Sarah in Fort Wayne

uh...the rove playbook is a REPUBLICAN tool. i dont see bman as as an extremist left winger unwilling to look at/for positives and negatives on whoever is running for what office. he is resolute in his support of obama which does not mean he started out as a mccain hater, or that he is absolutely anti all things republican. but what the repub party has become in the last several election cycles is dirty and ex-clusive and secretive and firmly planted in the fifties. the longer this campaign had gone on and we all see how obama isnt about swiftboating or playing dirty, with hillary or with mccain..he is about focusing on the positive, being level headed and thinking clearly, and doing the right things to win and impliment change...the firmer his supporters are in their support.

are you frustrated because there isnt a viable-for-you pro-illegal abortion believer in the running or what?? you are always so angry that some of us are so proud of our candidate and so excited about this game-changing election and obamas potential as president. jealous??

floridafun wrote:uh...the rove playbook is a REPUBLICAN tool. i dont see bman as as an extremist left winger unwilling to look at/for positives and negatives on whoever is running for what office. he is resolute in his support of obama which does not mean he started out as a mccain hater, or that he is absolutely anti all things republican. but what the repub party has become in the last several election cycles is dirty and ex-clusive and secretive and firmly planted in the fifties. the longer this campaign had gone on and we all see how obama isnt about swiftboating or playing dirty, with hillary or with mccain..he is about focusing on the positive, being level headed and thinking clearly, and doing the right things to win and impliment change...the firmer his supporters are in their support.

are you frustrated because there isnt a viable-for-you pro-illegal abortion believer in the running or what?? you are always so angry that some of us are so proud of our candidate and so excited about this game-changing election and obamas potential as president. jealous??

You and Bman really have a hard time staying on topic. "what the repub party has become" - what else can I say as that shows right there that you judge the party and not the candidate? Nothing you typed there has anything to do with my post - the Rove playbook, pro-illegal abortion, etc. I guess that's your tactic and to claim I must be angry that you're proud of your candidate. No, I'm not angry. It's just a bit odd. He hasn't done anything yet to be proud of.

Markwes wrote:
You and Bman really have a hard time staying on topic. "what the repub party has become" - what else can I say as that shows right there that you judge the party and not the candidate? Nothing you typed there has anything to do with my post - the Rove playbook, pro-illegal abortion, etc. I guess that's your tactic and to claim I must be angry that you're proud of your candidate. No, I'm not angry. It's just a bit odd. He hasn't done anything yet to be proud of.

No see Mark here is where you have you have your hate liberal blinders on ... He has done something to be proud of. He has UNITED the democratic party ... he has INSPIRED hundreds of thousand volunteers in building the largest GRASSROOTS movement ever. Heck even John McCain has said these things. No man has moved the country like this since John F. Kennedy. You and ilk (right wing) love to heap praises on Ronald Reagan too (naming airports after him, freeways, wanting his bust on Mt. Rushmore and his face on the dime) for what? For the HUGE deficits? For Iran-Contra. Win or Lose Barack Obama has done more this election cycle than anyone in history.

Back to the topic...

I was listening to WOWO on the way into work this morning. I heard Michelle Obama talking about some issues with them and then a blurb about Palin's visit on Sat. which they claim 15,000 people attended. I want to know how exactly they arrived at that number because the Coliseum website claims the arena only holds 13,000 and from the video coverage, it looked like not even half or a quarter was occupied.

...and just what's is the deal with that?

I'm sure the numbers were not as told but we probably can find out for sure

One thing I was curious about with the Palin visit is the appearance of the "Country First" slogan. What is that supposed to mean? A new Nationalist push?

I guess it just seemed ironic that this phrase certainly doesn't seem to accompany any plans or ideas on foreign policy, jobs, or the economy. The problem we have with a lot American jobs is 'off-shoring' or 'best shore sourcing', an affect created by globalization or NAFTA. Not sure what can be done to balance or reverse this. Also, I don't see any changes in their stance on troop deployments as related to this phrase. The obvious area left is the economy and I doubt there will be any drastic changes made in that regard either.

From Kroman:

Now tax cuts is a different story. Obama wants to raise bman's taxes and give the extra tax revenue to lower income families who don't pay federal income taxes. Classic Robin Hood approach, or socialism. McCain says he doesn't want to raise taxes on anybody. There's a clearcut distinction on who promotes socialism. Obama.

First, long time no talk man, hope things are well. While I agree with you about Obama increasing taxes on the wealthy, I dont see that he is planning to distribute that extra revenue to lower income families directly. This is basically a rollback of the Bush tax cut for those over 250k, and an tax cut for those below 250k...

The socialism tag isnt fair or accurate in this sense...

meta4 wrote:Back to the topic...

I was listening to WOWO on the way into work this morning. I heard Michelle Obama talking about some issues with them and then a blurb about Palin's visit on Sat. which they claim 15,000 people attended. I want to know how exactly they arrived at that number because the Coliseum website claims the arena only holds 13,000 and from the video coverage, it looked like not even half or a quarter was occupied.

...and just what's is the deal with that?

Was there seating on the floor? MAYBE that could account for the the difference in numbers?

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Was there seating on the floor? MAYBE that could account for the the difference in numbers?

you've got to be kidding.

meta4 wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Was there seating on the floor? MAYBE that could account for the the difference in numbers?

you've got to be kidding.

Just asking a question, and trying to look at it from another point of view...

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:Was there seating on the floor? MAYBE that could account for the the difference in numbers?

you've got to be kidding.

Just asking a question, and trying to look at it from another point of view...

I saw a follow up report that stated there were also 2000 to 2500 people outside the rally who were not admitted because the secret service couldn't screen all of them in time. And I base most of my opinion on what I saw of the camera panning the crowd. I bet there were no more than 7500 people total, including the ones denied admission.