Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Official Election Prediction ThreadFollow

#127 May 14 2008 at 12:35 AM Rating: Good
paulsol the Righteous wrote:
If thats the case, then I hope Wright wins. Black preachers are teh best. Everyone knows that.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#128 May 14 2008 at 2:58 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You never answered my question about that article.

Given that the courts found the snignature petitions invalid, should those candidates have been allowed to run without having completed the legel steps to to be on the ballot? And should Obama have just overlooked the fact that their place on the ballot would have been illegal and let them run anyway?


Sorry Joph I must have missed you asking me about this before. My oppinion on this is that its old school dirty Chicago politics. Yes the court ruled the petition signatures invalid, supposedly he Obama hemmed and hawed on using the tactic though. The Obama I have been presented with so often by the MSM is one who wouldnt have even thought about going to the matresses in this manner. It was borderline dirty and he supposedly knew it. I presented it as a his halo isnt golden manner and want those who have promoted him to saintlike status to realize this, at this level of politics even if your the "newb" you have rolled in the mud some and he certainly has and doesnt deserve the accolades of righteousness he has been given.

No I am not saying Clinton and McCain are better its just that I know most of their dirt and now how they behave despite it. My underlying fear with Obama isnt that he is clean or dirty but that he is unproven.

I hope that answers the question I previously missed as best I am able.
#129 May 14 2008 at 4:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
flishtaco wrote:
I hope that answers the question I previously missed as best I am able.
Not really. Do you think those people should have been allowed to run for office on the strength of legally invalid petitions? If not, exactly why was it wrong for Obama to challenge them? If you think they should have been given a pass, at what point do you draw the line as to how much you can break the law in an election?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 May 14 2008 at 5:30 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Not really. Do you think those people should have been allowed to run for office on the strength of legally invalid petitions? If not, exactly why was it wrong for Obama to challenge them? If you think they should have been given a pass, at what point do you draw the line as to how much you can break the law in an election?


Well, imagine you're a football player right, and you're about to come on to the pitch, but the ref says "no! you're not wearing the right shoes", and then imagine that the other team is about to make a substitution too, and that their player has the right shoes, but then imagine that at the end of the game the fans vote for the team they think should win, well I think the shoes influence the way people vote.
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#131 May 14 2008 at 5:48 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Well, imagine you're a football player right, and you're about to come on to the pitch, but the ref says "no! you're not wearing the right shoes", and then imagine that the other team is about to make a substitution too, and that their player has the right shoes, but then imagine that at the end of the game the fans vote for the team they think should win, well I think the shoes influence the way people vote.


You mock them, but I know some girls who choose their teams based on that.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#132 May 15 2008 at 2:26 AM Rating: Decent
Joph,

I am not a handwriting expert nor do I think the judges were, the incumbent still holds that her signatures were valid and holds a grudge against him for this conduct ( I would have to do WAY more research then I consider this worth to give you my absolute oppinon). I do find it shows a willingness on his part to do whatever it takes to win. I do find it the same thing he did in MI, the DNC had decided MI wouldnt count so rather then gain negative press for getting thumped in MI he took his name off the ballot. Expediant? Yes. Lawful? Yes. But hardly a change from politics as usual. I think that what he did is what I would do if I really, really wanted a job.

I dont think I could honestly call myself a cannidate for change and do this action though. Yes I would probably still wear white at my wedding if I did this, even though I would feel I didnt really deserve to. I however am not the one trying to run as a saint here. He did what I would do if I saw the opportunity and was really determined to get the job. It is still not the guy wearing the white hat thing to do.

I never claimed to America that I was wearing a white hat btw. Or even to you.

I still think you have me mixed up with someone else whom brought this article here before btw. This is the most active I have been in OOC/The Asylum in ages.

I wont say I never lie. I wont say I dont try and do what is honest either, but again I am not running for President on a change platform.

I hope that better answers your question.
#133 May 15 2008 at 3:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
flishtaco wrote:
I do find it shows a willingness on his part to do whatever it takes to win.
I guess I just find it strange that you'd begrudge someone upholding the law during an election and count it as a black mark against them.
Quote:
I do find it the same thing he did in MI, the DNC had decided MI wouldnt count so rather then gain negative press for getting thumped in MI he took his name off the ballot
The "he did it because he'd lose" reason is yours, not his. He removed his name from the ballot three months before the MI primary before the election season had even gotten rolling. Clinton was the establishment favorite in every state at the time. By your logic, Obama should have removed his name from every state's ballot and stayed in bed because his chances in Michigan were no worse than his chances in North Carolina or Virginia at the time.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 May 15 2008 at 4:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Joph is missing the main point; that Obama is the black anti-christ. Everyone knows that the anti-christ is psychic. Duh.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#135 May 15 2008 at 5:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Just for shits and giggles, here's some old polling numbers from around October '07 when Obama, Edwards, et al withdrew from the MI Ballot:

North Carolina (Oct 8): Clinton: 37, Obama 18, Edwards 11
Michigan (Sept 27): Clinton 43, Obama 21, Edwards 14
Georgia (Aug 8): Clinton 35, Obama 25, Edwards 17
Pennsylvania (Oct 8): Clinton 41, Obama 14, Edwards 11
Washington (Oct 28): Clinton 44, Obama 29, Edwards 16
Ohio (Oct 8): Clinton 47, Obama 19, Edwards 11
Wisconsin (Nov 8): Clinton 43, Obama 25, Edwards 15
New Jersey (Oct 15): Clinton 46, Obama 20, Edwards 9

I couldn't find a single state that favored Obama aside from Illinois (edit: and Utah where Obama led 33 to 30). In almost every state, Clinton held a 15-25 point lead over Obama. If Obama was so worried about losing Michigan that he'd withdraw rather than face defeat, he had no business being on the ballot on the first place.

Edited, May 15th 2008 8:14am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 May 15 2008 at 7:12 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I still vividly remember your opinions of Kerry's chances.


I still vividly remember 2006. Hahaha, oh man that was funny how in 2004 I posted "The GOP are morons, they'll overreach and lost the Senate and the House." Then that's exactly what happened.

Hahaha, man that was the funniest. President Obama's huge majority in Congress should make his fire year incredibly productive.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#138 May 15 2008 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Time will tell.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#140 May 15 2008 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
inserthere wrote:
I still vividly remember your opinions of Kerry's chances.
This is from a guy who bragged about holding a fund-raiser for Fred Thompson Smiley: laugh

Edited, May 15th 2008 10:37am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#141 May 15 2008 at 7:51 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

You are worried aren't you.


About what? Losing the KKK vote? Not terribly, no.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#144 May 15 2008 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
inserthere wrote:
a black racist


Obama is a black racist? How?
#145 May 15 2008 at 8:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Obama is a black racist? How?
Well, his dad was black.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#147 May 15 2008 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
inserthere wrote:
You mean besides continually associating with an outspoken racist preacher who openly proclaims whites created aids to destroy blacks? I forget did he have this preacher on his advisory committee?

How does knowing a racist make you a racist?Smiley: dubious

My father is racist. Does that automatically make me one?
#148 May 15 2008 at 8:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
inserthere wrote:
I still vividly remember your opinions of Kerry's chances.
This is from a guy who bragged about holding a fund-raiser for Fred Thompson Smiley: laugh

Edited, May 15th 2008 10:37am by Jophiel


"Cuz'n Fred", please.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#149 May 15 2008 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
McCain is cozy with a foaming maniac who blames Hurricane Katrina on gays. I'd say Obama is in better shape, frankly.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#151 May 15 2008 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
inserthere wrote:
Knowing and associating with are quite different.
Have you ever seen the movie Black Sheep? There are some people in your life that you know and love, whether they're idiots or not.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 223 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (223)