BF2S Forums I'd bet money that Hillary Clinton.......

Turquoise wrote:

KILLSWITCH wrote:

Can someone briefly enlighten me as to who or what these Superdelegates are, and the role they play?

I hear the word being bounded about but my lack of knowledge of American politics shows.

Superdelegates are there to make sure that the Democratic primaries aren't too democratic.  You know...  kind of like how we have the Electoral College as yet another institution to subvert the popular vote.

Whether it's primaries or general elections, when it comes to the presidency, we like to keep things corrupt.

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
~ Carl Sagan <3

Masques wrote:

Why the fuck court the votes of people for a PRIMARY that would never vote for you in a general election and then use that as an argument that you could win a general election?

The woman is not attached to reality.

What I find humorous are those people that look at how Obama or Clinton do in a Democrat primary and then try to say it in some way foretells how the general election will go. A Democrat wins a Democrat primary and suddenly, they're likely to win the general?

FEOS is spot on. Hillary's argument that Obama's losses to her in the big Democratic states portend failures in the general election is one of the most stupid attacks I have ever seen from a politician. Do they ever think before they speak?

FEOS wrote:

Masques wrote:

Why the fuck court the votes of people for a PRIMARY that would never vote for you in a general election and then use that as an argument that you could win a general election?

The woman is not attached to reality.

What I find humorous are those people that look at how Obama or Clinton do in a Democrat primary and then try to say it in some way foretells how the general election will go. A Democrat wins a Democrat primary and suddenly, they're likely to win the general?

It is assumed that a democrat must win because of the complete void in leadership demonstrated by the republicans over the last eight years.

Mission accomplished.
Abu Ghraib.
Oil through the roof.
Dollar in serious decline.
Mortgage meltdown.
Ethanol induced food shortages.


The lack of faith in the government is profound. George Bush will be hated by conservative for being the biggest spender since FDR. He will be hated by the liberals because of eight years of negative spin combined with real buffoonery on the part of george bush.

Under Bush, the perception is that our military is being used as brigands and strong arm thieves looting the Middle East.

George Bush has destroyed the republican party for a decade. We all know what Hillary is and America appears to have rejected a Clinton dynasty.

Frankly, Obama may be many things, some of which may be bad, but he ain't Hillary or McCain. If he gets the nomination, he will be the president, and frankly I'm not so afraid; we've seen what eight years of republican control has done to our standing in the world, financially and politically.

What annoys me is how the press always puts some picture of Obama up with a smart, or thoughtful expression. I mean JaySus, could they be any more blatant?

Kmarion wrote:

ATG We had a boom within those eight years also. Just like we had a boom under Clinton before he left us on the verge of a recession. The pendulum swings no matter who is in office. Again we discount the role of congress. The guys with the most power to effect monetary policy.

Republicans held the power in Congress for most of the 90s and most of this decade.  So, ironically, you could say they were responsible for both our growth in the 90s and our decline in this decade.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG We had a boom within those eight years also. Just like we had a boom under Clinton before he left us on the verge of a recession. The pendulum swings no matter who is in office. Again we discount the role of congress. The guys with the most power to effect monetary policy.

Republicans held the power in Congress for most of the 90s and most of this decade.  So, ironically, you could say they were responsible for both our growth in the 90s and our decline in this decade.

Would be interesting to see the economic trends tied to when the Dems took over Congress...

Not saying that they were necessarily completely responsible, but McCain would be foolish not to use that coincidence to his advantage.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG We had a boom within those eight years also. Just like we had a boom under Clinton before he left us on the verge of a recession. The pendulum swings no matter who is in office. Again we discount the role of congress. The guys with the most power to effect monetary policy.

Republicans held the power in Congress for most of the 90s and most of this decade.  So, ironically, you could say they were responsible for both our growth in the 90s and our decline in this decade.

Would be interesting to see the economic trends tied to when the Dems took over Congress...

Not saying that they were necessarily completely responsible, but McCain would be foolish not to use that coincidence to his advantage.

True... but the Dems have only had power for the last 2 years.  They have a razor thin majority in the Senate, and they are contending with President Veto.

So, substance wise, you really can't tie it to them.  They're basically stuck in gridlock at the moment.  If they gain more seats in the Senate, then maybe something will come of it.

I'm still waiting to see any results from my county, as it's still reporting 0%. I was just talking to my dad about this primary though and he informs me that our county isn't known for squeaky-clean political practices.

EDIT: Further research shows they won't even be counting ballots until after midnight. *sigh*

Last edited by DesertFox- (2008-05-06 19:32:28)

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG We had a boom within those eight years also. Just like we had a boom under Clinton before he left us on the verge of a recession. The pendulum swings no matter who is in office. Again we discount the role of congress. The guys with the most power to effect monetary policy.

Republicans held the power in Congress for most of the 90s and most of this decade.  So, ironically, you could say they were responsible for both our growth in the 90s and our decline in this decade.

103rd, 102nd, 101st were all Dems .. half of the 90's. This decade is looking to be almost split it seems also.

Perhaps, but...  the growth really didn't kick in until the Republicans took over, but by the same token, things really started to fall by 2006 as well.

To put it more bluntly, the Republicans were great when they had a Democrat president to balance them out, but once they ran both Houses and the presidency, things started to go to shit.

I'm still voting for McBetterthantheothers

Yes, but from 2001 to 2006, government spending went up tremendously.

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Republicans held the power in Congress for most of the 90s and most of this decade.  So, ironically, you could say they were responsible for both our growth in the 90s and our decline in this decade.

103rd, 102nd, 101st were all Dems .. half of the 90's. This decade is looking to be almost split it seems also.

Perhaps, but...  the growth really didn't kick in until the Republicans took over, but by the same token, things really started to fall by 2006 as well.

To put it more bluntly, the Republicans were great when they had a Democrat president to balance them out, but once they ran both Houses and the presidency, things started to go to shit.

WHAT? 
How did things go to shit?
We did not cause 9-11.  We did not foster the euro.   How did things go to shit due to the Republicans?  Unemployment was at its lowest.  The media  cried recession even when we weren't.

And to ATG..

Bush did not participate in Abu.  Borrowing your retrospectoscope "Mission Accomplished" should been displayed for her sailors' eyes, not yours or mine. 
The housing thing was a bad idea, almost as bad as encouraging illegals to our country with promises of jobs.  Bush stood strong against North Korea instead of paying them off like Billy. 

Oil through the roof?  Yea buddy!

Food shortage?  I blame liberals who really scare policy through social reform without serious thought.

About our debt? War ain't fucking cheap, and in my humble opinion, we didn't spend enough on our guys and gals.

Vote for Change!  Change what? How?  He doesn't even fucking really know how.  ATG, going with someone who you know nothing about is far more scarier than picking one where you knowing what you are going to get.