BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:53 AM

"Did you think it was just about prayer, saints, priests, and ceremonies?"

                      Actually, LH, I thought it was all about buffoonery.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Joe_F
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:45 PM

I am willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but my null hypothesis (my mind was warped by reading _War and Peace_ at a tender age) is that the individual who happens to be president is so much in the power of his or her sources of advice & information that it scarcely matters who he or she is. What matters is the gang surrounds the president; and for me, getting the present gang out is of immensely greater importance than any of the stigmata of any of the candidates. The fact that neither of the leading candidates takes that attitude is, for me, a reason to disrespect both. What would bring me out cheering would be for them to get together with their advisers and decide, as dispassionately as possible, who (one of the two, or someone else) has the best chance of winning, and back that one.

As it is, I had to make that decision myself (unqualified as I am to do so), and so I voted for Clinton, with the idea that more yahoos despise blacks than despise women, and even the latter can view her as a stand-in for Bill. (It is notable that even in the peasant countries a president's widow can sometimes get elected.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM

JoeF--

I hope if/when it comes to the showdown between McCain and Obama, you will not go so far as to vote for McCain.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:48 AM

Clinton Quiet About Own Radical Ties
Faulting of Obama Called Hypocritical

When Hillary Rodham Clinton questioned rival Barack Obama's ties to 1960s radicals, her comments baffled two retired Bay Area lawyers who knew Clinton in the summer of 1971 when she worked as an intern at a left-wing law firm in Oakland, Calif., that defended communists and Black Panthers.


"She's a hypocrite," Doris B. Walker, 89, who was a member of the American Communist Party, said in an interview last week. "She had to know who we were and what kinds of cases we were handling. We had a very left-wing reputation, including civil rights, constitutional law, racist problems."

Malcolm Burnstein, 74, a partner at the firm who worked closely with Clinton during her internship, said he was traveling in Pennsylvania in April when Clinton attacked Obama for his past interactions with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, members of Students for a Democratic Society who went on to found the bomb-making Weather Underground.

"Given her background, it was quite hypocritical," Burnstein said. "I almost called the Philadelphia Inquirer. I saw what she and her campaign were saying about Ayers and I thought, 'Well, if you're going to talk about that totally bit of irrelevant nonsense, I'll talk about your career with us.' "

In her campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Clinton has said little about her experiences in the tumultuous late 1960s and early 1970s, including her involvement with student protests and her brief internship at the law firm, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. She has said she worked on a child custody case, although former partners recall her likely involvement in conscientious objector cases and a legal challenge to a university loyalty oath.

But her decision to target Obama's radical connections has spurred criticism from some former protest movement leaders who say she has opened her own associations to scrutiny.
...

WaPo

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:27 PM

Here in Oregon, we're proud of everybody who votes for Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:41 AM

Way I hear it, folks in Oregon are pretty proud of voting for Obama, too.

Rig, I swan, you say the most disjointed things sometimes!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 11:27 AM

We're just so proud to be here, like Mini Pearl.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 08 - 04:37 PM

Keep in mind, Rig- the region in which you live is not actually indicative of Oregon as a whole. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 05:17 PM

It's indicative of way Oregon should be!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 08:42 PM

Ooooh!! Judgmental!!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:34 PM

Anyway, Hillary showed 'em in Kentucky!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:45 PM

As Maine goes, good Rig, so goes the nation.

I am afraid the good lady hs flown her last flag.

I hope.

She will continue to pretend that Florida did not disqualify its voters, and make a fuss about it. Some accommodation will have to be reached but I would hope it would only be after equal campaign exposure for all concerned. People seem to forget that both candidates agreed not to campaign there, and Obama honored that commitment while Hillary broke it. Strikes me as a shoddy basis for asserting superiority.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:00 PM

The folks who were dissed by Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Michigan will vote for McCain in November, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:23 PM

ANd those who have been inspired, woken up, energized, enthused and made hopeful bout maybe possibly changing things for the better in every state will back Barack.

McCain's draw from the people you describe will be negligible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:59 PM

Rig, that's not the Oregon I respect and trust. Southern Oregon is a world of its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 12:14 AM

Per AOL: with 50% precincts reporting, Obama takes Oregon 58% to 42%. As expected. So they split the 2 states. Hillary gets KY, Obama gets OR--sorry, Rig.

And nothing has changed Obama's steady progress to the nomination. He gets the majority of delegates, as he had planned.

Then comes the reconciliation with Hillary's wing of the party--particularly with anybody sensible enough to want to prevent McCain from picking any Supreme Court justices. Which should be the overwhelming majority of Hillary's supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 May 08 - 12:48 AM

No question that Obama and Hilary are going to make up, but it is yet to be seen whether the Mudcat Obama brigade are going to extend a hand of friendship--Amos will, of course--

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 08 - 01:25 AM

M'siew, at the end of the test on that other thread I was startled to see that, percentage wise, Obama and Clinton were at equal ranks to my way of thinkin'. I guess I shouldn't hve been surprised because there is no doubt in my mind that if Senator Clinton took the nomination I would support her.

I support them for different reasons: Obama to me represents hope and a fresh eye, Clinton, it appears to me, could get things done even if I might not approve of her tactics. Either way this nation would gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:14 AM

If Obama failed to win the nomination, I would do what I could to back Hillary in 2008. I seriously doubt this will happen.

Time and again, my support of a candidate has been dismissed as wild-eyed, kool-aid drinking, naive, gullible, deluded, and other things much less flattering.

SO let me go on record here as saying that these descriptiors are unmitigated horse manure, biorne from small-spirited bitterness, or some other psychological aberration on the part of the name callers.

I am not insensitive to McCains occasional virtues, and I see Ms. Clintons several advantages.

I have selected Mister Obama as my enthusiastic choice for specific reasons: he demonstrates industry, a competent management style, a greater willingness to communicate openly and frankly than other candidates, a demonstrated preference for honesty over manipulation, a higher level of intelligence and a stronger sense of ethics than other candidates, in my assessment.

I do not agree with every proposal he has made, but what is far more important is that he has demonstrated that he thinks before he nmakes them. He is canny enough to survive in the mad world of politics, but is constantly, it seems to me, seekign to minimize the impact this has on his integrity.

For the most part his platform and his vision are appealing, but far more important is his track record in getting things done in a transpartisan manner.   

There are several other reasons I support him. But the point I want to emphasize is that none of them have to do with being a true believer, a lack of analysis, or turning a blind eye to his flaws. They do not rest on hypnotic obsession, as some have implied, nor on adulation, nor on blind optimism.

I just think he's a better choice, for good and sufficient reason.

That's all there is to it.

Snarky cynical, passive-aggressive, snide or apathetic insinuations to the contrary are directed to the door on the right which leads to the Self-Fucking workroom.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:59 PM

You wouldn't know from the press coverage that the media favourite lost Kentucky by a whopping 35%.
No-one but his opponent seems to be questioning his electability despite running up these numbers in consecutive weeks.
Instead, just like West Virginia, those who didn't vote for Obama are bigots!
Alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 03:48 PM

Jim - I agree. It amazes me that these results are being ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:39 PM

They are not being ignored; they give us all nightmares to think the Bright Hope for a more intelligent future could be derailed by the least-educated souls among us. Fortunately, they do not, at this late date, much shift the continental drift which is carrying the day for Obama's nomination.

I would be curious to see a state-by-state breakdown of Hillary voters sorted by those who voted for Bush and those who did not.
It would be an interesting statistic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:53 PM

Oh, piffle! Nothing is being 'ignored'! Everyone knew that Kentucky was going to be lopsided for Clinton. Each candidate has strength & support in different areas.

Kentucky will 'probably' vote Republican in Nov. no matter who the Democrats nominate.

Even though the Republicans have the burden of 8 years of lying, scandals, exorbitant spending on a war that never should have been, and total disdain for the average American and his problems, they will once again try pandering to gun owners, Bible pounders, racists, and every other special interest group they can find! And they will GET many.....folks who would vote Republican if his horns & tail were showing!

But a lot of swing voters are tired of the crap Bush has spewed, and which McCain is not doing anything to disavow. Already, Democrats are winning small victories in areas where they didn't stand a chance 10 years ago....even some Rupublicans have had enough!

It sure will be interesting,

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:58 PM

Amos asks the key question above. I suspect that Hillary is being kept alive by Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos".

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 07:56 PM

"When I wrote this morning about Hillary ClintonÕs master plan to do everything she could to undermine the candidacy of Barack Obama, I had no idea how soon that might come to fruition. As it turns out it took less than 24 hours.

In a speech in Boca Raton, as reported by Politico today, she made some ridiculous statements comparing her attempt to win the Democratic nomination to the struggle of the abolitionists and the suffragettes. She also made a not-so-thinly-veiled threat about the possible political consequences to the Democrats of not seating the Florida and Michigan delegations.

Here is what she said:

"There's a reason why so many have fought so hard and sacrificed so much. It's because they knew that to be a citizen of this country is to have the right and responsibility to help shape its future. Not just to have your voice heard but to have it count. People have fought hard because they knew their vote was at stake and so was their children's futures.

Those people, she said "refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote.

Because of those who have come before, Sen. Obama and I have and so many of you have this precious right today. Because of all that has been done, we are in this historic presidential election. And I believe that both Sen. Obama and myself have an obligation as potential Democratic nominees - in fact we all have an obligation as Democrats - to carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process, every voice is heard and every single vote is counted."

Then came the kicker. Her warning of the price that might be paid if the DNC does not seat the Florida and Michigan delegations according to her wishes:

"If we fail to do so, I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well," she said. "We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don't fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won't even listen to you."

I donÕt know about you, but that sounds to me like Hillary is encouraging Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan to vote for John McCain if she isnÕt handed the nomination. Watch your back Barack, itÕs only just begun."

(Houston Chronicle)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 21 May 08 - 08:32 PM

You know.... many things happen during a campaign and the media chooses what to ignore and what to emphasise based on what the bosses tell them to do.
That's how Bush got to serve two full terms, why you are in Afghanistan & Iraq and are now setting your sites on Iran.
The unfortunate truth however is that when you leave an actual physical trail like the butterfly tabs in Florida then you leave something that the voters will remember for the rest of that individual's term.
Most people still believe that George Bush won by cheating the voters.
So now you have a candidate who did very well in the beginning and is now seriously hurting in some areas but you are not concerned.
Last week he lost by 41% in one State & this week by 35% in another and somehow those who did not vote for him are to be put down as being either unintelligent or racists.
Each time a serious flaw in this candidate has surfaced, the media has played with it for a little while before finally declaring it "Out of bounds" and putting it to rest.
Reverend Wright (remember him?) is a perfect example of this. He has told you what Mr. Obama is. You have no excuse for ignoring it but you do.
Not only do you ignore it but you chastise anyone who brings it up as though it's somehow unfair to hold the black candidate up to the same scrutiny as the whites.
You can't even bring yourselves to use his middle name.
When this individual falls from the pedestal which you have placed him on and when many more Americans, Iranians, Iraqis and whichever other nationalities you choose to attack, suffer because of his lack of experience or hidden agenda, there will be a long trail of misdeeds by this man, starting with his run for Senator that many of us will point to and say once again "You were told and should have known".

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 08:51 PM

Jim:

I m sorry, but that is complete, unmitigated crap. The Reverend Wright has told you all 'bout who he himself is and nothing about who Obama is. Obama made the differences crystal clear in his repudiation of Wright's controversial opinions, and finally his repudiation of Wright himself. The question is why you choose not to understand, or believe, what he has said about the issue. For you to presume to know a different version of the truth about Obama's degree of influence by Wright than what Obama tells you himself -- to know Obama's secret self better than he himself does -- is the extreme of presumption and arrogance.

Because you are not operating on actual insight. You are operating on the intentionally stirred up blind emotional buttons that were pushed by Hannity and Co when they deliberately took Wright's videos and foreshortened them out of all context to make them look as wicked as they possibly could. And, like a good viewer, you accepted that as a real perspective on the man and have stuck with that moment of instilled fear ever since.
This is essentially a work of emotional fraud. Why buy it? And once you know what it is, why keep it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:00 PM

"So now you have a candidate who did very well in the beginning and is now seriously hurting in some areas but you are not concerned."


               Many of us are concerned, Jim, and that's why Hillary's prospects are picking up. In the beginning, nobody knew him and they flocked to him because a blank page looked better than GWB to them.
               I suspect deep thinking Americans should be looking into some things like, what did Tony Rezko have to do with getting Obama started? Who was it that published and promoted his books, and why? Who stands to gain if he is actually elected? Does he have connections with the Israel lobby, other lobbies?

               The Republicans won't look into connections to AIPAC, but I anticipate they'll look into everything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:07 PM

More drivel. If anybody thinks the Republicans will "look into" Obama, they would look into Hillary at least as hard--and there's always new stuff to explore with the Clintons--check the Paul trial, the uranium deal, the firing of Hillary by her first supervisor, during Watergate for unethical behavior. etc,etc. ad nauseam.

And on top of this she starts with over half the electorate dead set against voting for her.

For a lot of people--especially, but not only, Republicans--just the Clinton name is enough to get them to the polls to keep the Clintons out of the White House again.

And as I've said more than once, the revolting--and needlessly divisive-- campaign she has run, ably assisted by her newly clueless spouse, has recruited yet more people--including an amazing number of women--particularly young women--to the Clinton-loathing camp.

The Democrats are far better off with Obama as the standard-bearer.

And so far, nobody has come up with any evidence--as opposed to innuendo--that this is not so.

I've read postings on MSNBC etc by a striking number of people who say they supported the Clintons to the hilt in the 90's, voted for Bill twice----but now, after Hillary's campaign, would never vote for a Clinton for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:22 PM

"You can't even bring yourselves to use his middle name." Jim Lad

That is such utter baloney. How many times do you use your middle name? Do you know John McCain's middle name? Or even Senator Clinton's? Or Bill Clinton's? Mike Huckabee's? Mitt Romney's? Ron Paul's?

snort

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:33 AM

I don't have a middle name.
I'm working class.
I frequently use my wife and children's' middle names.
The last time I suggested that there was nothing wrong with using Obama's middle name, I received a very nasty pm from one of you.
Odd that!

On the Hillary running as an independent thing... Last night, Bill Clinton took the first step towards this on his wife's behalf when he offhandedly criticized the Democratic party as he walked past some journalists.
He criticized their lack of concern for democracy regarding Michigan and Florida as well as hinting about the bending of rules by the higher ups to favour Obama.
You will see this begin to snowball by the end of May at which time Hillary will hint that she is considering running as an Independent in response to public pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:54 AM

Betcha not.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:34 AM

Oh yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:55 AM

It is highly entertaining, in a pathetic sort of way, that folks here can't hear you Jim Lad.

Fingers in their ears, screaming "lalalalalalala" is how they "refect".

"Reverend Wright (remember him?) is a perfect example of this. He has told you what Mr. Obama is. You have no excuse for ignoring it but you do."

So true. He said it succinctly, in a single sentence. "He is a politician. He says what he has to say to get elected."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:59 AM

GUEST,Guest, it appears you've not been reading the posts before you comment. You said:

for the life of me, I can't recall one single person in this forum saying they were going for Clinton.

Either not reading or having defective memory.

In at least three threads I've made it clear that I believe Senator Clinton is the preferable candidate for nomination, and would, if elected, make a terrific president. I've also made clear that if Obama gets the nod I'd be quite satisfied to vote for him.

Either one is way, way, way better than Bush III McCain.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:06 AM

"I don't have a middle name.
I'm working class."

I do have a middle name.

That makes me an elitist, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:56 AM

Nope!
But I was half serious about that.
Middle names for boys were regarded as pretentious in the poor district where I was raised.
Calling myself "Working Class" was a bit of a step up for me and I felt a little twinge of guilt using that term.
We were always poor & occasionally hungry.
Folks in those settings often resent efforts by others to rise above it.
Those with more ambition did their best to give their children the best start that they possibly could and a token like a middle name cost nothing but would always be there.
The Irish did and still do give their children English names but call them by their Irish equivalents as a way to hide their status later in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:58 PM

Jim Lad:

No, there is nothing wrong with using Barack Obama's middle name, unless you are doing it for the underhanded purposes of making the listener associate his name with that of someone else. You wouldn't want to induce that kind of illogical, push-button thinking on people, would you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:23 PM

"Clinton did not always feel so strongly. In the early days of the campaign she said Michigan would not count.

"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot." " ABC News.

The article goes on to say:

"After Tuesday's primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, Obama gained a majority of the available pledged delegates, a symbolic milestone that may influence many of the undecided superdelegates both candidates need to secure the nomination.

ABC News has crunched the numbers and even with Michigan and Florida included Obama has a significant lead in delegates.

Related
McCain Veepstakes: Who Will Win the Prize?Obama Wins Ore., Looks to General ElectionWATCH: Kennedy: A Beacon for the Nation"In the total universe of delegates, there are 311 outstanding: 217 of those are as of yet uncommitted superdelegates, 94 are thus far unallocated pledged delegates from last night's contest in Oregon and the upcoming three contests in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana," wrote David Chalian, ABC News political director.

Clinton needs 84 percent of all the remaining delegates -- pledged and superdelegates -- to hit 2,026, the magic number needed to lock up the nomination.

Obama needs just 23 percent of all the remaining delegates to hit 2,026. With the current rules for delegate math against her, Clinton has pushed to increase the overall delegate total needed to win up to 2,210, or to instead consider using the popular vote as a metric.


Obama leads in the popular vote if Michigan and Florida are excluded from the count. He also leads in popular votes if Florida is added.

Clinton, however, has more popular votes if all the states, including Michigan and Florida, are included in the total.

But Obama did not campaign in Michigan and his name was removed from the ballot before the race.

The Democratic Party would not be convening a meeting to resolve the issue if not for Clinton, said ABC News consultant Matthew Dowd.

"The DNC [Democratic National Committee] is considering changing the rules, and they wouldn't be changing the rules unless she wanted them to meet and discuss it. She obviously wants to see the rules changed. Her staff should have set up a campaign that worked within the confines of the current rules," he said. "It is as if Barack Obama is on the 99-yard line and in the final moments of the game Clinton wants the football field extended from 100 to 120 yards." "

---

The essence of the business is that for a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton is trying to get the DNC to change the rules she previously agreed to, primarily because she does not like the score. She offers terrific explanations as to why this is a good thing, but if she were operating on such deep, true, American principles, she might have said something at the time, when losing the selection process was not obvious. At least, that would have seemed more consistent.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:51 PM

"No, there is nothing wrong with using Barack Obama's middle name, unless you are doing it for the underhanded purposes of making the listener associate his name with that of someone else. You wouldn't want to induce that kind of illogical, push-button thinking on people, would you?"

That statement speaks for itself.


Then argues with the conclusion!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:52 PM

None of it matters, really. Obama will be next President of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:57 PM

Maybe.
I hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:57 PM

When I was in grade school, there was a girl named Butz. We **all** knew when her name was being said because it was simply her name, and when it was being said as an insult. JimLad would have known also. but perhaps he has forgotten grade school tactics. Or maybe he remembers them very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:07 PM

Tia!
Stop it.
I'm discussing politics.
I have no idea what it is that you are trying to do other than insult me and at this point, I don't care.
Just stop with the insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:43 PM

Yes, we are discussing politics. And it is a currently popular political trick to use someone's name as an insult, and then claim "but that's their name!" We all did this as children, so we all know what is really being said. Many object to the gratuitious use of Obama's middle name of Hussein (there, I said it) because we know what is *really* being said, and that is this: "See, he must be a muslim and/or an enemy of America, because he has an Arab name, and it is the same name as the dictator that we convinced you would wipe us all out with anthrax and a mushroom cloud."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:36 PM

No, I think he'll just turn Reverend Wright loose on us.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:51 PM

You two are clowns. Can you not make a straight staement on the issues and facts of the matter?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:07 PM

Interesting that the same people who are constantly bringing up Rev. Wright are also constantly jumping on any possible means to claim Obama is a Moslem.

Trying to do both at the same time--when they actually obviously contradict each other--tends to support the idea that the Obama critics doing this are:

1) so abysmally ignorant that they don't realize that if he is a Christian and attends the church formerly headed by Rev. Wright he cannot also be a Moslem or

2) so desperate in the grand Hillary "kitchen sink" tradition, that they don't care they are making complete fools of themselves.

I wonder which it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:13 PM

"You two are clowns."

I'm growing tired of this.

Amos:
    Either debate the facts without the insults or do some gardening. Remarks like the one quoted above are absolutely pointless. Some of the others posting here are so insulting that I don't even bother to read them. You may have some legitimate arguments to make but I'll never know if every single posting starts with an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:37 PM

"You two are clowns. Can you not make a straight staement on the issues and facts of the matter?"


                Amos - Did you really want an answer to this?