SuperJerk

Regarding how smart President Bush is, I'd point out that being arrogant, stubborn, and foolish aren't necessarily traits limited to those with below average intelligence.

It's time to return this thread to serious discussion.

Jon Stewart used footage of Mrs. Clinton to hit the nail on the head last night.

More relevant: Where is the "get rid of Marvin" option?

There's one state that's truly a microcosm of the U.S. that has voted for the winner in the November election in every election except one since 1904. That state is Missouri, and Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton here.

You all are desperate aren't you? Digging up a 2 year old thread to post that which has only about a 25% relevance to the thread its in..seriously. Or...doing a search and finding the right thread with 100% relevance to the topic instead of starting a new one.

Wait...she's STILL talking...

From what I saw of her victory speech, it was one of her better speeches in terms of both tone and delivery. Right, Clinton will use the slim margin of victory to tell the world that the "tide is turning" even though she was predicted to win Penn from the get-go. She can stay in it as long as she wants, but it is kind of pointless. The only reason now may be to sabatoge Obama so when McCain wins and keeps Bush's policies alive, she can position herself for a 2012 run, but that is a kind of far-fetched scenario. I still don't count her out. She may still win this.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/22/bil...race/index.html So...Bill Clinton denies saying something they have a recording of him saying...but its the media's fault...

SO, HOW 'BOUT THAT PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN!?!?!?

She can win with a .0001% margin and she'd still claim a mandate. She's not stopping.

The Hillary ad... Not as bad as some of the crap that was ran in 2006, but still... In other news: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...-wants-obama-2/

Now I know why Marney is backing Hillary... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24246275/

The exact same thing could be said about Florida, but you mentioned it in the same breath as Ohio. Fair point.

Given the circumstances surrounding the Michigan primary, only to a Clinton would a Michigan primary victory be part of a rationale to give her the nomination. Another news dispatch from Clinton-land... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ages-in-new-ad/ Hillary Clinton is now trying to argue that complaining about debate questions or your treatment by the media shows you don't have what it takes to be president. Her campaign says that ad that links this argument to Osama bin Laden and Pearl Harbor is a positive ad. WHAT FUCKING PARALLEL UNIVERSE DO THESE PEOPLE LIVE IN?!?!?! As if someone can't just go to youtube and find her complaining. What a fucking hypocrite! She can't even answer a regular person's questions without whining and crying.

Using right-wing logic, you could argue that Glenn Beck hates America.

As far as the "Hillary won all these more important states" argument goes, does anyone really think--in the year 2008--the Republicans have any chance of carrying New York, California, Massachessetts, or New Jersey, regardless of who the nominee is? Or that the Democrats have a chance in hell of winning Texas? The only big states in play that Hillary won were Ohio and Florida. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the states Hillary has won would go Republican around the same time George W. Bush wins a Nobel Peace Prize.

I accept this in part and reject it in part. Here's contra: 1. In the vast majority of states, free blacks had all the rights of free whites even before the American Revolution, including the right to vote and hold office, long before the Emancipation Proclamation. 2. Women had better professional prospects in 1900 than in 2000, and earned higher wages than equally-qualified men. 3. Judeo-Christian values were a large part of the reason why women's suffrage and the civil rights movement eventually succeeded. Here's pro (with some qualifiers): 1. Ignorance and bigotry do indeed allow and perpetuate evil. Burke, good men to do nothing, &c. 2. An educated society should, in theory, lead to a just society - but only so long as the education is objective and not ideologically tilted. I think even you can agree with me that there is a definite leftward tilt today, even though we might have differences concerning to what degree it exists 3. Self-corrections in the light of established mores are documented psychological and sociological phenomena. However, such corrections have always been less transient and more heartfelt, resulting in greater quantifiable benefits, when they are a product of faith and goodwill rather than a process imposed by bureaucratic fiat. Responding to your cons: 1. Whatever rights African-Americans had in the north, the Dred Scott decision took it away. African-Americans were primarily concentrated in the South, and after the Compromise of 1850, even northern blacks who'd never been slaves were at risk because of the Fugitive Slave Act's ridiculous burden of proof standards. 2. I don't think the historic evidence supports that claim. Responding to your pros: 2. The only role political bias should play in education is if students are required to look at both sides. However, I don't think discredited opposition should be allowed to hijack the conclusions that facts support just in the name of being fair. 3. And sometimes government needs to remove barriers for change before the change can happen, especially (but not excusively) when those barriers have already withstood the scrutiny of the democratic process. When those barriers contradict the values embedded in the Constitution, democratic scrutiny can be bypassed to protect the rights of the oppressed.

I think McCain deserves to be attacked for his 100 years comment, because he is trying to have it both ways. For McCain to claim that we can stay in Iraq for a hundred years without casualties is ridiculous. Our very presence there is creating terrorists every day...not something you can say about Korea, or Japan, or any other country McCain thinks he can inaccurately compare Iraq to (the circumstances after WWII were vastly different than the situation in Iraq, and our current troops in Kuwait and Korea are in the countries we were protecting, not the countries we were fighting). McCain made that "100 years" comment when he was trying to win the nomination, and wanted to show his committment to winning the war. Early last year, McCain was even claiming the troop surge needed to be bigger than it ended up being. Now that he's got the nomination, he can back away from any statement that makes him look like he was in favor of continuing or even expanding the war, just that he wants to "end" it.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...ssly-dishonest/ Yeah, that wasn't a fair characterization of what McCain said about the economy, but...come on...they've been doing the same thing to Obama all week about the "bitter" thing, so calling Obama's misquoting "recklessly dishonest" is a little hard to swallow. Speaking of saying stupid things... http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iNxTApa...bEXw7gD904JP6G0

I will never miss Marney enough to put up with MikeSC.

credit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24128975/ So, basically he's out of touch because he realizes that any economic prosperity we've seen in the last 25 years has not trickled down to a lot of small towns, and some people are bitter so they turn to other things to explain their frustrations. Is that being elitist, or is that an exact understanding of what's going on? I'll admit it's poorly worded, but had his grammar been perfect, wouldn't that have also been a sign he's "elitist." And is it no coincidence that everytime a conservative talking head mentions this quote, they never give you the quote itself, but ALWAYS mention he was in San Francisco when he said it? I'm a bit uninformed so maybe you can help me. Was this another one of those sweeping generalizations I keep hearing about? I was almost sure there was an outcry for a stronger conservative voice on this board but haven't heard much in the way of counter-arguments thus far. Soooo, Obama is being slammed by the right over this. Bah, it's just a fart in a car. Just roll down the windows... everybody else will. No worries. Do a search on "bittergate" (yes, they're really calling it that) at Google News and see how many thousand entries pop up. It has basically been the big campaign story since last weekend.

I FOUND IT!!!! And...big surprise...it so totally NOT what the press, Clinton campaign, or conservative spin-machines made it out to be. credit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24128975/ So, basically he's out of touch because he realizes that any economic prosperity we've seen in the last 25 years has not trickled down to a lot of small towns, and some people are bitter so they turn to other things to explain their frustrations. Is that being elitist, or is that an exact understanding of what's going on? I'll admit it's poorly worded, but had his grammar been perfect, wouldn't that have also been a sign he's "elitist." And is it no coincidence that everytime a conservative talking head mentions this quote, they never give you the quote itself, but ALWAYS mention he was in San Francisco when he said it?

This is a fair assessment. However, I believe it has to be informed by two additional factors: 1. Conservatives fundamentally believe that human nature cannot be perfected. 2. Liberals believe the opposite. I believe that while all people may not be good, most people at least think they are good. Given the right information, people wanting to continue to think of themselves as good will modify their behavior once they see the how their past behaviors were harmful. Once people in the North were taught about the horrors of slavery, abolitionism grew. Once the exploitation of the working class by early capitalists was exposed, labor laws were passed and the standard of living increased. Once the plight of native people against external oppression was openly embraced, empires were dismantled. Once a few women began achieving in positions once reserved for men, more and more men began to see them as equals and were accepted. The Civil Rights movement was jumpstarted because the public was made aware that patriotic African-Americans who had sacrificed for this country returned from Europe and were still treated as second-class citizens, and it was further galvanized when peaceful protestors were brutalized on television for all the nation to see. Ignorance and bigotry allow and perpetuate evil. It stands to reason that knowledge is its cure, and an educated society will strive to be a just society. Even if humans are not all good, the desire to think you are good may be enough to compel you to do the right thing.