PDA

View Full Version : Elections BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA wins Iowa per CNN, MSNBC


Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 08:28 PM
Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%
Uncommitted : 0.14%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%
Precincts Reporting: 1781 of 1781

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yqoFwZUp5vc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Captain Obvious
01-03-2008, 08:29 PM
CNN just did as well.

chiefforlife
01-03-2008, 08:29 PM
GREAT NEWS!!!!

:p

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 08:30 PM
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/1b/Mkg_baraka.gif

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 08:34 PM
FLAWLESS VICTORY

Otter
01-03-2008, 08:35 PM
Too bad Dems got raped in general

chiefforlife
01-03-2008, 08:36 PM
Too bad Dems got raped in general


What does that mean??

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 08:37 PM
What does that mean??


I think that he was trying to express that the dems have no chance in November with his grammatically stellar construction.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 08:37 PM
I think he's saying Obama's unelectable. Not like those stud Republican candidates.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 08:39 PM
The Edwards guy is spinning it as a big loss for Hillary. FEAST UPON HER BONES!!!!!!

dirk digler
01-03-2008, 08:40 PM
YES MOTHER****ERS!!

chiefforlife
01-03-2008, 08:43 PM
I think that he was trying to express that the dems have no chance in November with his grammatically stellar construction.

Personally I feel just the opposite. I have been a lifetime republican, I am as excited about Obama as any candidate ever! I dont think the republicans have a chance unless the Democrats go with Hillary. It appears as if they wont. GO OBAMA!

HolmeZz
01-03-2008, 08:44 PM
yay

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 08:47 PM
My tenuous faith in other democrats has grown somewhat tonight. I didn't think that anyone could really be persuaded into thinking that Hillary was electable, and it appears that just maybe I was right :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 08:48 PM
Hillary's manufactured "celebration." LMAO

Jenson71
01-03-2008, 08:54 PM
I'm proud of Iowa Democrats right now.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 08:55 PM
joooooooin ussssssssss jennsssssssssssssssssssonnnnnnn

clemensol
01-03-2008, 08:56 PM
Now hopefully Edwards can maintain his slim lead over Hillary. That would make this a perfect night on the democratic side.

Right now Edwards has 30.07%
Hillary has 29.65%

dirk digler
01-03-2008, 08:56 PM
**** ALL YOU HATERS BITCHEEESSSSSSSSS

Bootlegged
01-03-2008, 08:56 PM
Condi will put Obama's nutz in her purse.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 09:03 PM
Now hopefully Edwards can maintain his slim lead over Hillary. That would make this a perfect night on the democratic side.

Right now Edwards has 30.07%
Hillary has 29.65%I really want to see Hillary fall below that 29.5 mark. Hard to spin 37-29 as a "tie."

Iowanian
01-03-2008, 09:07 PM
I was just thinking.....Since Obama is Oprah's boyfriend(sorry Steadman...)

I think I'll refer to him as HARPO now, her son in the Color Purple.

HAPRO WINS! HARPO WINS!

clemensol
01-03-2008, 09:07 PM
Senator Barack Obama : 37.30%
Senator John Edwards : 29.97%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.53%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.12%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.12%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1675 of 1781

I know the Clinton's have tried frantically to downplay the outcome but I can't wait to see how they explain this.

dirk digler
01-03-2008, 09:07 PM
Wow Dems had over 210,000 people turnout

Jenson71
01-03-2008, 09:10 PM
Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC): "This is a remarkably bad outcome for her."

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 09:11 PM
TWENTY-NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINE PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iowanian
01-03-2008, 09:11 PM
Congratulations to the Oboompa Loompa supporters for pulling Billarie's spine out.

Edwards had a good showing.

Jenson71
01-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Congratulations to the Oboompa Loompa supporters for pulling Billarie's spine out.

Edwards had a good showing.

Yeah, and he's happy.

08ama's the real deal though, for sure.

Obama/Edwards?

dirk digler
01-03-2008, 09:16 PM
Congratulations to the Oboompa Loompa supporters for pulling Billarie's spine out.

Edwards had a good showing.

I am glad my candidate won and it is even better than Hillary got 3rd

stevieray
01-03-2008, 09:16 PM
**** ALL YOU HATERS BITCHEEESSSSSSSSS

that's a great way to represent your candidate....did you put your bling on first?

;)

dirk digler
01-03-2008, 09:17 PM
Obama/Edwards?

**** that

Sully
01-03-2008, 09:18 PM
I am glad my candidate won and it is even better than Hillary got 3rd
Couldn't have turned out much better, IMO.

Jenson71
01-03-2008, 09:20 PM
**** that

Obama/Biden?

Even better.

Or whatchu thinking?

dirk digler
01-03-2008, 09:26 PM
Obama/Biden?

Even better.

Or whatchu thinking?


Obama\Biden would be freaking awesome

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 09:31 PM
that's a great way to represent your candidate....did you put your bling on first?

;)THAT'S RACIST

Thig Lyfe
01-03-2008, 09:35 PM
THAT'S RACIST
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i65/jacestar911/thats_racist.gif

Pitt Gorilla
01-03-2008, 09:39 PM
Bros before hos.

Thig Lyfe
01-03-2008, 09:39 PM
In all seriousness, that's great news.

dirk digler
01-03-2008, 09:40 PM
that's a great way to represent your candidate....did you put your bling on first?

;)

LMAO

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 09:42 PM
Holy shit, we're almost complete and Obama keeps rising while Hillary keeps plunging. A 38%-to-29% margin looks not only possible, but likely.

Jenson71
01-03-2008, 09:43 PM
Dodd drops out.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 09:46 PM
Poor Dodd. He lost to that Uncommitted bastard.

ChiefsCountry
01-03-2008, 09:59 PM
I wonder how many "Republicans" switched over to vote Democrat tonight.

jAZ
01-03-2008, 10:05 PM
Obama at the podium.

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 10:10 PM
Obama's speech now almost reminds me of a professional version of one of The Rock's promos.

Sully
01-03-2008, 10:13 PM
Obama's speech now almost reminds me of a professional version of one of The Rock's promos.
He's definitely preaching.
I really like this guy.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 10:14 PM
Obama's speech now almost reminds me of a professional version of one of The Rock's promos.HIFFFFFFFFFFF YA SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLALALALALALALAAAAAAAAAAA

God damn that's a SPEECH.

Cochise
01-03-2008, 10:16 PM
Surprised that Clinton didn't do any better than this... but I guess it's Edwards' adopted home state and all.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 10:17 PM
HOLY SHIT, BIDEN IS OUT

'Hamas' Jenkins
01-03-2008, 10:18 PM
This has been a really charismatic speech.

Pitt Gorilla
01-03-2008, 10:19 PM
Surprised that Clinton didn't do any better than this... but I guess it's Edwards' adopted home state and all.I'm not. Regardless of what the RWNJ's wanted Iowa to do, the folks here just didn't like Hillary.

ClevelandBronco
01-03-2008, 10:24 PM
HOLY SHIT, BIDEN IS OUT

I had guessed that about him.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 10:41 PM
Congrats to Barak... :thumb:

My favorite Democratic candidate, and second candidate....at this point anyway. :)

jAZ
01-03-2008, 10:55 PM
Congrats to Barak... :thumb:

My favorite Democratic candidate, and second candidate....at this point anyway. :)
It's Barack.

And seriously... you are such an easy target.

Yesterday McCain was #2 w/ Obama a possible #2 "depending on Obama's campaign in the general".
....I can't believe McCain is going to win this GOP race. That's amazing.
I'd be surprised too; but pleasantly so. McCain is the second best option on the Republican side, AFAIC. Although, depending on Obama's campaign in the general....I can still see returning to the old party. :hmmm:
I assume his speech tonight was *so* compelling that you jumped on the Democratic Bandwagon again, if a bit earlier than expected?

Cochise
01-03-2008, 10:57 PM
Damn Kotter, I hope you can find room in your closet for that Obama shirt next to the Thompson shirt and all the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Marlins, Cardinals gear...

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2008, 11:06 PM
All of the results are in. 38-30-29.

Wow. What a night.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 11:10 PM
It's Barack.

And seriously... you are such an easy target.

Yesterday McCain was #2 w/ Obama a possible #2 "depending on Obama's campaign in the general"... '

Which part of "on the Republican side" did you not understand??? :shrug:


Damn, you aren't nearly as bright as I had given you credit for, afterall.... :hmmm:

My bad. :shake:

Damn Kotter, I hope you can find room in your closet for that Obama shirt next to the Thompson shirt and all the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, Marlins, Cardinals gear...

I know, Cochise....being truly moderate/independent/pastDemocratic--recently, mostlyRepublican at the national level.....confuses partisan and ideological hacks like you and jAZ.

;)

It's not intentional. Fred and Barak have ideas and policy proposals, that once moderated by Congress....could move the nation in a more positive direction than any of the other candidates, IMHO....of course.

Happy New Year, sir. :p

Dr.Fine
01-03-2008, 11:16 PM
Biden-.93%? Richardson 2.11%?? what a fuggin jhoake!
Oh yeah, now I remember--these are the same monkees that derailed Dean for Keeerie--whoopee!

Cochise
01-03-2008, 11:17 PM
I know, Cochise....being truly moderate/independent/pastDemocratic--recently, mostlyRepublican at the national level.....confuses partisan and ideological hacks like you and jAZ.


Well, a hack at least has his identity nailed down. If you are going to call me a hack, then could you explain for the class how one could be torn between both the 'real conservative' and the real liberal in the race...?

HolmeZz
01-03-2008, 11:18 PM
Very good night.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 11:31 PM
Well, a hack at least has his identity nailed down. If you are going to call me a hack, then could you explain for the class how one could be torn between both the 'real conservative' and the real liberal in the race...?

Ya know, you are bright....and a pretty good kid. So I will. ;)

Conservatism and liberalism are ideologies. Winning the Presidency is all about vision and leadership. It's about moving the country forward, not backward. It's about taking the country down a road toward....somewhere, that might be better than where we are.

Congress is the Constitutional check on the President to esure that arrogance and hubris don't over-take the will of the people. Bush, despite his good moments, seems oblivious to that fact. Slick Willie, despite his bad moments, seemed to remember it occasionally.

It's why I could vote for Giuliani, despite his unlikely nomination. It's why I can't imagine ANY circumstance under which I'd seriously consider voting for Hillary.

Thompson and Barak (and McCain, to a lesser extent) stand for something. They stand for things that, generally speaking, most average Americans can agree with. They are both candid, and forthright. Obama has charisma and charm; Thompson has integrity and candor. Both are refreshing as Presidential candidates.

Unfortunately, at the moment too many Americans are obsessed/intrigued/captivated by the "ideological" agendas...of Hillary, Edwards, Huckabee, and Romney.

jAZ
01-03-2008, 11:35 PM
'

Which part of "on the Republican side" did you not understand??? :shrug:


Damn, you aren't nearly as bright as I had given you credit for, afterall.... :hmmm:

My bad. :shake:
Focus on the bold and underlined part. That is, if you want to address my point and not just try to distract from it.

Mr. Kotter
01-03-2008, 11:39 PM
Focus on the bold and underlined part. That is, if you want to address my point and not just try to distract from it.

I like what I've heard from Barak, so far. Including tonight.

However, I'm anxious to hear his general election rhetoric and proposals.

Excuse me if I'm skeptical of politicians who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk....I'm hoping Barak isn't just another Slick Willie. :hmmm:

Otter
01-03-2008, 11:53 PM
I don't like any of the Democrats stance on immigration reform. My family runs a business that competes with the whole "illegal immigrant" factor and it's a huge issue for me.

Judge me how will but when you have a 3rd generation business counting on someone to stomp on illegal immigration reform it's a big issue.

Long way to go.

wazu
01-03-2008, 11:54 PM
Conservatism and liberalism are ideologies. Winning the Presidency is all about vision and leadership. It's about moving the country forward, not backward. It's about taking the country down a road toward....somewhere, that might be better than where we are.

A road toward...somewhere? Throughout the history of mankind, there have been numerous leaders who have come into office with a bold, new vision and taken a nation...somewhere. Many of them were ruthless tyrants or wildly incompetent buffoons. Implementing bad ideas (i.e. socialist, tax-and-spend policies) is not moving the country "forward". It's moving it farther in the wrong direction.

Supporting Fred Thompson only to turn around and cheer Obama is unfathomable to me. I'd rather we stay right where we are than turn the reigns over to the Democratic party.

jAZ
01-04-2008, 12:06 AM
I like what I've heard from Barak, so far. Including tonight.

However, I'm anxious to hear his general election rhetoric and proposals.

Excuse me if I'm skeptical of politicians who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk....I'm hoping Barak isn't just another Slick Willie. :hmmm:
So which is it?

Is he your #2 now? Or is McCain still your #2 like yesterday (at least until the general)?

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 12:10 AM
A road toward...somewhere? Throughout the history of mankind, there have been numerous leaders who have come into office with a bold, new vision and taken a nation...somewhere. Many of them were ruthless tyrants or wildly incompetent buffoons. Implementing bad ideas (i.e. socialist, tax-and-spend policies) is not moving the country "forward". It's moving it farther in the wrong direction.

Supporting Fred Thompson only to turn around and cheer Obama is unfathomable to me. I'd rather we stay right where we are than turn the reigns over to the Democratic party.

It really pretty simple to me; given the Constitutional constraints placed on our President by Congress and the Courts....I can see Obama being a decent President.

While Thompson is still my preferred candidate, the checks and balances of the system would rein in Obama's predispositions and excesses....while, arguably, addressing some real issues that most Republican candidates would ignore: healthcare, for example. I'm no fan of socialized medicine, but that's something that needs to be addressed...and it ain't likely to happen under a Republican President anytime soon.

On the other hand, hearing Barak reiterate and clarify (SPECIFIC) answers to issues such as National Security and taxes, could just as easily scare me back into McCain or Huckabees column. :)

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 12:13 AM
So which is it?

Is he your #2 now? Or is McCain still your #2 like yesterday (at least until the general)?


It's the same as it's been for awhile...for the GENERAL election, depending on the campaigns of course:

1. Thompson
2. Obama


FTR,
3. McCain
4. Guiliani
5. Huckabee
6. Romney

Ugly Duck
01-04-2008, 02:35 AM
Bush, despite his good moments.....Bush never had a good moment - thats the big problem. Thats why the candidates from both parties are squealing about CHANGE!! CHANGE!! Dems, independants, & many Repubs - dey want change. They want to distance themselves as far away from the incompetence of the neocon administration as possible. Whichever Republican candidate gets the nod is going to have a hella time comvincing folks that they are going to change things more than whichever Dem gets picked. The Republican party made a gigantic blunder putting these bozos in charge - and they will pay dearly for a long time.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 07:55 AM
Personally I feel just the opposite. I have been a lifetime republican, I am as excited about Obama as any candidate ever! I dont think the republicans have a chance unless the Democrats go with Hillary. It appears as if they wont. GO OBAMA!

For a lifelong Republican, I've never heard you say anything remotely Republican in this forum. But you do remind us of your lifelong allegiance to the Republicans everytime you say something pro-democrat.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 08:03 AM
It's Barack.

And seriously... you are such an easy target.

Yesterday McCain was #2 w/ Obama a possible #2 "depending on Obama's campaign in the general".

I assume his speech tonight was *so* compelling that you jumped on the Democratic Bandwagon again, if a bit earlier than expected?

And on top of that, at one time, Ron Paul was the guy he'd seriously consider as his backup option. Only a few more candidates and he'll have covered all bases... again.

I was thinking about this last night and I decided that this phenomenon is probably related to his old practice of using several logins. Now that he supposedly restricts himself to one, the multiple personalities are making him swell to the bursting point and he can't help but let them all out. I think I liked it better when he used multiple logins.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 08:07 AM
...
Thompson and Barak (and McCain, to a lesser extent) stand for something. They stand for things that, generally speaking, most average Americans can agree with. They are both candid, and forthright. Obama has charisma and charm; Thompson has integrity and candor. Both are refreshing as Presidential candidates.

Unfortunately, at the moment too many Americans are obsessed/intrigued/captivated by the "ideological" agendas...of Hillary, Edwards, Huckabee, and Romney.

It's interesting to see you distinguish "standing for something" from "ideological agendas". :shake:

Iowanian
01-04-2008, 08:10 AM
HIFFFFFFFFFFF YA SMELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLALALALALALALAAAAAAAAAAA

God damn that's a SPEECH.

Can ya Smeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell what Harpo's cookin?!

http://www.onzuka.com/Photos/The%20Rock%20close%20up%20with%20people's%20eyebrow.jpg

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 08:10 AM
And on top of that, at one time, Ron Paul was the guy he'd seriously consider as his backup option. Only a few more candidates and he'll have covered all bases... again.

I was thinking about this last night and I decided that this phenomenon is probably related to his old practice of using several logins. Now that he supposedly restricts himself to one, the multiple personalities are making him swell to the bursting point and he can't help but let them all out. I think I liked it better when he used multiple logins.

Ideologically rigid and myopic partisan typess have difficulty understanding how average folks reach difficult decisions on complex matters.

Life isn't black and white....no matter how much you two would prefer otherwise.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 08:10 AM
Supporting Fred Thompson only to turn around and cheer Obama is unfathomable to me.

Ditto. Even more unfathomable than supporting Ron Paul and then turning around to cheer Obama, IMO. At least in the latter case, it might be exclusively based on opposition to GWBush's foreign policy even if Obama's isn't nearly as much of a departure as Ron Paul's.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 08:14 AM
It really pretty simple to me; given the Constitutional constraints placed on our President by Congress and the Courts....I can see Obama being a decent President.

While Thompson is still my preferred candidate, the checks and balances of the system would rein in Obama's predispositions and excesses....while, arguably, addressing some real issues that most Republican candidates would ignore: healthcare, for example. I'm no fan of socialized medicine, but that's something that needs to be addressed...and it ain't likely to happen under a Republican President anytime soon.

On the other hand, hearing Barak reiterate and clarify (SPECIFIC) answers to issues such as National Security and taxes, could just as easily scare me back into McCain or Huckabees column. :)

FYI, the next president will be working with a democrat congress. Obama's predispositions are not going to be reigned in by anything. Most distressing will be his ability to solidify the liberal/progressive wing of the SCOTUS for a decade or more. Those are the kinds of "results" you can look forward to.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 08:14 AM
It's interesting to see you distinguish "standing for something" from "ideological agendas". :shake:

It's not surprising to me that an ideological partisan would have difficulty understanding the distinction between ideology and policy.

Ideology and policy are not synonymous.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 08:16 AM
Ideologically rigid and myopic partisan typess have difficulty understanding how average folks reach difficult decisions on complex matters.

Life isn't black and white....no matter how much you two would prefer otherwise.

Nothing you say can explain the way you take mulitple inconsistent positions at the same time. That's not moderate, that's confused.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 08:16 AM
FYI, the next president will be working with a democrat congress. Obama's predispositions are not going to be reigned in by anything. Most distressing will be his ability to solidify the liberal/progressive wing of the SCOTUS for a decade or more. Those are the kinds of "results" you can look forward to.

See, this is where your partisanship blinds you....Congress may still be in Democratic control, but Republicans in the Senate and moderate pols on both sides of the isle would restrain any attempt by Obama or Democrats to over-reach. That, or they'd pay for it dearly in the next election. Same as it ever was.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 08:17 AM
It's not surprising to me that an ideological partisan would have difficulty understanding the distinction between ideology and policy.

Ideology and policy are not synonymous.

No they aren't. But "standing for something" and "ideology" are, which is the point I'm criticizing you about.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 08:18 AM
Nothing you say can explain the way you take mulitple inconsistent positions at the same time. That's not moderate, that's confused.

Individuals like you and jAZ, penchief and TJ....are not able to separate ideology from policy. That's why folks like you don't accept that explanation.

Mr. Kotter
01-04-2008, 08:26 AM
No they aren't. But "standing for something" and "ideology" are, which is the point I'm criticizing you about.

Standing for something, in my my view....means staking out policy positions that reflect regard for the public good, irrespective of ideological dogma.

To individuals for whom ideology reins supreme, that may strike them as "confusion."

Democracy is about pragmatism and results--in other words, policy. It's not about a rigid adherence to political ideology.

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 08:37 AM
Well, I for one am just glad that some of the worst went down last night. In the case of the Dems, this means Hillary. But I don't count her out yet. She's tough.


Ditto. Even more unfathomable than supporting Ron Paul and then turning around to cheer Obama, IMO. At least in the latter case, it might be exclusively based on opposition to GWBush's foreign policy even if Obama's isn't nearly as much of a departure as Ron Paul's.
Taco is a libertarian which is half like a democrat and half like a conservative republican. So his going from Obama to Paul is understandable to me. Obama was pragmatism to him, even if one mainly FP based. I thought you supported pragmatism? As I understand, many of those Dems that won seats in the last election were not far-left ones but more moderate.

dirk digler
01-04-2008, 08:39 AM
FYI, the next president will be working with a democrat congress. Obama's predispositions are not going to be reigned in by anything. Most distressing will be his ability to solidify the liberal/progressive wing of the SCOTUS for a decade or more. Those are the kinds of "results" you can look forward to.

I would be more concerned about your candidate Romney who flip flops when the wind blows through his vagina.

Chiefnj2
01-04-2008, 08:51 AM
So, Iowa ends up supporting two of the worst candidates. Yay.

BucEyedPea
01-04-2008, 08:53 AM
FYI, the next president will be working with a democrat congress. Obama's predispositions are not going to be reigned in by anything. Most distressing will be his ability to solidify the liberal/progressive wing of the SCOTUS for a decade or more.
I don't think it will be a decade though. People are buying into a slogan "change." Yet it means nothing in this case. When all the change in people's pockets are gone, if Obama gets his way, there will they'll be a swift vote out the Dems in congress as happened when Clinton veered too far to the left once in office.

Obama is not about change but about the same: more BIG govt, central planning and nanny state programs. He just may do it differently. He may have more character. If he thinks govt or a politician can unite a country he's just as unrealistic as those claim Paul is.

oldandslow
01-04-2008, 08:54 AM
Great night...

I owe Ultra Peanut an apology. Although I was/am an Obama supporter, I did not think he would win. Ultra called me silly and she was right.

Kudos to you.

Iowanian
01-04-2008, 09:13 AM
Most of the Iowans who voted for Harpo, I mean Obama thought they were signing up for the "Oprah's favorite things" show....



I kid.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 09:54 AM
I would be more concerned about your candidate Romney who flip flops when the wind blows through his vagina.

I'll be happy if Romney wins the nomination, but I won't be completely disappointed if he doesn't unless one of the candidates I can't vote for without serious reservations wins it instead.

As for flip flops, I don't find anything particularly concerning about Romney's record. Frankly, I think your perception that he's flipped and flopped on lots of issues is simply wrong so I don't see a character issue in play. Regarding the issues where he has changed his position over the past decade (abortion and gay issues), I can't say that they are my core concerns in a presidential candidate anyway. I have no doubt that Romney would favor the kinds of SCOTUS justices I want and that's the only factor those two issues would impact that could drive me away from an otherwise attractive candidate. To be honest, my own personal position in favor of gay marriage is more aligned with his old position (pro gay civil union) than his current one, but that doesn't put me off at all.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 10:04 AM
I don't think it will be a decade though. People are buying into a slogan "change." Yet it means nothing in this case. When all the change in people's pockets are gone, if Obama gets his way, there will they'll be a swift vote out the Dems in congress as happened when Clinton veered too far to the left once in office.

Obama is not about change but about the same: more BIG govt, central planning and nanny state programs. He just may do it differently. He may have more character. If he thinks govt or a politician can unite a country he's just as unrealistic as those claim Paul is.

I don't think you understood my post. Breyer and Souter (and Kennedy who I add because he sometimes sides with the left wing of the court) all have at least a decade of SCOTUS service left in them (barring accident or illness of course). It is highly likely that an Obama presidency would have the opportunity to replace Stevens and Ginsberg with younger liberals/progressives. The democrat control of the WH and both houses of Congress might not last a decade, but the impact on the SCOTUS would be most likely to last a decade or more. The worst case scenario would be if Scalia's health fails and Obama gets to replace a conservative with a liberal/progressive, handing the left a solid majority for at least a decade.

Cochise
01-04-2008, 11:23 AM
Not only Stevens and Souter, but Kennedy and Breyer are in their 70s as well. Kennedy's been a swing vote in the past.

It seems possible that if Obama were elected and given two terms, we'd get maybe three young liberal justices, and one of them replacing the swing vote with a solid liberal.

I for one sudder at the thought of the court being packed with Ginsburgs.

jAZ
01-04-2008, 11:35 AM
Not only Stevens and Souter, but Kennedy and Breyer are in their 70s as well. Kennedy's been a swing vote in the past.

It seems possible that if Obama were elected and given two terms, we'd get maybe three young liberal justices, and one of them replacing the swing vote with a solid liberal.

I for one sudder at the thought of the court being packed with Ginsburgs.
You didn't describe a "packed" anything, just now.

patteeu
01-04-2008, 11:41 AM
Not only Stevens and Souter, but Kennedy and Breyer are in their 70s as well. Kennedy's been a swing vote in the past.

It seems possible that if Obama were elected and given two terms, we'd get maybe three young liberal justices, and one of them replacing the swing vote with a solid liberal.

I for one sudder at the thought of the court being packed with Ginsburgs.

I didn't realize that those guys were that old. Kennedy is already in his 70's and both Souter and Breyer get there in the next year or two so your point is well taken. It's bad enough if the liberal wing gets revitalized with youthful replacements, but if Kennedy is replaced by a reliable liberal, the balance of the court swings back to the left just as it was teetering on the brink of going conservative for the first time in decades. Anyone who cares about the issues that rest on court decisions (and I think conservative Christians should among the most concerned with this), would be doing their ultimate cause a disservice by sitting out the general election for the lack of a perfect candidate, IMO.

Edit: And Scalia is also well into his 70's now so the danger for conservatives, in terms of the Supreme Court at least, is significant if a democrat wins in 2008.

Baby Lee
01-04-2008, 02:01 PM
This feels good. It's just like I imagined it when I was talking to my Kindergarten teacher.

ROFL ROFL

ChiefsGirl
01-04-2008, 02:16 PM
Edit: And Scalia is also well into his 70's now so the danger for conservatives, in terms of the Supreme Court at least, is significant if a democrat wins in 2008.

71 is "well into"? :)

patteeu
01-04-2008, 02:20 PM
71 is "well into"? :)

He's been in his 70's for nearly 2 years. Yes, well into.

Ultra Peanut
01-04-2008, 06:50 PM
ROFL ROFLHahahaha. Amazing.

Calcountry
01-04-2008, 08:12 PM
So, we went to war in Iraq to kill one Hussein only to come home and elect another Hussein.

Ugly Duck
01-05-2008, 12:34 AM
So, we went to war in Iraq to kill one Hussein only to come home and elect another Hussein.

Sodom may have had nothing to do with 9-11, but he was still a jerk. I fail to see any similarity between him and Obama. Obama is just an American dude... he hasn't slaughtered any of his fellow countrymen.

wazu
01-05-2008, 01:50 AM
Sodom may have had nothing to do with 9-11, but he was still a jerk. I fail to see any similarity between him and Obama. Obama is just an American dude... he hasn't slaughtered any of his fellow countrymen.

...Yet!

WoodDraw
01-05-2008, 04:53 AM
The impact a Democrat would have on the SCOTUS worries me. Republicans overstate the ideological fairness of their current justices, but liberal justices scare me more. Law tends to be one of my more conservative areas.

I like Obama, at least for the Democratic nomination. Edward's populist message is a nonstarter for me, and I don't trust or like Clinton's message. He'll be a solid candidate.

banyon
01-05-2008, 10:33 AM
I don't think you understood my post. Breyer and Souter (and Kennedy who I add because he sometimes sides with the left wing of the court) all have at least a decade of SCOTUS service left in them (barring accident or illness of course). It is highly likely that an Obama presidency would have the opportunity to replace Stevens and Ginsberg with younger liberals/progressives. The democrat control of the WH and both houses of Congress might not last a decade, but the impact on the SCOTUS would be most likely to last a decade or more. The worst case scenario would be if Scalia's health fails and Obama gets to replace a conservative with a liberal/progressive, handing the left a solid majority for at least a decade.

LOL at this entire post.

Adept Havelock
01-05-2008, 02:59 PM
So, we went to war in Iraq to kill one Hussein only to come home and elect another Hussein.


That's as lame as criticizing electing someone named William because we went to war against Kaiser Wilhelm.

Enjoy your "victory cabbage". :rolleyes:

ClevelandBronco
01-05-2008, 04:32 PM
Individuals like you and jAZ, penchief and TJ....are not able to separate ideology from policy. That's why folks like you don't accept that explanation.

I'd like to be included in the group that thinks you're FOS on this one, Mr. Kotter.

ClevelandBronco
01-05-2008, 04:35 PM
Standing for something, in my my view....means staking out policy positions that reflect regard for the public good, irrespective of ideological dogma.

To individuals for whom ideology reins supreme, that may strike them as "confusion."

Democracy is about pragmatism and results--in other words, policy. It's not about a rigid adherence to political ideology.

Ideology = ideas + logic.

Call me crazy, but that's my idea of a good way to approach decisions.

chiefforlife
01-05-2008, 04:41 PM
So, we went to war in Iraq to kill one Hussein only to come home and elect another Hussein.


STFU

Would you prefer Adolph?

Ultra Peanut
01-04-2009, 08:29 AM
How do you like them apples?

penchief
01-04-2009, 10:51 AM
Ideology = ideas + logic.

Call me crazy, but that's my idea of a good way to approach decisions.

Neither ideas nor logic are always sound. The problem occurs when bad ideas yield manufactured logic or override sound logic. When ideology becomes dogmatic the way it has within the republican party and with the so called "conservative" movement it is not a good way to approach decisions. A pragmatic approach that idealizes the greatest good is always superior, IMO.

Adept Havelock
01-04-2009, 11:39 AM
A pragmatic approach that idealizes the greatest good is always superior, IMO.

The Greater Good?

These gentlemen would disagree.

Donger
01-04-2009, 12:17 PM
STFU

Would you prefer Adolph?

Why would you suggest that?