Democrats, is this all you have? - Page 2

The Atheist · 17th February 2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thanks, I'm leaning to Obama. I like him. I think his biggest problem is everyone thinking, and stating, that America isn't ready.

If I do vote for him it will be the first Democrat that I have supported since Gary Hart.

Hey, welcome back RF!

Good point - let's assume America is ready and that he gets the chance to have a decent shot at it.

He's the right age and experience and certainly provides a great counter if Guiliani gets the nod on the other side. (Or so it seems from a distance.)

RandFan · 17th February 2007, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Hey, welcome back RF!

Good point - let's assume America is ready and that he gets the chance to have a decent shot at it.

He's the right age and experience and certainly provides a great counter if Guiliani gets the nod on the other side. (Or so it seems from a distance.)

Thanks.

pipelineaudio · 18th February 2007, 01:32 AM

I like dean, he didnt piss in my face the way bush and kerry enjoyed to,

Forget Obama, we have one stupid coke-head in office right now, do we REALLY need another one?

I dont care for the "just experimenting" line...there is still common sense

For instance, how much running on the freeway experimentation do kids do?
Not a whole lot

clarsct · 18th February 2007, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

I like dean, he didnt piss in my face the way bush and kerry enjoyed to,

Forget Obama, we have one stupid coke-head in office right now, do we REALLY need another one?

I dont care for the "just experimenting" line...there is still common sense

For instance, how much running on the freeway experimentation do kids do?
Not a whole lot

Obama=Coke Head?

Bloody Hell, did I miss a memo?

The Atheist · 18th February 2007, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Forget Obama, we have one stupid coke-head in office right now, do we REALLY need another one?

You, of course, have lived an exemplary life, never once breaking a law. Not once, even when young and stupid did you break a single rule. I commend you.

I'm surprised you aren't on a christian site. John 8:7 would cover it nicely.

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

I dont care for the "just experimenting" line...there is still common sense

Which "experiment" is this? Having a black guy running for Pres? Yeah, makes no sense at all, does it? What the hell does that uppity damn ****** think he's doin'?

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

For instance, how much running on the freeway experimentation do kids do?
Not a whole lot

Yeah, voting a coon into the White House would be even worse than playing chicken on a 20-lane freeway.

Glad to see some common sense in this thread at last.

The Atheist · 18th February 2007, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

Obama=Coke Head?

Bloody Hell, did I miss a memo?

Oh yeah. Barack admitted that he did inhale.

An honest politician, horrific.

Just realised - maybe that's the "experiment" pipeline was talking about - an honest bloke standing for Pres.

clarsct · 18th February 2007, 01:54 AM

Hrmph.

Well, all those who said they would have respected Clinton more had he admitted his drug use now have a gauntlet thrown down, don't they? I wonder how many pundits will comdemn Obama for this, and how many of them said something exactly like that.

Besides, Given that stats on how many Americans have tried drugs, this country ought to be full of CokeHeads. The idea that you have tried drugs or been on drugs in the past has some magical effect on your decisions in the future is not one I think is backed by evidence.
Sounds like more voodoo pharmacology to me.

pipelineaudio · 18th February 2007, 01:54 AM

Nice try bigot, Obama's color is not at issue here

His stupidity is

Show one iota of evidence I have a problem with Obama's "ethnicity" or withraw your accusations

I am NOT happy with our president now, and I dont want to chance it on Obama either

Can I not make a judgement based on the fact that he was stupid enough to do coke?

Of course if he had ever said a inapropriate word to a female coworker OF COURSE hed be out of the running

Im a little more worried about what kind of retard youd have to be to try coke

The Atheist · 18th February 2007, 01:59 AM

Ok, if colour isn't the "experiment" you're talking about, what is?

The Atheist · 18th February 2007, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by clarsct

Hrmph.

Well, all those who said they would have respected Clinton more had he admitted his drug use now have a gauntlet thrown down, don't they? I wonder how many pundits will comdemn Obama for this, and how many of them said something exactly like that.

Besides, Given that stats on how many Americans have tried drugs, this country ought to be full of CokeHeads. The idea that you have tried drugs or been on drugs in the past has some magical effect on your decisions in the future is not one I think is backed by evidence.
Sounds like more voodoo pharmacology to me.

PenguinWarrior · 18th February 2007, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Nice try bigot, Obama's color is not at issue here

His stupidity is

Show one iota of evidence I have a problem with Obama's "ethnicity" or withraw your accusations

I am NOT happy with our president now, and I dont want to chance it on Obama either

Can I not make a judgement based on the fact that he was stupid enough to do coke?

Of course if he had ever said a inapropriate word to a female coworker OF COURSE hed be out of the running

Im a little more worried about what kind of retard youd have to be to try coke

Lots of people do dumb things when they are young. It's the person they are now that matters, surely? If you don't want to vote for him for that reason, well, fair enough, but you're not voting for the person as they were as a teenager to be President (Thank Ed).

Also, regarding Obama's race - I think those who might be deterred by it are largely not going to vote Democratic anyway (not anymore, anyhow. The southern wing of the party doesn't have a particularly spectacular history in this regard) as modern racists tend to collect on the (extreme) right wing of politics (for fairness sake, I will also point out that the loony conspiracy theorists tend to collect on the left, as far as I can tell. Certainly some of the "If Bush loses, he will declare martial law and institute a dictatorship" people made me sigh.)

Anyway, I will continue to follow with interest, despite having absolutely no way to effect the outcome. Well maybe I could write to some people and tell them that as a British person I want them to vote Republican, thus ensuring extra Democratic votes.

Mephisto · 18th February 2007, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

He acted like a lunatic.

Yeah, I agree. It was a rather silly thing to base one's decision on. Still, it's comedy gold.

As Bill Mahr said in his HBO program Friday (not verbatim)- "Joe Biden was taken out of serious consideration because of his comments about Obama, John Kerry seemingly made a joke about the troops that no one understood, and Howard Dean yelled, "Yee Haa," two decibels over what Americans consider proper for yelling Yee Haa. In this country, if a political candidate's chances are destroyed when he misspeaks, how the hell did we end up with the chimp we have now."

I also like Obama, but would like to see him teamed with John Edwards - they could run on the Ebony & Ivory platform.

(edited to add) Welcome back, btw.

corplinx · 18th February 2007, 10:56 AM

I was hoping Democratic Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen would make a go. He's not as much of a socialist as the other candidates and is pretty pragmatic.

However, he had problems with his ticker.

Where are the governors anyway?

Merko · 18th February 2007, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Can I not make a judgement based on the fact that he was stupid enough to do coke?

Yes you can, but I think it shows a lack in judgement. If a political candidate has never tried illegal drugs or abused alcohol, never cheated on his/her spouse, never even slightly abused a position of power for personal gains, never used a racist or sexist remark in an emotional outburst, never got caught shoplifting.. what does it tell us about this candidate? That he or she is a great leader? I think it is more likely explained by this person having been, from an early age, a career politician, always watching his/her step for no other reason than to avoid scandal.

I don't know enough about Obama to know if I'd like him as a US president, but his having tried drugs signifies to me mainly that at some point in time he's been living a real life as a real person with real experiences.

Merko · 18th February 2007, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Case in point: what killed Howard Dean?

He had made himself many enemies because of his political stance. Howerver, many of these enemies could not openly say that they disliked him because of his political stance, for example you couldn't really say that you didn't trust him because he wasn't dependent enough on funding from big business. So, these enemies had to come up with some other reason. It didn't really matter what, anything would do. Then when that anything turned up, they'd just all publicly agree that this totally disqualified Dean. Of course, this seemed more than a little ridiculous, but when a lot of influential people manage to say it with a straight face, it works. Sadly.

Mephisto · 19th February 2007, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Merko

He had made himself many enemies because of his political stance. Howerver, many of these enemies could not openly say that they disliked him because of his political stance, for example you couldn't really say that you didn't trust him because he wasn't dependent enough on funding from big business. So, these enemies had to come up with some other reason. It didn't really matter what, anything would do. Then when that anything turned up, they'd just all publicly agree that this totally disqualified Dean. Of course, this seemed more than a little ridiculous, but when a lot of influential people manage to say it with a straight face, it works. Sadly.

Maybe it was because anything he would have had to say about the Terri Schiavo debacle would have been far more authoritative than the Republicans who weighed in on the debate - he IS an M.D.

Come to think of it, have any past Presidents been medical doctors?

pipelineaudio · 19th February 2007, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Ok, if colour isn't the "experiment" you're talking about, what is?

coke, try reading before attacking the messenger

try not looking at the world with such biggoted eyes, so PC ready to pounce at every percieved social injustice

Its like watching some joke causie on PCU

pipelineaudio · 19th February 2007, 08:12 AM

Just so Im clear, "drugs" is one thing

but

coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon

Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it.

The only difference between being stupid enough to do coke and stupid enough to lay down on the freeway, is that the cokehead is a lot more likely to still be alive

Texastwister · 19th February 2007, 09:05 AM

Why doesnt anybody talk about Bill Richardson? I personnaly think Obama is peaking too early, there is way too much time for people to dig dirt up on him.

The best thing the democrats have now is a lack of any credible challengers from the Republicans. Romney no way, Giullianni has too much baggage, and Mccann is like Hillary, past his time.

pipelineaudio · 19th February 2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by Texastwister

Why doesnt anybody talk about Bill Richardson? I personnaly think Obama is peaking too early, there is way too much time for people to dig dirt up on him.

The best thing the democrats have now is a lack of any credible challengers from the Republicans. Romney no way, Giullianni has too much baggage, and Mccann is like Hillary, past his time.

Bill Richardson would be immedialely demonized by the media and religious left who INSIST on tying Illegal criminal VIOLATION of national sovereignty, with legal immigration

I love him! I wish our Governess, Janet Come Lately would do more than pay lip service to his sackitude

Steven Howard · 19th February 2007, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by The Painter

I don’t want to derail the thread, but where is this atheist first world country?

More than half the population of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, the Czech Republic, Finland, and France identify as atheist, agnostic, or not believing in God.

(Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK 2005)

Steven Howard · 19th February 2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Just so Im clear, "drugs" is one thing

but

coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon

Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it.

The only difference between being stupid enough to do coke and stupid enough to lay down on the freeway, is that the cokehead is a lot more likely to still be alive

Says who?

The Atheist · 19th February 2007, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

coke, try reading before attacking the messenger

try not looking at the world with such biggoted eyes, so PC ready to pounce at every percieved social injustice

Its like watching some joke causie on PCU

Given your propensity to create straw men and generally post garbage, I'll stick with the attack. Your statements are spurious and redundant unless you yourself have never broken the law. Which "experiment" you were referring to is of as little consequence as your posts.

Tricky · 19th February 2007, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon

Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it.

Doesn't our current president refuse to respond to questions about his earlier use of cocaine? I don't believe he has ever outright denied it.

pipelineaudio · 19th February 2007, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Doesn't our current president refuse to respond to questions about his earlier use of cocaine? I don't believe he has ever outright denied it.

thats what I said, we already HAVE one cokehead in office, do we REALLY need to do it again?

check post #43 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=43

But instead, whackjob the "atheist" sees KKK behind every tree

MajorOrgan · 19th February 2007, 02:48 PM

Wesley Clark

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark

Though Obama could be the next Jack Kennedy.

The Atheist · 19th February 2007, 02:51 PM

Yeah, I liked Wesley Clark - I think he would've killed Bush last time.

I still shake my head in wonder that they turned him down to go with Kerry. Did Michael Moore's championing of the General have anything to do with his non-selection?

gnome · 19th February 2007, 04:14 PM

For my own part, it was the 2004 debates that gave me interest in Kerry and Edwards above the others... they shined. When they got asked a question, they answered it. Clarke, Dean, Sharpton, and that K guy always did the candidate's favorite trick of diverting every question to a topic they were comfortable with INSTEAD of answering it.

gnome · 19th February 2007, 04:15 PM

For me the question isn't... is America ready to vote for Barack--it's are YOU ready to vote for Barack. Where's the strategy in wondering what other people think? Afraid if he wins the primary, he'll lose the general? If the thought of Hillary winning the primary doesn't scare you that way, I don't know what else can. She is a far greater liability in seeking votes outside the democratic core than barack is.

Diamond · 19th February 2007, 04:26 PM

May I ask a dumb-but-necessary question:

It seems to me that a successful candidate from the Democratic Party has to beat a Republican challenger. So who are the likely candidates?

Gurdur · 19th February 2007, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Just so Im clear, "drugs" is one thing

but

coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon

Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it.

The only difference between being stupid enough to do coke and stupid enough to lay down on the freeway, is that the cokehead is a lot more likely to still be alive

You know, I could excuse your abhorrent spelling and grammar, let alone your consistant, glaring lack of logic, much more if you had blamed it on coke. Now that you've wiped out coke as an excuse, what do you have left?

Tricky · 19th February 2007, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Yeah, I liked Wesley Clark - I think he would've killed Bush last time.

I still shake my head in wonder that they turned him down to go with Kerry. Did Michael Moore's championing of the General have anything to do with his non-selection?

The problem with Clark was that he was a turncoat. No matter how happy you are to have somebody join your side from the other side, there's always a hint of distrust for a traitor, even if he traded the right way. The party faithful don't like it.

And you can be pretty damn sure that Lieberman won't get any nominations from the Democrats or the Republicans.

Luke T. · 19th February 2007, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Hey, welcome back RF!

Good point - let's assume America is ready and that he gets the chance to have a decent shot at it.

He's the right age and experience and certainly provides a great counter if Guiliani gets the nod on the other side. (Or so it seems from a distance.)

Experience? And what experience is that?

ETA: I predict the word "experience" will not appear in any Obama campaign slogan.

Luke T. · 19th February 2007, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Azure

I like Obama too.

Why?

Quote:

But I would like to know where he stands on most issues. I think even if he believes in certain policies that I disagree with, I will still vote for him.

You don't know where he stands on certain issues, but you would vote for him even if he stands in opposition to you on certain policies.

WTF?

Why?

What are you basing your vote on?

Luke T. · 19th February 2007, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Kerberos

The number of people who would actually vote for a black or female candidate could easily be lower than the numbers indicate. It's fairly well established that people, even in anonymous polls, pick socially acceptable answers. Racism and sexism is not socially acceptable, though discrimination against atheists apparently is.

A more likely possibility is that people already had a candidate in mind when they took the poll.

"A woman? Sure I'd vote for Hillary! Yeah! Woo hoo!"

"A black? Go, Obama, go!"

I wouldn't take the poll any more seriously than that.

Imagine if Alan Keyes was the only one who had announced at this point. You'd be seeing "vote for a black" down in the 20s.

pipelineaudio · 19th February 2007, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Gurdur

You know, I could excuse your abhorrent spelling and grammar, let alone your consistant, glaring lack of logic, much more if you had blamed it on coke. Now that you've wiped out coke as an excuse, what do you have left?

oh look, its mr call me ignorant and run away

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=75

waiting for the polls

MajorOrgan · 19th February 2007, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

The problem with Clark was that he was a turncoat. No matter how happy you are to have somebody join your side from the other side, there's always a hint of distrust for a traitor, even if he traded the right way. The party faithful don't like it.

And you can be pretty damn sure that Lieberman won't get any nominations from the Democrats or the Republicans.

Traitor to what? To my knowledge, he was not politically active until he decided to run for President, and that he declared himself a Democrat because he felt closer to the party's platform, and also opposed the Iraqi War. Besides, politicians switch parties quite often, to little consequence. See Jim Webb, Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, and the entire Texas Republican Party.

Silly Green Monkey · 19th February 2007, 09:11 PM

I read through the thread waiting to see if pipelineaudio would give more information about Kerry's speech that 'lost him Arizona'. Suppose I should have known better.

Schneibster · 20th February 2007, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by MajorOrgan

Traitor to what? ... Besides, politicians switch parties quite often, to little consequence. See Jim Webb, Michael Bloomberg, Ronald Reagan, and the entire Texas Republican Party.

ROFLMFAO, thanks, I needed a good chuckle. My daily requirement.

Kerberos · 20th February 2007, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Luke T.

A more likely possibility is that people already had a candidate in mind when they took the poll.

"A woman? Sure I'd vote for Hillary! Yeah! Woo hoo!"

"A black? Go, Obama, go!"

I wouldn't take the poll any more seriously than that.

Imagine if Alan Keyes was the only one who had announced at this point. You'd be seeing "vote for a black" down in the 20s.

I'll grant you that those kind of factors matter as well, but Obama does not enjoy 94% support and Hilary does not have 88% backing. There seems in particular to be a lot of Hillary hating out there.

17th February 2007, 07:20 PM	#41
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,601	Originally Posted by RandFan Thanks, I'm leaning to Obama. I like him. I think his biggest problem is everyone thinking, and stating, that America isn't ready. If I do vote for him it will be the first Democrat that I have supported since Gary Hart. Hey, welcome back RF! Good point - let's assume America is ready and that he gets the chance to have a decent shot at it. He's the right age and experience and certainly provides a great counter if Guiliani gets the nod on the other side. (Or so it seems from a distance.)
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

17th February 2007, 07:31 PM	#42
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 60,134	Originally Posted by The Atheist Hey, welcome back RF! Good point - let's assume America is ready and that he gets the chance to have a decent shot at it. He's the right age and experience and certainly provides a great counter if Guiliani gets the nod on the other side. (Or so it seems from a distance.) Thanks.
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 60,134	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch?

18th February 2007, 01:47 AM	#44
clarsct Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,867	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio I like dean, he didnt piss in my face the way bush and kerry enjoyed to, Forget Obama, we have one stupid coke-head in office right now, do we REALLY need another one? I dont care for the "just experimenting" line...there is still common sense For instance, how much running on the freeway experimentation do kids do? Not a whole lot Obama=Coke Head? Bloody Hell, did I miss a memo?
clarsct Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,867

18th February 2007, 01:47 AM	#45
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,601	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Forget Obama, we have one stupid coke-head in office right now, do we REALLY need another one? You, of course, have lived an exemplary life, never once breaking a law. Not once, even when young and stupid did you break a single rule. I commend you. I'm surprised you aren't on a christian site. John 8:7 would cover it nicely. Originally Posted by pipelineaudio I dont care for the "just experimenting" line...there is still common sense Which "experiment" is this? Having a black guy running for Pres? Yeah, makes no sense at all, does it? What the hell does that uppity damn **** think he's doin'? Originally Posted by pipelineaudio** For instance, how much running on the freeway experimentation do kids do? Not a whole lot Yeah, voting a coon into the White House would be even worse than playing chicken on a 20-lane freeway. Glad to see some common sense in this thread at last.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

18th February 2007, 01:49 AM	#46
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,601	Originally Posted by clarsct Obama=Coke Head? Bloody Hell, did I miss a memo? Oh yeah. Barack admitted that he did inhale. An honest politician, horrific. Just realised - maybe that's the "experiment" pipeline was talking about - an honest bloke standing for Pres.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

18th February 2007, 01:32 AM	#43
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	I like dean, he didnt piss in my face the way bush and kerry enjoyed to, Forget Obama, we have one stupid coke-head in office right now, do we REALLY need another one? I dont care for the "just experimenting" line...there is still common sense For instance, how much running on the freeway experimentation do kids do? Not a whole lot
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

18th February 2007, 01:54 AM	#47
clarsct Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,867	Hrmph. Well, all those who said they would have respected Clinton more had he admitted his drug use now have a gauntlet thrown down, don't they? I wonder how many pundits will comdemn Obama for this, and how many of them said something exactly like that. Besides, Given that stats on how many Americans have tried drugs, this country ought to be full of CokeHeads. The idea that you have tried drugs or been on drugs in the past has some magical effect on your decisions in the future is not one I think is backed by evidence. Sounds like more voodoo pharmacology to me.
clarsct Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 4,867

18th February 2007, 01:59 AM	#49
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,601	Ok, if colour isn't the "experiment" you're talking about, what is?
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

18th February 2007, 02:00 AM	#50
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,601	Originally Posted by clarsct Hrmph. Well, all those who said they would have respected Clinton more had he admitted his drug use now have a gauntlet thrown down, don't they? I wonder how many pundits will comdemn Obama for this, and how many of them said something exactly like that. Besides, Given that stats on how many Americans have tried drugs, this country ought to be full of CokeHeads. The idea that you have tried drugs or been on drugs in the past has some magical effect on your decisions in the future is not one I think is backed by evidence. Sounds like more voodoo pharmacology to me.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

18th February 2007, 03:25 AM	#51
PenguinWarrior Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 101	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Nice try bigot, Obama's color is not at issue here His stupidity is Show one iota of evidence I have a problem with Obama's "ethnicity" or withraw your accusations I am NOT happy with our president now, and I dont want to chance it on Obama either Can I not make a judgement based on the fact that he was stupid enough to do coke? Of course if he had ever said a inapropriate word to a female coworker OF COURSE hed be out of the running Im a little more worried about what kind of retard youd have to be to try coke Lots of people do dumb things when they are young. It's the person they are now that matters, surely? If you don't want to vote for him for that reason, well, fair enough, but you're not voting for the person as they were as a teenager to be President (Thank Ed). Also, regarding Obama's race - I think those who might be deterred by it are largely not going to vote Democratic anyway (not anymore, anyhow. The southern wing of the party doesn't have a particularly spectacular history in this regard) as modern racists tend to collect on the (extreme) right wing of politics (for fairness sake, I will also point out that the loony conspiracy theorists tend to collect on the left, as far as I can tell. Certainly some of the "If Bush loses, he will declare martial law and institute a dictatorship" people made me sigh.) Anyway, I will continue to follow with interest, despite having absolutely no way to effect the outcome. Well maybe I could write to some people and tell them that as a British person I want them to vote Republican, thus ensuring extra Democratic votes.
PenguinWarrior Scholar Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 101

18th February 2007, 08:48 AM	#52
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6,064	Originally Posted by RandFan He acted like a lunatic. Yeah, I agree. It was a rather silly thing to base one's decision on. Still, it's comedy gold. As Bill Mahr said in his HBO program Friday (not verbatim)- "Joe Biden was taken out of serious consideration because of his comments about Obama, John Kerry seemingly made a joke about the troops that no one understood, and Howard Dean yelled, "Yee Haa," two decibels over what Americans consider proper for yelling Yee Haa. In this country, if a political candidate's chances are destroyed when he misspeaks, how the hell did we end up with the chimp we have now." I also like Obama, but would like to see him teamed with John Edwards - they could run on the Ebony & Ivory platform. (edited to add) Welcome back, btw.
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6,064	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi Last edited by Mephisto; 18th February 2007 at 08:50 AM.

18th February 2007, 10:56 AM	#53
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,952	I was hoping Democratic Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen would make a go. He's not as much of a socialist as the other candidates and is pretty pragmatic. However, he had problems with his ticker. Where are the governors anyway?
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,952

18th February 2007, 11:00 AM	#54
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,899	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Can I not make a judgement based on the fact that he was stupid enough to do coke? Yes you can, but I think it shows a lack in judgement. If a political candidate has never tried illegal drugs or abused alcohol, never cheated on his/her spouse, never even slightly abused a position of power for personal gains, never used a racist or sexist remark in an emotional outburst, never got caught shoplifting.. what does it tell us about this candidate? That he or she is a great leader? I think it is more likely explained by this person having been, from an early age, a career politician, always watching his/her step for no other reason than to avoid scandal. I don't know enough about Obama to know if I'd like him as a US president, but his having tried drugs signifies to me mainly that at some point in time he's been living a real life as a real person with real experiences.
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,899

18th February 2007, 11:11 AM	#55
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,899	Originally Posted by Rob Lister Case in point: what killed Howard Dean? He had made himself many enemies because of his political stance. Howerver, many of these enemies could not openly say that they disliked him because of his political stance, for example you couldn't really say that you didn't trust him because he wasn't dependent enough on funding from big business. So, these enemies had to come up with some other reason. It didn't really matter what, anything would do. Then when that anything turned up, they'd just all publicly agree that this totally disqualified Dean. Of course, this seemed more than a little ridiculous, but when a lot of influential people manage to say it with a straight face, it works. Sadly.
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,899

19th February 2007, 08:05 AM	#56
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6,064	Originally Posted by Merko He had made himself many enemies because of his political stance. Howerver, many of these enemies could not openly say that they disliked him because of his political stance, for example you couldn't really say that you didn't trust him because he wasn't dependent enough on funding from big business. So, these enemies had to come up with some other reason. It didn't really matter what, anything would do. Then when that anything turned up, they'd just all publicly agree that this totally disqualified Dean. Of course, this seemed more than a little ridiculous, but when a lot of influential people manage to say it with a straight face, it works. Sadly. Maybe it was because anything he would have had to say about the Terri Schiavo debacle would have been far more authoritative than the Republicans who weighed in on the debate - he IS an M.D. Come to think of it, have any past Presidents been medical doctors?
Mephisto Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 6,064	__________________ "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Mahatma Gandhi

19th February 2007, 08:09 AM	#57
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by The Atheist Ok, if colour isn't the "experiment" you're talking about, what is? coke, try reading before attacking the messenger try not looking at the world with such biggoted eyes, so PC ready to pounce at every percieved social injustice Its like watching some joke causie on PCU
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

19th February 2007, 08:12 AM	#58
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Just so Im clear, "drugs" is one thing but coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it. The only difference between being stupid enough to do coke and stupid enough to lay down on the freeway, is that the cokehead is a lot more likely to still be alive
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

19th February 2007, 09:05 AM	#59
Texastwister Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 95	Why doesnt anybody talk about Bill Richardson? I personnaly think Obama is peaking too early, there is way too much time for people to dig dirt up on him. The best thing the democrats have now is a lack of any credible challengers from the Republicans. Romney no way, Giullianni has too much baggage, and Mccann is like Hillary, past his time.
Texastwister Scholar Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 95

19th February 2007, 09:50 AM	#60
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Texastwister Why doesnt anybody talk about Bill Richardson? I personnaly think Obama is peaking too early, there is way too much time for people to dig dirt up on him. The best thing the democrats have now is a lack of any credible challengers from the Republicans. Romney no way, Giullianni has too much baggage, and Mccann is like Hillary, past his time. Bill Richardson would be immedialely demonized by the media and religious left who INSIST on tying Illegal criminal VIOLATION of national sovereignty, with legal immigration I love him! I wish our Governess, Janet Come Lately would do more than pay lip service to his sackitude
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

19th February 2007, 12:36 PM	#61
Steven Howard Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,797	Originally Posted by The Painter I don’t want to derail the thread, but where is this atheist first world country? More than half the population of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, the Czech Republic, Finland, and France identify as atheist, agnostic, or not believing in God. (Zuckerman, Phil. "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns", chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK 2005)

19th February 2007, 12:37 PM	#62
Steven Howard Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,797	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Just so Im clear, "drugs" is one thing but coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it. The only difference between being stupid enough to do coke and stupid enough to lay down on the freeway, is that the cokehead is a lot more likely to still be alive Says who?

19th February 2007, 01:03 PM	#63
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,601	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio coke, try reading before attacking the messenger try not looking at the world with such biggoted eyes, so PC ready to pounce at every percieved social injustice Its like watching some joke causie on PCU Given your propensity to create straw men and generally post garbage, I'll stick with the attack. Your statements are spurious and redundant unless you yourself have never broken the law. Which "experiment" you were referring to is of as little consequence as your posts.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

19th February 2007, 01:07 PM	#64
Tricky Briefly immortal Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W Bench Posts: 44,381	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it. Doesn't our current president refuse to respond to questions about his earlier use of cocaine? I don't believe he has ever outright denied it.

19th February 2007, 01:34 PM	#65
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Tricky Doesn't our current president refuse to respond to questions about his earlier use of cocaine? I don't believe he has ever outright denied it. thats what I said, we already HAVE one cokehead in office, do we REALLY need to do it again? check post #43 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=43 But instead, whackjob the "atheist" sees KKK behind every tree
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

19th February 2007, 02:48 PM	#66
MajorOrgan Student Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31	Wesley Clark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark Though Obama could be the next Jack Kennedy.
MajorOrgan Student Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 31

19th February 2007, 02:51 PM	#67
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 28,601	Yeah, I liked Wesley Clark - I think he would've killed Bush last time. I still shake my head in wonder that they turned him down to go with Kerry. Did Michael Moore's championing of the General have anything to do with his non-selection?
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

19th February 2007, 04:14 PM	#68
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,269	For my own part, it was the 2004 debates that gave me interest in Kerry and Edwards above the others... they shined. When they got asked a question, they answered it. Clarke, Dean, Sharpton, and that K guy always did the candidate's favorite trick of diverting every question to a topic they were comfortable with INSTEAD of answering it.
	__________________

19th February 2007, 04:15 PM	#69
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,269	For me the question isn't... is America ready to vote for Barack--it's are YOU ready to vote for Barack. Where's the strategy in wondering what other people think? Afraid if he wins the primary, he'll lose the general? If the thought of Hillary winning the primary doesn't scare you that way, I don't know what else can. She is a far greater liability in seeking votes outside the democratic core than barack is.
	__________________

19th February 2007, 04:26 PM	#70
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,726	May I ask a dumb-but-necessary question: It seems to me that a successful candidate from the Democratic Party has to beat a Republican challenger. So who are the likely candidates?
Diamond Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,726

19th February 2007, 04:42 PM	#71
Gurdur Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,873	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Just so Im clear, "drugs" is one thing but coke requires a brain so malformed to do it is without excuse or pardon Sorry if thats harsh to you cokeheads, but there is a point where something can be so stupid it really doesnt matter WHEN you did it. The only difference between being stupid enough to do coke and stupid enough to lay down on the freeway, is that the cokehead is a lot more likely to still be alive You know, I could excuse your abhorrent spelling and grammar, let alone your consistant, glaring lack of logic, much more if you had blamed it on coke. Now that you've wiped out coke as an excuse, what do you have left?
Gurdur Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,873

19th February 2007, 04:54 PM	#72
Tricky Briefly immortal Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W Bench Posts: 44,381	Originally Posted by The Atheist Yeah, I liked Wesley Clark - I think he would've killed Bush last time. I still shake my head in wonder that they turned him down to go with Kerry. Did Michael Moore's championing of the General have anything to do with his non-selection? The problem with Clark was that he was a turncoat. No matter how happy you are to have somebody join your side from the other side, there's always a hint of distrust for a traitor, even if he traded the right way. The party faithful don't like it. And you can be pretty damn sure that Lieberman won't get any nominations from the Democrats or the Republicans.

19th February 2007, 05:41 PM	#73
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,708	Originally Posted by The Atheist Hey, welcome back RF! Good point - let's assume America is ready and that he gets the chance to have a decent shot at it. He's the right age and experience and certainly provides a great counter if Guiliani gets the nod on the other side. (Or so it seems from a distance.) Experience? And what experience is that? ETA: I predict the word "experience" will not appear in any Obama campaign slogan.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,708	Last edited by Luke T.; 19th February 2007 at 05:57 PM.

19th February 2007, 05:43 PM	#74
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,708	Originally Posted by Azure I like Obama too. Why? Quote: But I would like to know where he stands on most issues. I think even if he believes in certain policies that I disagree with, I will still vote for him. You don't know where he stands on certain issues, but you would vote for him even if he stands in opposition to you on certain policies. WTF? Why? What are you basing your vote on?
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,708

19th February 2007, 05:47 PM	#75
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,708	Originally Posted by Kerberos The number of people who would actually vote for a black or female candidate could easily be lower than the numbers indicate. It's fairly well established that people, even in anonymous polls, pick socially acceptable answers. Racism and sexism is not socially acceptable, though discrimination against atheists apparently is. A more likely possibility is that people already had a candidate in mind when they took the poll. "A woman? Sure I'd vote for Hillary! Yeah! Woo hoo!" "A black? Go, Obama, go!" I wouldn't take the poll any more seriously than that. Imagine if Alan Keyes was the only one who had announced at this point. You'd be seeing "vote for a black" down in the 20s.
Luke T. Guest Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 14,708

19th February 2007, 05:52 PM	#76
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Gurdur You know, I could excuse your abhorrent spelling and grammar, let alone your consistant, glaring lack of logic, much more if you had blamed it on coke. Now that you've wiped out coke as an excuse, what do you have left? oh look, its mr call me ignorant and run away http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=75 waiting for the polls
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it