The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I know the truth. I know that J. McCain lost because Hoss did not put his Hognostications this week and when he does not do so, the Skins lose. If the Skins lose the game prior to a Presidential Election, the Republican Candidate loses. The result of this election is directly linked to Hoss' actions/inactions in this board. However, some of you may have different views.

Exercise your right to vote.

I think the #1 reason, which you asked, is the economics. Though I think a big reason you're missing is the war and he could have overcome it all if he weren't such a horrible candidate who wasn't sure himself what he believed until he said it.

He sold himself out to the same people in the Republican party that elected Bush. In the process he lost what made him a decent man as well as politican. More then anything people needed change, and McCain offerd them a very similar next four years.

All of the above, plus a few others, including Bush's war of choice in Iraq.

Would anyone REALLY have wanted Palin as VP???

That's what I thought. She barely knows how to tie her shoe without backpeddling.

Jake wrote:Would anyone REALLY have wanted Palin as VP???

That's what I thought. She barely knows how to tie her shoe without backpeddling.

Spout the Dem party talking points all you wish. The bottom line is, day for day, her experience is every bit as valid as that of the current President elect.

Her experience may be the same but her knowledge of the issues or anything valid is far more inferior.

Sir_Monk wrote:He sold himself out to the same people in the Republican party that elected Bush.

What does that mean?

Jake wrote:Her experience may be the same but her knowledge of the issues or anything valid is far more inferior.

How do you know? All I have heard from Obama are platitudes.

Countertrey wrote:

Jake wrote:Would anyone REALLY have wanted Palin as VP???

That's what I thought. She barely knows how to tie her shoe without backpeddling.

Spout the Dem party talking points all you wish. The bottom line is, day for day, her experience is every bit as valid as that of the current President elect.

Yeah, she left the town of Wassila with deficits, surrounded herself with loyalist yes-men, can tell a bald-faced lie without blinking, and was vindictive towards her political enemies after winning elections. What more experience does she need?

Countertrey wrote:

Jake wrote:Her experience may be the same but her knowledge of the issues or anything valid is far more inferior.

How do you know? All I have heard from Obama are platitudes.

Sir_Monk wrote:He sold himself out to the same people in the Republican party that elected Bush

Yes, even Republicans recognize the inherent truth of liberalism which means since they are not Democrats they are selling out.

Yes, even Republicans recognize the inherent truth of liberalism which means since they are not Democrats they are selling out.

Right, or he hired the same people who smeared him in 2000 to run his campaign in order to play himself up to people who were not going to vote for Obama in the first place.

I am the reason McCain Lost.

Hoss wrote:I am the reason McCain Lost.

Yes, -you- are.

But CNN has it wrong:

They argue that it was ties to Bush, his running mate and "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" that did him.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20 always.

By the way, nobody appears to have mentioned that Obama raised and spent almost TWICE as much as McCain!!!

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Hoss wrote:I am the reason McCain Lost.

Yes, -you- are.

But CNN has it wrong:

They argue that it was ties to Bush, his running mate and "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" that did him.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20 always.

By the way, nobody appears to have mentioned that Obama raised and spent almost TWICE as much as McCain!!!

Actually, I gave a link to a page where it charted how much each candidate raised and spent in the "how did Obama win" thread.

PulpExposure wrote:Though the religious right doesn't like Lieberman (at all)

I disagree with this. Every 'religious right' or 'values voter' or whatever label you want to use loves Lieberman. He's a huge "supporter" of Israel and has been consistently pro-war. He's also seen as politically moderate, which helps his across-the-aisle case.

This is the first that I've heard of his unpopularity among conservatives, and 'religious right' ones at that. Is this really the case?

Redskin in Canada wrote:But CNN has it wrong:

They argue that it was ties to Bush, his running mate and "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" that did him.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20 always.

By the way, nobody appears to have mentioned that Obama raised and spent almost TWICE as much as McCain!!!

That's because analysts are convinced that Obama won due to his ideas and ability to inspire hope, not his slick image and his $$$. I'm a little more cynical, myself.

PulpExposure wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

Jake wrote:Her experience may be the same but her knowledge of the issues or anything valid is far more inferior.

How do you know? All I have heard from Obama are platitudes.

Well...she believes that mankind walked with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago...NOT exactly the open mind towards science and history you'd hope for.

And Obama thinks that lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats running our economy will make the financial markets work better. McCain thinks the first Amendment doesn't protect free speech leading into elections. None of them are playing with a full deck so this point's pretty irrelevant and it's a lot less harmful to free Americans then the other views.

Sir_Monk wrote:

Yes, even Republicans recognize the inherent truth of liberalism which means since they are not Democrats they are selling out.

Right, or he hired the same people who smeared him in 2000 to run his campaign in order to play himself up to people who were not going to vote for Obama in the first place.

Welcome to politics, my friend. Next step is to see that all of them in both parties are smearing their opponents and changing their views to suck up to their base. You'll get there if you keep your eyes open.

Welcome to politics, my friend. Next step is to see that all of them in both parties are smearing their opponents and changing their views to suck up to their base. You'll get there if you keep your eyes open.

Just so I understand, was he or was he not selling out?

Irn-Bru wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Though the religious right doesn't like Lieberman (at all)

I disagree with this. Every 'religious right' or 'values voter' or whatever label you want to use loves Lieberman. He's a huge "supporter" of Israel and has been consistently pro-war. He's also seen as politically moderate, which helps his across-the-aisle case.

This is the first that I've heard of his unpopularity among conservatives, and 'religious right' ones at that. Is this really the case?

Having spent 6 years living in Connecticut, I am only aware of three issues he is not a left wing Democrat for.

- Israel (you mentioned)
- He criticize Bill Clinton for his behavior with Monica
- He supports school vouchers.

Why do you think he remained with the Democrats even when they drummed him out of the party? And BTW, I voted for him in the last election I was in Connecticut. The Republican, who got roughly 6% liked to gamble in Casinos under false names and lie about it, which is probably the most normal thing about him. The Libertarian was a revisionist on Iraq. So I voted for Lieberman.

Anyway, the Right to your point definitely respects him for his views on Israel, but other then that I'm at a loss as to anyone who thinks he's not very left on anything else. And you KNOW how hesitant I am to call anyone "left." Seems clear to me why I do that since we're running headlong into socialism in this country. Socialism is rapidly on the rise and Kaz is claiming most people are now liberals. How does THAT make sense? I don't get it?

I don't get it either, but every time I have a conversation and Lieberman comes up, they say something like "You know, I've just always liked him." Many of them can't articulate why, but this isn't 1 or 2 people I'm talking about here. . .it's closer to a dozen. Who knows why.

Sir_Monk wrote:

Welcome to politics, my friend. Next step is to see that all of them in both parties are smearing their opponents and changing their views to suck up to their base. You'll get there if you keep your eyes open.

Just so I understand, was he or was he not selling out?

Yes, though in his case since he had no real ideology to begin with it was a shorter trip then some.

Irn-Bru wrote:I don't get it either, but every time I have a conversation and Lieberman comes up, they say something like "You know, I've just always liked him." Many of them can't articulate why, but this isn't 1 or 2 people I'm talking about here. . .it's closer to a dozen. Who knows why.

Well, those who like him base it primarily on a Democrat supporting the Right on Israel and as a consequence more importantly currently Iraq. Even though he's given many speeches trying to placate the left by saying every single thing W did in Iraq was wrong, but the war was right and so he supports him. He did get some credit with some on the Right who remembered the over the Clinton speech during the impeachment. Probably not many but me remember the voucher thing. But mostly it's just revisionist. The Right like him on Iraq so they remember their long time respect for him that didn't exist until they liked him on Iraq and got the warm glow through time.