May 18, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
Nyland8
Recent comments by this user
Obama Responds To Bush, McCain Appeasement Attack
And we're "natural" isolationists, because we're separated by two oceans. Events in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East have never been on our doorstep. It's not easy to bring the fight to us. The closest it has come in the last hundred years was Pearl Harbor, and that's not even on our continent.
It's more than being "big enough and rich enough to have that luxury" - it's being FAR enough to have that luxury.
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 11:18:30
It's more than being "big enough and rich enough to have that luxury" - it's being FAR enough to have that luxury.
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 11:18:30
If only you'd told her that 5 years ago, she might have actually run for the nomination.
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 11:06:58
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 11:06:58
It's hard to imagine that a one dimensional being can exist, but I've seen comic book characters that have more depth than you. If there are blogs where your "contributions" actually have an audience to play to, this is probably not the one.
Just a thought.
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 11:05:27
Just a thought.
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 11:05:27
Maybe.
McSalty's "A game" is running on a platform of "More of the same for as far as the eye can see." I think that no matter what he says or does, Obama can beat McBatty with his C- game.
But that's just squeaking through. Ideally, Obama gives his "A game", takes 47 States and carries a boatload of Dems into office on his coattails. McCain makes that all possible.
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 10:55:30
McSalty's "A game" is running on a platform of "More of the same for as far as the eye can see." I think that no matter what he says or does, Obama can beat McBatty with his C- game.
But that's just squeaking through. Ideally, Obama gives his "A game", takes 47 States and carries a boatload of Dems into office on his coattails. McCain makes that all possible.
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 10:55:30
McCain Predicts The Iraq War Will Be "Won" By 2013
Well ... let's see. If we make ten times as much progress in the next five years as we've had in the last five years, we'll be out of there ...
... OMG. A hundred years won't be nearly enough.
What is we make fifty times as much progress as we've made in the last 5 years ??
Uh ... let's see ... 328 ... factor the growth of insurgents ... 948 ... factor not being able to seal the borders without at least a million boots on the ground ... carry the 10 ... mmmmm ... square root of unemployed men times the number of hours they don't have electricity ... times years of sectarian suppression of one faction by another ...
... 4,276 ...
... times suicide bombers cubed ...
Uh ... no. It'll still be 943 years before we "win" the war - the war that, according to Bush AND our own military commanders, cannot have a military solution.
So ... you're talking out of your ass. There can be and will be no "victory" in any military sense, because we're NOT going to commit genocide on the entire Iraqi population. The only "solution" to Iraq is to leave.
Your calculations are faulty, because they fail to factor in the Iraqis themselves, over which we have ZERO control. And since we have ZERO control over the Iraqis, prognostications about how long our mission will take are nothing but horseshit.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 23:17:50
... OMG. A hundred years won't be nearly enough.
What is we make fifty times as much progress as we've made in the last 5 years ??
Uh ... let's see ... 328 ... factor the growth of insurgents ... 948 ... factor not being able to seal the borders without at least a million boots on the ground ... carry the 10 ... mmmmm ... square root of unemployed men times the number of hours they don't have electricity ... times years of sectarian suppression of one faction by another ...
... 4,276 ...
... times suicide bombers cubed ...
Uh ... no. It'll still be 943 years before we "win" the war - the war that, according to Bush AND our own military commanders, cannot have a military solution.
So ... you're talking out of your ass. There can be and will be no "victory" in any military sense, because we're NOT going to commit genocide on the entire Iraqi population. The only "solution" to Iraq is to leave.
Your calculations are faulty, because they fail to factor in the Iraqis themselves, over which we have ZERO control. And since we have ZERO control over the Iraqis, prognostications about how long our mission will take are nothing but horseshit.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 23:17:50
California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned: Major Updates
Well ... no. Medical science has already established that, in many cases, people do NOT have a "choice" about their sexual orientation. The fact that it doesn't appear on the surface of their skin - like color does - is not a reason to exclude them from that which is no longer a criminal expression of their preference. They should have the right to be buried in family plots - just like married people. They should have the right to hospital visits - just like married people. They should have the right to job benefits - just like married people. They should have the right to custody of children in the case of death or injury of their "spouse" - just like married people.
I could go on and on. It IS a rights issue.
By the way, have you heard that the earth is spherical?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:54:44
I could go on and on. It IS a rights issue.
By the way, have you heard that the earth is spherical?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:54:44
"Thank You for your continued input. -ralph"
Likewise.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:46:16
Likewise.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:46:16
I think there can be, and there are, many reasons for the "success" of nuclear families. And "nuclear families" may have contained many wives. Regarding defense from predators, that was no less the function of the entire tribe, which acted in cooperation for the benefit of all.
My point was to demonstrate continuity in familial life - one of the supposed "purposes" of marriage. When tribes were very small, everyone was kin. As they grew larger, "blood" became more of a distinction, more important. We know this from studying so-called primitive societies.
Is this your only criticism of my essay?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:34:09
My point was to demonstrate continuity in familial life - one of the supposed "purposes" of marriage. When tribes were very small, everyone was kin. As they grew larger, "blood" became more of a distinction, more important. We know this from studying so-called primitive societies.
Is this your only criticism of my essay?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:34:09
You're welcome.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:16:48
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:16:48
If the majority of voters in West Virginia decided that all blacks should be lynched, or enslaved, or even just expatriated from the state, or maybe all Muslims, would you defend that decision as being "democratic" or "the will of the people" ??
Or might you look at state and federal constitutions, and perhaps legal precedent, to draw conclusions about what their rights should be?
Just curious.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:14:20
Or might you look at state and federal constitutions, and perhaps legal precedent, to draw conclusions about what their rights should be?
Just curious.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 22:14:20
"By not being included in this ruling, aren't THEY being discrminated against?"
No.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 21:38:54
No.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 21:38:54
Continued 8
We are not so long out of swinging from the trees by our tails - and I suspect we will not see these issues resolved in our lifetimes. Most of the world's population still sees women as the possession of men - and I think that this is what marriage was really created to be - a contract whereby men owned women, thus making them unavailable to other men. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law".
Isn't it ironic that so many women actually want to be married? How might the world be transformed if suddenly, women everywhere were to organize and refuse to be participants in this institution on anything but their own terms?
And if men are willing to eat with utensils, just for a chance to inseminate ¦ well then ¦ what else might we be willing to do?
It could change the world.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:39:25
We are not so long out of swinging from the trees by our tails - and I suspect we will not see these issues resolved in our lifetimes. Most of the world's population still sees women as the possession of men - and I think that this is what marriage was really created to be - a contract whereby men owned women, thus making them unavailable to other men. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law".
Isn't it ironic that so many women actually want to be married? How might the world be transformed if suddenly, women everywhere were to organize and refuse to be participants in this institution on anything but their own terms?
And if men are willing to eat with utensils, just for a chance to inseminate ¦ well then ¦ what else might we be willing to do?
It could change the world.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:39:25
Continued 7
The Bush administration is again, you guessed it, on the wrong side of this "defense of marriage" issue, as they are on many others that I"m sure most of you can think of. How do immigration laws attack marriage? How might our Tax laws?
So, of all the things that really do threaten marriage, and there are plenty, this administration doesn"t lift a finger to do anything about them " in fact even opposes those changes. But they would have us believe that they wish to protect marriage, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It"s almost as if the discomfort of explaining to our children why the ladies down the street live together, or why those two guys hold hands in public, is somehow more trouble than explaining to them that Mommy or Daddy won"t be coming home again because they were killed in a foreign war which was not in defense of this country.
I know many gay couples and several, in fact, who've been together for decades. If they wish to call themselves married, I honestly can't conceive of who should be threatened by this. But some people are. And it's safe to speculate that this fear does not emanate from their "close personal relationship with God". Fear, hatred, intolerance, judgment of others, et al are not Christian values - at least not on my planet.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:38:00
The Bush administration is again, you guessed it, on the wrong side of this "defense of marriage" issue, as they are on many others that I"m sure most of you can think of. How do immigration laws attack marriage? How might our Tax laws?
So, of all the things that really do threaten marriage, and there are plenty, this administration doesn"t lift a finger to do anything about them " in fact even opposes those changes. But they would have us believe that they wish to protect marriage, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It"s almost as if the discomfort of explaining to our children why the ladies down the street live together, or why those two guys hold hands in public, is somehow more trouble than explaining to them that Mommy or Daddy won"t be coming home again because they were killed in a foreign war which was not in defense of this country.
I know many gay couples and several, in fact, who've been together for decades. If they wish to call themselves married, I honestly can't conceive of who should be threatened by this. But some people are. And it's safe to speculate that this fear does not emanate from their "close personal relationship with God". Fear, hatred, intolerance, judgment of others, et al are not Christian values - at least not on my planet.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:38:00
Continued 6
Unemployment is a huge threat to marriage, as is poverty in general. Many divorces result as a byproduct of financial woes. Full employment and a living wage, i.e. doubling or tripling the minimum wage, would be a "defense of marriage" act. The political Right opposes this.
Lack of education, ignorance, poor communication skills, unrealistic expectations are all threats to successful marriage. Good education for all, especially in human relations and sex, would be considered a "defense of marriage act". The religious Right opposes this.
Prison threatens marriage. Imagine how difficult it must be to maintain a marriage when one spouse, or both, are locked up for years. Draconian drug laws that imprison users or pot growers destroy marriages. Reversing these laws could certainly be considered "in defense of marriage". Self-described "Law and Order" types oppose this.
War assaults marriage. Who knows how many military spouses have had their marriages ruined by going off to war. Time and distance conspire to disrupt marriages and spouses are often unrecognizably transformed by war, not just physically but psychologically and emotionally ¦ and those are the "lucky" ones who aren't killed outright. Nothing destroys a marriage like death. "¦ Until death do you part". Putting a stop to capricious, wrong-headed wars would undoubtedly be a "defense of marriage act".
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:36:35
Unemployment is a huge threat to marriage, as is poverty in general. Many divorces result as a byproduct of financial woes. Full employment and a living wage, i.e. doubling or tripling the minimum wage, would be a "defense of marriage" act. The political Right opposes this.
Lack of education, ignorance, poor communication skills, unrealistic expectations are all threats to successful marriage. Good education for all, especially in human relations and sex, would be considered a "defense of marriage act". The religious Right opposes this.
Prison threatens marriage. Imagine how difficult it must be to maintain a marriage when one spouse, or both, are locked up for years. Draconian drug laws that imprison users or pot growers destroy marriages. Reversing these laws could certainly be considered "in defense of marriage". Self-described "Law and Order" types oppose this.
War assaults marriage. Who knows how many military spouses have had their marriages ruined by going off to war. Time and distance conspire to disrupt marriages and spouses are often unrecognizably transformed by war, not just physically but psychologically and emotionally ¦ and those are the "lucky" ones who aren't killed outright. Nothing destroys a marriage like death. "¦ Until death do you part". Putting a stop to capricious, wrong-headed wars would undoubtedly be a "defense of marriage act".
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:36:35
Continued 5
From the standpoint of "biological imperatives", I can only speak for the male gender. We have a "need" to inseminate. We are driven to do so. We will go to extreme lengths to have even the remotest chance of inseminating. We might even - dare I say it - shower, shave and clean our apartment, just for even the slightest hope of inseminating. We might resort to sitting down and eating off a plate - with utensils - rather than standing and eating straight out of the pot with our hands. Women have a civilizing influence on us. Other than that, affection and human intimacy are biological imperatives. Nothing else. At least for men, "having children" is culturally inculcated, not biologically driven.
As for women, I can't say. I'm told there is a biological need to have kids, but I know several women who haven't and don't want any - in fact who claim never to have wanted any. Yet, as far as I know, women also enjoy sex - at least the ones who feel they have a right to, those who give themselves permission to have that pleasure.
But as for the "Defense of Marriage Act" ?? Well, that's about as Orwellian as language gets. There are many things that attack marriage, but couples wanting to marry isn't among them.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:35:23
From the standpoint of "biological imperatives", I can only speak for the male gender. We have a "need" to inseminate. We are driven to do so. We will go to extreme lengths to have even the remotest chance of inseminating. We might even - dare I say it - shower, shave and clean our apartment, just for even the slightest hope of inseminating. We might resort to sitting down and eating off a plate - with utensils - rather than standing and eating straight out of the pot with our hands. Women have a civilizing influence on us. Other than that, affection and human intimacy are biological imperatives. Nothing else. At least for men, "having children" is culturally inculcated, not biologically driven.
As for women, I can't say. I'm told there is a biological need to have kids, but I know several women who haven't and don't want any - in fact who claim never to have wanted any. Yet, as far as I know, women also enjoy sex - at least the ones who feel they have a right to, those who give themselves permission to have that pleasure.
But as for the "Defense of Marriage Act" ?? Well, that's about as Orwellian as language gets. There are many things that attack marriage, but couples wanting to marry isn't among them.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:35:23
Continued 4
It is not without enormous irony that the "religious Right" is fear-driven - and the "political Right" are the sheep dogs that drive that flock. Tragically, it doesn't take much more than a loud bark to create a stampede. Those who declare the most "faith" are the ones who are most afraid of - you name it - terrorists, sex, foreigners, intellectuals, gays, blacks. (Naturally, by extension, we must assume that the single most horrifying thing on earth would be having sex with a foreign, intellectual, gay black terrorist.) For those who profess such faith in God, it is more than a little curious that they are so fearful. As a man who has always been attracted to women, at least in this lifetime, I can't imagine being "afraid" of gays - the definition of "homophobia".
At one time in human history it may have been imperative to "raise" a family. "If I feed and protect these little mouths now, they may feel obliged to feed and protect me when I am older, as I did for my parents." It makes good survival sense in the natural evolution of the species. And for much of the world this hasn't changed. But has this really been the primary reason for getting married? ? I wonder.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:34:09
It is not without enormous irony that the "religious Right" is fear-driven - and the "political Right" are the sheep dogs that drive that flock. Tragically, it doesn't take much more than a loud bark to create a stampede. Those who declare the most "faith" are the ones who are most afraid of - you name it - terrorists, sex, foreigners, intellectuals, gays, blacks. (Naturally, by extension, we must assume that the single most horrifying thing on earth would be having sex with a foreign, intellectual, gay black terrorist.) For those who profess such faith in God, it is more than a little curious that they are so fearful. As a man who has always been attracted to women, at least in this lifetime, I can't imagine being "afraid" of gays - the definition of "homophobia".
At one time in human history it may have been imperative to "raise" a family. "If I feed and protect these little mouths now, they may feel obliged to feed and protect me when I am older, as I did for my parents." It makes good survival sense in the natural evolution of the species. And for much of the world this hasn't changed. But has this really been the primary reason for getting married? ? I wonder.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:34:09
continued 3
Is "seven times the national average" enough to make it part of a "traditional marriage"? If we really are all descendent from Adam and Eve - well - do the math. We must owe the very existence of all humanity on incest of one form or another. Is this part of the "traditional marriage" that some of the religious right want? Fathers raping their daughters? Mothers seducing their sons? Siblings procreating?
Can Catholic priests, (aren't they "married" to the church?), claim that molesting alter boys is a tradition? It is apparently widespread and I have no doubt that it is practiced ritualistically.
Lets face it. The "traditions" of the Bible, at least for the first few millennia, included having multiple wives. In fact, God seemed to smile upon more than a couple of big-time polygamists. Not to mention at least one pair of daughters who surrendered their virginity to daddy by seducing him in an alcoholic stupor - again according to "God"s will". (How"s that for a juicy rationalization for getting drunk and deflowering Daddy"s little girl? Biblical precedent! ) But, alas, no longer. Somewhere along the line, our capricious creator must have decided He'd made a mistake.
(... and God awoke on the 2,732,411th day and looked upon the earth and said, "New Rules! Men only get one woman now - like it or not. And this time, I'm not changing My mind." And He saw that it was better ... )
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:32:53
Is "seven times the national average" enough to make it part of a "traditional marriage"? If we really are all descendent from Adam and Eve - well - do the math. We must owe the very existence of all humanity on incest of one form or another. Is this part of the "traditional marriage" that some of the religious right want? Fathers raping their daughters? Mothers seducing their sons? Siblings procreating?
Can Catholic priests, (aren't they "married" to the church?), claim that molesting alter boys is a tradition? It is apparently widespread and I have no doubt that it is practiced ritualistically.
Lets face it. The "traditions" of the Bible, at least for the first few millennia, included having multiple wives. In fact, God seemed to smile upon more than a couple of big-time polygamists. Not to mention at least one pair of daughters who surrendered their virginity to daddy by seducing him in an alcoholic stupor - again according to "God"s will". (How"s that for a juicy rationalization for getting drunk and deflowering Daddy"s little girl? Biblical precedent! ) But, alas, no longer. Somewhere along the line, our capricious creator must have decided He'd made a mistake.
(... and God awoke on the 2,732,411th day and looked upon the earth and said, "New Rules! Men only get one woman now - like it or not. And this time, I'm not changing My mind." And He saw that it was better ... )
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:32:53
Continued 2
Sure, there are traditions of courtship, and traditions of exchanging vows and the "rites" of marriage, but once two or more people are married, how they actually live is as different, as individual, as the people themselves. The historic divisions of labor evolved, with some obvious perversions, from the fact that men don't bare children and women do. After all, the reason we can't fly is because we don't have wings - not because it would break with tradition. We do have our limitations. But does biology alone begat "tradition"? I think not.
Firstly, what is the "critical mass" of tradition? How many people must engage in a practice to consider it a tradition? More than a decade ago, I happened upon the "700 Club" while channel surfing. Pat Robertson said that among "born again" Christians, the incidence of parent/child incest, (a euphemism for fathers raping their daughters), was seven times the national average. He thought it was a problem ~ go figure. It was a "red state" phenomenon prevalent mostly in Southern Appalachia, in some of the well-used holes just west of the buckle of the Bible Belt. As I recall, he attributed it to "lack of education" and he offered a prayer, I guess as a solution.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:31:40
Sure, there are traditions of courtship, and traditions of exchanging vows and the "rites" of marriage, but once two or more people are married, how they actually live is as different, as individual, as the people themselves. The historic divisions of labor evolved, with some obvious perversions, from the fact that men don't bare children and women do. After all, the reason we can't fly is because we don't have wings - not because it would break with tradition. We do have our limitations. But does biology alone begat "tradition"? I think not.
Firstly, what is the "critical mass" of tradition? How many people must engage in a practice to consider it a tradition? More than a decade ago, I happened upon the "700 Club" while channel surfing. Pat Robertson said that among "born again" Christians, the incidence of parent/child incest, (a euphemism for fathers raping their daughters), was seven times the national average. He thought it was a problem ~ go figure. It was a "red state" phenomenon prevalent mostly in Southern Appalachia, in some of the well-used holes just west of the buckle of the Bible Belt. As I recall, he attributed it to "lack of education" and he offered a prayer, I guess as a solution.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:31:40
Gay Marriage
The history of our planet has been replete with very different types of marital arrangements - and anyone who claims that what they are striving to maintain, or to return to, is a "traditional" marriage, just doesn't know what they're talking about. One might well ask, "To what tradition are you referring?" If they say, "the Christian tradition", well - then I say heaven help them.
I suspect what they think they want, (those who feel "Marriage" itself is threatened by gay couples), is some idealized notion of married life akin to classic TV sit-coms like Ward and June Cleaver in "Leave it to Beaver", or the Nelsons in "Ozzie and Harriet". But, with the exception of the "he is the breadwinner, she is the homemaker" dynamic, (which we lost over thirty years ago when maintaining a standing in the "middle class" became increasingly dependant on more than one income) I don't think any other "tradition" exists " except perhaps in the minds of the nostalgic.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:30:39
The history of our planet has been replete with very different types of marital arrangements - and anyone who claims that what they are striving to maintain, or to return to, is a "traditional" marriage, just doesn't know what they're talking about. One might well ask, "To what tradition are you referring?" If they say, "the Christian tradition", well - then I say heaven help them.
I suspect what they think they want, (those who feel "Marriage" itself is threatened by gay couples), is some idealized notion of married life akin to classic TV sit-coms like Ward and June Cleaver in "Leave it to Beaver", or the Nelsons in "Ozzie and Harriet". But, with the exception of the "he is the breadwinner, she is the homemaker" dynamic, (which we lost over thirty years ago when maintaining a standing in the "middle class" became increasingly dependant on more than one income) I don't think any other "tradition" exists " except perhaps in the minds of the nostalgic.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:30:39
I wrote the following on-topic essay and originally posted it here on Huffington almost 2-1/2 years ago. Back then, there were no restrictions on length. I hope the posting fairies allow me to get all the segments up in order and in a timely fashion.
Wish me luck.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:29:12
Wish me luck.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 20:29:12
Chicago Overturns Foie Gras ban
Here, in the NorthEast, the Canada goose has become a plague, their droppings fouling ponds, covering ball fields, bike paths and playgrounds, creating an unsanitary condition for children and adult alike. We can't introduce enough natural predators without people starting to lose their pets, if not their own kids. They are worse than rats.
If they made a good foie gras, I'd feed pate to the homeless.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:51:01
If they made a good foie gras, I'd feed pate to the homeless.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:51:01
John Edwards Endorses Obama... GOP Prospects "Worst Since Watergate"
"Who do they borrow that money from?"
Rich arms dealers?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:28:35
Rich arms dealers?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:28:35
"--why do you think he is talking about Hillary being his running mate? "
He is NOT talking about her being his running mate. Only desperate Rodhamites are talking about it. She's not on the short list - in fact, she's not even on the long list.
If you were brighter, you'd be embarrassed to post this nonsense.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:26:30
He is NOT talking about her being his running mate. Only desperate Rodhamites are talking about it. She's not on the short list - in fact, she's not even on the long list.
If you were brighter, you'd be embarrassed to post this nonsense.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:26:30
LOL
Why so desperate? Look at the data.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:02:56
Why so desperate? Look at the data.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 08:02:56
He leads in every meaningful metric. He's led in delegates since the first day. If he isn't ready for prime time, then who is?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:47:39
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:47:39
West Virginia Zen Koan:
What is the sound of one tooth gnashing?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:19:29
What is the sound of one tooth gnashing?
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:19:29
Exactly. Earlier this week Edwards was interviewed on NPR and he said that he didn't think endorsements counted for anything. He completely downplayed and dismissed the power of what he's doing today.
I suspect that, unto themselves, simple endorsements are meaningless. But if his pledged delegates follow him, the effect will be magnified and give Obama a significant boost, maybe shortening the time it takes until the inevitable.
Obama will be the nominee.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 22:16:01
I suspect that, unto themselves, simple endorsements are meaningless. But if his pledged delegates follow him, the effect will be magnified and give Obama a significant boost, maybe shortening the time it takes until the inevitable.
Obama will be the nominee.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 22:16:01
"Hillary's results in West Virginia (probably to be repeated in Kentucky) show that Obama needs a female running mate, but not Hillary"
No ... it doesn't mean that at all.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 22:09:02
No ... it doesn't mean that at all.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 22:09:02
"They have succumbed to threats of "rioting in the streets" and have given away the general election to John McCain."
What will your name be on these posts after Obama is elected?
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 22:05:06
What will your name be on these posts after Obama is elected?
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 22:05:06
They are ALL right-wing propaganda channels. The furthest left television network is a conglomerate of right-wing propaganda channels.
This has always been true.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 19:27:09
This has always been true.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 19:27:09
I thought Kucinich endorsed Edwards.
Was I mistaken?
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:34:23
Was I mistaken?
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:34:23
Yes ... and he won't gain that tomorrow ... or the next day either. Because it is in the past. Just like all the States, and all the popular votes, and all the pledged delegates that Rodham will not win ...
... because Obama has already won them.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:32:47
... because Obama has already won them.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:32:47
From the article ~
" Edwards' people are really loyal and might not vote for Obama or Hillary or whoever -- even if Edwards tells them to."
?? Huh ??
Edward's people are "really loyal" - they're so loyal they WON'T DO what Edwards tells them to ??
That doesn't sound like loyalty. Loyalty would be for them to DO what Edwards tell them.
Does anybody with a passing command of English ever edit what these people write? They call themselves ABC News, but ...
... maybe that's just another oxymoron.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:27:34
" Edwards' people are really loyal and might not vote for Obama or Hillary or whoever -- even if Edwards tells them to."
?? Huh ??
Edward's people are "really loyal" - they're so loyal they WON'T DO what Edwards tells them to ??
That doesn't sound like loyalty. Loyalty would be for them to DO what Edwards tell them.
Does anybody with a passing command of English ever edit what these people write? They call themselves ABC News, but ...
... maybe that's just another oxymoron.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:27:34
Democrats Sweep Special Elections For First Time In 30 Years
"What if a Republican won Los Angeles by 8 Points?"
I'd give it to them. They can have it.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:02:44
I'd give it to them. They can have it.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 18:02:44
Will The Next President Obliterate The Auto Industry?
That would be ... mileage ... and forest ... and ...
8~| posted 05/15/2008 at 07:16:38
8~| posted 05/15/2008 at 07:16:38
We've been hearing for 40 years how milage and weight and efficiency standards are going to doom the auto industry - but they're still around. We've been hearing for decades how mandatory safety features will make cars impossibly expensive and the big three will be flushed down the toilet. For as long as I've been driving, we've been hearing cries from Detroit about unfair labor practices abroad, product dumping, loss of manufacturing jobs, un-level playing fields, crushing labor costs from the UAW ... the list goes on and on and on. Hell, we've even bailed out Chrysler corporation with taxpayer dollars - just to bring us to this new imagined threshold.
In the world of Quality Control, there is an expression:
Fix the problem - Not the blame.
If the auto industry is really a dinosaur, unable to adapt, unable to evolve, then it should perish. We will never have a military that is big enough, strong enough, intelligent enough, invincible enough to invade and occupy every country in the world, just so we can monopolize their petroleum - neo-conman delusions notwithstanding.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:11:49
In the world of Quality Control, there is an expression:
Fix the problem - Not the blame.
If the auto industry is really a dinosaur, unable to adapt, unable to evolve, then it should perish. We will never have a military that is big enough, strong enough, intelligent enough, invincible enough to invade and occupy every country in the world, just so we can monopolize their petroleum - neo-conman delusions notwithstanding.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:11:49
Hillary Agonistes: Why Doesn't She Concede?
After Super Tuesday, Rodham LOST 11 consecutive races. Her "big victory" day, March 4th, she actually lost Texas. The next two contests, she LOST. She has LOST more primaries than Obama. That's PRIMARIES - not caucuses. She's the loser. Get it. And the media doesn't want her out of the race. It's the media that has kept her in - for their own profits.
It's the majority of Democrats that want her out of the race because they know she's hurting the party and damaging the presumptive candidate.
Try to catch up.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:38:02
It's the majority of Democrats that want her out of the race because they know she's hurting the party and damaging the presumptive candidate.
Try to catch up.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:38:02
Not me. I stay in the shallows.
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:32:47
8 posted 05/15/2008 at 07:32:47
How apropos. Your handle really says it ...
... it IS all about you.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 15:36:07
... it IS all about you.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 15:36:07
Precisely. She always thought that the nomination was a lock, so all of her political actions in the Senate have been designed with the idea of running in the general. Her bad advisors, Bill included, never told her she had to win the nomination first and foremost - so she postured herself far too right-of-center for most of the Democratic Party electorate.
Someone at her campaign headquarters should have posted a sign -
"IT'S THE WAR, STUPID !!"
That might have helped ...
... 5-1/2 years ago.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:58:46
Someone at her campaign headquarters should have posted a sign -
"IT'S THE WAR, STUPID !!"
That might have helped ...
... 5-1/2 years ago.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:58:46
That's a lie - and a big one. There are at least 4 caucus states that haven't even released popular vote numbers - and Obama won all of them by substantial margins. That's exactly why the "popular vote" argument can never work. There's not even a way to count them.
But the Super Ds know that if they could be counted, he'd be ahead.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:54:52
But the Super Ds know that if they could be counted, he'd be ahead.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:54:52
This is exactly why the major media wants to keep the fantasy alive. They have a vested interest in running this season til the last possible second.
She's spent a fortune on ads already and she'll spend a fortune more, as long as she can find supporters foolish enough to keep sending her money. Her foundering campaign is a cash cow to the networks. If it weren't, she'd have been out after losing 11 consecutive contests back in February.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:51:59
She's spent a fortune on ads already and she'll spend a fortune more, as long as she can find supporters foolish enough to keep sending her money. Her foundering campaign is a cash cow to the networks. If it weren't, she'd have been out after losing 11 consecutive contests back in February.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:51:59
LOL
She gained a whopping 12 delegates - at this rate, if only we had another 40 states left to go, she might have a chance.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:47:08
She gained a whopping 12 delegates - at this rate, if only we had another 40 states left to go, she might have a chance.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 10:47:08
Six Reasons Why Obama and Clinton Would Each Say "Yes" to VP
If Obama would offer Rodham the VP spot, she should and would accept. As you note, she'd be the first woman to serve in the Executive Branch and it would satisfy at least some of her ambition - even moreso should Obama, for whatever reason, not be able to finish his term(s). But it would be a terrible idea for Obama to offer such a spot. In fact, it alienates his base and goes counter to everything he's campaigned on. It also makes the fight for the presidency that much harder, as her baggage is easily exploited by the hateful "right". She's the biggest GOTV incentive the Republicans would have had, if she'd been the nominee. She won't be.
Conversely, Obama should NOT accept any invitation for the VP slot on the ticket. It is not in his best interest and, being a young man, his future would have been better served remaining in the Senate until another opportunity presented itself for the nation's CEO - which would only be a few short years away.
But that's academic, because he'll win the nomination AND the presidency this time around.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 07:02:20
Conversely, Obama should NOT accept any invitation for the VP slot on the ticket. It is not in his best interest and, being a young man, his future would have been better served remaining in the Senate until another opportunity presented itself for the nation's CEO - which would only be a few short years away.
But that's academic, because he'll win the nomination AND the presidency this time around.
8 posted 05/14/2008 at 07:02:20
Obama Focuses On November, Clinton On West Virginia
LOL
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 21:58:50
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 21:58:50
It would seem so.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:37:21
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:37:21
If you understood what an Achilles heel was, you might comprehend that WV will not be Obama's undoing.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:34:45
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:34:45
Yes - it means the race for WV is over.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:31:40
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:31:40
8~) posted 05/13/2008 at 18:29:49
LOL
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:28:05
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:28:05
Raymondf
"I've read 2500 books including the Bible 3 times, how many have you read."
LOL
Isn't American Gladiator on now? You're missing it.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:27:21
"I've read 2500 books including the Bible 3 times, how many have you read."
LOL
Isn't American Gladiator on now? You're missing it.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:27:21
If Rodham were a better candidate, then how could she go more than two months without a single winning day? After she lost Super Tuesday, she flubbed 11 consecutive contests.
Sounds like a loser to me.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:25:02
Sounds like a loser to me.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:25:02
"How does this translate into electability this November?"
For Obama ?? It makes no difference whatsoever.
For Rodham ?? She won't be running this November.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:18:28
For Obama ?? It makes no difference whatsoever.
For Rodham ?? She won't be running this November.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:18:28
I don't know if the numbers will come out that even. I suspect there might be a missing percent or two - none of the aboves, or something like that.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:10:34
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:10:34
Wow! She only won her home State by 17% ?? Pretty feeble.
Obama won Illinois by nearly twice that.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:02:58
Obama won Illinois by nearly twice that.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 18:02:58
Different cloud.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:58:33
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:58:33
West Virginians vote early and often.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:57:03
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:57:03
88% of West Virginians think Obama is a Muslim.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:56:15
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:56:15
The Buddha focuses on his navel.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:43:20
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:43:20
"How do we provide people with education, opportunity, housing, medical, decent food, re-training when necessary."
Doesn't the "free market" provide that?
LOL
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:42:41
Doesn't the "free market" provide that?
LOL
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:42:41
Curiously, the least educated state in the union.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:41:04
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:41:04
James Carville Says Obama Likely To Be Nominee
After winning the first contest, after tying for delegates in the second, after winning the third contest, after winning the fourth contest, after winning on Tsunami Tuesday and then following up with 11 MORE CONSECUTIVE WINS, why is it still revelatory when someone admits that Rodham has lost this race? Once the real numbers came in from the March 4th contests and we learned that she actually hadn't carried Texas, everybody should have known that it was over.
This contest was decided over two months ago, but the major media were still making so many millions in campaign advertising that they somehow forgot to tell us. To continue to waste Democratic Party member's money, to continue to damage the heir presumptive, to continue to postpone the contest against McBatty - there's no excuse for any of it!
And now, finally, when everybody with more than a couple of firing neurons in their skull have come to the conclusion that Rodham CANNOT win, the decision is made to continue the race anyway ?? !! ?? !!
WTF ! ???
It's long past time to move on. No amount of graffiti is ever going to cover the writing on the wall.
Obama will have the nomination.
Whether he secures the presidency or not is a function of how long it takes for the Democratic Party members to get their heads out of their asses.
And it starts with Rodham.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 11:31:03
This contest was decided over two months ago, but the major media were still making so many millions in campaign advertising that they somehow forgot to tell us. To continue to waste Democratic Party member's money, to continue to damage the heir presumptive, to continue to postpone the contest against McBatty - there's no excuse for any of it!
And now, finally, when everybody with more than a couple of firing neurons in their skull have come to the conclusion that Rodham CANNOT win, the decision is made to continue the race anyway ?? !! ?? !!
WTF ! ???
It's long past time to move on. No amount of graffiti is ever going to cover the writing on the wall.
Obama will have the nomination.
Whether he secures the presidency or not is a function of how long it takes for the Democratic Party members to get their heads out of their asses.
And it starts with Rodham.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 11:31:03
Cease-fire holds in Sadr City after deadly clashes
timothe
"Yeah...we're the terrorists. OK. I get it. All Bush's fault. Sure"
That's quite a cogent defense of Bush and his administration. Don't tell me. Captain of the debating club ??
LOL
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:25:35
"Yeah...we're the terrorists. OK. I get it. All Bush's fault. Sure"
That's quite a cogent defense of Bush and his administration. Don't tell me. Captain of the debating club ??
LOL
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:25:35
GhostintheMachine
"Its good to see you terrorists supporters call suicide bombers successful, I call them insane."
If a suicide bomber's intention is to bomb while committing suicide, and they do that, they've succeeded. If you achieve your goal, you are "successful".
Is English not your first language?
If you support the administration that has FAILED to capture Osama bin Laden - AFTER 6-1/2 YEARS - then you support terrorism. If you support the man whose early business FAILURES were funded by the bin Laden family, then you support terrorism. If you support the man who holds hands with the Saudis, the country that spawned and funded 15 of the 9/11 hijackers, then you support terrorism.
Who do YOU support?
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:35:51
"Its good to see you terrorists supporters call suicide bombers successful, I call them insane."
If a suicide bomber's intention is to bomb while committing suicide, and they do that, they've succeeded. If you achieve your goal, you are "successful".
Is English not your first language?
If you support the administration that has FAILED to capture Osama bin Laden - AFTER 6-1/2 YEARS - then you support terrorism. If you support the man whose early business FAILURES were funded by the bin Laden family, then you support terrorism. If you support the man who holds hands with the Saudis, the country that spawned and funded 15 of the 9/11 hijackers, then you support terrorism.
Who do YOU support?
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:35:51
The "liberation of Kuwait" has produced a state that is anything but liberated. Our own State Department has had them on watch for human trafficking for the last 15 years. They are a SLAVE state. Unless you are part of the ruling class, you'd have faired no worse under Saddam Hussein in Kuwait.
(http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Kuwait-2.htm )
The only thing we "saved" in Kuwait was the Kuwaiti oil for ourselves - so that makes you, and anyone else involved, nothing more than an "invader".
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:27:52
(http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Kuwait-2.htm )
The only thing we "saved" in Kuwait was the Kuwaiti oil for ourselves - so that makes you, and anyone else involved, nothing more than an "invader".
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 16:27:52
"Petraeus have been doing all this time!"
Hmm. Following the orders of the commander in chief ? That would be my guess.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 15:40:40
Hmm. Following the orders of the commander in chief ? That would be my guess.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 15:40:40
That's because successful suicide bombers can never be prosecuted under the rules of the Geneva conventions.
Suicide is the ultimate loophole.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 15:35:41
Suicide is the ultimate loophole.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 15:35:41
TgoodAngel writes:
"This cannot forebode well for Iraq and the U.S.! Al-Sadr is emasculating the U.S. efforts to effect a positive change!"
??
Huh?
We have no business being in Iraq and haven't for years. Our own presence "emasculates" us, because in 5+ years, we haven't even been able to quell the violence in Baghdad, let alone Iraq. From what imaginary plateau do your comments proceed? Iraq cannot be "un-failed". The past will not be forgotten, the dead will not come back to life, the displaced will never return home, the blind will not see, the lame will not walk and our tax coffers will never miraculously be refilled.
It's a FAILURE.
Get it?
Bush's Iraq policy has already failed. Nothing we do can force it to succeed.
The only "success" that can be had is that of the Iraqis themselves - and al Sadr's minions are Iraqi.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 15:33:21
"This cannot forebode well for Iraq and the U.S.! Al-Sadr is emasculating the U.S. efforts to effect a positive change!"
??
Huh?
We have no business being in Iraq and haven't for years. Our own presence "emasculates" us, because in 5+ years, we haven't even been able to quell the violence in Baghdad, let alone Iraq. From what imaginary plateau do your comments proceed? Iraq cannot be "un-failed". The past will not be forgotten, the dead will not come back to life, the displaced will never return home, the blind will not see, the lame will not walk and our tax coffers will never miraculously be refilled.
It's a FAILURE.
Get it?
Bush's Iraq policy has already failed. Nothing we do can force it to succeed.
The only "success" that can be had is that of the Iraqis themselves - and al Sadr's minions are Iraqi.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 15:33:21
5+ years and we're still waiting to secure Baghdad. Not some outlying province. Not some cave in Kurdistan. The commander in chief has yet to secure the capitol city.
Is there anther word for failure that his supporters might comprehend? They still don't seem to get it.
More than 5 years of abject, irredeemable, unimaginable FAILURE.
Stop the funding of any military appropriations - for any reason. Stop the contracts for "rebuilding" Iraq. Stop the security contracts with CACI, AEGIS, Blackwater and all the other mercenaries in Iraq. Start withdrawals tomorrow. Stop making excuses. Stop listening to lies. Submit to the overwhelming will of the American people.
Get out of Iraq ... now. ASAP
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 13:24:43
Is there anther word for failure that his supporters might comprehend? They still don't seem to get it.
More than 5 years of abject, irredeemable, unimaginable FAILURE.
Stop the funding of any military appropriations - for any reason. Stop the contracts for "rebuilding" Iraq. Stop the security contracts with CACI, AEGIS, Blackwater and all the other mercenaries in Iraq. Start withdrawals tomorrow. Stop making excuses. Stop listening to lies. Submit to the overwhelming will of the American people.
Get out of Iraq ... now. ASAP
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 13:24:43
Man Sues Jet Blue After Having To Spend Hours In Toilet
JET BLEW IT !
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 11:09:32
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 11:09:32
China Earthquake, Florida Fires, US Tornadoes, Burma Cyclone Ravage The Angry Earth
I suspect that, on some level, we're all Flat Earthers. The difference between the sage and the fool is only that the fool thinks he's not.
8~] posted 05/13/2008 at 07:45:04
8~] posted 05/13/2008 at 07:45:04
If we're going to anthropomorphize the planet, I guess we might as well imbue it with our basest traits. Perhaps the tectonic plates are ENVIOUS of our position of planetary dominion. Could it be that the oceans are GREEDY and wish to occupy more of the total surface area of the earth? Maybe the weather is JEALOUS that Linday Lohan and Brittney Spears get more press than it does.
I can't help but suspect that we've been listening to the clergy too much. They would tell you, without blinking, that the omniscient Author of the Universe is petty, capricious, vengeful ... all sorts of nonsense ... and never even pause to question their own blasphemy.
Where does this lead us?
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 07:42:15
I can't help but suspect that we've been listening to the clergy too much. They would tell you, without blinking, that the omniscient Author of the Universe is petty, capricious, vengeful ... all sorts of nonsense ... and never even pause to question their own blasphemy.
Where does this lead us?
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 07:42:15
The Bipartisanship Scam
emmaco
"Bizarre reasoning. I suppose mens and womens restrooms should be the same size based on that logic..."
Now THAT is bizarre reasoning.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:14:06
"Bizarre reasoning. I suppose mens and womens restrooms should be the same size based on that logic..."
Now THAT is bizarre reasoning.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:14:06
Good post.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:09:44
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:09:44
It would be elegant spin ... if anybody bought it.
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:08:22
8 posted 05/13/2008 at 17:08:22
After Indiana ID Ruling: Missouri Rushes to Pass Worst Voting Law
It's interesting that Republicans are not embarrassed by having the well earned reputation as being anti-democratic. Their record of voter suppression incidences are legion, and the press makes no mention of it. They know that, historically, when voter turnout is high, Democratic candidates win - and vice versa. The more people who vote, the less likely a Republican will win the election. That's what the data shows.
So why isn't this more highly publicized by the MSM? What do they stand to gain by voter suppression?
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 07:27:46
So why isn't this more highly publicized by the MSM? What do they stand to gain by voter suppression?
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 07:27:46
Bill Kristol Predicts Obama Veep As...Dick Gephardt?
Mr. Kristol is, if nothing else, consistent. He is the all time Titanium Man, the Cal Ripkin, the Guinness Book of World Records candidate of the American political punditocracy.
Somehow, despite the odds against being wrong for so many years, Kristol has an unblemished consecutive record of never being right about a single thing since 1997 when, against the better judgement of the sports illuminati, he picked the Florida Marlins to win the World Series.
Every since that unfortunate day, he's kept his stellar record of being WRONG about EVERYTHING intact, and it might be many generations before anyone even threatens to break his record.
Congratulations Bill Kristol - You've done it again!
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 07:42:58
Somehow, despite the odds against being wrong for so many years, Kristol has an unblemished consecutive record of never being right about a single thing since 1997 when, against the better judgement of the sports illuminati, he picked the Florida Marlins to win the World Series.
Every since that unfortunate day, he's kept his stellar record of being WRONG about EVERYTHING intact, and it might be many generations before anyone even threatens to break his record.
Congratulations Bill Kristol - You've done it again!
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 07:42:58
Arianna's New Book Shows How Media Ignored 'Downing Street Memo'
This hackneyed argument is getting tiresome. Bill Clinton had eight years to invade Iraq if so chose. He did not. Even after the open letter from the neo-conmen, the infamous plea to invade which can still be found on the PNAC website, he STILL didn't invade.¨¨
Conversely, AFTER Hans Blix had told the Bush administration that they were given full access, AFTER they had checked all the sights the "intelligence" community claimed were "hot", AFTER they had found absolutely nothing threatening to the world, or even the neighbors of Iraq, AFTER the UN weapons inspectors said they wanted and needed more time, Bush the Lessor still invaded.
That's what the timeline shows. That's what it will always show. And no shit-spinning dung-Devishes will ever successfully play revisionista on those facts.
IT IS BUSH'S FAULT.
PERIOD.
LIVE WITH IT.
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 12:17:57
Conversely, AFTER Hans Blix had told the Bush administration that they were given full access, AFTER they had checked all the sights the "intelligence" community claimed were "hot", AFTER they had found absolutely nothing threatening to the world, or even the neighbors of Iraq, AFTER the UN weapons inspectors said they wanted and needed more time, Bush the Lessor still invaded.
That's what the timeline shows. That's what it will always show. And no shit-spinning dung-Devishes will ever successfully play revisionista on those facts.
IT IS BUSH'S FAULT.
PERIOD.
LIVE WITH IT.
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 12:17:57
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfailed
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction,"
Dr. Hans Blix
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 07:12:33
Donald Rumsfailed
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction,"
Dr. Hans Blix
8 posted 05/12/2008 at 07:12:33
Clinton goes from inevitable nominee to on the ropes
Some of this is "true" - and yet some of it is still media spin. We're led to believe things that obfuscate the fact that the race was never really close. For example ...
"She lost 11 races in a row in three weeks, relinquishing a lead in the delegate count that she would not get back."
She didn't relinquish a lead in "pledged" delegates, because she never had one. She only relinquished a lead in total delegates because so many Super Ds placed themselves in her column prematurely. She was the heir apparent, so they all assumed from the outset that they'd wind up on her side of the ledger. They were wrong. Obama NEVER trailed in the race for pledged delegates - which was the goal when the rules of thecontest were agreed to.
Get Pledged Delegates - that was the name of the game - and that's what he did. If there was a day of contests, he moved further ahead. Her "Big Win" day on March 4th turned out to be a big fizzle, because she actually wound up LOSING Texas, despite taking the popular vote there. She's been looking at his taillights since Iowa - and they'd only been getting further and further away every day that contests were held. It's not until Pennsylvania that she actually moves closer, and by then, it's already too little, too late.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 18:15:56
"She lost 11 races in a row in three weeks, relinquishing a lead in the delegate count that she would not get back."
She didn't relinquish a lead in "pledged" delegates, because she never had one. She only relinquished a lead in total delegates because so many Super Ds placed themselves in her column prematurely. She was the heir apparent, so they all assumed from the outset that they'd wind up on her side of the ledger. They were wrong. Obama NEVER trailed in the race for pledged delegates - which was the goal when the rules of thecontest were agreed to.
Get Pledged Delegates - that was the name of the game - and that's what he did. If there was a day of contests, he moved further ahead. Her "Big Win" day on March 4th turned out to be a big fizzle, because she actually wound up LOSING Texas, despite taking the popular vote there. She's been looking at his taillights since Iowa - and they'd only been getting further and further away every day that contests were held. It's not until Pennsylvania that she actually moves closer, and by then, it's already too little, too late.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 18:15:56
House GOP: Can it Get Any Worse
You've hit upon the real reason that the media - especially the MSM, or Networks - want this campaign to go on forever. Rodham and Obama have raised and spent record amounts of money - and continue to do so as long as there's a "race" to cover. Never mind that it's been inevitable for nearly two months now, as long as we can be sold the notion that it's still "too close to call", they make more money.
Deceiving the American public is profitable - in the extreme. They have a disincentive to tell us the truth.
Obama has won.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 18:41:43
Deceiving the American public is profitable - in the extreme. They have a disincentive to tell us the truth.
Obama has won.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 18:41:43
Who gives a shit what al Qaeda "scores"? What do you think this is - Skee-Ball? In '83 our Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed, killing 241 American military personnel. Within 4 months, our forces were withdrawn from a place we had no business being - just like Iraq. Nobody accused Reagan of "surrender".
Grow up.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 18:27:45
Grow up.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 18:27:45
I've noticed that this usually happens when it actually HAS made it to the page - but then is subsequently pulled down again. I can only ascribe it to mercurial moderation.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:56:27
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:56:27
Thanks for your advice. It sort of still begs the question, though. The inane sound-bites seem to have no trouble making it to the page - including my own - but more pithy things often go astray. Rather a selective "technical glitch", wouldn't you say? Or does your critical thinking not extend that far?
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:52:30
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:52:30
Do you really think so? It doesn't seem that way to me.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:26:21
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:26:21
My posts seem to be going into the ether again. It's a wonder that anybody would take the time composing a well reasoned, on topic comment for this blog with no telling whatsoever whether it will get past the capricious moderators.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:24:34
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:24:34
The Republicans didn't get the message in '06, and they're not getting the message now. That's why McSalty is their nominee. It's not because they like him. He wasn't even good enough back in '00 when he was Karl Rove's bitch. It's not because they think he's better than Obama - or, for that matter, Rodham. It's just that they are too desperate ... too beholden ... to the corporate pricks that hold their leashes to have come up with a really viable alternative candidate. Someone like Hagel, for example. Because that would have meant having to eat crow and admit that the past 8 years of neo-conman rule was a catastrophic failure. So they can't do that, no matter how dismal the last 7-1/2 years have been.
So ever since McBatshit kissed the outgoing Don's ring back in '01, he's been the heir apparent. Even if that means watching their ship sail right into heavily mined Tokyo bay.
And all of this means that the fight ahead is going to be really, really dirty - because the Republicans are counting on very low voter turnout. If enough Americans can become disgusted with the whole election process to not even bother to go to the polls, then they have the remotest shot at holding on to a few seats.
But if we remain engaged and enthused about the prospect of change, they're fucked.
And I don't mean in the pleasant, healthy and mutually gratifying way.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 10:15:40
So ever since McBatshit kissed the outgoing Don's ring back in '01, he's been the heir apparent. Even if that means watching their ship sail right into heavily mined Tokyo bay.
And all of this means that the fight ahead is going to be really, really dirty - because the Republicans are counting on very low voter turnout. If enough Americans can become disgusted with the whole election process to not even bother to go to the polls, then they have the remotest shot at holding on to a few seats.
But if we remain engaged and enthused about the prospect of change, they're fucked.
And I don't mean in the pleasant, healthy and mutually gratifying way.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 10:15:40
Obama Campaign Launches "Vote For Change" Voter Registration Drive
When did Jim Hightower die?
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:18:54
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 11:18:54
Kudos to Russert for feeding Terry his own words.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 10:54:33
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 10:54:33
Mamaaaaaaa ---- Don't let your babies grow up to be crowbars.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 10:20:22
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 10:20:22
Does this mean that you're not afraid that 97% of the black people will vote against him because he's half white?
%\ posted 05/11/2008 at 09:57:02
%\ posted 05/11/2008 at 09:57:02
?? I'm not sure who you are referring to.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:36:02
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:36:02
Regarding the guilt-by-association reference, one would have thought that it might have been significant when we all found out that the bin Laden family had been Bush's financiers early in his business career.¨¨If having a bin Laden backer doesn't keep you from being reelected after 9/11, then I can't imagine what effect any association can have on anybody.
The mindless, neo-conned droids will simply shovel any shit they're told, no matter how ridiculous it may sound to any thinking person. Nothing we do or say can stop it.
We can only hope to contain it - not unlike a toxic waste spill.¨
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:33:58
The mindless, neo-conned droids will simply shovel any shit they're told, no matter how ridiculous it may sound to any thinking person. Nothing we do or say can stop it.
We can only hope to contain it - not unlike a toxic waste spill.¨
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:33:58
Talk about your "guilt by associations" ... how Bush ever got reelected after it was revealed that at least two of his earliest business failures were funded by the bin Laden family will be studied by historians for decades to come. If ever hands were dirtier than the Bush family's, I haven't seen them.
Herbert Walker was the Yuri Andropov of American presidents.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:13:54
Herbert Walker was the Yuri Andropov of American presidents.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:13:54
Don't change the subject. Osama bin Laden endorses John McCain ... and so does his wife (or one of them) I read a quote from him right here on HuffPo yesterday -
- so it must be true.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:04:08
- so it must be true.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 09:04:08
"The liberals are being manipulated and they don't even know it. "
In light of the Bush "reelection" in '04, this has to be among the funniest things we'll read today.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 08:58:03
In light of the Bush "reelection" in '04, this has to be among the funniest things we'll read today.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 08:58:03
A specious argument. The vast majority of young people that have swelled the ranks of the Democratic Party, the one's the Obama campaign has inspired, will never be "polled" until election day.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 08:56:24
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 08:56:24
There are others, but she would be a fine choice for running mate.
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 08:52:24
8 posted 05/11/2008 at 08:52:24
Popular Stories on HuffPost
On Tuesday night's "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert had fun with...
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The AP reports on Obama's swift and forceful response to Bush and McCain's criticism of...
The Tennessee GOP hasn't yet had their fill of Obama dirty tricks. A few months ago,...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
Sixteen tips for getting good sleep. There's a lot of advice out there about getting good...
8 posted 05/17/2008 at 11:47:42