McBush
Talk about taking a quote and just running with it. I'm not a huge McCain supporter, but how could anyone rationally vote for a guy who is having fundraisers thrown by an unrepentant, admitted, America-hating domestic terrorist? I don't care if Obama and I agreed on every single issue, I still couldn't vote for the guy to be the head of my country while he associates with people who believe that the USA is the greatest sin against God.
It's a story a lot of people have not heard as yet. He booted out the wife who held the family together while he was in prison camp for the rich blonde trophy wife with little compunction. His business? Sure, but when you run on character I think it's legit to discuss it.
Put that in with the number of lobbiests in his campaign command staff, the fact that he's currently breaking campaign finance laws with his name on them, and you start to wonder about the straight talking maverick with a sterling character you read about.
I really liked McCain in 2000 before he whored himself out too. It's a pity his ambition is worth more to him than his principles are.
UAB Band Dad Wrote:It's a story a lot of people have not heard as yet. He booted out the wife who held the family together while he was in prison camp for the rich blonde trophy wife with little compunction. His business? Sure, but when you run on character I think it's legit to discuss it.
Put that in with the number of lobbiests in his campaign command staff, the fact that he's currently breaking campaign finance laws with his name on them, and you start to wonder about the straight talking maverick with a sterling character you read about.
I really liked McCain in 2000 before he whored himself out too. It's a pity his ambition is worth more to him than his principles are.
It seems that his first wife was a trophy wife before her accident.
dfarr Wrote:Talk about taking a quote and just running with it. I'm not a huge McCain supporter, but how could anyone rationally vote for a guy who is having fundraisers thrown by an unrepentant, admitted, America-hating domestic terrorist? I don't care if Obama and I agreed on every single issue, I still couldn't vote for the guy to be the head of my country while he associates with people who believe that the USA is the greatest sin against God.
What the hell are you talking about?
mixduptransistor Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Talk about taking a quote and just running with it. I'm not a huge McCain supporter, but how could anyone rationally vote for a guy who is having fundraisers thrown by an unrepentant, admitted, America-hating domestic terrorist? I don't care if Obama and I agreed on every single issue, I still couldn't vote for the guy to be the head of my country while he associates with people who believe that the USA is the greatest sin against God.
What the hell are you talking about?
When you can't defend the evidence, you do the next best thing. Attack.
cb4029 Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:dfarr Wrote:Talk about taking a quote and just running with it. I'm not a huge McCain supporter, but how could anyone rationally vote for a guy who is having fundraisers thrown by an unrepentant, admitted, America-hating domestic terrorist? I don't care if Obama and I agreed on every single issue, I still couldn't vote for the guy to be the head of my country while he associates with people who believe that the USA is the greatest sin against God.
What the hell are you talking about?
When you can't defend the evidence, you do the next best thing. Attack.
No? I just don't know what he's talking about. I'm missing the reference.
So Obama is supposed to turn down a faculty appointment a a prestigious university like UChicago because Bill Ayers is also on the faculty?
Oh, ok, so I see where the "controversy" comes from. Obama is already serving on a board for a recognized, un-remarkable in terms of any controversy charity, this guy gets appointed, and Obama eventually leaves the board, and this makes Obama an America hating terrorist? That's quite a leap.
mixduptransistor Wrote:So Obama is supposed to turn down a faculty appointment a a prestigious university like UChicago because Bill Ayers is also on the faculty?
Oh, ok, so I see where the "controversy" comes from. Obama is already serving on a board for a recognized, un-remarkable in terms of any controversy charity, this guy gets appointed, and Obama eventually leaves the board, and this makes Obama an America hating terrorist? That's quite a leap.
No, Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama's political coming out party in his house in the 90s and still has a relationship with the man. Try to do some more research. He also calls his relationship with Ayers friendly (according to his own campaign). Sorry, I can't vote for a guy who is friendly and goes to parties with domestic terrorists.
They were also on the board for 3 years together and the board gave money to both Obama's "former" church and "Father" Flaherty's church as well.
dfarr Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:So Obama is supposed to turn down a faculty appointment a a prestigious university like UChicago because Bill Ayers is also on the faculty?
Oh, ok, so I see where the "controversy" comes from. Obama is already serving on a board for a recognized, un-remarkable in terms of any controversy charity, this guy gets appointed, and Obama eventually leaves the board, and this makes Obama an America hating terrorist? That's quite a leap.
No, Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama's political coming out party in his house in the 90s and still has a relationship with the man. Try to do some more research. He also calls his relationship with Ayers friendly (according to his own campaign). Sorry, I can't vote for a guy who is friendly and goes to parties with domestic terrorists.
They were also on the board for 3 years together and the board gave money to both Obama's "former" church and "Father" Flaherty's church as well.
I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
cb4029 Wrote:dfarr Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:So Obama is supposed to turn down a faculty appointment a a prestigious university like UChicago because Bill Ayers is also on the faculty?
Oh, ok, so I see where the "controversy" comes from. Obama is already serving on a board for a recognized, un-remarkable in terms of any controversy charity, this guy gets appointed, and Obama eventually leaves the board, and this makes Obama an America hating terrorist? That's quite a leap.
No, Ayers hosted a fundraiser for Obama's political coming out party in his house in the 90s and still has a relationship with the man. Try to do some more research. He also calls his relationship with Ayers friendly (according to his own campaign). Sorry, I can't vote for a guy who is friendly and goes to parties with domestic terrorists.
They were also on the board for 3 years together and the board gave money to both Obama's "former" church and "Father" Flaherty's church as well.
Typical. When you can't argue facts just try to dismiss and ignore them. Tis the liberal way.
ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
maybe we could pick one name [at random] from each of the top 100 or so phone books.
Seed the names, again randomly, then have a playoff.
Couldn't be any worse than what we have to choose from now.
ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
No doubt. We need to take a mulligan and start this election over.
mobileblazer Wrote:ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
No doubt. We need to take a mulligan and start this election over.
Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I say second the Mulligan.
mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
My point still stands. Just because you disagree with the electorate, you think their choices are invalid? It's one thing to say you don't like the candidates, it's another to think that we should throw out the valid nominations of two candidates.
mixduptransistor Wrote:BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
My point still stands. Just because you disagree with the electorate, you think their choices are invalid? It's one thing to say you don't like the candidates, it's another to think that we should throw out the valid nominations of two candidates.
I agree, mixed. There is a very good reason we are a Republic and not a Democracy. The Founding Father's had very little faith in the ability and/or odds of the common man keeping up with issues enough to make informed decisions about our nation. If you've read Plato's Republic you know the extreme of this view. This is why governing by polls, or judging the validity of a government's action on poll feedback, is so wrong.
The people have spoken and will continue to speak. Powers are vested in branches and checks/balances are in place. States have their powers and the fed does, too. It's not perfect, and it's constantly changing, but it's a damn sight better than anything else the world has come up with.
mixduptransistor Wrote:BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
My point still stands. Just because you disagree with the electorate, you think their choices are invalid? It's one thing to say you don't like the candidates, it's another to think that we should throw out the valid nominations of two candidates.
I agree. I would not want to throw out the candidates... they have been chosen. I wish there were some way to test people on current affairs (simple stuff like who is the president?) and if you don't make 50% on the test your vote doesn't count. I know that this isn't possible but it would be fun. Leno would have a blast with that!
If this is the best we have to choose from we are in trouble as a country IMHO. I hope I am wrong.
Still waiting on the Band dad - snaug ticket.
[quote=ATTALLABLAZE]
If this is the best we have to choose from we are in trouble as a country IMHO. I hope I am wrong.
Still waiting on the Band dad - snaug ticket.
No, no, no. A dfarr-oldblazer79 tkt would rule.. And, if they would appoint me as Sec of Defense, I'll take care of Iran quickly........
blazr Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
My point still stands. Just because you disagree with the electorate, you think their choices are invalid? It's one thing to say you don't like the candidates, it's another to think that we should throw out the valid nominations of two candidates.
The people have spoken and will continue to speak. Powers are vested in branches and checks/balances are in place. States have their powers and the fed does, too. It's not perfect, and it's constantly changing, but it's a damn sight better than anything else the world has come up with.
I agree except that not all the people have spoken in the Democrat race. At least one and a half states didn't get represented as they should. Voters in those states are being punished for something a few politicians did.
mobileblazer Wrote:[quote=ATTALLABLAZE]
If this is the best we have to choose from we are in trouble as a country IMHO. I hope I am wrong.
Still waiting on the Band dad - snaug ticket.
No, no, no. A dfarr-oldblazer79 tkt would rule.. And, if they would appoint me as Sec of Defense, I'll take care of Iran quickly........
I wouldn't last one month (h#ll, probably not a week) inside the beltway.
While I wouldn't have to take a pay cut [to hold office], I do have a moral and ethical compass.
Both political parties would attempt to assassinate me [and probably succeed] for not playing their games.
No spin allowed
.
and I'm not a fan of Bill O'Reilly
I'd out 'em all for being the frauds and thieves and liars they are
.
As for Sec. of Defense, you'd be it mobileblazer.
LightEmUp70 Wrote:blazr Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
My point still stands. Just because you disagree with the electorate, you think their choices are invalid? It's one thing to say you don't like the candidates, it's another to think that we should throw out the valid nominations of two candidates.
The people have spoken and will continue to speak. Powers are vested in branches and checks/balances are in place. States have their powers and the fed does, too. It's not perfect, and it's constantly changing, but it's a damn sight better than anything else the world has come up with.
I agree except that not all the people have spoken in the Democrat race. At least one and a half states didn't get represented as they should. Voters in those states are being punished for something a few politicians did.
and some states held a caucus instead of a primary. Not every eligible voter can attend and/or vote at a caucus
LightEmUp70 Wrote:I agree except that not all the people have spoken in the Democrat race. At least one and a half states didn't get represented as they should. Voters in those states are being punished for something a few politicians did.
If Florida and Michigan had counted 100% exactly as they had voted without Obama getting any votes, the outcome of the Democratic primary would not have changed, so this argument is moot.
oldblazer79 Wrote:and some states held a caucus instead of a primary. Not every eligible voter can attend and/or vote at a caucus
Those states, and the people in those states, decided that caucuses are the way they want to run their primaries. Just because they vote differently than we do doesn't mean it's less democratic. These arguments are just idiotic
mixduptransistor Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:I agree except that not all the people have spoken in the Democrat race. At least one and a half states didn't get represented as they should. Voters in those states are being punished for something a few politicians did.
If Florida and Michigan had counted 100% exactly as they had voted without Obama getting any votes, the outcome of the Democratic primary would not have changed, so this argument is moot.
oldblazer79 Wrote:and some states held a caucus instead of a primary. Not every eligible voter can attend and/or vote at a caucus
Those states, and the people in those states, decided that caucuses are the way they want to run their primaries. Just because they vote differently than we do doesn't mean it's less democratic. These arguments are just idiotic
NO.
The Democratic Party [of those States] decided
that, not the voters in those States.
In addition, the DNC decided to form the 'super-delegate' junta out of fear the 'people' wouldn't choose the candidate of the leaderships' choice.
1/4 of delagates voting [at the DNC] will be 'supers'.
BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
You didn't need this election for that. The fact this country elected Bush not once, but TWICE, proves that point.
ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
Bob Barr.
Nothingfaced Wrote:ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
Bob Barr.
![[Image: babar.jpg]](http://timesonline.typepad.com/dons_life/images/2007/07/15/babar.jpg)
mixduptransistor Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:I agree except that not all the people have spoken in the Democrat race. At least one and a half states didn't get represented as they should. Voters in those states are being punished for something a few politicians did.
If Florida and Michigan had counted 100% exactly as they had voted without Obama getting any votes, the outcome of the Democratic primary would not have changed, so this argument is moot.
That kind of argument is the beginning of a slippery slope. The point is that not all of the votes were counted when they should have been.
What you're saying is the same as saying that in every election year if the losing side had not voted, the outcome would have been the same so they should have just stayed home. It is important that everyone have a chance to have their vote counted.
Oh, and having superdelegates are retarded. Just wanted to throw that out there.
Grammar-Nazi Wrote:BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
You didn't need this election for that. The fact this country elected Bush not once, but TWICE, proves that point.
Ah, ah, ah. You can't go against your fellow liberal with comments like that:
mixduptransistor Wrote:mobileblazer Wrote:ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
No doubt. We need to take a mulligan and start this election over.
Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
TMcCarty Wrote:Grammar-Nazi Wrote:BTR Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
I believe that with these two as candidates it just proves that the people who voted in the US are dumber than I remember.
You didn't need this election for that. The fact this country elected Bush not once, but TWICE, proves that point.
Ah, ah, ah. You can't go against your fellow liberal with comments like that:
mixduptransistor Wrote:mobileblazer Wrote:ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
No doubt. We need to take a mulligan and start this election over.
Just because you don't like the candidates doesn't mean the people who DID vote for them are wrong or shouldn't be respected. It's not like these candidates were forced upon the American people without an election
He didn't say we shouldn't have counted the election, he just said the electorate was stupid (which I agree with).
The sentiment is the same, regardless of the semantics.
Regarding Michigan and Florida - both of those states Democratic committees were notified in advance that if they broke the rules they had agreed to and jumped their election forward their primary would be voided. More than that, so were the voters. If you want to talk about people whose votes were not counted, what about the people who were told that their local primary wasn't legal and wouldn't count, so they didn't go to vote?
Hilary (and the rest of the candidates) agreed to the rules on this... until she was short on votes and needed a way to weasel delegates from Mich. and Fla., at which point all of a sudden it occurred to her that a terrible injustice had been done. I tend to believe that had she been in the lead we wouldn't have heard a word out of her on that front.
UAB Band Dad Wrote:Regarding Michigan and Florida - both of those states Democratic committees were notified in advance that if they broke the rules they had agreed to and jumped their election forward their primary would be voided. More than that, so were the voters. If you want to talk about people whose votes were not counted, what about the people who were told that their local primary wasn't legal and wouldn't count, so they didn't go to vote?
Hilary (and the rest of the candidates) agreed to the rules on this... until she was short on votes and needed a way to weasel delegates from Mich. and Fla., at which point all of a sudden it occurred to her that a terrible injustice had been done. I tend to believe that had she been in the lead we wouldn't have heard a word out of her on that front.
She may not have said anything, but that wouldn't have made it any less wrong. Thousands of people had been punished for what a few people did. I honestly don't care who wins. I just don't like to see innocent people getting screwed by people who supposedly represent them.
LightEmUp70 Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:Regarding Michigan and Florida - both of those states Democratic committees were notified in advance that if they broke the rules they had agreed to and jumped their election forward their primary would be voided. More than that, so were the voters. If you want to talk about people whose votes were not counted, what about the people who were told that their local primary wasn't legal and wouldn't count, so they didn't go to vote?
Hilary (and the rest of the candidates) agreed to the rules on this... until she was short on votes and needed a way to weasel delegates from Mich. and Fla., at which point all of a sudden it occurred to her that a terrible injustice had been done. I tend to believe that had she been in the lead we wouldn't have heard a word out of her on that front.
She may not have said anything, but that wouldn't have made it any less wrong. Thousands of people had been punished for what a few people did. I honestly don't care who wins. I just don't like to see innocent people getting screwed by people who supposedly represent them.
Then it's up to those people to vote out the people that screwed them. That's why it's called democracy.
mixduptransistor Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:Regarding Michigan and Florida - both of those states Democratic committees were notified in advance that if they broke the rules they had agreed to and jumped their election forward their primary would be voided. More than that, so were the voters. If you want to talk about people whose votes were not counted, what about the people who were told that their local primary wasn't legal and wouldn't count, so they didn't go to vote?
Hilary (and the rest of the candidates) agreed to the rules on this... until she was short on votes and needed a way to weasel delegates from Mich. and Fla., at which point all of a sudden it occurred to her that a terrible injustice had been done. I tend to believe that had she been in the lead we wouldn't have heard a word out of her on that front.
She may not have said anything, but that wouldn't have made it any less wrong. Thousands of people had been punished for what a few people did. I honestly don't care who wins. I just don't like to see innocent people getting screwed by people who supposedly represent them.
Then it's up to those people to vote out the people that screwed them. That's why it's called democracy.
It's not that simple and you know it. There's a good chance pretty much any one elected would have done the same thing. And you still are saying that even though the people who voted these guys into office didn't know they were going to get screwed, it's still their own fault.
Ponder this question.
Of all the politicians you know of, how many do you trust implicitly?
oldblazer79 Wrote:Ponder this question.
Of all the politicians you know of, how many do you trust implicitly?
Ponder this even deeper: how many people do you know personally that you trust
implicitly. Such is human nature...and we are ruled by fellow humans (for now
).
LightEmUp70 Wrote:mixduptransistor Wrote:LightEmUp70 Wrote:UAB Band Dad Wrote:Regarding Michigan and Florida - both of those states Democratic committees were notified in advance that if they broke the rules they had agreed to and jumped their election forward their primary would be voided. More than that, so were the voters. If you want to talk about people whose votes were not counted, what about the people who were told that their local primary wasn't legal and wouldn't count, so they didn't go to vote?
Hilary (and the rest of the candidates) agreed to the rules on this... until she was short on votes and needed a way to weasel delegates from Mich. and Fla., at which point all of a sudden it occurred to her that a terrible injustice had been done. I tend to believe that had she been in the lead we wouldn't have heard a word out of her on that front.
She may not have said anything, but that wouldn't have made it any less wrong. Thousands of people had been punished for what a few people did. I honestly don't care who wins. I just don't like to see innocent people getting screwed by people who supposedly represent them.
Then it's up to those people to vote out the people that screwed them. That's why it's called democracy.
It's not that simple and you know it. There's a good chance pretty much any one elected would have done the same thing. And you still are saying that even though the people who voted these guys into office didn't know they were going to get screwed, it's still their own fault.
They might not have known they were going to get screwed, but they should vote their representatives out. Party primaries aren't elections in the sense of say a general election anyway, the Supreme Court has said parties can choose their nominees however they want. The founding fathers warned us against party politics, but we bought into it, and we deserve what we get.
I just finished reading Rick Shenkman's "Just How Stupid Are We: Facing the Truth About the American Voter." It's a damning, disturbing and dark look at just how ignorant the average American voter is when he or she walks into the voting booth.
These are some statistics gathered by the author since Sept. 11, 2001, as he researched the book.
Only 2 in 5 voters know we have three branches of government and can name all three.
49 percent of Americans think the president can suspend the Constitution and declare martial law.
Five years after the war in Iraq began, 71 percent of Americans cannot find Iraq on a map.
Five years after the war in Iraq began, and after the 9/11 Commission Report flat-out contradicted the claim, 54 percent of Americans still believe we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
37 percent of Americans, in 2007, still believed Saddam Hussein planned the 9/11 attacks.
Only 30 percent of Americans are aware that the majority of the world's developed nations oppose our actions in Iraq. One-third think we are cheered world-wide, and the remainder think the world doesn't care one way or another what we do in Iraq or elsewhere.
77 percent of the people who voted for president in 2004 said their decision was based on television commercials and what friends and family told them to do, not on independent research. 85 percent said they had never watched a debate or read the candidate's platform.
It's a sad, sad world in which we live, people, when this is our electorate.
Grammar-Nazi Wrote:I just finished reading Rick Shenkman's "Just How Stupid Are We: Facing the Truth About the American Voter." It's a damning, disturbing and dark look at just how ignorant the average American voter is when he or she walks into the voting booth.
These are some statistics gathered by the author since Sept. 11, 2001, as he researched the book.
Only 2 in 5 voters know we have three branches of government and can name all three.
49 percent of Americans think the president can suspend the Constitution and declare martial law.
Five years after the war in Iraq began, 71 percent of Americans cannot find Iraq on a map.
Five years after the war in Iraq began, and after the 9/11 Commission Report flat-out contradicted the claim, 54 percent of Americans still believe we found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
37 percent of Americans, in 2007, still believed Saddam Hussein planned the 9/11 attacks.
Only 30 percent of Americans are aware that the majority of the world's developed nations oppose our actions in Iraq. One-third think we are cheered world-wide, and the remainder think the world doesn't care one way or another what we do in Iraq or elsewhere.
77 percent of the people who voted for president in 2004 said their decision was based on television commercials and what friends and family told them to do, not on independent research. 85 percent said they had never watched a debate or read the candidate's platform.
It's a sad, sad world in which we live, people, when this is our electorate.
Just goes to show why we are the greatest country in the world.
mobileblazer Wrote:ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:I just hate that there is no one to vote for in this election. I am still waiting for the Band dad - smaug ticket.
No doubt. We need to take a mulligan and start this election over.
+1
