It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Thats not change we can believe in!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I've been watching McCains speech tonight and I have to say that I am not impressed. First, I think he looks terrible. He is dripping in sweat and keeps forcing a smile every other sentence. He also keeps repeating... "That's not change we can believe in!". He is a terrible speaker.

Wasn't it the debate between JFK and Nixon that cost Nixon the election because it was the first televised debate and everyone thought that Nixon looked terrrible. I believe I remember that from a class in college.




posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stellawayten


Wasn't it the debate between JFK and Nixon that cost Nixon the election because it was the first televised debate and everyone thought that Nixon looked terrrible. I believe I remember that from a class in college.


i believe you're right, but im not 100% sure


Im not supporting one side over the other, but i do submit:

I would not be so fast to choose a candidate based on their ability to spew lies. All politicians speak in lies
... thats why i say that.

I say we all just pick someone from the Write-In list of options.

Because quite frankly - the three choices the media chooses to cover are completely worthless in my opinion



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   


Holy schnikes, what about that creepy little laugh!? I CANNOT listen to that for four years.

He reminds me of the geekiest, most boring and full of himself history professor I ever had at LSU...and as a History major - I had a lot of them. He thought he was being so funny when he would tell a goober joke, but really it was just sad and uncomfortable. That's what I was reminded of everytime McCain said..."My friends, that's not change you can believe in, hehe."

My people of Louisiana...please don't vote for McSame. I mean giving a speech in Kenner, really!? We can do better than that... if he doesn't have the balls to go down to the Nineth Ward, scr*w him - he's an elitest!

[edit on 3/6/08 by kosmicjack]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Poor John, even if he wins the election; the campaign will have ragged him out so much, he will spend his 4 yrs as president taking naps.

He might have bit off a little more than he can chew.

He looks bad, real bad....

[edit on 3-6-2008 by whaaa]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Dammit you poor Americans are stuck for choice this time round unless that great guy Ron Paul gets the ticket!




A rock, a schmuck and a hard place your stuck between right now



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Yes it was JFK and Nixon.


In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin.


Source

I have a feeling this is what will happen again.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
McCain apparently believes it quite confidently. He just challenged Obama to a series of several town hall debates set to begin in a couple of weeks in a speech this morning covered by all the cable news networks. Given the perception that Obama is all talk in some circles, its a terrific strategy by McCain. Obama has little choice but to accept or McCain can simply say "See? We told you he has nothing."

Of course, its risky, too, because if Obama mops the floor with him, he's done. Still, it shows a candidate that's pretty confident in his ability to defeat Obama on the issues, whether he ultimately does so or not.

[edit on 4-6-2008 by vor78]



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by stellawayten
He also keeps repeating... "That's not change we can believe in!". He is a terrible speaker.


I actually felt terribly sorry for the man. That is not a President we can believe in... I'm sure his speech writer meant well but they should have gone over the delivery of that line with him or something. It was awful and whiny.

I think part of his speech was meant to set himself apart from George W. Bush, but in addition to showing that he's about as bad a speaker as Bush, he voted with Bush 95% of the time. And he couldn't even come up with an original message, but instead tried to take Obama's "change" and make it his... So lame.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I would definately like to see that. But I'm not too educated on town halls... do they have media cameras so we can follow along at home?



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I felt sorry for him too. He looked so terrible. I couldn't believe his handlers let him go out like that. He didn't act very comfortable with the speech either. He looked vey unsure of himself.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by stellawayten
 


I would imagine that the media will be all over it anytime McCain and Obama are in a situation where their ideas are going head-to-head. Both campaigns will probably be more than willing to accomodate any necessary rule changes, if any, I would imagine, in exchange for more TV air time.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
Dammit you poor Americans are stuck for choice this time round unless that great guy Ron Paul gets the ticket!


I agree. America will be committing suicide with a vote for either Obama or McCain. Yes, suicide. And that's not melodrama. That's just the dark truth.



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by stellawayten
 


wow!!!!!..... a thread that actually goes after a republican!!!! i can't believe it. and only after 20 gazillion negative posts about obama. i don't see how this slipped through!!! somebody screwed up, that's for sure



posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
wow!!!!!.. a thread that actually goes after a republican!!!! i can't believe it.


You must have been sleeping for the past four years. All you get here is anti-bush this and anti-republican that. The past 2 months or so the threads have balanced out a bit more. Shocking .. yes.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
wow you really dont get around the boards, Jimmy.

Republicans are the brunt of 90% of all posts here.
Why so much anti-obamaism from a community who's majority is democratic?
Because Barack Obama is a bad choice.

Sometimes Change isnt good, when the types of change you call for are beset in a racist rule book, and dreams of racial grandeur fuel the fire of himself and his wife.

Change we can believe in?
Sure, he'll change......change his mind every 5 months on the issues at hand and accomplish nothing more than the flipflop nature that democrats are so famous for.



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I still say this all an orchestrated, choreographed dance with one notable fly in the ointment. Hillary Clinton was chosen to be the next President, and for the sake of those who actually care about the election process, she was given an opponent of the McCain caliber to ensure a November victory. Witness the following facts:

McCain made a slow start. He was in some serious competition with Romney and even Huckleberry. Then Romney, his biggest competition, suddenly bows out, early in the race, with no real explanation and despite having a very good chance of defeating McCain. Huckleberry just had a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease.

Hillary's campaign benefited from the REPUBLICAN vote, from crossover voting in TX, OH, and PA specifically, encouraged by almost every leading Republican talk-radio pundit.

Ron Paul apparently has twenty yard signs for every vote he received, not to mention a dismal turn-out from the sheet-over-the-interstate factor. Riiiiight. I heard one report from, I believe, NH where the total votes for Paul were reported as zero for a county polling office, despite about twenty voters who came forward reporting they had voted for him. According to the MSM, he apparently changed his name to 'Other' sometime early in the race, since that was how he was referred to in the results.

Hillary Clinton seemed to do best in primaries, rather than caucuses. Maybe that's because in caucuses people stand up and declare their vote in person? She also claimed larger and easier victories in those states which have switched to electronic voting machines.

The slickest politician of our time, the great William Jefferson 'Bill' 'Slick Willy' Clinton, he of the golden tongue, the master communicator/manipulator, kept sticking his foot in Hillary's mouth. I'm sorry, I cannot believe he is this bad at campaigning on purpose.

So I see Obama as a 'spoiler' and a problem to the PWB, since McCain was apparently specifically chosen to be easy to beat. McCain won't win, unless the game can be somehow reversed to make him look good. So far, despite what I see as attempts to do so (anti-Obama propaganda), it doesn't seem to be happening. He's too old, too feeble, too weak on several key issues (immigration, the economy), and simply too liberal for his base.

November is still a long ways off though...


Originally posted by whaaa
Poor John, even if he wins the election; the campaign will have ragged him out so much, he will spend his 4 yrs as president taking naps.


A sleeping President? that actually sounds pretty good to me, means he can't screw up as much.


TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join