Election '08

[Martin Lenick]

Whom do you want to be the next president of the United States of America?
Votes are anonymous. Please vote only once.
If undecided (the polls on this forum only allow ten choices) post "undecided" and whether or not you prefer Republican, Democrat, or Third Party.

[Rick]

It's an interesting race between the Democrat candidates.

[Martin Lenick]

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread:

"In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB
for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified
to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to
Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she
became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now
completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A
survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move."

This was given to me by a rationalist that shall remain unnamed (but is one of the fastest racers at CIR).

[PeterK]

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread:

"In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB
for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified
to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to
Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she
became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now
completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A
survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move."

This was given to me by a rationalist that shall remain unnamed (but is one of the fastest racers at CIR).

Martin,

Could you clarify one thing for me please since i know nothing about Football.......When Brett was a QB, was his wife really doing all the banging and running?

[Martin Lenick]

Martin,

Could you clarify one thing for me please since i know nothing about Football.......When Brett was a QB, was his wife really doing all the banging and running?
Peter,

It's meant to be a jab at Hillary Clinton's qualifications and readiness to be President of the United States of America.

[Mark Hirt]

Sorry if this is in the wrong thread:

"In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB
for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified
to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to
Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she
became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now
completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A
survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move."

Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has spent 8 years in the White House, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef!"

[PeterK]

Peter,

It's meant to be a jab at Hillary Clinton's qualifications and readiness to be President of the United States of America.

:-)... i got the joke Martin. LOL I suppose i wasn't clear eough delivering mine.
I tend to think that in todays era none of the running leftists are qualified for the job - certainly not Hillary who I beleive happend to have ran the White House when Billy was residing. Perhaps that is why he had time to screw around with the girs.:whistle:

[PeterK]

Peter,

It's meant to be a jab at Hillary Clinton's qualifications and readiness to be President of the United States of America.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery......"

Wow! Martin always seems to find the finer things in life for his signature....for all those excited about our liberal democratic leaders - please read and underestand the above. I only have to add that the equal division of misery is the result of the elite few's hunger for power and wealth.
It is also not a theory anymore. It is a proven faliure - remember eastern european countries?

If someone wants to take a shot and explain to me the difference between socialism and the political direction the democrats and (unfortunately) most of so-called-conservative republicans chose to take..............

[Rick]

Latest odds from Sportsbook.com: http://www.sportsbook.com/betting/2008+Presidential+Election-betting-odds-754.html

Hillary Clinton 7-5
John McCain 7-2
Rudy Giuliani 10-1
Mitt Romney 12-1
Mike Huckabee 15-1
John Edwards 40-1
Barack Obama 2-1
Mike Gravel 250-1
Dennis Kucinich 250-1
Ron Paul 50-1
Fred Thompson 50-1
Duncan Hunter 250-1
Al Gore 5-1
Michael Bloomberg 5-1

[Rick]

Hillary Clinton 3-1
John McCain 3-2
Mike Huckabee 30-1
Barack Obama 2-3
Mike Gravel 500-1
Ron Paul 100-1

Barack Obama is now the favorite to win.

Obama-mania!

Why is he so popular?

[PeterK]

Why is he so popular?

because he looks different.
And that is all thats needed for the masses whos minds have been overwhelmed with unneeded information, polls, celebrity stunts.

[Martin Lenick]

...If someone wants to take a shot and explain to me the difference between socialism and the political direction the democrats and (unfortunately) most of so-called-conservative republicans chose to take..............
I'm with Peter K here...
Anyone? Anyone? Ferris?

[Martin Lenick]

For me, this is wrong on every level, but, it's funny as heck.U9NUPLaoUdo



Let's pick it up after "Okay, I'll make it as easy for you as I can."
[Bobby wants plain toast, which isn't on the menu]
Bobby (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/): I'd like an omelet, plain, and a chicken salad sandwich on wheat toast, no mayonnaise, no butter, no lettuce. And a cup of coffee.
Waitress (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0857213/): A #2, chicken salad sand. Hold the butter, the lettuce, the mayonnaise, and a cup of coffee. Anything else?
Bobby (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/): Yeah, now all you have to do is hold the chicken, bring me the toast, give me a check for the chicken salad sandwich, and you haven't broken any rules.
Waitress (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0857213/): You want me to hold the chicken, huh?
Bobby (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000197/): I want you to hold it between your knees.

[PeterK]

for all the Democrats supporters / Bush haters... this is a "must-read" material.....


you will not hear or see it in our beloved media .....


=========================

How Enron Worked the President

Are You Ready?

How Enron Worked the President!



(This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about.)



1. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval O ffice.

2. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.

3. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.

4. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.

5. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest level and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

6. The taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

Scandalous!!
(Look below ..... )


























BUT...the president under whom all this happened WASN'T George W. Bush.



SURPRISE!



It was President Bill Clinton!

No surprise! And do you think Hillary didn't know?

Pass this on so the whole Country will know. The Media Won't!

ARE WE REALLY READY FOR MRS. CLINTON?

[Martin Lenick]

Peter,

Please site references.

Thanks,
Martin

[MotoBob]

Anyone not named Bush (or Clinton). Preferably, someone that can communicate intelligently…Someone not embarrassing…It's been awhile.

[Rick]

Anyone not named Bush (or Clinton). Preferably, someone that can communicate intelligently…Someone not embarrassing…It's been awhile.

Barack Obama seems to be leading in the communicating intelligently department.

[Martin Lenick]

I didn't mean to pick on you, Peter K, and I appreciate what you've posted in this thread. I look forward to more of it. There seems to be to few of us that are of this mind and willing to express it, much less defend it.

However, much of your last post was (possibly coincidentally) in a a popular right-wing junk mail. This is hyperbole and I think it diverts attention from what really matters. Those we wish to engage will immediately go on the defensive and have no problem finding, and posting, an equally accusatory and irrelevant tidbit, most likely having nothing to do with the subject matter of your post.

More to the point, President Clinton's relationship with Enron was unfortunate and not indicative of any collusion or outrageous irresponsibility. I don't think that he, or his administration (as much as I disagreed with their ideology), were anything but among the vast quantity and quality of the victims of the scams.

While it was (and remains) a terrific scandal, it wasn't something that a Democrat would have been more likely to have been involved in than a Republican.

I know I'm being hypocritical here since I'm know I've posted in a similar spirit, but I hope you challenge me if I do so again.

Most of all, I hope others engage us in a meaning full debate, leaving what's in the caustic blogs there where they "belong?".

[Rick]

What do you guys think of these possible situations?

What happens if Clinton "steals" the nomination, and all the Obama supporters vote for the Republicans or an alternative candidate?

Or if all the Ron Paul supporters who are vehemently against the war decide to vote for the Democrats just to escape the neo-conservative foreign policy?

Ultimatum game?

[PeterK]

I didn't mean to pick on you, Peter K,

Martin - no offense taken :-) and thanks for bringing it up.
You are absolutely right. The material is nothing other than right-wing junk mail coming from a legitimate source. My post is simply an attempt to balance the unbalanced attacks on conservatives. I happen to believe that most of democratic party supportes are vastly confused and misinformed and could use any HELP to underestand ( not necesairly change their minds) the political and economical mechanisms making this earth turn.

Further more,

While it was (and remains) a terrific scandal, it wasn't something that a Democrat would have been more likely to have been involved in than a Republican.

I believe you and I can agree that the above goes the other way as well. the difference is that again an average democratic party supporter - even after hearing about such accusations agains their party members - process it as an "accident" ( or right wing conspiracy) rather than a scandal.

I do not pass this along in either support or condemnation of the president. It is for information only. Every voter must make up their own mind. I did - i myself am not a big GW Bush supporter.

[PeterK]

What do you guys think of these possible situations?

What happens if Clinton "steals" the nomination, and all the Obama supporters vote for the Republicans or an alternative candidate?


Well, i think we can be absolutely sure that none of the democratic candidates suporters will vote for a republican. What i do think will happen is - soon, two "independents" will pop up to stirr up the mix.

[PeterK]

guys... look at the above poll results.... doesn't it seem odd that the two poll winers are long and gone from the race and the current top runners are those with radically smaller vote count?

[Martin Lenick]

What do you guys think of these possible situations?

What happens if Clinton "steals" the nomination, and all the Obama supporters vote for the Republicans or an alternative candidate?

Or if all the Ron Paul supporters who are vehemently against the war decide to vote for the Democrats just to escape the neo-conservative foreign policy?

Ultimatum game?No one can steal an election in our nation. It hasn't happened, nor will it. Challenge me point-to-point on this, if you dare.

Supporters of Senator Obama are extremely unlikely to vote for any Republican, even if their alternative is Senator McCain.

Regardless of whom the supporters of Representative Paul defect to, their collective influence on a presidential (non-parliamentary) election is negligible.

Please, anyone, tell me what a "neo-conservative" is in terms acceptable to those labeled or even those whom they have supposedly defected. Wikipedia "definitions" are unacceptable.

[Martin Lenick]

guys... look at the above poll results.... doesn't it seem odd that the two poll winers are long and gone from the race and the current top runners are those with radically smaller vote count?
My favorite two never even made the list - the list here, or in that in the minds of most of the nation - so it's not odd that Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo didn't stand a chance in the long run.

edit - a few minutes after my post I went back and deleted what seemed to be less in fact and more in opinion. Sorry that it's now left little more than personal.

However, for those that wished for others now gone, what do you do?

[Martin Lenick]

What do think about this?
dl32Y7wDVDs

Personally, it scares the livin' poop out of me.

[PeterK]

edit - a few minutes after my post I went back and deleted what seemed to be less in fact and more in opinion.

Martin,
Luckly this isn't a NEWS channel and so our opinions and thoughts are in fact very in place. Further more, todays NEWS channels are really not .. They are soaked with agenda and opinionism. So please, don't give up on posting your OPINIONS as I and im sure others find them highly useful. They should and do provide a refreshing perspective and should not be treated as attempts to change anyone'e minds on the subjects.... unless they THEMSELVES decide otherwise.

[Martin Lenick]

Martin, ...don't give up on posting your OPINIONS as I and im sure others find them highly useful....
:lmao:

Thanks, PeterK, but I don't know which is more frightening: people that don't think like I do, or people that do or are influenced by my opinions.:)

[PeterK]

:lmao:

Thanks, PeterK, but I don't know which is more frightening: people that don't think like I do, or people that do or are influenced by my opinions.:)

LOL :-) well, we still haven't gotten any feedback on socialism - democrats comparo from some few posts back. Untill I hear some arguments in this regard, i'd like to think you're not that scary! :clap:

[Rick]

No one can steal an election in our nation. It hasn't happened, nor will it. Challenge me point-to-point on this, if you dare.

I am not as confident as you are that there is absolutely no corruption or fraud involved in politics and elections. There have been many controversial election results throughout the history of the United States of America.

Regardless, I was referring to the potential wheeling and dealing with the super delegates to alter (or reverse) the outcome of the popular vote. And that's not technically "vote fraud" but it could be viewed as unfair by some.

Supporters of Senator Obama are extremely unlikely to vote for any Republican, even if their alternative is Senator McCain. Many of Obama supporters are Republicans. So I don't think it's hard to imagine them voting for John McCain if Obama were no longer in the race.

Regardless of whom the supporters of Representative Paul defect to, their collective influence on a presidential (non-parliamentary) election is negligible. So basically they shouldn't even bother voting because they're vote is insignificant anyways.

Please, anyone, tell me what a "neo-conservative" is in terms acceptable to those labeled or even those whom they have supposedly defected. Wikipedia "definitions" are unacceptable.Why are Wikipedia definitions unacceptable? :confused: They seem to have a pretty good definition in my opinion:

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States from the rejection of social liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) and the New Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left) counterculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture) of the 1960s. It influenced the Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan), George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush), and the George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) presidential administrations, representing a re-alignment in American politics, and the defection of liberals to the right-hand side of the political spectrum.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#_note-Dionne_56) Neoconservatism emphasizes foreign policy as paramount responsibility of government, seeing the need for the U.S. acting as the world's sole superpower as indispensable to establishing and maintaining global order.

Or if you prefer something more concise:

a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

There's also an interesting Op-Ed about neoconservatism in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9043308

The New York Times also has an article that uses the term frequently: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html

There seems to be a consistent and widely accepted definition for the term neoconservativism.

[Martin Lenick]

I am not as confident as you are that there is absolutely no corruption or fraud involved in politics and elections. There have been many controversial election results throughout the history of the United States of America.
I'm embarrassed about my misstatement: I was referring to presidential elections but failed to specify as such. In the history of the United States of America no presidential election has been stolen.

Regardless, I was referring to the potential wheeling and dealing with the super delegates to alter (or reverse) the outcome of the popular vote. And that's not technically "vote fraud" but it could be viewed as unfair by some.We're talking about the rules set up by a party for voting among the party. A party can have whatever rules it pleases - if I don't like the party's rules I can join another party, or, more realistically, become more active within the party to change "our" rules. If I join a party that nominates its candidate through several brackets of interstate Crisco-Twister, well, that's the party I've joined. When "right-arm-green" puts my face somewhere unpleasant I don't blame it on my party. More to the point, if a state moves its primary to a date my party disallows and my party tells that state their delegates will be disallowed it's up to my party and my party alone if it wants to change its rules and renege on its previous commitment.


Many of Obama supporters are Republicans...Name two. Of those two, are either of them conservatives?

So basically they shouldn't even bother voting because they're vote is insignificant anyways.Your vote is alway significant. When voting for a third-party candidate your vote significantly subtracts from the party which would likely have been your second choice and often propels your main opposition into an otherwise unlikely victory. See "Ross Perot, 1992".

Why are Wikipedia definitions unacceptable? :confused:
It's among the simplest in Google research to uncover the biases and inaccuracies of Wikipedia. "Neocon" is an intentionally derogatory term.

Or if you prefer something more concise:
There's also an interesting Op-Ed about neoconservatism in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9043308

The New York Times also has an article that uses the term frequently: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html

There seems to be a consistent and widely accepted definition for the term neoconservativism.Well, gee whiz, you've picked two of the most leftist publications to define what is "widely accepted". And you went to Europe for one of them.

Next!

edit:
p.s. The Economist makes the New York Times look like Rush Limbaugh.

edit:
sorry, after reading archives from The Economist I have to admit my last comment was a little off. How about this:
The European publication The Economist is as objective on American politics as Ingrid Newkirk is on Ray Kroc.