Some Superdelegates More Super Than Rest

[red states rule]

What is this nonsense? It's getting ridiculous

The top Dems are screwing this primary up, and I for one am loving it


Some superdelegates more super than rest


WASHINGTON - Some of those presidential superdelegates Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are pursuing are more super than others.

One delegate, one vote doesn't apply to them. These prominent Democrats can name additional superdelegates, giving them control over multiple convention votes, and that could be the difference in a race that may not be decided until the August convention.

The clout of the nearly 800 superdelegates is unprecedented in this year's race because neither Obama nor Clinton can clinch the nomination with only the delegates won in state primaries and caucuses. Largely overlooked in the arcane process, though, is the power of a select few to complete the superdelegate ranks by naming 76 newbies, and Clinton and Obama are fighting hard over every one of those from state conventions to back rooms.

Separated by fewer than 140 delegates, both candidates are lobbying the hundreds of known superdelegates, employing family, friends and influential surrogates to woo the governors, lawmakers and other party leaders. Some are more important than others.

Consider Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party. He remains uncommitted, yet he could be the most powerful superdelegate of all. Torres gets to name five additional superdelegates, giving him control over six votes at the national convention this summer.

"I am the super of supers!" Torres proclaims with a laugh.

for the complete article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080404/ap_on_el_pr/super_sized_delegates;_ylt=An2rL7VpEMWJn2Jgx_7lLiq s0NUE

[Gaffer]

Somehow it just doesn't seem democratic.

[red states rule]

Somehow it just doesn't seem democratic.

The logical way to describe why the super delegates were created wa the em leaderhsip were fed up witht heir voters goinf with hard left losers

They wanted a way to ignore what the voters wanted and go with what they wanted

Now, they Dem party has to sleep in the bed they made. No matter which way it goes, one half of the Dem party is going to be very pissed off after the Denver convention

[avatar4321]

Somehow it just doesn't seem democratic.

does sound socialist though...

[manu1959]

one voice one vote.....the electoral college is a sham......we won the popular vote.....

[retiredman]

it is hilarious to see a bunch of republicans ranting about the way that WE pick OUR presidential nominee.

Here's a newsflash: IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

it is hilarious to see a bunch of republicans ranting about the way that WE pick OUR presidential nominee.

Here's a newsflash: IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Well feel free to yank yourselves off the media at anytime. The pettiness is boring me to death. ( although Hillary referring to herself as "Paulette Revere" cracked me up:laugh2: )

[retiredman]

again..I don't recall any democrats ranting about the republican nominating process.... you guys can pick your candidate using fucking tea leaves for all I care... what difference is it to YOU how WE decide to pick OUR candidate?:laugh2:

[avatar4321]

it is hilarious to see a bunch of republicans ranting about the way that WE pick OUR presidential nominee.

Here's a newsflash: IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

We aren't ranting. We are laughing at you guys. i would have thought that was obvious.

[avatar4321]

again..I don't recall any democrats ranting about the republican nominating process.... you guys can pick your candidate using fucking tea leaves for all I care... what difference is it to YOU how WE decide to pick OUR candidate?:laugh2:

we didnt pick our candidate. you guys did.

[Dilloduck]

again..I don't recall any democrats ranting about the republican nominating process.... you guys can pick your candidate using fucking tea leaves for all I care... what difference is it to YOU how WE decide to pick OUR candidate?:laugh2:

Democrats are too screwed up to rant about a damn thing this year. Trust me--if they had already chosen a nominee you would be the first in line to mock the Republicans trying to choose between 2 losers. "Paulette Revere" :lmao:

[retiredman]

Democrats are too screwed up to rant about a damn thing this year. Trust me--if they had already chosen a nominee you would be the first in line to mock the Republicans trying to choose between 2 losers. "Paulette Revere" :lmao:

wrong. I could give a fuck about the internal decisions of the GOP. Decide who you want, and then I'll figure out how to attack him.
Your nominating process is all about YOU and has ZERO do to with me.

[retiredman]

we didnt pick our candidate. you guys did.


odd...I don't recall your party turning in their testicles at the front door, but maybe I was at the bar freshening my drink when it happened and missed it.

[Dilloduck]

wrong. I could give a fuck about the internal decisions of the GOP. Decide who you want, and then I'll figure out how to attack him.
Your nominating process is all about YOU and has ZERO do to with me.

ain't a pretty sight watching your buddies pick each other to death, is it ?:laugh2:

[retiredman]

ain't a pretty sight watching your buddies pick each other to death, is it ?:laugh2:

it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I did my part. I voted in my caucus. Let other states do what they do.... we will emerge from the convention with a candidate who will do battle with your candidate. Your candidate stands for four more years of the same policy that has led this country into the ditch. America is ready for a change and John boy offers more of the same. The choice will be clear to voters.

[avatar4321]

it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I did my part. I voted in my caucus. Let other states do what they do.... we will emerge from the convention with a candidate who will do battle with your candidate. Your candidate stands for four more years of the same policy that has led this country into the ditch. America is ready for a change and John boy offers more of the same. The choice will be clear to voters.

sadly you are right. but then so does Obama and Hillary. The Same liberal crap that has screwed up this country.

[retiredman]

sadly you are right. but then so does Obama and Hillary. The Same liberal crap that has screwed up this country.

feel free to vote for McSame. I will vote for the democrat.

[manu1959]

feel free to vote for McSame. I will vote for the democrat.

whichever democrat the super delegates give you of course......

[red states rule]

I will vote for the democrat.

What a shocking admission

[red states rule]

whichever democrat the super delegates give you of course......

MFM is an examples of the type of liberal Dem the higher ups within his party are trying to override

They understand they are going to be stuck with another McGovern type liberal because the Dem party has been hijacked by moonbat left wing libs like MFM

[red states rule]

it is hilarious to see a bunch of republicans ranting about the way that WE pick OUR presidential nominee.

Here's a newsflash: IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!!!!:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Funny how libs are now having a cow over Operation Chaos - but when libs crossed over in MI to influence the Republican primary nothing was said about it

The Daily Kook Kos ran a front page story begging Dems to vote in the Republcian primary. I did not see any outrage from the liberal media

Perhaps libs like you are pissed because we are making a difference, Dems are spending money, ripping each other to pieces, and causing a huge rip in your party

[retiredman]

Funny how libs are now having a cow over Operation Chaos - but when libs crossed over in MI to influence the Republican primary nothing was said about it

The Daily Kook Kos ran a front page story begging Dems to vote in the Republcian primary. I did not see any outrage from the liberal media

Perhaps libs like you are pissed because we are making a difference, Dems are spending money, ripping each other to pieces, and causing a huge rip in your party


operation chaos has nothing to do with the question of why we have superdelegates.

keep changing the subject!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

operation chaos has nothing to do with the question of why we have superdelegates.

keep changing the subject!:laugh2:

It is keeping the war going, it ios keping Hillary in the race longer, it may help Hilary close in on the popular vte lead - so it will put more pressure on the super delegates

Besides you were ranting why we care> Well, you libs do hate to have your own tactics turned against you

[retiredman]

It is keeping the war going, it ios keping Hillary in the race longer, it may help Hilary close in on the popular vte lead - so it will put more pressure on the super delegates

Besides you were ranting why we care> Well, you libs do hate to have your own tactics turned against you

my question was why you give a shit about the fact that we have superdelegates.

[red states rule]

my question was why you give a shit about the fact that we have superdelegates.

I think it so funny the Top Dems do not trust their voters to vote for who they consider the proper candidate. They can override and ignore who the voters choose

Then you guys rant about voters rights

[retiredman]

I think it so funny the Top Dems do not trust their voters to vote for who they consider the proper candidate. They can override and ignore who the voters choose

Then you guys rant about voters rights

again...it is our party's procedures, not yours. why do you care?

[Kathianne]

again...it is our party's procedures, not yours. why do you care?

Agreed. I'm glad they have the rules. :cheers2:

[red states rule]

Agreed. I'm glad they have the rules. :cheers2:

Ditto Kathianne

It is fun to see Dems rewarding the loser of their primaries

It is helping Operation Chaos to keep the bood flowing

[avatar4321]

feel free to vote for McSame. I will vote for the democrat.

And how will making this nation worse fix anything?

[avatar4321]

operation chaos has nothing to do with the question of why we have superdelegates.

keep changing the subject!:laugh2:

Yeah, you have superdelegates because the elites of the party were tired of the will of hte people overturning their will and they wanted to be able to correct the people's "Mistake".

[retiredman]

Yeah, you have superdelegates because the elites of the party were tired of the will of hte people overturning their will and they wanted to be able to correct the people's "Mistake".


that is your opinion....you are welcome to it...

but again...please tell me why the process the democratic party uses to select it's presidential nominee is any of your fucking business in the first place?

[red states rule]

that is your opinion....you are welcome to it...

but again...please tell me why the process the democratic party uses to select it's presidential nominee is any of your fucking business in the first place?

You refuse to fess up how screwed up your perty is, and how they brought this all themselves

Republicans have a simple winner take all primary - but you guys have to have a liberal system where the loser of the primary is rewarded

Because of this, the voters will not choose you nominess. The Super deleagtes will

That is why we are talking about it, and laughing with delight at the war it is causing

[retiredman]

You refuse to fess up how screwed up your perty is, and how they brought this all themselves

Republicans have a simple winner take all primary - but you guys have to have a liberal system where the loser of the primary is rewarded

Because of this, the voters will not choose you nominess. The Super deleagtes will

That is why we are talking about it, and laughing with delight at the war it is causing

it is OUR system. If you think it is fucked up, that is fine. You pick your candidate your way and we'll pick our candidate our way.

[red states rule]

it is OUR system. If you think it is fucked up, that is fine. You pick your candidate your way and we'll pick our candidate our way.

As usual you offer only angry replies to anyone who hits you with facts

Plus the Dms are saying fuck you to the Dem voters in FL and MI

Yes, Dems to stand for voters rights and want to count all the votes

As long as the Dem party bigwigs agree with the person they vote for :lol:

[retiredman]

As usual you offer only angry replies to anyone who hits you with facts

Plus the Dms are saying fuck you to the Dem voters in FL and MI

Yes, Dems to stand for voters rights and want to count all the votes

As long as the Dem party bigwigs agree with the person they vote for :lol:


I am not angry, RSR... I merely point out that the process the democratic party uses to pick our nominee is really none of your business.

We'll come up with a nominee... and that nominee will go up against John McCain in november. May the best candidate win.

And you need to remember...if you don't vote, you really end up always voting for the winner!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I am not angry, RSR... I merely point out that the process the democratic party uses to pick our nominee is really none of your business.

We'll come up with a nominee... and that nominee will go up against John McCain in november. May the best candidate win.

And you need to remember...if you don't vote, you really end up always voting for the winner!:laugh2:

I hope you are still happy with your system should Hillary strongarm and threaten enogh delegates to vote for her

[retiredman]

I hope you are still happy with your system should Hillary strongarm and threaten enogh delegates to vote for her

Why would you care whether I am happy or not?

[red states rule]

Why would you care whether I am happy or not?

The point is you are never happy.

You are always a miserable, pissed off, mean ass liberal

I doubt you can ever be happy - unless you are doing grave maintance

[Pale Rider]

I am not angry, RSR... I merely point out that the process the democratic party uses to pick our nominee is really none of your business.

We'll come up with a nominee... and that nominee will go up against John McCain in november. May the best candidate win.

And you need to remember...if you don't vote, you really end up always voting for the winner!:laugh2:

So... when did the democratic party become a separate nation?... :dunno:

[retiredman]

So... when did the democratic party become a separate nation?... :dunno:

it has not. It is a political party. It makes its own rules. You wanna start your own politcal party...go right the fuck ahead... and feel free to make your own rules. If we democrats don't LIKE our party's rules, we can change them or we can get the fuck out of the party and go join some other motherfucking party. If you are not a member, shut the fuck up... it's none of your goddamn business, Mr. pole rider.:lol:

[Yurt]

it has not. It is a political party. It makes its own rules. You wanna start your own politcal party...go right the fuck ahead... and feel free to make your own rules. If we democrats don't LIKE our party's rules, we can change them or we can get the fuck out of the party and go join some other motherfucking party. If you are not a member, shut the fuck up... it's none of your goddamn business, Mr. pole rider.:lol:

yeah, fuckin A :rolleyes:

[retiredman]

yeah, fuckin A :rolleyes:

there is nothing that makes me happier on a Saturday night than gratuitous comments from my favorite sheeny shyster! ;)

[Yurt]

there is nothing that makes me happier on a Saturday night than gratuitous comments from my favorite sheeny shyster! ;)

i know, i'm likable in my new armani suit

[retiredman]

i know, i'm likable in my new armani suit

I can just picture you... slick and sleazy...

a bet you have pocket squares that match your ties!:lol:

[Yurt]

I can just picture you... slick and sleazy...

a bet you have pocket squares that match your ties!:lol:

http://hamous.org/images/edwards-ken.jpg

[avatar4321]

that is your opinion....you are welcome to it...

but again...please tell me why the process the democratic party uses to select it's presidential nominee is any of your fucking business in the first place?

not my opinion. the guys who made it said this.

[Kathianne]

I am not angry, RSR... I merely point out that the process the democratic party uses to pick our nominee is really none of your business.

We'll come up with a nominee... and that nominee will go up against John McCain in november. May the best candidate win.

And you need to remember...if you don't vote, you really end up always voting for the winner!:laugh2:

Seriously, the dems have been fooling with the results for many a year. Don't go high and mighty. In any case, we all have a stake in how things turn out, believe it or not, we're all Americans.

[Pale Rider]

it has not. It is a political party. It makes its own rules. You wanna start your own politcal party...go right the fuck ahead... and feel free to make your own rules. If we democrats don't LIKE our party's rules, we can change them or we can get the fuck out of the party and go join some other motherfucking party. If you are not a member, shut the fuck up... it's none of your goddamn business,

So now the "preacher" uses the Lord's name in vain? Tell us again about your church and the sermons you give... that is, IF you can remember how your lie goes.

What goes on this country IS my business. It's all America dumb fuck. Where you come up these asinine ideas like Americans shouldn't be curious or concerned about what goes on in their own nation is just more evidence as to how mother fucking stupid and jack up in the head twisted your thoughts are. You want to comment and involve yourself in every little detail of every little thing, but when it comes to someone commenting or being concerned about what goes on in your world, it's get your goddamn self out of here, it's none of your mother fuckin' business. Ppphht.... :talk2hand:

You're just one screwed up sons a bitch maggotfrommaine. You take the cake for being the most absurd shit stain on the board... but, I guess that's what pathological liars like yourself do.

You give sermons at a church.... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...... tell me another good one.... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

[red states rule]

MFM is upset over the fact Republicans are getting results with crossing over - and his Dems did not

Let's have some fun in Michigan
by kos
Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:31:01 PM PDT
In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state's Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian's lawyer -- quack Geoffrey Feiger -- win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor's mansion that year.

With a history of meddling in our primaries, why don't we try and return the favor. Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225

[retiredman]

is that you on the right? ;)

[red states rule]

No comment on your sides lame attempt to choose our Presiential candidate MFM?

Or are you ducking it because we are actually getting results, and you clowns did not?

[retiredman]

No comment on your sides lame attempt to choose our Presiential candidate MFM?

Or are you ducking it because we are actually getting results, and you clowns did not?


I am perfectly willing to let my party decide its candidate using the rules in place. The results will come in November.... you, of course, will not vote for McCain, so you are without a voice.

[red states rule]

I am perfectly willing to let my party decide its candidate using the rules in place. The results will come in November.... you, of course, will not vote for McCain, so you are without a voice.

Glad to see you agree with your party leaders that the average Dem voter is to damn stupid to choose the right candidate

and I see you ignored the link to the Daily Kppk Kos

[retiredman]

Glad to see you agree with your party leaders that the average Dem voter is to damn stupid to choose the right candidate

and I see you ignored the link to the Daily Kppk Kos


I disagree with your opinion of my party's process, but again...what fucking business is it of yours anyway?

I never go to Daily Kos.

[Pale Rider]

I disagree with your opinion of my party's process, but again...what fucking business is it of yours anyway?

I think that is probably, among the myriad of outrageous things you say, quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing I've heard. You're bent logic that for some reason a political process taking place in America isn't the business of any American is outright insane.

Seriously... are you on any type of medication?

[retiredman]

I think that is probably, among the myriad of outrageous things you say, quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing I've heard. You're bent logic that for some reason a political process taking place in America isn't the business of any American is outright insane.

Seriously... are you on any type of medication?

the democratic party is a club. just like the republican party is a club. just like the libertarian party is a club... just like the communist party of America is a club.... those clubs get to use whatever fucking rules they want to pick their candidates. If you don't like the methods that democrats use to pick their candidates, don't fucking vote for them. I personally could give a shit if the republicans picked their candidates by lottery, or by who was the blondest... it doesn't matter to me because I am not a member of that club. If you are a member of the democratic party club, you get to have input into how the party decides its candidates. If you are not you don't...simple as that.

[Yurt]

the democratic party is a club. just like the republican party is a club. just like the libertarian party is a club... just like the communist party of America is a club.... those clubs get to use whatever fucking rules they want to pick their candidates. If you don't like the methods that democrats use to pick their candidates, don't fucking vote for them. I personally could give a shit if the republicans picked their candidates by lottery, or by who was the blondest... it doesn't matter to me because I am not a member of that club. If you are a member of the democratic party club, you get to have input into how the party decides its candidates. If you are not you don't...simple as that.

typical liberal response..... you know that little thing called "freedom of speech"....yeah, we can say whatever the fackle we want about the club....your analogy is weak, i don't think there are too many clubs in the US that have the capability of putting someone in the whitehouse....all the more reason to allow freedom of political speech.

then again, dems hate that

[theHawk]

Somehow it just doesn't seem democratic.

Pretty hilarious that the "democratic" party is anything but. Kind of like how "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is nothing but a dictatorship.

[theHawk]

the democratic party is a club. just like the republican party is a club. just like the libertarian party is a club... just like the communist party of America is a club.... those clubs get to use whatever fucking rules they want to pick their candidates. If you don't like the methods that democrats use to pick their candidates, don't fucking vote for them. I personally could give a shit if the republicans picked their candidates by lottery, or by who was the blondest... it doesn't matter to me because I am not a member of that club. If you are a member of the democratic party club, you get to have input into how the party decides its candidates. If you are not you don't...simple as that.

Of course its the party's choice how they want to pick their nominee. Doesn't mean we don't have a right to critize it. If you Dems don't want to hear the critizism, they should have kept the process a secret.

I just think its hiliarious that you can't even acknowledge how fucked up it is. Every Dem out there pretty much agrees its screwed up. But hey, keep blindly following your party, its what you're best at. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Of course its the party's choice how they want to pick their nominee. Doesn't mean we don't have a right to critize it. If you Dems don't want to hear the critizism, they should have kept the process a secret.

I just think its hiliarious that you can't even acknowledge how fucked up it is. Every Dem out there pretty much agrees its screwed up. But hey, keep blindly following your party, its what you're best at. :laugh2:

does anyone know the popular vote difference btwn these two, i believe clinton leads the popular vote...obama won more smaller states, but doesn't clinton have the lead in the popular vote....

it would really make my day if she did....who stole what....

[retiredman]

Of course its the party's choice how they want to pick their nominee. Doesn't mean we don't have a right to critize it. If you Dems don't want to hear the critizism, they should have kept the process a secret.

I just think its hiliarious that you can't even acknowledge how fucked up it is. Every Dem out there pretty much agrees its screwed up. But hey, keep blindly following your party, its what you're best at. :laugh2:

I have no problems with superdelegates. Again... what fucking difference is it to you? It's not your club. Go pick your own wizened old candidate and try to sell America on a third Bush term. I personally could give a shit how you pick your nominee. America gets to vote in November. Until then, the clubs get to use whatever fucking system they want to to pick their candidates.

I think it is fucking hilarious to see all your republicans with your undies in a bunch over the system that OUR party uses to pick a candidate.

The economy. The war. Healthcare. Tax cuts for rich folks. That is what this election will be about...it certainly won't be about superdelegates.

[theHawk]

I have no problems with superdelegates. Again... what fucking difference is it to you? It's not your club. Go pick your own wizened old candidate and try to sell America on a third Bush term. I personally could give a shit how you pick your nominee. America gets to vote in November. Until then, the clubs get to use whatever fucking system they want to to pick their candidates.

I think it is fucking hilarious to see all your republicans with your undies in a bunch over the system that OUR party uses to pick a candidate.


I'm not a Republican, and I never have been you jackass. Carry on dipshit.

[theHawk]

does anyone know the popular vote difference btwn these two, i believe clinton leads the popular vote...obama won more smaller states, but doesn't clinton have the lead in the popular vote....

it would really make my day if she did....who stole what....

I think it depends on whether or not Michigan and Florida "counts". :laugh2:

[Yurt]

I'm not a Republican, and I never have been you jackass. Carry on dipshit.

what do you expect from someone that fails to respond to the other posts before it......that would have answered his question as to why we question....but he is a typical dem and when he sees freedom of speech pass him by on the street...

[retiredman]

I'm not a Republican, and I never have been you jackass. Carry on dipshit.

are you a registered democrat, douchebag?

[Yurt]

I think it depends on whether or not Michigan and Florida "counts". :laugh2:

good point, but i thought i remember reading somewhere, googled it and could not find it, that she has the popular vote

[theHawk]

The economy. The war. Healthcare. Tax cuts for rich folks. That is what this election will be about...it certainly won't be about superdelegates.

You're right. Its going to be about raising taxes, withdrawing from the middle east to let Iran and AQ take over, and socialized health care.

[retiredman]

good point, but i thought i remember reading somewhere, googled it and could not find it, that she has the popular vote

I believe that she is behind in the popular vote, even with Florida and Michigan.

[retiredman]

You're right. Its going to be about raising taxes, withdrawing from the middle east to let Iran and AQ take over, and socialized health care.


so...are you another of those morons who doesn't know the difference between a sunni and a shiite?

AQ has ZERO chance of any sort of long term presence in Iraq. Iran will most likely turn Iraq into a client state as soon as we leave, but that was a foregone conclusion when we overthrew the sunni dictator of a country with a majority shiite population sitting right next to the only other islamic state with a majority shiite population. major Bush fuckup.

[Yurt]

I believe that she is behind in the popular vote, even with Florida and Michigan.

then she is all around screwed....well....

[Yurt]

so...are you another of those morons who doesn't know the difference between a sunni and a shiite?

AQ has ZERO chance of any sort of long term presence in Iraq. Iran will most likely turn Iraq into a client state as soon as we leave, but that was a foregone conclusion when we overthrew the sunni dictator of a country with a majority shiite population sitting right next to the only other islamic state with a majority shiite population. major Bush fuckup.

tis true. i gave him the benefit of the doubt, hoping that things would turn out different, but that have not.

major factor to consider though:

it is not necessarily a "bush" screwup. we have no idea how much longer saddam would be in power, and/or if power were to go to his sons. at most, i think it would have bought time in terms of a true muslim conflict that i believe is going to sweep the globe.

[theHawk]

The Clinton campaign has taken to boasting that its candidate has won states with more electoral votes than has Barack Obama. True. By my count, Clinton has won 14 states with 219 electoral votes (16 states with 263 electoral votes if you include Florida and Michigan) while Obama has won 27 states (I'm counting the District of Columbia as a state, but not the territories) with 202 electoral votes. Eight states with 73 electoral votes have still to vote. In percentage terms, Clinton has won states with 41 percent of the electoral votes (49 percent if you include Florida and Michigan), while Obama has won states with 38 percent of electoral votes. States with 14 percent of the electoral votes have yet to vote.

The Clinton campaign would do even better to use population rather than electoral votes, since smaller states are overrepresented in the Electoral College. By my count, based on the 2007 Census estimates, Clinton's states have 132,214,460 people (160,537,525 if you include Florida and Michigan), and Obama's states have 101,689,480 people. States with 39,394,152 people have yet to vote. In percentage terms this means Clinton's states have 44 percent of the nation's population (53 percent if you include Florida and Michigan) and Obama's states have 34 percent of the nation's population. The yet-to-vote states have 13 percent of the nation's population.

Thus the Clinton campaign could argue that Obama cannot win states with most of the nation's people even if he wins all the remaining eight primaries. Could argue—but I don't think that's going to persuade any superdelegates that Clinton is the real winner.............."

From http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

[theHawk]

so...are you another of those morons who doesn't know the difference between a sunni and a shiite?

AQ has ZERO chance of any sort of long term presence in Iraq. Iran will most likely turn Iraq into a client state as soon as we leave, but that was a foregone conclusion when we overthrew the sunni dictator of a country with a majority shiite population sitting right next to the only other islamic state with a majority shiite population. major Bush fuckup.

Then why did the Dems vote to do it. Funny how they don't have a problem washing their hands clean of the "fuckup".

[Yurt]

From http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/3/28/projection-clinton-wins-popular-vote-obama-wins-delegate-count.html

awesome, thanks. so, what will the demmies do...if the delegate leader wins, how, isn't this stealing the elections against the popular vote...

[retiredman]

Then why did the Dems vote to do it. Funny how they don't have a problem washing their hands clean of the "fuckup".

a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. fact.

but why tapdance away from the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about vis a vis sunnis and shiites/ AQ and Iran? Be a man and just admit that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

[Yurt]

a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. fact.

but why tapdance away from the fact that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about vis a vis sunnis and shiites/ AQ and Iran? Be a man and just admit that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

i am going to say YOU don't know shittle. you are a fool if you think AQ will not work with other "muslims" to conquer the great satan...

[retiredman]

i am going to say YOU don't know shittle. you are a fool if you think AQ will not work with other "muslims" to conquer the great satan...


Iran has no interest in supporting AQ in Iraq when there are plenty of shiite surrogates.

And again, I am far from a fool when it comes to this topic.

[Yurt]

Iran has no interest in supporting AQ in Iraq when there are plenty of shiite surrogates.

And again, I am far from a fool when it comes to this topic.

so says you, who spoke to people over two decades ago....do you have a pulse now.... or are you basing your opinions on decades old so-called intel?

if the shiites were enough, then iran would have runover iraq by now, surely you know that. but you don't, because in islam, shiites make up about 10% of muslims, though that figure is disputed....gets even more diluted when you account for "muslims" (sunnis) who do not consider shia muslims at all.

you talk shit to people on this board as if you know something....dude, you don't. you think you know more than our intelligence community? they have not figured them out yet.

[retiredman]

so says you, who spoke to people over two decades ago....do you have a pulse now.... or are you basing your opinions on decades old so-called intel?

if the shiites were enough, then iran would have runover iraq by now, surely you know that. but you don't, because in islam, shiites make up about 10% of muslims, though that figure is disputed....gets even more diluted when you account for "muslims" (sunnis) who do not consider shia muslims at all.

you talk shit to people on this board as if you know something....dude, you don't. you think you know more than our intelligence community? they have not figured them out yet.


again. AQ is incapable of prevailing against sunnis in Iraq. It does not stand a chance against shiites. Iran has no reason to support a sunni organization with no real chance at success in Iraq over supporting shiites who will control the Iraqi government. Why would Iran stab fellow shiites in the back by supporting AQ in any attempt to control Iraq?

The fact of the matter is: there are only two islamic countries on the planet where shiites make up the majority of the population. Their natural affinity for one another is evident.

[Yurt]

again. AQ is incapable of prevailing against sunnis in Iraq. It does not stand a chance against shiites. Iran has no reason to support a sunni organization with no real chance at success in Iraq over supporting shiites who will control the Iraqi government. Why would Iran stab fellow shiites in the back by supporting AQ in any attempt to control Iraq?

The fact of the matter is: there are only two islamic countries on the planet where shiites make up the majority of the population. Their natural affinity for one another is evident.

prevailing and joining against a common enemy are basic concepts.... as a civilian, even i understand that....

you assume you fully know AQ's intent. you don't. you look at them in the same black/white concept you accuse others of looking at political parties in this country. they worship allah. do you?

your thoughts about sunnis/shias..........how are they different than bush? it is clear you truly do understand the muslim mind.

[Gaffer]

again. AQ is incapable of prevailing against sunnis in Iraq. It does not stand a chance against shiites. Iran has no reason to support a sunni organization with no real chance at success in Iraq over supporting shiites who will control the Iraqi government. Why would Iran stab fellow shiites in the back by supporting AQ in any attempt to control Iraq?

The fact of the matter is: there are only two islamic countries on the planet where shiites make up the majority of the population. Their natural affinity for one another is evident.

AQ's support from iran was in the form of IED's to attack US forces. iran will support anyone that is attacking the US in any way. They have been and are continuing to support AQ in iraq, right along with supporting the sadr forces. AQ has been crushed in iraq by the sunni's, not by the iraq government. And nothing is going to end in iraq until we take on iran. Whether by invasion or supporting an uprising by the population.

Your ME experience is based on 20 plus years ago and your dealings with muslims was the predominantly moderate Lebanese, who have a larger range of religious groups and are more tolerant of others. Though that seems to be changing. Your understanding of the extremists in the rest of the region is nil.

[Yurt]

AQ's support from iran was in the form of IED's to attack US forces. iran will support anyone that is attacking the US in any way. They have been and are continuing to support AQ in iraq, right along with supporting the sadr forces. AQ has been crushed in iraq by the sunni's, not by the iraq government. And nothing is going to end in iraq until we take on iran. Whether by invasion or supporting an uprising by the population.

Your ME experience is based on 20 plus years ago and your dealings with muslims was the predominantly moderate Lebanese, who have a larger range of religious groups and are more tolerant of others. Though that seems to be changing. Your understanding of the extremists in the rest of the region is nil.

damn

[red states rule]

And again, I am far from a fool when it comes to this topic.

Only in your opinion

[red states rule]

I have no problems with superdelegates. Again... what fucking difference is it to you? It's not your club. Go pick your own wizened old candidate and try to sell America on a third Bush term. I personally could give a shit how you pick your nominee. America gets to vote in November. Until then, the clubs get to use whatever fucking system they want to to pick their candidates.

I think it is fucking hilarious to see all your republicans with your undies in a bunch over the system that OUR party uses to pick a candidate.

The economy. The war. Healthcare. Tax cuts for rich folks. That is what this election will be about...it certainly won't be about superdelegates.

Still can't say anyting critical about your party MFM? We love your system. It is causing the party to split. It has Dems going after each other, and members of the liberal media tearing into top Dems

Keep trying to duck the facts, and change the subject. Since you can't defend the Dem party screwing over their own voters - that is all you can do

[red states rule]

Here is a gem of a comment on Keith Overbite who shrills for the Ems at LSDNBC

Gov. Rendell: ‘Keith Olbermann Should Be On The Obama Payroll’
By Noel Sheppard | April 6, 2008 - 18:15 ET

When it comes to media bias, if liberals are not only able to recognize your press organization's lack of impartiality, but also assert such when cameras are rolling, you know you're not fooling anybody.

Such appears to certainly be the case with cable network MSNBC, and, in particular, its "Countdown" host, which both were the targets of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) a few weeks ago when he actually stated three times on PBS's "Charlie Rose," "Keith Olbermann should be on the Obama payroll."

With Olbermann's sycophantic behavior during this campaign, what makes Rendell think he's not?

With that in mind, the following extraordinarily candid discussion on March 26 that somehow slipped under the radar until now is sure to delight all those disgusted with the behavior of MSNBC employees

for the complete article and the video

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/06/gov-rendell-keith-olbermann-should-be-obama-payroll

[retiredman]

Still can't say anyting critical about your party MFM? We love your system. It is causing the party to split. It has Dems going after each other, and members of the liberal media tearing into top Dems

Keep trying to duck the facts, and change the subject. Since you can't defend the Dem party screwing over their own voters - that is all you can do

I am not ducking any facts. My party uses a system that has superdelegates. yours doesn't. That is how my party decided to do it. yours chose a different method. I really don't care at all what methods your party uses, and will continue to laugh at you for your odd interest in the methods used by a party you don't even belong to.

[red states rule]

I am not ducking any facts. My party uses a system that has superdelegates. yours doesn't. That is how my party decided to do it. yours chose a different method. I really don't care at all what methods your party uses, and will continue to laugh at you for your odd interest in the methods used by a party you don't even belong to.

So you do not care about the facts the fools, eh people, who vote Democrat, that their votes do not count?

BTW, I am a registered Dem :lol:

[retiredman]

So you do not care about the facts the fools, eh people, who vote Democrat, that their votes do not count?

BTW, I am a registered Dem :lol:


their votes do count....and if you were a registered democrat because you actually cared about the ideals and goals of the democratic party, you would be free to work within the party structure to change the rules to eliminate the superdelegate process. If the process was not acceptable to the majority of my party, we would change it.

the superdelegate model was developed to keep transient trends and temporarily popular movements and issues from subverting the long term mission and vision of the democratic party.

See how nicely YOUR system worked for you: the mood in the country of being so pissed off at Bush had led to a dilution of your candidate base with a bunch of lightweights who were trying to be the UN-Bush.... and as a result, a middle of the road completely non-conservative candidate who appealed to the middle of the bell curve was able to wrest the nomination of the conservative republican party from the pack of lightweight losers. In so doing, he disenfranchised people like you - muscular conservatives who believe in what the republican party has long stood for. If the republicans had superdelegates, perhaps McLame would not have been anointed so quickly and a conservative that was a true republican would have been able to emerge.

Like the pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-abortion, serial adulterer, philandering new york moderate that YOU were supporting!!!!:poke:

[red states rule]

their votes do count....and if you were a registered democrat because you actually cared about the ideals and goals of the democratic party, you would be free to work within the party structure to change the rules to eliminate the superdelegate process. If the process was not acceptable to the majority of my party, we would change it.

the superdelegate model was developed to keep transient trends and temporarily popular movements and issues from subverting the long term mission and vision of the democratic party.

See how nicely YOUR system worked for you: the mood in the country of being so pissed off at Bush had led to a dilution of your candidate base with a bunch of lightweights who were trying to be the UN-Bush.... and as a result, a middle of the road completely non-conservative candidate who appealed to the middle of the bell curve was able to wrest the nomination of the conservative republican party from the pack of lightweight losers. In so doing, he disenfranchised people like you - muscular conservatives who believe in what the republican party has long stood for. If the republicans had superdelegates, perhaps McLame would not have been anointed so quickly and a conservative that was a true republican would have been able to emerge.

Like the pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, pro-abortion, serial adulterer, philandering new york moderate that YOU were supporting!!!!:poke:

The superdelegate model was developed becasue the party big shots do not trust the Dem voters to make the right vcall

Your party leaders view their voters like they view all of America - they are to damn stupid to make the rigths choices - so they came up with a system to override the votes

No matter if they select Hillary or Obama - your party has a huge rip in it

And I will be proud to vote for Hillary and make the rip a little bigger

Keep bashing Bush MFM - he os the only one who could save your your party

To bad he is not running now you have to come up with some ogiginal ideas -something you guys have not done in 40 years

[retiredman]

The superdelegate model was developed becasue the party big shots do not trust the Dem voters to make the right vcall

Your party leaders view their voters like they view all of America - they are to damn stupid to make the rigths choices - so they came up with a system to override the votes

No matter if they select Hillary or Obama - your party has a huge rip in it

And I will be proud to vote for Hillary and make the rip a little bigger

Keep bashing Bush MFM - he os the only one who could save your your party

To bad he is not running now you have to come up with some ogiginal ideas -something you guys have not done in 40 years

YOUr opinions as to the motivations for the development of the superdelegate model are just that - your opinions.

And I understand that you feel my party has a huge rip in it.... I think that whatever rifts exist will be healed after the convention.... where we will send our candidate to run against a man who does not represent the values of muscular conservatives such as yourself who have pledged to stay home.

And trust me, we will indeed hang Bush around McCain's neck like an albatross... I have absolutely no problem using the failures of the past eight years to drive voters away from any candidate who would appear to want to continue down that path.

[red states rule]

YOUr opinions as to the motivations for the development of the superdelegate model are just that - your opinions.

And I understand that you feel my party has a huge rip in it.... I think that whatever rifts exist will be healed after the convention.... where we will send our candidate to run against a man who does not represent the values of muscular conservatives such as yourself who have pledged to stay home.

And trust me, we will indeed hang Bush around McCain's neck like an albatross... I have absolutely no problem using the failures of the past eight years to drive voters away from any candidate who would appear to want to continue down that path.

Keep ignoring the fact the people who vote Democrat will not choose the nominee. Dems have screamed to honor the will of the people, but SD's like Ted Kennedy ignore the voters choice in their state and went with the loser of thier primary

Hillary may be able to overtake Obama in the popular voye and really screw things up for your party leaders

Keep running on hate MFM - that is all your side has left.

And trying to explain how you will tax America into prosperity

I am still waiting for that myself

[retiredman]

Keep ignoring the fact the people who vote Democrat will not choose the nominee. Dems have screamed to honor the will of the people, but SD's like Ted Kennedy ignore the voters choice in their state and went with the loser of thier primary

Hillary may be able to overtake Obama in the popular voye and really screw things up for your party leaders

Keep running on hate MFM - that is all your side has left.

And trying to explain how you will tax America into prosperity

I am still waiting for that myself

the people who ARE deomcrats have created the system by which their party nominates a president. I think it is a fine system. And again....it really should not be of any concern to you... but if it is, you can remain a democrat after this next election and work to change the policy from within.

I have already explained our economic policy to you on several occasions. I have no intention of repeating myself. You'll just have to wait and see how great our plans work when president Obama and the democratic congress start enacting them.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

the people who ARE deomcrats have created the system by which their party nominates a president. I think it is a fine system. And again....it really should not be of any concern to you... but if it is, you can remain a democrat after this next election and work to change the policy from within.

I have already explained our economic policy to you on several occasions. I have no intention of repeating myself. You'll just have to wait and see how great our plans work when president Obama and the democratic congress start enacting them.:laugh2:

The system was created to stop stupid voters from picking the wrong person.

Denver is going to be the place to be to watch the eruption of thousands of pissed off Dems

All you offered as an explation on how Dems will tax America into prosperity is bumber sticker slogams

You have the Obama talking points down pat

[retiredman]

The system was created to stop stupid voters from picking the wrong person.

Denver is going to be the place to be to watch the eruption of thousands of pissed off Dems

All you offered as an explation on how Dems will tax America into prosperity is bumber sticker slogams

You have the Obama talking points down pat


again, your opinions as to the reasons for the creation of the democratic party nominating system are your opinions...and not based in any fact.

Denver will be a typically raucus convention. It looks like my son may be going as an Obama delegate. He'll find out for sure at our state convention. And then we'll rally to beat McCain - which will be easy, because hardcore muscular conservatives like YOU who are the base of the repubican party have pledged to stay home and not vote for John boy.

Democrats may bitch and moan at one another now...but they are all energized for one reason: they can't WAIT to get the republican party out of the white house! And by nominating a republican like McCain who alienates true republicans like YOU, your party has made it that much easier for us!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

again, your opinions as to the reasons for the creation of the democratic party nominating system are your opinions...and not based in any fact.

Denver will be a typically raucus convention. It looks like my son may be going as an Obama delegate. He'll find out for sure at our state convention. And then we'll rally to beat McCain - which will be easy, because hardcore muscular conservatives like YOU who are the base of the repubican party have pledged to stay home and not vote for John boy.

Democrats may bitch and moan at one another now...but they are all energized for one reason: they can't WAIT to get the republican party out of the white house! And by nominating a republican like McCain who alienates true republicans like YOU, your party has made it that much easier for us!:laugh2:

Your son could be sitting next to an Operation Chaos operative, and I hope he does not get caught between fighting Dems as all hell breaks loose

Denver could very well look like Chicago 1968. It happens often when pissed off libs vent their anger

[retiredman]

Your son could be sitting next to an Operation Chaos operative, and I hope he does not get caught between fighting Dems as all hell breaks loose

Denver could very well look like Chicago 1968. It happens often when pissed off libs vent their anger


I am confident my son can hold his own... especially is the operation chaos operatives are wimps like you!

and Denver COULD look like a lot of things, but it will certainly end up being your party's worst nightmare. We WILL be united in November and, by your own admission, muscular conservatives like yourself will NOT vote for John boy. A democrat is the white house... a democratic house and a democratic senate. Adios Bush and everything he brought with him!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

I am confident my son can hold his own... especially is the operation chaos operatives are wimps like you!

and Denver COULD look like a lot of things, but it will certainly end up being your party's worst nightmare. We WILL be united in November and, by your own admission, muscular conservatives like yourself will NOT vote for John boy. A democrat is the white house... a democratic house and a democratic senate. Adios Bush and everything he brought with him!:laugh2:

Ok, your son can hiold his own - but how is he ducking and dodging thrown objects when the libs explode?

Even liberal publications are asking questions about the screwed up sysytem the Dems use


If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination by June.

By Sean Wilentz


April 7, 2008 | The continuing contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has become a frenzy of debates and proclamations about democracy. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has been particularly vociferous in claiming that its candidate stands for a transformative, participatory new politics. It has vaunted Obama's narrow lead in the overall popular vote in the primaries to date, as well as in the count of elected delegates, as the definitive will of the party's rank and file. If, while heeding the party's rules, the Democratic superdelegates overturn those majorities, Obama's supporters claim, they will have displayed a cynical contempt for democracy that would tear the party apart.

These arguments might be compelling if Obama's leads were not so reliant on certain eccentricities in the current Democratic nominating process, as well as on some blatantly anti-democratic maneuvers by the Obama campaign. Obama's advantage hinges on a system that, whatever the actual intentions behind it, seems custom-made to hobble Democratic chances in the fall. It depends on ignoring one of the central principles of American electoral politics, one that will be operative on a state-by-state basis this November, which is that the winner takes all. If the Democrats ran their nominating process the way we run our general elections, Sen. Hillary Clinton would have a commanding lead in the delegate count, one that will only grow more commanding after the next round of primaries, and all questions about which of the two Democratic contenders is more electable would be moot.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. If she splits the 10 remaining contests with Obama, as seems plausible, with Clinton taking Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana and Puerto Rico, and Obama winning North Carolina, South Dakota, Montana, Oregon and Guam, she'd pick up another 364 pledged delegates. She'd have 2,107 before a single superdelegate was wooed. You need 2,024 to be the Democratic nominee. Game over. No more blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention

for the complete article
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/

[retiredman]

I am not the least bit worried, RSR.... my party will come out of Denver just fine. The party of muscular conservatives will nominate a liberal maverick. Where does that leave YOU?:lol:

[red states rule]

I am not the least bit worried, RSR.... my party will come out of Denver just fine. The party of muscular conservatives will nominate a liberal maverick. Where does that leave YOU?:lol:

It will leave the Dems in shambles, and at war with each other

Maanwhile, Dems keep spending money, keeps ripping each other, and turning off many voters

When you have liberal publications shaking their heads, it is a problem

[retiredman]

It will leave the Dems in shambles, and at war with each other

Maanwhile, Dems keep spending money, keeps ripping each other, and turning off many voters

When you have liberal publications shaking their heads, it is a problem


you might think it's a problem...but again...it's nothing you need to worry about.

You need to worry about who you will vote for in November now that your party has nominated someone who clearly is not a muscular conservative like you!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

you might think it's a problem...but again...it's nothing you need to worry about.

You need to worry about who you will vote for in November now that your party has nominated someone who clearly is not a muscular conservative like you!:laugh2:

I know it is a problem, so do many top Dems, and their allies in the liberal media

[retiredman]

I know it is a problem, so do many top Dems, and their allies in the liberal media

again...not YOUR problem.

I predict that the democrats will unite in November because we have something important to unite FOR.

Your problem is who to vote for now that McCain is the nominee of the republican party and muscular conservatives have been cut out of the process.

[red states rule]

again...not YOUR problem.

I predict that the democrats will unite in November because we have something important to unite FOR.

Your problem is who to vote for now that McCain is the nominee of the republican party and muscular conservatives have been cut out of the process.

So you admit there is a problem?

Keep thinking after all the blood letting the Hilary and Obama people will join hands and make nice. Nice fantasy

[theHawk]

I am confident my son can hold his own... especially is the operation chaos operatives are wimps like you!

and Denver COULD look like a lot of things, but it will certainly end up being your party's worst nightmare. We WILL be united in November and, by your own admission, muscular conservatives like yourself will NOT vote for John boy. A democrat is the white house... a democratic house and a democratic senate. Adios Bush and everything he brought with him!:laugh2:

You really are living in a dream world if you think the country is going to rally behind a racist sack of shit like Obama and his America-hating wife. Only the most delusional libs like yourself ignore his poor judgement in his friendships with assholes like Wright, Rezko, and self admitted terrorist William Ayers. Shitbag liberals like yourself are a disgrace to this country, if Obama was a bonefide child molester you'd still rally behind him because the only truely important thing that you care about is someone to forward your socialist and Marxist agenda.

[red states rule]

You really are living in a dream world if you think the country is going to rally behind a racist sack of shit like Obama and his America-hating wife. Only the most delusional libs like yourself ignore his poor judgement in his friendships with assholes like Wright, Rezko, and self admitted terrorist William Ayers. Shitbag liberals like yourself are a disgrace to this country, if Obama was a bonefide child molester you'd still rally behind him because the only truely important thing that you care about is someone to forward your socialist and Marxist agenda.

Maybe that is the change the left wants

[retiredman]

You really are living in a dream world if you think the country is going to rally behind a racist sack of shit like Obama and his America-hating wife. Only the most delusional libs like yourself ignore his poor judgement in his friendships with assholes like Wright, Rezko, and self admitted terrorist William Ayers. Shitbag liberals like yourself are a disgrace to this country, if Obama was a bonefide child molester you'd still rally behind him because the only truely important thing that you care about is someone to forward your socialist and Marxist agenda.


time will tell.

And your petty insults are pretty much dismissed given their source.

go fuck yourself.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

time will tell.

And your petty insults are pretty much dismissed given their source.

go fuck yourself.:laugh2:

Nice reply to the facts about your boy Obama. So typical of a preacher who gives sermons on Sunday

[theHawk]

time will tell.

And your petty insults are pretty much dismissed given their source.

go fuck yourself.:laugh2:

Aw come on MFM, is that the best you can do?

Whats the matter? Don't have the sack to defend Obama about Racist Wright, the jailbird Rezko, and the terrorist Ayers all in one fell swoop?

[retiredman]

So you admit there is a problem?

Keep thinking after all the blood letting the Hilary and Obama people will join hands and make nice. Nice fantasy


no. I don't.... and again.... whether democrats can come together or not is really our issue and not yours. You need to figure out who you will vote for in November.

[retiredman]

Aw come on MFM, is that the best you can do?

Whats the matter? Don't have the sack to defend Obama about Racist Wright, the jailbird Rezko, and the terrorist Ayers all in one fell swoop?
I voted for him in my caucus. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination and I will be proud to call him my president.

And, as I said, when you call someone a shitbag and a disgrace to their country, you really ought not to expect a great deal of cordial discourse in return.

[red states rule]

I voted for him in my caucus. I'll vote for him if he gets the nomination and I will be proud to call him my president.

And, as I said, when you call someone a shitbag and a disgrace to their country, you really ought not to expect a great deal of cordial discourse in return.

Yep

MFM ducks the racist comments, Resko, Wright, and Obama's terrorist friend

[retiredman]

Yep

MFM ducks the racist comments, Resko, Wright, and Obama's terrorist friend


I have discussed the Reverend Wright issue ad nauseum....

Rezko has been addressed by Obama and is really old news.

The connection to WIlliam Ayers is inconsequential...

[red states rule]

I have discussed the Reverend Wright issue ad nauseum....

Rezko has been addressed by Obama and is really old news.

The connection to WIlliam Ayers is inconsequential...

MFM is still ducking Obama's racism, his racist mentor, his indicted buddy Resko, and Obama's terrorist buddy Ayers

With MFM, as long as his boy has a (D) at the end of him nane - that is good enough for him.

[red states rule]

The leader of your party MFM is worried about the anger coming form within your party


Dean warns Dems of divided danger

Howard Dean warned on Sunday that a Democratic Party that’s still divided come convention time could hand the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presidency. But Dean said he's not going to pressure undecided superdelegates to pick a side.

Speaking on both CBS’s “Face the Nation” and ABC’s “This Week,” Dean sounded confident that the superdelegates themselves would make their decisions quickly enough to avoid disaster.

“The only thing that is going to make John McCain president is disunity among Democrats. And we cannot afford four more years, essentially, of George W. Bush,” Dean said on “Face the Nation.”

“I think the remaining 300-some-odd superdelegates, or unpledged delegates, will continue to do what the 470-odd have already done, which is to make their views known, in drips and drabs, between now and the end of June. And I think that's the right thing to do for the country, never mind just the party.”

Dean also said he wanted to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan in some way, but added that party officials also need to do so in a way that makes clear to states that they can’t break the rules with impunity.

“They obviously can't be seated as is, which is what one campaign is saying. And they're certainly not going to be excluded, which is what the other campaign is saying. But there is a reasonable, thoughtful way to do this,” Dean said.


for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9404.html

[retiredman]

MFM is still ducking Obama's racism, his racist mentor, his indicted buddy Resko, and Obama's terrorist buddy Ayers

With MFM, as long as his boy has a (D) at the end of him nane - that is good enough for him.


not ducking at all. I have discussed those issues. and see no reason to continue to discuss them with someone who only wants to rehash them for the purpose of stirring the pot.

For me, as long as my party's candidate supports our platform, I will support our candidate. Both Clinton and Obama do. I prefer Obama, but will work to get out the vote regardless of which is chosen.

[red states rule]

not ducking at all. I have discussed those issues. and see no reason to continue to discuss them with someone who only wants to rehash them for the purpose of stirring the pot.

For me, as long as my party's candidate supports our platform, I will support our candidate. Both Clinton and Obama do. I prefer Obama, but will work to get out the vote regardless of which is chosen.

So the Dem platform is hate whitey. blame America for inventing AIDS, calling white folks ignorant, Amercia dererved 9-11, support terrorists who bombed government buildings, support indicted fundraisers, and above all play the wealth envy card

[Dilloduck]

So the Dem platform is hate whitey. blame America for inventing AIDS, calling white folks ignorant, Amercia dererved 9-11, support terrorists who bombed government buildings, support indicted fundraisers, and above all play the wealth envy card

I thought the Dem platform was "change".

[red states rule]

I thought the Dem platform was "change".

I know

Seems like more of the same old same old

Only the Dems are showing it more openly, and not even trying to hide it

[retiredman]

So the Dem platform is hate whitey. blame America for inventing AIDS, calling white folks ignorant, Amercia dererved 9-11, support terrorists who bombed government buildings, support indicted fundraisers, and above all play the wealth envy card


if you want to know what the democratic platform is, go here:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php

it will be updated at the convention in Denver, but the key planks will remain unchanged.

[red states rule]

if you want to know what the democratic platform is, go here:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php

it will be updated at the convention in Denver, but the key planks will remain unchanged.

Note:

Platfore subject to change based on focus groups and polling results