Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => General Off-Topic Board => Topic started by: vercingetorix on May 30, 2008, 07:07:41 AM

Title: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 30, 2008, 07:07:41 AM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: shayee053 on May 30, 2008, 07:24:06 AM
So im sure that the comment that I am going to make will be extrememely controversial but here goes...

I am not going to address the validity of your arguement directly. I think it is important to discuss the definition of racism. Most dictionaries describe racism as a prejudice against a group based on race and the definition will allude to notions of superiority vs. inferiority. I think both both aspects of the definition are oversimplified. If you look historically at manifestations of racism you will notice the component that is left out of the definition. POWER!! So is it truly black racism, or racist asians, or latinos? Can they truly be racist because they lack the power to oppress another group at this point in time? Or are they simply prejudice?

Just something to consider...enjoy the rest of your discussion.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: shayee053 on May 30, 2008, 07:29:38 AM
Oh, man. Don't hit me with those negative waves so early in the morning.

Lol...I know. I shouldn't have even replied. I hate negativity as well. I was bored...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 30, 2008, 07:37:19 AM
Oh, man. Don't hit me with those negative waves so early in the morning.

Lol...I know. I shouldn't have even replied. I hate negativity as well. I was bored...

so being an ostrich is the answer?  and the power argument fails.  racism is as good old Webster defines it: 1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.  no need for power to be a racist a$$hole.  that is a cop-out.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: redcement on May 30, 2008, 08:07:58 AM
In my area, city dems voted for Obama, and all the suburbs voted Hilary. Suburbanítes are overwhelmingly white. If Obama loses the election, it might be because those suburbanites are not willing to get on board where poor people already are...in Obama's camp.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on May 30, 2008, 08:23:56 AM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 30, 2008, 08:34:08 AM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on May 30, 2008, 08:45:50 AM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

Actually, no I don't.  And you've provided no evidence, other than faux outrage, for your position.  Yawn.

ETA:  How about I drag out Reason magazine contributor and libertarian scholar Daniel Koffler (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html) on the subject?

Quote
Obama's language of personal choice and incentive is a reflection of the ideas of his lead economic advisor, Austin Goolsbee, a behavioural economist at the University of Chicago, who agrees with the liberal consensus on the need to address concerns such as income inequality, disparate educational opportunities and, of course, disparate access to healthcare, but breaks sharply from liberal orthodoxy on both the causes of these social ills and the optimal strategy for ameliorating them.

Instead of recommending traditional welfare-state liberalism as a solvent for socioeconomic inequalities and dislocations, Goolsbee promotes programmes to essentially democratise the market, protecting and where possible expanding freedom of choice, while simultaneously creating rational, self-interested incentives for individuals to participate in solving collective problems. No wonder, then, that Obama's healthcare plan is specifically designed to give people good reason to buy in, without coercing them. Likewise, as George Will reported in a column from October, Goolsbee's proposal for reducing income inequality is to lower barriers to higher education, the primary factor in determining future earnings, and noticeably does not rely on state interventions in the market, which can succeed at equalising income at the price of reducing it across the board.

Goolsbee and Obama's understanding of the free market as a useful means of promoting social justice, rather than an obstacle to it, contrasts most starkly with the rest of the Democratic field on issues of competition, free trade and financial liberalism. Back in the spring of 2007, when the term "subprime mortgage" was beginning its ascent to ubiquity, Goolsbee composed an impressive op-ed in the New York Times, noting that - fraudulent lending practices aside - subprime products are a powerful tool for democratising the credit market and opening it up to lower socioeconomic strata, and had been substantially successful in reducing financial constraints on working-class people. Crack down on fraud by all means, but don't cut off an important avenue of economic empowerment for working people, and most of all don't do so in the name of working people.

The evidence that Obama heeds Goolsbee's lessons is ample, his healthcare plan being but one of many prominent examples. Whereas Clinton has recently taken to pulling protectionist stunts and rethinking the fundamental theoretical soundness of free trade, and Edwards is behaving like the love child of Huey Long and Pat Buchanan, Obama instinctively supports free trade and grasps the universe of possibilities that globalisation opens up, and seamlessly integrates it into his "audacity of hope" theme. As he remarked in a recent debate: "Globalisation is here, and I don't think Americans are afraid to compete. And we have the goods and the services and the skills and the innovation to compete anywhere in the world."

At the moment, Obama's and Clinton's positions on trade are roughly equivalent - both deserve credit for taking initial steps toward dismantling the obscene US government-supported agricultural cartels - but the present dynamic is Obama moving more and more in the direction of economic freedom, competition and individual choice, and Clinton wavering if not moving away from it. Obama proposes to address the "actuarial gap" in entitlement programs - actuarial gap being a term congenial to if not lifted straight from Niall Ferguson's analysis of generational accounting - in part by raising the cap on payroll taxes, but in part by creating incentives for personal retirement accounts, fostering, if you'll pardon the term, an ownership society. The idea, as with his approach to healthcare, is to bring individual self-interest and collective needs into harmony, and let rationality do the work from there. (Hillary Clinton, in case you're wondering, disagrees.)

Similarly, while Obama's support of immigration and immigrants undoubtedly derives in part from straightforward internationalism and humanitarianism - Obama's lead foreign policy advisor is Samantha Power, author of A Problem from Hell, under whose guidance Obama has directed far more attention to the Darfur genocide than any other candidate - it's likely that part of Obama's embrace of immigration stems from a Goolsbeean view of free movement of labour as inextricable from and essential to a free global market.

Perhaps it goes without saying that Obama's belief in freedom in labour markets and freedom in capital markets, sets him apart from the Republican field as well as the Democrats. Under ordinary circumstances, one would expect Republicans at least to respect free trade, but alas, they are inconsistent at best. As for freedom in immigration, even in politically propitious times, the modern GOP makes tactical concessions toward its xenophobic wing; in this season of famine, the Republican candidates, even those who have supported immigration in the past, have set up their nominating contest as a race to see who can take the most thuggish and contemptuous possible attitude toward Mexicans (the euphemism for this posture is "out-Tancredo-ing Tancredo").

Ironically, the nativist lunacy sweeping through the GOP underscores the conceptual connection between free trade and immigration, as mutually supporting pillars of economic freedom. Obama properly understands economic freedom as the best vehicle for accomplishing the historic goals of the left, which Irving Howe and Lewis Coser long ago described as wanting "simply to do away with those sources of conflict which are the cause of material deprivation and which, in turn, help create psychological and moral suffering."

In other words and in short, Obama's slogan, "stand for change", is not a vacuous message of uplift, but a content-laden token of dissent from the old-style liberal orthodoxy on which Clinton and Edwards have been campaigning. At the same time, Obama is not offering a retread of (Bill) Clintonism, Liebermanism, triangulation, neoliberalism, the Third Way or whatever we might wish to call the business-friendly centrism of the 1990s. For all its lofty talk of new paradigms and boundary shifting, the Third Way in practice amounted to taking a little of column A, a little of column B, and marketing the result as something new and innovative. Obama and Goolsbee propose something entirely different - not a triangulation, but a basis for crafting public policy orthogonal to the traditional liberal-conservative axis.

If this approach needs a name, call it left-libertarianism. Advancements in behavioural economics, public and rational choice theory, and game theory provide us with an opportunity to attend to inequality without crippling the economy, enhancing the coercive power of the state, or infringing on personal liberty (at least not to any extent greater than the welfare state already does; and as much as my libertarian friends might wish otherwise, the welfare state isn't going anywhere). The cost - higher marginal tax rates - is real, but eminently justified by the benefits.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: rebelfan286 on May 30, 2008, 08:52:15 AM
I'll sign on to fry's evaluation of the op's argument as far as 'racism' is concerned.  The op is making an argument that is similar to one made by the Clinton camp.  They seem to think that just because certain groups have chosen her over Obama in the primaries that those same groups would choose McCain over Obama in the general.  It is actually a pretty absurd statement considering we are talking about 'democratic' voters.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 30, 2008, 09:35:51 AM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

Actually, no I don't.  And you've provided no evidence, other than faux outrage, for your position.  Yawn.

ETA:  How about I drag out Reason magazine contributor and libertarian scholar Daniel Koffler (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html) on the subject?

Actually, yeah, you do have a weak grasp of libertarian policies if you think the article you cited provides evidence for a libertarian worldview (at least in the economic sphere). Where are the calls from Obama (or his advisor) for reduced taxes and social services? Where does he call for a reduction in government? Koffler may read his advisor's agenda as "left-libertarianism" but what I read is a government providing more of a guiding, or Visible, hand in the free market, not the reverse (which would be, um, Actual libertarianism) in order to make those social justice and collective action decisions more rational to the individual. In fact, what this sounds like is efficient, good government.

frybread, I'd also like to add that I wasn't the one making the point about his supposedly libertarian policy views, so the vacuous nature of my first reply (avec le faux outrage! Sacre Bleu!) was equal to what I was replying to. If you want to make that case though, you'll have to do better than a sneer followed by a cite that doesn't actually back up what you are arguing.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Judge Haller on May 30, 2008, 10:16:17 AM
He just can't seem to shake his preacher friends... :D
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on May 30, 2008, 10:23:15 AM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

Actually, no I don't.  And you've provided no evidence, other than faux outrage, for your position.  Yawn.

ETA:  How about I drag out Reason magazine contributor and libertarian scholar Daniel Koffler (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html) on the subject?

Actually, yeah, you do have a weak grasp of libertarian policies if you think the article you cited provides evidence for a libertarian worldview (at least in the economic sphere). Where are the calls from Obama (or his advisor) for reduced taxes and social services? Where does he call for a reduction in government? Koffler may read his advisor's agenda as "left-libertarianism" but what I read is a government providing more of a guiding, or Visible, hand in the free market, not the reverse (which would be, um, Actual libertarianism) in order to make those social justice and collective action decisions more rational to the individual. In fact, what this sounds like is efficient, good government.

frybread, I'd also like to add that I wasn't the one making the point about his supposedly libertarian policy views, so the vacuous nature of my first reply (avec le faux outrage! Sacre Bleu!) was equal to what I was replying to. If you want to make that case though, you'll have to do better than a sneer followed by a cite that doesn't actually back up what you are arguing.

Please indicate where I said Obama had strict libertarian world view.  My point, as was Koffler's, is that Obama's proposed policies are more libertarian than Clinton's, which, in my estimation, could possibly account for the purported preference in the Latino community for Clinton over Obama. 

BTW, you were the one responsible for establishing the tone of our exchange, so cut the *&^% about my purported "sneer".  I was bored by your empty critique.  Now I'm bored by your lack of reading comprehension.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: TimMitchell on May 30, 2008, 10:24:00 AM
Obama will lose the election due to racism and his inexperience. The only hope he has is people voting for him just because they are tired of Republican after this administration. However, McCain is the ideal Republican candidate. He has shown that he isn't afriad to go against the republicans and team up with the Democrats on some issues. He is seen as a moderate republican not assoicated heavily with the Bush administration. I think its going to be a tough fight, but my money is on McCain. If the Democrats nominated a moderate Democrat with more experience (Bill Clintonesque) it would be a landslide.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:22:35 PM
people seem to be missing the point. it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism. as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans. but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks. as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people. asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers. i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed. the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

wait, someone discriminting against pink elephants?

why not julie notified before this?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:23:49 PM
Oh, man. Don't hit me with those negative waves so early in the morning.

Lol...I know. I shouldn't have even replied. I hate negativity as well. I was bored...

so being an ostrich is the answer? and the power argument fails. racism is as good old Webster defines it: 1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. no need for power to be a racist a$$hole. that is a cop-out.

julie love seeing you right-wing assholes try so hard put chewerful face on election.

bend over and grab ankles, son.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:25:19 PM
people seem to be missing the point. it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism. as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans. but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks. as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people. asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers. i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed. the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above: You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton? Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies? (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.) (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter. Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

any pink elephants?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:28:10 PM
people seem to be missing the point. it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism. as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans. but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks. as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people. asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers. i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed. the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above: You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton? Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies? (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.) (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter. Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

you know, stuff like liberty from being spied on or put in jail without charges being brought or being tortured while in jail.

why, you for that stuff?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:29:50 PM
He just can't seem to shake his preacher friends... :D

what, hagee still alive or something?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:31:26 PM
Obama will lose the election due to racism and his inexperience. The only hope he has is people voting for him just because they are tired of Republican after this administration. However, McCain is the ideal Republican candidate. He has shown that he isn't afriad to go against the republicans and team up with the Democrats on some issues. He is seen as a moderate republican not assoicated heavily with the Bush administration. I think its going to be a tough fight, but my money is on McCain. If the Democrats nominated a moderate Democrat with more experience (Bill Clintonesque) it would be a landslide.

yes!  and victory in iraq just around corner!  and dikes in new orleans will hold!  and constitution not being violated!  and soldiers getting best equipment, medical care, and educational opportunities possible!  and my side never run out exclamation marks!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 30, 2008, 12:34:13 PM
In my area, city dems voted for Obama, and all the suburbs voted Hilary. Suburbanítes are overwhelmingly white. If Obama loses the election, it might be because those suburbanites are not willing to get on board where poor people already are...in Obama's camp.
Even for those who argue that Obama's words are rhetorical, the man symbolizes change for America.  America wants change.  He should be, and most likely will be our next President!

what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?  the question is whether or not asian/latino racism is a far bigger issue than white racism.  i think iowa demonstrates that the answer is probably yes.  the prison population offers an interesting, albeit dystopian, snapshot of the baser side of race politics in america.  presently the most virulent anti-black sentiment comes out of the latino community. a very close second is the asian community.  this should be no mystery to anyone who has traveled to asis.  i include here the indian subcontinent, china, indonesia, japan, and korea.  these people don't like black people as a rule. racism there is far more entrenched than it is in whites in the u.s., this is particularly evident in younger white voters.  this however is not true of younger latino voters, who are even more racist in their outlook than their parents.

http://www.udolpho.com/weblog/?id=00981&title=Latino-racism

http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/04/15/eddi.php

and yet these groups are part of the democratic base.  this is the issue.  no one wants to talk about it because of white guilt.  it is a complete sham what has occurred in this country, once a bastion of open discourse.  this is why Obama stands to lose an election that democrats should absolutely win by enormous margins.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:37:23 PM
issue whether you wipe poo off your ears when pull it out your a-hole.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 30, 2008, 12:43:38 PM
as always jules, you're an absolute caution! something insightful with every syllable. well done old girl!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 30, 2008, 12:54:05 PM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Regarding bolded in your post above:  You're asserting that Obama did poorly in Latino areas because Latino didn't like him due to their inherent racism, not because, well, they actually were voting FOR Clinton?  Or because Latinos perhaps don't like Obama's actual policies?  (e.g., Latinos, as a group, are much more supportive of a strong government safety net (social security, universal healthcare, etc.) and Clinton has made it a point to emphasize her commitment to those issues - Obama, OTOH, has much more libertarian views of government.)  (NB: I am neither a Clinton nor Obama supporter.  Just a 20+ year political operative (Dem.) and I currently reside in a heavily (>80%) Latino area.)

Are you kidding? You must be joking... That, or, for a 20+ year operative, you have a surprisingly weak grasp of libertarian policies.

Actually, no I don't.  And you've provided no evidence, other than faux outrage, for your position.  Yawn.

ETA:  How about I drag out Reason magazine contributor and libertarian scholar Daniel Koffler (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html) on the subject?

Actually, yeah, you do have a weak grasp of libertarian policies if you think the article you cited provides evidence for a libertarian worldview (at least in the economic sphere). Where are the calls from Obama (or his advisor) for reduced taxes and social services? Where does he call for a reduction in government? Koffler may read his advisor's agenda as "left-libertarianism" but what I read is a government providing more of a guiding, or Visible, hand in the free market, not the reverse (which would be, um, Actual libertarianism) in order to make those social justice and collective action decisions more rational to the individual. In fact, what this sounds like is efficient, good government.

frybread, I'd also like to add that I wasn't the one making the point about his supposedly libertarian policy views, so the vacuous nature of my first reply (avec le faux outrage! Sacre Bleu!) was equal to what I was replying to. If you want to make that case though, you'll have to do better than a sneer followed by a cite that doesn't actually back up what you are arguing.

Please indicate where I said Obama had strict libertarian world view.  My point, as was Koffler's, is that Obama's proposed policies are more libertarian than Clinton's, which, in my estimation, could possibly account for the purported preference in the Latino community for Clinton over Obama. 

BTW, you were the one responsible for establishing the tone of our exchange, so cut the *&^% about my purported "sneer".  I was bored by your empty critique.  Now I'm bored by your lack of reading comprehension.

Wrong again. You said "much more [than Clinton]," which to my mind should at least imply "some." Now if you can cite "some" policy on which Obama is "much more libertarian" than Clinton I'd welcome reading it. And please try to find something that doesn't just redefine the word. Since you have the time to post holier-than-thou replies, I'm sure you also have the time to find it.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 30, 2008, 12:55:06 PM
as always jules, you're an absolute caution! something insightful with every syllable. well done old girl!

well, duh.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on May 30, 2008, 10:19:46 PM
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491) (too long to paste here) was quite good. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on May 30, 2008, 10:31:03 PM
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491) (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on May 30, 2008, 11:02:53 PM
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491) (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)

Oh, believe me, I would never ask you to drink Koolaid just because I am . . . walking alongside . . . the Unity Pony.  I'm doing it for judicial appointments and because of this horrible war, but not because I believe in teh power of teh change.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on May 31, 2008, 01:54:36 AM
You're either with us or against us! (?)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 31, 2008, 06:51:24 AM
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491) (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)

Oh, believe me, I would never ask you to drink Koolaid just because I am . . . walking alongside . . . the Unity Pony.  I'm doing it for judicial appointments and because of this horrible war, but not because I believe in teh power of teh change.

Thanks for the link, Miss P, it was an interesting jaunt through the world of behavioral economics. Unfortunately it falls into the same trap the last article did, which was devote the clear majority of almost 40 paragraphs to discussing the economic proposals of an "informal, occasional advisor" to Obama rather than Obama's own proposals. And that leads to an interesting construct:

1) 20 paragraph examination of "informal, occasional advisor's" last book
2) Informal, occasional advisor proposes something with the word "libertarian" in it (in this case, "libertarian paternalism," which the essayist rightfully points out as an oxymoron)
3) Author asks rhetorical question: "Is Obama libertarian"?
4) As evidence, exactly *ONE* paragraph on the fact that his universal health care plan does not have a mandate on adults.

Seriously? Now, I've said on this board before that I'm totally in the tank for the Magical Unity Pony (and for very similar reasons to Miss P, with the addition of a rational foreign policy and a return of the rule of law - FYI, frybread, that would be the change that he is talking about), but this article definitely falls into the "lack thereof" category... I mean, Obama also supports a 100% cap and trade system for regulating greenhouse gases. How does that square with a libertarian outlook? Or his liberal internationalist foreign policy? Again, I'm not trying to be a male private part, and am genuinely interested (otherwise would I have read that entire thing?) in reading about his economic proposals, which have definitely gotten short shrift in the campaign in comparison to his foreign policy proposals.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on May 31, 2008, 07:36:54 AM
With respect to the discussion of Obama's libertarian overtones (or lack thereof), I thought this piece from John Cassidy in the New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491) (too long to paste here) was quite good. 

So "Change" = "Nudge"?

Sigh.

(yes, my most favored MP, I know I'm just supposed to drink the koolaid and get on the Unity Pony, but can't I still dream of more?)

Oh, believe me, I would never ask you to drink Koolaid just because I am . . . walking alongside . . . the Unity Pony.  I'm doing it for judicial appointments and because of this horrible war, but not because I believe in teh power of teh change.

Fortunately, for my own sanity, I don't feel so strongly compelled to subjugate my misgivings to the Unity Pony, as my vote is insignificant in this matter (I live in a very Dem district.)  So I get to be the obnoxious purist and pontificate from stage left.  ;)  (It will be the first pres cycle since 1988 which I sit out, but the Kool-aid guzzlers (v. sippers) honestly aren't interested in my practical experience (Hope and Change will provide for sufficient poll watchers and phone bankers) so I'm pretty content in my neglected, rejected state.  8).) 

Seriously? Now, I've said on this board before that I'm totally in the tank for the Magical Unity Pony (and for very similar reasons to Miss P, with the addition of a rational foreign policy and a return of the rule of law - FYI, frybread, that would be the change that he is talking about), but this article definitely falls into the "lack thereof" category... I mean, Obama also supports a 100% cap and trade system for regulating greenhouse gases. How does that square with a libertarian outlook? Or his liberal internationalist foreign policy? Again, I'm not trying to be a male private part, and am genuinely interested (otherwise would I have read that entire thing?) in reading about his economic proposals, which have definitely gotten short shrift in the campaign in comparison to his foreign policy proposals.

See, MPJ, this is where he lost me, as when questioned about the return of the rule of law in Indian Country, specifically, the right of Indians to the same fiduciary trust protections as every other American, he couldn't (wouldn't) commit himself.  I'm willing to roll over for a lot, but not this, since, well, I really don't have to (see above, i.e., my vote doesn't matter.)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 31, 2008, 07:46:25 AM
this discussion of Obama as a libertarian is amusing. how does an anti-gun, pro-tax (capital gains, FICA cap, oil companies), anti-defense, internationalist possibly approach the libertarian platform on any issue of any significance to them? Obama comes from the Pelosi wing of the party, which is to say the extreme left.  this is precisely what Hillary is trying to warn people of.  the reverend Wrights and Bill Ayers of the world are only the beginning for Obama.  when you couple this with ascendant latino and asian anti-black racism in this country you've essentially taken away most of the traditionally democratic base which is to say: minorities, and working class whites.  you simply don't have enough egg-headed manhattanite intellectual types and african-americans to carry an election.  the democrats look well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again.  it makes me laugh myself silly.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 31, 2008, 09:12:58 AM
See, MPJ, this is where he lost me, as when questioned about the return of the rule of law in Indian Country, specifically, the right of Indians to the same fiduciary trust protections as every other American, he couldn't (wouldn't) commit himself.  I'm willing to roll over for a lot, but not this, since, well, I really don't have to (see above, i.e., my vote doesn't matter.)

Looks like after the last twenty years you've decided that the perfect is no longer the enemy of the good. I don't know enough to make an informed comment about Indian Country (although that didn't stop you from talking about Obama's "libertarianism" but I digress). What I do know is he has pledged to meet with his new attorney general to review every executive order Bush has issued over his 8 years, and immediately put an end to those that are unconstitutional. He will close Guantanamo and put an end to extraordinary rendition and CIA black sites. If you think on balance that isn't enough to earn your vote, fair enough. I am surprised though about the "vote not mattering" talk from a self-described Democratic operative, so my question is if you are cynical enough to think that, why do you bother posting on (and on) about these political issues?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on May 31, 2008, 09:57:24 AM
See, MPJ, this is where he lost me, as when questioned about the return of the rule of law in Indian Country, specifically, the right of Indians to the same fiduciary trust protections as every other American, he couldn't (wouldn't) commit himself.  I'm willing to roll over for a lot, but not this, since, well, I really don't have to (see above, i.e., my vote doesn't matter.)

Looks like after the last twenty years you've decided that the perfect is no longer the enemy of the good. I don't know enough to make an informed comment about Indian Country (although that didn't stop you from talking about Obama's "libertarianism" but I digress). What I do know is he has pledged to meet with his new attorney general to review every executive order Bush has issued over his 8 years, and immediately put an end to those that are unconstitutional. He will close Guantanamo and put an end to extraordinary rendition and CIA black sites. If you think on balance that isn't enough to earn your vote, fair enough. I am surprised though about the "vote not mattering" talk from a self-described Democratic operative, so my question is if you are cynical enough to think that, why do you bother posting on (and on) about these political issues?

See, as a Democratic operative, I'm fully aware of the workings of the Electoral College.  I am currently registered to vote in a Congressional District which has no chance in hell of voting for McCain, and hence, my withholding my single vote will not impact the outcome (and I say that as a former candidate who lost a legislative campaign by 25 votes - I don't take my vote's impact lightly.)  I'm very happy that you have found a candidate who speaks to your central issues, but he doesn't speak to mine, which, btw, includes equal protection of the law.  And it's unfortunate that you believe political cynicism should be a barrier to political speech - but then, I've also seen a lot of calls for Democrats to "shut up and get in line" this cycle, mostly from purported Democrats.

Speaking to Obama's more "libertarian" leanings (and I still reject your logic, as if the statement "Minnie Driver is fatter than Kate Moss, thus Minnie Driver is fat",) I point to his support for "privatization" of Social Security accounts and his rejection of health care coverage mandates.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 31, 2008, 10:40:04 AM
See, MPJ, this is where he lost me, as when questioned about the return of the rule of law in Indian Country, specifically, the right of Indians to the same fiduciary trust protections as every other American, he couldn't (wouldn't) commit himself.  I'm willing to roll over for a lot, but not this, since, well, I really don't have to (see above, i.e., my vote doesn't matter.)

Looks like after the last twenty years you've decided that the perfect is no longer the enemy of the good. I don't know enough to make an informed comment about Indian Country (although that didn't stop you from talking about Obama's "libertarianism" but I digress). What I do know is he has pledged to meet with his new attorney general to review every executive order Bush has issued over his 8 years, and immediately put an end to those that are unconstitutional. He will close Guantanamo and put an end to extraordinary rendition and CIA black sites. If you think on balance that isn't enough to earn your vote, fair enough. I am surprised though about the "vote not mattering" talk from a self-described Democratic operative, so my question is if you are cynical enough to think that, why do you bother posting on (and on) about these political issues?

See, as a Democratic operative, I'm fully aware of the workings of the Electoral College.  I am currently registered to vote in a Congressional District which has no chance in hell of voting for McCain, and hence, my withholding my single vote will not impact the outcome (and I say that as a former candidate who lost a legislative campaign by 25 votes - I don't take my vote's impact lightly.)  I'm very happy that you have found a candidate who speaks to your central issues, but he doesn't speak to mine, which, btw, includes equal protection of the law.  And it's unfortunate that you believe political cynicism should be a barrier to political speech - but then, I've also seen a lot of calls for Democrats to "shut up and get in line" this cycle, mostly from purported Democrats.

Speaking to Obama's more "libertarian" leanings (and I still reject your logic, as if the statement "Minnie Driver is fatter than Kate Moss, thus Minnie Driver is fat",) I point to his support for "privatization" of Social Security accounts and his rejection of health care coverage mandates.


I assume you live in Nebraska or Maine, because otherwise your CD would bear no relevance on the state delegation to the electoral college (but the "as a Democratic operative" line was a good one, it's worked for you really well in this thread so far). And you twist my words, I didn't say cynics should be barred from speaking, only that they are usually so sure of their imagined eventual poor outcomes that they don't bother, so I was interested in your motivation, not demanding you to "shut up and get in line."

And you can keep on rejecting my logic all you want. I'm only pointing out your own words, calling Obama "much more" libertarian than Clinton. And all you can point to as evidence are things that make him only less traditionally liberal in his thinking, such as his apparent support for incorporating some aspects of behavorial economics, and I'm still waiting for some, you know, ACTUAL libertarian policies he supports.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on May 31, 2008, 11:31:12 AM
Martin, if you want to actually discuss Obama's economic policies, I will do so, but you're going to have to drop some of the indignation and pay a little more respect to frybread.

As for the Cassidy piece, it was, you know, a book review.  I thought it did a surprisingly good job of explaining the links between Obama's economic policies (disclosures over regulation, health coverage without mandates, etc.) and Sunstein and Thaler's "libertarian paternalism," though you are correct that not all of the criticisms of "nudging" and behavioral economics apply equally well (or at all) to (all of) Obama's policies.  (Cassidy also makes that point at the end: "On other issues, such as trade policy and regulation of the financial industry, Obama has recently adopted a more dirigiste tone than Thaler and Sunstein would care for. More generally, he has talked about confronting entrenched interests and giving a voice to the excluded. Doubtless, he means what he says. . . .")  And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think Cassidy may be a little hard on Sunstein who, after all, wrote a book about following through on FDR's economic bill of rights (which includes rights to housing, healthcare, education, work, and living wage).  That said, Clinton, for all of her many faults, was not running as a Third Way candidate this time, but as a straight-up Keynesian.  Obama was running as something else, something a little more DLC than most of his supporters are comfortable admitting.  You may object to the term libertarianism because it has a historical specificity you'd like to preserve; I can accept that.  But Obama's general emphasis on choice and incentives over regulation reflects some kind of shift -- perhaps because he went to law school during the heyday of law & economics, who knows.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 31, 2008, 11:40:49 AM
taxes on windfall profits? ending the FICA cap? increasing capital gains tax? isn't this flat out wealth distribution? can someone explain to me how this isn't a classic liberal stance?  and can someone still explain to me how Obama is going to overcome problems he has in winning over white blue collar (true DFL democrats v. the ivory tower liberal set) voters and latino voters (who are strongly anti-black) and take the national stage back from this wretched administration?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on May 31, 2008, 11:46:24 AM
taxes on windfall profits? ending the FICA cap? increasing capital gains tax? isn't this flat out wealth distribution? can someone explain to me how this isn't a classic liberal stance?  and can someone still explain to me how Obama is going to overcome problems he has in winning over white blue collar (true DFL democrats v. the ivory tower liberal set) voters and latino voters (who are strongly anti-black) and take the national stage back from this wretched administration?

I trust that McCain will make himself look foolish, repeatedly, as attention shifts back to him.  He's really good at it.

As for your other concerns, we go into elections with the country we have, not the country we wish we had.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 31, 2008, 01:33:47 PM
taxes on windfall profits? ending the FICA cap? increasing capital gains tax? isn't this flat out wealth distribution? can someone explain to me how this isn't a classic liberal stance?  and can someone still explain to me how Obama is going to overcome problems he has in winning over white blue collar (true DFL democrats v. the ivory tower liberal set) voters and latino voters (who are strongly anti-black) and take the national stage back from this wretched administration?

I trust that McCain will make himself look foolish, repeatedly, as attention shifts back to him.  He's really good at it.

As for your other concerns, we go into elections with the country we have, not the country we wish we had.

Exhibit A: "I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on May 31, 2008, 01:47:54 PM
Martin, if you want to actually discuss Obama's economic policies, I will do so, but you're going to have to drop some of the indignation and pay a little more respect to frybread.

As for the Cassidy piece, it was, you know, a book review.  I thought it did a surprisingly good job of explaining the links between Obama's economic policies (disclosures over regulation, health coverage without mandates, etc.) and Sunstein and Thaler's "libertarian paternalism," though you are correct that not all of the criticisms of "nudging" and behavioral economics apply equally well (or at all) to (all of) Obama's policies.  (Cassidy also makes that point at the end: "On other issues, such as trade policy and regulation of the financial industry, Obama has recently adopted a more dirigiste tone than Thaler and Sunstein would care for. More generally, he has talked about confronting entrenched interests and giving a voice to the excluded. Doubtless, he means what he says. . . .")  And I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think Cassidy may be a little hard on Sunstein who, after all, wrote a book about following through on FDR's economic bill of rights (which includes rights to housing, healthcare, education, work, and living wage).  That said, Clinton, for all of her many faults, was not running as a Third Way candidate this time, but as a straight-up Keynesian.  Obama was running as something else, something a little more DLC than most of his supporters are comfortable admitting.  You may object to the term libertarianism because it has a historical specificity you'd like to preserve; I can accept that.  But Obama's general emphasis on choice and incentives over regulation reflects some kind of shift -- perhaps because he went to law school during the heyday of law & economics, who knows.

HAHA, I'm an idiot. I clicked the link and read it without even absorbing the hypertext you wrote or the header at the top of the page. And your characterization of my objections are pretty much right on. It's like when Republicans call Democrats "Marxists" for wanting to subsidize health care - you completely lose the actual meaning of the word and the relevance it has, and it drives me nuts. Frybread, if my language has been biting, sarcastic and a bit over-the-top, then I apologize.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on May 31, 2008, 01:54:01 PM
HAHA, I'm an idiot. I clicked the link and read it without even absorbing the hypertext you wrote or the header at the top of the page. And your characterization of my objections are pretty much right on. It's like when Republicans call Democrats "Marxists" for wanting to subsidize health care - you completely lose the actual meaning of the word and the relevance it has, and it drives me nuts. Frybread, if my language has been biting, sarcastic and a bit over-the-top, then I apologize.

I should have been more careful to introduce it as such. :)

I think I agree with you then.  I am concerned about Obama's economic policies (among other things), but I wouldn't call them "libertarian" without some kind of modification ("neo-libertarian," "libertarianish," etc.).  You have to admit the trio of Cutler, Gooslbee, and Liebman is pretty icky, if it's not the Chicago School dream team some Clinton supporters and left paranoiacs (I am sometimes one of these) would have you believe.

ETA: I don't like the language of choice that makes government regulation sound dirty, and Obama's healthcare plan and Social Security crisis rhetoric freak me out.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 31, 2008, 04:30:44 PM
taxes on windfall profits? ending the FICA cap? increasing capital gains tax? isn't this flat out wealth distribution? can someone explain to me how this isn't a classic liberal stance?  and can someone still explain to me how Obama is going to overcome problems he has in winning over white blue collar (true DFL democrats v. the ivory tower liberal set) voters and latino voters (who are strongly anti-black) and take the national stage back from this wretched administration?

Exhibit A: "I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr City are quiet."



not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China.  Obama has some major issues, which the Clinton camp, no political neophytes among them, clearly see.  saying that you should be elected simply because the other guy is so lame is hardly "the audacity of hope".
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: redcement on May 31, 2008, 05:02:09 PM
In my area, city dems voted for Obama, and all the suburbs voted Hilary. Suburbanítes are overwhelmingly white. If Obama loses the election, it might be because those suburbanites are not willing to get on board where poor people already are...in Obama's camp.

what does this have to do with the price of tea in china?  the question is whether or not asian/latino racism is a far bigger issue than white racism.  i think iowa demonstrates that the answer is probably yes.  the prison population offers an interesting, albeit dystopian, snapshot of the baser side of race politics in america.  presently the most virulent anti-black sentiment comes out of the latino community. a very close second is the asian community.  this should be no mystery to anyone who has traveled to asis.  i include here the indian subcontinent, china, indonesia, japan, and korea.  these people don't like black people as a rule. racism there is far more entrenched than it is in whites in the u.s., this is particularly evident in younger white voters.  this however is not true of younger latino voters, who are even more racist in their outlook than their parents.
http://www.udolpho.com/weblog/?id=00981&title=Latino-racism
http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/04/15/eddi.php
and yet these groups are part of the democratic base.  this is the issue.  no one wants to talk about it because of white guilt.  it is a complete sham what has occurred in this country, once a bastion of open discourse.  this is why Obama stands to lose an election that democrats should absolutely win by enormous margins.

If the question is whether or not "asian/latino racism is a far bigger issue than white racism" it helps to take a look at the white racism you seem to brush off as incidental. I compared a city made up primarily of Blacks and Latinos--who voted for Obama-- to its surrounding suburbs predominately filled with whites--who voted for Hilary. Granted, some whites live in the city too, so it's not a clear demarcation between "how each Dem will vote based on his race", but then, nothing but racist ideology will manage to pinpoint that... 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 31, 2008, 05:25:11 PM
actually i never brush off white racism as incidental.  i mention, specifically, that it is significant, but waning.  asian and latino racism (as well as a pretty rabid black racism) runs rampant in the meantime and no one seems to care.  as the enthusiastic, young and predominately white pro-Obama supporters demonstrate, a lot of white racism is fading fast.  no one has addressed the significant and over-arching racism that exists in other ethnic groups in this country.  to Obama's, and our, peril methinks.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on May 31, 2008, 05:28:43 PM
here we go....now he's going to lose african-american votes as well. 

http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/04/15/eddi.php

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on May 31, 2008, 06:05:56 PM
here we go....now he's going to lose african-american votes as well. 

http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/04/15/eddi.php



I generally avoid interacting with you, but I have to ask, did you intend to link to this 1992 article about racism in East Asia?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on May 31, 2008, 06:12:13 PM
this discussion of Obama as a libertarian is amusing. how does an anti-gun, pro-tax (capital gains, FICA cap, oil companies), anti-defense, internationalist possibly approach the libertarian platform on any issue of any significance to them? Obama comes from the Pelosi wing of the party, which is to say the extreme left. this is precisely what Hillary is trying to warn people of. the reverend Wrights and Bill Ayers of the world are only the beginning for Obama. when you couple this with ascendant latino and asian anti-black racism in this country you've essentially taken away most of the traditionally democratic base which is to say: minorities, and working class whites. you simply don't have enough egg-headed manhattanite intellectual types and african-americans to carry an election. the democrats look well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory once again. it makes me laugh myself silly.

silly, yes.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 01, 2008, 06:09:50 AM
indeed, wrong link, although related to this thread.  this is what i was alluding to.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/obama.church/index.html

recall he said that he could no more disown reverend wright and his church than he could disown himself.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 01, 2008, 06:17:38 AM
See, MPJ, this is where he lost me, as when questioned about the return of the rule of law in Indian Country, specifically, the right of Indians to the same fiduciary trust protections as every other American, he couldn't (wouldn't) commit himself. I'm willing to roll over for a lot, but not this, since, well, I really don't have to (see above, i.e., my vote doesn't matter.)

Looks like after the last twenty years you've decided that the perfect is no longer the enemy of the good. I don't know enough to make an informed comment about Indian Country (although that didn't stop you from talking about Obama's "libertarianism" but I digress). What I do know is he has pledged to meet with his new attorney general to review every executive order Bush has issued over his 8 years, and immediately put an end to those that are unconstitutional. He will close Guantanamo and put an end to extraordinary rendition and CIA black sites. If you think on balance that isn't enough to earn your vote, fair enough. I am surprised though about the "vote not mattering" talk from a self-described Democratic operative, so my question is if you are cynical enough to think that, why do you bother posting on (and on) about these political issues?

See, as a Democratic operative, I'm fully aware of the workings of the Electoral College. I am currently registered to vote in a Congressional District which has no chance in hell of voting for McCain, and hence, my withholding my single vote will not impact the outcome (and I say that as a former candidate who lost a legislative campaign by 25 votes - I don't take my vote's impact lightly.) I'm very happy that you have found a candidate who speaks to your central issues, but he doesn't speak to mine, which, btw, includes equal protection of the law. And it's unfortunate that you believe political cynicism should be a barrier to political speech - but then, I've also seen a lot of calls for Democrats to "shut up and get in line" this cycle, mostly from purported Democrats.

Speaking to Obama's more "libertarian" leanings (and I still reject your logic, as if the statement "Minnie Driver is fatter than Kate Moss, thus Minnie Driver is fat",) I point to his support for "privatization" of Social Security accounts and his rejection of health care coverage mandates.



wait--minnie driver fat?  who knew?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 01, 2008, 06:19:48 AM
taxes on windfall profits? ending the FICA cap? increasing capital gains tax? isn't this flat out wealth distribution? can someone explain to me how this isn't a classic liberal stance? and can someone still explain to me how Obama is going to overcome problems he has in winning over white blue collar (true DFL democrats v. the ivory tower liberal set) voters and latino voters (who are strongly anti-black) and take the national stage back from this wretched administration?

we already got massive income redistribution, from poor to rich.  it about time direction get reversed.

counting on that trust fund hold up, eh?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 01, 2008, 06:24:19 AM
actually i never brush off white racism as incidental. i mention, specifically, that it is significant, but waning. asian and latino racism (as well as a pretty rabid black racism) runs rampant in the meantime and no one seems to care. as the enthusiastic, young and predominately white pro-Obama supporters demonstrate, a lot of white racism is fading fast. no one has addressed the significant and over-arching racism that exists in other ethnic groups in this country. to Obama's, and our, peril methinks.

not working, sock puppet.  your message clear:  obama not win.

and you say this because mccain your boy.

eat *&^%.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 01, 2008, 06:24:49 AM
here we go....now he's going to lose african-american votes as well.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1992/04/15/eddi.php



your sock just keep getting bigger.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 01, 2008, 06:25:38 AM
indeed, wrong link, although related to this thread. this is what i was alluding to.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/obama.church/index.html

recall he said that he could no more disown reverend wright and his church than he could disown himself.

still not working, sock-boy.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Willy Beachum on June 05, 2008, 07:44:43 AM
Interesting thread. I think Obama picks a URM to be VP, he at least could get the Hispanic vote. But I don't think he needs to in order to win. He just beat Hillary Godamn Clinton. He'll be fine.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Judge Haller on June 05, 2008, 09:44:40 AM
Not here. HRC whacked him by 41 points last month.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 05, 2008, 12:27:08 PM
Interesting thread. I think Obama picks a URM to be VP, he at least could get the Hispanic vote. But I don't think he needs to in order to win. He just beat Hillary Godamn Clinton. He'll be fine.

you show excellent judgment.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Maddie on June 05, 2008, 12:32:58 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/poll_many_americans_still_unsure

This sums up my attitude, and where I will be come November.  They're both awful.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 05, 2008, 12:36:09 PM
so you, but nobody mention it until now.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Maddie on June 05, 2008, 12:37:03 PM
so you, but nobody mention it until now.

Maybe so, but at least I'm not running for president.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 05, 2008, 12:41:22 PM
His opponent got 18 million votes and took almost every state Dems must have to win in November.

Fair enough, but you know Obama also received approximately 18 million votes.  Both candidates had an unprecedented number of supporters, perhaps due to their qualities, but more likely due to the length of the campaign and the excitement the early primaries generated.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 05, 2008, 12:51:27 PM
Right, that statement wasn't meant as a "Hillary ran away with it" but rather a "it was a very close contest, chill." 

I think it would be foolish for him (and by him I really mean our chances in November) to carry on as though he ran her into the ground when considering where to go over the next five months.  Narrowly defeating an opponent who unexpectedly won a race on the last day of a very competitive primary should not suggest carrying on with tactics inappropriate to a very different contest.   

I see very little evidence that he is carrying on as if he ran her into the ground except on Clinton blogs where her supporters are complaining about it.  Is there something in particular to which you're responding that I missed?  (I don't have cable news so this may be part of the problem.)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: onechu82 on June 05, 2008, 01:00:03 PM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Funny cause 80% of Asian I know support Obama.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 05, 2008, 01:07:13 PM
I didn't say he was, I said that he shouldn't.  The attitude among many of the Obama supporters I know is disheartening, both in their needless, baseless pseudo-hatred of Clinton and in their belief that Obama's primary campaign revolutionized the entire game. 

That is, of course, a very small sample of Obama supporters, but the pervasive attitude of the media throughout the campaign has focused on the "revolutionary" aspects of Obama's campaign.  Those aspects played well with the audience that gave him the nomination but won't play as well big-picture. 

A dose of tradition they seem to so despise is going to be necessary going into November, is all I was suggesting.  Dean-esque buyers remorse is not something that can happen in October.     

Fair enough.  (FWIW, I see some of the same baseless pseudo-hatred of Obama on Clinton blogs and among Clinton supporters, and it's making me nervous about November.)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: conoroberst on June 05, 2008, 02:58:22 PM
Sacrifice Obama's own campaign to appease Hillary and her supporters after the things she has done? Are you kidding?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 05, 2008, 03:05:03 PM
My problem with the anti-Clinton folks isn't that they chose to support another candidate, in an Oprah or Caroline Kennedy fashion.  It's the gleeful delight with which so many of them enjoyed tearing Hillary apart.  I found them rather hypocritical, especially when they resorted to using 15-year-old right-wing arguments against her, and frequently sexist.  I heard many people say they didn't like Obama's health care plan, found him inexperienced or thought his Iraq war stance was disingenuous.  I heard many more people say Hillary was bitchy, shrill or old.

I haven't read the Wolcott piece and don't have time to read it now.  I do, however, agree with you that there was a tremendous amount of misogyny directed at Clinton, some from Obama supporters.  I also saw both sides using right-wing talking points against each other (against Obama: bittergate, Wrightgate, Rezko, Bill Ayers, Hussein), and I saw a number of Clinton supporters refer to Obama as a lightweight beneficiary of affirmative action (perhaps this is what you read as a claim about his inexperience), a Manchurian candidate, a black separatist, "The Precious," "Bambi," etc.  His supporters are routinely -- and this even on the very mainstream blogs -- characterized as mindless cultists or reflexive identity voters, with names like Obamaniacs (I've used this one myself), Obamabots, Obamarxists, etc.  The hatred really does exist on both sides.

My problem with the unity ticket are manifold.  Most important, I don't think she wants to be VP.  I really believe she is suspending her campaign in name only and will continue to lobby superdelegates and push for a credentials fight to become the nominee.  Second, from what I read, her more hardened supporters will not vote for any ticket where she is #2.  I also think she has been too disrespectful of Obama's chances to make a compelling choice, and choosing her goes against some of Obama's messaging (change, anti-war). And I think he should choose someone with executive experience.  I could go on and on . . .
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: conoroberst on June 05, 2008, 03:08:24 PM
I'm assuming by sacrifice, you mean rescue?

I have no idea what "things she has done."

1. Obama is beating McCain as of the latest poll, taken right before he won the nomination. By sacrifice, I mean giving up the idea of a newer, cleaner politics (see Jindal in LA) and also allowing the sideshow of Bill Clinton to overshadow him in the white house.

2. Thats part of the problem.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: conoroberst on June 05, 2008, 03:28:43 PM
I didnt say to rely on the polls, I was just pointing out that he doesnt need to be "rescued."

And please, any other candidate would have dropped out well before Obama won the nomination, much less when he won the nomination. I have to go to work though, and dont have the hours that could be spent listing the crap that she pulled. If you really feel that he wouldve done the same in her position, thats fine, but then he wouldnt expect to be VP.

You've probably seen this, but here is a start - skip to 7 minutes if you have - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLNFsl130_Y
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 05, 2008, 05:39:13 PM
I also think there's some truth to the criticism of the Obamabots.  The Wolcott quote on my Facebook profile details my issue with them pretty well (I wonder if he's cute, because we agree a lot, apparently).  I don't think it's a huge stretch to say that there was a bit of cult-like fascination with Obama that wasn't connected to anything beyond personal affection or euphoria.     

Since this obviously isn't the case for Clinton supporters like yourself, I can rest assured that all of you are getting straight to work electing Democrats, including Obama, in November, or are pledging to vote for him? I mean, since your loyalties don't rest with a single individual in some "cult-like" fashion (one who agrees with Obama on almost all issues), you won't have any trouble doing this right?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 05, 2008, 05:49:41 PM
this trick question?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 05, 2008, 05:53:13 PM
Because supporting a candidate we didn't feel was experienced enough for the nomination just to be good Democrats is the same as tearing apart another Democratic candidate because you developed a grade-school crush on someone more exciting?

 ::)

Love the irony of the poster who rails against the sexism in the campaign stooping to patronizing comments like "grade-school crush," as if I and other Obama supporters are a bunch of eight-year olds.

I raise you my own  ::)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 05, 2008, 07:30:28 PM
my friend...there is NO such thing as racism as there is no such thing as race...it is colorism...colorists...the integumentary system...and prejudices marking a person because of partial physiognomy...

suggesting that race exists or racism is like saying the world is flat...or there is such thing as manifest destiny.

that said...richardson will assist obama with the west...

if you must label obama he is neither black nor white...if you must label...he is primarily kenyan american and irish american.


however aye think hiliary has already done irrepairable damage... :-\




people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 06, 2008, 12:46:17 AM
Because only females have grade school crushes?  That's your projection.  I hope you'll own it.

I like, though, how you make a generalization about Hillary supporters not being good Democrats and then take offense at my grade-school comment, which I at least labeled a generalization in previous posts.   



Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, huh? What you said: "tearing apart another Democratic candidate because you developed a grade-school crush on someone more exciting?" And what I said in response was, "Love the irony of the poster who rails against the sexism in the campaign stooping to patronizing comments like "grade-school crush," as if I and other Obama supporters are a bunch of eight-year olds." Last time I checked, the demographics of eight-year olds were evenly split, male and female, so I'll leave it to others to decide which of us is the one "projecting."
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 06, 2008, 12:56:36 AM
My you are a spunky one, Martin.

I've refrained from this discussion for the sake of my sanity.  I think everyone knows that I think Clinton race-baited throughout the campaign and that both Clinton and Obama supporters have engaged in some really vicious racist and sexist rhetoric, as well as general meanspiritedness, toward each other and the other candidate.  I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2008, 04:58:34 AM
my friend...there is NO such thing as racism as there is no such thing as race...it is colorism...colorists...the integumentary system...and prejudices marking a person because of partial physiognomy...

suggesting that race exists or racism is like saying the world is flat...or there is such thing as manifest destiny.

that said...richardson will assist obama with the west...

if you must label obama he is neither black nor white...if you must label...he is primarily kenyan american and irish american.


however aye think hiliary has already done irrepairable damage... :-\




people seem to be missing the point. it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism. as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans. but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks. as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people. asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers. i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed. the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.


what republican like you pretend think of no importance whatsoever.  you just trying be like hero, karl rove.

it not working, idiot.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2008, 10:18:36 AM
really?  we done then?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 06, 2008, 12:04:32 PM
Not quite.  I didn't know where this was going.

Given that your candidate was all-to-ready to connect his unfortunate, voluntary association with someone as repugnant as Jeremiah Wright to the very serious issue of racism for his own political benefit, I wouldn't expect him (or many of his supporters) to take a discussion of any "ism" not beneficial to his campaign all that seriously.

I absolutely reject this formulation.  It is lazy at best, but at worst contains a series of three slurs: first, against Jeremiah Wright, whom you label as "repugnant" because you disagree with him or felt alienated by his preaching style; second, against Obama for somehow using "racism for his own political benefit" (newsflash: racism doesn't benefit its victims); and third, against Obama and Obama supporters as being opportunists who don't care about sexism.  I am disappointed, Sax. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 06, 2008, 12:42:10 PM
you go, girl.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: conoroberst on June 06, 2008, 01:39:04 PM
Saxby, I dont want to put words in your mouth, but I've discussed Obama v Clinton with several people who think it wasnt fair because Obama didnt hold a speech to address sexism after he did so with racism. My question is, why didnt Hillary hold a speech on sexism?

And though Obama broke with Wright, lots of people did not. Have you openly and honestly looked at what he has done and who he is?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 06, 2008, 07:22:37 PM
My you are a spunky one, Martin.

I've refrained from this discussion for the sake of my sanity.  I think everyone knows that I think Clinton race-baited throughout the campaign and that both Clinton and Obama supporters have engaged in some really vicious racist and sexist rhetoric, as well as general meanspiritedness, toward each other and the other candidate.  I'll leave it at that.

democrats are always whining and complaining about something aren't they? always, always, always b!tching.  incredible.  at the end of the day, no one likes a bitter complainer.  not a party of unified vision but one of shared animosity.  what cold porridge.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 06, 2008, 08:42:28 PM
Oh, shut up  ::)

I'd just like to say that I think emotions still run high on both sides of this primary, so if I was unduly snarky or short with anyone (aside from vercingetorix just now), I apologize.  Really, the most important thing is to keep the White House away from the hot mess that is Cindy McCain, and I think we can all agree on that. 

Grander, more qualified people than any of us will be writing about the past six months for years to come.  With the benefit of space and time, and the lack of immediate, personal involvement, hopefully they will come to inspired, insightful, intriguing conclusions that will be valuable to those studying what was a truly historic election.   
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: __ on June 06, 2008, 08:47:15 PM
Grander, more qualified people than any of us will be writing about the past six months for years to come.  With the benefit of space and time, and the lack of immediate, personal involvement, hopefully they will come to inspired, insightful, intriguing conclusions that will be valuable to those studying what was a truly historic election.   

um... i beg to differ in opinion.... I am niether grander nor qualified, but i have a book coming out via Rock Lobster Penguing Publishing about all this :-P

I kid bear...
so bored
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 06, 2008, 10:38:09 PM
My you are a spunky one, Martin.

I've refrained from this discussion for the sake of my sanity.  I think everyone knows that I think Clinton race-baited throughout the campaign and that both Clinton and Obama supporters have engaged in some really vicious racist and sexist rhetoric, as well as general meanspiritedness, toward each other and the other candidate.  I'll leave it at that.

democrats are always whining and complaining about something aren't they? always, always, always b!tching.  incredible.  at the end of the day, no one likes a bitter complainer.  not a party of unified vision but one of shared animosity.  what cold porridge.

Get a grip.  I wasn't speaking on behalf of the party or any candidate, nor was I spontaneously offering a personal gripe. I was responding to a specific discussion about racism and sexism among the supporters of the two campaigns.  Your comment is especially rich from the person who started a thread trying to get people riled up about the supposedly widespread anti-African-American racism of Asian Americans and Latinos.

As far as I can tell, Obama and Clinton share a vision: a better country that doesn't continue to wage needless wars and that provides for its citizens' immediate basic needs and long-term well-being.  Why don't you tell us about McCain's vision? 

::)

Ditto.  And likewise about the snark.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 07, 2008, 06:55:15 AM
Interesting how the racism Latinos supposedly feel towards black Americans isn't affecting their support of Barack Obama. From an LA Times poll: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,5793717.story

Quote
A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.

Republicans say McCain's numbers among Latinos at the moment are disappointing -- far below the goals set by a campaign that has long believed McCain could challenge the traditional Democratic dominance of the Latino electorate.

The numbers suggest that McCain's image has suffered after a competitive GOP primary in which he renounced some of the moderate views on immigration popular among many Latinos. For example, McCain, who was a chief sponsor of legislation creating a path to citizenship for most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, now says he believes the government must focus first on securing the U.S.-Mexico border before dealing with illegal workers.

Weird how Latinos are letting actual issues get in the way of their irrational hatred of blacks. I mean, going by the OP's original formulation, none of these ethnic groups are rational actors with regard to who they support for Prez, and yet the data just doesn't back it up, I don't understand!!!!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 07, 2008, 07:00:24 AM
Miss P said:
"Get a grip.  I wasn't speaking on behalf of the party or any candidate, nor was I spontaneously offering a personal gripe. I was responding to a specific discussion about racism and sexism among the supporters of the two campaigns.  Your comment is especially rich from the person who started a thread trying to get people riled up about the supposedly widespread anti-African-American racism of Asian Americans and Latinos.

As far as I can tell, Obama and Clinton share a vision: a better country that doesn't continue to wage needless wars and that provides for its citizens' immediate basic needs and long-term well-being.  Why don't you tell us about McCain's vision?"


you need to calm down when you discuss.  i have never claimed to be a McCain supporter.  i do think that the racism in Latino and Asian circles, particularly against blacks, is quite pronounced.  i have offered a couple of articles supporting this.  it would be quite simple to find others.  you could too.   your comments lead me to believe that you don't spend much time with either people of Asian descent or Latinos as these biases form a part of their everyday conversations.  working with migrant farmers during a stint with Americorps about 10 years ago, i was stunned by the prevalence of it.  i have also traveled quite extensively in Asia (where people don't much like whites either mind you, especially in places like India) and Latin America.  so there is both anecdotal and independently backed information for you.

as for the disasterous economic policies Obama wants to put in place, i think i will forgo a discussion with you since most people on these boards are young students, either in or directly out of undergrad who don't know the first thing about economics and the realities of the day to day.  I would mention that my parents fled Canada because socialized medicine is simply ruinous.  if you want to make something really expensive, make it free.  i would add that increasing taxes on capital gains, increasing corporate taxation rates (we lag behind only Japan on this count), and increasing the FICA cap are not ways to get the economy out of a stall.

oh, particularly unavailing here are arguments like "well look at what Bushy did to the economy..." that has nothing to do with Obama.  it also assumes i give a toss about Bush, which, by the by, i don't.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 07, 2008, 08:56:17 AM
How lovely your parents were able to flee Canada and its socialized medicine. 

Here in America, they'd have probably died before they had the chance. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 07, 2008, 09:29:52 AM
you need to calm down when you discuss. 

Among your criticisms, this alone is apt.* :)  But how about I just revert back to not interacting with you? 

*Not that I think I am particularly hostile, and I'm certainly less hostile than you and others in this thread.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 07, 2008, 09:38:10 AM
you need to calm down when you discuss.

Among your criticisms, this alone is apt.* :)  But how about I just revert back to not interacting with you? 

*Not that I think I am particularly hostile, and I'm certainly less hostile than you and others in this thread.

Dear Miss P:
If you think mine is a hostile tone, yours will be a difficult and sad little life.  as for my other points, i fail to see how not addressing them makes them any more or less apt. good luck.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 07, 2008, 09:50:08 AM
you need to calm down when you discuss.

Among your criticisms, this alone is apt.* :)  But how about I just revert back to not interacting with you? 

*Not that I think I am particularly hostile, and I'm certainly less hostile than you and others in this thread.

Dear Miss P:
If you think mine is a hostile tone, yours will be a difficult and sad little life.  as for my other points, i fail to see how not addressing them makes them any more or less apt. good luck.

Yes, that's the kind of positive and constructive spirit your other comments seemed to express.

I wasn't talking about your "points," on which we disagree, but which I am not particularly interested in discussing here.  I was referring to your criticisms of me, chiefly: (1) that I don't interact frequently with Asian Americans and Latinos, and (2) that I am young, just out of undergrad, and don't know anything about economics, economic policy, and the realities of day-to-day life.  But I don't really see the point in cataloguing my associations and credentials for you.  You're free to believe what you want; I just wanted to give you the heads-up that you're a little off-base.

ETA: And I wasn't suggesting that you supported McCain.  You raised a question about whether the Democrats have any shared vision.  I named one and asked you whether McCain had one.  It's not much use to evaluate the coherence of one vision or the unity of one party without comparison to the viable alternatives. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 07, 2008, 10:31:52 AM
My you are a spunky one, Martin.

I've refrained from this discussion for the sake of my sanity.  I think everyone knows that I think Clinton race-baited throughout the campaign and that both Clinton and Obama supporters have engaged in some really vicious racist and sexist rhetoric, as well as general meanspiritedness, toward each other and the other candidate.  I'll leave it at that.

democrats are always whining and complaining about something aren't they? always, always, always b!tching.  incredible.  at the end of the day, no one likes a bitter complainer.  not a party of unified vision but one of shared animosity.  what cold porridge.


seconded...lets get some independents elected on the local stage...mayors, for example.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 10:32:17 AM
My you are a spunky one, Martin.

I've refrained from this discussion for the sake of my sanity. I think everyone knows that I think Clinton race-baited throughout the campaign and that both Clinton and Obama supporters have engaged in some really vicious racist and sexist rhetoric, as well as general meanspiritedness, toward each other and the other candidate. I'll leave it at that.

democrats are always whining and complaining about something aren't they? always, always, always b!tching. incredible. at the end of the day, no one likes a bitter complainer. not a party of unified vision but one of shared animosity. what cold porridge.

whatever you say, doof.  ever count whiny-ass titty babies in gop?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 07, 2008, 10:32:49 AM
Oh, shut up  ::)

I'd just like to say that I think emotions still run high on both sides of this primary, so if I was unduly snarky or short with anyone (aside from vercingetorix just now), I apologize.  Really, the most important thing is to keep the White House away from the hot mess that is Cindy McCain, and I think we can all agree on that. 

Grander, more qualified people than any of us will be writing about the past six months for years to come.  With the benefit of space and time, and the lack of immediate, personal involvement, hopefully they will come to inspired, insightful, intriguing conclusions that will be valuable to those studying what was a truly historic election.   


aye love ya man...but cindy isn't running...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 07, 2008, 10:36:58 AM
Not quite.  I didn't know where this was going.

Given that your candidate was all-to-ready to connect his unfortunate, voluntary association with someone as repugnant as Jeremiah Wright to the very serious issue of racism for his own political benefit, I wouldn't expect him (or many of his supporters) to take a discussion of any "ism" not beneficial to his campaign all that seriously.

I absolutely reject this formulation.  It is lazy at best, but at worst contains a series of three slurs: first, against Jeremiah Wright, whom you label as "repugnant" because you disagree with him or felt alienated by his preaching style; second, against Obama for somehow using "racism for his own political benefit" (newsflash: racism doesn't benefit its victims); and third, against Obama and Obama supporters as being opportunists who don't care about sexism.  I am disappointed, Sax. 


wright is a non issue to us indigos...and racism is dead {aye can't believe that african americans keep this one going}...perhaps the trinis and other of us islanders have a better grasp on this one...colorism is the real issue...and the color of one's skin matters not...but if you feel the need to discuss it...lets get the terminology real...there are many african races if u want to discuss race...when aye talk to associates it drops them down a level when they bring up race...as if it is fact.

first african americans were concerned that obama was not electable over hiliary...well that is now over...now others are preoccupied with wright...obama put that away...keep it there...not important.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 10:50:17 AM
wright never was important.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 07, 2008, 11:38:55 AM
no? really?

don't try to get on my good side...dipshite...

it was all about getting hiliary out...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 11:42:37 AM
no, it all about trying get obama out.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 07, 2008, 11:45:32 AM
um...dipshite...the BIGGER picture...mon, ya are dense.

oh..now you want to discuss obama?  u would have supported warmonger hiliary...hypocritical moron.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 07, 2008, 11:49:22 AM
  I was referring to your criticisms of me, chiefly: (1) that I don't interact frequently with Asian Americans and Latinos, and (2) that I am young, just out of undergrad, and don't know anything about economics, economic policy, and the realities of day-to-day life.  But I don't really see the point in cataloguing my associations and credentials for you. 
[/quote]


the sting in any rebuke is the truth.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 12:21:15 PM
um...dipshite...the BIGGER picture...mon, ya are dense.

oh..now you want to discuss obama? u would have supported warmonger hiliary...hypocritical moron.

over mccain?  you betcha.

what shock this must be to julie's readers.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 12:23:02 PM

 the sting in any rebuke is the truth.

julie guessing you very familiar with that feeling.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 07, 2008, 12:34:14 PM


what shock this must be to julie's readers.
[/quote]

don't flatter yourself old boy.  no one pays attention to your rambling irrelevancies you poor, lonely sot.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 07, 2008, 12:36:17 PM
you seem be doing so, dipshit.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 07, 2008, 01:29:24 PM
A lot of axe-grinding by the OP, but nothing on the substance of his allegations, so I'm just going to quote my last post:

Interesting how the racism Latinos supposedly feel towards black Americans isn't affecting their support of Barack Obama. From an LA Times poll: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,5793717.story

Quote
A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.

Republicans say McCain's numbers among Latinos at the moment are disappointing -- far below the goals set by a campaign that has long believed McCain could challenge the traditional Democratic dominance of the Latino electorate.

The numbers suggest that McCain's image has suffered after a competitive GOP primary in which he renounced some of the moderate views on immigration popular among many Latinos. For example, McCain, who was a chief sponsor of legislation creating a path to citizenship for most of the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, now says he believes the government must focus first on securing the U.S.-Mexico border before dealing with illegal workers.

Weird how Latinos are letting actual issues get in the way of their irrational hatred of blacks. I mean, going by the OP's original formulation, none of these ethnic groups are rational actors with regard to who they support for Prez, and yet the data just doesn't back it up, I don't understand!!!!

I'm sure the original poster doesn't appreciate stupid "facts" and "data" getting in the way of his 10 year old anecdotes about racist minorities, but I think others will. Read the whole article, it's great.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 07, 2008, 01:56:52 PM
the sting in any rebuke is the truth.

In this case, no; it's the obstinacy of the accuser.  I don't need to reach back ten years to an Americorps gig to tell you some stories about Latinos in my life or our discussions about race.  I also just think it's weird to use one's friends and colleagues as objects in a discussion like this or as representatives of their race. 

I have never said that there's no such thing as anti-African-American racism among other people of color.  I have said that it's not as significant a problem as you suggest, that your evidence is weak, and that it doesn't seem to be stopping people from voting for Obama.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 07, 2008, 07:21:08 PM
ok

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9587776

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=00c83b0739520c4f380469df2c520743

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0429/p01s07-ussc.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html?hp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6304803

it's like shooting fish in a barrel.  those of you who do not see this issue are blind to facts.  I picked from the first page of 350,000 on the search of 1,410,000 for hispanic black tension. other searches would have revealed more info on the FIRST page i am certain.  you are in denial.  my hispanic friends think you are in denial.  my african-american friends think you are in denial.  my asian-american friends think you are in denial.  this is a white, rich-kid, pampered, guilt-ridden, whitey board. that is all I will say.  life with blinders on is harder. keep at it.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 07, 2008, 11:28:38 PM
I don't think anyone denied that tensions existed.  Miss P, anyway, acknowledged the existence but had a difference of opinion as to exactly what role they played in this Democratic primary.

Why would anyone shoot fish in a barrel? 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 08, 2008, 05:49:36 AM
ok

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9587776

http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=00c83b0739520c4f380469df2c520743

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0429/p01s07-ussc.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/us/politics/15hispanic.html?hp

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6304803

it's like shooting fish in a barrel. those of you who do not see this issue are blind to facts. I picked from the first page of 350,000 on the search of 1,410,000 for hispanic black tension. other searches would have revealed more info on the FIRST page i am certain. you are in denial. my hispanic friends think you are in denial. my african-american friends think you are in denial. my asian-american friends think you are in denial. this is a white, rich-kid, pampered, guilt-ridden, whitey board. that is all I will say. life with blinders on is harder. keep at it.

you just hoping obama supporters lose heart.  that going work about well as your campaign restore french monarchy.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 08, 2008, 05:50:53 AM
I don't think anyone denied that tensions existed. Miss P, anyway, acknowledged the existence but had a difference of opinion as to exactly what role they played in this Democratic primary.

Why would anyone shoot fish in a barrel?

good question.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 08, 2008, 09:17:55 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,3458770,full.story

This is the first article that comes up in a Google search for "Obama McCain latino vote."  It cites a new poll that says Obama leads McCain 62-29 [among Latinos].  (For comparison's sake, Kerry beat Bush among Latino voters 55-44; Gore beat Bush 62-35.  Bush, of course, was another Southwestern Republican who was supposed to win Latinos because of his conciliatory tone on immigration, his associations with prominent Latino and Latin American figures like Gonzales and Fox, his stabs at Spanish-speaking, etc.)  None of the articles you cite are about an Obama-McCain matchup in the general election.

To the extent Latinos vote as a bloc, they are solidly Democratic (with some exceptions like Cuban Americans).  The kinds of racial tensions your articles mention are mostly in the context of race-based violence in high schools, gang turf wars, and localized contests for resources such as municipal contracting.  These are hardly likely to affect a presidential election.  Of course there are some larger political tensions between African-Americans and Latinos in the civil rights community, but since Obama is not running as a traditional civil rights candidate (somewhat to my dismay), he doesn't stoke these tensions. 

Asian Americans also do not vote as a bloc.  They are deeply divided by national-ethicity, generation, class, and geography.  They also make up under 5% of the electorate (estimates run as low as 2%), and are only significant voting populations in states that are sure to go Democratic (New York, Illinois, California, Washington).  (FWIW, I do election protection/poll-watching with AALDEF almost every year -- I did NAACP/People for The American Way in 2004.  Anecdotally, I can tell you that Asian Americans vote for African Americans all the time.)

I do not accept the premise of this thread, that Asian Americans and Latinos are any more racist against African Americans than other segments of the population.  I'm sure racial prejudice will cause an undue number of voters to turn against Obama.  I just think it's highly unlikely that the prejudice among these groups will be a decisive factor in the election.

EDIT as indicated
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 08, 2008, 09:22:59 AM
richochet?  better alternatives?  going cause leak in barrel?  president gump suggest it?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 08, 2008, 09:24:24 AM
If they're the scary monkfish from Top Chef, I actually wouldn't mind them being shot. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Alan Shore on June 08, 2008, 09:44:12 AM
Unfortunately, race will be the only reason discussed should Obama lose.

There are some other factors that would cause people to not vote for Obama that people are forgetting about:

1) We forget the "one-issue" voters who will vote based entirely on either a pro-gun or pro-life agenda... in other words, Republican.
2) Sadly, many evangelicals still vote the way they are told... in other words, Republican.
3) The presumptive Republican candidate isn't... well, he's not that Republican. And for the many, many moderates that exist, they may want to go with a middle-of-the-roader, instead of an all-out left-winger.
4) It was a lose-lose for Democrats. I am a white male. Just yesterday, I expressed my glee that Obama beat Hillary... and someone said, "You only didn't want her because she's a woman!" And she was dead serious. So for Democrats, either you're a racist or against women's rights. The Democratic race was never about the issues, it was the woman vs. the black. And that is unfortunate.

Nobody talks about the fact that blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama. Is that racism?

Let's pay attention to the real issues: plans for the economy, the housing crisis, alternative fuel sources, etc. Now is a great time to unite our country, not to make it more divisive. 

To help, go to these sites:

Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

McCain: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 08, 2008, 10:23:31 AM
all-out left-winger

This is where you lost me.  Sorry, kid.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 10:45:16 AM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,3458770,full.story

This is the first article that comes up in a Google search for "Obama McCain latino vote."  It cites a new poll that says Obama leads McCain 62-29 [among Latinos].  (For comparison's sake, Kerry beat Bush among Latino voters 55-44; Gore beat Bush 62-35.  Bush, of course, was another Southwestern Republican who was supposed to win Latinos because of his conciliatory tone on immigration, his associations with prominent Latino and Latin American figures like Gonzales and Fox, his stabs at Spanish-speaking, etc.)  None of the articles you cite are about an Obama-McCain matchup in the general election.



Miss P, your reply is off point.  how McCain polls against Obama with Latinos has nothing to with the prevalent anti-black bias in hispanic social circles.  Kerry and Gore were white so mentioning them is irrelevant. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202860.html

The political polarization between Latino voters and black candidates has been a virtual trademark in just about every race where a black candidate has squared off against a white or Latino candidate. In 1993, Rudolph Giuliani, a tough law and order,Republican running in heavily Democratic New York city against liberal African-American Democrat David Dinkins got nearly forty percent of the Latino vote. Nearly a decade later, Lee Brown, the former New York City police commissioner, got less than 30 percent of the Latino vote in his run-off race against Orlando Sanchez for Houston mayor. The even more popular, veteran former Congressman Ron Dellums received barely thirty percent of the Latino vote in his race for mayor in Oakland against a Latino challenger in 2005.

In each case the black candidates won their races with overwhelming support from black and substantial support from white voters. Their challengers were conservative Republicans or centrist Democrats. They actively courted the Latino voters, and even won the important endorsements of prominent Latino elected officials and business leaders. That did little to dent the vote barrier between the majority of Latinos and the black candidates.
i was merely brining up the point that Democrats do not discuss the prevalence of black, asian and hispanic racism but instead focus on institutionalized white racism.  my point is that although white racism certainly exists it is no longer institutionalized and it is on the wane. this is simply not true in other minority circles.  i find it hilarious that white democrats in particular are so quick to denounce even the most slightly off-color remark as virulently racist if it is uttered by a white dude, but they talk themselves unconscious excusing horribly racist behavior/speech in other minority groups. this double standard is, at best naive if it is unconscious and at worst Orwellian if it is deliberate.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 08, 2008, 02:12:19 PM
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,3458770,full.story

This is the first article that comes up in a Google search for "Obama McCain latino vote."  It cites a new poll that says Obama leads McCain 62-29 [among Latinos].  (For comparison's sake, Kerry beat Bush among Latino voters 55-44; Gore beat Bush 62-35.  Bush, of course, was another Southwestern Republican who was supposed to win Latinos because of his conciliatory tone on immigration, his associations with prominent Latino and Latin American figures like Gonzales and Fox, his stabs at Spanish-speaking, etc.)  None of the articles you cite are about an Obama-McCain matchup in the general election.



Miss P, your reply is off point.  how McCain polls against Obama with Latinos has nothing to with the prevalent anti-black bias in hispanic social circles.  Kerry and Gore were white so mentioning them is irrelevant. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202860.html

[snip]

Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on June 08, 2008, 02:36:03 PM
all-out left-winger

This is where you lost me.  Sorry, kid.

Moi aussi.

I'm an all-out left-winger.  Obama pales in comparison ;).
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Alan Shore on June 08, 2008, 02:49:59 PM
all-out left-winger

This is where you lost me.  Sorry, kid.

Moi aussi.

I'm an all-out left-winger.  Obama pales in comparison ;).

Thing of it from a right-winger perspective! ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 02:52:47 PM
Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.
[/quote]

i was pointing out the flaw in bringing up the kerry/bush, gore/bush comparison.  these are not on point because both candidates in that poll were white.  the fact that Latinos in LA may or may not find McCain less palatable as a candidate does not speak to the issue of racist leanings within the Latino community towards blacks.  the data i use shows a trend in this area.  ex post data is always better than pre-vote polling data.  the reason for this is that people are not candid when asked racially loaded questions. never rely on people to truthfully answer for whom they voted.  instead use census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis.  this is how you determine what demographics voted for whom.  these numbers show that latinos don't vote for blacks in large numbers when they are up against hispanics or whites.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on June 08, 2008, 03:11:57 PM
Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.

i was pointing out the flaw in bringing up the kerry/bush, gore/bush comparison.  these are not on point because both candidates in that poll were white.  the fact that Latinos in LA may or may not find McCain less palatable as a candidate does not speak to the issue of racist leanings within the Latino community towards blacks.  the data i use shows a trend in this area.  ex post data is always better than pre-vote polling data.  the reason for this is that people are not candid when asked racially loaded questions. never rely on people to truthfully answer for whom they voted.  instead use census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis.  this is how you determine what demographics voted for whom.  these numbers show that latinos don't vote for blacks in large numbers when they are up against hispanics or whites.
[/quote]

Which is why Diane Watson's CD is heavily Latino and Asian.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 08, 2008, 03:31:02 PM
Quote
Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.

i was pointing out the flaw in bringing up the kerry/bush, gore/bush comparison.  these are not on point because both candidates in that poll were white.  the fact that Latinos in LA may or may not find McCain less palatable as a candidate does not speak to the issue of racist leanings within the Latino community towards blacks.  the data i use shows a trend in this area.  ex post data is always better than pre-vote polling data.  the reason for this is that people are not candid when asked racially loaded questions. never rely on people to truthfully answer for whom they voted.  instead use census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis.  this is how you determine what demographics voted for whom.  these numbers show that latinos don't vote for blacks in large numbers when they are up against hispanics or whites.

Ooooooo-K. First things first: this poll is not a poll of "Latinos in LA," but a Los Angeles Times article about multiple nationwide polls of Latinos. Second, you provide no evidence on why one cannot rely on exit polls or "pre-vote polling data" instead of your "census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis," none of which, I might add, you actually do in this thread. What the polls the LA Times cites indicate are that Latinos nationwide are moving toward the Democratic Party, which is fairly in line with what the rest of the country is doing. Now if you actually want to make the opposite argument, back it up. But don't try and distract with some meta-issue such as exit polls and pre-voting polls being unreliable due to some bizarre Wilder effect that you aren't interested in actually proving.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 03:37:33 PM
even if we assume that more hispanics will vote republican or simply stay home due to the race thing, i haven't seen convincing support for the assertion that this drop in hispanic support would be greater than potential increases in turnout among african-americans.  care to comment?

i agree with your comment that hispanics might just stay at home, although mccain was a big proponent of immigration reform and made efforts to distance himself from the anti-immigration camp of the republican party.  this should help him...and of course he is the senator from az.  at the end of the day though, hispanics are and will probably remain democrats (even if socially, as staunch catholics, they are quite conservative, things like gay rights and abortion don't do very well with them).  it is going to hurt obama because areas likely to see the largest increase in black voters (Georgia has over 600,000 unregistered affican-americans) are also deeply red states.  you tend to see larger hispanic populations in states that are up for grabs (virginia, north carolina, minnesota, wisconsin, i would add california but i think that is a safely blue state, regardless of what evolves) than in those deep south enclaves. that is why losing even one third of the hispanic vote due to racism could cost him the election.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 03:40:07 PM
Quote
Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.

i was pointing out the flaw in bringing up the kerry/bush, gore/bush comparison.  these are not on point because both candidates in that poll were white.  the fact that Latinos in LA may or may not find McCain less palatable as a candidate does not speak to the issue of racist leanings within the Latino community towards blacks.  the data i use shows a trend in this area.  ex post data is always better than pre-vote polling data.  the reason for this is that people are not candid when asked racially loaded questions. never rely on people to truthfully answer for whom they voted.  instead use census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis.  this is how you determine what demographics voted for whom.  these numbers show that latinos don't vote for blacks in large numbers when they are up against hispanics or whites.

Ooooooo-K. First things first: this poll is not a poll of "Latinos in LA," but a Los Angeles Times article about multiple nationwide polls of Latinos. Second, you provide no evidence on why one cannot rely on exit polls or "pre-vote polling data" instead of your "census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis," none of which, I might add, you actually do in this thread. What the polls the LA Times cites indicate are that Latinos nationwide are moving toward the Democratic Party, which is fairly in line with what the rest of the country is doing. Now if you actually want to make the opposite argument, back it up. But don't try and distract with some meta-issue such as exit polls and pre-voting polls being unreliable due to some bizarre Wilder effect that you aren't interested in actually proving.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/eveningnews/main653562.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137451,00.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/senate-exit-polls-early/

exit polls are notoriously unreliable.  or did you forget the whole kerry-bush election?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 03:42:26 PM


Which is why Diane Watson's CD is heavily Latino and Asian.
[/quote]

it is.  but also heavily black.  who is in the majority?  who ran against her last?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on June 08, 2008, 05:29:54 PM


Which is why Diane Watson's CD is heavily Latino and Asian.

it is.  but also heavily black.  who is in the majority?  who ran against her last?
[/quote]

Latinos, Asians and Middle Easterners make up 60% of the district. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 05:33:07 PM


Latinos, Asians and Middle Easterners make up 60% of the district. 
[/quote]

mmmmm....actually no. from her own website.

http://www.house.gov/watson/district_list.shtml
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 05:36:45 PM


Latinos, Asians and Middle Easterners make up 60% of the district. 
[/quote]


mmmmm....actually no.  from her own website.

http://www.house.gov/watson/district_list.shtml
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 08, 2008, 05:37:35 PM
it is going to hurt obama because areas likely to see the largest increase in black voters (Georgia has over 600,000 unregistered affican-americans) are also deeply red states.  you tend to see larger hispanic populations in states that are up for grabs (virginia, north carolina, minnesota, wisconsin, i would add california but i think that is a safely blue state, regardless of what evolves) than in those deep south enclaves. that is why losing even one third of the hispanic vote due to racism could cost him the election.

Interestingly enough, Georgia has a higher percentage of Latinos than any of the other states you mention besides California.  NC and VA are somewhere around 6 or 7% Latino.  The others are under 5% Latino.  But whatever.  Move the goalposts all you want.  You're still pretty much full of *&^%.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 06:11:20 PM
Interestingly enough, Georgia has a higher percentage of Latinos than any of the other states you mention besides California.  NC and VA are somewhere around 6 or 7% Latino.  The others are under 5% Latino.  But whatever.  Move the goalposts all you want.  You're still pretty much full of poo.
[/quote]

actually Georgia is right around 5%
http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/georgia/demographic.html

so is Virginia (my bad)

http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/georgia/demographic.html

North Carolina is closer to 7%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html

MN is around 4%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

WI is right around 5%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html

so actually GA is in the same boat as the other states, except NC which has quite a few more Latinos, which is interesting since one of the articles i mentioned earlier that outlines how entrenched racism is in hispanic circles was based in NC. and the numbers of hispanics in these areas is probably higher now, since it is 8 years after the census and we have seen a steady stream of hispanic immigrants of late.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 06:29:32 PM


i was also under the impression that there were a lot of black people in virginia and NC.
[/quote]

they do, around 20 and 22 percent respectively, but not 1/3 of the population, which is where the black population is in GA.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13000.html

and Mississippi (37%)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html

and Louisiana (32%)

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html

and other deep south states.  as i said, in these states, all strongly republican, the presence of those most likely to vote for Obama, black voters, is cancelled out by the overwhelming presence of right-wing conservatives. look at the last election.

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2004&fips=22

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&fips=28&year=2004

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.php?f=0&year=2004&fips=13

whereas in these other critical states like VA, NC and yes even MN and WI, where black populations are lower, the role of Latinos is magnified.  this is what i am talking about.  Obama has a problem.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 08, 2008, 07:42:35 PM
Why would anyone shoot fish in a barrel? 

why WOULDN'T anyone shoot fish in a barrel?  ???

new persona???:D :D :D ...sa.o.shte...ip's are a biatch.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 08:26:21 PM
whereas in these other critical states like VA, NC and yes even MN and WI, where black populations are lower, the role of Latinos is magnified.  this is what i am talking about.  Obama has a problem.

so in those four states, you think that decreased hispanic turnout will be more significant than increased black turnout.  yes?

see above.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 08, 2008, 08:30:07 PM
This is pretty disgusting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-IrhRSwF9U)

Credit: Cady via Gengis
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 08, 2008, 09:04:39 PM
Quote from: miss p
Interestingly enough, Georgia has a higher percentage of Latinos than any of the other states you mention besides California.  NC and VA are somewhere around 6 or 7% Latino.  The others are under 5% Latino.  But whatever.  Move the goalposts all you want.  You're still pretty much full of poo.

actually Georgia is right around 5%
http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/georgia/demographic.html

so is Virginia (my bad)

http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/data/georgia/demographic.html

North Carolina is closer to 7%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html

MN is around 4%

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html

WI is right around 5%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html

so actually GA is in the same boat as the other states, except NC which has quite a few more Latinos, which is interesting since one of the articles i mentioned earlier that outlines how entrenched racism is in hispanic circles was based in NC. and the numbers of hispanics in these areas is probably higher now, since it is 8 years after the census and we have seen a steady stream of hispanic immigrants of late.



Maybe you should use the same source for all your statistics.  They're bound to be more reliable for comparison's sake.  Go here and compare the 2006 estimates: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 09:51:01 PM


Maybe you should use the same source for all your statistics.  They're bound to be more reliable for comparison's sake.  Go here and compare the 2006 estimates: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.


[/quote]

thanks for the tip.  i was pointing out that there are differing statistics on the exact percentage of hispanics in GA and every state.  the reason should be pretty obvious.  and yes, i think they vote too.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 08, 2008, 09:53:52 PM
thanks for the tip.  i was pointing out that there are differing statistics on the exact percentage of hispanics in GA and every state.  the reason should be pretty obvious.  and yes, i think they vote too.

But why not use the same source for the same year (and the Census Bureau's most recent data/estimates)?  Just because they indicated I was correct?  And if the "obvious" reason is immigration, I think you have a problem since, obviously, you have to be a citizen to vote and most recent immigrants are not yet citizens.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 08, 2008, 10:23:24 PM
But why not use the same source for the same year (and the Census Bureau's most recent data/estimates)?  Just because they indicated I was correct?  And if the "obvious" reason is immigration, I think you have a problem since, obviously, you have to be a citizen to vote and most recent immigrants are not yet citizens.

Don't bring logic into this!   >:(
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 08, 2008, 11:45:57 PM
thanks for the tip.  i was pointing out that there are differing statistics on the exact percentage of hispanics in GA and every state.  the reason should be pretty obvious.  and yes, i think they vote too.

But why not use the same source for the same year (and the Census Bureau's most recent data/estimates)?  Just because they indicated I was correct?  And if the "obvious" reason is immigration, I think you have a problem since, obviously, you have to be a citizen to vote and most recent immigrants are not yet citizens.

the census, is taken every 10 years.  so the most recent data comes from 2000. the web sites i used both claim to use official us gov. census data. so you see they both come from the same "source".  i suggest it is difficult to estimate this number because much of this demographic group moves around quite a bit.  it is naive to assume, in a country that does not require a photo ID (until the Supreme Court recently decided that IN could require a photo ID thank God but that was like a month ago), and allows people to register the same day at the polls, that there isn't a lot of precisely what you suggest going on.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 08, 2008, 11:48:35 PM
a country that [. . .] allows people to register the same day at the polls

Link?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 09, 2008, 04:06:15 AM
http://www.demos.org/page52.cfm

i don't think i need to outline which party favors this type of registration.  it is also the party that opposes any kind of identification process at the polls.  in fact in many states, like my own state of Wisconsin, all you need do is have someone vouch that you are eligible to vote.

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=TN&pubid=1084

as i said, thank God states are wising up and changing laws to make photo ID's a requirement.

oh and the arch-conservative Stevens wrote for the majority.  as i alluded to above, conservatives claim that not having an ID requirement encourages fraud while liberals claim that forcing poor people to get ID's somehow disenfranchises them. it seems the court feels that a rotten election tainted by thousands of ineligible voters casting ballots is more corrosive to the democratic process than one where a few eligible voters might get turned away.obtaining an ID is simply not a difficult process. nor does it discriminate against protected classes of people.it just discriminates against people who shouldn't be voting like illegal immigrants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/28/ST2008042802615.html
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 09, 2008, 08:48:48 AM
Arrrr!  Those damn illegals ruining everything!   >:(

(I mean... estimated size of effect, if it exists, considering that actual election laws vary by state?)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 09, 2008, 09:11:23 AM
So im sure that the comment that I am going to make will be extrememely controversial but here goes...

I am not going to address the validity of your arguement directly. I think it is important to discuss the definition of racism. Most dictionaries describe racism as a prejudice against a group based on race and the definition will allude to notions of superiority vs. inferiority. I think both both aspects of the definition are oversimplified. If you look historically at manifestations of racism you will notice the component that is left out of the definition. POWER!! So is it truly black racism, or racist asians, or latinos? Can they truly be racist because they lack the power to oppress another group at this point in time? Or are they simply prejudice?

Just something to consider...enjoy the rest of your discussion.

Many populist marxist professors try to teach that an element of racism is power.  This is primarily to excuse their own hatreds and allow them to harbor their own stereotypes.  My theory is that when you hear someone who includes the concept of power with their definition of racism, they are more racist than you would like to think.
Al Sharpton is one such individual who, while fighting for a world without racism, harbors his own animosities against people other than him and believes that the black people are better than another group.  It shouldn't surprise you that Sharpton has been known to apply the concept of power to racism.  Yet he has been quoted as referring to jews as 'Hymies' (an old racist, derrogatory word used much like the n-word) and frequently has made baseless accusations against white people that later turned out to be false.
Louis Farrakhan is another so called black leader who uses the concept of power to define racism.  This is a man who believes that judaism is a gutter religion, Hitler was brilliant, and that all jews are leeches.
I have had many conversations with some of my closest black friends, some of whom believe that power is essential to racism.  My main argument is that power isn't necessary to define racism at all.  Power is merely a way to enforce racism.  Black people can be racists against whites, the japanese may be racist against the Koreans.  Latino's may hate black people and vice-versa.  To effect a large portion of the population, power is important, but to hold the belief that another race is beneath your own requires no power, only the ability to think.  And hate.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Martin Prince, Jr. on June 09, 2008, 11:48:44 AM
Quote
Erm, isn't the premise of this thread how Obama will lose in the fall due to other minorities' racism toward blacks (and especially black politicians)? And citing polling data showing how flawed that premise is makes it somehow "off point"? Continuing to blather on without addressing this glaring discrepancy is making me question your intelligence, vercingetorix.

i was pointing out the flaw in bringing up the kerry/bush, gore/bush comparison.  these are not on point because both candidates in that poll were white.  the fact that Latinos in LA may or may not find McCain less palatable as a candidate does not speak to the issue of racist leanings within the Latino community towards blacks.  the data i use shows a trend in this area.  ex post data is always better than pre-vote polling data.  the reason for this is that people are not candid when asked racially loaded questions. never rely on people to truthfully answer for whom they voted.  instead use census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis.  this is how you determine what demographics voted for whom.  these numbers show that latinos don't vote for blacks in large numbers when they are up against hispanics or whites.

Ooooooo-K. First things first: this poll is not a poll of "Latinos in LA," but a Los Angeles Times article about multiple nationwide polls of Latinos. Second, you provide no evidence on why one cannot rely on exit polls or "pre-vote polling data" instead of your "census data, voter registration records and statistical analysis," none of which, I might add, you actually do in this thread. What the polls the LA Times cites indicate are that Latinos nationwide are moving toward the Democratic Party, which is fairly in line with what the rest of the country is doing. Now if you actually want to make the opposite argument, back it up. But don't try and distract with some meta-issue such as exit polls and pre-voting polls being unreliable due to some bizarre Wilder effect that you aren't interested in actually proving.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/eveningnews/main653562.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137451,00.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/senate-exit-polls-early/

exit polls are notoriously unreliable.  or did you forget the whole kerry-bush election?

Do you even read the links you cite? All of those are stories about *EARLY* exit polls, those that are released in the afternoon without all of the exit polling having been completed. The notoriety of these early polls is why networks this year (and 2006) waited until later in the evening before starting to cite data from them.

So yes, *EARLY* exit polls are bad. But that does not make *exit polls* bad. Jesus. And yeah, way to continue pushing your retarded meta-argument about exit-poll and polling reliability instead of actually addressing the flaws in the topic of your own god damn thread.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 09, 2008, 11:58:54 AM
Arrrr!  Those damn illegals ruining everything!   >:(

(I mean... estimated size of effect, if it exists, considering that actual election laws vary by state?)

They should really stop being illegal ruiners of everything. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 09, 2008, 08:04:19 PM
The date of registration is a red herring.  All states require citizenship to vote; it doesn't really matter if you register on the day of the election (which is permissible in a handful of states, including biggies like NH and ME).  If you register at the polling place, you vote on a provisional ballot that only gets counted if your registration is approved (meaning that you are a citizen).  Only one state does not require registration (ND); this is probably a the state most vulnerable to non-citizen voter fraud.

Without delving too much into the voter ID issue, I'd just like to point out that the record in Crawford (the Indiana voter ID case) contained no evidence of any past or present voter-impersonation fraud, and none of the modern-day cases of voter fraud involve non-citizens trying to vote under other people's registrations or without registrations.

Finally, with respect to the census issue, I used the same source (the Census Bureau) because the data were estimates for the same year based on the same model.  You used the 2000 census numbers for Georgia and Virginia, and the 2006 estimates for the other states.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 10, 2008, 05:25:25 AM
republicans like pretend voter fraud problems so can suppress votes.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 10, 2008, 10:21:31 PM
nope...no voter fraud...


obama may lose because hiliary clinton stayed in the race too long...doesn't care about the democrat party...and destroyed obama's chances in pa and florida...

and allowed the hero-american veteran...independent john mccain to gather a strong base...especially among independents and reagan democrats...some reagan dems will sit out in pa...some will go with mccain..

that is how.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 10, 2008, 11:14:05 PM
republicans like pretend voter fraud problems so can suppress votes.

Yes.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 10, 2008, 11:28:52 PM
republicans like pretend voter fraud problems so can suppress votes.

Yes.

umm...aye called u queen bee?? when was that?  :'(


how silly thou art. ;)


hope this didn't go over your head.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 11, 2008, 04:57:34 AM
putz.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 11, 2008, 09:46:00 PM
hiliary...repair damage done in pa...and fl...

tick tock...tick...tock.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 12, 2008, 04:02:53 AM
guess you not notice obama now leading in pennsylvania.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: redcement on June 12, 2008, 07:51:19 PM
http://www.demos.org/page52.cfm

i don't think i need to outline which party favors this type of registration.  it is also the party that opposes any kind of identification process at the polls.  in fact in many states, like my own state of Wisconsin, all you need do is have someone vouch that you are eligible to vote.

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=TN&pubid=1084

as i said, thank God states are wising up and changing laws to make photo ID's a requirement.

oh and the arch-conservative Stevens wrote for the majority.  as i alluded to above, conservatives claim that not having an ID requirement encourages fraud while liberals claim that forcing poor people to get ID's somehow disenfranchises them. it seems the court feels that a rotten election tainted by thousands of ineligible voters casting ballots is more corrosive to the democratic process than one where a few eligible voters might get turned away.obtaining an ID is simply not a difficult process. nor does it discriminate against protected classes of people.it just discriminates against people who shouldn't be voting like illegal immigrants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/28/ST2008042802615.html


Actually, getting an ID CAN be hard to get, simply because you or your parents were disorganized, or for instance, moved many times, and didn't save your birth certificate. If you don't have your birth certificate and your social security card, getting photo id is next to impossible. And try getting one of those (Social security or birth cert)without the others. They each require one or more of the other in many places. It's like the ID trifecta. Being able to vote by affidavit can be empowering for this group of people.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 12, 2008, 08:08:57 PM
Actually, getting an ID CAN be hard to get, simply because you or your parents were disorganized, or for instance, moved many times, and didn't save your birth certificate. If you don't have your birth certificate and your social security card, getting photo id is next to impossible. And try getting one of those (Social security or birth cert)without the others. They each require one or more of the other in many places. It's like the ID trifecta. Being able to vote by affidavit can be empowering for this group of people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVc7KqT-2Os

 :)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 13, 2008, 06:09:18 AM
Boo-Hoo.
I'm sorry, but if you don't have an ID you shouldn't be allowed to vote.  I don't care what failed sportscaster and general loser Olbermann says or thinks.  Want to vote?  Get an ID.
It's funny, with all the people talking about how hard it is to get an ID I started to recall when I got one myself after getting a speeding ticket.  Knowing I was heading to a bar in a few days, I went to the DMV, stood in line, paid my $20 and walked out with a state issued photo ID.
And no where in the constitution of these United States, is it stated that anyone has a right to vote. 
"The Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to."

Any state can issue any rule restricting the right to vote so long as those rules don't contradict the constitution.  As it stands right now, there is no amendment in the constitution that says that asking people to identify themselves is discriminatory.

As I said before, boo-hoo.
Olbermann is upset because an old lady gave up her ID, has no passport, no license, no birth certificate and no social security card.  That seems like her problem, not mine.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 13, 2008, 08:13:02 AM
spoken like true republican.  now you know why your party in dumpster.  couldn't have happened to better people!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 13, 2008, 04:13:29 PM
spoken like true republican.  now you know why your party in dumpster.  couldn't have happened to better people!

Yes, my party is "in the dumpster" because we want to ensure that votes are legitimate.  Correct.  Unlike the left, who is eager to participate in voter fraud, people like me (I guess I'm a republican simply because I refuse to be an air-headed liberal) are evil.
Got it.
Thanks for keeping the discussion going by discussing the subject at hand and not stooping to ad hominem and generalizations.
Once again, Julie Fern, I would like you to point to the part of the constitution that gives citizens a right to vote.
By the way, since you are so keen on voters rights, how do you feel about superdelegates and the fact that they were created to safeguard the Democrat party from having to abide by the will of the people?  You do know that the superdelegates are the ones who actually choose the nominee, not the people, right?
You do know that this was done because the leaders of the democrat party felt that their constituencies were incapable of choosing a viable candidate, right?
And you do know that these superdelegates aren't elected, but rather have their power bestowed on them, right?
Sounds just like how king makers operate...
"Unlike most convention delegates, the superdelegates are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, in which voters choose among candidates for the party's presidential nomination. Instead, most of the superdelegates are seated automatically, based solely on their status as current or former party leaders and elected officials ("PLEOs"). Others are chosen during the primary season. All the superdelegates are free to support any candidate for the nomination."

"They may support any candidate they wish, including one who has dropped out of the presidential race"
"The term "superdelegate" itself was used originally as a criticism of unpledged delegates. Susan Estrich argued that these delegates, who would be predominantly white and male, would have more power than other delegates because of their greater freedom to vote as they wish"
"The Democratic Party has faced accusations that it has been conducting its nominating process in an undemocratic way,[9][30][31] because superdelegates are generally chosen without regard to their preferences in the presidential race and are not obligated to support the candidate chosen by the voters. Television commentator Dan Abrams has called it "troubling" that the superdelegates might decide the 2008 race, arguing, "Each of the superdelegates' votes is now equivalent to about 10,000 Democratic voters.""

In other words, each 'superdelegate', consisting primarily of white men, get to choose who ultimately wins the nomination.  That sounds about fair, with each one having no responsibility to anyone but themselves and their own interests voting with the power of 10,000 voters. 

Face it, the Republican party is far from perfect but at least they don't steal elections based on which party pays them the most or swings the most pet projects their way.  At least the voters chose our guy, not a bunch of white men who weren't elected and have no responsibility to anyone but themselves.
The Republican party is far from 'in the dumpster'.  This is the same mistake the left made in the last two Presidential elections - they assumed that everyone was going to vote for a democrat and was shocked - SHOCKED - when over half the country didn't.

I'm willing to make a wager with you - if McCain wins, you stop posting your angry political rhetoric.  If Obama wins, I'll restrict my posting similarly.  Unless, of course, you are afraid that you might have to stop being LSD's resident whiner.....
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 13, 2008, 06:10:41 PM
julie be here whatever, shitbreath.  you can leave anytime.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 13, 2008, 09:16:48 PM
And no where in the constitution of these United States, is it stated that anyone has a right to vote. 

It must make you very proud to hang your hat on this argument.

As I'm sure you know since you have a lot to say about the constitutional status of voting, the Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to restrictions on voting (other than those in the Constitution) because voting is considered a "fundamental right" -- indeed, the fundamental right that preserves all other civil and political rights.

Also, the Court this spring rejected only the facial challenge to the Indiana voter ID statute, not any as-applied challenges that are sure to arise in the next few years.  But of course maybe you don't believe in as-applied challenges...

Yes, my party is "in the dumpster" because we want to ensure that votes are legitimate.  Correct.  Unlike the left, who is eager to participate in voter fraud, people like me (I guess I'm a republican simply because I refuse to be an air-headed liberal) are evil.

There is literally no evidence of the bolded.  I challenge you to find one modern, documented case of conspiracy to commit voter fraud -- one not led by or designed to benefit Republicans, that is.

You do know that the superdelegates are the ones who actually choose the nominee, not the people, right?

Without commenting one way or the other on the propriety of the Democratic nomination process (which I do believe is deeply flawed), I'd like to point out two things:

1. In this primary campaign, the superdelegates will not be choosing the nominee.  Obama won the majority of the pledged delegates, and he can win the nomination without the majority of superdelegates.  This is so even if you theoretically awarded the numbers of pledged delegates Clinton wanted for Florida and Michigan (e.g., MI: 73 Clinton - 0 Obama).

2. It's pretty rich for a member of a party that chooses its nominee through an electoral-vote, winner-take-all process to criticize the Democratic process for being anti-democratic.  The Republican primaries do not reflect the popular vote at all.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 13, 2008, 09:32:09 PM
en rendell could help 'bama win in fall...but hiliary will not...after all she is a poor loser and a liar...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 14, 2008, 01:33:04 AM
Hello Miss P,

Thank you for not calling me "shitbreath".

To rebut:
"As I'm sure you know since you have a lot to say about the constitutional status of voting, the Supreme Court applies strict scrutiny to restrictions on voting (other than those in the Constitution) because voting is considered a "fundamental right" -- indeed, the fundamental right that preserves all other civil and political rights. "

Correct.  However most, if not all, constitutional scholars will concede that while voting is considered a fundamental right, it is clearly not a subject the framers sought to guarantee.  They guaranteed many freedoms that are fundamental rights of citizens in a free state, but declined to outright declare voting as an inalienable right.  Could there have been a reason for this?  Perhaps the founders were concerned with the idea that foreign nationals could assume others identities?  I live in Chicago, where dead people sometimes manage to vote.  Another fundamental right could be the right to ensure that our elections are cast by citizens of this nation?  How would one prove that they were a citizen?  Maybe by having an ID.  All I'm saying is that people who wish to vote should have a way to identify themselves.  This is not beyond the pale or extraordinary.  You need a passport to travel to another country and are required to display that document upon leaving the country and again upon return.  Isn't that a restriction on your freedom of movement?  Yet it seems so reasonable.

"Yes, my party is "in the dumpster" because we want to ensure that votes are legitimate.  Correct.  Unlike the left, who is eager to participate in voter fraud, people like me (I guess I'm a republican simply because I refuse to be an air-headed liberal) are evil.

There is literally no evidence of the bolded.  I challenge you to find one modern, documented case of conspiracy to commit voter fraud -- one not led by or designed to benefit Republicans, that is."

Fair enough:
http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=19
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002530
http://www.zwire.com/site/5791478.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/23/163727.shtml
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/5/8/225831.shtml
http://www.usvetdsp.com/story31.htm
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/15463
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=4737362
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009189
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/28/84629.shtml?j=522947&e=lewisshigley@comcast.net&l=143149_HTML&u=10064083
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011255.php
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/09/democratic-voter-fraud-real-picture-of.html
Evidence.  As a respected attorney I know once said, "Evidence is up to the judge."

"It's pretty rich for a member of a party that chooses its nominee through an electoral-vote, winner-take-all process to criticize the Democratic process for being anti-democratic.  The Republican primaries do not reflect the popular vote at all. "

Perhaps.  But at least I can vote for my guy and know that my vote matters.  And the superdelegates were KEY to Clinton throwing in the towel.  Superdelegates that were promised to her started to switch sides and the general consensus was that most had decided to vote Obama for whatever reason.  Perhaps they saw how truly disliked and unelectable she had become.  Perhaps they are as sick of the Clintonian shenanigans as the American public.  Perhaps they thought that Obama's youth appeal was more valuable that Clinton's elderly appeal.  Who knows?  And that's the point.

"At the 2008 Democratic National Convention the superdelegates will make up approximately one-fifth of the total number of delegates."

One-fifth sounds like a lot of power, no?

And I happen to think the electoral system is fair and has its merits.  That's why it's been around for so long.

"Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking a replacement of the Electoral College with a direct popular vote. However, due to the difficulty of amending the Constitution, no submission has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress."

"At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan used as the basis for discussions called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature.[8] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.[9] However, a committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the Office of the President.[10] Though some delegates preferred popular election, the committee's proposal was approved, with minor modifications, on September 6.[11]"

Seems reasonable.  Those framers were pretty smart folks and I don't see any reason to doubt their wisdom, especially if it is driven because some folks don't like the guy who won.  After all, if we really look at the popular vote vs. the electoral vote of Bush I, and you accept the popular vote data, Gore won just barely (and many votes for Bush from soldiers overseas were not counted, most of which were for Bush).

George Bush: 50,456,002 - 47.87%
Al Gore: 50,999,897 - 48.38%

Meanwhile, Bush won the electoral college.  Then Al Gore conceded.  Then took it back.  Then worked hard to block the votes of servicemen and other citizen overseas.  Then alleged voting machine manipulation.  Then made a big deal about hanging chads and bad ballots (which were designed by Democrats and green lighted by the democrat party).  Then conceded again.  Half a million votes.  Less than half a percent.  Isn't the standard margin of error around 1%?
And how do we explain 2004, and election in which I voted for John Kerry?

George Bush: 62,040,610 - 50.73%
John Kerry: 59,028,444 - 48.27%

The popular vote was for Bush?  Crazy.  And in this one, at a time when Bush was being attacked and the democrats claimed the exit polls would show a decisive Kerry victory, Bush won by over 2.9 million votes, or 2.46%.  Even with a 1% margin of error, Bush still clearly wins.

Crying over spilled milk is one of the reasons I left the left.  I haven't joined the right yet, but the more I look at it, the more I realize that the Democratic party has changed for the worse.  Thank the party chairs, Terry McAuliffe and Howard Dean.

I still contend that most American's are moderates.  They aren't far left and they aren't far right.  Obama is far left and has shown zero ability to work across the aisle.  While I don't agree with McCain on some of the things he's talked about in the past, at least he stands on principle and works with the opposition to try to get things done.

The reality is that neither candidate is the magic pill that will cure all of America's problems.  I just don't think Obama's plans have any chance of improving anything.  The massive tax hike that he proposes will hit the middle class and small business owners the hardest.  He intends on penalizing companies for doing what they do while standing firmly behind the left's idea that restricting businesses, overtaxing them, and punishing them for being successful will fix everything.

Were you aware that oil companies pay more in taxes than they spend buying crude oil?  Are you aware that big business pays the most massive chunk of tax revenue?  Oil companies operate at around a 9% profit margin while paying the government over 45% of their total revenue.

Car companies are hit with new crash regulations that make cars heavier while also told to improve efficiency on an unrealistic timetable.  It takes most car companies between 6 and 8 years to create a vehicle from start to finish, even the upgraded newly improved older models can take 5+ years to plan and execute.  And Congress, oblivious to this fact, push for ridiculous advances in economy and improved safety while heavily taxing them and accusing them of unspeakable evils without proof.  Politicians demand that private business, whose product and direction is decided by people who own and run the company, make drastic changes to their product and take directions from a group of men and women that don't understand the industry, have little to no experience with business, and who couldn't operate a company as small as a local convenience store.

Democracy is lovely.  But we live in a representative republic.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: god damned independent on June 14, 2008, 07:42:55 AM
As a long time lurker, I really must say that jeffislouie is without a doubt the most long-winded poster I've ever seen.  I've never actually read through one of his posts successfully, though I suspect that I'm not really worse off for that.

As for myself, I prefer that a voter ID requirement exist.  However I recognize that such requirements have been used historically to disenfranchise minority groups, and that obtaining such ID's are more difficult than I would like.  Therefore I think that in the absence of significant evidence that voter fraud is a problem, we should probably hold off on implementing such requirements and focus on improving the systems for providing voters with such ID's in the first place. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 14, 2008, 08:05:03 AM
Hi Stan.

Jeffislouie, only two of your articles arguably show any conspiracy to commit voter fraud (though neither of the sort that voter ID requirements would guard against).  Neither is particularly well-documented, however.  Why don't you develop one of the stories through reputable news sources and I will respond.  Your best chance is probably the Dornan-Sanchez election in 1996, though there is no indication that anyone involved intended to commit voter fraud (people believed their votes were legal because they were becoming citizens -- and, btw, in some states, like Pennsylvania, you can register before your swearing-in as long as you are naturalized a month before election day) and, of course, a voter ID requirement would not have prevented the illegal votes from going forward anyway since the problem was that the (Republican) secretary of state had improperly added these voters to the rolls.

Also, I couldn't open the link from "NoDNC.com"; perhaps this is the article that contains the really good support for your argument.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 14, 2008, 08:56:04 AM
As a long time lurker, I really must say that jeffislouie is without a doubt the most long-winded poster I've ever seen.  I've never actually read through one of his posts successfully, though I suspect that I'm not really worse off for that.

As for myself, I prefer that a voter ID requirement exist.  However I recognize that such requirements have been used historically to disenfranchise minority groups, and that obtaining such ID's are more difficult than I would like.  Therefore I think that in the absence of significant evidence that voter fraud is a problem, we should probably hold off on implementing such requirements and focus on improving the systems for providing voters with such ID's in the first place. 

I sorry.
Try keep short.
Prefer explain but understand some no like read much.
May I ask you why you felt so compelled to comment then?
Stupid LSD.  Typical personal attacks and nasty comments are still the norm here.  I know, my 'style' isn't up to the standards of your average 22 year old.  Sorry.  I'm quite a bit older, so I missed the memo about keeping everything I say to under 100 words so as not to stress your average squirrel's attention span.
Here's an idea!  And it's a CRAZY ONE!  If you don't like what I say, discuss it and argue with me.  If you don't like how I say it, go fluck yourself!  I'm not interested in being edited by strangers on a message board, especially strangers who can't be bothered to read anything longer than a few short paragraphs.
 :D
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Elephant Lee on June 14, 2008, 10:18:16 AM
And the superdelegates were KEY to Clinton throwing in the towel.  Superdelegates that were promised to her started to switch sides and the general consensus was that most had decided to vote Obama for whatever reason.  Perhaps they saw how truly disliked and unelectable she had become.  Perhaps they are as sick of the Clintonian shenanigans as the American public.  Perhaps they thought that Obama's youth appeal was more valuable that Clinton's elderly appeal.  Who knows? And that's the point.
Well, a good guess would involve looking at what they said. Namely, Clinton delegates started switching when Obama had an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. You know this is the reason and are pretending that it's mysterious. The only reason they were "KEY" to Clinton throwing in the towel was that they weren't going to fight for her at the convention. Take the superdelegates out entirely and you still have the same result.

The supers are not elected for that purpose, but most of them do or did hold elective office--meaning their election reflected the will of a certain group of people.

I'm not a big fan of the whole superdelegate role, but you're misrepresenting what happened.

I believe that even pledged delegates at either party's convention can switch allegiances after a certain number of rounds of voting (in the case of a convention fight).
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 14, 2008, 10:24:06 AM
As a long time lurker, I really must say that jeffislouie is without a doubt the most long-winded poster I've ever seen. I've never actually read through one of his posts successfully, though I suspect that I'm not really worse off for that.

As for myself, I prefer that a voter ID requirement exist. However I recognize that such requirements have been used historically to disenfranchise minority groups, and that obtaining such ID's are more difficult than I would like. Therefore I think that in the absence of significant evidence that voter fraud is a problem, we should probably hold off on implementing such requirements and focus on improving the systems for providing voters with such ID's in the first place.

I sorry.
Try keep short.
Prefer explain but understand some no like read much.
May I ask you why you felt so compelled to comment then?
Stupid LSD. Typical personal attacks and nasty comments are still the norm here. I know, my 'style' isn't up to the standards of your average 22 year old. Sorry. I'm quite a bit older, so I missed the memo about keeping everything I say to under 100 words so as not to stress your average squirrel's attention span.
Here's an idea! And it's a CRAZY ONE! If you don't like what I say, discuss it and argue with me. If you don't like how I say it, go fluck yourself! I'm not interested in being edited by strangers on a message board, especially strangers who can't be bothered to read anything longer than a few short paragraphs.
 :D

it that you right-wing maniac who not worth trouble.

but proceed with your cheerleading for gump and mccain, while you can
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 14, 2008, 11:51:33 AM
If you don't like what I say, discuss it and argue with me. 

I tried.

In any case, your failure to attribute quotations or to distinguish between quotations to which you are responding and quotations you are providing in support of your own argument does make your posts somewhat difficult to read.  Perhaps a simple "Miss P said" or "Wikipedia says" would help.  :)

ETA: The quotation function is also nice when you are responding to others' posts.  It helps people distinguish between your argument and your opponent's.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: god damned independent on June 14, 2008, 01:17:40 PM
As a long time lurker, I really must say that jeffislouie is without a doubt the most long-winded poster I've ever seen.  I've never actually read through one of his posts successfully, though I suspect that I'm not really worse off for that.

As for myself, I prefer that a voter ID requirement exist.  However I recognize that such requirements have been used historically to disenfranchise minority groups, and that obtaining such ID's are more difficult than I would like.  Therefore I think that in the absence of significant evidence that voter fraud is a problem, we should probably hold off on implementing such requirements and focus on improving the systems for providing voters with such ID's in the first place. 

I sorry.
Try keep short.
Prefer explain but understand some no like read much.
May I ask you why you felt so compelled to comment then?
Stupid LSD.  Typical personal attacks and nasty comments are still the norm here.  I know, my 'style' isn't up to the standards of your average 22 year old.  Sorry.  I'm quite a bit older, so I missed the memo about keeping everything I say to under 100 words so as not to stress your average squirrel's attention span.
Here's an idea!  And it's a CRAZY ONE!  If you don't like what I say, discuss it and argue with me.  If you don't like how I say it, go fluck yourself!  I'm not interested in being edited by strangers on a message board, especially strangers who can't be bothered to read anything longer than a few short paragraphs.
 :D

I was merely offering some constructive criticism: namely, that you learn to be a bit more concise.  This is a useful ability to have both as a person and as a lawyer.  Nobody likes an attorney who rambles.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 14, 2008, 07:11:50 PM

Miss P wrote:
"There is literally no evidence of the bolded.  I challenge you to find one modern, documented case of conspiracy to commit voter fraud -- one not led by or designed to benefit Republicans, that is."


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933

as one who participated in the Wisconsin elections in 2004 I can tell you that there was a massive Democratic attempt at voter fraud in the state. Mike McCann, a man I love and respect, is a Democrat.  He was the Milwaukee DA at the time of the election.  He knew things smelled foul.  Kerry won by only 11,00 votes so the discrepancy in Milwaukee Co. outlined by the article is substantial.  mandating photo ID's as a prerequisite for voting is not discriminatory, as the Supreme Court noted.  so long as all same day registrants are required to provide photo ID, there isn't a problem.  as i stated earlier, it is far more corrosive to Democracy to have large numbers of people not qualified to vote voting than for a small number of citizens turned away because they failed to take the most basic steps to secure their right  to vote (getting a photo ID is not an arduous or unduly burdensome process).

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: god damned independent on June 14, 2008, 07:27:19 PM
So where's the evidence of conspiracy?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 14, 2008, 08:13:50 PM
So where's the evidence of conspiracy?

you mean "the rose in the prosecutor's garden?"  that's the easy part. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 14, 2008, 10:51:15 PM

Miss P wrote:
"There is literally no evidence of the bolded.  I challenge you to find one modern, documented case of conspiracy to commit voter fraud -- one not led by or designed to benefit Republicans, that is."


http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933

as one who participated in the Wisconsin elections in 2004 I can tell you that there was a massive Democratic attempt at voter fraud in the state. Mike McCann, a man I love and respect, is a Democrat.  He was the Milwaukee DA at the time of the election.  He knew things smelled foul.  Kerry won by only 11,00 votes so the discrepancy in Milwaukee Co. outlined by the article is substantial.  mandating photo ID's as a prerequisite for voting is not discriminatory, as the Supreme Court noted.  so long as all same day registrants are required to provide photo ID, there isn't a problem.  as i stated earlier, it is far more corrosive to Democracy to have large numbers of people not qualified to vote voting than for a small number of citizens turned away because they failed to take the most basic steps to secure their right  to vote (getting a photo ID is not an arduous or unduly burdensome process).



From the article:

"[Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney] Biskupic said there was no indication of a widespread conspiracy to commit voter fraud, or of any knowledge or involvement by poll workers or any other city officials."

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 15, 2008, 04:32:59 AM
and notice how well obama did with hispanics in gallup poll came out last week?  something like 62-28 advantage.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 15, 2008, 08:49:47 AM
Miss P wrote:

[/quote]

From the article:

"[Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney] Biskupic said there was no indication of a widespread conspiracy to commit voter fraud, or of any knowledge or involvement by poll workers or any other city officials."

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?
[/quote]


also from the article

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who also backs a photo ID requirement [said]

"Clearly, there is proof that fraud took place in the November 2 election,".

also

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett attended the news conference, an unusual occurrence for an announcement by prosecutors.

He acknowledged Tuesday the findings pointed to fraud and said again "any individual who committed fraud (should) be prosecuted."

see also

Biskupic and McCann said they remain troubled that three months after the investigation began that city officials have been unable to account for a gap of about 4,600 votes, with more ballots counted than people listed as voting.

Same day voter registration necessarily increases the chances for voter fraud.  This is particularly true if you do not require photo identification.  I don't think I need to point out why the Democratic party is thrilled that these 9 states have instituted same day voter registration.  Busing thousands of unregistered voters to polling places is an excellent way to overwhelm poll supervisors and increase the chances that corners will be cut for the sake of expediency.  When polling places try to follow the rules of law you get the familiar Democratic rallying cry of "disenfranchisement".  None of this would be a problem if voters were required to register a week before elections. Districts would have a very good idea of how many people to expect, staffing levels would be allotted accordingly and matters would run much more smoothly.  It bears repeating that fair and orderly is better than 100% inclusive and chaotic.  A few people being turned away at the polls for lack of proper registration is far better for the integrity of elections than thousands of questionable votes being cast.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 15, 2008, 08:55:23 AM
Check it: I never said there was no fraud; I said there was no conspiracy to commit fraud.  Find and document one.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: god damned independent on June 15, 2008, 10:18:13 AM
I'd like to point out that voter fraud if sufficiently widespread could constitute a serious problem even without conspiracy.  It's a mistake to try to prove more than you need to in order to make your point.  In my humble opinion, of course.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 15, 2008, 10:19:37 AM
(http://mail2.someecards.com/filestorage/soto_32.jpg)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 15, 2008, 10:38:30 AM
I'd like to point out that voter fraud if sufficiently widespread could constitute a serious problem even without conspiracy.  It's a mistake to try to prove more than you need to in order to make your point.  In my humble opinion, of course.

I agree, though I think if you examine the issue you'll find (a) that voter fraud is not very widespread at all; (b) that it is usually unintentional error and not fraud at all (e.g., people with disqualifying convictions registering to vote because they were never informed of their disqualification or they believed their voting rights had been reinstated and then voting as registered); and (c) that most of the fraud/error is not of the sort that voter ID laws would prevent.  (Though these kinds of hypotheticals are difficult to test, most experts agree that ID requirements would disenfranchise more legitimate voters than illegitimate voters.)  A much more significant problem is vote suppression or misinformation.  These are usually concerted schemes, occur in both parties (though Republicans have recognized that some groups very vulnerable to these schemes, such as non-English speakers, naturalized citizens, and people with misdemeanor convictions, are frequent Democratic voters), and distort electoral outcomes.  Yet the Justice Department rarely investigates...

I was only pointing out that there was very little evidence of any modern conspiracies to commit voter fraud -- whether on the right or the left -- and to say that "liberals" are fighting ID requirements to protect their fraudulent elections schemes is absurd (at best).  Voter fraud and error exist among members of both parties; better voter education and clearer or uniform election laws would probably prevent the bulk of it.  Requiring paper trails and improving security for new voter machines would also help.  An ID requirement is a panacea that will create more problems than it prevents.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 15, 2008, 12:56:35 PM
Check it: I never said there was no fraud; I said there was no conspiracy to commit fraud.  Find and document one.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701356.html
talking about a book by Earl Mazo and Stephen Hess, journalists from the Washington Post, which argues that widespread voter fraud on the part of Democrats led to Kennedy winning the 1960 presidential election.

I could also mention the pervasive fraud used by mayor Daley to win elections in Chicago as another more localized  example.

and your assertion that demanding that people provide picture ID somehow disenfranchises them is precisely the argument the Supreme Court rejected.  it was not "facially" (not unconstitutional on its face unconstitutional because when applied to everyone, it creates no discrimination issue.  to say that requiring people to produce an ID would somehow disenfranchise more than it would prevent voter fraud is counterintuitive.  i would love to see some research supporting that contention.  elections are few and far between (although in this season of perpetual campaigning that is hard to believe) so to say that someone simply didn't know or didn't have time to obtain an ID is tripe.  and same day registration leads to the types of tactics i mentioned above.  in those states there is nothing illegal about gathering busloads of people who have not registered and brining them in to overwhelm polling officials.  the reason this is done is pretty clear, and it is totally "kosher" in those areas.  when some voters are turned away, or the polling station is closed down at a predetermined time, leaving many of these poor, poor voters out in the cold cold street, Democratic operatives scream "disenfranchisement" and force the secretary of state to extend polling hours.  this in turn forces polling workers to get sloppy (they are human and just want to get the hell home) and cut corners and allow people who shouldn't be voting to vote.  this is what happened in Milwaukee.  it is b.s.  it cold easily be avoided by making people register a few days in advance and provide picture ID at the polls.  nothing burdensome about it, and, when uniformly applied, totally constitutional.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 15, 2008, 02:43:54 PM
...when uniformly applied, totally constitutional.

Is this true always no matter what?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 15, 2008, 03:01:30 PM
...when uniformly applied, totally constitutional.

Is this true always no matter what?

golly, do he mean like poll taxes?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: god damned independent on June 15, 2008, 03:47:48 PM
to say that requiring people to produce an ID would somehow disenfranchise more than it would prevent voter fraud is counterintuitive. 

Counterintuitive doesn't translate to incorrect.  Among voters who are members of groups that have historically been disenfranchised, any measure making it more difficult for them to vote might be interpreted as a signal that their votes are unwelcome and might therefore discourage them from going to the polls.  Such sentiments need to be undermined, but this will take some time.

And facial discrimination is far from the only kind recognized under Equal Protection analysis.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 15, 2008, 04:22:37 PM
well, they did catch ann coulter...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: redcement on June 15, 2008, 05:47:24 PM
Miss P wrote:


From the article:

"[Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney] Biskupic said there was no indication of a widespread conspiracy to commit voter fraud, or of any knowledge or involvement by poll workers or any other city officials."

ETA: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?
[/quote]


also from the article

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who also backs a photo ID requirement [said]

"Clearly, there is proof that fraud took place in the November 2 election,".

also

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett attended the news conference, an unusual occurrence for an announcement by prosecutors.

He acknowledged Tuesday the findings pointed to fraud and said again "any individual who committed fraud (should) be prosecuted."

see also

Biskupic and McCann said they remain troubled that three months after the investigation began that city officials have been unable to account for a gap of about 4,600 votes, with more ballots counted than people listed as voting.

Same day voter registration necessarily increases the chances for voter fraud.  This is particularly true if you do not require photo identification.  I don't think I need to point out why the Democratic party is thrilled that these 9 states have instituted same day voter registration.  Busing thousands of unregistered voters to polling places is an excellent way to overwhelm poll supervisors and increase the chances that corners will be cut for the sake of expediency.  When polling places try to follow the rules of law you get the familiar Democratic rallying cry of "disenfranchisement".  None of this would be a problem if voters were required to register a week before elections. Districts would have a very good idea of how many people to expect, staffing levels would be allotted accordingly and matters would run much more smoothly.  It bears repeating that fair and orderly is better than 100% inclusive and chaotic.  A few people being turned away at the polls for lack of proper registration is far better for the integrity of elections than thousands of questionable votes being cast.


[/quote]

What's the old saying?..."In a fascist country the trains always run on time"? I would attribute it, but I honestly can't remember where I read it. The Prince maybe? 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 15, 2008, 07:27:35 PM
to say that requiring people to produce an ID would somehow disenfranchise more than it would prevent voter fraud is counterintuitive. 

Counterintuitive doesn't translate to incorrect.  Among voters who are members of groups that have historically been disenfranchised, any measure making it more difficult for them to vote might be interpreted as a signal that their votes are unwelcome and might therefore discourage them from going to the polls.  Such sentiments need to be undermined, but this will take some time.

And facial discrimination is far from the only kind recognized under Equal Protection analysis.

actually it's either discriminatory on its face, or as applied.  there is no other kind of discrimination under this analysis.  when the court found that it was not discriminatory "on its face" the only recourse for those seeking to find that mandatory photo ID at the polls is unconstitutional is to demonstrate that it is somehow applied only to certain groups, a much tougher standard.  so it is counterintuitive and, as the Supremes just told us, incorrect.  these people will just have to plan a couple of days in advance before they can scream "disenfranchisement!!!!!". my ears hurt already. grow up. get an ID.  stop finding every possible excuse to claim you are being persecuted. 

over the top comparisons to the slavery era and fascism are neither constructive nor apt.  clearly those dropping these bombs don't quite grasp the issues.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Elephant Lee on June 15, 2008, 07:33:24 PM
The Prince would've been a little early to be talking about train schedules.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 15, 2008, 07:49:16 PM
actually it's either discriminatory on its face, or as applied.  there is no other kind of discrimination under this analysis.  when the court found that it was not discriminatory "on its face" the only recourse for those seeking to find that mandatory photo ID at the polls is unconstitutional is to demonstrate that it is somehow applied only to certain groups, a much tougher standard.  so it is counterintuitive and, as the Supremes just told us, incorrect.  these people will just have to plan a couple of days in advance before they can scream "disenfranchisement!!!!!". my ears hurt already. grow up. get an ID.  stop finding every possible excuse to claim you are being persecuted. 

over the top comparisons to the slavery era and fascism are neither constructive nor apt.  clearly those dropping these bombs don't quite grasp the issues.

I don't think you quite grasp the issues either.  History has shown us that we have to be at least suspicious of any measure that makes voting more difficult.  That's that.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: god damned independent on June 15, 2008, 08:03:06 PM
So you'd be cool with a poll tax then.

It's a yes or no question.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 15, 2008, 08:08:05 PM

I don't think you quite grasp the issues either.  History has shown us that we have to be at least suspicious of any measure that makes voting more difficult.  That's that.
[/quote]

yep.  when the government imposes conditions making voting difficult for a particular class, especially a suspect class (race or ethnic group) there is a problem.  this is discriminatory "on its face".  saying that everyone has to show a photo ID and register a few days before the election is not discriminatory "on its face".  this is not what happened historically.  the reading requirement is a classic example.  what few people bring up is that most white people couldn't read at the time (reconstruction era) either.  the reading test was discriminatory because it said that if your grandfather didn't have to submit to the test, neither did you.  for obvious reasons this made most white people exempt from the reading requirement (it is also where the expression "being grandfathered in" comes from). that is discriminatory as applied (though not on its face).  so long as EVERYONE is required to follow through, and it isn't burdensome (and getting an ID is not burdensome, in fact you need one to function in society) there is no issue. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 15, 2008, 08:08:58 PM
So you'd be cool with a poll tax then.

It's a yes or no question.

no. and you are a moron. i will no longer converse with you. good day.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: god damned independent on June 15, 2008, 08:24:35 PM
So you'd be cool with a poll tax then.

It's a yes or no question.

no. and you are a moron. i will no longer converse with you. good day.

Unfortunately, you're not in any position to decide who is and who is not a moron.  But if you're too thin-skinned to deal with me, suit yourself.  I'm sure the loss is all mine.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 15, 2008, 08:33:21 PM
So you'd be cool with a poll tax then.

It's a yes or no question.

no. and you are a moron. i will no longer converse with you. good day.

It costs me about $20 to get a new photo ID from my state.  Poll tax?

 :)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 15, 2008, 08:56:00 PM
Check it: I never said there was no fraud; I said there was no conspiracy to commit fraud.  Find and document one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701356.html
talking about a book by Earl Mazo and Stephen Hess, journalists from the Washington Post, which argues that widespread voter fraud on the part of Democrats led to Kennedy winning the 1960 presidential election.

I could also mention the pervasive fraud used by mayor Daley to win elections in Chicago as another more localized  example.

If these are the most recent incidents you can muster, and the best documentation you can provide, I think I have made my point.

and your assertion that demanding that people provide picture ID somehow disenfranchises them is precisely the argument the Supreme Court rejected.  it was not "facially" (not unconstitutional on its face[)] unconstitutional because when applied to everyone, it creates no discrimination issue. 

This word, "facially": I do not think it means what you think it means.

to say that requiring people to produce an ID would somehow disenfranchise more than it would prevent voter fraud is counterintuitive.  i would love to see some research supporting that contention.  elections are few and far between (although in this season of perpetual campaigning that is hard to believe) so to say that someone simply didn't know or didn't have time to obtain an ID is tripe.

A lot of people do not have acceptable ID for voting.  Here is a good study about whom the Indiana law affects: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/documents/Indiana_voter.pdf.  If you have moved a lot or if you are dependent on someone else or if you are poor or disabled but not on SSI or welfare, it is not all that easy to get ID.  Still, if states make ID easier to get and free, then I have no problem with voter ID requirements in theory -- unless people demonstrate that they create practical impediments to voting that you and I have not anticipated.  But they won't solve most problems with voting.  And right now, "counterintuitive" or not, since you can't identify many voting problems that would be solved with ID requirements, and I can identify large populations who can't vote because they don't have ID, it's pretty clear that these laws would disenfranchise more legitimate than illegitimate voters.  Voter ID requirements also depress turnout generally, and especially among black and Latino voters (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/21/us/21voting.htm).  

and same day registration leads to the types of tactics i mentioned above.  in those states there is nothing illegal about gathering busloads of people who have not registered and brining them in to overwhelm polling officials.  the reason this is done is pretty clear, and it is totally "kosher" in those areas.  when some voters are turned away, or the polling station is closed down at a predetermined time, leaving many of these poor, poor voters out in the cold cold street, Democratic operatives scream "disenfranchisement" and force the secretary of state to extend polling hours.  this in turn forces polling workers to get sloppy (they are human and just want to get the hell home) and cut corners and allow people who shouldn't be voting to vote.  this is what happened in Milwaukee.  it is b.s.  it cold easily be avoided by making people register a few days in advance and provide picture ID at the polls.  nothing burdensome about it, and, when uniformly applied, totally constitutional.

Requiring voters to show ID at the polls would do nothing to solve any problems you perceive with same-day registration.  I agree that same-day registration might be burdensome for elections officials.  But it's a pretty far stretch from that, and from the legitimate efforts of campaigns and community organizations to get out the vote, to some kind of conspiracy to overwhelm polls and record illegal votes.  Please stop throwing around this ridiculous hyperbole about "Democratic operatives" and their elections fraud schemes.  
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 15, 2008, 09:05:30 PM
Oops, I didn't see that this conversation had continued for another page. 

actually it's either discriminatory on its face, or as applied.  there is no other kind of discrimination under this analysis.  when the court found that it was not discriminatory "on its face" the only recourse for those seeking to find that mandatory photo ID at the polls is unconstitutional is to demonstrate that it is somehow applied only to certain groups, a much tougher standard.  so it is counterintuitive and, as the Supremes just told us, incorrect.   these people will just have to plan a couple of days in advance before they can scream "disenfranchisement!!!!!". my ears hurt already. grow up. get an ID.  stop finding every possible excuse to claim you are being persecuted. 

No, you're wrong; I don't know where you are getting this stuff.  The bar for a facial challenge is higher than a bar for an as-applied challenge.  When the Court decided Crawford, it didn't say that the law was constitutional as it is applied.  It said merely that the law was not unconstitutional on its face.  In a later as-applied challenge, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop the record on whether the law is discriminatory.  If it is, it may be unconstitutional.  Moreover, it does not have to discriminate based on suspect classifications to be subject to strict scrutiny or to be deemed unconstitutional.  Voting is a fundamental right; all burdens on the franchise must meet strict scrutiny.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 16, 2008, 03:25:28 AM
Miss P wrote:

No, you're wrong; I don't know where you are getting this stuff.  The bar for a facial challenge is higher than a bar for an as-applied challenge.  When the Court decided Crawford, it didn't say that the law was constitutional as it is applied.  It said merely that the law was not unconstitutional on its face.  In a later as-applied challenge, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to develop the record on whether the law is discriminatory.  If it is, it may be unconstitutional.  Moreover, it does not have to discriminate based on suspect classifications to be subject to strict scrutiny or to be deemed unconstitutional.  Voting is a fundamental right; all burdens on the franchise must meet strict scrutiny.

[/quote]

if a statute says that "italian-americans" cannot vote, that would be discriminatory in its face.  this would be pretty easy to determine from the language of the statute, especially when you apply the strict scrutiny standard. this would be a determination as a matter of law and it would be dispositive. but if you passed a law stating that you have to be able to sing all the words to the "thong song" to vote and applied it only to those over 60, that would be discriminatory as applied.  since it involves a two-step process (1. is it discriminatory on its face, no, 2. is it being unfairly applied, yes) it is necessarily more complicated.  it requires collecting bushel barrels of data (facts) to show that it isn't happening in just a few instances but that it is a widespread issue. because it becomes a fact question instead of a law question it takes more time. this is why parties often choose to mount a facial challenge first, because it is easier. the parties in Indiana did it this way because 1. a finding of "discriminatory on its face" is fatal and 2. because they wanted to beat the clock to the fall election and this type of challenge takes less time.

you asked me to cite one example.  i cited two.  needless to say it often takes long periods of time for the story to emerge in cases like this.

in Wisconsin, if you cannot afford an ID, you apply for a fee waiver.  it's quite simple.  you don't pay one red cent. and those who are most affected by this aren't blacks, but latinos, mostly those who are here illegally. 

having an ID also makes sense for other unrelated reasons.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 16, 2008, 05:04:53 AM
So you'd be cool with a poll tax then.

It's a yes or no question.

no. and you are a moron. i will no longer converse with you. good day.

not forget take your toys with you.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 16, 2008, 06:52:20 AM
Miss P wrote:

If these are the most recent incidents you can muster, and the best documentation you can provide, I think I have made my point.

this article concerns abstntee balloting, also a nagging issue.  guess which party wants fewer restrictions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/13/politics/campaign/13vote.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1&oref=slog

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 16, 2008, 08:41:19 AM
actually it's either discriminatory on its face, or as applied.  there is no other kind of discrimination under this analysis.  when the court found that it was not discriminatory "on its face" the only recourse for those seeking to find that mandatory photo ID at the polls is unconstitutional is to demonstrate that it is somehow applied only to certain groups, a much tougher standard.  so it is counterintuitive and, as the Supremes just told us, incorrect.  these people will just have to plan a couple of days in advance before they can scream "disenfranchisement!!!!!". my ears hurt already. grow up. get an ID.  stop finding every possible excuse to claim you are being persecuted. 

over the top comparisons to the slavery era and fascism are neither constructive nor apt.  clearly those dropping these bombs don't quite grasp the issues.

I don't think you quite grasp the issues either.  History has shown us that we have to be at least suspicious of any measure that makes voting more difficult.  That's that.

Really?  That's what history has shown us?  Here I thought history showed us the importance of a pure, unspoiled vote - one untarnished by suspiciously dead people voting.  You must not be from Chicago.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 16, 2008, 08:49:53 AM
So you'd be cool with a poll tax then.

It's a yes or no question.

no. and you are a moron. i will no longer converse with you. good day.

It costs me about $20 to get a new photo ID from my state.  Poll tax?

 :)

Boo-hoo.
It also functions as an identification in general, you know.  You aren't buying a vote - you are buying a state identification card.  One could use such a card to get a job, gain admittance to a drinking establishment, or respond to a police officer after stumbling out of said drinking establishment.
Of course, most residents already have such an ID.  It's likely in every single persons wallet who is reading this.  His or her drivers license.  And we all know how tough it is to keep that current.  Stand in line, spend the nominal fee for renewal, have our picture taken, and -voila- new photo ID.
In many states, those over 65 can get one absolutely free.
And I would like to understand why ANY citizen would allow their drivers license to lapse for any reason.  Perhaps you never drive and live in a city with excellent public transportation.  Spending $5-10 to get your license renewed is too much of a hassle?  There isn't ever a time when you might need to drive something somewhere?
I don't buy the argument that an identification requirement is too much of a hassle or amounts to a poll tax.  It is weak at best.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 16, 2008, 08:59:26 AM
Check it: I never said there was no fraud; I said there was no conspiracy to commit fraud.  Find and document one.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

another great article.  outlines why the Democratic party is far more vulnerable to succumbing to the temptation of committing voter fraud (and conspiring to do so).  a number of recent examples. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 16, 2008, 09:34:49 AM
So you'd be cool with a poll tax then.

It's a yes or no question.

no. and you are a moron. i will no longer converse with you. good day.

It costs me about $20 to get a new photo ID from my state.  Poll tax?

 :)

My state makes you bring in like three pieces of mail with your name and address on it  :'(
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 16, 2008, 09:39:19 AM
Their birth certificates probably went down with the Titanic. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 16, 2008, 09:58:46 AM
Yeah, I loved reading about the Titanic when I was a kid, before the stupid movie ruined it. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 16, 2008, 10:25:08 AM


I agree, though I think if you examine the issue you'll find (a) that voter fraud is not very widespread at all

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137171,00.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/02/voter-fraud-watch-could-acorn-scandal-in-washington-have-been-avoided-with-photo-id/

some more recent cases.  quite a bit actually.  most of it from the Democratic side.  again, they have far more motivation to participate in fraudulent voting schemes than Republicans.  a simple study in demographics will reveal why.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 16, 2008, 02:34:47 PM


I agree, though I think if you examine the issue you'll find (a) that voter fraud is not very widespread at all

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137171,00.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/02/voter-fraud-watch-could-acorn-scandal-in-washington-have-been-avoided-with-photo-id/

some more recent cases.  quite a bit actually.  most of it from the Democratic side.  again, they have far more motivation to participate in fraudulent voting schemes than Republicans.  a simple study in demographics will reveal why.

No, no, no.  You can't go talking about Democrat's and possible voter fraud!  ONLY Republican's are evil.  Democrats never do anything wrong ever.  They are little angels sent from heaven to combat the forces of satan, known as conservatives.
Democrats have never made a bad decision, been guilty of taking bribes or other impropriety, nor have they ever tried to rig or fix elections.  Republican's have!  I know because people 'say so'.
This has devolved into silliness.  The left likes their membership to be ignorant and one-sided.
Democrats are god's perfect beings.
I think it is funny that people like to fight over semantics (like there is no proof of CONSPIRACY to commit election fraud - because the left leaning media hasn't investigated it, it can't be). 
Voter fraud ISN'T widespread, but it is equally ridiculous to make bold, factual statements that the Republicans fix elections as it is to deny that democrats haven't done anything to steal elections.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 16, 2008, 03:49:02 PM
Maybe the left leaning media didn't have time to investigate voter conspiracy because they were too busy investigating why we were invading Iraq.

Oh wait, they didn't do that at all...

My bad. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on June 16, 2008, 03:55:29 PM


I agree, though I think if you examine the issue you'll find (a) that voter fraud is not very widespread at all

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137171,00.html
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/02/voter-fraud-watch-could-acorn-scandal-in-washington-have-been-avoided-with-photo-id/

some more recent cases.  quite a bit actually.  most of it from the Democratic side.  again, they have far more motivation to participate in fraudulent voting schemes than Republicans.  a simple study in demographics will reveal why.

No, no, no.  You can't go talking about Democrat's and possible voter fraud!  ONLY Republican's are evil.  Democrats never do anything wrong ever.  They are little angels sent from heaven to combat the forces of satan, known as conservatives.
Democrats have never made a bad decision, been guilty of taking bribes or other impropriety, nor have they ever tried to rig or fix elections.  Republican's have!  I know because people 'say so'.
This has devolved into silliness.  The left likes their membership to be ignorant and one-sided.
Democrats are god's perfect beings.
I think it is funny that people like to fight over semantics (like there is no proof of CONSPIRACY to commit election fraud - because the left leaning media hasn't investigated it, it can't be). 
Voter fraud ISN'T widespread, but it is equally ridiculous to make bold, factual statements that the Republicans fix elections as it is to deny that democrats haven't done anything to steal elections.

And this is why people sound like retards when they make sweeping, generalized statements about a very large group of people.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 16, 2008, 04:17:50 PM
I'd like to point out that voter fraud if sufficiently widespread could constitute a serious problem even without conspiracy. It's a mistake to try to prove more than you need to in order to make your point. In my humble opinion, of course.

"funny," not it, how this focus on all this hypothetical stuff when it clear that many people being disenfranchised by such methods as "cleaning up" voter rolls in poor neighborhoods.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 16, 2008, 05:47:43 PM
http://boortz.com/more/video/kanjorski_lies.html

meh....
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 17, 2008, 05:01:24 AM
oh my!  "proof" that some democrats pandering to anti-war sentiment!

and whose mess public hoping dems clean up, hmmmm?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 17, 2008, 09:55:21 AM
oh my!  "proof" that some democrats pandering to anti-war sentiment!

and whose mess public hoping dems clean up, hmmmm?

Actually, it's proof of Democrats lying to their constiuents with no intention or realistic expectation of any follow through whatsoever.
Pennsylvania Democrat Congressman Paul Kanjorski :
"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we ... the Democrats ... that if we won the Congressional elections we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of government would know that wasn't true. But you know ... the temptation to want to win back the Congress ... we sort of stretched the facts, and the people ate it up."
http://twoconservatives.blogspot.com/2008/05/democrats-dont-mind-lying.html


While we are on the subject of lying:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-kirchick16-2008jun16,0,7766785.story
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2763
http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Scandals.htm

Finally: after years of lying to the public, with full cooperation from the media, about how Bush lied and 'went it alone' (even though the democrats voted for military action in Iraq), yes the gullible public (mostly liberals) swallowed it hook line and sinker.  The shame is that you are willing to forgive their blatant lies about ending the war because you had been convinced that the war was a lie, pointless, and couldn't possibly have a benefit.  So I understand - to a liberal, it's okay to lie if your aim is beating republicans?  No accountability?  Really?
I guess I truly misunderstand the democrat party.  Here I thought the desire for public service was motivated by a genuine desire to lead, effect positive change, and move our nation forward.  It turns out, for the left anyway, it's about amassing power.  No matter that your elected officials have to lie to get there.  No matter that they pander to your misplaced rage over a war that was nearly universally approved by Congress.  Republicans are the enemy.
I'll leave you with this final thought:
Howard Dean once said:
"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

Here's a partial list of what Republicans stand for:

http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v3n3/saulnier.html

It appears that Dean hates America.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 17, 2008, 11:10:48 AM
julie agree many democrats complicit in start of war.  julie also believe congress has power stop war.

why not happen?  because warmongers like you would accuse them traitors.  so, this await election of obama.

republicans led this initiative, which much worse than what democrats did.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on June 17, 2008, 11:20:39 AM
Fallacy: Republicans are for "real" Americans, therefore anyone who hates Republicans hates America.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 17, 2008, 11:24:10 AM
Oh, come now.

Just because the heavily-Republican South seceded from the Union doesn't mean it's not a great American homeland.

Paying plantation workers is hard, y'all!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 17, 2008, 11:40:08 AM
Still, I think it's very hard for many democrats to live in the now.  They are so upset about the bush policies and the Iraq war that they rush to "overturn" those policies.  We're in this mess together now, and we need a strong, long term solution.  We should just leave Iraq because "we shouldn't have gone in the first place"

When Obama is President, he's going to have to deal with a major dilemma.  He told everyone we'd get out ASAP, but I don't think that decision will so easy when he's in the big chair looking at all the information he'll have access to.

The only way for the country to overcome all of the problems the next President will face is through hard work, pain, and sacrifice.   Any President who says that he can fix health care, end the war, create american jobs, and unite the political parties had better let everyone know that doing so is going to SUCK for a while.


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 17, 2008, 01:18:34 PM
Still, I think it's very hard for many democrats to live in the now. They are so upset about the bush policies and the Iraq war that they rush to "overturn" those policies. We're in this mess together now, and we need a strong, long term solution. We should just leave Iraq because "we shouldn't have gone in the first place"

When Obama is President, he's going to have to deal with a major dilemma. He told everyone we'd get out ASAP, but I don't think that decision will so easy when he's in the big chair looking at all the information he'll have access to.

The only way for the country to overcome all of the problems the next President will face is through hard work, pain, and sacrifice. Any President who says that he can fix health care, end the war, create american jobs, and unite the political parties had better let everyone know that doing so is going to SUCK for a while.




julie put this democrats-out-touch-with-reality file.  getting out iraq going be easiest thing obama do.  nice try on that alleged secret information going tell him otherwise.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 17, 2008, 02:07:44 PM
julie put this democrats-out-touch-with-reality file.  getting out iraq going be easiest thing obama do.  nice try on that alleged secret information going tell him otherwise.


I don't care who wins... based on the plans they are setting forth, it doesn't seem like either of them are going to be able to deliver on their promises.

Politicians not keeping their promises.... that's not a new thing.
I wish Senator "I love change" Obama would stop pretending like he can be all things to all people.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 17, 2008, 04:25:00 PM
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 17, 2008, 05:57:02 PM
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?

It's not so much that it's "hard".  It's more of an issue of consequences. I don't care how much you hate Bush, leaving Iraq too soon will result in some negative results. What is the cost of staying another two years?  What is the cost if we leave too soon?   Obama isn't telling people that we have accomplished what we need to accomplish, he's telling people that we shouldn't have ever gone there, and that he's going to end the unjust war.  I'd like him to be honest and give everyone an idea of the costs and benefits of leaving in 12 months vs the costs and benefits of leaving in 36.  Don't ignore the potential risk.  Address the problem and explain why the solution you've come up with is the best one.



Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 17, 2008, 07:59:57 PM
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?

as you can assess, Obama has been sliding his timeline to the right since he said he would get us out of Iraq in a few months.  that's because he's now getting some national security level briefings and they're telling him that, even from a purely logistical standpoint, there is no way we can get out of there in a year.  and now even the mainstream tragimedia are admitting there is progress in Iraq. this will make it even harder.  that and his generals will all tell him that leaving according to his political designs would have disastrous consequences for the country of Iraq and the US military.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 18, 2008, 05:53:21 AM
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?

It's not so much that it's "hard". It's more of an issue of consequences. I don't care how much you hate Bush, leaving Iraq too soon will result in some negative results. What is the cost of staying another two years? What is the cost if we leave too soon? Obama isn't telling people that we have accomplished what we need to accomplish, he's telling people that we shouldn't have ever gone there, and that he's going to end the unjust war. I'd like him to be honest and give everyone an idea of the costs and benefits of leaving in 12 months vs the costs and benefits of leaving in 36. Don't ignore the potential risk. Address the problem and explain why the solution you've come up with is the best one.


your assumption appear be that u.s. actually doing well there, which why obama not want leave.  however, obama--and many more us, including majority of americans--have concluded we not doing well and five-plus years will have been enough.  what u.s. has[/ i] done is kill or maim many americans and iraqs, wasteou know-- gazillions of dollars, strengthen hand iran, and distract from actually--you know, or should--fighting terrorism.  good job, gump!

details of withdrawing fair enough leave open, but withdraw it is.  julie have no doubt that you and other "patriots" like great grandpa ("did i mention in last 30 seconds i once p.o.w.?" mccain will call it surrender.  so, have at it.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 18, 2008, 05:55:12 AM
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?

as you can assess, Obama has been sliding his timeline to the right since he said he would get us out of Iraq in a few months. that's because he's now getting some national security level briefings and they're telling him that, even from a purely logistical standpoint, there is no way we can get out of there in a year. and now even the mainstream tragimedia are admitting there is progress in Iraq. this will make it even harder. that and his generals will all tell him that leaving according to his political designs would have disastrous consequences for the country of Iraq and the US military.

spin it best you can, mccain-boy.  it always funny how supposedly we always making progress there--always making progress!--but still have post-surge levels troops there?  pentagon have hire ex-generals go on news and make happy talk about war?

americans see through this nonsense.

by way, why not you in iraq if so committed?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 18, 2008, 09:20:17 AM
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?

It's not so much that it's "hard". It's more of an issue of consequences. I don't care how much you hate Bush, leaving Iraq too soon will result in some negative results. What is the cost of staying another two years? What is the cost if we leave too soon? Obama isn't telling people that we have accomplished what we need to accomplish, he's telling people that we shouldn't have ever gone there, and that he's going to end the unjust war. I'd like him to be honest and give everyone an idea of the costs and benefits of leaving in 12 months vs the costs and benefits of leaving in 36. Don't ignore the potential risk. Address the problem and explain why the solution you've come up with is the best one.


your assumption appear be that u.s. actually doing well there, which why obama not want leave.  however, obama--and many more us, including majority of americans--have concluded we not doing well and five-plus years will have been enough.  what u.s. has[/ i] done is kill or maim many americans and iraqs, wasteou know-- gazillions of dollars, strengthen hand iran, and distract from actually--you know, or should--fighting terrorism.  good job, gump!

details of withdrawing fair enough leave open, but withdraw it is.  julie have no doubt that you and other "patriots" like great grandpa ("did i mention in last 30 seconds i once p.o.w.?" mccain will call it surrender.  so, have at it.

Obama is no better at defining "failure" than the republicans are at defining "sucess"

I'm not making a point about how well the US is doing in Iraq, I'm saying that both actions (leaving now, or staying longer) will bring consequences.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 18, 2008, 09:29:28 AM
This seems like a pretty honest article about Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin



Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 18, 2008, 10:53:15 AM


by way, why not you in iraq if so committed?
[/quote]

if you read some of my posts you would see why this is such a ridiculous question.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 18, 2008, 04:04:57 PM
Fallacy: Republicans are for "real" Americans, therefore anyone who hates Republicans hates America.

The real fallacy is that democrats twist words to make a point.
I never said that anyone who hates republicans hates america.  I said Dean, specifically, hates america.
How else do you explain the quote that he hates republicans and everything they stand for?  Don't Republicans stand for freedom?  And don't they stand for America?
The saddest part of Dean's statement is that you fools ignore it and excuse it because.... well, I don't know why.
The difference between the liberal and conservative view is that they have different ideas of how to move this nation forward.  There is no justification for hating everything about either party.
For example, I don't HATE democrats.  I disagree with them on some issues that are important to me.
And I didn't always feel that way.  From age 18 to age 30, I was a registered democrat.  I voted for Gore AND Kerry.  I was angry when Bush took office.
Then the left started to push me away with communist rhetoric and socialist policies.  They changed from the middle of the road, reasonable democrat party to being to far to the left that I could no longer take it.
As I gradually changed my political mind, they ratcheted up lies and witch hunts.
As a former lefty kool aid drinker, I can tell you that the biggest problem the left has today is that they try to appeal too much to the far left fringe.
So, to be clear, your statement is incorrect in that merely hating republicans doesn't make you un-american.  Hating everything they stand for does.  Concepts like individualism, restricted government involvement, opportunity for all, and the preservation of freedom is NOT something that is okay to hate anyone over.
That's why Dean hates America.  And I'll tell you a little secret - I don't 'hate' Dean.  I just think he is the absolute worst party leader in the history of the democrats.
He led the party to lie to the public to get power.  He urged them to do nothing about the war in Iraq except to try to embarrass Bush.  He built a party of hate, anger, and socialism.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 18, 2008, 05:10:16 PM
and what, exactly, so hard about withdrawing from iraq?

It's not so much that it's "hard". It's more of an issue of consequences. I don't care how much you hate Bush, leaving Iraq too soon will result in some negative results. What is the cost of staying another two years? What is the cost if we leave too soon? Obama isn't telling people that we have accomplished what we need to accomplish, he's telling people that we shouldn't have ever gone there, and that he's going to end the unjust war. I'd like him to be honest and give everyone an idea of the costs and benefits of leaving in 12 months vs the costs and benefits of leaving in 36. Don't ignore the potential risk. Address the problem and explain why the solution you've come up with is the best one.


your assumption appear be that u.s. actually doing well there, which why obama not want leave. however, obama--and many more us, including majority of americans--have concluded we not doing well and five-plus years will have been enough. what u.s. has[/ i] done is kill or maim many americans and iraqs, wasteou know-- gazillions of dollars, strengthen hand iran, and distract from actually--you know, or should--fighting terrorism. good job, gump!

details of withdrawing fair enough leave open, but withdraw it is. julie have no doubt that you and other "patriots" like great grandpa ("did i mention in last 30 seconds i once p.o.w.?" mccain will call it surrender. so, have at it.

Obama is no better at defining "failure" than the republicans are at defining "sucess"

I'm not making a point about how well the US is doing in Iraq, I'm saying that both actions (leaving now, or staying longer) will bring consequences.

obviously.  and obama, like most americans, appear made decision which will be.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 18, 2008, 05:10:55 PM


by way, why not you in iraq if so committed?

if you read some of my posts you would see why this is such a ridiculous question.
[/quote]

humor julie.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 18, 2008, 06:02:59 PM


by way, why not you in iraq if so committed?

if you read some of my posts you would see why this is such a ridiculous question.

humor julie.
[/quote]

Ah yes, the age old liberal talking point: if you believe in the Iraq war and defend our troops, you should be in the military or shut up.
Classic red herring.
Why do people do this?  Isn't this what libs complain about - when conservatives call those who demoralize and bash our military unamerican?
What does serving in the military or not have to do with having an opinion again?
I have friends in Iraq.  They despise the people who trash them and claim that the US isn't doing any good in Iraq.
Schools are open.  Businesses are coming back.  Regions that were previously uninhabitable are now filling up with residents.  Their military is slowly getting trained.
Perhaps people who ask this question see it as a way of attacking a position, but it invalid and SHOULD be ignored.
Does one need to join a circus to comment on the quality of a Ringling Brothers show?
Does one need to become a chef to discuss the food at a restaurant?
Does one need to be a scientist to discuss climate change?
Does one need to become a communist to discuss Marxism?
Of course not.
Weak.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 18, 2008, 08:40:31 PM


by way, why not you in iraq if so committed?

if you read some of my posts you would see why this is such a ridiculous question.

humor julie.

Ah yes, the age old liberal talking point: if you believe in the Iraq war and defend our troops, you should be in the military or shut up.
Classic red herring.
Why do people do this? Isn't this what libs complain about - when conservatives call those who demoralize and bash our military unamerican?
What does serving in the military or not have to do with having an opinion again?
I have friends in Iraq. They despise the people who trash them and claim that the US isn't doing any good in Iraq.
Schools are open. Businesses are coming back. Regions that were previously uninhabitable are now filling up with residents. Their military is slowly getting trained.
Perhaps people who ask this question see it as a way of attacking a position, but it invalid and SHOULD be ignored.
Does one need to join a circus to comment on the quality of a Ringling Brothers show?
Does one need to become a chef to discuss the food at a restaurant?
Does one need to be a scientist to discuss climate change?
Does one need to become a communist to discuss Marxism?
Of course not.
Weak.

[/quote]

julie not say have serve in military have opinion.  however, julie do find it of note when people say how vital is war but not interested fighting it.

and what about you?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 18, 2008, 08:42:07 PM
Yeah, not so much, dude.  Talk about red herring  ::)

If the issue is how long we should stay in Iraq, and conservatives, like John McCain, believe we should have an indefinite presence, then we must necessarily ask how we accomplish that.  We have a volunteer military being stretched to its limit.  It's absolutely amusing that the same people who sang the praises of our elective invasion in 2003, didn't find the situation so dire they elected to participate in the exercise.  Five years later, those same chicken hawks have no problem extending our presence and no problem staying safe at home. 

Comparing discussion of a controversial, preemptive war with that of a restaurant is retarded.   
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on June 18, 2008, 11:52:58 PM
Fallacy: Republicans are for "real" Americans, therefore anyone who hates Republicans hates America.

The real fallacy is that democrats twist words to make a point.
I never said that anyone who hates republicans hates america.  I said Dean, specifically, hates america.
How else do you explain the quote that he hates republicans and everything they stand for?  Don't Republicans stand for freedom?  And don't they stand for America?
The saddest part of Dean's statement is that you fools ignore it and excuse it because.... well, I don't know why.
The difference between the liberal and conservative view is that they have different ideas of how to move this nation forward.  There is no justification for hating everything about either party.
For example, I don't HATE democrats.  I disagree with them on some issues that are important to me.
And I didn't always feel that way.  From age 18 to age 30, I was a registered democrat.  I voted for Gore AND Kerry.  I was angry when Bush took office.
Then the left started to push me away with communist rhetoric and socialist policies.  They changed from the middle of the road, reasonable democrat party to being to far to the left that I could no longer take it.
As I gradually changed my political mind, they ratcheted up lies and witch hunts.
As a former lefty kool aid drinker, I can tell you that the biggest problem the left has today is that they try to appeal too much to the far left fringe.
So, to be clear, your statement is incorrect in that merely hating republicans doesn't make you un-american.  Hating everything they stand for does.  Concepts like individualism, restricted government involvement, opportunity for all, and the preservation of freedom is NOT something that is okay to hate anyone over.
That's why Dean hates America.  And I'll tell you a little secret - I don't 'hate' Dean.  I just think he is the absolute worst party leader in the history of the democrats.
He led the party to lie to the public to get power.  He urged them to do nothing about the war in Iraq except to try to embarrass Bush.  He built a party of hate, anger, and socialism.


I think Dean has been in the monkey house for far too long: I'm sure when you spend your days dealing with politicians, they can be pretty exasperating. I'm pretty sure when Dean said he hates Republicans, one can assume he means the Republican politicians that he fights with day in and day out. And no, I don't hate everything Republicans stand for, I just believe that implementing most of their policies wholesale would spell the ruin for this country. That's one man's opinion. I honestly don't believe that cutting or abolishing taxes, deregulation of industries, greater influence of religion in governmental policies, or individualization to the point where everyone is just left to fend for themselves is the way this country should be run. Those are just a few gripes I have with your party.

Saying Republicans stand for "freedom" and "America" might be the silliest thing about this entire post. You're saying this as to suggest that Democrats somehow don't stand for these kinds of things. That's the kind of jingoist rhetoric that needs to stop on both sides. Each party loves "freedom" and "America"; we just have different views on how to go about furthering those interests.

You also claim that the Democrat's shift to the left, with its "communist rhetoric and social policies," pushed you away. That would be understandable, assuming that the Republican party was a bastion for moderate thinking and centrist policies. I applaud the Democratic party for finally standing up for what liberals truly believe in. The right has made "liberal" into a dirty word. People that have described themselves using this word have had a long and noble tradition in this country and others, and we shouldn't let it be warped into a meaningless string of syllables that elicits some kind of Pavlovian response every time someone hears it. I can't stand the "half-assed" Democratic strategies of much of the Clinton administration, which sacrificed many Democratic economic goals for just a few token social measures. The Republican party has been far right of center since the Reagan administration, and I don't think enough people have called them out on that. Extreme right wing ideology - like those professed by G.W. Bush, Reagan, and others in the modern Conservative movement - is, in my opinion, dangerous, and there needs to be a stronger liberal presence to counteract that movement. I'm looking forward to Obama heading a counter-"Reagan revolution."
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 19, 2008, 02:31:17 AM


by way, why not you in iraq if so committed?

if you read some of my posts you would see why this is such a ridiculous question.

humor julie.

Ah yes, the age old liberal talking point: if you believe in the Iraq war and defend our troops, you should be in the military or shut up.
Classic red herring.
Why do people do this? Isn't this what libs complain about - when conservatives call those who demoralize and bash our military unamerican?
What does serving in the military or not have to do with having an opinion again?
I have friends in Iraq. They despise the people who trash them and claim that the US isn't doing any good in Iraq.
Schools are open. Businesses are coming back. Regions that were previously uninhabitable are now filling up with residents. Their military is slowly getting trained.
Perhaps people who ask this question see it as a way of attacking a position, but it invalid and SHOULD be ignored.
Does one need to join a circus to comment on the quality of a Ringling Brothers show?
Does one need to become a chef to discuss the food at a restaurant?
Does one need to be a scientist to discuss climate change?
Does one need to become a communist to discuss Marxism?
Of course not.
Weak.


julie not say have serve in military have opinion.  however, julie do find it of note when people say how vital is war but not interested fighting it.

and what about you?
[/quote]

And I find it of note when people say how unimportant and meaningless the war is have never served and have no intention of serving or allowing their children to serve.
The argument works both ways.  One could say that those who seek to end the war and have our troops evacuate Iraq is an example of the naive thinking of someone less interested in reality and history and more interested in the false notion that freedom and peace is easy and comes about by words.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 19, 2008, 02:47:19 AM
Yeah, not so much, dude.  Talk about red herring  ::)

If the issue is how long we should stay in Iraq, and conservatives, like John McCain, believe we should have an indefinite presence, then we must necessarily ask how we accomplish that.  We have a volunteer military being stretched to its limit.  It's absolutely amusing that the same people who sang the praises of our elective invasion in 2003, didn't find the situation so dire they elected to participate in the exercise.  Five years later, those same chicken hawks have no problem extending our presence and no problem staying safe at home. 

Comparing discussion of a controversial, preemptive war with that of a restaurant is retarded.   

John McCain has explained that statement.  He doesn't intend to have 150,000 troops in Iraq for eternity.  He envisions a small military presence (like we have in Germany, the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and any of an estimated 130 nations around the world) that continues in a support role, if any.  Truth be told, this is what Obama has said would be likely anyway.  No one wants the US involved in a war that is indefinite in nature.  This fabrication can be attributed to the left, seeking to twist reality into another empty talking point.
The 'chicken hawks' you speak of don't exist.  This is nonsense.  My belief that what we are doing in Iraq is a good thing and that we can't leave until the job is finished isn't based on a notion of perpetual war, but rather a realistic opinion of the state of the type of war we chose to fight.  We didn't go into Iraq and destroy everything and we didn't make the mistakes of Desert Storm.  Instead of abandoning a nation after deposing a leader, we are staying, keeping the peace as best we can, training them to police themselves and promote peace, building up their infrastructure, and introducing them to democracy.  There is plenty of good that has gone on in Iraq since we went there and leaving now creates a power vaccum.  We are fighting a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy.  Were mistakes made?  Of course.  Every military action comes with mistakes.  The government is inneficient and bloated and things get twisted.  Make no mistake, we aren't there for their oil (we've been protecting it since we got there, by the way, so the Iraqi economy won't completely fall apart).  We are trying to stand up a nation that has been under Hussein's brutal thumb for so long that the people don't remember what it was like before Hussein.
And comparing restaurants to war IS ridiculous, but not the way I presented the analogy.
Many people like to say that if you aren't willing to fight in a war and haven't volunteered, you have no right to hold the opinion that we should stay and finish the job.  Most of the soldiers that I've spoken to think we should stay and finish the job, by the way.  I know a few who volunteered to go back multiple times because they believe in their mission.  Making an issue of a persons service or lack thereof is very much akin to my analogy.
It's like saying that if you haven't made a movie, you have no right to talk about how good it is.
It's like saying that if you haven't actually built a computer, you have no right to an opinion on computers.
It's like saying that if you've never played guitar, you have no right to talk about a Gibson Flying V or Fender Telecaster.
It's silly because, essentially, phrasing the argument in such a way as to reflect the notion that if you didn't sign up for service, you shouldn't have the right to believe that our troops should finish the job.
By that logic, unless you've served in the military and volunteered you also have no right to say that we don't belong there.  That's ridiculous.  You have just as much right to your opinion as anyone else, even me.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 19, 2008, 04:12:14 AM
I thought we were talking about why Obama would lose in the fall?!??

 ???
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 04:21:31 AM
This seems like a pretty honest article about Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


nonsense.  go back and read friendman's columns re how many times he say "just give it six mre months."  in some circles, writers talk derisively of "friendman units" (f.u.).

friedman wrong at start of war, and no reason believe his judgment now better.

stop following idiots off cliff!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 04:26:35 AM

And I find it of note when people say how unimportant and meaningless the war is have never served and have no intention of serving or allowing their children to serve.
The argument works both ways. One could say that those who seek to end the war and have our troops evacuate Iraq is an example of the naive thinking of someone less interested in reality and history and more interested in the false notion that freedom and peace is easy and comes about by words.


your patriotic bluster showing through.  military service meaningful, but war stupid and being lost, and that that.

if you really value what soldiers do, you not send them into pointless exercise.  but, again:  apparently you only want others fight your stupid little war (just as did gump, cheney, and rummie when they had chance fight, but supporeted war anyway.  julie can tell who be our heroes.)  enough said.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 19, 2008, 07:22:18 AM
Yeah, not so much, dude.  Talk about red herring  ::)

If the issue is how long we should stay in Iraq, and conservatives, like John McCain, believe we should have an indefinite presence, then we must necessarily ask how we accomplish that.  We have a volunteer military being stretched to its limit.  It's absolutely amusing that the same people who sang the praises of our elective invasion in 2003, didn't find the situation so dire they elected to participate in the exercise.  Five years later, those same chicken hawks have no problem extending our presence and no problem staying safe at home. 

Comparing discussion of a controversial, preemptive war with that of a restaurant is retarded.   

John McCain has explained that statement.  He doesn't intend to have 150,000 troops in Iraq for eternity.  He envisions a small military presence (like we have in Germany, the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and any of an estimated 130 nations around the world) that continues in a support role, if any.  Truth be told, this is what Obama has said would be likely anyway.  No one wants the US involved in a war that is indefinite in nature.  This fabrication can be attributed to the left, seeking to twist reality into another empty talking point.
The 'chicken hawks' you speak of don't exist.  This is nonsense.  My belief that what we are doing in Iraq is a good thing and that we can't leave until the job is finished isn't based on a notion of perpetual war, but rather a realistic opinion of the state of the type of war we chose to fight.  We didn't go into Iraq and destroy everything and we didn't make the mistakes of Desert Storm.  Instead of abandoning a nation after deposing a leader, we are staying, keeping the peace as best we can, training them to police themselves and promote peace, building up their infrastructure, and introducing them to democracy.  There is plenty of good that has gone on in Iraq since we went there and leaving now creates a power vaccum.  We are fighting a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy.  Were mistakes made?  Of course.  Every military action comes with mistakes.  The government is inneficient and bloated and things get twisted.  Make no mistake, we aren't there for their oil (we've been protecting it since we got there, by the way, so the Iraqi economy won't completely fall apart).  We are trying to stand up a nation that has been under Hussein's brutal thumb for so long that the people don't remember what it was like before Hussein.
And comparing restaurants to war IS ridiculous, but not the way I presented the analogy.
Many people like to say that if you aren't willing to fight in a war and haven't volunteered, you have no right to hold the opinion that we should stay and finish the job.  Most of the soldiers that I've spoken to think we should stay and finish the job, by the way.  I know a few who volunteered to go back multiple times because they believe in their mission.  Making an issue of a persons service or lack thereof is very much akin to my analogy.
It's like saying that if you haven't made a movie, you have no right to talk about how good it is.
It's like saying that if you haven't actually built a computer, you have no right to an opinion on computers.
It's like saying that if you've never played guitar, you have no right to talk about a Gibson Flying V or Fender Telecaster.
It's silly because, essentially, phrasing the argument in such a way as to reflect the notion that if you didn't sign up for service, you shouldn't have the right to believe that our troops should finish the job.
By that logic, unless you've served in the military and volunteered you also have no right to say that we don't belong there.  That's ridiculous.  You have just as much right to your opinion as anyone else, even me.

I never said John McCain wanted to stay in Iraq forever, although any misinterpratation from left or right is due to his own apparently recent inability to convey his thoughts clearly.

Chicken hawks are very much alive and well and have been since the start of our entanglement, including those in power who sent other people's children into battle, electively, but all managed to find their ways out of Vietnam I.

Everyone does indeed have a right to their opinion and mine is that yours, which you are entitled to, is wrong. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 19, 2008, 08:54:12 AM
This seems like a pretty honest article about Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


nonsense.  go back and read friendman's columns re how many times he say "just give it six mre months."  in some circles, writers talk derisively of "friendman units" (f.u.).

friedman wrong at start of war, and no reason believe his judgment now better.

stop following idiots off cliff!


Okay, I'll do my best not to follow idiots off the cliff.  But that article I posted talks more about how serious of a decision this will be, and how it's not going to be easy.  I don't think he's wrong about that part.

Also, you asked jeffislouie why he isn't in the army.

One of the major problems with this question is that you make the assumption that the iraq war would influence his decision.  It's not like he would join the military during times of peace but he wouldn't now because "he doesn't really believe in the war"
People have reasons why they don't join the military that have nothing to do with the iraq war.

If I were drafted I would proudly serve my country in the military, but since the army is still volunteer based,  I decided to take a different path to contribute to my country.


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 19, 2008, 09:25:17 AM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_vs__osama_116128.htm?page=0

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 19, 2008, 10:06:42 AM
Yeah, not so much, dude.  Talk about red herring  ::)

If the issue is how long we should stay in Iraq, and conservatives, like John McCain, believe we should have an indefinite presence, then we must necessarily ask how we accomplish that.  We have a volunteer military being stretched to its limit.  It's absolutely amusing that the same people who sang the praises of our elective invasion in 2003, didn't find the situation so dire they elected to participate in the exercise.  Five years later, those same chicken hawks have no problem extending our presence and no problem staying safe at home. 

Comparing discussion of a controversial, preemptive war with that of a restaurant is retarded.   

John McCain has explained that statement.  He doesn't intend to have 150,000 troops in Iraq for eternity.  He envisions a small military presence (like we have in Germany, the UK, Italy, France, Spain, and any of an estimated 130 nations around the world) that continues in a support role, if any.  Truth be told, this is what Obama has said would be likely anyway.  No one wants the US involved in a war that is indefinite in nature.  This fabrication can be attributed to the left, seeking to twist reality into another empty talking point.
The 'chicken hawks' you speak of don't exist.  This is nonsense.  My belief that what we are doing in Iraq is a good thing and that we can't leave until the job is finished isn't based on a notion of perpetual war, but rather a realistic opinion of the state of the type of war we chose to fight.  We didn't go into Iraq and destroy everything and we didn't make the mistakes of Desert Storm.  Instead of abandoning a nation after deposing a leader, we are staying, keeping the peace as best we can, training them to police themselves and promote peace, building up their infrastructure, and introducing them to democracy.  There is plenty of good that has gone on in Iraq since we went there and leaving now creates a power vaccum.  We are fighting a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy.  Were mistakes made?  Of course.  Every military action comes with mistakes.  The government is inneficient and bloated and things get twisted.  Make no mistake, we aren't there for their oil (we've been protecting it since we got there, by the way, so the Iraqi economy won't completely fall apart).  We are trying to stand up a nation that has been under Hussein's brutal thumb for so long that the people don't remember what it was like before Hussein.
And comparing restaurants to war IS ridiculous, but not the way I presented the analogy.
Many people like to say that if you aren't willing to fight in a war and haven't volunteered, you have no right to hold the opinion that we should stay and finish the job.  Most of the soldiers that I've spoken to think we should stay and finish the job, by the way.  I know a few who volunteered to go back multiple times because they believe in their mission.  Making an issue of a persons service or lack thereof is very much akin to my analogy.
It's like saying that if you haven't made a movie, you have no right to talk about how good it is.
It's like saying that if you haven't actually built a computer, you have no right to an opinion on computers.
It's like saying that if you've never played guitar, you have no right to talk about a Gibson Flying V or Fender Telecaster.
It's silly because, essentially, phrasing the argument in such a way as to reflect the notion that if you didn't sign up for service, you shouldn't have the right to believe that our troops should finish the job.
By that logic, unless you've served in the military and volunteered you also have no right to say that we don't belong there.  That's ridiculous.  You have just as much right to your opinion as anyone else, even me.

I never said John McCain wanted to stay in Iraq forever, although any misinterpratation from left or right is due to his own apparently recent inability to convey his thoughts clearly.
 

Yes, you did say that.  You said exactly that.  Here, I'll quote you directly.  You are free to retract, but not to deny the statement....
You said:
"If the issue is how long we should stay in Iraq, and conservatives, like John McCain, believe we should have an indefinite presence, then we must necessarily ask how we accomplish that. "

Seems to me that's what you said.   You may not have meant it that way, but your statement was hardly confusing.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 19, 2008, 12:02:59 PM
Thank you for illustrating that I did not, in fact, say that John McCain wanted to stay in Iraq forever.

Dictionary definition of indefinite:

Not clearly defined or determined; not precise or exact: an indefinite boundary; an indefinite date in the future

At least we agree my statement was hardly confusing. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 19, 2008, 12:51:28 PM
Now I get it...
You are having trouble with the idea that military entanglements tend to be indefinite in nature.
It's not like a bank loan.  You can't set a premature withdrawal date without sending a message to the enemy that the day after withdrawal the fun begins.
Until the Iraqi's are able to ensure a relative peaceful calm and have the ability to defend itself, one could argue that leaving would be unethical.  We toppled their military and deposed a leader who had run the nation from 1979 to 2003.  24 years of dictatorship.  That would be sort of like how great things would be today is Jimmy Carter was still President. 
That's why I don't think the right thing to do is leave.  Agree with it or not, we are responsible for drastically altering their society.  That already happened.  It seems that the "right" thing to do, by our consciences and in our relationships in the world, is to stand a new Iraq up before leaving.  Is it expensive?  Yes.  But the alternative is to take a nation in the politically heated middle east and leave it to fend for itself while crippled and broken.
This is simply not justifiable.  We worked hard during Desert Storm to encourage resistance groups to rise up and work to overthrow Hussein.  Then we rolled in with our hummers, tanks, planes, and ships and blew the every loving snot out of the Iraqi military.  Bush I didn't want to be entangled for a long time (he was afraid, I'd guess, that his legacy would be tarnished by such an event), so he negotiated a cease-fire and handed Hussein the reigns again.  The opposition that we encouraged thought we had their backs, but we didn't.  Hussein promptly gassed many of them, then rounded up the rest and executed them.  All because we didn't want to stay and finish the job, leave a small peacekeeping force behind, or test America's patience. 
Now, we've gone in to finish the job correctly.  Setting a withdrawal date will only produce a dropoff in violence, the US troops leaving, and then a massive spike in violence and a possible war in the middle east.  OR more senseless troop deaths as combatants shoot at our soldiers as they deploy.  OR this would provide ample opportunity for extremists to rise to power.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 02:42:41 PM
This seems like a pretty honest article about Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


nonsense. go back and read friendman's columns re how many times he say "just give it six mre months." in some circles, writers talk derisively of "friendman units" (f.u.).

friedman wrong at start of war, and no reason believe his judgment now better.

stop following idiots off cliff!


Okay, I'll do my best not to follow idiots off the cliff. But that article I posted talks more about how serious of a decision this will be, and how it's not going to be easy. I don't think he's wrong about that part.



at least you not going his track record.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 02:46:22 PM

Also, you asked jeffislouie why he isn't in the army.

One of the major problems with this question is that you make the assumption that the iraq war would influence his decision. It's not like he would join the military during times of peace but he wouldn't now because "he doesn't really believe in the war"
People have reasons why they don't join the military that have nothing to do with the iraq war.

If I were drafted I would proudly serve my country in the military, but since the army is still volunteer based, I decided to take a different path to contribute to my country.


no assumpton.  this rather simple: some people very big on having others fight this war.  julie just trying ferret them out.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 02:48:00 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06192008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_vs__osama_116128.htm?page=0



golly, another habeas hater.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 19, 2008, 02:49:07 PM
Now I get it...
You are having trouble with the idea that military entanglements tend to be indefinite in nature.
It's not like a bank loan. You can't set a premature withdrawal date without sending a message to the enemy that the day after withdrawal the fun begins.
Until the Iraqi's are able to ensure a relative peaceful calm and have the ability to defend itself, one could argue that leaving would be unethical. We toppled their military and deposed a leader who had run the nation from 1979 to 2003. 24 years of dictatorship. That would be sort of like how great things would be today is Jimmy Carter was still President.
That's why I don't think the right thing to do is leave. Agree with it or not, we are responsible for drastically altering their society. That already happened. It seems that the "right" thing to do, by our consciences and in our relationships in the world, is to stand a new Iraq up before leaving. Is it expensive? Yes. But the alternative is to take a nation in the politically heated middle east and leave it to fend for itself while crippled and broken.
This is simply not justifiable. We worked hard during Desert Storm to encourage resistance groups to rise up and work to overthrow Hussein. Then we rolled in with our hummers, tanks, planes, and ships and blew the every loving snot out of the Iraqi military. Bush I didn't want to be entangled for a long time (he was afraid, I'd guess, that his legacy would be tarnished by such an event), so he negotiated a cease-fire and handed Hussein the reigns again. The opposition that we encouraged thought we had their backs, but we didn't. Hussein promptly gassed many of them, then rounded up the rest and executed them. All because we didn't want to stay and finish the job, leave a small peacekeeping force behind, or test America's patience.
Now, we've gone in to finish the job correctly. Setting a withdrawal date will only produce a dropoff in violence, the US troops leaving, and then a massive spike in violence and a possible war in the middle east. OR more senseless troop deaths as combatants shoot at our soldiers as they deploy. OR this would provide ample opportunity for extremists to rise to power.

even with all that "progess" we been making all these years?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 19, 2008, 03:56:15 PM
Now I get it...
You are having trouble with the idea that military entanglements tend to be indefinite in nature.
It's not like a bank loan.  You can't set a premature withdrawal date without sending a message to the enemy that the day after withdrawal the fun begins.
Until the Iraqi's are able to ensure a relative peaceful calm and have the ability to defend itself, one could argue that leaving would be unethical.  We toppled their military and deposed a leader who had run the nation from 1979 to 2003.  24 years of dictatorship.  That would be sort of like how great things would be today is Jimmy Carter was still President. 
That's why I don't think the right thing to do is leave.  Agree with it or not, we are responsible for drastically altering their society.  That already happened.  It seems that the "right" thing to do, by our consciences and in our relationships in the world, is to stand a new Iraq up before leaving.  Is it expensive?  Yes.  But the alternative is to take a nation in the politically heated middle east and leave it to fend for itself while crippled and broken.
This is simply not justifiable.  We worked hard during Desert Storm to encourage resistance groups to rise up and work to overthrow Hussein.  Then we rolled in with our hummers, tanks, planes, and ships and blew the every loving snot out of the Iraqi military.  Bush I didn't want to be entangled for a long time (he was afraid, I'd guess, that his legacy would be tarnished by such an event), so he negotiated a cease-fire and handed Hussein the reigns again.  The opposition that we encouraged thought we had their backs, but we didn't.  Hussein promptly gassed many of them, then rounded up the rest and executed them.  All because we didn't want to stay and finish the job, leave a small peacekeeping force behind, or test America's patience. 
Now, we've gone in to finish the job correctly.  Setting a withdrawal date will only produce a dropoff in violence, the US troops leaving, and then a massive spike in violence and a possible war in the middle east.  OR more senseless troop deaths as combatants shoot at our soldiers as they deploy.  OR this would provide ample opportunity for extremists to rise to power.

Well, no, I'm not really having any problems, with anything.  You're making a lot of assumptions about my feelings on this issue and are, frankly, putting words in my mouth.  The Iraq question is not a black and white one.  Thoughts that it was are what put us in this difficult, sad state.   

I was completely opposed to invading Iraq in 2003.  I expect no particular congratulations for that, unlike someone who will remain nameless, because I, too, was in no position of consequence, privy to no special information and was able to hold an opinion knowing I really bore no responsibility for it, regardless of what followed. 

I was especially opposed to the invasion, however, given that those plotting/planning/implementing it were power-tripping, opportunistic idiots.  I will give the Administration the benefit of the doubt and refrain from calling them out-and-out liars, but I will say they were, at best, intellectually dishonest cherry-pickers of the truth with no particular concern beyond going cowboy on a country they apparently had very little understanding of.     

We are now living with the result of the Administration's incompetence.  I, too, believe it would be unethical to do anything that jeopardizes the people of Iraq, whose lives have been made, in some cases, infinitely worse than they were under the dictator we removed.  The only justification for our invasion of Iraq, one not offered by the Administration until every other justification they tried proved false, is humanitarian in nature.  If there is to be any glory for the United States or any honor for the Americans and Iraqis lost in the past five years, it will be in some sort of lasting, real, at least foreseeable peace in Iraq.  If that means we can't immediately pull out, well, the bed has been made and now we have to lie in it.

That said, we can't realistically afford, in any regard, to stay entangled in Iraq the way we currently are for "as long as it takes."  Intermittent bouts of progress alternating with periods of absolute failure is not an accomplishment.  I think it's irresponsible for anyone running for president of the United States to stay relatively committed to the obviously failed policies of those who will be free of responsibility for the havoc they've wreaked in less than a year.  "We will leave Iraq as soon as it is reasonably responsible to do so" is a smart sentiment.  "We will leave Iraq on Whatever Date, Whatever Year," and especially "We will stay in Iraq indefinitely," are not. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 20, 2008, 09:08:09 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Op-Ed Columnist
The Two Obamas
by David Brooks

God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 20, 2008, 09:22:12 AM
For example, I don't HATE democrats.  I disagree with them on some issues that are important to me.
And I didn't always feel that way.  From age 18 to age 30, I was a registered democrat.  I voted for Gore AND Kerry.  I was angry when Bush took office.
Then the left started to push me away with communist rhetoric and socialist policies.  They changed from the middle of the road, reasonable democrat party to being to far to the left that I could no longer take it.
As I gradually changed my political mind, they ratcheted up lies and witch hunts.
As a former lefty kool aid drinker, I can tell you that the biggest problem the left has today is that they try to appeal too much to the far left fringe.

Pure flame.

What has happened in the past 4 years that has so drastically changed your mind to the point that you're now speaking in Fox-Newsese?

I mean, I suppose I don't understand how you could have voted for Gore and Kerry, and then somehow in the last 4 years the Democrats have become so extreme, shifted so much to "communistic and socialistic" policies, that they've scared you to being a Republican.

Which begs the question, what exactly has the Republican party done so right in the past 4 years to cause such a monumental ideological shift? Because honestly, I can't think of anything they've done right.

Unless you perversely find value in a botched war, increasingly exposed lies about the reason we went to war, increased casualties, seemingly daily exposes about corruptive policies and backhanding, Larry Craig and other Repub politicians caught saying one thing and doing another, Haliburton, the whole Plame/Libby fiasco, Abramoff, a completely screwed environmental policies, a recession, an energy crisis...

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 20, 2008, 09:27:18 AM

The 'chicken hawks' you speak of don't exist.  This is nonsense.  My belief that what we are doing in Iraq is a good thing and that we can't leave until the job is finished isn't based on a notion of perpetual war, but rather a realistic opinion of the state of the type of war we chose to fight.  We didn't go into Iraq and destroy everything and we didn't make the mistakes of Desert Storm.  Instead of abandoning a nation after deposing a leader, we are staying, keeping the peace as best we can, training them to police themselves and promote peace, building up their infrastructure, and introducing them to democracy.  There is plenty of good that has gone on in Iraq since we went there and leaving now creates a power vaccum.  We are fighting a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy.  Were mistakes made?  Of course.  Every military action comes with mistakes.  The government is inneficient and bloated and things get twisted.  Make no mistake, we aren't there for their oil (we've been protecting it since we got there, by the way, so the Iraqi economy won't completely fall apart).  We are trying to stand up a nation that has been under Hussein's brutal thumb for so long that the people don't remember what it was like before Hussein.

(Despite their latest attempts to explain this one...)

(http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Mission-accomplished.jpg)

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 20, 2008, 09:41:55 AM
You hit the nail on the head!  Bush has done such an amazing job with his second term, who wouldn't turn?

Away from him and his party, that is, as his poll numbers and '06 elections clearly illustrated. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 20, 2008, 09:47:25 AM
t...

Please do me the honor, and explain to me how President Bush is responsible for the recession and the energy crisis.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 20, 2008, 10:04:32 AM
t...

Please do me the honor, and explain to me how President Bush is responsible for the recession and the energy crisis.



Lol. You want me to explain something that, frankly, would take an entire course to do so, and still come to no consensus (meaning, different people have different ideas as to the degree of the effect of the President on the economy)? However...

Does the President not implement an economic plan, policy, and vision?
Does the President not sign off on a budget each year?
Does the President not influence tax and spending policy?
Does the President not influence regulatory policy and foreign trade?

I understand that the President is not solely responsible for any of the above, nor is he solely (or perhaps even chiefly) responsible for our nation's economy. Congress has an influence, as does a myriad other things. But also keep in mind who has controlled Congress for 6 or the last 8 years (or perhaps even longer, I forget).

But I'm no economist, nor do I pretend to be one, so perhaps you can set me straight.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 20, 2008, 11:48:57 AM
t...

Please do me the honor, and explain to me how President Bush is responsible for the recession and the energy crisis.



Lol. You want me to explain something that, frankly, would take an entire course to do so, and still come to no consensus (meaning, different people have different ideas as to the degree of the effect of the President on the economy)? However...

Does the President not implement an economic plan, policy, and vision?
Does the President not sign off on a budget each year?
Does the President not influence tax and spending policy?
Does the President not influence regulatory policy and foreign trade?

I understand that the President is not solely responsible for any of the above, nor is he solely (or perhaps even chiefly) responsible for our nation's economy. Congress has an influence, as does a myriad other things. But also keep in mind who has controlled Congress for 6 or the last 8 years (or perhaps even longer, I forget).

But I'm no economist, nor do I pretend to be one, so perhaps you can set me straight.


I'm not a big fan of President Bush on the economy, but my reasons are probably different than yours.

The two most obvious components of the current, or oncoming recession are housing and oil.  You can't really blame the president for either.  You may be able to blame the fed for housing because they went crazy with rates in an effort to fight inflation.  You may be able to blame the fed for oil because in an effort to inrease exports they've now started to devalue the dollar. 

Could the President have done something about the housing market?  Yes, but congress could have as well.  If Kerry or Gore were president I highly doubt they would have messed with the banking system when it was roaring.

Could President Bush do something about oil?  I guess he could drill, but nobody wanted to do that when the republicans were in power in congress.  Gas prices were still holding pretty low in relation to historical prices, and the republicans weren't going to win any votes by pissing off environmentalists when nobody was really complaining.   Who is to blame for our energy problem?  Probably Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, and Clinton.
The increase in oil prices hurts the economy in a lot of ways, and you'd be hard pressed to lay much of that blame on President Bush.

Blaming Bush for the war is fine, but I'm not really sure what you're more bothered about.  Is the problem more with going in the first place or the way it was handled?  I'm not fully convinced that Gore wouldn't have taken us to war if he had the same intelligence Bush had.  Maybe he'd be better at handling it but it's probably a wash. 

Corruption, Lies, and American casualties are all bad.  Alienating the rest of the world is bad.  Overextending our military is bad. 

I don't like Obama or McCain, but I think it's kind of silly for people to accept the idea that McCain will just be Bush #3.  The value of a President has to do with how well he handles the hand he's dealt.   Clinton got a roaring economy with fantastic amounts of new technology and he did a great job of getting out of the way (for a democrat)   Clinton was a centrist president and he did well.
Bush has been dealt a crappy hand.    September 11th presented him with a lose lose situation.  If the intelligence that the senate had was the same the President then he went to war for reasons that didn't exist.  He made a good call based on the info and it was wrong.   Now he has to deal with a housing crisis because people are irresponsible, and an energy crisis because we've procrastinated on the issue for 30 years.

So who is going to do better with the hand they are dealt?  Obama or McCain?

McCain will be better than bush on the war.
McCain will be stronger than bush on terrorism.
McCain will be better at getting congressional support than bush.
McCain will be more of a centrist on social issues

I think Bush was awesome at appointing Supreme Court Justices.  It could have been way worse for the democrats but he made some great choices.

I just think people should stop comparing McCain and Bush and stick to contrasting McCain and Obama
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 20, 2008, 12:01:22 PM
The president wasn't handed some completely accurate, undoubted intelligence one random day, Jack.  I know that's what he'd like people to believe now, but as new revelations poke holes in his already sinking ship on an almost monthly basis, I don't know how anyone could take that idea seriously.  Iraq was not some monumental problem that needed to be dealt with right at the very moment it was, and certainly not in the propaganda-infused rush the Administration produced.   

The argument used to be, "Clinton thought Saddam was up to no good."  Did he launch an elective, poorly planned invasion of a country he had almost no understanding of, ignoring those who had better ideas, because they disagreed with what was largely a pre-determined, pre terrorist attack vision?  No, and Gore wouldn't have either.  I also seriously doubt McCain would have, if he'd defeated Bush in the 2000 primary and gone on to win the White House. 

This idea that September 11th forced Bush's hand into Iraq and the poor man had no other choice but to take action is absolute bunk.  The personal responsibility for everything that's gone wrong in Iraq, if indeed he wishes to take credit for the few bouts of success, lies with him.   
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 20, 2008, 12:58:17 PM
The president wasn't handed some completely accurate, undoubted intelligence one random day, Jack.  I know that's what he'd like people to believe now, but as new revelations poke holes in his already sinking ship on an almost monthly basis, I don't know how anyone could take that idea seriously.  Iraq was not some monumental problem that needed to be dealt with right at the very moment it was, and certainly not in the propaganda-infused rush the Administration produced.   

The argument used to be, "Clinton thought Saddam was up to no good."  Did he launch an elective, poorly planned invasion of a country he had almost no understanding of, ignoring those who had better ideas, because they disagreed with what was largely a pre-determined, pre terrorist attack vision?  No, and Gore wouldn't have either.  I also seriously doubt McCain would have, if he'd defeated Bush in the 2000 primary and gone on to win the White House. 

This idea that September 11th forced Bush's hand into Iraq and the poor man had no other choice but to take action is absolute bunk.  The personal responsibility for everything that's gone wrong in Iraq, if indeed he wishes to take credit for the few bouts of success, lies with him.   

I agree with you, but I don't think I said what you think I said.

I said  "if"  the president was presented with the same intelligence as all the senators who voted for the war, then it made sense to go in. 

I'm sorry that I blended my thoughts on Iraq with my thoughts on September 11th being lose lose.  I accept that Iraq and September 11th are not as connected as the administration would have you believe.    I'm just saying that September 11th put everyone on terrorist attack mode.  That mindset, in addition to the intelligence about the weapons Sadam was developing brought about a lot of support for the iraq war.   

I'm not saying you shouldn't blame bush for the war.  I just think there is a difference between being mad about going in and being mad about the way it was handled.   It's impossible to know if McCain would have gone in, and it's almost a sure thing that he would have handled it better.

The democrats are now using the Iraq war to hurt McCain and that's dumb.   Tons of the democrat senators voted for the war in the first place, and McCain has criticized the administrations handling of the situation for a long time.


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 20, 2008, 03:57:16 PM
that must explain why republicans doing so well.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 21, 2008, 09:39:05 AM
For example, I don't HATE democrats.  I disagree with them on some issues that are important to me.
And I didn't always feel that way.  From age 18 to age 30, I was a registered democrat.  I voted for Gore AND Kerry.  I was angry when Bush took office.
Then the left started to push me away with communist rhetoric and socialist policies.  They changed from the middle of the road, reasonable democrat party to being to far to the left that I could no longer take it.
As I gradually changed my political mind, they ratcheted up lies and witch hunts.
As a former lefty kool aid drinker, I can tell you that the biggest problem the left has today is that they try to appeal too much to the far left fringe.

Pure flame.

What has happened in the past 4 years that has so drastically changed your mind to the point that you're now speaking in Fox-Newsese?

I mean, I suppose I don't understand how you could have voted for Gore and Kerry, and then somehow in the last 4 years the Democrats have become so extreme, shifted so much to "communistic and socialistic" policies, that they've scared you to being a Republican.

Which begs the question, what exactly has the Republican party done so right in the past 4 years to cause such a monumental ideological shift? Because honestly, I can't think of anything they've done right.

Unless you perversely find value in a botched war, increasingly exposed lies about the reason we went to war, increased casualties, seemingly daily exposes about corruptive policies and backhanding, Larry Craig and other Repub politicians caught saying one thing and doing another, Haliburton, the whole Plame/Libby fiasco, Abramoff, a completely screwed environmental policies, a recession, an energy crisis...



Ok, so because die hard lefty loons like you can't understand it, it's all bull.
Makes sense.
I don't feel it necessary to explain why I am no longer a registered democrat.  Just for fun, here's some reasons:

-Democrats started winning elections by espousing platforms entirely made up of the following statement:  Bush is wrong!  I'm not like Bush!
-They then proceeded to refuse to take a stand on issues and their entire campaign was empty and devoid of platform.
- When the democrat party took congress, I thought that they were going to actually do something - a sentiment shared by many americans.  They didn't.  They held witchhunt after witchhunt.  They approved massive pork barrel spending.  The ignored our immigration problem, our economy, the mortgage crisis, the weakening dollar, and the failing educational system while publicly hammering the president on the war (as well as all the other issues).  Ah yes, the war.  The one they were all going to end.  The one where things were going to change.  The war where people would be held accountable.  Tell me, what's changed about the war?  Nothing that the left promised would.  Of course, that didn't stop top democrat leaders like Murtha from accusing some of our soldiers, without evidence or a careful review of the charges, like Jeffrey Chessani of being murderers publicly.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67321

But we can forgive Murtha and the democrat party for not censuring him.  After all, Bush IS evil.
Moronic.
And Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi making statement about the mental facilities of our sitting President during war time?  That used to be grounds for removal of power.  Now it is all good.  Who cares what the world thinks about our nation when our democrat leaders say that our President is retarded?  It doesn't matter.  But when President Bush gives a speech, in Israel, to the kinesset, about not allowing terrorists to dictate the course of nations, it simply MUST be repudiated!  Who else but Obama could Bush possibly have been talking about?  Only the democrat party matters.  Ther rest of the world?  @#!* 'em.  No matter that the sentiment expressed is widely held in the region OR the fact that Israel is one nation who has been routinely attacked by terrorists since it's birth as a nation.  Democrat's are so self centered that they are blind.
More examples?  Ok.
For YEARS we heard how Bush had the lowest approval ratings ever.  Every day.  Then the democrat took congress.  And proceeded to earn the democrat congress the lowest approval rating in the history of congressional approval ratings.  And we didn't hear a peep.
Nancy Pelosi is a multi-millionaire because of shady land deals and pork projects.  Harry Reid is the same.  Clinton made something like 12 million dollars last year.  Yet they claim to care about the poor?  Please.  They care about pandering to the poor.
Alberto Gonzales get's investigated and harrassed but nothing is ever proved out and as a result, the democrats blame him for inefficiencies in the AG's office - an innefficiency they created with their harrassment, hearings, investigations, and empty accusations.  Yay!  The democrats got another minority out of the white house?  Let's all throw a donkey themed party!
Bush didn't "earn" me switching from a democrat to a republican.  Howard Dean and the Democrat party lost my confidence and pushed me away.
I understand that in your small world, only hate of President Bush is enough to motivate someone politically.  But in reality, more americans than you would like to believe think Bush isn't the worst President ever and that most democrats are the worst sort of politicians ever.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 21, 2008, 09:40:10 AM
quote author=t... link=topic=4010971.msg5123697#msg5123697 date=1213978932]
For example, I don't HATE democrats.  I disagree with them on some issues that are important to me.
And I didn't always feel that way.  From age 18 to age 30, I was a registered democrat.  I voted for Gore AND Kerry.  I was angry when Bush took office.
Then the left started to push me away with communist rhetoric and socialist policies.  They changed from the middle of the road, reasonable democrat party to being to far to the left that I could no longer take it.
As I gradually changed my political mind, they ratcheted up lies and witch hunts.
As a former lefty kool aid drinker, I can tell you that the biggest problem the left has today is that they try to appeal too much to the far left fringe.

Pure flame.

What has happened in the past 4 years that has so drastically changed your mind to the point that you're now speaking in Fox-Newsese?

I mean, I suppose I don't understand how you could have voted for Gore and Kerry, and then somehow in the last 4 years the Democrats have become so extreme, shifted so much to "communistic and socialistic" policies, that they've scared you to being a Republican.

Which begs the question, what exactly has the Republican party done so right in the past 4 years to cause such a monumental ideological shift? Because honestly, I can't think of anything they've done right.

Unless you perversely find value in a botched war, increasingly exposed lies about the reason we went to war, increased casualties, seemingly daily exposes about corruptive policies and backhanding, Larry Craig and other Repub politicians caught saying one thing and doing another, Haliburton, the whole Plame/Libby fiasco, Abramoff, a completely screwed environmental policies, a recession, an energy crisis...


[/quote]

Ok, so because die hard lefty loons like you can't understand it, it's all bull.
Makes sense.
I don't feel it necessary to explain why I am no longer a registered democrat.  Just for fun, here's some reasons:

-Democrats started winning elections by espousing platforms entirely made up of the following statement:  Bush is wrong!  I'm not like Bush!
-They then proceeded to refuse to take a stand on issues and their entire campaign was empty and devoid of platform.
- When the democrat party took congress, I thought that they were going to actually do something - a sentiment shared by many americans.  They didn't.  They held witchhunt after witchhunt.  They approved massive pork barrel spending.  The ignored our immigration problem, our economy, the mortgage crisis, the weakening dollar, and the failing educational system while publicly hammering the president on the war (as well as all the other issues).  Ah yes, the war.  The one they were all going to end.  The one where things were going to change.  The war where people would be held accountable.  Tell me, what's changed about the war?  Nothing that the left promised would.  Of course, that didn't stop top democrat leaders like Murtha from accusing some of our soldiers, without evidence or a careful review of the charges, like Jeffrey Chessani of being murderers publicly.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67321

But we can forgive Murtha and the democrat party for not censuring him.  After all, Bush IS evil.
Moronic.
And Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi making statement about the mental facilities of our sitting President during war time?  That used to be grounds for removal of power.  Now it is all good.  Who cares what the world thinks about our nation when our democrat leaders say that our President is retarded?  It doesn't matter.  But when President Bush gives a speech, in Israel, to the kinesset, about not allowing terrorists to dictate the course of nations, it simply MUST be repudiated!  Who else but Obama could Bush possibly have been talking about?  Only the democrat party matters.  Ther rest of the world?  @#!* 'em.  No matter that the sentiment expressed is widely held in the region OR the fact that Israel is one nation who has been routinely attacked by terrorists since it's birth as a nation.  Democrat's are so self centered that they are blind.
More examples?  Ok.
For YEARS we heard how Bush had the lowest approval ratings ever.  Every day.  Then the democrat took congress.  And proceeded to earn the democrat congress the lowest approval rating in the history of congressional approval ratings.  And we didn't hear a peep.
Nancy Pelosi is a multi-millionaire because of shady land deals and pork projects.  Harry Reid is the same.  Clinton made something like 12 million dollars last year.  Yet they claim to care about the poor?  Please.  They care about pandering to the poor.
Alberto Gonzales get's investigated and harrassed but nothing is ever proved out and as a result, the democrats blame him for inefficiencies in the AG's office - an innefficiency they created with their harrassment, hearings, investigations, and empty accusations.  Yay!  The democrats got another minority out of the white house?  Let's all throw a donkey themed party!
Bush didn't "earn" me switching from a democrat to a republican.  Howard Dean and the Democrat party lost my confidence and pushed me away.
I understand that in your small world, only hate of President Bush is enough to motivate someone politically.  But in reality, more americans than you would like to believe think Bush isn't the worst President ever and that most democrats are the worst sort of politicians ever.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 21, 2008, 12:50:56 PM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through. 

Again, you're pure flame.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 21, 2008, 01:47:25 PM
I just love the argument that one can't care about "the poor" because one isn't poor themselves. 

I don't know why I'm feeding the flame, but that's just so profoundly retarded, especially coming from someone who said a few pages back that someone didn't have to be in the military to care about the war. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2008, 03:18:16 PM
now, now.  your comments show you not nearly patriotic as ol' blood-and-guts.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 21, 2008, 09:30:47 PM
never forget:  warmongering = patriotism.

not that easy?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 21, 2008, 09:59:05 PM
that must explain why republicans doing so well.

lol...and that must explain why democrats doing so well... :D :D :D

that must explain how a supposed "lame duck" president in the dusk of his "lame duck" tenure is STILL marching all over the dems with his enigmatic "w" policies?  and wrangler politique makes the 06' elected democrats look like quacks..


 :D :D :D :D quack...quack...quack...



Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 21, 2008, 10:04:22 PM
never forget:  warmongering = patriotism.

not that easy?

julie fern = warmonger
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 22, 2008, 04:54:34 AM
that must explain why republicans doing so well.

lol...and that must explain why democrats doing so well... :D :D :D

that must explain how a supposed "lame duck" president in the dusk of his "lame duck" tenure is STILL marching all over the dems with his enigmatic "w" policies? and wrangler politique makes the 06' elected democrats look like quacks..


 :D :D :D :D quack...quack...quack...





as julie say, you republican masquerading as obama supporter.

you fooling no one, duck-boy.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 22, 2008, 04:55:45 AM
never forget: warmongering = patriotism.

not that easy?

julie fern = warmonger

only in bizarro world, putz.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 22, 2008, 05:04:37 AM
never forget: warmongering = patriotism.

not that easy?

Did you not watch the video? ???

I didn't think there was anyone in the world for whom tribute.wmv would be unfamiliar.

julie not referring video.  julie referring numbnuts "patriots" on lsd.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 22, 2008, 01:58:12 PM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through. 

Again, you're pure flame.

So we 'care' about Bush, just not the words and actions of Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (to name a few).
My language is MY language.  Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am anything, especially the type of person who regurgitates instead of pays attention.
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder.  He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements.  It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.
I am talking about things the democrats 'failed' to do from exactly a citizens perspective.  Clearly, you get to pick and choose which leaders we criticize for lying to the public and doing wrong.  I don't see it that way.  I have observed that the campaign promises made to win power by the left have all turned out to be bald faced lies and your rebuttal is "I don't care."  BDS is a sad disease.
So tell me exactly what Reid, Pelosi or Murtha HAVE done then.  Because last I checked, 'most american's' are fed up with the democrat run congress - more so than in any time in history.
You sir/maam, are a hypocrite.  You seek to impugn Bush for what you think he did wrong (lie to the american people - which is in itself a lie) yet you forgive 'your side' for everything they have done (or not done).
It sounds like you are the flame.
Unless of course being a flame means being the person who gives his reasoned opinion and being a good little internet society member is mindlessly following popular opinion, no matter how baseless.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 22, 2008, 02:01:08 PM
I just love the argument that one can't care about "the poor" because one isn't poor themselves. 

I don't know why I'm feeding the flame, but that's just so profoundly retarded, especially coming from someone who said a few pages back that someone didn't have to be in the military to care about the war. 

Shrillary isn't poor.  But she also cares little for them, except when the time comes to try and get elected.
It isn't that they aren't poor, it's that they use their positions of power to obtain wealth for themselves while lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.
It stands to reason that if Senators make around $155k a year, at least a portion of her $12million dollar income could have gone to charity, and in large sums too.  Seems to me that would be an illustration of someone who cares about the poor.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 22, 2008, 03:41:47 PM
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder.  He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements.  It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.

I believe that he was talking about the Haditha incident, that he was referring to the 8 marines involved, and that his comments were vindicated by the actual facts.  But don't let that stop you.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 22, 2008, 03:49:59 PM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through.

Again, you're pure flame.

So we 'care' about Bush, just not the words and actions of Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (to name a few).
My language is MY language. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am anything, especially the type of person who regurgitates instead of pays attention.
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder. He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements. It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.
I am talking about things the democrats 'failed' to do from exactly a citizens perspective. Clearly, you get to pick and choose which leaders we criticize for lying to the public and doing wrong. I don't see it that way. I have observed that the campaign promises made to win power by the left have all turned out to be bald faced lies and your rebuttal is "I don't care." BDS is a sad disease.
So tell me exactly what Reid, Pelosi or Murtha HAVE done then. Because last I checked, 'most american's' are fed up with the democrat run congress - more so than in any time in history.
You sir/maam, are a hypocrite. You seek to impugn Bush for what you think he did wrong (lie to the american people - which is in itself a lie) yet you forgive 'your side' for everything they have done (or not done).
It sounds like you are the flame.
Unless of course being a flame means being the person who gives his reasoned opinion and being a good little internet society member is mindlessly following popular opinion, no matter how baseless.

no question, democrats far from perfect.  however, when party fail remedy problem, who cause problem?

exactly.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 22, 2008, 03:51:13 PM
I just love the argument that one can't care about "the poor" because one isn't poor themselves.

I don't know why I'm feeding the flame, but that's just so profoundly retarded, especially coming from someone who said a few pages back that someone didn't have to be in the military to care about the war.

Shrillary isn't poor. But she also cares little for them, except when the time comes to try and get elected.
It isn't that they aren't poor, it's that they use their positions of power to obtain wealth for themselves while lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.
It stands to reason that if Senators make around $155k a year, at least a portion of her $12million dollar income could have gone to charity, and in large sums too. Seems to me that would be an illustration of someone who cares about the poor.

you been spending too much time with bluecoward.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 22, 2008, 03:51:35 PM
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder. He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements. It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.

I believe that he was talking about the Haditha incident, that he was referring to the 8 marines involved, and that his comments were vindicated by the actual facts. But don't let that stop you.

hasn't so far!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 22, 2008, 05:49:24 PM
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder.  He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements.  It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.

I believe that he was talking about the Haditha incident, that he was referring to the 8 marines involved, and that his comments were vindicated by the actual facts.  But don't let that stop you.
He WAS talking about Haditha, but the facts have led to zero discipline, with most of the charges being dropped (so far).
As a matter of fact, they haven't managed to find ANYTHING that the soldiers did wrong.
Oops.
From wiki:
"As of June 17, 2008, defendants have either had their cases dropped due to lack of evidence and technicalities, or had been found not guilty, except for SSgt. Wuterich, whose trial date has been postponed."
It's all over the news and I expected a well informed individual such as yourself to have known that.
Still think it's okay to say:
"There was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." 

There was a firefight and to date, not one single charge has managed to stick.
But hey, go ahead and believe Murtha.  Who cares that he made a statement like that with virtually no information after relying purely on yellow journalism and written by liberals with an anti-war slant.  He said it, so as a democrat you are required to either forgive or forget.  Now had a Republican said it, then it would be front page news and now that almost all the charges have been dropped, we'd be hearing about the deplorable right who hates our troops.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 22, 2008, 05:53:02 PM
There was a firefight and to date, not one single charge has managed to stick.

They found OJ not guilty too.  ::shrug::
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 22, 2008, 06:03:13 PM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through.

Again, you're pure flame.

So we 'care' about Bush, just not the words and actions of Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (to name a few).
My language is MY language. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am anything, especially the type of person who regurgitates instead of pays attention.
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder. He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements. It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.
I am talking about things the democrats 'failed' to do from exactly a citizens perspective. Clearly, you get to pick and choose which leaders we criticize for lying to the public and doing wrong. I don't see it that way. I have observed that the campaign promises made to win power by the left have all turned out to be bald faced lies and your rebuttal is "I don't care." BDS is a sad disease.
So tell me exactly what Reid, Pelosi or Murtha HAVE done then. Because last I checked, 'most american's' are fed up with the democrat run congress - more so than in any time in history.
You sir/maam, are a hypocrite. You seek to impugn Bush for what you think he did wrong (lie to the american people - which is in itself a lie) yet you forgive 'your side' for everything they have done (or not done).
It sounds like you are the flame.
Unless of course being a flame means being the person who gives his reasoned opinion and being a good little internet society member is mindlessly following popular opinion, no matter how baseless.

no question, democrats far from perfect.  however, when party fail remedy problem, who cause problem?

exactly.

Naive and stupid statements like this hardly warrant a response.  Who said they were going to remedy a problem?  I mean, besides them.
They promised to get our troops out of Iraq and end the war by using the purse strings.  They didn't.  Believe it or not, not every american thinks that we should remove the troops (not even some of those who agree with you).
Do we start caring about whose fault it is for everything?
Ok.  The mortgage crisis came about because democrats in congress applied pressure to lenders to start passing out loans to the underpriveledged.  So they did.  When they didn't pay, lenders were left with way too much collateral and not enough cash.  Reality check - that alone is more to blame for a troubled economy than any Bush policy.  But it was democrats doing the work of the people, so we can't blame them!  They want what is best for us.
Gas prices are at an all time high.  Democrats have locked down the ability of private companies to drill for oil while blaming the oil companies for not doing anything to keep prices down.  It is estimated that there may be more oil untapped in the US and off our coasts to dwarf anything the middle east has.  But hey, let's give the dems a pass - they are out for our good.
Fuel efficiency isn't growing anymore.  Must be a republicans fault.  OR, we can look at the democratic legislation requiring safety equipment and crash test standards making our heavy cars heavier.
OR - we can stop playing the blame game and elect leaders who take a stand and do something.  Like it or not, that's one thing you can't pin on the Bush administration.  When someone needed to do something about Iraq, he stood firm even though it wasn't popular.  When Democrats wanted another hit and run ala desert storm, Bush stood firm to the idea that the right thing to do is stand up a free nation instead of dooming it to terror and fundamentalism so prevelant in the region.
My issue isn't with the problems we face.  We can and will overcome them as we have in history.  But to pardon liars who make bold assertions like "vote for me and I'll bring the troops home" and then they do nothing of the sort is simply ridiculous and shows, once again, how short sighted and agenda driven the left is in this country.  You set different standards for your leaders than you do for the opposition.
Sounds more like a coup than democracy to me.
The democrat party isn't perfect.  Neither is the Republican party.  But I hold firm to the idea that one cannot excuse one's own guy while indicting everyone else.
What 'problem'?  The war?  Even your guy won't bring home the troops.  To believe he will is naive and insane.  Obama wont.  He'll keep them there and you won't care because your messiah has been elected!  We can all feel good and hopeful because someone else lied their way into office.
Hope.  Change.  Empty promises.  Sound bites that have no weight or meaning.  
Spare me the high horse nonsense where we blame bush for everything and forgive the democrats in office who have screwed up everything they've touched since Carter.
Clinton co-opted the conservative agenda and most die hard democrats hated him for it.  So did many republicans.
Obama claims to be interested in working across the aisle yet can point to no incident where he in fact has done so.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 22, 2008, 06:04:37 PM
There was a firefight and to date, not one single charge has managed to stick.

They found OJ not guilty too.  ::shrug::

That's true.  But senators and congressmen didn't impugn him for it, nor did they declare his guilt.
Senators and congressmen should be just as liable for defamation of character as you and I.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on June 22, 2008, 06:16:09 PM
That's true.  But senators and congressmen didn't impugn him for it, nor did they declare his guilt.
Senators and congressmen should be just as liable for defamation of character as you and I.

Likely, those marines would not be considered public figures, so the standard for defamation would be negligence with regard to the facts.  The facts at the time were pretty clear and it's not Murtha's fault charges were later dropped.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 22, 2008, 07:00:46 PM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through. 

Again, you're pure flame.

So we 'care' about Bush, just not the words and actions of Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (to name a few).
My language is MY language.  Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am anything, especially the type of person who regurgitates instead of pays attention.
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder.  He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements.  It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.

They're not? You mean they haven't killed people, often innocent people? Abu Grahib? The Mahmudiyah killings? Oh wait, they're protecting the world from sectarian terrorists...I forget.

(Also, cue up the Kerry "international pariah" comments - those got a lot of run on the AM talk radio shows)

Quote
I am talking about things the democrats 'failed' to do from exactly a citizens perspective.  Clearly, you get to pick and choose which leaders we criticize for lying to the public and doing wrong.  I don't see it that way.  I have observed that the campaign promises made to win power by the left have all turned out to be bald faced lies and your rebuttal is "I don't care."  BDS is a sad disease.

Shocking - politicians are politicians.

Hint - I never made a claim about democratic politicians. I've merely pointed out how ridiculous your posts are, and why.

How was serving in Desert Storm, by the way? Military regularly take 15 year olds?

Quote
So tell me exactly what Reid, Pelosi or Murtha HAVE done then.  Because last I checked, 'most american's' are fed up with the democrat run congress - more so than in any time in history.

Yup, they haven't done a whole lot. Don't disagree with you here.

Quote
You sir/maam, are a hypocrite.  You seek to impugn Bush for what you think he did wrong (lie to the american people - which is in itself a lie) yet you forgive 'your side' for everything they have done (or not done).
It sounds like you are the flame.

Wait, where did I say that again - where did I "forgive my side?"

This is boring.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 22, 2008, 07:05:50 PM

Naive and stupid statements like this hardly warrant a response.  Who said they were going to remedy a problem?  I mean, besides them.
They promised to get our troops out of Iraq and end the war by using the purse strings.  They didn't.  Believe it or not, not every american thinks that we should remove the troops (not even some of those who agree with you).
Do we start caring about whose fault it is for everything?
Ok.  The mortgage crisis came about because democrats in congress applied pressure to lenders to start passing out loans to the underpriveledged.  So they did.  When they didn't pay, lenders were left with way too much collateral and not enough cash.  Reality check - that alone is more to blame for a troubled economy than any Bush policy.  But it was democrats doing the work of the people, so we can't blame them!  They want what is best for us.
Gas prices are at an all time high.  Democrats have locked down the ability of private companies to drill for oil while blaming the oil companies for not doing anything to keep prices down.  It is estimated that there may be more oil untapped in the US and off our coasts to dwarf anything the middle east has.  But hey, let's give the dems a pass - they are out for our good.
Fuel efficiency isn't growing anymore.  Must be a republicans fault.  OR, we can look at the democratic legislation requiring safety equipment and crash test standards making our heavy cars heavier..

Do you honestly know how ridiculous everything in this post is?

Can you even substantiate anything you've asserted? Please?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on June 22, 2008, 07:21:09 PM
Well, it's nice to know that in my week's absence I didn't miss the reason "Why Obama will lose in the fall."
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 23, 2008, 02:38:26 AM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through. 

Again, you're pure flame.

So we 'care' about Bush, just not the words and actions of Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (to name a few).
My language is MY language.  Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am anything, especially the type of person who regurgitates instead of pays attention.
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder.  He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements.  It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.

They're not? You mean they haven't killed people, often innocent people? Abu Grahib? The Mahmudiyah killings? Oh wait, they're protecting the world from sectarian terrorists...I forget.

(Also, cue up the Kerry "international pariah" comments - those got a lot of run on the AM talk radio shows)

Quote
I am talking about things the democrats 'failed' to do from exactly a citizens perspective.  Clearly, you get to pick and choose which leaders we criticize for lying to the public and doing wrong.  I don't see it that way.  I have observed that the campaign promises made to win power by the left have all turned out to be bald faced lies and your rebuttal is "I don't care."  BDS is a sad disease.

Shocking - politicians are politicians.

Hint - I never made a claim about democratic politicians. I've merely pointed out how ridiculous your posts are, and why.

How was serving in Desert Storm, by the way? Military regularly take 15 year olds?

Quote
So tell me exactly what Reid, Pelosi or Murtha HAVE done then.  Because last I checked, 'most american's' are fed up with the democrat run congress - more so than in any time in history.

Yup, they haven't done a whole lot. Don't disagree with you here.

Quote
You sir/maam, are a hypocrite.  You seek to impugn Bush for what you think he did wrong (lie to the american people - which is in itself a lie) yet you forgive 'your side' for everything they have done (or not done).
It sounds like you are the flame.

Wait, where did I say that again - where did I "forgive my side?"

This is boring.
Who died at abu gharib?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 04:51:45 AM
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder. He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements. It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.

I believe that he was talking about the Haditha incident, that he was referring to the 8 marines involved, and that his comments were vindicated by the actual facts. But don't let that stop you.
He WAS talking about Haditha, but the facts have led to zero discipline, with most of the charges being dropped (so far).
As a matter of fact, they haven't managed to find ANYTHING that the soldiers did wrong.
Oops.
From wiki:
"As of June 17, 2008, defendants have either had their cases dropped due to lack of evidence and technicalities, or had been found not guilty, except for SSgt. Wuterich, whose trial date has been postponed."
It's all over the news and I expected a well informed individual such as yourself to have known that.
Still think it's okay to say:
"There was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

There was a firefight and to date, not one single charge has managed to stick.
But hey, go ahead and believe Murtha. Who cares that he made a statement like that with virtually no information after relying purely on yellow journalism and written by liberals with an anti-war slant. He said it, so as a democrat you are required to either forgive or forget. Now had a Republican said it, then it would be front page news and now that almost all the charges have been dropped, we'd be hearing about the deplorable right who hates our troops.

wow, you quite whiny-ass titty baby.

julie notice you not have much say about many lies of preznit gump.  or, how about outing cia agent.

julie guessing not.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 04:54:38 AM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through.

Again, you're pure flame.

So we 'care' about Bush, just not the words and actions of Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (to name a few).
My language is MY language. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am anything, especially the type of person who regurgitates instead of pays attention.
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder. He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements. It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.
I am talking about things the democrats 'failed' to do from exactly a citizens perspective. Clearly, you get to pick and choose which leaders we criticize for lying to the public and doing wrong. I don't see it that way. I have observed that the campaign promises made to win power by the left have all turned out to be bald faced lies and your rebuttal is "I don't care." BDS is a sad disease.
So tell me exactly what Reid, Pelosi or Murtha HAVE done then. Because last I checked, 'most american's' are fed up with the democrat run congress - more so than in any time in history.
You sir/maam, are a hypocrite. You seek to impugn Bush for what you think he did wrong (lie to the american people - which is in itself a lie) yet you forgive 'your side' for everything they have done (or not done).
It sounds like you are the flame.
Unless of course being a flame means being the person who gives his reasoned opinion and being a good little internet society member is mindlessly following popular opinion, no matter how baseless.

no question, democrats far from perfect. however, when party fail remedy problem, who cause problem?

exactly.

Naive and stupid statements like this hardly warrant a response. Who said they were going to remedy a problem? I mean, besides them.
They promised to get our troops out of Iraq and end the war by using the purse strings. They didn't. Believe it or not, not every american thinks that we should remove the troops (not even some of those who agree with you).
Do we start caring about whose fault it is for everything?
Ok. The mortgage crisis came about because democrats in congress applied pressure to lenders to start passing out loans to the underpriveledged. So they did. When they didn't pay, lenders were left with way too much collateral and not enough cash. Reality check - that alone is more to blame for a troubled economy than any Bush policy. But it was democrats doing the work of the people, so we can't blame them! They want what is best for us.
Gas prices are at an all time high. Democrats have locked down the ability of private companies to drill for oil while blaming the oil companies for not doing anything to keep prices down. It is estimated that there may be more oil untapped in the US and off our coasts to dwarf anything the middle east has. But hey, let's give the dems a pass - they are out for our good.
Fuel efficiency isn't growing anymore. Must be a republicans fault. OR, we can look at the democratic legislation requiring safety equipment and crash test standards making our heavy cars heavier.
OR - we can stop playing the blame game and elect leaders who take a stand and do something. Like it or not, that's one thing you can't pin on the Bush administration. When someone needed to do something about Iraq, he stood firm even though it wasn't popular. When Democrats wanted another hit and run ala desert storm, Bush stood firm to the idea that the right thing to do is stand up a free nation instead of dooming it to terror and fundamentalism so prevelant in the region.
My issue isn't with the problems we face. We can and will overcome them as we have in history. But to pardon liars who make bold assertions like "vote for me and I'll bring the troops home" and then they do nothing of the sort is simply ridiculous and shows, once again, how short sighted and agenda driven the left is in this country. You set different standards for your leaders than you do for the opposition.
Sounds more like a coup than democracy to me.
The democrat party isn't perfect. Neither is the Republican party. But I hold firm to the idea that one cannot excuse one's own guy while indicting everyone else.
What 'problem'? The war? Even your guy won't bring home the troops. To believe he will is naive and insane. Obama wont. He'll keep them there and you won't care because your messiah has been elected! We can all feel good and hopeful because someone else lied their way into office.
Hope. Change. Empty promises. Sound bites that have no weight or meaning.
Spare me the high horse nonsense where we blame bush for everything and forgive the democrats in office who have screwed up everything they've touched since Carter.
Clinton co-opted the conservative agenda and most die hard democrats hated him for it. So did many republicans.
Obama claims to be interested in working across the aisle yet can point to no incident where he in fact has done so.


wow...absolutely everything fault of democrats!  thnaks clearing that up.

julie can see you having trouble adjusting your party's upcoming loss.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 04:57:21 AM
There was a firefight and to date, not one single charge has managed to stick.

They found OJ not guilty too. ::shrug::

That's true. But senators and congressmen didn't impugn him for it, nor did they declare his guilt.
Senators and congressmen should be just as liable for defamation of character as you and I.

and if they had sliver of case, one of your republican-whore groupssur3ely would
ve bribed one into suing.   so it must be non-slivery.

see how easy this?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 04:59:24 AM
Yeah, basically everything from that post I've heard ad nauseum from Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et al, for the past two years.

Your language is exactly their language. None of us really care about Pelosi, Reid, and Murtha - the conservative AM talk din certainly do.

And you're talking about things the democrats have supposedly "failed" to do from exactly a right-wing expectation and analysis. Your presuppositions show through.

Again, you're pure flame.

So we 'care' about Bush, just not the words and actions of Pelosi, Reid and Murtha (to name a few).
My language is MY language. Don't make the mistake of assuming that I am anything, especially the type of person who regurgitates instead of pays attention.
Murtha FLAT OUT accused members of our miltary of being GUILTY of murder. He did so without any evidence and with a total disregard for the weight of his statements. It bothers me greatly that you admit that 'none' of you care about that.

They're not? You mean they haven't killed people, often innocent people? Abu Grahib? The Mahmudiyah killings? Oh wait, they're protecting the world from sectarian terrorists...I forget.

(Also, cue up the Kerry "international pariah" comments - those got a lot of run on the AM talk radio shows)

Quote
I am talking about things the democrats 'failed' to do from exactly a citizens perspective. Clearly, you get to pick and choose which leaders we criticize for lying to the public and doing wrong. I don't see it that way. I have observed that the campaign promises made to win power by the left have all turned out to be bald faced lies and your rebuttal is "I don't care." BDS is a sad disease.

Shocking - politicians are politicians.

Hint - I never made a claim about democratic politicians. I've merely pointed out how ridiculous your posts are, and why.

How was serving in Desert Storm, by the way? Military regularly take 15 year olds?

Quote
So tell me exactly what Reid, Pelosi or Murtha HAVE done then. Because last I checked, 'most american's' are fed up with the democrat run congress - more so than in any time in history.

Yup, they haven't done a whole lot. Don't disagree with you here.

Quote
You sir/maam, are a hypocrite. You seek to impugn Bush for what you think he did wrong (lie to the american people - which is in itself a lie) yet you forgive 'your side' for everything they have done (or not done).
It sounds like you are the flame.

Wait, where did I say that again - where did I "forgive my side?"

This is boring.
Who died at abu gharib?


some prisoners, forrest.  just some worthless human beings who, surely, were guilty.  after all, it not like they not have trial.


..........um, oops!.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 23, 2008, 08:26:44 AM
Who died at abu gharib?


We're done.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 08:28:51 AM
now now, not be so hard on him.  right wingnuts must face world that changed around them.  now they actually get challenged on what they say, now and then.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Freak on June 23, 2008, 08:32:01 AM
There was a firefight and to date, not one single charge has managed to stick.

They found OJ not guilty too.  ::shrug::

That's true.  But senators and congressmen didn't impugn him for it, nor did they declare his guilt.
Senators and congressmen should be just as liable for defamation of character as you and I.

No, they have immunity on the debate floor for a reason....Just like lawyers and Judges in court.... Start regulating speech in Congress and kiss Democracy bye-bye.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 08:34:34 AM
murtha's comments on floor of house or in committee?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 23, 2008, 10:59:05 AM
murtha's comments on floor of house or in committee?

To the press and not on the floor or in committe.

And only one prisoner died.
One.
And Abu Gharib wasn't the government's fault entirely, it was due to a few bad soldiers.  Is this enough to indict the President?  Nonsense.  He had no control over a prison facility that would have or could have prevented this.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 11:15:33 AM
murtha's comments on floor of house or in committee?

To the press and not on the floor or in committe.

And only one prisoner died.
One.
And Abu Gharib wasn't the government's fault entirely, it was due to a few bad soldiers. Is this enough to indict the President? Nonsense. He had no control over a prison facility that would have or could have prevented this.

one we know of.  that problem with liars running government.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 23, 2008, 11:54:06 AM
murtha's comments on floor of house or in committee?

To the press and not on the floor or in committe.

And only one prisoner died.
One.
And Abu Gharib wasn't the government's fault entirely, it was due to a few bad soldiers.  Is this enough to indict the President?  Nonsense.  He had no control over a prison facility that would have or could have prevented this.

I suggest you reread the accounts of what happened.

To blow this off as no big deal - as you seem to be trying to do - is the mark of a pathetic, ignorant fool.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Freak on June 23, 2008, 02:08:23 PM
murtha's comments on floor of house or in committee?

To the press and not on the floor or in committe.

And only one prisoner died.
One.
And Abu Gharib wasn't the government's fault entirely, it was due to a few bad soldiers.  Is this enough to indict the President?  Nonsense.  He had no control over a prison facility that would have or could have prevented this.

To the press = no immunity, but slander is a generally a civil action (meaning the person slandered must bring suit) and quite difficult to win. Truth is always a defense and sometimes the plaintiff even has to prove the statements were lies.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 23, 2008, 03:26:53 PM


one we know of.  that problem with liars running government.

Cannot apologize for liars, I would point out however that Hillary is an accomplished prevaricator.  No need to go into Bill's hundreds of equivocations.

Hillary's admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 04:28:48 PM


one we know of. that problem with liars running government.

Cannot apologize for liars, I would point out however that Hillary is an accomplished prevaricator. No need to go into Bill's hundreds of equivocations.

Hillary's admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

hahaha.  that really best you got?

and everybody see how little you want talk about preznit gump.

and you wonder why gop brand in gutter...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 23, 2008, 05:28:40 PM
murtha's comments on floor of house or in committee?

To the press and not on the floor or in committe.

And only one prisoner died.
One.
And Abu Gharib wasn't the government's fault entirely, it was due to a few bad soldiers.  Is this enough to indict the President?  Nonsense.  He had no control over a prison facility that would have or could have prevented this.

I suggest you reread the accounts of what happened.

To blow this off as no big deal - as you seem to be trying to do - is the mark of a pathetic, ignorant fool.

I tried to find more data, but couldn't.  All I could find was one casualty.  One death.  There were instances of abuse and torture, but you made a statemnt that implied that multiple people died when you said:
"You mean they haven't killed people, often innocent people? Abu Grahib? "

By the way, how do you not kill innocent people when your enemy dresses like the general population and hides among and behind them?  And you are aware that war results in unintended innocent casualties, aren't you?  Like, all of them have?  Or did you think that in WW2, only nazi, japanese military, and Allied service members died?  Perhaps you think that during war, a military can take precautions that eliminate the probability that anyone not in a uniform dies?
Murtha, in his anger towards Bush and lack of support for our military, presumed our soldiers guilty even though he had no direct evidence that the servicemen involved in Haditha had done anything wrong.  He convicted them before they had a chance to respond to their charges.  This from a man who served in the military.  This from a man who claims to be fully supportive of our troops.
I don't take this casually, but I don't connect one prisoner death in abu gharib with Bush, the war effort, our everyday soldiers, or our national leadership.  I believe this was a few bad eggs, all of whom were broken.  To constantly lump every operational issue on President Bush is like doing the same to the head of an investment brokerage when a trader gets arrested for fraud.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on June 23, 2008, 05:30:14 PM


one we know of. that problem with liars running government.

Cannot apologize for liars, I would point out however that Hillary is an accomplished prevaricator. No need to go into Bill's hundreds of equivocations.

Hillary's admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

hahaha.  that really best you got?

and everybody see how little you want talk about preznit gump.

and you wonder why gop brand in gutter...

listen old boy, i've never claimed i'm a republican, or that i give a toss what happens to the grand old party in the fall.  i am certainly not a bush apologist. at best some of what he has done is incompetent (management of the war leaps to mind).   i just find the manner in which people rail against this administration for cloaking itself in secrecy and lies while avidly supporting an accomplished liar like hillary completely contradictory. all politicians lie, few lie as naturally as bill and hillary.  and if you think that's just partisan crap, i'm paraphrasing david geffen, who is, last i checked, not a card carrying conservative. most liberals find the double standard totally acceptable. race is yet another perfect illustration of this.  one misstep by a conservative and liberals scream for blood.  one of theirs can wallow in some of the most ridiculous racial invective and it's somehow less offensive, somehow easier to explain. b.s. is b.s. no matter what side of the political spectrum generates it. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 23, 2008, 06:07:37 PM
if you not gump apologist, you sure spend lost time defending his loathsome policies.  what difference, anyway, and who care?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 24, 2008, 10:11:19 AM
if you not gump apologist, you sure spend lost time defending his loathsome policies.  what difference, anyway, and who care?

Who cares?  That's funny - that's how I feel about you....
 ::)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 24, 2008, 02:52:17 PM
point you missing, forrest, that your position obviously very pro-loathesome.  so, what point of claiming you not republican?  julie think this simply recognition of complete loss of gop reputation.

get used disappointment.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on June 24, 2008, 04:24:44 PM
point you missing, forrest, that your position obviously very pro-loathesome.  so, what point of claiming you not republican?  julie think this simply recognition of complete loss of gop reputation.

get used disappointment.

I was a card carrying member of the democrat party.  I voted for Gore, then Kerry.  It seems to me that the party losing reputation, at the very least in my life, is the party of donkey's.

I am more libertarian than anything else, but if given the choice between a marxist leftist, with a sordid past and ties to reprehensible people, who intends to raise taxes, raid legal, privately earned profits to pay for fantasy programs that expand the power of government, and negotiate with terrorist nations without preconditions and an old, politically confused war hero, I'm going with the war hero.
One of us is going to be very dissapointed when the election results come back.
Side note : I find it ironic that you call me 'forrest' in an attempt to say that I am retarded (or just slow), yet you don't use complete sentences (or thoughts, for that matter).
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 24, 2008, 08:30:34 PM
point you missing, forrest, that your position obviously very pro-loathesome. so, what point of claiming you not republican? julie think this simply recognition of complete loss of gop reputation.

get used disappointment.

I was a card carrying member of the democrat party. I voted for Gore, then Kerry. It seems to me that the party losing reputation, at the very least in my life, is the party of donkey's.

I am more libertarian than anything else, but if given the choice between a marxist leftist, with a sordid past and ties to reprehensible people, who intends to raise taxes, raid legal, privately earned profits to pay for fantasy programs that expand the power of government, and negotiate with terrorist nations without preconditions and an old, politically confused war hero, I'm going with the war hero.
One of us is going to be very dissapointed when the election results come back.
Side note : I find it ironic that you call me 'forrest' in an attempt to say that I am retarded (or just slow), yet you don't use complete sentences (or thoughts, for that matter).


not mock handicapped, forrest.

and you can drop sock puppet routine.  you gump's boy, that for sure.

p.s.  democrats not carry cards.  maybe that subway discount card.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 24, 2008, 08:57:22 PM
and this one for you, cupcake:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll25-2008jun25,0,5763707.story
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 25, 2008, 08:46:01 AM
I just love the argument that one can't care about "the poor" because one isn't poor themselves. 

I don't know why I'm feeding the flame, but that's just so profoundly retarded, especially coming from someone who said a few pages back that someone didn't have to be in the military to care about the war. 

Shrillary isn't poor.  But she also cares little for them, except when the time comes to try and get elected.
It isn't that they aren't poor, it's that they use their positions of power to obtain wealth for themselves while lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.
It stands to reason that if Senators make around $155k a year, at least a portion of her $12million dollar income could have gone to charity, and in large sums too.  Seems to me that would be an illustration of someone who cares about the poor.

I don't recall Hillary lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.  That's nothing more than a Robin Hood fantasy that gives fat old white men something to female dog about at the counter of their local diner, as though any of them have enough money for the government to make off with. 

I do recall Hillary, and every other politican with a brain, lashing out at the concept of the rich getting richer at the expense of average working Americans.  If you disagree with that concept, fine, but to say that the Clintons don't give money to charity is a ridiculous and easily refutable statement.   
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 25, 2008, 09:11:17 AM
I just love the argument that one can't care about "the poor" because one isn't poor themselves. 

I don't know why I'm feeding the flame, but that's just so profoundly retarded, especially coming from someone who said a few pages back that someone didn't have to be in the military to care about the war. 

Shrillary isn't poor.  But she also cares little for them, except when the time comes to try and get elected.
It isn't that they aren't poor, it's that they use their positions of power to obtain wealth for themselves while lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.
It stands to reason that if Senators make around $155k a year, at least a portion of her $12million dollar income could have gone to charity, and in large sums too.  Seems to me that would be an illustration of someone who cares about the poor.

I don't recall Hillary lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.  That's nothing more than a Robin Hood fantasy that gives fat old white men something to female dog about at the counter of their local diner, as though any of them have enough money for the government to make off with. 

I do recall Hillary, and every other politican with a brain, lashing out at the concept of the rich getting richer at the expense of average working Americans.  If you disagree with that concept, fine, but to say that the Clintons don't give money to charity is a ridiculous and easily refutable statement.   

Saxby, do you believe that in the last two decades the rich have been getting richer at the expense of average working Americans?


   
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 25, 2008, 09:13:00 AM
Yes. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 25, 2008, 09:17:55 AM
Yes. 

Is your opinion based on GDP per capita? Income per capita or income per family?  Or is it based on standard of living?   Is it your opinion that the average hard working americans were better off in 1989 than they are now?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 25, 2008, 09:22:04 AM
::cue highly suspect stats showing that, somehow, the rich have been losing revenue while the average American has prospered::

Oh IrrX.  Do you have a field of expertise besides internet porn and cooking?
I'm not going to try to convince you that the rich are getting poorer and the poor are getting richer.  The standard of living has gone up in the last 20 years for the average person in nearly every socioeconomic group.

The poor are healthier in almost all areas aside from obesity
cars are nicer, cheaper, and safer
appliances and entertainment technology are available to nearly everyone
almost everyone has access to a cell phone
computers are highly available to far more people, and the internet provides free instruction and education to millions of people.
Opportunities to work at home have increased drastically


EDIT
I want to urge people to carefully define what "rich" and "poor" mean.  If I make less money adjusted for inflation that my parents did at my age, then am I poorer?  What if I have more stuff?  What if I have far more access to education, technology, and career choices?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 25, 2008, 09:30:10 AM
::cue highly suspect stats showing that, somehow, the rich have been losing revenue while the average American has prospered::

Oh IrrX.  Do you have a field of expertise besides internet porn and cooking?

Several. And, surprisingly enough "internet porn" isn't one of them.

I'm not going to try to convince you that the rich are getting poorer and the poor are getting richer.  The standard of living has gone up in the last 20 years for the average person in nearly every socioeconomic group.

The poor are healthier in almost all areas aside from obesity
cars are nicer, cheaper, and safer
appliances and entertainment technology are available to nearly everyone
almost everyone has access to a cell phone
computers are highly available to far more people, and the internet provides free instruction and education to millions of people.
Opportunities to work at home have increased drastically

Apparently, my assertion wasn't in the slightest incorrect.


So do you think that the "poor" were better off in 1989 than they have been in this decade?

(Oh, and in late 2007 and early 2008, the rich have been getting poorer)

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 25, 2008, 09:37:01 AM
Apparently, my assertion wasn't in the slightest incorrect.


So do you think that the "poor" were better off in 1989 than they have been in this decade?

(Oh, and in late 2007 and early 2008, the rich have been getting poorer)

It doesn't matter what I think. It only matters that you and your argument style are so predictable that I could call a shot like that. The Babe would be proud.

I'm glad that you've come to know me so well.  My argument style is predictable because I like to give people the opportunity to present arguments for their idealistic beliefs.  I'm not trying to draw you or saxby into a statistics trap.  I want saxby to come up with a justification for the idea that the rich are getting richer at the average hard working american's expense.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 25, 2008, 09:40:38 AM
I get my ass kicked every time I argue with people on this forum about social/moral issues.

Traditional family... ass kicked
The fading of racism....ass kicked
gay marriage......ass kicked
abortion......ass kicked

Why?  Because I really don't have the stats or the legal info to back up my arguments.

But everytime you guys step onto my playing field and argue with me about finance and the economy you just seem to leave all evidence, common sense, and logical arguments at the door.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 25, 2008, 09:49:16 AM
I just love the argument that one can't care about "the poor" because one isn't poor themselves. 

I don't know why I'm feeding the flame, but that's just so profoundly retarded, especially coming from someone who said a few pages back that someone didn't have to be in the military to care about the war. 

Shrillary isn't poor.  But she also cares little for them, except when the time comes to try and get elected.
It isn't that they aren't poor, it's that they use their positions of power to obtain wealth for themselves while lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.
It stands to reason that if Senators make around $155k a year, at least a portion of her $12million dollar income could have gone to charity, and in large sums too.  Seems to me that would be an illustration of someone who cares about the poor.

I don't recall Hillary lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.  That's nothing more than a Robin Hood fantasy that gives fat old white men something to female dog about at the counter of their local diner, as though any of them have enough money for the government to make off with. 

I do recall Hillary, and every other politican with a brain, lashing out at the concept of the rich getting richer at the expense of average working Americans.  If you disagree with that concept, fine, but to say that the Clintons don't give money to charity is a ridiculous and easily refutable statement.   

Saxby, do you believe that in the last two decades the rich have been getting richer at the expense of average working Americans?
   

This is surprising?

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jack24 on June 25, 2008, 09:52:43 AM
I just love the argument that one can't care about "the poor" because one isn't poor themselves. 

I don't know why I'm feeding the flame, but that's just so profoundly retarded, especially coming from someone who said a few pages back that someone didn't have to be in the military to care about the war. 

Shrillary isn't poor.  But she also cares little for them, except when the time comes to try and get elected.
It isn't that they aren't poor, it's that they use their positions of power to obtain wealth for themselves while lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.
It stands to reason that if Senators make around $155k a year, at least a portion of her $12million dollar income could have gone to charity, and in large sums too.  Seems to me that would be an illustration of someone who cares about the poor.

I don't recall Hillary lashing out against the evil companies making money and not generously donating it to the cause of the day.  That's nothing more than a Robin Hood fantasy that gives fat old white men something to female dog about at the counter of their local diner, as though any of them have enough money for the government to make off with. 

I do recall Hillary, and every other politican with a brain, lashing out at the concept of the rich getting richer at the expense of average working Americans.  If you disagree with that concept, fine, but to say that the Clintons don't give money to charity is a ridiculous and easily refutable statement.   

Saxby, do you believe that in the last two decades the rich have been getting richer at the expense of average working Americans?
   

This is surprising?



First:  Irrx... I'm a glutton for punishment, so feel free to roll back your benevolence.   :)


And t...  I think the rich have done a great job of utilizing technology and the workforce to get richer... I do not, however, believe that the poor have seen a reduced standard of living over the last 20 years. 

(Edit)  The middle or upper middle class have not seen a reduced standard of living either.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on June 25, 2008, 10:01:20 AM
I think you're confusing what I meant by "at the expense."  I didn't mean Donald Trump was going into the inner city and evicting single mothers so he could build a new hotel where their houses once stood. 

One example might be the astronomical profits being reaped by big oil while parents are having to dock their minivans to buy 1989 Dodge Shadows on eBay because they can't afford gas.

I don't know whether or not "poor" people have it better or worse now than they did in 1989.  I don't know if that's something you can effectively measure with general statistics.  While I'm not currently poor and was seven years old in 1989, I still can't say that I see an enormous difference in conditions for the poor in 1989 and 2008. 

That seems only slightly less awful than if things had taken a significant, noticeable change for the worse.   
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: t... on June 25, 2008, 10:05:05 AM
Well, I'll admit I'm not an expert. I read the catchy newspaper headlines that cite new studies as to "more millionaires than ever," "rich getting richer, poor getting poorer," and "shrinking of the middle class" and so forth. And I admit most of these headline studies are probably hollow.

I do look around and pay attention to people in my community and state, and for the most part, life is getting harder.

I don't think it's as simple as how much we now earn, even if that's adjusted to inflation. Life just costs more today - insurance (health, auto, home, fire, life, flood, etc.), gas, food, your mortgage, your two automobiles, a cell phone, wardrobe, kids, tuition, student loans, utilities, daily/monthly/yearly fees, and on and on.

Life has become more complicated, and with that complication (or convenience) comes an increased price tag. I'm amazed at how many bills I have and I have absolutely zero responsibilities right now.

I also think the increasing influence of credit and credit debt are a significant factor.

I think the argument that lifestyle choices could be improved has merit. I think the argument that we (perhaps) enjoy a finer standard of life than previously has merit (though defining a "better" standard of life is always problematic). But I also think that, yes, there is a increasing class and socioeconomic gap that is very real, and that the rich do indeed get richer at the expense of other people (after all, is that not how capitalism fundamentally works?).

This is mostly rhetoric and observation on my part, so...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on June 25, 2008, 10:49:17 AM
Apparently, my assertion wasn't in the slightest incorrect.


So do you think that the "poor" were better off in 1989 than they have been in this decade?

(Oh, and in late 2007 and early 2008, the rich have been getting poorer)

It doesn't matter what I think. It only matters that you and your argument style are so predictable that I could call a shot like that. The Babe would be proud.

col. mustard in library with wrench.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Freak on June 25, 2008, 10:49:30 AM
So????

Capitalism actually creates wealth...(i.e. A/C in homes and cars, refrigeration, leisure time etc....) Money is actually a poor measure of wealth.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on July 25, 2008, 07:08:34 AM
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-latino-votersjul25,0,1084688.story

chicagotribune.com
Study: Latino voters prefer Obama
Survey sees GOP losing its inroads made since 1990s
By Katie Fretland

Washington Bureau

July 25, 2008

 WASHINGTON — Juana Marquez very much wanted to cast her first vote in a United States presidential election for Hillary Clinton.

Marquez, 19, of Washington immigrated to the United States from El Salvador five years ago. She, as well as her sisters, brother and parents, favored the senator from New York, who to them symbolized support for the Latino community.

"We all wanted Hillary," Marquez said Thursday with a wistful laugh. When Clinton lost, she said, "my mom cried, 'Why, why, why?' "

But Marquez, like many Latino voters across the country, is now leaning toward voting for the presumptive Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, while the rest of her family has definitively decided he will be their candidate. Latino registered voters prefer Obama over Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, by 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a national study released Thursday by the Pew Hispanic Center.

The presidential candidates are battling for the Hispanic vote, which could play a key role in four expected battleground states: Florida, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

"In some states that are going to be central to who will be the next president, Hispanics will play a major role," said Christopher Hull, a political scholar at Georgetown University. "The Hispanic vote is going to be crucial geographically."

Supporting Democrats

Nationwide, more than three-fourths of Latinos who voted for Clinton during the primary season now support Obama, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a non-partisan research organization. During the Democratic primaries, Latino voters favored Clinton nearly 2-1.

A growing proportion of Latinos also are now supporting the Democratic Party, a trend that mirrors the general population, said Mark Hugo Lopez, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center. A smaller share of Latino voters support McCain than supported President George W. Bush in the 2004 election against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Pew reported that 65 percent of Latino registered voters support the Democratic Party, compared with 26 percent who said they support the GOP. The 39 percentage-point edge is larger now than at any time in 10 years, Lopez said.

"On one hand, the Democratic candidate can make a case that the Democratic Party has been more friendly to Hispanics on Immigration reform," Hull said. "On the other hand, McCain has his own claim that he led the charge for amnesty for illegal immigrants."

McCain, a border state senator, has backed comprehensive Immigration reform, arguing for both better security at the border and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

But many Latinos report dissatisfaction with Bush, and this year a larger percentage says the direction of the country has worsened for Hispanics, according to Pew.

Questions of race

The majority of Latinos polled say that race would not help or hinder Obama or McCain. However, some observers say a historic tension between the Latino and African-American communities may have caused many Latino voters to originally back Clinton.

Rafael Alfaro, 46, of Washington has been a loyal Democratic voter in two presidential elections since coming to the United States. But for the first time, he said he does not know whom to vote for. Clinton was his preference.

Alfaro said he has noticed reluctance among Latino voters to vote for a black candidate.

"They don't say it, but it is true," he said.

In the Pew survey, 53 percent of Latino voters said Obama's race makes no difference to the Latino vote, 32 percent said it will help him and 11 percent said it will hurt him.

Little favor for Bush

The survey also indicated that 76 percent of registered Latino voters have a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with 73 percent for Clinton, 44 percent for McCain and 27 percent for Bush.

It also found that registered Hispanic voters rank education as the most important issue of the campaign, followed by the cost of living, jobs and health care.

Latinos make up about 15 percent of the United States population and 9 percent of eligible voters.

kfretland@tribune.com

Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on July 25, 2008, 01:44:01 PM
of course they do.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on July 26, 2008, 10:28:54 PM
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-latino-votersjul25,0,1084688.story

Alfaro said he has noticed reluctance among Latino voters to vote for a black candidate.

"They don't say it, but it is true," he said.


 



This is precisely what I am talking about.  Racism isn't socially acceptable.  Obviously most hispanics wouldn't admit to racist attitudes in a survey.  The professor seems to confirm my initial point which was that hispanic voters will play a crucial role in the upcoming election, a point you disagreed with Miss P.  I think many hispanics will allow their prejudices to speak for them at the ballot box, but they would never admit to not voting for Obama because he is black.  Incidentally, I think McCain might have a far better chance than I initially did after watching Obama in Europe.  What a treacle mess!  And note his poll numbers have actually gone down.  I was completely resigned to the fact that the repubs would lose their shirts in the upcoming election (and in many ways they deserve to) but I think once again the demos might be orchestrating another one of their colossal meltdowns.  glorious to watch.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Procedure on July 26, 2008, 10:45:11 PM
I hate to admit it, but a meltdown is always possible.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on July 26, 2008, 10:49:05 PM
I hate to admit it, but a meltdown is always possible.

Yeah, I'm not all that convinced Obama is going to win.  I am entirely convinced that it won't be the Latino and Asian-American votes that do him in, though.  Thanks for playing, Vercingetorix.

ETA:

The professor seems to confirm my initial point which was that hispanic voters will play a crucial role in the upcoming election, a point you disagreed with Miss P.

I do not believe the bolded is an accurate characterization of my remarks.  I disagreed with your conclusion that Latino racism would play a crucial role in the upcoming election.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on July 26, 2008, 10:51:45 PM
I was a little disturbed at the stories suggesting he might pick that Republican woman for VP.

I'm fairly certain he won't, but yikes...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Procedure on July 26, 2008, 10:54:04 PM
I hate to admit it, but a meltdown is always possible.

Yeah, I'm not all that convinced Obama is going to win.  I am entirely convinced that it won't be the Latino and Asian-American votes that do him in, though.  Thanks for playing, Vercingetorix.

I mean, I hope he does, but the Repubs are a formidable misinformation-nonsequiter-distract-you-from-the-issues machine.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on July 26, 2008, 10:56:16 PM
And Obama's not all that hard-hitting on the issues, either, so he makes it pretty easy.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on July 26, 2008, 10:57:41 PM
I was a little disturbed at the stories suggesting he might pick that Republican woman for VP.

I'm fairly certain he won't, but yikes...

Yes.  Seriously, gag me.  I will not vote for him if he pulls any kind of stunt like this (including both that Agriculture Secretary and Hagel).
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on July 26, 2008, 11:02:55 PM
I really wish they'd both just announce something already and stop leaking stories trying to steal each other's thunder.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on July 26, 2008, 11:16:07 PM
my decision isn't so much voting for obama as it is voting "not bush: the sequel." other options exist, but as anyone knows only the dems and repubs count in any general election, and anyone else is a distraction the dems and repubs put up with because they take votes from the other guy.

Right.  I'm just not going to vote for the Dems because they're not the Repubs if they insist on blurring the distinction -- which at this point is their main selling point.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on July 26, 2008, 11:17:27 PM
my decision isn't so much voting for obama as it is voting "not bush: the sequel." other options exist, but as anyone knows only the dems and repubs count in any general election, and anyone else is a distraction the dems and repubs put up with because they take votes from the other guy.

Right.  I'm just not going to vote for the Dems because they're not the Repubs if they insist on blurring the distinction -- which at this point is their main selling point.

Seconded. 

They can only expect me to be a good Democrat for so long...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Procedure on July 26, 2008, 11:46:17 PM
And Obama's not all that hard-hitting on the issues, either, so he makes it pretty easy.

This is true, but who is hard hitting on the issues?  Politics is a waste of time.  It's a popularity contest between two equally unsympathetic characters.  I dont vote usually, unless i'm particularly moved AGAINST a candidate like in 2004 against Bush.  This election comes down to not wanting Bush III in office, so I'll vote for whoever is running against him. Hell, I'd vote for Mickey Mouse or Tyrone Biggums over McCain.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on July 27, 2008, 12:29:21 PM
And Obama's not all that hard-hitting on the issues, either, so he makes it pretty easy.

This is true, but who is hard hitting on the issues?  Politics is a waste of time.  It's a popularity contest between two equally unsympathetic characters.  I dont vote usually, unless i'm particularly moved AGAINST a candidate like in 2004 against Bush.  This election comes down to not wanting Bush III in office, so I'll vote for whoever is running against him. Hell, I'd vote for Mickey Mouse or Tyrone Biggums over McCain.

Although I can see why some people would have seen it as being presumptuous or inappropriate, I didn't really have a problem with Obama's European tour.  I think most senators would benefit from taking more trips abroad. 

What worried me is that the European media seem to have caught on that Obama never really says anything of substance.  I'm concerned the whole big, hopefully rally thing is going to wear out its welcome and the debates are going to kill him. 

I just hope McCain picks Romney so that if he wins, at least they'll be something to look at for the next four years.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on July 30, 2008, 07:42:50 PM
the first domino?  i'm beginning to think that although the repubs are doomed in congress they might actually take the white house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068_pf.html

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on July 30, 2008, 07:47:46 PM
this all you got?  from dana friggin' "let me just make this up as i go along" millbank?

keep whistlinhg in dark, sweetie.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on July 30, 2008, 07:53:54 PM
dude, the right hates Dana Milbank.  he's a bona fide pinko Pelosi lover in their book.
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200407130823.asp
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on July 30, 2008, 08:14:28 PM
the first domino?  i'm beginning to think that although the repubs are doomed in congress they might actually take the white house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068_pf.html



this was predicted back in 2002...no dem til 2012...unless independents like him or her. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on July 31, 2008, 05:08:04 AM
dude, the right hates Dana Milbank. he's a bona fide pinko Pelosi lover in their book.
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200407130823.asp


dude, he getting no love from progessives lately.  his distortion of obama quotes regarding europe make him look very, very bad.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on July 31, 2008, 05:08:56 AM
the first domino? i'm beginning to think that although the repubs are doomed in congress they might actually take the white house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068_pf.html



this was predicted back in 2002...no dem til 2012...unless independents like him or her.

what insight!  independents matter!

you such dipshit.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 02, 2008, 09:31:49 PM
no archie bunker...that is not the insight...that is not the prediction...here, aye will s p e l l out for you...the prediction that the dems won't be in the white house until 2012...

if the democrat congress doesn't make a move for off shore oil drilling...there will NOT be a so-called democrat in the white house until 2016...wake up, mr. bunker...



the first domino? i'm beginning to think that although the repubs are doomed in congress they might actually take the white house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068_pf.html



this was predicted back in 2002...no dem til 2012...unless independents like him or her.

what insight!  independents matter!

you such dipshit.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 02, 2008, 09:33:36 PM
the discussion of what the other guy is doing is a big problem...this is part of the "democratic party psychological" paradigm aye have been trying to convey...in addition...aye point out that focusing on the negatives {which many of you are doing} in this election process and how the 527's {among others}...are baiting the democrats increases internet chatter...then the negatives are compounded geometrically...so a rumor becomes the issue in this day and age...it morphs into an issue...so by all means...suggest something negative about obama and keep it going...or take the bait and run with the negative story...the democrats are going to implode on themselves and take a fine "independent" candidate most certainly out of the posturing for the white house until 2012...

keep it up...keep complaining...keep complaining...keep complaining...keep complaining...

we indigos don't care whether it is barack or john...in either case...we win...understand...

this is the democrat party's election to lose...not obamas...obama can only get the ball so far...and thanks to their buddies hiliary and bubba...and their own naysaying...just like the naysayers re: iraq and bush...the naysayers will lose...

not too mention the more important point which most of you will pretend to ignore...except archie fern bunker...who will probably just tell this uppity trini that aye just need to get a comb through my hair and everything will be fine...

florida...penna...and ohio will decide this election...nothing else...no speeches in california stadiums..nor visits to germany...only stumps and hard campaigning in florida and pennsylvania and ohio will win this commander in chief position...

ps...the congressional democrats should sign off on the offshore drilling or this election is in the bag for the independent candidate...don't say aye didn't warn you...again...aye haven't predicted wrong yet...


px.o.rsta
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 02, 2008, 11:20:39 PM
hey, numbnuts, you predict thompson be gop nominee.

go back your goat.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 05, 2008, 08:39:09 PM
um...that was a joke, mr. archie bunker.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 05, 2008, 08:39:34 PM
barak but especially the democrat congress has to be in full support of offshore oil drilling and opening up drilling in alaska or else the election will be a sweeping victory for the independent, john mccain...

aye haven't been wrong yet.

ps. baraks support for opening up emergency and security resivoir oil is not prudent...that is not the reserve purpose
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on August 05, 2008, 09:26:38 PM
barak but especially the democrat congress has to be in full support of offshore oil drilling and opening up drilling in alaska or else the election will be a sweeping victory for the independent, john mccain...

aye haven't been wrong yet.

ps. baraks support for opening up emergency and security resivoir oil is not prudent...that is not the reserve purpose

There is so much wrong with this statement. I choose to have a little more confidence in people's ability to see through shallow political posturing, which is exactly what this offshore drilling issue is. I predict that the Republicans will hold on to this issue all the way up to election day, since they seem to know that it might be the only issue on which they have an edge in the polling. McCain seemed to realize this, and switched his stance on the issue, conveniently right after he was given a bunch of contributions by the oil industry. My wish? That voters see the issue for what it is: an action that will do nothing more but put on a good show and give more handouts to Big Oil.

Also, you might have been able to call McCain an Independent a few years ago (perhaps up to 2004 - Kerry even approached him for the VP slot, knowing that he had become disenfranchised with the GOP), but his recent changes of heart on a whole bunch of issues have really tarnished his "maverick" reputation.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 07, 2008, 03:10:25 PM
not to worry:  bluecoward just concern troll whose own momma not return his calls.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: SwEep on August 10, 2008, 07:00:03 PM
people seem to be missing the point.  it's not white racism that will cost Obama the election, its hispanic/asian racism.  as an ethnic group hispanics have huge issues with african-americans.  but don't believe me, just look at what happened to him in areas with large hispanic voting blocks.  as a voting block asians are also insanely racist, particularly against black people.  asians won't be as much of a factor however, that's simply a question of raw numbers.  i think it is indicative of the climate in which we live that this issue, the pink elephant in the room so to speak, isn't discussed.  the obsession is with white racism, which, grant you exists, but is waning, while these other forms of racism are in full swing (not to mention black racism, which is ridiculously entrenched and encouraged). discuss.

Hispanic and asians put together barely make up 10% of the votes. So you were saying?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 11, 2008, 04:51:18 AM
polls show obama doing just fine with hispanics.  julie not remember how doing with asians.

v. just trying use gop playbook of make it up without shame.

shame!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 13, 2008, 09:30:24 PM
barak but especially the democrat congress has to be in full support of offshore oil drilling and opening up drilling in alaska or else the election will be a sweeping victory for the independent, john mccain...

aye haven't been wrong yet.

ps. baraks support for opening up emergency and security resivoir oil is not prudent...that is not the reserve purpose

There is so much wrong with this statement. I choose to have a little more confidence in people's ability to see through shallow political posturing, which is exactly what this offshore drilling issue is. I predict that the Republicans will hold on to this issue all the way up to election day, since they seem to know that it might be the only issue on which they have an edge in the polling. McCain seemed to realize this, and switched his stance on the issue, conveniently right after he was given a bunch of contributions by the oil industry. My wish? That voters see the issue for what it is: an action that will do nothing more but put on a good show and give more handouts to Big Oil.

Also, you might have been able to call McCain an Independent a few years ago (perhaps up to 2004 - Kerry even approached him for the VP slot, knowing that he had become disenfranchised with the GOP), but his recent changes of heart on a whole bunch of issues have really tarnished his "maverick" reputation.


sorry my man...remember mccain was the sole "cheerleader" for the surge...well it was a success...mccain played his campaign on it and it has paid in dividends...no other pub...besides bush gave it that much creed...sorry, buddy...that is what mavericks do...and that makes him an independent...remember his take on the "cross boarder alien issue"...that is an independent stance he had...he also wants to get rid of "earmarking" which is gumming up congress...that is independent thinking...

sorry...he IS an independent.


and off shore drilling WILL get passed and WILL take place...the stir it creates will also lower the price of oil...we need to be a little more self sufficient here in the usa...and my man...aye bet you drive a car...it needs gas to keep it going right now...alternative fuels advancement as well as off shore drilling will keep your car going...and make us a little less reliant on the mid east...the drilling will happen because americans want it...it is the undercurrent of the status quo today...pick up a newspaper...read the op eds...that IS the issue...and the economy follows and flows from that...pelosi better step up when they resume...and this issue will be pounded...obama must push to or the election is lost for him...

sorry it is the truth...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 14, 2008, 05:29:58 AM
if mcsame independent, why he stick his tongue down gump's throat?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 14, 2008, 09:30:21 AM
I threw up a little just now.

Not gonna lie. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 14, 2008, 10:09:51 AM
then better not look at pictures.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 14, 2008, 10:17:33 AM
feel the mackerickyness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBfngOsvmA0

warning:  heavy petting.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 14, 2008, 11:23:18 PM
if mcsame independent, why he stick his tongue down gump's throat?

you don't understand the dynamic of the independent voter, archie.

by hard core pubs mccain is seen as democrat-lite...u not understand difficult things like nuance...cause u a bigot.

fact of matter is that both mccain and obama are independents. neither is traditional democrat nor traditional republican...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 05:18:47 AM
but hard core republicans see attila as appeaser, so...

and you clearly confused about meaning of "independent."  but then, you confused about so much.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 15, 2008, 06:56:57 AM
but hard core republicans see attila as appeaser, so...

and you clearly confused about meaning of "independent."  but then, you confused about so much.

 :-\...aye am an independent...the fact is that mccain is not seen by most republicans as a republican...primarily because he reaches to some leaning liberals...one of the men he trusts is lieberman...get it archie?

obama is enticing to us independents because he represents a fresh new political mindset...we don't view him as a traditional "old politico" democrat.

because you are a blind and stupid donkee lover aye will explain it for your dumbass and others...

independents primary interest is to not return to old washington politics and prefer a candidate who will work across the aisle...party boundaries like the one's which you as an {idiot liberal democrat} follow are ruining our country...

we independents don't like traditional republicans and traditional democrats...we would like the dynamic of a third party...understand, archie????  get me, you degenerate blinded bigot.


...why are you repeating the "atilla" line...stop detracting from obama...the name calling is NOT helping.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 15, 2008, 08:08:56 AM
you not independent, you member republic party pretendimng otherwise.

and better brush up on reading comp as well as spelling.

you total mess.  julie told you leave those goats alone.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 16, 2008, 09:14:15 AM
you not independent, you member republic party pretendimng otherwise.

and better brush up on reading comp as well as spelling.

you total mess.  julie told you leave those goats alone.

 :D :D :D

aye'm not an independent? :D :D :D

even after aye explain it for you...you don't even know what an independent is, archie...

why do you think it's funny to make fun of african american's hair?

why are you a bigot?


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 16, 2008, 04:28:11 PM
you not independent, you member republic party pretendimng otherwise.

and better brush up on reading comp as well as spelling.

you total mess. julie told you leave those goats alone.

 :D :D :D

aye'm not an independent? :D :D :D

even after aye explain it for you...you don't even know what an independent is, archie...

why do you think it's funny to make fun of african american's hair?

why are you a bigot?


aye am pissed that obama's new handlers are allowing hiliary to have a role call...have not demanded that "slippery willy" make a genuine back my brothah up statement to the press...give hiliary a pass on not stumping vigorously for obama...her speech better be "obama this and obama that" and not just "what does hiliary want"...nobody gives a shite what hiliary wants...and obama's handlers are idiots for scheduling a trip to iraq and then europe and then a vacation in hawaii...obama's vacation in hawaii is all that has been filling the media waves...and it ain't good...his numbers have slipped because of this...it pisses me off...florida numbers are down as are pennsylvania...new jersey is slipping...my man NEEDs these states to WIN...

...he is wishy-washy on the "oil crisis" by going on vacation when most americans are curbing their driving...and taking an oily position on this issue which is compounded by the fact that the donkee part of congress sidestepped the "oil crisis" when they last gathered and is also on a break...right NOW the psychology of the country is backing "offshore drilling" and opening up alaska for the same...obama can't nuance his stand on this issue...his handlers have to step up.

believe me...his campaign is not helping him...

better stay on your meds.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 16, 2008, 10:19:33 PM
you not independent, you member republic party pretendimng otherwise.

and better brush up on reading comp as well as spelling.

you total mess. julie told you leave those goats alone.

 :D :D :D

aye'm not an independent? :D :D :D

even after aye explain it for you...you don't even know what an independent is, archie...

why do you think it's funny to make fun of african american's hair?

why are you a bigot?


aye am pissed that obama's new handlers are allowing hiliary to have a role call...have not demanded that "slippery willy" make a genuine back my brothah up statement to the press...give hiliary a pass on not stumping vigorously for obama...her speech better be "obama this and obama that" and not just "what does hiliary want"...nobody gives a shite what hiliary wants...and obama's handlers are idiots for scheduling a trip to iraq and then europe and then a vacation in hawaii...obama's vacation in hawaii is all that has been filling the media waves...and it ain't good...his numbers have slipped because of this...it pisses me off...florida numbers are down as are pennsylvania...new jersey is slipping...my man NEEDs these states to WIN...

...he is wishy-washy on the "oil crisis" by going on vacation when most americans are curbing their driving...and taking an oily position on this issue which is compounded by the fact that the donkee part of congress sidestepped the "oil crisis" when they last gathered and is also on a break...right NOW the psychology of the country is backing "offshore drilling" and opening up alaska for the same...obama can't nuance his stand on this issue...his handlers have to step up.

believe me...his campaign is not helping him...

better stay on your meds.

better you have reality check.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 16, 2008, 11:01:46 PM
aye am pissed that obama's new handlers are allowing hiliary to have a role call...have not demanded that "slippery willy" make a genuine back my brothah up statement to the press...give hiliary a pass on not stumping vigorously for obama...her speech better be "obama this and obama that" and not just "what does hiliary want"...nobody gives a shite what hiliary wants...and obama's handlers are idiots for scheduling a trip to iraq and then europe and then a vacation in hawaii...obama's vacation in hawaii is all that has been filling the media waves...and it ain't good...his numbers have slipped because of this...it pisses me off...florida numbers are down as are pennsylvania...new jersey is slipping...my man NEEDs these states to WIN...

...he is wishy-washy on the "oil crisis" by going on vacation when most americans are curbing their driving...and taking an oily position on this issue which is compounded by the fact that the donkee part of congress sidestepped the "oil crisis" when they last gathered and is also on a break...right NOW the psychology of the country is backing "offshore drilling" and opening up alaska for the same...obama can't nuance his stand on this issue...his handlers have to step up.

believe me...his campaign is not helping him...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 17, 2008, 05:12:48 AM
you not independent, you member republic party pretendimng otherwise.

and better brush up on reading comp as well as spelling.

you total mess. julie told you leave those goats alone.

 :D :D :D

aye'm not an independent? :D :D :D

even after aye explain it for you...you don't even know what an independent is, archie...

why do you think it's funny to make fun of african american's hair?

why are you a bigot?


aye am pissed that obama's new handlers are allowing hiliary to have a role call...have not demanded that "slippery willy" make a genuine back my brothah up statement to the press...give hiliary a pass on not stumping vigorously for obama...her speech better be "obama this and obama that" and not just "what does hiliary want"...nobody gives a shite what hiliary wants...and obama's handlers are idiots for scheduling a trip to iraq and then europe and then a vacation in hawaii...obama's vacation in hawaii is all that has been filling the media waves...and it ain't good...his numbers have slipped because of this...it pisses me off...florida numbers are down as are pennsylvania...new jersey is slipping...my man NEEDs these states to WIN...

...he is wishy-washy on the "oil crisis" by going on vacation when most americans are curbing their driving...and taking an oily position on this issue which is compounded by the fact that the donkee part of congress sidestepped the "oil crisis" when they last gathered and is also on a break...right NOW the psychology of the country is backing "offshore drilling" and opening up alaska for the same...obama can't nuance his stand on this issue...his handlers have to step up.

believe me...his campaign is not helping him...

better stay on your meds.

better you have reality check.

ok, then:  you really stupid.  julie got it.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 17, 2008, 05:13:55 AM
aye am pissed that obama's new handlers are allowing hiliary to have a role call...have not demanded that "slippery willy" make a genuine back my brothah up statement to the press...give hiliary a pass on not stumping vigorously for obama...her speech better be "obama this and obama that" and not just "what does hiliary want"...nobody gives a shite what hiliary wants...and obama's handlers are idiots for scheduling a trip to iraq and then europe and then a vacation in hawaii...obama's vacation in hawaii is all that has been filling the media waves...and it ain't good...his numbers have slipped because of this...it pisses me off...florida numbers are down as are pennsylvania...new jersey is slipping...my man NEEDs these states to WIN...

...he is wishy-washy on the "oil crisis" by going on vacation when most americans are curbing their driving...and taking an oily position on this issue which is compounded by the fact that the donkee part of congress sidestepped the "oil crisis" when they last gathered and is also on a break...right NOW the psychology of the country is backing "offshore drilling" and opening up alaska for the same...obama can't nuance his stand on this issue...his handlers have to step up.

believe me...his campaign is not helping him...

more of your "obama support," eh?  oh, yet another republican who unwilling admit it.

and obama going have great convention.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 17, 2008, 11:38:44 PM
...step off biatch...you stupid hiliary supporter...my points are valid problems. you dipshite.


aye am pissed that obama's new handlers are allowing hiliary to have a role call...have not demanded that "slippery willy" make a genuine back my brothah up statement to the press...give hiliary a pass on not stumping vigorously for obama...her speech better be "obama this and obama that" and not just "what does hiliary want"...nobody gives a shite what hiliary wants...and obama's handlers are idiots for scheduling a trip to iraq and then europe and then a vacation in hawaii...obama's vacation in hawaii is all that has been filling the media waves...and it ain't good...his numbers have slipped because of this...it pisses me off...florida numbers are down as are pennsylvania...new jersey is slipping...my man NEEDs these states to WIN...

...he is wishy-washy on the "oil crisis" by going on vacation when most americans are curbing their driving...and taking an oily position on this issue which is compounded by the fact that the donkee part of congress sidestepped the "oil crisis" when they last gathered and is also on a break...right NOW the psychology of the country is backing "offshore drilling" and opening up alaska for the same...obama can't nuance his stand on this issue...his handlers have to step up.

believe me...his campaign is not helping him...

more of your "obama support," eh?  oh, yet another republican who unwilling admit it.

and obama going have great convention.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 18, 2008, 05:50:38 AM
any luck getting male private part cheney adopt you?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 18, 2008, 10:32:55 PM
male private part cheney??? who dat?

you livin' in the past, mistah bunker.

obama needs wesley clark to win this thing...he needs hiliary clinton to either shut the f...x up or give an "obama...obama...obama" speech...her puszy motived husband needs to back barack obama...and call barack by barack's full name even though it pain's the former puszy president to do so...former president clinton must do this one hundred percent...obama needs to take a stand on offshore oil drilling and opening up alaska...in lieu of wesley clark...obam should go with bill richardson....any of these points not met and my two votes for obama will have been unhelpful....

while we independents will decide these things...we agree that both candidates can unclog washington...one a legitimate independent and another promising to create new washington politique...in either case we independents win...

mark my words.


hope bam's handlers get the message.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 19, 2008, 06:53:57 AM
julie love how you always try make it seem you somehow in charge of usa.

better get your green card first.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: isustudent on August 19, 2008, 12:58:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBghD0XBN5M

i think this should clear some things up. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 19, 2008, 03:09:56 PM
which one obama again?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on August 20, 2008, 07:27:12 AM
Getting back to the topic of debate. Did anyone see the latest Zogby poll?  Obama is actually running behind?  How is this possible when you have a bazillion dollars and you are running against another Bob Dole?

A point underemphasized by most pollsters, who, after all, make their living selling polls.  Why would they concede people might lie?  Clearly if latinos lie about their racist attitudes it would tend towards the "i'm not a racist" side of the spectrum and not the "i am a bigot" side. 

From: CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Voters Rarely Lie In Polls, But Sometimes Have Faulty Memories

"It's also true that people sometimes base their responses to questions on what they think the interviewer wants to hear. In the 1980s, some respondents, asked about their support for feminist issues, told different things to male and female interviewers. And sometimes black and white interviewers have gotten different answers when they have asked about some African-American candidates and about racial attitudes."

From:

The New Republic: Distrust Of Blacks Among Latino Voters Could Trouble Obama
by John B. Judis.

Over the last two decades, there has been evidence of growing hostility from Hispanics toward African Americans. Some of this hostility is the result of conflicts, or perceived conflicts, over politically controlled resources in cities and states. But as Tanya K. Hernandez, a professor of law at George Washington, has argued recently, it may also be a legacy of an older Latin American prejudice against blacks that has been transplanted to this country.

While this conflict passes largely unnoticed in the popular press, African American and Latino sociologists have been conducting extensive surveys in Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Philadelphia. These surveys have generally found that Latinos display more prejudice toward African Americans than African Americans do toward Latinos or than whites display toward African Americans. In the words of University of Houston sociologist Tatcho Mindiola, Jr. and two associates, "in general African Americans have more positive views of Hispanics than vice versa."

In Mindiola's surveys of racial attitudes in Houston, they asked Latino respondents to describe blacks. Some of the terms that most often came to mind were "noisy," "loud," "lazy," "dropouts/uneducated," "hostile," "complainers/whiners," "bad people," "prejudiced," "aggressive," "angry," "disrespectful/rude," and "violent." Only 54 percent of U.S.-born Latinos and 46 percent of immigrant Latinos approved of their children dating an African American. Forty-one percent of U.S.-born Latinos thought blacks had "too much power." Half thought that "most government programs that are designated for minorities favor African Americans."

Duke University's Paula McClain, working with nine other sociologists, found similar attitudes among Latinos living in Durham, North Carolina. According to McClain et al., "Latino immigrants hold negative stereotypical views of blacks and feel that they have more in common with whites than with blacks." For instance, 58.9 percent of Latino immigrants, but only 9.3 percent of whites, reported feeling that "few or almost no blacks are hard-working."

These attitudes were not confined to working-class Latinos. Yolanda Flores Niemann of Washington State University and four other sociologists discovered among Latino college students the same kind of stereotypes that Mindiola found in Houston. Among the top ten traits that Latino college students ascribed to black males were "antagonistic," "speak loudly," "muscular," "criminal," "dark skin," and "unmannerly."

This hostility of Latinos toward blacks has sometimes showed up in political behavior. While both groups -- especially if Florida's Cubans are excluded -- generally vote Democratic, there have been instances where Hispanics, faced with a black Democratic candidate, or with a white Democratic candidate closely tied to the black community, have voted Republican.

In his 1993 New York mayoral race against black Democratic incumbent David Dinkins, Republican Rudolph Giuliani received 37 percent of the Hispanic vote and only five percent of the black vote. Conflicts between Latinos and blacks also figured in the 2001 Houston mayoral runoff between black Democrat Lee Brown and Republican and Cuban-American Orlando Sanchez. Brown won the run-off, but the conservative Sanchez took 72 percent of the Latino vote.

Could hostility toward and rivalry with blacks be a factor in Obama's abysmal support among Latinos? It's hard to say, but it's certainly possible. And if it is a factor -- and not simply the result of the Obama campaign's inattention to Latino voters -- then Clinton should benefit from this vote in the primaries and caucuses in states like California even if she loses in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Finally, one other possibility is worth considering. Suppose Obama does win the nomination. Would he be hampered by Latino-black hostility in gaining the Latino vote in November 2008? Probably not, because of the Republican party's embrace of a nativist agenda that stigmatizes Latinos. But as Rudolph Giuliani or Michael Bloomberg have shown in New York mayoral contests, if in the future Republicans were to abandon their nativism and nominate centrist candidates who could court the Latino vote, they might find themselves the beneficiaries of this division.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 20, 2008, 07:48:33 AM
funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic.  that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies.  this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 20, 2008, 03:34:23 PM
funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic.  that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies.  this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.


um it is not the "hispanic" vote, mistah bunker...but...how silly of me to think that a bigot like you would label people...with any kind of germane relevance...hispanic voters are from "haiti and the dominican republic"...what aye believe you are trying to convey is that obama is making some in-roads with "latino" voters...please do not discriminate by leaving out cuba, guatamala, mexico, among others...thankyou. ;) gracias.


how's that cuban vote working out in florida btw???  independent mccain doing better than obama handlers think...it bothers me.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on August 20, 2008, 03:42:25 PM
funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic.  that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies.  this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.


um it is not the "hispanic" vote, mistah bunker...but...how silly of me to think that a bigot like you would label people...with any kind of germane relevance...hispanic voters are from "haiti and the dominican republic"...what aye believe you are trying to convey is that obama is making some in-roads with "latino" voters...please do not descriminate by leaving out cuba, guatamala, mexico, among others...thankyou. ;) gracias.

 ::)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 20, 2008, 04:01:20 PM
funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic. that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies. this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.


um it is not the "hispanic" vote, mistah bunker...but...how silly of me to think that a bigot like you would label people...with any kind of germane relevance...hispanic voters are from "haiti and the dominican republic"...what aye believe you are trying to convey is that obama is making some in-roads with "latino" voters...please do not discriminate by leaving out cuba, guatamala, mexico, among others...thankyou. ;) gracias.


how's that cuban vote working out in florida btw??? independent mccain doing better than obama handlers think...it bothers me.

still hoping gop administration finally give you that green card, eh?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 20, 2008, 04:02:15 PM
funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic. that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies. this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.


um it is not the "hispanic" vote, mistah bunker...but...how silly of me to think that a bigot like you would label people...with any kind of germane relevance...hispanic voters are from "haiti and the dominican republic"...what aye believe you are trying to convey is that obama is making some in-roads with "latino" voters...please do not descriminate by leaving out cuba, guatamala, mexico, among others...thankyou. ;) gracias.

 ::)

bluecoward numbnuts.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 20, 2008, 04:05:51 PM
They're both boring the crap out of me.

It's time for a little excitement. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 20, 2008, 04:11:37 PM
funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic. that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies. this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.


um it is not the "hispanic" vote, mistah bunker...but...how silly of me to think that a bigot like you would label people...with any kind of germane relevance...hispanic voters are from "haiti and the dominican republic"...what aye believe you are trying to convey is that obama is making some in-roads with "latino" voters...please do not discriminate by leaving out cuba, guatamala, mexico, among others...thankyou. ;) gracias.


how's that cuban vote working out in florida btw??? independent mccain doing better than obama handlers think...it bothers me.

still hoping gop administration finally give you that green card, eh?

don't know much about green cards...don't need to...what aye do know is that mccain and his c.i.r. policy is not in step with pub politique...and the latin vote realizes this...do you understand how mccain is seen more as an "independent" than a pub???

and the "latin" vote doesn't vote along party lines...unless you were george bush... :D :D

or will you continue blincly "in true donkee" style ignore mccain's maverick ideas?

huh mr. archie "i don't know what the word hispanic means" bunker.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 20, 2008, 04:20:46 PM
funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic.  that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies.  this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.


um it is not the "hispanic" vote, mistah bunker...but...how silly of me to think that a bigot like you would label people...with any kind of germane relevance...hispanic voters are from "haiti and the dominican republic"...what aye believe you are trying to convey is that obama is making some in-roads with "latino" voters...please do not descriminate by leaving out cuba, guatamala, mexico, among others...thankyou. ;) gracias.

 ::)

sorry...someone's gottah teach the bigots.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 20, 2008, 06:25:45 PM
yeah.  we all know spanish never touched places like cuba.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 20, 2008, 07:24:30 PM
yeah.  we all know spanish never touched places like cuba.


funny how you been avoiding this thread while polls show obama doing quite nicely among hispanic.  that not change, so maybe yu better try something else try stir division among your enemies.  this just lame.

and although julie agree mccain doing better lately in polls, zogby poll always least deserving of respect, unless it faux news.

you used the word "hispanic," bigot...you obviously don't know what it means.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 21, 2008, 05:04:21 AM
julie well aware what julie wrote.

golly , let julie guess:  you some special theory that "hisbanic" not mean "latin-american," right?  when you come up with that, right after your theories about goat-f-ing?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 21, 2008, 05:57:47 AM
julie well aware what julie wrote.

golly , let julie guess:  you some special theory that "hisbanic" not mean "latin-american," right?  when you come up with that, right after your theories about goat-f-ing?

julie dear, you are a bigot...you really don't know what you are talking about...

that problem when bigot write or speak...bigot's are stupid people...

understand now, archie bunker.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on August 21, 2008, 06:28:02 AM
julie well aware what julie wrote.

golly , let julie guess:  you some special theory that "hisbanic" not mean "latin-american," right?  when you come up with that, right after your theories about goat-f-ing?

julie dear, you are a bigot...you really don't know what you are talking about...

that problem when bigot write or speak...bigot's are stupid people...

understand now, archie bunker.



If you're going to equate using the term "hispanic" to being a bigot, then you must either be the most hyper-sensitive left-wing PC nutso (which I'm pretty sure you're not), or you're simply race-baiting with a pretty flimsy line of reasoning. Apparently you're way ahead of the curve with such a detestation of the word hispanic. First thing I'm going to do is go alert every "latino" I see of the change in rules, because I guess most of them haven't got the memo yet.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 21, 2008, 05:02:55 PM
for him, it all part of being numbnuts.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 21, 2008, 09:52:51 PM
julie well aware what julie wrote.

golly , let julie guess:  you some special theory that "hisbanic" not mean "latin-american," right?  when you come up with that, right after your theories about goat-f-ing?

julie dear, you are a bigot...you really don't know what you are talking about...

that problem when bigot write or speak...bigot's are stupid people...

understand now, archie bunker.



If you're going to equate using the term "hispanic" to being a bigot, then you must either be the most hyper-sensitive left-wing PC nutso (which I'm pretty sure you're not), or you're simply race-baiting with a pretty flimsy line of reasoning. Apparently you're way ahead of the curve with such a detestation of the word hispanic. First thing I'm going to do is go alert every "latino" I see of the change in rules, because I guess most of them haven't got the memo yet.

aye believe aye was responding to a bigotted posters remark...no?

aye like to spell it out for the known bigots...did aye not write that as well???

race-baiting???  there is no such thing as race...um latin is a language, my friend and hispaniola is an island.


obama needs to court the cuban vote in florida...he could use that constituency...that is important.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 22, 2008, 04:42:19 AM
like julie said, some nonsense argument that apparently play well with other goat-fuckers.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 22, 2008, 08:10:34 AM
no...you misguided bigot...that part of why aye'm sure you don't understand people...and make stupid comments.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 22, 2008, 11:36:31 AM
Sincere question: how do you function in the real world, i.e., a community of common symbols and shared meanings, B-dubs?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 22, 2008, 11:57:17 AM
no...you misguided bigot...that part of why aye'm sure you don't understand people...and make stupid comments.

putz.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 22, 2008, 11:57:48 AM
Sincere question: how do you function in the real world, i.e., a community of common symbols and shared meanings, B-dubs?

he getting injections of estrogen.  hope able afford surgery one day.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 23, 2008, 11:28:50 AM
Sincere question: how do you function in the real world, i.e., a community of common symbols and shared meanings, B-dubs?


sincere question: to what community of common symbols and what specific meanings are you referring?  ...no offense but your post comes out of thin air, miss p.

aye think generalizations, i.e., like the question you posed need specifics, no?

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 23, 2008, 11:34:53 AM
...pretty happy with obama's v.p. selection...not wesley clark...but biden has an understanding of the kurds in iraq...a very important part of mesopoetamia who are now empowered because of the liberation from the genocidal hussein family and baath party...biden feels as though the kurds should have their own piece of the pie...perhaps as an empowered nation which one day may take part under their own flag in the olympics. 8)

unfortunately one of the problems with biden is the "old school politique" and he had some questionable plagiarising problems.
being a plagiarist has its own unique problems...more serious than the stupidity of taking ludicrous issue with a middle name that begins with a "hussh...".
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 23, 2008, 11:56:51 AM
Sincere question: how do you function in the real world, i.e., a community of common symbols and shared meanings, B-dubs?

he getting injections of estrogen.  hope able afford surgery one day.

m.y.o.b...step off bigot...can't you read the "sincere question" part...s.t.f.u.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 23, 2008, 12:06:58 PM
golly, did julie touch nerve?

when you getting pee-pee whacked off, exactly?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 23, 2008, 03:13:01 PM
Sincere question: how do you function in the real world, i.e., a community of common symbols and shared meanings, B-dubs?


sincere question: to what community of common symbols and what specific meanings are you referring?  ...no offense but your post comes out of thin air, miss p.

aye think generalizations, i.e., like the question you posed need specifics, no?

Well, generally I was talking about how you see race and ethnicity.  In particular, I am referring to your bizarre notions about the difference between the terms "Hispanic" (relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America) and "Latino" (relating to people of Latin American descent in the US) in the US political context.  In most parts of the US, these terms are roughly interchangeable, and in some places (e.g., Florida) Hispanic is the preferred term for Latinos.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 23, 2008, 03:13:38 PM
golly, did julie touch nerve?

when you getting pee-pee whacked off, exactly?

Julie, this is out of line.  Do you have a problem with trans people, or with people who don't have dicks?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 23, 2008, 06:02:33 PM
julie have problem with bluecoward.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 23, 2008, 11:09:00 PM
julie have problem with bluecoward.

Don't we all.  Still, it wasn't your best look.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 24, 2008, 05:06:53 AM
there history here.  julie can live with it.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: blueballs on August 24, 2008, 05:26:05 AM
Blue blew yet again
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 24, 2008, 05:39:02 AM
Sincere question: how do you function in the real world, i.e., a community of common symbols and shared meanings, B-dubs?


sincere question: to what community of common symbols and what specific meanings are you referring?  ...no offense but your post comes out of thin air, miss p.

aye think generalizations, i.e., like the question you posed need specifics, no?

Well, generally I was talking about how you see race and ethnicity.  In particular, I am referring to your bizarre notions about the difference between the terms "Hispanic" (relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America) and "Latino" (relating to people of Latin American descent in the US) in the US political context.  In most parts of the US, these terms are roughly interchangeable, and in some places (e.g., Florida) Hispanic is the preferred term for Latinos.

firstly aye do not believe in the false construct of race...

aye am suspicious of you however for beginning this discussion presently after you have read my many posts on "race"...

you chose to question my specific comments regarding the words, "hispanic" and "latin."...and you question after aye chastise a bigotted person who needs to understand that words have root meanings...and underlying sub-meanings...aye am a highly intuitive person and aye find your timing and specific word interest suspicious...please don't be offended by my suspicion...it is in my nature...aye am sure you mean well...it is just that you can't tell me you haven't read at least one of my posts regarding "race", have you? honestly?

aye chastise the bigot because by belittling him...perhaps he may see his own ignorance as we laugh at him...and it might shame the bigot enough to actually try to understand what words "mean" and that people are sensitive when it comes to labeling.

we can discuss this further...or farther down the post chain...after bigot archie bunker fern makes {of course}  ::) some careless ignorant remark...aye don't mind discussing ethnicity...

aye blv in lngge and orgn.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 24, 2008, 05:41:31 AM
golly, did julie touch nerve?

when you getting pee-pee whacked off, exactly?

Julie, this is out of line.  Do you have a problem with trans people, or with people who don't have dicks?

many bigots are homophobic...too, they don't understand so they lash out...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 24, 2008, 05:44:32 AM
golly, did julie touch nerve?

when you getting pee-pee whacked off, exactly?

please, can't you even intuit my faux concern for your bigotted self, archie...

in a back handed way you were making fun of ms. p...THAT aye did not like.

...funny that you pose as a female on this board...

...does it hurt as your knuckles drag along floor???
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 24, 2008, 07:48:54 AM
Sincere question: how do you function in the real world, i.e., a community of common symbols and shared meanings, B-dubs?


sincere question: to what community of common symbols and what specific meanings are you referring? ...no offense but your post comes out of thin air, miss p.

aye think generalizations, i.e., like the question you posed need specifics, no?

Well, generally I was talking about how you see race and ethnicity. In particular, I am referring to your bizarre notions about the difference between the terms "Hispanic" (relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America) and "Latino" (relating to people of Latin American descent in the US) in the US political context. In most parts of the US, these terms are roughly interchangeable, and in some places (e.g., Florida) Hispanic is the preferred term for Latinos.

firstly aye do not believe in the false construct of race...

aye am suspicious of you however for beginning this discussion presently after you have read my many posts on "race"...

you chose to question my specific comments regarding the words, "hispanic" and "latin."...and you question after aye chastise a bigotted person who needs to understand that words have root meanings...and underlying sub-meanings...aye am a highly intuitive person and aye find your timing and specific word interest suspicious...please don't be offended by my suspicion...it is in my nature...aye am sure you mean well...it is just that you can't tell me you haven't read at least one of my posts regarding "race", have you? honestly?

aye chastise the bigot because by belittling him...perhaps he may see his own ignorance as we laugh at him...and it might shame the bigot enough to actually try to understand what words mean and that people are sensitive when it comes to labeling.

we can discuss this further...or farther down the post chain...after bigot archie bunker fern makes some careless ignorant remark...aye don't mind discussing ethnicity...

aye blv in lngge and orgn.

putz.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 24, 2008, 07:51:23 AM
golly, did julie touch nerve?

when you getting pee-pee whacked off, exactly?

Julie, this is out of line. Do you have a problem with trans people, or with people who don't have dicks?

many bigots are homophobic...too, they don't understand so they lash out...

julie's only baises against blowhards who masquerade as star wars characters.

better go visit yoda.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 24, 2008, 07:52:31 AM
golly, did julie touch nerve?

when you getting pee-pee whacked off, exactly?

please, can't you even intuit my faux concern for your bigotted self, archie...

in a back handed way you were making fun of ms. p...THAT aye did not like.

...funny that you pose as a female on this board...

...does it hurt as your knuckles drag along floor???

you not answering question.  apparently big bad "warrior" afraid little question.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 24, 2008, 08:55:15 AM
golly, did julie touch nerve?

when you getting pee-pee whacked off, exactly?

please, can't you even intuit my faux concern for your bigotted self, archie...

in a back handed way you were making fun of ms. p...THAT aye did not like.

...funny that you pose as a female on this board...

...does it hurt as your knuckles drag along floor???

you not answering question.  apparently big bad "warrior" afraid little question.

because your question has nothing to do with "mccame" or "obama", archie... ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 24, 2008, 03:43:18 PM
firstly aye do not believe in the false construct of race...

aye am suspicious of you however for beginning this discussion presently after you have read my many posts on "race"...

you chose to question my specific comments regarding the words, "hispanic" and "latin."...and you question after aye chastise a bigotted person who needs to understand that words have root meanings...and underlying sub-meanings...aye am a highly intuitive person and aye find your timing and specific word interest suspicious...please don't be offended by my suspicion...it is in my nature...aye am sure you mean well...it is just that you can't tell me you haven't read at least one of my posts regarding "race", have you? honestly?

aye chastise the bigot because by belittling him...perhaps he may see his own ignorance as we laugh at him...and it might shame the bigot enough to actually try to understand what words "mean" and that people are sensitive when it comes to labeling.

we can discuss this further...or farther down the post chain...after bigot archie bunker fern makes {of course}  ::) some careless ignorant remark...aye don't mind discussing ethnicity...

aye blv in lngge and orgn.

I really don't know what makes you "suspicious."  I am trying to be as transparent as possible.  I will be honest: I disagree with you about a number of things, and I find your posting-style terribly annoying.  I frequently skip over your posts because the spelling and odd punctuation and usage drive me a little crazy.  But what do you "suspect" about me? 

I haven't spent much time reading your posts about race.  My understanding is that you object to claims that race is natural or biological.  This is not a particularly revolutionary idea: race is a social construct that depends on certain (conscious and unconscious) codings of biological, cultural, and geographic difference.  Where we disagree is your notion that because it is a social construct, race is imaginary.  Race obviously functions as a real category in the world we share, and it has taken on meaning. (Indeed, it is hard to understand a lot of what happens in our society without examining things through the lens of race.) You may wish to disrupt various semiotic chains, but pretending that race doesn't exist because we made it up is as silly as pretending that the Czech Republic doesn't exist because it didn't exist before 1993 -- or 1989, or 1918, depending on your sense of what, exactly, the Czech Republic is.

I still do not understand why you think Julie is bigoted for having used the term Hispanic to refer to Latinos.      It looks like hypersensitivity, a misunderstanding of the terms, or both.  Maybe I'm just missing something.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 24, 2008, 04:24:30 PM
he just numbnuts.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 24, 2008, 08:16:46 PM
firstly aye do not believe in the false construct of race...

aye am suspicious of you however for beginning this discussion presently after you have read my many posts on "race"...

you chose to question my specific comments regarding the words, "hispanic" and "latin."...and you question after aye chastise a bigotted person who needs to understand that words have root meanings...and underlying sub-meanings...aye am a highly intuitive person and aye find your timing and specific word interest suspicious...please don't be offended by my suspicion...it is in my nature...aye am sure you mean well...it is just that you can't tell me you haven't read at least one of my posts regarding "race", have you? honestly?

aye chastise the bigot because by belittling him...perhaps he may see his own ignorance as we laugh at him...and it might shame the bigot enough to actually try to understand what words "mean" and that people are sensitive when it comes to labeling.

we can discuss this further...or farther down the post chain...after bigot archie bunker fern makes {of course}  ::) some careless ignorant remark...aye don't mind discussing ethnicity...

aye blv in lngge and orgn.

I really don't know what makes you "suspicious."  I am trying to be as transparent as possible.  I will be honest: I disagree with you about a number of things, and I find your posting-style terribly annoying.  I frequently skip over your posts because the spelling and odd punctuation and usage drive me a little crazy.  But what do you "suspect" about me? 

I haven't spent much time reading your posts about race.  My understanding is that you object to claims that race is natural or biological.  This is not a particularly revolutionary idea: race is a social construct that depends on certain (conscious and unconscious) codings of biological, cultural, and geographic difference.  Where we disagree is your notion that because it is a social construct, race is imaginary.  Race obviously functions as a real category in the world we share, and it has taken on meaning. (Indeed, it is hard to understand a lot of what happens in our society without examining things through the lens of race.) You may wish to disrupt various semiotic chains, but pretending that race doesn't exist because we made it up is as silly as pretending that the Czech Republic doesn't exist because it didn't exist before 1993 -- or 1989, or 1918, depending on your sense of what, exactly, the Czech Republic is.

I still do not understand why you think Julie is bigoted for having used the term Hispanic to refer to Latinos.      It looks like hypersensitivity, a misunderstanding of the terms, or both.  Maybe I'm just missing something.


are you from trinidad? or barbados? or of african descent?

aye find it bigoted when someone writes "have trouble getting comb through hair?"

then the rest of archie bunker ferns comments fall into place...using terms like craxxr...and the homophobic comments seriously is a bigoted mentality.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 24, 2008, 10:59:33 PM
are you from trinidad? or barbados? or of african descent?

No.

aye find it bigoted when someone writes "have trouble getting comb through hair?"

then the rest of archie bunker ferns comments fall into place...using terms like craxxr...and the homophobic comments seriously is a biggoted mentality.

I don't think you can extrapolate from saying that Julie said something bigoted to saying that everything Julie says is bigoted.  You haven't explained why you think her use of the term "Hispanic" is bigoted.  Your accusations make sense only if you use a rather esoteric definition of "Hispanic."  Hence my original question, with which you've yet to engage.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 25, 2008, 05:15:58 AM
are you from trinidad? or barbados? or of african descent?

No.

aye find it bigoted when someone writes "have trouble getting comb through hair?"

then the rest of archie bunker ferns comments fall into place...using terms like craxxr...and the homophobic comments seriously is a biggoted mentality.

I don't think you can extrapolate from saying that Julie said something bigoted to saying that everything Julie says is bigoted.  You haven't explained why you think her use of the term "Hispanic" is bigoted.  Your accusations make sense only if you use a rather esoteric definition of "Hispanic."  Hence my original question, with which you've yet to engage.

...see new post.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 25, 2008, 02:28:53 PM
clinton is the crux of the problem...like aye said before...why is she even there???


Democratic convention: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton feud


Feuding advisers to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are trading bitter accusations and barbed insults as the Democratic convention opens, threatening to divide the party despite all public protestations of unity.
 
By Toby Harnden in Denver
Last Updated: 7:54PM BST 25 Aug 2008

One senior Obama supporter told Politico that Clinton associates holding negotiations on her behalf had been acting like "Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific, still fighting after the war is over".

A Democratic operative close to the Clintons shot back: "He [Mr Obama] has not fully reconciled and he has not demonstrated that he accepts the Clintons and the Clinton wing of the party."

Clinton allies are particularly indignant that the former First Lady was not even on Mr Obama's shortlist to be his vice-presidential running mate.

In some ways, Mrs Clinton appears still to be fighting an election campaign, sending out several emails a day detailing her programme, thanking supporters and responding to McCain advertisements courting her supporters.

With the opinion polls showing Mr Obama tied with his Republican opponent John McCain, Democrats are nervous that disunity could signal defeat in November. A CNN poll found that some 30 per cent of Clinton supporters refuse to back Mr Obama.

Central to the tension between the two camps is the speech on Wednesday night by former President Bill Clinton. Mr Clinton has been asked to talk about national security but his aides protest that he should have been allowed to contrast the current economy with that during his administration in the 1990s.

Clinton supporters fear this means Mr Clinton might be blamed for sounding tepid about Mr Obama. "That puts him in a terrible bind, because you can't give a ringing endorsement when you're talking about foreign policy," a longtime Clinton adviser told Politico. "Obviously, the hard thing to talk about with Obama is commander in chief, of all his many talents."

Democratic operatives attempted to crush the developing narrative about a Obama-Clinton rift. "The fact is that our teams are working closely to ensure a successful convention, and will continue to do so," said David Axelrod, Mr Obama's chief strategist, and Maggie Williams, who was Mrs Clinton's campaign manager. "Anyone saying anything else doesn't know what they're talking about - period."

Anita Dunn, a senior Obama aide, said that Mrs Clinton and her campaign had been "wonderful partners in working on this convention with us".

Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist close to the Obama campaign, told "The Daily Telegraph": "This is a purely media-generated issue. By all signs from the Cs and current and former staff everybody is working together to ger Barack Obama elected president.

"Rumours circles among Democrats all the time. We're professional hand-wringers. There always something people get worked up about. One of the things conventions are about is bringing people together. There was a long-fought primary and there were a lot of people who were very emotionally invested but the entire party is now together."

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 25, 2008, 02:50:43 PM
I give you more leeway than most, but the Hillary crap is getting old now, dude. 

I think both sides have kicked her around enough at this point, so perhaps you can just pick on Obama.

You know, the one who's actually running for president?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 25, 2008, 03:45:54 PM
he impervious all suggestion.  must be all that titanium.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 25, 2008, 03:57:44 PM
I give you more leeway than most, but the Hillary crap is getting old now, dude. 

I think both sides have kicked her around enough at this point, so perhaps you can just pick on Obama.

You know, the one who's actually running for president?

the hiliary crap re: lack of willingness to endorse bam with full gusto and get her supporters to do the same is all over the news today? no?  waiting to see if bill's speech and hiliary's is "obama, obama, obama!!"...it better be such and not a set-up for her to run in four years...that will be problematic..

hey...this is current, bro.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 25, 2008, 04:12:54 PM
hey, there some sort magnet can use on titanium?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 25, 2008, 04:19:16 PM
Um, what is she supposed to do?  Drive cross-country in a convertible with a bull horn screaming Obama's praises?  Sit in the crowd during the convention in a cheerleading outfit waving a big foam finger?  She has certainly been no less supportive than any other vanquished primary rival in recent memory has been, on either side of the aisle.  In her case, I think it's considerably gracious, given that most barely-vanquished rivals were added to the ticket and she was passed over in what some reports suggest was a rather carefree manner.    

Her campaign for the presidency was just as historic as Obama's and the party is recognizing that by having her participate in the convention.  Let's not forget that should Obama lose, in a practical sense, he goes back to being 1 of 100 senators.  Bill and Hillary Clinton will always be a former Democratic president and first lady of the United States and those positions deserve respect at the party's convention.    

I'm sure after Denver, she'll be as publicly supportive as the Obama campaign would like her to be, just as she has been since June, bro.        
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 25, 2008, 05:04:51 PM
oral sex.  julie sure it got something do oral sex.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 25, 2008, 06:52:22 PM
Um, what is she supposed to do?  Drive cross-country in a convertible with a bull horn screaming Obama's praises?  Sit in the crowd during the convention in a cheerleading outfit waving a big foam finger?  She has certainly been no less supportive than any other vanquished primary rival in recent memory has been, on either side of the aisle.  In her case, I think it's considerably gracious, given that most barely-vanquished rivals were added to the ticket and she was passed over in what some reports suggest was a rather carefree manner.    

Her campaign for the presidency was just as historic as Obama's and the party is recognizing that by having her participate in the convention.  Let's not forget that should Obama lose, in a practical sense, he goes back to being 1 of 100 senators.  Bill and Hillary Clinton will always be a former Democratic president and first lady of the United States and those positions deserve respect at the party's convention.    

I'm sure after Denver, she'll be as publicly supportive as the Obama campaign would like her to be, just as she has been since June, bro.        

if she were truly supportive...she would have bowed out much earlier perhaps even after super tuesday...and during her concession speech not said, "what does hiliary want?"...and she would have had her husband...the former pres. who really did not help al gore...give a more supportive "yes, he can!" comment than his phone call congrats...and his "not so sure" comment...truth is...she hasn't been that supportive and aye am not the only one who thinks this...aye predicted she would not put verve into her support...she hasn't even visited pennsylvania...a state obama needs and hiliary did some serious damage...her and ed rendell...

both could have done more already...but...we will listen to their speeches at the convention...

aye can't believe you think hiliary is not planning to make another run at it...and what better way than letting her supporters slide into the convention without her getting them to lay off obama...you know...hey, guys...it's over...

bro, where do you think the rift in the party originated anyway???

the republicans did not cause it....it is not unlike the 1972 election...and we know what that gave us.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 25, 2008, 08:40:51 PM
...see new post.

Come again?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 25, 2008, 09:45:55 PM
It's not Hillary Clinton's responsibility to elect Barack Obama president.  If he wanted her to do nothing but travel the country urging her supporters to vote for him, he should have put her on the ticket.  She gave an incredibly gracious endorsement of his candidacy when she withdrew in June, introduced Obama to her biggest donors, made the appearance in New Hampshire and I'm sure will continue to put forth a similar effort as November draws nearer as she did for Kerry and Gore. 

Beyond that, I'm not really interested in rehashing the Clinton v. Obama debate.  Why don't you worry about Grandpa McCain's stumbles and bumbles and stop Clinton-boxing like it's 1992. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 26, 2008, 06:06:33 AM
...see new post.

Come again?

my answer to you was moved to "discussion w ms. p."...moved out of this thread...okay? come on haven't you already read the answer? ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 26, 2008, 08:05:25 AM
...see new post.

Come again?

my answer to you was moved to "discussion w ms. p."...moved out of this thread...okay? come on haven't you already read the answer? ;)

Oops, sorry.  I missed that, as I thought you meant a new post in this thread. :)  I will have to come back to it later, perhaps tomorrow.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on August 26, 2008, 09:02:40 AM
Beyond that, I'm not really interested in rehashing the Clinton v. Obama debate.  Why don't you worry about Grandpa McCain's stumbles and bumbles and stop Clinton-boxing like it's 1992. 

it's not really about what you are or aren't interested in though is it?  that a former first lady and a former president, cannot accept the fact that Obama is the nominee continues to be a relevant, nagging problem.


   http://www.denverpost.com/ci_10301038?source=rss
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12782.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/26/america/assess.php
http://www.gallup.com/poll/109792/Gallup-Daily-Race-Tied-Democratic-Convention-Starts.aspx

the repubs are laughing their a$$es off.  only the dems could fuk up a sure thing like defeating the right this year.
   

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 26, 2008, 09:07:33 AM
keep up that whistling in dark.

always can find couple people say anything.  you proof of that.

democrats think it pretty funny you idiot nominate mcsame.  of course, you really not have much from which pick.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 26, 2008, 09:26:56 PM
...see new post.

Come again?

my answer to you was moved to "discussion w ms. p."...moved out of this thread...okay? come on haven't you already read the answer? ;)

Oops, sorry.  I missed that, as I thought you meant a new post in this thread. :)  I will have to come back to it later, perhaps tomorrow.



it's not as interesting in a new thread than it was here, huh?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 26, 2008, 09:30:07 PM
...see new post.

Come again?

my answer to you was moved to "discussion w ms. p."...moved out of this thread...okay? come on haven't you already read the answer? ;)

Oops, sorry.  I missed that, as I thought you meant a new post in this thread. :)  I will have to come back to it later, perhaps tomorrow.



it's not as interesting in a new thread than it was here, huh?

No.  I just didn't see it,  as I generally don't venture outside of my unreads unless I am killing time.  I don't really feel like having a serious conversation right now.  I've had a kind of rough couple of days.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 26, 2008, 09:35:24 PM
...see new post.

Come again?

my answer to you was moved to "discussion w ms. p."...moved out of this thread...okay? come on haven't you already read the answer? ;)

Oops, sorry.  I missed that, as I thought you meant a new post in this thread. :)  I will have to come back to it later, perhaps tomorrow.



it's not as interesting in a new thread than it was here, huh?

No.  I just didn't see it,  as I generally don't venture outside of my unreads unless I am killing time.  I don't really feel like having a serious conversation right now.  I've had a kind of rough couple of days.

work through the rough time...no problem...when u are ready...if u are ready...it is in a different thread, now. 

better that way. ;)

good luck.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 26, 2008, 09:38:57 PM
this is barack's problem continuing in pennsylvania...hiliary has not reigned this guy in yet...this election will have pa as a MAJOR player...

Rendell Compares Obama to Adlai Stevenson

By Jonathan Weisman

DENVER -- Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell captured the jitters of the Democratic Party today when he conceded that for all Barack Obama's gifts, "he's not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with" and urged the presumptive nominee to start punching back against Republican attacks.

In a wide ranging interview, Rendell insisted that while Obama still has not won over perhaps 30 percent of Hillary Rodham Clinton's voters, he will have locked down 95 percent of them by midnight tonight, after Clinton speaks to the Democratic National Convention here. But Rendell, a strong Clinton supporter during the primaries, made it clear he thinks Obama still has work to do with the white, working class voters who backed her.

"With people who have a lot of gifts, it's hard for people to identify with them," the governor said. "Barack Obama is handsome. He's incredibly bright. He's incredibly well spoken, and he's incredibly successful -- not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with."

For a politician cut from a rougher cloth, Rendell may have offered a back-handed compliment when he compared Obama to Adlai Stevenson, the failed Democratic candidate from the 1950s who captured the imagination of American intellectuals but not the electorate at large.

"He is a little like Adlai Stevenson," Rendell mused. "You ask him a question, and he gives you a six-minute answer. And the six-minute answer is smart as all get out. It's intellectual. It's well framed. It takes care of all the contingencies. But it's a lousy soundbite."

"We've got to start smacking back in short understandable bites," he said, noting "Everybody is nervous as all get out. Everybody says we ought to be ahead by 10, 15 points. What the heck is going on?"

For all that worry, Rendell's prognosis for Obama is good, at least in his crucial state. The addition of Scranton-born Joe Biden to the Democratic ticket probably pads Obama's thin lead by two percentage points, Rendell said, and the economy will ultimately persuade people to look beyond personality, background and race to focus on policy. Obama needs to make his economic proposals more understandable, and to show some real anger, especially about issues like the United States financing Iraq's reconstruction while the Iraqi government holds an oil-fueled government surplus.

"What I think most people are waiting for -- and as soon as they see it, I think it's over -- they're waiting to see that he's angry about that stuff, too. Not just that he thinks it's wrong intellectually -- that he's angry," Rendell advised.

In the end, though, "When times are hard, people care about one thing, one color -- green," he concluded. "That's all there is."

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 26, 2008, 09:52:36 PM
after watching hiLIARy give that speech tonight...aye am convinced that that woman is possessed...she is an evil lying crazy person...she looked like a horror show main character...her speech was shrill...and toned out...aye was waiting for the mask to come of and will smith to come out and "shoot the aliens"

she reminded me of that will farrell character on snl with the "voice modulation and tone problem"...but scary...not funny.

if you want to have some fun...turn the volume down when they replay the speech and watch her...scary stuff.



her eyes are soooooo wide open and her head turns so "exorcist like" she appears genuinely c r a z y...


...thank god hiliary is out of this thing...


at least her speech had obama's name in it more than three times...that was the good part...but probably too little and too late...she has done some serious damage...like 1972 kind of damage...

aye despise that lying evil creature...


"where are the men in black?"  to take the crazy creature away????


...now we hope bubbah will be all about obama...he better stay on script...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 26, 2008, 10:27:46 PM
I just hate when those women talk above library voice and get all shrill and have wrinkles and less-than-perfect thighs...

Next thing you know, they'll start having ideas and opinions!

Ack!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 05:15:06 AM
this is barack's problem continuing in pennsylvania...hiliary has not reigned this guy in yet...this election will have pa as a MAJOR player...


still with "reigning."  ever use dictionary, asshat?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 05:16:34 AM
I just hate when those women talk above library voice and get all shrill and have wrinkles and less-than-perfect thighs...

Next thing you know, they'll start having ideas and opinions!

Ack!

bluecoward just disappointed hrc not fulfill traditional media narrative as "troublemaker." 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 05:30:14 AM
this is barack's problem continuing in pennsylvania...hiliary has not reigned this guy in yet...this election will have pa as a MAJOR player...


still with "reigning."  ever use dictionary, asshat?

hiliary thinks she reigns the country, bigot...she may be pretending to reigning in democrats but she not reign in rendell...
...you not not like colorful things do you...what aye right better than what you write... ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 05:39:45 AM
ha ha, it not working.

maybe it time trade one of your blowjobs for dictionary.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 05:43:45 AM
I just hate when those women talk above library voice and get all shrill and have wrinkles and less-than-perfect thighs...

Next thing you know, they'll start having ideas and opinions!

Ack!

 :D :D :D...aye think it was the alien-puppet wide-eyed head turning from side to side as well as the tone-modulation problem she has...particularly when her voice is rising...sorry, my man...it is shrill...

if you turn the volume down and watch the speech...her eyes get wider and her face distorts in an almost sci-fi alien way...seriously...watch the speech again...but with the volume off totally...aye was waiting for her to pull of her human mask and an alien jump out...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 05:45:46 AM
ha ha, it not working.

maybe it time trade one of your blowjobs for dictionary.

obviously you knot get it, but then again, you knucklehead bigot...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 05:58:05 AM
ah, ol' homophone dodge, eh?

better "reign" in your numbnutedness.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 06:19:50 AM
ah, ol' homophone dodge, eh?

better "reign" in your numbnutedness.


"warm words sprite action onward.
stones, stand, still."


homophone...homonym...cinnany m...auntonym...letters...and on a lower case aye use capitols and punctuate them all with elipses...aye also extrapolate assonance for bigo"ttt"ed holes of ass like yourself in the tones of my righting aye sing with consonance and dissonance...and occassionally aye like to con some ants...and of course aye work with the vowel, enigmatic "w"...aye am a published righter...{among other things}  ;) ...and you remain a bigot, mr. bunker...now go scrawl down the word, "putz" dipshite...since ya got no game.  

let me know when a "lst test prep peddler" like yourself getz it, mon...after all aye don't criticize the fact that you don't understand how the preposition shows relationship of other wordz in a sentence.

study for your poetic license...one day you may have won one like aye have one owned.



"but aye know you willn't...cause you a bigot...and your knuckles drag slowly, hairily, behind your behind scrapingly along the dirty ground...grounding your last brain-cell with your pinky-finger in toe."


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


turn down hilliary clinton's speech and you don't need her words to understand that she is like puppet-alien-monster...just sit back and watch her body language and bizarre wide-eyed facial distortions---like a bizarre alien ring-master at a creepy bazaar...

mark my words...she is trying to escape the responsibility for losing the presidency for obama if that happens...she is trying to ride out of town and skirt responsibility.

lets hope the republican convention gets no media attention...is a snooze fest and goes by quickly.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on August 27, 2008, 06:41:05 AM
dude when you read this next to the comments ed rendell made, i am really starting to believe the dems are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. priceless, just priceless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603921_pf.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/source-bill-clinton-will-not-attend-obamas-invesco-speech/

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 06:42:22 AM
I just hate when those women talk above library voice and get all shrill and have wrinkles and less-than-perfect thighs...

Next thing you know, they'll start having ideas and opinions!

Ack!

are you smarting bro?  hey, if it is any consolation...aye love caroline kennedy...she has a beautiful charisma and wonderful speaking style and a very genuine manner...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 08:32:28 AM
dude when you read this next to the comments ed rendell made, i am really starting to believe the dems are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. priceless, just priceless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603921_pf.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/source-bill-clinton-will-not-attend-obamas-invesco-speech/




unfortunately for obama who aye voted for twice now...hiliary clinton, bill clinton, and ed rendell sewed the seeds in pennsylvania quite a while back...we independents "the indigos" in particular...got out there to keep hiliary from winning that state and we were successful in not letting her run away with it...but rendell stirred up "skin color" tensions...aye think he is a chump...

however...this election is really much like 1972...see how the democrat party seems to always shoot itself in the foot...if obama ran as an independent like mccain has been...he would escape some of the democrat "self loathing" problems...and in fighting...besides aye already know there are democrats in pa and florida who, if hiliary wasn't in this thing...they were going to stay home...that is one of their biggest problems...also...many "reagan democrats" are going to be "mccain democrats".

seriously, if hiliary had gotten out of the race earlier...obama would have had no problem with the presidential election...

check out all the similarities between 1972 and 2008...that is the crescent of the problem...a fractured party...aye've been pointing this out for a while now...finally people have come out of their political stupor...and are facing reality.


main reason: hiliary wants to run again in 4 years...this is her thinking: there is the "right-wing conspiracy" there are the "democrats" and there is "hiliary"...whose side do you think she is on...aye've met this woman...she thinks only of herself...she is disingenuous and condescending...she also wants obama and his campaign to help her pay off her debt...such hiliary audacity...


aye wrote a long time ago on lsd...back in 2005 that the next president of the usa was going to be john mccain...and the dems would have to wait a long time...until barack obama...however...hiliary messed up the democrats very badly...and rendell was her agent...his comments are distasteful seeds...

so...mccain will probably win this thing and aye am independent...so aye want independent obama to win...but if independent mccain wins...that will be okay too.


...how dare the dnc wants to pick its own candidate and an independent candidate at that...and not hiliary...how dare they. ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 09:36:05 AM
dude when you read this next to the comments ed rendell made, i am really starting to believe the dems are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. priceless, just priceless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603921_pf.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/source-bill-clinton-will-not-attend-obamas-invesco-speech/



golly, this first time you admit republicans in trouble.

those years of therapy finally paying off?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 09:37:14 AM
I just hate when those women talk above library voice and get all shrill and have wrinkles and less-than-perfect thighs...

Next thing you know, they'll start having ideas and opinions!

Ack!

are you smarting bro? hey, if it is any consolation...aye love caroline kennedy...she has a beautiful charisma and wonderful speaking style and a very genuine manner...

golly.  you have heart big as all boise.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 09:38:40 AM
dude when you read this next to the comments ed rendell made, i am really starting to believe the dems are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. priceless, just priceless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603921_pf.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/source-bill-clinton-will-not-attend-obamas-invesco-speech/




unfortunately for obama who aye voted for twice now...hiliary clinton, bill clinton, and ed rendell sewed the seeds in pennsylvania quite a while back...we independents "the indigos" in particular...got out there to keep hiliary from winning that state and we were successful in not letting her run away with it...but rendell stirred up "skin color" tensions...aye think he is a chump...


wow, so now they "sewing" seeds!  that must be some needle and thread.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 10:13:04 AM
dude when you read this next to the comments ed rendell made, i am really starting to believe the dems are going to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. priceless, just priceless.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/26/AR2008082603921_pf.html
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/26/source-bill-clinton-will-not-attend-obamas-invesco-speech/




unfortunately for obama who aye voted for twice now...hiliary clinton, bill clinton, and ed rendell sewed the seeds in pennsylvania quite a while back...we independents "the indigos" in particular...got out there to keep hiliary from winning that state and we were successful in not letting her run away with it...but rendell stirred up "skin color" tensions...aye think he is a chump...


wow, so now they "sewing" seeds!  that must be some needle and thread.


 :D :D :D :D

it really pisses you off doesn't it?   :D :D :D :D  aye'll use any arrow from my choir to piss you off... :D :D :D


aye bate you and you take it... ;)


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 10:49:13 AM
no, you just not know english.  but that interesting way try cover up.

why not you tell us again how you run america?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 11:00:03 AM
no, you just not know english.  but that interesting way try cover up.

why not you tell us again how you run america?

 don't feel bad...you just got punked.

you don't have poetic license either...


here: read again but this time engage your "color-filled" imagination and find the challenging duel meaning...

"unfortunately for obama who aye voted for twice now...hiliary clinton, bill clinton, and ed rendell sewed the seeds in pennsylvania quite a while back...we independents "the indigos" in particular...got out there to keep hiliary from winning that state and we were successful in not letting her run away with it...but rendell stirred up "skin color" tensions...aye think he is a chump..."
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 27, 2008, 01:37:31 PM
confusing "reign" for "rein" have slight logic to it, but you getting nowhere with "sew" for "sow."

and you not support obama.  you just pretending, as is obvious once one read your posts.

maybe this work better if you actually criticize great grandpa mccain.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 27, 2008, 06:21:14 PM
you punked yourself, archie...and you looking more and more stupid.


aye like mccan...why would aye criticize him...aye am pointing out, however...how devious the clinton's are...they are rusty old tools.

and you have not an imagination...

"you sowing with pig intestine and nit...
and aye seam with wry breadth."  ;)


you are out of your league...


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 05:26:06 AM
you sound just like fox news.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 28, 2008, 05:33:50 AM
good speech by bubbah...now let's see if he repairs the damage he, hiliary and ed rendell did in pa...get back on the bus and roll up sleeves  get to work and go to pa...and give some more speeches.

we need...all those folks who said they would sit home if hiliary was not their candidate...believe me...pa and florida are going to be a tough sell...

we indigos tried to get them on obama's bus...we had crossover pubs...but to get those dems who said they would sit home on election day are not going to be easy...

time to take bubbahs speech and really repair the clinton damage...

 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 06:01:52 AM
which, of course, never be done according you.

this really all you republicans got?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on August 28, 2008, 07:01:26 AM
more Clinton stuff in the news.  who is up for the nomination again?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080828/D92R528G0.html

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 09:49:54 AM
nice try, nimrod.  let's see who get attention tonight.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 28, 2008, 12:13:17 PM
The second paragraph of the article pretty much answers your question:

Barack Obama has been forced, by the clout Hillary Rodham Clinton showed in their primary battle and his need for her voters in his race against Republican John McCain, to allow the gathering of Democrats to look a lot like the Clinton Convention.

Beyond that, as stated previously in this thread, Hillary Clinton is the first woman to come within serious reach of a major party's presidential nomination.  She is also a former first lady of the United States.  Her past and current positions, primary success and the "superficial" aspects of her candidacy and campaign demand different treatment than that of past runners-up.

Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton.  He's spoken at every Democratic convention since 1988 and I imagine he'll continue speaking at Democratic conventions until he's no longer able to form sentences.  Who else is going to electrify the base?  Jimmy Carter?  I can barely understand him when he's on Larry King.

Both Clintons did everything the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party needed them to do, and nothing more.  It's lame that the media and the Republicans can't come up with better smack than this to fuel interest/garner votes.       
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 12:32:48 PM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on August 28, 2008, 02:12:47 PM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.

Check the polls.
Dead heat - what happened to Obama's massive, double-digit lead?  The Obama World Tour was a disaster, choosing Biden was a disaster, and the DNC party has been a disaster.
"we" aren't losing much sleep these days about losing any power.  Funny that you acknowledge that all liberals care about is attaining power though....  Who cares what's best for the nation when all you care about is power?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 03:46:13 PM
what would you boys do without fox news tell you what you think?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 28, 2008, 03:59:18 PM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.

Check the polls.
Dead heat - what happened to Obama's massive, double-digit lead? The Obama World Tour was a disaster, choosing Biden was a disaster, and the DNC party has been a disaster.
"we" aren't losing much sleep these days about losing any power. Funny that you acknowledge that all liberals care about is attaining power though.... Who cares what's best for the nation when all you care about is power?


ok, polls checked, shitbreath:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 28, 2008, 09:48:57 PM
"we" aren't losing much sleep these days about losing any power.  Funny that you acknowledge that all liberals care about is attaining power though....  Who cares what's best for the nation when all you care about is power?


Oh, give it a rest.  This is a thread about why (or whether) Obama will lose.  Of course the participants are writing about whether or not their candidates will gain power. Why don't you try to answer both candidates' calls to move this election beyond the politics of personal insults and partisan stereotypes like this one?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 06:16:33 AM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.

tell that to the women who kept george "w" bush in power...and what about the "puma" issue...they left denver in a huff.

clinton put so many lies in their heads that many of them will be staying home on election day...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 07:45:56 AM
magnificent speech...beautiful...'bam the man.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 07:46:15 AM
will the next 70+ days be spent in an america publicly vetting the vice president position??? after these long campaign years...what focus will the election take?  who or what will this new season be about??? ;)


and remember this: a record number of voters went to the polls in 1960...

"a mere 112,803 votes separated the two candidates - the smallest margin of the century. If only 4500 voters in Illinois and 24,000 voters in Texas had changed their minds, Nixon would have been president. In eleven states, a shift of less than 1 percent of the vote would have switched the state's electoral votes."
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 08:27:37 AM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.

tell that to the women who kept george "w" bush in power...and what about the "puma" issue...they left denver in a huff.

clinton put so many lies in their heads that many of them will be staying home on election day...


uh oh...now there is another alternative...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 29, 2008, 09:19:16 AM
Wow, um.

I think we just won the election?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: goaliechica on August 29, 2008, 09:22:28 AM
Wow, um.

I think we just won the election?

Wait, what?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 09:30:12 AM
Wow, um.

I think we just won the election?

the independents already won it...NO hiliary clinton... ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 29, 2008, 09:45:51 AM
Wow, um.

I think we just won the election?

Wait, what?

He picked someone less "qualified" than Obama (which, admittedly, is pretty hard to do).

It'll either be a brilliant move, or a complete disaster. 

Given the Republican base, I'm thinking the former.     
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 09:49:31 AM
Wow, um.

I think we just won the election?

Wait, what?

He picked someone less "qualified" than Obama (which, admittedly, is pretty hard to do).

It'll either be a brilliant move, or a complete disaster. 

Given the Republican base, I'm thinking the former.     


 :D :D :D...aye think you underestimate that mccain is an independent...

so far it seems to be brilliant...but obama gave a great inspirational speech didn't he. ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 29, 2008, 09:54:18 AM
Well, no, because whatever you want to call him, he's not running as an independent, and he can't win an election appealing just to independents. 

Also, no, it doesn't seem brilliant, in the least. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 09:59:32 AM
Well, no, because whatever you want to call him, he's not running as an independent, and he can't win an election appealing just to independents. 

Also, no, it doesn't seem brilliant, in the least. 

could shatter the eighteen million cracks in the glass. ;)  nah...not brilliant...just independent thinking.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 29, 2008, 10:17:16 AM
Well, a woman has already run for vice president, so...that ceiling has been cracked. 

Should he win and she actually becomes vice president, that isn't really the ceiling Hillary was aiming for (although still a big deal, yes). 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 10:18:46 AM
Wow, um.

I think we just won the election?

Wait, what?

He picked someone less "qualified" than Obama (which, admittedly, is pretty hard to do).

It'll either be a brilliant move, or a complete disaster.

Given the Republican base, I'm thinking the former.

obama state szenator inlarge state for decade or so before become u.s. senator four years ago.

two years ago, palin part-time mayor of village of 6,000.  doesn't compare.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 10:52:06 AM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.

Check the polls.
Dead heat - what happened to Obama's massive, double-digit lead? The Obama World Tour was a disaster, choosing Biden was a disaster, and the DNC party has been a disaster.
"we" aren't losing much sleep these days about losing any power. Funny that you acknowledge that all liberals care about is attaining power though.... Who cares what's best for the nation when all you care about is power?


ok, polls checked, shitbreath:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx

more of thosae danged polls:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109933/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Stretches-Lead-Points.aspx
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 11:04:40 AM
Wow, um.

I think we just won the election?

Wait, what?



He picked someone less "qualified" than Obama (which, admittedly, is pretty hard to do).

It'll either be a brilliant move, or a complete disaster.

Given the Republican base, I'm thinking the former.

obama state szenator inlarge state for decade or so before become u.s. senator four years ago.

two years ago, palin part-time mayor of village of 6,000.  doesn't compare.

um...she is the v.p. nomination...and you are pointing backwards and drawing attention to obama's experience...be careful...

but she does seems kinder and more gentle than cheney. ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:07:01 AM
that your game, numbnuts.  too bad if it not working out for you.

get used disappointment.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 29, 2008, 11:09:50 AM
I never argued that Obama had any experience, although he does have more than Palin. 

I support Obama because I disagree with McCain on most substantive issues, because he's gone back on most of the things that made him an appealing Republican in 2000 to appease the worst elements of his party and because this country needs an absolute change of course from George W. Bush. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:13:42 AM
not say you did.  julie say obama have experience.

but julie glad you support obama, whatever reason.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 11:15:57 AM
I never argued that Obama had any experience, although he does have more than Palin. 

I support Obama because I disagree with McCain on most substantive issues, because he's gone back on most of the things that made him an appealing Republican in 2000 to appease the worst elements of his party and because this country needs an absolute change of course from George W. Bush. 

well, you should be happy that palin is not male private part cheney...aye think it's a big change.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 11:18:29 AM
that your game, numbnuts.  too bad if it not working out for you.

get used disappointment.

 :D :D :D...

hiliary not in the picture...that would be disappointment.

aye am very happy whatever the outcome...aye see two independents running and aye am laughing and laughing...

and enjoying this thing and can't wait to see what happens...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 11:19:21 AM
not say you did.  julie say obama have experience.

but julie glad you support obama, whatever reason.

come on...no arguing...where is that unity. :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:20:11 AM
I never argued that Obama had any experience, although he does have more than Palin.

I support Obama because I disagree with McCain on most substantive issues, because he's gone back on most of the things that made him an appealing Republican in 2000 to appease the worst elements of his party and because this country needs an absolute change of course from George W. Bush.

well, you should be happy that palin is not male private part cheney...aye think it's a big change.

couldn't be any worse.  we have your party thank for that
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
not say you did. julie say obama have experience.

but julie glad you support obama, whatever reason.

come on...no arguing...where is that unity. :D :D :D :D

we never lost it, unlike your brains.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 11:22:36 AM
not say you did. julie say obama have experience.

but julie glad you support obama, whatever reason.

come on...no arguing...where is that unity. :D :D :D :D

we never lost it, unlike your brains.

really? now...now...don't get upset....aye think hiliary did more damage to ya then ya think, mon.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 11:23:49 AM
not say you did. julie say obama have experience.

but julie glad you support obama, whatever reason.

come on...no arguing...where is that unity. :D :D :D :D

we never lost it, unlike your brains.

really? aye think hiliary did more damage to ya then ya think, mon.

so you insist on saying.

write back when you get your citizenship.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 11:26:02 AM
not say you did. julie say obama have experience.

but julie glad you support obama, whatever reason.

come on...no arguing...where is that unity. :D :D :D :D

we never lost it, unlike your brains.

really? aye think hiliary did more damage to ya then ya think, mon.

so you insist on saying.

write back when you get your citizenship.

what is a p.u.m.a.? ;)  do you know?

and stop arguing with your fellow democrat....saxby clemens is kool...be nice.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 11:45:40 AM
looks like the dems need time to cool off...






...obama...






...mccan...








Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 29, 2008, 02:57:37 PM
I never argued that Obama had any experience, although he does have more than Palin. 

I support Obama because I disagree with McCain on most substantive issues, because he's gone back on most of the things that made him an appealing Republican in 2000 to appease the worst elements of his party and because this country needs an absolute change of course from George W. Bush. 

well, you should be happy that palin is not male private part cheney...aye think it's a big change.

I don't know if being less evil than male private part Cheney is really a noteworthy accomplishment...

I will say that the Obama campaign should have acknowledged the historic nature of Palin's selection before they dissed her, or done both at once, at least. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 29, 2008, 06:53:52 PM
obama up 45% with hispanics in southwest:

http://www.democracycorps.com/strategy/2008/08/consolidating-the-hispanic-vote/?section=Analysis
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 29, 2008, 10:12:53 PM
I never argued that Obama had any experience, although he does have more than Palin. 

I support Obama because I disagree with McCain on most substantive issues, because he's gone back on most of the things that made him an appealing Republican in 2000 to appease the worst elements of his party and because this country needs an absolute change of course from George W. Bush. 

well, you should be happy that palin is not male private part cheney...aye think it's a big change.

I don't know if being less evil than male private part Cheney is really a noteworthy accomplishment...

I will say that the Obama campaign should have acknowledged the historic nature of Palin's selection before they dissed her, or done both at once, at least. 

it is a fractured disorganized party, my man...um...do they even know who she is? yet? ::)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 30, 2008, 12:47:12 AM
I will say that the Obama campaign should have acknowledged the historic nature of Palin's selection before they dissed her, or done both at once, at least. 

What's historic about it?  First Alaskan?  First time the Republicans have nominated a woman?  Eh.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 30, 2008, 09:26:14 AM
...my gut tells me that palin is a very smart woman...bi-partisan as well...follows independent thinking...can't wait for those v.p. debates...palin not much for tele-prompters...biden might have his work cut out for him...

aye think the dems better tread lightly...this ain't gonna be no slam dunk...more like a chess game... ;)

we indigos are having fun watching this from the sidelines now that the LIAR is gone.

Biden and the pipeline

Posted by Alaska_Politics



From Michael Carey, former ADN editorial page editor, TV talk show host and occasional columnist in the newspaper --

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's choice for vice president, has been a senator since 1972.

He is one of only five senators who were present in 1973 when Congress passed legislation authorizing construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline system (TAPS).

Biden, then 30, was the youngest member of the Senate and not a leader in the lengthy debate over the pipeline. But his voting record is striking - at least to an Alaskan interested in history.

Biden was a reliable "no" on TAPS. In July, when the Senate passed the Gravel-Stevens amendment allowing immediate construction of the line and precluding further judicial review, Biden voted no. The amendment passed after Vice President Spiro Agnew broke a 49-49 tie.

In November, Biden voted against final passage of the bill. The vote was 80-5, Biden one of the five.

The pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez was controversial, mostly because of the potential environmental consequences and widespread public distrust of the oil companies. Some senators also felt the line should go from Alaska to the Midwest.

The July vote fractured both parties, especially the Democrats, who were in the majority. Only six Democrats not from the South voted with Gravel and Stevens: Robert Byrd (West Virginia), Gale McGee (Wyoming), Alan Bible and Howard Cannon (Nevada), Vance Hartke (Indiana) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii). (Inouye is one of the current senators who served in 1972. The others are Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, Byrd and Stevens and Biden.)

Henry Jackson, sponsor of the pipeline bill that passed in November with the Gravel-Stevens amendment and arguably the most influential senator in the debate, voted against Gravel-Stevens in July. As did other Senate giants such as Democrats Mike Mansfield (Montana), Frank Church (Idaho) and Hubert Humphrey (Minnesota). Among the Republicans, Mark Hatfield (Oregon) voted "no," as did Bob Dole (Kansas) and Charles Percy (Illinois.)

In November, Biden was a holdout "no" with Democrats Birch Bayh (Indiana), Harold Hughes (Iowa), William Proxmire (Wisconsin) and Republican Edward Brooke (Massachusetts).

Biden was not a household name in 1973. One of the Alaska newspapers spelled his name "Byden." As a young senator, he would have been extra attentive to his constituents and his leaders - men like Jackson, Mansfield, Humphrey and Church. Nevertheless, he had to go out of his way to put himself on the losing end of an 80-5 vote.

Biden's position on the trans-Alaska pipeline did not stand out in 1973. Thirty-five years later, it does, at least in Alaska where the pipeline has generated immense private wealth and pays for most of state government.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on August 30, 2008, 10:38:12 AM
I will say that the Obama campaign should have acknowledged the historic nature of Palin's selection before they dissed her, or done both at once, at least. 

What's historic about it?  First Alaskan?  First time the Republicans have nominated a woman?  Eh.

I would hope that women who didn't agree with Hillary politically would still be inspired by her candidacy.  Sarah Palin's politics are batshit crazy, IMO, but she's still the first woman to be nominated by the "less progressive" party.  I think you can/should respect that before, or at the same time you denounce her political stance. 

I don't know that anyone really paid attention, but the Obama campaign slamming her and then rushing out a statement a few hours later recognizing the fact she's a woman seemed awkward.     

 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 30, 2008, 11:56:52 AM
I will say that the Obama campaign should have acknowledged the historic nature of Palin's selection before they dissed her, or done both at once, at least. 

What's historic about it?  First Alaskan?  First time the Republicans have nominated a woman?  Eh.

Why does this not count as historic?

I suppose because I don't view the relatively late accommodations of the Republican Party as "historic," at least in the national-historical sense.  YMMV.  But, as much as I dislike her, Geraldine Ferraro was the first female VP candidate from a major party almost a quarter century  ago.  That glass ceiling has already cracked.  You can carve it out lots of different ways ("first female sitting governor," "first female public school graduate," etc.); "first female" has been done.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on August 30, 2008, 11:59:56 AM
I will say that the Obama campaign should have acknowledged the historic nature of Palin's selection before they dissed her, or done both at once, at least. 

What's historic about it?  First Alaskan?  First time the Republicans have nominated a woman?  Eh.

I would hope that women who didn't agree with Hillary politically would still be inspired by her candidacy.  Sarah Palin's politics are batshit crazy, IMO, but she's still the first woman to be nominated by the "less progressive" party.  I think you can/should respect that before, or at the same time you denounce her political stance. 

I don't know that anyone really paid attention, but the Obama campaign slamming her and then rushing out a statement a few hours later recognizing the fact she's a woman seemed awkward.     

 

I agree with this last bit, and were I directing the campaign's communications, I would have struck a much different tone.  That said, I am not particularly inspired by her just because she's a woman, and I hope little girls are more inspired by feminist leaders than by female leaders.  She is in the position she is precisely because of her reprehensible politics and her homecoming queen schmooze. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 30, 2008, 12:10:05 PM
I will say that the Obama campaign should have acknowledged the historic nature of Palin's selection before they dissed her, or done both at once, at least. 

What's historic about it?  First Alaskan?  First time the Republicans have nominated a woman?  Eh.

I would hope that women who didn't agree with Hillary politically would still be inspired by her candidacy.  Sarah Palin's politics are batshit crazy, IMO, but she's still the first woman to be nominated by the "less progressive" party.  I think you can/should respect that before, or at the same time you denounce her political stance. 

I don't know that anyone really paid attention, but the Obama campaign slamming her and then rushing out a statement a few hours later recognizing the fact she's a woman seemed awkward.     

 

oh yeah...people paid attention...it was a "knee-jerk" reaction...part of my problem with obama's recent handlers...

not as sharp as they were back in the earlier part of the year...since his trip to europe and vacation in hawaii...

...they have to catch up and start being more contemplative in framing their arguments...even with the rapid news cycle...keep up with the current events...but square up the responses...

...sloppy handlers.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: SwEep on August 30, 2008, 12:15:16 PM
This thread reeks with insecurity and fear. The op should have named this thread Why McCain Will Win
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 30, 2008, 10:32:12 PM
This thread reeks with insecurity and fear. The op should have named this thread Why McCain Will Win

julie start just such thread about same time.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 30, 2008, 11:58:07 PM
sarah palin looks like tina fey and packs heat like annie oakley...


apparently this woman took on alaska's powerful republican "good-old-boy" network while she was with the alaska oil and gas conservation commission...she formed an ethics probe  that pushed out republican chairman randy reudrich...

...she won an upset victory over alaska's former powerful governor frank murkowski...

...sounds like a pretty powerful independent candidate...could even be democrat nature to her...aye like it...

...her first veto as governor was to block republican legislation that would have barred alaska from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees...

...sounds like a maverick to me...

...and she truly supports the second amendment...hell, she packs heat...

...feminists all over america should rejoice......she has two jobs: one as a mother of 5 and is other is the chief executive of her state...

...she calls herself a maverick...from what aye've read so far...she is more of a maverick than mccain..

...she has independents AND democrats in her cabinet??? amazing!

...aye think she is a HUGE candidate of change...

...with 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling hiliary created...this independent feminist might make that ceiling come crashing down...

...a real independent female AS the second in charge of the usa...

now, that would be historic as well...


...watching from the sidelines is awesome...

...aye might right-in a vote for palin myself as commander in chief and skip mccain and obama...


Independents...PUMA's...feminists...and mothers all over the country have pricked up their ears.....

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on August 31, 2008, 04:46:24 AM
putz.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on August 31, 2008, 07:49:16 PM
hey, looky:  palin know nothing about foreign policy so she going "study" it, hopefully get good before great grandpa keel over!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/29palin.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin



you kneejerk response...how bam handlers expect be president when respond rashly? bashing? obama look bashedly...me not so happily.

but folks look at who on top of ticket with regard to kneejerk response...not care first impressions?

we see smiling feminist/independent/mother of 5.  and also see how failed response from opponent.

but do care about experience at TOP of ticket...

you not hear me warning...

be careful who you reminding people about with regard to experience = top of ticket...

better rethink...not so good with failed response?

shoot first...ask questions later...good policy..."who are these new bam handlers????"  AAAAAHHHHH!



Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 07:52:47 AM
kneejerk?  that republicans talking.

palin want be 72-year-old heartbeat away from presidency.

could thing her ticket going down in flames.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on September 01, 2008, 03:02:23 PM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.

Check the polls.
Dead heat - what happened to Obama's massive, double-digit lead? The Obama World Tour was a disaster, choosing Biden was a disaster, and the DNC party has been a disaster.
"we" aren't losing much sleep these days about losing any power. Funny that you acknowledge that all liberals care about is attaining power though.... Who cares what's best for the nation when all you care about is power?


ok, polls checked, shitbreath:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx

Posts like this make me wonder if you actually read what you post or if you merely search for data that sort of proves your position.

For instance, you probably missed these pearls, which should illustrate how silly you can be:

"Gallup's interviewing for last Friday through Sunday, the last three days before the convention officially began, showed the race at a 45% to 45% tie. "

Preceeded by:

"The latest three-day Gallup Poll Daily tracking average (Aug. 25-27) is directly coincident with the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and is no doubt beginning to reflect the typical convention "bounce" that Gallup has observed in most party conventions in recent decades."

In other words: hold on to your hat, because this 'bounce' is not only typical, but meaningless.  Just before the convention, they were even.  After the convention?  A typical bump, which will be (I predict) nullified or reversed after the Republican convention.

Let's wait and see how things look next week, shall we?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on September 01, 2008, 03:28:15 PM
All this poll talk!  Clearly you're just in it to win and you don't care about America!

...

 ::)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 03:34:17 PM
they got nothing else, and they know they losing grip on power.

Check the polls.
Dead heat - what happened to Obama's massive, double-digit lead? The Obama World Tour was a disaster, choosing Biden was a disaster, and the DNC party has been a disaster.
"we" aren't losing much sleep these days about losing any power. Funny that you acknowledge that all liberals care about is attaining power though.... Who cares what's best for the nation when all you care about is power?


ok, polls checked, shitbreath:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109897/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-Ahead-48-42.aspx

Posts like this make me wonder if you actually read what you post or if you merely search for data that sort of proves your position.

For instance, you probably missed these pearls, which should illustrate how silly you can be:

"Gallup's interviewing for last Friday through Sunday, the last three days before the convention officially began, showed the race at a 45% to 45% tie. "

Preceeded by:

"The latest three-day Gallup Poll Daily tracking average (Aug. 25-27) is directly coincident with the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and is no doubt beginning to reflect the typical convention "bounce" that Gallup has observed in most party conventions in recent decades."

In other words: hold on to your hat, because this 'bounce' is not only typical, but meaningless. Just before the convention, they were even. After the convention? A typical bump, which will be (I predict) nullified or reversed after the Republican convention.

Let's wait and see how things look next week, shall we?

so, you saying eight point lead "dead heat!"

ha!

oh, but you be right "next week," right?

ha!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 03:56:03 PM
oops:  there go yet another poll showing obama with eight-point lead:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/01/opinion/polls/main4405106.shtml

no indication yet on next week!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 01, 2008, 06:06:57 PM
oopsie!  obama by 7 in this one:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-poll-monday_N.htm
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 01, 2008, 07:02:41 PM
kneejerk?  that republicans talking.

palin want be 72-year-old heartbeat away from presidency.

could thing her ticket going down in flames.

don't underestimate the power of the feminist...mother of 2 or 5 children...and puma vote...not to mention the independent vote...

all eyes on the two maverick's these days visiting the "crisis zone" and not still stumping...take time out of stumping...at least an afternoon and go check things out...show support...forget about not going to the BIG SEND OFF PARTY...


...aye warned you...you are seriously underestimating america and the electorate.

...be careful...

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 01, 2008, 07:03:27 PM
AHHHHH!


"The thing that I always am concerned about in the middle of the storm is whether we are drawing resources away from folks on the ground," Obama said Sunday in a statement. "We are going to try to stay clear of the area until things have settled down, and then we will probably try to figure out how we can be as helpful as possible."

what are obama's handlers thinking???


this is what bush did...stayed away...figuring he'll deal with it later...

how ironic how people perceive actions during times of crisis....just as katrina destroyed bush's credibility...it may secure mccain's...and aye don't know what will think of obama's stay away policy...we'll soon see... :-\

'bam should have at least stopped stumpin in ohio to go down there...let hiliary or bill take up the stump...

seems he cares more about those swing votes??? ::)



this is mccain's BIG convention week...and where is he??? going to where a potential commander in chief should be in time of crisis...re-assuring people...not making excuses and hanging out in some other state...

...mistake...mistake...mistak e.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 01, 2008, 08:19:51 PM
AHHHHH!


"The thing that I always am concerned about in the middle of the storm is whether we are drawing resources away from folks on the ground," Obama said Sunday in a statement. "We are going to try to stay clear of the area until things have settled down, and then we will probably try to figure out how we can be as helpful as possible."

what are obama's handlers thinking???


this is what bush did...stayed away...figuring he'll deal with it later...

how ironic how people perceive actions during times of crisis....just as katrina destroyed bush's credibility...it may secure mccain's...and aye don't know what will think of obama's stay away policy...we'll soon see... :-\

'bam should have at least stopped stumpin in ohio to go down there...let hiliary or bill take up the stump...

seems he cares more about those swing votes??? ::)



this is mccain's BIG convention week...and where is he??? going to where a potential commander in chief should be in time of crisis...re-assuring people...not making excuses and hanging out in some other state...

...mistake...mistake...mistak e.



"McCain continues campaign in Ohio, Pa.":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm)

Both McCain and Obama were in Ohio today. Bush is in Texas "monitoring" the situation. So much for that theory of yours.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 01, 2008, 08:45:46 PM
AHHHHH!


"The thing that I always am concerned about in the middle of the storm is whether we are drawing resources away from folks on the ground," Obama said Sunday in a statement. "We are going to try to stay clear of the area until things have settled down, and then we will probably try to figure out how we can be as helpful as possible."

what are obama's handlers thinking???


this is what bush did...stayed away...figuring he'll deal with it later...

how ironic how people perceive actions during times of crisis....just as katrina destroyed bush's credibility...it may secure mccain's...and aye don't know what will think of obama's stay away policy...we'll soon see... :-\

'bam should have at least stopped stumpin in ohio to go down there...let hiliary or bill take up the stump...

seems he cares more about those swing votes??? ::)



this is mccain's BIG convention week...and where is he??? going to where a potential commander in chief should be in time of crisis...re-assuring people...not making excuses and hanging out in some other state...

...mistake...mistake...mistak e.



"McCain continues campaign in Ohio, Pa.":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm)

Both McCain and Obama were in Ohio today. Bush is in Texas "monitoring" the situation. So much for that theory of yours.

true. it is a theory...::)...what aye mentioned was indeed a fact!

so mccain and palin weren't in pearl, mississippi and jackson, mississippi on sunday? then who was that? tina fey and a look alike?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/us/politics/01repubs.html?ref=us

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/31/mccain-palin-receive-hurricane-gustav-briefing/

aye'm disgruntled that obama didn't make some show of effort and take a concerned future commander in chief trip...a show of support..dammit!

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 01, 2008, 09:06:32 PM
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gustav-halts-democratic-attack-machine-2008-09-01.html

looks like bush and cheney won't be in st. paul for donkees to kick around anymore...

...who sent this storm??? can't blame it on bush this time...


...glad to see that dems and pubs have decided to put packages together to help with the aftermath...

...no week to party...prayers to my people down there.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 01, 2008, 09:46:36 PM
..go rent this film if you have not already seen it:


"the contender" 

this is a great film...about a female vice presidential nominee who overcomes smear campaigns to be selected to the second highest political office in the usa...

simply amazing!  joan allen does a fantastic job...jeff bridges...and gary oldman....


rent it sometime...it is amazing how art reflects real life...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 01, 2008, 09:57:47 PM
AHHHHH!


"The thing that I always am concerned about in the middle of the storm is whether we are drawing resources away from folks on the ground," Obama said Sunday in a statement. "We are going to try to stay clear of the area until things have settled down, and then we will probably try to figure out how we can be as helpful as possible."

what are obama's handlers thinking???


this is what bush did...stayed away...figuring he'll deal with it later...

how ironic how people perceive actions during times of crisis....just as katrina destroyed bush's credibility...it may secure mccain's...and aye don't know what will think of obama's stay away policy...we'll soon see... :-\

'bam should have at least stopped stumpin in ohio to go down there...let hiliary or bill take up the stump...

seems he cares more about those swing votes??? ::)



this is mccain's BIG convention week...and where is he??? going to where a potential commander in chief should be in time of crisis...re-assuring people...not making excuses and hanging out in some other state...

...mistake...mistake...mistak e.



"McCain continues campaign in Ohio, Pa.":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm)

Both McCain and Obama were in Ohio today. Bush is in Texas "monitoring" the situation. So much for that theory of yours.

true. it is a theory...::)...what aye mentioned was indeed a fact!

so mccain and palin weren't in pearl, mississippi and jackson, mississippi on sunday? then who was that? tina fey and a look alike?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/us/politics/01repubs.html?ref=us

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/31/mccain-palin-receive-hurricane-gustav-briefing/

aye'm disgruntled that obama didn't make some show of effort and take a concerned future commander in chief trip...a show of support..dammit!



"Concerned future commander-in-chief trip," or "shameless political photo-op?"
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 01, 2008, 10:01:03 PM
Except, Joan Allen's character is actually qualified for the position, isn't running for office, but rather being confirmed by the Senate and the controversy in question, while unfair and irrelevant, IMO, doesn't conflict with her views as a public servant.

I've already said that I think all of the Palin baby-related scandals are a silly waste of time and particularly unfair to the teenage girl involved.  That said, when you go around preaching and lecturing on abstinence-only education programs and your 17-year-old daughter winds up pregnant, there is a legitimate reason for substantive questioning, if not the trashy and unbecoming garbage some more obnoxious liberal bloggers have put out.    
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 02, 2008, 05:39:42 AM
Except, Joan Allen's character is actually qualified for the position, isn't running for office, but rather being confirmed by the Senate and the controversy in question, while unfair and irrelevant, IMO, doesn't conflict with her views as a public servant.

I've already said that I think all of the Palin baby-related scandals are a silly waste of time and particularly unfair to the teenage girl involved.  That said, when you go around preaching and lecturing on abstinence-only education programs and your 17-year-old daughter winds up pregnant, there is a legitimate reason for substantive questioning, if not the trashy and unbecoming garbage some more obnoxious liberal bloggers have put out.    

in the film they trash the joan allen's private life...this is EXACTLY what your igonorant blogs and DEMOCRAT supporters are doing...

they are doing it BECAUSE underscoring it...she is a woman...being selected to the vice presidential slot...

the joan allen character inists that her private life should remain private who refuses to address the "stupid" issue brought to the table...

like aye said, my man...these democrats should tread lightly...

art is reflecting life...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 02, 2008, 05:48:47 AM
AHHHHH!


"The thing that I always am concerned about in the middle of the storm is whether we are drawing resources away from folks on the ground," Obama said Sunday in a statement. "We are going to try to stay clear of the area until things have settled down, and then we will probably try to figure out how we can be as helpful as possible."

what are obama's handlers thinking???


this is what bush did...stayed away...figuring he'll deal with it later...

how ironic how people perceive actions during times of crisis....just as katrina destroyed bush's credibility...it may secure mccain's...and aye don't know what will think of obama's stay away policy...we'll soon see... :-\

'bam should have at least stopped stumpin in ohio to go down there...let hiliary or bill take up the stump...

seems he cares more about those swing votes??? ::)



this is mccain's BIG convention week...and where is he??? going to where a potential commander in chief should be in time of crisis...re-assuring people...not making excuses and hanging out in some other state...

...mistake...mistake...mistak e.



"McCain continues campaign in Ohio, Pa.":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-mccain_N.htm)

Both McCain and Obama were in Ohio today. Bush is in Texas "monitoring" the situation. So much for that theory of yours.

true. it is a theory...::)...what aye mentioned was indeed a fact!

so mccain and palin weren't in pearl, mississippi and jackson, mississippi on sunday? then who was that? tina fey and a look alike?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/us/politics/01repubs.html?ref=us

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/31/mccain-palin-receive-hurricane-gustav-briefing/

aye'm disgruntled that obama didn't make some show of effort and take a concerned future commander in chief trip...a show of support..dammit!



"Concerned future commander-in-chief trip," or "shameless political photo-op?"

you didn't even know mccain went down to show support on sunday?  did you?  admit it.


after the perception of the response from our leaders during hurricane katrina...mccain's visit to mississippi showed care and support...obama, sitting on the stump looked like bush...

obama should have taken an afternoon off from stump sitting and gone down there...

aye am very unhappy with obama...so don't push me...his handlers are making "hair trigger" and "knee jerk" mistakes often these days...starting with obama's trip to europe...aye thought that is where things began to deteriorate...

 

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 08:07:28 AM
you didn't even know mccain went down to show support on sunday? did you? admit it.

after the perception of the response from our leaders during hurricane katrina...mccain's visit to mississippi showed care and support...obama, sitting on the stump looked like bush...

obama should have taken an afternoon off from stump sitting and gone down there...

aye am very unhappy with obama...so don't push me...his handlers are making "hair trigger" and "knee jerk" mistakes often these days...starting with obama's trip to europe...aye thought that is where things began to deteriorate...


and how many local cops, etc., had deal with great grandpa's visit rather than hurricane relief?

and not "push you"?  what, now you think you actually that star wars character or something?

idiot.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 02, 2008, 08:30:25 AM
Except, Joan Allen's character is actually qualified for the position, isn't running for office, but rather being confirmed by the Senate and the controversy in question, while unfair and irrelevant, IMO, doesn't conflict with her views as a public servant.

I've already said that I think all of the Palin baby-related scandals are a silly waste of time and particularly unfair to the teenage girl involved.  That said, when you go around preaching and lecturing on abstinence-only education programs and your 17-year-old daughter winds up pregnant, there is a legitimate reason for substantive questioning, if not the trashy and unbecoming garbage some more obnoxious liberal bloggers have put out.    

in the film they trash the joan allen's private life...this is EXACTLY what your igonorant blogs and DEMOCRAT supporters are doing...

they are doing it BECAUSE underscoring it...she is a woman...being selected to the vice presidential slot...

the joan allen character inists that her private life should remain private who refuses to address the "stupid" issue brought to the table...

like aye said, my man...these democrats should tread lightly...

art is reflecting life...

Well, no, art isn't reflecting life, for the reasons I mentioned above.  In light of this post, I'll add that in the movie, Joan Allen wouldn't say that what she was accused of wasn't true because she strongly believed that asking her about it was wrong.  Palin disclosed the information that her daughter was pregnant and then asked for privacy, which is far from revolutionary and not a request unique to Republican candidates (or politicians in general). 

I agree that the bloggers involved in the original "scandal" were wrong, but let's not pretend that sort of behavior is limited to Democrats or liberals.  The Monica Lewinsky mess was publicized by a conservative blogger.  The private lives of Betty Ford's children were discussed by Nancy Reagan on the campaign trail.  The Bush campaign told voters in South Carolina that John McCain had a black child.  Etc., etc.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 08:32:05 AM
or how about rumors like obama muslim?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 02, 2008, 08:43:54 AM
Yes, and that...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:35:19 AM
or that gump reformed drunk and cokehead.

oops, that one true.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:36:09 AM
or that great grandpa mcsame dumped wife, who wait for him all those years and injured in accident, for 26-year-old heiress.

oops, that one true, too.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 09:36:59 AM
will it never stop?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 02, 2008, 10:11:03 AM
you really gotta love all that executive experience:

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 06:05:51 AM
you didn't even know mccain went down to show support on sunday? did you? admit it.

after the perception of the response from our leaders during hurricane katrina...mccain's visit to mississippi showed care and support...obama, sitting on the stump looked like bush...

obama should have taken an afternoon off from stump sitting and gone down there...

aye am very unhappy with obama...so don't push me...his handlers are making "hair trigger" and "knee jerk" mistakes often these days...starting with obama's trip to europe...aye thought that is where things began to deteriorate...


and how many local cops, etc., had deal with great grandpa's visit rather than hurricane relief?

and not "push you"?  what, now you think you actually that star wars character or something?

idiot.

obama's recent handlers have not been doing a good job...lots of mistakes and "hair trigger" reactions...obama said so himself...

plus he has gotten no real "bump" from anything...not his trip...not his v.p...and not his magnificent speech...

that is troubling...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 07:36:14 AM
wow, yet more "support" for obama.

only thing you handling is your goat.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 08:06:07 AM
today it is obama 50 mccain 42...bump??? that's it?


Obama acceptance speech has given him a boost: NYT-Gallup poll
Posted: 8:30p.m IST, August 29, 2008


Denver, Aug.29 (ANI): The New York Times said on Friday said the Democratic National Convention has finally given nominee Barack Obama the boost he needed to surpass John McCain in national surveys this week. 

 
 

Quoting from the latest Gallup Poll, the paper said that it showed Obama leading McCain by 48 to 42 percent.

The poll was based on interviews with voters during the first three days of the convention. That's an improvement over the 45-44 lead he held over McCain Wednesday and the 46-44 deficit to McCain on Tuesday.

Most conventions historically produce a bounce. Just the focused media attention on one side and none on the other produces a bounce, said Frank Newport, editor of the Gallup Poll.

When it doesn't occur, that's really the thing to make note of, he added.

Among black voters, Obama led McCain by 93 percent to two percent. He held onto his lead with young people, beating McCain 55-38 among 18 to 29-year-olds.

McCain was stronger with senior citizens, topping Obama 47-40 among those 65 and older, and beat his opponent 48-39 among white women.

New York-based Democratic consultant Dan Gerstein attributed Obama's bump to Hillary Clinton's speech and the overall success of the convention.

A separate USA Today/Gallup poll out yesterday showed that 83 percent of voters gave the Clinton pep talk a good review.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz and New York City Councilman James Oddo agreed that McCain has an uphill climb to match Obama's momentum when the Republican convention begins Monday. (ANI)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 08:07:46 AM
Palin Derangement Syndrome fever
Arjun Ramachandran
September 3, 2008 - 11:52AM


She's the pro-life moose hunter, the former beauty-pageant contestant who would be the next US vice-president.

Less than a week since being announced by Republican presidential nominee John McCain as his running mate, a media storm has erupted around Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin.

Already intensely caricatured, Mrs Palin and her family face heavy exposure as the US and international media attempt to fill the vacuum of information about the relatively little-known 44-year-old mother of five.

The most recent revelations surround the announcement that her teenage daughter, Bristol, was pregnant.

The controversy prompted the Los Angeles Times, in a blog, to liken Mrs Palin to Lynne Spears, mother of pop star Britney and actress Jamie Lynn, who became pregnant at 15.

In a statement, Mrs Palin, who is avowedly pro-life, said Bristol intended to have the baby and would marry the father, Levi Johnston.

Johnston has described himself on his MySpace page as "a f***ing redneck", the New York Post reports. "But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s*** and just f***in' chillin' I guess," the 18-year-old hockey player wrote.

"Ya f --- with me I'll kick [your] ass."

Johnston also wrote: "I don't want kids."

Some US commentators have held up the example of Bristol's teen pregnancy to say Mr McCain had not vetted Mrs Palin and her family circumstances properly before appointing her as his running mate.

Mr McCain reportedly met Mrs Palin only once before offering her the job as vice-presidential nominee.

"A series of disclosures about Governor Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain's choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket," The New York Times reported.

Much has been written about Mrs Palin's links to the Alaskan Independence Party, a group pushing for a vote on Alaska splitting from the rest of the US and forming an independent nation.

The New York Times said that Mrs Palin "was a member for two years in the 1990s". However, The Associated Press reported that, while Mrs Palin's husband, Todd, had been registered as a member, she had only addressed the party.

Even US actress Lindsay Lohan, often the focus of the media herself, has weighed in about Mrs Palin.

"I've been watching the news all morning, like everyone else - and keep hearing about the issues related to 'teen pregnancy'," Lohan wrote on her blog.

"Well, I think the real problem comes from the fact that we are taking the focus off of getting to know Sarah Palin and her political views, and what she can do to make our country a less destructive place."

Mrs Palin's emergence has also focused attention on Hillary Clinton, who made a historic bid to become the first female presidential nominee before succumbing to Barack Obama.

Senator Clinton, who is now barracking for Senator Obama, has been relatively quiet about Mrs Palin's appointment, other than to say everybody "should all be proud of Governor Sarah Palin's historic nomination".

Ironically, McCain supporters have credited Senator Clinton's efforts with paving the way for Mrs Palin.

"Because of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the presidency and the treatment she received, American women are more highly tuned than ever to recognise and decry sexism in all its forms," said top McCain campaign adviser Carly Fiorina.

But Senator Clinton was "galled" that Mrs Palin might try to capitalise on the impact she made among women voters during the Democratic primaries, The New York Times reported.

The paper predicted Senator Clinton would now play a greater role campaigning for Senator Obama as a result.

Conservative columnists have decried the treatment of Mrs Palin in the press. Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin labelled "attacks" on Mrs Palin as "Palin Derangement Syndrome", and said there was "selective sympathy" for mothers who ran for office.

A blog, Palin Sexism Watch, has also started "to monitor, and round up, the sexist treatment given to Republican VP nominee, Sarah Palin".

FOXNews reported the top 10 words used by the media to describe Mrs Palin were: "conservative (49 per cent), abortion (44 per cent), brother-in-law (picking up claims that she improperly tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired) (17 per cent), corruption and oil (17 per cent), risky or risks or risk (16 per cent), glass ceiling (13 per cent), Quayle (10 per cent), exciting (9 per cent), inexperience or "lack experience" or "limited experience" (8 per cent), and bold (8 per cent)".

Meanwhile, the New York magazine has credited Mrs Palin with helping to make politics funny again.

"Last week Jon Stewart addressed the issue of whether Obama and McCain were giving enough material to comedians ... Well, now that we've got a former-beauty-pageant-contestant vice-presidential candidate who was a small-town mayor three years ago, and who has a pregnant, unmarried 17-year-old daughter, do we all know what's funny?"

In a satirical vox-pop about Mrs Palin's nomination on humorous news site The Onion, everyday American "Scott Wise", a line cook, said: "Finally, somebody who can pull in the Alaskan/pro-life/moose-hunting/woman vote."

- with AP

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 08:09:35 AM
those who won the election for bush in 04' are going to be the one's who decide this one...the working mother or wife of a democrat who is concerned with family values and natinal security...and the independent vote...watch pa and florida this year...pay close attention to pa because that was won by kerry in 04'...hiliary did so much damage their the pumas may not come back....
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 08:10:22 AM
today it is obama 50 mccain 42...bump??? that's it?


Obama acceptance speech has given him a boost: NYT-Gallup poll

this has been clear for few days now, despite your denials.

julie glad you admit wrong.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 08:11:11 AM
those who won the election for bush in 08 are going to be the one's who decide this one...watch pa and florida...

wow...you such election expert.

what election gump win in 2008, exactly?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on September 03, 2008, 12:06:19 PM
The Truth about the Bush economy - and more proof that liberals are power-hungry liars:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

"The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark."

Non-partisan FACTS.

I just sent a shiver down the spines of the liberal loons who think they run the joint.....

Don't be afraid, libs.  I don't want to hurt you, just open your eyes to your parties lies and fabrications.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 01:04:47 PM
those who won the election for bush in 08 are going to be the one's who decide this one...watch pa and florida...

wow...you such election expert.

what election gump win in 2008, exactly?

um...sorry took a break...better go back and re-read what aye wrote, skippy...it has been edited...had to shut down the computers quickly...although aye type quickly aye had just begun to sketch things out...


here:  comment on final post...


those who won the election for bush in 04' are going to be the one's who decide this one...the working mother or wife of a democrat who is concerned with family values and national security...and the independent vote...watch pa and florida this year...pay close attention to pa because that was won by kerry in 04'...hiliary did so much damage their the p.u.m.a.s may not come back....or they will have another choice   ;)




Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 01:37:07 PM
the sexist coverage that the news media has placed on sarah palin is going to backfire in the face of the democratic party...as focus is now on the v.p. contender and not the obama campaign and the historical aspects once again of a female in the role as "v.p."...she would be a vote for "change" a mantra of obama's which he now is forced to share with mccain.

the vetting could go all the way up to the election...enough time to gather up disgruntled women who think hiliary was poorly treated in the media...actual hiliary supporters...the independent vote....the working mother vote...the working class female vote...a portion of the feminist vote...the conservative female vote...and of course the p.u.m.a. vote...

the focus of the election season has shifted drastically...it is ALL ABOUT SARAH now.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 03, 2008, 01:43:24 PM
There hasn't been any sexist media coverage of Sarah Palin.  She is an ardent anti-choicer and has made her personal decision to carry to term a baby with downs syndrome a part of her political narrative.  The media had nothing to do with that, short of reporting what Palin gave them to report.  No one told her to pose for US Weekly, OK and People the way she did.  Because she is a more obviously attractive woman than the last big name female candidate to capture national attention, it seems that the media is actually going out of their way to tip-toe around her looks (not that that's the only type of sexism that exists).   

I've gone on record, as have a great many Democrats/liberals, about the way some members of the Internet media treated Palin's last pregnancy and subsequently the pregnancy of her daughter.  I am sure between now and November she'll be exposed to the same kind of horrid, sexist incidents that Hillary Clinton experienced during the primaries.  I've yet to see, however, anyone say that Sarah Palin was only elected governor because she's hot, for instance, as Chris Matthews suggested Hillary was only a Senator because her husband cheated on her.  Sexism from the public is inevitable, but I see no reason to take issue with the media at this point. 

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 01:54:36 PM
There hasn't been any sexist media coverage of Sarah Palin.  She is an ardent anti-choicer and has made her personal decision to carry to term a baby with downs syndrome a part of her political narrative.  The media had nothing to do with that, short of reporting what Palin gave them to report.  No one told her to pose for US Weekly, OK and People the way she did.  Because she is a more obviously attractive woman than the last big name female candidate to capture national attention, it seems that the media is actually going out of their way to tip-toe around her looks (not that that's the only type of sexism that exists).   

I've gone on record, as have a great many Democrats/liberals, about the way some members of the Internet media treated Palin's last pregnancy and subsequently the pregnancy of her daughter.   I am sure between now and November she'll be exposed to the same kind of horrid, sexist incidents that Hillary Clinton experienced during the primaries.  I've yet to see, however, anyone say that Sarah Palin was only elected governor because she's hot, for instance, as Chris Matthews suggested Hillary was only a Senator because her husband cheated on her.  Sexism from the public is inevitable, but I see no reason to take issue with the media at this point. 




yes, you got it right...all we have now is speculation...but while at work...the internet media is the media...you are right again...seems we agree....the media has been sexist...and pretty horrid...but it reflects on democrats...and not all democrats have voiced an opinion...

it will fester as a horrid "hair trigger" sexist reflection.

aye warned you.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 02:21:33 PM
apparently palin executive experience so critical she now going abandon job as governor for couple months.

how will state ever run without her?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 03, 2008, 04:07:19 PM
the sexist coverage that the news media has placed on sarah palin is going to backfire in the face of the democratic party...as focus is now on the v.p. contender and not the obama campaign and the historical aspects once again of a female in the role as "v.p."...she would be a vote for "change" a mantra of obama's which he now is forced to share with mccain.

the vetting could go all the way up to the election...enough time to gather up disgruntled women who think hiliary was poorly treated in the media...actual hiliary supporters...the independent vote....the working mother vote...the working class female vote...a portion of the feminist vote...the conservative female vote...and of course the p.u.m.a. vote...

the focus of the election season has shifted drastically...it is ALL ABOUT SARAH now.

So I see you've already received your Republican talking points fax, telling you to start complaining about the media's sexist coverage of Palin. Palin was the nominee not three days before the Republicans started crying about the media. NEWS FLASH: if McCain had properly vetted Palin, he would have expected all this controversy to come out very quickly.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 03, 2008, 04:24:57 PM
Hehe. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 03, 2008, 05:16:35 PM
Hehe. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576)

lolz
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 06:03:02 PM
The Truth about the Bush economy - and more proof that liberals are power-hungry liars:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

"The evidence shows that much of the Democratic Party's criticism of President Bush's economic record is wide of the mark."

Non-partisan FACTS.

I just sent a shiver down the spines of the liberal loons who think they run the joint.....

Don't be afraid, libs. I don't want to hurt you, just open your eyes to your parties lies and fabrications.

well, if wall street journal say it, who julie argue?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 06:03:44 PM
those who won the election for bush in 08 are going to be the one's who decide this one...watch pa and florida...

wow...you such election expert.

what election gump win in 2008, exactly?

um...sorry took a break...better go back and re-read what aye wrote, skippy...it has been edited...had to shut down the computers quickly...although aye type quickly aye had just begun to sketch things out...


here: comment on final post...


those who won the election for bush in 04' are going to be the one's who decide this one...the working mother or wife of a democrat who is concerned with family values and national security...and the independent vote...watch pa and florida this year...pay close attention to pa because that was won by kerry in 04'...hiliary did so much damage their the p.u.m.a.s may not come back....or they will have another choice  ;)


glad see you admit, once again, you wrong.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 03, 2008, 06:06:48 PM
Hehe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/20576)

lolz

want guess whether noonan say that in her column?  he he, as they say.

and here best part:  she write for wall street journal!  julie just make perfect circle!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 09:35:42 PM
vercingatorix...


here is an answer to the post subject question: "why obama will lose in the fall"


sarah palin

...the charismatic "tina fey" hockey mom...who kicked the corrupt gop out of alaska and embraced the independent spirit...NO MORE WASTEFUL SPENDING!!!!

the election season has just taken a turn with a CHANGE in the conversation...

aye think this woman will eventually becomes president...

obama was inspiring but the women of america have found a tough new voice in a new role model who truly is a maverick with an independent reform spirit...

WOW!

the women of the states between california and new york have a new reason to go to the polls...



feminist mothers have a new choice!

and aye think something obama did not want to happen...has happened...after listening to her speech and seeing her family sitting there...the conservative vote has been roused...and they will vote for CHANGE with this tina-fey hockey mom.


...aye warned ya!


px.o.rasta

ps...self centered feminists like hiliary clinton...lost big-time...she is no longer an issue...but aye will credit her in her 18 million cracks...cracks which opened the glass a little for women and fractured the democratic party...aye predict palin will break that ceiling through and it will come crashing down...

...we independents are watching and smiling. ;D ;)


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 03, 2008, 09:37:26 PM
those who won the election for bush in 08 are going to be the one's who decide this one...watch pa and florida...

wow...you such election expert.

what election gump win in 2008, exactly?

um...sorry took a break...better go back and re-read what aye wrote, skippy...it has been edited...had to shut down the computers quickly...although aye type quickly aye had just begun to sketch things out...


here: comment on final post...


those who won the election for bush in 04' are going to be the one's who decide this one...the working mother or wife of a democrat who is concerned with family values and national security...and the independent vote...watch pa and florida this year...pay close attention to pa because that was won by kerry in 04'...hiliary did so much damage their the p.u.m.a.s may not come back....or they will have another choice  ;)


glad see you admit, once again, you wrong.

no aye'm not...re-read. ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 04, 2008, 04:16:35 AM
you always wrong.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 04, 2008, 05:13:54 AM
you always wrong.

you keep thinking that way, archie... ;)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 04, 2008, 06:36:02 AM
then we in agreement.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 04, 2008, 08:05:06 PM
guess again..not even close...

you seem a little scared now...

new agent of change??? :) 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 04, 2008, 09:39:26 PM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

I wasn't amazed by Obama's, but wow.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 01:15:26 AM
you can say that again.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 05, 2008, 06:23:27 AM
by the way...

aye think that if the media...especially the internet media continues to attack sarah palin...it only draws voters to her side...it appears that they have and are attacking her in a way that they would not go after a man...and the personal attacks on her because she is a woman did a great deal of damage to the image of the democratic party...who americans know should have a leash on the far left wing-nuts...

those "first impression" peronal attacks on ms. palin will not be forgotten in less than two months time...heartless first impression attacks like that will drive people out to the polls...people who thought the press unfairly treated hiliary will be out to vote...

and aye warned some of you that the constant digging only has two months to bear fruit...the first impressions are so sordid that much of the continual digging, however investigative, will appear callous.


but why listen to me? ;)

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: DutchessA on September 05, 2008, 06:44:53 AM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

Really, what was so bad about it?

I think it is exactly what everyone in this country needed to hear, rather than what people in this country who make under a certain arbitrary monetary level want to hear.  He preached self-responsibility and accountability--both of which are American trademarks. 

The United States is the land of opportunity, not hand-outs.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 05, 2008, 10:30:31 AM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

Really, what was so bad about it?

I think it is exactly what everyone in this country needed to hear, rather than what people in this country who make under a certain arbitrary monetary level want to hear.  He preached self-responsibility and accountability--both of which are American trademarks. 

The United States is the land of opportunity, not hand-outs.

I'm not constrained by living under a certain arbitrary monetary level, so that had nothing to do with my opinion.  Even if I was constrained, he didn't say anything particularly preachy about self-responsibility or accountability.  In the time it took me to chop cucumbers for my salad, he was done talking about the economy.

At least if he'd said something dumb, predictable and Republican about people pulling themselves up by imaginary bootstraps, it would have interesting, considering he has absolutely no idea what that means.  Aside from the 105,000th recital of his POW story, he just didn't say much of anything.  Compared to Palin's, I don't know what his people thought that speech was accomplishing. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on September 05, 2008, 10:56:18 AM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

Really, what was so bad about it?

I think it is exactly what everyone in this country needed to hear, rather than what people in this country who make under a certain arbitrary monetary level want to hear.  He preached self-responsibility and accountability--both of which are American trademarks. 

The United States is the land of opportunity, not hand-outs.

I'm not constrained by living under a certain arbitrary monetary level, so that had nothing to do with my opinion.  Even if I was constrained, he didn't say anything particularly preachy about self-responsibility or accountability.  In the time it took me to chop cucumbers for my salad, he was done talking about the economy.

At least if he'd said something dumb, predictable and Republican about people pulling themselves up by imaginary bootstraps, it would have interesting, considering he has absolutely no idea what that means.  Aside from the 105,000th recital of his POW story, he just didn't say much of anything.  Compared to Palin's, I don't know what his people thought that speech was accomplishing. 

It's hard to compare Obama's speech to McCains, mostly because there isn't any comparison.  Obama's speech was partisan and attacked McCain.  It was typically devoid of any depth and chock full of pleasant sounding, but meaningless rhetoric.

McCain's speech can be summed up as:  I am John McCain.  This is me.  This is what I believe.  I served my country honorably.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 05, 2008, 11:24:05 AM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

Really, what was so bad about it?

I think it is exactly what everyone in this country needed to hear, rather than what people in this country who make under a certain arbitrary monetary level want to hear.  He preached self-responsibility and accountability--both of which are American trademarks. 

The United States is the land of opportunity, not hand-outs.

I'm not constrained by living under a certain arbitrary monetary level, so that had nothing to do with my opinion.  Even if I was constrained, he didn't say anything particularly preachy about self-responsibility or accountability.  In the time it took me to chop cucumbers for my salad, he was done talking about the economy.

At least if he'd said something dumb, predictable and Republican about people pulling themselves up by imaginary bootstraps, it would have interesting, considering he has absolutely no idea what that means.  Aside from the 105,000th recital of his POW story, he just didn't say much of anything.  Compared to Palin's, I don't know what his people thought that speech was accomplishing. 

It's hard to compare Obama's speech to McCains, mostly because there isn't any comparison.  Obama's speech was partisan and attacked McCain.  It was typically devoid of any depth and chock full of pleasant sounding, but meaningless rhetoric.

McCain's speech can be summed up as:  I am John McCain.  This is me.  This is what I believe.  I served my country honorably.

McCain's speech: POW - USA!!! - POW - USA! - POW
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: DutchessA on September 05, 2008, 11:52:17 AM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

Really, what was so bad about it?

I think it is exactly what everyone in this country needed to hear, rather than what people in this country who make under a certain arbitrary monetary level want to hear.  He preached self-responsibility and accountability--both of which are American trademarks. 

The United States is the land of opportunity, not hand-outs.

I'm not constrained by living under a certain arbitrary monetary level, so that had nothing to do with my opinion.  Even if I was constrained, he didn't say anything particularly preachy about self-responsibility or accountability.  In the time it took me to chop cucumbers for my salad, he was done talking about the economy.

At least if he'd said something dumb, predictable and Republican about people pulling themselves up by imaginary bootstraps, it would have interesting, considering he has absolutely no idea what that means.  Aside from the 105,000th recital of his POW story, he just didn't say much of anything.  Compared to Palin's, I don't know what his people thought that speech was accomplishing. 

On the economy, did you miss the part where he spoke about allowing everyone to keep the fruits of their labor?  About job training/education for those who have been left behind by technology?  I think he was pretty clear, concise and too the point--if you got left behind, lost your job, etc., the government will help you find a new one, or even a better one, BUT only for people who want it and are willing to work for it.  Hence, the self-accountability theme--no free rides!!!

I think he did a very good job addressing education (which seems to have taken a back seat in this election) and energy, too.  Overall, he gave a good roadmap of his plans for change, and more details will evolve over the next two months (unless, of course, you would have preferred a ten hour speech highlighting the specifics of his plan in every area).
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 12:58:49 PM
by the way...

aye think that if the media...especially the internet media continues to attack sarah palin...it only draws voters to her side...it appears that they have and are attacking her in a way that they would not go after a man...and the personal attacks on her because she is a woman did a great deal of damage to the image of the democratic party...who americans know should have a leash on the far left wing-nuts...

those "first impression" peronal attacks on ms. palin will not be forgotten in less than two months time...heartless first impression attacks like that will drive people out to the polls...people who thought the press unfairly treated hiliary will be out to vote...

and aye warned some of you that the constant digging only has two months to bear fruit...the first impressions are so sordid that much of the continual digging, however investigative, will appear callous.

but why listen to me? ;)


exactly.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 01:00:14 PM
John has never been much of an orator. That's not really his strength.

not are economics, details, marital fidelity, keeping his temper, or running mate selection.

hmmmmm.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Saxby Clemens II on September 05, 2008, 01:36:09 PM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

Really, what was so bad about it?

I think it is exactly what everyone in this country needed to hear, rather than what people in this country who make under a certain arbitrary monetary level want to hear.  He preached self-responsibility and accountability--both of which are American trademarks. 

The United States is the land of opportunity, not hand-outs.

I'm not constrained by living under a certain arbitrary monetary level, so that had nothing to do with my opinion.  Even if I was constrained, he didn't say anything particularly preachy about self-responsibility or accountability.  In the time it took me to chop cucumbers for my salad, he was done talking about the economy.

At least if he'd said something dumb, predictable and Republican about people pulling themselves up by imaginary bootstraps, it would have interesting, considering he has absolutely no idea what that means.  Aside from the 105,000th recital of his POW story, he just didn't say much of anything.  Compared to Palin's, I don't know what his people thought that speech was accomplishing. 

On the economy, did you miss the part where he spoke about allowing everyone to keep the fruits of their labor?  About job training/education for those who have been left behind by technology?  I think he was pretty clear, concise and too the point--if you got left behind, lost your job, etc., the government will help you find a new one, or even a better one, BUT only for people who want it and are willing to work for it.  Hence, the self-accountability theme--no free rides!!!

I think he did a very good job addressing education (which seems to have taken a back seat in this election) and energy, too.  Overall, he gave a good roadmap of his plans for change, and more details will evolve over the next two months (unless, of course, you would have preferred a ten hour speech highlighting the specifics of his plan in every area).

That's the part he got through while I was chopping cucumbers.  He could have done some chopping of his own, to the huge bulk of time he gave detailing his experience as a POW, which we've heard about backwards and forwards for the past two years, and was nicely and respectfully detailed in the video that prefaced his remarks.  No one is denying him any glory for his service, but military service, even McCain's military service, is not reason enough to elect someone president.   

I'm also not one who's particularly impressed with Obama's oratorical gifts.  I think his remarks are frequently slick and meaningless, from a practical perspective.  I also have nothing personal against John McCain.  I just don't agree with him on any issues I'll be basing my vote on.  I would simply have expected from McCain a focused summary of how exactly he was going to be any different from the complete disaster who's been in office the past eight years.  If you know you're not a great public speaker, then you have to be big on substance.  He wasn't.  That's all. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Julie Fern on September 05, 2008, 02:11:20 PM
nothing.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: vercingetorix on September 07, 2008, 08:06:56 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

how is this happening?  how can Obama be BEHIND? every conceivable advantage and he's losing. it may only be for a moment, or perhaps the unthinkable is underway.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on September 07, 2008, 09:40:04 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1548
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110050/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Moves-Ahead-48-45.aspx

how is this happening?  how can Obama be BEHIND? every conceivable advantage and he's losing. it may only be for a moment, or perhaps the unthinkable is underway.

Maybe he's not "the one"?  Maybe the messiah isn't Barrack Obama?  Maybe the left pushed too hard to the fringe.  Maybe they lost ground when liberals started suggesting that because Palin is a mother of 5, she should spend more time barefoot in the kitchen?  GERALDINE FERRARO is pissed at the libs for taking legitimate discussion and turning it into sexist drivel that demoralizes women.

It's sort of like the attorney in the office I've been working at who, after listening to two friendly conservatives argue over whether Clinton supporters were going to move to McCain/Palin due to identity politics, burst into the room and proudly said:

"Come on!  McCain just wanted two unmentionables and a snatch.  The problem is, there are better qualified unmentionables and snatch than Palin."

The office liberal had just disgusted everyone within earshot.  Then later, after involving him in a conversation about identity politics and women, he had the audacity to say (and I am not making this up):

"Your problem is that you underestimate women."

Um - what?  Me thinks YOU underestimate women, especially Palin - a woman you just estimated to be nothing but a 'pair of unmentionables and a snatch'.

That's the problem with my office liberal - he's dumb.  I believe he's a bad example for democrats, but it makes me wonder how many other libs feel like this....

Yeah - nothing unthinkable here.  Nothing but plain old predictable reality.  Obama has made too many critical errors and has come off as too liberal to the mainstream voters, while alienating the far left who worked so hard to support him before he chose to soften all of his positions.  McCain will win.  I called it months ago.

If you listen to democrats, they thought this was going to be a landslide election.  It never could have been.  It won't be for either candidate.  He didn't get the bounce from his world tour that was anticipated.  He didn't get the bounce from the convention that was expected.  And now that Palin is in the race and the people have had an opportunity to see the Republican convention, and witness the ridiculously negative backlash generated by liberals, Obama's camp is hurt even further.  Oh, by the way, thanks for sending that nasty code pink nutjob to the convention.  Her acting like a total lunatic played very well for our side.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on September 08, 2008, 01:09:41 AM
I hope to God McCain doesnt win. God just seems like the highest possible power to appeal to..please..

There are too many middle aged folks in the South/Midwest that are half retarded..and they're going to vote for McCain and the dummy. "we aint done much now book learnin' in these parts ya heer"

I'm going to vote for the candidate I feel is the smartest. Thats all i can do. If you don't know who that is, shame on...well..can't get fooled again.

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 06:13:58 AM
where is that post convention party bump obama was supposed to get??? still waiting?

Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 02:19:32 PM
I hope to God McCain doesnt win. God just seems like the highest possible power to appeal to..please..

There are too many middle aged folks in the South/Midwest that are half retarded..and they're going to vote for McCain and the dummy. "we aint done much now book learnin' in these parts ya heer"

I'm going to vote for the candidate I feel is the smartest. Thats all i can do. If you don't know who that is, shame on...well..can't get fooled again.




the smartest candidate was ron paul...but then again???


looks like the lady will own the next two months...

...aye warned ya...mccain is an independent and a maverick...

the ad-libs and donkees should have seen this thing coming.


oh...and how is hiliary helping out?  getting ready to make a new run for it starting around the third week in November for 2012???
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 02:24:34 PM
That was a pretty terrible speech.

Really, what was so bad about it?

I think it is exactly what everyone in this country needed to hear, rather than what people in this country who make under a certain arbitrary monetary level want to hear.  He preached self-responsibility and accountability--both of which are American trademarks. 

The United States is the land of opportunity, not hand-outs.

I'm not constrained by living under a certain arbitrary monetary level, so that had nothing to do with my opinion.  Even if I was constrained, he didn't say anything particularly preachy about self-responsibility or accountability.  In the time it took me to chop cucumbers for my salad, he was done talking about the economy.

At least if he'd said something dumb, predictable and Republican about people pulling themselves up by imaginary bootstraps, it would have interesting, considering he has absolutely no idea what that means.  Aside from the 105,000th recital of his POW story, he just didn't say much of anything.  Compared to Palin's, I don't know what his people thought that speech was accomplishing. 

On the economy, did you miss the part where he spoke about allowing everyone to keep the fruits of their labor?  About job training/education for those who have been left behind by technology?  I think he was pretty clear, concise and too the point--if you got left behind, lost your job, etc., the government will help you find a new one, or even a better one, BUT only for people who want it and are willing to work for it.  Hence, the self-accountability theme--no free rides!!!

I think he did a very good job addressing education (which seems to have taken a back seat in this election) and energy, too.  Overall, he gave a good roadmap of his plans for change, and more details will evolve over the next two months (unless, of course, you would have preferred a ten hour speech highlighting the specifics of his plan in every area).

That's the part he got through while I was chopping cucumbers.  He could have done some chopping of his own, to the huge bulk of time he gave detailing his experience as a POW, which we've heard about backwards and forwards for the past two years, and was nicely and respectfully detailed in the video that prefaced his remarks.  No one is denying him any glory for his service, but military service, even McCain's military service, is not reason enough to elect someone president.   

I'm also not one who's particularly impressed with Obama's oratorical gifts.  I think his remarks are frequently slick and meaningless, from a practical perspective.  I also have nothing personal against John McCain.  I just don't agree with him on any issues I'll be basing my vote on.  I would simply have expected from McCain a focused summary of how exactly he was going to be any different from the complete disaster who's been in office the past eight years.  If you know you're not a great public speaker, then you have to be big on substance.  He wasn't.  That's all. 

aye think mccain is running on "change"...what has he changed so far?..and aye think mccain is running on getting rid of "wasteful spending"...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on September 08, 2008, 04:33:56 PM
I hope to God McCain doesnt win. God just seems like the highest possible power to appeal to..please..

There are too many middle aged folks in the South/Midwest that are half retarded..and they're going to vote for McCain and the dummy. "we aint done much now book learnin' in these parts ya heer"

I'm going to vote for the candidate I feel is the smartest. Thats all i can do. If you don't know who that is, shame on...well..can't get fooled again.




the smartest candidate was ron paul...but then again???


looks like the lady will own the next two months...

...aye warned ya...mccain is an independent and a maverick...

the ad-libs and donkees should have seen this thing coming.


oh...and how is hiliary helping out?  getting ready to make a new run for it starting around the third week in November for 2012???

It's hard to vote for Ron Paul when he is not a candidate.
I would agree that he WAS the smartest candidate running for the Republican nomination.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: sinkfloridasink on September 08, 2008, 05:36:51 PM
where is that post convention party bump obama was supposed to get??? still waiting?



After the Dem convention, Obama was up 7-9 points. After the Repub convention, McCain narrowed the lead back to around it was before either convention. The two conventions, as expected, canceled each other out. I have no idea what you are referring to.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 06:22:31 PM
where is that post convention party bump obama was supposed to get??? still waiting?



After the Dem convention, Obama was up 7-9 points. After the Repub convention, McCain narrowed the lead back to around it was before either convention. The two conventions, as expected, canceled each other out. I have no idea what you are referring to.

aye thought that obama like clinton was going to get at least a 10  point bump...what happened?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on September 08, 2008, 06:39:15 PM
where is that post convention party bump obama was supposed to get??? still waiting?



After the Dem convention, Obama was up 7-9 points. After the Repub convention, McCain narrowed the lead back to around it was before either convention. The two conventions, as expected, canceled each other out. I have no idea what you are referring to.

aye thought that obama like clinton was going to get at least a 10  point bump...what happened?

You were wrong. That's what happened. Maybe you compared apples to oranges?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 06:52:12 PM
aye, though,

where is that post convention party bump obama was supposed to get??? still waiting?



After the Dem convention, Obama was up 7-9 points. After the Repub convention, McCain narrowed the lead back to around it was before either convention. The two conventions, as expected, canceled each other out. I have no idea what you are referring to.

aye thought that obama like clinton was going to get at least a 10  point bump...what happened?

You were wrong. That's what happened. Maybe you compared apples to oranges?

didn't we all think that after obama's convention speech...coupled with obama's huge popularity...and the hurricane bashing the republican's convention would produce at least a lead for the independent obama?

didn't you think obama was going to come out of this thing with a bit more of a bounce?  at least a clintonesque style bump...no?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on September 08, 2008, 07:04:10 PM
aye, though,

where is that post convention party bump obama was supposed to get??? still waiting?



After the Dem convention, Obama was up 7-9 points. After the Repub convention, McCain narrowed the lead back to around it was before either convention. The two conventions, as expected, canceled each other out. I have no idea what you are referring to.

aye thought that obama like clinton was going to get at least a 10  point bump...what happened?

You were wrong. That's what happened. Maybe you compared apples to oranges?

didn't we all think that after obama's convention speech...coupled with obama's huge popularity...and the hurricane bashing the republican's convention would produce at least a lead for the independent obama?

didn't you think obama was going to come out of this thing with a bit more of a bounce?  at least a clintonesque style bump...no?

No, I didnt think he was going to come out of it with of a "bounce", mostly because I have little faith in the ability of older people in the South & Midwest to vote for him. Historically, those are the people that go to the polls & "swing" elections. I also think that if Obama had "huge popularity", as you say, then the polls wouldnt be so close. But I do respect your opinion. 

Also, as far as polls, I tend to think the only one to believe is the exit poll. Even then..
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on September 08, 2008, 07:18:25 PM
aye think mccain is running on "change"...what has he changed so far?..and aye think mccain is running on getting rid of "wasteful spending"...

Ummhmm, yes, he mentioned.  Which programs was he going to cut again?  And what does he plan to change that he couldn't change during all the years when he had immense popularity, a Senate majority, and/or a Republican in the White House?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 07:34:45 PM
aye think mccain is running on "change"...what has he changed so far?..and aye think mccain is running on getting rid of "wasteful spending"...

Ummhmm, yes, he mentioned.  Which programs was he going to cut again?  And what does he plan to change that he couldn't change during all the years when he had immense popularity, a Senate majority, and/or a Republican in the White House?

as an independent aye am happy that an independent is making his way to the white house...mccain's message is one of change in washington...that is ending "Wasteful spending"...aye think he will do this...he is tough...

he also worked for comprehensive immigration reform...he also worked for campaign reform...an ally of his is joe lieberman...a former democrat.

there is a reason why he is at the top of the list for president...and people see through the lame..."same as bush" routine...aye've campaigned against hiliary clinton...who would have been more of the same...what you don't seem to understand is that aside from policies...people don't like the "lies" and "secretiveness" and "cronyism" of bush and cheney...

this is how we got hiliary out of the race..."lies"= bosnia sniper attack..."secretiveness"=her own finances..."cronyism"= ties to old school politico and former clinton administration "players"...

now...mccain has risen to the top...he has overcome much...and people already know him as an independent...a maverick...and a reformer...who has had the same message for a long time now...that sticks...wasting time with more of the same was not going to stick...and naive.

...one of mccain's biggest draws from the last 8 years is that he harped that president bush needed MORE BOOTS ON THE GROUND in iraq...finally bush listened...not to just mccain of course...but mccain was a HUGE advocate of this thought...

...the surge was maverick like...risking his political future on something which ALL democrats failed to acknowlege as a good idea...and even some republicans...

so the biggest break with the republican party was mccain's PUSH for the surge...

and guess what...

it is mccain's first big draw...the extra boots on the ground and intelligence has cleared the way for increased success...even obama has acknowleged this now...

the second thought in the electorate mind set about mccain is that he did not pick anyone from bush times...NO ONE...

he did not make a "safe" pick with another MAN who ran for president...which is a traditional "old politico" approach...kind of like obama's pick...

...now there is a physical reminder everyday on the electorates plate...and that is that mccain picked someone new...someone from WAY outside the washington gunk...which {by the way for the past two years has been democrat controlled}...

...mccain's manifestation of "change" is...

sarah palin...

...tough to beat a physical feminine "gop busting" agent of change...


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on September 08, 2008, 07:49:19 PM
Are you joking?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 07:50:57 PM
aye, though,

where is that post convention party bump obama was supposed to get??? still waiting?



After the Dem convention, Obama was up 7-9 points. After the Repub convention, McCain narrowed the lead back to around it was before either convention. The two conventions, as expected, canceled each other out. I have no idea what you are referring to.

aye thought that obama like clinton was going to get at least a 10  point bump...what happened?

You were wrong. That's what happened. Maybe you compared apples to oranges?

didn't we all think that after obama's convention speech...coupled with obama's huge popularity...and the hurricane bashing the republican's convention would produce at least a lead for the independent obama?

didn't you think obama was going to come out of this thing with a bit more of a bounce?  at least a clintonesque style bump...no?

No, I didnt think he was going to come out of it with of a "bounce", mostly because I have little faith in the ability of older people in the South & Midwest to vote for him. Historically, those are the people that go to the polls & "swing" elections. I also think that if Obama had "huge popularity", as you say, then the polls wouldnt be so close. But I do respect your opinion. 

Also, as far as polls, I tend to think the only one to believe is the exit poll. Even then..

aye don't believe in polls at all really....4 out of 5 dentists survey...mind you...

however aye do respect older people who live in the midwest and the south...without them...there would be no us...also...unless aye am mistaken...they are americans and are allowed to vote...also aye think that mothers married to democrats voted for bush while their husband's voted for kerry...also...didn't the female vote put bush over the top...they are the real "closeted-swing votes". ;)..and pssst...they don't tell their husbands that they didn't vote for the democrat candidate. ;)

...in either case...obama's bounce doesn't seem to have met my clinton expectations...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 07:53:56 PM
Are you joking?


hey...its not me...think about it...this is the way people who don't follow politics see these things...and many of them still vote...they don't vote in the primaries...but they vote in the presidential election.


sorry, this is how some people perceive this thing...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 08, 2008, 07:56:59 PM
Are you joking?
hey...its not me...think about it...this is the way people who don't follow politics see these things...and many of them still vote...they don't vote in the primaries...but they vote in the presidential election.


sorry, this is how some people perceive this thing...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on September 08, 2008, 07:58:22 PM
Are you joking?

One would think.  Meanwhile, I'd still like to hear about what programs this anti-waste candidate plans to cut. 
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on September 09, 2008, 02:20:44 PM
According to recent polls, the conventions didn't cancel each other out.  Rather, McCain is now tied with Obama...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Gallup (and others) show McCain is now leading over Obama:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110143/Gallup-Daily-McCain-Maintains-5Point-Lead.aspx

Truth be told, Obama's bounce was negated by McCain's bounce and now McCain, by most polls, is either ties or winning.

I know this must come as a shock to you, but the tide is turning and McCain is up.  With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on September 09, 2008, 02:23:56 PM
Are you joking?

One would think.  Meanwhile, I'd still like to hear about what programs this anti-waste candidate plans to cut. 

To answer this question, I recommend looking here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/cb15a056-ac87-485d-a64d-82989bdc948c.htm

and here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/

And what does Obama plan on doing to reduce government spending and waste?  (besides gutting the miltary, surrendering in Iraq, increasing taxes, and going after profitable business)
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 09, 2008, 02:45:20 PM
the biggest economic issue other than aunt and uncle fanny...


...the price of gas...


mark my words...obama will LOSE the election if he does not acknowledge that we need to become energy independent...we need to begin offshore drilling now.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on September 09, 2008, 06:08:04 PM
mark my words...obama will LOSE the election if he does not acknowledge that we need to become energy independent...we need to begin offshore drilling now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4323718.shtml

http://super-ways.com/top-5-fuel-saving-tips-without-changing-the-way-you-drive/
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on September 09, 2008, 08:08:51 PM
Are you joking?

One would think.  Meanwhile, I'd still like to hear about what programs this anti-waste candidate plans to cut. 

To answer this question, I recommend looking here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/cb15a056-ac87-485d-a64d-82989bdc948c.htm

and here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/

I'm sorry, which programs were those?  Perhaps I missed the list.

While we're on the subject of ethics reform and its relationship to waste, you can find something a little more specific than the McCain plans here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/).
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on September 09, 2008, 08:16:39 PM
With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....

Not any women I know.  Where are these purported sexist attacks from Democratic leaders or the Obama campaign?  I think it's time for Republicans to stop playing the victim on gender (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card) and allow Ms. Palin to come out for interviews.  Personally, I find it insulting that McCain believes that he couldn't find a more qualified woman under his big tent and that women vote mainly on vaginas and chromosomes.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: pig floyd on September 09, 2008, 08:19:18 PM
With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....

Not any women I know.  Where are these purported sexist attacks from Democratic leaders or the Obama campaign?  I think it's time for Republicans to stop playing the victim on gender (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card) and allow Ms. Palin to come out for interviews.  Personally, I find it insulting that McCain believes that he couldn't find a more qualified woman under his big tent and that women vote mainly on vaginas and chromosomes.

Recent news (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/palin.poll/) suggests it's men who support Palin anyway.

ETA:  I'm too lazy to check, but my suspicion is that the male/female split for Palin is probably about the same as the male/female split for republicans in general.  In other words, not news, nothing to see, move on, talk about issues.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on September 09, 2008, 08:59:03 PM
With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....

Not any women I know.  Where are these purported sexist attacks from Democratic leaders or the Obama campaign?  I think it's time for Republicans to stop playing the victim on gender (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card) and allow Ms. Palin to come out for interviews.  Personally, I find it insulting that McCain believes that he couldn't find a more qualified woman under his big tent and that women vote mainly on vaginas and chromosomes.

Ugh, we can talk about another shift, with McCain's choice of Palin (who, btw, I ran across in my 2006 Abramoff research, do she ain't so pure and non-lobbyist-tainted, jsyk.)

I was determined NOT to vote Obama, as 1) I'm from Maine and I figured, heck, my vote doesn't count in such a true-blue state, and 2) Obama is too conservative for me.  Well, now I'm voting Obama, sure as the day is long. And while it might not matter, being from Maine and all, I suspect that I'm not the only one. See, there are enough women my age who actually remember Palin's "type" in high school, college and even the work place, and the world is not all hockey-moms and daisies.  The Palins of the world actually made the day-to-day existence of millions of true working-mom-feminists harder and nastier, and we know it.  So, yeah, some of the DailyKos crowd need to shut their traps on the misogyny train, but for the most part, in the long run, I'm not actually concerned about my demographic.  Two months is a long time, particularly in American culture, for the shine to wear off.  Pslin will remind more and more women voters over time just why we dislike her now, and always have.

So an Obama sticker goes on my car - I wish it were Michelle Obama (as she's definitely the bees knees) but I'll accept her spouse as well.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Miss P on September 09, 2008, 09:01:13 PM
I feel much the same way, fry.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Scentless Apprentice on September 09, 2008, 09:50:19 PM
Currently nodding in agreement.

It's amazing to me that women would vote for a certain presidental candidate just because the VP is a "hard working mom." Who cares? I'm learning how naive I am.

I'm concerned about anyone who names a child Track or Trig. Seriously..life is hard enough, why give your child extra headaches? Lucky for them their names are Sarah & Todd. If their names were Shelf and Lamp or something, then they would have a point..
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 08:15:25 AM
Recent news (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/palin.poll/) suggests it's men who support Palin anyway.

That's because she looks like Tina Fey.

no...she resembles tina fey and annie oakley...and she kicked the corrupt g.o.p. out of alaska...and she has a 5 children job...that is why some men like her...

she is smart...and tough...she reminds men of their wives and girlfriends and mothers of their children...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 08:24:28 AM
...obama did not apologize for his sexist comment reflecting palin's difference between a pit-bull and a hockey mom...


...lipstick...


instead...he used a sexist "cliche"...

...and then he DID NOT apologize for it!

...instead? he justified it...


...the problem MANY PEOPLE have with politicians is that politicians DO NOT APOLOGIZE!!!
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 08:30:12 AM
mark my words...obama will LOSE the election if he does not acknowledge that we need to become energy independent...we need to begin offshore drilling now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4323718.shtml

http://super-ways.com/top-5-fuel-saving-tips-without-changing-the-way-you-drive/


you are going to have to come up with something better than that.

you are wrong...china and japan demand more oil than ever before...opec regulators will begin to get nervous when we merely threaten to begin offshore drilling...as seen when bush merely mentioned he will try to lobby that we lift the ban on offshore drilling...the regulators get jittery and then when off shore drilling gets the okay...WATCH...gas prices will begin to come down...just watch...because off-shore drilling will happen...it is what the american people want.


the primary issue of this election season is the price of gas...domestic issues...the economy...and the price at the pump is a big part of it...so off-shore drilling will set us on the way to somewhat of an energy independence...along with solar, wind, and fissile energies...

but the offshore drilling advocate candidate will get the support of the independent electorate...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: jeffislouie on September 10, 2008, 08:59:05 AM
With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....

Not any women I know.  Where are these purported sexist attacks from Democratic leaders or the Obama campaign?  I think it's time for Republicans to stop playing the victim on gender (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card) and allow Ms. Palin to come out for interviews.  Personally, I find it insulting that McCain believes that he couldn't find a more qualified woman under his big tent and that women vote mainly on vaginas and chromosomes.

Ugh, we can talk about another shift, with McCain's choice of Palin (who, btw, I ran across in my 2006 Abramoff research, do she ain't so pure and non-lobbyist-tainted, jsyk.)

I was determined NOT to vote Obama, as 1) I'm from Maine and I figured, heck, my vote doesn't count in such a true-blue state, and 2) Obama is too conservative for me.  Well, now I'm voting Obama, sure as the day is long. And while it might not matter, being from Maine and all, I suspect that I'm not the only one. See, there are enough women my age who actually remember Palin's "type" in high school, college and even the work place, and the world is not all hockey-moms and daisies.  The Palins of the world actually made the day-to-day existence of millions of true working-mom-feminists harder and nastier, and we know it.  So, yeah, some of the DailyKos crowd need to shut their traps on the misogyny train, but for the most part, in the long run, I'm not actually concerned about my demographic.  Two months is a long time, particularly in American culture, for the shine to wear off.  Pslin will remind more and more women voters over time just why we dislike her now, and always have.

So an Obama sticker goes on my car - I wish it were Michelle Obama (as she's definitely the bees knees) but I'll accept her spouse as well.

With all due respect, and in no way am I trying to offend you, but:

Specifically - how do 'the palin's of the world' make the 'day-to-day existence of millions of true working-mom-feminists harder and nastier' exactly?  By existing?  You remember her "type" from high school?  Basketball players?  Attractive girls?  What the hell are you talking about?  Because from where I sit, it sounds like nonsense similar to what I heard on the radio this morning - callers to a comedy based morning show shouting about how Palin wants everyone to apologize to her for insulting her.  Did Palin ask for apologies, or is that just part of the liberal talking points delivered via your local newspaper?

I fail to see how people like Palin make life more difficult for moms, working or otherwise, or feminists.  Her is a strong leader who took on a male dominated political structure and won.  Here is a woman who rose to become the first female governor of the state of alaska - and managed to keep her approval rating above 80% while doing it.  Here is a woman who got involved in her kids PTA, took on a mayor she thought didn't represent the views of her town (and won).  This woman reformed local government and made enough of a name for herself as a leader that she ran was appointed to an essential energy group.  While serving in this position, she was disgusted by the level of corruption and misuse of power.  Did she play along and take advantage of the people?  No.  She quit - then she did what could have been political suicide by blowing the whistle on the corruption after being wholly ignored when she tried to go through the appropriate channels.  Instead of being disgusted by her and ostracizing her, she ran for governor against an entrenched, but dirty politician and won, becoming the first woman to run the state.  As governor, she attacked government waste, pulled the plug on the bridge to nowhere, and fought public corruption - all while winning the overwhelming approval of her constituents (unheard of in modern politics).  No governor holds such a high approval rating in the entire United States of America.

She is a working mom who has always found time for her family.  A woman who put her community and her state first instead of her personal finances and pork.  Please tell me how this shining example of a strong, female leader has made your life or the lives of any working, feminist mom any more difficult.

The issue you have with her may be that you THINK you know who she is, but never bothered to look.  Feminists like you talk about equality, glass ceilings, and the importance of elevating the gender to the same level as men, yet when you finally have an example of a person who embodies everything you actually strive for, you hate them and say they make your lives more difficult.

So now you've said it - I want to hear from your mouth how it is that she has tarnished your ability, degraded the social opinion of women as leaders, and/or made your life any more difficult.  As I see it, she is an absolutely shining example of being great at what you do - regardless of sex.  She has put up with attacks levied against her merely because she is a woman and that fact alone sickens me.  But Sarah uses it as a source of strength (isn't that what feminists are SUPPOSED TO DO???????).

This reminds me of Jerry Reinsdorf, the chairman of the group that owns my beloved White Sox and Bulls.  I've been in his office (my gf works in the White Sox front office).  What struck me as the most interesting thing about Jerry from being in his office isn't his collection of autographed baseballs and bats(which includes baseballs hero's and is a priceless collection).  It isn't the letters from US Presidents or famous celebrities.  What speaks the loudest to me about his character is a small, handwritten note sent to him by an angry, hate filled, bigot and 'former' sox fan who wrote (and I will never forget this):

"You jews are all alike and will ruin this team.  The city of Chicago should round up jews like you and kick you out of town."

Jerry has this framed, dead center, at eye level, amongst his collectables.  He looks at it every day and uses it to remind himself to be humble and never think to much of himself.  People faced with hatred based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation can take this sort of thing and throw it away if they like.  Great people use it to motivate themselves.

When Sarah Palin was first attacked for being a woman trying to do what she felt was right, she could have given up and returned to a happy life as a homemaker, mother, and wife.  Instead, it inspired her to continue to work hard and persevere in the face of conflict that she knew was based on moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

So as a working mom feminist, instead of rallying against her for being a woman who is working in a man's world and has SHATTERED the glass ceiling, you choose instead to politicize your hate for successful, hard working, good intentioned women and pretend that she somehow has made your life more difficult.

So I challenge you to honestly explain it to me, because I simply cannot understand how Sarah Palin's success in the male dominated world of politics has negatively affected you in any way, shape or form.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 09:07:47 AM
With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....

Not any women I know.  Where are these purported sexist attacks from Democratic leaders or the Obama campaign?  I think it's time for Republicans to stop playing the victim on gender (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card) and allow Ms. Palin to come out for interviews.  Personally, I find it insulting that McCain believes that he couldn't find a more qualified woman under his big tent and that women vote mainly on vaginas and chromosomes.

Ugh, we can talk about another shift, with McCain's choice of Palin (who, btw, I ran across in my 2006 Abramoff research, do she ain't so pure and non-lobbyist-tainted, jsyk.)

I was determined NOT to vote Obama, as 1) I'm from Maine and I figured, heck, my vote doesn't count in such a true-blue state, and 2) Obama is too conservative for me.  Well, now I'm voting Obama, sure as the day is long. And while it might not matter, being from Maine and all, I suspect that I'm not the only one. See, there are enough women my age who actually remember Palin's "type" in high school, college and even the work place, and the world is not all hockey-moms and daisies.  The Palins of the world actually made the day-to-day existence of millions of true working-mom-feminists harder and nastier, and we know it.  So, yeah, some of the DailyKos crowd need to shut their traps on the misogyny train, but for the most part, in the long run, I'm not actually concerned about my demographic.  Two months is a long time, particularly in American culture, for the shine to wear off.  Pslin will remind more and more women voters over time just why we dislike her now, and always have.

So an Obama sticker goes on my car - I wish it were Michelle Obama (as she's definitely the bees knees) but I'll accept her spouse as well.

With all due respect, and in no way am I trying to offend you, but:

Specifically - how do 'the palin's of the world' make the 'day-to-day existence of millions of true working-mom-feminists harder and nastier' exactly?  By existing?  You remember her "type" from high school?  Basketball players?  Attractive girls?  What the hell are you talking about?  Because from where I sit, it sounds like nonsense similar to what I heard on the radio this morning - callers to a comedy based morning show shouting about how Palin wants everyone to apologize to her for insulting her.  Did Palin ask for apologies, or is that just part of the liberal talking points delivered via your local newspaper?

I fail to see how people like Palin make life more difficult for moms, working or otherwise, or feminists.  Her is a strong leader who took on a male dominated political structure and won.  Here is a woman who rose to become the first female governor of the state of alaska - and managed to keep her approval rating above 80% while doing it.  Here is a woman who got involved in her kids PTA, took on a mayor she thought didn't represent the views of her town (and won).  This woman reformed local government and made enough of a name for herself as a leader that she ran was appointed to an essential energy group.  While serving in this position, she was disgusted by the level of corruption and misuse of power.  Did she play along and take advantage of the people?  No.  She quit - then she did what could have been political suicide by blowing the whistle on the corruption after being wholly ignored when she tried to go through the appropriate channels.  Instead of being disgusted by her and ostracizing her, she ran for governor against an entrenched, but dirty politician and won, becoming the first woman to run the state.  As governor, she attacked government waste, pulled the plug on the bridge to nowhere, and fought public corruption - all while winning the overwhelming approval of her constituents (unheard of in modern politics).  No governor holds such a high approval rating in the entire United States of America.

She is a working mom who has always found time for her family.  A woman who put her community and her state first instead of her personal finances and pork.  Please tell me how this shining example of a strong, female leader has made your life or the lives of any working, feminist mom any more difficult.

The issue you have with her may be that you THINK you know who she is, but never bothered to look.  Feminists like you talk about equality, glass ceilings, and the importance of elevating the gender to the same level as men, yet when you finally have an example of a person who embodies everything you actually strive for, you hate them and say they make your lives more difficult.

So now you've said it - I want to hear from your mouth how it is that she has tarnished your ability, degraded the social opinion of women as leaders, and/or made your life any more difficult.  As I see it, she is an absolutely shining example of being great at what you do - regardless of sex.  She has put up with attacks levied against her merely because she is a woman and that fact alone sickens me.  But Sarah uses it as a source of strength (isn't that what feminists are SUPPOSED TO DO???????).

This reminds me of Jerry Reinsdorf, the chairman of the group that owns my beloved White Sox and Bulls.  I've been in his office (my gf works in the White Sox front office).  What struck me as the most interesting thing about Jerry from being in his office isn't his collection of autographed baseballs and bats(which includes baseballs hero's and is a priceless collection).  It isn't the letters from US Presidents or famous celebrities.  What speaks the loudest to me about his character is a small, handwritten note sent to him by an angry, hate filled, bigot and 'former' sox fan who wrote (and I will never forget this):

"You jews are all alike and will ruin this team.  The city of Chicago should round up jews like you and kick you out of town."

Jerry has this framed, dead center, at eye level, amongst his collectables.  He looks at it every day and uses it to remind himself to be humble and never think to much of himself.  People faced with hatred based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation can take this sort of thing and throw it away if they like.  Great people use it to motivate themselves.

When Sarah Palin was first attacked for being a woman trying to do what she felt was right, she could have given up and returned to a happy life as a homemaker, mother, and wife.  Instead, it inspired her to continue to work hard and persevere in the face of conflict that she knew was based on moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

So as a working mom feminist, instead of rallying against her for being a woman who is working in a man's world and has SHATTERED the glass ceiling, you choose instead to politicize your hate for successful, hard working, good intentioned women and pretend that she somehow has made your life more difficult.

So I challenge you to honestly explain it to me, because I simply cannot understand how Sarah Palin's success in the male dominated world of politics has negatively affected you in any way, shape or form.


if is enjoyable to argue with these people...many of them have labeled themselves with the ad-lib "donkee" party...so they won't exactly "get it"...no matter what you present or how you present things...

as an independent it is most fun to watch them squirm again and again and again...

aye love the fact that palin kicked the corrupt gop out of alaska and am enjoying watching this thing play out...

seriously, aye think mccain was once toast...

now...with his new energized campaign and his agent of change and message of reform and end to "Wasteful spending" and the current shift of the feminist vote and also many male independents...

mccain will be the next commander-in-chief...

if you enjoy to argue with the "ad-lib-lost-donkees" and the "left-wingnuts"....by all means continue...

but they simple are lost sheep and don't "get it"..



"off-shore drilling" that is the main issue...obama refuses to acknowlege it...and that will be his undoing...believe me...aye voted for the man twice...aye don't think he will win at this point...plus hiliary and gov. rendell did some real damage in pa...and florida might be out now too...hiliary did damage in ohio too...not to mention the region slightly below the mason dixon line.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 09:24:31 AM
With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....

Not any women I know.  Where are these purported sexist attacks from Democratic leaders or the Obama campaign?  I think it's time for Republicans to stop playing the victim on gender (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card) and allow Ms. Palin to come out for interviews.  Personally, I find it insulting that McCain believes that he couldn't find a more qualified woman under his big tent and that women vote mainly on vaginas and chromosomes.

allow ms. palin come to interviews... :D :D :D :D

how about NONE...nada...nope...no way...

scheduling conflicts...too many small towns that need attention...too many stumps to kick...sorry not enough time.... :)


BESIDES:...during hiliary's campaign she did not do...interviews....and when she did have small ones...they were under HER terms...she tried NOT to take rogue questions from press conferences...and when she did...it was an ambush...

so...thanks but no thanks...as aye see it...there are less than two months to the election...she should just have one or two BIG interviews on BIG national levels...kind of like hiliary...but smarter...wiser...two big interviews...lots of stumping...a debate and that is it.


sorry...no small interviews and NO press conferences...get it out of your head...

these independents are not stupid.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 09:34:51 AM
With all the sexist attacks on Palin coming from the left, it shouldn't be a surprise that there is a shift amongst women as well....

Not any women I know.  Where are these purported sexist attacks from Democratic leaders or the Obama campaign?  I think it's time for Republicans to stop playing the victim on gender (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card) and allow Ms. Palin to come out for interviews.  Personally, I find it insulting that McCain believes that he couldn't find a more qualified woman under his big tent and that women vote mainly on vaginas and chromosomes.

Recent news (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/09/palin.poll/) suggests it's men who support Palin anyway.

ETA:  I'm too lazy to check, but my suspicion is that the male/female split for Palin is probably about the same as the male/female split for republicans in general.  In other words, not news, nothing to see, move on, talk about issues.


how about these issues: the female independent split may increase with these issues on the table...

issues women would be interested in with someone in the white house with real experience as a mother of 5 and a governor... women's legal rights...rights of contract...property rights...voting rights....for protection from domestic violence...sexual harassment and rape...for workplace rights: including maternity leave and equal pay...protection from other forms of discrimination.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 09:42:26 AM
...the sarah palin...agent of change....and efficacious personification of change will not end within two months time...obama's phenom only grew...it follows the same pattern.


aye warned you donkees and left wing nuts...

you shouldn't have behaved with "hair trigger" responses...



even democrats like this woman...democrats in pa can't wait for her to come and speak.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on September 10, 2008, 10:12:34 AM
Sarah Palin did not kick the corrupt GOP out of Alaska - she replaced Murkowski, who took a bullet for putting his daughter in his Senate seat, as he didn't trust any of the top Abramoff-corrupted pols - the same pols who endorsed and campaigned for Sarah Palin - to take his seat.  Palin was picked as the choice for governor by default - both Don Young and Ted Stevens were heavily implicated by the Abramoff emails (the same emails Senator McCain refused to release and sent to the LoC with a "do not open until 2066" stamp.)  Palin herself has Abramoff connections - the lobbyist she hired to get all those billions in earmarks for Alaska was hired by Greenberg Traurig at the very same time - to help lobby for those same issues and earmarks.  BP and Todd Palin's "union" financed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), the green-scam group Abramoff used to launder much of his cash, in their attacks on John Kerry, and, well, well, well, John McCain.  Palin isn't on the ticket because she's McCain's pick - she's the choice of Rove.  McCain may have been able to extort the nomination through control of the Abramoff emails, but Rove and Norquist weren't going to let him control the whole show, especially when he started to get all "mavericky", throwing out Lieberman's name as a possible VP choice.  Lieberman might be hated by the Democratic grassroots, but he's still a bit of a ethical goodie-two-shoes, and not Cheneyesque material.  So they forced Palin, who appears all untainted, but is so far from it, it's nauseating. 

The reason Sarah Palin gives feminists a bad name is that she all hat and no cattle - she talks a good talk, but doesn't follow through.  When elected mayor of a town of 6000, she hired an "administrator" to do all the hard work.  And she still left the town in tremendously bad financial shape, to the tune of $20 million.  Few people talk about her failed run for Lt. Governor in 2002, after which she went to work for Ted Steven's corrupt 527, setting up her network of money and influence.  She won the governor's office in a three way race - hardly a rousing mandate.  Her kids have been raised with the help of her parents, all the while she cut funding for TANF child care subsidies.  And that purported "ethics reform"?  She never even put through a complete bill.  All hat, no cattle.  She supports abstinence only, cut funds for unwed mother housing and training, hunts out of season ("What?  Me follow the law?"), uses her position of authority to interfere with personnel practices, possibly illegally.  She paid off a sexual harasser, after deeming his actions, which were found by his office to be actionable, merely a "smear", and lied about the case when questioned by the media.  She's corrupt, incompetent, vindictive and dishonest - which, yes, harms all women who seek to be in similar positions of authority, whether in the public or private sectors.

She's also an anti-intellectual: The daughter of a science teacher, she believes the world is approximately 6000 years old, and Noah forgot to put the dinosaurs on the ark.  She tried to force the banning of public library books.  She went to six colleges in five years, finally graduated (barely) from a journalism program which is not accredited by the largest Journalism professional society, and was a sportscaster before going into politics.  While that may be a perfectly fine academic and work history for an average American, but we're talking about the #2 position, behind a 72 year old three time cancer survivor (who also graduated from the bottom of his class.)  People make a big deal about Obama only getting a 165 on his LSAT, when neither of these two could probably get into Cooley, let alone Harvard.  And if that makes me an intellectual snob, so be it - is it so much to want the people with the immediate access to thermonuclear weapons to have more than a mediocre education and non-curious intellect?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on September 10, 2008, 10:21:49 AM
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 10:55:24 AM
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?

the rape kit line is falacious and false...check your facts.



Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: Susan B. Anthony on September 10, 2008, 10:57:51 AM
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?





...where did I say anything about potential pregnancies, except in reference to your inability to actually read posts?

at least you're consistent.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on September 10, 2008, 10:58:32 AM
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 11:00:45 AM
rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

palin did not make victims pay for rape kits...you are reaching...and that is a false statement..

by all means...keep digging...
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 11:05:49 AM
you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... it is like saying obama is a muslim...;)





Sarah Palin did not kick the corrupt GOP out of Alaska - she replaced Murkowski, who took a bullet for putting his daughter in his Senate seat, as he didn't trust any of the top Abramoff-corrupted pols - the same pols who endorsed and campaigned for Sarah Palin - to take his seat.  Palin was picked as the choice for governor by default - both Don Young and Ted Stevens were heavily implicated by the Abramoff emails (the same emails Senator McCain refused to release and sent to the LoC with a "do not open until 2066" stamp.)  Palin herself has Abramoff connections - the lobbyist she hired to get all those billions in earmarks for Alaska was hired by Greenberg Traurig at the very same time - to help lobby for those same issues and earmarks.  BP and Todd Palin's "union" financed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), the green-scam group Abramoff used to launder much of his cash, in their attacks on John Kerry, and, well, well, well, John McCain.  Palin isn't on the ticket because she's McCain's pick - she's the choice of Rove.  McCain may have been able to extort the nomination through control of the Abramoff emails, but Rove and Norquist weren't going to let him control the whole show, especially when he started to get all "mavericky", throwing out Lieberman's name as a possible VP choice.  Lieberman might be hated by the Democratic grassroots, but he's still a bit of a ethical goodie-two-shoes, and not Cheneyesque material.  So they forced Palin, who appears all untainted, but is so far from it, it's nauseating. 

The reason Sarah Palin gives feminists a bad name is that she all hat and no cattle - she talks a good talk, but doesn't follow through.  When elected mayor of a town of 6000, she hired an "administrator" to do all the hard work.  And she still left the town in tremendously bad financial shape, to the tune of $20 million.  Few people talk about her failed run for Lt. Governor in 2002, after which she went to work for Ted Steven's corrupt 527, setting up her network of money and influence.  She won the governor's office in a three way race - hardly a rousing mandate.  Her kids have been raised with the help of her parents, all the while she cut funding for TANF child care subsidies.  And that purported "ethics reform"?  She never even put through a complete bill.  All hat, no cattle.  She supports abstinence only, cut funds for unwed mother housing and training, hunts out of season ("What?  Me follow the law?"), uses her position of authority to interfere with personnel practices, possibly illegally.  She paid off a sexual harasser, after deeming his actions, which were found by his office to be actionable, merely a "smear", and lied about the case when questioned by the media.  She's corrupt, incompetent, vindictive and dishonest - which, yes, harms all women who seek to be in similar positions of authority, whether in the public or private sectors.

She's also an anti-intellectual: The daughter of a science teacher, she believes the world is approximately 6000 years old, and Noah forgot to put the dinosaurs on the ark.  She tried to force the banning of public library books.  She went to six colleges in five years, finally graduated (barely) from a journalism program which is not accredited by the largest Journalism professional society, and was a sportscaster before going into politics.  While that may be a perfectly fine academic and work history for an average American, but we're talking about the #2 position, behind a 72 year old three time cancer survivor (who also graduated from the bottom of his class.)  People make a big deal about Obama only getting a 165 on his LSAT, when neither of these two could probably get into Cooley, let alone Harvard.  And if that makes me an intellectual snob, so be it - is it so much to want the people with the immediate access to thermonuclear weapons to have more than a mediocre education and non-curious intellect?




rape

Did you, in your anxiety to decry concern over abortion rights, miss the part where, while Palin was mayor, women in her town were required to pay for their own rape kits? That is, women bore a financial cost for the gathering of evidence when they reported a rape.

Yeah. She cares a lot about rape.

In response to the rest, see generally frybread's post above.

are you sure that rape victims don't have more than an issue of a potential pregnancy on their hands?



You don't even know what a rape kit is, do you?

palin did not make victims pay for rape kits...you are reaching...and that is a false statement..


Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: mbw on September 10, 2008, 11:12:33 AM

Sarah Palin did not kick the corrupt GOP out of Alaska - she replaced Murkowski, who took a bullet for putting his daughter in his Senate seat, as he didn't trust any of the top Abramoff-corrupted pols - the same pols who endorsed and campaigned for Sarah Palin - to take his seat.  Palin was picked as the choice for governor by default - both Don Young and Ted Stevens were heavily implicated by the Abramoff emails (the same emails Senator McCain refused to release and sent to the LoC with a "do not open until 2066" stamp.)  Palin herself has Abramoff connections - the lobbyist she hired to get all those billions in earmarks for Alaska was hired by Greenberg Traurig at the very same time - to help lobby for those same issues and earmarks.  BP and Todd Palin's "union" financed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), the green-scam group Abramoff used to launder much of his cash, in their attacks on John Kerry, and, well, well, well, John McCain.  Palin isn't on the ticket because she's McCain's pick - she's the choice of Rove.  McCain may have been able to extort the nomination through control of the Abramoff emails, but Rove and Norquist weren't going to let him control the whole show, especially when he started to get all "mavericky", throwing out Lieberman's name as a possible VP choice.  Lieberman might be hated by the Democratic grassroots, but he's still a bit of a ethical goodie-two-shoes, and not Cheneyesque material.  So they forced Palin, who appears all untainted, but is so far from it, it's nauseating. 

The reason Sarah Palin gives feminists a bad name is that she all hat and no cattle - she talks a good talk, but doesn't follow through.  When elected mayor of a town of 6000, she hired an "administrator" to do all the hard work.  And she still left the town in tremendously bad financial shape, to the tune of $20 million.  Few people talk about her failed run for Lt. Governor in 2002, after which she went to work for Ted Steven's corrupt 527, setting up her network of money and influence.  She won the governor's office in a three way race - hardly a rousing mandate.  Her kids have been raised with the help of her parents, all the while she cut funding for TANF child care subsidies.  And that purported "ethics reform"?  She never even put through a complete bill.  All hat, no cattle.  She supports abstinence only, cut funds for unwed mother housing and training, hunts out of season ("What?  Me follow the law?"), uses her position of authority to interfere with personnel practices, possibly illegally.  She paid off a sexual harasser, after deeming his actions, which were found by his office to be actionable, merely a "smear", and lied about the case when questioned by the media.  She's corrupt, incompetent, vindictive and dishonest - which, yes, harms all women who seek to be in similar positions of authority, whether in the public or private sectors.

She's also an anti-intellectual: The daughter of a science teacher, she believes the world is approximately 6000 years old, and Noah forgot to put the dinosaurs on the ark.  She tried to force the banning of public library books.  She went to six colleges in five years, finally graduated (barely) from a journalism program which is not accredited by the largest Journalism professional society, and was a sportscaster before going into politics.  While that may be a perfectly fine academic and work history for an average American, but we're talking about the #2 position, behind a 72 year old three time cancer survivor (who also graduated from the bottom of his class.)  People make a big deal about Obama only getting a 165 on his LSAT, when neither of these two could probably get into Cooley, let alone Harvard.  And if that makes me an intellectual snob, so be it - is it so much to want the people with the immediate access to thermonuclear weapons to have more than a mediocre education and non-curious intellect?

you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... it is like saying obama is a muslim...;)

That's quite humorous.  Someone provides facts, and you claim they are reaching, without addressing a single one.  Yawn.  You're still boring.
Title: Re: Why Obama will lose in the fall
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on September 10, 2008, 11:13:40 AM
too much of it is bull...aye don't even bother when someone is shoveling bullshite.

you're "investigative journalism" is exactly like the "investigative journalism" of those who claim barack is a muslim...aye don't bother with their crap either...



if you are really worried about lobbyists...obama didn't take public funding...like he promised...but who cares...will he show us proof of change? will mccain show us proof of reform???

if it smells like bullshite...it probably is bullshite.




Sarah Palin did not kick the corrupt GOP out of Alaska - she replaced Murkowski, who took a bullet for putting his daughter in his Senate seat, as he didn't trust any of the top Abramoff-corrupted pols - the same pols who endorsed and campaigned for Sarah Palin - to take his seat.  Palin was picked as the choice for governor by default - both Don Young and Ted Stevens were heavily implicated by the Abramoff emails (the same emails Senator McCain refused to release and sent to the LoC with a "do not open until 2066" stamp.)  Palin herself has Abramoff connections - the lobbyist she hired to get all those billions in earmarks for Alaska was hired by Greenberg Traurig at the very same time - to help lobby for those same issues and earmarks.  BP and Todd Palin's "union" financed the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy (CREA), the green-scam group Abramoff used to launder much of his cash, in their attacks on John Kerry, and, well, well, well, John McCain.  Palin isn't on the ticket because she's McCain's pick - she's the choice of Rove.  McCain may have been able to extort the nomination through control of the Abramoff emails, but Rove and Norquist weren't going to let him control the whole show, especially when he started to get all "mavericky", throwing out Lieberman's name as a possible VP choice.  Lieberman might be hated by the Democratic grassroots, but he's still a bit of a ethical goodie-two-shoes, and not Cheneyesque material.  So they forced Palin, who appears all untainted, but is so far from it, it's nauseating. 

The reason Sarah Palin gives feminists a bad name is that she all hat and no cattle - she talks a good talk, but doesn't follow through.  When elected mayor of a town of 6000, she hired an "administrator" to do all the hard work.  And she still left the town in tremendously bad financial shape, to the tune of $20 million.  Few people talk about her failed run for Lt. Governor in 2002, after which she went to work for Ted Steven's corrupt 527, setting up her network of money and influence.  She won the governor's office in a three way race - hardly a rousing mandate.  Her kids have been raised with the help of her parents, all the while she cut funding for TANF child care subsidies.  And that purported "ethics reform"?  She never even put through a complete bill.  All hat, no cattle.  She supports abstinence only, cut funds for unwed mother housing and training, hunts out of season ("What?  Me follow the law?"), uses her position of authority to interfere with personnel practices, possibly illegally.  She paid off a sexual harasser, after deeming his actions, which were found by his office to be actionable, merely a "smear", and lied about the case when questioned by the media.  She's corrupt, incompetent, vindictive and dishonest - which, yes, harms all women who seek to be in similar positions of authority, whether in the public or private sectors.

She's also an anti-intellectual: The daughter of a science teacher, she believes the world is approximately 6000 years old, and Noah forgot to put the dinosaurs on the ark.  She tried to force the banning of public library books.  She went to six colleges in five years, finally graduated (barely) from a journalism program which is not accredited by the largest Journalism professional society, and was a sportscaster before going into politics.  While that may be a perfectly fine academic and work history for an average American, but we're talking about the #2 position, behind a 72 year old three time cancer survivor (who also graduated from the bottom of his class.)  People make a big deal about Obama only getting a 165 on his LSAT, when neither of these two could probably get into Cooley, let alone Harvard.  And if that makes me an intellectual snob, so be it - is it so much to want the people with the immediate access to thermonuclear weapons to have more than a mediocre education and non-curious intellect?

you are reaching...you are stretching...you are digging...keep it up, though...you are running out of time.... it is like saying obama is a muslim...;)

That's quite humorous.  Someone provides facts, and you claim they are reaching, without addressing a single one.  Yawn.