NationStates Jolt Archive

Riiiight...



You've just lost any lingering shred of credibility you may still have had.

How do you define socialism, oh highly confused person that thou art?



Yes, I think that's the most patriotic thing to do. Do your country a favour and decrease the proportion of delusional voters.

<3

Also an extremely accurate one.

Not one you'd expect to see Corneliu making....

So, you're saying that the Clinton impeachment trial was purely a political ploy? That's a pretty hefty accusation to level at the Republican party.
Also an extremely accurate one.

So, you're saying that the Clinton impeachment trial was purely a political ploy? That's a pretty hefty accusation to level at the Republican party.

And that's coming from me isn't it?

You say Clinton "was impeached based on an investigation that had no bearing on what the original investigation was. This will be in that category"... how, exactly? This procedure against Bush is clearly laid out in 36 points - some more 'serious' than others, but pretty much nothing that hasn't been shown to be true, that hasn't been shown to be in direct contradiction of protocol, law, or Constitution.

Anything the President does can be construed as violating the law if someone does not like it. Look at the failed attempt to recall Governor Reagan during his stint as governor of California. Some people obviously did not like him and tried to oust him from power.

Let us look at President Johnson. He was impeached under an unconstitutional law and luckily enough he was not convicted. That was politically motivated.

Nixon was going to be impeached and he richly deserved to be impeached and convicted but he resigned before the vote on the House Floor.

Clinton was not liked among republicans during his tenure. He was impeached for lying about sex. That was it. So yes, it can be construed that his impeachment was politically motivated as well.

I don't believe you represent the average American. I think most people can probably see past a charade about getting your cock sucked, and see the difference between that and.. for example... suspending constitutional rights, or getting the nation involved in an illegal war.

You have a problem though. The war was not illegal as it was authorized by the United States Congress. Suspending constitutional rights has always occured under every president during a time of war (and yes, that includes Lincoln).

Also an extremely accurate one.

Not one you'd expect to see Corneliu making....

:D

You'll find that I am indeed full of surprises.

And that's coming from me isn't it?


True this. I was just saying.


Anything the President does can be construed as violating the law if someone does not like it.


We're not talking about stuff being construed as anything - we're talking about, in this case, 36 articles of impeachment.


Look at the failed attempt to recall Governor Reagan during his stint as governor of California. Some people obviously did not like him and tried to oust him from power.

Let us look at President Johnson. He was impeached under an unconstitutional law and luckily enough he was not convicted. That was politically motivated.

Nixon was going to be impeached and he richly deserved to be impeached and convicted but he resigned before the vote on the House Floor.

Clinton was not liked among republicans during his tenure. He was impeached for lying about sex. That was it. So yes, it can be construed that his impeachment was politically motivated as well.


There's no real argument that people in the political system jockey for power. You seem to be admitting that the Republican party are sufficiently contemptuous of the American people and the American process, that they would use even Impeachment as a game to score political points.

But, we're not talking apples to apple here - we're talking about "I didn't tap that shit" versus "my regime outs high security data when it amuses us to do so..."

Bush should have been Impeached some time ago.


You have a problem though. The war was not illegal as it was authorized by the United States Congress. Suspending constitutional rights has always occured under every president during a time of war (and yes, that includes Lincoln).

It was in breach of the UN charter. It was not sanctioned by the UN security council. The US dispensed with UN protocol when it suited them, and engaged in unilateral action - thus 'illegal'. The US claims that they were allowed to wage unilateral war as 'a self-defence' action (which is, obviously, a lie), despite the fact that they based their claim for war on a resolution (1441) which was only signed by three of the nations on the EXPRESS (written, no less - it's contract law) condition that such a resolution could-and-would-not be used by any state to engage in unilateral military actions. Thus - illegal.

Whether or not the USC did anything doesn't matter. If you breach international law with the backing of your congress, your congress is complicit in a crime, not a form of absolution for it being illegal.

True this. I was just saying.



We're not talking about stuff being construed as anything - we're talking about, in this case, 36 articles of impeachment.

How many did Cheney have? Ok maybe not 36 but that was killed even after the Republicans forced a debate on it. Pelosi herself stated that this was not going to occur. And as we all know...it is the Speaker that sets the agenda.

There's no real argument that people in the political system jockey for power.

WOW!!!

You seem to be admitting that the Republican party are sufficiently contemptuous of the American people and the American process, that they would use even Impeachment as a game to score political points.

And the Democrats are just as guilty in that regard as well. And no, I am not talking about the impeachment game to score political points either. Both parties play to score points at the others expense.

But, we're not talking apples to apple here - we're talking about "I didn't tap that shit" versus "my regime outs high security data when it amuses us to do so..."

As opposed to some of the crap that Clinton pulled, the Democrats really shouldn't even consider this and thank God they are not. Even they see politics in what Kucinich is trying to pull.

Bush should have been Impeached some time ago.

Wrong. He shouldn't be impeached at all. No High Crime nor misdeamor has occured.

It was in breach of the UN charter. It was not sanctioned by the UN security council.

The UN Charter is not worth the paper its printed on. Its only as good as the nations that want to enforce it. Since no one wants to enforce it...its as worthless as the Genocide Convention.

The US dispensed with UN protocol when it suited them, and engaged in unilateral action - thus 'illegal'.

Much like Bill Clinton's actions against Bosnia. The UN didn't agree to that either so I guess then that action was illegal and thus Clinton should have been impeached again for that. Oh and let us not forget Operation Desert Fox against Iraq. That didn't even have authorization from Congress. Oops. Another impeachable offense.

The US claims that they were allowed to wage unilateral war as 'a self-defence' action (which is, obviously, a lie), despite the fact that they based their claim for war on a resolution (1441) which was only signed by three of the nations on the EXPRESS (written, no less - it's contract law) condition that such a resolution could-and-would-not be used by any state to engage in unilateral military actions. Thus - illegal.

In case you haven't been following, we are authorize to clean up Iraq.

Whether or not the USC did anything doesn't matter. If you breach international law with the backing of your congress, your congress is complicit in a crime, not a form of absolution for it being illegal.

Since the UN is not a world legislature and since the President does not answer to the UN nor does our Congress...nor does the UN control the US Military...

How many did Cheney have? Ok maybe not 36 but that was killed even after the Republicans forced a debate on it. Pelosi herself stated that this was not going to occur. And as we all know...it is the Speaker that sets the agenda.


Whether or not it was killed before it could be followed is irrelevent. The point is - this wasn't just some game about someone getting gobbled - there are real issues involved.


And the Democrats are just as guilty in that regard as well. And no, I am not talking about the impeachment game ...


So - they aren't just as guilty then?

But.. I care, why? Both the US parties are corrupt. It's just that the slightly-more-extreme-right one is also noticably more corrupt, and more contemtuous of it's constituents.


As opposed to some of the crap that Clinton pulled, the Democrats really shouldn't even consider this and thank God they are not. Even they see politics in what Kucinich is trying to pull.


"As opposed to some of the crap..." blah-blah etc. Okay - shall we go point for point? The Clinton Impeachment was based on two things - a lie, and obstruction about that lie. The subject of the lie was - and let's be totally honest about this - absolutely fuck all to do with the running of the nation. It was about whether Clinton was fucking someone.

So - which points do we think this terrible blowjob scandal is knocking off the chart? The illegal surveillance? The fiscal mismanagement? The hatchet job of reconstruction? Outing operatives?

So - 'as opposed to some of the crap' means what exactly? Answer - the paper it is written on. In this case, not even paper.


Wrong. He shouldn't be impeached at all. No High Crime nor misdeamor has occured.


I don't think you know what impeachment is.

Impeachment requires that an indictable offence has taken place, or is believed to have been taken place. Impeachment is nothing more than bringing charges.

If Bush has been involved in any indictable crime (or is believed to have been - that will be determined later, yes?) then he is 'up for' Impeachment. The Iraqi reconstruction fraud alone would probably suffice.


The UN Charter is not worth the paper its printed on. Its only as good as the nations that want to enforce it. Since no one wants to enforce it...its as worthless as the Genocide Convention.


The US signed on. The US employed the UN charter (and, specifically, resolution 1441) as articles FOR war. Don't you see the conflict? If the UN charter is void, then the US declared war for no reason.


Much like Bill Clinton's actions against Bosnia. The UN didn't agree to that either so I guess then that action was illegal and thus Clinton should have been impeached again for that. Oh and let us not forget Operation Desert Fox against Iraq. That didn't even have authorization from Congress. Oops. Another impeachable offense.


What's you point?

Should NATO have gotten involved in Yugoslavia? It's arguable. SHould it have done so against the will of the security council, against UN charter provisions? No - as such, it was in breach of international law.

Okay.


So?


In case you haven't been following, we are authorize to clean up Iraq.


Authorised by who?

(And, of course, cleaning up Iraq is only even necessary because we broke it in the first palce, yes?)


Since the UN is not a world legislature and since the President does not answer to the UN nor does our Congress...nor does the UN control the US Military...

So?

We are signatory to a code of international conduct. By international law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

Given that it is no longer debatable whether the Bush regime lied about intelligence, I'd say the war is probably of dubious legality even by our own standards. Using false information to secure a declaration of war should be illegal, shouldn't it?

Since the UN is not a world legislature and since the President does not answer to the UN nor does our Congress...nor does the UN control the US Military...

Interesting assumption given the justification for war was that Saddam breached international law. So basically we have no justification for the war and we're the aggressors. You sure you want to argue this particular path?

Given that it is no longer debatable whether the Bush regime lied about intelligence, I'd say the war is probably of dubious legality even by our own standards. Using false information to secure a declaration of war should be illegal, shouldn't it?
Lying to congress is indictable. Lying to congress under these circumstances should be considered treason, except our particular definition of treason doesn't include helping another nation to begin a war against us.

Lying to congress is indictable. Lying to congress under these circumstances should be considered treason, except our particular definition of treason doesn't include helping another nation to begin a war against us.

Our definition of treason is surprisingly vague. That could probably qualify.

I'm watching McCain's speech on Youtube and analyzed his discourse somewhat...

The guy is a joke! He attacks his opponent and smiles uneasily shortly after. He seems to be utterly ignorant of what signal he wants to send, he complains about treatment he received then he smiles and smirks. It's like someone laughing while talking about an earthquake. During the speech itself, he looks somber and glum, when dealing with supporters.

He does not manage his signs.

He furthermore seems to mangle lots of phrasal structures, to stumble over words, tones of voice (he sounds like he's saying "that's not change we can believe in?" rather than the negative statement) and so on. And that's just in the Linguistics issue.

Then there's outright SAYING he kept his silence over something because it was "politically hard", there was the "bottled hot water" thing, the green background, the bad tone of voice, the "attacking an opponent in a night in which it's dumb to", and the "let's use my opponent's slogan in the night he's winning".

He not only uses a speech to attack Obama in a bad moment to, he does it without any true will or force. He doesn't sound like he's making a speech, he sounds like he's whining.

If McCain asks for debates, Obama, by all means, GIVE THEM TO HIM.

The other thing I noticed about the "puke green background" speech was that he was encouraging the crowd (and it was obviously a small crowd, making it seem like he has hardly any supporters) to BOO at him. Does he have no sense of psychology? He is teaching our subconscious minds to associate him with jeering. He has followed that up with a commercial where he says "I know the horrors of war..." with mournful violin music in the background.

What next, a shot of him at a funeral while "Taps" plays?

The other thing I noticed about the "puke green background" speech was that he was encouraging the crowd (and it was obviously a small crowd, making it seem like he has hardly any supporters) to BOO at him. Does he have no sense of psychology? He is teaching our subconscious minds to associate him with jeering. He has followed that up with a commercial where he says "I know the horrors of war..." with mournful violin music in the background.

What next, a shot of him at a funeral while "Taps" plays?

Hey, I, for one, am loving to see the guy do that to himself. :D

But, as it seems, his team has no sense of psychology, no sense of publicity, and he himself is a study on failure to deliver a speech...

I did figure out why that green background.

Green, typically, represents hope.

In that case, "I hope I don't throw up any more.". :D

Since the UN is not a world legislature and since the President does not answer to the UN nor does our Congress...nor does the UN control the US Military...

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

If the UN was irrelevant, why was the joint resolution authorizing the use of force include the condition that it is to be used to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq?

Since Bush disregarded UNSC resolutions, you could argue that he violated the joint resolution as well.

I don't want to see him impeached, btw. I want to see him stand trial for war crimes.

Interesting assumption given the justification for war was that Saddam breached international law. So basically we have no justification for the war and we're the aggressors. You sure you want to argue this particular path?

Exactly... the same thing occurs in regards to the "authorised to clean up" thing. How can the UN be both an authority, and NOT an authority... seemingly, it all comes down to whether they agree with the US, or not.

why have y'all hijacked this thread?

its not like we can start a new one on the original topic eh?

why have y'all hijacked this thread?

its not like we can start a new one on the original topic eh?
Booooooring :p

why have y'all hijacked this thread?

its not like we can start a new one on the original topic eh?

Impeachment of the current president could matter in this election cycle... especially since Kucinich was one of the candidates, and could still be running on the ticket. Plus - the possible impact on the political complexion of both parties.

It kind-of is the issue of the moment, except for Obama maybe saying he'd maybe select a retired military officer, or something.

why have y'all hijacked this thread?

its not like we can start a new one on the original topic eh?

Until John McCain leads the charge of the people who wish to draw and quarter George W. Bush, then this election is an indictment of the President.

When the troops who face the business end of the rifle get worse care than those who blithely send them to do so, change your leadership.

Impeachment of the current president could matter in this election cycle... especially since Kucinich was one of the candidates, and could still be running on the ticket. Plus - the possible impact on the political complexion of both parties.

It kind-of is the issue of the moment, except for Obama maybe saying he'd maybe select a retired military officer, or something.

no it isnt

and there may be many more people interested in the subject that will not know its going on because you have put it into a thread hijack instead of starting a new thread about it.

no it isnt

and there may be many more people interested in the subject that will not know its going on because you have put it into a thread hijack instead of starting a new thread about it.

It isn't what? It isn't the issue of the moment? It's the biggest news in almost a week (since the 5th, when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the phase of their report that says the Bush regime lied about our reasons for war).

As Jocabia just said - this election is partly about candidates... but much less so this week than it has been for the last few months. Now it's becoming aprtisan again, and that means THIS election IS a referendum on THIS president.

But - this isn't intended to be a hijack. But then - no one is discussing anything else about the candidates. Indeed - apart from me mentioning Obama's comments about ex-military officers, the Impeachment is the only new thing on this menu.

It isn't what? It isn't the issue of the moment? It's the biggest news in almost a week (since the 5th, when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released the phase of their report that says the Bush regime lied about our reasons for war).

As Jocabia just said - this election is partly about candidates... but much less so this week than it has been for the last few months. Now it's becoming aprtisan again, and that means THIS election IS a referendum on THIS president.

But - this isn't intended to be a hijack. But then - no one is discussing anything else about the candidates. Indeed - apart from me mentioning Obama's comments about ex-military officers, the Impeachment is the only new thing on this menu.w


what is the problem with starting a new thread for things that are NOT about mccain vs obama et al and using the polls thread for when you want to discuss polls (endlessly)

why clog up THIS thread with a subject that is outside the scope of the thread?

w


what is the problem with starting a new thread for things that are NOT about mccain vs obama et al and using the polls thread for when you want to discuss polls (endlessly)

why clog up THIS thread with a subject that is outside the scope of the thread?

Okay - I kind of see your point.... but I don't see the problem.

There is no discussion going on. Pretty much the only forward momentum in this thread, at this time, IS what you call the hijack.

I think it's on topic... not RIGHT on, but totally relevent. Given that - and the fact that there is no one discussing the actual candidates... where's the problem in continuing the debate in this thread, by talking about an issue of partisanship - now that we've got to a point in the electoral procedings where people are going to be voting on party lines again?

Whether or not it was killed before it could be followed is irrelevent. The point is - this wasn't just some game about someone getting gobbled - there are real issues involved.

You are right that there are real issues here but do we really want the real issues overshadowed by an impeachment proceding that will be turned into as big a circus as Clinton's was?

So - they aren't just as guilty then?

They're all guilty.

But.. I care, why? Both the US parties are corrupt. It's just that the slightly-more-extreme-right one is also noticably more corrupt, and more contemtuous of it's constituents.

They both don't care about their constituents.

Okay - shall we go point for point? The Clinton Impeachment was based on two things - a lie, and obstruction about that lie. The subject of the lie was - and let's be totally honest about this - absolutely fuck all to do with the running of the nation. It was about whether Clinton was fucking someone.

No fucking shit Holmes.

So - which points do we think this terrible blowjob scandal is knocking off the chart? The illegal surveillance? The fiscal mismanagement? The hatchet job of reconstruction? Outing operatives?

Most presidents have fiscal mismanagement. :rolleyes: Shall we look at the reconstruction efforts of the South under President Johnson?

I don't think you know what impeachment is.

Oh I know precisely what it means.

Impeachment requires that an indictable offence has taken place, or is believed to have been taken place. Impeachment is nothing more than bringing charges.

Right.

If Bush has been involved in any indictable crime (or is believed to have been - that will be determined later, yes?) then he is 'up for' Impeachment. The Iraqi reconstruction fraud alone would probably suffice.

Probably not.

The US signed on. The US employed the UN charter (and, specifically, resolution 1441) as articles FOR war. Don't you see the conflict? If the UN charter is void, then the US declared war for no reason.

As opposed to Iraq's declaration of war for no reason. Under the Charter, Iraq should have been tossed out of the UN in accordance with the UN Charter.

What's you point?

Should NATO have gotten involved in Yugoslavia? It's arguable. SHould it have done so against the will of the security council, against UN charter provisions? No - as such, it was in breach of international law.

Okay.

So you agree with that statement?

We are signatory to a code of international conduct. By international law, the war in Iraq was illegal.

I disagree entirely. If we declare the war in Iraq illegal then we have to declare every single action ever taken by the all presidents dating back to the creation of the UN that did not have UN approval and impeach all of them for violating the US Constitution. That will never happen and you and I both know it. Considering the fact that the Oath of Office is to defend the United States against all enemies.

Given that it is no longer debatable whether the Bush regime lied about intelligence, I'd say the war is probably of dubious legality even by our own standards. Using false information to secure a declaration of war should be illegal, shouldn't it?

As opposed to what Clinton had which was the same intel that Bush had...

If the UN was irrelevant, why was the joint resolution authorizing the use of force include the condition that it is to be used to enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq?

Since Bush disregarded UNSC resolutions, you could argue that he violated the joint resolution as well.

I don't want to see him impeached, btw. I want to see him stand trial for war crimes.

Which makes the war legal regardless.

Until John McCain leads the charge of the people who wish to draw and quarter George W. Bush, then this election is an indictment of the President.

When the troops who face the business end of the rifle get worse care than those who blithely send them to do so, change your leadership.

How likely is it that the military vote will go to Obama? I've steadily been hearing nice, but anecdotal things about it, beyond the proportions of campaign money that went to him.

Off Topic: Git on AIM, if you can.

Given that - and the fact that there is no one discussing the actual candidates...
Heikoku and I were having a little fun mocking McCain's poor presentation skills. Is that what this thread should be confined to?

Which makes the war legal regardless.

That Bush violated the rules under which he was given permission to use force makes the war legal? Do you actual read the posts you reply to or do you just figure there's no point since no amount of evidence is going to change your mind?

I've just been reading about Obama's platform on his website. If he does what he says he will do, he's gonna tax us out of our shirts. Democrats tend to respond to problems by throwing money at them, but jee-wiz Obama is the extreme case.

I've just been reading about Obama's platform on his website. If he does what he says he will do, he's gonna tax us out of our shirts. Democrats tend to respond to problems by throwing money at them, but jee-wiz Obama is the extreme case.

'Us' being the most wealthy you mean right? I doubt the rich will be taxed to the point they lose their shirts.

'Us' being the most wealthy you mean right? I doubt the rich will be taxed to the point they lose their shirts.

taxing the rich affects everyone. It prevents many businessmen and private business owners from opening new stores, offering new products, researching new ideas, finding ways to cut costs, e.t.c. Taxing any one individual will make a community worse off. That is, unless you believe that the government can do more with that man's money than he could. Then you are naive.

taxing the rich affects everyone. It prevents many businessmen and private business owners from opening new stores, offering new products, researching new ideas, finding ways to cut costs, e.t.c. Taxing any one individual will make a community worse off. That is, unless you believe that the government can do more with that man's money than he could. Then you are naive.

Arrogant much?

taxing the rich affects everyone. It prevents many businessmen and private business owners from opening new stores, offering new products, researching new ideas, finding ways to cut costs, e.t.c. Taxing any one individual will make a community worse off. That is, unless you believe that the government can do more with that man's money than he could. Then you are naive.


They didn't seem to have a problem doing these things before the bush tax cuts for the rich, I doubt that will change when the tax cuts are rolled back.


Also, you missed this in the post a pic thread:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/artwork%20-%20funnies/flyingcarpet.jpg


:D :p

Taxing any one individual will make a community worse off. That is, unless you believe that the government can do more with that man's money than he could. Then you are naive.

If that is true then surely we should abolish all tax?

I've just been reading about Obama's platform on his website. If he does what he says he will do, he's gonna tax us out of our shirts. Democrats tend to respond to problems by throwing money at them, but jee-wiz Obama is the extreme case.

You mean as opposed to just spending wildly with no way to pay for it and then leaving the bill to our children? Yes, that's much better. Someone has to pay for the wild spending of the Bush administration. It's unfortunate that the party of 'fiscal responsibility' spent like teenagers that stole daddy's credit card.

(That's right... "daddy's". I'm a big freaking sexist.)

Nice to meet you, pot, but I'm not kettle.

For starters, Republican leaning ones. Also, in the last three months, she played the victim a LOT, which did help her.
The more you elaborate on your posts, it seems the deeper the manure.

Okay...first, Republicans, according to you, see Hillary more favourable in the past 3 months because she is helping them against Obama......now Independents (at least the Republican leaning ones) have a more favourable view of Hillary over the past few months because she "played the victim a LOT".

How long would it last before the actual election and with a candidate that does NOT endorse victimization?
And then you throw this in from left field. Wow!!

Perhaps you have equally amusing speculations as to why Obama's favourability ratings amongst Republicans and Independents is nose diving?

Perhaps you have equally amusing speculations as to why Obama's favourability ratings amongst Republicans and Independents is nose diving?

Scaremongering. Average Joe American is a retarded sheep.

EDIT: I actually would like to see something credible backing this claim up. But not from you CH. You couldnt give a credible study if your life depended on it.

Someone else?

In Texas the Republicans always vote for the most likely to lose to a Republican in the General Election, they vote in the primary and not the caucus. The caucus is the real indicator as to who voted for real - for the Democrats to win - in Texas. The primary is always a rigged election. Get smart. No Republican will ever vote honestly for the Clintons, even a ton of Democrats hate them.
Wow....you really made a lot of claims here....I would love to see you back them ALL up.

Wow....you really made a lot of claims here....I would love to see you back them ALL up.

I'd like to see you back any up. We can't always get what we want. But if we try sometimes you just might find...

Average Joe American is a retarded sheep.
Nice. So, are you above average or below average? :D

If that is true then surely we should abolish all tax?

That should be our goal, yes.

They didn't seem to have a problem doing these things before the bush tax cuts for the rich, I doubt that will change when the tax cuts are rolled back.


Also, you missed this in the post a pic thread:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/m00nbeast/artwork%20-%20funnies/flyingcarpet.jpg


:D :p

oh, my, god... I'm, speechless

who did that?

I love it!

All of you puny NSGer's must bow before your mighty flying carpet god Soyut! bwahahaha!

That should be our goal, yes.

Er, don't even the wildest libertarians believe in an army/police force?

You mean as opposed to just spending wildly with no way to pay for it and then leaving the bill to our children? Yes, that's much better. Someone has to pay for the wild spending of the Bush administration. It's unfortunate that the party of 'fiscal responsibility' spent like teenagers that stole daddy's credit card.

(That's right... "daddy's". I'm a big freaking sexist.)

Mommy hid hers better.

Nice. So, are you above average or below average? :D

I think he is above. I'm sure I am. I know Neo Art is, and so is Jocabia. And others.

Are you?

You mean as opposed to just spending wildly with no way to pay for it and then leaving the bill to our children? Yes, that's much better. Someone has to pay for the wild spending of the Bush administration. It's unfortunate that the party of 'fiscal responsibility' spent like teenagers that stole daddy's credit card.

(That's right... "daddy's". I'm a big freaking sexist.)

I agree with you.

Er, don't even the wildest libertarians believe in an army/police force?

I think we should adopt a low bidder approach to electing politicians. Who can do the most with taxing us the least. Soon we'll have the government funding itself. Thats the goal.

How will the government fund itself you ask, simple, designer handbag factories.

oh, my, god... I'm, speechless

who did that?

I love it!

All of you puny NSGer's must bow before your mighty flying carpet god Soyut! bwahahaha!

I did.

I kept waiting and waiting for you to come back to the thread and nothing. NOTHING!

Glad you like :)

But - this isn't intended to be a hijack. But then - no one is discussing anything else about the candidates. Indeed - apart from me mentioning Obama's comments about ex-military officers, the Impeachment is the only new thing on this menu.

Hasn't stopped us before.

Yes, Heiku was making this up when he posted it for you and you promptly ignored it.

So yeah, he was just "making stuff up." Except that he wasn't as can be seen right here. Do you ever tire of being proved wrong? I mean, if I was used as a punching bag by superior fighters, (Yes, Joc, myself, CTOAN, and even Heiku have proven you to be a toothless tiger) I'd tire of the beating. You keep coming back though, but why?
I keep coming back to keep your ego in check. :D

From the article you posted:

On the other hand, Clinton is popular with other voters, which could make her an asset to Obama. According to the AP-Yahoo survey, the New York senator is viewed significantly more favorably than Obama by many white Democrats, Hispanics and Catholics. She carried all those groups decisively against Obama in this year's Democratic primaries, exit polls of voters showed.

The AP-Yahoo poll shows little difference in how favorably the two are viewed by several other groups Clinton won during the primaries, including working-class whites, people over age 65 and women.

A comparison in the AP-Yahoo survey of how the two Democrats would fare against McCain yields similar patterns in their appeal.

Clinton does 23 points better than Obama against McCain among Hispanics, 18 points better with Catholics and 14 points better with elderly whites. Obama is far stronger among blacks, the young and college graduates.

While Clinton has told fellow Democrats she'd be open to being the vice presidential candidate, Obama has said he will take some time to decide.

Republican pollster Whit Ayres guessed Clinton would hurt Obama, but said he doubted she would have much impact drawing voters to the polls to oppose the Democratic ticket.

"Obama is plenty energizing enough for Republicans and conservatives," he said.
Just to remind you, here are the claims made by Heikoku:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13756380&postcount=469

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13757608&postcount=486

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13757753&postcount=492

I am sorry, but that article does not support his claims. Your support of him in this regard is made of fail.

I think he is above. I'm sure I am. I know Neo Art is, and so is Jocabia. And others.

Are you?
The very fact that Knights of Liberty would make such a claim that "Average Joe American is a retarded sheep" makes him appear below average in my eyes.

The very fact that Knights of Liberty would make such a claim that "Average Joe American is a retarded sheep" makes him appear below average in my eyes.

Thats a flame. But hey, Ill let that go.

My actual response: "Oh noes CH thinks Im below average!!!!1111!!11"

:rolleyes:

LISTEN to the debates!
THINK about what they say!
VOTE on your conclusions!

LISTEN to the debates!
THINK about what they say!
VOTE on your conclusions!

Thanks?

The very fact that Knights of Liberty would make such a claim that "Average Joe American is a retarded sheep" makes him appear below average in my eyes.

Are YOU above average to make such a call?

Thanks?

You're welcome.

Snip.

So you're discounting ALL of my claims because one article I gave out didn't support THEM ALL? Even assuming it didn't? Did the article REFUTE anything I said?

Thanks?

So it's not an obvious pro Obama post then?

Thank you! :)

So you're discounting ALL of my claims because one article I gave out didn't support THEM ALL? Even assuming it didn't? Did the article REFUTE anything I said?
Let's put it this way, the article did not substantiate any of your claims in any significant or meaningful way.

Are YOU above average to make such a call?
Where are you going with this? Think about the comment that he made.

Let's put it this way, the article did not substantiate any of your claims in any significant or meaningful way.

Your claim to prove.

Where are you going with this? Think about the comment that he made.

So?

So?
In regards to the comment that he made, what does it matter whether I am average, above average or below average? I don't see your point.

In regards to the comment that he made, what does it matter whether I am average, above average or below average? I don't see your point.

For you to be able to judge someone's intellectual abilities, yours surely must be greater than that person's...

2 things:

#1: White working class americans do not have a problem with Obama. You forgot 1 adjective. White appalachian (butchered that) Working class americans have a problem with Obama. (according to fiverthirtyeight.com. That guy is good. He called Everythign on the primary day with Indiana. He was a point off for both, but still the most accurate pollster out there. He's a baseball statician, go figure:rolleyes:

#2: Why are we even bothering with this? Shes dropped out and endorsed him.

For you to be able to judge someone's intellectual abilities, yours surely must be greater than that person's...
Okay, let's try it this way:

Average José Brazilian is a retarded sheep.

So, as far as you are concerned, it is okay for me to make such a claim as long as I think I am qualified to do so?

Okay, let's try it this way:

Average José Brazilian is a retarded sheep.

So, as far as you are concerned, it is okay for me to make such a claim as long as I think I am qualified to do so?

Considering the average here?

At any rate, you got it wrong: HE is American, so HE gets to speak about HIS peers.

Considering the average here?
No, considering the average in France. :rolleyes:

No, considering the average in France. :rolleyes:

Oh, then yeah, I'm probably slightly above average in France, and I'm VERY above average in Brazil. And yeah, I know, sarcasm. :p

Also, a good expression you might want to use when referring to a Brazilian translation of "average Joe" would be "Zé da Sílva" or "Fulano".

Considering the average here?

At any rate, you got it wrong: HE is American, so HE gets to speak about HIS peers.
So, the bottom line is that you support bigotry as long as the person is qualified?

Gotcha.

So, the bottom line is that you support bigotry as long as the person is qualified?

Gotcha.

Wow. The leap you made in order to define what he said as bigotry is slightly bigger than the leap one would have to make to define not voting for Obama as racism.

I'm willing to play this game if you want, but rest assured you'll lose.

Wow. The leap you made in order to define what he said as bigotry is slightly bigger than the leap one would have to make to define not voting for Obama as racism.

I'm willing to play this game if you want, but rest assured you'll lose.
Certainly it is not a leap my friend. At any rate, I am not interested in playing any games with you.....you have already used up your quota in this thread.

Back on topic, and yes I reserve the right to question you on any future claims that you make that appear baseless. :)

I'd like to see you back any up. We can't always get what we want. But if we try sometimes you just might find...

Out of everything I said, for a majority of the candidates, that's all he could come up with? CH, you're not even trying anymore. I gave you six candidates and reasons that they were better choices than Hillary. I also asked you to explain why Hillary was better than them? Care to take that on, or would you rather try to obfuscate the true point of our argument?

Certainly it is not a leap my friend. At any rate, I am not interested in playing any games with you.....you have already used up your quota in this thread.

Back on topic, and yes I reserve the right to question you on any future claims that you make that appear baseless. :)

1- The quota of games is my decision alone.

2- You can. However, YOUR claims are so much more baseless than any one I ever made, and you refuse to back them up, as opposed to me, the guy that provided you with a link you have yet to prove that didn't help my claim.

I keep coming back to keep your ego in check. :D

From the article you posted:


Just to remind you, here are the claims made by Heikoku:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13756380&postcount=469

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13757608&postcount=486

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13757753&postcount=492

I am sorry, but that article does not support his claims. Your support of him in this regard is made of fail.

Wow, you really are a tool. You just went through and highlighted the few areas where Hillary had some positives. What about the other 7/8 of the article? Daily Tracking poll today Obama 48-42 moe +/- 2. Now it's just a poll, but goes against your Hillary is needed for Obama to win. This is just getting pathetic.

Out of everything I said, for a majority of the candidates, that's all he could come up with? CH, you're not even trying anymore. I gave you six candidates and reasons that they were better choices than Hillary. I also asked you to explain why Hillary was better than them? Care to take that on, or would you rather try to obfuscate the true point of our argument?

It's not even a secret. He won't reply to most of the reasoned posts for one excuse or another. "I don't have time but I have time to complain about your language." Or "you called me a goldfish." (I wish I made that last one up.) Or any of a million excuses to avoid reasoned debate. When he does finally reply to a reasoned post he ignores all of it but some word like "all" or some other hyperbole and ignores the point.

I see it for what it is. He doesn't regard his argument as strong enough so he refuses to even try to make it anymore. Need evidence? Look at any number of times he was literally begged to return to the topic.

Just keep calling him out on it. Just because he won't debate doesn't mean that we should hold him to the same standards we all hold each other to.

Wow, you really are a tool. You just went through and highlighted the few areas where Hillary had some positives. What about the other 7/8 of the article? Daily Tracking poll today Obama 48-42 moe +/- 2. Now it's just a poll, but goes against your Hillary is needed for Obama to win. This is just getting pathetic.
You don't even remember the argument anymore?

You were claiming that that article was backing up Hek's claims.

Keep trying...you might get there. :)

betting odds at this point...

Competitor
Price
Unit Stake
Barack Obama

1/2
John Mc Cain

6/4
Bob Barr

100/1
Ralph Nader

100/1
Wayne Root

100/1

You don't even remember the argument anymore?

You were claiming that that article was backing up Hek's claims.

Keep trying...you might get there. :)

If I cede this point will you actually respond to the list of VP choices I've given you, or would be rather argue over the meaning of the word "is?"

Election 2008 Obama McCain Spread
RCP National Average 47.0 42.7 Obama +4.3
Favorable Ratings +13.7 +6.0 Obama +7.7
Intrade Market Odds 61.4 34.7 -
Electoral College Obama McCain Toss Ups
RCP Electoral Count 228 190 120
No Toss Up States 272 266 -
Battleground States Obama McCain Spread
Pennsylvania 46.3 40.5 Obama +5.8
Ohio 44.0 42.7 Obama +1.3
Michigan 40.3 43.3 McCain +3.0
Wisconsin 46.7 42.7 Obama +4.0
Virginia 43.0 44.3 McCain +1.3
Florida 40.0 48.3 McCain +8.3
Charts | Maps | News | Senate Polls | Latest Polls

1- The quota of games is my decision alone.

2- You can. However, YOUR claims are so much more baseless than any one I ever made, and you refuse to back them up, as opposed to me, the guy that provided you with a link you have yet to prove that didn't help my claim.

:Because :

she recieved more votes
She won in KEY swing states by large margins
Some of her voters wont vote for Obama if she is not on the ticket
She brings expirience

and he needs her supporters

:Because :

she recieved more votes
She won in KEY swing states by large margins
Some of her voters wont vote for Obama if she is not on the ticket
She brings expirience

and he needs her supporters

1- No she didn't.

2- So did Obama.

3- And MANY MORE people who would otherwise vote for Obama won't if she IS.

4- Of telling the maid to clean the president's socks? Being his wife doesn't make her experienced, it makes her a woman with a fetish for men who don't know the meaning of the word "is"!

5- The vast majority of her supporters will get to him without his needing to put someone that hated on the ticket.

go McCain. He's a war hero. Vietnam. What's not to love?
but seriously, I really have no clue about the Republican policies. Is he anything like Bush?

go McCain. He's a war hero. Vietnam. What's not to love?
but seriously, I really have no clue about the Republican policies. Is he anything like Bush?

Please tell me you're joking.

Please tell me you're joking.

No sorry. I plead guilty to ignorance. However, if it's anything like Canadian politics, than I'm assuming he's probably very much like Bush and every other prominent Republican.

Time for bed, pick back up on it in the morning.

No sorry. I plead guilty to ignorance. However, if it's anything like Canadian politics, than I'm assuming he's probably very much like Bush and every other prominent Republican.

He is.

The joking part was about "vote for him because he's a war hero"...

He is.

The joking part was about "vote for him because he's a war hero"...

oh lol, yes I was joking about that. I wouldn't vote for anyone solely based on their war heroism. Hitler was a war hero you know...not that I'm comparing McCain to Hitler, I'm merely using it as an example that such a characteristic as being a war hero is not very good criteria for voting

oh lol, yes I was joking about that. I wouldn't vote for anyone solely based on their war heroism. Hitler was a war hero you know...not that I'm comparing McCain to Hitler, I'm merely using it as an example that such a characteristic as being a war hero is not very good criteria for voting

Nods.

And relax, we don't think you're comparing them.

You do seem like the best kind of newbie ever: The polite kind. Don't worry, we'll be nice... Sorta. :D

Nods.

And relax, we don't think you're comparing them.

You do seem like the best kind of newbie ever: The polite kind. Don't worry, we'll be nice... Sorta. :D

thanks I feel loved. but don't worry, I've already been sworn at pretty good, so I've already abandoned the idea of getting treated nicely. Hey, it's the Net, what can you expect? :p

thanks I feel loved. but don't worry, I've already been sworn at pretty good, so I've already abandoned the idea of getting treated nicely. Hey, it's the Net, what can you expect? :p

Point...

By the way, mentioning Hitler will usually get you a "Godwin" remark... Look up "Godwin's Law" on Wikipedia. ;)

Point...

By the way, mentioning Hitler will usually get you a "Godwin" remark... Look up "Godwin's Law" on Wikipedia. ;)

ah, very true. Which is why I made the effort to point out that I was not actually drawing a comparison...merely commenting. thanks for the heads-up. not that I'm big into the whole Hitler comparison thing, but now I'll be doubly averse to such arguments.

If I cede this point will you actually respond to the list of VP choices I've given you, or would be rather argue over the meaning of the word "is?"
I am really not concerned whether you concede that point or not....I am more concerned with your manner of debate.

In regards to the VP choices, I responded to that post. None of your prospects can bring as much to the table as Hillary can, and I detailed that.

Here's a reason not to vote for McCain: he's against beer.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/10/sot.mccain.veto.beer.cnn

I am really not concerned whether you concede that point or not....I am more concerned with your manner of debate.

In regards to the VP choices, I responded to that post. None of your prospects can bring as much to the table as Hillary can, and I detailed that.

Prithee, how?

Here's a reason not to vote for McCain: he's against beer.


http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/06/10/sot.mccain.veto.beer.cnn

Man I hate CNN's video players. Seriously, take a page from Youtube, folks.

On a side note, that's amusing. Easy misstatement to make though, given the ear-mark thing. Not as funny as I thought it would be either.

:Because :

she recieved more votes
Under certain circumstances yes she did. Under other circumstances no she didn't.

She won in KEY swing states by large margins
Yes she won more KEY swing States than Obama.

:Some of her voters wont vote for Obama if she is not on the ticket
True.

:She brings expirience
Absolutely.

:and he needs her supporters
Yes he does.

1- No she didn't.
Yes and no....see above.

2- So did Obama.
Certainly not as many as Hillary.

3- And MANY MORE people who would otherwise vote for Obama won't if she IS.You STILL haven't proven that statement. This one sorta counters your claim:

Gallup Daily: Obama Gets Slight Bounce With Clinton as VP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107716/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Gets-Slight-Bounce-Clinton.aspx)

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080605Obamaclinton_vbytrws.gif

4- Of telling the maid to clean the president's socks? Being his wife doesn't make her experienced, it makes her a woman with a fetish for men who don't know the meaning of the word "is"!
Nice sexist comment.

5- The vast majority of her supporters will get to him without his needing to put someone that hated on the ticket.
Again you are pushing this forward without any backing proof.

Several articles have been posted about this, suggesting that Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or Nader or just stay home.

Under certain circumstances yes she did. Under other circumstances no she didn't.
That statement is hilarious all on its own...


Yes she won more KEY swing States than Obama.
As long as you get to pick what's 'key.'


True.
"Buy this magazine or the puppy gets it."

This is what kills me. You jump up and down insisting that Obama's statement at a rally about a second term will be a damning narrative, but you somehow don't think, "This candidate is too weak and needs a chaperon thrust upon him" will. Stunning.


Absolutely.
That argument went great for her in the primary. So surely it will wash against a candidate who has more legislative experience than both Obama and Clinton combined...



Yes he does.
Next insight, plants need sun. Doesn't actually prescribe action, however.


Yes and no....see above.
Still funny.


Certainly not as many as Hillary.
Depending on who picks 'em...

You STILL haven't proven that statement. This one sorta counters your claim:

Gallup Daily: Obama Gets Slight Bounce With Clinton as VP (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107716/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Gets-Slight-Bounce-Clinton.aspx)

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080605Obamaclinton_vbytrws.gif
Wow, a slight bump. What, with that being pretty much the only story the news has left to tell. Compelling. In a way that's not at all.


Nice sexist comment.


Again you are pushing this forward without any backing proof.

Several articles have been posted about this, suggesting that Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or Nader or just stay home.
"Seriously, we will shoot this puppy."

(snip) Nice sexist comment. (snip) Several articles have been posted about this, suggesting that Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or Nader or just stay home.

The other load of bull was deftly answered by CToaN.

I will just go ahead and tell you why it isn't sexist:

If the positions were reversed, I'd say, about Bill: "It's not experience to spend 8 years lubricating the President's vagina.".

Seriously, quit it. Claiming sexism whenever someone dares to question her so-called experience is plain idiocy. She was married to the President and then spent some time in Senate, as Obama did. Nothing more.

As for the UTTER GODDAMN MORONS that claim they'll vote against their own self-interests if she's not on the ticket, they are few, they are racists and they'll become fewer and fewer with Clinton campaigning and supporting Obama. Even as is, Obama wouldn't need them, as shown by RCP, and not only in the averages, in the polls themselves as well (heck, in them even more) - look at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ if you want. So there.

To Clinton's credit, they did raise a daughter I'd really like to roll in the hay with. I mean, not my top 100, but she ain't bad.

The other load of bull was deftly answered by CToaN.

I will just go ahead and tell you why it isn't sexist:

If the positions were reversed, I'd say, about Bill: "It's not experience to spend 8 years lubricating the President's vagina.".

Seriously, quit it. Claiming sexism whenever someone dares to question her so-called experience is plain idiocy. She was married to the President and then spent some time in Senate, as Obama did. Nothing more.

hehe. To him it is more. He does claim that Clinton has more "experience" than Obama does. What kind of experience is up for debate though :D

I am really not concerned whether you concede that point or not....I am more concerned with your manner of debate.

In regards to the VP choices, I responded to that post. None of your prospects can bring as much to the table as Hillary can, and I detailed that.

Well, perhaps I missed it. My manner of debate is to call bullshit when I see it. I'll look back for your "detailed" post. If you would like it please do so.

Actually, it could be argued that none of them, not Obama, not Clinton, and not McCain has experience that's realy relevant. All three have been legislators; none of them has any executive experience. None of them have ever been a mayor or governor. None of them has been VP. So the "Obama lacks experience" arguement doesn't hold water. They're running for President, not Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader.

Really, so you don't know me or really who I am, yet you can immediately write me off as knowing anyone important. I mean, why not? I could be an incredibly common middle road American to you if that's what you wish. I have had the good fortune to gain the association of some amazing people. Some of them are amazing because of their philanthropic nature, shunning material wealth. Others have a long storied history here in this country. I'm talking about Old Money here CH. Do you understand the distinction in American culture? I'm not asking to be a dick, I think it's essential to point out this difference. This person is linked very closely amongst the DNC. I will repeat, I have been very lucky to have met these amazing people. So in short, yes I do lend credence to what an insider would be saying.

Biden, more foreign policy experience. He's a pragmatic moderate with domestic experience to boot. He'd round out the ticket quite nicely.

VA governor Tim Kaine would be great in bringing about Virginia, and some moderate Republican states where the tallies have been close. Having the credentials as a Chief Executive give him a more practical understanding of how things work. Kaine understands what it's like to be a Democrat in Republican waters.

Obama/Edwards has a nice ring to it. For one thing, John Edwards might be able to bolster Obama's weak numbers in Appalachia. The "son of a mill worker" made poverty a priority in this race, and even drew 8% of the vote in West Virginia. Obama is said to have embraced Edwards' pledge to cut poverty in half in America within 10 years.

Jim Webb. A marine platoon commander in Vietnam, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, with a son currently serving in Iraq, this combat-boot wearing Senator is not to be messed with in terms of patriotism. Good luck swift-boating him. The man does not shy away from a fight. And he could deliver Sweet Virginia, a swing state swinging Dem, without much trouble.

Bill Richardson solidifies the strong support for Obama in the West. The nation's only Hispanic governor, he also ran as the only Hispanic candidate, and, in case you missed the memo, that's a demographic that is going to factor in big in American politics from here on out. Richardson also pumps up the ticket's diplomatic credibility, which some see as an Obama weakness.

Kathleen Sebelius would not simply be an attempt to placate women voters upset with Obama over Hillary's exit from the race. The governor of Kansas, Sebelius embodies much of what Obama likes to term "healing the partisan divide." This moderate Democrat has done an effective job of governing a very red state. She's respected and a new face on the national scene. Having broken a few glass-ceilings in her rise as a star within the party, she'd make a nice pick to smash through yet another.

What makes Hillary better than any of them?

Thanks for listing some of their strengths but...

I think I already listed many things that makes Hillary a better choice over all of them.

Hillary won the support of 1/2 of the Democratic voters....that is a huge clue. Plus all the demographics she brings to the table, plus her considerable experience. Hands down, best choice.

If this was your "detailed" argument then it is found lacking. Mark my words, HRC has less than a 5% chance of getting the vp nod. I'm being generous there too.

The other load of bull was deftly answered by CToaN.

I will just go ahead and tell you why it isn't sexist:

If the positions were reversed, I'd say, about Bill: "It's not experience to spend 8 years lubricating the President's vagina.".

Seriously, quit it. Claiming sexism whenever someone dares to question her so-called experience is plain idiocy. She was married to the President and then spent some time in Senate, as Obama did. Nothing more.

As for the UTTER GODDAMN MORONS that claim they'll vote against their own self-interests if she's not on the ticket, they are few, they are racists and they'll become fewer and fewer with Clinton campaigning and supporting Obama. Even as is, Obama wouldn't need them, as shown by RCP, and not only in the averages, in the polls themselves as well (heck, in them even more) - look at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ if you want. So there.

To Clinton's credit, they did raise a daughter I'd really like to roll in the hay with. I mean, not my top 100, but she ain't bad.
Wow.....totally incredible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c)!!

Wow.....totally incredible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c)!!

You mean after reading a post that's just a youtube link with a stupid joke? Yeah, you're right, everyone is dumber after reading your post.

You mean after reading a post that's just a youtube link with a stupid joke? Yeah, you're right, everyone is dumber after reading your post.
I am done with your trolling and failure to back up your talking points. You don't debate, you pontificate. Carry on..... :p

I am done with your trolling and failure to back up your talking points. You don't debate, you pontificate. Carry on..... :p

This from the person that:

Claims Clinton is a victim somehow;
Didn't back up ANYTHING he said;
Calls it sexism whenever someone questions Clinton's credentials;
Tells other posters to, and I quote, "G_ f_ck" themselves;
Then claims people are trolling when they criticize their arguments.

You know, before you got under Clinton's thrall, you actually had a respectable arguing style. Now you just wanna see her in power by any means necessary, not giving a damn about who it hurts or even if it is at all possible, and not bothering to make any decent argument for it either.

How the mighty have fallen.

It's unfortunate that the party of 'fiscal responsibility' spent like teenagers that stole daddy's credit card.

Ironically, it's the so-called "adults" who have stolen the kids' credit card, and are now working on spending the grandkids' money.

she recieved more votes

...except she didn't.

She won in KEY swing states by large margins

She really only won by large margins when she was pretty much running an uncontested campaign.

Some of her voters wont vote for Obama if she is not on the ticket

....and likely won't even if she is.

She brings expirience

If experience is what we want, there are much, much better choices. Clinton only has slightly more experience in a national position and less time overall in elected positions than Obama.

and he needs her supporters

Indeed. But putting her on the ticket is not the only way to get them.

Side note: E. D. Hill just got a terrorist fist f*ck. :D

Under certain circumstances yes she did. Under other circumstances no she didn't.

If by "certain circumstances", you mean "not counting those pesky caucus states"...

Several articles have been posted about this, suggesting that Clinton supporters will vote for McCain or Nader or just stay home.

Many of whom will likely do so if she is on the ticket, given the narrative she constructed. At this point, there's no way you'll convince some people that putting her in the VP slot isn't sexist. Her bullshit, "I won the popular vote" claims have led some people to turn against the Democratic party as a whole.

The truth of the matter is, some people aren't going to vote Democratic if she isn't at the top of the ticket.

The truth of the matter is, some people aren't going to vote Democratic if she isn't at the top of the ticket.

And, unluckily, vice versa.

Difference is, Obama will probably make it up to the Clinton supporters without her. There is no way he could make it up to her enemies with her.

I am done with your trolling and failure to back up your talking points. You don't debate, you pontificate. Carry on..... :p

He made an argument and gave support via a link. You replied by insulting him with a Billy Madison reference. Now YOU accuse HIM of trolling and not debating.

We accept your concession. You can't address the argument so you attack the man.

Difference is, Obama will probably make it up to the Clinton supporters without her. There is no way he could make it up to her enemies with her.

QFT. As a Republican who doesn't always follow party lines, I don't really mind Obama all that much but I absolutely cannot stand Hildawg

I am done with your trolling and failure to back up your talking points. You don't debate, you pontificate. Carry on..... :p

This from the person that:

Claims Clinton is a victim somehow;
Here we go again, making up stuff. Show me one post of mine whereby I claim that "Clinton is a victim"

Didn't back up ANYTHING he said;
I have asked you several times in this thread and others to back up your claims, and you refuse to do so or go off on a word playing game.

I on the other hand will, and do back up anything that I state as a fact.

Calls it sexism whenever someone questions Clinton's credentials;
This isn't about credentials in regards to your comment, it is about your blatant sexist remark in regards to Hillary's "experience":

4- Of telling the maid to clean the president's socks? Being his wife doesn't make her experienced, it makes her a woman with a fetish for men who don't know the meaning of the word "is"!
That goes beyond your hatred of Hillary my friend.

Tells other posters to, and I quote, "G_ f_ck" themselves;
You even got that wrong. Show me the "quote". You won't find it. It was a referral link and the picture asks a question. It was dealt with in Moderation and as a result, I have one less person to respond to, and I am rather enjoying the freedom. :)

Then claims people are trolling when they criticize their arguments.
I am a rare breed on these threads in that I am a Clinton fan and as such, I get everything thrown at me. Even though I am developing a thicker skin towards all that unnecessary crap, some people need to be reminded that they should stop with the annoying crap and stick to the debate.

You know, before you got under Clinton's thrall, you actually had a respectable arguing style.
Perhaps it is your perspective, not my debate style, that has changed due to your extreme hatred of anything Clinton, or anyone who likes/defends Clinton?

Now you just wanna see her in power by any means necessary, not giving a damn about who it hurts or even if it is at all possible,
I stated long ago that I wanted to see the Democrats win the White House. I have always been a fan of the Democratic Party. I still believe that a Clinton/Obama ticket would have been the best way to make that happen.

Second best would be an Obama/Clinton ticket. I don't know if it would succeed but I think it is the best that the Dems could offer at this point.

I also truly believe that the Dems will fail IF Hillary is not on that ticket.

and not bothering to make any decent argument for it either.
I have plastered these threads with decent arguments as to Hillary's viability first as a Presidential candidate and secondly as a VP candidate.

Since you detest Hillary, I doubt that you would find anyone's argument for as being "decent".

How the mighty have fallen.
Yeah and it is a shame that are unaware of it. :p

*snip*

WOW!! Just WOW!!

You even got that wrong. Show me the "quote". You won't find it. It was a referral link and the picture asks a question. It was dealt with in Moderation and as a result, I have one less person to respond to, and I am rather enjoying the freedom. :)

Yet another thing that doesn't resemble reality. They didn't "deal" with it. They decided it wasn't actionable. And the reason you have one less poster to respond to is that you couldn't handle your points being challenged with reason. Your choice to ignore me is not at all related to moderation or the moderators. It's related to your belief that if you pretend like I'm not here that my challenges to your assertions didn't happen.

Unless you debunk a challenge to your assertions, your assertions fail. You chose not to do that even before you complained that pointing out fallacies is insulting. Your original excuse was you were too busy, though you've never missed an opportunity to personally attack Corny. Then it became that no one was being polite enough while you, of course, continued to personally attack most of the people in the thread. And THEN when all else failed you claimed that telling me to go fuck myself proves that you have thicker skin than me. Amusing to say the least.

All the while every reasonable poster here begged and pleaded with you to engage in actual debate. You've refused.

WOW!! Just WOW!!

I know right. He refuses to debate. CTOAN offered him five dollars to just simply address points. Instead he spends the majority of his time with these shananigans.

I know right. He refuses to debate. CTOAN offered him five dollars to just simply address points. Instead he spends the majority of his time with these shananigans.

Shenanigans are more fun. *nodnod*

Snip.

Corny, Jocabia, CToaN, everyone...

Should I or should I not release my moves on CH?

I know right. He refuses to debate. CTOAN offered him five dollars to just simply address points. Instead he spends the majority of his time with these shananigans.

Actually I offered Shal $5, but CH certainly fed the frustration that led to such an offer. CH is too attached to the notion that as long as he gets a movable set of goalposts all of his responses are golden.

Actually I offered Shal $5, but CH certainly fed the frustration that led to such an offer. CH is too attached to the notion that as long as he gets a movable set of goalposts all of his responses are golden.

What do you pay ME 5 bucks to do? ;)

Actually I offered Shal $5, but CH certainly fed the frustration that led to such an offer. CH is too attached to the notion that as long as he gets a movable set of goalposts all of his responses are golden.

In my opinion.

If by "certain circumstances", you mean "not counting those pesky caucus states"...
I am just going by the totals reported on the RCP site (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html):

Popular Vote Total 17,535,458 48.1% 17,493,836 48.0% Obama +41,622 +0.1%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 48.2% 17,717,698 47.8% Obama +151,844 +0.4%

Popular Vote (w/MI)** 17,535,458 47.4% 17,822,145 48.1% Clinton +286,687 +0.8%

Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA* 17,869,542 47.4% 18,046,007 47.9% Clinton +176,465 +0.5%
The fact remains that there is relatively little difference between them. On the whole, Clinton finished rather strongly, and her favourable ratings amongst Republicans and Independents was rising since Feb.

Many of whom will likely do so if she is on the ticket, given the narrative she constructed.
Strictly your opinion? Gallup polls suggested a 3% boost for Obama with Hillary on the ticket.

At this point, there's no way you'll convince some people that putting her in the VP slot isn't sexist.
Some people might see it as sexist, just like they might see it as sexist if Obama picks Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate?

Her bullshit, "I won the popular vote" claims have led some people to turn against the Democratic party as a whole.
Do you have anything to back up your statement?

The truth of the matter is, some people aren't going to vote Democratic if she isn't at the top of the ticket.
That certainly is quite possible, and there may be even greater numbers of voters not voting Democratic if she isn't even on the ticket.

Right now there is a lull in lala land and I expect there will be some rock and roll once the VP's are in place and the pollsters start including people such as Barr and Nader.

Corny, Jocabia, CToaN, everyone...

Should I or should I not release my moves on CH?

There's no real point, is there? Is there something in the last 4 to 5 months that indicates that now will be the time that he suddenly 'gets' it? Not to mention your, to be generous, aggressive style that allows him to continue to flop for the refs. At this point it's only for what I believe Jocabia refers to as the 'third party reader,' you're not arguing to convince CH-he clearly lives in his own bubble, impervious to outside voices unless they are prevetted to agree with him (or can be interperated to agree with him through a twist of logic). At this point the only function is to provide a reasonable counter balance to his claims not for him but for an assumed third party reader who would be deciding the course of the argument for themselves. We can pat ourselves on the back and say "Winnar!" all we want, but it's actually our ability to convince that TPR (I got tired of typing it all out) that determines it. In 4-5 months, that hasn't happened. No one has jumped in and said, "You know, I think he has a point."

That's the only measuring stick needed, really. Poking him with a stick isn't neccisarily productive, even if it relieves frustration.

What do you pay ME 5 bucks to do? ;)
It involves puckering...
In my opinion.

Clearly.

Strictly your opinion? Gallup polls suggested a 3% boost for Obama with Hillary on the ticket.

Which represents how many people who wouldn't vote for him with someone else they liked as the VP?

Some people might see it as sexist, just like they might see it as sexist if Obama picks Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate?

They would specifically see it as sexist with Clinton, considering that she has whined and moaned that she lost because of sexism. Putting her on the ticket under that circumstance just makes it look like you're trying to placate her.

And, in all honesty, I have seen articles suggesting that many of the so-called feminists who thought that voting for anyone other than Clinton was a betrayal of feminism will see it as an insult if Sebelius is on the ticket. Apparently, Obama should pick a woman - but only one particular woman.

Do you have anything to back up your statement?

Erm....reality?

Shal is one example. If you ever listen to POTUS '08, you might hear others being interviewed. At this point, there is a subset of Clinton supporters who are saying that the party itself cannot be supported in any way because they supposedly didn't pick the candidate with the most votes.

That certainly is quite possible, and there may be even greater numbers of voters not voting Democratic if she isn't even on the ticket.

I highly doubt that the difference in those numbers is significant.

Snip.

CToaN, please: I KNOW arguments are for the benefit of the people who watch. And I'd not flame him - There's only ONE of my moves that's a tad more forceful - but what I'm wondering here is if it would work as a style resource or merely be a waste...

I'm hoping it's a cultural difference because if calling them "your moves" is as lame in your country as it is mine, you will never reproduce.



I was trying to find a way to say this...

Corny, Jocabia, CToaN, everyone...

Should I or should I not release my moves on CH?

I'm hoping it's a cultural difference because if calling them "your moves" is as lame in your country as it is mine, you will never reproduce.

However, if you do choose to "release your moves", please try to make it entertaining. I'll give it 1:1 entertaining to lame ratio. Let's see which one this is. :p

I'm hoping it's a cultural difference because if calling them "your moves" is as lame in your country as it is mine, you will never reproduce.

However, if you do choose to "release your moves", please try to make it entertaining. I'll give it 1:1 entertaining to lame ratio. Let's see which one this is. :p

It's just as lame, but I know nerd girls that like lame. :p

Well, let's see Corny's vote...

I was trying to find a way to say this...

Gee. Let's see. I try, literally, to make my arguing seem like an anime fight. Either I'd KNOW it's lame or I'd be mentally retarded. I'm not mentally retarded. ;)

So, QED, I know it's lame. I just don't care. Because, lame as it may be, it gets me remembered. STYLE. ;)

It's just as lame, but I know nerd girls that like lame. :p

Well, let's see Corny's vote...

I'll pass :D

I'll pass :D

Ah well, no Haikus or Brutus's Honor for this thread then...

For now.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/11/poll-shows-obama-picking-up-clinton-voters/

For all the idiots out there!

(CNN) — A new poll out Wednesday suggests Barack Obama is picking up support among older female voters, a demographic that largely voted for Hillary Clinton in the prolonged Democratic primary race.

The findings could be a sign the Illinois senator is making significant strides among that bloc of voters, who had been fiercely loyal to Clinton and potentially ambivalent about supporting Obama in the general election.

According the new survey out by Gallup, Obama now holds a 6 point lead over McCain among women over 50 nationwide, 47 to 41 percent. That compares to a 3 point lead (46 to 43 percent) McCain held over Obama in a similar poll taken last week just days before Hillary Clinton conceded the nomination.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/11/poll-shows-obama-picking-up-clinton-voters/

For all the idiots out there!

So, one of Clinton's best demographics seems to be switching to the other Dem candidate once she drops from the race? I can't act all that surprised.

So, one of Clinton's best demographics seems to be switching to the other Dem candidate once she drops from the race? I can't act all that surprised.

You shouldn't be. But I'm guessing some are...

Which represents how many people who wouldn't vote for him with someone else they liked as the VP?
Which of course we don't know because we have no measuring stick. At least with Clinton, we have a measuring stick and so far it is on the plus side.

They would specifically see it as sexist with Clinton, considering that she has whined and moaned that she lost because of sexism. Putting her on the ticket under that circumstance just makes it look like you're trying to placate her.
So far, the most complaints I have seen regarding this issue, is right here amongst the Obama supporters, yet I have seen posters that support Obama making sexist comments especially because of Hillary.

Again, I go back to the bounce that Obama receives with Hillary on the ticket. Unless you can come up with specific data or articles that suggest that your concern has basis in fact, then it is no more than speculation or opinion.

And, in all honesty, I have seen articles suggesting that many of the so-called feminists who thought that voting for anyone other than Clinton was a betrayal of feminism will see it as an insult if Sebelius is on the ticket. Apparently, Obama should pick a woman - but only one particular woman.
Any links to those articles?

Erm....reality?]
If your supposition that "Her bullshit, "I won the popular vote" claims have led some people to turn against the Democratic party as a whole" has basis in "reality", then you should be able to really support that claim?

Shal is one example. If you ever listen to POTUS '08, you might hear others being interviewed. At this point, there is a subset of Clinton supporters who are saying that the party itself cannot be supported in any way because they supposedly didn't pick the candidate with the most votes.
Shal is one poster here and as I understand, has decided to back Obama anyways, so where are these people that support your claim?

I highly doubt that the difference in those numbers is significant.
Well, certain polls did allude to the possibility of large numbers of Clinton supporters going elsewhere.

Ah well, no Haikus or Brutus's Honor for this thread then...

For now.

I greatly prefer when you choose to get stylish to when you get angry. I say go for it, just make sure it's entertaining.

Shal is one poster here and as I understand, has decided to back Obama anyways, so where are these people that support your claim?

May I see a link that Shall decided to back Obama anyways?

Well, certain polls did allude to the possibility of large numbers of Clinton supporters going elsewhere.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/11/poll-shows-obama-picking-up-clinton-voters/

I greatly prefer when you choose to get stylish to when you get angry. I say go for it, just make sure it's entertaining.

I get stylish when I argue with idiots and walls.

I get angry when I argue with pseudo-victims and walls.

So...

Which of course we don't know because we have no measuring stick. At least with Clinton, we have a measuring stick and so far it is on the plus side.

And again it's before Republicans have launched even one attack against her.

So far, the most complaints I have seen regarding this issue, is right here amongst the Obama supporters, yet I have seen posters that support Obama making sexist comments especially because of Hillary.

Again, I go back to the bounce that Obama receives with Hillary on the ticket. Unless you can come up with specific data or articles that suggest that your concern has basis in fact, then it is no more than speculation or opinion.

You keep citing this. She is not currently in the general. She has been getting nothing but support from Republicans throughout. When that worm turns, we'll see the REAL numbers. Right now you're comparing apples to oranges.


Any links to those articles?

If your supposition that "Her bullshit, "I won the popular vote" claims have led some people to turn against the Democratic party as a whole" has basis in "reality", then you should be able to really support that claim?

Shal is one poster here and as I understand, has decided to back Obama anyways, so where are these people that support your claim?

Well, certain polls did allude to the possibility of large numbers of Clinton supporters going elsewhere.

You realize these two statements contradict each other. That large numbers of Democrats are threatening to vote against the party or stay home if they don't get exactly what they want is a wedge you've been talking about for months. Now you play that card when it suits you, challenging Dem to support her claims on one hand and then supporting them for her on the other.

May I see a link that Shall decided to back Obama anyways?

Shal made a whole thread urging others to do the same. It was pretty impressive actually. Shal, like most rational people, changed his opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence. If only we could get all the people that enter debate threads but won't debate to do so.

Shal made a whole thread urging others to do the same. It was pretty impressive actually. Shal, like most rational people, changed his opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence. If only we could get all the people that enter debate threads but won't debate to do so.

I guess he finally saw the error of his ways.

I guess he finally saw the error of his ways.

Heck, I even tried to patch things up with him.

I hope Obama nominates Hillary to the Supreme Court. She has the mind and the temperament for the job. Plus, there would be the added advantage of seeing Republicans seethe every October when the Court goes into session.

I hope Obama nominates Hillary to the Supreme Court. She has the mind and the temperament for the job. Plus, there would be the added advantage of seeing Republicans seethe every October when the Court goes into session.

Pleasant as that would be, it would be VERY hard politically...

You keep citing this. She is not currently in the general. She has been getting nothing but support from Republicans throughout.
You ever think that they may be because they have been gearing up for running against Hillary for, oh, three years? That and the fact that after Februrary, it started becoming clear that Obama would be the nominee, and that they saw that the best chance for dividing the party was by keeping Hillary in the race?

You realize these two statements contradict each other. That large numbers of Democrats are threatening to vote against the party or stay home if they don't get exactly what they want is a wedge you've been talking about for months. Now you play that card when it suits you, challenging Dem to support her claims on one hand and then supporting them for her on the other.
They really don't contradict one another. CH is stating that putting Hillary on the ticket would appease at least some of those disgruntled Clinton supporters who threaten Obama's chances at victory, while not putting her on the ticket will leave the party in the exact same divided situation that it currently sits in.

They really don't contradict one another. CH is stating that putting Hillary on the ticket would appease at least some of those disgruntled Clinton supporters who threaten Obama's chances at victory, while not putting her on the ticket will leave the party in the exact same divided situation that it currently sits in.

I'm not sure either of those situations are really real to be honest.

I'm sure there are SOME ex-Clinton supporters that would cross party lines as some form of protest, but - to be honest - I think there are more people who will cross party lines just because Obama is ostensibly 'black'.

And - to be honest (again) - I just don't think the Democrats are going to have that 'divided' party too much. Those who really wanted one of the candidates have, I'm pretty sure - almost all thrown their support behind the remaining candidate(s) at each point that the field has narrowed.

There's got to be some drift, sure... but there's really no alternatives. And that's going to put people behind Obama that once supported Clinton. Let's be serious - if it's been about the platform and the policies, most people aren't going to jump to McCain just because Clinton isn't playing any more.

I hope Obama nominates Hillary to the Supreme Court. She has the mind and the temperament for the job. Plus, there would be the added advantage of seeing Republicans seethe every October when the Court goes into session.

It would be really nice if she replaced Scalia or Thomas...

You ever think that they may be because they have been gearing up for running against Hillary for, oh, three years? That and the fact that after Februrary, it started becoming clear that Obama would be the nominee, and that they saw that the best chance for dividing the party was by keeping Hillary in the race?

Forgive me if I'm mistaken but i believe that's exactly what he's reffering to...

You ever think that they may be because they have been gearing up for running against Hillary for, oh, three years? That and the fact that after Februrary, it started becoming clear that Obama would be the nominee, and that they saw that the best chance for dividing the party was by keeping Hillary in the race?

I did. In fact, I've said it repeatedly. So when you say, I, of course, agree.... with me.


They really don't contradict one another. CH is stating that putting Hillary on the ticket would appease at least some of those disgruntled Clinton supporters who threaten Obama's chances at victory, while not putting her on the ticket will leave the party in the exact same divided situation that it currently sits in.

Your claim is not consistent with his. He denies that there are some of her supporters that won't come back, while your post confirms it. Regardless, he won't accept that some of her supporters view it as Obama stealing the election. This is an important thing to deny since recognizing that she gave that perceptions makes it clear she's done much damage to her party.

Pleasant as that would be, it would be VERY hard politically...

I don't agree. I think she has some opportunities if she plays her cards right. First she has to correct her recent mistakes. She already is, though, so no worries.

And, if CH is to believed, it'll be a walk. Republicans love her.

And, if CH is to believed, it'll be a walk. Republicans love her.

:D

May I see a link that Shall decided to back Obama anyways?



http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/11/poll-shows-obama-picking-up-clinton-voters/
It was called "Next Chapter - Road to the White House"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558365

It would be really nice if she replaced Scalia or Thomas...

It'd be nice if a cheeseburger replaced Scalia or Thomas.

It'd be nice if a cheeseburger replaced Scalia or Thomas.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/6974/lolcatqq5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Sorry. Had to be done.

I hope Obama nominates Hillary to the Supreme Court. She has the mind and the temperament for the job. Plus, there would be the added advantage of seeing Republicans seethe every October when the Court goes into session.

Not gonna happen. You think we had a fight over Bush's judicial nominees? This will make that look like a cake walk

It'd be nice if a cheeseburger replaced Scalia or Thomas.

Well... that would mean that there would usually be a 4-4 vote resulting in upholding the lower court's decision - sometimes good, (2000 Florida Supreme Court's ruling) sometimes not.

Well... that would mean that there would usually be a 4-4 vote resulting in upholding the lower court's decision - sometimes good, (2000 Florida Supreme Court's ruling) sometimes not.

Yeah, I can see how a decision that usurped power for a genocidal maniac is good...

Except, no, I can't.

Yeah, I can see how a decision that usurped power for a genocidal maniac is good...

Except, no, I can't.

Come on, you know you want to vote for me...

Again, I go back to the bounce that Obama receives with Hillary on the ticket. Unless you can come up with specific data or articles that suggest that your concern has basis in fact, then it is no more than speculation or opinion.

As is your supposition that the bounce he receives from Hillary wouldn't be equaled or bettered by another candidate on the ticket.

It's all speculation and opinion.

Any links to those articles?

Not at the moment. In truth, it may not have been articles. I listen to POTUS 08 a lot, and what I see here, what I see in articles, and what I hear there tend to get mixed up into mush in my head.

Well, certain polls did allude to the possibility of large numbers of Clinton supporters going elsewhere.

Indeed. But I honestly see little reason to believe that the proportion of them who will truly do so will change much with or without her on the ticket.

It was called "Next Chapter - Road to the White House"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558365

Wow. Surprising, but I'm glad to see it. Would it seem condescending to say I'm proud of him?

It would be really nice if she replaced Scalia or Thomas...

we need to add some younger people to the bench too - unless his mental problems are addressed, roberts is gonna run the court as a rightwing lunatic for a long time. hmm, is there any way to put in an even chiefer justice?

Again, I go back to the bounce that Obama receives with Hillary on the ticket.

vice presidential polling is even more name recognition-based than her early primary lead was

Yeah, I can see how a decision that usurped power for a genocidal maniac is good...

Except, no, I can't.

I meant the "Florida Supreme Court" ruling, not the US Supreme Court's ruling on the Florida election. The Florida Supreme Court decided in favor of Gore. If it was a 4-4 vote it would have upheld Florda's court ruling, meaning the recount would have continued, meaing Gore would have won.

I meant the "Florida Supreme Court" ruling, not the US Supreme Court's ruling on the Florida election. The Florida Supreme Court decided in favor of Gore.

With one dissent.

The Supreme Court ruling was 5-4 against him and with good reason to.

Actually, it would be nice to have Obama on the Supreme Court. Young, liberal, studied Constitutional law...

We'll just have to accept him as president :p

Who knows...maybe he will be appointed to the Supreme Court when he's out of office. It has happened before!

we need to add some younger people to the bench too - unless his mental problems are addressed, roberts is gonna run the court as a rightwing lunatic for a long time. hmm, is there any way to put in an even chiefer justice?

Actually, it would be nice to have Obama on the Supreme Court. Young, liberal, studied Constitutional law...

We'll just have to accept him as president :p

Actually, it would be nice to have Obama on the Supreme Court. Young, liberal, studied Constitutional law...

We'll just have to accept him as president :p

He can always be on the Supreme Court later. =)

With one dissent.

The Supreme Court ruling was 5-4 against him and with good reason to.
And what reason was that? Deciding an election on any grounds other than "This is who more people wanted" eliminates any legitimacy for our system.

And what reason was that? Deciding an election on any grounds other than "This is who more people wanted" eliminates any legitimacy for our system.

You do realize that there was unconstitutional things going on with the Florida recount right? To many people were using different standards and then they were changing those standards mid stream.

Also...notice the counties involved. All of them were in the Gore category.

And what reason was that?

as i recall, it was that counting votes would disenfranchise people

And what reason was that? Deciding an election on any grounds other than "This is who more people wanted" eliminates any legitimacy for our system.

Not according to the Constitution. There is no requirement whatsoever that electoral college members of a given state be chosen by popular vote.

And, because of the electoral college, it is perfectly possible for someone to receive more of the overall popular vote and not the majority of the electoral votes.

It is the place of the courts to uphold these things, not change them for the better. From what I understand, what the Supreme Court did was essentially to say, "This isn't our business. You have to have your electors chosen by a certain date. Do it."

With one dissent.

The Supreme Court ruling was 5-4 against him and with good reason to.

Read: O'Connor wanted Bush to be president so she could give the post to a Republican president.

Also...notice the counties involved. All of them were in the Gore category.

Well then why didn't they recount them all, instead of deciding no other method could be used?

You do realize that there was unconstitutional things going on with the Florida recount right? To many people were using different standards and then they were changing those standards mid stream.
The solution would be to do it RIGHT.
Also...notice the counties involved. All of them were in the Gore category.
Uh, EVERY county in the state was being recounted when Scalia stopped it.

Read: O'Connor wanted Bush to be president so she could give the post to a Republican president.

Nice conspiracy theory. So long.

Well then why didn't they recount them all, instead of deciding no other method could be used?

You forget that the media did recount all the votes in Florida and BUSH STILL WON!!!!

He can always be on the Supreme Court later. =)

I think there was one president who became a Supreme Court justice... Taft, maybe?

I meant the "Florida Supreme Court" ruling, not the US Supreme Court's ruling on the Florida election. The Florida Supreme Court decided in favor of Gore. If it was a 4-4 vote it would have upheld Florda's court ruling, meaning the recount would have continued, meaing Gore would have won.

Ah, sorry. :p

You are mistaken. ONLY if the recount was restricted to the handful of counties Gore initially asked for did Bush win (one of the great ironies in the story). Gore did win the entire state.

Uh Tmut? The media did recount the entire fucking state. Bush still won! please leave conspiracy at the door.

You forget that the media did recount all the votes in Florida and BUSH STILL WON!!!!
You are mistaken. ONLY if the recount was restricted to the handful of counties Gore initially asked for did Bush win (one of the great ironies in the story). Gore did win the entire state.
I think there was one president who became a Supreme Court justice... Taft, maybe?
Correct

Nice conspiracy theory. So long.
Conspiracy theory? It's established fact. For one, O'Connor is a life-long Republican. For another...
[A]t an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, [Justice O'Connor] let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years. O'Connor, the former Republican majority leader of the Arizona State Senate and a 1981 Ronald Reagan appointee, did not want a Democrat to name her successor. Two witnesses described this extraordinary scene to Newsweek. Responding through a spokesman at the high court, O'Connor had no comment.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200304/ai_n9221306

You forget that the media did recount all the votes in Florida and BUSH STILL WON!!!!
That's great...if you put all of your faith in "the media," who by the way did similar recounts that put Gore on top.

I think there was one president who became a Supreme Court justice... Taft, maybe?

I know it's happened at least once. Can't remember off the top of my head, though.

Conspiracy theory? It's established fact. For one, O'Connor is a life-long Republican. For another...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200304/ai_n9221306


That's great...if you put all of your faith in "the media," who by the way did similar recounts that put Gore on top.

And no sources as to where he got his information. As I said. Conspiracy.

Another thing that was a little shameful about O'Connor's opinion in the case is that she did not sign it, if indeed she wrote the thing: some think it may have been a collaboration with Kennedy, who also did not sign. It was issued "Per Curiam" (Latin for "by the court") which is usually for unanimous non-controversial brief opinions, not one where four Justices write signed dissents, and three write concurrences explaining that they don't quite go along with everything in the opinion.

Gives rise to another irony in the case: if you count the votes the way a lot of Republicans insist votes should be counted in this case, on the "if you snooze you lose" theory that an improperly recorded vote just shouldn't be counted at all, then Gore actually won in the Supreme Court, 4 to 3.

Another thing that was a little shameful about O'Connor's opinion in the case is that she did not sign it, if indeed she wrote the thing: some think it may have been a collaboration with Kennedy, who also did not sign. It was issued "Per Curiam" (Latin for "by the court") which is usually for unanimous non-controversial brief opinions, not one where four Justices write signed dissents, and three write concurrences explaining that they don't quite go along with everything in the opinion.

Gives rise to another irony in the case: if you count the votes the way a lot of Republicans insist votes should be counted in this case, on the "if you snooze you lose" theory that an improperly recorded vote just shouldn't be counted at all, then Gore actually won in the Supreme Court, 4 to 3.

And the US Congress should have tossed out the Florida Electoral Votes. They didn't. They ratified them instead.

Correct

Yay! Useless trivia comes through again.

You are mistaken. ONLY if the recount was restricted to the handful of counties Gore initially asked for did Bush win (one of the great ironies in the story). Gore did win the entire state.

Well, technically it was certified as a Bush win, so no, he didn't. He should have, though.

Nice conspiracy theory. So long.

Read Vamosa's post.

And no sources as to where he got his information. As I said. Conspiracy.

My source was a book that I can't quite remember the title of at the moment - I'll go see if it's still upstairs. (And no, it's not written by a radical left wing conspirator...)

My source was a book that I can't quite remember the title of at the moment - I'll go see if it's still upstairs. (And no, it's not written by a radical left wing conspirator...)

How would I know if he was or not? :D

As to the book, I'd have to check the sources of it.

And no sources as to where he got his information. As I said. Conspiracy.
What exactly are you talking about?

What exactly are you talking about?

You posted an article with quotes but yet not where the quotes came from. When you quote someone, you normally source it at the end of the article.

You are mistaken. ONLY if the recount was restricted to the handful of counties Gore initially asked for did Bush win (one of the great ironies in the story). Gore did win the entire state.

My understanding is that whether or not there were messed up things going on in the recount process (there undoubtedly were on both sides), that Bush was the likely winner in any recount process that actually would have happened in time for Florida to count.

You posted an article with quotes but yet not where the quotes came from. When you quote someone, you normally source it at the end of the article.
Yes, it does. Go to page 43 of the article -- it has the source.

How would I know if he was or not? :D

As to the book, I'd have to check the sources of it.

Because I'd notice if it was written by Michael Moore :p

EDIT: Got it. "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin

Yes, it does. Go to page 43 of the article -- it has the source.

Then post it.

Because I'd notice if it was written by Michael Moore :p

Oh, and he sourced his article with the link: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...04/ai_n9221306

That actually was not the source I was referring to. I was referring to what the source was for the quote he bolded.

EDIT: Got it. "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin

I'll check it out and look at the sources used. Fair enough?

I'll check it out and look at the sources used. Fair enough?

No! Never! I'm going to go over and force you not to! I'll burn every copy of the book ever made! and any e-books! And take out Toobin! You must never know the secrets of the Nine!

Yes, fair enough.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN. Gore won the state.

If true, it would have been blasted on ever fucking front page of every major news paper. I looked at many front page headlines. Nothing. Now where's the proof?

Uh Tmut? The media did recount the entire fucking state. Bush still won!
YOU ARE MISTAKEN. Gore won the state. I can't remember whether it was FreeSoviets or Soviestan who had the good links to the whole data last time this came up; I will hunt for it if you really care. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.
My understanding is that whether or not there were messed up things going on in the recount process (there undoubtedly were on both sides), that Bush was the likely winner in any recount process that actually would have happened in time for Florida to count.
You are also mistaken. There is no time limit after which Florida would not count: hell, the Constitution even has an explicit provision for what happens if a recount continues after Inauguration Day (it's in the 20th Amendment if you want to look up the text). There is a statutory time such that if the electoral votes are transmitted before that date, Congress will not enquire into their accuracy, while after that date Congress is supposed to; this provision has only come up once, in 1960 when Hawaii was late (they had only recently gotten statehood, had to revise their ballots at the last minute, and had difficulties getting the count totals right); the initial certification was for Nixon, a recount not finished until the end of December showed that Kennedy won, and Congress accepted the recounted version.

It is true that the Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas opinion used the existence of this date as one of their excuses why Florida should not have finished recounting the vote.

Well, technically it was certified as a Bush win, so no, he didn't. He should have, though.

We have a semantic disagreement. I would never say "Mugabe won". When I say "won", I mean won, in fact. Since Gore won, and Bush was inaugurated, I say Bush "stole" the election, or "usurped" the office, not Bush "won".

We have a semantic disagreement. I would never say "Mugabe won". When I say "won", I mean won, in fact. Since Gore won, and Bush was inaugurated, I say Bush "stole" the election, or "usurped" the office, not Bush "won".

Conspiracy nuts are out in force today.

Conspiracy nuts are out in force today.

Well, we are talking about the 2000 election, one of the most controversial elections in our nation's history...

Anyway, we've completely and utterly hijacked this thread. :eek:

Conspiracy nuts are out in force today.

WTF??? It is simply a fact, however little you like it, that more people in Florida wanted Gore than wanted Bush. As I said before, if you are actually interested in links to the data from the media recounts, I can hunt that down for you, although it is a lot of trouble to go through unless you actually care. Our moral evaluations of what should have happened, in view of the facts, may differ.

Conspiracy nuts are out in force today.

Eight years later isn't this taking beating a dead horse to a new and pathetic level?

Eight years later isn't this taking beating a dead horse to a new and pathetic level?

yea it is taking it to a new and pathetic level.

Bush won and Gore lost. Get over it.

Bush won and Gore lost. Get over it.
Gore won and Bush lost. Get real. We won't "get over it" for a long time after Bush is gone: he has done damage to our basic institutions which may take generations to repair, and may in fact not be reparable at all.

Gore won and Bush lost. Get real. We won't "get over it" for a long time after Bush is gone: he has done damage to our basic institutions which may take generations to repair, and may in fact not be reparable at all.

As I said. Conspiracy theorists are out in force. Buh bye

Then post it.
Normally, I'd reply that if you want the source so bad, then look for it yourself. However, I found this anecdote recounted in another source -- the book "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin. He gives numerous different sources:



Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, "The Truth Behind Pillars," Newsweek, pp 248-49, Dec 25, 2000

Jess Bravin et. al., "For Some Justices, the Bush-Gore Case Has a Personal Angle," Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20, 2000 [O'Connor refused to comment]

Joan Biskupic, Sandra Day O'Connor (book), pp 308-309




Are you happy now, or will you continue to stonewall and deny reality?

Normally, I'd reply that if you want the source so bad, then look for it yourself. However, I found this anecdote recounted in another source -- the book "The Nine" by Jeffrey Toobin. He gives numerous different sources:



Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, "The Truth Behind Pillars," Newsweek, pp 248-49, Dec 25, 2000

Jess Bravin et. al., "For Some Justices, the Bush-Gore Case Has a Personal Angle," Wall Street Journal, Dec. 20, 2000 [O'Connor refused to comment]

Joan Biskupic, Sandra Day O'Connor (book), pp 308-309




Are you happy now, or will you continue to stonewall and deny reality?

Not sure why you bolded O'Conner refused to comment. If he refused to comment doesn't mean its true anymore than it means its false.

As to "The Nine" I am going to go look at it when I have more time. Right now, my future mother-in-law and Brother-in law are coming up here tomorrow afternoon and I have to clean this place up as well as go over my basketball rules for games I have tomorrow.

As I said. Conspiracy theorists are out in force. Buh bye
WTF am I saying to you that you could call a "conspiracy theory"? You aren't even making any sense. We make different moral evaluations of the facts, to be sure. I have not, however, made any claims about any "conspiracy" of anybody to do anything. Is "conspiracy theorist" just your all-purpose flame word for anybody you don't like?

Not sure why you bolded O'Conner refused to comment. If he refused to comment doesn't mean its true anymore than it means its false.

As to "The Nine" I am going to go look at it when I have more time. Right now, my future mother-in-law and Brother-in law are coming up here tomorrow afternoon and I have to clean this place up as well as go over my basketball rules for games I have tomorrow.

"The Nine" isn't the issue. The fact is that the scenario recounted in "The Nine" is described in three news sources. In fact, one of the bolded quotes in the article I brought up is from the Newsweek article -- it says that right in the quote.
The following week, Newsweek published a more detailed account:

[A]t an election-night party on Nov. 7, surrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, [Justice O'Connor] let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and Illinois.

As I said. Conspiracy theorists are out in force. Buh bye

how is it a conspiracy theory? it wasn't widely reported (the results came out in november of 2001, after all), but it is really easy to look up.

You do realize that there was unconstitutional things going on with the Florida recount right?
You mean like Kathleen Harris (Secretary of State) illegally removing thousands of legal voters from the voters lists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#Election_law_violations.2C_allegations.2C_lawsuits

More:

How America Doesn't Vote (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/voting/press/nyt/2004-02-15%20NYT%20How%20America%20Doesnt%20Vote.pdf)

Ms. Harris's 2000 purge in Florida is a classic case. Before it began, Ms. Harris cast a cloud of suspicion over the process by signing on as co-chairwoman of the Florida Bush campaign while she also served as the state's top election official. The purge itself required sensitive judgment calls, notably when to regard a name on a list of convicted felons as a valid match with a name on the voting rolls. According to postelection testimony before the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Ms. Harris's office overruled
the advice of the private firm that compiled the felon list and called for removing not just names that
were an exact match, but ones that were highly inexact. Thousands of Florida voters ended up being
wrongly purged.

make that 10's of thousands


also people on the scrub list were shown to have felonies committed several years in the future!

As I said. Conspiracy theorists are out in force. Buh bye

How does commenting on the Bush Presidency and the effect it's had on our basic institutions (like habeas corpus or the fourth amendment) make for a conspiracy theory?

Honestly, between you and CH, it seems like people think they can just name some random excuse for not addressing an argument and somehow that's the same as debate. It's not. Any argument left unaddressed stands. If you can debunk an argument or show that it's a conspiracy theory, go for it. Until then, it just looks like you're dodging.

make that 10's of thousands


also people on the scrub list were shown to have felonies committed several years in the future!

Yeah, that scrub list should have sent people to jail. That was absurd. I don't actually agree that Bush stole the election, but there was certainly fraud and some people should have been convicted.

how is it a conspiracy theory? it wasn't widely reported (the results came out in november of 2001, after all), but it is really easy to look up.

I think it's a bit like CH's use of the term "junk science". Some people think if they just toss out a term like that they don't have to actual make an argument.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN. Gore won the state. I can't remember whether it was FreeSoviets or Soviestan who had the good links to the whole data last time this came up; I will hunt for it if you really care. You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

You are also mistaken. There is no time limit after which Florida would not count: hell, the Constitution even has an explicit provision for what happens if a recount continues after Inauguration Day (it's in the 20th Amendment if you want to look up the text). There is a statutory time such that if the electoral votes are transmitted before that date, Congress will not enquire into their accuracy, while after that date Congress is supposed to; this provision has only come up once, in 1960 when Hawaii was late (they had only recently gotten statehood, had to revise their ballots at the last minute, and had difficulties getting the count totals right); the initial certification was for Nixon, a recount not finished until the end of December showed that Kennedy won, and Congress accepted the recounted version.

It is true that the Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas opinion used the existence of this date as one of their excuses why Florida should not have finished recounting the vote.

You are aware that Florida also has laws and those laws determine the assignment of electoral votes, yeah? Federal law isn't the only thing to look at.

To transition this argument into the now, the Gore thing has a touch of the relevance. Through Bush's presidency there has been the ghost of the 'could have been' presidency of Gore, you can almost hear the refrains of "any you can do I can do better" being hummed at any decision or crossroads-from "we wouldn't be in Iraq" to the economy or the environment. Some of those are kind of obvious.

But as I look over at Obama's growing lead on Electoral-Vote.com and I think of the reasons not to crow about it (it's waaaaaayyyy to early to crow about polls for a November election, the polls are a bit of a mismash and don't all reflect events like Clinton's concession or any thing else that might have happened in the past week or so, etc.) one of the more minor reasons is that I knew I'd be hearing about how much 'better' Clinton would be doing in those polls (and then more lengthy insistence that Obama get a presidential chaperon, a 'co-president'...).

I wonder if that's going to be Obama's Gore, a Gore within his own party, the whisper, "Well, Obama won, but Clinton would have won by more." When he hits his first real hurdle, his first stumbling block as president, that every president goes through, will he have to face the whispers within his own party, "Clinton wouldn't have had that happen to her..." Is he going to be shackled by the every present and artificially perfect ghost of the 'could have been' candidate? Does anyone actually see our favorite Clinton supporter acknowledging Obama's achievements or respecting his hurdles? How endemic is this? Or is it nothing, the candidacy will be a footnote as she moves on to her post run political life?

Snip.

I don't care, as long as no Republican gets within 50 feet of the White House come 1/21.

I don't care, as long as no Republican gets within 50 feet of the White House come 1/21.
While no garauntee, your odds of that are pretty good. Though I do think that Obama has an obligation to his rhetoric to include them, and I do hope that his cabinet reflects that. Just because they have an R next to their name doesn't mean that they have no good ideas or that they shouldn't be a check to the ideas coming from the cats with a D next to their name. But right now, at this moment in history, I don't want someone beholden to the machine that R comes from in charge, because what they have become beholden to is corrosive, and the only way to get rid of that is if they recognize it as the reason they are not in power any more.

While no garauntee, your odds of that are pretty good. Though I do think that Obama has an obligation to his rhetoric to include them, and I do hope that his cabinet reflects that. Just because they have an R next to their name doesn't mean that they have no good ideas or that they shouldn't be a check to the ideas coming from the cats with a D next to their name. But right now, at this moment in history, I don't want someone beholden to the machine that R comes from in charge, because what they have become beholden to is corrosive, and the only way to get rid of that is if they recognize it as the reason they are not in power any more.

Don't over-complicate things, you got what I meant. :p

Don't over-complicate things, you got what I meant. :p

Dude, it's that or rehash the 2000 election. You're all I got in this thread until the VP selections get serious or the conventions start. Say what you will about the primaries and their length, we at least had plenty of pinpoint events to keep things going. Now we have to sit around and wait for one of them to admit that they like the taste of baby flesh in order to have something to really talk about...

Dude, it's that or rehash the 2000 election. You're all I got in this thread until the VP selections get serious or the conventions start. Say what you will about the primaries and their length, we at least had plenty of pinpoint events to keep things going. Now we have to sit around and wait for one of them to admit that they like the taste of baby flesh in order to have something to really talk about...

I fail to see why the culinary choices of the candidates are in question here. :p

I fail to see why the culinary choices of the candidates are in question here. :p

"So Obama (I don't want to be accused of being too partisan...) likes the moist, fatty flesh of a freshly minted baby every now and then-I don't see how this reflects poorly on his policies or his decision making. Don't try and distract the American public with trivialities of infintial cannibalism, you don't want to face the real issues!!!"

You mean like Kathleen Harris (Secretary of State) illegally removing thousands of legal voters from the voters lists?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File#Election_law_violations.2C_allegations.2C_lawsuits

More:

How America Doesn't Vote (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/voting/press/nyt/2004-02-15%20NYT%20How%20America%20Doesnt%20Vote.pdf)

Finally, something you and I can agree on.

To transition this argument into the now, the Gore thing has a touch of the relevance. Through Bush's presidency there has been the ghost of the 'could have been' presidency of Gore, you can almost hear the refrains of "any you can do I can do better" being hummed at any decision or crossroads-from "we wouldn't be in Iraq" to the economy or the environment. Some of those are kind of obvious.

But as I look over at Obama's growing lead on Electoral-Vote.com and I think of the reasons not to crow about it (it's waaaaaayyyy to early to crow about polls for a November election, the polls are a bit of a mismash and don't all reflect events like Clinton's concession or any thing else that might have happened in the past week or so, etc.) one of the more minor reasons is that I knew I'd be hearing about how much 'better' Clinton would be doing in those polls (and then more lengthy insistence that Obama get a presidential chaperon, a 'co-president'...).

I wonder if that's going to be Obama's Gore, a Gore within his own party, the whisper, "Well, Obama won, but Clinton would have won by more." When he hits his first real hurdle, his first stumbling block as president, that every president goes through, will he have to face the whispers within his own party, "Clinton wouldn't have had that happen to her..." Is he going to be shackled by the every present and artificially perfect ghost of the 'could have been' candidate? Does anyone actually see our favorite Clinton supporter acknowledging Obama's achievements or respecting his hurdles? How endemic is this? Or is it nothing, the candidacy will be a footnote as she moves on to her post run political life?
But, but, but you can't start using Electoral-Vote.com, bec ause it has already been trashed by your peers. :D

Besides, that site disagrees with RCP. Electoral vote dot com gives Michigan to Obama based on the most recent poll, but RCP says uh-uhh:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html

Yup, RCP (ECV) gives a more realistic picture:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

You don't want to go against your playbook do you?

Besides, you now have to start using Rasmussen Reports:

Electoral College History (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/electoral_college_history)

:D

"So Obama (I don't want to be accused of being too partisan...) likes the moist, fatty flesh of a freshly minted baby every now and then-I don't see how this reflects poorly on his policies or his decision making. Don't try and distract the American public with trivialities of infintial cannibalism, you don't want to face the real issues!!!"

You should write a political column or for the daily show!

You come up with interesting points and funny shit like this.

But, but, but you can't start using Electoral-Vote.com, bec ause it has already been trashed by your peers. :D

Besides, that site disagrees with RCP. Electoral vote dot com gives Michigan to Obama based on the most recent poll, but RCP says uh-uhh:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_mccain_vs_obama-553.html

Yup, RCP (ECV) gives a more realistic picture:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

You don't want to go against your playbook do you?

Besides, you now have to start using Rasmussen Reports:

Electoral College History (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/electoral_college_history)

:D
Do you not know how to read inside paranthesis? Or did you see the words "electora-vote.com" and spluge all over yourself without reading the context of the post, that had fuck all to do with what the site says right now?

For various reasons I actually need the ego bump, so I'll take it with a thank you, but-
You should write a political column
I don't have the education for that
or for the daily show!
I do have the education for this, but the line ahead of me is long and talented. Not that I wouldn't jump all over the offer before they got through asking...

You come up with interesting points and funny shit like this.
Thank you, though.

For various reasons I actually need the ego bump, so I'll take it with a thank you, but-

I don't have the education for that

I do have the education for this, but the line ahead of me is long and talented. Not that I wouldn't jump all over the offer before they got through asking...

Thank you, though.

I say - write a blog (or are you already doing this?) and make it popular.

I say - write a blog (or are you already doing this?) and make it popular.

I actually do write a blog, but it isn't political and it has all of three readers. And I update it sporadically. It waffles between boring crap about my day to day existence that updates the people I know about what I'm up to and first draft essays on media and media culture that I wish I could have written in college. I don't really feel like pimping it because then I'd be compelled to update it and proof read, etc. If I feel the need for an audience I post a thread here and watch it die a slow death...anyway, enough about me...

Do you not know how to read inside paranthesis? Or did you see the words "electora-vote.com" and spluge all over yourself without reading the context of the post, that had fuck all to do with what the site says right now?
I read all of your gobbly gook.....that is why I was jousting with you. I do believe that I knocked you off your pony though and you were the one that got Gored. :D

I read all of your gobbly gook.....that is why I was jousting with you. I do believe that I knocked you off your pony though and you were the one that got Gored. :D

Seriously. Slap the hell out of your English teachers. They have failed you in a meaningful way.

I read all of your gobbly gook.....that is why I was jousting with you. I do believe that I knocked you off your pony though and you were the one that got Gored. :D

Dude, seriously, can you even see reality from where you're sitting?

You consider it a victory that you completely misread his post and proved it repeatedly? I see we're back to you running around the room with your king in your hand claiming no one can beat you.

You are aware that Florida also has laws and those laws determine the assignment of electoral votes, yeah? Federal law isn't the only thing to look at.

Yes. Florida law states that the intent of the voters is to be effectuated. That is the same as in every state: it is (or rather, was) bedrock American law; except for that principle, the Constitution itself would have no legal force.

Yes. Florida law states that the intent of the voters is to be effectuated. That is the same as in every state: it is (or rather, was) bedrock American law; except for that principle, the Constitution itself would have no legal force.

That's not the only thing it says on the matter and you know it. Are you intentionally ignoring Florida law or is it just that it doesn't make the case you want it to? As a resident of Florida at various times, I find Florida law to be quite important. And since we're talking about Florida it's pretty important to the discussion.

Now, are there any Florida laws that might have limited the time that they had for recounts in order for it to affect the electoral vote? Come on, I know you know the answer to this one.

I read all of your gobbly gook.....that is why I was jousting with you. I do believe that I knocked you off your pony though and you were the one that got Gored. :D

...

You are a disgrace. You are shameful and horrid. Please, do not embarrass us further.

Seriously. Slap the hell out of your English teachers. They have failed you in a meaningful way.
Perhaps your problem is that schooling involves more than just English comprehension?

You expect Clinton to bow out graciously, but even though Obama is the perceived victor, you want to persue your pound of flesh. That makes you a Shylock and perhaps you mock Portia, but you will know your reward.

Carry on, but I do believe you do dis-service to the goal of unity.

...

You are a disgrace. You are shameful and horrid. Please, do not embarrass us further.
Perhaps you are the next contestant on "Do You Want to Buy a Vowel"?

:)

Perhaps your problem is that schooling involves more than just English comprehension?

but it undeniably should include that, at least.

Velvet paws, kitties, velvet paws!

Now, are there any Florida laws that might have limited the time that they had for recounts in order for it to affect the electoral vote? Come on, I know you know the answer to this one.
The answer is NO. Florida law distinguishes two kinds of recount requests, a "protest" before the certification date and a "contest" after the certification date. By no means is the certification date an absolute deadline (and I do not think it would even be constitutionally allowable if that were the case). Electoral disputes, in fact, can continue even after the inauguration of the debatably-elected official (and have). If the certified vote total does not agree with the actual intended preference of the voters, it can and must be overturned, no matter when that fact is discovered. That is the law, in Florida and in every state. It has always been bedrock American law. It was never even questioned, until this one case when we overthrew everything our system is based on.

You expect Clinton to bow out graciously, but even though Obama is the perceived victor, you want to persue your pound of flesh. That makes you a Shylock and perhaps you mock Portia, but you will know your reward.

You define as "pound of flesh" not giving her a place on the ticket when Obama has every right not to if he doesn't feel like it, ESPECIALLY given her high rejection rate.

If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be crowing about Hillary having every right not to put Obama on the ballot.

Do you have, by any chance, a point?

Also, Clinton is FAR from being Portia. The only one that twisted the rules to try and get his way at the expense of all in the play was Shylock. Guess what Clinton tried to do? If she behaves like a prick, does the Democratic Party not bleed?

Velvet paws, kitties, velvet paws!

Given how frustrating it's becoming to argue with some people, I'm not surprised that things get heated.

That said, I myself flamed no one here, and even extended Shal an olive branch in the other thread he made about supporting Obama.

Velvet paws, kitties, velvet paws!

*Kyronea curls up on Ardichoille's lap.

Mrow...meow...

Given how frustrating it's becoming to argue with some people, I'm not surprised that things get heated.

That said, I myself flamed no one here, and even extended Shal an olive branch in the other thread he made about supporting Obama.

I'm not surprised things get heated, either: it is an election, and this is a forum full of political animals.

That's why I'm stopping in from time to time to remind people that, when things do get a bit heated, they should back away a bit before the flames erupt.

You and CH, for example, could stop attributing motives to each other, or predicting each other's behaviour.

I'm not surprised things get heated, either: it is an election, and this is a forum full of political animals.

That's why I'm stopping in from time to time to remind people that, when things do get a bit heated, they should back away a bit before the flames erupt.

You and CH, for example, could stop attributing motives to each other, or predicting each other's behaviour.

Meh. It'll calm down after Obama picks Sebelius, Strickland, or, in short, anyone but Clinton as VP.

You define as "pound of flesh" not giving her a place on the ticket when Obama has every right not to if he doesn't feel like it, ESPECIALLY given her high rejection rate.

If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be crowing about Hillary having every right not to put Obama on the ballot.

Do you have, by any chance, a point?

Also, Clinton is FAR from being Portia. The only one that twisted the rules to try and get his way at the expense of all in the play was Shylock. Guess what Clinton tried to do? If she behaves like a prick, does the Democratic Party not bleed?
I do have a point and you missed it by a mile.

Clinton = Antonio

I stated long, long ago that my dream ticket was Clinton/Obama, so please do not mis-interpret. Certainly I would be pleased by an Obama/Clinton ticket.

pound of flesh = Obama supporters continuing to mock Clinton and her supporters, such as you have done on this post

Carry on....

The answer is NO. Florida law distinguishes two kinds of recount requests, a "protest" before the certification date and a "contest" after the certification date. By no means is the certification date an absolute deadline (and I do not think it would even be constitutionally allowable if that were the case). Electoral disputes, in fact, can continue even after the inauguration of the debatably-elected official (and have). If the certified vote total does not agree with the actual intended preference of the voters, it can and must be overturned, no matter when that fact is discovered. That is the law, in Florida and in every state. It has always been bedrock American law. It was never even questioned, until this one case when we overthrew everything our system is based on.

Dude, now you're just making things up. Constitutionally allowable? Have you read Article II? The states decide how they allocate electors. It can be based on just about anything. Some states are passing laws that their electors won't be allocated based on the vote of their state at all. But, of course, you know that, right? Since you can tell me what's "constitutionally allowable" and whatnot?

There is no "bedrock American law" like the one you stated. You're completely full of it. Cite this "bedrock American law". I'd love to see it.