Obama clinches the Democratic Nomination

[Galliard]

This is gonna be one helluva race, if you ask me.



Obama Hits Magic Number of Delegates
AP
Posted: 2008-06-03 14:16:41
Filed Under: Elections News, Barack Obama
WASHINGTON (June 3) - Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday after a grueling marathon, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial and gender divisions within the party.

The tally was based on public declarations from delegates as well as from another 15 who have confirmed their intentions to the AP. It also included 11 delegates Obama was guaranteed as long as he gained 30 percent of the vote in South Dakota and Montana later in the day. It takes 2,118 delegates to clinch the nomination.

The 46-year-old first-term senator will face John McCain in the fall campaign to become the 44th president. The Arizona senator campaigned in Memphis, Tenn., during the day, and had no immediate reaction to Obama's victory.

Clinton stood ready to concede that her rival had amassed the delegates needed to triumph, according to officials in her campaign. They stressed that the New York senator did not intend to suspend or end her candidacy in a speech Tuesday night in New York. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge her plans.

Obama's triumph was fashioned on prodigious fundraising, meticulous organizing and his theme of change aimed at an electorate opposed to the Iraq war and worried about the economy — all harnessed to his own innate gifts as a campaigner.

With her husband's two-White House terms as a backdrop, Clinton campaigned for months as the candidate of experience, a former first lady and second-term senator ready, she said, to take over on Day One.

But after a year on the campaign trail, Obama won the kickoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, and the freshman senator became something of an overnight political phenomenon.

"We came together as Democrats, as Republicans and independents, to stand up and say we are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come," he said that night in Des Moines.

A video produced by Will I. Am and built around Obama's "Yes, we can" rallying cry quickly went viral. It drew its one millionth hit within a few days of being posted.

As the strongest female presidential candidate in history, Clinton drew large, enthusiastic audiences. Yet Obama's were bigger still. One audience, in Dallas, famously cheered when he blew his nose on stage; a crowd of 75,000 turned out in Portland, Ore., the weekend before the state's May 20 primary.

The former first lady countered Obama's Iowa victory with an upset five days later in New Hampshire that set the stage for a campaign marathon as competitive as any in the last generation.

"Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice," she told supporters who had saved her candidacy from an early demise.

In defeat, Obama's aides concluded they had committed a cardinal sin of New Hampshire politics, forsaking small, intimate events in favor of speeches to large audiences inviting them to ratify Iowa's choice.

It was not a mistake they made again — which helped explain Obama's later outings to bowling alleys, backyard basketball hoops and American Legion halls in the heartland.

Clinton conceded nothing, memorably knocking back a shot of Crown Royal whiskey at a bar in Indiana, recalling that her grandfather had taught her to use a shotgun, and driving in a pickup to a gas station in South Bend, Ind., to emphasize her support for a summertime suspension of the federal gasoline tax.

As other rivals quickly fell away in winter, the strongest black candidate in history and the strongest female White House contender traded victories on Super Tuesday, the Feb. 5 series of primaries and caucuses across 21 states and American Samoa that once seemed likely to settle the nomination.

But Clinton had a problem that Obama exploited, and he scored a coup she could not answer.

Pressed for cash, the former first lady ran noncompetitive campaigns in several Super Tuesday caucus states, allowing her rival to run up his delegate totals.

At the same time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., endorsed the young senator in terms that summoned memories of his slain brothers while seeking to turn the page on the Clinton era.

In a reference that likened former President Clinton to Harry Truman: "There was another time, when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a new frontier. He faced criticism from the preceding Democratic president, who was widely respected in the party."

Merely by surviving Super Tuesday, Obama exceeded expectations.

But he did more than survive, emerging with a lead in delegates that he never relinquished, and proceeded to run off a string of 11 straight victories.

Clinton saved her candidacy once more with primary victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, beginning a stretch in which she won primaries in six of the final nine states on the calendar, as well as in Puerto Rico.

It was a strong run, providing glimpses of what might have been for the one-time front-runner.

But by then Obama was well on his way to victory, Clinton and her allies stressed the popular vote instead of delegates. Yet he seemed to emerge from each loss with residual strength.

Obama's bigger-than-expected victory in North Carolina on May 6 offset his narrow defeat in Indiana the same day. Four days later, he overtook Clinton's lead among superdelegates, the party leaders she had hoped would award her the nomination on the basis of a strong showing in swing states.

Obama lost West Virginia by a whopping 67 percent to 26 percent on May 13. Yet he won an endorsement the following day from former presidential rival and one-time North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Clinton administered another drubbing in Kentucky a week later. This time, Obama countered with a victory in Oregon, and turned up that night in Iowa to say he had won a majority of all the delegates available in 56 primaries and caucuses on the calendar.

There were moments of anger, notably in a finger-wagging debate in South Carolina on Jan. 21.

Obama told the former first lady he was helping unemployed workers on the streets of Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Moments later, Clinton said that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ... in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

And Bill Clinton was a constant presence and an occasional irritant for Obama. The former president angered several black politicians when he seemed to diminish Obama's South Carolina triumph by noting that Jesse Jackson had also won the state.

Obama's frustration showed at the Jan. 21 debate, when he accused the former president in absentia of uttering a series of distortions.

"I'm here. He's not," the former first lady snapped.

"Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Obama countered.

There were relatively few policy differences. Clinton accused Obama of backing a health care plan that would leave millions out, and the two clashed repeatedly over trade.

Yet race, religion, region and gender became political fault lines as the two campaigned from coast to coast.

Along the way, Obama showed an ability to weather the inevitable controversies, most notably one caused by the incendiary rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

At first, Obama said he could not break with his longtime spiritual adviser. Then, when Wright spoke out anew, Obama reversed course and denounced him strongly.

Clinton struggled with self-inflicted wounds. Most prominently, she claimed to have come under sniper fire as first lady more than a decade earlier while paying a visit to Bosnia.

Instead, videotapes showed her receiving a gift of flowers from a young girl who greeted her plane.

[UNODRAGONE]

Clinton needs to drop out already, the only reason she is pushing to stay in is to sabatoge Obama, if he gets elected president she has to wait eight years to run

[Pickle Tickler]

Haha, I'm glad Obama's the Democratic nomination. He's much better than Hillary.

[LV426]

Let's just hope he doesn't choose Hillary as running mate for VP.

[GhostBat]

Let's just hope he doesn't choose Hillary as running mate for VP.

Yeah, she'll end up having him assassinated "for the good of the democratic party." Cause, you know, everything she does is completely for the good of the party and the country and has nothing to do with her hunger for power.

[Pickle Tickler]

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j18/spiveym/notoHRC.jpg

http://www.obamaisgood.com/images/297_OIG_Image_Text_L ogo.jpg

[ThrasherCub]

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j18/spiveym/notoHRC.jpg

My room mate is a communist and he hates her. :D

[BlackRosePhantom]

Clinton needs to drop out already, the only reason she is pushing to stay in is to sabatoge Obama, if he gets elected president she has to wait eight years to run

Hey now, let's not slander anyone here, and if we do, only slander Bush and his supporters *cough*JohnMcCain*co ugh*. Hillary does not want to sabatoge Obama, she she was even quoted saying that she would gladly accept VP if offered. Both Hillary and Obama share many similar views. In fact, right before their campaigning against one another turned ugly do to a question if either one of them was willing to settle for VP at the time, in debates they hardly did anything but agree with one another. Hillary is not a scary communist witch, and I'm not just saying that because she is a big supporter of gay rights and wants to better Porto Rico. She's a respectable experienced candidate whom I hope Obama chooses as his VP. Yes, in about three or so issues they have differing opinions, but the majority of their opinions are the same when it comes to ALL of the issues. Hillary is an experienced woman and she would be a great choice for helping to advise Obama on issues if/when he wins Presidency.

[Sazabi]

My room mate is a communist and he hates her. :D

You guys do realize that Obama is far more leftist than Hillary Clinton, right?

[ThrasherCub]

You guys do realize that Obama is far more leftist than Hillary Clinton, right?

I don't think the Hillary-is-Communist thing has to do with her beliefs so much as how she would execute them.

Besides who said it would be "real" communism? She could always end up as the next Mao. But with slightly better hair.

[UNODRAGONE]

Hey now, let's not slander anyone here, and if we do, only slander Bush and his supporters *cough*JohnMcCain*co ugh*. Hillary does not want to sabatoge Obama, she she was even quoted saying that she would gladly accept VP if offered. Both Hillary and Obama share many similar views. In fact, right before their campaigning against one another turned ugly do to a question if either one of them was willing to settle for VP at the time, in debates they hardly did anything but agree with one another. Hillary is not a scary communist witch, and I'm not just saying that because she is a big supporter of gay rights and wants to better Porto Rico. She's a respectable experienced candidate whom I hope Obama chooses as his VP. Yes, in about three or so issues they have differing opinions, but the majority of their opinions are the same when it comes to ALL of the issues. Hillary is an experienced woman and she would be a great choice for helping to advise Obama on issues if/when he wins Presidency.


it's not slander, just like you dislike Bush, I dislike Hilary, it's called opinion :) if Hilary is so high and mighty why isn't she returning Obama's calls?

[BlackRosePhantom]

it's not slander, just like you dislike Bush, I dislike Hilary, it's called opinion :) if Hilary is so high and mighty why isn't she returning Obama's calls?

Well, saying that she just wants to sabatoge Obama's campaign is slander. I don't call Bush anything he's not or has yet to prove himself to be (like being smart). And what do you mean, 'she isn't returning Obama's calls'?

[GhostBat]

You guys do realize that Obama is far more leftist than Hillary Clinton, right?

I think the reason a good number of people dislike Hillary isn't for her political stance, but rather for her psycho hunger for power fuck everyone else feel people get from her. :p

[UNODRAGONE]

Well, saying that she just wants to sabatoge Obama's campaign is slander. I don't call Bush anything he's not or has yet to prove himself to be (like being smart). And what do you mean, 'she isn't returning Obama's calls'?

yeah sitting here saying Bush is not smart is different then what I am implying/saying with Hilary :rolleyes: but in any case Obama called Clinton to congradulate her on winning South Dakota primary, and Clinton never answered nor called him back. Honestly Clinton, in my opinion, is way too power hungry and know it all to even be Obama's VP

[chriz]

I think the reason a good number of people dislike Hillary isn't for her political stance, but rather for her psycho hunger for power fuck everyone else feel people get from her. :p

Bill was a charmer, but everyone knew he was basically in it for the thrill of being the guy in charge. Hillary has none of his charm and ten times the control freak. She's also just that 3rd grade teacher we all remember without fondness.

As much as I disagree with Obama's politics, he doesn't strike me as cutthroat as Hillary. Both he and Hillary are too leftist for me, but I think he's less capable of doing any real damage, so he's the safer choice.

Still won't vote for him. I'll probably write someone in.

[Gilenea]

If Obama does, heaven forbid, get assassinated, I'm pointing fingers at Hillary. I remember that she cited assassinations TWICE in two separate interviews (one where she mentioned a Kennedy), so it could be that she's got it on her mind.

Either way, I pray that we don't have a Democrat in office. If that happens, with a liberal Congress, you can say bye-bye to that nice 25% chunk of your paycheck as Income Tax gets higher to make up for all the people having babies and "needing" Welfare. Ugh.

Whatever happened to "keep what you kill?"

Gil

[blueeyes]

Slander, at least when talking about a public figure in American courts, requires that the individual say something that they know is false or stated recklessly with disregard to the truth. I can say that Hillary Clinton is a proverbially heartless witch who resembles a gender switched villain of a bad Ayn Rand novel, and to fight off a defamation suit I don't need to prove the truth as long as I can demonstrate that I did not believe it to be false and did reasonable research supporting such a statement.

Slander is very difficult to prove in America; short of well-documented intent to mislead.

Honestly, I worry more about Obama's ability to do damage more than Hillary. Republicans haved turned opposed the Clintons into an art form, while I don't think they're willing to do the same to Obama. Hope (for change) and change (for hope) are politically difficult things to stand against. If Hillary went into office and decided to support HR1022, I have little doubt that prominent Republicans would oppose and, if necessary, filibuster it. If Obama pushes a handgun ban, I'm not so convinced they'd be willing. They don't want to see a Strom Thurmond comparison -- that's political suicide.

So, Obama/Clinton versus McCain/Jindal? Hillary's just after power, so she's got to know that she doesn't have the political capital to survive in New York after all this. Taking her is the only way Obama can hope to keep the extremely important woman's vote, and probably more important than even trying to find a half-decent moderate. The Democratic party's kinda lacking recognizable moderates. I think the assassination angle is a bit stupid and overplayed -- I honestly expected Hillary to be more at risk, and to realize she can't deal with the inevitable scrutiny she'd face after such an event -- but it seems like a common concern.

[GhostBat]

Actually, my comment about her having Obama assassinated was more of a joke than anything else. But hey, you never know. :p

[Sazabi]

If Hillary went into office and decided to support HR1022, I have little doubt that prominent Republicans would oppose and, if necessary, filibuster it.


Well, last time 1022 reared its ugly head, most of the newer democrats in the house said they would vote against it, so i'm hoping that they have enough sense to just bitchslap Mcarthy and tell her to shut the fuck up after her "Barrel shroudz lol" incident. I don't think the democrats want to touch gun control for awhile, aside from the usual suspects who rally against it every 6 months.

PS- It's a thing that flips up!

[Galliard]

I honestly think that Obama is the more "dangerous" of the two. I say dangerous, because (call me paranoid) I can't concieve anyone being as well spoken as he, and not having a large quantity of intelligence. This would make him an ideal strategist for whatever cause he chose to champion. Whether or not that will be a good thing, should he become president, remains to be seen. Also, I have an innate distrust of people who are that eloquent. I feel they are using words to hide something, even as they're using them to smile at you. I have heard that he has some radical views, but I have not been able to get to websites that will help me accurately put a persona to his face.

Hillary was my first choice, but I do understand that she has a bit of ruthlessness about her, which was evident in her campaign. That wasn't necessarily a bad thing; to show that you have nads isn't easy when you have people taking potshots at you left and right. I feel she more or less HAD to take off the kid gloves because earlier in, she was being percieved as weak, and emotional.

I'll be honest, though. Even though I am uncomfortable with Obama, I dislike McCain even less, so with the choices, I'll go for the lesser of two evils (which is how I voted in the last election).

The only thing that sucks is, popular vote doesn't count in the main election.:mad:

[Vendetta]

I honestly think that Obama is the more "dangerous" of the two. I say dangerous, because (call me paranoid) I can't concieve anyone being as well spoken as he, and not having a large quantity of intelligence. This would make him an ideal strategist for whatever cause he chose to champion. Whether or not that will be a good thing, should he become president, remains to be seen. Also, I have an innate distrust of people who are that eloquent. I feel they are using words to hide something, even as they're using them to smile at you. I have heard that he has some radical views, but I have not been able to get to websites that will help me accurately put a persona to his face.
Holy crap. eloquence and intelligence are apparently NOT traits to be desired in a world leader?

Also, thought I'd share Warren Ellis' thoughts on Obama vs. Clinton (http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5995) (and he makes some scathingly spot-on points IMNSHO.) But here are some of my favourite excerpts:

"I received an email which read, ”Oh, I see. You’d support a black man but not a white woman.”

That kind of fucked-up paralogia seemed to infect the entire Clinton campaign, reaching its perverse crescendo when she trumpeted her support among uneducated white folks. Her press ops, as one wag pointed out, stopped just short of her being photographed taking a shit in an outhouse."

[Galliard]

Holy crap. eloquence and intelligence are apparently NOT traits to be desired in a world leader?



I never said that. What I was trying to convey is that he's more intelligent, more in tune with what people want to hear (I have heard him change his stance several times on various topics). I never said that this was positive or negative. It does make me nervous. Why? When people tell me precisely what I want to hear (give or take one or two points) it brings out the skeptic in me. "What's the catch? Are you b.s.ing me? Or, are you actually that brash to make that many political enemies in order to enact your views of things?" Either way, he strikes me as a person to be more wary of than the "normal" politician.
Hillary, I feel sure, would have danced to the tune that the Democratic party played for her. Obama? I think he'd do his own thing, regardless of what his party members thought of him. That could be dangerous. Not good or bad, just dangerous. My question is (and won't be answered unless he gets elected), he says pretty things, but how is he going to act in the White House?

Side note: Yes, I understand that most politicians speak idealistically, and then act according to party lines. I don't think that is how Barack is going to play his cards. As I have said before, I will end up voting for him because I believe him to be the better of the two candidates, but I do so uneasily.

[blueeyes]

Holy crap. eloquence and intelligence are apparently NOT traits to be desired in a world leader?

Honestly? No, I wouldn't put them that high on the list. Intelligence isn't a fatal flaw, but it's not all its made up to be in a leadership position. Jimmy Carter was pretty intelligent, for a man who expressed terror about a rabbit, but isn't really on the top of most lists for good Presidents of the last two or three decades. Adlai Stevenson's wit and intelligence were legendary, but the man made a lot of poor leadership decisions that less intelligent individuals would have hesitated well before doing.

Leadership isn't about the ability to pull knowledge out of thin air. No one can do that well enough for positions like President, and very few people can for even lesser positions like Senator or some local political positions. You could sit Greenspan and Hawking, two individuals who individually would easily be able to think circles around me, down across the table. You or I would have to struggle just to follow the former on economics or the latter on physics, but I'd wager you or I would be faster when the question was about the processing power of household computers or foreign military action.

The Presidency is that times a thousand. You can have a few different masters degrees in economics and it's not going to cover a quarter of what the President needs to deal with. You can't even cover this year's farm bill with those degrees; there's a boatload of chemistry, logistics, and law involved, not to mention a bullshit-meter that takes the better part of a lifetime for most humans to develop. I know Obama can't do that, I know Hillary can't do that, and I know McCain can't, and that's just about one small thing. It really doesn't matter whether they're three IQ points too low or a hundred, you either know enough to have the right answer or you don't.

The Presidency is built around that, though. That's why the President only proposes bills, and why the entire cabinet and a good portion of the executive branch exists. The President doesn't need to know about what changing the tax on importing unrefined oil will do to the price of owning a farm -- which is good, because I'd be amazed if two of the three contenders could get it right -- when he or she has got a Secretary of Agriculture who's got a right-hand man that lives, eats, and breaths the stuff. The President just needs to know whether or not he or she knows enough.

That's the important part. Whoever wins isn't going to know near enough to run a country, and I'm sorry to say they don't look the sort to know when to even leave well enough alone. Who gets second place to the finish line isn't that relevant, all in all.

It probably doesn't help that intelligence and smooth eloquence seem to be about as completely tied to a tendency to stretch the truth as being a politician, and to not knowing when to ask for information, neither of which tend to be good things.

[chriz]

I never said that. What I was trying to convey is that he's more intelligent, more in tune with what people want to hear (I have heard him change his stance several times on various topics).

Obama is capable of the same kind of trip-ups (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc&fmt=18) that saddled Bush with the label (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ4oxfVfJB0&fmt=18) of dumbass. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8&fmt=18)

Why does Obama get away with it?

[Galliard]

Obama is capable of the same kind of trip-ups (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc&fmt=18) that saddled Bush with the label (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ4oxfVfJB0&fmt=18) of dumbass. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8&fmt=18)

Why does Obama get away with it?

He's better at smoothing it over later on down the road, and he knows the value of an apology. He won't go as far as to blatantly admit that he is wrong, but he smoothly changes his stance on something that he was a dumbass about. He either does that, or pretends he didn't say it. "Forgetting" can be a powerful tool.

[Pickle Tickler]

Obama is capable of the same kind of trip-ups (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc&fmt=18) that saddled Bush with the label (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ4oxfVfJB0&fmt=18) of dumbass. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8&fmt=18)

Why does Obama get away with it?

He doesn't exactly 'get away with it', per se. It's just that some people eclipse those with McCain's errors. I'm speaking from the closet here, because I personally haven't watched too many of McCain's campaign appearances.

[Vendetta]

Obama is capable of the same kind of trip-ups (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzlrc&fmt=18) that saddled Bush with the label (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ4oxfVfJB0&fmt=18) of dumbass. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8&fmt=18)

Why does Obama get away with it?
For the same reason people focused on "Gore invented the internets! Hur hur hur!"

[chriz]

For the same reason people focused on "Gore invented the internets! Hur hur hur!"

Good point, although probably not in the manner you meant. In 1999, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Gore said "During my service in the United States Senate, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Just like Obama and his "liberated Auschwitz" line, people immediately bend over backwards to try and claim Gore didn't really say he created the Internet, when in fact that is literally the term he used.

Saying people claim he said "invented" when he really said "created," and then saying that that invalidates the criticism, is pedantic. Gore was relying on the masses not knowing the Internet had been in existence for 30 years (almost 40 now) and was capitalizing on that ignorance.

It's an interesting contrast to how "don't forget Poland!" somehow became a beacon of Bush's stupidity, but "57 states" is just Obama showing off how smooth he is.

[Gilenea]

I swear. You say one bad word about Obama, and you're a racist. I came in contact with that the other day. I said I don't like Obama's stance on certain things, and pointed out his Auschwitzs flub, and they called me RACIST!

I didn't even MENTION that I don't like black people!

(Disclaimer: It's humor, people... But the first part did happen.)

Gil

[Ves]

The question does actually come, what were their policies?
All we really saw over here was a bunch of "Obama - he black, Clinton - she woman" and a whole bunch of proselytizing along the lines of "I'm great and really good", not any policies.
Now I'm the crazy kind of voter that actually cares more about what a politician reckons they're going to do, rather than how charismatic they are - and I certainly couldn't give a stuff whether they're black, white, green or what gender they are. Of course they usually later conveniently forget what those policies were at the time of the election (a la Tony Blair's incredible "Education, Education, Education" thing) but it's still important.

So what were the policies of these candidates, come to think of it what's McCain's? (did I spell that right).
I have seen that Obama has declared extra support for Israel, which is an interesting one, and that's about it thus far.

I also think Obama should come out as the true father of the British formula one driver Lewis Hamilton:
Lewis Hamilton (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lewis-Hamilton-Story-Mark-Hughes/dp/1840468556/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213010059&sr=8-3)
Barack Obama (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Audacity-Hope-Barack-Obama/dp/1847670350/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213010127&sr=1-3)

[UNODRAGONE]

The question does actually come, what were their policies?
All we really saw over here was a bunch of "Obama - he black, Clinton - she woman" and a whole bunch of proselytizing along the lines of "I'm great and really good", not any policies.
Now I'm the crazy kind of voter that actually cares more about what a politician reckons they're going to do, rather than how charismatic they are - and I certainly couldn't give a stuff whether they're black, white, green or what gender they are. Of course they usually later conveniently forget what those policies were at the time of the election (a la Tony Blair's incredible "Education, Education, Education" thing) but it's still important.

So what were the policies of these candidates, come to think of it what's McCain's? (did I spell that right).
I have seen that Obama has declared extra support for Israel, which is an interesting one, and that's about it thus far.

I also think Obama should come out as the true father of the British formula one driver Lewis Hamilton:
Lewis Hamilton (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lewis-Hamilton-Story-Mark-Hughes/dp/1840468556/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213010059&sr=8-3)
Barack Obama (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Audacity-Hope-Barack-Obama/dp/1847670350/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213010127&sr=1-3)

Thats the one thing that annoys the living shit out of me, too much trying to please the "fans" and not enough doing your freaking campaigning. What irritates me more is how they promise you the world but, they don't exactly get into that whole how your getting the world do they? They pretty much for the most part dodge the how and just get into what people want to hear. I call fluff, I can say tomorrow I'll make gas prices at $2.00 a gallon, unless I show a logical plan of action that will work, it's just a bunch of fluff. I also hate how they are afraid to take a clear cut stand on things, dodging more questions I don't give a fluff what you look like or if you have a penis, I give a shit on HOW your gonna change things :mad:

[chriz]

The question does actually come, what were their policies?
All we really saw over here was a bunch of "Obama - he black, Clinton - she woman" and a whole bunch of proselytizing along the lines of "I'm great and really good", not any policies.
Now I'm the crazy kind of voter that actually cares more about what a politician reckons they're going to do, rather than how charismatic they are - and I certainly couldn't give a stuff whether they're black, white, green or what gender they are. Of course they usually later conveniently forget what those policies were at the time of the election (a la Tony Blair's incredible "Education, Education, Education" thing) but it's still important.

So what were the policies of these candidates, come to think of it what's McCain's? (did I spell that right).
I have seen that Obama has declared extra support for Israel, which is an interesting one, and that's about it thus far.

Yes, this is a serious "none of the above" election. At least people hated Bush. It's hard to whip up much passion either way for these guys. It's like 1976.

[Vendetta]

Good point, although probably not in the manner you meant. In 1999, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Gore said "During my service in the United States Senate, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Just like Obama and his "liberated Auschwitz" line, people immediately bend over backwards to try and claim Gore didn't really say he created the Internet, when in fact that is literally the term he used.

Saying people claim he said "invented" when he really said "created," and then saying that that invalidates the criticism, is pedantic. Gore was relying on the masses not knowing the Internet had been in existence for 30 years (almost 40 now) and was capitalizing on that ignorance.
Uhh Gore said he took the initiative in creating the internet. NOT that he created the internet. We ARE reading the same sentence right? And you ARE aware that Internet pioneers, Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf have both stated (http://amsterdam.nettime.or g/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00311.html) they believe that "while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet."

[Vendetta]

I swear. You say one bad word about Obama, and you're a racist. I came in contact with that the other day. I said I don't like Obama's stance on certain things, and pointed out his Auschwitzs flub, and they called me RACIST!

I didn't even MENTION that I don't like black people!

(Disclaimer: It's humor, people... But the first part did happen.)

Gil
You mean the same way critizing the Bush adminisatration gets you labelled as un-American? Yeah.

EDIT: And...

Thats the one thing that annoys the living shit out of me, too much trying to please the "fans" and not enough doing your freaking campaigning. What irritates me more is how they promise you the world but, they don't exactly get into that whole how your getting the world do they? They pretty much for the most part dodge the how and just get into what people want to hear. I call fluff, I can say tomorrow I'll make gas prices at $2.00 a gallon, unless I show a logical plan of action that will work, it's just a bunch of fluff. I also hate how they are afraid to take a clear cut stand on things, dodging more questions I don't give a fluff what you look like or if you have a penis, I give a shit on HOW your gonna change things :mad:
First thing is, you need to stop getting your information from MTv-style soundbites. The candidates HAVE gone over their positions and plans.

[Ves]

Yes, this is a serious "none of the above" election. At least people hated Bush. It's hard to whip up much passion either way for these guys. It's like 1976.
Didn't Obama say something about bringing the troops home from Iraq/Afghanistan? (which coupled with vociferous support for Israel will win over the hearts and minds of Muslims everywhere no doubt)

I hate to say it, but going purely on what I've heard so far, which as I say has been mostly obsessed with the black guy vs. a woman thing, my vote would be with McCain (is that spelt right?) purely because he doesn't seem quite the firebrand that Barack Obama is. That said I suspect he'll probably be a bloody awful president internationally and right now with the American economy allegedly going around buggering up everyone elses (well the British one at least), a president who isn't good outside your borders might be very bad for everyone over the coming years. Obama might be better at handling other world leaders, but I think he'll have trouble getting around the pencil-pushers to get money issues sorted.
To be brutally honest, I'm bloody glad I'm not going to be voting in this one (I instead will get to choose between Cameron and Brown once Brown has the stones to call an election - basically the same situation).

[UNODRAGONE]

You mean the same way critizing the Bush adminisatration gets you labelled as un-American? Yeah.

EDIT: And...


First thing is, you need to stop getting your information from MTv-style soundbites. The candidates HAVE gone over their positions and plans.


um no I have been watching the presidential candidates debate on TV, and every time a reporter asks them how they plan on helping the economy and what not they seem to always give a round about non answer. So yeah I don't even watch MTV

[LV426]

McCain is too much like Bush. I don't want another Bush. I don't want the Bush we have. I like Obama and think he will be just fine for domestic and foreign affairs. I like intelligent well spoken individuals in charge. He doesn't want to slap a band-aid on the economy or gas prices, he wants to fix them. Yes he's against removing a gas tax for the summer because ultimately that will just cause problems down the line. He's not in for the short game he's got his eye on the long haul.

[Pickle Tickler]

http://subbooks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/mccain.jpg

*hides in a corner*

[Vendetta]

um no I have been watching the presidential candidates debate on TV, and every time a reporter asks them how they plan on helping the economy and what not they seem to always give a round about non answer. So yeah I don't even watch MTV
Reading is your friend (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=10 63110). There's Obama's stance and policies on just about everything. I'm sure there is the same thing out there for McCain, but I'm not gonna do your homework FOR you.

[chriz]

Uhh Gore said he took the initiative in creating the internet. NOT that he created the internet.

Please provide a meaningful distinction. The Internet was created long before Gore saw the proposal to fund its expansion. It was even already called "the Internet" at that point (the term was first used in 1974). His "initiative" was just seeing the light when Leo Kleinrock brought his proposal to add funding to the Internet before Congress in 1988. By the time Al put his proposal together for a vote, Bush I was president and he signed it into law enthusiastically.

Gore's efforts certainly contributed to the growth of the Internet through the 90s, but even a farmboy like Bush Sr. saw the value of it and endorsed it with some passion. Gore's actions were hardly visionary in this regard, and the last thing he did was create anything (aside from a bill that allocated funding -- hardly earth-shaking).

Had Gore said "I took the initiative in expanding the Internet," I don't think he'd have caught any ridicule. But linking his actions to the creation of the Internet is outright deception on his part.

But that's ok, you're just proving my point.

[Vendetta]

Please provide a meaningful distinction. The Internet was created long before Gore saw the proposal to fund its expansion. It was even already called "the Internet" at that point (the term was first used in 1974).
NO. Internets were around, but not The Internet. Any network which used TCP/IP was called an internet. It's just not the same thing.

Gore's efforts certainly contributed to the growth of the Internet through the 90s, but even a farmboy like Bush Sr. saw the value of it and endorsed it with some passion. Gore's actions were hardly visionary in this regard
When congressmen even TODAY, call the internet a series of tubes, then YES, I'd certainly call him more visionary than most of his peers.

and the last thing he did was create anything (aside from a bill that allocated funding -- hardly earth-shaking).
Yes hardly earth shaking. Lets not fund the "war" in Iraq and see how not earth-shaking that is.

Had Gore said "I took the initiative in expanding the Internet," I don't think he'd have caught any ridicule. But linking his actions to the creation of the Internet is outright deception on his part.
That's essentially what he IS saying. He's saying that this that he pushed forward the funding bill that GAVE us the internet we have today, not that he created the infrastructure or was some sort of pioneer. Gore DID create and introduce the 'High Performance Computing and Communication Act' of 1991, which DID lead to today's Internet. And he did so because he had heard a report from Leonard Kleinrock, one of the creators OF ARPANET. Dudes who DID pioneer this shit are saying he WAS instrumental in its creation. I'm not sure what else you want.

But that's ok, you're just proving my point.
What IS your point?
Look man, I get you don't like Gore because of the whole climate change issue, and you don't agree with him on general political principle. But I'm pretty sure here you're just plain wrong, and really you just seem to be repeating a pretty poor media-produced meme from 8 years ago.

[chriz]

NO. Internets were around, but not The Internet. Any network which used TCP/IP was called an internet. It's just not the same thing.

"The Internet" was (and still is) the term for all the different kinds of connections that make it up. ARPAnet, NSFNet, etc. "The Internet" didn't just come into existence at one particular point -- the term has been in use to describe all these networks as a whole since at least 1985, and probably before that (the term itself was first used in 1974, but at that point it was only used to describe the potential grouping of all those networks).

So, "the Internet" as both a concept and a reality existed prior to 1988, which was when Gore first saw Kleinrock's proposal.


When congressmen even TODAY, call the internet a series of tubes, then YES, I'd certainly call him more visionary than most of his peers.

Yes. Metaphors are so last century.

Yes hardly earth shaking. Lets not fund the "war" in Iraq and see how not earth-shaking that is.

So Gore took someone else's idea but he's the visionary?

That's essentially what he IS saying. He's saying that this that he pushed forward the funding bill that GAVE us the internet we have today, not that he created the infrastructure or was some sort of pioneer. Gore DID create and introduce the 'High Performance Computing and Communication Act' of 1991, which DID lead to today's Internet. And he did so because he had heard a report from Leonard Kleinrock, one of the creators OF ARPANET. Dudes who DID pioneer this shit are saying he WAS instrumental in its creation. I'm not sure what else you want.

One guy, not "dudes." And it's kinda weird, since all Gore really did was formalize that one dude's proposal to him.

Kleinrock: Hey Senator Gore, we should expand the Internet!
Gore: I just had a brilliant idea! We should expand the Internet!
Kleinrock: Al Gore is a GENIUS!

But now it sounds like you're saying Gore did create the Internet. Just a few posts ago you said "Uhh Gore said he took the initiative in creating the internet. NOT that he created the internet." So Gore can simultaneously create the Internet and not not create the Internet, whichever suits your argument at a given time?

Pick one.

What IS your point?
Look man, I get you don't like Gore because of the whole climate change issue, and you don't agree with him on general political principle. But I'm pretty sure here you're just plain wrong, and really you just seem to be repeating a pretty poor media-produced meme from 8 years ago.

Ok, I'll concede that Gore "created" something he called "the Internet" which has nothing really to do with the thing we call the Internet now, since that demonstrably existed prior to the date at which he "created" his "Internet."

Gore deserves praise for helping expand the Internet, and I'm willing to give it to him. From the time he did it in 1991 to the time he claimed to have "created" it in 1999, I think most people (those who knew of his involvement) did praise him, actually. But it's not a meme, I'm just quoting him directly:

BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

[Vendetta]

"The Internet" was (and still is) the term for all the different kinds of connections that make it up. ARPAnet, NSFNet, etc. "The Internet" didn't just come into existence at one particular point -- the term has been in use to describe all these networks as a whole since at least 1985, and probably before that (the term itself was first used in 1974, but at that point it was only used to describe the potential grouping of all those networks).
Man, I'm gonna KEEP saying this. The Internet did not exist. A bunch of (at the time) related internets DID. I mean at the time, internet was just short for internetworking, it's not the same thing as a The Internet, in caps. Hell if you want a better term, then I guess World Wide Web would be better, because the internet of today, besides using TCP/IP resembles very little of the ARPANET of the 70s.

So, "the Internet" as both a concept and a reality existed prior to 1988, which was when Gore first saw Kleinrock's proposal.
As a concept yes, but as for a reality, see above.

Yes. Metaphors are so last century.
Yes, GOOD metaphors are, since no one seems to be able to use them anymore. I mean c'mon Chris, are you seriously defending "a series of tubes" as a reasonable metaphor for the modern web?

So Gore took someone else's idea but he's the visionary?
He's visionary since he was the one who proposed the funding, when none of his peers did, YES. This isn't rocket science here.

One guy, not "dudes." And it's kinda weird, since all Gore really did was formalize that one dude's proposal to him.
Err, I posted THREE people who were ALL pioneers in this technology who credit Gore with enabling the creation of The Interwebs as we know it today.

Kleinrock: Hey Senator Gore, we should expand the Internet!
Gore: I just had a brilliant idea! We should expand the Internet!
Kleinrock: Al Gore is a GENIUS!
Fuck dude, WHAT?! He never said this at all. He saw Kleinrock's idea and said, hey we should fund this shit. He never claimed the technology or the ideas behind the technology were his. Jesus.

But now it sounds like you're saying Gore did create the Internet. Just a few posts ago you said "Uhh Gore said he took the initiative in creating the internet. NOT that he created the internet." So Gore can simultaneously create the Internet and not not create the Internet, whichever suits your argument at a given time?
How exactly am I saying this. I have said, repeatedly, that Gore wrote a bill that most experts agree is responsible for The Internet and World Wide Web as we know it today.

Ok, I'll concede that Gore "created" something he called "the Internet" which has nothing really to do with the thing we call the Internet now, since that demonstrably existed prior to the date at which he "created" his "Internet."
You're trying to say the internet today resembles the internet of the 70s? Are you high?!

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
I changed the bolding, since you seem to be ignoring the part immediately following that statement that you can't seem to shake, which pretty much sums up what he was saying. I don't think anyone other than people with really serious problems in reading comprehension, think he's saying he worked on ARPANET in the 70s. He's saying, in his role as a SENATOR, his funding gave way to what we now know as the internet.

[dirtyrat]

He's saying, in his role as a SENATOR, his funding gave way to what we now know as the internet. You mean after all these wasteful projects I always read about (that are funded by senators) there are actually a few genius ones out there? Make me an senator, give me a lot of taxpayer money, a ton of experts of various fields, and many years of trial & error. Then, well...I'm fairly sure I'll get it right after a "few" times (but be sure to pay me my senator wages either way :) ).

[blueeyes]

Even the web, as in giant world-wide network with websites and commercially available access, preceded Gore's initiative by a couple years, in CERN's web browser was developed. Gore's bill helped fund Mosaic and the original NREN, but those didn't make release until April 1993. AOL for Windows 3.x had already been released by this point. Mosiac's eventual reliability and ease of installation didn't hurt, but it was far from revolutionary.

WorldWideWeb, the browser, was already around in February 1991, and came from the European CERN. Gore's High Performance Computing and Communication Act didn't make it into law until December 1991.

As for Stevens, the man is and was an idiot, but 'series of tubes' isn't worth nearly the amount of flack he's gotten compared to the many, many dumber statements, like any variation of "these bridges are important". The end result of his analysis was completely and totally wrong, but that's because SMTP is a TCP connection-oriented protocol and thus doesn't lose data to a buffer, not because of the metaphor of internet bandwidth as tubes with a limit on how much material can go through.

If he was discussing live video, voice, UDP data, or any other highly time-sensitive datagram, his rant would have been completely accurate. Try setting up an Asterisk server on an company network sometime if you think otherwise -- you literally need some sort of queuing method or the number of lost or delayed packets will kill your connection.

[chriz]

Man, I'm gonna KEEP saying this. The Internet did not exist. A bunch of (at the time) related internets DID. I mean at the time, internet was just short for internetworking, it's not the same thing as a The Internet, in caps. Hell if you want a better term, then I guess World Wide Web would be better, because the internet of today, besides using TCP/IP resembles very little of the ARPANET of the 70s.

"The Internet" most certainly existed before 1991, because it's always meant the same basic thing that it means now. The Internet is just the name we give to the big massive collection of networks that make it up.

It was in the 1970s that the idea that all the different network systems that came from DARPA could be united and called "the Internet" came into being. Internets began being made almost immediately, and by the early 80s there were a few big ones. By 1986, they had been consolidated into what -- at the time -- was being called The Internet.

I actually remember this.

How exactly am I saying this. I have said, repeatedly, that Gore wrote a bill that most experts agree is responsible for The Internet and World Wide Web as we know it today.

Gore's bill expanded the Internet, which is what I've been saying all along.

You're trying to say the internet today resembles the internet of the 70s? Are you high?!

Mmm, strawmen arguments. No, I'm saying that the Internet already existed.

Gore's bill is responsible for the Internet and Web as we know them today? Have you seen Gore's bill? All it does it require various Federal groups and agencies to fund research into using the Internet (which the bill clearly identifies as such, btw) and come up with ways to use it. You know, stuff like linked databases, email, whatever.

The Web didn't exist at the time. Gore didn't somehow "predict" its existence or call it into being. Virtually nothing about how we use the Internet today came about because of anything Gore put in his bill. He makes no reference to the Web, no reference to online media or entertainment, only a passing reference to email, and only a passing reference to avoiding stifling competition and commerce.

Sure, you can say the funding his bill provided formed the foundation for all of that stuff that came along later. But it was already coming. I was emailing people and logging onto networks in 1988. AOL existed, and had freakin' chat rooms in 1987. But Al Gore's bill in 1991 created the Internet as we know it today?

Someone's high, or simply doesn't know history.

I changed the bolding, since you seem to be ignoring the part immediately following that statement that you can't seem to shake, which pretty much sums up what he was saying. I don't think anyone other than people with really serious problems in reading comprehension, think he's saying he worked on ARPANET in the 70s. He's saying, in his role as a SENATOR, his funding gave way to what we now know as the internet.

Yes, reading comprehension. But oh no! "Series of tubes!"

[chriz]

I stand corrected on the web; Berners-Lee invented it in 1989.

Odd that Reverend Al's visionary bill doesn't even mention it.

[LV426]

*cough* Topic *cough* Obama *Cough*

[dirtyrat]

*cough* Topic *cough* Obama *Cough*
So who's going to win; the old guy, or the one with the different skin color? Is color still going to be an issue this election? And how old is the old guy? OM, don't tell me if he wins then he'll be the oldest president voted in office!

[UNODRAGONE]

So who's going to win; the old guy, or the one with the different skin color? Is color still going to be an issue this election? And how old is the old guy? OM, don't tell me if he wins then he'll be the oldest president voted in office!

I hate this whole old and color card :mad: what should matter is what they are going to DO about the situations were in now, how they are going to get this country back on track.

[Vendetta]

I hate this whole old and color card :mad: what should matter is what they are going to DO about the situations were in now, how they are going to get this country back on track.
Since when have the masses cared about any of that stuff?

[UNODRAGONE]

Since when have the masses cared about any of that stuff?

sad but true my friend :(

[dirtyrat]

I hate this whole old and color card :mad: what should matter is what they are going to DO about the situations were in now, how they are going to get this country back on track.
I was raised in one of those states that my co-workers liked to ask - "Were you just nice to those black people,...why?", or "Those are Jewish people you know? We could be closed now...", etc. I hate to brag, but 60 MINUTES once did a story on our state (actually one city) about one of these subjects.

As for the age thing; I have a problem with it - he looks, age wise, like one of our past (but still living) former presidents.
-------
Oh, and the American people will get us back on track - just as that we're the ones that got us into this mess in the 1st place. I think the White House is mostly just puff.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Well, as we say here is Pittsburgh (and probably other parts of the country) If you want more of the same, vote John McCain! (though the few republicans here whom do support McCain think that Obama is just an elitist that makes everything race, gender, age, etc.) Well, I'm in support of Obama and trying to convince everyone I know 18 and over to register and vote for him, or at least anyone even if not him, because that's the best right that the 18+ have to themselves, and the day I turn 18, you can guarantee that I'll be registering as an independent and voting on every issue every chance I get. That's why this rap video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWPp3aaTQ0) is the only one I like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWPp3aaTQ0) .

[UNODRAGONE]

Well, as we say here is Pittsburgh (and probably other parts of the country) If you want more of the same, vote John McCain! (though the few republicans here whom do support McCain think that Obama is just an elitist that makes everything race, gender, age, etc.) Well, I'm in support of Obama and trying to convince everyone I know 18 and over to register and vote for him, or at least anyone even if not him, because that's the best right that the 18+ have to themselves, and the day I turn 18, you can guarantee that I'll be registering as an independent and voting on every issue every chance I get. That's why this rap video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWPp3aaTQ0) is the only one I like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWPp3aaTQ0) .

I'm a little skeptical about Obama right now thrusting religion into the mix

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=42 6805&categoryId=22

[chriz]

I was raised in one of those states that my co-workers liked to ask - "Were you just nice to those black people,...why?", or "Those are Jewish people you know? We could be closed now...", etc. I hate to brag, but 60 MINUTES once did a story on our state (actually one city) about one of these subjects.

Sounds like Massachusetts.

[dirtyrat]

Sounds like Massachusetts.
Missouri. And it was either Kansas City or St. Louis that did an undercover thingy on how many apartment complex managers would accept white people as tenants - after rejecting black people that applied beforehand (actually I think 60 MINUTES recruited 2 college grads; one white, and the other one black).
Anyway, you can't change peoples' minds on such matters (I've tried common sense, and it doesn't work). I, myself (again in Missouri), was granted an apartment. And on the way over to check it out with the managers I was told by him/her how many women were rejected beforehand for the place to rent. Hmmm..lol, can anyone here guess why men are so much better tenants?? (I was told why...)

[chriz]

But that's the thing. Born and raised in this state, and I saw that kind of attitude all around me. Yet somehow it's a "southern" thing.

[UNODRAGONE]

Missouri. And it was either Kansas City or St. Louis that did an undercover thingy on how many apartment complex managers would accept white people as tenants - after rejecting black people that applied beforehand (actually I think 60 MINUTES recruited 2 college grads; one white, and the other one black).
Anyway, you can't change peoples' minds on such matters (I've tried common sense, and it doesn't work). I, myself (again in Missouri), was granted an apartment. And on the way over to check it out with the managers I was told by him/her how many women were rejected beforehand for the place to rent. Hmmm..lol, can anyone here guess why men are so much better tenants?? (I was told why...)


I'll say uncle why are men better tenants? (this ought to be good)

[Vendetta]

I'm a little skeptical about Obama right now thrusting religion into the mix

http://www.optimum.net/News/AP/Article?articleId=42 6805&categoryId=22
I don't understand what you're saying. Every candidate will do this. Since Christians are a huge voting block in the US they have to at least open themselves up to discourse from Christian leaders. I'm not sure how this would make anyone skeptical.

[UNODRAGONE]

I don't understand what you're saying. Every candidate will do this. Since Christians are a huge voting block in the US they have to at least open themselves up to discourse from Christian leaders. I'm not sure how this would make anyone skeptical.

the reason it makes me skeptical is because of the whole situation that happened with his old pastor and now he is meeting with different religious leaders (not just Christian) again it's probably me but in any event with so much religious crap going on with him through his campaign cause of that pastor I would think he would lay low on it

[dirtyrat]

But that's the thing. Born and raised in this state, and I saw that kind of attitude all around me. Yet somehow it's a "southern" thing.It's werid I know. It's also too bad that these attitudes (against black people) will continue down to each and every generation - forever as far as I can tell.

"Uncle"
Actually I've forgotten exactly why they're preferred by managers to lease to male tenants over female ones. It was something to do about their boyfriends coming over, yelling/fighting/loud noise, damaging furniture, calling the police, etc. While guys, I guess, simply kick their girlfriends out, and then that's the end of that.
So in a way it IS the guys fault (ok, ok - in all ways :p ). I guess us men aren't always (if ever) mature in broken relationships, and thus hang around to cause more grief. But it's the women who get all the blame (and no apartment to boot..).

[UNODRAGONE]

It's werid I know. It's also too bad that these attitudes (against black people) will continue down to each and every generation - forever as far as I can tell.


Actually I've forgotten exactly why they preferred to lease to male tenants over female ones. It was something to do about their boyfriends coming over, yelling/fighting/loud noise, damaging furniture, calling the police, etc. While guys, I guess, simply kick their girlfriends out, and then that's the end of that.
So in a way it IS the guys fault (ok, ok - in all ways :p ). I guess us men aren't always (if ever) mature in broken relationships, and thus hang around to cause more grief. But it's the women who get all the blame (and no apartment to boot..).

I would think they want women since we are typically cleaner then men :p but I can see that whole boyfriend domestic dispute/violence thing, honestly if I wasn't studying to be a counselor well before I guess I knew the psychy side of it, I would say those girls were asking for it. If I'm leaving someone, not a chance in hell I am going to do it in a place were they can wreck my shit :p

[dirtyrat]

If I'm leaving someone, not a chance in hell I am going to do it in a place were they can wreck my shit :p
Lol, but they would know where you live, and being children they (we) are you can bet your last dollar that they would soon end up at your place; whimpering for forgiviness, perhaps violent (after being rejected again), etc.
----
Uh oh, I'm sensing the Mods here soon demanding TOPIC *cough TOPIC *cough... again. (sorry about that..) BUT, that's just from TWO managers (and they were married to each other), and so I couldn't say all (or even 1/2, etc.) managers think this way.

[UNODRAGONE]

Lol, but they would know where you live, and being children they (we) are you can bet your last dollar that they would soon end up at your place; whimpering for forgiviness, perhaps violent (after being rejected again), etc.
----
Uh oh, I'm sensing the Mods here soon demanding TOPIC *cough TOPIC *cough... again. (sorry about that..) BUT, that's just from TWO managers (and they were married to each other), and so I couldn't say all (or even 1/2, etc.) managers think this way.

thats were being aggressive comes into play :p that and having a cousin named Nunzio :D that and having brass Italian balls lol

[Buddha Monkey]

For those asking about McCains platform, found the article that explains it.

Main differences. Well....um.....Iraq. .....Other then that, just how to implement the same ideas that Obama has. So, for those that vote on the ideals, the main stick up will be the War. Other then that.......Oh, and of course, he is Pro-Life....but then again, so am I unless very specific things are in play.

Link: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=10 63099

[Vendetta]

the reason it makes me skeptical is because of the whole situation that happened with his old pastor and now he is meeting with different religious leaders (not just Christian) again it's probably me but in any event with so much religious crap going on with him through his campaign cause of that pastor I would think he would lay low on it
So he should just ignore religious leaders? I'm still not sure what your point is. What problem is there with him meeting with religious leaders? He's not saying he's affiliating himself with them.

[UNODRAGONE]

So he should just ignore religious leaders? I'm still not sure what your point is. What problem is there with him meeting with religious leaders? He's not saying he's affiliating himself with them.

I'm not saying what he should or shouldn't do, not my call, I'm not trying to make a point I'm just giving my opinion that to me it just seems funny, but thats me not saying anyone else should agree or what not. First there was all the talk about his dad being muslim and mom atheist (sp?), then the whole pastor thing now this, I'm just not crazy about so many religious references being thrown in the mix again just me.

[Vendetta]

[FONT="Century Gothic"]I'm not saying what he should or shouldn't do, not my call, I'm not trying to make a point I'm just giving my opinion that to me it just seems funny, but thats me not saying anyone else should agree or what not.
Then my question to you would be WHY you find this wrong or "funny"? I mean, while I am not myself religious, the majority of Americans ARE, and it'd be plain stupidity for a presidential candidate not to try to court that vote.

First there was all the talk about his dad being muslim and mom atheist (sp?),
Err, this had nothing to do with him, you know that right? Other people started this BS as a smear campaign. And I believe for the most part both of his parents were atheists (although Obama has called his mother "spiritual" in interviews.)

then the whole pastor thing now this, I'm just not crazy about so many religious references being thrown in the mix again just me.
Two things are so many religious references? Is this your first presidential election?

[UNODRAGONE]

[QUOTE]Then my question to you would be WHY you find this wrong or "funny"? I mean, while I am not myself religious, the majority of Americans ARE, and it'd be plain stupidity for a presidential candidate not to try to court that vote.

your right most of Americans are religious and it would be stupid not to court that vote, but and maybe this is me, I remember (at least that was the big discussion here at work) a lot of confusion over his religious beliefs and feelings that too much focus was put on that as oppose to his pitch on what he will do to better this country. I don't think your gonna understand what I am trying to say, cause I can't really think of another way to say it to help you see what I mean so maybe just leave it at that, does it really matter?

Err, this had nothing to do with him, you know that right? Other people started this BS as a smear campaign. And I believe for the most part both of his parents were atheists (although Obama has called his mother "spiritual" in interviews.)

Had nothing to do with him? It was about him :confused: but your right I believe it was a smear campaign as well, but still another religious reference

Two things are so many religious references? Is this your first presidential election?

I counted three? (parents, pastor, and now him meeting with different religious leaders)not my first presidential election though I don't seem what that has to do with me stating my opinion :confused: it's an opinion, doesn't make it right or wrong

[blueeyes]

Obama's father was raised Muslim, but was a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born, at least according to the Hope book the man wrote.

Technically, that would make him a muslim apostate, but that's not particularly relevant toward his beliefs or upraisings, just meaning that ubertextual Muslims think he should be beheaded.

Given that the American population polls more favorably toward the election of a gay man than an avowed atheist to the office of the President, I expect he's more concerned about demonstrating that he does believe in a god, rather than that he doesn't believe in a specific viewpoint about one.

[Gilenea]

I think a lot of people forget that the Presidency has everything to do with POLITICS, and not a whole lot to do with truth, justice, or morality.

Gil

[Vendetta]

I think a lot of people forget that the Presidency has everything to do with POLITICS, and not a whole lot to do with truth, justice, or morality.

Gil
No one would EVER get elected if the Presidency had anything to do with morality.

[chriz]

I think a lot of people forget that the Presidency has everything to do with POLITICS, and not a whole lot to do with truth, justice, or morality.

Gil

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

[Vendetta]

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797
This reminds me heavily of something Penn Jillette said recently, and he's a pretty strong libertarian. Not that I agree 100% with most libertarians, but a lot of it is good stuff.

[chriz]

He quotes Jefferson every now and then in episodes of Bullshit. He used the "the tree of liberty is nourished by the blood of tyrants and patriots" line while Teller pretended to slice his wrists and "water" a houseplant.

I think libertarians have their hearts in the right place. I'm not completely sure about their brains, though...

[Startraveler]

I honestly think that Obama is the more "dangerous" of the two. I say dangerous, because (call me paranoid) I can't concieve anyone being as well spoken as he, and not having a large quantity of intelligence. This would make him an ideal strategist for whatever cause he chose to champion. . . .I have heard that he has some radical views, but I have not been able to get to websites that will help me accurately put a persona to his face.

People seem to hear lots of things about Obama. I don't think his views--or past--are particularly mysterious or unknown. It just requires looking instead of listening to what some would have you believe.