Jump to content

Obama Bombed


Guest 2smart4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

The Defeatocrats have spoken, they prefer an Ice Queen over an Empty Suit. And I have to agree,

if the phone rings at 3 am in the White House, you know Hillary will answer it because who knows

where Bubba will be. Obama's ship has sailed, he had his moment in the sun. His message of

wanting to hold hands with Bin Laden while singing Kumbaya grew tired. So it looks like a McCain/

Clinton match up with McCain kicking her butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is actually good for Obama. People want to see him tested. Now we'll see what he's made of.

Like maybe he'll get flustered and irritated by the press after only 8 questions after the Rezko trial started ...

We'll see what he's made of ... but it won't necessarily be good for Obama.

The honeymoon is over, Obama. The press is going to start treating you like any other politician from here on out. The Rezko deal was fishy and there are some tough questions to be asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
This is actually good for Obama. People want to see him tested. Now we'll see what he's made of.

Yes. Hillary simply didn't win by enough. She needed to win by at least 20 points (60%+) in both Texas and Ohio to be back in the race. She's still almost 100 delegates behind.

You can tell how much the neocons don't want Obama for an opponent. Not only that, but the talking heads hate their Republican nominee, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Yes. Hillary simply didn't win by enough. She needed to win by at least 20 points (60%+) in both Texas and Ohio to be back in the race. She's still almost 100 delegates behind.

You can tell how much the neocons don't want Obama for an opponent. Not only that, but the talking heads hate their Republican nominee, lol.

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

She needs an average of 62% in the remaining primaries to lead (by just 5) in pledged delegates. And she's got to lead in pledged because the supers are not going to overturn the will of the voters.

It's not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

She needs an average of 62% in the remaining primaries to lead (by just 5) in pledged delegates. And she's got to lead in pledged because the supers are not going to overturn the will of the voters.

It's not happening.

The Democrats are already prepared to ignore the will of the voters (keeping delegates from Michigan and Florida from taking their seats). How naive can you get? The entire "superdelegate" system is designed expressly by your party to allow it to overturn the will of the voters. By rule, they don't have to follow the will of the voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Enjoying the Show
The Defeatocrats have spoken, they prefer an Ice Queen over an Empty Suit. And I have to agree,

if the phone rings at 3 am in the White House, you know Hillary will answer it because who knows

where Bubba will be. Obama's ship has sailed, he had his moment in the sun. His message of

wanting to hold hands with Bin Laden while singing Kumbaya grew tired. So it looks like a McCain/

Clinton match up with McCain kicking her butt.

Well 2Smart, I see you've moved on from supporting the Cross-Dressing, Thrice-Married, Lisp-Impaired Giuliani and are now on the McCain wagon. Your guy on the stump is as exciting as the turnip I forgot about that's still in my pantry.

I also see you're still using women-hating terms like Ice Queen for Senator Clinton. You've cut, run and hid before on this question but I have to ask it again, why do you call her Ice Queen? (2Smart, please don't respond with a 'you know why' again; you know that's chickening out on answering the question).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Real Facts
Yes. Hillary simply didn't win by enough. She needed to win by at least 20 points (60%+) in both Texas and Ohio to be back in the race. She's still almost 100 delegates behind.

You can tell how much the neocons don't want Obama for an opponent. Not only that, but the talking heads hate their Republican nominee, lol.

To the contrary, Obama didn't get enough delegates. Now, NEITHER Obama nor Clinton can win with pledged delegates. The only way out of avoiding a convention brokered by superdelegates is to have new elections in Florida and Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.slate.com/features/delegatecounter/

She needs an average of 62% in the remaining primaries to lead (by just 5) in pledged delegates. And she's got to lead in pledged because the supers are not going to overturn the will of the voters.

It's not happening.

Doesn't really matter. Neither one of them will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination. With both of them short of the required number, the battle will come down to the allegiance of the superdelegates. Clinton has a built-in advantage there, since the Clintons have been the chief contemporary icons of the Democratic party for over 10 years. Obama can counter with momentum--but only if he actually has momentum when the convention rolls around. And he can appeal to his having a plurality of the pledged delegates and perhaps a majority of the popular votes.

Bottom line, it's fair to see Obama having the inside track, but the finish is too close to call, especially with the Rezko trial starting to bring media scrutiny to the DNC's golden boy.

Fishy, fishy, fishy.

http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
The Democrats are already prepared to ignore the will of the voters (keeping delegates from Michigan and Florida from taking their seats). How naive can you get? The entire "superdelegate" system is designed expressly by your party to allow it to overturn the will of the voters. By rule, they don't have to follow the will of the voters.

There's a good chance we'll see the Defeatocratic Party implode at convention. With Hillary on the

upswing, the delegate count should be very close. Enter the supes with their deciding votes. Whoever

they choose to support, the other side will go nuts. This split will put McCain in the White House. BTW,

I'm anxious to hear screaming Dean again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
There's a good chance we'll see the Defeatocratic Party implode at convention. With Hillary on the

upswing, the delegate count should be very close. Enter the supes with their deciding votes. Whoever

they choose to support, the other side will go nuts. This split will put McCain in the White House. BTW,

I'm anxious to hear screaming Dean again.

Please tell me specifcally why you think the GOP deserves to be in the f**king white house?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Veteran

Hey republican't

Want to explain the Savings and Loan scandal and John McLame?

Doesn't matter to me, no matter who wins in Nov, it won't be a conservative. Even Hastert calls MccAin a loyal Democrat.

As far victory for McCain, remember Dole and how that worked out for you LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Hey republican't

Want to explain the Savings and Loan scandal and John McLame?

Doesn't matter to me, no matter who wins in Nov, it won't be a conservative. Even Hastert calls MccAin a loyal Democrat.

As far victory for McCain, remember Dole and how that worked out for you LOL.

Judging from your illiterate post I'd say you were a "veteran" of one too many hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey republican't

Want to explain the Savings and Loan scandal and John McLame?

Sure.

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, while John Glenn and John McCain had been only minimally involved. The Committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Was there anything you wished to add?

Doesn't matter to me, no matter who wins in Nov, it won't be a conservative. Even Hastert calls MccAin a loyal Democrat.

As far victory for McCain, remember Dole and how that worked out for you LOL.

Great, then you can oppose the conservatives and vote McCain. I look forward to seeing you at the rally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
The Democrats are already prepared to ignore the will of the voters (keeping delegates from Michigan and Florida from taking their seats). How naive can you get? The entire "superdelegate" system is designed expressly by your party to allow it to overturn the will of the voters. By rule, they don't have to follow the will of the voters.

Consistent with Bryan's usual "standards," if you can call them that, this post is disingenuous. For the benefit of people like 2dim4words, that means that he's being dishonest.

The Democrats made a mistake in Michigan and got outvoted by the Republicans in Florida. They would like to seat Michigan and Florida delegates for two reasons. First, it's the right thing to do. Second, they need to win those states; not seating their delegates is politically disadvantageous, they know it and are looking for a remedy.

You, Bryan, on the other hand, have repeatedly argued that they goofed and now they have to live with it. In making that argument, you cared not one bit about the will of the voters, which hasn't been measured yet because it was understood that the previous primaries would not count. It's fundamental in any competitive event, whether a political contest or a sport, that you don't do a warm-up, then decide to count it as the official event after the fact.

As for the superdelegates, once again, Bryan, you don't care one bit about the Democratic party. You would be quite happy if it ceased to exist. The superdelegates were put in place as a way of checking against a primary system that didn't work as it was intended to work. They weren't put there to overrule the majority will.

Are you ever honest about anything, Bryan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, while John Glenn and John McCain had been only minimally involved. The Committee recommended censure for Cranston and criticized the other four for "questionable conduct."

Was there anything you wished to add?

Yes. McCain is running for president, so the committee's criticism is relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consistent with Bryan's usual "standards," if you can call them that, this post is disingenuous. For the benefit of people like 2dim4words, that means that he's being dishonest.

Your post will demonstrate that you're too stupid to be trusted with either word.

The Democrats made a mistake in Michigan and got outvoted by the Republicans in Florida.

The Democrats who voted to move the primary in Florida vastly outnumber the Democrats who voted against it. That's one of the reasons the DNC used to punish Florida by refusing to seat its delegates.

Several members suggested state Democrats should have fought harder against the Republican-led charge to move up the primary date.

Florida Democrats argued that they were outnumbered 2 to 1 in the Legislature and that Republicans made it impossible for Democrats to vote against the measure by including language requiring paper voting machine trails in the bill.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/lesley_cl...tory/19227.html

So, even though the legislation was sure to pass with Republican support (2/3 majority, to hear the Democrats tell it), they voted for the measure for the sake of getting on the record for being in favor of other stuff in the bill. Don't you love politics? :)

The DNC reasoned that if Florida Democrats weren't willing to vote against a bill that was guaranteed to pass without their votes then it must not have been that important to them to oppose it.

So what's wrong with their reasoning? And if it really was all the Republicans' fault, why not seat the delegates? Why let the Republicans box them in like that?

They would like to seat Michigan and Florida delegates for two reasons. First, it's the right thing to do.

If it's the right thing to do, then why did every state representative except one (from Florida) vote to strip Florida of its primary delegates?

:lol:

You're hilarious. Do go on.

Second, they need to win those states; not seating their delegates is politically disadvantageous, they know it and are looking for a remedy.

Again, why didn't they think of that earlier?

You, Bryan, on the other hand, have repeatedly argued that they goofed and now they have to live with it.

Apparently you agree that they goofed, so we really only have one disagreement. You think they can magically make the goof go away. I disagree, and for sure the taxpayers in the respective states shouldn't have to pay for the DNC's goof-up. And it looks more and more as if it will play out in accordance with what I've been saying. You can stick with the audacity of hoping otherwise.

In making that argument, you cared not one bit about the will of the voters, which hasn't been measured yet because it was understood that the previous primaries would not count.

If that was understood then why so many people vote in the Florida and Michigan primaries? You seem to overlook the fact the states have real leverage in this ... which is odd because you noted above the pickle the DNC got itself into ("First, it's the right thing to do. Second, they need to win those states").

Your argument is incoherent. You might as well come from the same family of sock puppets that gave us "Twizzler" (God rest his sole).

It's fundamental in any competitive event, whether a political contest or a sport, that you don't do a warm-up, then decide to count it as the official event after the fact.

The Michigan and Florida primaries were not warm-ups but the real primaries for both states. Your argument doesn't fly. The DNC is not a government entity. Their rules apply to party activities and carry no legal weight with respect to the state primaries. The Jets-Patriots game from 2007 provides a better analogy. The Patriots did not follow league rules. But the Patriots scored more points than the Jets. The fans know which was the better team on that day--but the league could have awarded the win to the Jets.

Whichever way the DNC decides, there are consequences. But there's no way the DNC should be able to decide that Florida taxpayers shell out millions of dollars just to help the DNC clean the egg from its face. If they agreed to seat the delegates from the first, what's the problem? The DNC is even responsible for your misperception that the actual primaries were warm-ups (though we can partially credit your intellect).

As for the superdelegates, once again, Bryan, you don't care one bit about the Democratic party.

Not true, but even if I don't care about the Democratic Party--so what? Would that magically mean that the DNC did not design the superdelegate system to allow the party elites to overrule the will of Democratic Primary voters? I love the way you dodge the issue.

You would be quite happy if it ceased to exist.

Not any happier than I'd be than if it began to resemble the Democratic Party of JFK. Radicals are steering the Dem. Party.

The superdelegates were put in place as a way of checking against a primary system that didn't work as it was intended to work. They weren't put there to overrule the majority will.

Oh? So what's an example of the primary system not working as it was intended to work? I'd love to see you give me an example that doesn't involve the superdelegates overruling the will of the majority of voters. Surprise me.

Are you ever honest about anything, Bryan?

Did you learn the fallacy of the complex question from Paul LaClair? Or just stumble into it on your own?

We need more spin from you. Get crackin'.

Chew on this while you're at it:

1984 Rules: In 1982, the DNC adopted several changes in the nominating process. They had been proposed by the party's Commission on Presidential Nominations, which was established in 1980 and led by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. The party created a new group of "SUPERDELEGATES," party and elected officials who would go to the 1984 convention "uncommitted" and cast about 14% of the ballots. (This was a continuation of the effort to bring the experienced, more MODERATE members of the party to the convention to act as a "ballast" against the passions of other delegates.)

In 1984, this had the effect of stabilizing support for "establishment" candidate Walter Mondale over "insurgent" candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. Also adopted was a proposal allowing a presidential candidate to replace a disloyal delegate.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conven...les/index.shtml

By 1980 the party establishment had seen enough. It struck back with a commission of its own, led by North Carolina Governor James Hunt. It returned power to elected officials and party regulars--the superdelegates, who will make up about 20 percent of the 4,049 delegates at the Democratic convention. They include all Democratic members of Congress and every governor, but roughly half of them are Democratic National Committee officials elected by state parties, who range from top party operatives to local city council members. Key interests in the party, like labor groups, can also name superdelegates. According to political scientist Rhodes Cook, superdelegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/berman

How does an outsider build up a head of steam in the primaries? Simple answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. McCain is running for president, so the committee's criticism is relevant.

So is Barack Obama's long friendship with Illinois fixer Antoine Rezko and his enduring membership in a church that honors Louis Farrakhan, but you don't see me running around starting threads about it.

Spin it as much as you wish, McCain's record is superior to Obama's.

The mask on Obama has begun to slip. He's in trouble if he still manages to gain the nomination (watch out for those superdelegates--a bit of stench from Rezko will send them to Clinton).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So is Barack Obama's long friendship with Illinois fixer Antoine Rezko and his enduring membership in a church that honors Louis Farrakhan, but you don't see me running around starting threads about it.

Spin it as much as you wish, McCain's record is superior to Obama's.

The mask on Obama has begun to slip. He's in trouble if he still manages to gain the nomination (watch out for those superdelegates--a bit of stench from Rezko will send them to Clinton).

If your standard (not that you actually have any) is that a friendship with a crook is relevant, then Bush shouldn't have been elected either. Perhaps none of them could be. The business with Farrakhan is just a cheap shot.

By contrast, letting the S&L debacle happen is an enormous substantive blot on McCain's record. At best, you're trying to compare cherries to watermelons.

McCain has a long record, but his judgment is questionable. He pandered disgracefully to the radical right early in the campaign, so there's reason to think he'll do the same thing if elected. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, but now wants to make them permanent. He foresees us in Iraq for 100 years. He says he'll appoint more radicals like Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court. Republicans have had their chance, and screwed this country royally. McCain may be a bit of a maverick, but he has already proved that he is willing to compromise his principles, even on the issue most central to his own life: torture. So you can spin it as much as you want, but McCain wants to take the country in the wrong direction, and the country's not going for it this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Your post will demonstrate that you're too stupid to be trusted with either word.

The Democrats who voted to move the primary in Florida vastly outnumber the Democrats who voted against it. That's one of the reasons the DNC used to punish Florida by refusing to seat its delegates.

Several members suggested state Democrats should have fought harder against the Republican-led charge to move up the primary date.

Florida Democrats argued that they were outnumbered 2 to 1 in the Legislature and that Republicans made it impossible for Democrats to vote against the measure by including language requiring paper voting machine trails in the bill.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/lesley_cl...tory/19227.html

So, even though the legislation was sure to pass with Republican support (2/3 majority, to hear the Democrats tell it), they voted for the measure for the sake of getting on the record for being in favor of other stuff in the bill. Don't you love politics? :)

The DNC reasoned that if Florida Democrats weren't willing to vote against a bill that was guaranteed to pass without their votes then it must not have been that important to them to oppose it.

So what's wrong with their reasoning? And if it really was all the Republicans' fault, why not seat the delegates? Why let the Republicans box them in like that?

If it's the right thing to do, then why did every state representative except one (from Florida) vote to strip Florida of its primary delegates?

Again, why didn't they think of that earlier?

Apparently you agree that they goofed, so we really only have one disagreement. You think they can magically make the goof go away. I disagree, and for sure the taxpayers in the respective states shouldn't have to pay for the DNC's goof-up. And it looks more and more as if it will play out in accordance with what I've been saying. You can stick with the audacity of hoping otherwise.

If that was understood then why so many people vote in the Florida and Michigan primaries? You seem to overlook the fact the states have real leverage in this ... which is odd because you noted above the pickle the DNC got itself into ("First, it's the right thing to do. Second, they need to win those states").

Your argument is incoherent. You might as well come from the same family of sock puppets that gave us "Twizzler" (God rest his sole).

The Michigan and Florida primaries were not warm-ups but the real primaries for both states. Your argument doesn't fly. The DNC is not a government entity. Their rules apply to party activities and carry no legal weight with respect to the state primaries. The Jets-Patriots game from 2007 provides a better analogy. The Patriots did not follow league rules. But the Patriots scored more points than the Jets. The fans know which was the better team on that day--but the league could have awarded the win to the Jets.

Whichever way the DNC decides, there are consequences. But there's no way the DNC should be able to decide that Florida taxpayers shell out millions of dollars just to help the DNC clean the egg from its face. If they agreed to seat the delegates from the first, what's the problem? The DNC is even responsible for your misperception that the actual primaries were warm-ups (though we can partially credit your intellect).

Not true, but even if I don't care about the Democratic Party--so what? Would that magically mean that the DNC did not design the superdelegate system to allow the party elites to overrule the will of Democratic Primary voters? I love the way you dodge the issue.

You would be quite happy if it ceased to exist.

Not any happier than I'd be than if it began to resemble the Democratic Party of JFK. Radicals are steering the Dem. Party.

The superdelegates were put in place as a way of checking against a primary system that didn't work as it was intended to work. They weren't put there to overrule the majority will.

Oh? So what's an example of the primary system not working as it was intended to work? I'd love to see you give me an example that doesn't involve the superdelegates overruling the will of the majority of voters. Surprise me.

Are you ever honest about anything, Bryan?

Did you learn the fallacy of the complex question from Paul LaClair? Or just stumble into it on your own?

We need more spin from you. Get crackin'.

Chew on this while you're at it:

1984 Rules: In 1982, the DNC adopted several changes in the nominating process. They had been proposed by the party's Commission on Presidential Nominations, which was established in 1980 and led by Gov. James Hunt of North Carolina. The party created a new group of "SUPERDELEGATES," party and elected officials who would go to the 1984 convention "uncommitted" and cast about 14% of the ballots. (This was a continuation of the effort to bring the experienced, more MODERATE members of the party to the convention to act as a "ballast" against the passions of other delegates.)

In 1984, this had the effect of stabilizing support for "establishment" candidate Walter Mondale over "insurgent" candidates Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson. Also adopted was a proposal allowing a presidential candidate to replace a disloyal delegate.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conven...les/index.shtml

By 1980 the party establishment had seen enough. It struck back with a commission of its own, led by North Carolina Governor James Hunt. It returned power to elected officials and party regulars--the superdelegates, who will make up about 20 percent of the 4,049 delegates at the Democratic convention. They include all Democratic members of Congress and every governor, but roughly half of them are Democratic National Committee officials elected by state parties, who range from top party operatives to local city council members. Key interests in the party, like labor groups, can also name superdelegates. According to political scientist Rhodes Cook, superdelegates were created as a "firewall to blunt any party outsider that built up a head of steam in the primaries."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/berman

How does an outsider build up a head of steam in the primaries? Simple answer.

You're just picking little pieces out of arguments and ignoring their context. That's not looking at the situation as it actually is, but it does prove that it's the best you can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your standard (not that you actually have any) is that a friendship with a crook is relevant, then Bush shouldn't have been elected either.

What's the matter? Couldn't you think of an example?

Perhaps none of them could be. The business with Farrakhan is just a cheap shot.

Why is it a cheap shot? Nobody forces Obama to attend church where he does, and the church honors the racist Farrakhan. Why is it not properly relevant? If McCain attended a church that honored a prominent KKK member would you find that similarly irrelevant?

By contrast, letting the S&L debacle happen is an enormous substantive blot on McCain's record. At best, you're trying to compare cherries to watermelons.

Because being close friends with a known Chicago area political fixer is a cherry and getting a mild rebuke from Congress is a watermelon?

:)

Gotta get me a pair of those funhouse glasses like you're wearing. Every highway will look like a rollercoaster.

McCain has a long record, but his judgment is questionable. He pandered disgracefully to the radical right early in the campaign, so there's reason to think he'll do the same thing if elected.

:lol:

Obama is the unparalled king of pandering. Even though Clinton has promised bigger spending (read: buying votes), Obama is the one who tries to stay like a blank slate so Democrat voters will think he agrees with them (regardless of whether people with opposite ideas think Obama agrees with both of them). The NAFTA case is simply the example of the hour.

He voted against the Bush tax cuts, but now wants to make them permanent.

He voted against the tax cuts because they were part of an omnibus bill that included no spending cuts. If you don't know that you have no business making a comment about it. And if you do know it then you're a common liar. You should note the contrast between your style and mine. When I criticized the Democrats in the Florida legislature, I made known that the vote was part of a package deal. You're not that honest (unless you're just sadly uninformed).

He foresees us in Iraq for 100 years.

No, he doesn't. He said he wouldn't mind us being in Iraq for 100 years if the arrangement were similar to those with Korea, Japan and Germany. So are you really this stupid or are you just dishonest?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

He says he'll appoint more radicals like Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.

:lol:

Sorry to break it to you, but Roberts and Alito are not radicals. Radical is thinking that looking to European courts for interpretations of laws written in English. If you think Roberts and Alito are radicals it simply suggests that you are some type of radical.

Republicans have had their chance, and screwed this country royally.

That's nothing less than partisan exaggeration. There isn't any good evidence that liberal policies would have worked better. The biggest problem with the Bush administration was that it went along too easily with liberal thinking when it came to spending (like federal education programs like "No Child Left Behind" (sponsored by Kennedy) and the Medicare drug program--piling entitlement on top of the entitlements that will eventually break the U.S. budget if taxes are not radically increased or benefits radically reduced (or a combination of the two).

McCain may be a bit of a maverick, but he has already proved that he is willing to compromise his principles, even on the issue most central to his own life: torture.

Sounds like you've been misled by the ever-helpful liberally-biased media. How about you provide some support for your claim?

So you can spin it as much as you want, but McCain wants to take the country in the wrong direction, and the country's not going for it this time.

1) You're the one doing the spin, as anyone with half a brain or more can see by watching what McCain said compared to what you reported.

2) You may be right. Perhaps Americans will elect a Democratic unified government. Be careful what you wish for, because it will be bad for the country in the short run for sure, and probably in the long run as well. Just think about energy policy. What would the Democrats do to bring oil prices down? Cut foreign imports? Bar drilling in ANWR? Forbid drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Make sure we don't have dangerous nuclear power plants? And what else? How about some nice price controls? Remember how well that worked in the 1970s?

It's sad that the Republicans in the executive branch and Congress failed to the point that people have forgotten how awful liberal policies are in comparison. Don't be fooled by Clinton. He marched to the tune of the Republicans in Congress after his first two years.

Are you the same "Guest" who has himself fooled into thinking the superdelegates are not the DNC's way of making sure that party leaders have enough power to overrule those times when the Democratic voter goes awry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...