McCainiacs rejoice!

[tommieharris91]

Dear Hillary Clinton,

Thank you for winning Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Republicans Everywhere

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/pa.primary/index.html

[Jerk]

Nurse Ratchet isn't going away.

[SoonerInKCMO]

The New Republic of 4/23 has a pretty good article on why Hillary needs to just go the **** home now.



No Really, You Should Go
Wretched rationalizations for Hillary Clinton's kamikaze campaign.
Jonathan Chait, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, April 23, 2008



Last week, Senator Pat Leahy suggested that Hillary Clinton ought to quit the presidential race. How insensitive! How boorish! Pundits gasped, Clinton took umbrage, and even Barack Obama was forced to concede that Clinton has the right to run for as long as she desires.

The persistent weakness of American liberalism is its fixation with rights and procedures at any cost to efficiency and common sense. Democrats' reluctance to push Clinton out of the race is the perfect expression of that delicate sensibility.

There is some point at which a candidate's chance of winning becomes so low that her right to continue is outweighed by the party's interest in preparing for the general election. Does Clinton have a chance to become president? Sure. So does Ralph Nader. Clinton's chances are far closer to Nader's than to either Obama's or John McCain's.

Almost nobody contends that Clinton has a chance to overcome Obama's lead in pledged delegates. The spin now is that Obama's delegate lead is "small but almost insurmountable" (USA Today) and that, since neither can clinch the nomination with pledged delegates alone, "the nomination is expected to be in the superdelegates' hands" (Los Angeles Times).

These beliefs reflect the mathematical illiteracy that has allowed the press corps to be routinely duped by economic flim-flammery. A lead that's insurmountable is, by definition, not small. The very primary rules that make it impossible for Clinton to catch up--proportionate distribution of delegates that award tiny net sums to the winner--are exactly what made Obama's lead so impressive.

The notion that the superdelegates will decide the race implies that pledged delegates won't matter--like a sports event that goes to overtime. Obviously, though, the pledged-delegate count determines how many superdelegates each candidate needs. Depending on how the remaining primaries go, Clinton will need about two-thirds of the uncommitted ones to break her way. Problem is, over the last month, superdelegates have broken to Obama by 78 percent to 22 percent.

And the supers who haven't endorsed are even less likely to side with Clinton. Numerous reports on uncommitted superdelegates have made clear that they have remained on the sideline out of an exquisite fear of stepping on the results of the voters. As my colleague Noam Scheiber reported, "Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most" ("Slouching Toward Denver," (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=44aed783-8357-4491-8589-ee15290e6e96) April 9).

Some have gamely insisted that a long campaign actually helps the Democrats, as evidenced by high primary turnout and new voter registration in states like Pennsylvania. But, to believe this argument, you'd have to believe that many of the voters flocking to the primaries would otherwise not have voted in the general election--an absurdity, given that even the high Democratic primary turnout is a fraction of normal general election turnout. You'd have to ignore Obama's foregone opportunities to start organizing nationally and making his general election pitch. And you'd have to explain away the fact that, in recent weeks, Obama has gone from leading McCain in the polls to trailing. (Clinton has trailed McCain for months; now her deficit is growing.)

For the most part, though, Clintonites have presented her continued campaign as a fulfillment of rights. Historian (and TNR alum) David Greenberg recently placed Obama's uplifting style in the tradition of the ineffectual liberals that Arthur Schlesinger derided as "doughfaces" ("Double Negative," (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2ae1b82c-0420-4e47-adba-4af115719d47) April 9). As Greenberg wrote, "A well-placed concern not to let ends justify means has often led to a misplaced sacrifice of ends to means." By contrast, he situated Clinton as an heir to "FDR and the New Deal's lieutenants [who] respected fair play and fair procedures, but they put results first."

I think the analogy is apt, but Greenberg has the protagonists backward. It's those defending Clinton's campaign who angrily wave away any practical considerations. In an editorial bolstering Clinton's prerogative to stay in the race, The Washington Post insisted, "No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates--but why is the answer to that less democracy?"

Anyone who tried to talk sense into a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000 probably heard some version of this rationale. Giving the voters more candidates is democracy, man. The decision to run is an act of civic virtue that may not be analyzed for its real-world effects. Nader himself dismissed Leahy's call for Clinton to withdraw as "political bigotry." He urged, "Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice. This is America. Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run."

A related justification is the "Think of the Puerto Ricans" defense. As a Clinton campaign memo insists, "the citizens in Pennsylvania, Guam, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota have not yet had the opportunity to exercise that fundamental right." Of course, if Clinton suspended her campaign, those states could still vote for her if they wanted. It's true that their vote wouldn't matter, but that's the way it usually works most of the time anyway. A few months ago, everybody expected the race to be decided after New Hampshire. Now we can't bear to face the fact that the race has been decided after merely 80 percent of the states have weighed in.

Then you have the millions of Clinton supporters who have come to see her campaign as the literal embodiment of feminism. "Now Clinton's methodical, dogged history of work for the Democratic Party is treated just like the methodical, dogged histories of so many women in the workplace," writes syndicated columnist Marie Cocco. "She must step aside to take the smaller office, with the lesser title and the lower pay to make room for the younger guy with the thinner resume."

In the same column, Cocco concedes, "Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination." That's quite a concession! That is, if you consider the presidency an instrument for legislation and policy change, rather than a vehicle for Hillary Clinton's self-actualization and the civic expression of the South Dakota Democratic primary electorate.

Schlesinger once described the doughface tradition thusly: "Politics becomes, not a means of getting things done, but an outlet for private grievances and frustrations." Is there any better description for Clinton's rationale?

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor for The New Republic.

[Okla-homey]

I AM STOKED!

the donk chaos continues!:D

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Is that a toilet I hear flushing?

Bwahahahahaha.

[JohnnyMack]

Don't know why all the rejoicing. This is pretty much what was expected.

[olevetonahill]

Don't know why all the rejoicing. This is pretty much what was expected.

Then you need to try to see it from the "White, Heterosexual, Male " point of view

[GottaHavePride]

I'm looking at it from that perspective and thinking "all THREE of these candidates ****ing suck." ;)

[olevetonahill]

Thats why we are Rejoicing , Because Its continuing chaos

[GottaHavePride]

Dammit. I'm gonna write-in vote for Carl Weathers.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I told all my Democrat friends out here that they were going to find a way to F**K it up AGAIN this year.

Pennsylvania just proved it to me.

Obama would have given McCain a run for his money. Hillary's gonna get PLOWED by McCain.

[olevetonahill]

You do Know that I have at least 7 wright in votes , dontcha?
If I win Ill make you secratery of education or sompun .

[tommieharris91]

Hillary's gonna get PLOWED by McCain.

Worst mental image EVAR.

[texas bandman]

Hillary won't get the chance to be plowed by McCain. HRC and Bill are using the "Sherman March to the Sea" campaign. They can't win and they're gonna destroy everything before Obama polishes her off. I think the Democrats will have plenty of time to rally around their candidate. The current economic conditions will hurt McCain and the Republicans. The people of the United States really want change and McCain will be successfully painted as the candidate of "status quo".

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think the Democrats will have plenty of time to rally around their candidate. The media will see to it that current economic conditions will hurt McCain and the Republicans. The people of the United States really want a fully opened federal piggy bank for the masses to enjoy, and McCain will be successfully painted as the candidate of "status quo".fixed.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k8XkIeTz-NU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k8XkIeTz-NU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[12]

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[Okla-homey]

Hillary won't get the chance to be plowed by McCain. HRC and Bill are using the "Sherman March to the Sea" campaign. They can't win and they're gonna destroy everything before Obama polishes her off. I think the Democrats will have plenty of time to rally around their candidate. The current economic conditions will hurt McCain and the Republicans. The people of the United States really want change and McCain will be successfully painted as the candidate of "status quo".

change, schmange.

The majority in the United States doesn't want "change" (WTF that really means) badly enough to put someone with BHO's baggage in office. And that's based just on the turds in BHO's background that have floated to the surface in the past three months. Moreover, the GOP machine hasn't even turned on the industrial grinder against either of them because it hasn't had to do so.

I used to think HRC was electable, but Monica's ex-BF's wife has shown herself to be even pricklier than we remembered. America evidences Clinton-fatigue and that doesn't bode well for her chances.

Yes, the DNC has once again screwed-up what a year ago appeared to be unscrewable.

[Chuck Bao]

Are you kidding? America is desparate for change. I am alarmed by the economic views expressed by the media. Some say the US is either facing deep recession or a steep depreciation of the dollar, resulting in high inflatiuon. Either way, everyday people (read voters) will be hurt. There will be clamoring for change. By November, people will be loving on the Democrat candidate. Count on it. Thank god for democracy and the fact that people are actually smart about voting their pocket books.

[Harry Beanbag]

Are you kidding? America is desparate for change. I am alarmed by the economic views expressed by the media. Some say the US is either facing deep recession or a steep depreciation of the dollar, resulting in high inflatiuon. Either way, everyday people (read voters) will be hurt. There will be clamoring for change. By November, people will be loving on the Democrat candidate. Count on it. Thank god for democracy and the fact that people are actually smart about voting their pocket books.


Most of what you said and your conclusive sentence don't agree with each other. If people vote with their pocket books then why on earth would they vote for Obama or Clinton? Taxes are going sky high with either one of them.

[Chuck Bao]

Hello?????

This is a new world we live in. Trickle down doesn't work anymore, not for you and not for me.

It works for developing countries, which unfortunately has resulted in huge demand for resources and driving up all commodity prices. If you are fully onboard for this then vote Repulbican. If you value your job and economy, then vote Democratic and managed trade and a well-desrved backlash against corporate America who have already thrown away US employees and jobs.

[Okla-homey]

Hello?????

This is a new world we live in. Trickle down doesn't work anymore, not for you and not for me.

It works for developing countries, which unfortunately has resulted in huge demand for resources and driving up all commodity prices. If you are fully onboard for this then vote Repulbican. If you value your job and economy, then vote Democratic and managed trade and a well-desrved backlash against corporate America who have already thrown away US employees and jobs.


CB, with repect, no country has ever taxed itself to prosperity. Evar.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

You forget about Atlantis!! Before the damm Cretes caused Global Warming and killed the Noble Altlanteans :(

[My Opinion Matters]

I used to waste many hours arguing in threads like this. Damn, I was an idiot.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The democrats are promising change. Raising taxes and punishing the private sector in various ways. Yeah, baby, sure sounds good. Chuck, are you (respectfully speaking) outa your mind?

[JohnnyMack]

The republicans are promising the status quo. ****ing away 10 billion a month in Iraq, encouraging "free trade" to force even more jobs over seas. Yeah, baby, sure sounds good.

[12]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua!

[soonerscuba]

The republicans are promising the status quo. ****ing away 10 billion a month in Iraq, encouraging "free trade" to force even more jobs over seas. Yeah, baby, sure sounds good.
Unless it's foreign airlines wanting to compete in the US market, then free trade is for commies.

[r5TPsooner]

Are you kidding? America is desparate for change. I am alarmed by the economic views expressed by the media. Some say the US is either facing deep recession or a steep depreciation of the dollar, resulting in high inflatiuon. Either way, everyday people (read voters) will be hurt. There will be clamoring for change. By November, people will be loving on the Democrat candidate. Count on it. Thank god for democracy and the fact that people are actually smart about voting their pocket books.


I've got news for you... this country is already in a recession. And if things don't change real soon, another great depression.

Honestly, the only differences that I see in the candidates is how much do you want to pay in taxes and how long do you want to stay in Iraq. Other than that, there isn't much difference because the Democrats will never get a national health care system in this country. Nor will Barack get his way and take our guns away. We'll have a civil war before that crap happens.

McCain is the best choice outta three shiattay choices.

[soonerscuba]

I've got news for you... this country is already in a recession. And if things don't change real soon, another great depression.

Honestly, the only differences that I see in the candidates is how much do you want to pay in taxes and how long do you want to stay in Iraq. Other than that, there isn't much difference because the Democrats will never get a national health care system in this country. Nor will Barack get his way and take our guns away. We'll have a civil war before that crap happens.

McCain is the best choice outta three shiattay choices.
Would you provide a link citing when Obama said he was going to take your guns away? Or are you just engaging in hyperbole?

[r5TPsooner]

Would you provide a link citing when Obama said he was going to take your guns away? Or are you just engaging in hyperbole?


Surely you jest right? That'll be the 3rd thing on his agenda after he pulls out of Iraq and raises our taxes.

[Chuck Bao]

CB, with repect, no country has ever taxed itself to prosperity. Evar.

Shush! Or, you'll bring in Jed and his MAPS project and the revitalisation of OKC into the discussion.

[texas bandman]

I read somewhere, that for the stock market the past 8 year period has been the worst since the 1930's. People are hurting economically. I was talking to my principal yesterday about how my wife and I have cut as many corners as we can and we are still having to dip into emergency funds at the end of each month. We're lucky because we do have an emergency fund that we can tap. Those people that live paycheck to paycheck are in a world of hurt. They still have to drive to work and gas is up a dollar a gallon in the past year. They have to feed their kids and the price of food has skyrocketed. They still have to take their kids to the doctor when they get sick or hurt, but the price of insurance and health care has risen so far that they can't afford it. When people hurt they will vote to do something different. I only hope that we don't get much worse. I remember the deep recession in '73-74 and I don't ever want to go through that again. I think America is ready for a new direction. "There's a change a comin'."

[tommieharris91]

Hahahhaa, free trade is what is keeping our economy goin right now.

All the candidates say they're gonna raise taxes. This is why I hate all of em.

Sorry everybody, but taxing the corporations will only deepen the recession because the firms will pass their taxes onto the consumer.

[soonerscuba]

Surely you jest right? That'll be the 3rd thing on his agenda after he pulls out of Iraq and raises our taxes.
And I'm asking for a citation of Barack Obama saying that he is going to take your guns away. Do you have it or not?

[JohnnyMack]

scuba,

clearly you missed the interview where he admitted he was going to enslave the white race immediately after his inauguration.

[Turd_Ferguson]

scuba,

clearly you missed the interview where he admitted he was going to enslave the white race immediately after his inauguration.That son-of-a-b*tch:mad:

[texas bandman]

scuba,

clearly you missed the interview where he admitted he was going to enslave the white race immediately after his inauguration.

Dang, the cats out of the bag. I guess Obama will have to spend 1/2 his time in prison camp.

[soonerscuba]

scuba,

clearly you missed the interview where he admitted he was going to enslave the white race immediately after his inauguration.
I for one, welcome our secret Muslim radical Christian overlord.

[Dio]

I used to waste many hours arguing in threads like this. Damn, I was an idiot.

You might want to change your handle, then. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

I read somewhere, that for the stock market the past 8 year period has been the worst since the 1930's.
Sounds like you need to read something that isn't total BS, or maybe try looking up a graph

YWIA. :D

[OklahomaTuba]

And I'm asking for a citation of Barack Obama saying that he is going to take your guns away. Do you have it or not?

Why would he take away all the guns?

If he did, he wouldn't have any "bitter" tabacca chewin gun lovin Jesus freaks to make fun of when he is hob nobbing with his billionaire friends.

[JohnnyMack]

when he is hob nobbing with his billionaire friends.

Yes, him being completely contrarian to our current pauper of a POTUS. :rolleyes:

[Condescending Sooner]

I read somewhere, that for the stock market the past 8 year period has been the worst since the 1930's.


Are you serious? You might want to read a paper every now and again.

[LosAngelesSooner]

The democrats are promising change. Raising taxes for the ultra wealthy and punishing the corporate demigods who control the private sector in various ways. Yeah, baby, sure sounds good. Chuck, are you (respectfully speaking) in favor of traditional Republican values!?

Fixed. ;)

[LosAngelesSooner]

Surely you jest right? That'll be the 3rd thing on his agenda after he pulls out of Iraq and raises our taxes.Nope. 4th.

Killing all of our babies is 3rd on his agenda.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Sorry everybody, but taxing the corporations will only deepen the recession because the firms will pass their taxes onto the consumer.No.

[JohnnyMack]

Take a lookie here:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA

After HRC's big win last night combined with manner in which the Democratic party apportions delegates, she picked up 12 whole delegates on BHO. 12. Delegates. That's all. But the media will act like she still has a chance because it makes for good TV. Whores. The lot of 'em.

[JohnnyMack]

And with Gov. Henry's endorsement of BHO today, her superdelegate lead shrunk from 24 to 23.

[tommieharris91]

No.

Why not?

[LosAngelesSooner]

Why not?
When their consumer base is on a limited budget and is already spending itself into debt and is unable to build any savings, they can only spend a finite amount. So, when those corporations, who are already reporting RECORD PROFITS, suddenly are forced to pay more in taxes, thus cutting into their record profits but STILL showing profit for their business, they are unable to raise their prices any more in order to maintain their profit/cost gap because the consumer doesn't have any more money to spend. Thus, if they DID raise prices in order to attempt to compensate for the tax hit, they'd actually lose customers and then show LESS profits than they would if they kept their prices the same.

Hence Oklahoma > Texas.

That's my reasoning, anyway.

:)

[texas bandman]

Sounds like you need to read something that isn't total BS, or maybe try looking up a graph

YWIA. :D

I went and found what I read. It's in Money magazine May 2008 page 76. Martha Ortiz of Aronson Johnson & Ortiz of Philadelphia was quoted that we're in "the second worst eight year period for stocks since the 1930's." So it's the second worst since the 1930s" not the worst, my bad. Unfortunately, that's still pretty crappy and it is achieved under George W's watch. This will bury McCain in November since he's now drinking the neocons kool-aid.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I went and found what I read. It's in Money magazine May 2008 page 76. Martha Ortiz of Aronson Johnson & Ortiz of Philadelphia was quoted that we're in "the second worst eight year period for stocks since the 1930's." So it's the second worst since the 1930s" not the worst, my bad. Unfortunately, that's still pretty crappy and it is achieved under George W's watch. This will bury McCain in November since he's now drinking the neocons kool-aid.The economy has taken a downturn since democrats took control of congress, a little over a year ago. Predictably, the dems and their media are laying the blame on W. It will get even worse under the increased nanny-statism we will be facing for the foreseeable future.

[tommieharris91]

When their consumer base is on a limited budget and is already spending itself into debt and is unable to build any savings, they can only spend a finite amount. So, when those corporations, who are already reporting RECORD PROFITS, suddenly are forced to pay more in taxes, thus cutting into their record profits but STILL showing profit for their business, they are unable to raise their prices any more in order to maintain their profit/cost gap because the consumer doesn't have any more money to spend. Thus, if they DID raise prices in order to attempt to compensate for the tax hit, they'd actually lose customers and then show LESS profits than they would if they kept their prices the same.

Hence Oklahoma > Texas.

That's my reasoning, anyway.

:)

With all of this said, the only corporations that are showing record profits right now are those in the oil industry and, well, Google. Yes, those profits would be cut with a tax increase, but it doesn't really matter if the Joe Blow will continue to spend himself into a massive hole of debt as long as he can get another credit card. With this credit crunch, I'm sure a lot of the lenders are pulling back on approving people like this.

Knowing all of that, I think an upward price adjustment is still likely when corporation taxes are increased. Since all firms really care about are it's shareholders and workers (which, IMO, is ethically right), companies will raise prices to keep profit margins and earnings about where they are pre-tax. Now, they will inevitably lose profits no matter what happens when the taxes increase. They would more than likely have to mix raising prices and decrease shareholder expectations together.

I think, facing a recession, this is the wrong time to raise taxes, for whatever reason. It will make the deeper and longer lasting, especially within the first year of the tax hike. We would have been better off raising tax rates in 2004-2005, when the economy was booming.

[Blue]

DOOMED!

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[olevetonahill]

Whoopie we all gonna die :P

[sooner n houston]

Obama, however, called for a host of new gun-control measures: strengthening the assault-weapons ban to include high-capacity clips made prior to 1994; holding parents criminally responsible for children who injure someone with a gun found in the home; placing trigger locks on all guns; and allowing gun buyers to purchase only one weapon per month.
...
Obama disagreed. He backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.
"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed- weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/

[sooner n houston]

I don't understand why Clinton is not hammering Obama on his voting record. That man has an unbelivable record of voting "present" on tough issues. He better be ready, if he makes the GE, to be hammered on that issue!

[texas bandman]

The economy has taken a downturn since democrats took control of congress, a little over a year ago. Predictably, the dems and their media are laying the blame on W. It will get even worse under the increased nanny-statism we will be facing for the foreseeable future.

I don't see that. After 6 years of a Republican Congress having never used the veto, George Bush found the his pen and vetoed bills he found objectionable and the Dems don't have the votes to override his veto. His use of the veto and threat of use has effectively stifled the Democratic Congress, so the onus is still on GWB and the Republicans. Don't try and shift the blame for this mess.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't see that. After 6 years of a Republican Congress having never used the veto, George Bush found the his pen and vetoed bills he found objectionable and the Dems don't have the votes to override his veto. His use of the veto and threat of use has effectively stifled the Democratic Congress, so the onus is still on GWB and the Republicans. Don't try and shift the blame for this mess.I didn't expect you to see that. What this board needed:mad: is yet another lib.

[texas bandman]

I didn't expect you to see that. What this board needed:mad: is yet another lib.

lib·er·al –adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Yep. I'm proud to be one.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I didn't expect you to see that. What this board needed:mad: is yet another lib.As in big govt. nannystate approving, anti-capitalism, yet loving big taxes. (you might want to drop # 4 from your list. Reading that one almost made me spew my coffee)

[Condescending Sooner]

http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html

"I went and found what I read. It's in Money magazine May 2008 page 76. Martha Ortiz of Aronson Johnson & Ortiz of Philadelphia was quoted that we're in "the second worst eight year period for stocks since the 1930's." So it's the second worst since the 1930s" not the worst, my bad. Unfortunately, that's still pretty crappy and it is achieved under George W's watch. This will bury McCain in November since he's now drinking the neocons kool-aid."



I don't know where she got that information. The Dow was basically unchanged from 1960 to 1980.

[LosAngelesSooner]

As in big govt. nannystate approving, anti-capitalism, yet loving big taxes. (you might want to drop # 4 from your list. Reading that one almost made me spew my coffee)
It's so funny it's almost sad. You say what you just said (above) regarding how you don't feel that
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. describes Liberals and then you have
"If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president".-ANN COULTER as a sig. :rolleyes:

[r5TPsooner]

Nope. 4th.

Killing all of our babies is 3rd on his agenda.


He'll probably just send his wife to do that. One look at her would scare any child half to death.

[LosAngelesSooner]

He'll probably just send his wife to do that. One look at her would scare any child half to death.What are you TALKING about?!

Dude...she's good lookin'. :confused:

[Harry Beanbag]

Style over substance. That's what counts right?

[Big Red Ron]

lib·er·al –adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.

Yep. I'm proud to be one.You realize that in it's original context, Republicans are the liberals of today, right?

Today, Liberal means, redistribution of wealth and sexual deviance. That's pretty much it.

Name a big (and good) Idea originated by the liberal party in the last 20 years.

[LosAngelesSooner]

You realize that in it's original context, Republicans are the liberals of today, right?

Today, Liberal means, redistribution of wealth and sexual deviance. That's pretty much it.

Name a big (and good) Idea originated by the liberal party in the last 20 years.
Equal rights for gays.

:pop:

[Harry Beanbag]

Equal rights for gays.

:pop:


Is that a big idea? When marriage is the only differential issue, the good part can be debatable.

[Big Red Ron]

Equal rights for gays.

:pop:Eh, ok. Don't forget about the dems race baiting poverty pimps.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Eh, ok. Don't forget about the dems race baiting poverty pimps.:confused::confused::confused:

[Vaevictis]

You realize that in it's original context, Republicans are the liberals of today, right?

*snort*

You have to overlook a whole hell of a lot to make that claim. You'd never catch a real old school liberal advocating immunity for corporations that help the government break laws protecting your privacy.

[Jerk]

*snort*

You have to overlook a whole hell of a lot to make that claim. You'd never catch a real old school liberal advocating immunity for corporations that help the government break laws protecting your privacy.

Well, 'modern liberalism' is no where near what 'classic liberalism' was.

I think your side should just be honest and call yourself 'socialists.'

[Vaevictis]

Well, 'modern liberalism' is no where near what 'classic liberalism' was.

I won't argue with that. All I'm saying is that to call the modern Republican party liberals in the old sense of the world is a farce also. Neither party represents old school liberalism.

They both have elements, but they've both sold out to various minority interests and put their electability ahead of the good of the country.


I think your side should just be honest and call yourself 'socialists.'

*shrug* I think the Bush-ite Republican party should just be honest and call themselves fascist theocrats.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

*shrug* I think the Bush-ite Republican party should just be honest and call themselves fascist theocrats.Are we to believe you really think that?

[Vaevictis]

Are we to believe you really think that?

It has about the same validity as saying that Democrats should call themselves socialists.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It has about the same validity as saying that Democrats should call themselves socialists.You don't think most democrats are pretty much socialists?

[Big Red Ron]

I won't argue with that. All I'm saying is that to call the modern Republican party liberals in the old sense of the world is a farce also. Neither party represents old school liberalism.

.
I'd just say that the modern Republican Party is closer to the classical version of liberalism than the "liberal" party in America. Not saying either is a perfect match.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I would say that both parties could give two ****s about any of us...your welcome in advance

[Chuck Bao]

This is a Republican candidate for congress.

The fact that he spoke to a group celebrating the anniversary of Hitler's birth says what? He was invited and his :primary purpose is to education and inform".

Heh!

http://nwitimes.com/articles/2008/04/23/news/top_news/docf6a35b9d5a72e89d8625743300832e52.txt


A congressional candidate is defending his speech to a group celebrating the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth, saying he appeared simply because he was asked.

Tony Zirkle, who is seeking the Republican nomination in Indiana's 2nd District, stood in front of a painting of Hitler, next to people wearing swastika armbands and with a swastika flag in the background for the speech to the American National Socialist Workers Party in Chicago on Sunday.

"I'll speak before any group that invites me," Zirkle said Monday. "I've spoken on an African-American radio station in Atlanta."

The 2nd Congressional District includes a large portion of north central Indiana spanning from South Bend to Kokomo. It includes Pine and Jackson Townships in Porter County and parts of Washington Township, which includes the eastern edges of the Valparaiso.

It is currently served by Democrat U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly.

Porter County Republican chairman Chuck Williams on Tuesday denounced Zirkle's appearance at the gathering.

"He certainly doesn't hold the view of the of the Republican Party," Williams said. "I don't know why you would stand up in front of a picture of Adolf Hitler when millions of Americans fought against that kind of oppression."

Zirkle compared his speech to other politicians appearing at Bob Jones University.

George W. Bush, then a candidate for president, was criticized eight years ago for speaking at the South Carolina school, which teaches students that Catholicism is a cult. Also at the time of the speech, the school banned interracial dating, a policy that has since been dropped.

Zirkle said he did not know much about the neo-Nazi group and that his intention was to talk on his concern about "the targeting of young white women and for pornography and prostitution."

Zirkle will face John Frame and Joseph Roush, in addition to Puckett, in the May 6 primary.

The event was not the first time Zirkle has raised controversy on race issues. In March, Zirkle raised the idea of segregating races in separate states. Zirkle said Tuesday he's not advocating segregation, but said desegregation has been a failure.

Zirkle received 30 percent of the vote in the 2006 primary, losing to incumbent Chris Chocola, who was defeated in the general election. Zirkle said Tuesday that winning the election is not his primary goal.

"My primary purpose is to educate and inform," he said.

[shaun4411]

Thats why we are Rejoicing , Because Its continuing chaos

yay, more chaos in the us political system. exactly what we need. i wish we had one bar-none leader of a president who would be completely open with the country; someone that we can like. have a press conference and lay it all out. iraq, the economy, oil. lay it all out, no bs. sure it may be political suicide, but he has 4 years, and we'd know what we are getting. it would just be nice. these days, even the own party of some leaders be hatin. can you imagine a mccain lieberman ticket? a democrat VP who is hated by his party with a republican potus who is pretty much hated by his party? what a quandry.

[Jerk]

*shrug* I think the Bush-ite Republican party should just be honest and call themselves fascist theocrats.

You're right. Bush is not a conservative. He cannot possibly be a conservative after doubling the size of government and refusing to check spending, even with the help of a Republican congress they grew the government like a weed on steriods.

I think Ronald Reagan was the last 'conservative' to hold the office. Whether or not he would have cut domestic spending if he had a Republican congress is a guess.

I don't think we've ever had a true conservative in office who advocated cuts in spending, taxes, and government, and actually did it all.

But we did have a true modern liberal. His name was Jimaaaay Carter.

I don't know what Clinton was. Maybe an opportunist?

[JohnnyMack]

I don't know what Clinton was.

Horny?