Discussion:
The most compelling reason for not voting for Hillary
(too old to reply)
volkfolk
2007-06-20 03:31:31 UTC
Permalink
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video

As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland

There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them

Disgusted (tm DK)

Scot
scarletbgonias
2007-06-20 03:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)

Theresa
The old geezer
2007-06-20 10:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by scarletbgonias
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)
Theresa
The Anti-Christ's campaign song should be Crow's "Evil Woman, Don't
Play Your Games With Me"!!!

TOG
Pepe Papon
2007-06-21 08:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The old geezer
Post by scarletbgonias
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)
Theresa
The Anti-Christ's campaign song should be Crow's "Evil Woman, Don't
Play Your Games With Me"!!!
TOG
But George Bush isn't allowed to run again. He won't be needing a
campaign song.
--
~ Seth Jackson

MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
The Lord of Eltingville
2007-06-20 10:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by scarletbgonias
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)
Feh. Them's small potatoes...


volkfolk
2007-06-20 10:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Lord of Eltingville
Post by scarletbgonias
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)
Feh. Them's small potatoes...
http://youtu.be/FONt47Z0KZg
Thanks####

I'm never clicking on one of your links EVER again.

Scot
Carlisle
2007-06-20 14:07:56 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 6:17 am, The Lord of Eltingville
Post by The Lord of Eltingville
Post by scarletbgonias
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)
Feh. Them's small potatoes...
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Honestly I don't know why some dudes get so worked up about Celine
Dion or Hillary Clinton for that matter. Sure that cover was silly but
it was probably real fun for people in the audience. To each her own,
I guess. Here's the real deal. Bon Scott was a freakin' madman. What a
loss to rawk. Here's the real deal, people-

Von Face
2007-06-20 14:16:11 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 6:17 am, The Lord of Eltingville
Post by The Lord of Eltingville
Post by scarletbgonias
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)
Feh. Them's small potatoes...
http://youtu.be/FONt47Z0KZg- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Holy crap.
That was hard to watch...

More cowbell?


http://www.myspace.com/edvonface
marklaw
2007-06-20 16:54:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Lord of Eltingville
Feh. Them's small potatoes...
http://youtu.be/FONt47Z0KZg- Hide quoted text -
Well, she's better looking than Brain Johnson, which ain't saying
much. She's also better looking than Hillary, which also ain't sayihg
much.
RickNBarbInSD
2007-06-20 16:55:50 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 20, 3:17 am, The Lord of Eltingville
Post by The Lord of Eltingville
Post by scarletbgonias
Post by volkfolk
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
Well... At least it wasn't Dion's cover of "All By Myself" (even if
she could belt it out)
Feh. Them's small potatoes...
http://youtu.be/FONt47Z0KZg
Excuse me while I gouge my eyes and ears out.

Rick
Neil X.
2007-06-20 19:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Lord of Eltingville
Feh. Them's small potatoes...
http://youtu.be/FONt47Z0KZg
Whenever I click on a Ted link, I always wonder why my common sense is
so commonly ignored. It really doesn't get much worse than
that........

Peace,
Neil X.
Rogues Island's finest
2007-06-20 12:25:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
She's pandering for the tone deaf homo vote.

Mark
s***@gmail.com
2007-06-20 17:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.

Just curious.
Glen
Ken Fortenberry
2007-06-20 17:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. My
reason can be summed up in one acronym, DLC, the Democratic Leadership
Council. The DLC is a war-mongering, corporate-financed lobbying
entity which has infiltrated the Democratic party to advance corporate
interests. The DLC is anathema to me. But ... Republicans in sheep's
clothing are better than naked Republicans, I guess.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Neil X.
2007-06-20 19:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. My
reason can be summed up in one acronym, DLC, the Democratic Leadership
Council. The DLC is a war-mongering, corporate-financed lobbying
entity which has infiltrated the Democratic party to advance corporate
interests. The DLC is anathema to me. But ... Republicans in sheep's
clothing are better than naked Republicans, I guess.
Well said. I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.

Have you seen this, Ken? (It's a Boston Glove article.)

http://tinyurl.com/2q8z8c

Rats.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-20 20:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. My
reason can be summed up in one acronym, DLC, the Democratic Leadership
Council. The DLC is a war-mongering, corporate-financed lobbying
entity which has infiltrated the Democratic party to advance corporate
interests. The DLC is anathema to me. But ... Republicans in sheep's
clothing are better than naked Republicans, I guess.
Well said. I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.
If? She's just about got it locked up from what I see. Her
organization is very strong.

-JC
volkfolk
2007-06-20 22:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. My
reason can be summed up in one acronym, DLC, the Democratic Leadership
Council. The DLC is a war-mongering, corporate-financed lobbying
entity which has infiltrated the Democratic party to advance corporate
interests. The DLC is anathema to me. But ... Republicans in sheep's
clothing are better than naked Republicans, I guess.
Well said. I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.
If? She's just about got it locked up from what I see. Her organization
is very strong.
-JC
Just out of curiosty, how can anyone have the nomination "locked up", EIGHT
MONTHS before a single vote has been cast? I agree she looks strong, but a
lot can happen in Eight Months. That's a couple of lifetimes in a political
cycle.

(None of this should be construed as my saying that she won't win, only that
New Hampshire is in mid February, and it isn't even July)

Scot
Avant Grape
2007-06-20 22:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
Post by Neil X.
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. My
reason can be summed up in one acronym, DLC, the Democratic Leadership
Council. The DLC is a war-mongering, corporate-financed lobbying
entity which has infiltrated the Democratic party to advance corporate
interests. The DLC is anathema to me. But ... Republicans in sheep's
clothing are better than naked Republicans, I guess.
Well said. I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.
If? She's just about got it locked up from what I see. Her organization
is very strong.
-JC
Just out of curiosty, how can anyone have the nomination "locked up", EIGHT
MONTHS before a single vote has been cast?
Because the trend is pretty clear.

Last election cycle I told several people here that Dean couldn't and
wouldn't win the nomination and that Kerry would? Why? Because Kerry
had the strongest organization behind him. Politics is won and lost
well before you and I cast our votes.

The Republican Party is not so clear given that the most financed
candidate so far is being financed by close friends and Mormons. Romney
IMO doesn't have a chance.

-JC
volkfolk
2007-06-21 00:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by volkfolk
Post by Neil X.
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. My
reason can be summed up in one acronym, DLC, the Democratic Leadership
Council. The DLC is a war-mongering, corporate-financed lobbying
entity which has infiltrated the Democratic party to advance corporate
interests. The DLC is anathema to me. But ... Republicans in sheep's
clothing are better than naked Republicans, I guess.
Well said. I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.
If? She's just about got it locked up from what I see. Her organization
is very strong.
-JC
Just out of curiosty, how can anyone have the nomination "locked up",
EIGHT MONTHS before a single vote has been cast? .
Because the trend is pretty clear.
Last election cycle I told several people here that Dean couldn't and
wouldn't win the nomination and that Kerry would?
I remember, and at the same time you said that I also said that Hillary was
running in 08, and that Kerry would be thrown under the bus by the Clinton
loyalists that he hired when he reorganized his campaign staff. (actually I
think I said that after the nomination-I'm a little fuzzy on the timeline)
Anyhow, the point is that Hillary has clearly been planning to run for POTUS
for at least 8-10 years, if not longer.
Post by Avant Grape
Why? Because Kerry had the strongest organization behind him.
Hillary clearly has an excellent organization.
Post by Avant Grape
Politics is won and lost well before you and I cast our votes.
I wouldn't necessarily argue with that, but the fact of the matter is that
this election cycle is somewhat uncharted territory. This is the most
crowded field that I can ever remember, it is the earliest candidates have
ever started to actively campaign and it is also one of the first elections
since I don't know when that had NO incumbent trying to get reelected.

I think that things are more fluid than in any election, maybe ever, and
cetainly in our lifetime.

Hillary is the front runner, has a good organization behind her and clearly
has momentum, but I still think that it is too early to declare her the
winner.
Post by Avant Grape
The Republican Party is not so clear given that the most financed
candidate so far is being financed by close friends and Mormons. Romney
IMO doesn't have a chance.
I hope you're right, because he clearly used his Governorship as a stepping
stone to his run for POTUS. In much the same way Hillary used NY for her
run.

Scot
grunk
2007-06-21 00:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
Post by Avant Grape
The Republican Party is not so clear given that the most financed
candidate so far is being financed by close friends and Mormons. Romney
IMO doesn't have a chance.
I hope you're right, because he clearly used his Governorship as a stepping
stone to his run for POTUS. In much the same way Hillary used NY for her
run.
Scot- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
i hate him, but he did rid us of billy bulger
band beyond description
2007-06-21 05:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by grunk
Post by volkfolk
Post by Avant Grape
The Republican Party is not so clear given that the most financed
candidate so far is being financed by close friends and Mormons. Romney
IMO doesn't have a chance.
I hope you're right, because he clearly used his Governorship as a stepping
stone to his run for POTUS. In much the same way Hillary used NY for her
run.
Scot- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
i hate him, but he did rid us of billy bulger
hey, don't diss Billy Barty! he was always looking out for the little people:

http://www.rth.org/bbf/

http://www.lpaonline.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=44669
--
Peace,
Steve
Steve Terry
2007-06-21 00:24:25 UTC
Permalink
it is also one of the first elections since I don't know when that had NO
incumbent trying to get reelected.
Yeah, Evil Dick Cheney wouldn't stand a chance would he? When IS the last
time that a President didn't try for a second term or a VP didn't try to
ride the coattails? '68 is my guess without googling it.
grunk
2007-06-21 00:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Terry
it is also one of the first elections since I don't know when that had NO
incumbent trying to get reelected.
Yeah, Evil Dick Cheney wouldn't stand a chance would he? When IS the last
time that a President didn't try for a second term or a VP didn't try to
ride the coattails? '68 is my guess without googling it.
68 would be right, but cheney is not gonna run.
volkfolk
2007-06-21 01:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by grunk
Post by Steve Terry
it is also one of the first elections since I don't know when that had NO
incumbent trying to get reelected.
Yeah, Evil Dick Cheney wouldn't stand a chance would he? When IS the last
time that a President didn't try for a second term or a VP didn't try to
ride the coattails? '68 is my guess without googling it.
68 would be right, but cheney is not gonna run.
Hubert Humphrey ran didn't he? Wasn't he LBJ's VP? I think it's got to be
52, who did Eisenhower run against?

Scot
grunk
2007-06-21 00:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Terry
it is also one of the first elections since I don't know when that had NO
incumbent trying to get reelected.
Yeah, Evil Dick Cheney wouldn't stand a chance would he? When IS the last
time that a President didn't try for a second term or a VP didn't try to
ride the coattails? '68 is my guess without googling it.
sorry, misread!
Neil X.
2007-06-21 03:09:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
I wouldn't necessarily argue with that, but the fact of the matter is that
this election cycle is somewhat uncharted territory. This is the most
crowded field that I can ever remember, it is the earliest candidates have
ever started to actively campaign and it is also one of the first elections
since I don't know when that had NO incumbent trying to get reelected.
This is the third election since 1988 where no incumbent is running
for president (It happened in 1988 and 2000, as well as this year.)

And there are no more candidates running this time than there have
been in myriad elections over the past 24 years. God, I remember back
in 1976 that there were so many Deomcratic candidates running that I
couldn't fit all of their pictures on the floor-to-door jamb bulletin
board on my closet door: Morris Udall, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen,
Jerry Brown, Carter, Frank Church, Scoop Jackson, Fred Harris, Adlai
Stephenson, Terry Sanford, George Wallace, Sargeant Shriver, Robert
Byrd, Milton Shapp, it was ridiculous.

If you go look it up, the current number of declared candidates is not
at all unusual. If anything, there's fewer than usual at this point,
because Hillary is such an obvious front runner.

But I completely agree with you, it's not over until some votes are
cast. Having the best organization is a huge leg up, but strange
things happen sometimes. We haven't seen yet if Hillary is really
ready for primetime. She probably is, but she's going to have to
prove it before it's over.

Peace,
Neil X.
volkfolk
2007-06-21 05:02:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by volkfolk
I wouldn't necessarily argue with that, but the fact of the matter is that
this election cycle is somewhat uncharted territory. This is the most
crowded field that I can ever remember, it is the earliest candidates have
ever started to actively campaign and it is also one of the first elections
since I don't know when that had NO incumbent trying to get reelected.
This is the third election since 1988 where no incumbent is running
for president (It happened in 1988 and 2000, as well as this year.)
I count Vice Presidents as incumbents. I have heard several pundits and
talking heads on talk radio and a various news outlets say much the same.
George Bush 41 and Al Gore were both members of the incumbent administration
and as a result ran relatively unopposed once the Primary season got
underway.
Post by Neil X.
And there are no more candidates running this time than there have
been in myriad elections over the past 24 years. God, I remember back
in 1976 that there were so many Deomcratic candidates running that I
couldn't fit all of their pictures on the floor-to-door jamb bulletin
board on my closet door: Morris Udall, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen,
Jerry Brown, Carter, Frank Church, Scoop Jackson, Fred Harris, Adlai
Stephenson, Terry Sanford, George Wallace, Sargeant Shriver, Robert
Byrd, Milton Shapp, it was ridiculous.
The difference is that both party's are chock full of candidates (and more
than a few nuts too)
Post by Neil X.
If you go look it up, the current number of declared candidates is not
at all unusual. If anything, there's fewer than usual at this point,
because Hillary is such an obvious front runner.
I was including the Republicans and the Democrats in my figuring.
Post by Neil X.
But I completely agree with you, it's not over until some votes are
cast. Having the best organization is a huge leg up, but strange
things happen sometimes. We haven't seen yet if Hillary is really
ready for primetime. She probably is, but she's going to have to
prove it before it's over.
I think that her negative numbers are going to prove problematic, although I
certainly don't rule her out.

Scot
Neil X.
2007-06-21 17:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
I was including the Republicans and the Democrats in my figuring.
The Republicans seldom have a wide open field. In '76, there was
actually a more tightly fought competition than in most years, as
Rayguns made a strong run against the unelected incumbent, Ford.
That's a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats, the
GOP tends to settle on their nominee before the primary season ever
begins, even when they're not running for re-election to the Oval
Office. Reagan in '80, Bush Sr. in '88, Dole in '96, Dubya in '00,
all of them were essentially pre-determined. You have to go back to
1964 to find a situation where there is no consensus GOP candidate.
So there is definitely something different going on with Republicans.
For Democrats, though, it's just democracy as usual. There are
somewhat fewer Democrat candidates because everyone fears running
against the Clintons.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 16:35:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by volkfolk
I wouldn't necessarily argue with that, but the fact of the matter is that
this election cycle is somewhat uncharted territory. This is the most
crowded field that I can ever remember, it is the earliest candidates have
ever started to actively campaign and it is also one of the first elections
since I don't know when that had NO incumbent trying to get reelected.
This is the third election since 1988 where no incumbent is running
for president (It happened in 1988 and 2000, as well as this year.)
And there are no more candidates running this time than there have
been in myriad elections over the past 24 years. God, I remember back
in 1976 that there were so many Deomcratic candidates running that I
couldn't fit all of their pictures on the floor-to-door jamb bulletin
board on my closet door: Morris Udall, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen,
Jerry Brown, Carter, Frank Church, Scoop Jackson, Fred Harris, Adlai
Stephenson, Terry Sanford, George Wallace, Sargeant Shriver, Robert
Byrd, Milton Shapp, it was ridiculous.
If you go look it up, the current number of declared candidates is not
at all unusual. If anything, there's fewer than usual at this point,
because Hillary is such an obvious front runner.
But I completely agree with you, it's not over until some votes are
cast. Having the best organization is a huge leg up, but strange
things happen sometimes. We haven't seen yet if Hillary is really
ready for primetime. She probably is, but she's going to have to
prove it before it's over.
She's definitely ready for prime time. That was my biggest question
about her. But she's recently figured out how to come across as
charming and likable on TV. Did you see Chris Matthews interview her
the other day? She was brilliant in terms of controlling the interview
and not once did he get flustered.

No one can beat her in the Democratic Party. I guarantee it.

-JC
LP
2007-06-21 21:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Neil X.
Post by volkfolk
I wouldn't necessarily argue with that, but the fact of the matter is that
this election cycle is somewhat uncharted territory. This is the most
crowded field that I can ever remember, it is the earliest candidates have
ever started to actively campaign and it is also one of the first elections
since I don't know when that had NO incumbent trying to get reelected.
This is the third election since 1988 where no incumbent is running
for president (It happened in 1988 and 2000, as well as this year.)
And there are no more candidates running this time than there have
been in myriad elections over the past 24 years. God, I remember back
in 1976 that there were so many Deomcratic candidates running that I
couldn't fit all of their pictures on the floor-to-door jamb bulletin
board on my closet door: Morris Udall, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen,
Jerry Brown, Carter, Frank Church, Scoop Jackson, Fred Harris, Adlai
Stephenson, Terry Sanford, George Wallace, Sargeant Shriver, Robert
Byrd, Milton Shapp, it was ridiculous.
If you go look it up, the current number of declared candidates is not
at all unusual. If anything, there's fewer than usual at this point,
because Hillary is such an obvious front runner.
But I completely agree with you, it's not over until some votes are
cast. Having the best organization is a huge leg up, but strange
things happen sometimes. We haven't seen yet if Hillary is really
ready for primetime. She probably is, but she's going to have to
prove it before it's over.
She's definitely ready for prime time. That was my biggest question
about her. But she's recently figured out how to come across as
charming and likable on TV. Did you see Chris Matthews interview her
the other day? She was brilliant in terms of controlling the interview
and not once did he get flustered.
No one can beat her in the Democratic Party. I guarantee it.
-JC
There have been a few recently published photos of her looking like a
mad dictator - no doubt when she is putting some intensity and passion
into a speech. They pick out the shots where she looks pissed and has
a hand in the air..... No doubt there are plenty of people who like
to portray her as such.
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 16:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
Post by Avant Grape
Post by volkfolk
Post by Neil X.
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. My
reason can be summed up in one acronym, DLC, the Democratic Leadership
Council. The DLC is a war-mongering, corporate-financed lobbying
entity which has infiltrated the Democratic party to advance corporate
interests. The DLC is anathema to me. But ... Republicans in sheep's
clothing are better than naked Republicans, I guess.
Well said. I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.
If? She's just about got it locked up from what I see. Her organization
is very strong.
-JC
Just out of curiosty, how can anyone have the nomination "locked up",
EIGHT MONTHS before a single vote has been cast? .
Because the trend is pretty clear.
Last election cycle I told several people here that Dean couldn't and
wouldn't win the nomination and that Kerry would?
I remember, and at the same time you said that I also said that Hillary was
running in 08, and that Kerry would be thrown under the bus by the Clinton
loyalists that he hired when he reorganized his campaign staff. (actually I
think I said that after the nomination-I'm a little fuzzy on the timeline)
Anyhow, the point is that Hillary has clearly been planning to run for POTUS
for at least 8-10 years, if not longer.
Post by Avant Grape
Why? Because Kerry had the strongest organization behind him.
Hillary clearly has an excellent organization.
Post by Avant Grape
Politics is won and lost well before you and I cast our votes.
I wouldn't necessarily argue with that, but the fact of the matter is that
this election cycle is somewhat uncharted territory. This is the most
crowded field that I can ever remember, it is the earliest candidates have
ever started to actively campaign and it is also one of the first elections
since I don't know when that had NO incumbent trying to get reelected.
I think that things are more fluid than in any election, maybe ever, and
cetainly in our lifetime.
Hillary is the front runner, has a good organization behind her and clearly
has momentum, but I still think that it is too early to declare her the
winner.
Post by Avant Grape
The Republican Party is not so clear given that the most financed
candidate so far is being financed by close friends and Mormons. Romney
IMO doesn't have a chance.
I hope you're right, because he clearly used his Governorship as a stepping
stone to his run for POTUS. In much the same way Hillary used NY for her
run.
You make some good points. Still, I think it would be a miracle if
Hillary was taken down.

Thing that scares me about Romney is that he's a Mormon. And I'm sure
some will think I'm anti-religion or whatever for saying this, but the
Mormons run still today as a secret society. Unlike Catholics, Mormons
are actually more tied into church leadership. Those who question
Mormon leadership are shunned or intimidated. They also have a numerous
new age type beliefs which are secret even to some of its followers.
Still smells like a cult to me, no matter whatever good they do. It's
no wonder Romney is highly funded.

I'm not so happy about Rudy either. He's signed on Josh Bolton (Mr.
Neo-Con himself) to advise him on foreign affairs. Essentially, Rudy is
another neo-con stooge, and he's got a pretty good shot a winning. I'll
take even Hillary over that any day.

-JC
Brad Greer
2007-06-21 17:30:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:20:48 -0700, Avant Grape
Post by Avant Grape
I'm not so happy about Rudy either. He's signed on Josh Bolton (Mr.
Neo-Con himself) to advise him on foreign affairs. Essentially, Rudy is
another neo-con stooge, and he's got a pretty good shot a winning. I'll
take even Hillary over that any day.
Rudy scares the crap out of me - I definitely see him following the
neo-con dogma on foreign policy and also taking a heavy-handed
approach to domestic policy.

I hated him as mayor of New York and his political career was
floundering. He was getting a lot of flack for his marital problems,
support in NYC was waning. He did a good job in "acting mayoral"
immediately after 9/11 which changed public perception of him.
Ken Fortenberry
2007-06-20 20:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Fortenberry
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. ...
... I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.
Have you seen this, Ken? (It's a Boston Glove article.)
http://tinyurl.com/2q8z8c
Rats.
No, I haven't. It's a little early for anybody except McCain to get
too worried about poll numbers but the Clintons do have quite the
war chest and the organization to use it well.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Lfh
2007-06-20 20:57:57 UTC
Permalink
I've seen it bounced around in here that if Hillary wins the dem
nomination, it would guarantee a repub victory, no matter who they
nominated. I just don't get that. Can someone explain why this is so?

Fred
Avant Grape
2007-06-20 21:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lfh
I've seen it bounced around in here that if Hillary wins the dem
nomination, it would guarantee a repub victory, no matter who they
nominated. I just don't get that. Can someone explain why this is so?
There's a LOT of hate out there against Hillary, particularly by the
Christian-right. The fear is that she will motivate the Republican base
to come out in droves to vote. Given that Republicans have a much
stronger base than Democrats, that would spell big trouble for Hillary.
However, given the state of affairs today, it's not a given that she
won't show strongly enough to win. A year ago, she wouldn't have had a
chance. But oh my, how perceptions change quickly in politics.

-JC
Lfh
2007-06-20 22:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Lfh
I've seen it bounced around in here that if Hillary wins the dem
nomination, it would guarantee a repub victory, no matter who they
nominated. I just don't get that. Can someone explain why this is so?
There's a LOT of hate out there against Hillary, particularly by the
Christian-right. The fear is that she will motivate the Republican base
to come out in droves to vote.
Given that Republicans have a much
stronger base than Democrats, that would spell big trouble for Hillary.
So the tale goes, JC, but I don't know if it's all that accurate
anymore, given the climate. I remember reading something where even
one of the main "get out the hate vote" guys back in Bill's day
admitted that it is just not the same anymore and that she doesn't
have nearly the negative pull as she used to.

Also, the Christian right doesn't have the redmeat candidate to rally
behind. They aren't too happy with any of the main three repubs and
it's hard to see them rallying around Rudy or Mitt in response. What's
the wedge issue that can stand up against an unpopular war and the
repubs who are stuck with supporting it just to grab the nomination?
I'm not smelling a big turnout from the right just because they have
to beat the dems. They're feeling mighty screwed by the repubs these
days, it seems.
Post by Avant Grape
However, given the state of affairs today, it's not a given that she
won't show strongly enough to win. A year ago, she wouldn't have had a
chance. But oh my, how perceptions change quickly in politics.
Well, that's what I'm thinking. And this time next year things are
going to be even worse in Iraq and the "stay the course under some
other terminology" stance is going to look more odious to a general
electorate than it already does.

I may be as cracked as my crystal ball, but right now, I see Hillary
taking the whole thing.

Fred
Steve Terry
2007-06-20 22:16:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lfh
I may be as cracked as my crystal ball, but right now, I see Hillary
taking the whole thing.
Here is JC talking:

"This is the same Fred who picked the Colts to win the Super Bowl. LMAO! Oh
wait, nevermind."
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 23:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Terry
Post by Lfh
I may be as cracked as my crystal ball, but right now, I see Hillary
taking the whole thing.
"This is the same Fred who picked the Colts to win the Super Bowl. LMAO! Oh
wait, nevermind."
Did Fred pick the Colts to in the Super Bowl early in the season?


Steve, get ovah yo-self bro. Manning still threw 7 interceptions while
only throwing for 1 touchdown in 4 playoff games, giving each team
opportunities to win the game due to his careless yet typical playoff
mistakes. Not so impressive if you ask me. It was a complete fluke
that Indy played good D since in reality they're fairly average in that
department. Enjoy it while it lasts my man. A dynasty Indy is not.

As an aside, Manning's career playoff stats in 13 games read as follows:

TD's - 3
INT - 15

:-) Doh!

-JC
Steve Terry
2007-06-23 01:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Did Fred pick the Colts to in the Super Bowl early in the season?
I don't think so, but I know I did. Actually, I think Fred picked the Colts
before the playoffs started, which is even more impressive because no one
was giving them a chance at that point because of the run defense issues.
Post by Avant Grape
Steve, get ovah yo-self bro. Manning still threw 7 interceptions while
only throwing for 1 touchdown in 4 playoff games, giving each team
opportunities to win the game due to his careless yet typical playoff
mistakes. Not so impressive if you ask me. It was a complete fluke that
Indy played good D since in reality they're fairly average in that
department. Enjoy it while it lasts my man. A dynasty Indy is not.
TD's - 3
INT - 15
:-) Doh!
Why I oughtta!

Just for the record, Peyton threw three TD passes during last season's
playoffs, and has 18 career postseason TD passes.

My early pick for next year: New England. (I'm trying to jinx them.)
Neil X.
2007-06-23 02:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Terry
My early pick for next year: New England.
Coincidentally, that's my choice too!
Post by Steve Terry
(I'm trying to jinx them.)
Let me know how that works out for ya. I guarantee no self-respecting
Pats fan is picking Indy to win it all this year. Seems to me that
you've cursed you own team. Fickle fecklessness is no way to support
yer boys..........

Peace,
Neil X.

k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-21 09:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lfh
I may be as cracked as my crystal ball, but right now, I see Hillary
taking the whole thing.
This may sound whacky, but I think Hillary has a trust/credibility
issue.
GWB has created a lack of trust that I think hits all politicians
these days.
Yeah, get out of Iraq... how? I think if she sloganizes the campaign
via
Celine Dion, most folks are going to view her as the class president
who
was not invited to the prom, but stayed home after making the banners
that
were hung in the gym. To me, she reeks of the persona who would go
after these roles. Not that this is bad, ambition is good, but she has
to
have something to back it up, especially after GWB. Remember, people
for the most part somewhat tolerated Bill; however, GWB raised
cynicism
to new heights. Hillary now must overcome that.

Kurt
band beyond description
2007-06-21 12:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by Lfh
I may be as cracked as my crystal ball, but right now, I see Hillary
taking the whole thing.
This may sound whacky,
I agree.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
but I think Hillary has a trust/credibility
issue.
I don't agree. You can be cynical about politicos, but why don't you
just admit you are a Republican?
Post by k***@yahoo.com
GWB has created a lack of trust that I think hits all politicians
these days.
Yeah, get out of Iraq... how? I think if she sloganizes the campaign
via
Celine Dion, most folks are going to view her as the class president
who
was not invited to the prom, but stayed home after making the banners
that
were hung in the gym.
Not only are you Republican, but this last statement smacks of sexism.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
To me, she reeks of the persona who would go
after these roles. Not that this is bad, ambition is good, but she has
to
have something to back it up, especially after GWB. Remember, people
for the most part somewhat tolerated Bill;
Tolerated?! As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Clinton
was a great compromiser who reached across partisan lines to put
forward bipartisan legislation on any occasions.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
however, GWB raised
cynicism
to new heights. Hillary now must overcome that.
Kurt
Thank you Rush/Hannity, etc., but if it took GWB to make you cynical
about politics, I don't know what to say, other than it seems that you,
like many other Republicans who formerly thought the GOP could do no
wrong, are now at a loss for cogent words after six years of this
(mis)administration.
--
Peace,
Steve
k***@yahoo.com
2007-06-21 15:39:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by band beyond description
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by Lfh
I may be as cracked as my crystal ball, but right now, I see Hillary
taking the whole thing.
This may sound whacky,
I agree.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
but I think Hillary has a trust/credibility
issue.
I don't agree. You can be cynical about politicos, but why don't you
just admit you are a Republican?
Post by k***@yahoo.com
GWB has created a lack of trust that I think hits all politicians
these days.
Yeah, get out of Iraq... how? I think if she sloganizes the campaign
via
Celine Dion, most folks are going to view her as the class president
who
was not invited to the prom, but stayed home after making the banners
that
were hung in the gym.
Not only are you Republican, but this last statement smacks of sexism.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
To me, she reeks of the persona who would go
after these roles. Not that this is bad, ambition is good, but she has
to
have something to back it up, especially after GWB. Remember, people
for the most part somewhat tolerated Bill;
Tolerated?! As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Clinton
was a great compromiser who reached across partisan lines to put
forward bipartisan legislation on any occasions.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
however, GWB raised
cynicism
to new heights. Hillary now must overcome that.
Kurt
Thank you Rush/Hannity, etc., but if it took GWB to make you cynical
about politics, I don't know what to say, other than it seems that you,
like many other Republicans who formerly thought the GOP could do no
wrong, are now at a loss for cogent words after six years of this
(mis)administration.
--
Peace,
Steve
What's your problem? I said I think she has a credibility problem.
GWB
has a credibility problem. Hannity? Please... no credibility. I like
how you lumped my observation into a convenient pool. Ummm... did I
say that
the Rep could do no wrong? <I am revisiting your post piece by piece>.
Huh? Ok. Fair enough, my observation that she is the senior class
president we all knew may be not nice and reeking of that Limbaugh
bile. Whatever. That's how she hits me. Hell, GWB... drunken frat boy.
You? I am sure you are a nice guy as we all are on here with very few
exceptions.

My point is that I think with the advent of 24 hour cable news
saturation,
there now exists an immediate skepticism based on one's personal
biases.
If one is left or right leaning, it doesn't matter, trust has eroded.
Is it
Rush's fault (yes), being bombarded with Clinton wagging his finger
(yes),
etc, etc. Hillary has been in the public spotlight (saturated). I
don't
believe her about the files, etc. It has nothing to do with GWB or
anything
else. It is about her.

I would say I am fiscal conservative/social liberal as I believe a
societies
success as a civilization is dependent on individual generousity to
assist those in need. While government is from the people, etc, I
think
the individual needs to be engaged, and no, I am not as engaged as I
should be.

Kurt
band beyond description
2007-06-22 14:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by band beyond description
Post by k***@yahoo.com
Post by Lfh
I may be as cracked as my crystal ball, but right now, I see Hillary
taking the whole thing.
This may sound whacky,
I agree.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
but I think Hillary has a trust/credibility
issue.
I don't agree. You can be cynical about politicos, but why don't you
just admit you are a Republican?
Post by k***@yahoo.com
GWB has created a lack of trust that I think hits all politicians
these days.
Yeah, get out of Iraq... how? I think if she sloganizes the campaign
via
Celine Dion, most folks are going to view her as the class president
who
was not invited to the prom, but stayed home after making the banners
that
were hung in the gym.
Not only are you Republican, but this last statement smacks of sexism.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
To me, she reeks of the persona who would go
after these roles. Not that this is bad, ambition is good, but she has
to
have something to back it up, especially after GWB. Remember, people
for the most part somewhat tolerated Bill;
Tolerated?! As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, Clinton
was a great compromiser who reached across partisan lines to put
forward bipartisan legislation on any occasions.
Post by k***@yahoo.com
however, GWB raised
cynicism
to new heights. Hillary now must overcome that.
Kurt
Thank you Rush/Hannity, etc., but if it took GWB to make you cynical
about politics, I don't know what to say, other than it seems that you,
like many other Republicans who formerly thought the GOP could do no
wrong, are now at a loss for cogent words after six years of this
(mis)administration.
--
Peace,
Steve
What's your problem? I said I think she has a credibility problem.
GWB
has a credibility problem. Hannity? Please... no credibility. I like
how you lumped my observation into a convenient pool. Ummm... did I
say that
the Rep could do no wrong? <I am revisiting your post piece by piece>.
Huh? Ok. Fair enough, my observation that she is the senior class
president we all knew may be not nice and reeking of that Limbaugh
bile. Whatever. That's how she hits me. Hell, GWB... drunken frat boy.
You? I am sure you are a nice guy as we all are on here with very few
exceptions.
My point is that I think with the advent of 24 hour cable news
saturation,
there now exists an immediate skepticism based on one's personal
biases.
If one is left or right leaning, it doesn't matter, trust has eroded.
Is it
Rush's fault (yes), being bombarded with Clinton wagging his finger
(yes),
etc, etc. Hillary has been in the public spotlight (saturated). I
don't
believe her about the files, etc. It has nothing to do with GWB or
anything
else. It is about her.
I would say I am fiscal conservative/social liberal as I believe a
societies
success as a civilization is dependent on individual generousity to
assist those in need. While government is from the people, etc, I
think
the individual needs to be engaged, and no, I am not as engaged as I
should be.
Kurt
I would describe myself similarly to you on the fiscal
conservative/social liberal front, but you've frequently offered
cynical if not outright hostile takes on most Democrats, which led me
to believe, despite your protestations to the contrary (Clinton wagging
his finger shouldn't upset a social liberal THAT much), that there's
never gonna be Democrat you will get behind (insert HS reference here);
Republicans come and go in cycles: what people are saying about GWB now
equally applied to Reagan 25 years ago. Why not just admit as much and
take that first of 12 steps ### (I'm Kurt and I'm a Republican),
instead of equating GWB with Hillary by lumping them together into a
convenient credibility pool? It's easy even for Republicans these days
to distance themselves from GWB, but equating him with Hillary doesn't
wash for me....

I am not enamored with Hillary's Iraq war vote. But she is intelligent
and experienced, and if the Dems see or can embrace no other viable
electoral path for 2008, I'd be inclined to support her. Many pols
write books and her autobiography of a few years ago ("Living
History"), while occasionally pedantic like some others in that genre,
reveals much about her personal and political history and way of
thinking, especially if one had no other knowledge of her aside from
the "blame-Clinton" hate machine that has been in operation for who
knows how long.

I am sure you are a nice guy too with an interesting personal makeup,
and it would have been good to meet you in person on your recent Japan
trip.
--
Peace,
Steve
Brad Greer
2007-06-21 13:09:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:03:08 GMT, Avant Grape
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Lfh
I've seen it bounced around in here that if Hillary wins the dem
nomination, it would guarantee a repub victory, no matter who they
nominated. I just don't get that. Can someone explain why this is so?
There's a LOT of hate out there against Hillary, particularly by the
Christian-right. The fear is that she will motivate the Republican base
to come out in droves to vote. Given that Republicans have a much
stronger base than Democrats, that would spell big trouble for Hillary.
However, given the state of affairs today, it's not a given that she
won't show strongly enough to win. A year ago, she wouldn't have had a
chance. But oh my, how perceptions change quickly in politics.
Which is why your previous post that Hillary has it pretty much
wrapped up now was odd to me. There's a *lot* of time until the
primary season starts, lots of things could happen to derail Hillary's
campaign (not saying it will but I just don't think it makes sense to
annoint the Democratic candidate in June of '07).
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 16:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brad Greer
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:03:08 GMT, Avant Grape
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Lfh
I've seen it bounced around in here that if Hillary wins the dem
nomination, it would guarantee a repub victory, no matter who they
nominated. I just don't get that. Can someone explain why this is so?
There's a LOT of hate out there against Hillary, particularly by the
Christian-right. The fear is that she will motivate the Republican base
to come out in droves to vote. Given that Republicans have a much
stronger base than Democrats, that would spell big trouble for Hillary.
However, given the state of affairs today, it's not a given that she
won't show strongly enough to win. A year ago, she wouldn't have had a
chance. But oh my, how perceptions change quickly in politics.
Which is why your previous post that Hillary has it pretty much
wrapped up now was odd to me. There's a *lot* of time until the
primary season starts, lots of things could happen to derail Hillary's
campaign (not saying it will but I just don't think it makes sense to
annoint the Democratic candidate in June of '07).
I did the same thing with John Kerry when several suckers thought Dean
had it won practically. Hello! 7 months before the Florida primary.
By then, it will be all known. This isn't like a national election
where once can have a very close race. No. A clear choice will be made
by the unions, K-street and primary delegates. Hillary already has 2 of
the three completely wrapped up.

-JC
Neil X.
2007-06-21 17:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
I did the same thing with John Kerry when several suckers thought Dean
had it won practically. Hello! 7 months before the Florida primary.
By then, it will be all known.
Kerry in '04 and Dukakis in '88, those were two instances were it was
very obvious who was going to get it for the Democrats. It isn't
always that way, but yes, in those two instances the result was clear
a year before Iowa. Duke and Kerry were personal nightmares for me,
because I knew they just didn't have what it would take to win a
general election. I knew that Duke wasn't ready for primetime and
Kerry was an empty suit, but also knew there was nothing that was
going to prevent them from taking the Democratic Party down to
defeat. Those were depressing elections.

I don't see it as that clear cut this time. Hillary has something
that neither Dukakis or Kerry had--high negative numbers from within
the Democratic Party. There is strong resistance within the liberal
wing of the party to Hillary. She's on the wrong side of the most
important issue to most Democrats, the Iraq War. Her husband was able
to overcome liberal mistrust by being less known, and also by playing
the "I'm electable" card, which was a potent elixir after 12 years
under Reagan and Bush Sr. But Hillary can't hide like that. Those
liberals voting for the most electable cadidate certainly aren't going
to be voting for her. In this instance, some votes are going to have
to be cast before we will really know.

Peace,
Neil X.
The old geezer
2007-06-20 23:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lfh
I've seen it bounced around in here that if Hillary wins the dem
nomination, it would guarantee a repub victory, no matter who they
nominated. I just don't get that. Can someone explain why this is so?
Fred
Record Republican turnout!

TOG
Avant Grape
2007-06-20 21:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by Ken Fortenberry
I'm not passionately against her, if she is the Democratic nominee
I will both support her candidacy with time and money and vote for
her. Having said that, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. ...
... I intend to vote for a Democrat in the Democratic primary,
and Hillary doesn't qualify. But she will, at minimum, appoint the
right kind of jurists to the Supreme Court, and for that alone, she'll
have my enthusiastic support if she steals, uh, I mean wins, the
Democrat nomination.
Have you seen this, Ken? (It's a Boston Glove article.)
http://tinyurl.com/2q8z8c
Rats.
No, I haven't. It's a little early for anybody except McCain to get
too worried about poll numbers but the Clintons do have quite the
war chest and the organization to use it well.
Well, given that several primaries have been moved up, I'd argue it's
not too early at all. The time is now to pay attention. Florida's
primary is in 7 months for shit's sake. Hillary has definitely got it
locked up for the most part. It would take a miracle at this point to
knock her down.

McCain is done. He's not raising anywhere near the money I expected him
to. The Republican race is wide open, though remarkably enough, Rudy
Giuliani is in position to win. He's gaining wide support from cultural
conservatives so far.

-JC
Ken Fortenberry
2007-06-21 00:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by Neil X.
Have you seen this, Ken? (It's a Boston Glove article.)
http://tinyurl.com/2q8z8c
Rats.
No, I haven't. It's a little early for anybody except McCain to get
too worried about poll numbers but the Clintons do have quite the
war chest and the organization to use it well.
Well, given that several primaries have been moved up, I'd argue it's
not too early at all. The time is now to pay attention. Florida's
primary is in 7 months for shit's sake. Hillary has definitely got it
locked up for the most part. It would take a miracle at this point to
knock her down.
She has the money, she has the organization and it is time to
pay attention but I still think it's a little early to get too
worried about a 5 or 6 point move in the poll numbers. I think
Obama dropped the ball when he distanced himself from his staff's
India barbs. I mean, Hillary Clinton, (D-Punjab) was *perfect*.
Obama will learn the lesson, and his political elbows were sharpened
in Chicago and the Illinois legislature, so don't consider him a
cream puff.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 16:19:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by Neil X.
Have you seen this, Ken? (It's a Boston Glove article.)
http://tinyurl.com/2q8z8c
Rats.
No, I haven't. It's a little early for anybody except McCain to get
too worried about poll numbers but the Clintons do have quite the
war chest and the organization to use it well.
Well, given that several primaries have been moved up, I'd argue it's
not too early at all. The time is now to pay attention. Florida's
primary is in 7 months for shit's sake. Hillary has definitely got it
locked up for the most part. It would take a miracle at this point to
knock her down.
She has the money, she has the organization and it is time to
pay attention but I still think it's a little early to get too
worried about a 5 or 6 point move in the poll numbers. I think
Obama dropped the ball when he distanced himself from his staff's
India barbs. I mean, Hillary Clinton, (D-Punjab) was *perfect*.
Obama will learn the lesson, and his political elbows were sharpened
in Chicago and the Illinois legislature, so don't consider him a
cream puff.
___


He may not be a cream puff, but he is black (a fact people are much too
politically correct to discuss openly) and he doesn't have anywhere near
the organizational antennas as Hilary. He certainly has the ability to
raise money though, but you have to be able to know how to use it.

Also, why in the world do you support Obama? He's DLC whether he denies
it or not. He's already been on record as calling Liebermann one of his
biggest mentors and someone he respects highly. He's also about as
pro-Israel a candidate could get. To be honest, I see very little
difference between he and Hillary. And since he wasn't in the senate
when the Iraq war vote came up, his anti-war stance is no different from
Hillary's or Joe Biden's.

BTW, I actually will be voting for Biden in the primaries. He's the
only candidate I hear who makes sense without all the wish-washy
political mumbo jumbo. I'm particularly getting tired of Obama's 'let's
all hold hands gimmick'.

-JC
Ken Fortenberry
2007-06-21 17:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Ken Fortenberry
She has the money, she has the organization and it is time to
pay attention but I still think it's a little early to get too
worried about a 5 or 6 point move in the poll numbers. I think
Obama dropped the ball when he distanced himself from his staff's
India barbs. I mean, Hillary Clinton, (D-Punjab) was *perfect*.
Obama will learn the lesson, and his political elbows were sharpened
in Chicago and the Illinois legislature, so don't consider him a
cream puff.
He may not be a cream puff, but he is black (a fact people are much too
politically correct to discuss openly) and he doesn't have anywhere near
the organizational antennas as Hilary. He certainly has the ability to
raise money though, but you have to be able to know how to use it.
Also, why in the world do you support Obama? He's DLC whether he denies
it or not. He's already been on record as calling Liebermann one of his
biggest mentors and someone he respects highly. He's also about as
pro-Israel a candidate could get. To be honest, I see very little
difference between he and Hillary. And since he wasn't in the senate
when the Iraq war vote came up, his anti-war stance is no different from
Hillary's or Joe Biden's.
BTW, I actually will be voting for Biden in the primaries. He's the
only candidate I hear who makes sense without all the wish-washy
political mumbo jumbo. I'm particularly getting tired of Obama's 'let's
all hold hands gimmick'.
There are several reasons why I support Obama but beyond agreement
on most of the issues; health care, death penalty, abortion rights,
civil liberties, the environment, the biggest reason is a political
temperament that is capable, wise and inclusive. What you call hand
holding. ;-)

He is most definitely *not* DLC, you couldn't be more wrong about
that. And you're wrong about his anti-war credentials, he was a
very vocal opponent of the war from the very beginning. As for his
remarks about Lieberman *all* Senators have the highest respect for
*all* other Senators. Don't read anything more into that.

As for being as pro-Israel as a candidate could get, I don't know
where you come up with that. Obama was harshly criticized by zionists
when in an Iowa campaign stop he said: "[N]obody is suffering more than
the Palestinian people...
the Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace
process to restart..."

Of course he backpedaled like a son-of-a-bitch on that one, but I'm
not gonna hold that against him. AIPAC is far too powerful an enemy
in American politics for a prudent candidate to piss off.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 18:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Fortenberry
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Ken Fortenberry
She has the money, she has the organization and it is time to
pay attention but I still think it's a little early to get too
worried about a 5 or 6 point move in the poll numbers. I think
Obama dropped the ball when he distanced himself from his staff's
India barbs. I mean, Hillary Clinton, (D-Punjab) was *perfect*.
Obama will learn the lesson, and his political elbows were sharpened
in Chicago and the Illinois legislature, so don't consider him a
cream puff.
He may not be a cream puff, but he is black (a fact people are much
too politically correct to discuss openly) and he doesn't have
anywhere near the organizational antennas as Hilary. He certainly has
the ability to raise money though, but you have to be able to know how
to use it.
Also, why in the world do you support Obama? He's DLC whether he
denies it or not. He's already been on record as calling Liebermann
one of his biggest mentors and someone he respects highly. He's also
about as pro-Israel a candidate could get. To be honest, I see very
little difference between he and Hillary. And since he wasn't in the
senate when the Iraq war vote came up, his anti-war stance is no
different from Hillary's or Joe Biden's.
BTW, I actually will be voting for Biden in the primaries. He's the
only candidate I hear who makes sense without all the wish-washy
political mumbo jumbo. I'm particularly getting tired of Obama's
'let's all hold hands gimmick'.
There are several reasons why I support Obama but beyond agreement
on most of the issues; health care, death penalty, abortion rights,
civil liberties, the environment, the biggest reason is a political
temperament that is capable, wise and inclusive. What you call hand
holding. ;-)
He is most definitely *not* DLC, you couldn't be more wrong about
that. And you're wrong about his anti-war credentials, he was a
very vocal opponent of the war from the very beginning. As for his
remarks about Lieberman *all* Senators have the highest respect for
*all* other Senators. Don't read anything more into that.
Ummm...he called Lieberman his political mentor. I'll take Obama at his
word here. Nothing to read into. I know of no other senator who made
this very same claim.
Post by Ken Fortenberry
As for being as pro-Israel as a candidate could get, I don't know
where you come up with that. Obama was harshly criticized by zionists
when in an Iowa campaign stop he said: "[N]obody is suffering more than
the Palestinian people...
the Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace
process to restart..."
Of course he backpedaled like a son-of-a-bitch on that one, but I'm
not gonna hold that against him. AIPAC is far too powerful an enemy
in American politics for a prudent candidate to piss off.
Well, Obama WAS a member of the DLC but then withdrew. Of course he
claimed he was enrolled without his knowledge, which I find rather
laughable.

Be that as it may, Obama is a slick as they come. He was not against
using force in Iraq per se. He was against using "unilateral force" in
Iraq. Remember, he's a lawyer after all. I've seen Obama speak on TV
quite a it, and it's clear he is willing to use force against country if
diplomatic efforts fail, which in most cases they likely will,
particularly in the cases of Iran and North Korea. This is essentially
a return to the pre-Dubya status quo. I like Obama well enough though,
but as a candidate, he doesn't show much substance so far. Just a lot
of feel-good speeches. I think he basically has the same politics as
Hillary. She just has a lot more ability to lead and get things done.

On the subject of Israel? I'll let Obama speak for himself:


"Israel is our strongest ally in the region
and its only established democracy
We must preserve our total commitment to our
unique defence relationship with Israel
by fully funding military assistance and continuing work
on the Arrow and related missile defence programs"
-Barak Obama


Again, I'll take him at his word.

-----

-JC
Neil X.
2007-06-21 04:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
McCain is done. He's not raising anywhere near the money I expected him
to. The Republican race is wide open, though remarkably enough, Rudy
Giuliani is in position to win. He's gaining wide support from cultural
conservatives so far.
I'd be surprised if Fred Thompson doesn't end up as the GOP candidate.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 16:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by Avant Grape
McCain is done. He's not raising anywhere near the money I expected him
to. The Republican race is wide open, though remarkably enough, Rudy
Giuliani is in position to win. He's gaining wide support from cultural
conservatives so far.
I'd be surprised if Fred Thompson doesn't end up as the GOP candidate.
He obviously seems very popular. But what kind of organization does he
have? You have to go out and win delegates. Without an organization,
national polls aren't going to do him any good. Some have questioned
his work ethic as well. I dunno. He may be a lot of hype. We'll see.

-JC
Neil X.
2007-06-21 18:30:20 UTC
Permalink
[Fred Thompson] obviously seems very popular. But what kind of organization
does he have?
Probably very little, at this point. But he's going to have a lot of
help from the dominant powers of the GOP to get up to speed. There
are simply to many Republicans who can't stomach Giuliani or Romney
for there not to be a major push given to someone like Thompson.
That's the thing--there is still ample time for him, or Gore on the
Democratic side, to be major players, if they so choose.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 18:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
[Fred Thompson] obviously seems very popular. But what kind of organization
does he have?
Probably very little, at this point. But he's going to have a lot of
help from the dominant powers of the GOP to get up to speed. There
are simply to many Republicans who can't stomach Giuliani or Romney
for there not to be a major push given to someone like Thompson.
That's the thing--there is still ample time for him, or Gore on the
Democratic side, to be major players, if they so choose.
Well surprise, surprise. We disagree. I think there is a lot less time
than you would think. Seven months until a a major and deciding primary
doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room. I think ol' Fred is catching on to
that fact. I'm not so sure he'll get it together. Building an
organization from scratch is no easy task and more often than not
doesn't wore. Even Gore would be in a problematic situation. But he's
not going to run. I don't think Gore ever really was interested in
being a president or a leader, and I don't see a change in his
philosophy. I dare say he's been rather mysterious on the issue in
order to sell more books.

-JC
Neil X.
2007-06-21 19:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Building an organization from scratch is no easy task and more often than not
doesn't wore.
Indeed. And we both know that, without whoring, politics itself would
be impossible.

Jokes aside, I don't think Fred can build it--he will have to inheirit
the infrastructure of the hard right that already exists. Don't
underestimate how much of a conservative, religious right grass roots
operation is already out there intact and waiting.
Even Gore would be in a problematic situation. But he's
not going to run. I don't think Gore ever really was interested in
being a president or a leader, and I don't see a change in his
philosophy. I dare say he's been rather mysterious on the issue in
order to sell more books.
No, Gore's not going to run, and he wouldn't win if he did.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 19:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Building an organization from scratch is no easy task and more often than not
doesn't wore.
Indeed. And we both know that, without whoring, politics itself would
be impossible.
Jokes aside, I don't think Fred can build it--he will have to inheirit
the infrastructure of the hard right that already exists. Don't
underestimate how much of a conservative, religious right grass roots
operation is already out there intact and waiting.
Even Gore would be in a problematic situation. But he's
not going to run. I don't think Gore ever really was interested in
being a president or a leader, and I don't see a change in his
philosophy. I dare say he's been rather mysterious on the issue in
order to sell more books.
No, Gore's not going to run, and he wouldn't win if he did.
If he would have started early, he might of been able to. America
always loves a come-back kid. Even I for all my past dissatisfaction
with the way Gore handled himself would have enjoyed seeing him run and
likely would have voted for him, believe it or not. I'm not at all that
happy with the choices being presented so far. Personally, I want
someone in there that actually has some clue about AND experience in
foreign affairs. For me that comes down to Biden, Richardson or
Hillary. I think Gore would be at the top of the list. Unfortunately I
don't think he has the heart or balls to be the guy. I'd be in his
corner right now if he did.

-JC
Neil X.
2007-06-22 02:27:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Neil X.
Building an organization from scratch is no easy task and more often than not
doesn't wore.
Indeed. And we both know that, without whoring, politics itself would
be impossible.
Jokes aside, I don't think Fred can build it--he will have to inheirit
the infrastructure of the hard right that already exists. Don't
underestimate how much of a conservative, religious right grass roots
operation is already out there intact and waiting.
Even Gore would be in a problematic situation. But he's
not going to run. I don't think Gore ever really was interested in
being a president or a leader, and I don't see a change in his
philosophy. I dare say he's been rather mysterious on the issue in
order to sell more books.
No, Gore's not going to run, and he wouldn't win if he did.
If he would have started early, he might of been able to. America
always loves a come-back kid. Even I for all my past dissatisfaction
with the way Gore handled himself would have enjoyed seeing him run and
likely would have voted for him, believe it or not. I'm not at all that
happy with the choices being presented so far. Personally, I want
someone in there that actually has some clue about AND experience in
foreign affairs. For me that comes down to Biden, Richardson or
Hillary. I think Gore would be at the top of the list. Unfortunately I
don't think he has the heart or balls to be the guy. I'd be in his
corner right now if he did.
I'm way sold on Richardson. There is no doubt in my mind he would be
the most competent president of our lifetime. Politically speaking,
he has no chance, but he would be an amazing president. He will get
my vote despite the hopelessness of his campaign.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 02:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Neil X.
Building an organization from scratch is no easy task and more often than not
doesn't wore.
Indeed. And we both know that, without whoring, politics itself would
be impossible.
Jokes aside, I don't think Fred can build it--he will have to inheirit
the infrastructure of the hard right that already exists. Don't
underestimate how much of a conservative, religious right grass roots
operation is already out there intact and waiting.
Even Gore would be in a problematic situation. But he's
not going to run. I don't think Gore ever really was interested in
being a president or a leader, and I don't see a change in his
philosophy. I dare say he's been rather mysterious on the issue in
order to sell more books.
No, Gore's not going to run, and he wouldn't win if he did.
If he would have started early, he might of been able to. America
always loves a come-back kid. Even I for all my past dissatisfaction
with the way Gore handled himself would have enjoyed seeing him run and
likely would have voted for him, believe it or not. I'm not at all that
happy with the choices being presented so far. Personally, I want
someone in there that actually has some clue about AND experience in
foreign affairs. For me that comes down to Biden, Richardson or
Hillary. I think Gore would be at the top of the list. Unfortunately I
don't think he has the heart or balls to be the guy. I'd be in his
corner right now if he did.
I'm way sold on Richardson. There is no doubt in my mind he would be
the most competent president of our lifetime. Politically speaking,
he has no chance, but he would be an amazing president. He will get
my vote despite the hopelessness of his campaign.
Yeah, I happen to agree wholeheartedly. I'm liking Biden right now,
even if he is a bit of head case, but Richardson is certainly an
impressive candidate. Something tells me me Richardson may be up for a
cabinet position. Secretary of State maybe?

-JC
Andy Gefen
2007-06-21 22:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by Avant Grape
McCain is done. He's not raising anywhere near the money I expected him
to. The Republican race is wide open, though remarkably enough, Rudy
Giuliani is in position to win. He's gaining wide support from cultural
conservatives so far.
I'd be surprised if Fred Thompson doesn't end up as the GOP candidate.
Peace,
Neil X.
Thompson served in the Senate for eight years. Name one
accomplishment of his.

-- Andy (remove z's to respond)
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 22:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Gefen
Post by Neil X.
Post by Avant Grape
McCain is done. He's not raising anywhere near the money I expected him
to. The Republican race is wide open, though remarkably enough, Rudy
Giuliani is in position to win. He's gaining wide support from cultural
conservatives so far.
I'd be surprised if Fred Thompson doesn't end up as the GOP candidate.
Peace,
Neil X.
Thompson served in the Senate for eight years. Name one
accomplishment of his.
Who needs accomplishments when you have STAR power? Can you imagine all
the in-the-closet Republicans lubricating their hands in anticipation?

-JC
Neil X.
2007-06-22 02:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Gefen
Thompson served in the Senate for eight years. Name one
accomplishment of his.
This is relevant exactly how? Name one accomplishment that Dubya made
as governor in Texas.

HTH,
Neil X.
Joker
2007-06-21 01:10:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
Glen
She wants to leave occupation troops in Iraq. She's been on the wrong
side of the Iraq war issue from the beginning. She either just doesn't
get it or she's stupid. I discount the stupid theory, although I'm
starting to waver on that...
In any case, that's plenty of reason not to want to see her become
president.
Larry
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 16:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joker
Post by s***@gmail.com
Ok, so people here don't like Hillary's political jingle (I hope
that's not reason enough to determine how you vote for president). But
could you tell me why so many people (or just yourself) are so
passionately against her? I mean, she doesn't seem like someone I'd
want to date, but I can't find any good reason that she wouldn't make
a good president.
Just curious.
Glen
She wants to leave occupation troops in Iraq.
No matter who gets elected, some level of troops will stay in Iraq for
at least a decade. That's a fact. And we'll certainly have bases there
for the rest of your natural life.

-JC
grunk
2007-06-20 17:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
If Hillary has a sane exit stategy for Iraq she can pretty much change
our national anthem to a,fucking Celine Dion song for all I care!
Seriously, all this Hillary bashing is starting to remind me of '99's
Gore bashing, and lookit where that got us.
Avant Grape
2007-06-20 17:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by grunk
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
If Hillary has a sane exit stategy for Iraq she can pretty much change
our national anthem to a,fucking Celine Dion song for all I care!
Well, let's get real. Hillary is proposing a reduction of troops, not
an exit strategy. We'll have military bases in Iraq for at least a
decade and likely many more. That's an inescapable fact, and nothing
that any politician says will change it.

-JC
grunk
2007-06-20 17:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by grunk
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
If Hillary has a sane exit stategy for Iraq she can pretty much change
our national anthem to a,fucking Celine Dion song for all I care!
Well, let's get real. Hillary is proposing a reduction of troops, not
an exit strategy. We'll have military bases in Iraq for at least a
decade and likely many more. That's an inescapable fact, and nothing
that any politician says will change it.
-JC- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't think that any sane exit policy can possibly include a
complete withdrawal of troops. A complete withdrawal of troops pretty
much spells chaos and genocide for the Iraqi people, and I don't think
anyone wants that. I'm just saying lets remember who put us in this
situation, and yes I know how Hillary voted, and get them the fuck out
of office. A very loud messeage needs to be sent to the gop that if
they're agenda includes putting extremists in the White House then
they're just gonna have to sit things out on the sidelines for a
spell, and sorry, as mindless as it may sound, that includes
supporting whomever gets the democratic nomination.
Avant Grape
2007-06-20 20:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by grunk
Post by Avant Grape
Post by grunk
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
If Hillary has a sane exit stategy for Iraq she can pretty much change
our national anthem to a,fucking Celine Dion song for all I care!
Well, let's get real. Hillary is proposing a reduction of troops, not
an exit strategy. We'll have military bases in Iraq for at least a
decade and likely many more. That's an inescapable fact, and nothing
that any politician says will change it.
-JC- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't think that any sane exit policy can possibly include a
complete withdrawal of troops. A complete withdrawal of troops pretty
much spells chaos and genocide for the Iraqi people, and I don't think
anyone wants that. I'm just saying lets remember who put us in this
situation, and yes I know how Hillary voted, and get them the fuck out
of office. A very loud messeage needs to be sent to the gop that if
they're agenda includes putting extremists in the White House then
they're just gonna have to sit things out on the sidelines for a
spell, and sorry, as mindless as it may sound, that includes
supporting whomever gets the democratic nomination.
Well, I can't necessarily disagree with anything you said above.

Oh well. ;-)

-JC
Joker
2007-06-21 03:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by grunk
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
If Hillary has a sane exit stategy for Iraq she can pretty much change
our national anthem to a,fucking Celine Dion song for all I care!
Well, let's get real. Hillary is proposing a reduction of troops, not
an exit strategy. We'll have military bases in Iraq for at least a
decade and likely many more. That's an inescapable fact, and nothing
that any politician says will change it.
-JC
There's no good reason for the troops to stay there any longer than it
takes them to organize and accomplish a complete and orderly
withdrawal. Yea, the US broke it, and owns the lion's share of
responibility for the ugly, deadly mess. But I don't happen to believe
that a liberal, pro-war Democrat as president will do anything
substantial to clean-up the mess. (Been there, done that. In 1968 LBJ
declined to run for a second full term due largely to mushrooming anti-
war sentiment.)
If anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks the US having military bases
in Iraq for at least a decade" is anything other than a policy of
ongoing U.S. occupation/war/insurgency, they are, at best, deluded.
The fact is, we did break it and it is seriously broken. But that
doesn't mean that we have the *ability* to "fix it." There is no way
that US military bases can exist there without huge numbers of troops
for security and supply. The same folks who are blowing up US troops
now will be blowing them up in two years, four years and so on.
And someone tell me why. Why does the US need to mainain bases? To
prevent the Iraqis from slaughtering each other? Even if we have to
kill them to do the job? We can't seem to stop it now. What, exactly,
will be different when we change presidents? The insurgents are not
going to go back to their day jobs just because a Democrat gets
elected. For too many of them, that *is* their day job. That means
that if US soldiers stay there, they will be attacked. They will be
seen as foreign occupiers. At least if we have a complete withdrawal
from Iraq American soldiers will stop killing and being killed there.
Will Iraq descend into chaos and blood if US troops leave? Yes, but it
sure looks like that's where it's rapidly going anyway. The "surge"
has troop levels at an all-time high and the Iraqis are busier than
ever killing each other. Our troop presence there is a huge lightening
rod for more violence and death.
We need to get the fuck out and let the Iraqis figure it out. Sorry,
Middle East, we screwed up big-time but it's time for the US to get
out and turn our attention and rescources to other issues. And, for
some, to admit/realize that it is, after all, your country, not ours.
If y'all get a stable, peaceful government together, maybe we can help
financially. If our credit is still good, that is...
The war is the single most important national and international issue
today. There is no sane reason to continue it but it sure looks like
no one in the leadership of either the Dems or GOP, has the balls to
just say it's got to stop. Now.
I think the American people are leaning that way, but we'll see.
Larry
Neil X.
2007-06-21 04:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joker
There's no good reason for the troops to stay there any longer than it
takes them to organize and accomplish a complete and orderly
withdrawal. Yea, the US broke it, and owns the lion's share of
responibility for the ugly, deadly mess. But I don't happen to believe
that a liberal, pro-war Democrat as president will do anything
substantial to clean-up the mess. (Been there, done that. In 1968 LBJ
declined to run for a second full term due largely to mushrooming anti-
war sentiment.)
If anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks the US having military bases
in Iraq for at least a decade" is anything other than a policy of
ongoing U.S. occupation/war/insurgency, they are, at best, deluded.
The fact is, we did break it and it is seriously broken. But that
doesn't mean that we have the *ability* to "fix it." There is no way
that US military bases can exist there without huge numbers of troops
for security and supply. The same folks who are blowing up US troops
now will be blowing them up in two years, four years and so on.
And someone tell me why. Why does the US need to mainain bases? To
prevent the Iraqis from slaughtering each other? Even if we have to
kill them to do the job? We can't seem to stop it now. What, exactly,
will be different when we change presidents? The insurgents are not
going to go back to their day jobs just because a Democrat gets
elected. For too many of them, that *is* their day job. That means
that if US soldiers stay there, they will be attacked. They will be
seen as foreign occupiers. At least if we have a complete withdrawal
from Iraq American soldiers will stop killing and being killed there.
Will Iraq descend into chaos and blood if US troops leave? Yes, but it
sure looks like that's where it's rapidly going anyway. The "surge"
has troop levels at an all-time high and the Iraqis are busier than
ever killing each other. Our troop presence there is a huge lightening
rod for more violence and death.
We need to get the fuck out and let the Iraqis figure it out. Sorry,
Middle East, we screwed up big-time but it's time for the US to get out
Walter wrote the same thing nearly three years ago, at which time I
strongly disagreed, saying that we had a responsibility to fix what we
broke. But he was 100% completely right then, just as you are correct
now.

It's time for us to go. No ifs, ands or buts.......

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-21 16:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by Joker
There's no good reason for the troops to stay there any longer than it
takes them to organize and accomplish a complete and orderly
withdrawal. Yea, the US broke it, and owns the lion's share of
responibility for the ugly, deadly mess. But I don't happen to believe
that a liberal, pro-war Democrat as president will do anything
substantial to clean-up the mess. (Been there, done that. In 1968 LBJ
declined to run for a second full term due largely to mushrooming anti-
war sentiment.)
If anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks the US having military bases
in Iraq for at least a decade" is anything other than a policy of
ongoing U.S. occupation/war/insurgency, they are, at best, deluded.
The fact is, we did break it and it is seriously broken. But that
doesn't mean that we have the *ability* to "fix it." There is no way
that US military bases can exist there without huge numbers of troops
for security and supply. The same folks who are blowing up US troops
now will be blowing them up in two years, four years and so on.
And someone tell me why. Why does the US need to mainain bases? To
prevent the Iraqis from slaughtering each other? Even if we have to
kill them to do the job? We can't seem to stop it now. What, exactly,
will be different when we change presidents? The insurgents are not
going to go back to their day jobs just because a Democrat gets
elected. For too many of them, that *is* their day job. That means
that if US soldiers stay there, they will be attacked. They will be
seen as foreign occupiers. At least if we have a complete withdrawal
from Iraq American soldiers will stop killing and being killed there.
Will Iraq descend into chaos and blood if US troops leave? Yes, but it
sure looks like that's where it's rapidly going anyway. The "surge"
has troop levels at an all-time high and the Iraqis are busier than
ever killing each other. Our troop presence there is a huge lightening
rod for more violence and death.
We need to get the fuck out and let the Iraqis figure it out. Sorry,
Middle East, we screwed up big-time but it's time for the US to get out
Walter wrote the same thing nearly three years ago, at which time I
strongly disagreed, saying that we had a responsibility to fix what we
broke. But he was 100% completely right then, just as you are correct
now.
It's time for us to go. No ifs, ands or buts.......
But see, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with us helping them.
We built a number of bases there and those bases will not be torn down
anytime soon. What will happen is that we will indeed go, but we will
have a certain level of troops and military bases remain for the long
haul. No way our leaders are going to give up such a strategic position
and let all of the oil there get controlled by Iran, the Russians or the
Chinese. If people want their candidates to lie and tell them that
every single troop is leaving and every base will be destroyed, so be
it. But that's not what's going to happen. We still have troops in
South Korea for God's sake.

-JC
Joker
2007-06-22 01:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Neil X.
Post by Joker
There's no good reason for the troops to stay there any longer than it
takes them to organize and accomplish a complete and orderly
withdrawal. Yea, the US broke it, and owns the lion's share of
responibility for the ugly, deadly mess. But I don't happen to believe
that a liberal, pro-war Democrat as president will do anything
substantial to clean-up the mess. (Been there, done that. In 1968 LBJ
declined to run for a second full term due largely to mushrooming anti-
war sentiment.)
If anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks the US having military bases
in Iraq for at least a decade" is anything other than a policy of
ongoing U.S. occupation/war/insurgency, they are, at best, deluded.
The fact is, we did break it and it is seriously broken. But that
doesn't mean that we have the *ability* to "fix it." There is no way
that US military bases can exist there without huge numbers of troops
for security and supply. The same folks who are blowing up US troops
now will be blowing them up in two years, four years and so on.
And someone tell me why. Why does the US need to mainain bases? To
prevent the Iraqis from slaughtering each other? Even if we have to
kill them to do the job? We can't seem to stop it now. What, exactly,
will be different when we change presidents? The insurgents are not
going to go back to their day jobs just because a Democrat gets
elected. For too many of them, that *is* their day job. That means
that if US soldiers stay there, they will be attacked. They will be
seen as foreign occupiers. At least if we have a complete withdrawal
from Iraq American soldiers will stop killing and being killed there.
Will Iraq descend into chaos and blood if US troops leave? Yes, but it
sure looks like that's where it's rapidly going anyway. The "surge"
has troop levels at an all-time high and the Iraqis are busier than
ever killing each other. Our troop presence there is a huge lightening
rod for more violence and death.
We need to get the fuck out and let the Iraqis figure it out. Sorry,
Middle East, we screwed up big-time but it's time for the US to get out
Walter wrote the same thing nearly three years ago, at which time I
strongly disagreed, saying that we had a responsibility to fix what we
broke. But he was 100% completely right then, just as you are correct
now.
It's time for us to go. No ifs, ands or buts.......
But see, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with us helping them.
We built a number of bases there and those bases will not be torn down
anytime soon. What will happen is that we will indeed go, but we will
have a certain level of troops and military bases remain for the long
haul. No way our leaders are going to give up such a strategic position
and let all of the oil there get controlled by Iran, the Russians or the
Chinese. If people want their candidates to lie and tell them that
every single troop is leaving and every base will be destroyed, so be
it. But that's not what's going to happen. We still have troops in
South Korea for God's sake.
-JC
The people of South Korea aren't blowing each other and our troops up
every day. Analogy invalid. The Korea situation flowed into the Cold
War between the US and USSR (with China playing a lesser role.) Iraq
is a very hot war. There is no state that will be able to pressure/
cajole Iraq in the way that the USSR did with the nascent North Korean
state.
I'm quite sure every serious candidate for president (whether they
admit it or not) shares your view that the bases must stay and US
"interests" must be protected. But can the US actually do that? The
cost in casualties and resources will continue to escalate. Logically,
you cannot simply say that the US will/must keep the military bases
indefinitely. To be truthful and factually correct you (or insert x
politicos name here) must say that the US will wage ongoing, unlimited
war to maintain those bases. There aren't going to be any "peace-time"
bases in Iraq because as long as the US is there, we wil be at war.
Because nothing short of that will keep those bases there. Those bases
will be under siege. US military bases in Korea are not under siege.
Again, analogy completely invalid.
The US cannot maintain the military effort that it will take to keep
two, three or ten military bases for very long. The money alone is
staggering, but even that will last longer than the popular support.
As the US bodies continue to come home in increasing numbers, antiwar
sentiment will mount. No elected politician will be able to carry it
on. Just ask LBJ and Nixon. (Another massive terror strike on US soil
would prop up a war effort for a while. But even that would likely
have less effect than the 9/11 attack did in terms of mobilizing
sentiment for war. That scenario is, of course, wide open, depending
on what kind of attack, who's involved and a host of other factors.)
Some of the current crop of national "leaders" are also smart enough
to understand that a long, losing war is a recipe for domestic
disaster. It's just not a tenable scenario. They will look for bases
elsewhere or they will try to re-establish the pre-war status quo.
Neither of those ideas appeal to them yet, perhaps, but they might
when the American body count climbs up over 10,000 and the domestic/
international peace movements develop large militant split-offs. Or
when some extreme right demagogue starts preaching to 100,000 jobless
vets. Jobless because war is good for the economy only in the short
run. Just ask Nixon.
I'm not arguing that another 10 years in Iraq is a bad idea (though it
obviously is.) I'm saying that it's not something the US can do. And
if the US tries to maintain that course, this country will be torn
apart socially/politically and ruined financially.
Larry
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 01:59:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joker
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Neil X.
Post by Joker
There's no good reason for the troops to stay there any longer than it
takes them to organize and accomplish a complete and orderly
withdrawal. Yea, the US broke it, and owns the lion's share of
responibility for the ugly, deadly mess. But I don't happen to believe
that a liberal, pro-war Democrat as president will do anything
substantial to clean-up the mess. (Been there, done that. In 1968 LBJ
declined to run for a second full term due largely to mushrooming anti-
war sentiment.)
If anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks the US having military bases
in Iraq for at least a decade" is anything other than a policy of
ongoing U.S. occupation/war/insurgency, they are, at best, deluded.
The fact is, we did break it and it is seriously broken. But that
doesn't mean that we have the *ability* to "fix it." There is no way
that US military bases can exist there without huge numbers of troops
for security and supply. The same folks who are blowing up US troops
now will be blowing them up in two years, four years and so on.
And someone tell me why. Why does the US need to mainain bases? To
prevent the Iraqis from slaughtering each other? Even if we have to
kill them to do the job? We can't seem to stop it now. What, exactly,
will be different when we change presidents? The insurgents are not
going to go back to their day jobs just because a Democrat gets
elected. For too many of them, that *is* their day job. That means
that if US soldiers stay there, they will be attacked. They will be
seen as foreign occupiers. At least if we have a complete withdrawal
from Iraq American soldiers will stop killing and being killed there.
Will Iraq descend into chaos and blood if US troops leave? Yes, but it
sure looks like that's where it's rapidly going anyway. The "surge"
has troop levels at an all-time high and the Iraqis are busier than
ever killing each other. Our troop presence there is a huge lightening
rod for more violence and death.
We need to get the fuck out and let the Iraqis figure it out. Sorry,
Middle East, we screwed up big-time but it's time for the US to get out
Walter wrote the same thing nearly three years ago, at which time I
strongly disagreed, saying that we had a responsibility to fix what we
broke. But he was 100% completely right then, just as you are correct
now.
It's time for us to go. No ifs, ands or buts.......
But see, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with us helping them.
We built a number of bases there and those bases will not be torn down
anytime soon. What will happen is that we will indeed go, but we will
have a certain level of troops and military bases remain for the long
haul. No way our leaders are going to give up such a strategic position
and let all of the oil there get controlled by Iran, the Russians or the
Chinese. If people want their candidates to lie and tell them that
every single troop is leaving and every base will be destroyed, so be
it. But that's not what's going to happen. We still have troops in
South Korea for God's sake.
-JC
The people of South Korea aren't blowing each other and our troops up
every day. Analogy invalid. The Korea situation flowed into the Cold
War between the US and USSR (with China playing a lesser role.) Iraq
is a very hot war. There is no state that will be able to pressure/
cajole Iraq in the way that the USSR did with the nascent North Korean
state.
I'm quite sure every serious candidate for president (whether they
admit it or not) shares your view that the bases must stay and US
"interests" must be protected. But can the US actually do that? The
cost in casualties and resources will continue to escalate. Logically,
you cannot simply say that the US will/must keep the military bases
indefinitely. To be truthful and factually correct you (or insert x
politicos name here) must say that the US will wage ongoing, unlimited
war to maintain those bases. There aren't going to be any "peace-time"
bases in Iraq because as long as the US is there, we wil be at war.
Because nothing short of that will keep those bases there. Those bases
will be under siege. US military bases in Korea are not under siege.
Again, analogy completely invalid.
The US cannot maintain the military effort that it will take to keep
two, three or ten military bases for very long. The money alone is
staggering, but even that will last longer than the popular support.
As the US bodies continue to come home in increasing numbers, antiwar
sentiment will mount. No elected politician will be able to carry it
on. Just ask LBJ and Nixon. (Another massive terror strike on US soil
would prop up a war effort for a while. But even that would likely
have less effect than the 9/11 attack did in terms of mobilizing
sentiment for war. That scenario is, of course, wide open, depending
on what kind of attack, who's involved and a host of other factors.)
Some of the current crop of national "leaders" are also smart enough
to understand that a long, losing war is a recipe for domestic
disaster. It's just not a tenable scenario. They will look for bases
elsewhere or they will try to re-establish the pre-war status quo.
Neither of those ideas appeal to them yet, perhaps, but they might
when the American body count climbs up over 10,000 and the domestic/
international peace movements develop large militant split-offs. Or
when some extreme right demagogue starts preaching to 100,000 jobless
vets. Jobless because war is good for the economy only in the short
run. Just ask Nixon.
I'm not arguing that another 10 years in Iraq is a bad idea (though it
obviously is.) I'm saying that it's not something the US can do. And
if the US tries to maintain that course, this country will be torn
apart socially/politically and ruined financially.
Larry
Maintaining a base is actually fairly easy with air power and an
expanded zone around it. We have bases in Saudi Arabia after all. Your
Vietnam analogy is what is way off base. We've already maintained bases
in hostile regions in the middle east prior to this occupation. There
are huge stretches of uninhabited dessert in which to operate. Like I
said, keep believing otherwise, but we're not tearing down any base
there anytime soon, and there won't be enough troops maintaining those
bases to get the body count up into the region you speak of. What you
believe will eventually happen before a decade is in fact a pipe dream.
I'm sick and tired of people on the left making the claim that this
will happen, with the expectation that some politician will say what
makes them feel good. It won't happen. It's not possible. The
logistics involved are immense. And things will be a lot worse if we
don't maintain some sort of presence there. That's a fact. We have
ties to the Middle East whether we like it or not. The deed is done.

-JC
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 02:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Joker
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Neil X.
Post by Joker
There's no good reason for the troops to stay there any longer than it
takes them to organize and accomplish a complete and orderly
withdrawal. Yea, the US broke it, and owns the lion's share of
responibility for the ugly, deadly mess. But I don't happen to believe
that a liberal, pro-war Democrat as president will do anything
substantial to clean-up the mess. (Been there, done that. In 1968 LBJ
declined to run for a second full term due largely to mushrooming anti-
war sentiment.)
If anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks the US having military bases
in Iraq for at least a decade" is anything other than a policy of
ongoing U.S. occupation/war/insurgency, they are, at best, deluded.
The fact is, we did break it and it is seriously broken. But that
doesn't mean that we have the *ability* to "fix it." There is no way
that US military bases can exist there without huge numbers of troops
for security and supply. The same folks who are blowing up US troops
now will be blowing them up in two years, four years and so on.
And someone tell me why. Why does the US need to mainain bases? To
prevent the Iraqis from slaughtering each other? Even if we have to
kill them to do the job? We can't seem to stop it now. What, exactly,
will be different when we change presidents? The insurgents are not
going to go back to their day jobs just because a Democrat gets
elected. For too many of them, that *is* their day job. That means
that if US soldiers stay there, they will be attacked. They will be
seen as foreign occupiers. At least if we have a complete withdrawal
from Iraq American soldiers will stop killing and being killed there.
Will Iraq descend into chaos and blood if US troops leave? Yes, but it
sure looks like that's where it's rapidly going anyway. The "surge"
has troop levels at an all-time high and the Iraqis are busier than
ever killing each other. Our troop presence there is a huge lightening
rod for more violence and death.
We need to get the fuck out and let the Iraqis figure it out. Sorry,
Middle East, we screwed up big-time but it's time for the US to get out
Walter wrote the same thing nearly three years ago, at which time I
strongly disagreed, saying that we had a responsibility to fix what we
broke. But he was 100% completely right then, just as you are correct
now.
It's time for us to go. No ifs, ands or buts.......
But see, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with us helping them.
We built a number of bases there and those bases will not be torn down
anytime soon. What will happen is that we will indeed go, but we will
have a certain level of troops and military bases remain for the long
haul. No way our leaders are going to give up such a strategic position
and let all of the oil there get controlled by Iran, the Russians or the
Chinese. If people want their candidates to lie and tell them that
every single troop is leaving and every base will be destroyed, so be
it. But that's not what's going to happen. We still have troops in
South Korea for God's sake.
-JC
The people of South Korea aren't blowing each other and our troops up
every day. Analogy invalid. The Korea situation flowed into the Cold
War between the US and USSR (with China playing a lesser role.) Iraq
is a very hot war. There is no state that will be able to pressure/
cajole Iraq in the way that the USSR did with the nascent North Korean
state.
I'm quite sure every serious candidate for president (whether they
admit it or not) shares your view that the bases must stay and US
"interests" must be protected. But can the US actually do that? The
cost in casualties and resources will continue to escalate. Logically,
you cannot simply say that the US will/must keep the military bases
indefinitely. To be truthful and factually correct you (or insert x
politicos name here) must say that the US will wage ongoing, unlimited
war to maintain those bases. There aren't going to be any "peace-time"
bases in Iraq because as long as the US is there, we wil be at war.
Because nothing short of that will keep those bases there. Those bases
will be under siege. US military bases in Korea are not under siege.
Again, analogy completely invalid.
The US cannot maintain the military effort that it will take to keep
two, three or ten military bases for very long. The money alone is
staggering, but even that will last longer than the popular support.
As the US bodies continue to come home in increasing numbers, antiwar
sentiment will mount. No elected politician will be able to carry it
on. Just ask LBJ and Nixon. (Another massive terror strike on US soil
would prop up a war effort for a while. But even that would likely
have less effect than the 9/11 attack did in terms of mobilizing
sentiment for war. That scenario is, of course, wide open, depending
on what kind of attack, who's involved and a host of other factors.)
Some of the current crop of national "leaders" are also smart enough
to understand that a long, losing war is a recipe for domestic
disaster. It's just not a tenable scenario. They will look for bases
elsewhere or they will try to re-establish the pre-war status quo.
Neither of those ideas appeal to them yet, perhaps, but they might
when the American body count climbs up over 10,000 and the domestic/
international peace movements develop large militant split-offs. Or
when some extreme right demagogue starts preaching to 100,000 jobless
vets. Jobless because war is good for the economy only in the short
run. Just ask Nixon.
I'm not arguing that another 10 years in Iraq is a bad idea (though it
obviously is.) I'm saying that it's not something the US can do. And
if the US tries to maintain that course, this country will be torn
apart socially/politically and ruined financially.
Larry
Maintaining a base is actually fairly easy with air power and an
expanded zone around it. We have bases in Saudi Arabia after all. Your
Vietnam analogy is what is way off base. We've already maintained bases
in hostile regions in the middle east prior to this occupation. There
are huge stretches of uninhabited dessert in which to operate. Like I
said, keep believing otherwise, but we're not tearing down any base
there anytime soon, and there won't be enough troops maintaining those
bases to get the body count up into the region you speak of. What you
believe will eventually happen before a decade is in fact a pipe dream.
I'm sick and tired of people on the left making the claim that this
will happen, with the expectation that some politician will say what
makes them feel good. It won't happen. It's not possible. The
logistics involved are immense. And things will be a lot worse if we
don't maintain some sort of presence there. That's a fact. We have
ties to the Middle East whether we like it or not. The deed is done.
Oh yeah...and screw George W. Bush and Dick Cheney got getting us into
this mess. It's all on them. But we have no choice but to deal with
the consequences of their actions. Let's not demand that Democratic
leaders just do what our emotions tell us what we want them to do
without actually assessing the situation over there with expert eyes.

Nuff said.

-JC
Brad Greer
2007-06-22 12:56:21 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:29:50 GMT, Avant Grape
Post by Avant Grape
Oh yeah...and screw George W. Bush and Dick Cheney got getting us into
this mess. It's all on them. But we have no choice but to deal with
the consequences of their actions. Let's not demand that Democratic
leaders just do what our emotions tell us what we want them to do
without actually assessing the situation over there with expert eyes.
This last part is very sad and very true. Bush and Cheney (and the
rest of the administration) have put us in a no-win situation in Iraq.
It sucks, and some of us saw that it would be a disaster (including
Bush Senior, who knew better during the Gulf War then to try and take
Bagdad). But even though it's all Bush's fault *we* are the ones
stuck holding the bag. And will be for many years to come.

Bastards.
NeilX
2007-06-22 03:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
We have bases in Saudi Arabia after all.
But that is completely irrelevant. There is no civil strife at all in
Saudi. There is nothing currently ANYWHERE else in the world with the
degree of chaos that exists in Iraq.
Post by Avant Grape
There are huge stretches of uninhabited dessert
in which to operate.
You doubt that US bases in Iraq would be under constant assault, because
of the existence of SAND? Why wouldn't they be? Because we have
overwhelming force to protect them? Oops, tried that, we have 150,000
troops there and it's not nearly enough. And exactly why would we bother
to have a base in the middle of nowhere, completely surrounded by sand,
anyway? How much is that worth to us.

It's time for us to cut our losses, declare "victory" and leave.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 15:13:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by NeilX
Post by Avant Grape
We have bases in Saudi Arabia after all.
But that is completely irrelevant. There is no civil strife at all in
Saudi. There is nothing currently ANYWHERE else in the world with the
degree of chaos that exists in Iraq.
Neil, it's not completely irrelevant. Again, in a vast dessert with
5000 troops, in an expanded zone with control over its airspace, it's
impossible for anyone to attack. Do you really believe there's no
terrorists in Saudi Arabia who don't WANT to attack bases in Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia. Fact is that they can't.
Post by NeilX
Post by Avant Grape
There are huge stretches of uninhabited dessert
in which to operate.
You doubt that US bases in Iraq would be under constant assault, because
of the existence of SAND? Why wouldn't they be? Because we have
overwhelming force to protect them? Oops, tried that, we have 150,000
troops there and it's not nearly enough. And exactly why would we bother
to have a base in the middle of nowhere, completely surrounded by sand,
anyway? How much is that worth to us.
It's time for us to cut our losses, declare "victory" and leave.
Agreed wholeheartedly. But we'll still have bases there for at least 10
years and likely more. I think you're confused between the difference
of occupation of neighborhoods/cities and the maintenance of military
bases. One is a lot easier to do than the other. If you all want to
believe that we'll not be keeping military bases there, so be it. But
the fact is that we will maintain military bases in Iraq and will do so
rather quietly. I see some of you disagree. That's a big frustration
with me...the idea that some believe we will or can evacuate entirely.
The idea that we'll reach 10,000 deaths with only about 5000 troops
remaining on a base, not in active combat defies reality. But I'll just
accept that we disagree. I think time will prove me correct
however...and it'll be a lot easier to win this election if we stop
blaming Democrats for not lying about what is going to happen in the future.

-JC
Neil X.
2007-06-22 15:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Neil, it's not completely irrelevant. Again, in a vast dessert with
5000 troops, in an expanded zone with control over its airspace, it's
impossible for anyone to attack. Do you really believe there's no
terrorists in Saudi Arabia who don't WANT to attack bases in Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia. Fact is that they can't.
They can't primarily because of the strong Saudi government. If the
Saudis weren't eternally vigilant, their country would be the mess
that Iraq is. That's the force that protects American bases in SA.
Post by Avant Grape
If you all want to believe that we'll not be keeping military bases
there, so be it. But the fact is that we will maintain military bases
in Iraq and will do so rather quietly.
Yes, I know, EVERYONE knows, we're going to keep bases in Iraq.
That's why we're so ticked. It's a terrible idea, and hell yeah, we
need to hold Democrat and Republican alike responsible for supporting
it.

Peace,
Neil X.
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 15:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neil X.
Post by Avant Grape
Neil, it's not completely irrelevant. Again, in a vast dessert with
5000 troops, in an expanded zone with control over its airspace, it's
impossible for anyone to attack. Do you really believe there's no
terrorists in Saudi Arabia who don't WANT to attack bases in Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia. Fact is that they can't.
They can't primarily because of the strong Saudi government. If the
Saudis weren't eternally vigilant, their country would be the mess
that Iraq is. That's the force that protects American bases in SA.
Post by Avant Grape
If you all want to believe that we'll not be keeping military bases
there, so be it. But the fact is that we will maintain military bases
in Iraq and will do so rather quietly.
Yes, I know, EVERYONE knows, we're going to keep bases in Iraq.
That's why we're so ticked. It's a terrible idea, and hell yeah, we
need to hold Democrat and Republican alike responsible for supporting
it.
I see your point. Me? I'm on the fence. There may be some advantages
to keeping bases there for a while (none having to do with a democratic
Iraq I might add) and I think we can do so without the kind of
casualties some here are speaking of, especially since the math doesn't
add up. In fact, I believe once we withdraw the majority of troops from
Iraq, America's attention will slip to something else. Most likely
Iran...which I believe is going to be a big problem for us down the road.

-JC
Ray
2007-06-22 18:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by NeilX
And exactly why would we bother
to have a base in the middle of nowhere, completely surrounded by sand,
anyway? How much is that worth to us.
If that sand is on top of, or near, oil then quite a bit.

At least until we end our oil addiction.
DG
2007-06-22 18:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray
Post by NeilX
And exactly why would we bother
to have a base in the middle of nowhere, completely surrounded by sand,
anyway? How much is that worth to us.
If that sand is on top of, or near, oil then quite a bit.
Loading Image...
Post by Ray
At least until we end our oil addiction.
Ethanol is booming in the USA... AVR, ADM and ANDE are my favs...
Let's hope the bill passed yesterday is changed by the House to take
taxes from the oil companies to push for ethanol.
Joker
2007-06-22 04:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Joker
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Neil X.
Post by Joker
There's no good reason for the troops to stay there any longer than it
takes them to organize and accomplish a complete and orderly
withdrawal. Yea, the US broke it, and owns the lion's share of
responibility for the ugly, deadly mess. But I don't happen to believe
that a liberal, pro-war Democrat as president will do anything
substantial to clean-up the mess. (Been there, done that. In 1968 LBJ
declined to run for a second full term due largely to mushrooming anti-
war sentiment.)
If anyone, Democrat or Republican, thinks the US having military bases
in Iraq for at least a decade" is anything other than a policy of
ongoing U.S. occupation/war/insurgency, they are, at best, deluded.
The fact is, we did break it and it is seriously broken. But that
doesn't mean that we have the *ability* to "fix it." There is no way
that US military bases can exist there without huge numbers of troops
for security and supply. The same folks who are blowing up US troops
now will be blowing them up in two years, four years and so on.
And someone tell me why. Why does the US need to mainain bases? To
prevent the Iraqis from slaughtering each other? Even if we have to
kill them to do the job? We can't seem to stop it now. What, exactly,
will be different when we change presidents? The insurgents are not
going to go back to their day jobs just because a Democrat gets
elected. For too many of them, that *is* their day job. That means
that if US soldiers stay there, they will be attacked. They will be
seen as foreign occupiers. At least if we have a complete withdrawal
from Iraq American soldiers will stop killing and being killed there.
Will Iraq descend into chaos and blood if US troops leave? Yes, but it
sure looks like that's where it's rapidly going anyway. The "surge"
has troop levels at an all-time high and the Iraqis are busier than
ever killing each other. Our troop presence there is a huge lightening
rod for more violence and death.
We need to get the fuck out and let the Iraqis figure it out. Sorry,
Middle East, we screwed up big-time but it's time for the US to get out
Walter wrote the same thing nearly three years ago, at which time I
strongly disagreed, saying that we had a responsibility to fix what we
broke. But he was 100% completely right then, just as you are correct
now.
It's time for us to go. No ifs, ands or buts.......
But see, what I'm talking about has nothing to do with us helping them.
We built a number of bases there and those bases will not be torn down
anytime soon. What will happen is that we will indeed go, but we will
have a certain level of troops and military bases remain for the long
haul. No way our leaders are going to give up such a strategic position
and let all of the oil there get controlled by Iran, the Russians or the
Chinese. If people want their candidates to lie and tell them that
every single troop is leaving and every base will be destroyed, so be
it. But that's not what's going to happen. We still have troops in
South Korea for God's sake.
-JC
The people of South Korea aren't blowing each other and our troops up
every day. Analogy invalid. The Korea situation flowed into the Cold
War between the US and USSR (with China playing a lesser role.) Iraq
is a very hot war. There is no state that will be able to pressure/
cajole Iraq in the way that the USSR did with the nascent North Korean
state.
I'm quite sure every serious candidate for president (whether they
admit it or not) shares your view that the bases must stay and US
"interests" must be protected. But can the US actually do that? The
cost in casualties and resources will continue to escalate. Logically,
you cannot simply say that the US will/must keep the military bases
indefinitely. To be truthful and factually correct you (or insert x
politicos name here) must say that the US will wage ongoing, unlimited
war to maintain those bases. There aren't going to be any "peace-time"
bases in Iraq because as long as the US is there, we wil be at war.
Because nothing short of that will keep those bases there. Those bases
will be under siege. US military bases in Korea are not under siege.
Again, analogy completely invalid.
The US cannot maintain the military effort that it will take to keep
two, three or ten military bases for very long. The money alone is
staggering, but even that will last longer than the popular support.
As the US bodies continue to come home in increasing numbers, antiwar
sentiment will mount. No elected politician will be able to carry it
on. Just ask LBJ and Nixon. (Another massive terror strike on US soil
would prop up a war effort for a while. But even that would likely
have less effect than the 9/11 attack did in terms of mobilizing
sentiment for war. That scenario is, of course, wide open, depending
on what kind of attack, who's involved and a host of other factors.)
Some of the current crop of national "leaders" are also smart enough
to understand that a long, losing war is a recipe for domestic
disaster. It's just not a tenable scenario. They will look for bases
elsewhere or they will try to re-establish the pre-war status quo.
Neither of those ideas appeal to them yet, perhaps, but they might
when the American body count climbs up over 10,000 and the domestic/
international peace movements develop large militant split-offs. Or
when some extreme right demagogue starts preaching to 100,000 jobless
vets. Jobless because war is good for the economy only in the short
run. Just ask Nixon.
I'm not arguing that another 10 years in Iraq is a bad idea (though it
obviously is.) I'm saying that it's not something the US can do. And
if the US tries to maintain that course, this country will be torn
apart socially/politically and ruined financially.
Larry
Maintaining a base is actually fairly easy with air power and an
expanded zone around it. We have bases in Saudi Arabia after all.
With all due respect, you're simply wrong. "Air power" can't supply a
base in a hostile territory for very long. You need ground
transportation. We currently are getting blown to pieces in Iraq in
exactly that place, i.e, the streets and hiways. A large sandy, desert
buffer zone just makes the effectiveness of ground transport that much
more expensive and difficult. And, as Neil pointed out, there is no
insurgency in Saudi Arabia. Like Korea, analogy invalid.

Your
Post by Avant Grape
Vietnam analogy is what is way off base. We've already maintained bases
in hostile regions in the middle east prior to this occupation. There
are huge stretches of uninhabited dessert in which to operate. Like I
said, keep believing otherwise, but we're not tearing down any base
there anytime soon, and there won't be enough troops maintaining those
bases to get the body count up into the region you speak of. What you
believe will eventually happen before a decade is in fact a pipe dream.
I believe this military adventure will be brought to a halt by the
expense and by popular disaffection with the social, political and
personal costs of waging endless war. You don't seem to want to say
it, but that's what your pipedream will entail. Simple question: do
you envision US bases in a peaceful Iraq in this 10 year occupation?
If it's not a pacified country (like S. Korea) then we will be in a
hot war. The mullahs and fundamentalist madmen aren't going to
tolerate US bases and the use of "air power" to defend them will
likely mean civilian casualties. And that, in turn means a hostile
populace and ultimately, a hostile government.
Post by Avant Grape
I'm sick and tired of people on the left making the claim that this
will happen, with the expectation that some politician will say what
makes them feel good. It won't happen. It's not possible. The
logistics involved are immense. And things will be a lot worse if we
don't maintain some sort of presence there. That's a fact. We have
ties to the Middle East whether we like it or not. The deed is done.
If this is addressed to me, I don't know what point you're trying to
make. I haven't expected any politician to say anything that will make
me "feel good" for at least 35 years.
Of course the US has ties to the Middle East and will have in the
future. But that doesn't lead to the sole conclusion that therefore
bases must be kept in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq and it's aftermath
have pretty much destroyed stability there and a policy of maintaining
bases there is not some kind of magic bullet. It's dogma, at best. And
not very well thought out, IMHO. The US (as of now) would still have
bases in Saudi Arabia, close ties to Isreal and the real ability to
dominate the Mediterranean and other military/political options for
pressing US presence there. Losing every base in Iraq will not be the
worst thing to happen to US interests. US interests won't like it, but
they can certainly survive it.
The fact is S. Korea and Saudi are friends/allies, nations with stable
gonvernments and pacified populations. That you don't see the
difference between them and the utter bloddy chaos of Iraq speaks
volumes about your understanding of the situation.
'Nuff said.
Larry
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 15:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joker
Post by Avant Grape
Maintaining a base is actually fairly easy with air power and an
expanded zone around it. We have bases in Saudi Arabia after all.
With all due respect, you're simply wrong. "Air power" can't supply a
base in a hostile territory for very long.
Absolutely incorrect. We maintain bases in hostile regions currently
with air power and transportation. What's absolutely incorrect is that
we will sustain the current troop losses by maintaining a base or two.
That defies both mathematics and reality.

Nuff said.

-JC
Joker
2007-06-23 00:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Joker
Post by Avant Grape
Maintaining a base is actually fairly easy with air power and an
expanded zone around it. We have bases in Saudi Arabia after all.
With all due respect, you're simply wrong. "Air power" can't supply a
base in a hostile territory for very long.
Absolutely incorrect. We maintain bases in hostile regions currently
with air power and transportation. What's absolutely incorrect is that
we will sustain the current troop losses by maintaining a base or two.
That defies both mathematics and reality.
Nuff said.
-JC
Please, tell me exactly where we are currently maintaining bases in
the midst of an insurgency or war that we are supplying and defending
wholly by air power? Exactly what hostile regions do you refer to?
Because South Korea and Saudi
Arabia do not fit that term by any streatch of the imagination. And,
if possible, please start that long list with the bases that we have
so maintained for, oh, say, 10 years or more.
And where in Iraq are these one or two bases that we will maintain for
10 years or more with 5000 troops supplied by air, and what are they
going to be doing. What is their purpose? And, what will the 5000
troops be for? That number is arbitrary, i.e., I'm pretty sure you
made it up. What does it correspond to? it's far too few to venture
into Bagdahd. Far too few to secure Iraqi borders. And way too many to
supply and defend soley by air for years to come.
Thanks for educationg me...
Larry
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 15:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joker
I believe this military adventure will be brought to a halt by the
expense and by popular disaffection with the social, political and
personal costs of waging endless war. You don't seem to want to say
it, but that's what your pipedream will entail. Simple question: do
you envision US bases in a peaceful Iraq in this 10 year occupation?
If it's not a pacified country (like S. Korea) then we will be in a
hot war. The mullahs and fundamentalist madmen aren't going to
tolerate US bases and the use of "air power" to defend them will
likely mean civilian casualties. And that, in turn means a hostile
populace and ultimately, a hostile government.
How would it mean civilian casualties? The troops will be stationed at
a base with a great wide buffer zone around it...the same situation they
have in other countries in the Middle East. You act like all of Iraq is
the same. Absolutely false. There are great stretches of uninhabited
desert land.

As far as your belief that I envision a peaceful Iraq in which our
presence there helps calm the waters, you've got me pegged wrong. It's
not a matter of my wanting us to have military bases in the Middle East
at all. But the fact is that we WILL have military bases in Iraq and we
will maintain them pretty much under the radar after the bulk of our
fighting troops have withdrawn, which they will of course due to public
pressure and the fact that they do no good there.

Nuff said (for the second time...a man of my word [not?]). We obviously
don't agree on the bases even if we agree on most everything else. But
again, I think time will prove me correct.

-JC
Joker
2007-06-23 01:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
Post by Joker
I believe this military adventure will be brought to a halt by the
expense and by popular disaffection with the social, political and
personal costs of waging endless war. You don't seem to want to say
it, but that's what your pipedream will entail. Simple question: do
you envision US bases in a peaceful Iraq in this 10 year occupation?
If it's not a pacified country (like S. Korea) then we will be in a
hot war. The mullahs and fundamentalist madmen aren't going to
tolerate US bases and the use of "air power" to defend them will
likely mean civilian casualties. And that, in turn means a hostile
populace and ultimately, a hostile government.
How would it mean civilian casualties? The troops will be stationed at
a base with a great wide buffer zone around it...the same situation they
have in other countries in the Middle East. You act like all of Iraq is
the same. Absolutely false. There are great stretches of uninhabited
desert land.
And there is a reason that those great stretches are uninhabited.
Guarding sand is nobodies agenda. What else would these vastly
isolated bases do?
You can patrol an oil field or a pipeline from the air, but you can't
functionally defend it without the ability to physically sieze it.
That means adequate numbers of ground troops.
Post by Avant Grape
As far as your belief that I envision a peaceful Iraq in which our
presence there helps calm the waters, you've got me pegged wrong. It's
not a matter of my wanting us to have military bases in the Middle East
at all. But the fact is that we WILL have military bases in Iraq and we
will maintain them pretty much under the radar after the bulk of our
fighting troops have withdrawn, which they will of course due to public
pressure and the fact that they do no good there.
Nuff said (for the second time...a man of my word [not?]). We obviously
don't agree on the bases even if we agree on most everything else. But
again, I think time will prove me correct.
-JC
Alrighty then, let's revisit this topic in five or six years and see
where it stands...
Larry
Avant Grape
2007-06-22 02:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Joker wrote:
And
Post by Joker
if the US tries to maintain that course, this country will be torn
apart socially/politically and ruined financially.
Larry
BTW, if our economy is decimated via a complete meltdown in the Middle
East (entirely possible), we'll be a hell of a lot more ruined
financially, socially and politically than maintaining a few bases in Iraq.

People ain't kiddin' when they say Americans take shit for granted.

-JC
Joker
2007-06-22 04:44:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Avant Grape
And
Post by Joker
if the US tries to maintain that course, this country will be torn
apart socially/politically and ruined financially.
Larry
BTW, if our economy is decimated via a complete meltdown in the Middle
East (entirely possible), we'll be a hell of a lot more ruined
financially, socially and politically than maintaining a few bases in Iraq.
People ain't kiddin' when they say Americans take shit for granted.
-JC
Absolutely agree...
volkfolk
2007-06-20 22:44:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by grunk
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
If Hillary has a sane exit stategy for Iraq she can pretty much change
our national anthem to a,fucking Celine Dion song for all I care!
And you wsre giving me shit for liking Loggins and Messina?
Post by grunk
Seriously, all this Hillary bashing is starting to remind me of '99's
Gore bashing, and lookit where that got us.
This wasn't Hillary bashing, it was Celine Dion bashing.

Please try to keep up : )

Scot
grunk
2007-06-20 23:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
Post by grunk
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_video
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
There are certain things that ever true American shouldn't be subjected to
and Celine Dion is definitely one of them
Disgusted (tm DK)
Scot
If Hillary has a sane exit stategy for Iraq she can pretty much change
our national anthem to a,fucking Celine Dion song for all I care!
And you wsre giving me shit for liking Loggins and Messina?
Post by grunk
Seriously, all this Hillary bashing is starting to remind me of '99's
Gore bashing, and lookit where that got us.
This wasn't Hillary bashing, it was Celine Dion bashing.
Please try to keep up : )
Scot- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
gotcha, will do.
Joe
2007-06-20 18:00:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
Umm, Scot. As preposterous as it sounds, you could just stop watching
television.

Why pipe American lack-of-culture into your living room, and subject your
brain to propaganda and endless commercials for products that, if you buy,
you die?

Television is just another weapon of mass destraction that brings
America's way of death right into your own home. Why go to Iraq when Iraq
can come to you?

KILL YOUR TELEVISION

It's the first step towards liberation.

Don't let your television tell you what to think and what to buy and what
drugs to take to numb your mind to America's soul-ripping atrocities.

You could, for example, turn off the television and listen instead to the
Grateful Dead.

Thank me later.

Joe
Rogues Island's finest
2007-06-20 18:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by volkfolk
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
Umm, Scot. As preposterous as it sounds, you could just stop watching
television.
...and become a closed minded ingoramus just like Joe!

Mark
Joe
2007-06-20 19:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rogues Island's finest
...and become a closed minded ingoramus just like Joe!
Yo, Nitwit.

Open my mind. Please.

Write a 10,000 word essay for me on the pros and pleasures of invading
Iraq, slaughtering their population, stealing their oil, and then
deflecting all blame from the Republican-Monsters-of-Death to "It's all
Clinton's fault."

Your 10,000 word essay is due in the morning.

Now, run along little Nitwit, as you got some hard work to do today.

Joe
Rogues Island's finest
2007-06-20 19:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by Rogues Island's finest
...and become a closed minded ingoramus just like Joe!
Yo, Nitwit.
Open my mind. Please.
Poptart?

Mark
Joe
2007-06-20 19:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rogues Island's finest
Post by Joe
Post by Rogues Island's finest
...and become a closed minded ingoramus just like Joe!
Yo, Nitwit.
Open my mind. Please.
Poptart?
Mark
A multi-syllabic response must have strained the brain.

In any case, shouldn't you be working for the man right about now,
selling your worthless trinkets of toxicity, or whatever it is you do
when you're not making a complete fool of yourself on RMGD?

Joe
volkfolk
2007-06-20 23:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe
Post by volkfolk
As much as I dislike Hillary, I could survive her presidency, but if I have
to listen to Celine fucking Dion everytime I see one of her campaign
commercials, I'm moving to Iceland
Umm, Scot. As preposterous as it sounds, you could just stop watching
television.
And not be able to watch the NASA Channel, The Science Channel and the
History Channel?

I pretty much exclusively watch "Geek TV", other than the news.
Post by Joe
Why pipe American lack-of-culture into your living room, and subject your
brain to propaganda and endless commercials for products that, if you buy,
you die?
I don't. I've never seen an episode of the Soprano's
Post by Joe
Television is just another weapon of mass destraction that brings
America's way of death right into your own home. Why go to Iraq when Iraq
can come to you?
KILL YOUR TELEVISION
It's the first step towards liberation.
Don't let your television tell you what to think and what to buy and what
drugs to take to numb your mind to America's soul-ripping atrocities.
Come on Joe, since when could ANYBODY tell me what to think? You've met me,
and lord knows you've seen enough of my posts to know (hopefully) that I'm a
lot of things, but a drone ain't one of them.
Post by Joe
You could, for example, turn off the television and listen instead to the
Grateful Dead.
Everyday.

Scot
JonMiller9
2007-06-21 11:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
If that's the most compelling reason, then everybody should go vote
for her. I

t's a shrewd pick. She had to go with something feminine to soften
her image. Celine Dion is hugely popular among the vast majority of
Americans who don't read r.m.gd. If she loses the vote of arrogant
music snobs who'd actually change their vote based on her pick of a
campaign song, she still comes out way ahead.
.
volkfolk
2007-06-21 16:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JonMiller9
Post by volkfolk
She picked a song by Celine Dion for her Campaign song
If that's the most compelling reason, then everybody should go vote
for her.
I think that you need to check your humor detector to see if it's working.
Post by JonMiller9
It's a shrewd pick. She had to go with something feminine to soften
her image. Celine Dion is hugely popular among the vast majority of
Americans who don't read r.m.gd. If she loses the vote of arrogant
music snobs who'd actually change their vote based on her pick of a
campaign song, she still comes out way ahead.
I know plenty of people who don't read RMGD who LOATHE Celine Dion. And
while it's not an issue for me, I guarantee that someone somewhere will try
to make an issue out of the fact that Celine Dion is not even "American" (ok
she's from Canada, but I am sure you understand my point

Scot
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...