Re: McCain leads Obama in two battlegrounds: polls
Bret Cahill
pollsters and how they vote is up to 10 points larger.
The fact that the jingoistic corp. media keep "merely omitting" this
fact is proof enough they want the U.S. in Iraq for another 4 years.
This also makes it obvious that Limbaugh supporters were voting for
Obama in open primaries. Rightards are dumb but they know that
Clinton is the real enemy of rightardism.
Bret Cahill
> WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican John McCain leads Barack Obama in two
> presidential swing states, as some of Hillary Clinton's core supporters shun
> the Democratic front-runner, polls showed Thursday.
>
> The Quinnipiac University surveys had McCain up 45 to 41 percent on the
> Illinois senator in Florida, the epicenter of the 2000 recount drama, which
> also helped President George W. Bush back to the White House in 2004.
>
> In Ohio, another vital battleground that narrowly went for Bush last time
> around, McCain leads Obama 44 percent to 40 percent.
>
> Obama however leads McCain in Pennsylvania, by 46 to 40 percent. The state
> is a must-win for Democrats eyeing the White House.
>
> The poll also appeared to bolster Clinton's arguments that she and not Obama
> is the best bet for Democrats to take on McCain in states likely to shape
> the outcome in November's general election.
>
> She led Arizona Senator McCain in all three states, in which she also won in
> primary votes against Obama. The former first lady led 48 to 41 percent in
> both Florida and Ohio and by 50-37 percent in Pennsylvania.
>
> The poll showed that between 26 and 36 percent of Clinton supporters in
> primaries in the three states would switch to McCain if Obama, vying to
> become the first black US president, becomes the Democratic nominee.
>
> Only 10 to 18 percent of Obama supporters would shun Clinton for McCain, the
> data suggested.
>
> Such polls are however only a snapshot of the race more than five months
> before Americans vote for their next president, and before the general
> election battle, most likely between McCain and Obama, has properly begun.
>
> --
> � "Impeachment is off the table" Nancy Pelosi
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
> fact is proof enough they want the U.S. in Iraq for another 4 years.
troops(see link below). [Just another one of his BS lies]
>
> This also makes it obvious that Limbaugh supporters were voting for
> Obama in open primaries.
give Obama a shot....That was until they found out what he really was
about(Wright, Rezco, University of Chicago Hospitals, Exelon
Corporation, Maytag, etc).
You're right about one thing...if Hillary doesn't get the nod then
McCain is going to be the President.
-----------
BooHooHooObama is a fucking liar:
http://www.slickbarry.com/
That aims to be the next Rumsfeld:
http://tinyurl.com/5v9sgf
If people don't find out how corrupt he is:
http://www.obamatruth.org/
Or listen to what he is saying:
http://tinyurl.com/4qxs6o
http://tinyurl.com/4lqq8b
tg
> And this is just a poll. The spread between what whites tell
> pollsters and how they vote is up to 10 points larger.
>
> The fact that the jingoistic corp. media keep "merely omitting" this
> fact is proof enough they want the U.S. in Iraq for another 4 years.
>
> This also makes it obvious that Limbaugh supporters were voting for
> Obama in open primaries. Rightards are dumb but they know that
> Clinton is the real enemy of rightardism.
>
Still bitter after all these years, eh Bret?
Face it---this is the old "John Kerry saved my live in 'Nam and then
he donated a kidney to save my kid's life and gave me the money to buy
a house........buuuuuuuuut.........since he wore that neoprene suit
windsurfing I just can't vote for him scam.
Those 'core Hillary supporters' are going to vote for McCain even if
he is running against Hillary; some of them even admit it. Also, what
these polls never ask is whether those 'core supporters' are women who
are going to vote for McCain and his SCOTUS appointments Let's see----
I was going to vote for Hillary because it would empower women, but
since Barack is so high-falutin' I'll vote for feminist John McCain.
Yeaaaahh, that's it.
What scares the Republicans is that Obama will set the voting pattern
for the next 20 years by turning out black and young voters. They will
lose state legislators, and that means losing the gerrymander effect.
-tg
Bret Cahill
> McCain is going to be the President.
That isn't 100% certain. I'm a staunch Clinton supporter and the
Clintons should _own_ the Democratic Party if Obama is nominated and
loses to McBush, but 3 things make even a weak Democrat like Obama a
possible contender:
1. The economy will only get worse. McBush's tax cuts for the rich
have been discredited.
2. McBush is even weaker than Obama. McCain won't be as competent at
bottom fishing the bigot vote as other Repugs. McCain can't even get
the GOP's rightard base vote.
3. GOP is probably going the way of the Conservatives in Canada or
the Tories in the UK. Complete ablation. In that case the Democratic
Party will need to split in half to preserve the 2 party system.
Another little discussed but plausible scenario:
McCain gets elected and Pelosi gets a veto proof majority in 2010.
Most of the troops will be home or redeployed by 2011.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > fact is proof enough they want the U.S. in Iraq for another 4 years.
> We were going to be anyways.
Unless we start looting the oil fields, we just won't be able to
afford it.
Telling Americans that there is no short term [10 - 20 year] solution
to spiraling energy costs is like Rhett Butler trying to tell the
Southern plantation owners that their cause was lost from the git go.
> Obama never was going to remove US
> troops(see link below).
Even if he's elected, Obama will be very weak.
Chalk another victory up for the corp. media.
. . .
> > This also makes it obvious that Limbaugh supporters were voting for
> > Obama in open primaries.
> No, it's clear that both Republicans and Democrats were willing to
> give Obama a shot....
At losing.
> That was until they found out what he really was
> about(Wright, Rezco, University of Chicago Hospitals, Exelon
> Corporation, Maytag, etc).
That's the larger population.
Actually, by letting the press hype that now helps Obama in the
general election.
Otherwise the media would sit on it until October.
This keeps the Democrat from cutting deals with working peole to get
elected.
Bret Cahill
*us*
>... I'm a staunch Clinton supporter ...
You like the Bush terrorism spree that much?
Bret Cahill
out ASAP?
There's a reason for this.
> Face it---this is the old "John Kerry saved my live in 'Nam and then
> he donated a kidney to save my kid's life and gave me the money to buy
> a house........buuuuuuuuut.........since he wore that neoprene suit
> windsurfing I just can't vote for him scam.
So you agree, Obama is another Kerry.
Another jingoistic media pump and dump who can easily be swiftboated
(after Hillary is gone) to keep the U. S. in Iraq another 4 years.
Bret Cahill
zinnic
> > You're right about one thing...if Hillary doesn't get the nod then
> > McCain is going to be the President.
>
> That isn't 100% certain. I'm a staunch Clinton supporter and the
> Clintons should _own_ the Democratic Party if Obama is nominated and
> loses to McBush,
resoundingly rejected by the democratic majority? Hillbillary Clinton
claims overwhelming support from populations that still need to
validate themselves by virtue of their being more related to albinos
than to our melanin-advantaged citizens. That is Racism.
Overwhelming support of Obama by blacks? That is Racism!
Overwhelming support of Clinton by older womem. That is Sexism.
This racism and sexism exhibited by 'Democrats' will be repugnant
for those for whom race and gender are irrelevent to politics.
>but 3 things make even a weak Democrat like Obama a
> possible contender:
> 1. The economy will only get worse. McBush's tax cuts for the rich
> have been discredited.
Then do not invest in anything and deny youself the profit of those
who 'bet' on the USA.
> 2. McBush is even weaker than Obama. McCain won't be as competent at
> bottom fishing the bigot vote as other Repugs. McCain can't even get
> the GOP's rightard base vote.
As opposed to the bottom-dwelling bigots that you and Hillbillary
depend on in the KKK states?
> 3. GOP is probably going the way of the Conservatives in Canada or
> the Tories in the UK. Complete ablation. In that case the Democratic
> Party will need to split in half to preserve the 2 party system.
Probably? I guess you are ignoring the local elections in th UK!
> Another little discussed but plausible scenario:
> McCain gets elected and Pelosi gets a veto proof majority in 2010.
> Most of the troops will be home or redeployed by 2011.
Is that a promise or a threat?
Zinnic
Bret Cahill
> > > McCain is going to be the President.
>
> > That isn't 100% certain. �I'm a staunch Clinton supporter and the
> > Clintons should _own_ the Democratic Party if Obama is nominated and
> > loses to McBush,
> Cannot you see that your obsession with a Clinton royalty
The Clintons are populists.
> has been
> resoundingly rejected by the democratic majority?
Where? In small redneck states which will go to McBush?
. . .
> > McCain can't even get
> > the GOP's rightard base vote.
> �As opposed to the bottom-dwelling bigots that you and Hillbillary
> depend on in the KKK states?
Black family income increased faster under the high tax Clinton
economic boom than anytime since the Emancipation Proclamation.
> > 3. �GOP is probably going the way of the Conservatives in Canada or
> > the Tories in the UK. �Complete ablation. �In that case the Democratic
> > Party will need to split in half to preserve the 2 party system.
> Probably?
You want one party rule?
> I guess you are ignoring the local elections in th UK!
They rejected anything that has to do with Bush-Blair.
> > Another little discussed but plausible scenario:
> > McCain gets elected and Pelosi gets a veto proof majority in 2010.
> > Most of the troops will be home or redeployed by 2011.
>
> Is that a promise or a threat?
A good bet?
Bret Cahill
zinnic
> > > > You're right about one thing...if Hillary doesn't get the nod then
> > > > McCain is going to be the President.
>
> > > That isn't 100% certain. �I'm a staunch Clinton supporter and the
> > > Clintons should _own_ the Democratic Party if Obama is nominated and
> > > loses to McBush,
> > Cannot you see that your obsession with a Clinton royalty
>
> > has been
> > resoundingly rejected by the democratic majority?
>
> Where? In small redneck states which will go to McBush?
>
> . . .
>
> > > McCain can't even get
> > > the GOP's rightard base vote.
> > �As opposed to the bottom-dwelling bigots that you and Hillbillary
> > depend on in the KKK states?
>
> Black family income increased faster under the high tax Clinton
> economic boom than anytime since the Emancipation Proclamation.
>
> > > 3. �GOP is probably going the way of the Conservatives in Canada or
> > > the Tories in the UK. �Complete ablation. �In that case the Democratic
> > > Party will need to split in half to preserve the 2 party system.
> > Probably?
>
> You want one party rule?
>
> > I guess you are ignoring the local elections in th UK!
>
> They rejected anything that has to do with Bush-Blair.
>
> > > Another little discussed but plausible scenario:
> > > McCain gets elected and Pelosi gets a veto proof majority in 2010.
> > > Most of the troops will be home or redeployed by 2011.
>
> > Is that a promise or a threat?
>
> A good bet?
>
> Bret Cahill
My question
" Cannot you see that your obsession with a Clinton royalty
has been resoundingly rejected by the democratic majority?"
Your responsce
"Where? In small redneck states which will go to McBush?"
Name the "small red neck states" in which the Democrats rejected the
Clintons!
Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head
think about just getting out of politics in general.
Note: The fact that Obama was dumb enough to walk into the "McCain/
HIllary has lobbyist working for him" bs...twice...just show how
intellectually shallow and politically naive he truely is.
[Considering his own checkered dealings with lobbyist(Wright, Rezco,
University of Chicago Hospitals, Exelon Corporation, Maytag, Ogilvy
Government Relations, etc) are far far more questionable]
Oh yea, let's also not forget the other gems he likes to throw out
there:
'We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes
on 72 degrees at all times, whether we live in a desert or a tundra,
and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," -
Racist Doofus Obama
So basically...Rolling blackouts, food rationing and bicycles(enjoy
those long commutes) are in our future if Obama has his way.
tg
> Ever notice how neocon media pundits and Obama supporters want Hillary
> out ASAP?
>
> There's a reason for this.
>
> > Face it---this is the old "John Kerry saved my live in 'Nam and then
> > he donated a kidney to save my kid's life and gave me the money to buy
> > a house........buuuuuuuuut.........since he wore that neoprene suit
> > windsurfing I just can't vote for him scam.
>
> So you agree, Obama is another Kerry.
>
No, Hillary is the one being pumped and dumped by these phony
'supporters'. They have done their bit to knock down Obama so they
can vote for McCain against Hillary.
-tg
Shrik...@gmail.com
> On May 22, 11:18 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Ever notice how neocon media pundits and Obama supporters want Hillary
> > out ASAP?
>
> > There's a reason for this.
>
> > > Face it---this is the old "John Kerry saved my live in 'Nam and then
> > > he donated a kidney to save my kid's life and gave me the money to buy
> > > a house........buuuuuuuuut.........since he wore that neoprene suit
> > > windsurfing I just can't vote for him scam.
>
> > So you agree, Obama is another Kerry.
>
> No, Hillary is the one being pumped and dumped by these phony
> 'supporters'. They have done their bit to knock down Obama so they
> can vote for McCain against Hillary.
Actually, no, Hitlery is an example of the stealth
McTweedledum Dime's Worth of Difference candidate
scam. The only reason for righties to try to get
Obama to lose the primary is so there isn't really a
candidate on the Left, and no chance of the Left
winning. It's probably true that McCain has a better
chance against Obama than against Hitlery, but
since Hitlery really _is_ McCain, that wouldn't matter.
Two cryptofascist centrist candidates to choose
from.
Bret Cahill
keep screaming for her to get out of the race ASAP -- and the most
certain way back to the high tax Clinton economic boom of the 1990s.
The too clever by half anti-semites who support Obama will see their
tax money go to McBush's Iraq quagmire until 2011 when Pelosi will
have her veto proof majority.
Bret Cahill
Shrik...@gmail.com
> The Clintons are the must certain way out of Iraq --
You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
Hitlery has made it clear that she intends to be in
Iraq for a verrrry long time. She did, however, make
it clear that she didn't want troops deployed for
humanitarian reasons (Rwanda prevention). No more
interfering with sectarian violence. So troops will
be reduced. But the US military will have a presence
in Iraq, indefinitely, to, as Hitlery told the New York
Times, interdict terrorism, defend the oil, and defend
Israel.
> why the neocons
Hitlery is the perfect neocon candidate.
What, after all, is a neocon? It's a particular
species of Reagan Democrat. They were what was
left of the cold war liberals, the LBJ democrats,
not the McGovern Democrats, who believe that
American power is beneficial to the world.
Project for a New American Century, and all
that.
In any case, you don't hear a lot from the neocons
these days, because their political capital has
all been spent.
> keep screaming for her to get out of the race ASAP --
That's absurd Hitlery apologism. Really, I don't see
a dime's worth of difference between Hitlery and
McThuselah. If that were the choice, i figured Hitlery
was inevitable. But all that leftard-pandering you
are doing is simply disingenuous. You are
misrepresenting Hitlery's position on Iraq. Of course,
she has talked out of both sides of her ass on
occassion. But that is just leftard-pandering.
In fact, if you take realistic stock of the situation,
Iraq will hardly be an issue in November. It already
isn't something that excites a lot of antiwar passion.
Sure, there are kooky weirdos who believe in
upcoming "war crimes trials," and "tax cut
recessions." The economically-illiterate bottom-
fishers.
> and the most
> certain way back to the high tax Clinton economic boom of the 1990s.
And that's some of the evidence for my reference
to "economically-illiterate bottom-fishers." Post
hoc, ergo propter hoc. Ad hoc, ad nauseum.
Anyway, there's no way that America wants to return
to the really high-tax Jimmy Carter stagflation boom.
You may as well put those hopes out of your mind.
You know, occassionally Carter apologists would
blame the Arabs for the Jimmy Carter stagflation
boom, and high energy prices. But energy prices
are exceedingly high now, and there has, as yet
been no Jimmy Carter high tax hyperinflationary
hyperunemploymentary hyperinterestrationary
stagflation boom.
> The too clever by half anti-semites who support Obama
So now Obama's supporters are anti-semites?
You know, I hear a lot of talk about how the
Republicans are going to say mean things about
Obama (mainly from Hitlery-supporters), but
if anybody would swiftboat him, it would be
Hitlery supporters. Anyway, evidently saying
mean things about Obama is "swiftboating"
(unless it's done by Hitlery supporters), saying
mean things about McThuselah is okay because
he's old.
> will see their
> tax money go to McBush's Iraq quagmire until 2011 when Pelosi will
> have her veto proof majority.
Speaking of predictions, weren't you the guy
who was going around prophecizing victory for
John Kerry back in '04?
Bret Cahill
> You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
The only question is when. Unless we support the effort by looting
the oil fields -- soon to be worth 40 trillion ($40,000,000,000,000)
-- then the GOP tax cut recession will bankrupt the U. S.
. . .
> In any case, you don't hear a lot from the neocons
> these days, because their political capital has
> all been spent.
Yet you claim we're staying in Iraq forever.
You're incoherent. You need to get back to defending your double wide
from Hollywood style home invaders.
. . .
> In fact, if you take realistic stock of the situation,
> Iraq will hardly be an issue in November.
No one will care about wasting $100 billion a year?
No one will care about $40 trillion worth of oil?
. . .
> > and the most
> > certain way back to the high tax Clinton economic boom of the 1990s.
> And that's some of the evidence for my reference
> to "economically-illiterate bottom-fishers."
The ones who get all upset every time anyone mentions "high tax
Clinton economic boom."
. . .
> > The too clever by half anti-semites who support Obama
>
> So now Obama's supporters are anti-semites?
L. Farrakan?
. . .
> Speaking of predictions, weren't you the guy
Weren't you the guy who, flush with GOP Rummy-Bush-Neocon jingoism,
said that the Democrats would be out of power for 40 years?
Bret Cahill
Shrik...@gmail.com
> > > The Clintons are the must certain way out of Iraq --
> > You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
>
> The only question is when.
No, the only question is how many? Clearly, after the
election, there will be a pullout of troops. That will be
the case even if, by some chance, McThuselah wins.
It should be noted that if McThuselah wins, it would
be a disaster for the Democratic Party. A loss for
the Repuglicans was expected.
> Unless we support the effort by looting
> the oil fields -- soon to be worth 40 trillion ($40,000,000,000,000)
> -- then the GOP tax cut recession will bankrupt the U. S.
Ahem, I already pointed out that Hillary intends
to keep troops in Iraq to defend the oil. What more
do you need? The fact that you want to obfuscate
Hillary's stance on this doesn't surprise me.
> > In any case, you don't hear a lot from the neocons
> > these days, because their political capital has
> > all been spent.
>
> Yet you claim we're staying in Iraq forever.
If Hillary wins, she'll keep us there for a verry long
time. That's my claim. Try to read for comprehension.
> You're incoherent.
It is a Usenet cliche to point out when someone
displays ironic pot-to-kettle-ism and discuss the
irony. Since it is a cliche, I will refrain from doing
that, and I will also refrain from using any irony
in this paragraph.
> You need to get back to defending your double wide
> from Hollywood style home invaders.
You need to get back to defending your double wide
ass from corpwhore black helicopter microwage
tinfoil beams.
> > In fact, if you take realistic stock of the situation,
> > Iraq will hardly be an issue in November.
>
> No one will care about wasting $100 billion a year?
Obviously, the budget won't be going up. But it won't
be going down to zero any time soon either. Just be
realistic.
> No one will care about $40 trillion worth of oil?
Actually, they will, which is why, even Obama will
likely keep a presence in Iraq. It is not in the interest
of the next President to risk deterioration of the
situation in Iraq. Clearly, things have improved
anyway, and there won't be much reason for keeping
such a large force there for much longer.
> > > and the most
> > > certain way back to the high tax Clinton economic boom of the 1990s.
> > And that's some of the evidence for my reference
> > to "economically-illiterate bottom-fishers."
>
> The ones who get all upset every time anyone mentions "high tax
> Clinton economic boom."
Every American should get upset when some leftard bottom-fisher
tries to hoodwink them into ignoring the Jimmy Carter high tax
hyperstagflationary economic boom.
> > > The too clever by half anti-semites who support Obama
>
> > So now Obama's supporters are anti-semites?
>
> L. Farrakan?
So now you seem to be saying that Hillary should
be Farrakan's choice if he wants to achieve is
anti-semitic goals? Geez. Talk about bottom-fishing.
> > Speaking of predictions, weren't you the guy
>
> Weren't you the guy who, flush with GOP Rummy-Bush-Neocon jingoism,
> said that the Democrats would be out of power for 40 years?
I don't believe so. I don't make prophecies unless I'm
in satire mode. You'll have to cite that so we can
inspect the context.
Bret Cahill
> > > You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
> > The only question is when. �
> No, the only question is how many? �
Most with Clinton.
Zip with McCain.
McCain will actually get more votes if people think he's a
disreputable filp flopper.
They'll hold their nose and vote hoping, "he's not really serious
about extending the GOP tax cut recession, is he?"
> Clearly,
Clearly you cannot defend yer double wide from Hollywood style hearth
invaders when you are typing nonsense.
Bret Cahill
Shrik...@gmail.com
> > > > > The Clintons are the must certain way out of Iraq --
> > > > You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
> > > The only question is when. �
> > No, the only question is how many? �
>
> Most with Clinton.
>
> Zip with McCain.
Yeah, right. So you say. But judging by the
statements of the candidates themselves, it
is tough to believe there will be much difference
between the two on Iraq. This is particularly
true since Iraq has been hardly a blip on the
radar screen of voters over the last couple of
months.
> McCain will actually get more votes if people think he's a
> disreputable filp flopper.
Whatever. Everyone knows that he's a disreputable
flip-flopper, but that is why you are probably correct
that he would defeat Obama in the general election.
In order to win the general election, the rush towards
the middle the most important maneuver. McCain
has practice, Obama does not. Hillary has practice
too.
> They'll hold their nose and vote hoping, "he's not really serious
> about extending the GOP tax cut recession, is he?"
So you believe that enough Americans are
economically illiterate enough to be unaware
that no reputable Nobel Laureate in Economics
believes in tax cut recessions. It is against
basic Keynesianism. You may be right, but
usually such cognitive disfunction causes
the inability to use a butterfly ballot as well.
> > Clearly,
>
> Clearly you cannot defend yer double wide from Hollywood style hearth
> invaders when you are typing nonsense.
Well, then, while you are here typing nonsense,
the robber baron, corpwhore, gun nutter right wing
fundie conspiracy to infiltrate and impurify the
precious bodily fluids of the working class is free
to oil their guns under your bed. Or worse yet,
in your bed.
Bret Cahill
> > > > > You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
> > > No, the only question is how many? ?
>
> > Most with Clinton.
>
> > Zip with McCain.
>
McCain's only non bottom feeder support comes from neocons. No other
activist / prime mover wing of the GOP likes the guy.
That's why the jingoistic media was hyping the black guy so much.
("Obama, you are soooo beeeauuutiful.") They knew only force powerful
enough to beat the anti war Democrats and get "McAmnesty" to prolongue
the quagmire was racism.
On the other hand Bill Clinton knew the glorious patriotic holy
quagmire idea was a loser for the GOP from the git go. The Clintons
also know that most Americans think the Iraqis should defend their own
homes and hearths.
> But judging by the
> statements of the candidates themselves, it
> is tough to believe there will be much difference
> between the two on Iraq. �
Americans want out. Hillary said she was getting out. McCain said he
wanted to stay 100 years -- [70 years after the oil is gone].
What would be the ulterior motive to not believe the candidates face
value?
> This is particularly
> true since Iraq has been hardly a blip on the
> radar screen of voters over the last couple of
> months.
It's not as important as the GOP tax cut recession but wasting $100
billion a year to steal $40 trillion in sweet crude is more than a
blip.
Four super tankers / week would pay for the quagmire.
> > McCain will actually get more votes if people think he's a
> > disreputable filp flopper.
> Whatever. �
It's a curious situation isn't it?
> Everyone knows that he's a disreputable
> flip-flopper, but that is why you are probably correct
> that he would defeat Obama in the general election.
The GOP has 30 million bigots willing to forgive "McAmnesty" on
immigration and crawl over ground glass to vote against a black man.
> In order to win the general election, the rush towards
> the middle the most important maneuver. �
In '04 Kerry, another jingoistic media pump and dump, rushed over to
Bush's ultra moronic positions.
Being one cunt hair to the left of an ultra moronic position is still
an ultra moronic position.
> McCain
> has practice, Obama does not. �
Obama, unlike Kerry or Gore, at least has some personality.
> Hillary has practice
> too.
That's why the jingoistic media want her out ASAP.
> > They'll hold their nose and vote hoping, "he's not really serious
> > about extending the GOP tax cut recession, is he?"
> So you believe that enough Americans
It's not what I believe. Polls show that 2/3rd support tax hikes on
the rich to save social security and pay for health care.
Of course, if you have 30 million GOP bigots willing to crawl over
ground glass to vote against the black guy . . .
> are
> economically illiterate enough to be unaware
> that no reputable Nobel Laureate in Economics
There _are_ no reputable Nobel Laureates in economics.
That's why Rove abandoned the free marketry rhetoric of the Gipster
for jingoism.
GOP "market" economists were all discredited by the high tax Clinton
economic boom.
> believes in tax cut recessions. �It is against
> basic Keynesianism. �
Keynes believed the way out of a recession was to tax and spend.
Obama and Clinton would be raising taxes on the rich, not those with
high school drop out jobs, so you'll benefit.
Your only interest in politics comes from the the NRA.
The Hollywood actor president has you believing Democrats are "gun
grabbers" and you won't be able to defend your double wide from
Hollywood style home invaders.
Bret Cahill
Shrik...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > The Clintons are the must certain way out of Iraq --
> > > > > > You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
> > > > > The only question is when. ?
> > > > No, the only question is how many? ?
>
> > > Most with Clinton.
>
> > > Zip with McCain.
>
> > Yeah, right. �So you say. �
>
> McCain's only non bottom feeder support comes from neocons.
Hillary gets the same sort of support.
Neocons = LBJ democrats.
> No other
> activist / prime mover wing of the GOP likes the guy.
The neocons aren't prime-mover wings of anything
anymore.
> That's why the jingoistic media was hyping the black guy so much.
> ("Obama, you are soooo beeeauuutiful.") They knew only force powerful
> enough to beat the anti war Democrats and get "McAmnesty" to prolongue
> the quagmire was racism.
But you were just telling everyone that the antisemites
ought to vote for Hillary, if they knew what was good
for their cause.
> On the other hand Bill Clinton knew the glorious patriotic holy
> quagmire idea was a loser for the GOP from the git go. The Clintons
> also know that most Americans think the Iraqis should defend their own
> homes and hearths.
Which is what is going to happen, so there's really
nothing to argue about when it comes to Iraq.
> > But judging by the
> > statements of the candidates themselves, it
> > is tough to believe there will be much difference
> > between the two on Iraq. �
>
> Americans want out. Hillary said she was getting out. McCain said he
> wanted to stay 100 years -- [70 years after the oil is gone].
Hillary did not say she was getting out.
She said she was getting out of the
humanitarian commitment, but she
said she intends to stay in Iraq to
interdict terrorism, defend the oil,
and
> What would be the ulterior motive to not believe the candidates face
This is silly. The centrist media loves Hillary. It
is the big wealthy limosine liberals, including those
in Hollywood, who have abandoned her for Obama.
> > > They'll hold their nose and vote hoping, "he's not really serious
> > > about extending the GOP tax cut recession, is he?"
> > So you believe that enough Americans
>
> It's not what I believe. Polls show that 2/3rd support tax hikes on
> the rich to save social security and pay for health care.
>
> Of course, if you have 30 million GOP bigots willing to crawl over
> ground glass to vote against the black guy . . .
That voting bloc isn't big enough these days to make
Obama lose. The biggest voting bloc is, of course, the
Centery. The Left represents 20% of the vote, the
Right represents 33% of the vote, the other 47% are
non-aligned or centrist. They decide the election,
and this is where Obama is weak.
> > are
> > economically illiterate enough to be unaware
> > that no reputable Nobel Laureate in Economics
>
> There _are_ no reputable Nobel Laureates in economics.
Of course not. The only reputable economists are
Usenet spambots who aren't even Turing-complete.
> That's why Rove abandoned the free marketry rhetoric of the Gipster
> for jingoism.
>
> GOP "market" economists were all discredited by the high tax Clinton
> economic boom.
Taxes were low in the nineties, thanks to Reagan. They
were much lower than they were at the time of the Jimmy
Carter high-tax hyperinflationary hyperunemploymentary
hyper-stagflationary economic lowering of the boom. This
is why Reagan was elected. Anybody the GOP put up
would have been elected, even if he had teeth worthy
of socialized dentistry.
Anyway, since Clinton's low popularity in 1994 cause
the Democrats to lose the House of Representatives,
and the Republicans seized the power of the purse,
your own Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc axiom demands
that you blame the Republican House for the 1990
tech boom.
> > believes in tax cut recessions. �It is against
> > basic Keynesianism. �
>
> Keynes believed the way out of a recession was to tax and spend.
Nope, try again. Keynes' prescription for recession
was to BORROW and spend. Why? Because when
the gummint borrows and spends it increases demand.
If the gummint doesn't run a deficit, the net effect of
fiscal policy on demand (which is the issue in a
recession) is nil, nichevo, nada.
> Obama and Clinton would be raising taxes on the rich, not those with
> high school drop out jobs, so you'll benefit.
High school drop workers don't benefit by raising
someone else's taxes. Why would you believe
they would? By what mechanism would they
benefit? This is classic leftardism. Leftards
never improve the lot of the poor (see Stalin
for references). It is more important to leftards
to find someone to injure than to find a way
to help anyone. As Stalin said, if a person
pisses you off because he has more money
than you, no person, no problem! First ve
line zem up, zen ve shoot zem!
> Your only interest in politics comes from the the NRA.
>
> The Hollywood actor president has you believing Democrats are "gun
> grabbers"
Actually, Howard Dean has already convinced
everyone that gun control activism is dead. Not
much voting market share there.
> and you won't be able to defend your double wide from
> Hollywood style home invaders.
If you like.
Bret Cahill
> > > > > > > You seem to believe there is no way out of Iraq then.
> > > > > > The only question is when. ?
> > > > > No, the only question is how many? ?
>
> > > > Most with Clinton.
>
> > > > Zip with McCain.
>
>
> > McCain's only non bottom feeder support comes from neocons. �
>
> Hillary gets the same sort of support.
The neocons want Hillary out ASAP. That's why they hyped Obama and
Kerry. They needed a pump and dump to keep their Republicon in
office.
Working folk and those with kids in Iraq support Hillary.
> > No other
> > activist / prime mover wing of the GOP likes the guy.
> The neocons aren't prime-mover wings of anything
> anymore.
Yet we all agree that the neocons will be the only ones who get what
they want in '08.
The U. S. in Iraq for four more years.
> > That's why the jingoistic media was hyping the black guy so much.
> > ("Obama, you are soooo beeeauuutiful.") �They knew only force powerful
> > enough to beat the anti war Democrats and get "McAmnesty" to prolongue
> > the quagmire was racism.
> But you were just telling everyone that the antisemites
> ought to vote for Hillary, if they knew what was good
> for their cause.
Apparently their primary cause is punishing Jews, not getting out of
the mideast.
Same with Michael Moore. His primary cause was punishing Clinton, not
getting the troops home.
Guess what? The secondary cause ain't gonna happen.
At least not until 2011 when Pelosi has a veto proof majority.
> > On the other hand Bill Clinton knew the glorious patriotic holy
> > quagmire idea was a loser for the GOP from the git go. �The Clintons
> > also know that most Americans think the Iraqis should defend their own
> > homes and hearths.
> Which is what is going to happen, so there's really
> nothing to argue about when it comes to Iraq.
It's clear non neocon McBush supporters support him because they
believe McCain is a deceptive liar who will betray his neocon
supporters.
Another group of too clever by half voters who deserve what they get.
> > > But judging by the
> > > statements of the candidates themselves, it
> > > is tough to believe there will be much difference
> > > between the two on Iraq. ?
> > Americans want out. �Hillary said she was getting out. �McCain said he
> > wanted to stay 100 years -- [70 years after the oil is gone].
> Hillary did not say she was getting out.
> She said she was getting out of the
> humanitarian commitment, but she
> said she intends to stay in Iraq to
> interdict terrorism, defend the oil,
> and
Which means Hillary will bring home most of the troops and McCain will
not.
> > What would be the ulterior motive to not believe the candidates face
> > value?
? ? ?
> > > This is particularly
> > > true since Iraq has been hardly a blip on the
> > > radar screen of voters over the last couple of
> > > months.
> > It's not as important as the GOP tax cut recession but wasting $100
> > billion a year to steal $40 trillion in sweet crude is more than a
> > blip.
> > Four super tankers / week would pay for the quagmire.
> > > > McCain will actually get more votes if people think he's a
> > > > disreputable filp flopper.
> > > Whatever. ?
> > It's a curious situation isn't it?
> > > Everyone knows that he's a disreputable
> > > flip-flopper, but that is why you are probably correct
> > > that he would defeat Obama in the general election.
> > The GOP has 30 million bigots willing to forgive "McAmnesty" on
> > immigration and crawl over ground glass to vote against a black man.
> > > In order to win the general election, the rush towards
> > > the middle the most important maneuver. ?
> > In '04 Kerry, another jingoistic media pump and dump, rushed over to
> > Bush's ultra moronic positions.
> > Being one cunt hair to the left of an ultra moronic position is still
> > an ultra moronic position.
> > > McCain
> > > has practice, Obama does not. ?
>
> > Obama, unlike Kerry or Gore, at least has some personality.
>
> > > Hillary has practice
> > > too.
>
> > That's why the jingoistic media want her out ASAP.
> This is silly. �The centrist media loves Hillary.
Neocon pundits want her out ASAP. They want to get right to work on
Obama.
> It
> is the big wealthy limosine liberals, including those
> in Hollywood, who have abandoned her for Obama.
It's about 50 - 50 with Democrats.
But back to the issue:
Every last neocon Repug wants Hillary out.
They know they cannot swiftboat Hillary with White Water but they can
dump Obama with 24/7 hyping of madrasses, black ministers, etc.
Bret Cahill
> > > believes in tax cut recessions. ?It is against
> > > basic Keynesianism. ?
> If you like.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -