Presidential Race Discussion
No... this isn't a spot for discussion of the role of race in the upcoming presidential campaigns.... but it is a place for all general discussion of the candidates and races for the Democratic and Republican nominations.
Since people proved incapable of sticking to individual candidates in the threads I'd set up for local pols, we'll go with one big pot to put it all in this time around.
Remember, this thread is for discussion and comments about presidential candidates only.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 1/01/2007
92 comments
92 Comments:
Leave your mits off our blog? Everything you touch turns into sh*t! What is worse --- YOU ARE AN ANONYMASS FOOL!
Please check yourself into the Robert Young Center and we will pray for you.
Unlike you of course.
Happy Valentine's Day to you too.
The issue seems simple enough...if the Dem's want the White House, they need to back Obama. (1) He is far more left than he lets on, so liberals should feel safe, and (2) Obama can win the independant vote (heck, he'll do well with soft-Republicans) where Hillary has little shot with these two segments (the libs love her and everyone else hates her).
As a Republican, I am thankful that the Democrats usually put forth the candidate that is most liberal, most unable to reach out to the cross-over voter.
Go Hillary!
As for the Republicans, I do not think it matters...
Anyone will lose to Obama.
Anyone will beat Hillary.
RI Republican-
First, the most liberal, unable to reach out Democrat in the presidential field is not Hillary (as much as you may hate her) but Dennis Kucinich. On a lot of issues like presidential power, use of military force, censorship, etc. Hillary linues up more center-right than liberal.
Second, your assessment that any Republican would lose to Obama and beat Hillary is actually the opposite of what many of your Republican brothers have been saying. There are a few things that make Hillary terrifying to top Republicans: 1) She can raise more money than the entire Republican field put together and 2) she's been through the Republican attack machine twice (as First Lady and as Senator) so everyone already has an opinion on her, and she has emerged likable (although she also posts high disapproval numbers, polls always show over 50% approval).
Look at it this way: Hillary is the Democratic Bush. A lot of people hate them, but a majority would still vote for them.
As for your claim that the Republican nominee doesn't matter, you're 100 percent right. The Republican base has moved so far right of the middle and as such, as long as we are still in Iraq in 2008 and Bush is still presidnet (givens) it will be practically impossible for the same person to win the Republican primary and the general election. The Republican primary winner will have to define himself so far to the right on issues like the war that they will in effect make themselves completely unstomachable to moderate and soft Democratic general election voters.
History (Gore - Kerry) would indicate that the Democrats are fond of bringing forth the fringe candidate.
Hillary cannot attract the Independants/ soft-R's the way that Obama can. To believe that she can is foolishness. There is no amount of money that can convince a reasonable Republican to vote for Hillary.
Let's face it, Obama is the 'People magazine' candidate. In this age of the dumbing-down of politics, he is the 'sound-bite' - Oprah candidate and in a general election, is a lock.
The fact that 'W' won has to show you how bad of candidates the Dem's put forth against him. Hillary is solid with 40+% of the Democrat base - and everyone else hates her...
The fact that you consider either Gore or Kerry, both solid establishment candidates with long political histories, "fringe candidates" kind of blows your credibility.
That notion is just plain strange.
Hillary is indeed polorizing, but if and when she's given enough attention to actually present herself and her views, it will become quite apparent that she's not the characature created by the Limbaughs of the world.
The desire for a woman president may also outweigh the frantic fear of many on the right, (and some Dems) of a powerful woman.
Hillary is still the top fund-raiser, and is comfortably positioned to the right of Obama by nearly all accounts.
It's interesting that you feel that Obama will be more easily embraced as the middle-of-the-road candidate with broad appeal considering that his stances have been much to the left of Hillary Clinton's.
Yet the myth of 'ultra liberal" Hillary Clinton continues to be out there apparently. I guess the multiple millions of dollars spent to create that myth were well spent.
There's been a few articles lately
(this being one of them http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2809.html)
which seem to be riding the theme that Obama is prickly with the press or somehow thin-skinned.
This could be trouble.
I see it as simply Obama wanting to lay down a marker early that he won't sit by quietly while the press invents or distorts things and tries to define him or his positions in inaccurate ways.
But of course the press takes any criticism, no matter how justified or slight, as a giant invitation to apply even harsher scrutiny and less charitable spin to a candidate.
How can Obama rise about the pack mentality of the press and avoid having them engage in "swift boat" type distortions or promoting certain "memes" and defining him before he can define himself?
Gore - the father of the internet and the 'Global Warming' geru - not one of the more 'left' candidates?
Kerry - the Senator that is 'left of Ted Kennedy'?
Dope, are you kidding me? You think that these guys had a prayer of reaching out to anyone other than the base?
Again, Obama can reach the middle - Hillary cannot. This is not brain surgery, what part of this is difficult for you to understand?
I don't know how other to say it other than you're simply wrong.
Gore was no flaming liberal, nor was Kerry. That old long discredited story about how Kerry was supposedly to the left of Kennedy is so much horsecrap. It was a rating from some minor conservative group that got passed around as if it was gospel.
And if you're still believing the "invented the internet" myth, then that says it all.
Have you been living under a rock for the past 8 years? Or getting your "facts" from Fox and am radio?
Actually, you'd be better off if you were under a rock. At least that way you'd get no information, listening to Fox or am radio you get wrong information.
Again, Gore and Kerry were not even to the left of the party, let alone "fringe".
If you think so, I have no doubt that you'd consider Barry Goldwatter a flaming liberal too by your standards.
Why I waste my time ever reading your blog, I have no idea. What an incredible goof you are...
Gore and Kerry are not liberal?
The king of Global Warming (one of the more liberal causes - unproven, liberal slop, right up there with the ozone farce of 15-years ago, the depletion of fossil fuels, 20-years ago, etc.).
If Gore and Kerry are not left of the party, then I suppose that you think that Hillary and Obama and Center-Right?
Get off the drugs Dope, it's killing your brain cells far too quickly.
Will someone else bring RI here into the reality based community?
I mean, it's like taking candy from a baby. Gore is some wild-eyed liberal because he feels global warming is a serious threat to mankind?
And R.I. thinks it's unproven "slop".
Someone please set him straight. And by the way, if it's unproven slop, then how come even the Bush administration acknowledges it? (even if it is just lip service)
R.I. is what happens to an otherwise intelligent person when their noggin is filled up with right wing bilge water.
Next he'll be telling us we found WMDs in Iraq and that Sadamm Hussein planned 9-11.
You said it "couldn't be done", but the Great Lane Evans got Phil Hare on Bob Colbert's Show.
Lane proved he has more "clout" in his finger than the DOPE has in multiple personalities.
First of all, who the hell is "Bob Colbert"??!!
Boy, you're sure up on things. But at least you didn't call him "Stevn Obares" like a commenter on the Hare thread did.
You've been talking tough and calling names for about 6 moronic comments now, (all dumped for obvious reasons) apparently feeling quite triumphant that you'd really caught me being wrong about this rather trivial matter.
I hate to burst your bubble Skippy, but it's you who is mistaken.
Where did I say "it couldn't be done" as you repeatedly say I did? $1000 says I never said it.
If you're going to spout off and call names, try to make it about something that's actually real, not some goofy notion you;ve cooked up in your head. You do that constantly. (it's called a straw man logical fallacy, look it up)
What's the matter? Surely you could find something to jump on me about that I actually said or did. C'mon. You've got tons to work with.
The fact that you always resort to inventing words to put in my mouth doesn't make you look too bright.
For starters, where did I say that Hare would never appear on Colbert's show? You make it sound like I somehow said it would never happen. So back it up. Where did I say that, or anything close?
Here's a hint: Nowhere.
I'm not really sure where you even got that idea.
A reader did leave a comment (oddly enough on the thread about Mitt Romney as the Hare thread had been taken down) saying that they'd heard Hare was going to appear on Colbert's show but they said they had no details beyond that.
I responded that it seemed funny that he'd be on a second time, because Hare had already appeared for a split second on a previous Colbert show and they then marked his district on the map as if they'd already covered it.
I was curious if they were actually going to do another segment with Hare even though they'd already "better known" his district.
Since the reader didn't have any details at that moment, I think I asked them or anyone else to send along any further details about it if they had them.
Guess what? They did. Moments later the same commenter sent something they'd gotten from the campaign that said Hare was scheduled to tape a segment on March 9th, but they didn't know when it would air.
I thought I'd wait until I heard a firm air date before posting anything about it and that was the end of it.
That was on Feb. 14th. And then a few days later you start writing in comment after comment screaching and braying about what a liar I am and how I said Hare would "never appear" on the show and how you know that he is, and trying to laud Lane for supposedly making it happen.
So why are you jumping up and down like a freaked out baboon and spewing all this abuse? Are you that obsessed with catching me making some mistake, no matter how trivial?
Is it that hard for you to find REAL things to jump on me about, and in your rush to think you've found an "Aha!" moment, you fool yourself into believing stuff that exists nowhere but in your imagination?
Sorry if I seem to be going on about this, but it happens so damn often it's no longer funny, but supremely frustrating. If you can't find something REAL to attack me about, save us both the aggrevation and just don't, OK?
And what's even more pathetic is that I've been dumping your ludicrous rantings for like 3 or 4 days now, giving you plenty of time to actually think about it and realize your mistake.
The fact that you were still sending in the same stupid attack even after you've had a chance to rethink your premise is pretty sad.
Do you feel stupid that you've repeatedly tried to attack me for days now, both for saying something I never said, and for supposedly not knowing something that I knew about before you did?
You really should. Give it a try. It might make you think a little before you do it again.
Next time you think you've "nailed" me, go back and spend a few minutes of checking before you jump ugly. It'll save us both the embarassment.
And that's STEVEN (not Bob) Colbert, (pronounced coal-bear) just so you won't embarrass yourself again.
And what's with this weird hang-up you've got where you assume I think I have any "clout" at all, let alone more than some politician? That's just strange and kind of disturbing.
I'll leave fixating and worrying about "clout" to fine folks like yourself.
PS. Here's the address of a post about Hare's appearing on the Colbert report. You might want to check there to see if you can find me saying "it couldn't be done".
http://theinsidedope.blogspot.com/2006/12/hare-to-be-on-colberts-better-know.html
Here's another post about it. Happy hunting.
http://theinsidedope.blogspot.com/2006/12/hare-appears-on-colbert.html
Here's the link to the Hare discussion page where the subject briefly was mentioned. Go look there too. $1000 is a lot of money.
http://theinsidedope.blogspot.com/2006/11/hare-discussion.html
And here's the link to the Romney post where the reader mentioned that indeed Hare was going to tape a segment on Colbert. Maybe that's where I said "it couldn't be done".
http://theinsidedope.blogspot.com/2007/02/romney-announces-candidacy.html
There, I even did most of the work for you.
Good luck!
Sorry Dope, I too, believe that global warming is a bunch of crap...right up there with the ozone issue (aeresal cans) and all the other scares that come up periodically.
How many things now cause cancer?
Let's face it, the scientific community comes up with a new theory every few months, because they have to justify the grants that they are awarded.
Global warming, if one studies it, reads up on it (both sides) is nothing more than speculation and theory.
People with agendas have always twisted the facts. Think back 15-years ago and the scientific community had the world dying of AIDS. Of course this is a terrible disease, however, the numbers that they used were pure fabrication.
HOT OFF THE PRESS!!!
I just heard that our own Senator Mike Jacobs is on the short list of 11 people to be considered a VICE-PRESIDENTIAL candidate for either John Edwards or Barack Obama.
People should be veyr impressed that our newly elected Senator is doing such an outstanding job and given so much consideration for future promise.
NOT!!!
There I just pulled a Wayne's World. Mike Jacobs should resign for being a poor performer and not getting results for the 36th District.
The constituents deserve a lot more than a self serving politician out to get headlines and promote the illusion of public service.
In the Democrat Primary Mike Jacobs defeated Paul Rumler 57-43%. Jacobs then went on to defeat James Beals 63-37%. Given Mike Jacobs was sworn into "elective office" for the firt time two months ago, don't ya think it's kinda early to claim "he's not getting results"?
What about the $2.5 million Rep. Pat Verschoore and Sen. Jacobs delivered to "jump-start" a riverfront campus in Moline? How about the health care program Pat and Mike pushed through the Illinois Legislature? And if I am not mistaken, didn't Mike Jacobs deliver the money to finish Hero Street? And move Boland's bills through the General Assembly?
What about Springfeild Bureau Chief Scott Reeder's comments about Sen. Mike Jacobs in the D/A? Didn't he say some very flattering things about our young Senator?
As someone that claims to be concerned about our local legisltors "being a poor performer" and "not getting results", you might want to focus your attention to Rich Miller's blog.
I don't know about you, but I find third party "verifications" much more revealing than off-hand comments from anonymous bloggers! Read Miller's "Question of the day" from Friday and then report back to us what "the Blogfather" makes of "one of our local legisltor's ability to get results"?
Hope this helps!
Editors Note:
This is absolutely the last comment regarding Sen. Jacobs which will be allowed on this thread. It is for discussing the upcoming presidential primary races only.
Ok, this thread is really off topic. But I want to provide a few points. RI rep- your debate about Gore/Kerry totally morphed. You first stated they were fringe candidates. I would classify this as an entirely different thing than a liberal candidate. Certainly they are both somewhat liberal. But as dope has stated, much of the reasoning behind their labels is based on hype. The internet myth was BS from the moment people jumped on it. If you are still stuck on that after 7 years, I honestly feel sorry for you. Kerry was a decently liberal senator, but his only liberal mistake was letting the Rove machine run all over him. His lack of backbone allowed him to get painted as 'more liberal than Kennedy' and a military coward. When looking at the validity of these threats just consider that Kerry did time in Vietnam while Bush got drunk in the reserves. I will suffice it to say that it was spin, not truth, that defined that election.
Back to my point. Neither were fringe candidates. Gore was the sitting VP, and Kerry was a long time senator. Also, your lack of understanding of both meteorology and climatology should disqualify you from talking about global warming. In the future we may be able to look back and see that things weren't exactly the way we thought, or we might not be able to look back at all because we managed to make ourselves go extinct. Global warming is very real, but the causes are so complex that we cannot clearly separate them yet. Until technology improves enough that we can do so, every human owes it to their children and their children's children to be as responsible and conservative as they can be.
For the moron talking about AIDS. Get a grip. The scientific community was absolutely correct. Had they not spread the word about AIDS it would have kept spreading and nabbed many of us. Had the scientific community not developed drugs to help hold off AIDS, more would be dead already. You talk about people having agendas, look in the damn mirror! Scientists give their lives to empirical fact and exploration. One of the tenets of being a scientist is being able to prove or disprove something. Anytime a scientist wants to be taken seriously they need reasoning, data, and proof of their claim. That is a bit different than you who only needs hot air to inflate your uninformed opinion.
As far as the election is concerned. I think it was RI rep who said it best. Obama will beat any repub. and Clinton will lose to any repub. Clinton is a divider. Even if she has some new ideas her baggage and previous ties will limit her ability to have an agenda. She is too tied to consultants, lobbyists, and fund raisers who have pushed her and her husband into office for years. She owes too many people to be an effective leader. Obama is fresh enough and seems to be carrying enough momentum to do it. I personally would like to see the other of the big 3 dem candidates make it, John Edwards. I think he has shown some good ideas and wants to help Americans. Aside from those 3, maybe Richardson can stay in this thing, but it would be a long shot. I don't know enough about him to comment.
No one is really talking about the repub candidates yet, but Guliani would be a decent one. Though the rigors of a campaign might tear him down and people will remember that before 9/11 he was generally an unsuccessful and un-liked mayor of NYC.
P.S. I resorted to name calling several times. I did this because I feel so passionately about other commenter's stupidity. They have the equal opportunity to call me names too.
Sometimes comments are so stupid that to avoid calling a spade a spade is nearly impossible. You're forgiven.
Robbie C,
What you KNOW trumps what you feel (or believe)...
If you want to believe that Kerry is middle-of-the-road, that is most definately your choice. However, he is consistently rated as one of the most liberal Senators by his voting record.
Gore is not as bad, but definately left of center of the liberal wing.
I think that it is great that you see these guys as center - it makes Presidential politics a little easier for the Republicans when the Democrats consistently nominate ultra-left candidates.
2008 for example. Are you going to buy that Obama or Hillary are 'center' candidates because of their rhetoric? or are you going to look at their voting record and see that, regardless of what they say, they are very liberal?
As far as Global Warming...again, you have you beliefs, I have mine. GW is theory, supposition and computer generated models. GW is brought to you by the same people that determined that our ozone was being depleted, our fossil fuels were being depleted, that red food dye caused cancer, etc., etc.
We could ban every car in the United States and hardly put a dent into the -worldwide-environment, unless, of course, your scientists can find a way to stop 50 volcanos from exploding every year - or find a means to see if India and China will cease in their prolific industrialization. Robbie, we are pissing in the ocean with these things going on - even if the computer-generated models are close (which they have been proven not to be).
Maybe when Al Gore and his green friends stop flying private planes, I'll start paying attention...
I am sorry if I allow facts to get in the way of your argument.
RI Repub...
Unless you happen to be a scientist involved in climate study, which you're clearly not, then your peculiar facts are no more valid than anyone else's.
As a matter of fact, since your opinions are nothing but retreads of Rush Limbaugh and right wing spin on this issue, your "facts" are far more dubious than those Robbie cites.
The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of scientific concensus shows your views on global warming are wrong, and considering the consequences, dead wrong.
Enjoy the view as you stick your head in the sand on this issue.
And please tell us exactly WHO it was that supposedly reated Kerry as such a liberal. You say he was consistently rated as liberal... pleaee... by whom? Fox news?
1. If you do not understand how liberal Kerry is, there is nothing that anyone can say to you that will change your mind.
Again, believe whatever you wish - and, please, continue to bring forth similar candidates.
2. As far as GW, I agree with you - my facts and opinions are no more valid than anyone else's - it all is speculation and computer models.
You happen to believe them, I do not.
As for Rush Limbaugh, I do not listen to him, do not like him.
As far as facts - clearly you cannot believe that anything we do will have anything but a slight and minor impact (if indeed one believes the "computer models") when one understands the impact of the two emerging nations of India and China.
Again, it is your perogative to believe what you wish, but a little logic might really help you on this one.
By the way, anonymous, you stated that "the facts that you state are far more dubious than those Robbie cites."
The problem is that Robbie DID NOT state even one fact. His entire post was opinion.
That is the problem with liberals, someone states a 'warm fuzzy' opinion and everyone accepts it as a fact.
Keep working on it big boy...
Oops!
What is this, the AP is reporting that Al Gore's Knoxville, TN home has average utility bills in excess of $1,200.00 per month!
Can we say - 'hypocricy'?
How shocking that Mr. Gore might be 'playing' the liberal-PC crowd to further his own agenda!
Spin this however you might wish, but this is terribly condemning to the Global Warming agenda when its most ardant and visible propogandist specifically lives a life counter to the cause.
(1) HUGE utility bills (and his only stated defense is (as quoted by the AP), "Al does enough for the cause that this should be overlooked" and (2) private planes...
Actions indeed speak louder than words.
So do you think that he believes the Global Warming hype and does not care, or he is just using the Global Warming-PC crowd?
Is there another explanation?
(By the way - this is the definition of a FACT).
Thanks for swallowing more right wing lies put out by phoney "non-partisan" Republican front groups.
The whole Gore utility bill thing was utterly debunked by the show Countdown by simply calling the utility company and asking.
The FACTS are that the Gores pay MORE to use alternate energy to power their home than others do.
Their local utility company offers a green plan which costs more per kilowatt hour, and over the course of last year, the Gores paid nearly $5000 MORE in order to use greener sources of energy.
This group, which is listed as not even a legitimate group and who is funded by the right wing Heritage Foundation and fronted by some 20 something kid, tried to manufacture this smear using only how much they spent on energy, not the actual energy used nor the fact that they spent considerably more to use greener, cleaner sources of energy.
So quit being such a right wing sap, wake up and realize that you're being played for a stupid patsy who'll reliably repeat every cockamaime thing they're told by these guys, and start thinking on your own.
So, once again, your "FACTS" are not facts, but distortions and lies.
I'd also like to point out that you quote some anonymous source saying something in defence of Gore (without even telling us who supposedly said it or where you heard it) and then say that it was GORE'S only defense.
That's a lie right there.
Gore doesn't need a defence because the story is completely misleading and false to begin with.
How many hundreds of right wing lies and distortions do you have to see debunked before you stop swallowing them whole without question?
EVERYTHING a livberal does in defense-anle ('s' - not 'c', Dope), yet if a Republican sneezes, you blame him for creating the flu.
For someone who tries to be non-partisan, your colors truly show extremely LEFT.
What? Where did I ever say I was non-partisan?? I'm glad you feel that I try to be, but the fact is I've never pretended to be non-partisan, nor does is state that I am anywhere on the site.
I clearly favor Dem positions in general and consider myself to be a practical liberal and progressive, whatever those labels mean.
But I'm not a mindless lemming on issues or candidates, and if Dems cause me problems, then I'll say so.
The original goal of this site was to be a place to discuss things from a left of center position and to be a forum for local Dems. But they've pretty much screwed that pooch unfortunately.
And thanks for the spelling catch. Sorry about that.
Here's but one story that tells the REST of the story that this phony front group doesn't. This happens to be from CBS news but the same story is all over.
http://tinyurl.com/yowvd3
Cut and paste that into your browser's address bar and read the report.
It explains the Green Energy credits the Gore's use and other relavent details which blow the suggestion that they're hypocritical out of the water.
And the fact of the matter is that they don't use any more energy per square foot than anyone else, and probably much less.
To somehow expect a former Vice President and his family, in a large home with office space for both he and his wife and epansive provisions for security, to somehow use the same amount of energy as a two bedroom ranch is just patently ridiculous.
I think people are so sick of such predictable right wing attacks that they're losing all meaning.
99% of the time, these things are simply false or so distorted as to be essentially lies. So why buy into this kind of obvious BS?
Spin it however you want, but you have a leading face on the 'Global Warming' front being an extremely large user of non-renewable energy.
It's a bad deal.
It's no different than Ted Haggart having his issues.
Dope, you can polish a terd as much as you want, but it is what it is. Hypocricy is hypocricy - no matter how much you try to defend it and explain it.
But you just keep on trying.
You think Al Gore... let me get this straight... having a larger home than the average person....and paying nearly 5000 extra per year to utilize green sources of energy to power that home.... means that his stance and representation of the global warming crisis is somehow invalid....and that is exactly the same hypocrisy as a man who holds himself out as a man of God and heads an organization of over a million Christian evangelicals spending his spare time performing felatio on gay prostitutes and smoking meth...... have I got you right?
I'm not sure that even deserves an answer it's so stunningly ignorant and unbelievable.
If the threat from Global Warming was as dire as Mr. Gore contends, I would think that his adding to the problem, in any manner, would repulse the Green-machine.
It is ok, because 'he has a big house'?
Come on, if the issue were so dire, the cause so just, why would he be living in such a house?
While we are on it, isn't this the same Al Gore that when tax returns were analized had a total 'Charitable Contributions' of exactly ZERO!?
The liberal who is for the downtrodeen, the poor, the hungry - put exactly ZERO of his own dollars into assisting these people...
Of course, because it is the governments job to take care of these situations.
Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, regardless of how you wish to justify it.
Keep trying though.
I agree with you Dope however, Al Gore is using this issue like he used the ratings on music. I agree with the fact that global warming is occuring, but to be so selfabsorbed to believe that we are responsible is rediculous. The earth has been cooling and heating up since it was born. Remember the ice age. This is an issue that is bigger than we anr and to be so arrogant to believe that we are directly responsible is silly. The fact remains that I drive a honda hybred because I believe in using less gas. I get 40 miles to the gallon. My heat is set at 62 in the day and 54 at night. I believe that we all should conserve when we can. The problem lies in the fact that I do not preach to othersd that they should as Al Gore does. He is not as bada hypocryt as the meth and pole smoker. It would be better for Al to walk the walk if he wants to talk the talk. A smaller home would be a great start.
You ask why a former vice-president, his wife, their staff and security detail and his family would use something larger than a two bedroom bungalow? And you're serious?
I give up.
The right wing has a complete LOCK on hypocrisy, from Newt screwing around on the side at the same time he was busy dragging the country through the muck with Clinton, to trying to portray veterans of war Cleland, Kerry, and Murtha as cowards and sissys (with an administration absolutely packed in every senior position with chicken hawks who ran from service)
But that's besides the point.
I think the Tom Tomorrow cartoon explaining the great brain glitch might be instructive to you.
The comments on this thread really make me lose hope for this country, or the planet, for that matter.
First of all, people with absolutely NO information on the subject and who've never investigated the subject thoroughly nor had any scientific background can sit there and pronounce judgement on an issue which literally affects the future of life on the planet.... and have no problem doing so.
The planet is warming with potentially catastrophic results? Doesn't matter because Al Gore is too "preachy", so I'll just dismiss it.
That's sad.
Yes, average temps have gone up and down, but if you have ever bothered to see the actually scientific evidence, such as that gathered by sampling ice cores which show the makeup of the atmosphere millions of years ago and provide a record of warming and carbon dioxide levels, you'd see that this isn't just another routine swing.
If you saw it on a graph, you'd never doubt it again. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere is literally spiking nearly straight up, and all in the past few decades.
And still people can sit there and act like it's no big deal and the literally millions of TONS of emmissions that the U.S. and everyone else pumps into the atmosphere every year, and has been doing so for nearly 100 years or more, with the amount spiking higher and higher is some sort of made up science?
The nearly direct correlation between the increased level of greenhouse gasses and the increase in the burning of fossil fuels is stunning.
Yet there's a VERY disturbing trend, initiated by the right, and especially the evangelicals, to simply dismiss solid science as ... well... to just refuse to believe solid evidence when it's right in their faces.
This is going on at a time when to do so puts us all in peril.
It's this "moronification" of America and the attack on science that makes me despair that the human race, especially the U.S. who should be in the lead, will ever be capable of pulling it's head out of it's collective ass and save itself from itself.
The signs are most definitely NOT encouraging.
Dope, your post of 3/1 (8:40 pm) is very inlightening. Clearly, you have read all the reports.
But, do you really believe that this cataclysmic issue was brought about because of the automobile and its emissions?
If you and the rest of the green-machine believe this, then why on earth are you driving a car?
As you are so willing to say, when it relates to abortion - if you do not believe it, then don't have one. Then I would say to you, if you believe it - THEN DO NOT DRIVE. DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM. LIVE IN A TENT - Put your stinking money where your mouth is!
There is nothing so challenging that someone who tells the world what is wrong - yet still participates in the issue.
Does Al Gore HAVE to live in a big house - NO! Does Al Gore have to use fossil fuels at the rate that he does? NO! Do you need to drive a car - NO!
If this is the issue that you say that it is - LIVE LIKE YOU BELIEVE IT. Shy of putting your money where your mouth is - SHUT UP you ignorant mouthpiece!
Live it!
Live it!
Live it!
Do I really have to point out how absoultely stupid your premise is?
Your argument isn't even anywhere close to serious, much less showing any thought.
According to your laughable premise, no one who uses any sort of fossil fuel or energy at all can advocate living in a more sane way, or adjusting life styles to make more economical use of resourses.
Nor can that person advocate more public will and effort towards continuing to develop technological means to wean us off of fossil fuels and towards reliance on many other means of energy production.
That's .... ridiculous... I don't know how else to put it.
In your simplistic head, it's either pollute and waste and do absolutely nothing to conserve energy or find alternate sources, or don't use any energy whatsoever and live in a tent?
Frankly, you're loony arguments are a joke.
Yes, Al Gore has to have a large house, no Gore did NOT use fossil fuels at a higher rate than anyone else (and actually paid MORE to use alternate energy) and YES, most people have to use a car.
Since you don't show much thinking skills, allow me to remind you that there are currently not any practical alternatives to those things. That's why Gore and others are saying we should, as a nation, and a world, for that matter, work towards finding such affordable alternatives.
THEN we can use far, far less oil and gas and coal.
Your convenient habit of turning a serious issue into an absurd black and white premise is ridiculous and shows a lack of any serious argument.
You don't give a damn about pollution, nor do you give a damn about the future of the planet, and the fact is that you'll spout any idea no matter how idiotic or embarassing as long as you think it will piss off "liberals".
Good luck with that.
wasting one moment defending al gore's lifestyle is a waste of time. in fact it's harmful. when rethugicans can't shoot the message, they take aim at the messenger. ignore it. keep the silly twits on topic. make them address the issue or ignore them.
Here we go...Dope, as information comes to light that Gore heads a company that sells carbon-credits,a little skepticism must sink in.
I'll help you a little...
1. Selling carbon-credits allows the one selling the credits to 'profit' from those sales.
2. That group would therefore stand to 'profit' from the reenforcement of the notion of 'Global Warming.'
3. As one of the primary voices behind Global Warming, is it not a conflict of interest to also be in a position to profit, in an amazing manner, from that which is being promoted?!
Sounds like Gore is a profiteer extraordinaire - if not a total sham artist.
If this were a Republican, you'd call for his head. Consequently, I can't wait for your defense of this!
(Or will you just censor this?)
First of all, where are you getting your information? I'm not going to discuss something before I even have a reason to believe it.
Secondly, I guess you think Gore is spending his life trying to show people how attacking our dependence on oil, the very dependence that is getting kids shot to death today in Iraq, all because he wants to make a few bucks, right?
First of all, besides being laughably cynical, the fact is that Gore has ALWAYS argued that we as a nation need find the will to committ to finding alternative energies and conserving energy and keeping pollution to a minimum.
And he's ALWAYS argued that this could be an effort that stimulates the economy and provides jobs and creates entire industries.
So... you'd snarl and bitch that Gore is some ultra liberal commie, and then when he embraces the role of capitalism in the effort to fight global warming, you slag him for being hypocritical.
Face it. You're just miserable and don't like anything, period.
First of all, where are you getting your information? I'm not going to discuss something before I even have a reason to believe it.
Secondly, I guess you think Gore is spending his life trying to show people how attacking our dependence on oil, the very dependence that is getting kids shot to death today in Iraq, all because he wants to make a few bucks, right?
First of all, besides being laughably cynical, the fact is that Gore has ALWAYS argued that we as a nation need find the will to committ to finding alternative energies and conserving energy and keeping pollution to a minimum.
And he's ALWAYS argued that this could be an effort that stimulates the economy and provides jobs and creates entire industries.
So... you'd snarl and bitch that Gore is some ultra liberal commie, and then when he embraces the role of capitalism in the effort to fight global warming, you slag him for being hypocritical.
Face it. You're just miserable and don't like anything, period.
Dope, you are such a hypocrit...if a Republican were profiting from his agenda in such a glaring manner, you would be going CRAZY!
Look it up..."generationim.com"
Also, while you are searching the web, why don't you search a little on the polar ice caps on Mars - they too are receding. I suspect that this is 'man-made' as well?
(In case you do not see it, you are starting to look really silly - more so than normal).
Enjoy!
I like a lot of things...
I like a free-market system that has provided all of us the opportunity for success (but I do not like those who try to hinder this system).
I like the fact that Americans donate amazing amounts to charities to help people in need (yet I do not like those hypocrits who 'talk' about helping the poor, yet do nothing themselves financially (Gore)),
I like people that are passionate about what they believe,
I like people,
I like calzones,
I like people who will admit that they are wrong,
I like people who deal with facts, not solely opinion,
I like peeps.
OK... Gore stands to make a profit by reducing pollution.
And this is wrong... why?
Why don't you? Then maybe you'd stop burying your head in the sand on the real need to address global warming and other energy issues.
My arguments still stand.
Sorry you feel they're "silly".
And FYI, this is the last comment on Al Gore. He's not running for president, and this is to be about the presidential race, not attempts to deny rational science and make strained attempts to bash Al Gore.
Darn shame that you censor comments as it relates to the validity of Global Warming.
Why can't you handle a reasonable debate? Can't you deal with opposing views?
I thought liberals were solid with 'free speech' and 'tolerance for others perspective'?
Again, a little hypocritical, huh?
This is a thread on the presidential race, not about efforts to deny the preponderance of scientific thought.
I'm under no obligation to let an individual take a thread and lead it off into left field. Sorry.
I am glad that Edwards is staying in. I would hate to see the next year of only Obama and Clinton. Though maybe is Edwards does have to bow out eventually, someone like Richardson can wrangle in his supporters. I lean towards Edwards in a lot of ways. One of them of course being that he is not named Obama or Clinton.
The "breck-boy" is not here to stay. Rumors are swirling around him and soon he will be forced to respond to the questions regarding his personal preferences. When you are in public life, you can't act like that and get away with it!
Some men can't get a women. Others can. Some men don't want a women.
We certainly have some serious issues before us...
The Democrats do not have a candidate that has the backbone or integrity to stand for their convictions and the Republicans do not seem to have anyone that is a leader that can excite anyone (even anyone on their own side).
The June 3 debate...Obama telling Edwards that,
"I have been against the war from the beginning, and John you are 4 1/2 years late."
Is this guy serious? What an incredibly dumb comment to make. 'At the beginning' he was in the Illinois state house being ineffective and did not have to take a position.
His comment is like me saying that I knew that Floriday was going to win the National Championship in both Basketball and Football last year - oh, and by the way, I was against going into Vietnam at the beginning as well.
Obama is a snake-oil salesman and unfortunately, too many people are not bright enough to see the foolishness of comments like these.
As I watched the debates, I see exactly why we have issues in this country...
The frontrunners in both campaigns come off looking quite poor and the people that have no chance are far better candidates.
Obama - Hillary - Edwards
Gulliani - McCain - Romney
We have serious issues with any of these.
Dope, looks like you have someone messing with your presidential poll...100 votes in a few days??? You seem to be working overtime keeping Obama up there).
I have nothing to do with the amount of votes in that poll. As a matter of fact, I had never intended to leave it up this long, but votes are still coming in.
The only thing I've noticed lately is a big bump all of a sudden in the number of votes for Biden.
I agree with Anon 6/8...I fear that none of the candidates from either side have the backbone to do anything other than the status quo (at least of the candidates that have a real shot).
The frontrunners all seem to campaign from the Bill Clinton manner of doing nothing more than what the general public thinks is appropriate (and if any of us think that the general public have a clue...).
And more times than not they do not even have the backbone to go that far (immigration).
Anon 6/4:
Obama voiced his opposition in the Illinois Senate, so he is actually on record. As a public figure, he has a right to stand behind what he said in the past. I wish Mitt Romney would try it more often.
Scott, I'd be far more impressed if you were able to provide a link to the quote. Shy of that, I'd suggest that you are full of it...
Anon, 7/4...
"I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."
Barack Obama - 2002
The full speech can be found here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Have a nice day.
You heard it here first...
Hillary wins the Dem nomination.
Rudy the Republican.
A great percentage of women cannot find themselves voting for Hillary, and the 55-75 year old Democrat males are in the same boat.
Rudy offends a majority of Republicans (how he won the nomination still confuses most Republicans), and the winner is...
"Michael Bloomberg" - as he has the $$ of Perot, a more reasonable manner and is greatly aided by the fact that the two parties have fallen so far from where they need to be.
Bloomberg will siphon more votes from Rudy, then Hillary. I agree with you that Hillary will be the Dem. Nominee, not sure who on the Rep. side, but I do not see Rudy as a bad call at this point. In 2000 there were 20 million women voters, in 2008 there will be 40 million women voters, and Hillary will get the majority of those votes. Also, Hillary has tapped hard into the Latino community (unfortunatley the Mayor of LA Villiarogosa after his endorsement got caught in an affair situation)but Hillary's campaign I have not seen stumble yet, and her lead continues to mount, up 34% in Fla. up 12-13% in New Hampsire, up 10% in California, and up over 18% in Nevada. Iowa and South Carolina appear to be too fluid, but Hillary looks solid in SC and may surprise in Iowa.
Here is the electoral map that I see currently
Swing States Leaning Democratic: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, Michigan
Swing States Slightly Leaning Democratic: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa
True Swing States: Florida, Missouri, Colorado
Swing States Slightly Leaning Republican: Arkansas
Swing States Leaning Democratic: Virginia, West Virginia, Arizona, Nevada
Actually, these are all subject to change based on who the nominees are. Giuliani would obviously be stronger in the East, but might falter in the south, etc etc.
I am excited for this election.
It will be exciting. I will be shocked if the Country would vote for another Clinton, but then again, it looks as though both parties lack a person to stop her.
Maybe only she can stop herself.
Or...
maybe everyone is so fed up by our political system that an 'Independent' can win - the low numbers for Bush (Republican) and the Congress (Democrat) do lend some possibility.
Let's be honest, neither party cares about their base, neither party cares about doing much other than staying in power.
Anon 7/30, I disagree. The Democratic party has proven that they wish to lead. In the past few weeks the Congress has voted to improve health care for children and secure our country's ports.
Amazing what can happen if you have people willing to do something. Now, if only we can get the President to not veto everything.
Wow Scott, you likely believe that John Edwards is also for the little people, assisting the poor - and disregard his $400 haircuts.
You likely believe that Al Gore is concerned with those in need - and disregard the fact that when his tax returns were made public (when VP), he gave a goose egg (-0-) to charity.
I believe that the Democrat Party is built on warm-hearted people like yourself who are totally oblivious to facts.
Have a ball though - you just keep on going forward thinking that your wonderful Democrat Party is going to change the world.
YES - free healthcare for the children of the United States. Oops, well maybe not free, but as long as "I don't have to pay" - 'what? you mean that even MY taxes will go up to support this, but I thought that you would only make 'the rich pay their FAIR SHARE!!!?'
Anon 11:02,
You lead off with absolutely meaningless, petty trivia, then advance to greedy selfishness and resentment.
Sounds like you've got the credentials of the true cro-magnon rightwing man.
Keep the devolution alive!
Being the one attacked, I should give a rebuttal, but I after reading your argument, I really don't think it is nessescary. Keep living in your box.
Dope, Scott,
Thank you for acknowledging the truth that your glorious, "For the People' Democrat leadership get $400 haircuts and give -0- to charity, while stating their great concern for those in need.
And then (Dope), you have the balls to call me 'greedy selfishness'....when your Al Gore gives -0- to charity (while making millions!).
So what would be your definition of him?
Unbelievably greedy, selfish and hypocritical?
First of all, who gives a rat's ass what someone's freaking haircut costs? What the HELL does that have to do with anything remotely related to a person's ability to lead?
Secondly, I simply don't believe that Al Gore hasn't done anything for charity. I'm sure if the TRUTH were known, rather than your brand of utter bullshit, then you'd see that the Gore's have done an incredible amount of work to benefit the needy and others.
Dope,
You don't mind a guy that is (1) obsessed with his hair, and (2) that spends $400 per haircut, while trying to convey to the voters that, 'he is one of them', that he, 'understands what it is like to struggle'?
Do you see a problem when you dismiss anything and everything that does not fit neatly into your world-view? Believe what you will - but if you want the truth, go chase Gore's tax returns via FIA.
Dope, you have a very bad habit of believing only what you want and dismissing everything else in order to justify your (rather stupid) opinions.
I,like a lot of other, must bid your blog farewell...you are just a narrow-minded, opinionated, jerk.
See ya...
Interesting AP article this morning...
DEMOCRATS FEAR CLINTON FALLOUT
The crux of the article is that Dem's running for other offices are affraid that Hillary's coattails will not be there and that she will hurt them.
They site her 49% 'unfavorable view.'
Gee, we'll really miss ya.
You obviously prefer your politics National Enquirer style... light and fluffy without all that hard work of thinking.
Edwards wasn't born wealthy. He's accomplished a tremendous amount in his life and been very sucessful. Again, WHO THE HELL CARES if a guy wants his hair to look good when he's in a profession where appearance is absolutely critical??
Do you go out looking like you slept in your clothes every day? Do you actually look in a mirror now and then? Does that make you "obsessed" with your appearance?
Come on. You know that slam on Edwadrs is goofier than hell. So why keep flogging it?
I don't feel one way or the other about Edwards, but it doesn't matter. I don't care who it is that is attacked for getting an expensive haircut, it's a bunch of crap and is symbolic of just how absolutely juvenile some people have made politics.
The world is in trouble, the country is facing huge challenges, and you focus on a guy's freaking HAIR??
Do you see how stupid that is in the scheme of things?
Apparently, you feel that having opinions is really bad as well.
That's odd. Since you have them too or you wouldn't have been commenting. But I guess only mine make me "opinionated", as a bad thing somehow.
You just don't like having your ass handed to you and being shown to be rather shallow and silly.
That's understandable.
Nothing wrong with being shallow and silly now and then, mind you, as long as you know you're being shallow and silly and give it the lack of seriousness it deserves. It appears you don't.
As far as believing what I want. What do you believe? What you DON'T want?
Again, really strange put down.
I believe what I hear or read or see from credible sources, and of course, whether it rings true based on a million other things I've absorbed over the decades.
I think that's what most humans do.
When you say Gore didn't give anything to charity, I said that sounds like BS, (because it does) and told you so.
You, of course, could have cited some evidence... ANY evidence, to prove me wrong, or at least let me know what the hell you're talking about.
But you couldn't.
In my mind, that doesn't exactly prove that I'm "believing what I want to believe". It proves that you can't back up what you say.
(If you HAD managed to come up with what you based your slam of Gore on, I imagine it would be that maybe someone dug through Gore's tax returns one year and found that they didn't try to deduct any charitable contributions, wow. Does that mean that they haven't done anything for charity? Of course not. But of course, it's easy to imagine Dick Cheney being incredibly generous to charities, isn't it?)
Too bad you can't hack opinions that differ from your own without feeling like you have to run away.
But really, who needs ya?
You are such a fool.
All one has to do is a simple 'Google' search on 'Al Gore's Tax return' and you will find all you need.
It is indeed 'easy to imagine' Cheney giving to charity - as it is indeed a fact (again...G-O-O-G-L-E).
When information is as easy to find, I would think that you could look for simple facts yourself.
And by the way, most people have thoughts and opinions, then debate (discuss AND listen) and as perspectives come up that one did not consider, they make INFORMED decisions. Dim-witted people seem to follow one belief and never consider alternative positions.
First of all, you didn't mention anything about Gore's tax returns, I simply speculated that was probably the phoney issue you were trying to gin up.
Secondly, as I said, the fact that they didn't DEDUCT any charitible contributions in a particular year doesn't mean shit as far as whether they're charitible people, and you know that full well.
What did Cheney give to? The home for wayward lesbians?
And your last statement pretty much describes yourself if you think about it.
I've certainly listened and am willing to consider other views IF they make sense and are something other than someone repeating bullshit spin points they hear on fox or talk radio.
Dope,
Why when you lose an debate - do you CENSOR?!
I will say it again, so you can censor it again...Al Gore's tax return was mentioned in the very first post.
Al Gore gave $15k the following year, because he needed to show something, as he was found out the year prior.
And, Dick Cheney donated over $7-MILLION (!) of a $9-million income and you want to TRY to make a snide comment about who it went to?
I know, I know - now you can make a comment about the fact that he made $9-million in a year. Heck, isn't it great to have a President or VP that actually has done something more with their life than be a career politician? Look at the candidates for President this year - every serious Democrat has done little other than politics (or write books because of their political fame), whereas the Republicans have a couple that have actually done something constructive and worked for their money.
Hmmmm. Judging by your freakish obsession with beating dead horses, I'd suspect you're Jim Mowen in disguise.
I'm not going to indulge your little hang up any more.
But I will say that you FINALLY at least spouted some supposed facts and figures. That helps. Though of course, they're still dubious until a source is given.
Secondly, and I say it again, WHO THE HELL CARES????!!!
What in the world does the fact that Al Gore did or did not report a lot of money to charity on his tax returns have to do with ANYTHING????!!
You really need a check-up from the neck up.
And trying to convince people that Dick Cheney is some compassionate warm little puppy proves you're out to lunch.
And you know, given what we've been through with this gang of idiots who "have done something constructive", I'd take a career politician ANY DAY!
Of course, your goofy argument about that is a bit kooky as well.
Cheney cashed in on his enormous connections MADE AS A POLITICIAN and traded on those to make hundreds of millions in the civilian sector, and Bush... don't make me laugh. He's been bailed out of every failed attempt he's ever made at making a living.
And tell John Edwards how he hasn't been a success at anything other than politics.
Look at the gang of incompetent phonys lined up for the Republicans. A bunch of politicians that are in it to milk every dime they can get out of it.
Rudy cashes in big time on phony post-9-11 "consulting" businesses, Romney is just your average multi-millinoaire mormon, a real average joe who's claim to fame is commercializing the Olympics almost beyond recognition and perverting it into some sort of corporate commercial.
And of course you'd never support McCain, or any of the others, because they're all career politicians, including one who wants to bomb Mecca.
Good luck. This is going to be a LOOOOOOONG election season for you, I can tell.
Feel free to drop in to get kicked around every now and then.
Sorry Dope, I am not Mowen.
And, you truely are quite dim-witted. The entire democrat movement is based on the 'compassion' of mankind - it seems as though all liberals want to do is take from the rich and give to the poor...
However, when one of your own does not practice what you preach...you make as though this is meaningless - and you slur someone who does take care of those in need (simply because he is a Republican!!!!!).
You, sir, are a joke!
And you, need to relax.
You're freaking out over someone calling bullshit on your lame attempt to somehow prove a global truth about all liberals based on the cost of a haircut for one person is laughable.
Take a pill.
Dope, I see that you conveniently diverted from St. Al Gore, sidestepping the one human condition that we all have...the desire to help those in need.
Seems like Al, like many liberals, talk a good game and act in a different manner with their own money.
I can appreciate why you'd focus on Edwards haircuts as well - and stay away from the ugly Gore (liberal) truth.
If you've really got your panties in a knot about Al Gore not trying to deduct charitable contributions one particular year, just what the hell do you think of the gang of crooks, weirdos, liars, thieves, and perverts running the country?
If something that ridiculous which signifies absolutely NOTHING about anything gets you this freaked out, what must you think when $90 million goes missing in Iraq, or when 90,000 weapons we shipped there are unaccounted for, or when Bush lies to us on a daily basis to the point where the entire country thinks he's a joke (except those who are psychologically incapable of accepting reality)?
What do you think of a president who holds onto an attorney general who changes his stories on a daily basis and whom everyone, Dem and Republican alike, consider a fool, a liar, or both?
As long as your fixating on the petty, what about the three DUIs between Bush and Cheney alone? What about the 7... SEVEN.... deferments that Cheney got to avoid serving his country during Viet Nam, then when asked about why later, saying he had "better things to do"?
And what about Bush going AWOL and not bothering to serve the last year of his obligation to the "champagne squadron" of the Air National Guard?
Cheney is drinking and shoots some poor old guy in the face, then tries to keep the whole thing secret for days. And you're completely bonkers about Gore not reporting charitable giving on one year's tax returns?
I respectfully submit that you have NO sense of proportion, and would excuse this gang of thugs if they set babies on fire, and would follow them straight to hell, which, conveniently, is exactly where they're headed.
Dang, boy...what is wrong with you?
I make a comment about the hypocricy of Edwards and Gore - pretty straight forward stuff, hard to defend.
Why can't you just say, "yea, these are not great situations, but, you know, they are politicians and all seem to have issues with honesty."
Pretty simple, no?
But you, you totally ignore, actually defend the undefendable, and point a finger elsewhere.
What, am I supposed to retaliate with everything that happened under the Clinton Administration?
Gain a little perspective boy! All Dem's are not perfect and just admitting to this will help you in a big way.
First of all, I responded the way I did because that's the response it called for.
Hyperventilating about the cost of a candidate's haircut is simply stupid, nearly meaningless, and certainly not something from which you can draw some larger conclusion.
So I told you that it doesn't mean anything, and you freak out.
Secondly, you can step away from the keyboard. I'm not going to continue to indulge your hang-up on somehow getting me to say the words you want me to say.
I'll say what I want to say, thanks.
Game over.
Anyone want to get back on something that actually matters about the presidential campaign?
You know Dope, you seem to know everything...maybe you should run for POTUS?
Hmmm. So someone who actually rebuts your simplistic views "seems to know everything", huh?
I'm flattered you think so. I don't.
And I feel you have to be insane in certain respects to want to subject yourself to the process of running for president, which is likely why we get the dubious candidates we do. The same applies to lower offices as well.
You've got to want that power so badly that you'll subject your family to scrutiny and hurtful examination, check your sense of ethics and scrupples at the door, grub for money with more fervor than a street panhandler, and dance to the tune of those who give you money.
No thanks.
Seems like there will be a hybrid coming from the republican side, likely Rudy.
This is likely good for the Country, as Hillary likely comes from the Dem side.
She is not electable - as her negatives are too high. Let's be honest, a strong number of Dem's just don't like her.
If the Republicans brought forth a true Conservative, she might have a chance, however, Rudy has the ability to reach across the isle and mobilize the 'we-hate-Hillary' crowd (which is far in excess of 50%).
Once again, the inability of the Democrats to put forth a more electable candidate will hand the White Hopuse to the Republicans.
Dope, you have not posted anything on the 'Jena 6' - and I would like to see your thoughts on this.
However, as three POTUS candidates showed up there, maybe this is the right place to ask...
What is the deal?
6 boys ambushed 1 boy and beat him silly, had to be pulled off him and left his face looking like a piece of meat and bleeding from the ears.
***And we have POTUS candidates supporting this behavior?
Let's be honest - if 6 white guys ambushed 1 black guy...you don't think that the black community would DEMAND a hate crime and attempted murder charges?
Isn't this a case of Political Correctness/ and the Sharpton-Jackson PR crap run amock?
Errr... I wouldn't put any money on that if I were you. ;-)
Anon 6:55.
Interesting that you bring up that case. I'd heard it floating around and didn't know what the hell it was about either.
Last night I did some looking around and could only find a bare-bones summation of what happened, which really still leaves a lot to be desired.
One aspect of the story that you omitted is that apparently the incident that started this was when a black student asked a principle if he could sit under a shade tree on the schools campus which was traditionally an area where white students hung out.
The pricipal, of course, said that he could.
So I guess he sat under the tree, and the next day, there were three or four NOOSES found hanging in the tree.
This, not surprisingly, set off a flurry of racial tension which eventually lead to this altercation where four (? not sure) blacks jumped a white student and beat him up.
None of the accounts I found mentioned anything about the extent of this kids injury, but it DID mention that he was in good enough shape to attend a dance or some other school function THAT SAME NIGHT and had only some swelling on his face.
I think the thing that has people in an uproar is the fact that these kids were charged with attempted murder... for what appears to be a case of a run of the mill high school rumble.
There's also the factor that they can likely point to other similar instances, where the attackers were white, where a charge of attempted murder wasn't even dreampt of.
That's the situation as best as I can figure.
Sounds like they have a legit grievance to me, based on what relatively little I know about the deal.
I agree that they have grievances, however,regardless of whether or not the victim attended a function that evening,
1. 6- kids jumped him.
2. Beat him bloody (blood coming from his ears)
3. The 6 had to be pulled from the boy.
What led to this action should not condone the action.
If this was a black boy attacked by 6-white boys, then Jesse and Al would be down there screaming for hate-crimes, attempted murder and a host of other charges.
This screams of reverse discrimination once again.
In my wilder days, I've gotten jumped and tripped hitting my head on a curb so hard I later threw up, lost control of my bodily functions, and passed out.
This was an unprovoked attack and I didn't even see it coming.
The cops who responded didn't charge my attackers, who were easily identified and right there, with "attempted murder", much less anything at all. As a matter of fact, the cop asked me if I wanted to press charges and I said no, figuring it would do no good.
But that's me.
The point in all this that you may be missing is that the protesters are NOT calling for these kids to be let off scott free. They are NOT protesting that it should be just fine to assault anyone.
That you have to get clear. They have no problem with the attackers getting punished, OK?
It's just that they feel, correctly in my opinion, that an assault on someone where the victim is treated and released with minor injuries does not warrent charges of attempted murder in any way, shape, or form.
All but one of the attacker's has had their cases thrown out by a judge already on the basis that they should have rightly been charged as juveniles, not adults as they were charged.
You don't try to send someone to prison for maybe 20 years as an adult for attempted murder over a school yard fight.
Those involved in this issue have also pointed to an endless list of people who have committed far more serious offenses and gotten off with nothing but a slap on the wrist.
The question is would Jackson & Sharpton be in Jana if the roles were reversed and 6-white kids jumped a black kid?
Answer - you bet they would be, but they'd be screaming for 'hate-crimes' and attempted murder.
Question, if the roles were reversed, would 3 POTUS candidates be there?
Answer - no way in hell!
Nice rhetorical dodge, but you know and I know that if the roles were reversed, there's no way in HELL that the white kids would be charged with attempted murder.
So much for that argument.
Jeez Dope - can you read?
I said...
JACKSON AND SHARPTON WOULD BE IN JANA SCREAMING FOR "HATE CRIMES AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES" (not against them).
I read what you said, and I repsonded to it. Sorry if i didn't respond to the exact little sentence fragment you'd prefer.
So here's my reply to that.
I think you're wrong. You have no idea what they'd do. They might have a problem if it was ractially motivated, but I sincerely doubt they'd be calling for attempted murder charges for a busted lip.
Get over it. You have a problem with blacks standing up for their rights. Fine.
But just admit it.
You have to understand that Jackson and Sharpton's jobs are to bring public attention to racial prejudice wherever they find the chance.
They have this mission because of the 200 year plus record in this country of racial violence, and discrimination socially, in business and housing, and most especially in the legal system.
If the racial situation in this case were reversed, as you say, maybe no one would be there demanding that the charges be reduced against the white kids who beat a black kid. But you know what? They wouldn't have to because it wouldn't happen to begin with.
Whites have no history of being terribly abused by blacks running the legal system. OK? Blacks however, have, and continue to be mistreated, and statistics plainly show it.
You may think there's no longer any race problem in the country, but I think most blacks would disagree.
You obviously find something very annoying about these people shoving racial injustice in your face, and I'd suggest that's exactly what their goal is.
If they weren't doing this, these incidents and hundreds of others would pass by unoticed by the public at large.
Nothing happens in this country unless you can make a big media stink about it, so I find it hard to fault Jackson and Sharpton for realizing that and using it to advance their cause.
Post a Comment
<< Home