yeah, CLINTON QUITS

[flabbybody]

She'll announce she's ending her campaign tonight in New York and congratulate Barack on winning the nomination

per AP report


let the fun begin

[WendyWilliams]

If thats the case then I will be voting Republican for the first time EVER.

[ottorocket]

Hillary votes will almost certainly push Mccain to an easy win.

[chromeheart44m]

check cnn she is not going to concede. anyway what's wrong w/ voting for Barack? I believe Hilary and Barack were both great candidates why vote for republicans.

[WendyWilliams]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain.

[hangman820@yahoo.com]

it's all a dream....hillary will NEVER go away!!! she's like twinkies....or roaches, she'd survive a nuclear bomb

[BlackMath]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain.

Please tell me which issues Obama and Clinton differ on, beside "universal" healthcare (what a joke your stupid health system is, sorry). I'm not being rhetorical, I would like to know.

[Ecstatic]

Wendy, while I won't go so far as to vote for McCain, I quite agree that Hillary is the stronger candidate. She and Obama have almost identical voting records, and their views are very similar, though where they differ, in almost every instance I prefer her stance over his (universal health especially, also on when and how to pull out of Iraq, GLBT rights, and more). More importantly, all along I've liked Obama and have thought he would make a great president...someday. Maybe in 2012 or 2016. A one-term senator who runs on a slogan of change is not enough, imho.

I don't like her tone in saying so, over and over, but I think she's right that she's better prepared and qualified to beat McCain in Nov. I hope Obama can carry the battleground states, but I'm a little worried that McCain will. We'll see. Maybe if she is offered and accepts the VP slot....

[trish]

Hi Wendy,

I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't feel any animosity toward Clinton or her supporters. I think the two of them are closer to each other than to McCain on issues concerning the war in Iraq, health care, security, privacy and the rights of communities such as ours. The conservatives on the supreme court are already eroding our right to privacy and the pursuit of happiness. I think McCain appointees will probably overturn Roe vs Wade.

As far as Barrack's experience, he's in his forties. He's worked his way into government from committed social service. He's intelligent and knows how to select a broad range of advisors and listen to them.

After more than twenty years in national government and five years into the war, McCain repeatedly demonstrates he still doesn't know the difference between Shia, Sunni and Al Qaeda.

More than experience we need a person of reason who can learn from experience.

Please don't take this as an attack. I just want you to think about the democratic ideals you voted consistently for in the past and ask whether or not you're putting these ideals in jeopardy by voting for McCain.

[needsum]

just like she was full of shit when she told us 8 years ago that she had no intentions of running for the presidency, you can believe that whatever source claims she is backing out tonight is also full of shit. She will ride this thing until it is not humanly possible for her to win, and then she'll still find a way to stay in it.

But I hope I'm wrong . . .

Politics sucks big time. I hate our 2 party system. It splits the country and allows the special interests to corrupt the system. What we need is the allowance of a party like the green party or the libertarians to have a fair, fighting chance against the big two.

I disagree with more of the democrat policies than I do with the republican policies, but I am by no means a staunch right wing conservative. I would love to see a party come out that is fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. We spend way too much time worrying about trivial bullshit and not enough time and money on the things that matter.

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop here before I turn this into a long winded rant. I'm not a clinton fan. with me, her track record is just too full of switchbacks and BS. I don't believe anyone who has to change the way they address their public based on opinion polls--anyone who does that shows me that they don't really stand for anything other than winning and being on top.

:2cent

[trish]

It should be noted that no one candidate's specific program on health-care is going to become law. Health-care is a complicated set of issues that will have to be designed and ironed out by both the white house and the legislature. What's important is that the both democratic candidate believe government has an legitimate concern in providing some form of universal health-care. The prevailing republican philosophy is that it's not the government's business.

[hippifried]

At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain.
Experience at what? Just curious. I hear this claim made a lot, & I can't help but wonder if there's any substance to it or if it's just an attempted meme.

Oh, & welcome back, Trish.

[trish]

Sorry for the double post. Here's some fake porn to make up for it.

[BrendaQG]

Cosign with trish.

A vote for McCain is a vote for more of what we have now and know we do not like.

[WendyWilliams]

Im not going to sit here and debate and or try and persuade anyone. You are entitled to vote for whom you feel is the best choice for your views, life, and health.

Now back to porn!

[Mr. Sinister]

Wendy,

Are you sure you want to vote for McCain? He is against Gay Marriage and was against a hate crimes bill that would have included the GLBT community. He also is willing to spend 100 years in Iraq. I am shocked that any TS admirer or TS will support a Republican considering the fact that they hate the GLBT comminity. If John McCain saw you, he would probably say that you are a freak and an abomination. There are people in the Republican party who probably would love to imprison you because you are transgendered.

Barrack Obama supports giving gays & lesbians civil unions, which are marriages, but don't use the title of marriage. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq. People talk about experience, but look at what the Bush administration has done with its so called experience.

[That_1_Guy]

just like she was full of shit when she told us 8 years ago that she had no intentions of running for the presidency, you can believe that whatever source claims she is backing out tonight is also full of shit. She will ride this thing until it is not humanly possible for her to win, and then she'll still find a way to stay in it.

But I hope I'm wrong . . .

Politics sucks big time. I hate our 2 party system. It splits the country and allows the special interests to corrupt the system. What we need is the allowance of a party like the green party or the libertarians to have a fair, fighting chance against the big two.

I disagree with more of the democrat policies than I do with the republican policies, but I am by no means a staunch right wing conservative. I would love to see a party come out that is fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. We spend way too much time worrying about trivial bullshit and not enough time and money on the things that matter.

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop here before I turn this into a long winded rant. I'm not a clinton fan. with me, her track record is just too full of switchbacks and BS. I don't believe anyone who has to change the way they address their public based on opinion polls--anyone who does that shows me that they don't really stand for anything other than winning and being on top.

:2cent

This is by far the most intelligent post on a political stand point. Career politicians and the constant battle between parties is what's wrong with the U.S. government. Alot of the acceptance of gay issues on the Democrat side is for votes and votes ONLY!!!

[Dinand]

Obama could become the next David Palmer :-)

I hate Hillary Clinton with a passion so I don't care who wins, as long as it's not Clinton

[Quinn]

As far as Barrack's experience, he's in his forties. He's worked his way into government from committed social service. He's intelligent and knows how to select a broad range of advisors and listen to them.


I think it's important to note that Obama actually has more experience as an elected official than Hillary. Moreover, his position is owed his own formidable capabilities, not those of the person to whom he's married.

The thing that baffles me most when I hear people talk about Hillary's experience is her noticeable lack thereof. During her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She played a similarly underwhelming role during his time as Governor of Arkansas. In short, her claims of superior experience are little more than specious nonsense meant for consumption by the uninformed.

And don't even make me get into her exceedingly smarmy character (even by political standards). "I voted for it, but hoped it would fail." Are you kidding me? Talk about a litmus test for retardation. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.

-Quinn

[tgirlzoe]

Actually, I told myself that if Clinton won then I'd vote third-party. It's not the issues, necessarily, it's the personality.

In 2004, I campaigned for Dennis Kucinich, might have gone for Howard Dean (although we assumed for a while he was going to be the nominee and campaigned against him) but just couldn't stand John Kerry's newfound war support (didn't he spend the last 30 years doing the opposite?!?*). So I voted for Ralph Nader (my ex-fiance at the time voted for the Green party candidate David Cobb, we argued much about this).

The guy I like is a Ron Paul supporter but I've got a whole list of reasons why I am staunchly opposed to him (not the least of which is my basic opposition to capitalism). He and I both hate the government, but for different reasons. Ron Paul criticisms (http://zoeslittleunderground.blogspot.com/2008/02/ron-paul.html). In brief, he's anti-gay, anti-choice ("pro-life"), pro-death penalty, and has dubious ties to other far-right personalities.

Only an idiot would vote for McCain, because 75% of the US realizes that the Bush presidency is a disaster (even if it took gas prices and a falling economy to make them realize it). McCain is very much looking for more of the same, he's not going to be the sort-of "alternative" Republican some people want him to be and that he's played on in the past. He's going for Bush presidency number 4 (1 Sr, 2 W).

I like Obama and I do believe he will help give people a voice. That's what the president is supposed to do. Bush proudly said that he had an agenda and he didn't care whether the people liked it or not, people said this meant he had "character" and "stood up for what he believed". What it really means is that we as a people lost much control over our Federal government. I do believe that Obama will, maybe not revolutionize, but definitely send the country in a better direction than it has been going in.

My biggest fear about Obama is that we will get our hopes up as much as we did with Bill Clinton and be severely disappointed. I also think that an Obama-Clinton ticket may get a large percentage of voters and "unite the Democratic party" but would be a disaster actually trying to lead with it. I know Clinton won't resign until the Party actually says Obama has won. We'll see what she says tonight....

* - What happened to his talks about people burning villages and skullfucking dead children? Then suddenly he's like "Look! I can fight a war, I was in Vietnam! I'm a good American!"

[WendyWilliams]

Zoe only a stupid CUNT would call someone an idiot for their personal choices. I know politics can be ugly but truly to call anyone an "idiot" for whom they choose to vote for is hardly an appropriate way to make a case.

And Bill Clinton will go down in histroy as one of the beloved presidents (see the polls) and the first to leave office with a totally balanced budget, I truly was not disappointed.

Oh well this idiot is going back to working on her tan.

Later

[dafame]

As far as Barrack's experience, he's in his forties. He's worked his way into government from committed social service. He's intelligent and knows how to select a broad range of advisors and listen to them.


I think it's important to note that Obama actually has more experience as an elected official than Hillary. Moreover, his position is owed his own formidable capabilities, not those of the person to whom he's married.

The thing that baffles me most when I hear people talk about Hillary's experience is her noticeable lack thereof. During her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She played a similarly underwhelming role during his time as Governor of Arkansas. In short, her claims of superior experience are little more than specious nonsense meant for consumption by the uninformed.

And don't even make me get into her exceedingly smarmy character (even by political standards). "I voted for it, but hoped it would fail." Are you kidding me? Talk about a litmus test for retardation. I say good riddance to bad rubbish.

-Quinn

Thank you for pointing out something has baffled me for the longest. Why is it that people feel that Hillary Clinton has so much more experience than Barrack Obama (who has about as much experience as J.F.K. when he ran). I don't want to come across sounding like an angry black man, but I'm starting to really feel like "Oh no here comes that racism demon again". I only say that because I hear people talk about all of the things that are wrong with this country (we don't even have to go down the list) and how the current administration is directly responsible for them. I here these same people saying that they support Hillary Clinton and that she is best qualified to run/fix/change our country. Yet these same people say that they will be voting for John McCain to continue on the current path that they themselves don't agree with simply because Barrack Obama has been in the Senate for a short while less than Hillary?? I don't buy that for a minute. I think that these are people that are dying for change as much as the rest of us, but if that change or the prospect of change has to come at the expense of a black man being in office, well that's a price that's just a little too much to pay for it.

[needsum]

"In the four years since the insectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missle delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Quaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."



Anyone know who said this? I'll give you a hint-- it was in 2002, proir to the Iraq war.

[MrsKellyPierce]

She'll announce she's ending her campaign tonight in New York and congratulate Barack on winning the nomination

per AP report


let the fun begin thats not true, she said she isn't quitting till he has the magic number. AP as well as many other newspapers have been trying to get Hilary to quit a long time ago. Hilary said she isn't quitting. There are still voters left and still 200 undecided delegates.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

But let me point out the stupity of american voters. People base their vote on how they look, if I could be "friends" with that person, or why they seem easy going and friendly. Which is just stupid and Zoe your post smells of it. You don't know Hilary Clinton you only base what the media says about her so you assume she's a BITCH.

Why don't you look at the facts instead of their personas. Their intelligence intsead of how they come off. Their ideas and if they could get it to happen, instead of taking everything they say for granted. And look at their record. Obama being an Illinois Citizen has been an awful senator. He has been bought off here to change his vote for electric workers. But of course this has gone to the media but people IGNORE IT. Just because Clinton is a WOMAN or they assume she is a BITCH.

Obama got a lof his own ideas from Clinton. He changed a lot of his stances through out the election. He agreed with her, because he saw what she was saying WORKED. He has no clue how to work with international affairs and what he says he will do is just EVIDENCE OF IT! He would risk his presidency to go talk to them? You don't just go over and say Hey I want to talk. lol

Clinton is respected internationally. She has already sat down with most of these world leaders and has been accepted as a woman from countries that don't accept women in power at all. But again NOONE looks at that.

Obama all he takes about is "CHANGE" But doesn't give facts. He is a good speaker so he repeats himself over and over again. Until finally all dumb americans hear is CHANGE. He will go good question then say well thats why we are trying to "CHANGE" that lol what are you trying to change. It aggravates me to no end.

Hilary speaks with you candidly. You ask her a question she gives you an answer. She tells you how she is going to change.

So you can go ahead and vote for him, but he is not ready, he doesn't know what the hell he is changing, his wife would be a better candidate than him. At least she puts her views across.

If he can't talk to the american country straight and candidly now imagine WHAT kind of president he will be.


THATS ALL

[Dinand]

How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator??????????????????????????????
Didn't you Americans thought Bush would do a great job also? ;-)

I think Obama will do great - eventhough I'm not left wing though - simply because he's fresh in the game. He's not one of those Washington old fossil.

[BrendaQG]

@ Kelly

How as an Illinoisan can you say that. I mean would you rather that Illinois have Allen Keyes as our senator!?

All of this is academic now anyway. The game is up....

AP tally: Obama effectively clinches nomination (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp)



By DAVID ESPO and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writers 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, ending a grueling marathon to become the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
ADVERTISEMENT

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.

The tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 16 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The 46-year-old first-term senator will face John McCain in the fall campaign to become the 44th president. The Arizona senator campaigned in Memphis, Tenn., during the day, and had no immediate reaction to Obama's victory.

Clinton stood ready to concede that her rival had amassed the delegates needed to triumph, according to officials in her campaign. They stressed that the New York senator did not intend to suspend or end her candidacy in a speech Tuesday night in New York. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge her plans.

Obama's triumph was fashioned on prodigious fundraising, meticulous organizing and his theme of change aimed at an electorate opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the economy — all harnessed to his own innate gifts as a campaigner.

With her husband's two-White House terms as a backdrop, Clinton campaigned for months as the candidate of experience, a former first lady and second-term senator ready, she said, to take over on Day One.

But after a year on the campaign trail, Obama won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and the freshman senator became something of an overnight political phenomenon.

"We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and independents, to stand up and say we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come," he said that night in Des Moines.

A video produced by Will I. Am and built around Obama's "Yes, we can" rallying cry quickly went viral. It drew its one millionth hit within a few days of being posted.

As the strongest female presidential candidate in history, Clinton drew large, enthusiastic audiences. Yet Obama's were bigger still. One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage; a crowd of 75,000 turned out in Portland, Ore., the weekend before the state's May 20 primary.

The former first lady countered Obama's Iowa victory with an upset five days later in New Hampshire that set the stage for a campaign marathon as competitive as any in the last generation.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," she told supporters who had saved her candidacy from an early demise.

In defeat, Obama's aides concluded they had committed a cardinal sin of New Hampshire politics, forsaking small, intimate events in favor of speeches to large audiences inviting them to ratify Iowa's choice.

It was not a mistake they made again — which helped explain Obama's later outings to bowling alleys, backyard basketball hoops and American Legion halls in the heartland.

Clinton conceded nothing, memorably knocking back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey at a bar in Indiana, recalling that her grandfather had taught her to use a shotgun, and driving in a pickup to a gas station in South Bend, Ind., to emphasize her support for a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

As other rivals quickly fell away in winter, the strongest black candidate in history and the strongest female White House contender traded victories on Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 series of primaries and caucuses across 21 states and American Samoa that once seemed likely to settle the nomination.

But Clinton had a problem that Obama exploited, and he scored a coup she could not answer.

Pressed for cash, the former first lady ran noncompetitive campaigns in several Super Tuesday caucus states, allowing her rival to run up his delegate totals.

At the same time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., endorsed the young senator in terms that summoned memories of his slain brothers while seeking to turn the page on the Clinton era.

In a reference that likened former President Clinton to Harry Truman: "There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party."

Merely by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama exceeded expectations.

But he did more than survive, emerging with a lead in delegates that he never relinquished, and proceeded to run off a string of 11 straight victories.

Clinton saved her candidacy once more with primary victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, beginning a stretch in which she won primaries in six of the final nine states on the calendar, as well as in Puerto Rico.

It was a strong run, providing glimpses of what might have been for the one-time front-runner.

But by then Obama was well on his way to victory, Clinton and her allies stressed the popular vote instead of delegates. Yet he seemed to emerge from each loss with residual strength.

Obama's bigger-than-expected victory in North Carolina on May 6 offset his narrow defeat in Indiana the same day. Four days later, he overtook Clinton's lead among superdelegates, the party leaders she had hoped would award her the nomination on the basis of a strong showing in swing states.

Obama lost West Virginia by a whopping 67 percent to 26 percent on May 13. Yet he won an endorsement the following day from former presidential rival and one-time North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton administered another drubbing in Kentucky a week later. This time, Obama countered with a victory in Oregon, and turned up that night in Iowa to say he had won a majority of all the delegates available in 56 primaries and caucuses on the calendar.

There were moments of anger, notably in a finger-wagging debate in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

And Bill Clinton was a constant presence and an occasional irritant for Obama. The former president angered several black politicians when he seemed to diminish Obama's South Carolina triumph by noting that Jesse Jackson had also won the state.

Obama's frustration showed at the Jan. 21 debate, when he accused the former president in absentia of uttering a series of distortions.

"I'm here. He's not," the former first lady snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.

There were relatively few policy differences. Clinton accused Obama of backing a health care plan that would leave millions out, and the two clashed repeatedly over trade.

Yet race, religion, region and gender became political fault lines as the two campaigned from coast to coast.

Along the way, Obama showed an ability to weather the inevitable controversies, most notably one caused by the incendiary rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At first, Obama said he could not break with his longtime spiritual adviser. Then, when Wright spoke out anew, Obama reversed course and denounced him strongly.

Clinton struggled with self-inflicted wounds. Most prominently, she claimed to have come under sniper fire as first lady more than a decade earlier while paying a visit to Bosnia.

Instead, videotapes showed her receiving a gift of flowers from a young girl who greeted her plane.

___

Associated Press Writers Nedra Pickler and Beth Fouhy in Washington, Stephen Majors in Columbus, Ohio, Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., and Libby Quaid in Memphis, Tenn.


We won! We won! We shot the BB gun!

[MrsKellyPierce]

@ Kelly

How as an Illinoisan can you say that. I mean would you rather that Illinois have Allen Keyes as our senator!?

All of this is academic now anyway. The game is up....

AP tally: Obama effectively clinches nomination (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp)



By DAVID ESPO and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writers 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, ending a grueling marathon to become the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
ADVERTISEMENT

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.

The tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 16 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The 46-year-old first-term senator will face John McCain in the fall campaign to become the 44th president. The Arizona senator campaigned in Memphis, Tenn., during the day, and had no immediate reaction to Obama's victory.

Clinton stood ready to concede that her rival had amassed the delegates needed to triumph, according to officials in her campaign. They stressed that the New York senator did not intend to suspend or end her candidacy in a speech Tuesday night in New York. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge her plans.

Obama's triumph was fashioned on prodigious fundraising, meticulous organizing and his theme of change aimed at an electorate opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the economy — all harnessed to his own innate gifts as a campaigner.

With her husband's two-White House terms as a backdrop, Clinton campaigned for months as the candidate of experience, a former first lady and second-term senator ready, she said, to take over on Day One.

But after a year on the campaign trail, Obama won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and the freshman senator became something of an overnight political phenomenon.

"We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and independents, to stand up and say we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come," he said that night in Des Moines.

A video produced by Will I. Am and built around Obama's "Yes, we can" rallying cry quickly went viral. It drew its one millionth hit within a few days of being posted.

As the strongest female presidential candidate in history, Clinton drew large, enthusiastic audiences. Yet Obama's were bigger still. One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage; a crowd of 75,000 turned out in Portland, Ore., the weekend before the state's May 20 primary.

The former first lady countered Obama's Iowa victory with an upset five days later in New Hampshire that set the stage for a campaign marathon as competitive as any in the last generation.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," she told supporters who had saved her candidacy from an early demise.

In defeat, Obama's aides concluded they had committed a cardinal sin of New Hampshire politics, forsaking small, intimate events in favor of speeches to large audiences inviting them to ratify Iowa's choice.

It was not a mistake they made again — which helped explain Obama's later outings to bowling alleys, backyard basketball hoops and American Legion halls in the heartland.

Clinton conceded nothing, memorably knocking back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey at a bar in Indiana, recalling that her grandfather had taught her to use a shotgun, and driving in a pickup to a gas station in South Bend, Ind., to emphasize her support for a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

As other rivals quickly fell away in winter, the strongest black candidate in history and the strongest female White House contender traded victories on Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 series of primaries and caucuses across 21 states and American Samoa that once seemed likely to settle the nomination.

But Clinton had a problem that Obama exploited, and he scored a coup she could not answer.

Pressed for cash, the former first lady ran noncompetitive campaigns in several Super Tuesday caucus states, allowing her rival to run up his delegate totals.

At the same time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., endorsed the young senator in terms that summoned memories of his slain brothers while seeking to turn the page on the Clinton era.

In a reference that likened former President Clinton to Harry Truman: "There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party."

Merely by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama exceeded expectations.

But he did more than survive, emerging with a lead in delegates that he never relinquished, and proceeded to run off a string of 11 straight victories.

Clinton saved her candidacy once more with primary victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, beginning a stretch in which she won primaries in six of the final nine states on the calendar, as well as in Puerto Rico.

It was a strong run, providing glimpses of what might have been for the one-time front-runner.

But by then Obama was well on his way to victory, Clinton and her allies stressed the popular vote instead of delegates. Yet he seemed to emerge from each loss with residual strength.

Obama's bigger-than-expected victory in North Carolina on May 6 offset his narrow defeat in Indiana the same day. Four days later, he overtook Clinton's lead among superdelegates, the party leaders she had hoped would award her the nomination on the basis of a strong showing in swing states.

Obama lost West Virginia by a whopping 67 percent to 26 percent on May 13. Yet he won an endorsement the following day from former presidential rival and one-time North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton administered another drubbing in Kentucky a week later. This time, Obama countered with a victory in Oregon, and turned up that night in Iowa to say he had won a majority of all the delegates available in 56 primaries and caucuses on the calendar.

There were moments of anger, notably in a finger-wagging debate in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

And Bill Clinton was a constant presence and an occasional irritant for Obama. The former president angered several black politicians when he seemed to diminish Obama's South Carolina triumph by noting that Jesse Jackson had also won the state.

Obama's frustration showed at the Jan. 21 debate, when he accused the former president in absentia of uttering a series of distortions.

"I'm here. He's not," the former first lady snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.

There were relatively few policy differences. Clinton accused Obama of backing a health care plan that would leave millions out, and the two clashed repeatedly over trade.

Yet race, religion, region and gender became political fault lines as the two campaigned from coast to coast.

Along the way, Obama showed an ability to weather the inevitable controversies, most notably one caused by the incendiary rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At first, Obama said he could not break with his longtime spiritual adviser. Then, when Wright spoke out anew, Obama reversed course and denounced him strongly.

Clinton struggled with self-inflicted wounds. Most prominently, she claimed to have come under sniper fire as first lady more than a decade earlier while paying a visit to Bosnia.

Instead, videotapes showed her receiving a gift of flowers from a young girl who greeted her plane.

___

Associated Press Writers Nedra Pickler and Beth Fouhy in Washington, Stephen Majors in Columbus, Ohio, Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., and Libby Quaid in Memphis, Tenn.


We won! We won! We shot the BB gun! Brenda read what else I typed, I decided to add to it. Not to mention clearly AP is a Obama supporter. So I wouldnt believe a word of it. I know that many factory workers in Illinois lost their jobs because of Senator Obama.

[MrsKellyPierce]

How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator??????????????????????????????
Didn't you Americans thought Bush would do a great job also? ;-)

I think Obama will do great - eventhough I'm not left wing though - simply because he's fresh in the game. He's not one of those Washington old fossil. NO Bush cheated. He should of never held office his first term.

[hondarobot]

I think Barack winning with Hillary as VP would be the best possible scenario, but I don't think it's going to happen. If nothing else, since Baracks wife would be the First Lady, Bill would logically become the "First Vice Man". That would be cool as hell, and he'd have a great title to use in picking up girls.

"I was a US President, but now I'm. . . First Vice Man! Vice, vice baby. Break it down!"

Whatever is going to happen, I bet the next Democratic candidate will give his "make or break" speech tonight, just across the river from me, in St. Paul. We shall see. I'd go check it out myself, but I'm afraid that Dick Cheney will call in an air strike.

:wink:

[Quinn]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn

[MrsKellyPierce]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

[Tomfurbs]

From my tenuous grasp of US politics, I would have thought that Hillary is the only candidate with the know-how or experience to deal with this huge economic crisis that EVERYONE the world over is feeling.

My finances will be shit for the next five years because of unscrupulous US bankers, so I would like someone with at least some vague financial history to be in charge. Even though Hillary's history is shakey in this regard, at least she has a history, unlike Mccain or Obama.

My ideal scenario (doesn't matter of course, being a limey bastard), would be Hillary for 4 years top put some kind of a salve of the money matters, with Obama following for two terms.

Still, as someone who has been follwing this with somewhat of an objective eye, I'm at a loss to understand just what reforms Obama is proposing to implement this change he talks about.

[MrsKellyPierce]

From my tenuous grasp of US politics, I would have thought that Hillary is the only candidate with the know-how or experience to deal with this huge economic crisis that EVERYONE the world over is feeling.

My finances will be shit for the next five years because of unscrupulous US bankers, so I would like someone with at least some vague financial history to be in charge. Even though Hillary's history is shakey in this regard, at least she has a history, unlike Mccain or Obama.

My ideal scenario (doesn't matter of course, being a limey bastard), would be Hillary for 4 years top put some kind of a salve of the money matters, with Obama following for two terms.

Still, as someone who has been follwing this with somewhat of an objective eye, I'm at a loss to understand just what reforms Obama is proposing to implement this change he talks about. Thank you for another point on why she is a better candidate! I totally forgot about this!

[needsum]

"In the four years since the insectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missle delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Quaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."



Anyone know who said this? I'll give you a hint-- it was in 2002, proir to the Iraq war.

Well, since I have yet to have any takers, it was Then senator (D, NY) Hillary Clinton from Oct 10, 2002. Back then, and all the way back to 1998, the Democratic Big-wigs were spewing venom about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein was and how he needed to be stopped before he was able to secure WMD's.

It is the tip of the iceberg showing just how fucked up our political system is and how people will say anything in order to look the part. Look how quickly all the "Dem's" turned on Bush, saying he lied about the WMD's. We took 13 months before going into Iraq, giving Hussein all that time to hide the shit that he supposedly had, that everyone claimed to have known about for years.

Here's my All time fucking favorite:

"I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Fuxking dumbass two-faced jerkoff . . .

[BrendaQG]

@Kelly

"AP is an Obama supporter". AP is a HUGE INTERNATIONAL news agency. Do you really think that thousands of people are behind Obama. C'mon. The voters have spoken and Obama is the winner. Fair and square.

As for those factory workers (This will be a bit of a history lesson for those who are not from the great state so listen up.)....

Would a senator , or senator Allen Keyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(Senate_candidate)Jack Ryan (R)[/url) have done better? I don't think so. Those downstate towns were based around one factory or one industry and when they were no longer economically viable they went away. NO politician could have prevented that. * That's what you and I are really talking about. Our choice was between Obama and total idiots.



* FYI Jack Ryan had to drop out because of a sex scandal his Ex-wife. [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ryan=]Jeri Ryan who played 7 of 9 in Star Trek Voyager, accused him of trying to get her to go to swingers clubs. So psyched he was at being married to a woman like that. (she is built like a brick shit house as they say in the country)

[Quinn]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2007/01/29/editorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/16/ny.senate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn

[MrsKellyPierce]

@Kelly

"AP is an Obama supporter". AP is a HUGE INTERNATIONAL news agency. Do you really think that thousands of people are behind Obama. C'mon. The voters have spoken and Obama is the winner. Fair and square.

As for those factory workers (This will be a bit of a history lesson for those who are not from the great state so listen up.)....

Would a senator , or senator Allen Keyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(Senate_candidate)Jack Ryan (R)[/url) have done better? I don't think so. Those downstate towns were based around one factory or one industry and when they were no longer economically viable they went away. NO politician could have prevented that. * That's what you and I are really talking about. Our choice was between Obama and total idiots.



* FYI Jack Ryan had to drop out because of a sex scandal his Ex-wife. [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ryan=]Jeri Ryan who played 7 of 9 in Star Trek Voyager, accused him of trying to get her to go to swingers clubs. So psyched he was at being married to a woman like that. (she is built like a brick shit house as they say in the country)No dear the delegates have spoken. Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2007/01/29/editorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/16/ny.senate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn Umm I did Quinn???????????????????? look at what you quoted. And they asked Obama about changing the bill that he had passed basically after being bought out.

[needsum]

quote]No dear the delegates have spoken. Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.[/quote]

Yes it does--it says a lot about how screwed up our political system really is. We can have a popular vote, but it counts for nothing compared with the electoral vote. So in other words, the people have not necessarily chosen their elected leaders. Such a great system we have here. Time to get out the broom for a clean sweep.

[Quinn]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2007/01/29/editorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/16/ny.senate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn Umm I did Quinn???????????????????? look at what you quoted. And they asked Obama about changing the bill that he had passed basically after being bought out.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't really answer the question. Could you provide a link to an article about the "iraq peace group" – or maybe even a link to this group's website, so that I can look into it? Seriously, I'm curious because I've never heard of this group, and no searches turn up anything regarding Obama’s association with such a group.

-Quinn

[MrsKellyPierce]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2007/01/29/editorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/16/ny.senate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn Umm I did Quinn???????????????????? look at what you quoted. And they asked Obama about changing the bill that he had passed basically after being bought out.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't really answer the question. Could you provide a link to an article about the "iraq peace group" – or maybe even a link to this group's website, so that I can look into it? Seriously, I'm curious because I've never heard of this group, and no searches turn up anything regarding Obama’s association with such a group.

-Quinn Yeah Hilary Clinton is part of the same group, the first New York Senator to be part of it. Senate Armed Services Committee and he hardly showed up for meetings, when he was the chairman. They also make sure our troops are properly armed and have the right intelligence to fight enemies.

[trish]

Obama was and is the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As such he calls the meetings, sets the agenda and (whether he is able to attend or not) is aware of and directs the business of the committee. Hillary as a member attended meetings, but what work did she do for the committee outside those meetings?

[Quinn]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.



What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2007/01/29/editorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/16/ny.senate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn Umm I did Quinn???????????????????? look at what you quoted. And they asked Obama about changing the bill that he had passed basically after being bought out.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't really answer the question. Could you provide a link to an article about the "iraq peace group" – or maybe even a link to this group's website, so that I can look into it? Seriously, I'm curious because I've never heard of this group, and no searches turn up anything regarding Obama’s association with such a group.

-Quinn Yeah Hilary Clinton is part of the same group, the first New York Senator to be part of it. Senate Armed Services Committee and he hardly showed up for meetings, when he was the chairman. They also make sure our troops are properly armed and have the right intelligence to fight enemies.

Alright, I think we might be getting closer, but I'm still confused. Obama never chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, I don't believe he's ever been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Just post a link to an article.

-Quinn

[trish]

Sorry, my bad...I should've said, "If Obama was chair of..."

http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm

[MrsKellyPierce]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.



What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2007/01/29/editorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/16/ny.senate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn Umm I did Quinn???????????????????? look at what you quoted. And they asked Obama about changing the bill that he had passed basically after being bought out.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't really answer the question. Could you provide a link to an article about the "iraq peace group" – or maybe even a link to this group's website, so that I can look into it? Seriously, I'm curious because I've never heard of this group, and no searches turn up anything regarding Obama’s association with such a group.

-Quinn Yeah Hilary Clinton is part of the same group, the first New York Senator to be part of it. Senate Armed Services Committee and he hardly showed up for meetings, when he was the chairman. They also make sure our troops are properly armed and have the right intelligence to fight enemies.

Alright, I think we might be getting closer, but I'm still confused. Obama never chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. In fact, I don't believe he's ever been a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Just post a link to an article.

-Quinn I found that on his own website. I don't pay attention to the media, and more to both of their websites and when they are speaking for themselves. Like I watched all the debates.

[hondarobot]

Haha, why are you girls even debating with this clown? I thought Quinn had taken refuge in the "other forum".

I imagine he hasn't purchased Boardwalk yet in Monopoly and is frustrated that he can't get a little red plastic hotel.

:lol:

Watch Obama tonight, this will be a historic moment one way or the other.

[Quinn]

Haha, why are you girls even debating with this clown? I thought Quinn had taken refuge in the "other forum".

I imagine he hasn't purchased Boardwalk yet in Monopoly and is frustrated that he can't get a little red plastic hotel.

:lol:

Watch Obama tonight, this will be a historic moment one way or the other.

LMAO... I know it sucks to be pushing forty while working a dead-end job – for peanuts no less – that even teenage high-school dropouts laugh at. Maybe you should try panhandling or something? It would be a step up. Until then, you can get banned some more from the "other forum." What's your tally now? One banned ID and two temporary bannings? It must suck to have so many people laugh at your foolishness all of the time:

Don’t feel bad, cupcake, you can always come on here and make up more tough-guy stories about how a hardened pimp is afraid of your 145 pound frame to impress “your dream girl” and amuse us:


Soooo, I go out drinking yesterday with my buddy Weebo around 3pm. We hung out on the patio at the Monte Carlo with a mutual friend who is currently making a small fortune on ebay. We drank and told stories and had a great time, but after six beers it was time to move on.

We made our way to the Hilton hotel, Weebo is seeing a girl at the moment who's a waitress there. She hooked us up with food, whiskey and beer and we had fun, talking too loud and irritating the people in the bar. We left eventually, and this is where memory fails me for a brief time.

I ended up back in my apartment with a hooker. Not an escort or anything fancy, just a reasonably attractive, early 20's, kinda nervous street hooker. I don't pick up hookers at all, actually, so this was somewhat odd, but what the hell? I don't remember meeting her either, but these things happen. I got us both some drinks and we sat and talked on my couch, then there was a knock on my door.

This goofy guy with glasses walked in and did just what a person would expect him to do, and I laughed at him. He was getting tough, talking shit, and I told him "Shut the fuck up! You're not talking to Joe Lunchbox here. I know this fuckin game and you've been on at least three security cameras just coming up here. I'm going to hang out with your girl, have some drinks, and you're going to walk the fuck away or I'm going to stick a fucking sword in your eye and the cops will call it self defense."
I showed him the sword that I intended to use if things got ugly.

He didn't have anything to say in response, and he left. So I hung out with the girl, although right now I have no idea what we talked about. At the moment half of my bottle of whiskey is gone, and there is an empty can of Miller Genuine Draft next to my sink (she must of had it in her pocket), so I imagine we blabbed for quite awhile. I asked her what her rate was at some point, and she said $30 for a blowjob. I gave her $40, kissed her on the forehead, and told her to stay away from that dipshit pimp, and that I thought she was a very sweet girl. And no, there was no sex (although I did play with her tits for awhile, she had nice tits).

And then she left.

Somewhat strange evening.

I don't know why I'm posting this. It's a true story, and it happened last night. Just one of those things.

The moral: Guys, always be nice to girls, even if they drink Miller Genuine Draft. Cute girls are good people. And if a pimp tries to shake you down, it's good to have a weapon nearby (although, in my case, it's not even a real sword, but work with what you have).

:)

http://school.familyeducation.com/images/gijoe_H.jpg

P.S. As always, thanks for the laughs, stupid.

[hondarobot]

Good, you took the bait.

What connection do you have to this forum? I don't believe you've ever met anyone who posts here. Beyond being a porn fan, I don't see what connection you have to this forum.

I believe you are a shut-in loser who lives an imaginary life via internet forums. Show me wrong. Post a picture. You can alter your facial features in case you're worried that your imaginary international business partners run across this forum.

:lol:

Oh, by the way, I own the planet Mars. It's true, because I posted it on a forum.

[brogin]

Wooo, Kelly Shore is as dumb as a rock.

[Jolt711ml]

Who cares anyway the war will end the republicans ruined everything already. We owe china billions now. When the war ends we will have more enemies. Terrorism won't stop government doesn't care for gay/trans who gives a fuck enjoy your life.

[Quinn]

Good, you took the bait.

What connection do you have to this forum? I don't believe you've ever met anyone who posts here. Beyond being a porn fan, I don't see what connection you have to this forum.

I believe you are a shut-in loser who lives an imaginary life via internet forums. Show me wrong. Post a picture. You can alter your facial features in case you're worried that your imaginary international business partners run across this forum.

:lol:

Oh, by the way, I own the planet Mars. It's true, because I posted it on a forum.

I guess it's fortunate for us both that you've made such a collosal fool out of yourself here and on "the other forum" over the years that no one cares what you think at all. Having zero crediblity will do that. :lol: Don't worry though, eventually you'll work your way up to making what a bag boy at the local supermarket makes. Maybe you can do it by fifty? No. Let's shoot for sixty then.

Until then, keep the hits coming, cupcake:



For a variety of reasons, I have been making frequent wildly insane rants on these boards for quite some time lately. The general themes in these bizarre outbursts are generally either related to my nearly psychotic pursuit of superstar Vicki Richter, or the fact that I believe I am in fact, uh, a woman.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

http://drbrooker.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/humiliation.jpg

[hondarobot]

Heh. I'm going to keep checking back because this guy is just stupid.

Can you post a picture?

Nope.

:lol:

[Legend]

If thats the case then I will be voting Republican for the first time EVER.

It makes clinton supporters seem bitter when they say that i'll vote republican or i'm not voting at all,obama and clinton almost share the same views on many issues.If clinton would have gotten nominated i would have suppoorted her fully.I wonder if he chooses her as his VP would you change your tune about voting for him.

[castabyss]

If Obama wins, he should offer Hillary a Supreme Court position when it opens up. Best of both worlds, IMHO......

[Quinn]

Heh. I'm going to keep checking back because this guy is just stupid.

Can you post a picture?

Nope.

:lol:

What your "dream girl" really thinks of you as stated in A PM to suckseed:



Reply to message HungAngels ,Trannys, Tgirls, Shemales, Transsexuals and Ladyboys Forum Index
Inbox :: Message
From: Vicki Richter
To: suckseed
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:41 pm
Subject: Re: ? Quote message
He really is crazy. For real. I am not going to provoke him. Who knows what he would do.

_________________
Vicki Richter
2005 AVN Transsexual Performer of the Year
http://www.vickirichter.com
http://www.vickirichter.com/forums
http://www.myspace.com/vickicali
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger

Reply to message All times are GMT - 7 Hours

It hurts to so thoroughly fail at ever aspect of life, doesn't it, Fembot? :lol: :lol: :lol: And, do keep checking back. I need to fill a couple of hours with some laughter until I leave for a dinner appointment.

-Quinn

http://descubre.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/failure2.jpg

[hondarobot]

That's great Queen, keep it up.

:lol:

[Quinn]

That's great Queen, keep it up.

:lol:

Sure:


What in the world makes me think I'm trans, especially if I have no desire to physically be female? Well, physically I am fairly girl like. 5' 6", 135lbs, nice eye lashes, use to have hair down to my ass (and it's a pretty damn nice ass), all sorts of things. I shave my head now, have a beard, and so on to accentuate the male thing. I really wish I was 100% guy, life would be easier, but I'm not.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hondarobot]

So, you don't own a camera? I would think posting a picture would be fairly easy to do. I find that odd. I've done it many times, as have many people on this forum. Trolls don't, like you.

Post a picture. You can't.

:lol:

[Quinn]

So, you don't own a camera? I would think posting a picture would be fairly easy to do. I find that odd. I've done it many times, as have many people on this forum. Trolls don't, like you.

Post a picture. You can't.

:lol:

To be stalked by the likes of your ankle-grabbing ass? No thanks, cupcake. I'll tell you what though. If I ever want to stalk a TS until I weird all of the women out and she asks for me to be banned (following in your creepy footsteps), then I'll post it publicly. Until then, let's look at what some others have to say about your pillow-biting bitch ass:




Would this be a case of the pot and the kettle?

Yeah no kidding. Honda you scare the girls away, your a fucking obsessive man - you make yourself a target and love the attention.
Go away and get some help. You scare more people here - and post more wasteful posts than anyone.
Take a long hard, sober look in the mirror.
seanchai

Too easy. 8)

[Minutemouse9]

:popcorn

[hondarobot]

That's great. Can you post a picture? It's a simple question.

[castabyss]

WARNING: THIS THREAD HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN HIJACKED.

[harlemzfinest]

I don't understand how people who supported Hillary will simply not vote or worse vote for Macain. A vote for him is like voting for a third Bush term. We want change don't we?? then let's put someone else in office to provide change. We need to get over this hatred that we have. I don't care what race this man is, we need a leader and his policies will help this struggling nation.

[Quinn]

That's great. Can you post a picture? It's a simple question.

Already answered it. Perhaps it was the use of English that confused you? Maybe your dumb ass just gets confused by multi-syllabic words (that means words with more than one syllable, want wit)? How about I include diagrams with stick figures and such so that your slow ass can keep up.

Anyway, let's look at what another one of your many admirers had to say about you the last time you hijacked a thread (something you're known for) to attack a newb:




Great job. You're an idiotic troll who posts way way to often. Does anyone think you shouldn't shut the fuck up? I don't mean the trolls.

says the jackass that is desperately trying to hijack yet another GOOD thread.... way to be a fucking douchebag, faggot

Wow, TSNTX thinks you're a "faggot." What are the odds? What do you do again? Oh, that's right, you're a jizz mopper at a low-end gay bar. Way to be all you can be. :lol:

[antiasskisser]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain.I hate to say this and no offense, but you my friend, ARE A JACKASS. Anyone that would vote republican after what they have done to this country should just fucking leave.

[antiasskisser]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

But let me point out the stupity of american voters. People base their vote on how they look, if I could be "friends" with that person, or why they seem easy going and friendly. Which is just stupid and Zoe your post smells of it. You don't know Hilary Clinton you only base what the media says about her so you assume she's a BITCH.

Why don't you look at the facts instead of their personas. Their intelligence intsead of how they come off. Their ideas and if they could get it to happen, instead of taking everything they say for granted. And look at their record. Obama being an Illinois Citizen has been an awful senator. He has been bought off here to change his vote for electric workers. But of course this has gone to the media but people IGNORE IT. Just because Clinton is a WOMAN or they assume she is a BITCH.

Obama got a lof his own ideas from Clinton. He changed a lot of his stances through out the election. He agreed with her, because he saw what she was saying WORKED. He has no clue how to work with international affairs and what he says he will do is just EVIDENCE OF IT! He would risk his presidency to go talk to them? You don't just go over and say Hey I want to talk. lol

Clinton is respected internationally. She has already sat down with most of these world leaders and has been accepted as a woman from countries that don't accept women in power at all. But again NOONE looks at that.

Obama all he takes about is "CHANGE" But doesn't give facts. He is a good speaker so he repeats himself over and over again. Until finally all dumb americans hear is CHANGE. He will go good question then say well thats why we are trying to "CHANGE" that lol what are you trying to change. It aggravates me to no end.

Hilary speaks with you candidly. You ask her a question she gives you an answer. She tells you how she is going to change.

So you can go ahead and vote for him, but he is not ready, he doesn't know what the hell he is changing, his wife would be a better candidate than him. At least she puts her views across.

If he can't talk to the american country straight and candidly now imagine WHAT kind of president he will be.


THATS ALLThis is expected coming from a racist.

[hondarobot]

That's great. Can you post a picture? It's a simple question.

Already answered it. Perhaps it was the use of English that confused you? Maybe your dumb ass just gets confused by multi-syllabic words (that means words with more than one syllable, want wit)? How about I include diagrams with stick figures and such so that your slow ass can keep up.

Anyway, let's look at what another one of your many admirers had to say about you the last time you hijacked a thread (something you're known for) to attack a newb:




Great job. You're an idiotic troll who posts way way to often. Does anyone think you shouldn't shut the fuck up? I don't mean the trolls.

says the jackass that is desperately trying to hijack yet another GOOD thread.... way to be a fucking douchebag, faggot

Wow, TSNTX thinks your a faggot. What are the odds? What do you do again? Oh, that's right, you're a jizz mopper at a low-end gay bar. Way to be all you can be. :lol:

Heh. You don't post your picture because your just another forum troll. It's not that hard to figure out.

:lol:

You're online now, obviously. Post a picture. heh.

[antiasskisser]

@ Kelly

How as an Illinoisan can you say that. I mean would you rather that Illinois have Allen Keyes as our senator!?

All of this is academic now anyway. The game is up....

AP tally: Obama effectively clinches nomination (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080603/ap_on_el_pr/primary_rdp)



By DAVID ESPO and STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writers 16 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, ending a grueling marathon to become the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.
ADVERTISEMENT

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.

The tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 16 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The 46-year-old first-term senator will face John McCain in the fall campaign to become the 44th president. The Arizona senator campaigned in Memphis, Tenn., during the day, and had no immediate reaction to Obama's victory.

Clinton stood ready to concede that her rival had amassed the delegates needed to triumph, according to officials in her campaign. They stressed that the New York senator did not intend to suspend or end her candidacy in a speech Tuesday night in New York. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge her plans.

Obama's triumph was fashioned on prodigious fundraising, meticulous organizing and his theme of change aimed at an electorate opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the economy — all harnessed to his own innate gifts as a campaigner.

With her husband's two-White House terms as a backdrop, Clinton campaigned for months as the candidate of experience, a former first lady and second-term senator ready, she said, to take over on Day One.

But after a year on the campaign trail, Obama won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and the freshman senator became something of an overnight political phenomenon.

"We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and independents, to stand up and say we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come," he said that night in Des Moines.

A video produced by Will I. Am and built around Obama's "Yes, we can" rallying cry quickly went viral. It drew its one millionth hit within a few days of being posted.

As the strongest female presidential candidate in history, Clinton drew large, enthusiastic audiences. Yet Obama's were bigger still. One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage; a crowd of 75,000 turned out in Portland, Ore., the weekend before the state's May 20 primary.

The former first lady countered Obama's Iowa victory with an upset five days later in New Hampshire that set the stage for a campaign marathon as competitive as any in the last generation.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," she told supporters who had saved her candidacy from an early demise.

In defeat, Obama's aides concluded they had committed a cardinal sin of New Hampshire politics, forsaking small, intimate events in favor of speeches to large audiences inviting them to ratify Iowa's choice.

It was not a mistake they made again — which helped explain Obama's later outings to bowling alleys, backyard basketball hoops and American Legion halls in the heartland.

Clinton conceded nothing, memorably knocking back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey at a bar in Indiana, recalling that her grandfather had taught her to use a shotgun, and driving in a pickup to a gas station in South Bend, Ind., to emphasize her support for a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

As other rivals quickly fell away in winter, the strongest black candidate in history and the strongest female White House contender traded victories on Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 series of primaries and caucuses across 21 states and American Samoa that once seemed likely to settle the nomination.

But Clinton had a problem that Obama exploited, and he scored a coup she could not answer.

Pressed for cash, the former first lady ran noncompetitive campaigns in several Super Tuesday caucus states, allowing her rival to run up his delegate totals.

At the same time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., endorsed the young senator in terms that summoned memories of his slain brothers while seeking to turn the page on the Clinton era.

In a reference that likened former President Clinton to Harry Truman: "There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party."

Merely by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama exceeded expectations.

But he did more than survive, emerging with a lead in delegates that he never relinquished, and proceeded to run off a string of 11 straight victories.

Clinton saved her candidacy once more with primary victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, beginning a stretch in which she won primaries in six of the final nine states on the calendar, as well as in Puerto Rico.

It was a strong run, providing glimpses of what might have been for the one-time front-runner.

But by then Obama was well on his way to victory, Clinton and her allies stressed the popular vote instead of delegates. Yet he seemed to emerge from each loss with residual strength.

Obama's bigger-than-expected victory in North Carolina on May 6 offset his narrow defeat in Indiana the same day. Four days later, he overtook Clinton's lead among superdelegates, the party leaders she had hoped would award her the nomination on the basis of a strong showing in swing states.

Obama lost West Virginia by a whopping 67 percent to 26 percent on May 13. Yet he won an endorsement the following day from former presidential rival and one-time North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton administered another drubbing in Kentucky a week later. This time, Obama countered with a victory in Oregon, and turned up that night in Iowa to say he had won a majority of all the delegates available in 56 primaries and caucuses on the calendar.

There were moments of anger, notably in a finger-wagging debate in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

And Bill Clinton was a constant presence and an occasional irritant for Obama. The former president angered several black politicians when he seemed to diminish Obama's South Carolina triumph by noting that Jesse Jackson had also won the state.

Obama's frustration showed at the Jan. 21 debate, when he accused the former president in absentia of uttering a series of distortions.

"I'm here. He's not," the former first lady snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.

There were relatively few policy differences. Clinton accused Obama of backing a health care plan that would leave millions out, and the two clashed repeatedly over trade.

Yet race, religion, region and gender became political fault lines as the two campaigned from coast to coast.

Along the way, Obama showed an ability to weather the inevitable controversies, most notably one caused by the incendiary rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At first, Obama said he could not break with his longtime spiritual adviser. Then, when Wright spoke out anew, Obama reversed course and denounced him strongly.

Clinton struggled with self-inflicted wounds. Most prominently, she claimed to have come under sniper fire as first lady more than a decade earlier while paying a visit to Bosnia.

Instead, videotapes showed her receiving a gift of flowers from a young girl who greeted her plane.

___

Associated Press Writers Nedra Pickler and Beth Fouhy in Washington, Stephen Majors in Columbus, Ohio, Jim Davenport in Columbia, S.C., and Libby Quaid in Memphis, Tenn.


We won! We won! We shot the BB gun!Yeah Baby, EAT IT YOU RACIST FUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MacShreach]

My finances will be shit for the next five years because of unscrupulous US bankers, .

If your finances are in the UK, that's not quite true. They're in the shit because UK financial institutions invested very heavily in a bubble property market in the States, even when they knew full well it was a bubble market and had been warned it was going to pop. The trouble is in a situation like that it's game of chicken--whoever jumps last makes the most money, assuming of course the train doesn't get you. Some UK institutions were a bit geriatric getting off the line, and this, combined with the typical arrogance of traders, meant they caught by the shit when it hit the fan.

The collapse of the sub-prime market would have had an effect here anyway but it would have been far less but for the utterly irresponsible behaviour of British banks (who claim not to have known the nature of the debt they were buying into--who the fuck do they think they are kidding?)--and at the end of the day, the blame for not drawing a line under this sooner is with the regulators, the Bank of England, the Treasury and ultimately yon big fella fae Fife.

The US situation is reasonably comparable to the UK situation in the early 90's, when there was a property price collapse after a bubble market. History shows that within a very short time the market recovered, and those who could weather the storm ended up doing very well. (I know. I was one.) I know of no reason to assume the same will not be true for the US market, even though there is considerable pain at the moment. During times of rapid growth in the market, investors get involved in property who forget (or never knew) that on average property is a long term investment, not a short one, and the investor who can afford to sit on his assets in a slack market will ultimately win, where the one who has extended too far to do that is likely to come a right cropper.

Get back to arguing US politics now.

[Quinn]

You can post whatever you want now, twinkle toes. I'm off to dinner with something totally alien to your way of life: an actual, real woman. For now, feel free to wallow in your latest humiliation.

Oh, and thanks for making this so damn easy and so damn funny:


Is there another person here dumb enough to post their picture, full name and place of employment? Would JWBL tell you where he works? Would Allanah give out her phone number and street address?
Face it, Jeff Anderson of the Gay 90's club in Minneapolis, you're the only one who thinks this place is important enough to do that.
You dumb motherfucker.

Is there a single long-time poster who doesn't think you're a deluded tool?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://myspace.drewpydraws.com/signs/failure.jpg

[antiasskisser]

Wooo, Kelly Shore is as dumb as a rock.You just figuring this out.

[hondarobot]

You can post whatever you want now, twinkle toes. I'm off to dinner with something totally alien to your way of life: an actual, real woman. For now, feel free to wallow in your latest humiliation.

Oh, and thanks for making this so damn easy and so damn funny:


Is there another person here dumb enough to post their picture, full name and place of employment? Would JWBL tell you where he works? Would Allanah give out her phone number and street address?
Face it, Jeff Anderson of the Gay 90's club in Minneapolis, you're the only one who thinks this place is important enough to do that.
You dumb motherfucker.

Is there a single long-time poster who doesn't think you're a deluded tool?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://myspace.drewpydraws.com/signs/failure.jpg

I will not comment on this. . . well. . . who post this kind of stuff? This Quinn guy is a weirdo. I'm just saying.

[AllanahStarrNYC]

I liked Clinton much, much more than Obama-but I will vote for Obama
as I refuse to vote Republican.

My sister and mother on the other hand are jumping the boat and voting for John-

If Obama would just pick Hillary as his VP-he would have absolutely no trouble winning.

In any case- they have achieved such huge milestones in American political history as a woman and a black man, that I am very proud of them both.

[Legend]

I love how the always fair and balanced people at fox news keep wanting to talk about rev.wright,it didn't work the last time you guys tried to talk about it non stop,ask hillary.

[antiasskisser]

I liked Clinton much, much more than Obama-but I will vote for Obama
as I refuse to vote Republican.

My sister and mother on the other hand are jumping the boat and voting for John-

If Obama would just pick Hillary as his VP-he would have absolutely no trouble winning.

In any case- they have achieved such huge milestones in American political history as a woman and a black man, that I am very proud of them both.Well said Allanah. At least someone around here knows the score.

[Felicia Katt]

If thats the case then I will be voting Republican for the first time EVER.
Wendy, do you know McCain's position on gay rights and gay marriage??? or on pornography??
I can understand how some of the closeted guys might vote for someone who would marginalize or criminalize this world, but I never imagined you would.

FK

[harlemzfinest]

this is why I love Allanah. I just don't understand why so many fellow Latinos are so against Mccain. Hopefully, that will change soon.

[Felicia Katt]

Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

Kelly, Hillary doesn't have the popular vote, unless you do the math her rosy lensed way. She only counts 35 states, discounting all the States where they held Caucuses and not primaries, she also gives herself all the voters in Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and virtually all the voters in Florida, where he never campaigned.

By every legitmate metric, representative popular vote, pledged delegates, superdelagates and number of primaries or caucuses prevailed in, Obama is the winner.

I used to be a huge Hillary supporter, but you learn more about a person by how they lose then how they win, and she has shown herself to be a very poor loser. She was the presumptive nominee, with the best Democratic brandname, and all the funding and support, and in this paranoid, post 9-11 fearscsape, she got beat by someone wtih dark skin and a Muslim surname. And she did so in the most ungracious and selfish fashion, without regard to needs or ideals of the party. That she has you, a smart, informed young woman parroting her specious talking points to sabotage Obama, so she can wait out McCain and run again in 2012, rather than rallying you to elect a Democrat now and try to erase the last 8 years of Bush league leadership, shows her true character.

FK

[PapiQueRico]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeGPzk8Oca8

http://www.livesteez.com/videos/watch/nvYkHm9

[BrendaQG]

I don't often say this about things Felicia writes but....

Co-Fucking-sign!

This myth that Hillary has somehow been cheated has to be nipped in the bud. Obama has had racism and really irrational Islamophobia to deal with. (25% of Anti-Obama Dems think Obama is a muslim!!! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/25-of-antiobama-dems-th_b_93806.html)) Even in light of all the controversy around his Christian Church!

Their was a contest, the contest had rules, the rules were changed to favor Hillary Clinton, and OBAMA STILL WON!!

Now can we all just get along...and move on to making sure that another Regan/Bush style republican does not get into office?

[Legend]

Hilary didn't conceived or even acknowledge that we should focus on the general election it just seemed like the same rhetoric.

[tonkatoy]

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal. There are a lot of issues that people get very emotional over, in some cases rightly so, (gay marriage, abortion, religion, the flag) but are not the pressing issues which will destroy our country and economy. I wish that somebody would stand up adn have the courage to really go into the issues, everyone said Ross Perot was crazy, I think he scared the piss out of both parties. He wasn't beholden to a party or a bunch of pacs, and he spoke the hard truth about many issues. But the media and the right and left tried to make him out to be a kook. I still remember his debate with Al Gore about NAFTA, which now even democrats are saying was a bad idea. I wish somebody would ask Gore what the global warming contribution of NAFTA has been, a lot of manufacturing has been moved to places with less stringent environmental standards, plus all the extra transportation. The American public also has to take responsibility for being pretty dumb and lazy, too lazy to learn about the issues, too lazy to really get out and voice an opinion.

[Quinn]

Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

Kelly, Hillary doesn't have the popular vote, unless you do the math her rosy lensed way. She only counts 35 states, discounting all the States where they held Caucuses and not primaries, she also gives herself all the voters in Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and virtually all the voters in Florida, where he never campaigned.

By every legitmate metric, representative popular vote, pledged delegates, superdelagates and number of primaries or caucuses prevailed in, Obama is the winner.

I used to be a huge Hillary supporter, but you learn more about a person by how they lose then how they win, and she has shown herself to be a very poor loser. She was the presumptive nominee, with the best Democratic brandname, and all the funding and support, and in this paranoid, post 9-11 fearscsape, she got beat by someone wtih dark skin and a Muslim surname. And she did so in the most ungracious and selfish fashion, without regard to needs or ideals of the party. That she has you, a smart, informed young woman parroting her specious talking points to sabotage Obama, so she can wait out McCain and run again in 2012, rather than rallying you to elect a Democrat now and try to erase the last 8 years of Bush league leadership, shows her true character.

FK

A cogent argument in favor of Obama if ever there was one. Don't get me wrong, the guy definitely has some significant shortcomings, but I'll take him over Clinton or McCain, both of whom have clearly demonstrated that they know fuck all about economics.

-Quinn

[El Nino]

...

[Felicia Katt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeGPzk8Oca8

http://www.livesteez.com/videos/watch/nvYkHm9
There is an old Sicilian proverb: a fish rots from the head down. Hillarys supporters are so violently and vocally racist and ignorant because Hillary wants them to be.

When Hillary Clinton was asked on “60 Minutes” if she believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim this was her reply:

“Well of course not, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says, and you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.”

The reporter then pressed her on her answer asking her again if she believed that Obama was a Muslim, she replied:

“No, no, why would I — there’s nothing to base that on — as far as I know,”

She knows full well he is a Christian. She is one of the smarter, more articulate politcians out there and a lawyer as well, trained and practiced at precise speech. It was not a hard question, but the simple honest answer didn't help her, so she answered in a dissembling way that did.

Her campaign also leaked a photo of Obama in traditional Somalian dress that a lot of people ignorantly thought was Muslim and then denied it suggesting he had something to hide by complaining about it. Bill Clinton dismissed his primary win in South Carolina by claiming Jesse Jackson won there too. Hillary famously said her campaign was for "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" Subtle, but insidious racism. A certain percentage of people will always wrongly think Obama is a Muslim, no matter the facts. A certain percentage would never vote for an African American, no matter the candidate. Hillary held her nose and sought out those voters, despite the rotting fish stench of their views.. Its no wonder that her surrogates and her supporters sound just like them.

FK

[El Nino]

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9225

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9405

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/olmert-mccain-obama-to-gather-at-aipac-convention/78976/?print=9678912121

[scroller]

I voted for Clinton in the NY primary. But she's run a dumb, ungraceful campaign, and it's convinced me that Obama has the better organizational and leadership skills.

What I said tonight: "I would have preferred Clinton to be President. But having a black President will piss off the right-wingers nearly as much, so that should be entertaining, too."

(Largely co-sign Trish & Felicia.)

[brogin]

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9225

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/18/record_obama_crowd_the_size_of.html

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=9405

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/olmert-mccain-obama-to-gather-at-aipac-convention/78976/?print=9678912121

Haha, fucking nutbar. Better get your tinfoil hat before the reverse vampires eliminate the meal of dinner forever.

[El Nino]

Call me whatever you want, but the facts remain

Obama's Money Cartel:

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052008.html

[MrsKellyPierce]

antiasskisser you have serious issues, I am not racist. Still believing the chatroom fun Haze and Johnny were having? Pathetic.


Oh wait this is like that dirty tactic Obama did with Hil's health plan. Sending out flyers lying to them. Is that what you mean Felicia by playing dirty?

He wasn't exactly a saint.

So stop acting like it.

[Realgirls4me]

Hilary didn't conceived or even acknowledge that we should focus on the general election it just seemed like the same rhetoric.

(Guffaw!!!) ... You can't make this stuff up. You just can't. Oh my god. LOL!!!

[Legend]

Hilary didn't conceived or even acknowledge that we should focus on the general election it just seemed like the same rhetoric.

(Guffaw!!!) ... You can't make this stuff up. You just can't. Oh my god. LOL!!!

http://i30.tinypic.com/20jg68m.jpg

Whomever gets elected hopefully they are strong on border control.

[Realgirls4me]

For the record, let Legend's latest slop of a post confirm that he is not only stupid and ignorant, but a bigot too -- the most basic form of ignorance one can be saddled with. That's two shots he's taken at me via Mexican-Americans. Where did race factor in? What's the matter, Legend, can't stick to the facts and issues at hand? You been hit so hard you're grasping at anything you can such as the race low road?

... Like a college professor once warned us about bigots: "Be wary of anyone who differentiates another person by his/her race or ethnicity ... they usually don't stop differentiating at one."

Why not reveal your stereotypes and generalizations of Jews, Muslims, Puerto-Ricans, African-Americans, Cubans, et all, Legend? ...Show us, you redneck cartoon!

[Felicia Katt]

Kelly, a health plan is a legitimate campaign issue. Suggesting your opponent is a Muslim is not. Reminding voters he is not white is not.

You are an intelligent person, and I'm glad to see you show it in these discussions. But you are misinformed on the heatlh care flyer, which said that Clinton's plan requires all Americans to buy insurance. Brooks Jackson, director of factcheck.org says the claim is "out of context" and "strains the facts," but that to call it false is "an exaggeration in itself."

Clinton and Obama have been exaggerating the differences between their two health care plans. Jackson says the plans are quite similar. The main difference is that Clinton has what she calls a "personal mandate," a requirement that every individual obtain health care coverage — Obama does not.

Hilllary claims her "mandate" is not mandatory by not specifying the penalties, means of enforcement, or whether there would be any exemption for hardship cases. But by any reasonable definition, to mandate is to require, which is more than pretty much what the flyer said.

While she cried wolf about Obama's flyer, Clinton was no innocent Red Riding Hood with her own. Her campaign sent out a mailer that twisted Obama's words and gave a false picture of his proposals on Social Security, home foreclosures and energy, accusing Obama of favoring a $1 trillion tax increase on Social Security. Factcheck.org's Jackson called her flyer a "big distortion."

This is all water under the bridge. Obama is the nominee. Hillary is not. The question is whether we cross that bridge with Obama, or stay stuck in the muck and mire and mud left underneath it by Bush, by voting for McCain. For me, the choice is as clear now as the poltics may have been dirty then.

Obama wins, we win.

Peace

FK

[MrsKellyPierce]

Not true in the least, he is backed by the same as Mccain. Thats how he got all those big profits for his election. As El Nino said.

He will do their bidding. He is bought.

[Felicia Katt]

Kelly, I think you meant to reply in the other thread, but its all good.

Don't take my word for it. Google it. Obama has raised record amounts for his campaign from primarily small donors. He has so many that the FEC computer's spreadsheets couldn't handle it. He couldn't outraise McCain if they had the same donors.

Politicians may seem more alike than different, but Obama is very different than McCain who is just the same as Bush. The difference couldn't be more clear than it is on gay/transgender rights and marriage. Obama is for us, and McCain is agin us. As an activist, that issue alone should resonate with you and is why I keep trying to reason with you :)

FK

[ARMANIXXX]

With gas over 4 dollars a gallon and a never ending pointless war that's costing Billions.....trillions even, with food going up, with jobs being lost,

Even with obvious obstacles (racial), I truly believe this is Obama's race to lose at this point.

It's pretty much 1992 all over again.

[melissacarter]

As cosmetic as it may sound, I believe it's Hillary's grating voice that sunk her boat.

[mimiplastique]

As cosmetic as it may sound, I believe it's Hillary's grating voice that sunk her boat.


no matter what i say ... i will be looked at as silly ...
i really don't know too much about either campaigns and i would vote fo Hillary solely on the belief that Obama would be killed because of some of the real racist people in this country...
i will however say that this thread has taught me alot about the up coming election .
Thanks guys ... it was alot of pages to read and i think that Wenndy had some ver valid points along with every one else :)
~mimi

[needsum]

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal. There are a lot of issues that people get very emotional over, in some cases rightly so, (gay marriage, abortion, religion, the flag) but are not the pressing issues which will destroy our country and economy. I wish that somebody would stand up adn have the courage to really go into the issues, everyone said Ross Perot was crazy, I think he scared the piss out of both parties. He wasn't beholden to a party or a bunch of pacs, and he spoke the hard truth about many issues. But the media and the right and left tried to make him out to be a kook. I still remember his debate with Al Gore about NAFTA, which now even democrats are saying was a bad idea. I wish somebody would ask Gore what the global warming contribution of NAFTA has been, a lot of manufacturing has been moved to places with less stringent environmental standards, plus all the extra transportation. The American public also has to take responsibility for being pretty dumb and lazy, too lazy to learn about the issues, too lazy to really get out and voice an opinion.

I agree--I voted for Ross Perot for that very reason. He was NOT a career politician, he was a staunch, tough businessman, and the way things have been going in this country we need it to be run by a no-holds-barred, don't-fuck-with-my-business type of businessman. He had the goods to stir up some shit, thats for sure.

I've often thought I should go into politics, but its such a shitty business. Hmm, I wonder how my acceptance speech would go on the white house lawn . . .

"My fellow Americans, I am humbled by your acceptance of me as your new leader. I vow to keep my campaign promises: No new taxes, full rights for gay couples, legalize prostitution, a universal healthcare system that ACTUALLY WORKS, a retirment system to replace the struggling SS system we have in place. And I owe a big debt of gratitude to hungangels.com for their years of support!"

[glenntinnyc]

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.


You should be informed before you make statements

Here are the basics:

Members of Congress (House and Senate) take part in a defined benefit plan (once retired, they receive a specific monthly benefit based on years of service). They do not retire at full pay and their pension is a contributory plan — that is, they have a significant amount deducted from their salary each month to help defray the cost of their pension benefits. This defined benefit plan is comparable to pensions offered by big companies like General Motors except that in some instances the companies underwrite the entire cost of the plan.

Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below).

RelatedColumn Archive
Congressional Pensions ExplainedCongressional Redistricting, the Ultimate Political PrizeForty Years Later, Fraternity Bonds Still StrongRomney's Challenge: Reader Emails Reveal Reservations About MormonismMyths About Congress ExposedFull-page Martin Frost Archive
Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary.

In addition, all members, starting in 1983, now pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. For members under the old CSRS plan, their Social Security benefits are offset (subtracted from) their pension. For members under the new FERS plan, there is no Social Security offset. It is not unusual for retired workers to receive a pension from their private employer and to also receive Social Security. Somehow, many people think members of Congress should not be eligible for the exact same treatment that employees in private industry receive.

Members under the old more generous CSRS plan are eligible for participation in a separate 401(k) plan under which a certain amount is deducted from their salary each month and is not taxed until after they retire. This 401(k) deduction is not matched by their employer, the federal government. Members under the new FERS plan also can take part in a 401(k) plan and they receive a partial match from their employer.

Generally, members are not eligible to receive their pension until age 60 and their pensions vest after five years of service.

I know this is a lot of information but don’t be afraid of being armed with the facts. The misconceptions that float around on the internet — retirement at full pay after one term and no payment into Social Security — are false and unfair to public servants who devote a significant amount of their lives to making this a better country.

Having said all this, I realize that some people will resent the fact that members of the House and Senate receive any pension at all. I can’t do anything for people who take this view.

I can, however, give you information about what is true and what is false. You can then at least make a rational judgment on whether or not you approve of the Congressional pension system. Improvements can be made. Convicted criminals like former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) should forfeit their pensions when they are convicted of felonies like taking a bribe.

Also, it is legitimate to question whether or not these pensions should be indexed for inflation each year. Many private pensions are not indexed though military pensions and Social Security are.

I hope this answers your questions.

Congressional Pensions Explained
Monday, December 03, 2007

By Martin Frost

[glenntinnyc]

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.


You should be informed before you make statements

Here are the basics:

Members of Congress (House and Senate) take part in a defined benefit plan (once retired, they receive a specific monthly benefit based on years of service). They do not retire at full pay and their pension is a contributory plan — that is, they have a significant amount deducted from their salary each month to help defray the cost of their pension benefits. This defined benefit plan is comparable to pensions offered by big companies like General Motors except that in some instances the companies underwrite the entire cost of the plan.

Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below).

RelatedColumn Archive
Congressional Pensions ExplainedCongressional Redistricting, the Ultimate Political PrizeForty Years Later, Fraternity Bonds Still StrongRomney's Challenge: Reader Emails Reveal Reservations About MormonismMyths About Congress ExposedFull-page Martin Frost Archive
Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary.

In addition, all members, starting in 1983, now pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. For members under the old CSRS plan, their Social Security benefits are offset (subtracted from) their pension. For members under the new FERS plan, there is no Social Security offset. It is not unusual for retired workers to receive a pension from their private employer and to also receive Social Security. Somehow, many people think members of Congress should not be eligible for the exact same treatment that employees in private industry receive.

Members under the old more generous CSRS plan are eligible for participation in a separate 401(k) plan under which a certain amount is deducted from their salary each month and is not taxed until after they retire. This 401(k) deduction is not matched by their employer, the federal government. Members under the new FERS plan also can take part in a 401(k) plan and they receive a partial match from their employer.

Generally, members are not eligible to receive their pension until age 60 and their pensions vest after five years of service.

I know this is a lot of information but don’t be afraid of being armed with the facts. The misconceptions that float around on the internet — retirement at full pay after one term and no payment into Social Security — are false and unfair to public servants who devote a significant amount of their lives to making this a better country.

Having said all this, I realize that some people will resent the fact that members of the House and Senate receive any pension at all. I can’t do anything for people who take this view.

I can, however, give you information about what is true and what is false. You can then at least make a rational judgment on whether or not you approve of the Congressional pension system. Improvements can be made. Convicted criminals like former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) should forfeit their pensions when they are convicted of felonies like taking a bribe.

Also, it is legitimate to question whether or not these pensions should be indexed for inflation each year. Many private pensions are not indexed though military pensions and Social Security are.

I hope this answers your questions.

Congressional Pensions Explained
Monday, December 03, 2007

By Martin Frost

So yes it is more generous than the average corparate plan , but this is a federal employess plan so its not just congress that gets this but all federal employees. Social Security was never meant to be an indivuduals only source of income after they retire, so while I am VERY CONCERNED I amay not get what my fair share even though I have been paying in like everyone else I would be a fool to count on it as my only source of income post work. You should be more concerned with why most large private institutions have done away with pension plans, and left employees with 401k instead. A GM worker of today does not have the same security as one from 25 years ago. The whole system is flawed but all are to blame not just Congress.

[goldensamba]

If thats the case then I will be voting Republican for the first time EVER.

Why would you do that? There is more at stake than just who is in the white house. Wars, the next supreme court justice, etc. You would be helping set the country back even farther.

It amazes me how Hillary supporters are acting like babies because she didn't get the nomination. She lost now do what's best for the country, don't act like a spoiled kid on the playground and take your ball and go home.

Don't get me wrong, I am and Independent so I vote based on issue not on party. But, at this point I have to say it just makes my stomach turn that anyone would vote to continue what hes led this country into a very dark hour in our history.

[goldensamba]

antiasskisser you have serious issues, I am not racist. Still believing the chatroom fun Haze and Johnny were having? Pathetic.


Oh wait this is like that dirty tactic Obama did with Hil's health plan. Sending out flyers lying to them. Is that what you mean Felicia by playing dirty?

He wasn't exactly a saint.

So stop acting like it.

Neither is Hillary who played just as dirty if now worse. Stop acting like she was above the fray.

[goldensamba]

As cosmetic as it may sound, I believe it's Hillary's grating voice that sunk her boat.

I think it was Hillary's crappy attitude acting like it the nomination was hers before the campaign even started is what sunk her.

[goldensamba]

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal.

There is no such thing. Instead of looking for a party to do that you need to look for individuals to do that. The sooner we get rid of the two party system and the electoral college the better. Let's be a true democracy and let the winner of the popular vote be our president.

[goldensamba]

If Obama would just pick Hillary as his VP-he would have absolutely no trouble winning.

In any case- they have achieved such huge milestones in American political history as a woman and a black man, that I am very proud of them both.

I just can't wrap my head around the logic to vote for McCain, it just makes no sense at all.

The problem with having her as a VP is her and Bill's egos have become so big they would want to control way too much. I used to have great respect and admiration for Bill Clinton but no longer after the way this campaign was run.

[goldensamba]

Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

Kelly, Hillary doesn't have the popular vote, unless you do the math her rosy lensed way. She only counts 35 states, discounting all the States where they held Caucuses and not primaries, she also gives herself all the voters in Michigan, where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, and virtually all the voters in Florida, where he never campaigned.

By every legitmate metric, representative popular vote, pledged delegates, superdelagates and number of primaries or caucuses prevailed in, Obama is the winner.

I used to be a huge Hillary supporter, but you learn more about a person by how they lose then how they win, and she has shown herself to be a very poor loser. She was the presumptive nominee, with the best Democratic brandname, and all the funding and support, and in this paranoid, post 9-11 fearscsape, she got beat by someone wtih dark skin and a Muslim surname. And she did so in the most ungracious and selfish fashion, without regard to needs or ideals of the party. That she has you, a smart, informed young woman parroting her specious talking points to sabotage Obama, so she can wait out McCain and run again in 2012, rather than rallying you to elect a Democrat now and try to erase the last 8 years of Bush league leadership, shows her true character.

FK

:claps

This is of the standing ovation variety!

[goldensamba]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Before asking me a question, would it not be proper to first answer my own previously asked question? Now, once again, I ask you what the “iraq peace group” is and how Obama was in charge of it?

As for an article addressing Hillary’s promise to Upstate New York, here is one of many:

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2007/01/29/editorial1.html

I don’t know if you watched it, but Tim Russert asked her about this specific issue during the debate he moderated between Clinton and Obama. Here’s an article that addresses when the promise was first made:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/16/ny.senate/index.html

Now, how about answering my question?

-Quinn Umm I did Quinn???????????????????? look at what you quoted. And they asked Obama about changing the bill that he had passed basically after being bought out.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but that doesn't really answer the question. Could you provide a link to an article about the "iraq peace group" – or maybe even a link to this group's website, so that I can look into it? Seriously, I'm curious because I've never heard of this group, and no searches turn up anything regarding Obama’s association with such a group.

-Quinn Yeah Hilary Clinton is part of the same group, the first New York Senator to be part of it. Senate Armed Services Committee and he hardly showed up for meetings, when he was the chairman. They also make sure our troops are properly armed and have the right intelligence to fight enemies.

Kelly are you ever going to answer this question or is this one of those things that will never get an answer because you are regurgitating something you hear from some random source?

[goldensamba]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Since Hillary is not the governor of New York she has very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing. Some people need to learn the functions of positions in government before opening their yaps.

[goldensamba]

quote]No dear the delegates have spoken. Hilary still has the popular vote with over 17 million voting for her. If we are going to talk facts at least get them straight. And she still has the popular VOTE. Which says a lot.

Yes it does--it says a lot about how screwed up our political system really is. We can have a popular vote, but it counts for nothing compared with the electoral vote. So in other words, the people have not necessarily chosen their elected leaders. Such a great system we have here. Time to get out the broom for a clean sweep.[/quote]

Yes lets talk facts. If you count every vote including the caucus states she does not have the popular vote.

Not to mention that in her scenario she is including Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot. Saying things like this is one reason I have lost respect for her. It is dishonest and exactly why she lost her bid for the nomination.

[goldensamba]

Brenda read what else I typed, I decided to add to it. Not to mention clearly AP is a Obama supporter. So I wouldnt believe a word of it. I know that many factory workers in Illinois lost their jobs because of Senator Obama.

Kelly, please cite sources when you make these charges. You seem to be just pulling facts out of the air.

[chefmike]

If Obama would just pick Hillary as his VP-he would have absolutely no trouble winning.

In any case- they have achieved such huge milestones in American political history as a woman and a black man, that I am very proud of them both.

I just can't wrap my head around the logic to vote for McCain, it just makes no sense at all.

The problem with having her as a VP is her and Bill's egos have become so big they would want to control way too much. I used to have great respect and admiration for Bill Clinton but no longer after the way this campaign was run.

Not to mention the fact that Bill would be knockin' boots with Ms. Obama pretty damn quick. Bubba is known to have a taste for brown sugar and Barack knows it. Obama also knows that Bill Clinton is a silver-tongued devil who could sell sand to the dang A-rabs. He won't risk the humiliation of being a cuckolded president.... :lol:

[needsum]

I would have to agree with I think needsum, i would like to see a Republican candidate who was fiscally strong yet socially liberal.

There is no such thing. Instead of looking for a party to do that you need to look for individuals to do that. The sooner we get rid of the two party system and the electoral college the better. Let's be a true democracy and let the winner of the popular vote be our president.

That was exactly my point in the post that tonkatoy was referring to. I was denouncing the two party system and expressing a desire for someone more like myself, who is physcally conservative but socially liberal.

And I agree whole heartedly with you goldensamba, and will say it again-we need to dismantle the two-party system, get rid of the special interest groups, and let the people decide who we want in office.

[needsum]

Wanna solve the Social Security problem? Simple. Take away the pension that the congress gets (they get full pension until they die, and they make a damn good salary while in office). Make them look forward to SS earnings when it's their time to retire, and I fucking guarantee you that the mess will be resolved.


You should be informed before you make statements

Here are the basics:

Members of Congress (House and Senate) take part in a defined benefit plan (once retired, they receive a specific monthly benefit based on years of service). They do not retire at full pay and their pension is a contributory plan — that is, they have a significant amount deducted from their salary each month to help defray the cost of their pension benefits. This defined benefit plan is comparable to pensions offered by big companies like General Motors except that in some instances the companies underwrite the entire cost of the plan.

Members of Congress are eligible for one of two plans, depending on when they were first elected. Members elected before 1983 take part in the CSRS plan which has more generous defined benefits. Members elected after 1983 take part in the FERS plan available to all federal employees. It has a smaller defined benefit but a more generous 401(k) (described more fully below).

RelatedColumn Archive
Congressional Pensions ExplainedCongressional Redistricting, the Ultimate Political PrizeForty Years Later, Fraternity Bonds Still StrongRomney's Challenge: Reader Emails Reveal Reservations About MormonismMyths About Congress ExposedFull-page Martin Frost Archive
Members under the old CSRS plan receive a pension equal to 2.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus, a member who serves 10 years would receive a pension equal to 25 percent of his salary. Members under the new FERS plan receive pension equal to 1.5 percent of their highest salary for each year of service. Thus a Member serving 10 years would receive a pension equal to 15 percent of his salary.

In addition, all members, starting in 1983, now pay into Social Security and receive Social Security benefits. For members under the old CSRS plan, their Social Security benefits are offset (subtracted from) their pension. For members under the new FERS plan, there is no Social Security offset. It is not unusual for retired workers to receive a pension from their private employer and to also receive Social Security. Somehow, many people think members of Congress should not be eligible for the exact same treatment that employees in private industry receive.

Members under the old more generous CSRS plan are eligible for participation in a separate 401(k) plan under which a certain amount is deducted from their salary each month and is not taxed until after they retire. This 401(k) deduction is not matched by their employer, the federal government. Members under the new FERS plan also can take part in a 401(k) plan and they receive a partial match from their employer.

Generally, members are not eligible to receive their pension until age 60 and their pensions vest after five years of service.

I know this is a lot of information but don’t be afraid of being armed with the facts. The misconceptions that float around on the internet — retirement at full pay after one term and no payment into Social Security — are false and unfair to public servants who devote a significant amount of their lives to making this a better country.

Having said all this, I realize that some people will resent the fact that members of the House and Senate receive any pension at all. I can’t do anything for people who take this view.

I can, however, give you information about what is true and what is false. You can then at least make a rational judgment on whether or not you approve of the Congressional pension system. Improvements can be made. Convicted criminals like former Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) should forfeit their pensions when they are convicted of felonies like taking a bribe.

Also, it is legitimate to question whether or not these pensions should be indexed for inflation each year. Many private pensions are not indexed though military pensions and Social Security are.

I hope this answers your questions.

Congressional Pensions Explained
Monday, December 03, 2007

By Martin Frost

Well put, my friend. It is amazing to have a retort from someone who has actual facts to back up his argument. In my defense, I didn't get this information from the internet. I had heard this many many years ago on some political talk show and had come to take it for fact.

thank you for the facts--of course now you just ruined my main argument on why I hate politicians so much . . . . lol

[trish]

It seems to be the case that in multi-party systems, the parties become narrowly focused on single issues. Had we a multi-party system in the U.S. there would be an anti-abortion party, an anti-immigration party, an anti-gay-marriage party, an anti-gun control party etc. We see these kinds of extreme party identifications in Israel. In such a system a candidate may win by capturing way less than fifty percent of the electorate. At least in the two party system, both parties are big tents and the electorate is forced out of the single issue mindset and consider comprises.

[needsum]

It seems to be the case that in multi-party systems, the parties become narrowly focused on single issues. Had we a multi-party system in the U.S. there would be an anti-abortion party, an anti-immigration party, an anti-gay-marriage party, an anti-gun control party etc. We see these kinds of extreme party identifications in Israel. In such a system a candidate may win by capturing way less than fifty percent of the electorate. At least in the two party system, both parties are big tents and the electorate is forced out of the single issue mindset and consider comprises.

problem is, these compromises tend to polarize the nation, and for people like me, it really sucks because you have to either throw your vote away on the third party guy who you know is going to lose, not vote at all, or pick the lesser of the two assholes according to which one has more things you like. It's horrible.

[melissacarter]

Has anyone mentioned what a lame-ass speech Hillary gave last night? It was a total dis to Obama and it makes her look like a sore loser. Even Pat Buchanan that human waste was more gracious than her.

I'll bet she kissed her VP goodbye last night.

[Legend]

Has anyone mentioned what a lame-ass speech Hillary gave last night? It was a total dis to Obama and it makes her look like a sore loser. Even Pat Buchanan that human waste was more gracious than her.

I'll bet she kissed her VP goodbye last night.

That speech indicated that she is still going to fight on and if obama wanted her as his VP he really would have to kiss her ass.

[trish]

needsum writes:
It's horrible.

It's better than letting some extremist arse run the country after getting only 30% of the electorate. If you're candidate can't find a place in one of the two parties he/she certainly won't win the minds of the majority of the electorate. Why than should he/she lead the nation. A multi-party system is a system in danger of being perpetually run by a single minority.

melissacarter notes:

I'll bet she kissed her VP goodbye last night.

I think she blew her chance when she alluded to Bobby Kennedy and asserted "anything can happen".

[MrsKellyPierce]

antiasskisser you have serious issues, I am not racist. Still believing the chatroom fun Haze and Johnny were having? Pathetic.


Oh wait this is like that dirty tactic Obama did with Hil's health plan. Sending out flyers lying to them. Is that what you mean Felicia by playing dirty?

He wasn't exactly a saint.

So stop acting like it.

Neither is Hillary who played just as dirty if now worse. Stop acting like she was above the fray. Omg Goldensamba, I don't like you stop replying to me, I told you this before. You keep to yourself and I will keep to myself.

And lastly my remark was to Felicia when she was making Obama out to be an Angel so I pointed out what he did too.

And lastly the senate does have a lot to do with the state, they are what push BILLS for our states.


Good lord maybe you should watch Legally Blonde 2 lol

[MrsKellyPierce]

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

[goldensamba]

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

I don't care if you don't like me facts are facts and when you say something stupid you will be called on it. If you want to live in fantasy land about how she won the popular vote without adding the fact that you are including a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot that is complete dishonesty and lack of integrity. It is because ALL of the candidates agreed to remove themselves from the ballot that he was not there, yet for some reason Hillary didn't follow through with her commitment. To go and use this bogus "popular vote" argument considering the entire picture is laughable. It's a free country (and a free board) so I don't give a rats ass if you like me or not. You have no reason not to so I am a bit confused. Have you ever met me? Talked to me? Spent time around me? I see you also have an irrational hatred of Obama without getting your facts straight. Anyone else see a pattern here?

[needsum]

needsum writes:
It's horrible.

It's better than letting some extremist arse run the country after getting only 30% of the electorate. If you're candidate can't find a place in one of the two parties he/she certainly won't win the minds of the majority of the electorate. Why than should he/she lead the nation. A multi-party system is a system in danger of being perpetually run by a single minority.

I don't agree. Get rid of the "parties" and let the candidates run on their merits alone. Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party. Thats not the rule, but look how many arguments there are, democrat vs. republican, in this country? the party politics, many times, outweigh the candidates in the minds of the people voting.

The stigma attached to a candidate being "democrat" or "republican" can really be the only thing a person votes for. How smart is that?

[harlemzfinest]

Yeah I saw that speech by Hilary. It was so disrespectful and showed her lack of interest in helping the party. Her priorities are her and herself only.

[needsum]

Yeah I saw that speech by Hilary. It was so disrespectful and showed her lack of interest in helping the party. Her priorities are her and herself only.

Always have been, always will be. She and her husband are pure power seekers, nothing more.

[goldensamba]

I don't agree. Get rid of the "parties" and let the candidates run on their merits alone. Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party. Thats not the rule, but look how many arguments there are, democrat vs. republican, in this country? the party politics, many times, outweigh the candidates in the minds of the people voting.

The stigma attached to a candidate being "democrat" or "republican" can really be the only thing a person votes for. How smart is that?

I agree 100%

[trish]

needsum writes:
Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party

Of course. You don't really want to vote for a personality do you? A man or woman you can have a beer and a shot with? A party represents a coherent set of views about a broad spectrum of issues...arrived at through a complex dance of local and national discussions and elections. When people vote for a party they're voting for a set of perspectives on a collection of issues. We have conflict in Washington, not because everyone's just sticking up for they're team...but because representatives are attempting to stick by the principles of their party; i.e. the principles of those who elected them. Of course if you didn't vote for that representative you'll feel left out...but that problem is only amplified by a multiple party system because even more people will be left out.

[goldensamba]

needsum writes:
Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party

Of course. You don't really want to vote for a personality do you? A man or woman you can have a beer and a shot with? A party represents a coherent set of views about a broad spectrum of issues...arrived at through a complex dance of local and national discussions and elections. When people vote for a party they're voting for a set of perspectives on a collection of issues. We have conflict in Washington, not because everyone just sticking up for they're team...but because representatives are attempting to stick by the principles of their party; i.e. the principles of those who elected them. Of course if you didn't vote for that representative you'll feel left out...but that problem is only amplified by a multiple party system because even more people will be left out.

I'm not sure how more people will be left out in a multiple party system. Multiple parties mean even more viewpoints and more platforms.

[trish]

Say there's five parties and one just gets a little over a fifth of the electorate and the rest each get less than a fifth. Then nearly four fifth of the electorate feel their candidate lost the election and the nation's going downhill as a consequence.

[goldensamba]

Say there's five parties and one just gets a little over a fifth of the electorate and the rest each get less than a fifth. Then nearly four fifth of the electorate feel their candidate lost the election and the nation's going downhill as a consequence.

4/5 of the current electorate feel they nation's going downhill so whats the difference?

[trish]

Now that everyone knows what an ass Bush is, none...but at the time of the election the difference would've been 4/5 - 1/2. Had Bush not been an asshole but continued to push the agenda that 51% of the electorate thought he'd push, 49% would remain unhappy instead of 4/5 = 80% had he been the winner of a five way.

[goldensamba]

I understand what you're getting at I just disagree on the face of it. If there were multiple people with similar platforms that were only slightly different (i.e. Obama and Clinton) it would not be such a big deal if your person lost since there would be other people who could win that you would have no trouble getting behind.

[trish]

But if they're so close why not put them in one party and put them in the party? Otherwise you split the vote between them and increase the chance the someone you disagree with entirely will win the election?

[goldensamba]

Because in a democracy anyone should have a chance to win and there should be no career politicians. More so that the 2 party system, career politicians are a large contributing factor to the crappy current setup. People were supposed to go and serve the public and then go back to thier private life. Not just be politicians forever.

[scroller]

Say there's five parties and one just gets a little over a fifth of the electorate and the rest each get less than a fifth. Then nearly four fifth of the electorate feel their candidate lost the election and the nation's going downhill as a consequence.

Of course you're making an assumption to use "first past the post" voting, as in our current system, which modern voting mathematics has shown to be pretty degenerate in a lot of ways. (Unfortunately, this wasn't discovered until after the US voting system was set up in the 18th century.)

Far more key, I think, is to change the voting system to something like "approval voting" (vote for as many candidates as you think are "ok" for the job, like a lot of city council voting is done). Then you can have multiple parties, each voter expresses their true position, still have the winner approved by a majority of voters, no one "throws away" or "splits" a vote, etc.

[trish]

Because in a democracy anyone should have a chance to win and there should be no career politicians. More so that the 2 party system, career politicians are a large contributing factor to the crappy current setup. People were supposed to go and serve the public and then go back to thier private life. Not just be politicians forever.

I never saw any of that written down in the constitution or in a definition of democracy. It's a nice sentiment, but do you really want amateurs in charge of national security, for just one example? We saw what happened when Bush razed the top two levels of experts in the NSA, CIA, FEMA etc and replaced them with amateur hacks. We got non-existent WMDs and Katrina.
Even in a multi-party system, I think we'll have uses for career politicians. What I find reprehensible is politicians who enter government, court industries and corporations and then retire into those corporations as high paid consultants and lobbyists.

[goldensamba]

Because in a democracy anyone should have a chance to win and there should be no career politicians. More so that the 2 party system, career politicians are a large contributing factor to the crappy current setup. People were supposed to go and serve the public and then go back to thier private life. Not just be politicians forever.

I never saw any of that written down in the constitution or in a definition of democracy. It's a nice sentiment, but do you really want amateurs in charge of national security, for just one example? We saw what happened when Bush razed the top two levels of experts in the NSA, CIA, FEMA etc and replaced them with amateur hacks. We got non-existent WMDs and Katrina.
Even in a multi-party system, I think we'll have uses for career politicians. What I find reprehensible is politicians who enter government, court industries and corporations and then retire into those corporations as high paid consultants and lobbyists.

The last part of your post we agree on 100%. Its great to have a discussion with someone who can be rational and defend their position without getting emotional or taking it personal.

From one political buff to another I appreciate that!

Now...back to the issue at hand. ........

[trish]

ditto.

Unfortunately, I'm on my way out now. Let's pick this up again sometime. Later goldensamba...good talkin' to ya.

[Quinn]

Why becuase I can and will. I dont think Barack is ready to be President at this point nor do I agree with alot of his views. Hillary was and is the strongest person to be President. My options then are to do the following: not vote, Vote for Barack, Vote for McCain, or write in...........At this point I feel McCain is the stronger on International affairs and has more experience. Therefore my vote is for McCain. I totally agree with this, Obama wasn't good at being a senator he was in charge of the iraq peace group and hardly attended any meetings, he is just not ready. How is he going to handle being President if he can't handle being a Senator?????????????????????????????? However I would not vote for Mccain.

What exactly is the "iraq peace group," and how was Obama in charge of it?

As for handling being a senator, you should look into Hillary's failure to keep her promise to Upstate New York. What happened to her detailed plan to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York during her six-year term? Oh, that’s right, not only were no new jobs created whatsoever – the region actually lost 32,000 jobs. The greatest irony is that Clinton herself bragged about bringing Tata Consulting Services to Buffalo. For the record, that’s a company that helped companies in Upstate New York outsource many of those lost jobs to places like India.

I can’t say this comes as a surprise. Clinton has a childlike grasp of even the most fundamental, basic economic issues (and, yes, it’s even worse than McCain’s, and that’s saying something). Maybe she can impress us all with more economically ruinous ideas about a 5-year interest rate freeze.

-Quinn Hmm strange Quinn, everyone is always talking about how great Hilary is in New York? And how well its doing. Can you give these news articles so I can read them.


He and a group of other men and women were supposed to find ways and ideas to show Iraqis how to cope with life after their freedom, get more on our side to want freedom, etc.

Since Hillary is not the governor of New York she has very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing. Some people need to learn the functions of positions in government before opening their yaps.

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

[goldensamba]

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

That is called pork and that is not technically part of a Senator's job. It's something we should despise not promote. A senator's job is the help form NATIONAL policy not govern a state therefore their impact is minimal on their home state when compared to what a governor does. Before you start telling people to get educated you should know what you are talking about yourself.

[Quinn]

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

That is called pork and that is not technically part of a Senator's job. It's something we should despise not promote. A senator's job is the help form NATIONAL policy not govern a state therefore their impact is minimal on their home state when compared to what a governor does. Before you start telling people to get educated you should know what you are talking about yourself.

LMFAO… You’re kidding me, right? Seriously, let me see if I can follow your imbecilic argument. You tried to tell me that Clinton, as a senator, has “very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing” – despite the fact that she herself clearly thought being a senator would make her capable of attracting 200,000 jobs to bolster her state’s economy? Hmmmmm. Clearly Senator Clinton – who, unlike you, actually is a senator – disagrees with your factually unsustainable position.

That’s not surprising when you consider that anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how Congress functions knows that a powerful senator can, and often does, have a substantial impact upon a state’s economy. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to cite but one example, has brought in some $3 billion to prop up that state’s anemic economy since 1991 (a huge number when you consider the size of West Virginia's economy).

So.......the next time your sycophantic ass decides to try and score some brownie points by inserting yourself into a discussion with some snarky comment, you might want to first ensure that you have so much as a child's grasp of the topic at hand. That way, just maybe, you can avoid looking like a complete moron the way you do now.

P.S. Your weak attempt to distract the focus away from your failed argument by including crap about what is or is not, technically speaking, a senator's job is irrelevant and has nothing to do with your initial point. Nice try though, Gump.

http://www.destructoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/moron.jpg

[Felicia Katt]

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

Kelly, don't beleive me, read for yourself

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977353230
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2400
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d22-Clintons-Popular-Vote-Myth?cid=exrss-Progressive-Politics-Examiner

The only way Hillary can claim to win the popular vote is by taking all the votes in Michigan, and giving none of them to Obama and by ignoring all the State that have caucuses instead of primaries Since he wasn't on the ballot, in accordance with party rules, Hillary is the one twisting the numbers like Chubby Checker, not me. Every fair analysis, that includes all the States and doesn't exclude the 45 per cent of voters in Michigan who voted uncommitted, shows Barak "won" the popular vote.

Even though he clearly did, its irrelevant. The nominee is selected by delegates and he absolutely won the majority of them. Clinton tried to finesse that too, but was rebuffed by the Party.

The candidate is supposed to represent the Party, and vice verse. Hillary has lost the nomination, but her party is still in this election. She, and her supporters need to get over it and get behind the nominee, or else Bush will get a third term to further foul things up with surrogate, McCain.

FK

[needsum]

needsum writes:
Right now you have people voting for the party more than for the person in that party

Of course. You don't really want to vote for a personality do you? A man or woman you can have a beer and a shot with? A party represents a coherent set of views about a broad spectrum of issues...arrived at through a complex dance of local and national discussions and elections. When people vote for a party they're voting for a set of perspectives on a collection of issues. We have conflict in Washington, not because everyone's just sticking up for they're team...but because representatives are attempting to stick by the principles of their party; i.e. the principles of those who elected them. Of course if you didn't vote for that representative you'll feel left out...but that problem is only amplified by a multiple party system because even more people will be left out.

EXACTLY my point. And right now, we have only TWO perspectives to choose from. And thses perspectives have split the nation because they are so polar. I agree with what you say--in principal it is a good idea, yet in reality it is proving over and over that the country is not benefitting from the two party system.

Of course when I made my above statements, I wasn't insinuation that Billy Bob who waxes poetic on politics at the end of the Applebee's bar is my choice for president. We do need some sort of party system, having each party present itself with a firm base, values and perspective. Two alone are continuing to split the nation and cause too much infighting, and it takes away from the important things being resolved.

[chefmike]

The candidate is supposed to represent the Party, and vice verse. Hillary has lost the nomination, but her party is still in this election. She, and her supporters need to get over it and get behind the nominee, or else Bush will get a third term to further foul things up with surrogate, McCain.

FK


Bingo.

[melissacarter]

It cracks me up how some people pontificate and act like out of their mouth is the oracle of truth. O-P-I-N-I-O-N. That's all we have here. And a few rude remarks.

[ltxlover]

Clinton will announce this Saturday. I guess the pressure from fellow Democratics help her make a decision...

[goldensamba]

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

That is called pork and that is not technically part of a Senator's job. It's something we should despise not promote. A senator's job is the help form NATIONAL policy not govern a state therefore their impact is minimal on their home state when compared to what a governor does. Before you start telling people to get educated you should know what you are talking about yourself.

LMFAO… You’re kidding me, right? Seriously, let me see if I can follow your imbecilic argument. You tried to tell me that Clinton, as a senator, has “very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing” – despite the fact that she herself clearly thought being a senator would make her capable of attracting 200,000 jobs to bolster her state’s economy? Hmmmmm. Clearly Senator Clinton – who, unlike you, actually is a senator – disagrees with your factually unsustainable position.

That’s not surprising when you consider that anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how Congress functions knows that a powerful senator can, and often does, have a substantial impact upon a state’s economy. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to cite but one example, has brought in some $3 billion to prop up that state’s anemic economy since 1991 (a huge number when you consider the size of West Virginia's economy).

So.......the next time your sycophantic ass decides to try and score some brownie points by inserting yourself into a discussion with some snarky comment, you might want to first ensure that you have so much as a child's grasp of the topic at hand. That way, just maybe, you can avoid looking like a complete moron the way you do now.

P.S. Your weak attempt to distract the focus away from your failed argument by including crap about what is or is not, technically speaking, a senator's job is irrelevant and has nothing to do with your initial point. Nice try though, Gump.

http://www.destructoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/moron.jpg

A job description is a job description and even though a senator can do something about and beyond that their job lies elsewhere. You can spin it all you want but facts are facts. Learn the actual job of a senator before you spout off.

[goldensamba]

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

Kelly, don't beleive me, read for yourself

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977353230
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2400
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d22-Clintons-Popular-Vote-Myth?cid=exrss-Progressive-Politics-Examiner

The only way Hillary can claim to win the popular vote is by taking all the votes in Michigan, and giving none of them to Obama and by ignoring all the State that have caucuses instead of primaries Since he wasn't on the ballot, in accordance with party rules, Hillary is the one twisting the numbers like Chubby Checker, not me. Every fair analysis, that includes all the States and doesn't exclude the 45 per cent of voters in Michigan who voted uncommitted, shows Barak "won" the popular vote.

Even though he clearly did, its irrelevant. The nominee is selected by delegates and he absolutely won the majority of them. Clinton tried to finesse that too, but was rebuffed by the Party.

The candidate is supposed to represent the Party, and vice verse. Hillary has lost the nomination, but her party is still in this election. She, and her supporters need to get over it and get behind the nominee, or else Bush will get a third term to further foul things up with surrogate, McCain.

FK

:claps :claps :claps

[trish]

needsum writes:
And right now, we have only TWO perspectives to choose from.

Look how many candidates ran for the democratic primary…somewhere around 6? For the republican it was somewhere around 10. Would you rather we had 16 or more individuals running for president in the fall? Ultimately there’s only ONE perspective that wins….unless…the candidates form a coalition, coalescing around common or similar points of view. They then agree to run just one member from the coalition. Let’s call these coalitions, parties. The party that captures the hearts and minds of the most people will win the election and then there will be MULTIPLE perspectives within the White House representing the people.

[BrendaQG]

As cosmetic as it may sound, I believe it's Hillary's grating voice that sunk her boat.


no matter what i say ... i will be looked at as silly ...
i really don't know too much about either campaigns and i would vote fo Hillary solely on the belief that Obama would be killed because of some of the real racist people in this country...
i will however say that this thread has taught me alot about the up coming election .
Thanks guys ... it was alot of pages to read and i think that Wenndy had some ver valid points along with every one else :)
~mimi

That's not silly at all. Gag on this.

Youtube Video "The KKK wants to kill Barack Obama." WARNING FOR THE FAINT OF HEART OR PC. THIS COULD BE OFFENSIVE. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmUILVsCfMU)

Suppose Obama wins on election night but..... is shot or something before the electoral college (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College) meets. I am not a constitutional Lawyer or anything but If I read things right they would then choose whomsoever they wished to be the president. With no regard for weather we voted for them or not. The electors which are who we directly vote for.... have that power.

Anyway on topc ____________________

All this talk of Hillary being a VP candidate is total BS. She has insinuated that he is a Muslim (leaving aside how I feel about that possibility being seen as an "accusation"). She has provided for John McCain good ammunition regarding Obama's experience and such. Furthermore many of her supporters talk of forming a third party. If that happens then the only prayer the democrats have is the same happening on the republican side.

Which could happen. Many conservative Republicans do not like McCain. They feel him far too liberal. They then might run Gov. Mitt Romney. So we could see in the weirdest of all worlds. Four parties and four candidates in the general election. It'll be like being in a real democracy for a change.... Mabey from then on we could do what they did in the early days of the republic, Have who comes in 1st be president and who comes in 2nd be vice president.

[mbf]

Time for my monthly post.

You guys mostly sound as if Barack Obama has won already. Far from beeing so I am afraid.

Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim, a "liberal", wants to take away your weapons, has no experience in foreign affairs or the economy, thrown in subtle and not-so-subtle racism.

The anti-Obama witchhunt will be gruesome.

And now, I am not even a yank, but that doesn't hold me back from commenting: Like it or not, the US-president IS somewhat the first political leader of the western world ( say OECD-countries).

If you are American who does not travel abroad, you have NO idea how much the international reputation of the USA suffered the last seven, eight years. Your image changed from beeing admired and respected to beeing loathed and ridiculed, not even feared any longer.

In short, any member of this very board, who will still vote republican, is a buffoon, helplessly foolish, and deserves the next four years downhill for america (too bad, good people will suffer as well).

And as comments regarding Obama's final nomination show, some of you still haven't realized how bad the US need a change.

[dan_drade]

http://www.lp.org/

[MrsKellyPierce]

And Felicia she is counting anyone that voted for her, Hilary has almost 56 % of the popular vote and Obama had 44 %

it's a fact sorry.

You can twist how you like, but the numbers and percantages will not change.

She is the first primary candidate to ever receive so many votes!

Obama himself even congratulate her on that.

So she did win the POPULAR vote

I don't care if you don't like me facts are facts and when you say something stupid you will be called on it. If you want to live in fantasy land about how she won the popular vote without adding the fact that you are including a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot that is complete dishonesty and lack of integrity. It is because ALL of the candidates agreed to remove themselves from the ballot that he was not there, yet for some reason Hillary didn't follow through with her commitment. To go and use this bogus "popular vote" argument considering the entire picture is laughable. It's a free country (and a free board) so I don't give a rats ass if you like me or not. You have no reason not to so I am a bit confused. Have you ever met me? Talked to me? Spent time around me? I see you also have an irrational hatred of Obama without getting your facts straight. Anyone else see a pattern here? She'd of still won the vote, she had 18 million he had 13 million even if you took those two states away.

[doasuwill]

Good, no more legacy Presidents and that includes the Kennedy's, Bushes, and Clintons.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Time for my monthly post.

You guys mostly sound as if Barack Obama has won already. Far from beeing so I am afraid.

Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim, a "liberal", wants to take away your weapons, has no experience in foreign affairs or the economy, thrown in subtle and not-so-subtle racism.

The anti-Obama witchhunt will be gruesome.

And now, I am not even a yank, but that doesn't hold me back from commenting: Like it or not, the US-president IS somewhat the first political leader of the western world ( say OECD-countries).

If you are American who does not travel abroad, you have NO idea how much the international reputation of the USA suffered the last seven, eight years. Your image changed from beeing admired and respected to beeing loathed and ridiculed, not even feared any longer.

In short, any member of this very board, who will still vote republican, is a buffoon, helplessly foolish, and deserves the next four years downhill for america (too bad, good people will suffer as well).

And as comments regarding Obama's final nomination show, some of you still haven't realized how bad the US need a change. AGREED!

[trish]

the best person as president

This is just a ludicrous concept. There are a myriads of myriads of measures by which an individual might be evaluated for the presidency and most of them conflict with each other. By some measure we always have "the best person as president"...just witness the twenty odd percent of people still sticking by Bush junior. Politics doesn't fail...politics just is. It's various political perspectives and agendas that either solve or fail to solve the problems we face.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Time for my monthly post.

You guys mostly sound as if Barack Obama has won already. Far from beeing so I am afraid.

Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim, a "liberal", wants to take away your weapons, has no experience in foreign affairs or the economy, thrown in subtle and not-so-subtle racism.

The anti-Obama witchhunt will be gruesome.

And now, I am not even a yank, but that doesn't hold me back from commenting: Like it or not, the US-president IS somewhat the first political leader of the western world ( say OECD-countries).

If you are American who does not travel abroad, you have NO idea how much the international reputation of the USA suffered the last seven, eight years. Your image changed from beeing admired and respected to beeing loathed and ridiculed, not even feared any longer.

In short, any member of this very board, who will still vote republican, is a buffoon, helplessly foolish, and deserves the next four years downhill for america (too bad, good people will suffer as well).

And as comments regarding Obama's final nomination show, some of you still haven't realized how bad the US need a change. AGREED! Thats why I mentioned what he said in a debate where Hilary laughed at him when he said well I'd just walk into Iran in talk to them. Then she asked back, you'd put your presidency and the America in total trouble that way. You don't know what they would do and its easy to get hurt that way. And then he recanted his statement lol

And he keeps talking about "change" and doesn't tell us how.


People are so dumb.

All they listen to is the "CHANGE" part.


My favorite moment of the debate was after the clip of Clinton making fun of Obama for being a dreamer and creating a painting of a world uniting and problems being solved (”and the clouds will open up and the sun will shine” … etc etc.), as if he'll just wave a wand and it will happen cause he keeps on saying "It's Time for Change" with no STANCE OF HOW!

[Legend]

Time for my monthly post.

You guys mostly sound as if Barack Obama has won already. Far from beeing so I am afraid.

Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim, a "liberal", wants to take away your weapons, has no experience in foreign affairs or the economy, thrown in subtle and not-so-subtle racism.

The anti-Obama witchhunt will be gruesome.

And now, I am not even a yank, but that doesn't hold me back from commenting: Like it or not, the US-president IS somewhat the first political leader of the western world ( say OECD-countries).

If you are American who does not travel abroad, you have NO idea how much the international reputation of the USA suffered the last seven, eight years. Your image changed from beeing admired and respected to beeing loathed and ridiculed, not even feared any longer.

In short, any member of this very board, who will still vote republican, is a buffoon, helplessly foolish, and deserves the next four years downhill for america (too bad, good people will suffer as well).

And as comments regarding Obama's final nomination show, some of you still haven't realized how bad the US need a change. AGREED! Thats why I mentioned what he said in a debate where Hilary laughed at him when he said well I'd just walk into Iran in talk to them. Then she asked back, you'd put your presidency and the America in total trouble that way. You don't know what they would do and its easy to get hurt that way. And then he recanted his statement lol

And he keeps talking about "change" and doesn't tell us how.


People are so dumb.

All they listen to is the "CHANGE" part.

You do realize what you are agreeing to right?

[mbf]

And he keeps talking about "change" and doesn't tell us how.


People are so dumb.

All they listen to is the "CHANGE" part.

NOTE: this is part two of my monthly post:

Kelly, Obama is the candidate. Live with it.

Regarding "Change" , ANYTHING else than republican style policy is better.

[hondarobot]

Time for my monthly post.

You guys mostly sound as if Barack Obama has won already. Far from beeing so I am afraid.

Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim, a "liberal", wants to take away your weapons, has no experience in foreign affairs or the economy, thrown in subtle and not-so-subtle racism.

The anti-Obama witchhunt will be gruesome.

And now, I am not even a yank, but that doesn't hold me back from commenting: Like it or not, the US-president IS somewhat the first political leader of the western world ( say OECD-countries).

If you are American who does not travel abroad, you have NO idea how much the international reputation of the USA suffered the last seven, eight years. Your image changed from beeing admired and respected to beeing loathed and ridiculed, not even feared any longer.

In short, any member of this very board, who will still vote republican, is a buffoon, helplessly foolish, and deserves the next four years downhill for america (too bad, good people will suffer as well).

And as comments regarding Obama's final nomination show, some of you still haven't realized how bad the US need a change.

"Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim. . ."

When did Obama convert to Islam? I must have missed that, and who cares if he did?

I like the part about the rest of the world laughing at the US. You people do realize that we're just waiting for the last Soviet era nuke to wear out, then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy. We will enslave the world and steal your wine and cheese. Oh, wait, we've already got that.

:lol:

[MrsKellyPierce]

Bush and Clinton paid to be president and in return they let corporate america run the white house as it still does today. It's all a cult following and you will never see the best possible person to actually help this country as long as campaigns are paid off by special interest groups. That's why this country is in a depression and things will only get worse. Umm Clinton is the only president in years that we ended with a surplus and a high economy then Bush took over dummy

[MrsKellyPierce]

And he keeps talking about "change" and doesn't tell us how.


People are so dumb.

All they listen to is the "CHANGE" part.

NOTE: this is part two of my monthly post:

Kelly, Obama is the candidate. Live with it.

Regarding "Change" , ANYTHING else than republican style policy is better. Not if she goes independant.

[Legend]

Kelly if obama gets elected president will you move to canada?

[brogin]

She'd of still won the vote, she had 18 million he had 13 million even if you took those two states away.

Dumber than a bag of hammers, shut up and look pretty.

[brogin]

Time for my monthly post.

You guys mostly sound as if Barack Obama has won already. Far from beeing so I am afraid.

Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim, a "liberal", wants to take away your weapons, has no experience in foreign affairs or the economy, thrown in subtle and not-so-subtle racism.

The anti-Obama witchhunt will be gruesome.

And now, I am not even a yank, but that doesn't hold me back from commenting: Like it or not, the US-president IS somewhat the first political leader of the western world ( say OECD-countries).

If you are American who does not travel abroad, you have NO idea how much the international reputation of the USA suffered the last seven, eight years. Your image changed from beeing admired and respected to beeing loathed and ridiculed, not even feared any longer.

In short, any member of this very board, who will still vote republican, is a buffoon, helplessly foolish, and deserves the next four years downhill for america (too bad, good people will suffer as well).

And as comments regarding Obama's final nomination show, some of you still haven't realized how bad the US need a change. AGREED! Thats why I mentioned what he said in a debate where Hilary laughed at him when he said well I'd just walk into Iran in talk to them. Then she asked back, you'd put your presidency and the America in total trouble that way. You don't know what they would do and its easy to get hurt that way. And then he recanted his statement lol

And he keeps talking about "change" and doesn't tell us how.


People are so dumb.

All they listen to is the "CHANGE" part.


My favorite moment of the debate was after the clip of Clinton making fun of Obama for being a dreamer and creating a painting of a world uniting and problems being solved (”and the clouds will open up and the sun will shine” … etc etc.), as if he'll just wave a wand and it will happen cause he keeps on saying "It's Time for Change" with no STANCE OF HOW!

So you're going to be voting for Obama then?

[Legend]

I don't think she realize what mbf was saying to have agreed with him.

[Quinn]

What that a shot at me? If so, perhaps you should educate yourself as to what has transpired before opening your "yap."

Fact: Hillary promised to create 200,000 jobs for Upstate New York.

Fact: Hillary then bragged about her working to bring in the very type of outsourcing-oriented company (Tata Consulting Services) that caused the region to actually lose 32,000 jobs.

Moreover, you might want to consider obtaining so much as a rudimentary education on the role senators play in attracting federal and investment dollars to their states. The fact is that a powerful senator's efforts can have a fairly substantial impact upon a state's economy.

-Quinn

That is called pork and that is not technically part of a Senator's job. It's something we should despise not promote. A senator's job is the help form NATIONAL policy not govern a state therefore their impact is minimal on their home state when compared to what a governor does. Before you start telling people to get educated you should know what you are talking about yourself.

LMFAO… You’re kidding me, right? Seriously, let me see if I can follow your imbecilic argument. You tried to tell me that Clinton, as a senator, has “very little or nothing to do with how good or bad the state is doing” – despite the fact that she herself clearly thought being a senator would make her capable of attracting 200,000 jobs to bolster her state’s economy? Hmmmmm. Clearly Senator Clinton – who, unlike you, actually is a senator – disagrees with your factually unsustainable position.

That’s not surprising when you consider that anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how Congress functions knows that a powerful senator can, and often does, have a substantial impact upon a state’s economy. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, to cite but one example, has brought in some $3 billion to prop up that state’s anemic economy since 1991 (a huge number when you consider the size of West Virginia's economy).

So.......the next time your sycophantic ass decides to try and score some brownie points by inserting yourself into a discussion with some snarky comment, you might want to first ensure that you have so much as a child's grasp of the topic at hand. That way, just maybe, you can avoid looking like a complete moron the way you do now.

P.S. Your weak attempt to distract the focus away from your failed argument by including crap about what is or is not, technically speaking, a senator's job is irrelevant and has nothing to do with your initial point. Nice try though, Gump.

http://www.destructoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/moron.jpg

A job description is a job description and even though a senator can do something about and beyond that their job lies elsewhere. You can spin it all you want but facts are facts. Learn the actual job of a senator before you spout off.

Let’s review in as simple a fashion as possible so you don't get too confused:

You inserted yourself into a discussion by making a snarky and condescending comment. To make matters worse, you did so while making an argument that has the intellectual respectability and factual sustainability of a Flat Ear Society newsletter. You then – upon seeing the farcical notion you put forth get intellectually eviscerated – backpedaled to an argument completely unrelated to your initial one in an effort to save face. Though tacit in nature, a clearer admission of failure would be hard to find anywhere. :lol: Well done, professor. :roll:

-Quinn

http://media.g4tv.com/images/blog/2007/12/06/633325462873135493.jpg

[goldensamba]

Politics has failed in every sense of the word whether its democrat or republican. You will NEVER see the best person as president because of special interest groups donating money and expecting favors once their guy is elected. Obama is not as corrupt and Mccain and Clinton but he still corrupt.

:claps :claps :claps :claps

[goldensamba]

She'd of still won the vote, she had 18 million he had 13 million even if you took those two states away.

Seriously, you cannot be this thick. If you are going ot count every vote for her do the same thing for Obama and count the caucus states. If you count those she still loses no matter what you add in. You are trying to make an argument using double standards. If you are going to "count every vote" for her do the same for him. Why is this suck a difficult concept. This is one of the things that has made me lose respect for her. I cannot stand people who try to twist facts by using parts of them selectively.

Let me point you back to some info that was dished out earlier.


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977353230
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2400
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d22-Clintons-Popular-Vote-Myth?cid=exrss-Progressive-Politics-Examiner

[needsum]

needsum writes:
And right now, we have only TWO perspectives to choose from.

Look how many candidates ran for the democratic primary…somewhere around 6? For the republican it was somewhere around 10. Would you rather we had 16 or more individuals running for president in the fall? Ultimately there’s only ONE perspective that wins….unless…the candidates form a coalition, coalescing around common or similar points of view. They then agree to run just one member from the coalition. Let’s call these coalitions, parties. The party that captures the hearts and minds of the most people will win the election and then there will be MULTIPLE perspectives within the White House representing the people.

When I say two perspectives, I'm talking about two parties, not two people. My last statement was simply saying that I think we need to allow more than just the dems and repubs a fighting chance to get in there and duke it out.

with regard to your above statement, the number of candidates running for a particular party are inconsequential, because the PARTY POLITICS will ultimately steer the course of the final vote. People who may have been republicans but hate what GWB has done might abandon the party, even though McCain may be a better choice than Obama and/or may actually step up and take the country back from the corporations (not my opinion, juts made for argument's sake). Most people I know vote Dem or Rep, not for the person, but for the party.

Personally I have no allegiance to either party. I have always voted for the one who best suited my likes and desires and who I thought had more "plusses" than "minuses". But there is noone who is a real, well rounded candidate who could run for a party that will back a more well-rounded agenda. And that is my main point. I'm not looking for a free-for-all of possible candidates to choose from, who will turn the white house into their own frat-party. It is time to take the money and power away from the big two and spread it evenly across the board so we could have a big 4 or 5 if need be. You have the libertarians and the green party who could become quite large if the money and opportunity were there. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the whole, but it just doesn't seem like you're getting the point I've been trying to make.


A side note---MILESTONE!!!!! LOL

[trish]

Suppose there are three parties and two are right leaning and one left. This was the case when Anderson ran as an independent and again when Ross Perot ran. What if two are left leaning and one right as when Ralph Nader ran. What's likely going to happen? In the first case, right leaning voters will find themselves split between the two conservative parties giving the left the advantage. In the second case it’s the only conservative party that has the advantage. This in fact is what actually happened in the cited instances. The moral, which is well known to game theorists since Von Neumann and Morganstern, is that the advantage goes to the coalition with the broadest tent. What they showed is that multiple player games with truly independent players are inherently unstable and will over time devolve to smaller player games where the gamers are coalitions of the original players. These games will devolve further as the coalitions merge. The most stable configuration occurs when there are just two coalitions. This is the most stable configuration essentially because it optimizes everybody’s relative advantage.

[Good Grief! I just reread this is found so many grammar and spelling mistakes I just had to correct it, even though no one's going to read it anymore.]

[BrendaQG]

Time for my monthly post.

You guys mostly sound as if Barack Obama has won already. Far from beeing so I am afraid.

Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim, a "liberal", wants to take away your weapons, has no experience in foreign affairs or the economy, thrown in subtle and not-so-subtle racism.

The anti-Obama witchhunt will be gruesome.

And now, I am not even a yank, but that doesn't hold me back from commenting: Like it or not, the US-president IS somewhat the first political leader of the western world ( say OECD-countries).

If you are American who does not travel abroad, you have NO idea how much the international reputation of the USA suffered the last seven, eight years. Your image changed from beeing admired and respected to beeing loathed and ridiculed, not even feared any longer.

In short, any member of this very board, who will still vote republican, is a buffoon, helplessly foolish, and deserves the next four years downhill for america (too bad, good people will suffer as well).

And as comments regarding Obama's final nomination show, some of you still haven't realized how bad the US need a change.

"Prepare yourself for idiotic and brutal five months ahead, with the oh-so-balanced media hammering it into you, that he is a muslim. . ."

When did Obama convert to Islam? I must have missed that, and who cares if he did?

I like the part about the rest of the world laughing at the US. You people do realize that we're just waiting for the last Soviet era nuke to wear out, then it's no more Mr. Nice Guy. We will enslave the world and steal your wine and cheese. Oh, wait, we've already got that.

:lol:

You ask when he converted to Islam. According to Islamic law since his father was a muslim then so is he by birth. He actually grew up practicing Islam during his earliest years which did include some time living in Indonesia as well as the midwestern united states. Like many muslims I know he has slipped away from faith and basically really is more of an atheist.

I doubt seriously that he is really whole heartedly into any religion now. But I suppose it is possible that once president he could have a religious experience and revert to Islam instead of Christianity. But why does that matter? Are the minds of the American people so narrow that their president must be a Christian?

[El Nino]

McHillBama...
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=13872

or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1HKx_vjN5I

This isn't a pro Dr. Paul post, its just to point out the indisputable facts that display the similarities among the globalist shill candidates...

Learn the truth

www.wearechange.org

https://secure.gn.apc.org/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=19

[Tomfurbs]

You ask when he converted to Islam. According to Islamic law since his father was a muslim then so is he by birth. He actually grew up practicing Islam during his earliest years which did include some time living in Indonesia as well as the midwestern united states. Like many muslims I know he has slipped away from faith and basically really is more of an atheist.

I doubt seriously that he is really whole heartedly into any religion now. But I suppose it is possible that once president he could have a religious experience and revert to Islam instead of Christianity. But why does that matter? Are the minds of the American people so narrow that their president must be a Christian?


Just as an aside (it is really unimportant I know) but I thought he converted to christianity when he was like 14? And has been practicing ever since?

[chefmike]

McHillBama...
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.php?t=13872

or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1HKx_vjN5I

This isn't a pro Dr. Paul post, its just to point out the indisputable facts that display the similarities among the globalist shill candidates...

Learn the truth

www.wearechange.org

https://secure.gn.apc.org/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=19

:spam

[hippifried]

You ask when he converted to Islam. According to Islamic law since his father was a muslim then so is he by birth. He actually grew up practicing Islam during his earliest years which did include some time living in Indonesia as well as the midwestern united states. Like many muslims I know he has slipped away from faith and basically really is more of an atheist.

I doubt seriously that he is really whole heartedly into any religion now. But I suppose it is possible that once president he could have a religious experience and revert to Islam instead of Christianity. But why does that matter? Are the minds of the American people so narrow that their president must be a Christian?
Cough Choke... Huh?
You can talk Islamic law all day, but Barry Obama was born & raised Catholic. In the US, Islamic law means nothing to anyone except Muslims. Unless you actually profess the faith, it's just a lot of so what.

His father didn't hang around long enough to indoctrinate him into anything. He was enrolled in public school for a time in Jakarta, but according to the school he attended, religious studies were/are separated from the rest of the curriculum & he was segregated during those classes with the rest of the non-Muslim students. Indonesia is predominantly Muslim, but it isn't a theocracy. His mother was Catholic. His maternal grandparents who helped raise him were Catholic. He was indoctrinated in Catholic dogma. The only similarity to Islam is monotheism.

Obama's only conversion was from Catholic to "Protestant" (Baptist I think) as an adult. He's not radical. He wasn't raised as part of the "African-American community" either. A conversion from Christianity to Islam would be to refute everything that's made him what he is. If he did it in his first term, he couldn't get reelected.

Got any more republican propaganda?

[chefmike]

In the US, Islamic law means nothing to anyone except Muslims. Unless you actually profess the faith, it's just a lot of so what.

:claps

[El Nino]

House Keeping

[MrsKellyPierce]

She'd of still won the vote, she had 18 million he had 13 million even if you took those two states away.

Seriously, you cannot be this thick. If you are going ot count every vote for her do the same thing for Obama and count the caucus states. If you count those she still loses no matter what you add in. You are trying to make an argument using double standards. If you are going to "count every vote" for her do the same for him. Why is this suck a difficult concept. This is one of the things that has made me lose respect for her. I cannot stand people who try to twist facts by using parts of them selectively.

Let me point you back to some info that was dished out earlier.


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977353230
http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2400
http://www.examiner.com/x-243-Progressive-Politics-Examiner~y2008m5d22-Clintons-Popular-Vote-Myth?cid=exrss-Progressive-Politics-Examiner

Then dear why does CNN say she won the popular vote and show the voting numbers while both of them were giving their speeches. He just won more super delegates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-Bkbre_7A

Theres the live broadcast for you all 21 minutes.

And if you look at the bottom it gives you numbers while they are talking.

I don't care about some faux made up site.

[El Nino]

House Keeping

[goldensamba]

Then dear why does CNN say she won the popular vote and show the voting numbers while both of them were giving their speeches. He just won more super delegates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8-Bkbre_7A

Theres the live broadcast for you all 21 minutes.

And if you look at the bottom it gives you numbers while they are talking.

I don't care about some faux made up site.

For the millionth time., This is if and ONLY if you DO NOT count caucus states. If you count those she did not win so it's a false argument. If you only count primary states then that is true but that's a bit of a half truth. Thats discounting all of the caucus people which makes no sense.

PS You never answered my other question, why not?

[chefmike]

Haha, why are you girls even debating with this clown? I thought Quinn had taken refuge in the "other forum".

I imagine he hasn't purchased Boardwalk yet in Monopoly and is frustrated that he can't get a little red plastic hotel.

:lol:

Watch Obama tonight, this will be a historic moment one way or the other.

LMAO... I know it sucks to be pushing forty while working a dead-end job – for peanuts no less – that even teenage high-school dropouts laugh at. Maybe you should try panhandling or something? It would be a step up. Until then, you can get banned some more from the "other forum." What's your tally now? One banned ID and two temporary bannings? It must suck to have so many people laugh at your foolishness all of the time:

Don’t feel bad, cupcake, you can always come on here and make up more tough-guy stories about how a hardened pimp is afraid of your 145 pound frame to impress “your dream girl” and amuse us:


Soooo, I go out drinking yesterday with my buddy Weebo around 3pm. We hung out on the patio at the Monte Carlo with a mutual friend who is currently making a small fortune on ebay. We drank and told stories and had a great time, but after six beers it was time to move on.

We made our way to the Hilton hotel, Weebo is seeing a girl at the moment who's a waitress there. She hooked us up with food, whiskey and beer and we had fun, talking too loud and irritating the people in the bar. We left eventually, and this is where memory fails me for a brief time.

I ended up back in my apartment with a hooker. Not an escort or anything fancy, just a reasonably attractive, early 20's, kinda nervous street hooker. I don't pick up hookers at all, actually, so this was somewhat odd, but what the hell? I don't remember meeting her either, but these things happen. I got us both some drinks and we sat and talked on my couch, then there was a knock on my door.

This goofy guy with glasses walked in and did just what a person would expect him to do, and I laughed at him. He was getting tough, talking shit, and I told him "Shut the fuck up! You're not talking to Joe Lunchbox here. I know this fuckin game and you've been on at least three security cameras just coming up here. I'm going to hang out with your girl, have some drinks, and you're going to walk the fuck away or I'm going to stick a fucking sword in your eye and the cops will call it self defense."
I showed him the sword that I intended to use if things got ugly.

He didn't have anything to say in response, and he left. So I hung out with the girl, although right now I have no idea what we talked about. At the moment half of my bottle of whiskey is gone, and there is an empty can of Miller Genuine Draft next to my sink (she must of had it in her pocket), so I imagine we blabbed for quite awhile. I asked her what her rate was at some point, and she said $30 for a blowjob. I gave her $40, kissed her on the forehead, and told her to stay away from that dipshit pimp, and that I thought she was a very sweet girl. And no, there was no sex (although I did play with her tits for awhile, she had nice tits).

And then she left.

Somewhat strange evening.

I don't know why I'm posting this. It's a true story, and it happened last night. Just one of those things.

The moral: Guys, always be nice to girls, even if they drink Miller Genuine Draft. Cute girls are good people. And if a pimp tries to shake you down, it's good to have a weapon nearby (although, in my case, it's not even a real sword, but work with what you have).

:)

http://school.familyeducation.com/images/gijoe_H.jpg

P.S. As always, thanks for the laughs, stupid.

LMFAO, Quinn. There may be hope for the tardbot yet, though. Cuba is now giving free sex change operations. So if fembot could find a way to emigrate to Cuba and find a job opening as a jizzmopper, he could then become the woman that he said(in this forum) he always thought he was.

[curious4TS07]

And he keeps talking about "change" and doesn't tell us how.


People are so dumb.

All they listen to is the "CHANGE" part.

NOTE: this is part two of my monthly post:

Kelly, Obama is the candidate. Live with it.

Regarding "Change" , ANYTHING else than republican style policy is better.

Uh...no.

I normally just lurk the forums and read (often times with great interest) threads and keep my mouth closed. I just went through this one though, with particular interest.

The Republicans--I am not one, and never will be one--have somewhat of a plan for America, even if a lot of us here, it seems, don't agree with it. Obama's campaign has no real outlined direction, other than the infamous "change", which none of us know anything about. I find this ironic.

Obama speaks of "change", but he hasn't shown the world he can actually "change" ANYTHING. In fact--and my sincerest apologies to Obama supporters--I honestly believe Barack is a coward with a bad temper that talks like a stuttering pimp. Ever notice how often he pauses with an "uh....uh" when he speaks? This doesn't exactly radiate confidence that he's not sure of himself EVERYTIME he opens himself. He's run away from every obstacle he's faced since the start of his campaign. Reverend Wright? Aside from throwing his white grandmother under the bus for being a racist during his rather eye-roll inducing, "you're-preaching-to-the-choir" speech on racism, he "distanced" himself from the man who'd been his pastor for the last 20 years. TWENTY YEARS. And one day you just decide, "I'm going to act as if I never heard you speak like this before, I'm going to act as if I never shared the same sentiments as you, and I'm going to throw you under the bus to make myself appear as if I've been doing the right thing all along." Instead of attempting to fix what was so blatantly wrong at the heart of America (presuming you believe America was founded upon the basis of religion as American currency denotes "In God We Trust" and many documents sealing American "rights" also use religion as their foundation), he leaves the church for good. Nobody mentioned the fact that between the time Wright hit the media and the incident a week or so ago, Obama COULD have used his now-influential position to change the views of the church but instead, went on vacation.

Obama's run from every state he lost instead of sticking it out and making a speech there anyway. Somebody will argue, "well, he had another state right after to worry about", but with a number of voters in certain states like West Virginia boldly claiming if Obama became the nominee they would rather vote for McCain, I see an opportunity to "change" completely wasted. And for what? A couple of days on the beach when you're fighting an already skewed game of chess? If this is what we have to look forward to as a president, God help us.

The ONLY reason Obama is in the position he's in is because Oprah Winfrey told her viewers to vote for Obama. As ludicrous as it sounds, it's not quite that far-fetched; Oprah is a HUGELY powerful woman with a circle of influence reaching that even greater than some of most powerful men in the world. How many books--really terrible books at that--are best sellers after Oprah's recommendation? How many businesses have had their sales increase exponentially after Oprah mentions they're her "favorite (and expensive) things"? How many people's careers have been influenced by Oprah? Rachael Ray? Dr. Phil? Tyler Perry? How many people showed up and/or tuned in and cheered, yelled, screamed and applauded when Oprah stood next to Obama at the beginning of his campaign and shouted "YES WE CAN!!!!"? Like it or not, her support lead to Obama going from obscure nobody to media darling. If he fucks up, blame Oprah, people. Blame Oprah. :roll:

America's greatest strength has always been its freedom of speech. Coincidentally, America's greatest weakness has also always been its freedom of speech. Why aren't people rioting in the streets, like they would've been just a few decades ago? We live in an era where information is far more accessible. The power Youtube holds is seemingly infinite. Once it's captured on video and uploaded to that site, there's no going back. Hillary's downfall began when she made the comment regarding Martin Luther King Jr. I understand what she meant, but the context it was placed in, once again, by the media and then ripped apart by reporters, so-called "political analysts" and "political experts",

As a young black kid from a town so small it's not even on the state map, I NEVER thought I would see the day a black man would run for president and I imagined I'd be first in line to vote for him. While I would love to vote for the black guy, as I've been told by other blacks, I should, I am not inclined to vote for THAT black guy. He's by far, one of the worst candidates I've seen in recent memory. I can say that because I'm in a position to fight to change my country and I'm DOING just that, not just talking about it.

America has slowly been falling apart since the day Clinton left office. That's not a propagandist view; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look around and see the shit-hole we're in. It's going to take a little longer than four years, a shaky candidate and a seemingly empty promise of "change" to turn us around. It's gotta start with the people, but sadly enough, we'd much rather complain about it than actually do anything to change it. But then again, why bother voting when your vote means nothing? It meant nothing for Hillary and--not that I'm against gay unions--the will of the people meant nothing in San Francisco. Speaking of San Fran, anybody notice Obama didn't announce his position against gay marriage until after he had their votes? Mama didn't raise no fool. The difference between Clinton and Obama? When Clinton won, there were sick people, women and blue-collar workers cheering. When Obama won, there were chardonnay glasses clinking. Who says he's not one of the "good ol' boys" club?


/rant

Wow...after all that, now I'm hungry. lol :oops:

[BrendaQG]

You ask when he converted to Islam. According to Islamic law since his father was a muslim then so is he by birth. He actually grew up practicing Islam during his earliest years which did include some time living in Indonesia as well as the midwestern united states. Like many muslims I know he has slipped away from faith and basically really is more of an atheist.

I doubt seriously that he is really whole heartedly into any religion now. But I suppose it is possible that once president he could have a religious experience and revert to Islam instead of Christianity. But why does that matter? Are the minds of the American people so narrow that their president must be a Christian?
Cough Choke... Huh?
You can talk Islamic law all day, but Barry Obama was born & raised Catholic. In the US, Islamic law means nothing to anyone except Muslims. Unless you actually profess the faith, it's just a lot of so what.

His father didn't hang around long enough to indoctrinate him into anything. He was enrolled in public school for a time in Jakarta, but according to the school he attended, religious studies were/are separated from the rest of the curriculum & he was segregated during those classes with the rest of the non-Muslim students. Indonesia is predominantly Muslim, but it isn't a theocracy. His mother was Catholic. His maternal grandparents who helped raise him were Catholic. He was indoctrinated in Catholic dogma. The only similarity to Islam is monotheism.

Obama's only conversion was from Catholic to "Protestant" (Baptist I think) as an adult. He's not radical. He wasn't raised as part of the "African-American community" either. A conversion from Christianity to Islam would be to refute everything that's made him what he is. If he did it in his first term, he couldn't get reelected.

Got any more republican propaganda?


First of all hippie I WAS FOR OBAMA LLLOOONNNGGG BEFORE PRACTICALLY ANYONE HERE KNEW WHO HE WAS.

Second. You asked "When did he convert to Islam?" The rules that would govern that aren't found in the US constitution or in any law of America. They are found in Islamic Law. It dose not matter what it means or does not mean to the Americans. So far as Islamic Law is concerned since his Father was a muslim so was he as son as he was born. This is important because in the immediate future muslim nations who take such things very seriously are going to be more influential because of their oil and the world wide demand for it.

Now what I have said is not the same as saying he practices Islam now, as an adult with 100% free will. All I am doing is enlightening you all about how this religion works and why it could be said with some grain of truth that Obama was at one point a muslim by all normal standards.

[Tomfurbs]

This is important because in the immediate future muslim nations who take such things very seriously are going to be more influential because of their oil and the world wide demand for it.



The oil supply is dwindling. When the 'oiligarchs' (i.e the saudi royal family, and the rich Kuwaitis, who are hated by the more fundamentalist Moslems in their nations) start to lose their sway, there will be a power struggle in these countries.

That is when things will get interesting.

[goldensamba]

And he keeps talking about "change" and doesn't tell us how.


People are so dumb.

All they listen to is the "CHANGE" part.

NOTE: this is part two of my monthly post:

Kelly, Obama is the candidate. Live with it.

Regarding "Change" , ANYTHING else than republican style policy is better.

Uh...no.

I normally just lurk the forums and read (often times with great interest) threads and keep my mouth closed. I just went through this one though, with particular interest.

The Republicans--I am not one, and never will be one--have somewhat of a plan for America, even if a lot of us here, it seems, don't agree with it. Obama's campaign has no real outlined direction, other than the infamous "change", which none of us know anything about. I find this ironic.

Obama speaks of "change", but he hasn't shown the world he can actually "change" ANYTHING. In fact--and my sincerest apologies to Obama supporters--I honestly believe Barack is a coward with a bad temper that talks like a stuttering pimp. Ever notice how often he pauses with an "uh....uh" when he speaks? This doesn't exactly radiate confidence that he's not sure of himself EVERYTIME he opens himself. He's run away from every obstacle he's faced since the start of his campaign. Reverend Wright? Aside from throwing his white grandmother under the bus for being a racist during his rather eye-roll inducing, "you're-preaching-to-the-choir" speech on racism, he "distanced" himself from the man who'd been his pastor for the last 20 years. TWENTY YEARS. And one day you just decide, "I'm going to act as if I never heard you speak like this before, I'm going to act as if I never shared the same sentiments as you, and I'm going to throw you under the bus to make myself appear as if I've been doing the right thing all along." Instead of attempting to fix what was so blatantly wrong at the heart of America (presuming you believe America was founded upon the basis of religion as American currency denotes "In God We Trust" and many documents sealing American "rights" also use religion as their foundation), he leaves the church for good. Nobody mentioned the fact that between the time Wright hit the media and the incident a week or so ago, Obama COULD have used his now-influential position to change the views of the church but instead, went on vacation.

Obama's run from every state he lost instead of sticking it out and making a speech there anyway. Somebody will argue, "well, he had another state right after to worry about", but with a number of voters in certain states like West Virginia boldly claiming if Obama became the nominee they would rather vote for McCain, I see an opportunity to "change" completely wasted. And for what? A couple of days on the beach when you're fighting an already skewed game of chess? If this is what we have to look forward to as a president, God help us.

The ONLY reason Obama is in the position he's in is because Oprah Winfrey told her viewers to vote for Obama. As ludicrous as it sounds, it's not quite that far-fetched; Oprah is a HUGELY powerful woman with a circle of influence reaching that even greater than some of most powerful men in the world. How many books--really terrible books at that--are best sellers after Oprah's recommendation? How many businesses have had their sales increase exponentially after Oprah mentions they're her "favorite (and expensive) things"? How many people's careers have been influenced by Oprah? Rachael Ray? Dr. Phil? Tyler Perry? How many people showed up and/or tuned in and cheered, yelled, screamed and applauded when Oprah stood next to Obama at the beginning of his campaign and shouted "YES WE CAN!!!!"? Like it or not, her support lead to Obama going from obscure nobody to media darling. If he fucks up, blame Oprah, people. Blame Oprah. :roll:

America's greatest strength has always been its freedom of speech. Coincidentally, America's greatest weakness has also always been its freedom of speech. Why aren't people rioting in the streets, like they would've been just a few decades ago? We live in an era where information is far more accessible. The power Youtube holds is seemingly infinite. Once it's captured on video and uploaded to that site, there's no going back. Hillary's downfall began when she made the comment regarding Martin Luther King Jr. I understand what she meant, but the context it was placed in, once again, by the media and then ripped apart by reporters, so-called "political analysts" and "political experts",

As a young black kid from a town so small it's not even on the state map, I NEVER thought I would see the day a black man would run for president and I imagined I'd be first in line to vote for him. While I would love to vote for the black guy, as I've been told by other blacks, I should, I am not inclined to vote for THAT black guy. He's by far, one of the worst candidates I've seen in recent memory. I can say that because I'm in a position to fight to change my country and I'm DOING just that, not just talking about it.

America has slowly been falling apart since the day Clinton left office. That's not a propagandist view; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look around and see the shit-hole we're in. It's going to take a little longer than four years, a shaky candidate and a seemingly empty promise of "change" to turn us around. It's gotta start with the people, but sadly enough, we'd much rather complain about it than actually do anything to change it. But then again, why bother voting when your vote means nothing? It meant nothing for Hillary and--not that I'm against gay unions--the will of the people meant nothing in San Francisco. Speaking of San Fran, anybody notice Obama didn't announce his position against gay marriage until after he had their votes? Mama didn't raise no fool. The difference between Clinton and Obama? When Clinton won, there were sick people, women and blue-collar workers cheering. When Obama won, there were chardonnay glasses clinking. Who says he's not one of the "good ol' boys" club?


/rant

Wow...after all that, now I'm hungry. lol :oops:

If you believe all he has said is change with no details then you have been listening to too many sound bytes and not doing your homework.

To be honest I am not a fan of either Clinton or Obama (I would have preferred Edwards) but if you're gonna open your trap be sure you know what you're talking about.

Also, anyone who was for Clinton who is now going to "stay home" or vote for McCain should think about what you are giving up. In the next 4 years there will be things that need to be done like Supreme Court appointments. McCain has said he wants to see Roe v Wade overturned and would appoint someone like Scalia. One more justice like Scalia on the supreme court and I will be in the back of the bus again and transgender people will be in the public square bing stoned. What kind of moron would risk having a supreme court stacked against everyone who isn't a white male or a large corporation? You could look forward to more asinine laws like imminent domain and things of this sort. This type of logic is baffling to me.

[trish]

Also, anyone who was for Clinton who is now going to "stay home" or vote for McCain should think about what you are giving up. In the next 4 years there will be things that need to be done like Supreme Court appointments. McCain has said he wants to see Roe v Wade overturned and would appoint someone like Scalia. One more justice like Scalia on the supreme court and I will be in the back of the bus again and transgender people will be in the public square bing stoned. What kind of moron would risk having a supreme court stacked against everyone who isn't a white male or a large corporation? You could look forward to more asinine laws like imminent domain and things of this sort. This type of logic is baffling to me.

...a sentiment worth repeating.

[goldensamba]

Also, anyone who was for Clinton who is now going to "stay home" or vote for McCain should think about what you are giving up. In the next 4 years there will be things that need to be done like Supreme Court appointments. McCain has said he wants to see Roe v Wade overturned and would appoint someone like Scalia. One more justice like Scalia on the supreme court and I will be in the back of the bus again and transgender people will be in the public square bing stoned. What kind of moron would risk having a supreme court stacked against everyone who isn't a white male or a large corporation? You could look forward to more asinine laws like imminent domain and things of this sort. This type of logic is baffling to me.

...a sentiment worth repeating.

Thanks Trish,

No matter who we supported when this whole thing started I would think that everyone on this board can agree with that.

[curious4TS07]

Lol, I'm going to try doing this without disrespecting you, because I've been trying to be a lot better about that sort of thing. I'm not saying that to be mean, but that's just really how I used to be. But I make no promises....


If you believe all he has said is change with no details then you have been listening to too many sound bytes and not doing your homework.

Feel free to give examples. Something tangible. Not the bullshit I keep hearing in the media or keep hearing directly from his campaign. You've done your homework, right? Should be extremely easy.


To be honest I am not a fan of either Clinton or Obama (I would have preferred Edwards) but if you're gonna open your trap be sure you know what you're talking about.

Well, we all know your preference matters not if said person isn't on the ballot come Nov. (my preference being an Obama/Hillary ticket over the people on Obama's list), but anyhoo, care to clarify the statement about "know what you're talking about"? Did YOU get a letter/email from someone in Obama's campaign claiming that because you declined to support a claim that he was the nominee at one of his events looooong before he was the presumptive nominee, you're (and I quote) "not black enough to even matter"? Did YOU then get a phone call from Obama personally first apologizing, then, being a complete hypocrite, getting angry that you choose not to pledge allegiances to either side until a nominee is chosen because he too TELLS you you're (and I quote) "not black enough" since you don't support him?

No? Feel free to refute what I just said if you'd like, but if my memory serves me correctly, you weren't standing in the room with us when it happened. No disrespect intended. You just weren't.


Also, anyone who was for Clinton who is now going to "stay home" or vote for McCain should think about what you are giving up. In the next 4 years there will be things that need to be done like Supreme Court appointments. McCain has said he wants to see Roe v Wade overturned and would appoint someone like Scalia. One more justice like Scalia on the supreme court and I will be in the back of the bus again and transgender people will be in the public square bing stoned. What kind of moron would risk having a supreme court stacked against everyone who isn't a white male or a large corporation? You could look forward to more asinine laws like imminent domain and things of this sort. This type of logic is baffling to me.

Hmm...what kind of moron? Maybe the kinds of "morons" that live in West Virginia or one of the other "moronic" states who claimed they wouldn't vote for Obama should be become the nominee. Perhaps the gay "morons" Obama picked up votes from but didn't announce he doesn't support until afterwards. Your argument is flawed if, unlike Hillary, who's made it a point to include gays and lesbians in her speeches, Obama and McCain share similar beliefs on the topic. I haven't paid much attention to politics as of lately, but as far as I know, we still know very little about his positions on much of anything, except gays and gay unions. The back of the bus? A little melodramatic though.

And why is anybody concerned with the next four years right now? My one vote has no bearing on this election (let me finish my thought) when compared to the votes of entire states that have threatened to swing their votes in McCain's favor. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum is in agreement that we don't what that to happen. But if a Democrat doesn't get into office in the first place, the next four years won't even matter. Obama has six months to go and has yet to visit Hillary country. His "change" would logically start there. If he's serious about what he intends to do, he needs to show people he's willing to roll up his sleeves and walk right into the lions den to prove to them he's worthy of their vote. Obama's problem is, he feels like he's entitled to it because he's the presumptive nominee. The likelihood of that and the likelihood of places such as South Dakota or West Virginia swinging their votes to Obama without him making a VERY strong bid for them is rather bleak. I know what you're suggesting, but the Democrats can't actually take control of the House/Senate again if a Democrat isn't elected into office. Want those votes? Earn them. It's that simple.

Feel free to leave the condescending tone and personal attacks at the door, next time, sir. I'm too grown for that.

Thanks,

:)

[goldensamba]

Lol, I'm going to try doing this without disrespecting you, because I've been trying to be a lot better about that sort of thing. I'm not saying that to be mean, but that's just really how I used to be. But I make no promises....


If you believe all he has said is change with no details then you have been listening to too many sound bytes and not doing your homework.

Feel free to give examples. Something tangible. Not the bullshit I keep hearing in the media or keep hearing directly from his campaign. You've done your homework, right? Should be extremely easy.


To be honest I am not a fan of either Clinton or Obama (I would have preferred Edwards) but if you're gonna open your trap be sure you know what you're talking about.

Well, we all know your preference matters not if said person isn't on the ballot come Nov. (my preference being an Obama/Hillary ticket over the people on Obama's list), but anyhoo, care to clarify the statement about "know what you're talking about"? Did YOU get a letter/email from someone in Obama's campaign claiming that because you declined to support a claim that he was the nominee at one of his events looooong before he was the presumptive nominee, you're (and I quote) "not black enough to even matter"? Did YOU then get a phone call from Obama personally first apologizing, then, being a complete hypocrite, getting angry that you choose not to pledge allegiances to either side until a nominee is chosen because he too TELLS you you're (and I quote) "not black enough" since you don't support him?

No? Feel free to refute what I just said if you'd like, but if my memory serves me correctly, you weren't standing in the room with us when it happened. No disrespect intended. You just weren't.


Also, anyone who was for Clinton who is now going to "stay home" or vote for McCain should think about what you are giving up. In the next 4 years there will be things that need to be done like Supreme Court appointments. McCain has said he wants to see Roe v Wade overturned and would appoint someone like Scalia. One more justice like Scalia on the supreme court and I will be in the back of the bus again and transgender people will be in the public square bing stoned. What kind of moron would risk having a supreme court stacked against everyone who isn't a white male or a large corporation? You could look forward to more asinine laws like imminent domain and things of this sort. This type of logic is baffling to me.

Hmm...what kind of moron? Maybe the kinds of "morons" that live in West Virginia or one of the other "moronic" states who claimed they wouldn't vote for Obama should be become the nominee. Perhaps the gay "morons" Obama picked up votes from but didn't announce he doesn't support until afterwards. Your argument is flawed if, unlike Hillary, who's made it a point to include gays and lesbians in her speeches, Obama and McCain share similar beliefs on the topic. I haven't paid much attention to politics as of lately, but as far as I know, we still know very little about his positions on much of anything, except gays and gay unions. The back of the bus? A little melodramatic though.

And why is anybody concerned with the next four years right now? My one vote has no bearing on this election (let me finish my thought) when compared to the votes of entire states that have threatened to swing their votes in McCain's favor. I'm pretty sure everyone on this forum is in agreement that we don't what that to happen. But if a Democrat doesn't get into office in the first place, the next four years won't even matter. Obama has six months to go and has yet to visit Hillary country. His "change" would logically start there. If he's serious about what he intends to do, he needs to show people he's willing to roll up his sleeves and walk right into the lions den to prove to them he's worthy of their vote. Obama's problem is, he feels like he's entitled to it because he's the presumptive nominee. The likelihood of that and the likelihood of places such as South Dakota or West Virginia swinging their votes to Obama without him making a VERY strong bid for them is rather bleak. I know what you're suggesting, but the Democrats can't actually take control of the House/Senate again if a Democrat isn't elected into office. Want those votes? Earn them. It's that simple.

Feel free to leave the condescending tone and personal attacks at the door, next time, sir. I'm too grown for that.

Thanks,

:)

I'm gonna address this whole thing at one time.

1. You should be concerned with the next 4 years (the next 10 for that matter) because the supreme court can change a whole lot in a big hurry. If you want to see big corporations running everything and unable to be sued and abortion illegal, etc. then don't concern yourself with it. The rest of us will try to pick up your slack. But, don't complain when the government comes knocking on your door and decides they want your house to sell the property to some developer and they have given you 60 days to get out. This is called imminent domain and it's one of the things this current court has supported. This is something you need to be concerned with as well as the rest of the issues the supreme court has ruled on like domestic spying, torture, etc. McCain has said he wants another Scalia. If you stay home that is what you are giving your stamp of approval to.

2. If you want to know about policies do even a basic search. Lets take health care for example. You can find it in multiple places you can go and check out someone who has actually read the 12 PAGE POLICY that for some reason you could not find or don't care to http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2007/12/hillary-clinton-criticizes-barack.html
or you can go and read it for yourself and formulate your own decision http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Saying that he has not put out any tangible policies other than change is false and shows you speak without checking your facts. You can do a simple search for about any policy and find them for both Clinton and Obama and even some for Edwards are still floating around.

Like I said, he's not my first choice but at this point he is the choice we have. So, like I said, stay home and it's your own fault when things get worse than they are already. One more republican appointment to the supreme court and the common man is done for.

I'm not buying your phone call story until I see or hear proof. I have a hard time believing Barak Obama took the time to personally call your house and tell you that you're not black enough. This sounds like something cooked up in a Fox News studio.

[Jonny29]

I thought the President nominates the supreme court justice and congress approves. Are you thinking that along with Mccain, the republicans are going to take back enough seats to actually approve his nominee? I don't really see this happening ,do you?

[trish]

curious4TS07, it's time to get over it. Votes DO count. We don't know at this early date how close the election may be. America needs YOUR vote.

[goldensamba]

I thought the President nominates the supreme court justice and congress approves. Are you thinking that along with Mccain, the republicans are going to take back enough seats to actually approve his nominee? I don't really see this happening ,do you?

It's quite possible, plus we have people like Lieberman faking that they are democrats. Why take a chance?

[hippifried]

First of all hippie I WAS FOR OBAMA LLLOOONNNGGG BEFORE PRACTICALLY ANYONE HERE KNEW WHO HE WAS.

Second. You asked "When did he convert to Islam?" The rules that would govern that aren't found in the US constitution or in any law of America. They are found in Islamic Law. It dose not matter what it means or does not mean to the Americans. So far as Islamic Law is concerned since his Father was a muslim so was he as son as he was born. This is important because in the immediate future muslim nations who take such things very seriously are going to be more influential because of their oil and the world wide demand for it.

Now what I have said is not the same as saying he practices Islam now, as an adult with 100% free will. All I am doing is enlightening you all about how this religion works and why it could be said with some grain of truth that Obama was at one point a muslim by all normal standards.
They aren't his rules. They aren't our rules. It's not his religion & never has been. Islamic law is irrelevant in the US. Islamic law is irrelevant anywhere outside places that have no other system of law. Islamic law is irrelevant to anything regarding Barack Obama, other than having to deal with its adherents. Islamic law is irrelevant to anyone but its adherents. Your statement about him being Muslim & being indoctrinated into the Islamic faith was bogus. You can't cover that up with irrelevant details about an irrelevancy.

[BrendaQG]

Nothing about it was bogus hippie.

The question was posed "when did Obama convert to Islam" I answered the answer from birth because his father was a Muslim (FYI if his mother had been a Muslim and his father not it would work the same way).

You say that means nothing to the non adherents to Islam..

I mean... let's take it away from the subject of Islam to an analogous one... Judaism. Can I ask you this who decides who's Jewish and who isn't? The Jewish people according to their long standing laws and customs or the gentiles? Do gentiles get to tell Jews who is Jewish? No. The only time I know of that happening was in Nazi Germany.

Or how about Native American tribal membership? Who decides who is a member of the tribe and who isn't the tribe or people outside of the tribe.

OR
How about something nearer at hand. In ball culture who decides who is in a given house? The people in the various houses or people out in straight society?

I hope through all of these analogies you see how completely absurd your claims are hippie. Each of these situations is analogous to the question of who is and is not a Muslim. Each of those subcultures has rules, and customs of some kind that govern group membership. By those rules that govern Islam and Muslims, Islamic Law or Sharia, Barrack Hussien Obama was at one time a Muslim.

So it would be accurate to say that he was a Muslim but he isn't any more.

Also again don't write at me like I am just now getting on the bandwagon for Obama. I have already taken the opportunity to vote for the man twice (for senate, and in the primary).

[trish]

It’s true that you don’t generally get to decide your ethnicity. Consequently, if you’re born into Jewish family you will be ethnically Jewish whether you like it or not and whether the community likes it or not. Neither you nor the community gets to decide. Even if you renounce the religion, you will still be regarded ethnically as Jewish. The Jewish religious community might allow an outsider to enter and become a religious Jew. In this case it’s the community that gets to decide.

Christianity, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have an ethnic component (correct me if I’m wrong). If you are born into a Christian family, it’s presumed your religion is Christian. But in practice, it’s the parents who actually decide to bring you up in the church or not. When you’re too young to decide for yourself, your parents get to decide. But if later you decide to renounce Christianity you may rightfully claim you are not a Christian and both Christians and non-Christians will acknowledge your claim; i.e. you get to decide.

I was under the impression that Islam was more like Christianity in this regard. Muslim’s are not generally considered an ethnic group. I understand Brenda to be saying that a child with at least one Islamic parent is, by Islamic law, a Muslim. Understood this way, this is not claim of ethnicity which is biologically and culturally determined, but a claim by religious fiat on the soul of a child. If this really is Islamic law, there no basis for the justification of such a law. But it’s not the only way to interpret the law. The law could also be understood as a birthright: a child with an Islamic parent, whether brought up in the religion or not, may claim Islam as his or her religion and the Islamic community must by law acknowledge the claim.

In actual fact it’s the parents of a child who decide its childhood religion. Whether or not Obama was at birth a Muslim is question only his parents can answer, for Muslim law has no legitimate claim on his soul. The person who has a claim here is Obama himself. If he chooses, he could invoke his birthright and become a Muslim. He has, however instead, chosen to be Christian.

[chefmike]

First of all hippie I WAS FOR OBAMA LLLOOONNNGGG BEFORE PRACTICALLY ANYONE HERE KNEW WHO HE WAS.

Second. You asked "When did he convert to Islam?" The rules that would govern that aren't found in the US constitution or in any law of America. They are found in Islamic Law. It dose not matter what it means or does not mean to the Americans. So far as Islamic Law is concerned since his Father was a muslim so was he as son as he was born. This is important because in the immediate future muslim nations who take such things very seriously are going to be more influential because of their oil and the world wide demand for it.

Now what I have said is not the same as saying he practices Islam now, as an adult with 100% free will. All I am doing is enlightening you all about how this religion works and why it could be said with some grain of truth that Obama was at one point a muslim by all normal standards.
They aren't his rules. They aren't our rules. It's not his religion & never has been. Islamic law is irrelevant in the US. Islamic law is irrelevant anywhere outside places that have no other system of law. Islamic law is irrelevant to anything regarding Barack Obama, other than having to deal with its adherents. Islamic law is irrelevant to anyone but its adherents. Your statement about him being Muslim & being indoctrinated into the Islamic faith was bogus. You can't cover that up with irrelevant details about an irrelevancy.


:claps

[trish]

Here's an addendum to my post above:

A third interpretation is simply that Islamic law simply defines “Muslim” to include all persons who have a Muslim parent…much in the same way that mathematician define by fiat all sorts of things such as groups and fields. Of course in mathematics a single person can create her own definitions. A mathematician makes words mean what she wants them to mean…but only within the confined context of mathematical practice. By “field” an outsider doesn’t mean the same thing as a mathematician when the word is used as jargon. In practice, it’s the users of the language who get to decide the meanings of words. That’s why languages change and evolve. Within mathematics, it’s mathematicians who decide the meaning of their jargon. Outside, it’s its ordinary users of language who decide the meanings of words. If the outside world generally uses “field” to refer to a clearing, meadow or cultivated patch of land, then that’s is the commonly accepted meaning of “field” and there’s little the mathematical community can do about it. (Indeed the mathematical community is content to adopt the common usage definition and the mathematical definition as two distinct meanings attached to one word, regarding the mathematical definition as professional jargon).
So it is the case with “Muslim”. The religion cannot by fiat decide the usage of the word outside their community. If the outside world generally uses “Muslim” to refer to only those who accept the Islamic religion or are currently being brought up in that religion, then that’s is the commonly accepted meaning of “Muslim” and there’s little the Islamic community can do about it. Nobody gets to decide common usage. Or rather, everybody gets to decide.

[Oli]

Nothing about it was bogus hippie.

The question was posed "when did Obama convert to Islam" I answered the answer from birth because his father was a Muslim (FYI if his mother had been a Muslim and his father not it would work the same way).

You say that means nothing to the non adherents to Islam..

I mean... let's take it away from the subject of Islam to an analogous one... Judaism. Can I ask you this who decides who's Jewish and who isn't? The Jewish people according to their long standing laws and customs or the gentiles? Do gentiles get to tell Jews who is Jewish? No. The only time I know of that happening was in Nazi Germany.

You really ought to know the facts before opening your pie hole. A child born to a Jewish mother is considered a Jew. As is a Christian child. He was born to an agnostic father and Christian mother. Where in his past has Barack Obama stated "there is no god except one God and Muhammad is the messenger of God."?

According to Obama himself he was non religious until 1985:
It began in 1985, when he came to Chicago as a $13,000-a-year community organizer, working with a number of African-American churches in the Roseland, West Pullman and Altgeld Gardens neighborhoods that were trying to deal with the devastation caused by shuttered steel plants.

"I started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job-training programs, or after-school programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to underserved communities," he says. "And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened.

"I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and its importance in the community. And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/726619,obamafalsani040504.article


By those rules that govern Islam and Muslims, Islamic Law or Sharia, Barrack Hussien Obama was at one time a Muslim.

So it would be accurate to say that he was a Muslim but he isn't any more.

No by those rules he would have been an non practicing Christian until 1985.

[hippifried]

Nothing about it was bogus hippie.

The question was posed "when did Obama convert to Islam" I answered the answer from birth because his father was a Muslim (FYI if his mother had been a Muslim and his father not it would work the same way).

You say that means nothing to the non adherents to Islam..

I mean... let's take it away from the subject of Islam to an analogous one... Judaism. Can I ask you this who decides who's Jewish and who isn't? The Jewish people according to their long standing laws and customs or the gentiles? Do gentiles get to tell Jews who is Jewish? No. The only time I know of that happening was in Nazi Germany.

Or how about Native American tribal membership? Who decides who is a member of the tribe and who isn't the tribe or people outside of the tribe.

OR
How about something nearer at hand. In ball culture who decides who is in a given house? The people in the various houses or people out in straight society?

I hope through all of these analogies you see how completely absurd your claims are hippie. Each of these situations is analogous to the question of who is and is not a Muslim. Each of those subcultures has rules, and customs of some kind that govern group membership. By those rules that govern Islam and Muslims, Islamic Law or Sharia, Barrack Hussien Obama was at one time a Muslim.

So it would be accurate to say that he was a Muslim but he isn't any more.

Also again don't write at me like I am just now getting on the bandwagon for Obama. I have already taken the opportunity to vote for the man twice (for senate, and in the primary).
No it isn't accurate. There was no conversion. Ever. You also stated that he was indoctrinated into the faith while living in Jakarta. That was never anything but a bogus non-story on FOX that was shot down by everybody who investigated it. Now it's just another spam email campaign sent to the gullible on the mailing lists of the right wing toons

Nobody chooses their parents or ancestors. There's a difference between being born into an extended family & voluntarily joining a group. Tribes are extended families. So were nations till we came along. Judaism is a nationality. Ethnicity if you prefer. The tribes of Israel trace their heritage to a single parent. Jacob, son of Isaac & grandson of Abraham. Jacob had 12 sons. Hence the 12 tribes of Israel. He changed his name to Israel to seal the covenant between him & his brother to stop trying to kill each other over the confusion around the birthright that was bestowed on Jacob by deceipt because he claimed Esau had sold it to him. The Palisatinians trace their heritage to Esau, brother of Jacob, son of Isaac & grandson of Abraham. The people of the Arabian peninsula claim their heritage to Ishmael, half brother of Isaac, & first born son of Abraham. So who's who? If the claims are true, then Muhammad was related to the Hebrews & was a distant cousin of Jesus. The whole Palisraelistine conflict is just a 5000 year old interfamily feud over a bowl of soup.

Islam is a faith. It consists of people from all nationalities & races. It's the newest of the 3 major monotheistic middle east based religions. It grows & has grown through conversion. It's voluntary. How many generations do you go back with this whole "born a Muslim" thingie? For the sake of argument, I'm going to take Oli's statement about Obama's parents at face value, since I haven't read the book. If his natural father was agnostic, that means he wasn't any kind of practicing Muslim. So does the "born a Muslim" thingie carry over anyway? Was he "born a Muslim" because maybe his grandparents on one side were Muslims? Are his children "born a Muslim" even with a couple of generations of separation? Where does it end? Are you Polish because you're from Chicago? I can toss in an apostrophy & make Barry O'Bama an Irish Catholic.

Oh by the way... "Ball Culture" really doesn't work in this argument.

[trish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin

[BrendaQG]

@ Trish

YES YES YES EXACTLY.

@ Hippie , Oli, and Mike.

Ya'll just don't get it. It's no so different than the way we Americans see our citizenship as a birth right. If a child is born ton a U.S. parent OR on US Soil then they are automatically a citizen of the United States of America. WE as Americans think that of being a U.S. Citizen and would tell any outsider who said other wise to go fuck themselves.

Can you not see that your trying to define who is and is not a Muslim when you yourselves are not Muslims is just like that. It's absurd!

You asked and I answered: To view how Muslims in the world view this situation see here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ruling-against-islamic-law-on-conversion/2008/02/10/1202578601077.html). It's about a Egyptian court ruling saying that yes people who convert to Islam may switch back but.... the fact that they converted then reverted has to be listed on their birth certificates. In many Muslim countries and some Christian countries (I believe Spain is one such place) one's religion is considered determined at birth as if it were genetic an immutable. Much the way Americans look at gender.

Now let me say this. I personally have no problem with people who convert to Islam then convert to something else. Many Muslims believe that this is strictly forbidden. Others believe that the ban on conversion had more to do with very early Muslim armies (like ones that would have been lead by Muhammad himself) suffering desertion and deserters being executed if they are caught. In particular if they are traitors who went over the the other side in the war between Medina and Mecca. This is the period in which all of these laws were laid down , I belive by god, and trough his messenger.

Thus you can see why I am not about to let people on some message board redefine them for me.

[Oli]

@ Trish

YES YES YES EXACTLY.

@ Hippie , Oli, and Mike.

Ya'll just don't get it. It's no so different than the way we Americans see our citizenship as a birth right. If a child is born ton a U.S. parent OR on US Soil then they are automatically a citizen of the United States of America. WE as Americans think that of being a U.S. Citizen and would tell any outsider who said other wise to go fuck themselves.

Can you not see that your trying to define who is and is not a Muslim when you yourselves are not Muslims is just like that. It's absurd!

You asked and I answered: To view how Muslims in the world view this situation see here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/ruling-against-islamic-law-on-conversion/2008/02/10/1202578601077.html). It's about a Egyptian court ruling saying that yes people who convert to Islam may switch back but.... the fact that they converted then reverted has to be listed on their birth certificates. In many Muslim countries and some Christian countries (I believe Spain is one such place) one's religion is considered determined at birth as if it were genetic an immutable. Much the way Americans look at gender.

Now let me say this. I personally have no problem with people who convert to Islam then convert to something else. Many Muslims believe that this is strictly forbidden. Others believe that the ban on conversion had more to do with very early Muslim armies (like ones that would have been lead by Muhammad himself) suffering desertion and deserters being executed if they are caught. In particular if they are traitors who went over the the other side in the war between Medina and Mecca. This is the period in which all of these laws were laid down , I belive by god, and trough his messenger.

Thus you can see why I am not about to let people on some message board redefine them for me.

You must be one hell of a scientist...every experiment you do must go exactly as you hypothesized. You are never wrong are you?

"The candidate spoke with CBN News' David Brody on Wednesday. He discussed a number of issues including his prayer life, his stance on abortion and gay marriage, and the rumors floating through cyberspace that he is secretly a Muslim.

"I have never practiced Islam," he said. "And I think it's important for people not to buy into these sort of fear tactics that people also often use during political games."

Obama has attended Trinity United Church of Christ for the past 15 years.

"I just want to be very clear and this is obviously in no way an insult to the Muslim community who I respect deeply. But I want people to know who I am. I am a Christian," he said."
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/266198.aspx

I can't speak for Mike or Hippi, but I'm not trying to define who is or is not a Muslim, you are. And even through the use of obscure court rulings in Egypt, ball culture and Native Americans, you've failed to produce any facts to back up your claims, or refute what Barack Obama himself has said, repeatedly.

[hippifried]

No American, & Barack Obama is an American, is subject to the laws of any other nation or any religious canons except by choice. The only person who can truly define Barack Obama is Barack Obama. He says he's not a Muslim in practice or theory. Who are we supposed to believe? Him or a bunch of religious zealots.

The Egyptian court ruling just points out the silliness & intolerance of theocracies. The Copts are the oldest existing Christian sect. The fact that so many converted & are trying to revert just tells me that the original conversion was probably coerced in the first place. A good idea doesn't need to be forced on people. If the Muslim hoi polloi of Egypt were secure in their own faith, it wouldn't even occur to them to disallow people's choice in the matter of what they believe. Sorry, but everything I've seen says that "Islamic law" is nothing more than another set of arbitrary rules laid down by a bunch of intolerant bigots claiming to speak for God as a cynical method of gaining power over their fellow man. No different than any other batch of fundamentalist zanies who would impose their will on the unwilling. You can believe what you want, but as an American, I was born owing no allegience to to anyone or any entity.


Now let me say this. I personally have no problem with people who convert to Islam then convert to something else.
But there was never a conversion on the part of Barack Obama. That's not your claim. Your claim is that he has never been other than Muslim, & by no choice of his own. Conversion is always a concious choice.

[Tomfurbs]

Brenda, I think you need to reread Trish's posts. You seem to have missed her point.

[chefmike]

:deadhorse