PA primary thread

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Dari
Obama lost big. Next time, don't insult people, no matter how honest it is. Randell said whites in Penn. wouldn't vote for a black man and he was right.

:Q

When did Rendell say that?

Also, considering that Obama actually gained ground over the last month and a half, maybe they liked being "insulted"

He said it like one or two months ago.

Yowza...I wonder why they didn't turn on him, given how sensitive you claim they are to being insulted

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dufusyte

Hillary isn't stupid. It seems to me that she knows she has a means of getting the nomination. Otherwise she wouldn't have stayed in the race this long. She knows its not the math that favors her.

Just smells fishy to me.

The Clinton's have had a fishy smell since they first began their racket in Arkansas.

Their primary objective is to get Hil on the top of the bill.

But failing that, they will settle for forcing Obama to agree to have Hil as VP.

In which case Hil will still be pres when Obama mysteriously "commits suicide" like so many of the other people who have been in the Clintons' way.

riiiiiiiiiight. :roll:

Hillary has done nothing to indicate that she'd take a VP slot; she's certainly not running that way.

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Dari
Obama lost big. Next time, don't insult people, no matter how honest it is. Randell said whites in Penn. wouldn't vote for a black man and he was right.

In all likelihood they wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Why is everything about being black?

I am a brown man and I didn't vote for Obama because first of all he insulted Indians for NO REASON about a year back. He had heavy support from our community then. He lost it after that plain and simple. Yaar was lame.

Second of all as a BROWN man since many Obama fans are so preoccupied with color; why does Obama recieve support from such extremist groups as Hamas? Why does he want to negogiate with countries who have absolutely no record of human rights such as Syria and Iran?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well perhaps you havent been reading what I have been saying since about 2005. While Ill fight the local leftwing loons on this page with rhetoric. I have made it clear the path the republicans have paved for themselves is ridiculous and worthy of defeat at the ballot box. Either the party needs to cease, drop its rino's, or move to the left and have a 3rd party formed in its place.

I dont think we are too far apart on our anger level at the current state of affairs. I just dont buy into Obama being different. And while I dont care for McCain. I'd vote for him in the hope it would throw a wrench into the cogs of the govt and keep the executive and legislative brnaches fighting. While fighting they hopefully cease to pass as much legislation expanding our govt. Now if we have a republican congress Obama would get my vote over Hillary or McCain. Bottom line is this election cycle is crap for me.

Fair enough. However, I think you need to realize though that the only reason the Republican leadership gets away with doing this, time and time again as they have, is because they know that apathy is the hallmark of new-age conservativism. The only time you guys ever get angry about anything is when someone wants to get to work doing something. Otherwise, it's always head in the sand, sweep it under the rug, and stay the course, nothing's wrong except for the whackos who keep saying that something is wrong. And while that might be true most of the time, it's not true now. Sorry to say.
Because the reality is, whether you believe this or not, that doing nothing is always the same as doing something, and right now, nothing has already done far too much.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can't wait till it's over, so I know whether I am voting for Clinton or McCain this November.
Aait, I am out of P&N again for a while longer.

We *all* know you're voting Clinton or McCain. At this point you're a broken record.

You do not have to wait. The door is that way >>>

 

[sprok]

Originally posted by: Andyb23
Why does he want to negogiate with countries who have absolutely no record of human rights such as Syria and Iran?

If that's the case, then why is China our biggest trade partner?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Vic

Because the reality is, whether you believe this or not, that doing nothing is always the same as doing something, and right now, nothing has already done far too much.

I'm not sure where that comes from. GWB has hardly been doing "nothing" - invading Iraq isn't the work of a "do-nothing" president. I think most of the world (certainly, most of America) would've been happier if GWB had done less. If anything, GWB is a compelling argument for do-nothing conservatism.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Andyb23

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Dari
Obama lost big. Next time, don't insult people, no matter how honest it is. Randell said whites in Penn. wouldn't vote for a black man and he was right.

In all likelihood they wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Why is everything about being black?

I am a brown man and I didn't vote for Obama because first of all he insulted Indians for NO REASON about a year back. He had heavy support from our community then. He lost it after that plain and simple. Yaar was lame.

Second of all as a BROWN man since many Obama fans are so preoccupied with color; why does Obama recieve support from such extremist groups as Hamas? Why does he want to negogiate with countries who have absolutely no record of human rights such as Syria and Iran?

Obama never insulted Indians. We've been through this. We've seen the "evidence." Your accusation is completely unsubstantiated.

Your 2nd paragraph can be answered a million ways. Who cares about an unsolicited endorsement? Maybe it's because they fear that McCain is a warmongering Zionist? Nah, couldn't be. Israel is perfect and the Palestinians couldn't possibly have any genuine grievances...
Why are we on friendly terms (forget negotiating) with Saudi Arabia and China? Certainly not for their human rights records! So we're supposed to forget peaceful negotiation and go to war with Syria and Iran, why?
Seriously, why does the rest of the world think we should keep fighting their wars for them? Screw that. You want our military, you can foot the bill. Or fight your own wars.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

Bullshit. :roll:

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. If you can't see that the Pubs under Bush have become so ANTI-libertarian that even a lib-er-al like Obama looks like a champion of liberty and small government in relative comparison, then the only laugh here is on you, and the only kool-aid being drunk is that which Bush gave you. Wake the hell up, swallow your pride, and do the right thing... for once.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic

Because the reality is, whether you believe this or not, that doing nothing is always the same as doing something, and right now, nothing has already done far too much.

I'm not sure where that comes from. GWB has hardly been doing "nothing" - invading Iraq isn't the work of a "do-nothing" president. I think most of the world (certainly, most of America) would've been happier if GWB had done less. If anything, GWB is a compelling argument for do-nothing conservatism.

I was referring to GWB's do-nothing supporters and apologists.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sprok

Originally posted by: Andyb23
Why does he want to negogiate with countries who have absolutely no record of human rights such as Syria and Iran?

If that's the case, then why is China our biggest trade partner?

They're not Muslims.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

Bullshit. :roll:

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. If you can't see that the Pubs under Bush have become so ANTI-libertarian that even a lib-er-al like Obama looks like a champion of liberty and small government in relative comparison, then the only laugh here is on you, and the only kool-aid being drunk is that which Bush gave you. Wake the hell up, swallow your pride, and do the right thing... for once.

Oh really? Hmmm....

Rest assured though, I'm not really supporting the Dems per se. I'm helping to kick your little team to the fscking curb, where it belongs for betraying the country. You could prove your self-professed sincerity to ideological principle by helping us out, but I won't hold my breath.

Looks to me you are trying to defeat a party, not support your ideals. BHO doesn't hold many(if any) Libertarian ideals.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Andyb23

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Dari
Obama lost big. Next time, don't insult people, no matter how honest it is. Randell said whites in Penn. wouldn't vote for a black man and he was right.

In all likelihood they wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Why is everything about being black?

I am a brown man and I didn't vote for Obama because first of all he insulted Indians for NO REASON about a year back. He had heavy support from our community then. He lost it after that plain and simple. Yaar was lame.

Second of all as a BROWN man since many Obama fans are so preoccupied with color; why does Obama recieve support from such extremist groups as Hamas? Why does he want to negogiate with countries who have absolutely no record of human rights such as Syria and Iran?

My point is racists are racists and no amount of talking is going to change their mind. I'm an Obama supporter and I couldn't care less about color. Unfortunately there's a lot of people in this country that do and the votes (on both sides) show that. I don't know what you're talking about him insulting Indians. I guess I missed that one.

Maybe Obama wants to negotiate with those countries because we can't go to war with everyone we disagree with?

 

[Andyb23]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Andyb23

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Dari
Obama lost big. Next time, don't insult people, no matter how honest it is. Randell said whites in Penn. wouldn't vote for a black man and he was right.

In all likelihood they wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Why is everything about being black?

I am a brown man and I didn't vote for Obama because first of all he insulted Indians for NO REASON about a year back. He had heavy support from our community then. He lost it after that plain and simple. Yaar was lame.

Second of all as a BROWN man since many Obama fans are so preoccupied with color; why does Obama recieve support from such extremist groups as Hamas? Why does he want to negogiate with countries who have absolutely no record of human rights such as Syria and Iran?

Obama never insulted Indians. We've been through this. We've seen the "evidence." Your accusation is completely unsubstantiated.

Your 2nd paragraph can be answered a million ways. Who cares about an unsolicited endorsement? Maybe it's because they fear that McCain is a warmongering Zionist? Nah, couldn't be. Israel is perfect and the Palestinians couldn't possibly have any genuine grievances...
Why are we on friendly terms (forget negotiating) with Saudi Arabia and China? Certainly not for their human rights records! So we're supposed to forget peaceful negotiation and go to war with Syria and Iran, why?
Seriously, why does the rest of the world think we should keep fighting their wars for them? Screw that. You want our military, you can foot the bill. Or fight your own wars.

Does China say "Death to America" every day? No. They are competing on economic terms, we should be able to answer them. Tibet is a long gone issue. We can never ask for the Chinese to leave Tibet, they simply won't. If the west wanted to fix this they should have sided with India 40+ years ago.

Do you know that Muslim clerics wrote into mainstream Middle Eastern newspapers that Israel India and America were responsible for the Tsunami? Funny when those nations were the first to send aid.

Saudi Arabia is only partners with America for one reason: a strategic foot hold in the Middle East.

We shouldn't foot the bill for the worlds wars for increased respect for humanity and justice. I think a more pragmatic leader than Bush like McCain or Clinton can bring countries who were previously against such wars into the fold.

The goal right now is to keep America strong, help our countrymen. Our second goal is to spread human rights around the world in alliance with democratic nations who support this ideal. Obama cannot do that with his African supremacist ideology. He talks about hope but there is none in his heart.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic
If you really were a conservative "first and foremost" then you would be backing conservative causes and issues, and fighting against the Republican corruption and out-of-control spending of the Bush admin, even if that meant backing a Democrat in this election cycle, if only to get the Republican party back on track to conservativism. But you don't, so I don't buy it.
There's party and there's principle, and you have made it more than clear which one of those is more important to you, no matter how much you try to deny it.

Sometimes us conservatives have to pick between the lesser of two evils. I dont like ANYONE in the race... however, there are certain candidates that will drive us to hell in a horse drawn carraige, and other candidates that will fly us there on the Concorde. if I am going to hell, I want the ride to be as long as possible.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dufusyte

Hillary isn't stupid. It seems to me that she knows she has a means of getting the nomination. Otherwise she wouldn't have stayed in the race this long. She knows its not the math that favors her.

Just smells fishy to me.

The Clinton's have had a fishy smell since they first began their racket in Arkansas.

Their primary objective is to get Hil on the top of the bill.

But failing that, they will settle for forcing Obama to agree to have Hil as VP.

In which case Hil will still be pres when Obama mysteriously "commits suicide" like so many of the other people who have been in the Clintons' way.

riiiiiiiiiight. :roll:

Hillary has done nothing to indicate that she'd take a VP slot; she's certainly not running that way.

I think you missed the his last sentence lok. Wheels within wheels is the Clinton mantra.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

Bullshit. :roll:

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. If you can't see that the Pubs under Bush have become so ANTI-libertarian that even a lib-er-al like Obama looks like a champion of liberty and small government in relative comparison, then the only laugh here is on you, and the only kool-aid being drunk is that which Bush gave you. Wake the hell up, swallow your pride, and do the right thing... for once.

Oh really? Hmmm....

Rest assured though, I'm not really supporting the Dems per se. I'm helping to kick your little team to the fscking curb, where it belongs for betraying the country. You could prove your self-professed sincerity to ideological principle by helping us out, but I won't hold my breath.

Looks to me you are trying to defeat a party, not support your ideals. BHO doesn't hold many(if any) Libertarian ideals.

Typical neocon spin. Can't even begin to address any of the arguments against you so you make a false one against me by ignoring everything I've said so far.

Any vote AGAINST the borrow-and-spend party is a vote FOR libertarian ideals. That is clear enough. At least the "socialists" will take our tax dollars and spend them here in America. We might get raped for a while, but at least we won't be sold into slavery.
I can't believe you're this clueless. Quick! Wave the flag some more, here come our Saudi masters!

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic
Fair enough. However, I think you need to realize though that the only reason the Republican leadership gets away with doing this, time and time again as they have, is because they know that apathy is the hallmark of new-age conservativism. The only time you guys ever get angry about anything is when someone wants to get to work doing something. Otherwise, it's always head in the sand, sweep it under the rug, and stay the course, nothing's wrong except for the whackos who keep saying that something is wrong. And while that might be true most of the time, it's not true now. Sorry to say.
Because the reality is, whether you believe this or not, that doing nothing is always the same as doing something, and right now, nothing has already done far too much.

And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Vic

Typical neocon spin. Can't even begin to address any of the arguments against you so you make a false one against me by ignoring everything I've said so far.

Any vote AGAINST the borrow-and-spend party is a vote FOR libertarian ideals. That is clear enough. At least the "socialists" will take our tax dollars and spend them here in America. We might get raped for a while, but at least we won't be sold into slavery.
I can't believe you're this clueless. Quick! Wave the flag some more, here come our Saudi masters!

Nevermind the post above... you clearly understand that spending WONT go down... you just dont mind socialism. Cool... as long as we understand each other.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sprok

Originally posted by: Andyb23
Why does he want to negogiate with countries who have absolutely no record of human rights such as Syria and Iran?

If that's the case, then why is China our biggest trade partner?

They're not Muslims.

We trade more with China than Canada?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Nevermind the post above... you clearly understand that spending WONT go down... you just dont mind socialism. Cool... as long as we understand each other.

Because it's not "socialism" to spend a trillion dollars a year fighting wars for foreign interests, but it is to provide services to your own fellow citizens?

That's how we understand each other. Was that freeway you took to work this morning "socialism?"

And what's worse, I KNOW that spending will go down if a Democrat gets elected (or at least cease accelerating), even with all that socialist crap, because that's how it's been ever since Nixon.
So it's not that I don't mind it, it's just that I'm a realist and not a brainwashed idiot clinging to party lies and rhetoric that haven't been true for 40 freakin' years!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
And you would have us elect someone who would accelerate that trend? You think either Democratic candidate will spend LESS? Hello... NATIONAL HEALTH CARE?! I know.. we will take the money from Iraq... but that wont even be a drop in the bucket.

Point to one time in HISTORY when that has happened (a Democrat following a Republican that spent LESS), and I will eat my shoes. I stepped in some dog crap during lunch, so it should be especially satisfying should you actually find that information.

I hope it's tasty

dogshit. mmmm....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then jump ship and vote for the Libertarian candidate. They can't win, but the bigger their numbers, the bigger message it sends to the Republican party.

You can't change the Republican party by supporting it when it fucks up. And that's exactly what a McCain vote does.

Yeah, it's either that or sit on my hands.

But what's funny(or rather sad) is that Vic is doing the attacking for party over substance yet he is doing the exact same thing. He's trying to defeat a party instead of supporting the ideals he claims to have. No Libertarian in their right mind would support BHO.

Bullshit. :roll:

Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. If you can't see that the Pubs under Bush have become so ANTI-libertarian that even a lib-er-al like Obama looks like a champion of liberty and small government in relative comparison, then the only laugh here is on you, and the only kool-aid being drunk is that which Bush gave you. Wake the hell up, swallow your pride, and do the right thing... for once.

Oh really? Hmmm....

Rest assured though, I'm not really supporting the Dems per se. I'm helping to kick your little team to the fscking curb, where it belongs for betraying the country. You could prove your self-professed sincerity to ideological principle by helping us out, but I won't hold my breath.

Looks to me you are trying to defeat a party, not support your ideals. BHO doesn't hold many(if any) Libertarian ideals.

Typical neocon spin. Can't even begin to address any of the arguments against you so you make a false one against me by ignoring everything I've said so far.

Any vote AGAINST the borrow-and-spend party is a vote FOR libertarian ideals. That is clear enough. At least the "socialists" will take our tax dollars and spend them here in America. We might get raped for a while, but at least we won't be sold into slavery.
I can't believe you're this clueless. Quick! Wave the flag some more, here come our Saudi masters!

lol, I was merely pointing out how stupid your attack on me was due to my positions and how hypocritical your attack on me was due to who you are supporting. But hey, if it makes you feel better to bleat on and on about Bush...so be it.