AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Shep Smith: Couric/Palin Sunk McCain
ChuckG wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily
because he
is a master strategist... but because his opponent was weak?
who among us could have possibly called that? :)
Shep
The Bears could NEVER play the Packers in the Super Bowl...bad analogy.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ChuckG wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily because
he
is a master strategist... but because his opponent was
ChuckG wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily because he
is a master strategist... but because his opponent was weak?
who among us could have possibly called that? :)
Shep is doing poll analysis, but I'll use a football analogy.
Let's say it's da Superbowl
LL wrote:
Could someone translate this into English please?
A good strategy doesn't mean you're omnipotent and know everything
that's going to happen.
The example is a slow-n-steady strategy that aims to wear down your
opponent by keeping him/her predominantly on the defense. This was
the
financial meltdown, plain and simple.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Gruss wrote:
Interesting, Shep's poll analysis is that Obama's rise didn't start
with Lehman Bros, but with the Couric interview of Palin.
~|
Adobe®
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Interesting, Shep's poll analysis is that Obama's rise didn't start
with Lehman Bros, but with the Couric interview of Palin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
PS - Palin thinks Africa is a country
so wait...
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Charlie Griefer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily because he
is a master strategist... but because his opponent was weak?
who among us could have possibly called that? :)
No, no, Obama won because the
ChuckG wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily because he
is a master strategist... but because his opponent was weak?
who among us could have possibly called that? :)
Shep is doing poll analysis, but I'll use a football analogy.
Let's say it's da Superbowl
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:27 PM, Judah McAuley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Charlie Griefer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily because
he
is a master strategist... but because his opponent was weak?
who
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ditka's line ess tired and the left guard pulls a hammy.
Da packerz strategy and tactics of a slow and steady game has worn
down da bears.
TOUCHDOWN! Packerz win.
That's a good strategy huh?
It's also a good bit of
Chuck wrote:
It's also a good bit of luck that the guard pulled a hammy :)
Luck or strategy?
I invested in Apple back in 2000 and when the iPod hit their stock
soared. But was doing well before that.
There's a saying I believe in: winners make their own luck.
Guard wouldn't of pulled the
ChuckG wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily because
Just for you Chuck!!
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_finally_shitty_enough_to
Today the American people have made their voices heard, and they have
said, 'Things are finally as terrible as we're
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Gruss Gott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ChuckG wrote:
so wait... you're saying that Obama's victory wasn't necessarily because
Just for you Chuck!!
aww... you do love me. you really do! :)
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I
13 matches
Mail list logo
