The Real McCain - Page 11 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-11-2008, 03:56 PM   #151
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:44 AM
^

That is absolutely true.

Having said that, I think it is astounding that Scalia was allowed to issue out that shameful judgment without there being more reaction. Some of the things he wrote are really quite incredible.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-11-2008, 04:11 PM   #152
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

I say if you can't work a fucking butterfly ballot your vote should not count.



i understand this emotionally, but think about it rationally.


Quote:
The real reason Bush won is Al Gore could not carry his home state. If he had, FLORIDA would not have even mattered.
can't argue with this one.

but then, i know a lot of politically irrational people in TN.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 01:48 AM   #153
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


How has that been proven?

I say if you can't work a fucking butterfly ballot your vote should not count.

The real reason Bush won is Al Gore could not carry his home state. If he had, FLORIDA would not have even mattered.
LOOK at the decision for how it has been proven!! They stopped a recount on laughable constitutional grounds, a legitimate recount that had nothing to do with the butterfly ballots. The butterfly ballots emerged just as a symptom of how screwed up the process was- no one in the Gore attorneys group was arguing for butterfly ballots that were marked "Buchanan" to be legally counted as Gore, that is irrelevant. The votes that were clear Bush or clear Gore were still being counted, and Bush sued to stop. The Supreme Court issued a decision that they even said was not to be takenseriously as any kind of precedent. GET INFORMED.

Not winning Tennessee was an embarassment for Gore, and if he had got it, he would not have needed Florida- of course this is true, but you make no point here whatsoever. The point is that Gore won Florida, if the recount had been allowed to continue, that is what the outcome would have been. Just because he lost his own state does not mean he should not have been given Florida and with it, the electoral college. The point: Both in popular votes and in the electoral college, Al Gore was the rightful winner of the 2000 election. The Supreme Court lost whatever legitimacy it ever had in overturning that.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 07:59 AM   #154
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:44 AM
You miss the point. That's OK. If you want to live in 2000, be my guest. We have laws and a court system there for a reason. If memory serves me Gore filed suit as well. It was decided fairly. It is over.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 10:05 AM   #155
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


LOOK at the decision for how it has been proven!! They stopped a recount on laughable constitutional grounds, a legitimate recount that had nothing to do with the butterfly ballots. The butterfly ballots emerged just as a symptom of how screwed up the process was- no one in the Gore attorneys group was arguing for butterfly ballots that were marked "Buchanan" to be legally counted as Gore, that is irrelevant. The votes that were clear Bush or clear Gore were still being counted, and Bush sued to stop. The Supreme Court issued a decision that they even said was not to be takenseriously as any kind of precedent. GET INFORMED.

Not winning Tennessee was an embarassment for Gore, and if he had got it, he would not have needed Florida- of course this is true, but you make no point here whatsoever. The point is that Gore won Florida, if the recount had been allowed to continue, that is what the outcome would have been. Just because he lost his own state does not mean he should not have been given Florida and with it, the electoral college. The point: Both in popular votes and in the electoral college, Al Gore was the rightful winner of the 2000 election. The Supreme Court lost whatever legitimacy it ever had in overturning that.
Bottom line, Americans should take the voting process more seriously, it's a right many take for granted-that others are dying for in their countries abroad right now.

Second point the Left always cries if things don't fall their way, immediately going to the victimization or disenfranchisement card. It's old hat and makes onpenminded Independents veer to the Right.

That's why most Independents are leaning McCain if Hillary gets the nomination because Hillary goes to the victim card more than Obama when in reality -fairminded ppl feel Obama has been much more victimized taking all things fairly into consideration and in their totality.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 04:09 PM   #156
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Second point the Left always cries if things don't fall their way, immediately going to the victimization or disenfranchisement card.
You know, your arguments would hold a lot more weight if you stayed away from vast (and incorrect) generalizations like this.

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 05:53 PM   #157
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


LOOK at the decision for how it has been proven!! They stopped a recount on laughable constitutional grounds, a legitimate recount that had nothing to do with the butterfly ballots. The butterfly ballots emerged just as a symptom of how screwed up the process was- no one in the Gore attorneys group was arguing for butterfly ballots that were marked "Buchanan" to be legally counted as Gore, that is irrelevant. The votes that were clear Bush or clear Gore were still being counted, and Bush sued to stop. The Supreme Court issued a decision that they even said was not to be takenseriously as any kind of precedent. GET INFORMED.
Yes get informed - The Court STOPPED the ballot counting by a vote of 7-2. It was stopped because the method of counting that was being used was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That was hardly partisan.

The Florida Law that was upheld 5-4 was that the Secretatry of State must certify the election within seven days.

Sounds like the rule of law was succesfully enforced.

Your trivilaization of Tennesee is quite funny.

---------------------------------------------

But what does all of this have to do with President McCain?

Nothing!
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 06:12 PM   #158
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


You know, your arguments would hold a lot more weight if you stayed away from vast (and incorrect) generalizations like this.

Well then why are Independents and some Deomcrats ready to abandon their ticket and vote McCain if Hillary gets the nomination?

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 08:48 PM   #159
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Yes get informed - The Court STOPPED the ballot counting by a vote of 7-2. It was stopped because the method of counting that was being used was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

That was hardly partisan.

The Florida Law that was upheld 5-4 was that the Secretatry of State must certify the election within seven days.

Sounds like the rule of law was succesfully enforced.

Your trivilaization of Tennesee is quite funny.


The 7-2 meant absolutely nothing. 7 said it 'might be' unconstitutional, that was all. Again, it is all well and good for you to claim that this method was unconstitutional, but if so, be consistent and say that EVERY state's election rules are unconstitutional. No state has the same standards/methods of voting or counting votes across counties. There is no federal standard either. It differs by county everywhere, so it is unconstitutional everywhere. Why do you think that the court covered their asses by saying this is not to be a precedent for anything?? They were 100% aware of what they were doing and would not have made up the law as much as they did and taken such unprecedented steps if they did not know Gore was the winner and that they had to do everything in their power to make sure the recount is stopped. There was no constitutional basis for any of it. Everything that mattered was decided by the 5-4 majority. It was 5-4 ruling for Bush that ultimately gave him the election. Just because 7 said the method was unconstitutional does not mean that they did not differ on what the remedy was- could a constitutional recount be fashioned? The answer, by 5-4 was NO. Of course, the constitutional recount would have been a statewide recount, the deadline of 7 days was arbitrary and it was funny to have the 5 refer to it as a reason for stopping a recount- they had already ordered it delayed, by the same 5-4, 3 days before the deadline because they knew Gore was going to win. So basically, that part was window dressing, no more, no less. They just used a typical attorney tactic-element of delay, because they knew the deadline was approaching and hopefully, if they ride that out, they can use it as a reason to order the count not to be resumed. Besides, time is not important when something as serious as the right to have your vote counted is at stake. The Florida Supreme Court had already determined that the recount was to go on, that the deadline did not matter here(in fact, it has been extended plenty of times before) and Bush's pals on the Supreme Court stepped in and overruled a state election issue. So much for Republicans and states rights, so much for Republicans and frivolous lawsuits. They made the biggest trampling on states rights ever and filed the biggest frivolous lawsuit ever. Another thing, the 5-4 was not just a party line vote- 2 Republicans, Souter and Stevens dissented along w/ the 2 Democrats. The reason it shows the political motivations of all of it is because only the 5 most partisan Republicans on the court were in favor of Bush.

I love how you keep making Tennessee out to be important- it was not, the only thing that mattered was that Gore won Florida, should have been given Florida's electors, and should have had the presidency. If the Supreme court had done its job and the votes were counted, Gore would be President, that is what matters. Stop changing the subject to Tennessee because you cant defend what happened in Florida. I love how you Republicans keep trying to rationalize this decision and then change the subject, it will not work, it is not legally sound and just be happy they gave your guy the election and that is it.

One more thing: HUMAN NATURE, connect the dots here: if only 5 of the most partisan hacks on the court keep trying to twist things every which way, taking their cues from attorneys on the ground in FL monitoring the count for their candidate Bush, make a decision in his favor, then cover their asses by saying 'dont take this seriously' what does that tell you? It should tell you, if you check your politics at the door for a second, that they were desperately worried about what would happen if the recount continued. So they know they lost and they know the decision was not legitimate. Just me talking?? No, they said as much themselves.
---------------------------------------------

But what does all of this have to do with President McCain?

Nothing!
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 09:30 PM   #160
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Bottom line, Americans should take the voting process more seriously, it's a right many take for granted-that others are dying for in their countries abroad right now.

Second point the Left always cries if things don't fall their way, immediately going to the victimization or disenfranchisement card. It's old hat and makes onpenminded Independents veer to the Right.

That's why most Independents are leaning McCain if Hillary gets the nomination because Hillary goes to the victim card more than Obama when in reality -fairminded ppl feel Obama has been much more victimized taking all things fairly into consideration and in their totality.

<>
I think we who vote take the right to vote seriously enough. We have low turnout, but that is a whole different issue. Like I do not understand people in other countries are dying for it- people died for it here, pal. Women, blacks, etc. America is different, we have always prided ourselves on individual rights/democracy. Bringing other countries in does not change the fact that we protect the right to vote, and is not an excuse for it not being upheld. If Bush has been in the same position as Gore was and votes were not counted, you would not be saying get over it, Kenya and Pakistan have it a lot worse. We expect to vote in this country, and that is not tantamount to crying when things do not go your way. Under your reasoning, a court not sending a murderer to jail for killing someone is ok and we just take the rule of law for granted in this country- after all, people kill with impunity in Haiti, so too bad. The victims family should just stop crying when they did not get their way, right?

Do some on the left resort to the victim card all the time, say in Ohio 2004?? Of course, but that was only a small group of wackos on the far left fringe. Do some on the right do the same thing and blame everything on an evil, liberal Hillary conspiracy to outlaw Christianity, bring in communism, disenfranchise conservatives, let Hollywood run the agenda, etc, all while victimizing those 'real Americans' who vote Republican- bet your ass they do. However, they are a few wackos on the far right fringe. There are nutjobs on both sides. Not too many people listen to either. 2000 was completely different than the claims made by said nutjobs, thats why there was so much controversy/coverage.

The left always cries when things dont fall their way?? 2000 was a perfect example of the right crying and having their Supreme Court overturn an election that was not going to go their way. Bush lost, so being the spoiled, never take no little brat he is, he files a frivolous lawsuit, or more accurately, Daddy's friends file it for him, and he gets it handed to him. This was not trivial 'playing the victim' by the left, it was an UNPRECEDENTED and legally baseless overturning of an election that deserved to be criticized. Coming from you, all this is just making me laugh- how much did the right bitch and cry and moan and stamp their feet to try and get their way after Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. Where were you when they shut down the govt twice for not getting their way? Where were you then, when they tried to impeach him for nothing? Your reasoning is just crazy here- what you accuse the left of doing is EXACTLY what Bush did. If a 5-4 supreme court did the same thing and put a Democrat in the White House, the right would have gone absolutely nuts, claimed we live in a dictatorship, etc, etc, and do not even pretend they would not have. They called Clinton illegitimate and some even called for his 'violent overthrow' (the founders of Blackwater, the religious right,etc) because he could no longer be accepted by the people as legitimate. That was AFTER he won election 2 times, once with a convincing margin.

So, my friend, find another reason why independents were going toward the right, that was not it. Independents in 2006 and now largely favor the Democrats. Do not hit me with anything about Hillary to try and make a point, you know I dont support her. The reason independents will not vote for her: 1.)she is the establishment, old news, the opposite of what independents look for 2.)Divisive personality, spins things, only cares about big states 3.)They like Obama, see him as an outsider who seriously wants to change things. Independents are also younger voters, many of whom are inclined toward Obama anyways as a generational thing. Plus, many independents like McCain anyway for many of the reasons they like Obama(not a typical politician, etc) and that is why they will vote for him over Hillary. That will change when his support for Iraq gets more play, though.

Also, I love how you changed the subject when I explained exactly how the ruling of the Supreme Court was invalid. Instead of disputing that, you accuse me of being some kind of cry baby who did not get my way and then generalize out to something that is absolutely ridiculous w/ the 'victim card.'

You never cease to amaze me- first it was the whole crazy Gone idea and flipping that around into me having to write principle management or turn by back on U2 about something they would never accept as it was your idea only. Then I make factual points about how we spent frivolous money on investigating Clinton's cock and you just come back by calling me a hot head, not rebutting anything factually, Republicans never expect to do that. I have never met a group of people so obsessed with the sex life of a middle aged white male from Arkansas. Get over it. Now you give these stupid, indefensible generalizations in response to another reasoned explanation of the 2000 Bush v Gore decision. Thats ok, keep changing the subject every time, it just shows the weaknesses of your arguments.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-12-2008, 10:59 PM   #161
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2387


I think we who vote take the right to vote seriously enough. We have low turnout, but that is a whole different issue. Like I do not understand people in other countries are dying for it- people died for it here, pal. Women, blacks, etc. America is different, we have always prided ourselves on individual rights/democracy. Bringing other countries in does not change the fact that we protect the right to vote, and is not an excuse for it not being upheld. If Bush has been in the same position as Gore was and votes were not counted, you would not be saying get over it, Kenya and Pakistan have it a lot worse. We expect to vote in this country, and that is not tantamount to crying when things do not go your way. Under your reasoning, a court not sending a murderer to jail for killing someone is ok and we just take the rule of law for granted in this country- after all, people kill with impunity in Haiti, so too bad. The victims family should just stop crying when they did not get their way, right?

Do some on the left resort to the victim card all the time, say in Ohio 2004?? Of course,on the far right fringe. There are nutjobs on both sides. Not too many people listen to either. 2000 was completely different than the claims made by said nutjobs, thats why there was so much controversy/coverage.

2000 was a perfect example of the right crying and having their Supreme Court overturn an election that was not going to go their way. Your reasoning is just crazy

right would have gone absolutely nuts,



Plus, many independents like McCain anyway for many of the reasons they like Obama(not a typical politician, etc) and that is why they will vote for him over Hillary. That will change when his support for Iraq gets more play, though.



You never cease to amaze me- first it was the whole crazy Gone idea

. Then I make factual points about how we spent frivolous money on investigating Clinton's cock arguments.



2000 was Supreme Court upholding the rule of law, which many on the Left still have a hard time understanding due process and the beauty of the electorial college, even after 8 years.

If the Left thinks it such an outdated system why don't they have the traction or support of the common sense of the electorate to change it? Should't be that difficult.

#387, you're very angry and shouldn't be, you shouldn't take disagreements personally, if you do most times posters like you flame out, crash and burn-which I would hate to see as you write so well, your posts are very spirited. Take this is as a little timely advice from a fellow who has taken the punches, has the war wounds and gotten the proverbial tee shirt to prove it. Sometimes the ass kickings we're well deserved, sometimes not and sometimes staged-to either get ppl to think, or mess with their minds-as in the thread Gone that I still think you haven't fully grasped my intention or concept yet. If you actually think I expect Principle Management to even know who I am or would consider my input-well, the jokes on you I'm afraid my friend.


I have news for you, Clinton was impeached, even if you claim he wasn't. As Capone was corrupt and only busted for tax invasion, the same principle holds true for Bill in an allegorical sense. Bill was busted for an exposed Achilles Heel that he could no longer conceal. He was busted for perjury and it was just deserts for all the ppl he took advantage of. Let's try and keep sexual organs out of the discourse, it can be hard (pun unintended) for some I understand.

Umm, I didn't know if you supported Hillary or not, I dont follow your posts that closely, I do realize you lean Left.

Your points on Independents are well taken.

I think Hillary has integrity and credibility issues and because of that not only will not get elected but not even get the nomination. You have to admit that both Obama and Mccain have far more credibility and personal integrity or appearance there of compared to Clinton.

Ok, I think we're done here.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 12:25 AM   #162
Refugee
 
U2387's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,217
Local Time: 07:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond





2000 was Supreme Court upholding the rule of law, which many on the Left still have a hard time understanding due process and the beauty of the electorial college, even after 8 years.

If the Left thinks it such an outdated system why don't they have the traction or support of the common sense of the electorate to change it? Should't be that difficult.

#387, you're very angry and shouldn't be, you shouldn't take disagreements personally, if you do most times posters like you flame out, crash and burn-which I would hate to see as you write so well, your posts are very spirited. Take this is as a little timely advice from a fellow who has taken the punches, has the war wounds and gotten the proverbial tee shirt to prove it. Sometimes the ass kickings we're well deserved, sometimes not and sometimes staged-to either get ppl to think, or mess with their minds-as in the thread Gone that I still think you haven't fully grasped my intention or concept yet. If you actually think I expect Principle Management to even know who I am or would consider my input-well, the jokes on you I'm afraid my friend.


I have news for you, Clinton was impeached, even if you claim he wasn't. As Capone was corrupt and only busted for tax invasion, the same principle holds true for Bill in an allegorical sense. Bill was busted for an exposed Achilles Heel that he could no longer conceal. He was busted for perjury and it was just deserts for all the ppl he took advantage of. Let's try and keep sexual organs out of the discourse, it can be hard (pun unintended) for some I understand.

Umm, I didn't know if you supported Hillary or not, I dont follow your posts that closely, I do realize you lean Left.

Your points on Independents are well taken.

I think Hillary has integrity and credibility issues and because of that not only will not get elected but not even get the nomination. You have to admit that both Obama and Mccain have far more credibility and personal integrity or appearance there of compared to Clinton.

Ok, I think we're done here.

<>
Please read all of this, I want to address the advice you gave me, etc:

Honestly, I do not want to come across as angry. I am just stating the facts. I have no problem with the electoral college, what I am trying to say is that the popular vote in Florida, not just nationally as some on the far left like to claim, was taken by Gore and therefore, the electoral votes for Florida should have gone to Gore. I am not a left wing wacko who is giving a knee jerk diatribe against the electoral college giving Bush the election- I understand completely that you have to win the electoral college and I do not think we need to get rid of it. In fact, if we did, I think that would be the end of campaigning in some states that are less populated and would be a net negative for the country. I see you are from Arizona- you guys probably would have been ignored until you became the fastest growing state under such a system.(correct me if I am wrong- 1990s somewhere?) I want you to tell me how any of Bush's claims re:equal protection plus the court ruling hold up given what they both said.

Sure, Clinton was impeached, did not try and claim otherwise, I guess we can just agree to disagree on the merits. They got Capone for tax evasion, fine, Elliot Spitzer, another straight arrow got the Gambinos on running a monopoly, not on blowing people's brains out. Difference between this and Clinton- what they did was illegal, Clinton was just a personal transgression that you correctly point out as his Achilles heal- always has been. I dont admire that part of him.

On a better note, thank you for the compliments on my writing and I am not trying to be angry. I do not want to and will not flame out, as I have liked posting and learning from others here in the short time I have been registered. As much as I can disagree, know this: I do not want to make it personal, we both have in some ways, and I can more than understand from reading your posts that you are someone who is very spirited but also someone who writes well and sincerely holds their views. I guess w/ the principle management stuff, I was not used to your style yet and with some admitted trouble, I am starting to understand it now. I took that wrong. We can agree on Obama and McCain and independents, both come across as principled, not in it for themselves and Hillary is just the opposite. You make a good point about independents not going for Hillary, and I will be glad to stick up for you if you get any of her supporters on here.

I know you know the candidates and the issues as much or more than others on here and for that, you have my respect. I am alot more moderate in my views than some of my posts may suggest- I lean left, you are right, but I am not a bleeding heart. I liked Biden the best and Richardson was my number 2. I dont like single payer or mandated health coverage such as Hillary's plan. I support a balance between business and labor interests, I'm not anti profit or anti business. I think there are way too many abortions in this country, on crime I think people should take personal responsibility in keeping their kids off the streets and in not shooting eachother and not blame the government or discrimination for all their problems. I guess as someone who leans left, I believe in a combination of personal and governmental responsibility. I really do not know who to vote for this year- I do not like McCain's stances, Hillary is out, and suprised as you might be, Obama lost me with his 'typical white person' remark and all the Wright stuff. Neither me nor anyone in my family liked that characterization much. I think he is all the things you said he is that attract independents, a good, principled guy, but those comments and his lack of experience scare the hell out of me given the times we face.

I am rambling again, but I just want you to have my assurances that it is not personal, I have no problem with you, appreciate the debate and also, I am no radical leftist who is blind to realities. One U2 fan to another, neither of us could be that bad, we both have our views and thats what it is about. Look forward to seeing you in other posts, and things will be toned down!

-Greg

p.s. Ever attended U2 outdoors in Arizona? UF tour somewhere, forget the place and of course, Sun Devil Stadium Tempe? I have 12/20/87 at Sun Devil and it sounded like one of their best shows ever. I know someone who goes to ASU and she says the whole area is amazing.
__________________
U2387 is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 03:03 AM   #163
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:44 AM
I am not a republican -
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 09:12 AM   #164
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by U2387

Please read all of this, I want to address the advice you gave me, etc:

. I see you are from Arizona- you guys probably would have been ignored until you became the fastest growing state under such a system.(correct me if I am wrong- 1990s somewhere?)


Sure, Clinton was impeached, did not try and claim otherwise, I guess we can just agree to disagree on the merits. They got Capone for tax evasion, fine, Elliot Spitzer, another straight arrow got the Gambinos on running a monopoly, not on blowing people's brains out. Difference between this and Clinton- what they did was illegal, Clinton was just a personal transgression that you correctly point out as his Achilles heal- always has been. I dont admire that part of him.

On a better note, thank you for the compliments on my writing and I am not trying to be angry. I do not want to and will not flame out, as I have liked posting and learning from others here in the short time I have been registered.


We can agree on Obama and McCain and independents, both come across as principled, not in it for themselves and Hillary is just the opposite. You make a good point about independents not going for Hillary, and I will be glad to stick up for you if you get any of her supporters on here.

. I liked Biden the best and Richardson was my number 2. I am rambling again, but I just want you to have my assurances that it is not personal, I have no problem with you, appreciate the debate and also, I am no radical leftist who is blind to realities. One U2 fan to another, neither of us could be that bad, we both have our views and thats what it is about. Look forward to seeing you in other posts, and things will be toned down!

-Greg

p.s. Ever attended U2 outdoors in Arizona? UF tour somewhere, forget the place and of course, Sun Devil Stadium Tempe? I have 12/20/87 at Sun Devil and it sounded like one of their best shows ever. I know someone who goes to ASU and she says the whole area is amazing.

Greg-

Here's an interesting article on why Richardson wouldn't support Hillary, he was being pressured by them, told that he owed them etc etc. It's an artcle that shows both Clintons' true colours-power.

Here's the article:

Why Gov. Bill Richardson didn't endorse Clinton
Shari Vialpando / Associated Press
Gov. Bill Richardson, shown here in New Mexico on Tuesday, has drawn criticism from supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton for endorsing Sen. Barack Obama. "I was loyal," Richardson says. "But I don't think that loyalty is transferable to his wife.... You don't transfer loyalty to a dynasty."
The New Mexico governor says he was dismayed by pressure from the Clinton camp, and impressed by Obama's optimism. Besides, 'you don't transfer loyalty to a dynasty.'
By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 12, 2008
SANTA FE, N.M. -- Before he endorsed Barack Obama, before he drew the wrath of the Clintons and was likened to Judas, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson nearly endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.

But Richardson hesitated, and as the Democratic campaign turned ugly, he grew angry.



There was that "3 a.m." TV ad, in which Clinton questioned Obama's personal mettle. "That upset me," Richardson said.

There were some ham-fisted phone calls from Clinton backers, who questioned Richardson's honor and suggested that the governor, who served in President Clinton's Cabinet, owed Hillary Clinton his support. "That really ticked me off," Richardson said.

Still, even as he moved from Clinton toward Obama -- "the pursuit was pretty relentless on both sides" -- Richardson wrestled with the question of loyalty. After 14 years in Congress and a measure of fame as an international troubleshooter, Richardson was named Clinton's U.N. ambassador, then Energy secretary: "two important appointments," Richardson said.

He finally concluded that he had settled his debt to the former president: He had worked for Clinton's election in 1992, helped pass the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his administration, stood by him during the Monica S. Lewinsky sex scandal, and rounded up votes to fight impeachment.

"I was loyal," Richardson said during an extended conversation over breakfast this week at the governor's mansion in Santa Fe. "But I don't think that loyalty is transferable to his wife. . . . You don't transfer loyalty to a dynasty."

He was impressed by the mostly positive tone of Obama's campaign, and grew to appreciate the substance and depth of their private conversations. The more Richardson heard from the Washington heavyweights backing Clinton, the more convinced he became of the need for a change inside the Beltway.

It has been three weeks since Richardson embraced the Illinois senator, an endorsement that continues to rankle and resonate -- the significance, it would seem, going far beyond the preference of a governor from a poor, rural state.

But this is a family fight, between kin of the Clinton years, so perhaps the raw emotions shouldn't be surprising. "They're very similar in personality," said Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party and a friend of both Bill Clinton and Richardson. "There was a bond established, and I think [the former president] feels a little hurt."

Attention to the endorsement might have quickly passed but for the strenuous protest of Bill Clinton and others. Speaking for the campaign, advisor Mark Penn suggested Richardson's endorsement came too late to be much help to Obama. "Everyone has their endorsers," he said.

But then James Carville, the pundit, strategist and Clinton loyalist, hurled a lightning bolt by comparing Richardson to Judas and his surrender of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

Soon after came an odd back-and-forth concerning a private conversation in which, supposedly, either Hillary Clinton or Richardson dismissed Obama as unelectable. (Neither party will discuss particulars, but Richardson said he never made that statement.)

Days later, just when interest in the endorsement seemed to wane, former President Clinton exploded in a rant about Richardson at the California Democratic Party convention. He later apologized, but his tirade in a closed-door session with superdelegates rekindled the story for several more days.

People close to Clinton said he views the governor's action as a personal betrayal. "I think [Richardson] really owes a big chunk of his success and his career to the Clintons," said an associate who has discussed the matter with the former president and requested anonymity to speak candidly.

"Look," Richardson responded, "I was a successful congressman rescuing hostages before I was appointed. I was a governor afterward, elected on my own."

Even more than the endorsement, Clinton's associate said, the former president was angry because he thought Richardson broke his word. The two men watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's mansion -- Clinton made a special trip from California in bad weather -- and the former president walked away convinced that Richardson would endorse his wife or, at least, stay neutral.

Richardson was, in fact, close to backing the New York senator that day, though his advisors -- many of whom backed Obama -- urged him to wait. "I remember talking to the president and saying, 'I'm leaning. But I'm not there yet.' He denied pledging neutrality if he changed his mind. "Sometimes people hear what they want to hear," Richardson said.

Normally the most gregarious of politicians, the governor during the interview this week was subdued as he slowly worked his way through a plate of scrambled eggs, bacon and green chiles. His voice was soft, and he rarely smiled.

His endorsement had been highly coveted, due largely to his stature as one of the country's most prominent Latino leaders. The pursuit began soon after Richardson quit the presidential race on Jan. 10.


-----

Re Biden although a decent and warm speaker, he comes across lofty and a bit Kerry like, plus the plagerism issue back in the 80s.

Richardson I think is more genuine, but I do remember him early in the Lewinsky scandal huddling with Bill and Veron Jordan aiming to besmirch Monica. The blue dress surfaced later and unbeknown to Richardson he coulda been played or used the same way ( or even known perhaps that something was up) Colin Powell was played by the Bush Administrtion in the UN. I think subconsciously it may have bothered Bill Richardson that early on he was lying for Bill, and in the meantime the Clintons still say "hey you owe us". You gotta love Richardson for saying F/O to the Clinton machine.

I don't think Bill's only character flaw was his libdo, I view him more as pathological and always able to tidy up his loose ends- this is the only way that he was finally nailed and it wasn't pretty.

Az is a great place if you're heat tolerent, in which I'm not but I have 2 beautiful teenage girls from a 1st marriage that keep me here along with an outstanding wife. I grew up in So. Cal where the weather is nearly perfect however I'm stuck here for another 5 years it looks like.

I have many bootlegs of U2, and pretty sure I have Tempe 87 Joshua Tree Tour-thanks for your offer.

Stay well #387 and looking forward to your posts.

Dave
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-13-2008, 09:17 AM   #165
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am not a republican -
Homelnd Security has already notified me that you will reregister (again) prior to the General Election.



thank u.

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com