brandon [email] said at 12:49 PM 02-04-2008: (w)(b)itches
Lewd Women
CHILD MOLESTING Homosexuals (but not the other kind)
Sports Nuts
Two-Faced People
Rebellious Women
kiche [email] said at 1:03 PM 02-04-2008: well, not until he gets a little older, has his own ministry and is trusted enough to have some alone time with little boys in his church.
brandon [email] said at 1:29 PM 02-04-2008: True, I guess my point was that he heavily condemns women, the wrong kinds of homosexuals (the child-molesting ones) and the jocks that probably beat him up. But he never condemns just "homosexuals". Since, otherwise he covers his bases of condemnation pretty well, it's safe to assume that this guy is a total christian fag, who likes to crucify himself on the meat spear of his his lover, Longin(orm)us Koch from der muterland.
brandon [email] said at 12:50 PM 02-04-2008: I will be voting for Hillary. Because, isn't it time that a woman was in charge? I mean, really? Isn't it just darn time?
kiche [email] said at 1:17 PM 02-04-2008: you are only voting for hill because you are afraid of black men. i can't really criticize, though because i am only voting for the big o because i am afraid of white women.
brandon [email] said at 1:34 PM 02-04-2008: I'm just worried that Barrack's family connections with the former dictator of Iraq will cause him to make decisions counter to our national interest. Plus, I understand that as soon as he takes office, he's going to mandate muslimism, and turn over the value of anyone's IRA who refuses to comply with his mandate to the true rulers of the North American Union, the mahotemedans. Hail, Zul, Osama. Fresh ruler of the newly arrived Caliphate, death to the Jews! Death to the western man!
jake [email] said at 2:54 PM 02-13-2008: I ended up cutting the gordian knot (or is Scylla and Charybdis the better metaphor?) by promoting Obama, and convincing two people to vote for him... But casting my own vote for Clinton, on behalf of an ardent fan of hers who is out of state and didn't get her absentee ballot.
rick [email] said at 4:39 PM 02-04-2008: You're right; we need an experienced candidate like John McCain at the helm. In fact, I don't think he is experienced enough; we need Richard Bruce Cheney as our President, now more than ever.
rick [email] said at 4:50 PM 02-04-2008: As opposed to these seasoned veterans who got us into plenty of trouble that is going on right now?
You're right in that the 'bama is not a candidate of peace but he is still better than Clinton on several levels if only slightly. I won't vote for him but if you stuck a shotgun to my gut and told me to choose between him and Clinton, I would take him.
rickled pink said at 6:20 PM 02-04-2008: sure, he's pro-war as are all the democrats besides gravel. so you'll be voting for gravel, right? no?
obama has spoke belligerently (you really should consider voting for besides the top two) but I don't believe he would go to war with pakistan (we're tapped out at this point; it is said that admiral mullen refused to go along with any strike against iran because the resources were not there, this is why I consider McCain so dangerous because I believe he could somehow pull off beginning another major war).
rick [email] said at 4:40 PM 02-04-2008: Kiche loves both persons of color as well as womyn and this is why he will write in the name "Michelle Malkin" as his choice for president.
rick [email] said at 4:52 PM 02-04-2008: In retrospect, I haven't pushed it so much but since I figured he would not get the nomination I would just write his name in and explain why a few days before election day.
rick [email] said at 4:33 PM 02-04-2008: My attitude is there is always more than one "acceptable" candidate; that being said, none of the frontrunners in my mind are acceptable.
kiche [email] said at 4:39 PM 02-04-2008: y'know while i generally loathe ron paul's annoying troll-like devotees; i will grant them that this was amazing:
rick [email] said at 4:45 PM 02-04-2008: Watching the main-stream media fawn over the Clintons and McCain is far more loathesome than some aggressive college kids.
kiche [email] said at 4:51 PM 02-04-2008: hey, when they're aggressive and chasing sean hannity screaming they rock.
but for the most part they just sit in their parents' basements and spam the net.
also, the media hasn't fawned over hillary. they've rejoiced at every loss she's incurred. and tried to turn her sniffle in n.h. into this election cycles "dean scream".
i'm not a hillary supporter; but if you can't see this, you are blind.
rick [email] said at 5:00 PM 02-04-2008: You have got to be kidding me. They only picked up on her stumbles when it looked like the 'bama might actually beat her. Until then, they pretty much treated her as the Dauphin to the Throne. It was not a story until then. And don't talk about Fox News; they made a cottage industry out of hating the Clinton's long before she was even in the Senate.
There has been next to no scrutiny of her actual record. There has been very little criticism of her mendacious mudslinging. You can make the point that that is because our media establishment is vapid and I would accept that but does not mean they are against her. They even helped her by excluding other candidates and not just as the campaign progressed (remember that nauseating faith-in-politics talk put on by CNN?)
The same is true on the Republican side. Virtually no one took hard looks at Giuliani or Romney's flip-flops (except their opponents). No one has discussed the outfright scary authoritarianism and vengeful demeanor and wrath of McCain. Instead, stupid stuff like which celebrity endorses who gets mentioned.
rickelob ultra said at 7:18 PM 02-04-2008: you will have to try harder than to,just cite andre sullivan. face it, criticism of clinton is usually either tepid or clownish (there are exceptions like frank rich but I wonder how many people actually read him)
you also forget all the positive coverage she has gotten
this isn't as bad as that of john edwards. and at least, she gets attention as opposed to other candidates.
kiche [email] said at 4:44 PM 02-04-2008: it blows my mind how successful the republican party has been at pushing this propaghanda that they were not a war mongering party until a few jewish intellectuals got into their establishment a few years back.
kiche [email] said at 6:19 PM 02-04-2008: um, no it's not rick.
clinton is one person. lying about or getting wrong one person's views on one issue is one thing.
a political party attempting to pass off a decades long stance on a sinister group made up of a single ethnic group while claiming it is only a recent development in that party... i mean, that's all sorts of bad. i'm looking at you patrick buchannan.
rickollection said at 6:39 PM 02-04-2008: no, not really. for most of the twentieth century it was democrats who got the us into war (the 2 exceptions being the gulf war and let's go ahead and consider the spanish american war a 20th century war). this doesn't mean the republicans were great, it's just that until the cold war they were the less belligerent group. and even then remember that korea and vietnam were democratic creations. in 2000, gote actually called for a larger military budget than bush and bush criticized nationbuilding and called for a humble foreign policy. was he lying? prolly at least to some extent but I imagine 9/11 also changed the equation a lot in the political landscape. it's disengenuous for the republicans to say they were antiwar and antiempire before the neocons but the neocons were an aberration that definitely pushed things intó overdrive. the democrats could be using this moment right now to make a significant break with this trend but they so far have chosen not to.
kiche [email] said at 6:50 PM 02-04-2008: you are aware that the democratic party was the right wing party at the beginning of the 20th century? and that there swing to the left (as pathetic as it is) is quite recent.
rickelob draft said at 7:06 PM 02-04-2008: depends on what you mean by right wing. william jennings bryan and woodrow wilson were most certainly not rightwingers
chrisx [email] said at 5:42 PM 02-04-2008: Seriously, is there really a candidate that deserves a vote, or is the goal really just to vote against someone else?
ed [email] said at 10:03 PM 02-04-2008: I would say that Ron Paul can suck my left nut. Except he's not worthy of that honor.
Okay, neither are any of the other candidates. But Paul's an ideologue. A medical doctor who doesn't "believe in" evolution. Does he "believe in" leeches' medicinal qualities? Burning witches? Just how far backwards are we willing to step, here? And I mean that in the sense of, "After 7 years of the idiot that's currently in the White House, from whom we thought there WAS no backwards-stepping, how far are we willing to go?"
rickombinant dna said at 10:43 PM 02-04-2008: show me where he has said he doesn't believe in evolution becausw he said he did at one of the earlier republican debates (huckabee and at least one other candidate said they did not). there was a video circulating on youtube which supppsedly "showed" him saying he did not accept it but thatvwas selectively edited.
but even if he didn't accept the theory (which as I have pointed out seems doubtful); why are you so aghast?
right now we are years into an administration which the help of a venal and effete congress has engaged in unprovoked war, torture, invasion of personal liberties, corporate welfare on a scale unmatched by any other administration, secrecy, and other notorious undertakings. the 4 frontrunners either implicitly or explicitly agreed with almost every policy as opposed to ron paul who never was for war or torture or lawless spying, etc
and you're worried about whether or not he believes in evolution. seriously, is this TRULY your top priority?
you have indicated you might vote for mccain even though he he was for all of this (some of which BEFORE bush took office) what if he questioned evolution, would you still vote for him?
I don't know what your priorities are as far as presidential candidates go but it seems a stretch to suggest acceptance of evolution (assuming this was true) outweighs war or torture or personal liberties
ed [email] said at 12:11 AM 02-05-2008: Torturing (oh, I'm sorry, "aggressive interrogation") of a species is allowed, as long as you acknowledge that that species has, indeed, evolved.
Dude, seriously?
The candidates all suck. They all want to kill anything that doesn't look or think or act like "us", whatever their definition of "us" is.
So, yeah. I boil it down to the most base levels. If you don't believe in something as scientifically "proven" (as much as anything can be scientifically proven) as evolution, then I will not vote for you.
Because every stinkin' one of these candidates, if elected, will do whatever the hell they can get away with to further consolidate and increase their own power, and the power of those who bought the office for them.
Lying about policy and whether you want emphysema-ridden puppies to have free health care is one thing. But flat-out stating that you don't believe in something as fundamentally (Haha! I see what I did there!) "provable" as evolution means you're a wacknut not even worthy of my consideration.
rickola said at 12:29 PM 02-05-2008: again, show me where you got this idea he doesn't believe in evolution because he said he did, live, on national television.
and I find interesting you think he will consolidate power since he has spoke out consistently against war on iraq and iran, war on terror, war on drugs (not just cannabis) and pretty much every other avenue presidents have used to increase their power at our expense.
and I stand by my statement that letting one particular belief disagreement not germane to policy trump all other considerations is, well, not a very practical. if I as an atheist held to that practice, I wouldn't vote for 99.9% of candidates
ed [email] said at 3:12 PM 02-05-2008: Since my saying this:
Torturing (oh, I'm sorry, "aggressive interrogation") of a species is allowed, as long as you acknowledge that that species has, indeed, evolved.
was insufficient to tip you off, I'll come out and say it. I was just blowing smoke. I was just messin' around. I was bloviating. This is not a position I was seriously defending. I was having a bit of a jape.
chrisx [email] said at 4:56 PM 02-05-2008: I can't read the link. Isn't it a shame that in the 21st century people will choose a leader (more like a decision maker) based on whatever superstition he subscribes to (or claims to believe).
The fact that people would not vote for an atheist shows how retarded the populace is.
ed [email] said at 5:22 PM 02-05-2008: Well, I hope that's an indication that I'm not retarded. I, as a Christian, would vote for an atheist in a flippin' heartbeat, if said atheist's political and social positions matched mine. And perhaps surprisingly, my views on the world don't vary all that wildly from someone who rejects (a[ny]) God.
I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. Those PERSONAL choices should not - ever - be legislated. I personally have many beliefs, and I will adhere to them as best as I can. But I'm not ever going to vote to force you to adhere to my beliefs. As long as you (the collective, nebulous "you", not you specifically) behave in similar fashion, I have no problem with you.
But, to answer your question directly, YES. It's a damned shame that people will vote that way.
kiche [email] said at 10:49 PM 02-06-2008: i think that's more a vote against mccain than for romney.
mccain stands for more war and less jobs. i have know idea how mccain has conned his way to the level of popularity he has. if you don't care if the economy tanks and want us to get involved in more wars in the middle east, south america and elsewhere; mccain's your man. if not, just about anyone else looks like roses.
rick [email] said at 11:15 PM 02-06-2008: That being said, I am willing to bet a pitcher of beer that he won't win come November, regardless of whether he runs against the 'bama or Clinton. He is the Bob Dole of 2008.
ed [email] said at 7:41 AM 02-06-2008: Local Results:
53 of 54 precincts counted
Democrats
Clinton - 5,942 (51%)
Obama - 5,471 (47%)
Republicans
Huckabee - 6,348 (46%)
McCain - 5,056 (36%)
Romney - 2,027 (15%)
Paul - 342 (2%)
Statewide Results:
Democrats
99% of precincts reporting
Obama - 299,883 (56%)
Clinton - 222,544 (42%)
Republicans
99% of precincts reporting
Huckabee - 224,380 (41%)
McCain - 205,702 (37%)
Romney - 99,435 (18%)
Paul - 14,974 (3%)
I did what I could. I ain't too pleased about the Huck claiming victory, but that wasn't my fight. I am glad that the h-dog got Vick'd.
