Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: assimilate on 14 Feb 2010 23:39 On 14-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > Obama is toast. His favorability will be in the 30's before too long. > > You haven't commented on Obama's performance in the recent live > televised debate. Why is that? Perhaps because his numbers didn't bounce due to it? IMO, people are starting to tire with O precisely because he is all talk, so his talk fails to move any longer. -- bill-o
From: Carbon on 15 Feb 2010 06:45 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:39:17 +0000, assimilate wrote: > On 14-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>> Obama is toast. His favorability will be in the 30's before too >>> long. >> >> You haven't commented on Obama's performance in the recent live >> televised debate. Why is that? > > Perhaps because his numbers didn't bounce due to it? IMO, people are > starting to tire with O precisely because he is all talk, so his talk > fails to move any longer. First he's so incoherent he can't get by without a teleprompter, and now he's all talk. Which is it?
From: BAR on 15 Feb 2010 08:23 In article <4b7893f6$0$5103$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:56:24 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b784131$0$4856$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:15:02 -0800, dene wrote: > >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > >>> news:4b75eb36$0$5121$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > >>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:36:08 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> No, Mike. According to the ceaseless Fox News narrative, Obama is > >>>>>> helpless without a teleprompter. He debated the GOP for over an > >>>>>> hour, all of them lined up with prepared questions. Not only did > >>>>>> he not fall apart, he gave no ground whatsoever. In fact he did > >>>>>> very well. It's that simple. The entire narrative is ridiculous > >>>>>> and stupid. > >>>>> > >>>>> I said he did very well. He by no means "drubbed" anyone. > >>>> > >>>> I'm glad you conceded that much. Most of your fellow travelers are > >>>> in denial. As for how well he did, I'm 100% certain that the GOP > >>>> will never, ever invite Obama to another unscripted live television > >>>> debate. Read into that what you will. > >>> > >>> My read is that it's been the highlight of his presidency. > >> > >> It might seem that way to anyone who believed the narrative that he > >> can't speak without a teleprompter. > > > > Obama is toast. His favorability will be in the 30's before too long. > > You haven't commented on Obama's performance in the recent live > televised debate. Why is that? Could it be that you're so desperate to > believe Obama is helpless without a teleprompter that you block out all > evidence to the contrary? Perhaps your obvious bias is influencing your > predictions about Obama's favorability ratings. Ok, I'll play. It was not a debate. It was a ask a quesiton and receive an answer session. But, keeping giving yourself a one-handed accolade if that's what makes you happy.
From: Moderate on 15 Feb 2010 08:25 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8aa022fe-a1f8-4dab-9e6f-f5117a10e0bb(a)f8g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On Feb 12, 5:39 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article <hl4fqq$ht...(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > > No, Tancredo's remark was about ways of denying minorities the vote. No, Mod's right. Tancredo said Obama owed his election to people who couldn't read or write. I had no idea that illiterates made up 52% of eligible voters! Learn something new every day. ****************************************************** Of course I am right. Clark is an idiot.
From: William Clark on 15 Feb 2010 09:46
In article <MPG.25e314d4883cfd59989bc1(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4b7893f6$0$5103$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:56:24 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4b784131$0$4856$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:15:02 -0800, dene wrote: > > >>> "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > > >>> news:4b75eb36$0$5121$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > >>>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:36:08 -0600, MNMikeW wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> No, Mike. According to the ceaseless Fox News narrative, Obama is > > >>>>>> helpless without a teleprompter. He debated the GOP for over an > > >>>>>> hour, all of them lined up with prepared questions. Not only did > > >>>>>> he not fall apart, he gave no ground whatsoever. In fact he did > > >>>>>> very well. It's that simple. The entire narrative is ridiculous > > >>>>>> and stupid. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I said he did very well. He by no means "drubbed" anyone. > > >>>> > > >>>> I'm glad you conceded that much. Most of your fellow travelers are > > >>>> in denial. As for how well he did, I'm 100% certain that the GOP > > >>>> will never, ever invite Obama to another unscripted live television > > >>>> debate. Read into that what you will. > > >>> > > >>> My read is that it's been the highlight of his presidency. > > >> > > >> It might seem that way to anyone who believed the narrative that he > > >> can't speak without a teleprompter. > > > > > > Obama is toast. His favorability will be in the 30's before too long. > > > > You haven't commented on Obama's performance in the recent live > > televised debate. Why is that? Could it be that you're so desperate to > > believe Obama is helpless without a teleprompter that you block out all > > evidence to the contrary? Perhaps your obvious bias is influencing your > > predictions about Obama's favorability ratings. > > Ok, I'll play. It was not a debate. It was a ask a quesiton and receive > an answer session. > > But, keeping giving yourself a one-handed accolade if that's what makes > you happy. So, still no comment on the performance, just another deflection. I guess that means you concede - again. |