Free Dating Site    

Hillary lost my vote when she became really b!tchy soon after the primaries started.

Neither candidate is perfect, but I am arguing that the coverage of the candidates is unbalanced - for whatever reason doesn't matter. The national media are supposed to be neutral and present both sides fairly. The fifth estate and all that. They're not doing their job. And when people draw attention to that, they're accused of just being ****y feminists who are unhappy that their candidate is losing. In my view it is quite beyond that.

so what the hell does "she became really b1tchy" mean-?

Rather than respond to some of the individuals who have been posting replies to my most recent threads or posts, I thought I’d simply address them all at once.

Alas, many (alleged) Hillary supporters here seem to be unaware of the fact that most DUers have access to their other posts on other threads, and are acutely aware of their positions, their words and their overall behavior.

Here’s a handy list of “don’ts” if you are seriously trying to make a point – or, alternatively, wish to be taken seriously.

Don’t quote previously-reviled RW bullshit artists and tell me they are now acceptable and/or reliable sources of opinion and/or news about Democratic candidates, the party as a whole, or that they offer a legitimate analysis of how our primary should be run.

Don’t point me to “opinion” pieces and tout them as unbiased journalism based on actual facts, poll results, or statistics. And in the name of all that is holy, don’t cite your own opinion as the last word on any subject.

Don’t post sweeping generalizations (e.g. millions of Democrats think Obama is running a dirty campaign) unless you have some stats to prove your point – or, in the alternative, you can actually name those millions of Democrats individually.

Don’t tell me my anger over Clinton’s remarks about “assassination” or “white voters” is “faux outrage” – especially when you’re the same person who posted endlessly about the catastrophic implications of “snub-gate” and “bitter-gate”.

Don’t tell me I don’t understand sexism, or refuse to acknowledge its existence, when I point out the obvious fact that Hillary Clinton has not lost the nomination due to the fact she’s a female.

Don’t insist that Hillary has always been adamant (regardless of her pledge and comments to the contrary) that the votes in FL and MI be counted, unless you can provide a link to any actual statement, from the candidate herself, to that effect pre-losing.

Don’t post the daily talking points from Hillary sites, verbatim, on cue and en masse, and tell me that I’m the kool-aid drinking cultist.

Don’t post replies that state, “You Obamabots are ****ed-up in the head,” and then decry the childish tactic of name-calling.

Don’t state that if Hillary isn’t the nominee, you are leaving the Party, sitting out the election, or voting for McCain, followed by a statement that it is the Obama supporters who are ruining our chances to win in November.

Don’t tell me you won’t vote for Obama because his supporters have been mean to you on this website or any other, and expect to be treated as though you are a mature, politically astute adult.

Don’t post “Obama will NEVER WIN the GE” – with or without the gratuitous threat to come back and yell I told you so after the loss you are so obviously hoping for – along with your heartfelt assurances that you’re a loyal Democrat who has the party’s best interests at heart.

Don’t declare that Obama – who is ahead in delegates and SDs – is about to “steal the election through backroom deals” while, at the same time, promoting the idea that if Hillary can convince those same delegates and SDs to change their minds and vote for her, despite the will of the people, she will be the legitimate nominee.

Don’t talk about Hillary’s sniper-fire whopper and Obama’s comment about “fifty-seven states” as being comparable examples of inadvertently mis-speaking.

Don’t wag your finger in my face and say “shame, shame” when I criticize your candidate for something she has actually said or done, while countering with what Obama’s supporters have said or done.

Don’t accuse me of being pissed-off by the MSM’s interpretation of Hillary’s statements when I’ve heard them for myself, firsthand, and been pissed-off by their content, not the spin.

Don’t lecture me about being divisive when I fail to coddle those among you who refuse to unite behind our nominee without being courted, romanced, and baby-talked into doing what’s right for our party, and our country.

Don’t tell me that I, as an Obama supporter, am somehow responsible for convincing you, as a Hillary supporter, that Obama (D) is preferable to McCain (R).

All this to say that WE WILL WIN this come November – with or without you. So just keep don’t-ing if you must, while the rest of us keep our eye on the prize.

About 1 minute in he gives some of the reasons there had been previously a modest decrease in violence and says these are all "positive things". But one of those "positive things" he says reduced violence is that "entire neighborhoods have been essentially ethnically cleansed"!?!?

In the face of ongoing confrontations between US-Iraqi forces and Shiite militias in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, US forces began work this week on a concrete barrier to protect against militia intrusions. Other neighborhoods with such walls have seen marked improvement in the security situation, though some residents credit anti-Al Qaeda groups, which have been targeted by suicide bombers this week.

The New York Times reports that US forces hope that the huge concrete wall will slow the southward spread of militia fighters from the heart of the heavily Shiite neighborhood, which has been a combat zone for the past several weeks as US and Iraqi forces fight members of Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army.

The construction, which began Tuesday night, is intended to turn the southern quarter of Sadr City near the international Green Zone into a protected enclave, secured by Iraqi and American forces, where the Iraqi government can undertake reconstruction efforts.

"You can't really repair anything that is broken until you establish security," said Lt. Col. Dan Barnett, commander of the First Squadron, Second Stryker Cavalry Regiment. "A wall that isolates those who would continue to attack the Iraqi Army and coalition forces can create security conditions that they can go in and rebuild."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0418/p99s01-duts.html

On the PBS NewsHour last night, AEI scholar Fred Kagan (one of the main architects of the surge strategy, though he was not identified as such by host Jim Lehrer) made a startling assertion about the situation on the ground in Iraq:

Well, there’s a magnificent myth out there…that there are no mixed areas in Iraq anymore and that the cleansing is completed. … Now, [these neighborhoods] are more consolidated than they had been before, certainly.

In August 2007, the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization indicated that “the total number of internally displaced Iraqis [had] more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000? since the surge started in February. Center for American Progress Iraq analyst Brian Katulis estimated that Baghdad, which once used to be a 65 percent Sunni majority city, “is now 75 percent Shia.”

In December, the Washington Post published a map comparing the sectarian distribution of Baghdad’s neighborhoods in April 2006 and November 2007, showing the transformation of the city that has resulted from Iraq’s civil war.


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/12/kagan-ethnic-cleansing/

May 29, 2008
Murdoch predicts McCain will lose

Posted: 03:30 PM ET

(CNN) – Rupert Murdoch offered a dire prediction Wednesday for John McCain's chances in the general election.

He will lose in a landslide, the News Corp. chairman said at a California conference, according to Reuters.

"You have got the Obama phenomenon, Murdoch said. "You have got, undoubtedly, a recession … The average American is really getting hurt financially and that all bodes well for [Obama].

"You have probably the making of a complete phenomenon in this country," Murdoch continued, referring to what he thinks will be an overwhelming victory for the Democratic presidential candidate.

The News Corp. chairman, often viewed as a messenger for the Republican Party given his holdings include several media organizations with a conservative bent, also showered praise on the Illinois senator, calling him a "rock star."

While calling himself a friend of McCain, Murdoch said his lengthy stint in Congress has led the Arizona senator to make so many compromises that it is not clear where he stands on the major issues. He also called McCain "unpredictable," and questioned his knowledge on economic issues.

News Corp's holdings include Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Post. The Post endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton earlier this year.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/29/murdoch-predicts-mccain-will-lose/

I don’t think Obama is prepared whatsoever for the Republican strategy to defeat him.