Clinton wins Nevada caucuses.
Clinton wins Nevada caucuses.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) won today’s Democratic caucuses in Nevada, joining former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who won the GOP side.
UPDATE: The New York Times reports on the record turnout:
With 84 percent of the precincts reporting across the state, state party officials said more than 107,000 Nevada voters attended the caucuses. It is the third state in the row to achieve record-setting turnout in the Democratic presidential nominating fight, which party strategists believe is a referendum on the Bush administration and a strong call for a new direction in Washington.
Just 9,000 voters participated in the state’s 2004 Democratic caucus.
UPDATE II: Ari Melber at The Nation reports that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) may take the most delegates from Nevada, despite receiving fewer votes.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Great, just effing great.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:27 pmHello Shayne.....Just another day in the fixed race's by the media..Blessings
January 19th, 2008 at 4:29 pmThe media whores who are pushing her must be proud. The best candidat, John Edwards. can't get any coverage. The media is owned by the military industrial complex. What does that say about Hillary?
January 19th, 2008 at 4:30 pmTranslation: Corporate America wins in Nevada. Middle Class Americans lose.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pmWell hell kasinca, look what the media and Dem's did to their own..Not a wimper or mention at what they are doeing to Kucinich...Par for the course....Blessings
January 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pmTweety Matthews will be cherping his ass off.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:33 pmOver 75% of Americans wants an end to this war in Iraq...but look who is winning from both parties...McCain...Clinton... ...Huckabee..Romney...the war pushers...
Interesting..Isn't it...!!
January 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pmHaha! Edwards: 5%. So much for your “changeâ€.
Comment by Frank M — January 19, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
yeah, Frank, I'm sure you'll be real happy when Hillary has all those unitary powers to jail republicans with.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pmTarazan, Yep! all these candiates along with the media are the drug pusher's (fear, smear, War) and the public is eating it up like users..Sad..And we are still 10 month's out to voting and the good guy's are denied the debate.....Blessings
January 19th, 2008 at 4:43 pmCongratulations to Senator Clinton. God bless you. America needs you and Bill now, more than ever.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:47 pmThe United States in going in the right direction finally.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:48 pmNow I know some people who love the corruption and the fallen Stock Market. Even the death of our soldiers plus the lost of homes for millions and lost of jobs in America. Yes you folks can now go back in your racist hole and wait for a 25 year change to come out again to have the KKK work their magic. At lease
Goldman Sachs and Paulson got their billions of US taxpayers money. Now I do wonder what Tweety will do when either Hillary or Obama become President. He has used his racist sexist language of hate on both candidates.
This falling to the "center" just makes me veer to the left.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:49 pmJust my 1 opinion,but I do think Hillary knows how to deal with corperate america. We need a honest 'clean' business partnership with them, but a giant FIRM legal HAND when they get out of control as they sure are now.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:55 pmI live in Nevada, and I voted for Obama (who won my precinct). I wish Obama had won, but caucusing was a good experience--everyone was friendly, passionate about their chosen candidates, and ready to whip the Republicans in November. All in all, it was encouraging.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:56 pmin my nevada precinct, here's how it went... 24 people stood up for hillary, 22 for obama, and 11 for edwards, which, by caucus delegate-allocation rules, gave 2 delegates to hillary, 2 to obama, and 1 to edwards... oh, yeah ... i stood up for edwards, not cuz i happen to be an edwards supporter, he just happened to be the least objectionable choice... not an auspicious start, i'll admit...
i did strike up a good conversation with a couple who were in the edwards group, and we shared our deep concerns over what's happening to the constitution, rule of law, and accountability... i'll probably arrange to meet them for coffee sometime this week...
And, yes, I DO take it personally
January 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pmTweety is gonna say she owes her win to him!
January 19th, 2008 at 4:58 pmbush
clinton
bush
clinton
I thought we dumped the monarchy 230 some years ago....
January 19th, 2008 at 4:59 pmJust my 1 opinion,but I do think Hillary knows how to deal with corperate america. We need a honest ‘clean’ business partnership with them, but a giant FIRM legal HAND when they get out of control as they sure are now.
Comment by wisedup — January 19, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
I would accept Hillary under one condition. She appoints someone like Kucinich, Edwards, Feingold, or even Fitzgerald ( Yes he is Republican, but he is honest ) as Attorney General. Then I would trust her, maybe, a little bit.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pmIn my precinct, there were 44 for Obama, 41 for Clinton, and 17 for Edwards. The Obama group that I was standing with was very friendly, generally young, and very savvy about politics. I spent a while talking with a women who was a Ron Paul supporter but who decided against attending the Republican caucus and wound up supporting Obama instead. This leads me to think there must be other Paul supporters who might jump ship and vote for Obama if they get the chance in the general election.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pmThe so called analyst juuuuust can't bring themselves to admit it is sort of amazing Ron Paul is beating the " war hero " John Mccain in Nevada . Not only that they won't EVEN bring it up, totally ignoring , their hero got beat by a unknown national politician and their " maverick " ,the guy they heap praises on, nonstop is looking more and more irrelevant , just like their other pathetic " hero" Rudy .
My prediction Clinton Vrs. Romney .
January 19th, 2008 at 5:04 pmAll I want to know is, "Which Republican Corporation is counting the votes in Nevada?" Anyone with half a brain will have figured out that some GOP operative when into Diebold vote counting software in the New Hampshire primary election and flipped a few thousand Obama votes to Hillary, for whatever machevilian (sic) reasons....
Imagine if Democratically-owned voting machine companies were "counting the votes" in our elections in secret with propriatiary (sic) software. Republicans would be up in arms, screaming bloody murder!
But since the reverse situation has been true for the last eight years (at least), mums the word... I can understand why the Republican corporate media does not want to talk about Republican operatives hacking, rigging, fixing and stealing elections electronically. I cannot understand why Democrats and some progressives, such as Al Franken and DailyKos, want to keep this dirty cheating swept under the rug...
January 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pmIf you want to know which Democratic candidate is the greatest threat to right wing, war mongering neo-conservatives then pay attention to which candidate receives the greatest amount of criticism and hatred from the right. That candidate would be Hillary Clinton.
Congratulations once again to Senator Clinton.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pmGod help us. If Hillary is elected president, the Democrats will swing as far left as the whacko nut jobs took the Republicans to the extreme right.
But it would still be a helluva sight better than what we've had to deal with for the last 7 years.
Damned if you do....damned if you don't.
I'm sick of it.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:08 pmRepublicans will just start dying when Hillary takes office.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pmRepublicans will just start dying when Hillary takes office.
Comment by Perry logan — January 19, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
The sooner the better.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pmIf you want to know which Democratic candidate is the greatest threat to right wing, war mongering neo-conservatives then pay attention to which candidate receives the greatest amount of criticism and hatred from the right. That candidate would be Hillary Clinton.
Congratulations once again to Senator Clinton.
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
I am neither Republican, nor right. I will debate you on Clinton's Senate record and who is paying her bills, anytime. I do not like her record of what she has done since in the Senate. Frankly the same goes for Obama. I judge by the fruits of their labors, not what smoothness comes from their mouths.
If You want to smear all who do not trust her as being the "hating right", rather than trying to win us over with facts, I have only one thing to say to you.
F_CK YOU.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:15 pmRepublicans will just start dying when Hillary takes office.
Comment by Perry logan — January 19, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
I can't wait to see either Hillary or Obama in the WH. Having to live with either a woman or a black president will make the neo-cons heads explode. It will absolutely drive them fu(king insane.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pmGreat news for us Conservatives!!!
Keep winning Mama!!!
Comment by John Kerry — January 19, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
See, even a troll recognized a Republi-Lieberman-like-lite when it sees one.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pmHey #1, I loved your posts on the previous thread. Got distracted and forgot to mention it.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pmF_CK YOU.
Comment by Wayne — January 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
I'm sorry, Wayne, but I refuse to debate people who spew profanity, hatred, and violence.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pmActually, looking at the multitude of reports coming in from people ACTUALLY attending the caucuses, it looks like Clinton won Nevada legitimately. People under 45 just did...not...show...up. The caucuses were loaded to bear with older women voters. This, not a fix, is why Nevada went to Clinton.
Doesn't mean I have to like it. It certainly doesn't mean I agree with Sen. Clinton on many important issues. But this state, at least, doesn't appear to be foul play. New Hampshire, on the other hand, does appear to have endured vote tampering that favored Sen. Clinton (not that such is indicative of foul play on her part, as a Clinton win serves the Republicans best...thus, motive to cheat in favor of Clinton still meshes with the most favorable outcome for those who own the electronic voting machines).
The MSM announcing the winner for the Republicans before the caucuses began to vote, in a day and age when the news is read real-time on a CELLPHONE, is the egregious act of vote tampering that occurred today.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:26 pmIt is laughable that Hillary is playing the 'underdog'..with all the muscles that helped her and gave her strength in the Democratic party machine,that other candidates do not have,plus the media fixation with Hillary, her husband...the money pouring in her campaign from many powerful groups, who expect a pay back when she wins.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:27 pmI’m sorry, Wayne, but I refuse to debate people who spew profanity, hatred, and violence.
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
So you smear like a troll and have no facts, but your smug self-superiority cling to.
And that makes you better than the neocons how?
I am a veteran who damn well earned the right to use my first Amendment rights, and if I think you deserve a good cussing out, I'm darn sure gonna give it to you. You smeared first and you got what was coming.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pmBut yes, John Edwards, again, was the snubbed party here on the Dem side (and of course Kucinich). With an Obama 33%/Clinton 31%/Edwards 29% split before the caucus, Edwards STILL received, for all intents and purposes, no media coverage whatsoever. Edwards won the Nevada debate according to the polls as well. Yet...no coverage.
Ron Paul took SECOND PLACE, beating out McCain, but where is that coverage?!?! No, instead, the Republican reporting is all about Romney in Nevada, and McCain and Huckabee in South Carolina.
Edwards and Paul...being forced out of the debate by corporate America, day by day, state by state.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:30 pmFinally, there is some sense in the world. She WILL get things done once in...trussit!
January 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pmHay Wayne, count me in with your side..I don't see the joy in this win..Just business as usual..And BTW to the poster that said Hillery was as far left as the bush bunch is far reich....Your wrong....They are all big business supporter's and merely reflection's of one another to one degree or another...Bad guy's and enabeler's are all the say..Blessings
January 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pmClinton wins Nevada. It is another sad day for Progressives.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:34 pmI am a veteran who damn well earned the right to use my first Amendment rights, and if I think you deserve a good cussing out, I’m darn sure gonna give it to you. You smeared first and you got what was coming.
Comment by Wayne — January 19, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
I'll tell you what, Wayne. I'll take the high road and you can take the low road.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:36 pmAll I want to know is, “Which Republican Corporation is counting the votes in Nevada?†Anyone with half a brain will have figured out that some GOP operative when into Diebold vote counting software in the New Hampshire primary election and flipped a few thousand Obama votes to Hillary, for whatever machevilian (sic) reasons….
It's a caucus. There are no machine-counted votes. Unless Diebold is manufacturing replicants to go stand in the Clinton crowd.
I'm not happy about Hillary winning another state so soon after NH and so soon before Super Tuesday, but Nevada is about as uncorruptible by Diebold or any voting-machine manufacturer as is physically possible.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pmI’ll take the high road and you can take the low road.
o/` And ye'll be in Scotland afore him... o/` :0D
January 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm"I’ll tell you what, Wayne. I’ll take the high road and you can take the low road."
Comment by delafield —
"Republicans will just start dying when Hillary takes office."
Comment by Perry logan —
"The sooner the better."
Comment by delafield
I think you took a wrong turn on the "high road," delafield.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:40 pmThey are all big business supporter’s and merely reflection’s of one another to one degree or another…Bad guy’s and enabeler’s are all the say..Blessings
Comment by Witch1 — January 19, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
I mentioned this to you before, Witch. Ronald Reagan sold America to the corporations in 1980 and things haven't changed since. Did you know that your candidate, Barak Obama has been praising Ronald Reagan for the past 7 days. What's that all about?
January 19th, 2008 at 5:40 pmInteresting comments. Now for all those bloggers who do respect woman as well as their Mothers and those who aren't racist it was a good day. Yes Change will come with Hillary or Obama, most likely both. Hillary brings earned experience and Obama bring much needed change and hope. Both bring respect back to the White House and for World Leaders to see we will no longer lie, steal, torture or illegally invade countries. Yes the Republicans will be very up set as you're read with some comments above. When Americans see they can get jobs, invest, keep their homes and work for that American Dream then we'll have our country back. It's said you have to hit your lowest before you realize it's time to stand up. The Stock Market will drop below 11, 000 while Bush stays in office. Goldman Sachs has robbed the taxpayers blind. Henry Paulson the corrupt US Treasury Secretary is doing the following:
January 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pmAlan Greenspan, whom some blame for fueling a housing bubble, is signing on as an adviser to hedge-fund firm Paulson, which has profited handsomely from the collapse of that bubble. ...
It's good to be a criminal friend of the Bush Administration as Americans stick their heads in the sand.
-Thank you for voting for the corporate lobby money pre-approved candidate
-But I didn't vote for her?
-Thank you for voting for the corporate lobby money pre-approved candidate
-But I didn't vote for her, I voted for...
-Thank you for voting for the corporate lobby money pre-approved candidate, please take your paper receipt after pushing the button
-Oh....OK....
January 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pmIf Hillary is elected president, the Democrats will swing as far left as the whacko nut jobs took the Republicans to the extreme right.
Whatever. Billary will triangulate and run to the middle, of the republican party. Name one issue that Hillary is left of the center of this country. Remember, an overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of Iraq.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:42 pmI’ll tell you what, Wayne. I’ll take the high road and you can take the low road.
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Actually I like the high road, because it represents honor. Something you might want to learn about.
And has better sniper vantages
Sanctimonious twit.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:43 pmHay dumbass #42 he is not my candidate, neither is hillery...This is the last time I will respond to this troll...We can't fix stupid.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:44 pmBarak Obama has been praising Ronald Reagan for the past 7 days. What’s that all about?
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
And Hillary Clinton's coffers are filled by Corporate Crooks.
Neither of the two deserve my vote at this time.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pmNeither of them will get my vote ever wayne.....Blessings
January 19th, 2008 at 5:47 pmBillary will triangulate and run to the middle, of the republican party. Name one issue that Hillary is left of the center of this country. Remember, an overwhelming majority of Americans want us out of Iraq.
Comment by Bobwurst
Think Joe Lieberman, in a power-pantsuit...
January 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pmDid you know that your candidate, Barak Obama has been praising Ronald Reagan for the past 7 days. What’s that all about?
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
What makes you think any of us are Obama supporters? Witch#1 is a Kucinich supporter. I'm an Edwards supporter. And yes we know Obama's been praising Reagan. Do you have a point?
January 19th, 2008 at 5:50 pmA possible investment opportunity may exist in the PFD (personal flotation device, otherwise known as a life jacket) market.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pmA lot of Republicans will be paying whatever the market will bear as the tsunami of democratic reform swells over their pointy little heads.
I think all the "Hillary Haters" and all the "Obama Haters" should vote for Nader again. That worked out well in 2000 and 2004, don't you think?
January 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pm"I think all the “Hillary Haters†and all the “Obama Haters†should vote for Nader again. That worked out well in 2000 and 2004, don’t you think?"
Comment by delafield
Builds strawmen just like a wingnut - badly.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:56 pmWhat makes you think any of us are Obama supporters? Witch#1 is a Kucinich supporter. I’m an Edwards supporter. And yes we know Obama’s been praising Reagan. Do you have a point?
Comment by Shayne — January 19, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
I was leaning towards Dobb/Kucinich, I also like Edwards, his only strike being he voted for the war, which he has publicly apologized for. So he might get my vote. Oba-illary won't get my vote.
That is for the primaries.
When it is Repug vs Dem, I will vote Dem, even if it makes me ill.
I would vote for a cactus over any of the Republican candidates
January 19th, 2008 at 5:58 pmSo, Wayne and Witch1, If Billary or Obama is the Dem candidate, how will you vote in November?
January 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pmWhat makes you think any of us are Obama supporters? Witch#1 is a Kucinich supporter. I’m an Edwards supporter. And yes we know Obama’s been praising Reagan. Do you have a point?
Comment by Shayne — January 19, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Yes, I do have a point. I'll vote for the candidate that is nominated by the Democratic Party, whoever that candidate is. Will you do the same? (I hope your answer is "yes".)
January 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pmI think all the “Hillary Haters†and all the “Obama Haters†should vote for Nader again. That worked out well in 2000 and 2004, don’t you think?
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
There you go again, earning yourself second Cheney.
F**k You.
Try for a third, turd
January 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pmRE: All I want to know is, “Which Republican Corporation is counting the votes in Nevada?†Anyone with half a brain will have figured out that some GOP operative when into Diebold vote counting software in the New Hampshire primary election and flipped a few thousand Obama votes to Hillary, for whatever machevilian (sic) reasons….
It’s a caucus. There are no machine-counted votes. Unless Diebold is manufacturing replicants to go stand in the Clinton crowd.
I’m not happy about Hillary winning another state so soon after NH and so soon before Super Tuesday, but Nevada is about as uncorruptible by Diebold or any voting-machine manufacturer as is physically possible.
Comment by jayjaybear — January 19, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Thank you jayjaybear. I guess that I'm just a little on the paranoid side, after discovering the massive electronic election theft by the Bush gangsters in the 2004 Presidential Election. And I am disgusted to have learned that some 81% of the votes in the New Hampshire Primary Election were "counted" on software undoubted designed to be insecure and hackable so that GOP thugs can alter the results to what ever they choose (and dare...). May be the caucus is the only democratically counted form of voting in 2008.
We need 100% hand-counted paper ballots in our elections if we are to eliminate the constant threat of Republican thugs electroniclly
January 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pmaltering our election returns. Eight years of GOP electronic fascism should be enough for us...
Clinton and Obama have split the delegate votes.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pmIf Clinton wins the WH, we can look forward to at least 4 years of hellish dirty tricks, accusations and hate from the repugs.
If Obama wins, I expect there would be less of that, but he will have to get past the racists first.
Builds strawmen just like a wingnut - badly.
Comment by barfly —
Agreed barfly, no imagine whatsoever...
(notice how the wingnuts are hung up on the word "hate", they use it relentlessly)
Try stretching a little, della, like
Hillary Hesitants,
or
Obama Objectionists...
(I know, you'll say:
January 19th, 2008 at 6:03 pm"Why bother, just get in line with the rest of the sheep; and fear and loath whatever is on the other side of your enclosure.")
Happy to be living in California, so that if/when Hillary becomes the nominee I can just not have a presidential preference and move on down the ballot. Liked Bill; don't like her. And since it won't make a difference in this state, if she's the nominee I won't vote for her. That way my conscience is clear.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pm.
Nevada supports war mongers, charlatans and cult-Christians.
Hillary claims she didn't Authorize the Use of Military Force in Iraq, yet continues to reauthorize that force.
Mittens claims to be a Christian that puts people to death.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:04 pmSo, Wayne and Witch1, If Billary or Obama is the Dem candidate, how will you vote in November?
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
See my post before yours.
I will take some pepto, then will vote for a catus before voting Republican.
I have voted in every election since comming of age to be allowed to vote.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:05 pmHay Shayne, me think's there's a muckie little troll playing around again..I'm shunning troll's and stupid....Good to see you here.....Leaving for awhile, see you later and in other place's...Blessings
January 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pmI would vote for a cactus over any of the Republican candidates
Comment by Wayne
Imagine Romney and Huckabee as running mates.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:06 pmThat would be a prickly pair...
Builds strawmen just like a wingnut - badly.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
Sarcastic remarks aside, if you won't support the Democratic nominee, just say so.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pmComment by Wayne — January 19, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
See my post before yours.
Yeah, we posted at the same time. Sorry about the confusion.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:08 pmComment by Nevar — January 19, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
prickly pair…
Do you always add 2 extra letters to your words?
January 19th, 2008 at 6:10 pm.
I think all the “Hillary Haters†and all the “Obama Haters†should vote for Nader again. That worked out well in 2000 and 2004, don’t you think?
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Which part of a Democracy is it that you don't like? The idea of alternate candidates? Or the concept of choice?
#57 Yes, I do have a point. I’ll vote for the candidate that is nominated by the Democratic Party, whoever that candidate is. Will you do the same? (I hope your answer is “yesâ€.)
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
Why should I support a corporatist warmonger? How is that "change" from what we have now? Besides nameplates on desks and doors?
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:11 pm"Sarcastic remarks aside, if you won’t support the Democratic nominee, just say so."
Comment by delafield
What you advocate is to do exactly what we attack republicans for - putting party over country.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:12 pmSarcastic remarks aside, if you won’t support the Democratic nominee, just say so.
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
I believe we do have a troll here. It twists peoples remarks like one at least.
I believe it just earned a Cheney from you, Barfly
lmao
January 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pmComment by Nevar — January 19, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
prickly pair…
Actually, now that I look at it, you reversed the order of the words as well... and left out the word of
January 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pm.
#67 Sarcastic remarks aside, if you won’t support the Democratic nominee, just say so.
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
Party loyalty... LOLOLOLOL
You sound like a Republican.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:14 pmWhen neither front-runner advocates a withdrawl from Iraq, a vote for a democrat amounts to a vote for a republican, on the most important issue of our time. Hillary hasn't yet earned my vote.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:14 pmHillary hasn’t yet earned my vote.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Exactly my point as well.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pmDelegates tally- Democrats...without S.Carolina
Hillary Clinton..............211
Obama 122
Edwards 52
Kucinich 1
magic number to win 2025 delegates
---------------------------------------------
Gop Delegates:
Romney 70
Huckabee 24
McCain 18
Thompson 8
Paul 5
Hunter 1
magic number to win 1191
After Super Tuesday 5 February....few will remain.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pmBut Edwards still have a chance with a big win..somewhere...
If Giuliani does not do well in Florida...then he will have a rough road coming Feb. 5th.
prickly pair…
Comment by Merlin
Agave that some thought, not nearly as much as thee.....;)
January 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pmLeaving for awhile, see you later and in other place’s…Blessings
Comment by Witch1 — January 19, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Take care, Sharon =)
January 19th, 2008 at 6:18 pmMy question: Is delafield a corporatist?
Does he support Hillary for some altruistic reason, or is it the simple pragmatism of the bully?
January 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pmWhat you advocate is to do exactly what we attack republicans for - putting party over country.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
That's why Republicans and Neoconservatives continue to rule America. They stick together like glue. Well, if this is the prevailing attitude then it looks like Neoconservatives will win again.
Sigh......
January 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pmHate to be a spoiler here but I think we need to demand that the votes for the Dems be recounted - again! As long as the Diebold 91W Opti Scan Machines are being used to record the paper ballots, they can be compromised and hacked within 10 minutes! The Repukes have a "vested interest" in Hillary winning the nomination and it's not because they're so in love with her. The fact is that it's not surprising that the reichwingnuts have been mum on Hillary's escapades (Whitewater and Vince Foster); rather, it's a concerted effort to keep these charades from the voting public until AFTER Hillary becomes the nominee. It's part of the reichwing strategy.
Once Hillary would win the nomination, all of her skeletons (and then some) will come flying out of the closet and, voila!, the Repuke wins.
These Repukes are becoming so amazingly predictable and so transparent that I'm surprised they have vanished into thin air yet.
Check the machines, folks. They're playing "dirty tricks" with the machines and Hillary's going right along with it.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pmprickly pair…
Comment by Merlin
Agave that some thought, not nearly as much as thee…..;)
Comment by Nevar — January 19, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Didn't needle you too much, did it?
January 19th, 2008 at 6:20 pm.
#75 Hillary hasn’t yet earned my vote.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
You sound as if you're waiting for her to convince you.
Past performance is an indicator of future performance.
Just how has (s)Hillary worked to end this occupation?
Just how has (s)Hillary worked to protect the Bill of Rights?
Got Habeas Corpus?
Since when is "warrantless" legal?
Torture, legal?
Fraud, legal?
(s)Hillary's silence in the past and NOW, is the indicator of what she believes in and fights for. The problem is, she doesn't support and defend our Constitution, she supports and defends corporate rights to lay claim to other countries natural resources.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pmBarfly: I'm with you. Hillary IS a warmonger and is such an egomaniac that she barely is able to eke out an apology for her war vote - something which will absolutely work against her in an election. She prefers to blame the Shrub for misleading rather than her own error in judgment. Furthermore, she, above all with 8 years of living in the white house, had background knowledge and information many in congress did not have. Shame on Hillary! She's nothing more than an "ESTABLISHMENT TOOL".
January 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pmsomehow i've missed those "obama praises reagan" quotes...
the one i DID see, did not sound much like real praise, as much as
stating an obvious fact...
any links - WITH CONTEXT - would be appreciated...
thanks.
... this hillary win rather surprises me... even more than it
January 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pmdisappoints me... i don't know why tho... expected edwards to do much better... again, don't know why, given he's been shut out...
it ain't over though...
Comment by Wayne — January 19, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Didn’t needle you too much, did it?
LOL! excellent!
January 19th, 2008 at 6:23 pmMax-1: Hillary's "complicit" in many areas dating back to her hubby's administration. The DU (Depleted Uranium) scandal dates back that far to Kosovo under Clinton. When these tainted vets who are passing this level of contamination on to their spouses via their seminal fluid and produces deformed children gets aired, Hillary will be swiftboated to the moon.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:23 pmAny Hillary "win" surprises the $hit out of me and it's precisely there that we need to check the voting machines and call for a recount. It's in the best interest of the GOP to have Hillary win, let's face it. If she does, it will mean another Rethug in the White House because Hillary is totally unelectable.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pmThat’s why Republicans and Neoconservatives continue to rule America. They stick together like glue. Well, if this is the prevailing attitude then it looks like Neoconservatives will win again.
Sigh……
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
What part of, this is the primary season, actually sinks into that thick skull of yours. We are deciding which Democratic candidate best represents us right now. And some of us don't like being forcefed someone else's choices.
**Sigh**
January 19th, 2008 at 6:25 pmWell, if this is the prevailing attitude then it looks like Neoconservatives will win again.
Sigh……
Comment by delafield —
How so? The republicans are in tatters, as is conservatism in general. That, at least, makes it a level field. Let the process continue, without trying to malign those of us who think Hillary is a bad fit, at this juncture. If she is able to secure the nomination, and her rhetoric changes, perhaps I might consider voting for her. Maybe. But if her Iraq stance remains the same, she might lose me, sorry.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm.
Veritas,
Exactly.
And ABC/Disney/G.E./Ratheon can't let that cat out of the bag.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pmwait a minute... i'm more disappointed than surprised...
January 19th, 2008 at 6:29 pmthat's what i meant to say... i think...
either way, i surely wanted EDWARDS to do much better...
.
What a debate would have looked like...
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_democracy_now
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:30 pm"i surely wanted EDWARDS to do much better…"
Comment by katy —
If there is a general consensus (excepting delafield) on this board, I think this is it.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pmHow so? The republicans are in tatters, as is conservatism in general. That, at least, makes it a level field. Let the process continue, without trying to malign those of us who think Hillary is a bad fit, at this juncture. If she is able to secure the nomination, and her rhetoric changes, perhaps I might consider voting for her. Maybe. But if her Iraq stance remains the same, she might lose me, sorry.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
The Republicans are in chaos, without any clear "front runner". Romney appears to have won in Nevada, while bombing in South Carolina. Meanwhile, Huckleberry and McCrazee are battling it out over there and Rudy is praying for a Florida miracle.
I really really don't want the nomination to go to Clinton, not the least because I think she's the worst possible candidate for the Democrats, but I'll hold my nose and close my eyes and vote for her, if only because this country cannot stand another four years of Republican mismanagement.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pmComment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
That’s why Republicans and Neoconservatives continue to rule America. They stick together like glue. Well, if this is the prevailing attitude then it looks like Neoconservatives will win again.
Sigh……
delafield, Wayne is correct here. This is the primary not November. I am a Feingold, Gore, Edwards, Obama, and bring up the far away rear, Clinton (in that order) person. However like Wayne and, I will wager, all Progressives we will gag down a Clinton vote if she is the nominee.
I don't like corporate America jamming candidates down my throat by sneaky ways either. And Billary, and probably Obama (I suspect), are in the corporation's pocket. But that is what is happening. Sigh... I will vote for Edwards on the 5th here in California, if he is still in the race.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:34 pm.
#95 Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
Sorry, I'm not in consensus.
I would much rather vote for a man who has the wisdom and vision to know the consequences of his decisions rather than man who regrets the consequences of his decisions.
Unfortunately so, that man I speak of is not allowed to be heard from in this Demockracy of America.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:37 pm/personal rant
January 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pmI am starting to get really irritated at the rabid Hillary trolls using neocon smear tactics to try to silence opposing voices during the primaries.
Nothing will lose my so far uncast vote quicker than those kind of tactics.
/rant off
.
396 I really really don’t want the nomination to go to Clinton, not the least because I think she’s the worst possible candidate for the Democrats, but I’ll hold my nose and close my eyes and vote for her, if only because this country cannot stand another four years of Republican mismanagement.
Comment by gummitch — January 19, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Voting for the lesser of two evils...
Is stil voting for evil.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:39 pmComment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
So identity group-obsessed liberals are slightly more racist than sexist. Figures…
So, what are you besides a troll? Intelligence challenged?
January 19th, 2008 at 6:40 pmComment by Wayne — January 19, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Didn’t needle you too much, did it?
I'll stiffen my spine....
January 19th, 2008 at 6:40 pmSo identity group-obsessed liberals are slightly more racist than sexist. Figures…
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Go back to your bottle, idiot.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:41 pm"...identity group-obsessed liberals..."
LOL
The republican party is far more splintered at present than the democrats will ever be.
You've got two extremist christianists, a silly willy nilly militarist, and a bad actor.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:45 pmLOL
.
AMERICAN DREAMERS
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:45 pmCalling me juvenile names won’t erase the Democratic party’s long history of racism, Wayne.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Actually, it was erased by Reagan in Mississippi, and properly applied to the republicans, who wear it proudly to this day, along with homophopia, misogyny, torture, and treason. The democrats gave up racism, and gave their racists to the gOP, who have been very happy with them ever since.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pm.
#107 Comment by Nevar — January 19, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Don't forget the drag-queen who married his cousin.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pmCalling me juvenile names won’t erase the Democratic party’s long history of racism, Wayne.
Comment by USA_Patriot
Nor the fact that they all migrated to the republican party in the sixties...
Wear that hood with pride, U-sap.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pmComment by Max-1 — January 19, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Voting for the lesser of two evils…
Is stil voting for evil.
Yes it is. And your intelligent point is.
Max-1, that is politics, unfortunately, and survival is the point. When death is certain, the old saying kicks in. "He who fights then runs away, lives to fight another day."
You have no choice about there BEING a president in 2009. The only question is which one. Of course you could always move to Australia or something... But that would be running away, wouldn't it?
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:47 pmVoting for the lesser of two evils…
Is stil voting for evil.
Comment by Max-1 — January 19, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
Voting Republican. You cannot get more evil than that.
I wish Hillary wasn't one pretending to be a Democrat.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pmShe co-sponsored the failed Republican flag burning Amendment and wasted time trying to get it passed, rather than trying to reign in an Executive Branch out of control.
Nevar clearly has reading comprehension problems.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
and you obviously have no idea what has happened in the past 60 years.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pmI don’t like corporate America jamming candidates down my throat by sneaky ways either. And Billary, and probably Obama (I suspect), are in the corporation’s pocket. But that is what is happening. Sigh… I will vote for Edwards on the 5th here in California, if he is still in the race.
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Merlin,
Remember what happened when the Clintons took on the corporations when they entered the White House in 1993? It was a non-stop, eight year attack of Republicans, Democrats, and corporations against the Clintons. In the end, all they could come up with was a sex act with an intern.
I lived through those years. I remember the tax increases on the wealthy who could afford to pay, Universal Health Care for Everyone which everyone opposed, budget surpluses, no dead American troops (Bush Sr. attacked Somalia), low unemployment, high tech jobs, respect from all our allies, ........
January 19th, 2008 at 6:49 pmNot at all. They’re as race-obsessed as ever.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
You mean republicans, of course. they're the ones with only old, fat, boring, white male perverts running.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:49 pmNot at all. They’re as race-obsessed as ever.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
That's why they're running Obama, and he's ahead of the white guy. hmmm, not too smart. Are you Republican, or just brain-dead? or is that redundant?
January 19th, 2008 at 6:51 pmOf course you could always move to Australia or something… But that would be running away, wouldn’t it?
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
The company I work for has a presence in many European countries. I have been toying with the idea of a transfer since the 2004 (s)election
January 19th, 2008 at 6:51 pmThank you for demonstrating my point.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
And thank you for predictably missing mine. Bozo.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:52 pmThank you for demonstrating my point.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
of course the point is that none of these morons knows ho to govern. Now who's race-obsessed? The GOP, that's who.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:53 pmThe race-obsessed Dems run a viable black candidate. The open-tent repigs run several cookie-cutter white establishment males. The hood is yours, USA patsy.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:54 pmComment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Calling me juvenile names won’t erase the Democratic party’s long history of racism, Merlin.
1. What juvenile name did I call you? I called you a troll. That is true, you are a troll. And it is decidly not juvenile.
2. I asked you if you were intelligence challenged. That is a polite way of saying that if you really believe what you said you might not have functioning frontal lobes.
3. Your response in #106 tells me your lobes are not firing on all cylinders.
4. You need not waste my time on a answer. I will not be responding to your nonsense.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:56 pmCalling me juvenile names won’t erase the Democratic party’s long history of racism, Wayne.
Comment by USA_Patriot
You talking about the Dixicrats Nixon opened the Republican Party to?
I have a beef with the Republicans dating back to Wounded Knee, for putting bullets into the backs of women and children, because their skin was red.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pmWant to debate racism with me? Lets have at it.
"...identity groups like race and gender...."
Comment by USA_Patriot
I'll try to illumine your horizons a bit:
January 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pmEvangelicals, dictators of other people's civil liberties, corporate militarist dependents, and closeted drag queen wanna be's;
are identity groups.
Comprende?
.
#113 Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Why should I move away, or to use your standard, run away?
Is that how our Founders won, by running away?
Or do they matter to you? I seriously have to question your principles. That we are even given a choice between two evils, is supposed to be acceptable? How is that an American Principle?
See, what you've overtly endorsed is the essence of the problem America faces. Evil for goodness sake. Forgetting in your rant, that evil can never, EVER be for good.
So now, remind me,
why should I just "get use to it"?
That this is "politics as usual"?
No! You're wrong.
This is politics degraded by years of corruption and illicit and illegal maneuvers designed to numb the populace and electorate. As evidenced by your apathy about the whole situation.
You'll much rather settle for a bit of evil as a choice than forge a real solution as that requires principles to adhere to.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 6:57 pmBeing race-obsessed and running Obama are not contradictory, so what is your point? It isn’t just the white Democrats who are hung up on skin color and ethnicity.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
Funny, race was not part of the topic of this thread until you brought it up.....
January 19th, 2008 at 7:01 pmRacist.
In context, we're talking about 25 measly delegates. Super Tuesday will tell. This ain't momentum or anything but 25 measly delegates.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:02 pmThe republican party is far more splintered at present than the democrats will ever be.
Comment by Nevar — January 19, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
Nevar,
Never underestimate the hatred of Republicans. Hatred is the thread that binds the GOP. If the Republicans run against a black man or a woman, you're going to see hatred like you've never seen before.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:02 pmComment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Remember what happened when the Clintons took on the corporations when they entered the White House in 1993?
What I remember is that Bill is the poster boy for the DLC. They purposely pushed the Democratic party way to the right of center in foreign policy. The DLCs other poster boy is LIEberman by the way. Globalization and NAFTA is not a people oriented ideology. It is a corporatist ideology
January 19th, 2008 at 7:03 pmInteresting points being made. Why aren't the Repukelickins championing Alan Keyes?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm.
#135 Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
And of course we all know how much "hatered" is a Christian Principle... NO?
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pmHiilary supporters should be so PROUD! They have officially adopted the http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573GOP playbook:
January 19th, 2008 at 7:04 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
Since Obama supports Lieberman for Connecticut...
And McCain supports Lieberman as his possible running mate...
Does Obama endorse a McCain/Lieberman ticket?
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pmLet's try a hypothetical for all the lockstep dems in the audience. If enough nominal democrats decide that Hillary isn't ready, and defect (as has happened before) to the other side, what will the next eight years look like?
Remember, all the balanced plates are going to be kept spinning until november, when Bush just quits trying to do anything but quietly skulk out of town. Then, they start falling, and the new (hypothetically republican)administration has to find some way of explaining the true size of the problems that they (and we) face. Tax increases will be inevitable (and probably envisioned by Bush strategists, to make democrats responsible for inflicting the fiscal pain), as will be serious cuts in many programs. They will have to bite the bullet, and ask for bi-partisan help, or the financial markets will go sour, and they'll be blamed. There are many possible advantages to a republican win, that damage them further for voters.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pmYou mean like Al Gore Sr., Fritz Hollings, and Robert Byrd?
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
The Republicans used to be the liberals and non-racist at one time, long ago. That changed completely in 1968 when the civil rights bill was passed and signed by a Democratic President and the Dixicrats fled to the Republican Party.
Read history much?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pmSorry, I meant Hillary supporters should be so PROUD! They have officially adopted the GOP playbook: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/19/162953/644/790/439573
January 19th, 2008 at 7:07 pmPat~Riot! Peace, brother! Folks on this site don't like shit like disenfranchising thousands of black voters in Florida, Cleveland and the like. They somehow equate those republican dirty tricks with racism. Wow?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:08 pmIf you have to measure and go by the promises that were made by Democrats in Nov.2006 Congressional elections,and what really changed since they won the Congress and appointed princess Pelosi in 2007...then you can kiss all what queen Hillary now pomising you 'good bye', if she made it to be the new president.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:10 pmBush has already decided that he doesn't care who wins, after he's gone. I'd imagine there are several ticking time-bombs set to go off after he leaves office. It would be some consolation to watch as they blow-up on republicans instead.
And, no, I'm not advocating anyone vote republican. I'd sooner argue the merits of personal castration...
January 19th, 2008 at 7:11 pmNever underestimate the hatred of Republicans. Hatred is the thread that binds the GOP. If the Republicans run against a black man or a woman, you’re going to see hatred like you’ve never seen before.
Comment by delafield
I'm well aware of the potential for such unifying hatred.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:11 pmI'm also aware of the disgust and contempt the average American is beginning to show for such hatred and narrow minded fear mongering.
Come November, the bickering factions of bigoted Republicans will clutch each other in shock and awe as the wave of democratic reform sweeps them out to sea.
Comment by Max-1 — January 19, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Talk about a rant! You appear angry. Are you?
Pssst...and you missed my point. Go back and try and figure it out. Eh/
January 19th, 2008 at 7:11 pmClinton won (though she lost the delegate count). But at what cost? What does Clinton's outrageous robocall in Nevada say about her? It is not just an isolated incident.
Would love to hear your POV and hear your vote in who will bring more change to America - Clinton or Obama, at this link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/19/181938/426/674/439681
January 19th, 2008 at 7:14 pmCalling me juvenile names won’t erase the Democratic party’s long history of racism, Merlin.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Calling me juvenile names won’t erase the Democratic party’s long history of racism, Wayne.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
What, you mean the DIXIECRATS? Surely you know, the RACISTS that the Democratic party KICKED OUT because of their views, their wedge politics, etc? That history of racism in the Democratic Party? You know, all those folks who immediately crossed the isle to join the modern Republican Party?
Yeah. History has a hell of a way of kicking deceivers in the teeth. Especially those subversives who try to rewrite or ignore key portions of history.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:15 pm"Would love to hear your POV and hear your vote in who will bring more change to America - Clinton or Obama,"
Comment by Duck Soup
No thanks.
Too canned.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:16 pmThe liberal wing actually split off the Republican Party in 1912 and formed the original Progressive Party movement.
Part of their platform was social welfare legislation for women and children, workers' compensation, end of child labor, limited injunctions in strikes, farm relief, revision of banking to assure an elastic currency, required health insurance in industry, new inheritance taxes and income taxes, improvement of inland waterways, and limitation of naval armaments.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:17 pmWhat I remember is that Bill is the poster boy for the DLC. They purposely pushed the Democratic party way to the right of center in foreign policy. The DLCs other poster boy is LIEberman by the way. Globalization and NAFTA is not a people oriented ideology. It is a corporatist ideology
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
I remember corporations spending 100's of millions of dollars to defeat everything on Clinton's agenda. The right wingers even tied Hillary manequins to crucifixes and set them on fire.
Have you seen the movie, "Sicko"? The movie shows a long list of corporations and how much money they spent to attack the Clintons as soon as they stepped into the White House.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pmMax 1,
I'm with you.......... People need to stop pretending this is going to get better by the media choice of your presidential candidate. They chose the candidate not you. Stop kidding yourself. This is WAY more serious than the majority of this country has the cognitive ability to understand.
It’s time for the people to rise up and take back this country. Not violently but in numbers. If this country is not willing to stand up and out for what they believe in risking it all then this country has no future.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pmHave you seen the movie, “Sicko� The movie shows a long list of corporations and how much money they spent to attack the Clintons as soon as they stepped into the White House.
Comment by delafield
And how many of these same corporations contributed to his re-election campaign?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pmWayne, what civil rights bill was passed in 1968?
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
my typo, the Civil rights bill passedin 64, Nixon opened the Republican Party to the Dixicrats in 68
January 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pmCome November, the bickering factions of bigoted Republicans will clutch each other in shock and awe as the wave of democratic reform sweeps them out to sea.
Comment by Nevar — January 19, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
God, I hope you're right.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pmWayne, you haven’t noticed the fact that issues of race and gender have been prominent in the Democratic primaries? Your ignorance is not my fault.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Could it be the fact that a woman and a black man are running or do you think it's something else?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pmAnd how many of these same corporations contributed to his re-election campaign?
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
How many are donating to her current campaign?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm.
#150 Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
No, I got your point.
However, you did miss mine.
If I'm given but just two choices, who said I have to choose either choice offered me?
This is a free country, NO?
I can choose a third of my own...
Or am I allowed that choice?
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pmWould love to hear your POV and hear your vote in who will bring more change to America - Clinton or Obama, at this link: http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 1/ 19/ 181938/ 426/ 674/ 439681
Comment by Duck Soup — January 19, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
A vote on that is meaningless. As barfly says, canned.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:24 pm"How many are donating to her current campaign?"
Comment by Wayne
A link would be helpful.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:25 pmAnd how many of these same corporations contributed to his re-election campaign?
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
I don't know. I hate to say it but isn't that the way politics works all over the world? What make the world go 'round? Love or money?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:26 pmWould love to hear your POV and hear your vote in who will bring more change to America - Clinton or Obama
Comment by Duck Soup — January 19, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Is Hillary and Obama choice A or B?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pmNever mind, I chose choice C or D for the primaries.
Nat, thanks for demonstrating my point. Constantly pointing out the race and gender of candidates demonstrates my point.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Especially if your party only allows one race and gender to run.
What point was that?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pm.
#166 Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
So,
Corpratism is American?
Or is Corpratism, Fascism?
I guess you support a Fascist America because you tolerate and allow corporations to decide for you.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pmComment by Max-1 — January 19, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
No, I got your point.
However, you did miss mine.
If I’m given but just two choices, who said I have to choose either choice offered me?
This is a free country, NO?
I can choose a third of my own…
Or am I allowed that choice?
You are angry! Wow! Look, you can vote for anyone you want. A protest vote, call it. Like Ross Perott or Ralph Nader. But is that the best way to vote? I say no. You apparently say yes. So be it. We think each other wrong.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pm.
#167 Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
And Macaca meant nothing?
LOLOLOLOL
Too rich.
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pmAccording to USA patsy, allowing only white men to run for president isn't racist, but letting women and minorities run is.
Stupid, or evil? Evil, or stupid?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pmNat, thanks for demonstrating my point. Constantly pointing out the race and gender of candidates demonstrates my point.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
When you really have a point to make get back to us.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:32 pmAfter you read some history and quit being so damned ignorant, of course.
Nat, thanks for demonstrating my point. Constantly pointing out the race and gender of candidates demonstrates my point.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Demonstrates what point? Unless Clinton and Obama magically turn into pasty white males, gender and race will be a part of this campaign.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pmI guess you support a Fascist America because you tolerate and allow corporations to decide for you.
Comment by Max-1 — January 19, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
So in your opinion, love makes the world go 'round. I wish that was true. God, how I wish that was true.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:34 pm.
#171 Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Q U E S T I O N:
What does it make you when you chide others for exorcising their freedom of choice?
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:34 pm.
#177 Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
As Gandhi once said, "Be the change you seek from this world."
What is it you seek, if not peace and love?
.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pmAl Sharpton even ran for president in 2004.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
proving, of course that Democrats are racist, for allowing a black man to run for president. and Republicans, who will not allow a black man on the ticket, are not racist.
it's not 1920 any more, patsy. i know that's frustrating for you racists, but too bad.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pmIt is true that many former segregationists, such as Strom Thurmond, left the Democratic party and later renounced racism, while many, such as Byrd, stayed in the Democratic party, the party of Jim Crow. The Democrats have of course also cultivated a whole new breed of racists; Al Sharpton even ran for president in 2004.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
I don't think Sharpton is a racist.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pmhate to say it but isn’t that the way politics works all over the world? What make the world go ’round? Love or money?
Comment by delafield
Oh, come on, now. You were just using those "corporations" as a benefactor for all the various (supposedly nefarious) behind-the-scenes, out-to-get-the-Clintons factions. Now, you just dismiss them with a perfunctory wave? Why not list these evildoers, and we can judge for ourselves? Don't get me wrong, I know all about the Arkansas project, and the oppo researchers - but some of this is simply attributable to baksheesh (or anti-baksheesh, if you will). They were playing the odds that the Clintons would be bad for their business interests, not because they were "enemies."
January 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pmA link would be helpful.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Has she released her donor list yet?
I would like to see it as well.
I was asking as a question =)
January 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pmNo one of any race is being prohibited from running by the party. Stop lying.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Where's your black and female candidates, then, patsy? Are you telling us that no black or female Republicans are interested in being President?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pmThe Democrats have of course also cultivated a whole new breed of racists; Al Sharpton even ran for president in 2004.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Your shrink needs to adjust your meds. Make an appointment soon.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:38 pmI don’t think Sharpton is a racist.
Comment by Nat — January 19, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
I think patsy probably meant ni--er.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:39 pmComment by Max-1 — January 19, 2008 @ 7:34
pm
Q U E S T I O N:
Max, Max, Max. Your bolded word still shows anger. I am not angry, nor am I trying to upset you. We are essentially on the same side. We just happen to disagree on this point. Let it go.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:40 pmI think patsy probably meant ni–er.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Yeah. It probably is projection.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pmAs Gandhi once said, “Be the change you seek from this world.â€
What is it you seek, if not peace and love?
Comment by Max-1 — January 19, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
We had peace and prosperity during the Clinton years. That's what I seek again.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:42 pmComment by Wayne — January 19, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
LOOLOL! Well said
January 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pmHas she released her donor list yet?
I would like to see it as well.
Her top donors:
1
Goldman Sachs
$543,620
2
Citigroup Inc
$532,960
3
Morgan Stanley
$445,610
4
DLA Piper
$404,320
5
JP Morgan Chase & Co
$286,575
6
Skadden, Arps et al
$259,790
7
Kirkland & Ellis
$247,350
8
Time Warner
$240,130
9
National Amusements Inc
$238,500
10
Corning Inc
$230,250
11
Cablevision Systems
$223,813
12
Credit Suisse Group
$215,400
13
EMILY's List
$212,602
14
Ernst & Young
$205,650
15
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$199,550
16
Lehman Brothers
$189,190
17
Merrill Lynch
$179,810
18
Bear Stearns
$168,335
19
Blank Rome LLP
$166,400
20
January 19th, 2008 at 7:45 pmMetropolitan Life
Wayne, when the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for it than Democrats.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
152 house Democrats voted for it, 138 repugs
46 Senate Democats and 27 Senate Republicans voted for it.
Liar
January 19th, 2008 at 7:47 pmWhere’s your black and female candidates, then, patsy? Are you telling us that no black or female Republicans are interested in being President?
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
To be fair, Alan Keyes ran in 2000 and I think he's running this time around.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:47 pm#192
barfly,
I heard that Hillary is going to contibute that money to charity after the 2008 election.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm...you haven’t noticed the fact that issues of race and gender have been prominent in the Democratic primaries?
Comment by trooll @ 7:03 pm
Could it be the fact that a woman and a black man are running ... ?
Comment by Nat @ 7:22 pm
needs repeated... the obvious always does...
January 19th, 2008 at 7:50 pm"I heard that Hillary is going to contibute that money to charity after the 2008 election."
Comment by delafield
She should contribute it to the national democratic party, as much as they're helping to get her elected.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:52 pmI said “percentage†Wayne. Look it up.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
Ahh, misleading liar then
January 19th, 2008 at 7:52 pmOf course Sharpton is a racist.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
Is this projection?
January 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pmShe should contribute it to the national democratic party, as much as they’re helping to get her elected.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
If that's what it takes to throw the Republicans out of office, I'm all for it.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:55 pmComment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
We had peace and prosperity during the Clinton years. That’s what I seek again.
We are all seeking that. The question is who will do it best. I base my choices on ideology, (and voting record if any) not campaign speeches. The DLC, of which Billary is a proud supporter, has a terrible ideology in my view. Ideology is what drives policy, and the good things under Bill are outweighed strongly by the bad.
How do you feel about Bill Clinton letting Bush 41 off the hook and dropping the ongoing investigations regarding Iran Contra when he took office? He said he preferred to let history decide. Would Billary do the same thing with Bush 43? Just sweep the last 7 years under the rug?
Bill said when Billary is president, the first thing she will do is send him and his good buddy, 41, all over the world as ambassadors to rebuild our destroyed reputation. Sweet!
January 19th, 2008 at 7:55 pm#196 Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
I heard that Hillary is going to contibute that money to charity after the 2008 election.
BwaaaaHaaaaHaaaa.
Like that will ever happen.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:58 pmPercentages are misleading? Or plain English misleads you?
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
More Democrats voted for it than against it and more Democrats voted for it than Republicans did.
Play percentages all you want.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pmMost that voted against on the Democrat side switched to Republican in 68 and the Republicans layed down and spread wide..
Percentages are misleading? Or plain English misleads you?
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
The percentages were higher because the abysmal percentages of republicans in the House and the Senate. Their numbers in both chambers increased dramatically when Nixon embraced the disillusioned Democratic racists.
January 19th, 2008 at 7:59 pmthis is a well practiced PARROT...
January 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pmthrow it a cracker and be done with it...
SQUAAAWK
Ask the Jews of Crown Heights if Sharpton is racist. Or maybe they’re projecting too.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
I actually live in Crown Heights and years ago I think they would have said he was a racist but I'm not so sure now.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pm"Bill said when Billary is president, the first thing she will do is send him and his good buddy, 41, all over the world as ambassadors to rebuild our destroyed reputation. Sweet!"
Comment by Merlin
God I hope not, if for the simple reason that they would inevtably get together with the Worst President in American History for a photo op, with those baseball hats. I can just see the smarmy lot, with #41 standing next to 43, and 42 hugging 44...
I think I'm going to be ill, now...
January 19th, 2008 at 8:02 pmAsk the Jews of Crown Heights if Sharpton is racist. Or maybe they’re projecting too.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
There may be some projection going on in your case.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pmI think I’m going to be ill, now…
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Pour a pepto for me too.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pmComment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
ROTFLMAO! That is really hilarious! Candidate for funniest post of this thread!
January 19th, 2008 at 8:05 pmOur reputation in the world is fine, except among jihadists and leftists at home and abroad who hate America.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
So you're saying the overwhelming majority of Americans and the world are either "jihadists and leftists at home and abroad who hate America."
January 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pmWe are all seeking that. The question is who will do it best. I base my choices on ideology, (and voting record if any) not campaign speeches.
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
That's why I support Clinton for President. Hillary and Bill Clinton have more on the job experience than all of the Republican and Democratic candidates combined.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm"Hillary and Bill Clinton have more on the job experience than all of the Republican and Democratic candidates combined."
Comment by delafield —
I think the same was said about Bush and Cheney...
January 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pmAh, so racism in 1991 is old news, but racism from the 1960s is as relevant as ever. No double standard there! *L*
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
I don't think he is or ever was a racist.
You should have said "racism from the 1960s to now is as relevant as ever."
January 19th, 2008 at 8:11 pm#219 Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Experience is not ideology. Bush 43 has 7 years "experience". Does that mean he would make a good president (if he was running?)
Secondly, are you going to answer my questions in paragraph 2? For your convenience here they are again.
How do you feel about Bill Clinton letting Bush 41 off the hook and dropping the ongoing investigations regarding Iran Contra when he took office? He said he preferred to let history decide. Would Billary do the same thing with Bush 43? Just sweep the last 7 years under the rug?
January 19th, 2008 at 8:13 pmThe overwhelming majority of Americans are not leftists who hate America, that is correct, Nat.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
But you just called us that. Are you schizophrenic?
January 19th, 2008 at 8:14 pmNat doesn’t think calling Jews “diamond merchants†is racist. Enough said.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
Post the quote and I'll tell you if it's racist or not.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pmI think the same was said about Bush and Cheney…
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008
Look at the difference between eight years of Bush and Cheney, and eight years of the Clintons. By the time the Clintons left office we had a projected $5 trillion budget surplus, the DJIA went from 2,000 to 12,000 points, no American troops died in battle for eight years (Bush Sr. sent our troops to Somalia, not Clinton), record high employment, increasing wages, etc, etc......
Now lets look at Bush and the Republicans...... ok, let's not.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm#226 Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
BwaaaaHaaaaHaaaa. (Drying tears of laughter) This is a great thread for comedians!
January 19th, 2008 at 8:17 pm"leftists who hate America"
Keep track of how many times he uses that phrase in a thread. As often as it's used, wingers must get like a quarter every time they type it. I'd imagine most wingnuts who blog for a living have it on macro.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:17 pmThis troll twists and turns like an eel staked out on the beach.
and it illogical as hell.
Night is day
January 19th, 2008 at 8:19 pmup is down
black is white
in Bush World.
... and it is illogical as hell
January 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm#230 Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
“leftists who hate Americaâ€
Keep track of how many times he uses that phrase in a thread. As often as it’s used, wingers must get like a quarter every time they type it.
LOL! There you go again! This is better than "Larry the cable guy,"
January 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pmHow do you feel about Bill Clinton letting Bush 41 off the hook and dropping the ongoing investigations regarding Iran Contra when he took office? He said he preferred to let history decide. Would Billary do the same thing with Bush 43? Just sweep the last 7 years under the rug?
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
The first thing that Hillary is going to do if she gets elected is eliminate all of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and give tax cuts to the poor and middle class. She wants every American to have Health Insurance (for some stupid reason, Americans don't want universal care like the rest of the world). Hillary wants to bring the troops home. period.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm"Look at the difference between eight years of Bush and Cheney, and eight years of the Clintons."
Gotta' stop you right there. When Bush and Cheney were running, they were touted as "a successful governor" and his seasoned, "steady hand," Cheney. You're trying to bring up Clinton's record as governor? Compare Bush's record, and Clinton's, when both were governors, and go from there, or the comparison falls apart.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:22 pmKeep track of how many times he uses that phrase in a thread. As often as it’s used, wingers must get like a quarter every time they type it. I’d imagine most wingnuts who blog for a living have it on macro.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
delefield needs to look USA Idiots post and then his own and maybe dela will see that ticked some of us off.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pmCertainly better than any of the pathetic Democrats who are running.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Bush is the worst president ever and most people in America could do a better job than he has (with the only exception being the 25 to 30 percent who still support him).
January 19th, 2008 at 8:23 pmComment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Strom Thurmond and other former segregationists renounced their past views after they left the Democratic party...
BwaaaHaaaaHaaaa
Yeah, like the KKK idiots gave up their hatred when they took off their white robes.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:24 pmThanks, Merlin.
Your wisdom in such matters is legendary...
January 19th, 2008 at 8:24 pmNat, in what context is it not racist to call Jews “diamond merchants�
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
If they were diamond merchants.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:24 pmPresident Bush’s tax cuts were across the board, they didn’t just go to “the wealthyâ€. Stop lying.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Take your own advice.
Stop lying.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pmYear-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich
From the NY Times:
Some election officials said they were confused about Mr. Obama’s claim that he more delegates than Mrs. Clinton.
“I don’t know why they’re saying that,†said Jill Derby, president of the Nevada State Democratic Party, referring to the Obama campaign. “We don’t select our national delegates the way they’re saying. We won’t select national delegates for a few more months.â€
January 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pmBut you just called us that. Are you schizophrenic?
Comment by Nat — January 19, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
Just stupid, Nat... just basic, common, garden-variety "stupid"...
January 19th, 2008 at 8:26 pm"delefield needs to look USA Idiots post and then his own and maybe dela will see that ticked some of us off."
Comment by Wayne
Isn't that Cold_Hard_Leftovers? A stump makes better sense...
Why you bother to whack a masochist is beyond me.
He likes it.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:27 pmPresident Bush’s tax cuts were across the board, they didn’t just go to “the wealthyâ€. Stop lying.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
The wealthy shouldn't have gotten a tax cut. They don't need it. He should have raised taxes on the wealthy and targeted all of the tax cut to the poor and the middle class.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:27 pmBy no objective measure can this be said.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Of course, by no objective measure can this be denied, either.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm#236 Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Hillary wants to bring the troops home. period.
You believe this??? You are believing triangulating campaign rhetoric. She has NOT stated that unequivocally! Your links please.
And are you going to answer my questions?
January 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pmBy no objective measure can this be said.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
He is the worst president ever.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:29 pmWhen Bush and Cheney were running, they were touted as “a successful governor†and his seasoned, “steady hand,†Cheney.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Who said that? Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly, the New York Times (which has been cheerleading for war against Afganistan, Iraq, and Iran for 6 years), FOX News, Chris Matthews, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, etc.....
January 19th, 2008 at 8:29 pmPresident Bush’s tax cuts were across the board, they didn’t just go to “the wealthyâ€. Stop lying.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Damn, Google's cool... lookit that!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E2D6173FF930A2575BC0A9629C8B63
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: ECONOMIC POLICY; Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor The Wealthy
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: August 13, 2004
Fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts in the last three years have gone to people with the top 1 percent of income, who have earned an average of $1.2 million annually, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to be published Friday.
The report calculated that households with incomes in that top 1 percent were receiving an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, while households in the middle 20 percent of earnings -- about $57,000 a year -- were getting an average cut of only $1,090.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:31 pm"Who said that? Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Rielly, the New York Times (which has been cheerleading for war against Afganistan, Iraq, and Iran for 6 years), FOX News, Chris Matthews, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, etc….."
Comment by delafield
Also, the corporate media. You were politially aware, back then, right?
January 19th, 2008 at 8:32 pmSo in your opinion, love makes the world go ’round. I wish that was true.
Comment by delafield
No, not love, but gravity. Corporations still don't own gravity.
I'm with Max 1 on this thread.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pmBy no objective measure can this be said.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
Maybe you are that stupid....
January 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Your Marxist views are both unamerican and ignorant.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
My goodness... he can't read!
January 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm#236 Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Hillary wants to bring the troops home. period.
Your links please.
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Hillary Clinton has announced her plan to end the war in Iraq and urged President Bush to act immediately.
"Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.
Here is your link, Merlin. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
January 19th, 2008 at 8:34 pm#255 Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — January 19, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
Would you stop that! You know he doesn't know how to use Google. And besides, you are embarrassing poor patsy with all your "facts.".
January 19th, 2008 at 8:35 pmMy goodness… he can’t read!
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — January 19, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
You just can't fix stupid. heh
January 19th, 2008 at 8:39 pmFor delafield:
MARGARET WARNER: How much do you think, how do you think Cheney's personality comes into play also? We just saw it on display in this interview with Jim.
JOHN ZOGBY: He's disarming, and at the same time he's a bit of a maverick. He's the anti-politician politician. And voters kind of like that. There is no rah rah here. This is a steady hand of experience. If you want to be little cynical, this is a scoutmaster with the nice boy scout, or if you want to be [. . .]
Zogby ain't a media type, but he's a pollster, and knows the "framing" that was going on back then.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:41 pmThe top 1 percent pay more than a third of the total income taxes paid, by the way.
Comment by USA_Patriot
Probably the best description of how free markets have widened the rich/poor gap.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:42 pmNat, the impeached president that preceded him was worse, for starters. Carter was certainly a complete disaster.
Bush is the worst president ever.
The wealthy already pay most of the taxes. Your Marxist views are both unamerican and ignorant.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
We have a progressive tax system so the more money you earn the more taxes you pay. Americans don't support a plutocratic society.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pmWhen refuted with facts, they then turn rabid.....
January 19th, 2008 at 8:44 pmZogby ain’t a media type, but he’s a pollster, and knows the “framing†that was going on back then.
Comment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
I wonder how much they paid Zogby to say that.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:44 pmSince I didn’t say the wealthy did not get a tax cut, what was your point? The top 1 percent pay more than a third of the total income taxes paid, by the way.
Or perhaps the phrase “across the board†baffled you. You seem easily baffled.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
They should be paying more especially in a time of growing deficits.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:45 pmThey should be paying less. It’s their money, not yours. Stop being so greedy.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
They should be paying more because most of them make their money of the backs of the poor and the middle class.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:48 pmWell, obviously the word of Huck Gutman is the Gospel Objective Truth, no question! *L*
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
And where did you get your doctorial in History, by chance?
Or do you have a credible link to a history professor refuting his ponts?
Prove you know more than a History professor and refute his points with facts instead of innuendo and slurs.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:48 pmComment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Thanks for the link. Nowhere does it say if she is turning over the massive bases we are even today being constructed over to the Iraqis. I don't see that all of our troops are coming out of Iraq.
Here is something for you. How do you feel about this?
A retired U.S. Army general visiting [New Hampshire] to campaign for Hillary Clinton said yesterday she does not oppose the Iraq war -- and she said she's never heard Clinton oppose it, either [...]
Kennedy said, "I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership." And, [Retired Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy] added, "I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.' I've heard her say that we need to begin withdrawal under a plan led by the military and defense secretary. I've heard her say we need to create a regional stabilizing group by allies, by leaders in the world and by all of the states that are bordering Iraq. That is a very important idea and the point of that group is to create incentive and assurances that will keep the neighboring countries from becoming involved and entering Iraq. That's a much more sophisticated thing than saying, 'I oppose the war.'"
January 19th, 2008 at 8:48 pmThank you for the debate. It's time to go out for dinner.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:49 pmI'll have to get back to you later, Merlin. Sorry about that. Thanks for the discussion.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pmFrom delafield's link:
"As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."
Well that's clear.
It's clear she isn't through issuing conflicting and confusing statements.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:51 pmYou do have facts to back you up, don't you, USA_Idiot?
January 19th, 2008 at 8:51 pmYou seem easily baffled.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
There, there, there Li'l Patie... you seem easily ruffled.
You make ridiculous claims, you get 'em stuffed back in yer face, and right away, name calling. If you're going to lead w/ yer 'attitude', make sure it's big enough to actually frighten folks.
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6
Citizens for Tax Justice , 202-626-3780 June 12, 2002
Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich
A new study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Children’s Defense Fund reveals for the first time who stands to benefit from the 2001-enacted Bush tax cuts in each year from 2001 through 2010. Among the key findings:
Over the ten-year period, the richest Americans—the best-off one percent—are slated to receive tax cuts totaling almost half a trillion dollars. The $477 billion in tax breaks the Bush administration has targeted to this elite group will average $342,000 each over the decade.
By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million. Their tax-cut windfall in that year alone will average $85,000 each. Put another way, of the estimated $234 billion in tax cuts scheduled for the year 2010, $121 billion will go just 1.4 million taxpayers.
Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005.
In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation.
For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place.
Tax cuts for the 19 percent of taxpayers making between $73,000 and $356,000 this year will grow a little over the next four years as the cuts in the upper tax rates continue to kick in, but then will dwindle thereafter. By 2010, the tax cuts for this group will be no bigger as a share of income than they are now.
As a result, freezing the Bush tax cuts at their 2002 levels would have little or no effect on 99 percent of the taxpayers, whose tax cuts are already mostly or completely “frozen.†Only the best-off one percent of the taxpayers will receive significant additional tax cuts if the rest of the Bush tax program continues to be implemented.
Like I said, Li'l Patie, ain't Google cool?
January 19th, 2008 at 8:54 pmhttp://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
Been there, read it. Still not impressed.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm"You do have facts to back you up, don’t you, USA_Idiot?"
Comment by Wayne —
The only thing backing him up is a well-worn Barcalounger...
January 19th, 2008 at 8:57 pmMerlin, Robert Byrd is still a proud Democrat.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
And? Does that somehow detract from the fact that the majority of the Dixiecrats fled the Democratic Party to take refuge in the Republican Party? No, it does not. It doesn't refute any point made about the core of the racist Democrats changing political affiliation to Republican one iota.
That is a blatant (and rather pathetic) attempt at defusing the rather large error you made in attempting to rewrite history in the presence of those who, apparently, know their history better than you do.
In fact, shades of, "Clinton did it!" permeate that entire fallacious line of reasoning.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:57 pmComment by barfly — January 19, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
The only thing backing him up is a well-worn Barcalounger…
LOL! Now I warned you about this! I just about choked on the hot house cuke I am eating. Its dangerous to read you while eating!
January 19th, 2008 at 9:02 pmhttp://query.nytimes.com/ gst/ fullpage.html?res=9A03E2D6173FF930A2575BC0A9629C8B63
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: ECONOMIC POLICY; Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor The Wealthy
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: August 13, 2004
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — January 19, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
Stupid facts. Stupid citations backing your facts up. You think that has any bearing on a "patriot's" (read as: nationalist's) point of view? How dare you point out he (or she) is wrong. HOW DARE YOU, SIR! Don't you know that undermines his lies? How is he supposed to rile up "the base" if he has to fight against the facts?!?
January 19th, 2008 at 9:02 pmGee, where'd Li'l Patie go?
January 19th, 2008 at 9:02 pmAhhhh, I love a good political fight on TP. Free speech at its finest.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:03 pmAny Democrat will do for me, over these sick,greedy blood thirsty republicans. O.K.....ROUND 3, gong!
That Barca lounger isn't just well worn. It's suffering and chronically depressed.
Sorry, Moderation... I can't help it... I always resort to "facts" when I fight dirty...
January 19th, 2008 at 9:04 pmComment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
You did not even read the article, did you?
lmao
January 19th, 2008 at 9:09 pm"Classic Marxist thought. Typical nonsense."
Classic Neo-con blather... typical rightie hyperbole.
Moderation, they renounced their past racist views after leaving the party of Jim Crow and becoming Republicans. Republicans believe in the colorblind ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr., Democrats rejected those ideals in the 1960s and today.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Oh yeah... thas why the GOOPers keep getting caught w/ cute little scams like voter caging, mon ...
Got historical revisionism?
January 19th, 2008 at 9:10 pmClassic Neo-con blather… typical rightie hyperbole.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — January 19, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Its all he's got.
Pathetic.
Better trolls please.....
January 19th, 2008 at 9:14 pmYou repeat in #289, I repeat.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
Strom Thurmond and other former segregationists renounced their past views after they left the Democratic party…
BwaaaHaaaaHaaaa
Yeah, like the KKK idiots gave up their hatred when they took off their white robes.
Comment by Merlin — January 19, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
January 19th, 2008 at 9:15 pmModeration, they renounced their past racist views after leaving the party of Jim Crow and becoming Republicans. Republicans believe in the colorblind ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr., Democrats rejected those ideals in the 1960s and today.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Saying that is so, and looking at their voting records, their consistent voter fraud scams that VERY OFTEN target minorities, their blatant use of racist rhetoric to excite their "base", etc, speaks more than some pretty fluffy woo-woo words.
You honestly mean to tell me that the most racist wing of the Democratic Party switched their affiliation to the Republican Party, renounced their past racist views, instantly CEASED being racist, and nevertheless rarely has women or minorities run for office in their name, much less reach a position of power within the party? Right. *snort* Like simply renouncing your racist views simply makes them go away. Sure.
Hey, wanna buy this cool bridge I've got? Only $1 million and it's yours!
January 19th, 2008 at 9:20 pmHey, wanna buy this cool bridge I’ve got? Only $1 million and it’s yours!
Comment by Moderation — January 19, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
Its in Minnesota and only needs slight repair.....
January 19th, 2008 at 9:23 pmClassic Marxist thought. Typical nonsense.
Nothing Marxist about it. A lot of the rich make their money by exploiting the poor and the middle class in their constant quest to gain more wealth.
Moderation, they renounced their past racist views after leaving the party of Jim Crow and becoming Republicans. Republicans believe in the colorblind ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr., Democrats rejected those ideals in the 1960s and today.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
There is still a lot of racism in America and turning a blind-eye to it won't change that. The republicans are actually making the problem worst.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:23 pmIt is nothing but a bunch of nonsense.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Example and your point refuting it.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:24 pmI was an Obama precinct captain in Reno. In my precinct Obama won, and not only did we win, we won overwhelmingly and with the most diverse group of supporters. Hillary supporters were mostly late middle aged women. Our supporters ranged from college students to women and men in their eighties, across all races. Hillary only won three Nevada counties; Obama won most of the rest of the state pretty convincingly. Plus, delegate wise, the news we're getting is that they tied in the state and that Barack is still ahead nationally. This is still a race, and we in the Obama camp will not give up until all the states and all the delgates are counted.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:25 pmThat’s a pretty accurate description of the Democrats, for sure.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
I read it and thought it was the best description of republicans.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:26 pmAgsin:
If it is nonsense, it should be easy for you to refute. Right?
January 19th, 2008 at 9:31 pmNat, the rich employ people. They create the jobs that make our economy possible. Your Marxist drivel is unamerican nonsense.
The poor and the middle class' labor is what makes this economy possible.
There is still a lot of racism in America, most coming from the left. The Democrats are actually making the problem worse.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
It comes from the right and that's why they turn a blind-eye to it and pretend everything is equal now.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:31 pmThere is still a lot of racism in America, most coming from the left. The Democrats are actually making the problem worse.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Example. and your proof.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:33 pmYour Marxist drivel is unamerican nonsense.
Comment by USA_Patriot
Ironically, it is not. The US has the most powerful and numerous middle class in the world.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:34 pmNat, the rich employ people. They create the jobs that make our economy possible. Your Marxist drivel is unamerican nonsense.
There is still a lot of racism in America, most coming from the left. The Democrats are actually making the problem worse.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
If the rich refuse to pay their employees a living wage, the economy ceases to work. It's real simple. If a person cannot meet a basic standard of living on their income, especially when that income is TWICE the minimum wage, or more in larger cities, the economy is broken. When the lower 90% of the wages in the country are going down, and 10% are going up, all while the value of the currency goes down, the economy is broken.
Do you think 10% of the people spending more each year keeps the economy healthier than 90% of the people having more money to spend? If so, you are a fool. The rising tide does indeed lift all ships. However, the Republican framing of such a notion is flawed. If the ocean is what holds the economy up, the ocean truly represents Labor. If Labor (the ocean) rises, all of the ships on the surface (Capital) rise with it. Why? Because Labor can survive without Capital, but Capital most assuredly cannot survive without Labor.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:37 pmWhat you said is not true though, Moderation.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
Example and your point of refutation.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pmBarak Obama has been praising Ronald Reagan for the past 7 days. What’s that all about?
Comment by delafield — January 19, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
somehow i’ve missed those “obama praises reagan†quotes…
the one i DID see, did not sound much like real praise, as much as
stating an obvious fact…
any links - WITH CONTEXT - would be appreciated…
thanks.
[...]
Comment by katy — January 19, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
still waiting...
January 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pm...
not Marxist foolishness like Nat is peddling.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
Endless hyperbole, and not a single fact.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:46 pmhere's something for the PARROT... little bit of history!
careful now...
Bill Moyers’ Journal: On King & Johnson, Obama & Clinton
By: Nicole Belle on Saturday, January 19th, 2008 at 2:05 PM - PST
Bill Moyers, who was Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary from 1965-1967, gives his perspective on the “tempest in a teapot†of the Hillary vs. Obama media brawl over LBJ and MLK:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/19/bill-moyers-journal-on-king-johnson-obama-clinton/
January 19th, 2008 at 9:48 pmOk, off to eat dinner.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:48 pmThis troll has less intellect than a rock, anyway.
And It's very boring.
Nat, it comes from the left. Where would the poor and middle class work if no one created any businesses? That has to come first.
Actually demand for a product comes first. And the businesses need labor to meet that demand or they go out of business.
Yes, because of relatively free markets, not Marxist foolishness like Nat is peddling.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
The Middle Class was much stronger before Ronald Reagan started with this free market crap. The free market ideology is destroying the Middle Class. We have a society where the rich are getting richer while everyone else is falling behind.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:50 pmWhy do I feel like I'm arguing w/ someone's little brother?
"You're a doody head"
"Am not..."
"Am too... and your feet stink..."
No facts, just attitude... **Yawn...**
January 19th, 2008 at 9:51 pmActually we've presented very detailed replies. You seem to think you win by "ignoring them".
Very, very sad...
No wonder the GOOP is teetering on the brink of extinction.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:53 pm“Crooks and Liars†is an excellent name for a left-wing website, but not for the reasons they chose it.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
They post videos of crook and liars so naturally it's filled with videos of republicans. It seems like the republican party is filled with criminals.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:54 pmIt seems like the republican party is filled with criminals.
Comment by Nat — January 19, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
And perverts... don't forget the perverts, Nat...
January 19th, 2008 at 9:57 pmObviously this fool wasn’t alive during the disastrous Carter years.
I was actually born during the first year of the disastrous Reagan presidency.
First they would have to be in business. And many businesses operate without employees for some time before they grow enough to hire people. Perhaps you should move to the workers paradise of Cuba.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
As long as they're is demand for a product, you'll have businesses opening. And to meet that demand you need labor or you go out business.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pmIt seems like the Democratic party is filled with criminals. The last Democrat to be elected president was impeached and disbarred, for example.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
The Democrats have their fair share of criminals but it's nothing compared to the republicans. It seems like everyone in the GOP is involved in something criminal and the president and vice president even have blood on their hands.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:04 pmThere are innumerable businesses in America that operate as sole proprietorships, that is, they don’t have employees.
Again, if you have demand for a product and a company is not meeting that demand more businesses will open up (either sole proprietorships or businesses hiring outside labor). In any circumstance you still need labor.
The Carter economy had double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and double-digit unemployment. Reagan initiated one of the greatest economic booms in American history.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Most of what happened during the Nixon,Ford and Carter administrations was due to outside forces (the Iranians). And Reagan began the dismantling of the middle class with the busting up of unions.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:15 pmRight. With the Republicans, it’s the exception, with the Democrats, its’ the rule. No comparison.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Did you read my post or did you pull this out of your ass?
January 19th, 2008 at 10:16 pmdid you pull this out of your ass?
Comment by Nat — January 19, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
Definitely out of his arse, Nat. It's where he keeps his head. That's why it's so hard to understand what he's saying... all muffled and garbled.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pmThe middle class prospered in the Reagan boom, and the Carter economic disaster was not caused by Iran. You are totally ignorant.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
The free market ideology and the tinkle down economics began the destruction of the middle class which was much stronger during the 1940s to the 1970s.
And the Iranians caused much of the problems for the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:28 pmThis Patsy troll is an absolute bore. Time for me to find something more interesting and relevant to read.
Bye all! Have a great weekend.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:43 pmOf course Wayne would slink off without offering any facts.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Of course!
This troll is a michael/cold_hard_left/JasonH (tube)sockpuppet
No wonder he is so dang stupid
He wouldn't know a fact if it hit him on the head with a 10 pound sledge.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:37 pmUSA patsy has a deep bag of gOP lies and talking points to draw on. just a simple hint: everything he posts is the opposite of what's true. Reagan destroyed the middle class, Clinton revived it, Bush destroyed it again. All republicans are criminals and perverts, a few Democrats have their hands in the cookie jar. The rEpublican congress that impeached Clinton was a group of traitors trying to steal the government from its rightfully-elected president; they lost. Clinton wasn't convicted, and voluntarily gave up his license for 5 years. Democrats always treat the Amerian people fairly, Republicans always rape them. the rich don't pay anywhere near their fair share of taxes compared to what they rake in by breaking the backs of the middle class and poor. A mix of socialism and capitalism is what made this country strong after WW2; unbridled capitalism has made it weak, with the dollar falling, the market falling, home sales and values plunging, a weak military, and a declining moral code becasue of the lack of morals from the leadership of the repig party, the party of treason, perversion, and hate. USA patsy has nothing but lies.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pmsimple hint: everything he posts is the opposite of what’s true.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.†---- Joseph Goebbels
Alot of trolls have something very sinister in common, I think.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:35 am"The middle class prospered in the Reagan boom, and the Carter economic disaster was not caused by Iran. You are totally ignorant.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 10:20 pm"
Go giggle, eat your Doritos and watch The Wall.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:39 amHi JP, USA_Pathetic is dumber than your average troll isn't he. Proof that listening to Rush Limbaugh kills brain cells.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:01 amShayne, he is clearly to young to remember the Reagan "boom"...and too illiterate to read a history book.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:27 amand watch The Wall.
Comment by Sabyen91
Can you believe I've never seen it? I'd buy it, but, just like Dark Side of the Moon, it's never ever been in the Bargain Bin.
(Which I have had 5 copies of, on four different formats:
LP, 8-Track (x2), cassette, and CD.
Oh. It's on my computer too, but I don't have an I-pod whatever yet...)
I guess it's time to get "the Wall."
January 20th, 2008 at 1:28 amThe middle class prospered in the Reagan boom, and the Carter economic disaster was not caused by Iran. You are totally ignorant.
Comment by USA_Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
ROTFL, what a STUPID COMMENT! Middle class SHRUNK under RayGun - MORON!! As they do under EVERY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT! You're such an IGNORANT TARD - how PATHETIC!
January 20th, 2008 at 1:48 amUSA patsy has a deep bag of gOP lies and talking points to draw on. just a simple hint: everything he posts is the opposite of what’s true...A mix of socialism and capitalism is what made this country strong after WW2; unbridled capitalism has made it weak, with the dollar falling, the market falling, home sales and values plunging, a weak military, and a declining moral code becasue of the lack of morals from the leadership of the repig party, the party of treason, perversion, and hate. USA patsy has nothing but lies.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — January 19, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Note the part I emphasized. This part is quoted for truth. Totality of the dominance of ANY social OR economic theory leads to the same eventuality: totalitarianism.
If Socialism is given all the power, the few in control of the State possess all of the power. In fact, this is a requirement, for only complete control can allow the resources to be divided fairly. This system is open to extreme corruption.
If Fascism is given all the power, the few in control of the Corporate-State possess all of the power. In fact, this is a requirement, for only complete control can allow the resources to be divided as the elite decide. This system is open to extreme corruption.
If Dictatorship is given all the power, the dictator in control of the State possess all of the power. In fact, this is a fundamental requirement, for only complete control can allow the resources to be divided as the dictator decides. This system is open to extreme corruption.
If Capitalism is given all the power, the few in control of the Corporation(s) possess all of the power. In fact, this is a requirement, for only complete control can allow the resources to be divided as the most powerful Capitalists decide. This system is open to extreme corruption.
The list goes on. Only when power is compartmentalized via SOME sort of checks and balances, is the will of the people able to be achieved at all.
SOME Capitalism is great, allowing for a free exchange of goods and services, and allowing supply and demand to dictate value. However, any good or service that is always in demand from all citizens, and is required to live or function in society, is able to be used as a form of control that the elite may exert upon the masses. This leads to corruption, and is dangerous to society.
SOME Socialism is great, allowing for those goods and services that are always in demand from all citizens, and are required to live or function in society, to be distributed fairly amongst the entire citizenry. However, any good or service that is not a requirement for survival or basic function, is able to be used as a form of control, with only those the State wishes to possessing such luxuries and amenities. This leads to corruption, and is dangerous to society.
A COMBINATION of those two major socio-economic models is more stable, and services the needs of the meek and elite alike, while not allowing power to concentrate too heavily. As goods and services grow FROM luxury IN TO necessity, the system should be flexible to accommodate such change. When something like telephones become a requirement to function in the society, the USE of the FREQUENCIES can be taken over by the State, while the Market competes for the hardware that uses it. If, however, a company actually controlled all of the frequencies (which WOULD occur with unbridled Capitalism, as such an economic system does not, in fact, prevent the existence of, but rather encourages the formation of monopolies or oligopolies), that company would suddenly exert undue influence upon the citizenry, and can quite literally hold society hostage unless something is done.
This whole bullsh*t "war" between Capitalism and Socialism is insane. The two should work hand-in-hand in a free society. The "Red Scare"'s influence on succeeding generations, making Socialism a bad word, is damaging our modern society. Socialism is not a bad word. Nor is Capitalism. Giving either concept total control over economic policy, however, is as foolish as the concept of a "unitary executive" is in a democratic republic.
January 20th, 2008 at 2:45 amIn light of Hillary's recent foray into trying out being a flight attendant. I think in the spirit of the Nevada win, she should try out prostitution. Oh wait...
January 20th, 2008 at 9:10 amIn other words, Lefty Patriot is a known liar
Comment by O. Bigfoot
We really care what the schwann's man thinks. Guess you call that objective and reasonable.....you tire me with your namecalling because you have nothing.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:49 amFYI, the raygun era was a nightmare for America. Working class families sent thier mothers to work so they could survive.....can we say family values......
As usual when a repub pres is in office there was a devistating econoic corruption scandal. Can we say S&L
Oh, and selling arms to our enemies....Iran/contra thats not treason is it olly north..
unions backs were for the forseeable future...broken.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:53 amHe only knows the liberal revisionist version of history, which of course, is faulty to it’s very core.
In other words, Lefty Patriot is a known liar. But see how popular known liars are to their fellow liberal/progressives? Says a lot about how gullible liberal/progressive fellow travelers are, doesn’t it?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — January 20, 2008 @ 10:26 am
oh I was there for the Reagan Revolution. The best part was the assassination attempt, too bad Hinckley was such a lousy shot. I was there when Reagan attempted to destroy the middle class, did his "cut and run" after allowing the deaths of 241 Marines in Lebanon, when he trades arms to terrorists for hostages, when he undercut the working people of America, and when he weakened the economic structure of the USA and started the selling out to China. Reagan was a cose second to Benedict Arnold as leading traitor of America, until the bushes came along. Only a family that happily and proudly dealt with the Nazis well into WW2 could eclipse Reagan's treason. Your knowledge of histpry is, like y8our patriotism, non-existent, bigfoot. And you're a coward.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:56 am351 I understand your anx but you can't even jail bush and as much as I dislike hillary.....she is not guilty of the crimes that bush has committed.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:06 amFine… then lets waterboard her just for the fun of it.
*bert
*
Comment by BERT CONVY
you will get lots of support for this idea........lol
January 20th, 2008 at 11:20 amMy fear is that intense hatred for Hillary Clinton will unite the Republican party and push them into the White House.
January 20th, 2008 at 11:54 amThe election system does not allow outsiders in both parties...before someone thinks of running,he should understand how the system works...unless a candidate has big cash in the bank...big names behind him..,big connections and corporate backing....there no chance for any outsider to make it,brains comes secondery to that...and we have solid evidence of that..we are living it.
The media does not care to cover stories about Gravel, Kucinich, Nader, or Paul ....they like stories about Hillary, the Bush dynasty..the Kennedys..etc..etc...
January 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pmSo sit down and enjoy the new American dynasties' show in action called elections....since 1988: Bush...Clinton...Bush... Clinton....
Well.....I do draw a distintion........bush is much worse...just my opinion.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI mean I never had to worry about unitary presidential powers under clinton...I never had to worry about unilateral premtive war with clinton.....all I'm saying is.....there are some serious differences.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:13 pmhey there justaskin......you ready to play some more?
January 20th, 2008 at 5:48 pmyour statement fact or fiction....doesn't change my statement....bush is still much worse...nice try though for a troll. Please try to make a valid point in the future.
Then why did she vote for the Kyle-Lieberman resolution.
I take it you never have read it.
Or heard about it.
Comment by justasking — January 20, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Why not? She's gong to kick rightard ass for four, or eaight, years. it's her due. I will enjoy it.
January 20th, 2008 at 6:44 pmMy fear is that intense hatred for Hillary Clinton will unite the Republican party and push them into the White House.
Comment by Marie — January 20, 2008 @ 11:54 am
it's not that many people, but they make a lot of noise. We could run Cher and destroy the old white men of the CorporoFascist party. Don't worry, do your homework, help with GOTV when the time comes. i worked on Ned Lamont's campaign, and we beat lieberman against all odds. Even though he threw in with the enemy, we still proved what could be done.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:05 pmShe is a PHONY.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:26 pm#355: My fear is that intense hatred for Hillary Clinton will unite the Republican party and push them into the White House.
Yep, I agree with you. Not only are there many Republicans who hate her, but also a lot of mainstream media types. Since Clinton and Obama are so similar on policy, that was my motivation for supporting Obama. I think he'll generally receive fairer coverage, and I think he has a better chance of capturing undecided independent voters. I acknowledge, though, that much of the intense hatred directed at Hillary Clinton isn't entirely her fault--much of it seems pretty irrational to me.
January 20th, 2008 at 8:58 pmShe is a PHONY.
Comment by milesL — January 20, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
proof?
January 20th, 2008 at 9:15 pmHi Lefty Patriot. I think you asked a very dumb question. My answers wont be dumb, so I guess you wont understand anyway.
Hilliary remains the biggest light of the current American Neocons. Beside receiving a big chunk of cash from AIPAC, and Mudroach (MAYBE YOU MORON WANT ME TO TELL YOU THAT MUDROACH OWNS FOX NEWS - A TV station that dragged our ass into Iraq.) Or maybe you dont know what AIPAC stands for?
Besides, her arm pits are far too dirty and her hands covered with slime, coz her history is far more blacker than Obama. She has dinned and went to bed with war profiteers, and she keeps calling these same bunch of losers "True Americans", while Obama said he doesnt want them in his government. Hillary is crowing on their behalf, and the remain the hidden source of her funding. No wonder Bill said he would be touring the world with Bush Sr to fix the image of naught Jr. Bush. Maybe thats what Hillary would coming to do. Help redeem the image of I-love-to-Bomb-countries-up-George?
I would give up on trying to convince F****Kers like you to vote someone who could change the image of the country entirely, I guess Americans havent learnt anything from Bush. If we had we wont be voting a loser like Hillary whose overall achivement is in building a Hippie Museum in NY and supporting the war and giving her backing for another war in Iran.....
Tell me more about her achivements? Seems like her entire supporters are either racists, corrupt business men, and idiots who can't think like her.
Congrats to Hillary on her victory. And congrats to the morons supporting her. And congrats to TP who hated Fox News so much yet, their #1 candidate is been funded by the Ceos of FOX.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:32 amchrist people when r u all going to wake up and smell the roses....this congress is the MOST CORRUPT...these people running for office r all bought and paid for by International Corps.....Hillary will win the bid for Pres. because the Fed. Reserve and the people that control it have already put her in just like that A-- hole Bush...Cheney should be Impeached...Hell I could go on-and on....but the sad thing is , those people pushing for Gun Control will have their way when U wake up one morning and there will be a shortage of Bullets...think about it........Christ wake up before it's too damn late
January 21st, 2008 at 12:09 pm367, 368
You make a lot of disparaging and depressing remarks but I don't hear any solutions......suggestions....what do you think will change what you see to be a done deal..
you may see them as one and the same but I do see some serious differences and I have hope to be able to change things in the future...if the republicans maintain control that will be out of reach for us....
I never had to worry about unitary presidential powers under clinton…I never had to worry about unilateral premtive war with clinton…..all I’m saying is…..there are some serious differences.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pmTell me more about her achivements
Comment by creasybear — January 21, 2008 @ 11:32 am
The Clintons were actually paying down the Federal deficits created by Reagan and Bush. We had record high employment during the Clinton years. We had so many jobs available during the Clinton years that we had to bring people in from other countries to fill them. When the Clintons left office, America had a $5 trillion projected budget surplus. Not one American soldier died in battle under the Clintons (Bush Sr. sent our troops to Somalia, not the Clintons). The DJIA went from 2,000 to 12,000. The Clintons tried to bring Universal Health Care to America (for some stupid reason, Americans wanted to stay with a corporate health care system where they pay twice as much for 1/2 the health care). Wages for the poor and middle class were going up because there was a huge demand for labor.
The Clintons raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Now that Bush is in office, the wealthiest Americans pay nothing. The wealthy Americans and corporations have stolen everything from the U.S. Treasury with Bush's help. The U.S. Treasury is now $10 trillion in debt.
Vote for Ralph Nader again. That's what Bush and Karl Rove want you to do.
January 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pmDalefield is a bigger moron than the person hes trying to defend!
Bill ordered an unauthorized and illegal war in the Balkan and had a Blitz Fest in Iraq after the Lenwisky mess, all an act of persuading the almighty AIPAC and media who were crawling around his balls sniffing for evidence whether Blow-job-gate was more than just a lip-service from Monique. Beisdes, about 938 troops were killed during this war.
You think Hillary wont take you to another war if these same people try to blackmail her the same they blackmailed Mr. Corrupt her hubby?
Go ahead and vote for her. Another 4 years of big screw-ups would teach you all.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/10/us-lost-more-soldiers-annually-under.html
http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/military-casualties-during-the-bill-clinton-administration/
CreasyB,
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:34 amEx-American
Beisdes, about 938 troops were killed during this war.
CreasyB,
Ex-American
Comment by creasybear
I'm afraid your credibility is much more suspect. Ex American is right. I guess you think that the link you attached to prove the lie is credible....
Second line at the top of the link...I swear to god:
"Observations of the World from the heart of Jesusland."
guess we can disregard just about anything you say from now on...
I think you will find that no American soldiers were killed the Balkans
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm