BS: The Worst Debate in History?

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 08 - 04:24 PM

"Would you pose nude for the sake of Art?"

LOL! I love that line.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:56 PM

Seems to me I said something like that once - been married 38 years now...

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 May 08 - 03:44 PM

I wish I was Art--would have been particularly handy in high school and college. You ask girls: "Would you pose nude for the sake of Art?"

"Help me, Rhonda" wasn't very useful.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:44 PM

Or Rhonda...

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:27 PM

By golly, you're right.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:23 PM

Isn't "Ron" an abbreviation for Ronald? Or even "Ronald Davies?"

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:19 PM

Ah hah! But he's too shy to say so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:18 PM

I think that his abbreviation indicates that Ron actually, and secretly, agrees with everything Riginslinger has to say...after all, "Rig" means "praise" in Sanskrit...

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:13 PM

You too, Jack. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:11 PM

Lighten up LH

jts

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 May 08 - 02:08 PM

Take cover, "Rig", the JW's are on their way! (I have alerted them to your presence and advised them that you are in dire need of their spiritual assistance.)

By the way, I find it troubling that Ron Davies is too lazy to type out your whole name, "Riginslinger", and instead resorts to the offensive three-letter expletive, "Rig". It's insulting. It also indicates extreme sloth on Ron's part, don't you think? Contemptible behaviour, really! The man should be stripped naked, tied to a stake, and assaulted by Turkish pyygmies, that's what I think.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 May 08 - 12:24 AM

Like the man said: "THERE'S NO WAY TO FIX STUPID!"

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:50 PM

Yes, I've been aware for some time how vitally important religion is to Hillary... ;-)

(You can't help but be impressed by a 100 foot tall statue of a Babylonian owl by torchlight, let me tell you!)

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:43 PM

Perhaps, LH, you haven't noticed we've left the topic behind--surprise, surprise--and we're back to Rig's old nightmare of the Brown Peril--Yellow Peril is a bit outdated.

But it will all be worthwhile if it causes Rig to consider how important religion is to Hillary. Perhaps that's what's lacking in his life.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:35 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha! (Aww fer chrissake....Ron and "Rig"...what a shame you two never married, eh? And you can now. In San Francisco. Think it over.)

Now here's the worst debate in history:

Did!

Didn't!

Did too!

Did not!

Did too!

Didn't!

Did!

Did NOT!!!



Now just copy and paste that about 800 times in a row and you've basically got it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 May 08 - 10:19 PM

So, Rig, you equate continued immigration to establishing the US-Mexico borders as they were before the Mexican-American War?

Continued immigration is going to happen. As for pushing the borders back to 1845--not quite so likely. And, believe it or not, there is a difference between the two--even if Mr. Tancredo and your other sources of wisdom may be trying to blur the difference.

Back to the old question, which you, showing off your unparalleled question-dodging skills, have not found time to answer: what evidence do you have of substantial support among the Hispanic community for your border-changing nightmare?

If you can't find such support for this idea, just take a few aspirin and rent "The Alamo". And comfort yourself that San Jacinto came afterward. As did Mr. Polk's war, about a decade later, even if Lincoln was against it. And as Art points out, the Hispanics in the US aren't really too eager to rejoin Mexico. It's not exactly Heim ins Reich.

Lie down and think about something uncontroversial--like how much Hillary has for years spoken of the importance of gratitude to God as a daily discipline.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 May 08 - 07:22 PM

I live in New Mexico. I am surrounded by Hispanos; I see them, work with them and talk to them. Its pretty easy to do so, because most of them speak only English. Become part of a "Greater Mexico"? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 May 08 - 12:48 PM

I Don't know if GOnzales holds that land should be returned or if he merely uses a rhetorical equation.

I do know however that we have a North America and a South America.
Those from South America who venture north are called aliens. Those who venture south are called by their proper name.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 May 08 - 12:33 PM

Ron - This isn't something I've invented. All you have to do is go to the web-site and check it out. There are a lot of real problems. But, thanks to your persistent questioning, I think I have an answer to this one.

                         Prior to the enacting of the immigration act of 1986, few people were terribly polarized on the immigration issue. But that one piece of legislation drew a line in the sand that didn't exist prior. What it did was this: a certain number of illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, and overwhelmingly Mexican--were granted amnesty.
                         That one development by itself would not have been much of a problem if it hadn't been for the 1965 immigration act that preceded it. The 1965 law gave immigration preference to people through the concept of "family reunification." That meant, in vague terms, if you had a family member who was a US citizen, you were able to gain a few notches up on the climb to legal entry into the country.

                         But if your family was from England, for instance, and they came over on the Mayflower, your extended family in the home country would be removed by so many generations that the concept of "family reunification" didn't mean much. If you'd come from Mexico in 1985, however, and you were granted amnesty in 1986, your extended family was only one border away, and separated by a period of only one year.

                         The real killer, though, concerning the 1986 legislation was this: there were a number of enforcement provisions to the law that were never enforced. By not living up to the promise that the government made to the American people on enforcement, by failing to enforce the law that they themselves passed, illegal immigrants began to pour over the border with the anticipation that there would soon be another amnesty.

                         So that's where we are now.

                         The problem faced by any Hispanic politician is, no matter what he/she may really think about the law, or the issues of immigration, if he/she doesn't support the concept of continued immigration and/or amnesty, he/she risks losing the support of his/her base constituency.

                         Therefore, these politicians are precluded from taking positions they feel might actually be best for the country, or even best for native born Hispanics they are sworn to represent. They are compelled to bow to the pressures of the extreme groups that wish to promote a divisive point of view. That causes friction in the larger social structure of the country and leads to conflict between native born Americans and immigrants.

                         So whether The Nation of Aztlan has any in depth support or not, what support it does have is magnified by the events that went before it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:36 PM

Rig--

OK, very interesting. And how much support do you suppose Aztlan has among Hispanics? That's the key. Unless there's a lot of support, your preoccupation with Aztlan is just a self-inflicted nightmare. Why would you want to invent an artificial new problem--don't you have enough real ones?

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 May 08 - 10:04 PM

Ron - My understanding of what The Nation of Aztlan intends is to establish the mexican borders to what they were before the Mexican/American war in the late 1840's.
                           That's why the Absolute Vodka company published the ad they ran a week or so back. They wanted to sell Vodka to Mexican/Americans. They didn't anticipate the huge backlash it generated from European/Americans, who knew very well that that is what The Nation of Aztlan is all about. And the backlash is why Absolute hastily withdrew the ad.
                           However, I think it would be a mistake to assume that they (The Nation of Aztlan) simply want to take the territory back and re-annex it to Mexico. I don't think they are terribly happy with the Mexican government either. They seem to have a Marxist air about them, though that concept is European in origin, so I don't think they would admit it.
                           They are very anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. They see themselves, in a sense, as the displaced people of North America, and seem to identify with the Palestinian people.
                           A quick vistit to their web-site "La Voz de Aztlan" would quickly inform you of their long range objectives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 May 08 - 09:48 PM

Rig:

Re: Aztlan: You don't think I've interpreted it as they intended? A little problem with that: it was YOUR suggestion that brought up the absurd idea of returning parts of the US to Mexico.

So are you now willing to admit that Aztlan did not intend that? That would be progress--and perhaps mean your nightmares are not so frightening to you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 09:55 AM

Ron - Henry Gonzalez was a Hispanic American politician with boat loads of both fortitude and integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:33 AM

This thread is just a big waste of bandwidth, and I'll tell you why. You ready? Okay, this is why.

The *** worst debate in history *** happened on Jan 10th, 1998.























That was the time that Chongo and this other ape called Chachi argued from 9 pm till 1 AM in Finney's Bar as to who could hold his liquor better and who had a better eye for good lookin' women.

If you'd been there, you'd know what I mean. They could've refloated the Titanic with the hot air generated on that occasion.

The worst part of it was that they both claimed to have won afterward!

It was about on the level of what I usually hear around this place, actually... ;-) Only they didn't employ nearly so much sarcasm and they weren't quite so personally insulting to one another. Close, but not quite. I would gather that this was probably because they were within arm's reach of one another at the time and aware of the possible consequences of being overly nasty. On the other hand, it might be that they are just basically a bit nicer in their nature than some of the folks around here. Or smarter? Well, that's a possibility too.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Apr 08 - 12:03 AM

Ron - No! I have not heard the mayor of Los Angeles endorse the idea of giving parts of the US back to Mexico. But I don't think you've interpreted the concept of Aztlan as the followers intended. The mayor is, however, trying to make the city a haven for illegals under the pretext that it would be bad for the economy not to.
                   The question that remains to be asked then is this: who's economy is he worried about?

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 11:01 PM

Rig--

Glad to hear you like Charlie Rangel. And Maxine Waters--deluded though she is. If you'd said that earlier, it would have prevented sizable misunderstandings.

But as for your verdict on Hispanic politicians--your ignorance is showing again. Is the mayor of L..A. not Hispanic? Yet I don't believe I've heard him endorse the idea of giving parts of the US back to Mexico. Nor has Bill Richardson. Etc.

It may be in your nightmares--but eventually you'll have to learn to distinguish between them and real life. It will also help your mental stability.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 10:51 PM

Okay...Yer call...

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 10:48 PM

Why? Reality is what it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 10:42 PM

Ahhhhhh, yo Rigs.... You might wanta ask Joe nicely to remove both yer last post and this one as well...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 10:30 PM

Let's see, Ron. I have a lot of respect for John Conyers. Remember when they were talking about putting Ronald Reagan's picture on the $10.00 bill, and he stood up in Congress and announced that they ought to put the phoney son-of-a-bitch's (my words, not his) picture on the three-dollar-bill where he belongs.
                That was pretty much the end of that discussion.
                And I like Charlie Rangle. He keeps bringing up the point that we need to re-activate the draft so that it isn't only poor people's kids who end up getting shot in Iraq.
                And I like Maxine Waters and Sheil Jackson Lee, who both see that the best chance to regain the White House is to get behind Hillary.
                Brown skinned politicians are harder, because they are politicians, after all, and for the most part are trying to capitalize on the issue of illegal immigrants, in a political sense, right now. There were some very good ones in the past, but I think Hispanic politicos have to get aboard the La Vos de Aztlan bandwagon in order to get elected at this point in time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 09:49 PM

"Wrong, Rig. It...."

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 09:48 PM

Wrong, Rig, It is xenophobia--and it's painfully obvious to virtually everybody on Mudcat but you.   Only question is whether racism is in there too.

To allay that suspicion, perhaps you'd like to give us the names of some current black- and brown-skinned political figures you think highly of.



And I'm still waiting for a coherent and logical argument, from any Hillary supporter, as to why my 7 reasons for Obama's beating McCain handily--while Hillary would be a disaster--are not valid.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Apr 08 - 11:35 AM

"I don't share your xenophobia, Riginslinger."


             It's not xenophobia; it's concern for the survival of working class Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 10:22 PM

Gee, so sorry I'm not your favorite person, Janet. You know I really like you--or at least the entertainment you provide.   But the silence by all Clinton supporters in even trying to come up with a plausible argument against my prediction that Obama will beat McCain handily--and Hillary would be a disaster--is deafening---and telling.

You're great at coarse attacks-- but a bit lacking in logic and evidence. You might want to work on that.

I mean that in the kindest way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 12:49 PM

I don't share your xenophobia, Riginslinger.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 10:04 AM

"5) He (Obama) will get large numbers of Hispanics--since he can push--hard--the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--which, again, McCain's base will not allow."


                      Good reason to vote for McCain...

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 09:58 AM

Actually, we largely ignore your flaming because you are a jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 10:35 PM

Interesting that neither Rig, Janet nor any other poster who likes attacking Obama has come up with one iota of evidence--or even a coherent argument-- that the 7 reasons I cited on 18 April 2008 11:18 PM as to why Obama will beat McCain in the fall are not valid.

They like to see their words in print, but are a bit shy on logic and evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Apr 08 - 10:59 AM

II have very little time now--hope to have more later, but that's unclear--but anybody who thinks Janet is the best informed poster on this thread is himself or herself poorly informed.

Just one small case in point. Janet says Obama kicked Hispanics in the teeth by voting for the fence in 2006. She neglects to point out that Hillary did exactly the same. So there's nothing to choose there.

Furthermore, Obama came out in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants---the only reasonable position from a public safety standpoint--obviously mostly Hispanic--while Hillary is against this.

So Obama is actually preferable from a policy standpoint to informed Hispanics or those who sympathize.

Janet's other positions are similarly worthless--to anybody who does a bit of research.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Apr 08 - 10:34 PM

There was also a great Lincoln- Douglas cartoon recently, with the "moderator" asking them why they weren't wearing flag-pins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 04:01 PM

LOL...good one, Azizi. Thanks for posting the link.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 03:19 PM

Have you guys and gals seen this yet?

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/the-lincoln-dou.html

"The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (Slight Return)
by publius

Presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS



MR. GIBSON: So we're going to begin with opening statements, and we had a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Mr. Lincoln.

LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?

LINCOLN: Sure I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?

LINCOLN: I'd prefer to get on with my opening statement George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas's love be?

LINCOLN: Eight.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Proceed.

LINCOLN: In my opinion, slavery will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me, did an Elijah H. Johnson attend your church?

LINCOLN: When I was a boy in Illinois forty years ago, yes. I think he was a deacon.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you aware that he regularly called Kentucky "a land of swine and whores"?

LINCOLN: Sounds right -- his ex-wife was from Kentucky.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did you remain in the church after hearing those statements?

LINCOLN: I was eight.

DOUGLAS: This is an important question George -- it's an issue that certainly will be raised in the fall.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce him?

LINCOLN: I'd like to get back to the divided house if I may.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him?

LINCOLN: If it will make you shut up, yes, I denounce and reject him.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him with sugar on top?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No takesies-backsies?

LINCOLN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whoa, so you would consider a takesie-backsie?

LINCOLN: That's not what I meant…

DOUGLAS: When I was 11, my grandpappy and I chopped wood and shot bears"...

-snip-

And there's more. In my opinion, this is a very witty and sad commentary on politics in America today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 02:20 PM

Jim,

If the Rezko flap had had any legs, poodle George would certainly have brought it up.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 02:07 PM

And then there's Rezko.
Closing your eyes won't make it go away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 10:24 AM

Brush it off, Azizi.

Obama is also king of pop culture hype, as he proved with HIS response to the debate.

Aikido my ass.

Again I'll say it. I watched a debate on a fucking MSM channel. And I'm supposed to be shocked and outraged when they go after the front runner on character issues for the first time in 21 debates? Oh yeah--the candidate who keeps making his character a central issue in his campaign through his presidential autobiographies?

You should be kicking up your heels that the MSM is now feeling confident enough to declare (even if it is a de facto declaration) of your boy as the front runner.

The front runner, Azizi. There isn't a race card to play anymore. He won the game. He beat the racist system. He won. Or I should see, will be the presumptive nominee after this Tues, if the polls prove accurate this time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 09:29 AM

There's a great deal of difference between saying that that debate was bad and saying that Barack Obama [or Hillary Clinton] had a bad debate.

I join thousands [if not millions] of other people saying that the questions that the moderators asked were bad for our country {for a hosts of reasons}.

As to whether that tabloid debate was good for Senator Barack Obama, I agree with Ron Davies' 19 Apr 08 - 07:40 AM comments on this thread. In addition to getting Hillary to admit that Obama can win in the general election against John McCain, that debate showcased the differences between old school politics [the debate's moderators, and Clinton] and new school politics [Obama]. I include Clinton along with those moderators because of the way she added fuel to the gotcha questions and even added more smears when she was asked to respond to the comments that Barack Obama made. In contrast, Obama did not go for Hillary's jugular when he could {with regard to sniper-gate and a host of other Clinton-gates that he could have mentioned throughout this debate and throughout the entire primary campaign-but has not]. Obama acts like a gentleman while Hillary acts like one of the boys.

And let me say that I also agree with those who have said that politically speaking, Obama is a master at aikido, a form of Japanese martial arts. At his Raleigh, North Carolina speech the day after that debate demonstrated, Barack Obama knows how to take a lemon and make lemonade.

See these comments about aikido:

"Aikido focuses not on punching or kicking opponents, but rather on using their own energy to gain control of them or to throw them away from you. It is not a static art, but places great emphasis on motion and the dynamics of movement".

http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 09:11 AM

Janet--

Why don't you go back to kicking your dog? (Or at least take another sedative).   Don't worry, ABC will survive the "boycott".

Cooler heads will realize, as I've noted, that the only important thing that came out of the "debate" was that Hillary now admits Obama can win against McCain. I note with interest that you have found no evidence to counter my reasons that Obama will smash McCain in the fall.

Oh yes--and don't you forget to vote for Obama in November. Thanks, I knew you would.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM

God, do you not know how RIDICULOUS AND PETTY this makes all of you look?

And this morning I open my Google News to a LA Times article that an organized boycott of ABC World News W/Charles Gibson has started!

A fucking boycott over a sham MSM debate?

Are you kidding me?

People are losing their houses through foreclosure, people are being pushed into financial ruin because they can't file bankruptcy anymore, violence in Iraq has resurged, our environment is bloody mess, domestic violence skyrocketing...

Any THIS is what middle class Obama supporters are going to go to war with ABC News over?

Clearly, your disconnect from Jane & Joe General Election Voter couldn't be more obvious.

In case you all hadn't heard, out here in the real world NOBODY GIVES A DAMN IF OBAMA HAD A BAD DEBATE.

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 07:48 AM

Yeah, Ron, I believe that the Clinton's have figured out that there is a very distinct possibility that they will loose... Horrors...

As fir Clinton beating up on Obama it's all good... When yer getting ready for the real deal ya' need a good sparring partner and she has been just that...

Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Apr 08 - 07:40 AM

Interestingly enough, an argument could be made the "debate" was helpful to Obama--and that Hillary is starting to recognize reality. She admitted--under pressure--that Obama could in fact beat McCain. Her last argument was that he could not---and she's thrown it away.