312 replies to this topic

[niner]

Missmini, what you see in the white house and congress by and large are not Republicans. Those are corporate fascist neoconservatives that hijacked the party. Ron Paul is a true, traditional Republican. Reagan before the assassination attempt scared him from following through on his ideals was a true Republican. Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft...anti-war, limited government, respect the Constitution. True Republicans are true Americans, faithful to the ideals that our founders built this country upon, and that our country has been driven by the power elite far, far from.

In other words, for all intents and purposes, true Republicans don't exist. I think it would be more accurate to say true Conservatives, since the GOP was long ago hijacked by radicals. I think that you are mistaken about the lack of foreign interventionist leanings in the people you mention though. One of the many reasons Goldwater had his ass handed to him was his proposal to use nukes in IndoChina. And when was Reagan ever not a warmonger? "The bombing starts in five minutes", remember?

Your blind hatred for Republicans/Conservatives makes you look silly. Coming from Philadelphia, a city ruled by democrats for so long, and a city that at times is as dangerous as Baghdad, I am not surprised. Also, if you look at WW1, WW2, Korean conflict and Viet Nam, I think the democrats were in office.

Did you even read what I wrote? I live in the suburbs. Are you saying that WW1, 2, Korea and Viet Nam were wars that we should not have been involved in? (I'd agree on VietNam, maybe even Korea.)

[gashinshotan]

So gashinshotan, I get the feeling you'll not be supporting Obama. What candidate if any do you favor?

McCain! Now there's someone with balls and unquestionable loyalty.

[biknut]

So gashinshotan, I get the feeling you'll not be supporting Obama. What candidate if any do you favor?

McCain! Now there's someone with balls and unquestionable loyalty.

Ok, that's reasonable. McCain is like what a Democrats used to be like. I don't like him that much, but I don't think he would be too bad, probably just more of the same. I'm pretty sure he can beat Clinton, because he's kind of like her, but without the baggage. If Clinton is the nominee Republicans will come out of the woodwork to vote against her. A lot of independents will join them, and even some Democrats. No republican will vote for her.

On the other hand, Republicans don't dislike Obama as much and a lot of independents like him. He has a better chance against McCain. My belief is that McCain will be a so so president. Obama might be a good president, and if so, good for all of us. But probably he will be a terrible president and ruin it for the democrats for many years to come which will be good for us also, after 4 bad years.

If Hillary is elected president it won't be that much different from McCain, but she won't damage the Democrats as much so she's the worst case.

No matter how you slice it, this time I think we're going to have a bad president. I'd prefer that bad president be a Democrat.

Edited by biknut, 07 March 2008 - 03:57 AM.

[biknut]

They just reported on the news that so far only 40% of the caucuses have reported results from Tuesday's vote.
As it stands now Obama has 54% to Clinton 42%

[gashinshotan]

oops that was retarded. It's still only 67 delegates being split compared to the 65 hillary already won.

Edited by gashinshotan, 07 March 2008 - 04:59 AM.

[niner]

No matter how you slice it, this time I think we're going to have a bad president. I'd prefer that bad president be a Democrat.

I think that we are going to have a bad environment to be a president in. Of the three candidates that have any chance of getting elected, I don't think that any of them would be a bad president, at least not by "modern standards"... In the interest of fairness, the next president should probably come from the party that brought us the present bad environment so that the blame is apportioned where it belongs. There's a lot of chickens looking for a place to roost.

[biknut]

They just reported on the news that so far only 40% of the caucuses have reported results from Tuesday's vote.
As it stands now Obama has 54% to Clinton 42%

Texas has a weird way of awarding it's delegates. 2/3 from the vote and 1/3 from the caucus. Even though Hillary won the popular vote, Obama will probably end up with more of the delegates.

From the regular vote Hillary got 65 delegates and Obama got 61. The caucus vote will account for 67 delegates so it's possible Obama will pull ahead overall in Texas.

[spaceistheplace]

They just reported on the news that so far only 40% of the caucuses have reported results from Tuesday's vote.
As it stands now Obama has 54% to Clinton 42%

Texas has a weird way of awarding it's delegates. 2/3 from the vote and 1/3 from the caucus. Even though Hillary won the popular vote, Obama will probably end up with more of the delegates.

From the regular vote Hillary got 65 delegates and Obama got 61. The caucus vote will account for 67 delegates so it's possible Obama will pull ahead overall in Texas.

If so, I hope they make it known loud and clear across the airwaves.

[missminni]

The less fair the delegate count is towards Hillary, the more support she
will get. The press has been giving Obama a free ride for a while now and I think they just about reached
the end of the line. You know how fickle the press is.
So all you Hillary haters with high blood pressure and manic depression, get your meds ready.
Winning Texas and Ohio is an omen of things to come.
What sells more papers and gets more viewers than controversy? The press has controlled this from day one.
They still do. It's time for the pendelum to swing back towards Hillary.
Even the term "come back kid", which the press has been throwing about, is endearing.
Anybody who saw John Kerry interviewed by Anderson Cooper last night knows he is on a slowly sinking ship.
His obvious face lift and phony smile could not hide his false confidence.
And then Ted Daschle on the Daily Show? He was so creepy. Even Jon Steward seemed leery of him.
He and Kerry must have the same plastic surgeon.
In fact, if you really look at Obama's backers, they are all men who could not be president.
Losers. all of them. And Ted Kennedy...please...change? what change? the same old nasty men that have
been in Washington for the past 30 years backing the new kid on the block and ganging up on Hillary.
I think the cult of personality that they have been campaigning on is running thin.

[spaceistheplace]

You hardly saw Obama at all on the televison a few days before the TX/OH primaries. They put Hillary on SNL and the Daily Show in what I guess was an attempt to bolster ratings. I have a feeling the media is going to drag out the Hillary vs. Obama fight as long as they can.

Edited by spaceistheplace, 07 March 2008 - 05:54 PM.

[biknut]

Obama has won the Wyoming Democratic caucuses. 60/40 split. Obama gets 7 delegates, Hillary gets 5.

[niner]

What's wrong with identifying with Hitler?

If you admire Hitler so much I'm surprised you not supporting his sister Hiltary. Word on the street is she's a monster too.

Gashinshotan is a McCain man. Not that that, y'know, means anything...

[AdamSummerfield]

Forgive me for not being American, but the way I see it, both Hillary and Obama can make a great change for the USA right into the next decade.

[sentrysnipe]

Obama is pretty weak on the marijuana issue on its legalization. He reminds me of Gavin Newsom. He's the toal opposite of my Ron Paul, socially conservative, fiscally liberal.

I'm still bitter about my man's "loss".

Edited by sentrysnipe, 11 March 2008 - 01:43 AM.

[niner]

Can we please have dannov's antisemetic diatribe removed. I find it very offensive.

It might be more effective if we debunk some of the more outlandish portions of it, rather than play into the conspiracy theories that those views are being suppressed.

You can never convince anti-semites or racists. Their views are anything but suppressed.
In fact they are very well disseminated.
I personally wouldn't dignify them with debate. All they are looking for is a soapbox.
If you feel you must tolerate them in the name of Free Speech, why don't you just
flush their remarks to a new thread called The Sewer.
That way they can all bang heads together as they slosh around in their own feces, and we can be spared the stench.

OK, that's a good idea. We have a Free Speech Forum. I'm not sure how to move a post there, and don't want to blow up the whole thread, though given where it's descended maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea... Let me look into moving it.

All right, the whole Hitler subthread, including my own replies, has been moved by popular request to the Free Speech Forum. Find it here: http://www.imminst.o...ews-t20822.html

I hope no one is offended. We now return to our regularly scheduled diatribe...

Edited by niner, 11 March 2008 - 03:17 AM.

[biknut]

We now return to our regularly scheduled diatribe...

For as long as it lasts, thank you.

Edited by biknut, 11 March 2008 - 06:04 AM.

[missminni]

Can we please have dannov's antisemetic diatribe removed. I find it very offensive.

It might be more effective if we debunk some of the more outlandish portions of it, rather than play into the conspiracy theories that those views are being suppressed.

You can never convince anti-semites or racists. Their views are anything but suppressed.
In fact they are very well disseminated.
I personally wouldn't dignify them with debate. All they are looking for is a soapbox.
If you feel you must tolerate them in the name of Free Speech, why don't you just
flush their remarks to a new thread called The Sewer.
That way they can all bang heads together as they slosh around in their own feces, and we can be spared the stench.

OK, that's a good idea. We have a Free Speech Forum. I'm not sure how to move a post there, and don't want to blow up the whole thread, though given where it's descended maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea... Let me look into moving it.

All right, the whole Hitler subthread, including my own replies, has been moved by popular request to the Free Speech Forum. Find it here: http://www.imminst.o...ews-t20822.html

I hope no one is offended. We now return to our regularly scheduled diatribe...

Only dannov's posts were anti-semitic, I would have prefered it if you only removed what he wrote... feel free to ignore people and accuse them of racism whenever they point out how Obama is nothing but a blank slate, pulled out of obscurity by some unknown power greater than any one person could have possibly achieved on their own merits, and then backed by a full blown propaganda machine spewing meaningless catch phrases and utter lies.

I actually sort of agree with you about Obama but the powers aren't unknown. They are the faction of the Democratic Party that hate/envy Clinton (the man) and don't want to see a women (his wife no less) president. I think they were grooming him for this before he even became senator. But having said that, I think McCain is even spewing worse meaningless catch phrases and lies. I'll take Obama over him any day.
The problem with you and Gashinwhatever and Dannov is that you always manage to take your opinions and go directly south. The stage you stand on is obviously a neo nazi one and whatever the discussion is, you always manage to drag Hitler into it. I find it offensive, manipulative and most of all hateful.

[mike250]

they're all the same.

[biknut]

I was wondering how come Obama did so poorly in Ohio. In Texas, 40% of the Democrat voters are Hispanic. Although a majority of Hispanics supported Clinton, Obama had a lot of Hispanics vote for him. Even with all the so called Clinton supporters in Texas, Obama still ended up less than 2% points down and will probably end up with more delegates than Clinton.

I grew up in Southern Ohio till I was 12. The hillbilly side of the state. Ohio's Hispanic population is small. You have mostly white working class poor in Ohio. Not that many blacks except around Cincinnati. My fathers family is from Ohio. My father was a Methodist preacher. In the small town I grew up in back in the 50s and early 60s, if a black family tried to buy a house in our neighborhood, well that just wasn't going happen because you can't live in a burned out house. It usually didn't come to that because most of the time enough pressure was brought to bear that the buyers would decide to move somewhere else. All the blacks lived on one side of town referred to as ****** town. My father knew most of the family's in the county. We used to drive around in the country when I was little, and we would go by a house and my father, in hushed tones would tell me that's the so and so's, they're KKK. It was almost every other house. In my neighborhood, in town, I don't think anyone belonged to the KKK, but on every street someone knew, or was related to someone that was.

I know that was a long time ago, and not everyone in Ohio is like that. I came from Ohio, but it's funny Obama didn't do as well in Ohio as in most other states. I think this is probably the biggest reason. I hate to think it.

[dannov]

OK, my posts were anti-semitic? For what reason do I have to be racist against Jews? If you want historical proof on what really happened, I'll provide plenty of it. God forbid you get "offended" by history. Not one thing that I stated was personal opinion. History is not an opinion, but is often distorted.

[missminni]

OK, my posts were anti-semitic? For what reason do I have to be racist against Jews? If you want historical proof on what really happened, I'll provide plenty of it. God forbid you get "offended" by history. Not one thing that I stated was personal opinion. History is not an opinion, but is often distorted.

History is exactly that. His Story.
"Historical proof", or whatever the actual documented facts are (treaties, signed documents, photos, film etc.) everyone interprets with their own spin.
You seem to put the neo nazi spin on it. Now there's a thread for you to do that. You ask what reason you have to be racist
against jews. I have no idea, but you most certainly exhibit it any chance you get.

[dannov]

OK, my posts were anti-semitic? For what reason do I have to be racist against Jews? If you want historical proof on what really happened, I'll provide plenty of it. God forbid you get "offended" by history. Not one thing that I stated was personal opinion. History is not an opinion, but is often distorted.

History is exactly that. His Story.
"Historical proof", or whatever the actual documented facts are (treaties, signed documents, photos, film etc.) everyone interprets with their own spin.
You seem to put the neo nazi spin on it. Now there's a thread for you to do that. You ask what reason you have to be racist
against jews. I have no idea, but you most certainly exhibit it any chance you get.

LoL, I do, do I? I suggest you peruse my threads before leveling such unfounded accusations. Your idea of history is incomplete. History is quotes, financial figures, printed articles, among many other forms of media besides that which you mentioned. Film and photos were and are great vehicles for propaganda as well, and you don't need to educate yourself beyond crappy HS historical education to understand that. Your ignorance is your bliss, and that's fine.

[niner]

Can we please have dannov's antisemetic diatribe removed. I find it very offensive.

It might be more effective if we debunk some of the more outlandish portions of it, rather than play into the conspiracy theories that those views are being suppressed.

You can never convince anti-semites or racists. Their views are anything but suppressed.
In fact they are very well disseminated.
I personally wouldn't dignify them with debate. All they are looking for is a soapbox.
If you feel you must tolerate them in the name of Free Speech, why don't you just
flush their remarks to a new thread called The Sewer.
That way they can all bang heads together as they slosh around in their own feces, and we can be spared the stench.

OK, that's a good idea. We have a Free Speech Forum. I'm not sure how to move a post there, and don't want to blow up the whole thread, though given where it's descended maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea... Let me look into moving it.

All right, the whole Hitler subthread, including my own replies, has been moved by popular request to the Free Speech Forum. Find it here: http://www.imminst.o...ews-t20822.html

I hope no one is offended. We now return to our regularly scheduled diatribe...

Only dannov's posts were anti-semitic, I would have prefered it if you only removed what he wrote... feel free to ignore people and accuse them of racism whenever they point out how Obama is nothing but a blank slate, pulled out of obscurity by some unknown power greater than any one person could have possibly achieved on their own merits, and then backed by a full blown propaganda machine spewing meaningless catch phrases and utter lies.

Fear & Obey, The whole Hitler section was of a piece, really. Check out Obama's website where his positions are layed out. He doesn't do policy on the stump, because it bores the crap out of people. That does leave him open to "empty suit" accusations, but they are baseless.

[biknut]

With 99% of the votes counted in Mississippi, Obama has 61 percent to 37 percent for Clinton. Obama picked up 18 delegates to Clintons 12.

Obama also won the Texas caucuses. And though Clinton won more delegates than Obama in the primary, 65 to 61, Obama's wider delegate margin in the caucuses gives him the overall statewide delegate lead, 99 to 94 — or once superdelegate endorsements are factored in, 109 to 106.

So in other words, you might as well say Obama won Texas.

[Anthony_Loera]

The fight between these two will continue to be prolonged.

I believe it is a money maker for the media/news companies and many will likely lean left or right to try to prolong the fight as long as possible. A good strategy in my opinion, as this allows revenue from readership/viewership to be maintained or grow. The problem, is that it pushed out 1-2 people away from the headlines early on that were good candidates (ie. Edwards, Kucinich).

but because these were not female/black simply did not make enough emotional impact. We are now left with McCain, Hillary and Obama.
So far this picture I picked up from Digg, shows my feelings regarding these two. I would add that the battle ground they stand on represents the media.



I have to say, that my vote will depend on who the democratic candidates pick as a running mate. (I don't care if it's Hillary or Obama who wins the nomination, both are the same to me at this time.)

If the nominee doesn't select a good running mate, I will vote for McCain, or not vote at all this time around in the general election, and yes I am a registered democrat in Florida (and...no, I didn't vote for either of these two).

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 12 March 2008 - 04:13 PM.

[biknut]

I have to say, the more I've heard about Obama the less I like him. Mostly because of his liberal ideology, however the other day what he said about black fathers needing to step up and start being more responsible about there actions was exactly right, and it's a good sign to hear him saying so. Jesse Jackson's response was to say said, Obama was talking down to black people and wants to cut Obama's balls off. This type of thinking by black leaders is a large part of black peoples problems. As far as I can tell this is the only thing about Obama that's really different, but at least it's one real good thing.

Because of statements like Obama's it's reassuring that if he does manage to get elected president it might have the effect of helping to shut the f up these old style black politicians that blame the government for all of black peoples problems today. I may not like Obama's politics but I think he could have a more positive effect on America's society than any other president in my lifetime. What he said sounds very much like what a Republican might also say.

[happy]

biknut:

it's funny you consider obama "liberal" when i as a "progressive" think of him as "centrist" and almost identical in some policies to mccain. i recommend you read his book audacity of hope - most of his policies aren't liberal. many "liberals" were pissed about his expansion of bush's faith-based intiative program that will now fund secular groups. i like the fact that he would review social programs and eliminate, expand or modify them based on their performance (merit-based pay for teachers for example which most unions oppose). he's pragmatic, and effing smart. i want an elite president, i don't want a president i can have a beer with, i want a president that i can admire for his ingenuity. his personal narrative is just the icing on the cake.

may i ask, what is your definition of a liberal? and what makes obama a liberal?

when i think of a "liberal" politician i think of dennis kucinich (my hero :]) but when i think of obama and his policies i think "centrist". i'm socially "liberal" but am outraged by the fiscal policies of our current administration (bear stearns bail out, fannie & freddie - corporate socialism). i am pissed about the subsidies our corporations are receiving for growing mandated corn (for ethanol) on farmers' land which has exacerbated the soaring cost of food worldwide. i think it's a joke and warren buffet has ranted about it himself, that his secretary is in a higher tax bracket (or that she pays more in taxes - one or the other) than he is. trickle down economics? ha ha ha. we are now witnessing 30 years of de-regulation|free market policies unravel our economy and give us a taste of its repercussions: outsourcing, stagnant wages, loss of employer provided retirement benefits (guaranteed pensions dissapearing) and so on and so forth. the subprime mortgage debacle could have been prevented had greenspan and the fed done its fiduciary duty in regulating the market and raising interest rates to avoid the resulting havok on our economy: the weakening dollar, credit crunch, inflation, etc. i believe we need to have more equitable tax policies, but this does not imply raising taxes, but by executing tax reform, re-evaluating social programs (No Child Left Behind - wtf? abstinence only education - waste of money) and so on. i don't believe the free market is the answer to all of our problems and believe regulation plays an integral part in a healthy economy. government however, can definately provide incentives in the form of tax credits (i had solar panels put on my roof and received a federal tax credit and a state tax credit) to incentivize positive economic change that can help the environment without stifling innovation.

i am a liberal ! rrarrorrrr

Edited by happy, 20 July 2008 - 05:50 PM.

[lucid]

Obama on the Iraq war troop levels and funding:

As the video says, it is paid for by the McCain campaign.

[niner]

As the video says, it is paid for by the McCain campaign.

Does it say anything about McCain's track record for keeping us out of strategically disastrous quagmires?

Generally speaking, when one side in a political campaign pays for a video, it's not going to be evenhanded, and may not even be accurate. It's a campaign ad, so what do you expect?