• You really stick it to him when you say...uh...well, your one point was very...well, there's also your argument that...

    You know, you might actually what to have something to say.  Hitting the keyboard until you manage to coalesce a few letters into forming words isn't much of an argument.

    Of course, it's intellectually dishonest to post quotes from the Clinton camp where they say one thing and then posting another quote where they say the complete opposite.  Honestly, how dare anyone expose them for the shameless, lying hacks that they are...

  • on a comment on Hillary is RFK! [Update] over 6 years ago

  • Maybe you should all pitch in and buy him a new hair piece.

  • Holy fuck ,get over yourself.

  • comment on a post Stop Swiftboating Hillary !! [SAT Update] over 6 years ago

    Why are you blaming Obama?  Has he made some kind of official statement?

    How about holding your candidate accountable for her careless fucking tongue.

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

    Yes, yes, Gallup shows Obama maintaining a huge lead, indicating that Democrats favor him with 53-55%.

    But one poll shows that she WILL win NV.  Clearly, the will of Democratic voters must be overturned.

    Yes, a majority of Democrats have chosen and indicate Obama as their choice to be our nominee.

    That doesn't mean he deserves the nomination.

    The person who deserves the nomination must meet arbitrary criteria selected on a purely subjective basis that can and will change without notice.


  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

    Really?  That's where you're at?  Still?

    And she only has a popular vote total if you make certain considerations, like excluding four states, proving that while its not ok to have a nominee chosen by 48 states, it is ok to have a nominee chosen by just 46 states.

    Polls released today show her an Obama with about the same amount of appeal in FL(41-41).  A recent Gallup survey showed that he has pulled slightly ahead among Latino voters and a recent poll of CA showed that Dems would select him over her, the biggest shift occurring among Asians.

    So, no his problem isn't even really with rural white voters.

    But since we're all just throwing out polls...

    And the white voter argument...let me key you in on something, coming from a region of Appalachia myself(PA).  I would bet everything I own that many of the white Democratic voters who supported Hillary in the Dem primaries in KY and WV will not support her in the general election.

    I hate to break it to you, but they both seem to run about the same with whites against John McCain(see http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama- Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White -Voters.aspx).

    Among non-Hispanic whites:


    Non-Hispanic white men:


    Non-Hispanic white men no college education:


    Non-Hispanic white men college-educated:


    The only advantage she appears to have is among non-Hispanic white women, a group she only carries over McCain by 3 points.  She's even with McCain with non-Hispanic white women no college education(46-46%) and has a slight advantage over Obama with college-educated white women, though both beat McCain in that group.

    And still, this notion that the Clinton's don't have any baggage...

    But you haven't gotten past his not being vetted...so really not a surprise that you're still clinging to such an absurd notion.

    I think anyone worth their salt can hear the skeletons rattling in those closets...

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

    An the world exists in a vacuum right, so there's no chance those EV maps that you selectively use to support your case could change...none at all...right?

    I mean, 6 months away from the general election...thing's will be exactly where they are now...

    Here's an example...Jerome cites a poll showing her winning in VA, but there's also a SUSA poll showing Obama beating McCain in VA...do you see why the EV argument is untenable, that it just doesn't hold any water?

    It's simply not a valid argument to make.

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

    just don't mock Hillary, which he doesn't.

    I think you suffer from what most people suffer from - you confuse your opinions for incontrovertible fact.

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

    Why do you go into these broad generalizations when the question is about you?

    And you're analysis of the gas tax issue is complete garbage.  Perhaps that's how you hope it was perceived, but I can assure that it was not.  It was an issue that gave him leverage against her in a week when he was getting hit pretty hard over Rev. Wright.

    And no, most people did not like the idea; most voters saw it as a cheap political gimmick that wouldn't change a thing.

    I mean, how is he shaming people into voting for him?  I'm sorry, but if you're a Clinton supporter and would vote for McCain, by all means, become a Republican because you're in the wrong party.

    As for the rest of what you say, it's really not much of an argument at all; at least not a coherent one worth responding to.

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

    if she hadn't run an arrogant campaign that predicted in December that they would have it all won on 2/5.

    When that didn't happen, she needed MI & FL, despite the fact that it was many of her supporters at the DNC who supported stripping those two states of all the delegates.

    I know that when you belong to a cult it's hard to see the deficiences of your leader.  At least try.

  • on a comment on Et tu, Nevada? over 6 years ago

    The most recent polling shows that she is not our strongest pick for VP.

  • comment on a post McCain Leads Obama in Virgina over 6 years ago

    I guess you could also cite the SUSA poll that shows Obama up 49-42 in VA...

    And I think you could also interject a little intellectual honesty in to your "electoral" prognostication.

    It is completely disingenuous of you to make any hard predictions or sound argument on the basis of polls taken six months before the general election.  They prove nothing and you know that.

    Let's say we follow your argument out.  WE give the nom to Hill because she's currently doing better in this false metric of electoral votes.  But what happens if we did that and then get to August and September and suddenly she's not doing well at all?

    I guess you and all the other Clinton supporters would owe us a pretty big apology for sticking it to the delegate winner and forcing your candidate on the more than 50% of Dems that don't support. You know, that 50% of the party that it's okay to offend and alienate.

    Let's stick to what this nominating contest is about - delegates.  It is the only metric by which this race can be measured honestly.

    Otherwise, why have primaries or caucuses at all?  We'll just pick our nominee on the basis of highly suspect and subjective reasoning.

    So whose behaving like sychophantic hero-worshippers again?


Advertise Blogads