# Obama smacks-down hillary clinton....priceless classic ;-)



## SvK (Dec 13, 2007)

OBAMA smacks-down Hillary Clinton....PRICELESS CLASSIC 

....pay attention to after the moderator poses question to Obama...in background before Obama answers that is Hillary cackling, and saying "I wanna hear that".....

....then look out ....BAAAAMMMMM

OBAMA 08

FIRED UP!
READY TO GO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nKHBSFSosY


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 13, 2007)

ssssnapp!!

That guy thinks on his feet. He's quick and I think that says a lot about him. Thanks for posting this..


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 13, 2007)

Don't worry, he said thinks *on* his feet, Troels, not *with* his feet.


----------



## Ed (Dec 13, 2007)

SvK @ Thu Dec 13 said:


> OBAMA smacks-down Hillary



She has a scary laugh.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 13, 2007)

I dont get that w/ Kucinich. And that's w/ a hot wife. 

BTW Who WAS the last quick witted president? JFK comes to mind.

edit-- Bill had a couple good ones


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Dec 13, 2007)

Only slightly above 50% of US population vote. If you are one of the non-voters and you are reading this... please give me your vote and vote for Obama!


----------



## madbulk (Dec 13, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> Only slightly above 50% of US population vote. If you are one of the non-voters and you are reading this... please give me your vote and vote for Obama!



Mine's available for sale but I'm quite sure it's overpriced compared to its intrinsic value. The market on it shifts according to polls though.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 14, 2007)

Humor is a real sign of intelligence. I like him.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 14, 2007)

Folmann @ Thu 13 Dec said:


> He has a scary arrogance. Well... thinking of it... they all do.


Agree with the last part, less with the first one. How about that for arrogance - 

HILLARY:
<laughs>"Yeah, I wanna hear that..."


----------



## SvK (Dec 14, 2007)

That's right.....

AND.......well Hill why did all those top dogs of Bill's decide to work for Barack INSTEAD of you?

Because THEY CANT STAND YOU!!
Because THEY BELIEVE HE IS A BETTER LEADER!!


Arrogant? She's the one saying she's inevitable..........

Citing that she's ready to go from Day1 because she was first lady..HA

consider this: When I need my appendix out, I DON'T ask the wife of the surgeon to perform the operation.


GOOOOOBBBAAAAMMMMAAAA

FIRED UP!
READY TO GO!

www.barackobama.com

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2007)

SvK, what specifically has Obama said to get you so fired up?

I want to like him, but so far I haven't heard him say anything that either inspired me or turned me off. Hilary, on the other hand, has said a lot. So has Edwards, for that matter.

I haven't made up my mind yet which Democrat to vote for in the primary. Right now I'm leaning toward Hilary just because a show of support could help her in the general election.

Or I may even register Republican to vote against that ass Guiliani. He's by far the worst candidate in either party. As my 91-year-old mother-in-law says, even his own children can't stand him.

The odds of my doing that are long, though - I'd find it pretty distasteful.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2007)

And yeah, that was a cute remark, but was it *that* clever?

I don't want to be nasty, but my 13-year-old daughter comes up with quips at least that clever minimum three times a day...i.e. every time we ask her to do something. 

(Seriously! I think it's just that we're not used to hearing politicians have any wit....except for Barney Frank, who's quite hilarious.)


----------



## SvK (Dec 14, 2007)

Nick....

Barack On HealthCare:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

Barack On Poverty:
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/UrbanPovertyOverview.pdf

Barack On Global Warming:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/environment/

et, etc, 

He's actually one of the ONLY candidates laying out detailed plans for everything.....

Why not read this stuff...Beats the hell out of talking in 30 sec soundbytes.


SvK


----------



## tobyond (Dec 14, 2007)

All of the Republican candidates are as scary as shit. As far as Dem candidates, in the top 3 none are ideal, but Hillary is pretty disingenuous, Kucinich is the truest Democrat, but he has no chance unfortunately.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2007)

I tend to be a little liberal  and certainly wouldn't vote for any of the Republican candidates, but the only one that really *scares* me is Guiliani. Romney isn't all that great either, but I can't say that McCain or Ron Paul scare me. Either does Huckabee; while I don't Heart him and find it a little weird that he doesn't believe in evolution (or so he says), he's actually said a few things about education that I agree with.

In fact I agree with him 100% that the way to keep kids in school - which is even more necessary in a world in which everyone is competing against Indian and Chinese people for jobs - is to *interest them* in education. He's all for music and arts.

The current "standards-based" noncreative crap system is leaving kids behind.

But one digresses...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2007)

Thanks SvK, I'll czech those lynx...


----------



## tobyond (Dec 14, 2007)

Huckleberry is pretty scary with his http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/12517/525/811/420237 (opinions on women.) >8o


----------



## Brian Ralston (Dec 14, 2007)

tobyond @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> Huckleberry is pretty scary with his http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/12517/525/811/420237 (opinions on women.) >8o



Toby,

IMHO, you really should not be forming opinions on anyone with quotes taken from a radical left website. Seriously, the Daily Kos is about as far out there to the left as the Christian coalition is to the right. Seriously, those guys are nuts and have hijacked the Democratic party leadership, taking them a lot further to the left on issues than the majority of their party. Resist the urge to buy into the mud slinging. 

I am not a Huckabee supporter...but he has had a very successful governership in Arkansas (the same electorate that once supported Bill Clinton) and that says something. 

o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2007)

I don't know the Daily Kos, but taking that page at face value: so he says that a woman should submit graciously to her man. What does that really mean? It sure sounds unsophisticated, and you can picture the mentality of the people who that newspaper that ad is aimed at, but is he really saying that women are supposed to put up with abusive husbands or become unempowered? I'd have to see more before coming to that conclusion.

Obviously it's at best silly, but again, for something to be scary it needs the potential to cause harm. If you listen to Huckabee, he's not a lunatic. Guiliani is, though - a big, ugly, swaggering pile of uncontrolled ego and personal ambition with very little intelligence or considered thought behind it. And certainly not all the Republican candidates are like that, even if I disagree with them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2007)

By the way, one of the things Huckabee is for is the Fair Tax. It's an interesting idea - you pay a sales tax for consumption instead of income tax...until you think about it and realize that it's going to shift more of the burden onto poor people and eliminate everything that's nonprofit - among other problems.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 14, 2007)

SvK: I just read those links, and he does make the right noises.


----------



## Moonchilde (Dec 14, 2007)

I notice Obama is rarely on factcheck.org. Will probably get more attention once we get a lot closer to the elections.

Also, on factcheck he was quoted as saying he can't promise a time frame for bringing home the soldiers in Iraq, but then up in that video he said 16 months. So, it seems now he is starting to sweet talk a bit...

I just hope the shit slinging doesn't get anywhere near as bad as last time. It was truly disgusting how many lies and lies and lies were spouted in that one.


----------



## SvK (Dec 14, 2007)

Nick.....

thanx for taking the time out to do that 

You know when they are in debate -mode or in Speech mode....Then it's about "Inspiring" and "cheer-leading"........which is also very important!

CHeck out this focus group of Iowa dems that FOX (of all stations) had going on after this last Dem Debate.......very interesting.


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CBfq (http://my.barackobama.com/page/communit ... amaHQ/CBfq)

SvK


----------



## SvK (Dec 14, 2007)

The other thing that is just "weird", is that over on the www.hillaryclinton.com site there is NO traffic on the blogs.......

If you want to post something over there it gets reviewed and inspected before posting it by moderators............horrible......what happened to free speech?...If your comment criticises Hillary, THEY WILL NOT ALLOW IT.....WTF?
shows you how mistrusting she is. Almost Nixonian.
On www.barackobama.com everyone is posting. 1000s of people Dems, Repubs, Libs,you name it. At all hours, non-stop....Good, stuff, negative stuff...it's a free for all. Criticism of Barack is allowed.
Not on Hillary site........there a like 13 comments per hour or so over on her site....it's all quiet.....no excitement. No "movement", no "romance", no "inspiration"...nothing.

Her support in the national polls is "soft"...It's mostly "name-recognition support" of people who haven't really checked out the other candidates, due to apathy or it being to early......all that is changing now.

It's the start of the 4th quarter and Barack Obama needs 2 touch-downs to win....that's ok since Barack is a great quarter-back 



"I don't want to pit red-America against blue-America......I want to be the president of the United States of America"
- Barack Obama

SvK


----------



## SvK (Dec 14, 2007)

Nick,

One last plug:

This article in the "Rolling Stone" more than anything describes why I am so excited by the Obama campaign.........

great read:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17652931/obamas_moment (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/st ... mas_moment)

SvK

ps: all you young ones on this site.....Remember to register to vote. It's important. Even if your voting for someone other than my guy....VOTE! Never take it for granted, and expect others to get it right for you....That's how we got George W. Bush.


SvK


----------



## madbulk (Dec 14, 2007)

re: Huckabee and the Daily Koz thing, which I didn't read, but I've heard this point before...
I'm not prepared nor qualified to go to the mat on this, but just as a high-level, and on the odd chance that it's not common knowledge...

my understanding is that there's biblical support for the idea that a wife should be subservient (sic?) to her husband -- and that it can be cushioned somewhat by the idea or language to the effect that she's not so much subservient as understanding and supportive, but yes, ultimately yielding to the decisions of the husband, who for his part is to consider respectfully the happiness, wishes and well-being of his mate, etc.... in other words, he's the boss and he should conduct himself in that role with great yada yada yada all things noble and good.

Evolution... nope.

So, it would appear JUST FROM WHAT I'VE READ HERE mind you, Huckabee is devout and therefore just being consistent.

And perhaps also therefore he's a man of considerable character, if ultimately unsuitable for the office. But probably no moreso than the alternatives.


----------



## tobyond (Dec 14, 2007)

Brian Ralston @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> tobyond @ Fri Dec 14 said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, you really should not be forming opinions on anyone with quotes taken from a radical left website. Seriously, the Daily Kos is about as far out there to the left as the Christian coalition is to the right. Seriously, those guys are nuts and have hijacked the Democratic party leadership, taking them a lot further to the left on issues than the majority of their party. Resist the urge to buy into the mud slinging.



According to Bill Oreilly and his cronies at fox it is, but it's pretty down the middle as far as I can see, it fits the current 'just left of center' democrat line this current party has. That's not really the point of the link though, I am concerned about any candidate that will join church and state and take the bible literally.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Dec 14, 2007)

tobyond @ Fri Dec 14 said:


> Brian Ralston @ Fri Dec 14 said:
> 
> 
> > tobyond @ Fri Dec 14 said:
> ...



Your joking right Toby? Kos is about as far left/socialist/marxist as they come. Please! If that is the world you subscribe to...so be it, that is your perogative. But trying to re-define the political scale to say those nuts are anything but radical left is just not true at all. Obama or Clinton don't even suscribe to their far left thinking. They just sometimes pander to them for votes because they are attmepting to hi-jack the democratic leadership which is ultimately a bad thing for the Democrats. It may make for good primary rallies...but not for nationwide elections.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 15, 2007)

"my understanding is that there's biblical support for the idea that a wife should be subservient (sic?) to her husband"

The way a society treats its women is a good indication of how evolved it is.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 15, 2007)

*(the 'wives/women' OT)*



Nick Batzdorf @ Sat 15 Dec said:


> "my understanding is that there's biblical support for the idea that a wife should be subservient (sic?) to her husband"
> 
> The way a society treats its women is a good indication of how evolved it is.


There is NO direct inference from the initial quote ("my understanding...") that 
1) 'women' are all 'wifes',  
2) 'wifes' are all 'women', :shock: 
3) the biblical support for the mentioned idea is an indicator that that idea is applied at societal scale,
4) the wives' presumed subservient-ness to their husbands is imposed by husbands, 
5) the wives' presumed subservient-ness to their husbands is rejected by wives,
6) a wife's presumed subservient-ness to her husband equals bad (or good) treatment of the wife by the husband.
7) a bad (or a good) treatment of the wife by her husband is applied at societal scale.

Considering that women are the majority in all societies, that indicates to me that: the way a society treats its women is a good indication of how evolved both women and men in that society are. From my limited observations, women do take at least as much advantage from their position in society as men do. Therefore, to me, the myth of the 'oppressed' Woman is as true as the myth of the 'in-control' Man. Also, I have noticed that women are the ones who create and maintain the customs in society (for example: marriage), so it's hard for me to believe that they do not discard the customs that they see as 'bad' for them. To me, that means that they only keep the customs that look advantageous to them - and I have often seen them taking advantage from many customs that appear to be in their own disadvantage.

IMO, the women's power is the sum of their apparent disadvantages, combined with men's blind belief in their own 'power' and control over society (and family).

my two observant pence ~o)

edit:
I would very much like to see the reasoning behind this: "The way a society treats its women is a good indication of how evolved it is." It seems to me highly presumptuous and utterly discriminatory towards men. :evil: What about the way a society treats its men? Wouldn't that also be a good indication of how evolved that society is?


----------



## madbulk (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: (the 'wives/women' OT)*



aeneas @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sat 15 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > "my understanding is that there's biblical support for the idea that a wife should be subservient (sic?) to her husband"
> ...



Yeah! Some of what HE said!

Nick sure doesn't need me to parse or defend him. But I suspect he meant something slightly different from what he wrote, particularly to the extent that it left him open to all that. But I admit, Nick, that I don't see your point. I'm certainly not talking about how society does or doesn't, should or shouldn't treat women. I'm just trying to understand why a presidential candidate would opt to go out on those two limbs that way.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 15, 2007)

> Nick sure doesn't need me to parse or defend him. But I suspect he meant something slightly different from what he wrote, particularly to the extent that it left him open to all that. But I admit, Nick, that I don't see your point. I'm certainly not talking about how society does or doesn't, should or shouldn't treat women. I'm just trying to understand why a presidential candidate would opt to go out on those two limbs that way.



I'm not sure how what I wrote is being interpreted, but what I mean is pretty straightforward: in my opinion, societies that treat their women badly are not as evolved as ones where they're close to being equal to the men (we're not quite there yet in the U.S., and there are terrible problems with domestic violence and abused women, but by and large it's close).

Yes, some people may be offended by my saying that, and I have no problem with cultural diversity. But I don't like what went on under the Taliban in Afghanistan, what goes on in Saudi Arabia (not as bad as the Taliban, but women can't even drive), girls having their clitorises cut off in other places, women being sold into sexual slavery, and on and on. There are also a lot of religious customs about the role of women that I find anachronistic, for instance the religious Jewish ideas of women shaving their heads so they're not attractive to men other than their husbands, and so on.

It's been illegal to beat your wife for a good long time in Western society, and I'm sorry, but I think it's more highly evolved to treat women as the equals they are. Frankly I wasn't going to get into another discussion with Aeneas, because it's not a productive thing to do, but the idea that men are involved too only applies to societies like ours where women have some power. Remember, before 1920 women didn't have the right to vote in our country (the U.S.).

Does anyone seriously disagree with me that women shouldn't be mistreated?!

Why would a presidential candidate sign his name to that ridiculousness? Because he wants votes from the religious right. God commanded people to get involved in right-wing politics, after all.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> Does anyone seriously disagree with me that women shouldn't be mistreated?!


Sure, that all sounds nice in _principle._ But tell me then, what am I supposed to do when my wife really pisses me off?!? Like suppose she's totally out of control and tells me to cook my own damn dinner! What am I supposed to do then?!?!? I mean, God made me big for a reason, right?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 15, 2007)

If your wife is anything like mine, he made you big so you could defend yourself against her when you piss her off!

(But I guess that post of mine is pretty ridiculous. Why did I even bother explaining that?)


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> (But I guess that post of mine is pretty ridiculous. Why did I even bother explaining that?)


Because you haven't gotten into the habit of looking at the name of who posted the reply before reading it (and with a certain poster, then ignoring it.)

Your first post was pretty clear and I can only think of one person who would be confused enough to rebut it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 15, 2007)

It was like a slow hanging pitch. I couldn't resist it.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat 15 Dec said:


> Does anyone seriously disagree with me that women shouldn't be mistreated?!


No one should be mistreated, regardless gender, race, religion, etc. Why this emphasis on women? They are overtly privileged, in civilized societies. (Fundamentalist societies are a separate discussion, me thinks) 

I take Hillary's nasty question and tone as a clear example of mistreating a person, in public. Probably she thought she was smart and funny, but I doubt that she was unaware of the maliciousness of her question. Making, in advance, loud assumptions about someone's inability to answer a question and to address a topic, was in this case a clear attempt to humiliate that person, in public - and that looks to me as mistreating as can be. Obama reaction was just to raise up a 'mirror-shield' so that her wickedness turned back to its origin (and man, he was fast! 8) ). But imagine the roles were reversed and Obama would have first attacked her in a similar way... - I bet that the man would have been qualified as ill-mannered, if not worse. As it happened, she got away with that nasty question. 

FWIW, it seems Obama has proved to be a gentleman who promptly pays his debts, while Hillary did not act like a lady, never mind a 'first' lady. So she got back what she deserved, like any other man (sic!). You want equality? Then expect your own mistreatments to smash you back in the face! On the spot. That's real equality, and not the privileges that most women seem to take for granted.

edit:
_"Frankly I wasn't going to get into another discussion with Aeneas, because it's not a productive thing to do"_
And that decision was highly appreciated. As I said more than once - on the net, 'discussions with' individuals are far less productive than 'discussions about' topics and ideas.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> > Does anyone seriously disagree with me that women shouldn't be mistreated?!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's say he did as it appears -- and lets say it was when the presidency wasn't perhaps a realistic goal.
It's gotta be complex for a guy who's devout. (And once again, we have to accept my premise that the bible can be reasonably or even semi-reasonably interpreted to put male above female, or husband above wife or some combo thereof. It's just something I've heard.) 
But ok... Bible is divine. Bible says that. You're Devout. You're running. Now what?

So why stick with it? The alternatives are imperfect as well. Reject your expressed beliefs in midstream? Not great. Go mealy mouthed and compromise it? Not great. Might you get some votes for taking the hard line? Yeah! But it's a net disaster, as I think you're saying.

I would suspect it's just a matter of him first believing the literal bible (while not taking the slippery slope to the mistreatment of women that you described.) and not having a great political way around that. So at this point, gotta play what you've got.


----------



## madbulk (Dec 15, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Dec 15 said:


> (But I guess that post of mine is pretty ridiculous. Why did I even bother explaining that?)



Jeez. Me too. It's late. I'm bored. I apologize for elaborating on pretty much nothing. The Huckabee thing is just ridiculous of course. But it's also just slightly fascinating.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 18, 2007)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-h ... 77165.html

Kinda interesting blog by Ariana Huffington about Huckabee. Maybe he is scarier than he seems (to those of us who see gay marriage as a civil rights issue [and a diversion from important issues] and abortion as a right - etc. etc. etc.).

Regardless, it's a good article. She's very articulate about the way the Republican party has been exploiting religion in the most cynical way for a long time. I'm not wild about the Democrats either, though; our political process has become a mockery of democracy. Informed debate has been replaced by a battle over who can come up with the stupidest and shortest bumper sticker slogans.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 18, 2007)

What a wonderfully photogenic First Family this
would make! (The really really big fellah leering
in the center was fired as a camp counselor for
slitting a stray dog's throat, stoning and hanging
it, according to Isokoff in Newsweek.)


----------



## spectrum (Dec 19, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huckabee-the-gops-cynic_b_77165.html
> 
> Kinda interesting blog by Ariana Huffington about Huckabee. Maybe he is scarier than he seems (to those of us who see gay marriage as a civil rights issue [and a diversion from important issues] and abortion as a right - etc. etc. etc.).
> 
> Regardless, it's a good article. She's very articulate about the way the Republican party has been exploiting religion in the most cynical way for a long time. I'm not wild about the Democrats either, though; our political process has become a mockery of democracy. Informed debate has been replaced by a battle over who can come up with the stupidest and shortest bumper sticker slogans.



I dunno, seems to me that she totally missed the point of why Huckabee is making the establishment on both sides uncomfortable.

To me it's pretty obvious why, it's because he doesn't neatly fit into the mold that either Republicans or Democrats want to paint a typical Evangelical from the South. He rocks the boat in a lot of ways.

She missed that he has quite different positions on many issues than Bush: pro-environment, strong advocate for the working poor, strong advocate of racial reconciliation, social justice, etc.

But I guess it's more convenient to put him into a neat little box though....pretty typical of political coverage these days.

I also take anything that Huffington says with a major grain of salt. I met her once when she was a rabid, hardcore Republican apologist, so it's a little hard to take her seriously these days when she's done such a complete 180. She always talks a good game though.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 19, 2007)

hmmmm. some of his core values-that of a fundamentalist baptist minister are archaic and wouldn't work well as as this nations leader. You need Arianna (congrats to her for seeing the light) to have heard or read some of the well documented fundamentalist quackery that he spouts. He does seem like a nice enough guy. 

However, team dressing is fine in sports. but... woah...very suspicious....


----------



## rgames (Dec 19, 2007)

Smack-down? Come on, now! Regardless what you think of Obama, you must admit that the banter there was exceedingly lame :roll:

Good banter is more along the lines of "I won't hold my opponent's youth and inexperience against him." or "Madam, if you were my wife, I'd drink it." THOSE are some good quips.

I suppose it's poignant commentary on the current slate of candidates that this type of drivel is regarded as interesting banter...!!! Ahhh, the good ol' days.

But, of course, a quick wit has nothing to do with ability to run an administration. 

But it does make it more entertaining to observe!

rgames


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 19, 2007)

I wonder if people are responding to Huckabee in large part because of what he's not (as well as what he appears to be: a decent guy.) He just doesn't have the intense vibe of an I'll-say-and-do-anything-to get-elected politician. Although Obama is incredibly ambitious, his apparent honesty and decency is winning people over as well. 

Hillary's plummit can be attributed to far too much of the opposite: a patent dishonesty in presenting an image of someone she's not. The new matronly, laughing, homespun gal that is Hillary Clinton. Not Hillary Rodham Clinton which she insisted the nation call her THE DAY her husband won the presidancy. Where did that lady go? Can you believe that she cynically waited till the moment Bill was elected to insist on that since it was no longer expediant image-wise? Now that _she's_ running she's dumped that moniker to preserve all possible votes.

It's like David Geffen said about the Clinton's, _These people will lie and say anything to attain their ends._ (to paraphrase.)

And you guys think Huckabee's scary?


----------



## Dave Connor (Dec 19, 2007)

rgames @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> Smack-down? Come on, now! Regardless what you think of Obama, you must admit that the banter there was exceedingly lame



I have to agree with this. I thought that retort was completely unremarkable. Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan have legendary quips to this day. In fact that same retort was used in the not too distant past in a presidential election but I don't recall exactly who or when: which is the point it would seem.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 19, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Wed 19 Dec said:


> she's dumped that moniker


you mean, "she's dumped that Monica" ? ... o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 19, 2007)

> To me it's pretty obvious why, it's because he doesn't neatly fit into the mold that either Republicans or Democrats want to paint a typical Evangelical from the South. He rocks the boat in a lot of ways.
> 
> She missed that he has quite different positions on many issues than Bush: pro-environment, strong advocate for the working poor, strong advocate of racial reconciliation, social justice, etc.
> 
> But I guess it's more convenient to put him into a neat little box though....pretty typical of political coverage these days.



Yes, however that blog still made me look at Huckabee a little more closely. He's definitely not a lunatic, but again, I do disagree with a lot of socially conservative positions. (We all want "family values" - two loving heterosexual parents who bring their kids up with great values, don't abuse them, aren't addicted to drugs...etc. ...but unfortunately it ain't always so.)

I think Arianna Huffington is a good talking head in spite of what you're saying being 100% true. Yeah, it's positively weird how she turned around from being a shrill Republican maniac in the 80s. And we once saw her at a restaurant behaving rather tackily...not worth going into the story. Anyway, she's interesting even if I only agree with 95% of what she says...that is,what she says nowadays.

And yes, Huckabee doesn't fit the mold…and that mold is the exact problem: it's been created through a very concerted, sustained, and above all cynical and amoral effort by a lot of exploitive Republican political operatives. Surprisingly, Evangelical Christians aren't all right-wing hicks who can't understand anything beyond the end of a hunting rifle.  I mean, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are both Evangelical Christians. So is Bill Moyer for that matter.

That's why I say that our political process has become a mockery of democracy. And as I've said before, I think a big part of the solution would be to disallow all broadcast political advertising. That would eliminate the need for such obscene amounts of money, and by extension political contributions aka bribes. (Obviously not all political contributions are bribes, but you get the point.)

It's not a restriction of free speech, by the way. We don't allow alcohol or cigarette advertising over the public airwaves either.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 19, 2007)

Another question - a rhetorical one, and one that's sort of changing the subject - is whether the war in Iraq should be the main issue these days. Whether or not you think the original idea was a good one (and my position is obvious), the fact is that we're there and no Democrat or Republican can just pack up and leave, regardless of what they say. Not going to happen.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 19, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed 19 Dec said:


> That's why I say that our political process has become a mockery of democracy. And as I've said before, I think a big part of the solution would be to disallow all broadcast political advertising.


Here is a book that adds tons of great solid arguments to this very idea: television turning democracy (and everything) into mockery and entertainment, by eroding individual critical sense and weakening social and political awareness. Interestingly enough, in the end, the author reaches to the same conclusion/solution (among others).
http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198092928&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves ... 928&amp;sr=8-1)

Also, highly recommended for all interested in understanding what television really is about. A revolutionary book, IMO. That waytoofamiliar screen will never look the same to you.

edit:
A quote from a review says it all: "This is a disturbingly good read."


----------



## Fernando Warez (Dec 19, 2007)

And for those who cant reed this guys has some very interesting to say on this subject.

http://ca.youtube.com/results?search_qu ... n+&search=


----------



## aeneas (Dec 19, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Wed 19 Dec said:


> And for those who cant reed this guys has some very interesting to say on this subject.
> 
> http://ca.youtube.com/results?search_qu ... n+&search=


lol, those who can't read are very unlikely to be here, and even if they are, they're kinda unable to follow your advice, aren't they? :lol: 

OK, for you guys who can't read, here's some stuff that might help:
http://www.amazon.com/Bob-Books-Set-Beginning-Readers/dp/0439845009/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198099747&sr=8-3 (http://www.amazon.com/Bob-Books-Set-Beg ... 747&amp;sr=8-3)


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 19, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> . . . is whether the war in Iraq should be the main issue these days.


Whatever the main issue _should_ be, I can tell you what the main issue _will_ be come next fall: illegal immigrants. Mark my words.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Dec 19, 2007)

aeneas @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Wed 19 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > And for those who cant reed this guys has some very interesting to say on this subject.
> ...



Ahhh! I finally made somebody laugh! 0oD


----------



## JonFairhurst (Dec 19, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> Whatever the main issue _should_ be, I can tell you what the main issue _will_ be come next fall: illegal immigrants. Mark my words.



So why do the Republicans want to give amnesty to lawbreakers so badly? - Not to immigrants (they're poor brown people), but to phone companies (owned by rich white people.) And that Libby guy too.

Oh wait. I answered my own question.


----------



## artsoundz (Dec 19, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Wed Dec 19 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > . . . is whether the war in Iraq should be the main issue these days.
> ...



If it's not, it will used as a diversion to the Irag/Iran/Israel powder keg.


----------



## aeneas (Dec 19, 2007)

Mike Greene @ Wed 19 Dec said:


> Whatever the main issue _should_ be, I can tell you what the main issue _will_ be come next fall: illegal immigrants. Mark my words.


Illegal immigration is the main issue of America, and the root of all issues. Me thinks that America should be emptied not only of all illegal immigrants, but of all their descendants too.

Mitakuye oyasin,
Takoda Ahanu the 487th


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 19, 2007)

"Whatever the main issue should be, I can tell you what the main issue will be come next fall: illegal immigrants. Mark my words."

Duly marked.

I've posted this before, but a savvy politician would put that stupid nonsense in perspective this way (sorry if I've posted this before):

Illegal immigration costs us about $50 billion a year according to the worst estimates I've read - and that I don't believe. Meanwhile the amount we're expected to spend on this "star wars missile 'defense' system" that doesn't work and doesn't have a hope of working is $1.25 or 1.5 trillion (I forget which) very soon.

The "logic" is that missiles are too quick to shoot on the way up, and it's too late on the way down. So you have to catch them in space.

And if you do, there will be so much debris that the world's GPS system and lots of satellite-based communications (and presumably satellite TV) will be useless. Plus the threat of a bomb being delivered by missile isn't all that high; it's much easier to cover it in someone's beard or something.

What that ridiculously dangerous waste of money will be good for is aiming those lasers at the earth. But the rest of the world isn't going to stand by idly and watch the US dominate space, so more money will be spent.

It's in that context that I view some poor guy from Mexico who comes here to work and send money home to feed his children.


----------



## Mike Greene (Dec 19, 2007)

Voters don't think in details like that. Here's what Republicans are going to say:

_Why are we running deficits? Not because we idiotically gave massive tax cuts 7 years ago. Nope. It's because hardworking Americans have to foot the bill for the government services of those illegal immigrants!

Why do we keep needing more prisons? Not because of dopey sentencing policies and certainly not because we completely ignore inner city youth. No, it's because those illegal immigrants breed like rabbits and their kids join gangs and commit crime!

Why are our schools in such bad shape? Not because we spend half per child what we used to for the sake of lowering taxes. Nope. It's those damn illegal immigrant kids! They don't even want to learn English!

Why is health care so expensive? Not because we don't have a system in place for the working poor to have coverage. That would be stupid! The real reason is that hospitals have to admit illegals for free and WE pay the bill!_

All four of the above examples get repeated over and over and over (not as bad as aeneas, but still) by otherwise intelligent people on a Vette restoration website I belong to. They believe this stuff and the Republican Party is going to push those buttons for all they're worth.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 20, 2007)

Hey, I have the answer! Let's build a 700-mile-long fence and secure our borders!


----------



## aeneas (Dec 20, 2007)

artsoundz @ Thu 20 Dec said:


> a short comment on his previous post-
> 
> "Illegal immigration is the main issue of America, and the root of all issues. Me thinks that America should be emptied not only of all illegal immigrants, but of all their descendants too."
> 
> ...


Just for the record, my previous post was not a quote, I just made it up. Then I added a Native salutation, plus a signature which is a combination of two real Native names - which together are meaning something like "him who likes to laugh and is friendly to everyone".  The "the 487th" addition was a hint to the multi-millennial Native presence on the American soil.

Also, that signature was also meant as an innocent joke referring to the myth that 'what is said' is amplified or diminished by 'who said it'.

All in all, my message was: Considering the big percent of the citizens of the US of A who are descendants of 'illegal' immigrants, the "legal vs illegal' issue should have little relevance in America, when it comes to migration (which is a better term, I agree). The whole human history is a continuous migration. That is a basic human habit. People should continue to be free to travel and to settle in peace wherever they like, from the Greenland to India to the New Zealand. I find especially ironic that some American people try to deny that fundamental human right. When the Natives have denied that right to their ancestors, those 'illegal' immigrants have responded with the rifles. What if all actual 'illegal' immigrants will do the same: to impose their legality with the rifles? Huh? They won't, of course, because the present 'illegal' immigrants are actually nice hard working people. IMO, your administration will benefit more from giving them some 'legal' papers so it can collect taxes from them.


----------

