She's the enemy of everyone on this forum.
She's also a creationist who wants to indoctrinate innocent children with religious propaganda.
Printable View
She's the enemy of everyone on this forum.
She's also a creationist who wants to indoctrinate innocent children with religious propaganda.
Alright kids I have done my damage here.
I am going back to checking out shemale cock!
I could list some of Dubs accomplishments (and fuckups), but let's remember in case you haven't noticed... Obama isn't running against Bush. As much as the Dems keep trying to lump Bush and McCain together the more it's going to backfire. And just about election day we'll be treated to Oliver Stone's Bush bashing movie. It's a shame Michael Moore won't be releasing another movie as well. McCain is nothing like Bush and his choice of VP surely illustrates that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Realgirls4me
Just remember, it was only 4 years ago that a lot of Dems were chompin at the bit to get McCain to run a Dem.
Obama's lack of accomplishments or credentials are a non-issue for many Dems because it doesn't matter to them. For most of the vocal Dems, it's always been about Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, Iraq, etc etc etc.
I don't know if you're a racist (To be a racist, one must exert power, so I doubt you are), but given what you have posted, you are ignorant, stupid, and now reveal yourself to be apathetic to boot. What was the "Hussein" reference about?Quote:
Originally Posted by JanetElise
I also know why a lot of people in the south didn't vote for him.
List his accomplishments, and I don't mean Dubya getting lucky at getting through a sentence without butchering it. After you have labored to list his accomplishments, take a deep breath and list how they match up against his monumental fuck-ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
No, Obama is not running against Bush, just Bush redux. So Haliburton, Iraq, Katrina, aren't issues? Surely you jest?
If you think Obama has made this far on "the black vote" you are very ignorant. News for you blacks vote for democratic like 88%. Racist democrats are the ones crossing over and voting for McCain just because he's the white guy. The majority of blacks wouldn't vote for a conservative just because they are black. Look at Michael Steele and Alan Keyes. They would vote for a white democrat over these guys.Quote:
Originally Posted by JanetElise
Same for women. Women aren't going to vote for this Palin just because she's a women. McCain will lose if he thinks so. Look at her views on women's rights. There lame.
So he picks Biden, the quintessential political insider, a guy who has spent 35 years living off those of us who work for a living. A guy who spent a whole 4 years of his life in the "real world". Biden is everything Obama is supposed to be against. OK maybe not everything, but the guy is politics as usual. I agree, Hilary is problematic for a number of reasons, and I understand why Obama wouldn't choose her. Of course if Obama loses there will be all kinds of second guessing from Democrats about Hilary, but between the two, I think Obama gives them the best chance to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARMANIXXX
BTW Obama will be called out for his flip flops on a number of issues such as public financing of his campaign, domestic wiretapping, off shore drilling, etc. Yes I know McCain has flip-flopped on a number of issues, but nobody is pretending he didn't, Obama supporters are the ones that think their guy can do no wrong.
This should have been a slam dunk for Democrats though, unpopular war, stagnant economy (although not nearly as bad as Dems want you to believe), very unpopular Republican president, I mean, Jesus the GOP was practically handing them the presidency on a silver platter. Leave it to Democrats to fuck up a good thing. I guess that is yet to be decided, but barring any October surprise it looks like this will be a very close election, hardly a ringing endorsement of Obama even if he does win.
Palin seems to help and hurt McCain in different areas. Diehard female Hilary supporters are not likely to switch to McCain, but give the guy some credit, that is not who they are after with Palin. The hope is to get some of the centrist Democrats, independents, and maybe some middle American women who might not have voted for anyone with Hilary out. I dont know if it will work, but given how close this looks now just picking up a fraction of these women might put McCain over the top. Obviously she is also supposed to re-assure right wing Jesus freaks who are uncomfortable with McCain, although that could backfire as these people maybe think women belong in the kitchen, not the White House :)
One thing I know is this certainly got more interesting, I fully expected McCain to pick Romney or someone "safe".
Im still not voting for either one of these clowns though. :lol:
P.S.
Most Americans are centrist, maybe slightly to the right or left, but overall we are a centrist nation. Go to ontheissues.org and look at McCain vs. Obama, McCain is much closer to the center than Obama. Much was made during the convention about how McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time, not sure what this really means since Bush is not in the Senate, but anyway we get the idea. But are you surprised that a Republican agrees with another Republican most of the time? Not only that but McCain has gone against the GOP on a number of critical issues, and has worked with Democrats, have you heard McCain-Feingold (campaign finance that became law), what about McCain-Lieberman (2003 bill to create a cap and trade system for greenhouse gasses) , remember McCain-Kennedy (immigration reform) that one nearly put him out of this election since the right wing was so pissed about his immigration plan. In fact all of these were hated by the right, which is some of the reasons they were so down on McCain to begin with. Also remember there was talk of McCain joining Kerry's ticket as VP in the last election.
Can you name one significant piece of legislation where Obama has gone against the Democratic party and worked with Republicans? Obama votes with the Democratic Party 100% of the time.
Sorry for the long winded posts, I have insomnia and all this talk about politics helps me pass the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realgirls4me
I've heard this "exert power" comment a lot. How that in order to be a racist one must have and/or exert power. I don't get it.
Isn't it enough to be a racist that you simply believe that race is the basis for traits, qualities and superiority? typically it involves making stereotypes based on race. Like Biden's racist comments about indian immigrants in all delaware 7-11s and dunkin donuts.
someone could be a powerless street bum and could still be a racist, no?
You mean McCain WAS a centrist, not anymore and that's what counts. I find it funny that you conservatives keep calling Obama a liberal. But you never referred to HRC as one when goals are pretty much identical. Oh if noticed your buddy Bush is the biggest fuckup in the history of the U.S. You are out of touch with most americans by defending him and McCain. Joe Biden might be a Washington insider. But he is not a crook like McCain, that's the difference. Look at Biden's approval from his state. The people of arizona know McCain is a crook that's why Obama is running very close to him in his own state.Quote:
Originally Posted by PapaGrande
And why didn't McCain vote for MLK day in Arizona again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
No. A street bum who measures another person by that person's race is just another ignorant bigot; not a racist. The owner of a plant who hires people based solely on their skin color is a racist -- his racism actually affects others. He has the power over whether they get the job or not. Jim Crow laws were racist because they exerted power over what and what not blacks could do, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
And please don't bring in Biden's Indian comment. What party in recent years has been more in tow with white supremest organizations than the Republican party? Biden's comment, or any by a younger Robert Byrd, were at least negated later by their actions. They made amends. Politicians such as Jesse Helms never did, neither did Strom Thurmond.
"After ten years as a prominent Chicago politician and in his first year in the Senate, Obama got a $1.32 million loan below market rates without paying the normal extra fees — a rate which saved him $300 per month on his mortgage. Obama managed to do this despite the extraordinarily large mortgage and his lack of history with the lender"
Can you say sweetheart deal?
Joe Biden for VP... quintessential Washington insider
His association with Antoin Rezko for 18 years... on trial in Federal corruption court for demanding kickbacks for doing business with the Illinois governor and in another case on trial for shaking down a Hollywood producer to the tune of $1.5 million for a political donation to the same governor.
His association for years as a parishioner and desciple and friend of the racist Reverend Wright...
Obama is nothing about change.
Oh wait, he is. He wants to talk to the terrorists and open up a dialogue. So I guess when he asks Iran to play nice and stop building nuclear bombs they will see the error of their ways and acquiesce? And when he outlaws guns here in this country all the thugs and gang members will turn their guns in and we will sleep better?
Drink your Koolaid libs..
I'm too tired to take apart your slop piece by pathetic piece, Paranoid Jane, so I'll make it easy on you: Cite one credible source where Obama says he's outlawing guns? Just one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked
All I know is I damn sure don't want another sequel in what could be a piss-poor trilogy.
His position is all over the place which means only one thing for an ultra liberal... the eventual ban of all handguns. You may want to take special note that he believes that state or local government has the right to supersede the constitution... just the kind of socialist we need running this country.
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/...un_Control.htm
Oh my gosh Fox... I am soooo sorry, didnt anybody tell you? George Bush isn't running in this election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
No, no, no, no, no, my paranoid gun nut "friend". I asked you to provide one site or citation where he actually states he is for the banning of guns. I didn't ask you to infer from a Q&A page as you did or provide me with your weak little opinion. I asked you basically to support -- show proof -- your claim that Barack Obama will ban guns. And did you happen to miss the latest CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court decision on allowing some leeway to states and other municipalities as they deem fit, and where, pray tell, did you acquire that gift of extrapolation? I mean, from just those few questions you were able to morph the answers to fit your paranoid closed little mind and biases? How do you right-wing whack jobs do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked
Do you even know what a Socialist is?
Alright then, let's take a look at what Palin did while in public office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
Sarah Palin left the finances of her town Wasilla in tatters when she moved on in 2002. She wanted a legacy as mayor, it seems, and pushed hard for the town to build a hyper-expensive sports complex. But Palin screwed the process up badly. Instead of buying the land for the complex when it was offered, her administration allowed a developer named Gary Lundgren to snap it up. Then Wasilla tried to seize the land from Lundgren through eminent domain. In the end, what with court costs Wasilla paid at least $ 1.7 million for land it could have bought for less than one tenth that sum - if the purchase had been handled properly. For this incompetence, Wasilla is still paying a steep price: higher taxes and cutbacks in services. In other words Palin is about as efficient as Michael Brown, onetime head of FEMA.
Link to sources and more details here.
Saying that Obama has no "executive" accomplishments is a republican framing tactic. Look at Obama's accomplishments while in the US Senate. Using the word "executive" is a framing tactic to make all accomplishments as a legislator irrelevant. They are not.
Gov Palin is an outstanding choice. Why do we believe only Washington insiders and lifelong politicians are capable of being pres or vp? These people are not better than you or myself, they are not smarter than everyone. This is the kind of pick Obama should have made.
No, no, no, no, no, my paranoid gun nut "friend". I asked you to provide one site or citation where he actually states he is for the banning of guns. I didn't ask you to infer from a Q&A page as you did or provide me with your weak little opinion. I asked you basically to support -- show proof -- your claim that Barack Obama will ban guns. And did you happen to miss the latest CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court decision on allowing some leeway to states and other municipalities as they deem fit, and where, pray tell, did you acquire that gift of extrapolation? I mean, from just those few questions you were able to morph the answers to fit your paranoid closed little mind and biases? How do you right-wing whack jobs do that?
"I asked you to provide one site or citation where he actually states he is for the banning of guns."
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you could read ... i guess not so i will quote
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
and again...
"We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure".
EVERYONE knows politicians talks out of both sides of their mouth, and the truth lies in his own political belief. Gun control in practice, is the banning of guns.
Your semantic games for debate are sophomoric, especially when speaking of politicians.
As of the end of June, the conservative, thank GOD, Supreme court struck down the gun ban in Washington DC saying citizens had the right to own guns. Period
Speaking of extrapolation... you took the minority dissenting opinion of a liberal supreme court justice and have subversively tried, unbeknownst to the readers here, to make it the opinion of the conservative and majority court. Nice try, but dishonest and, frankly, scary. And just clear things up a bit, your "revelation" of leeway applies only to the dissenting opinion.
In reality, this is the first time in 200 years a Supreme court decision was rendered on the right for individuals to own guns. The 2nd amendment was upheld unanimously. Because of this decision, the right to bear arms is stronger today than ever, regardless of the dissenting opinion.. And personally... I freakin love that.
I am so excited, I may just rejoin the NRA...
I hope that you may come to realize that your arguments make no logical sense. No state or local government has the right to supercede the US Constitution. If jurisdictions make laws which violate the constitution, and individuals or groups have a right to question it in court, until a decision is made on the issue. Obama’s position on gun control, as you state it would be considered a “states rights”, or a ‘community rights’ position. At one time state’s rights, used to be at the center of the conservative agenda. Yet when a man like Obama advocates the same position, he is labeled a socialist by some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked
But your post brings me to another issue. I notice that some people like you resort to labeling, or name calling, rather than discuss issues. Saying words like ‘liberal’ or ‘socialist’ really don’t define much in today’s society. But they have been branded as code words to keep people from exploring subtleties of important issues, such as health care. Obama addressed this tendency of name calling in his acceptance speech. In the past eight years people who question whether a government policy is effective, are called names, like ‘America bashers’. I agree with Obama when he says this is the time to debate public policies, not name calling.
"Stoked", I challenge you to either define your terms “ultra liberal” and “socialist”, or to discuss any issue in depth. But it is not possible for any one man, not even the president, to ban handguns. Have you studied government at all? Do you know that our government has three branches? I believe that the rumor that, ‘Obama is going to take away our guns’, is just a way use fear to manipulate people. It is just another way to divert attention from wasting 1 trillion dollars of public money, and unleashing the forces which have killed 100,000 plus, people.
Stoked
I will give you some credit, for trying do discuss something, rather than just name calling in your last post. But…
I challenge your statement “Gun control in practice, is the banning of guns.” It sounds like you are saying that anything other than allowing everyone free access to all guns at all times is banning guns? There are government regulations on all sorts of activities, such as driving motor vehicles, voting, buying cigarettes, marriage, etc. The list is endless. Are any of these activities in the process of being banned? In all of those activities, there are minimum requirements needed for government approval. But you are in essence saying that elementary school students should be allowed to carry assault weapons. What about prison inmates? Your statement doesn’t make common sense when examined in depth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkThanos
I'm pretty sure Matthews was a die-hard Clinton supporter. Some might still label that as 'right-wing' lol (she is to the right of Obama anyways), but regardless I think that is his position.
You gotta love McCain. He knows the American people don't want two senators getting on the job training for running their country (Democrats seem not to understand this), so him going for a governor was an obvious choice.
He could have gone for the conventional safe choice that would shore up the base. Lieberman was only a possibility if he needed to throw a hail mary at this point, but running neck and neck McCain only needs to shore up the conservative base. Romney was an obvious choice, but McCain clearly despises Mitt so that was a no go. Tim Polente seemed a good safe choice, but surely wouldn't get anyone talking. Instead, McCain went with the young conservative woman. She shores up the base and will assuredly peel off a fair amount of those Hillary voters who are still on the fence about Obama. Was it a political move? No question there, but you have to make the moves that will give you the best chance of winning. Over the last 6 weeks or so McCain has shown he understands what the right political moves are while Obama has been floundering.
What does picking Palin say about McCain? It says John McCain runs his campaign. It's been decades since we've seen a major party presidential candidate actually be the one who calls the shots, and I must say I find it very refreshing.
The real question here is how will the Democrats respond? They is no way they were ready for this one, and John McCain knew it. The Dems were gearing up for attacking the typical white male conservative, and McCain threw a wrench in. It's not surprising that the Dem knee jerk reaction is to say she's inexperienced. While this will work with the already Obama faithful, the rest of us understand that she is at least as experienced a politician as Obama (she has held elected office longer than him), and the American people would much rather have the inexperienced candidate learning as a number 2 than leading as the number 1.
A friend of mine bet me a couple of weeks ago that his guy Obama was going to win. I accepted his bet and made an additional bet that McCain would win at least 43 states. After yesterday my friend conceded that I would probably win both bets and he even said he's now considering voting for McCain. Fickle, yes; A bellweather representation of the American electorate as a whole, you better believe it.
BTW I am not voting for McCain or Obama unless the state of New York becomes close in the polls (alert to the Obama people who have essentially ignored the safe state of New York: Your poll numbers here have been on a steady decline and the state is less 'safe' everyday). Third party candidates offer up so much more substance so I'm happy to cast my vote for a deserving candidate so long as my vote doesn't matter in my state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you have any clue how much money Cheney made from the fact that Halliburton was awarded billions of dollars in no-bid contracts in Iraq? You know he kept a significant portion of his stock with the company... he made money off a war and your talking about this mortage thing? What a joke.
Chris Matthews was the one who, immediately following the Obama speech defending Reverend Wright, said it sent shivers up his leg and that the speech is the most important speech on race ever given and should be required viewing in every high school across the country. Non-partisan journalism at its best...Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel
She kinda looks like a television sex expert psychologist. Like ya call into the show and ask questions and she gives sex advise. I guess its those glasses that make me think that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugiwara
You're a moron. McCain has no chance of winning of New York. 43 states? What planet are you living on??
I study politics very closely. You'll be eating those words in two months buddyQuote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel
This is a video of Bill Maher last night about Sarah Palin. Absolutely hilarious.
Like VP Cheney shooting his hunting buddy in the face, comedy writers have just been handed a treasure of new material. Thanks John!
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv..._maher_400.jpg
I would say Cali and probably Washington state are locks. The rest will probably be a smattering of Northeast states. Vermont is a lock, New York is probable, he might pick up one or two others. I don't see him having a chance in any other part of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by braveman
Honestly, when I made that bet it was more about making it interesting because I've been pretty confident that McCain will win. However, with Obama snubbing Clinton and McCain going for Palin it makes my bet much more likely to succeed.
The media will now try and explain why Palin is a risky choice and may sink McCain, but you have to realize that one, the major media outlets have made it very obvious they are trying to get Obama elected, and two, they can't outright say the race is over because they need a storyline for the next two months. But rest assured this race is over, the only question left is how badly will Barack lose
Hey, I'm not gonna argue with that map, but Obama has consistently trended downwards since securing the nomination. Also, while I hate to say it, there is precedent that shows that people will say they will vote for the black guy to a pollster, but pull the lever for the white guy in the privacy of the voting booth. I personally think Obama's actual numbers are a few percentage points lower than is being reported, but hey, maybe I'm wrong and racism has been completely eliminated in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by braveman
Anyway, as I said, trends are the thing you need to pay attention to. Obama limped across the finish line and has done nothing to energize his supporters, let alone the all important independents to rally around him. McCain hasn't done a great job at this point of energizing anyone either, but has done a fantastic job of getting people to question Obama, which has added to the downward trend. This Palin pick has already energized the Republican base and is getting the independents talking. I predict that map will begin to turn more red over the next few weeks.
Lets see now, Chicago, Washington DC and the great state of Hawaii takes away the right for ANY CITIZEN to own a gun. That is a ban, not a restriction.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
Say... I dont see you posting to others about name calling, why is that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoked
You may not be aware but, Wash, D.C. recently rescended their ban.
I agree with you Galadriel, except I would use the word criminal instead of joke. And I would include murder in the crimes. The taking of human life, except in self defense is murder. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel
Their estimate of civillian deaths cause by the conflict is 86,000 to 94,000. But others put the numbers as much higher. Repugs want to make this election about whether Obama is wearing a flag pin, or a retired preacher who is going senile. The fact that we can ignore the deaths of innocent people does not shield us from consequences. The image of the US has suffered world wide under Republican leadership. McCain was right up there with them, saying "Bagdad" next, when none of the highjackers were from Iraq.
While people like Stoked are focusing on Obama saving $300 a month on his mortgage, at least one trillion dollars of our money has been mis-spent on this "unholy war". The Repubs in congress have been threatening to fillibuster to prevent tax incentives from being taken away from the oil companies.
That and the fact that the department of Defense cannot account for trillions, yes trillions of dollars that it has spent. Yet some people want to focus on whether Obama had his hand over his heart during the national anthem. We the people, deserve better than these lowroad distractions.
True, because that is where it was challenged and that challenge was theQuote:
Originally Posted by CORVETTEDUDE
reason for the Supreme Court decision upholding the right to own firearms. It certainly was not by their choice.
We will see death and crimes rates involving guns going down in the future there.
You are so right, whatever was I thinking. If Obama Biden takes office, he will have a dialogue asking Osama Bin Laden and his terrorists to(oops, i am name calling again) turn themselves in for taking the lives of innocent people around the world, and most of the 90,000 dubious civilian casualties you state. All radical muslims will embrace this new idea and cease their willy ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by yodajazz
NObama's platform position is change... change, change, change... how is accepting sweetheart deals change?Quote:
Originally Posted by Galadriel
mmmm drink more Koolaid
Just like his temper problem, McCain has been said by Senate insiders to tell racist and sexist jokes all the time. This guy called his wife Cindy a "cunt" in public and cheated on his first wife, while she was battling a serious illness with other women (remember Newt Gingrich), including Cindy McCain, who he eventually married.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beagle
As far as Barack being an elitist, give me a fuchin break. I guarantee most U.S Senators live in homes worth over 1 million dollars. The Clintons own several million dollars properties. Barack Obama's family net worth is about 4 million dollars (which according to John McCain only makes the Obama family upper middle class, since they're below the 5 million dollar "you're wealthy" baseline McCain mentioned in an interview). John and Cindy McCain's net worth is around $150 million. Mitt Romney's is a little more than that and the Clintons are well over 50 million. So spare me the elitist bullshyt. I'm not a Republican, but I can admit that Gov. Sarah Palin is no elitist, from the interviews I've heard so far. Her husband still works in the oil industry in Alaska, as a "sloper" which is a quasi-blue collar position. I deal in truth, not partisan bullshyt. I profoundly disagree with her Ronald Reagan-esque views on government, as I witnessed first hand living in NYC the devastation wrought in poor communities of color during the 80's as a child and the "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous" life of the Wall Street crowd of the 80's. Barack is 100% right, Trickle-Down economics or the "Ownership Society" is a bullshyt premise the GOP uses to keep the upper 5% in power and drowning in wealth.
BEAGLE, ELITIST DON'T QUIT HIGH PAYING, CUSHY LAW FIRM JOBS LIKE BARACK AND MICHELLE DID, WITH THOUSANDS IN STUDENT LOANS HANGING OVER THEIR HEADS TO WORK IN THE POOREST PARTS OF INNER CITY CHICAGO, AS COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS ELITIST NONSENSE ONLY GETS TRACTION AMONGST IDIOTS BECAUSE BARACK IS A MAN OF COLOR. FOR A WHITE MAN TO GET THE ELITIST TITLE, HE'D HAVE TO WORTH WAY MORE THAN BARACK, BE A MEMBER OF SKULLS & BONES OR SOME OTHER SECRET SOCIETY AND LOOK DOWN ON POOR PEOPLE VEHEMENTLY. JOHN MCCAIN DOESN'T EVEN REMEMBER HOW MANY HOMES HE AND CINDY OWNS, BUT HE'S NOT AN ELITIST, JUST BECAUSE HE IS A FORMER POW & WAR VETERAN (as he told David Letterman).
BEAGLE, STOP LISTENENING TO A-HOLES LIKE SEAN HANNITY AND RUSH LIMBAUGH, WHO ARE THE REAL ELITIST. THEY'RE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY ONLY SERVICES THE RICH, BUT THEY'RE QUICK TO TALK ABOUT GOOD, HARD WORKING AMERICANS, AS LONG AS THEIR RICH ASSES GET TAX BREAKS UP THE KAZOO. SOME DEMOCRATS ARE NO BETTER AND I"M A DEMOCRAT. B.S IS B.S, BECAUSE IT STINKS NO MATTER WHO SAYS IT.
McCain put his wife in a titty contest, holla!