ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board

stonedinaustralia

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

wake up crackers or we
all through!!

Posts: 859

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #25 - May 7^th, 2008 at 7:29pm

i find this broad definition of "socialism" used by some of you amusing

let's face it - it (socialism) is a dead issue and has been since at least '89

western capitalism has won the day fellows - i don't see anybody there campaiging for the nationalization of the banks or the mining or oil industry which is the first thing any true "socialist" goverment would do

to use the term as you are really is a gross overstament that has little more going for it than emotive appeal (and it's a stale emotion at that as I say) imho

Back to top

"you can see it against the girl's crocheted dress"

IP Logged

Riffhard

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules You Bastards

Posts: 1,934
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #26 - May 7^th, 2008 at 7:53pm

stonedinaustralia wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 7:29pm:

i find this broad definition of "socialism" used by some of you amusing

let's face it - it (socialism) is a dead issue and has been since at least '89

western capitalism has won the day fellows - i don't see anybody there campaiging for the nationalization of the banks or the mining or oil industry which is the first thing any true "socialist" goverment would do

to use the term as you are really is a gross overstament that has little more going for it than emotive appeal (and it's a stale emotion at that as I say) imho

SIA I can assure you my friend that both Hillary and Obama have pure socialists agendas. You say that you haven't heard anyone calling for the nationalization of the oil industry? Well I have, or damned close to it anyway. "I would take their profits and force them to use them to develop alternative fuel sources." That was Hillary Clinton just last year. She wants the federal government to take a private companies profits (read-steal their profits) and then force them to destroy their own companies in the process.

In the USA we haven't opened a new refinery in over 30 years! Nor have we opened any new drilling sites? Why? Because of socialist policies put in place by Democrats. Those are just irrefutable facts. The left constantly slams "big oil" as robber barrons. The truth is that the government is the true robber barrons. The Fed,State, and Local taxes on a gallon of gas averages around 50 cents per gallon. The oil company gets about 8 cents per gallon. Yet Dems continue to deamonize "Big Oil" ...boooo,hisss,booo. If the public was clued into what we pay the government for oil there would be hell to pay come election time. Alas, the Dems have managed to shift the focus onto the oil companies. Pretty neat trick, huh? The oil companies can't even considering drilling without the consent of the government. The Dems are owned by special interests groups like The Sierra Club, and other enviro groups. They will never consent to allow the oil companies to drill for fear of pissing off the radical left base that has become the new Democrat Party. Yet we sit on billion upon billion of gallons of oil. It shall remain untapped as the prices continue to rise. There is no oil shortage! We just are hamstrung to get at it by a very socialist Democrat Party. I could provide link after luink to prove this, but I'm sure that you can find the facts easy enough without my help.

Oh yeah they are all about socialism. They always slam the capitalist system. Always.

Riffy

Back to top

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"When all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided...” Thomas Jefferson&&&&"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases." — Thomas Jefferson&&&&&&&&We're not old men.We don't bother about petty morals--Keef&&&&Actually, it only takes one drink to get me loaded. Trouble is, I can't remember if it's the thirteenth or fourteenth. &&-- George Burns&&&&&&I ain't no leftist!-Bob Dylan&&&&"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce

IP Logged

Ian Billen

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules

Posts: 1,562
USA
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #27 - May 7^th, 2008 at 10:07pm

Quote:

Nobody wants to tap Hillary - she's poison! IanBillen, your political prognostications are as dumb as your Stones-in-the-studio discussions. You must be wise on some matter - Barbie dolls?

__________________

Actually,

Many of my "Stones-in-the-studio" arguments have turned out to be correct. Some of those have not.

Speaking of "dumb". Glenncar, did you ever consider actually debating against my points or posts with some quality content based on your hypothesis versus name calling and making these antagonistic verbal jabs all the time?

It's pretty intriguing here in that you compare me to being so adolescent in my thought processes and opinion that I play with dolls when actually your the one always calling names and crying like a baby when I dis-agree.

I prefer not to call people names on the internet. Honestly, what does that prove and where does it get you? If I feel THAT strongly against someone in which I need to start name calling on them I address these people directly, to their faces. If I can't, I usually decline to go that route.

Calling names on "Rocks Off" doesn't make you look cool Glencar, it just makes you look like a pussy.

Ian

Back to top

Thought you were dinner ...but you were the shark ..

IP Logged

stonedinaustralia

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

wake up crackers or we
all through!!

Posts: 859

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #28 - May 7^th, 2008 at 11:44pm

Riff - thanks for your considered and interesting reply and i see the point you make

i guess I could get all semantic and say where does "government intervention" stop and "socialism" start and are they even examples of the same thing but that would be fairly unproductive if not down right dull

anyway - i am watching your events unfold with interest - others have said as well as you that O. will not beat McC. (tho many seem to have thought HC could have - and I say "could have' on the basis that she won't get the nomination )

I know that's the result you would prefer (i.e. McC over BO) but what do you say to the idea that as a first time black alternative for the job there will be a big enough turn out of first time black voters who in the past have not voted on the basis that no matter who you voted for some honky is still goin to win it, to get Bazza over the line??

one last thing - who is front runner for McC.'s running mate spot and what's he/she all about??

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 8^th, 2008 at 1:19am by stonedinaustralia »

"you can see it against the girl's crocheted dress"

IP Logged

Ian Billen

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules

Posts: 1,562
USA
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #29 - May 8^th, 2008 at 1:25am

Honestly,

If the Dems want to get someone in their party elected it will not be with Obahma.

Clinton stands a much better chance. This is the reasoning behind HRC's arguement, even if he will pull away with a hundred or more delegates before the Democratic convention. He still will not have 2025 and neither will she. She will be not far behind and will have virtually all the key states won. These key states will be the key states needed in the general election for President.

This is her arguement. Mcain will beat Obahma in the general. Clinton will fare much better based on who she is and what key states she has won in her primary and her demographic vote base versus his.

The Dems choosing Ohbama as their nominee to win in the general would just be them shooting themselves in the foot.

Ian

Back to top

Thought you were dinner ...but you were the shark ..

IP Logged

glencar

Ex Member

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #30 - May 8^th, 2008 at 6:23am

IanBillen, someone else shredded your silly post earlier & did a nice job. I also don't recall you EVER being correct in your inane "Stones-in-the-studio" threads. You always post odd things & then get backed into a corner. That said, I shouldn't have made a joke about you & Barbie dolls as you're evidently a bit touchy about the subject. Really, it's NOTHING to be ashamed about but I'll "let it be"!

Back to top

IP Logged

monkey_man

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Fac ut vivas.

Posts: 509

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #31 - May 8^th, 2008 at 3:42pm

Election Year Terms/Glossary

Glossary

debate
A contest to see which candidate can answer the fewest questions.

absentee ballot
A form of voting that does not involve the inconvenience of having to get up off the couch and walk to a high school gymnasium.

ballot
An object recording a voter's decision that is frequently counted toward an election's outcome.

caucus
The process by which Americans are quadrennially reminded of Iowa's existence.

change

Can be found
In the air/wind.
At hand.
Inside us all.

convention
The best four-day-long chance a politically active, overweight Kia salesman from Tulsa has to nail one of them blond Fox anchors.

corruption
The most effective and efficient way to produce results in government.

delegate
A demented, often screaming individual who experiences intense arousal at the sight of a vertically printed placard bearing his or her state's name.

democracy
A moderately representative plutocracy.

Diebold voting machine
A sophisticated, computerized balloting terminal that electronically changes your vote into a vote for Mitt Romney.

election worker
A male or female at least 70 years of age.

electoral college
A process by which the number of states in the Union is narrowed down to the most important seven or eight.

experience
A quantitative score any politician may increase by slaying foes or solving riddles.

hope
An intangible object within every American that is destroyed every four years in November.

likability
The degree to which each candidate is able to hide the extent to which he or she is full of shit.

lobbyist
A better-paid legislator.

MoveOn.org
A company offering routine tests of your e-mail's spam filter.

platform
A list of the subjects that candidates are willing to discuss.
A raised structure, almost entirely covered by flags, upon which candidates are placed.

political consultants
Individuals who are very savvy politically, but don't have enough hair to run for office themselves.

political philosophy, conservative
A great way to meet chicks at Princeton University.
U-S-A; e.g., U-S-A, U-S-A(!).

political philosophy, liberal
An ideology steeped in a proud tradition of ineffectual whining.

pollster
A person who willingly communicates with the elderly.

Rock The Vote
Something that is, apparently, still happening.

voter apathy
The reason most American politicians are able to achieve and maintain office.

Back to top

&&&&&&&&"In other words shut the hell up about what others believe. It only makes you look like a small minded snob. "&&&&Riffy

IP Logged

Riffhard

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules You Bastards

Posts: 1,934
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #32 - May 8^th, 2008 at 7:53pm

By way of underscoring my post about how "Big Oil" is deliberatly being villified by certain members of the left, the DLM, and the Democrat Party as a whole. This article has some very interesting facts that never seem to be explained by the DLM or the liberal cabal that has helped raise the cost of oil worldwide. I blame the Democrats almost solely for the price crunch that we currently find ourselves in. Unfortunatly most people are clueless as to the real facts. They just see a CEO get a huge bonus and their minds are made up as to who the bad guys are. The fact is that these CEOs get their bonuses because the elected board members have deemed them worthy of such a bonus. Who votes for these board members? You, me, and anyone else that owns stock in these companies. In others, just about everybody that has a 401K plan or similar investment program. So it's fair to say that what's good for the oil companies is good for most Americans in general.

Don't get my wrong here. I'm no shill for the oil companies, but at least I know the facts that very few Americans even bother to read about. We're getting screwed alright, but the oil companies are only a small reason as to why it's happening.

We should've been drilling for years. We must start drilling now.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63638

Riffy

Back to top

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"When all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided...” Thomas Jefferson&&&&"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases." — Thomas Jefferson&&&&&&&&We're not old men.We don't bother about petty morals--Keef&&&&Actually, it only takes one drink to get me loaded. Trouble is, I can't remember if it's the thirteenth or fourteenth. &&-- George Burns&&&&&&I ain't no leftist!-Bob Dylan&&&&"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce

IP Logged

Ian Billen

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules

Posts: 1,562
USA
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #33 - May 8^th, 2008 at 11:31pm

ijwthstd wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 11:28am:

Ian Billen wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 2:12am:

Well, this is a Rock n Roll (primarily) discussion board (primarily focused on our Stones) and I am shy *about even starting to respond on a political concern but...

Many of us have been watching this race and I have been following it as well so here goes...

-
A win is a win to HRC and her campaign. The bottom line here folks, is that no matter how we slice it and dice this race WILL ultimately be decided by who the super-delegates choose in hopes to Win the November General election. Unless the candidate reaches 2025 delegates (and even then the super-dels can still over-turn it) the race goes to the convention to be decided. They will choose by not only how well the candidates did in the primary but... how well they think they will fare in the general.

He only needs 148 to go and even Clinton supporters are urging her to quit.
_______________________

*I'll state my case here and this is all the further I will post about it:

*Actually he needs 178 and Ohbama is unlikely (although not impossible just pretty darn unlikely) to reach 2025 at this races end in June. Remember a candidate NEEDS 2025 to be nominated. That is under DNC rules and that is the fact. The bottom line here is 2025 regardless of how ahead or behind any candidate is. If the candidate has not reached 2025 the superdelegates get involved either before or at the convention.

Quote:

Hillary still has her "legitimate bitches" to her argument that the super-delegates should choose her:

1. She has ALL the big chip states. Cal. Penn. Ohio. New York. New Jers...

Not really - she just won a few more delegates than Obama in each state. That was one of the problems with her strategy compared to Obama's. The Clinton strategy was "winning states" while Obama's was collecting delegates. Looks like his worked out better for him.
_______________________________________

*Yes, really. She won these states by the popular vote as well as delegates. A win is a win. How eles can anyone see that as any different? She won on both accounts. It may of been close in some states but if you look at the popular vote as well as delegate count (except maybe texas...depending) from each of these key states she will be in the win column and he will be in the loss column on both facets. How can you argue with that???

Quote:

2. She is the supposed winner in uncounted contests in Florida and Michigan...which she and her supporters feel fall under her belt as legitimate wins (even though they are not supposed to be counted)

And they shouldn't be. But this is what's going to keep her in until August.
__________________________________

*Maybe in some peoples opinion they shouldn't be counted in this scenario but guess what....the reality is they will find a way to seat them it is seeming from the latest negotiations. Even if it means her only somewhat gaining a few numbers to her in her delegates count. Also she will then have the popular vote in her favor over all. if this happens. Something more to persuade the superdelegates.

Quote:

3. More of her support claims they will NOT vote for Ohbahma if he is the nominee versus how many of his supporters will vote for her if she is the nominee.

In the end everyone will vote for who they are told to. Democrats and Republicans who said they would sit this one out rather than vote for McCain.
_________________________________________

*Not entirely so. The race has a considerable amount of voters that will note vote for a black individual versus the opposite. It may not be righteous but still the race card plays a bit of a role here.
Quote:

4. For at least right now, she is doing slightly better in polls related to winning head-to-head against Mcain versus Ohbama going head to head with Mcain in November.

General election polls are too unreliable until after Labor Day.

_________________________________________

*Call them what you will but they are what they are and they are in her favor right now. If these polls were not in her favor you can believe you would her his case against hers on the matter. The superdelegates will somewhat take this into consideration.

Quote:

Consequently NEVER has a candidate lost the crucial states Ohbama has lost in the primary (or the general election) and went on to be President. She will argue she is the best in the key states needed in November. She will argue her demographic is the working class, blue collar Americans which make the base of the democratic votes in a general. Those votes are the most needed and crucial for the Dems to win in a general. Obahma falls "considerably enough" short in this category.

Working class blue collar have been drifting toward the Republicans in the last few decades. Also, who won what primary really has no bearing on who wins the states in a general election.

______________________________________________

*Not in the history of this country has any candidate even so much as lost Ohio, PA, Texas, California and New York and went on to win in the general. Not even close to such scenario has this ever occurred. Losing in these states shows a weakness exposed. How can you go with the runner up in these key states? Even if he did come close in one or two of those?

Quote:

She will insist she has more experience and knowledge of Washington.

Many of those Super Dels will see her side of things. No matter what the tally is by the time the convention rolls around.

Many will but even more won't. And a lot of super delegates are elected officials and don't want to face their constituents and explain why they took the nomination from someone who got more votes. A few have even changed their vote based upon the popular vote of their congressional districts.

Quote:

Just my humble opinion. As crazy as it seems... I think they may decide on Hillary as the nominee based on her "legitimate bitches" I listed above.

A blowout in Indiana might have kept her viable but it's over, aside from any really nasty tricks she might pull in Denver

___________________________________________

*A win is a win. Indiana is a key "swing state" in the election as well. It has an African American, Farming Country, and Blue collar mixed bag demographic. A true test to an election testy democratic playing field. You simply should win states like that no matter how close if you are the stronger democratic candidate. Ohbama called the state a "tie-breaker" a while ago because at the time he was favored to win it. Actually he was favored to win it until just about three weeks ago. Hillary actually came from behind to win in Indiana initially so it is a strong win for her over-all. She will easily trounce Ohbama in Kentucky and West Virginia coming up by up to 15-20 percent....then her case will be alive and well again.

If she can make it close in Oregon and win nicely in Puerto-Rico we will have a strong debate and she will have a strong case on closely considering the big picture on who should be the nominee.

In all fairness (and I like the guy) what major state has Barach Ohbama really won? None really. Just Illinois (if you consider that a major) and he damn well should of because he is from there for the most part. He has not won any real big chip state yet. She wins all those.

Take New York, California, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arizona, and Massachusetts's

and compare this to what he has won...Alabama, North Dakota, Louisianan, Utah, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Mississippi etc. etc.

See the difference there...

The states he has won are not "game changing" big league states. He won particular states by more favorable margins so this is why he is ahead a bit in the over all tally. But he has not won a major state nor has he won in any "swing states" and he has outspent her 3 to 1 in these major test states and every time he has lost in these crucial "test states" as they are called.

The superdelegates will be taking all this into consideration is my point.

Ohbama looks like close lead on paper just as far as delegate math goes but there is far much greater tale to be told when you look at the big picture. Count Florida and Michigan and the math is even much much closer.

-All this all means something. This is why I think she has such a strong case. She has been is the big chip
winner this entire race. He hasn't won one of those big state prizes or any of the swing states yet... OK he wins in Connecticut and Maine and states like this real big. Well she wins in states like New York and California by a decent margin. See the difference there? ... Take very much into consideration she has the Blue Collar Americans who are the core base of the democratic votes in which many will never vote for Ohbama if he is elected based on his color as wrong as that is. Who would you you pick to run in the general based on my points listed here and based on an over all smart winning strategy for the general election?

Something to ponder...

Ian

Back to top

Thought you were dinner ...but you were the shark ..

IP Logged

Joey

I Have No Life!

Online

Posts: 20,252
Omaha , NE
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #34 - May 9^th, 2008 at 9:21am

" All this all means something. This is why I think she has such a strong case. She has been is the big chip
winner this entire race. He hasn't won one of those big state prizes or any of the swing states yet... OK he wins in Connecticut and Maine and states like this real big. Well she wins in states like New York and California by a decent margin. See the difference there? ... Take very much into consideration she has the Blue Collar Americans who are the core base of the democratic votes in which many will never vote for Ohbama if he is elected based on his color as wrong as that is. Who would you you pick to run in the general based on my points listed here and based on an over all smart winning strategy for the general election?

Something to ponder... "

Outstanding Analysis . Superb .

Ian ............................

I would like to clutch you to me bosom and softly and gently and oh , OH so sweetly stroke your warm , moist , young sweaty , glistening , GLISTENING young Ian forehead and just say , " Well " ....... " THANKS " for being .... well , ........ you ?!

You are much loved by young Joeykins !

" Hit Me Ronnie ! "

J. " Snuggles " FLY ! ™

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 9^th, 2008 at 9:22am by Joey »

&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& *** " VICTORY !!!! " ***

IP Logged

ijwthstd

Rocks Off Regular

Online

Rocks Off Rules You Bastards

Posts: 1,043

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #35 - May 9^th, 2008 at 11:18am

First off, Indiana has NEVER been a swing state - the last Democrat to win there was LBJ in 1964, usually Republicans take it around 60%

And I still stay what states she won doesn't matter, the primary process is how the parties choose their nominee and right now it appears more Democrats want Barack Obama to be President. Not very many Republicans will be crossing over. Basically I think both of them would get roughly the same amount of votes in a general election.

Back to top

"I went and saw Chickenfoot twice. I've suffered for being Sammy's friend" - Bob Forrest.&&&&http://www.soundcloud.com/thesameoldsauce

IP Logged

Wild Bill

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Peace, love y abrazos

Posts: 447
East Ozarks
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #36 - May 9^th, 2008 at 12:00pm

gimmekeef wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 7:30am:

America will vote McCain in in another slim win because the heartland will reject Obama. Its over for Hillary and he wont tap her for Veep.

Ed Zackery, gimmekeef.

The rest of you should bear in mind that Michelle Obama hates Hillicunt.

ijwthstd wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 1:23pm:

It seems the Wright issue is fading and McCain is refusing to exploit it for what it's worth. Wonder if the fact that Wright is trying to intentionally sabotage Obama has anything to do with it?

Wright and some behind-the-scenes Republicans will do their parts to keep the issue front and center to November.

stonedinaustralia wrote on May 7^th, 2008 at 7:29pm:

i find this broad definition of "socialism" used by some of you amusing

let's face it - it (socialism) is a dead issue and has been since at least '89

western capitalism has won the day fellows - i don't see anybody there campaiging for the nationalization of the banks or the mining or oil industry which is the first thing any true "socialist" goverment would do

to use the term as you are really is a gross overstament that has little more going for it than emotive appeal (and it's a stale emotion at that as I say) imho

We say "socialism" to mean all of those things like free health care for all, including those currently with no health insurance.

Electing Obammie or Hillicunt would be a "gross overstatement!"

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 9^th, 2008 at 12:03pm by Wild Bill »

IP Logged

Starbuck

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Postito, Ergo Sum.

Posts: 4,698
Minneapolis, MN
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #37 - May 9^th, 2008 at 4:15pm

it would almost be worth obama winning the general just to see the look on riffy's face!!!

Back to top

"Why would any sane person want to leave Rocks Off? If you have an issue outside of Rocks Off, handle it. When you return it will be as if you never have left. Once you are here-it's expected you stay. Why waste long cultivated posting skills somewhere else? The outside world will not understand." -Nellie

“You assclowns are destroying this nation.” –Riffy

"You can lead a horse to the facts, but you can't make the horse understand the facts if he's a dumbfuck horse stuck on stupid." - Riffy

Posts: 66936 | Registered: Dec 2002

IP Logged

Riffhard

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules You Bastards

Posts: 1,934
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #38 - May 9^th, 2008 at 6:36pm

Starbuck wrote on May 9^th, 2008 at 4:15pm:

it would almost be worth obama winning the general just to see the look on riffy's face!!!

LOL! I can almost guarantee that Obama will not win the general. In fact I'll go so far as to say that he lose big. Every single poll shows that Hillary would do much better at garnering the moderate and independant voters. Those voters are already in McCain's camp because he's such a moderate independant "maverick" himself. Obama is as polarizing to independants as Clinton is to everyone else. Once Obama really comes under scutiny and his dealings with Tony Rezco get fully examined by the DLM (who has to date been ignoring them) than he will sink like a rock. Not to mention that the man is Marxist, and that can be proven with a simple Google search. He's toast. He's already lost hundreds of thousands of white votes thanks to the wrong Reverand Wright. Those votes will never come back.

The funny is that even the Democrat Party knows that he is a very weak nominee. In large part thanks to the Wright scandal, but that is only the tip of the iceburg with his associates. His wife alone is going to be a problem for him. The Dems knew that if they threw him under the bus that the black vote would be lost for the forseeable future. He's toast.

The Dems are going to pick up some seats in congress, but the presidency is lost.

Riffy

Back to top

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"When all government...in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided...” Thomas Jefferson&&&&"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows us that as a government grows, liberty decreases." — Thomas Jefferson&&&&&&&&We're not old men.We don't bother about petty morals--Keef&&&&Actually, it only takes one drink to get me loaded. Trouble is, I can't remember if it's the thirteenth or fourteenth. &&-- George Burns&&&&&&I ain't no leftist!-Bob Dylan&&&&"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a brave and scarce

IP Logged

Ian Billen

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules

Posts: 1,562
USA
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #39 - May 9^th, 2008 at 7:40pm

Joey wrote on May 9^th, 2008 at 9:21am:

" All this all means something. This is why I think she has such a strong case. She has been is the big chip
winner this entire race. He hasn't won one of those big state prizes or any of the swing states yet... OK he wins in Connecticut and Maine and states like this real big. Well she wins in states like New York and California by a decent margin. See the difference there? ... Take very much into consideration she has the Blue Collar Americans who are the core base of the democratic votes in which many will never vote for Ohbama if he is elected based on his color as wrong as that is. Who would you you pick to run in the general based on my points listed here and based on an over all smart winning strategy for the general election?

Something to ponder... "

Outstanding Analysis . Superb .

Ian ............................

I would like to clutch you to me bosom and softly and gently and oh , OH so sweetly stroke your warm , moist , young sweaty , glistening , GLISTENING young Ian forehead and just say , " Well " ....... " THANKS " for being .... well , ........ you ?!

You are much loved by young Joeykins !

" Hit Me Ronnie ! "

J. " Snuggles " FLY ! ™

______________________________

Gee Thanks. (uh...I think)

Ian

Back to top

Thought you were dinner ...but you were the shark ..

IP Logged

Ian Billen

Rocks Off Regular

Offline

Rocks Off Rules

Posts: 1,562
USA
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #40 - May 9^th, 2008 at 7:47pm

Riffhard wrote on May 9^th, 2008 at 6:36pm:

Starbuck wrote on May 9^th, 2008 at 4:15pm:

it would almost be worth obama winning the general just to see the look on riffy's face!!!

LOL! I can almost guarantee that Obama will not win the general. In fact I'll go so far as to say that he lose big. Every single poll shows that Hillary would do much better at garnering the moderate and independant voters. Those voters are already in McCain's camp because he's such a moderate independant "maverick" himself. Obama is as polarizing to independants as Clinton is to everyone else. Once Obama really comes under scutiny and his dealings with Tony Rezco get fully examined by the DLM (who has to date been ignoring them) than he will sink like a rock. Not to mention that the man is Marxist, and that can be proven with a simple Google search. He's toast. He's already lost hundreds of thousands of white votes thanks to the wrong Reverand Wright. Those votes will never come back.

The funny is that even the Democrat Party knows that he is a very weak nominee. In large part thanks to the Wright scandal, but that is only the tip of the iceburg with his associates. His wife alone is going to be a problem for him. The Dems knew that if they threw him under the bus that the black vote would be lost for the forseeable future. He's toast.

The Dems are going to pick up some seats in congress, but the presidency is lost.

Riffy

____________________________________

For the most part what you say is true. Again, all this Ohbama hype and media coverage with throwing Hillary overboard too early and not giving her a "just do" will only kill the Dems come November.

The Dems are killing their November election chance by putting Ohbama up on this pedestool and giving him the easy nod. It is a wrong move.

Anyone with a substantial amount of political knowledge should definitely realize this. He simply doesn't have the best chance against Mcain. I can't believe how many Super-dels are going to him and how the media has killed Hillary as of late and are deliberately eliminating her fighting chances here.

It actually makes me wonder if there is not some underlying cause to all this. It makes me wonder if there is not altereror motive behing this. the media is considerably much to kind to Ohbama as far as his presidential nomination notion goes. Fuck, Time Magazine already has listed that he is the winner in the nomination????

That is truly about carving out Hillary's head stone.

Ian

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 9^th, 2008 at 7:52pm by Ian Billen »

Thought you were dinner ...but you were the shark ..

IP Logged

lotsajizz Rocks Off Regular Offline Rocks Off Rules You Bastards Posts: 1,788 Rhode Island Gender:	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #41 - May 9^th, 2008 at 9:54pm Fuck Obama
Back to top	"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." Dr. Johnson. IP Logged

Joey I Have No Life! Online Posts: 20,252 Omaha , NE Gender:	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #42 - May 10^th, 2008 at 10:34am " Fuck Obama " Hi Jizzy ....... Weeding ?!
Back to top	&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& * " VICTORY !!!! " * IP Logged

Some Guy Resident Cretin Offline Posts: 15,825 Atlanta Gender:	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #43 - May 10^th, 2008 at 10:48am it's a conspiracy- a c-o-n- spiracy
Back to top	IP Logged

Joey I Have No Life! Online Posts: 20,252 Omaha , NE Gender:	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #44 - May 10^th, 2008 at 10:54am " it's a conspiracy- a c-o-n- spiracy " Some Guy ................................... Keith " Uncle Moonie " Moon says , " Hi " !!!!! BTW ... What happened to my favorite weather girl on the Weather Channel ?! She has been ' missing in action ' the past few weeks and I grow worried !!!!! LBJOEY !
Back to top	&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& * " VICTORY !!!! " * IP Logged

lotsajizz Rocks Off Regular Offline Rocks Off Rules You Bastards Posts: 1,788 Rhode Island Gender:	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #45 - May 10^th, 2008 at 10:55am Joey wrote on May 10^th, 2008 at 10:34am: " Fuck Obama " Hi Jizzy ....... Weeding ?! Hey Joey!!!1 ALWAYS! et tu?
Back to top	"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." Dr. Johnson. IP Logged

Some Guy

Resident Cretin

Offline

Posts: 15,825
Atlanta
Gender: male

Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content )
Reply #46 - May 10^th, 2008 at 11:34am

Joey wrote on May 10^th, 2008 at 10:54am:

" it's a conspiracy- a c-o-n- spiracy "

Some Guy ...................................

Keith " Uncle Moonie " Moon says , " Hi " !!!!!

BTW ... What happened to my favorite weather girl on the Weather Channel ?! She has been ' missing in action ' the past few weeks and I grow worried !!!!!

LBJOEY !

she quit-

Back to top

IP Logged

Joey I Have No Life! Online Posts: 20,252 Omaha , NE Gender:	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #47 - May 10^th, 2008 at 6:19pm """""""" she quit- " !!!!!!!!!
Back to top	&&&&D.J. Jazzy Joe and the Fresh Prince of Boca Raton !™&& * " VICTORY !!!! " * IP Logged

angee Rocks Off Regular Offline Rocks Off Rules You Sots Posts: 81 USA Gender:	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #48 - May 11^th, 2008 at 1:18am Ian, I'd so like to agree with you. However, I have to go with Joey's first post: Hillary for VEEP! I think they'd be a good ticket however much I might have preferred the order to be reversed. Thanks for all your thoughts.
Back to top	IP Logged

ijwthstd Rocks Off Regular Online Rocks Off Rules You Bastards Posts: 1,043	Re: Hillary for VEEP ... ( Stones Content ) Reply #49 - May 11^th, 2008 at 7:25pm Not gonna happen: Why Obama-Clinton ticket is nuts: Five reasons why a joint ticket won't happen. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10242.html or maybe it will Five reasons why Obama should offer Clinton the VP nomination. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10241.html
Back to top	"I went and saw Chickenfoot twice. I've suffered for being Sammy's friend" - Bob Forrest.&&&&http://www.soundcloud.com/thesameoldsauce IP Logged