Rethiniking the Obama win...

[whottt]

Ok, I've rethought things and...


It still sucks. What in the fuck were you people thinking?


Fucking dumbasses.


Anyway...this is just to let you guys know that I haven't disappeared...I got sick.


Freaking election judge had me seated between two motherfuckers with the flu on Tues for 14 some odd hours and there was no way to avoid that crossfire.




Anyway, I will be back later on to post some more of my thoughts on this disaster(the impending Obama Presidency, not that flu I got from those two assholes).

[ElNono]

Ok, I've rethought things and...
It still sucks. What in the fuck were you people thinking?
Fucking dumbasses.
Anyway...this is just to let you guys know that I haven't disappeared...I got sick.
Freaking election judge had me seated between two motherfuckers with the flu on Tues and there was no way to avoid that crossfire.
Anyway, I will be back later on to post some more of my thoughts on this disaster(the impending Obama Presidency, not that flu I got from those two assholes).

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm281/tawtedcrow/EatCrow.jpg

[whottt]

Yes ElNono...you are still on ignore.

[Spurminator]

Ok, I've rethought things and...


It still sucks. What in the fuck were you people thinking?


Fucking dumbasses.


:lmao

[florige]

Yes ElNono...you are still on ignore.



:lol

[RandomGuy]

I will be back later on to post some more of my thoughts on this disaster(the impending Obama Presidency, not that flu I got from those two assholes).

:corn:

:clap

Be sure to make some solid predictions that can be verified or not at a later date.

[MannyIsGod]

Whottt - you voted for George W. Bush. Are you really every allowed to question anyone's electoral judgment again?

Its like you're questioning your boys prom date when the skank you brought has 3 sores on her lips and smells like nasty cheese and wine or something.

[ElNono]

Yes ElNono...you are still on ignore.

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/85500/85630OTvs_w.jpg

[DarkReign]

Whottt - you voted for George W. Bush. Are you really every allowed to question anyone's electoral judgment again?

Its like you're questioning your boys prom date when the skank you brought has 3 sores on her lips and smells like nasty cheese and wine or something.

But she was his pick, not yours. His pick is better for everyone, your pick is better for you.

[whottt]

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000...I voted for him in 2004. There's a major difference there....by 2004 the damage was done and Bush was then better then what the Democrats were offering.


In 2000 I was in a state of shock that the American people had been stupid enough to actually elect Bush.


And you know this whole election I kept saying there was no way Obama would be elected because he was too far to the left and my favorite line to point this out was:

"Hint: We just elected Bush in 2004".

This actually should have been your response to me everytime I said there is no way the American people would be stupid enough to elect Obama.

[baseline bum]

Yes ElNono...you are still on ignore.

Here's what ElNono said:

http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm281/tawtedcrow/EatCrow.jpg

[ElNono]

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000...I voted for him in 2004. There's a major difference there....by 2004 the damage was done and Bush was then better then what the Democrats were offering.


In 2000 I was in a state of shock that the American people have been stupid enough to actually elect Bush.


And you know this whole election I kept saying there was no way Obama would be elected because he was too far to the left and my favorite line to point this out was:

"Hint: We just elected Bush in 2004".

This actually should have been your response to me everytime I said there is no way the American people would be stupid enough to elect Obama.

http://www.slublog.com/archives/denial.jpg

[Oh, Gee!!]

Anyway...this is just to let you guys know that I haven't disappeared

I will be back later on to post some more of my thoughts..

haven't you taken enough abuse yet? you're a glutton

[Oh, Gee!!]

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000. In 2000 I was in a state of shock that the American people had been stupid enough to actually elect Bush.



I voted for him in 2004.....by 2004 the damage was done

makes perfect sense

[clambake]

:cheer Palin in 2012 :cheer

[George Gervin's Afro]

:cheer Palin in 2012 :cheer

You betcha!

[possessed]

Will she still be hot in 4 years? If not, then count me out.

[lebomb]

:cheer Palin in 2012 :cheer


"yeah, Ima Mavwick"

[ChumpDumper]

So there wasn't Massive Vote Fraud?

[ElNono]

So there wasn't Massive Vote Fraud?

I can't answer that if you don't give me the current unemployment rate in Sudan...


Oh boy, here we go again...

[clambake]

how does someone rethink something they never put any thought into?

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000...I voted for him in 2004. There's a major difference there....by 2004 the damage was done and Bush was then better then what the Democrats were offering.

I love that logic. "Sure, this guy just messed up the past four years... so let's give him four more! He can't be worse than the Democrat!"

[DarkReign]

I love that logic. "Sure, this guy just messed up the past four years... so let's give him four more! He can't be worse than the Democrat!"

Admittedly, Kerry was one of the weaker canddiates I can remember. Dukakis was before my time.

[RandomGuy]

Admittedly, Kerry was one of the weaker canddiates I can remember. Dukakis was before my time.

He wasn't before mine. Kerry was a bit stronger.

1988 was my first time voting for president at the bright eyed age of 18. I turned 18 just before the Wyoming deadline to register. yay.

[Findog]

whottt is displaying some of the fine, trenchant wisdom we can come to expect from the regional sect known as the GOP. Elitist snobbery is in, so suck it mouthbreathers!

[Nbadan]

I didn't vote for Bush in 2000...I voted for him in 2004.

So you voted to help the sinking ship sink? That's worse...

[DarrinS]

So there wasn't Massive Vote Fraud?


That charge is only leveled when DEMS lose.

[baseline bum]

That charge is only leveled when DEMS lose.

What are you talking about? That charge was leveled against the Democrats for the entire last month of the presidential race.

[shelshor]

From the antiwar folks
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13728

Forget the Honeymoon
Getting down to bizness with Obama
by Justin Raimondo
November 7, 2008
When I hear talk of a "honeymoon" for the President-elect – to last as long as six months, by some accounts – I think: "Fine. You lay off, and I'll do the same." But oh no, it doesn't work that way. Obama has already started in on us, and he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet. I'm talking about his appointments, starting with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.

Hey, I thought we were gong to be treated to a bipartisan approach by the Obama administration, that he was going to "reach across the aisle" – what happened to that? Señor Emanuel is known as a street-fightin' Democrat, and that's understating it. A Rolling Stone profile of Emanuel had this to say:

"There's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name. 'When he was done, the table looked like a lunar landscape,' one campaign veteran recalls. 'It was like something out of The Godfather.'"

He's mean, he's ultra-partisan, and he's a fully-paid up member in good standing of the War Party: during the Democratic primaries in 2006, when Emanuel headed up the Dems' congressional operation, he backed pro-war candidates over antiwar Democrats every time. As Bill Safire put it on "Meet the Press" just before Tim Russert died:

"What about Rahm Emanuel [for Vice President], the most powerful voice in the House of Representatives that agrees with Hillary Clinton on foreign affairs? He's a hawk. And although he's a rootin' tootin' liberal on domestic affairs, he is a hawk on foreign affairs. I was at the – a roast for him for Epilepsy Association, and Hillary Clinton was there, and I said, quite frankly, here you have the hawkish side of the Democratic Party. If they get together, the bumper sticker will read 'Invade and bomb with Hillary and Rahm.'"

When the House Democratic majority passed a military appropriations bill slated for Iraq, a clause that would have prohibited an attack on Iran without a vote in Congress was deleted at the instigation of Emanuel and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. When Rep. John Murtha presaged the popular rebellion against the Iraq war by coming out against it in no uncertain terms, Emanuel urged Pelosi to refrain from endorsing his call for withdrawal, arguing that it would hurt the Democrats politically.

With the smiling face of Don Obama serving as a front for the knife-wielding Emanuel and his "legendary intensity" – as Rolling Stone writer Joshua Green puts it – one has to wonder: what (or who) else does the Prez-elect have in store for us?

The answer is: Jane Harman – as head of the CIA! (If she doesn't get it, not to worry: she's also up for head of Homeland Security – and if she doesn't get that, she's on the short list for National Intelligence czarina).

Will somebody go see if Glenn Greenwald is okay? I fear he may have done something drastic, especially after all that gushing he's done over the Dear Leader.

Harman has always taken the side of the Bushies when it comes to eavesdropping: during Gen Michael Hayden's confirmation hearings for CIA director, she was against making government eavesdropping an issue. When the New York Times revealed the illegal eavesdropping program authorized by Bush, she was outraged – at the Times, which she strongly hinted ought to be prosecuted. She was pro-war, and did her part in spreading the "bad intel" she now claims to have been fooled by – declaring not only that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but also purveying the rather far-out notion that al-Qaeda had taken up residence there prior to the US invasion.

Harman's ambition is matched only by her recklessness: she came up against the FBI, in 2006, when she was investigated for going a little too far in her aggressive campaign to retain her seat as head of the House Intelligence Committee. Apparently she had AIPAC officials and major Democratic donors personally lobby Pelosi, in return for the promise that she, Harman, would intercede on behalf of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two top AIPAC officials currently being prosecuted for stealing US top secret intelligence and passing it on to Israeli officials. Law enforcement officials aver hard evidence for this quid pro quo was never uncovered. I'm hoping, however, that some Republican back-bencher has the balls to bring it up at her confirmation hearing. Perhaps they could call Pelosi as a witness.

Combined with the foreign policy views of Dennis Ross, Obama's senior advisor for Middle East affairs – who is reportedly up for the National Security Advisor slot – what seems to be shaping up is a perfect trifecta of trouble on the horizon. The old adage that presidents rarely govern in synch with the way they campaign applies here, and in spades. Change? Not in the foreign policy realm, buster. Indeed, if any change is involved, it may well be for the worse.

By the time Obama is through making his appointments, all those Hollywood liberals over at the HuffPuffPost will be huffing and puffing with outrage: and, in true Hollywood style, they'll be screaming: "Forget the honeymoon – I want a divorce!"

But it will be too late for that. The Big O marches on, with all sorts of plans for our future, including perhaps "national service," and – for sure – a significant ratcheting-up of the war in Afghanistan. In the meantime, Iran continues to loom large as an issue.

Just as Obama was claiming his victory, the Iranians were warning us to stay away from their airspace – there have apparently been a number of close calls recently. Also, the Russians announced they were putting missiles near their border with Poland, to counter the sophisticated anti-missile "defense" systems put in place by the US and its Eastern European ally. Adding insult to injury, the official explanation for the US deployment is that the anti-missile system is there to guard against an Iranian attack. Whether the Obama-ites buy into this sort of malarkey or not isn't clear. What is all too obvious, however, is that President Obama will continue the West's war of words – and "soft power" – against the Russians, a prospect that bodes ill for the cause of peace.

So, you thought you were turning over a whole new leaf for the country when you marked your ballot for the Dear Leader – didn't you? Well, surprise – surprise!

~ Justin Raimondo

[RandomGuy]

So you voted to help the sinking ship sink? That's worse...

As a Democrat, even though I voted for Kerry, I must admit that Bush has been the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in 40 years.

Thanks, George, and thanks whottt for voting him back into office.

[Wild Cobra]

What are you talking about? That charge was leveled against the Democrats for the entire last month of the presidential race.
Thing is, the win was by enough, that cheating doesn't much matter. Where is probably occurred didn’t change the results. Except maybe Minnesota. Funny how they keep finding votes for Al Frankenstein.

[ChumpDumper]

Tell us what fraud "probably" occurred.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

"There's the story of how, the night after Clinton was elected, Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! . . . Dead! . . . Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."

Okay, seriously. Has no Republican ever seen Animal House?

[MannyIsGod]

Thing is, the win was by enough, that cheating doesn't much matter. Where is probably occurred didn’t change the results. Except maybe Minnesota. Funny how they keep finding votes for Al Frankenstein.

Funny isn't it? Funny how after the recount he's likely to end up the winner isn't it?

HA HA HA HA

Funny.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

That charge is only leveled when DEMS lose.

Except the fact that it has been a vintage republican tactic to blame fraud on democrats since Nixon

[Wild Cobra]

Funny isn't it? Funny how after the recount he's likely to end up the winner isn't it?

HA HA HA HA

Funny.

You know, I really don't care. Minnesota has lost my respect however for having so many people vote for Frankin. It is nothing buy a scumbag liar.

Ever listen to him when he had a radio program? He constantly lied.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

You know, I really don't care. Minnesota has lost my respect however for having so many people vote for Frankin. It is nothing buy a scumbag liar.

Ever listen to him when he had a radio program? He constantly lied.

You retained respect for them post Jesse Ventura?

[PixelPusher]

Okay, seriously. Has no Republican ever seen Animal House?

They probably assumed it was a documentary about the excesses of leftist campus radicals, and didn't bother.

[ChumpDumper]

You know, I really don't care. Minnesota has lost my respect however for having so many people vote for Frankin. It is nothing buy a scumbag liar.

Ever listen to him when he had a radio program? He constantly lied.You care so little, you keep babbling on about it.

[whottt]

makes perfect sense


Yes douche...bag...it did make perfect sense. We couldn't undo the decision to go into Iraq, regardless of whether or not they had WMD.

[whottt]

So there wasn't Massive Vote Fraud?

Oh ye of the slothlike synaptic function...

Since my definition of massive was never based on some set number of votes but rather the total impact on the election in any form including that which could lead to fraudulent eclectoral votes being cast, and since McCain failed to get as many votes as either Kerry or Bush in 2004...no, but not for the reasons you stupidly conclude.

By your definition massive voter fraud certainly could have occurred....by my definition none did.


In any case...you need to shut your hole since you predicted a McCain victory...nothing worse than a shittalking fence rider.

[ElNono]

Oh ye of the slothlike synaptic function...

Since my definition of massive was never based on some set number of votes but rather the total impact on the election in any form including that which could lead to fraudulent eclectoral votes being cast, and since McCain failed to get as many votes as either Kerry or Bush in 2004...no, but not for the reasons you stupidly conclude.

By your definition massive voter fraud certainly could have occurred....by my definition none did.

In any case...you need to shut your hole since you predicted a McCain victory...nothing worse than a shittalking fence rider.

You still talking?

[ChumpDumper]

Oh ye of the slothlike synaptic function...

Since my definition of massive was never based on some set number of votes but rather the total impact on the election in any form including that which could lead to fraudulent eclectoral votes being cast, and since McCain failed to get as many votes as either Kerry or Bush in 2004...no, but not for the reasons you stupidly conclude.

By your definition massive voter fraud certainly could have occurred....by my definition none did.


In any case...you need to shut your hole since you predicted a McCain victory...nothing worse than a shittalking fence rider.:lmao

You have been so completely fucking owned this election, there's nothing to do but laugh.

Show me your Massive Vote Fraud, bitch.

[kwhitegocubs]

I'm really sad that I missed the original whott-based fireworks. I keep seeing in ElNono's sig that he predicted McCain would win New York. WHAT!???

I wish I could have seen the "logic" of the full posts that could even conceive of such a thing!

[Tully365]

There's a certain poetic justice in the fact that your own title reads Rethiniking...
maybe subconsciously even you realize that your thiniking has been jumbled and disoriented for the past few months.

[DarkReign]

I wish I could have seen the "logic" of the full posts that could even conceive of such a thing!

Whottt is a smart dude, but you just used the word logic in a sentence describing a person who sincerely believes he's smarter than everyone.

There are two people on this forum who can claim that and he isnt one of them (nor am I, to be clear).

[whottt]

I'm really sad that I missed the original whott-based fireworks. I keep seeing in ElNono's sig that he predicted McCain would win New York. WHAT!???

I wish I could have seen the "logic" of the full posts that could even conceive of such a thing!


The impetus for all my predictions was primarily instinct, it was what my gut told me and I felt totally comfortable doing that based on my success in predicting the past popular vote winners...this was the first time I have been wrong in my entire life.

That said, I do feel I made some faily valid arguments with at least some sort of backing for those predictions....

For instance, that New York prediction while it was entirely a gut prediction, I did argue there was some validity to that prediction on the basis that Obama did not win New York and was dealt a rather sound asskicking by Hillary Clinton there.


Even still, I never had a hard argument to back up those predictions, and just about every bit of available evidence was going against me and I never claimed otherwise....I chose to go with my instinct and not believe the polls.

I still feel I did a better job of arguing it than most people would have.

To tell you the truth I am genuinely amazed I was as off as badly as I was...I've never miscalled the winner of the popular vote in my life, and I am still trying to kind of figure out exactly what changed...I think it's simply that I am getting old.

Instinctively, I didn't think America would elect a Black President...

I didn't think America would elect a leftist/socialist President...this was the #1 thing for me.

And oh my god...I didn't think America would elect a dude named Hussein President...and it is to my everlasting shame that we did. I hate being a capitulator, even if I am part of it entirely against my will. We are now a Nation of cowards and appeasers forevermore.

Of course it could be...the same idiots that stupidly showed up to vote for Bush in 2000 stayed home to vote in 2008. I am kind of leaning towards this one right now...


We'll see what happens...when I am off it's usually because I get ahead of myself, it's entirely possible that the majority of America does not yet realize what Obama is politically, much like a large segment of idiots didn't realize what Bush was in 2000...Obama's going to suck, and IMO this is going to be probably the most corrupt administration and congress, in history, and we also have a completely corrupt media..and I doubt we ever recover from it as a Nation. We'll just have to see what happens in four years, many of my predictions may come true then.

[whottt]

There are two people on this forum who can claim that and he isnt one of them (nor am I, to be clear).

And who are these two that can make that claim?

[whottt]

:lmao

You have been so completely fucking owned this election, there's nothing to do but laugh.

So I was wrong about the number of idiots in the country...it happens. I didn't get owend nearly as badly as the people that voted for Obama did...I hate to break it to you bud.




Show me your Massive Vote Fraud, bitch.

56 million votes makes it a moot point....and stop using red. That is annoying.

[ChumpDumper]

So I was wrong about the number of idiots in the country...it happens. I didn't get owend nearly as badly as the people that voted for Obama did...I hate to break it to you bud.:rollin Keep posting this shit. We love it.




56 million votes makes it a moot point....and stop using red. That is annoying.Tough shit. You were the idiot who guaranteed Massive Vote Fraud as the only way Obama could win. Now you get to live with being wrong about Massive Vote Fraud and have it thrown in your face at our leisure.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

I still feel I did a better job of arguing it than most people would have. Of course you did. The only other people trying to make most of your arguments wear tin foil hats and have nappies after num num. The fact that no one credible was trying to make the same arguments should have, however, been a clue.


Of course it could be...the same idiots that stupidly showed up to vote for Bush in 2000 stayed home to vote in 2008. I am kind of leaning towards this one right now... Massive voter fraud = no ...but... Massive voter apathy = YES!
At least say ala peanut butter sandwiches when you post this kind of magic trick.


IMO this is going to be probably the most corrupt administration and congress, in history, and we also have a completely corrupt media... More corrupt than the administration of the last eight years would require some amazing effort. I think you should maybe retire the predictions for the moment.


and I doubt we ever recover from it as a Nation. We'll just have to see what happens in four years... If we're not going to ever recover, what does it matter what happens in four years?


...many of my predictions may come true then.Wait around long enough and anything's possible.

[smeagol]

whottt, you are ashamed America voted a guy named Hussein?

WTF?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

whottt, you are ashamed America voted a guy named Hussein?

WTF?

whottt the fuck, is right!

[DarkReign]

And who are these two that can make that claim?

I am quite sure you can guess one of them, he is sort of the board recognized genius. The other is just my personal impression.

[smeagol]

I am quite sure you can guess one of them, he is sort of the board recognized genius. The other is just my personal impression.

I'm the other.

[RandomGuy]

I am quite sure you can guess one of them, he is sort of the board recognized genius. The other is just my personal impression.

The former would be Extra Stout. Pretty easy consensus. He is at the very least one of the most educated guys I have seen.

The second... not so easy. I would say scott (the economics professor).

[ChumpDumper]

You guys are way off.

It's clearly Galileo and Wild Cobra.

[MannyIsGod]

Whottt is a smart dude, but you just used the word logic in a sentence describing a person who sincerely believes he's smarter than everyone.

There are two people on this forum who can claim that and he isnt one of them (nor am I, to be clear).


And who are these two that can make that claim?

FWDT and ES and its not even close.

[Jelly]

stout strikes me as a VERY smart guy. Whott is smart too... but also, quite insane.

[ChumpDumper]

Most of us here aren't as smart as we think we are. Some of us are worse at hiding it than others.

[ClingingMars]

it still sucks. oh well, are you gonna sit there sulking or are you gonna get off yer ass and start doing something about it? it all starts with getting the rhinos out of Congress, and using the Republican primaries to do so.

-Mars

[clambake]

which rino's?

[ClingingMars]

which rino's?

John Warner of my home state would be a start.

-Mars

[Creepn]

Honestly, I think everybody here on the forums are pretty smart individuals. Some are a little misguided or have crazy opinions, but they are still smart nonetheless.

[clambake]

John Warner of my home state would be a start.

-Mars

he voted 83.4% of the time with his party.

not enough?

[tp2021]

FWDT and ES and its not even close.

+Over 9000

[ChumpDumper]

John Warner of my home state would be a start.

-MarsBreaking news!

August 31, 2007, 2:57 pm
Senator Warner Announces Retirement
By Kate Phillips

Senator John Warner, 80, just announced that he would retire from his seat in Virginia at the end of his term.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/31/senator-warner-announces-retirement/

[Findog]

he voted 83.4% of the time with his party.

not enough?

Yes, the GOP needs to become even more conservative. They were clearly punished on November 4th for not being conservative enough.

[ClingingMars]

Yes, the GOP needs to become even more conservative. They were clearly punished on November 4th for not being conservative enough.

well yes, we put a moderate as the front-runner, and look what happened. compare that to Prop 8 in CA, one of the most "liberal" states in the Union. conservatism wins when it's on the ballot.

-Mars

[Findog]

well yes, we put a moderate as the front-runner,

McCain is pretty conservative. And his extremely conservative running mate frightened off everybody that isn't a right-wing Republican. So yes, in the interests of an enduring progressive majority, keep drifting rightward. :tu

That you think McCain is a "moderate" is frightening. He has an extremely conservative voting record. He just doesn't enjoy pandering to right-wing Evangelicals.



and look what happened. compare that to Prop 8 in CA, one of the most "liberal" states in the Union. conservatism wins when it's on the ballot.

Blacks as a group are extremely homophobic. Increased turnout for Obama in California meant the passage of Prop 8. Blacks supported Prop 8 by a margin of 70-30. Has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism and everything to do with homophobia in the black community.

[ClingingMars]

McCain is pretty conservative. And his extremely conservative running mate frightened off everybody that isn't a right-wing Republican. So yes, in the interests of an enduring progressive majority, keep drifting rightward. :tu

That you think McCain is a "moderate" is frightening. He has an extremely conservative voting record. He just doesn't enjoy pandering to right-wing Evangelicals.



Blacks as a group are extremely homophobic. Increased turnout for Obama in California meant the passage of Prop 8. Blacks supported Prop 8 by a margin of 70-30. Has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism and everything to do with homophobia in the black community.

extremely conservative? shows what you know about conservatives. ask anyone who's even partially right wing and they will tell you McCain is a moderate. during the primaries I had more trouble with him that any other candidate, save Ron Paul. There's McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, the Gang of 12, cap and trade, global warming, and the Bush tax cuts to name a few.

homophobic? lmao, it's called conservative principles.


It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

-Mars

[Findog]

extremely conservative?

Yes, dumbass, look at his voting record. There's plenty there to warm the conservative heart.


shows what you know about conservatives. ask anyone who's even partially right wing and they will tell you McCain is a moderate.

By your standards, he's too "moderate." By normal, well-adjusted person standards, he's conservative.


during the primaries I had more trouble with him that any other candidate, save Ron Paul.

Oh yes, Ron Paul and his opposition to neoconservative foreign policy. If you believe in unfettered war so much, why don't you head on down to your local recruiting office. Otherwise, you're a chickenhawk.



homophobic? lmao, it's called conservative principles.

Discrimination is "conservative principles?" No wonder your side got your asses kicked in two successive election cycles. I just love that the GOP is becoming a regional sect and the home of white, evangelical Christians. If you're not a white, evangelical christian, then the GOP has no appeal. The GOP's only choice is to either join the 21st century or become a permanent minority party.

:lmao

[ClingingMars]

Yes, dumbass, look at his voting record. There's plenty there to warm the conservative heart.



By your standards, he's too "moderate." By normal, well-adjusted person standards, he's conservative.



Oh yes, Ron Paul and his opposition to neoconservative foreign policy. If you believe in unfettered war so much, why don't you head on down to your local recruiting office. Otherwise, you're a chickenhawk.




Discrimination is "conservative principles?" No wonder your side got your asses kicked in two successive election cycles. I just love that the GOP is becoming a regional sect and the home of white, evangelical Christians. If you're not a white, evangelical christian, then the GOP has no appeal. The GOP's only choice is to either join the 21st century or become a permanent minority party.

:lmao

I DID look at his voting record you dumbass, and I listed various instances in which conservatives did not agree with him, which you basically ignored. there's a reason why when he was nominated people though he wouldn't win because conservatives wouldn't care enough to vote for him. you have to be shitting me if you're trying to say that he was a conservative.

it's called attacking them before they fuck us over again. and since there hasn't been another attack, it seems to be working.

it's not fucking discrimination. they can have civil unions and be gay and do whatever, but they cannot change the institution of marriage. sorry. quite honestly it's not a priority in my book compared to abortion but it's still a conservative principle. and no, the GOP is for anyone who believes in the principles of limited government and the rule of law. not just white people, not just Christians. anybody. i love how Democrats just love to use the race/religion card all the time to paint the Republicans, but get all riled up when we call them out on it.

-Mars

[DarkReign]

FWDT and ES and its not even close.

Boom shakalaka.

[kwhitegocubs]

I don't see how you can possibly attribute allegiance to "conservative values" to African Americans as a demographic. Even with White Democrats running, they vote 85% or more for the Democratic party. They tend towards the liberal end of things on most policies. However, sad as it is to say, black culture does tend towards homophobia.

As proof, I'd like to cite a 2007 ABC/Wash. Post poll from late 2007. On the issue of Civil Unions, which a strong majority of Americans support (55 to 42), blacks only supported it at a 45% level. Whites were at 56%. That is a significant gap that goes almost directly against each macro-ethnic group's party leanings.

[DarkReign]

The second... not so easy. I would say scott (the economics professor).

I dont have enough interaction with scott to know, but I trust your judgement.

[LnGrrrR]

extremely conservative? shows what you know about conservatives. ask anyone who's even partially right wing and they will tell you McCain is a moderate. during the primaries I had more trouble with him that any other candidate, save Ron Paul. There's McCain Feingold, McCain Kennedy, the Gang of 12, cap and trade, global warming, and the Bush tax cuts to name a few.

homophobic? lmao, it's called conservative principles.



-Mars

You had a problem with RON PAUL? Ron Paul is more conservative than anyone up there. Please define what your 'conservatism' consists of.

[LnGrrrR]

it's called attacking them before they fuck us over again. and since there hasn't been another attack, it seems to be working.
-Mars

Yeah dumbasses! We have to attack Iraq to get back at those Saudi Arabian guys who flew the planes into our towers! DUHHHH!!!

[Findog]

I DID look at his voting record you dumbass, and I listed various instances in which conservatives did not agree with him, which you basically ignored. there's a reason why when he was nominated people though he wouldn't win because conservatives wouldn't care enough to vote for him. you have to be shitting me if you're trying to say that he was a conservative.



He votes with the GOP over 90% of the time. That's fucking conservative. EVERY politician has recorded votes where they stray from their party. They'll buck their party in favor of voting in line with what their constituents or certain campaign contributors want. Right-wing radio just highlights the few instances in which McCain falls just short of complete allegiance to the GOP agenda and your lazy sheep ass dutifully gets in line and agrees that he's some sort of flaming moderate. Give me a fucking break.




it's called attacking them before they fuck us over again. and since there hasn't been another attack, it seems to be working.

This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.



it's not fucking discrimination. they can have civil unions and be gay and do whatever, but they cannot change the institution of marriage. sorry. quite honestly it's not a priority in my book compared to abortion but it's still a conservative principle. and no, the GOP is for anyone who believes in the principles of limited government and the rule of law. not just white people, not just Christians. anybody. i love how Democrats just love to use the race/religion card all the time to paint the Republicans, but get all riled up when we call them out on it.

Okay, I was wrong, this is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. Nobody can ever explain how gay marriage in any way shape or form affects heterosexual marriage. If the only thing at stake were just semantics over "civil unions" and "gay marriage," everything would be fine. Prop 8 takes away rights. Get a fucking clue.

[Findog]

You had a problem with RON PAUL? Ron Paul is more conservative than anyone up there. Please define what your 'conservatism' consists of.

What passes for "conservatism" today is dismissing the work of Nobel Prize winning economists in favor of the financial acumen of Joe the Plumber, and eschewing diplomats and ambassadors in favor journalists that don't speak a foreign language and have never needed a passport. It is anti-knowledge and anti-reality. Their "conservatism" means aggression abroad, regressive and mean as hell economic policies at home, as well as for eliminating barriers to government sanction of Christianity. It's repugnant.

In one breath, Clinging Dingleberry says he is for limited government and the rule of law, when his precious President Bush presided over the biggest expansion of government in history, while pushing the Patriot Act through Congress and instituting the torture of detainees. It's like, are you for fucking real????? When did conservatives go from George Will and William F. Buckley to being the Idiocracy Party?

[kwhitegocubs]

Hell, even Goldwater was supporting Democratic candidates at the end of his life.

How the philosophical conservatives and ChristianHeritagePartyRepublicans can even fit inside the same tag is beyond me. I guess it's "strategic voting" for the most part, but the co-existence is near the end of its useful life cycle imho.

[whottt]

it still sucks. oh well, are you gonna sit there sulking or are you gonna get off yer ass and start doing something about it? it all starts with getting the rhinos out of Congress, and using the Republican primaries to do so.

-Mars

Are you directing this to me?

I'm not a conservative...I'm a moderate. I think people that live and die and vote by party affiliation are total idiots.

There are smart people in both parties, there are idiots in both parties...there are honest politicians in both parties, there are corrupt politicians in both parties. The more hardwired and inflexible they are into a set idology, IMO, the more corrupt and stupid they are...generally speaking.

Someone calling themself a Democrat doesn't automatically make them smart, or honest...and anyone that thinks that(as just about every party loyalist does)...is a moron.

I could care less about one party over the other...I care about who the leading voices are...I care about the world political climate is...I care about balance.


IOW...I am not going to do jack shit to improve the Republicans or Democrats fortunes...it's up to them to get their message out to me....it's up to them to get their message out to the voters.

I've been on the right for the simple reason that after Bush won in 2000 the Democrats could have remained exactly as they were and been the better party...instead they got stupider.

For all I know the Republicans are going to do the exact same thing over the next 4 years although I sincerely hope they won't...


As I definitely do not like the people in charge of the Democratic Party right now...I do not like the prominent voices in the Democratic Party...they are far left, they hardwired into that ideology...to me that means the potential for both corruption and stupidity is enormous. I can only hope Obama is not as far left as he seems...

If that is the case, with this government and this media...a section of Americans with every bit of the same rights as any other section of Americans...is about to get an enormous shit taken on them.






Not one single time have in history have we had an extermist President and Congress on the same side of the fence, that it hasn't completely sucked.



The last time we had this sort of polarity totally tilted towards one side was the Carter Administration...and good god did that suck hardcore.

[whottt]

Hell, even Goldwater was supporting Democratic candidates at the end of his life.

How the philosophical conservatives and ChristianHeritagePartyRepublicans can even fit inside the same tag is beyond me. I guess it's "strategic voting" for the most part, but the co-existence is near the end of its useful life cycle imho.


I hate to tell you this slick...but our President elect practices a relgion that is a total and complete marriage of religion and politics.


Something for you guys to think about over the next 4 years...bitching about religious extremists is going to sound awful stupid coming from a segment of voters that just elected arguably the most religiously extremist President in history...and his religion is infected with agressive political aspirations. His religion is a political movement.

I hope you guys love theocrats...because you just put something awfully close to one in the whitehouse.

Bush OTOH could have given two shits about religion...

[PixelPusher]

I hope you guys love theocrats...because you just put something awfully close to one in the whitehouse.

Bush OTOH could have given two shits about religion...

The election is over...step out of your bizzaro, opposite-world universe and join the rest of us in the real world.

[whottt]

The election is over...step out of your bizzaro, opposite-world universe and join the rest of us in the real world.

Yeah you evidentally didn't pay much attention to the church your candidate goes too...there's nothing bizzare about what I said...what's bizzare is you guys criticizing anyone else for their candidates zealotry.

[whottt]

You know I've been trying to think when the last time was that I miscalled the result of something this badly.....it finally came to me...the 94 NBA Finals right down to the game 7. I'd have bet both my nuts that the Rockets were going to choke, especially in the game 7.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Yeah you evidentally didn't pay much attention to the church your candidate goes too...there's nothing bizzare about what I said...what's bizzare is you guys criticizing anyone else for their candidates zealotry.

Does anyone else long for the day when public opinion isn't formed by a bunch of high-profile soundbites taken out of context? *sigh*

[clambake]

Does anyone else long for the day when public opinion isn't formed by a bunch of high-profile soundbites taken out of context? *sigh*

here's my favorite soundbite:

"If you care about my job you'll vote for McCain".

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ Obama being a theocrat.

Whottt, its so obvious you have absolutely no clue about who Obama is. You've shown it time and time again. You can't get over the middle name I guess.

[whottt]

LOL @ Obama being a theocrat.

I didn't say he was one...I said he was close to one. The religious beliefs of his preacher certainly are complete fusion of church and state. It's ludicrous to even attempt to say otherwise.



Whottt, its so obvious you have absolutely no clue about who Obama is.

Exactly right...I don't know who he is because he has no track record of note to speak of...and because he had not made himself open, something any Presidential Candidate should have to do...and because the media buries any sort of negativity about him.



You've shown it time and time again. You can't get over the middle name I guess.

It's not a matter of whether or not I can get over his middle...it's a matter of what his middle name represents, both within the country, and without. There is no way you convince me that thousands of Anti-American Terrorists don't consider this a sign of fear and symbolic victory for themselves...

That's why I considered electing him an act of appeasement, and capitulation.


I won't say that his middle name would have kept me from voting for him under any circumstance, because that would be untrue...I almost voted for him inspite of it...hoever that middle name symbolizes manything America is at odds with currently, and for me to have voted for him he'd have had to have easily been the better candidate...or perhaps be on the right side of the issue I consider most important...and that simply wasn't the case.


All that said...I'm actually encouraged by some of his recent cabinet appointees. They weren't as bad as I thought they would be...generally speaking.


Do not attempt to hold my openmindedness against me...

[whottt]

Whottt, its so obvious you have absolutely no clue about who Obama is. .

And BTW...I do know he's a lawyer that talks about championing the poor. Ugh...that particular template conjured up some horribly corrupt images in my mind...not just from history, but from my own experiences.


With all due respect to FWDT...

You ever hear the expression about 99% of Lawyers giving the rest a bad name?


From my personal experience...that's one of the most accurate expressions ever.

[Tully365]

And BTW...I do know he's a lawyer that talks about championing the poor. Ugh...that particular template conjured up some horribly corrupt images in my mind...not just from history, but from my own experiences.

With all due respect to FWDT...

You ever hear the expression about 99% of Lawyers giving the rest a bad name?

From my personal experience...that's one of the most accurate expressions ever.

It's easy to crack jokes about lawyers, cops, dentists, the supervisor at work, etc., but at some point in our lives we come to realize that they are all necessary for a well-functioning and civil society. Would your past experience had been better if there were no lawyers, and your adversary decided to hire thugs to get his or her way? Everyone loves a good one-liner, but to try and critique Obama with what is essentially a vaudeville toss-off seems silly to me, and as Voltaire said, clever sayings don't prove anything.

[whottt]

Would your past experience had been better if there were no lawyers, and your adversary decided to hire thugs to get his or her way?


That's all well and good but I wasn't speaking of my experience with hiring one...I've never hired a laywer in my life and hopefully never will.

I was speaking of my experiences in working in a law office and being involved in the legal community for 5 years...

I worked for a Democrat defense attorney you see...one who championed the poor....and said the exact same thing guys like Obama and John Edwards say...

And they remind me of the guy I worked for(and many others I knew) in many significant ways...especially Edwards no-showing and Obama voting present.

Let me tell you something...the most bigoted elitist hypocritical dishonest and arrogant creatures I have ever met in my life...are Democrat attorneys that claim to champion the poor.

They have an unsurpassed and unconscionable capacity for prevarication...I won't say it borders on heartlessness...I will say it is the embodiment of heartlessness.

[Tully365]

That's all well and good but I wasn't speaking of my experience with hiring one...I've never hired a laywer in my life and hopefully never will.

I was speaking of my experiences in working in a law office and being involved in the legal community for 5 years...

I worked for a Democrat defense attorney you see...one who championed the poor....and said the exact same thing guys like Obama and John Edwards say...

And they remind me of the guy I worked for(and many others I knew) in many significant ways...especially Edwards no-showing and Obama voting present.

Let me tell you something...the most bigoted elitist hypocritical dishonest and arrogant creatures I have ever met in my life...are Democrat attorneys that claim to champion the poor.

They have an unsurpassed and unconscionable capacity for prevarication...I won't say it borders on heartlessness...I will say it is the embodiment of heartlessness.

There are unquestionably many people in the world who behave deplorably. Martin Luther King had his personal faults, and had many around him that did not share his character, it's true... but he and his followers were still on the better side of history than a guy like Strom Thurmond, who thought it best to keep the races separate and unequal.

I have this same type of argument with friends of mine who don't like basketball-- and there are unquestionably some players in the NBA whose lifestyles and behavior are indefensible to me-- but it still doesn't mean I'n going to stop loving basketball. Defending the poor is just like any other activity in life-- free throw shooting, money management, singing, mothering-- some are good at it and others are not. It in no way reflects the task itself. If you look at Obama and see a dishonest guy with malicious intent... well, I doubt I'll be able to change your mind on that. That's your perspective. But I simply don't see that.

[whottt]

If you look at Obama and see a dishonest guy with malicious intent... well, I doubt I'll be able to change your mind on that. That's your perspective. But I simply don't see that.


Dude...no one gets up every morning saying, I'm going to be malicious. I'm going to be the bad guy.

Most everyone thinks their actions are justified on some level...

I think Obama is definitely capable of malicious activity, at least as I term it...based on his responsibilities as President.

It's his slant that is malicious.


I'll give you an example of the most mentally corrupt and dishonest poster on this forum...boutons.


There is no bit of information concerning Democrats VS Republicans that will not become corrupted and slanted upon being filtered through boutons' brain....because of his extremist views.

I personally don't think boutons wakes up every morning saying I can't wait to have corrupted, extremist and terminally dishonest world view...

I think he wakes up every morning thinking he's a good guy trying to do the best he can...that doesn't mean his propensity for slant and corrupted interpretations and therefore his opinions, aren't malicious....

[MannyIsGod]

He's not even close to being a thoecrat Whottt. Pick up Audacity. He has a great section just on that subject. He's probably taken the best way to explain church and state that I've ever read. Hell, AngelLuv might even buy into it if she read it.

[Tully365]

Dude...no one gets up every morning saying, I'm going to be malicious. I'm going to be the bad guy.

Most everyone thinks their actions are justified on some level...

I think Obama is definitely capable of malicious activity, at least as I term it...based on his responsibilities as President.

It's his slant that is malicious.


I'll give you an example of the most mentally corrupt and dishonest poster on this forum...boutons.


There is no bit of information concerning Democrats VS Republicans that will not become corrupted and slanted upon being filtered through boutons' brain....because of his extremist views.

I personally don't think boutons wakes up every morning saying I can't wait to have corrupted, extremist and terminally dishonest world view...

I think he wakes up every morning thinking he's a good guy trying to do the best he can...that doesn't mean his propensity for slant and corrupted interpretations and therefore his opinions, aren't malicious....

I think there are many people who actually get up every morning and know that they will do whatever is necessary to get their way, though I do agree that many will contort their philosophies to justify whatever it is they want. Nietzsche said, every philosophy is the rationalization of a temperament, which is something that for the most part, I believe. Of course, Tolstoy once said, Nietzsche is stupid and abnormal, and once again--mostly due to his temperament-- I have to at least partially agree. To me, Obama has a noble temperament. I understand the frustrations of those who think he is being looked upon as a cure-all savior-- not an opinion that I share at all-- but any attempt to somehow link Obama to the boutons-type mindset does not resonate with me at all, though I don't agree with your Misanthropic Independent image either, because I don't find misanthropy to be generally helpful.

(But even misanthropy has its place for me too, I must admit, especially in literature and lighter fields like comedy... one of the best examples being Waldorf and Stadler, the two wise-cracking, insult-slinging muppets in the balcony.)

P.S. I don't like being called "Dude." :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I'll give you an example of the most mentally corrupt and dishonest poster on this forum...whottt.


There is no bit of information concerning Democrats VS Republicans that will not become corrupted and slanted upon being filtered through whottt's brain....because he fell in love with the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

I personally don't think whottt wakes up every morning saying I can't wait to have corrupted, extremist and terminally dishonest world view...

I think he wakes up every morning thinking he's a good guy trying to do the best he can...that doesn't mean his propensity for slant and corrupted interpretations and therefore his opinions, aren't malicious....Corrections in bold.

Hey, I could have put them in red....

[whottt]

I think there are many people who actually get up every morning and know that they will do whatever is necessary to get their way, though I do agree that many will contort their philosophies to justify whatever it is they want. Nietzsche said, every philosophy is the rationalization of a temperament, which is something that for the most part, I believe. Of course, Tolstoy once said, Nietzsche is stupid and abnormal, and once again--mostly due to his temperament-- I have to at least partially agree. To me, Obama has a noble temperament. I understand the frustrations of those who think he is being looked upon as a cure-all savior-- not an opinion that I share at all-- but any attempt to somehow link Obama to the boutons-type mindset does not resonate with me at all, though I don't agree with your Misanthropic Independent image either, because I don't find misanthropy to be generally helpful.


I used boutons as an example...not a direct comparison.


I find nothing noble about Obama's temperament...I find him secretive, of questionable judgement, and most importantly...I find his citizen of the world disposition to be one directly at odds with the job requirements of being the President of the United States.



(But even misanthropy has its place for me too, I must admit, especially in literature and lighter fields like comedy... one of the best examples being Waldorf and Stadler, the two wise-cracking, insult-slinging muppets in the balcony.)

Every war, every fight, every argument...in the history of man has been caused by at the minimum one human being interacting with another...it's the absolute pre-requisite for any and all conflicts.





P.S. I don't like being called "Dude." :lol

Well dude...I don't like the Obama Presidency...I guess you just learn to live it...price you pay for living in a free country and interacting with other humans.

[whottt]

Corrections in bold.

Hey, I could have put them in red....



So....did we ever find out if Chump is a lawyer or not?

[ChumpDumper]

No, you didn't.

[ChumpDumper]

....but any intelligent poster could tell whether I am or not. Certainly the intelligent lawyers here already have.