OT: Politics
Steve Newport
Steve Newport
Barack Obama dwindled further on Tuesday night.
For Mr. Obama, the outcome came after a brutal period in which he was on
the defensive over the inflammatory comments of his former pastor. That
he was able to hold his own under those circumstances should allow him
to make a case that he has proved his resilience in the face of
questions about race, patriotism and political mettle - the very kinds
of issues that the Clinton campaign has suggested would leave him
vulnerable in the general election.
Beating Mr. Obama in Indiana was hardly the kind of strong victory Mrs.
Clinton posted in Pennsylvania and Ohio. And when paired with his
comfortable victory in North Carolina - which Mr. Obama pointedly
described in his victory speech as "a big state, a swing state" - it
hardly seemed enough for Mrs. Clinton to convince so-called uncommitted
superdelegates to rally around her candidacy.
Her showing in the two states did not permit Mrs. Clinton to cut into
Mr. Obama's lead in pledged delegates or his overall lead in the popular
vote.
Indeed, Mr. Obama may have widened his delegate lead over Mrs. Clinton,
an outcome with mathematic and political resonance.
Eagle
> From the NY Times: Senator Hilary Clinton's hopes for overtaking Senator
> Barack Obama dwindled further on Tuesday night.
Oh, Steve, did you have to bring up politics? We were doing so nice
avoiding it for a while.
zigf...@hotmail.com
> Barack Obama dwindled further on Tuesday night.
>
> For Mr. Obama, the outcome came after a brutal period in which he was on
> the defensive over the inflammatory comments of his former pastor. That
> he was able to hold his own under those circumstances should allow him
> to make a case that he has proved his resilience in the face of
> questions about race, patriotism and political mettle - the very kinds
> of issues that the Clinton campaign has suggested would leave him
> vulnerable in the general election.
>
His problem re: the general election is still huge. He has the black
vote in his favor, and he has the liberal left vote in his favor. The
trouble is, presidential elections tend to be decided by the all-
important "swing voters". Those he does not have and he never will.
The Democrats tend to do make the same mistake every four years
(surprise!); they put up a candidate who has the rep. of being "the
most liberal" whatever. They keep thinking they can win an election by
counting on the liberal left-wingers. Problem is the conservative
right-wingers cancel them out, leaving those "swing voters" as the
ones who really elect our presidents. Who is more likely to get the
"swing voters", Barack Obama (most liberal of them all) or John McCain
(who is viewed as a centrist)??
I am still not utterly convinced that Clinton is out. The primary
process for the Democratic party is really problematic with their
divying up the delegates instead of the "winner takes all" approach of
the Republicans. Then there is the all important SUPER DELEGATES!!!
These are the folks who might give the win to Hillary. After all,
their primary purpose is to make sure that the Dem. candidate is the
one "most likely to win" against the Republican candidate,
irregardless of the votes (will) of the people. I believe the SUPER
DELEGATES came about right after McGovern's disasterous run for the
White House. McGovern won the Primary because he was the choice of
the hippies, pot-smokers and university professors of the far left.
But he did not have a prayer in the general election. Obama may be a
similar university "staff-room, pipe-smoking," candidate; one who has
little appeal to the general public (i.e. swing voters). Of course,
were the SUPER DELEGATES to hand the win to Clinton, despite Obama
winning the most regular delegates and the popular vote, it would
cause a fracture in the democratic party that could take decades for
them to recover.
Obama has many strikes already against him: Reverand Wright, William
Ayers, Bitter-gate, his middle name, his wife's "never been proud of
my country" remark, his admitted use of illegal drugs, Tony Rezko,
Rahsid Khalidi, and the fact that there are people out there who will
not vote for him because he is black.
And remember, he has still not been fully vetted. That is to say,
many of these "scandals" are still waiting in the background. And who
knows what else is out there? The media is too much in love with
Obama to bring them out (witness Chris Matthews on MSNBC stating he
gets a jolt of electricity running up his leg whenever he hears Obama
speak, and comparing Obama's mediocre speech on race to Huckleberry
Finn, claiming it should be read and reread by first graders and
college graduates alike!!), and the Republicans (wisely) won't bring
them out until he is the candidate and running in the general
election.
There ain't nothing we don't know about Hillary Clinton. Her
scandals are old and tired and have been so written about and
discussed that the they have entered the realm of "boring"!
At this point, I believe that Obama is the easier to beat in the
general election.
What do others think?
I have heard that Clinton will stay in as long as she can afford to in
hopes of exposing and damagiing Obama so much that he loses to McCain
and she can run again in 2012.
It sure is turning into an interesting election!
Eagle
> What do others think?
No...no...NO! I won't. I can't talk politics. I just can't. I
won't let you lead me back into...I just won't...you can't make me.
I...I...Oh God, I've got to turn on some Rodgers and Hart or something
just to keep my mind off politics...quick -- "I weave with brightly
colored strings to keep my mind off other things"...STOP! I can't be
drawn back into...I want to tell you what I think -- I want to tell
you so bad...but I can't. I just CAN'T!
I ca --- I ca -- I caaaaaannnn...t. I caaaaa....nnnn.....tttt...
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
Sorry for screaming. I just don't know how much longer I can resist.
Mikey
"Eagle" <eaglene...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7de67cb-69a8-44f0...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Come on, you know this NG is dull as dishwater without any political
threads. If you wanna discuss musical theater, this si NOT the best place
on the 'net to do so and we ll know it!
But I do love the way folks like Eagle and myself (and a few others) have
chased the political threads from this NG. Let's face it, the lefties hate
it when they are challenged because when faced with logical, cool, calm
conservative men like us, their arguments fall apart!
Eagle
Mikey wrote:
> Let's face it, the lefties hate
> it when they are challenged because when faced with logical, cool, calm
> conservative men like us, their arguments fall apart!
Uh-oh.
"Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in."
Steve Newport
Vince
>
> Mikey wrote:
>
>
>>Let's face it, the lefties hate
>>it when they are challenged because when faced with logical, cool, calm
>>conservative men like us, their arguments fall apart!
>
>
Oh yeah Mikey look who you got this time, dull as dishwater and
maybe not in his right mind................
LESS THAN 270 days left...........
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Newport
From: vi...@vbphoto.net (Vince)
Q: Bush or mikey? A: Both.
stephen...@gmail.com
> Obama has many strikes already against him: Reverand Wright, William
> Ayers, Bitter-gate, his middle name,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How pathetic.
--
Stephen
Stephen Farrow
"Maybe"?!?!
--
Stephen
Why can't the evil just get jobs like the rest of us?
Steve Newport
From: stephen...@gmail.com
<<<mikey wrote: Obama has many strikes already against him: his middle
name>>>
-------------------------------
How pathetic.
-------------------------------
Fixed Noise (aka Faux News) posted election returns for BHO vs. HRC.
Steve Newport
Mikey wrote: logical, cool, calm conservative men like us
----------------------------------
Yeah, forget the maybe. He's lost his mind.
Vince
> Steve Newport wrote:
>
>>
>> From: vi...@vbphoto.net (Vince) maybe not in his right mind
>> --------------------------------------
>> Q: Bush or mikey? A: Both.
>>
>
> "Maybe"?!?!
>
Mc Cann
--
LESS THAN 260 days left...........
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Newport
vi...@vbphoto.net (Vince)
--------------------------------------
Q: Bush or mikey? A: Both.>>>
McCain
--------------------------------------
Him, too. And Romney.
zigf...@hotmail.com
Could you specify what exactly is "pathetic" ? Do you disagree with
my post or with those who are not voting for Obama for the reasons I
stated? It is unclear whether you are calling my post pathetic
or.....????
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com (mikey)
What a straight line.
Stephen Farrow
Indeed. Far too easy, but I'll be kind and give the serious answer: it's
absolutely pathetic that there are people who believe - I won't use the
word "think", it doesn't apply - that Obama's middle name is some kind
of problem. His middle name isn't a "strike against him" - it's simply
his middle name. To suggest otherwise is stupid, bigoted, offensive and
frankly verging on racist.
--
Stephen
I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling's really bad. It's
depressing.
Eagle
> His middle name isn't a "strike against him" - it's simply
> his middle name. To suggest otherwise is stupid, bigoted, offensive and
> frankly verging on racist.
For a stupid bigot, it *is* a strike against him, just as it is a
strike against him -- for a stupid bigot -- that he's black. And yes,
an individual who would make an issue of such things *is* pathetic,
but I don't think his name or skin color is a big issue for most
Americans. Other things about him, yes, but not those, not for most
Americans.
I would like to see Obama asked why he thinks he got such a lopsided
90% of the black vote -- are blacks as a whole a better judge of
character than whites, not as easily "bamboozled" as whites by the
lies of Hillary Clinton? Does he think blacks generally have a better
grasp of all the issues that Obama wants to address than whites, and
know that Obama is the better choice on those issues? Is it that too
many whites (and Hispanics and Asians and everyone else) are too
racist to vote as overwhelmingly for him as blacks do? Is it just a
fluke, or could it, by some outside chance, have something to do with
an overwhelming black vote for him because of the color of his skin?
Steve Newport
conditions worsen-- and Hillary supporters take a closer look at McCain
(aka McBush and McSame) and his pro-war, anti entitlements policies--
they'll mostly come 'round.
I'm always a pessimist about Democrats beating the Republican machine in
the Presidential race-- but it seems as if Obama wil be able to raise
much more money than McCain. And by running against the Bush years, he's
got a shot.
The usual "he's too liberal" nonsense may be neutralized this time. If
not, it still looks as if there will still be a Democratic Senate, and
possibly a House. A President McCain will be gridlocked and out as fast
as one can say Jimmy Carter.
zigf...@hotmail.com
>
> > From: zigfr...@hotmail.com (mikey)
> > Could you specify what exactly is "pathetic?"
> > -----------------------------------
> > What a straight line.
>
> Indeed. Far too easy, but I'll be kind and give the serious answer: it's
> absolutely pathetic that there are people who believe - I won't use the
> word "think", it doesn't apply - that Obama's middle name is some kind
> of problem.
I was not passing judgement on the people who hold his middle name
against him. I was pointing out that they exist. And they do.
Therefore it is a strike against him.
His middle name isn't a "strike against him" - it's simply
> his middle name. To suggest otherwise is stupid, bigoted, offensive and
> frankly verging on racist.
>
People on the left love to throw that word out; "racist". They use it
so flippantly that it has almost lost all its power. It is getting
to the point that when the word "racist" is used by someone on the
left, people just roll their eyes.
Let me try to specify how a person who will not vote for Obama because
he is black may not be a "racist". Ther are a lot of elderly people
who grew up in a different time. I am thinking of one particular
relative of mine. She is in her mid-70s, has worked her entire life
(and still does) and is very active. She is also a life-long (dare I
say Blue-dog) Democrat. She thinks Ted Kennedy is the next best thing
to Elvis. She is a huge Hillary supporter and she will not vote for
Obama, most likey because he is black (though she would never admit to
this). She does not want a black president and will not vote for
one.
Does this make her a racist? No.
Does it make her prejudice? Yes. She is pre-judging someone based on
their race.
Would she ever wish harm to a President Obama? Absolutley not! (Which
makes her miles above many of the left-wingers on this NG who would
love to see harm come to a President they don't like)
Would she ever wish harm to a black person? Again, no way.
However, she does have a belief (possibly supported by some of the
things she sees in the media) that white people are better than black
people. Again, that makes her prejudice against blacks.
It DOES NOT make her a racist.
A racist is someone who brings things to a whole 'nother level. To be
a racist (IMO) there has to be an element of hate and a desire to
cause harm to those who belong to a race they believe to be inferior.
There are a lot of people out there who may not vote for Obama because
of his middle name or because he is black. This makes them prejudice
not racist.
I make a distinction between the two.
I suggest others do as well, because you are approaching a point where
"racist" is used so much by the left (Bill Clinton calling Obama's
policy or belief in something a "fantasy" was attacked as being
"racist"!) that the word has lot all of its potency with many folks.
Think about it.
John W Kennedy
> People on the left love to throw that word out; "racist". They use it
> so flippantly that it has almost lost all its power. It is getting
> to the point that when the word "racist" is used by someone on the
> left, people just roll their eyes.
>
> Let me try to specify how a person who will not vote for Obama because
> he is black may not be a "racist". Ther are a lot of elderly people
> who grew up in a different time. I am thinking of one particular
> relative of mine. She is in her mid-70s, has worked her entire life
> (and still does) and is very active. She is also a life-long (dare I
> say Blue-dog) Democrat. She thinks Ted Kennedy is the next best thing
> to Elvis. She is a huge Hillary supporter and she will not vote for
> Obama, most likey because he is black (though she would never admit to
> this). She does not want a black president and will not vote for
> one.
> Does this make her a racist? No.
Yes it does. She's a racist, and so, obviously, are you.
Which makes you both, incidentally, traitors to the United States of
America. Get the Hell out of my country!
--
John W. Kennedy
Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of
incompetence and criminality.
Jeanne Douglas
<d1ec4c46-a36c-4718...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
zigf...@hotmail.com wrote:
Of course it does. By definition.
> Does it make her prejudice? Yes. She is pre-judging someone based on
> their race.
Yep, that's a racist. By definition.
> Would she ever wish harm to a President Obama? Absolutley not! (Which
> makes her miles above many of the left-wingers on this NG who would
> love to see harm come to a President they don't like)
No, we want harm to come to him because he's been responsible for the
unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people.
> Would she ever wish harm to a black person? Again, no way.
> However, she does have a belief (possibly supported by some of the
> things she sees in the media) that white people are better than black
> people. Again, that makes her prejudice against blacks.
> It DOES NOT make her a racist.
It's the very definition of racism.
> A racist is someone who brings things to a whole 'nother level. To be
> a racist (IMO) there has to be an element of hate and a desire to
> cause harm to those who belong to a race they believe to be inferior.
Incorrect. Not everyone in the country hated and wished harm to blacks
but they sure believed them inferior. That's racism.
> There are a lot of people out there who may not vote for Obama because
> of his middle name or because he is black. This makes them prejudice
> not racist.
Not by definition.
> I make a distinction between the two.
> I suggest others do as well, because you are approaching a point where
> "racist" is used so much by the left (Bill Clinton calling Obama's
> policy or belief in something a "fantasy" was attacked as being
> "racist"!) that the word has lot all of its potency with many folks.
> Think about it.
--
JD
"...if you think the 'Star Wars' prequels are a disease, then
'Serenity' is the cure."
Steve Newport
From: hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net (Jeanne Douglas) we want harm to come
to him because he's been responsible for the unnecessary deaths of
hundreds of thousands of mostly innocent people.
How about a reality teevee show on which the Vice President's pacemaker
is removed.
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com
their eyes.
Left, schmeft. We all roll our eyes just about every time you post,
mikey-- as this thread again illustrates.
Vince
That always pisses me off "hes too liberal", but you never hear he's too
conservative"
stephen...@gmail.com
> On May 9, 3:50 am, Stephen Farrow <stephen.far...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Steve Newport wrote:
>
> > > From: zigfr...@hotmail.com (mikey)
> > > Could you specify what exactly is "pathetic?"
> > > -----------------------------------
> > > What a straight line.
>
> > Indeed. Far too easy, but I'll be kind and give the serious answer: it's
> > absolutely pathetic that there are people who believe - I won't use the
> > word "think", it doesn't apply - that Obama's middle name is some kind
> > of problem.
>
> I was not passing judgement on the people who hold his middle name
> against him. I was pointing out that they exist. And they do.
> Therefore it is a strike against him.
To racists and bigots, yeah.
>
> His middle name isn't a "strike against him" - it's simply
>
> > his middle name. To suggest otherwise is stupid, bigoted, offensive and
> > frankly verging on racist.
>
> People on the left love to throw that word out; "racist". They use it
> so flippantly that it has almost lost all its power. It is getting
> to the point that when the word "racist" is used by someone on the
> left, people just roll their eyes.
You've tried this defence before, and it didn't work for you then
either. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
>
> Let me try to specify how a person who will not vote for Obama because
> he is black may not be a "racist". Ther are a lot of elderly people
> who grew up in a different time. I am thinking of one particular
> relative of mine. She is in her mid-70s, has worked her entire life
> (and still does) and is very active. She is also a life-long (dare I
> say Blue-dog) Democrat. She thinks Ted Kennedy is the next best thing
> to Elvis. She is a huge Hillary supporter and she will not vote for
> Obama, most likey because he is black (though she would never admit to
> this). She does not want a black president and will not vote for
> one.
> Does this make her a racist?
Absolutely, by any definition of the word.
> No.
Wrong.
> Does it make her prejudice? Yes. She is pre-judging someone based on
> their race.
From Webster's online:
racist
One entry found.
racism
Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
— rac·ist Listen to the pronunciation of racist \-sist also -shist\
noun or adjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> Would she ever wish harm to a President Obama? Absolutley not! (Which
> makes her miles above many of the left-wingers on this NG who would
> love to see harm come to a President they don't like)
> Would she ever wish harm to a black person? Again, no way.
> However, she does have a belief (possibly supported by some of the
> things she sees in the media) that white people are better than black
> people. Again, that makes her prejudice against blacks.
> It DOES NOT make her a racist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> A racist is someone who brings things to a whole 'nother level. To be
> a racist (IMO) there has to be an element of hate and a desire to
> cause harm to those who belong to a race they believe to be inferior.
Not so.
> There are a lot of people out there who may not vote for Obama because
> of his middle name or because he is black. This makes them prejudice
> not racist.
> I make a distinction between the two.
Yes you do, because you're basically racist according to any
definition of the word, however much you try to deny it.
--
Stephen
Stephen Farrow
How about a reality TV show in which Cheney, Bush et al are dumped in
some housing project with no credit cards or access to their own money,
and left to fend for themselves on welfare and food stamps?
stephen...@gmail.com
> From: hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net (Jeanne Douglas) we want harm to come
You're assuming he really does have a heart of some kind, and that he
needs it to continue his existence. Obviously you don't watch enough
zombie/vampire movies.
--
Stephen
Mikey
"Vince" <vi...@vbphoto.net> wrote in message
news:482542ee$0$15185$607e...@cv.net...
That is because Republicans, despite claims from the looney left to the
contrary, tend to nominate centrists for president. McCain would certainly
qualify as someone from the middle if you look at his views on immigration,
drilling for oil, taxes etc.
Mikey
"John W Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:48250399$0$25061$607e...@cv.net...
LOL!!!
Mikey
<stephen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f22f53b6-1e7a-4951...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> No.
Wrong.
From Webster's online:
racist
One entry found.
racism
\'ra-?si-z?m also -?shi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist Listen to the pronunciation of racist \-sist also -shist\
noun or adjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> Would she ever wish harm to a President Obama? Absolutley not! (Which
> makes her miles above many of the left-wingers on this NG who would
> love to see harm come to a President they don't like)
> Would she ever wish harm to a black person? Again, no way.
> However, she does have a belief (possibly supported by some of the
> things she sees in the media) that white people are better than black
> people. Again, that makes her prejudice against blacks.
> It DOES NOT make her a racist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> A racist is someone who brings things to a whole 'nother level. To be
> a racist (IMO) there has to be an element of hate and a desire to
> cause harm to those who belong to a race they believe to be inferior.
Not so.
> There are a lot of people out there who may not vote for Obama because
> of his middle name or because he is black. This makes them prejudice
> not racist.
> I make a distinction between the two.
Yes you do, because you're basically racist according to any
definition of the word, however much you try to deny it.
--
Stephen
Ignorance still runs rampant on this NG. LOL!!
zigf...@hotmail.com
> zigfr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > People on the left love to throw that word out; "racist". They use it
> > so flippantly that it has almost lost all its power. It is getting
> > to the point that when the word "racist" is used by someone on the
> > left, people just roll their eyes.
>
> > Let me try to specify how a person who will not vote for Obama because
> > he is black may not be a "racist". Ther are a lot of elderly people
> > who grew up in a different time. I am thinking of one particular
> > relative of mine. She is in her mid-70s, has worked her entire life
> > (and still does) and is very active. She is also a life-long (dare I
> > say Blue-dog) Democrat. She thinks Ted Kennedy is the next best thing
> > to Elvis. She is a huge Hillary supporter and she will not vote for
> > Obama, most likey because he is black (though she would never admit to
> > this). She does not want a black president and will not vote for
> > one.
> > Does this make her a racist? No.
>
> Yes it does. She's a racist, and so, obviously, are you.
>
Well, if I am a racist, at least I am in good "left-wing" company;
Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro......why the list
might be ENDLESS!!
> Which makes you both, incidentally, traitors to the United States of
> America. Get the Hell out of my country!
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of
> incompetence and criminality.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Steve Newport
From: vi...@vbphoto.net (Vince)
My feeling about Bill Clinton.
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com (Mikey)
As conditions worsen-- and Hillary supporters take a closer look at
McCain (aka McBush and McSame) and his pro-war, anti entitlements
more money than McCain. And by running against the Bush years, he's got
possibly a House.>>>
to nominate centrists for president.
Reagan, Dole, and the Bushes are only "centrists" to the Looney Right.
Plus-- Rush, Ann, and company aren't all that thrilled with McCain.
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com
-----------------------------------
Yep, and that helped Hillary lose. In the early primaries Obama wasn't
getting 92 per cent of the black vote. And Ferraro admitted the only
reason she was a VP candidate was because she's a woman.
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com (Mikey)
Only as long as you're here.
Vince
Oh do they, where the hell have you been?
Reagan was a right wing nutcase and so is GWB.
--
Vince
Looks like he did give in on certain things i.e.
Names a Liberal (Jane Alexader sp)to the council of the arts and then
doesn't undo any of the damage that Reagan and Bush SR did. Tells Jane
don't make any waves.
Stephen Farrow
My feelings about most of what passes for the left wing in the USA.
--
Stephen
Oh, he's perfectly fine with having his personal freedoms slowly
stripped away, as long as he's completely unaware that it's
happening. Just like a true American.
stephen...@gmail.com
> Ignorance still runs rampant on this NG.
Indeed. You, apparently, were ignorant of the dictionary definition of
the word "racist". Which is kind of shocking, given that you claim to
be a teacher.
--
Stephen
Steve Newport
now gets mixed reviews even from many on the Right) as his Great
Achievements. Does that sound like a Democrat? This just in, and getting
back to the original post: Obama now has the superdelegate lead as well.
Steve Newport
endorsements for the first time, according to The Associated Press
calculations.
Obama picked up four superdelegate endorsements, including two from the
Virgin Islands who had previously endorsed Clinton. The additions erased
Clinton's once-imposing lead among the party and elected officials who
will automatically attend the party's national convention this summer.
NBC still gives Clinton a slight edge in superdelegates. NBC's estimated
superdelegate count stands at 276.5 for Clinton and 274 for Obama. NBC's
national delegate count currently stands at 1,426 for Clinton and 1,590
for Obama.
Superdelegates decide the nomination for president, and Clinton would
need their support by a wide margin to win. Obama has a lead among
delegates won in primaries and caucuses...
Mikey
"Steve Newport" <Newpor...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8109-482...@storefull-3158.bay.webtv.net...
Uhh, that is EXACTLY my point!
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com (Mikey)
<<<SN: Reagan, Dole, and the Bushes are only "centrists" to the Looney
Right. Plus-- Rush, Ann, and company aren't all that thrilled with
McCain.>>>
Uhh, that is EXACTLY my point!
SN: They weren't as troubled with previous "centrists."
Steve Newport
From: stephen...@gmail.com (Stephen Farrow) <<<"you never hear
he's too conservative">>>
------------------------------------------
You're not alone.
Mikey
> No.
Wrong.
From Webster's online:
racist
One entry found.
racism
\'ra-?si-z?m also -?shi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist Listen to the pronunciation of racist \-sist also -shist\
noun or adjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> Would she ever wish harm to a President Obama? Absolutley not! (Which
> makes her miles above many of the left-wingers on this NG who would
> love to see harm come to a President they don't like)
> Would she ever wish harm to a black person? Again, no way.
> However, she does have a belief (possibly supported by some of the
> things she sees in the media) that white people are better than black
> people. Again, that makes her prejudice against blacks.
> It DOES NOT make her a racist.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> A racist is someone who brings things to a whole 'nother level. To be
> a racist (IMO) there has to be an element of hate and a desire to
> cause harm to those who belong to a race they believe to be inferior.
Not so.
> There are a lot of people out there who may not vote for Obama because
> of his middle name or because he is black. This makes them prejudice
> not racist.
> I make a distinction between the two.
Yes you do, because you're basically racist according to any
definition of the word, however much you try to deny it.
--
Stephen
According to that definition 99.99% of the people on this planet are
"racists"!!
stephen...@gmail.com
> <stephen.far...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> From Webster's online:
>
> racist
> One entry found.
>
> racism
>
> Main Entry:
> rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
> Pronunciation:
> \'ra-?si-z?m also -?shi-\
> Function:
> noun
> Date:
> 1933
>
> 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
> capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority
> of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
> - rac·ist Listen to the pronunciation of racist \-sist also -shist\
> noun or adjective
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
> According to that definition 99.99% of the people on this planet are
> "racists"!!
Apparently you aren't willing to consider the possibility that most
people are more evolved than you are.
--
Stephen
Eagle
> Apparently you aren't willing to consider the possibility that most
> people are more evolved than you are.
Wherein Mr. Farrow shows how much more evolved *he* is by utilizing an
ad hominem as a way to refute his opposition.
Steve Newport
From: vi...@vbphoto.net (Vince)
"Reagan/McCain Democrats" should have their heads handed to them on a
plate.
Vince
Yes and I'm sure the right is saying the same about Cliton/Obama
Repubs
stephen...@gmail.com
You reap what you sow. Someone who spews the kind of racist, bigoted
garbage we've seen from Mikey in this thread *absolutely* deserves
ridicule. And I, for one, certainly hope that most people are
sufficiently evolved that they don't see a candidate's skin colour -
any candidate, any skin colour - as a justifiable reason for not
granting their vote. I'm not going to sugar-coat it - the position
Mikey has taken in this thread *absolutely* disgusts me. There is no
defence for it. There is no rational response to it. It is inhuman and
inhumane, and it degrades us as a species. And no, I am not employing
hyperbole here.
--
Stephen
Mikey
<stephen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66cf8179-5628-48f6...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
LOL!!!
laddy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh right! I forgot to mention everyone but YOU is racist!
The thing that makes a racist so despicable is the utter irrationality
of their hatred. They love to hate, they look for reasons to hate, and
once they have chosen to hate they will not be talked out of it.
So, what makes YOU any better than the average racist??
To many people your utter and irrational hatred of anyone who holds a
different belief than YOUR all-knowing, all encompassing view of the
world, is just as bad as as the hatred of the racist.
How many people do YOU hate and for what reason? I can tell you this,
you may call me a racist until you are blue in the face, but the
number of people that YOU hate far outnumbers the relatively few
people that I hate.
And the people that I hate (Bin Laden and his followers, Joseph Duncan
and his ilk) are hated by most people. Your "I hate" list would cause
95% of the folks to look at YOU as irrational and absurd and possibly
even evil.
You are utterly overflowing with HATE. That puts you on equal footing
with the racist!
John W Kennedy
> You reap what you sow. Someone who spews the kind of racist, bigoted
> garbage we've seen from Mikey in this thread *absolutely* deserves
> ridicule. And I, for one, certainly hope that most people are
> sufficiently evolved that they don't see a candidate's skin colour -
> any candidate, any skin colour - as a justifiable reason for not
> granting their vote.
Well, that's true in a general election. In a /primary/ election, one
might well be justified in thinking that nominating a candidate of a
certain skin color could make the difference between victory and defeat
in the general election. It is one thing to think that Mr. Obama would
make a better President than Mrs. Clinton; it is another to think that
he would make a better candidate.
--
John W. Kennedy
A proud member of the reality-based community.
Steve Newport
From: vi...@vbphoto.net (Vince)
plate.>>>
Yes and I'm sure the right is saying the same about Clinton/Obama Repubs
---------------------------------
How many of Clinton's votes were from Limbaugh puppets?
Stephen Farrow
Primary, schimary. All that argument does is enable other people's
racism. It does not wash. The colour of a candidate's skin is never an
adequate reason for not granting them your vote.
--
Stephen
Rose: If you're an alien, why do you sound like you're from the north?
The Doctor: Lots of planets have a north.
stephen...@gmail.com
> How many people do YOU hate and for what reason?
I don't hate anybody. Apart, possibly, from Tommy Steele.
--
Stephen
Eagle
> The colour of a candidate's skin is never an
> adequate reason for not granting them your vote.
True, but as the setup is becoming increasingly clear with more and
more winks and nods and innuendo and subtext, if one does not vote for
Obama, for whatever non-racial reason, the Obama-favoring pundits will
nevertheless point to the non-votes as a sign of continuing racism in
the United States anyway, regardless of the actual reasons individuals
have for not voting for him.
But ageism in the form of infantile age jokes, etc., directed against
John McCain is apparently completely acceptable in public discourse,
despite ant-discrimination laws in place to protect older Americans
from such prejudice and stereotyping.
John W Kennedy
> John W Kennedy wrote:
>> stephen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> You reap what you sow. Someone who spews the kind of racist, bigoted
>>> garbage we've seen from Mikey in this thread *absolutely* deserves
>>> ridicule. And I, for one, certainly hope that most people are
>>> sufficiently evolved that they don't see a candidate's skin colour -
>>> any candidate, any skin colour - as a justifiable reason for not
>>> granting their vote.
>>
>> Well, that's true in a general election. In a /primary/ election, one
>> might well be justified in thinking that nominating a candidate of a
>> certain skin color could make the difference between victory and
>> defeat in the general election. It is one thing to think that Mr.
>> Obama would make a better President than Mrs. Clinton; it is another
>> to think that he would make a better candidate.
>>
>
> Primary, schimary. All that argument does is enable other people's
> racism. It does not wash. The colour of a candidate's skin is never an
> adequate reason for not granting them your vote.
Even if it condemns humanity to suffer another four years of Bushery?
Wasn't Ralph Nader enough of an object lesson?
--
John W. Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com
irrational and absurd and possibly even evil. You are utterly
overflowing with HATE.
Oh, mikey-- as John Cullum (and I) sang in an anti-war musical, we've
"heard it all before." Few (anyone here?) are buying the "Angry Left/
haters" bullshit anymore. Give it a rest.
Harlett O'Dowd
> But ageism in the form of infantile age jokes, etc., directed against
> John McCain is apparently completely acceptable in public discourse,
> despite ant-discrimination laws in place to protect older Americans
> from such prejudice and stereotyping.
Bubbles,
McCain and, presumably, you better pray the media continues to merely
josh McCain about his age and that they don't start giving McCain's
own reverends -
Hagee:
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393
or
Parsley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFr59VC50tY
the same sort of attention as the media covered Obama's (ex?)Reverend
Wright. Or compare Wright's "God Damn America" with the Value Voters
Debate opening number:
http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X77R_prkCkg
and we won't even get into the fact that Huckabee is STILL polling at
more than 10% in primaries MONTHS aftrer McCain won the nomination
(and Paul is consistently close to 10%.)
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/dates/index.html#20080506.
Obama has a lot of work to do to unite his party - but McCain has an
even bigger challenge.
Pray that the press continues to jibe McCain about his age and buys
him jelly donuts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/14/AR2008041402633_pf.html
Vince
I love the way the church(s) are always talking about marriage like they
invented it. Point in fact it started as a tribal ritual two people
telling the rest of the tribe they would be living together etc.
Which is all marriage is in the first place.
Harlett O'Dowd
> I love the way the church(s) are always talking about marriage like they
> invented it. Point in fact it started as a tribal ritual two people
> telling the rest of the tribe they would be living together etc.
> Which is all marriage is in the first place.
A freind of mine (a Catholic priest),when he thinks no one in the Home
Office is listening, like to point out that Marriage really *isn't*/
*shouldn't* be a Sacrament, because it is, by definition not forever.
You can never be UN-baptised or UN-confirmed or lose the grace you
receive when you receive Communion, Pennance or The Annointing of the
Sick. And once a priest, always a priest, even if you leave the
priesthood and marry - but marriage ends, even by natural means
(death.) The church doesn't consider you an ex-husband if you are
widowed, you simply are no longer married.
And what happens if you widow and remarry and you and both your
spouces all get to heaven together one day if the sacramental bond of
matrimony remains like the bonds of the other sacraments?
The (Capital C) Church deftly mingled a plethora of pagan customs as
they converted their way across europe but marriage is one of those
where the seams show a bit more than they should.
Vince
I rest my case.
Jeanne Douglas
<d6c93381-8f68-4ef8...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Eagle <eaglene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When the candidate's own supporters refer to "senior moments" when
McCain makes idiotic statements (like, for instance, confusing Shia and
Sunni in thinking Al Qaeda Shia), then his age is a legitimate subject.
It's not discrimination when the "condition" makes doing the job
impossible.
--
JD
"...if you think the 'Star Wars' prequels are a disease, then
'Serenity' is the cure."
Eagle
> When the candidate's own supporters refer to "senior moments" when
> McCain makes idiotic statements
Do you have a link about his own supporters? Which supporters?
> (like, for instance, confusing Shia and
> Sunni in thinking Al Qaeda Shia),
Well, Obama was just caught talking about the "57 states," so he has
senior moments too.
> then his age is a legitimate subject.
A legitimate subject to be questioned about, yes. I agree with that.
But as a reason to make fun of him, no. He can't change his age, like
Obama can't change his race or Clinton her sex, and consequently I
don't think it's in good taste to make fun of a trait one has no
control over. However, I think it would be appropriate to ask Obama
questions regarding his race pertaining to his possible presidency
(e.g., would an Obama presidency undercut the justification for
affirmative action?), and Hillary likewise questioned about her sex.
Steve Newport
From: al...@cableone.net (Alric Knebel)
Clinton's camp were puzzled by the disappointing results. They even
mentioned the inability to poll young people because of all of those
cell phones. My favorite early on was Edwards. But I knew that was a
pipe dream, because he sounded so much like an FDR-style Democrat. Or a
60s Democrat (however you want to look at it). He was a progressive
Democrat who wanted to get back to the basics of party principles. I was
glad he was there, because he served to remind people of the progressive
Democratic platform. And I got the idea that he was sincere. He was a
politician who brought the right words into the political arena. There's
a guy who writes political articles for THE ROLLING STONE, Matt Taibbi.
He's primarily an Obama supporter, but he runs them both through the
wringer. About six weeks ago, he said something spot-on about Clinton.
He said that when Bill and Hillary Clinton arrived in Washington, they
came attired as NEW Democrats. They believe that the only way to win
elections was to sheer off the more progressive planks from the party
platform. They proved their point by winning, and went on to act not too
unlike Republicans. To get to Washington, the Clintons utilized deadly
political acumen. When it was over, Gore tried to step up. But he lost,
and Bush handed the country to the rich and the religious. Then Kerry
lost, and it was all more of the same. Now the people who'd previously
been untouched by the Washingtonians living so far away are feeling the
pinch, and now progressive ideas are starting to sound pretty good.
Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is living in the past, thinking that the
same old platform Bill used can work again, which is some form of
Republican-Lite. She and Bill had come to take everything for granted,
and her political instincts had become dulled. She became the corporate
candidate, declared as such on the cover of FORBES. Right out in the
open. And she paid for it at the polls. I hope she's learned something,
and maybe she's been liberalized a bit. I don't think Obama can really
do anything about this stuff, because even the majority of Democratic
senators and representatives themselves have become too fearful of being
labeled a LIBERAL. I'm hoping that if Obama wins, he'll signal that a
leader more left-leaning CAN win elections, and it's alright now to come
out from behind the bushes and trees.
--------------------------------------
From your mouth...
Stephen Farrow
> Stephen Farrow wrote:
>> John W Kennedy wrote:
>>> stephen...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> You reap what you sow. Someone who spews the kind of racist, bigoted
>>>> garbage we've seen from Mikey in this thread *absolutely* deserves
>>>> ridicule. And I, for one, certainly hope that most people are
>>>> sufficiently evolved that they don't see a candidate's skin colour -
>>>> any candidate, any skin colour - as a justifiable reason for not
>>>> granting their vote.
>>>
>>> Well, that's true in a general election. In a /primary/ election, one
>>> might well be justified in thinking that nominating a candidate of a
>>> certain skin color could make the difference between victory and
>>> defeat in the general election. It is one thing to think that Mr.
>>> Obama would make a better President than Mrs. Clinton; it is another
>>> to think that he would make a better candidate.
>>>
>>
>> Primary, schimary. All that argument does is enable other people's
>> racism. It does not wash. The colour of a candidate's skin is never an
>> adequate reason for not granting them your vote.
>
> Even if it condemns humanity to suffer another four years of Bushery?
> Wasn't Ralph Nader enough of an object lesson?
>
So it's appropriate to withhold your vote from Obama in the Primaries
because he's black on the grounds that a black man has less of a chance
of defeating an opposing candidate you don't like?
No. And I expected better of you.
--
Stephen
"Are you sitting comfortably? Good. Then we'll begin."
Stephen Farrow
> And what happens if you widow and remarry and you and both your
> spouces all get to heaven together one day if the sacramental bond of
> matrimony remains like the bonds of the other sacraments?
Legal threesomes, blessed by the Church.
--
Stephen
Why must you make the tech support people cry?
stephen...@gmail.com
> On May 12, 3:42 am, Stephen Farrow <stephen.far...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The colour of a candidate's skin is never an
> > adequate reason for not granting them your vote.
>
> True, but as the setup is becoming increasingly clear with more and
> more winks and nods and innuendo and subtext, if one does not vote for
> Obama, for whatever non-racial reason, the Obama-favoring pundits will
> nevertheless point to the non-votes as a sign of continuing racism in
> the United States anyway, regardless of the actual reasons individuals
> have for not voting for him.
From my perspective, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Obama
- just not his skin colour (or his middle name). Just as there are
plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton - just not her
gender (personally, of the two, I'd have to vote for Obama, I think,
though I wouldn't be happy with the choice). My specific issue in this
thread is the claim that someone who will not vote for Obama *because
of his skin colour*, because she does not want a black President, is
somehow not racist. That's absurd.
--
Stephen
Jeanne Douglas
<8b522b5f-3764-4132...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Eagle <eaglene...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
> > When the candidate's own supporters refer to "senior moments" when
> > McCain makes idiotic statements
>
> Do you have a link about his own supporters? Which supporters?
Joe Lieberman, for one.
> > (like, for instance, confusing Shia and
> > Sunni in thinking Al Qaeda Shia),
>
> Well, Obama was just caught talking about the "57 states," so he has
> senior moments too.
>
> > then his age is a legitimate subject.
>
> A legitimate subject to be questioned about, yes. I agree with that.
> But as a reason to make fun of him, no. He can't change his age, like
> Obama can't change his race or Clinton her sex, and consequently I
> don't think it's in good taste to make fun of a trait one has no
> control over.
People makes jokes. Good taste and intelligence not involved.
> However, I think it would be appropriate to ask Obama
> questions regarding his race pertaining to his possible presidency
> (e.g., would an Obama presidency undercut the justification for
> affirmative action?), and Hillary likewise questioned about her sex.
I agree.
Steve Newport
supporters are racists."
Eagle
wrote:
> McCain and, presumably, you better pray the media continues to merely
> josh McCain about his age and that they don't start giving McCain's
> own reverends -
Stop presuming so much. I pray that the media *does* bring up
McCain's reverends, because it should be brought up if the media is
going to make such a fuss about Wright. And though with much
reservation I am leaning toward McCain at this point, I'm not ruling
Obama out either, much as I have reservations about him too. If
McCain should pick Huckabee as his VP running mate, that would
probably push me to vote for Obama.
Steve Newport
From: eaglene...@yahoo.com (Eagle) If McCain should pick Huckabee as
his VP running mate, that would probably push me to vote for Obama.
You'd prefer he pick that total fraud Romney? That hack Lieberman?
Whichever woman they can come up with who might get Hillary's pissed-off
supporters? I would have had a VERY hard time voting for Hillary, but I
can easily go with Obama. (Even though I would have preferred Edwards,
Dodd, and Richardson.)
laddy
I guess I am just a little more "tolerant" of people who have
different views from me, and I don't associate the evil that goes hand
in hand with racism to all people who are prejudice. I don't do this
for one very good reason; most people are prejudice in one way or
another and there are many different forms of prejudice. As I have
stated before, I associate a certain level of evil to the word
"racism" and to the people who practice it and who are therefore
"racist".
As an example, I don't put my elderly relative who won't vote for a
black man for president (as well as many other elderly Americans who
won't vote for him for that same reason) with these people:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HW5cyyTGk8Q&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=s1EGIPyPjJk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTdORMIyew&feature=related
You want to put my elderly relative in the same box with these evil
people. I am pointing out that the examples above are what REAL
racists look like, and your too caught up in your "racism" fervor to
tell the difference!
You and your liberal ilk throw out the word racist so flippantly that
you have diminished it to a word that has little to no power. Because
Bill Clinton refers to one of Obama's policy positions as a "fantasy"
he is called a racist. Hillary Clinton states that she is doing better
among white voters so that makes her a racist. Because Geraldine
Ferraro states that Obama would not be the doing so well in the
primaries were he not black, she is deemed a racist. Heck anyone who
refers to a person's race is deemed a racist by the liberal left.
Well look to the people in those videos and elsewhere for a view of
real evil and racism. And don't go throwing the average Joe and
Josephine under the same column. We all have prejudices, including
you, but that doesn't make us all evil. Hate is what makes people
evil.
Steve Newport
From: zigf...@hotmail.com
"fantasy" he is called a racist. Hillary Clinton states that she is
doing better among white voters so that makes her a racist. Because
Geraldine Ferraro states that Obama would not be the doing so well in
the primaries were he not black, she is deemed a racist.
Yep, and there are a heckuva lot of racists in the rust belt.
stephen...@gmail.com
I'm sorry, was any of that supposed to make some kind of sense?
--
Stephen
Steve Newport
From: stephen...@gmail.com
<<<mikey: And don't go throwing the average Joe and Josephine under the
same column. We all have prejudices, including you, but that doesn't
make us all evil. Hate is what makes people evil.>>>
Love means never having to say you're sorry?
John W Kennedy
> When the candidate's own supporters refer to "senior moments" when
> McCain makes idiotic statements (like, for instance, confusing Shia and
> Sunni in thinking Al Qaeda Shia), then his age is a legitimate subject.
But why not bring up stupidity instead of age? The monkey has
demonstrated clearly enough that you don't have to be old to be stupid.
--
John W. Kennedy
Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of
incompetence and criminality.
John W Kennedy
Yes, because that's what a primary /is/ -- choosing a candidate. And the
present numbers tend to indicate that Mr. Obama, if he becomes the
Democratic candidate, has a fair chance of losing to McCain, whereas
Mrs. Clinton, if she becomes the candidate, is almost certain to win.
If Mr. Obama becomes the candidate, I will certainly support him and
vote for him in the general election. I will even grant that he might
well make a better president than Mrs. Clinton (though I can't help
remembering how easily, in my lifetime, the Washington establishment has
eaten up young, progressive presidents).
The Democratic presidential candidacy is not a champion's prize, like an
Olympic gold medal, or the Ashes. We cannot afford to look upon a
victory by those who oppose everything that America -- or Western
civilization -- is supposed to stand for, while congratulating
ourselves, saying, "Ah, yes, but just see how /liberally/ we went about
the process of losing."
--
John W. Kennedy
"...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you
should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman."
-- Rupert Goodwins
John W Kennedy
> I love the way the church(s) are always talking about marriage like they
> invented it. Point in fact it started as a tribal ritual two people
> telling the rest of the tribe they would be living together etc.
> Which is all marriage is in the first place.
That's pretty much what it is in small-o orthodox Xtianity, in fact, at
least in the West, though the marriage of two /Christians/ is seen as
having a further dimension.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything...."
-- Emile Cammaerts, "The Laughing Prophet"
John W Kennedy
> On May 12, 2:50 pm, Vince <vi...@vbphoto.net> wrote:
>
>> I love the way the church(s) are always talking about marriage like they
>> invented it. Point in fact it started as a tribal ritual two people
>> telling the rest of the tribe they would be living together etc.
>> Which is all marriage is in the first place.
>
> A freind of mine (a Catholic priest),when he thinks no one in the Home
> Office is listening, like to point out that Marriage really *isn't*/
> *shouldn't* be a Sacrament, because it is, by definition not forever.
> You can never be UN-baptised or UN-confirmed or lose the grace you
> receive when you receive Communion, Pennance or The Annointing of the
> Sick. And once a priest, always a priest, even if you leave the
> priesthood and marry - but marriage ends, even by natural means
> (death.) The church doesn't consider you an ex-husband if you are
> widowed, you simply are no longer married.
There is a difference between a worldly state and the grace conferred by
a sacrament establishing that state. I have never heard that ordination,
/qua/ ordination, has any meaning in Heaven; there is no temple in the
new Jerusalem.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Stephen Farrow
And race or skin colour, in a multicultural society - in *any* society -
is not a valid basis on which to make that choice.
How do you think progress happens? If, all things being equal, you would
vote for Obama (or any other candidate whose ethnicity differs from your
own or from that of the establishment), and you cast your vote elsewhere
because you fear that a sufficient number of people would vote along
racial lines that he would lose the Presidential race, then you are, in
my view, just as bad as someone who would withhold their vote from Obama
on the basis of the colour of his skin.
Progress happens when people move beyond that way of thinking. In 2008,
there is no excuse for there being anything but a level playing field.
Race, gender, sexual orientation should all be irrelevant - and the only
way to MAKE a level playing field, ultimately, is the grass-roots way.
You set an example with your own vote, and hope others will follow. Vote
for a candidate's policies, record, skill, or according to your
conscience - not along racial lines, don't change your vote because you
suspect the electorate as a whole is racist, and don't cynically vote in
a Primary for a white candidate because you suspect a black candidate
may lose. That's pusillanimous and cowardly. And, as I said earlier, I
expected better of you.
--
Stephen
Managing Without Opera. It's the third week of the experiment. How are
Hannah and Gavin coping? Why is their sitting-room pale green? Why can't
they laugh without showing their gums? What's on the other side?
laddy
> Mikey wrote:
> > "Vince" <vi...@vbphoto.net> wrote in message
> >news:482542ee$0$15185$607e...@cv.net...
>
> >>Steve Newport wrote:
>
> >>>There are more than two million new Democrats-- mainly due to Obama. As
> >>>conditions worsen-- and Hillary supporters take a closer look at McCain
> >>>(aka McBush and McSame) and his pro-war, anti entitlements policies--
> >>>they'll mostly come 'round. I'm always a pessimist about Democrats
> >>>beating the Republican machine in
> >>>the Presidential race-- but it seems as if Obama wil be able to raise
> >>>much more money than McCain. And by running against the Bush years, he's
> >>>got a shot. The usual "he's too liberal" nonsense may be neutralized this
> >>>time. If
> >>>not, it still looks as if there will still be a Democratic Senate, and
> >>>possibly a House. A President McCain will be gridlocked and out as fast
> >>>as one can say Jimmy Carter.
>
> >>That always pisses me off "hes too liberal", but you never hear he's too
> >>conservative"
>
> >>--
>
> > That is because Republicans, despite claims from the looney left to the
> > contrary, tend to nominate centrists for president. McCain would certainly
> > qualify as someone from the middle if you look at his views on immigration,
> > drilling for oil, taxes etc.
>
> >>LESS THAN 260 days left...........
> >>-------------------------------------------------
>
> Reagan was a right wing nutcase and so is GWB.
>
> --
>
> LESS THAN 260 days left...........
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many consider Reagan to be one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th
century. And many look back in longing for the days of Ronald Reagan.
laddy
> stephen.far...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You reap what you sow. Someone who spews the kind of racist, bigoted
> > garbage we've seen from Mikey in this thread *absolutely* deserves
> > ridicule. And I, for one, certainly hope that most people are
> > sufficiently evolved that they don't see a candidate's skin colour -
> > any candidate, any skin colour - as a justifiable reason for not
> > granting their vote.
>
> Well, that's true in a general election. In a /primary/ election, one
> might well be justified in thinking that nominating a candidate of a
> certain skin color could make the difference between victory and defeat
> in the general election. It is one thing to think that Mr. Obama would
> make a better President than Mrs. Clinton; it is another to think that
> he would make a better candidate.
>
> John W. Kennedy
> A proud member of the reality-based community.
The Democrats have a choice to make regarding the '08 election; do
the right thing (nominate Obama as he has the most votes and
delegates) or do the "win" thing (nominate Clinton because Obama has
little to no chance to win in the general, whereas Clinton at least
has a chance). Looks like the Democrats are putting their eggs in the
basket called the "Looney Left". In a year when they should win the
Presidency with ease, they are possibly nominating another loser.
laddy
> Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > When the candidate's own supporters refer to "senior moments" when
> > McCain makes idiotic statements (like, for instance, confusing Shia and
> > Sunni in thinking Al Qaeda Shia), then his age is a legitimate subject.
>
> But why not bring up stupidity instead of age? The monkey has
> demonstrated clearly enough that you don't have to be old to be stupid.
>
Whoa! Referring to Barack Obama as a "monkey"? Not good.
But I believe you a leftwinger so I doubt your comment will be
attacked on this NG.
Stephen Farrow
Do you know the phrase "pyrrhic victory"? Vote - even in the Primaries -
along the tactical lines you suggest, and that's exactly what you'd end
up with, even if the Democrat candidate made it all the way to the White
House. Some principles are more important. If you begin to argue that
there's *any* justification *at all*, even a cynical one, for
considering race as a factor when deciding how to cast your vote, then
you've lost the war even if you win the battle.
--
Stephen
We walk with the darkness, the wolf at our side. Through the waterfall
of power, to the blackest heart of eternity. I think we should have a
bake sale.
Steve Newport
From: jwk...@attglobal.net (John W Kennedy) Mr. Obama, if he
becomes the Democratic candidate, has a fair chance of losing to McCain,
whereas Mrs. Clinton, if she becomes the candidate, is almost certain to
win.
SN: Oh, I don't know about that certainty. It's funny-- just weeks ago
Clinton was the candidate the Right wanted to run against, and suddenly
it's Obama?
----------------------------------------------
We cannot afford to look upon a victory by those who oppose everything
that America -- or Western civilization -- is supposed to stand for,
while congratulating ourselves, saying, "Ah, yes, but just see how
/liberally/ we went about the process of losing."
SN: What other choice is there? And even if McCain wins, he's very
likely to have a Senate that's more Democratic than it is now and we'll
have some protective gridlock.
Steve Newport
can be argued that, in future, the Democrats might want to have a
"winner take all primary" since the Repubicans do, it's going to be hard
to argue in the end that Obama didn't win it under current rules.
And yes, it's really sad to see the continuing connection between
poverty and racism in places like West Virginia and Western
Pennslyvania. It's also sad that these rust belt "swing voters" can
continue to send the country in "the wrong direction." (According to
nearly 80 per cent of Americans.)
Vince
> Vince wrote:
>
>> I love the way the church(s) are always talking about marriage like
>> they invented it. Point in fact it started as a tribal ritual two
>> people telling the rest of the tribe they would be living together etc.
>> Which is all marriage is in the first place.
>
>
> That's pretty much what it is in small-o orthodox Xtianity, in fact, at
> least in the West, though the marriage of two /Christians/ is seen as
> having a further dimension.
>
>
Anyway as a wedding pro I've shot a number of Catholic church jobs and
one of the lines that always comes up is that nonsense about the couple
accepting what ever children are concerned.
Vince
Many say and think otherwise
Steve Newport
From: vi...@vbphoto.net (Vince)
<<<mikey: Many consider Reagan to be one of the greatest Presidents of
the 20th century. And many look back in longing for the days of Ronald
Reagan.>>>
Many say and think otherwise.
---------------------------------------
He was the beginning of the end of America as we knew it. (Those
"Reagan Democrats" have a lot to answer for.) There hasn't been a
non-corporate President since.
Christopher Jahn
news:9db90bc4-8a13-4165...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroup
s.com:
> As an example, I don't put my elderly relative who won't vote
> for a black man for president (as well as many other elderly
> Americans who won't vote for him for that same reason) with
> these people:
We're not putting him into that box, HE's putting himself there.
If he makes decisions about people based on their race, he's
racist, end of discussion.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
The best teddy bears are the live kind.
Chip Wood
>> Many consider Reagan to be one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th
>> century. And many look back in longing for the days of Ronald Reagan.
>
>
> Many say and think otherwise
>
Yep, he sure looks great COMPARED to Bush, but so would Spiro Agnew.
The thing Reagan did was sleep through meetings, so he wasn't actively
fouling up. The man had Alzheimer's during most of his admin for god's
sake. He sure did look and sound purty reading his tele-prompter tho.
Chip
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Eagle
> And yes, it's really sad to see the continuing connection between
> poverty and racism in places like West Virginia and Western
> Pennslyvania. It's also sad that these rust belt "swing voters" can
> continue to send the country in "the wrong direction." (According to
> nearly 80 per cent of Americans.)
Wrong direction? Interestingly, according to this site (http://
www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2236) West Virginia went for
Carter twice, Dukakis, and Clinton twice. It currently has a
Democratic governor, a Democratic state Auditor, Treasurer, Ag
Commissioner, and Attorney General, and has kept sending Democrat
Robert ("KKK") Byrd to the Senate, along with Democrat Jay
Rockefeller. Funny, I would have thought you'd consider them always
voting *Republican* as sending the country in "the wrong direction."
Harlett O'Dowd
> Wrong direction? Interestingly, according to this site (http://www.wvablue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2236) West Virginia went for
> Carter twice, Dukakis, and Clinton twice. It currently has a
> Democratic governor, a Democratic state Auditor, Treasurer, Ag
> Commissioner, and Attorney General, and has kept sending Democrat
> Robert ("KKK") Byrd to the Senate, along with Democrat Jay
> Rockefeller. Funny, I would have thought you'd consider them always
> voting *Republican* as sending the country in "the wrong direction."
there's a difference between "wrong direction" and "straight to hell."
BTW, what do you think of Bob Barr's big for the Libertarian
nomination? Are you tempted? Would you prefer someone else in that
slot?
Eagle
wrote:
> BTW, what do you think of Bob Barr's big for the Libertarian
> nomination? Are you tempted? Would you prefer someone else in that
> slot?
I know he just declared himself, but don't know enough about him to
form an opinion, other than that he's got just about zero chance of
winning the election -- though "just about" is probably too generous
about his chances.
Anyway, if one really wants change in this country (and I do, though
not in the direction of more statism as Mr. Obama seems to want, or
even McCain, to a lesser degree), it has to start culturally, and no
Libertarian is ever going to be elected unless and until the country
as a whole has a better understanding and appreciation for free minds
and free markets. There's still too much misinformation out there,
still too many people who mistakenly believe that the problem with the
United States is that there's just too much capitalism in the country,
when often if not most of the time, the problems actually arise from
government action putting the blame on the free market in order to
justify further government action (e.g., the alleged mess of a "free
market" healthcare system, except that one is *legally prohibited by
the government* from buying health insurance across state lines, not
to mention all the other ways we most definitely do *not* have a free
market healthcare system in the U.S.). Politics follows culture, not
the other way around.
Steve Newport
From: chip...@ieee.org (Chip Wood)
Yep, Reagan sure looks great COMPARED to Bush, but so would Spiro Agnew.
The thing Reagan did was sleep through meetings, so he wasn't actively
fouling up. The man had Alzheimer's during most of his admin for god's
sake. He sure did look and sound purty reading his tele-prompter tho.
Bush has been a lousy spokesmodel.