This happy Obama talk is deja vu to me...Honestly, if Obama becomes the nominee...just like Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, and even Mondale before them...you are back into the idealistic (and weak) Democratic candidate with less legislative history, no military experience, and absolutely zero economic experience against a stronger Republican candidate in McCain. McCain matches up way better to Obama than Hillary...and the Republican crazies out there WILL swift boat him...so I see all this feel good "change talk" as hot air that plays right into the Neo-Con November strategy. At least Hillary is familar with the bullshit of politics and has the smarts and the strength to fight back.
Iraq is in the past, and it is stupid that people are going to throw Hillary under the bus for her vote. It really is a non-issue because everybody knew the war was a joke...but Bush and the Neo-Cons in Congress had all the power and could do whatever they wanted then. Obama's vote didn't preventy anything and neither would have Hillary's vote. Letting Iraq be the wedge issue between the Democratic candidates is Karl Rove's wet dream.
When Obama spends less time talking about his Iraq vote of the past and puts his candidacy on the line to address Afghanistan and what he is going to do to get the troops out of there...then I will take him seriously. That hasn't happened yet and until then, Obama is simply trucker hat trendy.
My point is...while everyone wants to talk Iraq, Afghanistan (aka West Pakistan) is where most people think is where we should be or should have been from the start. We are still there and there is no plan discussed by anyone on the Democratic side of how to win there and get out. If you think Obama can go up against McCain on that issue and win the White House...then you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.
You need to have someone on the Democratic side that is not anti-war Iraq...as you will not get elected, especially when you are up against someone like McCain. Look at history, Look at what they make Dukakis out to be...it will be the same in 2008. If something forbid happened this year that brings security to the forefront, McCain will be elected, not Obama.
oe, you won't win any points by disregarding anyone in these conversations. you gotta listen and respectfully disagree, maybe.
while i'm an obama supporter, bryden's onto an impt point that will have to be addressed sooner or later - probably in a presidential campaign, though, not in a primary campaign.
comparing Obama to Dukakis is like comparing a Yugo to a Prius, yeah they're both cars, and fuel efficient, but clearly one is far supperior in technology and style.
Won't matter, Beta.....unfortunately for Obama, should he become the Democratic nominee, the foreseeable inheritance of the war situation is only one of several major issues with which he has little if any experience, and this will sway the vote eventually. He will have a tough time looking quite so attractive when push comes to shove during the Rep v. Dem. debates. Several here have posted that his lack of experience is not a problem, because Obama is a tremendous team builder, and that he will surround himself with the right people. Hey, that could happen, although, there again, it IS speculative, since there really is no accomplishment-based evidence for that either. That argument also seems a little flawed anyway, in that, at some point, if experience and previous accomplishments continue to be discounted, then couldn't the party run ANY style-driven candidate up the flagpole?
Forgetting all that for a moment, I'll throw out that I would LOOOOOOVE to witness a debate where basic party ideologies were listed...maybe not even argued...just enumerated. Candidates flatly stating "here's the list of party ideals I believe in"... I'll submit that few average citizens really understand the fundamental differences between parties. I doubt that many actually could articulate what it means to be a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, a socialist, an anarchist, etc. I think this would prove eye-opening for many.
as if there really are such things. as if the parties were homogenous. republicans seem to have liked mr bush ok despite the fact that i can't believe he has measured up to almost any of what 'basic conservative ideologies' might be.
Seriously? I think that separate parties existence alone proves the error in that.
No, Pres. Bush is not a shining exemple of the party put into practice, nor was Bill Clinton for the opposite side. But to not get so blinded by the actions of a given politician...well that's my point. My point is not that the Rep and Dem parties have not become almost more similar than different, which they have, but that a voter / supporter SHOULD know and understand the root ideals.
through all of these threads, i've often asked myself where campaigning stops and propoganda begins. much of what is being thrown out in this thread is simply trying to smear hillary, saying look at all the bad things she's done, what an awful person she is - i would characterize such posts as propoganda. i think it has something to do with youthful enthusiasm for a candidate, a desire to convince the world that you have found the answer in someone or something.
is it any coincidence that these posters have a distinct agitprop appeal?
tha iconography has always existed. look at the great political graphics of the American past, from teddy Roosevelt to Eisenhower. If anything it is a good sign that people give a shit again.
Ok so Im being dismissive. The problem is he has addressed these things at length but no one seems to notice because all they ever see on CNN are the victory speech one-liners.
"We are still there and there is no plan discussed by anyone on the Democratic side of how to win there and get out. If you think Obama can go up against McCain on that issue and win the White House...then you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about."
Theres something implicit in the way you and McCain frame this question that underscores the reasons why US has failed in the middle east for the better part of the century. This isnt WW2. This isnt about 'beating them' and 'winning'. In fact the more people you kill there, the further back you put us and the worse the backlash you have sown for the future. This is about allowing the Iraqis to control their own destinies and negotiating a peace. All of the gains weve made there have been the result of diplomatic changes. In Anbar, the Kurdish North, Basra and the south, the more troops only meant reminding the local people there that they were an occupied people. Of course everything for a time needs to be backed up by some measure of military presence, but McCain is so lost in this complete the mission mania he doesnt know how to let go and make that transition in mentality. That the roll of the US is not to kill everyone who doesnt agree with us, but to be a partner in the worlds effort to achieve peace. Thats not weakness, that is exactly what real strength means. Thats what fundamental change means, and until the people in charge are people who understand that we will only continue to sow our own failures.
I think deep down americans know that this is true, and have only been waiting for someone with the courage to stand up and say it.
Hillarys problem is she doesnt actually know what she believes. Iraq is not in the past. Her decision to be complicit in this war reveals a fundamental failure in her judgment, and the same failed assumptions about the Americas roll in this world that Bush and McCain hold.
Chocolate City"
Uh, what's happening CC?
They still call it the White House
But that's a temporary condition, too.
Can you dig it, CC?
To each his reach
And if I don't cop, it ain't mine to have
But I'll be reachin' for ya
'Cause I love ya, CC.
Right on.
There's a lot of chocolate cities, around
We've got Newark, we've got Gary
Somebody told me we got L.A.
And we're working on Atlanta
But you're the capital, CC
Gainin' on ya!
Get down
Gainin' on ya!
Movin' in and on ya
Gainin' on ya!
Can't you feel my breath, heh
Gainin' on ya!
All up around your neck, heh heh
Hey, CC!
They say your jivin' game, it can't be changed
But on the positive side,
You're my piece of the rock
And I love you, CC.
Can you dig it?
Hey, uh, we didn't get our forty acres and a mule
But we did get you, CC, heh, yeah
Gainin' on ya
Movin' in and around ya
God bless CC and its vanilla suburbs
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya! (heh!)
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
What's happening, blood?
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Yeah!
What's happening, black?
Brother black, blood even
Yeah-ahh, just funnin'
Gettin' down
Ah, blood to blood
Ah, players to ladies
The last percentage count was eighty
You don't need the bullet when you got the ballot
Are you up for the downstroke, CC?
Chocolate city
Are you with me out there?
And when they come to march on ya
Tell 'em to make sure they got their James Brown pass
And don't be surprised if Ali is in the White House
Reverend Ike, Secretary of the Treasure
Richard Pryor, Minister of Education
Stevie Wonder, Secretary of FINE arts
And Miss Aretha Franklin, the First Lady
Are you out there, CC?
A chocolate city is no dream
It's my piece of the rock and I dig you, CC
God bless Chocolate City and its (gainin' on ya!) vanilla suburbs
Can y'all get to that?
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Easin' in
Gainin' on ya!
In yo' stuff
Gainin' on ya!
Huh, can't get enough
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Be mo' funk, be mo' funk
Gainin' on ya!
Can we funk you too
Gainin' on ya!
Right on, chocolate city!
Yeah, get deep
Real deep
Heh
Be mo' funk
Mmmph, heh
Get deep
Bad
Unh, heh
Just got New York, I'm told
oe...my definition of "win" had nothing to do with killing people, that is just what you think and ran off with. What I mean by "win" is to leave with a degree of honor...not only in how we as citizens present ourselves to those in the world, but how we provide respect for our own military. I am not pro-military by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think our full-time military AND part-time, turned full-time reservists have performed quite admirably...despite being led into a ditch of dispair by a dry drunk who has no business being President.
"my definition of "win" had nothing to do with killing people, that is just what you think and ran off with."
What exactly is it you think a military does? They arent your friendly local neighborhood police, their job is to hunt down and kill people. No one is arguing they dont do that very efficiently, the question is how productive is it to have our troops there doing that for 100 more years.
I dont how I am supposed to assume you mean anything different by 'winning', since you seem to find McCains conception of the 'War on radical islamic jihad' compelling, and since you equate diplomatic solutions with weakness and military solutions with strength.
"
I wholeheartedly disagree that gains have been made in Iraq mostly as the result of "diplomatic changes". The Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders finally turned on al Qaeda because it finally occurred to them what a murderous, inhuman ideology they represented.
Sure diplomacy is important, but also realize that most diplomatic efforts mean very little without the prestige of power (including military) to back them up. I don't think we should kill everybody we disagree with either. But the thing is—WE DON'T. We do in fact choose our battles... and maybe the problem with the whole Iraq war situation was that our leaders chose the WRONG BATTLE.
"
This really convinces you? Dont you get what a psychotic idea the "prestige of power" is? Think how bad things have gotten when people are saying "Hey, at least we arrent like those guys blowing themselves up in schools and drilling power tools into eachothers brains!" Isnt that a bit like saying "Hey I was drunk and ran down a family of four in the street, but Im no Jeffrey Dahmer!" or "Hey, weve killed most of million people over there, but at least were no Hitler!"
The sad fact that americans are going to have to come to terms with for the next decade is that we lost our honor the day we preemtively invaded another country. We will probably pay for this transgression for the next 50 years, in diplomatic terms, economically, but most of all in the respect we have lost in the eyes most everyone in the world, the arab world most of all. The least we can do is begin to repair the damage now rather than piling on down this maniacal mutual death-pact McCain seems so hell bent on.
I have no illusions about how profoundly evil Saddam was, nor do I disagree that, all things being equal, a world without him is preferable to world with him. But then again I think most people in this world would say the same about bush, but Im sure you would agree that wouldnt excuse say china from invading, bombing most of our cities, killing a million people and occupying our country for 100 years. The problem is all things are not equal. Our methods have negated whatever noble intentions we may have had, and the lives of people in Iraq five years later and under our supposedly benevolent stewardship are still worse than they were under Saddam Hussein.
Again I have the greatest sympathy for your brother and cousin, finding themselves now trying to make local sense of a situation as fucked up as all this. But I dont think we are looking at the big picture. Those foreign fighters are there because we are there. And Im not just making the argument that al queda never existed in Iraq before we invaded, although I think think its important to note. They are there to support a regional blood-feud which we have in the most hideous way possible injected ourselves into. We have committed atrocities there, we are are torturing people, we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in that country. And though Saddam was as despicable a ruler as there has been in the last several decades you must concede we have given the people of Iraq ample excuse to hate us too. This may be a subtle distinction to you, but it certainly is not lost on the Iraqi people. Now of course there are those that will say this is a war, and terrible things inevitably happen during a war, but that is exactly my point. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much experience you bring to the table, very terrible things are bound to happen when you invade a country. There are inevitable consequences to brining a military to bare, and those consequences must be soberly understood. To argue the benefit of that action outweighs its inevitable horrors is a difficult burden of proof to bare, and in this case very few would agree that that burden has of proof has been met, the Iraqi people least among them.
In the simplest terms, there were ways to deal with Saddam and the Arab world in general that did not involve preemptively invading that country and committing the horrors we have committed, ways that would have led to outcomes far more preferable to the one we are in. I dont think John McCain has the kind of mindset that allows him to see that. Part of it is that he is of a culture in washington that sees the arab world in a profoundly unsophisticated way. In their ignorance they paint with a kind of brush that simply equates Iran with Al Qaeda with Saddam with the Muslim Brotherhood, with little or no understanding of how different these groups are in aim and method, nor the complex social and political realities of the countries which they inhabit. 'Jihadism' as an idea, if you could even describe it as a single thing, is much less an organized military enemy than a ideological phantasm, designed to goad us into doing exactly what we have been doing these past 6 years. As we engage that part of the world militarily, we vindicate people like Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad, we fulfill their propaganda, and justify hatred among general populations that would otherwise have no use for people like that. I mean something like the "War on Terrorism" is so schizophrenic in conception its hard for me to believe people who call themselves experts could even entertain it. How does one make war on a tactic? Weve now entered into a battle under terms so ludicrous they doom us to just keep killing until we exhaust ourselves or kill every living person in the middle east. The only solution that avoids those outcomes is to begin to engage in a diplomatic way the actual political situations there. I sincerely worry this election is may be our last real chance to do that.
If she goes through with her plans to secure the nomination at any cost -- even if it means inciting chaos at the convention, usurping the popular vote, and losing the general election -- it will prove once and for all that Hillary's only core conviction is her own lust for power and sense of entitlement.
If the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated without holding elections that actually count, I will withdraw from the Democratic party and never vote for a Democrat again for ANY office as long as I live. This is truly disgusting.
With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of a Democratic Party rules.
If Clinton were to win this way, she would, I believe, guarantee the Democrats will lose in November. A bitter, polarizing, divisive battle for Michigan and Florida with the result being a Clinton nomination would prompt large numbers of independents and Obama Democrats to stay home or even vote McCain. Would the Clintons sacrifice their party for their own ambition? You bet they would.
Hillary supporters should be antagonized, but don't blame the messenger; blame the ones in her campaign who are supposedly acting on your behalf. Tell them loud and clear that any such "scorched earth" tactics would only be counterproductive to Hillary's campaign and detrimental to the Democrats in general.
I don't find that posting actual news is trolling. It is about Hillary and what she is planning to do. Papers like the NYTs, that actually support her, are also posting articles in their own paper. Are they trolling themselves?
first of all the daily kos is not the new york times. sorry. second most of these "articles" are posted with the intent of somehow trying to make hillary look bad. i would call that trolling.
and such posts as Hey Hill, you signed the fuckin pledge. Deal with it. are not terrible objective or insightful, but i know i'm about to be overrun by the obama cadre, so i'm out.
If Hillary has any shred of decency, she needs to nip this thing in the bud by stating unequivocally that her campaign will abide by the party's nominating decision, by the rules already spelled out and agreed to by all candidates. And she needs to do it today.
Anything less will make her come off as a power-hungry egomaniac, would probably lead to even bigger wins by Obama in the upcoming primaries, and alienate many of the "superdelegates" she needs so badly. By that point, even Michigan and Florida wouldn't be enough to save her.
If Hillary has any shred of decency, she needs to nip this thing in the bud by stating unequivocally that her campaign will abide by the party's nominating decision, by the rules already spelled out and agreed to by all candidates.
good post, lig. i will say that not all the candidates did agree to the way the dnc is holding the primaries. i think it does show barack's inexperience that he did not put his name on the ballot in michigan and hillary did. she could see a tight primary race coming and wanted to cya, and it's worked for her. as a michigander, i will say there are a lot of disgruntled voters here for both candidates. if the delegates are not seated there is a fair chance that both states (swing states) will go republican in the general election.
she could see a tight primary race coming and wanted to cya, and it's worked for her. as a michigander, i will say there are a lot of disgruntled voters here for both candidates. if the delegates are not seated there is a fair chance that both states (swing states) will go republican in the general election.
PLEASE! pray tell when, did HRC and her"cadre" of win at costs pirates see this was going to be a tight race? when? when she was 30 points ahead? GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!
no, she was covering her ass. i thought it was a smart move at the time when she put her name on the ballot and the other candidates did not. is it fair? no, but that's politics, and that's why i like hillary. she's smart like that and gets things done. i know the neophyte obama supporters are calling foul and that's half the reason why obama supporters like him. they think he is "above" that, but to me that's politics and i want the person who will get things done. it's a dirty business, and you have to be smart. frankly i don't want anyone honorable, but a bit naive dealing with mahmoud ahmadinejad.
I want a president that has the backing of the American people when he or she talks to mahmoud ahmadinejad. Hillary is hated by half the country, she will not be able to govern correctly.
I hate to repeat this, but she is the last icon of old politics in this race, let's put this ugly political era behind us.
I find the whole democrat primary system insulting to the voters. The whole superdeligate thing is crap IMO.
So the party doesn't trust the people, their party faithful, to pick the best canidate for the gen election. So they have these heavily weighted deligates cast 40% of the vote which is made up of party insiders...like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, members of congress, etc.
The superdelegates squashed Gary Hart's run in '84...see how that worked out. Mondale got killed in the general.
The voters will always prove they are smarter than the politicians.
I agree the whole primary process is flawed and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, hopefully Obama will win convincingly enough in the upcoming primaries that the superdelegates won't have any choice but to back his nomination.
Run Hillary Run
Thats what inspires me about politics. I just love all these candidates people can lump for.
This happy Obama talk is deja vu to me...Honestly, if Obama becomes the nominee...just like Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, and even Mondale before them...you are back into the idealistic (and weak) Democratic candidate with less legislative history, no military experience, and absolutely zero economic experience against a stronger Republican candidate in McCain. McCain matches up way better to Obama than Hillary...and the Republican crazies out there WILL swift boat him...so I see all this feel good "change talk" as hot air that plays right into the Neo-Con November strategy. At least Hillary is familar with the bullshit of politics and has the smarts and the strength to fight back.
Iraq is in the past, and it is stupid that people are going to throw Hillary under the bus for her vote. It really is a non-issue because everybody knew the war was a joke...but Bush and the Neo-Cons in Congress had all the power and could do whatever they wanted then. Obama's vote didn't preventy anything and neither would have Hillary's vote. Letting Iraq be the wedge issue between the Democratic candidates is Karl Rove's wet dream.
When Obama spends less time talking about his Iraq vote of the past and puts his candidacy on the line to address Afghanistan and what he is going to do to get the troops out of there...then I will take him seriously. That hasn't happened yet and until then, Obama is simply trucker hat trendy.
I wouldnt worry about it, bryden clearly doesnt at all know what hes talking about.
My point is...while everyone wants to talk Iraq, Afghanistan (aka West Pakistan) is where most people think is where we should be or should have been from the start. We are still there and there is no plan discussed by anyone on the Democratic side of how to win there and get out. If you think Obama can go up against McCain on that issue and win the White House...then you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about.
You need to have someone on the Democratic side that is not anti-war Iraq...as you will not get elected, especially when you are up against someone like McCain. Look at history, Look at what they make Dukakis out to be...it will be the same in 2008. If something forbid happened this year that brings security to the forefront, McCain will be elected, not Obama.
oe, you won't win any points by disregarding anyone in these conversations. you gotta listen and respectfully disagree, maybe.
while i'm an obama supporter, bryden's onto an impt point that will have to be addressed sooner or later - probably in a presidential campaign, though, not in a primary campaign.
comparing Obama to Dukakis is like comparing a Yugo to a Prius, yeah they're both cars, and fuel efficient, but clearly one is far supperior in technology and style.
Won't matter, Beta.....unfortunately for Obama, should he become the Democratic nominee, the foreseeable inheritance of the war situation is only one of several major issues with which he has little if any experience, and this will sway the vote eventually. He will have a tough time looking quite so attractive when push comes to shove during the Rep v. Dem. debates. Several here have posted that his lack of experience is not a problem, because Obama is a tremendous team builder, and that he will surround himself with the right people. Hey, that could happen, although, there again, it IS speculative, since there really is no accomplishment-based evidence for that either. That argument also seems a little flawed anyway, in that, at some point, if experience and previous accomplishments continue to be discounted, then couldn't the party run ANY style-driven candidate up the flagpole?
Forgetting all that for a moment, I'll throw out that I would LOOOOOOVE to witness a debate where basic party ideologies were listed...maybe not even argued...just enumerated. Candidates flatly stating "here's the list of party ideals I believe in"... I'll submit that few average citizens really understand the fundamental differences between parties. I doubt that many actually could articulate what it means to be a conservative, a liberal, a libertarian, a socialist, an anarchist, etc. I think this would prove eye-opening for many.
as if there really are such things. as if the parties were homogenous. republicans seem to have liked mr bush ok despite the fact that i can't believe he has measured up to almost any of what 'basic conservative ideologies' might be.
Some of our best presidents had little experience.
"...as if there really are such things..."
Seriously? I think that separate parties existence alone proves the error in that.
No, Pres. Bush is not a shining exemple of the party put into practice, nor was Bill Clinton for the opposite side. But to not get so blinded by the actions of a given politician...well that's my point. My point is not that the Rep and Dem parties have not become almost more similar than different, which they have, but that a voter / supporter SHOULD know and understand the root ideals.
Why else support a candidate?
Never said that CAN'T happen, e ....
through all of these threads, i've often asked myself where campaigning stops and propoganda begins. much of what is being thrown out in this thread is simply trying to smear hillary, saying look at all the bad things she's done, what an awful person she is - i would characterize such posts as propoganda. i think it has something to do with youthful enthusiasm for a candidate, a desire to convince the world that you have found the answer in someone or something.
is it any coincidence that these posters have a distinct agitprop appeal?
politics is the new punk.
tha iconography has always existed. look at the great political graphics of the American past, from teddy Roosevelt to Eisenhower. If anything it is a good sign that people give a shit again.
i like ike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va5Btg4kkUE
"If anything it is a good sign that people give a shit again."
Well then it wouldn't be punk!
Ok so Im being dismissive. The problem is he has addressed these things at length but no one seems to notice because all they ever see on CNN are the victory speech one-liners.
"We are still there and there is no plan discussed by anyone on the Democratic side of how to win there and get out. If you think Obama can go up against McCain on that issue and win the White House...then you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about."
Theres something implicit in the way you and McCain frame this question that underscores the reasons why US has failed in the middle east for the better part of the century. This isnt WW2. This isnt about 'beating them' and 'winning'. In fact the more people you kill there, the further back you put us and the worse the backlash you have sown for the future. This is about allowing the Iraqis to control their own destinies and negotiating a peace. All of the gains weve made there have been the result of diplomatic changes. In Anbar, the Kurdish North, Basra and the south, the more troops only meant reminding the local people there that they were an occupied people. Of course everything for a time needs to be backed up by some measure of military presence, but McCain is so lost in this complete the mission mania he doesnt know how to let go and make that transition in mentality. That the roll of the US is not to kill everyone who doesnt agree with us, but to be a partner in the worlds effort to achieve peace. Thats not weakness, that is exactly what real strength means. Thats what fundamental change means, and until the people in charge are people who understand that we will only continue to sow our own failures.
I think deep down americans know that this is true, and have only been waiting for someone with the courage to stand up and say it.
Hillarys problem is she doesnt actually know what she believes. Iraq is not in the past. Her decision to be complicit in this war reveals a fundamental failure in her judgment, and the same failed assumptions about the Americas roll in this world that Bush and McCain hold.
Rush Limbaugh now loves Mac, begins fundraiser for Hillary (so that McCain can beat her)
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020708/content/01125114.guest.html
Song for Obama;
Chocolate City"
Uh, what's happening CC?
They still call it the White House
But that's a temporary condition, too.
Can you dig it, CC?
To each his reach
And if I don't cop, it ain't mine to have
But I'll be reachin' for ya
'Cause I love ya, CC.
Right on.
There's a lot of chocolate cities, around
We've got Newark, we've got Gary
Somebody told me we got L.A.
And we're working on Atlanta
But you're the capital, CC
Gainin' on ya!
Get down
Gainin' on ya!
Movin' in and on ya
Gainin' on ya!
Can't you feel my breath, heh
Gainin' on ya!
All up around your neck, heh heh
Hey, CC!
They say your jivin' game, it can't be changed
But on the positive side,
You're my piece of the rock
And I love you, CC.
Can you dig it?
Hey, uh, we didn't get our forty acres and a mule
But we did get you, CC, heh, yeah
Gainin' on ya
Movin' in and around ya
God bless CC and its vanilla suburbs
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya! (heh!)
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
What's happening, blood?
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Yeah!
What's happening, black?
Brother black, blood even
Yeah-ahh, just funnin'
Gettin' down
Ah, blood to blood
Ah, players to ladies
The last percentage count was eighty
You don't need the bullet when you got the ballot
Are you up for the downstroke, CC?
Chocolate city
Are you with me out there?
And when they come to march on ya
Tell 'em to make sure they got their James Brown pass
And don't be surprised if Ali is in the White House
Reverend Ike, Secretary of the Treasure
Richard Pryor, Minister of Education
Stevie Wonder, Secretary of FINE arts
And Miss Aretha Franklin, the First Lady
Are you out there, CC?
A chocolate city is no dream
It's my piece of the rock and I dig you, CC
God bless Chocolate City and its (gainin' on ya!) vanilla suburbs
Can y'all get to that?
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Easin' in
Gainin' on ya!
In yo' stuff
Gainin' on ya!
Huh, can't get enough
Gainin' on ya!
Gainin' on ya!
Be mo' funk, be mo' funk
Gainin' on ya!
Can we funk you too
Gainin' on ya!
Right on, chocolate city!
Yeah, get deep
Real deep
Heh
Be mo' funk
Mmmph, heh
Get deep
Bad
Unh, heh
Just got New York, I'm told
oe...my definition of "win" had nothing to do with killing people, that is just what you think and ran off with. What I mean by "win" is to leave with a degree of honor...not only in how we as citizens present ourselves to those in the world, but how we provide respect for our own military. I am not pro-military by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think our full-time military AND part-time, turned full-time reservists have performed quite admirably...despite being led into a ditch of dispair by a dry drunk who has no business being President.
"my definition of "win" had nothing to do with killing people, that is just what you think and ran off with."
What exactly is it you think a military does? They arent your friendly local neighborhood police, their job is to hunt down and kill people. No one is arguing they dont do that very efficiently, the question is how productive is it to have our troops there doing that for 100 more years.
I dont how I am supposed to assume you mean anything different by 'winning', since you seem to find McCains conception of the 'War on radical islamic jihad' compelling, and since you equate diplomatic solutions with weakness and military solutions with strength.
"
I wholeheartedly disagree that gains have been made in Iraq mostly as the result of "diplomatic changes". The Iraqi Sunni tribal leaders finally turned on al Qaeda because it finally occurred to them what a murderous, inhuman ideology they represented.
Sure diplomacy is important, but also realize that most diplomatic efforts mean very little without the prestige of power (including military) to back them up. I don't think we should kill everybody we disagree with either. But the thing is—WE DON'T. We do in fact choose our battles... and maybe the problem with the whole Iraq war situation was that our leaders chose the WRONG BATTLE.
"
This really convinces you? Dont you get what a psychotic idea the "prestige of power" is? Think how bad things have gotten when people are saying "Hey, at least we arrent like those guys blowing themselves up in schools and drilling power tools into eachothers brains!" Isnt that a bit like saying "Hey I was drunk and ran down a family of four in the street, but Im no Jeffrey Dahmer!" or "Hey, weve killed most of million people over there, but at least were no Hitler!"
The sad fact that americans are going to have to come to terms with for the next decade is that we lost our honor the day we preemtively invaded another country. We will probably pay for this transgression for the next 50 years, in diplomatic terms, economically, but most of all in the respect we have lost in the eyes most everyone in the world, the arab world most of all. The least we can do is begin to repair the damage now rather than piling on down this maniacal mutual death-pact McCain seems so hell bent on.
how do you guys have so much free time to write these long ass posts? more imporantly, do you actually expect anyone to read them?
I have no illusions about how profoundly evil Saddam was, nor do I disagree that, all things being equal, a world without him is preferable to world with him. But then again I think most people in this world would say the same about bush, but Im sure you would agree that wouldnt excuse say china from invading, bombing most of our cities, killing a million people and occupying our country for 100 years. The problem is all things are not equal. Our methods have negated whatever noble intentions we may have had, and the lives of people in Iraq five years later and under our supposedly benevolent stewardship are still worse than they were under Saddam Hussein.
Again I have the greatest sympathy for your brother and cousin, finding themselves now trying to make local sense of a situation as fucked up as all this. But I dont think we are looking at the big picture. Those foreign fighters are there because we are there. And Im not just making the argument that al queda never existed in Iraq before we invaded, although I think think its important to note. They are there to support a regional blood-feud which we have in the most hideous way possible injected ourselves into. We have committed atrocities there, we are are torturing people, we have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in that country. And though Saddam was as despicable a ruler as there has been in the last several decades you must concede we have given the people of Iraq ample excuse to hate us too. This may be a subtle distinction to you, but it certainly is not lost on the Iraqi people. Now of course there are those that will say this is a war, and terrible things inevitably happen during a war, but that is exactly my point. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much experience you bring to the table, very terrible things are bound to happen when you invade a country. There are inevitable consequences to brining a military to bare, and those consequences must be soberly understood. To argue the benefit of that action outweighs its inevitable horrors is a difficult burden of proof to bare, and in this case very few would agree that that burden has of proof has been met, the Iraqi people least among them.
In the simplest terms, there were ways to deal with Saddam and the Arab world in general that did not involve preemptively invading that country and committing the horrors we have committed, ways that would have led to outcomes far more preferable to the one we are in. I dont think John McCain has the kind of mindset that allows him to see that. Part of it is that he is of a culture in washington that sees the arab world in a profoundly unsophisticated way. In their ignorance they paint with a kind of brush that simply equates Iran with Al Qaeda with Saddam with the Muslim Brotherhood, with little or no understanding of how different these groups are in aim and method, nor the complex social and political realities of the countries which they inhabit. 'Jihadism' as an idea, if you could even describe it as a single thing, is much less an organized military enemy than a ideological phantasm, designed to goad us into doing exactly what we have been doing these past 6 years. As we engage that part of the world militarily, we vindicate people like Bin Laden and Ahmadinejad, we fulfill their propaganda, and justify hatred among general populations that would otherwise have no use for people like that. I mean something like the "War on Terrorism" is so schizophrenic in conception its hard for me to believe people who call themselves experts could even entertain it. How does one make war on a tactic? Weve now entered into a battle under terms so ludicrous they doom us to just keep killing until we exhaust ourselves or kill every living person in the middle east. The only solution that avoids those outcomes is to begin to engage in a diplomatic way the actual political situations there. I sincerely worry this election is may be our last real chance to do that.
fuck fleetwood mac.
that was horrible. sorry i started us down that path.
(somebody wondered where this thread went)
message from Hillary:
"I'm not dead yet..."
"Oh, you're not fooling anyone you know.....she's not at all well"
Clinton Plans A War
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/clinton-plans-a.html
Would the Clintons sacrifice their party for their own ambition? You bet they would.
Daily Kos: Corking the Bat: Hillary's Not So Secret Plan to Steal the Nomination
If she goes through with her plans to secure the nomination at any cost -- even if it means inciting chaos at the convention, usurping the popular vote, and losing the general election -- it will prove once and for all that Hillary's only core conviction is her own lust for power and sense of entitlement.
trolling again, obamaites?
just posting them news there ja, nothing else.
If the Florida and Michigan delegations are seated without holding elections that actually count, I will withdraw from the Democratic party and never vote for a Democrat again for ANY office as long as I live. This is truly disgusting.
If Clinton were to win this way, she would, I believe, guarantee the Democrats will lose in November. A bitter, polarizing, divisive battle for Michigan and Florida with the result being a Clinton nomination would prompt large numbers of independents and Obama Democrats to stay home or even vote McCain. Would the Clintons sacrifice their party for their own ambition? You bet they would.
Trolling?
Who really is the troll here?
Hey Hill, you signed the fuckin pledge. Deal with it.
on a hillary thread which will clearly antagonize hillary supporters - i would call that the definition of trolling.
so are obama supporters supposed to post news about hillary on obama threads?
Hillary supporters should be antagonized, but don't blame the messenger; blame the ones in her campaign who are supposedly acting on your behalf. Tell them loud and clear that any such "scorched earth" tactics would only be counterproductive to Hillary's campaign and detrimental to the Democrats in general.
I don't find that posting actual news is trolling. It is about Hillary and what she is planning to do. Papers like the NYTs, that actually support her, are also posting articles in their own paper. Are they trolling themselves?
first of all the daily kos is not the new york times. sorry. second most of these "articles" are posted with the intent of somehow trying to make hillary look bad. i would call that trolling.
and such posts as Hey Hill, you signed the fuckin pledge. Deal with it. are not terrible objective or insightful, but i know i'm about to be overrun by the obama cadre, so i'm out.
terribly
Ironic thing is, it's a New York Times article that has started this whole firestorm in the first place... And they endorsed Hillary.
If Hillary has any shred of decency, she needs to nip this thing in the bud by stating unequivocally that her campaign will abide by the party's nominating decision, by the rules already spelled out and agreed to by all candidates. And she needs to do it today.
Anything less will make her come off as a power-hungry egomaniac, would probably lead to even bigger wins by Obama in the upcoming primaries, and alienate many of the "superdelegates" she needs so badly. By that point, even Michigan and Florida wouldn't be enough to save her.
good post, lig. i will say that not all the candidates did agree to the way the dnc is holding the primaries. i think it does show barack's inexperience that he did not put his name on the ballot in michigan and hillary did. she could see a tight primary race coming and wanted to cya, and it's worked for her. as a michigander, i will say there are a lot of disgruntled voters here for both candidates. if the delegates are not seated there is a fair chance that both states (swing states) will go republican in the general election.
ja, sure, Hillary's campaign that was suppose to win this very easily and was the inevitable choice, had the great insights in this election cycle.
Hillary was unfairly playing with the rules (PERIOD)
PLEASE! pray tell when, did HRC and her"cadre" of win at costs pirates see this was going to be a tight race? when? when she was 30 points ahead? GIVE ME A FRIGGIN BREAK!
no, she was covering her ass. i thought it was a smart move at the time when she put her name on the ballot and the other candidates did not. is it fair? no, but that's politics, and that's why i like hillary. she's smart like that and gets things done. i know the neophyte obama supporters are calling foul and that's half the reason why obama supporters like him. they think he is "above" that, but to me that's politics and i want the person who will get things done. it's a dirty business, and you have to be smart. frankly i don't want anyone honorable, but a bit naive dealing with mahmoud ahmadinejad.
...bullshit. i calls em the ways i sees em.
or vladimir putin. they will eat obama alive.
she is so smart she is losing by 11% now, huh?
I want a president that has the backing of the American people when he or she talks to mahmoud ahmadinejad. Hillary is hated by half the country, she will not be able to govern correctly.
I hate to repeat this, but she is the last icon of old politics in this race, let's put this ugly political era behind us.
I find the whole democrat primary system insulting to the voters. The whole superdeligate thing is crap IMO.
So the party doesn't trust the people, their party faithful, to pick the best canidate for the gen election. So they have these heavily weighted deligates cast 40% of the vote which is made up of party insiders...like Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, members of congress, etc.
The superdelegates squashed Gary Hart's run in '84...see how that worked out. Mondale got killed in the general.
The voters will always prove they are smarter than the politicians.
I agree the whole primary process is flawed and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, hopefully Obama will win convincingly enough in the upcoming primaries that the superdelegates won't have any choice but to back his nomination.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.