Mccain is winning now b/c of dirty politics

R

Robdawg

Junior Member
dirty politics he said he wasn't going to play, and how he wanted to make it about the issues... yeah right, he and palin have been being down right dirty since she was chosen.

its actually funny to hear republicans make fun of things that are actually true. (correct pressure of tires)

if everyone checked their tires they would reduce oil consumption by 3-4%.

it's actually amazing. I always thought McCain would win, and he will.

I actually find it hilarious that Louisiana is leaning Republican. The city of New Orleans is practically burried, but hey lets give them repubs another shot.

I am just thankful that i live in a blue state.
 
Chapdog said:
lieberman has been great for CT.
Click to expand...

its funny to watch you all love him now when just 8 years ago you were calling him "sore loserman"

now he's like the next coming. lieberman is a sore loser who has most lilkely hopefully killed any chance at re-election in this antiwar state. he's tanking in the polls at his lowest approval ever
 
Robdawg said:
its funny to watch you all love him now when just 8 years ago you were calling him "sore loserman"

now he's like the next coming. lieberman is a sore loser who has most lilkely hopefully killed any chance at re-election in this antiwar state. he's tanking in the polls at his lowest approval ever
Click to expand...

I thought it was the democrats that were against him that called him "sore loserman." I mean, there was no way a republican was going to win that seat so his taking it as an independent was the best thing the republicans could ask for. One more war vote, you know.
 
leaningright said:
Is he really? I hadn't heard that.
Click to expand...
They attempt to say he's doing it secretly.

The reality is that since the change to a new campaign manager in June, his campaign has been run well and he has gained. However Rove works for Fox, not for McCain.
 
Damocles said:
They attempt to say he's doing it secretly.

The reality is that since the change to a new campaign manager in June, his campaign has been run well and he has gained. However Rove works for Fox, not for McCain.
Click to expand...

fox, Republicans whatsadiff ?
 
I heard that the guy who is running it is a Rove disciple.

Regardless, the tactics are definitely Rovian; divide & conquer...
 
Onceler said:
I heard that the guy who is running it is a Rove disciple.

Regardless, the tactics are definitely Rovian; divide & conquer...
Click to expand...
Yes, but being a disciple did not make Peter into Jesus. Plus your rumor isn't evidence at all. I heard that he simply gave the campaign a drive that it hadn't had.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, but being a disciple did not make Peter into Jesus. Plus your rumor isn't evidence at all. I heard that he simply gave the campaign a drive that it hadn't had.
Click to expand...

Do you know why Jesus put Peter in charge, was because he already knew what men would be led around by.

And, Steve Schmidt being a Rove disciple isn’t a “rumor”, it’s a documented fact, look it up, you can try the google.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, but being a disciple did not make Peter into Jesus. Plus your rumor isn't evidence at all. I heard that he simply gave the campaign a drive that it hadn't had.
Click to expand...

Like I said, "Regardless," as in, it's inconsequential, because the tactics are clearly Rovian.

Repeat lies so much that they become fact; find something that divides people and run with it; create whisper campaigns about candidates; etc., etc., etc.

Rob's right - it's a dirty campaign, and it's only gonna get worse. The Dems either have to hit back w/ the same, or lose.
 
Darla said:
Do you know why Jesus put Peter in charge, was because he already knew what men would be led around by.

And, Steve Schmidt being a Rove disciple isn’t a “rumor”, it’s a documented fact, look it up, you can try the google.
Click to expand...
Once I was taught by and mentored by a person who described themselves to be a socialist. Does that mean that I am somehow socialist?

Doesn't matter anyway. This campaign hasn't been nearly as negative as Bush/McCain in the primaries in 2000, thankfully. If this guy is "Rovian", he certainly doesn't subscribe to going quite as far as that.
 
"Once I was taught by and mentored by a person who described themselves to be a socialist. Does that mean that I am somehow socialist?"

That's a horrific analogy; one of the worst non-Dixie analogies I've seen recently...
 
Onceler said:
"Once I was taught by and mentored by a person who described themselves to be a socialist. Does that mean that I am somehow socialist?"

That's a horrific analogy; one of the worst non-Dixie analogies I've seen recently...
Click to expand...
This is inane. Supposedly this guy is "Rove" all because he learned under Rove, therefore I need to make sure, does this happen to everybody? Do you think I am socialist?

Also, as I said it doesn't matter at all. Then gave an opinion on how the election is run.

Attacking the messenger just points out how you have nothing to add.

Now that I've reiterated, do you have something to add or will you maintain ad hominems as your only answers?
 
Damocles said:
This is inane. Supposedly this guy is "Rove" all because he learned under Rove, therefore I need to make sure, does this happen to everybody? Do you think I am socialist?

Also, as I said it doesn't matter at all. Then gave an opinion on how the election is run.

Attacking the messenger just points out how you have nothing to add.

Now that I've reiterated, do you have something to add or will you maintain ad hominems as your only answers?
Click to expand...

You're inane. If you were a socialist & worked with your guy on a socialist campaign, then yeah, I'd say you were a Socialist.

Your analogy starts to fail immediately as soon as you apply it to a teaching environment, instead of to something that is actually a job. Schmidt is a Republican already, so that's easy to infer. He was also basically Rove's right-hand man in the 2004 campaign. Add further that many of the tactics we are seeing now are CLEARLY derivative of the "Rove method," and it's hardly a stretch to say that Rove was a mentor, or that he's a disciple, or however you want to put it.

If you can't apply those terms to Schmidt, you really can't apply them to anyone, dumbo.
 
Onceler said:
You're inane. If you were a socialist & worked with your guy on a socialist campaign, then yeah, I'd say you were a Socialist.

Your analogy starts to fail immediately as soon as you apply it to a teaching environment, instead of to something that is actually a job. Schmidt is a Republican already, so that's easy to infer. He was also basically Rove's right-hand man in the 2004 campaign. Add further that many of the tactics we are seeing now are CLEARLY derivative of the "Rove method," and it's hardly a stretch to say that Rove was a mentor, or that he's a disciple, or however you want to put it.

If you can't apply those terms to Schmidt, you really can't apply them to anyone, dumbo.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. So, if I was mentored at my job by somebody who was later fired for stealing, then I would be a thief. Right. Being somebody under another's responsibility on the job does not make you them, no matter how much you try to make it so. This from somebody who would defend Obama's mentors and others saying he isn't them...

Yeah, I see dichotomy. I see it well.
 
damocles you are being retarded.

All one must do is add all the circumstanial evidence together.

No one is saying that because you study under someone you AUTOMATICALLY share their inclinations. (Though it would suggest a lot).

But when you take that and ADD to it that they are then PRACTICING that which they were taught, then you have a more compelling case.

Schmidt studied under rove. Schmidt is now using political campaigning similar to roves style. It is safe to conclude he is operating a rovian campaign. This is logical.

You studied under a socialist. You do not practice socialism or embrace the philosophy as evidenced by your writings. You are therefore not a socialist.

If you studied under a socialist and started advocating for massive government ownership, one could say you are carrying on your teachers legacy.

IS THIS REALLY THAT HARD TO FUCKING COMPREHEND?

I feel like everyone is in full blown retard mode today . . .
 
Grind said:
damocles you are being retarded.

All one must do is add all the circumstanial evidence together.

No one is saying that because you study under someone you AUTOMATICALLY share their inclinations. (Though it would suggest a lot).

But when you take that and ADD to it that they are then PRACTICING that which they were taught, then you have a more compelling case.

Schmidt studied under rove. Schmidt is now using political campaigning similar to roves style. It is safe to conclude he is operating a rovian campaign. This is logical.

You studied under a socialist. You do not practice socialism or embrace the philosophy as evidenced by your writings. You are therefore not a socialist.

If you studied under a socialist and started advocating for massive government ownership, one could say you are carrying on your teachers legacy.

IS THIS REALLY THAT HARD TO FUCKING COMPREHEND?

I feel like everyone is in full blown retard mode today . . .
Click to expand...
It isn't difficult to comprehend, but as I've noted earlier I do not see the 'burn the villages' type of campaign from McCain that I saw from Bush. I do not agree that his campaign is "rovian". I point out that being under somebody doesn't mean you act the same as they do, nor do I see evidence of such. No calls about half-breed children, etc during the primary would be my first clue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top