0
   

When Will Hillary Call it Quits?

 
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 08:45 am
maporsche wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
I think your indignation is a bit misplaced.


Misplaced or not, McCain is my man.

I'm beginning to hate Obama's supporters as much as I hate Bush's supporters. And it's not just this thread, the mentality that I dislike so much permeates across all the pro-Obama threads.


What kind of moron would let posters' opinions on political forums (especially tongue in cheek comments) influence their choice of presidential candidates?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 08:47 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
I think your indignation is a bit misplaced.


Misplaced or not, McCain is my man.

I'm beginning to hate Obama's supporters as much as I hate Bush's supporters. And it's not just this thread, the mentality that I dislike so much permeates across all the pro-Obama threads.


What kind of moron would let posters' opinions on political forums (especially tongue in cheek comments) influence their choice of presidential candidates?



You should cite your source, this is almost plagerism.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 12:05 pm
maporsche wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
You say you hate Bush supporters right after you say McCain is your man?

You are a very funny man..


Bush's supporters are NOT McCain supporters. Haven't you been paying attention?


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/R/e/1/mccain_bush_hug.jpg
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 12:12 pm
everytime I see that picture I want to puke.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 12:36 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
maporsche wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
You say you hate Bush supporters right after you say McCain is your man?

You are a very funny man..


Bush's supporters are NOT McCain supporters. Haven't you been paying attention?


image deleted



Ok, so you HAVEN'T been paying attention.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 06:31 pm
maporsche wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
I think your indignation is a bit misplaced.


Misplaced or not, McCain is my man.

I'm beginning to hate Obama's supporters as much as I hate Bush's supporters. And it's not just this thread, the mentality that I dislike so much permeates across all the pro-Obama threads.


What kind of moron would let posters' opinions on political forums (especially tongue in cheek comments) influence their choice of presidential candidates?



You should cite your source, this is almost plagerism.


Plagerism? [sic]
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Feb, 2008 07:20 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
I think your indignation is a bit misplaced.


Misplaced or not, McCain is my man.

I'm beginning to hate Obama's supporters as much as I hate Bush's supporters. And it's not just this thread, the mentality that I dislike so much permeates across all the pro-Obama threads.


What kind of moron would let posters' opinions on political forums (especially tongue in cheek comments) influence their choice of presidential candidates?



You should cite your source, this is almost plagerism.


Plagerism? [sic]


Sorry, plagiarism.


You know phychologically speaking, NORMAL people are typically able to understand the intended word despite misspellings or typos. Take the quote below for example

Quote:
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh?



A NORMAL person, apparently not Roxxxanne, will have little problem understanding this paragraph.

I wonder where Roxxxanne's development was stunted and she lost her innate ability?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2008 02:15 pm
"A Clinton superdelegate who served in Bill Clinton's administration said the former president "has screwed this thing up for her big-time. They need to send him out of the country for a long, long time. I am angry at Bill Clinton and I think there are other Hillary people who are angry at Bill, who felt that she was running a very good, solid campaign - she wasn't the exciting one, but she was the solid one - and then he came in and made it nasty, and single-handedly pushed away black voters." link
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2008 02:21 pm
That was an interesting article, blueflame, thanks.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 07:06 am
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. And I am not talking about superdelegates, those 795 party big shots who are not pledged to anybody. I am talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

What? Isn't that impossible? A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right?

Wrong.

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened.

But not this time. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides.

"I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody's delegates," a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. "All the rules will be going out the window."

Rules of good behavior, maybe. But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a "myth."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html

Clintons do not believe in the will of the people.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:13 pm
woiyo wrote:

Clintons do not believe in the will of the people.


I'm sorry, if the delegates choose to vote for Clinton, wouldn't that mean that the DELEGATES do not believe in the will of the people?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:41 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
I think your indignation is a bit misplaced.


Misplaced or not, McCain is my man.

I'm beginning to hate Obama's supporters as much as I hate Bush's supporters. And it's not just this thread, the mentality that I dislike so much permeates across all the pro-Obama threads.


What kind of moron would let posters' opinions on political forums (especially tongue in cheek comments) influence their choice of presidential candidates?



You should cite your source, this is almost plagerism.


Plagerism? [sic]



You still haven't explained why my statement is "almost plagerism." [sic] I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe your mangled word meant something other than plagiarism.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:46 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Butrflynet wrote:
I think your indignation is a bit misplaced.


Misplaced or not, McCain is my man.

I'm beginning to hate Obama's supporters as much as I hate Bush's supporters. And it's not just this thread, the mentality that I dislike so much permeates across all the pro-Obama threads.


What kind of moron would let posters' opinions on political forums (especially tongue in cheek comments) influence their choice of presidential candidates?




You should cite your source, this is almost plagerism.


Plagerism? [sic]



You still haven't explained why my statement is "almost plagerism." [sic] I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe your mangled word meant something other than plagiarism.



It was a joke...I think butterflynet posted the exact same sentence a few days/weeks prior to your posting.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:53 pm
You think, huh? And you expected me or anyone else to figure that out?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:54 pm
The Clinton's are some of the most self righteous self absorbed people around. Combine this with their willingness to do anything to get what they want no matter who they hurt in the process and you have a nasty combination.

The Clinton's never gave two hoots about the democratic party.....they will stay in and bring the party down if need be if there any posibilty of grabbing the brass ring. They have zero moral guidelines in their lives, power is the only thing they know or care about, which makes them very dangerous to mess with.

We all should have seen enough in the Clinton first term to know this....some people are a little slow.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:56 pm
That can be said about a lot of people. Do many of us really trust or believe politicians? Are anyone's motives really pure? (speaking of politicians here). No point in dumping on just one couple.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:59 pm
Mame wrote:
That can be said about a lot of people. Do many of us really trust or believe politicians? Are anyone's motives really pure? (speaking of politicians here). No point in dumping on just one couple.


I believe that there are good people in public service, and in politics in particular, but the Clinton's are not such.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:59 pm
hawkeye10 wrote:
The Clinton's are some of the most self righteous self absorbed people around. Combine this with their willingness to do anything to get what they want no matter who they hurt in the process and you have a nasty combination.

I think it is more of the Clintons believing that politics is a hard ball game, therefore they play hardball. They lost their idealistic streak a long time ago.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 05:59 pm
Mame wrote:
That can be said about a lot of people. Do many of us really trust or believe politicians? Are anyone's motives really pure? (speaking of politicians here). No point in dumping on just one couple.


They seem worse then most... Bill's plethora of shady deals don't help

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Feb, 2008 06:02 pm
maporsche wrote:


It was a joke...I think butterflynet posted the exact same sentence a few days/weeks prior to your posting.



This is what I said in response to a previous post of yours when you were complaining about Obama's supporters on A2K and the influence they were having on who you would vote for.


Quote:
You are allowing the way two posters express themselves on an anonymous internet message board to effect your vote for the next president of the United States.


I then went on to partially agree with you. If you equate that with Roxxxanne's insulting question about morons, then I'll have to apologize to you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 01:38:19