Obama hides behind DNC decision day to quit church

[HAL 9000 96]

What you should be asking, Marylin.. is why do Obamabots mention, on average, they'd support Hillary if she were the nominee, more than Hillbots do the same for Obama when he actually becomes the nominee when both stand nearly identical on the things that matter- issues?

There in itself lies part of the problem with party unity, and its sad, yet not as prevalent as the Republicans here would like to have us believe.

Tis true, I'd get behind Hillary if she were the nominee. *shrug* I've been pessimistic since the beginning though. I don't think McSame is beatable regardless if it's Obama or Hillary.

Fortunately, Sister... I don't really think the US is willing to have another Bush term, McSame, more of Bush's policies, more Republican blunders, etc... even if it comes in guise of a good man that believes he is serving his country to the best of his abilities.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If Hillary supporters truly support Hillary, then I suppose they will support her supporting Obama. She will throw her support behind him and then we'll see how many supporters she really has.

You mean the false support ? They actually dislike eachother from what I can tell.

Not more so that GHWB and Reagan disliked each other. They ended up running and serving together.

If Hillary supporters truly support Hillary, then I suppose they will support her supporting Obama. She will throw her support behind him and then we'll see how many supporters she really has.

Yes I think this will be the case. Hillary herself can't be as silly and petty as some of the members of her campaign staff and their tactics. Her political future is at stake.

Bingo!

[Heracles 417]

lol Two party system for 300,000,000. Some Europeans countries with 5,000,000 people have 5 to 8 parties.

Why has this never been rectified. Two parties representing 300,000,000 views is a joke.

[Heracles 417]

Fortunately, Sister... I don't really think the US is willing to have another Bush term, McSame, more of Bush's policies, more Republican blunders, etc... even if it comes in guise of a good man that believes he is serving his country to the best of his abilities.

Yes the Bush presidency is bad. He is to blame for Americas woes. Correct me if I am wrong but you guys gave up the extremely successful parliamentary system for the constitution / three levels of government. Therefore, GWB and his administration should not be the scapegoat for this county. So making it out that Obama, or anyone for that matter, will be able to come in and save the day is just ludicrous.

First of all this two term limit effectively tells whoever is in for a second term not to even bother trying because they cannot be fired and will not be elected again.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Sister Fracas 5]

What you should be asking, Marylin.. is why do Obamabots mention, on average, they'd support Hillary if she were the nominee, more than Hillbots do the same for Obama when he actually becomes the nominee when both stand nearly identical on the things that matter- issues?

There in itself lies part of the problem with party unity, and its sad, yet not as prevalent as the Republicans here would like to have us believe.

Tis true, I'd get behind Hillary if she were the nominee. *shrug* I've been pessimistic since the beginning though. I don't think McSame is beatable regardless if it's Obama or Hillary.

Fortunately, Sister... I don't really think the US is willing to have another Bush term, McSame, more of Bush's policies, more Republican blunders, etc... even if it comes in guise of a good man that believes he is serving his country to the best of his abilities.

I want to believe Mav, I want to believe...

But how much "war hero" stuff do you think is going to be poured on thick, from convention time to the election? We love a war hero in the US.

lol Two party system for 300,000,000. Some Europeans countries with 5,000,000 people have 5 to 8 parties.

Why has this never been rectified. Two parties representing 300,000,000 views is a joke.

I'm gonna faint.... we agree! LOL

[HAL 9000 96]

What you should be asking, Marylin.. is why do Obamabots mention, on average, they'd support Hillary if she were the nominee, more than Hillbots do the same for Obama when he actually becomes the nominee when both stand nearly identical on the things that matter- issues?

There in itself lies part of the problem with party unity, and its sad, yet not as prevalent as the Republicans here would like to have us believe.

Tis true, I'd get behind Hillary if she were the nominee. *shrug* I've been pessimistic since the beginning though. I don't think McSame is beatable regardless if it's Obama or Hillary.

Fortunately, Sister... I don't really think the US is willing to have another Bush term, McSame, more of Bush's policies, more Republican blunders, etc... even if it comes in guise of a good man that believes he is serving his country to the best of his abilities.

I want to believe Mav, I want to believe...

But how much "war hero" stuff do you think is going to be poured on thick, from convention time to the election? We love a war hero in the US.

lol Two party system for 300,000,000. Some Europeans countries with 5,000,000 people have 5 to 8 parties.

Why has this never been rectified. Two parties representing 300,000,000 views is a joke.

I'm gonna faint.... we agree! LOL

Yeah... problem is that people right now will be looking at most war-related props as a philosophy mired in more of the same. And for McSame, that will spell doom for his chances at winning.

Nevertheless... it would be a true tragedy that after suffering two Bush terms, this nation's population elects its continuation under a different name. Yet we do deserve the people we vote for.

As for multiparty systems go... sadly the US is based on a liberal vs. conservative construct of a republic that in simplest terms equals mostly the same thing for both types of sides. If voters would be more interested in choosing politicians according to solving problematic issues and moving in a positive direction then there'd be more functionality to having more than 2 principal parties.

[Heracles 417]

lol Two party system for 300,000,000. Some Europeans countries with 5,000,000 people have 5 to 8 parties.

Why has this never been rectified. Two parties representing 300,000,000 views is a joke.

I'm gonna faint.... we agree! LOL

As for multiparty systems go... sadly the US is based on a liberal vs. conservative construct of a republic that in simplest terms equals mostly the same thing for both types of sides. If voters would be more interested in choosing politicians according to solving problematic issues and moving in a positive direction then there'd be more functionality to having more than 2 principal parties.

It is funny to hear you say that considering your stance on Obama. I created a thread a while back of name one of Obama's accomplishments and the silence was deafening. Voting for McCain because he is a war hero is just as dumb as voting for Obama because he is part Black and well spoken.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[HAL 9000 96]

lol Two party system for 300,000,000. Some Europeans countries with 5,000,000 people have 5 to 8 parties.

Why has this never been rectified. Two parties representing 300,000,000 views is a joke.

I'm gonna faint.... we agree! LOL

As for multiparty systems go... sadly the US is based on a liberal vs. conservative construct of a republic that in simplest terms equals mostly the same thing for both types of sides. If voters would be more interested in choosing politicians according to solving problematic issues and moving in a positive direction then there'd be more functionality to having more than 2 principal parties.

It is funny to hear you say that considering your stance on Obama. I created a thread a while back of name one of Obama's accomplishments and the silence was deafening. Voting for McCain because he is a war hero is just as dumb as voting for Obama because he is part Black and well spoken.

Why would equating funny with the silence of no replies in that one forum you say you created equate that? Agreed, both lines of logic are pretty stupid- which is why most voters that choose their candidates based on issues don't pander to stupid non-issues like association and skin color to get their candidates into office.

What is not funny, nor stupid, is when the candidates make these things actual issues, and that is what McCain and Obama will try to avoid in order to hit their target voting blocks- the mainstream as #1. Obama has had to fight a little harder to get some voters to focus on actual issues instead of guilt-by-association tactics thrown at him while McCain will have to somehow focus on appeasing most voters that he will not continue Bush's policies all the while not really deviating from them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Outside of real personal flaws like unethical/criminal dishonesty, alcoholism, infidelity etc. I'm not sure we should be using "image" to drive our voting decisions.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Outside of real personal flaws like unethical/criminal dishonesty, alcoholism, infidelity etc. I'm not sure we should be using "image" to drive our voting decisions.

Hmmm, except some pretty great leaders have been alcoholics or adulterers

[nana_356 0]

John F kennedy mothers stated that "great men have great flaws"!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Outside of real personal flaws like unethical/criminal dishonesty, alcoholism, infidelity etc. I'm not sure we should be using "image" to drive our voting decisions.

Hmmm, except some pretty great leaders have been alcoholics or adulterers

Of course - but usually after the fact, or they're things that weren't sufficiently brought to light beforehand.

John F kennedy mothers stated that "great men have great flaws"!

I guess he knew all about that...

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Outside of real personal flaws like unethical/criminal dishonesty, alcoholism, infidelity etc. I'm not sure we should be using "image" to drive our voting decisions.

Hmmm, except some pretty great leaders have been alcoholics or adulterers

Of course - but usually after the fact, or they're things that weren't sufficiently brought to light beforehand.

I remember when Boris Yelstin died someone said something along the lines of how Bringing down communism, dismantling the Soviet Union and establishing something vaguely like democracy in a region that never fully replaced Tartar barbarism with European enlightenment is a noteworthy achievement. Doing it while drunk – that takes a certain style.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Outside of real personal flaws like unethical/criminal dishonesty, alcoholism, infidelity etc. I'm not sure we should be using "image" to drive our voting decisions.

Hmmm, except some pretty great leaders have been alcoholics or adulterers

Of course - but usually after the fact, or they're things that weren't sufficiently brought to light beforehand.

I remember when Boris Yelstin died someone said something along the lines of how Bringing down communism, dismantling the Soviet Union and establishing something vaguely like democracy in a region that never fully replaced Tartar barbarism with European enlightenment is a noteworthy achievement. Doing it while drunk – that takes a certain style.

True - but I bet he wasn't the only person doing it.

In contrast of course - you have folks like Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir (puppetmaster) Putin

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Outside of real personal flaws like unethical/criminal dishonesty, alcoholism, infidelity etc. I'm not sure we should be using "image" to drive our voting decisions.

Hmmm, except some pretty great leaders have been alcoholics or adulterers

Of course - but usually after the fact, or they're things that weren't sufficiently brought to light beforehand.

I remember when Boris Yelstin died someone said something along the lines of how Bringing down communism, dismantling the Soviet Union and establishing something vaguely like democracy in a region that never fully replaced Tartar barbarism with European enlightenment is a noteworthy achievement. Doing it while drunk – that takes a certain style.

True - but I bet he wasn't the only person doing it.

In contrast of course - you have folks like Silvio Berlusconi and Vladimir (puppetmaster) Putin

Are they supposed to be alcoholics?

Of course there's also Churchill.

I mean, our current president is tee-total. Where has that got us?