Obama To Run For President

[Gauge]

[Msterbeau]

BF.. I should not have to prove something that is on the nightly news, is a front page headline for a week, was a piece on 60 minutes and a few other talk shows. I'm sorry if you are for whatever reason out of touch with whats going on. Hillary's group of people are running a dirty campaign. I'm not the one claiming it.. you just have to actually read something about the campaign to know it. I would provide proof if my claim was not so widely known.

Mark... You've chastised me in the past for not providing info to support an argument I was making. Why is this different? The discussion is here on DGN not in your living room. Some of us don't touch a paper or watch the news. It all pretty much ends up on the web anyways so that's as valid a source of news as any other... more so since you have a variety of possible outlets that you can check easily from one place. I'm not saying we shouldn't do our own homework. I AM saying you should provide sources if you expect that of others. (And past experiences suggest that you do.) My experience is that proper forum (Any forum) etiquette dictates that a person making a claim is responsible for providing some sort of documentation to support it.

[torn asunder]

Mark... You've chastised me in the past for not providing info to support an argument I was making. Why is this different? The discussion is here on DGN not in your living room. Some of us don't touch a paper or watch the news. It all pretty much ends up on the web anyways so that's as valid a source of news as any other... more so since you have a variety of possible outlets that you can check easily from one place. I'm not saying we shouldn't do our own homework. I AM saying you should provide sources if you expect that of others. (And past experiences suggest that you do.) My experience is that proper forum (Any forum) etiquette dictates that a person making a claim is responsible for providing some sort of documentation to support it.

this is quite true... i was going to mention it, but i didn't want to get involved...

(of course, now i have, damnit!!) :doh

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I assume that how dirty this campaign is becoming is a nightly discussion on the news and every major newspaper that perhaps someone would be informed.

and just so you know.

I lost my job.

I have no internet connection to speak of.

I get on with a 14.4 connection that wont allow me to go on 90% of the internet.

I get to use it for about 1-2 hours a day.

So..

If I am talking about a major news story that has been all over the front pages of every major newspaper and on the nightly news and major news shows...

I am not going to bother with posting a link. You people are smart enough to look yourself. If it were some off the wall thing that was not all over the news, then I will post a link.

and BF... When did 60Minutes go from CBS (the mouthpiece of the Democrats) to Fox News? I cant get Fox News.. I get CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS and a local Fox channel.. but not Fox News.

[Msterbeau]

and just so you know.

I lost my job.

So the buying out the owner thing hasn't gone anywhere, huh?

[BrassFusion]

I assume that how dirty this campaign is becoming is a nightly discussion on the news and every major newspaper that perhaps someone would be informed.

and just so you know.

I lost my job.

I have no internet connection to speak of.

I get on with a 14.4 connection that wont allow me to go on 90% of the internet.

I get to use it for about 1-2 hours a day.

So..

If I am talking about a major news story that has been all over the front pages of every major newspaper and on the nightly news and major news shows...

I am not going to bother with posting a link. You people are smart enough to look yourself. If it were some off the wall thing that was not all over the news, then I will post a link.

and BF... When did 60Minutes go from CBS (the mouthpiece of the Democrats) to Fox News? I cant get Fox News.. I get CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS and a local Fox channel.. but not Fox News.

then i can't very well link you to the articles i DID read that demonstrated no meaningful link to the clinton campaign. you did read my last post, however. the guy "outed" himself for attending an islamic school in his fucking autobiography from 12 years ago... old news that hill clearly had nothing to do with.

not that i like her.

but it's like you'll go to any ridiculous length to trash-talk democrats. stop it already. it's annoying.

[Scary Guy]

They're both running for the democratic nomination.

That should show just how little I care then.

[Msterbeau]

Since when is it a crime to attend a Muslim school? Oh.. that's right, some Muslims hate the US, so now all of them are the enemy.

He did it as a child. Like he had a choice. And the school in question was hardly a breeding ground for fundamentalist terrorists.

"nterviews by The Associated Press at the elementary school in Jakarta found that it's a public and secular institution that has been open to students of all faiths since before the White House hopeful attended in the late 1960s."

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK.. I followed the whole thing as it unraveled in the news...

bare with me.. I was not trash talking anyone... all I said is the campaign is getting dirty... which is exactly what all the talking heads are speaking about on Sunday morning talk shows, the nightly news and so on.

Yes, he talked about it in a book he wrote years ago.. but it was not a fact widely known...

It was pointed out by someone in the Clinton campaign to a bunch of news reporters... parts were omited and it was claimed that the school in question held to certain extremists beleifs... 60 Minutes did piece on it a few weeks ago to find out just how much merrit the story had. Thier opinion and that of many other people, is that the Clinton campaign did a little truth stretching to try to besmirch his image as he has a pretty good chance of beating her in the primarys.. They were playing on voter ignorance.

I'm not trash talking anyone.. I am repeating a known national news story.

I actually kinda like Obama. His lack of real experiance is all that worrys me.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I was watching Live this morning... and even they are talking about the escalation of the war between Obama and Hillary. The New York Post is using at thier front page story today... seems Hillary is suggeting that Obama give back money given to him by an ex Bill supporter... and then the Mud started to fly...

This should all be rather entertaining to watch...

[Msterbeau]

I was watching Live this morning... and even they are talking about the escalation of the war between Obama and Hillary. The New York Post is using at thier front page story today... seems Hillary is suggeting that Obama give back money given to him by an ex Bill supporter... and then the Mud started to fly...

This should all be rather entertaining to watch...

I wish they would shut up and just get on with telling us about their position on the issues we care about.....

[Scary Guy]

I wish they would shut up and just get on with telling us about their position on the issues we care about.....

Oh shit, you mean fight fair? It will be a cold chilly icy fucking frigid day in hell when that will happen.

[Spooky Girl]

Brassfusion didn't you say anyone who opposes gay marriage is a problem? Well just so you know Barack Obama opposes gay marriage.

[BrassFusion]

Brassfusion didn't you say anyone who opposes gay marriage is a problem? Well just so you know Barack Obama opposes gay marriage.

that blows nuts. i hadn't seen evidence of that so far. where'd you hear it?

[Spooky Girl]

that blows nuts. i hadn't seen evidence of that so far. where'd you hear it?

FYI almost all democrats are opposed to gay marriage, you'll hjave to look at Nader if you want someone pro gay marriage.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printed...1,4555304.story

"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," Obama said.

Obama said he would not let his religious beliefs dictate the way he approaches public policy. He said he would supports civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

Here is a gay magazine opposed to Obama

http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid39485.asp

[BrassFusion]

from the advocate link:

“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir, The Audacity of Hope.

and he apparently supports civil unions anyway. that's WAY good enough for me until we revamp the electoral system so a third-party could actually get elected.

[Spooky Girl]

from the advocate link:

and he apparently supports civil unions anyway. that's WAY good enough for me until we revamp the electoral system so a third-party could actually get elected.

Ok just so you know even most of the Republicans including Bush support civil unions.

[BrassFusion]

Ok just so you know even most of the Republicans including Bush support civil unions.

So far Bush has left it for states to decide, and so far, states have overwhelmingly banned same-sex unions. Like our Prop 2 in 2004. He's being Pontius Pilate about it, essentially. You don't hear him say, "let's let the states decide what they want" on other issues.

That's not really SUPPORTING it.

and I think I may have said, I don't have any illusions about ours being a two-party system. I WILL vote for the lesser of two evils. So far I'm liking Obama more than any other major party candidate. Hell, that quote from his autobiography was golden. He MAY have been prejudiced by society? He MIGHT be wrong about something? Fuck, that's more than Bush has ever admitted.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It's not the Electorial system that is keeping a 3rd party from ever getting elected. It's the Campaign Finaince laws. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been tweeking the rules for the last 100 years. They have it now so that only they can raise enough money to run an effective campaign.

The States deciding is how it is sopposed to be. Says so right in the Constitution. States Rights. Federal powers are clearly defined and the rest falls under the States Rights.

[torn asunder]

FYI almost all democrats are opposed to gay marriage, you'll hjave to look at Nader if you want someone pro gay marriage.

[BrassFusion]

It's not the Electorial system that is keeping a 3rd party from ever getting elected. It's the Campaign Finaince laws. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have been tweeking the rules for the last 100 years. They have it now so that only they can raise enough money to run an effective campaign.

The States deciding is how it is sopposed to be. Says so right in the Constitution. States Rights. Federal powers are clearly defined and the rest falls under the States Rights.

It's the system. People like me know that third party candidates can't get elected under this system because people like me know they can't. *cough*

Let's pretend it's Obama and Huckabee facing off in '08, with Nader as a third party. Between Obama and Huckabee, I have a definite preference for Obama.

Let's pretend for a moment that Nader isn't a jackass, and that I wanted HIM to win the presidency. If I voted for Nader, he still wouldn't win. Not by a longshot. Part of it is financing, like you said, but most of it is lack of voter interest in third parties because they just can't win. It's circular, it's stupid, but it's real.

So Nader loses and I just wasted my chance to vote for Obama, hurting his chances to beat Huckabee. No dice, baby. Sorry. Not after the past two elections, not even in a confirmed blue state like Michigan.

There are better electoral systems. I described one once and Marc told me it already existed and was in use in other countries, but yeah, I totally forgot what it was called. If we ever implement that system then I'll vote third party followed by a preference for Obama, then Huckabee, then all the way at the bottom, the dessicated corpse of Pat Buchanan making hypocritical anal love to Sen. John McCain.

NO. For the reasons described above. I admire your principles if not your procedures.

Edit: Mark, I almost forgot.

It should not be in the power of any States to discriminate between genders, races, sexual orientations, age, physical disabilities, difference of opinion, and a host of other factors for any purpose excepting obvious ones (You can't hire a male wet nurse, you can't hire a hand model with no hands). Personal discrimination happens, and falls under the first amendment, but LEGISLATED discrimination is against everything our country was created for. When we finally started to realize that blacks were people, we had to amend the constitution to recognize that, and we have to do the same with gays.

Unless you want Alabama to have the freedom to reinstate a ban on interracial marriage. I don't think the federal government would support that, and I wouldn't blame them.

Also... I don't think a Federal Marriage Amendment banning gay marriage from federal cognizance does anything to support State's rights.

[Msterbeau]

Instant Runoff Voting

[BrassFusion]

Instant Runoff Voting

THANK YOU

[torn asunder]

It's the system. People like me know that third party candidates can't get elected under this system because people like me know they can't. *cough*

Let's pretend it's Obama and Huckabee facing off in '08, with Nader as a third party. Between Obama and Huckabee, I have a definite preference for Obama.

Let's pretend for a moment that Nader isn't a jackass, and that I wanted HIM to win the presidency. If I voted for Nader, he still wouldn't win. Not by a longshot. Part of it is financing, like you said, but most of it is lack of voter interest in third parties because they just can't win. It's circular, it's stupid, but it's real.

the reason they can't get elected is for exactly this reason... because people think that voting for a third party is throwing away their vote. why do people feel the need to "vote for the lesser evil" or to "vote for the winner" rather than voting their beliefs & conscience?

So Nader loses and I just wasted my chance to vote for Obama, hurting his chances to beat Huckabee. No dice, baby. Sorry. Not after the past two elections, not even in a confirmed blue state like Michigan.

i understand what you're saying, but personally, i'm taking a stand & not voting for people i think completely suck. i will vote third party (any third party) until such time as they win enough votes to get federal campaign financing, so they can actually have a chance at getting their message out to the people. this two-party-only system (due to campaign finance regulations, etc) is total bullshit & i refuse to support it. so the way i look at it, if anyone votes for a democrat or republican solely for the reasons i listed above ("vote for the lesser evil" or to "vote for the winner") then *you're* the ones throwing away your vote...

[Spooky Girl]

a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.