GatewayRedbirds.com

PujolJunkie wrote:

pop_haines wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:Hmmph. I've gone twice to early vote, and the line has been out the door both times. Indiana set early voting records on the first day.

That's a very good sign for Obama.

And it's like that in every state that has early voting.

You know, I'm tempering my optimism, because I heard all this positive polling and graphs and etc in '04.... got my hopes up, and then was CRUSHED waking up to see Bush get reelected. The young vote didn't vote. Considering that again is where the pro-O enthusiasm is (mainly) coming from, I'm not getting my hopes up again that they'll turn out.
And an interesting side, in all the early-voting pics that I've seen it's all been middle-age to older voters standing in line, I don't see the 18-25 crowd in any of the pics (not saying they're not there just simply haven't seen them).

PujJunk, I've been trying to skip your polls but I still find myself looking, if I get crushed again I'm putting it all on you!!!

Freed Roger wrote:

BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.

[/youtube]

zzzzzzz

So this is the October surprise - Obama a boring interview?

Now excuse me, back to sleep.zzzzzzzz

It's not a surprise to me. I've always been more concerned about his "Christian" views than his supposed Muslim roots.

It sickens me, but it's not a surprise.

KyCardinalFan wrote:

PujolJunkie wrote:

pop_haines wrote:

ghostrunner wrote:Hmmph. I've gone twice to early vote, and the line has been out the door both times. Indiana set early voting records on the first day.

That's a very good sign for Obama.

And it's like that in every state that has early voting.

Which has me worried. Kentucky doesn't have early voting. What are lines going to be like for all of us who have to vote in one day?!

A lot of the coverage of early voting is more or less "Do you really feel like standing in line on Election Day?" or "Are you gonna be out of town that day?" In reality, it really does not make a difference. When they say this election is a different monster, it really does ring true in every aspect. Including turnout, which is going to be at an all time high this year, no doubt about it whatsoever. Whether it be white voters, black voters, young voters, hispanic voters. It's going to be gigantic.

For the states that don't have early voting? Yikes. You better get there early, to be honest. I'm going to get up very early on the 4th and vote as soon as possible. Something tells me the line is still going to be around the block.

BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.

[/youtube]

Awful. Socialism here we come.

BW23 wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.

[/youtube]

zzzzzzz

So this is the October surprise - Obama a boring interview?

Now excuse me, back to sleep.zzzzzzzz

It's not a surprise to me. I've always been more concerned about his "Christian" views than his supposed Muslim roots.

It sickens me, but it's not a surprise.

I consider myself almost to be leaning socialist, but I didn't think that the interview that you posted was in any way Marxist or Socialist. "Redistribution" might as well just be a fancy term for taxes. Sorry, this just isn't enough to prove to me that Obama is a socialist, nor was anything he said controversial or incorrect whatsoever.

letsgocards89 wrote:

BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.

[/youtube]

Awful. Socialism here we come.

Tragic.

PujolJunkie wrote:

letsgocards89 wrote:

BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.

[/youtube]

Awful. Socialism here we come.

Tragic.

I got a kick out of how Obama would say something and then the video would
RESTATE IT IN BOLD LETTERS assuming the viewers might be too dense to understand/form an opinion on own

pop_haines wrote:

BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.

[/youtube]

I'm not sure I understand why this is such a concern.
It boils down to wanting to help people.

You want to talk about redistributive economics?
Let's look at that financial sector bailout again.

95% of all Americans will either be unaffected or pay
less in taxes with Obama's plan. Of the remaining 5%,
a few (like that old socialist Warren Buffett) are totally
supportive. The rest are hopping up and down and
calling him a Commie (wrong), a Marxist (wrong),
and a Socialist (wrong again). This country has a
slew of social programs already in place that are
extremely beneficial. Does that mean we're a
socialist nation? No, of course not.

But ever since the New Deal, we've been a socially
democratic republic, and that is a fantastic thing.
The right has been trying to tear down the ND ever
since it was enacted; whether it be through the ironically
named Trickle Down theory, privatization, or Friedman's
Shock Doctrine.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

pop_haines wrote:

BW23 wrote:Okay, then how about this one that's not taken out of context.

[/youtube]

I'm not sure I understand why this is such a concern.
It boils down to wanting to help people.

You want to talk about redistributive economics?
Let's look at that financial sector bailout again.

95% of all Americans will either be unaffected or pay
less in taxes with Obama's plan. Of the remaining 5%,
a few (like that old socialist Warren Buffett) are totally
supportive. The rest are hopping up and down and
calling him a Commie (wrong), a Marxist (wrong),
and a Socialist (wrong again). This country has a
slew of social programs already in place that are
extremely beneficial. Does that mean we're a
socialist nation? No, of course not.

There's a big difference between a help up (college grants, Job Corps) and a handout (wealth redistribution).

I don't care what Obama's tax plan says. Give me one reason to believe that he'll put that in place. One. We've got evidence (his voting record and the Democrats M.O.) and we've got what he says. I'm going to side with what we know not what we "hope" for.

We also know what his "church" was based on. We know it was "redistribution of wealth". We know it espoused taking from those who earn to those who don't. No matter how far he tries to distance himself from Unity or from Wright, it's what he believes in. He's distancing himself for political gain not because he's suddenly changed his mind.

And the theology of that "church" is based in Marxism according to those who have examined it.