Goner Message Board
 | Forums | Register | Reply | Search | Statistics | Manual |
Goner Message Board / ???? / Who Are You Voting For On Super Tuesday?
Page  Page 1 of 2:  1  2  Next »
Posted: Jan 28, 2008 3:43 pm
 
I guess I'm gonna vote for Obama. Can't possibly be any worse than the rest of the losers running.
Posted: Jan 28, 2008 4:10 pm
 
edwards

if i'm gonna waste my vote on a loser, it might as well be a sexy loser.
Posted: Jan 28, 2008 4:14 pm
 
SUPERCHICKEN!!!!!
Posted: Jan 28, 2008 5:09 pm
 
BawkBawkBawkBawkk!
Posted: Jan 28, 2008 9:24 pm
 
Obama Winfrey! but i which it could've been Edwards
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 12:30 am
 
President Clinton, by voting for Senator Clinton.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 12:52 am
 
Obama. Not just because he is the candidate that I agree with the most, but a black president would piss so many people off I would be smiling for years.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 1:20 am
 
"Black on the outside, White on the inside"
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 1:24 am
 
im voting banana
(yellow on the outside, white on the inside)

any uncle tom gooks running?
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 3:20 am
 
us felons wanna know
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 3:46 am
 
Is Texas in Super Tuesday?
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 6:36 am
 
no. neither is louisiana, b/c it conflicts with mardi gras.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 8:59 am
 
edwards

if i'm gonna waste my vote on a loser, it might as well be a sexy loser.


living here in NC, I'm always amazed at how that doucheface Edwards can
appeal to people outside this state. Ever wonder why he can't win his own state? Cuz he's a lying sack of shit, sympathy card-playing, doctor-sueing fruitcake.

Don't blame me if the next time you get rotten crotch, you can't find a gyno to cure it...Edwards made a living crushing them here in NC...
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 12:49 pm
 
Well, for me, it really boils down to two things: health care and Iraq.

Edwards is the only one in the Democratic Primary race who is calling for a real, single-payer universal health care system. Both Obama and Hillary's proposals would still allow the health insurance companies to fuck us and continue destroying jobs and limiting our economic choices. Maybe they would fuck us less, but they would still have an economic incentive to deny us health care, and that's the root of the problem.

On healthcare, Hillary has the advantage of recognizing the problem back in 1992 and trying (and failing) to do something about it. Obama's plan is vague and, from what I understand, doesn't even really achieve full coverage. A friend who is an Obama backer claims that he's being vague right now before the election so as not to scare away the (totally deluded) conservative voters and is waiting to unveil a better proposal until after he's in office. I say fooey on that. I'm making my decision on what the candidate says today, not what I hope he may possibly say in the future.

The other big issue, Iraq, totally disqualifies Hillary in my eyes. She voted for the war and has not repudiated that vote. Game over. Everyone who voted for the Iraq war showed not only bad judgement, but they betrayed the Constitution and the American people. If Hillary was taken in by the lies, that means she doesn't have the judgment required to be president. If Hillary thought the intelligence was iffy, but figured that odds were Saddam had something that could be construed as weapons of mass destruction, and feared that the Republicans would brand her as a "soft on terror", then she is too craven, cynical and self-interested to be a good president. And she was wrong, because the Republicans are going to call her names no matter what. If Hillary really believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, then she's part of the problem and shouldn't be president. Any way you slice it, she's not getting my vote.

Edwards also voted for the war but later recanted and said it was a mistake. I'm glad he's on the right side now, but he was still taken in at the time and the president needs better judgment than that. Not to mention the fact that the war resolutions were unconstitutional, which means that he either didn't know this, which makes him unqualified to be president, or that he knew it and was going along to get along, which makes him unqualified to be president. Either way, not good for Edwards.

Obama was against the war from the beginning. He gave speeches about it in both 2002 and early 2003. And he was against it for the right reasons: The evidence was flimsy, Iraq didn't attack us, and we've had other, more important fish to fry in Afghanistan. This shows the best judgment of the three. But then, there's that health care thing...

All of this is to say, I remain undecided, but I'm not voting for Hillary.

Edwards is not going to be the nominee, but he wants to play king- (or queen-) maker. There's a real possibility that neither Hillary nor Obama will have enough delegates to win going into the convention. In that case, they will have to bargain with Edwards, who can choose to throw his support"and his delegates"behind one of them, thus putting them over the top. But what will Edwards ask for in return? Word on the political blogs is that he's angling for the Attorney General spot, which would be fine by me. But I'd like to see him use his clout to push for better universal healthcare programs. Whether that is possible is an open question.

All three of them are good campaigners, but Obama is a great campaigner. I think he would do very well in the general election. I can see the Republicans reduced to just finding new and exciting ways to call him "Muslim" and "nigger," which, with a little skill (skill that was sorely lacking in the Kerry campaign, BTW), can be turned against them.

So basically, it comes down to this: does the good judgment Obama displayed before the war mean that I trust him enough to fix healthcare properly after he's in office? Or is a vote for Edwards the best way to pressure him into a better healthcare program?

Politics is hard.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 4:20 pm
 
President Clinton, by voting for Senator Clinton.

Something to chew on

From whatreallyhappened.com

"John Kennedy Jr. was planning to announce his intention to run for the US Senate in the the July 26th, 1999 issue of Newsweek. But then he died in a suspicious plane crash, and his rival for that same Senate seat, Hillary Clinton, won. The July 26th, 1999 issue of Newsweek was pulled from circulation and the story of JFK Jr's plan to run for office buried.
If you are wondering why Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama over Hillary, this is probably a big part of it."
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 4:30 pm
 
I can see the Republicans reduced to just finding new and exciting ways to call him "Muslim" and "nigger,"

That's actually what the Clintons have been trying to do for a month now!

In a general election, Obama pulls 25-30 percent of Republicans easily. McCain could beat Hillary head to head.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 5:06 pm
 
That's actually what the Clintons have been trying to do for a month now!


BOO-YA! that and "uncle tom".
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 5:10 pm
 
I'm tired of all that Clinton phoney baloney. I used to dig Bill but the truth is he sold America out to the Chinese and Mexicans. What a douchebag...And this asshole Bush and his father are in bed with the Arabs. I want a President who's out for America.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 6:06 pm
 
"But then he died in a suspicious plane crash,and his rival for that same Senate seat,Hillary Clinton,won."

I have this weird feeling Obama will be asssassinated if he gets the Dem nomination. Just sayin'.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 6:43 pm
 
you obama lovers are crazy. the elderly vote more than anyone else and aside from his niggerishness he doesnt have jack shit for experience. he hasnt led anything, the largest thing he had to manage is his office. of course obama didnt vote for the war, he wasnt even in office then and had no intelligence reports on it other than what we all saw on cable news. he has absolutely no qualifications to be commander in chief of our armed forces. he has no real concrete ideas for anything, just change. well, change can be bad or good and since he has no real experience im not holding my breath. 25-30% of repubs? youre crazy.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 7:18 pm | Edited by: Will
 
Obama for two reasons: he doesn't scare me, he doesn't embarrass me. can't say that about any of the others, incl Hils or that unctuous, trial attorney douche Edwards. As far as his supposed lack of experience, I can only view it as a feather in his cap. besides, what had Bill done before being Pres? Run the shittiest state in the lower 48 outside of Mississippi? BFD. I mean worst case scenario the dude couldn't do worse than the last 8 years even if he called a press conference to film him literally take a steaming crap on the Constitution every single morning of his entire term in office.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 7:35 pm | Edited by: Will
 
also, even my pro-life, often times Republican Mom likes the dude. He could only do us good on the world stage, something we shouldn't take lightly after 2 terms of that chickenhawk motherfucker bush.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 7:48 pm
 
furthermore, I know his "change" rhetoric has been kinda light on content, but I think it's probably the best tact he could take. These dipshit Republicans wormed there way into the White House twice by saying the same shit over and over and over until they had the average american voter (who, let's face it, ain't real bright) thinking up is down, black is white. You say it enough times (and get Fox News to parrot your idiotic talking points) and you've got millions of mouth-breathing constituents who STILL believe that Iraq had WMD's.

You say it enough fucking times, it's true. People think they want "change"? Obama's going to fucking play that shit on repeat all the way to the White House. Good on him.


Look, I probably agree with about 30% of what he actually says, but again, that's a damn sight more than the other front-runners. And again, he's not a fucking nat'l embarrassment. That, my friends, goes a long way.

Also, I'm drunk.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 7:55 pm | Edited by: Jack Stands
 
I wish Feingold had run.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 7:58 pm
 
Also, I'm drunk.

I think we should all decide our votes whilst drunky. I dunno about you, but it often helps me make the BEST decisions!
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 8:28 pm
 
I have never voted sober
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 9:02 pm
 
you obama lovers are crazy. the elderly vote more than anyone else and aside from his niggerishness he doesnt have jack shit for experience. he hasnt led anything, the largest thing he had to manage is his office. of course obama didnt vote for the war, he wasnt even in office then and had no intelligence reports on it other than what we all saw on cable news. he has absolutely no qualifications to be commander in chief of our armed forces. he has no real concrete ideas for anything, jus

Some say he lacks "experience", but he's definitely the ONLY candidate that is able to unify this country. He isn't afraid of reaching across the party line to make progress. Obama doesn't consider Republicans as "enemys", but as opponents. I think he'll be able to restore our standing within the world community which Bushit fucked up. I think he'll appoint a credible and competent administration (unlike the rampant cronyism that we have now). Hillary will just further divide our country and we'll be even more fucked. Nothing will get done with her.
Forget about any of the Republicans. They're not going to win the general no matter who is nominated. The question is: Do we need another Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton rule? Hell no. We need change mofos.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 9:19 pm
 
25-30% of repubs? youre crazy

Oh those those wacky Repubs...

Republicans for Obama

Hey, even a myspace page..haha!
Republicans4Obama
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 9:28 pm
 
I really liked Bill's speech before South Carolina:

"Have you gone beserk? Can't you see that man is a ni?"
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 10:08 pm
 
25-30% of republicans is kind of stretching it, but Obama would get a lot more than Clinton ca
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 10:10 pm
 
25-30% of republicans is kind of stretching it

I dunno. He voted for the patriot act.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:04 pm
 
good luck with your nigger, aint gonna happen not here not now. id bet a million dollars i dont have on it. not hillary either and not because shes a woman but because shes that woman.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:14 pm
 
wasnt there some american idol where the nigger girl was obviously the better singer but got voted off because of america's latent racism? people can say whatever they want but the poll booths are secret ballot so wait and see what happens...
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:16 pm
 
good luck with your nigger

do you talk to yo' mama wif dat mouf!?!? haha.


man, if there were any black goners, you'd be gettin' your ass knocked da fuck out!
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:17 pm
 
there are some. fact is obama is as much honky as he is nigger, that oreo can fuck off, period.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:18 pm
 
im retired so i dont give a fuck what anyone thinks.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:26 pm
 
im retired

Retired of sending out records?
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:32 pm
 
get raped on.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:32 pm
 
fact is, the ONLY way a black person (man or woman) can obtain an authoritative/high level government job is being an "oreo". look at condi, powell, obama...that's why ghetto jackson and sharpton never had a chance. yes, america is still racist but more and more people accept "oreos" over hershey's dark.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:33 pm
 
good luck with your nigger.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:33 pm
 
one drop.
Posted: Jan 29, 2008 11:34 pm
 
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 6:44 am
 
Not voting. All candidates support the Israeli occupation.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 8:25 am
 
jessie jackson actually did have somewhat of a chance of winning in 1984. he had won 3 southern primaries in 1984 and was polling well until he called new york "hymie town" and never recovered. would he have beaten mondale? maybe not, would he have beaten reagan? definitely not, but he was definitely in the race in 84.

obama. we sure as hell need a new new morning in america and it isn't gonna come with john mccain (who looks like he will back his way into the gop nomination).
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 8:27 am
 
looks like edwards dropped out
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 8:28 am
 
the ONLY way a black person (man or woman) can obtain an authoritative/high level government job is being an "oreo".

I've got no problem with oreos. Fuck a black guy in an autoritative position "keeping it real". Look at Tennessee's Ford family, Memphis' Mayor Herenton, the Mayor of Detroit. I don't want a black authority figure acting out any black stereotypes just to save face with his/her race. As far as I'm concerned, in this age race is skin deep. Obama may be pretty "red," but he's still pretty dark complexioned for a presidential candidate.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 8:42 am
 
looks like edwards dropped out


that's good and bad...good cuz the douche is gone,
bad because we get him back!
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 9:40 am
 
Sad that everyone's so caught up in all the "us" versus "them" mentality. It obscures the fact that the Dems and Repubs have all basically become the same..makes it easier to stomach they fact that they've been in bed together for years, doesn't it. It's a good dog and pony show if nothing else! (but this is a democracy, dude!)

Seeing that none of the "Goner-crowd" seem to show any interest in Ron "our only hope" Paul isn't very encouraging.

Oh yeah, but he's not easily summed up in a one-line factoid or sound-bite so he can't be worth it.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 9:52 am
 
I wish Feingold had run
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 10:11 am | Edited by: Will
 
hey man I would love to see somebody cut from Libertarian cloth have a legitimate bid for president, but it will probably have to be someone whose wing-nut theories about the gold standard or whose tasteless bigotries (whether penned by his/ her own hand or just espoused in his/ her name) are better hidden. Or you know, never existed at all. I'm just focusing on actual contenders here. And like I said, I really don't exactly love Obama's stance on lots of issues. I support him because (1)he's not stupid and (2)he's not an asshole.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 10:15 am
 
I support him because he pisses off Nazi Brad X. Thank goodness fat people don't vote!
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 10:21 am
 
I support him because (1)he's not stupid and (2)he's not an asshole.

AND he ain't taking PAC money.
There is no bigger PHARMA $$ whore than Hillary.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 11:42 am
 
and ill be sure to bring this thread back up after he LOSES.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 11:47 am
 
Seeing that none of the "Goner-crowd" seem to show any interest in Ron "our only hope" Paul isn't very encouraging.

I liked alot of what he had to say except that he's pro-life and religiously biased. That's a deal breaker for me.

Obama seems like a big wuss...he's even too left for me.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 12:31 pm
 
First, fuck all you racist fucks.

Second, with Edwards out, looks like I'm voting for Obama.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 12:50 pm
 
Seeing that none of the "Goner-crowd" seem to show any interest in Ron "our only hope" Paul isn't very encouraging.

I liked alot of what he had to say except that he's pro-life and religiously biased. That's a deal breaker for me.

Obama seems like a big wuss...he's even too left for me.


I guess being religiously biased MIGHT be more offensive than being corporate interest/WAR-biased so I see your point. I ain't no God-nik but all those other folks seem to want to lead us to the Apocalypse.
Posted: Jan 30, 2008 8:05 pm | Edited by: gore
 
I didn't know Osama..er...I mean Obama had an accent

Posted: Jan 30, 2008 8:11 pm
 
I don't vote till MAY! THE END OF MAY! Gravel's still innit to winnit ain't he?
Posted: Jan 31, 2008 8:48 am
 
If Mc Cain becomes President it will be the end of America (and possibly the world).War hero, my ass. Heros don't get captured. (Neither of my Grandfathers got captured in WW2.)
Posted: Jan 31, 2008 10:20 am
 
Hillary Clinton!

She's a REAL MAN!
Posted: Jan 31, 2008 11:50 am
 
Hillary Clinton!

She's a REAL MAN!


This just in...Hilary Clinton LOVES Burger King
Posted: Jan 31, 2008 1:20 pm
 
OBAMA RULES!
Posted: Jan 31, 2008 4:09 pm
 
I think I'm gonna have to go for Obama. Clinton's just got too much baggage and too many negatives.
Posted: Jan 31, 2008 4:49 pm
 
I don't vote till MAY! THE END OF MAY!
Ditto. And Obama it is.

First, fuck all you racist fucks.
My sentiments exactly. You're so Jim Crow, it's tacky.
Posted: Jan 31, 2008 9:27 pm
 
i like obama over hildog at least he would get us the hell out of iraq.
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 7:56 am
 
I thought both Hillary and Obama came off great last night in the debate. I'd be proud to have either of them as President. They both gave great explanations of the problems we face and how to fix them. Obama was a gentleman and actually defended Hil a couple times (like when the moderator attacked Bill) and got her chair for her at the end. They're both obviously a lot smarter than the rest of us and likely will tear Mc Lame's ass off and stuff it in his ear in the general election. Go Dems!
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 9:27 am
 
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 11:00 am
 
That was weird.

I hear what she's saying about Hill vs. the rest of the Dems, but she never really made her point about McCain being bad for the republicans.
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 11:20 am
 
she finally came out of the closet
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 11:35 am
 
I'd be proud to have either of them as President.

agreed!
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 11:44 am
 
Coulter thinks Hillary would be easier to beat than Obama.
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 12:27 pm
 
I liked them both on the debate too. I voted Hils in the primary here but then went and listened to a bar full of guilty Republicans rationalize to themselves why John McCain is an America hero. I am afraid they are gonna convince people of this and he will get the guilty vote.
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 4:22 pm
 
john mccain IS an american hero.
mccain: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
"I will call right now, my interrogator that tortured me, a gook,"
"Gook," he said, "is the kindest appellation I can give."
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 4:43 pm
 
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 4:49 pm
 
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 8:57 pm
 
Okay, they made all nicey nicey last night. And, could anything be better than Obama/Clinton?

I really hope this happens as I'm on the fence about voting Tuesday. Filtered down to a fine powder in the media is Obama wasn't for the war, Hillary has experience on universal health care. A dream ticket, I think.
Are they going to join forces?

Anyway, I've already gone out on a limb and said that Obama will be our next president. I'm still standing behind that, and voting that way. I think that we need a "charismatic" candidate, and I think that Obama's it. I like the fact that he's young. And, as Hillary has a ton of WOMEN who hate her that ain't gonna happen.
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 8:59 pm
 
And, could anything be better than Obama/Clinton?

Yes. Feingold.
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 9:01 pm
 
Feingold:
Voted against the war.
Voted against the Patriot Act
So far has been the only person with balls enough to put a motion on the floor to Impeach the Administration. And he's from Wisconsin, which means he knows about cheese.
Posted: Feb 1, 2008 9:35 pm
 
And, as Hillary has a ton of WOMEN who hate her that ain't gonna happen.

'splain this. I know you don't like her and I can't say I "like" her, but I think she is intelligent and kind of a bad ass and given the candidates, is not a bad choice. However, I am leaning toward Obama, strategy-wise.
Posted: Feb 2, 2008 1:39 pm
 
I wish Hillary Clinton would just go away. I'm a Bill fan, but not because he has bad taste in women. This does not make her worthy of bossin' me arround, and taxing the hell out of me just because she used to fuck the president.
Hillary is a terrible person, and a terrible presidential candidate.
Posted: Feb 3, 2008 11:29 am
 
I'm with Jack Stands. Feingold's a stand up guy.
Posted: Feb 4, 2008 4:05 pm
 
Well, it looks like 2 votes for Obama from The Rigglers tomorrow (though I could just as easily vote for Hillary). Should be an interesting night of CNN watching.
Posted: Feb 4, 2008 5:14 pm
 
Either Ron Paul, or Obama.
Posted: Feb 4, 2008 7:04 pm
 
Archie Manning all the way.
Posted: Feb 4, 2008 7:13 pm
 
2 votes for Obama from The Rigglers tomorrow (though I could just as easily vote for Hillary).

Yeah, I'm totally confused.
I talked to my old lady very liberal aunt tonight, and she's voting for Hillary. Though, she sent out a mass email of Obama rapping or somesuch, and said "How can you not love this guy?"
Another weird thing she said was that she thought that "they'd" shoot Obama if he was the candidate. I said, "But, Aunt Kay, how can you think that? It hasn't happend in fourty years??"
She's not a crazy old lady, very politically savvy...

Saispas...it's not that I "don't like" Hillary. In fact, I admire her, and her experience and how interested she's been in the country for umpteen years. I just don't believe that America's ready to elect a woman...especially someone who could be thought of as an "uppity white woman". Which, like it or not, she's viewed that way in many circles (black AND white). Also, Obama's pretty much got the young voter thing sewed up...just because of his charisma, and the fact that he is young. Of course, "young voters" never vote so....
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 6:28 am
 
my vote will be write in for that hot turd on the "true native" party, the one and only isolationist, Brad X
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 8:06 am
 
I wonder how many write-ins Monica Lewinski will get?
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 9:05 am
 
voted

now that i've gone black can i ever go back?
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 9:07 am
 
crucial job, dude.
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 11:47 am
 
Another weird thing she said was that she thought that "they'd" shoot Obama if he was the candidate. I said, "But, Aunt Kay, how can you think that? It hasn't happend in fourty years??"

[url=http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2005/10/lunch-discussions-145-crazif ication.html]Tyrone: Speaking of Obama, I need to get t-shirts printed up to sell.

John: I can do that on the web. What do they say?

Tyrone: Don't You Dare Kill Obama

John: How about Don't You Dare Kill Obama (... and we know you're thinking about it)

Tyrone: Niiiiice.

John: Or You Kill Obama and WE WILL BURN SHIT DOWN

Tyrone: Even better. Nobody wants their shit burned down.[/url]
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 11:48 am
 
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 11:54 am
 
Got some beers and ready to settle in and watch CNN tonight. Should be very interesting. Already voted. Light turnout at my polling place while I was there. (Also got a message on my answering machine when I got home from Hillary. A little late there.)
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 4:07 pm
 
Went this morning on the way to work. Not many people there, but it was pre-8:00. Go Obama!

War hero, my ass
Warmonger is more like it. If McCain were to win, we'd never get out of Iraq. Scary. I'm tired of being the bully of the world.
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 4:20 pm
 
Posted: Feb 5, 2008 4:46 pm
 
i went for Obama. yay.
but i truly just want someone fucking else other than that piece of shit that we already got...
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 8:40 am
 
Stayed up until 2am watching CNN. It seems like a bit of a draw on the Democrat side. Hillary won the most important states in stature (NY, NJ, Massachusetts, California etc..Obama picked up more states but not so many important ones (Illinois and Missouri being the most important). A lot of the states Obama picked up are also more traditionally Republican. Which leads me to believe Hillary and The Clinton political machine have enough delegates sown up in the big, powerful states to win it (although it seems Obama has more money on hand at the present time so who knows?).
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 9:25 am
 
You know the Repubs are hurtin' when their leading candidate, by a decent margin, is a dude who was a perennial 3rd placer in previous years....and the core of the party hates the guy. I hate the guy, because he tried to come off as some sorta individualist (see: his work with Feingold on issues like campaign reform), but when he saw he couldn't win the Presidency without becoming a party puppet, he shifted his positions and became a party liner. Flip and flop.

Hillary is a polarizing figure - the only way McCain wins is if Hillary wins and turns enough stomachs. Obama would take McCain easily. Which is why I'm voting for him. Though I'd be happy with either one, at least in comparison with what we've endured the last couple terms.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 10:54 am | Edited by: carney
 
The more the windbags talk about how McCain is not conservative enough, the more I like him. He refuses to kiss the christian conservatives' collective ass. I really like Obama, but he is such a wild card. On one hand he could be the second coming of JFK, on the other hand he could be the second coming of Jimmy Carter and totally tank the economy. Hillary is probably going to get the nomination, she has a massive polital machine behind her that is totally entrenched. The Clintons still feel that they have have to settle the score over the shitstorm caused by "the vast right wing conspiracy." I think govt controlled universal healthcare is a really bad idea. I do think there should be govt subsidized insurance for the uninsured, but not for those who can get their own. The goal should be for everyone to make enough money to pay their own way, not to be coddled by the govt. The other quagmire is of course the goddamn war. The occupation needs to end in a timely manner, 2-3 years at most. The "war" will never end. If we pull out now, the outcome will be catastrophic. For me, no one candiate has all the right answers. If I go down my political laundry list, McCain comes up on top, followed by Obama and Hillary. The good news is that McCain, Obama and Hillary are all fairly centrist, which should be good news to most everyone on this board.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 11:18 am
 
as an independent, i don't vote in the repug/demon primaries. so i get to point fingers and let the decided help winnow my november choices.

on obama as the second coming of JFK: i believe the obamas totally choreographed and styled themselves in the camelot mode. not that there's anything wrong with that... but these folks know the power of imagery. trust me, it is no accident.

is obama the second coming of jimmy carter? we won't know til its too late.

as for hillary... i have never liked her. yes she is polarizing. yes she is really smart and politic. but have you ever considered that putting her in the white house is extending yet one more political family dynasty? kennedy, bush, clinton... they aren't public servants so much as professional politicians. although despite his track record as a human, ted kennedy has probably done more good than evil as a senator for massachussets

that said, based on last night's results... the way it all seems to have shaken out, if the dems want to prevail in november, obama and hillary must run together or else the republicans will win, no matter who the candidate is... that polarizing thing, you know/

as for the war and other issues...
have you noticed that all the candidates claim to love jesus, but they are all in favor of the death penalty? funny that. please laugh because it IS a joke
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 11:24 am | Edited by: Will
 
good points, Carney. while I'm very unhappy with McCain's bald-faced annexing of the Republican party line (I kind of used to at least respect him, even if I couldn't support him back in 2000), I feel that if these are ultimately our three choices, we could be doing a hell of a lot worse. (see: current admin, culture warriors a la Huckabee, etc.)

My primary concern w/ McCain is he doesn't seem to have any real prob with long-term U.S. entrenchment in the middle-east. I know he's coloring himself as a pragmatist w/r/t Iraq et al, but I want to hear somebody talk about getting the fuck out (even if they might be lying to me). Furthermore, I'm sort of afraid he'll tap that Christ-bitten dipshit Huckabee as his VP.

My primary concern with Hillary is that she's a shrill, entitled carpet-bagger. I guess I can deal though.


GO OBAMA!!!!!!
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 11:40 am
 
On one hand he could be the second coming of JFK
like in bubba ho-tep!
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 12:03 pm
 
The good news is that McCain, Obama and Hillary are all fairly centrist, which should be good news to most everyone on this board.

I don't think McCain is a centrist at all. I think once he got in there he would be much like GW. They don't differ much at all ideologically except how to fight this useless war. I, for one, would be very unhappy if he won, and could see NOTHING good in it. He's old and his ideas are old. Look at his audience sometime. Is that who you want running the country? We'll be in deep shit if corporations are allowed to run amok in the traditional "conservative" deregulation mode for another 4-8 years. Look at the oil companies now. Will Obama go against corporate greed if elected? It's hard to know. I'm fairly certain that Hillary will not.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 12:05 pm
 
mccain also wants roe v wade overturned - so if he wins it wont be good for any supreme court nominations
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 12:10 pm
 
I don't think McCain is a centrist at all

Take off your blinders. He is the most centrist of all of the gop candidates, why do you think Rush Limbaugh is spewing all his crap at McCain? McCain works with both sides of the aisle, hence the vitriol.

He's old and his ideas are old. Look at his audience sometime. Is that who you want running the country
Wake up, that is precisely who has always ran the country. Old people vote. Young people, minorities and the poor do not vote. Until this changes, the aarp crowd holds all the cards.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 12:14 pm
 
mccain also wants roe v wade overturned - so if he wins it wont be good for any supreme court nominations

Being against roe v wade, and overturning it are two different things. His personal choice is pro-life, I don't think he has ever campaigned on overturning it. While I'm completely pro abortion, I don't think roe v wade is good law. As I have always said, if you don't like abortion, don't get one. There, that's pretty simple, isn't it?
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 12:21 pm
 
why do you think Rush Limbaugh is spewing all his crap at McCain?

The republican party has a radical rightist element represented by media figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. They are, by no means, the majority of the republican party. They are extremist and reactionaries, mainly prompted by ad revenues for their radio programs and books etc.

Wake up, that is precisely who has always ran the country

That should, and can, change. To assume that something is because it has always been is a defeatest mentality. How would progress ever be achieved. I believe that younger people are better informed now, and have a motivation to see this current generation of politicians put to bed for good. I personally will support the youth movement to the hilt rather than saying old people and old ideas will always be the deciders. Those ideas are not working and need to be rethought. If i'm naive, so be it, at least I'm being active in my thoughts rather than submitting to the status quo. I'm not saying this to promote Barak Obama, but he is trying to show some interest toward rethinking our failing policies. And for a mainstream politician, that's somewhat of an improvement over what we've had for many years.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 1:02 pm | Edited by: carney
 
I believe that younger people are better informed now, and have a motivation to see this current generation of politicians put to bed for good. I personally will support the youth movement to the hilt rather than saying old people and old ideas will always be the deciders.

I think you missed my point. I wish that more young people, minorities, etc would vote. Until they do, we get what we deserve. I've said this before, I bet less than 50% of this board actually votes. The fact that around 30% or less of the general population votes is what the parties bank on. With this knowledge, they tailor their message to the segment of the population that actually votes, namely old, white people. As for the youth vote being more educated, that is not true. The average 18 year old has no understanding of basic civics, let alone complex economic and political issues. If anything, the enire populace is less informed and qualified to vote than the average citizen of the 60's.

The republican party has a radical rightist element represented by media figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. They are, by no means, the majority of the republican party.

No but they represent the important segment of the party, those who actually vote. Most people are fairly moderate, but then again, most people don't vote. Huckabee scares the shit out of me, but McCain does not. He is not beholden to an evangelical base with a hidden agenda.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 1:03 pm
 
Can I ask for a tangent here? And I'm not really challenging the statement as much as curious for more details. What are the oil companies doing exactly? Not that I don't agree that there has generally been too much of a free reign given to corporations in general in recent times, but I assume the comment relates specifically to current price levels. Is there some inequality in the demand / supply equation in oil?
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 1:13 pm
 
Check the profits for Exxon etc right now. You'll be shocked.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.ht m?cnn=yes

As far as I know, it is not determined by supply and demand. The profits should not be allowed to be that high. There should be government regulation and some of those profits should be cycled back into our ailing economy. But then again..maybe I'm a radical of some sort.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 1:28 pm
 
I'm not shocked because worldwide oil prices have risen so much recently due to lots of factors, some undoubtedly BS, some legitimate. Exxon doesn't prehedge their production, so if prices rise, they make more money just selling their product into the market, if they don't, they don't make more money or could even lose potentially. One thing I will say, is people will never change their consumption habits for products with a limited supply unless their prices go up.

I guess the economic system in place in this country would really have to change to change this situation (ie, higher corporate taxes, or some kind of trend away from privatization of energy companies, etc.). There's no way that the vast majority of individuals (and companies) would willingly make less profit than what is available to them to make at any given time.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 1:39 pm
 
When GW took office oil prices were around $25 a barrel. Now they average between $80-100 per barrel. Did you see GW rolling around on those fur rugs holding hands with all the oil shieks? McCain would probably just love to get some of that action. 100 years war...bring it on!

Bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran...oh yeah...he's centrist..HA!
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 3:28 pm | Edited by: Seamus
 
Young people, minorities and the poor do not vote. Until this changes, the aarp crowd holds all the cards.

i wish this could be disproven.

the dem's continually chase un-lucrative voting pools. hopefully this will change some day.

rock the vote, my ass.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 3:53 pm
 
Young people, minorities and the poor do not vote

This has already been disproven if you look at the Missouri voting pattern in the 2008 primary yeasterday. Missouri was all for Hillary until the totals from St Louis came in. The African American vote put Obama over the top there. It can happen, people just need to feel that it is worthwhile to vote.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 4:36 pm
 
This has already been disproven if you look at the Missouri voting pattern in the 2008 primary yeasterday.

I certainly hope so.

Still, by the numbers I saw, the utes turn out as low as 1/3 as those over 40, see Florida, or 1/2, see South Carloina.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 4:50 pm
 
guess the economic system in place in this country would really have to change to change this situation (ie, higher corporate taxes, or some kind of trend away from privatization of energy companies, etc.). There's no way that the vast majority of individuals (and companies) would willingly make less profit than what is available to them to make at any given time.

I'm sorry but socialism does not work. Our entire economy is based on capitalism, to skew just one facet of it pretty much wrecks the whole system. Like it or not, that is the economic reality. Higher corporate taxes just means higher prices for the consumer. Changing the tax code to a straight 15% for everyone including corporations would be a start.

The African American vote put Obama over the top there

So basically, unless there is a black candidate, black people don't vote? While true, it is also very sad. Economics know no color. A poor white cracker is just the same as a poor black or mexican or anybody else.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 5:06 pm
 
So basically, unless there is a black candidate, black people don't vote?
Maybe it's because they think white candidates don't care about them and that blacks have not been allowed into the hierarchy of the American political system, which is generally true. maybe now they feel there is someone to vote for that will help them. That generally inspires people to vote. Same goes for younger people (those 45 years of age or younger).
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 5:10 pm
 
Being against roe v wade, and overturning it are two different things. His personal choice is pro-life, I don't think he has ever campaigned on overturning it.

He might not have campaigned against it yet, but it sure sounds like he intends to:
“If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next president of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right-to-life movement.”
As found here: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=26539
I don't think I'd want him as my pro-life "friend"
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 5:23 pm
 
I'm sorry but socialism does not work. Our entire economy is based on capitalism, to skew just one facet of it pretty much wrecks the whole system. Like it or not, that is the economic reality. Higher corporate taxes just means higher prices for the consumer. Changing the tax code to a straight 15% for everyone including corporations would be a start.


Yeah, I wasn't saying I'm for going toward more socialist policies. I wan't really being direct, but I guess my point is that it's folly to blame companies for operating in a way that maximizes their profits given the way the system is set up. It's like saying a linebacker should hit the quarterback a little less hard; he's gonna hit the quarterback as hard as he can and as long as the hit is legal, then there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I understand if people don't like the system, but it seems pointless to finger point people who are taking advantage of the way the system is set up (as long as they aren't breaking rules). It's human nature to behave that way.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 5:32 pm
 
Our entire economy is based on capitalism, to skew just one facet of it pretty much wrecks the whole system.

Our capitalist system has been regulated many times in the past to avoid and remedy corporate greed. That is not "socialism", just as medical benefits for all is not "socialised" healthcare. The government in a responsible capitalist society has the responsibility to regulate trade policy.

And who can prove that socialism doesn't work? Just because our system is based on dog eat dog economic policies does not mean that other systems might not work if they were set up properly and not allowed to dissolve into totalitarianism.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 5:46 pm
 
i believe all forms of government work just as they are designed, that is as a quasi-legalistic lever with which to enforce the hegemony of a small strata of power elite over the greater population.

i mean, everybody loves raymond is funny.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 5:57 pm
 
And who can prove that socialism doesn't work
History has proven it again and again. The basic problem is that it goes against human nature. I ahve a pragmatic outlook on these things; not evryone can come out on top. Somebody has to lose. If everyone wins, we all lose.

Our capitalist system has been regulated many times in the past to avoid and remedy corporate greed.

Greed is what make capitalism work. the only cases where "greed" is unacceptable is in dire emergency situations. Katrina is a great example. Charging double the price for gas, water, etc is profiteering. Charging a premium for labor or building supplies just goes to the law of supply and demand. Again, it's not fair, but its the way things are.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 6:17 pm
 
Again, it's not fair, but its the way things are.

So all of our social policies which try to remedy the shortcomings of human nature, such as voting acts and anti discrimination acts and anti trust legislation and child labor laws etc are all nonsense because they go against human nature? What a bleak view of the world. In that case, we don't need government at all.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 6:18 pm | Edited by: Will
 
(cribbed from another discussion I was having today)

hard core socialist get it wrong for the same reason unfettered, anti-regulation "let the market decide" free-marketeers are wrong: both theories fail to account for the hard-wired, evolutionary, genetic necessity for the survival primacy of GREED. A little greed - appropriately rewarded and regulated - keeps the ball rolling.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 6:19 pm
 
In that case, we don't need government at all.


i think you have a point.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 6:23 pm
 
So basically, unless there is a black candidate, black people don't vote?
Maybe it's because they think white candidates don't care about them and that blacks have not been allowed into the hierarchy of the American political system, which is generally true. maybe now they feel there is someone to vote for that will help them. That generally inspires people to vote. Same goes for younger people (those 45 years of age or younger).



Exactly...

The blacks are voting in record numbers because they want a presidential candidate that will actually represent their interests. The congress is 99% white, and all presidents have been white. That's why you see your Jesse Jacksons and Sharptons out there to fill the void. They are essentially de facto representatives of the black community.There has never been representation for the bruthas and sistas that actually got voted into office (pres or vp). There has never been a realistic chance that a black man can be president (until now).

On the flip side..Hillary is also getting a vast majority of white woman votes. These woman believe that Hillary will actually voice their interests...What has me wondering is...Will blacks turn out in the same numbers to back Hillary if she was nominated? Will white woman back Obama if he was nominated? Maybe not....Maybe so....Time will tell.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 7:31 pm
 
sure, lets not have a government. thats the stupidest fucking idea ive ever heard.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 7:40 pm
 
History has proven it again and again

One could make a strong argument that a "true" socialist country has never really existed and could not exist within the current world framework. By the same token, most "capitalist" countries have many elements that might be termed "socialism."

It would be foolish to deny the incredible power of free enterprise, but I still believe that publicly accountable political measures are sometimes needed to correct market failures. Worker safety laws, the civil rights movement, child labor laws, environmental protection laws, food safety laws - I like all those things. To believe, as many Libertarians seem to, that the "free market" will automatically do the right thing every time seems naive to me.

The reason we have a middle class in this country (although it's disappearing rapidly thanks to Bush and his ilk) is precisely BECAUSE of these "socialist" laws. Russia by comparison, right now looks very much like "robber baron" 19th century America before these progressive reforms. I'd rather not go back to that era, thanks.

A good one-sentence definition of communism (the actual theory, NOT just what a country decides to call itself) is "Workers control of the means and mode of production." Do you think that ever really existed in the USSR (well, maybe for a few years after the revolution - I am not a historian)?

What existed in the USSR, I would argue, was really a form of "state capitalism" except that the government ran the economy instead of private industry.

There's a great scene about this in the movie Network, when corporate boss Ned Beatty lectures Peter Finch's character on how the world really works. It went something like this:

"There is no United States! There is no USSR! There's only ITT, and IBM, and General Electric (it is a 1972 film after all)! What do you think they talk about over there in the Politburo? Do you think they talk about the revolution, and the workers' struggle? No! They pull out their growth projections and their profit flow charts, JUST LIKE WE DO!!

Precisely.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 7:44 pm
 
So all of our social policies which try to remedy the shortcomings of human nature, such as voting acts and anti discrimination acts and anti trust legislation and child labor laws etc are all nonsense because they go against human nature?

Those issues do not represent human nature. Human nature speaks to self preservation and the desire to make things good for oneself. If I know I will be rewarded for working hard, I will work hard. If I know that my hard work helps those who refuse work, I won't work as hard. That's the main caveat (sp?) of socialism. After a while, production decreases as it doesn't matter how much I do, I will be paid the same anyway. That's why sales jobs are paid on comission.

The blacks are voting in record numbers because they want a presidential candidate that will actually represent their interests.

While probably true, that is some whack logic. If I waited for a tattooed, balding, middle-aged musician to run for office, I would never get to vote. I don't vote for what's good for me, I vote for what's good for the country.

My laundry list of political issues never has a candidate to match, but I vote anyway. I'm mostly libertarian, but the libertarians have too much crap on their agenda. If I could find a candidate who was for gun rights, gay marriage, the death penalty, the flat tax (not the fair tax), legalization of most drugs, pro abortion, and against religion in all forms, I'd have my candidate. Until then, I'm going to vote my conscience as you should too.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 8:13 pm
 
I'm with you except for the death penalty and the flat tax.

If I know that my hard work helps those who refuse work

I don't know. I know that some of my tax money might well go to people who don't want to work (I'm not really convinced that there's all that many people like that - I think most people want to work and will given the opportunity) but it doesn't make me work any less hard.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 8:22 pm
 
The blacks are voting in record numbers because they want a presidential candidate that will actually represent their interests.

While probably true, that is some whack logic. If I waited for a tattooed, balding, middle-aged musician to run for office, I would never get to vote. I don't vote for what's good for me, I vote for what's good for the country


Yeas it is whack logic...but true no less. Its called "Identity Politics".
Unfortunately, there's a lot of people out there that do not vote for the country's best interest. Most Americans are selfish and only looking out for themselves and to what they can identify closer to.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 9:19 pm
 
sure, lets not have a government. thats the stupidest fucking idea ive ever heard.

really? i think not apostraphizing your contractions is more objectionable.

otherwise, i'm willing to to watch the whole vile race go down in a meatpile of self-interest and greed, ultimately ending this blight upon the planet.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 10:04 pm
 
the problem is its impossible. in the vacuum of power someone would surely take over.
Posted: Feb 6, 2008 10:21 pm
 
the problem is its impossible. in the vacuum of power someone would surely take over.

yup. and the nature of human ascension to power has not changed since the dawn of the beast, and seems unlikely to do so in our time. i believe john dos pasos refered to the personification of this impulse as "the inveterate Adam".

look at me, what a windbag...
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:22 am
 
is that for carry out or delivery?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 7:42 am
 
Human nature speaks to self preservation and the desire to make things good for oneself.

Human nature is not only the negative aspects of our behavior, but also the postitive (empathy, humor, altruism). Your view is that people, left to their own devices, will only seek what suits their personal interests to the detriment of other individuals. If this is true, then it is the responsibility of government, and civilisation in general, to try to prevent these base instincts from prevailing. Just go back to Hobbes...it's an old argument...

If I know I will be rewarded for working hard, I will work hard.

Do you really think that employers share this belief? Hasn't the workers' struggle, from day one, been to fight for fair wages and safe working conditions against corporate bosses who don't want to pay or provide for their employees? How many people have gone to their graves used up by the capitalist myth that hard work will be rewarded. And how many have gone to their graves so that we have minimum wage laws and work place safety laws etc. Your views seem very unrealistic to me. I suggest reading Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" if you haven't already. Harvey Wasserman wrote a similar book entitled "Wasserman's History of the United States". Both are great histories of the struggles of individuals and movements against the powers of capitalist forces.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 8:41 am
 
Anybody who would vote for Mc Lame at this point in our country's history is an idiot. He embodies all the qualities we don't need right now-arrogant, crazy, stupid, he was captured in Viet Nam (so who is he to claim to be a military expert? My 2 grandfathers didn't get captured by The Nazi's or The Japanese during WW2. ), he's now flip-flopping all over the place on issues that are supposed to be core Moral beliefs. He has absolutely no experience with the economy. What exactly are his qualifications supposed to be?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 9:22 am
 
All this president bollocks is front page news, even over here. Can you cancel it so I can read about something else?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 9:31 am
 
yeah, i'd be keen to hear about that cricket match or is it a trial?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 10:00 am
 
Anybody who would vote for Mc Lame at this point in our country's history is an idiot. He embodies all the qualities we don't need right now-arrogant, crazy, stupid, he was captured in Viet Nam (so who is he to claim to be a military expert? My 2 grandfathers didn't get captured by The Nazi's or The Japanese during WW2. ), he's now flip-flopping all over the place on issues that are supposed to be core Moral beliefs. He has absolutely no experience with the economy. What exactly are his qualifications supposed to be?

Not to mention he is a notorious hot head who even his fellow Republicans think is a total asshole. And the conservative pundits like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Beck are all suggesting voting for Hillary over McCain?!? I really don't see how the Democrats can lose this election minus some huge political scandal or vote rigging.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 10:18 am
 
I know fuck all about cricket but I'd rather hear about that than the constant election shitestorm that the BBC etc. churns out. I'm pretty sure the US one gets more coverage than the UK one.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 10:44 am
 
Yeah, McCain is odd. Comes off as so many different things; hard to understand what he's about.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 10:44 am
 
Wait a second, so blacks are voting in record numbers NOT because there's a viable black candidate, but because white candidates were not actually represent(ing) their interests? So by that logic, why should a white person (or Asian, or Latino) vote for Obama? Face the facts, they're voting for the first viable black Presidential candidate primarily because he's black. Which is fine and understandable. I hope the guy wins, too, and I don't expect any sweeping changes in policy regarding "black folks," but I do expect there to be a sense of optimism in the community overall because of the barrier being broken...and think about this - other than Kennedy, EVERY President in US history has been a white, Protestant male. No Catholics, Baptists, women, Asians, etc.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 10:56 am
 
I'm pretty sure the US one gets more coverage than the UK one.

don't worry. our best news sources (Enquirer, Globe, US...) have been full of royal family shite for decades.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 11:34 am
 
Do you really think that employers share this belief? Hasn't the workers' struggle, from day one, been to fight for fair wages and safe working conditions against corporate bosses who don't want to pay or provide for their employees? How many people have gone to their graves used up by the capitalist myth that hard work will be rewarded. And how many have gone to their graves so that we have minimum wage laws and work place safety laws etc.

Wow, where to start. You have a really bad case of class envy. Your destiny is in your own hands. Don't like your job? Get another one. Not qualified for the job you want? Go to school, get training. No jobs where you live? Move. Your govt does not owe you this. Capitalist myth? Going to your grave used up? Are you a college freshman? Captialism is the way out of poverty. Newsflash: The Goner board is here because of capitalism. Eric O is a capitalist. He sells records, he doesn't give them away. Are the Goner emplyees being "used up"? Is ERic exploiting the labor of his employees and living in a mansion?

It comes down to this: conservatives (mostly republicans) want the govt to be unintrusive. Provide basic services, defense, education, etc. They believe that it is the idividuals responsibility to provide for their own needs. On the other hand, liberals (mostly dems) wants the govt to listen to our problems, to empathize with our struggles and to make things "fair". To provide for those unwilling to provide for themselves, thus setting up a cycle of govt dependence. Those are the two polarizing schools of thought. I believe in the conservative/libertarian approach, you obviously do not. There are avenues of self help that do not include the govt.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 11:36 am
 
Mittens Romney just quit.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 11:40 am
 
It comes down to this: conservatives (mostly republicans) want the govt to be unintrusive.

Except when they can use it fleece billions of tax dollars for themselves.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 11:48 am
 
It comes down to this: conservatives (mostly republicans) want the govt to be unintrusive.

Except when they can use it fleece billions of tax dollars for themselves.


I'm just as dissapointed with the current politcal climate as any of you. Bush claimed to be for smaller govt, yet he increased spending and the national debt. I'm all for spending money where it will pay off: student loans, health care for the uninsured, head start, wic. Another Bush gaffe is the push for ethanol. Ethanol is a shitty fuel, yet by forcing it down our throats, it has created a shortage of corn for food and animal feed thus driving up the costs of basic food necesities. I think both parties are full of shit. It does make me happy to see McCain piss off the evangelicals, they have too much power in the gop. Remember, Lincoln was a republican. We are a republic, NOT a democracy. That is very basic fact that eludes most people.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 11:48 am
 
I have a great job working for a "capitalist" enterprise much like Eric himself. Unlike you, I do not always think of issues in terms of myself. Nor am I constantly condescending, another hallmark of the republican/libertarian viewpoint. I'm concerned for others who have not had the advantages I have had (although I have very little money) in this skewed system. I believe in capitalism. It just needs to be regulated. "Fairness" is not even a concept I think about very often, as it does not pertain to practical living.

You seem to worship the upper percentile because they got there by determined effort and "elbow grease". What a joke. Most are born to it. I have nothing against everyday working people and even the upper middle class. I never view people as being in a "class" anyway. This is the U.S. not Britain.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 11:53 am
 
and how come if the republicans love so much small government, they have a real knack for running up the national deficit to record proportions?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:00 pm | Edited by: rich riggler
 
I hate conservatives. They're generally intellectually uncurious people who believe the first thing their grandfathers told them about politics when they were a kid. They state their antiquated beliefs as fact and try to pussyfoot around the fact that their morals and ideals are corrupt. Thank goodness they're mostly stuck in hellholes like Texas and other places in the deep south so we don't really have to take them seriously (unless they all band together in their desperation and rig the elections like the last 2 because they know their logic can't win). This country needs progression not regression (which is all the Republicans ever offer.)
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:04 pm
 
Nor am I constantly condescending, another hallmark of the republican/libertarian viewpoint.

Sorry if I have come off as condescending, that is certainly not what I'm trying to do. I like to discuss politics, not argue with any personal malice. I don't just think in terms of myself, a stated in an earlier post that I vote for the good of the country, not just my self interest. The Bush tax credit is a great example. Do I want the govt to "give" me some cash? Sure. Is it a good idea? No.

I don't worship the upper percentile, but I also don't envy them. I don't wish to redistribute their wealth. Should they pay their fair share of taxes? Hell yeah. Should they, if they wish, donate their time and money to charities? Sure. But I don't think you should get a tax credit for it. I think churches should be taxed like the rest of us.

We agree on the fairness concept, I was guilty of pigeonholing your beliefs just as you are mine. I don't wave any party flag, I refuse to vote in primaries because I do not want to declare any party affiliation.. I think we agree on some basic levels. The bsic difference is how we view the basic role of govt. The bottom line is, no matter how much we bitch about our govt, the US is a great place, otherwise we would not be having this conversation.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:07 pm
 
I think churches should be taxed like the rest of us.

if that happens, it would change the whole picture of politics in ways we have never even imagined
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:11 pm
 
I hate conservatives

Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you slice it. "I hate.....fillin the blank: niggers, spicks, women, jews, muslims. As I said before, both parties/ideologies fall short with me. I'm for gay marriage, religion out of govt, equal right s for all people, but I'm for gun rights, the death penalty, and keeping the govt out of my business. Badmouthing the South and Texas shows your ignorance Ned. Bush is intellectually uncurious, but he is just a politcal sockpuppet.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:20 pm
 
You're a little too quick on the button with the N-word and the S-word there, Carney. Another characteristic of the conservative mind. You don't choose your race or ethnicity. But your beliefs you do choose and when somebody like you spews all your humanity hate on a message board it's just another instance of all you Southern born againsters trying to push your regressiveness on the rest of the country. I'm not the only one sick of it. And to say we shouldn't move away from Fossil fuels because it drives the price of food up is just plain stupid. First of all it's not true and second of all even if it was, what price can you put on saving what's left of the Environment? (Of course you have Trillions to spend on wiping out innocent women and children in Iraq though, right?)
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:28 pm | Edited by: pseudo pion
 
I hate conservatives. They're generally intellectually uncurious people who believe the first thing their grandfathers told them about politics when they were a kid. They state their antiquated beliefs as fact and try to pussyfoot around the fact that their morals and ideals are corrupt. Thank goodness they're mostly stuck in hellholes like Texas and other places in the deep south so we don't really have to take them seriously (unless they all band together in their desperation and rig the elections like the last 2 elections because they know their logic can't win). This country needs progression not regression (which is all the Republicans ever offer.)

No shit. The so-called "Conservative" agenda is to transform our government to an oligarchy or aristocracy. A government ruled by a few elite who will drastically take us back to the dark ages. Christianity will be imposed on all, the rich will become richer, no middle class, gays and Mexicans will be gathered and "disappeared"...
There will be more endless wars for oil and power. Imagine for a minute if they actually got their way. We'd have ultra-right wing judges appointed, a strict white male rule, the privatization of everything! Costco would be running your mail and you'd have to go to Walmart for healthcare. We'd have to pay for police officers and firefighters (since they are socialized now). Equal opportunity laws will also be invalidated....Everyone would have guns in public. The list goes on and on...That's no democracy. Yee haw! Where do I sign up?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:40 pm
 
Wrong again Ned. I was born in Illinois. I haven't spewed any hate for anything. I was using the terms nigger and spic to illustrate my point. I've simply stated my beliefs, as have you. I didn't say we shouldn't move away from fossil fuels, I just mentioned ethanol as a failed example. Ethanol does nothing to decrease the emmison of green house gasses, some say it actually increases them. Born againsters? Have you read my posts? I do not deny global warming is real, you automatically lump me in with the Limbaughs of the world just because I believe in a smaller govt? What price will you put on saving the environment? I assume you take public transportaion since you live in a metropolitan area. What option does someone in say Idaho have? We can increase the fuel tax to curb usage, but that will drastically increase the price for every consumer good. Who will that effect the most? The poor. That's not very progressive. If there was a simple answer to global warming, we would be on it. Capitalism will provide a solution, if there is money to be made, there will be scientific developments that will solve the problem.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:45 pm
 
No shit. The so-called "Conservative" agenda is to transform our government to an oligarchy or aristocracy. A government ruled by a few elite who will drastically take us back to the dark ages. Christianity will be imposed on all, the rich will become richer, no middle class, gays and Mexicans will be gathered and "disappeared"...

Have you read anything I've written.? That is the exact opposite of what I beleive in. Not all conservatives are like Coulter, Limbaugh, etc, just as not all liberals are socialist. Hey I've seen Idiocracy, too. That is a very bleak prospect that is very real.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:45 pm
 
If there was a simple answer to global warming, we would be on it.

The only reason there's nothing done now is because the Republicans don't believe in it. After all, it's scientifically proven. Republican conservatives don't believe in science, therefore global warming must be a hoax. Afterall, the world is only 6000 years old and humans mingled with the dinosaurs. Suuuuure.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:50 pm
 
Capitalism will provide a solution, if there is money to be made, there will be scientific developments that will solve the problem.

what does the capitalistic hawking of 54-inch screen tv's that use 10x the energy of their 21-inch cousins solve? by in large, people vote with the dollar soley on short term, impulsive desires (i.e. note all the mcdonalds fed fat-asses around). on the bigger, long-term issues, it don't quite the faith in capitalism that you do.

otherwise, i do agree people are painting with a broad brush about conservatives. thoughful people tend not to fall in such pigeon holes but spread their stances along the spectrum. then again, name-calling is fun.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 12:58 pm
 
The Republican party (formed in Wisconsin, sorry!) of Lincoln doesn't in any way reflect the Republican party of the last century. And yes, we're a republic, not a democracy. Ironically, the Democrats protect individual rights better than the Republicans, who are of the majority rules mindset (democracy). I'm staunchly against a portion of the Democratic platform, but I don't want a Jesus humper in office, which is the absolute worst (yeah, let's go & alter the constitution, fuckabee). And while both sides are corrupt and really not that different when you get down to it, I generally gravitate towards Democrats. I will not vote for a party, though, and have voted Republican in the past.

Now that Mit's out, McCain is assured of the nomination. I really hope Obama wins, because I think that Clinton can be beat once we hit the general election.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:00 pm
 
I haven't spewed any hate for anything

You keep using the N-word and the S-word. You are talking out of both sides of your ass like a true Conservative.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:04 pm
 
They don't believe in it because they're correct in that people are NOT CREATING GLOBAL WARMING. This has become such a hot button political topic that scientists who point this out are chastised. It's a witch hunt, and it's disgusting. During the 2000's, global "warming" has plateued, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a cool-down shortly. Throughout history, global temperature have gone in cycles, JUST LIKE RIGHT NOW. Unless we build factories on the sun, we cannot have a great effect on earth temperatures. I'm all for protecting our environment, but I refuse to use baseless histeria in order to scare people into getting on board - that's what's really happening here.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:13 pm
 
That's stupid, Todd.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:15 pm | Edited by: carney
 
I haven't spewed any hate for anything

You keep using the N-word and the S-word. You are talking out of both sides of your ass like a true Conservative.


Is that all you got Ned? I used those terms to illustrate that you are a bigot. I did not use them in a perjorative sense. I'm a lot of things, but a racist is not one of them. The only thing I hate is ignorance. I hope Obama gets the nomination, and that has nothing to do with his color, I just don't think Hillary should be in charge of anything. I am completely colorblind to race. I judge on merit.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:16 pm
 
What option does someone in say Idaho have?
there are tons of very fuel efficient cars and trucks(even work trucks) that are available that idahoans can use, and with the subsidies that farmers get they can afford to get a new work vehicle yearly, and they buy giant fuel consuming trucks... idaho is very much like utah in that respect. and as far as public transportation systems go, they are set up in both states and with a few exception most are unusually deviod of passengers. utah is building a pretty expansive light rail system to cover most of the populated areas of the state, but most people still prefer their giant SUV's. ( i can't talk too much i drive the biggest van on earth, but its only for transporting gear from my house to a venue, and most times i play shows at my house which is pretty centrally located and most people don't have to drive too far to get to my house)
its insane how easy it is to travel on public transportation here, but most people look down on it, like students in the state college/university system get a year long bus pass for 5 bucks. i don't know why i keep talking.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:20 pm
 
You live in a city though. What if you lived in the middle of nowhere? Then you have to drive and that is fine. People who live in the city and drive an Escalade or a drive a dually, that's different. That is a flaw here in Texas, soccor moms don't drive minivans here, they drive giant four wheel drive trucks.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:22 pm
 
Carney, you are clearly a racist. To call me a bigot because I said I hate Conservatives like you is typical Conservative dirty trickery. Now you can go back to calling people of color offensive names, asshole.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:23 pm
 
Carney is hardly a racist.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:24 pm
 
To call me a bigot because I said I hate Conservatives
I called you a bigot because you talked shit about the south and Texas.

Carney is hardly a racist.
Thank you.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:24 pm
 
Carney, you are clearly a racist. To call me a bigot because I said I hate Conservatives like you is typical Conservative dirty trickery. Now you can go back to calling people of color offensive names, asshole.
i'm so confused
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:35 pm
 
i'm so confused
So is Ned.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 1:37 pm
 
Sorry kids, I have to go. I'm loading gear into the Erwin Center (10,000 seats) so the kids can play before the Harlem Globetrotters. Can't get anymore racist than that.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 2:10 pm
 
Prove I'm wrong. If global warming is caused by humans, how did it happen in the past? And why has it ceased warming the last several years? Corn gas?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 2:26 pm
 
why has it ceased warming the last several years

Can YOU back this up with any information of your own?

I've heard that the hole in the ozone is receding but I haven't heard about the slowing of global warming...
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 2:42 pm
 
I'm loading gear into the Erwin Center (10,000 seats) so the kids can play before the Harlem Globetrotters. Can't get anymore racist than that.

Yeah, be sure to drop a bunch of N-bombs around The Harlem Globetrotters. I'm sure they'll find it highly ironic. And don't listen to Todd, Sambeaux. It's a proven fact that people from Wisconsin are dumber than other people.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 4:11 pm
 
It comes down to this: conservatives (mostly republicans) want the govt to be unintrusive. Provide basic services, defense, education, etc. They believe that it is the idividuals responsibility to provide for their own needs. On the other hand, liberals (mostly dems) wants the govt to listen to our problems, to empathize with our struggles and to make things "fair". To provide for those unwilling to provide for themselves, thus setting up a cycle of govt dependence. Those are the two polarizing schools of thought.

It doesn't have to be such a black-and-white, either/or choice...

I believe in the conservative/libertarian approach, you obviously do not

Sometimes I do, sometimes not...it just depends on the issue.

To provide for those unwilling to provide for themselves, thus setting up a cycle of govt dependence

But Carney, doesn't that statement sorta contradict your support for these?

health care for the uninsured, head start, wic

As powerful as the profit motive may be, people do constructive things for a lot of different reasons other than personal gain and sometimes it seems that Libertarianism doesn't really recognize that.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 4:18 pm
 
"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
- Conservationist David Bellamy

Last year, a scientist was on NPR, and by simply saying he didn't believe in this model (more and more scientists are pointing to sunspots and other solar activity), he received more hatred from people calling in than I have ever heard on a call-in show, and this is including listening to shit like Michael Savage and whatever. The NPR audience HATED the guy, who was cordial and intelligent and overall a likeable character, simply because he was offering a simple and reasonable counterpoint to one of "The Left's" core beliefs. It's like showing a Christian proof that Jesus never existed. I never believed in this guilt-driven model of global warming, but the real agenda really hit me when I listened to that NPR program.

Republicans are right about one thing - the core lefties really hate themselves. It's always doomsday with those people. They prefer animals to people. And even if they don't subscribe to a particular religion, their core party beliefs are just as strong in terms of dogma, and just as blinding to the truth.

Here's a link to some scientists who have stepped forward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstrea m_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

On that page: Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."

Bellamy fucked himself, because he was probably the best-known botanist in Europe, on many panels, Professor, etc., and he was instantly ostracized when he stepped forward, had to resign his posts, etc. This is a political issue, not a scientific one. People will be laughing at you within a generation. Also, there's no such thing as "ozone holes," it's scientifically impossible for ozone not to exist in the ozone layer. Ozone is simply created by photo-dissociation of an oxygen molecule, so unless we're out of oxygen, there will be ozone, and if we get that low on oxygen we're fucked anyway. But that's another story.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 4:18 pm
 
Libertarian is just another word for lunatic. It's usually guys who live alone with a million guns in their homes waiting for the apocalypse. Like Carney.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 4:24 pm
 
Carney is hardly a racist.
Thank you.


I agree. It's all about context.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 4:30 pm
 
Who knew Todd was a closet Neo-Con(artist)?

And if Carney isn't a racist (I'm not so sure) he should be a hell of a lot more careful about throwing the racial epithets around. But I suspect a lot of you share his views and don't consider yourselves racists which explains why you're so fast to defend a guy who's using such demeaning and dehumanizing language to describe other human beings and then has the nerve to turn around and call somebody else a bigot..
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 4:59 pm
 
Here's a link to some scientists who have stepped forward: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstrea m_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The opinions on that list are pretty varied and inconsistent. While it raises good questions about the validity of global warming, its causes and man's contribution to it, I think that, at least, the hysteria over it has had a positive overall effect (shitheads acting less like shitheads, buying more fuel efficient cars, using less crap/packaging/etc.). Without the hysteria, I doubt anybody would be doing anything.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 5:22 pm
 
See, that's the problem, a lot of people (including scientists) see all the logic holes but figure that it doesn't matter since it's collectively "good for us." It's still a lie, though, and I won't have it. There are better ways to get the word out about the environment. Hell, all you have to do to become "aware" of a lot of the environmental damage is to fly over anywhere in the US outside the Mountain time zone. It's a buncha huge squares (farms) and roads and towns with occasional specs of 40 acre plots of the original forest. Kinda sad. Then again, if humans died out, there would be little indication that humans ever existed within 100 years, which is of course a "blink of an eye" in historic terms. National Geographic (I think) has a fairly interesting show about this. Nature is resilliant. People are not as powerful as they would like to think, for good or ill.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 5:25 pm
 
Nice Hybrid!

Thaaaa-aaaanks!
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 5:30 pm
 
I love these nutjobs like Todd and Brad who think a quick cut and paste job from some other mental patient = proof. Not so. You smoke cigarettes, Todd. I wouldn't put the fate of the environment or the future of Mankind in your nicotine stained hands.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 5:31 pm
 
Climate change critics like Richard Lindzen try to say "There's no consensus on global warming." in the Wall Street Journal, in front of Congress, and many other places. This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News. Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this "has nothing to do with reality". The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these quotes reference the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as either the "most reliable" or one of the most reliable sources for accurate information on climate change. As you will notice, the evidence against the consensus critics like Lindzen and pundits on Fox News is overwhelming. If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences. For those that don't know, the National Academies are like the Supreme Court of science. The number of climate scientists in the US can be found by examining the members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU). As of November 10, 2006 we know that there is a minimum (no official count of foreign climatologists is available) of 20,000 working climatologists worldwide. An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied. Keep both of these concepts in mind the next time you see a handful of self proclaiming "climate scientists" with dissenting opinions. It is also important to note that Exxon Mobil is funding a $10,000 bounty for climate denialists and skeptics. If only 2% of the 20,000 climatologists were bought out then we'd have 400 deniers (skeptics are convinced by science not money).
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 5:32 pm
 
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 7:26 pm
 
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.
The petitioners could submit responses only by physical mail, not electronic mail, to limit fraud.
The verification of the scientists was listed at 95%
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 7:50 pm
 
And if Carney isn't a racist (I'm not so sure) he should be a hell of a lot more careful about throwing the racial epithets around. But I suspect a lot of you share his views and don't consider yourselves racists which explains why you're so fast to defend a guy who's using such demeaning and dehumanizing language to describe other human beings and then has the nerve to turn around and call somebody else a bigot..

Do I have to spell it out again Ned? I used those terms to show how ridiculous your "I hate" statement was. I was speaking in your voice, not mine. I don't begin blind accusations with statements like "I hate..." The idea was that bigots such as yourself use that type of language. It's not much of a leap to go from "I hate conservatives" to "I hate ...(insert derogatory term here). Those are not terms I throw around in conversation. I cringe everytime someone throws out the n-bomb on this board, but I did it to prove a point. Those are offensive words, but again a bigot is a bigot, whether you blindly hate a race or a geopgraphic area. You don't hear me saying I hate you yankee liberals. I have friends all over the country, in all walks of life and from all races. I don't blindly hate anyone.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 7:53 pm
 
Libertarian is just another word for lunatic. It's usually guys who live alone with a million guns in their homes waiting for the apocalypse. Like Carney.

More Riggler hate speach. Exercising your 2nd ammendment rights does not make one a lunatic.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 7:56 pm
 
To provide for those unwilling to provide for themselves, thus setting up a cycle of govt dependence

But Carney, doesn't that statement sorta contradict your support for these?


There's a difference between giving someone a hand and giving someone a handout. The aftermath of Katrina was a good example of what the cycle of govt dependence creates. And a good example of the failure of the current administration.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 7:56 pm
 
giving shit mccain for his service is stupid too. captain mccain ran the largest squadron in the US navy. what experience does osama, i mean obama have that qualifies him to be commander in chief of our armed forces?
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 7:59 pm
 
Carney is totally down with the gays. He likes the cowboys. In spite of that, I dig Carney a lot and think he's pretty much right on.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 8:05 pm | Edited by: carney
 
Carney is totally down with the gays. He likes the cowboys. In spite of that, I dig Carney a lot and think he's pretty much right on.

Thanks you jock strap licking Red Queer. Despite your love of man sweat, I think you are pretty cool yourself. I've been taking shit left and right here, it's hard work being the devil's advocate.

giving shit mccain for his service is stupid too
The man is a true hero. That doesn't necesarily make him a good candidte for president, but it doesn't hurt. I could live with Obama before I could support Hillary in anything. I think Obama can beat McCain but I think Ned could beat Hillary.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 8:18 pm
 
fuck the gun-grabbers. or more preferable, shoot them.
Posted: Feb 7, 2008 9:05 pm
 
Mittens Romney just quit.

"mitt romney governed the fuck out of massachusettes and now he's ready to president the fuck out of america"
http://www.black20.com/virals/?s=395
Posted: Feb 13, 2008 10:26 am
 
Obama wins another 3 states and Hillary's campaign is spinning out of control (out of money, firing/losing staff left and right). If you can't run a good campaign how are you gonna run the country? I really think Obama has a chance now. He's ahead on delegates at this point too.
Posted: Feb 13, 2008 10:45 am
 
I told you! And I'm right about human generated "global warming" as well. This is good news, because Hillary was more vulnerable to a loss vs. McCain than Obama is.
Posted: Feb 13, 2008 11:01 am
 
I WANT THAT HANDSOME BLACK MAN TO BE MY PRESIDENT
Posted: Feb 13, 2008 11:02 am
 
NOT DRUNK,, SLEEP DEPRIVED THIS TIME
Page  Page 1 of 2:  1  2  Next » 
Top
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message
 

 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
  Goner Message Board Powered by PHP Forum Software miniBB ®