Posted on 01/05/2009 4:54:34 AM PST by Kaslin
0bama is speaking from the “spirit of lies” (Satan).
1 John 4 (:5-6)
If he truly converts to the Lord, Jesus Christ....the rest will eventually follow. ;-)
I can remember my father being angry at Billy Graham for appearing next to LBJ. Dad said it gave Johnson “christian cover” for his socialist agenda. Rick Warren is, I’m afraid, in the same mold. I’m sure he’s hopeful that his presence will make a positive difference on an otherwise negative situation...just like Billy must have believed. Times don’t change, do they?
Platte River Rick is a tool of the left and doesn’t even know it.
Yeah, LOL.
At the end, though, I liked McCain more than I did at the beginning.
I think McCain tried to win, and I think he probably played his hand as best he could. Even in 2007, it was pretty much expected that this would be a Dem year.
He ran out of money at the end though because he tied himself to matching funds, and that made a big difference.
Also, I think if he didn't support the bailout he would have won. Of course, he supported the bailout because he is a Washintonian.
Now that's a winning attitude. /s
"He ran out of money at the end though because he tied himself to matching funds, and that made a big difference. "
IOW, he was hoisted by his own petard called McCain-Feingold.
What were you saying about people around here at FR being at fault?
You didn't want to see the pundits proved wrong? I did. That's why I got so ticked at the Fifth Columnists here saying don't vote for McCain.
"He ran out of money at the end though because he tied himself to matching funds, and that made a big difference. " . . .IOW, he was hoisted by his own petard called McCain-Feingold.
No. Matching funds for presidential candidates was happening way before McCain-Feingold, and I believe Obama might have been the first candidate not to accept them and hence limit himself on what he could spend. If you are looking for a conspiracy theory, Obama sure got a lot of money candidates do not usually expect to get.
No mention of the pundits in your previous comment - only McCain. So who was it again who was expecting 2008 to be a Dem year?
" If you are looking for a conspiracy theory, Obama sure got a lot of money candidates do not usually expect to get. "
True dat. And where was John McCain while all this was happening?
Pollsters. You think they were wrong?
" I think McCain tried to win, and I think he probably played his hand as best he could. Even in 2007, it was pretty much expected that this would be a Dem year. "
Pollsters are mentioned nowhere in your post, but John McCain is. John McCain is the one who implicitly expected 2008 to be a dem year, whether you understand what you just stated or not.
Whether you realize it or not, you've quite by accident stumbled into the truth of the 2008 election. Any of the Republicans making an honest effort could have beaten Zero. Any of them - Rudy, Mitt, Fred, even The Huckster, could have beaten him, all it would have taken would have been some effort.
Your own words in your own post tell the tale: John McCain, and by extension the Republican leadership, expected 2008 to be a Dem year, and whaddaya know, they were right.
Amazing, these guys can tell the future.
And yet you persist in giving "Fifth columnists" here at FR, which comprises far less than one percent of the voting public, credit for the loss.
actually no I don't rememeber any of that and I'm 51 and saw Graham preach several times as a boy.
do you have any proof?
Graham has always been the benchmark of a gentleman evangelist.
the only blemish he has is being in the room with Nixon when Nixon went on about Jews who were out to get him (some were to be honest)
So you think when I said "it" I meant McCain?
I mean, when have most of the pundits NOT "expected it to be a dem year"? That's a given.
I'm still trying to understand how you give more credit for McCain's defeat to some of us who post here than you give to John McCain himself. That goes a long way to explain it; John McCain deserves none of the credit because he just went along with the herd, "expecting 2008 to be a dem year". Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned his name, and no one else's, in post number 46.
Now is the "it" in the second sentence referring to OKSooner?
To answer the question, if the context of (almost) all your posts to the thread had been in apology to OKSooner's ineptness and giving others credit for it, yes, it could and probably would be construed that way.
This has been fun, I gotta go.
Keep the fight.
What did Bob Jones use as ammunition against Graham?
Yes you are right, this is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.