Is Hillary Done?

[CaptStu]

Is it panic button time for Clinton?

From Yahoo:

After 10 consecutive defeats — including a heartbreaker in tailor-made Wisconsin on Tuesday — Hillary Rodham Clinton can't win the nomination unless Obama makes a major mistake or her allies reveal something damaging about the Illinois senator's background. Don't count her out quite yet, but Wisconsin revealed deep and destructive fractures in the Clinton coalition.

...

But her rival has won the most states, earned the most pledged delegates and has all the momentum. Clinton needs to win Ohio and Texas on March 4 — then Pennsylvania in April — to narrow Obama's lead among pledged delegates. Only then could she argue with a straight face that a majority of the nearly 800 free-roaming "superdelegates" should back her over Obama.

MORE HERE (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080220/ap_ca/on_deadline_wisconsin)

Can Clinton win Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania to narrow Obama's delegate lead, or is it over? Personally, I don't think she can take all three states. Maybe one, maybe even two of three. Obama is beginning to take Clinton's demographic stronghold of whites (including splitting the female vote) and lower income individuals. Both are telling signs of a campaign preparing to lose.

[Ancalagon]

I think shes done. Fighting any more now wont do any good for party stability, and wont win her the race. As eager as they both are to win, I think she has to concede it.

She can maybe lose a little more gracefully if she does.

[fitbabits]

I believe she's done. The hammer of momentum has swung in Obama's favor, and Hilary should take at least some of the blame for that with her negative campaigning and selective amnesia.

[Johan]

I just don't think America is ready for a transgender president yet. :D

[Slack3r78]

http://uploads.evilavatarcomics.com/Slack3r78/images/shotvotes.jpg

[Sammael]

Hillary is everything that is evil in a politician. I am sooooo glad that everyone has realized this. I, for once am happily surprised by America showing a glimmer of intellect among the masses. I wonder how long that will last...

[fitbabits]

This thread needs Zanz!

[King Drewsky]

I don't think she's done. One day, people are going to realize that they don't really know anything about Obama other than he's good looking and speaks well.

[fitbabits]

I don't think she's done. One day, people are going to realize that they don't really know anything about Obama other than he's good looking and speaks well.

Bush got elected and he fitted neither category!

[CaptStu]

I don't think she's done. One day, people are going to realize that they don't really know anything about Obama other than he's good looking and speaks well.

Well, we know today that Hillary doesn't look good and isn't a good speaker. :)

[Johan]

Here's an on-topic post from another thread:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859

Listen to her own words, and how she spins out of them at her own convenience! Truly, the Clintons represent our worst political impulses.

[Knite]

I don't think she's done. One day, people are going to realize that they don't really know anything about Obama other than he's good looking and speaks well.

Keep in mind that we did have an Actor president not too long ago....
and another president that was recent elected a large reason because he was good looking and spoke well.

[NationalKato]

I don't think she's done. One day, people are going to realize that they don't really know anything about Obama other than he's good looking and speaks well.

Keep up with politics much?

[TheKeck]

I am WILLING her to be done. ;)

[fitbabits]

Keep up with politics much?

Only through CNN and FOX.

[Flatpicker]

I don't think she's done. One day, people are going to realize that they don't really know anything about Obama other than he's good looking and speaks well.

You're correct, but they have to end this now and spend the next few months repairing party unity.
She should concede this weekend, but probably wont.

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Is Hillary done? Definitely. It might have been Bill that did her, but it's more likely that it was a poolboy that did her.

[Telefrog]

Technically, she could fight on and really tear the Democratic party in half out of spite.

But yeah, she should be done.

[Slack3r78]

You're correct, but they have to end this now and spend the next few months repairing party unity.
She should concede this weekend, but probably wont.

Which, despite disagreeing with him on most policy issues, I can respect Mitt Romney far more than I can Hillary Clinton at this point in time.

[Johan]

She should concede this weekend, but probably wont.

She can't even call the guy when he wins a primary...you think she'll concede?

The Clintons don't give up...she'll fight until she can't fight any longer, which could be straight through to the convention, possibly. ESPECIALLY if the delegate difference is smaller than the remaining uncommitted superdelegates and the Michigan/Florida delegates combined, which it probably will be. In that case, she'll fight like a pit bull, tear the party apart, and usher in another eight years of a Republican presidency.

So...GO CLINTON! :D

[rein]

She is married to THE Comeback Kid. There is no way she is going to call it quits. She may not win it but she's not going to fold just because things get tough.

http://www.stateofinsomnia.com/images/hillary.jpg

[AspectVoid]

As much as I wish she was done, I do not believe that she is. Right now she is only down 70 delegates. If she keeps fighting, then they're going to enter the Convention with no one as the clear leader, as I doubt either her or Obama can get the needed 2,025 delegates that is needed to just up and win. They'll enter the convention and have a pit fight or something, with both trying to come out on top.

[ElektroDragon]

I used to be a Romney supporter, but at this point, I see no other choice but Obama. I tend to flip flop because I hold views at both extremes of both parties! :D

[roboninja]

She can't even call the guy when he wins a primary...you think she'll concede?

The Clintons don't give up...she'll fight until she can't fight any longer, which could be straight through to the convention, possibly. ESPECIALLY if the delegate difference is smaller than the remaining uncommitted superdelegates and the Michigan/Florida delegates combined, which it probably will be. In that case, she'll fight like a pit bull, tear the party apart, and usher in another eight years of a Republican presidency.

So...GO CLINTON! :D

This could very well happen. I would not discount some kind of shady rumour about Obama being concocted either.

[Slack3r78]

This could very well happen. I would not discount some kind of shady rumour about Obama being concocted either.

What you say?

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/clinton-supporters-raising-at-least-10.html

[ElektroDragon]

As much as I wish she was done, I do not believe that she is. Right now she is only down 70 delegates. If she keeps fighting, then they're going to enter the Convention with no one as the clear leader, as I doubt either her or Obama can get the needed 2,025 delegates that is needed to just up and win. They'll enter the convention and have a pit fight or something, with both trying to come out on top.

I think they should play a round of Halo or something to decide the winner in that case. Or better yet, a chess match! That will show who has the most brains. However, they'd probably both end up losing. :D

[joruussuun]

I think they should play a round of Halo or something to decide the winner in that case. Or better yet, a chess match! That will show who has the most brains. However, they'd probably both end up losing. :D

The ending will be a PAX Omegathon showdown in August between Clinton and Obama!

[DiBiddilyBop]

I really, really wish she were done, but I think we'll all have to wait a couple more weeks before we can really make that call. Hopefully it will be obvious by then.

[Primus]

We can only hope.

[bKangy]

She's still "in it" technically and I reckon she'll take Ohio, but that means fuck all if Obama takes Texas. Or vice versa. Hell, it doesn't mean much if she can't beat him by 10% in either, as he's currently got a sizeable lead on her.

[CaptStu]

Here is the "delegate math" from MSNBC:

*** The Delegate math: After last night’s contests, here’s where things stand: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,168, Clinton 1,018. There are 53 delegates unallocated, including 19 in MD, 10 each in CO and GA, 6 in WI, 4 in HI, and one each in DC, TN, NY and IL. We estimate a conservative 27-26 split here. The Superdelegate Count: Clinton 257 versus Obama 185. That’s a grand total of: Obama 1,355, Clinton 1,276. Counting only the superdelegates he has now, plus his pledged delegates, Obama needs 65% of remaining PLEDGED delegates to hit the magic 2025 number. Reaching that is probably unrealistic, but when you add in the unaffiliated 353 superdelegates (76 of whom are not yet known yet and won't be appointed until April, May and June), his magic percentage number is down to 48%. On the flip side, Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get the pledged delegate lead back. Forget 2025. And if you assume Obama wins Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then the magic percentage number in the states Clinton wins rises to 65% -- SIMPLY TO GET THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD BACK...

[joruussuun]

I don't think she's done. One day, people are going to realize that they don't really know anything about Obama other than he's good looking and speaks well.

Really? I've followed him closely since his DNC speech in 2004. I've read both (http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773/) his books (http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/). I've read his Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf). I keep up as much as I can with the news on air, online, and word of mouth.

I don't know... I feel pretty damn informed about him other than "he's good looking and speaks well."

[fitbabits]

Really? I've followed him closely since his DNC speech in 2004. I've read both (http://www.amazon.com/Dreams-My-Father-Story-Inheritance/dp/1400082773/) his books (http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/). I've read his Blueprint for Change (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf). I keep up as much as I can with the news on air, online, and word of mouth.

I don't know... I feel pretty damn informed about him other than "he's good looking and speaks well."

See my comment about being informed by CNN and FOX News.

[boratika]

Somebody needs to photoshop up a picture of a her on a fork.

[EternalGamer]

Things don't look good. And I feel bad for her because this is just more proof that people in the U.S. don't vote based upon the candidates policies. They vote based upon what their gut tells them about the person, how how pleasant they would be to have tea. All the character assassination attempts people have tried to label against her have almost nothing to do with policy.

It also didn't hurt her that she is pretty terrible at giving speeches in comparison to Obama, and admittedly that is an important trait in a leader. But when I heard her discuss her justifications for why she voted the way she did or why she holds the stance she does in the debates, she always came through to me as being far more nuanced and articulate than Obama. Idiots and lazy cynics alike to write that off as just being good at "spin," but I always felt her explanations were reasoned and showed that she had thought carefully about why she casts the votes she did. Her answers were more contextual and qualified, and, unfortunately, because of the attention span of our public as a whole, that means the distinctions she made got completely lost on many and instead they just accused her of being hypocritical. There is apparently no room in our political dialog for nuanced thinking anymore. If you have a few that makes subtle distinctions based upon context then you are nothing more than a "spinster."

Even when I disagreed with her approach (such as her stance on Iraq), I respected her rationale. Maybe she'll get another shot, but I doubt it. The conservatives did a good enough job poisoning the waters in the 90's and producing an instinctive (if unjustified) hatred of her that will probably never fade.

[Rock Bandit]

What's up with Edward's delegates? How do those get doled out?

[Beelzebud]

I'll be fine with either Hillary or Obama.

Either one would be vastly better than the crap we have now.

[Slack3r78]

Things don't look good. And I feel bad for her because this is just more proof that people in the U.S. don't vote based upon the candidates policies. They vote based upon what their gut tells them about the person, how how pleasant they would be to have tea. All the character assassination attempts people have tried to label against her have almost nothing to do with policy.
Oh, come on. Policy wise, neither of them are that different. If you're talking about two candidates running on very similar platforms, it's not that surprising that people will tend to flock toward the more charismatic of the two.

The whole "Obama supporters don't care about policy" is character assassination, too.

Idiots and lazy cynics alike to write that off as just being good at "spin," but I always felt her explanations were reasoned and showed that she had thought carefully about why she casts the votes she did.
Well, there's the fact that people like me feel her votes on many issues while in the Senate were outright foolish. I don't care how nuanced your decision was if it was ultimately the wrong thing to do.

[Ancalagon]

Somebody needs to photoshop up a picture of a her on a fork.

Ha ha ha, you win!

[EternalGamer]

They weren't different on most of their general stances, I agree to that extent. But when they answered as to the why and how they came to the positions they did, she was always far more articulate in the debates.

For example, I actually agree more with the votes and position Obama took on authorizing the Iraq War, but he did a damn poor job of justifying his position other than saying "going to war was wrong so I voted against it." Hillary's position was much more nuanced: not that she wanted war itself but the authorization and the legitimation of the threat of war was an important bargaining tool not to be underestimated and that that was essentially what she voted for.

Similar thing happened to her on the whole "illegal immigrants" and licensing issue. She clearly articulated that she didn't necessarily approve of the method, but she empathized with the reasoning behind it because it was responding to a problem on a state level that was being neglected by the federal and that it was a sort of stop gap method. Yet she was persecuted for not taking a "clear stance." Her stance seemed pretty damn clear to me, but she had to alter it thereafter to just give a simple "no" she didn't support it because people are apparently too stupid to recognize qualified arguments.

[Slack3r78]

For example, I actually agree more with the votes and position Obama took on authorizing the Iraq War, but he did a damn poor job of justifying his position other than saying "going to war was wrong so I voted against it." Hillary's position was much more nuanced: not that she wanted war itself but the authorization and the legitimation of the threat of war was an important bargaining tool not to be underestimated.
And quite frankly, that's exactly the kind of reasoning I find foolish on her part. Voting to extend a power and then expecting it to not be used is naive at best, in my opinion. Sure, she may self-justify it better, but it's still the wrong decision in the long run and it doesn't matter how nuanced your reasoning is if the ultimate result is a disaster.

[fitbabits]

I think I just had an epiphany - people, by and large, do not fully understand politics...and never will.

[Johan]

Oh, come on. Policy wise, neither of them are that different. If you're talking about two candidates running on very similar platforms, it's not that surprising that people will tend to flock toward the more charismatic of the two.

The whole "Obama supporters don't care about policy" is character assassination, too.


Well, there's the fact that people like me feel her votes on many issues while in the Senate were outright foolish. I don't care how nuanced your decision was if it was ultimately the wrong thing to do.

I agree. Also, I think he missed this huge flip-flop/lie by her (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19188859), as well as this mess. (http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/clinton-supporters-raising-at-least-10.html)

She's a cold, calculating, manipulative politician who will do whatever it takes, including sending her husband out to dredge up racial tension, in order to win.

The Clintons represent some of the worst of our political instincts. Obama, at present, represents some of our BEST. I like the man. A lot.

[EternalGamer]

And quite frankly, that's exactly the kind of reasoning I find foolish on her part. Voting to extend a power and then expecting it to not be used is naive at best, in my opinion. Sure, she may self-justify it better, but it's still the wrong decision in the long run and it doesn't matter how nuanced your reasoning is if the ultimate result is a disaster.

As I said, I don't agree with her vote on that particular issue, but her position is more sophisticated and she did a better job explaining the philosophy behind it. IN this context, I think she made a bad vote given the administration in power, but in a different context, I can certainly see the argument that it makes sense to authorize the extension of that power in order to legitimate a threat, even if you disagree with the actual war, if the people you are extending it to are those that you know will use it responsibly. That is called being diplomatically savvy and I would like our next President to be able to demonstrate that quality.

[EternalGamer]

Flip flop is such a lame phrase. If people have good reasons why they switch positions and can articulate them or can make distinctions between contexts, I have no problem with them changing their position. Only an idiot sticks to the same way of thinking in all contexts and without deviation. People who aren't brain dead change their minds about things because they are constantly analyzing them and being exposed to new ideas and information. The idea that we punish people simply because they don't hang on to the same ideas without paying attention to the contexts or the why behind the changes is just stupid.

[fitbabits]

Flip flop is such a lame phrase. If people have good reasons why they switch positions and can articulate them or can make distinctions between contexts, I have no problem with them changing their position. Only an idiot sticks to the same way of thinking in all contexts and without deviation.

The only thing I'm going to comment on here is that I fucking DETEST the phrase "flip-flop" and what it actually means in the political arena.

[Yellowman]

Barrack Obama thinks videogames promote laziness (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement/).

[TheKeck]

Flip flop is such a lame phrase. If people have good reasons why they switch positions and can articulate them or can make distinctions between contexts, I have no problem with them changing their position. Only an idiot sticks to the same way of thinking in all contexts and without deviation. People who aren't brain dead change their minds about things because they are constantly analyzing them and being exposed to new ideas and information. The idea that we punish people simply because they don't hang on to the same ideas without paying attention to the contexts or the why behind the changes is just stupid.
Doesn't flip-flop connote a change with less than noble justification? Even moreso, doens't it usually refer to going back and forth multiple times, rather than just one change?

[Johan]

Flip flop is such a lame phrase.

Not on something as incredibly significant as the issue she flipped on.

She's a manipulative liar. Call it "flop-flip" or "lying" or whatever the hell you want, but focusing on the terminology merely obfuscates the point that her "flip" could potentially tear her party apart.

The only thing I'm going to comment on here is that I fucking DETEST the phrase "flip-flop" and what it actually means in the political arena.

It fits in this case quite nicely. She's such a calculating liar. She's flipped her position ONLY for her own benefit, not for anyone else's.

[CaptStu]

Barrack Obama thinks videogames promote laziness (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement/).

So does my wife, but I still like her.

[EternalGamer]

Doesn't flip-flop connote a change with less than noble justification? Even moreso, doens't it usually refer to going back and forth multiple times, rather than just one change?

That is what I guess it is supposed to mean. But it almost never applies to how it actually is used.

[Oxonian]

The conservatives did a good enough job poisoning the waters in the 90's and producing an instinctive (if unjustified) hatred of her that will probably never fade.
I agree that conservatives tried to stir dislike -- even hatred -- of the Clintons during the '90s, but I don't think that's why people seem to prefer Obama. I doubt the folks at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground spend a lot of time listening to Rush Limbaugh and saying, "Y'know, he's got a point."

[EternalGamer]

The case of whether or not those delegates should count is complicated. Anyone who is intellectually honest should be able to see both sides of it. I empathize with both positions and you can't automatically assumed that just because her current view benefits her she doesn't also believe it is the correct one.

[Johan]

The case of whether or not those delegates should count is complicated. Anyone who is intellectually honest should be able to see both sides of it.

Exactly. She sees both sides of it. Whichever side benefits her.

If you believe otherwise, and think she is being "principled," I'd say you're a sucker.

[CaptStu]

The case of whether or not those delegates should count is complicated. Anyone who is intellectually honest should be able to see both sides of it. I empathize with both positions and you can't automatically assumed that just because her current view benefits her she doesn't also believe it is the correct one.

She knew the rules going into the race. Can't change them after the fact.

[joruussuun]

The case of whether or not those delegates should count is complicated. Anyone who is intellectually honest should be able to see both sides of it. I empathize with both positions and you can't automatically assumed that just because her current view benefits her she doesn't also believe it is the correct one.

I say let them count... after they do another primary. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

[EternalGamer]

I agree that conservatives tried to stir dislike -- even hatred -- of the Clintons during the '90s, but I don't think that's why people seem to prefer Obama. I doubt the folks at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground spend a lot of time listening to Rush Limbaugh and saying, "Y'know, he's got a point."

I don't know. I know that most of my friends that are liberal don't like her simply because they think that she is unelectable because of how much people now view her based on those characterizations that have stuck. Similarly, my conservative friends criticism of her seem to still be stuck in that same rhetoric that was used against her in the 90's.

Limbaugh's audience may (no longer) reach the mainstream, but that doesn't mean that some of the perceptions he and others have floated haven't carried over into it. The memes that now characterize her in the political arena started in talk radio, even if they have now moved beyond its boundaries. And I certainly can recognize those when I hear them because during the 90's I listened to Rush Limbaugh religiously (literally--I connected his political views with my religios beliefs at the time).

[EternalGamer]

I say let them count... after they do another primary. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

I agree that that is probably the fairest solution.

[Oxonian]

That is what I guess it is supposed to mean. But it almost never applies to how it actually is used.
I disagree. Romney was called a "flip-flopper" for changing his stance on abortion when he decided to run for President: the obvious implication was that he adopted a mendacious pro-choice position when he wanted to be elected in Massachusetts, then adopted an equally mendacious pro-life position when he wanted to run a national campaign.

The charges against Kerry and Clinton are similar: people argue that, regardless of what they might claim, both Kerry and Clinton's positions on the Iraq War were determined by their calculations of what was politically expedient, rather than principle.

You can certainly think these charges are unfair or inaccurate. But the charges are more complicated than simply, "So-and-so changed his mind, and that's bad." John McCain adopted a far more aggressive policy on campaign finance reform after the Keating Five scandal, but even people who disagree with him on CPR rarely call him a "flip-flopper" on that issue because he's pretty obviously sincere. Al Gore used to be pro-life, but he sincerely reconsidered and became pro-choice. Few people charged him with "flip-flopping" on abortion.

[Karmakin]

I agree that conservatives tried to stir dislike -- even hatred -- of the Clintons during the '90s, but I don't think that's why people seem to prefer Obama. I doubt the folks at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground spend a lot of time listening to Rush Limbaugh and saying, "Y'know, he's got a point."

H. Clinton has really never been popular at DailyKos. In the little straw poll thing they ran monthly for the year running up, she barely broke double digits, if at all.

And her antics of late have even been shedding what support she had among the activist class.

I don't know about DU because I've not gone there in a few years.

Actually, to put it in more detail. Clinton, in the eyes of a lot of the activist class, sank her campaign when she signed up the likes of Mark Penn and Harold Ickes to run her campaign.

The goals of the DK community, by and large is to replace the traditional Democratic consultant machine with something not so...corrupt, as well as to run competitively nationwide, which requires less in the way of massive ad buys, meaning less money for consultants, and more in the way of funding for local offices and support for down-ticket campaigns.

That they're pissed with the way Clinton is doing things, frankly, is a given.

[Johan]

I say let them count... after they do another primary. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

Who will pay for it? It's not free; it takes a tremendous amount of time and money to organize such a thing.

I think it would be a great idea, but I also think it will merely reinforce what is happening around the country; a tide of growing support for Obama across ALL races, ages, socio-economic groups, and genders. He's beating her in every way possible.

[CaptStu]

I love Daily Kos.

[CaptStu]

Who will pay for it? It's not free; it takes a tremendous amount of time and money to organize such a thing.

I think it would be a great idea, but I also think it will merely reinforce what is happening around the country; a tide of growing support for Obama across ALL races, ages, socio-economic groups, and genders. He's beating her in every way possible.

They could hold caucuses. Those are paid for by the party... I think.

[Slack3r78]

As I said, I don't agree with her vote on that particular issue, but her position is more sophisticated and she did a better job explaining the philosophy behind it. IN this context, I think she made a bad vote given the administration in power, but in a different context, I can certainly see the argument that it makes sense to authorize the extension of that power in order to legitimate a threat, even if you disagree with the actual war, if the people you are extending it to are those that you know will use it responsibly. That is called being diplomatically savvy and I would like our next President to be able to demonstrate that quality.
Giving an executive power with the expectation that they will not exercise it is the height of foolishness and naivety, in my book.

In all reality, the way she attempts to rationalize her vote ex post facto in this case is pretty demonstrative of her SOP, to me -- hedge her bets so she can always claim that she was 'doing the right thing' at the time.

[Inverarity]

To my mind, the best possible outcome would be an Obama/Richardson ticket in November, with some sort of promise that Clinton will be made Senate majority leader. I voted for Obama in the primaries, but I respect Clinton as well; in fact, I think the Senate is a better arena for her than the White House. She'd be a more effective majority leader than Harry Reid by a long shot, and it would give her an opportunity to shape the legislative agenda in a way that might give her even more leverage than the president.

An arrangement like that would, I think, put everyone in the position where their skills and talents are best used. (Which, of course, means it's highly unlikely that it'll happen...)

[Inverarity]

Who will pay for it? It's not free; it takes a tremendous amount of time and money to organize such a thing.
If I remember correctly, the DNC had offered to pay the costs of a properly scheduled primary/caucus in both Florida and Michigan - provided they agreed to abide by the national party's scheduling rules. (I'll see if I can find a reference for that.)

[Johan]

I think the Senate is a better arena for her than the White House. She'd be a more effective majority leader than Harry Reid by a long shot

She would be a very effective Senate leader. She's not resistant to working across the aisle when necessary, and she is quite hard-nosed, which the leader needs to be within their own party.

[Oxonian]

I love Daily Kos.
Why? I don't mean to be critical; I'm genuinely curious about why you like it. I tend to be turned off when people hurl vicious invective at their political opponents, even when we are ostensibly on the same political side. I find FreeRepublic, for example, very annoying. I know Daily Kos is very -- even wildly -- popular, but on those occasions when I have tried to read it, I was horrified by the vitriol. Did I simply happen to look at an unrepresentative sample, or does that stuff not bother you?

[CaptStu]

Why? I don't mean to be critical; I'm genuinely curious about why you like it. I tend to be turned off when people hurl vicious invective at their political opponents, even when we are ostensibly on the same political side. I find FreeRepublic, for example, very annoying. I know Daily Kos is very -- even wildly -- popular, but on those occasions when I have tried to read it, I was horrified by the vitriol. Did I simply happen to look at an unrepresentative sample, or does that stuff not bother you?

Maybe a little of both. I also tend to agree with their commentary.

[joruussuun]

I think it would be a great idea, but I also think it will merely reinforce what is happening around the country; a tide of growing support for Obama across ALL races, ages, socio-economic groups, and genders. He's beating her in every way possible.

You ruined my fun! That's why I wanted them to do it!

Plus, then Hillary couldn't be "Obama only won due to the DNC not listening to the voices of voters in Florida and Michigan."

[DiBiddilyBop]

Barrack Obama thinks videogames promote laziness (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement/).

I think most people would agree. Hell, I'm a gamer and I'm lazy.

[Karmakin]

Why? I don't mean to be critical; I'm genuinely curious about why you like it. I tend to be turned off when people hurl vicious invective at their political opponents, even when we are ostensibly on the same political side. I find FreeRepublic, for example, very annoying. I know Daily Kos is very -- even wildly -- popular, but on those occasions when I have tried to read it, I was horrified by the vitriol. Did I simply happen to look at an unrepresentative sample, or does that stuff not bother you?

Speaking for myself, I rarely wade into the comments, as they're very unwieldy (you get that any time you have such a large community). The front page, and various diary entries, however in and of itself are of quite a high quality, with quite a few very good writers and thinkers writing for the site.

The main page itself tends to focus almost exclusively on horse race type information (polls/trends/races, etc). There's not much vitriol there, unless you think that looking to elect Democrats (to remove the power of Republican leaders) is really angry. There are some angry diaries from time to time, but truth be told, most of the worst stuff is usually meta. (Stuff aimed at the community itself).

The comments, themselves are often nasty 'tho. That's true.

Personally, it's too horse-racish for me, and I tend to read more wonk blogs, which tend to be more interesting. But that said, it fufills a need, and does a good job of it. Just that it's really not as radical ideology-wise as a lot of people make it out to be. The activist blogosphere as a whole isn't radical at all, being made up largely of people who tend to be pretty moderate and willing to compromise.

What makes it seem radical is the realization that right now the GOP has no desire, need nor inclination to compromise, and while that's the case, they need to be opposed root and branch. Fight fire with fire and all that.

Just my take on things.

[Crash_69]

Barrack Obama thinks videogames promote laziness (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement/).

My political views are influenced by what the candidates’ views are concerning gaming as a whole. Reading that Obama said that video games make people lazy and for parents to kick their kids out of the house to get some fresh air now and then, I tend to agree with him to a certain extent. Right now in Wisconsin, its goddamn cold outside, so staying in to play games makes sense, but come summer-time, my kids hardly stay inside anyways. Hilary is a different story in my opinion. She left a very bad taste in my mouth with her using the Hot Coffee Mod scandal to bolster her political career. She views video games as some blight of mankind, and that parents are too stupid to know what their kids are or aren't playing. She wants the government to tell kids what they should or shouldn't be playing, not the parents. My two sons play video games all the time, hell; my 10 year old has beaten COD4 three times already and is going back for another tour. I don't need some government official telling me what my kids should be playing, I already know. There is this thing out there that parents can use to control what their children are exposed to. It's called the OFF button...

[cp#]

I just don't think America is ready for a transgender president yet. :D

Who? McCain?

[Johan]

Who? McCain?

As Jay Leno would say, "exactly; exactly!" :)

[Devilturnip]

To my mind, the best possible outcome would be an Obama/Richardson ticket in November

NOT gonna happen. I love Richardson, but there's no way he'll be a VP candidate. Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, I'd bet my right hand that the veep will be a white male. You know, to "balance" the ticket.

[shnastybiznastic]

Barrack Obama thinks videogames promote laziness (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement/).

Isn't he pretty much saying that children need to work on school work before entertainment? I fail to see how this is an anti-game stance...

[Flatpicker]

Barrack Obama thinks videogames promote laziness (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement/).

Flatpicker thinks Barrack Obama is actually Ric Romero with that obvious statement.

[fitbabits]

She's done now:

BREAKING NEWS - The Teamsters union plans to endorse Democratic candidate Barack Obama today, two sources tell CNN.

[Slack3r78]

She's done now:

Salt on the wounds, really.

[Schnoogs]

Obama Wins....flawless Victory

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/4b/225px-Render_jax.jpg

[Whimbrel]

People seem highly irrational when it comes to Clinton Vs. Obama. Unfortunately, the irrationality seems to generate hatred for Clinton and love for Obama. They both have strengths and weaknesses, but the sad thing is the attention to the horse race and the lack of interest in merits and platform. Here is a thoughtful essay,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html?nav=hcmodule

but you may need to register for free to read it.

I am actually pro- Obama, but the more the election veers towards complete irrationality the worse I think it is for everybody.

[Slack3r78]

People seem highly irrational when it comes to Clinton Vs. Obama. Unfortunately, the irrationality seems to generate hatred for Clinton and love for Obama. They both have strengths and weaknesses, but the sad thing is the attention to the horse race and the lack of interest in merits and platform. Here is a thoughtful essay,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/19/AR2008021902336.html?nav=hcmodule

but you may need to register for free to read it.

I am actually pro- Obama, but the more the election veers towards complete irrationality the worse I think it is for everybody.

Dude, that article is nothing short of awful.

For example:

Whatever one thinks of these ideas, they're standard goody-bag politics: something for everyone. They're so similar to many Clinton proposals that her campaign put out a news release accusing Obama of plagiarizing.

Those accusations were about rhetoric borrowed from Deval Patrick, a friend of Obama's, not anything to do with Hillary's policies.

That article really, really looks like a hit piece at worst, and inaccurate at best.

[Johan]

I think the argument that people are irrational in their support of Obama is a bit condescending. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being passionate for something or someone you believe in, and arguing that politics requires dispassionate distance is wrong. Passion and thought can and do go together. For proof? Look at Obama!

[Abash Alarmist]

Clinton has until March 4th to get her act together, or is she is out. If she loses the March 4th primaries, she is gone....


Go Obama.

[Schnoogs]

I think the argument that people are irrational in their support of Obama is a bit condescending. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being passionate for something or someone you believe in, and arguing that politics requires dispassionate distance is wrong. Passion and thought can and do go together. For proof? Look at Obama!

I think it has more to do with the fact that 90% of the Obama supporters I question state that their reason for supporting him is either "Oh I dont...I just like him" or "He's all about change....I don't know what that change is but change is good...right?"

At least my fiancé is honest..."I'm voting for him because he's black...just like me"

[Johan]

I think it has more to do with the fact that 90% of the Obama supporters I question state that their reason for supporting him is either "Oh I dont...I just like him" or "He's all about change....I don't know what that change is but change is good...right?"

Okay, I can see that. So, some people are stupid, then! Like that was in question? :)

You know, if we have a black president, I will actually feel very proud of our country's progress. Who would have imagined this, even just forty years ago?

[Abash Alarmist]

I think it has more to do with the fact that 90% of the Obama supporters I question state that their reason for supporting him is either "Oh I dont...I just like him" or "He's all about change....I don't know what that change is but change is good...right?"

At least my fiancé is honest..."I'm voting for him because he's black...just like me"

My biggest reason to support him is because of his stance against NAFTA.

[Kem0sabe]

I just don't think America is ready for a transgender president yet. :D

Oh, that one has earned me a couple of odd stares from my coworkers, couldnt help myself and started gigling.

[Wslove]

I'm getting sick and tired of the whole "empty promises, no substance retoric" crap that Hillary and now McCain is spewing. If they bothered to listen to the entirety of his speeches he has consistently said that it will take the effort and work of the people in order to get things done. He has basically outlined a vision, a path and a goal for people to work towards. He never said it was going to be handed to them, he has never once promised something on a silver platter. In every speech he says that people will have to put effort into change, that they are the catalyst. He will fight with them but he's not taking the position of savior.

Actually, now that I write it, sounds like the very definition of a leader. Someone who inspires vision in other people and gets them working toward a common goal. That's his message. That's Obama.

And, god willing, that will be the next President of the United States.

[Slack3r78]

You know, if we have a black president, I will actually feel very proud of our country's progress. Who would have imagined this, even just forty years ago?

And after eight years of Dubya, it wouldn't send a half-bad message to the rest of the world, either.

[Schnoogs]

And after eight years of Dubya, it wouldn't send a half-bad message to the rest of the world, either.

Oh because "George Bush hate black folk"? :confused:

[Slack3r78]

I'm getting sick and tired of the whole "empty promises, no substance retoric" crap that Hillary and now McCain is spewing. If they bothered to listen to the entirety of his speeches he has consistently said that it will take the effort and work of the people in order to get things done. He has basically outlined a vision, a path and a goal for people to work towards.

I think part of it is that the path he's offering isn't the typical 'this is what we're going to do for you' rhetoric that's become the mainstay of American politics for the past few decades. It really is a throw back to a Kennedy-era call to "ask what you can do for your country." (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/service/) Listen to a few of his speeches and the common theme of his rhetoric of what we can do rather than what he might do becomes clear.

I think that's a positive message in a country where people have been becoming increasingly of the belief that their voices aren't being heard in Washington and is a lot of why people are relating strongly with him.

[fitbabits]

Oh because "George Bush hate black folk"? :confused:

The "folks" in New Orleans and Mississippi think that - that's for sure.

[Slack3r78]

Oh because "George Bush hate black folk"? :confused:
I'll look and see if I can find the particular op-ed piece I'm thinking of here, but after eight years of a man that the rest of the world more or less despises running the country, something as simple as Obama's name and face would be a pretty huge symbolic turn around to the rest of the world.

[Ancalagon]

I'll look and see if I can find the particular op-ed piece I'm thinking of here, but after eight years of a man that the rest of the world more or less despises running the country, something as simple as Obama's name and face would be a pretty huge symbolic turn around to the rest of the world.

George Bush could donate his entire family fortune to fight AIDs and people would criticize him for taking work away from honest millionaires.

Opinion of him really is that low.

[walkstheplanes]

She's still got Ohio and Texas to compete for. Things are looking good for Obama, but it isn't over.

[ElektroDragon]

Obama Wins....flawless Victory



No, you fool. Barack-a wins! Flawless Victory!

[Slack3r78]

Found the op-ed I was talking about:

Consider this hypothetical scenario. It’s November 2008. A young Pakistani Muslim is watching television and sees that this man - Barack Hussein Obama – is the new face of America. In one simple image America’s soft power has been ratcheted up exponentially. A brown-skinned man whose father was an African, who grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii, who attended a majority-Muslim school as a boy, is now the alleged enemy. If you wanted the crudest but most effective weapon against the demonisation of America that fuels Islamist ideology, Obama’s face gets close. It proves them wrong about America in ways no words can.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3056283.ece

Make any more sense Schnoogs?

[Virtuoso]

I honestly think its about what America really wants in the next president. We are tired of being jerked around by the same old political bullshit.

We want hope, and Obauma represents that.

[Zanzibar]

I'm getting sick and tired of the whole "empty promises, no substance retoric" crap that Hillary and now McCain is spewing. If they bothered to listen to the entirety of his speeches he has consistently said that it will take the effort and work of the people in order to get things done. He has basically outlined a vision, a path and a goal for people to work towards. He never said it was going to be handed to them, he has never once promised something on a silver platter. In every speech he says that people will have to put effort into change, that they are the catalyst. He will fight with them but he's not taking the position of savior.

Actually, now that I write it, sounds like the very definition of a leader. Someone who inspires vision in other people and gets them working toward a common goal. That's his message. That's Obama.

And, god willing, that will be the next President of the United States.

Speeches are one thing. Debates are another.

No one questions that he gives a great speech. Speeches are made to be inspiring. The problem is that he does not have a good command of the nuances of his programs apart from a few sound bites. Any time someone tries to pin him down on some aspect of his plan that goes beyond what he knows, he basically answers 'Well, the details of that are still being worked out.' Which is crap; he just has no idea. Hillary will talk in excruciating detail about anything you want to know. She's a policy wonk.

I hope Obama can get his shit together, or he's gonna get eaten by McCain, who doesn't suffer bad debaters lightly. It's a longshot for Clinton at this point, but not impossible.

Yeah, Johan, she represents everything we don't like about politicians. She reasons things out, has detailed knowledge about a litany of subjects, is able to change her mind about subjects, and is more comfortable hammering out details than being a folksy hands-off type.

You want the opposite? Congratulations. You've had one for the last seven years.

[Virtuoso]

At least my fiancé is honest..."I'm voting for him because he's black...just like me"

Interracial relationship high five!

*snap*

(I'm white and engaged to a black woman)

[Slack3r78]

No one questions that he gives a great speech. Speeches are made to be inspiring. The problem is that he does not have a good command of the nuances of his programs apart from a few sound bites. Any time someone tries to pin him down on some aspect of his plan that goes beyond what he knows, he basically answers 'Well, the details of that are still being worked out.' Which is crap; he just has no idea. Hillary will talk in excruciating detail about anything you want to know. She's a policy wonk.
Details mean nothing if you can't get them implemented.

[Slack3r78]

She's still got Ohio and Texas to compete for. Things are looking good for Obama, but it isn't over.

CaptStu posted this earlier in the thread, but I think it's worth pointing out again:

*** The Delegate math: After last night’s contests, here’s where things stand: The NBC News Hard Count is Obama 1,168, Clinton 1,018. There are 53 delegates unallocated, including 19 in MD, 10 each in CO and GA, 6 in WI, 4 in HI, and one each in DC, TN, NY and IL. We estimate a conservative 27-26 split here. The Superdelegate Count: Clinton 257 versus Obama 185. That’s a grand total of: Obama 1,355, Clinton 1,276. Counting only the superdelegates he has now, plus his pledged delegates, Obama needs 65% of remaining PLEDGED delegates to hit the magic 2025 number. Reaching that is probably unrealistic, but when you add in the unaffiliated 353 superdelegates (76 of whom are not yet known yet and won't be appointed until April, May and June), his magic percentage number is down to 48%. On the flip side, Clinton needs to win 58% of all remaining pledged delegates simply to get the pledged delegate lead back. Forget 2025. And if you assume Obama wins Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, then the magic percentage number in the states Clinton wins rises to 65% -- SIMPLY TO GET THE PLEDGED DELEGATE LEAD BACK...

[Heretic Machine]

I think it has more to do with the fact that 90% of the Obama supporters I question state that their reason for supporting him is either "Oh I dont...I just like him" or "He's all about change....I don't know what that change is but change is good...right?"

At least my fiancé is honest..."I'm voting for him because he's black...just like me"

Most Clinton supporters are voting for her because they remember the .com boom happened during her husband's term as president. Hell, listen to the demographics that support her some time, the best support she gets comes from the people who didn't finish college. Do you really think that most of those people have ever bothered to look into her at all, beyond some campaign speeches on CNN (or more likely, the 6 o'clock news).

[Virtuoso]

Details mean nothing if you can't get them implemented.

I think Obama said it best:

"We need somebody to unite the Democrats, not someone to unite the Republicans against us."

[xcalibur]

I'm still waiting to hear Obama outline some details for this great "change" he keeps talking about. Change... that's great. Exactly how is he proposing to make these changes.

I will be curious to see what he comes up with in the general election when he actually has to start talking in specifics about issues, and detailing his plans, rather than just saying "We can make a change for the better". That means nothing to me.

So far the only 2 things I have seen from him are an $845 billion spending bill to help poverty around the world, and $210 billion dollars to create "green collar" jobs. Maybe I am crazy, but spending another trillion dollars, most of which will not help Americans, in the face of an economic crisis, a weakening dollar, and a huge deficit, does not sound like the kind of "change" I am looking for. Sounds like more unnecessary spending to me


-X

[DaXIthR]

Interracial relationship high five!

*snap*

(I'm white and engaged to a black woman)

Aww, man.

I wish my fiancee was black. Can I get one of those sweet high fives?

(She's South Asian.)

[ElektroDragon]

Barrack Obama thinks videogames promote laziness (http://gamepolitics.com/2008/02/20/obama-campaign-theme-video-games-as-metaphor-for-underachievement/).

Come on guys.... look yourselves in the mirror and tell me that videogames aren't a lazy time activity. They're an extremely compelling leisure activity. Which means that when you play them, you aren't doing anything that will get you fed, advance your life, or earn you the Nobel prize. Unless you're a profesional game journalist or tester, of course. So despite my huge love of video games, I have to say Obama has a point. Parents really should limit their children's video game time, but ONLY if they are underachieving.

About the only person they really benefit in an other than hedonistic or purely mental way (unless you work in the industry) are surgeons who maybe get better hand motor functions. But I can tell you, tons of video games never helped my hand eye coordination. My reflexes, yes, I can't tell you how many accidents I've avoided because of all my PGR playing. But my ability to catch a ball is as bad as ever, and I often regret the time spent could have been used to, say, further my career somehow. But I play them anyway. :p

[Slack3r78]

I'm still waiting to hear Obama outline some details for this great "change" he keeps talking about. Change... that's great. Exactly how is he proposing to make these changes.

I will be curious to see what he comes up with in the general election when he actually has to start talking in specifics about issues, and detailing his plans, rather than just saying "We can make a change for the better". That means nothing to me.


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

[Schnoogs]

The "folks" in New Orleans and Mississippi think that - that's for sure.

And people in Eugene oregon think that he's worse than Hitler.

Sorry if I don't take that as fact.

[xcalibur]

And people in Eugene oregon think that he's worse than Hitler.

Sorry if I don't take that as fact.

I thought that was Berkley, California?


-X

[Virtuoso]

Aww, man.

I wish my fiancee was black. Can I get one of those sweet high fives?

(She's South Asian.)

I'll throw you a bone, as it is still technically interracial.

Interracial relationship high five!

*snap*

[Heretic Machine]

I'm still waiting to hear Obama outline some details for this great "change" he keeps talking about. Change... that's great. Exactly how is he proposing to make these changes.

I will be curious to see what he comes up with in the general election when he actually has to start talking in specifics about issues, and detailing his plans, rather than just saying "We can make a change for the better". That means nothing to me.

So far the only 2 things I have seen from him are an $845 billion spending bill to help poverty around the world, and $210 billion dollars to create "green collar" jobs. Maybe I am crazy, but spending another trillion dollars, most of which will not help Americans, in the face of an economic crisis, a weakening dollar, and a huge deficit, does not sound like the kind of "change" I am looking for. Sounds like more unnecessary spending to me


-X

Well dude, how about you try reading sometime? That might be a good way to get educated on the subject. He has a nice little pamphlet up on his website, it's free for everyone, and outlines all of his plans.

Did you expect him to convey every little detail of what he wants to do in a fifteen minute speech that you could catch on the news?

[Schnoogs]

Found the op-ed I was talking about:



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3056283.ece

Make any more sense Schnoogs?

Where as if hillary got elected the Pakistani Muslim would be saying "Allah be damned...the infidels have elected a vailless woman!!"

Is it really that cut and dry?

Let's elect people who have street credibility in the middle east. :rolleyes:

[Schnoogs]

Interracial relationship high five!

*snap*

(I'm white and engaged to a black woman)

Once you go black....well you know the rest! ;)

[Whimbrel]

My point is that Obama= Love, Clinton = Hate, is an unfortunately condescending trend that seems to be taking over this election. I think Change is a brilliant slogan and it is working wonders for the Obama campaign, but it is not really a policy position in any significant way that can be used as a comparison against Clinton. On her part, "experience" is also a useless slogan. On the right we have "Security" and "Tax cuts for the rich." Is it actually impossible for us, as a nation, to stay focused on issues instead of slogans? To vote based on platform as opposed to race, gender, faith, etc?

I think the real reason "Change" gets people out to vote is because of how vile and destructive the Bush presidency has been for this country. His administration has been so loathesome that the word "change" gets people out in record numbers. But it is exactly because the Bush administration was so horrible that I wish people would be more rational in embracing a candidate.

Now, for my personal flip flop. I agree with Johan that passion and hope are important and are perhaps more important for our country right now than any of the specific policy differences between Obama and Clinton. In my mind, Obama does more to inspire people to believe that we can have a different kind of nation and future than what Bush, Cheney, and the nightmare of neo-cons tried to create. This is my reason for supporting him. I think we need hope, and my desire is that hope, plus any ethical president, can make changes that will help make sure we never allow another Bush administration or any administration of that type ever again.

[Schnoogs]

I thought that was Berkley, California?


-X

Them too...

[xcalibur]

Well dude, how about you try reading sometime? That might be a good way to get educated on the subject. He has a nice little pamphlet up on his website, it's free for everyone, and outlines all of his plans.

Did you expect him to convey every little detail of what he wants to do in a fifteen minute speech that you could catch on the news?

If he hopes to win in the general election, he better figure out a way to convey that info to the masses in his speeches.


-X

[Zanzibar]

Well dude, how about you try reading sometime? That might be a good way to get educated on the subject. He has a nice little pamphlet up on his website, it's free for everyone, and outlines all of his plans.

Did you expect him to convey every little detail of what he wants to do in a fifteen minute speech that you could catch on the news?

Once again, anyone can hire policy advisers to create pages and pages of ideas, but if the candidate him/herself doesn't bother to learn about the detailed specifics of what the plan is about, why should you vote for him/her?

This is EXACTLY what happened with Bush, by the way. Nobody took him to task about the details of his plans, and he didn't care, he left the policy people alone to do what they saw fit, and look where it got us.

Not to say that Obama will be another George W Bush, but I prefer presidents who are hands-on policy maniacs, because they think things through.

[Slack3r78]

Where as if hillary got elected the Pakistani Muslim would be saying "Allah be damned...the infidels have elected a vailless woman!!"

Is it really that cut and dry?

Let's elect people who have street credibility in the middle east. :rolleyes:

Nah, I wasn't suggesting that it was a particularly good reason to vote for him. Just a fringe benefit if he were elected.

[Wslove]

When he first started I didn't really pay attention to him because he was very detail oriented in his speeches and honestly sounded just like Hillary since they both share similar positions across the board. In fact he was called on this by many a people.

Now he is being called for lack of substance because he doesn't delve into details.

You may be a detail junkie but the 10 to 20 minute speeches you see after primaries on CNN are not the place for details. Most Americans don't care about the details. They want to know the ends, not the means. This is why he's short on details in those speeches. But if you listen to his policy speeches he actually gets really deep into the details.

Does he need work on the debates, yes. However I think he can beat McCain in the general debates. Obama has teflon all over him and the Republican SOP is to attack attack attack... which just ends up hurting them against Obama. I firmly believe he'll be able to hold his own in the debates with McCain and use his freaky political judo to flip him when he tries to go on the offensive. And if it stays a defensive fight he wins by default because he is the more likable canidate, which regardless of policy goes a hell of a long way in this country.

Regardless of how it goes down I think Clinton needs to be close to the white house in some respect. As Senate Majority leader, as Secratary of State or another high cabinate position. She can't be on the ticket, but she should and likely will be a useful asset in a Obama white house. As stated she's a policy dog, a good muscle (wo)man to enact Obama's vision.

[Schnoogs]

Nah, I wasn't suggesting that it was a particularly good reason to vote for him. Just a fringe benefit if he were elected.

I think electing him has far more meaning internally than externally. The way I see it 95% of African Americans can trace their lineage further back in the States than your average white person yet they've never had the chance to lead a country that was built upon their backs.

[Zanzibar]

Most Americans don't care about the details. They want to know the ends, not the means.
And this is how 'Most Americans' got suckered by Bush.

I...I have a confession to make.

One of the reasons I want Hillary to win is to really stick it to the Republicans. They spent the better part of 20 years throwing everything but the kitchen sink trying to smear the Clintons, who were admittedly not even CLOSE to perfect people. They hated the Clintons because the Clintons were effective politicians who stood against the things that the right wing loves, and stood up for the things that the right wing hates. Hell, they were even MODERATES compared to Kennedy and Kerry and Pelosi and so forth.

And the smearing continues today, even after their policies gave us a failed and misguided war effort, a floundering economy, and a complete collapse of our country's housing market, all the right wingers are gleefully pointing at her current troubles and saying 'Watch out! You know how crafty she is! She'll steal the nomination if you're not careful! She's evil!'

I just want her to win so I can rub it in all the right-wingers' faces when she won in November: "You guys tried your very best to smear them for coming up on twenty years, yet people STILL prefer them over you."

Ah well. Unfortunately, Hillary occupies the space that carries the least amount of air in the Democratic primary process. She's fairly moderate on many issues compared to most other Democrats, which makes her susceptible to more liberal opponents (which Obama is). She's also not a great speaker, which makes her susceptible to people not liking her. Add to that the bonus of the Democratic primaries often allowing independents in, who have listened more to the Republican attack machine than Democrats have, so they think she's some sort of succubus. And she's older than Obama and represents a time when many of the first-time voters were in grade school when she was in the White House.

[Slack3r78]

One of the reasons I want Hillary to win is to really stick it to the Republicans.

Her rhetoric about having 'fought the Republicans' for decades and how she'll continue to do so is exactly why a lot of us don't like her. We're tired of it. When her direct opposition is out campaigning on a message that 'we are not as divided as our politics suggest'... well, it's pretty compelling to a lot of people out there.

[Johan]

I just want her to win so I can rub it in all the right-wingers' faces when she won in November: "You guys tried your very best to smear them for coming up on twenty years, yet people STILL prefer them over you."

I'm so glad you have a sound, rational, intellectual basis for your support of Hillary!

As a generally conservative individual, I am happy to say that I can support Obama for a number of reasons, none of which involves Hillary. :D

[Schnoogs]

.....

Blown away by how much thought you've put into your vote :confused:

[Oxonian]

I'll look and see if I can find the particular op-ed piece I'm thinking of here, but after eight years of a man that the rest of the world more or less despises running the country, something as simple as Obama's name and face would be a pretty huge symbolic turn around to the rest of the world.
This actually touches on one of my secret misgivings about Obama. If he's elected, all the usual suspects will deem it a "repudiation" of everything they dislike about America and run around saying things like, "Finally, an America we can be proud of."

If you care about the opinions of European elites, that sounds wonderful. But I spent a fair amount of time with those people, and I came away with a very bad taste in my mouth. Obama's election would be a symbolic victory for the sort of folks who thought it was OK to decry me as a "Nazi baby-murdering asshole" (yes, that's a direct quote) and lambast my country as populated solely by ignorant declasse buffoons, yet would also presume to lecture me what was and was not the proper scope of political criticism. I don't necessarily hold a personal vendetta against those people -- some of them are now close friends -- but I'm not enthusiastic about offering them symbolic appeasement, either.

And that's not even considering the significantly more vicious people who will view Obama's election as a concession. I understand that Obama's policy might not be to surrender to terrorism, but I think at least some people will view it that way. It's not like Middle Eastern newspapers usually publish detailed analyses of American Presidential candidates' white papers.

That's not really a good basis for opposing Obama's candidacy, so I tend to criticise Obama on other bases. But I don't view his symbolic value as a positive.

[Wslove]

And this is how 'Most Americans' got suckered by Bush.

I...I have a confession to make.

One of the reasons I want Hillary to win is to really stick it to the Republicans. They spent the better part of 20 years throwing everything but the kitchen sink trying to smear the Clintons, who were admittedly not even CLOSE to perfect people. They hated the Clintons because the Clintons were effective politicians who stood against the things that the right wing loves, and stood up for the things that the right wing hates. Hell, they were even MODERATES compared to Kennedy and Kerry and Pelosi and so forth.

And the smearing continues today, even after their policies gave us a failed and misguided war effort, a floundering economy, and a complete collapse of our country's housing market, all the right wingers are gleefully pointing at her current troubles and saying 'Watch out! You know how crafty she is! She'll steal the nomination if you're not careful! She's evil!'

I just want her to win so I can rub it in all the right-wingers' faces when she won in November: "You guys tried your very best to smear them for coming up on twenty years, yet people STILL prefer them over you."

Ah well. Unfortunately, Hillary occupies the space that carries the least amount of air in the Democratic primary process. She's fairly moderate on many issues compared to most other Democrats, which makes her susceptible to more liberal opponents (which Obama is). She's also not a great speaker, which makes her susceptible to people not liking her. Add to that the bonus of the Democratic primaries often allowing independents in, who have listened more to the Republican attack machine than Democrats have, so they think she's some sort of succubus. And she's older than Obama and represents a time when many of the first-time voters were in grade school when she was in the White House.

So you want 4 to 8 more years of 51-49 politics?

[Heretic Machine]

Since everyone is pulling out their irrational crazy-crap reasons for voting (even friggin Oxonian), I'll go ahead and throw another one on the pile for Obama: Black comedians will have less "the man is keeping us all down" material to work with. I just want to wake up one day and see a generic black comedian on Comedy Central saying, "God damn, I was wrong, the white people aren't all out to get us!" I can't wait to see that episode of The Boondocks; where is your revolution now, Hughey?

[Oxonian]

They hated the Clintons because the Clintons were effective politicians who stood against the things that the right wing loves, and stood up for the things that the right wing hates.
At least partly true. Then again, isn't that pretty much why the left wing hates Bush? George W. Bush didn't personally barf in Paul Begala's car or anything (although I think Americans of all political stripes can agree that this would be pretty funny).

[IrishWhiskey]

If you care about the opinions of European elites, that sounds wonderful. But I spent a fair amount of time with those people, and I came away with a very bad taste in my mouth. Obama's election would be a symbolic victory for the sort of folks who thought it was OK to decry me as a "Nazi baby-murdering asshole" (yes, that's a direct quote) and lambast my country as populated solely by ignorant declasse buffoons, yet would also presume to lecture me what was and was not the proper scope of political criticism. Were you stomping on toy dolls in Germany at the time? Because if so, it could be an honest mistake.

Actually your reasoning strikes me as very similar to Zanzibar's, in that you don't want a general group you dislike to be satisfied with our Presidents, whereas he wants a group to be dissatisfied (although I doubt the comments will be treated the same). I don't consider either great reasons, but they are definately understandable. And I think the European hippies will be happy with pretty much anyone unlike Bush, and a female candidate would make them just as satisfied.


And that's not even considering the significantly more vicious people who will view Obama's election as a concession. I understand that Obama's policy might not be to surrender to terrorism, but I think at least some people will view it that way. It's not like Middle Eastern newspapers usually publish detailed analyses of American Presidential candidates' white papers.Aside from here, where about a third of the country seems to believe the gossip about him being a sleeper terrorist, I'm not sure whether the rest of the world will treat him much differently based on his father's religion. I mean really, this Christian has Muslim family members that he hasn't sent to Gitmo, therefore we're symbolically surrendering to terror? I'm pretty sure they'll hate him about as much as any other American.

[IrishWhiskey]

Oh, and I voted no, although at this point I really wish she'd just agree that the winner of the popular vote should get the nom. But if she loses either Texas or Penn, I think she's done regardless.

[Karmakin]

So you want 4 to 8 more years of 51-49 politics?

That, right there is actually a big reason on why people support Obama, is that they're tired of the 51-49 politics, and they think that Obama can break the deadlock. And they're probably right on that, to be honest.

Clinton? Lately it seems as though she LIKES the deadlock.

[Oxonian]

Were you stomping on toy dolls in Germany at the time? Because if so, it could be an honest mistake.
I did hang out with Prince Harry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4170083.stm) a lot...

And I think the European hippies will be happy with pretty much anyone unlike Bush, and a female candidate would make them just as satisfied.
Yes, but there are degrees. Judging from the conversations I've had recently, they are freaking in love with Obama.

I'm pretty sure they'll hate him about as much as any other American.
You make a good argument, but we're talking about people who are convinced that a secret Jewish conspiracy controls the world. They are willing to extrapolate to some wild conclusions based on the thinnest of evidence, while ignoring the ample evidence that a secret Masonic conspiracy controls the world.

[IrishWhiskey]

Yes, but there are degrees. Judging from the conversations I've had recently, they are freaking in love with Obama.Funnily enough, I bet that has more to do with his resemblance to Bill Clinton. They freaking love Bill over there (and with some good reasons) and the people I've talked to there say Obama seems more like Bill, whereas his wife doesn't.
You make a good argument, but we're talking about people who are convinced that a secret Jewish conspiracy controls the world. They are willing to extrapolate to some wild conclusions based on the thinnest of evidence, while ignoring the ample evidence that a secret Masonic conspiracy controls the world.You fool, are you blind? Its the Illumanati, a society of Reptilian Alien shape-shifters.

Don't believe me? Here's the PROOF

lex2JUriI8A

[midrael]

When he first started I didn't really pay attention to him because he was very detail oriented in his speeches and honestly sounded just like Hillary since they both share similar positions across the board. In fact he was called on this by many a people.

Now he is being called for lack of substance because he doesn't delve into details.


He actually said exactly this in a televised interview if I recall correctly. Originally, he was very detail oriented in his speeches, and he found himself being told by fellow politicians to tone it down. Now there's not enough substance. Interesting how that works.

[Telefrog]

This actually touches on one of my secret misgivings about Obama...

That's not really a good basis for opposing Obama's candidacy, so I tend to criticise Obama on other bases. But I don't view his symbolic value as a positive.

I'm confused. Then you would prefer a black man never get elected president just to spite elitist europeans? :confused:

[Oxonian]

I'm confused. Then you would prefer a black man never get elected president just to spite elitist europeans? :confused:
I'd be cool with a black man being elected President. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Michael Steele...

[Telefrog]

I'd be cool with a black man being elected President. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Michael Steele...

Ah, I see. You're more concerned with his stance and rhetoric. Cool.

Whew! For a minute, I thought your normally cool and logical wit had left and been replaced by... Well, me. :p

Personally, I'd go with Michael Clarke Duncan for President, if we're just wishing.

[Schnoogs]

I'm confused. Then you would prefer a black man never get elected president just to spite elitist europeans? :confused:

Technically he's a mulato ;)

As Tiger Woods demonstrates you can be 1% black and you're BLACK.

[IrishWhiskey]

Personally, I'd go with Michael Clarke Duncan for President, if we're just wishing.Samuel L. Jackson for President.

[xcalibur]

That, right there is actually a big reason on why people support Obama, is that they're tired of the 51-49 politics, and they think that Obama can break the deadlock. And they're probably right on that, to be honest.

Clinton? Lately it seems as though she LIKES the deadlock.


I highly doubt conservatives are going to gravitate towards Obama. He was voted the #1 most liberal senator last year. I wouldn't expect Obama to unite people from both sides. The opposing views will still be in place.


-X

[GrinR]

And that's not even considering the significantly more vicious people who will view Obama's election as a concession. I understand that Obama's policy might not be to surrender to terrorism, but I think at least some people will view it that way. It's not like Middle Eastern newspapers usually publish detailed analyses of American Presidential candidates' white papers.

I haven't read the entire thread so spot me the possibility of misunderstanding, but Obama's policy is in fact to surrender to terrorism. His written policy doesn't even include the Global War on Terror, Al Qaida, Islamists, or any other mention of terrorism. His policy on Iraq is to simply exit it, and holds the audacity of hoping that our mortal enemies will listen to reason. His policy on Homeland security is naive at best, foolish at worst, holding the hope that by adopting a defensive stance we can win against a global aggressor.

I am roused by his charisma, and I wish dearly he would have the policy to back it. Sadly, I do not want to pay the price in blood to see him (or us) learn the error of his views.

[Slack3r78]

I highly doubt conservatives are going to gravitate towards Obama. He was voted the #1 most liberal senator last year. I wouldn't expect Obama to unite people from both sides. The opposing views will still be in place.


-X
Kind of a laughable claim given that policy wise Obama is generally a bit more moderate than Clinton. And the fact that in 2004 Kerry was supposedly 'the most liberal' person in Congress too.

[Schnoogs]

Kind of a laughable claim given that policy wise Obama is generally a bit more moderate than Clinton. And the fact that in 2004 Kerry was supposedly 'the most liberal' person in Congress too.

I don't know if bringing up Kerry helps your argument.

[Telefrog]

I haven't read the entire thread so spot me the possibility of misunderstanding, but Obama's policy is in fact to surrender to terrorism.

I don't even know if you're joking or not. :confused:

[Slack3r78]

I don't know if bringing up Kerry helps your argument.

I don't like Kerry, the point, rather, is that there seems to be a revolving door of who the 'most liberal' person in Congress that always just happens to be the Democratic front runner. In reality, the fringe candidates are eliminated long before this point in time.

[Wslove]

I highly doubt conservatives are going to gravitate towards Obama. He was voted the #1 most liberal senator last year. I wouldn't expect Obama to unite people from both sides. The opposing views will still be in place.


-X

Of course conservites aren't going to hop on the bandwagon. But the moderites will and do gravitate toward him even though he is very liberal. He said that he would take any good idea, regardless of which side it came from, and use it if it was better then his own. He has consistently said that he would reach to the middle and the right with an open hand and actually try to work with them to hammer out comprimises that move good legistation forward.

Contrast that with McCain who, in his speeches, starts to say something very much like Obama on this but then swerves at the last second by saying he would "Talk, debate, explain but go forward with what he believes is right anyways." Which, save for the talk, debate, explain part, sounds a whole lot like what Bush has been doing.

Even if Obama can pull only 60& consensus on an issue it is way better then the 51-49 shit we have now. Narrow majority leaves too many people with bad tastes in their mouth.

[Slack3r78]

I haven't read the entire thread so spot me the possibility of misunderstanding, but Obama's policy is in fact to surrender to terrorism. His written policy doesn't even include the Global War on Terror, Al Qaida, Islamists, or any other mention of terrorism.

While I understand your personal concerns, it is worth pointing out that he doesn't eliminate the possibility of offensive action outright, rather that his stance on Iraq is that a long-term occupation isn't really the solution:

He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

Still not what you'd like, I know, but it is a little less dire from the perspective you generally hold (and I understand that you'd likely put emphasis on little there) than your comment seemed to indicate.

[Zanzibar]

Kind of a laughable claim given that policy wise Obama is generally a bit more moderate than Clinton.

Completely, totally false: (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)

http://nationaljournal.com/img/njgraphics/080131_voteratings.gif

I really don't know where this misinformation about Hillary gets distributed. Even BILL CLINTON was reviled by the far left because of his moderate policies and propensity to strike deals with moderate Republicans. And Hillary is WIDELY KNOWN to be an excellent Senator in terms of her ability to craft compromises and work across the aisles.

Once again, the 'OMG CLINTON LIBERALZZ!!!' fanatics win the day with their lies. So fucking tired of the misinformation.

Obama will be beaten over the head by the Republicans with the same stick they beat Kerry with. Let's hope he's got a decent response other than Kerry's nonsense.

[IrishWhiskey]

I highly doubt conservatives are going to gravitate towards Obama. He was voted the #1 most liberal senator last year. I wouldn't expect Obama to unite people from both sides. The opposing views will still be in place.


-XBy who, the GOP?

The idea that Obama is the most liberal Senator is a complete joke, just as it was when they said the same thing about Kerry and Edwards ("They are the number 1st and 2nd most liberal! Why would we have any reason to lie about this?")


And you don't need to doubt whether he can bring in conservatives, he's grabbing huge numbers of Republican voters in all the open primaries. Its just a fact. They do tend to be the moderate Republicans, but given that this is McCain's base of support, it could leave McCain without much of a base to draw from. Except for socially liberal, pro-trade neo-cons, its not like conservatives are wild about McCain in the first place.

[Slack3r78]

Completely, totally false: (http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/)

http://nationaljournal.com/img/njgraphics/080131_voteratings.gif

I really don't know where this misinformation about Hillary gets distributed. Even BILL CLINTON was reviled by the far left because of his moderate policies and propensity to strike deals with moderate Republicans.

Well, some of her key policies such as her healthcare plan as certainly further left than Obama. The policy matters she most sharply veers right from Obama are obviously on the war (and, in fact, it seems pretty clear that the start of the war is the point in time which she veered the most away from the left by their measure).

I'm not sure I really agree with a methodology that assigns an arbitrary liberal/conservative value to a yea/nay to determine someone's distance from the center, either. Just doesn't seem particularly representative nor sound to me.

[xcalibur]

Kind of a laughable claim given that policy wise Obama is generally a bit more moderate than Clinton. And the fact that in 2004 Kerry was supposedly 'the most liberal' person in Congress too.

As Zanz pointed out, Obama was, in fact, rated the most liberal senator last year. Secondly, what does Kerry have to do with it? He certainly did not unite the country, so I am not sure why you mentioned him.


-X

[GrinR]

While I understand your personal concerns, it is worth pointing out that he doesn't eliminate the possibility of offensive action outright, rather that his stance on Iraq is that a long-term occupation isn't really the solution:

A. If he's aiming to hold the possibility of offensive action, how successful do you expect he'll be in light of the almost overwhelming resistance to someone who has strongly advocated it? This is no time to go wobbly, indeed.

B. Iraq is not the GWOT. It's a single battle in that war and until we recently stomped the shit out of AQI, it was the main front. The war isn't over until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism, and as far as I can tell from his webpage, he doesn't even believe in it.


Still not what you'd like, I know, but it is a little less dire from the perspective you generally hold (and I understand that you'd likely put emphasis on little there) than your comment seemed to indicate.

He'll keep "some troops?" There aren't enough troops there right now, and we're going on "surge" numbers. The notion of pulling out and just hoping that the green security forces there are going to magically hold out is sheer rubbish. How many years have we heard about the inadequate numbers of troops in Iraq from all sides of congress?

Targeted strikes on Al Qaida? What dreamland is Obama living in where we will have the capacity to know where they are and who they are with no presence in the region? Is that some kind of sick joke?

[Xerxes]

I haven't read the entire thread so spot me the possibility of misunderstanding, but Obama's policy is in fact to surrender to terrorism. His written policy doesn't even include the Global War on Terror, Al Qaida, Islamists, or any other mention of terrorism. His policy on Iraq is to simply exit it, and holds the audacity of hoping that our mortal enemies will listen to reason. His policy on Homeland security is naive at best, foolish at worst, holding the hope that by adopting a defensive stance we can win against a global aggressor.

I am roused by his charisma, and I wish dearly he would have the policy to back it. Sadly, I do not want to pay the price in blood to see him (or us) learn the error of his views.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/c3922e57/i_see_what_you_did_there.jpg

[Slack3r78]

As Zanz pointed out, Obama was, in fact, rated the most liberal senator last year.

And I pointed out that I think their methodology is flawed.

[xcalibur]

And you don't need to doubt whether he can bring in conservatives, he's grabbing huge numbers of Republican voters in all the open primaries. Its just a fact. They do tend to be the moderate Republicans, but given that this is McCain's base of support, it could leave McCain without much of a base to draw from. Except for socially liberal, pro-trade neo-cons, its not like conservatives are wild about McCain in the first place.

Conservatives/Republicans turning out for Obama has more to do with their dislike of McCain, and the rest of the Republican field, than their agreement with Obama on policy issues. Countless conservatives are claiming they are going to vote for Obama over McCain, to "teach the Republicans a lesson".

Feel free to have a different opinion, but I will believe that Obama will unite both sides when (if) it happens.


-X

[IrishWhiskey]

As Zanz pointed out, Obama was, in fact, rated the most liberal senator last year. Secondly, what does Kerry have to do with it? He certainly did not unite the country, so I am not sure why you mentioned him.


-XBecause the National Journal said at the time that Kerry was the most liberal Senator as well. After being criticized for a highly flawed and arbitrary calculation system they changed it, but clearly not enough.

Here's a more accurate ranking:
http://voteview.com/sen110.htm

Honestly, Obama more liberal than Feingold, my ass.

[Slack3r78]

Some more on that National Journal ranking:

I actually browsed through the scorecard National Journal used to determine the ranking. There are precisely two scored votes where Obama took the liberal position and Clinton took the conservative.

[...]

So there you have it. Obama is more liberal than Clinton because he voted with John McCain, the most likely Republican nominee, and Tom Coburn, one of the Senate's most conservative members.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/02/what_the_national_journal_libe.html

[IrishWhiskey]

The war isn't over until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism, and as far as I can tell from his webpage, he doesn't even believe in it.That because its impossible. You can't eliminate terrorism, just weaken it, defend against it, and try to eliminate state sponsors. Fundamentalist Islam is a system of beliefs, and terrorism is a tactic that can be adopted by anyone with almost no skills and basic household materials. Both of which cannot be eliminated through conventional force of arms. Although we can take down Al-Qaeda leaders and weaken the organizations, Obama's probably smart of enough to realize a rampaging global war throughout the world hunting down radical Islamists is likely to result in a weaker US, more terrorism, and more radical Islamists.

[Schnoogs]

Comments like the ones above remind me of that political cartoon of the token liberal standing in a Higgins boat yelling "It's too tough" while waiving the other soldiers to come back

My advice has always been to wrap yourself in bubblewrap and to lie in bed all day....the world is just too tough and scary to deal with

[IrishWhiskey]

Comments like the ones above remind me of that political cartoon of the token liberal standing in a Higgins boat yelling "It's too tough" while waiving the other soldiers to come back

My advice has always been to wrap yourself in bubblewrap and to lie in bed all day....the world is just too tough and scary to deal withNo seriously, do you think that we can ever completely eliminate fundamentalist Islam through military action, or terrorism as a tactic, or a combination of the two?

If you do, I'd love to hear your reasoning. I'm pretty sure GrinR can come up with an argument, although I might not agree with it. If not, just continue snarking without contributing anything of value.

[TechFiend]

Where's the "My God, I hope so" button???

[Karmakin]

That because its impossible. You can't eliminate terrorism, just weaken it, defend against it, and try to eliminate state sponsors. Fundamentalist Islam is a system of beliefs, and terrorism is a tactic that can be adopted by anyone with almost no skills and basic household materials. Both of which cannot be eliminated through conventional force of arms. Although we can take down Al-Qaeda leaders and weaken the organizations, Obama's probably smart of enough to realize a rampaging global war throughout the world hunting down radical Islamists is likely to result in a weaker US, more terrorism, and more radical Islamists.

As someone who's been a hawk on terrorism longer than..well..anybody, you're pretty much right. You can reduce the threat of terrorism, namely by making terrorism, defined as actions taken against civilian population, beyond the pale. To do that, you take away the perceived moral high ground of the terrorists. What that does, is that it make people willing to go to the police/other authorities when they suspect that a plot might be in their vicinity.

Here's the problem with that. The more you defeat the ideology that spawns terrorism, the more they'll fight back. And you can't do it with bombs. It really is a law-enforcement type thing. Which if I was in charge of it, I'd have a sort of military based group trained in local customs/language where they operate and trained to investigate potential leads to track down and stop terrorists.

But you can't do it with bombs, you can't do it with war. It takes intelligence, patience and above all, respect.

[Schnoogs]

If not, just continue snarking without contributing anything of value.

Oh my bad...I didn't realize shooting your posts down was of no value...how convenient FOR YOU. :rolleyes:

Rationalization and denial for the win.

[Telefrog]

Oh my bad...I didn't realize shooting your posts down was of no value...how convenient FOR YOU. :rolleyes:

Rationalization and denial for the win.

All kidding aside, I think he does have a point. The concept of destroying terrorism is as far-fetched as you can get. It's like destroying racism or unfairness.

[Schnoogs]

All kidding aside, I think he does have a point. The concept of destroying terrorism is as far-fetched as you can get. It's like destroying racism or unfairness.

Or crime?

Let's just get rid of the police...the thought of eliminating all crime is hilarious...isn't it?

Seriously...do you ever think we will be rid of crime? Then why bother?

[Johan]

I highly doubt conservatives are going to gravitate towards Obama. He was voted the #1 most liberal senator last year. I wouldn't expect Obama to unite people from both sides. The opposing views will still be in place.

You been reading my posts about Obama? I don't agree with you.

[Zanzibar]

All kidding aside, I think he does have a point. The concept of destroying terrorism is as far-fetched as you can get. It's like destroying racism or unfairness.

It's people like YOU who let the terrorists win!!

Seriously, though. I love the line of thinking that the way you stop terrorism is to stampede through nations where terrorists live. Y'know, that ALWAYS works.

[Schnoogs]

It's people like YOU who let the terrorists win!!

Seriously, though. I love the line of thinking that the way you stop terrorism is to stampede through nations where terrorists live.

It's ALMOST as hilarious as the line of thinking that if we extend to them hugs and kisses they will be swept away by our progressive thinking.

[IrishWhiskey]

Oh my bad...I didn't realize shooting your posts down was of no value...how convenient FOR YOU. :rolleyes:

Rationalization and denial for the win.I wouldn't mind if you shot down my posts. Even once. Ox, Orc and even occasionally Johan manage to do it on occasion. But you never have, you just make an insult and run away from any sort of debate. Honestly, how does what you said shoot down any part of my argument?

Or crime?

Let's just get rid of the police...the thought of eliminating all crime is hilarious...isn't it?

Seriously...do you ever think we will be rid of crime? Then why bother?Nobody said "Why bother". The post (its right up there on top of the page) was in response to GrinRs suggestion that we need military action in the Middle East "until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism". That you compare it to the possibility of eliminating all crimes just validates my argument. So thanks for agreeing.

[Schnoogs]

That you compare it to the possibility of eliminating all crimes just validates my argument.

True...eliminating crime, like terrorism, can never be fully accomplished and despite that you don't throw your arms up say "well this is gonna be tough".

[Johan]

I love the line of thinking that the way you stop terrorism is to stampede through nations where terrorists live. Y'know, that ALWAYS works.

I love hyperbole.

Wait; let me restate that. Hyperbole is the most amazing, incredible, stupendously terrific way to make a point in the entire universe! :D

Also, reductionism. Reducing the idea that terrorism needs to be aggressively opposed to the idea that advocates of such action want to "stampede through nations where terrorists live." Frankly, given the choice between killing terrorists (who want to kill my wife and kids in a most brutal fashion) in another country or here, I'll take THERE.

It will never disappear, just like disease doesn't disappear (though smallpox and polio, which is almost gone, kinda defeat that analogy). However, we need to fight it at its roots, rather than wait for it to arrive here as it has done before.

[Schnoogs]

I wouldn't mind if you shot down my posts. Even once. Ox, Orc and even occasionally Johan manage to do it on occasion. But you never have, you just make an insult and run away from any sort of debate. Honestly, how does what you said shoot down any part of my argument?

Like I said before...denial and rationalization. Your posts get shotdown on a daily if not hourly basis. I understand how that's inconvenient for you but posting nonsense like what I quoted doesn't change reality.

So cute!

[IrishWhiskey]

Like I said before...denial and rationalization. Your posts get shotdown on a daily if not hourly basis. I understand how that's inconvenient for you but posting nonsense like what I quoted doesn't change reality.

So cute!So lets see, the response was an insult, without answering an incredibly simple question about the actual topic.

Yup, you won that round all right.

[Schnoogs]

So lets see, the response was an insult, without answering an incredibly simple question about the actual topic.

Yup, you won that round all right.

I did that when I pointed out how silly your "it's too tough to try" philosophy is.

Seriously man...buy some bubblewrap and just lie in bed all day. The big scary world out there isn't cut out for those scared of personal responsibility and sacrifice. You can still surf from your bed.

[Zanzibar]

I love hyperbole.

Wait; let me restate that. Hyperbole is the most amazing, incredible, stupendously terrific way to make a point in the entire universe! :D

Also, reductionism. Reducing the idea that terrorism needs to be aggressively opposed to the idea that advocates of such action want to "stampede through nations where terrorists live." Frankly, given the choice between killing terrorists (who want to kill my wife and kids in a most brutal fashion) in another country or here, I'll take THERE.

It will never disappear, just like disease doesn't disappear (though smallpox and polio, which is almost gone, kinda defeat that analogy). However, we need to fight it at its roots, rather than wait for it to arrive here as it has done before.

Umm...Johan:

The war isn't over until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism, and as far as I can tell from his webpage, he doesn't even believe in it.

I was responding to GrinR. The only way to eliminate the threat of Islamist terrorism is to eliminate Islam; that will, by necessity, means that terror from Islam is impossible.

There will ALWAYS be a 'threat' of terrorism from ANY source.

[bKangy]

Islamic terrorism is a mostly ghost threat I think, the more you give it attention the worse it gets. I realise Britain never had an attack on 9/11 scale but seriously, the IRA gave us much worse for much longer and we beat them despite them being everywhere within British and Irish society.

As for Hillary? Ohio, Texas and Penn or bust. One last round for the bitch.

[Heretic Machine]

This thread is dead.

[Johan]

I was responding to GrinR.

Okay.

While you're at it, thank him for the lifestyle I'm enjoying with his redistributed income! He needs a pat on the back for that! :D

It's a DAMN good life! :)

This thread is dead.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g15/lawrence79/nooooo.jpg

[IrishWhiskey]

I did that when I pointed out how silly your "it's too tough to try" philosophy is.A thousand dollars to you right now if you can point out where I said that, as opposed to saying a strictly military approach couldn't ever completely eliminate Islamic terrorism (which you later stated the same). Seriously. $1000.

[cp#]

She's too stubborn to pull out. So is Bill (HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)

[Johan]

She's too stubborn to pull out. So is Bill (HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO)

http://www.molalla.net/~milkcrk/img/sscup.jpg

PLUS, just for you:

http://www.ospreydesign.com/foreword/archives/nickel.jpg

[cp#]

Damn that's way over my head. :D

[Johan]

Damn that's way over my head. :D

The old, you made a joke and then you say, "I'll be here all night!"

So...I figured, 'tin cup + here's a nickel!" ;)

[Zanzibar]

But you can't do it with bombs, you can't do it with war. It takes intelligence, patience and above all, respect.
Where the hell were YOU in 2003?!?!?!

[Rirath]

My advice has always been to wrap yourself in bubblewrap and to lie in bed all day...

In a different context and preferably with your partner, that's a lot of fun.

[cp#]

The old, you made a joke and then you say, "I'll be here all night!"

So...I figured, 'tin cup + here's a nickel!" ;)

That thing is a nickel! How the times change... the new 5 dollar bill has purple!!

[GrinR]

Nobody said "Why bother". The post (its right up there on top of the page) was in response to GrinRs suggestion that we need military action in the Middle East "until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism". That you compare it to the possibility of eliminating all crimes just validates my argument. So thanks for agreeing.

To be clear, I did not say military action. I said, "The war isn't over until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism."

[Zanzibar]

To be clear, I did not say military action. I said, "The war isn't over until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism."

Wow, now THAT'S some Clintonian word-parsing!

'War on Terror' without 'military action'? What have we been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Harsh language?

Jesus, no WONDER the writer's strike went on so long, we've found where all the Iraqi 'War funding' earmarks are going! Lewis Black and the rest of the comedy writers were actually developing Weapons of Mass Hysteria! They ain't cheap, ya know.

O_o

[IrishWhiskey]

To be clear, I did not say military action. I said, "The war isn't over until we've eliminated the threat of Islamist terrorism."Okay. Although given that the post berated Obama for not being militarily aggressive, I thought that was what was meant.

Either way my point would still stand about how you can never completely eliminate terrorism, whether from fundamentalist Islam or any other ideology. We can try and weaken and contain it, but if the goal is to keep fighting in Iraq until its eliminated completely in the country, we'll be there forever, and waste lives and resources better spent elsewhere keeping our country safe and prosperous.

[GrinR]

All kidding aside, I think he does have a point. The concept of destroying terrorism is as far-fetched as you can get. It's like destroying racism or unfairness.

Only the disingenuous and the insipid claim that the war is against terrorism as a tactic. The poor name given to our war against Islamist terrorists, the Global War on Terror, my not help enlighten matters but only the simpleminded stop with the title and assume it's the body of text.

Can the threat of Islamist terrorism (and potentially the threat of some other global terrorist network) be eliminated? Yes. The methodology is disagreed on more than the validity of the question is debated, because there is little doubt what the consequences of an answer of "no" means.

You mentioned racism or unfairness. Would you argue that there was no need to fight the KKK? Perhaps we can do away with the Sherman Act?

We may not succeed in destroying racism, unfairness, or terrorism, but I have no doubt about the need to vigorously persist in making the attempt.

[GrinR]

Wow, now THAT'S some Clintonian word-parsing!

'War on Terror' without 'military action'? What have we been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? Harsh language?

Jesus, no WONDER the writer's strike went on so long, we've found where all the Iraqi 'War funding' earmarks are going! Lewis Black and the rest of the comedy writers were actually developing Weapons of Mass Hysteria! They ain't cheap, ya know.

O_o

It is not an either-or. I believe in decisive military action where required. I also believe in soft-power action where required. I believe in coalitions and alliances against evil. I believe in identifying who is with us and who is against us - and to what degree.

To say that I want victory in the GWOT is not to say that it must be done in the manner I propose. I am satisfied to have the enemy neutralized with whatever will succeed.

[GrinR]

I was responding to GrinR. The only way to eliminate the threat of Islamist terrorism is to eliminate Islam; that will, by necessity, means that terror from Islam is impossible.

That is simply nonsense. Islamists want Islam to be the government, in the form of religious sharia law interpreted by local, sectarian Imams and Mullahs, which sect TBD. Militant Islamists are eager to kill to make this so.

Muslims are overwhelmingly not Islamists.

[Zanzibar]

SZTo0iGc_Dw

[IrishWhiskey]

Can the threat of Islamist terrorism (and potentially the threat of some other global terrorist network) be eliminated? Yes. The methodology is disagreed on more than the validity of the question is debated, because there is little doubt what the consequences of an answer of "no" means.

You mentioned racism or unfairness. Would you argue that there was no need to fight the KKK? Perhaps we can do away with the Sherman Act?

We may not succeed in destroying racism, unfairness, or terrorism, but I have no doubt about the need to vigorously persist in making the attempt.No one is saying we shouldn't try, just disagreeing as to methodology and standards for success.

I'm confused though, at first you say we can eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism, and then compare it to racism and unfairness in things we may not eliminate (by the way I'm pretty sure there is no "may not" in terms of eliminating unfairness). Can we eliminate it or not? And if so, how do you eliminate an ideology and a tactic that don't rely on location, tools or leadership, just an idea and a dedication?

You mention the KKK as an example, but there are two problems with that. One is that the KKK is a group as opposed to discussing racist or hate crime groups in general, which is more comparable to "Islamic terrorism" in general, and the other is that the KKK are still around, and probably will always be in some form. We can be successful at weakening them, but haven't eliminated them, nor all groups of their type. Isn't that the opposite of the point you were making?

[Slack3r78]

SZTo0iGc_Dw

Can most Hillary supporters list off legislation she's sponsored and pushed through Congress? Just seems like more petty grandstanding to me.

[Schnoogs]

video

That was almost painful to watch...that's pretty much the reaction I get from those around me who support Obama. Kind of scary.

[Schnoogs]

Can most Hillary supporters list off legislation she's sponsored and pushed through Congress? Just seems like more petty grandstanding to me.

That guy was a member of congress. You'd hope he might have some idea what he's talking about or more importantly who he's going to endorse.

I know...I know...what planet am I from. :p

[Slack3r78]

That guy was a State Senator
Fixed that for you.

[Schnoogs]

Well I guess that excuses his ignorance...can you name any pieces of legislature he's passed? ;)

[Xerxes]

Can most Hillary supporters list off legislation she's sponsored and pushed through Congress? Just seems like more petty grandstanding to me.

He should have flipped it on the guy and that chick. He has a record, it's just about reading a list. Can anyone list her accomplishments with out research? Same for McCain? She didn't create the Internet or hunt Man Bear-Pig.

[Slack3r78]

Well I guess that excuses his ignorance...can you name any pieces of legislature he's passed? ;)

I think the question is a bit bullshit, to be frank. No one congressperson 'passes' any piece of legislation. I do know, however, that campaign finance reform was an issue that he worked on closely in the Senate.

I really do think the whole thing is a red herring and that 99% of Hillary's supporters would react in damned near the same way if asked the same question.

[GrinR]

No one is saying we shouldn't try, just disagreeing as to methodology and standards for success.

I'm confused though, at first you say we can eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism, and then compare it to racism and unfairness in things we may not eliminate (by the way I'm pretty sure there is no "may not" in terms of eliminating unfairness). Can we eliminate it or not? And if so, how do you eliminate an ideology and a tactic that don't rely on location, tools or leadership, just an idea and a dedication?

You mention the KKK as an example, but there are two problems with that. One is that the KKK is a group as opposed to discussing racist or hate crime groups in general, which is more comparable to "Islamic terrorism" in general, and the other is that the KKK are still around, and probably will always be in some form. We can be successful at weakening them, but haven't eliminated them, nor all groups of their type. Isn't that the opposite of the point you were making?

This is a matter of semantics. Terrorism as a tactic cannot be defeated, because it's a concept. Islamist terrorism can be defeated because we can eliminate the Islamists who are committing the terrorism.

[Johan]

I really do think the whole thing is a red herring and that 99% of Hillary's supporters would react in damned near the same way if asked the same question.

Personally, I don't give a shit how someone's supporters act, or even who supports them. I vote based upon the candidate's positions, not their endorsements or lack thereof.

[Slack3r78]

Personally, I don't give a shit how someone's supporters act, or even who supports them. I vote based upon the candidate's positions, not their endorsements or lack thereof.

Same here, really. I support Obama because I've read up on his policy proposals and agree with them, for the most part. I'm just saying that the whole "NAME A PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHAT HE WROTE HUR HUR" thing is petty and not really of any substance.

[TechFiend]

Same here, really. I support Obama because I've read up on his policy proposals and agree with them, for the most part. I'm just saying that the whole "NAME A PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHAT HE WROTE HUR HUR" thing is petty and not really of any substance.

I don't really like Obama, but this is a great point. There's too much legislation as it is. If someone can show me tht they voted down a ton of bills, I might be inclined to give them more credit :)

[Schnoogs]

Personally, I don't give a shit how someone's supporters act, or even who supports them. I vote based upon the candidate's positions, not their endorsements or lack thereof.

I think the point though is that if everyone other than you votes based off of how "cool" they think one candidate is over the other and they don't know jackshit about them then we're all teh doomed.

This guy is a state politician who has been asked to speak on national TV and he doesn't seem to know squat about him.

[IrishWhiskey]

This is a matter of semantics. Terrorism as a tactic cannot be defeated, because it's a concept. Islamist terrorism can be defeated because we can eliminate the Islamists who are committing the terrorism.What? Islamic terrorist is just terrorism committed in the name of Islam. So the choices are eliminate terrorism, or eliminate Islam.

If we eliminated every radical Islamist in the world today, there's no reason to believe a similar belief wouldn't spring up in someone tomorrow. The ideas are out there, and as long as there are angry and violent people, they will look for an ideology to justify their violence. You can't eliminate an ideology or system of belief, just try and make it obsolete. We can weaken Islamic terrorism or limit its abilities, but its not within our power to eliminate the ideology completely. There may be a day in which the Middle East is peaceful and democratic, but even then, just like in our society there will be radicals and terrorists.

[Schnoogs]

So the moral of the story is....don't bother trying.

Replace Radical Islam with Nazism. Paragraph still works but I don't think of any us would suggest doing nothing about it.

[Oxonian]

He said that he would take any good idea, regardless of which side it came from, and use it if it was better then his own. He has consistently said that he would reach to the middle and the right with an open hand and actually try to work with them to hammer out comprimises that move good legistation forward.
I'm sure Obama will take any ideas he thinks are good from anyone he encounters. So would Clinton, McCain, or just about anyone else. But do you really think Obama's frequently going to say, "Wow, I never realized how insightful and intelligent Robert Bork is. He has many brilliant ideas, and I shall spend my political capital to get them enacted." Obama honestly disagrees with most conservatives, and he has for a long time. He's a mature, intelligent, highly-educated man. I can only assume he's reached his political positions after serious consideration. Perhaps conservatives might possibly be able to change his mind on one or two minor issues over the next few years, but I doubt he's suddenly going to endorse immigration restriction or unrestricted free trade. His idea of what is "good" and mine are fundamentally different in several important respects, and I'd be foolish to assume I'll necessarily be able to sway him to my point of view.

Even if Obama can pull only 60& consensus on an issue it is way better then the 51-49 shit we have now. Narrow majority leaves too many people with bad tastes in their mouth.
I'm not sure I really understand this line of argument. If democracy works, we'll always have 51-49 politics. Bills which can gather an overwhelming majority -- banning kiddie porn, say -- pass quickly and aren't debated very much. The only issues that we spend much time debating are the ones where people split pretty evenly.

This is true historically, as well. Desegregation used to be a 51-49 issue in this country, and people would have vicious arguments about it. The political center shifted to be firmly on the side of desegregation, and -- lo and behold -- neither party opposes it anymore.

Political parties are often run by ideologues, but those ideologues are not necessarily stupid. The Republican Party does not typically try to prohibit abortion in cases of rape or incest, because -- although some Republicans oppose abortion in those scenarios -- they know it's a political loser. Some Democrats want to dramatically lower criminal sentences for violent criminals, but that is rarely a central plank in any candidate's platform.

Even if Obama manages to cobble together large majorities on some policies, that simply means we'll fight over other stuff that he can't cobble a large majority for. The only way I can imagine that Obama could abolish this central rule of politics is if he gets a large majority together on an important issue, then doesn't bother to use that majority to pass the bill. That's better?

[cp#]

Well I guess that excuses his ignorance...can you name any pieces of legislature he's passed? ;)


Senator Clinton, who has been in congress for a full term has had 20 pieces of authored legislation passed. Obama authored 152 in his first year (not all passing or course). Sure some of them are bullshit (naming a post office, etc) but so are Clintons.

[IrishWhiskey]

So the moral of the story is....don't bother trying.
Replace Radical Islam with Nazism. Paragraph still works but I don't think of any us would suggest doing nothing about it.We didn't fight a war against Nazism, we fought a war against Germany, Italy and Japan. Had the war been waged with the purpose of eliminating every single violent racial extremist across the world (or violent Islamic extremist) we would still be fighting WWII today. And again, you seem to be pulling a whole lot of "don't bother trying" out of where the Sun doesn't shine. Still offering that $1000 bucks by the way.

[Slack3r78]

Senator Clinton, who has been in congress for a full term has had 20 pieces of authored legislation passed. Obama authored 152 in his first year (not all passing or course). Sure some of them are bullshit (naming a post office, etc) but so are Clintons.

Do you have a source for that?

[Xerxes]

Same here, really. I support Obama because I've read up on his policy proposals and agree with them, for the most part. I'm just saying that the whole "NAME A PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHAT HE WROTE HUR HUR" thing is petty and not really of any substance.

We aren't talking about Senator Hillary, she has a record, somewhere. :rolleyes:

[cp#]

Do you have a source for that?

Library of Congress Senate Record. It's all there: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Obama has sponsored over 820 bills in his first eight years. They have both sponsored the same bill on numerous occasions but that should be expected.

Clinton did not vote on the FISA bill. Obama did (voting against telecom immunity) and that says enough for me.

[Telefrog]

We may not succeed in destroying racism, unfairness, or terrorism, but I have no doubt about the need to vigorously persist in making the attempt.

That's fine. The way you originally phrased it made it sound like an all-or-nothing outcome.

I'm all for keeping up the good fight against injustice, tyranny, and reversible slacks.

[GrinR]

What? Islamic terrorist is just terrorism committed in the name of Islam. So the choices are eliminate terrorism, or eliminate Islam.

If we eliminated every radical Islamist in the world today, there's no reason to believe a similar belief wouldn't spring up in someone tomorrow. The ideas are out there, and as long as there are angry and violent people, they will look for an ideology to justify their violence. You can't eliminate an ideology or system of belief, just try and make it obsolete. We can weaken Islamic terrorism or limit its abilities, but its not within our power to eliminate the ideology completely. There may be a day in which the Middle East is peaceful and democratic, but even then, just like in our society there will be radicals and terrorists.

Although it is true that Islamists are certainly Islamic, the key difference is the nature of their beliefs. An Islamist cannot suffer non-Islamists to live, for instance, without either converting, submitting, or dying (sometimes all three.) In this sense, Islamists commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam, but only in a deeply perverted sense. There is no removing the urge for terrorist action from these people because it is the best means currently to achieve their goals, a fundamental element to terrorism as a tactic. If they had the military might, they would conduct a more conventional war in addition to their 4GW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare) implementation.

I'm not sure where your assertion comes from, but the choice you present is erroneous. Why futilely attempt to destroy terrorism (a concept) or Islam (a religion, and/or another concept) when it's much simpler to address the tangible problem of human beings behaving badly. Stopping the Islamists is not only possible, it's a requirement, a requirement that they themselves have produced by insisting on death as their sole communication method.

As for a democratic day in the Middle East - I certainly support that vision, thus my support for the Iraq war and the Afghani war, and possibly further war to come. I also support that vision for areas of the globe that are not the Middle East but are equally dangerous, such as the Southeast Pacific.

Obama does not, by the way.

[cp#]

I just wanna smoke weed in a park

[GrinR]

We didn't fight a war against Nazism, we fought a war against Germany, Italy and Japan. Had the war been waged with the purpose of eliminating every single violent racial extremist across the world (or violent Islamic extremist) we would still be fighting WWII today. And again, you seem to be pulling a whole lot of "don't bother trying" out of where the Sun doesn't shine. Still offering that $1000 bucks by the way.

Well, yes and no. We fought against the fascist Axis powers. Once the ruling powers were defeated, we didn't continue to slaughter or enslave the populace of the countries we liberated. Well, the Soviet Union did, I guess.

I'm not sure why you argue with Schnoogs. He's like a right-wing Zanzibar, only less erudite.

[IrishWhiskey]

Although it is true that Islamists are certainly Islamic, the key difference is the nature of their beliefs. An Islamist cannot suffer non-Islamists to live, for instance, without either converting, submitting, or dying (sometimes all three.) In this sense, Islamists commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam, but only in a deeply perverted sense. There is no removing the urge for terrorist action from these people because it is the best means currently to achieve their goals, a fundamental element to terrorism as a tactic. If they had the military might, they would conduct a more conventional war in addition to their 4GW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_generation_warfare) implementation.I agree with that.I'm not sure where your assertion comes from, but the choice you present is erroneous. Why futilely attempt to destroy terrorism (a concept) or Islam (a religion, and/or another concept) when it's much simpler to address the tangible problem of human beings behaving badly. Again, this where I get confused. How can we eliminate the problem of people behaving badly? Even if just in the specific context of Islamists, they aren't bound to a race, region or organization. If there is one Islamist website or pamphlet out there for people to read, then there can be more Islamists. Even if there wasn't, power seeking radicals subvert existing ideologies into rationales for violence all the time, and would continue to do so with Islam among other beliefs. The only thing harder to eliminate than a tactic or belief, is the nature of violent people to be drawn to radical ideologies to justify aggression.
As for a democratic day in the Middle East - I certainly support that vision, thus my support for the Iraq war and the Afghani war, and possibly further war to come. I also support that vision for areas of the globe that are not the Middle East but are equally dangerous, such as the Southeast Pacific.

Obama does not, by the way.Obama certainly does support your vision, he just doesn't agree with how it will be achieved.

[GrinR]

Again, this where I get confused. How can we eliminate the problem of people behaving badly? Even if just in the specific context of Islamists, they aren't bound to a race, region or organization. If there is one Islamist website or pamphlet out there for people to read, then there can be more Islamists. Even if there wasn't, power seeking radicals subvert existing ideologies into rationales for violence all the time, and would continue to do so with Islam among other beliefs. The only thing harder to eliminate than a tactic or belief, is the nature of violent people to be drawn to radical ideologies to justify aggression.

One method is The Bush Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine), which I generally support as a strategy. By physically eliminating Islamist warriors on the battlefield, by draining financial resources available to Islamists, by leaving no area on the planet safe to launch attacks of any kind from, and most importantly of all by cultivating a successful AND democratic environment where Islamists (and terrorists in general) breed. I wish I had more time and a beer to sit and go into more detail, but the long and short of it is that the Islamists are very much like a modern virus that's spreading and we require a laundry list of inoculations, remedies, and procedures to eliminate it. We did it with the Bubonic Plague, we can do it with Islamists; I just hope this time we don't need to lose a third of the population in the process.

Obama certainly does support your vision, he just doesn't agree with how it will be achieved.

That sounds like the Clinton administration's rationale for inaction in Rwanda. It's not enough to propose words when you're under violent attack. He doesn't support my vision because he doesn't have my vision. He sees the Islamists as a minor, regional threat, one that can be negotiated with through intermediaries like Iran and Syria (as per his policy page descriptions) - and he's not alone.

He's also dead wrong.

[Wslove]

One method is The Bush Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine), which I generally support as a strategy. By physically eliminating Islamist warriors on the battlefield, by draining financial resources available to Islamists, by leaving no area on the planet safe to launch attacks of any kind from, and most importantly of all by cultivating a successful AND democratic environment where Islamists (and terrorists in general) breed. I wish I had more time and a beer to sit and go into more detail, but the long and short of it is that the Islamists are very much like a modern virus that's spreading and we require a laundry list of inoculations, remedies, and procedures to eliminate it. We did it with the Bubonic Plague, we can do it with Islamists; I just hope this time we don't need to lose a third of the population in the process.



That sounds like the Clinton administration's rationale for inaction in Rwanda. It's not enough to propose words when you're under violent attack. He doesn't support my vision because he doesn't have my vision. He sees the Islamists as a minor, regional threat, one that can be negotiated with through intermediaries like Iran and Syria (as per his policy page descriptions) - and he's not alone.

He's also dead wrong.

The Bush Doctrine assumes, scratch that requires, an infinite amount of resources on part of the US and a network of allies who both shoulder the burdan and pay the cost as well as provide staging bases. Both of which we do not have, nor did we have when we entered Iraq... which actually aligned itself with the Doctrine on our side quite nicely as, though a dictorship, Iraq actively fought extremist terror organizations and Al-Quida specifically (on occount of them wanting to kill Saddam and all).

Oh wait, I fogot about Poland.

The stategy works well on paper but is impractical in the real world applications and frankly reeks of Neo-Con Think Tank views of the world. If the Bush Doctrine has any chance of succeding you need Russia and China as well as the entire EU on board, sending equal measure men and material into the fight. Further you need a home population willing to stay in an active state of war for decades. On top of that you have to assume the local populations not alligned to the extremists will be at least indifferent to the foreign interferance. And finally there's that infinite resources and economy I said above, which has to withstand the constant drain of a decades long war.

This may work in Civilization or Sins of a Solar Empire but it's simply not going to happen in the real world GrinR.

We have to make do with what we got and within a budget that we can actually pay for. That means small surgical strikes, aggressive diplomacy with people we shouldn't nessesarily be talking to and defense at home rather then abroad.

Maybe if we poured resources into Space Research and got cranking mining asteroids we could do it, but honestly at that point we could let them have their fucking sand dunes and oil while we conqured space.

Edit: I just read the artical on Wiki and I was right. It's a PNAC plan. You do know those guys have absolutely no idea how the world works right GrinR? They bought into America's own hype and every one of Bush's failed policies can be traced back to them.

What's funny is that they had a really progressive element in their original plan for the American domination of space. Including bases in orbit, on the moon, and Mars. They should have stuck to that instead of trying to play a real world game of Risk.

[blackzc]

This is good news, now mcain is shoe in.

[Wslove]

This is good news, now mcain is shoe in.

I agree. McCain is a shoe in for Fastest and Most Blatent Oral Given to a Political Base 2008 award for his dropping to his knees and openening his mouth wide for a shot of that neo-con PNAC jizz.

See, most of America is not drinking the Kool Aid and have realized just how much those neo-con PNAC assholes have ruined this country. Since McCain has decided to hop into bed with them and sell himself out completely Obama really could be a Muslim terrorist in hiding and he would still be elected.

Honestly, the only thing that will bring him down is a dead hooker or a live boy. In Obama's case, maybe both at the same time.

[blackzc]

I agree. McCain is a shoe in for Fastest and Most Blatent Oral Given to a Political Base 2008 award for his dropping to his knees and openening his mouth wide for a shot of that neo-con PNAC jizz.

See, most of America is not drinking the Kool Aid and have realized just how much those neo-con PNAC assholes have ruined this country. Since McCain has decided to hop into bed with them and sell himself out completely Obama really could be a Muslim terrorist in hiding and he would still be elected.

Honestly, the only thing that will bring him down is a dead hooker or a live boy. In Obama's case, maybe both at the same time.


No way, obama is mopping up atm because the hardcore democrats are in full gear, when voting time comes and the average white collar democrat goes to vote he is not going to vote in a black man, watch.


Right or wrong, white people are gonna stick with their own unless given a better reason than this fucking tape recorder is giving.

[IrishWhiskey]

No way, obama is mopping up atm because the hardcore democrats are in full gear, when voting time comes and the average white collar democrat goes to vote he is not going to vote in a black man, watch.

Right or wrong, white people are gonna stick with their own unless given a better reason than this fucking tape recorder is giving.Not everyone is as racist as you are blackzc.

Really, unless everyone is lying in anonymous general election polls, the whole "America won't vote for a black guy" theory has already been disproven.

[Skull3r]

No way, obama is mopping up atm because the hardcore democrats are in full gear, when voting time comes and the average white collar democrat goes to vote he is not going to vote in a black man, watch.


Right or wrong, white people are gonna stick with their own unless given a better reason than this fucking tape recorder is giving.

Yea, but will white collar men vote for a woman? It seems like Obama's been getting the male vote across all groups. What do you think white men are more inclined to decline, a black president, or a woman president? This will be an interesting nomination process.

Remember in history class when the teacher described the movement for women's suffrage. They were actually allied with African Americans to get suffrage for both movements. However, the women movement realized that they couldn't get suffrage if both movements were tied together, so the women's movement separated from the African American movement. Its an interesting coincedence that now both groups are striving to make a breakthrough again, and they are once again competing for it.

[blackzc]

Not everyone is as racist as you are blackzc.

Really, unless everyone is lying in anonymous general election polls, the whole "America won't vote for a black guy" theory has already been disproven.


You fucking jackass.:rolleyes: My therapist is black , lol

And the theory will be disproven when he gets elected. Not when the hardcore dems are out in full force yelling and screaming. Watch.

Again......right or wrong, its not happening. There are to many loud mouth arrogant black leaders out there that have fucked it up before it started.

[blackzc]

Irish let me put this to you in a more racist way so you can talk shit.

Until black people as a whole humble up, a black man will not be president. A woman maybe like condi, shes my dream candidate.

[IrishWhiskey]

You fucking jackass.:rolleyes: My therapist is black , lol ....Most effective counter-argument ever. Also I'm not referring to this thread, you have made racist comments in other threads before.
And the theory will be disproven when he gets elected. Not when the hardcore dems are out in full force yelling and screaming. Watch.Obama is getting a lot of his votes from independents and Republicans in open primaries. What makes you think its just "hardcore dems"?

Again......right or wrong, its not happening. There are to many loud mouth arrogant black leaders out there that have fucked it up before it started....and there are arrogant white leaders that fucked up as well. So your theory is that Obama will lose because all black politicians are the same?

Irish let me put this to you in a more racist way so you can talk shit.

Until black people as a whole humble up, a black man will not be president. A woman maybe like condi, shes my dream candidate...............

[Skull3r]

Irish let me put this to you in a more racist way so you can talk shit.

Until black people as a whole humble up, a black man will not be president. A woman maybe like condi, shes my dream candidate.

"Until black people as a whole humble up" - how is that not racist again?

[Xerxes]

There are to many loud mouth arrogant black leaders out there that have fucked it up before it started.
That's because they haven't operated in the government at even the capacity of city Mayor. If they really wanted to be somebody, they would of stepped the resume up just a bit. And they were only looking for that one vote. Obama is trying to get the vote of everyone.

They can't be elected unless you vote for them. Same goes for Hillary. A black man or a white woman will never be president if you say they can't. It's like every time I hear "this person can't be president" I hear, "I"m going to vote for this guy cause he's the only white guy on the ticket." :confused:

[Ancalagon]

This sounds like The Voice is back. Dont feed the trolls everyone.

[Xerxes]

This sounds like The Voice is back. Dont feed the trolls everyone.

I know you ain't talking about me. :confused:

[Ancalagon]

I know you ain't talking about me. :confused:

You would be right.

[Xerxes]

You would be right.

Just had to confirm. :D

[blackzc]

(Most effective counter-argument ever.)

Gee, i never thought you would say that. How bout this...I have black in my username.:rolleyes:

(Also I'm not referring to this thread, you have made racist comments in other threads before.)

That word is way overblown and its only racist to you, to me its talking about an issue and voicing my opinion. you of course will just sit pretty and play nice wont you? You are the reason nothing gets done, cmon surely you have something to say about black people. I know i do. Im sure black people have alot to say about white people...oh yeah, thats right we hear about it ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Cmon dude, get real. Race relations in this country are never going to get any better with this contempt that people like you hold for someone voicing a fucking opinion. These issues have to be talked out, lol its common sense. And if you think that my concerns are not those of average people then you are not in reality You just sit and do nothing except use the same rubber stamp lines that do nothing. And for what? Ill tell you, so you can say your better than me. Well your fucking wrong. You arent doing shit to fix anything and your a waste of air on this topic.

(Obama is getting a lot of his votes from independents and Republicans in open primaries. What makes you think its just "hardcore dems"?)

Your right, what i meant was all the hardcore bush haters.

.(.and there are arrogant white leaders that fucked up as well. So your theory is that Obama will lose because all black politicians are the same?)

Black leaders are under more scrutiny than your average white leader because when they do talk its most of the time just more of the same bitching and whining thate everyone including black people are tired of.

[bKangy]

Black leaders are under more scrutiny than your average white leader because when they do talk its most of the time just more of the same bitching and whining thate everyone including black people are tired of

But Obama has made huge strides to distance himself from this and one of the reasons he initially received large amounts of criticism from black leaders is this, something the white electorate seems to have happily acknowledged :confused: So your point is a black man can't be President until they're all to your liking?

[blackzc]

But Obama has made huge strides to distance himself from this and one of the reasons he initially received large amounts of criticism from black leaders is this, something the white electorate seems to have happily acknowledged :confused: So your point is a black man can't be President until they're all to your liking?

I never said me, i said the average person. I dont want him in office for his political views. That and he is a stiff. But that wouldnt be possible would it?

[bKangy]

I never said me, i said the average person. I dont want him in office for his political views. That and he is a stiff. But that wouldnt be possible would it?

But the average person is voting for him? Up until very recently, traditional Dems weren't even voting for Obama. He was running off of independents and people who had never gotten involved before. And of course, you're free to not vote for him since you don't like his political views. Polling matchups show Obama drilling McCain up and down the country though, and I doubt the recent reveal of his affair will help him amongst the fundies.

[blackzc]

But the average person is voting for him? Up until very recently, traditional Dems weren't even voting for Obama. He was running off of independents and people who had never gotten involved before. And of course, you're free to not vote for him since you don't like his political views. Polling matchups show Obama drilling McCain up and down the country though, and I doubt the recent reveal of his affair will help him amongst the fundies.

My theory is when the average person that doesnt have an agenda goes to vote it will be for mcain if hillary doesnt get the nomination. And there are lots of them Im very interested to see how it turns out.

Obama is just going to be to much for some americas to process with him being black and having a muslim background so mcain will be the safe bet.

[bKangy]

My theory is when the average person that doesnt have an agenda goes to vote it will be for mcain if hillary doesnt get the nomination. And there are lots of them Im very interested to see how it turns out.

Obama is just going to be to much for some americas to process with him being black and having a muslim background so mcain will be the safe bet.

But your bet is contrary to everything political commentators and insiders have been saying since Super Tuesday, and some even before that? Is this just your own personal opinions based on very little fact or instead founded on something you've managed to get hold of that the rest of us can't?

[jeffool]

Obama is just going to be to much for some americas to process with him being black and having a muslim background so mcain will be the safe bet.From the Wiki: "He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful.""

What background?

(Though, yesterday I heard one guy telling another he was an Al Qaeda operative, planning to take down the government from the inside. So, y'know, racism abounds.)

[blackzc]

From the Wiki: "He describes his Kenyan father as "raised a Muslim," but a "confirmed atheist" by the time his parents met, and his Indonesian stepfather as "a man who saw religion as not particularly useful.""

What background?

(Though, yesterday I heard one guy telling another he was an Al Qaeda operative, planning to take down the government from the inside. So, y'know, racism abounds.)

Sorry, perceived muslim background.

[blackzc]

But your bet is contrary to everything political commentators and insiders have been saying since Super Tuesday, and some even before that? Is this just your own personal opinions based on very little fact or instead founded on something you've managed to get hold of that the rest of us can't?

Yes im an insider. And its not my bet its my theory.

[bKangy]

Yes im an insider. And its not my bet its my theory.

Ooh, an insider? How so?

[boratika]

Well no one else was, so I guess it was up to me to do slap dash job.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f66/boratika/roflbot-1.jpg

Now you can resume your actual political discussion.

[boratika]

Wait, just saw this picture and thought it worked even better with just text:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f66/boratika/roflbot-YuAC.jpg

Now you resume for actual really reals.