What the hell, Hill? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Strange Famous · 05-25-2008, 04:12 AM

is the above a joke?

or is there seriously a movement to boycott a coffee seller because they ran an advert with a woman wearing a black and white scarf?

Is this from theonion or something?

ASU2003 · 05-25-2008, 05:54 AM

I hope it is. I really do... Nobody can be that delusional or stupid.

Tully Mars · 05-25-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I hope it is. I really do... Nobody can be that delusional or stupid.

Nope! People really are that dumb. Malkin's cut from the same bolt of fabric as the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh et el. Say whatever lunatic thing that comes to mind as long as it will help sell books and keep your face in the news.

pan6467 · 05-25-2008, 08:03 AM

I don't care about Malkin, and yes she is a cut below Ann Coulter.... my point was that was the only article demonstrating Obama's gaffes that were not shown in an major press.

Now if you want to tell me those gaffes were not truly said by Obama or show me the context in which those gaffes were said..... I'm willing to listen.

But if he said those, and they are in that context, then something IMHO is wrong with the man.

dc_dux · 05-25-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I don't care about Malkin, and yes she is a cut below Ann Coulter.... my point was that was the only article demonstrating Obama's gaffes that were not shown in an major press.

Now if you want to tell me those gaffes were not truly said by Obama or show me the context in which those gaffes were said..... I'm willing to listen.

But if he said those, and they are in that context, then something IMHO is wrong with the man.

pan....the fact that you didnt bother to find out about the context of Obama's "gaffes" yourself...but rather chose to post Malkin...and declare that Obama is a "fucking idiot"... made your position crystal clear.

It says to me that you posted Malkin because it was the only thing you could find to reinforce your pre-conceived opinion.

Tully Mars · 05-25-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....the fact that you didnt bother to find out about the context of Obama's "gaffes" yourself...but rather chose to post Malkin...and declare that Obama is a "fucking idiot"... made your position crystal clear.

It says to me that you posted Malkin because it was the only thing you could find to reinforce your pre-conceived opinion.

Ditto.

loquitur · 05-25-2008, 10:02 AM

actually, I suggest that if you think Malkin is wrong, you show she is wrong. Saying you don't like Malkin doesn't mean that what she said isn't true. She wasn't stating it as opinion, she was gathering what was presented as facts. Is she wrong in her research or not? She might be, but you haven't shown that.

Some things are true even if Michelle Malkin says them. If she said the sun rose in the east you wouldn't say it didn't happen merely because someone you disagree with politically said so.

dc_dux · 05-25-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

actually, I suggest that if you think Malkin is wrong, you show she is wrong. Saying you don't like Malkin doesn't mean that what she said isn't true. She wasn't stating it as opinion, she was gathering what was presented as facts. Is she wrong in her research or not? She might be, but you haven't shown that.

Some things are true even if Michelle Malkin says them. If she said the sun rose in the east you wouldn't say it didn't happen merely because someone you disagree with politically said so.

actually, I suggested that if pan thinks Obama is a "fucking idiot"..he should prove it with something beyond "gaffes" that every candidate makes during a course of a campaign (misstating the current location of a speech, misstating numbers, etc).

Such gaffes are commonplace and far different than intentionally misleading the voters:

Clinton: "I remember landing under sniper fire....(in Bosnia)"

McCain: "You can walk the streets of Baghdad safely...." (while wearing body armour and surrounded by troops and blackhawk helicopters....his proof that the surge was working.)

loquitor....do you think any reasonable person would conclude that Obama was referring to the 57 states in the OIC (because he is secretly a muslim) as Malkin/Limbaugh inferred when he misstated the number of states he had visited?

I would suggest the Malkin (Limbaugh, et al) puts out crap like that "57 states in the OIC" inference (or the Rachel Ray wearing a keffiyeh in ad ad) for one purpose...to feed the ignorance and/or prejudice of their readers/viewers, who jump all over it (including pan, who initially posted the "57 muslim states", before wisely deleting it.)

Tully Mars · 05-25-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

actually, I suggest that if you think Malkin is wrong, you show she is wrong. Saying you don't like Malkin doesn't mean that what she said isn't true. She wasn't stating it as opinion, she was gathering what was presented as facts. Is she wrong in her research or not? She might be, but you haven't shown that.

Some things are true even if Michelle Malkin says them. If she said the sun rose in the east you wouldn't say it didn't happen merely because someone you disagree with politically said so.

Yeah, sorry but I've done enough fact checking on Malkin's comments and statements. At some point I simply can't trust anything the lady says. It's been around 120F daily here for weeks. If I heard Malkin announce the sun would be rising again tomorrow, in the east or west, it's likely I'd run out and buy an alternate heating source.

And no I don't think Ms Ray is wearing anything in the DD ad to support the terrorists. Asinine, simply asinine.

host · 05-25-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

actually, I suggested that if pan thinks Obama is a "fucking idiot"..he should prove it with something beyond "gaffes" that every candidate makes during a course of a campaign (misstating the current location of a speech, misstating numbers, etc).

Such gaffes are commonplace and far different than intentionally misleading the voters:

Clinton: "I remember landing under sniper fire....(in Bosnia)"

McCain: "You can walk the streets of Baghdad safely...." (while wearing body armour and surrounded by troops and blackhawk helicopters....his proof that the surge was working.)

loquitor....do you think any reasonable person would conclude that Obama was referring to the 57 states in the OIC (because he is secretly a muslim) as Malkin/Limbaugh inferred when he misstated the number of states he had visited?

I would suggest the Malkin (Limbaugh, et al) puts out crap like that "57 states in the OIC" inference (or the Rachel Ray wearing a keffiyeh in ad ad) for one purpose...to feed the ignorance and/or prejudice of their readers/viewers, who jump all over it (including pan, who initially posted the "57 muslim states", before wisely deleting it.)

Here ya go, _dux. IMO, compared to the unwavering attacks on Clinton, if you only compare Obama's background vs his media coverage to the Clinton's White Water land "deal", Obama has gotten a free ride. He is no more straightforward or ethical than Clinton. At least we all know and admit to ourselves who and what she is...... the Kool-Ade induced comments I am reading on this forum and all over the web, related to Obama, baffle me.... it's quite a con. I'm too cynical to take a sip. Hope and unity are not enough to ignore this. Be sure to watch the NBC video, re: the Obama residence and Rezko's lot. It cannot be sold, and it was never intended to be, when Rezko purchased it, IMO. The "kicker" was when he sold a portion of it to Obama, after the double closing on the house and lot. It is as if that was done to make double sure that no one would ever be interested in buying Rezko's remaining share.....blatant bribe, or total stupidity on Rezko's part? I doubt it.

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/s...4176367&page=1

....Obama, too, has had issues with telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

On health care, during Monday night's debate-turned-slugfest, in a verbal scuffle with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Obama said, "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer."

But he did. Maybe not Monday night. But back in June 2003 in a speech to the AFL-CIO when he was campaigning for the Senate.

Said Obama, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health-care program."

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...ipt/index.html
Mon January 21, 2008

Part 1 of CNN Democratic presidential debate

...CLINTON: Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.....

...OBAMA: I'm happy to respond. Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to....

<h2>Obama, "I did not have realty relations with THIS INDIVIDUAL !"</h2>

Can you not see that Obama's debate answer is akin to Clinto and Monica, and Bush claiming he hardly knew "Kenny-Boy", Lay? Vote for Obama, reluctantly, as the lesser evil of the shittyest candidates we could ever imagine, but stop pretending that he is above the fray. He's just another greedy, elitest, politician, selling out his constituent's interests in the interest of his own.

Quote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,3804748.story
By David Jackson and Bob Secter | Tribune reporters
2:44 AM CST, February 19, 2008

Obama: I toured home with Rezko

Before he bought his South Side mansion in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama took his friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko on a tour of the premises to make sure it was a good deal, Obama's campaign revealed Monday.

Weeks after saying he'd answered all questions about his controversial dealings with the now-indicted Rezko, Obama released new details about their purchase of adjacent lots from the same seller on the same day. But the disclosures by Obama's presidential campaign left unanswered questions and raised new ones.

Obama was able to buy the house for $300,000 less than the listed price while Rezko, in his wife's name, paid the full $625,000 asking price for an undeveloped side lot.

On Monday, Obama's campaign gave Bloomberg news service e-mails from the sellers, who reportedly said Obama's $1.65 million bid "was the best offer" and that they didn't cut their asking price because Rezko bought the adjacent yard....

Quote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/p...,2968927.story
Obama: I trusted Rezko
Senator says friend raised more money than previously known
By David Jackson

TRIBUNE REPORTER

March 15, 2008

Trying to put his past with Antoin "Tony" Rezko behind him, presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday said he never thought the nowindicted Chicago businessman would try to take advantage of him because his old friend had never asked for a political favor.

But in a 90-minute interview with Tribune reporters and editors, Obama disclosed that Rezko had raised more for Obama's earlier political campaigns than previously known, gathering as much as $250,000 for the first three offices he sought.

Obama also elaborated on previous statements about his private real estate transactions with Rezko, saying they were not simply mistakes of judgment because Rezko was under grand jury investigation at the time of their 2005 and 2006 dealings. "The mistake, by the way, was not just engaging in a transaction with Tony because he was having legal problems. The mistake was because he was a contributor and somebody who was involved in politics."

The Illinois senator made his most extensive comments about Rezko to date in an effort to quell the lingering controversy over his relationship with the politically influential developer and over the personal financial deals first revealed by the Tribune in November 2006.

Faced with intensifying scrutiny as the Democratic primary season grinds on, Obama said voters should view his Rezko dealings as "a mistake in not seeing the potential conflicts of interest." But he added that voters should also "see somebody who is not engaged in any wrongdoing . . . and who they can trust."

After news reports of Rezko's questionable political dealings first emerged in 2005, Obama said he asked his friend about them. Rezko assured him there was nothing wrong. "My instinct was to believe him," he said.

Asked if he ever thought Rezko would expect something from their relationship, Obama was emphatic: 'No. Precisely because I had known him for [many] years and he hadn't asked me for something."

The friendship between the Obamas and Rezkos included occasional dinners and the Obamas once spending a day at the Rezkos' Lake Geneva retreat. It began in about 1991, when Obama became the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and Rezko offered him a job building affordable homes with his Rezmar Corp. Though Obama declined, a friendship and political alliance began.

His first big contributor

When Obama launched his bid for the Illinois Senate in 1995, Rezko was his first substantial contributor. Obama said it was his "best guesstimate" that Rezko raised $10,000 to $15,000 of Obama's roughly $100,000 collected for that race. Obama said he didn't have more certainty because he didn't then have the staff to maintain better campaign finance records.

Rezko helped bankroll all of Obama's subsequent campaigns except his presidential bid. Rezko was on Obama's campaign committee in his failed run against U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush and gathered between $50,000 and $75,000 of the estimated $600,000 raised in that race, Obama said.

Rezko also was on the finance committee for Obama's 2004 U.S. Senate run. "My best assessment is that he raised $160,000 during my U.S. Senate primary," he said, adding that those funds had been given to charity.

Obama explained Rezko's appeal to up-and-coming politicians. Part of it was his seeming modesty. "In my interactions with him, he was very gracious. He did not ask me for favors. He was not obtrusive. He wasn't one of those people who would insist on coming around all the time or constantly being photographed with me."

And Rezko was loyal. He had been a supporter of Rush but sided with Obama in that 2000 race. Five years later, bolstered by payments for his best-selling autobiography and advances for future books, Obama and his wife, Michelle, went house hunting. They were drawn to a 96- year-old South Side home with four fireplaces, glassdoor bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany and a wine cellar.

The house and the adjoining yard had been owned as a single property, but the owners were listing them separately and asking $1.95 million for the house and $625,000 for the landscaped side lot.

Obama disclosed Friday that someone else already had an option to buy the garden lot. But he said Rezko took over that option after Rezko learned Obama was bidding for the house. Obama said he knew next to nothing about those transactions and does not recall when he learned that Rezko was interested in buying the side lot- or even how Rezko learned it was for sale.

But they talked about the upcoming sales. "He said, 'I might be interested,' " Obama recalled. "My response was, 'Well, that would be fine.'"

Obama added: "This is an area where I can see a lapse in judgment." He said his motivation was "if this lot is going to be developed, here's somebody I knew. So I didn?t object."

The senator said that at the time, in early 2005, he was aware of the growing controversies surrounding Rezko's dealings with state and city government. In March 2005, for example, city officials alleged that a minority contractor at O'Hare International Airport acted as a front for a Rezko firm. "I started reading the reports that were surfacing," Obama said. Rezko "gave me assurances that this wasn't a problem." And, Obama added, "at that time, the news around Rezko's problems had not elevated to the levels that they did later."

At some point before the property sales closed, Obama toured the home with Rezko for 15 to 30 minutes. Obama said he asked Rezko to assess the property because he was a real estate developer in the area. "He said, 'I'd be willing to go inside and take a look,' " Obama recalled.

In his first accounts of the purchase, Obama did not divulge that tour. He said Friday that he simply didn't feel the information was salient and insisted the tour didn't mean he and Rezko coordinated their purchases.

The home and lot sales closed on June 15, 2005. A land trust controlled by the Obamas bought the house for $1.65 million, and the Obamas secured a $1.32 million mortgage from Northern Trust to complete that purchase. That same day, Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought the side lot for $625,000. A $37,000- a-year Cook County employee, she secured a $500,000 mortgage from Mutual Bank of Harvey.

Obama rejected the suggestion that, by paying the full price for the lot, Rezko was enabling Obama to buy the house for $300,000 less than the initial asking price.

"Frankly I don't think he was doing me a favor," Obama said. "There was simply no connection between our purchase of the house, the price of the house and the purchase of the lot."

No discount, sellers say

The senator's campaign provided a copy of a previously released e-mail from the sellers. In response to questions from the Obama campaign, the sellers agreed that they "did not offer or give the Obamas a 'discount' on the house price" because Rezko paid their asking price for the yard.

Obama said Rezko "perhaps thought this would strengthen our relationship, that he was doing me a favor." But he added that Rezko also was making a sound business decision by buying the lot. Obama said he always expected Rezko to build on the lot and was happy for the visual buffer it would provide.

Then came the next-and what Obama said was the more serious-lapse in judgment: a subsequent set of arrangements to redivide the lots and build a wrought-iron fence between them. "I wanted a fence to be erected between our properties," Obama said.

His attorneys and architect worked for several months to secure the fence permits. The Obamas paid several thousand dollars to complete that paperwork, but Rezko paid the roughly $14,300 cost of erecting the fence.

Rezko was not doing him a favor by paying for the fence, Obama said, because a city ordinance required owners of vacant land to install fences.

To put some space between his house and the proposed fence, Obama then asked Rezko to sell a 10-foot-wide strip. Obama's appraiser estimated the portion at $40,500. But Obama paid the Rezkos $104,500, or a sixth of their original $625,000 purchase price, because he was acquiring a sixth of the land.

Rezko later sold the rest of the lot to one of his former attorneys, who now has it listed for more than $900,000. "It appears," Obama said, "a sale is about to be consummated."....

The Obama Rezko real estate "deal" stinks:

Quote:

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/...t-case-of.html

Watch the NBC video and read the article at the link above. There is no access to the Rezko lot....it appears that Rezko's ourchase of the Obama lot is a bribe....."appears".....
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...29/617797.aspx

That Rezko land deal Posted: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:39 AM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin
NBC News' Investigative Unit took a look at that land deal between Obama and Rezko and why that piece of property now won't sell.

Quote:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...sobamaluv.html
Column: Obama's mystical (national media) disconnect from sleazy Chicago politics

....So why the disconnect? Why is Obama allowed to campaign as a reformer, virtually unchallenged by the media, though he's a product of Chicago politics and has never condemned the wholesale political corruption in his hometown the way he condemns those darn Washington lobbyists?

For an answer as to when pundits will ever put Illinois corruption in context, I called on Tom Bevan, executive director of the popular political website RealClearPolitics.com (which directs readers to my column on occasion) and a Chicagoan.

"To a large degree, the media has accepted much of the Obama narrative thus far," Bevan told me. "He's risen so quickly, but his history hasn't been bogged down with an association of Chicago politics and I can't tell you why exactly, except perhaps that some may have bought into the established narrative and can't separate themselves from it."

Bevan added: "And I don't know if the country understands just how corrupt the system is in Illinois. People don't see it. They're flying over us, cruising at 30,000 feet."

Our Chicago politics sure must seem sweet from that high altitude as journalists fly by. From up there, our politics must smell pretty, like vanilla beans in a jar, or lavender potpourri: you know, something truly authentic and real.

-- John Kass

Quote:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=6108177
Witness: Rezko said 'Fitzgerald would be eliminated'Monday, April 28, 2008 | 6:36 PM

....Rezko, 52, is charged with scheming to split a $1.5 million bribe from a contractor who wanted state permission to build a hospital in the McHenry County suburb of Crystal Lake and pressure kickbacks out of money management firms seeking to do business with a state pension fund.
Prosecutors say Rezko's fundraising for Blagojevich made him highly influential in the administration and as a result he could manipulate the state boards that decide on hospital construction and allocate money from the pension fund to investment firms.
U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president but traditionally are chosen by the senior senator of the president's party.
Fitzgerald was the candidate of Sen. Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill., no relation, who said openly that he wanted someone from out of state who would be independent and attack the corruption long plaguing Illinois.
Since taking.........

dc_dux · 05-25-2008, 02:11 PM

host...personally, I think the Obama/Rezko connection has been blown out of proportion...there is no quid pro quo. I would agree with you if we were discussion Blagojevich.

Nothing like McCain's inserting language in a bill for a land deal to benefit Suncorp Development Co./Pinnacle West or the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership

loquitur · 05-25-2008, 02:22 PM

actually, I'd cut Obama some slack on the 57 thing...... he's been keeping 18 hr days for 18 months, it stands to reason he'll make small slip-ups like that.

flstf · 05-25-2008, 08:06 PM

I wonder how many hard working white people think that Obama is so stupid he doesn't know how many states there are and how many latte liberals think Hillary is so evil she's hoping for a timely assassination. These important issues are probably good for a few more news cycles.

snowy · 05-25-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

actually, I'd cut Obama some slack on the 57 thing...... he's been keeping 18 hr days for 18 months, it stands to reason he'll make small slip-ups like that.

Maybe it felt like 57.

pan6467 · 05-26-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

actually, I'd cut Obama some slack on the 57 thing...... he's been keeping 18 hr days for 18 months, it stands to reason he'll make small slip-ups like that.

That's the point...... If you are President of the USA and we are in crisis and you are up working hard with your advisers/congress/whomever...... I want someone who has ice in their veins can make a decision and right or wrong stand by it.

"Obama was tired, cut him some slack for this, anyone in their right mind would know he meant 47...... this is just all political"

18 hr days for 18 months????? come on f/t college students that work do that.... mothers do that....... some average Americans do that.

And exactly how hard is an Obama 18 hr day? Is he digging ditches? Is he out there writing these speeches by himself? How much of that 18 hr day is truly out in public and the rest in a comfy cozy private jet, hotel room, drinking espresso with a Time Magazine reporter?

To say he was too tired to know that there were 50 states, and excuse that???? Come on now, that's sheer idiocy.

dd3953 · 05-26-2008, 10:22 AM

msnbc.com Video Player

I don't watch TV and I only read the newspaper about twice a month, so as you can imagine, I'm clueless to most of what is going on in the world. A friend was telling about what she said and played this video for me. And when I saw this thread I thought I'd share it.

I listened to this and thought "Wow. He's a great speaker."

Blackthorn · 05-26-2008, 11:02 AM

The delegate count has moved higher for both but the song and dance remains the same.

Hillary Clinton will stay in the race as long as possible because of a purely self serving interest in becoming President of the United States. She appears to be driven by an ideology that somehow this office is duly hers and that she is rightfully entitled to the Democratic nomination which is merely a speed bump on the way to a coronation she's been planning for at least 8 years.

In December she was ahead in pledged delegates (super), polls, and money. Now she trails across the board and it's clear she is incredulous and more desperate at the idea that an upstart with no real political metal has upstaged her at the very moment she's been waiting and planning for in all these years.

Instead of bowing out with grace, dignity, and a noble or perhaps stately intent cognizant of the fact that even if she splits the remaining delegate count she simply cannot win the nomination she chooses to lumber on in the hope that somehow the numbers and fate can twist in her favor. In typical Clinton fashion she continues to ride this failed campaign while attempting to weave any possible scenario that will give her the nomination she so desperately covets.

Michigan and Florida voters got the shaft by the Democratic Party. Clearly the Clinton’s party influence under estimated just how important those two states would be to the coronation they once felt so surely would be bestowed upon the Mrs. Had they a clue that a once seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls would be blown out of the water in South Carolina they may have played the Michigan and Florida cards differently. They assumed that Michigan and Florida were irrelevant then and were unwilling to fight the party bosses to let their delegates be seated and be counted. They may have even ran a slightly different campaign perhaps even geared toward solving the problems faced by the United States instead of this ideological food fight that even if at one point was saleable because of the Clinton name obviously would not hold up to the fresh face of change. Change from the name Clinton. Change from the name Bush. Change from 16 years of business as usual that has us in a pretty tall barrel of pickles.

Hillary Clinton is a very sad and tired story that should wrap up soon for the sake of the Democratic Party. Women deserve a better chance at the highest office in US politics and that day will come soon.

As for the ongoing ideological food fight we have no real idea who Barack Obama or John McCain really are as potential presidents but this is absolutely true: The next President of the United States will face the toughest opening act a sitting president of this country has ever faced.

We are at war in two countries with the kind of religious fanaticism that knows no end. We have no real or identifiable energy policy that is actively managing a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels. We have an education system that is producing the 16th rated student scores in math and science in the world relative to other countries at the very time when those aspects of education hold the very to our economic existence. We have an aging population in the form of “Baby Boomers” whose impact on Social Security and Medicare threaten the very economic life blood they worked so hard to create. We have a porous border patrol and emigration policy that has allowed a significant portion of our economy to become dependent upon a labor force that some would expel because they perform low wage jobs without benefits that other Americans simply won’t do. We have countless other issues that deserve far more attention than Reverend Wright or Monica Lewinsky or any of the other nonsensical mud that these campaigns insist on slinging at each other.

The next President of the United States, be it man or woman, black, white, Latino, or Asian, Jew, Catholic, or Muslim will have to have the imagination, dedication, and fortitude to push the needle forward in ways we have not been able to in conjure in the last 16 years.

"You cannot take your place in the long line of those who came before you simply by sitting in front of a screen or at a keyboard. Life away from the keyboard, the PDA and the cell phone is a life in which you connect to the websites of your personal convictions, and that is an obligation you must carry with you the rest of your days." -- Tom Brokaw, Author – "The Greatest Generation".

Shauk · 05-26-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd3953

holy shit, I don't think i've seen a proper asschewing in a very long time, and that, my friend, delivers, and then some.

Tully Mars · 05-26-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

holy shit, I don't think i've seen a proper asschewing in a very long time, and that, my friend, delivers, and then some.

Olbermann's special comments usually are an ass chewing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270176/

host · 05-26-2008, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Olbermann's special comments usually are an ass chewing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270176/

So are mine...SHEEESH !!!!

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...28#post2457128

dc_dux · 05-26-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That's the point...... If you are President of the USA and we are in crisis and you are up working hard with your advisers/congress/whomever...... I want someone who has ice in their veins can make a decision and right or wrong stand by it.

"Obama was tired, cut him some slack for this, anyone in their right mind would know he meant 47...... this is just all political"

18 hr days for 18 months????? come on f/t college students that work do that.... mothers do that....... some average Americans do that.

And exactly how hard is an Obama 18 hr day? Is he digging ditches? Is he out there writing these speeches by himself? How much of that 18 hr day is truly out in public and the rest in a comfy cozy private jet, hotel room, drinking espresso with a Time Magazine reporter?

To say he was too tired to know that there were 50 states, and excuse that???? Come on now, that's sheer idiocy.

IMO, the point is that there is not a candidate (any time in recent history) who would meet your unreasonable standard of NEVER making a "gaffe" in a campaign speech or face being called a "fucking idiot".

There are certainly reasons why many will not for vote for Obama, but this one is based purely on emotion and a vitriolic dislike for the man. Thats cool, you can vote for or against any candidate for any reason...just dont try to pass it off as a reasoned approach to your decision making.

There is just no rationale for this argument unless the same standard is applied to all candidates...in which case....why not suggest just calling off the election....they are all "fucking idiots,"

Shauk · 05-26-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

IMO, the point is that there is not a candidate (any time in recent history) who would meet your unreasonable standard of NEVER making a "gaffe" in a campaign speech or face being called a "fucking idiot".

There are certainly reasons why many will not for vote for Obama, but this one is based purely on emotion and a vitriolic dislike for the man. Thats cool, you can vote for or against any candidate for any reason...just dont try to pass it off as a reasoned approach to your decision making.

There is just no rationale for this argument unless the same standard is applied to all candidates...in which case....why not suggest just calling off the election....they are all "fucking idiots,"

and there we have it. The knockout blow.

pan6467 · 05-26-2008, 10:48 PM

Again, the gaffes I pointed out came from my answering this Abaya question

Quote:

"Pass?" What kind of "passes" have Obama been getting? Quite the opposite, if you ask me...

I proved that he got passes for each of those because the only place they were found were in an article in which you reemed the writer BUT have not once denied that Obama said any of those.

So you can say whatever you wish, to me I do not like Obama Sam I am..... I will not vote for him in a car, nor in a voting booth near or far.... I will not vote for him Sam I am.

It's not because of the gaffes.... it's because he HAS gotten away with too much, it is because he is new and no one knows jack about him, it is because for 20 years he sat in a pastor's sermons and then denies he did denies he heard any of the negative things.... and if anyone says ANYTHING against the man they are deemed racist and hateful.... but everyone else running has to be very careful and gets crucified for everything? Come on now even the village idiot can see this election is becoming a fix. If McCain gets crucified for everything he says, Hilary, anyone that speaks out against the man.... and yet the man can say anything he wants and noone better say a peep against him....... fuck that bullshit, someone wants him elected badly, the question becomes why? So there you have it, why I will not vote for Barack Hussein Obama.

I guess I will be saying McCain in '08...... I'd rather say Hilary, Edwards, Biden, ANYONE but Obama.

SecretMethod70 · 05-26-2008, 11:22 PM

Pan, all the candidates get passes on some things, and none of the candidates get passes on all things. There's no reason for the press to report on things like the 57 states mistake because 1) it's just plain not news, period, end of story, but also 2) they were busy reporting on things that are more newsworthy, such as Rev. Wright. I don't agree with a lot of the reporting, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the Rev. Wright story is 1000x more newsworthy than Obama accidentally saying 57 instead of 47.

Or if you want to talk about Obama admitted to not knowing about something that was related to a bill he voted on... first off, the bill - based on Malkin's own description - didn't relate exclusively to that particular location, and it's entirely possible to vote on a bill without knowing every single nuance of its effect. I don't disagree that, ideally, votes would be cast only after knowing every last detail of what a bill does and does not do...but I also like to spend some time in this zone we call "reality" and acknowledge that every lawmaker does, and has to do quite often, what Obama clearly did. It's why they have staffers who help them do research and report back to them, because there is just not enough time for every lawmaker to personally research every bill that comes up for a vote. It's also why presidential candidates take time to travel all around the country, so that they can have first hand experiences exactly like Obama had.

And let's not forget to mention, Clinton has also gotten a pass in the mainstream media when it comes to having not read the NIE before voting on the Iraq resolution. As for McCain, the list of passes he has gotten is already excruciatingly long. The time he misspoke and Lieberman had to correct him got relatively little airplay considering McCain's #1 argument for his candidacy is that he's the best option for our foreign policy.

Shauk · 05-27-2008, 12:49 AM

it's because you're a racist, pan. duh.

pan6467 · 05-27-2008, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shauk

it's because you're a racist, pan. duh.

I hope that is in jest, but to be honest, I don't give a damn anymore. I have stated here before how a few years ago if you spoke out against Bush your patriotism was called, yet the argument was and the fact was speaking OUT was patriotic.... You can disagree with the president and government in this country and still love it.......

Somewhere along the line though, some seem to have forgotten that and now if you speak out against Obama..... you are a racist, you are a hater, you are a divider, you are the enemy of the state.

Yet, if you speak out against Hilary or McCain it's ok you are not an ageist, a chauvinist, etc. You are a patriotic American and practicing your right to free speech.

Does no one else see that as scary, sad and wrong?

SecretMethod70 · 05-27-2008, 01:54 AM

There are plenty of valid ways to express a negatiive opinion about Obama. There are also plenty of complaints which have strong racial undertones. To deny that the issue of racism is very present in this campaign is to be ignorant of the facts. It hasn't been reported much - partly because the Obama campaign doesn't want to draw too much attention to the issue - but there have been many instances of racist vandalism and hate speech directed at campaign headquarters and volunteers. I've also seen it firsthand, in an area where I wouldn't necessarily expect it (Chicago suburbs, congressional district that voted for Kerry in '04): the democratic headquarters where I've been volunteering lately (not for Obama, but for the area's congressional campaign) was vandalized with "nigger" written on the windows. It's worth mentioning that not only does the office have Obama signs in the windows, but the Democratic congressional candidate for the area is also of mixed ethnicity. The racism is very real, and it's very present...most people have just learned to express such opinions in other ways (

"I don't like the Hussein thing. I've had enough of Hussein!"

). The funny thing about racism is that someone who is racist, pretty much by definition, is incapable of recognizing that fact. That's how you get people who say things like "I'm not racist or anything, I just can't vote for a black man." Uh...yes...yes, you are racist. Most people have learned to have a little more tact with their racism though, so instead there's the focus on his name, rumors about how he's Muslim, or when that doesn't work there's always the "look at the scary black man!" approach.

Pan, those "criticisms" are racist. If you want to criticize Obama, talk about his voting record, or talk about his policy proposals, or even talk about something to do with his personality. Personality traits are certainly fair game - I think Clinton is a terrible loser and incapable of admitting defeat, and that's not something I want in a president. Some people think Obama is arrogant - I disagree, and I happen to think McCain's ego far surpasses that of Clinton and Obama combined, but if you want to talk about why you feel Obama is arrogant and therefore don't think he'd make a good president, that's fine. But no amount of feigning innocence after talking about "Barack Hussein Obama" can change that there's no reason to bring up his middle name unless you're trying to emphasize something.

Similarly, there are plenty of valid ways to criticize Clinton, and plenty of sexist ways to do so. As for McCain, I don't think it's ageist to express concern over his age, considering he'd be the oldest first term president ever elected, but I also don't think there's much to be concerned about there so that line of criticism is a waste of time.

Most importantly, it's not the Obama camp which cries racism every time someone criticizes him - they're doing everything they can to keep race out of the picture, even when it means playing down the numerous acts of racist violence the campaign has experienced. Instead, it's Clinton who claims it's sexist - demonstrating that she doesn't own a dictionary - that some people think she should withdraw. People aren't saying she should withdraw because she's a woman (that would be sexist); people are saying she should withdraw because she lost (at least by the metric most every previous presidential candidate has used to decide when to withdraw). I've been working with a number of Clinton supporters in my area's Congressional campaign, and they understand this...one has to wonder, why doesn't she?

mixedmedia · 05-27-2008, 02:39 AM

um, I don't think Hillary Clinton was referring to the possible assassination of Barack Obama when she made that comment. I just don't see it. She's referring to the fact that there was still a race in June which is why she has ignored calls for her to quit. And people have been pushing her to quit, we had a discussion about it right here a few months ago when some Democrats made public statements suggesting it.

I am an Obama supporter, but I will vote for Clinton if she pulls off the nomination. And if you're going to vote Democrat, you're going to be voting and supporting one of them. And it may not be the one you want. So you may want to prepare yourself for that possibility and not shit on her now.

I will never understand the vilification of Hillary Clinton by people in her own party. I just don't get it. She's just a politician like many before her. I don't see any glaring dissimilarities from any other Democratic politician. Let it rest, please.

SecretMethod70 · 05-27-2008, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

um, I don't think Hillary Clinton was referring to the possible assassination of Barack Obama when she made that comment. I just don't see it. She's referring to the fact that there was still a race in June which is why she has ignored calls for her to quit. And people have been pushing her to quit, we had a discussion about it right here a few months ago when some Democrats made public statements suggesting it.

I am an Obama supporter, but I will vote for Clinton if she pulls off the nomination. And if you're going to vote Democrat, you're going to be voting and supporting one of them. And it may not be the one you want. So you may want to prepare yourself for that possibility and not shit on her now.

I will never understand the vilification of Hillary Clinton by people in her own party. I just don't get it. She's just a politician like many before her. I don't see any glaring dissimilarities from any other Democratic politician. Let it rest, please.

If she were to miraculously pull off the nomination, I'd probably vote for her, but it really deserves to be said that she was not (and has not been) pointing out facts at all, not with regards to history, nor her chances of winning or deserving the nomination.

I completely agree she wasn't referring to the possible assassination of Obama (though, Olbermann has it right that assassination is not something she should have brought up in the first place), but that's not what's most offensive about her statements anyway. What's offensive is her own twisting of the history, and assumption that we're too stupid to notice. The 1968 primary season didn't start until mid-March, and so her "June" is really the equivalent of this year's early April. And then there's her husband's nomination, which she has little excuse for misunderstanding. That primary season began in early February, so her "June" is really this year's May. Not to mention that while he may not have clinched the nomination until the CA primary in June, the other candidate's saw the writing on the wall and got out of his way (for the most part, and anyone that didn't was entirely negligible). For her to ignore these facts, and twist the history to make it sound like she's not doing anything unusual by sticking around even though it is almost a certain impossibility for her to win, and worse yet, to sometimes insinuate that it's sexism that is driving people to want her to get out of the way, like most previous presidential candidates have had the decency to do once the writing was on the wall, is offensive. At a certain point, her Baghdad Hillary moments go beyond normal political spin and it becomes very difficult to maintain the same level of respect for her.

mixedmedia · 05-27-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

If she were to miraculously pull off the nomination, I'd probably vote for her, but it really deserves to be said that she was not (and has not been) point out facts at all, not with regards to history, nor her chances of winning or deserving the nomination.

I completely agree she wasn't referring to the possible assassination of Obama (though, Olbermann has it right that assassination is not something she should have brought up in the first place), but that's not what's most offensive about her statements anyway. What's offensive is her own twisting of the history, and assumption that we're too stupid to notice. The 1968 primary season didn't start until mid-March, and so her "June" is really the equivalent of this year's early April. And then there's her husband's nomination, which she has little excuse for misunderstanding. That primary season began in early February, so her "June" is really this year's May. Not to mention that while he may not have clinched the nomination until the CA primary in June, the other candidate's saw the writing on the wall and got out of his way (for the most part, and anyone that didn't was entirely negligible). For her to ignore these facts, and twist the history to make it sound like she's not doing anything unusual by sticking around even though it is almost a certain impossibility for her to win, and worse yet, to sometimes insinuate that it's sexism that is driving people to want her to get out of the way, like most previous presidential candidates have had the decency to do once the writing was on the wall, is offensive. At a certain point, her Baghdad Hillary moments go beyond normal political spin and it becomes very difficult to maintain the same level of respect for her.

Well, I agree with you that those factors make a big difference in the efficacy of her comparisons. Thanks for the rational illumination.

And no, I don't think that sexism is necessarily behind all criticism of her, but I think it is behind a great deal of it. Especially when it comes to this (what I interpret as) irrational dislike of her, similar to what we see in regards to Obama...

SecretMethod70 · 05-27-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

And no, I don't think that sexism is necessarily behind all criticism of her, but I think it is behind a great deal of it. Especially when it comes to this (what I interpret as) irrational dislike of her, similar to what we see in regards to Obama...

Yeah, it depends on the individual. Personally, over the past three and a half months I've gone from only slightly preferring Obama over her, to being mildly annoyed by the way she's run her campaign, to now actively disliking the idea of her as president (though not nearly as much as I dislike the idea of McCain as president). My own experience shapes my perspective, I'm sure, but I get the impression that most people who are actively upset at her right now went down a similar path to mine. At the very least, I know that my friends and other people I've talked to face-to-face have gone down this path. Those opinions aren't rooted in sexism.

There are also people who have disliked her from the beginning, and I'm sure sexism plays a role in a lot of that. I'm just not sure I agree that that's where the majority of dissatisfaction with her is coming from right now.

mixedmedia · 05-27-2008, 02:35 PM

I'm going on the last, mostly, two years in which her candidacy has been hinted at and what I considered to be over-the-top negative comments about her propagated by citizen Democrats. Starting with that 'other place' I used to hang out at and carried over to here. It was so bad that sometimes you couldn't tell a Democrat from a Republican quoting 90's Newt Gingrich. And it's always puzzled me because it seemed, then and now, to come out of nowhere and was based on NOTHING. She wasn't even running, yet.

I don't know. But everything fucking confuses me anymore.

abaya · 05-27-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Personally, over the past three and a half months I've gone from only slightly preferring Obama over her, to being mildly annoyed by the way she's run her campaign, to now actively disliking the idea of her as president (though not nearly as much as I dislike the idea of McCain as president). My own experience shapes my perspective, I'm sure, but I get the impression that most people who are actively upset at her right now went down a similar path to mine. At the very least, I know that my friends and other people I've talked to face-to-face have gone down this path. Those opinions aren't rooted in sexism.

Count me in that group as well. I had absolutely no problems with Hillary up until a few months ago... but right around the same time that the whole Reverend Wright thing blew up (the first time), that was when the tide shifted for me. I started leaning towards Obama from an otherwise neutral position between him and Hillary, and I've just kept leaning more and more heavily towards him as time goes on.

guyy · 05-27-2008, 05:26 PM

My problem with Hillary is the same problem i had with Bill. Both of them are too willing to compromise and triangulate for what they think are political gains. The House of Clinton's Gingrich-era thinking help make the countless meaningless deaths & 4 trillion dollar Iraq debacle possible. What's more, it didn't help Hillary a bit. Just the opposite; had she opposed the war, she would have the nomination wrapped up by now.

I don't believe for a minute that Hillary C. really believed the bullshit that Bush & crew was peddling. I think that she thought that Bush was dealing from a position of strength, and that the best way to survive was to join the sales force.

Oops.

Tully Mars · 05-27-2008, 06:46 PM

A year ago I would have damn near did an "any of the above" on the Dem side. Simply don't think we can continue down the massive unnatural disaster that is the Bush Administration and the GOP. Sometime during the past six to nine months as I watched Hillary and Co. run her campaign I started leaning toward Edwards or Obama. When Edwards tanked that left Obama. Do I think he's prefect? Umm, No. Would I vote for her over McCain? Hell yes.

dd3953 · 05-27-2008, 06:53 PM

Well Tully, I'd have to agree with you. But I was so hoping to not have another "lesser of the evils" election. . . .

SecretMethod70 · 05-27-2008, 08:04 PM

Daniel Schorr had a good, quick commentary on the situation today on NPR's All Things Considered: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...64878&ft=1&f=2

Tully Mars · 05-28-2008, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dd3953

Well Tully, I'd have to agree with you. But I was so hoping to not have another "lesser of the evils" election. . . .

IMHO, every election is a "lesser of two evils." Comedian Groucho Marx used to say "I'd never be a member of any club that would have me as a member." I think he was talking about politics. Anymore by the time most of these people get to the point of being elected they've sold their souls.

dd3953 · 05-29-2008, 10:35 AM

Marx was a comedian?

Yeah, it's amazing how much of the soul most be sold. But even more so is the fact that America is still willing to put up with it. One of these days we are gonna have to do something about it. . .

Willravel · 06-03-2008, 12:26 PM

The associated press has officially released the tally that we've had for a few days now, making Obama the official nominee. Hillary is expected to bitterly concede tonight, or continue to be stubborn and become the next Ron Paul.

05-25-2008, 04:12 AM	#41 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	is the above a joke? or is there seriously a movement to boycott a coffee seller because they ran an advert with a woman wearing a black and white scarf? Is this from theonion or something? __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

05-25-2008, 08:03 AM	#44 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I don't care about Malkin, and yes she is a cut below Ann Coulter.... my point was that was the only article demonstrating Obama's gaffes that were not shown in an major press. Now if you want to tell me those gaffes were not truly said by Obama or show me the context in which those gaffes were said..... I'm willing to listen. But if he said those, and they are in that context, then something IMHO is wrong with the man. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

05-25-2008, 02:11 PM	#51 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	host...personally, I think the Obama/Rezko connection has been blown out of proportion...there is no quid pro quo. I would agree with you if we were discussion Blagojevich. Nothing like McCain's inserting language in a bill for a land deal to benefit Suncorp Development Co./Pinnacle West or the Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 05-25-2008 at 02:23 PM..

05-26-2008, 11:02 AM	#57 (permalink)
Blackthorn Beware the Mad Irish Location: Wish I was on the N17...	The delegate count has moved higher for both but the song and dance remains the same. Hillary Clinton will stay in the race as long as possible because of a purely self serving interest in becoming President of the United States. She appears to be driven by an ideology that somehow this office is duly hers and that she is rightfully entitled to the Democratic nomination which is merely a speed bump on the way to a coronation she's been planning for at least 8 years. In December she was ahead in pledged delegates (super), polls, and money. Now she trails across the board and it's clear she is incredulous and more desperate at the idea that an upstart with no real political metal has upstaged her at the very moment she's been waiting and planning for in all these years. Instead of bowing out with grace, dignity, and a noble or perhaps stately intent cognizant of the fact that even if she splits the remaining delegate count she simply cannot win the nomination she chooses to lumber on in the hope that somehow the numbers and fate can twist in her favor. In typical Clinton fashion she continues to ride this failed campaign while attempting to weave any possible scenario that will give her the nomination she so desperately covets. Michigan and Florida voters got the shaft by the Democratic Party. Clearly the Clinton’s party influence under estimated just how important those two states would be to the coronation they once felt so surely would be bestowed upon the Mrs. Had they a clue that a once seemingly insurmountable lead in the polls would be blown out of the water in South Carolina they may have played the Michigan and Florida cards differently. They assumed that Michigan and Florida were irrelevant then and were unwilling to fight the party bosses to let their delegates be seated and be counted. They may have even ran a slightly different campaign perhaps even geared toward solving the problems faced by the United States instead of this ideological food fight that even if at one point was saleable because of the Clinton name obviously would not hold up to the fresh face of change. Change from the name Clinton. Change from the name Bush. Change from 16 years of business as usual that has us in a pretty tall barrel of pickles. Hillary Clinton is a very sad and tired story that should wrap up soon for the sake of the Democratic Party. Women deserve a better chance at the highest office in US politics and that day will come soon. As for the ongoing ideological food fight we have no real idea who Barack Obama or John McCain really are as potential presidents but this is absolutely true: The next President of the United States will face the toughest opening act a sitting president of this country has ever faced. We are at war in two countries with the kind of religious fanaticism that knows no end. We have no real or identifiable energy policy that is actively managing a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels. We have an education system that is producing the 16th rated student scores in math and science in the world relative to other countries at the very time when those aspects of education hold the very to our economic existence. We have an aging population in the form of “Baby Boomers” whose impact on Social Security and Medicare threaten the very economic life blood they worked so hard to create. We have a porous border patrol and emigration policy that has allowed a significant portion of our economy to become dependent upon a labor force that some would expel because they perform low wage jobs without benefits that other Americans simply won’t do. We have countless other issues that deserve far more attention than Reverend Wright or Monica Lewinsky or any of the other nonsensical mud that these campaigns insist on slinging at each other. The next President of the United States, be it man or woman, black, white, Latino, or Asian, Jew, Catholic, or Muslim will have to have the imagination, dedication, and fortitude to push the needle forward in ways we have not been able to in conjure in the last 16 years. "You cannot take your place in the long line of those who came before you simply by sitting in front of a screen or at a keyboard. Life away from the keyboard, the PDA and the cell phone is a life in which you connect to the websites of your personal convictions, and that is an obligation you must carry with you the rest of your days." -- Tom Brokaw, Author – "The Greatest Generation". __________________ What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

05-26-2008, 11:22 PM	#64 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Pan, all the candidates get passes on some things, and none of the candidates get passes on all things. There's no reason for the press to report on things like the 57 states mistake because 1) it's just plain not news, period, end of story, but also 2) they were busy reporting on things that are more newsworthy, such as Rev. Wright. I don't agree with a lot of the reporting, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the Rev. Wright story is 1000x more newsworthy than Obama accidentally saying 57 instead of 47. Or if you want to talk about Obama admitted to not knowing about something that was related to a bill he voted on... first off, the bill - based on Malkin's own description - didn't relate exclusively to that particular location, and it's entirely possible to vote on a bill without knowing every single nuance of its effect. I don't disagree that, ideally, votes would be cast only after knowing every last detail of what a bill does and does not do...but I also like to spend some time in this zone we call "reality" and acknowledge that every lawmaker does, and has to do quite often, what Obama clearly did. It's why they have staffers who help them do research and report back to them, because there is just not enough time for every lawmaker to personally research every bill that comes up for a vote. It's also why presidential candidates take time to travel all around the country, so that they can have first hand experiences exactly like Obama had. And let's not forget to mention, Clinton has also gotten a pass in the mainstream media when it comes to having not read the NIE before voting on the Iraq resolution. As for McCain, the list of passes he has gotten is already excruciatingly long. The time he misspoke and Lieberman had to correct him got relatively little airplay considering McCain's #1 argument for his candidacy is that he's the best option for our foreign policy. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-25-2008, 05:54 AM	#42 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I hope it is. I really do... Nobody can be that delusional or stupid.

05-25-2008, 10:02 AM	#47 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	actually, I suggest that if you think Malkin is wrong, you show she is wrong. Saying you don't like Malkin doesn't mean that what she said isn't true. She wasn't stating it as opinion, she was gathering what was presented as facts. Is she wrong in her research or not? She might be, but you haven't shown that. Some things are true even if Michelle Malkin says them. If she said the sun rose in the east you wouldn't say it didn't happen merely because someone you disagree with politically said so.

05-25-2008, 02:22 PM	#52 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	actually, I'd cut Obama some slack on the 57 thing...... he's been keeping 18 hr days for 18 months, it stands to reason he'll make small slip-ups like that.

05-25-2008, 08:06 PM	#53 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I wonder how many hard working white people think that Obama is so stupid he doesn't know how many states there are and how many latte liberals think Hillary is so evil she's hoping for a timely assassination. These important issues are probably good for a few more news cycles.

05-27-2008, 12:49 AM	#65 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	it's because you're a racist, pan. duh.

05-27-2008, 02:39 AM	#68 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	um, I don't think Hillary Clinton was referring to the possible assassination of Barack Obama when she made that comment. I just don't see it. She's referring to the fact that there was still a race in June which is why she has ignored calls for her to quit. And people have been pushing her to quit, we had a discussion about it right here a few months ago when some Democrats made public statements suggesting it. I am an Obama supporter, but I will vote for Clinton if she pulls off the nomination. And if you're going to vote Democrat, you're going to be voting and supporting one of them. And it may not be the one you want. So you may want to prepare yourself for that possibility and not shit on her now. I will never understand the vilification of Hillary Clinton by people in her own party. I just don't get it. She's just a politician like many before her. I don't see any glaring dissimilarities from any other Democratic politician. Let it rest, please. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

05-27-2008, 02:35 PM	#72 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I'm going on the last, mostly, two years in which her candidacy has been hinted at and what I considered to be over-the-top negative comments about her propagated by citizen Democrats. Starting with that 'other place' I used to hang out at and carried over to here. It was so bad that sometimes you couldn't tell a Democrat from a Republican quoting 90's Newt Gingrich. And it's always puzzled me because it seemed, then and now, to come out of nowhere and was based on NOTHING. She wasn't even running, yet. I don't know. But everything fucking confuses me anymore. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

05-27-2008, 05:26 PM	#74 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	My problem with Hillary is the same problem i had with Bill. Both of them are too willing to compromise and triangulate for what they think are political gains. The House of Clinton's Gingrich-era thinking help make the countless meaningless deaths & 4 trillion dollar Iraq debacle possible. What's more, it didn't help Hillary a bit. Just the opposite; had she opposed the war, she would have the nomination wrapped up by now. I don't believe for a minute that Hillary C. really believed the bullshit that Bush & crew was peddling. I think that she thought that Bush was dealing from a position of strength, and that the best way to survive was to join the sales force. Oops.

05-27-2008, 06:46 PM	#75 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	A year ago I would have damn near did an "any of the above" on the Dem side. Simply don't think we can continue down the massive unnatural disaster that is the Bush Administration and the GOP. Sometime during the past six to nine months as I watched Hillary and Co. run her campaign I started leaning toward Edwards or Obama. When Edwards tanked that left Obama. Do I think he's prefect? Umm, No. Would I vote for her over McCain? Hell yes. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

05-27-2008, 06:53 PM	#76 (permalink)
dd3953 Psycho: By Choice Location: dd.land	Well Tully, I'd have to agree with you. But I was so hoping to not have another "lesser of the evils" election. . . . __________________ [Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

05-27-2008, 08:04 PM	#77 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Daniel Schorr had a good, quick commentary on the situation today on NPR's All Things Considered: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...64878&ft=1&f=2 __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 05-28-2008 at 11:20 AM..

05-29-2008, 10:35 AM	#79 (permalink)
dd3953 Psycho: By Choice Location: dd.land	Marx was a comedian? Yeah, it's amazing how much of the soul most be sold. But even more so is the fact that America is still willing to put up with it. One of these days we are gonna have to do something about it. . . __________________ [Technically, I'm not possible, I'm made of exceptions. ]

06-03-2008, 12:26 PM	#80 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The associated press has officially released the tally that we've had for a few days now, making Obama the official nominee. Hillary is expected to bitterly concede tonight, or continue to be stubborn and become the next Ron Paul.