- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 26, 2008 at 9:39 pm #615656
beachdrivegirlParticipantWhat specific exagerations in Obamas campaign are you concerned about? You are right Obama has not said how he sat in those pews however he has condemned his pastor over the comments that were released. To be factual, Obama did not pay $100,000 more for a piece of land. The backstory on the land is that Obama bought a house for $1.65million in 2005. (List $1.95). The sellers of the house wanted to sell a side parcel of land at the closing of the house sale. Obama did not have the funds available to buy the land parcel; therefore, Rezko’s wife Rita, bought the parcel of land for $625,0000. ($300,000 below list.) A short time later, Obama watned to buy a parcel of the land for a side yard. Rezko’s land parcel was appraised @ that time for $500,000 (below what she had origianlly paid in cash for the parcel of land.) The section of the parcel that OBama wanted was appraised at $40,500 b/c it was not big enough to build on. Obama agreed to buy the land for $104,500 and Rezko paid $14,400 for a fence to be built. So yes maybe Obama did pay $49,600 over what the land was worth, but who knows?!?! Furthermore, Obama, has publicly admitted (actually in 2006) that this was a mistake.
March 26, 2008 at 9:58 pm #615657
walfredoMemberJoB- I am a registered democrat, but I’m not a big fan of labels.
I supported John Kerry in the 2004 election, went door to door canvassing for him, raised money, donated money. I did not support him in the primary. I supported Wesley Clark, and donated a small amount of money to him. The primary was done before I got any say, but Kerry clearly won the nomination, and its pretty easy to get my vote if your the guy running against Bush.
I would not support the democratic party, in this election, or most likely in any future elections, if they chose to overturn the candidate selected by the pledged delegates. Most likely, my energy would be used to help the cause of a 3rd party candidate, but I would not rule out supporting the candidate most likely to beat the won who I believe betrayed my party of choice.
No, its not okay to campaign for the republican nominee, to “scorch the earth”, by “throwing out the kitchen sink”, in a “Tonya Harding strategy”, to get the supers to disqualify the person who won. To support people after they did that, would be a tremendous disservice to the party. Nominating a candidate that supported and voted to authorize the war that the Dems are supposed to be the opposition party for, also does a disservice to the party.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2008-01-04
This does a good reasoning of why I did not support Hillary in the primaries before she got mathmetically eliminated from winning.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/clinton.delegates/index.html
This does a good job explaining why I’d genuinely rather have John McCain in office then this lunatic…
March 26, 2008 at 10:11 pm #615658
charlabobParticipantNo you wouldn’t, Walfredo. You really wouldn’t rather have THE REPUBLICANS PACK THE SUPREME COURT EVEN MORE FIRMLY than they have already. Not really; nope. Maybe now .. but not in November.
Since the answers to my and others’ questions won’t be posted here (because a new thread has been started to talk about the issues) I’m off to look up answers. And more questions. And post them here. I won’t be posting to the new thread, because I honestly don’t know what a conversation about issues looks like. I’m apparently much dumber than I thought.
March 26, 2008 at 10:31 pm #615659
walfredoMemberLook, I’m not saying that I wouldn’t have supported Hillary because I don’t agree with her on the war. I’m not an absolutist, I will support the candidate I agree more with. If Hillary actually won, I would support her.
If she succeeds in destroying a good man (and that is the only plausible way she could get the nomination), that isn’t winning. That is disgraceful. At some point, you can’t turn a blind eye to that type of behavior and expect it to ever change.
It’s not a gray area, and its not a decision I would struggle with. I don’t expect that situation to happen, don’t see it as remotely possible. But if put in that position, it is not something that I would wrestle with. I would want her to lose, and I would want every superdelegate that supported her removed from office…
March 26, 2008 at 10:36 pm #615660
JoBParticipantWalfredo.. thanks for the disclosure…
i still think you are using blackmailing techniques to try to win an election.
anyone who would not vote for any democrat in the upcoming election for any reason… doesn’t have the best interests of their party in mind.
I don’t believe there is an anti-Hillary party.. but perhaps those democrats who feel that way should simply form one instead of trying to make this party over in that image.
charla.. i know you are an intelligent woman and i know you understand the power of words.
explaining why you think your positions are viable does not change your choice of inflammatory words.
Nor does it change the only possible rebuttal.. to either admit your premise and try to defend or attack…. politely.. or in an inflammatory style.
i am not interested in either any more.. because it is clear that it is not even possible to have a conversation about conversation without attacks…
mom always said if you don’t have anything nice to say.. don’t say anything. I wouldn’t go quite that far.. but i would say if you can’t be civil and respectful then you shouldn’t say anything. And this style of argument leaves me nothing civil or respectful to say…
because there is no civil or respectful way to reply to the “when are you going to stop beating your wife” type of argument.
March 26, 2008 at 11:05 pm #615661
walfredoMemberJoB- you can’t make a statement that absolute! Anyone who didn’t support a democrat in the upcoming election doesn’t have the parties best interest in mind is bs… If you reward people for behaving in a way you find despicable you #1-have no right to criticize there behavior, and #2- have no reason to expect anything but more of the same in the future. I’m sorry but sometimes people have to stand up for what they think is right. This is not a candidate issue. I would not support Barack Obama right now if his only path to the nomination was to destroy Hillary Clinton so that she was deemed unelectable. I wouldn’t do it. It’s disgraceful…
How exactly can you voice your pleasure or displeasure with behavior, if you are mandated to blindly support a party at the end of the day. It’s not blackmail. Hopefully it makes others think… Gosh, if thats the only way she can, what would that even be like if it happened? How would people react. My reaction would be a negative one towards the Clintons of course for there audacity, but first and foremost to the weak-willed party that allowed it to happen.
March 26, 2008 at 11:27 pm #615662
JoBParticipantwalfredo…
i can do it because in this case you have to consider the alternatives…
and the war isn’t the largest issue.
as charlabob pointed out, the supreme court and the future structure of our law is.. and you can’t just vote those guys out. They will shape law in our country for decades.
Wake up and look at the bigger picture. This isn’t about idealism any longer.. it’s about survival.
You have to survive to promote idealism… and we are about at the tipping point where the supreme court is right now.
In fact, we need to wish every justice good health and long life right now.. there is still time to stack the deck before December.
BTW.. this is the most honest conversation you and i have had… and it’s refreshing.
March 27, 2008 at 12:06 am #615663
walfredoMemberJoB- That is the bigger picture. Your looking at one election (4 years). Saying ignoring the legislative impact would be irreversable. I think, pragmatically, that her complete collapse in the general election could cause significant improvements in the process as a whole.
You stick to your absolute- okay, say as an absolute- if Clinton had Obama killed before the end of the primary, it would be unDemocratic of me not to support her anyway? Or, would a more reasoned response be- I can’t accept the tactics she used to win being rewarded, and for that type of behavior to be encouraged for future elections. It is not an absolute to support the party, and morally obviously I’m required not to support the candidate that committed murder to win.
So- assuming you agree with the idea that if Clinton murdered Obama, she should not be rewarded for that… Then you agree, that it is not an absolute to support the party, and in fact- that if the nomination was secured in certain dispicible ways, that you would be morally required not to support that candidate…
Any rational human would agree with those statements. So really, its just a matter of where you draw the line. You can’t argue that there needs to be one. I drew mine along time ago- the McCain endorsement was more then enough…
March 27, 2008 at 12:26 am #615664
AnonymousInactiveWalfredo, that not a fair argument. Delegates changing their mind by choice or persuasion is not illegal. You may not like it, it may not be fair, but to compare it to murder where of course we’d have to agree with you, is not a valid debate.
March 27, 2008 at 12:51 am #615665
JoBParticipantWalfredo…
you lost me.
Somehow you think destroying Hillary will impact the political process?
Contrary to current opinion.. Hillary just isn’t that important to the process.
eliminate Obama.. eliminate Hillary… and you still have Kennedy, Edwards, Kerry, dean, Pelosi, etc….
Nothing changes in the democratic party…
but fail to support a democratic president in the fall and a lot changes.
I can never get the folks who would make a point at any expense.
but.. that’s why i ended up with an FBI file in the 60s for sitting in a kitchen all night arguing with one of the honchos from the SDS (students for a democratic society) that destroying the establishment didn’t mean much if you didn’t have a plan for recovery… while my husband at the time… who had every intention of blowing up a recruiting center… can get a security clearance…
I didn’t buy it then. I haven’t seen the sense since. I don’t buy it now.
You wouldn’t make a point.. it would just be another republican win… and if enough people followed you, it would cost us the balance in the supreme court and thus the rule of law in America.
You would be willing to sacrifice that… to make a futile gesture? You want to be right.. to win.. that much?
I am not trying to single you out.. but this mind set truly disturbs me.
and i don’t even want to go to the “killing Obama” fantasy part of that thread…
So now we portray her as a potential murderess?
I don’t agree to any of that… at any level.
Hillary has committed no crime other than standing up for half the democratic party.
You drew the line at what you call her McCain endorsement.. but you are willing to see him elected if it means her downfall?
Some line.
if you and others like you truly would sacrifice a democratic victory in the fall to make some kind of point if you don’t get your candidate..
then that only serves to underscore the deep differences between us…
and certainly explains your scorched earth tactics where Hillary is concerned.
To parrot your phrase… “No rational human” … at least no democratic rational human being… agrees with that.
this just plain makes me sad for all of us.
March 27, 2008 at 1:10 am #615666
walfredoMemberJT its very simple- JoB said as an absolute if you don’t support the democratic nominee in the upcoming election, you don’t care about the parties future. That it is short-term, illogical thinking to have any standards about how the nomination is obtained, in all cases/absolute.
I said- you can’t say that as an absolute.
She said- yes I can.
So I said, that isn’t true, and gave the most extreme example I could think of, to disprove the absolute. Obviously, you can’t make that absolute statement, as it is very easy to disprove.
That’s it- I’m not comparing Hillary killing Obama, to her negative campaigning. I’m not saying what she is doing is illegal.
The point made, is that the absolute JoB gave is false. That there is a line at which point you can’t support (even a democrat), clearly there has to be. And its up to everyone to find out where that is for them.
March 27, 2008 at 1:32 am #615667
JoBParticipantwalfredo…
you ignored the real issue.. which has to do with the supreme court…
ignoring it won’t make it.. or the war and possible escalation into the rest of the middle east (which might happen before the election anyway)… go away.
That is reality.
Argue that you can substitute one absolute with another all you want to.
It doesn’t change a thing about the reality of what we will be facing if a democrat is not in the white house for the next term.
I will engage in honest discussion.
I will not engage in semantics..
or further the republican agenda in any way by giving credence to the kind of twisted thinking the anybody but Clinton crowd has promoted.
March 27, 2008 at 1:42 am #615668
walfredoMemberSo the scorch the earth tactics help how? You don’t get to pick what the real issue is. To me, being told that I’m “undemocratic” or “unamerican” as some sort of absolute law, is an issue. I don’t agree, strongly, violently disagree with that notion. You don’t just get my support because you are the nominee. The ends don’t always justify the means.
If you truly supported the democratic party, and long-term goals, you would have been deeply alienated by both Clintons words and actions endorsing John McCain in the general election if she is not the nominee. That can’t be a good tactic to keep him out of office!
To this point, Barack Obama has said nothing that even slightly resembles those sentiments about his opponent.
Look, I believe you are supporting Rush Limbaugh and the republicans RIGHT NOW, and there is plenty of evidence I’ve provided to back that up. Chris Matthews last night discussed what Hillary’s goals were at this point, and openly talked about the growing idea that it is better politically for Hillary Clinton if McCain wins the general, then if Obama does. This is absolutely on the table in the Clinton thought process of why to continue a race that is already lost. Don’t make this about a party, and defend the Clintons us or nobody tactics at the same time.
March 27, 2008 at 5:17 am #615669
JoBParticipantthank you walfredo for that illuminating post.
and with that one i think i can be fairly certain you are not the bob half of charlabob… because i am quite sure he would never accuse me of supporting Rush Limbaugh.
That you do speaks volumes for how far you are willing to go to smear any voice that speaks for anything other than Obama.
Don’t flatter yourself thinking you have stilled my voice.
You simply proved to me that you are not worth the time and effort spent conversing with you.
i said what i have to say on another thread here tonight.. so i am not going to repeat myself.
JT.. for you i gave it the day. I think you will agree that it was not my best decision.
This voice chooses to no longer engage in this sorry excuse for conversation.
March 27, 2008 at 5:27 am #615670
charlabobParticipantDon’t worry, JoB — both the bob and the charla are quite open about who we are and what we think. That’s why I explained this morning that catlbob was bob.
I can’t imagine what led you to stick in a grauitous poke at us in the midst of your note to walfredo. I’m sure if I went back and read through the lines and lines and lines of posts I could find out — but I don’t care that much.
This has clearly become personal to you. I have no idea why. But I do know that I won’t go away and I won’t play the game.
March 27, 2008 at 5:34 am #615671
JoBParticipantcharla..
please drop this.
you stated this morning that one of the new posters was bob. if you stated that he was catlbob.. it was lost somewhere in a post that i didn’t see.
My insertion was actually a compliment to bob and a flag to everyone else that walfredo wasn’t bob…
but i can see where you have begun to automatically assign only the vilest and most personal of motives to me…
I will not open this thread again even to read your posts.
this has obviously gone way too far.
March 27, 2008 at 5:52 am #615672
charlabobParticipantIf I mistook your motives, I apologize. There is nothing else to say.
March 27, 2008 at 5:59 am #615673
charlabobParticipantSincerely good news for the Hillary supporters: I just spent two hours on the phone with one of the brightest, most dynamic young women I know — I’ve known her since she was an hour old and now she’s 22.
She’s a passionate Hillary supporter, for all the reasons others have stated and more. I think that’s interesting because “conventional wisdom” would have you believe Hillary’s support consists of geezers and hacks. That’s not true.
Dana and the young Dems of Orange County (g-d help ’em) are preparing to run as Clinton delegates–she had questions about the forms and I was helping her fill them out.
I just wanted to say, while I still support Obama as passionately as ever, there is youth and passion on the other side as well.
so long and thanks, from one of the older fish
March 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm #615674
walfredoMemberhttp://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/26/104555/955/7/484087
Some much needed insight into the reasons behind Hillary’s campaigin “strategy”.
March 27, 2008 at 4:12 pm #615675
c@lbobMemberI saw that one too, walfredo. The rationalization affect the writer uses sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
March 27, 2008 at 11:26 pm #615676
walfredoMemberhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/27/clinton-tells-democrats-dont-vote-for-mccain/
Perhaps a change in tone? That sounds like a candidate that I could support. Let’s hope that the Clintons really make a point of distancing themselves from previous pro-McCain statements.
This is a good start.
March 28, 2008 at 2:29 am #615677
JanSParticipantI like the change in tone. I also found some of the comments at the end of the article “interesting” to say the least. But they were far more intelligent than some comments I’ve read…one that shows how ignorant some people can be about things are comments made on the political articles on AOL – boggles the mind. At least we have intelligence here on our little blog. Thanks, walfredo , for those articles…
March 28, 2008 at 3:28 pm #615678
walfredoMemberhttp://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/clinton-praises.html
Doh! That didn’t last real long…
March 28, 2008 at 3:42 pm #615679
charlabobParticipantI’m about to expand my normal conspiracy theory mind to say that Bill doesn’t want Hill to be elected. At least subliminally, he doesn’t want the competition. IF she were to be elected, with a Democratic majority in congress, she’d be a hell of a lot better president for the people than he was. What would that do for his legacy?
hmmmmmm just thinking….
March 28, 2008 at 3:48 pm #615680
walfredoMemberI’ve read some people say that he really doesn’t want Obama elected, because he was the first black president, or so they so, and that legacy would be lost if there really was a first black president, who happened to be more charasmatic then him…
I think he really doesn’t know what he wants. Clearly, he is much more comfortable being the centerpiece of a campaign and taking all this stuff on directly. It is proving very difficult for him to figure out a way to play a supporting role, and to let someone else, especially HIS WIFE, have the spotlight to themselves.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.