Rich you are an open book. I would bet a million dollars that you supported McCain in 2000 (unless you tried to pull that old nugget "I wouldn't vote for any of them"). Tell us who you voted for.
If I'm such an open book you should know who I voted for in all eight of the Presidential elections I've participated in.....that and the fact that I posted who I voted for in 2000 here a couple of weeks ago.
You have me and the November election all figured out.
I don't even know why they are gonna bother having an election....they should just ask you who'll win now and be over with it.
I didn't see your 2000 vote so please to inform me.
Here's my guesses for you votes since 1976.
Carter Reagan Reagan Abstain Perot Perot Bush Did not vote/Fringy Type
Less than 50% .....but besdies trying to be obnoxious, what is your point in all of this?? Do you have one??
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
You lose because your policies are gay and youre sucky whiners.
Rich you are an open book. I would bet a million dollars that you supported McCain in 2000 (unless you tried to pull that old nugget "I wouldn't vote for any of them"). Tell us who you voted for.
If I'm such an open book you should know who I voted for in all eight of the Presidential elections I've participated in.....that and the fact that I posted who I voted for in 2000 here a couple of weeks ago.
You have me and the November election all figured out.
I don't even know why they are gonna bother having an election....they should just ask you who'll win now and be over with it.
I didn't see your 2000 vote so please to inform me.
Here's my guesses for you votes since 1976.
Carter Reagan Reagan Abstain Perot Perot Bush Did not vote/Fringy Type
Less than 50% .....but besdies trying to be obnoxious, what is your point in all of this?? Do you have one??
Reveal your votes or your soft.
The point is simple. You discount others' political leanings claiming that they look down on other folks who they disagree with. Or you impugn their good work claiming that it is political while try to act like you somehow are above politics. It is annoying and self-serving to say the least.
You will not reveal your votes now because you don't want to be subjected to any potential criticism. That is clear. Short sighted but clear. So go on ahead and vote for someone you don't agree with half the time and then act like we're all fools in this game.
As for you complaint that "I have the whole thing figured out" perhaps I will start prefacing everything that I say on Soulstrut with IMO. This is a discussion board Rich. Everything critical or forward looking written here is by definition a best guess or speculative. That's why we're here. To ventilate and learn. The fact that you are offended by my insightful and clear political chatter reveals far more about your perspective on the scene then anything to do with me. You seem to think that any discussion of a Barack blowout is offensive. It's not. It's called looking at the evidence and making an argument. Lighten up with everybody thinks their better than me trope and start engaging in some dialog. In that vein, over in the Best Jew Food in Quebec thread, I see that you have not responded to either my or Dan's criticism of your wildly inaccurate comments about Nancy's Iraq Names Project. Perhaps you should do your homework before you open your mouth.
Rich you are an open book. I would bet a million dollars that you supported McCain in 2000 (unless you tried to pull that old nugget "I wouldn't vote for any of them"). Tell us who you voted for.
If I'm such an open book you should know who I voted for in all eight of the Presidential elections I've participated in.....that and the fact that I posted who I voted for in 2000 here a couple of weeks ago.
You have me and the November election all figured out.
I don't even know why they are gonna bother having an election....they should just ask you who'll win now and be over with it.
I didn't see your 2000 vote so please to inform me.
Here's my guesses for you votes since 1976.
Carter Reagan Reagan Abstain Perot Perot Bush Did not vote/Fringy Type
Less than 50% .....but besdies trying to be obnoxious, what is your point in all of this?? Do you have one??
Reveal your votes or your soft.
The point is simple. You discount others' political leanings claiming that they look down on other folks who they disagree with. Or you impugn their good work claiming that it is political while try to act like you somehow are above politics. It is annoying and self-serving to say the least.
You will not reveal your votes now because you don't want to be subjected to any potential criticism. That is clear. Short sighted but clear. So go on ahead and vote for someone you don't agree with half the time and then act like we're all fools in this game.
As for you complaint that "I have the whole thing figured out" perhaps I will start prefacing everything that I say on Soulstrut with IMO. This is a discussion board Rich. Everything critical or forward looking written here is by definition a best guess or speculative. That's why we're here. To ventilate and learn. The fact that you are offended by my insightful and clear political chatter reveals far more about your perspective on the scene then anything to do with me. You seem to think that any discussion of a Barack blowout is offensive. It's not. It's called looking at the evidence and making an argument. Lighten up with everybody thinks their better than me trope and start engaging in some dialog. In that vein, over in the Best Jew Food in Quebec thread, I see that you have not responded to either my or Dan's criticism of your wildly inaccurate comments about Nancy's Iraq Names Project. Perhaps you should do your homework before you open your mouth.
Honestly, you voted Perot didn't you. I knew it.
Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Communist Party!!
Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Communist Party!!
Seriously, I never thought I'd feel bad for Rock in a political debate but Wu is reminding me of the worst tendencies amongst leftist zealots I met in my years at Berkeley.
Rich you are an open book. I would bet a million dollars that you supported McCain in 2000 (unless you tried to pull that old nugget "I wouldn't vote for any of them"). Tell us who you voted for.
If I'm such an open book you should know who I voted for in all eight of the Presidential elections I've participated in.....that and the fact that I posted who I voted for in 2000 here a couple of weeks ago.
You have me and the November election all figured out.
I don't even know why they are gonna bother having an election....they should just ask you who'll win now and be over with it.
I didn't see your 2000 vote so please to inform me.
Here's my guesses for you votes since 1976.
Carter Reagan Reagan Abstain Perot Perot Bush Did not vote/Fringy Type
Less than 50% .....but besdies trying to be obnoxious, what is your point in all of this?? Do you have one??
Reveal your votes or your soft.
The point is simple. You discount others' political leanings claiming that they look down on other folks who they disagree with. Or you impugn their good work claiming that it is political while try to act like you somehow are above politics. It is annoying and self-serving to say the least.
You will not reveal your votes now because you don't want to be subjected to any potential criticism. That is clear. Short sighted but clear. So go on ahead and vote for someone you don't agree with half the time and then act like we're all fools in this game.
As for you complaint that "I have the whole thing figured out" perhaps I will start prefacing everything that I say on Soulstrut with IMO. This is a discussion board Rich. Everything critical or forward looking written here is by definition a best guess or speculative. That's why we're here. To ventilate and learn. The fact that you are offended by my insightful and clear political chatter reveals far more about your perspective on the scene then anything to do with me. You seem to think that any discussion of a Barack blowout is offensive. It's not. It's called looking at the evidence and making an argument. Lighten up with everybody thinks their better than me trope and start engaging in some dialog. In that vein, over in the Best Jew Food in Quebec thread, I see that you have not responded to either my or Dan's criticism of your wildly inaccurate comments about Nancy's Iraq Names Project. Perhaps you should do your homework before you open your mouth.
Honestly, you voted Perot didn't you. I knew it.
Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Communist Party!!
1. I dont think this is as goofy as JFKs. In fact it has some historical relvance since he can trace his family to the country so it has some cultural significance for him.
2. Hillary, is the one sending this around, which should give you an indication of how the Clintons work and have always worked.
The point is simple. You discount others' political leanings claiming that they look down on other folks who they disagree with. Or you impugn their good work claiming that it is political while try to act like you somehow are above politics. It is annoying and self-serving to say the least.
Someone with an opposing opinion to yours is "annoying and self-serving"...seriously, grow up.[/b]
You will not reveal your votes now because you don't want to be subjected to any potential criticism. That is clear. Short sighted but clear. So go on ahead and vote for someone you don't agree with half the time and then act like we're all fools in this game.
The fact that you would suggest that someone's personal voting record should be criticzed, or belittling someone for not revealing this very personal info, reveals you as an asshole.[/b]
As for you complaint that "I have the whole thing figured out" perhaps I will start prefacing everything that I say on Soulstrut with IMO.
This was hardly a complaint, it was a egotistical claim on your part that "I was an open book" which you went on to incorrectly guess my voting record proving you to be both ignorant and full of yourself.[/b]
This is a discussion board Rich.
This usually means there is more than one opinion. My speculative opinion is every bit as important and meaningful as yours. Why do you have a problem with it?? [/b]
That's why we're here. To ventilate and learn. The fact that you are offended by my insightful and clear political chatter reveals far more about your perspective on the scene then anything to do with me.
I will post my opinion with all the fervor and confidence as you. Why is that a problem?? Did I attack you on a persoanl level?? Or can you just not handle someone telling you that there are two sides to the debate?.[/b]
You seem to think that any discussion of a Barack blowout is offensive. It's not. It's called looking at the evidence and making an argument.
I'd love for the candidate that I support to win in a blow-out. I just don't think it will happen and I think taking that attitude is naive. Come November you can tell me I was wrong and revel in your prediction, because believe me, I'll be doing the same if I'm right. [/b]
Lighten up with everybody thinks their better than me trope and start engaging in some dialog.
I engage in as much dialog as anyone here, the fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it any less deserving of being posted[/b]
In that vein, over in the Best Jew Food in Quebec thread, I see that you have not responded to either my or Dan's criticism of your wildly inaccurate comments about Nancy's Iraq Names Project. Perhaps you should do your homework before you open your mouth.
I didn't see that thread but I'll address it here. IN MY OPINION people who protest the war and use the name of deceased soldiers DURING THE WAR ITSELF as a thinly veiled "tribute" without the approval of the deceased soldiers familes is wrong. This also goes for T-Shirts, posters, etc. THAT'S MY OPINION and you have to deal with it.[/b]
Honestly, you voted Perot didn't you. I knew it.
Not that it's any of your damn business but I have never voted for Ross Perot...mainly because I have done business with him and his EDS Corp. and I have little respect for him...Ross Jr.lives across the street from me btw.
I expect everything I post here to be countered, debated, dicussed, laughed at, etc. The fact that you can't deal with what I post reveals more about you than I'd bet you would like. You're looking pretty foolish right now but if you want to continue after my lunch meeting. let's do it.
The fact that you would suggest that someone's personal voting record should be criticzed, or belittling someone for not revealing this very personal info, reveals you as an asshole.[/b]
why is there outrage over dude asking you to post your voting record? its understood that this is "private",but fools on here are acting like Big Brother has just stepped into this forum and asked Rock to give up his first born. If your embarrassed by who you voted for, keep it to yourself, but give me a break with the "very personal info" talk.
by giving your 2 cents in every political thread, you've already opened the door to what you call "very personal info". the reaction to dude's question is comical. its like having a girl volunteer that she is a prostitute and then having a bunch of guys jump up and down in outrage after someone asks if she's a virgin. get over it.
If your embarrassed by who you voted for, keep it to yourself, but give me a break with the "very personal info" talk.
bullshit on that. why does he have to be "embarrassed" for exercising his right to a secret ballot.
its like having a girl volunteer that she is a prostitute and then having a bunch of guys jump up and down in outrage after someone asks if she's a virgin. get over it.
If your embarrassed by who you voted for, keep it to yourself, but give me a break with the "very personal info" talk.
bullshit on that. why does he have to be "embarrassed" for exercising his right to a secret ballot.
wtf are you talking about? hillary says she is against the war, and then obama calls her out and says - well, you voted for it. rock says i'm for ____, _____ and ______.....okay, well then why did you vote for whoever it is dude voted for.
your equating the fact that we vote behind a curtain, with some made-up holy and ethical obligation to not talk about who we voted for. sounds like something a dude who voted for bush in the past 2 elections would say...
If your embarrassed by who you voted for, keep it to yourself, but give me a break with the "very personal info" talk.
bullshit on that. why does he have to be "embarrassed" for exercising his right to a secret ballot.
wtf are you talking about? hillary says she is against the war, and then obama calls her out and says - well, you voted for it. rock says i'm for ____, _____ and ______.....okay, well then why did you vote for whoever it is dude voted for.
your equating the fact that we vote behind a curtain, with some made-up holy and ethical obligation to not talk about who we voted for. sounds like something a dude who voted for bush in the past 2 elections would say...
hillary and obama's votes are public votes, you know that. Rock's is not.
do you feel the way about individuals pleading the Fifth Amendment? or is that jsut a made-up holy and ethical obligation too? just because a person has the right to remain silent are they soft for not answering questions put to them, often by people trying to badger them into saying things they rather keep to themsleves? I thought you were a good little liberal?
hillary and obama's votes are public votes, you know that. Rock's is not.
do you feel the way about individuals pleading the Fifth Amendment? or is that jsut a made-up holy and ethical obligation too? just because a person has the right to remain silent are they soft for not answering questions put to them, often by people trying to badger them into saying things they rather keep to themsleves? I thought you were a good little liberal?
wow, amazing point. from now on, every ss post should just say "exercising my 5th amendment right to not incriminate myself".
hillary and obama's votes are public votes, you know that. Rock's is not.
do you feel the way about individuals pleading the Fifth Amendment? or is that jsut a made-up holy and ethical obligation too? just because a person has the right to remain silent are they soft for not answering questions put to them, often by people trying to badger them into saying things they rather keep to themsleves? I thought you were a good little liberal?
wow, amazing point. from now on, every ss post should just say "exercising my 5th amendment right to not incriminate myself".
in your case - that would be an improvement for everyone concerned.
KVH.....why is my voting history pertinent to anything being discussed here?? You also "called me out" on this recently and I was happy to share my vote with you, but seriously, how does it effect a discussion on whether or not Barack will win by a landslide??
It amuses me that some folks on the left think they can invalidate an argument by pointing out that I voted for Reagan in '80 or Pat Paulson in '76.
What the folks reading this really need to understand is that this whole beef stems from me simply saying that ASSUMING Barack(or Hillary) will win in a landslide is ignorant. I've lived through enough politics to know that what appears to be true in February may not be, and usually isn't, true in November.
I also feel, as do others here, that making that assumption is a dangerous thing if you support Barack as your candidate.
If Dr. Wu is that sure of himself and questioning his logic is offensive then I don't understand the purpose of a "Discussion Group".
Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Communist Party!!
Seriously, I never thought I'd feel bad for Rock in a political debate but Wu is reminding me of the worst tendencies amongst leftist zealots I met in my years at Berkeley.
O, I appreciate the sentiment but no reason to feel bad for me.
You and many others(based on my PM's) see this discussion for what it is.
It all comes out in the wash and we all have to live with what we post.(Unless we delete it when no one's looking).
KVH.....why is my voting history pertinent to anything being discussed here?? You also "called me out" on this recently and I was happy to share my vote with you, but seriously, how does it effect a discussion on whether or not Barack will win by a landslide??
It amuses me that some folks on the left think they can invalidate an argument by pointing out that I voted for Reagan in '80 or Pat Paulson in '76.
What the folks reading this really need to understand is that this whole beef stems from me simply saying that ASSUMING Barack(or Hillary) will win in a landslide is ignorant. I've lived through enough politics to know that what appears to be true in February may not be, and usually isn't, true in November.
I also feel, as do others here, that making that assumption is a dangerous thing if you support Barack as your candidate.
If Dr. Wu is that sure of himself and questioning his logic is offensive then I don't understand the purpose of a "Discussion Group".
I am quite sure of my exegesis. Barring a bomb in Long Beach Port or Barack revealing his involvement in a kiddie porn ring, I say this shit is over. Not out of arrogance but belief that the facts are the facts. I am assuming nothing. I am building a pretty Frickin' remarkable case for why one would "guess" that Obama will win big. Could Obama lose? Absolutely. Would I bet money on him to win for sure.
As for Rock's voting record, it is pertinent for him to debunk my argument that he was jocking McCain in 2000. As for those who are wondering who Pat Paulsen was from Wikipedia.
"Paulsen's campaign that year, and in succeeding years, was grounded in comedy, while not bereft of serious commentary. He ran the supposed campaigns using obvious lies, double talk, and tongue-in-cheek attacks on the major candidates, and responded to all criticism with his catch phrase "Picky, picky, picky". His campaign slogan was "Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny."
Basically, Paulsen ran on the politics is a joke message which fits perfectly into Rich's repeated statements about everyone being corrupt (excepting Rich of course).
Lastly, you continue to debase Nancy's completely honorable intentions of honoring the troops and their families' sacrifice with not a wit of evidence or even balls. I think you should call her and explain your whole theory. Of course, you don't have the guts to engage such a compassionate and humble soul such as hers. Which just goes to show what a game this whole thing is for you, Richard. Vote Paulsen 2008.
PS: I loved Slobababa's reply to the Bushy hug photo by trying to roll out the McCain's a hero so you can't say nothing turd. As my buddy said the other day, "McCain got shot down. What's heroic about that?" I am personally sorry that he had to rot in a cell for 5 years while Nixon and Kissinger decided to extend the war that could have been settled in 68. That really sucks but I ain't cutting dude an ounce of political slack cause he got his arms broken when we were Frickin' around in the middle of a civil war. That clear enough for you, counselor.
PS: I loved Slobababa's reply to the Bushy hug photo by trying to roll out the McCain's a hero so you can't say nothing turd. As my buddy said the other day, "McCain got shot down. What's heroic about that?" I am personally sorry that he had to rot in a cell for 5 years while Nixon and Kissinger decided to extend the war that could have been settled in 68. That really sucks but I ain't cutting dude an ounce of political slack cause he got his arms broken when we were Frickin' around in the middle of a civil war. That clear enough for you, counselor.
I beleive he also had the opportunity to be released early because his father was a Four Star Admiral in the Navy, but he stuck with the first-in-first-out agreement that existed among the prisoners. But we all know that this kind of scrafice is not true patriotism.
KVH.....why is my voting history pertinent to anything being discussed here?? You also "called me out" on this recently and I was happy to share my vote with you, but seriously, how does it effect a discussion on whether or not Barack will win by a landslide??
It amuses me that some folks on the left think they can invalidate an argument by pointing out that I voted for Reagan in '80 or Pat Paulson in '76.
What the folks reading this really need to understand is that this whole beef stems from me simply saying that ASSUMING Barack(or Hillary) will win in a landslide is ignorant. I've lived through enough politics to know that what appears to be true in February may not be, and usually isn't, true in November.
I also feel, as do others here, that making that assumption is a dangerous thing if you support Barack as your candidate.
If Dr. Wu is that sure of himself and questioning his logic is offensive then I don't understand the purpose of a "Discussion Group".
I am quite sure of my exegesis. Barring a bomb in Long Beach Port or Barack revealing his involvement in a kiddie porn ring, I say this shit is over. Not out of arrogance but belief that the facts are the facts. I am assuming nothing. I am building a pretty Frickin' remarkable case for why one would "guess" that Obama will win big. Could Obama lose? Absolutely. Would I bet money on him to win for sure.
As for Rock's voting record, it is pertinent for him to debunk my argument that he was jocking McCain in 2000. As for those who are wondering who Pat Paulsen was from Wikipedia.
"Paulsen's campaign that year, and in succeeding years, was grounded in comedy, while not bereft of serious commentary. He ran the supposed campaigns using obvious lies, double talk, and tongue-in-cheek attacks on the major candidates, and responded to all criticism with his catch phrase "Picky, picky, picky". His campaign slogan was "Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny."
Basically, Paulsen ran on the politics is a joke message which fits perfectly into Rich's repeated statements about everyone being corrupt (excepting Rich of course).
Lastly, you continue to debase Nancy's completely honorable intentions of honoring the troops and their families' sacrifice with not a wit of evidence or even balls. I think you should call her and explain your whole theory. Of course, you don't have the guts to engage such a compassionate and humble soul such as hers. Which just goes to show what a game this whole thing is for you, Richard. Vote Paulsen 2008.
PS: I loved Slobababa's reply to the Bushy hug photo by trying to roll out the McCain's a hero so you can't say nothing turd. As my buddy said the other day, "McCain got shot down. What's heroic about that?" I am personally sorry that he had to rot in a cell for 5 years while Nixon and Kissinger decided to extend the war that could have been settled in 68. That really sucks but I ain't cutting dude an ounce of political slack cause he got his arms broken when we were Frickin' around in the middle of a civil war. That clear enough for you, counselor.
LOL at me voting for Pat Paulson....ignorant and gullible, what a combination.
If this makes you feel better(I posted it here 2 weeks ago) I voted for GWB in 2000.
That really sucks but I ain't cutting dude an ounce of political slack cause he got his arms broken when we were Frickin' around in the middle of a civil war.
do you feel the same way about soldiers fighting in Iraq? How about the dead ones? Is this what you're thinking when you scribble their names on the Portland sidewalk?
Lastly, you continue to debase Nancy's completely honorable intentions of honoring the troops and their families' sacrifice with not a wit of evidence or even balls. I think you should call her and explain your whole theory. Of course, you don't have the guts to engage such a compassionate and humble soul such as hers.
It's honorable that you are defending your friend. There are at least 4 states that have laws against the unauthorized use of a deceased soldier's name or image for a commercial or political endeavor. You choose to believe the "chalk project" is not a political statement, while in my opinion it is. As a family member of a deceased soldier, I would want the right to approve or disapprove of the use of my childs/spouses name in ANY public display that could be PRESUMED commercial or political. You don't feel they should have that right....we disagree.
I would find their efforts much more honorable if they had received permission from those family members who might object to their "project".
Comments
Less than 50% .....but besdies trying to be obnoxious, what is your point in all of this?? Do you have one??
Reveal your votes or your soft.
The point is simple. You discount others' political leanings claiming that they look down on other folks who they disagree with. Or you impugn their good work claiming that it is political while try to act like you somehow are above politics. It is annoying and self-serving to say the least.
You will not reveal your votes now because you don't want to be subjected to any potential criticism. That is clear. Short sighted but clear. So go on ahead and vote for someone you don't agree with half the time and then act like we're all fools in this game.
As for you complaint that "I have the whole thing figured out" perhaps I will start prefacing everything that I say on Soulstrut with IMO. This is a discussion board Rich. Everything critical or forward looking written here is by definition a best guess or speculative. That's why we're here. To ventilate and learn. The fact that you are offended by my insightful and clear political chatter reveals far more about your perspective on the scene then anything to do with me. You seem to think that any discussion of a Barack blowout is offensive. It's not. It's called looking at the evidence and making an argument. Lighten up with everybody thinks their better than me trope and start engaging in some dialog. In that vein, over in the Best Jew Food in Quebec thread, I see that you have not responded to either my or Dan's criticism of your wildly inaccurate comments about Nancy's Iraq Names Project. Perhaps you should do your homework before you open your mouth.
Honestly, you voted Perot didn't you. I knew it.
Are you now, or were you ever a member of the Communist Party!!
Seriously, I never thought I'd feel bad for Rock in a political debate but Wu is reminding me of the worst tendencies amongst leftist zealots I met in my years at Berkeley.
i would point out that.
1. I dont think this is as goofy as JFKs. In fact it has some historical relvance since he can trace his family to the country so it has some cultural significance for him.
2. Hillary, is the one sending this around, which should give you an indication of how the Clintons work and have always worked.
3
2
1
I KNEW IT!!!!
lol
I expect everything I post here to be countered, debated, dicussed, laughed at, etc. The fact that you can't deal with what I post reveals more about you than I'd bet you would like. You're looking pretty foolish right now but if you want to continue after my lunch meeting. let's do it.
why is there outrage over dude asking you to post your voting record? its understood that this is "private",but fools on here are acting like Big Brother has just stepped into this forum and asked Rock to give up his first born. If your embarrassed by who you voted for, keep it to yourself, but give me a break with the "very personal info" talk.
by giving your 2 cents in every political thread, you've already opened the door to what you call "very personal info". the reaction to dude's question is comical. its like having a girl volunteer that she is a prostitute and then having a bunch of guys jump up and down in outrage after someone asks if she's a virgin. get over it.
bullshit on that. why does he have to be "embarrassed" for exercising his right to a secret ballot.
?
what were you doing this weekend?
wtf are you talking about? hillary says she is against the war, and then obama calls her out and says - well, you voted for it. rock says i'm for ____, _____ and ______.....okay, well then why did you vote for whoever it is dude voted for.
your equating the fact that we vote behind a curtain, with some made-up holy and ethical obligation to not talk about who we voted for. sounds like something a dude who voted for bush in the past 2 elections would say...
hillary and obama's votes are public votes, you know that. Rock's is not.
do you feel the way about individuals pleading the Fifth Amendment? or is that jsut a made-up holy and ethical obligation too? just because a person has the right to remain silent are they soft for not answering questions put to them, often by people trying to badger them into saying things they rather keep to themsleves? I thought you were a good little liberal?
wow, amazing point. from now on, every ss post should just say "exercising my 5th amendment right to not incriminate myself".
in your case - that would be an improvement for everyone concerned.
It amuses me that some folks on the left think they can invalidate an argument by pointing out that I voted for Reagan in '80 or Pat Paulson in '76.
What the folks reading this really need to understand is that this whole beef stems from me simply saying that ASSUMING Barack(or Hillary) will win in a landslide is ignorant. I've lived through enough politics to know that what appears to be true in February may not be, and usually isn't, true in November.
I also feel, as do others here, that making that assumption is a dangerous thing if you support Barack as your candidate.
If Dr. Wu is that sure of himself and questioning his logic is offensive then I don't understand the purpose of a "Discussion Group".
O,
I appreciate the sentiment but no reason to feel bad for me.
You and many others(based on my PM's) see this discussion for what it is.
It all comes out in the wash and we all have to live with what we post.(Unless we delete it when no one's looking).
I am quite sure of my exegesis. Barring a bomb in Long Beach Port or Barack revealing his involvement in a kiddie porn ring, I say this shit is over. Not out of arrogance but belief that the facts are the facts. I am assuming nothing. I am building a pretty Frickin' remarkable case for why one would "guess" that Obama will win big. Could Obama lose? Absolutely. Would I bet money on him to win for sure.
As for Rock's voting record, it is pertinent for him to debunk my argument that he was jocking McCain in 2000. As for those who are wondering who Pat Paulsen was from Wikipedia.
"Paulsen's campaign that year, and in succeeding years, was grounded in comedy, while not bereft of serious commentary. He ran the supposed campaigns using obvious lies, double talk, and tongue-in-cheek attacks on the major candidates, and responded to all criticism with his catch phrase "Picky, picky, picky". His campaign slogan was "Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny."
Basically, Paulsen ran on the politics is a joke message which fits perfectly into Rich's repeated statements about everyone being corrupt (excepting Rich of course).
Lastly, you continue to debase Nancy's completely honorable intentions of honoring the troops and their families' sacrifice with not a wit of evidence or even balls. I think you should call her and explain your whole theory. Of course, you don't have the guts to engage such a compassionate and humble soul such as hers. Which just goes to show what a game this whole thing is for you, Richard. Vote Paulsen 2008.
PS: I loved Slobababa's reply to the Bushy hug photo by trying to roll out the McCain's a hero so you can't say nothing turd. As my buddy said the other day, "McCain got shot down. What's heroic about that?" I am personally sorry that he had to rot in a cell for 5 years while Nixon and Kissinger decided to extend the war that could have been settled in 68. That really sucks but I ain't cutting dude an ounce of political slack cause he got his arms broken when we were Frickin' around in the middle of a civil war. That clear enough for you, counselor.
I beleive he also had the opportunity to be released early because his father was a Four Star Admiral in the Navy, but he stuck with the first-in-first-out agreement that existed among the prisoners. But we all know that this kind of scrafice is not true patriotism.
LOL at me voting for Pat Paulson....ignorant and gullible, what a combination.
If this makes you feel better(I posted it here 2 weeks ago) I voted for GWB in 2000.
do you feel the same way about soldiers fighting in Iraq? How about the dead ones? Is this what you're thinking when you scribble their names on the Portland sidewalk?
It's honorable that you are defending your friend. There are at least 4 states that have laws against the unauthorized use of a deceased soldier's name or image for a commercial or political endeavor. You choose to believe the "chalk project" is not a political statement, while in my opinion it is. As a family member of a deceased soldier, I would want the right to approve or disapprove of the use of my childs/spouses name in ANY public display that could be PRESUMED commercial or political. You don't feel they should have that right....we disagree.
I would find their efforts much more honorable if they had received permission from those family members who might object to their "project".