Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

I'll be in IRC explaining why Obama can't win.Follow

#1 Mar 04 2008 at 5:54 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
All night, baybee.

Probably alone.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#2 Mar 04 2008 at 8:28 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Just as long as we continue to have these two slicing and dicing on each other until Denver. Personally, I am more concerned with Obama winning the nomination because people are giving him a pass even though he hasn't stood for anything. It's hard to fight air or a marshmellow. The only saving grace is that young people-- his forte --tend not to vote, thus diminishing his advantage with younger voters.

The Hellbeast, on the other hand, automatically incurs such negative passion by the Right, she'll motivate the party base just by existing.

/toasts Hillary

Here's to hoping Clinton wins the nomination-- but just after bleeding herself dry getting it.

Totem
#3 Mar 04 2008 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
What's the wurd on TX?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Mar 04 2008 at 10:49 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
It went Hellbeast. Yay!

Totem
#5 Mar 05 2008 at 2:35 AM Rating: Decent
Is it because people are stupid? It is, isn't it... I think it's because people are stupid. They're gonna blow the one chance they had of doing something right, and vote for the political dynasty. Stupid inbred white-trash senile cow-fUkers.

If you guys keep on fUcking it up every election, I swear I'm gonna start a movement asking for the universal right to vote in the US election. It was ok when you guys were electing decent presidents, we could live with being denied this basic human rights then. But now, it's getting beyond a joke. 8 years of Bush was bad enough, but choosing Hillary over Obama would be the final straw.

We, the People of the World, demand equal rights! We must be allowed to participate in the election for the President of the World. No more shall we tolerate the privileges of the few when they don't even know how to fUcking make the most of it. No longer shall we watch in silence as the upper-class elect ****** after ******. Etc, etc...

Yours Sincerely,
The People of the World.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#6 Mar 05 2008 at 2:42 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
All that aside, I really like the photo CNN chose of Hillary on their politics page. So flattering!
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#7 Mar 05 2008 at 3:25 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Meh, she won the Texas primaries (caucuses still reporting and Obama leading those at the time of this writing) by a 2-pt lead with 99% reporting. Hardly a sweep or the crushing defeat she had hoped for (despite the 10-pt lead in Ohio), but I'll give it to the press: Their spin doctors are working overtime. Obama still leads in delegates, and after Wyoming and Mississippi go to him and with the GOP nomination locked down, I don't think she's long for this world, no matter what gets printed.

In other words, pbbffffft.

Edited, Mar 5th 2008 5:28am by Atomicflea
#8 Mar 05 2008 at 3:29 AM Rating: Decent
Tare wrote:
All that aside, I really like the photo CNN chose of Hillary on their politics page. So flattering!


Yeah, they seem to have a habit of using the most unflaterrig pictures of her. And even though I really don't like Hillary, it's a cheap shot.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#9 Mar 05 2008 at 3:36 AM Rating: Decent
Atomicflea wrote:
In other words, pbbffffft.


I really hope you're right. Pbbffffft would be quite imba.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#10 Mar 05 2008 at 3:44 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Atomicflea wrote:
In other words, pbbffffft.


I really hope you're right. Pbbffffft would be quite imba.
Smiley: lol Just do like me and read only Italian press.
#11 Mar 05 2008 at 4:19 AM Rating: Good
Atomicflea wrote:
Just do like me and read only Italian press.


Only the Italians could have a "Food news" section.

And this week, the brocolis are angry! Rumour has it the celeris have been receiving water straight from the hose daily, whilst the brocolis have to rely on ordinary rain. Celeris blame market defiencies, brocolis denouce communist-inspired reliance on "water welfare".
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#12 Mar 05 2008 at 4:58 AM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
Tare wrote:
All that aside, I really like the photo CNN chose of Hillary on their politics page. So flattering!


ZOMG, they changed it! CNN reads this board!
____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#13 Mar 05 2008 at 2:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Is it because people are stupid? It is, isn't it... I think it's because people are stupid. They're gonna blow the one chance they had of doing something right, and vote for the political dynasty. Stupid inbred white-trash senile cow-fUkers.


Explain to me how voting for someone with practically zero experience in federal government, and who seems to be running on the "I'm not a politician" platform is "doing something right"?

Mayhaps we should elect people based on their own qualifications and not based on how much we dislike the people they're running against? Yeah. That would be stupid, now wouldn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Mar 05 2008 at 2:59 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Explain to me how voting for someone with practically zero experience in federal government, and who seems to be running on the "I'm not a politician" platform is "doing something right"?


Good question. How does the Republican party continue to exist? Enlighten us.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#15 Mar 05 2008 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Explain to me how voting for someone with practically zero experience in federal government, and who seems to be running on the "I'm not a politician" platform is "doing something right"?


Good question. How does the Republican party continue to exist? Enlighten us.



Does the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument still work for ya Smash?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Mar 05 2008 at 5:16 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Does the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument still work for ya Smash?


Wrong argument. It's the "you suffer from projection worse than a 3 year old accusing the dog of stealing the cookies" argument. Which, when used against you has proven to be 100% accurate, and 100% predictive.

For example, you'll at some point in the future chastise Obama voters for voting against their own self interest because they don't understand the issues.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Mar 05 2008 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Does the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument still work for ya Smash?


Wrong argument. It's the "you suffer from projection worse than a 3 year old accusing the dog of stealing the cookies" argument. Which, when used against you has proven to be 100% accurate, and 100% predictive.


And yet, you were the one who countered my question about the presidential qualifications of Obama with the equivalent of "How do you explain Republicans?". Ignoring that the candidate with the *most* experience at the federal level is Republican. The only one with military experience is Republican. The only one running on actual ideas and actual record is Republican.


Do you seriously just live in a fantasy world where that kind of childish counter works?

Quote:
For example, you'll at some point in the future chastise Obama voters for voting against their own self interest because they don't understand the issues.


Trick question Smash. I think that of all Liberals. Not just ones that support Obama.

Also, self interest is how *you* define your political ideology. Not me...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Mar 05 2008 at 7:20 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

And yet, you were the one who countered my question about the presidential qualifications of Obama with the equivalent of "How do you explain Republicans?". Ignoring that the candidate with the *most* experience at the federal level is Republican. The only one with military experience is Republican. The only one running on actual ideas and actual record is Republican.


Really? The incumbent party's nominee has more experience at the federal level? When has that ever happened before?? Shocking!!!

Rally, what's your point here, buffoon? How much experience did Reagan have at the federal level? None. How much experience did Bush have at the federal level? None. Clinton? None. Carter? None. It's a meaningless distinction. My point was that the PHILOSOPHY of the GOP is to run away from experience in Washington.

To use this meaningless distinction as some sort of arbitrary criteria because of the current situation is just a waste of everyone's time. If you had any integrity at all you'd have supported Gore over Bush if this is your criteria. It's clearly not. It's clearly NO ONE's criteria when voting for President.

It's a personality contest, it always has been. The most qualified person rarely wins. That's what you get in a republic. The person people like the most wins, not who will do the best job. Ask John Kerry.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Mar 05 2008 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Really? The incumbent party's nominee has more experience at the federal level? When has that ever happened before?? Shocking!!!


Put the crack pipe down Smash. There's no incumbent advantage in this election, and you know it.

Quote:
Rally, what's your point here, buffoon?


Um... That the guy who served 2 terms in the house and then 4 terms in the senate has more federal experience then a first term senator.

It was so obvious I didn't think I had to spell it out, but there you go!


Quote:
How much experience did Reagan have at the federal level? None. How much experience did Bush have at the federal level? None. Clinton? None. Carter? None.


They had executive experience. All four of those people were Governors before being elected to President.

You did get that I was being specific to this case, where none of the candidates have served a high level executive position, right? Normally, executive position (ie: state governor) trumps US Congress experience. However, since none of the three have served as a governor, it's relevant to look at how long each has served in the US congress.

It's not like I'm making this criteria up from thin air or anything...


Quote:
It's a meaningless distinction. My point was that the PHILOSOPHY of the GOP is to run away from experience in Washington.


I disagree with you, but whatever.

Um... And in what way does this support the notion that Obama is the "right" candidate?

Do you just spin yourself around in circles all the time? Cause we're right back to the "how does him not being someone else qualify him" argument that I started with.


Quote:
To use this meaningless distinction as some sort of arbitrary criteria because of the current situation is just a waste of everyone's time.


It's a relative statement. McCain has more experience in the same areas as Obama. Period. Obama's highest claim to elected office is US senate. McCains been there for 15 years longer then Obama. What is unclear about that?


Quote:
If you had any integrity at all you'd have supported Gore over Bush if this is your criteria. It's clearly not. It's clearly NO ONE's criteria when voting for President.


It's not the only criteria Smash. Stop being so "all or nothing". You know that's a moronic argument.


I suppose the difference is that if you want, I *can* list off the reasons I chose to vote for a "less experienced" former Governor over the former Vice President in the 2000 election.

I was kinda trying to get Red to back up his statement about Obama. Because, he doesn't appear to have *anything* for him at all except a bunch of people hoping he'll actually do the radically stupid things he talks about, and a bunch more people who blindly follow whatever those people say.

It's a mob reaction. Exactly the wrong reasons to elect someone. It's not like Bush won because he was a massively popular figure who told everyone what they wanted to hear Smash. Quite the opposite. He wasn't charismatic. But he held the right positions and was a "safe" bet for Conservatives.

Can you say the same about a demagogue like Obama?

Quote:
It's a personality contest, it always has been.


It is for the Liberal Smash. It's not for the rest of us.

How else do you explain Bush? He's not popular, nor does he have a great personality. He's particularly un-presidential.

Ever consider that this is the problem with your "side"? You keep trying to elect people on the basis of their popular appeal, while we put up candidates who have better platforms. Fortunately, so far the voters have been smart enough to usually avoid the popular-appeal candidate...


Quote:
The most qualified person rarely wins. That's what you get in a republic. The person people like the most wins, not who will do the best job. Ask John Kerry.


Why did Bush win? You seriously think he was more popular then Kerry or Gore?

Obviously, popularity combined with other things helps, but it's not going to win you an election all by itself. You can be the most popular and charismatic candidate in the world and you'll lose if your platform sucks. That was Kerry's problem. He spoke better. He had much better crowd appeal. But at the end of the day, people didn't like what he was saying.


Maybe you guys should learn from this instead of continually trying the same failed strategy and then wondering why it didn't work again this time?...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Mar 05 2008 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
How else do you explain Bush? He's not popular, nor does he have a great personality. He's particularly un-presidential.
¿Qué? People were voting for Bush because he seemed like a more down to earth guy than the stoic Al Gore. I'm not saying that was everyone's reason but Bush definately had the "Who would you rather have a beer with?" thing going on.

If you're talking Primaries only, his competition was McCain, Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Gary Bauer & fuckin' Orrin Hatch for Christ's sake. The only real competition there was McCain and we all know how that went down.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Mar 05 2008 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
After seeing the cute tap dance Bush did while endorsing John McCain, I suddenly felt much better about the Democrats' prospects for November.
#22 Mar 06 2008 at 1:15 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Explain to me how voting for someone with practically zero experience in federal government, and who seems to be running on the "I'm not a politician" platform is "doing something right"?


Because at least he's consistent in his message. He would represent "change", precisely for those reasons.

On the other hand, someone like Clinton is a plain hypocrite when she claims that she represents "change".

And even if you cast aside that fact, and the fact that Clintont 2.0 would be pretty much Clinton 1.0, and the fact that in terms of image Obama would do the US a world of good, and the fact his healthcare plan is a bit better, and the fact that her campaigning was negative and dirty, and the fact she will be much more divisive than him for the country.

Even if you forget all of this, I think it's obvious Obama would have a better chance to beat McCain.

Quote:
Mayhaps we should elect people based on their own qualifications and not based on how much we dislike the people they're running against?


Well, it's always going to be a mixture of both, isn't it...

Having said that, I agree with the feminists about Clinton. She's not that mean. If she was a guy, everyone would say she's "tough" and "uncompromising". Because she's a woman, she gets called "Hellbitch" or whatever other crap.

But come on. If Clinton is "mean", then Rumsfeld is Xanu, and Rove is Loki.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#23 Mar 06 2008 at 1:31 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Ever consider that this is the problem with your "side"? You keep trying to elect people on the basis of their popular appeal


Yeah, you're totally right. Gore was such a fun doofster back in 2000 and Kerry! haha, barrel of laughs, could've started a riot at a nun's convention.

Quote:
while we put up candidates who have better platforms


Yes, the "my daddy was a President" is a pretty cool platform.

Or did you mean the whole "uniter not divider" and "compassionate conservatism" crap we heard during Bush's campaigns?
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#24 Mar 06 2008 at 4:06 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
If by "federal" experience you're trying to refer to service in any form of government, no one has the gold standard this time around---a governorship. All three candidates are legislators, not executives, so at the end of the day not one of them has served in the role that is most closely held to approximate that of President. Honestly, the only person that approximated the ideal list of qualifications was Mitt Romney, but apparently we're not the only ones voting based on who we think has the most popular appeal. Smiley: lol

That said, Bush was a ****-poor governor, and at the time, held that questionable distinction over Kerry---never mind that he downplayed it as not important when running against a former Vice President.

McCain's past career and history as a legislator are admirable, and he has a history of reaching across the aisle. He is the nominee based solely on his popularity and people's belief that he will appeal to the middle-roaders and independents, not any percieved integrity of character or executive experience. His flip-flopping on the Iraq War (we'll be there 100 years/no we won't), Roe v. Wade(for it, now wants to amend the Constitution), Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy (against, then for), right-wing religious nutjobs (criticized Falwell, now hired his debate coach), and torture (bad!/now not so much) should stand alone as evidence that the man will do anything to appeal to the right and ensure his spot in the White House, integrity notwithstanding. Hell, he's famous in the Senate for refusing to back bills identical to those he himself coauthored and sponsored in the past.

Really, if 'federal' experience is your gold-standard criteria, my mailman should have been a nominee. How like you to use a nonspecific term that allows you wiggle room. Very McCainish.
#25 Mar 06 2008 at 6:13 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Hillary is not Hellbitch, she's the Hellbeast. Distinct difference.

As for presidential personalities, Slate ran a piece where a writer speculated that candidates often fall into two catagories: Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck. Likeable and Unassuming vs. Grim and Dour. That explains Bush's light hearted tap dance, Alix. After all, can you imagine Gore doing some impromptu soft-shoe? Not hardly. He'd spend the time with the press droning on about lockboxes or something.

Totem
#26 Mar 06 2008 at 6:59 AM Rating: Good
Bush reminds me more of Elmer Fudd, actually. Smiley: nod

If we're talking about dancing, then Obama clearly should be President...that man has rhythm. Hillary, on the other hand, tends to do that lifeless clapping thing whenever she encounters music she likes. Bo-oring!Smiley: rolleyes What can McCain do without breaking a hip?
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 197 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (197)