Hillary Cried Because White Supremacy Failed

[no name 1]

Wouldn't it be nice to win or lose an election strictly on the basis of what you (personally) said or did, rather than this "where there's smoke there's fire" nudge-nudge, wink-wink stuff.

Well, this sort of thing may not matter to you and especially to the Obama worshipers but to me it says something about his character. Whether or not this represents his views it does show that he is at least sympathetic to ideas like this. I don't know anyone that would attend a particular church for 20 years that can then say he does not hold with what was being said in that church. His other associations also give an insight into his character that will get a lot of play. His close association with Ayers and the weather underground will get some play. The fact he was willing to serve on the same board with him, go to his home and say he has a "friendly" relationship with an admitted terrorist says volumes of his character or at least his lack of judgment. For me and for a large portion of America that hasn't tasted the koolaid will see this as important.

I think a lot of people have an inordinate focus on how a candidate appears, and not what they actually stand for in terms of policy (i.e. what their being in office will actually do for people's quality of life).

You don't find that a little strange?

No.

Considering O & H have almost similar policies (except his HC), it has to come into play. It's called the whole package.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Pick your package...

Shrill manipulative liar

Inexperienced liar with bad associations

Ancient clueless liar

Sounds like a fun party...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ANd yet when the ####### is slung around about another candidate, then, well, it's just hogwash and doesn't matter...

Well it is really isn't it... I mean we're at the point of analysing random statements made at campaign rallies

These things might make for embarrassing verbal glitches but there isn't really much substance behind (most) of them. I don't buy the idea, for example, that McCain's comments about Czechoslovakia make him a candidate for Alzheimer's - or that Hillary's comments about Bosnia make her a liar (or that her recent reference to RFK means that she's somehow holding out for Obama to be assassinated).

Most of these things are (fun), but they aren't any more than that - certainly not enough to say "Oh, I'm not voting Obama - he thinks he sees dead people" - Yet these things seem to attract 90% of everyone's attention.

Wouldn't it be nice to win or lose an election strictly on the basis of what you (personally) said or did, rather than this "where there's smoke there's fire" nudge-nudge, wink-wink stuff.

Well, this sort of thing may not matter to you and especially to the Obama worshipers but to me it says something about his character. Whether or not this represents his views it does show that he is at least sympathetic to ideas like this. I don't know anyone that would attend a particular church for 20 years that can then say he does not hold with what was being said in that church. His other associations also give an insight into his character that will get a lot of play. His close association with Ayers and the weather underground will get some play. The fact he was willing to serve on the same board with him, go to his home and say he has a "friendly" relationship with an admitted terrorist says volumes of his character or at least his lack of judgment. For me and for a large portion of America that hasn't tasted the koolaid will see this as important.

I think a lot of people have an inordinate focus on how a candidate appears, and not what they actually stand for in terms of policy (i.e. what their being in office will actually do for people's quality of life).

You don't find that a little strange?

No.

Considering O & H have almost similar policies (except his HC), it has to come into play. It's called the whole package.

Actually I tend to look at it as fixating on the wrapping paper while ignoring the gift.

[Sister Fracas 5]

ANd yet when the ####### is slung around about another candidate, then, well, it's just hogwash and doesn't matter...

Well it is really isn't it... I mean we're at the point of analysing random statements made at campaign rallies

These things might make for embarrassing verbal glitches but there isn't really much substance behind (most) of them. I don't buy the idea, for example, that McCain's comments about Czechoslovakia make him a candidate for Alzheimer's - or that Hillary's comments about Bosnia make her a liar (or that her recent reference to RFK means that she's somehow holding out for Obama to be assassinated).

Most of these things are (fun), but they aren't any more than that - certainly not enough to say "Oh, I'm not voting Obama - he thinks he sees dead people" - Yet these things seem to attract 90% of everyone's attention.

We may agree... LOL Some people DO fixate on the rubbish though of another candidate while dismissing their own candidate's when they SHOULD be dismissing all of it.

[no name 1]

Some people DO fixate on the rubbish though of another candidate while dismissing their own candidate's when they SHOULD be dismissing all of it.

What an d not practice their right to vote? What a rubbish statement.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Some people DO fixate on the rubbish though of another candidate while dismissing their own candidate's when they SHOULD be dismissing all of it.

What an d not practice their right to vote? What a rubbish statement.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I've never in my life advocated for people not voting. The only people on VJ I've seen do that recently have been some Republicans who can't bear to vote for McCain.

[GaryC 7]

ANd yet when the ####### is slung around about another candidate, then, well, it's just hogwash and doesn't matter...

Well it is really isn't it... I mean we're at the point of analysing random statements made at campaign rallies

These things might make for embarrassing verbal glitches but there isn't really much substance behind (most) of them. I don't buy the idea, for example, that McCain's comments about Czechoslovakia make him a candidate for Alzheimer's - or that Hillary's comments about Bosnia make her a liar (or that her recent reference to RFK means that she's somehow holding out for Obama to be assassinated).

Most of these things are (fun), but they aren't any more than that - certainly not enough to say "Oh, I'm not voting Obama - he thinks he sees dead people" - Yet these things seem to attract 90% of everyone's attention.

Wouldn't it be nice to win or lose an election strictly on the basis of what you (personally) said or did, rather than this "where there's smoke there's fire" nudge-nudge, wink-wink stuff.

Well, this sort of thing may not matter to you and especially to the Obama worshipers but to me it says something about his character. Whether or not this represents his views it does show that he is at least sympathetic to ideas like this. I don't know anyone that would attend a particular church for 20 years that can then say he does not hold with what was being said in that church. His other associations also give an insight into his character that will get a lot of play. His close association with Ayers and the weather underground will get some play. The fact he was willing to serve on the same board with him, go to his home and say he has a "friendly" relationship with an admitted terrorist says volumes of his character or at least his lack of judgment. For me and for a large portion of America that hasn't tasted the koolaid will see this as important.

I think a lot of people have an inordinate focus on how a candidate appears, and not what they actually stand for in terms of policy (i.e. what their being in office will actually do for people's quality of life).

You don't find that a little strange?

No.

Considering O & H have almost similar policies (except his HC), it has to come into play. It's called the whole package.

Actually I tend to look at it as fixating on the wrapping paper while ignoring the gift.

The issues are already well known. Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, talk to terrorists countries in a vain attempt to talk them out of their hatred of us, raise our taxes, ruin our health care and march us toward socialism. McCain wants to win in Iraq, lower our taxes , fix but not junk the health care system and strengthen our democracy. It has never been a more stark choice. So the only thing left is to poke fun at the other side. Not to convince but to show my contempt for Obama.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ANd yet when the ####### is slung around about another candidate, then, well, it's just hogwash and doesn't matter...

Well it is really isn't it... I mean we're at the point of analysing random statements made at campaign rallies

These things might make for embarrassing verbal glitches but there isn't really much substance behind (most) of them. I don't buy the idea, for example, that McCain's comments about Czechoslovakia make him a candidate for Alzheimer's - or that Hillary's comments about Bosnia make her a liar (or that her recent reference to RFK means that she's somehow holding out for Obama to be assassinated).

Most of these things are (fun), but they aren't any more than that - certainly not enough to say "Oh, I'm not voting Obama - he thinks he sees dead people" - Yet these things seem to attract 90% of everyone's attention.

We may agree... LOL Some people DO fixate on the rubbish though of another candidate while dismissing their own candidate's when they SHOULD be dismissing all of it.

Certainly - but there's so much of it being tossed about that its become near impossible to separate the important ones from the #######, especially when the media snatches a hold of it and spins it for a evenings worth of ratings. As I say - most of this stuff is total guff - but the idea that ALL of these things are equally valid and of a muchness is wrong.

Obama's statement the other day about his grand-uncle struck me as curiously politically motivated - and surely a better indicator of "character" than the silly sausage-meat about "seeing dead people". Same thing with McCain - I'm inclined to judge him less on the Czechoslovakia thing (it was funny more than anything) than the idea that he doesn't seem to be very clued up on the sectarian makeup of the Iraq conflict - a policy he'd essentially be managing as President.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ANd yet when the ####### is slung around about another candidate, then, well, it's just hogwash and doesn't matter...

Well it is really isn't it... I mean we're at the point of analysing random statements made at campaign rallies

These things might make for embarrassing verbal glitches but there isn't really much substance behind (most) of them. I don't buy the idea, for example, that McCain's comments about Czechoslovakia make him a candidate for Alzheimer's - or that Hillary's comments about Bosnia make her a liar (or that her recent reference to RFK means that she's somehow holding out for Obama to be assassinated).

Most of these things are (fun), but they aren't any more than that - certainly not enough to say "Oh, I'm not voting Obama - he thinks he sees dead people" - Yet these things seem to attract 90% of everyone's attention.

Wouldn't it be nice to win or lose an election strictly on the basis of what you (personally) said or did, rather than this "where there's smoke there's fire" nudge-nudge, wink-wink stuff.

Well, this sort of thing may not matter to you and especially to the Obama worshipers but to me it says something about his character. Whether or not this represents his views it does show that he is at least sympathetic to ideas like this. I don't know anyone that would attend a particular church for 20 years that can then say he does not hold with what was being said in that church. His other associations also give an insight into his character that will get a lot of play. His close association with Ayers and the weather underground will get some play. The fact he was willing to serve on the same board with him, go to his home and say he has a "friendly" relationship with an admitted terrorist says volumes of his character or at least his lack of judgment. For me and for a large portion of America that hasn't tasted the koolaid will see this as important.

I think a lot of people have an inordinate focus on how a candidate appears, and not what they actually stand for in terms of policy (i.e. what their being in office will actually do for people's quality of life).

You don't find that a little strange?

No.

Considering O & H have almost similar policies (except his HC), it has to come into play. It's called the whole package.

Actually I tend to look at it as fixating on the wrapping paper while ignoring the gift.

The issues are already well known. Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, talk to terrorists countries in a vain attempt to talk them out of their hatred of us, raise our taxes, ruin our health care and march us toward socialism. McCain wants to win in Iraq, lower our taxes , fix but not junk the health care system and strengthen our democracy. It has never been a more stark choice. So the only thing left is to poke fun at the other side. Not to convince but to show my contempt for Obama.

Come on Gary - those are just the usual Republican Vs. Democrat stereotypes. You'd say the same thing regardless of who the candidates were.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, this sort of thing may not matter to you and especially to the Obama worshipers but to me it says something about his character. Whether or not this represents his views it does show that he is at least sympathetic to ideas like this. I don't know anyone that would attend a particular church for 20 years that can then say he does not hold with what was being said in that church. His other associations also give an insight into his character that will get a lot of play. His close association with Ayers and the weather underground will get some play. The fact he was willing to serve on the same board with him, go to his home and say he has a "friendly" relationship with an admitted terrorist says volumes of his character or at least his lack of judgment. For me and for a large portion of America that hasn't tasted the koolaid will see this as important.

It matters to a lot of people Gary.

count me as 1 more.

No real surprise in either case

point being?

That other folks will be more interested in actual issues, not non-issues.

[Sister Fracas 5]

The issues are already well known. Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, talk to terrorists countries in a vain attempt to talk them out of their hatred of us, raise our taxes, ruin our health care and march us toward socialism. McCain wants to win in Iraq, lower our taxes , fix but not junk the health care system and strengthen our democracy. It has never been a more stark choice. So the only thing left is to poke fun at the other side. Not to convince but to show my contempt for Obama.

So in other words....do nothing of real value...

Why don't you have contempt for Hillary? Just curious...

[HAL 9000 96]

ANd yet when the ####### is slung around about another candidate, then, well, it's just hogwash and doesn't matter...

Well it is really isn't it... I mean we're at the point of analysing random statements made at campaign rallies

These things might make for embarrassing verbal glitches but there isn't really much substance behind (most) of them. I don't buy the idea, for example, that McCain's comments about Czechoslovakia make him a candidate for Alzheimer's - or that Hillary's comments about Bosnia make her a liar (or that her recent reference to RFK means that she's somehow holding out for Obama to be assassinated).

Most of these things are (fun), but they aren't any more than that - certainly not enough to say "Oh, I'm not voting Obama - he thinks he sees dead people" - Yet these things seem to attract 90% of everyone's attention.

Wouldn't it be nice to win or lose an election strictly on the basis of what you (personally) said or did, rather than this "where there's smoke there's fire" nudge-nudge, wink-wink stuff.

Well, this sort of thing may not matter to you and especially to the Obama worshipers but to me it says something about his character. Whether or not this represents his views it does show that he is at least sympathetic to ideas like this. I don't know anyone that would attend a particular church for 20 years that can then say he does not hold with what was being said in that church. His other associations also give an insight into his character that will get a lot of play. His close association with Ayers and the weather underground will get some play. The fact he was willing to serve on the same board with him, go to his home and say he has a "friendly" relationship with an admitted terrorist says volumes of his character or at least his lack of judgment. For me and for a large portion of America that hasn't tasted the koolaid will see this as important.

I think a lot of people have an inordinate focus on how a candidate appears, and not what they actually stand for in terms of policy (i.e. what their being in office will actually do for people's quality of life).

You don't find that a little strange?

No.

Considering O & H have almost similar policies (except his HC), it has to come into play. It's called the whole package.

Actually I tend to look at it as fixating on the wrapping paper while ignoring the gift.

The issues are already well known. Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, talk to terrorists countries in a vain attempt to talk them out of their hatred of us, raise our taxes, ruin our health care and march us toward socialism. McCain wants to win in Iraq, lower our taxes , fix but not junk the health care system and strengthen our democracy. It has never been a more stark choice. So the only thing left is to poke fun at the other side. Not to convince but to show my contempt for Obama.

WOW... he actually said he wanted all of that?

[GaryC 7]

The issues are already well known. Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, talk to terrorists countries in a vain attempt to talk them out of their hatred of us, raise our taxes, ruin our health care and march us toward socialism. McCain wants to win in Iraq, lower our taxes , fix but not junk the health care system and strengthen our democracy. It has never been a more stark choice. So the only thing left is to poke fun at the other side. Not to convince but to show my contempt for Obama.

So in other words....do nothing of real value...

Why don't you have contempt for Hillary? Just curious...

I have the same contempt for Hillary. On the issues they are about the same. But since Hillary isn't going to be the nominee there isn't any point in poking fun at her.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The issues are already well known. Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, talk to terrorists countries in a vain attempt to talk them out of their hatred of us, raise our taxes, ruin our health care and march us toward socialism. McCain wants to win in Iraq, lower our taxes , fix but not junk the health care system and strengthen our democracy. It has never been a more stark choice. So the only thing left is to poke fun at the other side. Not to convince but to show my contempt for Obama.

So in other words....do nothing of real value...

Why don't you have contempt for Hillary? Just curious...

Indeed - Its not like its not out there or anything like that. That oft-repeated quote "we must take things away from you for the common good" or something similar, next to a picture of HC and the Soviet Flag.

There's been whole range of threads over the past few years devoted to painting HC as a closet communist. Now she's apparently a "centrist" while Obama is the "most liberal ever". Don't you wish these people would make up their minds?

Edited May 29, 2008 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

ANd yet when the ####### is slung around about another candidate, then, well, it's just hogwash and doesn't matter...

Well it is really isn't it... I mean we're at the point of analysing random statements made at campaign rallies

These things might make for embarrassing verbal glitches but there isn't really much substance behind (most) of them. I don't buy the idea, for example, that McCain's comments about Czechoslovakia make him a candidate for Alzheimer's - or that Hillary's comments about Bosnia make her a liar (or that her recent reference to RFK means that she's somehow holding out for Obama to be assassinated).

Most of these things are (fun), but they aren't any more than that - certainly not enough to say "Oh, I'm not voting Obama - he thinks he sees dead people" - Yet these things seem to attract 90% of everyone's attention.

Wouldn't it be nice to win or lose an election strictly on the basis of what you (personally) said or did, rather than this "where there's smoke there's fire" nudge-nudge, wink-wink stuff.

Well, this sort of thing may not matter to you and especially to the Obama worshipers but to me it says something about his character. Whether or not this represents his views it does show that he is at least sympathetic to ideas like this. I don't know anyone that would attend a particular church for 20 years that can then say he does not hold with what was being said in that church. His other associations also give an insight into his character that will get a lot of play. His close association with Ayers and the weather underground will get some play. The fact he was willing to serve on the same board with him, go to his home and say he has a "friendly" relationship with an admitted terrorist says volumes of his character or at least his lack of judgment. For me and for a large portion of America that hasn't tasted the koolaid will see this as important.

I think a lot of people have an inordinate focus on how a candidate appears, and not what they actually stand for in terms of policy (i.e. what their being in office will actually do for people's quality of life).

You don't find that a little strange?

No.

Considering O & H have almost similar policies (except his HC), it has to come into play. It's called the whole package.

Actually I tend to look at it as fixating on the wrapping paper while ignoring the gift.

The issues are already well known. Obama wants to surrender in Iraq, talk to terrorists countries in a vain attempt to talk them out of their hatred of us, raise our taxes, ruin our health care and march us toward socialism. McCain wants to win in Iraq, lower our taxes , fix but not junk the health care system and strengthen our democracy. It has never been a more stark choice. So the only thing left is to poke fun at the other side. Not to convince but to show my contempt for Obama.

WOW... he actually said he wanted all of that?

When distilled to its final outcome that is precisely what he stands for.