Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WE NEED SOME POLITICS. YOUR THOUGHTS?
Posts
demondestiny
889
demondestiny
View playlists
Close
Positions on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc):
Abortion:
# GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
# Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
# Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
# Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
# Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
# Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Gay rights:
# Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
# Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
# Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
# Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
# Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
# We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Positions on the economy:
# Protect consumers with Credit Card Bill of Rights. (Feb 2008)
# More accountability in subprime mortgages. (Feb 2008)
# Bush stimulus plan leaves out seniors & unemployed. (Jan 2008)
# Voted against limiting credit to 30%, because 30% too high. (Jan 2008)
# Account for every single dollar for new proposed programs. (Jan 2008)
# Help the homeowners actually living in their homes. (Jan 2008)
Positions on Immigration:
# Immigration raids are ineffective. (Feb 2008)
# Health plan: not enough resources for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2008)
# Illegals shouldn't work; but should have path to citizenship. (Dec 2007)
# Don't deputize Americans to turn in illegal immigrants. (Dec 2007)
# OK to provide government services in Spanish. (Dec 2007)
# Comprehensive solution includes employers & borders. (Nov 2007)
# Undocumented workers come here to work, not to drive. (Nov 2007)
# Support granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
Positions on the War in Iraq:
# Humanitarian aid now for displaced Iraqis. (Feb 2008)
# The surge is not working toward enduring peace. (Jan 2008)
# Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan. (Jan 2008)
# Get our troops out by the end of 2009. (Jan 2008)
# No permanent bases in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
# 2002: Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length. (Jan 2008)
# Iraq 2002: ill-conceived venture; 2007: waste of resources. (Feb 2007)
Positions on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc):
Abortion:
# Personally would never abort; but deeply values choice. (Jun 2007)
# Abortion is a sad, tragic choice to many women. (May 2007)
# Fought for years to get "Plan B" contraceptive on the market. (Dec 2006)
# Respect Roe v. Wade, but make adoptions easier too. (Nov 2006)
Gay rights:
# Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007)
# Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits. (Aug 2007)
# Let states decide gay marriage; they're ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)
Positions on the economy:
# Government action to tackle recession, not tax cuts. (Mar 2008)
# The economy is not working for middle class families. (Jan 2008)
# Look back to 1990s to see how I'd be fiscally responsible. (Dec 2007)
# Help people facing foreclosure; don't just bail-out banks. (Aug 2007)
# Balanced budget replaced with rising costs & falling wages. (Jun 2007)
# Last six years were challenging; let's try a new direction. (Oct 2006)
Positions on Immigration:
# Guest workers only for farms, to address labor shortage. (Feb 2008)
# Don't turn local police into immigration enforcers. (Feb 2008)
# English unifies us; teach ESL but support other languages. (Dec 2007)
# Crack down on employers who exploit undocumented workers. (Dec 2007)
# Oppose granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. (Nov 2007)
Positions on the War in Iraq:
# Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians. (Jan 2008)
# No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution. (Jan 2008)
# Hope to have nearly all troops out within a year. (Jan 2008)
# Demand Bush to explain to Congress on his plan on Iraq. (Jan 2008)
# No extension on surge; deadline is why Iraq is progressing. (Jan 2008)
# Bush's classified withdrawal plan is cursory; out in 60 days. (Jan 2008)
Positions on social issues (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc):
Abortion:
# Abortion issue shows what kind of country we are. (Aug 2007)
# Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)
# Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. (May 2007)
# Prosecute abortion doctors, not women who get them. (Jan 2000)
# “Family Conference†if daughter wanted an abortion. (Jan 2000)
# Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
# Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Gay rights:
# Don't ask, don't tell is working; don't tamper with it. (Jun 2007)
# Leave gay marriage to the states. (Jan 2007)
# 1st Amend. not a shield for hate groups
Positions on the economy:
# Things are tough now, but we're better off than in 2000. (Jan 2008)
# I'm well-versed in economics; I was at the Reagan Revolution. (Jan 2008)
# FactCheck: Said--then denied--he needed economics education. (Jan 2008)
# Impose some fiscal discipline to revive the economy. (Jan 2008)
# Will be able to reduce war costs & have a stable Middle East. (Jan 2008)
# Reform insurance to cover violent weather patterns. (Jan 2008)
# To avoid recession, stop out-of-control spending. (Jan 2008)
Positions on Immigration:
# Other aspects only after consensus that borders are secure. (Feb 2008)
# Certify border is secure; only then allow guest workers. (Jan 2008)
# 2003 "amnesty" didn't mean rewarding illegal behavior. (Jan 2008)
# Round up and deport two million aliens who committed crimes. (Jan 2008)
Positions on the War in Iraq:
# Don't let enemy lay in the weeds until we leave. (Jan 2008)
# Timetable for withdrawal is a white flag of surrender. (Jan 2008)
# Staying for 100 years OK, if US casualties are low. (Jan 2008)
# Ok with American presence in Iraq for 100 years. (Jan 2008)
# FactCheck: Yes, criticized Rumsfeld, but not before invasion. (Jan 2008)
# Help Maliki government move forward as rapidly as possible. (Nov 2007)
A special thanks to gaming world for hosting this topic there as well. Basically just talk about the three candidates listed or anything to do with politics/upcoming election.
Dave Barry 08.
I think they're all an improvement, but I'd take Clinton or Obama over McCain.
I really don't care which of the 2 dems is president. Why doesn't one of the opt to become vice president, and then they run together? Like make Clinton the president nominee now, with Obama as her VP, let her have the house for 4 or 8 years, and then run Obama after that? You'd have like 16 years of pretty awesome presidency, imho.
I think they're all an improvement, but I'd take Clinton or Obama over McCain.
I really don't care which of the 2 dems is president. Why doesn't one of the opt to become vice president, and then they run together? Like make Clinton the president nominee now, with Obama as her VP, let her have the house for 4 or 8 years, and then run Obama after that? You'd have like 16 years of pretty awesome presidency, imho.
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13315#msg13315 date=1209220665
Dave Barry 08.
I think they're all an improvement, but I'd take Clinton or Obama over McCain.
I really don't care which of the 2 dems is president. Why doesn't one of the opt to become vice president, and then they run together? Like make Clinton the president nominee now, with Obama as her VP, let her have the house for 4 or 8 years, and then run Obama after that? You'd have like 16 years of pretty awesome presidency, imho.
Because:
1) Hillary was the inevitable candidate, but Barry came outta no where and pwned.
2) Barry has been in the lead in every measure
3) Hillary, 2nd place, offered 2nd place to the guy in 1st place. Now THAT is audacity.
4) The word "quit" is not in Hillary's vocabulary. Barry DOES have the humility and class to back down, but he doesn't have a reason to back down at the moment, since he's running for president.
I kinda sorta agree with you that everyone might be better off if Barry accepts Veep by virtue of the fact that Hillary is a 5-year-old child who can't admit defeat and has tantrums when things don't work out exactly the way she wants, but Barry might have to take the high road, which I believe he is capable of doing.
There's probably too much hatred now, after all the lying, cheating, manipulation, and Rovian tactics displayed by the Billary campaign. The majority of Americans are sick of Monarchy, and with the Bush monarchy ending soon, another Clinton monarchy doesn't sit too well with most of us.
maladroithim
1495
author=harmonic link=topic=974.msg13316#msg13316 date=1209220971
2) Barry has been in the lead in every measure
This is not true. Source please.
(mysoginist)
author=brandonabley link=topic=974.msg13326#msg13326 date=1209242147author=harmonic link=topic=974.msg13316#msg13316 date=1209220971
2) Barry has been in the lead in every measure
This is not true. Source please.
(mysoginist)
1. Barack Obama leads in the delegate count. He has an estimated 1714 to Hillary Clinton's 1589. He lost an estimated 12 to her in her "blowout" Pennsylvania win, compared to him earning an additional 17 to her in Colorado and 25 in Virginia.
Source: http://www.politico.com/politics08/
2. Barack Obama leads Hillary in the popular vote by over a half a million votes. This has been a controversy lately, because Hillary is now trying to say she has received the most votes of any candidate in history. Of course, she is counting the votes she received in Florida and Michigan.
The primaries in Florida and Michigan were not official contests of the Democrat National Commitee. Both Barack and Hillary signed off saying they would not campaign there or honor the results. The only candidates on the ballot in Michigan was Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich (lol). Even with her being the only top tier candidate on the ballot in Michigan, she barely won 55% of the vote. As mentioned previously, neither of were official DNC contests and thus cannot be counted.
There is something to be said for barely getting 50% of the vote when you are the only legitimate candidate. Politicians in similar situations at the city, county, state and national level usually garner 70-97% of the vote.
The other flaw in her logic is this: Even if you count Michigan and Florida, you should probably give Obama the 45% of the "undecided" votes in Michigan since that is who they were obviously voting for. This would put him ahead in the popular vote by over 100,000.
The final flaw in this whole popular vote issue is it doesn't count caucuses. Caucuses usually only tally the elected delegates and not the amount of votes that were required to get the delegates. If you factor in the estimated votes from the caucuses (by using the total amount of votes pro-rated to the amount of delegates each candidate received) Barack Obama is blowing her out of the water. Remember, he has won nearly every caucus state by significant margins (in some cases with 70% of the vote.)
Of course, Clinton calls caucuses "undemocratic", since it requires a well organized machine - something she has shown herself uncapable of running.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html
3. Barack Obama consistantly polls better among national Democrats by a margin of 49% to 40% for Hillary. This may change a percent or so from day to day but is usually around that margin.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html
4. Barack Obama consistantly fares better in polls in a possible matchup against John McCain in the general election than does Senator Clinton. Though his margin has come down slightly, he still does better than Clinton against McCain. (Note: Clinton also tracks better than McCain, just not as good as Obama does.)
Sources: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html
(Has averages based on over 5 different polls, including the Rasmussen and the Gallop poll.
5. The only statistical count by which Barack Obama trails Hillary Clinton is in the superdelegate category, and only by a mere 22 now. He has 237 to Hillary's 259. At one point Hillary had over 200 more superdelegates backing her, but that number dwindles with each passing day.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
6. Fundraising is often seen as the lifeblood of a campaign. To date, Barack Obama, the relatively unknown Senator from Illinois has raised over 237 million. Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and wife of one of the most prolific Democratic fundraisers in history has raised a respectable has raised 187 million. Not shabby, but she has also poorly managed her finances and her campaign is routinely in debt. She had to loan her campaign 5 million in February to keep going and has failed to pay many of businesses setting up events or providing supplies for her.
Sources: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html
7. Finally, Hillary has the highest unfavorable rating of any national candidate. In a recent survey, 54% of voters said they had an unfavorable view of Hillary and would not vote for her. That's right, right off the bat Hillary will have 54% of the country against her.
Sources: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/20/bill-hillarys-unfavorable-ratings-skyrocket-media-mostly-mum
(Note: Obama's unfavorable rating used to be in the 37% range, but went up a bit after the Rev. Wright controversy. Then it went back down to normal. It has since spiked after the bitter comments, but has went back down. Hillary's unfavorable rating has been at over 50% for practically her entire campaign.)
author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13337#msg13337 date=1209248597
Stuff
What he said.
BTW talk to Karsuman/Craze or look at the amazonian/tough female characters in my games and see if I'm a mysoginist. :P
maladroithim
1495
author=harmonic link=topic=974.msg13338#msg13338 date=1209249207
BTW talk to Karsuman/Craze or look at the amazonian/tough female characters in my games and see if I'm a mysoginist. :P
So you're mysoginist and a fetishist.
author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13337#msg13337 date=1209248597
Stuff
Seriously man you're splitting hairs by a few percent and citing statistics that are not complete (although would probably help your case). What I wanted to point out (and maybe should have said so in the first place) is that the CLINTON QUIT NOW THERE IS NO HOPE meme is sort of annoying because neither candidate has had a decisive victory for the nomination. All reliable statistics give figures like 40% versus 50% with 10% undecided, which is hardly a blowout.
I'm of the opinion that they are basically the same candidate and they should pull straws because all they are doing is sabotaging the entire Democratic party's image which, until a month ago, I was 9000% certain would win the presidency by a ridiculous landslide.
madriel222
402
As a pretty stout democrat, I'm just perpetually disappointed with how the last few months have gone. All of this bickering, this trash talk, is just smearing the image of the democratic party and leveling the playing field for the republican party come November. Like Brandon over here, I was pretty much convinced of a democrat victory in the upcoming election, but all of this nonsense seems to be pushing the race more towards equilibrium. Now, according to an article I saw a couple days ago from the AP, both of the candidates (Hilary and Barack) had a considerable lead when matched up 1v1 with McCain, but the gap has certainly narrowed. I used to be a staunch supporter of the Obama campaign, now I just want to see the democratic party get out alive.
Neophyte
155
Meh, if you do the math Clinton can't win, that's pretty much been established. I think she's the one hurting the party, much more than Obama. She attacks him way too much, and he almost always seems to be on the defensive. They are nearly identical candidates in terms of policies, but one has much better judgement than the other.
Yeah she has to win like 70% or more of the remaining superdelegates, which isn't happening because her 200 superdelegate lead is now at 20. There are less than 10 states left, with her being behind by a lot. Look at the math. =D
But fuck I really do hope one of them drops out soon. Seriously, the attacks are POINTLESS. And I'm afraid that if Obama wins Clinton won't support him.
Yeah she has to win like 70% or more of the remaining superdelegates, which isn't happening because her 200 superdelegate lead is now at 20. There are less than 10 states left, with her being behind by a lot. Look at the math. =D
But fuck I really do hope one of them drops out soon. Seriously, the attacks are POINTLESS. And I'm afraid that if Obama wins Clinton won't support him.
author=republic link=topic=974.msg13458#msg13458 date=1209373173
I'm thinking Obama might be too liberal for a general election.
A recent survey of members of congress ranked Obama the most liberal senator, with a rating of ~82.5. Hillary was right behind him with a ~78. The only real difference is Clinton is more hawkish on foreign policy.
author=brandonabley link=topic=974.msg13476#msg13476 date=1209393356
Seriously man you're splitting hairs by a few percent and citing statistics that are not complete (although would probably help your case). What I wanted to point out (and maybe should have said so in the first place) is that the CLINTON QUIT NOW THERE IS NO HOPE meme is sort of annoying because neither candidate has had a decisive victory for the nomination. All reliable statistics give figures like 40% versus 50% with 10% undecided, which is hardly a blowout.
I'm of the opinion that they are basically the same candidate and they should pull straws because all they are doing is sabotaging the entire Democratic party's image which, until a month ago, I was 9000% certain would win the presidency by a ridiculous landslide.
Actually, the one that is 40% to 50% is the Democratic National poll. The rest of them are pretty conclusive. Hillary would have to win the remaining contests by a nearly 80-20 ratio for her to even have a chance of catching Obama in the votes and delegates. Unfortunately, this race will not be settled by democracy but rather by oligarchy, so Hillary's only real chance is she not only get all the remaining super delegates, but convinces super delegates comitted to Obama to switch. By any other margin she lost long ago. This is not splitting hairs; remember Gore lost the 2000 election by a microscopic margin.
republic
20
author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13491#msg13491 date=1209405457
A recent survey of members of congress ranked Obama the most liberal senator, with a rating of ~82.5. Hillary was right behind him with a ~78. The only real difference is Clinton is more hawkish on foreign policy.
Now, I'm even more convinced that Obama is too liberal for the general election.
maladroithim
1495
author=republic link=topic=974.msg13492#msg13492 date=1209408168
Now, I'm even more convinced that Obama is too liberal for the general election.
So do you have a specific problem with liberalism or are you just commenting that you don't think a liberal can win? Because I think the bigger problem is not that America isn't liberal enough, but that liberals aren't very driven to vote.
republic
20
author=brandonabley link=topic=974.msg13493#msg13493 date=1209408631
So do you have a specific problem with liberalism or are you just commenting that you don't think a liberal can win?
I'm just commenting on winning. I don't think someone too far on the left will win a general election. If you're not in the middle, it's tough. The country is still conservative on certain issues. Over the last 20 some odd years, the dems have repeatedly push for people too far on the left and the rep. kept handing them losses. Clinton and the recent congressional elections had dems. that were socially conservative and they actually won. (Well, all the scandals during the elections didn't help the rep. either XD)
Although, he is a good speaker so we'll see if that could offset that, heh.
Thrasher
539
Hey guys. First post. (I'm one of the higher-ups in the ika community)
I've been knee-deep in political junk recently, and there are a few things you need to understand. Never take something at its face value, especially when so many people are trying to deceive you.
-
a) That survey is bogus. It's not a reputable organization (Republican claptrap machine), and he is rated more liberal than Bernie Sanders, the SELF-LABELED SOCIALIST SENATOR. Give me a break. (Edit: It's also bogus because it rated the senators on a very narrow, cherry-picked criteria list. One of the bills that made him so "liberal" was for the creation of an independent government accountability office. That doesn't strike me as "liberal" so much as JUST. If they want to say Republicans don't want accountability in their government, be my guest.)
b) They are most definitely not the same candidate. Clinton continues to pour all of her effort into derailing Obama's campaign, while he stands by and tries to pull the narrative toward something that matters (issues). This is a pretty big red flag that Clinton just wants to continue the gridlock we've seen in our Congress ever since the Republican majority was lost. Conversely, Obama at least wants to try to reason with both sides to come to a conclusion. His demeanor and attitude are so much better than Clinton's, and 60% of the country automatically will never like her, so his methodology will be much different.
c) More hawkish, perhaps, but incredibly careless. You don't poke at your enemy by threatening them with nuclear obliteration (Iran) when there's no evidence they even have nukes or are trying to procure them. And even if there was, you keep it to yourself so as not to, say, ruin the entire political climate of the Middle East.
Once the primary season is over, the media (hopefully, but don't count on it) will start to pay attention to McCain's ridiculous flip-flops (his image as a maverick is going to get more and more tarnished), and most educated people are going to see him for the fraud he really is. There's no indication that Clinton OR McCain would be better than Bush, since they both have erratic tendencies that prevent you from counting on them keeping their cool in foreign relations. It's a scary thing to give someone so irritable control over our military.
Also, Hillary has a tradition of saying one thing, and doing another, and pandering to everyone in the process. She's been acting more and more like a Republican lately, agreeing with McCain and using Rovian-style GOP scare tactics to make viewers frown on Obama. The difference is quite crystalline, in my view.
What I really want to tell you is, do some digging on your own. Everything the mainstream media tells you is completely spun out of control so they can keep their ratings going. A contest is better than no contest, so they will overreport any flub by the Obama camp and completely ignore anything Hillary does ("obliterate Iran" unreported, look up "Peter Paul fraud trial", worthless gas tax suspension policy, etc).
This isn't a canned message, I swear. I'll be adding some ika files and hopefully talking to WIP about getting our community up and running, but until then... don't make this decision lightly. You're choosing a president, not an American Idol.
I've been knee-deep in political junk recently, and there are a few things you need to understand. Never take something at its face value, especially when so many people are trying to deceive you.
-
author=rcholbert link=topic=974.msg13491#msg13491 date=1209405457
A recent survey of members of congress ranked Obama the most liberal senator, with a rating of ~82.5. Hillary was right behind him with a ~78. The only real difference is Clinton is more hawkish on foreign policy.author=brandonabley link=topic=974.msg13476#msg13476 date=1209393356
I'm of the opinion that they are basically the same candidate and they should pull straws because all they are doing is sabotaging the entire Democratic party's image which, until a month ago, I was 9000% certain would win the presidency by a ridiculous landslide.
a) That survey is bogus. It's not a reputable organization (Republican claptrap machine), and he is rated more liberal than Bernie Sanders, the SELF-LABELED SOCIALIST SENATOR. Give me a break. (Edit: It's also bogus because it rated the senators on a very narrow, cherry-picked criteria list. One of the bills that made him so "liberal" was for the creation of an independent government accountability office. That doesn't strike me as "liberal" so much as JUST. If they want to say Republicans don't want accountability in their government, be my guest.)
b) They are most definitely not the same candidate. Clinton continues to pour all of her effort into derailing Obama's campaign, while he stands by and tries to pull the narrative toward something that matters (issues). This is a pretty big red flag that Clinton just wants to continue the gridlock we've seen in our Congress ever since the Republican majority was lost. Conversely, Obama at least wants to try to reason with both sides to come to a conclusion. His demeanor and attitude are so much better than Clinton's, and 60% of the country automatically will never like her, so his methodology will be much different.
c) More hawkish, perhaps, but incredibly careless. You don't poke at your enemy by threatening them with nuclear obliteration (Iran) when there's no evidence they even have nukes or are trying to procure them. And even if there was, you keep it to yourself so as not to, say, ruin the entire political climate of the Middle East.
Once the primary season is over, the media (hopefully, but don't count on it) will start to pay attention to McCain's ridiculous flip-flops (his image as a maverick is going to get more and more tarnished), and most educated people are going to see him for the fraud he really is. There's no indication that Clinton OR McCain would be better than Bush, since they both have erratic tendencies that prevent you from counting on them keeping their cool in foreign relations. It's a scary thing to give someone so irritable control over our military.
Also, Hillary has a tradition of saying one thing, and doing another, and pandering to everyone in the process. She's been acting more and more like a Republican lately, agreeing with McCain and using Rovian-style GOP scare tactics to make viewers frown on Obama. The difference is quite crystalline, in my view.
What I really want to tell you is, do some digging on your own. Everything the mainstream media tells you is completely spun out of control so they can keep their ratings going. A contest is better than no contest, so they will overreport any flub by the Obama camp and completely ignore anything Hillary does ("obliterate Iran" unreported, look up "Peter Paul fraud trial", worthless gas tax suspension policy, etc).
This isn't a canned message, I swear. I'll be adding some ika files and hopefully talking to WIP about getting our community up and running, but until then... don't make this decision lightly. You're choosing a president, not an American Idol.
author=Thrasher link=topic=974.msg13495#msg13495 date=1209410390BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
What I really want to tell you is, do some digging on your own. Everything the mainstream media tells you is completely spun out of control so they can keep their ratings going. A contest is better than no contest, so they will overreport any flub by the Obama camp and completely ignore anything Hillary does ("obliterate Iran" unreported, look up "Peter Paul fraud trial", worthless gas tax suspension policy, etc).
Something like 85% of the media reports on Obama are positive, while like 50% are for Clinton.
I really don't care which one gets in because presidents really can't do much on their own in the states. And it's hard to take american politics seriously when they remain in the outmoded 2-party system. But ANYTHING has to be better than Bush's Theocracy.
If I was a member of the United States of the Part of America Sandwiched Between Canada and Mexico, plus Alaska and Some Small Islands, I'd vote for Dave Barry.
Man. This topic just got exciting.
Anyways, I want Obama to win so bad. Hillary is a vicious woman.
That whole ID NUKE IRAN thing has left another giant bad taste in my mouth.
Anyways, I want Obama to win so bad. Hillary is a vicious woman.
That whole ID NUKE IRAN thing has left another giant bad taste in my mouth.
Thrasher
539
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Something like 85% of the media reports on Obama are positive, while like 50% are for Clinton.OprahObama 2008! lol.
I'd agree with you if this was February. However, they just harp on, over and over again, about Reverend Wright's controversial remarks (especially
I haven't heard anything positive about Obama since the primary in Pennsylvania. EVERYONE is saying "why can't he close the deal? why can't he win working class whites?" VERY few are saying what's true: democrats haven't won working class whites in more than 20 YEARS (Clinton won by 1% both times, because of Ross Perot), and Hillary has a huge problem with African-Americans, the educated, and the young -- traditional democrats, in the FDR sense, not in the Reagan democrat sense.
And like I said, they consistently IGNORE Hillary (a positive for her, since most of her actions just make people hate her more). Face the facts -- the coverage is slanted toward the middle just to keep the race going, when in reality, Hillary is spewing poison and Obama is doing wrong. He's not perfect, but come on. I challenge you to watch one of those channels for a day (MSNBC is more tolerable, because of Keith Olbermann) without realizing what they're doing.
They're corporate whores, so they want McCain to win, and keeping Hillary in the race unnecessarily is helping McCain. I don't see how it could be any simpler.
Edit: HAY WIP. Glad to see you're drinking the Obama kool-aid too! It's pretty delicious, isn't it.
Edit 2:
author=kentona link=topic=974.msg13496#msg13496 date=1209411750
I really don't care which one gets in because presidents really can't do much on their own in the states.
This is EXACTLY why it's imperative that Obama wins. Like I said, he's level-headed and not stubborn, unlike Hillary. Don't you think that's more conducive to getting legislation passed? Why do you think Hillary's health-care plan has failed for over 15 years?
