We agree on that much. Well that and the fact that she is running for President. I guess some people just don't see it as important. That's cool.

You all may not think any of those bullet points are important in measuring the abilities of someone who wants to be President, that is fine as well.

lmao...perfect!

Well West Virginia and Kentucky are strange places. Isolation will do that to them.

Wow, google returns a large number of websites devoted to Bush's lies and deceit about everything even remotely related to his administration. Lists are not hard to come by, no matter who you hate.

how do you think they'd respond to immolation?

That would be a hot topic. Maybe should ask the Hatfields and McCoys?

oooooo sick burn

But, I must have missed your copy/pasted list of batshit conspiracy theories about all the other presidential candidates.

strange exchange for three people who all voted for the same guy.

He's a uniter!

What are you talking about again? Who three? What guy? When? Am I here? Is this thing on?

But I don't care about the other ones.:D

LOL - yeah apparently not in teh cellar. lol


You were one of the three - so quit yer bitchin! :rolleyes:

VOTED FOR WHAT?
Arggghhhhhhhhhhh ;)

::SMACK::

Seriously classic...help me out I'm really confused. If it's because I'm stupid I can take it...I just don't get the comment/connection.

Aren't most people here talking about how they like Obama but still managing to find a way to argue about it, even though they agree on the same guy?

Apparently there is no connection.

yes glatt, thats what I was eluding to in my previous post.

You're an eluder?

elusive - er?

e-lucifer!!

1,170 to 1,168.

...1,170 to 1,168!
and thats counting superdelegates!

Is it just me or has the media already elected this guy.

The media wants to get on with the election, and skip the conventions.

Except for Fox News, the media follows the polls even better than the politicians.

The media seemed to be obsessed with Hillary up until just recently.

When it comes to politics, Fox News is proactive.

Ohh I think they became disenchanted with her weeks ago. Obama has been the more exciting storyline.

Prior to the primary process kicking off Clinton had seemed the appointed one. If you follow the tone in a paper known for its liberal lean, The NYT, it is quite obvious that even the press followed this notion that she would be the nominee. I think there has been a shift in this tone as the primary process has evolved. They have discovered what many of us have been saying for a long time, Ms. Clinton is a divider and many people in the Democratic party really do not like her or her group of supporters. Much of her underbelly of power hunger has been exposed through the years. To me Obama brings a fresh face to the race. We need to remember that it is not so much who sits in the White House that matters, as it is that the people the individual surrounds themselves with are of quality and can advise to the appropriate course of action in times of crisis as well as calm.

The media could give a rat's ass about the election or the conventions or whatever *as long as you're watching, especially the commercials*.

You'll do well to keep this in mind as you allocate your eyeball minutes this election season.

Allllll that talk about how expensive campaigning is? I'll tell you this, the cost of yard signs isn't the biggest expense. It's not office space rental. It's AIR TIME. The candidates, all of them with no exceptions, have to raise buxor to be able to be heard/seen. And that means media exposure. $$$$.

You do the math.

Sure, the process and the eventual (inevitable outcome--*somebody's* gonna be President) is important. But along the way, their main goal, their commercial imperative, is to make money. Their sole stock in trade is airtime.

Speaking of campaign signs...

When I voted yesterday, I noticed a sign as I walked up to the building. It said something along the lines of no campaigning or handing out literature past this point. I went in, voted, came back out. As I walked back to my car, past this sign, there was another sign, for Huckabee. I scratched my head, not remembering seeing it as I walked in. I got in my car and as I was driving away there was a young woman planting the Huckabee signs. Thus I wasn't crazy - the sign hadn't been there before. Anway, I found this odd. First, there were no other signs for any other candidate in/around the government complex where I voted. Second, it was in the afternoon, raining/icing, and getting dark. Why bother with the signs that late into the day?

For the 9 to 5 crowd, that votes on their way home.

Change

yes haunting....someone else has that ....disturbing ...THING

When I ask people what comes after change nobody knows. Are we having change for change sake? Just ask'in.

I'm not even thinking about after change, I want to know what changes?

yes, exactly.

When I ask people "what changes?" they repeat the word "change" I say,"go on" they say "just that change" I say, "OK" one word isn't good enough for my vote.
The only people that can afford the ideal of change without substance is the affluent and that is where this movement is comming from . oh and the knee jerk reaction from the african american community to percieved racial attacks. 8 to 1 vote obama on the basis of skin color.

I'm sorry but the style of the handshakes over 'Change' look familiar. From what reference was the above picture? From '1984' or something?

The "Change" motto makes me think of this post at Cosmic Variance:
I'm still supporting Obama, though.

After all that discussion and then your conclusion, wanna elaborate on why, please.

Simple. I'm a liberal, leftist-pinko-commie. :p

Oh, you mean "Why not Clinton?"
She's too tuned into the poll-of-the-moment. I still haven't forgiven her for voting to approve Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I also like the externally-apparent political symbol embodied in electing a president with the middle name "Hussein".

I haven't heard him saying too much I disagree with (yet), so what's not to like?

I didn't say there was or wasn't. I was just curious about your opinion.

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
 

The above caption is from the Aspen Times Weekly.
The column is a good example of the venom Hillery attracts.
Here's the end of the column....

Shit, I didn't realize I was an "Angry White Man." I am usually a pretty happy go lucky sort.

E Lucid 8 R.

And it's my invasion too, Pie. I like busting totalitarians, you lack my enthusiasm for the things that are proper to do.

Did you check out the link to see if you fit the rest of the profile?

I've been a AWM for a long time now. The article describes why when I can't express those same thoughts and beliefs many times.

"The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him"

Add "entitlement".

Well, I hate to say it, but I fit a lot of this profile. I may not be the rugged ruff & tumble guy, but I do my share - aside from that I think the auther is pretty much describing me.
Now that I know the problem - what is the cure?

I am voting for McCain. We don't know what would happen if we just pulled the troops out of Iraq. I mean, if we do it now, the terrorists are mad we attacked them and won, and will aswell attack us w/ another tragedy like 911.

Well I am pretty torn about whether to even vote in the Washington primary tomorrow. When the choice has been taken away from me as to whether I have a say in delegate votes (the state has already said our vote will not count) why go to the polls then? To what end?
Pretty pissed about that one.

What we do while withdrawing from Iraq of course is to focus on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, something Bush and McCain forgot to do.

And why the vote in Washington won't count? Oh, among Republicans.

Republican votes count. Dems do not. The Dems have decided that the caucuses chose the delegates.

So Tink, why not go to a caucus?

Just in case I hadn't mentioned it so far, it's a lot of the same ol' same ol'... just as it's been since 1991, the Democrats still aren't peddling a single idea I want to buy, or couldn't get a better version of from either the Libertarians or the Republicans. And the Republicans are better than the Democrats and the Libertarians put together at winning a war.

That will likely remain true for a generation.

I was in Vegas for work. Otherwise I would have. This is a first for the state. Totally sucks. BigV went but currently we are voting for different folks. I could have cancelled him out. Shit! :)

I fixed your post:
 

Which is why extremists call them terrorists. They are insurgents. When American troops leave, then the numerous parties in that civil war must decide to fight or compromise. Of course, the so called 'terrorists' - Sahdr's Mahdi army - has gone quiet. A ceasefire. Arming, recruiting, and training for the eventual conclusion to that civil war. Terrorists? Classic mental midget propaganda. Sahdr is reported to be in Qom doing long neglected religious study. His army has all but taken Baghdad and is now awaiting the conclusion of what is only a civil war.

Since Sahdr and others have decided to wait out for the eventual conclusion, then George Jr can claim a mythical Al Qaeda has been defeated.

Deja vue Nam when the US government also declared victory following Tet. The year following Tet also was declared proof of an American victory while combatants were only recruiting, rearming, and rebuilding. Vietnam also was only a civil war despite rhetoric from the American government that said otherwise. If we don't stop them in Nam, then we will be next. How many times do we blindly believe the little boy who cries "Wolf"? Iraq is in civil war. If you don't grasp that, then you become fodder for extremists. "Domino Theory" also justified a war where the enemy of the people was more often a S Vietnamese government. Again, civil war.

And why was there a domino in the first place? Because the US inadvertently propped some such hideous governments (such as Pol Pot in Cambodia) that the Communist Vietnemese had to intervene.

Sorry, Flint: you should check back on which President got Vietnam going and which President unsuccessfully escalated it.

I don't think you did a good job of "fixing."

Ann Coulter was right about the Democrats' penchant for making war unsuccessfully, you know. Either a no-victory situation, or a unilateral and not necessarily accurate declaration that the war was unwinnable. Don't complain about starting wars -- not against the sort of people we fight with, who are invariably totalitarian scum determined to perpetrate abuses and inhuman regimes. Complain about losing wars to such wretches. We don't get in brawls with decent places that have democracies. That seems to be an essential, to my way of thinking.

Making war unsuccessfully like WW2 and Bosnia. And I suppose the GOP wars just as well(Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, easy wars that turn into 'hard slogs', particularly the last 2).
As far as I'm concerned Ann revises history just like her friend Dinesh D'Souza.

As registered democrat I am voting for McCain. It is my thinking that Obama can't win the debates. I am thinking the independants will come off their emotional high they will move right to the McCain camp.

I could be wrong and this strong emotialism continues and people won't use their brains AGAIN when chosing a canadate and they chose personality over substance because bush too said he was going to be a uniter and not a divider and he ( obama ) brings bad tidings then what?

I am so upset with the Hilary campain. If was hers to lose. :( grr

'Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran'

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKINg8DCUo&NR=1