|
|
|
|
|
| |
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:17:22 PM | | people can have opinions. I base mine on what I see every day. it's nothing personal about any candidate. I hate them all. they all suck, and they are all politicians who could give two s h i t s about anything except their own personal legacy. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:18:18 PM | southern democrats won't vote for barack obama in a general election. the southern states are crucial for a democrat to win. I don't think that he has a prayer. either way, I could really care less.
You hit the nail on the head. Southern Democrats aren't going to vote for Northern Liberals like Hitlery and Osama. McShame also has more appeal to centrists than either of the other two. Not only is he going to win all the states that Shrub did, but he'll probably pick up New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington. | |
|
| |
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:25:47 PM |
I personally think he's a terrorist. Should he win the nomination, I think McCain will blow him out of the water when it comes to experience and actually knowing what the f' is going on. His rhetoric is only going to take him so far. When things start to get more serious . . . and he has to debate McCain - - his puffery won't do. At least I hope not.
As a Canadian, I would like to know why you think he's a terrorist. | |
|
| obama's chances in the general election
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:27:37 PM |
K-lo
... No matter who is elected into the White House ... there will be change. It is inevitable.
That's naive. Sure, there will be a change of name & face, but that may well be all.
"The biggest political error made by progressives is instead of opposing a policy,
they oppose an individual, and think that if you change the individual, you change the policy."
- Peter Camejo
Here it is only April, and this election is already getting too weird for words.
The Democratic votes won't count in Florida or Michigan.
Half of the Republican votes won't count in some states.
Instead of staying on message and showing solidarity, the two Democratic-party finalists are saying that the Republican challenger is their second choice.
And when asked the most inane questions imaginable, (does your choice of jewelery symbolize your tendency toward treason?) they play along politely like actors reading a script.
But back to the topic at hand:
It honestly looks like the Democrats don't even want to win. The single most-powerful issue this year is the quagmire in Iraq and the economy.
(which are really one issue, give that the Iraq Tax is now up to $40,000 per American household and still climbing)
But the Democratic [sic party has narrowed the field down to two candidates who not only have essentially indistinguishable records, they both have a record of voting to fund every request for war funding the White House ever sent to Congress and voting to confirm nearly every Bush appointee.
And not only supporting the war with their budget-appropriation votes and rhetoric, but also supporting expanding the war into Iran and escalating it to include nuclear strikes.
http://www.counterpunch.org/solomon04122007.html
The Democratic Contenders and Iran
The Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack and John
By NORMAN SOLOMON
The Pentagon's most likely next target is Iran.
Hillary Clinton says "no option can be taken off the table."
Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is "a threat to all of us" and "we should take no option, including military action, off the table."
John Edwards says, "Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." And: "We need to keep all options on the table."
A year ago, writing in The New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: "One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites."
For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all "options" should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with -- first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington's policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.
This year, with their virtually identical statements about "options" and "the table," the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran. ... "
I don't know about you, but I don't want a more-conciliatory tone in Washington; I want a confrontational opposition party who will effectively oppose, something nobody in the Democratic party seems to remember how to do.
The "opposition" party's response? Nancy Pelosi, seeing that this could sink the election for Democrats in Congress, is seizing the initiative early. Cutting off spending to force Duhbbya's hand? Hell, no! Preparing another blank check for the White House, this time for $178 Billion. (another $2,160 per American household)
http://www.democrats.com/pelosi-plans-178-billion-blank-check-for-iraq
Is it worth another $2,160 to your household to postpone confronting the Bush League on the Iraq quagmire right through 'til the end of his term?
The second-most-powerful issue this year is election fraud, and the Democrats, once again, are ignoring it completely.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.
- Joseph Stalin
There weren't any electronic voting machines when Stalin wrote that, but he would feel right at home in today's American elections.
I don't know how the Democratic party could be too stupid to notice, but if they don't address election fraud, they will continue to lose.
Finally, the Democrats are running their campaigns against George Duhbbya Bush. Sooner or later, the electorate will wake up and notice that Duhbbya isn't even on the ballot, and all that "opposition" campaigning will have been for naught.
So no, Obama doesn't have a chance in November.
But unless they make a radical course correction, neither does Hillary Clinton.
Good riddance, I say. We gave them their chance in 2006 with a majority in Congress and we're still waiting for results. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you.
| |
|
| obama's chances in the general election
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:34:29 PM |
Good riddance, I say. We gave them their chance in 2006 with a majority in Congress and we're still waiting for results. Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you.
For someone who professes to be as informed as yourself, I'm quite surprised to learn that you didn't "get" the fact that not ENOUGH of them were voted in to overcome any Bush veto. I guess you didn't get the email. What the hell were you expecting? | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:35:48 PM |
I'm not going to waste one more second debating black haters or democratic haters or liberal haters. I'll only say that, if god forbid, McLunatic gets into office (i.e. Bush III) this country is going to be in far deeper feces than it already is. Get over your hate. It's pretty disgusting.
The pot calling the kettle black.
You don't have to be a hater to question whether Obama's appeal in low turnout caucuses will translate into success in the general election, any more than you would be a hater if you wondered whether Clintons appeal to Reagan Democrats in the primaries would still hold in the general election against a perceived maverick such as McCain, or whether McCain's kissing up to the right in the Republican primaries will come back to haunt him in the general election. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:38:18 PM | SimmahDahnNah? There was an excellent article in Foreign Policy magazine several years ago. It was part of a group of columns dealing with 'The World's Most Dangerous Ideas'.
'The War On Evil' was one of them. The author mentioned the Manichean theology and how dangerous it is.
Manicheanism isn't just a 'theory of evil' he wrote, it's a 'grand, unified theory of evil'. The example he used was Lord of The Rings. Sauron was in charge and everything 'evil' obeyed him. It was easy to spot 'evil' as every 'evil' being; orcs, trolls, Ringwraiths; was ugly and scary. And kind of stupid for the most part.
Manicheanism simplifies strategy because there is, of course, no compromising with 'evil'. It makes things very simple.
Unfortunately, the real world isn't simple and simple solutions usually just make things worse.
Sigh. God gave us these powerful brains and we often refuse to use them.  | |
|
| obama's chances in the general election
Posted: 4/23/2008 6:40:12 PM |
Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you.
That's not how that goes...is it.
I think they say it differently in Texas or is it NH??? | |
|
| obama's chances in the general election
Posted: 4/23/2008 7:56:20 PM |
Bluesman2008
... For someone who professes to be as informed as yourself, I'm quite surprised to learn that you didn't "get" the fact that not ENOUGH of them were voted in to overcome any Bush veto. I guess you didn't get the email. What the hell were you expecting?
Sixty votes are required in the Senate to invoke cloture. Forty-one votes can prevent cloture and prevent an appropriation bill from passing, for Duhbbya's Folly in Iraq or anything else.
Two hundred eighteen votes in the House can prevent a bill from passing there.
The Democrats have that many seats, and more, yet they can't quite bring themselves to cut off Duhbbya's charge card. Or even threaten to cut it off, play hardball politics with that threat and hammer out some sort of compromise.
Two hundred eighteen votes in the House are likewise sufficient to bring an impeachment, and the President doesn't get to veto an impeachment. John Conyers was talking about impeachment - even holding hearings in a basement somewhere - during the 2006 campaign season, but it fell off the agenda after the election was over.
So yes, the Democratic party doesn't have the votes to override a White House veto. But there's a lot they could do with the votes they do have, and they're frittering away the opportunity.
| |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/24/2008 10:25:55 PM | simmah~
the one hundred years phrase doesn't mean what you think it does. Mcain meant simply that we could be in iraq AFTER any actual conflict is over... along the lines of south korea, germany, japan, etc. we still have a military prescence in these areas, but we are not an occupying force nor are we engaged in any fighting.
this is what mcain meant, and this is what he clearly said if you go back and read the WHOLE thing.
also... i am astounded at the lack of willingness to be objective about obama and the lack of interest in checking out his background. with this man's very very radical connections to people like ayers and dohrn he wouldn't even be qualified to be an FBI agent...yet here we are considering this man for a position of president. it boggles my mind at how boggled the minds are of those on the left. the complete dismissala of his associations as if they did not matter. obama has said that they are friends, and it is a fact that they hosted a fundraiser for him in thier home in 1995...
look... i have a lot of very liberal friends... some very politically active... however, not one of them is or ever has been a home grown terrorist that has killed people.. that has advocated killing people... these two former weather underground members are completely unrepentent of the murders that they were involved in. i would never call a murderer a friend.
the bottom line is, ayers and dohrn are no different then a timothy mcviegh... they are simply on the other end of the political spectrum... that is all... good thing they weren't as good at making bombs and creating mayhem as mcviegh was... otherwise they would have murdered more people then they did... it's simply unfortunate that they are still alive to espouse such a disgusting ideology...and it is even more disgusting that they are embraced by a future presidential candidate...
it's disgusting...
lara | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/24/2008 11:06:45 PM |
I personally think he's a terrorist. Should he win the nomination, I think McCain will blow him out of the water when it comes to experience and actually knowing what the f' is going on. His rhetoric is only going to take him so far. When things start to get more serious . . . and he has to debate McCain - - his puffery won't do. At least I hope not.
This is McCain which didn't even know which branch of the Muslim faith Iran was, and who they would be supporting in Iraq?
Then again you "think he is a terrorist" which shows exactly how credible you are. Namely, that the substance of your political knowledge is made up of what I leave in my toilet. The material is supperior if I have happened to consumed some brand flakes that morning. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 2:53:24 AM | | actually, it's common knowledge that all politicians are terrorists. anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 2:56:47 AM |
actually, it's common knowledge that all politicians are terrorists. anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant.
LOL! | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 3:17:13 AM | | haha, I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong with this theory. you don't have to be violent to be a terrorist. my definition of a terrorist is someone who uses fear to get what they want, it's 3am, who do you trust to answer the phone in the white house. john mccain wants to be in iraq for 100 yeas. tell me the last time they didn't use fear to get what they wanted. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 3:23:53 AM |
haha, I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong with this theory. you don't have to be violent to be a terrorist. my definition of a terrorist is someone who uses fear to get what they want, it's 3am, who do you trust to answer the phone in the white house. john mccain wants to be in iraq for 100 yeas. tell me the last time they didn't use fear to get what they wanted.
Your theory falls apart when you say "all" I don't even know who the heck my municiple representative is, never mind being afraid of him.
Also terrorism is much more than simply using fear. The school yard bully isn't a terrorist. A guy who mugs you isn't a terrorist.
Here are some sample definitions
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or
societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological
objectives.
Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (
It has to be violent and it has to be unlawful. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 3:32:45 AM |
Your theory falls apart when you say "all" I don't even know who the heck my municiple representative is, never mind being afraid of him.
Also terrorism is much more than simply using fear. The school yard bully isn't a terrorist. A guy who mugs you isn't a terrorist.
oh no it doesn't. that is how politicians get elected, they make you fear the other guy. there are hundreds of definitions of terrorism. have you heard the word terrorizing? like, the neighborhood bully has been terrorizing the kids for weeks.
It has to be violent and it has to be unlawful.
it most certainly does not. terrorism is a tactic. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 3:40:19 AM |
simmah~
the one hundred years phrase doesn't mean what you think it does. Mcain meant simply that we could be in iraq AFTER any actual conflict is over... along the lines of south korea, germany, japan, etc. we still have a military prescence in these areas, but we are not an occupying force nor are we engaged in any fighting.
this is what mcain meant, and this is what he clearly said if you go back and read the WHOLE thing.
I did read the whole thing, did you? Because if it mentioned his hundred years statement I honestly don't remember it. What I did read, is that it talked about how he sees countries as 'good' or 'evil'. I don't have time to re-read and post the points I'm talking about, but the general mentality is one much like who we're dealing with right now as president. Wanting to start a league of Democracy, in which we only allow others into the club who share our views, sorry, that's scary.
I have always liked McCain and have much respect for him. What I don't like is how people blow things out of proportion with Obama's pastor and things like McCain's league of democracy is unheard of by the general public. If you want to talk about fairness, let's actually be fair. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 3:43:36 AM | | oh trust me, it's equally evil. you will hear all about these things soon enough. one of the reasons you don't hear too much about mccain right now is because the media is having too much fun with the mess in the democrat party. when that fun is over, mccain will be under the scope. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 4:53:34 AM | oh no it doesn't. that is how politicians get elected, they make you fear the other guy. there are hundreds of definitions of terrorism. have you heard the word terrorizing? like, the neighborhood bully has been terrorizing the kids for weeks.
Terrorizing and terrorism aren't the same thing. That's why we have two different words.
it most certainly does not. terrorism is a tactic.
Hey, I'm using definitions, you're just pretending words mean whatever you want them to. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 5:15:44 AM | | actually, I am quite sure I know a little bit more on the subject of terrorism and terrorists than you do charles. but thanks for trying. | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/25/2008 6:41:55 AM | SimmahDahNah, folks who are into some ultimate battle between "good and evil" scare me and this scares me about McCain, that he might be of that evangelistic ilk.
These people seem to be itching for some great, cataclysmic battle between good and evil at the end of which Jesus floats down. That is NUTS. So much has been made of Obama's preacher's condemnation of some of the dark side of America, but McCain's preacher's beliefs and remarks are truly something to be concerned about if he has McCain's ear.
There are real problems in the world, real solutions needed, and REAL CHANGE that needs to happen. What we DO NOT need are radical, white whacko evangelical Christians who are itching to incinerate the planet in fullfillment of their Biblical prophecies.
For me, voting for the old war hero coming into his Alzheimer's years and with a bad temper, surrounded by mass murder-minded Christian nutjobs is something to be very, very concerned about.
I like my life. I want my children and their children to have a brighter future. I dont need Jesus to come down just yet, thank you. Stay up there in heaven and I'll be just fine with that.  | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/26/2008 6:32:14 PM | bluesman~
i don't how you can say that mcain is bush III when he has opposed bush on everything from immigration, to tax cuts, to spending (mcain hasn't taken ONE earmark in 30 years), to social security privatization. mcain is also concerned abou the environment and thinks climate change is real... unlike bush et al.
mcain is not bush III. sorry... there is no proof to support your assertion that he is...
lara | |
|
| let's get real for a second
Posted: 4/26/2008 6:47:33 PM | simmah~
in all fairness, it is relevent that obama has been associated very closely with someone who has accused the united states government of creating aids with the intention of killing black people... he has also called the united states the us of kkk-a...this is complete art bell- coast to coast conspiracy wack job nutter stuff. that obama has been a supporter of such a nut job certainly shows a lack of judgement on his part... this wasn't a casual association either... obama took the name of his book "audacity of hope, " from a serman by the rev. wright, and rev. wright was serving, until recently, on his campaign.
what bothers me more is his close association with ayers and dorhn, the ex-weather underground members. i am sorry, the weather underground killed people, and wanted to kill more people... they were just inept at being terrorists. dorhn and ayers are now college professors, and if you read the links i placed above regarding these two, they are completely unrepentent and actually wish they had "done more." this is sick.
i am sorry... i have many friends that are of diverse political leanings... i have friends that are dems, socialists, anarchists, conservatives, libertarians...etc. but i do not have ONE friend that has ever murdered people... dohrn and ayers were home grown terrorists ala timothy mcviegh... dorhn or ayers hosted a fund raiser for obama in thier home! and when obama was asked about his association with them he replied, " well, bill ayers is an english professor...." as if somehow being able to quote chaucer somehow makes it okay that he is responsible for planning and carrying out terrorist activities. obama also dismissed these activities because they happened when he was "8 years old..." again, i am sorry, time isn't going to bring those people back to life now is it? perhaps he should befriend charles manson too? i mean, after all, charlie and family committed those crimes years ago... who cares, right? time heals all wounds?
maybe you should ask yourself why you are refusing to delve deeper into these associations of obamas... why are you so willing to dismiss them? why are you so sold on a candidate that you know so little about? why are you so willing to swallow every thing you are fed and not question?
i think that is scary...
lara | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
