Obama to make acceptance speech in "greek temple"

Nice pics Buzzcook. I guess the Republicans must think they are gods as well since they use the stereotypical Greek columns as well.

Dipper, you are the one that set up this silly analogy.

The key point you are not following is that Obama has "built" something. He has just done it faster than McCain. His "company" is a high speed low drag upstart company that is commanding half of the current market share. McCain's is one where his company has been around a long time, and yet all that he has to show for it is the other half. Given the disparity of longevity, you would want to think that McCain's market share is much larger than it is, but it isn't.

The computer/software folks I mentioned for comparison all were high speed low drag upstarts came to quickly command large market segments.

Sure they built something tangible. You are saying that Obama has not. McCain has not either. All they have are political careers and Obama has done something amazingly powerful. The fact that a no-name upstart can sweep in and claim as much as he has shows he is a very real threat to Republicans. If you can't see that, then you have highly underestimated Obama's potential.

Your right. Obama is dynamic. He is charismatic. He is dangerous. That is what scares the hell out of me. All that flash and no substance. But, if he gets in office, with his list of friends and influences, (Wright, Ayers, ect) we could be in for a very ugly time
Click to expand...

Actually, Obama has plenty of substance. It is all of the substance that Republicans fear, but it is substance. Remember that being President is not a dictatorship. Obama won't be doing anything on his own. It will be a team effort as it is with all Presidents. Carter's problems were not all of his own creation (as he inherited baggage from his predecessors) and Reagan didn't win the Cold War on his own. It was a very long process that finished under his command.
 
Dipper, you are the one that set up this silly analogy.

How/when did I do that Naught??
I'll agree, it was a very silly analogy---but you wrote it!!

You is operatin on a higher plane than I is---I was taken yer analogy literitly!!:rolleyes:

I don't no much about them there high speed low drag fellers---but when I hear low drag I gets kinda nervous!!
You is one of them there fellers what thinks outside the box fer sure.

Dipper
 
Well, the dem. convention is over. Obama pulled off a world-class stadium show , that WILL translate into votes. This whining about the stage set is pretty weak. Is that the best you can do?

At first I thought Obama was an empty suit. More recently, some articles have changed my mind. Everyone ought to read Roger Simon's "relentless" series here, for the inside scoop: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12719.html

I still dislike Obama's policies, esp. with regard to firearms, but he is shaping up to be an astute, formidable manager. Likely will crush McCain, unless something changes. Image-wise, compared to Obama, McCain looks like he's running for student council.
 
My bad, Dipper, Derius_T set up the silly analogy...hence maybe why you didn't follow it quite so well.

Let me put it another way that isn't on a higher plane. People often vote on emotions and Obama has generated a lot of positive emotions for himself. If you don't believe that, why do you think McCain picked the VP candidate he picked. It was not because she was necessarily the most experienced person for the job. It wasn't for all the delegates AK has to offer (which isn't many). It wasn't because she is a Washington insider or because she has a lot of federal experience under her belt. She is a great pick, but for other reasons. Bush 1 picked Dan Quayle, in part, because of his good looks in the hopes that they would sway voters, and it worked...the first time.

Those that do vote on issues tend to vote on single issues or just a couple of issues. You can see a lot of that reflected in this forum where folks feel gun rights are the most important aspect to voting. If you go on AARP's site, you will find those that are voting based on how a candidate's policies will affect their social security, pension, and other retirement considerations and for those people, those are the most critical issues.

A candidate for President is not winning the job based being the most qualified person for the job simply by the single-minded emotional voters. It is that simple. The President is winning a popularity contest. So a person without great 'creds' can sweep in and take the job. It has happened in the past and will undoubtedly happen again.
 
Buzzcook, I'm afraid your points are off the radar of 99.9% of voters on both sides of the isle. A guy would have to be nearly 50 to actually remember MLKs speech. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top