Mind over matter could mean the difference between winning and losing.
Posts made by BlueEyes19
-
RE: Beginnings and endings
-
RE: If(s)
The_Fool:
and so - I see another banjo - If I say it ..... I will have to follow through___ very soon - I shall buy me a big balloon
If you buy a big balloon....will you buy it from this guy?
(be sure to turn up the volume) -
RE: If(s)
The_Fool:
and ..................... if I ever see another banjo --I'm goin'-out-an'-buy'n-me a big balloon
-
RE: Beginnings and endings
I am not the walrus...except when I play the Beatles Monopoly game
-
RE: The ..2012.... Political thread
miss j bellamy:
appletart2:
I'm shocked. He not only picked a woman but he picked a really good woman. This gal has kicked ass in Alaska. She took on big oil she has balanced the budget and she bucks all the good old boys. I been hearing about her for years . Alaskan love her. Both parties.
yes, it takes a woman to get the job done right
It sure does!
(((Joy))) It's good to see you!
-
RE: Beginnings and endings
Madison Square Garden? Could it be you went to see Neil Diamond?
-
RE: What are you reading now?
One Hundred Demons - Lynda Barry I started reading this after my daughter finished it and asked me what a "cootie" was.
-
RE: The ..2012.... Political thread
mustangsally10:
PHILLIP:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact
:
I think everyone already understands that, mustangsally10. I'm not sure what your rolling eyes mean...is that meant to bolster support for Obama or unite everyone? I'm not sure it would make me feel welcome especially since I am uncommitted as yet. I believe that others opinions should be respected.
Don't let it bother you, she is always like that. It's like she's been brainwashed by a cult sometimes. And you're right, it's not very welcoming.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't intend to. Facts can be very offensive especially on this thread. Phillip you really are funny, I just read on another thread your remarks calling a country "a loser country" I guess you won't be welcomed in that country
I don't know if you have offended anyone else, but you have offended me. I can only assume you were responding to my post with your "rolling eyes" since you quoted me directly. I was responding to the post above regarding "if the Iowa caucus were held today...." Please do explain the....
: Also, I did not find your last response amusing at all, but rather dishonest...hiding behind words. It was not your "facts" that were offensive...it was your rather rude, non verbal commentary which I consider, albeit small, a rather subtle, but personal attack. Why not lend credibility to your posts and steer clear of this? As I have said above, I believe that everyone's opinions should be respected. I have read many of Phillip's posts, and while I may not always agree with everything he says, he articulates his positions well (often in a colorful way
), and without personally attacking me.
-
RE: The ..2012.... Political thread
mustangsally10:
BlueEyes19:
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
The presidential caucus is not being held today.. that is a fact. Iowa chooses their presidential candidates by caucus... that is a fact. Obama won the Iowa presidential caucus....that is a fact
:
I think everyone already understands that, mustangsally10. I'm not sure what your rolling eyes mean...is that meant to bolster support for Obama or unite everyone? I'm not sure it would make me feel welcome especially since I am uncommitted as yet. I believe that others opinions should be respected.
-
RE: The ..2012.... Political thread
mustangsally10:
peacetrain:
Andy_Shofar:
[You can count on me, Mike - at the very least to post articles that are thought provoking. I believe that Howard Wolfson's view expressesed in the above article is probably more correct than incorrect. Edwards' coverup did cause Hillary to loose the nomination and/or at least prevented her from gaining more traction to the nomination.
No, thought provoking would be to point out that polls in Iowa showed that Edwards voters much more consistently listed Obama as their second choice than Clinton, and by larger margins. Obama may have won by an even larger margin in Iowa had Edwards been out of the running by then.
You are right again Peacetrain, and here's your evidence: Iowa Polls right before primary.... Let's examine this claim, looking at two of the last Iowa polls before the caucuses. Mason-Dixon for McClatchy-MSNBC. 12/26-28, 2007. MoE 5% "As you may know, if a candidate fails to get at least 15% at a precinct caucus their supporters can switch and choose to caucus with those backing other candidates or declare themselves uncommitted. If the candidate you are supporting fails to reach the 15% threshold at your precinct ... Which candidate would become your second choice?"" Edwards 32 Obama 20 Clinton 16 Opinion Research Corp for CNN. 12/26-30, 2007. MoE 5% "If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today, please tell me which of the following people ... would be your second choice?" Edwards 36 Obama 25 Clinton 11 Peace
"If the presidential caucus in Iowa were held today," it is, of course, quite possible Edwards wouldn't have 36 or even 32 % of the vote. But, you can't play Monday morning quarterback and just project Obama as the winner. With all due respect, no one knows what would have happened without Edwards, especially in the political climate today. Besides, Iowa is a caucus and does not necessarily represent the will of all the voters, only those who stay late to caucus.
-
RE: Beginnings and endings
The Beatles Monopoly game has arrived!
-
RE: The ..2012.... Political thread
PHILLIP:
Kahlessa:
peacetrain:
GYPSYGIRL:
Since Hillary dropped out, I may go Republican & vote for McCain.
I fail to understand this position. Clinton and McCain are on completely different sides on so many major issues, it doesn't make any sense IMO. I can understand liking Clinton and not Obama (or vice versa) but I don't see how one can go from either Clinton or Obama to McCain. Similarly, Romney or Huckabee supporters aren't lining up behind Obama because they aren't happy with McCain, I don't see how one can support two people who have such different political and philosophical beliefs. Don't the issues matter at all?
From what I've heard, Hillary is appalled by the idea that some of her supporters will vote for John McCain. Aside from the fact that she doesn't want to be blamed if the Democrats lose the White House (which would hurt her standing in the party), it doesn't say much for the issues that are important to her if those who supported her turn away from the candidate who will better serve them. Everyone is free to vote for whomever they wish, but I hope they vote for the person they think will be the best president, and not to punish Obama and the Democrats for Hillary's losing the nomination.
Hillary won't be suffer any if Obama doesn't win, it will just set her up to be the nominee in 2012. Then she will be the first woman President.
I do agree with you here, Phillip.
-
RE: The ..2012.... Political thread
peacetrain:
GYPSYGIRL:
Since Hillary dropped out, I may go Republican & vote for McCain.
I fail to understand this position. Clinton and McCain are on completely different sides on so many major issues, it doesn't make any sense IMO. I can understand liking Clinton and not Obama (or vice versa) but I don't see how one can go from either Clinton or Obama to McCain. Similarly, Romney or Huckabee supporters aren't lining up behind Obama because they aren't happy with McCain, I don't see how one can support two people who have such different political and philosophical beliefs. Don't the issues matter at all?
I believe issues do matter to the American people. Sadly, not much has been done in recent years to address the issues important to the majority of voters by either party. Many are no longer voting strictly along party lines as neither party seems to be able to deliver. Talk is cheap. IMO, people are looking for a leader who they feel can actually effect real change, not just speak about it.
-
RE: Beginnings and endings
played all day and got very little work done...but it was a nice day!
-
RE: QUOTE OF THE DAY
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.