I live in NC and voted for the black guy...Follow

.

The Republicnans have played this well if Clinton is the canidate or even the VP would you say FL is back in play?

I would.

However she will be neither and thus the Smash word springs true minus the Virgin Islands of course =P.

It's a **** poor analogy that ***** all over sentance structure & grammar.

You're not ready to leave the sandbox yet.

To be complete, the "last minute" filing was in October 2007. It was close to the last minute for filing to remove your name from the ballot but it wasn't the "last minute" as in Jan 12th or something. Michigan moved their primary in early September 2007 and Obama (and others) waited a month to see if it was going to be resolved. After the DNC stripped MI of their delegates and MI refused to comply, Obama et al took their names off of the ballot.

In any event, like I noted upthread, Clinton doesn't want the MI situation fixed unless it's fixed in a way which will give her a large advantage. The Michigan Democratic Party just floated a compromise which would have earned Clinton 10 delegates and she refused it. If she thinks she's going to get the "one name ballot" results put into the record as is, she's insane. But it makes a nice rallying point for the moment. If she can continue to make her supporters think she might get the MI delegates and vote count, they'll keep giving her money.The courts found the registration petitions to be invalid. Are you arguing that the candidates should have been on the ballot despite having failed to gain the proper signatures legally? And that Obama should have allowed the legally invalid petitions to stand?

Again, I can't help ya on your dislike for Obama versus Clinton. I guess Clinton should have run a better campaign.

I am sorry RP this does seem to be beyond you and I apologize, I while dumb dont like picking on those who are dumber and feel this may border on it.

I will give it one more go, just because I have hope and a degree in teaching (/smirk from ASU but=P, we cant all go to one of the top 10 party schools)

There are things that are quantifyable in football, there are things that are quantifyable in politics. Some of these things being the ability to give a good speech. Obama is off the charts in all of the quantifyable (probably spelled it wrong but as RT pointed out I spell for sh*t) things that one would expect from a prospect to be president. Yet he is unproven, he is really a rookie ( unproven entity if you will with less then 2 years experience at a national level and less then 12 years as an elected offical of anytype. While he grades highly on all scales that you can "quantify" he is still unproven. A NFL rookie 1st round draft pick may also rate highly on all of the things a NFL team looks for yet still be a bust, sorry felt the need to overdefine it because your so obtuse on this subject ).

Millions of dollars are spent evaluating the talent in the NFL and billons on president, yet it still comes down to guessing on who is the best. Still many who meet the criteria in both professions are a bust and some like Brady go 199th but then turn into superstars.

The point is that until tested by actually being in the NFL these players can prove to be bust or bonus. You and millions of others are willing to take the gamble that an unproven rookie Senator from IL can do everything right and be the best president ever or even top 20.

I am not, Bill was top 10 in my book, of all presidents all time. Fact, HRC wins he returns to sleeping in the whitehouse (well mostly,... ok sometimes =P). HRC has not been proven the best, or even top 10 presidents of all time, yet with HRC I get to hedge my bet. I get one of the top 10 presidents ever back in the whitehouse with a proven record. Yes I realize he will not be "president" yet with what I know of him and her he will be involved as she was involved with his presidency.

At worst and back to the NFL ( I know you have trouble fathoming this and probably disagree more out of Obamamania then commonsense) She will be a talented rookie with Joe Montana as her live in coach. Obama on the other hand will be the guy who has talent out the wazooo but no proven credentials.

Clinton will lose to Obama I have no doubt, I still think he is the weaker cannidate of the two.

Time will tell and maybe you will even eventually see past your blinders to actually try and understand what I am saying. I tend to doubt it, as anyone who cannot see that the ability to run a 4.4 40 has no relation to the ability to actually be president, cannot correlate this to the ability to get others to do so for you has little hope. No despite your best efforts I am not saying that if he knew how to run an end sweep he would be a better president. I am saying that if he knew what to do when say Osama runs an end sweep against him then yes, but apparently you are too concrete to understand abstract thinking. You are not alone a couple of people like RT have agreed with you.

To your credit unlike them some semblance of debate has risen.

I could also be wrong sometimes 1st round draft picks work out like a **** and they are worth every dollar.

Again this maybe beyond you but WTF I gave it a go.

You will probably call me nonsensical again. I am waiting for you to question if I speak english, its a tried, true, loser tactic, and maybe your above that I dunno you that well.

Again, if you really want to continue the debate come up with an analogy that is better rather then a continued attack on mine.

It is much easier to torpedo someones idea then to come up with an idea (your best so far has been that mine suck, lol like I wasnt aware of that=P).

Sameul Adams was a great firebrand, has a good beer in his name, but when it came to building a nation we were much better served with John.

Edit-- PS what is the nasty habbit with hitting return like 10 times before you start typing?



Edited, May 11th 2008 4:45am by flishtaco

Not very well, you don't.

I do find it interesting that he put significantly more effort into defending his sports analogy than he did into defending Clinton's candidacy

I think the problem people are having with your grammar is not that it's imperfect, but that it actually impedes communication. It is difficult to puzzle out what you're saying, and the end result isn't really worth the effort.

It is amusing, though, that you'd say this to someone whose first language is not English, and who is kicking your incoherent ***.

Regarding the debate: I was in Clinton's camp early on. Obama changed my mind after the whole Reverend Wright kerfluffle. I liked what he had to say about that, and I liked the way he said it. Clinton, in the mean time, was doing her best to push me away, with her nonsense about being under fire in Bosnia and the negative and sneaky "politics as usual" campaign.

No counter analogy yet I see... /smirk

No explanation for the idoitic return x10 either before you type either... /rofl

Really fix me a Sammy and tell me when your prepared to do anything that doesnt smack of a lack on your part.

Its ok I am stupid remember I am used to not being understood. So let me phrase this as simply as I know how.

Me stupid. Me Analogy suck. You smart. Teach me with good analogy.

Of course you have none or would have tossed it in by now but I am enjoying this RP, funny BT gave this up when he had none, maybe I underestimated him.

Tossing you a bone mostly because I cant sleep.

No I am not I am employed by a bank.



Its ok. I am stupid. Yet despite my stupidity no one has come up with a better anaolgy yet, they have simply attacked me and my analogy like you are doing.

Man up. Show me something I havent considered. Use small words again remember the dumb thing.

Edit-- triple post for the winz=P

Edited, May 13th 2008 4:03am by flishtaco

Analogies are an AID to understanding, not a REQUIREMENT.

Using an analogy to explain something that is easily explained on it's own is a waste of effort. Using a poor analogy where no analogy is needed is idiocy.

I'd seriously question that portion of your analogy...

Let's get back to the real world for a moment here. The fact is that none of the three candidates before us have any elected executive experience. Clinton can perhaps claim a tiny bit due to having been in the white house as first lady for 8 years, but that's a pretty nebulous claim. In terms of broader executive experience, McCain is clearly ahead. He's the only candidate who's served in the military, much less in any sort of leadership role (he commanded a squadron for a period of time). Obama is the only candidate who has absolutely *zero* executive experience, either elected, the military, or private industry.

When we look at legislative experience, Clinton has the least, having served no elected position at all until 2000, when she was elected to the US senate. Obama has less federal legislative experience (elected to the senate in 2004), but served at the state level starting in 1996. So four less years in the US senate, but 4 more total years as an elected legislator. Almost a wash really. Both completely pale in comparison to McCain, who has served in Congress since 1982 (house for four years, then in the senate for 22 years).

On the issue of trustworthiness, both Obama and Clinton have clear problems. Clinton is a known weasel. Obama is an unknown who's rapidly being revealed to have numerous serious problems. Whoever wins will be running against a guy who was offered release from a PoW camp in Viet Nam as a PR move (and because his father was a major admiral on the other side), and he refused to leave unless they released all the other prisoners. As a reward he was beaten nearly to death for the next two years.


I know that this is a "Clinton vs Obama" discussion, but IMO that's kinda like arguing about which toddler will do better in a track meet against an Olympic level athlete. Their only chance to beat McCain is to convince voters that it's not about comparing them to McCain, but them to Bush, or them to Republicans (which we've already started to see). Either one has an incredibly hard uphill battle to fight and wont be able to win by being honest. They'll have to play sneaky either way...

Oh, I dunno. Looks like the Swiftboat Vets are hard at work on McCain still.

Wait.. I thought we were all excited about McCain's distant past and how it proved how trustworthy he is...