Obama for VP?

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm talking about you, Hillarybot.

LOL, I couldn't resist pointing out that if you were half as smart as you think you are you would have been more clear.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm sorry, who's the faction doing the "hating?"

:roll:

Both of course, with one side a bit more virulent in their dislike of the other side's candidate. Do I need to post the thousand hate filled rants from dozens of posters against Hillary the evil satanic bitch?

I don't care what you're reading on other sites.

Funny you don't see those kind of posts from me (or even on ATPN that I've seen, but I don't bother to read them all) though but I get labeled just the same...

I'm talking about this site. There's like 5 pro-hillary posters and the rest are obama. No, generally not from you. You pretty much post reason/logic based arguments. But if you are seriously saying you haven't seen the hundreds of posts calling her a bitch or wishing she'd die or get raped with a baseball bat, then you definitely have not been looking around here.

 

[SSSnail]

Some of us can't fool ourselves into believing that we're electing the first woman President when she wouldn't even be running for the office if she didn't have her husband's last name

May I borrow your crystal ball?

Valid, logical argument says you? Pardon me while I ROFL again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's going to come down to the super delegates, and I think both Obama and Hillary will have good cases to make for themselves; a lot of it is going to depend on PA, though.

What is Hillary's case?

Pretty well articulated here: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...442f-ace5-a483c3056ffd

Cliffs: both she and O will win Blue states and lose red states, but she claims she has a better shot at swing states, as she's won more of the big ones. Electoral college math favors her.

It's still just an argument based on predictions, but superdelegates were created to help steer the party towards the most electable candidate. If they buy her story they might go with her.

I don't like the thought of the pledged delegate count getting ignored by the supers, but it's not like Obama will be walking to the convention with 60% of the vote either. It will likely be a couple percentage points separating them in delegates and the popular vote. The supers were created by the dem party in the 80s to do just what they're going to do now, give the party leaders a bigger voice in picking the nominee, not to simply rubber stamp the delegate count. Again, I think if Obama has the lead in delegates and popular vote I think they should pick him, but I'll vote dem either way.

That's not an argument. None of Obama's supporters is concerned about Obama's chances to win against McCain in November. And if Hillary wasn't splitting the party with her dirty tricks and mudslinging, most people wouldn't be worrying about her chances either. Remember, this is and always has been the Democrat's party to lose.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm sorry, who's the faction doing the "hating?"

:roll:

Both of course, with one side a bit more virulent in their dislike of the other side's candidate. Do I need to post the thousand hate filled rants from dozens of posters against Hillary the evil satanic bitch?

I don't care what you're reading on other sites.

Funny you don't see those kind of posts from me (or even on ATPN that I've seen, but I don't bother to read them all) though but I get labeled just the same...

Some of us don't want to re-elect Bill Clinton. He already served his 2 terms (and I voted for him both times BTW). Some of us can't fool ourselves into believing that we're electing the first woman President when she wouldn't even be running for the office if she didn't have her husband's last name. And even more of us can't trick ourselves into believing that Bill was really that much of a true liberal besides lip-service.
In fact, I think of it as a sick joke that the far left is splitting up the party to support the moderate candidate while the moderates desperately want the more liberal candidate.

So... when, and IF, the Hillary supporters ever decide to refute those valid, logical arguments, without resorting to knee-jerk chants of "hater!" then I might be listening. Until then, don't count it, and I'm just going to assume that every time you call me a hater is just one more time you have chosen to ignore these arguments against Hillary.

LOL, your the one ranting on the "hate" angle, not me. The hate is always greater on the "other side of the fence", is that your point? I guess from your POV it beats talking about the experience angle.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm sorry, who's the faction doing the "hating?"

:roll:

Both of course, with one side a bit more virulent in their dislike of the other side's candidate. Do I need to post the thousand hate filled rants from dozens of posters against Hillary the evil satanic bitch?

I don't care what you're reading on other sites.

Funny you don't see those kind of posts from me (or even on ATPN that I've seen, but I don't bother to read them all) though but I get labeled just the same...

I'm talking about this site. There's like 5 pro-hillary posters and the rest are obama. No, generally not from you. You pretty much post reason/logic based arguments. But if you are seriously saying you haven't seen the hundreds of posts calling her a bitch or wishing she'd die or get raped with a baseball bat, then you definitely have not been looking around here.

That should have been your first clue. Maybe you're too young and haven't been around long enough to understand American politics, but a lot of people felt the same way about Bill too. While I liked Bill and voted for Bill, I'd rather not keep reliving this cycle of partisan bickering and hatred over and over again, particular when there is a clear, electable, and worthy alternative right in front of us.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's going to come down to the super delegates, and I think both Obama and Hillary will have good cases to make for themselves; a lot of it is going to depend on PA, though.

What is Hillary's case?

Pretty well articulated here: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...442f-ace5-a483c3056ffd

Cliffs: both she and O will win Blue states and lose red states, but she claims she has a better shot at swing states, as she's won more of the big ones. Electoral college math favors her.

It's still just an argument based on predictions, but superdelegates were created to help steer the party towards the most electable candidate. If they buy her story they might go with her.

I don't like the thought of the pledged delegate count getting ignored by the supers, but it's not like Obama will be walking to the convention with 60% of the vote either. It will likely be a couple percentage points separating them in delegates and the popular vote. The supers were created by the dem party in the 80s to do just what they're going to do now, give the party leaders a bigger voice in picking the nominee, not to simply rubber stamp the delegate count. Again, I think if Obama has the lead in delegates and popular vote I think they should pick him, but I'll vote dem either way.

That's not an argument. None of Obama's supporters is concerned about Obama's chances to win against McCain in November. And if Hillary wasn't splitting the party with her dirty tricks and mudslinging, most people wouldn't be worrying about her chances either. Remember, this is and always has been the Democrat's party to lose.

Of course it's an argument, it's just one you disagree with. And you're not alone. Hillary says she can win states we need in the general that she thinks Obama can't. How's that not an arugment? "I'm more electable' is an argument. First Fern calls predictions "facts" and now you dispute what constitutes an argument.

Q: were not the superdelegates created specifically to overturn the delegate count results? These are the party rules, I didn't make them up.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's going to come down to the super delegates, and I think both Obama and Hillary will have good cases to make for themselves; a lot of it is going to depend on PA, though.

What is Hillary's case?

Pretty well articulated here: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...442f-ace5-a483c3056ffd

Cliffs: both she and O will win Blue states and lose red states, but she claims she has a better shot at swing states, as she's won more of the big ones. Electoral college math favors her.

It's still just an argument based on predictions, but superdelegates were created to help steer the party towards the most electable candidate. If they buy her story they might go with her.

I don't like the thought of the pledged delegate count getting ignored by the supers, but it's not like Obama will be walking to the convention with 60% of the vote either. It will likely be a couple percentage points separating them in delegates and the popular vote. The supers were created by the dem party in the 80s to do just what they're going to do now, give the party leaders a bigger voice in picking the nominee, not to simply rubber stamp the delegate count. Again, I think if Obama has the lead in delegates and popular vote I think they should pick him, but I'll vote dem either way.

That's not an argument. None of Obama's supporters is concerned about Obama's chances to win against McCain in November. And if Hillary wasn't splitting the party with her dirty tricks and mudslinging, most people wouldn't be worrying about her chances either. Remember, this is and always has been the Democrat's party to lose.

Of course it's an argument, it's just one you disagree with. And you're not alone. Hillary says she can win states we need in the general that she thinks Obama can't. How's that not an arugment? "I'm more electable' is an argument. First Fern calls predictions "facts" and now you dispute what constitutes an argument.

Q: were not the superdelegates created specifically to overturn the delegate count results? These are the party rules, I didn't make them up.

More electable is a relative term that becomes meaningless when they are both electable.

A: The supers were created to prevent another Mondale debacle. Time and place. If Hillary uses the superdelegates in that fashion, in this time and place, she will split the party and cease to be electable. Simple as that.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: loki8481
it's going to come down to the super delegates, and I think both Obama and Hillary will have good cases to make for themselves; a lot of it is going to depend on PA, though.

What is Hillary's case?

Pretty well articulated here: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...442f-ace5-a483c3056ffd

Cliffs: both she and O will win Blue states and lose red states, but she claims she has a better shot at swing states, as she's won more of the big ones. Electoral college math favors her.

It's still just an argument based on predictions, but superdelegates were created to help steer the party towards the most electable candidate. If they buy her story they might go with her.

I don't like the thought of the pledged delegate count getting ignored by the supers, but it's not like Obama will be walking to the convention with 60% of the vote either. It will likely be a couple percentage points separating them in delegates and the popular vote. The supers were created by the dem party in the 80s to do just what they're going to do now, give the party leaders a bigger voice in picking the nominee, not to simply rubber stamp the delegate count. Again, I think if Obama has the lead in delegates and popular vote I think they should pick him, but I'll vote dem either way.

That's not an argument. None of Obama's supporters is concerned about Obama's chances to win against McCain in November. And if Hillary wasn't splitting the party with her dirty tricks and mudslinging, most people wouldn't be worrying about her chances either. Remember, this is and always has been the Democrat's party to lose.

Of course it's an argument, it's just one you disagree with. And you're not alone. Hillary says she can win states we need in the general that she thinks Obama can't. How's that not an arugment? "I'm more electable' is an argument. First Fern calls predictions "facts" and now you dispute what constitutes an argument.

Q: were not the superdelegates created specifically to overturn the delegate count results? These are the party rules, I didn't make them up.

More electable is a relative term that becomes meaningless when they are both electable.

A: The supers were created to prevent another Mondale debacle. Time and place. If Hillary uses the superdelegates in that fashion, in this time and place, she will split the party and cease to be electable. Simple as that.

Might as well just give up the general election if Hildabeast somehow gets the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people :laugh:

Edit: Oops, i was meaning to respond to sirjonk

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Hilarious. Democrats are going to give Republicans the White House. Again.

Morons.

Yeah, I can't beleive people are stupid enopugh to vote for Obama, he's obviously still wet behind the ears.

I'm sorry, who's the faction doing the "hating?"

:roll:

Both of course, with one side a bit more virulent in their dislike of the other side's candidate. Do I need to post the thousand hate filled rants from dozens of posters against Hillary the evil satanic bitch?

I don't care what you're reading on other sites.

Funny you don't see those kind of posts from me (or even on ATPN that I've seen, but I don't bother to read them all) though but I get labeled just the same...

Some of us don't want to re-elect Bill Clinton. He already served his 2 terms (and I voted for him both times BTW). Some of us can't fool ourselves into believing that we're electing the first woman President when she wouldn't even be running for the office if she didn't have her husband's last name. And even more of us can't trick ourselves into believing that Bill was really that much of a true liberal besides lip-service.
In fact, I think of it as a sick joke that the far left is splitting up the party to support the moderate candidate while the moderates desperately want the more liberal candidate.

So... when, and IF, the Hillary supporters ever decide to refute those valid, logical arguments, without resorting to knee-jerk chants of "hater!" then I might be listening. Until then, don't count it, and I'm just going to assume that every time you call me a hater is just one more time you have chosen to ignore these arguments against Hillary.

LOL, your the one ranting on the "hate" angle, not me. The hate is always greater on the "other side of the fence", is that your point? I guess from your POV it beats talking about the experience angle.

No, that's not my argument or point.

And if this "experience" bullsh!t prevails, then Hillary should be sued in court from running on the basis of the 22nd Amendment.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Both of course, with one side a bit more virulent in their dislike of the other side's candidate. Do I need to post the thousand hate filled rants from dozens of posters against Hillary the evil satanic bitch?

I don't care what you're reading on other sites.

Funny you don't see those kind of posts from me (or even on ATPN that I've seen, but I don't bother to read them all) though but I get labeled just the same...

I'm talking about this site. There's like 5 pro-hillary posters and the rest are obama. No, generally not from you. You pretty much post reason/logic based arguments. But if you are seriously saying you haven't seen the hundreds of posts calling her a bitch or wishing she'd die or get raped with a baseball bat, then you definitely have not been looking around here.

That should have been your first clue. Maybe you're too young and haven't been around long enough to understand American politics, but a lot of people felt the same way about Bill too. While I liked Bill and voted for Bill, I'd rather not keep reliving this cycle of partisan bickering and hatred over and over again, particular when there is a clear, electable, and worthy alternative right in front of us.

Way to change the argument. Maybe you're too old and multple threads confuse you now but we were discussing your claim about how Hillary supporters are bigger "haters" than Obama supporters. I said both sides have attack dog members. Do a search for "bitch" on P&N. Then get back to me. Here's a 2 second sample:

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
and I won't vote for that cackling sellout bitch.

Originally posted by: shinerburke
People are harsh towards HRC not because she is a woman, but because she is an arrogant power hungry soulless bitch.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

I hope that bitch is toast...

Originally posted by: nullzero
Hillary is one mean bitch

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

She's a mean, evil bitch, what the hell did you expect, she's turning on the media now...

Originally posted by: smack Down

Well thats ok that bitch doesn't have any real power

Plus hundreds more, order now! So, still sticking by your claim we don't see "those types of posts" on P&N?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Both of course, with one side a bit more virulent in their dislike of the other side's candidate. Do I need to post the thousand hate filled rants from dozens of posters against Hillary the evil satanic bitch?

I don't care what you're reading on other sites.

Funny you don't see those kind of posts from me (or even on ATPN that I've seen, but I don't bother to read them all) though but I get labeled just the same...

I'm talking about this site. There's like 5 pro-hillary posters and the rest are obama. No, generally not from you. You pretty much post reason/logic based arguments. But if you are seriously saying you haven't seen the hundreds of posts calling her a bitch or wishing she'd die or get raped with a baseball bat, then you definitely have not been looking around here.

That should have been your first clue. Maybe you're too young and haven't been around long enough to understand American politics, but a lot of people felt the same way about Bill too. While I liked Bill and voted for Bill, I'd rather not keep reliving this cycle of partisan bickering and hatred over and over again, particular when there is a clear, electable, and worthy alternative right in front of us.

Way to change the argument. Maybe you're too old and multple threads confuse you now but we were discussing your claim about how Hillary supporters are bigger "haters" than Obama supporters. I said both sides have attack dog members. Do a search for "bitch" on P&N. Then get back to me. Here's a 2 second sample:

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
and I won't vote for that cackling sellout bitch.

Originally posted by: shinerburke
People are harsh towards HRC not because she is a woman, but because she is an arrogant power hungry soulless bitch.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

I hope that bitch is toast...

Originally posted by: nullzero
Hillary is one mean bitch

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

She's a mean, evil bitch, what the hell did you expect, she's turning on the media now...

Originally posted by: smack Down

Well thats ok that bitch doesn't have any real power

Plus hundreds more, order now! So, still sticking by your claim we don't see "those types of posts" on P&N?

:roll:

If we could search back far enough, I'm more than sure that we could find posts from shinerburke and Pliablemoose saying similar things about Bill while he was in office. They're anti-Clinton Republicans.

The posters being called "haters" in this thread are pro-Obama Democrats.

 

[SSSnail]

No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?

No, not really, I thought it's cute playing on the Obotsma and Oblahma thing, in an effort to keep even with Paulbots, Hildabeast, bitch, cvnt, wh0re, Billary, etc...

You dig?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I didn't know it was a popular vote contest. It's a delegate contest.

She's going to go into the convention with fewer delegates than Obama. Everybody says so.

Last night she prolly gained 3 delegates. At that pace she'd only need about 50 more "Super Tuesdays" to catch up with Obama. The problem is that there are no more super Tuesdays.

Everybody on TV and her campaign talks about it - she needs the super delegates to overturn the will of the electorate and choose her even though she'll have fewer delgates than Obama.

Obama, with the elected delegate lead at the convention, would be crazy to accept that slap in the face from the party. And anyone would be crazy to accept the VP slot were Hillary President.

If she's President, it's gonna be messy and contentious, even at the best of times. And these aren't the best of times, too many problems etc. Then's there's always the Clinton penchant for skirting the laws with fancy lawyering. I'd stay away from that potential mess. Far away.

Fern

 

[SSSnail]

Oh, so now it's the "will of the delegates" and no longer the "will of the people". Politics is fun rite?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Pretty well articulated here: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g...442f-ace5-a483c3056ffd

Cliffs: both she and O will win Blue states and lose red states, but she claims she has a better shot at swing states, as she's won more of the big ones. Electoral college math favors her.

I will counter her argument with common sense, reason and logic.

The red and blue argument can stand for this rebuttal. But the argument about swing states is purely asinine. She is trying to make the case that Obama would be able to get any of the swings because he hasn't beaten her in any of the bigger ones. That takes a couple of things as fact that are necessarily true:

1. That the voting block in those swing states would still think that she is the better choice (you have to question how much influence Rush had in TX and OH as I heard the person behind me saying that they were a repub voting for HRC so that Obama wouldn't win)

2. That the democratic turnout would be as strong as it was this primary season

3. That her being the nominee won't have that "Everyone get out and vote to ensure Hillary isn't our next president" mindset that a lot on the right will succumb to

4. That those that are voting for Obama would still cast their vote for her (I know that I probably won't)

5. The bases of both candidates are not interchangeable. Those voting for HRC are generally more of the diehard dems who WILL vote for Obama just because he is a dem. Those that are supporting Obama are generally younger voters that may or may not even turn out during the GE and independents that may be able to align themselves with McCain more.

Basically, her "argument" is crap. If she wins fair and square, so be it. If she continues to go down the path of basher all the way into the middle of Whinerville and get anointed by the supers, she has less than a 40% chance of beating McCain.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's the assholes that always win in politics these days, the ones who shake your hand as they stab you in the back. So we elect an endless series of slime. I think if the party denies Obama the win he should start a third party. It would show the power of assholeness to the asshole and hand the election to McCain. If people want to continue to support slimers they should be made to pay.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Way to change the argument. Maybe you're too old and multple threads confuse you now but we were discussing your claim about how Hillary supporters are bigger "haters" than Obama supporters. I said both sides have attack dog members. Do a search for "bitch" on P&N. Then get back to me. Here's a 2 second sample:

Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
and I won't vote for that cackling sellout bitch.

Originally posted by: shinerburke
People are harsh towards HRC not because she is a woman, but because she is an arrogant power hungry soulless bitch.

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

I hope that bitch is toast...

Originally posted by: nullzero
Hillary is one mean bitch

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

She's a mean, evil bitch, what the hell did you expect, she's turning on the media now...

Originally posted by: smack Down

Well thats ok that bitch doesn't have any real power

Plus hundreds more, order now! So, still sticking by your claim we don't see "those types of posts" on P&N?

:roll:

If we could search back far enough, I'm more than sure that we could find posts from shinerburke and Pliablemoose saying similar things about Bill while he was in office. They're anti-Clinton Republicans.

The posters being called "haters" in this thread are pro-Obama Democrats.

And the other 3 guys? And the dozens of others who post similar things? Refuse to acknowledge whatever you want.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
I didn't know it was a popular vote contest. It's a delegate contest.

She's going to go into the convention with fewer delegates than Obama. Everybody says so.

Last night she prolly gained 3 delegates. At that pace she'd only need about 50 more "Super Tuesdays" to catch up with Obama. The problem is that there are no more super Tuesdays.

Everybody on TV and her campaign talks about it - she needs the super delegates to overturn the will of the electorate and choose her even though she'll have fewer delgates than Obama.

Obama, with the elected delegate lead at the convention, would be crazy to accept that slap in the face from the party. And anyone would be crazy to accept the VP slot were Hillary President.

If she's President, it's gonna be messy and contentious, even at the best of times. And these aren't the best of times, too many problems etc. Then's there's always the Clinton penchant for skirting the laws with fancy lawyering. I'd stay away from that potential mess. Far away.

Fern

Yet you were just fine with Alberto Gonzales as the US Attorney General.

Now that's funny.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

You like to use your made-up word Obostma as much as possible in the hopes that it'll catch on - we get it. Just FYI though - it's not going to catch on, mostly because it's lame. Maybe give it a rest?

I was going to mention the same thing earlier. Not clever. Not funny. Just stupid. :thumbsdown:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It's the assholes that always win in politics these days, the ones who shake your hand as they stab you in the back. So we elect an endless series of slime. I think if the party denies Obama the win he should start a third party. It would show the power of assholeness to the asshole and hand the election to McCain. If people want to continue to support slimers they should be made to pay.

Quit being an a-hole, a-hole!!

 

[SSSnail]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SSSnail
No, they're Obotsma, either pro Obama or Bushites in disguise. I thought you were wiser than that.

And once again, here we have the real hate.

I've voted Democratic in every single Presidential election since I was eligible to vote in one (1992). Exactly how does that make me "Bushite?"
I am pro-Obama, because that's because (1) I think he's the BETTER choice, and (2) I've already voted for and lived through a Clinton Presidency, I know what that is like, and I believe that we can do better in the future. See, no hate here. I

Vic, not you specifically. Even though we disagree at times, but I think you're more classy than the throng of Obotsma that's spewing the hate that we're all seeing that you're refusing to acknowledge.