Should we establish a default response now?

Anon

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

well in any event Obama has agreed to debate MCain three time this fall...

I wonder what happens when someone says Iran?

*crickets*.....*crickets*...*pin drop*...

" cut to commercial! "

McCain says bomb bomb bomb.... bomb bomb Iran?

fuck

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

and the "hater" thing comment? wtf?!

haha, dude, take these things with a grain of sand.

Smellyman2

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Actually I'm being serious...

It's going to get near unbearable, and I like to plan ahead early.

More than it is right now?? doubt it.


MORE OBAMA THREADS!!!!!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Smellyman wrote:

More than it is right now?? doubt it.


MORE OBAMA THREADS!!!!!

You're allowed to complain for exmple's sake if you're also predicting the future. It's a built in freebie...

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

"You've certainly changed your tune!"

Then lots of robotic laughter.

So far this is the best suggestion.

I'm open to change (there's that word again) for the consolation phrase, but I would like to keep the robotic laughter if at all possible.

I think it's adds somewhat of a progressive-techo light hearted ambiance...

know1

The default response will likely mirror what the Bush apologists are saying now.

Stuff like, "Congress approved it...", etc.

BinFrog

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

For all the Obama supporters that will inevitably start complaining over the upcoming years?

There's going to be a lot of it, and perhaps we can all save everyone some time by preparing in advance...

Do you ever take a break?

cincybearcat

acoustic guy wrote:

Roland my boy..... you are on a roll!
Man you are letting these Obama lovers have it. I wish I knew enough about politics to join in with some intelligent words myself but the fact remains that I am new to it all but very interested.
I am glad you are on my side.
Actually I dont like either candidate, but I really don't want Obama in office.

Keep it up my man!

So, you "don't know enough about politics" but you know enough that Roalnd is "are on my side"...interesting.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Guess what, nobody's perfect. The amount of energy spent trying to tear Obama down here is very interesting to me. It also reminds me of why Democrats have a difficult time winning the White House as of late. For a group of people so hard on GW for his inability to compromise, etc, they sure suffer from the same disease.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

So, you "don't know enough about politics" but you know enough that Roalnd is "are on my side"...interesting.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Guess what, nobody's perfect. The amount of energy spent trying to tear Obama down here is very interesting to me. It also reminds me of why Democrats have a difficult time winning the White House as of late. For a group of people so hard on GW for his inability to compromise, etc, they sure suffer from the same disease.

and yet on the conservative side - it's ho hum ... what does that indicate to you?

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

and yet on the conservative side - it's ho hum ... what does that indicate to you?

Not sure what you mean, please elaborate...I'm still waking up.

chromiam

If you only realized Obama's change was the same as Congressional change.... more of the same. :: robotic laughter ::

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

Not sure what you mean, please elaborate...I'm still waking up.

you mentioned why the dems have a difficult time of getting into the white house and it appears you talk about the "infighting" that occurs ...

my question is - if the opposite (happy family) is on the republican side, what does that indicate to you?

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

you mentioned why the dems have a difficult time of getting into the white house and it appears you talk about the "infighting" that occurs ...

my question is - if the opposite (happy family) is on the republican side, what does that indicate to you?

It indicates to me that the republican party knows how to win campaigns...that they put differences aside in order to elect the individual who most closely represents their point of view.

I'm sure you are trying to say that it means that they are status quo and not...what's the term you all love to use nowadays..."progressive"?

The republicans are like a family. They bicker and disagree amongst themselves but then once a decision is reached they all rally behind it. Not saying this is all good or all bad, but it certainly helps get a president elected.

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

It indicates to me that the republican party knows how to win campaigns...that they put differences aside in order to elect the individual who most closely represents their point of view.

I'm sure you are trying to say that it means that they are status quo and not...what's the term you all love to use nowadays..."progressive"?

The republicans are like a family. They bicker and disagree amongst themselves but then once a decision is reached they all rally behind it. Not saying this is all good or all bad, but it certainly helps get a president elected.

i think it means that conservatives will always vote conservative regardless of the candidate ... and that for yes "progressives" - the other option just isn't cutting it ... they demand more from their elected leaders - so, just because a person has a "D" in front of their name doesn't make them worthy of a vote ... whereas on the other side - it's GOP all the way ...

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

i think it means that conservatives will always vote conservative regardless of the candidate ... and that for yes "progressives" - the other option just isn't cutting it ... they demand more from their elected leaders - so, just because a person has a "D" in front of their name doesn't make them worthy of a vote ... whereas on the other side - it's GOP all the way ...

And both ways have merit, no?

One side is compromising...or settling, depending on how you look at it.

The other is stubborn...or principled, depending on how you look at it.

Anyhow, I normally vote republican (surprise, surprise)...I did caucus for Obama this year in Iowa as no Repub. interested me and I really wanted Hillary to lose...I'm unsure of which way I'll vote in November.

Though it goes against many of my beliefs and opinions, I'm leaning towards Obama right now as I wish to use my vote to send a message...that a R besides the name isn't enough...funny huh?

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

And both ways have merit, no?

One side is compromising...or settling, depending on how you look at it.

The other is stubborn...or principled, depending on how you look at it.

Anyhow, I normally vote republican (surprise, surprise)...I did caucus for Obama this year in Iowa as no Repub. interested me and I really wanted Hillary to lose...I'm unsure of which way I'll vote in November.

Though it goes against many of my beliefs and opinions, I'm leaning towards Obama right now as I wish to use my vote to send a message...that a R besides the name isn't enough...funny huh?

yeah - it's based on one's perspective i suppose ... i don't really see it as comprimising ...

well - imo ... short of the abortion issue, I personally think you are a Democrat based on actualities vs. perceived notions ... clinton was far more fiscally conservative than bush ...

having said that - you've also been on this board being brainwashed for some time now - it's not surprising that you might shift ... but for the vast majority of GOP voters ... you can put pretty much anyone up there within reason and you'll still get their votes ...

Sludge Factory

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

"You've certainly changed your tune!"

Then lots of robotic laughter.

Yes...YES! I love the robotic laughter. Robotic laughter for everybody!

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

yeah - it's based on one's perspective i suppose ... i don't really see it as comprimising ...

well - imo ... short of the abortion issue, I personally think you are a Democrat based on actualities vs. perceived notions ... clinton was far more fiscally conservative than bush ...

having said that - you've also been on this board being brainwashed for some time now - it's not surprising that you might shift ... but for the vast majority of GOP voters ... you can put pretty much anyone up there within reason and you'll still get their votes ...

I'm not really sure how to take that...

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

I'm not really sure how to take that...

hahaha ... as with anything from me ... never take it personally nor with malice ...

know1

polaris wrote:

having said that - you've also been on this board being brainwashed for some time now - it's not surprising that you might shift ... but for the vast majority of GOP voters ... you can put pretty much anyone up there within reason and you'll still get their votes ...

How is that different from the vast majority of Democrat voters?

And really, why is it so surprising??! Even though they're all crooks a liars, at the end of the day they have a party platform and most people are probably voting that.

For example, I'm not voting for either candidate or party due to fundamental differences I have with their platforms, but if I were forced to vote at gunpoint for the lesser of two evils, I'd more than likely always vote Republican simply due to how the platform of the party aligns with my value set.