Conquer Club

Democrat Candidates getting desperate

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Democrat Candidates getting desperate

Postby muy_thaiguy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:29 pm

Seems that both Clinton and Obama are getting desperate, enough to seriously campaign in Wyoming, which is commonly known as a Republican State that at best, tolerates the Clintons in the same country. Obama might be different, but, like I've said before, Wyoming hasn't voted for a Dem to be a President since probably Kennedy (which, oddly enough, was the last time Wyoming was campaigned by a Dem seriously).

Obama will come to my hometown himself (forget which day it was), and Bill Clinton as well. But on different days.
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Private 1st Class muy_thaiguy
 
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Location: Back in Black

Postby oggiss on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:30 pm

Overrated bs....

Although I cheer for Clinton, Bill that is
Record - 3582 p rank - 6 General
User avatar
Major oggiss
 
Posts: 1607
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:43 am
Location: Sweden - Probably the best country in the world

Postby Snorri1234 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:33 pm

...


They're not actually going to wyoming to receive votes for becoming the president, they're going there to receive votes to get an actual shot at becoming president. They both need the democratic delegates from Wyoming to become the nominee for the democratic party.


Seriously, how is that desperate? They don't actually depend on Wyoming to give them much in the general election...
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby muy_thaiguy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:37 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:...


They're not actually going to Wyoming to receive votes for becoming the president, they're going there to receive votes to get an actual shot at becoming president. They both need the democratic delegates from Wyoming to become the nominee for the democratic party.


Seriously, how is that desperate? They don't actually depend on Wyoming to give them much in the general election...
Because, they are pretty much neck and neck, and if one of them can get all 12 delegates, then it will give them a much needed boost.

As for my mention of voting Democrat, it was only in reference that if Clinton does win the nomination, then, even though Wyomingites are not much for McCain, would rather vote against her, if nothing else. That's what I meant by that part.
"Eh, whatever."
-Anonymous


What, you expected something deep or flashy?
User avatar
Private 1st Class muy_thaiguy
 
Posts: 12746
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 11:20 am
Location: Back in Black

Postby Napoleon Ier on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:38 pm

What I found interesting was watching the campaigning in Ohio where they competed for Industrial votes by playing my favorite "How many free trade agreements can we pledge to renege on in a day?" game.
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Postby Napoleon Ier on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:39 pm

What I found interesting was watching the campaigning in Ohio where they competed for Industrial votes by playing my favorite "How many free trade agreements can we pledge to renege on in a day?" game. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

McCain-Huckabee 2008!
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Postby Dekloren on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:41 pm

Hillary is going to win.

She was selcted along time ago.

McCain is going to throw it, and evrything we have been saying will come out only when he has the nomination.

Fucking songbird.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Dekloren
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby spurgistan on Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:29 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:What I found interesting was watching the campaigning in Ohio where they competed for Industrial votes by playing my favorite "How many free trade agreements can we pledge to renege on in a day?" game. Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

McCain-Huckabee 2008!


Are you aware of the edit button, by any chance? I don't think adding McCain/Huckabee was worth another post, never mind being somewhat ridiculous on it's own.

And I wouldn't say Democratic presidential candidates campaigning in Wyoming is really a bad thing, nor a sign of desperation. Isn't that kind of the point of our system of government, to include everybody? Even the 49 registered Democrats in Wyoming :wink:
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Postby Dekloren on Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:34 pm

Let the McCain bashing begin.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ma ... olbert.htm
Colbert on McCain: 'Clearly he has hundreds of years of experience'

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Raw Story
Thursday, March 6, 2008

In a segment of his comedy show, Stephen Colbert attacked Senator John McCain's claims to be the candidate with experience, pointing out that McCain is "experienced enough to know that some experience is relevant, like the fact that he has experience, while other experience, like his previous experiences, are irrelevant."

Last week, Barack Obama said in response to a question that "if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq" after a US withdrawal, "we will have to act." John McCain used that remark two days later to imply that Obama isn't aware there already are al Qaeda members in Iraq, to which Obama retorted that they weren't there before George Bush and John McCain decided to invade. McCain's final comeback was, "That's history, that's the past."

"Exactly," said Colbert. "It's ancient history. Who knows who invaded Iraq? I don't."

(Article continues below)


"But there's something here far more important than Iraq," Colbert went on. "Experience. Senator McCain is running on one thing. ... Look at the man. Clearly he has hundreds of years of experience. And yet when you question his record, he says this: 'I want to make it very clear: this is not about decisions that were made in the past.'"

"Now, 'decisions that were made in the past' is how people without experience define experience," Colbert observed. "So how can McCain claim to be more qualified of a candidate because of his experience yet also claim that any history of bad decisions is irrelevant?"

"There is an easier way to say it," Colbert continued, playing a clip of McCain saying, "We are where we are now." Colbert then explained that in McCain's view of the world, we're always "where we are" and never where "we were" or where "we will be."

"We can question him only in the past-less and future-less present," concluded Colbert. "This infinitely thin slice of existence. This zero-dimensional theoretical plot-point of the now, where eternity intersects time."

"And if that's what he's saying, the question is not 'Senator, how did you vote?' or 'Senator, when will we withdraw?' but 'Senator McCain -- are you high?"

This video is from Comedy Central's Colbert Report, broadcast March 4, 2008.


Transcript via closed captions

:: let's talk about john mccain. you know, i could actually see myself growing to like the guy. oh, i hate you! i'm sorry that just snuck up on me. last week mccain got another conservative endorsement. this time from evangelical minister john hagee and boy was mccain was honored to learn it. jim?

:: i'm very honored by pastor john hagee's endorsement today.

:: stephen: honored to be endorsed by hagee who has called the catholic church quote "a false cult system, the apostate church and the great whore." man, i wish this guy could have been alive in late 15th century spain. now, i'm a catholic, folks, but as a good christian i have to turn the other cheek. my guest does not. here to express my outrage for me is the president of catholic league and friend of the show william donna hue -- donohue. bill? are you ready? go nuts.

:: thank you, stephen. [ cheers and applause ] we at the catholic league are very familiar with reverend john hagee's long history of anti-catholic bigotry and the slant he has made our -- against our faith. in my estimation he is a real tool kit.

::

:: stephen: thank you. well put. for the record you called jon stewart an anti-catholic bigot when he pointed out the pope had a funny hat s. that right?

:: i did, indeed. thank you sir.

:: stephen: bill donohue. nation,. [ applause ] -- this is my favorite part of campaign season, when candidates start reaching across the aisle with their first tentative bitch slap. it started when tim russert asked barack obama whether he would reinvade iraq if american troops left and al qaeda resurged. take a look at obama's naive answer. if al qaeda is forming a base in iraq, then we will have toll act in a way that secures the american homeland and and our interest abroad.

:: stephen: if al qaeda. you know the old saying, if if's and but's were candy and nuts we already be bombing iran. luckily mccain set him straight and they went at it.

:: i have news for senator obama, al qaeda is in iraq.

:: i have some news for john mccain and that there -- is that there was no such thing as al qaeda in iraq until george bush and john mccain decided to invade iraq.

::

:: stephen: i have some news for both of them. angelina is totally pregnanters again. -- preggers again. [ cheers and applause ] but concerning his vote authorizing the war, mccain had the perfect comeback.

:: yesterday senator owe buma said well, we -- obama said well, we shouldn't have gone in this the first place and if we hadn't gone in this the first place, we wouldn't be facing this problem. that's history. that's the past.

:: stephen: exactly. ancient history. who knows who invaded iraq. i don't. in fact, senator obama if you keep complaining about the war, i'm going to have to conclude that he who smelt it, dealt it. that deserves applause. [ cheers and applause ] but there's something here far more important than iraq and it brings us to tonight's word. [ cheers and applause ] experience. senator mccain is running on one thing: jimmy?

:: i believe that my experience and background qualifies me to lead.

:: i have the judgment and the experience.

:: i have the experience, my life, my experience. experience. that's because i have the experience.

:: stephen: exactly. look at the man. clearly he has hundreds of years of experience. [ laughter ] and yes, when you question his record he says this: i want to make it very clear this is not about excisions that were made -- decisions that were made in the past. now decisions that were made in the past is how people without experience define experience. [ laughter ] so how can mccain claim to be more qualified of a candidate because of his experience yet also claim that any history of bad decisions is irrelevant? easy. experience. you see, he is experienced enough to know that some experience is relevant, like the fact that he has experience. while other experience like his previous experiences are irrelevant. plus, there soon easier way to say it. jim?

:: where we are -- we are where we are now. we are where we are now.

:: stephen: for all those obama man maniacs out there -- [ cheers and applause ] i'm not just taking john mccain's word for it. when he says we are where we are i verify with my where-are, meter. i made this. there's fans of arts and crafts tonight. i made this from an old sinetology -- scientology emeter. i don't need it anymore. this we are where needle measures where we are. as you can see presently we are where we are. now this we are where we were segment, that is experience. it cannot be questioned because we're not there. [ laughter ] that's why they call this experience like ex-wife. [ laughter ] it doesn't make sense to ask mccain where he will take us when we are where we will be because we're not there either. okay. we are -- we are where we are. this is where mccain says we can question him. re-- we can question him only in the pastless tense futureless present. this instantly slim slice of existence, this zero dimensional plot point of the now where eternity intersects time. if that is what he is saying, the question is not senator how did you vote or senator when will we withdraw but senator mccain, are you high? [ laughter ] and that's the word. we'll be right back. [ cheers and applause ]
User avatar
Private 1st Class Dekloren
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby GabonX on Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:05 pm

Actualy Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. The Army Rangers did battle with them in the northern regions of Iraq close to the start of the war.

For a period of time after the invasion the number of Al Qaeda members was much greater than it was before the international presence, but now that the Petraeus strategy (that McCain had supported the whole time) is being pursued instead of the Rumsefeld strategy, Al Qaeda is on the verge of colapse in Iraq.

Lets not forget that the reason for engaging Iraq wasn't to fight Al Qaeda, it was to ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction and to rid the country of Saddam. Both of those objectives have been accomplished.
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Postby Dekloren on Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:19 pm

Not even gonna bother.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Dekloren
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 6:11 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby CoffeeCream on Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:35 pm

The problem our party has is that Clinton is trying to get a re-vote done in Michigan & Florida. All the Democratic candidates promised not to campaign there because the state parties were being punished for moving up their primaries without permission. Now she wants another vote done there because she knows it will help her out. She's going back on her word. To his credit, Obama is holding to his promise.

Our real problem is Hillary. She's going to take the superdelegates or get re-votes in order to steal the nomination from Obama. That makes us look bad and only helps McCain. She needs to just stop cheating and win the nomination outright. If she can't beat Obama in a straight up contest then she needs to be "man enough" to drop out at the right time.
luns101 wrote:You should be able to convert a soul from 500 yards away armed only with a Gideon New Testament that you found at a Holiday Inn!!!!


muy_thaiguy wrote:Sir! Permission to do 50 push-ups with the Ark of the Covenant on my back?
User avatar
Corporal CoffeeCream
 
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:43 pm

Postby GabonX on Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:18 pm

Dekloren wrote:Not even gonna bother.
That's good. I like it when people don't write another page of drivel when I call them out on their inaccuracies...

Saves me alot of time
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Postby F1fth on Thu Mar 06, 2008 10:13 pm

GabonX wrote:Actualy Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. The Army Rangers did battle with them in the northern regions of Iraq close to the start of the war.

For a period of time after the invasion the number of Al Qaeda members was much greater than it was before the international presence, but now that the Petraeus strategy (that McCain had supported the whole time) is being pursued instead of the Rumsefeld strategy, Al Qaeda is on the verge of colapse in Iraq.

Lets not forget that the reason for engaging Iraq wasn't to fight Al Qaeda, it was to ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction and to rid the country of Saddam. Both of those objectives have been accomplished.


Well, I like how you assume that any opinion opposed to yours is drivel -- that's a nice sentiment -- but let me first pose the question: what's ties did the Al-Queda have with the Iraqi government?

And as for your reasons: ensuring that a country has no WMDs is not a valid excuse for invading that country. You had better know or be DAMN WELL SURE a country has those weapons before going in. Is it unreasonable that we be sure about something as important as WMDs before taking action? Because we certainly weren't. It cost us.

Secondly, was killing Saddam -- as bad as he was -- worth $500 billion and counting? Just ask yourself that. Was it worth the cost?
<>---------------------------<>
......Come play CC Mafia,
.....where happiness lies
<>----------[Link]----------<>

REMEMBER NORSE // REMEMBER DANCING MUSTARD
User avatar
Corporal F1fth
 
Posts: 1661
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:15 am

Postby GabonX on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:15 pm

F1fth wrote:
GabonX wrote:Actualy Al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. The Army Rangers did battle with them in the northern regions of Iraq close to the start of the war.

For a period of time after the invasion the number of Al Qaeda members was much greater than it was before the international presence, but now that the Petraeus strategy (that McCain had supported the whole time) is being pursued instead of the Rumsefeld strategy, Al Qaeda is on the verge of colapse in Iraq.

Lets not forget that the reason for engaging Iraq wasn't to fight Al Qaeda, it was to ensure that there were no weapons of mass destruction and to rid the country of Saddam. Both of those objectives have been accomplished.


Well, I like how you assume that any opinion opposed to yours is drivel -- that's a nice sentiment -- but let me first pose the question: what's ties did the Al-Queda have with the Iraqi government?

And as for your reasons: ensuring that a country has no WMDs is not a valid excuse for invading that country. You had better know or be DAMN WELL SURE a country has those weapons before going in. Is it unreasonable that we be sure about something as important as WMDs before taking action? Because we certainly weren't. It cost us.

Secondly, was killing Saddam -- as bad as he was -- worth $500 billion and counting? Just ask yourself that. Was it worth the cost?
Not any opinion opposed to mine is drivel, but opinions based on things that aren't true (the untrue statement that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before the international presence) are.

You are correct in asserting that invading a country just to ensure that they do not have weapons is wrong. Countries like Britain, France, the United States, India, and others that have a good record with human rights and show effort to improve their culture in this respect are not the same Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was guilty of Kurdish genocide. He invaded multiple neighboring states. He used real torture (we're talking about anal insertions with broken glass, not just water boarding) as a political tool and personal hobby. There is no statute of limitations for these crimes against humanity.

As for the country not having weapons of mass destruction you are merely assuming that he did not based on the fact that they were not found in large numbers. Mustard gas delivery systems were found, there is no disputing this. He had the technological ability to begin producing large amounts at any time he wished. Apparently gas warfare is not massly destructive enough for the media's standards...

Regarding the price of the war I would argue that it is worth the cost to do the moral and upright thing, which is to remove sociopathic leaders from positions of power. Quite frankly I have seen no change in the quality of my life and neither has anyone else as a result of this war...

While the war has been mismanaged greatly by the Bush administration (hopefully McCain will do better) I think you would be hard pressed to make an argument that Saddam Hussein should not have been prosecuted for his crimes. If you really believe that Saddam should be in power today then you’re even more hawkish then I am.
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Postby RiskTycoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:25 pm

as of last night... the voters really have no say... watch the super delegates! that is what matters now...
"How do you like that? Even among misfits you're a misfit!"
User avatar
Major RiskTycoon
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby GabonX on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:42 pm

What else is new?

The fact that different states award delegates differently makes the whole thing kind of a joke too. If Texas and Ohio were awarded in full to the winner Hillary would be doing much better right now. Either all states should split the delegates or none of them should. The way it is now makes it look like there is an objective standard when it's much more chaotic in reality.
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Postby RiskTycoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:45 pm

yeah, it is kinda odd that way.....
"How do you like that? Even among misfits you're a misfit!"
User avatar
Major RiskTycoon
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Postby savant on Fri Mar 07, 2008 4:47 pm

GabonX wrote:Regarding the price of the war I would argue that it is worth the cost to do the moral and upright thing, which is to remove sociopathic leaders from positions of power. Quite frankly I have seen no change in the quality of my life and neither has anyone else as a result of this war...


You must live in a part of the world where either oil doesn't exist or are filthy rich.

This war has escalated turbulence in the Middle East, causing for a slower export rate of oil, thus increasing oil prices. Coupled by political unrest in Venezuela, a known hater of the US, and a slowdown of oil production there, prices of oil are fluctuating from 95$ to 100$ per barrel (hitting 100.88$ per barrel less than two weeks ago).

Increasing costs of oil and gas applied onto corporations that deliver your food, clothes, and other tangible items are passed onto the consumer ultimately.

If the quality of your life can stay the same knowing that you pay a fair amount more for the same stuff you purchased a year ago or the year before that as a direct result of this war (not factoring in general inflationary rates) and you can sleep peacefully at night, then more power to you. But to assume that everyone else hasn't noticeably felt a pinch in their lifestyle as a result of this war is pretty silly.
User avatar
Captain savant
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:26 pm

Postby silvanricky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:28 pm

F1fth wrote:Secondly, was killing Saddam -- as bad as he was -- worth $500 billion and counting? Just ask yourself that. Was it worth the cost?


I ask myself this every once in awhile as it relates to Iran's leader. I would definitely like the guy to be offed but I'm not sure what it's worth to us as far as money
User avatar
Corporal silvanricky
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:13 pm

Postby unriggable on Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:09 pm

GabonX, saying that there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq now is about as dumb as that thing Ahmadinedjad said about there not being gays in his country. Neither of them are true. There are terrorists in Iraq - the number is very low but they are there. We don't need to be there to stop them since they are dormant at this point.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Grooveman2007 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:49 pm

unriggable wrote:GabonX, saying that there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq now is about as dumb as that thing Ahmadinedjad said about there not being gays in his country. Neither of them are true. There are terrorists in Iraq - the number is very low but they are there. We don't need to be there to stop them since they are dormant at this point.


They're domant because of the surge and the Petraeus stratagy. If we just pull out they'll be back to blowing themselves up in no time. We need to wait untill Iraq can handle its own defense.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.

-Kurt Vonnegut
Private 1st Class Grooveman2007
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:08 pm
Location: Minnesota

Postby Snorri1234 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:27 am

GabonX wrote:What else is new?

The fact that different states award delegates differently makes the whole thing kind of a joke too. If Texas and Ohio were awarded in full to the winner Hillary would be doing much better right now. Either all states should split the delegates or none of them should. The way it is now makes it look like there is an objective standard when it's much more chaotic in reality.


I thought it was only the republicans who awarded the whole state to the winner.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby GabonX on Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:07 pm

unriggable wrote:GabonX, saying that there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq now is about as dumb as that thing Ahmadinedjad said about there not being gays in his country. Neither of them are true. There are terrorists in Iraq - the number is very low but they are there. We don't need to be there to stop them since they are dormant at this point.

Well while there are some gays in Iran there are also some Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. In Iraq the international presence has done a rather good job at damaging Al Qaeda while in Iran the Islamic Theocracy has been quite succesful in their efforts to execute homosexuals.

http://www.agi.it/world/news/2008021115 ... 3-art.html
The above link reports on how recent letters recovered from Al Qaeda show that the organization in Iraq is in crisis. One commander details how his forces have gone from 600 down to 20 due to succesful American efforts to win over the Iraqi population. Keep in mind that this is Al Qaeda's words, not those of the United States.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=ira ... a=N&tab=wn
This link illustrates what Ahmadinedjad meant when he said there are no gays in Iran.
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Postby GabonX on Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:48 pm

What's the matter? I guess it's hard to argue against facts...
User avatar
Captain GabonX
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:38 am

Next

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Evil Semp