|
|
| Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? (317859) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 7 |
||
|
| (318227) | |
Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 17:41:16 2008, in response to Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue May 13 19:02:57 2008. And no, I'm not talking about the Edwards who posts here.This is another big blow to the Hillary campaign. |
|
|
| (318233) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JBar387 on Wed May 14 18:58:42 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 11:27:34 2008. McCain didn't win every state either. It is winner take all in the GOP primaries than the Dems delagate by district. Thank Jesse Jackson for that one! |
|
|
| (318234) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 19:06:38 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JBar387 on Wed May 14 18:58:42 2008. Who cares about McCain in the dem primaries? People feel that Hillary is being screwed by her own party. She won big yesterday, so the dems made the announcement today that Edwards is endorsing Obama. Two states that she might've won if contested fairly weren't counted. |
|
|
| (318243) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed May 14 19:41:03 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 14 07:13:00 2008. Don't forget that sniper fire; it always makes any job a real chore!your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (318244) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 19:49:17 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 01:08:35 2008. Now Al Gore, i think had something going. I believe Obama is considering to have Gore as either vice president, or an environmental secratary or something.You have to realize how republicans think, if they think there MIGHT be a problem using(selling) fuel at an outrageous rate, they will continue to use(sell) it until it is too late, and the way things are going, it seems that they really don't give a chit(word of yours). There are plenty better ways to spend 150 billion than by throwing a few hundred dollars at SOME people. That type of plan, a fifth grader with a free hour can outdo. People need JOBS, not money. Still is a shame that Gore isn't president, despite having most americans vote for him. Also interesting that the "hanging chad" nonsense occured in a state governed by Bush's brother. I heard that the vote was ultimately decided by a handful of voters or something, like 500 or so. Of course then rumors popped up about ballot cards popping up in places. Clinton himself didn't seem like such a butt-head, but his wife.... DANG, what is wrong with her? I don't even see Bill around her anymore. As for the clean air vehicle, i think there were plans to use hydrogen or something, and do research into that, NOT 15 or so years later. Gore learned the first time around, with the 1970s gas crisis. They also researched into the excellent stirling engine, which has very few parts in comparison to a combustion engine, and more efficient. But that went poof as well. I don't even see any mention of it anymore. The stirling engine is magic, in my opinion, can create mechanical force from a temperature difference, and it uses simple gas expansion and contraction. I read that about 1/3 of powerplant energy is lost as heat, and a stirling engine would be able to effectively tap into that massive amount of heat, rather than just warm a nearby stream. To be honest, i think a stirling engine hybrid car would be far better than a combustion gas hybrid. |
|
|
| (318245) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 19:51:41 2008, in response to Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 17:41:16 2008. Hillary is really blowing her own campaign with her behavior. |
|
|
| (318246) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 19:53:59 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 13:15:09 2008. Most people think Bush can't think...HE CAN, just for himself, it seems. I think this dumbo act of his is JUST THAT, an act. |
|
|
| (318248) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 20:00:13 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Fred G on Wed May 14 19:41:03 2008. Especially when the guy with the gun doesn't want to waste bullets on you. |
|
|
| (318250) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JBar387 on Wed May 14 20:06:03 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 19:06:38 2008. Yesterday was a symbolic win. There is not enough in the remaining contest to put her over Obama. |
|
|
| (318257) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 20:31:59 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 19:49:17 2008. Lost elections aside, the stirling engine has been a still birth as far as automotive possibilities go ... a local company up here, "Mechanical Technologies Inc" (MTI) has been beating that horse for decades. Stirling engines are EXTERNAL combustion engines and do take a while to get up to operating temperature. The output of one is reciprocating force, same as a steam engine. If you're interested in knowing more about them, and why NASA and DOE gave up on it, google MTI+STIRLING+ENGINE and you can view the reports.Research continues, works very well with solar furnaces in power generation, but in a car? Nope. Might as well burn coal and have a fireman with a shovel in your passenger seat. :) |
|
|
| (318263) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 20:44:05 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 20:31:59 2008. Well i was thinking about having the stirling engine run at a constant speed, and charge a supercapacitor, or battery or something, it wouldn't jog to different speeds like a regular gasoline engine, just produce power and charge batteries when necessary.Someone once told me a friend of theirs found a fan powered by a stirling engine in a junkyard, and that it was powered by a small burner on the bottom, and that it was powerful. Don't they use stirling engines as heat pumps for cabin refrigerators in the woods or something? I forgot where, but i heard that somewhere. http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000094.html?page=1 I am not the first to think of that hybrid-stirling car either. What you also have to look into is the lack of need for much maintanence. They don't need as much lubricants as an IC engine. The only thing i can think of is having the sealed gas on the inside leak out through the piston. That can be corected by making a sealed box with the generator and engine within, and only allow electrical contacts through the box. The box would have the heater on the inside, and the cooling fins on the outside. |
|
|
| (318266) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Wed May 14 20:57:49 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Tue May 13 21:06:52 2008. The superdelegates are Democratic Party state members, usually high up in the Party who are "free agents" to pledge to a candidate of their choice. Obama has more than Hillary as of today. |
|
|
| (318267) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 20:59:36 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 20:44:05 2008. looking more through that page, i see those people have thought of a lot more, and are ahead of me, heh. |
|
|
| (318268) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 21:02:56 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 20:44:05 2008. On the "charge a storage device" angle, NOW you're onto something. The problem with Stirling engines is the warmup time. It's considerable, much like the old Stanley Steamers or a Steam Locomotive ... you have to heat it up before you can go. They considered a hybrid design for a car where batteries would run the electric motor until the Stirling was heated up and ready to go.For STATIONARY purposes, there's been much more success, particularly in solar furnace generation. And yes, there are Stirling heat pumps in use. I've been following this for quite a number of years, hoping to see MTI bring something practical to market. Alas, they haven't as yet. :( From the automotive standpoint, you might find this historical interesting: ------------------------------------------------------ STIRLING AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE PROGRAM Program Description and History The transportation sector is the dominant user of oil in the United States, accounting for more than 60 percent of the nation’s oil demand and using more than is domestically produced. Passenger cars are the most energy-intensive subsector of the transportation sector, consuming over one-third of all transportation energy; they consumed 8743 trillion Btu out of the total 24,411 trillion Btu consumed in the transportation sector in 1997. These data are taken from the 1999 Transportation Energy Data Book, which is published annually by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and DOE (Davis, 1999). DOE’s Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT) worked for many years to develop Stirling engines for automotive applications. The rationale for this work included the potential for high average thermal efficiency, multifuel capability, low maintenance requirements, smooth operation, and low emissions. None of the efforts to date has resulted in the development of a commercial product in the intended use or other uses. The first DOE Automotive Stirling Engine program was initiated in response to the energy crisis of the mid-1970s. The OPEC action spurred the examination of a wide range of alternative propulsion systems for autos. At that time, it was felt that the Stirling engine was attractive for an automotive engine because it offered high efficiency and multifuel capability, the latter point being particularly attractive because of the gasoline shortages and price volatility of the time. The Stirling engine was actually invented in 1816. In the late 1930s the Phillips Company in the Netherlands revived the engine and continued independent development for the next 20 years. In the late 1940s, General Motors started research on the engine and in 1958 signed a formal agreement with Phillips for cooperative R&D. By May 1969, GM had accumulated over 22,000 hours of operation on Stirling engines from 2 to 400 hp. Because the Stirling engine uses an external continuous combustion process, it can be designed to operate on virtually any fuel. Several automotive concepts were developed and evaluated along with the Stirling engine. The second foray into Stirling engine development came about as a result of the PNGV program. OTT worked with Mechanical Technology Incorporated (MTI) from 1978 until 1987 to develop an automotive Stirling engine. The goals of the program included a 30 percent fuel economy improvement, low emission levels, smooth operation, and successful integration and operation in a representative U.S. automobile. At the culmination of the program, the engine was demonstrated in a 1985 Chevrolet Celebrity, meeting all the program technical goals. The Stirling engine was never put into production for a number of reasons, including commensurate improvements in Otto cycle engines, high manufacturing cost, and lack of interest from the mainstream automobile manufacturers. Subsequent to DOE’s involvement, NASA supported further development of the MTI Stirling engine for a few years but then eventually abandoned it. From 1993 until 1998, General Motors teamed with Stirling Thermal Motors (STM) to develop and demonstrate a Stirling engine for hybrid vehicles as part of the PNGV initiative. The engine was designed to drive a generator in a series hybrid configuration. Six engines were eventually built by STM, and three were delivered to General Motors for testing. By the end of the program, the Stirling hybrid propulsion system was integrated into a 1995 Chevrolet Lumina. The Stirling hybrid vehicle failed to meet several key requirements. Specific shortcomings included lower-than-expected thermal efficiency, high heat rejection requirements, poor specific power, and excessive hydrogen leakage. The engine did meet its emission target, demonstrating half the ultralow-emission-vehicle (ULEV) standard. There are no plans for further development of the Stirling hybrid concept with GM or any other auto manufacturer. STM is working to commercialize a small Stirling-powered generator for commercial use. |
|
|
| (318270) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 21:14:38 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 21:02:56 2008. From what i read, the companies just seemed to ave brushed off the stirling engine, due to the lack of interest, especially with cheap gas in the 90s. Interesting that the hybrid car of the 90s reported to have failed due to hydrogen leaking, while the original 1980s car did not have a report of suffering from hydrogen leaking.The reason it ultimately failed was due to lack of interest. The fact that it takes so many years to do this simple research is a shame as well. Should all be done in under a year, with proper planning, and execution. Took them 9 years to develop a stirling engine?!?!? There's something wrong there. Maybe little funding, but that really is TOO long. PS, you only need hydrogen because it expands well, i guess, you could use other gasses as well though, that wouldn't leak. It should theoretically be possible with an easily expandable liquid, like mercury i think. The liquid would also produce more force, but expand less. |
|
|
| (318271) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Wed May 14 21:15:09 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Tue May 13 21:00:35 2008. "all 57 states"Who are the other "7"? last time I looked at an American flag, it had 50 stars on it. |
|
|
| (318276) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 21:32:10 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 21:14:38 2008. There were practical considerations as far as automotive use, again that long warmup time, fact that a Stirling engine for a specific amount of HP is MUCH larger than any other type, and of course the issue with bad seals. Something else to keep in mind is that any reciprocating engine DOES require some serious lubrication. Ask anyone who worked steam locomotives.Something I've found amusing is the AIR powered motor with compressed air. Go google that angle ... talk about zero emissions. :) |
|
|
| (318281) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 14 21:44:57 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 21:02:56 2008. Time to break out the trolley poles. |
|
|
| (318286) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 14 21:50:35 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 19:49:17 2008. People need JOBS, not moneyYou're proposing slavery? |
|
|
| (318290) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 22:05:00 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 14 21:44:57 2008. Too Mario Brothers. :) |
|
|
| (318291) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 22:05:53 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 14 21:50:35 2008. Didn't you get the memo? :) |
|
|
| (318293) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Wed May 14 22:12:27 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 19:49:17 2008. I believe Obama is considering to have Gore as either vice president, or an environmental secratary or something.You're telling us that snake oil stuff. Gore ain't going to run under anyone as VP. That's snake oil to get you to vote for Barry. "Also interesting that the "hanging chad" nonsense occured in a state governed by Bush's brother. " If only the voting schnanigans in NW Indiana in the last primary was verified and reported. |
|
|
| (318295) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 22:24:17 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 21:32:10 2008. Yeah i heard of that compressed air stuff, problem is, it creates a LOT of heat during compression, especially to the higher pressures.What i found interesting was the use of liquid amonia and an amonia cracker to break up the amonia into hydrogen and nitrogen using a catalyst i believe. http://pesn.com/2005/05/24/6900101_ZAP_ammonia_cracker/ The sad thing is, those people are acting like this stuff is NEW, but guess what, IT ISN"T. I first read about the amonia cracker in a book from the 1970s!!!! It was in response to the fuel crisis of THAT time. We really haven't progressed much, in reality, from those times. The thing is, nitrogen is a greenhouse gas though, maybe not as bad as CO2, but it is one. I also read about hydrocarbon fuel cells, but they give off Co2 and water, not just water. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/174fuel_cell/ Also, they are now "beginning" to research hydrazine fuel cells. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/09/daihatsu-develo.html All this stuff is at least 40 years old, now it is being "rediscovered", that is all. People abandoned this stuff in the 80s when everything became peachy again. I also read about ion exchange membrane fuel cells, but don't know much about them, can't find much about them. I don't know if you believe in this, but there is this guy who claimed to produce a superefficient method to achieve hydrolysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer I say we tap into the electricity produced by the atmosphere by pulling down lightning, and storing it in large capacitors, just one way. |
|
|
| (318298) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed May 14 22:52:57 2008, in response to Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 17:41:16 2008. His endorsement is worthless because there is no relevant Hillary campaign. He waited until the race was essentially over to endorse Obama. No cookie for him! |
|
|
| (318301) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 22:59:45 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 22:24:17 2008. Hydrazine? Heh. I'll pass. And at more than 17,000 MPH. :)One of the big problems with all of those methods is that they're dependent on very large amounts of energy in and heavy losses of energy in their creation. Then there's the perpetual motion frauds and Meyer was one of those. Interesting stuff though. Except for the hydrazine jobbie. That'll be death and destruction ... |
|
|
| (318302) | |
Re: Edwards endorses Obama (was Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 14 23:03:34 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 22:52:57 2008. u luv obama |
|
|
| (318304) | |
Re: Edwards endorses Obama (was Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?) |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:11:51 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses Obama (was Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?), posted by Olog-hai on Wed May 14 23:03:34 2008. Yeah, I'm strongly leaning towards giving him my vote. |
|
|
| (318305) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 23:12:56 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 14 22:59:45 2008. I agree with the hydrazine thing, but there are plans. Gasoline is also flammable, as is hydrogen, and natural gas.maybe Meyer was a fraud, but i still believe there is a way to pick up energies from out of the aethers of space. I think energy is a misconception , really. The energy theory works good for simple dynamics, even in articles. I know this subject would go on to something different, and i have little actual evidence to show as of yet, but I KNOW the energies are there. Don't want to cause another explosion on this thread, i already "discussed" this before here, and the discussion got nowhere. Two words though: Maxwell's Demon. |
|
|
| (318306) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:17:54 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 22:52:57 2008. His cookie may very well be the VP slot. |
|
|
| (318308) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:26:43 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:17:54 2008. And not Hillary? |
|
|
| (318309) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:27:44 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:26:43 2008. no |
|
|
| (318310) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:30:33 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:27:44 2008. I don't like Edwards all that much. Are there any other possibilities? I assume that the Massachusetts Governor wouldn't be considered out of a fear of racism. |
|
|
| (318311) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Wed May 14 23:30:45 2008, in response to Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Tue May 13 19:02:57 2008. Rudy Giuliani. Too bad the media went all out to slander the most apt candidate for the job. |
|
|
| (318312) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by JournalSquare-K-Car on Wed May 14 23:31:14 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:30:33 2008. next VP: Reverend Wright. |
|
|
| (318314) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:34:13 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Forest Glen on Wed May 14 23:30:45 2008. He didn't help himself by making the most boneheaded campaign decision of the last 50 years. He never would have won anyway. 9/11 can only get you so many votes. |
|
|
| (318315) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:34:35 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:30:33 2008. It's hard to say. But Obama needs a strong VP or he's going to get killed in November. |
|
|
| (318316) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:37:12 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:34:35 2008. I hope that you're wrong. |
|
|
| (318319) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Forest Glen on Wed May 14 23:40:21 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:34:13 2008. It's not just 9/11. He helped the city heal from the damage inflicted by Ed Koch and David Dinkins. He's more qualified than socialist Obama, neurotic Hillary, and senile McCain. |
|
|
| (318321) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:46:13 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:37:12 2008. So much can happen between now and November. But it's so close between Hillary and Obama. Florida and Michigan would've changed it, and that's important when November comes around.Media loves Obama because he's a black candidate, so they have to go easy on him. Just check out the cover of Time magazine. Unless you watch FOX News, there's nothing negative on Obama. It's like a form of affirmative action. |
|
|
| (318325) | |
Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:51:22 2008, in response to Re: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Forest Glen on Wed May 14 23:40:21 2008. don't forget Beame. The democrats ran NYC for decades, and they were the worst years in NY history. |
|
|
| (318328) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:59:33 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 14 23:46:13 2008. Too many whites keep bringing up race regarding Obama's candidacy and we know why that is. |
|
|
| (318330) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu May 15 00:04:14 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:59:33 2008. Well you didn't watch the liberal dominated MSNBC and CNN shows tonight. They kept bringing it up saying we should vote for Obama because it would help America's image when other countries see America voted for a black man with a muslim/arab name. Barack gave the race speech in Philly. |
|
|
| (318332) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu May 15 00:08:12 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by LuchAAA on Thu May 15 00:04:14 2008. Obama winning would be great for America's image here at home and around the world. |
|
|
| (318334) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 15 00:13:06 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Thu May 15 00:08:12 2008. Sure. It would make us look weaker than ever. |
|
|
| (318335) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 15 00:13:37 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:59:33 2008. Too many whites keep bringing up race regarding Obama's candidacyNope. |
|
|
| (318336) | |
Re: Edwards endorses Obama (was Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 15 00:14:19 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses Obama (was Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?), posted by Easy on Wed May 14 23:11:51 2008. You'd be throwing it away. Thanks to the last administration, we need to become more hawkish, not less. |
|
|
| (318338) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu May 15 00:15:45 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Thu May 15 00:08:12 2008. Sure. It's like saying, "Hey, we've had affirmative action in schools, the public sector, and the private sector. Now it's time for affirmative action in the White House".That's what Obama's "Change" slogan means. |
|
|
| (318339) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu May 15 00:18:25 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 15 00:13:06 2008. Because of the war we're already weaker than ever. Ending that will make us stronger immediately. |
|
|
| (318341) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu May 15 00:19:15 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Easy on Thu May 15 00:18:25 2008. What war? What country are we at war with? |
|
|
| (318343) | |
Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency? |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Thu May 15 00:20:50 2008, in response to Re: Edwards endorses ObamaRe: Who do YOU Endorse for the Presidency?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 15 00:13:37 2008. That's what I see. I don't see blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc. bringing it up. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 7 |
||