Anybody else being entertained by this Democratic primary??

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:29 am

I've found it immensely entertaining. In a very sick, sad way. I am still rather shocked that the dems back either of these clowns. Of course, McCain's not a ton better. Eh. Watch, wait, and see. I still can't believe Thompson didn't roll this field. Let the games continue.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:49 am

I had a short conversation with a 20-something liberal yesterday, because, per Ann Coulter's book title, I had to. haha

Anyway, we spoke briefly about politics, and then I commented, "Well, it's a pretty poor field."
He said, "Yeah, ... for the republicans."

bwaa ...

I just left it there.

This is the incredibly out-of-touch mindset of the modern liberal.
These half-fucks are somehow deluded into thinking that Hitlery or Obamafarce are actually GOOD candidates.

Bush could have been had in either '00 or '04, but the dems were so far out of touch with mainstream America that they propped up complete LOSERS to represent the party.

Down in flames.

Same ol' same ol' in '08.

McCain is a very bad republican nominee, IMO, and yet he will steamroll either pile of democrap who emerges.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:39 pm

poptart wrote:I had a short conversation with a 20-something liberal yesterday, because, per Ann Coulter's book title, I had to. haha

Anyway, we spoke briefly about politics, and then I commented, "Well, it's a pretty poor field."
He said, "Yeah, ... for the republicans."

bwaa ...

I just left it there.

This is the incredibly out-of-touch mindset of the modern liberal.
These half-fucks are somehow deluded into thinking that Hitlery or Obamafarce are actually GOOD candidates.

Bush could have been had in either '00 or '04, but the dems were so far out of touch with mainstream America that they propped up complete LOSERS to represent the party.

Down in flames.

Same ol' same ol' in '08.

McCain is a very bad republican nominee, IMO, and yet he will steamroll either pile of democrap who emerges.

The deeper problem is that because the democratic candidates suck so much they are beaten by republican candidates who suck just a little less, and then the GOP Party truly believes that victory has given them a "mandate from the people".

I can't swim!
Hell, the fall will probably kill ya.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:59 am

Mister Bushice wrote:
poptart wrote:I had a short conversation with a 20-something liberal yesterday, because, per Ann Coulter's book title, I had to. haha

Anyway, we spoke briefly about politics, and then I commented, "Well, it's a pretty poor field."
He said, "Yeah, ... for the republicans."

bwaa ...

I just left it there.

This is the incredibly out-of-touch mindset of the modern liberal.
These half-fucks are somehow deluded into thinking that Hitlery or Obamafarce are actually GOOD candidates.

Bush could have been had in either '00 or '04, but the dems were so far out of touch with mainstream America that they propped up complete LOSERS to represent the party.

Down in flames.

Same ol' same ol' in '08.

McCain is a very bad republican nominee, IMO, and yet he will steamroll either pile of democrap who emerges.
The deeper problem is that because the democratic candidates suck so much they are beaten by republican candidates who suck just a little less, and then the GOP Party truly believes that victory has given them a "mandate from the people".

I can't swim!
Hell, the fall will probably kill ya.

The funny thing is that, if the Dem's had been unified and stood solidly behind either Obama or Clinton, McCain sucks so bad that they would have probably won (due to the impression of sucking that little bit less). However, each constantly attacking the other has drug them each below McCain. Again, immensely amusing.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:57 am

battery chucka' one wrote:The funny thing is that, if the Dem's had been unified and stood solidly behind either Obama or Clinton, McCain sucks so bad that they would have probably won (due to the impression of sucking that little bit less). However, each constantly attacking the other has drug them each below McCain. Again, immensely amusing.

What's funny is your weak ass analysis. Hillary is hemorrhaging money, her poll numbers are dropping like the dollar and Jess has better odds of fucking Cindy Crawford than Hillary does of picking up any more super delegate endorsements. But you clowns think this is going to drag on through the convention?

Meanwhile, Iraq is becoming an even bigger pile of shit and our economy is totally stagnant. But you somehow thing those issues won't be front and center come this fall?

Dream on motherfuckers.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:19 am

You don't possibly see Obama as a solution, do you?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:45 am

Mister Bushice wrote:You don't possibly see Obama as a solution, do you?

Unless it invokes using their bodies to plug holes in levees, people are very rarely "solutions". Now, do I see Obama as being an agent of positive change? Hell yes.

But my choice of candidate has no bearing on the facts. And the facts are that the Democratic race is moving towards a much more rapid conclusion than any of the pundits are willing to predict.

Read these links and get back to me.

More Superdelegates endorsing Obama

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206920 ... whats_news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Broke ass Hillary in dire financial straights

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206920 ... whats_news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obama opens up a 10 point lead in Gallup poll

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1206920 ... whats_news" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You tell me what this is adding up to if it isn't an imminent Hillary collapse.

Meanwhile, McCain has been able to do precious little with his sizeable time advantage. A 3 point lead? That will be wiped out by next month, if not sooner.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:55 am

I'm not disputing The meltdown of Hilarys campaign.

All I see from Obama are words with nothing of substance behind them. He reminds me of Kerry, without the swiftboat albatross around his neck.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:03 pm

BSmack wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:The funny thing is that, if the Dem's had been unified and stood solidly behind either Obama or Clinton, McCain sucks so bad that they would have probably won (due to the impression of sucking that little bit less). However, each constantly attacking the other has drug them each below McCain. Again, immensely amusing.
What's funny is your weak ass analysis. Hillary is hemorrhaging money, her poll numbers are dropping like the dollar and Jess has better odds of fucking Cindy Crawford than Hillary does of picking up any more super delegate endorsements. But you clowns think this is going to drag on through the convention?

Meanwhile, Iraq is becoming an even bigger pile of shit and our economy is totally stagnant. But you somehow thing those issues won't be front and center come this fall?

Dream on motherfuckers.

Umm, my little naive drummer boy. Let me turn you on to several numbers. First, this.

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Numbers are from 03/25 of this year. Yes, Obama is leading. However, note the direction his and Hillary's numbers are trending.

Also, take a look at this, my little partisan fool.

http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Hillary is currently high stepping over Obama in Pennsylvania. Twelve points is a rather sizable lead.

Hillary told the Washington Post that she'd take the nomination all the way to the convention.

Finally, my little padawan, look at these:

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvC.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php

Both extremely recent. Both state that McCain is leading the polls over each Democrat. This should not and would not be happening but for their inability to focus on McCain due to bickering with one another. Also, each has torn the other to tatters. The gaping holes left in each Democratic campaign is astounding. Heck, I've even seen articles that state Gore might be a logical choice come convention time.

Something for you to keep in mind, tiny bsmackola.

However, being a good little democrat-liberal, you obviously think that the presidential office should belong to your pary due to some cosmic manifest destiny. Atheistic right, if you will.

I don't like McCain. I think he's an abyssmal option. The lesser of three evils is still evil. However, I think he'll win. It's also got something to do with having an extra six months to plan his campaign. The polls (as odious as they are) reflect it. What say you, son?

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:10 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:I'm not disputing The meltdown of Hilarys campaign.

All I see from Obama are words with nothing of substance behind them. He reminds me of Kerry, without the swiftboat albatross around his neck.

But don't you think that his church associations might be a swiftboat of sorts? There's a lot of videos of Mr. Wright that will fit in nicely and effectively into a political ad. The knowledge that Obama sat in that congregation for 20 years, nodding along, might be somewhat detrimental. Whether legitimate or not, that is going to be the case.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:51 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:Umm, my little naive drummer boy. Let me turn you on to several numbers. First, this.

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Numbers are from 03/25 of this year. Yes, Obama is leading. However, note the direction his and Hillary's numbers are trending.

Disingenuous much? More recent tracking polls show Obama's lead expanding daily since 3/25. Check back with me tomorrow when Pollster releases their latest numbers.

Also, take a look at this, my little partisan fool.

http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Hillary is currently high stepping over Obama in Pennsylvania. Twelve points is a rather sizable lead.

12 points is about half of what Hillary needs to even begin to cut into Obama's delegate lead. Furthermore, the PA numbers do not reflect the recent endorsement of Bob Casey, which is certain to help Obama amongst Clinton's "core" ethnic voters. Long story short, Hillary will not be posting a double digit win in PA.

Hillary told the Washington Post that she'd take the nomination all the way to the convention.

That's what most losing candidates say as their campaigns are imploding. You do realize she's desperately trying to keep her donor base on board?

Finally, my little padawan, look at these:

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvC.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php

Both extremely recent. Both state that McCain is leading the polls over each Democrat. This should not and would not be happening but for their inability to focus on McCain due to bickering with one another. Also, each has torn the other to tatters. The gaping holes left in each Democratic campaign is astounding. Heck, I've even seen articles that state Gore might be a logical choice come convention time.

Were the election sometime in the next 2 months, I might be worried. But this nomination process will straighten itself out soon, and the issues of war and the economy will be front and center in this upcoming general election.

Something for you to keep in mind, tiny bsmackola.

However, being a good little democrat-liberal, you obviously think that the presidential office should belong to your pary due to some cosmic manifest destiny. Atheistic right, if you will.

I don't like McCain. I think he's an abyssmal option. The lesser of three evils is still evil. However, I think he'll win. It's also got something to do with having an extra six months to plan his campaign. The polls (as odious as they are) reflect it. What say you, son?

I still say you're full of shit. You're cherry picking polls and failing to understand the telltale signs of Clinton's collapse that are staring you in the face. You have as much business commenting on the machinery of the body politic as John McCain has commenting on the differences between Sunni and Shia.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:16 pm

Little Bspackle, the thing you aren't taking into account is that the Democrats are tearing themselves apart. The party has divided itself over Clinton and Obama. I don't personally care which democrat gets the nomination. Between those two yodeling dandies and McCain, we will get a crappy president in November. I just think that McCain will be the least crappy of the batch.

Clinton thinks she somehow deserves the nomination. Obama's followers think that he derserves the nomination. If I were you, chicken little, I'd be wondering who you'll be ponying up in '12. The targets that Clinton and Obama are drawing on one another will still be there in November. The holes blasted into one anothers broadsides might actually tear their political careers apart. Your naivete isn't shocking. It's quite commong among staunch libercrats.

Let me ask you, who did Rock the Vote tell you to support this year? It was Obama, wasn't it? Trust me, son, just because Wyclef and the White Stripes say you should vote for somebody is no reason to get behind them. Perhaps you should check out the platforms and then get back to us.

For the Demerals, as with '04 (remember '04?), they will think that they have this nomination wrapped up in September. Same as then, the silent majority will rise up and slap them down. Bsplat, you should know this by now. Neither of these Libercrat candidates triangulates in the slightest. McCain does. Don't you see that, son?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:00 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:Little Bspackle, the thing you aren't taking into account is that the Democrats are tearing themselves apart.

If this goes into June, then you can say the Dems are "tearing themselves apart". Right now, Obama still have more cash on hand than Clinton and McCain combined. He will be the nominee and this election will turn on the economy and the debacle in Iraq. Both are issues that McCain cannot "triangulate" on.

BTW, I didn't even know Rock the Vote still existed. Maybe that's because I can't remember the last time I watched MTV. I take it you still watch MTV?

If you must know (and are unable to manage a forum search) I supported Edwards until he dropped out. I now support Obama because, after studying both he and Clinton, I believe he is the best candidate left in the field. It really is that simple.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:28 pm

But if conservatives don't vote based on principle of not voting for the "lesser of two evils", McCain doesn't change stand a chance because he is not considered "conservative enough". Without that base, does he stand a chance ?

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:29 pm

BSmack wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Little Bspackle, the thing you aren't taking into account is that the Democrats are tearing themselves apart.

If this goes into June, then you can say the Dems are "tearing themselves apart". Right now, Obama still have more cash on hand than Clinton and McCain combined. He will be the nominee and this election will turn on the economy and the debacle in Iraq. Both are issues that McCain cannot "triangulate" on.

BTW, I didn't even know Rock the Vote still existed. Maybe that's because I can't remember the last time I watched MTV. I take it you still watch MTV?

If you must know (and are unable to manage a forum search) I supported Edwards until he dropped out. I now support Obama because, after studying both he and Clinton, I believe he is the best candidate left in the field. It really is that simple.

Ask Mitt Romney how much cash on hand matters. The economy is cyclical. Tell me, what's Obama going to do to get it back on track? What's his great idea that has gotten him your vote? The man stands for nothing. I have many friends whose eyes are opening to this. This is a dangerous candidate. It's a classic example of a cult of personality. Personally I don't care who you supported before. It's insanely immaterial. The whole fact that you can't see how crappy the choices we have are is a testament to you. Either explain how and why he is such a great candidate (and, btw, that 'he's a uniter' and wants 'change' doesn't cut it) or accept that you are a blithering idiot.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:33 pm

Tom In VA wrote:But if conservatives don't vote based on principle of not voting for the "lesser of two evils", McCain doesn't change stand a chance because he is not considered "conservative enough". Without that base, does he stand a chance ?

An interesting predicament, wouldn't you say? Crap sandwich or giant douche, anyone?

That base might still support him. It will leave a bad taste in their mouth, but the demeral candidates might be that polarizing. I know that Hillary is.

This election sucks.

HOW DID FRED THOMPSON NOT ROLL EVERYBODY IN THIS FIELD???

Okay, bro'. I've vented.

In answering your question, I don't know. I've wavered about putting my vote in my pocket in November. I really don't know.

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:34 pm

BSmack wrote: Right now, Obama still have more cash on hand than Clinton and McCain combined...

You're so head-over-heels in love with that spook, you're starting to type like one

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:05 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:Ask Mitt Romney how much cash on hand matters. The economy is cyclical. Tell me, what's Obama going to do to get it back on track? What's his great idea that has gotten him your vote? The man stands for nothing. I have many friends whose eyes are opening to this. This is a dangerous candidate. It's a classic example of a cult of personality. Personally I don't care who you supported before. It's insanely immaterial. The whole fact that you can't see how crappy the choices we have are is a testament to you. Either explain how and why he is such a great candidate (and, btw, that 'he's a uniter' and wants 'change' doesn't cut it) or accept that you are a blithering idiot.

I'm not going to explain shit to you. It's not like there is anything I could say that would get you to vote for Obama. Besides, this thread is about the primary process, not candidate preference. Of course, since your understanding of the primary process is as limited as McCain's grasp of the leading economic indicators, I guess I can understand why you would want to change the subject.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:53 pm

mvscal wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:HOW DID FRED THOMPSON NOT ROLL EVERYBODY IN THIS FIELD???
He didn't try.

That really doesn't make it any easier to stomach, bro'.

battery chucka' one · Post by **battery chucka' one** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:55 pm

BSmack wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Ask Mitt Romney how much cash on hand matters. The economy is cyclical. Tell me, what's Obama going to do to get it back on track? What's his great idea that has gotten him your vote? The man stands for nothing. I have many friends whose eyes are opening to this. This is a dangerous candidate. It's a classic example of a cult of personality. Personally I don't care who you supported before. It's insanely immaterial. The whole fact that you can't see how crappy the choices we have are is a testament to you. Either explain how and why he is such a great candidate (and, btw, that 'he's a uniter' and wants 'change' doesn't cut it) or accept that you are a blithering idiot.
I'm not going to explain shit to you. It's not like there is anything I could say that would get you to vote for Obama. Besides, this thread is about the primary process, not candidate preference. Of course, since your understanding of the primary process is as limited as McCain's grasp of the leading economic indicators, I guess I can understand why you would want to change the subject.

At least you admit that you have no idea why you're voting as you are. Of course, maybe Gwen Stefani told you that she thinks Obama is hot or Pink said that she thought he was a real man. That would explain why you're going to vote as you are. Again, you are a truly clueless idiot. And again, you don't know why. But at least you admit as much.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:03 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:At least you admit that you have no idea why you're voting as you are.

I have my reasons. I choose not to share them with you in this thread as they are not pertinent to the subject of this thread. Which, last I checked, was the fallacious assertion that the Democratic Party primary fight will carry on past June and through the convention.

Now, have you any evidence to refute my arguments that this race is rapidly trending towards a Hillary Clinton collapse? Or would you rather spin and deflect away from your own inadequacies?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:14 pm

If we're so bent on sticking to the subject of the thread, it's simply a question. The original post didn't even mention how long this circus will last.

If anyone got the thread off topic it was you and your myopic inability to even laugh at your own.

Is it entertaining to watch Obama "spin and deflect" everything from his dependence on racial divisiveness to his true leftist leanings in order to appeal to moderates ? Why yes it is very entertaining.

Is it entertaining to watch Hillary "misspeak" about sniper fire ? Yes it is. Oh and to watch her boldly say "I will not back down" as the party slips slowly out of her hands, that's entertaining.

Is it entertaining to watch Howard Dean play "father" and tell everyone to settle this or there will be hell to pay. Yes it is.

I am very entertained by this primary.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:43 pm

Tom In VA wrote:If we're so bent on sticking to the subject of the thread, it's simply a question. The original post didn't even mention how long this circus will last.

It is simply a question? I suppose if you totally discount the POV of the poster it might be "simply a question". But we all know the real reason he's so entertained is because he thinks this primary process is bad for Democrats. I simply skipped the preliminaries and got down to the meat of the topic.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:59 pm

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:If we're so bent on sticking to the subject of the thread, it's simply a question. The original post didn't even mention how long this circus will last.
It is simply a question? I suppose if you totally discount the POV of the poster it might be "simply a question". But we all know the real reason he's so entertained is because he thinks this primary process is bad for Democrats. I simply skipped the preliminaries and got down to the meat of the topic.

Well it is bad for the Dems. And consider yourself fortunate the vast majority of media outlets are ignoring much of the scrutiny being paid to Obama's "words" because as we all know he's a big proponent of the fact that "words matter". If CNN and the like actually paid attention to even a fraction of Obama's "words" then it would be an even more entertaining primary. That and it would be bad for the Dems.

The meat of the topic ? Do I think Obama has a chance in the general election ?

Sure he does. He might even win. I might even go so far to suggest that he will win. But it will be a victory achieved because the vast majority of those voting for him ... maintain the attitude that the facts have no bearing on my choice of candidate.

His latest slip is hilariously funny. But I'll at least have to RACK HIM for saying the first honest thing he's ever said, however unintentional it was.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:00 pm

BSmack wrote:I now support Obama because, after studying both he and Clinton, I believe he is the best candidate left in the field.

Did you mean to say “the best candidate in left field”?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:04 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
BSmack wrote:I now support Obama because, after studying both he and Clinton, I believe he is the best candidate left in the field.
Did you mean to say “the best candidate in left field”?

Not at all.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:06 pm

BSmack wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
BSmack wrote:I now support Obama because, after studying both he and Clinton, I believe he is the best candidate left in the field.
Did you mean to say “the best candidate in left field”?
Not at all.

Wound pretty tight much? Sheesh.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:31 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:Wound pretty tight much? Sheesh.

Nope, just sitting here eating some pizza and learning about Cuba.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:47 pm

BSmack wrote:
battery chucka' one wrote:Ask Mitt Romney how much cash on hand matters. The economy is cyclical. Tell me, what's Obama going to do to get it back on track? What's his great idea that has gotten him your vote? The man stands for nothing. I have many friends whose eyes are opening to this. This is a dangerous candidate. It's a classic example of a cult of personality. Personally I don't care who you supported before. It's insanely immaterial. The whole fact that you can't see how crappy the choices we have are is a testament to you. Either explain how and why he is such a great candidate (and, btw, that 'he's a uniter' and wants 'change' doesn't cut it) or accept that you are a blithering idiot.
I'm not going to explain shit to you. It's not like there is anything I could say that would get you to vote for Obama. Besides, this thread is about the primary process, not candidate preference. Of course, since your understanding of the primary process is as limited as McCain's grasp of the leading economic indicators, I guess I can understand why you would want to change the subject.

First of all, I've never see a thread here NOT run off topic to some extent.

Second, this thread was about being entertained by race being run by the clowns in the democratic party, not specifically who will win. BCO left that pretty open ended with a "we'll see".

Finally, he makes a very good point about the cult of personality with obama. That's what it truly is. It's exactly why Kerry was a bad choice. He has nothing but pretty words and plans, but you're settling for him because he's the best left in the field?

Ever hear of a write in, perhaps someone you DO believe in? Shit. The day I vote for someone I really don't believe in just because he's the best one left is the day I stop voting altogether.

BCO,

I don't think the pastor affliliation will negatively affect Obama within the dem party, certainly not in the primary race. I would look to the republicans to potentially use it more as a weapon, simply because they are better at that shit, but they've had their share of religious issues in the past so it's not as concrete and effective as the "renegade soldier turned traitor" story was.

The Repubs will certainly go after things obama and his wife have been quoted as saying and they will most certainly try to raise the fear of a black uprising in white bread america, but unless they find out something else about Obama that is more controversial, I don't think it's big enough.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:08 pm

Hey, Stanley Q. Pickle, do you honestly believe anybody's buying your line of shit?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:14 pm

Stop trying to railroad threads in here, dickle. Keep your shit posts in the Cul de smack.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:16 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:The Repubs will certainly go after things obama and his wife have been quoted as saying and they will most certainly try to raise the fear of a black uprising in white bread america

WTF ?

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:29 pm

The Big Pickle wrote:
Personally, I thought my post of Obama Hussein playing poker with others of his ilk was right on topic. Did anybody else notice Obama slipping an Ace under the table. A brilliant portrayal of that lying, cheating, dishonest sack of dog shite.

Well it wasn't on topic, but that doesn't matter. If anything he's cheating to beat "enemies" of the U.S. Although several of them are dead and/or dying.

Seems to me the spirit of the image is that he'll do anything to beat them. What's not to like ?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:00 pm

Does this mean that Bri has found the "change he can believe in" ?
I wonder if it follows the philosophy found here ?

http://www.cpusa.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:24 pm

Wolfman wrote: I wonder if it follows the philosophy found here ?

http://www.cpusa.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure. Bri is a fake "leftist" just like CPUSA.

CPUSA....Mmmmmm-mmm.... Can you smell the Langley?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:39 pm

poptart wrote:I had a short conversation with a 20-something liberal yesterday, because, per Ann Coulter's book title, I had to. haha

Just chiming in to RACK! that.

Well, and to add my .02 on this prevailing sentiment among conservatives

McCain is a very bad republican nominee...

And yet he won enough primaries to run all the other GOP candidates and get the nomination. People voted overwhelmingly for him, and that's all that counts. I voted for Huckabee, but certainly respect the majority decision.

Personally, I have no problem with McCain, and actually supported him for the nod in 2000 before W ran him. So in a sense it's come full circle for the Arizona Senator and war hero.

I guess I don't get all the aloof naysayers standing in judgement of the man. Regardless of what you may think of any candidate beforehand, the office of POTUS most certainly changes a person.

I believe he'll make a fine President.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:01 pm

Tom In VA wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:The Repubs will certainly go after things obama and his wife have been quoted as saying and they will most certainly try to raise the fear of a black uprising in white bread america
WTF ?

Here is the fuck. The repubs would gladly stir uneasiness about voting a black man as president using comments such as this:

Obama wrote: The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."

Then there's the wifes comments posted elsewhere here about Obama being black puts him at higher risk.

If you don't think republicans won't use any weapon they can to win, including placing the fear of a Black President with a race card shoved up his own ass in the minds of white americans, you're fooling yourself.

battery chucka' one · Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:19 pm

I don't fear a black president. I think either J.C. Watts, Condaleeza Rice, or Colin Powell would make a great president. I do, however, fear a candidate who gets insanely huge support with no real platform to speak of. He's a libercrat. That's it. I do fear somebody who was spiritually trained and taught by a bigot such as Mr. Wright. Obama hasn't shown that it will affect him adversely, but what do we know about the guy? People like him. Shouldn't there be more to a candidate than likability?

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:37 pm

battery chucka' one wrote:I do fear somebody who was spiritually trained and taught by a bigot such as Mr. Wright.

You fear what you don't understand, is that fair to say?

What's really ironic is that people who have disdained any form of "religion" are the ones most up in arms over what some insignificant pastor had to say.

Shouldn't there be more to a candidate than likability?

Not really.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:42 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:Here is the fuck. The repubs would gladly stir uneasiness about voting a black man as president using comments such as this:

Obama wrote:The "white community," said Barack, must start "acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination -- and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past -- are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds ... ."
Then there's the wifes comments posted elsewhere here about Obama being black puts him at higher risk.

If you don't think republicans won't use any weapon they can to win, including placing the fear of a Black President with a race card shoved up his own ass in the minds of white americans, you're fooling yourself.

I could give a fuck what the Republicans decide to use against Obama. McCain is still wrong on the war and wrong on the economy. If all McCain's 527s can come back with are weak ass plays to American racial fears and attitudes circa 1955, Obama will win this general election in a landslide.