Nope. Yuo aren't getting away with channging the subject. Answer my question.

Actually, I already did. I see you remembered your stupid pill this morning.

Wiggle all your want to bit, you are on the hook of your own words. Pretty much every single thing you said about the election turned out to be total bs. Not really a surprise :)

No bait and switch bitsykins

Nope. Yuo aren't getting away with channging the subject. Answer my question.

So, your premise was incorrect. In other words, you were wrong

.

Nope.
Your claim was based on the supposedly massive support Obama had gained. Which wasn't true.

The statement was made assuming McCain was willing to fight his way through.

So, your premise was incorrect. In other words, you were wrong.

I think that's what I already said.

Are you going to deny the level of leftist discontent exposed in those links? the guy's not even in the office, yet and half the party's already pissed at him.

Just for fun, lets address your rather pathetic attempt to change the subject from your election "predictions"

A new CNN poll finds 79% of Americans approve of President-elect Obama's performance so far during transition, with just 18% disapproving.

18%. Those would be the people who still think bush is swell. Lets just call them "Chowder heads".

Yessir, Democrats are furious with Obama, furious, I say.

And did you actually read what I linked?

No bait and switch bitsykins. The subject here are your repeated posts about a coming McCain landslide and Obama's sure defeat.

No sweat though dude. Its easy to see why you are running from your own words.

The statement was made assuming McCain was willing to fight his way through. He wasn't. Obama didn't win because he had massive support... as the current splits indicate, as I linked. He won through inaction on the part of McCain.

See, Anjin? It wasn't Bithead's smug pronouncements that were wrong; it was McCain who failed Bithead's pronouncements!

Classic nutjob righty denial. If the facts go against you, just keep on insisting that what you really meant (but never stated) was that those hundred other things had to happen first.

Bit! Words mean things. Did Obama win the election? Yes or No?

The statement was made assuming McCain was willing to fight his way through. He wasn't. Obama didn't win because he had massive support... as the current splits indicate, as I linked. He won through inaction on the part of McCain.

the resulting breakup of the Democrats in 08 was will be of legendary proportions

And did you actually read what I linked? Are you going to deny the level of leftist discontent exposed in those links? the guy's not even in the office, yet and half the party's already pissed at him.

and so would never win the GE. Beginning to look like I called it.

Bit! Words mean things. Did Obama win the election? Yes or No?

the resulting breakup of the Democrats in 08 was will be of legendary proportions

This certainly explains why Hillary Clinton is the next SecState.

Looks like you called it skippy :)

Me, I am buying tin foils futures...

Bithead sounds so smug and cocksure in his pronouncements, too. Too bad he's so wrong.

Anjin, you're doing a smash-bang-up job on Bithead. Unfortunately with the nutjob Bithead types, being a conservative means never having to admit you were wrong. Even when they are.

The patterns are all there for a landslide for McCain; This is 1968 all over again.

And so it was. ANd despite getting within striking distance, he managed to muck it up again, anyway.

I've been saying for months now that Obama never gain the real support of the party faithful, in full, and so would never win the GE. Beginning to look like I called it.

Yep. And guess what? That view has proven itself.... over and over.

Do keep quoting me like this. It's interesting how often you prove me correct.

I've been saying for months now that Obama never gain the real support of the party faithful, in full, and so would never win the GE. Beginning to look like I called it.

Interesting, since I'm also on record as saying Clinton would never get the nomination. The split we saw between Clinton and Obama is now if anything deeper than it was a few months ago.

Obama will get blanked in the general. Not that Clinton would do any better; shed not make it without black voter support which because of Obama, wouldn't happen.

Posted by Bithead | July 5, 2008 | 11:44 am |

The patterns are all there for a landslide for McCain; This is 1968 all over again.

What happened then shows all the signs of happening this year in Denver. In OBama and Clinton we have two candidates whose political and family roots are deep in liberal Chicago politics. We have a very notably liberal Republican in McCain. We have a Democrat party nomination fight between two fairly closely matched Democrat candidates whose Democrat supporters each would never vote for the other candidate. We have rumors of every left-wing crazy on the planet who can hitch a ride, in Denver for the convention, to protest the war. This Clinton Obama thing will be close enough that the party leadership will be forced to take a hand in the decision.. and there are already signs that any choice they make won’t be popular. Is there any conclusion but that the resulting breakup of the Democrats in 08 was will be of legendary proportions?
Posted by Bithead | July 5, 2008 | 11:44 am |

You sure can calle them bubba. Its amazing that anyone even has the balls to question you :)

Probably? Well I guess when you have zero tangible proof 'probably' will be the best you can come up with.

"So, you find news reports everywhere saying Al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent to be hilarious, huh? Yeah, that media. Always making stuff up. Always a worldwide liberal conspiracy with you bozos."

Yeah they are hilarious, if only I had a nickel for each time I've heard how "resilient" or "resurgent" the Taliban and AQ are the last 7 years I'd be rich. Ever read the one about the boy who cried wolf?

There's no conspiracy it's out in the open, as of January 20th of next year the occupant of the White House will have a D next to his name instead of an R and all narratives will be a changin'

And as for dropping the ball in Afghanistan just because you got bored with it doesn't mean anyone dropped the ball. And just because the media hilariously claims for the millionth time that AQ and the Taliban are "resurgent" doesn't make it so.

I'm sorry, *I* got bored with Afghanistan? I made the decision to invade Iraq and "forget" about Osama? Afghanistan *isn't* lapsing back into instability? Top military leaders aren't calling for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan? Even just today?

So, you find news reports everywhere saying Al Qaeda and the Taliban are resurgent to be hilarious, huh? Yeah, that media. Always making stuff up. Always a worldwide liberal conspiracy with you bozos.

In poll after poll, the American public believes by a wide margin that things are not going very well in Iraq or Afghanistan. And they voted as much when they kicked your crew out in November. But apparently they've been fooled by a worldwide liberal media conspiracy, huh?

You mean Bush, who does not know his ass from his elbow, screwed up yet one more time? That is a real shock.

The fact that an incompetent cannot carry out a policy does not necessarily mean the policy is wrong, it means that you should not elect incompetents to the Presidency.

The policy is the issue.

You mean the kind you displayed by parroting Hannity & and Morris' nonsense about how McCain was really winning two days before the election?

You might wanna go and read again what I actually said, there, Anjin. I mean, not to let mere facts intrude, but... try them... just this once.