MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Infinitum98 said:


Yea, we've already interfered with them. They attacked us, so there is nothing wrong in fighting back (Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda). But why continue to interfere with them in Iraq, Iran, etc.? We don't need to do that.


We shouldn't get involved in Rwanda or Kenya either. Let'em be. That's what I say.

Pass the chips.
 
Infinitum98 said:


I know you are a neo-con so hence you are never going to see reality, so that is why I don't want to start a discussion either. But your ignorance and arrogance are one of the stupidest things that i've ever seen.

Well I know you are a Ron Paul supporter, so you'll never see reality either, my friend.

The radical Islamists do not attack us because we have bases in their land. We have bases all over the world. We have bases in Germany, but you don't see them attacking us, do you? They attack us because they follow the extreme beliefs of Islam that teach hatred, that refuse to allow equality for women and minority opinions. They don't just hate Americans. Remember the attacks in England? Scotland?

I won't say anymore about this. But your belief in a "blame America first" mentality is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself, your candidate, and everyone who thinks like you do.
 
U2democrat said:
Was it all women or mostly older women?

I haven't seen a breakdown of age.

Me neither. I'm not sure they have one yet?
 
anitram said:


No.

Women hurt Obama.

THat may be true however, the pollsters projected that independent voters would be heading his way hurting McCain.

If it reached 50 - 50 split - that made the difference.
 
2861U2 said:
the extreme beliefs of Islam that teach hatred, that refuse to allow equality for women and minority opinions.

Replace "Islam" with the "American Religious Right," and you get an equally interesting statement. :sexywink:
 
phanan said:
Obama is truly an excellent speaker, no matter what.

No doubt about it. :up:
After so many years of this administrations negativity, it gives me chills and great pleasure to hear so many people chanting
"We can do it".

He's truly a phenomenal speaker!!

Hillary's on now..:wink:
 
melon said:


It is a fairly nice sounding platitude, but isolationism has not suited the U.S. historically. We're stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of scenario. "Damned" if we do get involved in global conflicts, because then we're interpreted as the "world police"; "damned" if we don't, because then we're seen as being self-centered, irresponsible global citizens. How many in the anti-war crowd wanted the U.S. to get involved in Darfur, Sudan?

I'm not here to defend Iraq, which was, in hindsight, an ideologically driven escapade given false justification after the fact (as anyone having studied PNAC can attest to). But one colossal mistake (Iraq) should not automatically lead to the other extreme of isolationism.

I'm not advocating isolationism, i'm advocating non-interventionalism.

And yes, if we pull out of Iraq now and stop all the threats to Iran and stop giving money to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Israel and stop getting involved in the domestic affairs of Russia or Pakistan, and stop all the other things right now right away, it probably won't have an immediate affect. So yea we will be damned for now even if we stop all the policing, because people are still going to remember how we've been for all these decades. But I think over years and years of non-interventionalism the hatred for America will fade away.

Until then we will need to take our own domestic measures to stop potential terrorist threats. And that means securing the borders, inspecting all incoming cargo, etc.
 
melon said:


Replace "Islam" with the "American Religious Right," and you get an equally interesting statement. :sexywink:

Are you sure you want to do that? I really don't want to have this debate.
 
Infinitum98 said:


Yea, we've already interfered with them. They attacked us, so there is nothing wrong in fighting back (Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda). But why continue to interfere with them in Iraq, Iran, etc.? We don't need to do that.

Well, dating back to 1979, we've stuck our foot too far in Iran and then later obviously in Iraq. My point is, it's easy to say "we shouldn't keep sticking our hand in the fire, it burns!!" When you already have to deal with a lot of burns.

On Iraq, if we pull out 100% of military forces tomorrow, the problem doesn't go away anytime soon, like years and years and years.

On Iran, the only reason people don't see the gravity of the Iran threat is because of the debacle of Iraq. We can't let them have nuclear weapons, period. What do you suppose we do? I don't accept that we should do nothing, even if I am a bit of an isolationist to an extent. I totally loathe the neo-con ideal of spreading Democracy with force but you can't ignore actual threats. On September 10th, 2001 our biggest threats in the region were still obviously Al Qaeda and Iran. Iraq didn't change this. That's just my view.

Okay, I'm helping get off subject, so I said my piece.
 
Dreadsox said:


THat may be true however, the pollsters projected that independent voters would be heading his way hurting McCain.

If it reached 50 - 50 split - that made the difference.

But the pollsters seem to have been wrong on just about every constituency so I think it'll be really interesting to see the numbers breakdown in the next couple of days.
 
2861U2 said:


Well I know you are a Ron Paul supporter, so you'll never see reality either, my friend.

The radical Islamists do not attack us because we have bases in their land. We have bases all over the world. We have bases in Germany, but you don't see them attacking us, do you? They attack us because they follow the extreme beliefs of Islam that teach hatred, that refuse to allow equality for women and minority opinions. They don't just hate Americans. Remember the attacks in England? Scotland?

I won't say anymore about this. But your belief in a "blame America first" mentality is outrageous and you ought to be ashamed of yourself, your candidate, and everyone who thinks like you do.

Osama bin Laden himself has said that he has waged a holy war on the U.S. because of our bases in Saudi Arabia, do a little research. Of course they are exteremists in their beliefs, i'm not saying they are right to attack us. And they attack England for the same reasons, because England also interferes when they don't need to. When did I say only America gets attacked? Remember the attacks in Spain a few years ago? Al-qaeda gave one reason for that attack: becasue Spain went into Iraq along with the U.S., Britain, Portugal and other nations.

And your logic makes no sense. I know we have bases in Germany, i'm not saying that bases = attack. Of course Germany doesn't attack us, Germany is not radical islamists are they?

And yes I see reality, it is you and your small group of neo-conservatives that don't see reality. Most of America sees reality. Most of America thinks Iraq was a mistake and there was no point going in.
 
They probably screened the audience to make it appear that way, but if you go to college campuses, and yes, look at facebook, Obama is smoking her with the younger voters.

Well, younger people. Whether or not they vote is a different matter.
 
I can't imagine how an undecided who listens to both Obama and Clinton speak would ever choose to vote for Hillary. He absolutely blows her out of the water.

ETA: the redhead standing over Hillary's shoulder seems awfully cute. :hmm::lol:
 
VintagePunk said:
I believe the number of delegates reflects the "to date" totals, so, NH and Iowa both, that's why Obama has more.

Interestingly, it just shows that Obama's "huge" victory in Iowa was just one extra delegate, and Clinton's "victory" is a statistical tie with Obama.

Media hype is really quite irresponsible.
 
Back
Top Bottom