I was truly saddened to hear about this last weekend. At first, they were saying he was having a stroke. When they announced that it was only a seizure, we were relieved. It seems it wasn't as good a development as it appeared. Hopefully this will be operable and he will live for many more years. We can't stand to lose a man like Kennedy. Even though he will be replaced by a Democrat, thanks to the Governor of Mass. being a Dem, nobody can truly replace Ted Kennedy.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Ted Kennedy...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/20/kennedy.tumor/index.html
I was truly saddened to hear about this last weekend. At first, they were saying he was having a stroke. When they announced that it was only a seizure, we were relieved. It seems it wasn't as good a development as it appeared. Hopefully this will be operable and he will live for many more years. We can't stand to lose a man like Kennedy. Even though he will be replaced by a Democrat, thanks to the Governor of Mass. being a Dem, nobody can truly replace Ted Kennedy.
I was truly saddened to hear about this last weekend. At first, they were saying he was having a stroke. When they announced that it was only a seizure, we were relieved. It seems it wasn't as good a development as it appeared. Hopefully this will be operable and he will live for many more years. We can't stand to lose a man like Kennedy. Even though he will be replaced by a Democrat, thanks to the Governor of Mass. being a Dem, nobody can truly replace Ted Kennedy.
Now She's Making Threats...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_el_pr/clinton
That sounds awfully like a threat to me...
The thing that Clinton realizes but is lying about is that when her husband ran for President, and when Kennedy ran, the primaries weren't stacked up in January and February and they weren't completely done by June. When Bill Clinton ran for President, there were primaries still to be decided in June. This year they were all but over a month ago. The states which voted in May (with the exception of Oregon), and the ones still to come in June, are mostly small states with little if any relevance given the large lead Obama already has. One wonders what excuse Hillary will use once June 3 passes.
That sounds awfully like a threat to me...
The thing that Clinton realizes but is lying about is that when her husband ran for President, and when Kennedy ran, the primaries weren't stacked up in January and February and they weren't completely done by June. When Bill Clinton ran for President, there were primaries still to be decided in June. This year they were all but over a month ago. The states which voted in May (with the exception of Oregon), and the ones still to come in June, are mostly small states with little if any relevance given the large lead Obama already has. One wonders what excuse Hillary will use once June 3 passes.
When Did We Become Someone Else's Puppet Regime?...
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1808811,00.html
Here we go again. You'd think that after two failed wars (one which was also heavily lobbied for by Israel) the Bush Administration would get the message. They suck at waging wars and everything they touch turns to shit.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut grilled Petraeus on Iran's anti-U.S. activities in the region.
I can only imagine the appearance of Joe Lieberman, literally salivating over the notion of bombing another Muslim country.
And Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia pressed Petraeus on what he meant by the need to "counter malign Iranian influence" and the "consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region."
What about our illegitimate influence in the region? At least Iran's leaders don't need dozens of helicopters and thousands of troops just to take a stroll in the park.
The general, whose confirmation as head of U.S. Central Command was stake in the hearing, did his best to pacify the men and women who held his appointment in their hands, emphasizing his support for "the three rounds of negotiations that have taken place" between Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in Baghdad over security issues.
Petraeus was nominated specifically because he will start a war with Iran. Everyone in Congress knows it. If they didn't know it before, they certainly should have learned the lesson the first time it happened in Iraq. This administration will do anything it can to start wars because it enriches their friends. If Congress confirms Petraeus, knowing full well that he is the Bush Administration's handpicked yes man for war with Iran, then I may just lose all hope I ever had that the Dems are any different from the Republicans. 5 years ago they had an excuse, albeit a flimsy one, since they weren't used to being lied to by a President. Now they have no such excuse. If they buy the same lies, spouted by the same people, they deserve what they get.
In theory, the idea of a war with Iran should be a non-starter in a nation whose war-weary public has no appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East,
When has public opinion ever stopped these morons?
no matter how determined Iran may be to get a nuclear weapon or to arm and train anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.
Of course we have to rely on the word of known liars for all of this. I haven't seen any proof for this that doesn't rely on the same people who lied to us about Iraq.
Republican candidates on Capitol Hill, already facing their worst electoral prospects in a generation, are equally disinclined to support military action against Iran. Even Bush's own cabinet officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have been repeatedly cool to the idea in public.
They're sheep, they'll all fall in line.
In Israel, from which President Bush recently returned, one doesn't have to go far to find deep, existential concern. "A military option is not a good option," for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, a senior Israeli official told TIME on the sidelines of one of Bush's meetings, "But there's only one thing worse than that, which is Iran going nuclear." Those outside the Israeli government express even greater urgency. "I'm worried that by November it's going to be too late," to stop Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons, said Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer for the Central Command of the Israeli Defense.
Since when are we taking orders from Israel? If they're so concerned why don't they attack Iran's nuclear facilities? They did it before in Iraq, what's different now? Why should we continue to sacrifice thousands of our troops in another unnecessary war when they don't even contribute a token number of troops to the present war effort?
On military action against nuclear sites in Iran, he said, "Just do it. For Christ's sake, do it and solve our problem."
I don't give a shit about this guy's "problem". It's not our responsibility to solve this guy's problems.
Nor is it only the Israelis who are concerned. Egyptian and Saudi leaders also expressed their worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions when Bush met with them on the trip, several White House aides say. "People in the region really want to see it solved peacefully," says a senior White House official, "but they're also concerned for their own safety and they're also mindful of the calendar, and they know that this President has been very strong."
But I'll bet Egypt and Saudi Arabia don't want the US to start a world war over it. The only people who want to escalate this to WWIII are Bush and Israel.
If diplomatic efforts continue to look unlikely to produce an outcome acceptable to the Administration, would President Bush consider military action?
How could diplomacy have produced an outcome? Diplomacy hasn't even been tried. Bush openly derides the Democratic Presidential nominee for merely suggesting that we start diplomacy, comparing it to the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia in WWII.
Olmert said his impression after talks with Bush was that the President is "exceptionally determined," and that "he has proven this throughout his term in office his preparedness to take exceptional measures in order to defend the principles in which he believes, and in his deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel."
Translation: Bush will manufacture evidence and lie through his teeth in order to do whatever Olmert tells him to do.
It's that kind of talk that has people in Washington worried. Aides to Democratic leaders on the Hill fear that Bush may be planning to bomb Iran between November and January, after the political cost goes down and when he may feel he is doing his successor a favor.
Well then, perhaps they should actually show some balls and not roll over for him like they did on Iraq.
Dan Senor, former military spokesman and foreign policy advisor to the Bush Administration, says he finds that scenario highly unlikely, because he believes it would provoke numerous resignations from the intelligence community and the armed services, both of which groups feel burned from the Iraq experience.
There were resignations when we invaded Iraq, it didn't make a difference then and it won't now.
Here we go again. You'd think that after two failed wars (one which was also heavily lobbied for by Israel) the Bush Administration would get the message. They suck at waging wars and everything they touch turns to shit.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut grilled Petraeus on Iran's anti-U.S. activities in the region.
I can only imagine the appearance of Joe Lieberman, literally salivating over the notion of bombing another Muslim country.
And Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia pressed Petraeus on what he meant by the need to "counter malign Iranian influence" and the "consequences for its illegitimate influence in the region."
What about our illegitimate influence in the region? At least Iran's leaders don't need dozens of helicopters and thousands of troops just to take a stroll in the park.
The general, whose confirmation as head of U.S. Central Command was stake in the hearing, did his best to pacify the men and women who held his appointment in their hands, emphasizing his support for "the three rounds of negotiations that have taken place" between Iran, Iraq and the U.S. in Baghdad over security issues.
Petraeus was nominated specifically because he will start a war with Iran. Everyone in Congress knows it. If they didn't know it before, they certainly should have learned the lesson the first time it happened in Iraq. This administration will do anything it can to start wars because it enriches their friends. If Congress confirms Petraeus, knowing full well that he is the Bush Administration's handpicked yes man for war with Iran, then I may just lose all hope I ever had that the Dems are any different from the Republicans. 5 years ago they had an excuse, albeit a flimsy one, since they weren't used to being lied to by a President. Now they have no such excuse. If they buy the same lies, spouted by the same people, they deserve what they get.
In theory, the idea of a war with Iran should be a non-starter in a nation whose war-weary public has no appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East,
When has public opinion ever stopped these morons?
no matter how determined Iran may be to get a nuclear weapon or to arm and train anti-U.S. forces in Iraq.
Of course we have to rely on the word of known liars for all of this. I haven't seen any proof for this that doesn't rely on the same people who lied to us about Iraq.
Republican candidates on Capitol Hill, already facing their worst electoral prospects in a generation, are equally disinclined to support military action against Iran. Even Bush's own cabinet officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have been repeatedly cool to the idea in public.
They're sheep, they'll all fall in line.
In Israel, from which President Bush recently returned, one doesn't have to go far to find deep, existential concern. "A military option is not a good option," for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, a senior Israeli official told TIME on the sidelines of one of Bush's meetings, "But there's only one thing worse than that, which is Iran going nuclear." Those outside the Israeli government express even greater urgency. "I'm worried that by November it's going to be too late," to stop Iran from gaining the ability to produce nuclear weapons, said Yossi Kuperwasser, the former senior intelligence officer for the Central Command of the Israeli Defense.
Since when are we taking orders from Israel? If they're so concerned why don't they attack Iran's nuclear facilities? They did it before in Iraq, what's different now? Why should we continue to sacrifice thousands of our troops in another unnecessary war when they don't even contribute a token number of troops to the present war effort?
On military action against nuclear sites in Iran, he said, "Just do it. For Christ's sake, do it and solve our problem."
I don't give a shit about this guy's "problem". It's not our responsibility to solve this guy's problems.
Nor is it only the Israelis who are concerned. Egyptian and Saudi leaders also expressed their worries about Iran's nuclear ambitions when Bush met with them on the trip, several White House aides say. "People in the region really want to see it solved peacefully," says a senior White House official, "but they're also concerned for their own safety and they're also mindful of the calendar, and they know that this President has been very strong."
But I'll bet Egypt and Saudi Arabia don't want the US to start a world war over it. The only people who want to escalate this to WWIII are Bush and Israel.
If diplomatic efforts continue to look unlikely to produce an outcome acceptable to the Administration, would President Bush consider military action?
How could diplomacy have produced an outcome? Diplomacy hasn't even been tried. Bush openly derides the Democratic Presidential nominee for merely suggesting that we start diplomacy, comparing it to the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia in WWII.
Olmert said his impression after talks with Bush was that the President is "exceptionally determined," and that "he has proven this throughout his term in office his preparedness to take exceptional measures in order to defend the principles in which he believes, and in his deep commitment to the security of the state of Israel."
Translation: Bush will manufacture evidence and lie through his teeth in order to do whatever Olmert tells him to do.
It's that kind of talk that has people in Washington worried. Aides to Democratic leaders on the Hill fear that Bush may be planning to bomb Iran between November and January, after the political cost goes down and when he may feel he is doing his successor a favor.
Well then, perhaps they should actually show some balls and not roll over for him like they did on Iraq.
Dan Senor, former military spokesman and foreign policy advisor to the Bush Administration, says he finds that scenario highly unlikely, because he believes it would provoke numerous resignations from the intelligence community and the armed services, both of which groups feel burned from the Iraq experience.
There were resignations when we invaded Iraq, it didn't make a difference then and it won't now.
It Took You Awfully Long to Make This Decision...
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/05/22/mccains-rejects-hagee-endorsement-spiritual-guide-rod-parsley-now-hits-the-news/
So all these things he said in the past were fine but all of a sudden he's out of line for saying things that he's been saying for years? Are we to believe McCain didn't look at Hagee or Parsley at all before he begged for their endorsements?
So all these things he said in the past were fine but all of a sudden he's out of line for saying things that he's been saying for years? Are we to believe McCain didn't look at Hagee or Parsley at all before he begged for their endorsements?
Just End it Already...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080525/pl_nm/usa_politics_carter_dc
Why wait until June 3? Obama leads with delegates, he leads with super delegates, he leads in the popular vote, he's going to win the nomination. Why not just end it before Clinton hurts the party more than she already has?
Why wait until June 3? Obama leads with delegates, he leads with super delegates, he leads in the popular vote, he's going to win the nomination. Why not just end it before Clinton hurts the party more than she already has?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Rove wants Dems to win now?...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/19/clinton-cites-karl-rove-as-reason-to-stay-in/#more-7211
And her ego was far too big for her to realize that Karl Rove probably doesn't have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind. He's a freaking McCain adviser. Does it occur to anyone in her cult that he may be releasing this information because they want her to be elected because they know they can beat her?
And her ego was far too big for her to realize that Karl Rove probably doesn't have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind. He's a freaking McCain adviser. Does it occur to anyone in her cult that he may be releasing this information because they want her to be elected because they know they can beat her?
Sexism is a convenient excuse for failing miserably...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4889014&page=1
Clinton, the first woman to make a serious bid for a major party's presidential nomination, said she did not think that racism was a factor in her bruising battle with Sen. Barack Obama.
Perhaps she should tell her surrogates that racism isn't supposed to be a factor in the election because they obviously didn't get the memo. Her surrogate, and her husband, suggesting that Obama is nothing but an affirmative-action candidate. Her campaign putting stories out there about Obama's pastor and his supposed Islamic heritage. Her surrogates suggesting that he attended a madrassah. Her entire campaign strategy has been based on racist. I haven't seen a single statement however criticizing Hillary based on her sex. Not a single one. In fact she's been immune to some criticism that's been leveled at Obama because of her sex.
Her campaign aides told ABC News that she intends to keep campaigning through the final primary on June 3. Clinton also took a shot at Obama for acting as if he has already won and not even campaigning in Kentucky.
Maybe he's acting like he won because he's won. I think he's been very understanding given her refusal to bow out gracefully but at some point he has to get on with winning the election in November, he can't keep holding her hand and saying "No Hillary, you still have a shot" forever.
Clinton's comments in the Washington Post echo what many of her supporters have bitterly complained about as the long Democratic battle has neared an end -- that she is treated differently because she's a woman and if she eventually loses, it will be because of her gender.
If Clinton loses, which she will, it will be because of who she is and who her husband is. It has nothing to do with her gender. Her candidacy has been important because it has proved that most people are willing to look at a woman in the exact same way they look at a man. They looked at her in an objective and fair manner and didn't like what they saw. Accusing them of sexism is petty and stupid.
Clinton, they charge, has been criticized for things that a male candidate would never take heat for -- her appearance, her emotions, her spouse's sex life.
The petty criticisms seem to have been confined to the beginning of the race, I haven't heard anything about her appearance lately. As for her spouse, if a male candidate had as little control over their spouse as she has over hers (to the point where she's screwing everything that moves) you better believe there'd be a lot of comment on it. Nothing strikes at a man's supposed manhood like being a cuckold. If anything, she gets a lot more sympathy than a male candidate would in a similar situation.
And many of her female supporters worry that their chance to see a woman elected U.S. president ends with Clinton.
She's not the only viable female candidate around. That kind of egotism is what got her into this situation in the first place.
"If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, we will not support the nominee," she said.
That's the stupidest thing someone could do. Do these women think McCain will care about women's issues? Obama has great ratings from women's rights organizations, McCain doesn't.
"Young people don't understand how far we've come and how hard we've worked to get here. They can't see what it took for us to ensure that Clinton would have a chance at the White House. We have been out there fighting these fights and we've made progress. But as soon as she started running, all this sexist garbage comes out," she said
And I suppose blacks have never had a problem getting elected to public office? Not to mention the constant racism coming from the Republicans, the media and the Clinton campaign from the point he emerged as a viable candidate.
In an ABC News-Washington Post poll, nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters said if she loses, they will vote for Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona over Obama.
There's a very selfish and self-righteous cultishness that permeates the Clinton campaign and it's sickening.
"Women will always have to work harder than men to prove their competence. A man would never be subjected to the same treatment," she said. "It will be hugely disappointing to many women if Clinton is unable to go the distance. But there are plenty of very strong women in public office and other venues who will pick up the torch. Without a doubt, a woman will be president."
I honestly think Clinton's people have forgotten that Obama is black. He's not treated like any other man, he gets just as much crap as she does. Nobody talks constantly about her pastor and I'm sure he's said some pretty crazy, anti-Democratic (anti-democratic too) things. I doubt her pastor is pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-birth control all of which are key Democratic issues.
Clinton, the first woman to make a serious bid for a major party's presidential nomination, said she did not think that racism was a factor in her bruising battle with Sen. Barack Obama.
Perhaps she should tell her surrogates that racism isn't supposed to be a factor in the election because they obviously didn't get the memo. Her surrogate, and her husband, suggesting that Obama is nothing but an affirmative-action candidate. Her campaign putting stories out there about Obama's pastor and his supposed Islamic heritage. Her surrogates suggesting that he attended a madrassah. Her entire campaign strategy has been based on racist. I haven't seen a single statement however criticizing Hillary based on her sex. Not a single one. In fact she's been immune to some criticism that's been leveled at Obama because of her sex.
Her campaign aides told ABC News that she intends to keep campaigning through the final primary on June 3. Clinton also took a shot at Obama for acting as if he has already won and not even campaigning in Kentucky.
Maybe he's acting like he won because he's won. I think he's been very understanding given her refusal to bow out gracefully but at some point he has to get on with winning the election in November, he can't keep holding her hand and saying "No Hillary, you still have a shot" forever.
Clinton's comments in the Washington Post echo what many of her supporters have bitterly complained about as the long Democratic battle has neared an end -- that she is treated differently because she's a woman and if she eventually loses, it will be because of her gender.
If Clinton loses, which she will, it will be because of who she is and who her husband is. It has nothing to do with her gender. Her candidacy has been important because it has proved that most people are willing to look at a woman in the exact same way they look at a man. They looked at her in an objective and fair manner and didn't like what they saw. Accusing them of sexism is petty and stupid.
Clinton, they charge, has been criticized for things that a male candidate would never take heat for -- her appearance, her emotions, her spouse's sex life.
The petty criticisms seem to have been confined to the beginning of the race, I haven't heard anything about her appearance lately. As for her spouse, if a male candidate had as little control over their spouse as she has over hers (to the point where she's screwing everything that moves) you better believe there'd be a lot of comment on it. Nothing strikes at a man's supposed manhood like being a cuckold. If anything, she gets a lot more sympathy than a male candidate would in a similar situation.
And many of her female supporters worry that their chance to see a woman elected U.S. president ends with Clinton.
She's not the only viable female candidate around. That kind of egotism is what got her into this situation in the first place.
"If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, we will not support the nominee," she said.
That's the stupidest thing someone could do. Do these women think McCain will care about women's issues? Obama has great ratings from women's rights organizations, McCain doesn't.
"Young people don't understand how far we've come and how hard we've worked to get here. They can't see what it took for us to ensure that Clinton would have a chance at the White House. We have been out there fighting these fights and we've made progress. But as soon as she started running, all this sexist garbage comes out," she said
And I suppose blacks have never had a problem getting elected to public office? Not to mention the constant racism coming from the Republicans, the media and the Clinton campaign from the point he emerged as a viable candidate.
In an ABC News-Washington Post poll, nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters said if she loses, they will vote for Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona over Obama.
There's a very selfish and self-righteous cultishness that permeates the Clinton campaign and it's sickening.
"Women will always have to work harder than men to prove their competence. A man would never be subjected to the same treatment," she said. "It will be hugely disappointing to many women if Clinton is unable to go the distance. But there are plenty of very strong women in public office and other venues who will pick up the torch. Without a doubt, a woman will be president."
I honestly think Clinton's people have forgotten that Obama is black. He's not treated like any other man, he gets just as much crap as she does. Nobody talks constantly about her pastor and I'm sure he's said some pretty crazy, anti-Democratic (anti-democratic too) things. I doubt her pastor is pro-choice, pro-gay and pro-birth control all of which are key Democratic issues.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Stop Throwing Away Good Money...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/11/clinton-adviser-clinton-willing-to-lend-campaign-more-money/
When is it going to end with Hillary? Her campaign is racing full speed towards the cliff and nobody's thinking to put on the brakes. This money she's throwing at her campaign is not going to make any difference. She's already contributed so much while Obama's momentum just increases. By the time she finally decides to drop out she's going to have a huge debt she'll be unable to repay. I don't think Obama should do anything to help her out if she keeps throwing away all this money for nothing, he's going to need every dollar he can get for the general election. Even in the unlikely eventuality that she manages to steal the election, she's going to enter the general election with a huge money problem and no proof that people will suddenly start showering her with money. I know that while I will support her if she's the nominee, I certainly will not be giving her any money.
When is it going to end with Hillary? Her campaign is racing full speed towards the cliff and nobody's thinking to put on the brakes. This money she's throwing at her campaign is not going to make any difference. She's already contributed so much while Obama's momentum just increases. By the time she finally decides to drop out she's going to have a huge debt she'll be unable to repay. I don't think Obama should do anything to help her out if she keeps throwing away all this money for nothing, he's going to need every dollar he can get for the general election. Even in the unlikely eventuality that she manages to steal the election, she's going to enter the general election with a huge money problem and no proof that people will suddenly start showering her with money. I know that while I will support her if she's the nominee, I certainly will not be giving her any money.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The Writing's On The Wall...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/07/democrats.race/index.html
From all that I've heard it appears that Hillary is beginning to see the writing on the wall. People are suggesting that the superdelegates are rushing to Obama and Hillary is making plans to drop out after the late May primaries. I really hope that's true. I've also heard she's going to start acting like a Dem and tone down the hateful rhetoric about Obama.
Sen. Hillary Clinton vowed to stay in the race until her party has a nominee.
What Hillary doesn't understand, or at least doesn't say, is that the party won't have a nominee until she drops out. It's not meant to be for her. She's the only one who can give us a nominee and she can do it by dropping out and endorsing Obama.
From all that I've heard it appears that Hillary is beginning to see the writing on the wall. People are suggesting that the superdelegates are rushing to Obama and Hillary is making plans to drop out after the late May primaries. I really hope that's true. I've also heard she's going to start acting like a Dem and tone down the hateful rhetoric about Obama.
Sen. Hillary Clinton vowed to stay in the race until her party has a nominee.
What Hillary doesn't understand, or at least doesn't say, is that the party won't have a nominee until she drops out. It's not meant to be for her. She's the only one who can give us a nominee and she can do it by dropping out and endorsing Obama.
Wizardry?!?...
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=79533
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Wizardry!?!? WTF????
First off, last I checked religious beliefs are not sufficient reason for someone to be fired. Since this was a public school district he should sue them, they just can't do that. Second, cheap magic tricks you learn off the back of a crackerjack box do not equal Wizardry. I swear, there are some fucked up people in parts of this country.
And I really want to know what fucked up kid ratted the poor teacher out. How badly did his/her parents screw him up that the first thought upon seeing someone perform a magic trick is to have them burned as a witch?
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Wizardry!?!? WTF????
First off, last I checked religious beliefs are not sufficient reason for someone to be fired. Since this was a public school district he should sue them, they just can't do that. Second, cheap magic tricks you learn off the back of a crackerjack box do not equal Wizardry. I swear, there are some fucked up people in parts of this country.
And I really want to know what fucked up kid ratted the poor teacher out. How badly did his/her parents screw him up that the first thought upon seeing someone perform a magic trick is to have them burned as a witch?
Hillary's Convenient Voter's Rights Position...
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_campaign_says_no_to_ne.php
Does anybody actually believe that Hillary gives a crap about the voters of Michigan or Florida? If she had lost the states she'd be demanding that they not be counted. The only thing she cares about is winning. While I wouldn't be devastated if they were counted in a fair and reasonable way (like the one that the state agreed to), they did break the rules. They're not owed anything. Whatever they get is really a gift from the DNC.
And does anybody else question Hillary's sincerity about staying in so everyone in the last states can have a say? If their roles were reversed, Hillary would have started calling for Obama to drop out sometime in February. Bill would be on the stump every day spouting racial codewords and demanding that Obama drop out. They would be screaming for all to hear that she has an insurmountable lead and he's being unreasonable to stay in. In short, everything that Obama has avoided doing even as he has amassed an unassailable lead over Hillary.
Does anybody actually believe that Hillary gives a crap about the voters of Michigan or Florida? If she had lost the states she'd be demanding that they not be counted. The only thing she cares about is winning. While I wouldn't be devastated if they were counted in a fair and reasonable way (like the one that the state agreed to), they did break the rules. They're not owed anything. Whatever they get is really a gift from the DNC.
And does anybody else question Hillary's sincerity about staying in so everyone in the last states can have a say? If their roles were reversed, Hillary would have started calling for Obama to drop out sometime in February. Bill would be on the stump every day spouting racial codewords and demanding that Obama drop out. They would be screaming for all to hear that she has an insurmountable lead and he's being unreasonable to stay in. In short, everything that Obama has avoided doing even as he has amassed an unassailable lead over Hillary.
Pope Nazi Makes Another Stupid Statement...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/10/pope.sex.ap/index.html
It's almost cute that Pope Nazi thinks anyone cares what he has to say. His own followers don't obey his edicts. Millions of Catholics use birth control. More than half of Catholics support birth control (and I can only imagine the huge majority who would support a woman choosing artificial insemination if that was necessary). All these statements do is prove how little power the Vatican actually has over its own people.
"No mechanical technique can substitute the act of love that two married people exchange as a sign of a greater mystery," Benedict said.
Said the freaky old guy in a dress who took a voluntary oath to never have sex. Here's a hint Joe, it wouldn't be a mystery to you if you hadn't taken the oath.
It's almost cute that Pope Nazi thinks anyone cares what he has to say. His own followers don't obey his edicts. Millions of Catholics use birth control. More than half of Catholics support birth control (and I can only imagine the huge majority who would support a woman choosing artificial insemination if that was necessary). All these statements do is prove how little power the Vatican actually has over its own people.
"No mechanical technique can substitute the act of love that two married people exchange as a sign of a greater mystery," Benedict said.
Said the freaky old guy in a dress who took a voluntary oath to never have sex. Here's a hint Joe, it wouldn't be a mystery to you if you hadn't taken the oath.
Kentucky and W. Virginia...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/09/west.virginia/index.html
West Virginians will head to the polls Tuesday for the state's Democratic primary between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But what will the vote there really mean after new delegate totals show Obama with a sizable lead?
I don't see what difference W. Virginia and Kentucky will make. Even if they go to Hillary with huge margins, that's been the expectation from the start. It will not come as a surprise that the old, white, largely uneducated populations of these states go for Hillary. Those people are her bread and butter.
Clinton has a 43-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.
While I doubt these numbers, even if she wins both states by this much it won't matter much. These are small states with very few Democratic delegates. They're some of the reddest of red states. They're not swing states. They're the very epitome of the kind of state that Hillary said shouldn't count in deciding the Democratic nominee (I guess traditional red states only don't count if they vote for Obama). How is she going to explain counting these states as "game changers" when she said the exact opposite of all the red states Obama won?
A big Clinton win will send a powerful message that there are a lot of Democrats not ready to get on the Obama bandwagon.
Everybody has to make a choice. Just because I voted for Obama in our primary doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was the nominee. Just because these people may prefer Hillary doesn't mean they won't vote for Obama when the choice comes in November. People need to stop acting like everyone in America's rural heartland is an ignorant racist who will never vote for Obama just because Hillary happens to be their first choice.
"There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama's support among hardworking Americans, white Americans is weakening again, and how the whites in both states that have not completed college were supporting me," Clinton said in a USA Today interview May 7.
Hillary needs to stop making racist statements, it's not doing her any favors. Last I checked, whites weren't the group that votes 90+% Democratic.
"They would likely paint him, if he's the nominee, as a far-left liberal who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-civil union. That will not play well in West Virginia. Social issues register very high on the meter here," Bass said.
Every Democratic President since Roe v. Wade has been pro-choice. I don't see how they would vote for all those Dems but not Obama.
West Virginians will head to the polls Tuesday for the state's Democratic primary between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But what will the vote there really mean after new delegate totals show Obama with a sizable lead?
I don't see what difference W. Virginia and Kentucky will make. Even if they go to Hillary with huge margins, that's been the expectation from the start. It will not come as a surprise that the old, white, largely uneducated populations of these states go for Hillary. Those people are her bread and butter.
Clinton has a 43-point advantage over Obama, 66 percent to 23 percent, according to a survey from the American Research Group released Friday.
While I doubt these numbers, even if she wins both states by this much it won't matter much. These are small states with very few Democratic delegates. They're some of the reddest of red states. They're not swing states. They're the very epitome of the kind of state that Hillary said shouldn't count in deciding the Democratic nominee (I guess traditional red states only don't count if they vote for Obama). How is she going to explain counting these states as "game changers" when she said the exact opposite of all the red states Obama won?
A big Clinton win will send a powerful message that there are a lot of Democrats not ready to get on the Obama bandwagon.
Everybody has to make a choice. Just because I voted for Obama in our primary doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was the nominee. Just because these people may prefer Hillary doesn't mean they won't vote for Obama when the choice comes in November. People need to stop acting like everyone in America's rural heartland is an ignorant racist who will never vote for Obama just because Hillary happens to be their first choice.
"There was just an AP article posted that found how Sen. Obama's support among hardworking Americans, white Americans is weakening again, and how the whites in both states that have not completed college were supporting me," Clinton said in a USA Today interview May 7.
Hillary needs to stop making racist statements, it's not doing her any favors. Last I checked, whites weren't the group that votes 90+% Democratic.
"They would likely paint him, if he's the nominee, as a far-left liberal who is pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-civil union. That will not play well in West Virginia. Social issues register very high on the meter here," Bass said.
Every Democratic President since Roe v. Wade has been pro-choice. I don't see how they would vote for all those Dems but not Obama.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)