Man enough to admit I've got ED..

Electile Dysfunction : the inability to become aroused over any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.

A week or so ago I had ED afer eating some really hot Mexican food. ED = Explosive Diarrhea.

pussy.
:p

I think most people have "electile dysfunction" this year.

The only exceptions seem to be the Paulbots, the Obamabots, and the Hucksters.

yeah I know... but at least I can say it was really hot. Not Taco Bell hot sauce hot, but "holy crap I need to strip" hot. And I loved it too. Hey speaking of the elections... could this be our next president...?

Me too. Doubt I'll be voting for anyone...

Paul Rodriguez makin' fun of white-folk says about Taco Bell sc, "Oooh, damn. My mouth's on fire! What's in that stuff? Tomato sc?" :rolleyes:

Is that the dude from the Goonies?

Me and proud of it!

Hahah, I was thinking more like this:

Aw, come on Midnight. You're not really a Paulbot. I think you are just kidding about that.

Most of the Paulbots are either young college age kids or fringe nuts. The majority of the college age kids can't even tell you why they are a Paulbot, but for some reason they think it's cool. They also have a knack for instantaneously filling up every internet web site comment section.

You don't seem like a vacuous college age kid or a fringe nut.

Enema Discharge?

Read up on Hillary's plan to solve the housing crisis if you want some entertaining reading.

That's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen.

Really, I wonder what the President of the country's idea is? :rolleyes:
Seen this yet?

Fortune Magazine seems to agree....

It's good to see that The Wall Street Journal isn't the only one out there speaking out against this nonsense.

This "Economic Stimulus" package being touted by Bush and Congress is also an extremely dumb idea.

I wish this country was like my computer..... Just shut the thing down for 30 seconds and then turn it back on and everything is working again.

Someone come get me out of my basement after the election is over. I am not sure if I will be voting for who I want to be President or the "Lesser of Two Evils."

¡Tambien Jesus te odia a tu culo, guey!

Ah shahram. Always good for a completely immature, sacreligious, comment. Please refer to my last comment to you for my response. Then go drown yourself.

Sacrilegious? What are you talking about? Did it never occur to you that your food was prepared by a man named "Jesus"? Also...you brought up your ass magma problem and I'm the immature one? Well, excuse me, Miss Manners! I guess I'll just take my inflatable Virgin Mary Doll and go elsewhere!

My Mexican food was prepared by me in my home. I am not Hispanic. I am not named Jesus. I am also not wasting any more energy on you.

I'm going to my local precinct in a few minutes to vote in the primary. While I'm excited to participate I can't help but feel irked that the likes of McCain and Huckabee are forecasted as the front runners here.

Media predictions aside, I feel obliged to cast my ballot because I want to show my support for a candidate. Don't worry, even though I'm 24 that doesn't mean I'm a "Paul-bot"

When I think about Paul.. I remember a quote from the Simpsons. "Go ahead.. throw your vote away!"

Don't Huck up?

Vote for Fred.

If everyone didn't feel that way and went ahead and placed their vote for him, THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN! I don't understand this. I'd rather vote for him, who I support wholeheartedly, than for someone else "who has a better chance of winning" even though I think they suck and have not offered valid solutions to today's issues. Why NOT make a statement and vote for someone who I personally think is brave and has a consistent voting record in Congress (So they call him Dr. No? At least he stands up for what he believes in and has been consistent throughout his career!) and is not scared to speak the truth instead of just spewing what most people "want to hear".

It's like Bill Maher said when he had Dr. Paul on his show: "If America was a smarter country, wouldn't you be leading the polls?"

I am not scared to vote for someone I support. And no one should be intimidated b/c "he has a slim chance of winning". Vote anyway! You may change things!

Why does that not make sense?

(Does this make me a Paulbot now? LOL)

I agree with you liz. I'd vote for Paul if he made the ticket. I doubt he will though.... His BIGGEST problem is the "paulbots" who unfortunately also make up the majority of the "truthers" and even though Paul does not support their belief on the matter, it's gonna be hard for the masses to overlook that fact. Plus the media is just completely playing him off as a kook and Joe "I want my rebate check" America is going to follow them hook line and sinker. I fear we will always have a plastic politician in charge of this country until it crumbles. None of the current "front runners" are going to make any changes. None of them are going to reverse all of the bills and laws passed that have given the executive branch all the power it now wields, which many are unconstitutional. The only guy who might make a difference is Thompson and Paul polls higher then him in many instances. You never see that in the media though.

Is Ron Paul electable???

Answer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlacFmRGPgI

BY THE WAY, THIS WAS NOT SHOWN ON TELEVISION. It was left out by our beloved Faux News.

Fred got my vote!

I've gotta admit that the whole voting experience was very uplifting to me. Not only did I show my support for the candidate who I believe in, I got to make good on a personal promise. As some of you may recall, I met Fred a few months back and promised him that I'd vote for him. While I'm sure Fred doesn't remember me... at least I kept my promise and that's a good feeling!

Go Fred Go!

Hey check it out. Huckabee is a racist too!

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_gave_speech_to_white_supremacists_0118.html

Im sorry but that made me LOL...

Im glad im still on a greencard and not being able to vote. Like whoever it was said, voting for the lesser of the two evils is not my first choice in choosing the leader of the most powerful country on earth

Ron Paul is in first place in this L.A. Times poll:

http://www.latimes.com:/news/politics/

And he came in second place in Nevada! Not close by any means to Romney, but still -- all of this gives me some hope!!!

If it is an online poll, it doesn't count. Online polls are spammed and have no scientific basis.

The latest Rasmussen Poll has Ron Paul at 5% in Florida.

Link...

One thing you have to consider about the Florida Primary..... It is one of the first primaries where only registered Republicans can vote in a Republican Primary (that's the way all of them should be).

Unless you are registered Republican, you won't be able to vote for Ron Paul.

The only reason for the outcomes of some of these previous primaries was the fact that non-Republicans could vote in Republican primaries.

Yes I know it sucks. I submitted my "change of party" form too late I think.

Still gonna help the campaign and put up signs and stuff.

By "change of party".... does that mean you were a Democrat or no party affiliation?

I was completely unaware of this rule until a couple of days before I participated in SC's primary.

Good thing I wasn't affected.

You're a good man BluMerle and you voted for the best man running in this race.

Unfortunately, I doubt he will still be around on Feb. 5 so I can also vote for him.

The media likes to talk about people like John McCain being the frontrunner and Huckabee prior to that. The real truth is that many people who weren't even Republicans voted for them.

The real frontrunner on the Republican side at this point in the game is Mitt Romney. The only thing that really counts is delegates and Romney has the most delegates so far.

The media likes to push certain people, but it's the delegates that get a candidate nominated.

The delegate count so far....

Romney........73
McScum.......38
Huckasuck....29

Also.... Florida is one of the first big "winner take all" states.

That means the winner of the state gets all the available delegates. The delegates aren't apportioned like in some other states.

Actually the Super Delegates carry much more weight. Nothing like a stacked deck.

Stalin said it best, "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."

Yes, I was a registered Dem.

Superdelegates are a factor on the Democrat Party side of things, not the Republican.

But you are essentially correct in stating that for Democrat Party voters, their choice and vote in the primaries can matter little if the party bosses and superdelegates are stacked against the choice of the people.

That would really only come into effect in a brokered nominating convention.

Couldn't agree more. For every know-it-all "truther" voter, there are 100 people who get so turned off by their whole vibe that they identify the candidate in the same light.

And I love how youtube is somehow going to affect the election. Just like MTV did before, right? :rolleyes:

Youtube is nothing but Ron Paul supporters telling other Ron Paul supporters to support Ron Paul.

Who are these "truthers"?

The 9-11 truthers are the "Loose Change" Movement. They are people who claim that 9-11 was an inside job and a US government conspiracy.

Seriously Midnight... are you claiming you are not aware of these people? Are you saying you are not aware that a large portion of them are HUGE Paulbots and comprise a large amount of his support?

The 9-11 Truthers aren't the only conspiracy nutjobs who have allied themselves with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul himself gives much conspiracy fodder to these nutjobs through all his appearances on nutjob shows like Alex Jones.

Let us also not forget about Ron Paul's newsletters and all the insanity, both racial and government, contained within those. They explain Paul's support among neo-Nazi's, KKK and all other white supremacists.

No, I don't pay attention to all that crap. All I know is I like what he says, he has consistent principles and values, he offers solutions to todays problems, he gives me hope that things can change, and I think he is the only "good guy" running for president. I know a lot of smart, normal people that support him and stand behind his message. He needs to bring us back to a healthy economy. Our government is getting us into too much trouble. I am personally scared for our future, especially when I think of any of the other candidates. It's time to put a REAL person in charge who is not afraid to speak his mind and tell the truth!

Besides, Ron Paul can't control who supports him.

Who knows -- maybe it's good that a presidential candidate can unite ALL the people of the U.S. -- racists, KKK, white supremacists, serial killers, sex offenders, etc. Isn't that what America is all about? :p

Since we're gonna always have these crazy people living our society, maybe it's good that they can all agree on one thing -- that this country is in peril and Ron Paul offers HOPE!

On a more serious note, the one thing I can say is I've never felt so passionate about a candidate. I'm surprised I am even talking about politics right now! Never been interested in my life.

Annnnnnd on a lighter note, I had my first professional drum lesson tonight and I'm gonna be a kick-ass drummer one day! WOOHOO!!

Goodnight, all.

I find it surprising that as a medical doctor, Ron Paul denies the theory of evolution. I know during my Bio and genetics classes we covered it and Im sure he did as well. With Huckabee being a former Baptist minister his views arent quite as surprising.

For some reason I would find it hard to vote for a candidate who doesnt accept evolution as valid.

OK... everyone has a right to their own opinion... but honestly, is that the most important issue right now??? You'd rather our economy continue to get flushed down the toilet b/c of something that NO ONE is ever going to agree on???

OK seriously I'm going to bed! BYE.

Youre right that it isnt the most important issue but like I said, it just seems to stand out in my mind. I read a response by Huckabee where he basically said that its not his job to decide what is taught in schools so his views on the matter shouldnt be a big deal.

I am still undecided on where my vote is going, I need to do some research before I'll back any of them.

Here's Ron Paul's response to your racism comment, Madman:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/10/blitzer.ron.paul.interview.cnn?iref=videosearch

Okay this isn't related to the election per se, but I thought it was really funny. Looks like ol' Slick Willie needs another Viagra or somethin'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlrYRfS3fMk

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution?!? Yeesh.

There's no way I could vote for a candidate that feels that way. It's like denying gravity or the curve of the Earth. All three kooky principles incorporate HEAPS of pseudo-science into their own "theories" which are really just attempts to shoot down other real theories.

No wonder the "truthers" love Ron Paul. Pseudo-science begats pseudo-science.

He's a man of faith. Doesn't everyone of faith deny evolution?

Again, is this a big deal?!

Depends on whether you're talking micro or macro evolution.

75% of our country doesn't believe in evolution either. It's just an easy way to grab the christian vote.

No. No they do not. And I'm damn sick of people making that bullshit assumption, and telling me what I have to believe if I want to believe in a God.

I am allowed to believe in a creator, and also to believe that he works solely through science (the physical laws of our universe). The two do not conflict.

As you can tell, I'm not very religious. Sorry for the assumption. I think your belief is one that makes sense. To ME, anyway.

It isn't just my racism comment. Everyone is a bit appalled by Ron Paul's newsletters.

His comments and explanations are completely bogus and nothing but a lie.

For years the newsletters were published with his name on it and he made money off of it. The newsletters were published and written in the first person. For anyone to believe that someone would publish a newsletter with their name right on the top without knowing what was contained within those newsletters is extremely naive and gullible.

The newsletters are not only loaded with racism. They are loaded with all kinds of nutjob conspiracy theories.

Most of the media is not taking him to task because they know he has no chance of winning. But... Ron Paul has put a very large stain on the Libertarian movement and some have abandoned him in light of the newsletters.

It's even debateable if Ron Paul is even a Libertarian since Libertarians are the biggest supporters of free trade and an open immigration policy. Things Ron Paul vehemently opposes.

Your previous comments saying Ron Paul can't help who supports him is only half true. When it is brought to his attention that neo-Nazi's and Stormfront people have donated money to him, he could do the right thing by returning the money. For the most part he doesn't do that.

Whatever. I still support him.

Freddy's dead.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/22/thompson.out/index.html

The only dirt the media has been able to bring up on Paul is those news letters and if you actually look, you will find just as much evidence debunking those newsletters as you will see condemning Paul for them. That's it though... nothing else... Compare that to ANY of the other candidates....

With Thompson out, Paul is the only candidate I'd vote for... I sort of liked Obama, but after the last couple weeks and his "time for change" chest thumping and current mudslinging (something he said he wouldn't do) I find him no better than the rest. Plastic politicians.

Paul at least has a solid voting record and sticks to his guns without waffling.... oh well....

While I'm sad to see Fred exit the race, I sincerely hope that another Republican candidate will consider him as a running mate.

Romney-Thompson '08.

Dude, when Ron Paul was in medical school, Trepanation 101 was a required course.

Fred Thompson is definitely on and/or near the top of the short list to be on the bottom of any Republican ticket.

The main thing that Republicans, and conservatives really, have to do is try as hard as as possible to keep McCain from getting the nomination.

There is too much idiocy going on right now among some Republicans and conservatives who think they just need someone who can beat Hillary or Obama. I say that is COMPLETELY WRONG.

While I don't like McCain's politics, they're better than Billary's or Obama's. And while I would rather see another candidate get the Republican nomination, can any of the candidates beat Billary/Obama? Be honest, don't go off on tangents, just a yes or no and who.

Can any other candidate beat Hillary or Obama? I don't know. Maybe. Hillary is talking some really scary shit. To Obama's credit, he is not talking the same level of scary government control. However, Obama is really no different than most modern Democrats when you take a close look, and really doesn't offer much "change".

I think DesertRat said it best when he said "there's a huge and growing number of people in this country that don't believe in personal responsibility, and would prefer the government wipe their asses for them". That mentality is dominating American politics today. Unfortunately it is on both the Democrat and to a certain degree the Republican side.

Is John McCain better than Hillary or Obama? I personally don't think so. Maybe only marginally. Not enough to warrant completely destroying the Republican Party with a nominee like McCain.

McCain has gone to considerable efforts to fuck over conservatives and Republicans. He is more comfortable working with Ted Kennedy than he is working with a conservative Republican.

McCain would prefer a Democrat congress if he were ever president because he would then be able to institute the same agenda he has always fought for when fucking over Republicans and conservatives in the Senate.

If this country is going to be fucked over in the next four years with things like amnesty for illegal aliens; bringing in all their relatives; showering illegals with all kinds of benefits including Social Security and taxpayer health care; continued attacks on the first amendment; constitutional rights for international terrorists; liberal judicial appointments; Democrat tax policies; appeasing liberal/progressive social agendas; etc., etc., etc., it is better done by a Democrat.

McCain lies and says he is a pro-life Republican. He is nothing of the sort. He actually filed an amicus brief in a case before the Supreme Court against a Missouri right-to-life group's first amendment rights to speak out against abortion. Not only is McCain hiding his abortion position, he fights against people's rights to exercise their first amendment rights.

McCain is one of the biggest liars to ever run for political office. He is complete scum.

McCain would be no different than having a Democrat as president. He would be worse.

If this country is going to be fucked over, it is better off if a Democrat is in office. If McCain is in office, the public will blame the Republican Party regardless of the fact that McCain is not, and has never been a good Republican nor a conservative. McCain believes in many of the same things as the Democrats and the Ted Kennedy wing of the Democrat Party.

McCain would do nothing but actually destroy the Republican Party. Something he has actively worked for from within for many years.

If Hillary were to become president, she would most likely be a one term president. She is not her husband and is not willing to govern and concede to moderate positions like her husband. She is the radical one of the two and won't be able to help herself on instituting her agenda once in office.

That would pull the Republican Party back to it's roots and conservative ideals and most likely also pull the public back to conservative governmental ideals and the Republican Party after a few years of Hillary Clinton and her statist agenda.

A McCain presidency would destroy the Republican Party for possibly a generation.

For Republicans to settle on McCain because they think he can beat Hillary is completely absurd.

What does it matter if he beats Hillary and destroys the Republican Party?

I've got ED too! But this is not the first time, and probably not the last. I'm almost to the point where I don't care who gets it as long as it's not Hillary. Gawd I hate her!

I got my Ron Paul bumper sticker yesterday. WOOHOO! :p

I don't get the Ron Paul infatuation. Even if he does have these wonderful ideals (which I don't really think he does), his effectiveness in making any of those reality will be severely limited because he's generally perceived as a kook. Ron Paul would be unsuccessful for the same reason most independent candidates would be unsuccessful. You have to have friends to make things happen.

Ron Paul would be a foreign policy disaster - far worse than GWB.

With regard to a couple of Madman's comments, the pro-life / pro-abortion debate should NOT be a major reason to vote one way or the other. There's just too many more important issues than abortion right now. No republican will have the power to overturn Roe vs. Wade, nor should one waste the effort to do so (Huck, are you listening?)

I still think the best thing for this country is someone who was successful in the private sector. I don't think Romney is an ideal candidate - far from it, in fact, but out of those that have a chance, he's far and away the best choice. I prefer wiping my own ass.

Hey Madman... I'm really interested in finding out if you have any ideas of who you're voting for. I know you really hate McCain and you really don't like Ron Paul. And I know you won't throw your vote at Billary or B-Rock. So who you votin' for? Any thoughts at all? I can honestly say, more than at any other election, I am completely stumped this go around. I'm seriously thinking about not voting at all. Don't see the point in giving my vote to the least sucky versus the best candidate (because there isn't one).

Dude, no way. Do you have any idea how much money we'll have to spend on additions to the White House for all of his wives?

At this point I think the best overall option would be a Republican controlled congress and Obama as President. The worst would be Clinton and a Democratic Congress.

Focusing on the Dems as President because I just don't think there is a Republican who can win.

Heh, anyone who can handle more than one wife has superior management skills!

....and the White house is a pretty big house. :p

The Ron Paul fans are very easy to explain.

Take a look at the people who support him. They are all the fringe of society. They are people who are typically ignornant and uninformed. They are basically stupid (with the exception of MidnightX of course. )

There is no other way to explain Ron Paul's fans because only stupid people would believe and buy into his drivel.

You won't be seeing many Ron Paul votes as the primaries and caucuses move to states where you have to actually be a registered Republican to vote for him.

Quote:

With regard to a couple of Madman's comments, the pro-life / pro-abortion debate should NOT be a major reason to vote one way or the other. There's just too many more important issues than abortion right now. No republican will have the power to overturn Roe vs. Wade, nor should one waste the effort to do so (Huck, are you listening?)

I mentioned abortion as an example of how John McCain fucks over conservatives and Republicans and is a liar.

Abortion is only a marginal issue with me. I don't want politicians in office who will use taxpayer money to pay for them. Thanks to the Democrats, the taxpayers already give well over $300 million a year to Planned Parenthood. That means the taxpayers are paying for abortions through a private organization. The Democrats want to give them more money.

You are also wrong that a president has no power to overturn Roe vs Wade. All that is needed is one more Supreme Court justice who thinks it was a bad decision.

Quote:

I still think the best thing for this country is someone who was successful in the private sector. I don't think Romney is an ideal candidate - far from it, in fact, but out of those that have a chance, he's far and away the best choice. I prefer wiping my own ass.

I tend to agree with that. I don't like people in high office who have spent most of their lives in some public office or another. They are too out of touch and believe too much in government, not people.

I have no idea who I am voting for in this election.

So far, I can only say for sure who I am NOT voting for.

I will NOT be voting for McCain, Huckabee, or Paul. All are completely unacceptable on so many levels.

Is this worse than feeding and clothing welfare babies for 18 years and then letting them progress as adult recipients in the welfare system?

Seems to me a $400 abortion is the cheap way out there.

Desert Rat's got a point. I heard on NPR that 100% of welfare babies that grow up to be welfare adults were not aborted as fetuses.

Coincidence? I think not.

High 5 there bud!

As for the abortion argument.. this reminds me of the book Freakonomics. Authors Steven Levitt & Steve Dubbner caught major flak over their ballsy essay on abortion and society. Great read no matter how you feel about it imo.

Unless you're one of those crazy, crazy people who think that abortion is murder. Not baiting you there, just giving my perspective. For those who are passionate about their view that it is murder, abortion simply is not and cannot ever be an option.

I don't think abortion is murder, but it's definitely termination of life. It's a shame it's done and I personally would not want to be faced with that situation as termination of any life is a grand waste of potential and a tragedy, but unfortunately there are situations where it's warranted.

I guess I am personally against it (granted I've never been faced with the prospect so that belief has never had to be tested) but socially for it as it's too complex an issue for me to judge. It shouldn't be a government issue at all, but an issue between a women and her doctor. Now those idiots who go out and irresponsibly get pregnant then just abort, well they disgust me and hopefully karma will punish them later in life....

Pamela Anderson had one a couple weeks ago.

...and....?

Jus' sayin', I'm sure.

Paulbots Gone Wild.....

This is a somewhat entertaining audio clip from some Ronulan who called a talk radio show in Texas.

The host let the guy rant, but it gives you an idea of the mentality of many in the Cult of Ronulans.

Link to MP3 audio clip...

Update...

Dennis Kucinich has dropped out of the presidential race. He will make a formal announcement tomorrow.... most likely from a spaceship at Shirley MacLaine's house.

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

Republican Candidate Debate tonight at 9PM EST on MSNBC.

Down a beer every time McCain lies about one of his current or past positions.... and down a beer every time Ron Paul says something completely wacky and loony.

How long can you last?

Good, I can't in good conscience continue to live in a country who's leader is a vegan by choice, so against what our bodies need to survive...you shouldn't need supplements just to keep yourself alive because you think the animals are cute and cuddly.

"Live Posting the Debate..."

I'll be making some updates on the debate.

-- McCain started out by lying about his support for the Bush tax cuts. I'm downing my first beer already.....

-- Huckster was correct when saying most of the rebates would go to buy goods from China. It will be paid for by treasury debt to China.

-- McCain says he make further tax cuts as president. He doesn't have a good tax cutting record. That's good for half a beer.

-- Ron Paul says we have an empire we are maintaining. Good God... I didn't buy enough beer.

He correctly says "Sarbanes-Oxley" was bad.

-- McCain is attacking the Democrats on all programs and spending they want to do.

-- Romney says when Republicans act like Democrats.... America loses.

He also attacked Democrats for taking credit for "the surge" turnaround in Iraq.. "How dare they". He is right.

-- Romney get asked a loaded question about what some retired Democrat general who works for NBC news has to say about the military.

-- Russert asks all if removing Saddam was worth it...

...McCain says Iraq mishandled but is turned around and going well right now
...Ron Paul says it was a bad idea.
...Huck says everyone believed Saddam was a threat at the time regardless of what was found afterwards
...Romney agrees is wasn't handled well in the beginning but is turning around.

All but Ron Paul seem to believe we can't just pick up and leave regardless of what went before.

Candidates get to ask each other questions now....

-- Romney asks Rudy about trade with China. Rudy says China is both an opportunity and a reason for caution. Rudy says we never fully recovered from Clinton era military cuts.

-- McCain asks Huck about "fair tax" and impact on poor. Huck responds by lying that it would remove the IRS(which it wouldn't). He says pimps would have to pay taxes... even non-Republicans.

-- Ron Paul asks McCain about the presidents financial advisory group.

-- Huck asks Romney about 2nd Amendment rights and the Brady Bill. Slyly insinuates that Romney flip flopped. Romney says he does not support new legislation and supports 2nd Amendment.

-- Rudy asks Romney about property insurance in Florida. Rudy says he supports a national catastrophic government fund. WTF? Romney says he supports a national catastrophic fund (tepidly). (We have federal insurance programs for that already). Romney says people in Iowa shouldn't have to support Florida homeowners. He supports public-private industry solution.

No one mentions personal risk and responsibility when building and owning in hurricane zones. No one seems to want to give direct answer because Florida primary is coming up and they have to pander.

-- Rudy gets asked an environment question. Good on coal. He supports LNG. He supports hybrid vehicles. He is against CO2 caps.

-- McCain lies and says he only supports cap and trade... I'm drinking.

-- Rudy says his campaign will be a comeback just like the NY Giants. :rolleyes:

-- McCain told a lie and said he helped appointing Republican judges (that scum sided with Senate Democrats in the "Gang of 14")..... I'm drinking again.
..Mccain said he was a conservative... that is technical lie.

Damn... I have to take a piss.

-- Romney is attacking Clintons... they are out of touch.
..Russert asks how much of his own money he has spent on campaign. Romney evades the question and says it will be known when he files campaign funding reports. He can't reveal that to his opponents while the next primary is days away.

-- Ron Paul is asked about his position of abolishing social security. Russert reminds him that 3.5 million Florida voters receive SS.

Says he doesn't want to get rid of it right away. Says he has program to help seniors but doesn't really get into any details.

That answer didn't warrant a beer. Not kooky enough.

-- Huckster trying to sell fair tax again. I'm sure all those old people on SS in Florida would really love that.

-- Rudy is asked about his immigration plan requiring immigrants to learn English...Reporter asks why he is running commercials in Spanish. Rudy goes on about "tamper proof ID Card" bullshit.

Rudy asked about Cuban refugee policy. Russert absurdly asked why is it different than Mexicans coming here.

-- Huck is asked about Chuck Norris claiming McCain is too old. Says he didn't question Norris because he was standing next to Norris. Says it's not an issue for him.

-- McCain jokes he is sending Stallone to take care of Norris.

-- Rudy asked about NY Times calling him vindictive. Not a fair question because most of the papers here are liberal and always hated Rudy. Especially the NY Times.

-- Romney asked about NY Times claiming he is disliked. (I didn't know the NY TImes was running the debate).

-- McCain asked about his bad temper. Gives a bullshit answer then goes on to weirdly praise Rudy.

That's probably not technically a lie, but I opened a new beer anyway.

-- Ron Paul asked about a possible third party movement. Says he has no intention.

He correctly says that Republicans aren't acting like Republicans anymore.

The way he talks, he also sounds like he is saying we start a new war every day. I think I may have also heard him mention "empire" again, but I was swigging a beer and can't say for sure.

Mildly kooky. Not worthy of a whole beer.

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

Well...... that's it. The debate is over.

In Summary.....

The debate kind of sucked. It was basically dull and no real fireworks from anyone.

Ron Paul wasn't as kooky as in previous debates and the bulge on McCain's left cheek didn't seem to expand like a bullfrog in tonight's debate either.

In related news, a weird little freak of a man was seen trotting about the surface of Mars today. NASA cannot determine the origin of this man, however he did smell strongly of tofu.

How's that statement incorrect? Do we not have military bases all over the world? Aren't we the only nation who does? How many British, German, Japanese, Korean, Indian, Middle Eastern bases do the other world nations have? How many are on our soil? How many strategically placed military installations does any other nation have compared to us? How many other nations economy reside on ours? When is the last time we saw chinese jets fly over american soil, or African navy off of our shores? Where is the head of the U.N. housed? Seriously to say we do not have an "empire" is ridiculous no matter what side you are on or what your political belief is. We are the defacto superpower left in the world.

em·pire
–noun
1. a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.
2. a government under an emperor or empress.
3. (often initial capital letter) the historical period during which a nation is under such a government: a history of the second French empire.
4. supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty: Austria's failure of empire in central Europe.
5. supreme control; absolute sway: passion's empire over the mind.

There were 5 more definitions but this gets the point across.

Jesus christ, you know what the fuck he meant.... Is any of my statement untrue? When's the last time you drove through a german base here in the US?

No, we are not an empire. We don't even come anywhere near the definition of an empire.

We have military bases in places around the world because those places want us there. When they don't, we move as in Saudi Arabia and moving from Okinawa.

Many of those local economies want our bases in those locations. We pay handsome rent and leases for the land and provide cash and jobs for the locals.

If you think the United States is an empire and buy into all that kind of bullshit and propaganda, you have been drinking from a dirty well.

No I don't think we are literally an empire madman. I think we have a military monopoly though and I think that is what Paul meant. You make a good point that most of those countries want us there, I just don't see the point to a military monopoly anymore. We could spend the money elsewhere or not spend it at all. I think that is what Paul meant.. That's how I took it anyway. Anyway, I'm going to bed. I'll catch you all tomorrow.

Madman's synopsis of the debate was great. I LOL'd.

If there was any clear winner, it was Romney. His answers on the issues were definitely the most sensible.

Ron Paul is a kook. Voting for that guy is a thrown away vote. My wife even asked, "Who's that little guy with the white hair? I don't like him." His foreign policy plans are that of fantasies. He's a total isolationist, and while I can see how we could pull back from some of our policies, his ideas go way too far. He has to realize that however much it sucks, we're still dependent on foreign oil for our economy, and as long as that's the case, we need to have a vested interest in the parts of the world where it comes from.

I can see why people like Huckabee. He's got a good sense of humor, he's articulate, and he's generally a good speaker (like most ministers are). His ideas just don't hold water though. The fair tax - his main platform - will never pass. Remember Steve Forbes? Yeah.

McCain did OK, but dodged a lot of questions. He was certainly the most gracious towards other candidates, but yeah, the Rudy love was just wierd.

Rudy had to sit and defend why he's a republican. I got a laugh out of that. He needs to realize that the whole country is not like NYC. In fact, much of the country prides itself in NOT being like NYC.

I sent that Ron Paul caller segment that Madman posted to a Paulbot friend of mine. This is the response I got:

That's the reaction people should have when people disregard the Constitution. It's too bad if the average American who is:

Fat
Stupid
Ugly
Lazy
Indentured
Weak

Gets freightened that some people actually get excited when our country is going to shit against the direct advice and laws of our Constitution.

I totally understood the caller. Didn't mince a single word.

Just read this about the question that Ron Paul asked McCain (of course, posted by a Ron Paul supporter):

I didn't know anything about this when he asked last night.

Seems like a good idea to me.

*shrugs*

There may be a form of Voter Fraud going on right now in Florida....

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-129electionday,0,6968764,print.story

Either it is fraud designed to help one candidate (maybe McCain) or the people who run elections down there are really stupid.

Florida law says that a voter must be registered 29 days prior to the election. That also means they have to be registered Democrats or Republicans to vote in the party primaries.

If this is going on in many voting locations, the losing candidates may need to contest this election. Independents aren't allowed to vote in party primaries in Florida.

Hello major news story for the next two weeks!

I also heard that when you touch the screen for Paul, it chooses McCain. The "hotspot" for Paul's name was like 2" away. Or something. Who knows.

If that happens on even one machine in regards to B-Rock, you can bet the ACLU, NAACP, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be on TV in 5 minutes screamin' racism and calling for resignations. :rolleyes:

Yep. Well I'm heading over now to vote. I can't vote for Paul but I think I can vote on other things? Again, who knows.

That sucks. I was actually hoping the Paulbots would be taking votes away from Senator Hothead.

Here is a video of Democrat Mike Gravel on the campaign trail....

If this is correct, I am freaking out!

http://jacksonville.com/

NEVERMIND.

?

They had Ron Paul wayyyyyy in the lead. But I guess it was a typo.

Watching it now on Fox. I guess neither of us are happy with the results.

Ron Paul is getting a fraction over 3% of the Florida vote. It's over for him Midnight.

The completely despicable John McCain is the declared winner for the Republicans. To make matters worse, he was just calling himself a conservative in his speech. This guy is the lowest of low and the most shameless liar I have ever seen in any politician in my life.

Hillary won for the Democrats. It makes no difference because the Democrat delegates in Florida don't count this year because of the early election (She is already attempting to cheat and get those delegates to be seated and counted, even after the rules were agreed upon).

Governor Crist proved himself to be a real snake in the grass too. I guess that's typical for a McCain ally. The sleaze rubs off. Another Republican that I can't stand is Mel Martinez.

Oh well.... We'll see what happens next Tuesday.



The Huckster has to have a serious case of Roadhouse Blues .

Crank it up...

Romney's upset. He's thinking... Love Hurts

Ron Paul is rebellious and out of control. He's thinking... I Can\'t Drive 65

Rudy.. well.. it's Every Rose has it\'s Thorn

Hillary, well... she's the Angel of the Morning ......

All I know is there are 61,000+ smart people in Florida.

FYI - Dr. Paul is not giving up. Just got this email from his campaign mailing list. (Yes, I joined. I even waved signs on the side of the road on Monday!)

And an opinion posted on Jacksonville.com. I'm shocked they even posted it since it was about Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

You don't know how many people told me "Well, I like Ron Paul, but he's just not gonna win, so I'm voting for someone else."

ARGHHHH!!! He CAN win if you VOTE for him, idiots!!!

This story can be found on Jacksonville.com at http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/013008/opl_241733833.shtml.

That's called "reality" - they could see the handwriting on the wall.

As we watched the Republican debate at Florida International U, my feeling was the guy would be an awesome Secretary of the Treasury, Chairman of the Fed, or such, but he just doesn't project a presidential image. Fair? Maybe not...but true.

It literally pains me to say this, but if McCain gets the nomination I'll vote DEM just to take one vote from his sorry ass.

It literally pains me to say this:

Hillary Clinton is a Presidential candidate.

Not true. Only an opinion. Not fact.

Let me just say, the Florida Debate was NOT a good representation of his eloquence and intelligence and the powerful speeches he can give. It saddened me to watch. And it saddens me that the other candidates laugh at him, like Mitt Romney, who, by the way, got bitch slapped during this radio interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lAFfLy05_Y

There's so much better Ron Paul to be discovered, but no one wants to give him the time of day.

OK, you win - it's an opinion. One that millions of people apparently share.

If what you say is true, I must have picked the one worst time to watch him, 'cause he came across in that debate like somebody's whiny old grandpa.

Millions of people are not informed enough!

My mother is one of them. She thought the same thing, but that's the first and only time she's ever seen him. If people would take the time to research, and THEN decide he sucks, well then I'll feel better. But there's a lot of things about him that do not suck and that's why I support him so strongly.

FYI -- he's the same age as McCain, who seems like an ANGRY ol' grandpa! He scares the crap out of me.

That's because the guy is a complete crackpot and a kook.

You'll get to see him in action one more time at the debate tonight in California.

I'm hoping he goes out in a blaze of kookiness considering the debate will be down to four people.

Yes, exactly.

Soon I may have to decide what size "Hillary" lawn sign I'm going to order.

Yes, millions of people are wrong and you are right. You know what's best for the republican party, since you've been a republican all of a few months.

Please hurry along to your next lame-o hobby and give us all a break with Ron freaking Paul.

John Edwards is out of the race.

Now there is only one woman left running for the Democrat nomination.

madman, if you vote Hillary over McCain, my respect is lost. As bad as McCain is, Hillary is worse.

Midnight, I know you really admire Dr. Paul, but the fact is that plenty of people have done the research and decided he's not the guy for the job, sorry. He may not be giving up, but he's done. And since you mentioned opinions earlier...it's your opinion that he's the best presidential candidate for the Republicans, and you even share that opinion with a bunch of sane people (and even more crazy bastards out there). Now, the opinions of a greater number of people (sane or not) say that he's not the best candidate for the job.

Thank you.

I may not vote for her, but I might endorse her for president and do everything I can to defeat McCain.

I disagree that the country would be better off with McCain. I've already previously explained why.

I don't care who the Democrats nominate. I will NEVER support McCain for president.

The Republican Party cannot survive a McCain presidency. It can, and will come out stronger under a Democrat presidency.

"Oy vey!

OK. I'm done.

It survived the idiot who's in the White House now, which indicates it's pretty resilient.

I'm still holding out hope for Romney.

He'll get my vote next Tuesday.

*applause*

Look, assuming Paul is out, who do you like after him?

Yes. I agree. Romney will be getting my vote on Tuesday.

I wish Huckasuck would leave the race now. All he is doing right now is taking votes away from Romney.

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

Debate tonight.... CNN 8PM.

Live Posting Republican Candidate Debate....

-- Ron Paul's first question about the economy....Monetary policy is wrong. Rants about other things but never says what is wrong with monetary policy.

-- Romney asked about McCain and brings up good points about why McCain is bad... drilling for oil.... amnesty....his expensive global warming fraud, etc.

-- McCain blatantly lies and says he has a conservative record. Doesn't defend what Romney said about him (he can't). McCain attacks Romney.

He rambles on about the people who are supporting him.

-- Romney responds to McScum attacks. Defends his time as Mass governor.

-- Huck asked about Rush Limbaugh by Anderson Cooper. Is Rush Limbaugh running for office?

Huck rambles on about why he thinks he is a conservative.

-- Romney asked about taxes and Health Care Program in MA. Gives rambling answer.

-- McCain asked about Gov. Arnold suing the feds regarding environmental issues. McCain lies and says he supports federalism.

He goes on to defend actions about global warming. The fraud of cap and trade. Says he supports nuclear power. Says we need to develop green technologies. Mentioned taxation to pay for it.

-- Romney talks about other energy sources. Is against cap and trade. Says it is a new tax that will be imposed on public (he is right). Says it will force more companies overseas.

-- Huck says California enviro policies will force jobs to other states. He's right.

He is against federal unfunded mandates on states.

-- Ron Paul talks about property rights and their threat from too much environmentalism. He is right on that point.

-- Huck asked about rebates to taxpayers ala stimulus package. Huck doesn't think it will stimulate economy. I agree with that.

He goes to say the money needs to be spent on infrastructure.

-- Romney agrees infrastructure can be good for economy, but he also cautions it can be done badly by mentioning "big dig" in MA.

-- Ron Paul uses word "empire" again. :rolleyes: Rambles on a bit and sort of incoherently.

-- McCain talks about mortgage crisis. Says people shouldn't be given money if they can't repay. Says Wall Street needs to be punished (that's a shout out to his left wing base).

He says government needs to take further steps.

-- McCain asked about Bush tax cuts and his flip flop on issue. Is avoiding question and says he was part of Reagan Revolution.

He lies and said his support for tax cuts was tied to spending. He doesn't answer question at all and not honestly.

-- Romney attacks McCain on McCain's comments saying the tax cuts were for the rich.

-- Huck asked about illegal immigration and "anchor baby" issue and if he supports it. Doesn't directly answer the question. Says Supreme Court decided issue.

Claims he wants illegals to go to back of the line. Doesn't say anything about them going home.

-- Romney asked about illegal immigration. Says no amnesty. Says illegals with kids should be given time to organize their affairs but must go home.

Rails against the McCain plan that allows all of them to stay. Says people who come here illegally should not be given a deal.

-- McCain asked about his immigration bills. Ignores facts included in question and says the borders need to be secured first (something he has ALWAYS fought against).

McCain opened himself up here for much in which Romney can attack. I hope he takes advantage, but I kind of doubt it.

-- Huck asked about Reagan's decision to appoint Sandra Day O'Connor to SCOTUS. Says history will have to be the judge of that, not him.

-- Ron Paul says he would never have appointed her.

-- McCain says he is proud of her. He then goes on to lie and say he would appoint guys like Roberts and Alito. A blatant lie by McCain.

They are taking a temporary break right now so the audience has time to go and throw up.....

-- Romney asked about Peggy Noonan's comments about Bush hurting the Republican Party. Romney says it wasn't all Bush but Washington too (I guess he means Congress).

-- Romney asked if he ever supported a timetable to leave Iraq. He says he never said that and it was a lie for others to make that claim (McCain's campaign actually made up that lie and put it out there before a previous primary election).

Says that was dirty campaign tricks.

-- McCain is dishonestly claiming Romney insinuted an Iraq timetable.

Romney is angry and fires back at McCain. Say's he is being taken out of context and McCain is not using his entire quote. McCain is scum.

McScum proclaims himself to be an expert on the subject. He basically just said Romney can't lead the fight against radical Islamic terrorists.

(Romney has a chance to attack McCain because McCain is the one who wants to give terrorists all kinds of constitutional rights).

-- McCain is complaining that Romney spent money on attack ads against him and Huckabee.

-- Ron Paul asked if he agrees with McCain that US soldiers could be in Iraq for 100 years.

Says he didn't agree with going there in the first place. Throws in "empire" remark again during long rant.

Much kookiness coming out now in a long rant. Says Iraq was unconstitutional and didn't have a declaration of war. Ron Paul's ignorance is shining brightly.

-- Huck defends staying there until job is done.

-- McCain defends presence in Iraq. Corrects Ron Paul about a comment about Eisenhower and Korea.

-- Huck asked about Vladimir Putin of Russia against context of comment Bush made about him years ago when first becoming president.

Huck speaks about our need for military strength.

-- Romney asked about Putin and says authoritarian ways coming back. Russia using energy resources for influence.

-- McCain asked about his qualifications to manage the country and economy. McScum says because he knows how to lead. Goes on to rant about his national security positions. Doesn't discuss anything economic.

-- Romney says McCain is not a guy who can lead on economic matters. Says someone leading a committee in Washington is not economic experience. Says we need someone who has led in the private economy.

-- Romney asked if military service is vital to be commander in chief. Romney doesn't feel that is necessary to lead.

-- Ron Paul says the president is not commander in chief of the economy. Says the president is not supposed to "manage the economy". Makes comment about the "welfare state" and complains about military being policeman for world.

Some of it was actually a good and correct answer, but Ron Paul's delivery is horrible and he has a habit of wandering too far from the question and always rants about foreign policy.

-- Huck responds to subject, but he boringly rambled on and lost me to a daydream. I have no idea what the fuck he said.

-- Romney asked if Ronald Reagan would endorse him. He says he believes so.

-- McCain gives rambling answer.

-- Ron Paul says he doesn't know what Reagan would do now. Manages to sneak in gold standard comment. The kook was emerging in that answer.

-- Huck goes on and praises Reagan and his qualities.

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

That's it. The debate is over.

I would say Romney did alright, but he had a number of opportunities to directly attack McCain and did not take advantage.

The best part of the debate was the heated exchange between Romney and McScum.

Huck was affable and personable but not very memorable.

Ron Paul was slightly kooky at times. On a kook scale from 1 to 10... he was about a 5 tonight.

The Republican Party needs to move away from CNN as a venue for Republican debates. The questions are bad and many are outright stupid.

Why does it always come down to a choice between a turd sandwich and giant douche?

Vote or Die

Just responding to this statement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbncgMFrgtY

On the "nice guy" scale, Huckabee consistently comes out on top, but Romney is much stronger on actually talking about specific steps needed to solve issues. He seldom dodges questions and gives direct answers that make sense more than the other guys.

He's no Regan, but he's head and shoulders above these other asshats.

The question is, will the rest of the country see it that way?

Anyone out there have a clue about how certain regions of the country are going to vote?

California is Hillary country. She is head and shoulders above B-Rock here. The Republicans are a non-issue here. Sure, people here will vote for Republicans, but the population centers are all wacko left-wing hives. No Republican presidential candidate will ever win in CA again. We're too far gone.

Really? I live smack dab in the middle of Los Angeles County, and I personally don't know anyone who is voting for her. Nor do I see any bumper stickers, or anyone talking about her.

Funny though, I sure do hear a lot of people saying there's no one worth voting for.

Ron Paul was VERY kooky in that video. He was an 8 out 10 on the kook scale.

When he talks about his whacky monetary policy ideas he is at some of his most clueless and ignorant and kookiness.

Arnold is a Republican, so I don't think California completely to the left. Then again, most of his positions are moderate and he did married a Kennedy - so that might have something to do with it. :p

You're right. I should mention that I'm basing that statement on every single poll I've seen, but not on my personal interviews. Everyone I talk to is terrified of her, but thinks B-Rock is only about .005% better.

Oh and I know it's going to break hearts in here, but I heard on the news this morning that Ralph Nader is probably going to drop out of the race.

1. Who the bleep even knew he was running?
2. Who the bleep even gives a crap if he was?

Arnold is not a "moderate" Republican. Arnold is a liberal. He's a RINO. Arnold is a disappointment and a disgrace.

What the fuck does "moderate" mean? That's a media word for Republicans who fuck over their party and their base by acting like liberal Democrats.

How come Democrats who act like Republicans are not called "moderate" Democrats?

It's a word the media uses to manipulate people's feelings. It's a word they use to avoid the truth by using the infamous "L" word... liberal.

Are you sure you heard the news correctly.

Other media outlets are saying he's actually thinking about jumping into the race.

Link...

Too bad. While I disagree with his beliefs, I think Ralph Nader is a good guy. If it wasn't for that asshole Gore stealing votes away from him with fear tactics back in 2000 (You may not like me, but you must vote for me or George Bush will become President!), we'd have a viable third party opposition to the Republocrat, One Party System that we have today.

When I saw this photo, I knew it would be worth resurrecting this thread for...

[img]http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/200...AoL9w0Dth43xQ--[/img]

I did my super tuesday duty this morning.

Oh, and I voted too.

I voted for Romney.

Looking at a lot of the early returns, it's not looking good for Romney, dammit.

I like Romney's politics more than McCain's but I'd vote for McCain over Romney just because I don't believe that Romney could beat either Hillary or Obama.

The media would have a field day with Romney's religion.

Since it looks like Congress will stay with a Democratic majority, I want the Republican who can most likely win in November. That isn't Romney and even though McCain is more liberal than Romney, he isn't as liberal as Hillary and not even CLOSE to being as liberal as Obama.

I'd be happy with a Republican president and a Democratic congress. This way, hopefully NOTHING will get done and we will then prosper as a nation.

Looks like Obama took GA.. no surprise there. Hillary on the other hand just took TN, OK, & AR.

Unfortunately I think Huckabee's going to cripple any chances Romney may have in the South. I just hope Romney can pull out the victory in CA though and reduce McCain's chances.

*Edit*
McCain - IL & CT
Romney - MA
Huckabee - AR

What's the difference? With John McCain as president WE WOULD have a Democrat in the White House.

Thanks for putting one of the last nails in the Republican Party coffin.

Nader is (and was) a bitter self-centered fuck. He cared more about his vanity than keeping Bush from getting the White House.

"Look at me! Look at me! Remember me? I took on GM 30 years ago! Look at me!"

Nader hasn't been sitting on his hands for the last thirty years.

I can't say I agree with the guy most of the time, but I respect his passion. I disagree that he does it out of vanity. Vain people don't devote themselves to a lifetime of volunteer civic duty, and he hasn't exactly gotten rich from his work. He's put his money, and his time, and his life, where his mouth is.

As far as him helping Bush get the White House, I'd wager that more people voted out of fear for Gore that would have been better served in the long run by voting for the Green Party. Nader has been one of the few vocal detractors of the Democrats. Look up what he has said about Hillary Clinton in this election to get an idea.

Hasn't gotten rich? He isn't doing too bad...he's a millionaire.

What???

You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about.

How about those people didn't want to waste their vote on Nader and the Green Party. That is what it would have been... throwing the vote away and pushing that states electoral votes to the other party.

Also the Green Party is to the left and only sucks votes away from the Democrat Party.

They are not a "viable" party and never will be a viable party.

Super Tuesday Suckfest....

There you have it folks....





A bit of a surprise for the Huckster. I don't think he won any winner-take-all states, but a lot of people Hucked Up and took votes away from Romney.

You have to wonder why the hell this guy Huckabee is still in the race. Instead of going after McCain who has been the frontrunner since South Carolina and Florida, he has been going after Romney. Kind of makes you wonder if he didn't strike a deal with the McCain camp to stay in the race for the sole purpose of eliminating Romney. If he did he is naive because McCain will drop him so fast once he outlives his usefulness the Huck won't know what hit him.

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

Juan MexiCain picked up 511 delegates yesterday. I guess the good news is that McCain didn't lock up the nomination last night. There's still hope that he could have a Howard Dean moment in the near future, or maybe get hit by a truck or something.

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

On the Democrat side, Obama did very well last night.

It looks like the Democrat race is going all the way to the convention.

There is a lot of angst and worry on the left wing web sites about whether the fix is in and whether the deck is stacked against Obama because of Clinton control of the party superdelegates.

Another thing that is interesting about the Democrat side is the demographic and racial factor in that race. Hispanics don't seem to be voting for Obama. Blacks are voting for Obama in large numbers (however Hillary got the coveted 50 Cent endorsement).

The polls were also wrong AGAIN in some of the races. They had Obama with a big lead in California. He lost with 10% less than Clinton. Are Democrats lying to the pollsters?

Somebody please tell me that Hillary isn't really going to win this thing...

The nomination, or the presidency?

The nomination? Maybe.
The presidency? No.

I don't think this country is ready for either a black president or a female one.

George Bush fucked this country into such a mess, the Democrats could have nominated a ham sammich and won the election in November.

Unfortunately, they weren't smart enough to push for a ham sammich, so Pars'dent McCain is on his way . . .

You know, I honestly have to say that it doesn't bother me that she's a woman or that Obama is black. In this case, I think Hillary is a swindler of the highest order. She plants people to ask the right questions so she'll never have to answer the tough ones. She never actually ANSWERS the tough questions that people might sneak in from time to time. Besides, I like my upper-middle class income just fine the way it is. I fear that under Hillary's rules I'd be classified as "super rich" and I could kiss my BMW goodbye.

I agree with you Graham, fortunately there a TON of trailer trash out there who vote!

I'm in a quandry. I have as yet to vote in a presidential election as I always refused to vote for the lesser of two evils.

I am now convinced that the whole "lesser of two evils" situation will be the norm for our presidential elections for all eternity. So I've definitely decided to vote this time around.

The quandry is. If I had to be classified I'd say I lean more to the Republican side of things. I also detest Clinton as much as Madman detests McCain. So if it comes down to clinton vs anybody else, I'll vote for anybody else. If it comes down to Obama and McCain or Huckabee, I'll vote for Obama. I'll vote for Romney if he makes the ticket. I'd also vote for Paul, but he's not making it...

Either way I am not really happy with any of the choices...

Traveling Fool Johnson is right!

It's not that Hillary is a woman or Obama is black. I look at candidates solely on platform. Hillary is a panderer of the worst kind and Obama....well, he doesn't really HAVE a platform.

I really haven't heard any real ideas from him aside from social medicine. When I've listened to Romney in the debates, he's come up with the most logical and sensible answers to questions on things like Social Security, immigration, etc. Obama answers everything with "message of hope" WTF does that mean?

I just don't think this country can get past Romney being a mormon. As for his flip flopping...the main thing I think he's done that on is abortion rights. That's not a policy item that makes a helluva lot of difference to me, and it's actually one of the traditional republican ideals that I don't agree with. I'm more concerned about getting someone with some management and fiscal skills, and someone who was a successful leader in the private sector appeals to me much more than a few career politicians from the Senate.

Maybe the Democrats aren't going for the ham sandwich, but the Republicans seem intent on serving up a sandwich.... a big shit sandwich.

I wouldn't write off Clinton's chances of winning next November. She very well does have a good chance of winning.

Looking at the results from yesterday's elections, more Democrats got off their asses and went to the polls than Republicans. In some states by about two to one. While it may be true that in many places there are more registered Dems than Repubs, but the numbers are clear. Democrats are far more motivated than the Republicans.

If the Republicans serve up the McCain shit sandwich for November, millions of conservatives will not vote for him. They will either stay home or just not vote in the presidential contest.

I'd write in my mom...

Hell.... I'll write in Shahram's mom.

"Dorothy Mantooth is a saint!"

Desert_Rat Johnson is right... (oh wait...wrong movie!)

Actually, WTF does it mean? It means Romney is fooling you. That may be what he says today, but he flip flops more than John Kerry...

So take his words with a HUGE grain of salt.

Moby, cite some flip flop examples during the campaign. Seriously. I didn't catch them.

As an additional side note, what's this I hear about Lieberman being a potential running mate with McCain?

I guess the democrats will win even if the republicans win the election.

Is Romney fooling Republicans, or conservatives for that matter? Maybe. No one is saying that he is perfect.

Unlike McCain though, Romney doesn't have a long and well documented history of consistently betraying his own party, and also going out of his way to stab the conservative base of the party in the back every chance he gets. McCain has a very long and well documented history of doing just that.

McCain is like letting an angry chimpanzee into your living room. Not only is he going to smash the hell out of the place, he's going to shit all over the rug then pick it up and throw it at you.

This crop of candidates makes my blood run cold. Seriously, people, there are 365 million people in this country, and this smattering of professional politico assholes is the best we can come up with?

If you vote for these fuckbags, you deserve what you get.

I'm voting for Zombie Oswald.

You aren't paying attention, then...

Abortion (was pro-choice in 2002...no more)
Guns (1994 - wanted stricter gun laws, didn't share NRA views...joined NRA in 2006.)
Immigration (as recently as 2005 said McCain's plan was reasonable...no more)

Just for starters.

Quote:

As an additional side note, what's this I hear about Lieberman being a potential running mate with McCain?

That would be interesting, but I'm guessing it won't happen.

Quote:

I guess the democrats will win even if the republicans win the election.

A year ago, with the possible candidates, I would have said the Democrats have the election in the bag. Now...they may have pulled one over on all of us and actually figured out how to LOSE the election. Obama or Hillary...

Thanks for the example. I wasn't aware of the gun control one. However, I don't think any republican in office would push for tougher gun laws.

Maybe if we'd just enforce the ones we have....

Moby.... Romney did say in 2005 that the McCain plan looks reasonable, but in the same interview he also said that he hadn't yet taken a very close look at the bill and the plan.

He has since disavowed the entire plan.

Tom Tancredo and Sherrif Joe Arpaio are two people that are staunch opponents to illegal alien and open border policies. Both have endorsed Romney. Each has said they endorsed him after meetings with Romney and are convinced his position on the issues are sincere and he will do something about it.

No other viable candidates will do a damn thing about it. All will make the problem far worse.

Another note on Romney............

With the debt and entitlement systems in this country being completely out of control and on the verge of completely crushing and sinking this country, Romney is really the only candidate that knows anything about economics and finance.

The other candidates are complete economic illiterates. They are actually out there promising vast expansions of the entitlement systems and the federal bureaucracy.

This was an interesting election tidbit.........

Remember all the buzz last year over those "Obama Girl" videos? She was a hot girl who originally made a video for the internet singing a song... "I Got a Crush on Obama". She then made other videos and has been a guest on almost every TV show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Well.... She didn't even bother to vote the other day.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/obama-girl-didnt-vote/

She was too sick to vote, but not sick enough to go to a party the same day.

Also not smart enough to just lie and say she voted for Obama.

I agree with this. Sad....huh? :rolleyes:

Well...

Romney's out. He is "suspending" his campaign.

Romney: Great, he agrees with McCain on the three items we cannot possibly be successful at....

I had a feeling this would happen sometime this week.

Hopefully Huckabee will go ahead and follow suit asap! There's no reason for him to continue either.. How I wish there was a silver lining in this situation...

Ron Paul is the silver lining!!!!! :p

The Huckster might stick it out for a few more primary elections, but he will also bow out in the very near future. McCain doesn't need him anymore, so Huck is now irrelevant.

The sad thing is McCain can't win in November. He won't win.

The silver lining is do what you can to make sure conservative Republicans are elected to Congress.

I honestly admire your convictions there Liz.

You know Madman you make a great point.. there's always Congressional elections! Thanks!

So does anyone else find it amusing that Hillary seems to be getting most of the hispanic voted because "Hispanics don't like blacks"

I wouldn't take that bet. As long as he doesn't do something stupid like pick Huckabee as a running mate, I think he'd beat Hillary in a landslide. Obama, maybe not so easily, but I still think he'd win.

This is assuming he doesn't do some sort of massive sticking his foot in his mouth between now and then.

Has there ever been an election with such uninspiring candidates?

I mean seriously...we've had laughable (Dukakis, anyone?)...but usually it's only been on one side or the other.

This time...BOTH are lacking.

We are talking about Juan McCain here. He will always do or say something stupid. His constant quest to feed his overwhelming narcissistic impulses guarantees that with certainty.

He is also an extremely thin skinned man who can't take criticism well at all. Wait until the Democrats, and the Clintons start up on him.

Let's also not forget that his friends in the media who protect him when he is fucking over his own party and his own country will not run cover for him in a presidential race against a Democrat. They will revert to their default position of running cover for the Democrat and kick McCain to the curb.

He's such an extremely flawed candidate on so many levels, I am absolutely confident that he cannot win in November.

Even if he picks a very good VP candidate, it would take something bad or nasty to come out about the Democrat candidate for McCain to win. I doubt that is going to happen because the Democrats have so many years of McCain's past to use against him in their campaign.

Forget your illusions about a landslide. He's not even getting the Republican nomination with support from the conservative Republican base. Most of these primaries, anyone can vote.



"Let me give you some 'Straight Talk' my friend..."

In November the conservatives that McCain has actively worked to fuck over for many years on end will not vote for him under any circumstances. No Republican candidate for president can win the election without these people. Even if the Democrat opponent is Hillary.

No way can McCain win. It'll be a bigger blowout then when Dole ran.

To some other Republican voters out there who think that McCain is even remotely capable of telling the truth on any issue.... check out the roll call vote regarding this so-called "Stimulus Package".

The Democrats (and a few Republicans) in the Senate wanted to load up the bill with another $45 billion dollars worth of pork and handouts on top of the about $160 billion in pork and handouts that made it through the House.

Only one Senator failed to vote. Guess who?



He didn't want to have to explain or defend his vote either way. Not while he is lying to conservatives and a vote the wrong way would make him look bad to his liberal friends.

A real principled guy.

I'm more inspired by Obama than I EVER was for Kerry.

I guess after a steady diet of dried up old white feces, a nice fresh, brown turd is something to be savored.

Honest question here, WilMac...what does Obaama stand for? And if you say "Change" and leave it at that, you're not even close to as smart as I give you credit for. All I hear from him is "Change" but change how? Change what? Change for the good? Change for the sake of change? Or are we talking $0.58 here?

TREE FITTY!

Yeah Wilmac....

What exactly is so inspiring about Obama? All he does is give speeches where he talks about change, yet NEVER gives any specifics about what types of changes he will make or how he will go about said change. He talks in platitudes. He talks dreams and rainbows and fairy tales.

The few times he has even been forced to give specific details on policy matters (specifically foreign policy) he proved himself utterly naive almost to the point of being unfit for command.

He's been described by at least one Democrat as clean and articulate. Is that all it takes to inspire Democrats? Be clean and articulate and talk dreams, fairy tales, and rainbows?

Is that black dude from the LA Times who called him the "Magic Negro" correct? He said a candidate like Obama can absolve guilty white liberals of their liberal white guilt.

Hispanics and Asians aren't voting for him, so there probably has to be some of the white guilt factor with liberals that black author Shelby Steele has also written about.

In reality Obama would be a bigger disaster for this country than Hillary Clinton.

The presidency is not a starter job.

Obama knows the mentality of his audience though. That's why he borrows slogans from children's shows.

You know, you all bitch at me for supporting Paul, but at least he has a plan and has ideas and is consistent! Give the man some credit!

He's not George Bush.

Darlin' we've given Paul credit for voicing his plan and ideas and for them remaining constant. It's the plans and ideas themselves that we won't give him credit for.

I've given Ron Paul some credit. He has some ideas that are correct.

On the other hand he has many ideas that are completely incorrect. He has some ideas that are completely crazed. He has some ideas that would literally destroy the country. That's destroy, literally, not rhetorically.

Ron Paul is also an enormous kook. He is a crackpot.

If you took some of his good ideas and threw away all his completely kooky and crazy ideas, removed his other ideas that were just thrown in to mask veiled racism and crazy conspiracy theories, and maybe put them into another man, you might have a candidate who could generate more than 4% of the votes in one single political party.

Ron Paul was a fringe candidate who appealed to a small fringe element of society with his combined mish mash of some far left wing rhetoric, some far right wing rhetoric and a selective nit picked dose of libertarianism thrown into the mix. It was a new brand of fringe populism.

The Ron Paul revolution was dead before it got started. Ron Paul himself made it virtually impossible for him to be taken seriously.

Maybe he should have adopted a slogan from a children's show too. I don't know what the slogan from "Thomas the Tank Engine" is, but he should have checked to see if it was available.

Are Ron Paul's ideas made of giant asteroids or something?

Or have you literally, not rhetorically, become Chicken Little?

"Destroy the country"? Not a fear-monger, huh?

I guess you could say his ideas are made of asteroid size piles of shit.

Yeah, if a lot of them were implemented, it would destroy the country. It would without a doubt rapidly increase the ability of another country to destroy us both economically and with outright attacks.

I have a feeling you are a closet Ron Paul supporter, but I don't think even you are so stupid as to advocate things like abolishing the CIA, the NSA, and God knows what other of our national intelligence apparatus.

He advocates destroying the economy by eliminating the Federal Reserve system and his kooky crackpot idea of going to a gold standard. Has Ron Paul ever read a friggin book or talked to any economists? Do all his ideas come from wacky Texas militia groups who think the Federal Reserve was a Jewish banker conspiracy.

Ron Paul's road would be a path to destruction. The country can't crawl into an a little isolationist ball and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. Maybe in Ron Paul's world he can pretend that it isn't a dangerous world and no other countries or organizations have their agendas and ulterior motives.

For a politician who thinks he can play on the world stage as a leader of a superpower, he is completely oblivious to the realpolitik or any reality related to geopolitics.

Ron Paul was a fringe candidate who posed absolutely no threat because other than a tiny fringe of people, no one took him seriously.

There's multiple reasons I'm for Obama, moreso than Kerry.

1)Kerry was a flip flopper. Let's just be honest here.

2) Kerry was a career politician, and had been entrenched in DC politics for years.

3) Kerry was still better than Bush.

4) Obama can actually speak, and his delivery in his speeches inspires, even if he's not saying anything solid. Let's compare him to Mumble Mouth Jones that we've been stuck with for the last eight years.

5) He's actually been against the Iraq war from the beginning.

6) Hillary keeps saying that she's going to push through socialized medicine, yet she's taken more money from the insurance and pharmaceutical companies than any other senator.

7) I WOULD support McCain, except for two things: a) he sold his soul when he campaigned for the man who stabbed him in the back. I can't forgive him for that and b) he's a warhawk.

8) Like was said in the Democrat debate the other night. In every election I've been able to vote in, I've either had to choose a Bush or a Clinton. I'm tired of it.

9) Bill signed NAFTA, which destroyed our economy and sent our jobs south. He also signed the Telecom Act of 1996, which has allowed Rupert Murdoch to own more than his fair share of media outlets, but beyond that it has allowed the rise of Clear Channel and other radio conglomerates, basically killing radio. With Hillary, we get him again. Don't kid yourself. It'll be a dual Presidency.

10) Republicans would love nothing more than to have a Clinton in the White House again so they have someone to blame for all the wrong in the world. When Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh both say they'd support Hillary over McCain, that's not a dis against McCain, it's them hoping to get another shot at the Clinton's.

11) With a Hillary nomination, the Republicans stand a chance. With an Obama nomination, they should just pack it in now.

Truth be told, Kerry was never that all inspiring. When I say that I'm more impressed by Obama, that's not saying much. But anyone is better than what we've dealt with the last eight years.

My thoughts exactly... and for the record I commended your loyalty.

Here's what I understand about Obama at this point (could be totally wrong)...

1. Supports closing our borders
2. Supports hypodermic needle exchange
3. Does not support socialized health care
4. Is not considered a candidate with "experience"
5. Does not support the war and never has

As most of y'all know, I've been following the GOP side of the coin so I'm not very aware of the DEMS platforms. If my above understandings are incorrect, now you know why.

You've gone into detail in what's wrong with the other democratic candidates past and present. I agree with most of what you're saying, but you still haven't given anything concrete on what Obama is about. It's because you can't. It's because Obama hasn't.

He has the support of young people because most young people still think in terms of ideals rather than reality. It sounds good to bring hope and change, but in reality, what is he going to DO that brings this hope and change?

He's the most empty candidate I've seen.

There is no reason to believe Obama supports closing the border. He just spent a lot of time in California prior to the primary pandering to Hispanics promising amnesty and drivers licenses for illegals.

Does that sound like a guy who will seal the border? Of course not. No Democrat will seal the border. Democrats want amnesty. The same with McCain regardless of any bullshit that may be coming out of his constantly lying piehole.

Obama will also go along with any Democrat socialized healthcare plan that Congressional Democrats come up with if is ever elected. Don't kid yourself.

Obama is further left than Hillary Clinton. He is just being allowed to hide it.

The National Journal ranked Obama as the No. 1 most liberal senator in 2007 according to his record. Hillary wasn't even within a few digits. Obama is even more liberal than the avowed socialist senator, Bernie Sanders.

Think about that.

While on this topic...

Mark Steyn's speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) is a must see. Besides being a great writer he adds humor and wit to any situation....

Link...

Words that were wrong in that sentence:
"great," "humor," and "wit"

Wilmac, you planning on telling us what Obama stands for?

Seriously, I was hoping someone knew.

Found this: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

I didn't read it yet. Maybe it will enlighten us?

It seems some interesting things happened this weekend...........

Obama had a good weekend sweeping four states. He really cleaned Hillary's clock in Nebraska and Washington.

Hillary cried again this weekend.

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

The Huckster did well this weekend. There is a problem in the state of Washington. It appears they stopped counting the votes at 87% and declared it for McCain. That's fucked up. There was supposedly only a difference of 200 votes at the time.

Huck is calling for an investigation as he should.

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

Ron Paul is stepping back from his presidential campaign. He's downsizing his campaign and letting people go.

He now has to concentrate on winning his congressional re-election primary in his Texas district in a few weeks.

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

Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. primaries tomorrow.

Republicans might as well "Huck Up" as a tactical vote against McCain. Let it go to the convention without enough delegates to declare a nominee on the first vote.

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night?

Obama actually welcomed his interviewer to ask semi-tough questions. While I know CBS (heavily democratic) chose their questions carefully, at least they asked somewhat pressing q's.

Hillary on the other hand... she pretty much dodged anything remotely tough to answer. She praised Obama and said that she's got a picture of him in her office. Yeah maybe on a dart board! Ugh the more I watch her the less I can stand her.

McCain declined to be interviewed because of scheduling reasons.

All in all though, I'm enjoying watching this stuff... I guess because I never truly realized how much bias and b.s. there is in politics and reporting.

Ok, well...

I like that Obama is not calling for socialized medicine. We all saw in New Orleans how well the government can run things. However, I am really happy he's planning on making it illegal for an insurance company to turn you away because of a pre-existing medical condition. Also, I like his idea of allowing you to move from job to job without having to change medical plans. I like that he was a co-sponsor of the SCHIP Act.

I like that he would raise taxes on the wealthy and lower taxes on the middle class. That only makes economic sense, and (under Clinton) was a plan that provided us with a surplus.

He's declaring war on predatory credit and mortgage companies that have put us into the recession we're in.

I REALLY like that he's firmly against plans like CAFTA which send our jobs away and give us nothing in return.

He's a union supporter.

He's against privatization of Social Security.

He's for strengthening laws against age discrimination which have allowed companies to back out of paying the pensions that loyal employees deserve.

Plus, he's against the war and will begin pulling our troops out within one year of becoming President.

....and he's not a Clinton. Which makes me very happy.

Not in my opinion, especially given the Democratic definition of "wealthy," a.k.a. you "have a job."

booo...

Not specifically calling you (or your post) out, I just don't know much about Obama so your post was an eye-opener.

Oh come on. The definition is a household making more than $200,000 a year. My wife and I both have jobs and don't make anywhere near that and live comfortably in DC of all places. So to say that a household that makes more than $200,000 a year can't afford the taxes is simply lying through the hole in your platinum grill


Look, it was a Clinton that signed NAFTA and sent the jobs south. I'd rather support someone who supports the worker rather than the corporation.

I'll ignore some of the outright lies in your previous post and just get on with talking about Obama.

There is VERY LITTLE difference between him and Hillary Clinton. Both want to expand government. Expand government control over the economy through numerous stealth methods disguised as other things such as global warming fraud legislation and fraudulent healthcare initiatives.

Don't kid yourself about this garbage that both Democrats are proposing regarding healthcare. They both propose further controlling and regulating the industry. This business about mandating no company can turn down anyone with an existing condition is a back door method to destroy private insurance healthcare. The costs would skyrocket for everyone else and if Democrats want to madate government price controls on insurance premiums for healthcare, that kills the industry. It's a stealth method for a government takeover.

I'm not even sure if such controls on a private industry are constitutional.

I do know one thing that is completely unconstitutional the Democrats want to do. Their plan to increase the power of unions with this very undemocratic "card check" scam they want to institute into law is both undemocratic and unconstitutional. Obama supports this destructive fraud.

It will all result in more businesses saying "fuck it" and moving overseas.

Obama wants to raise taxes on corporations and investment. That's another job killer. This country already has the second highest corporate rate in the developed world. We will not be able to compete with higher corporate and higher taxes on investment.

Obama is no different than Hillary. Both seek more draconian government control of people's lives and industry.

Both are complete recipes for disaster.

Obama is possibly a bigger disaster because his foreign policy is extremely naive where Hillary's is more pragmatic and realpolitik.

Obama on foreign policy is like Jimmy Carter with a tan.

$200,000 a year is two NYC teachers at top salary.

Are you saying civil servants are now rich people?

Or, $100,000 a year at top salary for ONE teacher. You also don't present how long it took them to get to that level. Or what they're teaching. Or what level of school they're teaching. Some stats would be nice to back up your claim. Because, I know several teachers from NYC, and none of them make anywhere NEAR what you're claiming.

Madman, its stupid statements like this that give me the agent orange twitch.

So, here are ten CEO Exit bonuses that expose the piggy at the trough that most of these companies are, at the expense of their workers. And then tell me how much these companies can afford to pay in taxes, mmmmkay?

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13555_1-9782748-34.html

Now, look at those disasters, and look at how much they were paid on their exit, and tell me the Fortune 500 companies can't pay just a LITTLE bit more in taxes for the good of everyone. Or are you also one of the piggies, Madman?

That's not the point. The point is that an income of $200k a year is upper middle class at best.

Want to go after rich people? Hit the ones making over a million a year.

Pro union is anti-job. Madman is right on that. Look at the auto industry and what unions have done to domestic auto makers as one example. Unions have long outlived their usefulness in this country. They were formed to combat 12-14 hour work days and near-slave labor conditions that no longer exist in most industry.

Paying people $35/hr to tighten bolts is stupid. Setting them up for life with healthcare benefits that aren't even matched in white collar industry is also stupid. If auto workers made what they were worth, and manufacturers didn't have to pander to ridiculous union demands, American cars would be killing the foreign competition on cost alone.

My dad was a Teamster for many years working for UPS. The only thing the union was interested in is money for itself.

But, we can continue to be pro-union in this country so we can watch our economy crumble further under foreign competition.

IN response to your last post, Wilmac, about CEO salaries, golden parachutes, etc.

This is just board of director idiocy.

What you fail to mention is how many of those bonuses, etc. are being paid out by unprofitable companies.

There's not much of a correlation there between those CEO packages and the profitiablity of these companies. Many of them are already hurting, but are stuck paying out contract provisions that the CEO's negotiated when they became CEOs.

Greater corporate profits translate into a healthier economy. Who owns public companies? That's right, PEOPLE own public companies. Profits that are not reinvested in the business, or used to cover future expenses are paid out to PEOPLE in dividends. Guess what else? All walks of life can own stocks. Tax the corporations more, reduce the dividents, and PEOPLE have less money in their pockets. Less money in pocket means less spending. Less spending equals a weaker economy. Heavy corporate taxation is a double whammy.

Well... of course it takes many years to reach top salary. You also have to have a masters degree with more credits beyond (which the city will pay for at a city university).

I think it's 20 to 22 years for top salary. For the complete failure that is the NYC Public Schools, the 10 year salary isn't bad.

It's not bad for a job where you only work 120 days a year and have ABSOLUTELY ZERO accountability.

Here is a copy of the UFT's recent contract. It's long, but in it is a blueprint for one of the reasons why education is such a failure in this country. Too much power in the hands of the teacher's unions.

http://www.uft.org/member/contracts/teachers_contract07-09/teachcon0709.pdf

What is stupid WilMac is that you think it is any of your business.... or any business of the state, how much ANY executive or CEO in the private sector is paid.

It is NONE of the government's business.

Unless you are a stockholder of any of these companies, it is NONE of your business either.

If you want to make money like a CEO of a big company, go to school then distinguish yourself in the business world. If you can't, you have no right to complain that someone else can distinguish themselves and earn big money.

It seems the system in North Korea may be more to your liking based on your complaints.

200K is a big chunk of change, but not outlandish. Just look at the average salary of a congressman and/or senator! And it's not a question of "if" a household can afford it.
What's the motivation for small business owners if they discover that once they break the 200K mark, they'll be taxed through the nose? Shouldn't we encourage job-creation, as opposed to punishing successful people?

Obama Calls for Permanent Assault Weapons Ban to Combat Inner-City Violence

Link...

Obama says U.S. needs to review gun policies

Link....

Obama has been doing a lot of lying on the campaign trail about his true positions regarding gun control.

And McCain is bat-shit crazy. This is why Obama should be president.

In regards to link one, I don't know how "assault weapons" attribute to inner city violence. I don't read too much about ak47's being used against people. It's a stupid argument. Most gun violence happens with much smaller pistols and calibers (ie cheap guns).

In regards to the second link, I hate to say it but in a way he's right. There is no reason Cho should have legally gotten a hold of a firearm if he had prior mental issues. It's right on the form in PA when you go to purchase a gun. It was too easy for him to lie about it I guess. Don't know the answer but banning guns altogether is not going to stop gun related violence.

Also does an outright ban mean the police will not be armed also? I doubt it. I say hell no to that no matter the statistics. That's just too much of a stepping stone to "tyranny" in my opinion. We are already too close to the brink.

They don't care. They just want to incrementally remove guns from the American public.

Quote:

In regards to the second link, I hate to say it but in a way he's right. There is no reason Cho should have legally gotten a hold of a firearm if he had prior mental issues. It's right on the form in PA when you go to purchase a gun. It was too easy for him to lie about it I guess. Don't know the answer but banning guns altogether is not going to stop gun related violence.

That's a larger issue and involves other things once you start talking about the mentally ill. The government has given them all kinds of rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Add to that all the privacy rights that have kept databases of these people from being formed and easily accessed in routine background checks.

Quote:

Also does an outright ban mean the police will not be armed also?

No. Of course not.

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

Check out a new Obama campaign office in Texas. Look at the flag on the wall and you tell me what many of these "Obamaphiles" are about?

Obviously they know a leftist when they see one.

WOW. from erectile dysfunction to politics!

amazing.

Um...someone hasn't been paying attention...

Did you read the first page?

HAHA - yeah i did read the first post. i stopped at the middle of the sentence. i guess ill add to this political debate without reading anyones long ass posts..

i voted for hilary but im not going to vote for her or obama in november. as a registered democrat, im going republican.

females will get too power trippy as well as some african americans. and NO offense seriously. i can see it happening.

No, Obama should NOT be president. Hey, I'm not crazy about McCain either, but Obama is not qualified, and once his views surface, I don't think he's thinking in line with the majority of Americans on a lot of issues.

With regard to gun control, are you saying if you don't own a gun, you don't think anyone else should either?

Guess what? The whole country isn't a shithole like New Jersey. (Yes, I've lived there on base at Ft. Dix) In a lot of Western states and rural areas, gun ownership nears 100% of households, and there's seldom any incidents. It's the idiot minorities in inner cities committing the vast majority of these gun crimes, and if they don't hesitate to pull the trigger on random victims, do you really think they'll observe your new gun bans?

Prohibition type laws don't work. You're only taking guns away from law abiding citizens. It's already illegal for a convicted felon to possess a gun. There's background checks now on pretty much all retail gun purchases (not just handguns anymore). More laws have no effect on the gun trade on the streets, and if you think for one second that prohibition of guns will take guns out of the hands of criminals, you're dumber than I think you are.

I wouldn't vote for Obama for the same reasons I wouldn't vote for Guliani. They both think that these magic bans are going to reduce crime, yet they have no stats to prove it.

Also consider this: Define "Assault Weapon". Loose definitions of that could include semi-automatic .22s that you teach kids how to shoot with. The 2nd Amendment grants the right to bear arms. It makes no mention of exclusion on what specific arms I can bear.

Cho wasn't considered "mentally ill" - at least by ADA standards. According to the ADA:

"An individual with a disability is a person who ... has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a 'major life activity' [which] include functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working."

Yes, Cho was obviously a few fries short of a Happy Meal, but the ADA has nothing to do with this.

I disagree whether that guy Cho was considered mentally ill. 20 years or more ago, he may have been asked to leave the school. Institutions can longer do that with people they feel may be dangerous or even suspected of mental illness. They would be sued under the ADA. Crazy and potentially dangerous people have "rights". In recent years their rights seem to trump the rights of society to be safe.

Cho was a classic failure of the system and of the psychological industry itself. He was mentally ill. His classmates knew it. Most of his teachers knew it. A district court had declared him mentally ill and a danger to others after some incidents such as stalking.

He was declared mentally ill by a court so you can't say no one knew Cho wasn't crazy.

The system fails to protect society as a whole. Privacy and anti-discrimination laws keep people like Cho in schools and in workplaces.

You haven't noticed the severe uptick in things like workplace and school shootings since these types of special interest laws were put into place.

I never said that. Actually, my views are the government shouldn't tell me what to own, do, take, as long I don't impede on the freedoms of others.

This means, no gun control, allow abortion, legalize pot, gay marriage.

You buddy, are assuming way too much there. (and NJ is awesome by the way)

Is Obama collecting illegal campaign money from foreigners?....

http://www.nysun.com/article/71113?page_no=1

These online donations need to be seriously investigated for all candidates making it too easy for illegal foreign money to flow in.

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



Obama campaign - Houston headquarters

I'll take a nuclear sub and several ICBM's to go.

Moby.....

Did you vote today yet?

Whoo!! Voted Obama!

Care about Internet/Media Issues? Obama is your Candidate

Obama supports "net neutrality" which is government intervention into the internet realm.

There is nothing neutral about net neutrality.

If you care about the internet, don't vote for Obama.

More BAD NEWS about Obama and his leftist leanings.....

Obama has this thing called the "Patriot Employers Act" he is pushing with some other Democrats.

It will give a tax break and preference in the awarding of government contracts and the such.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1945

Well... guess how Obama defines whether a corporation is patriotic or not (nevermind the fact that government should not be in the business of defining patriotism.... I thought leftists have been screaming that for years)

-- A corporation has to support unions and "card check" which is an undemocratic and unconstitutional form of union takeover of workplaces (without workers voting on a union)

-- The company has to pay wages the government thinks are acceptable. They have to supply benefits and pensions the government thinks are acceptable.

An interview with Obama's partner in this legislation, Sherrod Brown....

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=283830

The Democrats, including Obama are determined to destroy every corporation in America with their push to unionize workplaces with this undemocratic "card check" leftist insanity.

You're saying that everyone knew Cho was a threat and that he was crazy, but the university didn't expel him because they feared the legal ramifications? I don't buy it. Cho wasn't considered mentally ill by ADA guidelines. ETA: which means they could've expelled Cho for a myriad of reasons - the stalking incident you mentioned - without fear of reprecussions.

Eh...I don't want to get too off topic.

If that's what you believe, why the hell are you supporting Obama? Abortion....I don't honestly think any republican is really going to tackle that, unless you get a full on evengelical in there like Huckabee. Nobody is going to legalize pot either. To do so would be admitting that the war on drugs was a waste of time, and that the governement lied all these years. Ain't gonna happen.

I'm not big on picking and choosing which liberties we should keep and which should be restricted, but abortion does not equal gun control when it comes to the constitution.

...and I still say Jersey sucks.

Do you have any opinions that were not dictated by your party?

In my opinion he's the best choice available at this time. In other words, between him, Hillary and McCain he's the best choice.

So why are you supporting McCain?

Can you even read? I've spent the majority of this thread complaining about my party and the so-called potential nominee.

Net neutrality is about the boot of government getting involved in and over the internet. It is bad. Government fucks up everything they attempt to regulate.

The question is... as one of our esteemed very left wing members of XOC, do you have any opinions not held by the far left of the Democrat Party?

Also...... Please tell us all about your new messiah, Barack Hussein Obama. What has he ever accomplished that warrants a rise to the presidency? What experience does he have?

Experienced


Experienced


Experienced


Experienced

...no offense Madman, but I think I'll see what the rookie can do.

Except that the government has ALWAYS been all over the internet. They created it, after all. They still regulate it to an extent through ICANN.

I did...at 6:30 this morning. I ended up voting because of the conservatives who are voting for Hillary (Virginia is an open primary state).

I would rather have almost anyone as the Democrat nominee over her.

I dunno if I'd call a few failed businesses and a weak governorship "political experience", WilMac old boy, but I have to cite one of my favorite old crotchety bastards, Andy Rooney, for a further opinion on what you're talking about.

Einstein For President

One of the difficult things to determine in life is how much authority to give to someone, who is smart about one thing, in an area about which he or she has no experience. Or is my question unclear?

In the recent Iowa vote - which they call a "caucus" - several Democratic candidates accused others of not having enough experience in government to run for the presidency. It’s a common accusation for one politician to make about another.

John Edwards, for example, is a senator, but he’s relatively new to politics, having been a successful trial lawyer for most of his professional career. When some of the other candidates got worried about his growing popularity, they said Edwards was in-experienced in government. He, on the other hand, said he had a fresh view of government and wasn’t a tired politician who had been in Washington for too long.

I’m not trying to make an example of Edwards here, because I don’t know enough about him, but Edwards aside, if I had my choice, I’d take the smart-est person over the most experienced anytime. Once you’ve learned something, "experience" isn’t anything but repetition.

It has amused me over my years, because so many of my friends are in the news business, to note how quickly someone smart can get to know almost everything about someone else’s business. A good reporter can do some research and then interview his subject and in a few days get to know 90 percent of everything he needs to know about his subject and his life’s work. If a good reporter can do that, there’s no reason why a good lawyer, businessman or doctor can’t get to know a lot about government in a few weeks. As far as having enough experience to be president, it’s a foolish idea. There is no experience a person could have that would familiarize him with being president of the United States.

When Howard Dean ran for governor of Vermont, opponents asked what a doctor knew about running a state government. Dean was elected and then re-elected four times. It obviously didn’t take him long to get the hang of switching from medicine and healing to politics and government. (It seems like a step down to me, but that’s another matter.)

You often read about some huge cor-poration appointing a new president. If the corporation makes widgets, the new executive is hardly ever an expert on widgets. He’s an expert on running a corporation no matter what it makes.

Albert Einstein had one of the great brains ever born to man, and he used it to the tangible advantage of civilization. It was Einstein who told Presi-dent Roosevelt in 1939 of the possibility of our making an atomic bomb with the research he had done cracking atoms in a laboratory. He spent his life working on the relativity and quantum theories, which are too complex for any but a handful of us to understand. He also produced a delightful little book of essays about life that are direct and simple enough for anyone who can read to understand. We hu-mans have amazing breadth. We can be stupid and brilliant. We can be good. We can be bad - angels one minute, devils the next.

What often occurs to me about our elections is that we get too many experienced politicians and not enough people, like Einstein, who are brilliant in some other form of endeavor. We ought to find some way of embarrassing more of our capable, even brilliant, non-political citizens to get into politics and run for office. We should not exclude our scientists, and they should not exclude themselves.

Einstein, although ineligible because of being born in Germany, would have made a great American president. If he had run, someone surely would have said, "He doesn’t have enough political experience."

What I want for my president is the smartest person in America. Forget whether or not that person is experienced in politics.

I am 100% for net neutrality, but not government mandated neutrality. If it's mandated, it's not neutral. The industry as a whole needs to by themselves realize that net neutrality is good for the web, just as the industry is starting to realize that DRM is bad.... The industry and market need to be allowed to correct themselves. I believe they will in time as the whole drm debacle is starting to self rectify.

ICANN manages the DNS and namespace. ICANN is also a non-profit corporation. Someone has to manage the namespace. There are assholes that want the UN to take control of this which would be VERY bad.

ICANN and the government regulations regarding this so-called net neutrality are not the same thing Moby and I think you know that. You're equating a mountain with a speck of dust.

The net neutrality that the Democrats want will control everything from internet commerce to government control of private infrastructure investments and who gets allocated what bandwidth and that has ramifications that even go all the way down to affecting the free speech of the internet. It's a defacto government and political control of the means of production... in an internet sense.

There is nothing neutral about net neutrality.

Conservatives voting for Hillary. Yeah right. I bet pigs were flying in Virginia today too.

Sounds like you voted for the liberal "Messiah".

Well...there's one thing in that site that is incredibly wrong:

Not that Clinton may have done that...but that Murdoch is an arch-conservative. While he may be conservative, that's not his focus.

His focus is the almighty dollar. If liberal leaning news made money, Fox News would be liberal. Murdoch became a citizen for one reason and one reason only - money - to own broadcasting outlets. He didn't become a citizen because he wanted to be an American.

Yes, conservatives. You know as well as anyone...Conservatives would rather Hillary be the Democratic nominee than Obama.

Let me repeat - OPEN primary. McCain is a foregone conclusion.

Are you sure Andy Rooney is a good guy to quote when talking about either politicians or black people...

"I've believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs and get pregnant.".... Andy Rooney 1990

Back to the topic.........

What has Obama ever done? If you go along with Rooney's standards, what makes Obama so smart?

I'll give him one thing. He's smart enough to give speeches to idiots without ever talking about a single concrete thing, yet they think he "inspires" them. He has the ability to fool them into thinking he represents something different.

Hitler and Stalin also gave good speeches calling for change and seemed to "inspire" people.

Obama is no different than any other far left Democrat when you look under the surface. He is nothing but a "cult of personality".

Obama thinks babies that survive botched abortions have no human rights and doctors should have the right to kill them - outside the womb. Is that what "inspires people". Would many people people be "inspired" knowing that fact about him?

Poor Hillary.... the liberals and the media for 15 years have been saying she is the smartest woman in America. Now Democrats are going for the "cult of personality".

You forgot the following line: "Rooney denied ever making the comment and the reporter did not tape the interview."

Nothing. I wasn't speaking about Obama, and neither was Rooney. That's not the point. The point is that experience, in Rooney's opinion, isn't as important as brains. Obama is NOT the smartest guy in the room. The smartest guy in the room should be running the show.

Comparing him to Hitler and Stalin is a bit far fetched. He hasn't a fraction of the charisma of Hitler, and ten times the charisma of Stalin. Have you heard the old recordings of Stalin? Ugh. One of the worst public speakers of all time. But a resourceful and crafty politician, a man more akin to a mafia don than a charismatic personality. Obama is neither. He's just same old Washington politics in a bit shinier, newer packaging. But, I think it might go a long way. Like I've said before, when it comes to turd sandwiches, sometimes you're tired of dried up old white feces, and you want a fresh, brown turd instead.

Again, I think you're exaggerating (big surprise there), and giving Obama a little too much credit. If he were a bonafide personality cult, he wouldn't be fighting for the White House. We'd be saying "McCain who?"

Did he actually say that? Like, in those words? If he did, fuck it, I'll vote for the man. Just out of respect for his massive balls. But, again, I think you're paraphrasing...and full of shit. Source it, and I'll sit at your right hand and do your bidding. Until then, I'm just pointing and laughing.

If Americans have demonstrated anything, it's that brains are of incredibly little importance. Jesus, take a look at the Stuttering Cowboy Clap-Clap Show we've had for the last eight years. Did we fall for the Big Brain on Bush propaganda that was thrown at us? And that was their success! remember? Bush might not be the smartest fella in town, but he's salt of the earth! A man's man! A cowboy!

Maybe the media has been propping up Hillary as a woman of intellect, but they've missed the target audience. Americans don't give a shit about brains. They want a president they "can have a beer with." We just don't idolize smart people.

I don't doubt at all that Rooney said that. He's said many controversial things over the years. I remember the media upheaval back then when he was suspended for saying it. Obviously CBS thought he said it, that's why they suspended him.

Rooney has been suspended and punished a number of times over the years. I'm actually very surprised he has lasted on TV so long.

Quote:

He hasn't a fraction of the charisma of Hitler, and ten times the charisma of Stalin. Have you heard the old recordings of Stalin?

Actually you're right. I meant to say Lenin, not Stalin. (Hillary reminds me of a female Stalin )


"Vladimir Ilyich Lenin"

Quote:

Again, I think you're exaggerating (big surprise there), and giving Obama a little too much credit. If he were a bonafide personality cult, he wouldn't be fighting for the White House. We'd be saying "McCain who?"

It's definitely a cult of personality.... of sorts.

It's not his policy positions. In fact I've seen TV reporters ask people why they support Obama and no one seems to know any of his policies.

I think a lot of is also the "Magic Negro" syndrome for guilty white liberals.

Quote:

Did he actually say that? Like, in those words? If he did, fuck it, I'll vote for the man. Just out of respect for his massive balls. But, again, I think you're paraphrasing...and full of shit. Source it, and I'll sit at your right hand and do your bidding. Until then, I'm just pointing and laughing.

In 2002 in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against, and later killed in committee the "Induced Infant Liability Act" . That bill would have given legal protections to babies that survived an induced labor abortion or any other type of abortion.

Even NARAL wasn't against the bill.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

Here is CBS's attempt to spin the issue on Obama's behalf but they left out some key facts....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

It's one thing to be in favor of abortion if you are a politician. It's unconscionable to not want to protect a life that possibly survives such a thing. What a guy.

He goes around calling himself a Christian.

Quote:

If Americans have demonstrated anything, it's that brains are of incredibly little importance. Jesus, take a look at the Stuttering Cowboy Clap-Clap Show we've had for the last eight years.

Well.... you are completely ignoring the other choice Americans had compared to the Stuttering Cowboy and placing blame on Americans themselves.

Quote:

Maybe the media has been propping up Hillary as a woman of intellect, but they've missed the target audience. Americans don't give a shit about brains. They want a president they "can have a beer with." We just don't idolize smart people.

The smartest of people don't necessarily make good presidents. They often don't even make good leaders. The intellectuals of society are often proven wrong in the hindsight of history.

Democrats were even selling John Kerry as an intellectual and a "smart" person until someone checked his grades at Yale and they were worse than Bush's.

Jimmy Carter was supposed to be some kind of nuclear physicist and look at how that worked out.

People want a leader, not someone who can write mathematical theorums or who understands the most complex physics.

NYMM, lets hold of on the Obama attacks until after he beats Clinton. I support Obama 100% until he locks up the nomination. Please I beg you, I can't take 4 years of Clinton.

Here's another reason to hate McCain. His finance chairman once helped kill a dog and barbecue it. He sounds like a piece of work.

http://pjstar.com/stories/021308/PHI_BFP5AFPC.033.php

I'm not hell bent on supporting McCain. He's very liberal just like Obama. As an Arizona resident, he's been our senator here as long as I've lived here, and his stance on immigration flat out sucks.

But...

He has a realistic stance on Iraq.
He won't try to grab guns.
He won't pander to environmentalists who have already successfully limited access and use to public lands in the east.

That's about it. Unfortunately, that's more positive than what I can say I like about Obama.

All the candidates suck. McCain sucks slightly less.

Sorry bro. I can't do that.

What makes you think Obama will beat Clinton? The Clintons have the superdelegates. Those delegates owe the Clintons favors going back 15 years. The Clintons got a lot of them their jobs. They got a lot of their family members jobs.... and Bill and Hillary are calling in all those markers.

The Democrats are the ones that designed their system with so many superdelegates so the party bosses and elites can pick the nominee. They are going to have to live with the results.

Obama might pull it off... but he needs to be ahead in A LOT of voting proportioned delegates to pull it off.

Anyway..... All the candidates bite the bone. That includes McCain and the socialists running as Democrats.

That's alright. Mike Huckabee's son hangs stray dogs from trees.

A better reason to hate McCain is he has a former Mexican Cabinet Minister for Vincente Fox working on his campaign. Doing guess what? Working on open borders and amnesty policies.

You'd think McCain would listen to his Arizona constituents on immigration....

Obama doesn't worry me, I think he would just be a talking puppet head, and he would mostly do nothing, so that's why I want him to beat Clinton. Just look at his senate track record, he pretty much doesn't do anything now. :>)

For me he is the lesser of the 3 evils.

I have to agree. I think Obama would be able to affect less damage than clinton. He might actually do some good. My biggest beef with him is his stance on gun control, but I honestly don't think he's going to actually act upon that issue. I think Hillary would.

I'll have an easier time voting if Hillary makes the nomination. Obama vs McCain and I'll have to really weigh the consequences of each.

You are Sooooooo wrong Hauler.

Obama is a hard core left winger. He's further left than Hillary Clinton.

He hides it better. He's much smarter at hiding it. He gives speeches talking about nothing but change, dreams, rainbows, and fairy tales. He knows how to sell his shit to masses. He understands the "Magic Negro" syndrome perfectly. He's a very clever salesman.

He also knows that because he is a black Democrat, he is going to get a HUGE pass from the media.

Obama has never been vetted by the media. The public knows nothing about him. Obama knows that. He knows his skin color is a teflon shield against a media scared of accusations of racism.

Obama would probably do far more damage than Hillary Clinton. Don't kid yourself.

I agree with everything you are saying, I just think he's all talk and very little action. He's been more of a follower then a leader in the senate.

Sad to say I'm basing my vote this year on who I think will do the least amount of tweaking.

Gun control doesn't concern me at all, because I don't think anyone has a chance in hell of doing anything to stop guns in this country. I can't vote for McCain because of the immigration problems. Can't vote for Billary because of health care and taxes, and because I can't stand to listen or to look at her.

As much hatred as there is in here sometimes for Bush, I'd be interested to know who would vote for him again over these 3 clowns? I know I would, but I've always been a big supporter.

Here's what I've been wondering. Who's a running mate that McCain could pick that would make you consider voting for him and help him win?
For me I'd have to say Condolezza Rice or someone extremely tough on immigration, but I don't know who that would be.

I agree.

I don't know who McCain can pick as a VP that may make me vote for him. What does it matter? McCain is not going to do anything any VP suggests anyway. He cares more about the opinions of former El Presidente, Vincente Fox, Cabinet Ministers.

McCain is going to want glowing articles written about him in the NY Times and he is going to implement a lot of the liberal Democrat agenda which is also his agenda too.

As soon as McCain is in that White House (if he ever gets there) he's going to whip out that middle finger and tell every conservative American to go fuck themselves.

McCain can't help himself. The scorpion will always sting the frog.

Edit to add:

Condi Rice?.... No friggin way.

I would never want her in elected office. She is not that great as Secretary of State. She started out alright, but something happens to people at foggy bottom. They go native.

No way Condi Rice. No way in hell. Besides, no one knows how she stands on any issues anyway.

So give me a person you like. Who's a Republican that you agree with on most issues that could help McCain win, even if he won't listen to them. I'm hearing a lot of bashing from you(mostly deserved), but I want to know who you LIKE.

I'm sorry, but....huh?

Here's the deal on what is going to happen......

The Democrats are trying to give amnesty one more shot in Congress this year before Bush leaves office. They know he will sign it and Republicans will be blamed.

This is where Democrat strategy comes into play....

Rahm Emanuel, the leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, has already stated that if Hillary (probably Obama too) becomes president, there will be no "comprehensive immigration reform" (amnesty) in a first term. They realize the outrage it will cause with the public and most likely jeopardize any possibility of a second term. The public will blame it on Democrats.

However, there will be no such restraint in a McCain presidency. They will want the whole amnesty package and everything that goes along with it as early as possible in a Republican first term. Republicans will be blamed by the public and if things work out for the Dems, those who receive amnesty will be able to vote Democratic in 2012.

Understand...????

That is only on just one issue too. There are other damaging Democrat issues McCain would gladly go along with that the Democrats might not risk in a first term of a Democrat president.

(Note: You must remember too that they not only want amnesty for the 20 million illegals already here. They want them to be able to bring in relatives.... parents and siblings. You do the math).

I understand. Look the Dems have their 2 favorites going head to head, the 2 they love. I want you to give me a favorite son of the Republicans, I want someone to root for in the future....4-8 years from now.

I agree with you on most issues so I want to know who you like, who has a bright future?

I don't think there are any Republicans that can help a McCain ticket.

Are there any conservative Republicans that would want to run with McCain? Usually the conservative Republican senators have had to endure years of abuse and name calling like "fuck you" and "your an asshole" from McCain in senate negotiations. As far as governors, I don't know. The liberal Republican governors like Crist like him, but that won't help a McCain ticket.

Forget about McCain.

McCain came within a hair of switching to the Democrat Party in 2001. He changed his mind after Jim Jeffords jumped ship.

You need to concentrate on the congressional elections this year. Maybe in 2012 we can have Bobby Jindal, the new governor of Louisiana as a national figure if he does a good job, which I think he will.

He's a politician for conservatives to watch for the future.

On the road again.....



Sorry to hear about you white people in Pennsylvania. Your governor says you are a bunch of racists.

By the way......

Don't forget to stop by the Hillary Campaign store to purchase all your hats, buttons, bumper stickers, and lawn signs. Click the image below....



Change..... Yes we Can!!!!

I read something on the governor of Alaska being a potential running mate to McCain. She's even remotely hittable.

The likelihood of something like this would catapult, I'd think, if Hillary gets the nod.

Sarah Palin

That's kind of what I've been thinking. If you are McCain don't you just wait and see which "minority" wins for the Dems and then pick a running mate to counter that? Or pick Condi Rice and cover both? :>) McCain probably only has to whittle away a little of the women vote or the black vote to win since he's already running neck and neck with either right now. Either way it will be intersting to see who he chooses and how much flack he takes for it.

Both parties need to shred themselves to bits so something that works can take their place.

Oh yeah, and when people say that Obama stands for nothing.

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

I'll admit, that I'm not involved in this thread at all, and I won't be reading it to find out who said he stood for nothing, but I have to say that all I hear is talk and nobody knows what the guy has ever done other than that [talk].

I did read today he wants to send my tax money to the UN for redistribution to poor countries. That I can't agree to. Aid here and there, militarily or other wise, but comon' give the UN a blank check. Look at what they do or don't for that matter. And we bankroll that. GEEZ!

I going out on a limb here and saying that McCain although I don't agree with him, is going to get my vote as he is truely the lesser of the evils this time around, and to support a 3rd party is guaranteeing a Democrat Victory of which the US may never recover.

Flame away.

ETA - Obama\'s World Welfare Link so you know where I got this from.

A little more Anti-Obama "Propaganda" as I'm sure people on the left would call it. Obama, yeah right, I don\'t think so.

It'll be a first step in recovering from the disaster sitting in the White House at the current moment.

There's definitely different priorities among the posters in this thread, that's for sure.

Many of you seem to be willing to give up certain liberties just to put a different party in the white house. I just can't do it. Personal freedom, minimal taxes, national security, and a belief in true free enterprise are all too important to me. The next time everyone bitches about evil corporations and all the horrible things they do, everyone needs to be reminded who's signing that huge portion of Americans' paychecks and whose stocks you have in your 401k's.

His 'stand' on the economy: "I will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans." How?= MORE TAXES. Great.

S.

But you're willing to give up more liberties by keeping the SAME party in the White House....yeah...THAT makes sense.

Quote:

Personal freedom, minimal taxes, national security, and a belief in true free enterprise are all too important to me.

With what we have in the White House now, the terms "Personal Freedom" and "National Security" are becoming mutually exclusive.

They can do better and still be profitable. Costco anyone? Wegman's anyone? Both of these companies treat their employees well - even though Wegman's is in an industry with razor-thin profit margins. Who's one of the leaders in bringing alternative energy to themselves? Google. I'd be happy to have them in my 401(k).

I've read Obama's "Change" document and he says he's going to do a lot of things, but he doesn't say how. It's all talk. I like him, but I need some sort of hard plan to actually get on board.

McCain actually explains what he'll do to affect change. I hate to say it but I might vote for McCain over Obama.... I'll definitely vote for McCain over Hillary.

I may go back to my old ways and not vote at all again though...

The candidates just plain suck balls....

Care to cite some specific examples?

So, that's a list of the campaign promises that he could never make good on without totally destroying everything this country was built upon...great.

He can't.

The best he can throw at you is the Patriot Act and the wiretapping provisions. I can tell you with confidence that if you're not cohorting with radical muslims, you have nothing to worry about.

And it's inexcusable that you guys are still trotting out that lame ass excuse - "if you aren't doing it, you have nothing to worry about."

Hey, if I'm doing nothing wrong, I should have every right to own nuclear weapons. The 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms. It doesn't specify what arms.

Why do you guys think the mainstream media backed Larry Flynt in his fight? They knew that if Falwell was successful in his lawsuit, they could be next with editorial cartoons. They KNEW the consequences.

Those of you who say "if you aren't doing anything wrong" don't seem to get it at ALL.

Granted I'm still interested in watching how things pan out, I don't look forward to voting. If anything I'm going to cast a "write in." I'm now more interested in voting at the Congressional level if anything.

What will he do? All I've heard him say is that we'll stay in Iraq indefinitely.

If you go to his website under the issues section he actually explains in detail what the issue is, why it's an issue, and what process he will go through to tackle the issue. Now whether he actually makes good on his word is a different story.

If you go to Obama's website and read his issue statements, he just says he'll resolve the issues but there is no meat to the how. It's all just talk from what I see.

Personally I'd still might choose Obama over McCain. This may be a case where the devil that you don't know is a better situation than the devil that you do.

My #1 issue is illegal immigration, whoever is toughest on that will have my full support. I haven't looked into it too much yet, but from what everyone on here has said Obama and McCain are lacking so I'm probably screwed either way.

I'm in Illinois so my vote won't matter, Obama or Clinton will roll here with or without my vote.

You might want to rethink any support you may have for Obama.

Who is his foreign policy adviser? It's Zbigniew Brzezinski. Jimmy Carter's old National Security Adviser and well known Jew and Israel hater and coddler, appeaser, and apologist of Islamic terrorism.

Where was Zbigniew Brzezinski recently? In Syria meeting with those Islamic despots.

Hillary Clinton's muslim finance chair, Hassan Nemazee, was also there.

http://www.nysun.com/article/71373

These people need to explain why their advisers are making trips to Islamic state sponsors of terrorism.

A clearer analysis of some of these speeches Obama gives....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120295124554366927.html

Where've you been, American Thinker has had this info for a couple weeks? This is no secret and gets a complete pass by the MSM.

LINKY

And the Devil you don't know my friend should concern you more, especially when he gets "Rock Star" Status.

I agree with Illegal Immigration being one of the highest priority topics and McCain has said he's listened to US, his constituency, but that remains to be seen when the Congress has to vote on another Immigration bill. ENFORCEMENT FIRST and fund the G-Damn FENCE!

I saw it on American Thinker. Do you think many Obamaniacs read American Thinker?

That church Obama belongs to in Chicago is also very disturbing. It seems too black or black nationalist oriented. It very much appears to be a "no whitey allowed" church too.

The fact that the church reveres and praises Louis Farrakhan is very troubling.

McCain is a complete liar. He hasn't listened to anyone.

If he were serious about illegal immigration, he would dump Juan Hernandez, the former Mexican Cabinet Minister from his campaign.

X2

Here is the logo for Obama's church....



Their web site used to have this page.... but it has mysteriously been changed and edited....

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm



-- Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

-- Personal committment to embracement of the Black Value System

Obama has some serious explaining to do.

What the hell is the "Black Value System"?

What's wrong with that? We have that, it's called the KKK...errr never mind.

Okay, I'm starting to move toward McCain now thanks to you, hope he has a conservative running mate.

Just imagine how much fun the GOP's going to have with Obama's beliefs and or affiliations later this year. The real mud slinging has yet to commence.

So true for both sides of the aisle.

Anyone else notice how on here the left is attempting to discuss issues and the right is slinging mud?

...Karl Rove is alive and well. :rolleyes:

Interesting...not at all relevent...but interesting, nonetheless. Perhaps if you hadn't mentioned Bil Maher, you may have had some credibility.

I seriously hope you are not looking to Maher for guidance on this whole deal...you'd be better off asking Smith what he thinks. Don't misunderstand - I get you, Lizz, but c'mon...Bill Maher? This guy is worse than Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity and Coulter put together (I'd do Coulter, by the way ). He is (obviously) the polar opposite of those I mentioned, but much more caustic and damaging to the fabric of the fragile TV viewing public referred to as "undecided". I mean, if I had never picked up a paper before, or taken the time to research the candidates myself, I may take his WORD as the truth. The bile he tends to spew is not only wrong, it is hateful and the epitome of sensationalism over OUR airways. The man really makes me ill - quite seriously. To hear this guy talk, it is quite evident that he not only hates Republicans, but America as well. He is the only person on TV that LITERALLY gives me such an ill feeling when I see him that i have to change the channel. Not that I haven't given him the chance - I have struggled through many shows, but enough is enough.....

Please, take another look at the value of your vote, and what you should do with it. I don't care if you vote Rep or Dem - just don't let Maher sway your vote - please....

Ross

I think you're the first person I've come across that's into the equine sex.

Ann Coulter... :::shudder:::

Interesting development:

Ron Paul could lose his congressional seat....

It seems his opponent for his congressional seat is ahead in polling by about 10 points.

(There is also audio of an interview with Paul's opponent at the link below)

http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/is_ron_paul_losing_for_congres.php

That would be an ironic end to Ron Paul.

I think the same thing would happen to McCain if he were running for a re-electing bid for his senate seat in Arizona this year.

And yet, he's still a better choice than Obama.

I've always preached a pretty hardline conservative stance, but this election year will provide us with the weakest batch of candidates EVER.

This was destined to happen. The NY Times has turned on their favorite "maverick".

The only one who seems to be in shock is the idiot John McCain. He spends years fucking over his own party and in many instances fucking over the best interests of his country just to curry favor with these assholes at the NY Times and like a true moron he is shocked when they turn on him.

They published a story insinuating that he had an affair years ago with a lobbyist and made allegations that McCain is less than ethical when it comes to doing favors.

It's a National Enquirer type story with no real sources and extremely thin allegations.

NY Slimes article.....

It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

EDIT:

More about the NY Times article here....

It hasn't been that long since the NY Times endorsed McCain. They had this in the works the whole time and still endorsed him.

Anyone else see SNL's portrayl of the democratic debate? I'm not sure if there's a youtube vid available, but it sure was funny! Well that and Huckabee's appearance on Weekend Update.

I saw it. It was actually pretty good.

Here is the Huckster on SNL....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvSXpM5qGmg

Funny!

Barack Hussein who??

Yep, and before anyone gets pissed off at the Republicans for posting that photo all over the net, they need to look no further than Hillary's camp.

Hey.... Don't say anything bad about Hillary.

She's my candidate bro.

I honestly don't see a problem with that photo. Haven't many of our politicians etc. "embraced" a nations garb and traditions while visiting? I ask because I truly don't know. Is this any different? I chalked it up to diplomacy or paying respect.

Now if he is the only politician on both sides of the aisle to do something like this or there is some National code forbidding it, then yes it's an issue otherwise.... Meh.....

Just to add fuel to the fire. Muslim men are not allowed to wear gold jewelry right? What's on Obama's left hand?

The photo was taken in 2006 when he was in Kenya. That is where his Muslim relatives live and where some of his Muslim friends are currently killing Christians in their tribal feud and quest for power and control of that country. Yes, you heard that right. Obama is friends with the leader of the faction that is killing people.

Obama was there in 2006 and was not on a diplomatic mission so you can't say he was dressed like that for any diplomatic reasons.

Why would he have to dress in a get-up like that as a sign of respect? They don't expect Westerners to dress like that while on a visit. The guy standing in the picture with him isn't even dressed like that.

I've seen American male politicians wear funny jackets in some Asian countries, but I have never seen an American male politician wear a Muslim outfit like that.

But then again, I've also never seen an American politician who didn't hold his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem either. At least not until Obama.

So, he's on a five day tour of Africa with many other politicians, some of whom have said they all wore something "traditional". See my picture of Bush etc. Every source I have read says that it was given to him as a gift and he was in Africa for a five day political visit.

Where does it say you have to put your hand on your heart for the Anthem? At least he was one of the few to actually SING it, while many others stood like bumps. Granted poor etiquette, but it's not required. There are many pictures of him before that "dabacle" with hand over heart. It's a non-story imho.

I hate to be the one to defend him, but I think many are grasping at straws. Time will tell I guess.

Obama ain't muslim.

I KNOW! That's the point I was trying to make!

What other politicians were with Obama on that trip? What were they wearing? What sources are you talking about?

Quote:

Where does it say you have to put your hand on your heart for the Anthem?

You don't have to, but it's a sign of proper respect. It's even in the US Code.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/36/301.html

You being former military don't know that?

Also, Obama did not even sing it like you claim. Here is the video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwog6E08CFU

Quote:

I hate to be the one to defend him, but I think many are grasping at straws. Time will tell I guess.

Grasping at straws? We'll see how many more "straws" are uncovered. When added to the comments from his angry bitch wife, it's not adding up to a pretty picture.

Taken COMPLETELY out of context.

How is that Moby? Let's hear the Democrat spin.

What is the Democrat spin on his wife calling white people "white oppressors" in her college thesis?

Michelle Obama is an angry black woman who is filled with a lot of hate for her country.

Ah...I was only talking about the one everyone is talking about - the "proud of America" comment.

Yeah, his Oprah Jr. wife might be his death knell in the election.

She's quite the piece of work, and I truly pity her only making $300k+ per year because she's underpriveleged as a black woman. Fucking hypocrite.

Democrat Candidate Debate tonight on MSNBC at 9PM EST.

It's the last face to face showdown before the big Texas and Ohio elections next week.

Madman, you are the problem with current politics. The media loves to focus on these smear campaigns, yet never on the issues.

Tell me, what do you believe in? Who do you support and why? It's pretty obvious who you hate.

So long as someone takes the braying donkey that was butchering the anthem in that video out and buries it, then all is well.

God, that was painful . . .

I'm not the problem with current politics.

You're a left winger whose political party has been taken over by the likes of radicals like the MoveOn.org crowd and you have the audacity to say I am the problem.

My political convictions and ideals are conservative. If you don't know that by now, I don't what to tell you.

I wouldn't say I hate all Democrats. I hate their political ideology. I hate how far left the party has moved. There is almost no difference any more between them and the Socialist Party (called the DSA). I was once a Democrat.

Who do you hate Jorge? I read the leftist rags. You people hate people like me..... conservatives. Don't get on a high horse and call anyone hateful. The entire left wing ideology is based on hate.

I don't know what to tell you on that Jorge. Maybe send Tim Russert an email and he'll ask an issue question for you in the debate tonight.

Maybe you can send Hillary a message too to stop passing out pictures of Obama playing dress up as a Somali warlord.

What are the issues Jorge? How can the media talk about issues when your candidates don't mention much details about the issues. All one does is talk about "change" and "hope".

Wait...Ann Coulter is a left winger??

More fuel for the fire.

I agree with Jorge, these are all just smear campaigns plain and simple. See it works both ways. LOOK! He's not placing his hand over his heart!

Nice try Samuel. It doesn't mean a thing. How does anyone know he didn't put his hand on his heart a second after the photo was shot.

I posted a video of Obama. A big difference.

Just because the lunatics at The Huffington Post say that picture is one thing, it doesn't make it so.

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

Getting back to Obama....... If he is wearing that Somali Muslim outfit out of some type of respect for someone or something, how come he refuses to wear an American flag pin? Why no respect for the national anthem?

Surely his own country and flag is deserving of more respect than some Somali Muslim outfit. Maybe not for a radical like Obama.

Also.... Why was he dressed like a Somali? He was in Kenya. People in Kenya don't dress like that. Obama isn't a Somali or decedent of Somali's.

Somalia is a lawless haven for violent jihadists
and Al Qaeda. Who was Obama supposed to be respecting while in Kenya?

I would like to know how Billary and Osama are going to pay for their Socialized medical care for every man, woman, child and illegal alien (I know how already)?

I have tried to watch their last two "debates". What a joke. They are both bullshitters. They want the Socialist medical care for everyone, but have yet to say how the American people are going to pay for it. Why not Jorge? You and I live in the most taxed State in the Union, with taxes going up because of Corzine. You want to pay more taxes for Billary's health "plan"? Not me bro.

Where is Osama's stance on the military? He has none.

I love how they both pandered in Texas to all the illegals about the wall going up and how if elected they would tear it down. Osama says we need to improve Mexico's economy so the illegals won't come across. How about worrying about our own economy?

S.

Yeah, that pandering in that debate was pretty sickening.

Tonight the debate is in Ohio. You are going to hear a lot of anti-trade, anti-capitalist, anti-profit rhetoric from both of them.

Don't know yet if Obama will be wearing his turbin.

I don't get why the debate host's lob softball's to these candidates?

Why not ask them the specifics of their "plans"?

That really pisses me off.

Madman,

You bring up good points and I don't have hard answers vindicating or condemning the man. I only know what I've read on the subject of Obama and the pin, pledge, and muslim dress issue. The issues are in my personal opinion open to interpretation based on a persons own disposition. Nothing I have read leads me personally to cast the man into such a negative light that I would dismiss him over Clinton or McCain as a candidate.

If I decide to play the "lesser of two evils" game and vote for someone, I am going to have a hard time between the dems and reps if it's Obama vs McCain. I actually think Obama has more integrity than McCain and that alone would get my vote.

I may not even vote...again... as I am still having a hard time swallowing the "vote for the lesser of two evils" pill.

I also agree with Jorge, not directly in defense of Obama, though I did defend him as I think it's a prime example of the bullshit, non-issue related campaining tactics that both parties use. The campaigning from both sides always boils down to dirty tactics and it is really getting tiring and that is why I posted the Bush images and took the defensive position for Obama.

I think any candidate is open to these types of attacks and they have absolutely nothing to do with the actual issues that need addressed in our nation. It just plain disgusts me that it always turns into this. It's like children on a schoolyard.

I know your position on McCain madman, so if it comes down to him vs Obama, what are you going to do?

I'm not sure you quite get it. The Democrats don't want to talk about issues. They do everything to avoid saying exactly what they think and what they want to do. If they told the truth, the public at large wouldn't vote for these people.

Who will I vote for? I don't know. I will never vote for Obama. He is the most radical and furthest to the left of almost any national Democrat.

I'll put something together about Obama before next week's election. His ideas, his connections, and his past and recent public policy positions.

You'll never vote for him once you read it.

I look forward to it.

The Debate:

-- Right out of the box Hillary goes after NAFTA.

-- Obama is turbanless tonight.

-- Hillary denies having anything to do with Obama Somali outfit photo. Who cares if Hillary sent it out. Barry Hussein never said the photo wasn't real.

-- Obama is complaining that Hillary's campaign attacks him too much. Is this guy a whining bitch?

-- Blah, blah, blah, healthcare, healthcare, healthcare, healthcare, healthcare, healthcare

-- I think I might have heard Hillary tell Obama she can get him a part in the next "Johnny Quest" movie if he leaves the race.... Not sure.... :p



Overall it was a much better debate than the CNN softball suckfest last week.

Russert hit each with a few tough questions. Obama seemed a little arrogant at times. When asked the questions about Louis Farrakhan, Obama gave a big disingenuous smirk when he finished. It was almost the same when asked about his controversial pastor of his church. Russert should have gone deeper into that issue.

Russert also hit Hillary with the lack of tax forms being released and her records in the archives. He could have pressed that a little harder too.

It would have been better if Russert hit Obama with that question about the new guy coming into power in Russia.

It seemed Hillary did better earlier on, but Obama picked up speed with his bullshit later into the debate.

VOTE HILLARY CLINTON on March 4....

hahaha!! He does look like Hajji in that picture! Where is Bandit?

I agree with you MadMan. MSNBC was much tougher on them last night than CNN.

16 minutes on healthcare and she said nothing of substance.

What about her complaining on getting the questions asked of her first? Who cares? ANSWER the damn question! Simple yes or no answer turns into campaign spin.

I will admit Obama is a smooth talker. He did not waiver in his tone all night. Whereas Billary was clearly rattled at some questions.

Why has she not released her joint tax-returns? Do they not want to show they didn't pay taxes on Bill's "overseas" businesses?

S.

Obama to Ohio voters... "You're Idiots."

It seems Obama is treating the voters of Ohio like a bunch of idiots. He is going around fanning the flames that their state's problems are due to NAFTA and making claims he will do something about it.

Yet, his campaign has been secretly telling the Canadians to ignore the rhetoric and that it is just campaign talk to get votes. You know.. from those idiots in Ohio who would presumably believe anything he says.

From Canada:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227

The Audacity of Bullshit

It's kind of pathetic. He's telling Ohio voters one thing, then telling a trading partner that he is just bullshitting the people of Ohio for the sake of their votes.

Here is a Canadian TV news report on the issue...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAJYMgX4JuU

Thankfully Billary will be knocked out next week, I'm looking forward to that.

Here is a little blurb from an article about McCain's possible VP selection. I'd like Petraeus or Rice.

Out of our various finalists, the preliminary top picks for McCain's VP nominee would appear to be (in alphabetical order): Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tim Pawlenty, and Condi Rice, with wild cards reserved for Joe Lieberman, David Petraeus, and Tom Ridge. None is a perfect match for McCain, but no Veep choice ever is for any presidential candidate. As long as there is no scandal, the VP nominee will fade into the background by October, too. It always happens that way, despite the media hubbub when the nominee is announced.

I'm lost as to your desire to knock Hillary out of the race over Obama.

Obama is the far more dangerous one.

Too many Republicans are thinking emotionally over this issue and not strategically.

Quote:

Here is a little blurb from an article about McCain's possible VP selection. I'd like Petraeus or Rice.

Out of our various finalists, the preliminary top picks for McCain's VP nominee would appear to be (in alphabetical order): Haley Barbour, Charlie Crist, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Tim Pawlenty, and Condi Rice, with wild cards reserved for Joe Lieberman, David Petraeus, and Tom Ridge. None is a perfect match for McCain, but no Veep choice ever is for any presidential candidate. As long as there is no scandal, the VP nominee will fade into the background by October, too. It always happens that way, despite the media hubbub when the nominee is announced.

All those VP candidates SUCK with the possible exception of maybe Haley Barbour. None add anything significant to the ticket.

Putting General David Petraeus' name in there is also very premature. He is a career soldier and still has a job to do. A job of which he is needed. The country doesn't need him quitting the military and joining up with the likes of McCain.

If Petraeus wants to be a politician in the future (which there is little or no indication of any such ambitions) he would be wise not to hitch his wagon to someone like McCain.

My desire to knock Hillary out is based on me not wanting to look at, or hear from her for 4-8 years. I can handle Obama if I have to, even if I don't agree with him on anything. As I stated before I think Obama would be a figure head president.

I'll support McCain after Clinton is out, but I'm in Illinois so I don't matter either way, Obama will win Illinois without breaking a sweat. So would Clinton for that matter.

Hillary wouldn't win in November. That is why you should be supporting and rooting for her in the primaries.

As I said earlier, you may be thinking emotionally and not strategically.

I also disagree with the term "figure head" president.

McCain is going to get blasted in the election by either Dem.....it will be ugly. Bob Dole ugly.

"Oh Ye of little faith."

There is no doubt that McCain is an extremely flawed candidate and probably one of the biggest turds and assholes in politics to boot.

But, a lot can happen from now until November. McCain could get hit by a truck. That bulge on his left cheek could explode and take his head with it.

But, even he can probably beat Hillary.

[img]http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/200...W0zvTfAYVf_hw--[/img]

I knew she was in cahoots with the Devil... Have I mentioned that I hate this woman?

Does anyone know if Madman even drives an Xterra? He only pops up around here around election time, and then crawls back into his hole once it's over.

Many of us hate her, but often the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.

"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."..... Barack Hussein Obama - "Audacity of Hope"

As you can see in the post directly above this one.... whenever the leftist messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, is examined or questioned, his followers and disciples begin to foam at the mouth.

In a bizarre twist, "Saturday Night Live" is now starting to come under fire for having a white guy portray the messiah in skits....

Link to article....

That's Obama's Houston campaign headquarters. The same one that had the "Che" flags inside.

Some other guy named Hussein had his picture painted all over buildings somewhere too.

wtf is your problem with Che? You have no family do you?

What's my problem with Che? What the hell planet do you live on?

The question should be rather, why don't YOU have a problem with Che? The fact that you don't indicates some serious issues on your part.

Che Guevara was a Marxist totalitarian tyrant and brutal murderer.

Everything I've ever read about Che basically points to his abject failure at anything he tried to do. Seems like he had one "lucky" hit at making his "ideology" work in Cuba and that's about it.... If you have a picture of him on your wall, you're an idiot.

Funny. We could ask the same of you.

I live on Earth where there's a long history of armed struggle for simple things like food and shelter. Sometimes it takes a Marxist totalitarian tyrant murderer to go toe to toe with Fascist totalitarian tyrant murderers. Che was a twit but you're the one that keeps invoking the name. You're as lost as the idiots who hang his picture - you confuse symbols with reality.

Obama, McCain, six of one, half-dozen of the other; either way it ain't Hillary and that's just fine with me. I hope she gets her clock cleaned tomorrow.

You're an asshole. A seriously IGNORANT asshole.

Junior Tuesday Election Update....

Clinton leading in Ohio

Clinton within a couple of hundred votes in Texas as of this writing...

The "Messiah" may have a bad day after all.

EDIT:

Wow... Clinton may win this thing. She's over 20,000 votes ahead right now.

This piece of coagulated maggot puke is now the OFFICIAL Republican Party nominee....



Thanks to the RNC and many state Republican Party operations for giving us all these "open primaries" where non-Republicans decided the Republican nominee.

And you've become an icon to millions?

I'm going to guess that you haven't read that much about Che, other than what you might read on blogs, or Madman's posts. I'm not a big fan of Communism, but you could hardly call Che a failure. The guy did and saw a lot in his 40 years.

I guess someone like Madman could call Che a failure. Madman is a 43 year old unemployed hate-nerd who writes bile on the internet all day...but yeah, a doctor/writer/leader of a modern revolution...that's a failure.

I've read Che. I've read about Che. I admire the guy's will, and yet I manage to not be a Communist. Wow...so funny how I can feel one way and yet, not toe the whole damn line. You should try it some time. It's liberating.

What does Che's will have to do with anything?

The most evil and tyrannical men in history had a lot of will.

Che was a tyrant. He was an evil man. He murdered untold people who fought along side of him after he and his cronies betrayed their "revolution".

There is absolutely no redeeming qualities in Che. He had no problem killing anyone who stood in his way or who disagreed with ideas of statist tyrannical government.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely misguided or not exactly a sane person.

Speaking of statist tyrannical government.....

In the Democrat primary in Texas, Hillary is now almost 50,000 votes ahead of the socialist messiah.

Hillary Wins Texas and Ohio

That is GOOD NEWS.

That means the Democratic Party fight for the nomination moves on. Maybe all the way to this summer at the convention. They will have to use their resources fighting each other. Possibly until the end of the summer.

This makes the race more interesting. The radicals hate it, but most people should like it.

Most of the cable TV pundits wrote Hillary Clinton off. Many of the pollsters wrote her off. Many of these people were so wrong all along this election season. The pollsters were among the worst (Remember when they had Obama 20 points ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire).

Most of these people have been wrong so many times this election season it is hard to believe they still have their jobs.

What is Chris Matthews on MSNBC going to do when he doesn't have Obama (The Messiah) to make "his legs feel tingly" anymore.

Obama has been pushed very hard by the media. When you look at the states he has won, Hillary has won all the big states. Today seems no different.

Here is video of Hillary in today's victory....



Next stops are.... Wyoming on Saturday; Mississippi on Tuesday.

Do you read any of my posts? I argue with Madman all the time and I definitely do not tow any party line.

I've studied che too. The only place where his brand of marxism worked was Cuba, after leaving Cuba to try and instill his ideology elsewhere and instigate "revolution" it all failed. He tried like what 6 different countries and only prevailed in Cuba? 1 out of 5 sounds like failure to me. I stand by my original comment. Che was not to be admired unless you had your head up your ass.

Looks like this one is going to get decided at the convention, which would favor Clinton.

Anyone else getting the feeling that Florida and Michigan are going to come into play again somehow?

I think it'll be done before the convention.

I don't think Florida will play a part - they lost their delegates at the convention. Or at least, that's the impression I got. Of course, when it comes down to it, they'll probably get them back.

Oh...unless you meant in the general election.

I think it's almost impossible to get it done before the convention now. There isn't a way Clinton could clinch before the convention unless Florida or Michigan somehow get involved again and I don't think Obama can clinch without Penn and I don't think he will win there.

Here is an article already talking about Michigan and Florida having a "do over."

Long before Ohio or Texas had any meaningful returns -- and the exit polls suggested that the race was knotted -- Terry McAuliffe, Clinton's top fundraiser, was insisting to reporters, "We're going to have to go through the process until we get to Puerto Rico on June 7." Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, who had been Hillary's unstinting champion throughout the primary, made a similar plea as he spoke before Clinton at the rally, "Let her continue this fight. Let's go on to Pennsylvania and West Virginia. And let's go to Michigan and Florida."

Strickland's political map was intriguing. Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22, is indeed slated to be the last major state to weigh in. But Strickland pointed to the road to salvation for Clinton when he invoked "Michigan and Florida." These two states held outlaw primaries in January (which Clinton carried), but these contests have not been recognized by the Democratic National Committee because they violated party rules on scheduling. The magic number of delegates needed to secure the nomination (2,025) has been calculated without counting the 366 defrocked delegates from Michigan and Florida.

The Clinton campaign has stubbornly, ineffectively and a bit duplicitously argued that the Michigan and Florida results should count, even though Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot and all Democratic candidates pledged not to campaign in these states. As Clinton spokesman Doug Hattaway reiterated Tuesday night, "Sen. Clinton has consistently favored seating those delegates." But Strickland's remarks to the rally -- and some hints from McAuliffe earlier in the evening -- suggest that the next Clinton position may be to appeal to the party to encourage these two pariah states to hold some type of do-over caucus or primary.

The Florida and Michigan question is central to Clinton's lingering wishing-and-hoping dreams of snaring the nomination. If the 366 delegates from these two states were somehow again in play, the daunting arithmetic that makes it almost impossible for Clinton to pass Obama in pledged delegates would be far more forgiving. Even after her double-barreled Ohio and Texas primary victories, Clinton still faces the risk of a stampede of unpledged superdelegates to Obama. That is why her campaign, which has taxed the limits of logic and consistency as it has flailed about in recent weeks must win the "spin wars" of the next few days and convince the more than 300 still neutral superdelegates to stay on the sidelines.

The Ohio exit polls, for the most part, reflected the divisions that have characterized the Clinton-Obama race so far. The age breaks were lock-step precise with Clinton rising and Obama falling as each of the six age cohorts became progressively older. Obama won the youngest voters (those 17-24) by a landslide margin of 75-to-24 percent. Clinton, on the other hand, racked up an almost equally lopsided 70-to-29 victory among voters eligible for Social Security. In summary, the 46-year-old Obama carried voters younger than he is (those 17 to 45), while Clinton won those who are older.

Whatever her intentions had she lost Ohio or Texas, it is now clear that Clinton will not go quietly into the night. Strickland, who encouraged Clinton to campaign heavily in rural Ohio (she won these voters by a 70-to-26 percent margin), made his feelings abundantly clear in a phone interview Monday. Speaking on the assumption that Clinton would win Ohio, the first-term governor lambasted Obama supporters like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy for suggesting that Clinton should withdraw if she did not come out of the Tuesday primaries with a delegate lead. "John Kerry's not in a position to make a political judgment about Ohio or any other state," Strickland said with an edge of anger in his voice. Talking about Kennedy, whom he did call a "great senator," Strickland recalled that in 1980 the Massachusetts liberal carried his battle against incumbent Democratic President Jimmy Carter to the floor of the convention -- and then only reluctantly endorsed his rival at the last minute. As Strickland put it, "Now for him to start lecturing Hillary Clinton about party unity and what it takes to win in November ... offends me."

When more than 20 states clustered their primaries and caucuses on Woozy Tuesday Feb. 5, there was concern that the Democratic race would end too soon, leaving the nominee with nearly seven months to contemplate a running mate before the Denver Convention. Now with Hillary Clinton's dramatic return from oblivion, it is likely that the presidential candidates will, at minimum , spend the next seven weeks making Pennsylvania Democrats feel like the most important voters on the planet. About the only slogan that makes sense in the wee hours of Wednesday morning is: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

I feel dirty for saying this, but good for Hillary. As much as I despise the woman, I'd 10X rather see her in the white house than Obama.

Here you go Madman. Guess we should have seen this coming.

Hillary hinting at Obama as a running mate

Don't like one or the other? How about BOTH of them!

I think I heard Ron Paul is willing to let McCain be his running mate as well.

Really? Why?

I just heard on NPR a bit ago that when the smoke clears from yesterday Clinton will have gotten 190 delegates to Obama's 180. Not exactly a blowout win from a delegate standpoint.

One of the guests also made the comment that when it comes right down to it the superdelegates are going to have a very hard time going against the votes in the states. In other words, if Obama still has the lead in regular delegates going into the convention this guest thought most of the superdelegates would change over to him.

In any event, it looks like the democrats won't have their candidate for awhile longer.

Of no interest to you, I'm sure.

Then why bother mentioning it, numbnuts? If it was private information, you coulda just kept it to yourself. But you didn't, so obviously you're just bursting at the seams to tell us exactly why you love Hilary and hate Obama.

Or would you like me to infer your reason? I could do that. Hell, my version of how you feel would probably be more fun to write than your logical reasons are to read.

How's that for inference?

Take my response as this: I would have replied to anyone else who asked the question seriously.

I'm just not in the mood to feed the troll today. Your subsequent post solidifies your trollness.

I honestly can't think of anyone else whom I'd rather shit in the driver seat of their vehicle besides you. Believe me, I tried. My shit smells really bad too.

With regard to your attempt to paint me a racist, I have no issue with a black or hispanic in office as long as their politics fit my views. The only people I really can't stand are Arabs and Persians. What a collective bunch of douchebags.

You're an asshole Shahram.

Now your accusing people who don't like Obama of being racist. For a guy who tries to paint himself as a Libertarian, you constantly use the most left wing of left wing tactics in your arguments.

Stick to painting yourself as a victim of police harassment because of the color of your skin.

Might want to look in the driver seat of that TLC before you sit.

I feel a cable coming on.

If that happens at all, it won't happen until the convention.

Last night was a good night for the GOP. Hillary stayed in the race and that means the Democrats are going to have to use up their time and resources fighting each other for at least another two months or until the summer at the convention. That is good news for the GOP.

Some are also saying that a large block of voters in Ohio and Texas were Republicans who crossed over and voted for Hillary to keep this race going.

You're going to need a bigger popper...

You're just jealous of my long silky hair...

From a cocksucker like you, I take that as the utmost compliment. How's your mom doing?

Sarcasm is a left-wing tactic? Wow. Didn't know that. Is a sense of humor also a leftist thing?

And you should have stuck to doing what you do best...sticking plunger handles up Haitian guys' asses.

Hmmm...I actually didn't think you were a racist. I was making an over the top assertion in lieu of your response, and I thought I did it with humor and ham fists. Weird how it sort of struck a nerve...maybe it wasn't all that far off. Usually when something is that preposterous, it's laughed off.

Don't protest too much.

Is this fer real? If so, I can't stand you either!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's not a racist. Just to clarify that. He can't stand two certain ethnicities, that's all.

Madman's not a racist either. He just finds non-whites to be repugnant, he vehemently dislikes them and disparages them every chance he gets. Not a racist though, as he'll no doubt mention, and has mentioned numerous times.

Everyone is a racist to you Shahram.

Even the other day you were complaining again about the cops harassing you, no doubt because of the color of your skin. What was it you said a while back... because you look like a Hispanic gang member.

It must be tough being such a victim.

We're not racists. The cops that hassle you are not racists. They hassle you because you are an asshole. Because you are doing something wrong.

Pot meet kettle. Did you really think I was going to come all the way to Cali to poop in your truck? When I gotta shit, there's no way I can cork it for a 7 hour drive just to find the ulitimate venue to lay cable.

Thing is, once in a while your posts are funny. Usually, though, they're just obvious attempts to troll threads. As far as being a comedian goes, don't quit your day job.

Midnight, I don't dislike you or your short arms at all I'm just giving the bald Iranian guy in California back a little of what he constantly dishes out.

wow.. Open mouth insert foot..

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/...-i-should-have/

It's not surprising. Obama's comments reveal an elitism and deep disdain for average everyday Americans. Most especially white rural Americans.

"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He was also calling working class white people racists.

Surprising comments considering Obama clung to a church for the last 20 years that preached hate and antipathy towards anyone not like them. Meaning non-blacks.

He gave that speech to a bunch of extremely wealthy San Francisco lefty's at the Pacific Heights mansion of billionaire couple Ann and Gordon Getty.



Audio of the event can be found here.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

Didn't I hear Obama bashing NAFTA? And then anti-trade is a bad thing?

Obama is such a smooth talker that one can't help being a bit stunned when he does something remarkably human - namely, he messes up. Dubya says equally ridiculous things constantly. The media used to tear him apart over them. I suppose Obama might have finally fallen to earth.

I am personally displeased with Obama on many levels, as I am with the other two major presidential candidates. But I sense he's competent and as honest as a politician can be (). Yet like many others, there is a sense of mystery about the man ... and I don't like mystery in a presidential candidate. This is why I prefer Clinton, an equally competent individual. McCain? His "use by" date has long expired, which is a shame.

_Lazza

How is Hillary competent? I'm not saying she's not...but what has she done? Being in the White House as first lady doesn't mean squat. Just like I read (or heard?) recently... the PASTRY CHEF spent 8 years in the White House...doesn't make them qualified to be President.

She's not. None of them are competent.

She doesn't hate white people, so at this point it looks like she is going to be the Democrat nominee.

The more that is known about the real Obama, the people he has associated with over the years.... the less people are going to vote for a black radical for president.

You're really hosed, Madman. As we discussed previously, you have to vote, you can't help yourself. But you can't vote Democrat and you can't stand McCain. You looking at Bob Barr now?

First off, Obama is ahead, and it's incredibly unlikely Hillary will win.

Second, where do you get this Obama hates white people crap? Seriously, stop watching Fox for a minute and really see what Obama is saying.

Hillary is seriously grasping at straws here when insulting Obama, and you and the media are going crazy for it.

Elitest? He's the one worth the least out of all the candidates, by far too.

His response
So really, that is all the ammo you have on Obama? Do you realize how we're in a recession because of a needless war?

Do you realize that our civil liberties are being taken away under vale of "security"?

Do you realize that the media doesn't confront this administration on the illegal use of torture?

We're water boarding, even though it's a war crime
..and the white house approved it

This administration has seriously messed up our country. Our economy is tanking, we're holding and torturing countless "combatants" with no charges!

We're not remotely safer using these tactics we're going broke and making more people hate us.

McCain and Hillary are both of the same. They will continue down the same path we're on.

That is where Obama is different, and it seems that the only flaws people find are the ones you make up, like the minister, the "bitter" scandal.

I liked the civil liberties comment.

As if being taxed up the ass to pay for socialized medicine isn't an assault on liberties.

Death by taxation is worse than worrying about my phone being tapped by people trying to catch muslim extremists.

Aw, c'mon, that's pretty harsh. After all, George Bush doesn\'t care about black people.

Oh man...I still get a good laugh out of that one. Mike Meyer's face is priceless.

Bitch can't hold her liquah!

[img]http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080...r9oZsvxdOajKQ--[/img]

Jorge, how is Obama's minister made up?
As for security...have we been attacked on our soil again? Oh, and just so ya know, the combatants we're holding, they'd love to kill you despite the fact that you despise President Bush.

That doesn't mean much according to Democrat Party nominating rules. He is ahead by some proportional delegates. The nomination is going to the convention.

As the tide turns against Obama and as people become more aware of him and his associations and radicalism, the party won't give him the nomination. You're forgetting that the general public really doesn't know this guy. They know very little about him. He is a phony. They only know his stage act so far.

The Democrats have nominated people who didn't even win a single primary election. It's all about who they think can win in November and by November it certainly isn't going to be Obama.

Quote:

Second, where do you get this Obama hates white people crap?

Yes he doesn't like white people. He wouldn't have attended a church led by a racist former black Muslim for 20 years if he didn't agree with the racist minister. A church that preaches hatred and hatred for one's own country. He wouldn't expose his kids to that racist if he didn't agree with the church's radical "black liberation" racist theology.

He's even written himself that he harbored an animosity against his mother's race.

He not only holds disdain for white people, he holds a dangerous animosity for his country. His wife too. She fits in nicely with that hate theology church.

Quote:

Hillary is seriously grasping at straws here when insulting Obama, and you and the media are going crazy for it.

Elitest? He's the one worth the least out of all the candidates, by far too.

All I've seen Hillary do is throw his own hateful words back in his own face.

Obama's net worth is not what makes him an elitist. It's his snobbery, arrogance, and disdainful leftist ideology towards his country and countryman that makes him an elitist.

Quote:

That is where Obama is different, and it seems that the only flaws people find are the ones you make up, like the minister, the "bitter" scandal.

Obama is the most radical and far left guy to ever make a serious run for the nomination. Yes, he is even further left than McGovern.

That's the "change" he wants to make. He wants to take this country far to the left.

People like you love him because you are also pretty far to the left. Like Obama.

The media can protect him only so long. He spent a lifetime surrounding himself with radicals and Marxists.... and even terrorists. His own father embraced Marxist philosophy. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You can spin for Obama all you want. He's not going to be president. The country will not elect a black radical who hangs out with racists and terrorists and who calls them racists.

The "typical white people" as Obama phrases it will not be voting for him in the general election. Voters don't like being called racists over and over again by candidates and their supporters looking for their vote.

This is such a lame argument. What makes you think anything has been planned? It was 8 years between the first WTC bombing and 9/11. So I guess by that argument, Clinton did a fantastic job on homeland security after the first bombing...there were no attacks on our soil, after all.

If someone wanted to attack us on our soil, they could EASILY do it. Do you really think all those trucks driving in to NYC are checked? Do you really think all those trucks driving in to DC are checked?

What makes you think nothing has been planned?

Oh, though satire..

http://www.indecision2008.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074

I don't. Nor do I know if something HAS been planned. Just because nothing has happened doesn't mean Bush and his team have done something wonderful. Again...that would mean Clinton must have done a great job.

Either way...the terrorists have achieved one goal...make most of America paranoid. The administration hasn't helped. I, for one, refuse to go about my life paranoid about being attacked...and I live and work 5 miles from the White House. My girlfriend works across the street from the White House...for a law firm that had offices in the WTC. She doesn't go around paranoid, either.

I don't. Nor do I know if something HAS been planned. Just because nothing has happened doesn't mean Bush and his team have done something wonderful. Again...that would mean Clinton must have done a great job.

Either way...the terrorists have achieved one goal...make most of America paranoid. The administration hasn't helped. I, for one, refuse to go about my life paranoid about being attacked...and I live and work 5 miles from the White House. My girlfriend works across the street from the White House...for a law firm that had offices in the WTC. She doesn't go around paranoid, either.

---

I never said Bush, or his administration, was wonderful and I don't live in fear, hell I fly at least once a month, usually two or three times.