And now onto the fall

[oldanforgotten]

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, one thing that cannot be taken away from Obama is that he not only surrounded himself with the best team, but furthermore, he has run one of the greatest primary campaigns in recent memory.

1) Early on, he sensed momentum in adopting a theme of change rather than the one of experience and mastery of politics, and he took the message to a new level, turning it not only into a theme for his campaign, but as an indirect negative propaganda against his opponents, and as a theme that would likely as well, carry into the presidential election.
2) He is both an enthused and strong public speaker, and he can rally a crowd extremely well.
3) He built grassroots level support in every state, and furthermore, unlike the Clinton campaign that ran from the top down, encouraged ownership in the campaign at that grassroots level, empowering them to try and build a larger base, appealing not only to voters, but more importantly, his strongest supporters.
4) He’s the first candidate in recent memory to not just attract younger people to support him, but more importantly, to actually get them to come out and vote, something candidates have not been doing in the past. While older people tend to have more influence at the polls because of sheer numbers, younger people generally are capable of making the most noise, and his speeches tend to appeal to a younger audience moreso than older.
5) His ability to raise money, and the approach they took with smaller donors with a bigger list of people to continue to tap into, will likely become the new model for political fundraising. It was risky at inception, but it was an ingenious move on the part of his finance team.
6) Most importantly, he surrounded himself with what will likely become an all star cast of senior aides and advisors, because as a team, they did almost everything right.

Lies will be made up both ways, some batshit crazy radical Islamic… I mean Christian fundamentalists will make up stories, some women will scorn him (and I will always stand by my statement that any person who votes for Obama because he is black should lose the right to vote, any person who votes for Clinton because she’s a woman, or anyone who votes against them for the same principle should lose their ability to vote), and propaganda will be spread, but if this is any indication of things to come, he will be a formidable candidate in the fall.

It takes true desperation to try and claim the wrong concentration camp is = “I was under sniper fire”, and if those types of statements, and the statements of people he has condemned are the best people can come up with against him, I’d say he’s guilty of also running a rather ethical campaign, which is an added bonus.

Now it remains to be seen how badly Clinton wants to destroy his candidacy by stretching it out and creating a larger rift so she can run in 2012, how he responds to a candidate that has both crossover appeal, but also appeals, as he is trying to do, with moderates.

If he takes McCain lightly, he’ll get buried. If he concedes to Clinton and makes her a VP, he’ll risk alienating a lot of newer, young voters who don’t like her. He’s still got some tough decisions ahead, and he still has to try and unify a party against the will of his opponent, who has done nothing at this point to aid that process.

[Deathravin]

Just because you can 'win' the primary, doesn't mean you're going to be the best to run against the other party. Obama won't be President running against McCain. Where I think Clinton would have more of a chance.

[Parkbandit]

:rofl:

Seriously.. if he had run one of the 'greatest' primary campaigns.. it wouldn't have taken him until June to secure the nomination. After MONTHS of the media saying there is no way that Hillary can beat him for the nomination, she continued to win primary after primary. The fact that he could never really put it away should indicate that perhaps the term "greatest" shouldn't be used.

[Celephais]

perhaps the term "greatest" shouldn't be used.
When I get home I'm going to photoshop Obama's face onto Cassius Clay... Maybe make Hillary Sonny.

[oldanforgotten]

:rofl:

Seriously.. if he had run one of the 'greatest' primary campaigns.. it wouldn't have taken him until June to secure the nomination. After MONTHS of the media saying there is no way that Hillary can beat him for the nomination, she continued to win primary after primary. The fact that he could never really put it away should indicate that perhaps the term "greatest" shouldn't be used.



PB, you miss the point. Look at the number of people who voted, even early on in the primary season. Yes, he didn’t put Clinton away early on, but when was the last time in the primary season a relative unknown took out a “sure thing”?

Look at how well they did as a whole getting people out to vote in the primary. 35 million people voted in the democratic primary.
Look at how well he did when it came to fundraising.
He comes out of this primary war with a still strong 58% favorable rating, and his unfavorable rating still hovers in the 20’s and 30’s.

Yes, he has been the subject of favorable media coverage, and a lot of that relies in the fact that his campaign, unlike the others, gave the media unprecedented levels of access to his campaign, resulting in more coverage. I don’t see where he hasn’t enabled such coverage or hindered it.

Nowhere did I say he was the stronger candidate for the presidency, merely that he ran an outstanding campaign from top to bottom.

[Mabus]

TheDNCChosenOne did not get the number of pledged delegates to win outright. Party elites (super delegates) had to put him over the top.

TheDNCChosenOne receved less then half of the votes from his own party, and less then another candidate.

I wouldn't call that the best in recent history. I would call that a slim win.

[oldanforgotten]

TheDNCChosenOne received more votes in this campaign than any democrat or republican nominee in the history of the primary process.

TheDNCChosenOne receved less then half of the votes from his own party, and less then another candidate, counting Michigan, where he was not on the ballot, and Florida, where the process was compromised for a rules violation.

Between the two candidates, more votes came in their support than any 4 republicans in history combined, and any 3 democrats in history combined. They also combined to raise more money than any 6 candidates in the history of the process combined.



All depends how you look at it.

[Mabus]

All depends how you look at it.
I prefer truth and facts.

If I wanted to look at it through rose-colored glasses and discount what actually happened I could consider it one of the greatest.

He did have a much, much better caucus strategy then his opponents. There, I said something nice. :)

[Crazy Bard]

The only reason he had a hard time locking up the nomination is because he ran against Hillary who we all have to give credit too. She ran a competitive campaign however times have changed and the clintons are a name in the past. If you watched McCain in Louisiana do you know what hell we'd be in with him as president. Barack will win the presidential election without clinton on the ticket and he did create a masterful campaign.

[ClydeR]

He comes out of this primary war with a still strong 58% favorable rating, and his unfavorable rating still hovers in the 20’s and 30’s.

That doesn't sound right to me. The last poll I saw had Obama and McCain with about equal favorable and unfavorable ratings.

[ClydeR]

If you watched McCain in Louisiana do you know what hell we'd be in with him as president.

I watched McCain last night in Louisiana, and I don't know what you're talking about. I concede that McCain is not the orator that Obama is, and I will even concede that public speaking skills are important for a president. But public speaking is not the most important duty of the president. How does McCain's mediocre speaking skill translate into a hellish presidency? Or perhaps you found fault with the substance of McCain's speech.

[Clove]

:rofl:

Seriously.. if he had run one of the 'greatest' primary campaigns.. it wouldn't have taken him until June to secure the nomination. After MONTHS of the media saying there is no way that Hillary can beat him for the nomination, she continued to win primary after primary. The fact that he could never really put it away should indicate that perhaps the term "greatest" shouldn't be used.I don't know if "greatest" is appropriate, but you aren't exactly contexting Obama's win either. Slim, yes, but it would have been a slim win by either opponent.

When you consider a junior senator with his only other background being state legislature beat the former first lady with all the support of Bill Clinton behind her which is no small leverage. He virtually ran the Democrat party for 8 years and tailored the party's caucus system. One would hard pressed to find a better campaign advisor. On top of that many of the states Hillary won, she went into with a larger margin and left with that margin dramatically deflated. Obama proved himself to be effective at maximizing his gains and minimizing his losses.

Really you can criticize his politics, but it's hard to criticize his campaign.

[oldanforgotten]

I prefer truth and facts.

If I wanted to look at it through rose-colored glasses and discount what actually happened I could consider it one of the greatest.

He did have a much, much better caucus strategy then his opponents. There, I said something nice. :)


Then your facts are correct. he received more votes than any other candidate for either party in the history of the primary process, and fundraising wise, he and clinton did better than any 6 candidates combined in the history of the primary process.

[Mabus]

When you consider a junior senator with his only other background being state legislature...
Now there is a man with experience!

Clinton ran a terrible campaign. Bad advice, she took it for granted that she was going to win. If she would have started her campaign the way she ended it (in your face, with feeling, connect with the voters) things may have turned out differently.

Subtract the Michigan delegates, which he received zero votes for, and the Florida ones, which he was in violation of DNC rules by his February 5th nationwide ad buy which ran them in Florida, and it all is a lot closer in pledged delegates then it looks.

Terrible initial strategy by his main opponent, "swift boating" Bill Clinton, good caucus strategy, media support, throngs of irrational supporters, DNC afraid of consequences and rulings outside the rules of his own party's charter.

Hardly "the greatest".

[Mabus]

he received more votes than any other candidate for either party in the history of the primary process,
Care to show those totals? Are you including "estimates" from caucuses or actual vote totals?

[Clove]

Now there is a man with experience!

Clinton ran a terrible campaign. Bad advice, she took it for granted that she was going to win. If she would have started her campaign the way she ended it (in your face, with feeling, connect with the voters) things may have turned out differently.

Subtract the Michigan delegates, which he received zero votes for, and the Florida ones, which he was in violation of DNC rules by his February 5th nationwide ad buy which ran them in Florida, and it all is a lot closer in pledged delegates then it looks.

Terrible initial strategy by his main opponent, "swift boating" Bill Clinton, good caucus strategy, media support, throngs of irrational supporters, DNC afraid of consequences and rulings outside the rules of his own party's charter.

Hardly "the greatest".Keep spinning, the bottom line is he beat a tough opponent. Michigan and Florida shouldn't have counted at all, but they did and Hillary and Obama both negotiated those delegates. I'm sorry it doesn't meet with your approval. Get back to us when you have any influence in the DNC.

[oldanforgotten]

That doesn't sound right to me. The last poll I saw had Obama and McCain with about equal favorable and unfavorable ratings.

McCain does have high numbers as well.

According to the last USAToday poll

Obama was like 58-37 in favorable unfavorable
McCain was around 61-32.
Clinton was 52-45

As the party consolidates, if that ever happens, Obama might get a brief short term boost. Whether he can hold onto that remains to be seen.

[oldanforgotten]

Care to show those totals? Are you including "estimates" from caucuses or actual vote totals?

more than 35 million people voted in this primary for the democratic nomination. Never before have 20 million people voted in a single party's primary process. It takes a while, but CNN has all of the numbers from past elections.

As for the "estimates" for caucuses, I enjoy seeing how people love to discredit victories and voters based on the process, and assume it means 0, but when low turnout is caused by lack of interest because the party chose to invalidate the results, or a candidate wasn't on the ballot, it becomes part of the natural number.

It's akin to saying that if a company had an employee vote for a holiday party location, then said, sorry, the vote doesn't matter, and took some of the options away, and a tiny fraction of the people that would normally have voted, just went ahead and voted anyway, it somehow means the same thing as a normal process.

[Mabus]

Keep spinning, the bottom line is he beat a tough opponent.
It is not spin to post the truth.

The DNC RBC and the super delegates chose Obama. He did not have the pledged delegates to win. To claim otherwise is to spin the election.

Michigan and Florida shouldn't have counted at all, but they did
The DNC RBC overstepped its bounds with the 100% deduction of delegates.

Once again kids, read the actual rules. It calls for a 50% reduction in pledged delegates and a 100% reduction in unpledged delegates for states in violation.

It also states that if the party makes a good attempt at rectifying the situation to bring the state back into compliance (which the Florida legislature did try, twice) that there would be no reduction.

and Hillary and Obama both negotiated those delegates.
TheDNCChosenOne asked for a 50/50% split on Michigan. is that negotiating?

Was that an attempt to "unify the party"?

No, it was a slap in the face to Clinton supporters. Go read their posts, as I have. Many, many say they will vote McCain, write in Clinton or stay at home.

His power grab may backfire in the general election.

I'm sorry it doesn't meet with your approval.
I was not going to vote for either DNC candidate, I just like watching the fanatics squirm and post when they hear the truth.

Get back to us when you have any influence in the DNC.
If you watched that meeting you would realize that it would not be so hard to take over that committee (money, a little influence). Where the hell did they get those people?

I believe in the United States Constitution to much to work for the DNC.

[oldanforgotten]

TheDNCChosenOne did not get the number of pledged delegates to win outright. Party elites (super delegates) had to put him over the top.

TheDNCChosenOne receved less then half of the votes from his own party, and less then another candidate.

I wouldn't call that the best in recent history. I would call that a slim win.




Since you love to use context on your "facts" when it serves you, and ignore it elsewhere, I think we can do the same. And I can't believe you'd admit to something like that.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know if "greatest" is appropriate, but you aren't exactly contexting Obama's win either. Slim, yes, but it would have been a slim win by either opponent.

When you consider a junior senator with his only other background being state legislature beat the former first lady with all the support of Bill Clinton behind her which is no small leverage. He virtually ran the Democrat party for 8 years and tailored the party's caucus system. One would hard pressed to find a better campaign advisor. On top of that many of the states Hillary won, she went into with a larger margin and left with that margin dramatically deflated. Obama proved himself to be effective at maximizing his gains and minimizing his losses.

Really you can criticize his politics, but it's hard to criticize his campaign.

I didn't criticize his campaign.. I was criticizing an Obamaniac claiming it was the "greatest campaign in recent memory"

[Kranar]

The DNC RBC and the super delegates chose Obama. He did not have the pledged delegates to win. To claim otherwise is to spin the election.


It is such spin on your part. Your arguments are so frustrating because you always pick and choose the most irrelevent 'facts' and then use them to justify things that are entirely unrelated. Your idea of an argument as simply posting one fact, and then inferring a bunch of completely wild conclusions and then going back and saying "Well my fact was correct! Don't insult me because I am a fact spouting intellectual!" is absurd.

If there were no super delegates, no so called party elites, then Obama would be the undisputed nominee since he has the majority of pledged delegates. So this claim that it was super delegates who put him over the top is complete nonsense. Just because he happens to have both the majority support of super delegates and the majority support of pledged delegates doesn't mean that elite party insiders secretly met behind closed doors to put him over the top. That's just sour grapes.

Eliminate super delegates, which I think should be done personally, and Obama wins this nomination. There's no DNC conspiracy theory here but have fun believing in one if it makes you feel better.

[Mabus]

Since you love to use context on your "facts" when it serves you, and ignore it elsewhere, I think we can do the same. And I can't believe you'd admit to something like that.
That is so cute! Thank you for taking time to do that for me.

Good to know what you eat!

[Mabus]

It is such spin on your part. Your arguments are so frustrating because you always pick and choose the most irrelevent 'facts' and then use them to justify things that are entirely unrelated. Your idea of an argument as simply posting one fact, and then inferring a bunch of completely wild conclusions and then going back and saying "Well my fact was correct! Don't insult me because I am a fact spouting intellectual!" is absurd.

If there were no super delegates, no so called party elites, then Obama would be the undisputed nominee since he has the majority of pledged delegates. So this claim that it was super delegates who put him over the top is complete nonsense. Just because he happens to have both the majority support of super delegates and the majority support of pledged delegates doesn't mean that elite party insiders secretly met behind closed doors to put him over the top. That's just sour grapes.

Eliminate super delegates, which I think should be done personally, and Obama wins this nomination. There's no DNC conspiracy theory here but have fun believing in one if it makes you feel better.
Did Obama have the 2118 pledged delegates to win?

No.

It really is that simple.

[Kranar]

Did Obama have the 2118 pledged delegates to win?

No.

It really is that simple.


Man you really are dumb.

[oldanforgotten]

It is such spin on your part. Your arguments are so frustrating because you always pick and choose the most irrelevent 'facts' and then use them to justify things that are entirely unrelated. Your idea of an argument as simply posting one fact, and then inferring a bunch of completely wild conclusions and then going back and saying "Well my fact was correct! Don't insult me because I am a fact spouting intellectual!" is absurd.

If there were no super delegates, no so called party elites, then Obama would be the undisputed nominee since he has the majority of pledged delegates. So this claim that it was super delegates who put him over the top is complete nonsense. Just because he happens to have both the majority support of super delegates and the majority support of pledged delegates doesn't mean that elite party insiders secretly met behind closed doors to put him over the top. That's just sour grapes.

Eliminate super delegates, which I think should be done personally, and Obama wins this nomination. There's no DNC conspiracy theory here but have fun believing in one if it makes you feel better.


OMG OMG new Mabus fact!

[AestheticDeath]

Obama had like 2200+ delegates last I heard

[Clove]

Did Obama have the 2118 pledged delegates to win?

No.

It really is that simple.Welcome to the clique.

[Parkbandit]

OMG OMG new Mabus fact!

OMG OMG U R STILL DUMB.

Go choke a cat, dipshit.

[Mabus]

Obama had like 2200+ delegates last I heard

Pledged delegates.

Those do not include super delegates.

[Kembal]

Did Obama have the 2118 pledged delegates to win?

No.

It really is that simple.

Are you a dumbass?

No, seriously, are you a dumbass?

2118 is the majority number of pledged delegates + superdelegates.

Eliminate superdelegates entirely, and the majority number becomes 1705. Obama has 1765.5 pledged delegates.

[Clove]

Are you a dumbass?

No, seriously, are you a dumbass?

2118 is the majority number of pledged delegates + superdelegates.

Eliminate superdelegates entirely, and the majority number becomes 1705. Obama has 1765.5 pledged delegates.Welcome to the clique.

[Mabus]

OMG OMG new Mabus fact!
Yes, attack me when you know what I posted is either true, or conjecture, or my opinion.

Do not attempt to actually point out what you think is incorrect, as that would be intelligent. If you disagree with an opinion merely attack me with childish tactics, as that is how our "new kind of politics" works.

I can see why you support TheDNCChosenOne.

[Mabus]

Are you a dumbass?

No, seriously, are you a dumbass?

2118 is the majority number of pledged delegates + superdelegates.

Eliminate superdelegates entirely, and the majority number becomes 1705. Obama has 1765.5 pledged delegates.
Go back and look at where this came from in this thread.

Let me help you, as I am sure you will not, and merely join in with the other whimpering idiots and childish tactics if I do not do the work for you:

TheDNCChosenOne did not get the number of pledged delegates to win outright. Party elites (super delegates) had to put him over the top.

There, now that you can see you were incorrect I am sure you will admit it, apologize and everyone can get back to people comparing me to others, calling me names, making up untrue accusations and generally being the (attempted) smart-asses they wish they were in real life.

This is the politics folder, after all.

[oldanforgotten]

Yes, attack me when you know what I posted is either true, or conjecture, or my opinion.

Do not attempt to actually point out what you think is incorrect, as that would be intelligent. If you disagree with an opinion merely attack me with childish tactics, as that is how our "new kind of politics" works.

I can see why you support TheDNCChosenOne.

You are an idiot that takes certain numbers out of context and posts them as facts. I can clearly see you are one of the 29% of Americans stupid enough to still think favorably of George Bush.

That about 30% of people fall below an IQ of 90, and about 30% of people rate him favorably or very favorable him I find to be hardly a coincidence. By the way, both of those numbers are facts too.

[Daniel]

On the plus side, Mabus is learning. He no longer attributes someone saying something (he perceived to be) incorrect as lying.

Small victory I guess.

[Daniel]

Welcome to the clique.

Do we get cool buttons?

[Gan]

I want a fucking decoder ring.

[Kembal]

Go back and look at where this came from in this thread.

Let me help you, as I am sure you will not, and merely join in with the other whimpering idiots and childish tactics if I do not do the work for you:

There, now that you can see you were incorrect I am sure you will admit it, apologize and everyone can get back to people comparing me to others, calling me names, making up untrue accusations and generally being the (attempted) smart-asses they wish they were in real life.

This is the politics folder, after all.

First off, theDNCChosenOne was Hillary right up until Iowa. She had a massive lead in superdelegates to start the primary season.

Second, that's the dumbest assertion you can make, that Obama needed the superdelegates to put him over. What the hell do you think Hillary was relying on? At the beginning of the primaries, she was the leader in delegates because of superdelegates. Obama only took the delegate lead in Feburary. And hell, at the end, Hillary was relying on superdelegates to come to her en masse to put her over the top, because she was not winning enough pledged delegates.

I'm failing to see your point with your entire argument. If your argument is Obama didn't win the nomination by having the most support from regular people, then you would look to see if he had the majority of pledged delegates, which he does. If your argument is that the superdelegates "stole" the nomination from Hillary, well, she was relying on the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Obama, so nothing exactly outrageous there.

So, again, I will call you a dumbass.

[Clove]

Do we get cool buttons?


I want a fucking decoder ring.http://www.papaschoppers.com/ProductImages/vondutch-accessories/RN-69-THUMB.gif
Is this what you had in mind?

[CrystalTears]

That's my ring! You fucker. :(

[Clove]

I'm failing to see your point with your entire argument.He's just burning gears. He doesn't have an argument.

[Clove]

That's my ring! You fucker. :(It's the cliques ring now bee-otch.

[CrystalTears]

But my ring has "former semi-conservative" engraved on the inside. I hope that's okay!

[Clove]

But my ring has "former semi-conservative" engraved on the inside. I hope that's okay!Sure, Mabus doesn't care where you sit on the political spectrum if you challenge his bullshit, you're in the clique.

[Gan]

http://www.papaschoppers.com/ProductImages/vondutch-accessories/RN-69-THUMB.gif
Is this what you had in mind?

HAHAHAHAHA

Winner

[Mabus]

Sure, Mabus doesn't care where you sit on the political spectrum if you challenge his bullshit, you're in the clique.
That TheDNCChosenOne needed super delegates and party elites to win is not bullshit, it is truth. That people pile on someone that posts the truth, skip it, and attack is indicative of the low maturity level of the responding posters.

I love the "But Clinton would need them too!" argument voiced here. To funny. It still came down to party elites deciding the election. You can spin it, dismiss it with calls of "her too!", or whatever you wish. This from a party that bitched about the Supreme Court, and not the voters, deciding an election.

If I did not have to live in this country I would wish TheDNCChosenOne would win, and then watch as he floundered helplessly, giving great speeches as Rome burns. As I do live here I cannot sit back and watch the country I love go to hell in a hand-basket. I have donated to John McCain today.

I have really been stirring up some Kucinich people to go work for Nader. I may even circulate petitions to get Nader on the Ohio ballot for November 2008.

I do not "just post on forums", like the majority of you would seem to do. Most of you are not active, or smart enough, to be active. You did not even know the DNC rules for primary elections, yet act as if you are active citizens, instead of the undereducated, ignorant electorate that you have turned out to be.

I have been active in politics a long, long time. I have seen fanatics before, and see them now again in the close-minded group that supports an inexperienced candidate because "he gives a good speech", or for other various (and equally worthless) reasons.

So a thank you, to all you rabid fanatics, for helping me to finally make up my mind.

And now on to the fall!

McCain in 2008, A Leader We Can Believe In (http://www.johnmccain.com/)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

LOL @ Mabus pretending he'd ever vote for someone other than the Republican nominee.

God damn Ganalon with his crazy liberal rhetoric, convincing Mabus to vote for someone other than Obama!!!!

[Mabus]

LOL @ Mabus pretending he'd ever vote for someone other than the Republican nominee.

I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents. Never voted for the Green Party, Socialists or Communists.

Not everyone is a "D" or an "R". Some of us actually care about the country enough to vote for the best candidate.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents. Never voted for the Green Party, Socialists or Communists.

Not everyone is a "D" or an "R". Some of us actually care about the country enough to vote for the best candidate.

It's not about democrats and republicans, it's about you trying to make it seem like you even entertained the idea of voting for Obama prior to reading comments from all of us horrible PC posters.

It's pretty obvious (considering almost every post you've made here) that you have a hard-on for hating Obama. The fact that you try to paint the PC as a single-minded political clique is even more ridiculously hysterical. TheE and WB are totally on the same political side as PB and Gan, just because most people are saying you're a total fucking retard!

I'm yet to see you argue a side or point of view without including at least one or two logical fallacies. Your reasons you've posted for hating Obama are petty at best. I can better respect someone who doesn't agree with his heavier taxation ideals or another part of his actual plan for this country, than someone who takes a ridiculous amount of offense over said candidate referencing one Nazi death camp over another.

Point being, why are you even trying to pretend like you ever gave a shit about "real issues" or what's good for this country? You like focusing on petty, irrelevant bullshit that Democrats and Republicans alike on this board could give a fuck less about, and turning it into some false "big issue." And then getting your panties in a bunch when we point out, hey, it's not!

[landy]

I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and Independents. Never voted for the Green Party, Socialists or Communists.

Not everyone is a "D" or an "R". Some of us actually care about the country enough to vote for the best candidate.

Whatever you "actually" are Mabus, takes a back seat to your foremost feature: self-righteous and narcissistic, willfully ignorant and dismissive of any view which doesn't enhance your own, and absolutely and completely delusional about your own motivations.

That you would actually come in here and start waving your own laurels around this message board and very nearly frothing at the mouth about what a superior intellect and attitude you must possess, bespeaks of the exact opposite. You, Mabus, are nothing more than a child seeking the respect and admiration of your peers and elders. You come to this message board, we do not come to you, seeking approval.

If you truly wished to enlighten anyone you've written to on these boards Mabus, if that was ever your intention, than I am sorry to say the manner in which you've conducted yourself has wrought utter failure in that endeavor.

Before you decide to take this as yet more baseless attack upon yourself and your character, I urge you to take a moment. Look at what you have made of yourself among these people who had never known you before you started posting, and who since have come to ridicule every word. The source of this transition, Mabus, has been, in large part, your conduct. If you can not or will not attempt to change or cease the actions which precipitated this conclusion, I urge you to simply stop posting in the political thread, or simple find a new more agreeable avenue for your behavior.

[Mabus]

Whatever you "actually" are Mabus, takes a back seat to your foremost feature: self-righteous and narcissistic, willfully ignorant and dismissive of any view which doesn't enhance your own, and absolutely and completely delusional about your own motivations.

That you would actually come in here and start waving your own laurels around this message board and very nearly frothing at the mouth about what a superior intellect and attitude you must possess, bespeaks of the exact opposite. You, Mabus, are nothing more than a child seeking the respect and admiration of your peers and elders. You come to this message board, we do not come to you, seeking approval.

If you truly wished to enlighten anyone you've written to on these boards Mabus, if that was ever your intention, than I am sorry to say the manner in which you've conducted yourself has wrought utter failure in that endeavor.

Before you decide to take this as yet more baseless attack upon yourself and your character, I urge you to take a moment. Look at what you have made of yourself among these people who had never known you before you started posting, and who since have come to ridicule every word. The source of this transition, Mabus, has been, in large part, your conduct. If you can not or will not attempt to change or cease the actions which precipitated this conclusion, I urge you to simply stop posting in the political thread, or simple find a new more agreeable avenue for your behavior.
I am sure you have said the same to yourself, and to all of those that have treated every post of mine with anger. If not, then reexamine your own intentions before speaking to anyone of their conduct.

[Mabus]

It's not about democrats and republicans, it's about you trying to make it seem like you even entertained the idea of voting for Obama prior to reading comments from all of us horrible PC posters.

I looked at candidate. I saw an inexperienced candidate with poor judgement and terrible associations. I then watched as fanatics defended any part of him.

Remember people defending Wrights sermons? How about defending the anti-Semitic rants at his (now "ex") church's website? Strange that it took another 20 year associate of him ranting to get him to resign. Oh, but he tried to allude to him being just a "guest pastor", and the media skips that he had known him for years.

Call them side issues, then refuse to tell me exactly what specific programs he has proposed that are good for this country and can be paid for without tax increases. I have yet to see specifics of decent programs of his, and I have been to his website. Can you tell me what these "new policies" are?

How anyone can look at him and see a viable candidate for president is proof that this nation's citizens are the uneducated electorate educated writers have warned us we could become.

[Keller]

Whatever you "actually" are Mabus, takes a back seat to your foremost feature: self-righteous and narcissistic, willfully ignorant and dismissive of any view which doesn't enhance your own, and absolutely and completely delusional about your own motivations.

That you would actually come in here and start waving your own laurels around this message board and very nearly frothing at the mouth about what a superior intellect and attitude you must possess, bespeaks of the exact opposite. You, Mabus, are nothing more than a child seeking the respect and admiration of your peers and elders. You come to this message board, we do not come to you, seeking approval.

If you truly wished to enlighten anyone you've written to on these boards Mabus, if that was ever your intention, than I am sorry to say the manner in which you've conducted yourself has wrought utter failure in that endeavor.

Before you decide to take this as yet more baseless attack upon yourself and your character, I urge you to take a moment. Look at what you have made of yourself among these people who had never known you before you started posting, and who since have come to ridicule every word. The source of this transition, Mabus, has been, in large part, your conduct. If you can not or will not attempt to change or cease the actions which precipitated this conclusion, I urge you to simply stop posting in the political thread, or simple find a new more agreeable avenue for your behavior.

Reread this one, Mabus. It's the truth. I've tried to say it before, but Landy laid it out with near-perfect articulation.

[Clove]

Whatever you "actually" are Mabus, takes a back seat to your foremost feature: self-righteous and narcissistic, willfully ignorant and dismissive of any view which doesn't enhance your own, and absolutely and completely delusional about your own motivations.


Reread this one, Mabus. It's the truth. I've tried to say it before, but Landy laid it out with near-perfect articulation.Welcome to the clique.

[Stanley Burrell]

Mabus must like the pro-gay agenda touted by McCain.

[TheEschaton]

I went to the Obama website for the first time today. It feels like a rebound to me, but maybe I'll come to love him - but til then, I'm just gonna feel dirty.

[Tsa`ah]

I went to the Obama website for the first time today. It feels like a rebound to me, but maybe I'll come to love him - but til then, I'm just gonna feel dirty.

You're kidding me ... you haven't looked at it until today? That dirty feeling isn't from Obama man ... that's the Clinton stink you're just now noticing.

[TheEschaton]

LoL, say what you will about the Clintons, I still find them amazing. ;)

I know such greatly independent minds such as yourself are too irony-filled to actually break from the "She's a bitch" crowd and actually think for yourself, but I find Hillary to be a delightful woman and a fantastic Senator from NY.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

I really don't care if she's a bitch, a ball buster .... whatever you want to throw out there. I believe I have detailed nearly every reason why I didn't like Hillary (or Willy for that matter) and it has little to do with personality and everything to do with conduct and actions as politicians.

[CrystalTears]

I went to the Obama website for the first time today. It feels like a rebound to me, but maybe I'll come to love him - but til then, I'm just gonna feel dirty.
WTF. I hope you weren't one of those here who would say to others that they were blinded by their candidate. You didn't even research the other ones. That rather scares the beejesus out of me about you.

[Warriorbird]

Hillary HAD the race. She just lost it (with Bill's help.) I wouldn't call Obama's campaign great... but he faced a pretty formidable opponent.

[TheEschaton]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware you had to visit a candidate's website to know their positions on things. Amazing. What a revelation.

To Tsa'ah's point: so do I, IIRC, they were perhaps the greatest First Couple ever to sit in the White House.

[Clove]

To Tsa'ah's point: so do I, IIRC, they were perhaps the greatest First Couple ever to sit in the White House.

You like Ronnie and Nancy too?!

[DeV]

Hmmm, I wasn't aware you had to visit a candidate's website to know their positions on things. Amazing. What a revelation.

To Tsa'ah's point: so do I, IIRC, they were perhaps the greatest First Couple ever to sit in the White House.
Agreed on both accounts. I've been to Obama's page once, but low and behold, I know exactly where he stands on every single issue that's important to me in this election.

[Clove]

You know, their marriage couldn't be any more of a convenience if they installed a Slim Jim container and Slurpee machine at the foot of their twin beds. ~ Dennis Miller

Probably the truest thing ever said about the Clintons.

[Clove]

I guess I'm missing the point too. If you know about the candidate, why visit the site?

[TheEschaton]

Considering Ronnie was senile for 6 of his 8 years, he can't really be part of a "Couple", can he?

Not to mention he was an awful President - trickle down economics? That worked real well.

[g++]

Hillary HAD the race. She just lost it (with Bill's help.) I wouldn't call Obama's campaign great... but he faced a pretty formidable opponent.

No one knew who this guy was a year or two ago and now his list of contributors is so valuable alot of political insiders were saying he would be a power man in Washington for the next decade just by selling/sharing the list regardless of whether he won the primary. His list doesnt just include addresses and money given it includes surveys for contributors that outline their feelings on key issues and which issues would change their minds about candidates. Using the surveys his election team was able to tailor their campaign to specific issues and regions.

His whole organization was very smart. Clinton had to loan her own campaign money, when the name Clinton basically defined Democratic ideals at the beginning of the primary season. Thats an absolutely amazing campaign for a relative political newbie to pull off.

That said I am still voting for McCain...but give credit where its due his campaign strategies are likely going to be emulated in years to come by all parties.

[CrystalTears]

I don't go strictly by the news. I go to the sources as well. :shrug:

[Clove]

Considering Ronnie was senile for 6 of his 8 years, he can't really be part of a "Couple", can he?

Not to mention he was an awful President - trickle down economics? That worked real well.Supply-side economics? Reagan certainly didn't invent the concept, "trickle-down" was a phrase used to defend his perceived tax cuts for the rich (which was also done by Clinton, and GW later).


"[taxation] may obstruct the industry of the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and employment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so." Adam Smith The Wealth of Nations Book V, Chapter II, Part II.


Redistrubition of wealth just isn't happening in this country, komrade.

[Back]

I wouldn't call Obama's campaign great... but he faced a pretty formidable opponent.

A first term Senator from Illinois vs. political powerhouse Clinton? Damn straight he did. Thats why I disagree with you in that he ran a great campaign. He out politiked the Clinton machine.

[Clove]

Hillary HAD the race. She just lost it (with Bill's help.) I wouldn't call Obama's campaign great... but he faced a pretty formidable opponent.Maybe if she'd had more experience...

[TheEschaton]

Back, retarded as usual. Clinton blew it, and all Obama had to do was be a good guy and a great speaker to pull it off.

Oh, and Clove, I'm sure I could pull random one line quotes from Wealth of Nations about how capitalism is a morally bankrupt system, but that would be kind of low, wouldn't it, considering it was usually followed up by "but it's the best system for humankind"? Likewise, Adam Smith didn't say we shouldn't tax people. He didn't even fully say it in that single line quote, either.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Oh, and Clove, I'm sure I could pull random one line quotes from Wealth of Nations about how capitalism is a morally bankrupt system, but that would be kind of low, wouldn't it, considering it was usually followed up by "but it's the best system for humankind"? Likewise, Adam Smith didn't say we shouldn't tax people. He didn't even fully say it in that single line quote, either.

-TheE-The quote was listed in context and no, Adam Smith didn't say people shouldn't pay taxes, but he did observe that it obstructed industry, which dimished the success of the economy as a whole. If you want me to publish modern economists that support supply-side economics, I will. They aren't hard to find (unless your a Keynesian).

[Back]

Back, retarded as usual. Clinton blew it, and all Obama had to do was be a good guy and a great speaker to pull it off.

Hello? Isn’t that exactly the same thing as he ran a better campaign? You forgot to mention he out raised and out back channeled a Clinton. A first term senator from Illinois.

[Back]

How anyone can look at him and see a viable candidate for president is proof that this nation's citizens are the uneducated electorate educated writers have warned us we could become.

Gallup disagrees. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/106360/Obama-Dominates-Clinton-Among-College-Graduates.aspx)


National Democrats remain strongly divided by education as to their preferences for their party's presidential nomination, with less well-educated Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton, while those with college and postgraduate educations are just as strongly skewed toward Barack Obama.

[Stanley Burrell]

Party elites

Power equals current times voltage?

[Tsa`ah]

Actually it read, for Mabus, "I eat pieces of shit".

[Gan]

The quote was listed in context and no, Adam Smith didn't say people shouldn't pay taxes, but he did observe that it obstructed industry, which dimished the success of the economy as a whole. If you want me to publish modern economists that support supply-side economics, I will. They aren't hard to find (unless your a Keynesian).

It amazes me that someone still tries to educate TheE on economics. I've given up a long time ago because its probably the greatest exercise in futility next to teaching Backrash economics. Maybe if one dressed up as Che Guevara they might pay attention...

[Stanley Burrell]

Actually it read, for Mabus, "I eat pieces of shit".

I just saw P=IE because I'm a hungry physics major. Okay. We'll go with that.

[Keller]

Maybe if one dressed up as Che Guevara they might pay attention...

:rofl:

[Daniel]

It amazes me that someone still tries to educate TheE on economics. I've given up a long time ago because its probably the greatest exercise in futility next to teaching Backrash economics. Maybe if one dressed up as Che Guevara they might pay attention...

I'm all for supply side economics. I just reccomend giving it to people who spend a larger portion of their income to maximize "Utility".

I bet you won't get many republicans endorsing that policy though.

[Mabus]

No one knew who this guy was a year or two ago
He delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 to a live TV audience numbering in the millions.

The line that he just "appeared" out of nowhere is utterly untrue.

[Mabus]

Actually it read, for Mabus, "I eat pieces of shit".
I do not eat you. Quit fantasizing.

[Tsa`ah]

Considering I didn't post it, rather translated the OP for Stan ... it would appear you're not only projecting, but the one fantasizing as well.

Outside of that ... you need to work on your insults. I've heard better from kids loading up on the short bus.

[Mabus]

Considering I didn't post it, rather translated the OP for Stan ... it would appear you're not only projecting, but the one fantasizing as well.

Outside of that ... you need to work on your insults. I've heard better from kids loading up on the short bus.
You did not post the post with your name on it?

Have you informed the forum admin that someone is posting under your account?

[Parkbandit]

Considering Ronnie was senile for 6 of his 8 years, he can't really be part of a "Couple", can he?

Not to mention he was an awful President - trickle down economics? That worked real well.

Thankfully, this is merely your slanted opinion. You also hold the opinion that Billy was our greatest president.. which I laugh at regularly.

[Parkbandit]

Hello? Isn’t that exactly the same thing as he ran a better campaign? You forgot to mention he out raised and out back channeled a Clinton. A first term senator from Illinois.

There is a gigantic difference between "Obama ran the greatest campaign ever" and "Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton"

[Parkbandit]

I'm all for supply side economics. I just reccomend giving it to people who spend a larger portion of their income to maximize "Utility".

I bet you won't get many republicans endorsing that policy though.

Actually, Republicans tend to give more money to charity than Democrats.

[crb]

tis true

http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2004/11/red_states_give.html

[crb]

You know... one thing democrats don't understand is why republican like good supply side economics.

Democrats see tax policy as a way to "Fairly" redistribute wealth, that is wrong. Tax policy should be used to maximize economic growth, regardless of any socialist concepts of "Fairness" the reason is, economic growth helps everyone.

Economic growth means more jobs means more wage competition means higher wages means more money to spend means stores sell more etc etc.
Economic growth also means more tax revenue, which is why you end up with paradoxes like IRS tax receipts actually increasing after Bush's tax cuts.

But really, let me explain why I like it.

As a business owner, I make money from other people buying products and or services from me. Raising my income taxes from 34% to 39% would annoy me, but that isn't why I dislike tax increases. Tax increases hurt everyone and if people have less money they don't use my business as much. My income can easily drop 50% because of bad tax policy hurting consumer spending. That makes a 5% income tax hike look paltry.

This is why most business owners vote Republican.

There is however another reason to make sure that too much of the tax burden is not paid by too few people. Votes are not proportion to tax burden. The rich pay the majority of federal income tax (something like the top 5% of earners pay 80% of the federal tax bill), but everyone just gets 1 vote no matter how much they pay.

The problem is, when you don't have any skin in the game, you tend to care less about government spending. The government isn't spending your money, so why care. And when you end up with a majority whom doesn't contribute any money to the government, you end up with no checks on politician spending, which means no discipline in spending, which means bloated wasteful government.

[Keller]

Actually, Republicans tend to give more money to charity than Democrats.

Vague statistics are also unhelpful. hint: philharmonics are charities.

[Keller]

something like the top 5% of earners pay 80% of the federal tax bill.

ORLY?

[Clove]

Actually, Republicans tend to give more money to charity than Democrats.Be fair PB. Democrats do give more of other people's money to charity than Republicans.

[Tsa`ah]

You did not post the post with your name on it?

Have you informed the forum admin that someone is posting under your account?

Do you have to put forth an effort to be this retarded ... or is it a naturally occurring defect?

[Tsa`ah]

The rich pay the majority of federal income tax (something like the top 5% of earners pay 80% of the federal tax bill)

Err ... I skipped most of your post because it was nothing more than partisan drivel. This nugget is partisan ignorance.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/index.html

Dig in and learn 2 math better than your apple analogy.

[Mabus]

Do you have to put forth an effort to be this retarded ... or is it a naturally occurring defect?
1) You (or at least your forum account) posted an objectionable post.
2) I quoted the post, and responded.
3) You then said you did not post it, or alluded to having not done so.
4) I then offered some good advice: If you did not post the post, contact the forum admin, as it was posted under you account name.

Now look, having been shown to be the idiot you are you claim that I have mental retardation or a birth defect.

Shameful. You have my pity.

[CrystalTears]

He was merely stating what longshot coded into the post, that's all.

[Mabus]

He was merely stating what longshot coded into the post, that's all.
This must be another of your issue-filled posts.

You certainly would not jump in to attack me, or defend those that were. You are such a better person then that.

[CrystalTears]

I haven't found reason to defend you.

[Mabus]

I haven't found reason to defend you.
Another issue-filled post! Your insight astounds...
...you.

[Clove]

This must be another of your issue-filled posts.

You certainly would not jump in to attack me, or defend those that were. You are such a better person then that.What does that have to do with you being factually WRONG. Longshot posted it, not Tsa'ah you dumb fuck (yes I'm attacking you). CT and Tsa'ah aren't better people than you; just smarter. Given my history with Tsa'ah that's saying something.

[Daniel]

Actually, Republicans tend to give more money to charity than Democrats.

Water runs down hill. What the fuck is your point?

[Keller]

Water runs down hill. What the fuck is your point?

More importantly, it's important to note what "charities" they give to.

[Daniel]

More importantly, it's important to note what "charities" they give to.

I'd think if the utility of supply side economics was to give money to charities that we'd just give it to charities.

[Parkbandit]

Water runs down hill. What the fuck is your point?


There are 24 hours in one day. What the fuck is your point?

[Daniel]

Amazing.

[Parkbandit]

Amazing.

Thanks.

Now, did you have a point?

[Daniel]

Yes. Unfortunately, you lack the requisite knowledge to understand it.

[Parkbandit]

Yes. Unfortunately, you lack the requisite knowledge to understand it.

Try me chump. Let's hear something on topic from you for a change.. a real thought out post that actually has a point.

From you, that would be refreshing.. and quite rare.

[Daniel]

Feel free to go back to my original post and respond to that with something relevant\sensible.

[Parkbandit]

Feel free to go back to my original post and respond to that with something relevant\sensible.

So much for a well thought out post from you. I knew I was asking for a miracle. Not only to be on topic.. but to have the intellect to actually type out a well thought out post... that's asking far too much from someone like you.

My apologies for asking something that clearly you are incapable of.

[Daniel]

The Irony.

[longshot]

Another issue-filled post! Your insight astounds...
...you.

Seriously... who the fuck are you?

Do you honestly believe that you're persuading anyone with the way you communicate?

About half of the country has different political beliefs than you. There's nothing wrong with your disagreeing with with those beliefs. But, when you sit there and try to belittle everyone, it makes you sound like an incredible asshole. A huge, gaping asshole...

We really don't want to listen to you.

Intelligent people don't need to tell people they're intelligent. They don't need to show off. And they certainly don't need to partake in any of the bullshit theatrics that you do.

Whose respect have you won here?

Maybe you should find another message board? I hear the internet is a pretty big place... have a look around.

[Mabus]

Maybe you should find another message board?
I post on several. Perhaps you could find another one as well. Try the ones where people do not make personal attacks, if you can handle the process that would take.

[longshot]

I post on several. Perhaps you could find another one as well. Try the ones where people do not make personal attacks, if you can handle the process that would take.

"Handle the process that would take?" What the fuck does that even mean?

If you've already found several boards to post on, maybe a little resource allocation will help you. A little more time on those boards... a lot less time here.

I think it's worth asking again, so I will.

Whose respect have you earned here?

[Mabus]

Whose respect have you earned here?
If you think earning respect for posting a differing political opinion is done on this forum you may have been allocating to much time to mind-altering substances.

I played and contributed to GS. I am a forum member here. I post within the ToS.

Don't like my posts? Ignore is an available feature that you can use.

[Daniel]

And deprive himself of that hilarity??