NationStates Jolt Archive

No, I'm not wrong. Obviously, he's been asleep at every one of Wright's sermons (or he must believe the insane crap that Wright spews, or he would have in his own words "left the church").


Really? Because I was under the impression that Christians went to church for the community and the Pastor's religious insights, not to hear his social commentary...

Maybe he liked the community and liked Wright's take on scipture?

Yes, it's for show.


Prove it.



If he was pro-gun, he would court the NRA and have their endorsement.

Thats absurd. Maybe he doesnt court them because many of them are crazy rednecks? Or maybe he doesnt court them because they believe in an abscence of gun free zones, which he finds absurd and I would agree with him. Or maybe he doesnt court them because the NRA is nearly always against any sort of gun control legistlation, even if it is designed to make it harder for sociopaths to get guns?


Thats like saying that every Republican hates black people and are Christian dominionists who hate civil rights because they dont court the NAACP or the ACLU.

People aren't "clinging" to guns and religion because of their economic status.

Period.

They enjoy owning firearms, and enjoy believing in God because that's how they were raised.

They are also raised in the spirit of "rugged individualism" which runs counter to the beliefs of anyone who thinks that the government is here to hand out money.

Obama is upset because he can't buy the votes of gun owners and evangelicals by promising them federal money.


So the sociological trends that poorer communities have higher levels of religious adherance is pure coincidence?

Yes, it's for show. You can go to a church long term just for show.


And John McCain only goes to his church because he's running an illegal gambling and prostitution ring out of the basement. In fact, that's how he's funding his campaign.

See? We can both make things up and pretend we know the reasons the candidates go to their respective churches.

And John McCain only goes to his church because he's running an illegal gambling and prostitution ring out of the basement. In fact, that's how he's funding his campaign.

See? We can both make things up and pretend we know the reasons the candidates go to their respective churches.

Oh, so he stopped the cocaine smuggling part of the ring?

Oh, so he stopped the cocaine smuggling part of the ring?

Nah, I don't think so. He just stopped claiming it on his taxes.

Really? Because I was under the impression that Christians went to church for the community and the Pastor's religious insights, not to hear his social commentary...

Maybe he liked the community and liked Wright's take on scipture?



Obama said that if he actually heard Wright say any of the things he's said, he would quit the church. Obviously then, he's been deaf the whole time.

Prove it.

Just did, in the post just before this one.




Thats absurd. Maybe he doesnt court them because many of them are crazy rednecks?
It doesn't do well to piss them off - the 2nd Amendment is the third rail of American politics.


Or maybe he doesnt court them because they believe in an abscence of gun free zones, which he finds absurd and I would agree with him. Or maybe he doesnt court them because the NRA is nearly always against any sort of gun control legistlation, even if it is designed to make it harder for sociopaths to get guns?


Actually, you're lying here. The NRA is all for background checks, etc.. You really should read up before you post.

Thats like saying that every Republican hates black people and are Christian dominionists who hate civil rights because they dont court the NAACP or the ACLU.

Wow, that doesn't make any sense.

Obama said that if he actually heard Wright say any of the things he's said, he would quit the church. Obviously then, he's been deaf the whole time.

Because Wright would obviously repeat the same sermon over and over and over again as opposed to using his new status as the minister of a media sensation to make his views known?

You aren't nearly hot enough for your incoherences to be ignored.

It still doesn't work. Even if it were true that some of them were more liberal or union-friendly in happier times, it wouldn't even begin to justify Obama's theories. Remember that this isn't the first time Obama has used "bitterness" to explain opposition to him - in his "race speech," he used bitterness to explain white opposition to affirmative action and welfare, to the effect that white people:



...hence the opposition. Again, no acknowledgement that people might have their *own* reasons for having beliefs Obama doesn't agree with. That, of course, was describing white people generally, rather than the "white working class" he was referring to with his latest. It's a pattern, though, of tarring the opposition with the "bitter" label, and it works to some degree with Obama's catchphrases and buzzwords that paint him as the antedote to that bitterness. Just don't scrutinize it, or you'll see it fall apart. :p

Do you honestly think, from his words, that he was saying that bitterness meant opposition to him? I can't find anything in context that says roughly "These small town folks are so bitter that they won't vote for me." He was talking in general about the mindset of many of these voters. He wasn't determining that these "bitter" voters would vote for Hillary over him. He was describing the anger that is prevalent in these communities. He also highlighted the anger in the black and Latino communities. He's looking at the wounds and saying it's time to heal.

No, I'm not wrong. Obviously, he's been asleep at every one of Wright's sermons (or he must believe the insane crap that Wright spews, or he would have in his own words "left the church").

He stated that he does disagree with what the Pastor said when the whole flap occured. Ironicly enough, Bill Clinton had a photo taken with the same Reverend in question. I guess that means Bill Clinton believes in what the pastor says.

You're a complete idiot if you want to go down that road.

Yes, it's for show. You can go to a church long term just for show.

I take it back, you are a complete idiot. Please prove to us that him going to church has been a show. I would love to see this evidence.

If you read all of his stuff, he's pretty anti-gun. He sides with the District of Columbia in their current case at the Supreme Court (funny, nearly every constitutional law scholar is against him). He wants a national registration and a national roundup.

I agree with a national registration and please show me that he wants a national roundup and of what type of guns. Also, provide a link that he supports DC in the Current Supreme Court case.

If he was pro-gun, he would court the NRA and have their endorsement.

You really do not know that much about the NRA do you?

I particularly like this part:

Pennsylvania Governor Says Everything is Great, No Need for Change (http://www.bittervoters.org/2008/04/pennsylvania-government-says-e.html)

:D

So Ed Rendell likes Hillary. This means what exactly?

Just did, in the post just before this one.



He never said he never heard it, he says he didnt agree. Just saying ZOMG I PROVED IT!!!11! doesnt mean you did.

Besides, maybe he wasnt there tha day? Pasters dont repeated the same sermon every sunday, and we all know that most people will miss a sunday here or there.



It doesn't do well to piss them off - the 2nd Amendment is the third rail of American politics.

Disageeing with them pisses them off? Oh right, its the NRA.


Actually, you're lying here. The NRA is all for background checks, etc.. You really should read up before you post.

Yet at the same time they take stances against things designed to increase backround checks and want to abolish gun free zones.



Wow, that doesn't make any sense.

You said that Obama not courting the NRA means he is against gun ownership. How is that any different than me saying that because John McCain is not courting the ACLU he is anti-civil rights? If one doesnt make sense they both dont make sense.

So Ed Rendell likes Hillary. This means what exactly?

Rendell said there's no need for change. Goes to show just how retarded he is. Its a damn shame that this bimbo got elected twice.

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/



No amount of interpretation is going to change the meaning of Obama's statement here. He's already backed off, and admitted he didn't communicate his point very well (a youTube link to that is somplace around p. 10 here). Hopefully he really didn't mean it that way, but his 'clarification' isn't encouraging. He was selling his appeal to 'cynical' downscale white voters - this was his analysis of their opposition to him - it started with "here's how it is:" if you're reading along. Whether he's saying that that opposition stems from bitterness today or from the beginning or in the last 25 years is academic. The fact that none of those is true is more relevant.

I might add that the bolded bit of psychology is more than a bit patronizing no matter how you slice it.

It's a pattern with Obama to discredit the opposition as responding to simple bitterness - it would be nice if he would acknowledge that there might, might be an intellectual basis for supporting someone else. It would raise my opinion of him, at least.



I guessed that it was part of the context because it usually is with Democratic candidates. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, there - not that it was the context but that it might be part of it. The belief (by Democrats) that the Democratic Party represent the voter's self-interest isn't new.

CONTEXT GRANTED

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Obama actually uses this piece to say that these small, working class, communities are not limited to the sterotypes of bigotted people. He claims that other say that they just won't vote for the "Black Guy" and that is is UNTRUE.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

He is actually giving small town folks credit for moving beyond race based politics. Of course the media will focus on the negative here. But look at what he just said in that context. He's not talking about why they will hate him, but why they are easily swayed by Karl Rove type tactics.

It is the relevant context. What I linked to is the entirety of the summary he gave on the point. He's well beyond simply answering that question by that point, and goes on at some length.

What is interesting is that all anyone arguing against his statements can do is claim that it was a summary, rather than part of a larger comment, one that gives context to statements.

"No, please, please, don't look at the context. That's just gonna help him. Dammit, I don't really have a point unless you ignore all that and pretend like a tiny bit of his comments are all there is."

Sorry, I'm well-versed in what he said. You're not going to be able to scrub the context from my memory, no matter how many times you click those ruby red slippers.



That's Obama, 2.0:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=G6_mQ3h8lx0&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.slate.com/id/2188487/&iurl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/G6_mQ3h8lx0/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskLmi1OiOYI2tiTdVII-K1Dy

I'm talking about the comments I linked to, not his post-hoc reinterpretation.

Yes, and we're talking about his pre-hoc interpretation, where he demonstrates the context of his point. You know, all the bits you keep whining we're including like it's *gasp* context or something.


Our right to self-defense comes from common law. It's not in the constitution, and never needed to be. Self-defense is a valid legal defense in both civil and criminal court to this day. The right to revolution wasn't popular with the Supreme Court in any case. :p But this isn't about gun control.

And? What does that have to do with the 2nd Amendment? I was talking about the second amendment and you suggested the support for it is self-defense. Nice job trying to change the subject. I'd change it too if my claims were failing so badly.

Me: "And the biggest argument behind the second amendment IS a general lack of trust in the government."
You: "The right to self-defense is the argument I encounter most - in working-class PA, hunting might be more relevant."

Oops. There's that context again. Sorry that I keep treating context like it's relevant just because it is.



When the "they" he's talking about is millions of people, you're probably looking at a generalization, don't you think? :p But who knows, maybe he interviewed them all. I can't prove he didn't.

He is very specific about who is speaking to.

"So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government."

Hmmm... it's almost like he qualified his statements. But, golly, you sure don't want to look at the entirety of his comments. Why? Because if you do, your claims are shown to be dishonest.

Here's some other qualifications. "in a lot of these communities". Oops, he didn't say all. Oh, darn, there's that context proving how silly your claims are again. Stupid context making it impossible for you to twist his statements. Really annoying, huh?


I'm not sure where you got the idea I was interested in rehashing "Bush vs. Clinton" to begin with...

Edit: 2 a.m. is bedtime here - take care.

You were making some pretty sweeping generalizations and I just demonstrated how silly they are. I put them in context. I know how you hate that.

True views? I love your insinuation that this racist, Bushevik fundie fuck knows exactly what Obama is thinking. Or did you mean "True views that arent true at all but are words I put in his mouth to better fit my ultra neo con agenda"?


I shouldnt be suprised that we got this source from you though NM. You are the epitome of "fair and balanced", just like Fox News. :p

ROFLMAO

I usually ignore verbally incontinent anencephalics and let their ignorance speak for itself, but this one is just too much to resist.

This is undoubtedly the first time that Tammy Bruce, an openly gay, feminist Democrat has ever been referred to as a "racist, Bushevik fundie fuck".

You have just established a new benchmark for uninformed and foolish posting on NSG. Congratz, and keep up the good work.

And for the record: I have never claimed to be "fair and balanced."

I'm glad Obama said it. Sometimes the truth hurts but needs to be heard anyways. Besides, Obama has a history of saying unpopular things, even if it hurts him (although it seems to get him more support). It's lame to pussyfoot around important issues. I would think anyone who is against the PC way of delivering speeches would approve.

???????

Yes, since when to people readily admit to double standards? I really didn't get that guy.

ROFLMAO

I usually ignore verbally incontinent anencephalics and let their ignorance speak for itself, but this one is just too much to resist.

This is undoubtedly the first time that Tammy Bruce, an openly gay, feminist Democrat has ever been referred to as a "racist, Bushevik fundie fuck".

You have just established a new benchmark for uninformed and foolish posting on NSG. Congratz, and keep up the good work.

And for the record: I have never claimed to be "fair and balanced."

Meh, didnt really read your article. Just the part you quoted. Ok, so Ill redo that. Shes one of those people who supports Hillary just because they both have the same anatomy.


Youre one to talk about uninformed posts by the way pal.

CONTEXT GRANTED

<AND SNIPPED>


so if you look at the exerpt you posted you can see that the other campaigns went over it with a fine toothed comb and picked out the one part that was poorly worded. and they ran with it.

as they have to since otherwise both clinton and mccain would have to admit that their parties have done nothing for these people. mccain would have to admit that he is completely clueless as to how to help them.

so do the working class people who have been the economic losers of the past 25 years get more pissed at the guy who said one sketchy thing or the gal who denies their anger completely?

only the polls will tell.

HAHA! Hillary Got jeered in Pennsylvania (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/14/pennsylvania-crowd-jeers-clinton-attacks-on-obama/#more-6419)

HAHA! Hillary Got jeered in Pennsylvania (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/14/pennsylvania-crowd-jeers-clinton-attacks-on-obama/#more-6419)

wow those pittsburgh crowds are rough.

you know you have spent enough time campaigning in an area when just being there isnt enough any more--they want to hear about the issues.

wow those pittsburgh crowds are rough.

you know you have spent enough time campaigning in an area when just being there isnt enough any more--they want to hear about the issues.

Pretty much why her numbers are going down in this state.

Newsflash: in the Being Yelled At By Mods Because Of US Election-Related Flamebait poll, supporters of the two major parties are now neck-and-neck ...

Cool it, people. There are far too many "idiots", "liars" and suchlike being tossed around. Let's not let it get to the stage where someone gets tossed out.

Consider, when the race really starts, some of the remarks posters have made in the past few months will undoubtedly be dredged up here to use against their party's chosen candidate.

I usually ignore verbally incontinent anencephalics and let their ignorance speak for itself, but this one is just too much to resist.
New Mitanni, "babbling no-brainer" is still a flame no matter how much you dress it up in polysyllables. Cut it out.

Newsflash: in the Being Yelled At By Mods Because Of US Election-Related Flamebait poll, supporters of the two major parties are now neck-and-neck ...

Cool it, people. There are far too many "idiots", "liars" and suchlike being tossed around. Let's not let it get to the stage where someone gets tossed out.


New Mitanni, "babbling no-brainer" is still a flame no matter how much you dress it up in polysyllables. Cut it out.

Oh....can I do the tossing? I did a soccer game today and I really want to toss someone. Let me do the tossing please please oh please?

Oh....can I do the tossing? I did a soccer game today and I really want to toss someone. Let me do the tossing please please oh please?

Considering you suggested someone was a complete idiot and then in the post immediately following it, straight out called them a complete idiot, I think she's talking to you, as well.

You want to be called a tosser, Corny?

I'm far too polite to oblige.:p

And yes, I was talking to you. Among others. Several others. Just keep it moderately well-mannered, m'kay?

You want to be called a tosser, Corny?

I'm far too polite to oblige.:p

And yes, I was talking to you. Among others. Several others. Just keep it moderately well-mannered, m'kay?

You are not Ardchoille!:p

This is Ardchoille's gentle, reasonable, patient side. You don't see me often.

You want to be called a tosser, Corny?

I had the rep at Intramurals when I used to work there as the ejection official :D

And yes, I was talking to you. Among others. Several others. Just keep it moderately well-mannered, m'kay?

Roger that.

This is Ardchoille's gentle, reasonable, patient side. You don't see me often.

I figured. I was just being an ass:p

Drudge claims (http://drudgereport.com/flash1jm.htm) to have inside info that McCain wants to go up against Clinton.

Drudge claims (http://drudgereport.com/flash1jm.htm) to have inside info that McCain wants to go up against Clinton.

Course he does. Clinton would get her teeth kicked out. 40% of the electorate HATES her. Thats a garunteed 40% for McCain, or 40% that stay home, or somewhere in between. Either way, Clinton is starting from a hard position. Also, there is her consistant lying, McCain can just paint himself as a hero and honost guy. I can see it now...


"Hillary Clinton claims she faced sniper fire in Bosnia..." *cue clip of her walking peacefully and slowly to shake hands with Bosnian president*

"John McCain is a war hero who has faced real combat, and was a POW for 5 years."

"John McCain is both honost and a hero. Vote John McCain."


OR

Theyll just play the flip floper card on Hillary in regards to NAFTA and the Iraq War. She will be pwnt like stolen merchendise.

Drudge claims (http://drudgereport.com/flash1jm.htm) to have inside info that McCain wants to go up against Clinton.

I don't trust Drudge for shit, but this seemed interesting-
Instead, the critical focus has been on Barack Obama. McCain's official website features 14 press releases taking on Obama since the first of the year, only 3 for the former first lady..

By my count (http://johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/) I saw 11 about Obama and none about Clinton, but that was a casual count and I gave it up around January.

Course he does.

Up til this point, that's been conjecture.

Up til this point, that's been conjecture.

I'd argue that being from Drudge, it still is...

I'd argue that being from Drudge, it still is...

Hence the use of "claims". ;)

And in other news, Hillary faces a tough crowd and gets booed. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/14/pennsylvania-crowd-jeers-clinton-attacks-on-obama/)

Hence the use of "claims". ;)

And in other news, Hillary faces a tough crowd and gets booed. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/14/pennsylvania-crowd-jeers-clinton-attacks-on-obama/)

This is why I think that this won't have the big voter effect that all the punditry would make one believe.

Yes, and we're talking about his pre-hoc interpretation, where he demonstrates the context of his point. You know, all the bits you keep whining we're including like it's *gasp* context or something.


Okay, this is where you stopped making sense. If you think you understand the context and the meaning better than I do, that's fine. I can't prove you don't, especially since you've done nothing but make that assertion, and parrot Obama 2.0 as the explanation.

If anyone else is interested, I find that my favorite liberal scorekeeper has summed it up well here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2188487/#foursins

However, the entire affair is by now a part of the last news cycle, not the present one, which makes continuing with any analysis akin to beating a dead horse, if it wasn't already. So until the next one, I'm off to other things. :)

This is why I think that this won't have the big voter effect that all the punditry would make one believe.

Barack Obama--or as I will refer to him from now on, "BO"--has catastrophically misjudged the electorate, especially all those voters in "fly-over country" that Demo-snobs in Babylon by the Bay just love to look down on.

Prediction: Clinton wins Pennsylvania by double digits. Superdelegates continue moving to her camp. Neither has a lock by convention time.

Much like McDonalds, "I'm lovin' it!"

Okay, this is where you stopped making sense. If you think you understand the context and the meaning better than I do, that's fine. I can't prove you don't, especially since you've done nothing but make that assertion, and parrot Obama 2.0 as the explanation.

If anyone else is interested, I find that my favorite liberal scorekeeper has summed it up well here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2188487/#foursins

However, the entire affair is by now a part of the last news cycle, not the present one, which makes continuing with any analysis akin to beating a dead horse, if it wasn't already. So until the next one, I'm off to other things. :)

You keep saying that it's the post-hoc explanation I'm using, but I'm citing his words when he actually made the comments we're talking about. His words AT THE TIME showed that he was speaking specifically of certain areas, and that he was talking about how people vote, not why they believe. Again, I'm silly enough to actually have read EVERYTHING he said that day and the question he was answering.

It's okay. You can admit now, that prior to this thread you didn't even no what question he was asked. It's obvious based on your claims. It's not like you should educate yourself before speaking. I mean, McCain doesn't.

Barack Obama--or as I will refer to him from now on, "BO"--has catastrophically misjudged the electorate, especially all those voters in "fly-over country" that Demo-snobs in Babylon by the Bay just love to look down on.

Prediction: Clinton wins Pennsylvania by double digits. Superdelegates continue moving to her camp. Neither has a lock by convention time.

Much like McDonalds, "I'm lovin' it!"

So far, everything about the electorate suggests they disagree with you. Let's hope that he's right to treat the electorate like they're intelligent enough to understand what he's talking about rather than looking down his nose at the shaved apes like so many of his critics do. They, and you, are counting on people being too stupid to understand the context.

So far, everything about the electorate suggests they disagree with you. Let's hope that he's right to treat the electorate like they're intelligent enough to understand what he's talking about rather than looking down his nose at the shaved apes like so many of his critics do. They, and you, are counting on people being too stupid to understand the context.

It's hyperbolic gloating from a Kimchiteer Bushevik looking for 4 More Years in the form or either McCain or Hellary Clinthulhu. What more do you expect from him?

So far, everything about the electorate suggests they disagree with you. Let's hope that he's right to treat the electorate like they're intelligent enough to understand what he's talking about rather than looking down his nose at the shaved apes like so many of his critics do. They, and you, are counting on people being too stupid to understand the context.

To the contrary, the people in question fully understand the context. BO was speaking to arrogant San Francisco leftists in a gathering where he did not expect to be recorded, and where he felt comfortable expressing his true views to a presumably sympathetic audience. His flailing attempts to explain away the plain meaning of his statements only serve to further alienate the subjects of his condescension.

We shall see next Tuesday. I expect to be smiling when the votes are counted :D

To the contrary, the people in question fully understand the context. BO was speaking to arrogant San Francisco leftists in a gathering where he did not expect to be recorded, and where he felt comfortable expressing his true views to a presumably sympathetic audience. His flailing attempts to explain away the plain meaning of his statements only serve to further alienate the subjects of his condescension.

We shall see next Tuesday. I expect to be smiling when the votes are counted :D

It's funny how afraid of him the Bushies are. It's no wonder why.

As far as attempting to explain it, all one needs is the question he was asked. He was asked why people vote against their financial self-interest (referring to the so-called "values voters") and he answered. It was a good answer. An accurate answer. And the only way anyone has been able to show otherwise is by pretending the context of the statements don't exist.

But, hey, I accept that you're so afraid of him that you'll say anything to try and convince yourself it's just a boogeyman. Obama's comeing and PA is not going to stop him from defeating McCain in the general.

But, hey, I accept that you're so afraid of him that you'll say anything to try and convince yourself it's just a boogeyman. Obama's comeing and PA is not going to stop him from defeating McCain in the general.

"Afraid of him"?! ROFLMAO!!!

I say, bring it on! BO will crash and burn come November.

I'm saving this link so I can refer to it after the election. :p

It's hyperbolic gloating from a Kimchiteer Bushevik looking for 4 More Years in the form or either McCain or Hellary Clinthulhu. What more do you expect from him?

They're terrified of Obama and that's why all the antics with trying to get Hillary to be the nominee. He's praying every night that McCain doesn't get crushed by Obama, because he sees it coming and is hoping that if he closes his eyes REAL tight and ignores the heat of the sun on his back, that he can claim it's night.

We've experienced one of the worst presidents in recent history and the only reason the democratic nomination is going so long is because everyone realizes it is selecting the next president.

"Afraid of him"?! ROFLMAO!!!

I say, bring it on! BO will crash and burn come November.

I'm saving this link so I can refer to it after the election. :p

I hope you do. So what's the bet? I'm willing to bet on my prediction. Are you? I'll bet not. Cuz as much as you want to paint on the false bravado, you know the writing's on the wall.

By June, we'll know who the next president is and it will take a miracle for it not to be Obama. That's why so many of the Republicans are praying about it.

I hope you do. So what's the bet? I'm willing to bet on my prediction. Are you? I'll bet not. Cuz as much as you want to paint on the false bravado, you know the writing's on the wall.

By June, we'll know who the next president is and it will take a miracle for it not to be Obama. That's why so many of the Republicans are praying about it.

Okay, betting is open, I'll hold the money.

Barack Obama--or as I will refer to him from now on, "BO"--has catastrophically misjudged the electorate, especially all those voters in "fly-over country" that Demo-snobs in Babylon by the Bay just love to look down on.

Funny enough that he has won many of those fly over states.

Prediction: Clinton wins Pennsylvania by double digits. Superdelegates continue moving to her camp. Neither has a lock by convention time.

More superdelegates will be going to Obama and he'll gain the nomination because there really is no way for Hillary to overcome his lead in both pledged and popular vote short of mass blowout.

By June, we'll know who the next president is and it will take a miracle for it not to be Obama. That's why so many of the Republicans are praying about it.

A miracle comes from God. The word you're looking for here is "catastrophe".

But, unfortunately for Mitanni and all of those who want to see more pain, more hurt and more bloodshed, Good will triumph, and McCain will lose.

Funny enough that he has won many of those fly over states.
Exactly what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

Prediction: ... Superdelegates continue moving to her camp.

your prediction is inherently impossible, as you cannot 'continue' something that isn't already happening

Exactly what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

That Obama is almost certainly going to be the next president and definitely going to be the next nominee.

Funny enough that he has won many of those fly over states.

Actually, he's won Democrat primaries/caucuses in those fly over states. Not the same thing.


More superdelegates will be going to Obama and he'll gain the nomination because there really is no way for Hillary to overcome his lead in both pledged and popular vote short of mass blowout.

If BO keeps on making "bitter" remarks, "friendly" William Ayers keeps defending his terrorist activity, Jeremiah Wright continues with his racist Americaphobic blasts, he has a good chance of giving back that lead.

And as far as leads in "popular votes", there is no reason to slavishly follow the lead of small number of partisans and emotionally driven voters who lined up behind an unvetted, unproven, slick-talking empty suit before the truth started to come out.

The whole reason for superdelegates was to correct early primary mistakes and prevent another McGovern. BO may turn out to be George II.

Actually, he's won Democrat primaries/caucuses in those fly over states. Not the same thing.




If BO keeps on making "bitter" remarks, "friendly" William Ayers keeps defending his terrorist activity, Jeremiah Wright continues with his racist Americaphobic blasts, he has a good chance of giving back that lead.

And as far as leads in "popular votes", there is no reason to slavishly follow the lead of small number of partisans and emotionally driven voters who lined up behind an unvetted, unproven, slick-talking empty suit before the truth started to come out.

The whole reason for superdelegates was to correct early primary mistakes and prevent another McGovern. BO may turn out to be George II.

So terrified. You'll pull anything. Maybe you should mention his middle name is Hussein. I'm certain that's relevant.

Psst... did you know Obama is black? You forgot to call him the magical negro.

I don't really think Obama is heavy favorite over McCain at this point. The Dems are already starting to repeat their mistakes from 2004 (focusing on Bush, coming off as out of touch).

I hope you do. So what's the bet? I'm willing to bet on my prediction. Are you? I'll bet not.

How little you know. But I'm not surprised.

Game on, pal. Name your bet.

Cuz as much as you want to paint on the false bravado, you know the writing's on the wall.

"Measured, measured, weighed, divided." BO is even now being measured and clearly falls short of Presidential stature, experience and competence. Wright, Ayers and "bitter" (WAB) are going to weigh him down all the way to November, assuming he makes it past the DemCon. And WAB have certainly created division in this country.

The writing on the wall isn't referring to McCain.

By June, we'll know who the next president is and it will take a miracle for it not to be Obama. That's why so many of the Republicans are praying about it.

Get ready to watch the Blue Sea part come November. :p

So terrified. You'll pull anything. Maybe you should mention his middle name is Hussein. I'm certain that's relevant.

I'd say you're whistling past the graveyard :p

Psst... did you know Obama is black? You forgot to call him the magical negro.

The actual term as used in the LA Times is "Magic Negro". And the magic is clearly wearing off, leaving nothing but a bad smell. Hence, "BO."

How little you know. But I'm not surprised.

Game on, pal. Name your bet.

How about a grand? And, yes, I'm quite serious.

The amusing part is that you can't claim odds here or back down without admitting you're full of crap.


"Measured, measured, weighed, divided." BO is even now being measured and clearly falls short of Presidential stature, experience and competence. Wright, Ayers and "bitter" (WAB) are going to weigh him down all the way to November, assuming he makes it past the DemCon. And WAB have certainly created division in this country.

The writing on the wall isn't referring to McCain.

You'd have a point if there was any evidence it was affecting the outcome at all. But there isn't? Obama's presence in the polls has been relatively consistant. Wright barely affected him. Ayers didn't affect him at all. The "bitter" comments haven't affected him. It seems that some of the neocons desperately want to pretend it did, however, because they know that other than out of context quotes and weak attempts at guilt by association, Obama has shown no weaknesses. The Republican spin machine is desperate and that's why they're all privately praying that Hillary wins.

Get ready to watch the Blue Sea part come November. :p

Okay, now that's a different claim altogether. I'll put 10 grand on it not being a blowout. And, again, I'm quite serious.

I'd say you're whistling past the graveyard :p



The actual term as used in the LA Times is "Magic Negro". And the magic is clearly wearing off, leaving nothing but a bad smell. Hence, "BO."

Like I said, the fact that you have to use such weak attacks is quite good evidence against your claims. You can't focus on issues. If you did, you'd lose, so you have to use childish attacks on his name, on his color, and not a reference to how his initials are "BO". Is adult debate asking too much or is it just that you know your candidate doesn't stand up to reasoned debate?

Actually, he's won Democrat primaries/caucuses in those fly over states. Not the same thing.




If BO keeps on making "bitter" remarks, "friendly" William Ayers keeps defending his terrorist activity, Jeremiah Wright continues with his racist Americaphobic blasts, he has a good chance of giving back that lead.

And as far as leads in "popular votes", there is no reason to slavishly follow the lead of small number of partisans and emotionally driven voters who lined up behind an unvetted, unproven, slick-talking empty suit before the truth started to come out.

The whole reason for superdelegates was to correct early primary mistakes and prevent another McGovern. BO may turn out to be George II.

Christ, if you're going to drivel, at least get the history right you're trying to mangle to make a point. It was George III, not George II.

The polls (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13612054&postcount=78) are out on the effect of the 'bitter' statement...I don't want to post twice, so you'll have to read my other one.

Christ, if you're going to drivel, at least get the history right you're trying to mangle to make a point. It was George III, not George II.

BUT HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN. HUSSEIN!!! DON'T YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING?!?! *runs around waving hands wildly in the air*

The polls (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13612054&postcount=78) are out on the effect of the 'bitter' statement...I don't want to post twice, so you'll have to read my other one.

I saw it. Only two polls have it making a negative impact and the largest poll available in PA has it as being exactly the same as before. It's also been the most consistent poll, unlike SurveryUSA and the like.

If BO keeps on making "bitter" remarks, "friendly" William Ayers keeps defending his terrorist activity, Jeremiah Wright continues with his racist Americaphobic blasts, he has a good chance of giving back that lead.


Nobody really gives a damn about Wright, William Ayers really has nothing to do with Obama or his campaign (and I'm sure he'll "reject and denounce" his support if asked about it.) and many of us consider this statement by him to be more or less true, and we just see the Republicans trying to twist his words into an insult in order to make people angry. And I don't think it's going to work anymore.

Christ, if you're going to drivel, at least get the history right you're trying to mangle to make a point. It was George III, not George II.

He's talking about George McGovern, not King George. If you're going to flame a poster, at least understand what he's saying.

Jeremiah Wright continues with his racist Americaphobic blasts

a challenger approaches!

show me this racism, please.

How about a grand? And, yes, I'm quite serious.

The amusing part is that you can't claim odds here or back down without admitting you're full of crap.

Make it a case of beer and you've got a bet. Oh, and the loser posts an admission that he was wrong and congratulates the winner, and the winner's candidate.

Make it a case of beer and you've got a bet. Oh, and the loser posts an admission that he was wrong and congratulates the winner, and the winner's candidate.

You'd rather have a case of beer than a thousand dollars?

Like I said, the fact that you have to use such weak attacks is quite good evidence against your claims. You can't focus on issues.

Been there, done that, long ago. But if you want an example: the US needs a wartime President. BO couldn't carry John McCain's briefcase when it comes to any national security issue, let alone leadership during war.

If you did, you'd lose, so you have to use childish attacks on his name, on his color, and not a reference to how his initials are "BO". Is adult debate asking too much or is it just that you know your candidate doesn't stand up to reasoned debate?

My candidate will the the one left standing after any debate they may have.

I saw it. Only two polls have it making a negative impact and the largest poll available in PA has it as being exactly the same as before. It's also been the most consistent poll, unlike SurveryUSA and the like.

Well, it's a little misleading to say 'only two' when there were three new polls...but SurveyUSA went down, actually, even though their release article didn't mention it.

Snip.

Mitanni, you have demonstrated time and again that you want another four years of Republican stench pervading the White House.

Why should the Democrats trust YOU not to want their ruin so you can have four more years of a murderer in the White House, and more pain and blood?

Which is, incidentally, what they would get were they to screw over the will of the people.

*runs around waving hands wildly in the air*

I propose we all stop listening to Mit's incoherences and start doing that.

Wheeeeeeee!

You'd rather have a case of beer than a thousand dollars?

He's a Republican.

And no, don't try to tell him he can buy beer with a thousand dollars.

He's talking about George McGovern, not King George. If you're going to flame a poster, at least understand what he's saying.

That wasn't made clear, but point taken.

Actually, he's won Democrat primaries/caucuses in those fly over states. Not the same thing.

It does defeat your premise though. And yes. In this case it is the samething.

If BO keeps on making "bitter" remarks, "friendly" William Ayers keeps defending his terrorist activity,

What terrorist activity?

Jeremiah Wright continues with his racist Americaphobic blasts, he has a good chance of giving back that lead.

Considering you basically ignored all context of the comments made, especially on Wright since apparently it didn't even hurt him at all...yea right :rolleyes:

And as far as leads in "popular votes", there is no reason to slavishly follow the lead of small number of partisans and emotionally driven voters who lined up behind an unvetted, unproven, slick-talking empty suit before the truth started to come out.

Goes to show you really haven't done no research on the man.

The whole reason for superdelegates was to correct early primary mistakes and prevent another McGovern. BO may turn out to be George II.

You're an idiot if you want to continue down that road.

What terrorist activity?
While the way Mitanni wrote it is confusing, he's referring to Bill Ayers's involvement in the Weathermen and New Left.

Mitanni, you have demonstrated time and again that you want another four years of Republican stench pervading the White House.

Why should the Democrats trust YOU not to want their ruin so you can have four more years of a murderer in the White House, and more pain and blood?

Which is, incidentally, what they would get were they to screw over the will of the people.

Simple motivation for New Mitanni really. Think of him as an evil version of the cows from the Chick-Fil-A commercials.

1) Reepublikan Prezidunt = Kontinood War on Terra
2) Kontinood War on Terra = Mor Ded Ebil Moslemz
3) Tharfor, Mor Reepublikan Prezidunt

Except that it's one paper. Apparently, if we weren't talking about whether or not people who have lost their job and buying power for the little money they do have are bitter, we'd be stretching even further to be yakking about a paper his father wrote a long, long time ago about Kenya.

According to one account- (http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html)
Now if we fill in the missing information we have now learned about Barack Obama the elder -- that he held uncompromising socialist and anti-Western views in line with Kenyatta's principle political rival Oginga Odinga -- we can understand why he had conflicts of "principle" with Kenyatta and government.
Oh my god, it's worse than we thought, he's not a Muslim, he's a communist...or at least his dad is. Was. Kinda.

But wait- (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html)
But Kenya expert Dr. Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, said Obama Sr. could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece.

Omwami points out Obama Sr.'s paper was primarily a harsh critique of the controversial 1965 government document known as the "Sessional Paper No. 10." Sessional Paper No. 10 rejected classic Karl Marx philosophies then embraced by the Soviet Union and some European countries, calling instead for a new type of socialism to be used specifically in Africa.


On one hand-
Obama stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:

1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)

2. Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)

3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)

4. Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of "African Socialism" negatively with the well-defined ideology of "scientific socialism", i.e. communism. Obama views "African Socialism" pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only "a little" from the capitalist system. (p. 26)

5. Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. " (pp. 29-30)

6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)

7. Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)

8. Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a "non-aligned" status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China. (p. 26)

On the other hand-
The government paper rejected materialism (i.e., "conspicuous consumerism"), outlined the nation's goals to eradicate poverty, illiteracy and disease, and also laid out important decrees regarding land use for economic development. Obama Sr.'s response covers these issues, frequently focusing on the distribution of real estate to farmers. Since most Kenyans could not afford farmland in line with market forces established earlier by white British farmers, Obama Sr. argued that strong development planning should better define common farming space to maximize productivity, and should defer to tribal traditions instead of hastening individual land ownership.

In other words, Obama Sr.'s paper was not a cry for acceptance of radical politics, but was instead a critique of a government policy by Kenya's Ministry of Economic Planning & Development, which applied African socialism principles to the country's ongoing political upheaval.

Why the difference? Well, certainly one is less sensational...and that cat continues-
"The critics of this article are making a big mistake," says Omwami, who read the document and the associated internet debate at the request of Politico over the weekend. "They are assuming Obama Sr. is the one who came up with this concept of African socialism, but that's totally wrong. Based on that, they're imbuing in him the idea that he himself is a socialist, but he is not."

Omwami says he'd instead refer to Obama Sr. as "a liberal person who believed in market forces, but understood its limitations."
...
"If you understand the Kenyan context, you can clearly see in that paper that Obama Sr. was quite a sharp mind," concluded Omwami. "He addresses economic growth and other areas of development, and his critique is that policymakers in Kenya were overemphasizing economic growth. We had high economic growth for years, but never solved the problems of poverty, unemployment and unequal income distribution. And those problems are still there."

Obama Sr.'s projections and critiques are so spot on, says Omwami, that he plans on assigning the paper to his classes in the future.

Clearly this is a blow to Obama. His father was able to accurately describe the landscape of post colonial Kenya and give a fairly accurate prediction of what would happen on its present course. The horror, THE HORROR!!!

Been there, done that, long ago. But if you want an example: the US needs a wartime President. BO couldn't carry John McCain's briefcase when it comes to any national security issue, let alone leadership during war.

Yes, it's much better to have a president who can't keep the combatants straight and who got soundly defeated by a challenger who not only had not wartime experience, but avoided the war relatively obviously. The US needs a President who takes the war seriously enough to understand who's involved.

My candidate will the the one left standing after any debate they may have.
Oh? I actually like McCain, but I saw him debate. He's thoroughly confused and all evidence suggests it's getting worse. At the current rate, seeing him try to string together a series of comments that aren't scripted should be hilarious.

He hasn't just lost a step since 2000. He's lost his ability to step.

Oh? I actually like McCain, but I saw him debate. He's thoroughly confused and all evidence suggests it's getting worse. At the current rate, seeing him try to string together a series of comments that aren't scripted should be hilarious.


While I haven't seen McCain debate extensively, the same criticism of Bush Jr. only increased the perceived "elitism" of the Dems.

Make it a case of beer and you've got a bet. Oh, and the loser posts an admission that he was wrong and congratulates the winner, and the winner's candidate.

A case of beer? Such confidence in your candidate, you have. No, I've got a better bet. You have to donate 1000 dollars to the Muslim church of my choosing upon losing.

What's the danger of making the bet? I mean, didn't you say McCain's win is guaranteed? One thousand dollars to the Mosque of my choosing. Come on, I mean, you can't lose, right? Right?

Simple motivation for New Mitanni really. Think of him as an evil version of the cows from the Chick-Fil-A commercials.

1) Reepublikan Prezidunt = Kontinood War on Terra
2) Kontinood War on Terra = Mor Ded Ebil Moslemz
3) Tharfor, Mor Reepublikan Prezidunt

I got the point, but not the reference.

I got the point, but not the reference.

The recurring theme on the commercials are cows who want to promote the eating of chicken over beef. They're also terrible spellers and write things like "Eet Mor Chikin". I picked that reference to point out NM's herd mentality and simplistic outlook reflected in similar spelling.

While I haven't seen McCain debate extensively, the same criticism of Bush Jr. only increased the perceived "elitism" of the Dems.

Bush came off as nervous, not clueless. That was part of what hurt the dems. They tried to turn his rather ordinary ability at speaking into stupidity and it hurt them. Bush wasn't saying things that were wrong, he was just misspeaking, using words improperly and such.

McCain listened a moderator read words by Mitt that said he would absolutely not to create a situation where the combatants in Iraq could "hide in the weeds until we leave" and McCain said that was evidence that Mitt wanted a timeline. There truly is evidence that McCain is becoming senile and the pressure of the campaign seems to increase the effects. They aren't going to paint McCain as stupid. They're going to draw a comparison between the McCain of 2000 and the McCain of today.

Bush wasn't senile. Bush is actually pretty savvy. He just struggles a bit with language. (Read: My 10-year-old nephew is a better speaker than Bush.)

If you compare McCain 10 years ago to today, it's very obvious this isn't about McCain's ability to speak. He should have been the candidate in 2000. He would have eaten Kerry an Gore alive. But he's not that candidate anymore. This is about his mental state.

Wright, Ayers and "bitter" (WAB) are going to weigh him down all the way to November



I said it before and Ill say it again. This is what will happen.


Republican stooges will play the Wright comments, which by then will be such old news that it will have even less of an effect than it did when it broke (which was virtually none).


Then, the Dems will play John McCain's infamous "100 years in Iraq" comment.

Which do you think will bother the American people more. Again, there is a right answer here.


McCain will get crushed like a worm in November. And I want to hear what Mosque you end up donating that grand to.

My boss is a Republican with a clue

He was ranting about how the Repubs have such little support that he knows that no matter who is the democratic nominee, they will will against McCain.

This is about his mental state.

Let's hope it takes a turn to the worse then.

Let's hope it takes a turn to the worse then.

:rolleyes:

This is just as bad as hoping something bad will happen to either of the leading Democratic Nominees.

:rolleyes:

This is just as bad as hoping something bad will happen to either of the leading Democratic Nominees.

I see it as more of a strategic wish really:

If McCain doesn't get elected, fewer people die.

Funny enough that he has won many of those fly over states.

Exactly what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

That Obama is almost certainly going to be the next president and definitely going to be the next nominee.
Primary/caucus votes = general election votes?

The polls in various states are suggesting that Obama will crash and burn against McCain.

Obama will need to win a lot of those "fly over states" (mostly red states), since he stands to lose those 21 ECV in Pennsylvania.

Obama will need to win a lot of those "fly over states" (mostly red states), since he stands to lose those 21 ECV in Pennsylvania.

That's hardly a foregone conclusion. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_mccain_vs_obama-244.html)

You do know that the upcoming vote is the primary and not the general, yes?

Primary/caucus votes = general election votes?

The polls in various states are suggesting that Obama will crash and burn against McCain.

Obama will need to win a lot of those "fly over states" (mostly red states), since he stands to lose those 21 ECV in Pennsylvania.

So: First you argue that Clinton will do well in states because she won the primaries/caucauses, then you say primary/caucauses don't matter, then you rail against the inaccuracy of polls months before the election while pointing them out as "proof."

:confused:

Being a from a small town where people vote against its economic interests on a regular basis and an Obama suppoter I just ordered this shit.

http://www.cafepress.com/bittervoters.254728226


It makes me smile.

So: First you argue that Clinton will do well in states because she won the primaries/caucauses, then you say primary/caucauses don't matter, then you rail against the inaccuracy of polls months before the election while pointing them out as "proof."

:confused:

did you not notice him preemptively chanting the magical incantation in his proper wizard attire?

unfuckingtouchable

Being a from a small town where people vote against its economic interests on a regular basis and an Obama suppoter I just ordered this shit.

http://www.cafepress.com/bittervoters.254728226


It makes me smile.

That's stupid - lemons are sour, not bitter. ;)

That's stupid - lemons are sour, not bitter. ;)

Some are bitter.

I think.

Does it MATTER?

Being a from a small town where people vote against its economic interests on a regular basis and an Obama suppoter I just ordered this shit.

http://www.cafepress.com/bittervoters.254728226


It makes me smile.
however, this one makes more sense!! :D

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/hillary+clinton/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_27302047/opt_/fpt_/c_666/

however, this one makes more sense!! :D

http://www.cafepress.com/buy/hillary+clinton/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_27302047/opt_/fpt_/c_666/

:rolleyes:

Yes, since when to people readily admit to double standards? I really didn't get that guy.

Ruffy is a different type of character.

Some are bitter.

I think.

Does it MATTER?

Yes. T-shirt design is serious business. :p

Really though, sour and bitter are completely different. I've never tasted a bitter lemon. Maybe if you injected it with something bitter...

Primary/caucus votes = general election votes?

So wins in California and New York and Ohio means nothing to you now?

The polls in various states are suggesting that Obama will crash and burn against McCain.

You do realize that there is no democratic nominee right?

Obama will need to win a lot of those "fly over states" (mostly red states), since he stands to lose those 21 ECV in Pennsylvania.

:headbang:

You really are out of touch aren't you? RCP average has Obama up in PA over McCain. Same with Clinton.

Being a from a small town where people vote against its economic interests on a regular basis and an Obama suppoter I just ordered this shit.

http://www.cafepress.com/bittervoters.254728226


It makes me smile.

HAHA!!! That's funny.

so if you look at the exerpt you posted you can see that the other campaigns went over it with a fine toothed comb and picked out the one part that was poorly worded. and they ran with it.

as they have to since otherwise both clinton and mccain would have to admit that their parties have done nothing for these people. mccain would have to admit that he is completely clueless as to how to help them.

so do the working class people who have been the economic losers of the past 25 years get more pissed at the guy who said one sketchy thing or the gal who denies their anger completely?

only the polls will tell.

Polls on CNN tonight show a differential of 5 between them in PA. Gallup tracking up 1 to 11% These are the first numbers really after the "scandal."

So wins in California and New York and Ohio means nothing to you now?



This is the best part too. The idea that California and New York will go red is just as valid as the idea that Texas will go blue. That is, it isnt a good arguement.


Hillary can talk all she wants about winning them in the primary. But come general election time, they will go blue no matter what.

This is the best part too. The idea that California and New York will go red is just as valid as the idea that Texas will go blue. That is, it isnt a good arguement.


Hillary can talk all she wants about winning them in the primary. But come general election time, they will go blue no matter what.

It's a pretty stupid argument she's making. But there are still people who will hear her and cheer.

True views? I love your insinuation that this racist, Bushevik fundie fuck knows exactly what Obama is thinking. Or did you mean "True views that arent true at all but are words I put in his mouth to better fit my ultra neo con agenda"?


I shouldnt be suprised that we got this source from you though NM. You are the epitome of "fair and balanced", just like Fox News. :p

ROFLMAO

I usually ignore verbally incontinent anencephalics and let their ignorance speak for itself, but this one is just too much to resist.

This is undoubtedly the first time that Tammy Bruce, an openly gay, feminist Democrat has ever been referred to as a "racist, Bushevik fundie fuck".

You have just established a new benchmark for uninformed and foolish posting on NSG. Congratz, and keep up the good work.

And for the record: I have never claimed to be "fair and balanced."
It would appear that Tammy Bruce was far more lenient than one of the respondents to her post?

Subject: My State's As Red As My Neck
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:02:32 -0400

My hands is so sore from draggin’ my knuckles that I caint rightly hold onta my scripture book or my shootin’ arn and I caint neither get my hood over my head. And I’m a bitter one I is. Please Mr. College Man tell me what I needz to do. I knowz now cuz a you tellin’ me that the Govmint is my one true Savior. You’re an audacious hopin’ man so I’ll stop takin’ care of my own life and I’ll hand them reins over to y’all in Warshington cuz y’all know what’s better for us than we does ourselves. You kin be the arkyteck of my life and I’ll just be settin’ here out by the cement pond a waitin’ fer all them Govmint checks. They all’ll know me, I’m the one what’s got more elbows than teeth. Thank y’all.

P.S. Gomer and Goober say Hey
Funny but sad? None of this is good for America?

So wins in California and New York and Ohio means nothing to you now?
Do you think that primary/caucus votes = general election votes?

You do realize that there is no democratic nominee right?
No shit Sherlock!! You do realize my point?

:headbang:

You really are out of touch aren't you? RCP average has Obama up in PA over McCain. Same with Clinton.
Me, out of touch? Au contraire mon frere. Obama is a shade over 0% against McCain in PA. Hillary certainly has polled much better than Obama against McCain in your State.

Quit banging your head. It will feel much better when you stop!! :p

ROFLMAO

I usually ignore verbally incontinent anencephalics and let their ignorance speak for itself, but this one is just too much to resist.

This is undoubtedly the first time that Tammy Bruce, an openly gay, feminist Democrat has ever been referred to as a "racist, Bushevik fundie fuck".

You have just established a new benchmark for uninformed and foolish posting on NSG. Congratz, and keep up the good work.


I think it may well not be the first time Tammy Bruce has been referred to in these sort of terms. She certainly is gay and feminist. She is also a self-proclaimed Democrat. However she voted for Reagan, hated Clinton and voted for Bush (Bushevik). The opinions she espouses are generally pretty right wing. Most of her work has been based around attacks on the left. She often seems fairly fair gone in terms of foaming at the mouth, which I assume is the inspiration for "fundie"


The racist tag I'm assuming to this event in her history:

http://www.now.org/press/12-95/tbpi.html

Or possibly the racially insensitive remarks made on KFI about Bill Crosby's wife after the death of their son.

I'm not sure if I can explain the final epithet, and wouldn't like to try.

Gay and feminist doesn't always guarantee left wing. Who knew?

Primary/caucus votes = general election votes?

Primary votes are primary votes. I realize that Hillary wants to make it so primary votes are not a factor in picking the nominee, but the fact is that the primary votes are going to make him the nominee or did you miss that part of my post?

I hold, as do many of the polls, that the democratic nominee will likely win. They mean that Obama will win the nominee. Or do you not know how that works?


The polls in various states are suggesting that Obama will crash and burn against McCain.

Obama will need to win a lot of those "fly over states" (mostly red states), since he stands to lose those 21 ECV in Pennsylvania.

Uh-huh. Even in the midst of a battle where Obama is being beat up by two candidates and half of his own party, Obama is fairing well against McCain and beating him in PA. But, hey, why worry about evidence? Just pick out a random poll that agrees with you so we can all have a laugh.

A case of beer? Such confidence in your candidate, you have. No, I've got a better bet. You have to donate 1000 dollars to the Muslim church of my choosing upon losing.

What's the danger of making the bet? I mean, didn't you say McCain's win is guaranteed? One thousand dollars to the Mosque of my choosing. Come on, I mean, you can't lose, right? Right?

Not a single dollar of mine will go directly to any Moslem for any reason, not even in theory.

And I never said I "can't lose." If McCain were 100% sure of winning, it wouldn't be betting, it would be stealing, and you would be a chump for agreeing to the bet. You aren't a chump, are you? Hmmm?

I am willing to bet the American people are sensible enough not to turn over the duties of Commander in Chief to an unqualified noob and hard-left impostor.

So ante up the case or come up with a realistic bet.

Not a single dollar of mine will go directly to any Moslem for any reason, not even in theory.

Well, it says much about your understanding of the world that you're so aware that you'll lose. As far as the rest, hehehe.


And I never said I "can't lose." If McCain were 100% sure of winning, it wouldn't be betting, it would be stealing, and you would be a chump for agreeing to the bet. You aren't a chump, are you? Hmmm?

I am willing to bet the American people are sensible enough not to turn over the duties of Commander in Chief to an unqualified noob and hard-left impostor.

So ante up the case or come up with a realistic bet.

It's not stealing if I'm willing. I'm confident that my candidate will win. So confidant I'm not whining about the terms. I accomplished my goal here. It's obvious you're full of it. Your "confidence" has been exposed.

Not a single dollar of mine will go directly to any Moslem for any reason, not even in theory.

And I never said I "can't lose." If McCain were 100% sure of winning, it wouldn't be betting, it would be stealing, and you would be a chump for agreeing to the bet. You aren't a chump, are you? Hmmm?

I am willing to bet the American people are sensible enough not to turn over the duties of Commander in Chief to an unqualified noob and hard-left impostor.

So ante up the case or come up with a realistic bet.

1- True, they'd be going to MUSLIMS. Y'know, that name you mis-spell either in the hopes of offending someone or out of a learning disability of some sort.

2- I'm willing to bet that the American people don't want more blood, more irresponsible warmongering and more death.

1- True, they'd be going to MUSLIMS. Y'know, that name you mis-spell either in the hopes of offending someone or out of a learning disability of some sort.

What's the deal with that mis-spelling, anyway? I see it all the time that it has to be on purpose, but for the life of me I don't get what they're going for.

What's the deal with that mis-spelling, anyway? I see it all the time that it has to be on purpose, but for the life of me I don't get what they're going for.

My comp religion textbook had it with an 'o.' That was about eight years or so ago, though.

What's the deal with that mis-spelling, anyway? I see it all the time that it has to be on purpose, but for the life of me I don't get what they're going for.

HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN!!!

Seriously, are you really looking for a reasonable answer to your question? There may be one, but, really, would it shock you if there isn't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

The ordinary word in English is "Muslim", pronounced /'mʊs.lɪm/ or /'mʌz.ləm/. The word is pronounced /'mʊslɪm/ in Arabic. It is sometimes spelt "Moslem", which some regard as offensive.

HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN!!!

Seriously, are you really looking for a reasonable answer to your question? There may be one, but, really, would it shock you if there isn't?
Not especially, no. But every now and then there's a method and sometimes that's worth a laugh.

On the middle name thing-if you read some of the comments on these articles, you'll find a breed of troll that capitalizes all of the candidate's middle names as if that somehow masks what he's doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim

The ordinary word in English is "Muslim", pronounced /'mʊs.lɪm/ or /'mʌz.ləm/. The word is pronounced /'mʊslɪm/ in Arabic. It is sometimes spelt "Moslem", which some regard as offensive.
Ah, the stealth edit. Well that explains that it is offensive, but not the why other than it's just mis-spelled.

Not especially, no. But every now and then there's a method and sometimes that's worth a laugh.

On the middle name thing-if you read some of the comments on these articles, you'll find a breed of troll that capitalizes all of the candidate's middle names as if that somehow masks what he's doing.

Ah, the stealth edit. Well that explains that it is offensive, but not the why other than it's just mis-spelled.

What I love is that he's clearly Muslim, but also a follower of everything Wright has ever said. I love that they clearly admit that they don't want to include the context of Obama's statements. I love the increasing evidence that they really want Hillary to be the candidate after a decade of calling her a communist, evidence that demonstrates their rabid fear of Obama's impending victory.

Not especially, no. But every now and then there's a method and sometimes that's worth a laugh.

On the middle name thing-if you read some of the comments on these articles, you'll find a breed of troll that capitalizes all of the candidate's middle names as if that somehow masks what he's doing.

Because Busheviks like New Mitanni believe in that equation which goes HUSSEIN = SADDAM HUSSEIN = ARAB = EB1L MOSLEM, and that therefore highlighting Barack Obama's middle name will somehow awaken the American public to the threat of the Islamic Manchurian Candidate that is Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

Ah, the stealth edit. Well that explains that it is offensive, but not the why other than it's just mis-spelled.

It's a stealth edit with an emphasis on contempt for all people and things Muslim.

What I love is that he's clearly Muslim, but also a follower of everything Wright has ever said. I love that they clearly admit that they don't want to include the context of Obama's statements. I love the increasing evidence that they really want Hillary to be the candidate after a decade of calling her a communist, evidence that demonstrates their rabid fear of Obama's impending victory.

It's because they know that Hellary Clinthulhu is so fucking unpopular and divisive that making her the Democratic Candidate will guarantee 4 more years of Bushevism. It's a cynical and very disingenuous ploy. The kind of crap you'd expect Clinthulhu to pull.

Do you think that primary/caucus votes = general election votes?

That's what you have been trying to claim the entire time.

No shit Sherlock!! You do realize my point?

No because you've ignored much of the evidence presented as well as the fact that you have flipped and flopped many times during this entire debate.

Me, out of touch? Au contraire mon frere. Obama is a shade over 0% against McCain in PA.

And that means what to me? Oh yea...nothing.

Hillary certainly has polled much better than Obama against McCain in your State.

Quit banging your head. It will feel much better when you stop!! :p

I will when you stop making dumbass statements.

Yes I probably should post this in the Poll thread but this is in response to this:

The polls in various states are suggesting that Obama will crash and burn against McCain.

The RCP average in the general is as follows:

Clinton vs. McCain= MCCAIN is up by 1.2

Obama vs. McCain=OBAMA is up by .2

Crash and burn? I doubt it highly.

Do you think that primary/caucus votes = general election votes?


Doublethink much? Did you really just say that when you've been trying to paint Senator Clinton's primary victories as telling for the general election?

An interesting perspective on the 'bitter' thing (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/reverse_snobbery_on_the_campai.html)-

Obama was offering a candid explanation of why many residents of economically struggling industrial towns vote against their own economic interests. They "feel so betrayed by government," he said, that they don't think government is going to help them.

It's going to be a challenge, he said, "to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

With jobs disappearing over the past quarter century through Republican and Democratic administrations, Obama said, "... it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
That's the part we all know, but wait, doth the lady protest too much?
That's why Clinton expresses shock - shock! - over his words, even though the sentiments should sound quite familiar to her.

Here, for example, is an account from the Sept. 17, 1991, Los Angeles Times of what her own husband said:

"In complaining that President (George H.W.) Bush has been exploiting the race issue to divide the Democrats, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, a probable presidential contender, said: 'The reason (Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death.'"

"As Clinton sees it," wrote Times political reporter Robert Shogan, "Bush has been telling worried white workers: You're right. I won't do anything for you. Government can't do anything for you. But at least I won't do anything to you."

But he didn't say 'bitter' so that makes all the difference in the world...

Not a single dollar of mine will go directly to any Moslem for any reason, not even in theory.

And I never said I "can't lose." If McCain were 100% sure of winning, it wouldn't be betting, it would be stealing, and you would be a chump for agreeing to the bet. You aren't a chump, are you? Hmmm?

I am willing to bet the American people are sensible enough not to turn over the duties of Commander in Chief to an unqualified noob and hard-left impostor.

So ante up the case or come up with a realistic bet.

I said it before and Ill say it again. This is what will happen.


Republican stooges will play the Wright comments, which by then will be such old news that it will have even less of an effect than it did when it broke (which was virtually none).


Then, the Dems will play John McCain's infamous "100 years in Iraq" comment.

Which do you think will bother the American people more. Again, there is a right answer here.


McCain will get crushed like a worm in November. And I want to hear what Mosque you end up donating that grand to.




You have yet to address this post. But I shouldnt be suprised when a Bushevik is selective with reason and evidence.

The Nation has an interesting article.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080428/howl

As so often happens, The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_candidates_compete) was eerily prophetic (note that this was back when Edwards was still running) about where this campaign was going to end up.

The debate starts in 1 hour. Its going to be a good one.

The debate starts in 1 hour. Its going to be a good one.

What channel?

Is it showing on any UK channels. We get a UK version of CNN here but they're are not showing it. We also get the same Fox news as you, but I promised my husband I would lay off it for a while, as he equates my watching of Fox as something approaching self-harm. Are there any online streams anywhere?

First question they asked Obama was about his "elitist" comment. You could almost see him visibally trying not to roll his eyes.

WOOT!! Finally. They're clearly calling out the problems with the negative politics. I love that he plain out called out the comments and how she was jumping on them. They can't just stand there and pretend like they love each other and then drag each other down tomorrow. I hope, if she has similar concerns, she calls him out as well.

As Obama said, the petty stuff isn't helping the voter.

WOOT!! Finally. They're clearly calling out the problems with the negative politics. I love that he plain out called out the comments and how she was jumping on them. They can't just stand there and pretend like they love each other and then drag each other down tomorrow. I hope, if she has similar concerns, she calls him out as well.

As Obama said, the petty stuff isn't helping the voter.

The best part of that is when she said "No I called your comments elitist" which was blatantly false.

In all honosty though, I dont want to hear about Wright or the "elitist comments" anymore. Theyve been done to death, they have had no or little effects. His pastors comments is even more pointless because he gave a whole speech on it.

...........................................................

HAHA! He totally just called her out on the pastor thing. I said her pastor called Reverend Wright a good pastor. Well done sir. Well done.

Uuuuh....Clinton just said her experiance in other countries would give her an advantage against McCain.

Does she know who John McCain is?

Does she know who John McCain is?

Yeah, a sniper in Yugoslavia told her.

Dude, she is being so careful not to go directly at him (I'm rewatching some of the older parts I missed a bit). It's cracking me up. We keep hearing about how he's not ready to debate. If that's so, why are don't people want to make these points in front of him?

I love that he's making pointed remarks at her about the things she's said and that she's shying so carefully away from saying them in front of him. By forcing her to be clear, he makes her say she's not speaking about him but only disagreeing with his statements. Now she can't use those statements to accuse him. Heh. It's so nice to see this kind of debate in contrast to the sheepish debates of the Kerry-Bush election.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate;_ylt=Aho.TSCF0o2t3JPu0aqZ3ZvCw5R4

(Hillary) apologized for the mistake, saying that she had "said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case."

Read the sentence again. Is there not a simpler verb that defines the entire sentence?

Every time I see these two talk it becomes more and more apparent that what should be a Democratic landslide will be very tightly contested.

Every time I see these two talk it becomes more and more apparent that what should be a Democratic landslide will be very tightly contested.

Not quite.

Obama debates well and McCain has a temper. How long until these two things become apparent in a debate with Johnny losing it while Obama keeps his cool?

How long until McCain tosses an expletive at Obama? Perhaps, and hopefully, the N word even? That would put the moldy POW back in his coffin...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_debate;_ylt=Aho.TSCF0o2t3JPu0aqZ3ZvCw5R4



Read the sentence again. Is there not a simpler verb that defines the entire sentence?

Frankly, I'm disappointed. Obama backed off on that one. He acted much like she did in what I was talking about above. Come on. What I'll say though is she didn't go after him on it, the moderator had to.

Not quite.

Obama debates well and McCain has a temper. How long until these two things become apparent in a debate with Johnny losing it while Obama keeps his cool?

How long until McCain tosses an expletive at Obama? Perhaps, and hopefully, the N word even? That would put the moldy POW back in his coffin...

The only reason Obama seems to debate well is because he's "debating" someone who has the exact same record and essentially same proposals that he does. When he actually has to put up substance he'll seem like every other Democratic flash in the pan supported by the young and wealthy.

The only reason Obama seems to debate well is because he's "debating" someone who has the exact same record and essentially same proposals that he does. When he actually has to put up substance he'll seem like every other Democratic flash in the pan supported by the young and wealthy.

1- He has the charisma to pull it off.

2- McCain doesn't.

3- He has already proven way better at debating that Kerry.

1- He has the charisma to pull it off.

2- McCain doesn't.

3- He has already proven way better at debating that Kerry.

Well poeple seem happy enough with the last Democrat who could lie through his teeth and pull it off because he had charisma.

Well poeple seem happy enough with the last Democrat who could lie through his teeth and pull it off because he had charisma.

1- At what point did Obama lie?

2- Bush, on the other hand, lied to start a war.

Speaking of that war,

"He says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq"

"We are bogged down in a war that John McCain suggests might go on for another 100 years"

- Barack Obama

"Make it 100. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

- John McCain, in response to President Bush talking about "staying in Iraq for 50 years"

Speaking of that war,

"He says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq"

"We are bogged down in a war that John McCain suggests might go on for another 100 years"

- Barack Obama

"Make it 100. We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

- John McCain, in response to President Bush talking about "staying in Iraq for 50 years"

And that's a lie because Obama quoted McCain?

How long until McCain tosses an expletive at Obama? Perhaps, and hopefully, the N word even? That would put the moldy POW back in his coffin...


Do you know how hard I would laugh if that happened? I might literally laugh till I cry. That would be the greatest moment in American political debate evah.

And that's a lie because Obama quoted McCain?

Not much of a war if no one's being killed or wounded. I think we can call the Korean War over, for example.

And that's a lie because Obama quoted McCain?

McCain never said he wanted 100 years of war. Not only was "war" never used in the first place, but unless you think we've been at war with Japan and Korea for the last 50 years, yes, its a lie.

Do you know how hard I would laugh if that happened? I might literally laugh till I cry. That would be the greatest moment in American political debate evah.

My celebration would be more low key, but stylish. ;)

McCain never said he wanted 100 years of war. Not only was "war" never used in the first place, but unless you think we've been at war with Japan and Korea for the last 50 years, yes, its a lie.

No, but he would like an American presence there for 100 years. America would not be cool with that. Especially since the suicide bombs and other attacks will never stop.


The war is going to destroy the Republicans come november. Worse so for McCain because he wont even consider anything but keeping troop pressence there stable until whatever impossible goal he invisions is achieved.


Combine that with Obama's ability to speak and debate (the man was a successful civil rights attorny for Christs sake), people are going to watch a replay of the Kennedy/Nixon debates. Young, charismatic, attractive well spoken guy vs old, senile, sweaty guy. The november elections are going to be a fuckin route.

McCain never said he wanted 100 years of war. Not only was "war" never used in the first place, but unless you think we've been at war with Japan and Korea for the last 50 years, yes, its a lie.

We have been at war with Korea for the last 50 years. North Korea that is :D

No, but he would like an American presence there for 100 years. America would not be cool with that. Especially since the suicide bombs and other attacks will never stop.

What makes you say that? Some crystal ball?

Combine that with Obama's ability to speak and debate (the man was a successful civil rights attorny for Christs sake), people are going to watch a replay of the Kennedy/Nixon debates. Young, charismatic, attractive well spoken guy vs old, senile, sweaty guy. The november elections are going to be a fuckin route.

One never knows though KoL.

Combine that with Obama's ability to speak and debate (the man was a successful civil rights attorny for Christs sake), people are going to watch a replay of the Kennedy/Nixon debates. Young, charismatic, attractive well spoken guy vs old, senile, sweaty guy. The november elections are going to be a fuckin route.

Nixon totaled 49.5% of the vote. Kennedy had 49.7%. "fuckin route"

Nixon totaled 49.5% of the vote. Kennedy had 49.7%. "fuckin route"

Nixon wasn't running on a "let's keep wasting money on a pointless bloodshed" platform.

Nixon totaled 49.5% of the vote. Kennedy had 49.7%. "fuckin route"

John F. Kennedy: 303 Electoral Votes

Richard Nixon: 219 Electoral Votes

Harry B. Byrd: 15 Electoral Votes

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/ElectoralCollege1960-Large.png

John F. Kennedy: 303 Electoral Votes

Richard Nixon: 219 Electoral Votes

Harry B. Byrd: 15 Electoral Votes



Just the electoral college making a very close election look like a landslide. 55,000 votes distributed between two states (9K in Illinois, 46K in Texas) would've turned it for Nixon.

"When Barack Obama makes a campaign-ending gaffe, it ends your campaign."

"When Barack Obama makes a campaign-ending gaffe, it ends your campaign."
Certainly debatable? At any rate, I think the following is relevant:

Dems enter the dead zone (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_dems_enter_the_dead_zone.html)

Even worse for Obama, if his small-town slam and his ties to Rev. Wright hurt him in the upcoming primaries of Indiana, Kentucky and West Virginia, it could mean he's doomed in the Electoral College.

As John Judis writes in the New Republic: "To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can't carry Florida - and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain."

Judis estimates Obama would have to win a minimum of 45% of white votes in the heartland states, and a majority in some to build an electoral majority.

But in Ohio, a battleground state that Clinton carried by 10 points, an exit poll shows Obama got only a third of white voters. A breakdown by author Jay Cost for RealClearPolitics.com finds that Obama lost nearly all the Ohio districts to Clinton that determine who wins the state in the general election, some by as many as 25 points.

Of course, the past doesn't guarantee the future. That's what campaigns are about. But they do show that the soaring Obama candidacy is coming back to Earth and landing in an all-too familiar spot for Democrats.

Certainly debatable? At any rate, I think the following is relevant

nobody cares what you think. i mean, honestly, you are unable to be consistent about whether performance in primaries matters or not between one post and the next.

and stop fucking ending non-question sentences with question marks.

Certainly debatable? At any rate, I think the following is relevant:

Dems enter the dead zone (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/16/2008-04-16_dems_enter_the_dead_zone.html)

And hey, if McCain dies the day before the election and Obama gets so excited that he isn't paying attention when he walks in front of a bus, Gore will be the next President. Or perhaps, we should just go with what we know.

We know that there has been little to no movement since the comments. We know McCain polls worse across the country than Obama. We know that nearly every poll shows Obama taking the election. No amount of "my candidate must win or else no one will" is going to change that there isn't any support for your claims and everything you've tried to present has been entirely out of context or completely ignoring the far more abundant counter-evidence.

nobody cares what you think.
Of course those who perceive themselves to be the holders of the truth don't care about what others think. The awakening for them is often very hard to bare.

i mean, honestly, you are unable to be consistent about whether performance in primaries matters or not between one post and the next.
I do believe that I have been very consistent with regards to my comments on this subject. I do believe that it is many of the Obama supporters who confuse primary/caucus votes with general election votes.

and stop fucking ending non-question sentences with question marks.
I don't particularly like your vulgarities but I accept that as your way of expressing yourself. If you don't like my use of question marks, then I suggest that would be your problem?

What makes you say that? Some crystal ball?

No, being a reasonable person. Corny look me in the virtual eye and with a straight face tell me you think that the suicide attacks in Iraq will stop while we are there.



One never knows though KoL.

One can be reasonably sure.

Nixon totaled 49.5% of the vote. Kennedy had 49.7%. "fuckin route"

I never said that was a route, I said this will be a route.


Youre very bitter and defensive. I suggest you relax.

I do believe that I have been very consistent with regards to my comments on this subject. I do believe that it is many of the Obama supporters who confuse primary/caucus votes with general election votes.

Is it? I'm curious. Which side is arguing that their candidate wins the states that matter? That's one for Clinton. Which side claimed "where Ohio goes so goes the nation"? Ooops, that's two for Clinton. Which campaign centered their campaign around only winning certain states deciding to make an argument for electability around it? Three times Clinton.

And who in this thread took up all three arguments? Oh, right, of course, that's you. But, hey, just keep on hoping we've all forgotten.

As for the "bearers of the truth", I'll settle for the bearers of the evidence trumping the bearers of the gut feeling. I know it hurts your feelings that people won't accept your word over the bulk of the evidence, but most of us tend to look at all the evidence and draw conclusions, not selectively look at states and select outlier polls.

Is it? I'm curious. Which side is arguing that their candidate wins the states that matter? That's one for Clinton. Which side claimed "where Ohio goes so goes the nation"? Ooops, that's two for Clinton. Which campaign centered their campaign around only winning certain states deciding to make an argument for electability around it? Three times Clinton.

And who in this thread took up all three arguments? Oh, right, of course, that's you. But, hey, just keep on hoping we've all forgotten.

As for the "bearers of the truth", I'll settle for the bearers of the evidence trumping the bearers of the gut feeling. I know it hurts your feelings that people won't accept your word over the bulk of the evidence, but most of us tend to look at all the evidence and draw conclusions, not selectively look at states and select outlier polls.

Also, which side is so big on voter entitlement when it's about letting two states break the rules, that they claim PLEDGED DELEGATES should ignore the will of the voters soon after?

Of course those who perceive themselves to be the holders of the truth don't care about what others think. The awakening for them is often very hard to bare.


I do believe that I have been very consistent with regards to my comments on this subject. I do believe that it is many of the Obama supporters who confuse primary/caucus votes with general election votes.

Actually, digging through the old Mega-Thread, the first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13434469&postcount=288) I could find with any sort of implication that primary wins translate to general wins was from you:
Yes I think that Clinton did soar. She handily won most of the traditional Blue States. Obama won mostly the Red States, and let's face facts, those Red states that Obama won are very unlikely to vote Democrat in the general election?


I don't particularly like your vulgarities but I accept that as your way of expressing yourself. If you don't like my use of question marks, then I suggest that would be your problem?

You do know that a question mark indicates that you are asking a question, do you not? :p

To tonight's point, I thought Obama did poorly in the debates. He started strong and clearly had her feeling it, but then the moderators pressed him and he faltered. Clearly, he pressed her properly, but he should have been prepared for good moderators. It seems like he only prepare for her.

Actually, digging through the old Mega-Thread, the first post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13434469&postcount=288) I could find with any sort of implication that primary wins translate to general wins was from you:




You do know that a question mark indicates that you are asking a question, do you not? :p

Well, Obama supporters don't have to make the special states argument. It's simply. Primary wins translate to primary wins, which is why he is going to be the nominee. We don't need to discount her states. It's not like she has that many of them.

Of course those who perceive themselves to be the holders of the truth don't care about what others think. The awakening for them is often very hard to bare.

No one here is perceiving to be the holders of the truth. We just look at the evidence and act on it.

I do believe that I have been very consistent with regards to my comments on this subject. I do believe that it is many of the Obama supporters who confuse primary/caucus votes with general election votes.

And I have a bridge for sale and San Fran.

Well, Obama supporters don't have to make the special states argument. It's simply. Primary wins translate to primary wins, which is why he is going to be the nominee. We don't need to discount her states. It's not like she has that many of them.

That's a true statement.

To tonight's point, I thought Obama did poorly in the debates. He started strong and clearly had her feeling it, but then the moderators pressed him and he faltered. Clearly, he pressed her properly, but he should have been prepared for good moderators. It seems like he only prepare for her.

Still the debate seems to have hurt her more than him.

Still the debate seems to have hurt her more than him.

We'll find out when the polls are released.

We'll find out when the polls are released.

True, but the "Yes, yes, yes" will surely be used by Obama...

True, but the "Yes, yes, yes" will surely be used by Obama...

Probably.

On another note, did anyone else notice the headlines that Obama picked up 3 more superdelegates yesterday?

Probably.

On another note, did anyone else notice the headlines that Obama picked up 3 more superdelegates yesterday?

Yup. :)

On a disturbing (and how!) note, did anyone else think of Hillary going "Yes! Yes! Yes!" in a... less formal situation?

Yup. :)

On a disturbing (and how!) note, did anyone else think of Hillary going "Yes! Yes! Yes!" in a... less formal situation?

*barfs*

Oh now I'm going to have that in my head all day. Damn you Heikoku. I'm suing now.

*barfs*

Oh now I'm going to have that in my head all day. Damn you Heikoku. I'm suing now.

:D

My job here is done.

I have no doubt when they have a one on one debate Obama would wipe the floor with McCain easily, where McCain's strength lies is taking potshots with this recent 'elitist' crap, when he has to openly explain himself and is challenge he'll loose his temper and look inept.

I have no doubt when they have a one on one debate Obama would wipe the floor with McCain easily, where McCain's strength lies is taking potshots with this recent 'elitist' crap, when he has to openly explain himself and is challenge he'll loose his temper and look inept.

And that assumes he doesn't seem downright SENILE.

And that assumes he doesn't seem downright SENILE.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/2419729265_9313ec6b33_o.jpg

The november elections are going to be a fuckin route.
Schoolmarm raps KoL (and everybody who has quoted him) on the knuckles with a ruler.
ROUT: a major defeat
ROUTE: a road used to reach a particular destination

OK, carry on.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3116/2419729265_9313ec6b33_o.jpg

Print this and sell it as bumper stickers. NOW. :D

I missed the debates, so I only have hearsay to go on. I purused all your guys comments. Most of the articles I'm scanned seem to echo Jocabia's assessment. He was up against it this debate, the news going in was about him and it wasn't great. I'd have to say that Jocabia was right in his assessment of how Obama had to prepare for the debates, he has to be as ready for the moderators as he does his opponent. At this point they're going to be harder on him just so they don't end up as an SNL skit...

I have to say that I have never gotten a prediction on how a debate will effect things, I think. I don't want to go check my track record, so I'm certainly not going to predict on one I didn't watch. If what I'm seeing is correct, that he didn't fair that well, it's too bad. Sometimes, you just have a bad game. Hope is that he learns from mistakes. The press loves McCain, too. We may be facing a situation where they have to decide who to ask to the prom...

I searched around for something I thought captured it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2189273/

This is pretty close. I don't agree that Obama looked tired of anything but the same distractions. I think he played that note long and hard and it sounded good. I see the same thing in most of the responses to the debate. HOWEVER, I think those questions needed to be asked and, frankly, they were the highlight of Obama's night. Hillary said he can and will defeat McCain if he wins and that she will throw her support behind him when he does. She attacked some there, but attacking makes her look bad.

Most of the above article is accurate except that I don't agree that the past debates turned out like it was said above. In past debates, she got a bit of a kick because people felt for her. She simply got abused in past debates, but she certainly didn't do better than him. If the past is any example, I don't see how this one plays well for her. She got more of the softball questions, Obama got beat up by the moderators, and she was on the attack. Pretty much the opposite of what played well for her in the past. And in the one moment where Obama called her out plainly and clearly for things she said, she reversed them. She may have won this battle, but, frankly, I'm not sure it won't cost her the war.

To tonight's point, I thought Obama did poorly in the debates. He started strong and clearly had her feeling it, but then the moderators pressed him and he faltered. Clearly, he pressed her properly, but he should have been prepared for good moderators. It seems like he only prepare for her.

Um...

Frankly, I'm a little speechless. If that was good moderation, then I don't want to see bad moderation.

Staphilocaucus and Gibson ran the worst debate yet. Issues were eschewed in preference to manufactured scandal and the moderators consistently interrupted him and played gotcha nonsense. Last night, angry callers shut down ABC's phone lines in New York AND LA complaining about it.

Um...

Frankly, I'm a little speechless. If that was good moderation, then I don't want to see bad moderation.

Staphilocaucus and Gibson ran the worst debate yet. Issues were eschewed in preference to manufactured scandal and the moderators consistently interrupted him and played gotcha nonsense. Last night, angry callers shut down ABC's phone lines in New York AND LA complaining about it.

The thing is that the candidates accurately cover the issues when they're making stump speeches. The scandals are the issues that they don't talk about accurately. I'm annoyed the scandals get so much play, but I'm glad they had to discuss it in front of one another for once.

They got Hillary to say what she refused to say, that Obama is capable of winning against McCain.

They got Obama to say that stuff about Bosnia doesn't matter.

They made some rather glaring moderation mistakes, but as for questions, they answered the questions you won't find on their sites and won't get accurately in their speeches. Even the questions about specific stances on issues were pointed at weaknesses in their platforms. They hit all the marks that would only be accomplished in that type of debate.

The fact that people were pissed suggests they don't realize that there are clear outlines of policies on their websites. The news is all over the stories they covered in the first hour and the debate went a long way to address those stories and settle them (hopefully, getting both candidates to move on).

The thing is that the candidates accurately cover the issues when they're making stump speeches. The scandals are the issues that they don't talk about accurately. I'm annoyed the scandals get so much play, but I'm glad they had to discuss it in front of one another for once.

They got Hillary to say what she refused to say, that Obama is capable of winning against McCain.

They got Obama to say that stuff about Bosnia doesn't matter.

They made some rather glaring moderation mistakes, but as for questions, they answered the questions you won't find on their sites and won't get accurately in their speeches. Even the questions about specific stances on issues were pointed at weaknesses in their platforms. They hit all the marks that would only be accomplished in that type of debate.

The fact that people were pissed suggests they don't realize that there are clear outlines of policies on their websites. The news is all over the stories they covered in the first hour and the debate went a long way to address those stories and settle them (hopefully, getting both candidates to move on).

The reason people were pissed is because the debate was a clear assault on the Democratic Nominee by George Snuffaluffagus. Wright, "flag pin", "elitism", and William-fucking-Ayers are non-issues and dead stories. The Bosnia story is too, by now. They used every frame as an attack on the Democrats, especially Obama, specifically interrupted Obama multiple times, LIED about the payroll tax and the scope of the middle class, lied about Iran, and used a question given to them by Rush Limp-baugh to attack him.

Keith Olberman, Josh Marshall, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow, and the Washington Post thought the moderation was awful. In short, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party knew that ABC was up to its old "Path to 9/11" tricks, and called them out for it. Only David Brooks, who is a hardcore Bush syncophant bought into that parody of a debate.

The thing is that the candidates accurately cover the issues when they're making stump speeches. The scandals are the issues that they don't talk about accurately. I'm annoyed the scandals get so much play, but I'm glad they had to discuss it in front of one another for once.

They got Hillary to say what she refused to say, that Obama is capable of winning against McCain.

They got Obama to say that stuff about Bosnia doesn't matter.

They made some rather glaring moderation mistakes, but as for questions, they answered the questions you won't find on their sites and won't get accurately in their speeches. Even the questions about specific stances on issues were pointed at weaknesses in their platforms. They hit all the marks that would only be accomplished in that type of debate.

The fact that people were pissed suggests they don't realize that there are clear outlines of policies on their websites. The news is all over the stories they covered in the first hour and the debate went a long way to address those stories and settle them (hopefully, getting both candidates to move on).

Looking at some of the opinion pieces on RCP, it looks like there maybe some validation though I do agree with what you are saying Jocabia.

And as a side note: Zogby has Billary up by 1 point over Obama and the RCP average is back down to 6 points.

And as a side note: Zogby has Billary up by 1 point over Obama and the RCP average is back down to 6 points.

What was interesting was that yesterday PPP had O up 3 in Penn. PPP and Zogby are... Quesionable pollsters, as is ARG (unless, of course, one is polling pirates, who will only answer polls by ArrrrrrG). Quinipiac, who are the regional polling experts, have Clinton up 6, and my guess is that the RCP 5+ poll average is about right.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html?hp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html?hpid=topnews

Just so people can read.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html?hp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html?hpid=topnews

Just so people can read.

I was about to blast you for posting Brooks' article, but you acually offer a fairly balanced set there.

Who are you and what did you do with the Corny I remember?

What was interesting was that yesterday PPP had O up 3 in Penn. PPP and Zogby are... Quesionable pollsters, as is ARG (unless, of course, one is polling pirates, who will only answer polls by ArrrrrrG). Quinipiac, who are the regional polling experts, have Clinton up 6, and my guess is that the RCP 5+ poll average is about right.

Zogby is not as questionable as the PPP and ARG. Out of those three, I trust them the most though I do have to question their latest poll. Franklin and Marshall also has Hillary up by 6 and I do think that is about right as well.

I still think Hillary will take the state but it will not be by the double digit figure she needs to actually win the nomination.

Zogby is not as questionable as the PPP and ARG. Out of those three, I trust them the most though I do have to question their latest poll. Franklin and Marshall also has Hillary up by 6 and I do think that is about right as well.

I still think Hillary will take the state but it will not be by the double digit figure she needs to actually win the nomination.

I agree, mostly, but I'm a little suspicious of Zogby after they got California so wrong. Nevertheless, it is trendlines which are most important, and Zogby and the other polls show no significant trendline alteration.

The reason people were pissed is because the debate was a clear assault on the Democratic Nominee by George Snuffaluffagus. Wright, "flag pin", "elitism", and William-fucking-Ayers are non-issues and dead stories. The Bosnia story is too, by now. They used every frame as an attack on the Democrats, especially Obama, specifically interrupted Obama multiple times, LIED about the payroll tax and the scope of the middle class, lied about Iran, and used a question given to them by Rush Limp-baugh to attack him.

Keith Olberman, Josh Marshall, Eugene Robinson, Rachel Maddow, and the Washington Post thought the moderation was awful. In short, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party knew that ABC was up to its old "Path to 9/11" tricks, and called them out for it. Only David Brooks, who is a hardcore Bush syncophant bought into that parody of a debate.

What do you think is going to happen in the general? Only powderpuff questions? These issues are affecting things to some degree even by being distractions. What those questions did and did well was force both candidates to show their hands there. Basically, they can't go back to those distractions without looking like major hypocrites. Would I take a lost hour of debate to make their future focus on the issues? Absolutely.

It's not surprising that typical liberal bastions are pissed that the debate wasn't held by typical liberals. No shock. They were exactly the kinds of questions they would be asked in the general and are continually asked by voters. I say, ask them. Get them out there. And make both candidates face each other and give answers. And then let it die.

There were a couple of gaffes by the mods. The question about running mates has been asked in other debates with the same answers. The "to both of you" was a mistake, too. Especially because as soon as both of them waiting to be told who should answer, he made a smarmy comment about it. But all in all, they got asked tough questions that most moderators shy away from. I've always said I wished people would force them to address these things in front of one another. They did. And it's settled.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html?hp

Just so people can read.

Brooks' title, in combination with his utter disengenuousity (Obama as a Hyde Park liberal? Christ...) make me grit my teeth here. Those weren't important questions at all, unless you were Karl Rove.

I agree, mostly, but I'm a little suspicious of Zogby after they got California so wrong. Nevertheless, it is trendlines which are most important, and Zogby and the other polls show no significant trendline alteration.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1481

What do you think is going to happen in the general? Only powderpuff questions? These issues are affecting things to some degree even by being distractions. What those questions did and did well was force both candidates to show their hands there. Basically, they can't go back to those distractions without looking like major hypocrites. Would I take a lost hour of debate to make their future focus on the issues? Absolutely.

Well, if the media weren't a giant scandal-inventing machine, I would rather expect none of these issues would even still be around. The utter nonsense in this, though, was the resurrection of issues that were dead. Wright had been put to rest, the so-called "elitism" of Obama was clearly a non issue, according to polling, Ayers wasn't an issue period, and the flag pin thing hadn't even been in the news for months.

It's not surprising that typical liberal bastions are pissed that the debate wasn't held by typical liberals. No shock. They were exactly the kinds of questions they would be asked in the general and are continually asked by voters. I say, ask them. Get them out there. And make both candidates face each other and give answers. And then let it die.

I'll give you Olberman, Marshall, and Maddow as "liberal bastions", albeit atypical ones, but WaPo and Gene Robinson? Not so much. And, no, the only people asking those questions are the media.

There were a couple of gaffes by the mods. The question about running mates has been asked in other debates with the same answers. The "to both of you" was a mistake, too. Especially because as soon as both of them waiting to be told who should answer, he made a smarmy comment about it. But all in all, they got asked tough questions that most moderators shy away from. I've always said I wished people would force them to address these things in front of one another. They did. And it's settled.

What about the interruptions? What about the lies about the middle class and Iran? That was way bigger than some "to both of you" nonsense gaffe. FYI, by the way, the crowd booed Snuffy and Gibson when the debate ended. They knew that they had just seen a scam in action.

I'll add this, though, when they finally asked the issue questions, they were definitely the wrong issues. I don't think they focused at all on issues that PA voters care about. I think the entire debate looked past PA and was focused on the questions the supers are asking.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1481

This, by the way, was interesting:

A key demographic group that has changed its mind in the last week is Democratic voters age 35 to 54, who just one week ago favored Clinton by a 45% to 40% margin. Now, Obama leads among those voters by a 47% to 41% edge. Clinton leads among voters older than age 54, while Obama leads among the younger set.

That's an out-of-MOE movement, so it suggests that the Democratic electorate is hardening into a unified party. Good news for Dems.

I'll add this, though, when the finally asked the issue questions they were definitely the wrong issues. I don't think they focused at all on issues that PA voters care about. I think the entire debate looked past PA and was focused on the questions the supers are asking.

Debate Was All About the Superdelegates (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGNlMzhlYWJjYTc3ZWU0MTg1MWI1YTBhNDAxOTJkNjY=)

Well, if the media weren't a giant scandal-inventing machine, I would rather expect none of these issues would even still be around. The utter nonsense in this, though, was the resurrection of issues that were dead. Wright had been put to rest, the so-called "elitism" of Obama was clearly a non issue, according to polling, Ayers wasn't an issue period, and the flag pin thing hadn't even been in the news for months.

And if the papparrazzi didn't take pictures up Britney's skirt we would have never seen her private parts. They do, though, and she knew it.

The media is a giant scandal-inventing machine. Wright isn't put to rest. I see it tons of stories in the media. The "elitism" of Obama is in nearly every article I see, even if it's not yet affected the polling. I guarantee these issues resurface in the general, and I'm happy to see them getting entirely played out now. I want people to groan when McCain tries to distract them with fireworks.

I'll give you Olberman, Marshall, and Maddow as "liberal bastions", albeit atypical ones, but WaPo and Gene Robinson? Not so much. And, no, the only people asking those questions are the media.

And the media doesn't have an effect on the outcomes? And, no, that isn't the only people asking those questions. I travel the country for work and pretty much always talk about politics. People do, unfortunately, mention HUSSEIN as a reason to not vote for Obama. They mention Wright. They mention elitism. The mention the Bosnia story about Hillary. It's a fact that the patriotism of Obama is brought up again and again, even if reasonable voters shouldn't care. It's a fact that the honest of Clinton is brought up again and again, even if the tiny issues that fuel that aren't as important as some of the real things she's been caught on.

What about the interruptions? What about the lies about the middle class and Iran? That was way bigger than some "to both of you" nonsense gaffe. FYI, by the way, the crowd booed Snuffy and Gibson when the debate ended. They knew that they had just seen a scam in action.

Well, Obama talked a lot. They asked him a lot. Frankly, if they just let him talk as much as he was, he would have had about 2/3rds of the time. And you make it sound like it was countless interruptions. It was a couple.

As far as "lies", well, I'm just gonna laugh at you and leave it at that.

And the "booing", well, golly, if the moderators didn't pander to the crowd, it must have been a bad debate.

Debate Was All About the Superdelegates (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGNlMzhlYWJjYTc3ZWU0MTg1MWI1YTBhNDAxOTJkNjY=)

Exactly.

And let's not lose sight of the fact these candidates aren't that different on the issues. What last night showed is how differently they approach politics, how much of an insider Hillary is, and how much effort Obama is willing to put into moving away from such politics. It showed it well.

It accomplished a wonderful goal. The moderators are being dragged through broken glass right now. The voters are being told FOR ONCE that all of these nonsense issues are just that. Finally the media is coming out against... the media. It's WONDERFUL. Supers must be watching this and sighing with relief. Their wonder candidate's "scandals" are being placed exactly where they belong, in the garbage bin.

I expect in the next week the nonsense issues will be little news, both in the media and in the speeches of the candidates.

I expect we'll watch the gap close as a result, because Hillary normally widens the gap using nonsense issues right before the primary.

I expect that as a result, we're about to see some supers coming out for Obama and the gap widening.

Like I said, if there was a victor last night it was Hillary. But that battle is going to cost her the war.

In other words, Clinton won a pyrric victory last night.

In other words, Clinton won a phrrhic victory last night.

That's another word alright.

And if the papparrazzi didn't take pictures up Britney's skirt we would have never seen her private parts. They do, though, and she knew it.

The media is a giant scandal-inventing machine. Wright isn't put to rest. I see it tons of stories in the media. The "elitism" of Obama is in nearly every article I see, even if it's not yet affected the polling. I guarantee these issues resurface in the general, and I'm happy to see them getting entirely played out now. I want people to groan when McCain tries to distract them with fireworks.

See, thing is the media trumps them up and they don't affect the voters, and then the media keeps rubbing our face in them and engaging in shilling for the Republicans. We shouldn't be saying they're only being fair when they politically assassinate our candidates.


Well, Obama talked a lot. They asked him a lot. Frankly, if they just let him talk as much as he was, he would have had about 2/3rds of the time. And you make it sound like it was countless interruptions. It was a couple.

He talked a lot because they kept giving Hillary more time to attack him, and he had to respond to her. They kept interupting him and skewing the facts. They certainly didn't do that to Hillary.

As far as "lies", well, I'm just gonna laugh at you and leave it at that.

Lying about the status of the Irani Nuclear Program? Yup, that's a lie. Lying about the scope and size of the middle class? Yup, that's a lie. Laugh all you like, they were still lies.

And the "booing", well, golly, if the moderators didn't pander to the crowd, it must have been a bad debate.

Well, generally, when the Democratic audience is booing at the execution of a Democratic debate, then, yes, the debate was a bad debate.

Exactly.

And let's not lose sight of the fact these candidates aren't that different on the issues. What last night showed is how differently they approach politics, how much of an insider Hillary is, and how much effort Obama is willing to put into moving away from such politics. It showed it well.

It accomplished a wonderful goal. The moderators are being dragged through broken glass right now. The voters are being told FOR ONCE that all of these nonsense issues are just that. Finally the media is coming out against... the media. It's WONDERFUL. Supers must be watching this and sighing with relief. Their wonder candidate's "scandals" are being placed exactly where they belong, in the garbage bin.

I expect in the next week the nonsense issues will be little news, both in the media and in the speeches of the candidates.

I expect we'll watch the gap close as a result, because Hillary normally widens the gap using nonsense issues right before the primary.

I expect that as a result, we're about to see some supers coming out for Obama and the gap widening.

Like I said, if there was a victor last night it was Hillary. But that battle is going to cost her the war.

I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I don't think it is cause to say that the moderators were good, so much as that what they did was good for Obama, but I think this is a fair analysis. The disgusted reaction of the 3000 some-odd commentators on ABC's website is testament to how the voters felt about the debate, and if this turns all of those issues into so much garbage, then Obama won the war by losing the battle, yes.

See, thing is the media trumps them up and they don't affect the voters, and then the media keeps rubbing our face in them and engaging in shilling for the Republicans. We shouldn't be saying they're only being fair when they politically assassinate our candidates.

The media trumped up the stuff about Canada. Did that affect the voters? Sure did. The media affects the election. The media affected the last election because Kerry was so weak that he didn't face the issues head on. It's in everyone's interest to not pretend the media crap doesn't exist, even if that hurts the sensitivities of some extremely biased voters.

Ah, yes, the highly conservative media shilling for the republican party. Now you know why I'm laughing. I do realize that some people are too biased to realize this goes both ways, but it doesn't favor you.



He talked a lot because they kept giving Hillary more time to attack him, and he had to respond to her. They kept interupting him and skewing the facts. They certainly didn't do that to Hillary.

They kept trying to even out the time. Again, I recognize that a lot of people are so biased that can't be reasonable about this, but it doesn't help your argument.


Lying about the status of the Irani Nuclear Program? Yup, that's a lie. Lying about the scope and size of the middle class? Yup, that's a lie. Laugh all you like, they were still lies.

Oh, I'll laugh. You realize that lies requires intent. What's your evidence of the intent?

Well, generally, when the Democratic audience is booing at the execution of a Democratic debate, then, yes, the debate was a bad debate.

This debate was designed to favor democrats in general. It's a debate of democrats not a commercial.

I hadn't thought of it in those terms. I don't think it is cause to say that the moderators were good, so much as that what they did was good for Obama, but I think this is a fair analysis. The disgusted reaction of the 3000 some-odd commentators on ABC's website is testament to how the voters felt about the debate, and if this turns all of those issues into so much garbage, then Obama won the war by losing the battle, yes.

Obama is going to win the war anyway.

If you compare McCain 10 years ago to today, it's very obvious this isn't about McCain's ability to speak. He should have been the candidate in 2000. He would have eaten Kerry an Gore alive. But he's not that candidate anymore. This is about his mental state.

No, he would not have eaten Kerry alive. Gore, yes, but not Kerry. Remember, McCain is showing signs of slipping due to the pressure, his age, and his health. But what you didn't take into consideration was the by far larger amount of pressure he'd have had to face as President during 2000 to 2004.

Now, odds are, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq, but that term would still be full of pressure, because 9/11 would still have happened, and we would have at least been involved in some sort of conflict.

Personally, I think the pressure would have gotten to him in 2004 and things would be rather different.

I know you weren't actually arguing much on this line, but I just felt like being pedantic.

The reason people were pissed is because the debate was a clear assault on the Democratic Nominee by George Snuffaluffagus. Wright, "flag pin", "elitism", and William-fucking-Ayers are non-issues and dead stories. The Bosnia story is too, by now. They used every frame as an attack on the Democrats, especially Obama, specifically interrupted Obama multiple times, LIED about the payroll tax and the scope of the middle class, lied about Iran, and used a question given to them by Rush Limp-baugh to attack him.

Im glad Im not the only one who saw this.

Now, odds are, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq, but that term would still be full of pressure, because 9/11 would still have happened, and we would have at least been involved in some sort of conflict.

The only way 9/11 would happen under anyone's watch but Bush's would be if they allowed it to take place in order to wag the dog.

The only way 9/11 would happen under anyone's watch but Bush's would be if they allowed it to take place in order to wag the dog.

What? Explain.

What? Explain.

Bush letting 9/11 happen after being warned by the CIA out of mere incompetence, rather than malice, I would understand (and that's assuming there was no malice, an unproven assumption).

Anyone else, however, would have to actively IGNORE it and LET it happen, for some reason. Such as rallying a country around themselves, passing legislation to increase their power...

Bush letting 9/11 happen after being warned by the CIA out of mere incompetence, rather than malice, I would understand (and that's assuming there was no malice, an unproven assumption).

Anyone else, however, would have to actively IGNORE it and LET it happen, for some reason. Such as rallying a country around themselves, passing legislation to increase their power...

See, this crap is what is so frustrating about American politics, or those who try to insert themselves into American politics.

That's a load of crap. Bush didn't act. Clinton didn't act. NO ONE took the threat of Al Queda seriously enough. BUSH had been in office a few months. Clinton didn't prevent this attack in 8 years. Gore wouldn't have. No one suspected that such an effective attack could ever be accomplished on American soil.

See, this crap is what is so frustrating about American politics, or those who try to insert themselves into American politics.

That's a load of crap. Bush didn't act. Clinton didn't act. NO ONE took the threat of Al Queda seriously enough. BUSH had been in office a few months. Clinton didn't prevent this attack in 8 years. Gore wouldn't have. No one suspected that such an effective attack could ever be accomplished on American soil.

Because seemingly the document by the CIA itself isn't enough warning?

The only way 9/11 would happen under anyone's watch but Bush's would be if they allowed it to take place in order to wag the dog.

Bush letting 9/11 happen after being warned by the CIA out of mere incompetence, rather than malice, I would understand (and that's assuming there was no malice, an unproven assumption).

Anyone else, however, would have to actively IGNORE it and LET it happen, for some reason. Such as rallying a country around themselves, passing legislation to increase their power...

Holy shit. These people are still around? Heikoku? Do us all a favor and actually brush up on history. Statements like these just makes you look very ignorant.

The attack was going to happen no matter what and it is quite obvious that if Gore was elected, it still would have occured then fools like you would state that the government let it happen just like the government let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

Because seemingly the document by the CIA itself isn't enough warning?

Did it mention where the attack was going to occur or when or where the people doing it are?

All it was was a fucking warning. Hell the US had warning that an attack by Japan was coming but they did not suspect the target to be Pearl Harbor. They thought it was going to be in the Philippines.

:headbang:

Holy shit. These people are still around? Heikoku? Do us all a favor and actually brush up on history. Statements like these just makes you look very ignorant.

The attack was going to happen no matter what and it is quite obvious that if Gore was elected, it still would have occured then fools like you would state that the government let it happen just like the government let the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor.

Again, his willful ignorance of the CIA document probably wouldn't take place should Gore be in charge.

Again, his willful ignorance of the CIA document probably wouldn't take place should Gore be in charge.

And what could Gore do to stop it? Oh yea...nothing. The 9/11 attacks were so well orchestrated that it would have taken a miracle of Biblical Proportion to stop it.

Again, his willful ignorance of the CIA document probably wouldn't take place should Gore be in charge.

Seriously? I love the Monday morning quarterbacks. There are a million things going on in the Presidency. Not only that, but there are tons of these types of warnings. It's not typical for the President to deal with them. It's pretty damn atypical. It was a briefing.

I say that if Gore would have been President we'd have a depression right now. What's my proof? Well, I don't need any. See, we're just wildly speculating. Bush saved us from another Great Depression.

And what could Gore do to stop it? Oh yea...nothing. The 9/11 attacks were so well orchestrated that it would have taken a miracle of Biblical Proportion to stop it.

you cant say that.

al gore wasnt president. we have no way of knowing what would have happened if he had been.

what we DO know is that the bush administration felt that alqaeda was a clinton thing and he willfully put it on the back burner. john ashcroft forbad anyone from saying the words "al qaeda" to him.

a different emphasis might have led to a different outcome.

or it might not have.

there is no way to know.

Oh, I'll laugh. You realize that lies requires intent. What's your evidence of the intent?

Shall I engage in mind reading for you? Perhaps I should waterboard the moderators to find out? What an entirely silly and pointless request. When I learn telepathy, I shall let you know. Until then, I must depend on my observations, which say that Charles Gibson can't possibly be stupid enough to beleive that those earning over $100,000 a year are considered middle class, and that George Streptocaucus should know that last year's NIE clealy stated that Iran had halted it's nuclear program in 2003.


The debate was designed to favor democrats in general. It's a debate of democrats not a commercial.

Nope. It was a debate intended to be viewed by those people who would be voting in the Democratic primary. If they booed the moderators, and felt that they had attacked the party, then yes, it was a biased debate.

And what could Gore do to stop it? Oh yea...nothing. The 9/11 attacks were so well orchestrated that it would have taken a miracle of Biblical Proportion to stop it.

I love how people get pissed at Bush for acting on a single CIA document to attack Iraq, but bash him for not acting on a single CIA document for 9/11.

If only we had someone who would have acted perfectly and completely inconsistently in the exact opposite way as Bush. Clearly that person was Gore.

Seriously? I love the Monday morning quarterbacks. There are a million things going on in the Presidency. Not only that, but there are tons of these types of warnings. It's not typical for the President to deal with them. It's pretty damn atypical. It was a briefing.

I say that if Gore would have been President we'd have a depression right now. What's my proof? Well, I don't need any. See, we're just wildly speculating. Bush saved us from another Great Depression.
You sure seem to be spending a lot of effort defending both Bushs in these threads. Add in dislike/blame of anything Clinton, especially Bill, and you appear to be misplaced in the Obama love fest here. :confused:

you cant say that.

al gore wasnt president. we have no way of knowing what would have happened if he had been.

Actually I can say that. History is a guide into the future.

what we DO know is that the bush administration felt that alqaeda was a clinton thing and he willfully put it on the back burner. john ashcroft forbad anyone from saying the words "al qaeda" to him.

I would love for you to prove that he felt that Al Qaeda was a Clinton thing.

a different emphasis might have led to a different outcome.

or it might not have.

there is no way to know.

Tell Heikoku that one! He's implying that it was all Bush's fault. History is the key to the Future for those who fail to learn it are doomed to repeat it.

You sure seem to be spending a lot of effort defending both Bushs in these threads. Add in dislike/blame of anything Clinton, especially Bill, and you appear to be misplaced in the Obama love fest here. :confused:

This is an Obama love-fest? Seriously? Daily Kos is an Obama love-fest. This is tame in comparison.

You sure seem to be spending a lot of effort defending both Bushs in these threads. Add in dislike/blame of anything Clinton, especially Bill, and you appear to be misplaced in the Obama love fest here. :confused:

It's called intellectual honesty. Jocabia is pretty well known for it. The rest of us engage in it from time to time. Maybe you should try it, you might find you like it.

You sure seem to be spending a lot of effort defending both Bushs in these threads. Add in dislike/blame of anything Clinton, especially Bill, and you appear to be misplaced in the Obama love fest here. :confused:

Only a fool would try to connect the two. Oh wait...

I love how people get pissed at Bush for acting on a single CIA document to attack Iraq, but bash him for not acting on a single CIA document for 9/11.

If only we had someone who would have acted perfectly and completely inconsistently in the exact opposite way as Bush. Clearly that person was Gore.

Acting on a single document regarding 9/11: Reinforcing security in one's own soil without killing anyone.

Acting on a single document regarding Iraq, one that turned out to be fake: Go to WAR.

Oh, yeah, same thing.

Actually I can say that. History is a guide into the future.



I would love for you to prove that he felt that Al Qaeda was a Clinton thing.



Tell Heikoku that one! He's implying that it was all Bush's fault. History is the key to the Future for those who fail to learn it are doomed to repeat it.

youve already told heikoku that. if thats not enough, why would he listen to me.

of course its not bush's fault. its silly to say that it is.

I love how people get pissed at Bush for acting on a single CIA document to attack Iraq, but bash him for not acting on a single CIA document for 9/11.

If only we had someone who would have acted perfectly and completely inconsistently in the exact opposite way as Bush. Clearly that person was Gore.

Isn't it funny? I die laughing everytime these things come up.

Shall I engage in mind reading for you? Perhaps I should waterboard the moderators to find out? What an entirely silly and pointless request. When I learn telepathy, I shall let you know. Until then, I must depend on my observations, which say that Charles Gibson can't possibly be stupid enough to beleive that those earning over $100,000 a year are considered middle class, and that George Streptocaucus should know that last year's NIE clealy stated that Iran had halted it's nuclear program in 2003.




As much as I think he's being a little rude and terse in debating you on these specific points, you're REALLY not helping your case with your weird names for people. Seriously, if you want to convince people, try delivering your argument in a respectful manner.

Heikoku: Incorrect. The CIA document was not specific enough to prevent that attack. Perhaps some measures could have been put into place that might--I emphasize might--have stopped one of the planes, but even that would have required some serious foresight and/or extremely quick reacting on the part of the President, neither of which was likely to happen no matter who was sitting in the Oval Office at the time. Being President of the United States simply does not allow that.

youve already told heikoku that. if thats not enough, why would he listen to me.

of course its not bush's fault. its silly to say that it is.

To bad we have morons on here who think it is and it is these people that need to be put back into the place with a little bit of honesty.

Shall I engage in mind reading for you?

You already have, actually.

Perhaps I should waterboard the moderators to find out? What an entirely silly and pointless request. When I learn telepathy, I shall let you know. Until then, I must depend on my observations, which say that Charles Gibson can't possibly be stupid enough to beleive that those earning over $100,000 a year are considered middle class, and that George Streptocaucus should know that last year's NIE clealy stated that Iran had halted it's nuclear program in 2003.

Um, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

The professional class, also called the upper middle class, consists mostly of white collar professionals, most of whom are highly educated, salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have graduate degrees, with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income-earner households having incomes in the high 5-figure range.

Or perhaps you just don't know what you're talking about.

As far as nukes, the same NIE said that the Iran could have HEU as early 2009 and that it's likely by 2015. But since you read the NIE, you must by lying, right? (Or I could just assume you're wrong. But, hey, we've chosen that it's lying if your statements don't allign with my understanding of the facts.)


Nope. It was a debate intended to be viewed by those people who would be voting in the Democratic primary. If they booed the moderators, and felt that they had attacked the party, then yes, it was a biased debate.

It was a debate. Plain and simple. And it was intended to do a lot of things. It wasn't held by the Democratic party. It wasn't held by a Democratic group. It was held by a non-partisan group.

I love how glassy everyone thinks Obama's jaw is. We must protect him from the exact criticism he's going to get in the general. We MUST.

As much as I think he's being a little rude and terse in debating you on these specific points, you're REALLY not helping your case with your weird names for people. Seriously, if you want to convince people, try delivering your argument in a respectful manner.

Meh. If I wanted to waste the energy to remember either how to spell the man's name or really felt any respect for the shill, I'd learn his name.
Moreover, I've only misspelled Stephanopolous' (yes, I had to go look that
up) name. Any other misspellings, if they occured, were entirely accidental.

And, do you honestly think one can convince anyone of anything (Except perhaps of the fact that alf+F4 makes you win at life) on the internet? Seriously? (http://xkcd.com/386/)

Give Obama credit. He sure knows how to turn a phrase:

Today in Raleigh, North Carolina, Barack Obama attacked the debate held last night. He said "[w]e set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people."

He added, "that's just how Washington is." He mentioned Hillary Clinton and the crowd heartily booed.

Its a video log:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/04/obama_attacks_debate_we_set_a.html

You sure seem to be spending a lot of effort defending both Bushs in these threads. Add in dislike/blame of anything Clinton, especially Bill, and you appear to be misplaced in the Obama love fest here. :confused:

I can understand that being reasonable rather than absurdly partisan toward the candidates I like confuses you, but rational people follow the evidence. Bush isn't always the cause of every problem in America. Clinton wasn't a savior. Bush isn't the anti-Christ. Regardingly people with reason should be the ultimate goal whether you like them or not. I've spent some time in these threads defending Hillary. Unlike you, I actually prefer to point out ALL the facts even if they don't say what I'd like them to.

Clinton did a lot of great things. He also screwed up a lot. Bush Jr. did a few great things and screwed up almost everything.

Both of them, and elder Bush, and Reagan presided over a time when the lower 40% of our country saw virtually no movement in income and definitely didn't see one that exceeded inflation. I'm sorry you don't want to acknowledge that the people who got rich under Clinton weren't the poor. Income inequality has been increasing steadily for 40 years. And your numbers when showing all of them proved it.

You already have, actually.

You've lost me



Um, what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

The professional class, also called the upper middle class, consists mostly of white collar professionals, most of whom are highly educated, salaried professionals whose work is largely self-directed. Many have graduate degrees, with educational attainment serving as the main distinguishing feature of this class. Household incomes commonly exceed $100,000, with some smaller one-income-earner households having incomes in the high 5-figure range.

Or perhaps you just don't know what you're talking about.

This debate was held earlier in the year, with Hillary Clinton making the same assertion (hint, by the by, Wiki is NOT a good source in any political issue). Gibson's assertion, that those earning over the $150,000 a year and under $250,000 (wouldn't be shocked if Gibson fell in this range) qualified as a part of the middle class in need of tax releif was utter bunk, and he knew it.

As far as nukes, the same NIE said that the Iran could have HEU as early 2009 and that it's likely by 2015. But since you read the NIE, you must by lying, right? (Or I could just assume you're wrong. But, hey, we've chosen that it's lying if your statements don't allign with my understanding of the facts.)

Or, you know, we can go back to the lie, which was SPECIFICALLY, that Iran had not stopped it's program to make a nuclear weapon. Which was false. Whether or not they COULD have one was not part of the quesiton. Absolutely, between 2009 and 2015, assuming that Iran's regime is still functioning by that point, it is possible that Iran could produce Highly Enriched Uranium (also different from actually, you know, having a nuclear weapon).

And, of course, if I showed a habit of saying false things which any rational person in my position would know were false, yes, it would be safe to assume I was lying.



quote]It was a debate. Plain and simple. And it was intended to do a lot of things. It wasn't held by the Democratic party. It wasn't held by a Democratic group. It was held by a non-partisan group. [/quote]

It was held for Democrats, on behalf of those who would be voting as Democrats. There is an assumption we make that political assassination will not be the moderator's first goal.

I love how glassy everyone thinks Obama's jaw is. We must protect him from the exact criticism he's going to get in the general. We MUST.

I actually think Obama is perfectly capable of dealing with attacks. I just think that it isn't the media's job to be the water-carriers for those attacks.

Meh. If I wanted to waste the energy to remember either how to spell the man's name or really felt any respect for the shill, I'd learn his name.
Moreover, I've only misspelled Stephanopolous' (yes, I had to go look that
up) name. Any other misspellings, if they occured, were entirely accidental.
I'm sorry, but spelling someone's name to mean a disease is not accidental.

And, do you honestly think one can convince anyone of anything (Except perhaps of the fact that alf+F4 makes you win at life) on the internet? Seriously? (http://xkcd.com/386/)
Er, yes, actually, I do.

Acting on a single document regarding 9/11: Reinforcing security in one's own soil without killing anyone.

Acting on a single document regarding Iraq, one that turned out to be fake: Go to WAR.

Oh, yeah, same thing.

What specific information did Bush have that would made it possible to have stopped it with the infrastructure that existed at the time?

No one thought that planes could be hijacked with boxcutters, not even the lunatic who AFTER THE FACT claimed he knew it was going to happen. If it really was so clear this was going to occur, why didn't ANYONE do anything about it? The President's permission is needed for the CIA to stop a terrorist attack. The President's action wasn't required unless they were going to attack a country. Why is it that no one acted?

I'm sorry, but spelling someone's name to mean a disease is not accidental.

No, I rather noted that misspelling Stephanopolous' name had been purposeful (or at least I tried to. It appears I failed as well). I was noting that I had not, so far as I knew, misspelled anyone else's name.

Er, yes, actually, I do.

Oh...

You know they have medicine for that, right?

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html)

Maybe we should press Hillary on this:

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html)

Maybe we should press Hillary on this:

The Clinton campaign apparently vigorously denied this ever happened in a conference call this afternoon, according to Mark Halperin.

You've lost me

When you say they are lies while admitting you have no evidence they're lies, you're pretending to be a mindreader.


This debate was held earlier in the year, with Hillary Clinton making the same assertion (hint, by the by, Wiki is NOT a good source in any political issue). Gibson's assertion, that those earning over the $150,000 a year and under $250,000 (wouldn't be shocked if Gibson fell in this range) qualified as a part of the middle class in need of tax releif was utter bunk, and he knew it.

Class isn't determined specifically by income. Income is relative to where you live and who you're supporting. I'm certainly higher than middle class, but I fall in that range and am single. However, if I made the same income and was raising my four children, ailing wife, and housing our parents in NY, I'd certainly only be middle class, particularly if I had no health insurance (that's actually someone I know). The specific outliers for middle class is strongly debated.


Or, you know, we can go back to the lie, which was SPECIFICALLY, that Iran had not stopped it's program to make a nuclear weapon. Which was false. Whether or not they COULD have one was not part of the quesiton. Absolutely, between 2009 and 2015, assuming that Iran's regime is still functioning by that point, it is possible that Iran could produce Highly Enriched Uranium (also different from actually, you know, having a nuclear weapon).

The program is in dispute which was part of what the NIE was talking about. They could have HEU as little as a year from now. But hey, mindreader, just keep telling us what his intent was.

Dude, I could make a nuclear weapon with HEU. It's really all there is to it.


And, of course, if I showed a habit of saying false things which any rational person in my position would know were false, yes, it would be safe to assume I was lying.

Okay, liar. Given what you claim to know, you're either lying about what you know or about whether these two were lying. Or perhaps, you could just be misunderstanding. You really want to jump to the point of calling all mistakes lies?


It was held for Democrats, on behalf of those who would be voting as Democrats. There is an assumption we make that political assassination will not be the moderator's first goal.

Heh. Like I said, those of us who would prefer that Dems be realistic are happy to see debates that aren't designed to be cushy and promote democrats. Now, if Dems had wanted that, then perhaps they should have actually done it themselves.

Again, political assassignation? If that was assassignation, then the Dems are in trouble in the general. Big trouble.


I actually think Obama is perfectly capable of dealing with attacks. I just think that it isn't the media's job to be the water-carriers for those attacks.

Those attacks have already occurred. They forced both candidates to address them in front of one another. It was wonderful to see them pressed there. It played well for Obama. It demonstrated he's ready for the general, which is what the supers and a lot of voters want to know.

But, hey, wouldn't it be great if they'd focused on health care. We could have had another hour of watching them argue about the tiniest little points in plans that are nearly identical.

Oh...

You know they have medicine for that, right?

I don't understand why the internet is somehow exempt from being a media in which people can communicate regularly. That's all it really is. You can convince someone when speaking to them in person, or over the phone, or through a book or a television show or a movie or whatever else have you, so what makes the internet so special that it somehow can't be used the same way?

Seriously, if you believe that, why are you on a debate forum?

The Clinton campaign apparently vigorously denied this ever happened in a conference call this afternoon, according to Mark Halperin.

Hmmm... I read the article and I don't know. I don't particularly believe it. She had aspirations even then and that is a pretty damaging thing to say.

I don't understand why the internet is somehow exempt from being a media in which people can communicate regularly. That's all it really is. You can convince someone when speaking to them in person, or over the phone, or through a book or a television show or a movie or whatever else have you, so what makes the internet so special that it somehow can't be used the same way?

Seriously, if you believe that, why are you on a debate forum?

Kyr, what he means to say is that he doesn't know how to convince someone in written form and that he's not approaching the discussions with an open mind. He's then ascribing his unwillingness to all of us. I've seen lots of people change their minds, even people I've had knock-down drag-outs with, like you, Dem, Cat, me, Neo Art, Bottle, and all kinds of others.

We're bound to encounter new information and reasonable people adjust their position based on the information they gather. The alternative is the "stay the course mentality" that accuses people of "flip-flopping" when the find out their position was wrong.

When you say they are lies while admitting you have no evidence they're lies, you're pretending to be a mindreader.

No, I am synthesizing a conclusion from the evidence available to me. There is a difference.

Class isn't determined specifically by income. Income is relative to where you live and who you're supporting. I'm certainly higher than middle class, but I fall in that range and am single. However, if I made the same income and was raising my four children, ailing wife, and housing our parents in NY, I'd certainly only be middle class, particularly if I had no health insurance (that's actually someone I know). The specific outliers for middle class is strongly debated.

Fine, I'll give you this one, but I would still assert that Gibson's framing was fundamentally dishonest.

The program is in dispute which was part of what the NIE was talking about. They could have HEU as little as a year from now. But hey, mindreader, just keep telling us what his intent was.

No, the NIE clearly states that the weapon's development program was discontinued. To claim it is still going on is either to be ignorant or to lie. Now, given that Stephanopolous almost certainly covered the NIE when it came out, I would assume he knows what it said, so ignorance is out.

Dude, I could make a nuclear weapon with HEU. It's really all there is to it.

Not really. Yes, the most difficult aspect of developing a nuclear weapon is enriching the uranium, but there is a little more to it than that. The detonator material for a collapsing core or gun-model bombs is not public data, and the proportioning and model construction may seem easy compared to other things done in science, but they aren't that easy. Either way, there is no proof that Iran is actually pursuing HEU, mearly that they can attain it.


Okay, liar. Given what you claim to know, you're either lying about what you know or about whether these two were lying. Or perhaps, you could just be misunderstanding. You really want to jump to the point of calling all mistakes lies?

Or I can make safe, rational assumptions based on the data presented to me. Now, you may choose to distort what I am saying however you please, but no, one can make a mistake and not be lying. However, when one is preparing for a nationally televised debate, one assumes that a basic fact-check is also not so difficult to aquire.


Heh. Like I said, those of us who would prefer that Dems be realistic are happy to see debates that aren't designed to be cushy and promote democrats. Now, if Dems had wanted that, then perhaps they should have actually done it themselves.

Again, political assassignation? If that was assassignation, then the Dems are in trouble in the general. Big trouble.

I'm of the opinion that the State Party SHOULD have been running the debates, but either way, I beleive that the role of the media in these debates is to ask questions that Democratic voters want to hear asked, not attack the candidates with Right Wing framing.




Those attacks have already occurred. They forced both candidates to address them in front of one another. It was wonderful to see them pressed there. It played well for Obama. It demonstrated he's ready for the general, which is what the supers and a lot of voters want to know. [/quote

It isn't the media's job to be water-boy for Rush Limbaugh (forgive me, Kyronea, by the by, you are correct. I purposefully misspelled his name as well). That is what the Ayers question was.

[quote]But, hey, wouldn't it be great if they'd focused on health care. We could have had another hour of watching them argue about the tiniest little points in plans that are nearly identical.

Clearly we haven't had enough discussion on Health Care policy if you still don't understand the difference between a mandated plan and a non-mandated plan. They are rather large differences, see.

I don't understand why the internet is somehow exempt from being a media in which people can communicate regularly. That's all it really is. You can convince someone when speaking to them in person, or over the phone, or through a book or a television show or a movie or whatever else have you, so what makes the internet so special that it somehow can't be used the same way?

I beleive that the combination of low-information exchange, anonimity, and high-level hostility prevent any meaningful opinion development from occuring for those engaged in the actual act of debating. Now, outside observers are a different matter. Which leads me to:

Seriously, if you believe that, why are you on a debate forum?

Practice, and because it allows me to see opposing frames and craft a response to them in a relatively low-importance environment.