quote:

Originally posted by The17sss What issues do you disagree with Obama on? And like there isn't a civil war within the democrat party?

quote:

If Obama's [44 percent] share holds, it would top the 43 percent of white voters who backed Bill Clinton in 1996, when the Democrat won a plurality among white females and 38 percent of white men, the best performance by a Democrat in all those categories since 1976.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14921.html

Sounds like a divided Democratic party to me.

I have a question for you - are your comments and rants based on actual observations of this campaign, or do you just make up facts and opinions that would help your candidate's agenda if true?

quote:

Obama is supposed to be the great unifier.

Looks to me like he is. Have you seen PUMA lately? I can point to a whole lot of prominent conservatives that have endorsed Obama - can you point to any prominent liberals that have voiced discontent within the ranks since the convention? This is a unified party whether you like that fact or not.

quote:

Did you already forget about the primarys? Clintonites were saying about Obama, and Obama saying about the Clintons, what they have been saying for decades about the Republicans. There were charges of racism on both sides of the Democrat presidential campaign, bringing up the drug use rumors, the drug selling rumors of Barack Obama,

Never advanced by a campaign, just Fox News. In fact, even Rudy Giuliani called those rumors out of line.

quote:

the criticism of Sidney Poitier being compared to Obama and vice-versa as a sellout going to the white folks' home for dinner...

Again, was this alleged by a campaign?

quote:

Hillary's moment of saying "So what? Were it not for a Democrat president, what Dr. King did would never have happened," in response to Obama praising MLK...

A non story if I've ever heard one. And I must have missed this one, because I don't recall her saying that.

quote:

Bill being accused by the Obama campaign of being racist while campaigning in SC...

Never happened.

quote:

Hillary playing the gender card and crying to get sympathy...

Yes, because any real emotion is "playing the gender card" if you're female. That sounds more misogynistic than anything I've heard all week.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss They aren't sensible... they are just preserving their own self interests and doing what they think will keep them in the circle of power in Washington. I say good riddence... now we know who they are and they will not be welcome back in the Republican party. My feelings about those Benedict Arnolds are summed up nicely by Charles Krauthammer (who even with the appearance of a snapping turtle can sum it up eloquently):

Wow, you've really outdone yourself with partisan drivel today. "Benedict Arnolds"? Lol, remind me never to disagree with anything you write. So it's only patriotic to toe the line and mime everything related to you from the GOP base? It's not patriotic to realize your party is making a mockery of itself by selecting a candidate unparalleled in incomptetence?

Well, you should know that you aren't going to have much of a party to exclude the conservative intellectual crowd from re-joining.

quote:

To the extent that geography correlates with ideology among congressional Republicans, a major sweep by the Democrats could really be in a position to completely break the gluons that bind the broader party together. The GOP will lose a disportionate number of seats in the Northeast, Midwest and West and keep a disrportionate number of seats in the South. So the remnant of the party, as it were, will be right-wing Southern conservatives.... even more so that it is now.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/hey_follow_up_on_last.php

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I have a question for you - are your comments and rants based on actual observations of this campaign, or do you just make up facts and opinions that would help your candidate's agenda if true?

Yes, based on actual things I've read. I'm not making stuff up to help my candidate's agenda... why would I? I'm not going to change any minds in this forum, that's for sure... and I wouldn't waste my time trying

quote:

Looks to me like he is. Have you seen PUMA lately? I can point to a whole lot of prominent conservatives that have endorsed Obama - can you point to any prominent liberals that have voiced discontent within the ranks since the convention? This is a unified party whether you like that fact or not.

That's the thing... they aren't, and never were "prominent conservatives".... they have been the so-called moderate ones who were the very ones clamoring for McCain to be the nominee of the GOP because as they said in their infinite wisdom, it was the moderates and independants the GOP needed to attract if they wanted to win. Conservatism is very strictly defined, and they don't fit the definition.

quote:

Never advanced by a campaign, just Fox News. In fact, even Rudy Giuliani called those rumors out of line.

You'll take Rudy at his word when it fits your narrative I see. It wasn't something manufactured by Fox News... for 1, sometimes they actually report on the things the Obama-mania-media won't report on, as they have been protecting him througout. And secondly, Here are some sources:
1) Clinton/Obama Clash Over Race Issue: http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...&show_article=1
2) Clinton to Attend Dr. King Event as Campaign for NY Heats Up: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/clint...campaign/69466/
3) Clinton Denies Being a Racist: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_r...ment/index.html
4)Hillary Clinton gaffe over Martin Luther King may cost votes in South Carolina: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle3173652.ece

quote:

A non story if I've ever heard one. And I must have missed this one, because I don't recall her saying that.

It was a paraphrase... her actual words: “Dr King’s dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took a president to get it done.”

quote:

Yes, because any real emotion is "playing the gender card" if you're female. That sounds more misogynistic than anything I've heard all week.

Real emotion? First of all, robots don't have emotions. But really, you think it was a coincidence that happend right on the heels of a growing consensus that Hillary was an ice cold person? Nothing that happens with the Clintons is coincidence. That was one of the most fake crying scenes I've seen outside of Hollywood. If that statement is the most misogynistic thing you've heard all week, you don't get out much. If that "offended" your sensibilities than you'll love this...(lol I'm hoping you have a sense of humor about the photos).

Haha, this is hilarious. Go ahead and call the anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-moderate, anti-intellectual wing of the Republican Party home. I'm sure they're glad to have you.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Did she punch herself in the face too? I think there's more to this story than meets the eye (no pun intended), and I don't necessarily mean from a political standpoint.

Umm, you do realize the lid's been blown off this completely, right?

And what's even worse, the McCain campaign deliberately spread this false story:



and:

quote:

John Verrilli, the news director for KDKA in Pittsburgh, told TPM Election Central that McCain's Pennsylvania campaign communications director gave one of his reporters a detailed version of the attack that included a claim that the alleged attacker said, "You're with the McCain campaign? I'm going to teach you a lesson." Verrilli also told TPM that the McCain spokesperson had claimed that the "B" stood for Barack. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpo...porters_inc.php

The story was earlier identified as this:



And this was even more interesting - an Executive VP from Faux News said this:

quote:

If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee. If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting. http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2...23/jmoody_1023/

You're God-damned fucking right it is - the McCain camp fully involved in race-baiting here. And that's not only sad, it's downright scandalous. All it puts to light all the talk about Powell supposedly voting for Obama because, well, he's a fellow "brother" in da mutha-fuckin' hood, and we's gots to stick togetha against whitey. And well, if Rush says it's true, by golly it's just gospel. Nevermind that darn silly evidence, what the pill-popping extremist on AM radio says simply must be true (sorry, not directed towards you specifically, Shakka).

Race-baiting all around. Lovely.

I never thought I'd see the day where the Republican party would be in this much disarray. For them to stoop this low, jesus, can you blame the fair-minded folks running full-sprint out of the party to vote for Obama?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Haha, this is hilarious. Go ahead and call the anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-moderate, anti-intellectual wing of the Republican Party home. I'm sure they're glad to have you.

those are all such weak, stereotypical generalities that have been hovering over the GOP for decades. Democrats are the ones who lump everyone into indetity groups based on all of the above.

Conservatism has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or gender. It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom, a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population. If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party. It doesn't take any balls to be a "moderate" who hangs on till the end to see where victory will be and then goes in that direction. The reason that we're in this mess today is because we had to start making this "Republican" tent big, watering down what conservatism is. The blueprint for success was put out there by Regan, who got Democrats and moderats to move to the right... he didn't get them by pretending to be one of them like McCain does.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Conservatism has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or gender. It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom,

Excellent. I look forward to hearing your voice joining mine and many others in voicing dissent with this Administration (and admittedly, with the capitulation of the Congressional Democrats) for illegally wiretapping Americans.

I also look forward to hearing your voice for a woman's right to choose what she can and cannot do with her body.

Oh wait, just not some individual freedoms, I guess, like those, right?

quote:

a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population.

How funny of you to even hint at how Reagan ran his government below when you state this. Small-state my ass.

quote:

If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party.

Me too - more than happy. Get those libertarians and non-extremists out of your party. Plenty of room underneath our Democratic big-tent, thanks. We're more than happy to have those who actually believe in a smaller government, run a fiscal policy that doesn't nose-dive us into recessions and deep six us into neverending deficits,

you know, anything but like the last 3 Republican presidents.....

quote:

It doesn't take any balls to be a "moderate" who hangs on till the end to see where victory will be and then goes in that direction.

Perhaps not. It also doesn't take an idiot to see and call out your candidate's supreme stupidity for picking someone of the likes of Palin, who's unfavorability numbers and downright moronic statements speak loudly for the direction she and McCain want to take your party and this country towards.

quote:

The reason that we're in this mess today is because we had to start making this "Republican" tent big, watering down what conservatism is.

Actually, you've had many moderate Republicans around for quite some time - longer than you've had your extremists. There were principles in your party that I admired, including things like pro-environmentalism, anti-poverty, and small government propelled by the likes of Nixon, Goldwater, etc. But you garnered up your extremists, including folks on the Christian fundamentalist and dipshit creationists wing, who helped stear your party right off the cliff, and you only have folks like Rove to blame who thought it more useful to put politics above policy.

quote:

The blueprint for success was put out there by Regan, who got Democrats and moderats to move to the right... he didn't get them by pretending to be one of them like McCain does.

Indeed Reagan was persuasive, and I tip my hat to his abilities as a good spokesman. But championing him as a means of a successful "blueprint" is interesting, because in doing so we'll also have to champion:

-over 10% of unemployment
-explosion of over $124 trade deficit in 1985 (surprisingly, it was a $2 billion surplus under Carter)
-environmentalism being completely pissed on
-quadrupled the national debt
-record setting on farm foreclosures and S&L bank failures
-billions of taxpayer dollars funded to ruthless dictatorships and terrorists, including Osama bin Laden (though to be fair it was a means of fighting the spread of Communism)
-Iran-Contra
-amnesty to illegal aliens
-cutting taxes ONCE, then raising them SIX times
-gigantic government

So sure, that's really what the country wants.....


Added in Edit:Further issues I found cute as a "blueprint" from Reagan:

-calling condiments like Ketchup a vegetable to be included in the 4 food groups for federal school lunches
-the tens of thousands of those dead by AIDS as Reagan sat on his hands and failed to respond sooner to the crisis
-tens of thousands of mentally ill that Reagan blighted by effectively ended the mental health care system and sent their asses out onto the streets
-hundreds of thousands of kids Reagan threw into further poverty when he destroyed their housing subsidies and food programs
-12,000 air traffic controllers who Reagan fired on the spot
-his wonderful "voodoo economics"
-lovely redistribution of income to the wealthy, where in the 1980's the vast majority of economic gains went primarily to the top 1-2%, while median wages for everyone else remained stagnant
-"structural adjustment" bullshit in the IMF and World Bank to which those economic policies were so discredited that neither of those two entities even use the term
-vetoing the sanctions in S. Africa passed by Congress as a result of the apartheid occurring there (that was really lovely of him too).
-Attempts at gutting the Civil Rights Commission (strange that).

And that line about "facts are stupid things" really does drive home in your party too, I'm sure......

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Oct-25-2008 at 20:26

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss those are all such weak, stereotypical generalities that have been hovering over the GOP for decades. Democrats are the ones who lump everyone into indetity groups based on all of the above. Conservatism has absolutely NOTHING to do with race or gender. It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom, a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population. If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party. It doesn't take any balls to be a "moderate" who hangs on till the end to see where victory will be and then goes in that direction. The reason that we're in this mess today is because we had to start making this "Republican" tent big, watering down what conservatism is. The blueprint for success was put out there by Regan, who got Democrats and moderats to move to the right... he didn't get them by pretending to be one of them like McCain does.

You fail to realize that conservatism isn't really the driving force behind the GOP anymore.

Maybe being more blunt will help you comprehend (but I doubt it): That's the reason why conservative intellectuals are defecting, it's not because they're moderates.

The reason you're in this situation is because the Republican party is a big tent party. But it didn't water down conservatism - it made it irrelevant because most of the people under the tent, like yourself, are too stupid to understand the concepts.

You might see Democrats supporting welfare government programs and trying to help those who aren't very well-off in society. That said, Democrats don't instantaneously try to promote these people to the head of the government and tout them as the models that we base the American dream on. They try to give them opportunities to advance themselves so that one day, maybe that will be an option, if not for them, their children.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Excellent. I look forward to hearing your voice joining mine and many others in voicing dissent with this Administration (and admittedly, with the capitulation of the Congressional Democrats) for illegally wiretapping Americans. I also look forward to hearing your voice for a woman's right to choose what she can and cannot do with her body. Oh wait, just not some individual freedoms, I guess, like those, right? How funny of you to even hint at how Reagan ran his government below when you state this. Small-state my ass. Me too - more than happy. Get those libertarians and non-extremists out of your party. Plenty of room underneath our Democratic big-tent, thanks. We're more than happy to have those who actually believe in a smaller government, run a fiscal policy that doesn't nose-dive us into recessions and deep six us into neverending deficits, you know, anything but like the last 3 Republican presidents..... Perhaps not. It also doesn't take an idiot to see and call out your candidate's supreme stupidity for picking someone of the likes of Palin, who's unfavorability numbers and downright moronic statements speak loudly for the direction she and McCain want to take your party and this country towards. Actually, you've had many moderate Republicans around for quite some time - longer than you've had your extremists. There were principles in your party that I admired, including things like pro-environmentalism, anti-poverty, and small government propelled by the likes of Nixon, Goldwater, etc. But you garnered up your extremists, including folks on the Christian fundamentalist and dipshit creationists wing, who helped stear your party right off the cliff, and you only have folks like Rove to blame who thought it more useful to put politics above policy. Indeed Reagan was persuasive, and I tip my hat to his abilities as a good spokesman. But championing him as a means of a successful "blueprint" is interesting, because in doing so we'll also have to champion: -over 10% of unemployment -explosion of over $124 trade deficit in 1985 (surprisingly, it was a $2 billion surplus under Carter) -environmentalism being completely pissed on -quadrupled the national debt -record setting on farm foreclosures and S&L bank failures -billions of taxpayer dollars funded to ruthless dictatorships and terrorists, including Osama bin Laden (though to be fair it was a means of fighting the spread of Communism) -Iran-Contra -amnesty to illegal aliens -cutting taxes ONCE, then raising them SIX times -gigantic government So sure, that's really what the country wants.....

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss It's based on personal liberty: individual freedom, a small state that functions for the express purpose of defending and protecting the population. If the conservative Republican base allows itself to get watered down by a bunch of people who are embarrassed over that position, they're not conservatives and I'm happy to see them out of the party.

And the leader of your party has presided over the largest expansion of federal government since... well, Ronald Reagan.

As Opus points out, the modern Republican party is no friend of personal liberty - why do you think the real conservatives are all bailing after Sarah Palin declared the Vice President capable of influencing legislation?

___________________

Excellent posts by both Opus and Groundhog.

Democrats have really owned the issue of personal liberty for a very long time, and it's only now that the libertarian crowd is finally starting to realize it. I mean, c'mon... doesn't anybody remember Terri Schaivo?

___________________

fyi, a little Adam Smith for you:

quote:

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comme...7taco_talk_coll

But yeah, only faux conservatives support the philosophy of the founder of capitalism.

___________________