Finally...

[Unbreakable]

Looks like she'll be makin that sammich after all, with her pie hole shut!

[ccbangler]

If I have to hear that cackle one more time I will lose it! :burndev:

[ahathaway]

I enjoyed watching O-bama and Mrs. Bill Clinton eat eachother alive. It gives us a better chance at having a patriot in office.

[hogboy]

so glad she is just a footnote now

[Mr_Cheeze]

I don't know why everybody is so excited. It's not as if the remaining choices are superior. It completely mystifies me that anyone would find McCain to be a good candidate.

[kernel crash]

I haven't seen any evidence here that anybody thinks McCain is a good candidate. I personally didn't like any of the remaining three candidate. I just hated one more than the others. And now she gone... almost... any day now... any minute now... just hang on a second...

[Enigma]

It mystifies me how you could read the first four posts in this thread and get the impression there was anything beyond a sense of relief that the absolute worst AND least qualified candidate is finally eliminated (this time) from the nomination process.

Excitement? I think not. You are correct however, in your assessment of the remaining two candidates. Everyone who voted in the last four or five presidential elections knows that at this point we are about to choose the lesser of two unqualifieds.

The playoffs are over. Let the Stuporbowl begin! :o

[Unbreakable]

This would be a great M/C ad:

1 Fairy tale resume: $12.00
12 Dozen ugly blue polyester pantsuits: $1,200.00
1 well oiled yet ineffective ad campaign: $12,000,000.00

1 big fat slice of Humble Pie: PRICELESS!

[Mr_Cheeze]

It mystifies me how you could read the first four posts in this thread and get the impression there was anything beyond a sense of relief that the absolute worst AND least qualified candidate is finally eliminated (this time) from the nomination process.

Excitement? I think not. You are correct however, in your assessment of the remaining two candidates. Everyone who voted in the last four or five presidential elections knows that at this point we are about to choose the lesser of two unqualifieds.


The only impression I got was that people were too excited over Hillary being out of the picture... for now (Veep?). Do you really think it makes that much of a difference? She might be shrill, but realistically, I don't see how anyone can say she would be the worst possible candidate. Obama is a gigantic unknown. And McCain is dubbed McSame for good reason. He is Bush II. The excitement is faux. That's all I meant.

Tell me, though, how Hillary is less qualified than Obama?

I'm holding out hope that Ron Paul has some surprise in waiting, like an Independent run. He's going into the GOP Convention having not dropped out. And I don't see him endorsing the McCain for a second. He's planning some spoilage, I think.

[Enigma]

I'm holding out hope that Ron Paul has some surprise in waiting, like an Independent run. He's going into the GOP Convention having not dropped out. And I don't see him endorsing the McCain for a second. He's planning some spoilage, I think.

All for naught I fear, as I too found Paul to be a sensible candidate. It is really too bad voters don't genuinely pay attention to the real issues (not those hyped by the campaigns or the press), and who is actually doing some WORK in Congress, not just lining coffers with PAC/Lobbyist/SIG money to perpetuate their uselessness.:(

[BG]

"Tell me, though, how Hillary is less qualified than Obama?"

OK, here goes...(gonna get sh*t for this)

Old, Female, Married to an assh*le (but what woman isn't), White, Dosen't have a clue

[Enigma]

OK, here goes...(gonna get sh*t for this)

Old, Female, Married to an assh*le (but what woman isn't), White, Dosen't have a clue

Dang right you're gonna get sh*t!!! Because you left out the biggest disqualifier!

Not only does Her Egoness NOT have a clue, she constantly tries to pass as one who has more clues than the sum of the voting public.

That smarmy 'tude gets em eating humble pie every time. :D:D:D

[BG]

"Not only does Her Egoness NOT have a clue, she constantly tries to pass as one who has more clues than the sum of the voting public."

Ah yes...but as INDIVIDUALS, don't we all. I certainly and frequently ponder that the sum of my intelligence far exceeds the sum of the "voting public" (as it seems of most posters here, why be different). The sum of the clues of the voting public in this country has to rise to reach negative numbers.
Uh oh...gonna get sh*t for that too.

[Slider]

We are only now nearing the end of the MOST smary, clueless presidency ever, and you guys are all stuck on some imagined attitude in the future VP. Where have you been the last eight years?

BG nailed it. She's a she. Nothing more or less, or we'd have heard the same from you with every Bush smirk as he lead us down the toilet. At least then it you'd have had something more than smilies to back it up.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

We are only now nearing the end of the MOST smary, clueless presidency ever, and you guys are all stuck on some imagined attitude in the future VP. Where have you been the last eight years?
Slider

:har:
You, just like her, don't get it. In the face of strong public opinion (which is the reason Clinton NOT Obama is about to concede the Democratic nomination), you got the guff to tell people they're imagining a trait that the former first lady actually possesses?

It is that same s-m-a-r-m-y attitude that led her to run a half-baked campaign. And the Democratic voters responded in kind. Hell, what Democrat wouldn't vote for a handsome, charismatic candidate promising a chicken in every pot, over some poseur know-it-all delivering...whatever that message is she thought she was delivering?

Hillary Clinton proved herself unworthy - because of who she is, and what she stands for. :D :D :D

[Mr_Cheeze]

BG nailed it. She's a she. Nothing more or less, or we'd have heard the same from you with every Bush smirk as he lead us down the toilet. At least then it you'd have had something more than smilies to back it up.

Slider

Not to diminish her distinguished career as Senator and long time resident of New York, and maybe you're saying this, I'm not sure, but the only reason she was even a factor in this election is because she is a she.

Ok, so that diminishes her. It is still true, however.

Hell, you can say the same thing about Obama. And since we're all smarter than each other, I will let you deduce the specifics on what I mean.

[Slider]

:har:
You, just like her, don't get it. In the face of strong public opinion (which is the reason Clinton NOT Obama is about to concede the Democratic nomination), you got the guff to tell people they're imagining a trait that the former first lady actually possesses?

It is that same s-m-a-r-m-y attitude that led her to run a half-baked campaign. And the Democratic voters responded in kind. Hell, what Democrat wouldn't vote for a handsome, charismatic candidate promising a chicken in every pot, over some poseur know-it-all delivering...whatever that message is she thought she was delivering?

Hillary Clinton proved herself unworthy - because of who she is, and what she stands for. :D :D :D

Talk about not getting it. In place of prattle, let's try some facts. 36 million Dems voted in the primaries, with Clinton narrowly outpolling Obama 17.3M to 17.05M in the popular vote.

20 million Republicans voted, only a little more than voted for Hillary alone.

Now, who doesn't get what?

Slider

[Unbreakable]

36 million Dems voted in the primaries, with Clinton narrowly outpolling Obama 17.3M to 17.05M in the popular vote.
20 million Republicans voted, only a little more than voted for Hillary alone.

Now, who doesn't get what?

Glider

Probably not though. But that's what make the electoral process so entertaining. I love it when well financed elitist liberals like Hillary Clinton run campaigns that end in failure. They go home scratching their heads, having learned nothing from the failed campaigns of those who ran before them.

The only thing those numbers mean is that Hillary Clinton wasted a lot of money. I wonder if we'll see her cry again. :D

[Slider]

Whatever.

This part says it all: "I love it when well financed elitist liberals like Hillary Clinton run campaigns that end in failure."

Message doesn't matter. Turnout doesn't matter. Because it is about something else, with 'uninformed' playing a large part. Or just plain uncomprehending.

Slider

[kernel crash]

Talk about not getting it. In place of prattle, let's try some facts. 36 million Dems voted in the primaries, with Clinton narrowly outpolling Obama 17.3M to 17.05M in the popular vote.

20 million Republicans voted, only a little more than voted for Hillary alone.

Now, who doesn't get what?

Slider

Slider

How many Republicians crossed over and voter for Hillary?
How many racist voted for Hillary because they would never vote for a "black" man?
How many voted for Hillary as a way to get Bill back in the white house?
How many voted for Hillary just because she is a woman, any woman?

I don't believe Hillary has the support you think she has. Hillary would never be viable in the general election, her negatives are still way to high. She showed her true colors during the primary. And her husband also for that matter. People won't forget this any time soon. Even in defeat she tried to steal the spotlight from Obama. Slider you don't really believe the Obama would tap her as his VP do you? Ain't gonna happen. I'll bet you $50.00 it won't happen.

BOTTOM LINE: Hillary and Bill proved themselves every bit as slimy as all those Republicians you've been slamming for 5 years now. No difference. But you don't see that do you.

By the way, and I'm serious here, why do we refer to Obama as a black man. He has a white mother and a black father. He is just as much white as he is black. 50/50?

[Slider]

You really think any of those made a difference in her totals? Beyond that, you really think that veterans who voted for McCain are any different? Everyone has a constituency. It's only the platform, and the follow through, that means anything.

"Hillary and Bill proved themselves every bit as slimy as all those Republicians you've been slamming for 5 years now."

How, exactly, are they any different than any other politician? I WANT my leaders to understand the strategies needed, short of criminal conspiracy, to get the job done. It's the same skillset needed to maneuver through Congress and the Senate. Rove would be a great addition to the party that will end the war and start us on a more environmentally aware and energy-independent strategy, if he hadn't sold his soul to the devil long ago and, as a result, chose to ignore all the important issues that will help us as a planet prosper as we go forward. That devil is personal profit, in case you didn't infer it.

Obama is black, or at least partly so, Hillary is white and female, McCain is a former POW. None of that matters. Policy matters. That's all.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

By the way, and I'm serious here, why do we refer to Obama as a black man. He has a white mother and a black father. He is just as much white as he is black. 50/50?

Maybe this will answer your question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU&eurl=http://askthisblackwoman.com/2008/03/21/pastor-manning.aspx


... or not.

All I know is I now think I'm an Obama-ite.

[Enigma]

"Yeah whatever" when you can't bring yourself to admit someone else's assessment is accurate where yours falls far afield.

However, those assessments with which you disagree are outlined in this NY Times article.
http://tinyurl.com/5fcz8a

Food for enlightenment should you decide to step out of your polyester bubble.

[Slider]

Try it this way: If Hiilary had said "Time for a rebirth of the American Nazi party," you think she'd have won the popular vote in the primary?

Slider

[Enigma]

:rolleyes:

[Mr_Cheeze]

Maybe Bill should have been pimpin' out the white and black women. Isn't he the original long legged mack daddy? Seems he lost his gusto.

[Enigma]

:D

[BG]

A little primer from our friend Alexander Makedon



V. Politics and Stupidity



1. Democracy and Stupidity



In a democracy we often vote for, or succeed in bringing to, or maintaining in office, incompetent, inarticulate, or inefficient leaders. In such cases, the public has correctly understood its privileged position in a democracy, and chooses to bring to power someone not much more intelligent that itself. Thus if the public is to a certain extent "stupid," for example, through its blind consumerism, materialistic orientation, or blind patriotism, then it may prefer to be led by people who make it feel comfortable the way it is. Perhaps occasionally the public is right to act stupidly to preserve its sense of self-respect or even adulation, as when thinking that, say, the United States is the greatest nation that has ever existed on the planet[40]. To reaffirm mainly our self-deception, or in some cases, connectedness with one's stupidity, people in a democracy may vote "down" than "up," meaning, for someone a little more stupid and less intelligent than may be currently available (for example, for someone less intelligent or well informed than his or her political opponents in a presidential race). Such event happening was predicted by Plato, in his book Republic, where to his consternation[41] he noticed what happened to his beloved teacher Socrates when justice was left in the hands of the Athenian public[42].



2. Elections



As if to prove democracy right once more, the public in a consumer society with certain anti-intellectual bend knows in its heart it could not be fairly represented by someone too smart for its own good, and therefore may vote in favor of "stupid." Thus, no matter how intelligent a candidate’s exhortations might be, if the public perceives them as antagonistic to its values (some of which, according to Hofstadter, may be anti-intellectual[43]), it is likely to reject such candidate. For example, although Europeans considered the Democratic candidate in the last presidential election to be by far better educated, and more honest and intelligent than the Republican, and therefore, according to traditional European cultural assumptions, which have historically been more intellectually inclined than American, the former to be more deserving of becoming president than the latter[44]; in the United States, a straightforward intellectual approach may be perceived as a liability. Such rejection of intelligence, in the intellectualized sense of the term as someone well-informed, is particularly easy to do either in the privacy of the voting booth, where voters don’t have to reveal their choice to anyone, with the exception, perhaps, of their civilized superego, or in massive rallies, where their educated group guilt finds cover behind the faceless crowd, exaggerated sloganeering; or, as in the Nazi movement prior to, and during World War II, adoption of symbols of emotional life. As Wilhelm Reich showed in his analysis of fascism, it is in this context of mass politics that humans are susceptible to emulative "attacks" of emotional stupidity[45]. In a mass movement of this type one binds instinctively with a group that is confused about the role of the mind, and therefore willing to abandon it in favor of stupidity, albeit instinctively still attracted to its presumed superiority. Instead of being able to explain in the clear light of day their stupidity, which they may be unable to do due to severe repression at the conscious level of that which they desperately seek to reaffirm, they engage in the creation of mystical symbols, such as, the swastika, that allow them at least some type of symbolic relief. Such behavior may degenerate into mass hysteria, or more dangerously, aggressive belligerence against perceived enemies to their well being (presumably, in the case of the Nazi movement, non-Aryan peoples). These behaviors may have nothing "intelligent" about them, except a twisted intelligence used by instinct to satisfy itself. Such extreme forms of repression of, and rebellion by, instinctual aspects of human existence should serve as warning to humans to learn early in their lives to live in harmony with their stupidity (including one’s instincts), in order to avoid later becoming completely overwhelmed by them, as in any number of obsessive-psychotic behavioral patterns observed by Sigmund Freud, and numerous other psychoanalysts.

[bikdav]

Now, Obama has to face McCain. This could get interesting.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Now, Obama has to face McCain. This could get interesting.

Hmm... that sounds conspicuously like a bad B-movie byline.

[ahathaway]

No offense to anyone that likes Obama but in my opinion I pray that Obama does not get into office. He will destroy national security and raise taxes to unseen levels. He doesnt have the courage to go to war (justified or not) and has already stated that he would sit down and talk with leaders like Castro and Ahmadinejad. Like talking to these nuts would do any good. Plus he has a warped idea on what is middle class. Thanks Obama I would like to keep the money I earn and I prefer to let capitalism work as it always had. Enough with the tax and spend. If he does make it all those shiny new bikes can be traded in for a big fat welfare check to support those lazy workers who "cant find a job".

[BG]

Love is like a box of chocolates...

[Slider]

No offense to anyone that likes Obama but in my opinion I pray that Obama does not get into office. He will destroy national security and raise taxes to unseen levels. He doesnt have the courage to go to war (justified or not) and has already stated that he would sit down and talk with leaders like Castro and Ahmadinejad. Like talking to these nuts would do any good. Plus he has a warped idea on what is middle class. Thanks Obama I would like to keep the money I earn and I prefer to let capitalism work as it always had. Enough with the tax and spend. If he does make it all those shiny new bikes can be traded in for a big fat welfare check to support those lazy workers who "cant find a job".

Yeah, we should just nuke 'em all. Better yet, spend another few $Trillion invading Iran. Hey, whats a few thousand lives, right?

Cheaper than diplomacy? Historic reference: See IRAQ

Slider

[kernel crash]

I have very similar reservations about Obama but I also think that we sometimes give the president too much credit and too much blame for how things go in their watch. There's plenty of examples I don't need to get into here. On paper Obama can scare but the reality is he still has to deal with Congress and the Senate. Yes they may be under Democratic control but there not all frothing at the mouth liberals. Also the current state of the economy will dictate what he gets away with. If taking a few more bucks out of my pocket produces a better economy for all, a stable gas/oil/energy policy, a stronger dollar / trade balance, then ultimately that puts more money back in my pocket. Again it sounds nice on paper but it never seems to work out that way.

And on a related note, isn't it interesting that now with gas at 4 dollars a gallon, we may be seeing a crack in the environmentalist positions that have prevented us from drilling for more oil. I mean they haven't changed their views its just that more politicians are starting to take a firmer stand knowing their constituants are backing them up and not to mention screaming mad. I believe South Dakota just voted to allow a refinery to be built there. The same with global warming. Now the choices have become clearer. Spend gazillions on pie in the sky fantasies or give these people a good shove and lets concentrate on getting this country/economy back on track. We may look back on these high gas prices a few years down the road and say that was the best thing that could have happened to us. Or maybe I'm just being too optimistic.

[bikdav]

Well.....I suppose your right. But, I still say.....this could get interesting.

[Slider]

Iraq is Bush's war, and he ignored any shot at diplomacy - 'talking' - to make it happen. Presidents can make a huge difference if they want to screw things up, and it can happen very fast.

We are seeing the effects of that war in gas prices. It isn't the environmentalists. Claiming so is just more if the Bush idiocy, a legacy of it I guess, just like the $trillion dollar war drain on our economy that is having massive ripple effects.

Diplomacy, building relationships, gathering world-wide support for policy - that takes time. It starts with talking.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Diplomacy, building relationships, gathering world-wide support for policy - that takes time. It starts with talking.

Slider

While I agree that this Iraq war and the aftermath are utter disasters, and entirely Bush's fault, pacifism doesn't work against an Muslim extremist enemy without a homeland. Pacifism doesn't work, period. Not in a nation this size. If you're not prepared to take the offensive when it is needed, like when there is truly a latent threat to our security, which Iraq, in retrospect, was not.

So when is diplomacy the answer? This may surprise you, but I do think that it can work with Iran. Much of what we are hearing from Israel and the neo-cons with respect to the Irani threat have to do with fear mongering during an election year. We do have allies inside of Iran who want no part of the Shiite government.

I do find it ironic that liberals like to endorse pacifism, the side effects of which are nationalism and jingoism.

[Slider]

I don't see how diplomacy and pacifism equate.

Slider

[ahathaway]

Yeah, we should just nuke 'em all. Better yet, spend another few $Trillion invading Iran. Hey, whats a few thousand lives, right?

Cheaper than diplomacy? Historic reference: See IRAQ

Slider

I never said nuke them, or even go to war against them and I do not think Iraq was a good idea either. You just think that anyone that doesnt want to sit in a circle smoking a peace pipe wants destruction and chaos and that is not the truth.

[Slider]

If you don't want us to talk to them, what alternative are you proposing?

Slider

[ahathaway]

I am saying continue with sanctions and I also say that anyone coming into or going out of our country that has ties to known terrorist supporting nations get scrutinized to the maximum allowable by the law. I have no problem with reasonable profiling and I dont see how anyone would.

What do you think we should talk to them about?

[Slider]

Profiling, tht's new to this conversation. I though we were talking about diplomacy. Did I miss something?

"Like talking to these nuts would do any good. "

Slider

[ahathaway]

You did not answer my question. What do you think we should talk to them about?

[Slider]

Nukes.

Slider

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/06/11/bush_says_diplomacy_is_first_choice_in_iran_stando ff/

[Mr_Cheeze]

Profiling? Hey, I'm not against profiling, per se, but you do realize that Iran is not an Arab country? They don't even look like Arabs. In fact, most of them look very much like southeastern Europeans. How do you profile that?

Also, Iran's Muslims are Shiite and very much the enemies of the Sunnis that comprise al Qaeda and other extremist sects. Are people thinking that Iran is just another part of the greater war on terror? They aren't. But they are an enemy of Israel, and that what all of this hubbub is about. Maybe it's high time we reevaluate our relationship with the Middle East only true "democracy". It is going to be extremely difficult succeeding in any diplomacy with Persians and Arabs when our government basically underwrites everything that Israel says and does. We need to step back and act as a truly neutral agent. Wishful thinking, I know. People have been brainwashed into thinking that we need Israel is much as they need us. Just not true.

[Enigma]

We can afford to take the high road of diplomacy with Iran. As we rant, Bush is lobbying the EC for stiff sanctions against Iran if they don't comply with U.N. requests for disclosure on their nuclear facilities.

Hell, we don't have to do a thing. The Israelis will destroy any facility in Iran suspected of violating any nuclear non proliferation treaty.

KA-BOOOOM :D

[Slider]

We can't do a thing, which is one of the reasons Ahmadinejad has the balls to ignore Bush. We're way overextended due to the colossal blunder that is the Iraq war. There's no support for an invasion here or anywhere else in the world, except maybe Israel.

Unforutnately, Iran won't take Bush's diplomacy efforts seriously, either, since he's proven to be full of s**t. Again, see IRAQ.

So he can't negotiate, and can't go to war. That's what happens when foreign policy is made in a vacuum of intelligence, the reconnaissance kind and the power of reasoning kind.

Solider

[ahathaway]

We can't do a thing, which is one of the reasons Ahmadinejad has the balls to ignore Bush. We're way overextended due to the colossal blunder that is the Iraq war. There's no support for an invasion here or anywhere else in the world, except maybe Israel.

Unforutnately, Iran won't take Bush's diplomacy efforts seriously, either, since he's proven to be full of s**t. Again, see IRAQ.

So he can't negotiate, and can't go to war. That's what happens when foreign policy is made in a vacuum of intelligence, the reconnaissance kind and the power of reasoning kind.

Solider

One of your first posts that I completely agree with you on. :D

[Mr_Cheeze]

We can't do a thing, which is one of the reasons Ahmadinejad has the balls to ignore Bush. We're way overextended due to the colossal blunder that is the Iraq war. There's no support for an invasion here or anywhere else in the world, except maybe Israel.

Unforutnately, Iran won't take Bush's diplomacy efforts seriously, either, since he's proven to be full of s**t. Again, see IRAQ.



Iraq has nothing to do with why Ahmadinejad is so uncooperative. See Israel. If you think that Obama, should he win, will have an easier time talking with Iran based on his pandering speeches in front of AIPAC, then you better think again. Israel is the key. It is seriously time to reassess the level of our commitment to that State, because until we do, any diplomacy with Middle East entities is bound to fail.