Pundits you love/hate

[SuperJerk 0]

It wasn't too long ago that Hillary was the one arguing that the popular vote shouldn't count. She's the one who kept trying to move the goalposts when it suited her. There's your hypocrisy.

I never said that B.O. Hussein had a monopoly on hypocrisy, and I've never been any fan of the Clintons. I just liked the way she campaigned, and how hard she bruised him.

 

She wasted everyone's time and energy, went millions of dollars into debt, and gave the Republican a head-start in the general election campaign. For what? To feed her ego.

Even if that's all true, so what? 1) She can easily afford it, 2) do you really think I'm sorry, even if the Republican in question is McCain, given that the alternative is B.O. Hussein? And 3) I don't care why she did it... I'm just glad that she did.

 

You are glad she stayed in because you want Obama to lose in November. Supposedly, Mrs. Clinton wants the Democratic Party to win, and her staying in the race past her campaign's expiration date was not good for that goal.

[Firestarter 0]

Actually, I would have kept my Democrat registration and voted for Hillary over McCain.

 

As I've said in the past.

 

So on this point, you're wrong.

[Firestarter 0]

PS. I was thrown off the Republican Party Platform Steering Committee because I changed my registration just so I could vote for Hillary in the Virginia primary (and yes I know she lost it). So I've put my money where my mouth is. Literally - I was going to be paid $10k per day for attending the panel over the course of a week. But I never wanted McCain to win, and I thought Hillary was the best candidate of the three, so I switched parties for the first time in my life, and I voted for her.

[SuperJerk 0]

Unless you still want the Democrats to win, then the fact that you changed your registration just to vote for one person is a moot point.

[Firestarter 0]

Unless you still want the Democrats to win, then the fact that you changed your registration just to vote for one person is a moot point.

How so. You just said that I was only glad she stayed in because she damaged B.O. Hussein's chances in November. I said no, that's not why, I voted for her because I liked her better than anyone else running (except for Rudy, who got bumped off early on) and I voted for her because I wanted her to WIN. I did NOT want the Republican, McCain, to win. That's why I voted for Hillary. Is that really so difficult a concept for you to grasp? That I might not care about the party affiliation so much when my dislike of McCain is so deep-rooted?

 

I have NEVER changed my party affiliation in the past and I have NEVER voted for a Democrat. This year I did both. And I gave up standing in my real party, a prestigious post, and almost $100k in order to do it.

[Firestarter 0]

And I lost at least one good friend because of it too. It's starting to piss me off when you claim, without any basis at all, that I did that just as a fucking game to play with your party's nomination. I didn't.

[SuperJerk 0]

If you think that's what I was accusing you of, then you missed my point completely.

 

Unless you still want the Democrats to win, then the fact that you changed your registration just to vote for one person is a moot point.

How so. You just said that I was only glad she stayed in because she damaged B.O. Hussein's chances in November.

 

No, I didn't. I didn't say "only." I know you had 3 reasons, and one of them was "do you really think I'm sorry, even if the Republican in question is McCain, given that the alternative is B.O. Hussein". That shows me you don't care if the Democrats win or not. Your reasons for wanting her to stay in aren't the same as the reasons Clinton gives for staying in.

 

This isn't about why YOU think she should or should not have stayed in, because this isn't about you. This is about getting a Democrat elected in November, which is not something you care about but she supposedly does. And if that was her goal, then she should have dropped out a long time ago. Since you don't want the Democrats to win, your opinion doesn't have anything to do with what's best for the party.

 

Hillary staying in the race hurt Obama for several reasons:

1) It encouraged a contigency of supporters, who probably agree with Obama on most of the issues, to not support him because they feel their favorite was "screwed" out of the nomination.

2) It gave the Republicans extra time to define and advertise their general election message.

3) By constantly parrotting this "she won the popular vote" nonsense, she casts doubt on the legitimacy of Obama's nomination.

4) Every minute Obama spent defending himself from her attacks, was a minute that would have been better spent contrasting himself with the Republicans.

5) On several occasions, Hillary Clinton publicly highlighted the percieved weaknesses of Obama not just as a candidate, but as a possible president. Because these criticisms came from a fellow Democrat, this is ammunition the Republicans can use in TV ads later in the campaign.

 

If she dropped out when it became mathematically impossible for her to overtake Obama's delegate lead, this could have been avoided.

 

[EricMM 0]

Fucking checker patterns.

 

I say we take it back!!

[treble 0]

Why is she even wearing a scarf? It looks like a nice day in that picture, wouldn't it just make her neck unnecessarily sweaty? That's the bigger question here.

[EricMM 0]

Haven't you heard? Scarves are in...

 

I've seen them with t-shirts, or at least polos.

[Vyce 0]

5) On several occasions, Hillary Clinton publicly highlighted the percieved weaknesses of Obama not just as a candidate, but as a possible president. Because these criticisms came from a fellow Democrat, this is ammunition the Republicans can use in TV ads later in the campaign.

 

You mean like

 

God bless Hillary. Her underdog fight even made me grow to like her a bit. I'm going to miss her.

[EricMM 0]

Compare that to McCain pointing out his OWN weaknesses, indirectly.

 

See: his speech on Tuesday night.

 

I mean, come on.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I'm gonna buy like 8 of those scarves.

[Red Baron 0]

Isn't Michelle Malkin the same person who hates when illegal immigrants come to America have a child in America thus the child becomes American, and yet she is one of them?

 

 

Can you deport her to Iran or something?

[godthedog 0]

But now Hillary has won the popular vote in a Democratic primary, while Obambi has won under the rules.[/b] In a spectacular turnabout, media commentators are heaping sarcasm on our plucky Hillary for imagining the "popular vote" has any relevance whatsoever.

 

It's the exact same situation as in 2000, with Hillary in the position of Gore and Obama in the position of Bush. The only difference is: Hillary has a much stronger argument than Gore ever did (and Hillary's more of a man than Gore ever was).

 

Unbeknownst to liberals, who seem to imagine the Constitution is a treatise on gay marriage, our Constitution sets forth rules for the election of a president. Under the Constitution that has led to the greatest individual liberty, prosperity and security ever known to mankind, Americans have no constitutional right to vote for president, at all. (Don't fret Democrats: According to five liberals on the Supreme Court, you do have a right to sodomy and abortion!)

 

Americans certainly have no right to demand that their vote prevail over the electors' vote.

 

The Constitution states that electors from each state are to choose the president, and it is up to state legislatures to determine how those electors are selected. It is only by happenstance that most states use a popular vote to choose their electors.

 

When you vote for president this fall, you will not be voting for Barack Obama or John McCain; you will be voting for an elector who pledges to cast his vote for Obama or McCain. (For those new Obama voters who may be reading, it's like voting for Paula, Randy or Simon to represent you, instead of texting your vote directly.)

 

...

 

After nearly eight years of having to listen to liberals crow that Bush was "selected, not elected," this is a shocking about-face. Apparently unaware of the new party line that the popular vote amounts to nothing more than warm spit, just last week HBO ran its movie "Recount," about the 2000 Florida election, the premise of which is that sneaky Republicans stole the presidency from popular vote champion Al Gore. (Despite massive publicity, the movie bombed, with only about 1 million viewers, so now HBO is demanding a "recount.")

 

So where is Kevin Spacey from HBO's "Recount," to defend Hillary, shouting: "WHO WON THIS PRIMARY?"

 

In the Democrats' "1984" world, the popular vote is an unconcept, doubleplusungood verging on crimethink. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

 

an analogy to what she's doing here--

 

random obama supporter: look at how blue this poster is.

 

ann coulter: that shows how much you know, you stupid shit! how can you even say that the poster is blue when it's the light rays it reflects at a certain frequency on the spectrum that stimulate certain optic nerves which gradually build to an impression of "blue" in your brain! how can you even have the balls to open your mouth about colors when you have no clue how optics works? it's the light that's "blue," not the poster! as a matter of fact, the light as such has no color, there's nothing like "blue" until it's processed in your brain, before that it's just a light frequency! you have no right whatsoever to refer to that poster as actually being blue!

 

this is a well-known phenomenon of "pointing out a supposed difference that makes no real difference in the matter at hand," or "missing the point." by pointing out an additional formal or mechanical matter in the process, she tries to argue that the beginning has nothing to do with the end result. wittgenstein would say that she is trying to answer one language-game with another.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Dammit, making me have to get up and actually research facts, grumble grumble.

 

The scarf in question:

 

That's it? If anything, the ad should be taken of the air for being a shitty scarf I see hipsters wear.

[Vyce 0]

Isn't Michelle Malkin the same person who hates when illegal immigrants come to America have a child in America thus the child becomes American, and yet she is one of them?

 

That's a bit inaccurate, her parents came over on a visa, they didn't hop a fence like the filthy Mexicans do.

[EricMM 0]

*shrug*

 

They're just as welcome though.

 

Who else is gonna pick fruit.

 

You? Go pick some fruit.

[RepoMan 0]

Why is she even wearing a scarf? It looks like a nice day in that picture, wouldn't it just make her neck unnecessarily sweaty? That's the bigger question here.

 

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/04/30/97-scarves/

 

[snuffbox 0]

What's the next thing to bring tremors to these idiots' knees? Playground sandboxes? Nursing home craft-room quilts?

[Vyce 0]

*shrug*

 

They're just as welcome though.

 

Who else is gonna pick fruit.

 

You? Go pick some fruit.

 

I AM A WHITE AMERICAN, I AM TOO GOOD FOR THAT SHIT.

 

 

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

I'm gonna buy like 8 of those scarves.

 

I'd totally rock a keffiyeh if I wasn't certain that all my unhip friends would call me a faggot if I did

[Vyce 0]

I'm gonna buy like 8 of those scarves.

 

I'd totally rock a keffiyeh if I wasn't certain that all my unhip friends would call me a faggot if I did

 

You would be a faggot. Why don't you just wear an ascot, queer?

[Gary Floyd 0]

Why is she even wearing a scarf? It looks like a nice day in that picture, wouldn't it just make her neck unnecessarily sweaty? That's the bigger question here.

 

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/04/30/97-scarves/

 

I love that site.

[The Niggardly King 0]

fuck we talkin' bout in here?

[snuffbox 0]

Scarfaphobia.

[The Niggardly King 0]

 

WE TALKIN' BOUT FUCKING SCARFS? IT'S SCARVES! I MEAN.... WE TALKIN' BOUT SOME SCARFS... SOME FUCKING SCARVES, MAN!

 

 

[... 0]

ON TOPIC NOW.

 

DAVE RUTHERFORD.

[SuperJerk 0]

Rush Limbaugh

 

5) On several occasions, Hillary Clinton publicly highlighted the percieved weaknesses of Obama not just as a candidate, but as a possible president. Because these criticisms came from a fellow Democrat, this is ammunition the Republicans can use in TV ads later in the campaign.

 

You mean like

 

God bless Hillary. Her underdog fight even made me grow to like her a bit. I'm going to miss her.

First, did you REALLY just call Hillary Clinton the underdog?

 

Second, that ad is the kind of stuff I was afraid of, and Bill Clinton especially should have known better than to trash Obama's level of experience, given that Obama was a senator for two years when he became a candidate, not one, and by the time he assumes office he'll have been one for four years. So let me make this point about his experience. There's no magic formula that tells us how long you need to have held elected office before assuming the presidency. Compare Lincoln, FDR, and Wilson to James Buchanan, Nixon and LBJ. And what of his other relevant experience besides elective office. Should we not consider his years as a professor of Constitutional law? His time as a community organizer? What about his time as a state legislator...surely any work in a law-making body is relevant government experience, given that state legislatures are structured almost exactly like the U.S. Congress. And is experience the only qualification to be president? If it were, then Bill Richardson should have been the nominee, not Bill Clinton's wife.

[... 0]

Oh, and that fat bearded know-it-all Charles Adler too. Why don't you go play some more clips from YouTube or CNN reports on your radio show, you lazy sack of shit cum-guzzling dogfucker. You added more to the political discourse when you were doing voice-over work as Buster Bunny, retard.