Opinions: Will Obama create the balanced, non-yes-man atmosphere in his administration that he says he's going for?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, January 3, 2009 01:52
VIEWED: 9394
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 29, 2008 9:58 PM

Some of the lefties claim Obama's sold out, some righties claim it's the Clinton Admin all over again, what do YOU think?

ThethreadforRiverloveisall

HERO

Monday, December 29, 2008 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Some of the lefties claim Obama's sold out, some righties claim it's the Clinton Admin all over again, what do YOU think?

Yes, man...yes.

H

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 29, 2008 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Yes, man...yes.

Thank you; now I totally understand your assessment of the future political landscape.

The

Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, December 29, 2008 10:09 PM

I think people elected Obama for all the wrong reasons. He was elected because he was black. He was elected because he wasn't Bush. No one really cared what he stood for and who he is. No one even knew who he was and we still don't. He's an inexperienced senator with ties to questionable people who ran on idealistic rhetoric and promises he couldn't keep and probably never intended to. What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like. We elected a man for ridiculous reasons, instead of his much more qualified opponent, now we're just going to have to hope for the best.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

KIRKULES

Monday, December 29, 2008 10:54 PM

Obama is already showing that he is incapable of standing up to the political forces that cause Presidents to always do the wrong thing in a economic downturn. His stimulus package is just more money thrown from a helicopter to do something, because nobody knows what the right thing to do is. At least the Bush package is mostly loans that could potentially pay off someday.
Considering the points Finn just made I think Obama is doing about as good as anyone else would do in his situation. It seems likely that Obama will end up being the yes-man, going with whatever suggestion an advisor throws at him, because he definitely won't have the nads to say no to any suggestion that someone "smarter" than him says will fix the economy.
Borrowing and spending is what got us into this situation. I heard someone say the other day that the first thing to do when you want to get out of a hole is to stop digging.

WHOZIT

Monday, December 29, 2008 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Some of the lefties claim Obama's sold out, some righties claim it's the Clinton Admin all over again, what do YOU think?

ThethreadforRiverloveisall

Do you think Barry has sold out to the Righties? How much did Barry sell his soul for? I'd give him $5 for it.

I'm going to microwave a bagel and have sex with it - Peter Griffin

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 29, 2008 11:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think people elected Obama for all the wrong reasons. He was elected because he was black.

Wrong. No offense, but I think you're reading a lot of lefty-ness into a situation where peeps simply saw Palin as not only a poor potential VP, but a sign of poor-decision making on the part of an otherwise competent-seeming McCain.

Quote:
He was elected because he wasn't Bush.

On this I can agree.

Quote:
No one really cared what he stood for and who he is.

Again I feel you are over-simplifying due to partisan resentment; I knew where he stood on most issues, and I'm a dope. Smart peeps like yourself should have had no trouble with it.

Quote:
He's an inexperienced senator with ties to questionable people who ran on idealistic rhetoric and promises he couldn't keep and probably never intended to. What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like. We elected a man for ridiculous reasons, instead of his much more qualified opponent, now we're just going to have to hope for the best.

Thank you, little Miss Sunshine

I can hang with some part of that, but you just sound now like I did four years ago when I predicted martial law & nuking Iran before Bush left office- I have mellowed since then though, thankfully.

The optimistic Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 29, 2008 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
It seems likely that Obama will end up being the yes-man, going with whatever suggestion an advisor throws at him, because he definitely won't have the nads to say no to any suggestion that someone "smarter" than him says will fix the economy.

I hope you're wrong there, but I certainly can't rule it out as a serious possibility. He is a politician after all.

The realistic Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 29, 2008 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
Do you think Barry has sold out to the Righties?

Yes, he claimed to be Kal-El, and is in reality General Zod.

The sarcastic Chrisisall

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:13 AM

Quote:

I think people elected Obama for all the wrong reasons. He was elected because he was black. He was elected because he wasn't Bush.

Neither of those exactly sound like BAD reasons...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:18 AM

(I wasn't going to post in this thread, but I am tempted to feed Whozit, and I need the distraction. I also feel it's important to let you know that I have extremely sleep deprived myself, which will affect the quality of this post.)

If creating a "balanced, non-yes-man atmosphere in his administration" is going to be good for the country (and it sounds like a good thing), then I hope that it happens. Will it happen? Maybe. It sure seems to me like a strange mix of people, which I am inclined to think would facilitate non-yes-(wo)men.

All I know is that I have a sinking feeling. ::points to tagline:: And I voted for Obama*! I think it has something to do with his pick of Ken Salazar for Secretary of the Interior. Like most Democrats from Colorado, my impression of Salazar is that he is a solid moderate, and I was expecting the pendulum to swing more liberal for the next 4 years.

http://coloradoindependent.com/18141/nine-reasons-
not-to-trust-ken-salazar-as-secretary-of-the-interior

Then again, I'm freakishly liberal, at least when it comes to social issues. I will probably be disappointed in presidential politics for my entire life.

*Because the sinking feeling would have been much worse had the outcome been different. Because I think the next few years are going to be rocky no matter who's in charge, which feels like a duh thing to say, but there you go.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:37 AM

Quote:
Opinions: Will Obama create the balanced, non-yes-man atmosphere in his administration that he says he's going for?
ThethreadforRiverloveisall

Okay, I'm going to start with: NO. He meant to, but he got steamrolled by Clintonistas.

Quote:
HERO

Yes, man...yes.

Obscure, but not without humor. Hero, as before, the years of my leave have granted you myrth. There are far worse fates that could befall a man

Quote:
FINN MAC CUMHAL

I think people elected Obama for all the wrong reasons. He was elected because he was black. He was elected because he wasn't Bush. No one really cared what he stood for and who he is. No one even knew who he was and we still don't. He's an inexperienced senator with ties to questionable people who ran on idealistic rhetoric and promises he couldn't keep and probably never intended to. What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like. We elected a man for ridiculous reasons, instead of his much more qualified opponent, now we're just going to have to hope for the best.

freudian type included, I actually completely agree with Finn.

Quote:
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero

Yah, I remember this tag, it was a good line. maybe you haven't changed. Sorry I called you a troll earlier.

Quote:
KIRKULES
Obama is already showing that he is incapable of standing up to the political forces that cause Presidents to always do the wrong thing in a economic downturn. His stimulus package is just more money thrown from a helicopter to do something, because nobody knows what the right thing to do is. At least the Bush package is mostly loans that could potentially pay off someday.
Considering the points Finn just made I think Obama is doing about as good as anyone else would do in his situation. It seems likely that Obama will end up being the yes-man, going with whatever suggestion an advisor throws at him, because he definitely won't have the nads to say no to any suggestion that someone "smarter" than him says will fix the economy.
Borrowing and spending is what got us into this situation. I heard someone say the other day that the first thing to do when you want to get out of a hole is to stop digging.

People are pretty on target. I thought McCain was right when he said that the Obama plan was almost more like the Hoover plan than any other.

Quote:
WHOZIT
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Some of the lefties claim Obama's sold out, some righties claim it's the Clinton Admin all over again, what do YOU think?

Do you think Barry has sold out to the Righties? How much did Barry sell his soul for? I'd give him $5 for it.

I think he meant sold out to the Clintonistas, and perhaps the NWO. Don't hope for the audacity of a right wing coup.

Quote:
CHRISISALL
Wrong. No offense, but I think you're reading a lot of lefty-ness into a situation where peeps simply saw Palin as not only a poor potential VP, but a sign of poor-decision making on the part of an otherwise competent-seeming McCain.

Gotta disagree. I wouldn've voted for Palin. What someone knows about the world is not really all that important. Sarah is just folks. It what nefarious globalist totalitarian elitists you have connections to that determine the damage you can and will do.

When McCain nominated Palin, I lauded it as America's Harrison Bergeron moment, and laughed. But this didn't cause McCain to lose. He was pre-ordained to lose, just as Obama was pre-ordained to win.

DT calling it in 04 "Obama/Clinton will defeat McCain/Graham in 4 years, if Clinton doesn't get the VP slot, she'll push for secretary of state" is all.

Quote:
FINN I think: No one really cared what he stood for and who he is.

Chris I think: Again I feel you are over-simplifying due to partisan rese

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:49 AM

Kal-El is evil

Those are bad reasons. People should be elected for who they are, not what they are, or who they're not.

YINYANG

It's not that much of a mix. A lot of Clintonistas, not a lot of anything else. A couple neocons thrown in for good measure, but we won't know how it comes out until it's up and running. It's entirely possible, though unlikely given congresses let's roll over attitude that they won't pass these nominees.

Quote:
Then again, I'm freakishly liberal, at least when it comes to social issues. I will probably be disappointed in presidential politics for my entire life.

This is so commentworthy I should comment on it, but I won't, except to say; Don't worry, you're disappointment only comes from your expectations.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I would've voted for Palin.

*tries in vain to hide grave disappointment*

Quote:
What someone knows about the world is not really all that important. Sarah is just folks.

I draw your attention to the damage 'folks' like Bush have achieved...

Quote:
It's what nefarious globalist totalitarian elitists you have connections to that determine the damage you can and will do.

I don't disagree with this particular point.

Quote:

When McCain nominated Palin, I lauded it as America's Harrison Bergeron moment, and laughed. But this didn't cause McCain to lose. He was pre-ordained to lose, just as Obama was pre-ordained to win.

"'What happens in a man's life is already written. A man must move through life as his destiny wills.' -Caine
'Yes, yet each man is free to live as he chooses. Though they seem opposite, both are true. I do not understand it.' -Old Man

The quoting Chrisisall

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is so commentworthy I should comment on it, but I won't, except to say; Don't worry, you're disappointment only comes from your expectations.

I know - our society (and the human world at large) is pretty fucked up, and I want it not to be fucked up. I'm constantly disappointed. Why I haven't descended into nihilism is probably because I keep my fingers in my ears and my eyes closed most of the time, and when I don't do either I cling to delusions and fantasies of a better world for everyone.

Back on topic: Focusing on the word "balanced," I'm changing my answer to no.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:30 AM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I would've voted for Palin.

*tries in vain to hide grave disappointment*

My deep inner troll revels at moments like this. Bush was not folks, he was a front for a machine, as was Obama. Palin was a completely random choice.

I think McCain panicked. The Obama team had such a good research crew that they would have been able to sink any logical choice he could take as a running mate, so he had to do something irrational. I knew this ahead of time, and suggested my own totally irrational choice: Barack Obama. I think that McCain/Obama would have the ultimate defense against Obama sinking McCain's running mate.

As it turned out, Palin could sink herself, but then again, she was set up. Then gave her no prep, and Katie Couric was working for Obama, and that was the only real interview she got. That's a total frame job. Sure she wasn't ready for it, but how many random people would be without notice. Consider, on the other hand, the amount of prep that her opposition: Joe Biden, was given. He had 18 years of running for president as prep, and honestly, he didn't fair much better. My favorite campaign moment was when Jon Stewart said "Joe, meet me at camera 3. First, the Beretta is a handgun, not a shotgun, and second, you appear to be threatening gun violence against your running mate." Please, no Sarah fights ;) Oh, the new baby was born, I think they named it "Tripp" which just edged out "Satelite Wreckage" which was their second choice.

Quote:

Quote:
It's what nefarious globalist totalitarian elitists you have connections to that determine the damage you can and will do.

I don't disagree with this particular point.

Quote:
When McCain nominated Palin, I lauded it as America's Harrison Bergeron moment, and laughed. But this didn't cause McCain to lose. He was pre-ordained to lose, just as Obama was pre-ordained to win.

"'What happens in a man's life is already written. A man must move through life as his destiny wills.' -Caine
'Yes, yet each man is free to live as he chooses. Though they seem opposite, both are true. I do not understand it.' -Old Man
The quoting Chrisisall

Kudos if you got the reference without a google

Chance doesn’t exist
But the path of life is not
totally so predestined

Kudos multiple exponentially.

I had to google the Kung Fu.

Quote:
YINYANG
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is so commentworthy I should comment on it, but I won't, except to say; Don't worry, you're disappointment only comes from your expectations.

I know - our society (and the human world at large) is pretty fucked up, and I want it not to be fucked up. I'm constantly disappointed. Why I haven't descended into nihilism is probably because I keep my fingers in my ears and my eyes closed most of the time, and when I don't do either I cling to delusions and fantasies of a better world for everyone.

Better is relative and subjective.

Quote:
Back on topic: Focusing on the word "balanced," I'm changing my answer to no.

Oh dear. It's going to take me a while to find out what the topic was :) I think it's buried somewhere around here. Ah, yes.
It's already slanting towards Clintonista-heavy, and globalist-heavy. I don't think either of these are liberal or conservative.

Clintonistas I take to be pretty much just gangsters, the equivalent of the bush crony crowd, just simple, out for what they can get, not afraid to bump people off if they get in their way. The globalists are all Alliance-y, and they're even scarier. There is, of course, some crossover.

I suspect that the social political perspective will be chosen in a cold and calculating manner, like the Bush agenda. Always throw your side a bone, but never a big enough one that they don't come back begging in a half an hour.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:04 AM

This never happened.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I think people elected Obama for all the wrong reasons. He was elected because he was black.
Wrong. No offense, but I think you're reading a lot of lefty-ness into a situation where peeps simply saw Palin as not only a poor potential VP, but a sign of poor-decision making on the part of an otherwise competent-seeming McCain.

He was elected because he was black and not Bush. Those were the only issues he had. He took that momentum and he ran with it. It would probably never have worked, except that the economy tanked, which people associated with Bush and therefore McCain, which gave Obama the extra thrust he needed.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

YINYANG

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:12 AM

Uh... constitutional law professor, Harvard graduate, good speech-ifying, and being the nominee of one of the major parties don't count? Because if all it took to be elected president was to be black and not Bush, Jesse Jackson should have been president from 1984 to 1992.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Some of the lefties claim Obama's sold out, some righties claim it's the Clinton Admin all over again, what do YOU think?

ThethreadforRiverloveisall

I think we should let the man actually be sworn in and have a few minutes as POTUS before we start calling him a failure, sell out or the anti-christ

I'mJustSayinIsAll

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Uh... constitutional law professor, Harvard graduate, good speech-ifying, and being the nominee of one of the major parties don't count? Because if all it took to be elected president was to be black and not Bush, Jesse Jackson should have been president from 1984 to 1992.

Yeah, he’s a very good speaker, but all that means is that he was able to make good use of being black and not Bush.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:56 AM

Obama is a constitutional law professor as well. I didn't know that. Given all of the other aspects of his life, I guess he *is* my brother. I suppose I should be able to predict his moves :)

We don't live in a democracy. It's a sham. The media annointed him in 2004, later, Time Magazine annointed him. The whole thing was a set up.

No conspiracy is needed. It's simple logistics. Anyone in the influence peddling business has no interest in an impotent govt. It was a forgone conclusion that Bush's unpopularity was costing congressional seats for the gop, it was a shoe in that the new president would have to be a democrat. No influence peddler in their right mind would actually support a republican.

Given that, it had to be someone who could win.

This meant from the selection you had to choose from:

Dodd, okay, but no popular support, and a financial scandal waiting in the wings.

Biden. Not a chance. He's a perennial candidate, they can't win

Edwards. He had a chance, but when he took on the globalists and special interests, he had to be removed.

Kucinnich? Please. The man didn't just see a UFO, he came from one. His wife is a hottie. I think that was his '04 platform: I need a hot young wife, look, I'm a revolutionary.

Mike Gravel? Again, please. The man is 79, and had a budget of zero.

Richardson. Shot himself in the foot with the anti-immigration stance. You can't be a latino and anti immigrant, then you lose everyone

Hillary Clinton? That's campaign suicide. Worse. Not only did she have an approval rating of 39%, but a serious run for presidency was going to mean re-opening the whitewater files, which was going to land her in jail, albeit briefly, but nonetheless, it would kill the campaign.

Barack Obama. He's the man. No skeletons, qualified, a team player, everything they want.

I don't even think that the Hillary camp wanted to win, I think they wanted to force Hillary for VP, but paranoia aside, she was too much of a liability even as VP. She could sink a ticket.

Down to the wire, nothing matters but the cheating. The influence peddlers have selected their "Plausible" candidate, which is anyone who can get within 5% of winning.

As it is, I suspect Barack won it hands down, but he couldn't have lost it, even if he had. I think Both Bushes and Clinton ran terrible campaigns that should have lost handily, but it didn't keep them out of the whitehouse. Did the other guys throw the race? Was it a set up, were losers put up as fall guys? Did third party spoilers make it happen? Who knows. Who cares. The power players have more than enough power to manipulate the democratic system any way they want. They chose the winners, and once chosen, they were destined to be elected.

For all I know Sarah Palin, as a pick, and her lack of preparation was all a set up for a loss. The media love in with Obama, who ran a fine campaign, but that only counts in a democracy. I'm even entertaining the idea that John McCain who is half democrat himself deliberately threw the race. But it didn't matter. For an influence peddler, a GOP president sitting over and overwhelmingly hostile senate and house would accomplish nothing, and they buy politicians to get things done for them, not to sit there.

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Uh... constitutional law professor, Harvard graduate, good speech-ifying, and being the nominee of one of the major parties don't count? Because if all it took to be elected president was to be black and not Bush, Jesse Jackson should have been president from 1984 to 1992.
Yeah, he’s a very good speaker, but all that means is that he was able to make good use of being black and not Bush.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Wow, the power of being not Bush

glad to hear you finally admit how god awful Bush was

Bush is the bizarro Chuck Norris

Bill Clinton could come back and blow the entire defence budget on whores and not do as bad as Bush

If Bush was German, Tom Cruise would try to kill him

Obama could do press conferences in his underwear and seem more professional than Bush

But, to answer the original question

No, Obama is doomed.

Lets party like its 1939

GINOBIFFARONI

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Uh... constitutional law professor, Harvard graduate, good speech-ifying, and being the nominee of one of the major parties don't count? Because if all it took to be elected president was to be black and not Bush, Jesse Jackson should have been president from 1984 to 1992.
Yeah, he’s a very good speaker, but all that means is that he was able to make good use of being black and not Bush.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Wow, the power of being not Bush

glad to hear you finally admit how god awful Bush was

Bush is the bizarro Chuck Norris

Bill Clinton could come back and blow the entire defence budget on whores and not do as bad as Bush

If Bush was German, Tom Cruise would try to kill him

Obama could do press conferences in his underwear and seem more professional than Bush

But, to answer the original question

No, Obama is doomed.

Lets party like its 1939

RIVERDANCER

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
He was elected because he was black. He was elected because he wasn't Bush. No one really cared what he stood for and who he is.

As a vote in his particular column, I have to call bullshit on this.
I don't give a good gorramn that the man is black, except that maybe now there's one less reason for black people to say the man is trying to keep them down.
I cared very much what he stood for and I carefully watched his interviews, read his interviews, and read his books. I looked at his history, studying constitutional law at Harvard, being President of the Harvard Law Review (funny enough, he was the only black president of that, too, but I don't think not being Bush gave him any leverage there) I happen to think he's very smart, and he certainly seems motivated. Do I know what's to come? No, of course I don't. We won't really have an idea how things are going to play out until a good year from now. He surrounded himself with a good team on the campaign, as evidenced by his victory. He bounced ideas off others and let himself be questioned, and then made the final decision. I think that's smart and I think it's likely what he'll continue to do.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
she was set up. Then gave her no prep, and Katie Couric was working for Obama, and that was the only real interview she got. That's a total frame job. Sure she wasn't ready for it, but how many random people would be without notice.

Yes. How many random people could name a single newspaper or magazine they read. You really have to prep for that shit.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
when he took on the globalists and special interests, he had to be removed.

Excuse me, am I the only one who ever saw anything Obama ever said? Like, ever? Taking on the special interests? He slagged them off at every opportunity, are you kidding me? Part of what I liked about him so much, actually. He didn't take a dime from those

s and for that reason alone I would respect him.

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 12:56 PM

What does it say about Bush that all one has to do to be elected President is be "not Bush"?

And how'd that work out for McCain? Or is he Bush 2.1?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

HERO

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Wrong. No offense, but I think you're reading a lot of lefty-ness into a situation where peeps simply saw Palin as not only a poor potential VP, but a sign of poor-decision making on the part of an otherwise competent-seeming McCain.

Sarah Palin caused Obama to win? No...clearly people voted for Obama because they really wanted Joe Biden as Vice President. It was a single issue vote...Biden.

Actually there were four main reasons Obama won. First, he was a great candidate. Second, he got no scrutiny of by the press, not just in the fall, but throughout the primary campaigns too. Third, the economic meltdown. Fourth, John McCain was 8 years past his prime...meaning he was John McCain, not Alan Alda (West Wing Reference).

H

RIVERLOVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 1:57 PM

I think Joe The Plumber said it best...that McCain was a total flake, and Palin was the absolute real deal. She wanted to campaign on Conservative principles, but McCain and his inner circle of retards had him all over the board on issues, even going on The View & Letterman too & putting Palin into the lap of Couric & Gibson. Brilliant, if yer a Dem strategist!...Great fucking idea! Dick Morris ( smart, saavy political guy) said on his website that the single biggest reason McCain lost the election was when he pulled his "flying back to Washington" stunt. He suspends the campaign, goes back to DC ('cause he's a maverick), and then votes with Bush! The stupid fuck! If he had opposed the original bailout "loudly", and become a "voice of the people" he would have won the election. Morris also states that without Palin on the ticket, McCain would have lost by a lot more than the few percentages he did. She made the race competitive. The Press has built themselves a nice trap. For 2 years they closed their eyes & ears about Obama, but now he's the only one left to look at. They will turn on him, they can't survive with harmony.

GEEZER

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Some of the lefties claim Obama's sold out, some righties claim it's the Clinton Admin all over again, what do YOU think?

I think I'd feel better if less of Pres-elect Obama's staff, transition team, and Cabinet was made up of ex-Clinton folk.

Not sure how the middle-class tax cut and trillion dollar stimulus spending is gonna work, unless 'middle-class' gets re-defined quite a bit.

Question 59 in the application for a job in his administration also makes me wonder.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/11/13/obamaquestionnaire.pdf.
pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:16 PM

Rivers,

To Dancer, I say: Katie is such a NWO operative, she was out to get Palin, who was set up. Also, you can edit anyone to look like a total moron if you have enough tape. The MSM is horridly transparent when it adds in "ums" and "uhs" into quotes, that just an obvious way of trying to manipulate things.

RiverLove,

Amen to all of that. My sister is a solid lefty from Alaska and was a Palin supporter until the Zombies got to her. But I don't think McCain's stupidity cost him the election, I think that it was unwinnable. It's not a democracy, the whole set up is jut to make it look plausible, after that, it's a cheatocracy. Whoever the machine says won, won. If that doesn't work, try the supreme court. The Court could have kept McCain out at any point by ruling that Panama was not US soil. Anyone can disagree with that ruling, but they had the power to rule that. And, if it served the purpose of the special interests, they would have.

Myself, I'm much happier out of power. There's a lot more room for maneuvering. I think Palin '12. It would lose, but winning isn't the point. We need a solid base of support for real conservative ideas, not a shmuck in the white house who it willing to say he's a conservative and toss us a bone every once in a while.

To me, the liberals have just done the same dumb mistake conservatives did in 2000, and the mistake the third party crowd has been trying to make for years: Get a man in the door at any cost. That's just dumb. Someone who doesn't truly stand for what you believe in, who will cater to all the special interests? That's just going to make you the punching bag of the nation. There's a lot to be said for losing. And I, personally, am okay with how things turned out. If the Paulsons and Brezinskis of this world are setting policy, then I don't want to take the blame for it. I do actually feel a little sorry for Obama, not for the mess he inherited, but by what disasters will be tied to his name.

As my brother, a big Obama supporter, put it "Anyone who becomes president has already made one serious lapse in judgment: They ran from president."

We will have a lot of time to regroup here.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What does it say about Bush that all one has to do to be elected President is be "not Bush"?

It doesn’t say anything about Bush. It says something about the media.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
He was elected because he was black. He was elected because he wasn't Bush. No one really cared what he stood for and who he is.

As a vote in his particular column, I have to call bullshit on this.

Me too. I so voted for his white half.

RIVERLOVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
But I don't think McCain's stupidity cost him the election, I think that it was unwinnable.

I agree with that. After the 2006 election & with Bush continuing to lose popularity, I had given up any hope of a Republican win in 2008. With McCain as candidate, the odds got worse. Damn him for injecting Palin into the fray which ended up making it look close for a while.

Quote:
It's not a democracy, the whole set up is jut to make it look plausible, after that, it's a cheatocracy. Whoever the machine says won, won. If that doesn't work, try the supreme court.

I can see you have no faith in our country. That's very sad. I think you're very mistaken in your assessments here. Every state has their own election board, and for Federal elections its all tied together by the FEC, then confirmed by the Electoral College. The U.S. Supreme Court ONLY got involved in the 2000 election because the FLA COURT stuck their nose into something that they had no jurisdiction over, which is state election tally results. Your posts indicate you're not happy living in America. There are many other places you can go.

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 5:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It doesn’t say anything about Bush. It says something about the media.

So let me get this straight - you're saying that the media selected Bush the last two times around, and that just goes to prove he was indeed NOT the best candidate out there, but just the one the media decided to deify - because he was "southern" and NOT Clinton.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 5:43 PM

Riverlove

I think you are still confusing the two: Government and Country. You know what the popular support for the Government of Saudi Arabia is in their own country? 1%. That's what happens when you have a govt. that tramples the rights of the people and doesn't give a damn. Here, we're nowhere near that, but we're headed in that direction.

Take our Firefly backdrop. No one in Firefly ever curses the verse, or even the inner planets, they curse the alliance and the Blue Sun corporation.

One does not equal another. George W. Bush is not the United States of America, nor is he Texas. He's a random guy who is a front for a lot of other random guys who claim to be ours.

Watch the primary process, and decent conservative compete. I liked the nutjob, myself, Ron Paul, I also liked Mike Huckabee. I don't hate John McCain, but do you remember the media trying to shove Rudy Giuliani down our throats? What was that all about? So, I'll admit, the cheatocracy is not perfected yet, but it's no level playing field.

Even if it was, democracy is not a great form of govt. It's manipulative at best, and the optimal end goal is for 52% of the people to marginalize the views of the other 48%. That's not how I would design a fair and balanced govt, in either direction.

I never indicated any dislike of America. The govt. is a fraud. It's a usurper. I could prove this, if you care to take the time. The FEC is a puppet, and I've actually worked in the electoral system. It's a total sham. There's a mass media that filters what 90% of the people here, making them biased, and if that fails, there are ways to gerrymander and manipulate, and then there are countless points along the way where people can simply lie.

The biggest cheat that Bush pulled in 2000 was bringing Steve Forbes into the race. Forbes wasn't a free agent, he was working for Cheney at the time, and so was Bush. It was Forbes job to basically say whatever McCain said to steal the primary. I don't think Bush stole the general election, I think that Clinton was horridly unpopular and Gore was as doomed as McCain was in 2008. But I do think he manipulated the primary.

Not convinced? How about Perot in 1992? and 1996? What was that all about. I worked for the Perot people, and know the whole story. It was about manipulating the election. It's how an unpopular Bill Clinton, boosted from 2% to 39% by round the clock efforts of the media to sell him as a product, to waltz into the whitehouse with a smaller % of the vote than Mike Dukakis, and towing sex scandals and a big drug-related money laundering scandal.

Here's a figure for you: 2/3 elections in US history have been decided by the third part splitter.

Take the Election of Wilson in 1912. Wilson walking in with 33% of the vote, and was arguably the worst disaster ever as president. How? Because Wilsons people, with I kid you not, the strong support of the KKK, organized and funded the progressive party to split Taft's vote. When it became obvious that their chosen Progressive candidate was not going to chip off enough votes from Taft to make him lose, the Progressives, under direction from the Wilson people, switched gears and nominated Teddy Roosevelt. This made the cheat plausible. Still, they had to fudge a few figures in a few states and get that popular vote, but the resounding electoral victory, in an almost dead even three way split, came from a situation where regionally, Roosevelt and Taft were getting there votes from the same areas.

This is our democracy, and how it works, and I'm not shooting in the dark here. I know the system very very well. I've worked in it for years, and have colleages and friends who have worked many more years in it. The system isn't just corrupt, it's designed that way.

I have nothing against America. I have serious issues with the elite core of manipulators in washington who call themselves our govt.

This is why I like being out of power. I don't care to organize to win. I care to organize to protect America from its number one threat: This monster that h

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
So let me get this straight - you're saying that the media selected Bush the last two times around, and that just goes to prove he was indeed NOT the best candidate out there, but just the one the media decided to deify - because he was "southern" and NOT Clinton.

What? If you want to understand what I’m saying, the first step is to read what I said. The media campaigned for Obama, because they didn't like Bush and they liked the novelty of a Black president. People were disillusioned by a prolonged conflict in Iraq and surprised by a sudden drop in the economy, all of which they attributed to Bush. Some of it was Bush, some of it was not, but nonetheless, the media made certain it was all blamed on Bush and by extension the Republicans and McCain.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RIVERLOVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Riverlove

I think you are still confusing the two: Government and Country. You know what the popular support for the Government of Saudi Arabia is in their own country? 1%. That's what happens when you have a govt. that tramples the rights of the people and doesn't give a damn. Here, we're nowhere near that, but we're headed in that direction.

Take our Firefly backdrop. No one in Firefly ever curses the verse, or even the inner planets, they curse the alliance and the Blue Sun corporation.

One does not equal another. George W. Bush is not the United States of America, nor is he Texas. He's a random guy who is a front for a lot of other random guys who claim to be ours.

Watch the primary process, and decent conservative compete. I liked the nutjob, myself, Ron Paul, I also liked Mike Huckabee. I don't hate John McCain, but do you remember the media trying to shove Rudy Giuliani down our throats? What was that all about? So, I'll admit, the cheatocracy is not perfected yet, but it's no level playing field.

Even if it was, democracy is not a great form of govt. It's manipulative at best, and the optimal end goal is for 52% of the people to marginalize the views of the other 48%. That's not how I would design a fair and balanced govt, in either direction.

I never indicated any dislike of America. The govt. is a fraud. It's a usurper. I could prove this, if you care to take the time. The FEC is a puppet, and I've actually worked in the electoral system. It's a total sham. There's a mass media that filters what 90% of the people here, making them biased, and if that fails, there are ways to gerrymander and manipulate, and then there are countless points along the way where people can simply lie.

The biggest cheat that Bush pulled in 2000 was bringing Steve Forbes into the race. Forbes wasn't a free agent, he was working for Cheney at the time, and so was Bush. It was Forbes job to basically say whatever McCain said to steal the primary. I don't think Bush stole the general election, I think that Clinton was horridly unpopular and Gore was as doomed as McCain was in 2008. But I do think he manipulated the primary.

Not convinced? How about Perot in 1992? and 1996? What was that all about. I worked for the Perot people, and know the whole story. It was about manipulating the election. It's how an unpopular Bill Clinton, boosted from 2% to 39% by round the clock efforts of the media to sell him as a product, to waltz into the whitehouse with a smaller % of the vote than Mike Dukakis, and towing sex scandals and a big drug-related money laundering scandal.

Here's a figure for you: 2/3 elections in US history have been decided by the third part splitter.

Take the Election of Wilson in 1912. Wilson walking in with 33% of the vote, and was arguably the worst disaster ever as president. How? Because Wilsons people, with I kid you not, the strong support of the KKK, organized and funded the progressive party to split Taft's vote. When it became obvious that their chosen Progressive candidate was not going to chip off enough votes from Taft to make him lose, the Progressives, under direction from the Wilson people, switched gears and nominated Teddy Roosevelt. This made the cheat plausible. Still, they had to fudge a few figures in a few states and get that popular vote, but the resounding electoral victory, in an almost dead even three way split, came from a situation where regionally, Roosevelt and Taft were getting there votes from the same areas.

This is our democracy, and how it works, and I'm not shooting in the dark here. I know the system very very well. I've worked in it for years, and have colleages and friends who have worked many more years in it. The system isn't just corrupt, it's designed that way.

I have nothing against America. I have serious issues with the elite core of manipulators in washington who call themselves our govt.

This is why I like being out of power. I don't care to organize to win. I care to organize to protect America fro

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some of it was Bush, some of it was not, but nonetheless, the media made certain it was all blamed on Bush and by extension the Republicans and McCain.

Why would a lefty Clintonista like myself even entertain the possibility of voting for McCain then, if I was so swayed by the media masters? It was only after hearing Palin speak a few times that I was easily able to rule out McCain entirely. Finn, when folks voted for Bush, you didn't seem to think they were mostly media-brainwashed monkeys, but now you do? Or was Bush pushed into our brains the same way?

The confused Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 6:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
I guess when you say that you love America, you must be referring to the land and the water

LOLROTF!!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

RIVERLOVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Or was Bush pushed into our brains the same way?

Hard to believe, but the "Media" of 2008 is totally different than in 2000. The media then was more balanced and non-ideological, and generally could qualify as legitimate NEWS organizations. Now, no way. Somehow over the last 8 years the former news media has just all morphed into tabloid journalism. Can't really tell the Nightly News from Entertainment Tonite. Throw in the internet & its' blogs and political agenda sites, and you are left with a simmering stew of schlock & shock; a cornucopia of chaos and confusion. It's an end result of the incredible polarization of politics and cultural beliefs in America. Why REPORT the news when you simply can SHAPE the news, or just blatantly lie to suit your beliefs.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:35 PM

I watch news from the BBC, & listen to NPR.
And I read the Enquirer at Stop N Shop.

The enlightened Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some of it was Bush, some of it was not, but nonetheless, the media made certain it was all blamed on Bush and by extension the Republicans and McCain.

Why would a lefty Clintonista like myself even entertain the possibility of voting for McCain then, if I was so swayed by the media masters? It was only after hearing Palin speak a few times that I was easily able to rule out McCain entirely. Finn, when folks voted for Bush, you didn't seem to think they were mostly media-brainwashed monkeys, but now you do? Or was Bush pushed into our brains the same way?

First of all the media leans to the Left. They aren’t going to go out of their way for a Conservative candidate, everything else being equal. Secondly, the media being composed of a large majority of Liberals and owing to their natural tendency for the novelty were infatuated with with a black presidential candidate from the start. And thirdly, Bush was not a nobody. He was governor of Texas, son of a former president. His politics were believed to be well known, which gave people real policy driven reasons for voting for him. Obama never defined himself. He remains to this day a mystery, using his exceptional oratory skills and the media as cover. Only a few occasions, such as Joe the Blumber event, did he drop his guard.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
son of a former president.

What does this even mean? So what?
Do I detect an American version of respect for royalty here?

The son of a computer programmer Chrisisall

RIVERLOVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I watch news from the BBC, & listen to NPR.
And I read the Enquirer at Stop N Shop.

That explains a lot. I stick with the more traditional forms of information: Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrappers, and fortune cookie notes from Madame Wang's Take Out.

" When Ship says I'm vicious, he means intelligent." Human Operator #31

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
son of a former president.
What does this even mean? So what?
Do I detect an American version of respect for royalty here?

No. And if you don’t know what it means, you probably should find a easier topic to debate.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
I stick with the more traditional forms of information: Bazooka Joe bubble gum wrappers, and fortune cookie notes from Madame Wang's Take Out.

Yes. that does explain a lot.

The Luthor-like Chrisisall

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:06 PM

Quote:
And thirdly, Bush was not a nobody. He was governor of Texas, son of a former president. His politics were believed to be well known...

Oh horseshit. You obviously knew nothing about him, or you'd know that Governor of Texas is worth about zero-point-shit in the real world. His "politics" weren't known at all. What WAS known - at least here in Texas - is that he was a drunk and an idiot, and couldn't name a single world leader at the time.

He was exactly what the Neo-Cons wanted - an utterly empty vessel, devoid of any real beliefs at all, which they could then fill up with all their tripe, and which he'd then regurgitate as if he'd believed it all along.

ELVISCHRIST

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:08 PM

Quote:
...you probably should find a easier topic to debate.

Like grammar? Would that be "a easier topic"?

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No. And if you don’t know what it means, you probably should find a easier topic to debate.

Ahh, the "If you don't know, then I'm not gonna tell you" tac- haven't heard that one since college...

So any son or daughter of a President is a "somebody" regardless of anything else they do or don't do in life?

The target-hardening Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:
And thirdly, Bush was not a nobody. He was governor of Texas, son of a former president. His politics were believed to be well known...

Oh horseshit. You obviously knew nothing about him, or you'd know that Governor of Texas is worth about zero-point-shit in the real world. His "politics" weren't known at all. What WAS known - at least here in Texas - is that he was a drunk and an idiot, and couldn't name a single world leader at the time.

I knew quite a bit about him, just from him being governor of Texas. Just because you spend your time with your head up your ass, doesn’t mean everyone else does. Although it was probably unlikely that I would have voted for Gore either way, I did look into Bush’s governorship in 2000 and even after 9/ll there were policies that Bush has remained true to that were known as early as his gubernatorial campaign.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I knew quite a bit about him,

But not that he was a drunk and an idiot, and couldn't name a single world leader at the time, I conjure.

The laughing out loud Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Ahh, the "If you don't know, then I'm not gonna tell you" tac- haven't heard that one since college...

Well then it’s a long time over do.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So any son or daughter of a President is a "somebody" regardless of anything else they do or don't do in life?

Do you suppose anyone would give a shit about Chelsea or the Bush twins if that weren’t true? Use your head.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I knew quite a bit about him,

But not that he was a drunk and an idiot, and couldn't name a single world leader at the time, I conjure.

If you find the idea of having known Bush’s policies that early difficult to believe, it probably has a lot to do with your own closed mindedness.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Do you suppose anyone would give a shit about Chelsea or the Bush twins if that weren’t true? Use your head.

So if they were to put that on a resume, it would help them?

And I really don't give a shit about Chelsea or the Bush twins, BTW.

The not-easily-impressed Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I knew quite a bit about him,

But not that he was a drunk and an idiot, and couldn't name a single world leader at the time, I conjure.
If you find the idea of having known Bush’s policies that early difficult to believe, it probably has a lot to do with your own closed mindedness.

Oh, I believe you are correct, I just felt your assessment was incomplete- hence my conjuring.

The having-too-much-fun Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Do you suppose anyone would give a shit about Chelsea or the Bush twins if that weren’t true? Use your head.

So if they were to put that on a resume, it would help them?

Depends on the job, but probably.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
And I really don't give a shit about Chelsea or the Bush twins, BTW.

Niether do I, but that doesn’t change that they are well known.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Niether do I, but that doesn’t change that they are well known.

Name a Bush twin- I can't. And no Googling!

The silly Chrisisall

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I knew quite a bit about him,

But not that he was a drunk and an idiot, and couldn't name a single world leader at the time, I conjure.
If you find the idea of having known Bush’s policies that early difficult to believe, it probably has a lot to do with your own closed mindedness.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

No, it has more to do with the fact that Bush HAD no policies that early - unless mocking women on death row is a policy position now.

Trust me, I was stuck with this fucking moron for a term and a half - I know a bit about him.

And how's that whole "no child left behind" crap-ola working out? Teach the test, not the kid. Now there's a policy!

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Niether do I, but that doesn’t change that they are well known.

Name a Bush twin- I can't. And no Googling!

The silly Chrisisall

Barbara and... and... Drunky MacGee? Crap, what IS that other one's name? Drinky Crow? Jim Beam? Jenna Jameson?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Trust me, I was stuck with this fucking moron for a term and a half - I know a bit about him.

Yeah, I've talked to others from Texas that feel the same way.

Me-? I can only say first hand how crappy Romney is.

The judgemental Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:55 PM

Jenna and Barabara

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Jenna and Barabara

Sounds porn-y to me...

The dirty-minded Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Trust me, I was stuck with this fucking moron for a term and a half - I know a bit about him.

I’m sure you do. There was plenty of information about Bush as early as his gubernatorial campaign for you to draw dishonest and fanatical opinions. Someone else, with a more open minded and intelligent view of politics could draw many honest and well reasoned opinions about Bush and who to vote for.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:17 PM

So when you don't like a candidate, you must be a victim of dishonest and fanatical opinions. Hmmmm.

Any dishonest or fanatical opinions about Obama runnin' through YOUR head, Finn?

I had some SEVERELY dishonest or fanatical opinions concerning Palin, myself. I felt she was kinda dopey, you know, like not very knowledgeable.

Funny the things we believe, eh?

The dopey Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Niether do I, but that doesn’t change that they are well known.

Name a Bush twin- I can't. And no Googling!

Off the top of my head? Jenna Bush. She recently married. She is a teacher and has written at least one book, one of which dealt with UNICEF in some way. She shares at least some of her father’s conservative views, as well as her religious views. Barbara Bush graduated from Yale, she works at the Smithsonian and has been involved in AIDS research, treatment or something to do with AIDS.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So when you don't like a candidate, you must be a victim of dishonest and fanatical opinions. Hmmmm.

It would seem that way from the way you and others like you talk. But it doesn’t have to be. I disagree with the political views of many people, but I don’t make dishonest and fanatical comments about them.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Any dishonest or fanatical opinions about Obama runnin' through YOUR head, Finn?

Nope. I just don’t agree with him. At least I think, it’s hard to know, since he’s worked so hard to avoid being understood. In fact, I actually have high opinion of him.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Jenna Bush. She recently married. She is a teacher and has written at least one book, one of which dealt with UNICEF in some way. She shares at least some of her father’s conservative views, as well as her religious views. Barbara Bush graduated from Yale, she works at the Smithsonian and has been involved in AIDS research, treatment or something to do with AIDS.

Pretty good. Now can you do Medvedev's kids?

The double jeopardy Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Now can you do Medvedev's kids?

Nope. I suspect, if he has any kids, they’ll never run for US president.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I disagree with the political views of many people, but I don’t make dishonest and fanatical comments about them.

"What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like."

*clears throat*

The attention-drawing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Nope. I suspect, if he has any kids, they’ll never run for US president.

Trick question anyway; he has no kids.

The devilish Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I disagree with the political views of many people, but I don’t make dishonest and fanatical comments about them.
"What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like."

*clears throat*

And?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:39 PM

Quote:
You certainly have some very radical revisionist opinions of the history of this country. I guess when you say that you love America, you must be referring to the land and the water, because you seem to have a very jaded and hateful view of the people, history, and institutions that have defined this country for 230 years. That's ok too, but with all that "stuff" floating around in your head, one might think you are generally miserable in life.

Since I just lost all of my files, because my hard drive was just killed by an anti-virus, I'm really not up for personal attacks.

[edit]BTW, No offense intended, River, I appreciate your posts in general. I went into a long rant about history, but it's a strong subject for me, and I think that these things should be taken into account. My apologies if it's a bit long and ranting. Encapsulating 230 years of US govt. history into a few paragraphs is a tall order. If its seems extreme, it's only the familiarity with it that breeds contempt. It's like anything, become this familiar with the roman catholic church and you'll have trouble defending it for centuries at a time.[/edit]

My life is not miserable, nor do I hate the people of America. The Govt. of America is a small self-appointed dictatorship which consists of an elite core of civil servants. In case you missed the memo, our elected representatives, which you choose from the very small selection of two, are generally corrupt and impotent.

I hardly think that they are America. America is full of people doing things, it has towns and cities and corporations and churches, schools and universities, culture, art, entertainment, thinkers and writers, all of which have done wonderful things.

In general, they were never in control of government, and what it does. What the US govt. does is kill people, and take the money of its own citizens. You can follow this through year by year from its founding. You can start with slavery and the wars against the indians, and then, I'll grant, there was a brief respite, all republicans I would note, where after the civil war and before WWI, when the govt. sat back and let America do its thing.

Then, WWI, WWII, or, to be more honest "the war with japan" Our govt went to war with japan in 1937, until nuking them in 1945. After that it was Korea, and Vietnam. Then, again, people were sick of war. But during the 90s it was all back. The Gulf War doesn't bug me because we were defending an ally, and we didn't invade Iraq, but then under Clinton there were wars in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Iraq again, Yugoslavia again. Ah, democrats like to refer to this period as "eight years of peace."

Then, in comes Bush, it's War with Iraq, war with Afghanistan, let's see if we can get some more: A try at Somalia again, Lebanon, Pakistan, some talk of war with Syria, Iran, N. Korea and Venezuela.

So, do I have a problem with America and its many fine people and institutions? No. Do I have a problem with its govt? Yes.

I don't know why you're on the attack all of a sudden, but there's precious little to defend about this institution which calls itself our elected govt. Barely a federal dollar is spent on the united states, helping it be a better place. Outside of entitlement spending which is tied directly to entitlement taxes, 95% of all discretionary spending goes to war against someone. That is of course not counting the endless spending that goes towards interest on the debt.

Here's one for you, when FDR had a "noble vision" to go conquer the pacific (He didn't give a damn about Europe, and purposefully postponed the war while it was public knowledge that the Germans were exterminating the jews) No, he had a grand manifest destiny that the US reach to the shores of East Asia, and was willing to sacrifice millions of lives towards achieving that goal. To do so, he borrowed money from the American people through "War Bonds." Exactly how much of this war debt has been paid down? None. Absolutely none. We still owe it, with interest. The war bonds to suppo

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 9:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I disagree with the political views of many people, but I don’t make dishonest and fanatical comments about them.
"What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like."

*clears throat*
And?

AND?
LOL, what if I said "What is going to happen is the Bush people, that McCain would have been putting in were going institute an extreme version of Bushitonia, which no one was going to like" you'd have been all over me with that 'close-minded' thing you pull

.

The trick to objectivity is turning things totally around & seeing if it feels different from the other side.

The balance-striving Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I disagree with the political views of many people, but I don’t make dishonest and fanatical comments about them.
"What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like."

*clears throat*
And?

AND?
LOL, what if I said "What is going to happen is the Bush people, that McCain would have been putting in were going institute an extreme version of Bushitonia, which no one was going to like" you'd have been all over me with that 'close-minded' thing you pull .

The trick to objectivity is turning things totally around & seeing if it feels different from the other side.

No. I wouldn’t have. It’s really sad that you’ve been poisoning your mind with all this hate-politics for so long that you can’t distinguish reasoned disagreement from hate.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Your government exists to remove the very rights of the people that it was created to protect, and to establish a new unitary executive council of cabinet and advisors, unaccountable and unimpeachable, with a figurehead king too take the blame for anything that might happen to go wrong.

This part sounds like it's ME talking...that leads me to think it may be a bit too conspiracy theory for the average Joe...and maybe a bit dramatically stated, but essentially I can agree.

Quote:

No, I'm a patriot, and there is nothing more patriotic than to defend this land and its people against this abuse of power

But...*robotic eyes fixed* there IS no abuse of power....

The deluded Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No. I wouldn’t have.

I find that hard to believe.

Quote:
It’s really sad that you’ve been poisoning your mind with all this hate-politics for so long that you can’t distinguish reasoned disagreement from hate.

"What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like."

So stating that this country is going to be "Clintonia" to the extreme, & that NO ONE is going to like it is reasoned disagreement?? There's no partisan feeling in that one, huh? Not just an angry slam, no?

Puhleeeze.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:20 PM

Quote:
She is a teacher and has written at least one book...

Which is one more than her daddy has ever read!

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Which is one more than her daddy has ever read!

Didn't he read that book about the feline with headgear?

The impish Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No. I wouldn’t have.
I find that hard to believe.
Quote:
It’s really sad that you’ve been poisoning your mind with all this hate-politics for so long that you can’t distinguish reasoned disagreement from hate.

"What is going to happen is the Clinton people, that Obama is putting in poor or has put in power, are going institute an extreme version of Clintonia, which no one is going to like."

So stating that this country is going to be "Clintonia" to the extreme, & that NO ONE is going to like it is reasoned disagreement?? There's no partisan feeling in that one, huh? Not just an angry slam, no?

Puhleeeze.

It’s not an angry slam. First I’m not angry. Second, it’s not a slam. It’s an observation. Obama is putting a lot of Clinton people in power. The Democrats have control of the House and the Congress, which means those Clinton people will be able to push through a lot. And last, in the end Conservatives won’t like it for obvious reasons, but liberals won’t like it either, because Obama will not be able to make good on most of the idealistic Left-wing promises he made. You know, maybe you need to grow up a little bit and start using your big boy thinking, instead of calling everything you don’t agree with an idiot or a moron or evil or stupid or a poopoohead. When you starting doing, it might occur to you that things I say, make a lot more sense to you.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First I’m not angry.
...maybe you need to grow up a little bit and start using your big boy thinking, instead of calling everything you don’t agree with an idiot or a moron or evil or stupid or a poopoohead.

LOL....that was funny, thanks.
Look, you know how alcoholics have that moment of clarity thing, yeah? Have one of those for a moment & admit that because peeps have used such harsh language towards the dude (Bush is an evil...) that any fair criticisms of the man or his deeds by certain folk will forever be tossed casually in your bash-bin.

The uh-huh Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
First I’m not angry.
...maybe you need to grow up a little bit and start using your big boy thinking, instead of calling everything you don’t agree with an idiot or a moron or evil or stupid or a poopoohead.
LOL....that was funny, thanks.
Look, you know how alcoholics have that moment of clarity thing, yeah? Have one of those for a moment & admit that because peeps have used such harsh language towards the dude (Bush is an evil...) that any fair criticisms of the man or his deeds by certain folk will forever be tossed casually in your bash-bin.

Actually, again you’re still wrong. Let’s examine what some people have offered in this thread concerning Bush, and mind you that this not only typical of many of you, but pervasive.

“If Bush was German, Tom Cruise would try to kill him”
Bush is compared to Hitler. However, Bush is not Hitler.

“But not that he was a drunk and an idiot, and couldn't name a single world leader at the time, I conjure.”
Bush is referred to as a drunk (Bush doesn’t drink), Bush is referred to as an Idiot (Bush certainly is not).

“Trust me, I was stuck with this fucking moron for a term and a half - I know a bit about him.”
Bush is referred to with derogatory comments, suggesting that the author of the above statement probably doesn’t know half of what he thinks he does.

“Which is one more than her daddy has ever read!”
It is insinuated that Bush is uneducated. (Bush has a Bachelor’s in History from Yale.)

If you would like to offer some fair criticism of Bush, I’m all ears, but you rarely if ever do.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s really sad that you’ve been poisoning your mind with all this hate-politics for so long that you can’t distinguish reasoned disagreement from hate.

How about this:
Clinton was a pussy. He plays doctor with virtual teenager, then can't even fess up to it under OATH. I can't decide whether Statutory-Rape-Man, or Perjury Dude is his alter ego.

There, was THAT mindless hate? You need to answer yes, because stuff has been stated in similar ways about Bush, and you've called hate on them, no matter how factually based they were.

The testing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Bush is compared to Hitler.

Joke. Funny too.

Quote:

Bush is referred to as a drunk (Bush doesn’t drink),

You can't know that for a fact. I dismiss it.

Quote:

Bush is referred to with derogatory comments, suggesting that the author of the above statement probably doesn’t know half of what he thinks he does.

Bush has used foul language & flipped the bird for the camera- does this indicate that he probably doesn’t know half of what he thinks he does? Again, dismissed.

Quote:

It is insinuated that Bush is uneducated. (Bush has a Bachelor’s in History from Yale)

Joke in part, and a degree means nothing when you have the money to 'create' it. You cannot prove that he did his own work; you cannot prove that he didn't have the correct peeps paid off, and he certainly doesn't speak like someone who passed Ivy-league English courses. I dismiss this point, and your whole case.

Judge Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s really sad that you’ve been poisoning your mind with all this hate-politics for so long that you can’t distinguish reasoned disagreement from hate.

How about this:
Clinton was a pussy. He plays doctor with virtual teenager, then can't even fess up to it under OATH. I can't decide whether Statutory-Rape-Man, or Perjury Dude is his alter ego.

Clinton is not a pussy – that’s a derogatory. Clinton was never charged with statutory rape, and while evidence existed that he may have raped someone, it was never proven. Clinton did perjure himself, that much is a fact. So if your going to make me choose between these comments, “Perjury Dude” is the only one that bares any solid basis in fact.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:06 PM

And still, instead of fair criticism you defend the unfair attacks. So don’t give me this bullshit about fair criticism. You don’t have any to offer.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Clinton is not a pussy

In that case, he was (and remember that I voted for him)

Quote:
Clinton was never charged with statutory rape

That would be the over-the-top part, a joke.

Quote:
“Perjury Dude” is the only one that bares any solid basis in fact.

See, this is it, I wouldn't call what this says about Clinton to be simple 'Hate', it has a basis in reality & demonstrates a strong dislike of the dude's actions based on FACTS.
You have a problem with emotional exposition mixing into positive or negative criticism, in my opinion.

I understand that it can make precision of factual reception a little murky, but no one slams Bush because he was a GREAT President, let's face it.

The murky Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You have a problem with emotional exposition mixing into positive or negative criticism, in my opinion.

I have a problem unfair attacks, especially when they’re passed off as “fair criticism,” because it dishonest, not emotional.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And still, instead of fair criticism you defend the unfair attacks. So don’t give me this bullshit about fair criticism. You don’t have any to offer.

You just used foul language, am I to assume by that you probably don’t know half of what you thinks you do?

Okay, I've been evil enough today, thanks for the banter, Finn.

The mischievous Chrisisall

RIVERDANCER

Tuesday, December 30, 2008 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
she was out to get Palin, who was set up. Also, you can edit anyone to look like a total moron if you have enough tape.

Please point out the edit job between "So what newspapers do you regularly read? What magazines?" and "Oh, all of them." ...*blah blah blah, tripe tripe tripe*... "Yeah, I'll for sure get back to you on that."
And I'm paraphrasing, it's been a little while since I've seen it.
Maybe she wasn't 'prepped' enough to name any policies of her running mate, aside from his being a maverick, and maybe she wasn't 'prepped' enough to know that living across a somewhat narrow strip of sea from another country doesn't really qualify you to talk about what that country's like, but for this very simple question, she could have pulled "Anchorage Daily News" out of her beauty-queen butt. Instead she fumbled about as though she didn't really understand the question. You seem quite determined to see some great spark of intelligence or competence in the woman, and I can't really stop you, but I do think there are better uses for your energy. Just my opinion.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:39 AM

Quote:
Chris

This part sounds like it's ME talking...that leads me to think it may be a bit too conspiracy theory for the average Joe...and maybe a bit dramatically stated, but essentially I can agree.

Yah, it was more or less the words of the people at the time, so it may be conspiracy, but it's not very theory.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:44 AM

Riverdancer,

No arguments on palin hate, that's my rule. Palin came in for more abuse than anyone ever. I got more Palin hate mail in just six weeks than bush hate mail and cheney hate mail over the last eight years, and I checked that on my mail search, and I get a lot of bush/cheney hate mail. Fortunately, no Bush/Cheney slash.

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 1:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
... Your government exists to remove the very rights of the people that it was created to protect, and to establish a new unitary executive council of cabinet and advisors, unaccountable and unimpeachable, with a figurehead king too take the blame for anything that might happen to go wrong...

Powerful stuff. I have to say that I FEEL like I still have all my rights. With the exception of the limits of my wallet, I can do pretty much whatever I like within reason and with respect to my fellow citizens. What am I missing? What do these shadowy folk want with my rights anyway?

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 3:57 PM

Pizmo

Thanks

Okay, you've not yet been bivouacked.

Your rights to free speech?

Try telling the cop to f-off, but far short of that, try telling the truth, if it hurts or endangers the govt. I'm not the only one on this board who has had a site taken down for political content. My site contained the military targets within Iran and the weapons we would use. The plan but together by the same morons who put together the Iraq war plan, called for a nuclear first strike on nine sites. It claimed to be to disable to nations nuclear research sites, but the real goal was clear, because we'd all grown up seeing plans just like it: It was a cold-war nuclear first strike plan to take out Iran's industry and limit their ability to respond or resist an invasion.

Everything I posted was public knowledge, and was followed by pictures of the locations, and the people who live there. I got a couple comments from members of congress, so I know that it had gotten noticed, and then it was suddenly deleted. I did my part, but I can't claim credit for the plan being scuttled. However, the right of other people to speak the truth collectively, may have scuttled the plan. Everyone is making an erroneous assumption that Iran doesn't have the ability to respond because there are no nukes inside of Iran. That doesn't mean they don't have nukes. 4gw. I think the plan would actually have led to a nuclear exchange. Freedom of speech makes a difference.

Your free association, and freedom of religion?

Try creating an Al Qaeda cell, a completely peaceful non-terrorist one. There are several all over the world. Our free press doesn't tell you this, but they outnumber the militant ones. Same with Hezbollah. Right now, Al Qaeda is in Darfur handing out food and water. Al Qaeda isn't our problem, it's the Mujahideen. Of course, the members of this board have far more in common with the Mujahideen than they would evil care to admit, for the most part.

Or even try organizing a christian sect, it doesn't have to be new, it can be a century old. If it doesn't match the agenda, it's gone, from Waco to South Hills.

But even peace groups are feeling the pinch. The radical left is well infiltrated, and their power to protest muzzled. Seen any big demonstrations in this country like you see in other countries? Probably not. Our "free press" wouldn't cover them even if they happened, but they're not happening, because you can only protest in what is called a "free speech zone" which is a little blocked off area where you get to march by and wave slogans to no one. I know this because I know a lot of lefties.

Try forming a well ordered militia, to defend your land against unjust rule. You'll meet unjust rule pretty quickly. I got in a lot of trouble on another thread for saying this, but check out your right to bear arms. It evolved from a musket to a handgun to an assault rifle, but then it stopped. The other guys, they moved on with their RPGs, cruise missiles, carpetbombing randomly scattering landmines, to say nothing of nukes. You have the right to defend yourselves against the 18th century brits, but not against a predator drone. Try setting up an anti-aircraft battery and see how that flies.

Protection from unreasonable search and seizure

Do you think that the guys in Guantanamo volunteered? Ever been seized without a warrant? Unlawfully detained for days by homeland security? I have, and I'll bet others have here as well. What about drug busts? It's now legal for the DEA, or anyone with a modicum of authority, from rentacops to school principles, without any tangible evidence of unlawful behavior to break into your home anywhere, take what ever they want, and even kill people, in the name of drugs, even if none are found. I know a guy who was stopped by a cop for 'looking hippie-like' and the cop slashed up the upholstery and the tires, and basically disassembled the car, looking for drugs, which he didn't find. Then said "sorry bud" and left him there, in the middle of the desert about 70 miles from the next town.

5. No

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Hillary Clinton, our new secretary of state, is moronic enough to have phoned into a meeting via satellite to proclaim her undying loyalty to the abolition of national sovereignty and the surrender to a one world government, one with no democracy, no representation, and no rights whatsoever.

Is there a transcript of that, because seriously, that sounds a little out there, even to me,

Conspiracy Chrisisall

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 7:35 PM

Oh, better, there's a video somewhere. She's lauding the acheivements of Walter Cronkite towards that end (Yes, sadly, the way it was: Cronkite, a one-worlder)

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 7:56 PM

Quote:
... The power players have more than enough power to manipulate the democratic system any way they want. They chose the winners, and once chosen, they were destined to be elected.... For an influence peddler, a GOP president sitting over and overwhelmingly hostile senate and house would accomplish nothing, and they buy politicians to get things done for them, not to sit there.

My god. Someone as cynical as I am.

But... The Power Players are not a united force. War is good for arms but bad for trade. Stocks gain when interest rates fall. Ones' loss is anothers' gain. It depends which power group in behind the scenes. IMHO the Clintonistas were internationalists.

But to the original title of the thread: Some forces are intrinsically inimical. Balance is not possible.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:05 PM

Quote:
I'm not the only one on this board who has had a site taken down for political content.

Been followed by an alphabet agency for same reason.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some of it was Bush, some of it was not, but nonetheless, the media made certain it was all blamed on Bush and by extension the Republicans and McCain.

Why would a lefty Clintonista like myself even entertain the possibility of voting for McCain then, if I was so swayed by the media masters? It was only after hearing Palin speak a few times that I was easily able to rule out McCain entirely. Finn, when folks voted for Bush, you didn't seem to think they were mostly media-brainwashed monkeys, but now you do? Or was Bush pushed into our brains the same way?
First of all the media leans to the Left. They aren’t going to go out of their way for a Conservative candidate, everything else being equal. Secondly, the media being composed of a large majority of Liberals and owing to their natural tendency for the novelty were infatuated with with a black presidential candidate from the start. And thirdly, Bush was not a nobody. He was governor of Texas, son of a former president. His politics were believed to be well known, which gave people real policy driven reasons for voting for him. Obama never defined himself. He remains to this day a mystery, using his exceptional oratory skills and the media as cover. Only a few occasions, such as Joe the Blumber event, did he drop his guard.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Not all media - or haven't you been paying attention? Fox is definately not left leaning, nor are quite a few of the major papers in this country. The cry by the right that the media is "left leaning" is getting really old.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Not all media - or haven't you been paying attention? Fox is definately not left leaning, nor are quite a few of the major papers in this country. The cry by the right that the media is "left leaning" is getting really old.

The sad FoxNews excuse to dismiss the majority for the media is getting even older.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Wednesday, December 31, 2008 8:41 PM

Black and White and Re(a)d All Over:
The Conservative Advantage
in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns

INTRODUCTION

This project did something that has never been done before: It amassed data on the syndicated columnists published by nearly every daily newspaper in the country. While a few publications, most notably Editor & Publisher, cover the syndicated newspaper industry, no one has attempted to comprehensively assemble this information prior to now. Because the syndicates refuse to reveal to the public exactly where their columnists are published, when Media Matters for America set out to make a systematic assessment of the syndicated columnist landscape, we had no choice but to contact each paper individually and ask which syndicated columnists are published on their op-ed pages.

The results show that in paper after paper, state after state, and region after region, conservative syndicated columnists get more space than their progressive counterparts. As Editor & Publisher paraphrased one syndicate executive noting, "U.S. dailies run more conservative than liberal columns, but some are willing to consider liberal voices."1

Though papers may be "willing to consider" progressive syndicated columnists, this unprecedented study reveals the true extent of the dominance of conservatives:

Sixty percent of the nation's daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists every week than progressive syndicated columnists. Only 20 percent run more progressives than conservatives, while the remaining 20 percent are evenly balanced.
In a given week, nationally syndicated progressive columnists are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of 125 million. Conservative columnists, on the other hand, are published in newspapers with a combined total circulation of more than 152 million.2
The top 10 columnists as ranked by the number of papers in which they are carried include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
The top 10 columnists as ranked by the total circulation of the papers in which they are published also include five conservatives, two centrists, and only three progressives.
In 38 states, the conservative voice is greater than the progressive voice -- in other words, conservative columns reach more readers in total than progressive columns. In only 12 states is the progressive voice greater than the conservative voice.
In three out of the four broad regions of the country -- the West, the South, and the Midwest -- conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists. Only in the Northeast do progressives reach more readers, and only by a margin of 2 percent.
In eight of the nine divisions into which the U.S. Census Bureau divides the country, conservative syndicated columnists reach more readers than progressive syndicated columnists in any given week. Only in the Middle Atlantic division do progressive columnists reach more readers each week.
Though they have suffered slow but steady declines in readership over the last couple of decades, newspapers remain in many ways the most important of all news media. The Newspaper Association of America estimates that each copy of a weekday paper is read by an average of 2.1 adults, while each Sunday paper is read by an average of 2.5 adults,3 pushing total newspaper readership for daily papers to more than 116 million and Sunday papers to more than 134 million. This means that some columnists reach tens of millions of readers, and one, conservative George Will, actually reaches more than 50 million.

Furthermore, newspapers are the preferred news medium of those most interested in the news. According to a 2006 Pew Research Center study, 66 percent of those who say they follow political news closely regularly read newspapers, far more than the number who cite any other medium.4 And an almost identical proportion of those who say they "enjoy keeping up with the news" -- more than half the population -- turn to newspapers more than any other medium. These more awa

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE