So you voted to help the sinking ship sink? That's worse...Quote:
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000...I voted for him in 2004.
Printable View
So you voted to help the sinking ship sink? That's worse...Quote:
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000...I voted for him in 2004.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
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? Seρor 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbadan
Thanks, George, and thanks whottt for voting him back into office.
Thing is, the win was by enough, that cheating doesn't much matter. Where is probably occurred didnt change the results. Except maybe Minnesota. Funny how they keep finding votes for Al Frankenstein.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Tell us what fraud "probably" occurred.
Okay, seriously. Has no Republican ever seen Animal House?Quote:
Originally Posted by shelshor
Funny isn't it? Funny how after the recount he's likely to end up the winner isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
HA HA HA HA
Funny.
Except the fact that it has been a vintage republican tactic to blame fraud on democrats since NixonQuote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Ever listen to him when he had a radio program? He constantly lied.
You retained respect for them post Jesse Ventura?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
They probably assumed it was a documentary about the excesses of leftist campus radicals, and didn't bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger
You care so little, you keep babbling on about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh, Gee!!
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.
Oh ye of the slothlike synaptic function...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by whottt
You have been so completely fucking owned this election, there's nothing to do but laugh.
Show me your Massive Vote Fraud, bitch.
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!
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
There are two people on this forum who can claim that and he isnt one of them (nor am I, to be clear).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwhitegocubs
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.
And who are these two that can make that claim?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
56 million votes makes it a moot point....and stop using red. That is annoying.Quote:
Show me your Massive Vote Fraud, bitch.
:rollin Keep posting this shit. We love it.Quote:
Originally Posted by whottt
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.Quote:
56 million votes makes it a moot point....and stop using red. That is annoying.