Andrew Sullivan declared Clintons have "a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward"
SUMMARY: Andrew Sullivan compared the revival of Sen. Hillary Clinton's political fortunes to a "horror movie" and described former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as having "a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward." Sullivan wrote that the Clintons "are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway."
In a March 9 op-ed in London's Sunday Times, Atlantic senior editor and blogger Andrew Sullivan compared the revival of Sen. Hillary Clinton's political fortunes to a "horror movie" and described former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as having "a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward." Sullivan also compared Hillary Clinton to "Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction -- whoosh! She's back at your throat." Citing the continuing race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sullivan added, "You can't escape; you can't hide; and you can't win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, [the Clintons] are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway." He also wrote: "There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power." Sullivan attacked the Clintons despite stating in a January 10 post on his blog The Daily Dish that "I'm going to try a little harder to be a little more temperate" when discussing them.
Sullivan also wrote that "[r]eleasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate" and criticized the "secrecy and paranoia" of the Clintons, who "still haven't" released their tax returns, as compared with Sen. Barack Obama, who "did it some time back." But Sullivan did not note that "[t]he presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, hasn't released his tax returns either," as The Wall Street Journal reported on February 23. Moreover, while Sullivan complained that "the Clintons" have indicated that they will not release their returns "for more than another month," according to a February 27 Washington Post editorial, McCain has yet to even express intent to disclose his returns, a fact that the Post criticized as "[m]ost troubling":
Most troubling, Mr. McCain isn't even pledging to release his returns once he becomes the nominee.
[...]
He [McCain] is the all-but-official GOP nominee, yet his communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, told us in an e-mail that she had "not yet discussed" the matter with Mr. McCain. "He is not the nominee of the party at this time, and we're focused on winning primary contests and wrapping up the nomination," she wrote. "When the right time comes I will have that discussion and get you an answer to your questions." With all due respect, Mr. McCain, the right time is now.
Conservative radio host Monica Crowley also made the Glenn Close/Fatal Attraction comparison on the January 13 edition of the syndicated program The McLaughlin Group.
From Sullivan's March 9 op-ed in The Sunday Times:
It's alive! We thought it might be over but some of us never dared fully believe it. Last week was like one of those moments in a horror movie when the worst terror recedes, the screen goes blank and then reopens on green fields or a lover's tender embrace. Drained but still naive audiences breathe a collective sigh of relief. The plot twists have all been resolved; the threat is gone; the quiet spreads. And then ...
Put your own movie analogy in here. Glenn Close in the bathtub in Fatal Attraction -- whoosh! she's back at your throat! -- has often occurred to me when covering the Clintons these many years. The Oscars host Jon Stewart compares them to a Terminator: the kind that is splattered into a million tiny droplets of vaporised metal...only to pool together spontaneously and charge back at you unfazed.
The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can't escape; you can't hide; and you can't win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.
Now all this may seem a little melodramatic. Perhaps it is. Objectively, an accomplished senator won a couple of races -- one by a mere 3% -- against another senator in a presidential campaign. One senator is still mathematically unbeatable. But that will never capture the emotional toll that the Clintons continue to take on some of us. I'm not kidding. I woke up in a cold sweat early last Wednesday. There have been moments this past week when I have felt physically ill at the thought of that pair returning to power.
Why? I have had to write several columns in this space over the years acknowledging that the substantive legacy of the Clinton administration (with a lot of assist from Newt Gingrich) was a perfectly respectable one: welfare reform, fiscal sanity, prudent foreign policy, leaner government. But remembering the day-to-day psychodramas of those years still floods my frontal cortex with waves of loathing and anxiety. The further away you are from them, the easier it is to think they're fine. Up close they are an intolerable, endless, soul-sapping soap opera.
[...]
Last Thursday The Washington Post ran an article reporting on the almost comic divisions within the Clinton camp: how chaotic the planning had been, how much chief pollster Mark Penn hated all the other advisers, how even in the wake of a sudden victory most of the Clintonites were eager to score rancid points off each other.
The secrecy and paranoia endure too. Releasing tax returns is routine for a presidential candidate. Barack Obama did it some time back. The Clintons still haven't -- and say they won't for more than another month. Why? They have no explanation. They seem affronted by the question.
"Now all this may seem a little melodramatic. Perhaps it is."
Perhaps it seems more like a really lame attempt at humor, and isn't that what we all depend on news organizations for?
Andrew Sullivan...hmmm.... isn't he the guy who wrote a passionate, indignant column once about the sexual irresponsibility of many gay men, and then he was caught trolling on a hardcore, high-risk gay pickup site?
Just asking...
Additional thoughts: 1. The mainstream media have idolized the Clintons since day one of Bill's first national campaign speech until.... well, one must admit this ridiculous phenomenon is current -- itself a bit zombie like. Bill Clinton was known as the "tephlon president". Nothing stuck to him. The media gave him a full court pass on every infraction in deference to attacking and vilifying those who dared to acknowledge Bill's misconduct. 2. Were it not for the Oprah factor, which lead to the Obama factor, Hillary would still be the at the center of the uber liberal mainstream media's democrat lovefest. It just so happens that with Obama's lead in the polls, the fickle media has joined the Obama bandwagon, that is rather than simply reporting the news in a completely unbias manner. While we're on the Obama factor, that guy seems likeable enough, as well as being an effective orator. However, he is about as qualified to run our country's government as is Hillary, which isn't saying much at all. 3. I've asked dozens of Hillary supporters why they're supporting her. The reply is always some derivative of 'She's a woman and it's time for a woman." Not once has any Hillary supporter given a valid example of her professional qualifications for the job of president. Similarly, I've asked the same question of Obama supporters. They all agree that 'He's black and it's time for a black president.' No example of professional qualifications, etc. Hillary supporters are little more than folks who are discriminating against Obama or McCain simply based on sex, which is illegal in the job market, and certainly a huge no-no among liberals. Similarly, Obama supporters are little more than racists who will support a "black man" in deference to Hillary or McCain based specifically on race, again an illegal act in the job market, and a huge no no among liberals. The good news for you liberals is that no matter who wins this election, McCain, Hillary, or Obama, you'll be getting a liberal. So you can happily put that in your pipe and smoke it. The only difference between Obama and Hillary is their personalities, their skin color, and their sex. They both want to break our medical system by turing it into a nationalist social system. (By the way the "N" in NAZI stands for Nationalists. I know, that's nothing more than a coincidence...) Plus they both want to seize corporate profits, which would violate the Fourth Amendment, which would erode our personal freedoms. Why? Because if Washington can apply that to corporate American, they can likewise apply it to all levels of America.) Hold on to your wallets, folks! The liberals are coming!!!
Angry white men have had their chance and they blew it. Everybody can see it. The whole world can see it. This country will next try something else.
More mindless liberal claptrap from an obvious card-carrying member of the national society of liberal claptrappers. Of course one could ask what is your defintion of "blew it"? Secondly, what is your evidence for the use of the over-used liberal lame-brained term, "angry white men"? Finally, my mis-informed, ill-educated brother in Christ, precisely WHAT is it that these imaginary "angry white men" have blown? Liberals and your insistent faith in tautology! What a joke!
In today's neo-Nazi Party, aka the Republican Party, doesn't the N stand for NASCAR...? ;>)
Iron: You might be correct in that prediction. However, it is just as likely there will be some angry white women, and/or some angry black men and women then. I find these posts amusing insofar as they become more interesting and attractive than the original article of comment.
Fact,
Some people post here simply to cast insults. Don't despair. There are others that do engage in discussion and that can be fun.
Another,
Duly noted. This is not the first liberal blog I've entered. I've found that there is a faction of such bloggers who cast about little more than mindless poop, as well as those who can actually present a original thought while dismissing human error qualities, such as the odd misspelled wurd... Enjoy!
Really? Well, that put me in my place now, didn't it!
You're going to <YAWN< take a nap, 'ey? Well, that means your physical dimension will be joining your intellectual dimension in la la land.... nighty nights!
Ironman "A mind is a terrible thing to waste, "
That is a prime example of a typical, liberal, empty-headed bumper-sticker, one-liner. But wait a minute, do you know the origin of that particular slogan's popularity? Back in the late 1960's the American Negro College Fund garnered national prominence with that slogan inviting the nation to give money to their cause so that a "negro's" mind would not go to waste. I know; so what.... But hey, at least I know the historical context of your liberal clap trap.
LOL. Uhhh, wow...! You boast about knowing something that is common knowledge. Obviously your standards for knowledge are pretty low. But you've already demonstrated that...
Hey, at least I've demonstrated and posted some substantive remarks and statements, which is way more than can be said for you, you antagonistic little mosquito-brained liberal..
"...you antagonistic little mosquito-brained liberal.."
Now THAT hurts... Maybe if you spoke of substantive matters instead of resorting to name calling... ;>)
Maybe if you spoke of substantive matters instead of resorting to name calling...
And that was just his first post!
Hey, at least I've demonstrated and posted some substantive remarks and statements,
where did you post these substantive remarks? I'd like to read them.
Republicans are not nazis.
As America slowly slides into fascism while under Republican control, I think you should reconsider your opinion. Read Naomi Wolf's latest book (The End of America) and then get back to us. The current crop of Republicans are a living, breathing, 21st century version of fascism - spying without warrants, jailing without charges, corporatism, cronyism, massive shift of wealth to the very rich, etc. etc.
Yes, as a Republican, you support a fascist regime, but you're just too stupid to realize it. And that's the scary part, because I have to share this country with people like you.
Mr. Foghorn: You have a reply to your post…
As America slowly slides into fascism while under Republican control, I think you should reconsider your opinion. Read Naomi Wolf's latest book (The End of America) and then get back to us.Your suggestion that I’m unqualified to partake in this discussion because I haven’t read Ms. Wolf’s latest book is as ridiculous as is it condescending. No thanks.
The current crop of Republicans are a living, breathing, 21st century version of fascism - spying without warrants,Never happened. This is a fallacy created by the minds of the anti-Bush crowd. I’ve looked into this before, sorry can’t recall ALL the details, however the arrangement by which enemies to our national security can be legally watched and surveyed by our government officials is fully legal and fully in place, and has been since before the bad guys stole the election back in 2000.
jailing without charges,More hogwash! Those guys are terrorists who would just as soon fly a jet into your home as they would the Pentagon. They’re bad guys who are being held for reason. The press has created the myth to which you allude due to two main facts: 1. They hate republicans and especially Bush; 2. The well-publicized, and resolved security issues that occurred at Abu-Grabe. (Sorry was that a misspelling?.)
corporatism,This is a term that is entirely meaningless.
cronyism,This is also a term that is entirely meaningless.
(I know you are disagreeing with me on this; so perhaps you would like to present a substantial amount of empirical evidence in support of your claims.)
massive shift of wealth to the very rich,This fallacy is based in nothing more than classic liberal democrat party class envy. Like I said earlier, your liberal democrat politicos are counting on your being fully prepared and willing to accept their promised tax increases…. In order to correct such economic misbehavior as you incorrectly refer to. But then again, since you are the well-read, and more well informed of the party here, (or so you assume), then I have no doubt that you can provide a significant amount of empirical evidence in support of your claim.
My goodness, and you liberals accuse ME of being full of non-substantive right-wing talking points…. Hello pot, my name is kettle; you are quite black, aren’t you?
etc. etc.This means simply that you ran out of meaningless ideas…. : )
Yes, as a Republican, you support a fascist regime,
This conclusion is based on your unfounded fallacies cited above. Therefore, your conclusion is also a fallacy.
but you're just too stupid to realize it.Oh. And now I’m stupid. How nice of you to mention that part. Let me guess; this little Bevis and Butthead-level attempt at cutting my intelligence down to size is your way of setting me up for the conclusion that I must be too stupid to agree with you!?!? You MUST believe your own propaganda, pal. Believe you me, you have no idea.
And that's the scary part, because I have to share this country with people like you.More insults. How typical. Here’s a fact for you, you compassionate liberal, your mindless attempts at hurting my feelings have completely missed their mark, that is, save their ability to garner the odd guffaw from the odd like-minded mental neophyte.
In closing, you’ll note that I courteously and respectfully acknowledge and address every one of your comments, even though I disagree with the substance presented therein. You’ll note further that the vast majority of participants in this fun-house have refrained from offering the same courtesies in response to my points of interest. Therein lies one true difference between the typical conservative blogger and the typical liberal blogger.
Therein lies one true difference between the typical conservative blogger and the typical liberal blogger.
Exactly. You posted not one piece of proof to back your claims, threw out a few insults and then said you responded respectfully.
I'm outta here!
"...sissyfied game you and your whining little dweebulous pack of (t)urd-brained circle-jerk liberal cronies are playing here..."
What...? You come here looking to pick a fight and then YOU start whining when you get slapped around a little.
Reality Check:
I wasn't whining! Merely making an obseration.
I guess you didn't bother to look up Wolf's latest book.
Your defensiveness speaks volumes - I guess I touched a nerve.
Your suggestion that I’m unqualified to partake in this discussion because I haven’t read Ms. Wolf’s latest book is as ridiculous as is it condescending. No thanks.
Ignorance. Arrogance. YOU started it by saying the Republicans aren't Nazis. I responded by saying that, in many ways, they ARE.
Never happened (spying without warrants). This is a fallacy created by the minds of the anti-Bush crowd. I’ve looked into this before, sorry can’t recall ALL the details, however the arrangement by which enemies to our national security can be legally watched and surveyed by our government officials is fully legal and fully in place, and has been since before the bad guys stole the election back in 2000.
Here's some details for ya - Bush quit going to the FISA court BEFORE 9/11. Who was he spying on and why doesn't he want anyone, even a SECRET COURT, to know? And by the way, just who exactly are our enemies? The anti-war group that is suing the government because they were wire-tapped?
More hogwash! (jailing without charges) Those guys are terrorists who would just as soon fly a jet into your home as they would the Pentagon. They’re bad guys who are being held for reason.
How many Gitmo "detainees" have been charged and convicted. Here - I'll help you - it's fewer than ONE.
This is a term that is entirely meaningless (corporatism)
This is why I referred to you as stupid, because you don't understand that the most basic tenet of fascism is corporatism, or the merging of government interests with corporate interests. How ya liking our corporate supplied armed forces? Me, not too much.
This is also a term that is entirely meaningless (cronyism)
You have a point there - it has nothing to do with Republicans being Nazi-ish.
Do yourself a favor, look up Wolf's book. It should explain a lot.
That's the way to persuade.
The WHAT is our crumbling infrastructure, tanking economy, shrinking middle class and fattening leisure class, the Iraq recession, erosion of environmental, health, food, water and automobile safety standards. Teh list is even longer but you get the picture. The WHAT is the failure of market fundamentalism.
Conservatives suck at this governing thing.
The WHAT is our crumbling infrastructure, tanking economy, shrinking middle class and fattening leisure class, the Iraq recession, erosion of environmental, health, food, water and automobile safety standards. Teh list is even longer but you get the picture. The WHAT is the failure of market fundamentalism.
Conservatives suck at this governing thing.
Sure they do, that is, IF you believe the fallacies you cite above. 1. Our crumbling infrastructure? What the heck are you talking about? 2. Tanking economy. (Not nearly as bad as your liberal heroes in the mainstream media and other such democrat political mouthpieces would have you believe.) 3. The fallacy of the "shrinking middle class" is a hoax, it is fully explained in Thomas Sowell's latest book, Economic Facts and Fallacies. If I were a condescending ass, I'd tell you to read it and get back to us... That fallacy was created by the fact that the income levels of the so-called middle class increased. This caused the curve under the graph to move to the right. This curve looks similar to the "normal" curve, tallest in the middle, tapering off on both sides. Take a curve such as this, mark a range within the middle, define this as you "middle class", next move the actual curve to the right - so as to represent the increase in income levels. You'll note that the portion of the curve under that now lies within your predetermined "range" is now smaller than it was before. This same shift was used to create the fallacy of the shrinking middle class/ increasing upper class. (It's a lie!) 4. The Iraq recession? No such thing. The Iraq ecoomy has not been up and running long enough to gain sufficient strength for making such an assessment. Too early to tell such a thing about Iraq. (The surge is working. Why else do you suppose the libs in the press have quit hounding about the war?) The rest of your claims are fully fallacious. No significant amount of truth to any one of them.
I understand it's not the nature of the conservative to engage in honest debate. How can it be when all manner of decorum, honesty and respect is subsumed by the prime objective of victory. So I won't hold my breath because I know, from years and years of witnessing conservatives sacrifice their integrity in service of political victory, that they cannot curve their hostile, lying ways.
It's that simple.
It's who conservatives are, it's what conservatives do. I will not waste my time with a person who has no principles.
Hi Fact-finder. I wish you luck in your fact-finding efforts. Let me help you get started .
1. Teflon doesn't have a "p" nor an "h" in it, and the term "Teflon President" was coined in 1983, especially for Ronald Reagan.
2. Questioning a couple of your imaginary acquaintances and guessing the motives of others based on that and your own fantasies isn't really valid criticism, just silliness.
You're on your way! Now go find some more facts.
Col_Sanders (or is that your imaginary friend's name...), I know how to spell teflon. I realized my error just after my posttttttt. Ooops Thar I goo a-gin wiht my msi-spelings.... Dohhhhh.. I must be a complete bafoon. Therefore, nevermind anything I say.
Here's a quip for you chicken man: Why is it so predictable that you liberal dorks always reply to a set of valid statements with critiques of inconsequential points, such as a FREAKING misspelled word? Here's my quess: That's the best you can come up with given the expansive empty-headedness of your lack of brain power. Yep, I'd say that about sums it up. Now off you go... Have your diaper changed.
Actually, the Colonel's mention of your misspelling was more in passing. His real point (to which you intentionally failed to respond) was your improper use and the improper history of the phrase "Teflon President", which was coined in the early 80's to describe Ronald Reagan.
You say you want to have an intelligent discussion/debate. I don't see you actually exercising any intelligence at all. Those who claim to want intelligent discussion/debate usually don't begin by calling the opposition names and comparing them to entities which have really no bearing on the discussion at all (Nazi's). So, when you're done being a child and calling names - and when you want to have a discussion of substance, please feel free to get back to those of us who already engage in such discourse. Have a nice day.
LOL! A truer statement has never been uttered!
A truer statement has never been uttered!
What about the statement Ted, the swimmer, Kennedy made when he endorsed Obama? Was Snoopy's little liberal induced brain-fart truly a more true statement than you good senator's?
You lot are easily amused, aren't you? Incorrect, ill-educated, mis-informed, yet easilty amused... How do I know this? Becuase you laughed at snoopy's ridiculous circular argument; one with which, I'm quite certain, he was overly self impressed.
You lot are easily amused, aren't you?
With you around? Yep...
Summary: Bill O'Reilly again attacked The Huffington Post, claiming that reader comments on the website employ "the same exact tactics that the Nazis used in the late '20s and early '30s to demonize certain groups of people, so it would become easier for them, the Nazis, when they took power, to hurt those people."
Sounds kinda like you, don't it?
Oh, look who's correcting english now, mr. goosestepper!
A day in the life of a freeper, by Snoopy.
1) In your very 1st post, throw out every liberal slander you can think of in 5 minutes (hence the short run on paragraph).
2) at the 1st "liberal response" (i.e. any statement that doesn't ingratiate 100% approval of your dribble) throw out some "afraid to debate" canard and insult the poster's intelligence.
3) wait for the 1st remotely "don't let it get ya down" response and then throw out the ol' "I'm a 1st timer, can't believe how liberals are so..." yada yada yada.
4) toss out more challenges replete with insults to poster's intelligence. Bring up the spelling argument while yer at it.
5) Make a circular argument i.e. do exactly what you just accused a poster of doing as you claim the poster is trying to ignore the "larger point".
6) get caught making the circular argument. Get bent out of shape and sharpen your insults.
7) Get proven you are making the kind of nazi comparisons that your kind accuse liberals of making.
8) Get really flustered, shout more insults, and make statements that prove you compare liberals to nazi's (circular argument #2).
9) Get caught again, sulk off to freeper land.
10) make a post on freeper land to the effect of "Man, you shoulda seen me today! I just kicked a whole bunch of liberal @ss by using logic against their inane rants! It's amazing how stupid liberals are!"
11) Go to the store and buy more depends after you clean yourself.
Snoop, whatever the heck you've been smoking, must be some good stuff. But you should take a break, clear the cobwebs. You've become delusional! But with an imagination like yours, you could write some interesting (or boring...) conspiracy threory novels.
By the way, the chronology went a bit more like this:
1. I posted my initial post.
2. The first immediate reply informed me that the Bush administration was "angry white men" who had "blown it",
3. I replied that this was clap trap. HOWEVER, I did, in fact, reply to each additional comment point-by-point.
4. The next reply informed me that the Republican Party is, in fact, the "neo-Nazi Party." Again, this is such common liberal dribberal that it's not really worthy of comment. But I do, comment back; even if only to share my thoughts as to the dribble-like nature of the other person's equating of Republicans to Nazis. That's crap! And I assume you're smart enough to recognise that for the fact that it is.
Now, Snoop-dog, you tell me, who started the condescension and the name calling? It weren't I, said the fly.
No, it was you...
3. I've asked dozens of Hillary supporters why they're supporting her. The reply is always some derivative of 'She's a woman and it's time for a woman." Not once has any Hillary supporter given a valid example of her professional qualifications for the job of president. - no proof other than your personal opinion based on some unprovable sample of people you supposedly "polled"
Similarly, I've asked the same question of Obama supporters. They all agree that 'He's black and it's time for a black president.' No example of professional qualifications, etc. - no proof other than your personal opinion based on some unprovable sample of people you supposedly "polled"
Hillary supporters are little more than folks who are discriminating against Obama or McCain simply based on sex - no proof other than your personal opinion based on some unprovable sample of people you supposedly "polled"
Similarly, Obama supporters are little more than racists who will support a "black man" in deference to Hillary or McCain based specifically on race - no proof other than your personal opinion based on some unprovable sample of people you supposedly "polled"
They both want to break our medical system by turing it into a nationalist social system. (By the way the "N" in NAZI stands for Nationalists. I know, that's nothing more than a coincidence...) - Nazi comparison to liberals #1
Plus they both want to seize corporate profits, which would violate the Fourth Amendment, which would erode our personal freedoms. - socialist comparison #1
Oh no, you didn't do anything wrong, you delusional little goose stepper! so innocent...
OK Mr. Contrarian:
For the record:
YOUR REPLY in Italics: They both want to break our medical system by turing it into a nationalist social system. (By the way the "N" in NAZI stands for Nationalists. I know, that's nothing more than a coincidence...) - Nazi comparison to liberals #1
MY CURRENT REPLY: Snoop, this was and is a valid point. For a politician who might wind up in a position of power sufficient to pull this off, nationalizing our healthcare system would result in a "NATIONALIZED" government controlled system. A political program that is based on nationalizing such a system could and would belong within the definition of a "nationalist" program, which logically follows that the party responsible could and would fall under the definition of Nationalists. You'll stand corrected insofar as my point merely demonstrates the similarity between the "nationalist" part of the equation. I never stated that Hillary, or liberals are NAZI's.
Your Next Comment in italics: Plus theyboth want to seize corporate profits, which would violate the Fourth Amendment, which would erode our personal freedoms. - socialist comparison #1
I have NO idea how you can deny this fact. I practically quote Hillary in her promise to seize corporate profits. She said that. So has Obama. These folks are campaigning on this promise, although Hillary more vocally than Obama. If you consider this a comparison to socialists, then you'll note this is no mere coincidence. Furthermore, any politician who promises to sieze leagally acquired profits is promising to destroy business opportunities in our country which are protected by the constitution. If you have no problem with that concept then you might want to reconsider calling me a frigging "goose stepper" and instead take a look in the mirror. By the way, you mentioned "socialist" here, not I.
Your Closing Snide comment: Oh no, you didn't do anything wrong, you delusional little goose stepper! so innocent...
Goose stepper.... let me see; that is a reference to the NAZI army, right? Duhhhhhhhh.... And you're insinuating that I'm one of those a-holes, aren't you? How typical coming from a liberal. Liberal clap trap.
Tell you what, how about you actually prove those allegations? Where did Hillary or Barack say they wanted to seize all corporate profits?
Your "socialized medicine" rants? Again, pure allegation. show some facts as to exactly how it's more harmful than the current system.
As for the nazi references - turn about's fair play. Pot, meet kettle.
Maybe you and commonsenseliberal should go to a hotel... - Fact_Finder
--------------------------------------------------
Are you insinuating that Snoopy and I should be involved sexually? How the hell did you arrive at such a statement? Oh...I get it. You weren't able to post a rebuttal to Snoopy's post, so you insinuate that he's gay. No need to insinuate with me. I'm out and out gay - but I'm sure my partner would have a problem with me in a hotel room with Snoopy; and I'm sure Snoopy's other-half would have a problem with it, too. No offense to Snoopy, of course.
Typical conservative - can't win an argument, so he turns to sexual innuendo and (tries to use it as) insult. Sorry dummy, it doesn't work against me. Try it with someone else.
Wrong again, deary.
I said that due to the fact that you and Snoop were high-fiving each other at my expence, i.e. you were having you own little private party (at my expence), therefore I suggested that you keep your little private party to your private selves.
No queer-bashing thoughts even entered my mind, honey-pot. That was YOUR conclusion, Caesar; which indicates your particular mentality regarding republican heterosexuals.... mmmmm, could we have some fun with this one? You must be a hetero-phobe!!!! Or even better, a homophobe-phobe! LOL!!!!!! You can lighten up, now. The cow's been milked, baby!
Actually, it's YOUR side of the aisle who has issues with sexuality. I don't have issues with it. I have issues with hypocrites who scream about sexual morality but ignore their own words with the same condemned deeds in the privacy of an airport bathroom.
You had no idea of my orientation before you made the comment to Snoopy. You were trying to tie our liberal leanings to homosexuality, insinuating that we might have some fun on our own in a hotel, thereby alluding that being gay may be an insult to normally heterosexually insecure men. You mentioned nothing about a high-five party. If you really meant that, you would have said something close to it, not leaving the door open for other interpretations. Your posts so far have not lead anyone to believe that you would leave anything open to a person's own interpretation - only yours.
And see, you still cannot write a post without insulting people. You must be one lonely guy...
Addendum:
Actually, it's YOUR side of the aisle who has issues with sexuality. I don't have issues with it. I have issues with hypocrites who scream about sexual morality but ignore their own words with the same condemned deeds in the privacy of an airport bathroom.
The part of your first paragraph that I agree with is the problem with hypocrits part. However, the part about how "our side" has the "issues with sexuality" is based in militant liberal Political Correctness, of which I play NO ervile role.
Further, how about your fellow dem current gov from NYC. I suppose he gets a pass since he's one of your good guys on your side of the isle. Hey, his wife is probably the one with the sexual issues -- probably a closet republican who just can't seem to get around her own issues with marital fidelity. And then there's that fella from Massechusettes. named Jerry Stud who preferred date raping his intoxicated male teenaged assistants to dinner and a movie with someone of his own age. Again though, he got a full court pass on his insideous behavior, remained in office until he retired, died recently. He was the good guy in that scenario, though wasn't he? Who was the bad guy? Oh yes, Newt Gingrich who was then speaker of the house and requested Stud's resignation. Stud-monkey told the speaker to shove it; and the press made a mockery of Mr. Gingrich, and other republicans for their inherent "issues about sexuality" regarding gay men. And that brings us to current times where good folk like me are accused of having sexual issues against gay men at the first hint of an opportunity to land such an idiotic sucker punch.
Well, at least we now know some relevant history as well as another side of the story.
I realize I'm just an ignorant, knuckle-dragging, beer-guzzling, snuff-dipping, conservative, but I certainly DO know the difference between PC, liberal stupidity and reality.
For example, the folks in Europe are forced to wait unreasonably long amounts of time before they receive needed medical care. They have the system your dems want to start up here in our country. The European government has been forced to “ration” healthcare as a result of the doctors’ losing their incentive to get to the next customer. This is a basic law of economics. If you wish to have more proof on this, you might be interested in reading “Economic Facts and Fallacies” by Thomas Sowell, and/or “Basic Economics” also by Sowell. You might also wish to read Shelby Steele’s “White Guilt”, but that’s another story.
Wasin't meant as an attempt to portray that as liberal issue. You asked me a question. I answered your request. Now you're changing the subjet again. I never said it was a dem vs rep issue. I said it was a failure on the part of government management who has no incentive to correct the problems. Again, no competitions in the government system therefore, no accountability.
It's a problem regardless of dems or reps! It's a problem as well as a blatant example of mismanagement by our feds. They'd do the same with nationalized healthcare AS HAS BEEN DONE IN EVERY OTHER COUNTRY wherein such a program exists, e.g. Europe! You asked for examples, you got them. Facts are facts. I found them and shared them with you. What you choose to do with them is your choice, not mine.
I've got to go now. It's been fun. Later, p'tator.
OK, I will assume you aren't following a one track vein and really meant government period. OK, on that thread then the real discussion is whether government is as good as, better than or worse than corporate america. I say yes, yes, and yes - meaning neither is better. I can find plenty examples of certain govt. agencies that are very efficient at what they do just as I can find plenty examples of poorly run agencies. The same goes for corporate america. Heck, we just saw another example of KBR putting a logo on a white towel that they sell to US troops because they can triple the price to take advantage of a cost plus contract.
So what do you do - go corporate, or government? I know I can try to replace my government leaders once every couple of years, but only the president seems to have final say in replacing a corporate service as evidenced by KBR and Halliburton. So I think I'll take my chances with government.
You can name plenty of examples where the government operates more efficientily than corporate America? I'd challenge you to dig up those plenty of examples.
Halliburton???? Now you're really wading far back into your liberal past for that little dud, aren't you? There was never any wrong doing therein. Cheney gave up all ties to that company when he was legally required to do so. He never looked back. He did no wrong there. Yet, the libs again show their ignorance about still another subject involving a republican.
OK slight-of-word, Then please explain your reference to Halliburton if not intimated towards Cheney? If not, then for what reason?
Still awaiting the aforementioned list of plenty of examples where the government operates more efficientily than corporate America. I'm sure said list is forthcoming..... not!
Halliburton???? Cheney????
And where do you suppose Cheney will be headed when he leaves office? Hmmmm...
Snoop, what parameters are you using with which to compare the entire rest of the entire world with Sweden? Even from an economic, statistical perspective, such comparisons are very suspect, at least, and require deep scrutiny. I wouldn’t go about making such statements, especially as one who has required from me “proof’” and “examples” of same. I think you’ll find it difficult to find many valid studies that substantiate your claim.
If you weren't so hung up on what republicans tell you socialist means,
You’re assuming a LOT here. Tell me, what have republicans told me that “socialist” means? I think you’re talking out of your ear here, by dear. I’ve got my ideas and convictions from years of studying economics, politics, statistics, history, and, by coincidence, the history of communism, which includes the history and definition of Marxism and socialism. Point of interest: You got so offended at my comparisons between Hillary and socialism. Now you’re tout socialism as though I would jump at the chance to become a socialist if only I weren’t so hung up on the wrong definitions of socialism, i.e. Lenin’s “Imperialism”, which in my opinion is a well—written exercise in the art of persuasion, at best, and the use of immoral statistical analyses to validate his useless non-sense.
you could perhaps take a look for yourself and then see if there's a lesson or two to learn. But not to be had in capitalist America, sadly. That's why our auto industry continues to pump out cheap crap that most people are tired of while Japan kicks our but in the auto market.
Our automobile industry has nothing to do with what republicans think of socialism. I’m not sure why you chose to curve-ball your way into this type of a closing remark.
Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...
If I am not mistaken, you are arguing that corporate america can better manage than government. I cite the auto industry as an example of that not being true.
I will use the wikipedia link on Swedish health care just because it is a brief summary and gives a brief overview of the claims for and against. But I will back that up with the CIA world fact book, many of the statistics given on swedish claims of health and mortality rates can be backed up here.
No curve balls here.
Can I just pose a question?
Fact-Finder, which US President said this?
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
That would be President Dwight, a.k.a. Ike. So your point is obviously an attempted anti-republican (b)itch-slap based on the fact that republicans propose privatization of a very small amount of the SS System as an OPTION that we the people could choose for OURSELVES if we so desired. That, my intellectually superior liberal crumb cruncher is certainly NOT the same thing as trying to obliterate the SS system. Your little history lesson was fun, but it did miss its point, didn't it?
Lefties wouldn't have to say unflattering (but nonetheless true) things about certain radio talk show hosts if they weren't actually living up to said unflattering things.
And your contextual quotes of said hosts are where?
I don't need to quote them.
Regarding "hypocrisy" quotes are oft times well received bits of impirical evidence.
We are all aware of Rush's drug and sex addiction
Rush's drug problem was an addiction to pain pills. Yes, a problem. Yes, admitted to same. Yes, rehab. Yes, no more addiction. What's your problem with that reality? Further, your immaginary add on of Rush's sexual addiction is completely news to me. Are we stretching the facts a bit here?
(and the hypocrisy that goes with it).
Hypocrisy is inherent in drug addiction, in what way? Sorry, that comment is lost on me.
We are all aware of Michael Savage's mental health issues.
Again I must plea ignorance here. I know Savage is a PhD in epidemiology, is very intellegent albeit a bit billigerent at times, and undoubtably right-wing to the hilt. However, I had not heard that he had mental health issues. But then I was unaware before today that I had sexual issues, so it's not surprising that I'm such an ignoramous.
Need I go on, really?
Don't stop on my account.
I don't need to quote them.
Regarding "hypocrisy" quotes are oft times well received bits of impirical evidence.
We are all aware of Rush's drug and sex addiction
Rush's drug problem was an addiction to pain pills. Yes, a problem. Yes, admitted to same. Yes, rehab. Yes, no more addiction. What's your problem with that reality? Further, your immaginary add on of Rush's sexual addiction is completely news to me. Are we stretching the facts a bit here?
(and the hypocrisy that goes with it).
Hypocrisy is inherent in drug addiction, in what way? Sorry, that comment is lost on me.
We are all aware of Michael Savage's mental health issues.
Again I must plea ignorance here. I know Savage is a PhD in epidemiology, is very intellegent albeit a bit belligerent at times, and undoubtably right-wing to the hilt. However, I had not heard that he had mental health issues. But then I was unaware before today that I had sexual issues, so it's not surprising that I'm such an ignoramous.
Need I go on, really?
Don't stop on my account.
OK I'll explain this just this once. I did not say that you had made an statement that I had made a circular argument. You got that wrong. But that's expected from a tiny-brained liberal goonassarus, such as you. Go back two spaces and re-read my comment and see where the two wires contained within your duct-taped cranial cavity got short circuited.
"I did not say that you had made an statement"
"Where the heck did you learn to speak English; in a government school? What a friggin' moron!"
Excellent job of rote memorization. Did you perfect that parroting skill during or after your descent into the bowls of modern-day liberalism?
I find your ignorance of English and it's nuance appalling. My response, "A truer statement has never been uttered" was not intended to be taken at it's literal meaning. I made the comment to enforce Snoopy's response. Interestingly enough, the response wasn't even pointed at you, but you want to put in your incorrect, pre-conceived two-cents worth?
And what does Senator Kennedy have to do with this conversation? I understand you were using it as a jab at my response to Snoopy, but it's placement in this thread (and in your response) was, at the very least, improper, misplaced and wholly ridiculous.
And please, try to come back with something of substance - and not insults. I haven't insulted you ONCE, but you've come back with an insult or more in every response to my posts. Is it because you really don't have anything with which to rebut my comments?
It's interesting, you show a classic authoritarian, condescending personality. No wonder you're a right-winger. (Not an insult - just an observation of your posts matched with observed character traits).
My Kennedy comment was an example of a statement that a some people would consider even truer than snoopy’s comment. Just following the logic and nuance of your argument/ comment.!
I’m not insulting you or anyone else, just defending myself against the many gnad shots I’ve taken today herein. Such insults I’ve found are little more than low-minded attempts at shutting up a person with an opposing point of view, who winds up tiring of the insults and leaves the blog, thereby causing the resident liberal mosquitoes to celebrate as if in victory and back-slap in total agreement, after which taking their resident places in wait of their next victim. It’s a joke, in my opinion.
It's interesting, you show a classic authoritarian, condescending personality. No wonder you're a right-winger.That is the type of comment that, when proffered by a “right winger”, is condemned by left wingers as insultive; yet is bandied about by liberals as if it were sheer poetry. By the way, if my jabs are defined as “authoritarian, and condescending”, then how is such dribble defined when it drips forth from a left winger?
"You lot are easily amused, aren't you?" - Fact_Finder
------------------------------------------------------------
If you infer by my posts that I am easily amused, you really need some reading comprehension skills. You're not amusing - you're annoying. Again, (for at least the fourth time), let's talk issues without hurling blanket insults against liberals and Democrats. If you do that, I'll try not to be annoyed by you.
OK.
Every Hillary supporter I've spoken with has informed me that he/ she is voting for Hillary because she is a woman and it is time for a woman.
Every Obama supporter I've spoken with has informed me that he/ she is voting for Obama because he is a black man and it is time for a black man.
From where I see it, these are examples that suggest these supporters are basing their political decisions on either sex or race. With this in mind, they are voting against the other candidates based on those candidates sex (male) or race (not black). This is applied sexism and applied racism. These are lame reasons for making such a decision, especially when such decisions are being executed by liberal democrats who fancy themselves as being beyond the realms of sexism and racism.
Wouldn't you agree?
I realize you might disagree with these particular fellow liberals who have told me such things. However, I still have yet to hear one substantive reason for supporting either of these two candidates. Such reasons do not include idiocies such as "ANgry white men blew it..."; or Obama is all about change; or Hillary has the experience as first lady. Those are shallow words that offer very little to the argument.
My thought on this phenom is that these folks are merely blindly voting party line without looking into the candiates' agendas and/ or said agendas' resulting outcome and affect on our ecnomy and how it would effect us and our personal rights.
Truth be told, I'm a constitutionist/ federalist type of conservative first, independent, free-thinking voter second.
Wouldn't you agree?
No, I have yet to come across an Obama or Hillary supporter who base their entire reason on sex or race. There could be some, so what? There are just as many examples of right wingers out there who have made it clear they will vote for Republicans solely on the basis of religion. So unless you have something more than some "impartial" poll you've claimed to have conducted I'd say you're just blowing smoke.
Yup - and all Republicans can nominate are old, white guys.
Truth be told, I'm a constitutionist/ federalist type of conservative first, independent, free-thinking voter second
After reading your posts, I can tell right away that
1) You're not a constitutionalist because you support wiretaps without warrants and detention without charges.
2) You're not free thinking because you didn't take a few minutes to go look up Naomi Wolf's book.
Methinks that you are simply an ignorant troll, no more, no less.
LOL. You're sense of humor is lacking in only one element; that being a an effective joke writer.
First off, you have no idea what you're talking about regarding me and my personal convictions, so shut the hell up!
Second, since you think I'm an ignorant troll you can stop wasting your superior intellect on the dregg-like content of my conservational inabilities. (Ignorant Troll- WOW! How impressed you must be with your sun-bleached dog tur(d) of a brain... I'll bet you made high marks in 7th grade creative writing class...!)
OOOPS!
Make that "....CONVERSATIONAL inabilities..."
Error duly noted!
Carry on...
Refresher: I said "From where I see it, these are examples that suggest these supporters are basing their political decisions on either sex or race. With this in mind, they are voting against the other candidates based on those candidates sex (male) or race (not black). This is applied sexism and applied racism. These are lame reasons for making such a decision, especially when such decisions are being executed by liberal democrats who fancy themselves as being beyond the realms of sexism and racism. Wouldn't you agree?"
CURRENT: I thought it was obvious that I was refering to and commenting on these particular lines of reasoning being following by these particular individuals with whom I have spoken, heard, read, met, etc. In these particular cases, I think these people are demonstrating the qualities I mentioned in my above post. That is particularly what I was asking you if you agreed with. Sorry you interpreted that as an exit ramp from Topic-ville, which I've noticed you take quite often. But as long as you've derailed this conversation, I'll bite: Tell me about your experiences with republicans you've met and discussed with who are voting strictly based on religion, which, by the way represents a very deep-seated level of personal convictions, moralities, life-styles, and beliefs. These things are quite a bit deeper philosophically speaking, than the mere decision to vote for a black man simply becuase he's a black man. With that said, I find your off-ramp offered more substance to my argument than it did to yous.
I am voting for Obama because 1. I don't want to waste my vote and 2. I don't want a Republican in the White House anymore. And the Bush-Clinton dynasty needed to be over 7 years ago. (btw, I supported McCain in 2000, but that was 2000, when he was somewhat sensible.)
Obama has a sensible foreign policy directive that says 1. Iraq was a disaster to get into, and it's going to be a disaster to get out of, so it's better to do it sooner than later. 2. Our "allies" in the war on terror are not our allies if they harbor Al-Qaeda. Pakistan is a prime example of this, and one in which we need to re-examine our policies towards.
Obama can also bring a sense of grace, elegance and intelligence to the White House, which we haven't seen in the White House of any president in the last 40 years.
I don't vote for anyone based on skin color or gender. I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 because he was white.
And I have similar views. I made my mind up about Clinton during the texas primaries, I thought she was getting way to petty about the plagarism garbage. We don't need another petty president.
I voted McCain in 2000 too, but not again. He folded like a waffle to the South Carolina slander. He's damaged goods now, can't respect a man who throws away his dignity for 8 years just so he can get another crack at the white house.
And I knew Mitt would never win. The right wing made religion a litmus test for the presidency, he can never pass as a Mormon.
And I have similar views. I made my mind up about Clinton during the texas primaries, I thought she was getting way to petty about the plagarism garbage. We don't need another petty president.
Agree with you on that one.
I voted McCain in 2000 too, but not again. He folded like a waffle to the South Carolina slander. He's damaged goods now, can't respect a man who throws away his dignity for 8 years just so he can get another crack at the white house.
Agree here, too. Voting for McCain will be a hard pill to swallow for many people on the conservative side of the isle. However, that reason being McCain's well-known liberal leanings as demonstrated in his several bills, Mc/Feingold; Mc/Kennedy, etc. Not sure whether he'll be able to rally enough swing voters, who happen to be conservative, to win the race in November. However he'll likely have a tough time winning us over on that one. However, his domestic policies are far less leftist than the other two liberals who are currently duking it out on the democrat side. Truth is, McCain is one of the most liberal republican presidential candidates ever. He recently spoke openly about becoming a democrat. That bit of history will also be hard for him to overcome. It will be an interesting election result; however I still prefer a DC gang with more conservative leanings than liberal leanings. The liberal social policies are too tax heavy, they are permanent tax burdons, and their histories prove their inherent inaffectiveness. That's why I prefer Mc over Hillary or Obama.
And I knew Mitt would never win. The right wing made religion a litmus test for the presidency, he can never pass as a Mormon.
I'm not really sure just who it was, or what power, promoted the Mormon question. One thing for certain, the mainstream press certainly did its dirty work to promote Mitt's religion. If they had tabled that discussion rather than promoting it like a two-for-one sale on Wendy's hamburgers, it certainly would not have become the overwhelming issue that it did. The media also did a very damning documentary of Mornonism during Mitt's run, while he was the favored candidate, by the way, you'll recall is when this media blitz occured. Coincidence? I doubt it! Anyway, Mitt would have won. Now there are those who claim that McCain's rising star was orchestrated entirely by the mainstream media. There is certainly a huge amount of evidence in support of this notion. I dislike it when the media chooses whom and what to cover, whom to trash, whom to fawn over, etc. Their influence over public opinion is great, and is often abused. In this case, it was certainly abused. Mitt could have won. Mitt is a conservative. The media hates conservatives; loves liberals; trashed Mitt; fawned over McCain. Suddenly Mitt's numbers are low, Mc's are high. There is also the Huckabee factor that reduced Mitt's numbers significantly. There's a lot of factors in the current election cycle. Many of them are distasteful. Reality is we will get two liberals to choose from in November. One will be McCain, the other will likely be Obama. Sorry chose in my opinion.
I am voting for Obama because 1. I don't want to waste my vote
This is baseless jibberish. There is no such thing as a wasted vote. However, your belief that voting for anyone other than Obama would be a wasted vote is utter nonsense. Definitely not a valid reason for supporting him or anyone.
2. I don't want a Republican in the White House anymore.
This simply means that you are voting AGAINST republicans. This is not a reason for supporting you guy.
And the Bush-Clinton dynasty needed to be over 7 years ago.
More of same. No reason for your support for "O". (By the way, the -Clinton part should have never occured.)
(btw, I supported McCain in 2000, but that was 2000, when he was somewhat sensible.)
Completely unrelated comment. Again no reason for supporting Obama.
Obama has a sensible foreign policy directive that says 1. Iraq was a disaster to get into,
That is his opinion. The war was voted on overwhelmingly on both sides of the isle. Just becuase your guy voted against it from the start is no reason to vote for him, nor does it speak of his experience.
and it's going to be a disaster to get out of,
Only IF we "get out" of it before we've helped the citizens of Iraq form a secure country. Otherwise, IF we get out too soon (which is precisely what your guy is promising to do), then the disaster will most certainly occur, just as it did in Viet Nam when we allowed the media and policians to determine our stratagies and timelines inherent in that disastrous outcome. Obama's promise to pull us out of Iraq immediately WILL certianly result in a disaster. But then history will blame it all on the republicans for getting us in there in the first place, so your guy and part will bear none of the brunt of the responsibility of said disaster. Reason for voting for Obama? Yes! Good reason for same? NO!
so it's better to do it sooner than later.
See comments above.
2. Our "allies" in the war on terror are not our allies if they harbor Al-Qaeda. Pakistan is a prime example of this, and one in which we need to re-examine our policies towards.
On this, I could not agree with you more readily and openly. However, you must note that to denoune Pakistan is to support Israel, the former being even more politically incorrect than the latter. Our agreement on this statement notwithstanding, I do not see this point as a reason for voting for Obama. If he has promised to "re-examine" our policies with Pakistan, just what the heck does he mean by that? One can simply make open-ended remarks, such as that one; however that certainly does not go so far explaining any detail as to his "policies" toward Pakistan (which is the term you used.) Obama needs to be taken to task on that statement/ policy; otherwise he's simply talking highly charge political jargon whose motive is to sound lofty and gain support. Wouldn't you agree?
Obama can also bring a sense of grace, elegance and intelligence to the White House, which we haven't seen in the White House of any president in the last 40 years.
That's a matter of opinion. President Reagan was certainly as gifted an orator as we've seen from any president, past or present. Bush is not such a good speech maker, but his tax policies and his national security policies (to name two) are certainly highly effective. Lest ye guffaw yourselves into hysterics, let me offer supporting comments: 1. Bush's lower taxes resulted in net gains of thousands of dollars per year per household in our country; not just the "rich" as your liberal boneheads in the lamestream media profess; and 2. We ridded Afganistan of its putrid Al-Kaeda (SP?) strongholds, we ridded Iraq of a murderous distator, we are currently assisting in establishing freedom in Iraq, we are curently fighting to elliminate terrorism from our world, we have stopped several attempted terrorist strikes on our shores due to our increased security and the Bush administration's security policies. (Now you can spit your venom...)
I don't vote for anyone based on skin color or gender. I didn't vote for Kerry in 2004 because he was white.
I'd hope you'd not vote for Kerry at all. The guy's is loose cannon with a long history of using the US military as his whipping boy throughout his insideous rise to political prominence. The man is inscrupuous. My guess would be that you voted for Kerry more as a vote against Bush. (I'll admit being wrong on that point if I must; however all of my liberal friends tauted slogans and bumper stickers that read "Had enough? Vote Democrat" during the Kerry campaign. Now those stickers read "Enough is enough, vote democrat". It's all empty-headed, rejected toilet-bowl mentaility; but I suppose it works for the democrats.
Anyway, your ideas on Obama were interesting. However not convincing reasoning for supporting him for prez. Besides, we must keep in mind his ultra leftist social leanings that would prove disastrous to our economy, as well as to our personal freedoms as guarenteed by the US constitution.
You're either a bad liar or you don't know yourself.
Incorrect on both counts. I am not a liar, level of affectiveness notwithstanding. And I do know who I am.
If you were truly an independent, free-thinking voter, you wouldn't be trashing liberals and singing the praises of everything Republican.
Says you. My free-thinking quality does not equate to the modern liberal notion of "open-mindedness" as per George Soros and gang. My free-thinnking element stems from my willingness to read constantly in my free time, research, question, never drink the proverbial kool-aide, never simply agree with majority, public opinion, etc. Further, my though processes, etc. have lead me to my conservative convictions. Due to the fact that conservativism is normally highly prominent among the republican party, while liberal socialist ideals are highly tauted among democrats, I tend to chide liberalism and its cronies while defending conservatism. It's part of my convictions, therefore I speak of it. However, I'm not so quick to agree with your claim that I "sing the praises of" republicans. Which republicans have I been "praising" herein?
Independent, free-thinking people give consideration to every side of an issue,
While this is true, there is no inherent requirement that free-thinking people must refrain from taking a side on any such issue. To expect one to do so would be foolishness. Having a set of convictions is acceptable among civilized indiviuals.
without being a parrot for the party - and usually land on the side of common sense - of which you have none.
Example of foolishness! But hey, I'm sure you were quite impressed with your ability to dig ever so deeply into that vacuous crevis within which you store your ultra-superior 9-volt battery you used to conjure that closing remark. All hail, Mr. 9-volt intellect. Hip hip hernia....
Yes teacher.
Hey, my original mention of teflon president was in reference to its use in describing president Clinton. I was making a point about that, to which your pal, the col, failed to address in his "debate" of my misspelling as well as giving a history lesson on the origin of the word "teflon". Talk about missing the point.
Finally, teacher, you can try insulting my intelligence all you want. That sort of behavior really says nothing more that to suggest your own lack of ideas... And since you don't want to "debate" with such a child as me, then you may feel free to ignore my posts, as the content therein seems to be giving your feeble liberal gray matter a bit of a Midol moment. Class dismissed...
I don't know how long Fact-finder is going to last. It seems to be getting incoherent and hysterical at a much faster rate than the average wingnut.
Is this where we start guessing the last screen name used, and right before the racist comments start bubbling up?
I think he's a newbie. Hsty Buf and Stranger had their own styles, and his isn't quite the same as theirs.
Of course, if it really is one of them, and they did switch styles, I'll give them more credit than what they're worth right now.
Ya know, he might be recording this real time so he can send it to Bill O'Reilly as more "proof" of left wing hatred! ;)
But ya hafta feel sorry for him. Seems the most pressing issues on the GOP plate includes extending the bar hours at their convention. Guess they need a drink once they crown in Prince Darkling.
"wingnut" and "racist comments" ?
You liberals crack me up. For the record, this is the first time I've ever posted on this blog. This is definitely not the first lib blog I've entered however. I have noticed one highly correlated variable amongst liberals and their blogs though. They live therein. They also hover around waiting for someone to enter an ideologically apposing view-point to which the resident liberals gang up, attack, belittle, tease, and make fun of the person who places the opposing posts, all the while NEVER addressing any of the opposing viewpoints made by the opposition. The resident liberals always merely chide the poster for sounding like "Rush" or "O'Reilly". And this time is certainly no exception! And finally, you guys always accuse the opposition of being a person with several aliases who has spent time herein on previous occassion. Well, in my case, you are totally incorrect. But that's beside the bigger point. You liberals' combined intellect is about as substantive as a puddle of gnat splooge. Not worth any more of my time and energy today. Have a good time picking your noses, fellas.
PS tephlon.....
Fact_Finder - Try this: Go to a righty-run website and act like a liberal. Call conservatives names on their righty board. Tell them that they're wrong, insult them, everything that you've done here. Go back in a few hours and see if your posts haven't been erased and your membership terminated. They do that to those with whom they disagree. You won't experience that here at MMfA.
For you to say that libs here are trying to silence your opposing viewpoint is beyond laughable, especially in comparision to what righty-boards do to those who don't walk in lock-step with their perverted ideology.
Actually, you DID say that:
I’m not insulting you or anyone else, just defending myself against the many gnad shots I’ve taken today herein. Such insults I’ve found are little more than low-minded attempts at shutting up a person with an opposing point of view, who winds up tiring of the insults and leaves the blog, thereby causing the resident liberal mosquitoes to celebrate as if in victory and back-slap in total agreement, after which taking their resident places in wait of their next victim. It’s a joke, in my opinion.
It's interesting, you show a classic authoritarian, condescending personality. No wonder you're a right-winger.
That is the type of comment that, when proffered by a “right winger”, is condemned by left wingers as insultive; yet is bandied about by liberals as if it were sheer poetry. By the way, if my jabs are defined as “authoritarian, and condescending”, then how is such dribble defined when it drips forth from a left winger?
If we were to indeed silence your point of view, you would have been banned by now. Please.
Again, try, as an experiment, going to a right-wing website. I'm not asking that you go there and "preach to the choir". I'm asking you to do an experiment where you go to the right-wing boards, act like a liberal, insult the right-wingers - and see how long your posts, and your membership, last.
No so fast:
In my post above, the one to which I was refering, also the one to which you replied, I made several statements along with the following " And this time is certainly no exception!" That sentence is the direct comparison to my experience within THIS particular blog amongst you and this particular group of leftist bloggers. HOWEVER, the reference you make was a generalized observation regarding my experience within other lefty blogs; NOT THIS ONE!
Also, I've replied to your suggestion that I go to a righty blog, etc. the first time you mentioned it. It's there; you can find it if you want to read it.
Finally, you can stop with the underhanded threats to call out the conservative patrol and have my account cancelled. If you really do have such authority (which I seriously doubt) and you really want to flex that particular muscle for the sheer benefit of impressing your liberal virtual buddies (which is likely to some degree), then freaking go for it. But drop the lame threats at sending me away from your precious little playgound. It would make little, if any, difference to me either way.
And again, you don't offer anything of substance, only insults. I'm still waiting for a true discussion. Maybe in the future, you could actually address some issues, instead of calling names?
Don't take the spelling error thing too seriously, Facty, just a friendly jab. You are ignoring the real points- that somebody calling him/herself "fact-finder" starts off with a misspelling of a word, using that word in a phrase whose origins he/she's factually wrong about, and rambling on for the remainder of the post using no facts, only your own delusional musings about the opinions and motivations of others.
But I guess it was easier to dismiss everything by focusing on the spelling error, eh?
LOL!
Definitely. No harm done.
The myth that Republicans are fiscally responsible is fiction.
Newsflash: Liberal tautology does not make for facts.
The US economy is doing quite well, despite the liberal media's Bush bashing during our current political campaign cycle. OMG, could all of the bad news coming out of the liberal media propaganda machine coincide with their own left wing, democrat party loyalty?
There's more to the economy than what is presented on nightly news channels and the NYT front page editorial section. Ever hear of the tail wagging the dog? The media is using its power of influence to establish public opinion, which you'll note is highly anti-republican/ Bush, etc. They're trying you on for size and you're letting them have at you.
That's a sad commentary on the current liberal democrat's idea of reality. However, at least we have our mindful brothers and sisters who choose to read, investigate, research, and become more well informed than those who choose to simply ingest the bumper sticker slogans and one-liners that the mainstream media spout off on a daily basis.
The main reason the lib media is promoting the toilet bowl version of our economy is so that when you all vote in November for your liberal socialist democrat candidate, you'll be ready and willing to accept all of Obama's or Hillary's (or both) insistance upon raising your taxes. You're already convinced and they're counting on that. Lambs being lead willingly to slaughter, you liberals are. ("Take more of my money, please!!!!!" One should be embarrassed!)
The sky is not falling!
By the way, for all you self-professed intellectually elite liberals herein who keep resonding to (i.e. reacting to) my posts wherein you all acuse me of having nothing to say of substance, you'll all take honest note of the fact that one could easily take inventory of all original posts versus all reactionary posts accusing original postor of having nothing to say worth reading. I'd have to say that you guys jumped on the destroy-the-opposing-view-point parade today, while adding absolutely nothing of substance to the conversation, aside from a lot of streetwise jabs, against which, by the way, you'll also note I can hold my own quite easliy.
I'll just sit back and enjoy your intellegently substantive commentary....
Nobody is trying to destroy your point of view. You are here spouting half-truths and conflating issues. You're entitled to your point of view. However, you're not entitled to spouting your point of view without getting some heat about it.
What were you thinking? Were you thinking, "I'll just go over to this liberal board and post my right-wing, pre-packaged talking points, tell the libs they're dumb, call them every name in the book, and then whine because I'm not being taken seriously."?
Do you honestly believe that (1) people here are going to say, "Oh yeah, Fact_Finder is right. I've seen the light, I'm going to switch to the other side!" or (2) calling people on this board names and hurling insults will help your cause?
If you're here to debate the issues, debate the issues. Insults aren't necessary - and gentlemen don't engage in such actions - even when they disagree. Spouting nonsense and not willing to be called on it is the very definition of arrogance - and you have that, with condescension.
Are you here to try to persuade people to change their minds, or are you here to stir the sh!t pot and cause trouble? If you're doing either, you're doing so in vain. You've had your say - and interestingly enough, you've said virtually nothing regarding the "zombie report" and the misinformation therein. That, sir, is called thread derailment - and it's what trolls do.
So, are you a troll, or a gentleman?
Please try to conceal your envy. Oprah is smart, she cares and she knows a good thing when she sees it.
" Hold on to your wallets, folks! The liberals are coming!!! " welcome back roger, brutus, billiebob...
You, like every single soulless, ENRON type conservative, measures a benefit in terms of cost to the individual. I saved money, I benefit. Period
The rightwing concept of a benefit has no basis in morality. We need to be talking about how that money best gets put back to work for the individual. Government investment in her people is a moral commitment to upholding lasting strength and security for the long term. You won't get that discussion from a conservative, they are utterly unfit to lead lemmings, let alone be good stewards of our tax dollars.
Hard righties intentionally squelch the progress and success of every people first idea any progressive ever put to work for the people of the U.S. Just think about what they have done to your child's classroom for a minute. They have squashed more and more bodies into each and every diminishing room and treated your kid's teacher like an annoyance. They drown funding for your schools in the bathtub. Then they turn around and have the nerve to tell you that if you think you deserve something better you can work harder to purchase your kid a private education. Get another job because we will not let you dirty liberals dictate to us that Americans deserve a living wage or quality education. You will not impinge upon our freedom to create our economic slave class.
There really is no concept of civics for them, it's all about material worth for the conservative thinker.
My gosh are ever full of loopy-juice!
You are completely and utterly incorrect in everyone of your idiotic tautological tomes. But don't let that stop you from your ill-convieved belief that you understand basic economics and/or the basic concepts of the conservative mentality.
You qualify for the liberal poster child of the year award.
<>So, as a "classic liberal", what exactly is your beef with the Clintons? I'm a liberal and I find the Clintons to be fine people (minus their personal human flaws).
Then you at least have the excuse of knowing nothing about them.
I see and hear people smear the Clintons without so much as an explanation as to why. Enlighten me? And please, don't give me some namby-pamby "Bill got a BJ in the White House" nonsense.
No, I defended Clinton from all of that sort of nonsense for most of the time he was in office (starting, in fact, before he was ever elected, and ending long after he'd left). I never liked him, but the wave upon wave of attacks and personal smears with which he was bombarded were completely unfair. I'm not some partisan hack.
Let's see some substance to your argument.
This isn't really the place for it, but if you'll look at my other posts in this thread, you'll see some of it there. I strongly object to just about everything Hillary Clinton has done in this campaign. Her behavior has been simply deplorable, and no informed person of good conscience could vote for her.
OK, I can accept your response. At least you weren't nasty in your response - and I appreciate that. I am, however, a bit taken aback by your final line that a person of conscience couldn't vote for her. I am a person of conscience, and I voted for her. My vote is my vote - and to paint me as a person without conscience can be taken as an insult. For the sake of civil discourse, I won't take it like that. That being said, who I vote for is my choice and, dare I say, my right. I don't agree with my Dad for voting for McCain, but it's his vote, his right, and I truly wouldn't say that my Dad is without conscience because he voted for a candidate that I don't support. For a person to tell another that their vote is without conscience because they don't support the same candidate is deplorable.
I understand your feelings that Hillary has run a campaign that some would consider "dirty". Politics is an ugly game. Campaigns by their nature turn nasty. That being said, I am somewhat disappointed in Hillary's running of her campaign. That doesn't mean that I have to hate her or vote for the other candidate. And it doesn't mean that I am without conscience because of my support for her. I just feel that she is the better candidate - although both Obama and Clinton are great candidates - and I could get behind either in the general election.
You still really didn't answer my question as to what your beef with the Clintons is. What have the Clintons done to deserve your ire? I'm not asking so that I can be an apologist or to argue with you - I am asking because I truly want to know why people dislike them (other than for being successful politicians). Maybe I'm blind because I feet that overall, Bill did an excellent job as President (except for that silly NAFTA thing...). Again, I ask you, enlighten me. :)
I am, however, a bit taken aback by your final line that a person of conscience couldn't vote for her. I am a person of conscience, and I voted for her. My vote is my vote - and to paint me as a person without conscience can be taken as an insult. For the sake of civil discourse, I won't take it like that. That being said, who I vote for is my choice and, dare I say, my right. I don't agree with my Dad for voting for McCain, but it's his vote, his right, and I truly wouldn't say that my Dad is without conscience because he voted for a candidate that I don't support. For a person to tell another that their vote is without conscience because they don't support the same candidate is deplorable.
<>It isn't about supporting the same candidate, or about your right to vote for who you want. Anyone can vote for anyone they like; that doesn't make such a vote right. Hillary Clinton has been out of this race for five weeks, now; no chance of winning. Her strategy has been to suck up enough delegates that she prevents Obama from achieving the needed 2,000--which she has now accomplished--so that she can go to the convention, far behind in both delegates and in the popular vote, and try to get party bosses to steal the nomination for her. That is deplorable. No one of conscience could support it any more than they could have supported the efforts of George Bush Jr. to steal the 2000 election by similar means, after having lost it at the ballot box. As awful as this is on its own merits, think of what the consequences of such an action would be--Hillary Clinton, who already had insurmountable negatives before she even entered the nomination contest, sent out as the candidate against McCain having utterly alienated the majority of the Democratic base. I shouldn't have to spell out the consequences. And that's what she wants. That's the "strategy" she has pursued. Her concern extends no further than what is good for Hillary at the moment.I understand your feelings that Hillary has run a campaign that some would consider "dirty". Politics is an ugly game. Campaigns by their nature turn nasty. That being said, I am somewhat disappointed in Hillary's running of her campaign. That doesn't mean that I have to hate her or vote for the other candidate.
As I've just outlined, it isn't just about dirty campaigning. If you want to talk about that, it's only going to make her look worse, because she's been crawling in sewage from practically the beginning, doing her best to drag Obama down into it, while he's done his best to run an above-board positive campaign. She has shown herself to be a liar and a fraud, someone who will say absolutely anything to win. As I said before, this isn't really an appropriate place to get into too much detail, but I have ended up outlining some of it elsewhere in this thread (which, unfortunately, is mostly being consumed by a pissing contest with an imbecile troll).
And it doesn't mean that I am without conscience because of my support for her. I just feel that she is the better candidate - although both Obama and Clinton are great candidates - and I could get behind either in the general election.
Then I'll just ask you straight up: What are your views on how she's trying to "win" this nomination? Does the fact that you like her better make everything she has done okay? You've already suggested otherwise, but I'm curious how you would rationalize a vote for such a monster who has followed such a monstrous strategy.
<>You still really didn't answer my question as to what your beef with the Clintons is. What have the Clintons done to deserve your ire? I'm not asking so that I can be an apologist or to argue with you - I am asking because I truly want to know why people dislike them (other than for being successful politicians).
I'd be happy to argue the point in depth, but this isn't really the place for it. Media Matters deals with, well, media matters. The press has given Clinton a virtual free pass throughout this campaign--that's what prompted my comments here. I still managed to get into some of the reasons the ire of every person of conscience has come to be directed at Clinton. Look to the rest of the thread.
Then I'll just ask you straight up: What are your views on how she's trying to "win" this nomination? Does the fact that you like her better make everything she has done okay? You've already suggested otherwise, but I'm curious how you would rationalize a vote for such a monster who has followed such a monstrous strategy. - ClassicLiberal
----------------------------------------------------
My point of view on Hillary's campaign is different from yours, partially because I am a Hillary supporter (not her bra, don't go there). Her use of the 3 AM ad, in my opinion, was wrong. I believe she used scare tactics. That doesn't detract from my feelings on her policies and the direction in which she would like to lead America. This is an election. Isn't she supposed to try to win? Is she supposed to roll over because half of the Democratic base supports her opponent?
I don't believe her to be a monster - as you put it. The true monster is currently in the White House. Hillary has put up with negativity from every angle: from her breast size, her gender, her thighs, her clapping and her laugh. She has had to endure name-calling and other such nonsense since she announced her candidacy, so yes, I do believe she has the right to fight back - even if it means dirty politics.
Personally, I'm sick and tired of the negativity. However, I'm done taking the high road. I'm done with "ignoring" pundits who spew misinformation and mischaracterizations (of both candidates)! Since we cannot beat the right-wing and their negative antics by taking the high road, I say, we join them in the mud and wrestle the pigs where they belong. I say, stoop to their level. I say, "Bring it on!" And to me, this is what Hillary is doing.
I respect your right to vote for Obama. I also respect that you don't like Hillary Clinton. As I've posted on other threads, most of us on the Left would like to see a unified Democratic Party - and from me, they will get it. If Obama is the nominee, I, as a Hillary supporter, will vote for Obama - because that's the right thing to do (IMHO). The last thing I want is to see another GWB in the White House, which is why I wonder where peoples' loyalties truly lie. I mean, there are reports that if Obama doesn't get the nomination, there will be rioting in the streets and that people won't vote for Hillary in the general election because they're pissed that Obama wasn't the nominee. That would ensure a McCain victory. So, the Obama supporters who would do such a thing want to punish the rest of us for not voting their way? Please. Obama and Hillary agree on 95% of the issues - and either candidate, regardless of how well they ran their campaign, would be a great choice for President.
It's the ascendency of McCain to the Presidency that we should all be worried about, not whether our candidate is Hillary or Obama. We, as good liberals who love our country, should be united behind whichever candidate gets the Democratic nomination, and against McCain and the continuation of the BS we've been forced to endure these last seven years.
It's OK to wrestle the candidate that as you say she's in 95% agreement with like a pig? I understand what you mean though. Kerry certainly didn't know how to fight back, but nobody can ever accuse the Clintons of taking any high roads. It's one thing to punch back when hit because that's what I do. You hit me and I hit back, but I don't start fights because I don't actively seek out conflict. I’m not going to run from it and when confronted with it I deal with it, but I think the Clintons actively seek it out. I believe they enjoy it. Pig wrestling seems to get their juices flowing so they are always actively pursuing a pig to drag to their mud pile. They are just two old big pig wrestlers. That said vote for whomever you feel is best. Our votes are our own to do with as we please.
Hi Lynn - you make some great points, but what I meant by pig wrestling was this:
You hear right-wing nonsense everywhere. These "pundits" lie, conflate, misrepresent and mischaracterize good Democratic candidates just to (1) remain on television/radio/in the newspapers and (2) to help advance their right-wing candidate. These are the pigs with whom the Democrats (not just Hillary) need to wrestle. I didn't mean pig wrestling between Hillary and Obama (though that would be a very interesting pay-per-view event that would make millions!).
Just WIKI this f'n guy and see what he is all about, Andrew ick Sullivan, hadn't heard of him before and I'm upset that I do now
She should release those taxes though, the rest is drivel
Andrew Sullivan...hmmm.... isn't he the guy who wrote a passionate, indignant column once about the sexual irresponsibility of many gay men, and then he was caught trolling on a hardcore, high-risk gay pickup site?
Just asking...
gosh darn that hillary! how dare she think she's as qualified as sen. barack "jesus christ" obama! the nerve of that woman, winning all those primaries, sending her operatives out upon the land, to personally threaten every individual voter in the flesh! with experience going to back to the watergate hearings, just what makes her think she's somehow nearly as qualified as sen. obama, with his decades, um, ok, not real decades, but special "obama" decades of national political and policy experience behind him!
that was supposed to be sarcasm, wasn't it classicliberal? you really aren't that stupid, are you? please, tell me you aren't.
i want to believe!
as for sullivan and crowley, whackamoles: you hit them, and they turn up somewhere else. sullivan especially lives in his own alternate universe. you know, the one where bush is a smart president.
when she becomes the official democratic nominee, then i would expect her to release her tax returns. before that is premature.
Funny. When there's a whole party of Zombies for making these comparisons, Sullivan picks the member of the opposing party who acts most like the Republo-zombies( at least in her campaigning).
Sort of ignoring that 800 pound zombie in the room, aren't we?
gosh darn that hillary! how dare she think she's as qualified as sen. barack "jesus christ" obama! the nerve of that woman, winning all those primaries
She was too far behind, five weeks ago, to win the nomination. The failure of the press to report this allowed her to stay in the "race", operating as a de factor agent of the McCain campaign, and slime, smear, and otherwise run down the parties' eventual nominee, until she'd sucked up enough delegates to make a clear victory for that nominee impossible. Her goal, for some time, has been to try to steal the nomination using the superdelegates, after losing both the delegate race and the popular vote. It's impossible to imagine even the Democratic party, which its remarkably suicidal tendencies, going along with this. If the violence done to democracy by following such a path wasn't enough of a deterrent, the fact that it would leave them with a nominee who already has insurmountable negatives entering a general election in which a large portion of the party--those who voted for Obama--will mostly stay home in disgust should do the trick.
A little responsible reporting from the corporate press could have prevented this.
Classicalliberal,
I agree with virtually all of your post although I think the press isn't as sinister as you. In any event, given the fact that she is mathematically out of it, it is obvious she intends on trying to steal this nomination. She is going through with this no matter how much destruction she must do to the party. It is pathetically sad and says much about her character.
First, it's the Democratic party. If you can't get the name right, it's a no wonder the rest of your post is off the wall.
Second, Bill and Hillary are uber-liberal? I got news for you. There is no candidate running for President now who is even somewhat liberal. Well, except for Nader.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
And what makes you think Bill Clinton was liberal? How he pushed through NAFTA? Face it, President Clinton was a centrist/mild conservative, just like Hillary.
Being to the left of McCarthy doesn't make you liberal, by any means.
First, it's the Democratic party.
This is a point of little consequence, but I disagree. The members of said party are democrats; not democratics. The party of republicans is the republican party, not the republicanic party. The word "democratic" is an adjective. The word democrat is a noun. A group of people (i.e. nouns) is not a group of adjectives. However, your insistance on adding the "ic" to the end of your name is supposed to give the un-informed among us the incorrect notion that the democrat party supports "democratic" ideals, principles, etc. while the republican party does not. That's a fallacy, as well as a misuse of a perfectly grand adjective.
If you can't get the name right, it's a no wonder the rest of your post is off the wall.
Empty-headed liberal claptrap.
Second, Bill and Hillary are uber-liberal?
Hillary Clinton has promised to nationalize/ socialize our healthcare system. Bill supported her initial attempt at executing this travesty. She has also promised to confiscate legally-earned profits leagally-run American busineses. She has also promised to increase our taxes, increase the federal government's size, budget, power, etc. These, my friend, are all examples of why Hillary (and Bill) is a modern day "liberal", aka socialist, etc. This is not to be confused with the classic definition of Jefferesonian Liberalism, by the way.
Your boy Bill screwed himself out of his ability to play power politics in deference to getting caught with him cigar in his intern's humidor. He, therein, became quite the lame-duck president. As such, the world might never know what his real dreams were all about. NAFTA? That wasn't his idea. He just signed the bill. One thing I agree with old Bubba is his NOT ratifying the KYOTO idiocy. Plus, he was smart enough to distance himself from Al Gore early on. Hillary definitely IS a modern-day liberal, a la Marx, Engles, Lenin, et al.
PS. Your mention of McCarthy is fairly typical of libs. However, it is misdirected as it is misinformed. McCarthy was right. There were Russian spies working as high level security personnel in the US federal government. They were divulging our top secret military and other government information to their komrads in Stalin-land. McCarthy was able to locate many of them. The so-called McCarthy era became comical when folks in Hollywood began to be investigated and started turning each other in to the authorities. However, our man McCarthy had nothing to do with any of that. His investigations were focussed specifically on the soviet spies in our federal government. Finally, I never said being left of McC made one a liberal. Don't try putting words in my mouth. Later.
And yet you assume I'm liberal, and a Democrat.
I am neither, but thanks for playing.
And yet you assume I'm liberal, and a Democrat. I am neither, but thanks for playing.
WOW! That was one heck of an amazing response. you didn't hurt yourself coming back with that lighweight load of play-do, did you? If you're gonna question one of my posts, expect me to respectfully and thoughtfully reply. However, if all you're going to respond with is idle-brained gobbledygook, then I'll ignore your future smears of subhuman fecal matter, even though they might resemble modern English.
Finally, I did not assume you were anything. I merely addressed your points.
really? You didn't assume I was a Democrat?
"However, your insistance on adding the "ic" to the end of your name is supposed to give the un-informed among us the incorrect notion that the democrat party supports "democratic" ideals, principles, etc. while the republican party does not. That's a fallacy, as well as a misuse of a perfectly grand adjective."
The emphasis is mine.
And really, enough with the name calling, it's getting really old.
I only use those terms because the parties themselves use those terms, I am not trying to re-write the definitions of either party's monikers, as you seem to be doing.
And a last note...You seem to have conveniently forgotten my previous posts where I took you point for point, all the while remaining fairly civil in the face of your constant hyperbole and grand characterization.
It really was fun communicating through two different planes of existence with you, but I really do have work to do.
"Party" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. "Democratic party". "Republican" can be either a noun or an adjective. When used in labeling a person, it's a noun. When used in "Republican party" or "Republican platform", it's an adjective.
And the world makes sense again.
Does it now?
Then please explain Workers World Party or Prohibition Party or Peace and Freedom Party or Marijuana Party or American Partiot Party or American Reform Party or Personal Choice Party or Socialist Labor Party or World Socialist Party of the US.... There are many more such examples where the word preceding the word "party" is obviously a NOUN. Your little hissy fit over semantics is a bit over the top, don't you think?
Personally, I find it interesting that you liberals equate openly republicans to racists, nazis, knuckle-draggers, etc. And you high-five each other as well as yourselves at every mention of same. However you need psychotherapy at the mere sight of a missing "IC" with regard to the word democrat. Haaaaa!!!!
Shifting your argument a little?
"The word "democratic" is an adjective. The word democrat is a noun. A group of people (i.e. nouns) is not a group of adjectives."
Your point wasn't that the name of a party can also be a noun, your point was that it couldn't be an adjective. I showed you that it can be, and that "Republican" can be an adjective instead of "Republicanic". Your response does nothing to support your earlier point.
No, I'm not shifting my argument. I'm replying to YOUR previous comments. Go back and read YOUR comments and then read my reply and maybe it will make sense to you.
YOURS: "Party" is a noun. "Democratic" is an adjective. An adjective modifies a noun. "Democratic party". "Republican" can be either a noun or an adjective. When used in labeling a person, it's a noun. When used in "Republican party" or "Republican platform", it's an adjective. And the world makes sense again.
In your above fourth-grade grammar lesson, you portray the use of the word(s) (adjective(s)) that precede the word "party" (noun) as describing or modefying the noun "party", further said word must be an adjective. I merely pointed out several of many such examples to the contrary. blah blah blah.... Democrat democratIC. whatever!
I agree with virtually all of your post although I think the press isn't as sinister as you.
<>Tthe press has bent over backwards for Hiillary Clinton throughout this process, while she plays "working the ref" games of complaining about her coverage. Ohio, her only real "victory" in weeks, is very likely to have turned on that phony NAFTA story, where she hit Obama for giving the ol' wink-wink to the Canadians, when, in fact, he'd told the Canadians pretty much what he'd been saying on the campaign trail. It was later revealed that Hillary Clinton had explicitly told the Canadians to disregard her campaign rhetoric. This is straight out of the Karl Rove textbook. The press won't report it, and she knows it--MSNBC reported that she's expected to hit Obama again on this matter today. That bespeaks a breathtaking confidence in the press--she's absolutely certain no major effort is going to be made to set the facts straight, and that she can continue to say such things with impunity. Look at her attacks against Obama for his legislative record, to name another huge example. Obama has been in the Senate two years less than Hillary Clinton, but has, in that time, authored or co-authored over 200 bills on virtually every major subject. Hillary Clinton has been there two years longer, but has authored or co-authored fewer than two dozen bills in that entire time, and nearly all of them are devoted to naming roads, bridges, post offices, etc. after this-or-that person. Her legislative record is, in other words, terrible. She's a passive space-filler, IOW, who doesn't seem to want to actually do anything. That she would spend the last three months touting her own legislative record over that of Obama is just brazen. It bespeaks an utter confidence that the corporate press will never set the record straight. And they haven't.
So yes, I see the press performance here as VERY poor.
<><>In any event, given the fact that she is mathematically out of it, it is obvious she intends on trying to steal this nomination. She is going through with this no matter how much destruction she must do to the party. It is pathetically sad and says much about her character.I don't have a dog in the fight, but I can't see how anyone of good conscience could possibly vote for her, given how she's behaved. I think the fact that she was ever even considered a serious contender is one of the most damning comments one could make about the Democratic party.
Her goal, for some time, has been to try to steal the nomination using the superdelegates, after losing both the delegate race and the popular vote.
Do you folks not understand the purpose and function of the superdelegates? There would be no reason to have UNPLEDGED delgates if they were always expected to vote according to the same preferences as the pledged delegates, or the poplular vote. It isn't just an honorary title.
Their primary purpose as defined by the rules is to vote independently from the majority. If you don't like the rules it still doesn't justify trying to change or ignore them in the middle of the process.
If Obama was trailing he would be foolish for not trying to sway the supers to his side. That is the way it is suppose to work.
Do you folks not understand the purpose and function of the superdelegates?
Psst! You're talking to uber-liberals here. Nuff said.
PS. The democrats want a "re-vote" in my homestate of Florida. Doesn't that have a familiar ring to it....? Oh yes, it sounds very much like the old democrat, election tactic of Al Gore fame, the "re-count". Now before you all go orgasmic on me (i.e. the old tried Bush-stole-the-election-from-Gore line of horse squeeze...) for bringing up this bit of democrat party stupidity, I pose the following question: Do folks understand the legalities that were involved in the 2000 election re-count in Florida? You might want to do some research before spitting forth your liberal socialist vemon. Hint: It's not the way we all heard about it from the lamestream liberal media goons who wanted nothing more than for Al Gore to win that election.
Wow, really? I for one definitely understand what the super-delegates' purpose are and understand the need for them. I don't agree with the rules, but that's what they are.
Second, the Democratic party chairman Howard Dean is still pretty adamant in the "no" column of a Florida election. I believe it's your governor, Charlie Crist, a Republican mind you, who has came out in support of a re-vote.
And from now on, try less of the Limbaugh talking points and a little more courtesy to your fellow posters here. We like to keep it somewhat civil, and the more you insult everyone here (both with your "wit" and your intelligence), the less we'll ever be persuaded by a single thing you say.
DB,
Perhaps you can explain to me why so many of you get exorcised over the use of Democrat Party as opposed to it's official name of Democratic Party? Everyone knows which party is being referred to and it is not as if you get upset with all the euphemisms here aimed the Republicans or conservatives. Heck, I understand completely when someone says G.O.P. although that is not the official name.
Frankly, I would think your criticism would be valid if you'd correct the many posters here who freely mischaracterize the Republican Party name and the name of our President. If you don't feel the need to do that, are you not being a little hypocritical?
As far as I know, the name "Democrat Party" was coined at a conservative focus group and was originated to demean the Democratic Party. Why would the Democratic Party embrace this name, knowing where and why it was originated?
So your argument is really strange.
Well, I don't think the misnamed "Democrat Party" demeans the party in any way. After all, you call yourselves "Democrats". That is not demeaning. Why do you think referring to the party as "Democrat" is demeaning?
My reference to G.O.P. is just an example of a different way of identifying the Republican Party. I don't know who invented it, but nobody objects even if it isn't the correct name of the party.
I think the standard, "If you don't know the real name of the party, everything else you say is discounted", or something similar does not really work. But do as you wish.
AA, if I did that, that's all I would do ;)
But seriously, the use of "Democrat" party is a GOP invention (I'll get to GOP in a sec.) used to invoke the racist past of the Democratic party which is not where it is now. The use of that term came top-down from Republican politicians (even Bush uses it.) So, knowing that, it's necessary to correct the term to battle the propaganda.
Now when people, such as on this site, use such euphemisms as "Rupublikkkan party" And other such silliness, the use of those terms did not come from Democratic party leaders and insiders intent on demonizing the Republican party. If you think they did? Then we disagree. Personally, I don't think the Democratic party has the tools to disseminate such inane name-calling.
So no, I do not believe it's hypocritical. Though I can understand how you would see it that way. However, I don't correct people when they use the terms "Billary" or "Obamabots" even though I find them equally as silly as "Rethuglicans" or "Shrub." Those are inventions of the creative thinker, of the random poster on the internet. But Democrat party, that was a directive from within the Republican party.
I must not have gotten that directive. :-) I am not familiar with any racial content of the Democratic Party name.
I have heard and read here where Bush and Limbaugh and others have used the term "Democrat Party". Ok, it is not the official name, but everyone knows which party we're talking about. The word "Democrat" is not demeaning in anyway.
This is an interesting discussion, but chastising others over it's use seems rather pointless to me. Oh well. Good luck.
"The noun-as-adjective has been used by Republican leaders since the 1940s and appears in some GOP national platforms since 1948.[3] In 1947, Republican leader Senator Robert A. Taft said, "Nor can we expect any other policy from any Democrat Party or any Democrat President under present day conditions. They can not possibly win an election solely through the support of the solid South, and yet their political strategists believe the Southern Democrat Party will not break away no matter how radical the allies imposed upon it."[4] President Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his acceptance speech in 1952 and in partisan speeches to Republican groups.[5] Ruth Walker notes how Joseph McCarthy repeatedly used the phrase "the Democrat Party," and critics argue that if McCarthy used the term in the 1950s, then no one else should do so. [6]"
I know it's from wikipedia, but it's backed up by links.
basically, its a handy way for Republicans to express contempt.
And the racial motives? Dixiecrats, enough said.
Yea you got it! Republicans are nothing more than a group of contemptuous racists, sexists, homophopes, xenophopes, dark-ale-aphopes, etc.-a phobes! Dixiecrats... nuff said. What a crock! Do you actually believe your own dellusional nonsense? If so, then that speaks volumes for your ill-conceived liberal leanings.
Do you folks not understand the purpose and function of the superdelegates? There would be no reason to have UNPLEDGED delgates if they were always expected to vote according to the same preferences as the pledged delegates, or the poplular vote. It isn't just an honorary title.
Their primary purpose as defined by the rules is to vote independently from the majority. If you don't like the rules it still doesn't justify trying to change or ignore them in the middle of the process.
It doesn't have anything to do with changing the rules--it has to do with Hillary Clinton's character, or, more precisely, her lack of it. Yes, she can game the rules and try to get party bosses to steal the election from the electorate. That isn't a good thing to do, though, for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained to anyone. Someone who loses a race and tries to pull that is a damnable creature, worthy only of the contempt of everyone with any concern for democracy. George Bush Jr., finding himself in the same position back in 2000, pulled this same routine. As I recall, it was very unpopular with the Democratic base.
<>All that said, I don't think even the Democratic party, with its repeatedly demonstrated suicidal tendencies, is crazy enough to take away the candidacy from the voters in this manner. It would be the same as electing McCain. Time will tell, I suppose.What color is the sky in your world? Please continue your postings here as it is illuminating to delve into the realm of alternate reality.
Hey, can we assume that you can offer up some form of validating substance to you little mindless chirp? Or shall we assume the obvious conclusion: That was nothing more than a mindless little chirp from a mindless little chirper?
Irony,
I disagree with your contention that Facts assertions have been proven wrong. However you are entitled to your beliefs.
What I am noticing is that some who take issue with Facts are intent only on belittling him. I have yet to see any substantive discussion countering his assertions. Again, people are free to do what they like but trying to ridicule him and saying his contentions have been proven wrong instead of actually providing those arguments does not really help your side.
ps. Hey Facts, I've been there too. I've tried the "in your face" replies and countering insult upon insults. I have found it does not work. (A good natured jab however can bring a smile.) It is far more interesting, at least to me, to discuss the issues than trade one-liners. By going toe-to-toe, you simply bring out many who would rather trade insults than discuss the issues. Good luck! I've enjoyed your posts so far.
AA, I believe I made a valid point above:
"Second, Bill and Hillary are uber-liberal? I got news for you. There is no candidate running for President now who is even somewhat liberal. Well, except for Nader.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008"
Do you agree or disagree with my assessment? I do have a chart to back it up. And it gets up-dated every week!
DB,
I tried cutting and pasting your link, but for some reason it did not work.
Regarding the 'liberalness' of the candidates. Wasn't Obama singled out by some group as having the most liberal voting record last year? It seems to me that should count for something. Is he more liberal than Ralph Nader? I haven't a clue. Are many of Obama's positions similar to Hillary's? I do believe so, which would also make her liberal in my book.
DB,
I got the link to work... I think it was a dangling quote that prevented me earlier.
I found your website interesting but could not find, after clicking a few times, how the various candidates got their score. Were you able to find out? All I found were generalizations so at this point, I do not put much stock into it's conclusions.
Thanks,
"Regarding the 'liberalness' of the candidates. Wasn't Obama singled out by some group as having the most liberal voting record last year?"
Yeah, by the National Journal. The same one that named John Kerry the most liberal senator in 2004. Isn't that a little convenient? Especially when we have Senators like Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, for crying out loud.
As far as the link is concerned, Political Compass is a non-partisan, international web-site devoted to rating candidates in several different countries according to their political statements, voting record, and policy stances.
Personally, I think it's fairly accurate, especially since it nailed me on the head when I took the test.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-0.62&soc=-2.62
As you can see I'm fairly libertarian, and slightly to the left, but not really liberal, more centrist than anything.
DB,
It's all a matter of perspective. If I knew what the criteria for being considered liberal and/or conservative, it would go a long way in helping determine the credibility of the website.
My thinking is that what is considered liberal in one country might be considered conservative in another. I have no idea if this website applies the same criteria across the board since I have no idea what criteria they use.
One could argue that the left wing of the Democratic Party has taken over and has put forward its most liberal Senators as candidates this and the last election. That may be one reason they lost in 2004. We'll have to wait and see in 2008.
You can use your criteria if you like in identifying the political leanings of the candidates. However you are far outside the mainstream. :-)
A way you can do that is to take the test on that website and see where you fall on the political spectrum, then you can better understand who is left and who is right.
And read the FAQs. They contain a lot of valuable information about how and why they did this (hint: it's a journalist and political professor from Europe, and they have no stake in American politics.)
But yes, the benchmarks for left and right as pertains to a particular candidate are somewhat formed by your own perspective, but I truly believe that the Political Compass shows the left and right, authoritarian and libertarian view of modern western democracies, not just American politics, where we do have a fairly narrow view of left and right.
do me a favor, and click on the iconochasms link. Answer the questions (I got about half right.) The answers are fairly shocking, like:
5. Which US Republican president wrote this ?Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. Dwight D.Eisenhower Richard Nixon George Bush Snr
Gerald Ford
President Dwight D. Eisenhower , in a letter to his brother Edgar on November 8, 1954
and this one:
8. Who signed legislation permitting doctors to remove the life support system of patients in a persistent vegetative state, regardless of the wishes of the family ? George W.BushRonald Reagan
Jesse Helms
Jeb Bush
George W.Bush, as Governor of Texas in 1999
AA, just one example...
FACT FINDER: "Global warming is NOT a problem."
Uhhh, AA... The polar ice caps are melting. The international scientific consensus is that global warming is the cause. Global warming is NOT a problem? I thought we were well beyond that and that the contrary argument du jour was whether global warming was induced by man-made activities. Perhaps not in the right wing lunatic fringes.
What's next? Saddam had WMD? Saddam had operational ties to ALQaeda?
Besides, AA, anyone like Factie dumb enough to call the Democratic Party the Democrat Party should not complain about lack of substantive debate.
The giant West Antarctic ice sheet, long the subject of warnings about its continuous melting and collapse, is actually getting thicker in parts. However no-one is sure how long the change will last.
A new radar study shows that the ice sheet feeding the Ross Ice Streams is growing. That is a dramatic change in an ice sheet covering about a third of West Antarctica and that has retreated nearly 1300 kilometres since the end of the last ice age. The big question is if the change marks the end of the retreat, or just a short-lived reversal.
Sorry I have to run. didn't get the link
I also saw reports that the Greenland Ice Sheet is growing.
???
Hey goofball.
In case you hadn't notice (and apparently you hadn't) the polar ice caps have refrozen to former levels and then some. Have you ever read Hohner's "Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism"? If you really want to be armed with some well-researched, well-documented, scientific documentation regarding the global warming issue, you'll want to run out and grab a copy and read it.
PS The so-called scientific consensus is a hoax.
Thanks for the backing. I appreciate you for that! You're obviously an intelligent person! You get what I'm saying. I can't help it if my sense of humor is lost on some of these left wing residents.
Enjoy!
By legal definition waterboarding is NOT a form of torture.
This type of claim is damaging our country and it's reputation more than almost any of the the other of the terrible mistakes we have made. We will probably never recover the respect of the rest of humanity.
This type of claim is damaging our country and it's reputation more than almost any of the the other of the terrible mistakes we have made. We will probably never recover the respect of the rest of humanity.
In other words, by simply stating a legal definition, this is more damaging to our country's reputation than anything we ever done? My gosh, are you out of your mind???!!! You've obviously been drinking the kool-aide like a good little liberal. A legal definition equates to damage to our county's reputation. Ridiculous!!! Here's something to consider: Your liberal democrats, e.g. Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimma Carter, John Kerry, and other like-minded gooniacs have done more to destroy the good name of our country over the past seven years by giving Bush-bashing, republican bashing, US bashing speeches and propaganda spreading speeches
Oh yea, Factie, George W. Bush has been wonderful.
That was not my point, Einstein. I never even insinuated that one.
The world would admire him and the USA if it weren't for those treasonous Democrats.
While there is certainly some truth to that statement, our number one priority is NOT what the rest of the world thinks of us. You libs are misguided on that little talking point.
The fact is, Factie, that George W. and his merry band of miscreants have wiped their arses with the Constitution,
More liberal incorrect propaganda. You're referring of course to the "illeagl wiretapping" BS that you've been spoonfed by your lib pea-nut heads in the media. However, as I've stated earlier; there was NOTHING illegal about this. It's a fallacy.
committed illegal acts
Again, either you're refering to the above illusion, or you simply like to parrot the lame liberal talking points. However, benefit of the doubt is all yours. Let's have your list of these "illegal acts".
and diminished America's standing in the world
Hogwash!
...particularly at a time after 9/11 when we had the support of practically the entire planet. Thank god Bush will soon be gone and a Democrat can get to work restoring American values and its standing as the leader of the planet Earth.
Hopefully it won't be a democrat who takes over the presidency. However, your liberals' major fallacy with regard to our country is that our main duty is to gain the approval of the rest of the world. That is a crock of highly-charged political fish poop. Your John Kerry and his idiotic insistance that we seek the approval of the UN before we retaliate against the organizations behind the 9/11 terrorists was spawned from the very same pig swill that gave us 444 days during the Carter administration and it's pacificistic-blame-American-white-people-and-negotiate-with-our-enemies mentality. It accomplished WHAT? Not much... save strengthening the standing of a bunch of disorganized terrorists who were given the full credibility that such a band of revolutionary wannabees can bring down the mighty United States government as well as our military! What a joke your liberal politicians and their worship of the UN are. Haaaaaa!!!!
You know what's funny about this? Mukasey won't say it's torture, unless it is done to him. Then it's torture.
Face it, it's torture, plain and simple. We prosecuted Japanese soldiers for water-boarding our soldiers after WWII. Before the Bush administration, water-boarding was classified as torture.
The worst part of it all, if we do water-board someone, WE CAN'T USE THE INFORMATION. One, it's not credible. And two, in an international court, the evidence would be inadmissible.
The sad thing is when we finally do get around to prosecuting those we've water-boarded, they'll probably get off, because they've been tortured.
This in not about getting evidence to use against terrorists in court. It's about gaining information from them that we can use in stopping future terrorist attacks. You're talking about two different topics here.
Re:Waterboarding.
If waterboarding is so harmless then why is it not a leagal tactic for law enforcement. Who stole that car?Round em up and start waterboarding. Even if you are innocent it should not be a problem because acording to you( factfinder) no harm no foul. Get real
Re: National health care
I live in Canada and I would not change to your system ever. We have a great system although it has some problems(anyone can find an anecdotal example) we would not have it if it did not work. No matter what you think of Canadians, we are not stupid.It is a great cost but it does not seem to be effecting our bottom line. Note: your dollar has lost 40% in the last few years compared to ours so will socialized medicine break us? Not so far.
Awe! Group tree hug!!!
What's up, fella; were you looking to see if someone might have replied to one of your lame posts?
The right wing (picked up by the media) attacks on Obama and Clinton are equally devoid of substance. None of this has anything to do with what they would actually do if elected.
Regarding Clinton: now we have liberals saying the very things about her that the right wing has been putting out for years. I think demonizing ANYONE is very counterproductive. (And that includes Republicans) I do not like some of the tactics that the Clinton campaign is using; but the criticism is in my mind way over the top. If one looks at past campaigns in our history, this stuff is all rather mild.
I'd rather see the emphasis on what their policies are and what they might do if elected, and how effective they would be in getting their agenda accomplished.
(by the way, I support Obama and would rather see him in office.)
"I do not like some of the tactics that the Clinton campaign is using; but the criticism is in my mind way over the top. If one looks at past campaigns in our history, this stuff is all rather mild."
-Mary
I'm not sure which criticisms you're talking about, but I agree that there are some that are over the top.
My big beef with her now is the fact that this looks just like McGovern's '72 campaign, when Edmund Muskie drummed up attacks on him, and Nixon subsequently used those exact same attacks to win every state but Massachusetts.
She's giving McCain all the fuel he needs to run against Obama.
One campaign ad in a previous era was the one that Lyndon Johnson ran against Barry Goldwater, the little girl picking daisies in the field followed by a nuclear explosion.
Regarding Clinton: now we have liberals saying the very things about her that the right wing has been putting out for years. I think demonizing ANYONE is very counterproductive. (And that includes Republicans) I do not like some of the tactics that the Clinton campaign is using; but the criticism is in my mind way over the top. If one looks at past campaigns in our history, this stuff is all rather mild.
One past campaign worth referencing, in this context, is the 2000 election. Everyone of conscience was rightly outraged by the behavior of George Bush Jr.. This year, we're faced with a candidate, in Hillary Clinton, who is intentionally trying to create a situation just like that--she's trying to steal a nomination she couldn't win fairly. The press won't tell anyone this, but she's had no numerical chance of winning for 5 weeks, now. The race continues to be portrayed as open-ended, and, as a consequence, it has now become open-ended--Clinton sucked up enough delegates that neither candidate can win a clear victory, at this point. What is very clear, however, is that Obama is going into the convention with huge leads in both the delegate count and popular vote, and that Clinton's strategy, for most of this campaign, has simply been to make as much of a hash of it as possible, then try to steal the nomination at the convention via party bosses (superdelegates). One need only ponder the horrific consequences that would ensue from such a thing to understand why Clinton has come to engender such hostility. That she would even attempt it is a damning enough criticism of her character to utterly disqualify her from the presidency. That anything-to-win attitude, divorced entirely from any concern about what is good for her party or her country, has marked her entire campaign, which has just been disgusting in every particular. The criticism, to date, has been greatly understated, not overstated.
It couldn't be that she feels like she is the best for the job? It couldn't be that she loves this country and wants to better it? It couldn't be that half of Democrats out there (more or less) believe she is the best for the job?
How would you feel if Obama decided to give up in the middle of a campaign where half of the Democratic voting populace supported him?
When Hillary is really out of the race, she'll bow out. That's all there is to it. Democrats are resillient people. Democrats tend to embrace change. However, do we as a nation really want to go from Neo-Con Fascism to Ultra-Left liberal so quickly? Could the country handle it? (We know Democrats could, but could EVERYONE?) We need a pacer between the two. Therefore, I say Hillary for eight years, then Obama for eight years.
It couldn't be that she feels like she is the best for the job?
That's not the issue.
It couldn't be that she loves this country and wants to better it?
That's not the issue.
It couldn't be that half of Democrats out there (more or less) believe she is the best for the job?
That's not the issue, either. Those are the things you say before a campaign has begun. Hillary Clinton lost this campaign. It was out of her reach five weeks ago. That's how democracy works. If you just can't draw the numbers, you don't get to win.
How would you feel if Obama decided to give up in the middle of a campaign where half of the Democratic voting populace supported him?
Clinton doesn't have half. She's way behind in both delegates and in the popular vote, and she's going to stay that way--dependant as she is on a tiny handful of huge donors, she can't even raise enough money to campaign, and has to loan millions to her own campaign. I'm sorry for you (not for the country, which benefits by the fact) your favored candidate didn't have enough support to put her over the top, but that's how this cookie has crumbled. By staying in the race, and attempting to undermine the democratic process, she has earned the enmity of every citizen of conscience--she has, in fact, been acting as an agent of the McCain campaign, and nothing more.
Actually, the issue is Hillary is running for president. You feel as though she should drop out (which I believe is more for your candidate to garner more support than for the good of the nation) and just let her supporters down. You say that the reasons I gave for the possible reason that Hillary hasn't dropped out aren't the issue. Who made you final arbiter of what Hillary is doing and why? How do you know that she is out to win the presidency at all costs? Is it because she's a Clinton - and the media would have you to believe it? Are you a mind reader? Are you privy to thoughts to which only Hillary should be? All I'm asking you to do is to think about both candidates. Neither will die without your (or my) support. Sure, Hillary's campaign might leave something to be desired. I started supporting Hillary when Edwards dropped out. To me, she had what Obama lacks, true experience (not necessarily White House experience, but political life experience). That's not to say that Obama cannot gain more experience. But to me, Hillary is still the better candidate (but none better than Edwards! He's the change I'd like to see!)
So far, the only reasoning you've offered to support your "Hillary is bad" meme is that she isn't campaigning like you'd like. What are your real reasons, negative campaigning aside? The difference between you and I, really, is that you want me to support your candidate - but I'm not asking you to support mine - and I'm not even trashing yours, like you're trashing mine. If Obama gets the nomination, he'll get my support. You're barking up the wrong tree. Your slamming Hillary won't change my mind.
You just don't get it do you CD? It's not that Glenn Beck believes or doesn't believe that Obama is the anti-Christ, it's that he used his platform as a prime-time news show host to ask a question to an "end of days specialist" (his words) that is totally baseless and without merit, and only serves to fuel unnecessary speculation about Obama's qualifications as President.
I honestly believe you can not wrap your head around why this website is here.
Oh and as far as screaming "MEDIA MATTERS HAS CLOSED THE COMMENTS WITH THEIR REPORTING ON GLENN BECK AND JOHN HAGEE AND DID NOT OFFER A CORRECTION!" is concerned, you do realize that after two or three days, they close the comments for every thread on here, regardless of what it is.
WRONG!
Glenn Beck made that statement in order to prove his point which was that his statement would appear on Media Matter.com, which it did. He was right! That was and is his point in making that statement, which was made in jest, by the way.
Let's get a life, huh?!?
BRRAAINNS!!
Got any?
Do you mean "sparring" as in dueling? By DEmanage, do you mean the opposite of manage?
I'm assuming you are taking a swipe at my posts, my formidable use of creative levity with regard to descriptive adjectives, which have been pounced upon by every libby club member herein. All duly noted. Which brings us to my asking you, what's your point?
AMUSING threads here... I just read them all, and I think I deserve to be paid (for some reason) for doing so. Fact Finder and a few of his haters all need lessons in civil debate. Ad homimem (name calling) is not just puerile, it fails to make an argument -- FAILS -- i.e. it doesn't, cannot advance or substatiate your opion. Anyway ... back to Sullivan's zombie comments: Isn't Sullivan just a pundit, a blogger? I'm sorry, but it's the viewers' responsibility to acurately judge the credibility of a guest speaker, not the guest speakers' responsibility to be credible. Sure, the network asking him on needs to explain that Sullivan is just a "guy with an opinion," and, I think, morally obligated to put on another person with the opposite posiiton. So Sullivan called the Clintons zombies? Well, Sullivan is a poo-head. There, that's my comment and I'm standing by it! Quote me!
Yes yes yes.... Heard it all many times before. You libs can dish out the barbs, yet call foul upon noting the odd incoming bomb headed in your general direction. Duly noted and agreed.
However, that takes no weight from a further reality of the matter which is you libs ignore substance when presented from an opposing view-point in deference to making full note of, and targeting, all aforementioned incoming. (I know, nothing I've posted herein is worthy of being referred to as "substantive". Heard that one before too. Not true; but it IS a common lib reply.)
We're still waiting for this so-called "substance" you speak of. When you finally give us some "substance" without your insults and innuendos, you might be taken seriously. Again, if you want to have an intelligent discussion here, you have to present some substance, provide credible evidence to back it up and do so without being insulting to others. That's the way it's done here. It's too bad it's taken over 200 posts for you to figure that out. One would think that if you were so intelligent, you would have picked up on that by now.
I won't be surprised, though, if your response to this is nothing more than more insult and condescension. Again, the sign of an authoritarian personality. We all know what that means.
And now you're psychoanalyzing me!
As long as you've got me on the couch, Sigmund, please have a go at explaining your own constant use of the first person plural.
You want substance, look and ye shall find. I've posted many such posts. Here's some advice: Ignore my silliness. It's just me having a bit of fun. Nevertheless, there are some gems to be found. (I know, you've looked and they're simply not there.... blah blah blah....)