please wait, your request is processed...

lexicoscott

Recent comments by this user

Starbucks To Close 600 U.S. Stores

I am not a fan of their coffee. My wife is however, she rarely gets it because of the price.

Let's see, a small meal or coffee... hard to choose. posted 07/01/2008 at 19:12:46

Obama Vows To Expand Bush's Faith-Based Programs

Obama knows he can come to the middle in many regards, because he understands he is still far left then McCain. He knows he can pander to a point, and then he will hit a wall.

He's going to say a little each day that brings him to the center, moreso then he is now. That's the plan. If he can keep from crossing over to far right he still gets the WH. It sucks to think this, but it's seemingly apparent. This is a politician understanding the game and rules, and he's playing it, all the while preaching that he isn't. Anyone that expected different, isn't being political realistic.

I did not expect anything different from any of them running for prez., and you shouldn't either. His "messiah" affect is not as strong as it was, and many are upset about that. I guess, the painful truth is that he is still better then McCain... and he is still more left then right.... for now. It's our job to keep him in left field working on left field agenda's. posted 07/01/2008 at 10:51:19

Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers

so do what is needed to win is the premise of your post? I know of another group with similar tactics.

That is not what we want as democrats. However, it seems the only way for anyone to win.

The slight of hand on getting the nomination, then the about face to win the WH. What does that mean when he's in the WH? You think at the point he will still be loyal to his liberal base? Or will he do what he needs to do (because we approved of it) to get anther term under his belt? I'm not advocating anything, just making conversation. posted 07/01/2008 at 15:03:09

White House Subpoena Battle Hits Courts

Sarcasm is Sarcasm!

1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Call sarcasm irresponsible and ignorant, seems to contradict it's sole purpose. posted 06/23/2008 at 15:25:10

NYT Public Editor: Dowd "Went Over the Top" in Clinton Coverage

lol, "misswilliams" I didn't realize the article was written by Clinton. It states it was written by: "CLARK HOYT" a single individual. Not plural, as in many as you state "losers".

Seems to me your holding a grudge against the losing team. Very funny. posted 06/23/2008 at 11:05:12

Obama Backs Bill Giving Immunity To Telecoms

you know right. I actually agree with compromise. I am sorry. however, I still stand by the fact he is betting this on him getting elected.

That is the real issue. I recant, my statement about not budging. I'm mean, it's not like we've compromised to this point with Reid or Pelosi. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:46:49

Ok,

I'm not for Obama, I'm for a democrat. I didn't vote O, I voted H. His voting on this is not the issue if you believe him. I do, and I don't totally trust him.

However, his vote is not an issue with me, its the gamble he is taking to fix this "as President".

This is my issue with this. I think he wants to protect America, however no more "if I'm elected" votes for me please! posted 06/20/2008 at 18:43:07

whether I believe that or not, is irrelevant. what I do believe is the republican machine and how they void all concerns for the law.

Do you not believe the republicans are shady and willing to do anything for a dollar and the WH? If you don't then I have an even bigger bridge to sell you my friend. However, it's still being built, so I'll need 100% down now. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:37:36

I truly do believe him Ed. I'm not a fan of his, nor have I ever been. I've been a proud white male, lower-middle class supporter HRC.

However, I do believe him, that he doesn't want this immunity stuff.

I'm more displeased with the gamble he is taking. I posted 06/20/2008 at 18:32:27

another thing that is funny here, is that you believe your candidate like I believed mine. Yet, i'm not allowed. sounds very republican to.

I've supported HRC many times. So you want to disenfranchise anyone that supported Hillary huh? You want me to no longer participate, and you want me to no longer express my thought. And you call yourself a democrat? ROTF... troll posted 06/20/2008 at 18:26:47

you right, so what.

I'm not saying I'm backing him. My previous posts show my contempt for him. However, I do believe he does not want teleco immunity.

Am I not allowed to question the democratic nominee? Sounds like you would rather me sit back and be a mindless troll so you can control things like a good little republican.

He is betting our freedoms on his presidency, my point is valid, and by your harsh reply, it urked you because you know it's true. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:24:04

I'm not a fan of Obama, but the only thing he's doing is betting our freedoms (privileged) on whether or not he is the president.

I believe him (ugh) about him not wanting whats in the bill, but he compromised.

Yet, he is betting that he is going to get elected, and that he is going to have this enormous amount of time to change things whilst he is campaigning. lol, now thats funny.

Next time, don't ever bet my freedoms on your candidacy. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:21:32

"but do so with a firm pledge that as President"..

All based on his presidency people. also, he states with a "firm pledge". I dislike those words coming from a politician, let alone a democrat. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:12:45

c.) "but do so with a firm pledge that as President"

Yes, all with the condition of him being president. Again, a gamble. He just used your freedom in a game of russian roulette. Hows that feel? I don't like it. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:08:37

i thought Obama was the nominee? So why do some still compare him to her?

Again, I thought people expected change from Obama. Isn't that why he is the nominee.

So back at ya, Hill did lose. You get over it, and move on. No need to even talk about her is there? This is about him, now not her. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:05:50

yes Peteyman, however is change will only occur when he is president. I read it, and read it to the last paragraph.

Try it. "as President". How much do you think he is going to accomplish on the campaign trail huh? posted 06/20/2008 at 18:04:25

really? you read it all the way through, and the change only comes when he is president, if he president.

You may want to gamble this but I don't. I don't trust politicians, nor do I expect the republicans to sit idle by while the WH passes them by.

Wake up and read the last paragraph. He states "as president". posted 06/20/2008 at 18:02:52

again, all based on his presidency. it's in quotes in the last paragraph of this article. I read that part, did you not finish it?

All based on him winning and the republicans not pulling some last ditch effort to thwart the election. Do they really think McCain has a chance?

They have something up their sleeve people. posted 06/20/2008 at 18:00:47

he's not going to get much accomplished as a Senator running for president as the nominee.

He basically is risking this based on him getting elected and this is ok with you? You feel that the dem's hav trounced the repubs to the point where we are guaranteed the WH and they can't do anything about that? Paranoid, yes I may sound, but naive... no. posted 06/20/2008 at 17:58:29

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Yes read "So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President"...

Sorry major gamble with my freedoms. Anyone complacent with this, needs to remember how republicans work, and realize we can't give a nickle, nor budge an inch.

It's called Russian Roulette. posted 06/20/2008 at 17:56:29

actually it does in deed. Even though he states he is not for immunity, he is betting our freedoms on whether or not he is elected.

As the democratic nominee, he has already placed our freedoms into a large poker pot and he's hoping he has the hand to win, to follow through.

He's a smart man, and maybe he knows something that millions of backwards american's dont about the election. But what happens with a police state and an election that doesn't take place. What happens if he loses for some reason. Who has that power then huh?

Way to much of my freedom to gamble. Maybe I read it differently, however its based on his election and last time i checked its still June not November. posted 06/20/2008 at 17:53:15

yes, against in verbiage. However his "change" is based on his election.

Seems like someone approves of his gamble of our freedoms. You approve of this? posted 06/20/2008 at 17:48:51

once he is president and only when he is president. classic. personally, I'd rather not take the chance on republicans doing something insane to thwart his election or the election in whole. posted 06/20/2008 at 17:47:54

lol, that is funny. I thought he was the nominee, because people expected differently from him.

I guess, I'm confused, why you would still contrast him to what Hillary is doing. I thought, again, change was expected from him.

Apparently not.

"Clinton supports it too, nice try." I guess, some still compare his actions with hers, and tell me again.. who is the nominee and why is he the nominee? posted 06/20/2008 at 17:45:50

true true and true.

However, Obama is our expected leader is he not? By your statement, I read that you don't expect anything different from Obama that you do from Hillary? I thought that is why Obama is the nominee, because people expect different from him.

Or is it just that he is the lesser of 2 evils? Just wondering. posted 06/20/2008 at 17:43:58

it's a game of chance. By chance, what happens if he doesn't get elected, or there is no election huh?

Don't debunk the possibility of an election not happening. Its the republicans were talking about here. posted 06/20/2008 at 17:41:01

again, true, he stated he opposes the immunity, but based on him getting elected will that change.

So, he just put some of our privileged freedoms on the line, all based on his candidacy. No one see this has a bad poker deal or better yet, russian roulette? posted 06/20/2008 at 17:38:43

yes, however he is betting the freedoms on his candidacy.. So if he doesn't get voted in the WH, what happens then? posted 06/20/2008 at 17:36:42

conniedogs is correct hopeless277. I read some of your posts, and it didn't seem as though you were for Obama prior to your post.

Just read the few from yesterday you made and it appears as though you already made that decision. posted 06/20/2008 at 17:35:36

are you concerned with this, knowing that the election is not 100% guaranteed? Is it not arrogant to vote on something based on him believing without a doubt he is going to be president.

No single democrat should/could/would trust a repuke troll, so knowing this he just risked our freedoms going forward whilst betting on the election. That just seems risky to me, would you agree? posted 06/20/2008 at 17:30:43

the problem is the election is not in the bag. There has been discussion of a possible police state if another attack occurs and then the election could be put on hold indefinitely.

You see the problem with that? posted 06/20/2008 at 17:28:02

Seizing the Time: The Role of Independent Groups in 2008

"politics as usual"... isn't this a Clinton tactic?

It's ok now because it's Obama? I hope what words have been spoken by him are true and he plans NOT to be another Clinton.

It would be a shame to win the nomination on a specific premise of change, and to then fall back and act hypocritical now that he has the nomination by following the path of those he considered to be corrupting the system.

I didn't vote for him, but would rather not see him lower himself to be another politician liar. This would mean everyone was duped yet again by another politician.

And it's not ok for him to fight fire with fire, when his mantra he used during his campaigning was for change and to not allow money pushers to control our government. That was his message was it not? posted 06/17/2008 at 15:21:42

Clinton Holding Private Conference Call With Donors Wednesday

exactly. So, then all supporters of Obama should stop posting on any articles related to Hillary and what she is doing next. Right?

He don't need her, or her money, nor her millions of voters, nor her delegates.

So move on, forget her, and she'll disappear faster! posted 06/17/2008 at 12:10:12

yes, didn't think he needed anything from Clinton. Why are so many displeased with her inability to give Obama anything.

If Obama is the outright candidate with the money machine record breaking fundraising and nothing to worry about, why the hell does anyone care about what Hillary does.

I don't understand how so many get pissed off because she didn't concede or that she hasn't released her delegates and hasn't pushed her money makers ;) to assist Obama. It's funny to see half the Obama supporters so angry she hasn't done enough, and then the other half so angry that she is still in the news. Sounds like a very un-united group. posted 06/17/2008 at 12:06:40

Patti Solis Doyle, Former Clinton Campaign Manager, Hired By Obama Camp

appreciate the post.. too bad many more don't feel the same. Apparently the millions of Clintonites are not welcome as some would surmise from other posters.

Hope the Obamites don't disenfranchise other dems and in turn disenfranchise the dem nominee right out of the white house. posted 06/16/2008 at 14:18:34

Obama And McCain Seeking Solace With Clinton Voters

yes, I was being sarcastic to invoke a sense of need to be united. i wanted to root out the thugs and get real democratic logical responses.

anyone who follows this campaign and election season would be able to understand the need to unite and utilize the Clinton machine... whether it be staff, financial backers or consultants. Clinton did in fact get millions and millions of votes. Regardless of the views of those millions of Clinton voters by those millions of Obama voters. Obama still needs those millions of voters to win this thing for the Dem's.

Thank you, some of you seem to have gotten it. posted 06/16/2008 at 14:29:08

and why the hell can't he just do this without the Clinton people? I say he can do it without any of the people that voted for her. I mean, she lost, he won, and it's not like she got that many votes anyway right? I'm mean, compared to his vote count...

Anyone have a final tally of the vote count between the two? I mean, he doesn't need her supporters money. He doesn't need her supporters votes! He doesn't need anything from any Clinton right?

He doesn't need her to campaigne for him. He doesn't need any of the contributions she would "supposedly" bring to the campaign. He doesn't need her "woman" following. He doesn't need the working "white-male" class that the media claims to follow Hillary. He doesn't need any of the very few voters she won. He doesn't need Ohio, Florida, California or New York. Screw all 4 of them.

He doesn't need anything from these poor feeble minded Clinton followers, he can go straight to primary today and win. There is nothing he needs from any of those Clintonites. Right? posted 06/16/2008 at 11:18:45