Shout Box

Who's Online
1 registered (Rickster), 5 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 ... 11 12 >
Topic Options
#35322 - 01/23/08 08:42 PM Vote
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
For Monica Lewinsky's ex boyfriend's wife
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#35323 - 01/23/08 09:58 PM Re: Vote [Re: d-elvis]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
No way in hell will I ever vote for her.

Top
#35325 - 01/24/08 12:17 AM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#35326 - 01/24/08 12:42 AM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: learningtolead
No way in hell will I ever vote for her.

Why?
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#35327 - 01/24/08 01:22 AM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
 Originally Posted By: learningtolead
No way in hell will I ever vote for her.

Why?


Because she is solely motivated by power and stands for nothing. I believe she would say or do anything to get power or get to be near power.

Top
#35328 - 01/24/08 10:45 AM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
I believe she would say or do anything to get power or get to be near power.

For which candidate(s) is that not the case? Recall what John Adams wrote of Thomas Jefferson: "a mind, soured, yet seeking for popularity, and eaten to a honeycomb with ambition, yet weak, confused, uninformed, and ignorant." How many candidates does this describe?
_________________________

Top
#35330 - 01/24/08 01:49 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
RAF Offline
site supporter

Registered: 04/12/02
Posts: 793
Loc: Colorado (!)
<<a mind, soured, yet seeking for popularity, and eaten to a honeycomb with ambition, yet weak, confused, uninformed, and ignorant." How many candidates does this describe?>>

Yeah, I know, but Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter dropped out of the race. \:D

But, Ltl, are you seriously saying that if the election next November came down to a choice between Hillary and McCain, you'd vote for the the conservative guy from Arizona?

Top
#35332 - 01/24/08 06:06 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#35333 - 01/24/08 06:11 PM Re: Vote [Re: talus]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Much spoiled by canned laughter.
_________________________

Top
#35334 - 01/24/08 06:52 PM Re: Vote [Re: RAF]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: RAF
But, Ltl, are you seriously saying that if the election next November came down to a choice between Hillary and McCain, you'd vote for the the conservative guy from Arizona?


LtL, it's essential to prevent four more years of Republican misrule. If the prospect of a Clinton nomination makes you mad enough to think about letting one of the Republican clown show become President, think about the Supreme Court. Think about over 4000 pointless American deaths and over 10,000 permanently maimed for no reason. Think about war with Iran. Think about global warming. Think about the abuse of science. Think about our loss of freedoms. Think about the abuse of the Constitution. As a woman, think about being told you have no control over your body.

Do the right thing. This is not the year for sulking and doing something stupid like voting for another inept Rethuglican.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#35335 - 01/24/08 07:12 PM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Check out the legacy of George W Bush before you complain about Hillary having ambition and wanting power, just like every other presidential hopeful.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#35339 - 01/24/08 09:39 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
Check out the legacy of George W Bush before you complain about Hillary having ambition and wanting power, just like every other presidential hopeful.
You don't really mean to say "Bush is so bad, he makes Ms. Clinton look good by comparison; therefore one ought to vote for her", do you?
_________________________

Top
#35342 - 01/24/08 11:17 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
You don't really mean to say "Bush is so bad, he makes Ms. Clinton look good by comparison; therefore one ought to vote for her", do you?

Bush is so bad he makes a drunken, one-armed, dyslexic chimpanzee look good. My point to LtL, which you pretty much made earlier, is that to not vote for someone because "...they want power and will do anything to get it..." basically means that there will never be a candidate that you would vote for. It's a pointless reason.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#35344 - 01/24/08 11:57 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
 Originally Posted By: RAF
But, Ltl, are you seriously saying that if the election next November came down to a choice between Hillary and McCain, you'd vote for the the conservative guy from Arizona?


LtL, it's essential to prevent four more years of Republican misrule. If the prospect of a Clinton nomination makes you mad enough to think about letting one of the Republican clown show become President, think about the Supreme Court. Think about over 4000 pointless American deaths and over 10,000 permanently maimed for no reason. Think about war with Iran. Think about global warming. Think about the abuse of science. Think about our loss of freedoms. Think about the abuse of the Constitution. As a woman, think about being told you have no control over your body.

Do the right thing. This is not the year for sulking and doing something stupid like voting for another inept Rethuglican.


I don't agree that it's the right thing to vote for someone who I believe has far fewer principles than even a typical politician has. If it comes to a choice between her and someone like Huckabee I'll have to consider my options, but I'll be strongly inclined to vote for a third party candidate knowing that they couldn't possibly win. Rewarding the democrats with my vote despite their incredible poor showing as a minority party is hardly the way to bring change, and I just can't abandon my principles to the extent of voting for her.

Luckily for me, I am now living for the first time in my life in a state with a presidential primary that is early enough to actually matter so I'll be going to the polls Feb 5th to try and avert the situation of her getting the nomination in the first place. Unluckily, noone whose politics match well with mine has any chance of winning...

Top
#35345 - 01/25/08 12:04 AM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
 Originally Posted By: MarcC
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
You don't really mean to say "Bush is so bad, he makes Ms. Clinton look good by comparison; therefore one ought to vote for her", do you?

Bush is so bad he makes a drunken, one-armed, dyslexic chimpanzee look good. My point to LtL, which you pretty much made earlier, is that to not vote for someone because "...they want power and will do anything to get it..." basically means that there will never be a candidate that you would vote for. It's a pointless reason.


I totally disagree. There are lots of candidates I dislike on the issues but who are sincere enough in their beliefs and stances that they aren't willing to say or do absolutely anything to get elected. Bush I hate for all sorts of reasons including the fact that he's indescribably stupid and politically pretty much my polar opposite but the j*ck*ass is pretty darn consistent.

I also should have mentioned earlier that I don't believe Hillary has much of any chance of winning a general election. As much as I don't like it, moderates/independents decide elections in this country, and I believe the republicans can easily bring out enough ammo against Hillary to sway the independent 1/3 against her, especially if they don't nominate someone who's completely obviously a wacko as well.

Top
#35346 - 01/25/08 12:06 AM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
I'll be strongly inclined to vote for a third party candidate knowing that they couldn't possibly win.

My sentiment as well. Vote for losers; they'll never disappoint you.

LtL, it's essential to prevent four more years of Republican misrule.

I'd rather vote for Ron Paul than for any of the Democratic candidates.


Edited by oenophore (01/25/08 11:22 AM)
Edit Reason: Kucinich just dropped out
_________________________

Top
#35347 - 01/25/08 12:56 PM Re: Vote [Re: RAF]
AOR Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 08/27/04
Posts: 392
 Originally Posted By: RAF
<<a mind, soured, yet seeking for popularity, and eaten to a honeycomb with ambition, yet weak, confused, uninformed, and ignorant." How many candidates does this describe?>>

Yeah, I know, but Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter dropped out of the race. \:D

But, Ltl, are you seriously saying that if the election next November came down to a choice between Hillary and McCain, you'd vote for the the conservative guy from Arizona?


I know this question is not directed at me, but...yes.

Top
#35348 - 01/25/08 02:00 PM Re: Vote [Re: AOR]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#35355 - 01/25/08 06:44 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Virtually all politicians profit from their position. We know Bill, did and I assume Hillary will too. GW took advantage from family position in school, the military, and in business before entering politics. As president he has pretty much proclaimed himself king disregarding human rights, civil rights, the legislature, and the public. He hasn’t made a little profit, his administration is completely driven by power, and the use of that power to remain in power, and increase the wealth of a close large and “friendly” business community.

Insert markc’s post. I agree completely.

I’m not the Hillary fan I wish I could be, but certainly don’t think there is any comparison between her and the Republican Political machine. Hillary is doing what she feels it will take to get elected and unfortunately I think there is some truth to the fact that it is necessary to be elected. I also feel there is some reason to think she may be a better president after she is elected than from campaign. I am sure that I would agree with far more of her decisions as a president than I have with our current administrations.

Sure I wish there were someone I fully supported, but if that person were running they would not be elected. In this election I’ll settle for any Democrat who can run against the party in power now.


Edited by mworking (01/26/08 01:02 AM)

Top
#35363 - 01/28/08 04:02 PM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I am not a Hillary fan. I withheld my vote entirely in her last Senate race; I could not vote for her opponent, but I have found her tenure in the Senate to be frustrating and bordering on cowardly, and I don't understand her popularity.

She has about a safe a seat as one can get, and yet I have yet to see her take a position that entailed any political risk whatsoever. Her vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq is a prime example. Her floor remarks gave plenty of reasons why it would have been a mistake to use force at that time, but she said she was voting yes anyway because she was taking the president "at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible" (despite the evidence at the time that this administration was not to be taken at its word on anything). But the language of the resolution had no such requirements; it was essentially a blank check to the administration. Any competent lawyer knows that if you don't have the language, you don't have the deal, and I think she's too smart not to know what she was doing.

Also, there was a substitute offered by Senator Levin that would have required Bush to at least attempt the diplomatic approach in the UN that Clinton said she wanted, but she voted against it. Why did she vote against an authorization mandating the approach she approved of and for an authorization that didn't? To me it seems obvious: it was calculated political cover for her next election, because going to war was by far the more popular option and she'd look bad if she voted no and the war went well. Now, that's not necessarily something to be ashamed of; many of her more experienced colleagues made the same calculation. But instead of coming clean about it, she says she was mislead. She might have gotten my vote, and the votes of many others, if she admitted that it was a failure of leadership early in her political career, that she had learned from her mistake, and as president she would never let it happen again.

And when it became safe to be against the war, she turned against it. She gave Rumsfeld a good dressing-down in his final year in office, but she said things others had been saying for years instead of saying it years ago when it might have mattered. And Rumsfeld was probably the most disliked member of the cabinet. Taking him on was hardly a profile in courage.

When she was asked recently about she'd address the fiscal problems of Social Security, she said she wouldn't raise the benefits age, and she wouldn't raise the wage tax cap. Well, what would she do? Appoint a commission. We don't need a commission to tell us what we (and prior commissions) already know, that a SS fix will require raising the benefits age, raising taxes, cutting benefits, or some combination of those options. I think she won't admit to any of those options out of fear that she'll lose votes from some constituency or other, but the failure to address the problem doesn't inspire any confidence in me for her. (In fact, it's not her responsibility to save SS; it's the public's responsibility to say what we're willing to do to save SS if we think it's so important. But Clinton, and many others, fail us by failing to ask us if we're willing to take action on SS and many other issues where public action is required to create the change the public says it wants.)

Clinton said she favored a statute to ban flag desecration, but opposed a constitutional amendment on the subject, without which a statute would almost certainly be struck down. This strikes me as a pretty blatant inconsistency, an attempt to avoid alienating her upstate and downstate constituencies.

Her fundraising for her last Senate campaign was borderline offensive, if not actually over the line. She wrote she might be Swift-boated and would need money to respond, so please give now. But her appeals disregarded the possibility that she wouldn't be Swift-boated (as turned out to be the case), failed to explain why she couldn't ask for money after any such Swift-boating, and neglected to mention that she'd win even if she were Swift-boated because she barely had an opponent. Do you know she ran the most expensive Senate campaign in the country, spending over $40,000,000? That money wasn't about winning the Senate race, in which she got 67% of the vote; it was about setting up her presidential run--which of course wasn't mentioned in any of her fundraising appeals. I think this lack of candor was dishonest.

Still, if she were the Democratic nominee, I would vote for her over any of the Republicans who think that any problem we face can be solved with tax cuts that miraculously pay for themselves. I also share MarcC'c concerns about civil liberties, the environment, and the Supreme Court (though I'm one of those pro-choicers who think choice isn't necessarily constitutionally protected). But I think the nation needs a fundamental restoration of the relationship between the people and their government, and I don't see Clinton as the best person to provide the necessary leadership for that to happen. She seems too willing to play the game as it exists if it works in her favor, rather than changing the game which might entail some risk but could transform politics for the better. That last point doesn't make her any worse than any of the Republicans, but I think either Obama or Edwards are better choices.

It's odd to me that some people think she's the only candidate that could win (strong enough to withstand the Republican attack machine), while others think she's the only one who could lose (polarizing, energizing the otherwise dissatisfied Republican base and alienating moderates). I think she'd be in a tough race against McCain, while a McCain-Obama race would be fascinating (as would a McCain-Edwards contest).

Top
#35366 - 01/28/08 04:46 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Daniel, you made the best case contra Clinton I've ever read -- op-ed quality.
_________________________

Top
#35374 - 01/28/08 08:36 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Thanks. I've thought about blogging ...

As Chris Matthews said last week (he's a blowhard, but an entertaining blowhard), the Clinton mantra has always been to win first and deal with the problems later. But I think the way one wins can lock you into a position where it's hard to get anything done.

I thought her holiday ad was, as one pundit said, "cringe-worthy." She puts cards on wrapped gifts labeled "Universal Health Care," "Alternative Energy," "Middle Class Tax Breaks," and "Universal Pre-K," as if these programs come from the munificence of the government without any input or involvement on our part.

I think that's precisely the wrong message. We need to realize that government is not this abstract, alien entity. Government isn't "them," it's us, the sum of our desires and our willingness to act on them. Those programs don't come to us out of the void; they will come to us if we're willing to do something to help make them happen. They're not given by the government; they're given by us to ourselves through a collective effort.

And both sides play on the alienation fantasy. Conservatives believe tax cuts pay for themselves, so there's no corresponding budget cuts that might turn people off. They talk about supporting the troops, but don't ask any of us to do anything that will provide real help to those serving in the field. And I've been similarly critical regarding Democrats on the recent children's health care proposal: what does it say about us that we believe in this program so strongly that we want smokers to pay for it? I made this point at a fundraiser with a Senator; someone at the table asked what would happen if the public were asked to pay and most of them said no. I replied that then we shouldn't have the program. And that wouldn't be the Senator's fault; that would be my fault for not trying to convince more people that the program was worth paying for.

I think that if we're going to address the serious issues facing our nation, we have to ask politicians to change the political question from asking us "what do you want?" to "what are you willing to do?" Really supporting the troops is opening up your wallet and saying here, buy some body armor. Really supporting alternative energy is saying that I'll support an increase in the gas tax so that people will buy more fuel-efficient vehicles (if the price of gas goes up 40%, no one pays a penny more to drive if their cars are 40% more fuel-efficient, and there are ways of diverting the revenue so that such a tax would not be regressive). Really supporting getting big money out of Congress means being willing to pony up a small amount (probably less than $10 per person) to free our candidates and representatives from private money, because they can't run on nobody's money.

In the political realm, talk really is cheap and actions really do speak louder than words. I'm tired of every presidential candidate talking about how she or he is the real change agent, when the real change agents are the people walking around on the streets. If we aren't willing to do anything about the issues they say they care about, then that's what's going to get done: nothing. And if we think change will happen just because they voted someone into office, we'll be disappointed again. But if someone has the courage to say that we need to be willing to act together to create change, and if enough of us are willing to match our rhetoric with action (something the present administration has consistently failed to do), then we can achieve some great things together.

But who has the courage to ask? The only glimmers I see are from Edwards and Obama. Everyone else seems to want to continue the fantasy that everything is free and the public won't have to lift a finger. Perhaps people aren't really willing to give anything in money or in action to change things, but I think that would be tragic, because what we really can't afford is more of the same.

Top
#35376 - 01/28/08 09:14 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
The only glimmers I see are from Edwards and Obama.

I know Ron Paul has a snowball's-chance-in-hell of getting elected, but have you seen his position and compared it with those of the above gents?
_________________________

Top
#35378 - 01/28/08 09:48 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
True, I overlooked Ron Paul. From what I know about him, he's just about the only candidate who is willing to reduce government, and he wants to do it because he thinks smaller government is better, not just to pay for tax cuts (though that's obviously an attractive byproduct).

Still, with over two-thirds of the budget taken up by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and debt service, that doesn't lead a whole lot of room elsewhere for significantly reducing government and people's tax burdens. Most people like Social Security (witness W's failure to make significant headway on privatizing it), and I've seen no realistic proposal where private medical insurance will cover most of those who can't afford it today. Paul wants to cut back defense spending by eliminating overseas bases, but I don't think the public would go for substantial troop reductions. Getting rid of the Education and Commerce Departments won't save a whole lot of money. I think his numbers probably don't add up, at least not enough to offset the elimination of capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and taxes on dividends and interest that he advocates.

Also, I just think Paul is out of step with what most people want--and are even willing to do. Most people have said they're willing to pay more in taxes if it goes to providing universal health care. That's contrary to the libertarianism that Paul espouses. He seems to think that economic freedom will drive down health care costs, but he has no real plan to cover people who can't afford coverage (making health expenditures tax-deductible only helps people who make enough to pay income taxes, and perversely helps those in the upper brackets the most).

Top
#35382 - 01/28/08 10:41 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Given Ron Paul's chances, it is foolish to fantasize, but I'll do so anyway. Imagine a Ron Paul presidency with an anticipated Democratic congress. He could not effect some of the drastic reductions he advocates, yet since it is up to the executive alone, foreign military bases and adventures will cease or nearly so, Guantanamo prisoners will be tried or released, an executive order would forbid rendition or torture, warrantless wiretaps will cease, habeas corpus respected, patently unconstitutional bills vetoed, etc. Ah, a fellow can dream, can’t he?
_________________________

Top
#35383 - 01/29/08 01:45 AM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Paul has some integrity on the narrow-reading-of-the-Constitution view of things. He doesn't believe in the expansive view of the Commerce Clause as the basis for federal power, though that's been Supreme Court doctrine since the New Deal. (He can always support that view as a matter of good policy, whether or not it's allowed by the Constitution.) This is in marked contrast to the present administration, who say they're in favor of strict constructionism yet assert some war exception to the Bill of Rights that appears nowhere in the text.

But I think any of the Democratic candidates will also close Guantanamo, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture and rendition. Plus Paul has come out against one of the most important potentially transformative proposals floating around today: public financing of all federal elections. That, along with nonpartisan redistricting, could change the way Congress works by increasing the presently paltry number of contested seats, resulting in more moderation and less partisanship (plus our representatives could take that third of their time they spend raising money and use it actually reading bills). The Democratic candidates have all come out in favor of public campaign financing. While that's no guarantee that it will happen, it doesn't have a shot under any of the Republicans. And we've got a census coming up; if we don't get a redistricting law soon, we'll be stuck with more awful gerrymanders for another 10 years, rendering 90% of votes for the House meaningless because only 10% of seats will be considered "in play." (If you want to see a legislature paralyzed by gerrymanders and big money, just look at New York State.)

Top
#35397 - 01/29/08 10:18 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Let us pause in our discussion of the presidential race and see this TV ad for a US Senate seat in some flyover state.
_________________________

Top
#35401 - 01/30/08 05:15 AM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
And may I ask how you managed to come across that one?!?

(And is Oregon really a "flyover" state? If you're flying east-west, you'd have to land there before running out of real estate. Maybe it's a flyover for the Seattle-LA run?)

Top
#35403 - 01/30/08 11:13 AM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Whoops, I made a dumb assumption: if I've never heard of the candidate, he must be from a flyover state. That very term is indicative of the arrogance and contempt some from coastal states have for those of non-coastal states -- mea culpa .
As I posted in another thread, it is best that one doesn't know where I get some of my material.
_________________________

Top
#35421 - 01/31/08 03:52 AM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
So the question about Hillary is that if she were elected would she drop the no controversial issues stand and do something. Has it just become so ingrained that she can’t drop it, or will she then start running for her second term?

She’d certainly get a lot more support from me if she had stood for what we thought she stood for long ago. But, what she needs right now are votes, and a lot of weak votes count for more than a few strong ones, so perhaps she’s making the right strategic moves despite what it is doing to her. Then again it is possible politics has destroyed her. I hope not.

Top
#35493 - 02/02/08 09:26 PM Re: Vote [Re: mworking]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
Here's something curious. I don't know what to make of this:
 Quote:

GUEST: "She's more conservative than he is. I think she'd be stronger on the war on terrorism. I absolutely believe that.... I will campaign for her if it's McCain... She lies less than John McCain, she's smarter than John McCain."

ALAN COLMES: "Let me get this straight, would you vote for Hillary Clinton?"

GUEST: "Yeah."

COLMES: "You would actually go into a voting booth..."

GUEST: "If it's close and the candidate is John McCain, because John McCain is not only bad for Republicanism, which he definitely is, he is bad for the country, very very bad for the country."


Who's the guest? None other than that shrill darling Ann Coulter.
YouTube clip of the full exchange.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#35494 - 02/02/08 10:11 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Will that help or hurt the jr. senator from NY?
_________________________

Top
#35496 - 02/03/08 03:34 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
Here's the response of Melinda Henneberger from Slate Magazine. She argues that Coulter states her support for Hillary because it would be good for (her) business.
_________________

It Could Happen: Coulter Says One (Almost) True Thing

Ann Coulter is not so much a partisan as she is a performance artist, and her medium is the lie. So, normally, when she takes the stage and does her thing, there is nothing to conclude, beyond the fact that just as Gene Kelly had to dance and Karen Finley worked with chocolate, she is making it up because that is what she does. Well, that and to keep her skills up. So while it might be a pity she didn't hang in there with the tap lessons, we shouldn't take it to heart.

Today, however, in remarks about how she'll campaign for Hillary Clinton over John McCain if he is her party's presidential nominee, Coulter has shown new range by betraying something closer than usual to the truth. No, not that she'd ever actually support Clinton; even if she is all show, she is nothing if not a canny entrepreneur, and she knows her customer.

Yet even more than actual conservatives, those who only play them on TV would be beyond disappointed to see Barack Obama take the nomination away from the right's favorite chew toy. Not only because Republicans consider Clinton the weaker candidate in the general. (And if they don't, then why did George W. Bush come so close to endorsing her?) But also because these professionals have their careers to think of and would hate to even contemplate letting all those '90s-scandal recyclables go to waste. Can you imagine the years of preparation wasted, the patience unrewarded, and Billary best sellers left unwritten? Which is why I suspect Ann Coulter of seeing in Hillary Clinton a candidate who—ready or not for the actual job—would be distracted from Day One. And this time only, she could be right.

Top
#35508 - 02/05/08 11:22 AM Re: Vote [Re: d-elvis]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#35520 - 02/06/08 04:53 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#35528 - 02/07/08 06:22 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
I voted in the 2/5 primary. As a conservative I admit I was having HUGE issues with McCain (Keating 5, Campaign Finanace Reform AKA kill Frredom of Speech because i am a corrupt Senator, Against Bush tax cuts, open borders and amnesty) I could go on and on. However, after reading this board, I guess I'm gonna have to either write in a 3rd party or suck it up and vote McCain. Can't vote Clinton, no way. Who's have thought, presidential nominees that both parties think suck.

Top
#35532 - 02/07/08 07:56 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Ah, another "third party" voter -- just like me. \:\)
_________________________

Top
#35534 - 02/08/08 01:24 AM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
I admit I was having HUGE issues with McCain ...(Campaign Finanace Reform AKA kill Frredom of Speech)... Can't vote Clinton, no way.


First, I also think the McCain-Feingold restrictions on ads by outside groups is a First Amendment violation. (The Supreme Court hasn't addressed the issue directly, but it has found some aspects of the law unconstitutional.) However, I think the public campaign financing systems in place in Maine and Arizona are perfectly constitutional since they don't ban speech; they instead provide publicly financed candidates with matching funds. It's extremely disappointing that McCain, who has decried big money in politics, has said he's against public campaign financing.

And who said you'd have to choose between McCain and Hillary? There's at least some chance Obama could get the nod, though you might not vote for him either.

Plus I don't think most Obama supporters would think Clinton would suck as the nominee; she's just not their preferred candidate. So it's not true that both parties think their nominees suck.

... and ...
"Against Bush tax cuts, open borders and amnesty"

He was against the Bush tax cuts because they were not accompanied by equivalent spending reductions. What's so non-conservative about that?

And isn't the open borders and amnesty charge overblown? No one favors open borders; everyone is in favor of better border regulation. And amnesty means everything is forgiven; all the plans I've heard of have some requirements involved to stay here legally. Plus I haven't heard anyone in the "deport them all" camp face the public with the costs of tracking down and expelling a population the size of Ohio.

Finally ... if the most important goal is to avoid President Hillary, I think conservatives should be glad McCain is the nominee because I doubt anyone else would have had a chance.

Top
#35535 - 02/08/08 02:05 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Plus I don't think most Obama supporters would think Clinton would suck as the nominee; she's just not their preferred candidate. So it's not true that both parties think their nominees suck.

At the risk of thread deviation, I'll say that "to suck" as to be something bad is a very bad metaphor indeed. Perhaps if Ms. Clinton sucked, her husband might not have been impeached.
_________________________

Top
#35537 - 02/08/08 04:16 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Yeah, Ms Clinton sucks and the electorate has to swallow.

Top
#35539 - 02/08/08 06:51 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
Yeah, Ms Clinton sucks and the electorate has to swallow.


Maybe that should be McCain's campaign slogan; sure to sway all the undecideds out there.

Anyway, McCain has finally seen the light and decided that the Bush tax cuts don't need to be paid for after all. At least he can change with the times; that idea that fiscal conservatism means being fiscally responsible is so last millennium!

Top
#35545 - 02/08/08 10:55 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Yeah, Ms Clinton sucks and the electorate has to swallow.

Maybe that should be McCain's campaign slogan


Metaphors gone mad! \:\(
What exactly does it mean when one says that something or someone sucks? If it is bad, why?
_________________________

Top
#35547 - 02/09/08 01:46 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Yeah, Ms Clinton sucks and the electorate has to swallow. Maybe that should be McCain's campaign slogan
Metaphors gone mad! :(What exactly does it mean when one says that something or someone sucks? If it is bad, why?

Language:
Sucks is one of quite a few derogatory feminine or gay use sexual references in common use. We have this discussion all the time with our teen and pre-teen kids cause they use many terms that they don’t know the origin or real meaning.

Vote/candidates:
Speaking of prejudices, my wife says the Democrats have blown it again, just giving the presidential election away - again. She says there is very little chance that a black or woman will be elected president. We hope she is wrong, but she deals with the public and thinks prejudice is very much alive here in the US.

More prejudice:
I have to hope/wonder if it is the prejudiced right that won’t vote for a black or woman. A Democratic candidate won’t get those votes anyway, but it certainly means they will lose many votes they would have gotten from prejudiced people who are tired of the war.


Edited by mworking (02/09/08 02:25 PM)

Top
#35548 - 02/09/08 04:22 PM Re: Vote [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: mworking
She says there is very little chance that a black or woman will be elected president.


I understand the argument, but it flies in the face of a recent Time poll showing Hillary in a dead heat in a match-up against McCain and Obama leading McCain by seven percentage points. Other recent polls show fairly similar results (plus it's important to keep in mind that popular vote margins don't necessarily translate into electoral vote margins). Some argue further that such polls are unreliable because people are less willing to express their prejudices to a pollster than in the voting booth, but I think the evidence thus far shows that there is a good chance either of them may be elected. (Also, these polls don't ask people their reasons for preferring one candidate over the other, so there's no explicit admission of prejudice to the pollster anyway.)

 Originally Posted By: mworking
I have to hope/wonder if it is the prejudiced right that won’t vote for a black or woman. A Democratic candidate won’t get those votes anyway, but it certainly means they will lose many votes they would have gotten from prejudiced people who are tired of the war.


Prejudice can work both ways. Not to endorse such identity politics, but there are at least some women who are voting for Clinton because she's a woman, and some blacks who support Obama because he's black. So votes lost because of prejudice may be at least somewhat if not totally compensated by votes gained because of identity politics.

My Mom was at some Obama events in Westchester last week and said she'd never seen so many blacks at a political rally. That kind of turnout can change the electoral map in places like Ohio, regardless of who the nominee is.

I'd much prefer a nation where everyone voted for the best candidate regardless of superficial qualities such as gender and race, but to the extent those qualities matter, they can cut both ways.

Top
#35549 - 02/09/08 04:40 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
I'd much prefer a nation where everyone voted for the best candidate regardless of superficial qualities such as gender and race, but to the extent those qualities matter, they can cut both ways.

Cut both ways? Then Condoleezza Rice is the ideal candidate.


Top
#35550 - 02/09/08 06:37 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Yeah I am aware of the media and I am still scared.

 Quote:
I'd much prefer a nation where everyone voted for the best candidate regardless of superficial qualities such as gender and race, but to the extent those qualities matter, they can cut both ways.


In this case I am pretty sure they are very much against the Democratic candidates. I know way too many women who won't vote for a woman president and the black vote is nice to have, but they aren't near a majority in this country. Really they mostly count as swing votes in a close race, no?

Yeah its' great that we aren't running "TV candidates" but I still wonder how we end up running Hillary and OBama - even though I think I would like to see OBama as president.

I am just scared. At least as Daniel noted, even McCain is bound to be better than GW.


Edited by mworking (02/09/08 06:49 PM)

Top
#35551 - 02/09/08 07:22 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Then Condoleezza Rice is the ideal candidate.


Well, "cut both ways" doesn't mean that the forces of identity politics outweigh the power of prejudice, or the other way around; I'm saying only that there are countervailing forces at work.

Also, any advantages derived from identity voters can be counteracted by a record of being consistently and spectacularly, even tragically, wrong. Or at least one would hope.

Top
#35553 - 02/10/08 02:27 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land


Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.

Top
#35564 - 02/13/08 03:29 AM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
With all the reports of registered Democrats having problems with their attempt to vote I would be more worried about the lack of voter reform or investigations into voter fraud.

If we, as a people, don't want to end up in a nation that supports unending war I think the first step is to vote against McCain(or any Republican).

With unending war, how can we afford any reforms that help the middle class to the poverty stricken. We have to stop the war in Iraq at all costs. If we don't we will go bankrupt. If we invade Iran sell all your usless items and save your cash becasue you will need it to feed your kids and to buy a few gallons of oil to keep your homes warm.

I can't understand why there is any real discussion between democratic candadites. Anyone but a Republican in the white house would be change enough.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#35569 - 02/13/08 01:26 PM Re: Vote [Re: acdnyc]
learningtolead Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 981
Loc: a wanna be kerhonkson-er
Hillary has been verbally supportive in at least mild ways of war with Iran.

Top
#35787 - 03/04/08 12:02 PM Rove lives [Re: acdnyc]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#35813 - 03/04/08 09:46 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
For those who are free to listen to audio, here is a hilarious (no pun intended) song at Obama's expense.
_________________________

Top
#35908 - 03/08/08 10:32 PM Re: Vote [Re: acdnyc]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
We have to stop the war in Iraq at all costs. If we don't we will go bankrupt.


Top
#36019 - 03/18/08 11:11 AM Re: Vote [Re: acdnyc]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#36104 - 03/26/08 04:14 PM A British betting shop evaluates our candidates [Re: d-elvis]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Ladies & gentlemen, place your bets.
_________________________

Top
#36128 - 03/27/08 12:47 PM Re: A British betting shop evaluates our candidate [Re: oenophore]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
I'm offended that they don't include Ron Paul! Conspiracy by the British betting industry!

(No offense to all the Paulistas out there; at least he was more principled than the alternatives.)

Top
#36133 - 03/27/08 03:06 PM Re: A British betting shop evaluates our candidate [Re: Daniel]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
[i]I'm offended that they don't include Ron Paul! Conspiracy by the British betting industry![/]

Obviously, too dark a horse to tempt bettors.
_________________________

Top
#36156 - 03/28/08 04:37 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
I voted in the 2/5 primary. As a conservative I admit I was having HUGE issues with McCain (Keating 5, Campaign Finanace Reform AKA kill Frredom of Speech because i am a corrupt Senator, Against Bush tax cuts, open borders and amnesty) I could go on and on. However, after reading this board, I guess I'm gonna have to either write in a 3rd party or suck it up and vote McCain. Can't vote Clinton, no way. Who's have thought, presidential nominees that both parties think suck.

Top
#36836 - 04/30/08 04:56 PM Re: Vote [Re: learningtolead]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#36989 - 05/13/08 01:16 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
Was at Time Magazines 100 most influential people at Jazz Lincoln Center and John McCain was there. He toasted Hilary and Obama on a fair and clean race.
Then, Lance Armstrong got up and talked about how America’s stance on healthcare is immoral. He said he didn’t realize that only athletes, the wealthy and corporate execs got unlimited healthcare. Seems he learned something from his experience with cancer.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#36991 - 05/13/08 01:17 PM Re: Vote [Re: acdnyc]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
Oh yeah, he's a lot smaller than I expected, too.
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#37189 - 05/27/08 09:51 AM Re: Vote -- MarcC will like this one [Re: MarcC]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
#37571 - 06/04/08 12:59 PM Re: Vote [Re: d-elvis]
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
Whew.... I can quit holding my breath now that psycho lady did not get the nomination \:D
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#37574 - 06/04/08 03:07 PM Re: Vote [Re: d-elvis]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
She didn't give up yet! She's a FIGHTER!
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#37575 - 06/04/08 03:33 PM Re: Vote [Re: Dillbag]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
She might not have given up, but I think every voting Democrat has given up and left the whole party by now.

Top
#37576 - 06/04/08 05:41 PM Re: Vote [Re: d-elvis]
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
my 2cents... he needs H as a running mate to beat Mc
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#37577 - 06/04/08 05:55 PM Re: Vote [Re: d-elvis]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Given the Republicans' approval ratings, you'd think that he could pick Groucho Marx as a running mate and still win. Seriously though, these two contenders have so thoroughly succeeded in dividing the Democratic Party over B.S. non-issues that you are probably right.

Top
#37578 - 06/04/08 06:47 PM Re: Vote [Re: pedestrian]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Will any of you guys or gals make some bet on the election?
_________________________

Top
#37579 - 06/04/08 06:55 PM Re: Vote [Re: pedestrian]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
 Originally Posted By: pedestrian
Given the Republicans' approval ratings, you'd think that he could pick Groucho Marx as a running mate and still win. Seriously though, these two contenders have so thoroughly succeeded in dividing the Democratic Party over B.S. non-issues that you are probably right.


The important issues aren't democrat vs democrat. They are plain old prejudice - for both of them. Dems have given McCain every chance they could. I hope I am wrong, but I wrote long ago, that in a presidential election that Obama likely doesn't have a chance, and I am still not convinced that he does. We remain a very prejudiced nation - but I think that all good people will have something to be proud of if he wins, even if they don't vote for him!

Top
#37581 - 06/04/08 07:31 PM Re: Vote [Re: mworking]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
There is a slight possibility that the Canal Zone born McCain may be judged not to be a "natural born citizen" of the US and therefore ineligible for the presidency. The subject is too legally arcane for me to have an opinion on it. What a monkey wrench might be thrown into the election!
_________________________

Top
#37582 - 06/04/08 08:07 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
There is a slight possibility that the Canal Zone born McCain may be judged not to be a "natural born citizen" of the US and therefore ineligible for the presidency. The subject is too legally arcane for me to have an opinion on it. What a monkey wrench might be thrown into the election!


Ya right, if that argument had weight to it, it would have been played to death with the Dem’s (and Republican opponents as well)

Top
#37583 - 06/04/08 08:09 PM Re: Vote [Re: Smike]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2955
Loc: LI, NY
oh horse shit. his father was an Admiral serving the military assigned to a base. if they were going to play that card he would have been out of the race by now.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#37585 - 06/04/08 08:30 PM Re: Vote [Re: Smike]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Good point, Smike. I got off my fat ass, so to speak, and did a bit of research, coming up with this:
.................................................................

An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
First Congress, Session 2, Chapter 3
March 26, 1790
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.
APPROVED, March 26, 1790.
.................................................................
_________________________

Top
#37586 - 06/04/08 09:01 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
 Originally Posted By: oenophore
Will any of you guys or gals make some bet on the election?


I bet someone will become President, and in about 6 months I'll be unhappy with at least part of what they're doing.

Top
#37587 - 06/04/08 09:05 PM Re: Vote [Re: Mike Rawdon]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Yes Mike, me too.
_________________________

Top
#37588 - 06/04/08 09:33 PM Re: Vote [Re: d-elvis]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
For those who are free to view a satirical video clip, here is a precis of the campaign: The Empire Strikes Barack.
_________________________

Top
#37599 - 06/05/08 02:41 PM Re: Vote [Re: mworking]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: mworking
I hope I am wrong, but I wrote long ago, that in a presidential election that Obama likely doesn't have a chance, and I am still not convinced that he does.


I think there is a lot of evidence that not only does he have a chance, but that he's leading at the moment. Polling this far ahead may not be terribly reliable, but it's all we've got at the moment, and state-by-state polls show the race as competitive.

Some sites that analyze the electoral vote situation are here, here, and here.

Top
#37605 - 06/05/08 04:40 PM Re: Vote [Re: Daniel]
mworking Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/26/04
Posts: 764
Thanks for the links, but I am still keeping my fingers crossed and plan to donate more than I ever have to a political campaign.

Top
#37616 - 06/05/08 08:54 PM Re: Vote [Re: mworking]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard

Top
#37824 - 06/16/08 12:03 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
So doesn't the natural born citizen argument rule out Obama too? His Dad was a Kenyan citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii, but won't release his birth certificate. His Mom was young, 18-19. She would have had to reside in the US for some years (2) prior to Hawaii to make the natural born thing work, under the rules that were in effect when Obama was born. Technically she didn't do that, living in Kenya before Hawaii.

Top
#37827 - 06/16/08 04:24 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
So doesn't the natural born citizen argument rule out Obama too?

The Fourteenth Amendment assures his citizenship since he was born in one of the United States and subject to its jurisdiction. Hawaii was admitted to the union before he was born.
_________________________

Top
#37829 - 06/16/08 05:46 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Correct, The laws governing whether or not a child born outside of the United States acquires U.S. citizenship from his or her parents have changed several times. The law that was in effect on the date of the child's birth determines whether he or she acquired U.S. citizenship from a parent or grandparent.

4. December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986


If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. There are no conditions placed on retaining this type of citizenship. If your one U.S. citizen parent is your father and you were born outside of marriage, the same rules apply if your father legally legitimated you before your 21st birthday and you were unmarried at the time. If legitimation occurred after November 14, 1986, your father must have established paternity prior to your 18th birthday, either by acknowledgment or by court order, and must have stated in writing that he would support you financially until your 18th birthday.


Obama is disqualified because although his Mom resided in the US, she didn't reside there 5 years before his birth if she had him while she was in college. All Obama has to do is release his birth certificate, but he won't do it. Should be an interesting election. Did you see the outstanding oration he gave in Virginia last week about healthcare?


Edited by alicex4 (06/16/08 05:46 PM)

Top
#37866 - 06/17/08 03:48 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Obama birth certificate

Next smear, please.

Top
#37878 - 06/17/08 11:31 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
MarcC Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/10/00
Posts: 3532
You might want to look at Fight The Smears before you go mindlessly and unquestioningly parroting the next right wing lie about Obama.
_________________________
- Marc

Top
#37889 - 06/18/08 12:41 PM Re: Vote [Re: MarcC]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Yeah, but you enjoy rebutting the smears so much! I can't take that away. What did you think about his live dialogue versus his scripted orations? Quite the difference don't you think?

Top
#37892 - 06/18/08 01:30 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Yes, I've always been impressed by his live dialogue. Not so much for McCain. There is quite a difference there.

Top
#37896 - 06/18/08 05:11 PM Re: Vote [Re: pda]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Next smear, please.



Top
#37897 - 06/18/08 05:12 PM Re: Vote [Re: pda]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
I agree with McCain speaking inability. That, coupled with his Keating 5 association will always make him ineligible for me. Now Barak Obama, when he reads prepared speeches he is good. Off the cuff, not so much. From a speech in Bristol VA, "What they'll say is, "Well it costs too much money," but you know what? It would cost, about... It -- it -- it would cost about the same as what we would spend... It... Over the course of 10 years it would cost what it would costs us... (nervous laugh) All right. Okay. We're going to... It... It would cost us about the same as it would cost for about -- hold on one second. I can't hear myself. But I'm glad you're fired up, though. I'm glad." Google a Youtube if you want to see it live. What is classic is the looks on the faces in the crowd as the debacle unfolds. I also don't like Obama's association with Angelo Mozilo and Countrywide Mortgage.
"Countrywide Financial was one of the folks, one of the institutions that was pumping up the sub-prime lending market," Obama said on March 31. And yet Obama hires Jim Johnson, the former CEO of mortgage giant Fannie Mae, to lead his Vice Presidential search, not knowing of Johnson's ties to Countrywide Financial, a mortgage lender Obama had railed against on the campaign trail. At best, a stupid move on Obama's part. At worst, a net of conspiracy that will be hard to disassociate yourself from. Follow the trail further to the Countrywide Six (maybe seven now with Jackson) it makes the Keating Five look like nothing. And we all know how the Keating Five were punished, NOT! Follow the money boys!

Top
#37900 - 06/18/08 06:00 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
alice, alice, alice, alice. If McCain is ineligible in your view, and Obama is some sort of Dan Quayle redux, who ARE you leaning towards?

Edit: and don't say a third party. GO AHEAD, THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE!!


Edited by pedestrian (06/18/08 06:01 PM)

Top
#37903 - 06/18/08 07:23 PM Re: Vote [Re: pedestrian]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Didn't that guy resign last week? Kind of old news at this point.


How about -

He's a Muslim. He was sworn into office on the Koran. He doesn't say the Pledge of Allegiance. His pastor is an anti-Semite. He's a tool of Louis Farrakhan. He's anti-Israel. His advisers are anti-Israel. He's friends with terrorists. The terrorists want him to win. He's the Antichrist.

Keep 'em comin . . .

Top
#37906 - 06/18/08 07:34 PM Re: Vote [Re: pda]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Well, Willaim Ayers and Bernadine Dorn are great people to have in your cadre. I don't get that association. But I also don't understand why he has a professorship at the Univ. of Chicago. Maybe the Univ. could hire some FARC members too.

His preacher of 20 years is a radical marxist pro African preacher. I find it ludicrous for me to believe that Obama wasn't aware of the message. If you believe it, then don't renouce it. Or were you just cultivating it for the voting block (Trinity Baptist) sir?

My vote, probably Ron paul at this point.....the other two guys are toadies.

Top
#37907 - 06/18/08 07:36 PM Re: Vote [Re: pedestrian]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
Yeah, I made that mistake when I voted Perot. It enables Clinton to take the presidency with the smallest percentage of the vote in history. Go figure, without Perot, Clinton would have lost.

Top
#37908 - 06/18/08 07:42 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
You can't really tell about "third party" candidates. Would those who voted for Perot have otherwise voted for Bush Sr. if the former wasn't on the ballot or would they have skipped the presidential vote altogether? Of course, there are some in each category, but one can't tell how many.
_________________________

Top
#37909 - 06/18/08 07:43 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
His preacher of 20 years is a radical marxist pro African preacher. I find it ludicrous for me to believe that Obama wasn't aware of the message. If you believe it, then don't renouce it. Or were you just cultivating it for the voting block (Trinity Baptist) sir?

My vote, probably Ron paul at this point.....the other two guys are toadies.


Pro-African? Pro-African? The guy is black, and somehow Pro-African comes as a shock to you? Seriously, is that the best you can do?

Ron Paul lost his party's nomination, if you are going to vote Libertarian, why not actually vote Libertarian? As in the Libertarian Party nominee, which would probably be Bob Barr. Although Barr is a flip-flopper extraordinaire; look at how he suddenly started singing a different tune in order to compete on the LP ticket. Plus, if you want to start talking guilt-by-association, I could run down the list of Ron Paul's associations, which are truely creepy... but why play that game, we're better than that, right?

Top
#37912 - 06/18/08 08:05 PM Re: Vote [Re: pedestrian]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
My political parties dick is bigger then your political parties dick.

Enough said.

Top
#37914 - 06/18/08 08:44 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
A- I see where you're coming from, but I'm thinking maybe we've moved past the Swiftboat playbook this time. But maybe not.

Top
#37924 - 06/19/08 01:36 AM Re: Vote [Re: pda]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
I don't see it as "Swift Boating" to judge candidates by the same yardstick. If you are stupid, corrupt, etc., it doesn't matter to me how you rationalize the association with corruption, you are tainted. I am probably still naive to think that way, and that there can somehow be a better option for the Presidency, but I have been wrong before. \:\)
It's not the pro African thing that bothers me so much about Obama's association as much as the MARXIST themes Trinity Church espouses that disturb me. I can't get behind that rhetoric. Politically, I am in a quandary. No candidate really represents my interests of education reform, a REAL energy policy, immigration and border security (are we a sovereign nation, is that naive?), healthcare, and national security. There are other issues, but I figure the President only has 4 years, so I will be realistic in my citizen demands.

Top
#37929 - 06/19/08 11:15 AM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
Perhaps it's a bit of thread deviation to note that "swiftboating" has entered the nation's political vocabulary. Will it have the longevity of the "gate" suffix apropos federal political scandals?
_________________________

Top
#37933 - 06/19/08 05:21 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Most true Marxists I know of aren't interested in running for office in the U.S., they are interested in revolution instead, take this nutty mission statement for example from PFOC, a Weatherman offshoot:

"We oppose oppression in all its forms including racism, sexism, homophobia, classism and imperialism. We demand liberation and justice for all peoples. We recognize that we live in a capitalist system that favors a select few and oppresses the majority. This system cannot be reformed or voted out of office because reforms and elections do not challenge the fundamental causes of injustice."

Leftism may have Marxist roots, but with the major candidates you're looking at watered-down Marxism at best. Wright is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The black bloc is to the democrats as the far right-wing religious set is to the republicans: a captive constituency.

There's plenty of creepiness to go around in that constituency (far right nuts) by the way. I'll let you guess which constituency I think is worse for the nation...

Top
#37935 - 06/19/08 05:51 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
I think a candidate might be able to be defined be the intersection of the characters of all his supporters, but not by the most extreme views held by any one of them.

Beyond that, you're just playing politics.

Top
#37941 - 06/19/08 08:58 PM Re: Vote [Re: pda]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: pda
I think a candidate might be able to be defined be the intersection of the characters of all his supporters, but not by the most extreme views held by any one of them.

Beyond that, you're just playing politics.
I think there were good presidents who had unsavory supporters, yet weren't tainted by them. After Washington, all presidential candidates were political players.
_________________________

Top
#37953 - 06/20/08 05:53 PM Re: Vote [Re: oenophore]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
The Two Obamas
God, Republicans are saps. They think that they’re running against some academic liberal who wouldn’t wear flag pins on his lapel, whose wife isn’t proud of America and who went to some liberationist church where the pastor damned his own country. They think they’re running against some naïve university-town dreamer, the second coming of Adlai Stevenson.

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

But he’s been giving us an education, for anybody who cares to pay attention. Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in “Entourage” and it all falls into place.

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times. From time to time, he threw his voting power under the truck.

Dr. Barack said he could no more disown the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than disown his own grandmother. Then the political costs of Rev. Wright escalated and Fast Eddie Obama threw Wright under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have been a workhorse senator. But primary candidates don’t do tough votes, so Fast Eddie Obama threw the workhorse duties under the truck.

Dr. Barack could have changed the way presidential campaigning works. John McCain offered to have a series of extended town-hall meetings around the country. But favored candidates don’t go in for unscripted free-range conversations. Fast Eddie Obama threw the new-politics mantra under the truck.

And then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.

But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.

And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.

The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

NYTimes editorial 6/20/2008


Edited by alicex4 (06/20/08 05:53 PM)

Top
#37954 - 06/20/08 06:31 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
pda Offline
addict

Registered: 08/30/01
Posts: 621
Loc: Bergen County NJ
Careful there - this is a column by neocon David Brooks that appeared on the op/ed page of the NYT. That is not a NYT editorial.

Top
#37956 - 06/20/08 07:47 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
From the above editorial:

Back when he was in the Illinois State Senate, Dr. Barack could have taken positions on politically uncomfortable issues. But Fast Eddie Obama voted “present” nearly 130 times.

Using this website, I looked up Obama's US senatorial voting record. Where he voted yea or nay, I largely approve. But I was appalled to find so many bills upon which he didn't vote. There wasn't even one vote in which he was paired for or against, a means by which one who couldn't attend a vote could be on record as being for or against. I'm getting second thoughts about the guy.
_________________________

Top
#38026 - 06/26/08 09:38 PM Re: Vote [Re: alicex4]
Daniel Offline
veteran

Registered: 05/23/01
Posts: 1515
 Originally Posted By: alicex4
The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money).


That's absolutely not true. I care. But I think that to participate in public financing for the presidential campaign would itself be a sham because that system is no longer sufficient to the task. First, there's no longer enough money in the system to run an adequate campaign. Second, more private money would just flow to party committees and 527 organizations, so the election would no longer be a fair fight with public funds. While I'm disappointed that we don't have a good public finance system, it's hard for me to come down too hard on candidates who choose not to participate in a system that is so flawed.

Obama is a co-sponsor of a "clean elections" bill that would provide real public financing of congressional races along the lines in place since 2000 on the state level in Maine and Arizona (and in Connecticut as of this cycle). McCain has not supported it, even though it operates in his home state. Consequently, for my purpose of getting real public financing in place, I think it's better for Obama to do what he thinks is necessary to win in order to increase the chances of changing the system for the better. While I think it's unfortunate that such a decision involves opting out of the public finance system this time around, my mixed feelings are overcome by the inadequacies of the public system and the necessity to win in order to fix the problems of that system--which is less likely to happen if McCain wins.

Not my ideal solution, but politics does not take place in an ideal environment.

For information on the "clean elections" Maine/Arizona model, check out www.publicampaign.org.

Top
#39692 - 09/12/08 03:38 PM YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: learningtolead]
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#39696 - 09/12/08 04:28 PM Re: YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: d-elvis]
Mim Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/27/00
Posts: 999
Loc: Gunks
_________________________
Mim

Top
#39697 - 09/12/08 04:44 PM Re: YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: d-elvis]
alicex4 Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 07/05/00
Posts: 3400
WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
By Jonathan Haidt
(JONATHAN HAIDT is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he does research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom.)


...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

Top
#39702 - 09/12/08 07:49 PM Re: YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: alicex4]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
VOTE REPUBLICAN

I'd love to -- if Ron Paul were on the presidential ballot.
_________________________

Top
#39782 - 09/16/08 04:00 AM Re: YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: oenophore]
acdnyc Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/10/04
Posts: 208
Loc: NYC/Kerhonkson
"living in a sanctified and noble way."

Republicans live this way?
_________________________
jugs or mugs

Top
#39784 - 09/16/08 10:32 AM Re: YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: acdnyc]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
 Originally Posted By: acdnyc
"living in a sanctified and noble way."

Republicans live this way?
That's a quote from Alice's linked website. It doesn't say or imply Republicans live this way. Warning: make sure you've got plenty of time before you access that site.
_________________________

Top
#39797 - 09/16/08 04:13 PM Re: YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: oenophore]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Oh I'd say it very strongly implied that:

"..the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer."

If one equates "liberals" with Democrats (not such a stretch) and takes Dems to be opposite of Republicans (ditto), then it is saying that Republicans' rule of moral psychology is to live in a sanctified and noble way. So either they do... or they are hypocrites.

Top
#41364 - 11/10/08 10:58 AM Re: Vote -- a postmortem [Re: pda]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land
The presidential election result is presented here in a most interesting graphical way.
_________________________

Top
#41382 - 11/10/08 04:43 PM Re: Vote -- a postmortem [Re: oenophore]
Dillbag Offline
old hand

Registered: 05/02/06
Posts: 1130
Loc: "The Town"
Same guy did that for the last election as well... Very cool map stuff...

Sodaguy, you ever do anything cool like that?
_________________________
...anethum graveolens cucumis sativus!

Top
#41423 - 11/11/08 12:36 PM Re: Vote -- a postmortem [Re: Dillbag]
empicard Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/29/01
Posts: 2955
Loc: LI, NY
no certainly not. thats why i got out of maps, and into soda. soda is way more interesting.
i only make maps of island chains now.
_________________________
tOOthless

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

Top
#55508 - 10/12/10 09:43 AM Re: YOTE REPUBLICAN [Re: Mike Rawdon]
oenophore Online   confused
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/24/01
Posts: 5969
Loc: 212 land

Top
Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 ... 11 12 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored