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.
Irvine511 said:

it's what the Bush/Rove machine did to him in 2000 and the fact that the two men loathe each other, and yet McCain completely and totally whored himself out to Bush in 2004 under the agreement that he'd get his support in 2008:

That kind of deal can only lead one to conclude that McCain is also stupid, because even an idiot could see that Bush's blessing and/or endorsement in 2008 could only serve to hurt you immensely. They can't even mention his name in public anymore.
 
U2isthebest said:


Obviously the article deep posted won't show up here, but what the hell is it trying to say?:huh: It literally does not make a bit of sense.

Word! Are they serious?
 
Irvine511 said:




my problem with McCain -- who i'd still prefer over all the other Republicans -- isn't even so much with his Iraq views, and how he shamelessly uses the troops to score political points.


Why do you prefer him over all the other Republicans? That is exactly what I hate about him the most - that anytime his position on Iraq is challenged he mentions how "the troops want to win." It is such bullshit.
 
You guys do realize the article deep posted was a satire playing off what the Bush campaign did to McCain in 2000, right?
 
yolland said:
You guys do realize the article deep posted was a satire playing off what the Bush campaign did to McCain in 2000, right?

I did not. What Bush/McCain issue are they speaking of? I might be aware of the general idea, but I was only 11 at the time, so I don't think I'm really aware of the actual story.
 
^ Yeah, I was only nine. :ohmy:

I'm listening to this debate on the radio.

"I don't think I'm that bad."
"You're likable enough."
 
phillyfan26 said:
^ Yeah, I was only nine. :ohmy:

I'm listening to this debate on the radio.

"I don't think I'm that bad."
"You're likable enough."

It's wonderful to actually see a group of people (Democrats) able to debate and disagree on issues and policies without attacking each other personally like a group of 10 year olds. (Republican candidates, I'm looking your way.)
 
Infinitum98 said:


Why do you prefer him over all the other Republicans? That is exactly what I hate about him the most - that anytime his position on Iraq is challenged he mentions how "the troops want to win." It is such bullshit.



he is for the war in Iraq, even for another century.

he is pro-life.

however, he has been known as a "maverick" for a reason, and i do stand up and applaud him on two points:

1. he has avoided and spoken out against the "brown peril" racist anti-immigrant mentality that has taken over the GOP
2. he spoken out, passionately, against the Bush torture policies.

and even his position on Iraq is defined by his differences from Bush and from especially Rumsfeld. in fact, McCain sounds like a left-wing Democrat when he unloads on the incompetence and arrogance of the former SOD.

those things i admire.

(not sure where McCain stands on whether or not gay people are equal to straight people -- on suspects that he's like most politicians who have no personal problems with gay people, but knows that their constituents are a bunch of bigots, so they pull the line, just as everyone in washington knows that there's quite the rumor that pro-life McCain was perfectly fine with his daughter's abortion when she was 17).
 
as for the debate right now, it's kind of bah, but Obama hit the question on the "surge" out of the park.
 
My God some of you make me feel old.

McCain went to the South after trouncing Bush in NH and there the fun began. The Evangelical Right attacked his family. THe push polling was disgusting. Ex. "How would you feel if John McCain fathered a colored child?" ect.

I believe there were flyers that were circulating as well insinuating other things.
 
Is there anyone else thinking that the Republicans got much more in-depth, specific, and important questions/discussion topics than the Democrats are getting?:huh:
 
Dreadsox said:
My God some of you make me feel old.

McCain went to the South after trouncing Bush in NH and there the fun began. The Evangelical Right attacked his family. THe push polling was disgusting. Ex. "How would you feel if John McCain fathered a colored child?" ect.

I believe there were flyers that were circulating as well insinuating other things.

Wow. That's despicable. Way to go Christian Right! You really spread the love of Jesus.:happy: :|
 
A little more info on that...

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/Story?id=3790360&page=3
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/politics/19mccain.html?_r=1&oref=login&pagewanted=all
Leading up to the 2000 South Carolina Republican presidential primary, opponents spread false rumors about the origin of the McCains' then-7-year-old daughter Bridget. The McCains adopted Bridget from Bangladesh in 1991, but opponents—the senator believes the Bush campaign, but it has denied it—used push-polling to make voters believe that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock. [Thousands of voters contacted by the push-pollers were asked "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?" Dozens of radio station talk show hosts were also called to ask what they thought about McCain's 'black' 'out of wedlock' child. --y.]

Bridget, who is now 15, found out about the incident only a year ago when she Googled herself. Mrs. McCain McCain said Bridget was confused and hurt by the discovery.
People in some areas of South Carolina began to receive phone calls in which self-described pollsters would ask, “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” It was a reference to Bridget, who was adopted as a baby from an orphanage in Bangladesh and is darker skinned than the rest of the McCain family. Richard Hand, a professor at Bob Jones University, sent an e-mail message to “fellow South Carolinians” telling recipients that Mr. McCain had “chosen to sire children without marriage.”

Literature began to pepper the windshields of cars at political events suggesting that Mr. McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, that he was mentally unstable after years in a P.O.W. camp, that he was the homosexual candidate and that Mrs. McCain, who had admitted to abusing prescription drugs years earlier, was an addict. “You had a sense of besiegement daily,” said Mark Salter, a longtime aide to Mr. McCain.

The McCain team had trouble nailing down the origin of the dirt. “One time in Hilton Head, we chased these punks down the block who were handing them out,” said State Representative James H. Merrill, the Republican state majority leader, “and when we got to them and asked them where they got them, they said some guy in a red pickup truck said, ‘Hey do you wanna make $100?’”
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




he is for the war in Iraq, even for another century.

he is pro-life.

however, he has been known as a "maverick" for a reason, and i do stand up and applaud him on two points:

1. he has avoided and spoken out against the "brown peril" racist anti-immigrant mentality that has taken over the GOP
2. he spoken out, passionately, against the Bush torture policies.

and even his position on Iraq is defined by his differences from Bush and from especially Rumsfeld. in fact, McCain sounds like a left-wing Democrat when he unloads on the incompetence and arrogance of the former SOD.

those things i admire.

(not sure where McCain stands on whether or not gay people are equal to straight people -- on suspects that he's like most politicians who have no personal problems with gay people, but knows that their constituents are a bunch of bigots, so they pull the line, just as everyone in washington knows that there's quite the rumor that pro-life McCain was perfectly fine with his daughter's abortion when she was 17).

I see.

Maybe you should take a look at Ron Paul. He is against torture, he for equal rights of straights and gays, and of course, he is against the War in Iraq.

Just a suggestion. :wink:
 
Question: Has Bill Richardson ever balanced a budget?

I'm not sure it's been made clear enough.
 
That was kind of a blah debate.

I really like Obama and think he would be a great president at some point, but I continue to worry that he's not ready for it. Half of a term in the Senate sure isn't a lot of time. He's obviously an inspiring speaker, a great motivator, and very smart, but you know, I think experience still has to account for some things, especially in this day and age.
 
Infinitum98 said:
I see.

Maybe you should take a look at Ron Paul. He is against torture, he for equal rights of straights and gays, and of course, he is against the War in Iraq.

Just a suggestion. :wink:

Are you being paid to promote this guy or something? :huh:
 
phanan said:


I really like Obama and think he would be a great president at some point, but I continue to worry that he's not ready for it. Half of a term in the Senate sure isn't a lot of time. He's obviously an inspiring speaker, a great motivator, and very smart, but you know, I think experience still has to account for some things, especially in this day and age.

Be careful about saying such radical things around here, though. I bring up that exact same point, and I get pounced on.
 
2861U2 said:
Be careful about saying such radical things around here, though. I bring up that exact same point, and I get pounced on.

George W. Bush.
 
phanan said:
That was kind of a blah debate.

I really like Obama and think he would be a great president at some point, but I continue to worry that he's not ready for it. Half of a term in the Senate sure isn't a lot of time. He's obviously an inspiring speaker, a great motivator, and very smart, but you know, I think experience still has to account for some things, especially in this day and age.

But there's something to be said for a president who hasn't yet been totally cynicised(whether that's a word or not I don't know) by the Washington machine. :shrug:
 
namkcuR said:


But there's something to be said for a president who hasn't yet been totally cynicised(whether that's a word or not I don't know) by the Washington machine. :shrug:

The key word there is yet. I don't know if anyone in recent history has been able to withstand the "machine" that is Washington politics once they get there.

People can make all the promises they want, but you don't get far in Washington without compromising a lot, and you end up accomplishing a lot less than you originally planned. That pretty much goes for everyone.
 
Who's the true agent of change? Not counting past tense forms of the word, by my count, here's a breakdown by candidate.

Hillary Clinton -- 23 utterances of "change"
Barack Obama -- 15 utterances of "change"
John Edwards -- 14 utterances of "change"

Not bad for only 90 minutes but I was expecting more from Edwards.

Number of "God love all of you for making this argument" that were received from the moderator Charles Gibson.

Democratic panel of debaters -- one
Republican panel of debaters -- zero

No surprise there.

It was a nice touch to have debaters from both parties mingle between debates however.
 
I thought the Republican debate was very interesting. I think McCain threw in one too many unnecessary shots at Mitt, though, who was definetely on the defensive all night. But Romney still did very well, I thought. It was certainly more interesting than the Dem debate. I only saw about half of it, but it seemed :yawn:
 
INDY500 said:
Who's the true agent of change? Not counting past tense forms of the word, by my count, here's a breakdown by candidate.

Hillary Clinton -- 23 utterances of "change"
Barack Obama -- 15 utterances of "change"
John Edwards -- 14 utterances of "change"

Not bad for only 90 minutes but I was expecting more from Edwards.

Number of "God love all of you for making this argument" that were received from the moderator Charles Gibson.

Democratic panel of debaters -- one
Republican panel of debaters -- zero

No surprise there.

It was a nice touch to have debaters from both parties mingle between debates however.

And, as with every single previous debate, about a million mentions of "this administration."
 
Back
Top Bottom