kapkomet

I can't stand Ted Kennedy's political ideology, but I sure as hell would never wish cancer on anyone. The man served our country and at least deserves respect for that, no matter his (in my opinion political) faults. for Ted.

Personally, I think Hillary and Obama struck a deal for her to continue... think about it. Obama doesn't want to claim outright victory with him getting his ass handed to him in the last three primaries in a row. It leaves doubt. He picked tonight, because the "last" state with results will be an Obama win, unlike the last two times contests have been held (Indiana and West Virginia). In that realm, Obama is a "loser" and "unelectable" and he doesn't need to answer those questions. He'll have his "mission accomplished" statement after a win, not a loss.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 16, 2008 -> 08:18 AM) One can argue: "Why do we even have politicians?" Whenever there's an issue to decide on just have the people take a vote on it and the majority wins. Do you have a damn clue how democracy is supposed to work? Let's just all become Communist, shall we? This just appalls me on the line of thought you're carrying here, if you're serious. I can't tell because it doesn't make sense if you are saying that legislators shouldn't follow their constituants.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ May 16, 2008 -> 12:29 AM) Unfortunately, this doesn't only exist in West Virginia. I think racism is going to be a factor in November, and I can't stand that at all. I am voting McCain, but if he wins due to racism I will feel terrible. I'd rather see Obama win if it means ignorance over something as irrelevant as skin tone doesn't play a role. I said that a few days ago and was laughed at.

My rebuttal is fine, say people are soft on terrorism. I don't have a problem with that. But I do have an issue on GWB going to the Isreal parliament and saying stuff comparing things to WWII. Different time, different place, different ideology. To say the Dems are "soft on terror" is a misnomer anyway, because they're not, but they scream they are just to placate the peace loonies on the far left. It's all one big lie and sham - to which I say the Democrats are far worse liars then any party ever seen because they don't intend to change a thing - but they bald face lie about it anyway. Either way, I wish that Bush wouldn't have chosen to carry that message in Isreal.

Bush is a jack-ass for making these comments in the context of where he made them. That rhetoric is pure bull s***. And this comes from someone who usually supports Bush in things relating to the "war on terror".

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 13, 2008 -> 03:23 PM) Here's my counterpoint...same thing I think it was David Axelrod saying....While there is certainly a chunk of America who will refuse to vote for Obama based on his race...how many of them would have voted for the party favoring things like legalized abortion, affirmative action, welfare, and so on anyway? Who did the people who wouldn't vote for Obama based on his race vote for in 1996, 2000, 2004? I doubt your answer is going to be Clinton, Gore, Kerry. I think everyone is greatly underestimating the DEMOCRATIC base who feels that race is an issue. Again, not that I personally buy it, but I think it will come into play. Even if it's 3 percentage points - ... it could sway things.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 13, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) Fixed that for you.l That's fair. And regarding everyone's comments about CA, that's also fair. I still think, though, that there's a lot of people in this country ignorant to vote against Obama PURELY because of race to where he ends up losing. We'll see.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 13, 2008 -> 03:50 PM) I think you greatly underestimate how awful GWB has been and how closely many of McCain's ideas mirror his. I think you greatly underestimate the ignorance of America in general... and that will trump the "awful GWB". Remember, people generally think McCain is a "maverick".

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 13, 2008 -> 03:49 PM) I think it will hurt him in the south, but that is about it. I remember I saw one poll a while back that was for either Kentucky or WV, I dont remember which. It had Cllnton +10 vs McCain, but McCain +20 vs Obama. My jaw hit the floor. But in northern states and out west it wont hurt him. He actually as good support out west in NV, CO, NM and Iowa. And if Obama loses the south, he's done for. In addition, if you look at California, it's in play, which speaks VOLUMES about the volitility of this election. The fact that it's even in play is news in and of itself. I don't think McCain wins CA, but if it's in play, it spells trouble for Obama in the greater part of the country.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 13, 2008 -> 03:46 PM) This coming from the person that guaranteed several times that Clinton would be the nominee. That's right. But let's look at the reality of this country and how people think. People don't like change. Barack and Hillary are the biggest change that anyone in this country has ever seen running for president. For all the "CHANGE" talk that BOTH campaigns discuss, it's not the change of IDEAS that people will balk at, it's the CHANGE of the gender/color that people will balk at. Again, PERSONALLY, I think it's deplorable, but it's America, and why it will be difficult for either Hillary or Obama to win THIS election. Next time, not so much.

And that, my friends, is why Obama will not win in November. It's not even the issues. It's his race, and IMO it's the saddest thing of all. Now let me add, I think that's why Hillary's hanging around so long. She sees this being the first time a "minority" will be nominated and as such, that "minority" will lose, thus breaking down a barrier. In addition, Clinton would have had a hard time winning for much the same reason: it's her gender. The SECOND time someone runs, they will have a much better shot then the first time. And that's the reality of how politics works in this country, again, all IMO. Note: I also disagree with this, but I think it's reality.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 13, 2008 -> 11:23 AM) At this point, I think it'd be fair to give Florida their delegates but slice them in half the way the GOP did, so they are still penalized but they still do have a say just with less influence. It was more or less a level playing field there in all honesty since nobody campaigned (tired of hearing about how Obama ran ads there, he ran ads on national stations, it's not like he can just do them in 49 states, plus Hillary went to some authorized fundraisers anyway). However the MI vote is completely tainted and nothing short of a total re-vote can fix that, and that's not happening. The options were literally "Clinton" and "I don't care who but not Clinton," plus Edwards was still on the ballot. Also I'm getting tired of the Hillary camp talking about how Obama did this and likes it this way. It all wasn't a problem with Hillary when the votes took place, but now in retrospect, it's a problem for her. GTFA.

QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ May 13, 2008 -> 10:02 AM) I am disappointed that you glossed over Greg in your list. I'm sure you are.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 13, 2008 -> 06:58 AM) Which goes back to my original question many posts ago... If this is the candidate for change, why is he doing the same things as all the rest of the candidates? A leader should exhibit leadership, not just on the easy stuff, but the tuff stuff as well. It pisses me off that politicians count votes and then hide when it is politically cold outside to get cover from something that could upset people. Well that is why we elect people in the first place, to make tough choices on the direction of the country. Minimizing certian votes is a sad attempt to cover up the bigger problem of politicians more worried about politics than doing their damned jobs. Hell if I tried to hide from tough choices at my job, I would be out on the street by the end of the week, and my job has a whole lot less impact on the world than John McCain or Barack Obama's does. Man up. "It doesn't matter".

QUOTE (bmags @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) I don't understand how you can type something like that and think it's at all constructive to any type of entertaining debate. QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) The new filibuster rules do not apply to certain people. To respond in kind if this was for my benefit, my whole point is it always matters to those on the other side of (insert name here)'s political persuasion. I've seen post after post after post knocking (mocking) both parties dirty underwear and even the infighting on the Democrat side ad naseum here. To say "it doesn't matter" or whatever blowoff you want to make, to someone, it's always significant enough to merit some sort of poitical s***ball heaving. But, of course, that point all gets missed because we're all too busy looking out to defend "our guy" (or gal, as the case may be). Gotta love politics.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 01:14 PM) But here's the other issue...a lot of the countries with those multiple party systems wind up hating them even more than you guys do, for a number of reasons. The most important almost always winds up being that you can't run the government without the extreme parties there, because you need a coalition to form a governing majority, and those 5% or so that vote for whatever extreme party winds up wielding an inordinate amount of power for their size for that reason. Could you imagine, for example, if the difference between the vote count for, let's say, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader decided the next leader of the U.S., and McCain/Obama needed to bring in one of those 2 guys to form a governing coalition? Hell, in 2000 we would literally have had that result, Gore or Bush would have needed to deal with either Nader or Buchanan to decide the White House. A lot of countries that start with parliamentary systems and a ton of parties wind up rapidly whittling down the number of parties and sort of establishing a de facto 2 party system just because the system becomes ungovernable otherwise. You're right... the fringes get a lot of power because of the "coalitions". Ick. Our system's not great, but it's better then most.

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 12, 2008 -> 01:06 PM) Even still, as you even alluded to in this paragraph, there's a lot of gray area where people differ on those overall ideologies. It annoys me to no end that there are only 2 major political parties in this country. I guess technically I'm a "liberal" but half the stuff the Democratic party does I can't really stand. I agree, but that's the hardest part - I don't think many Americans would like the idea of their "leader" being elected by 20% of the vote (multiple parties - parliamentary system). It's a weird balance. I hate the fact that both parties veer as hard as they can toward their respective corners.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 12, 2008 -> 01:03 PM) what are you talking about? It didn't AFFECT THE PASSAGE OR NON PASSAGE of the bill. NOt whether how he voted mattered to someone of the millions in IL. If it mattered look at the party. I'm not talking about Obama's "present" vote. We all get that. He's a saint and did exactly what the procedures called for.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 01:01 PM) That I can believe. But the point I think I'm trying to focus on is...even if China's economic growth slows, it will take much more dramatic energy price increases for their energy demand to stop going up even in that case. Yea, and I think it's more complex then that, seeing as how they pratically own all of our debt. Funny how that works, seeing has how they make everything in the world now. Those Chinese, they are purdy smart, you know.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:59 PM) I'll still note that none of you have stepped up to my challenge of showing me a single vote where it mattered like I did with the opposition, and now both of you have tried to attack by changing the subject. I'm not making that point. That's your point, right? I think if we all dug enough, we could find instances of where things mattered to certain people. It's a tactic they all use, but the tag of "it doesn't matter" doesn't fly with me, because if it was important enough for a vote, it mattered to SOMEONE, regardless of party.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:54 PM) But here's the counterpoint. Wage growth in China is almost certain to drive more consumption of energy, not less. While fewer factories may be shipped over there from the U.S. as the dollar continues its collapse, if the income of the average Chinese citizen goes up by some percentage, then that allows them to demand more automobiles and more energy and better housing. They're in that enviable position where their economy can sustain itself to some extent as it grows, so as the people earn more money, they're able to buy more things, and who's the country manufacturing everything right now? China. I agree, but only to an extent. I think there's a hard Great Wall of China out there somewhere. It's just a matter of when/how it hits. I think that's more what I'm trying to say.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) "They all do it" was not the message I was trying to get across. "Show me where it mattered" was. It only matters if it's against your guy (or gal), right?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) The answer to your 2nd question is that, quite simply, it's been the business of some really well paid conservatives over the past 25-30 years to turn the word liberal in to a dirty word in this country. That has been one of the most subtle and perhaps the most important effects of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Fox news work, every time something bad happens, blame it on those evil "liberals". "Liberal" or "Conservative" has to do with whether you want to control your own desitiny with things. Get a government handout, expect it, want it, make sure that there's equality for all, and you'll see liberals more often then conservatives in the crowd. Understanding that there has to be a fair share, but there should be limits to what government can do for us, you'll see conservatives more often then liberals in the crowd. There's some damn good, hard working people here, but life's about choices, and everything being equal, I want control of my own destiny, thank you. I don't want my government telling me where to go for health care, and how they're going to pay for all Americans (welfare, health care, social security, etc.). I would rather work my ass off and know I'm taking care of me, and not expect a handout. Those are conservative values. I'm not one for "redistribution of wealth nanny state bulls***" like "liberals" are. Why do people deserve things, what "right" do they have for it? It's a "right" to sit on one's ass and get handed welfare. Gotta love America for that, right? (Note: some of this is the traditional "Kaperbole", and some of it isn't, but I'm trying to make a point that there's too much extreme values put on liberal and conservatism).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 12, 2008 -> 12:03 PM) Are you really convinced that so much of China's new energy demand is being fueled by growth in its construction industry directly related to the Olympics rather than growth in the economy as a whole? The only way I can see you being right is if you're saying the government is spending so much money on construction that the construction is what is pumping up their energy demand, and from my impressions, I just don't see this being true. The whole country has been experiencing a boom due to rising employment and rapid construction throughout. The only thing that would push that backwards is a major, major recession in that country. Well, I think that's a key part - the enormous factory growth is in large part due to us demanding cheap goods, and the olympics. I think that the urgency to make China an economic powerhouse will lose some of its emphasis post August, and I also think that all things being equal, wage growth will start to curtail the "cheapness" of things - which will lead to a severe downturn in their economy. We'll see.