Just feel this image sort of fits this situation: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"If'n you don't like Obama, ye mus' be fer McCain!" Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I couldn't have said it better to Epistle Joe. Thanks! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Geoff
Geoff, Where did I say if you don't like Obama you must be for McCain? You are sitting up a straw man arguement...which is a classic error in arguement used frequently by our beloved Republicans. All I have to do to hear this kind of error in arguement is to tune into the Limbaugh or hannity show every day.
No, Epistle Joe, your assumption is that since I think Obama is a pair of clown shoes, I must be a Republican. It is you that is setting up the contrast. However, it is entirely possible that one could be sensible and prefer Clinton, if any of the contenders be preferred. Now, go back and watch some more Rush Limbaugh, since clearly he's your favourite political hack. Capice? Geoff
So let me get this straight Geoff, you now have the power to know my assumptions? You are indeed all powerful as well as all knowledgable! All bow to Geoff.
Joe! You're catching on. Putting words in people's mouths, and all that. But let me remind you of your earlier post: So you're accusing me of being Republican. Why? Because I think a) the election is being stolen, because Florida and Michigan deserve a say, and b) Obama is not the best candidate. So you wrongly conclude that c) I must be a Republican. Except of course that it was the Republicans who engineered that, and I sharply disagree with their actions. I consider them criminal. But I must be a Republican stooge! Tiny contradiction there; but never you mind, Joey. Anyway, upshot is: you criticize me for doing to you exactly as you just did to me. Except, of course, I have your actual comments to go on, and my attacks make sense. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Go thee forth and divide the world according to thy misconceptions. By two and two they must be; one to one side and one to another, no greater than a binary solution set, for no issue can have more than two sides. Right. Best, Geoff
Assuming you consider racism to be sensible...... then I agree. Unfortunately, I don't consider racism sensible.
There are non-racist reason to prefer Clinton, its just that most who prefer Clinton are likely using the racists reasons.
And all they had to do to get one is hold a legit caucus or primary according to the Party rules. Or, belaying that, simply show up for the election and vote. It's an endorsing Party. There has been no election, or voter disenfranchisement, or anything like that. The AFL-CIO endorses a candidate, the Chambers of Commerce some places, the local newspapers, there are plenty of places for the people of Florida and Michigan to go to express their preferences for a candidate. They didn't hold a legit primary or caucus, so their state has no delegates to the Party Convention, but that's a choice any state branch of the Party can make.
I don't consider baseless insinuation sensible either. Some people do engage in it though, if they have nothing better to offer than screaming and throwing their underwear at the candidate. Fair enough; I'll leave you be then, since you're so touchy about anyone having any opinions other than your own. I know, I know: Obamania tolerates no dissent. And the entire thing was contrived by the Republicans. So now we disregard two states. Anyone curious at all as to some reasons why? Anyone? Hmm? Obamania! Oh: never mind, then. Didn't know the arguments against were so compelling. Et tu, Fetus? Really? Geoff
Well said iceaura, I really don't see why this issue is so confusing to some. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It isn't confusing, it's unfair. Some people are able to separate the two concepts. For example: many people accuse the Republicans of stealing the last election. The reasons behind it aren't really confusing so much as unfair. The former doesn't validate or invalidate the latter, per se.
I wasn't saying your reasoning was racist. Sure it unfair to not count their votes, but then again their primary was not run fairly.
True, which was staged by another party. Smells like stink. Should we hold our noses and pretend we don't smell it? Or clean it up and do it in the potty this time? Geoff
Unfair to whom? And as I said, the only way to make imaginary primary results fair is to split the votes 50/50.
I would love to clean it up here are the options: 1. Reduce the primaries: no one wants th pay for that, even if their was a revote it likely obama would get significants larger percentage of votes, perhaps wining one or both of those states. 2. Divide up the delegates: state and party officials divide up the delegates in a manner they all agree on. Obama would definitely win. 3. Allow them as is: Clinton would get 122 delegates more then obama, still Obama would likely win. In short no matter what obama is going to win the primary.
So they only manipulated one. Is this then unimportant? The, er, voters. Or the country. And as I said, that's possibly the dullest suggestion so far. The onlyway to have dealt with the issue would have been to actually have the primaries held in both those states matter. However, I'm sure you consider such a suggestion racist...for some reason. Evil math, maybe. Whichever. If the votes are really that flexible, then who's to say which way it would go? This is a close race. It deserves proper democracy and consideration, not expediency. Geoff
