NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama kicked our collective butts in Virginia, DC, and Maryland tonight by surprising margins.

This race, however, is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Any other candidate would have been finished by getting swept in three primaries at once. Hillary, however, still has a shot, is still strong enough to reach that nomination. But she can't do it without our help. For those of you in the Clinton camp who happen to live in the upcoming primary states, I urge you to get out and vote. We have seen the consequences of inexperienced leadership for the past seven years, and whilst I have great respect for Senator Obama, I do not believe he is the best positioned to enact change from the Oval Office. Hillary Clinton is the most experienced candidate, the one most likely to deliver change. You can even see it in the debates...Clinton usually wins the debates based on the merits of her arguments. Clinton offers more specific plans and proposals. Obama is a great speaker, to be true, and perhaps an even better speaker than Clinton. But his speeches are full of glittering generalities. I've had my fill of such generalities....

Ah, I see. You're a parody. You wouldn't admit Obama's win if you were serious, or rather, you'd try to pass off his win as luck or something.

If you're serious, this might not be the best place to ask for people's help for Hillary. They seem not to like her that much here.

If you're a parody, are you parodying Obama or Clinton?

A parody? Come on guys, look at his nation date. Why would he stay around for 4 years to be a parody of Hillary Clinton's campaign?

1) Why would Hillary deliver something that there is no indication she wants? (change)

2) Parroting talking points doesn't win debates. And ignoring your opponent doesn't mean he isn't saying anything.

3) First Lady and corporate lawyer does not an experienced candidate make.

She's in Austin today...

And we haven't "used" the UT Tower in a long time if you know what I mean...

Aaaaahh, that was in mighty fine poor taste.

But really though, I hate her.

Haven't we reached our maximum threshold of number of active threads about a single event in this country? Couldn't this discussion have taken place in one of those threads, if for no other reason then I wouldn't have to hear the people from the dozen or so other countries on this board that aren't the USA bitching about how we're clogging up the front page with our elections? It's not unreasonable, really.

A parody? Come on guys, look at his nation date. Why would he stay around for 4 years to be a parody of Hillary Clinton's campaign?

Ah. You've a point there, mate.

Obama kicked our collective butts in Virginia, DC, and Maryland tonight

Indeed he did. And good on him!

by surprising margins.

Not surprising at all. Obama has consistantly beat her by 2:1 plus margins. Her highest win was by less than a 20% margin, IIRC.

This race, however, is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Any other candidate would have been finished by getting swept in three primaries at once. Hillary, however, still has a shot, is still strong enough to reach that nomination. But she can't do it without our help.

You certainly won't get my help. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "If Clinton were running for president of hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

For those of you in the Clinton camp who happen to live in the upcoming primary states, I urge you to get out and vote. We have seen the consequences of inexperienced leadership for the past seven years,[/QUOTE]

and whilst I have great respect for Senator Obama, I do not believe he is the best positioned to enact change from the Oval Office.

Prey tell how would a continuation of the failed policies of the last 26 years be able to enact change?

Hillary Clinton is the most experienced candidate,

Not true at all. Obama actually has the greater experience served in elected office.

the one most likely to deliver change.

Absolutely untrue. A Clinton nomination means 4 more years of the GOP. Do NOT underestimate the dislike for her, even among Dems.

You can even see it in the debates...Clinton usually wins the debates based on the merits of her arguments. Clinton offers more specific plans and proposals. Obama is a great speaker, to be true, and perhaps an even better speaker than Clinton. But his speeches are full of glittering generalities. I've had my fill of such generalities....[/QUOTE]

His record is not full of generalities. And I've had my fill of the culture wars. Let's put an end to the '60s this year, please!

Haven't we reached our maximum threshold of number of active threads about a single event in this country? Couldn't this discussion have taken place in one of those threads, if for no other reason then I wouldn't have to hear the people from the dozen or so other countries on this board that aren't the USA bitching about how we're clogging up the front page with our elections? It's not unreasonable, really.

3 out of 25 of the threads on page 1 right now are on the US election. Considering the large numbers of US citizens here, the importance of this election in the US (and to the world), and the political nature of the forums, I'd say that's about the right number.

... I've had my fill of such generalities....

You spelled generalites wrong.

You spelled generalites wrong.

:p

Oh, and CToaN, maybe if we could just kill the ones that drag out forever, and consist only of pointless bickering... ;)

:p

Oh, and CToaN, maybe if we could just kill the ones that drag out forever, and consist only of pointless bickering... ;)

Hey man, it's your thread. And is this argument really all that different than the one going on in the big one? I submit that it is not. We're 'bickering' over Clinton's 'electability' vs. Obama, just like here. It's essentially the same conversation.

Just keep voting for Obama. (http://hypnotoad.tv/)

Haven't we reached our maximum threshold of number of active threads about a single event in this country? Couldn't this discussion have taken place in one of those threads, if for no other reason then I wouldn't have to hear the people from the dozen or so other countries on this board that aren't the USA bitching about how we're clogging up the front page with our elections? It's not unreasonable, really.

Take heart: The election is only 9 months away. :)

Take heart: The election is only 9 months away. :)

Scary thought really. :eek:

Scary thought really. :eek:

Indeed. It's crazy that it took this long to become impregnated.

...Ron Paul sweeps the corridors.

*goes out and buys an Obama 08 Bumber Sticker*

*goes out and buys an Obama 08 Bumber Sticker*

Bumber? :p

Bumber? :p

hehe. I was wondering how long someone would see that :D

Obama kicked our collective butts in Virginia, DC, and Maryland tonight by surprising margins.

[deleted]
Obama is a great speaker, to be true, and perhaps an even better speaker than Clinton. But his speeches are full of glittering generalities. I've had my fill of such generalities....
Well, it's not like he has a wealth of achievements to draw upon when speaking. Of course, I don't recall any shining accomplishments from Clinton, either. Not unless you count making the missing Rose Law Firm records appear from thin air.

You can even see it in the debates...Clinton usually wins the debates based on the merits of her arguments. Clinton offers more specific plans and proposals


Do we watch the same debates?

Do we watch the same debates?

Aparently not. We can though on Feburary 21st in Austin :D

hehe. I was wondering how long before someone would see that :D

fixed ;)

Do we watch the same debates?

Here's an excerpt that shows her "prowess".

CUMMINGS: She asks to you: "Senator Clinton, that you have claimed that your presidency would bring change to America. I'm 38 years old and I have never had an opportunity to vote in a presidential election in which a Bush or a Clinton wasn't on the ticket.

"How can you be an agent of change when we have had the same two families in the White House for the last 30 years?1"

CLINTON: Well, as I have often said, I regret deeply that there is a Bush in the White House at the time.

But I think that what's great about our political system is that we are all judged on our own merits. We come forward to the American public and it's the most grueling political process one can imagine.

We start from the same place. Nobody has an advantage no matter who you are or where you came from. You have to raise the money. You have to make the case for yourself.

And I want to be judged on my own merits.2 I don't want to be advantaged or disadvantaged. I'm very proud of my husband's administration. I think that there were a lot of good things that happened and those good things really changed people's lives.

The trajectory of change during those eight years went from deficits and debt to a balanced budget and a surplus, all those 22 million new jobs and the...

... and the hopefulness that people brought with them. And, you know, it did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush.3

----

Okay, so look at the question (1). So she answers the question by saying, I'm Hillary, not Bill (2). A very good answer, in fact. She should run on her own merits. Then the entire rest of her answer (3) is about her husband's qualifications. So much for her own merits. I wonder what people would think if a key part of Obama's campaign was his wife's accomplishments.

I wonder what people would think if a key part of Obama's campaign was his wife's accomplishments.

They'd probably be wondering why the Hell he's talking about his wife's accomplishments since it really doesn't pretain to his role as President.

They'd probably be wondering why the Hell he's talking about his wife's accomplishments since it really doesn't pretain to his role as President.

and yet I wonder how do the actions of former President Bill Clinton relate to how Hillary Clinton will perform as president?

and yet I wonder how do the actions of former President Bill Clinton relate to how Hillary Clinton will perform as president?

They don't.

and yet I wonder how do the actions of former President Bill Clinton relate to how Hillary Clinton will perform as president?

It doesn't. I think she has taken the joke of her being the Boss during his Presidency alittle too seriously.

It doesn't. I think she has taken the joke of her being the Boss during his Presidency alittle too seriously.

I have to say it's pretty damned amusing how hard that joke has bitten the people who made it in the ass.

So she answers the question by saying, I'm Hillary, not Bill (2). A very good answer, in fact. She should run on her own merits. Then the entire rest of her answer (3) is about her husband's qualifications. So much for her own merits. I wonder what people would think if a key part of Obama's campaign was his wife's accomplishments.



Basically, Hillary wants to be judged on her husbands merits, except when its disadvantagous, then she is quick to point out shes not Bill.

As an aside, Im watching CNN right now (its on the TV in the teacher's lounge) and they're totally downplaying Obama's wins lately and talking about Hillary's Guiliani Strategy in Texas and how it could play out in her favor. They also are constantly stressing that Obama is in first but not by much. Funny, they never stressed how close a race it was when Hillary was in the lead...


Fuck CNN.

The funny thing is, as I was watching CNN coverage I noticed a monumental difference between the number of Democrats voting compared to the number of republicans. In every single state the turnout was more than 2:1, and in a couple places is was closer to 3:1. The GOP is in DEEEEEEEP doodoo here.

To quote Norm MacDonald (doing his impression of Bob Dole)--

"[The republican doesn't] stand a chinaman's chance in this one."

I can't say that I'm all that disappointed. Look at the choices. Trash, all of 'em. The margins in congress will get a hell of a lot wider too. I sincerely feel that the GOP will become akin to a third party after this coming november.

Stay tuned. I predict the Clintons will not take this lying down, and an Obama scandal will break in the not too distant future.

Fuck CNN.Hey, the best political team on television has to beat Fox's fairness and balance somehow!

Basically, Hillary wants to be judged on her husbands merits, except when its disadvantagous, then she is quick to point out shes not Bill.

As an aside, Im watching CNN right now (its on the TV in the teacher's lounge) and they're totally downplaying Obama's wins lately and talking about Hillary's Guiliani Strategy in Texas and how it could play out in her favor. They also are constantly stressing that Obama is in first but not by much. Funny, they never stressed how close a race it was when Hillary was in the lead...


Fuck CNN.
I actually do remember them making mention of how close it was. Close is giving them a hard on no matter who is in that 'close' lead, because it means that coverage of late primaries actually matter instead of becoming 'shuttle launches.'
The funny thing is, as I was watching CNN coverage I noticed a monumental difference between the number of Democrats voting compared to the number of republicans. In every single state the turnout was more than 2:1, and in a couple places is was closer to 3:1. The GOP is in DEEEEEEEP doodoo here.

To quote Norm MacDonald (doing his impression of Bob Dole)--

"[The republican doesn't] stand a chinaman's chance in this one."

I can't say that I'm all that disappointed. Look at the choices. Trash, all of 'em. The margins in congress will get a hell of a lot wider too. I sincerely feel that the GOP will become akin to a third party after this coming november.
They said the same thing about the Democratic Party when Bush won. One or two losses does not bury a party. You don't get a more solid drubbing than the Reagan elections and yet the democratic party was able to unseat his VP after one term. The Republican's haven't even lost yet, it's wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy to early to dance on their graves.

I actually do remember them making mention of how close it was. Close is giving them a hard on no matter who is in that 'close' lead, because it means that coverage of late primaries actually matter instead of becoming 'shuttle launches.'

They said the same thing about the Democratic Party when Bush won. One or two losses does not bury a party. You don't get a more solid drubbing than the Reagan elections and yet the democratic party was able to unseat his VP after one term. The Republican's haven't even lost yet, it's wwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy to early to dance on their graves.

^This. Frankly, I strongly worry about the Guiliani gambit.

TMN may have the mojo right now, but it will take a lot more than magic for him to prevail in November. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions (or more likely a catastrophe like Noah's flood) for the American people to make an empty suit with a far-left voting record that is virtually indistinguishable from the record of the fat mistress-killing drunk from Massachusetts the next Commander-in-Chief.

Especially not when he's compared (as he will be) to an undeniable American hero with huge expertise on national security and defense issues like John McCain. Whatever lead he may have over McCain will shrink like George Costanza after a cold swim when the facts come out and the records are compared.

Ignorant college babies whose wisdom is inversely proportional to their "enthusiasm" aren't going to put TMN over the top.

Now hopefully the GOP, having done the smart thing and gone more to the center than the hard right, will do another smart thing and picks an unconventional VP, like Condi Rice.

^This. Frankly, I strongly worry about the Guiliani gambit.

Makes 2 of us.

I shall save this post somewhere and come back to it, when the time comes.

Please do. I will too. :D

TMN may have the mojo right now, but it will take a lot more than magic for him to prevail in November. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions (or more likely a catastrophe like Noah's flood) for the American people to make an empty suit with a far-left voting record that is virtually indistinguishable from the record of the fat mistress-killing drunk from Massachusetts the next Commander-in-Chief.

Especially not when he's compared (as he will be) to an undeniable American hero with huge expertise on national security and defense issues like John McCain. Whatever lead he may have over McCain will shrink like George Costanza after a cold swim when the facts come out and the records are compared.

Ignorant college babies whose wisdom is inversely proportional to their "enthusiasm" aren't going to put TMN over the top.

Now hopefully the GOP, having done the smart thing and gone more to the center than the hard right, will do another smart thing and picks an unconventional VP, like Condi Rice.

Well, this post is just full of wisdom and respect. Why would anyone laugh at the general attitude of Republicans? Your candidate USED to be a great politician. It's too bad he didn't run in 2000. I would have voted for him. He's lost more than a couple steps and shouldn't have been allowed to stand next to Mitt in a debate, let alone talk to him. Being a war hero isn't a qualifier. Being a great politician 10 years ago also isn't. All those "ignorant college babies" are too smart to not notice how dramatically incoherent McCain is.

Well, this post is just full of wisdom and respect.

Respect is earned. When it is, I'll give it.

TMN may have the mojo right now, but it will take a lot more than magic for him to prevail in November. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions (or more likely a catastrophe like Noah's flood) for the American people to make an empty suit with a far-left voting record that is virtually indistinguishable from the record of the fat mistress-killing drunk from Massachusetts the next Commander-in-Chief.

Especially not when he's compared (as he will be) to an undeniable American hero with huge expertise on national security and defense issues like John McCain. Whatever lead he may have over McCain will shrink like George Costanza after a cold swim when the facts come out and the records are compared.

Ignorant college babies whose wisdom is inversely proportional to their "enthusiasm" aren't going to put TMN over the top.

Now hopefully the GOP, having done the smart thing and gone more to the center than the hard right, will do another smart thing and picks an unconventional VP, like Condi Rice.I shall save this post somewhere and come back to it, when the time comes.

TMN may have the mojo right now, but it will take a lot more than magic for him to prevail in November. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions (or more likely a catastrophe like Noah's flood) for the American people to make an empty suit with a far-left voting record that is virtually indistinguishable from the record of the fat mistress-killing drunk from Massachusetts the next Commander-in-Chief.

Especially not when he's compared (as he will be) to an undeniable American hero with huge expertise on national security and defense issues like John McCain. Whatever lead he may have over McCain will shrink like George Costanza after a cold swim when the facts come out and the records are compared.

Ignorant college babies whose wisdom is inversely proportional to their "enthusiasm" aren't going to put TMN over the top.

Now hopefully the GOP, having done the smart thing and gone more to the center than the hard right, will do another smart thing and picks an unconventional VP, like Condi Rice.

I hate to burst your bubble. But, you're talking about the same mccain that got booed at a conservative conference. If you honestly think that some kind of miracle will happen that allows mccain in, you're sadly mistaken. He'll look like sweaty, shifty, nervous Nixon next to calm cool Kennedy. It'll be a sad sight. Kind of like watching Dole's entire '96 campaign.

I hate to burst your bubble. But, you're talking about the same mccain that got booed at a conservative conference. If you honestly think that some kind of miracle will happen that allows mccain in, you're sadly mistaken. He'll look like sweaty, shifty, nervous Nixon next to calm cool Kennedy. It'll be a sad sight. Kind of like watching entire '96 campaign.

I watched the CPAC convention. Scattered booing doesn't compare to the volume of applause I heard as McCain reached out to the conservative base. As the campaign proceeds, conservatives will come aboard because the alternative is four years of slow-motion national suicide.

BTW, I say this as a life-long member of the conservative base, but one who realizes that the perfect can't be allowed to be the enemy of the good.

I shall save this post somewhere and come back to it, when the time comes.

Generally, such absurd insults are a sign of fear. You'll notice that the insults from Obama supporters really died down as he started to pull ahead. People are less afraid that they're wrong. You'll also notice the ramping up of insults toward Obama from McCain and Clinton supporters. Fear. At least, it's a recognition of reality, though.

TMN may have the mojo right now, but it will take a lot more than magic for him to prevail in November. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions (or more likely a catastrophe like Noah's flood) for the American people to make an empty suit with a far-left voting record that is virtually indistinguishable from the record of the fat mistress-killing drunk from Massachusetts the next Commander-in-Chief.

Especially not when he's compared (as he will be) to an undeniable American hero with huge expertise on national security and defense issues like John McCain. Whatever lead he may have over McCain will shrink like George Costanza after a cold swim when the facts come out and the records are compared.

Ignorant college babies whose wisdom is inversely proportional to their "enthusiasm" aren't going to put TMN over the top.

Now hopefully the GOP, having done the smart thing and gone more to the center than the hard right, will do another smart thing and picks an unconventional VP, like Condi Rice.
Keep it coming. The more attitude like this we see the more refreshing the alternative will become. Oh, and the thinly veiled racism is icing on the cake.

Keep it coming. The more attitude like this we see the more refreshing the alternative will become. Oh, and the thinly veiled racism is icing on the cake.

Honestly, I used to act like that too. Whenever I was backed into a corner all I had to respond with was rising levels of arrogance, followed by angry rebukes, and pointless bravado. It's all because of a sense of entitlement to elected office. As though no one else really deserves to serve the public.

The news just keeps getting better:

Bill Clinton campaign chief backs Obama (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080213/ap_on_el_pr/obama_endorsement)

COLUMBUS, Ohio - The man who served as national manager of former President Clinton's 1992 campaign plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, an aide to Obama said Wednesday.

Obama's campaign planned a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement by David Wilhelm, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee, according to an aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement would be made public later in the day.

Man oh man. Looks like Obama is really starting to take off now.

I watched the CPAC convention. Scattered booing doesn't compare to the volume of applause I heard as McCain reached out to the conservative base. As the campaign proceeds, conservatives will come aboard because the alternative is four years of slow-motion national suicide.

BTW, I say this as a life-long member of the conservative base, but one who realizes that the perfect can't be allowed to be the enemy of the good.

The irony of this claim after the last eight years is just silly.

Oh, wait, it wasn't in slow motion. We all watched happen in real time. This from a person who believes Bush deserved to win both elections.

"Please vote for my candidate. Yes, he sucks, but we'll all be destroyed if you don't." This has been the campaign slogan of the Republican Party for 8 years.

Stay tuned. I predict the Clintons will not take this lying down, and an Obama scandal will break in the not too distant future.
You clearly understand the Clintons.

I say her on 60 Minutes the other night. She and Obama were still best friends forever. In fact, she had his swearing in photo hanging in her office.

Last night, she couldn't even congratulate him on his good showing.

Things can only get worse.

Keep it coming. The more attitude like this we see the more refreshing the alternative will become.

Rest assured, you'll see plenty more of it. Especially after the GOP victory in November :p

Oh, and the thinly veiled racism is icing on the cake.

Damn, he called me a racist! Gee, what gave it away? Was it my calling for a black woman to be McCain's VP?

Oh, wait a minute--it was referring to B. Hussein Obama as TMN.

Oops, couldn't have been that either, since the mods have already ruled on that issue:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343996&postcount=83

No, looks like you just couldn't think of a good response, so you fell back on one of the old lefty hexes guaranteed to shut up the opposition. Except they don't work. Not on me :p

Rest assured, you'll see plenty more of it. Especially after the GOP victory in November :p



Damn, he called me a racist! Gee, what gave it away? Was it my calling for a black woman to be McCain's VP?

Oh, wait a minute--it was referring to B. Hussein Obama as TMN.

Oops, couldn't have been that either, since the mods have already ruled on that issue:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343996&postcount=83

No, looks like you just couldn't think of a good response, so you fell back on one of the old lefty hexes guaranteed to shut up the opposition. Except they don't work. Not on me :p

The mods are what decides what is racist and what isn't? First, you choose to intentionally highlight Obama's middle name. Hmmm... looks like you've not got the platform to defeat his views, so you have to focus on nonsense. Add to that, you call hiim The Magical Negro. Yeah, what would make anyone think that was racist. Carry on.

The irony of this claim after the last eight years is just silly.

No irony at all. The country is fundamentally sound, despite the current phase of the business cycle, and is without doubt far better off than we would have been under Lurch or Algore.

This from a person who believes Bush deserved to win both elections.

He did deserve it.

"Please vote for my candidate. Yes, he sucks

McCain doesn't suck. He may be a 70% conservative, but it's far better than a 0% conservative. As the base will eventually appreciate.

but we'll all be destroyed if you don't."

At least you got that part of it right. ;)

Dude, I'm not trying to shut you up. I'd give you a megaphone. Your brand of divisiveness will torpedo McCain better than anything I could possibly dream up. Rock on, dude. You're the best campaigner for the Democratic nominee there is.

Talk about whistling past the graveyard :D

Rest assured, you'll see plenty more of it. Especially after the GOP victory in November :p



Damn, he called me a racist! Gee, what gave it away? Was it my calling for a black woman to be McCain's VP?

Oh, wait a minute--it was referring to B. Hussein Obama as TMN.

Oops, couldn't have been that either, since the mods have already ruled on that issue:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343996&postcount=83

No, looks like you just couldn't think of a good response, so you fell back on one of the old lefty hexes guaranteed to shut up the opposition. Except they don't work. Not on me :p
Dude, I'm not trying to shut you up. I'd give you a megaphone. Your brand of divisiveness will torpedo McCain better than anything I could possibly dream up. Rock on, dude. You're the best campaigner for the Democratic nominee there is.

No irony at all. The country is fundamentally sound, despite the current phase of the business cycle, and is without doubt far better off than we would have been under Lurch or Algore.

Heh. I note that in order to make your claim, you have to add an exception. So the country is sound with the exception of a bad economy and people dying every day in an unnecessary war. There is also the exception of the excessive human rights violations. Yep, gosh, as long as you call everything wrong with the current administration an exception, we are doing great.

That anyone would defend the Presidency of GWB at this point just goes to show how low the bar has been set at this point. My left boot could have run the country better, mostly because a complete lack of leadership trumps a lack of leadership and a complete disdain for human beings.

He did deserve it.



McCain doesn't suck. He may be a 70% conservative, but it's far better than a 0% conservative. As the base will eventually appreciate.

He sucks. He can't speak anymore. He has no backbone. And because of that all people like yourself can hope for is to scare people out of voting for the better candidate.


At least you got that part of it right. ;)

Thank you for proving my point.

Oops, couldn't have been that either, since the mods have already ruled on that issue:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343996&postcount=83I suggest you read that again, particularly this part:
So I'm stating the opinion that the term used by Neo Mittani in this comment is not racist. You're stating your opinion that it is. Fair enough.

What I'm ruling, however, is that it's not breaking forum rules, and that by telling New Mittani earlier to knock it off, I was making a mistake (for which I apologised, but that's not a ruling).Emphasis not mine, incidentally.

I suggest you read that again, particularly this part:
Emphasis not mine, incidentally.

Looks like I'm going to have to dig up the entire thread. So try this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343814&postcount=77

I suggest you read this, particularly this part:

The point isn't whether New Mitanni is or isn't racist, and it's not my business to "rule" on that. The point is that that particular comment wasn't. [EDIT: and even if it had been, racist opinions are not necessarily against forum rules.]

He was drawing a parallel between an American presidential candidate and an archetypal figure. When I followed up, first the article to which he linked, and then the Wiki reference in it and Wiki's subsequent links, that became clear. Therefore he was debating, not flamebaiting or trolling -- which is something I can rule on.

Emphasis mine.

Heh. I note that in order to make your claim, you have to add an exception. So the country is sound with the exception of a bad economy

Economic. Cycle. Up. Down. It happens. Always. Doesn't mean the economic foundations of this country are in trouble.

and people dying every day in an unnecessary war.

Enemies dying every day in a necessary war that we are winning. Deal with it.

There is also the exception of the excessive human rights violations.

Your "excessive human rights violations" are my "proper measures." Color me unimpressed.

My left boot could have run the country better,

Just the choice of boot I would have expected :p

He can't speak anymore.

Right, I must have been hearing a speech synthesizer today. Beyond that, substance is important, style is unimportant.

He has no backbone.

You are the first person I have ever seen make that statement. Looks like it isn't only hard-right conservatives who are afflicted with McCain Derangement Syndrome.

And because of that all people like yourself can hope for is to scare people out of voting for the better candidate.

Since McCain is the better candidate, your argument fails.

Economic. Cycle. Up. Down. It happens. Always. Doesn't mean the economic foundations of this country are in trouble.



Enemies dying every day in a necessary war that we are winning. Deal with it.



Your "excessive human rights violations" are my "proper measures." Color me unimpressed.



Just the choice of boot I would have expected :p



Right, I must have been hearing a speech synthesizer today. Beyond that, substance is important, style is unimportant.



You are the first person I have ever seen make that statement. Looks like it isn't only hard-right conservatives who are afflicted with McCain Derangement Syndrome.



Since McCain is the better candidate, your argument fails.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the "rising levels of arrogance" part of my last post. It's as though mere attitude can change reality. Like a "swagger" will erase the facts. Those being: McCain has about as much personality/charisma/credibility/leadership ability of one of those plastic singing bass rednecks and sports bar owners hang on their walls.

Arrogant, smug, nose to the sky drivel such as this is one of the largest reasons the GOP is suffering such a huge backlash from such a vast swath of the American people. At least TRY to act with SOME humility, and you might actually stand a chance.

This is exactly what I was talking about with the "rising levels of arrogance" part of my last post. It's as though mere attitude can change reality. Like a "swagger" will erase the facts. Those being: McCain has about as much personality/charisma/credibility/leadership ability of one of those plastic singing bass rednecks and sports bar owners hang on their walls.

Arrogant, smug, nose to the sky drivel such as this is one the largest reasons the GOP is suffering such a huge backlash from such a vast swath of the American people. At least TRY to act with SOME humility, and you might actually stand a chance.

B-b-b-but if we allow a Democrat into the White House, clearly unspecific and sensational "bad things" will happen to America!

I'm impressed I managed to type that without so much as a smirk

TMN may have the mojo right now, but it will take a lot more than magic for him to prevail in November. It would take a miracle of Biblical proportions (or more likely a catastrophe like Noah's flood) for the American people to make an empty suit with a far-left voting record that is virtually indistinguishable from the record of the fat mistress-killing drunk from Massachusetts the next Commander-in-Chief.

Especially not when he's compared (as he will be) to an undeniable American hero with huge expertise on national security and defense issues like John McCain. Whatever lead he may have over McCain will shrink like George Costanza after a cold swim when the facts come out and the records are compared.

Ignorant college babies whose wisdom is inversely proportional to their "enthusiasm" aren't going to put TMN over the top.

Now hopefully the GOP, having done the smart thing and gone more to the center than the hard right, will do another smart thing and picks an unconventional VP, like Condi Rice.



Its cute that you think McCain has a better shot than Obama in a general election, recent polls show otherwise.

Obama is more popular with independents, which is where the election is determined.

LOL@ saying Clinton has experience. First Lady does not qualify as leadership experience.

And she was in Congress? So what? Our Congress is so fucking worthless they're listening to baseball players testify!

Enemies dying every day in a necessary war that we are winning. Deal with it.

So you consider American soldiers and Iraqi civilians your enemies? Good to know.

Economic. Cycle. Up. Down. It happens. Always. Doesn't mean the economic foundations of this country are in trouble.

Not to this extent where some economists are saying the danger of a recession and the government has to pay people off to bail us out.



Enemies dying every day in a necessary war that we are winning. Deal with it.

There is no evidence we are winning the war. Saying something doesnt make it so. Prove to me we are winning the war.


Your "excessive human rights violations" are my "proper measures." Color me unimpressed.

The court and the geneva convention disagree with your term of "proper measures". I direct you to Rasaul V Bush.

Just the choice of boot I would have expected :p

Funny.

Right, I must have been hearing a speech synthesizer today. Beyond that, substance is important, style is unimportant.

In reality, yes. To the American voters however, being able to speak is important. It impresses people.


You are the first person I have ever seen make that statement. Looks like it isn't only hard-right conservatives who are afflicted with McCain Derangement Syndrome.


While I agree that hard right conservatives are deranged, I think most critisism leveled against McCain here so far is relevent. Just because you dont like it and want to dismiss it doesnt make it incorrect.

Since McCain is the better candidate, your argument fails.

You havent disabled his arguement, you just put thinly valed insults and your opinions without backing them up. So, Id actually say your arguement fails.


The reality check for you in November will be glorious

All of you who are trying to say that Hillary Clinton has the most experience are probably trying to refer to her time as the first lady (you obviously cannot be refering to her time as an elected official since Barack has held public office for longer than her( Barack Obama = public official since 1996, Hillary Clinton = public official since 2000)) are absolutely nuts. It does not count as presidential experience or any experience whatsoever to have been first lady. First ladies do not serve any governmental position they are simply the wife of the president and they live in the white house. If you are saying that the living in the white house equals presidential or political experience then you are basically supporting the argument that one of George Bush's dogs could be president (not that I think they could do any worse of a job than him). Come on guys (& I dont really love making jokes like this when im trying to prove a point but....) she didn't even sleep with the president more than five times in the eight years that she was first lady.

Economic. Cycle. Up. Down. It happens. Always. Doesn't mean the economic foundations of this country are in trouble.

Amusing. So how long does it have to up during Democrats and down during Republicans before Republicans notice? I'm not willing to put the blame on the Presidents, but certainly considering the last 30 years, there should be some recognition of correllation.

Meanwhile, of course, the trillions of dollars on the war has nothing to do with it, right?



Enemies dying every day in a necessary war that we are winning. Deal with it.

So do our soldiers and civilians. It was unnecessary. It was shown they were not a threat to us.


Your "excessive human rights violations" are my "proper measures." Color me unimpressed.

Torture? Capturing innocent people and not giving them trials. Like I said, how low the bar has become for some Republicans. I'm certain if Clinton had been caught torturing people, you'd have no issue with it. I wonder what McCain's position is on whether or not they're "proper measures" is.



Just the choice of boot I would have expected :p

I throw in my right boot and my pants. All better for the country.


Right, I must have been hearing a speech synthesizer today. Beyond that, substance is important, style is unimportant.

I love that you say this while you have an argument that has no substance. You completely avoided the point and your entire claim is that the left is out to destroy America.

I'm talking about he can't actually voice or defend his policies. You do realize that if he's President, he'll still have to have some reasonable ability to sway people, right? It's part of the job. Thank God Bush has lowered that bar so much already. Seriously, it seems to be the platform of Republicans, "Vote McCain, because every flaw he has isn't as bad as Bush and you voted for that guy." What high expectations.



You are the first person I have ever seen make that statement. Looks like it isn't only hard-right conservatives who are afflicted with McCain Derangement Syndrome.

Then you're not listening. He used to be incredible. I loved him. I have never voted Democrat or Republican for President. I would have for him. I really did like his backbone. He stood up to both Democrats and Republicans. Then over the last administration, he slowly became a flag and just started blowing whatever way worked.



Since McCain is the better candidate, your argument fails.

Then why can't you just talk about what a great candidate McCain is instead of making it about nonsensical and vague threats of the destruction of America. Have more faith in your candidate and yourself and try being more specific. So far it seems like your entire argument centers around "Obama is on the left and the left is evil. He eats babies."

Looks like I'm going to have to dig up the entire thread. So try this one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13343814&postcount=77

I suggest you read this, particularly this part:



Emphasis mine.

Well, if the mods said it wasn't racist, well, then it must be true. All glory to Mod.

Come on, stop beating around the bush. He's a ******. That's what you really mean. Have a backbone. It's sad how difficult it is for racists to simply stand up for what they believe.

Clinton is the best for the job. She has certainly offered more detail than Obama. All Obama is bringing is charisma. He's riding a tide of disaffected people who are charmed by the things he says and how he says them. That is not a particularly great way to pick a President.

Why Hillary Will Lose (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/why_hillary_will_lose.html)

Its an interesting read. You may want to view it.

Clinton is the best for the job. She has certainly offered more detail than Obama. All Obama is bringing is charisma. He's riding a tide of disaffected people who are charmed by the things he says and how he says them. That is not a particularly great way to pick a President.

Oh hey, look. Mitty ran off once the opposition got too hot to handle.

No surprises there I guess.

Oh hey, look. Mitty ran off once the opposition got too hot to handle.

No surprises there I guess.

Im noticing that. Once people start to tell him we arent buying his BS and logically defeat his arguements, suddenly he disappears.

Im noticing that. Once people start to tell him we arent buying his BS and logically defeat his arguements, suddenly he disappears.

The Magical Cracker?

Actually I have, and I'm not impressed. There is a trio of EXTREMELY important state primaries coming up...one in Texas, one in Pennsylvania, and one here in Ohio. If the Clinton camp manages to take Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, we are right back in this thing, and the conversation with Senator Obama's supporters will continue.

And if Obama takes just one of those states, its pretty much over. Even Carville has stated this:

He hinted at a similar sentiment earlier this week on CNN, but James Carville – a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s White House run — was decidedly more blunt Wednesday on the impact a loss in Texas or Ohio would have on her presidential bid.

"Make no mistake," Bill Clinton's former chief strategist told the Orlando Sentinel. "If she loses either Texas or Ohio, this thing is done."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Why Hillary Will Lose (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/why_hillary_will_lose.html)

Its an interesting read. You may want to view it.


Actually I have, and I'm not impressed. There is a trio of EXTREMELY important state primaries coming up...one in Texas, one in Pennsylvania, and one here in Ohio. If the Clinton camp manages to take Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, we are right back in this thing, and the conversation with Senator Obama's supporters will continue.

Clinton is the best for the job. She has certainly offered more detail than Obama. All Obama is bringing is charisma. He's riding a tide of disaffected people who are charmed by the things he says and how he says them. That is not a particularly great way to pick a President.

Right off the talking points. Why don't you, you know, research a bit? Tell me what specifics you're looking for, and I'll drown you information directly from him. Ready?

Obama kicked our collective butts in Virginia, DC, and Maryland tonight by surprising margins.

This race, however, is not over by any stretch of the imagination. Any other candidate would have been finished by getting swept in three primaries at once. Hillary, however, still has a shot, is still strong enough to reach that nomination. But she can't do it without our help. For those of you in the Clinton camp who happen to live in the upcoming primary states, I urge you to get out and vote. We have seen the consequences of inexperienced leadership for the past seven years, and whilst I have great respect for Senator Obama, I do not believe he is the best positioned to enact change from the Oval Office. Hillary Clinton is the most experienced candidate, the one most likely to deliver change. You can even see it in the debates...Clinton usually wins the debates based on the merits of her arguments. Clinton offers more specific plans and proposals. Obama is a great speaker, to be true, and perhaps an even better speaker than Clinton. But his speeches are full of glittering generalities. I've had my fill of such generalities....

Obama has more legislative experience while both in Illinois and the US Senate. Being first lady is not experience. NEXT!

Well, it's not like he has a wealth of achievements to draw upon when speaking. Of course, I don't recall any shining accomplishments from Clinton, either. Not unless you count making the missing Rose Law Firm records appear from thin air.

ahem (http://www.obama08-wa.com/files/experience.pdf) and ahem (http://wizbangblue.com/2008/01/13/obamas-illinois-record-of-accomplishments-and-working-with-the-other-side.php)

He has many accomplishments in a short amount of time. This is if you take time to research. I knew we couldn't stay on the same side for too long Myrm :)

Clinton's edge slips with whites, women (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_voters)

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's crushing losses in Maryland and Virginia highlight an erosion in what had been solid advantages among women, whites and older and working-class voters.

While this week's results can be explained by those states' relatively large numbers of blacks and well-educated residents — who tend to be Barack Obama supporters — her presidential campaign could be doomed if the trends continue.

UH-OH!!

The whole thing is absurd. Seriously, she told those states, I don't give a flying monkey crap about you.

Incidentally, flying monkey crap would be a great name for a band.

Points for knowing the reference.

Clinton's edge slips with whites, women (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstories/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_voters)



UH-OH!!
See what happens when you don't campaign in a state or more or less abandon campaigning in a state? Even groups you can 'normally rely' on end up not voting for you. Which is another seemingly obvious reason why counting Florida's primary is a ridiculous notion.

I posted in the Super Tuesday thread about how Obama is drawing independents and moderates away from John McCain. He also holds a lead in this area when it comes to Hillary. Hate it or love it, Barack is the present and the future of the Democratic party. I remember saying when I was like 14 (wow, a while ago) that I thought a black man would be elected before a woman. Barack gives a large portion of our population a reason to look at themselves in a brighter light. This not "Messiah" Barack talk like some people wish it to be called. It's an admiration for a man who truly brings hope to this country. Barack is not perfect, but he is spearheading a movement for America. It really is bigger than him as he is known for saying. This is a shift in America and Barack is just the right person at the right time. After white, male, Christians (Barack is one too) for so many years we knew this day would come.

Well, if the mods said it wasn't racist, well, then it must be true. All glory to Mod.

Come on, stop beating around the bush. He's a ******. That's what you really mean. Have a backbone. It's sad how difficult it is for racists to simply stand up for what they believe.
Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact? (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/do_we_really_want_another_black)

I posted in the Super Tuesday thread about how Obama is drawing independents and moderates away from John McCain. He also holds a lead in this area when it comes to Hillary. Hate it or love it, Barack is the present and the future of the Democratic party. I remember saying when I was like 14 (wow, a while ago) that I thought a black man would be elected before a woman. Barack gives a large portion of our population a reason to look at themselves in a brighter light. This not "Messiah" Barack talk like some people wish it to be called. It's an admiration for a man who truly brings hope to this country. Barack is not perfect, but he is spearheading a movement for America. It really is bigger than him as he is known for saying. This is a shift in America and Barack is just the right person at the right time. After white, male, Christians (Barack is one too) for so many years we knew this day would come.

Clinton brings hope for me. I'm sure she has what it takes to be President, and I don't have that feeling about Senator Obama.

I like her policies, I trust her intelligence, but I also feel that it is time for America to have a female President. This time is her time.

Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact? (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/do_we_really_want_another_black)


The Onion for the win.

Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact? (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/do_we_really_want_another_black)

Nah, we just want to make sure we don't elect Morgan Freeman again, that's all.

Clinton brings hope for me. I'm sure she has what it takes to be President, and I don't have that feeling about Senator Obama.

I like her policies, I trust her intelligence, but I also feel that it is time for America to have a female President. This time is her time.

You're looking at this the wrong way. This whole nonsense over "Is America ready for a this or that" is ridiculous.

The year is 2008. This is the twenty-first century. We should not be concerned over anything but whether those who seek the position of leadership have the right qualities and the policies that we would support. Their religion, their skin colour, even their gender shouldn't matter.

That's why I don't look at this as a contest between a black man and a woman, but just two possible candidates. And in my mind, Senator Obama is the better candidate, due to his merits and policies.

For those Hilary supporters who believe that she is qualified because she answers questions more specifically, than thats pretty shaky ground. Senator Clinton has been avoiding questions that she finds hard to answer. She has avoided the immigration question time and time again and I believe she even told the mayor of New York to cut the illegal immigrants driver license issue because she had a hard time answering it in debates. Do we want a president who responds only to issues she has a strong policy on?

Clinton brings hope for me. I'm sure she has what it takes to be President, and I don't have that feeling about Senator Obama.

I like her policies, I trust her intelligence, but I also feel that it is time for America to have a female President. This time is her time.

This is fine by me as you are allowed to support who you wish. I believe Clinton brings hope for you because you are a woman as well. Once again, you are able to support who you want as this is the American way. Data from the the Potomac Primaries show that Barack not only won in a landslide, but captured an equal number of white voters and actually beat Hillary for women. The longer this goes on the better it is for Barack. There are people who will come out just to vote against Hillary. This trend is not so true for Obama. Hillary has some good policies, but many I do not like. Hillary and video games make me question her intelligence. She's too scripted and I don't believe she is an honest person in the least. I don't trust her with our future, as I've said before that experience as First Lady means nothing to me.

Barack has more legislative experience and has worked across party lines far more than Clinton. I've posted his experience on this thread so people may look for info there. His positions are very well laid out and can be heard in his speeches and at the debates. Right now polling experts are saying that Texas is not in Hillary's back pocket. She loses Texas and she can just pack up her stuff and go home to....New York? Arkansas? My last comment about why I don't like Hillary is how she puts on fake accents and affects when around certain groups of people. It's Just Fing insulting to their intelligence and ours. You want to win the election then show me who you are. I've seen through what Hillary is and I don't like it.

Do We Really Want Another Black President After The Events Of Deep Impact? (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/do_we_really_want_another_black)

Heh.

On another note, sucks to be the front runner (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/13/2008.hopefuls/index.html)...

So far it's the same generic crap that you see every campaign...

Meanwhile, Obama faced criticism from Clinton, who stepped up her campaigning Wednesday with fresh attacks of her own, directly challenging Obama's ability to deliver on his rhetoric.

"I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business," the senator said in McAllen, Texas. "It's not the questions. It's the answers. And the answers get right to the heart of who is ready on Day One to be the president and commander-in-chief of the United States."

and from McCain-
McCain later took aim directly at Obama for lacking specifics.

"I respect him and the campaign he has run," McCain said. "But there is going to be time when we have to get into specifics, and I have heard not every speech he has given obviously, but they are singularly lacking in specifics, and that's when as the campaign moves forward, we will be portraying very stark differences."

Those comments are among McCain's most pointed attack at Obama to date, a clear sign the Republican nominee apparent is increasingly viewing the Illinois senator as the Democratic front-runner.

It always relies on sound bite campaigning, that since in the thirty collective seconds of sound bites that ads and news reports have had there hasn't been a detailed point by point plan, the candidate has no concrete plans. But I, I have a detailed plan that I'm only going to allude to but you can read on my website. Of course, all of the candidates have websites and they outline specifics there, but shush...

I hate that nonsense.

This is kind of thin-
The Wisconsin contest picked up in intensity Wednesday when the Clinton camp launched a television ad criticizing Obama for not agreeing to debate in the state.

"Both Democratic candidates have been invited to a televised Wisconsin debate," an announcer says in the Clinton ad. "Hillary Clinton has said yes. Barack Obama hasn't. Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions."

Responding to the ad, Obama campaign manager David Axelrod said, "We've debated 18 times, we're going to debate two more, but we've got other business to do here in terms of meeting voters face to face."
She won't campaign there, just debate. That's sort of a wash, really. Of course he won't debate her in Wisconsin because she's not campaigning there otherwise so even if she 'loses' the debate she can come out better than she would if there was no debate. It's a little gamesmen like, but so is banking on two big states and ignoring the four other states that will have primaries at the same time or earlier.

Ultimately I'm a fan of more debates, but I don't necessarily like the way they're done. I'd like to see one where they are each given the same set of questions and interview separately with the time for a detailed response and follow ups, then after they are shown half of that time alloted to a response. It would take all day, really, and not be 'spectacular' but would be more substantial than "who can come up the the zinger" fest that we get.

Anyway, these next few weeks will be a good test of Obama as the front runner as it will give an indication of what the general election campaign will be like.

Clinton is the best for the job. She has certainly offered more detail than Obama. All Obama is bringing is charisma. He's riding a tide of disaffected people who are charmed by the things he says and how he says them. That is not a particularly great way to pick a President.

Do a little research. http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/

The Magical Cracker?

I LOLed. :)

Right off the talking points. Why don't you, you know, research a bit? Tell me what specifics you're looking for, and I'll drown you information directly from him. Ready?

Exactly so. The information is out there. (And point well taken earlier re insults and fear. ;))

Bill Clinton's campaign manager endorses Obama.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/13/former-bill-clinton-campaign-manager-endorses-obama/

Goddammit, see, here's the problem with having two threads going thats essentially the same conversation. I corrected my post here in the other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13449827&postcount=729) forgetting where I made the original statement.

Short version: Clinton is actually campaigning in Wisconsin for three days after some arguing in her camp that she can't just let the state landslide to Obama making her job in Ohio and Texas that much harder. For the long version, click the link.

ahem (http://www.obama08-wa.com/files/experience.pdf) and ahem (http://wizbangblue.com/2008/01/13/obamas-illinois-record-of-accomplishments-and-working-with-the-other-side.php)

He has many accomplishments in a short amount of time. This is if you take time to research. I knew we couldn't stay on the same side for too long Myrm :)
I see a lot of co-sponsorship in the US Senate. That's mostly a "me too" kind of leadership. It's not clear from either throat-clearing event that he was much of a leader in the Illinois Senate, either. Hope and Change aren't much to base an administration on.

Personally, I don't find Senators to be great leaders. Neither do most of us. That's probably why the last Senator to win a Presidential election did it in 1960.

Personally, I don't find Senators to be great leaders. Neither do most of us. That's probably why the last Senator to win a Presidential election did it in 1960.

this year a senator WILL win the presidency.

this year a senator WILL win the presidency.

Good point.

this year a senator WILL win the presidency.

*Hands Ashmoria some ice cream*

You know what to do.

this year a senator WILL win the presidency.
You have a real mastery of the obvious. Congratulations.

We have seen the consequences of inexperienced leadership for the past seven years

So vote for Mccain. He has a very long record of voting liberal. Not just 8 years in the senate on the coat tails of a husband, or four years in the senate with absolutly no record to speak of. :rolleyes:

You have a real mastery of the obvious. Congratulations.

thank you!

and yet it seemed to need saying eh?

So vote for Mccain. He has a very long record of voting liberal.

No. He doesn't. That is a lie.

No. He doesn't. That is a lie.

Let's see, he doesn't have much respect for the Constitution, as demonstrated by the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act.

He doesn't understand economics by his own admission.

He comes down on the side of illegal immigration.

Maybe he's not the Liberal that Obama is, but he's definitely not conservative, either. There aren't any conservatives left in the GOP. Just different shades of liberals.

Let's see, he doesn't have much respect for the Constitution, as demonstrated by the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act.

He doesn't understand economics by his own admission.

He comes down on the side of illegal immigration.

Maybe he's not the Liberal that Obama is, but he's definitely not conservative, either. There aren't any conservatives left in the GOP. Just different shades of liberals.

Where the hell have you been? In my lifetime conservative has meant deficit enlarging, corporate welfare hand-outs, regulating morality and the bedroom, christian fundamentalism, and being afraid of brown people.

No. He doesn't. That is a lie.

Ok. :rolleyes:

Where the hell have you been? In my lifetime conservative has meant deficit enlarging, corporate welfare hand-outs, regulating morality and the bedroom, christian fundamentalism, and being afraid of brown people.

In your lifetime? Ok, so for the last 15 years, they have been off track. THat is not what the party has been about for even my lifetime, mush less it's histpry.

In your lifetime? Ok, so for the last 15 years, they have been off track. THat is not what the party has been about for even my lifetime, mush less it's histpry.

I'm 26. What are you, 120? Look at Reagen for massive decifits, Mccarthy for massive civil rights violations, and corporate welfare since the 1800s when massive tariffs were put into place. When haven't they banned homosexuality, censored the media. The republicans have been courting the "fundies" since at least the 80s. I dont think I have go on about "Oh noes, the mexicans are taking over".

Goddammit, see, here's the problem with having two threads going thats essentially the same conversation. I corrected my post here in the other thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13449827&postcount=729) forgetting where I made the original statement.

Short version: Clinton is actually campaigning in Wisconsin for three days after some arguing in her camp that she can't just let the state landslide to Obama making her job in Ohio and Texas that much harder. For the long version, click the link.


You know what, you're really annoying me. You just flame and flame. It's not our problem if you can't read a damn thread title before you click "Submit Reply". Kindly tone down the drama in the future. Thank you.

You know what, you're really annoying me. You just flame and flame. It's not our problem if you can't read a damn thread title before you click "Submit Reply". Kindly tone down the drama in the future. Thank you.
I'm confused. How does this quote constitute flaming?

I'm confused. How this quote constitute flaming?

Sorry. He's been criticizing me for a while now, for creating "superfluous" threads on the same subject (the election). I just saw his latest complaint and became annoyed.

Sorry. He's been criticizing me for a while now, for creating "superfluous" threads on the same subject (the election). I just saw his latest complaint and became annoyed.

Okay. Never mind, then.

Sorry. He's been criticizing me for a while now, for creating "superfluous" threads on the same subject (the election). I just saw his latest complaint and became annoyed.

Dude, take a pill...not everything is about you. I've been vocal, as many posters have, about the excess of threads. I asked people once to boycott one of your threads because there were already active threads on the subject at the time. If this constitutes 'criticizing you for a while' then you have a low threshold. Sheesh.

Sorry. He's been criticizing me for a while now, for creating "superfluous" threads on the same subject (the election). I just saw his latest complaint and became annoyed.

So you made it up? Good. Then you're apology is forthcoming, yeah?

Let's see, he doesn't have much respect for the Constitution, as demonstrated by the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act.

He doesn't understand economics by his own admission.

He comes down on the side of illegal immigration.

Maybe he's not the Liberal that Obama is, but he's definitely not conservative, either. There aren't any conservatives left in the GOP. Just different shades of liberals.

Hehehehe. Uh-huh. Way to make a laughable argument to most of the world. The entirety of the US is conservative. Calling someone who is conservative even by US standard a liberal just proves you're not interested in reason. What's your bet I'm not the only one laughing at you?

Hehehehe. Uh-huh. Way to make a laughable argument to most of the world. The entirety of the US is conservative. Calling someone who is conservative even by US standard a liberal just proves you're not interested in reason. What's your bet I'm not the only one laughing at you?
Cenk is always laughing at conservatives.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=r4AYum9Z1Z0

You know what, you're really annoying me. You just flame and flame. It's not our problem if you can't read a damn thread title before you click "Submit Reply". Kindly tone down the drama in the future. Thank you.

It's not our fault your posts are extremely opinion-based. People continue to refute you and ask for evidence, and when they do, you mysteriously disappear from the thread or start a new one. Have a backbone, man. If you want to prove your point, the best way is to actually start providing evidence. Otherwise, people will just dismiss your ranting as rhetoric.

I'll track you across every Obama vs Clinton thread until you take a stand with real support. This isn't harassment, it's simply calling you on your mistakes. So unless you want people breathing down your neck, have at it.

Obama wins Democrats Abroad contest (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/obama-wins-democrats-abroad-contest/)

(CNN) — Barack Obama has won the Democrats Abroad Global Primary, according to the International Chair for the Democrats Abroad, Christine Marques.

Marques tells CNN the results of the week-long vote were:

Barack Obama – 65 percent, Hillary Clinton – 32 percent, with the rest of the candidates pulling in less than 1 percent of the vote each.

Obama took the overseas vote thus bringing his streak to 11 straight wins.

Where the hell have you been? In my lifetime conservative has meant deficit enlarging, corporate welfare hand-outs, regulating morality and the bedroom, christian fundamentalism, and being afraid of brown people.

Born yesterday, huh?

Obama wins Democrats Abroad contest (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/21/obama-wins-democrats-abroad-contest/)



Obama took the overseas vote thus bringing his streak to 11 straight wins.

What does that work out to, 9-10 delegates with half a vote each? Slight bump, I think the more important part is that these are not voters who were campaigned to as such but were left with an international impression of Obama that lead to a 33% loss for Clinton. Make of that what you will.

Born yesterday, huh?

Been in a cave for the last century, huh?

Hehehehe. Uh-huh. Way to make a laughable argument to most of the world. The entirety of the US is conservative. Calling someone who is conservative even by US standard a liberal just proves you're not interested in reason. What's your bet I'm not the only one laughing at you?
The way to work with those labels is to do two things. First, realize that we're talking American politics. Second, just call it American Liberalism. Why apply world standards where they don't belong?

And McCain may be a Republican, but he's not conservative. In addition to what I've already mentioned, don't forget that he voted for an energy tax bill that would have dramatically increased gas prices -- not a fiscally conservative move. He was also part of the "Gang of 14" that tried to block the attempts to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges. And there's more... He supports radical global warming legislation. And even more.. The NRA and other similar groups rate him as the worst 2nd Amendment candidate out there.

No, he may not be a World Liberal, but he's certainly in the running for the title of American Liberal.

The way to work with those labels is to do two things. First, realize that we're talking American politics. Second, just call it American Liberalism. Why apply world standards where they don't belong?

And McCain may be a Republican, but he's not conservative. In addition to what I've already mentioned, don't forget that he voted for an energy tax bill that would have dramatically increased gas prices -- not a fiscally conservative move. He was also part of the "Gang of 14" that tried to block the attempts to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges. And there's more... He supports radical global warming legislation. And even more.. The NRA and other similar groups rate him as the worst 2nd Amendment candidate out there.

No, he may not be a World Liberal, but he's certainly in the running for the title of American Liberal.


Jocabia's point still stands. McCain is conservative, even in this country. He's just not a neocon fascist.

The way to work with those labels is to do two things. First, realize that we're talking American politics. Second, just call it American Liberalism. Why apply world standards where they don't belong?

And McCain may be a Republican, but he's not conservative. In addition to what I've already mentioned, don't forget that he voted for an energy tax bill that would have dramatically increased gas prices -- not a fiscally conservative move. He was also part of the "Gang of 14" that tried to block the attempts to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges. And there's more... He supports radical global warming legislation. And even more.. The NRA and other similar groups rate him as the worst 2nd Amendment candidate out there.

No, he may not be a World Liberal, but he's certainly in the running for the title of American Liberal.

Can you make the first line of your posts "Eric, please, in an effort to protect your electronics, put down your soda!"

That would greatly help me.

Born yesterday, huh?

Seriously, can you start adding that line at the beginning of your posts? I like my computer.

Let's just go with my lifetime. I'm 33. Are you seriously suggesting that American conservatives haven't done everything on his list pretty consistently since I was born? Seriously?

Jocabia's point still stands. McCain is conservative, even in this country. He's just not a neocon fascist.
He just supports the nutso religious right.

He was also part of the "Gang of 14" that tried to block the attempts to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges.
By which you mean activist judges who are historical and constitutional revisionists? Good on McCain then.

Jocabia's point still stands. McCain is conservative, even in this country. He's just not a neocon fascist.
Prove it. Tell me what makes it so. Just because you two agree isn't enough.

Nothing I've listed is a trait that I would expect to see in a conservative politician. Especially the anti-constitutionalist parts...

Republican, sure, but they're mainly vote-whores just like almost every other Federal office-holder.

Seriously, can you start adding that line at the beginning of your posts? I like my computer.

Let's just go with my lifetime. I'm 33. Are you seriously suggesting that American conservatives haven't done everything on his list pretty consistently since I was born? Seriously?
I think you have made the common mistake of identifying Republicans as conservatives. That hasn't been the case for a very long time -- as a party. Barry Goldwater might have led the last real conservative Republican party, but we all know how that ended. It's quite ironic that both he and McCain represented the same state -- but so differently, and that both claimed to be conservative. The Christian wackos probably didn't get real traction until the '80s. I don't think you were voting then, so you probably wouldn't have been able to tell.

The Republican party may be the preferred party of most conservatives, but being a Republican isn't a necessary or sufficient condition for being a conservative.

American conservatives have consistently advocated smaller government and less government intrusion into individual affairs, as well as greater individual responsibility. As a party, the Libertarians might be the best fit for American Conservatives.

When it comes right down to it, both parties have been polluted by extremists -- too many religious wackos in the Republicans and too many MoveOn.org goofballs in the Democrats.

He just supports the nutso religious right.


By which you mean activist judges who are historical and constitutional revisionists? Good on McCain then.
Religious wackos aren't conservatives. Neither is McCain. They might be Republicans, though.

I think you have made the common mistake of identifying Republicans as conservatives.

That hasn't been the case for a very long time -- as a party. Barry Goldwater might have led the last real conservative Republican party, but we all know how that ended. It's quite ironic that both he and McCain represented the same state -- but so differently, and that both claimed to be conservative. The Christian wackos probably didn't get real traction until the '80s. I don't think you were voting then, so you probably wouldn't have been able to tell.

The Republican party may be the preferred party of most conservatives, but being a Republican isn't a necessary or sufficient condition for being a conservative.

American conservatives have consistently advocated smaller government and less government intrusion into individual affairs, as well as greater individual responsibility. As a party, the Libertarians might be the best fit for American Conservatives.

When it comes right down to it, both parties have been polluted by extremists -- too many religious wackos in the Republicans and too many MoveOn.org goofballs in the Democrats.

Ah, I see, so we're not talking about "American conservatives" anymore. Yeah, just keep flipping that around. By the true definition of conservative, Most of America is conservative. By the American definition, Republicans are conservatives. But, hey, you don't have to be consistant.

It would be nice if your posts were centered on reason, but reason wouldn't have you redefining our terms with every post.

Ok. :rolleyes:

It take more than an eyeroll to convert McCain from a hard-core conservative to a rampant liberal.

The man has a 82.3% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.

He has a high rating from the US Chamber of Commerce and an 83% rating from the Christian Coalition.

I'm not sure how you define conservative, but with the possible exception of a few stray issues, McCain undeniably fits the mold.

Abortion -- he's a conservative.
Gay rights -- he's a conservative
Budget & Economy - he's a conservative
Ten Commandments, creationism, & prayer in school - he's a conservative
Flag-burning - he's a conservative
Bankruptcy - he's a conservative
Crime & the death penalty -- he's a conservative
.....

Do I really need to go on and on? John McCain on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm)

The way to work with those labels is to do two things. First, realize that we're talking American politics. Second, just call it American Liberalism. Why apply world standards where they don't belong?

And McCain may be a Republican, but he's not conservative. In addition to what I've already mentioned, don't forget that he voted for an energy tax bill that would have dramatically increased gas prices -- not a fiscally conservative move. He was also part of the "Gang of 14" that tried to block the attempts to confirm conservative, strict constructionist judges. And there's more... He supports radical global warming legislation. And even more.. The NRA and other similar groups rate him as the worst 2nd Amendment candidate out there.

No, he may not be a World Liberal, but he's certainly in the running for the title of American Liberal.

Meh.

I don't know about the energy tax bill to which you are referring, so I can't comment.

McCain's participation in the Gang of 14 can hardly be fairly characterized as seeking to block conservative judges. To the contrary, it allowed several conservative judges to be approved instead of fillibustered. See wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14)

McCain is aware of global climate change as an issue, but his position is hardly radical. Apparently conservatives must bury their heads in the sand.

McCain has a solid pro-gun record on the Second Amendment an an ardent supporter of the NRA. His dispute with the NRA and similar groups comes from his position on campaign finance reform, not on guns.

McCain is nowhere near an American Liberal. The assertion is just silly.

Religious wackos aren't conservatives. Neither is McCain. They might be Republicans, though.

You appear to have a unique definition of conservative. Please define it for us.

You appear to have a unique definition of conservative. Please define it for us.

Come on, Cat, pay attention. See, when talking about liberals only the American definition matters. But when talking about conservatives, the American definition is tossed right out the window. What does the American Conservatives Union have to say about American Conservatives anyway, right?

By which you mean activist judges who are historical and constitutional revisionists?

I am afraid you have leftist judges like the ACLU chief momma confused with originalist nominated by Bush. but don't let you the facts get in the way of your bias.:)

You know, I am honestly puzzled by Republicans both here and elsewhere attacking John McCain. He's their only hope for a continued Republican control over the White House, so why are they attacking him?

You know, I am honestly puzzled by Republicans both here and elsewhere attacking John McCain. He's their only hope for a continued Republican control over the White House, so why are they attacking him?

He's not particularly likeable, really. Think about how many Dems disliked Kerry or Gore. They weren't particularly popular. It happens. I figure it bodes well, because I think McCain has become a bit of a loon.

He's not particularly likeable, really. Think about how many Dems disliked Kerry or Gore. They weren't particularly popular. It happens. I figure it bodes well, because I think McCain has become a bit of a loon.

I suppose, but you'd think that'd be all the more reason for them to NOT attack him, but to try to support him as much as possible.

But what do I know...I'm not a member of either party nor will I ever be, so maybe I'm just looking at this from the wrong perspective.

I am afraid you have leftist judges like the ACLU chief momma confused with originalist nominated by Bush. but don't let you the facts get in the way of your bias.:)



I find your lack of historical knowledge amussing.

Please stop trying to convince conservatives to vote for McCain


McCain is a hardcore pot smoking tree hugger


Obama is the one you want conservatives!

I am afraid you have leftist judges like the ACLU chief momma confused with originalist nominated by Bush. but don't let you the facts get in the way of your bias.:)

By "originalist[s]"you appear to mean those that prefer the 18th Century to this one.

Sorry, but some of us won't go back.

Please stop trying to convince conservatives to vote for McCain


McCain is a hardcore pot smoking tree hugger


Obama is the one you want conservatives!


Agreed.

I find your lack of historical knowledge amussing.

Is this ammusing?:fluffle: or is this just fluffling?

Religious wackos aren't conservatives. Neither is McCain. They might be Republicans, though.

Hmm, American Conservative Union rating of 83 liftime in 2005, which has grown to 88 since then. Yeah, he's not a conservative at all.

http://www.conservative.org/archive2/2008potus.asp

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain.htm

You know, I am honestly puzzled by Republicans both here and elsewhere attacking John McCain. He's their only hope for a continued Republican control over the White House, so why are they attacking him?
I couldn't say. I find the idea of bad leadership distasteful. We've been through 16 years of that already. Maybe 20. At least Obama will be inexperienced enough to be ineffective and Hilliary hated enough to be obstructed. I may just not vote.

I couldn't say. I find the idea of bad leadership distasteful. We've been through 16 years of that already. Maybe 20. At least Obama will be inexperienced enough to be ineffective and Hilliary hated enough to be obstructed. I may just not vote.

You count drastically increasing the deficit, get in bed with the "fundies", lets have the government regulate everything outside the boardroom Reagan as a good leader?

I couldn't say. I find the idea of bad leadership distasteful. We've been through 16 years of that already. Maybe 20. At least Obama will be inexperienced enough to be ineffective and Hilliary hated enough to be obstructed. I may just not vote.

Now don't get your panties in a bunch, but I have a question for you. Is it better to be experienced, or to be intelligent and have great leadership qualities? Try not ascribing these qualities to a particular candidate. Just think about it and tell me what you find to be more valuable.