Text Size

No Holds Barred

So Much For Super Tuesday "Solving" Anything ...

Need to get something off your chest? Have a topic that doesn't fit one of the other forums? Rant away in here. Mature audiences only, not for the easily offended.

Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner

So Much For Super Tuesday "Solving" Anything ...

Unread postby ProgRocker » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:05 am

... on the Democratic side, you have Obama winning the most states, pulling out a come-from-behind victory in MO, and getting something like 8 more delegates (estimated) than today -- but Hillary winning the biggest states (CA/NJ/NY) (even though those are states that are likely to go Democratic in November anyway). The bottom line, though, is that Hillary undoubtedly was thinking she'd clinch things tonight, and that's not going to happen -- and with a calendar that heavily favors Obama and reports that she has money problems, she may have more problems than we all realize. Especially if Edwards decides to throw his delegates to Obama. Great night for Obama all in all.

... and on the Republican side, yeah McCain is going to "clinch", but come on: with Huckabee sweeping the South and Mitt winning more states than originally thought, McCain doesn't clinch tonight, either. And it shows that while he may have the delegate count, he still has a HUGE problem solidifying the hardcore conservative vote (Limbaugh and Dobson are still railing loudly and angrily against him). The GOP has huge problems.

But it means that primaries after tonight (Ohio, anyone?) are going to be IMMENSELY important this year.

And I repeat: DAMN, THIS IS FUN!!!!!!!
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby swerb » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:37 am

Interesting night last night. States just kep falling into different candidates hands on the Republican side, and Clinton and Obama exchanged haymakers all evening, pretty much alternating states as they were called by the news networks.

Hillary and McCain entered as the frontrunners, and left as the frontrunners. Their Vegas odds to win the presidency likely changed very little from yesterday morning to today.

I would have never thought that after Super Tuesday, neither race would be settled, and that you'd still have three contenders on the Republican side. Huckabee was the surprise of the night, winning several states.

What it means is more debates, more domination of the news, and a now fast approaching avalance of political ads coming to televisions all across the state of Ohio. It is cool that our vote will actually matter this year, in both primaries. And as someone who still doesn't know if he'd press the lever for McCain or Romney on March 4, I'm interested in hearing these two answer some more tough questions. I like Romney's positions and business acumen much better, but feel he is less electable than McCain.
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17918
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby skatingtripods » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:41 am

Huckabee is running the perfect VP campaign. He's winning the states where McCain might have trouble and Romney's winning some of the states that will go Democrat anyway. It was a great night for McCain, without question.

I'm ready to be voting for my McCain-Huckabee ticket in November.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby ProgRocker » Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:27 pm

Swerb wrote:Interesting night last night. States just kep falling into different candidates hands on the Republican side, and Clinton and Obama exchanged haymakers all evening, pretty much alternating states as they were called by the news networks.

Hillary and McCain entered as the frontrunners, and left as the frontrunners. Their Vegas odds to win the presidency likely changed very little from yesterday morning to today.

I would have never thought that after Super Tuesday, neither race would be settled, and that you'd still have three contenders on the Republican side. Huckabee was the surprise of the night, winning several states.

What it means is more debates, more domination of the news, and a now fast approaching avalance of political ads coming to televisions all across the state of Ohio. It is cool that our vote will actually matter this year, in both primaries. And as someone who still doesn't know if he'd press the lever for McCain or Romney on March 4, I'm interested in hearing these two answer some more tough questions. I like Romney's positions and business acumen much better, but feel he is less electable than McCain.


I disagree that it makes Hillary the front-runner. The schedule from here on out plays right into Obama's hands, plus he now has the money and hype edge, and Hillary's lead is made up of superdelegates who will flip if they see Obama's campaign/movement has the legs and power to pick up younger voters. Forget the puffery over the last week - Hillary needed to knock Obama out (that was why the Democrats crammed all the states into Super Tuesday in the first place) and she didn't.

Now Obama can go state-by-state -- if you look, you'll notice that when Obama spends time in states or regions he kicks butt -- and focus on his main area of weakness, the Hisapnic vote (I'm guessing Bill Richardson can't buy coffee without an Obama surrogate offering him sugar or cream).

It's great for Ohio and Pennsylvania. As they goes, so goes the nomination, I think.
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby Lokais » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:18 pm

Swerb wrote:Interesting night last night. States just kep falling into different candidates hands on the Republican side, and Clinton and Obama exchanged haymakers all evening, pretty much alternating states as they were called by the news networks.

Hillary and McCain entered as the frontrunners, and left as the frontrunners. Their Vegas odds to win the presidency likely changed very little from yesterday morning to today.

I would have never thought that after Super Tuesday, neither race would be settled, and that you'd still have three contenders on the Republican side. Huckabee was the surprise of the night, winning several states.

What it means is more debates, more domination of the news, and a now fast approaching avalance of political ads coming to televisions all across the state of Ohio. It is cool that our vote will actually matter this year, in both primaries. And as someone who still doesn't know if he'd press the lever for McCain or Romney on March 4, I'm interested in hearing these two answer some more tough questions. I like Romney's positions and business acumen much better, but feel he is less electable than McCain.


Disagree with your take on Hillary as a front runner as well. The longer this goes on, the better it favors Obama. He's the challenger and has to fight his way from the bottom to the top. Clinton started with name recognition, and it should have carried her straight through, but the fact that it hasn't speaks to the fact that Obama's got a stronger message and is a far more electable candidate than Hillary. And now that he's clearly winning in rural areas, which would have been Edwards territory, says that he's gonna really push his way to the front.

Not to mention he's raised 32 million dollars in January and she hasn't even come CLOSE to that.
Lokais
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: New York City

Unread postby buckeyefan78 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:27 pm

Obama has little chance of winning the general election. Clinton has none.
buckeyefan78
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:22 pm

Unread postby leadpipe » Wed Feb 06, 2008 7:33 pm

buckeyefan78 wrote:Obama has little chance of winning the general election. Clinton has none.


To say ANYONE has none chance with the collection of humps running is to not comprehend the enormity of the debacle.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6590
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:04 pm

buckeyefan78 wrote:Obama has little chance of winning the general election. Clinton has none.


Do you care to support your claim with evidence? Oh wait I forgot your the end all be all last word on everything right? :roll :roll:
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby buckeyefan78 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:06 pm

Lead Pipe wrote:
buckeyefan78 wrote:Obama has little chance of winning the general election. Clinton has none.


To say ANYONE has none chance with the collection of humps running is to not comprehend the enormity of the debacle.


:lol:

You could be right.

I'm simply going by historic voting patterns. The Dems are 0-5 when they nominate a Yankee candidate since Goldwater redefined the GOP in the mid 1960s (anti-Civil Rights).

1968: Humphrey - Lost
1972: McGovern - Lost
1984: Mondale - Lost
1988: Dukakis - Lost
2004: Kerry - Lost

The South controls the election process in this nation. Not only have the Yankee Dems never won an election post Civil Rights Era, the only time they ever won a slave state was when they got Texas back in 1968 cuz Wallace split the vote there.

5 elections X 12 Confederate states = 60

60 chances and a Yankee Dem hasn't carried a Confederate state.

Hillary is the ultimate NY carpetbagger. She won't get a single Confederate state.

You're welcome Cerebral Down Time.
buckeyefan78
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:22 pm

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:16 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:Huckabee is running the perfect VP campaign. He's winning the states where McCain might have trouble and Romney's winning some of the states that will go Democrat anyway. It was a great night for McCain, without question.

I'm ready to be voting for my McCain-Huckabee ticket in November.


Huckabee isn't going to be the VP nominee. It's not going to happen because that's not how McCain works.

It is most likely that Tim Pawlenty will be McCain's VP nominee, though if McCain was smart then he'd mend things with Romney and get him on the ticket. There are two major reasons to do this. For one, both Huckabee and McCain have been the worst fundraisers of all the Republican candidates. While Romney's money did not help him in the primaries, McCain cannot hope to be strongly competitive when he can't bag $10 million in one month. Romney's fundraising machine is the best one amongst the Republican candidates and it'd be wise to get Romney on board to take advantage of it. Secondly, McCain has freely admitted that he knows nothing about the economy. I think just about everyone understands just how much Romney knows about the economy. He has been extremely strong with anyone who considers that to be the main issue and I suspect that it will be a major concern come November. Romney on the ticket gives voters assurances that McCain has found the best man to "farm" the economy out to, as he has said he must do.

Huckabee may or may not help in the south, but he also is a horrible fundraiser and could be a liability. This is the man who said that we must revise the Constitution to reflect God's Law. That will be a problem in the general election, especially with the possibility of electing our oldest President ever in regards to the first year of his term in office. Some southerners might like Huckabee, but too many northerners, westerners, etc will not like him.

McCain also needs to revise his illegal immigration stance by dumping the Z visa plan and promoting strength on the borders and enforcement. He must distance himself from Juan Hernandez, his latino outreach director, who is a dual citizen of Mexico and the US and is an advocate of open borders.

I'd also argue that McCain needs to make it quite clear that he will nominate John Bolton as his Secretary of Defense and Rudy Guiliani as the Attorney General. I think both would be huge pluses and help him with conservative.

McCain is also going to have to reach out to Dr. Dobson and others like him. He cannot win without the evangelical vote and he is not liked in the evangelical community. Huckabee on the ticket will not fix this for him. He must choose a better advisor in regards to judges and he needs to admit that he did say that Sam Alito was the wrong kind of judge, acknowledging his error.

John McCain faces a horrendous battle to win the Presidency. He is despised by a lot of conservatives and has failed to win a majority of anyone who considered themselves as conservatives. His suppor has come from Republicans that consider themselves moderate or liberal. That makes him a Nixonian Republican and means that he will need a lot of Democratic support to win unless he reaches out to the conservatives. He's already indicated that he supports Nixonian measures in regards to global warming. Like Nixon's clean water act, clean air act, and the endangered species act, McCain's proposals will hurt the economy far into the future, cause more businesses to move to where regulations are less cumbersome, and do very little to "help" the environment compared to what would happen without legislation.

I don't expect McCain to do much on that list, so I'd put his chances at winning at less than 30%. Many conservatives will stay home and the Democrats will take complete control. It's likely going to be a landslide for the Democrats unless McCain builds the bridges now and plays it smartly.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:29 pm

I'd also argue that McCain needs to make it quite clear that he will nominate John Bolton as his Secretary of Defense and Rudy Guiliani as the Attorney General. I think both would be huge pluses and help him with conservative.


If he nominates those guys and wins im moving to Canada if you think civil rights have been trampled on under the Bush Reich just wait for Goonliani as AG. He would make Alberto Gonzales look like an ACLU lawyer.

You're welcome Cerebral Down Time.


:lol: "thanks" for whatever im welcome for....... You never mentioned Franklin County which is deep Democrat country.
Last edited by Cerebral_DownTime on Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:36 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:If he nominates those guys and wins im moving to Canada if you think civil rights have been trampled on under the Bush Reich just wait for Goonliani as AG. He would make Alberto Gonzales look like an ACLU lawyer.


Enjoy Canada. If you want to talk about civil rights then that's the last place to go. They don't really have any protections up there at all.

And no, I don't think we've had a big problem with civil right issues. The fact that you call it the Bush Reich shows how ignorant of history you truly are. If it truly was the Bush Reich then you'd be in a concentration camp right now for typing that.

There's certainly something to be said about those out there with Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby buckeyefan78 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:47 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:
I'd also argue that McCain needs to make it quite clear that he will nominate John Bolton as his Secretary of Defense and Rudy Guiliani as the Attorney General. I think both would be huge pluses and help him with conservative.


If he nominates those guys and wins im moving to Canada if you think civil rights have been trampled on under the Bush Reich just wait for Goonliani as AG. He would make Alberto Gonzales look like an ACLU lawyer.

You're welcome Cerebral Down Time.


:lol: "thanks" for whatever im welcome for....... You never mentioned Franklin County which is deep Democrat country.


I was welcoming you for your childish snide remark.

I have no idea what Franklin County has to do with the post I made in this thread. I think you are addressing the other political thread I posted in. I have no clue.
buckeyefan78
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:22 pm

Unread postby skatingtripods » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:48 pm

I'm not going to get in some big pissing match about this, but John McCain has an 82.3 lifetime score by the American Conservative Union.

http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#AZ
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby buckeyefan78 » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:50 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:I'm not going to get in some big pissing match about this, but John McCain has an 82.3 lifetime score by the American Conservative Union.

http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#AZ


On which candidate's health care plan is the bigger issue.

:lol: :lol:
buckeyefan78
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:22 pm

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:55 pm

It is the Bush Reich he gets rid of anyone who disagrees with his policy. Federal Judges were replaced with ones who would follow his agenda on Torture, Wiretapping, and prosecuting Democrats. Ignore it at your own risk you can call me ignorant on history because of my choice of words it doesnt bother me because I have my eyes open. I see the way this country is being run by a nearsighted goofy child president. The Barbarians are no longer at the gate they are in the Whitehouse. How do you know the Goon squad isnt on their way right now to drag me off to Gitmo for "enchanced interrogation". Im glad my great grandparents arent alive to see the country they left Germany in 1938 for.

My true feelings on Bush go way beyond the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" he is a traitor who should be sent to Abu Gharib. Canada isnt run by a war-mongering chickenhawk.

Buckeye78 I owe you an apology. Im sorry I got your post mixed up.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby HoodooMan » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:06 pm

McCain is also going to have to reach out to Dr. Dobson and others like him. He cannot win without the evangelical vote and he is not liked in the evangelical community.

I keep hearing this from conservatives, and I can't help but think it's wishful thinking.

If he doesn't need to reach out to the conservative base to win the nomination, why would he need to reach out to them in order to win the election?

Religous convervatives might want him to reach out to them, but he'd have no reason to do it. If he gets this nomination, he's doing it Sinatra-style, as he should IMO, and leaving the religous right in his dust will only help him with independents in the general election.

On a side note, I'm not generally into politics all that much (I've never voted, since I've never had anyone I wanted to vote for, though as of this moment McCain has my vote as long as he doesn't do something to lose it between now & the election), but this year is really fascinating to me. I see the Big 3 breaking down like Rock, Paper, Scissors.

McCain beats Clinton. I don't even think it's close. Hillary will get her base voters, but as the 2nd most hated politician in the country (I'd guess), she'd get killed with independents, and even the conservatives that don't like McCain would show up in droves just to vote for Not Hillary.

Clinton beats Obama. Obama won't be able to create the separation he needs, IMO, and Hillary's shady ass will find a way to get those Michigan & Florida delegates seated at the convention. And I'll bet that's the difference.

Obama beats McCain. Wouldn't matter what McCain does with the religous right or anyone else, there isn't anything he could do to patch things up enough to match Obama's support with his base, and Obama offers too much competition for independents, especially with McCain's stance on Iraq.
User avatar
HoodooMan
The King
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:04 pm
Favorite Player: Big_Lu
Least Favorite Player: Foldtop Sandwich Bag

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:08 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:I'm not going to get in some big pissing match about this, but John McCain has an 82.3 lifetime score by the American Conservative Union.

http://www.acuratings.org/2006all.htm#AZ


Yes he does.

His rating was 88% during the first 15 years of office and is in the low 70s during the last 10 years.

You'll note that his 2007 score was 65%.

Compare him to his fellow AZ Senator. John Kyl is 96.9%.

John McCain WAS a good conservative. He considering switching parties in 2001. He contacted John Kerry in 2004 about switching parties and becoming his running mate (and Kerry has said that that was McCain's idea).
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:15 pm

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:It is the Bush Reich he gets rid of anyone who disagrees with his policy. Federal Judges were replaced with ones who would follow his agenda on Torture, Wiretapping, and prosecuting Democrats. Ignore it at your own risk you can call me ignorant on history because of my choice of words it doesnt bother me because I have my eyes open. I see the way this country is being run by a nearsighted goofy child president. The Barbarians are no longer at the gate they are in the Whitehouse. How do you know the Goon squad isnt on their way right now to drag me off to Gitmo for "enchanced interrogation". Im glad my great grandparents arent alive to see the country they left Germany in 1938 for.

My true feelings on Bush go way beyond the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" he is a traitor who should be sent to Abu Gharib. Canada isnt run by a war-mongering chickenhawk.


Because US Citizens are not taken to Gitmo nor can they be.

Please provide links about the Federal judges. Last I checked, Bush hasn't exactly had his way there. The wiretapping issue was actually cleared by a known leftist judge because it operates within the FISA laws because those wiretaps were calls from outside of the country.

Please show me some proof of torture outside of the waterboarding (which, as was confirmed today, was only done on less than six people - the highest level of Al Qaeda guys captured).

Here's the common hypothetical. Let's assume that the city that most of your family, friends, etc live in appears to be the target of a terrorist attack, maybe a dirty bomb. Let's say that the government has capture a high level Al Qaeda member that we're very confident knows something about this. All normal methods of interrogation have failed. Your whole family will die a horrible death along with thousands of others if you can't get information. Do you waterboard or stick to your principles and let thousands of people, including your own family, die?

You clearly lead by your emotions and choose not to be educated on the fact or even care about them.

Since you care so much about civil liberties, why not tell me which ones you're talking about and where they're protected by the US Constitution.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:25 pm

HoodooMan wrote:
If he doesn't need to reach out to the conservative base to win the nomination, why would he need to reach out to them in order to win the election?


That might be true if he could actually get 50% of the Republican vote in any state he's played in. He couldn't even do it in his home state of Arizona.

Most pundits are in agreement on this one. If Huckabee were not in the race then Romney would be the winner. I think the opposite works as well for Huckabee. McCain wins because those two divide the conservative vote. Well over 50% of the Republican electorate.

Religous convervatives might want him to reach out to them, but he'd have no reason to do it. If he gets this nomination, he's doing it Sinatra-style, as he should IMO, and leaving the religous right in his dust will only help him with independents in the general election.


Not necessarily. The independents would need to replace a large portion of the electorate that turns out very well when they're motivated. The independents are more likely to divide between the two candidates like they often do.

The reality of politics now is that both parties need their bases. The Republicans have had an advantage because the conservative movement is larger than the liberal movement (30% to 10-12% when comparing strong conservatives versus strong liberals). There are also a lot of southern Democrats that are conservatives and often swing Republican and those votes (the panhandle down here in Florida is one of those areas).

McCain's appeal to moderates and independents will not be enough to overcome his problems with the conservative base in the general election. The dynamics of politics have shifted so dramatically over the past 30 years. It worked back in Nixon and Ike's day. Politics in the US are far more polarized nowadays and the extremes are much larger movements than they once were.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby Cerebral_DownTime » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:35 pm

Mr. MacPhisto wrote:
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:It is the Bush Reich he gets rid of anyone who disagrees with his policy. Federal Judges were replaced with ones who would follow his agenda on Torture, Wiretapping, and prosecuting Democrats. Ignore it at your own risk you can call me ignorant on history because of my choice of words it doesnt bother me because I have my eyes open. I see the way this country is being run by a nearsighted goofy child president. The Barbarians are no longer at the gate they are in the Whitehouse. How do you know the Goon squad isnt on their way right now to drag me off to Gitmo for "enchanced interrogation". Im glad my great grandparents arent alive to see the country they left Germany in 1938 for.

My true feelings on Bush go way beyond the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" he is a traitor who should be sent to Abu Gharib. Canada isnt run by a war-mongering chickenhawk.


Because US Citizens are not taken to Gitmo nor can they be.

Please provide links about the Federal judges. Last I checked, Bush hasn't exactly had his way there. The wiretapping issue was actually cleared by a known leftist judge because it operates within the FISA laws because those wiretaps were calls from outside of the country.

Please show me some proof of torture outside of the waterboarding (which, as was confirmed today, was only done on less than six people - the highest level of Al Qaeda guys captured).

Here's the common hypothetical. Let's assume that the city that most of your family, friends, etc live in appears to be the target of a terrorist attack, maybe a dirty bomb. Let's say that the government has capture a high level Al Qaeda member that we're very confident knows something about this. All normal methods of interrogation have failed. Your whole family will die a horrible death along with thousands of others if you can't get information. Do you waterboard or stick to your principles and let thousands of people, including your own family, die?

You clearly lead by your emotions and choose not to be educated on the fact or even care about them.

Since you care so much about civil liberties, why not tell me which ones you're talking about and where they're protected by the US Constitution.



John Walker Lindh spent time at Gitmo

Links? Search Alberto Gonzales resignation.

Abu Gharib. See "Ghost of Abu Gahrib" on HBO or read "Torture and Truth" by Mark Donner

The ticking bomb scenario again? Ok the answer is no to waterboarding because there is no proof that waterboarding will make someone talk. If you caught Khalid Sheik Muhammad before 9/11 and waterboarded him do you think he would of gave up the names of the plotters? No because Islamic millitants want to kill us and have no problem dying for their cause if it kills infidels.

Privacy, Search and Seizure, and holding people without due process. See Hamdan VS Rumsfeld.
"Our name is Legion, for we are many."
User avatar
Cerebral_DownTime
Go f#%k yourself
 
Posts: 14422
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:31 am
Location: Galloway Ohio
Favorite Player: Fenrir
Least Favorite Player: Walt Flannigan's dog

Unread postby HoodooMan » Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:59 pm

That might be true if he could actually get 50% of the Republican vote in any state he's played in. He couldn't even do it in his home state of Arizona.

And yet, he keeps winning, doesn't he?

Most pundits are in agreement on this one. If Huckabee were not in the race then Romney would be the winner. I think the opposite works as well for Huckabee. McCain wins because those two divide the conservative vote. Well over 50% of the Republican electorate.

That sounds right to me. I think McCain has been the beneficiary of a perfect storm to this point; one that will continue through the general election if he gets to face Hillary.

Not necessarily. The independents would need to replace a large portion of the electorate that turns out very well when they're motivated. The independents are more likely to divide between the two candidates like they often do.

Like I said above, I think enough of the base would show up not for McCain but against Hillary and that he'd destroy HC with independent voters. To the point that he'd be doing himself more harm than good by trying to reach out to the religious right.
User avatar
HoodooMan
The King
 
Posts: 1735
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:04 pm
Favorite Player: Big_Lu
Least Favorite Player: Foldtop Sandwich Bag

Unread postby ProgRocker » Wed Feb 06, 2008 10:40 pm

To whomever said a Yankee hasn't won since the Civil Rights Act: true that, except neither Hillary nor Obama are East Coasters. Yeah, Hillary's the Senator from NY, but she was born and raised in IL and of course spent her formative political years in AK with Bill.

And Obama? Raised in Chicago by a Hawaiian and a Kansan. Don't see an ounce of East Coaster in any of that.

Was it Macphisto who came up with the insane idea of having the least diplomatic person on Earth appointed as Secretary of State? Do you WANT to egg China into cutting a deal with Putin to sell Al Qaida suitcase nukes within the first 30 hours of a meeting with John Bolton? Because that's pretty much what would happen. That guy shouldn't be allowed to argue about a late department store payment, much less get anywhere near any kind of diplomacy. He belongs on a street corner.

As for Rudy as A.G., he'll never take it. It's a step down, and I don't think the FBI will be as happy picking up Judy's dog's droppings as the NYPD was.

And finally ... no American citizens in Gitmo? Two words: Jose Padilla, who was so abused the judge actually took pity on him when sentencing came up -- for charges that had nothing to do with the terrorism, frankly.
User avatar
ProgRocker
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Unread postby swerb » Wed Feb 06, 2008 11:15 pm

Mac, I think you're underestimating McCain due to your involvement with the Romney Camp. I too am disappointed in Romney. I think the guy would have made a good president. Everything hes touched has turned to gold. He just came across too robotic and elitist, and his rampant spending on negative political ads painted him as a guy just trying to buy the nomination.

Where you're off I think is your belief that the base is gonna stay home as opposed to voting for McCain. Some may be saying they'll stay home now, but come November, they'll be flocking to the polls to vote against Hillary. Or Obama for that matter.

People act like McCain is a left wing nut job. The guy has been consistently, for decades, pro life, for protecting tax payers, against wasteful spending, and tough on terrorism and national defense. You actually think "the base" is going to stay home when his opponent is Hillary Clinton?

The guy spent years in solitary, taking beating after beating, yet would say nothing to his captors but his rank, name, and serial number. He's generally well liked on both sides of the aisle and is going to steal hordes of votes from Democratic men who loathe Hillary. He'll wise up and select a nice conservative Veep, hint at some conservative appointees to key spots. Rush will even warm to him.

Base ain't stayin home.
"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

http://www.twitter.com/theclevelandfan
User avatar
swerb
JoBu's bee-yotch
 
Posts: 17918
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 5:04 pm
Location: Twinsburg, OH
Favorite Player: Mango Hab
Least Favorite Player: Bob LaMonte

Unread postby Mr. MacPhisto » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:05 am

Swerb wrote:Mac, I think you're underestimating McCain due to your involvement with the Romney Camp. I too am disappointed in Romney. I think the guy would have made a good president. Everything hes touched has turned to gold. He just came across too robotic and elitist, and his rampant spending on negative political ads painted him as a guy just trying to buy the nomination.


Agree on some points, though not on the negative ads. Romney's ads were not really negative. They brought up McCain's record and that was all. Is it negative when you bring up McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy, two bills that most conservatives hate? We all saw the base respond last year to McCain-Kennedy and the backlash against McCain. Those are comparison ads.

I'm not underestimating McCain due to my involvement with Romney. I'm listening to many in the conservative think tank lambaste McCain and I know plenty of people who did not vote for Romney down here that will have trouble voting for McCain. There are a lot of Huckabee people in the south that would have trouble swinging for McCain even if Huckabee is on his ticket. McCain has serious problems just like all the other candidates in the Republican field do.

Truth be told, I don't think any of the candidates at this point can unite the Republican Party and draw the base out. Each one has serious flaws and reasons why a certain segment of the party may stay away from them.

I agree on Romney's robotics and wished he would have focused more on himself and his ideas, but he felt he had to respond when McCain and Huckabee slung some mud at him. McCain's blatant lies about Romney supporting a timetable are troubling and indicative of McCain's inability to ever apologize or admit he's wrong. If you think President Bush is bad about that, John McCain is on a whole 'nother level.

Where you're off I think is your belief that the base is gonna stay home as opposed to voting for McCain. Some may be saying they'll stay home now, but come November, they'll be flocking to the polls to vote against Hillary. Or Obama for that matter.


I don't see it. The problem is that many in the base believe that a huge Democratic win will teach the Republican Party a lesson. They did the same thing back in 2006 in refusing to show up when the House and Senate were on the line. The base was pissed off that the Republicans did not cut spending as promised. That they did not do away with earmarks as promised. That they failed to get the judges they promised to deliver. I'll give McCain credit on spending and earmarks. To his credit, he has never taken an earmark throughout his tenure and he has been a champion of balancing the budget. He was part of the problem on judges.

I disagree with thinking that we should teach the Republicans a lesson. I had to hold my nose and vote for a horrible candidate for the Senate in Florida back in 2006, Katherine Harris. Every one of us down here wanted Jeb to run for that seat and he would have killed Bill Nelson, a man very unpopular down here.

Despite my issues with McCain and my prior statements, I will vote for him if he's the nominee. I will even work for him because it is too important, but listen to those who call in on national radio shows. Go to meetings with your local and state GOP and you will realize how many people in the party would not vote in the Presidential election if McCain, Huckabee, or even Romney were the candidate.

Honestly, even if Romney does pull off the nearly impossible and take a large majority of the delegates from here on out, he couldn't pull this together. He's probably the frontrunner for 2012 at this point and may be able to take out a 76 year old incumbent McCain should McCain win this year(or decide to run again - the Presidency is not kind and men age quickly in the White House). Still, I don't see him unifying the party at this point.

People act like McCain is a left wing nut job. The guy has been consistently, for decades, pro life, for protecting tax payers, against wasteful spending, and tough on terrorism and national defense. You actually think "the base" is going to stay home when his opponent is Hillary Clinton?


Not all, but many will. McCain has an issue with the immigration crowd and that extends to more than just the conservative base. He also is not considered to be pro-life by the social conservatives because of his stance on embryonic stem cells. He supports Federal money for research and many on that side of the base consider that to be a hypocritical stand from a man who doesn't want to use gov't money to fund abortions. He also is against the Federal Marriage Amendment and that irks a lot of social conservatives. Granted, he strongly supports the National Defense of Marriage Act, but many social conservatives feel threatened by the judiciary and want Constitutional protection.

He's not a left wing nutjob, but he's not a straight down the line conservative at this point either. He's strong on national defense but cares less about other things, very much like Richard Nixon. His global warming stance kills him with pro-growth economic conservatives because they know McCain-Lieberman would further drive up energy prices by adding taxes to gasoline and electricity while preventing us from coming up with ways to get off foreign oils by inhibiting growth. McCain was against exploring in ANWR and does not want to ease up restrictions on oil drilling in an attempt to bring down the cost of oil and increase domestic production. That's also where national security conservatives can have a problem with him because it is hard to truly be strong on national defense when you want to hinder domestic sources of energy.

To McCain's credit, he does want to reduce corporate taxes, though he would probably want to raise the % on the highest tax brackets because McCain has a spoken dislike for wealthy people. That's one reason why he hates Mitt Romney so much. McCain has publicly stated that he doesn't think anyone should be able to make that much money. That doesn't sound like a good conservative.

The guy spent years in solitary, taking beating after beating, yet would say nothing to his captors but his rank, name, and serial number. He's generally well liked on both sides of the aisle and is going to steal hordes of votes from Democratic men who loathe Hillary. He'll wise up and select a nice conservative Veep, hint at some conservative appointees to key spots. Rush will even warm to him.


I honor him for his service, but you don't get a free pass for the rest of your life if you're a POW. What McCain endured is inconceivable to me and the man is a genuine hero. He won't be able to use that excuse against the Dems.

I hope you're right. McCain needs Rush behind him, even though he has said he doesn't care about Limbaugh. He needs Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, etc too. Hugh Hewitt will come behind him if he's the nominee. Michael Medved has been behind him since McCain-Kennedy because Michael liked that bill (and he hates it when you call it amnesty).

Base ain't stayin home.


Rich, I pray that you're right. I do because McCain is lightyears better than anything the Democrats have to offer. If the base shows up then we probably will retake the House and may be able to scrounge up the two seats needed for the Senate. The Dems are in trouble in Louisiana where Bobby Jindal just got elected Governor (and look for Jindal to be talked about in 2016 or maybe even 2012 if McCain decides not to run again and Romney fades away). We might be able to pick up in the Dakotas.

My argument for McCain getting Romney aboard has much to do with Romney's fund raising prowess and his experience with the economy. Those are both McCain weaknesses.

Now, McCain may have less of a problem in fundraising against Hillary, but Obama piled up over $30 million in January alone. That is unprecedented. McCain only got $7 million in January. Money isn't everything, but it is necessary to run and it shows the amount of investment in a candidate.

The good news is that the Democrat Party will be fractured just as the Republicans are and I do think if Hillary does get the nomination (and I believe it will be Obama) that McCain does have a good chance because I have a feeling that black voters may resent Hillary for taking out their first legitimate contender and they may rebel against the Democrats as a whole. If that's the case then the conservative base doesn't have as much say.

Still, McCain is going to shore up his conservative report - he has said as much. He needs to get the economic conservatives and putting Romney on the ticket or even letting it be known that he'd be a part of the cabinet, maybe Secretary of the Treasury as the President's top economic adviser, would make the economic conservatives happy. That would at least unify two pegs of the Reagan coalition.

If Romney is Secretary of the Treasury then that might open up the door to Huckabee, though I still think Tim Pawlenty is the more likely VP. He has backed McCain since early on and is Governor of Minnesota, a state that hasn't gone to the Republicans since 1972. That would help insure Norm Coleman's re-election to the Senate and possibly turn a blue state red. Pawlenty has taken a much more hard-nosed stance on immigration and would help McCain there. He also was the co-chair of McCain's Presidential exploratory committee last year, so he's been in the campaign for a long time. I think he will get the nod over Huckabee or Romney in all honesty.

Romney's involvement is also needed to mend fences with the eight million Mormons out there who greatly dislike Mike Huckabee and aren't fans of McCain because of his negative campaigning against Romney. McCain needs the Mormons and needs to keep Utah while also ensuring the support of the large Mormon populations in Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada. Mormons contribute a lot of time and money and McCain could use their help.

Speaking of Arizona, we really will need three senators to take the Senate. Their Democrat governor will most definitely appoint a Democrat to fill McCain's seat.

Here are the places where we might be able to take Senate seats:

Arkansas - Huckabee would be the best fit to win this seat and it's a strong reason why he should not be VP.

Iowa - might be harder to unseat Harkin, though some successful businessmen have expressed interest and Harkin is for amnesty for illegals and that doesn't play so well in Iowa.

Louisiana - The Democrats have problems in Louisiana due to corruption problems. Landrieu is looked at as part of the problem and Jindal got over 50% of the vote running against three other people. She barely won in 2002 and lost a lot of votes with the huge decline in population down in New Orleans and the corruption allegations.

Massachusetts - Not very likely, but John Kerry has a 45% disapproval rating in the state. Jim Ogonowski, a well-liked Air Force vet, is running against him and may get good contributions nationally. He nearly beat Niki Tsongas for a House seat last year. Kerry might be vulnerable and may get beaten up by his challenger for the Democratic nomination.

Michigan - Probably not. Levin is likely to win, though a candidate that is critical of Washington policy towards Detroit may make a dent. Romney's support of McCain and campaigning for him in Michigan could possibly turn the state red in the presidential race and help a challenger to Levin.

Montana - Baucus is pretty well liked in Montana, though the state went heavily to Bush. I don't think it's likely to win there, but you never know.

New Jersey - We'll get a more moderate Republican if we win here, but Lautenburg is hugely unpopular (42% approval) and some wealthy Republicans are interested in running against him.

South Dakota - Johnson has had health issues in the past so he might be vulnerable though he is well liked. The governor there, Mike Rounds, could possibly defeat him because Rounds is extremely popular. I doubt we can pick it up unless Rounds runs or Johnson decides to retire for health reasons.

West Virginia - Not sure if we can knock of Rockefeller. WV is very Democratic buy also very conservative. It went for Bush twice and the Democrats in WV jump parties in national elections, but I suspect Rockefeller will hold onto this one because the challenger is iffy.

In addition to the Senate there are nearly 50 House districts nationwide that are largely Republican but went Democratic in 2006 due to the base not showing up. Taking most of those back and holding what we have would give us a nice majority. We only need 18 seats to retake the House. If we could get 40 then we'd be in fantastic shape.
Mr. MacPhisto
Troll
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: Tampa, FL
Favorite Player: LeBron James
Least Favorite Player: A.J. Pierzynski

Unread postby leadpipe » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:12 am

Swerb wrote:Mac, I think you're underestimating McCain due to your involvement with the Romney Camp. I too am disappointed in Romney. I think the guy would have made a good president. Everything hes touched has turned to gold. He just came across too robotic and elitist, and his rampant spending on negative political ads painted him as a guy just trying to buy the nomination.

Where you're off I think is your belief that the base is gonna stay home as opposed to voting for McCain. Some may be saying they'll stay home now, but come November, they'll be flocking to the polls to vote against Hillary. Or Obama for that matter.

People act like McCain is a left wing nut job. The guy has been consistently, for decades, pro life, for protecting tax payers, against wasteful spending, and tough on terrorism and national defense. You actually think "the base" is going to stay home when his opponent is Hillary Clinton?

The guy spent years in solitary, taking beating after beating, yet would say nothing to his captors but his rank, name, and serial number. He's generally well liked on both sides of the aisle and is going to steal hordes of votes from Democratic men who loathe Hillary. He'll wise up and select a nice conservative Veep, hint at some conservative appointees to key spots. Rush will even warm to him.

Base ain't stayin home.


Romney has two things going against him IMO

1. Simply put, he doesn't come off as a likeable guy.

2. He gets an inordinant amount of criticism by those that want to see "politics as usual" continue. This happens anytime it appears that someone may run the country like a business. Lifelong politicians are quick to dismiss someone like this because, well, if you ran the country like a business people would be held accountable, especially those people in charge. By Ross Perot's second run at the White House he was being treated like some looney old man, despite the fact he was still pointing out the things in the country that REALLY mattered, and was far more successful in his many ventures that the politicos that dismissed him.

Many of you are referring to this campaign season as exciting. And I suppose that it's because there is no clear leader. I see nobody worth voting for and also about 5 or 6 people that are going to do ZERO for the American public they are supposed to serve for ANOTHER 9 months. So we've got a ridiculously long campaign season, preceeded by term long fund raising and a chief concern of covering one's own ass. This is all politics has become.

Enjoy your 3 dollar gas, inflated health care and mounting national debt that nobody seems to care about. While we're at it we can enjoy a war in a country in which it is CLEAR AS A FUCKING BELL that the people hate each other more thn they care about freedom.

Whichever one of these humps gets elected ain't changin' the average American's life one bit. Not one bit.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6590
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:05 pm

Lead Pipe wrote:Whichever one of these humps gets elected ain't changin' the average American's life one bit. Not one bit.


Please explain to me why you haven't moved to a different country if you hate it so much here.

You can have whatever criticisms you want, and that's a right that soldiers have long fought for. But when you come off blasting every single candidate and the current state of American affairs, it makes me wonder why you don't just move to Europe or Canada.

If you can do a better job than any of these individuals that you have such a problem with, why aren't you starting at a local level and working your way up? Seems to me you have enough energy to blast everyone else's ideas. Why not come up with some of your own and start creating a name for yourself?

Until then, this is what we have to work with, so deal with it.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:38 pm

Super Tuesday appears to have solved a lot on the GOP side.

Mitt Romney is expected to call it quits today in the GOP Nominee race.

http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/ ... uit-today/
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby General » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:40 pm

Skating Tripods wrote:
Lead Pipe wrote:Whichever one of these humps gets elected ain't changin' the average American's life one bit. Not one bit.


Please explain to me why you haven't moved to a different country if you hate it so much here.

You can have whatever criticisms you want, and that's a right that soldiers have long fought for. But when you come off blasting every single candidate and the current state of American affairs, it makes me wonder why you don't just move to Europe or Canada.

If you can do a better job than any of these individuals that you have such a problem with, why aren't you starting at a local level and working your way up? Seems to me you have enough energy to blast everyone else's ideas. Why not come up with some of your own and start creating a name for yourself?

Until then, this is what we have to work with, so deal with it.


Maybe I can clarify, and I am not speaking for "his Pipeness", but I know my deep disappointment with this country, which is the greatest one on earth and in history, is the massive potential that exists and is unrealized because of huge inefficiencies that are inherent in the current system. We have some major deficiencies in the USA, IMHO, that go largely unaddressed because of A.) The sheer massiveness of our gov't, and B.) The sheer massiveness of the egos that attempt to run it. It seems that most attempts to fix anything get so watered down and brokered into nothing. The final product that may finally make it down to the average schmoe is virtually meaningless. I don't spend alot of time (because I don't have it) studying candidates and listening to the endless ads, and I do vote (who? I am not sure yet)but I don't really see any light with the current array of candidates.
Browns are an irrelevant and comical organization
User avatar
General
 
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Pensacola
Favorite Player: Paul Warfield
Least Favorite Player: 537 Idiots in DC

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:53 pm

General wrote:Maybe I can clarify, and I am not speaking for "his Pipeness", but I know my deep disappointment with this country, which is the greatest one on earth and in history, is the massive potential that exists and is unrealized because of huge inefficiencies that are inherent in the current system. We have some major deficiencies in the USA, IMHO, that go largely unaddressed because of A.) The sheer massiveness of our gov't, and B.) The sheer massiveness of the egos that attempt to run it. It seems that most attempts to fix anything get so watered down and brokered into nothing. The final product that may finally make it down to the average schmoe is virtually meaningless. I don't spend alot of time (because I don't have it) studying candidates and listening to the endless ads, and I do vote (who? I am not sure yet)but I don't really see any light with the current array of candidates.


I understand that. I am well aware that there is a lot of corruption in goverment. The federal government is entirely too large. See my earlier arguments about states needing to assume more power.

Anyway, I just can't stand the endless bitching by people in this country. Too many people complain and don't vote. Or they complain and don't get involved. Some of them, just continue to further the problems.

I wasn't pointing any of that at you Lead. I didn't mean to vent at you the way I did, but it's true. If you have such different ideas, are you out there trying to get people to break away from the norm? Do you find someone that you can associate with and then become part of their solution by volunteering or donating?

General, you've got to keep in mind. The American people are voting for these politicians. Politicians really can only do so much. There are so many checks and balances and such dissention between the two major parties that, more often than not, no candidate will ever be able to accomplish a majority of what they say they will.


Is John McCain my ideal candidate? No. Mitt Romney isn't, and neither is Mike Huckabee. But my allegiances lie with the Republican Party. I can't stand either Democratic nominee and there's never any point to get behind a third party candidate. My ideals and beliefs are conservative and so I will vote for whoever runs from that party, even if it happened to be Ron Paul.

Government and society will never mesh together perfectly. That's just a fact that people need to understand. Our chief objective as voters is to vote for what we believe in and what candidate will get us closest to that kind of lifestyle.

If you really want to get down to it, think about where these politicians come from. They come from the American public. We have no royal dynasties or imperial line. These are American people who have gone to American schools, lived in America their whole lives. If that's a commentary on the country, make of it what you will. But nevertheless, a George Washington, a Franklin Roosevelt, or a Ronald Reagan don't come along every day.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby General » Thu Feb 07, 2008 3:14 pm

Skating T, we are saying alot of the same stuff. My frustration is the partisanship and the bureaucracy that prevents any meaningful change from happening. I don't "dis" any of these people for not getting the majority of their pledges accomplished, my main "bitch" is try and get maybe 2-5 meaningful ones through.
Browns are an irrelevant and comical organization
User avatar
General
 
Posts: 1849
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm
Location: Pensacola
Favorite Player: Paul Warfield
Least Favorite Player: 537 Idiots in DC

Unread postby skatingtripods » Thu Feb 07, 2008 4:33 pm

General wrote:Skating T, we are saying alot of the same stuff. My frustration is the partisanship and the bureaucracy that prevents any meaningful change from happening. I don't "dis" any of these people for not getting the majority of their pledges accomplished, my main "bitch" is try and get maybe 2-5 meaningful ones through.


Partisanship will never go away though. Bureaucracies won't either. There are just far too many interest groups with too much pull and too many social programs that require them.

Meaningful change? Well, that's a very objective hope. What is meaningful change to you? Every candidate wants meaningful change, but their definition and yours will probably never be the same. Hence what I said. JMC is not my ideal candidate, but he's the one I associate myself with the most. That's all you can do. You'll never find the perfect candidate unless you run for yourself and are that conceited.
A God Damn dead man would understand that if a minor league bus in any city took a real sharp right turn, a Zack McCalister would likely fall out. - Lead Pipe
User avatar
skatingtripods
Sloth Duncan
 
Posts: 14346
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Cleveland
Favorite Player: Mike Aviles
Least Favorite Player: Every Detroit Tiger

Unread postby Apex777 » Thu Feb 07, 2008 11:20 pm

I've been reading everyone's responses here on this thread, and am actually a little bit surprised by the definite "pro republican" slant I'm seeing here. I guess I have to realize though that not everyone that posts here is located in NE Ohio, a strongly democratic region.
I am a registered democrat and will probably most likely vote that way this November, with that said, I must also say, at this time, I've not yet decided on who I feel would make a better president, Clinton or Obama.
The one thing that is beginning to annoy me is the media's playing up the "race and gender" issue with these 2 candidates. Personally, I don't care what color or gender you are, IF you are qualified to be elected president then so be it, but please National media, stop making this a "race/gender issue" and let the American public decide for themselves who they want to be on the democratic ticket in November.
Now, for my question to the republican members of this forum. What is it about McCain that makes you want to support him in his quest for the White House as opposed to supporting Clinton or Obama? Or is it simply a question of party loyalty? I'd be interested in reading any responses.
*
*
*
Imagination is more important than knowledge. . .Einstein
User avatar
Apex777
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 2:12 pm
Location: Northeast OH

Unread postby leadpipe » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:53 am

Skating Tripods wrote:
Lead Pipe wrote:Whichever one of these humps gets elected ain't changin' the average American's life one bit. Not one bit.


Please explain to me why you haven't moved to a different country if you hate it so much here.

You can have whatever criticisms you want, and that's a right that soldiers have long fought for. But when you come off blasting every single candidate and the current state of American affairs, it makes me wonder why you don't just move to Europe or Canada.

If you can do a better job than any of these individuals that you have such a problem with, why aren't you starting at a local level and working your way up? Seems to me you have enough energy to blast everyone else's ideas. Why not come up with some of your own and start creating a name for yourself?

Until then, this is what we have to work with, so deal with it.


In order;

I haven't explained why I'd like to move to another country because I have no desire.

Never said I hated here either. Two fucking ASSUMPTIONS in one sentence.

Obviously I can't have all the criticisms I want.

I have not blasted every single candidate. I said there aren't any I care for. Big difference.

We'll get back to the state of American affairs.

I let my doctor work on my health because It's not my job, and he's better at it than me. The same philosophy applies to our leader, I would hope.

And what if was working in politics at a local level, that would change none of the opinions that I've put forth on this board. Nor would it have effected anything I've said on this board.

I'm not sure I'm "blasting" anyones ideas. I have my own opinions on what REALLY matters to the American cause and they aren't being addressed. Mainly because they aren't going to help anyone get re-elected. And, if you think that things aren't being ignored because a long term fix doesn't help the political career as much as a perceived short term one, well, that's where we differ. Japan lay in ruins 60 years ago. They thought long term, America during that time has thought short term, thinking that the bills would never come due (This has since translated to the individual, incidentally) and here lies a huge national debt.

As far as my own ideas, some have been listed in these forums. I'm not going to delve back in to education reform, but it's in these forums somewhere, so search it before you come fuck with me again. Is limiting the campaign season to 6 months a fucking stupid idea as well? Or should we allow people who are supposed to WORK FOR US cock around on the campaign trail for way too long a period of time. White House and Congress staffs growing 300-400 percent in 40 years sound reasonable to you? Well it fucking doesn't to me. Do we need to finance the 89th wing of the Air Force which existes SOLEY to transport officials around the country?

I've got problems with what's going on. I've got problems with what a joke modern politics has become. I've got problems because THIS SHIT IS LEADING TO THE DETERIORATION OF THE GREATEST NATION IN THE WORLD. If you think things aren't getting worse, Jesus Christ take a look around. I'm simply pointing out some things that I BELIEVE to be the cause of the down fall. It doesn't mean I'd rather be in Russia, it doesn't mean I don't value the military (as was inferred by you) it doesn't mean I don't appreciate what good is going on.

Bottom line, it used to be our children would have it better than us. Today, anyone with half a brain knows they are going to have it worse. There are enough reasons to fill a book on this account, and I have no desire to right a book here.

Lastly, I'll bitch because I've earned the right. I vote, I work, I pay taxes and I parent. If everyone did these things we'd be in great shape, but they don't. And guess what? We've created a situation where the ones that do, aren't much better off than the ones who don't. The bitching ain't makin' it worse Tripods, especially coming from those that do the right things. It falls on deaf ears just like many of the important things.

So, if you don't give a shit what I have to say fine. If you think complaining about certain issues is ruining the country, well, I guess you are entitled to that thought, though deep down you know it isn't true.
User avatar
leadpipe
The Reverend
 
Posts: 6590
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:58 am


Return to No Holds Barred

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 181 on Sat Feb 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests