Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It never fails to astonish me how incredibly naive and ultimately imbecilic the democratic party is when it comes to selecting a presidential nominee. As if the selection of Al Gore, and the absolutely atrocious selection of Joe Lieberman as vice president over the far superior Bill Bradley wasn't enough; the democrats in 2004 made another gaffe selecting haughty and outright unappealing John Kerry over candidates with almost universal appeal like Wesley Clarke (with extreme military credibility) and Dick Gephardt (with southern credentials). But this year takes the cake, instead of relying upon genuine policy change initiatives, the democrats nominate two rockstars within the party with very little appeal to most simpletons in this country (and intellectuals for that matter), interpreting change as the color of the epidermis and one's genitalia. After months the field has been widdled down to the two MOST UNELECTABLE candidates at the onset. The democrats were handed a mandate, they had many qualified candidates with the presidency firmly in their grasp including Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd, now the presidency is little more than a mirage in the desert. It seems this election has degraded into little more than a political version of American Idol, where issues have become iniquities and appeal is based on manipulation, and identity. The selection of Barack Obama as the nominee plays right into the republicans hands; they couldn't pick a more unappealing candidate themselves, a minority with no military experience, a former hard drug user, being advised by Zbigniew Brezinski, with huge credibility problems, making elitist remarks, belonging to a controversial church, not to mention the Rezko connection, this is the REPUBLICAN WET DREAM. To bad the young voters won't vote come election time like they never do. Meanwhile the republicans picked the optimal choice not selecting a niche candidate like a Mormon or an evangelical and appealing to moderates, independents and yes even liberals. Democrats can expect to get trounced this November this isn't a prediction its a fact. Eventually one just has to ask do the democrats just not care about winning the White House anymore?

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=40463

When you quote someone verbatim, it's considered to polite to use some of these little cuties: " "

(And it's from a forum with the subtitle of 'A clear-thinking oasis'...hehehe.)

hahaha a copy/paste sock.

either spelljammer or whirly impersonating spelljammer me thinks

Originally posted by Cockofthewalk
It never fails to astonish me how incredibly naive and ultimately imbecilic the democratic party is when it comes to selecting a presidential nominee. As if the selection of Al Gore, and the absolutely atrocious selection of Joe Lieberman as vice president over the far superior Bill Bradley wasn't enough; the democrats in 2004 made another gaffe selecting haughty and outright unappealing John Kerry over candidates with almost universal appeal like Wesley Clarke (with extreme military credibility) and Dick Gephardt (with southern credentials). But this year takes the cake, instead of relying upon genuine policy change initiatives, the democrats nominate two rockstars within the party with very little appeal to most simpletons in this country (and intellectuals for that matter), interpreting change as the color of the epidermis and one's genitalia. After months the field has been widdled down to the two MOST UNELECTABLE candidates at the onset. The democrats were handed a mandate, they had many qualified candidates with the presidency firmly in their grasp including Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd, now the presidency is little more than a mirage in the desert. It seems this election has degraded into little more than a political version of American Idol, where issues have become iniquities and appeal is based on manipulation, and identity. The selection of Barack Obama as the nominee plays right into the republicans hands; they couldn't pick a more unappealing candidate themselves, a minority with no military experience, a former hard drug user, being advised by Zbigniew Brezinski, with huge credibility problems, making elitist remarks, belonging to a controversial church, not to mention the Rezko connection, this is the REPUBLICAN WET DREAM. To bad the young voters won't vote come election time like they never do. Meanwhile the republicans picked the optimal choice not selecting a niche candidate like a Mormon or an evangelical and appealing to moderates, independents and yes even liberals. Democrats can expect to get trounced this November this isn't a prediction its a fact. Eventually one just has to ask do the democrats just not care about winning the White House anymore?

True they will never get in.

It's gotta be the sad, old splattman. Look ^, he's still going!

Go, splattman! Go!

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
It's gotta be the sad, old splattman. Look ^, he's still going!

Go, splattman! Go!

Word... These are the best friends you ever had.

I'm very confused... (some) threads get closed because they go off topic, okay. A sock makes a troll thread, it stays open. Odd.

Anyhow, even though there's a a thread already, I think the Dems will take the oval in '08.

Well, then OTF it.

On a related note, I'm having surgery next month to remove a cyst on my a$$!

good luck with that. you should ask the surgeon if you would take it home in a jar. you can call it whirly.

Originally posted by botankus
Well, then OTF it.

On a related note, I'm having surgery next month to remove a cyst on my a$$!

God gave that to you, because you're a sinner.

It's been there since my first sin, so that sounds about right.

I met Bill Bradley in the 2nd battery elevator of the Essex House, a hotel/residential establishment, in New York City. He was a funny and interesting drunk. He was with his wife and stood at least 14 feet taller than myself. He went on and on about the carnation that was in the wall sconce on the elevator. (a habit of over-priced hotels, apparently) The flower was beautiful and elegant and his breath wreaked of dark liquors, like scotch. But he liked my Tie.

Originally posted by Devil King
I met Bill Bradley in the 2nd battery elevator of the Essex House, a hotel/residential establishment, in New York City. He was a funny and interesting drunk. He was with his wife and stood at least 14 feet taller than myself. He went on and on about the carnation that was in the wall sconce on the elevator. (a habit of over-priced hotels, apparently) The flower was beautiful and elegant and his breath wreaked of dark liquors, like scotch. But he liked my Tie.

Reported. doped

Originally posted by dadudemon
Reported. doped

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/crybaby.gif

Originally posted by Schecter
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/crybaby.gif



http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/geo/fontanad/FontanaDominic.jpg

awwwww whats the matter sunshine? are you mad because the mods didnt ban DK? for nothing?

Originally posted by Devil King
I met Bill Bradley in the 2nd battery elevator of the Essex House, a hotel/residential establishment, in New York City. He was a funny and interesting drunk. He was with his wife and stood at least 14 feet taller than myself. He went on and on about the carnation that was in the wall sconce on the elevator. (a habit of over-priced hotels, apparently) The flower was beautiful and elegant and his breath wreaked of dark liquors, like scotch. But he liked my Tie. Originally posted by dadudemon
Reported. doped Originally posted by Schecter
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/PVS/crybaby.gif Originally posted by dadudemon


http://www.envf.port.ac.uk/geo/fontanad/FontanaDominic.jpg Originally posted by Schecter
awwwww whats the matter sunshine? are you mad because the mods didnt ban DK? for nothing?

http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/LOL/bwahahah_70.jpg

Ha! This thread is awesome. I haven't laughed this hard in a while. Started with a provacative (yet true) post and just kept reading until mayhem ensued.

Paul, is that really you?

no. i think thats supposed to be me in 20 years. who am i to deny for sure?

anyway, you're an idiot. no offense intended, of course.

None taken.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
This thread is awesome. I haven't laughed this hard in a while. Started with a provacative (yet true) post and just kept reading until mayhem ensued.

So if Obama takes it in '08, which he has a very good chance of doing, since McCain is cutting his own throat by butt****ing his Conservative base, what will you say?

Originally posted by Robtard
So if Obama takes it in '08, which he has a very good chance of doing, since McCain is cutting his own throat by butt****ing his Conservative base, what will you say?

1.) Conservatives will vote for McCain who's pro-life and anti Gay Marriage before they'll vote for liberal obama.(Especially if he adds Huckabee as his VP)

2.) McCain has TONS of experience on foreign diplomacy and lawmaking. Obama has none.

3.) McCain was right about the troop surge, and although continuing the Iraq war sucks and is his worst campaign policy, he's tough on terror and people will respond to that.

4.) Obama has won lots of states, true. But just those states Dems. Many of those states are pretty assured to go Republican in the general election.

5.) The side issues (Obama's pastor, his wife's remarks, friendship with terrorist William Ayers) are kinda silly to me, but many will not vote for him over John McCain, the war hero maverick who's often reached across the isle and defied the prez and conservatives.

6.) I expect Obama to get owned in the debates. Really, I do. McCain will be less flowery and speak slower, but he'll have some substance behind what he says.

In the end, you'll have a repeat of this:

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/1/failure.jpg

so basically if obama wins you'll never post in this forum again. awesome.

although ill miss all your retarded little pictures and nonsensical arguments

Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) Conservatives will vote for McCain who's pro-life and anti Gay Marriage before they'll vote for liberal obama.(Especially if he adds Huckabee as his VP)

2.) McCain has TONS of experience on foreign diplomacy and lawmaking. Obama has none.

3.) McCain was right about the troop surge, and although continuing the Iraq war sucks and is his worst campaign policy, he's tough on terror and people will respond to that.

4.) Obama has won lots of states, true. But just those states Dems. Many of those states are pretty assured to go Republican in the general election.

5.) The side issues (Obama's pastor, his wife's remarks, friendship with terrorist William Ayers) are kinda silly to me, but many will not vote for him over John McCain, the war hero maverick who's often reached across the isle and defied the prez and conservatives.

6.) I expect Obama to get owned in the debates. Really, I do. McCain will be less flowery and speak slower, but he'll have some substance behind what he says.




That's great and all, but you didn't answer the question. What if Obama wins, despite all his numerous flaws and shortcomings as compared to John "I'm senile" McCain?

Originally posted by Robtard
That's great and all, but you didn't answer the question. What if Obama wins, despite all his numerous flaws and shortcomings as compared to John "I'm senile" McCain?

I see the hate already starting.

John "I'm senile" McCain?

Obama "Bin Laden"?

Be carful what you start.

lol @ Obama getting beating in debates by McCain. That's gotta be a joke.

Obama will embarrass McCain during debates. Not only is he a better debater - sharper, quicker, better spoken; but he also will have the issues on his side. Most people will agree with him when it comes to the war in Iraq, his stance on the economy, and his ideas on the environment.

Time will tell.

Remember how everybody "KNEW" that bush would loose in '04? Due to what? Oh yes, "the war in Iraq, his stance on the economy, and his ideas on the environment".

Heck, there was even films and songs (Farenheit 9/11, Eminem's "Mosh" about how evil and stupid Bush was. Remember Diddy's "Vote or Die"?

And yet, he won. By more of a margin than the 2000 election, as I recall. What you are not realizing is that (for now, at least) most Americans are pretty much right of center, as McCain is.

And McCain is hardly senile. I said that Obama will speak better and faster in the debates, I know that. But it's all fluff, no substance.

As I said, time will tell.

right out of you book o' gop talking points.

is obama an appeaser sithsaber? an appeaser? appeaser?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see the hate already starting.

John "I'm senile" McCain?

Obama "Bin Laden"?

Be carful what you start.

Calling McCain senile is far more valid than calling Obama a Muslim terrorist.

BTW, Obama being a Muslim in sheep’s clothing has already been propagated by the Righties, nothing new.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Time will tell.

Remember how everybody "KNEW" that bush would loose in '04? Due to what? Oh yes, "the war in Iraq, his stance on the economy, and his ideas on the environment".

Heck, there was even films and songs (Farenheit 9/11, Eminem's "Mosh" about how evil and stupid Bush was. Remember Diddy's "Vote or Die"?

And yet, he won. By more of a margin than the 2000 election, as I recall. What you are not realizing is that (for now, at least) most Americans are pretty much right of center, as McCain is.

And McCain is hardly senile. I said that Obama will speak better and faster in the debates, I know that. But it's all fluff, no substance.

As I said, time will tell.

It's not all fluff. There's plenty of substance if you actually take time to listen to his full speeches, rather than whatever soundbites you might hear on Fox News.

Take a peek at his website for mounds and mounds of specifics about his plans.

Make no mistake, though. McCain will be a strong opponent in the election, no doubt. I'm not denying that. Just when it comes to debates he won't be able to really go toe to toe.

Originally posted by Robtard
Calling McCain senile is far more valid than calling Obama a Muslim terrorist.

Valid has nothing to do with it. Mark my words, but if Obama is elected, and he does anything that can be construed as an appeaser, the Republicans will call him Obama Bin Laden or worse.

Personally, I despise the name calling.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Valid has nothing to do with it. Mark my words, but if Obama is elected, and he does anything that can be construed as an appeaser, the Republicans will call him Obama Bin Laden or worse.

Personally, I despise the name calling.

It's already been done, the Right has already started the "Obama won't protect America's children from the evil terr'rist by appeasing them, vote for him if you want your children to be raped and killed" nonsense.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
McCain who's pro-life and anti Gay Marriage

That's pretty much all it's about for you guys, huh?

Of course, that poll is over a month old. Polls are barely valid for 10 minutes after they're released, let alone for a month.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's already been done, the Right has already started the "Obama won't protect America's children from the evil terr'rist by appeasing them, vote for him if you want your children to be raped and killed" nonsense.

Then why propagate it? I speak of all the candidates respectfully.

Originally posted by Robtard
So if Obama takes it in '08, which he has a very good chance of doing, since McCain is cutting his own throat by butt****ing his Conservative base, what will you say? Apparently McCain is very liberal, but I haven't seen it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then why propagate it? I speak of all the candidates respectfully.

The "senile" remark was a jab specifically at Sith, relax.

Originally posted by Schecter
so basically if obama wins you'll never post in this forum again. awesome.

although ill miss all your retarded little pictures and nonsensical arguments I've never seen a better post of yours.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Apparently McCain is very liberal, but I haven't seen it.

To the Extreme Right Wing, he is. A lot of hate towards him comes from that group.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's pretty much all it's about for you guys, huh?

Isn't it obvious, then again, it was a rhetorical.

Though it's very telling of people who are minded like SithSaber, that things like the economy, environment, current war(s) and world affairs come in far behind in importance to the personal rights of a small group.

Originally posted by Robtard
Isn't it obvious, then again, it was a rhetorical.

Though it's very telling of people who are minded like SithSaber, that things like the economy, environment, current war(s) and world affairs come in far behind in importance to the personal rights of a small group.

You are correct about that. I have never understood why allowing homosexuals to get a marriage license would destroy the institution of marriage.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's pretty much all it's about for you guys, huh?

If you'd posted the whole sentence you'd see I was responding to Rob about his point that conservatives won't vote for McCain.

Don't make it a Christian issue.

Originally posted by BackFire
Of course, that poll is over a month old. Polls are barely valid for 10 minutes after they're released, let alone for a month.

I agree there.

But it's still very telling that at ANY point in time, under ANY circumstances that McCain could beat Obama and Clinton COMBINED in liberal, secular New York.

It goes to show that Obama doesn't "have this in the bag" as many seem to think, and also that McCain has a very real shot at winning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are correct about that. I have never understood why allowing homosexuals to get a marriage license would destroy the institution of marriage.

Because there isn't a single shread of reason how it would,t hat's why you don't nor shall ever understand.

It comes down to "we hate ****", nothing else.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If you'd posted the whole sentence you'd see I was responding to Rob about his point that conservatives won't vote for McCain.

Don't make it a Christian issue.

I didn't. You did; by saying these were the big issues on which conservatives stand. What you are also doing is saying that conservatives are voting on a platform and not the person, which I think is Robtard's point. They don't support McCain, they support a 2 issue platform.

Originally posted by sithsaber408

It goes to show that Obama doesn't "have this in the bag" as many seem to think, and also that McCain has a very real shot at winning.

i dont see how thats the same as mccain "owning" obama in november, as you so retardedly put it.

Originally posted by Schecter
i dont see how thats the same as mccain "owning" obama in november, as you so retardedly put it.

where?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If you'd posted the whole sentence you'd see I was responding to Rob about his point that conservatives won't vote for McCain.

Don't make it a Christian issue.

I never said that Conservatives wouldn't vote for McCain, in fact, there's around 35-40% of the nation that will simply vote Republican/Conservative, no matter who is running. McCain is pissing off many Conservatives, namely the far-Right.

I've read on more than one occasion, the far-Right saying they'd rather vote for Hillary or Obama, since they'd rather have the Democrats destroying the country between 2008-2012 and taking the heat, instead of the Republican party with McCain at the helm.

Originally posted by Robtard
Isn't it obvious, then again, it was a rhetorical.

Though it's very telling of people who are minded like SithSaber, that things like the economy, environment, current war(s) and world affairs come in far behind in importance to the personal rights of a small group.

Especially when those larger issues effect everyone and are currently being used to rape all of us in the ass.

Originally posted by Devil King
I didn't. You did; by saying these were the big issues on which conservatives stand. What you are also doing is saying that conservatives are voting on a platform and not the person, which I think is Robtard's point. They don't support McCain, they support a 2 issue platform.

I won't disagree with you there. I merely was stating that Rob was wrong to think that conservatives will abandon McCain in the general election.

They won't, they'll vote for him over Obama.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I won't disagree with you there. I merely was stating that Rob was wrong to think that conservatives will abandon McCain in the general election.

They won't, they'll vote for him over Obama.

I never said that as a blanket statement, you twit. See above.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I won't disagree with you there. I merely was stating that Rob was wrong to think that conservatives will abandon McCain in the general election.

They won't, they'll vote for him over Obama.

So, in essence:

Originally posted by Devil King
That's pretty much all it's about for you guys, huh?

Originally posted by Robtard
So if Obama takes it in '08, which he has a very good chance of doing, since McCain is cutting his own throat by butt****ing his Conservative base, what will you say?

Originally posted by Robtard
I never said that Conservatives wouldn't vote for McCain, in fact, there's around 35-40% of the nation that will simply vote Republican/Conservative, no matter who is running. McCain is pissing off many Conservatives, namely the far-Right.

I've read on more than one occasion, the far-Right saying they'd rather vote for Hillary or Obama, since they'd rather have the Democrats destroying the country between 2008-2012 and taking the heat, instead of the Republican party with McCain at the helm.

Guess I took that the wrong way then? Fine.

But I'd disagree with the rest of the post. Sure, party leaders may feel that way about McCain, but the general (conservative voting) public isn't going to let Obama have it so that he can "catch the blame" or whatever.

That's an interesting point though.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Guess I took that the wrong way then? Fine.

But I'd disagree with the rest of the post. Sure, party leaders may feel that way about McCain, but the general (conservative voting) public isn't going to let Obama have it so that he can "catch the blame" or whatever.

That's an interesting point though.

If just 5% of the far-Right abandons him, by either not voting in '08 or voting for Obama out of some skewed logic, he would be seriously gimped. But this is a "what if".

Still, I think Obama has a greater chance in '08 that McCain, pissed off far-Right or no. In the debates, Obama will shine and pull the swing-vote.

My father-in-law who has voted Republican since the late 70's will be voting for Obama, he's also not a far-Rightwinger, just Right of center. Yeah, I know it's only an anecdote.

Originally posted by Robtard
If just 5% of the far-Right abandons him, by either not voting in '08 or voting for Obama out of some skewed logic, he would be seriously gimped. But this is a "what if".

Still, I think Obama has a greater chance in '08 that McCain, pissed off far-Right or no. In the debates, Obama will shine and pull the swing-vote.

My father-in-law who has voted Republican since the late 70's will be voting for Obama, he's also not a far-Rightwinger, just Right of center. Yeah, I know it's only an anecdote.

Not sure about the 5% thing, because he carries moderates pretty well too. (conservative-moderates, anyway. Obama will get the left leaning ones)

I'd say if 15% or more of the far-right won't back him, then yeah his goose is cooked. (if he picks Huckabee, he'll get 'em all.)

I disagree on the debates, as I've said before. McCain isn't as showy or fast, but his experience will also be seen. Many will say that Obama has "won" this or that debate, but I think McCain will show himself more than capable of being president, and that will sway those who aren't already decided on voting for him. But one can never be certain.

I appreciate the perspective on your wife's father. Any personal account is valid, and is probably representative of a larger group of like-minded people. How large, well that's the question that'll be answered come November.




My point to all in the thread is this: I don't think Dems will get "trounced" as the thread starter suggested, but neither will the Republicans.

McCain is a darn good candidate, conservative where he needs to be (social issues, terrorism) liberal/independent where he needs to be (global warming, immigration), and is going to be far more of uniter than Obama.

Obama's strengths are many, and known to you, so I've no need to post them. (personally I find him intelligent and engaging. Choosing between Hillary and him, I'd pick him in a second)

This will be a close election, no doubt. I'm not going to declare Obama the instant winner by a long shot.

People hate the war, but other than that McCain has a pretty broad appeal: Far-right, right, right of center, center, and in a few cases left of center. (lieberman types)

Obama on the other hand has less appeal: far-left, left, majority left of center and a in a few cases center and right of center.

As I said, time will tell.

Okay, but by your own logic, it should be a sound victory for the democrats. In many polls Obama and McCain are close, with Obama having the advantage. But at this point the questions being posed to the people participating in the polls are as follow: Who would you vote for, Obama or McCain and Who would you vote for, McCain or Clinton? In both cases, the democrat is ahead. And if, as you say, most conservatives won't break with their party and the Clinton factor is removed, then the same applied logic would dictate that liberals will likely do the same. Once the Clinton and Obama supporters come together it's a very clear victory for Mr. Obama. (or Clinton or both)

Then Obama supporters have nothing to worry about, right?

Except when you get polls like the one I posted where Obama and Clinton COMBINED couldn't beat McCain (in New York, no less) if he picked a good VP like Condi Rice.

So polls aren't necessarily what we should rely on.

You're right: Conservatives will pick McCain, Liberals will pick Obama. (by and large conservatives outnumber liberals in the entire country)

The question is: Who'll get the moderates and independents?

You say Obama, I say McCain.

Again, time will tell.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Then Obama supporters have nothing to worry about, right?

Except when you get polls like the one I posted where Obama and Clinton COMBINED couldn't beat McCain (in New York, no less) if he picked a good VP like Condi Rice.

So polls aren't necessarily what we should rely on.

You're right: Conservatives will pick McCain, Liberals will pick Obama. (by and large conservatives outnumber liberals in the entire country)

The question is: Who'll get the moderates and independents?

You say Obama, I say McCain.

Again, time will tell.

I am one of those independents, and I will make my choice based on the debates. I have to be honest, it doesn't look good for McCain, but you are right, time will tell.

If Sithsaber is correct, McCain should just come out and say "No abortions and no gays, **** those people!", that will seal the deal with the Conservatives.

He can then spend the rest of the debate trying to pull the moderates/indies with talks of the economy, environment, foreign affairs, Iraq war etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
If Sithsaber is correct, McCain should just come out and say "No abortions and no gays, **** those people!", that will seal the deal with the Conservatives.

He can then spend the rest of the debate trying to pull the moderates/indies with talks of the economy, environment, foreign affairs, Iraq war etc.

I am looking forward to seeing the debates.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am one of those independents, and I will make my choice based on the debates. I have to be honest, it doesn't look good for McCain, but you are right, time will tell.

Let me ask you then Shaky, if McCain does well and presents himself as knowledgeable on the issues, experienced with the necessary skills, and competent, though less of a showstopping speaker like Obama, would you want to vote for him?Originally posted by Robtard
If Sithsaber is correct, McCain should just come out and say "No abortions and no gays, **** those people!", that will seal the deal with the Conservatives.

He can then spend the rest of the debate trying to pull the moderates/indies with talks of the economy, environment, foreign affairs, Iraq war etc. He doesn't even have to say that. His record on the abortion issue is conservative (he supports it only in rape or incest cases or to save the life of the mother) and while he wouldn't support a federal ban on gay marriage (preferring states to choose), he did in his own state keep it between man and woman, and supports civil unions. Also, he'll appoint conservative judges.

I know he does get portrayed as a "maverick" and "independent" but on those social issues his voting record has been pretty consistent. (if conservatives realize this, he'll have no trouble there)

His appeal to moderates is what will be the hardest for him.

His positions on global warming and immigration are a huge plus for him with those voters, his dogged defense of the war is not. (though he gets some points for being right about "the surge"

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Let me ask you then Shaky, if McCain does well and presents himself as knowledgeable on the issues, experienced with the necessary skills, and competent, though less of a showstopping speaker like Obama, would you want to vote for him?...

Yes, I would. The fact that when he was a prisoner of war he refused to be given special treatment is a plus for him that is great, in my opinion, then presentation. However, there are a lot more things at stake. The direction the country will take in the future is one example.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I would. The fact that when he was a prisoner of war he refused to be given special treatment is a plus for him that is great, in my opinion, then presentation. However, there are a lot more things at stake. The direction the country will take in the future is one example. Good response. America needs more voters like you, not knee-jerk liberals or neo-con fascists.

A good middle of the road.











Like John McCain.

ErC1IJeHnyc

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Good response. America needs more voters like you, not knee-jerk liberals or neo-con fascists.

A good middle of the road.











Like John McCain.

To be honest, I'm leery of meeting with your approval.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Good response. America needs more voters like you, not knee-jerk liberals or neo-con fascists.

so i guess you're staying home on election day?

I missed the problem there.

McCain got the support of a pastor who prefers him to Obama. He's happy for that support.

Moreover, what did pastor Hagee say that was wrong? That is a certain verse in the Bible, and it could very well be interpereted that way.

And as for the end, he's not the first to compare modern American liberalism with a slide into Soddom and Gammorah.

At least he's biblical, can we say the same for Pastor Jeremiah "america deserved 9/11 and AIDS is government posion for blacks" Wright?

Next topic please.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Let me ask you then Shaky, if McCain does well and presents himself as knowledgeable on the issues, experienced with the necessary skills, and competent, though less of a showstopping speaker like Obama, would you want to vote for him? He doesn't even have to say that. His record on the abortion issue is conservative (he supports it only in rape or incest cases or to save the life of the mother) and while he wouldn't support a federal ban on gay marriage (preferring states to choose), he did in his own state keep it between man and woman, and supports civil unions. Also, he'll appoint conservative judges.

I know he does get portrayed as a "maverick" and "independent" but on those social issues his voting record has been pretty consistent. (if conservatives realize this, he'll have no trouble there)

His appeal to moderates is what will be the hardest for him.

His positions on global warming and immigration are a huge plus for him with those voters, his dogged defense of the war is not. (though he gets some points for being right about "the surge"

Well then, that pretty much makes him an idiot, no? I can understand the 'life of the mother' concept, as self-preservation is a strong desire. But a "baby" suddenly doesn't have the right to life if the father is a rapist or is a father-uncle? Talk about making one accountable for the sins of the father. Moronic.

The far-Right wing has a problem with him, but not on issues like abortion or equal rights based on sexuality.

If you think he'll have a hard time appealing to moderates (which he will), what makes you think he can pull them instead of Obama, as you said to DK above, just because of two issues?

BTW, has the surge really worked? Is there any indication that America can leave Iraq and Iraq will sustain itself as a democracy?

i guess declaring that god sent hitler to strip the jews of their faith and send them back to isreal is ok. and no, he doesnt just happen to support mccain, but rather mccain actively worked at winning his endorsement.

Originally posted by Robtard
... BTW, has the surge really worked? Is there any indication that America can leave Iraq and Iraq will sustain itself as a democracy?

Has the US left Germany after WWII yet?

Originally posted by Schecter
i guess declaring that god sent hitler to strip the jews of their faith and send them back to isreal is ok. and no, he doesnt just happen to support mccain, but rather mccain actively worked at winning his endorsement.

Hmm.. didn't know that McCain actively sought the endorsement.

But if you want to get into religious debates, many schools of thought are that "God is in control" and that everything is ordained of him.

So it could be argued that, in a way, God "sent" hitler to strip jews of their faith and sent them back to Israel. Those 2 things happened, and if you believe God is in control, then he meant them to happen. And plus, he's found some scriptures that support that thinking.

I personally don't agree with that line of thinking ("Every good and perfect gift comes from the father, it is the enemy who comes to steal, kill and destroy" but he's not some whacked out preacher for saying so.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Has the US left Germany after WWII yet?

You know, every time I here that come up or the 'has the US left Japan', I want to strick needles into squirrels. Such a necon cop-out.

1) The US soundly defeated Germany and Japan, then set up bases as a presense. There was little or no opposition from the Germans or the Japanese afterwards.

2) America could have left either (Germany on the grounds that Russia didn't do something) country shortly after and there would have been peace and stability.

Edit: I forgot to add, when the war was sold to the American public, it was on the grounds that America would remove Saddam, help set up a democracy and then leave Iraq, all within 6-12 months and within the budget of $600k-800k.

yeah, or he could just be a piece of garbage with millions of willing neoconservative apologist turd-polishers like yourself willing to explain away.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Has the US left Germany after WWII yet?

not sure of your point there. are you using it as justification for military presence on foreign sovereign soil or just stating 'what is' to point out a technicallity?

Originally posted by Robtard
You know, every time I here that come up or the 'has the US left Japan', I want to strick needles into squirrels. Such a necon cop-out.

1) The US soundly defeated Germany and Japan, then set up bases as a presense. There was little or no opposition from the Germans or the Japanese afterwards.

2) Also, America could have left either (Germany on the grounds that Russia didn't do something) country shortly after and there would have been peace and stability.

That wasn't my point. My point is; I do not believe Obama when he says he will bring the troop home. I'm cynical on this topic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That wasn't my point. My point is; I do not believe Obama when he says he will bring the troop home.

considering that germany and japan signed their surrenders, i think you're comparing apples and oranges.

are there any more japanese troops in china?

Originally posted by Schecter
yeah, or he could just be a piece of garbage with millions of willing neoconservative apologist turd-polishers like yourself willing to explain away.

Now hold on, Paul. I want to educate you here, if I can be so bold.

What he's saying (at least from a biblical standpoint) isn't off. It's one interpretation (one that I don't personally share), but it's not like he pulled it from his rear.

You don't have to like it or agree, but as a minister he's using the scriptures and a certain set of theological convictions (God is in control, ordaines everything) to make that assertation.

I know it might not matter to you, but as far as what he's preaching from the pulpit, he's in the parameters of where he should be.

He's not in fact spreading nonsense that America deserved 9/11 or devised a plot to give African Americans AIDS. (has nothing to do with scripture, see the difference?)

What the f*ck does religious crap have to do with an political election?

Oh, yeah...

USA! USA! USA!

Actually, Wright's comment about America's chickens coming home to roost was based in biblical ideas. This is made very very clear if you listen to the context of the sermon that was conveniently left out while the story was 'covered' by the news networks. His point was merely that violence begets violence and he referenced some biblical stories during that sermon.

I love how the discussion has turned from:

"Obama will totally beat McCain"

to

Well, some people and polls say different

to

"conservatives hate gays and l0lZpast0rz11"

because

the point is made that Obama sure as heck doesn't have the presidency all tied up in bow and McCain is a strong contender, just as he is.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Now hold on, Paul. I want to educate you here, if I can be so bold.

what sweet pretentious douchebaggery.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
What he's saying (at least from a biblical standpoint) isn't off. It's one interpretation (one that I don't personally share), but it's not like he pulled it from his rear.

yes, he did. i dont recall implying that he made up the scripture, only that he perverted it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You don't have to like it or agree, but as a minister he's using the scriptures and a certain set of theological convictions (God is in control, ordaines everything) to make that assertation.

then it was gods will that 9/11 happened. also gods will that a child gets raped and buried alive. you either subscribe to the theory or you dont. no room for cherrypicking here.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I know it might not matter to you, but as far as what he's preaching from the pulpit, he's in the parameters of where he should be.

that makes no sense at all. he's right to say whatever because he's in church?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
He's not in fact spreading nonsense that America deserved 9/11 or devised a plot to give African Americans AIDS. (has nothing to do with scripture, see the difference?)

oh hahaha it all goes back to wright, whom by the way obama removed from his campaign and condemned for his remarks. (btw that 'america deserved 9/11' is pure slander. you prove your idiocy by parroting lies.

Originally posted by BackFire
Actually, Wright's comment about America's chickens coming home to roost was based in biblical ideas. This is made very very clear if you listen to the context of the sermon that was conveniently left out while the story was 'covered' by the news networks. His point was merely that violence begets violence and he referenced some biblical stories during that sermon.

no! sean hannity said that write said that america deserved 9/11 so its fact

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That wasn't my point. My point is; I do not believe Obama when he says he will bring the troop home. I'm cynical on this topic.

It's going to have happen, maybe not in '08, '09 or even '12, but it will. I do believe Obama will work harder to pull America out of Iraq, than McCain will (because he wants to stay indefinitely, I believe).

There is no easy solution, years of Bush being Bush and the democrats being pussies had made a mess of it.

no, mccain backed off from his 'hundred years' comment and declared that america will achieve 'victory' in 2012. SOLD!!!

Originally posted by BackFire
Actually, Wright's comment about America's chickens coming home to roost was based in biblical ideas. This is made very very clear if you listen to the context of the sermon that was conveniently left out while the story was 'covered' by the news networks. His point was merely that violence begets violence and he referenced some biblical stories during that sermon.

BF, that's interesting. I'll have to get the full sermon at some point.

Again, not a theological position that I'd agree with (God allowed us to have 9/11 because of the violence of America's past) because I read elsewhere in scripture where God is a good God who cares for his people and it's the devil who causes pain, hurt and destruction. (people place themselves in the way of that destruction by not following God, by removing themselves from "under His covering" but he doesn't do it to them. They take their chances without him in the world, where the devil has some measure of power and authority, and without God on your side, you can find yourself jacked up.) That's New Covenant, New Testament teaching. The old fire and brimstone stuff is old testament, before Jesus came.



None of the above has anything to do with the Reverend Wrights position on AIDS and the governement though. That's not biblical.

I digress, sorry for the off topic stuff.

No, I think everyone agrees the AIDS comment is just nonsense.

i love how you do that. when your claims are refuted its either "i dont know if thats true" or "thats interesting. i'll have to research it". why dont you do your homework and then act as resident right wing apologist. as it stands now you're just repeating the words of other ill informed mouth pieces. its pathetic to read.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, mccain backed off from his 'hundred years' comment and declared that america will achieve 'victory' in 2012. SOLD!!!

"Mission Accomplished" May 1st 2003

"final throes" and "significant progress" 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

Originally posted by Schecter
i love how you do that. when your claims are refuted its either "i dont know if thats true" or "thats interesting. i'll have to research it". why dont you do your homework and then act as resident right wing apologist. as it stands now you're just repeating the words of other ill informed mouth pieces. its pathetic to read.

Point taken.

Obama isnt going to have an easy time beating McCain.

Point taken?

never said it was going to be easy.

point never made.

I find it funny that McCain thinks America will definately win by 2012... is it just coincidence that it would be at around the end of his first term, if he were to be elected in '08. The senile old bastard is living in a dream world.

yeah, i might have taken the bait if he said 2009 or maybe even 2010.

ok i wouldnt have, but still...

Alrighty fellas, had fun.

We'll see you again in November.

If McCain wins, I'll drag this thread up and get your apologies.

If Obama wins, I'll drag this thread up and give my apologies, then log out with jammed password and never come back to KMC, God as my witness.

(except of course, when I come back 2 months later with my new screen name derived of my last name and with the title: lolspeakintongues)

Originally posted by sithsaber408
If McCain wins, I'll drag this thread up and get your apologies.

apologies for what? voting for obama?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Alrighty fellas, had fun.

We'll see you again in November.

If McCain wins, I'll drag this thread up and get your apologies.

If Obama wins, I'll drag this thread up and give my apologies, then log out with jammed password and never come back to KMC, God as my witness.

(except of course, when I come back 2 months later with my new screen name derived of my last name and with the title: lolspeakintongues)

As Schecter said, what would I/we apologize for?

Ha, you just sinned, by taking "the Lords" name in vein.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
That's New Covenant, New Testament teaching. The old fire and brimstone stuff is old testament, before Jesus came.

Which is why I am always amazed at the way the OLD covenant and the OLD testament are clung to by christians. I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about gays. I recall Paul doing it, but not Jesus. Pick up a Jefferson bible. It helps to put the hellfire and brimstone attitude of many christians in perspective.

Originally posted by Robtard
I find it funny that McCain thinks America will definately win by 2012... is it just coincidence that it would be at around the end of his first term, if he were to be elected in '08. The senile old bastard is living in a dream world.

Let me see if I can pull a page out of the Rove/Hannity playbook:

John McCain is asking for 4 years to prove himself to us. You know what? Hitler asked for 4 years too. And now the Jews are back in Israel. Holy Shit(capitalized to illustrate reverence), Hagee might be right!

Originally posted by Devil King
Which is why I am always amazed at the way the OLD covenant and the OLD testament are clung to by christians. I don't recall Jesus ever saying anything about gays. I recall Paul doing it, but not Jesus. Pick up a Jefferson bible. It helps to put the hellfire and brimstone attitude of many christians in perspective.

That's the one answer I can never get a Christian to answer truthfully. Supposedly Jesus-God did away with the old laws and traditions, the ones God set forth for the Jews (stoning your daughter, not cutting your beard etc.). Yet, why are the convenient ones held onto when it benefits?

Originally posted by Robtard
That's the one answer I can never get a Christian to answer truthfully. Supposedly Jesus-God did away with the old laws and traditions, the ones God set forth for the Jews (stoning your daughter, not cutting your beard etc.). Yet, why are the convenient ones held onto when it benefits?

Because it's convenient.

Oh, and when I said Paul, I was referring to PVS.

Edit:
Originally posted by Robtard
Just the ones that fit the agenda, this is common trait in zealots.

Edit: Correction, "ones that fit the current agenda"

OOOohhhhhh!

Hillary Clinton just said a 4 letter word on tv: "federally-funded Stem Cell Research"

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, and when I said Paul, I was referring to PVS.


sure, blame everything on me. just like that whore mary magdalene

Originally posted by Schecter
sure, blame everything on me. just like that whore mary magdalene

Well, she said she got them from you. So it's pretty much your word against hers. But, I mean, when a hooker gets crabs, there's no telling which guy she got them from.

dont tell anyone i told you this but...jesus caught them too vin

Originally posted by Schecter
dont tell anyone i told you this but...jesus caught them too vin

If death couldn't keep him down, I doubt a bad case of crabs is much of a big deal.

i beg to differ. hard to scratch your balls when you're hands are nailed down.

Originally posted by Schecter
i beg to differ. hard to scratch your balls when you're hands are nailed down.

....ouch. I think Jesus just got pwnd.

I think its gonna be a close race between McCain and Hussein Obama.

Sidney McCain would surely loose, with such a faggoty middle name, which is chosen by our own faggoty, ter'ist parents, who hate America.

Millions gained from ketchup:millions. Millions gained from alcoholic beers: millions. Descisions to abort the alcohol-induce preganancy: priceless.

Are you drunk?

how are the dems going to get trounced? The only candidates running are democrats

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
how are the dems going to get trounced? The only candidates running are democrats

More like a Democrat vs a Socialist or possibly a communist.

Originally posted by KidRock
Are you drunk?

So the millions of dollars gained by Mrs. Kerry have resulted in more supposedly innocent deaths than have the millions garnered by Mr.McCain's wife's millions gained by the accidental births caused by alcohol-induced sexual encounters?

Or do absent-minded sexual encounters only happen from non-McCain hard liquor?

You seem to suddenly take exception to the Rove/Bush playbook. Why? Which is best for A'mer'ca? Or is that not very "American Badass" for your tastes?

Originally posted by Devil King
So the millions of dollars gained by Mrs. Kerry have resulted in more supposedly innocent deaths than have the millions garnered by Mr.McCain's wife's millions gained by the accidental births caused by alcohol-induced sexual encounters?

Or do absent-minded sexual encounters only happen from non-McCain hard liquor?

You seem to suddenly take exception to the Rove/Bush playbook. Why? Which is best for A'mer'ca? Or is that not very "American Badass" for your tastes?

I questioned your soberness because what you said came out of nowhere and was quite random.

I now realize its just another petty attack on republicans and I realized your a democrat..so no real surprise.

And are you saying its the McCains fault that people decide to drink and have sexual encounters then have abortions..thats your stance?

So I guess you support the Kerrys butchering millions of oceanlife creatures because of people throwing their plastic ketchup bottles into the ocean after a beachside BBQ..correct?

Originally posted by KidRock
And are you saying its the McCains fault that people decide to drink and have sexual encounters then have abortions..thats your stance?


No, I'm saying it's an enevitable side-effect of the legal drug your candidate's wife pedals as a means to support her "wearing jeans, relaxing in my sea-side condo" photoshoot. Many babies died to buy that Evil-Lyn-looking whore her many dollars and designer jeans. Does that strike you as splitting hairs? How liberal of you.

Maybe only rich people can run for president, but only 1 of the 2 (3) are running on a platform of moral superiority because he claims to disagree with abortion, but his wife sells and earns off the no. 1 legal drug that is blamed for the irressposibility and misdeeds which leads to the descision to abort.

Have more babies been aborted because they were concieved over beer, or have more been aborted because they were concieved over ketchup?

Don't hate the Rove/Bush play book, just because it's suddenly been turned against you.

Originally posted by Devil King
Have more babies been aborted because they were concieved over beer, or have more been aborted because they were concieved over ketchup?

Just a personal observation here, but of all the friends I had in college, most of the married ones who were major drunks/potheads have no kids, and most of the married ones who didn't do anything are a Jan, Bobby, and Cindy short of a Brady Bunch.

And since a good portion of the latter were fat, I'd assume they consumed a lot of ketchup on fries and burgers.

Originally posted by Schecter
considering that germany and japan signed their surrenders, i think you're comparing apples and oranges.

are there any more japanese troops in china?

Speaking of comparing apples and oranges.

i was being facetious about the japan bit. point is in order for your example to be relevant we would have to be at war with the iraqi government, win, get their surrender, forbid them their own military, etc. that however is not the case.

Originally posted by Schecter
i was being facetious about the japan bit. point is in order for your example to be relevant we would have to be at war with the iraqi government, win, get their surrender, forbid them their own military, etc. that however is not the case.

Not relevant to my point.

No one can get the US out of Iraq without facing overwhelming unintended consequences. It does not matter how we got there. Therefore, I do not believe Obama when he says that he will pull out the troops. A Precedent Obama will not put his own presidency at risk by doing such a thing. I think he will pull out a token number of troops and announce that he has pulled the troops out, but we will still be there. This is not exclusive to Obama; I don't believe any of them when they say they will pull the troops.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not relevant to my point.

No one can get the US out of Iraq without facing overwhelming unintended consequences. It does not matter how we got there. Therefore, I do not believe Obama when he says that he will pull out the troops. A Precedent Obama will not put his own presidency at risk by doing such a thing. I think he will pull out a token number of troops and announce that he has pulled the troops out, but we will still be there. This is not exclusive to Obama; I don't believe any of them when they say they will pull the troops.

im not psychic so i wont bother to debate that. however this point is not relevant to your previous point of comparing iraq to post-war germany.

Originally posted by Schecter
im not psychic so i wont bother to debate that. however this point is not relevant to your previous point of comparing iraq to post-war germany.

I simply asked a provocative question to convey my personal scepticism. You took the comparison too literally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I simply asked a provocative question to convey my personal scepticism. You took the comparison too literally.

i took it as a comparison, since thats what it was.

Originally posted by Schecter
i took it as a comparison, since thats what it was.

That is how you took it. After all it was a question, and not a direct comparison. It was reasonable for you to take it as a comparison, but that was not my intent and I clarified myself. To continue to insist that it was a compression after I clarified myself is just being difficult on your part.

Originally posted by Robtard
To the Extreme Right Wing, he is. A lot of hate towards him comes from that group. Yeah, but he's not a woman or black, so they'll still vote for him.

ok, so you retract your admittedly faulty comparison. good.

Originally posted by Schecter
ok, so you retract your admittedly faulty comparison. good.

Retract? Did you not read what I wrote?

yes i read what you wrote. however your applied comparison is faulty.
you used germany as an example of why we wont leave iraq. there is no parallel at all. only similarity that exists is the the u.s. has a military presence in germany as well as iraq. apart from that extremely vague point, thats where any relevant comparison ends.

Originally posted by Schecter
yes i read what you wrote. however your applied comparison is faulty.
you used germany as an example of why we wont leave iraq. there is no parallel at all. only similarity that exists is the the u.s. has a military presence in germany as well as iraq. apart from that extremely vague point, thats where any relevant comparison ends.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is how you took it. After all it was a question, and not a direct comparison. It was reasonable for you to take it as a comparison, but that was not my intent and I clarified myself. To continue to insist that it was a compression after I clarified myself is just being difficult on your part.

ok im just going to have to be the wallflower here and refuse to dance.

Originally posted by Schecter
ok im just going to have to be the wallflower here and refuse to dance.

You are creating your own problem.

no, i corrected yours. you refused to accept it and offered a false and illogical compromise. whatever, its past the point of interest for me.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, i corrected yours. you refused to accept it and offered a false and illogical compromise. whatever, its past the point of interest for me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is how you took it. After all it was a question, and not a direct comparison. It was reasonable for you to take it as a comparison, but that was not my intent and I clarified myself. To continue to insist that it was a compression after I clarified myself is just being difficult on your part.

This time read it. I don't care if you refuse to accept my clarification. It then becomes your problem.

ok, you'll have to engage in this exciting round of "quote yourself ad nauseum" alone

Originally posted by Schecter
ok, you'll have to engage in this exciting round of "quote yourself ad nauseum" alone

Well, then don't read it.

I saw a video about this today on MSNBC but they didn't have a direct link.

New poll shows that McCain beats Obama (but not Clinton) in 2 of 3 key swing states: Ohio and Florida. Pennsylvania he looses to either dem.

Here is a link:

http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2008/05/19/daily29.html

don't worry. i didn't. once was enough.

Originally posted by Schecter
don't worry. i didn't. once was enough.

Oh! so you did read it, but just didn't understand it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Oh! so you did read it, but just didn't understand it.

no.

i read each post once, understood their irrelevance, then passed up on the second helpings you insisted on offering. simple, really.

Originally posted by Schecter
no.

i read each post once, understood their irrelevance, then passed up on the second helpings you insisted on offering. simple, really.

I see, then you are just a troll.

oh that must be it im a troll. HAHAHA YOO JUST BIN TROLLD LOLZ I WIN!!1

Originally posted by Schecter
oh that must be it im a troll. HAHAHA YOO JUST BIN TROLLD LOLZ I WIN!!1



I offered clarification and you acted like you didn't read it. I re-posted my clarification, and you respond like you didn't understand it. I then let you know that if you didn't accept my clarification, then it wasn't my problem.

I think the voices in your head are too load.

funny that im a troll when you're the one making irrelevant ad hominem attacks and insults. would you like me to join in so that you can cry and report me...again?

Here's a better source on that poll, CNN.

It shows McCain beating Obama in Ohio and Florida by 4 points, and loosing Pennsylvania to Obama by 6 points. (all 3 are important "swing states"

It's early and not the end of anything but it's "an early warning sign to the democrats" according to the CNN guy.

Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/22/polls-clinton-does-better-in-the-swing-states/

its "losing".

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Here's a better source on that poll, CNN.

It shows McCain beating Obama in Ohio and Florida by 4 points, and loosing Pennsylvania to Obama by 6 points. (all 3 are important "swing states"

It's early and not the end of anything but it's "an early warning sign to the democrats" according to the CNN guy.

Link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/22/polls-clinton-does-better-in-the-swing-states/

Go to www.google.com and enter in "obama beat McCain poll", you'll see a bunch of polls stating that Obama beats McCain.

no, SS's posted link is pretty accurate. uneducated white americans aint ready for no damn n*****r president.

If they took the time to educate themselves, they'd learn that he's in fact, only half of a ******. That should count for something to them, right?

1/8 n*****r is a n*****r

Not only does this statement make it silly for Mr. Sabre to use it as argument advancement, but it makes CNN the queen idiot for reporting it at all.