Campaign 2008

[spiny norman 0]

Hillary gets tons of time for Florida and Michigan, places that no other candidate campaigned in? Ugh.

 

I thought she also didn't campaign in Florida? That no Democrats did?

[Nightwing 0]

I meant screen time, not campaign time, though my wording was a bit confusing. The fact of the matter is, CNN and every other news outlet are making these 'wins' out to be something by giving them the coverage they are, when Romney's minor wins in Wyoming and Nevada were basically ignored. At the very least, Romney actually won some delegates, unlike Clinton. I just find it disproportionate what it should be, and it seems to be only because Clinton is winning them.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I remember one time when I was flipping through channels I stopped on Glenn Beck for some reason and he had one of those dudes who writes those shitty Left Behind books on and they were having an actual serious discussion about how The Rapture/Armageddon is totally almost upon us and it was easily the most retarded thing I've ever seen on a "news" channel.

I just saw a couple seconds of Glenn Beck. He said "do you ever notice how at the State of the Union, they never know when to stand up and clap, and sometimes some people don't?" What kind of remedial-ass shit is this?

Its called humor and apparently you dont get it.

 

Although I did hear a valid point today..at some point last night Bush was saying something about how the entire country was standing behind the troops in hopes that they will eventually be victorious and the Republicans applauded while the Democrats sat on their hands.

So the Democrats, the same people supported mostly by a "support the troops, not the war" wont applaud the efforts of the troops in Iraq just because of some petty ass bipartisan bs? Yeah..

 

Todays "sounds like a socialist concept to me" concept is:

 

Economic Fairness/Equality/Justice

 

Link

 

On fiscal policy, Mrs. Clinton seems to see herself as a kindergarten teacher "fairly" doling out cupcakes, giving no thought to who baked them in the first place. In a recent New York Times interview, she worried that "inequality is growing" and waxed nostalgic for the "confiscatory" tax rates of the post-World War II decades.

 

In 1944, the highest tax bracket was 90% of net income for people making more than 200,000 and it was above 82% until 1965. YEAH FOR 90% TAX RATES ON THE RICH! (for comparison its 35% for above $311,000 in 2003, most recent figures here

 

So it's not surprising that many of the policies Mrs. Clinton believes promote economic fairness strike others as decidedly unfair. In 2006, for example, she endorsed a successful Commerce Department petition by Syracuse candlemakers for a tariff of more than 100 percent on candles from China.

 

"Our manufacturers deserve a level playing field," Mrs. Clinton explained, "and we owe it to them to make sure that others do not unfairly circumvent our fair trade practices." In her view, then, fairness demands that all Americans pay more for candles to subsidize manufacturers in her state.

 

I can only imagine a tariff on foreign cars to help out the poor American Automaker who cant compete with the big bad evil Japanese companies..aww..

[Nightwing 0]

For the love of God, Marvin, never use the Washington Times as a source ever again.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Marvin, you're dumb and you don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, had to lay it out there.

 

A. The Democrats didn't cheer because Bush was peddling his "surge is working" horseshit.

 

B. An op-ed from the Moonie Times doesn't cut it, bro. Show me the Clinton policy paper outlining her proposals for 90% Eisenhower era tax brackets.

 

C. Stop being a tool.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

For the love of God, Marvin, never use the Washington Times as a source ever again.

Theres about 50 other websites in the google search I did with the same quotes.

 

Heres more detailed from the NY Times:

 

Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign initiated the interview, can speak in both fine detail and sweeping historical terms about the economy — almost as would a policy adviser, which she essentially was for a long time. When talking about the middle class, she divides the decades since World War II into two periods, using the same cutoff point that many economists do.

 

In the first period, from 1946 to 1973, the pay of most workers rose steadily. The income of the median family — the one earning less than half of all other families and more than half of all others — more than doubled during those years, to almost $50,000, in inflation-adjusted terms, according to Census Bureau data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal group in Washington.

 

Since 1973, the income of the median family has grown only about 25 percent.

 

During the earlier period, Mrs. Clinton said, the share of workers in labor unions grew, allowing workers to win raises and benefits that they can rarely win on their own. Marginal tax rates on the affluent were “confiscatory” by today’s standards, she said. (In the early 1970s, the top rate, which applied to income above $1 million in today’s terms, was 70 percent; the top rate now is 35 percent.)

 

Jobs once paid enough that only one parent in many families needed to work, saving them from expenses like day care. And not only did the federal government invest in public goods like the highway system, but companies also invested more in communities than they do today. In Rochester, for example, Kodak helped build hospitals and schools.

 

We know she wants to return the top tax bracket to almost 40% from 35%..and clearly if she thought she could get away with it Id say she'd be going for even higher.

 

As far as the the troops thing goes, I still dont see how the Democrats couldn't for just one second applaud the efforts of the troops in Iraq. But no, we're democrats, we hate the war even if it means by association we won't applaud the troops for doing their job and risking their lives. Fucking assholes.

 

 

[Nightwing 0]

Wait, that's not the same as the statement you made earlier. There's a difference between a 5% hike and a much larger one.

 

I'd also like to point out the absolute stupidity in labeling McCain a "flip-flopper" when you are going to fucking Romney of all people.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Wait, that the same as the statement you made earlier. There's a difference between a 5% hike and a much larger one.

 

I'd also like to point out the absolute stupidity in labeling McCain a "flip-flopper" when you are going to fucking Romney of all people.

 

Im assuming youre refering to his stance on abortion. I really dont care one way or another about abortions, and thats the only major flip flop I know hes made, whereas Mccain has made at least 4 I know of. I also have an idea where Romney made his flip flop

 

Romney says his anti-abortion views have "evolved and deepened" since he took office, colored in part by the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

 

"In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead - to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited," Romney wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday's Boston Globe.

 

He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the "one size fits all" precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

 

So its good to at least know he changed his mind for moral reasons instead of changing them to get more votes.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We know she wants to return the top tax bracket to almost 40% from 35%

 

sounds like a socialism concept to me

 

Clinton's economic literacy in that NYT article almost makes me want to vote for her.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Giuliani is out and will support Mccain..bah

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

We know she wants to return the top tax bracket to almost 40% from 35%

 

sounds like a socialism concept to me

 

Clinton's economic literacy in that NYT article almost makes me want to vote for her.

 

I never said raising the tax was socialist. I got distracted by that part of the article talking about economic equality, which is the socialist part.

[Nightwing 0]

Wait, that the same as the statement you made earlier. There's a difference between a 5% hike and a much larger one.

 

I'd also like to point out the absolute stupidity in labeling McCain a "flip-flopper" when you are going to fucking Romney of all people.

 

Im assuming youre refering to his stance on abortion. I really dont care one way or another about abortions, and thats the only major flip flop I know hes made, whereas Mccain has made at least 4 I know of. I also have an idea where Romney made his flip flop

 

Romney says his anti-abortion views have "evolved and deepened" since he took office, colored in part by the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

 

"In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead - to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited," Romney wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday's Boston Globe.

 

He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the "one size fits all" precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

 

So its good to at least know he changed his mind for moral reasons instead of changing them to get more votes.

 

You are shitting me. Seriously, he changes his stances on

 

1) Gay Marriage

2) Abortion

3) Stem Cell Research

 

All basically at the same time, and you say "He's evolved"? I'm sorry, but I can't believe that from a guy who lied to the face of Michigan saying he was going to magically bring back manufacturing jobs to this state.

 

McCain has done a minor flip on taxes, but it stands up with a view he's always had: Not to increase taxes. Once they were lowered, he didn't go to increase them. But hey, I suppose we can't evolve there, right?

 

Immigration is something he's always been on the more liberal side. I'm not sure how he's flip-flopped here: He does have a legit claim that what he's put in place isn't actually amnesty.

 

Global Warming? What's the flip-flop? Again, he's always been closer to the center. I don't think he's directly contradicted anything he's done in the past here.

 

Christ, I'm coming off way too in favor of McCain in this post when I'm only interested in him as an option. Damn you, Marvin.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Giuliani is out and will support Mccain..bah

 

Farewell, brave angel.

 

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If it wasnt efficient it would have gone bankrupt 10 years ago and it will go bankrupt in its current form when 78 million baby boomers go to draw social security over the next 20 years. Right now every household owes $400,000 just to pay the amount owed to pay the obligations included in the 53 trillion debt, composed mostly of the obligations to social security.

 

According to the Social Security trustees report from aught 5, SS can pay full benefits through the year 2042 with no changes whatsoever. The Congressional Budget Office says that it can do the same through 2052.

 

Even after those dates, Social Security will always be able to pay a higher inflation adjusted benefit than what retirees receive today. Those FRIGHTENING multitrillion-dollar debts (honestly, I don't know where you got $53 trillion--the trustees report puts the system's shortfall over the "infinite horizon" at $10 and a half trillion) translate into a deficit equal to 0.7 percent of future income--presented in a simple, easy to read format in the Social Security trustees report.

 

The Social Security "crisis" of '05 was completely manufactured, solely to bolster Bush's attempt at privatization.

[Boon 0]

Clinton's win in Florida isn't meaningless. By the time the convention rolls around it won't matter, but I'd be willing to bet the DNC doesn't fully enforce the penalty and some of, if not all, those Florida delegates will be seated. Also, she handily beat Obama. Even if her delegates aren't seated, that's significant momentum coming into Feb. 5th.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We know she wants to return the top tax bracket to almost 40% from 35%

 

sounds like a socialism concept to me

 

Clinton's economic literacy in that NYT article almost makes me want to vote for her.

 

I never said raising the tax was socialist. I got distracted by that part of the article talking about economic equality, which is the socialist part.

 

Clinton is not calling for seizure of the means of productions or proletariat revolution, marv, so let's cut the red-baiting and argue honestly. Perhaps you should dial down your daily dosage of Glenn Beck.

 

Furthermore, economic equality is not solely the purview of socialists and communists. Economic equality has been a theme in liberal thought dating back to 19th century philosophers like Mill and Bentham.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Clinton's win in Florida isn't meaningless. By the time the convention rolls around it won't matter, but I'd be willing to bet the DNC doesn't fully enforce the penalty and some of, if not all, those Florida delegates will be seated. Also, she handily beat Obama. Even if her delegates aren't seated, that's significant momentum coming into Feb. 5th.

 

So the candidate with the overwhelming advantage in name recognition beat the candidate who didn't campaign in the state at all. What an amazing win!

 

If the Democratic contest is close, and the delegates from Michigan and Florida put Clinton over the top, the Democratic party would rupture. I would actively campaign for McCain if Clinton pulled that shit.

 

Clinton's attempt to spin this as some big win is pathetic.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Wait, that the same as the statement you made earlier. There's a difference between a 5% hike and a much larger one.

 

I'd also like to point out the absolute stupidity in labeling McCain a "flip-flopper" when you are going to fucking Romney of all people.

 

Im assuming youre refering to his stance on abortion. I really dont care one way or another about abortions, and thats the only major flip flop I know hes made, whereas Mccain has made at least 4 I know of. I also have an idea where Romney made his flip flop

 

Romney says his anti-abortion views have "evolved and deepened" since he took office, colored in part by the debate over embryonic stem cell research.

 

"In considering the issue of embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion can lead - to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research material or a commodity to be exploited," Romney wrote in an opinion piece in Tuesday's Boston Globe.

 

He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the "one size fits all" precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

 

So its good to at least know he changed his mind for moral reasons instead of changing them to get more votes.

 

You are shitting me. Seriously, he changes his stances on

 

1) Gay Marriage

2) Abortion

3) Stem Cell Research

 

All basically at the same time, and you say "He's evolved"? I'm sorry, but I can't believe that from a guy who lied to the face of Michigan saying he was going to magically bring back manufacturing jobs to this state.

 

McCain has done a minor flip on taxes, but it stands up with a view he's always had: Not to increase taxes. Once they were lowered, he didn't go to increase them. But hey, I suppose we can't evolve there, right?

 

Immigration is something he's always been on the more liberal side. I'm not sure how he's flip-flopped here: He does have a legit claim that what he's put in place isn't actually amnesty.

 

Global Warming? What's the flip-flop? Again, he's always been closer to the center. I don't think he's directly contradicted anything he's done in the past here.

 

Christ, I'm coming off way too in favor of McCain in this post when I'm only interested in him as an option. Damn you, Marvin.

Glenn Beck had a 15 min radio segment on mccains Flip flops.

 

Highlights:

 

But let's look at a few of the flip-flops. Not even mentioning that he led the charge on amnesty on the border. If you really believe that he's -- "oh, I've listened to the American people now." If you really, truly believe he will say that after he's elected, a guy who led the charge and called you a racist if you were against it, if you believe him now, you know, good for you. I don't know how you do that.

 

He said, I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of the middle class Americans who need tax relief. This is the classic rhetoric of the left. Tax cuts only benefit the rich. Be honest. If John Kerry would have said that, quote, word for word, and he did, if Hillary Clinton said that quote, and she did, you would be hammering them on it, hammering them. But somehow or another you're okay -- not you, I shouldn't say, but so many people are okay. That's the flip. That's where he was. Here's the flop. McCain now says he wants the tax cuts that he voted against to become permanent. Excuse me? His defense? He says to return to the old rate now would amount to a tax hike. True, it would be a tax hike but why is that bad? It's bad, he says, because it would hurt the economy. Well, how could it possibly hurt the economy? If it hurts the economy to have a tax cut, then you must admit that that's the exact opposite of when you cut taxes. You should have voted for it in the first place because if it hurts the economy to raise taxes, it must help the economy to lower taxes. And if the cut was bad, why would you want to keep it.

 

I get from people who say they're supporting McCain over Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney flip flopped on abortion, okay? All right. Well, let's talk about John McCain. Here's John McCain word for word, quote: "I love to see a point where it is irrelevant and could be revealed because abortion is no longer necessary but certainly in the short-term, even the long term, I would not support the repeal of Roe versus Wade which was force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations. I would not support the repeal of Roe versus Wade." That's 1999. 1999. Here's the flop. "I share a common goal of reducing the number of staggering abortions currently performed in this country and overturning Roe versus Wade." He also said in the San Francisco Chronicle, "I believe that the pro choice community feels that abortion is a procedure that we would like to eliminate. So yes, I want to repeal Roe versus Wade and, yes, I'm proud of my pro life voting record but I'm trying to get to the point where we can join together and reach a solution to a terrible situation. The party of Abraham Lincoln is the party of inclusion."

 

The flip. "Ethanol is a product that would not exist if congress didn't create an artificial market for it." This is John McCain. "No one would be willing to buy it." This is what he said in November 2003. Remember it's not a product that would exist if we didn't create an artificial market for it in 2003. Quote: "Yes, thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it's now very big business. Tens of billions of dollars have enriched a handful of corporate interests"... again the rich, primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol -- listen to this carefully: "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence and nothing to improve air quality." On this particular issue I agree with John McCain 100%. That last line is absolutely right about ethanol. I just wish John McCain agreed with John McCain circumstance a 2003 because here's the flop. Now he says, quote: I support ethanol and I think it's vital. A vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects. Okay, it's going to get us off foreign oil and it's going to help reduce greenhouse gases. Hang on. Let me go back and look at that last line from the before on the flip: "Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, and nothing to improve air quality." I don't know. That sounds like a flip-flop to me.

 

 

theres the 4.

 

and even I admit Romney lied to Michigan about bringing jobs back, but I dont think it was an intentional lie, as he wants to do it but he will never be able to..

[snuffbox 0]

Hopefully she doesn't get away with this "win" for the second time.

 

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

As far as the the troops thing goes, I still dont see how the Democrats couldn't for just one second applaud the efforts of the troops in Iraq. But no, we're democrats, we hate the war even if it means by association we won't applaud the troops for doing their job and risking their lives. Fucking assholes.

 

Remember what I said about honesty, marv?

 

Read the speech.

 

The applause lines were regarding the troop surge and funding bills for the war. He was using "the troops" as a cudgel to whack the heads of those who disagree with him on those two issues.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Marvin, shut up. Nobody here is ever going to take you or your hero Glenn Beck seriously, and you are doing nothing but give people headaches. Just stop posting in the CE folder.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

If it wasnt efficient it would have gone bankrupt 10 years ago and it will go bankrupt in its current form when 78 million baby boomers go to draw social security over the next 20 years. Right now every household owes $400,000 just to pay the amount owed to pay the obligations included in the 53 trillion debt, composed mostly of the obligations to social security.

 

According to the Social Security trustees report from aught 5, SS can pay full benefits through the year 2042 with no changes whatsoever. The Congressional Budget Office says that it can do the same through 2052.

 

Even after those dates, Social Security will always be able to pay a higher inflation adjusted benefit than what retirees receive today. Those FRIGHTENING multitrillion-dollar debts (honestly, I don't know where you got $53 trillion--the trustees report puts the system's shortfall over the "infinite horizon" at $10 and a half trillion) translate into a deficit equal to 0.7 percent of future income--presented in a simple, easy to read format in the Social Security trustees report.

 

The Social Security "crisis" of '05 was completely manufactured, solely to bolster Bush's attempt at privatization.

 

 

 

Article (not directly from Glenn Beck though he was on the radio and TV show with the same message)

 

Walker: The present value of future unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Social Security and other plans is $53 trillion.

 

the keyword is undfunded, as in..we dont have the money to pay them as of yet.

 

the guy is the head of the Government Accountability Office and essentially is the Nations Comptroller. If he doesn't know about the governments financial issues then there isn't anyone that does.

 

Read this for the actual number crunching

 

and

 

And heres the PDF of the report directly from the GAO on the governments treasury department website

[Boon 0]

If the Democratic contest is close, and the delegates from Michigan and Florida put Clinton over the top, the Democratic party would rupture. I would actively campaign for McCain if Clinton pulled that shit.

That's the point. The contest isn't going to be close. When was the last time we didn't know the candidate going into the convention? I'll give you a hint- it was around the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. Clinton has massive leads in Massachusetts, New York, California and New Jersey. In fact, in the five states with the most delegates, Obama has a lead in one- his home state of Illinois. As it stands right now, the contest won't be close, and the Florida delegates may be seated with no great uproar.

 

Edit: These polls aren't great, but there ya go.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Marvin, shut up. Nobody here is ever going to take you or your hero Glenn Beck seriously, and you are doing nothing but give people headaches. Just stop posting in the CE folder.

 

Marvin has as much right to post here as anybody else. And we have the right to call him out when he's peddling bovine excrement.

[Nightwing 0]

Okay, Marvin, let me educate you again:

 

The Tax Cut: McCain was against Tax Cut when it was first introduced. This is fact. He supports the Tax Cut becoming permanent because he feels it is a tax increase, you moron. It's in line with his regular beliefs, but you wouldn't know that because you're too busy masturbating to Glenn Beck's voice to actually think for your fucking self. He's against more tax cuts, but he won't sign up for what he views as a tax increase down the road.

 

On Immigration: You haven't shown a flip-flop, you moron. His policy isn't actually amnesty, and even Romney had to back off that claim for a while when it came to the forefront.

 

On Abortion: McCain's quote was in 1999. If you are letting off Mitt Romney for changing his stances within the last year or so, you can't hold McCain to that quote and say he couldn't have "evolved" his beliefs. Of course, his voting record shows him as one the most conservative voters on Abortion (Something that is limiting my own support of him as a candidate). This hasn't changed since he first entered the Senate. It's a lot fucking different from going "Choice" to "Life", but I'm not sure you can perceive such minute details.

 

On Ethanol: This is a simple one. It's a "evolving one", too.

 

A: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense.

 

Q: So you've changed your mind.

 

A: No, I haven't. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today.

 

Economic choices can change as economies change. He's still against ethanol subsidies, which was really the main point. It's not about ethanol, but rather subsidizing the industry. His view changing slightly on ethanol to reflect the economic realities is more believable than Romney suddenly waking up and becoming Pro-Life, Anti-Gay, etc.

 

I honestly can't fathom you. McCain got fucking fried to death for his views on Iraq, and he's still holding them. You can't say the same for Romney and his social views. Why would McCain, if he were a "Flip-Flopper", keep what is easily the most harmful issue he has and continue to make it one of his lead issues? It doesn't make sense. Romney is a liar; you can't honestly believe that he said he was going to bring back those jobs with any truth in his heart. It's almost impossible to do, even if you want to believe. Just because you want to believe it doesn't mean it isn't lying. The very fact that you admit he knew it wasn't possible but wanted to 'BELIEVE IT!" shows how much of a slimebag he is. If he knows its a political and economic impossibility, then tell us so. Don't lie to us about how you are going to bring the good times back.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

If the Democratic contest is close, and the delegates from Michigan and Florida put Clinton over the top, the Democratic party would rupture. I would actively campaign for McCain if Clinton pulled that shit.

That's the point. The contest isn't going to be close. When was the last time we didn't know the candidate going into the convention? I'll give you a hint- it was around the time of the McGovern-Fraser Commission. Look at these polls. Clinton has massive leads in Massachusetts, New York, California and New Jersey. In fact, in the five states with the most delegates, Obama has a lead in one- his home state of Illinois. As it stands right now, the contest won't be close, and the Florida delegates may be seated with no great uproar.

 

Maybe you're right, things can change rapidly. Clinton had a huge lead in her backyard state of CT, and a poll came out today that had Obama tied. The SC ass thwomping plus the endorsement of the Kennedy clan (in addition with the Obama campaign moving its focus to the Feb. 5 states [look at the results in Iowa & SC]) could produce movement in the polls.

 

Keep in mind, you need a majority of delegates to win, not just a plurality. And many states give out delegates proportionally, not winner-take-all style (so that Obama is currently undefeated in terms of delegate count). So even if Clinton has a big Super Tuesday, as long as BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is competitive, he can remain within striking distance and the race could go on past 2/5.

 

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Walker: The present value of future unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Social Security and other plans is $53 trillion.

 

OH SO IN A DISCUSSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY YOU PULL OUT A NUMBER THAT REFERS TO MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND "OTHER PLANS," WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS, ONLY TO INFORM US THAT THE NUMBER YOU WERE USING TO FEARMONGER ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY ACTUALLY DOESN'T REFER TO SOCIAL SECURITY. YOU ARE STARTING TO STRIKE ME AS A DISHONEST TROLL.

[Boon 0]

If memory serves, California gives out all their delegates winner-take-all. That will be a major hurdle to overcome to the loser (441 delegates).

 

John Edwards has basically said he's in this race until the end. IF the nomination is competitive until the convention, his delegates will make or break the nominee. So who does he want to be VP for- Clinton, or Obama?

[Nightwing 0]

Walker: The present value of future unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Social Security and other plans is $53 trillion.

 

OH SO IN A DISCUSSION OF SOCIAL SECURITY YOU PULL OUT A NUMBER THAT REFERS TO MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND "OTHER PLANS," WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS, ONLY TO INFORM US THAT THE NUMBER YOU WERE USING TO FEARMONGER ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY ACTUALLY DOESN'T REFER TO SOCIAL SECURITY. YOU ARE STARTING TO STRIKE ME AS A DISHONEST TROLL.

 

Did I ever tell you you're my hero?

 

f memory serves, California gives out all their delegates winner-take-all. That will be a major hurdle to overcome to the loser (441 delegates).

 

John Edwards has basically said he's in this race until the end. IF the nomination is competitive until the convention, his delegates will make or break the nominee. So who does he want to be VP for- Clinton, or Obama?

 

I'd honestly say neither. I know he won't be on for Clinton: She's alienated both major competitors, and I don't think Edwards would sign up for what would almost certainly be another losing campaign. Maybe for Obama, but I'm not really feeling it there. I've heard Bayh and Richardson being mentioned in the VP spots, but that's about it.

[NoCalMike 0]

If Bush would have said something in his speech along the lines of "In today's climate we are divided on our view of the war on Iraq, but one thing we all can be supportive of, is our troops efforts" then the Democrats would have applauded and you know it. It is the fact that once again Bush wants to tie "support of the troops" in with whether or not someone is willing to sign more war funding bills and whether or not they agree the surge is working. It has little to do with "support the troops" Honestly, I think the guy still thinks it's 2004.

 

It is a sad fact, but "support our troops" is such a meaningless throw-away slogan now-a-days.