T1B

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:

The Big Pickle wrote:What lie? :?

You're a Republican?

Bwahaha, mine was better. More historically accurate as well. Nanny nanny, boo boo.

How typical of Republicans to simultaneously cling to the past and blame their opposition for past ills.

BTW: CNN is confirming Clinton will concede the Delegate race. Congrats on your horse selection. Looks like it's over.

This has nothing to do with selecting the right "horse". I sincerely believe that the United States risks emulating late 18th century France if we vote for four more years of Bush's insanity. Maybe you've noticed the board commies openly rooting for McCain? Ever stop to wonder why?

BTW: Hillary's denials are nothing more than pro forma. The reality is, she'll have to concede by this time tomorow at the latest.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:I sincerely believe that the United States risks emulating late 18th century France if we vote for four more years of Bush's insanity.

And then you woke up in a puddle. You dick licking pussies won't do a goddamn thing except whimper and cry about how another election was "stolen" from you. Fuck you.

Keep squealing, it means I'm putting the stick in all the right places.

BSmack wrote: How typical of Republicans to simultaneously cling to the past and blame their opposition for past ills.

Republicans "cling to the past" ? And blame their opposition for "past ills". Okay. Wow. I'll be sure to tell a Republican that, should make him/her laugh, cheer them up over this upcoming election. Thanks for the material.

BSmack wrote: This has nothing to do with selecting the right "horse". I sincerely believe that the United States risks emulating late 18th century France if we vote for four more years of Bush's insanity. Maybe you've noticed the board commies openly rooting for McCain? Ever stop to wonder why?

That's right, I forgot the Democrats have a monopoly on all that is righteous, wholesome, and prosperous for all mankind. They can't even run a fucking election (Florida 2000) and a primary (this year's debacle) correctly, but they can run a country and think the "globe" gives a rats ass about the U.S. and whether or not "We lead the way towards ...."

I'll watch and root for them though, hate to see fellow Americans fail in the global scheme of things.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:How typical of Republicans to simultaneously cling to the past and blame their opposition for past ills.

Republicans "cling to the past" ? And blame their opposition for "past ills". Okay. Wow.

Is there another explanation for why you incessantly dredge up the race policies given up by the Democratic party before I was even born?

I'll be sure to tell a Republican that, should make him/her laugh, cheer them up over this upcoming election. Thanks for the material.

What will cheep them up even more will be not wasting a half trillion dollars on four more years of failure in Iraq.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:This has nothing to do with selecting the right "horse". I sincerely believe that the United States risks emulating late 18th century France if we vote for four more years of Bush's insanity. Maybe you've noticed the board commies openly rooting for McCain? Ever stop to wonder why?

That's right, I forgot the Democrats have a monopoly on all that is righteous, wholesome, and prosperous for all mankind. They can't even run a fucking election (Florida 2000) and a primary (this year's debacle) correctly, but they can run a country and think the "globe" gives a rats ass about the U.S. and whether or not "We lead the way towards ...."

I was under the understanding that the Governor and Secretary of State of Florida were both Republicans in 2000. Furthermore, this year's primary was only a debacle if you cling to the false idea that the proper way to choose a nominee is to have early "winner take all" primaries where candidates receiving as little as 30% of the vote are awarded all of a state's delegation.

I'll watch and root for them though, hate to see fellow Americans fail in the global scheme of things.

I'm sure you'll continue to play the part of self righteous contrarian as you always have.

Get real, Tom. Democrats don't lose elections. Elections are "stolen" from them.

Yes they are...and no one steals them more efficiently than the Dem candidates and leadership itself.

Gore? Kerry? These are the guys you put up against GWB - the most beatable Republican candidate possibly imaginable? It's as if they held a contest to see who was least inspiring.

The Dems had NO BUSINESS losing the past two campaigns...and because they found a way, I am convinced they'll find a way again.

I think Obama's the best chance they've had since Slick Willie...and what have they been doing? Reveling in a primary season, bickering about convention dates, and generally patting the humps on their backs as if they've got this sewn up.

McCain is not a strong candidate...but guess what? He's gonna win this thing.

BSmack wrote: Is there another explanation for why you incessantly dredge up the race policies given up by the Democratic party before I was even born?

Sure, I'll give that up when you give up the ghost on Nixon, Reagan and stop with the incessant bullshit about Republicans being "racist".

BSmack wrote: What will cheep them up even more will be not wasting a half trillion dollars on four more years of failure in Iraq.

Failure ? By whose standards is Iraq a failure. Please outline the metrics you're using to assess it as a "failure". As far as I know, it's an ongoing long term mission.

BSmack wrote: I was under the understanding that the Governor and Secretary of State of Florida were both Republicans in 2000.

Of course you were. I recall democrats running the election boards, being responsible for the logistics of the elections AND dominating the court in Florida. You remember, the court that said - Yes, you can change the rules of the game without adhering to the proper legislative process. A ruling that was overturned thus giving you your ability to cry that the election was stolen.

BSmack wrote: I'm sure you'll continue to play the part of self righteous contrarian as you always have.

Well, it's fun, passes the time and in the process I actually get to learn a thing or two. I'm sure you'll continue to be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

But a good read nontheless.

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:I'm sure you'll continue to play the part of self righteous contrarian as you always have.

I'm sure you'll continue to be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

I’m sorry. A little help here, please. I seem to have lost track of who is the pot and who is the kettle.

PSUFAN wrote:Yes they are...and no one steals them more efficiently than the Dem candidates and leadership itself.

Gore? Kerry? These are the guys you put up against GWB - the most beatable Republican candidate possibly imaginable? It's as if they held a contest to see who was least inspiring.

The Dems had NO BUSINESS losing the past two campaigns...and because they found a way, I am convinced they'll find a way again.

I think Obama's the best chance they've had since Slick Willie...and what have they been doing? Reveling in a primary season, bickering about convention dates, and generally patting the humps on their backs as if they've got this sewn up.

McCain is not a strong candidate...but guess what? He's gonna win this thing.

Great post. I'm voting for neither candidate, so it really doesn't matter to me. I guess I can settle for McCain, but Obama's got the money, the swagger, and he's got youth behind him. Problem is, the older generations in the heartland are not convinced of a guy like Obama.

You're gonna see a similar turnout like we saw in the '04 elections with all those little red states adding up for McCain. And the good news for McCain is Paul doesn't have the muscle Perot had in the '92 election which took a substantial blow to the Bush Sr. camp.

Dems will fuck this up somehow.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:

BSmack wrote:I'm sure you'll continue to play the part of self righteous contrarian as you always have.

I'm sure you'll continue to be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.

I’m sorry. A little help here, please. I seem to have lost track of who is the pot and who is the kettle.

I'm the Kettle, I whistle, BSmack is the pot - he just boils over with B.S.

RumpleForeskin wrote:Dems will fuck this up somehow.

Keep saying that. Obama ain't Gore or Kerry.

Goober is the T1B urinal.

BSmack wrote:Keep saying that.

Dems will fuck this up somehow.

sirgulpaload is the turd in the T1B puchbowl.

Sirfindafold wrote:Goober is the T1B urinal.

I guess that makes you the T1B shitpipe...when you're not packed too tightly, that is.

RumpleForeskin wrote:

BSmack wrote:Keep saying that.

Dems will fuck this up somehow.

Thank you.

BSmack wrote:Thank you.

My pleasure. I'm here for my personal amusement and the occasional beatdown from you know who.

mvscal wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote:Obama's got the money, the swagger, and he's got youth behind him.

Youth doesn't mean shit. They don't vote. Every election we hear the same old tired horseshit about the "youth vote" being really energized to come out and "rock the vote" and every election it fizzles.

The youth vote fizzles when Dems nominate tired old party hacks. Despite your predictions to the contrary, that didn't happen this year.

mvscal wrote:Youth doesn't mean shit. They don't vote. Every election we hear the same old tired horseshit about the "youth vote" being really energized to come out and "rock the vote" and every election it fizzles.

I couldn't disagree more about this post. We all know how much college kids already like McCain. He connects to the Xs and Ys. Couple that with the first black candidate ever and you will probably see a record turnout of voters from ages 18-35.

You can't generalize this to past elections because the circumstances are much different. You have a black male democrat and a cooky moderate with an edge. Its different, mv. At least admit to that.

I think you raise a very valid point Rumps and for my money think you're correct.

mvscal wrote:

RumpleForeskin wrote:

mvscal wrote:Youth doesn't mean shit. They don't vote. Every election we hear the same old tired horseshit about the "youth vote" being really energized to come out and "rock the vote" and every election it fizzles.

I couldn't disagree more about this post.

That's because you're an idiot. You just regurgitated all of the bullshit that has been said about every other dimwitted candidate.

The youth don't vote...PERIOD. End of story.

Come on, mvs... after all, B-Monica just SAID that Obigot will win because he's got the Eggheads, the Darkies, and the Day-Care Generation behind him. Although he was every bit as certain about Gore and Reporting For Duty...

Just more TOTAL BULLSHIT from the swiftboating, recount-stopping, Diebold-fixing criminals like Rove, etc.

They don't care that this rumor will be refuted and discarded. They just want to ruffle your racist feathers. And you are a scared racist little bitch.

Stay ruffled, my friends

LTS TARD, you're usually not this supportive of wanna-be Stalinists, but you've really gotten hooked on Obama cum haven't you?

RumpleForeskin wrote: Dems will fuck this up somehow.

Latest reports are that Hillary announced she wants to accept the VP spot and superdelegates are conditionally supportting Obama if he accepts her as VP.

That's probably the "how" of them fucking it up.

Both Obama and Clinton on the ticket together doesn't just give the GOP plenty of ammo, but a fucking arsenal.

I'd LOVE to see him look elsewhere. Imagine the votes he'd get for telling her to fuck off!

Imagine the votes he'd get if there were photos of him and Slick Willie tag teaming Hildog. Of course, they'd have to airbrush the tatoo off of Obama's black log that reads "Property of Stanley Q. Pickle".

Point of clarification, Rumps...Stanley Fukken Pickle doesn't own shit - he gets his shit owned.

with the idiot pieces of shit on this board, why would any person get into a political discussion here?

Bizzarofelice wrote:with the idiot pieces of shit on this board, why would any person get into a political discussion here?

Come out from behind the sunburn, canibus.

Bizzarofelice wrote:with the idiot pieces of shit on this board, why would any person get into a political discussion here?

Agreed.

But it will be quite entertaining to watch 90% of this board engage in the mother of all meltdowns come November after Obama wins.

Dipshit in Crapchester wrote:But it will be quite entertaining to watch 90% of this board engage in the mother of all meltdowns come November after Obama wins.

Seems to me we've heard this before...

Dipshit in Crapchester wrote:But it will be quite entertaining to watch 90% of this board engage in the mother of all meltdowns come November after Gore wins.

Dipshit in Crapchester wrote:But it will be quite entertaining to watch 90% of this board engage in the mother of all meltdowns come November after Kerry wins.

Admit it, Terry, even you won't vote for that n.i.gger once you're in the privacy of the voting booth

Cuda wrote:Admit it, Terry, even you won't vote for that n.i.gger once you're in the privacy of the voting booth

Who ordered the Cudamelt ?

Cuda wrote:Admit it, Terry, even you won't vote for that n.i.gger once you're in the privacy of the voting booth

I'll vote for him before I'd ever vote for Hillary or McSame. I voted for Obama in the primary.

JayDuck wrote:The "Why'd he", "Whitey" connection seems fairly obvious in the transcript that is listed. To be honest, it seemed fishy the first time I heard Michelle Obama was ranting about "Whitey" in the first place as I could have sworn that "Whitey" slang died off in decades ago in the first place. I believe its been "The man" since the 90's. It would have been just as odd, or fishy, to me if I heard rumors of Michelle Obama throwing around "Honkey" at white people. Not from a matter of whether or not she has racially motivated opinions, but for the simple fact that I don't believe that people that even have those ideas use that terminology anymore.

But then you see a transcript pop up with "Why'd he" littered through it and its not hard to put 2 and 2 together.

There's more to it than that, even.

The transcript also specifically mentions the Iraq War. Poll after poll on the subject shows opposition to the Iraq War holding fast at around 70%. Of necessity, that number would have to include a substantial, if slightly smaller, percentage of white people.

Under those circumstances, it strains credibility beyond the breaking point to assume that an accomplished lawyer with an Ivy League education would blame the Iraq War on "Whitey," even if she were inclined toward, as you put it, racially motivated opinions. Throw in the fact that her husband certainly didn't make the decision to run for President on a lark, but only after a lot of soul-searching, late-night conversations with his wife about how it would change their lives forever, etc., and it becomes even more difficult to believe.

But by all means, the usual suspects ought not to let logic and common sense stand in the way of yet another racist screed. They never have before.

Stop posturing Terry and get real. Look Obama wins and he'll probably win in November. But don't try and pretend this "race" shit doesn't get out of hand because of idiots like Wright and Farakhan. Why shouldn't people sensitive to the hate filled rhetoric of those types ? So when Michelle Obama, a seeminlgy bitter black lady, goes on a roll it probably sounds bit like "Whitey".

You know, how people get all uptight when people use valid words like "niggardly".


That's all this tape must be about. I don't think she'd be that stupid to say something like that. I think people would be naive and their only experience with black folks be on T.V. to think she doesn't THINK something like that, though. Even still it's her right to think and say those things - but if hubby is trying to be pres, she might want to lighten up a bit. My vote is it was "Why'd he".

I don't understand what you're saying Papa Willie. I think the emperor's new clothes are outstanding.

If Michelle Obama was really dropping W-bombs in a speech, it would have been festooned all over the News Corporation years ago. Search your feelings, Luke. You know it's true.

Well, suffice it to say, we disagree. I respect the fact she successfully accomplished her studies and was able to pass the bar, at a minimum. Hidden or not so hidden anti-European American bias notwithstanding, she's not dumb. Dumb people aren't able to make 270K a year and swindle poor folks into believing that like them, she is a "victim" of society too.

The Obamas are not "dumb"...but even if they were, how would that interfere with their ability to populate the West Wing? We just waddled through 8 years under the stupidest jackass ever to bray on Pennsylvania Avenue...and that was just fine as far as you were concerned.

PSUFAN wrote:The Obamas are not "dumb"...but even if they were, how would that interfere with their ability to populate the West Wing? We just waddled through 8 years under the stupidest jackass ever to bray on Pennsylvania Avenue...and that was just fine as far as you were concerned.

I've never questioned Obama's intellectual capacity to be in the White House. I believe him to be a very intelligent man, eloquent, and provides a very stately presence. Part of his appeal is his "inexperience", if anyone is a Washington outsider, it's a junior Senator. Perhaps too new to be corrupt, yet.

I don't agree with him on several key issues though.