If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans

Pages : [1] 2

Paul Banks
09-10-2007, 12:06 PM
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Wk5WfPS%2BL._SS500_.jpg

“Uttering lines that send liberals into paroxysms of rage, otherwise known as ‘citing facts,’ is the spice of life. When I see the hot spittle flying from their mouths and the veins bulging and pulsing above their eyes, well, that’s when I feel truly alive.”

So begins If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, Ann Coulter’s funniest, most devastating, and, yes, most outrageous book to date.

Coulter has become the brightest star in the conservative firmament thanks to her razor-sharp reasoning and biting wit. Of course, practically any time she opens her mouth, liberal elites denounce Ann, insisting that “She’s gone too far!” and hopefully predicting that this time it will bring a crashing end to her career.

Now you can read all the quotes that have so outraged her enemies and so delighted her legions of fans. More than just the definitive collection of Coulterisms, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans includes dozens of brand-new commentaries written by Coulter and hundreds of never-before-published quotations. This is Ann at her best, covering every topic from A to Z. Here you’ll read Coulter’s take on:

• Her politics: “As far as I’m concerned, I’m a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy.”
• Hillary Clinton: “Hillary wants to be the first woman president, which would also make her the first woman in a Clinton administration to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office instead of under it.”
• The environment: “God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. **** it. It’s yours.’”
• Religion: “It’s become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pronouncements of the Episcopal Church from the latest Madonna video.”
• Global warming: “The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. So imagine a summer afternoon when it’s 63 degrees and the next thing you know it’s . . . 64 degrees. Ahhhh!!!! Run for your lives, everybody! Women and children first!”
• Gun control: “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”
• Bill Clinton: “Bill Clinton’s library is the first one to ever feature an Adults Only section.”
• Illegal aliens: “I am the illegal alien of commentary. I will do the jokes that no one else will do.”

If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans is a must-have for anyone who loves (or loves to hate) Ann Coulter.

:unsure: :haha:

Strangelove
09-10-2007, 01:36 PM
• Her politics: “As far as I’m concerned, I’m a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy.”Coulter = :cuckoo:

Funny, but :cuckoo:

Sparko1030
09-10-2007, 02:24 PM
I can't help but wonder what kind of childhood produces such an "adult". :awww: Did a democrat run over her puppy during her formative years? :devil: :haha:


No need for us liberal dems to even bother with a rebuttle to, her spewing speaks for itself. People like her make me proud to be called a "bleeding heart". :angel: At least I have a heart capable of bleeding...;)

MusicMyst
09-10-2007, 02:26 PM
I think Coulter's hysterical, especially when people take her seriously as a politician and try to respond to her as policy wonks. Best political satirist in years.

I want to see a presidential debate with Ann Coulter as the moderator. :devil:

Her stuff on the Clintons is just hysterical -- but then again, Bill and Hillary gift her with so much material.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 01:06 AM
I think Coulter's hysterical, especially when people take her seriously

She believes in Creationism. Should I take that seriously or is it just part of her act? If she is serious then she is clearly so dumb she must be a Democrat.
My take on the stick insect Coulter is that she is really just a stand-up comedienne that makes fun of rednecks by doing impressions of them.

Byrd
09-11-2007, 01:11 AM
What a bunch of bullshit, my 4 year old cousin has more creativity in his pinky than this 'tard will ever have.

NyGeL
09-11-2007, 01:16 AM
If americans had any brain, the wouldn't be imperialism and capitalism-lovers.

Scotso
09-11-2007, 06:28 AM
Those of you that aren't afraid of tasteless filth and bad language should read this: http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/

Scotso
09-11-2007, 06:31 AM
If americans had any brain, the wouldn't be imperialism and capitalism-lovers.

If anyone else had any brains we wouldn't be the sole superpower. :shrug:

Paul Banks
09-11-2007, 09:29 AM
They did a good Photoshop job with the cover, especially to hide her adam's apple.

Scotso
09-11-2007, 09:43 AM
I was actually thinking it looked extremely poor due to the fact that on one side her hair is nearly a straight line.

Bilbo
09-11-2007, 11:19 AM
If anyone else had any brains we wouldn't be the sole superpower. :shrug:

Not every country has the seize of the USA. I'm pretty sure if the Germans or the Japanese had the same seize as the USA they would have a bigger economy etc. There are many civilizations who are smarter than Americans.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 02:01 PM
If americans had any brain, the wouldn't be imperialism and capitalism-lovers.

The only imperialists of recent times were the Soviets. Castro may have sent his army to Africa but that was too pathetic to count. Chavez is doing his best to take over South America. Looks like the Venezuelans are going to help by giving him total control their their lives.

And capitalism is, of course, the only economic system that works, that is a no brainer.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 02:10 PM
Not every country has the seize of the USA. I'm pretty sure if the Germans or the Japanese had the same seize as the USA they would have a bigger economy etc. There are many civilizations who are smarter than Americans.

Unfortunately for you there are statistics that show you should not just dream up facts that you want to be true. USA and Japan lead the world in GNP per person at $38,000. Germany trails at $27,000 per person. So according to your suggestion Germans are only about 65% as smart as Americans and Japanese, once the actual size of the country has been removed from the equation. So, all in all, I would say your smartness meter is about right.

And I think a recent study showed that Americans individually work harder and produce more per person per hour than any other nationality on earth.

The above data do not include Switzerland, which is an anomaly in anbody's book, although with all their banking riches they are only at $39,000 per person.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 03:43 PM
If anyone else had any brains we wouldn't be the sole superpower. :shrug:

:lol: :worship:

Accidie
09-11-2007, 04:13 PM
Russia will be back and China will be not far behind.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 04:37 PM
Russia was never there. It was the Soviet Union, whereby the Russians progressed on the backs of their enslaved satellites. The Soviet Union is not coming back, so it follows that Russia won't.
China has recently been demonstrating that it is still caught up in the Communist practice of saying everything is wonderful, while it is still rotten to the core. Until they realize they can not just say they are great, they have to demonstrate it, they will stay behind. I expect problems at the Olympics. I hear they are adding a medal for fourth place, so it will now be gold, silver, bronze and lead.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 05:31 PM
Unfortunately for you there are statistics that show you should not just dream up facts that you want to be true. USA and Japan lead the world in GNP per person at $38,000. Germany trails at $27,000 per person. So according to your suggestion Germans are only about 65% as smart as Americans and Japanese, once the actual size of the country has been removed from the equation. So, all in all, I would say your smartness meter is about right.

And I think a recent study showed that Americans individually work harder and produce more per person per hour than any other nationality on earth.

The above data do not include Switzerland, which is an anomaly in anbody's book, although with all their banking riches they are only at $39,000 per person.

It only tells part of the story. The US has the greatest extremes within the developed world more millionaires and billionaires, but also more people at the other end of the scale of not having anything.

You should know better when you are going to make claims using these stats, then you should be able to hyperlink it.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 05:41 PM
It only tells part of the story. The US has the greatest extremes within the developed world more millionaires and billionaires, but also more people at the other end of the scale of not having anything.
You should know better when you are going to make claims using these stats, then you should be able to hyperlink it.

Wetbacks, you mean. :lol:

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 05:42 PM
Wetbacks, you mean. :lol:

Yes, Mexico has a huge black population.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 05:49 PM
Yes, Mexico has a huge black population.

Yes, they do -- they're the aboriginals (a/k/a Indians).

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 05:51 PM
Yes, they do -- they're the aboriginals (a/k/a Indians).

Maybe in your mind they are, but these indigenous peoples aren't Africans.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 05:59 PM
Maybe in your mind they are, but these indigenous peoples aren't Africans.

They consider themselves to be people of color, just like the aborginals of your country. And Mexico, as well as countries in Central and South America, have significant populations of people descended from African slaves.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 06:02 PM
They consider themselves to be people of color, just like the aborginals of your country. And Mexico, as well as countries in Central and South America, have significant populations of people descended from African slaves.

Colour is irrelevant. Someone from Albania and Estonia are more than likely the same colour, but they aren't the same ethnicity.

Quechua, Mayan and Amayrans are not Africans, this is clear enough.

http://www.johnfarnsworth.com/QUECHUA.jpg

Yes, they look like descendants from African slaves.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:14 PM
It only tells part of the story. The US has the greatest extremes within the developed world more millionaires and billionaires, but also more people at the other end of the scale of not having anything.

You should know better when you are going to make claims using these stats, then you should be able to hyperlink it.

I was making fun of Bilbo's (Bimbo) reasoning. Surely you could see that.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 06:16 PM
I never said that New World Indians are from Africa, I pointed out that (1) Amerinds consider themselves to be "people of color" (i.e., non-Caucasian) and that (2) there are people in Mexico and other countries who are the decendants of African slaves. You're conflating (1) with (2).

(And BTW, there are many, many people who are descendants of African slaves who do not look like Africans, because they are also the descendants of whites and Indians.)

But the fact remains that the poorest of the poor in America right now are most likely to be Mexicans who illegally crossed the border into America, which was my original point. :wavey:

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:21 PM
Maybe in your mind they are, but these indigenous peoples aren't Africans.

I prefer the Whoopi Goldberg theory of ethnicity, when she said, ''I'm not African-American, I've never even been in Africa. I'm American, for Christ's sake!''

Bilbo
09-11-2007, 06:22 PM
And I think a recent study showed that Americans individually work harder and produce more per person per hour than any other nationality on earth.

So why does Germany has the highest export in the world? Quality over Quantity.

I also highly doubt that Americans work harder than Japanese. Most of the people in the US are overweight. Surely it comes not from all the work. You have a different system of economy which allows people to have it easier to build their own business etc. which means it it easier to become rich in the USA than in any other country. This it what makes the satistics look better.

The USA also has at least 2 different climate zones (3 if you count in Alaska) which makes it easier for agronomy products. We have only one climate zone and a much smaller area for 20% of your population.

Of course there are a few other big countries in the world but the US has the best piece of land of it's seize for economics.

Canada -> 50% or more too cold to even live there
China -> huge regions of high mountains. limited space despite it's big seize.
Australia -> too hot in most parts especially in the central. humid in the north parts.
Russia -> 70% too cold, just imagine Siberia
Brasil -> too humid and big areas of rain forests
USA -> 90% is perfect for agronomy. good temperatures everywhere (well except alaska).


Do you see what I mean? It has geographical reasons why the USA is the superpower. I see the best chance for China to compete in the near future but they have a lot of deficits and are limited.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:28 PM
You have a different system of economy which allows people to have it easy to have their own business etc. Which means it it easier to become rich in the USA than in other countries. This it what makes the satistics look better.

Well, there you are. I could not have come up with better proof that Americans are the smartest in the world, if I had worked on it for a week. Thanks for making it all so clear. I just don't understand why everyone else doesn't copy the system of economy, which, in your very own words, ''makes it easier to become rich in the USA than in other countries''.

BTW: I am not American.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 06:30 PM
I prefer the Whoopi Goldberg theory of ethnicity, when she said, ''I'm not African-American, I've never even been in Africa. I'm American, for Christ's sake!''

And she's also not Jewish. :haha:

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 06:32 PM
Well, there you are. I could not have come up with better proof that Americans are the smartest in the world, if I had worked on it for a week. Thanks for making it all so clear. I just don't understand why everyone else doesn't copy the system of economy, which, in your very own words, ''makes it easier to become rich in the USA than in other countries''.

BTW: I am not American.

Please consider immigrating, we could use you. :yeah:

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 06:35 PM
I prefer the Whoopi Goldberg theory of ethnicity, when she said, ''I'm not African-American, I've never even been in Africa. I'm American, for Christ's sake!''

Next, you will be trying to tell me racism doesn't exist.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:38 PM
Next, you will be trying to tell me racism doesn't exist.

For your next alias you should consider ''Non Sequitur.''

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 06:38 PM
I never said that New World Indians are from Africa, I pointed out that (1) Amerinds consider themselves to be "people of color" (i.e., non-Caucasian) and that (2) there are people in Mexico and other countries who are the decendants of African slaves. You're conflating (1) with (2).

(And BTW, there are many, many people who are descendants of African slaves who do not look like Africans, because they are also the descendants of whites and Indians.)

But the fact remains that the poorest of the poor in America right now are most likely to be Mexicans who illegally crossed the border into America, which was my original point. :wavey:

What is this people of colour bullshit? What it comes down to is that people are human and the blood colour is the same. Someone who is white is of colour, that colour being white.

So there are African albinos, they have African facial features, but albino skin.

Where is the proof that Hispanics are poorer on average than the black population descended from slaves? They might not be, they might be. I am not one making the claim.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 06:38 PM
For your next alias you should consider ''Non Sequitor.''

You are too intellectual for me.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:38 PM
Please consider immigrating, we could use you. :yeah:

I'm Irish. We built the country, now we are no longer allowed in.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:40 PM
You are too intellectual for me.

That follows:)

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 06:43 PM
That follows:)

You're a Tory and there is nothing wrong with that.

If you don't behave I am going to bring back Jorge.

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:45 PM
You're a Tory and there is nothing wrong with that.

If you don't behave I am going to bring back Jorge.

Jorge and I have been living together for two years. I don't allow him enough time out of bed to get to a computer anymore.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 06:46 PM
Jorge and I have been living together for two years. I don't allow him enough time out of bed to get to a computer anymore.

You understand Mexican Spanish then?

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 06:48 PM
We don't have much time for talking.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 06:51 PM
Don't let fonsie read this, then you could have a horny Colombian in your lovenest.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 06:55 PM
I'm Irish. We built the country, now we are no longer allowed in.

You are, but you have to work for the police department in NYC. ;)

buddyholly
09-11-2007, 07:03 PM
Don't let fonsie read this, then you could have a horny Colombian in your lovenest.

Haven't you noticed that fonsie also has almost no time for posting, these days? Do the math.

Action Jackson
09-11-2007, 07:07 PM
Haven't you noticed that fonsie also has almost no time for posting, these days? Do the math.

Still 10x a day wouldn't be enough.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 07:35 PM
What is this people of colour bullshit? What it comes down to is that people are human and the blood colour is the same. Someone who is white is of colour, that colour being white.

So there are African albinos, they have African facial features, but albino skin.

Where is the proof that Hispanics are poorer on average than the black population descended from slaves? They might not be, they might be. I am not one making the claim.

Here's a link to a Robert Samuelson article about poverty and immigration. I don't know if you have to register to read it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401623.html

He cites the latest statistics to show that there are now more poor Hispanics in America than poor blacks and states: "Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty."

"People of color" is a phrase denoting all non-whites (blacks, browns, etc.).

Bilbo
09-11-2007, 08:11 PM
Well, there you are. I could not have come up with better proof that Americans are the smartest in the world, if I had worked on it for a week. Thanks for making it all so clear. I just don't understand why everyone else doesn't copy the system of economy, which, in your very own words, ''makes it easier to become rich in the USA than in other countries''.

BTW: I am not American.

well, it doesn't mean that the "average joe" is smarter than for example an "average japanese". you might have some smart people who made these things possible but it doesn't count for the whole population.

i don't think the average american has the highest IQ in the world. maybe your definition of smart is different than mine.

the good educational background of most americans lacks behind many countries. they learn not much about other countries beginning in school.

MusicMyst
09-11-2007, 09:02 PM
well, it doesn't mean that the "average joe" is smarter than for example an "average japanese". you might have some smart people who made these things possible but it doesn't count for the whole population.

i don't think the average american has the highest IQ in the world. maybe your definition of smart is different than mine.

the good educational background of most americans lacks behind many countries. they learn not much about other countries beginning in school.

You're not exactly a poster boy for German intellectualism.

LoveFifteen
09-11-2007, 09:21 PM
She knows exactly what she's doing. It's made her filhty rich, too. I wonder if she really believes half the shit that comes out of her mouth. Whether she believes it or not, she's a dispicable human being.

Scotso
09-12-2007, 12:07 AM
Not every country has the seize of the USA. I'm pretty sure if the Germans or the Japanese had the same seize as the USA they would have a bigger economy etc. There are many civilizations who are smarter than Americans.

Complete bullshit. The entire GDP of the European Union just barely passes that of the United States and there are over 500 million people in it. China and India have far more people and their GDP doesn't even come close. The United States is powerful because of hard work, dedication, etc. People outside the United States like to criticize the US and paint us as morons who are evil, but insane, disorganized governments do not produce powerful and rich countries. Keep coming up with any excuse you want for why we're the most successful country in the world - but it's all just sour grapes.

Scotso
09-12-2007, 12:10 AM
You're not exacty a poster boy for German intellectualism.

Europeans on these boards enjoy posting links to things that make all Americans look stupid, but it's simply not the case. I doubt the average person in any other country is more intelligent. Again, if they were, they would be more successful.

LoveFifteen
09-12-2007, 12:13 AM
If americans had any brain, the wouldn't be imperialism and capitalism-lovers.

Thus spoke the functional illiterate ... :o

Paul Banks
09-12-2007, 05:09 AM
She knows exactly what she's doing. It's made her filhty rich, too. I wonder if she really believes half the shit that comes out of her mouth. Whether she believes it or not, she's a dispicable human being.

I think she does believe all the shit she says.

She's a creationist - intelligent designist: half of Americans are.
She denies global warming or the consequences: don't know the stats, but probably half of Americans do as well.
She's a conservative Christians: and she's far from being alone.

In fact, besides a couple of outrageous comments to piss off people, she's pretty much representative of what the Christian right of America thinks... So it's not really hard to imagine she does indeed believe what she says.

mtw
09-12-2007, 10:10 AM
Truly said.There are no normal parties in USA. There are only conservative liberals ( republicans ) and liberal liberals ( democrats ). It is no normal. In every normal state are rightwings and lingwings parties. And this, what is in USA is no democracy. They created dutiful, not very smart society, who have problems with thinking and believe very blindly in TV. It was a performance of gen. Petroleum in their congress. His sppeech and speech of all these republicans will remind of speech of communistic concrete in Poland in time of communism. It was tragedy. This man says that he succedeed. Yes, about 1 mln. killed people, destroyed country, 4 mln of refugees. People, who prefer to live in the tent of Oman, than in new prodemocratic, proamerican Iraq. This Petroleum is the example of such genocide and criminal, who does not se his crimes. He won this war indeed. These war was lost by innocent people, who lost all.
If this new election would win republicans it will be disaster for the world. They will attack the new countries. They do never finish these illegal, unlawful wars. And maybe they initaitiate new world war, of course if Bush does not do it to the end of his term of office. He has more time. These people are very simple, primitive. They can only kill, lie, carry their propaganda and steal.

mtw
09-12-2007, 10:13 AM
I think she does believe all the shit she says.

She's a creationist - intelligent designist: half of Americans are.
She denies global warming or the consequences: don't know the stats, but probably half of Americans do as well.
She's a conservative Christians: and she's far from being alone.

In fact, besides a couple of outrageous comments to piss off people, she's pretty much representative of what the Christian right of America thinks... So it's not really hard to imagine she does indeed believe what she says.

It is a stupid, primitive grammar and who knows maybe fuzz of cia too.

Bilbo
09-12-2007, 11:29 AM
Europeans on these boards enjoy posting links to things that make all Americans look stupid, but it's simply not the case. I doubt the average person in any other country is more intelligent. Again, if they were, they would be more successful.

More successfull when the USA is the 4th or 5th biggest country in the world? :retard:

buddyholly
09-12-2007, 02:42 PM
More successfull when the USA is the 4th or 5th biggest country in the world? :retard:

Yes, size matters, but has nothing to do with intelligence. In this thread you continue to argue with your own posts, for some reason I can not fathom.

Paul Banks
10-10-2007, 11:39 AM
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

mtw
10-10-2007, 04:03 PM
I don't understand what it's actually going on with these republican politicians in USA. They commited genocide and crime, broking international law in the light of their law. It can not be longer in this way. CNN gave information that republican candidates for presidents want to attack Iran and they say that should be allowed. For me it is unclear. How is it possible that attack on independent, normal country can be allowed? What is wrong with these people? Are they mental ill. They see, what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan ( it is practically total desintegration of these countries ) and what now quiet, law-abiding country can be the next victim of these mental-ill genocides. Can these american politicians judge and estimate their activity and stupid ideas? Do they see consequences of their illegal wars? Maybe they should attack for instance Texas. There is petroleum too. The only way relies upon admission for own genocides, crimes and the real change of course of their this illegal politics. No attacks, no bombing. To end their illegal, plundering, destroying politics. If there are normal people in USA, I hope that they will not elect these republican psychos again.

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 01:56 PM
btw, Bilbo would have made a brilliant member of the Hitler Youth. :)

I'm not so sure, didn't the Nazis get rid of retarded people?

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 01:58 PM
Oh wait, they got rid of people that they CONSIDERED to be retarded. Yes, Oberstormfuhrer Bilbo could have happened:eek:

Bilbo
10-12-2007, 02:53 PM
you can fuck off, tangerine_dream, can you? :rolleyes:

*Viva Chile*
10-12-2007, 04:27 PM
Do you expect more from Ann "skeletor" Coulter???, the icon of inteligence brilliance after saying that "the widows of the 9/11 are harpies that gain their lives at the expense of their dead husbands" :retard:

R.Federer
10-12-2007, 10:08 PM
Does anyone else feel that Ann Coulter looks like a transvestite?
S/he/it is weird and her comments seems well-rehearsed to get attention, rather than genuine belief.

I read about her comments on Jews needing to be perfected. :rolleyes:

Peoples
10-12-2007, 10:28 PM
She is right

buddyholly
10-12-2007, 10:48 PM
Very far right.

Fedex
10-13-2007, 08:50 AM
Ann Coulter is an abomination of humankind. I don't think anyone really takes her seriously, not even the conservatives.

buddyholly
10-13-2007, 02:17 PM
Ann Coulter is an abomination of humankind. I don't think anyone really takes her seriously, not even the conservatives.

Then why do they keep inviting her to speak at their meetings?

Sparko1030
10-13-2007, 07:46 PM
Then why do they keep inviting her to speak at their meetings?


Because its the new way repressed Republicans can hook up with anorexic transvestites. Times are tough for closeted, hypocritcal gay men-just ask Larry Craig :rolls:

Fedex
10-13-2007, 08:25 PM
Because its the new way repressed Republicans can hook up with anorexic transvestites. Times are tough for closeted, hypocritcal gay men-just ask Larry Craig :rolls:

:lol: :rolls: :haha: :worship:

undomiele
10-14-2007, 12:03 AM
If anyone else had any brains we wouldn't be the sole superpower. :shrug:

And yet your currency is so weak. :rolleyes:

Besides, everybody and their mother knows China is the next global superpower. With 40 years to go to make it a full 100 years, US hegemony won't even span a century in the history books. Go Yanks.

G4.
10-14-2007, 12:11 AM
low currency is not necessarily bad , it has its advantages and disadvantes , that makes US goods and services more competitive

undomiele
10-14-2007, 01:53 AM
low currency is not necessarily bad , it has its advantages and disadvantes , that makes US goods and services more competitive


But its not exactly a good sign that a currency should plummet in just a couple of years, is it? The Canadians have almost reached parity with the US - when was the last time that happened? Hardly never. It reflects global opinion of where the US economy is headed, which is certain recession.

Bilbo
10-14-2007, 11:04 AM
Besides, everybody and their mother knows China is the next global superpower. With 40 years to go to make it a full 100 years, US hegemony won't even span a century in the history books. Go Yanks.

:yeah:

buddyholly
10-14-2007, 01:34 PM
Besides, everybody and their mother knows China is the next global superpower. With 40 years to go to make it a full 100 years, US hegemony won't even span a century in the history books. Go Yanks.

If China wants to be a global superpower in our lifetimes it will have to get the lead out!:lol:

The Chinese people will not let themselves be enslaved for ever to fund the greedy Imperialism of their corrupt government in its support of the criminal governmnets of Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe etc, etc etc.

buddyholly
10-14-2007, 01:41 PM
But its not exactly a good sign that a currency should plummet in just a couple of years, is it? The Canadians have almost reached parity with the US - when was the last time that happened? Hardly never. It reflects global opinion of where the US economy is headed, which is certain recession.

That is all just wishful thinking undiomele. When I lived in canada the Canadian dollar was at a premium to the US dollar. It wasn't that long ago. If a downturn in a country's currency was as disastrous as you are trying to convince yourself, then Argentina would have been annexed by Chile a long time ago.
Recessions are also part of the economic cycle. You are just trying to convince yourself that a recession would be the end of the US. Get real.

undomiele
10-16-2007, 09:02 PM
The Chinese people will not let themselves be enslaved for ever to fund the greedy Imperialism of their corrupt government in its support of the criminal governmnets of Myanmar, Sudan, Somalia, Zimbabwe etc, etc etc.

Logic dictates that BuddyHolly's 2 1/2 half brain cells cannot speak for 1.3 billion Chinese men, women and children.

His two and a half brain cells are certainly ambitious.

undomiele
10-16-2007, 09:43 PM
If a downturn in a country's currency was as disastrous as you are trying to convince yourself, then Argentina would have been annexed by Chile a long time ago.
Recessions are also part of the economic cycle. You are just trying to convince yourself that a recession would be the end of the US. Get real.

A currency depreciation in most other countries in the world cannot be compared to one affecting the United States BH. Anybody who follows economics in depth, which unsurprisingly excludes you BH, understands that a US recession sourced by bad financial bookeeping, unlike say, Argentine recession, almost always leads to a very nasty global recession.

As the recent bursting of the real estate bubble in the US showed, financial debacles that happen in the US tremendously impact other parts of the world. Small and big bank institutions invariably go bust and lose a LOT of money, and consequently restrict the amount of credit available in the world in response to the situation.

When there is a recession AND the dollar plummets, the unique unsustainability of America's decades-old borrowing binge is exposed: fewer foreign investors, including governments, are willing to lend money to the US and to keep their assets in dollars. With a costly war to boot, US economic security is now almost entirely dependant on foreign investment. Essential goods, such as oil, are just becoming more expensive, just when US consumers are least able to afford a price increase. That alone sourced a massive depression in the 70's. All these bad factors are combining at the same time to make the US especially vulnerable to the whims and flows of foreign investment.

How much more can foreign investors take before they realize it would probably be wiser to invest in the euro? And bail out of the US altogether?

Frankly, I just don't think the currency drop is a good sign, things can always get worse. Of course they can also get better but lets face it, no end for the war is yet in sight. The currency drop is a key indicator for how things are going for the US financially, and it has been bad so far.

Further, I just want to point out that this recession mainly sourced by the US real estate sector bust was entirely preventable, or not "naturally cyclical" at all as you insinuated. People are suffering because the US government didnt do its job in checking greed in the sector as it ought to have. Now most people, American and otherwise, are paying for the party.

But that's another topic for another day. Undomiele out.

buddyholly
10-17-2007, 04:13 AM
A currency depreciation in most other countries in the world cannot be compared to one affecting the United States BH. Anybody who follows economics in depth, which unsurprisingly excludes you BH, understands that a US recession sourced by bad financial bookeeping, unlike say, Argentine recession, almost always leads to a very nasty global recession.



NEWS FLASH: DOW HITS NEW HIGH

buddyholly
10-17-2007, 04:16 AM
Logic dictates that BuddyHolly's 2 1/2 half brain cells cannot speak for 1.3 billion Chinese men, women and children.

His two and a half brain cells are certainly ambitious.

No, my two and a half brain cells cannot speak for the 1.3 billion Chinese men, women and children. Sadly, neither can the 1.3 billion Chinese men, women and children.

buddyholly
10-17-2007, 04:23 AM
Further, I just want to point out that this recession mainly sourced by the US real estate sector bust was entirely preventable

Which recession is that? Oh, I see, it's the one you are hoping for.

G4.
10-17-2007, 11:53 AM
fact is US economy is not going well at the moment, and i'm not hoping anything because it is also bad for world economy (US sub primes crisis affected global markets) , it is strange how you cannot stomach any criticism over the US

buddyholly
10-17-2007, 12:19 PM
You will note in the post by undiomele that he/she is so wishful for a US recession that he/she has actually brainwashed himself/herself into believing it has already happened.

undomiele
10-18-2007, 01:09 AM
No, my two and a half brain cells cannot speak for the 1.3 billion Chinese men, women and children. Sadly, neither can the 1.3 billion Chinese men, women and children.


I'm glad you admitted to having 2 and a half brain cells.

I'm happy your brain cells admitted they cannot speak for 1.3 billion Chinese, which automatically begs the following question: if the Chinese cannot speak for themselves, why pretend your brain cells can speak for them in the first place? :p

:wavey:

undomiele
10-18-2007, 01:21 AM
Which recession is that? Oh, I see, it's the one you are hoping for.


No, its the one you're hoping I'm hoping for, (the truth is I never hope for any kind of recession, anywhere). But you can go on and keep hoping Im hoping for a recession, I've long since lost all hope that you could ever understand economics.

Although you think you are a hopeful person, who hopes I hope for a US recession, you're truly nothing but a false hope. :p

:wavey:

( I looove playing with you!! :D :hearts: )

Stensland
10-20-2007, 12:15 AM
please don't take bilbo as the "typical" german. pleeeeeze!

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 12:18 AM
please don't take bilbo as the "typical" german. pleeeeeze!

So is bilbo of that particular inclination?

Stensland
10-20-2007, 12:21 AM
So is bilbo of that particular inclination?

:wavey: missed ya! ;)

...of what inclination? what do you mean exactly?

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 12:24 AM
:wavey: missed ya! ;)

...of what inclination? what do you mean exactly?

Hey! Well someone said Hitler Youth and his comments aren't exactly evidence of that....but he seems quite hostile to the US.

Stensland
10-20-2007, 12:33 AM
Hey! Well someone said Hitler Youth and his comments aren't exactly evidence of that....but he seems quite hostile to the US.

yeah, he is bascially the personification of what keeps intelligent germans from saying they are proud of their or like theircountry: you'd then be in the same group as he is, and you obviously don't wanna be in there. :D

he's a nationalist, not a patriot. and a tiny group of nationalists keeps patriots from growing in numbers as the latter group doesn't wanna be associated with the first group - which is something regular done by the overly political correct ( :rolleyes: ) media in germany.

and i'm pretty much torn when it comes to the united states. some things are simply amazing, others are a disgrace (though i wouldn't see them as a disgrace if i was american ;) ).

Bilbo
10-20-2007, 11:34 AM
please don't take bilbo as the "typical" german. pleeeeeze!

i don't know where you live but many germans think like me. the usa has lost a lot of respect here in germany.

Stensland
10-20-2007, 12:29 PM
i don't know where you live but many germans think like me. the usa has lost a lot of respect here in germany.

doesn't matter where i live, germany's attitude towards the u.s. is pretty much the same everywhere. but that's solely based on bush and his politics yet it somehow goes deeper into the german (better: european! france, spain or italy think alike with "us" germans) soul than before. remember when clinton was president? everyone loved the states yet it was pretty much the same country.

instead of judging the bush administration you're judging 300 mio people over there that didn't change that much during the last 10 years. so you really gotta differentiate a little if don't wanna wanna seem as stupid as those "silly americans" you constantly refer to, who know nothing about the world except for their home country.

btw what are you gonna do when hillary takes over the white house? switch over to "loving the united states" again? just like that *snap*?

i'm sure there's lots of things to criticize about when it comes to america, but the way you do it is simply childish.

and to be honest, some of your arguments really gave me a good laugh. :D (like the one with our export, weight, geograhical advantage etc.).

i have to say though that quite a lot of american arguments (like the one from scotso) don't me a lot sense to me either, sorry.

Bilbo
10-20-2007, 12:56 PM
instead of judging the bush administration you're judging 300 mio people over there that didn't change that much during the last 10 years. so you really gotta differentiate a little if don't wanna wanna seem as stupid as those "silly americans" you constantly refer to, who know nothing about the world except for their home country.

i wonder who voted bush for his 2nd period. must have been a lot of smart people :retard: you should also learn a lot more about the american school systems if you believe they know a lot about the rest of the world.

Stensland
10-20-2007, 01:14 PM
i wonder who voted bush for his 2nd period. must have been a lot of smart people :retard:


did it ever occur to you that it might not be about retardation (which is more than insulting, btw!) but more about setting priorities? you have every right to disagree with the people who voted for bush, but considering that you probably don't know ANY of them, i'd cut this offending crap out if i was you. so in a nutshell: critisizing politics? yes. calling people mentally retarded just because of voting patterns? no way.

plus before this posting you constantly referred to the states on a whole as a bunch of wacky dimwhits, which is just appaling and basically disqualifies you from any real discussion.


you should also learn a lot more about the american school systems if you believe they know a lot about the rest of the world.

who the hell is "they" again? come on, bilbo, you gotta be kidding me with all this generalization. are you really 27 years old?

america's just produced the widest range of people: they have the most stupid, narrow-minded ones and the most nobel prize winners. the fattest people on earth and the most people suffering from anorexia. the best-run businesses and the cruelest business frauds. they go to the moon and back yet a couple of miles away from cape canaveral people live like in the slums of rio de janeiro.

so it's all about perspective and surely you have the right to criticize their radical market approach, little to no social net and welfare, health system etc., but you just can't come up with stuff like "americans are stupid".

Bilbo
10-20-2007, 03:47 PM
did it ever occur to you that it might not be about retardation (which is more than insulting, btw!) but more about setting priorities?

which priorities? at the cost of other peoples lifes? as i said once in another thread. i can understand how bush was voted for his first time but i will never understand how he got voted twice and that is stupidity. well, not all people but probably most of them.

in my opinion they should make a rule that only one member of a family can become president. this goes to all countries of course. this would solve a lot of problems in the world.

mtw
10-20-2007, 07:36 PM
but you just can't come up with stuff like "americans are stupid".


But they are. Of course not all Americans are stupid, but majority of them. Just these people, who voted for Bush and his administration. No one clever could done it only morons. Thanks to this american part of society, who voted for such people as Bush, millions of people were and are killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have life of all these innocent people on their concienses and their blood on own hands. And maybe soon the blood of innocent Iranians too )There are two solutions. We can accept that they are stupid and they don't understand, what their politicians do exactly and that they are responsible for it too. We can accept the second solution: they are usual psychopaths, accept killinig of other people and they like it. What solution do you like more: morons or psychopaths?

buddyholly
10-21-2007, 10:21 PM
in my opinion they should make a rule that only one member of a family can become president. this goes to all countries of course. this would solve a lot of problems in the world.

It would certainly help Cuba.

buddyholly
10-21-2007, 10:28 PM
did it ever occur to you that it might not be about retardation (which is more than insulting, btw!)

Don't worry about bilbo and the retard button. Many MTF posters that are not bright enough to express themselves think it is a great way to make their arguments seem decisive.

buddyholly
10-21-2007, 10:31 PM
i wonder who voted bush for his 2nd period. must have been a lot of smart people :retard:

How long does this retardation last? Are all Germans still retards for having voted for Hitler or is there a statute of limitations on the term of retardation?

buddyholly
10-21-2007, 10:34 PM
it is strange how you cannot stomach any criticism over the US

What? You think it is strange to respond? What should I do?

G4.
10-22-2007, 12:07 AM
nah not strange in fact, it's just that you sound like those balkanian nationalists sometimes ,but i'm all for freedom of speech

Bilbo
10-22-2007, 06:39 AM
Some people like Rrrainer and buddyholly would never criticize the USA. They are one of those who can't open their mouth to criticize like most politicians. And when you open your mouth you are shot next day.

How can you criticize me when I want Bush to be hanged? Millions of people would dance if it would happen and it would be justified. So where's the problem?

mtw
10-22-2007, 04:20 PM
How long does this retardation last? Are all Germans still retards for having voted for Hitler or is there a statute of limitations on the term of retardation?

It seems that majority of German society is opponent of these illegal, occupying Bush's wars, his crime against humanity and genocide. They have no participation in war in Iraq. Chancellor Schröder said from the beginning that he sends no one soldier to Iraq ( in opposite to polish, proamerican chieftains without honour, which would give and sell all to USA - so called pooddles of Bush - it is really very sad) to support Bush. They have some troops in Afghanistan but I am not sure, if they take participation in atacks on rebels. Normal German people are against it and it seems that they are not very glad of it. FDP is against intervention in Afghanistan. Personally I think that normal politicians see no benefits from killing Afghans and continuing this war. It gives nothing to nobody and it gives no glory for Europe - in the opposite. Our good name will be connected always with this genocide thanks to this policy. Afghanistan is very devastated country and practically no benefits can be used from such poor country. Firstly hard billions of Euro and dolars will have to be pump to rebuild this country and make an infrastructure there. Why do they not withdrew troops exactly? I don't know. I think that they are afraid of bush. I can imagine that this bloke is as many alcoholics mental ill and he does not buzz off. It seems that he thinks new, irreal, not existing threats and it is the only result of his mental disease, which develop immer intensive without cure. You see: Afghanistan, Iraq and now Iran, China, Russia, all are enemies of bush in his opinion. They are not his friends, because it is vbery hard to be a friend of genocide.

Stensland
10-22-2007, 05:29 PM
Some people like Rrrainer and buddyholly would never criticize the USA. They are one of those who can't open their mouth to criticize like most politicians. And when you open your mouth you are shot next day.


how come you know what i think of the united states? just because i find your way of insulting and offending a country more than hilarious doesn't mean i'd defend any action from their side. nor do i defend every action from our german side. patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it. mark twain, intelligent guy. so what you're forgetting is the distinction between a country and its government. and i don't wanna be associated with critics like you, that's all. i might open my mouth in another thread about america's shortcomings but not in here, not to back up guys like you, sorry.


How can you criticize me when I want Bush to be hanged? Millions of people would dance if it would happen and it would be justified. So where's the problem?

yeah, once again: you think the guys who'd be dancing because of bush's death would be the ones you wanna have a beer with? you think they're the good ones opposed to bush? they're the innocent ones, the ones who need shelter, the ones who adore your way of life, your freedom, your values? if so, go ahead, dance with them, fine. but i may warn ya, buddy: people who start dancing just because someone else died might not be the nicest blokes on the planet. at least i think so.

but that's just me.

so all in all i can just repeat: there's a difference between criticizing politicians and pure spitefulness. i'd say "grow up, kid" and hope for the best if i was talking to a teen now, but the fact that you're 27 really got me thinking.

Bilbo
10-22-2007, 06:28 PM
I think that they are afraid of bush.

they need the USA as a partner in economics etc. they can't say "no" to everything so they try to "help" the USA on a minimum basis but don't want to be involved in the war itself. unfortunately you can't say "no" to everything otherwise you will get negative results by the USA even if you want to say "no". this is what you mean by "afraid of bush". i think you can say it like that, yes.

Bilbo
10-22-2007, 06:31 PM
you are a typical bush supporter, Rrrainer. and no you won't open your mouth because you are afraid of unlike me.

Bilbo
10-22-2007, 06:34 PM
yeah, once again: you think the guys who'd be dancing because of bush's death would be the ones you wanna have a beer with? you think they're the good ones opposed to bush? they're the innocent ones, the ones who need shelter, the ones who adore your way of life, your freedom, your values? if so, go ahead, dance with them, fine. but i may warn ya, buddy: people who start dancing just because someone else died might not be the nicest blokes on the planet. at least i think so.

you don't think some americans were dancing when saddam got hanged? i do think so. maybe not on the streets but at home. i'm sure of that.

Bilbo
10-22-2007, 06:39 PM
just when we talk about bush wants another 46 billion dollars for the iraq war.

i still wonder how the americans accept all these things. i rarely see them demonstrating on the streets.

buddyholly
10-23-2007, 02:12 PM
Some people like Rrrainer and buddyholly would never criticize the USA. They are one of those who can't open their mouth to criticize like most politicians. And when you open your mouth you are shot next day.



Now you are making even less sense than mtw, and that is an awesome achievement.:worship:

Bilbo
10-23-2007, 04:16 PM
I'm still waiting for the day when you criticize Bush, buddyholly. I'm sure we will never see that day though.

buddyholly
10-24-2007, 04:06 AM
I'm still waiting for the day when you criticize Bush, buddyholly. I'm sure we will never see that day though.

I think Bush may be the worst president the US has ever had.

I think the US may be the greatest country the world has ever had, and being the country that most people around the world want to get into, it is clear that it is still the Mecca (excuse the reference) for most people that want a better life. Your confusion of Bush with the USA is equivalent to me saying that Germany is a country populated by idiots that chose Hitler for a leader.

What I don't like are self-righteous Europeans that will jump at any excuse to criticise the country. For example, France has just passed a law requiring DNA testing and language exams for immigrants. If the USA passed such a law, MTF would be swamped by posts from Europeans calling the US a racist right-wing country. But when France does it there will not be any reaction here, unless someone wants to say that France has every right to protect itself from illegal aliens.

Sparko1030
10-24-2007, 04:52 AM
I think Bush may be the worst president the US has ever had.

I think the US may be the greatest country the world has ever had, and being the country that most people around the world want to get into, it is clear that it is still the Mecca (excuse the reference) for most people that want a better life. Your confusion of Bush with the USA is equivalent to me saying that Germany is a country populated by idiots that made Hitler for a leader.

What I don't like are self-righteous Europeans that will jump at any excuse to criticise the country. For example, France has just passed a law requiring DNA testing and language exams for immigrants. If the USA passed such a law, MTF would be swamped by posts from Europeans calling the US a racist right-wing country. But when France does it there will not be any reaction here, unless someone wants to say that France has every right to protect itself from illegal aliens.


:yeah: What can I say? when you're right, you're right :)

mtw
10-24-2007, 11:24 AM
they need the USA as a partner in economics etc. they can't say "no" to everything so they try to "help" the USA on a minimum basis but don't want to be involved in the war itself. unfortunately you can't say "no" to everything otherwise you will get negative results by the USA even if you want to say "no". this is what you mean by "afraid of bush". i think you can say it like that, yes.

USA as economical partner is not the best and the only choice for Europe. There are myna other countries on this world, which would be good partners for Europe. In the last time Germany and England and not only this two countries lost very much money cause of this too much too close economical cooperation with USA. When it was this mortgage crisis in USA in the last time many European banks bought american debts and they lost bln. of Euro, because of this debacle. And it is small disaster not so disaster as these wars - illegal, american, occupying wars are total disaster - genocide and crime and it is unnacceptable that European politicians agree for such crime. I believe that this Bush( some alcoholics are just so. They can not buzz off ) created the real regime in this world, he molestes these European politicians to send the troops for these his both illegal, american wars. And we owe these wars to this sh.. NATO. If this organisation exists only to this purpose to continue american, illegal wars it has no sense to keep it. It should be dissolved. I don't understand, why can not be normal European, independent army without influences of other countries.

G4.
10-24-2007, 03:46 PM
I think Bush may be the worst president the US has ever had.

I think the US may be the greatest country the world has ever had, and being the country that most people around the world want to get into, it is clear that it is still the Mecca (excuse the reference) for most people that want a better life. Your confusion of Bush with the USA is equivalent to me saying that Germany is a country populated by idiots that chose Hitler for a leader.

What I don't like are self-righteous Europeans that will jump at any excuse to criticise the country. For example, France has just passed a law requiring DNA testing and language exams for immigrants. If the USA passed such a law, MTF would be swamped by posts from Europeans calling the US a racist right-wing country. But when France does it there will not be any reaction here, unless someone wants to say that France has every right to protect itself from illegal aliens.

Sarkozy was also elected with extrem right wing votes and is pro american , are you not happy with that

Stensland
10-24-2007, 05:10 PM
I think Bush may be the worst president the US has ever had.


that might be true, yes.


I think the US may be the greatest country the world has ever had, and being the country that most people around the world want to get into, it is clear that it is still the Mecca (excuse the reference) for most people that want a better life.


i don't think that's true. i bet if latin americans had a chance to choose between european countries and america for immigration, most of them would definitely choose europe. but as most of them are poor, all they can do is take the train, fight through the jungle and hope to cross the mex-u.s.-border at night.
and i also don't think the fact that the united states basically attract well-educated people because of higher income than countries like germany, france or eastern europe is something america can be "proud of". it's not like they invented money or something, it's rather the miserable social welfare that keeps the rich guys in the country. america is great for wealthy people but it sucks for poor guys. unfortunately, the poor guys are even poorer if they stay in mexico or guatemala. but if you'd ask them what they think of the scandinavian system, where every single immigrant is a member of society, something with dignity and a kind of pride, guess where they'd wanna emigrate...
i think sweden and the likes are the future of mankind whereas the states will some day go down the drain, sorry. i like their attitude though, as i mentioned before, and that is definitely something europe should take a look at and copy.


Your confusion of Bush with the USA is equivalent to me saying that Germany is a country populated by idiots that chose Hitler for a leader.


no it's not. your reference would be even more ridiculous as almost 100% of the guys who actually voted for hitler back then died years ago (and the ones still alive must be somewhere around 100 y.o. and it's highly unlikely that any of them are lurking mtf on a daily basis). bilbo's point was hilarious but yours would make even less sense.


What I don't like are self-righteous Europeans that will jump at any excuse to criticise the country. For example, France has just passed a law requiring DNA testing and language exams for immigrants. If the USA passed such a law, MTF would be swamped by posts from Europeans calling the US a racist right-wing country. But when France does it there will not be any reaction here, unless someone wants to say that France has every right to protect itself from illegal aliens.

agreed.

buddyholly
10-25-2007, 05:09 AM
but if you'd ask them what they think of the scandinavian system, where every single immigrant is a member of society, something with dignity and a kind of pride, guess where they'd wanna emigrate...

I wonder how many Mexicans and Guatemalans were accepted into Swedish society this year. And I do not agree that Mexicans would choose Sweden over California. Mexicans rule in California!!!!!!!!!!!!

buddyholly
10-25-2007, 05:12 AM
no it's not. your reference would be even more ridiculous as almost 100% of the guys who actually voted for hitler back then died years ago (and the ones still alive must be somewhere around 100 y.o. and it's highly unlikely that any of them are lurking mtf on a daily basis). bilbo's point was hilarious but yours would make even less sense.





Of course, I was just lampooning the Bilbo style of reasoning.

Stensland
10-25-2007, 05:32 AM
I wonder how many Mexicans and Guatemalans were accepted into Swedish society this year.


probably close to nothing. but didn't i explain why? all the stuff i wrote was hypothetical, referring to a scenario where sweden and the united states would be situated on the same continent with equal distance from, let' say, guatemala. where would they wanna go, what do you reckon?


And I do not agree that Mexicans would choose Sweden over California. Mexicans rule in California!!!!!!!!!!!!

yeah, but i guess that's basically because just to take a trip to scandinavia many mexicans would have to work a couple of months whereas california is next door. and that's just for the tickets. and on that note: in the more recent past, guess where most refugees from the balkans went, where the majority of greeks went, the turks, the polish, the romanians etc.? yep, they stayed in europe. basically because they had no choice, just like the mexicans.

Julio1974
10-25-2007, 12:39 PM
[QUOTE=Rrrainer;6180168]probably close to nothing. but didn't i explain why? all the stuff i wrote was hypothetical, referring to a scenario where sweden and the united states would be situated on the same continent with equal distance from, let' say, guatemala. where would they wanna go, what do you reckon? QUOTE]

It's difficult to generalize. There are so many factors to take into account. It depends a lot on who you are, what you do, what your ambitions are, what languages you speak, where your family is, the climate, etc etc.

As for myself, I'd prefer to emigrate to the US rather than to any nordic European country. But I'd prefer Spain, Canada or even Australia over the US.

Stensland
10-25-2007, 06:45 PM
As for myself, I'd prefer to emigrate to the US rather than to any nordic European country. But I'd prefer Spain, Canada or even Australia over the US.

you're touching the point that probably shows the most important change that happened during the bush years: people in general don't see the united states as their emigration target no.1 anymore. the ourstanding leadership in science, technology and so on was based on an ongoing immigration flow from europe, south america and asia that has constantly added new ideas to the ever-changing economy of america. that's why the overall view of the states abroad has always been quite important. but as matter stand, the picture of america has pretty much been shattered over the last years, which led to an increased flow of immigrants to australia, great britain and canada for example. i know it's a little silly to judge a country just by its leader, but hey, look at bilbo, mtw and all those guys: it obviously happens!

so the major goal of, let's say, hillary clinton must be to restore the public image america had pre-bush. remember when clinton was in office? man, people LOVED america. silly, but you know, that's how it works apparently. this is btw something america can't buy. no public relations agency is able to spin the people's opinion that way, it all comes down to how the u.s. acts on the world stage.

buddyholly
02-21-2008, 02:10 PM
Anybody who follows economics in depth, which unsurprisingly excludes you BH, understands that a US recession sourced by bad financial bookeeping, unlike say, Argentine recession, almost always leads to a very nasty global recession.

Further, I just want to point out that this recession mainly sourced by the US real estate sector bust was entirely preventable,

Five months ago undiomele declared that the global recession was already in progress and lashed out at me for being dumber than her, because she ''follows economics in depth'' and I presumably am very much her inferior.
Today leading economists have concluded that at least through 2008, growth in Europe and the US will be about 2% and a recession will probably not happen.
Seems like the only global recession this year is inside her thick skull.

buddyholly
05-30-2008, 12:48 AM
Anybody who follows economics in depth, which unsurprisingly excludes you BH, understands that a US recession sourced by bad financial bookeeping, unlike say, Argentine recession, almost always leads to a very nasty global recession.

Further, I just want to point out that this recession mainly sourced by the US real estate sector bust was entirely preventable, or not "naturally cyclical" at all as you insinuated.

Undomiele out.

This 8 month old quote by undiomele is my MTF equivalent of ''OFF,'' for getting rid of Argentinian nits.

Since the classic definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, and the US has not even had one yet, there can not be a recession in place until at least the end of September, making undiomele's declaration of an existing recession, just so much anti-American wishful thinking on her part.
And since she obviously considers herself an economic guru, way above the level of anyone else on MTF, as long as I keep bumping this thread every quarter, she is too ashamed to come back.

G4.
05-30-2008, 01:16 AM
Didnt Greenspan warn of a big crisis ? is that old man credible

buddyholly
05-30-2008, 12:34 PM
Didnt Greenspan warn of a big crisis ? is that old man credible

I guess it is still possible. Anything is these days. I have stopped worrying about global warming. Oil and food wars will destroy us long before the rising oceans will.

cobalt60
05-30-2008, 02:08 PM
I guess it is still possible. Anything is these days. I have stopped worrying about global warming. Oil and food wars will destroy us long before the rising oceans will.

Had this same discussion over dinner last night with friends. We even thought religion would play a part somehow as well.

booa
05-30-2008, 02:49 PM
What I don't like are self-righteous Europeans that will jump at any excuse to criticise the country. For example, France has just passed a law requiring DNA testing and language exams for immigrants. If the USA passed such a law, MTF would be swamped by posts from Europeans calling the US a racist right-wing country. But when France does it there will not be any reaction here, unless someone wants to say that France has every right to protect itself from illegal aliens.

I know that it is an old post but I just wanted to mention that regarding DNA testing, the "law" passed in France (and still not in effect) is no different to what has been in place in the US (and many other Western countries) for several years already.

buddyholly
05-30-2008, 11:50 PM
I know that it is an old post but I just wanted to mention that regarding DNA testing, the "law" passed in France (and still not in effect) is no different to what has been in place in the US (and many other Western countries) for several years already.

Thanks for pointing that out. I had not thought it through. If the DNA testing is to stop fraud in claiming family members, I think it is completely justified.
As for the language testing, I assume it is knowledge of French. But I think in the US it is considered reasonable for an immigrant to demand an immigration officer that speaks his language of choice. And that is considered a human right.
I think there are criminal cases against immigrants in the US that can not go forward for lack of an interpreter that knows the accused's language.

buddyholly
05-30-2008, 11:56 PM
I guess it is still possible. Anything is these days. I have stopped worrying about global warming. Oil and food wars will destroy us long before the rising oceans will.

Had this same discussion over dinner last night with friends. We even thought religion would play a part somehow as well.

Well I think the religious wars are already going on. Some claim Iraq is an oil war. So it is just a matter of time before the food riots turn into food wars and complete the trilogy.
I see nothing to change my opinion that those of us who lived in the period from the end of WW II to 9/11 are the lucky ones. It is all down hill from here.

prima donna
06-02-2008, 08:53 PM
Barack Hussein Obama is coming to a Western Civilization near you. Be afraid, be very afraid.

scoobs
06-02-2008, 08:55 PM
Barack Hussein Obama is coming to a Western Civilization near you. Be afraid, be very afraid.
I'd have preferred Hillary but it's better than John "I don't like Gooks" McCain.

prima donna
06-02-2008, 09:06 PM
I'd have preferred Hillary but it's better than John "I don't like Gooks" McCain.
John McCain was captured and confined to solitary confinement for three very long years by the Vietnamese, so I say that it comes as no surprise that he chooses to refer to them using such brutal and racially charged language.

In fact, he is still to this very day unable to raise his arms above his head without squinting in pain due to the abuse that was inflicted by his captors, abuse ranging from being bound to a chair and beaten severely to obscenity-laced tirades for his refusal to cooperate.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both good Americans, Barack Hussein Obama refuses to even recognize the flag of The United States, he is hardly worthy of belonging to a fraternity consisting of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. and William Jefferson Clinton.

scoobs
06-02-2008, 09:22 PM
John McCain was captured and confined to solitary confinement for three very long years by the Vietnamese, so I say that it comes as no surprise that he chooses to refer to them using such brutal and racially charged language.

In fact, he is still to this very day unable to raise his arms above his head without squinting in pain due to the abuse that was inflicted by his captures, abuse ranging from being bound to a chair and beaten severely to obscenity-laced tirades for his refusal to cooperate.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both good Americans, Barack Hussein Obama refuses to even recognize the flag of The United States, he is hardly worthy of belonging to a fraternity consisting of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. and William Jefferson Clinton.
Yes well Gook as a term of insult for people of Asian origin has been around an awful lot longer than the Vietnam War, and any prospective president, you'd think, would be wary of using racially charged language like that and risk unwittingly offending a large minority of Americans, and others, who had nothing to do with the Vietnam War but still find that term highly offensive to themselves.

And why exactly do you stress the middle name of Obama - are you trying to make it sound scary cos it's all Muslim and shit?

prima donna
06-02-2008, 09:33 PM
Yes well Gook as a term of insult for people of Asian origin has been around an awful lot longer than the Vietnam War, and any prospective president, you'd think, would be wary of using racially charged language like that and risk unwittingly offending a large minority of Americans, and others, who had nothing to do with the Vietnam War but still find that term highly offensive to themselves.

And why exactly do you stress the middle name of Obama - are you trying to make it sound scary cos it's all Muslim and shit?
Not at all, I also referred to Bill Clinton as William Jefferson Clinton. The man's name is Hussein, there's nothing neither I nor anyone else can do to change that fact -- unless he'd wish to acquire a change of name.

My dislike for Senator Obama has to do with the fact that he embraces Marxism, an ideology which contradicts the very foundation of The United States of America. I have no doubt that he is a law-abiding and morally just individual; however, his philosophy on government is fundamentally flawed.

Although, one might be inclined to question his commitment to America and its allies, as he feels America should be holding conferences with tyrants and petty dictators, polemic figures such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a disgusting and vile individual who has referred to Israel as a "stinking corpse".

scoobs
06-02-2008, 11:56 PM
Not at all, I also referred to Bill Clinton as William Jefferson Clinton. The man's name is Hussein, there's nothing neither I nor anyone else can do to change that fact -- unless he'd wish to acquire a change of name.

My dislike for Senator Obama has to do with the fact that he embraces Marxism, an ideology which contradicts the very foundation of The United States of America. I have no doubt that he is a law-abiding and morally just individual; however, his philosophy on government is fundamentally flawed.

Although, one might be inclined to question his commitment to America and its allies, as he feels America should be holding conferences with tyrants and petty dictators, polemic figures such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a disgusting and vile individual who has referred to Israel as a "stinking corpse".
I personally believe trying to talk to your enemies and find a way of coexisting with them is a more productive solution than threatening to repeat the travesties of the Iraq war on yet more nations of the world.

A bit more jaw jaw, a bit less war war.

I love this distinction against talking to demagogues, dictators, tyrants. It's okay to leave them in power to massacre their own people and run their own fiefdoms. No, we just won't TALK to them. Well that's helpful.

Perhaps his commitment to America and its allies involves trying to achieve more than President Bush II did, which is to squander an awful lot of goodwill towards the USA after 9/11 with a series of foreign policy disasters that left America and its allies much less safe than it was before.

Still, it's clear that your view of patriotism doesn't leave much room for interpretation - if you are prepared to talk to people who act wrongly in your eyes to try to get them to stop, then this is demonstrating lack of commitment to America. If you are a good citizen of America, you do your duty - by donating to the Republicans.

America could do with 8 years of Obama, perhaps and if he is the Democrat who stands I hope he wins comfortably. I hope he uses the time wisely before the electorate changes its mind again and elects another individual about who the biggest debate is whether he's more stupid than dangerous, more dangerous than stupid, or far too much of both.

scoobs
06-03-2008, 12:08 AM
Sorry, but no. If certain people treat you as badly as these captors treated McCain, you don't call these awful, evil people a word that is used in the West to pejoratively refer to the entire East Asian population.

You don't choose to call the Asians you like by their names but call the Asians you hate or consider evil "gooks." You don't choose to call black people you like "black people" and the black people who mistreat you "niggers." You certainly don't get to do that if you're a public figure running for office. Sorry, but that's not how it works, and being an honorable public servant and former POW doesn't grant you carte blanche to be a racist idiot.

Considering how McCain and his ilk regularly rationalize/justify our own use of torture in the "war on terror," for him to turn around and say that it's okay to be racist and hateful because he was referring to being tortured by wartime captors is pretty ridiculous.
In fairness, McCain is anti-torture.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 12:26 AM
In fairness, McCain is anti-torture.
Right - John McCain advocates shutting down Guantánamo, his categoric opposition to waterboarding would also be a notable mention.

scoobs
06-03-2008, 12:44 AM
Really? He voted against a ban on waterboarding in February.

(EDIT: Despite unambiguously calling waterboarding a form of torture in Oct. 2007, I might add.)
Did he?

If we were in the 2004 election, wouldn't that be called a FLIP FLOP!

Rather disappointing of him. Still he needs to shore up his conservative base, does he not - suspension of a few morals required no doubt.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 12:48 AM
Sorry, but no. If certain people treat you as badly as these captors treated McCain, you don't call these awful, evil people a word that is used in the West to pejoratively refer to the entire East Asian population.
I understand where you're coming from, admittedly, you do have a valid point, but I just think it's unfair to punish John McCain for a relatively minor mistake that he made in addressing a period of time in his life which changed the mold of his character, after all these years those scars and the damage remain with him -- time has not healed his wounds.

It was a Freudian slip of monumental proportions, but it's received little press coverage -- even from liberal media outlets such as MSNBC, so that would lead me to believe that it's water under the bridge.

You don't choose to call the Asians you like by their names but call the Asians you hate or consider evil "gooks." You don't choose to call black people you like "black people" and the black people who mistreat you "niggers." You certainly don't get to do that if you're a public figure running for office. Sorry, but that's not how it works, and being an honorable public servant and former POW doesn't grant you carte blanche to be a racist idiot.
John McCain was one of the very few Republicans to publicly speak out against discrimination against interracial couples, he is known for his fairness, bipartisanship and has proven himself trustworthy throughout his lengthy political career.

He obviously made a mistake, but that doesn't change his character. Most Americans know John McCain as an honorable man, perhaps even a hero and if people are going to try painting him as this senile racist whose only interest is promoting wars, then I think they are going to be very disappointed with the results in November.

John McCain is a good man -- did he make a mistake ? Yes. We all make mistakes, the real racism has come directly from the Democratic side of the aisle; take into consideration the Kennedy family's strong anti-semitic views which can be traced back to the days of Joseph Kennedy and to this very day continue to exist in this so-called paradise often referred to as Camelot.

If making a racist remark or two were grounds to have your presidential campaign terminated, no single Democrat would ever be elected as they've all been linked to racism in various forms.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 12:50 AM
Really? He voted against a ban on waterboarding in February.

(EDIT: Despite unambiguously calling waterboarding a form of torture in Oct. 2007, I might add.)

John has been changing his positions in a futile attempt to make himself more appealing to the conservative branch of the Republican Party.

I really doubt that vote accurately reflects his views.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 01:21 AM
On another topic, what I don't understand is why Obama keeps trying to paint McCain as: "Four more years of Bush." If Republicans have been losing formerly safe House seats to Democrats even though they tried their best to paint these conservative Democrats as being cut from the same cloth as Obama or "San-Francisco-style Democrat" Pelosi, :spit: what makes the Dems think that calling McCain a Bush clone is a good strategy for Nov.?
I completely agree with you, it is a rather questionable strategy and one that will be terribly ineffective, mostly because it's common knowledge that John McCain is the very antithesis of President Bush, if you don't believe me take a look at some of those vicious ads he ran against him in 2000 during his bid for the Republican nomination.

The Bush administration denied the existence of the global warming phenomenon for ages (perhaps denied is too strong of a word, more like they've been reluctant to really address it as an issue) only recently have they finally acknowledged it -- to some extent at least, while John McCain has been pushing this as an issue almost as much as Al Gore.

John McCain has essentially vowed to destroy all that has to do with President Bush, including his garbage policies -- with the exception of the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq, aside from that the two are like night and day.

Sadly enough, I can't figure out which is more liberal between the two of them. President Bush is only a conservative when it suits him, like speaking out against environmentalism and efforts to spend tax payer money in an effort to save polar bears and the rain forest, conversely when it comes to issues like immigration he starts reciting the usual talking points of the neoconservative agenda.

I mean, the differences are there, even if they seem microscopic and might be difficult to communicate to the general public, which is what John McCain must do to win the election.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 01:30 AM
:yeah: :worship: :yeah:
http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/barack-obama.jpg

prima donna
06-03-2008, 01:38 AM
:yeah: :worship: :yeah:
http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/barack-obama.jpg

This man is not winning the election.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 01:46 AM
Obama Now Says He Would Not Promise To Meet With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad After Repeatedly Saying That He Would

Yesterday, Obama Said That He Would Not Necessarily Meet With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:
Obama Said He Would Not Necessarily Meet With Ahmadinejad. "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08)
"'There's No Reason Why We Would Necessarily Meet With Ahmadinejad Before We Know That He Was Actually In Power. He's Not The Most Powerful Person In Iran,' Obama Told Reporters While Campaigning In New Mexico." (Caren Bohan, "Obama Says Won't Guarantee Ahmadinejad A Meeting," Reuters, 5/26/08)

But In July 2007, Obama Said He Would Meet With The Leaders Of Hostile Foreign Nations, Including Iran:
At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations "Without Precondition." Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

Click Here To Watch Obama Say "I Would" Meet Unconditionally With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria, And Other Nations. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Oj7Jn9rv4)
Obama Repeatedly Has Stood By His Position That He Would Meet With Rogue Leaders, Including Ahmadinejad:
In A September 2007 Press Conference, Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet Specifically With Ahmadinejad. Question: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President Ahmadinejad ..." Obama: "Uh huh." Question: "Would you still meet with him today?" Obama: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but w e should never fear to negotiate. And by us listening to the views even of those who we violently disagree with - that sends a signal to the world that we are going to turn the page on the failed diplomacy that the Bush Administration has practiced for so long." (Sen. Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York, NY, 9/24/07)
In December 2007, Obama Said He Was Not Afraid Of "Losing A Propaganda War" By Reaching Out To Hostile Leaders Like Ahmadinejad. Obama: "[I]'ve got to say I'm not afraid of losing a propaganda war to somebody like Ahmadinejad. You know, strong countries and strong presidents speak with their adversaries. I--I always think back to J.F.K.'s saying that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we shouldn't fear to negotiate. We remain the most powerful nation, by far, on earth. Our military capacity is unequaled. We should not hesitate to go ahead and initiate the kinds of discussions that are required." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/11/07)
At A December 2007 Debate, Obama Said He Would Talk Directly To Iran, Even Though It Would "Not Necessarily ... Change Ahmadinejad's Mind." Obama: "We need to send a strong signal that we are going to talk directly to not just our friends but also to our enemies. And I have to say that when I brought this up early on in this campaign, I was called naive and irresponsible. And yet the point, the reason for that was not necessarily because we're going to change Ahmadinejad's mind. It's because we're going to change the minds of people inside Iran, moderate forces inside Iran, as well as our Muslim allies around the region, that we are willing to listen to them and try to engage in finding ways to resolve conflicts cooperatively." (Sen. Barack Obama, National Public Radio Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Des Moines, IA, 12/4/07)
On "Meet The Press" This Month, Obama Reiterated His Position That "We've Got To Talk Directly To Iran." Obama: "I have consistently said that we've got to talk directly to Iran, send them a clear message that they have to stop, not only with their potential funding of militias inside of Iraq, but they also have to stop funding Hamas, they have to stop funding Hezbollah, they've got to stand down on their nuclear weapons. There will be continued consequences for those kinds of actions, but that here are also some carrots and possible benefits if they change behavior. Those kinds of direct talks have not taken place. That's the kind of change in foreign policy that I plan to put in place when I'm President of the United States." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/4/08)

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 03:52 AM
This man is not winning the election.

he will win it and it wont be close.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 04:47 AM
he will win it and it wont be close.
Do you understand how the Electoral College works ? Also, when was the last time any Democrat won by a landslide ? Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to be elected to successive terms, yet you're trying to convince me that an African-American that belongs to the Democratic party is going to wipe the floor with John McCain.

That absolutely epitomizes absurdity. General Elections are decided in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Kentucky and New Hampshire.

Obama lost Ohio by 10% and is trailing John McCain. (Bellweather State)
Obama lost Florida and is a virtual tie with John McCain. (Bellweather State)
Obama won Missouri by a percentage point. (Bellweather State)
Obama lost West Virginia by a landslide.
Obama lost Kentucky by a landslide.
Obama lost New Hampshire after being declared the winner by the media.
Obama lost Pennsylvania by 10%, polls are within the margin of error.

John McCain is leading in New Hampshire, Kentucky, West Virginia, Missouri and Ohio - he's running close in Iowa, Florida and Pennsylvania.

General Elections are not decided based on caucusing or what the majority think in overwhelmingly liberal states like California (which Obama lost in the primary as well, but the state is so liberal that he will most likely carry it comfortably).

Barack Obama being elected as the next president would be a miraculous occurrence.

Bibberz
06-03-2008, 05:49 AM
I don't think "Four More Years of Bush" will be an ineffective slogan. It's succinct and memorable--it will have resonance if it's repeated enough times. Never mind whether it's true or not.

The Democrats haven't done anything productive since 2006, so there's no reason to believe that formerly safe Republican districts are now blue for good.

I will definitely support Obama in the general election, but I know better than to get my hopes up too high. I expect McCain to win.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 12:37 PM
I don't think "Four More Years of Bush" will be an ineffective slogan. It's succinct and memorable--it will have resonance if it's repeated enough times. Never mind whether it's true or not.

Aren't Democrats supposedly the party opposed to propaganda techniques ?

Sparko1030
06-03-2008, 02:49 PM
I don't think "Four More Years of Bush" will be an ineffective slogan. It's succinct and memorable--it will have resonance if it's repeated enough times. Never mind whether it's true or not.

Actually, the more I hear from McCain, the more that slogan seems true. More of the same in Iraq-for possibly the next 100 yrs. Make the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent-hey, that's the new Republican way-wage a war AND reduce taxes :yeah: Never mind that funding a war is very expensive, the very rich shouldn't have to help pay for it should they? (AND that wouldn't be the cause of our ever increasing deficit and decreasing value of the dollar would it :retard: ) Now McCain, who once seemed to be a more middle of the ground sort of guy on social issues, has taken a sharp turn to the right. Hmmmmm....seems like a McCain presidnecy would be like 4 more yrs to me only McCain is funnier and appears to have a better command of the English language :devil: :rolls:

It is especially becuase McCain seems to be embracing Bush's legacy (if not the poor guy himself :lol: -hard for Bush to find any friends now that his numbers are at an all time low :awww: ) that we dems need to unite behind whoever our nominee is to defeat him this fall. (And I'm hoping McCain picks our governor Pawlenty as his VP canididate and we can get rid of two birds with one stone as the saying goes ;) )

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 05:50 PM
Obama lost Ohio by 10% and is trailing John McCain. (Bellweather State)
Obama lost Florida and is a virtual tie with John McCain. (Bellweather State)
Obama won Missouri by a percentage point. (Bellweather State)
Obama lost West Virginia by a landslide.
Obama lost Kentucky by a landslide.
Obama lost New Hampshire after being declared the winner by the media.
Obama lost Pennsylvania by 10%, polls are within the margin of error.

.


lost to who, Clinton? majority of those people will vote for Obama once Clinton tells them to vote for him.
Dems have more voters then Reps and Independents are sick of the Reps. easy win.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 05:55 PM
Democrat Barack Obama has opened an 8-point national lead on Republican John McCain as the U.S. presidential rivals turn their focus to a general election race
:)

Obama led McCain among independents, 47 percent to 35 percent

:) :)

McCain led among NASCAR fans

:haha:

Adler
06-03-2008, 06:01 PM
All Americans are so aggresive and impulsive when it comes to political discussions. I'm talking abot the likes of Coulter, of course

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 06:29 PM
http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/blog/NationalHeadToHead03.gif

buddyholly
06-03-2008, 06:40 PM
They operated on Kennedy's brain. Does that mean he is really a Republican?

Dirk
06-03-2008, 06:54 PM
Obama will lose on hugely. Sadly McCain will ruined the country because the house and senate will likely increase to the dems and since McCain will never inspire any kind of conservative turn out that will mean that the "Cap and Tax" bill will go through as will the Shamnesty which will send this country into a third world state. To dispel some myths here, the Iraq war even with all of his terrible fraudulent funding mistakes is only taking up about 6 % of the GDP which is lower than prior wars. It is domestic spending that is destroying the country thanks to Bush and Rinos. The Tax Cuts were for EVERY Bracket. The evil rich pay about about 85% of the damn taxes and plus this country was founded on low taxation, private property rights, and religious freedom. The only good republican candidate was Tom Tancredo. The GOP voters did absolutely no homework and that is how we got Romney, McCain, and huckabee in the top tier and none of them are conservative.

Dirk
06-03-2008, 06:55 PM
http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/blog/NationalHeadToHead03.gif

Wait until you see how many of those white dems cross over for McCain come November. The racist in this country has mostly always been on the Dem side. Look at the civil rights bill voting. A greater % of GOP members voted for it than Dems, yet the dems are the heroes because they have thrown freebies at the blacks which did nothing but spread more poverty and helped to destroy the black family.

Dirk
06-03-2008, 06:56 PM
They operated on Kennedy's brain. Does that mean he is really a Republican?

The only Republican in that family would be JFK if he was alive today. The poor guy wouldn't be even able to sit at his own table.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 07:11 PM
http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/blog/NationalHeadToHead03.gif
Do you understand the concept of the Electoral College ? Al Gore won the popular vote against President Bush in 2000, yet he still lost the election.

Can you guess why ? (For the conspiracy theorists: No, it's not because President Bush contacted his brother who was the governor at the time and had the voting process rigged).

This is one of the major problems with Obama supporters, most of them are so new to the political scene -- or just completely ignore the concept of how a president is elected, in any case they seem incapable of distinguishing between a Democratic primary and General Election; which are two completely different things.

I've given you the numbers, John McCain is winning or running very close in the states that he needs. I'm quite sure that our forefathers chose to implement this type of system for the specific purpose of not allowing the presidential election to become a popularity contest.

Arcane fact about the General Election:
Contrary to the Democratic process, there is no such thing as caucusing.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/florida.html
Ohio: 20 Electoral Votes - Polls: + 4.0 McCain, + 1.0 McCain (Rasmussen), + 1.3 Obama, +9.0 Obama
Florida: 27 Electoral Votes - + 8.3, +4.0, +10.0, +11.0 - McCain
Pennsylvania: 21 Electoral Votes + 5.8, +2.0, + 6.0, +8.0 - Obama
Missouri: 11 Electoral Votes + 6.0, +8.0, +15.0, +14.0 - McCain

prima donna
06-03-2008, 07:24 PM
The GOP voters did absolutely no homework and that is how we got Romney, McCain, and huckabee in the top tier and none of them are conservative.
I agree with almost everything you said, but in all fairness, John McCain was chosen for us by the mainstream media.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 07:30 PM
This is one of the major problems with Obama supporters, most of them are so new to the political scene -- or just completely ignore the concept of how a president is elected, in any case they seem incapable of distinguishing between a Democratic primary and General Election; which are two completely different things.



problem with Reps is that they're in denial, its all over in Nov. Vamos Obama.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 07:35 PM
http://www.surveyusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/mccain-obama-final.png

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 07:37 PM
http://life.atlantafalcons.com/assets/falcons/forums/images/ee044476-50a3-4214-aefa-916d.JPG

prima donna
06-03-2008, 07:48 PM
Obama is not winning Reagan Democrats, which is what the demographic in Ohio consists of for the most part, which debunks that theory.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 08:01 PM
Obama is not winning Reagan Democrats, which is what the demographic in Ohio consists of for the most part, which debunks that theory.

that must be true since you said it.

the Reps "scare them straight with terror bs" tactic wont work this time around

prima donna
06-03-2008, 08:05 PM
that must be true since you said it.

the Reps "scare them straight with terror bs" tactic wont work this time around
Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause
By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; A01

Danielle Ross was alone in an empty room at the Obama campaign headquarters in Kokomo, Ind., a cellphone in one hand, a voter call list in the other. She was stretched out on the carpeted floor wearing laceless sky-blue Converses, stories from the trail on her mind. It was the day before Indiana's primary, and she had just been chased by dogs while canvassing in a Kokomo suburb. But that was not the worst thing to occur since she postponed her sophomore year at Middle Tennessee State University (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Middle+Tennessee+State+University?tid=informline), in part to hopscotch America stumping for Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline).
Here's the worst: In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Wal-Mart+Stores+Inc.?tid=informline) parking lot, and they ran into "a horrible response," as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.
"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person,' " recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."
For all the hope and excitement Obama's candidacy is generating, some of his field workers, phone-bank volunteers and campaign surrogates are encountering a raw racism and hostility that have gone largely unnoticed -- and unreported -- this election season. Doors have been slammed in their faces. They've been called racially derogatory names (including the white volunteers). And they've endured malicious rants and ugly stereotyping from people who can't fathom that the senator from Illinois could become the first African American president.
The contrast between the large, adoring crowds Obama draws at public events and the gritty street-level work to win votes is stark. The candidate is largely insulated from the mean-spiritedness that some of his foot soldiers deal with away from the media spotlight.
Victoria Switzer, a retired social studies teacher, was on phone-bank duty one night during the Pennsylvania primary campaign. One night was all she could take: "It wasn't pretty." She made 60 calls to prospective voters in Susquehanna County (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Susquehanna+County?tid=informline), her home county, which is 98 percent white. The responses were dispiriting. One caller, Switzer remembers, said he couldn't possibly vote for Obama and concluded: "Hang that darky from a tree!"
Documentary filmmaker Rory Kennedy, the daughter of the late Robert F. Kennedy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Robert+F.+Kennedy?tid=informline), said she, too, came across "a lot of racism" when campaigning for Obama in Pennsylvania. One Pittsburgh union organizer told her he would not vote for Obama because he is black, and a white voter, she said, offered this frank reason for not backing Obama: "White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people."
Obama campaign officials say such incidents are isolated, that the experience of most volunteers and staffers has been overwhelmingly positive.
The campaign released this statement in response to questions about encounters with racism: "After campaigning for 15 months in nearly all 50 states, Barack Obama and our entire campaign have been nothing but impressed and encouraged by the core decency, kindness, and generosity of Americans from all walks of life. The last year has only reinforced Senator Obama's view that this country is not as divided as our politics suggest."
Campaign field work can be an exercise in confronting the fears, anxieties and prejudices of voters. Veterans of the civil rights movement know what this feels like, as do those who have been involved in battles over busing, immigration or abortion. But through the Obama campaign, some young people are having their first experience joining a cause and meeting cruel reaction.
On Election Day in Kokomo, a group of black high school students were holding up Obama signs along U.S. 31, a major thoroughfare. As drivers cruised by, a number of them rolled down their windows and yelled out a common racial slur for African Americans, according to Obama campaign staffers.
Frederick Murrell, a black Kokomo High School senior, was not there but heard what happened. He was more disappointed than surprised. During his own canvassing for Obama, Murrell said, he had "a lot of doors slammed" in his face. But taunting teenagers on a busy commercial strip in broad daylight? "I was very shocked at first," Murrell said. "Then again, I wasn't, because we have a lot of racism here."
The bigotry has gone beyond words. In Vincennes, the Obama campaign office was vandalized at 2 a.m. on the eve of the primary, according to police. A large plate-glass window was smashed, an American flag stolen. Other windows were spray-painted with references to Obama's controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jeremiah+Wright?tid=informline), and other political messages: "Hamas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hamas?tid=informline) votes BHO" and "We don't cling to guns or religion. Goddamn Wright."
Ray McCormick was notified of the incident at about 2:45 a.m. A farmer and conservationist, McCormick had erected a giant billboard on a major highway on behalf of Farmers for Obama. He also was housing the Obama campaign worker manning the office. When McCormick arrived at the office, about two hours before he was due out of bed to plant corn, he grabbed his camera and wanted to alert the media. "I thought, this is a big deal." But he was told Obama campaign officials didn't want to make a big deal of the incident. McCormick took photos anyway and distributed some.
"The pictures represent what we are breaking through and overcoming," he said. As McCormick, who is white, sees it, Obama is succeeding despite these incidents. Later, there would be bomb threats to three Obama campaign offices in Indiana, including the one in Vincennes, according to campaign sources.
Obama has not spoken much about racism during this campaign. He has sought to emphasize connections among Americans rather than divisions. He shrugged off safety concerns that led to early Secret Service (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Secret+Service?tid=informline) protection and has told black senior citizens who worry that racists will do him harm: Don't fret. Earlier in the campaign, a 68-year-old woman in Carson City, Nev., voiced concern that the country was not ready to elect an African American president.
"Will there be some folks who probably won't vote for me because I am black? Of course," Obama said, "just like there may be somebody who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman or wouldn't vote for John Edwards (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/John+Edwards+%28Politician%29?tid=informline) because they don't like his accent. But the question is, 'Can we get a majority of the American people to give us a fair hearing?' "
Obama has won 30 of 50 Democratic contests so far, the kind of nationwide electoral triumph no black candidate has ever realized. That he is on the brink of capturing the Democratic nomination, some say, is a testament to how far the country has progressed in overcoming racism and evidence of Obama's skill at bridging divides.
Obama has won five of 12 primaries in which black voters made up less than 10 percent of the electorate, and caucuses in states such as Idaho and Wyoming that are overwhelmingly white. But exit polls show he has struggled to attract white voters who didn't attend college and earn less than $50,000 a year. Today, he and Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Hillary+Clinton?tid=informline) square off in West Virginia, a state where she is favored and where the votes of working-class whites will again be closely watched.
For the most part, Obama campaign workers say, the 2008 election cycle has been exhilarating. On the ground, the Obama campaign is being driven by youngsters, many of whom are imbued with an optimism undeterred by racial intolerance. "We've grown up in a different world," says Danielle Ross. Field offices are staffed by 20-somethings who hold positions -- state director, regional field director, field organizer -- that are typically off limits to newcomers to presidential politics.
Gillian Bergeron, 23, was in charge of a five-county regional operation in northeastern Pennsylvania. The oldest member of her team was 27. At Scranton's annual Saint Patrick's Day parade, some of the green Obama signs distributed by staffers were burned along the parade route. That was the first signal that this wasn't exactly Obama country. There would be others.
In a letter to the editor published in a local paper, Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball explained his support of Hillary Clinton this way: "Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don't know about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him.
"No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."
Obama's campaign workers have grown wearily accustomed to the lies about the candidate's supposed radical Muslim ties and lack of patriotism. But they are sometimes astonished when public officials such as Ball or others representing the campaign of their opponent traffic in these falsehoods.
Karen Seifert, a volunteer from New York, was outside of the largest polling location in Lackawanna County (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Lackawanna+County?tid=informline), Pa., on primary day when she was pressed by a Clinton volunteer to explain her backing of Obama. "I trust him," Seifert replied. According to Seifert, the woman pointed to Obama's face on Seifert's T-shirt and said: "He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?"
* * *
Pollsters have found it difficult to accurately measure racial attitudes, as some voters are unwilling to acknowledge the role that race plays in their thinking. But some are not. Susan Dzimian, a Clinton supporter who owns residential properties, said outside a polling location in Kokomo that race was a factor in how she viewed Obama. "I think if it was somebody other than him, I'd accept it," she said of a black candidate. "If Colin Powell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Colin+Powell?tid=informline) had run, I would be willing to accept him."
The previous evening, Dondra Ewing was driving the neighborhoods of Kokomo, looking to turn around voters like Dzimian. Ewing, 47, is a chain-smoking middle school guidance counselor, a black single mother of two and one of the most fiercely vigilant Obama volunteers in Kokomo, which was once a Ku Klux Klan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ku+Klux+Klan?tid=informline) stronghold. On July 4, 1923, Kokomo hosted the largest Klan gathering in history -- an estimated 200,000 followers flocked to a local park. But these are not the 1920s, and Ewing believes she can persuade anybody to back Obama. Her mother, after all, was the first African American elected at-large to the school board in a community that is 10 percent black.
Kokomo, population 46,000, is another hard-hit Midwestern industrial town stung by layoffs. Longtimers wistfully remember the glory years of Continental Steel and speak mournfully about the jobs shipped overseas. Kokomo Sanitary Pottery, which made bathroom sinks and toilets, shut down a couple of months ago and took with it 150 jobs.
Aaron Roe, 23, was mowing lawns at a local cemetery recently, lamenting his $8-an-hour job with no benefits. He had earned a community college degree as an industrial electrician, but learned there was no electrical work to be found for someone with his experience, which is to say none. Politics wasn't on his mind; frustration was. If he were to vote, it would not be for Obama, he said. "I just got a funny feeling about him," Roe said, a feeling he couldn't specify, except to say race wasn't a part of it. "Race ain't nothing," said Roe, who is white. "It's how they're going to help the country."
The Aaron Roes are exactly who Dondra Ewing was after: people with funny feelings.
At the Bradford Run Apartments, she found Robert Cox, a retiree who spent 30 years working for an electronics manufacturer making computer chips. He was in his suspenders, grilling shish kebab, which he had never eaten. "Something new," Cox said, recommended by his son who was visiting from Colorado.
Ewing was selling him hard on Obama. "There are more than two families that can run the United States of America," she said, "and their names aren't Bush and Clinton."
"Yeah, I know, I know," Cox said, remaining noncommittal.
He opened the grill and peeked at the kebabs. "It's not his race, because I got real good friends and all that," Cox continued. "If anything would keep him from getting elected, it would be his name. It might turn off some older people."
Like him?
"No, older than me," said Cox, 66.
Ewing kept talking, until finally Cox said, "Probably Obama," when asked directly how he would vote.
As she walked away, Ewing said: "I think we got him."
But truthfully, she wasn't feeling so sure.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 08:35 PM
Mr. Obama has already raised three times as much money as Mr. McCain. And the combination of his Internet appeals and the Clinton donors could lift his fundraising total to an eye-popping $400 million to $500 million, practically ensuring that the Democrats could outspend the Republicans in the Nov. 4 election and mount larger advertising and get-out-the-vote drives than ever before.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 08:41 PM
Mr. Obama has already raised three times as much money as Mr. McCain. And the combination of his Internet appeals and the Clinton donors could lift his fundraising total to an eye-popping $400 million to $500 million, practically ensuring that the Democrats could outspend the Republicans in the Nov. 4 election and mount larger advertising and get-out-the-vote drives than ever before.
This will hardly compensate for the abandonment of Reagan Democrats due to the nomination of an African-American candidate.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 08:49 PM
the sooner you get of the denial phase the less painful this will be.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/03/poll-obama-has-edge-over-mccain/

So even before Obama begins campaigning to the 50% of democrats supporting Hillary, he still beats McCain. Once Hillary steps forward and endorses Obama, hopefully most Hillary supporters will support Obama and he will blow him out in November.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 08:51 PM
Clinton says she's open to being VP
Posted: 03:50 PM ET

From CNN's Candy Crowley and Jim Acosta

(CNN) — Hillary Clinton told New York lawmakers Tuesday she is open to serving as Barack Obama's running mate, two sources tell CNN

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux reported Monday that Clinton began to informally signal her interest in the No. 2 spot after her overwhelming win in Puerto Rico over the weekend.

New York Rep. Charles Rangel, a major Clinton supporter, told CNN Tuesday that he has "reason to believe she is open to the V.P. slot."

Clinton's comments came in a conference call with New York supporters earlier Tuesday. Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez told Clinton a joint ticket was the best way for Obama to win.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, according to the AP.

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 08:52 PM
Game Set Match Obama.

prima donna
06-03-2008, 08:54 PM
Okay - this discussion has become way too sophomoric for my liking.

Let's just wait for the results in November.

Dirk
06-03-2008, 09:18 PM
I agree with almost everything you said, but in all fairness, John McCain was chosen for us by the mainstream media.

Yep and the GOP voters allowed it. I hope he picks a conservative VP or he could really lose it. Jerry I know you were not around when Carter was president but I assure you if your black panther gets in, you will know why he was such a huge failure which led to Reagan kicking his ass and becoming one of the all time great presidents in USA. If we have to go through another Carter to get another Reagan then I will gladly endure the marxist.

Bibberz
06-03-2008, 10:35 PM
Yep and the GOP voters allowed it. I hope he picks a conservative VP or he could really lose it. Jerry I know you were not around when Carter was president but I assure you if your black panther gets in, you will know why he was such a huge failure which led to Reagan kicking his ass and becoming one of the all time great presidents in USA. If we have to go through another Carter to get another Reagan then I will gladly endure the marxist.

Reagans don't grow on trees, my friend. Besides, the Cold War is a distant memory and I don't see how the U.S. could assert itself abroad as it did in the 1980s.

buddyholly
06-03-2008, 10:45 PM
With reference to the above article on racism: Obama has been a member of a black racist church all his adult life. So I can't imagine why Obama supporters are surprised when they encounter racism. Unless they are so PC that they think racism is a one-way street.

MusicMyst
06-03-2008, 10:56 PM
Jerry!, please make your signature a little larger. The astronauts on the ISS can't see it. :rolleyes:

El Legenda
06-03-2008, 11:31 PM
Jerry!, please make your signature a little larger. The astronauts on the ISS can't see it. :rolleyes:

:D

scoobs
06-04-2008, 11:22 PM
GEtZlR3zp4c

El Legenda
06-04-2008, 11:40 PM
:lol:

prima donna
06-05-2008, 12:18 AM
http://www.anncoulter.org/images/logo.gif

OBAMA WAS SELECTED, NOT ELECTED
by Ann Coulter
June 4, 2008

Words mean nothing to liberals. They say whatever will help advance their cause at the moment, switch talking points in a heartbeat, and then act indignant if anyone uses the exact same argument they were using five minutes ago.

When Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election by half a percentage point, but lost the Electoral College -- or, for short, "the constitutionally prescribed method for choosing presidents" -- anyone who denied the sacred importance of the popular vote was either an idiot or a dangerous partisan.

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules. In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

Any state could abolish general elections for president tomorrow and have the legislature pick the electors. States could also abolish their winner-take-all method of choosing presidential electors -- as Nebraska and Maine have already done, allowing their electors to be allocated in proportion to the popular vote. And of course there's always the option of voting electors off the island one by one.

If presidential elections were popular vote contests, Bush might have spent more than five minutes campaigning in big liberal states like California and New York. But under a winner-take-all regime, close doesn't count. If a Republican doesn't have a chance to actually win a state, he may as well lose in a landslide. Using the same logic, Gore didn't spend a lot of time campaigning in Texas (and Walter Mondale campaigned exclusively in Minnesota).

Consequently, under both the law and common sense, the famed "popular vote" is utterly irrelevant to presidential elections. It would be like the winner of "Miss Congeniality" claiming that title also made her "Miss America." Obviously, Bush might well have won the popular vote, but he would have used a completely different campaign strategy.

By contrast, there are no constitutional rules to follow with party primaries. Primaries are specifically designed by the parties to choose their strongest candidate for the general election.

Hillary's argument that she won the popular vote is manifestly relevant to that determination. Our brave Hillary has every right to take her delegates to the Democratic National Convention and put her case to a vote. She is much closer to B. Hussein Obama than the sainted Teddy Kennedy was to Carter in 1980 when Teddy staged an obviously hopeless rules challenge at the convention. (I mean rules about choosing the candidate, not rules about crushed ice at after-parties.)

And yet every time Hillary breathes a word about her victory in the popular vote, TV hosts respond with sneering contempt at her gaucherie for even mentioning it. (Of course, if popularity mattered, networks like MSNBC wouldn't exist. That's a station that depends entirely on "superviewers.")

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

In the Democrats' "1984" world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

prima donna
06-05-2008, 12:49 AM
ap2Cg_FDRy4[/quote]

scoobs
06-05-2008, 01:01 AM
She's quite funny if you refuse to take her seriously at all.

El Legenda
06-05-2008, 01:03 AM
:lol:
clinton won the popular vote, Oh really. yeah lets count states she needs and not the ones Obama won.

prima donna
06-05-2008, 09:46 PM
Five Ways for McCain to Beat Obama
by Jennifer Rubin (http://www.menstennisforums.com/search.php?author_name=Jennifer+Rubin)



NATIONAL SECURITY

First and foremost, McCain must make the argument clearly and emphatically: Obama’s view of the world is naïve and his qualifications and ability to navigate through dangerous times are entirely lacking. Obama contends that his unbending opposition to the Iraq war is a net plus. That might be true if the election were in 2006 but events on the ground and public opinion, despite Obama’s denials, have shifted dramatically. Rather than adjust with reality his view of Iraq remains frozen. The surge has reduced violence, the Iraq Parliament has voted in favor of a partial amnesty bill and new budget and American public opinion has recognized progress.

In an early February CNN poll in response to the question “In general, do you think the U.S. military is or is not making progress in improving conditions in Iraq and bringing an end to the violence in that country?" voters said “Yes” by a margin of 52-45%. If the war was managed badly, McCain certainly can contend that the policy he championed made things better while the policy of immediate retreat which Obama still favors would spell defeat and chaos for American and its allies.

Aside from Iraq, McCain can argue convincingly to conservatives and moderates that Obama is the captive of the liberal civil rights lobby and does not even represent the middle of the Democratic Party. His recent vote on the reauthorization for the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) was telling. Obama voted against cloture on the issue of immunity for the telecommunications companies that assisted in terrorist surveillance. Not even liberal Senators Diane Feinstein and Barbara Mikulski agreed with that position.

In short, not since George McGovern has the difference between presidential candidates been so great. McCain, even his most dogged conservative critics would agree, is suited to point out that this is no time to hand the White House over to a man whose first travel plans will be to the living rooms of the world’s worst dictators. McCain can phrase the question simply: Who do Americans trust to go toe to toe with the world tyrants?

THE COURTS

Barack Obama voted against confirmation of Justices Samuel Alito John Roberts. He took exception when the Supreme Court voted to uphold the partial birth abortion ban. He declined to sign the brief by 55 Senator and 250 members of Congress in favor of upholding the D.C. Circuit case invalidating the ban on handgun ownership. He called the Supreme Court decision last year invalidating assignment of children by race “a serious obstacle in the way of achieving the vision of America.”

In short, Obama looks at the courts through the lens of the liberal civil rights lobby: the courts are there to achieve “progress” on the liberal agenda that could never be enacted by the elected branches of government. Most Americans do not favor handgun bans, abortion on demand or race-based affirmative action. They do not think the courts are the proper vehicle for imposing that agenda on the country. McCain can make clear how radical Obama’s view of the courts is and how out of step he is with most Americans’ values.

WHAT HAS HE DONE?

His supporters are fond of comparing Obama to John Kennedy, but Kennedy had served in the military, the House of Representatives (1947-53) and the U.S. Senate (1953-1960) before entering the White House. Barack Obama has served approximately 3 years in the U.S. Senate. (Yes, he also was a state legislator for 8 years.) The paucity of accomplishment and the lack of executive experience is laughable.

While Democratic primary voters can hardly be blamed for preferring his inexperience to another Clinton regime, the choice in the general election will be between him and someone who actually has been tested in crisis and has a record of accomplishment. Focus group guru Frank Luntz reports that he can utterly stump his focus-group voters by asking to name a single Obama accomplishment.

While music videos and chants of “Yes We can” may amuse stadiums of college students and fixate the media, McCain’s best bet is to point to the stature gap and hope that after another 6 months the Obama-hoopla wears thin. We are, after all, electing a president.

INDEPENDENTS

McCain’s positions on topics such as campaign finance reform and the environment have little appeal for his own party’s base but have helped attracted Independent voters who, in many primaries, provided the margin of his victory. Some of them were voters who fled the Republican Party in the 2006 over earmarks and corruption.

The battle for the Independents is a key struggle in each presidential election and for once the Republican seems to have an inside track. For Independents who like “bipartisanship,” McCain (as conservative know all too well) has a long record of cooperating with the other party. For those who like “good government” few have done more than McCain to go after earmarks, corruption and pork barrel spending. Framing that issue for these voters is easy: which contender has the ability to fix Washington and which one is as far from the middle-of –the-road than any nominee in a generation?

HE’LL GIVE YOU CHANGE ALRIGHT

The number of American who say we are on the “right track” grows smaller each month. (The latest AP poll put that number at 25%.) Which is why Obama’s change message has resonated, especially with disgruntled Democratic primary voters. McCain’s task is to explain what will change and why his will be better. Several things Obama will change for the worse: tax rates, the bipartisan commitment to free trade, secret ballots in union elections, and the private healthcare system.

Obama has made clear that he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts and lift the current cap on wages subject to social security tax. His website candidly declares: “Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security.”

He also would like to revisit NAFTA. (His website explains “NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people.”) While he declares his intention to “fix” NAFTA, the savvier will see that this is code language for placing requirements on other countries to match U.S. wages and working conditions, the very definition of protectionism.

Obama also thinks secret ballots for union elections are just a means for employers to thwart the will of workers. His website describes the Orwellian titled legislation that would do away with the system of secret ballots: “Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize.” In his world, union bosses will be able to look over the shoulders of workers deciding whether to organize.

His healthcare system will sweep millions of Americans into government run care. Aside from mandatory coverage for all minors (defined as those up to age 25 yrs old) he will construct an enormous government apparatus to determine insurance policies and pricing. (“The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status.”) It may have another name, but it bears a striking resemblance to HillaryCare.

If you need more evidence of his plans to remodel America, his website has all the details. And details are exactly what McCain should focus on. “Change” sounds lovely, even inevitable, but once the level of generalities is broken an underlying reality is made clear: Obama is running on a platform that is nothing more than a liberal wish list.

So if the election is about the best video or the most elegant speaker or “hope” then the Obama wave will likely sweep him into the White House. But if it is about the real world, the future of our courts, the best choice for conservatives and Independents, and the type of change we will have then McCain has a fighting chance.

buddyholly
06-05-2008, 10:57 PM
If I remember right, Nancy Pelosi and gang took over Washington with the promise of CHANGE. After a year and a half, what have the Democrats achieved?

Bibberz
06-05-2008, 11:08 PM
If I remember right, Nancy Pelosi and gang took over Washington with the promise of CHANGE. After a year and a half, what have the Democrats achieved?

Not a whole hell of a lot. I didn't honestly expect them to get anywhere. The President has to sign laws into effect (unless there's a veto override), and he's obviously not on the Democrats' side. Also, the Democrats don't really have a majority in the Senate--especially where Iraq is concerned since Lieberman is fairly loyal to Bush on this issue.

prima donna
06-05-2008, 11:35 PM
In continuation, John McCain will have a decent shot at winning the White House, of course a few things have to happen for that to be made possible, but we have to remind ourselves that lots can change between now and November and I feel there is more than ample time to do so.

If I could offer any advice to him it would be this:

1). Solidify the conservative base of the Republican party, make them understand that you are on their side and don't be afraid to occasionally ignore conventional wisdom which would suggest that preaching populism isn't the strength of the Republican Party. Be aware of the fact that people are suffering at the gas pumps and are desperate for some form of relief, offer them that type of relief by entertaining the part of their brain that is geared towards thinking which primarily focuses on practicality as a means of solving problems. These methods would prove themselves beneficial in persuading social conservatives, with respect to fiscal conservatives, John McCain must choose a running mate that is of the same mold of a Mitt Romney type for instance, it does not necessarily have to be Mitt, but it must be someone that is a fervent fiscal conservative and will appeal to the fiscal conservative desire for low taxation.

2). Go against your rebellious nature and seek out the counsel of Karl Rove, don't be afraid to play dirty. Take advantage of the reluctance that some voters may have about voting for the Democratic nominee by portraying him as an elitist with an agenda that is antithetical of American culture; allow the Republican machine to do its work and focus on your strong points by conveying your message in a positive light, while drawing distinctions between the Democratic nominee that will remain in the heads of the electorate.

3). Preach realism and masked cynicism to counter a false message of hope that is nothing more than an appeal to emotions, make the American people understand that we are in Iraq and withdrawal would compromise our National Security, make them understand that we cannot change the past and must therefore accept the present for what it is, communicate a message that essentially states: Rhetoric won't put food on the table. Also, make them understand that while Senator Obama may have good intentions, he's living in a parallel universe and is therefore naive.

4). Take a page out of the old Reagan playbook by using your age as an advantage over your opponent, use it to make him appear to be inexperienced and therefore lacking is the very wisdom and knowledge we need in a leader during these tough times. Make people understand that we could be in for a long ride and will need a president that can stand strong and resilient by applying wise decision making which is based on learning from the past and thereby not allowing the past to repeat itself.

5). Last but not least and quite possibly the most important, don't be afraid to market and promote yourself. Show up to places that traditionally have been ignored by the Republican Party, paint yourself as the alternative to Barack Obama, as they will most likely already have their own reasons for not wanting to support him, make them understand that you're there to collect the shattered pieces and will not force them to compromise on values or principles. Don't be afraid to constantly make reference to your extensive military career. Show them that you are a true patriot and make them feel like you belong to their world, paint the Democratic nominee's world as a parallel universe, an idealistic liberal living in another dimension (Quixotism)

People fear the unknown.

To summarize:
1). Solidify your conservative base.
2). Focus on campaigning and allow the Republican strategists to do their job which entails depicting Senator Obama as an elitist.
3). Give 'em some straight talk.
4). Emphasize your experience.
5). Make yourself the alternative to Barack H. Obama.

scoobs
06-05-2008, 11:40 PM
If I remember right, Nancy Pelosi and gang took over Washington with the promise of CHANGE. After a year and a half, what have the Democrats achieved?
You know they can't get much done with the presidential veto and the inability to muster 60 votes to break a filibuster in the first place.

At least now they have been asking questions of what the Republicans have been doing for 8 years in subcommittees and stopping the Republicans ramming their agenda through courtesy of having control of all three branches of the Government.

prima donna
06-05-2008, 11:56 PM
Ironically enough, this time around the Democrats are doing the fear-mongering by incessantly mentioning President Bush and wrongfully claiming that John McCain would be merely an extension of the current administration.

MusicMyst
06-06-2008, 12:14 AM
If I remember right, Nancy Pelosi and gang took over Washington with the promise of CHANGE. After a year and a half, what have the Democrats achieved?

Nada, which is why Congress's approval rating makes President Bush look like FDR crossed with Mother Theresa.

Richard_from_Cal
06-06-2008, 12:49 AM
...:whoops:...wrong thread...:smile:

prima donna
06-06-2008, 12:53 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4918487&page=1

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 02:18 AM
Ironically enough, this time around the Democrats are doing the fear-mongering by incessantly mentioning President Bush and wrongfully claiming that John McCain would be merely an extension of the current administration.

:haha: Yeah, that's "fear mongering" alright :rolleyes: The mere thought of another 4 yrs of Bush scares the crap out of even Republicans now. :speakles: Truth is McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time so I think its a fair conclusion to say that his presidency would be a continuation of Bush's. It is completely fair to point out the Senator's voting record-I'm sure the Republicans will do the same with Obama's. It is hilarious though, that the threat of another 4 yrs of Bush is now considered fear mongering :devil: Yeah, there is irony there but not in quite the way you state. Karl Rove and Co. practically took fear mongering to an art form to get Bush into and to stay in office and now you're complaining that pointing out that McCain would be a continuation of Bush is fear mongering? Now that's irony! :rolls:

Oh, and what is the point of putting "Hussein" in Obama's name if not to spread fear that he is a Muslim and even a terrorist sympathizer? Talk about fear mongerning.....

prima donna
06-06-2008, 02:34 AM
:haha: Yeah, that's "fear mongering" alright :rolleyes: The mere thought of another 4 yrs of Bush scares the crap out of even Republicans now. :speakles: Truth is McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time so I think its a fair conclusion to say that his presidency would be a continuation of Bush's. It is completely fair to point out the Senator's voting record-I'm sure the Republicans will do the same with Obama's. It is hilarious though, that the threat of another 4 yrs of Bush is now considered fear mongering :devil: Yeah, there is irony there but not in quite the way you state. Karl Rove and Co. practically took fear mongering to an art form to get Bush into and to stay in office and now you're complaining that pointing out that McCain would be a continuation of Bush is fear mongering? Now that's irony! :rolls:

Oh, and what is the point of putting "Hussein" in Obama's name if not to spread fear that he is a Muslim and even a terrorist sympathizer? Talk about fear mongerning.....
Typical liberal rant.

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 02:37 AM
Typical liberal rant.


Typical reply when one is unable to come up with a real response. ;) And actually, I don't think it can be called a rant when I was laughing while I was writing it. A rant implies anger but I found the splendid irony of your post hilarious and quite enjoyable to point out.

prima donna
06-06-2008, 02:46 AM
Typical reply when one is unable to come up with a real response. ;) And actually, I don't think it can be called a rant when I was laughing while I was writing it. A rant implies anger but I found the splendid irony of your post hilarious and quite enjoyable to point out.
It's not so much my supposed inability to formulate a response, but rather just a complete and utter lack of interest with respect to reiterating the same concepts as if it were going to make much of a difference.

If you're really interested in what my opinion is, I'd suggest skimming through this thread and the other one as well. This has become an exercise in repetition and it's the classical company line that every liberal has become so familiarized with by trying to portray John McCain as even remotely similar to President Bush -- anyone with a clue knows that's a complete falsehood.

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 02:54 AM
It's not so much my supposed inability to formulate a response, but rather just a complete and utter lack of interest with respect to reiterating the same concepts as if it were going to make much of a difference.

If you're really interested in what my opinion is, I'd suggest skimming through this thread and the other one as well. This has become an exercise in repetition and it's the classical company line that every liberal has become so familiarized with by trying to portray John McCain as even remotely similar to President Bush -- anyone with a clue knows that's a complete falsehood.

:shrug: whatever. I understand, you can't argue McCain's record nor admit where the true irony lays. Neither of us will concede of course so you are right that it wouldn't make any difference. As a person who I've noticed has invoked Karl Rove though, you cannot complain about Democrats' tatics. No one has played that game more amorally than him. (oh, another irony, the party of morals and values uses Karl Rove and his tatics to win elections. That is one area I hope McCain is not like Bush-he seems to have honor and I hope he doesn't sell his soul like Bush did to get elected. )

El Legenda
06-06-2008, 02:55 AM
didnt McSame go 95% along the line with Bush in 2007

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 03:02 AM
didnt McSame go 95% along the line with Bush in 2007


That is what I've read and no one here has bothered to prove otherwise so it must be true. I would assume that if the primary piece of evidence used to conclude that McCain would be a continuation of Bush was wrong, a McCain supporter would provide that information. :shrug:

prima donna
06-06-2008, 03:10 AM
:shrug: whatever. I understand, you can't argue McCain's record nor admit where the true irony lays
There's a reason for which conservatives expressed a sense of dismay upon coming to the realization that John McCain would be the Republican nominee for the 2008 presidential campaign: John McCain has always been rebellious in nature and refuses to embrace principles which are traditionally considered a necessity in order to generate excitement and support from the party.

If you refuse to accept that -- fine, if you were interested in having a serious debate you'd cite specific instances in which John McCain and President Bush have shown similar voting patterns, as opposed to reciting statistics that you've heard on MSNBC.

Continuation of the Bush administration, 95% -- these are signs of a person that either suffers from selective memory or has no political memory from which to draw information. McCain is in favor of extending President Bush's tax cuts, approaching the war in Iraq wisely and responsibly rather than making empty promises and running the risk of compromising our National Security, both are in favor of amnesty. After this, the comparisons stop and if you'd take the time to evaluate their respective positions, you'd understand that John McCain is the reason behind the surge which has been effective in Iraq; George Bush is the reason for thousands of troops being dead due to allowing an ineffective ground strategy to be employed in the initial stages. Moreover, John McCain is a fervent supporter of environmentalism and has never spoken out against global warming, while the Bush administration has all but denied it. He's also opposed to torture and wants Guantanamo shut down.

These are just the essentials, now let's see how serious you really are.

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 03:44 AM
Well, you still haven't shown me that the stat of 95% is wrong. Why should I look it up if you won't? Why should I believe your arguemnts when if its wrong all you have to do it look it up-voting records are pretty straight forward. If you want to prove me wrong, do it, otherwise, I'll continue to trust it. I know in the past he has seemed more independant than other Republicans, but he has changed his tune these last few years- so what should we believe about him? And those issues you mentioned, the war in Iraq and making those tax cuts permantent are very important issues to us dems so when McCain says he will continue them, it certainly does look like a McCain presidency would be an extension of Bush's. Those are two issues that to many of us have been the worst of Bush's policies. That's not bashing or fear mongering, its whether one thinks those are good policies or not, and I for one do not.

soraya
06-06-2008, 04:10 AM
Oh, and what is the point of putting "Hussein" in Obama's name if not to spread fear that he is a Muslim and even a terrorist sympathizer? Talk about fear mongerning....
Perhaps they are not aware but Hussein is an Arabic name and not necesserily Muslim. There are many Christians and people with other faiths in the Middle East with that name. Last I checked, Barack did not look like an Arab.;)

prima donna
06-06-2008, 04:19 AM
Well, you still haven't shown me that the stat of 95% is wrong. Why should I look it up if you won't? Why should I believe your arguemnts
This is where having a political memory would come in handy, most people remember John McCain being offered as the Anti-Bush during the 2000 Republican primary. They are different in so many ways, from their principles and beliefs to their respective agendas.

Also, I think it's well documented that John McCain is one of the guys that's opposed to torture, mostly because he's been a victim of torture himself. Voting records alone are insufficient evidence to condemn John McCain as a continuation of Bush's policies, as voting records are not always an accurate reflection of one's beliefs -- there are strategic votes and compromises that are made.

Since Democrats are the overwhelming majority now, evidently they've been voting in a way that has allowed President Bush to continue pushing his neoconservative agenda.

And those issues you mentioned, the war in Iraq and making those tax cuts permantent are very important issues to us dems
The Bush tax cuts are hazardous in what way ?
Those are two issues that to many of us have been the worst of Bush's policies. That's not bashing or fear mongering, its whether one thinks those are good policies or not, and I for one do not.

I just feel that it's fear-mongering when Democrats basically try scaring Americans into voting for Senator Obama by promising the foreclosure of homes will continue, more wars will follow and John McCain will spend carelessly, while cutting funds where they are most needed.

Democrats want Americans to feel as if a vote for John McCain is a vote for doom and failure, the message is basically: Vote Democratic or you'll lose your home. Vote Democratic or gas prices will continue increasing, meanwhile the issue of fuel prices is an issue that cannot be resolved, as the United States government plays no role in the cost of oil, there are other factors such as supply and demand which ultimately determine such increases -- or decreases for that matter.

Democrats are giving Americans the ultimatum of absolute poverty or an Obama administration, it's dishonest and preys on the deepest fears of Americans during desperate times all for the sake of promoting a political agenda and neglecting to mention that the housing crisis is something that will be there irrespective of the next president.

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 04:22 AM
Perhaps they are not aware but Hussein is an Arabic name and not necesserily Muslim. There are many Christians and people with other faiths in the Middle East with that name. Last I checked, Barack did not look like an Arab.;)

The truth about the origins of his middle name or the faith of the people who have it is immaterial to the people who will use it as evidence that he is Muslim. To most people in the US that name is associated with not only the Muslim faith, but all the negative conotations that go with it. And the rumor mill of the right wing is already using it as "evidence" that Obama is secretly a Muslim.

prima donna
06-06-2008, 04:36 AM
The truth about the origins of his middle name or the faith of the people who have it is immaterial to the people who will use it as evidence that he is Muslim.
_wuBa6D7OX4[/quote]

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 04:55 AM
[QUOTE=prima donna;7152678]This is where having a political memory would come in handy, most people remember John McCain being offered as the Anti-Bush during the 2000 Republican primaries. They are different in so many ways, from their principles and beliefs to their respective agendas.

Also, I think it's well documented that John McCain is one of the guys that's opposed to torture, mostly because he's been a victim of torture himself. Voting records alone are insufficient evidence to condemn John McCain as a continuation of Bush's policies, as voting records are not always an accurate reflection of one's beliefs -- there are strategic votes and compromises that are made.

Since Democrats are the overwhelming majority now, evidently they've been voting in a way that has allowed President Bush to continue pushing his neoconservative agenda. [QUOTE/]

Guess that means the 95% is true. I never said McCain was a carbon copy of Bush, but that in vital issues he would be the same.


The Bush tax cuts are hazardous in what way ?

Well, now that would get into a long dicussion that we would never agree on. Since I am a liberal and you a concervative I think you can imagine why I don't want those tax cuts to the wealthy permanent. (yes, they pay in a larger amount, but a smaller % of their income so it just depands on how one chooses to see the subject.) In short, we are waging a war which is expensive while simultaiously cutting taxes. Simple math-since when did conservatives like a deficit? McCain will have make more cuts in many areas to even begin to balance the budget. Which is a good lead in to your next complaint....


[QUOTE] I just feel that it's fear-mongering when Democrats basically try scaring Americans into voting for Senator Obama by promising the foreclosure of homes will continue, more wars will follow and John McCain will spend carelessly, while cutting funds where they are most needed.

Democrats want Americans to feel as if a vote for John McCain is a vote for doom and failure, the message is basically: Vote Democratic or you'll lose your home. Vote Democratic or gas prices will continue increasing, meanwhile the issue of fuel prices is an issue that cannot be resolved, as the United States government plays no role in the cost of oil, there are other factors such as supply and demand which ultimately determine such increases -- or decreases for that matter.

Democrats are giving Americans the ultimatum of absolute poverty or an Obama administration, it's dishonest and preys on the deepest fears of Americans during desperate times all for the sake of promoting a political agenda and neglecting to mention that the housing crisis is something that will be there irrespective of the next president.[QUOTE/]

:rolls: Again,its so choice when a republican complains that the dems are fear mongering....really, do you hear yourself???? How do you think Bush got so much of what he watned these last 7 years? Pushing FEAR FEAR FEAR! Man, where have you been? Republicans have been preying on and capitalizing on the voters fears for years and now YOU'RE complaining???

Actually, it does put fear in my heart to think that what I consider the most destructive of Bush's policies will be continued under McCain. If people like the Bush years, than the thought of 4 more will be a good thing-so it could work both ways for McCain ;) Besides, as I've posted before , the Repblicans are the master of fear mongering. You yourself in an earlier post advise McCain to use Rove tatics so no crying foul when you think the dems are doing the same thing.

How is it McCain will be able to make those cuts permanent and yet not have to slash spending? I think those are valid points and if they scare people, then there is a good reason for that. Not all fear is baseless.....

Ok, it getting late, I'm done for the night :)

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 05:06 AM
_wuBa6D7OX4[/QUOTE]


He is against using it not on moral terms, not becuase its not true, but becuase it would hurt the party. Still the amoral strategist, he's not objecting on ethical grounds. Even tho Rove advises against it, I have seen plenty of posts where readers respond to news stories talking about it.

Sparko1030
06-06-2008, 07:39 AM
2). Go against your rebellious nature and seek out the counsel of Karl Rove, don't be afraid to play dirty. Take advantage of the reluctance that some voters may have about voting for the Democratic nominee by portraying him as an elitist with an agenda that is antithetical of American culture; allow the Republican machine to do its work and focus on your strong points by conveying your message in a positive light, while drawing distinctions between the Democratic nominee that will remain in the heads of the electorate.

Look, anyone who advises and promotes these tatics quite simply does not get to complain about tatics of the opposing party.

case
06-06-2008, 10:46 AM
Moreover, John McCain is a fervent supporter of environmentalism and has never spoken out against global warming, while the Bush administration has all but denied it. He's also opposed to torture and wants Guantanamo shut down.


assuming you meant to say that McCain spoke out against global warming or did you mean to say that he has NEVER spoken out like you wrote.

McCain speaks about global warming but i have yet to hear any thing more specific. He SPOKE against torture now days he doesnt to the point of voting against a bill banning it.

I really dont like mcCain but what bothered me the most was that photo shoot of McCain and Bush playing cutsie while finger dipping his birthday cake as people were dying en masse in New Orleans. Didnt either one of them even care about the Americans dying or how that would look? Now he says he would have handled Katrina better than Bush yet he was with Bush at the time and didnt seem like he cared at all

The Pro
06-06-2008, 11:53 AM
I think it's hilarious that people, including some in this thread, insist on refer to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" while never referring to McCain as "John Sidney McCain III." :haha:

Keep fishing all you want, some people are sure to take the bait.

Yeah, he obviously insists on removing it for the same reason that some idiots insist on using it.

Because the Right-wing in America are a simple bunch.

prima donna
06-06-2008, 01:53 PM
McCain speaks about global warming but i have yet to hear any thing more specific. He SPOKE against torture now days he doesnt to the point of l
Corinne Ramey

Where Do the Candidates Stand on the Environment? John McCain

John McCain, it seems, has staked out positions on environmental policy that everyone loves to hate. While conservatives bemoan the fact that McCain actually acknowledges the existence of global warming (see, for example, the "Would McCain sink the economy with loopy Global Warming hysteria policies? (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=509881#post20691731)" thread on the Sean Hannity Show discussion board), liberals envision the wrecking-ball effect (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/08/mccain_global_warming/index.html) a McCain administration could have on the planet.
Given that McCain has become the presumptive Republican nominee this election, what does his environmental record in the past and his campaign promises in the future mean for the planet and the middle class? He told voters that global warming would be one of the three major issues (http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070816/NEWS/108160056) of his presidency, and has said (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/01/mccain/index.html#fuel) that we have a "biblical obligation to be stewards of our planet," but what does he plan to do about climate change?
McCain's record on the environment, while not great, is certainly miles better than the environmental record of the Bush administration. He's been fairly critical (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/02/72672) of the administration in the past, speaking disapprovingly on the administration's effort to suppress scientific research on climate change. "For years we have been frustrated by the lack of recognition and cooperation on the part of the administration on addressing this issue," he said. McCain was against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and both sponsored and supported various Senate bills on the environment. He wisely voted no on the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (http://www.themiddleclass.org/bill/energy-policy-act-2005), a bill that, despite various tax breaks for items such as hybrid cars, did little to address problems of global warming and climate change and was full of earmarks and pork barrel projects for various energy industries.
When it comes to future policies, McCain is less clear than his Democratic counterparts, both of whom have carefully staked out positions in detailed energy/environment policies on their websites. McCain manages to bury his environmental policies; his website has an "environment" category, but the short blurb mostly consists of platitudes to remind us that Theodore Roosevelt was an environmentalist (which, apparently, proves it's ok to be both a Republican and an environmentalist), and that disregarding the environment reflects a "liberal live for today" attitude. However, various press releases and speeches (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/13bc1d97-4ca5-49dd-9805-1297872571ed.htm) provide a bit more info.
In general, McCain's policies are a somewhat watered-down version of those of Obama and Clinton. On greenhouse gas emissions, for example, McCain advocates a cap-and-trade system, but has yet to say what the desired targets would be. However, he co-authored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-280) in 2003, the first Senate bill to call for mandatory reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The 2007 version of the bill (http://www.grist.org/candidate_chart_08.html) "would cap emissions from utilities, industry, and transport at 2004 levels by 2012 and then gradually decrease emissions to about 30% of 2004 levels by 2050." Unlike Clinton, who specifies that all cap-and-trade permits would be auctioned instead of given away, McCain offers no specifics on the distribution process. His proposed caps also don't go far enough; scientists say reducing U.S. emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 is necessary to stop global warming. Both Obama and Clinton have set this level as their target.
McCain's stance on fuel emissions fit a similar pattern. He has proposed increasing emissions standards, but unlike his Democratic rivals, hasn't given any numbers. As he said in an interview for Grist.com (http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/01/mccain/index.html#fuel),

"We need to increase CAFE standards. We all know that. But the devil is in the details. I'm open to negotiations. We obviously don't want to drive all the car companies out of business. But there needs to be dramatic improvement and no loopholes." Given his hesitancy to name specific targets now, McCain is probably more likely to be influenced by manufacturers than either Clinton or Obama, both of whom have committed to certain emissions reductions.
Perhaps one indicator of the "straight-talking" McCain's ability to cave in to special interests is his blatant flip-flop on the subject of corn-based ethanol, an alternative fuel that various studies (http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html) have shown actually consumes more fossil fuel than it saves. In November of 2003, McCain declared himself firmly opposed to the alternative fuel. "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality," he said. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT3q3PVZ_ck) But in August 2006, McCain told voters -- and yes, he was in Iowa -- a different story (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT3q3PVZ_ck). "I support ethanol. I think it's a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects."
McCain's most controversial environmental stance, however, has been on nuclear power. McCain has long been a proponent of nuclear power and has advocated for the construction of new nuclear power plants and safer waste storage facilities. As he said in a campaign speech (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/13bc1d97-4ca5-49dd-9805-1297872571ed.htm) in August of 2007, "We have in use today a zero emission energy that could provide electricity for millions more homes and businesses than it currently does... If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can't we?" However, the benefits of nuclear power bring with them some serious safety concerns. As DMI's State of the Union analysis (http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/library/article.php?ID=6678) says,
"The Union of Concerned Scientists report 35 instances of reactor shutdown since 1979 and the General Accountability Office cites 4,000 cases since 2001 in which inspectors found that reactor unit operators had not fully complied with safety procedures. Leaks of nuclear material into groundwater have been frequently documented. The influence of private industry on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has produced a culture of intimidation in which employees are afraid to speak up about safety problems." Overall, McCain's climate change policies are a mixed bag. While his acknowledgment of global warming is encouraging, some of the actual policies he is proposing leave quite a bit to be desired. His policies also center largely around market-based solutions to climate change, and don't include many of the proposals mentioned by Clinton and Obama to create "green jobs," improve public transport, and improve energy consumption in low-income housing, policies that could have a direct and immediate effect on the middle class and the environmental sustainability of cities and urban areas. Compared to some of his conservative colleagues and the current administration, McCain looks pretty good on issues of global warming and environmental policy. However, compared to the realities of global warming and impending problems of climate change, McCain's policies just don't measure up.

buddyholly
06-06-2008, 04:21 PM
As the evidence amounts that what global warming there actually is, is not as drastic as the Gore worshipers say and may be almost all natural, and as politically correct governments continue to try and show that they are on the Gore bandwagon, we will see more economic disasters due to lack of oil, instead of more exploration. (The family next to me are ''environmentalists, trying to force the condo residents to sort the garbage. Yet this family of THREE has three SUVs and a car - all of which have bumper stickers showing an oil rig with an "X' over it. The irony makes me unsure whether to laugh or cry. Environmentalists????????????? The outspoken ones never practice what they preach.
As for biofuels - this absurd policy of the Gore worshipers is already leading to food shortages and riots. But of course while people in other countries are dying of hunger, Gore will still be feeding his fat face as he jets around the world preaching his gospel.

prima donna
06-07-2008, 07:57 AM
http://hcsfjm.com/ Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain

Rafa = Fed Killa
06-11-2008, 05:36 PM
Republicans are best at starting wars against people who look or think differently than them.

its.like.that
06-12-2008, 04:18 AM
And if Republicans had any brains they'd commit suicide.

:yeah:

Sparko1030
11-26-2008, 07:33 AM
As Thanksgiving draws near in the US, here is something many of us can add to our list of things we can give thanks for :devil: :

Ann Coulter, the outspoken conservative writer seen all across American television leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election, has been forced to keep quiet after she took a fall last month. In the fall, Coulter sustained injuries that have required that her jaw be wired shut.

I’m sure that there are liberals everywhere today who think that Thanksgiving has come early this year. It’ll be very strange to turn on one of the political shows on cable television in the lead up to Barack Obama’s inauguration in January and not see Ann speaking her mind.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Page Six is reporting that right-wing agitator and controversy-seeker Ann Coulter’s jaw is wired tightly shut.

I know, I know. If the report is true, It’s almost as if our prayers have been answered.

Apparently it was broken, but by whom, no one seems to be sure. We could hazard a guess, but why throw roses yet.

The blogosphere is already aquiver over the idea of a forced Coulter Moment of Silence.

Finally, the Right Wing Barbie Doll has to shut up. This is, after all, the woman who called 2004 VP nominee John Edwards the F-word in 2007 while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the ‘gay hate word’ ” so I’m — so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions.”

From the Oregonian:

Reports have been sketchy as to the reason behind the broken jaw. I’m sure there have been visions of a fist fight with Rosie O’Donnell or just any liberal pundit taking a crack shot at that long face but it seems that it was only a nasty fall that Coulter took about a month back.

The timing is less than opportune, as Coulter is currently in the process of finishing the audio version of her upcoming book, The New Ann Coulter.

buddyholly
11-26-2008, 02:10 PM
Not true.

She just had a little procedure done. Any fool can tell that a cute underbite will be the fashion rage of 2009.

JolánGagó
12-01-2008, 05:08 PM
Why is Obama taking that bitch into his team? I hope she screws it big time, she's not worth the sole of Condy's :inlove: shoes.

Sparko1030
12-01-2008, 05:43 PM
Not true.

She just had a little procedure done. Any fool can tell that a cute underbite will be the fashion rage of 2009.



Thanks for the correction. Poor Ann, she is once again the victim of the liberal press. I'm sure she just wants to be more like Michelle and this was as good a place to start as any. ;)

buddyholly
12-02-2008, 04:01 PM
Thanks for the correction. Poor Ann, she is once again the victim of the liberal press. I'm sure she just wants to be more like Michelle and this was as good a place to start as any. ;)

She will follow up with two weeks at a tanning salon.

rocketassist
12-02-2008, 05:12 PM
Fox News Channel should snap her up, she'd be an awesome propagandist.

Sparko1030
12-03-2008, 04:03 AM
She will follow up with two weeks at a tanning salon.


Maybe she could get some helpful hints from Robert Downey Jr. (who played a white actor who plays a black soldier)on how to enhance that tan. You know, this really explains a lot about Ann. A very pale white woman who always wanted to be black. This is why she is such an angry mess of person. Maybe this "makeover" will help her heal on the inside.....

prima donna
01-06-2009, 08:35 AM
Ann Coulter's soon-to-be seventh New York Times best-seller entitled "Guilty" debuts today.

http://rover.ebay.com/ar/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?mpt=808110041&adtype=1&size=1x1&type=3&campid=5336105955&toolid=10001 http://www.amazon.com/dp/030735346X?tag=anncoulter-20&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=030735346X&adid=1J7326FQJ85D10BT1ZNK (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fdp%2F030735 346X%3Ftag%3Danncoulter-20%26amp%3Bcamp%3D14573%26amp%3Bcreative%3D327641% 26amp%3BlinkCode%3Das1%26amp%3BcreativeASIN%3D0307 35346X%26amp%3Badid%3D1J7326FQJ85D10BT1ZNK&tag=5336105955-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325)&

prima donna
01-06-2009, 08:36 AM
8YqlyaioEWE

prima donna
01-06-2009, 08:38 AM
http://www.drudgereport.com/logo9.gif (http://www.drudgereport.com/matt.htm)




http://www.drudgereport.com/acg.jpg

NBC CUTS COULTER; KEEPS PEREZ
Mon Jan 05 2009 17:50:57 ET

**Exclusive Details**

The nation's top selling conservative author has been banned from appearing on NBC, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

"We are just not going to have her on any more, it's over," a top network source explains.

But a second top suit strongly denies there is any "Coulter ban".

"Look for a re-invite, as soon as Wednesday," said the news executive, who asked not to be named.

NBC's TODAY show abruptly cut Ann Coulter from its planned Tuesday broadcast, claiming the schedule was overbooked.

Executives at NBC TODAY replaced Coulter with showbiz reporter Perez Hilton, who recently offered $1,000 to anyone who would throw a pie at Ann Coulter. Hilton is also launching a new book this week, RED CARPET SUICIDE. (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Carpet-Suicide-Survival-Keeping/dp/045122521X)

Coulter was set to unveil her new book, GUILTY. (http://www.amazon.com/Guilty-Liberal-Victims-Assault-America/dp/030735346X/)

One network insider claims it was the book's theme -- a brutal examination of liberal bias in the new era -- that got executives to dis-invite the controversialist.

"We are just not interested in anyone so highly critical of President-elect Obama, right now," a TODAY insider reveals. "It's such a downer. It's just not the time, and it's not what our audience wants, either."

Others inside the peacock network strongly deny the book's theme is at issue.

For the book, Coulter reportedly received the most-lucrative advance ever paid to a conservative author.

The TODAY show eagerly invited the author months ago, for her first network interview on GUILTY.

The exclusive was to air during the show's 7 AM hour. The cut came Monday afternoon.

Coulter was also to appear on the TODAY's fourth hour. (http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/nbc/drudge_coulter_banned_from_nbc_nbc_denies_it_10488 0.asp)A host even teased the segment saying the 'conservative pit bull and bestselling author' would be a guest.

NBC's cable outlet, MSNBC, will also become a Coulter-free zone, insiders explain. Morning host Joe Scarborough is said to be concerned with the new ban. "He's working to overrule it," tips a source.

Developing...

Clydey
01-06-2009, 09:47 AM
As Thanksgiving draws near in the US, here is something many of us can add to our list of things we can give thanks for :devil: :

Ann Coulter, the outspoken conservative writer seen all across American television leading up to the 2008 Presidential Election, has been forced to keep quiet after she took a fall last month. In the fall, Coulter sustained injuries that have required that her jaw be wired shut.

I’m sure that there are liberals everywhere today who think that Thanksgiving has come early this year. It’ll be very strange to turn on one of the political shows on cable television in the lead up to Barack Obama’s inauguration in January and not see Ann speaking her mind.

From the Los Angeles Times:

Page Six is reporting that right-wing agitator and controversy-seeker Ann Coulter’s jaw is wired tightly shut.

I know, I know. If the report is true, It’s almost as if our prayers have been answered.

Apparently it was broken, but by whom, no one seems to be sure. We could hazard a guess, but why throw roses yet.

The blogosphere is already aquiver over the idea of a forced Coulter Moment of Silence.

Finally, the Right Wing Barbie Doll has to shut up. This is, after all, the woman who called 2004 VP nominee John Edwards the F-word in 2007 while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the ‘gay hate word’ ” so I’m — so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions.”

From the Oregonian:

Reports have been sketchy as to the reason behind the broken jaw. I’m sure there have been visions of a fist fight with Rosie O’Donnell or just any liberal pundit taking a crack shot at that long face but it seems that it was only a nasty fall that Coulter took about a month back.

The timing is less than opportune, as Coulter is currently in the process of finishing the audio version of her upcoming book, The New Ann Coulter.

Ann Coulter is one of the biggest ****s walking the face of the earth. And she's a religious lunatic, to boot.

buddyholly
01-06-2009, 12:36 PM
Ann Coulter is one of the biggest ****s walking the face of the earth. And she's a religious lunatic, to boot.

I would agree, except for the misogynistic language. But what makes her interesting is that she manages to make conservatives look silly while she is making liberals look silly.

tangerine_dream
01-06-2009, 03:46 PM
Ann Coulter is one of the biggest ****s walking the face of the earth. And she's a religious lunatic, to boot.

It's amazing to me how many people still haven't figured out that Coulter is a political satarist.

buddyholly
01-06-2009, 04:10 PM
It's amazing to me how many people still haven't figured out that Coulter is a political satarist.

For a moment I thought you said ''satanist.''

prima donna
01-06-2009, 04:39 PM
AnnCoulter.Com

DRUDGE GETS RESULTS: TODAY SHOW CHANGES MIND - WED: 7AM HOUR -- THE TODAY SHOW 10AM HOUR -- THE TODAY SHOW 4TH HOUR

Crazy Girl
01-06-2009, 08:34 PM
Se I Democratici......... Anche se i' mi' nonno aveva le rote, l'era un carretto....

prima donna
01-06-2009, 08:42 PM
Appunto.

buddyholly
01-06-2009, 08:55 PM
AnnCoulter.Com

DRUDGE GETS RESULTS: TODAY SHOW CHANGES MIND - WED: 7AM HOUR -- THE TODAY SHOW 10AM HOUR -- THE TODAY SHOW 4TH HOUR

She should pull out at the last moment. But the potential to sell a few more copies and earn a few more bucks is probably her main motive.

Clydey
01-06-2009, 08:59 PM
It's amazing to me how many people still haven't figured out that Coulter is a political satarist.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that she's the female equivalent of Stephen Colbert. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but are you basing that on objective proof or is it merely your opinion?

Clydey
01-06-2009, 09:04 PM
I would agree, except for the misogynistic language. But what makes her interesting is that she manages to make conservatives look silly while she is making liberals look silly.

Misogynistic language? What an idiotic, baseless thing to say. I assure you, I'm just as likely to refer to a man as a **** as I am a woman.

And I have yet to see Ann Coulter make liberals look silly. If she is a political satirist, as is claimed, she isn't a particularly witty one.

El Legenda
01-06-2009, 09:20 PM
I've seen no evidence to suggest that she's the female equivalent of Stephen Colbert.

Colbert is a Obama supporter..he voted for Obama.

Clydey
01-06-2009, 09:32 PM
Colbert is a Obama supporter..he voted for Obama.

Yes, he's a satirist. I'm saying that I don't think Ann Coulter is. If she is, her comedy is ridiculously subtle. I'm not sure how one derives humour from mocking 9/11 widows. I mean, it's possible if there's something there to mock. Nothing is off-limits when it comes to humour, as far as I'm concerned. From what I can see, though, she is simply mocking them for being too visible. I don't see how that can be considered satire.

prima donna
01-06-2009, 09:52 PM
From what I can see, though, she is simply mocking them for being too visible. I don't see how that can be considered satire.
I think you're taking her out of context as many of her detractors have the propensity to do. It was never a question of making a mockery of 9/11 widows. However, it was a question of excluding enclaves of 9/11 widows that had chosen to publicly support John Kerry's presidential campaign, which of course, given their status as "victims" made them exempt from any criticism -- be it warranted or unwarranted. It was on this premise, that Ann Coulter based her claims that these women were enjoying the deaths of their spouses, inasmuch as they had acquired stardom and immunity, largely due to their tragic losses.

Moreover, Democrats have consistently lionized such characters and subsequently created this aura of invincibility, inasmuch as they are considered beyond reproach and thus can be used to make political statements since they are equivalent to rubber human shields (I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you).

I'd hope that we would be able to see beyond mere political ploys aimed at garnering sympathy.

Clydey
01-06-2009, 10:08 PM
I think you're taking her out of context as many of her detractors have the propensity to do. It was never a question of making a mockery of 9/11 widows. However, it was a question of excluding enclaves of 9/11 widows that had chosen to publicly support John Kerry's presidential campaign, which of course, given their status as "victims" made them exempt from any criticism -- be it warranted or unwarranted. It was on this premise, that Ann Coulter based her claims that these women were enjoying the deaths of their spouses, inasmuch as they had acquired stardom and immunity, largely due to their tragic losses.

Moreover, Democrats have consistently lionized such characters and subsequently created this aura of invincibility, inasmuch as they are considered beyond reproach and thus can be used to make political statements since they are equivalent to rubber human shields (I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you).

I'd hope that we would be able to see beyond mere political ploys aimed at garnering sympathy.

I don't think 9/11 widows are exempt from criticism. People are open to criticism regardless of their circumstances. I simply don't buy the nonsense she spouts about those women being thankful for the deaths of their husbands. That is completely unfounded. And if she has something to criticise them for, she should criticise them for it. I don't see the point in launching baseless ad hominem attacks (those again). The main point I'm making is that I don't think she is a political satirist. I think she is an intolerant, religious kook.

"Christians are perfected Jews."

Indeed.

prima donna
01-06-2009, 10:20 PM
The main point I'm making is that I don't think she is a political satirist. I think she is an intolerant, religious kook.
It's important to differentiate between what's written in books and what is so. Meaning, Ann Coulter has neither been married nor had children, she resides in West Palm Beach, has attended an Ivy League institution, has dated authors, politicians and so forth. She's also an attorney who has worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is there anything here that would lead one to suspect that she's a biblethumping maniac ?

I'd conclude that she's highly sophisticated and has an incredible gift for attracting attention to herself. Such isn't to suggest that she doesn't believe the things that she writes, but one has to question to what degree she actually conducts her life as what you've described as a "religious kook."

"Christians are perfected Jews."
Indeed.
Context is everything.

Clydey
01-06-2009, 10:38 PM
It's important to differentiate between what's written in books and what is so. Meaning, Ann Coulter has neither been married nor had children, she resides in West Palm Beach, has attended an Ivy League institution, has dated authors, politicians and so forth. She's also an attorney who has worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Is there anything here that would lead one to suspect that she's a biblethumping maniac ?

I'd conclude that she's highly sophisticated and has an incredible gift for attracting attention to herself. Such isn't to suggest that she doesn't believe the things that she writes, but one has to question to what degree she actually conducts her life as what you've described as a "religious kook."




The fact that she believes in Intelligent Design is enough for me to think her a religious kook.

My opinion of her is based on what she says. There is no basis for thinking that Coulter is some sort of genius satirist, unless one is basing that opinion on their own incredulity. After all, how can any educated person seriously believe what she believes? Satire only works if people know that it is satire.

prima donna
01-06-2009, 10:54 PM
Book sales tend to trump idle chatter on tennis forums, at least in terms of earning profits. Of course it's satire. I'm aware of the fact that you're not American, so maybe it hasn't occurred to you that Ann Coulter does not fit the profile of a religious fanatic. In fact, the gap between Ann Coulter and most evangelicals is so wide that it's an astonishing fact that Ann Coulter has yet to become a caricature of an elitist snob selling books to religious kooks, who, like you, believe everything that is written.

9/11 widows, Judaism, Intelligent Design -- it's all about money. If you had found an effective formula to produce six New York Times best sellers, would you not continue on the same path ?

Clydey
01-06-2009, 11:15 PM
Book sells tend to trump idle chatter on tennis forums, at least in terms of earning profits. Of course it's satire. I'm aware of the fact that you're not American, so maybe it hasn't occurred to you that Ann Coulter does not fit the profile of a religious fanatic. In fact, the gap between Ann Coulter and most evangelicals is so wide that it's an astonishing fact that Ann Coulter has yet to become a caricature of an elitist snob selling books to religious kooks, who, like you, believe everything that is written.

9/11 widows, Judaism, Intelligent Design -- it's all about money. If you had found an effective formula to produce six New York Times best sellers, would you not continue on the same path ?

How on earth did you come to the conclusion that I believe everything that is written? If there is someone out there more skeptical than I am, by all means introduce them to me. I don't share your views on Coulter, so I must be a gullible clown who digests everything the media puts out. Is that how it works?

I've seen enough of Ann Coulter to know that she is not a satirist. Like I said, satire only works if people know that it is satire. You might think that she only says what she says to aid her book sales, but that isn't the same as being satirical.

I find it curious that you admire someone whom you believe to be an intellectual fraud. If she doesn't believe what she says and only puts it out there to cash in on peoples' naivety, why do you have any time for her? On the other hand, if Coulter is satirising the very worst of the political right, the chances are that she is really a liberal. If either is true, I find it hard to believe that someone like you would admire her.

prima donna
01-06-2009, 11:40 PM
I find it curious that you admire someone whom you believe to be an intellectual fraud. If she doesn't believe what she says and only puts it out there to cash in on peoples' naivety, why do you have any time for her? On the other hand, if Coulter is satirising the very worst of the political right, the chances are that she is really a liberal. If either is true, I find it hard to believe that someone like you would admire her.

First of all, I don't consider Ann to be an intellectual fraud, but I have an equally as difficult time accepting this depiction of her as a blind religious fanatic. Interestingly, Ann never so much as proposes any new theories, but rather chooses to refute Darwinism as what she believes to be a form of bogus science -- which was confirmed in a satellite interview on the BBC.

Second of all, I don't particularly admire Ann Coulter, although I can say that I share more of an affinity with her than with many Republicans. She's modern, intelligent and vivacious. More important, she's better informed than most liberals, and is on par with most of the liberal mainstream journalists and commentators, as she has spent more time in their environment than in a secluded, insulated non-secular society.

Ann Coulter is everything that liberals pretend to be -- educated, accomplished, contemplative and refined. She is actually able to incite liberals and in doing so, drive them to reveal themselves for what they really are: seething children. Moreover, they have contributed to the vulgarization of politics far more than Ann has, and could ever hope to.

Clydey
01-07-2009, 12:00 AM
First of all, I don't consider Ann to be an intellectual fraud, but I have an equally as difficult time accepting this depiction of her as a blind religious fanatic. Interestingly, Ann never so much as proposes any new theories, but rather chooses to refute Darwinism as what she believes to be a form of bogus science -- which was confirmed in a satellite interview on the BBC.

Second of all, I don't particularly admire Ann Coulter, although I can say that I share more of an affinity with her than with many Republicans. She's modern, intelligent and vivacious. More important, she's better informed than most liberals, and is on par with most of the liberal mainstream journalists and commentators, as she has spent more time in their environment than a secluded, insulated non-secular society.

Ann Coulter is everything that liberals pretend to be -- educated, accomplished, contemplative and refined. She is actually able to incite liberals and in doing so, drive them to reveal themselves for what they really are: seething children. Moreover, they have contributed to the vulgarization of politics far more than Ann has, and could ever hope to.

How can you share an affinity with her if you don't know what she really believes? You are of the opinion that she says what she says for money (that is being a fraud, by the way). I don't see how you can share an affinity with someone who may very well not share any of your views. You cannot possibly know her real views if it's all an act.

I'll rephrase an earlier point. I tend to view people who reject evolution as either idiotic or ignorant. Either she doesn't know anything about it and rejects it because it conflicts with her faith, or she has looked at the evidence and concluded that it isn't sufficient. She's an idiot, either way. And she no more incites liberals than does Bill O'Reilly. Being able to irritate people through her stupidity does not add to her worth.

prima donna
01-07-2009, 12:21 AM
I don't see how you can share an affinity with someone who may very well not share any of your views. You cannot possibly know her real views if it's all an act.
I'm fairly sure that Ann Coulter is a fiscal conservative, however, what is in question is her allegiance to social conservatism, which has nothing to do with any brand of conservatism I'd choose to associate myself with. I'm not socially conservative -- I'm a supporter of stem cell research, supporter of abortion (controlled) and I really don't care if gays are allowed to marry on a state-by-state basis, although I'd prefer that such not be the case. However, I don't feel superior to social conservatives, which is what distinguishes people such as myself and Ann from most liberals.

I'll rephrase an earlier point. I tend to view people who reject evolution as either idiotic or ignorant. Either she doesn't know anything about it and rejects it because it conflicts with her faith, or she has looked at the evidence and concluded that it isn't sufficient. She's an idiot, either way. And she no more incites liberals than does Bill O'Reilly. Being able to irritate people through her stupidity does not add to her worth.
Oh, stop it -- of course she incites liberals. Liberals absolutely love to depict conservatives as narrow-minded anachronisms; provincial and spiteful plebeians. Here's the problem: Ann Coulter is articulate and chances are, most liberals could never so much as dream of going where she's gone or doing what she's done.

I mean, you've called the woman ignorant, which we both know isn't the case. Ann Coulter's ability to live in a million dollar mansion in West Palm Beach is not predicated on your approval or disapproval. Although tax cuts, the millions of people who purchase her books and television appearances do play a substantial role.

It's satire; not academic writing -- draw your own conclusions.

Clydey
01-07-2009, 12:50 AM
I'm fairly sure that Ann Coulter is a fiscal conservative, however, what is in question is her allegiance to social conservatism, which has nothing to do with any brand of conservatism I'd choose to associate myself with. I'm not socially conservative -- I'm a supporter of stem cell research, supporter of abortion (controlled) and I really don't care if gays are allowed to marry on a state-by-state basis, although I'd prefer that such not be the case. However, I don't feel superior to social conservatives, which is what distinguishes people such as myself and Ann from most liberals.

How can you tell which of her views are genuine and which are satirical? I don't think there's a distinction to be made. I am convinced that they are all genuine.


Oh, stop it -- of course she incites liberals. Liberals absolutely love to depict conservatives as narrow-minded anachronisms; provincial and spiteful plebeians. Here's the problem: Ann Coulter is articulate and chances are, most liberals could never so much as dream of going where she's gone or doing what she's done.

I mean, you've called the woman ignorant, which we both know isn't the case. Ann Coulter's ability to live in a million dollar mansion in West Palm Beach is not predicated on your approval or disapproval. Although tax cuts, the millions of people who purchase her books and television appearances do play a substantial role.

It's satire; not academic writing -- draw your own conclusions.

Ann Coulter is both ignorant and inarticulate. Ours is not a meritocratic society, so her success does not impress me one iota. In a meritocratic society, George Bush would be cleaning toilets and Ann Coulter would be flipping burgers.

My opinions are not shaped by political allegiance. I can scarcely imagine a bigger admirer of Christopher Hitchens than myself; I am in awe of the man. I base my opinion of Coulter purely on what I think of her views. It has nothing to do with the fact that she is a conservative, since I'm not particularly political.

prima donna
01-07-2009, 01:12 AM
How can you tell which of her views are genuine and which are satirical? I don't think there's a distinction to be made. I am convinced that they are all genuine .
Of course she's a genuine fiscal conservative. Why would a multi-millionaire desire to pay more taxes ? Also, I've read so much of her writing (not only her books) that it's rather easy to distinguish sheer hyperbole from legitimate arguments.

Ann Coulter is both ignorant and inarticulate. Ours is not a meritocratic society, so her success does not impress me one iota. In a meritocratic society, George Bush would be cleaning toilets and Ann Coulter would be flipping burgers.
So you're drawing a parallel between nepotism and hard work ? Ann Coulter, like many Americans, was born into an upper middle-class family, and through rigorous and studious habits, she was able to gain acceptance into Cornell University. From that point, she would go on to obtain her Juris Doctor from the University of Michigan Law School. How does she not deserve these achievements ? In what way is her life not illustrative of a meritocracy ?

This whole attitude which correlates intelligence with acceptance of a certain doctrine reeks of an almost sophomoric sort of elitism that is more common amongst indoctrinated and dogmatic students than amongst adults simply willing to accept dissenting opinions.

I base my opinion of Coulter purely on what I think of her views .
I'd question your knowledge of her views, which I don't think is particularly extensive. In fact, it seems rather glib and superficial. Ann Coulter has only dissected and opposed Darwinism. That's the extent of it.

4aiHbUplz3k

buddyholly
01-07-2009, 01:22 AM
Misogynistic language? What an idiotic, baseless thing to say. I assure you, I'm just as likely to refer to a man as a **** as I am a woman.

And I have yet to see Ann Coulter make liberals look silly. If she is a political satirist, as is claimed, she isn't a particularly witty one.

Prick!!!!

She just made NBC look silly. And they are fairly liberal.

buddyholly
01-07-2009, 01:33 AM
but rather chooses to refute Darwinism as what she believes to be a form of bogus science -- which was confirmed in a satellite interview on the BBC.



I suppose the question is: is she really dumb enough to deny evolution or is this just a necessary ploy to continue to sell books to the poor misguided people who are told by their churches that god created everything? God did a nice job on those pink iguanas, by the way.

edit: I figured I had better check out that BBC interview. Yup, she claimed, seemingly in a non-satiric way, that Darwinism had no scientific content. And knowing she was on the BBC and not FOX, she coyly refused to endorse Creationism. What a c**t!!!!!

prima donna
01-07-2009, 01:40 AM
Oops. Sales.

Action Jackson
01-07-2009, 01:44 AM
I suppose the question is: is she really dumb enough to deny evolution or is this just a necessary ploy to continue to sell books to the poor misguided people who are told by their churches that god created everything? God did a nice job on those pink iguanas, by the way.

Holly, you are smart enough to know what the true religion is? $$$$$$$$$$