BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 01:54 pm
Erratta- My comment about Dizzy Delicious posting on Obama was in error. The posting credit on Obama should have gone to Snood( I should have known)--Snood would defend Mumia if he thought it would be to the advantage of the race carders.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 01:55 pm
Actually Possum, nothing you post has any bearing on Obama's past. Or, for that matter, anything in the universe. I would, however, like to know if you are nude when you post on a2k.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 01:58 pm
Occom Bill wrote:(concerning BernardR)

I did. His arguments, aside from being racist and reasonably right on occasion, have mostly been ad hominem attacks on Nimh. While you and I frequently disagree with Nimh's politics, I've never seen you attack him in such an idiotic way... probably because you, like I, respect Nimh. I am certainly no member of the gang you're describing, and in fact, generally disagree with most of them, most of the time. But wrong is wrong and BernardR's assessments and accusations are comically wrong. Which is of course, why I found it amusing in the first place.

First of all, I want to commend you for reading my posts. You may learn something.

Secondly, your boyfriend, Nimh needs no defense from you. He can take care of himself.

Thirdly, I would love to take you on one on one to show that while you can whine, you can't debate!!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:03 pm
BernardR wrote:


Mr. Walter Hinterler had it right.

What he does not know is that I worked for the opposition to this corruption.


Hmm, the Republicans are actually only represented as B-list cases:

A federal judge sentenced a veteran Republican political consultant to two months' imprisonment, plus probation, community service work and a fine, for his role in a kickback scheme during former Gov. George Ryan's tenure as secretary of state. Alan Drazek had pleaded guilty to tax fraud stemming from his laundering of nearly $400,000 that a friend of Ryan's extorted from vendors vying for state business.

On and on it goes ...
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:06 pm
It is clear that Nimm does not know politics.

He does not know that Senator Fitzgerald did not, I repeat, did not get more than a few votes in the inner city. The African-Americans in the inner city would vote for Mickey Mouse if he was black.

Carol Mosely Braun carried Cook County( where most African-Americans live) HEAVILY while Fitzgerald took 97 counties( out of 101).

Since you know NOTHING about politics in Illinois, Mr. Nimh, you do not know that the people in the suburbs and the counties that Fitzgerald won would not, I repeat, would not, vote for the carpetbagging Republican Senatorial Candidate, Alan Keyes.

The fact that you cannot distinguish between the dynamics in the two races shows that you are a political tyro, at least when it comes to US politics.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:07 pm
BernardR wrote:
He thinks he knows Illinois Politics> I have worked in Illinois Politics.

What kind of work did you do in Illinois politics?

BernardR wrote:
Let's take Nimm's points one at a time..

first of all, it is obvious that Nimm does not even know what a racist is. Nimh's education is obvioulsy lacking.

The dictionary definition of Racism is: <snipped>

Now. if Nimh can find any point that I made which is included in such a definition, he should say so


I'm confused. What part of my posts is this in reply to? I don't remember having said anything about racism here recently.

<searches>

Ah. I didn't, but Bill did, and I quoted him; that must be what you're referring to. To clarify, when I quoted Bill's post and commented, "Right", I was agreeing with his characterisation of your posts as "mostly ad hominem attacks" - as I immediately specified.

Myself, I wouldnt be surprised if you had posted racist arguments, but I dont immediately recall any, and I dont care to delve into it.

BernardR wrote:
It is obvious that Mr. Nimh cannot handle someone who does not agree with him. He now is using the old tactic-_Well, he is not a "good" person, so there is no need to respond to him.

Well, you can accuse me of many things, but not that I don't respond to you. I must have responded to more of your posts than anyone else, lately. (Not that you ever follow-up on anything in your posts that I touch upon.)

BernardR wrote:
Mr. Nimh does not know that I do not expect any decent response from A HungarianSocialist

I am not a Hungarian, as I have explained before, and I am most certainly not a Hungarian Socialist. The Hungarian Socialists are former communist converts to free market politics and thus, IMO, the worst of both worlds.

BernardR wrote:
Is it your postion, Mr. Nimh, that I should not have the freedom to post?

Errrmm... no. Not in the least. What in my posts told you that it was?

I'm quite enjoying bantering with you, in fact. It's relaxing, in a weird kind of way, and having been barred at home by the doctor for the moment while its too hot to really do anything proactive, I had some time to do so today.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:13 pm
Mr. Nimh wrote:

In the latter case, of course, it is quite remarkable that now, almost three-quarter years after his election, Illinois constituents are more enthusiastic about Obama than any other state's constituents are about either of their Senators. In the latter case, it means that lots of voters who voted Bush for President and voted Fitzgerald against Mosely-Brown, like they would have intended to vote for him against Obama, are now nevertheless pleased with the job Obama is doing. In that case, I think Obama is indeed doing a very good job - which was the one sentence of mine which triggered all your fierce disagreement.

Do you know how to read, Mr. Nimh?

First of all, you know that I destroyed the credibility of your post of Survey USA which interviewed all of 600( six hundred voters). I showed that you did not, I repeat, did not( a most dishonest act) post the disclaimer that SurveyUSA listed which indicated that it is possible that the poll was skewed since many would not respond to it.

I made this point previously, but since you, like many on the left, do not respond to points which weaken your case, you said nothing!!

Again, there are few people who respond in a 600 person survey who would dare( over the phone) to indicate that they are displeased with Barrack Obama. I attempted to explain to you that many Americans, especially younger ones, have been so brainwashed as to their PERSONAL complicity in Slavery and its effects that they would never dare to even utter one negative word.

I am sure that you don't understand that since you live in a quasi-Communist state, but it is true nonetheless.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:19 pm
I am sorry to hear about your confinement by the Doctor, Mr.Nimh. Just a friendly word of advice--I would not trust the European Physicans in any matter that may become serious( such as a brain tumor). If you have the funds( I doubt it) go immediately to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. They can cure you there.

I am sorry for labelling you a Hungarian. I will not do so in the future.

Are you German? You seem to exude traces of totalitarianism/

Or, you may be Danish..If so, is your malady genital?

Or, you may be Dutch. In which case, there is no hope!!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:21 pm
BernardR wrote:
Again, there are few people who respond in a 600 person survey who would dare( over the phone) to indicate that they are displeased with Barrack Obama. I attempted to explain to you that many Americans, especially younger ones, have been so brainwashed as to their PERSONAL complicity in Slavery and its effects that they would never dare to even utter one negative word.


In his response (see above)

nimh wrote:
I must have responded to more of your posts than anyone else, lately. (Not that you ever follow-up on anything in your posts that I touch upon.)


On the thread, where he posted that survey and said similar to above,
nimh wrote:

600 adult residents of each of the country's 50 states - a total of 30,000 respondents.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:22 pm
Mr. Walter Hinteler- I would not dare to tell you about the corruption in the German Federal Republic. I have not done any research, but you don't know more than one half of one percent about the corruption in Chicago.

After I get my specifics together, I will give them to you, but I will begin by telling you that in the last fifty years, over 80% of the people who have gone to jail in Chicago because of political corruption have been Democrats!!

Try to rebut that, Mr. Walter Hinteler!!!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:23 pm
BernardR wrote:
I am sorry to hear about your confinement by the Doctor, Mr.Nimh. Just a friendly word of advice--I would not trust the European Physicans in any matter that may become serious( such as a brain tumor). If you have the funds( I doubt it) go immediately to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. They can cure you there.

I am sorry for labelling you a Hungarian. I will not do so in the future.

Are you German? You seem to exude traces of totalitarianism/

Or, you may be Danish..If so, is your malady genital?

Or, you may be Dutch. In which case, there is no hope!!

So Mr Possum, I can only assume you are posting in the nude, do you find sexual gratification in doing so?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:25 pm
dyslexia wrote:

Or, you may be Dutch. In which case, there is no hope!!

So Mr Possum, I can only assume you are posting in the nude, do you find sexual gratification in doing so?[/quote]

It may be part of the therapy, I think.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:26 pm
BernardR wrote:
It is clear that Nimm does not know politics.

He does not know that Senator Fitzgerald did not, I repeat, did not get more than a few votes in the inner city. The African-Americans in the inner city would vote for Mickey Mouse if he was black.

Carol Mosely Braun carried Cook County( where most African-Americans live) HEAVILY while Fitzgerald took 97 counties( out of 101).

Right. The Republican Fitzgerald carried, as you point out, 97 out of 101 Illinois counties.

Illinois is therefore hardly "a Democratic state" with Democrat constituents - as you insisted it was, earlier.

Now here is Obama, the successor of Fitzgerald. And 72% of his constituents - the same people who, by 97 against 4 counties, had voted for Fitzgerald over Mosely-Brown - are approving of the job he's doing.

That shows impressive cross-over appeal.

BernardR wrote:
First of all, you know that I destroyed the credibility of your post of Survey USA which interviewed all of 600( six hundred voters). I showed that you did not, I repeat, did not( a most dishonest act) post the disclaimer that SurveyUSA listed which indicated that it is possible that the poll was skewed since many would not respond to it.

I made this point previously, but since you, like many on the left, do not respond to points which weaken your case, you said nothing!!

I have, actually, responded to your alleged point. Here -right in the thread where you made it.

BernardR wrote:
Again, there are few people who respond in a 600 person survey who would dare( over the phone) to indicate that they are displeased with Barrack Obama. I attempted to explain to you that many Americans, especially younger ones, have been so brainwashed as to their PERSONAL complicity in Slavery and its effects that they would never dare to even utter one negative word.

I have also responded to that argument - here.

Again, two words - Condoleezza Rice. Doesnt get anywhere near the approval rates of Obama. Neither did Mosely-Brown, for that matter. Apparently it's not true that "many Americans" are too scared to "dare to utter one negative word" about an African-American in office. They just, apparently - in Illinois - like Obama.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:40 pm
Meanwhile

The New Republic decided to hold a straw poll of opinions among its subscribers:

THE TNR STRAW POLL: Should Obama run?

There's 274 replies already. As of post 185, the score was: Yes - 66 votes; No - 45 votes.

Main argument against him: too inexperienced. Runners-up: too little known about what policies he would actually propose, and: these elections will again turn on national security, and Obama has little to bring when it comes to foreign policy, and shows little interest in it.

Main arguments for him: refreshing voice from outside the Beltway (which is why he should run now rather than later); charisma and ability to 'connect' with people; cross-over appeal beyond the liberal/Democratic folk, and willingness to look beyond standard Democratic answers (eg on religion); honest, straightforward and commonsensical; people trust him.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:40 pm
Dizzy Delicious wrote:

Have I a beef? If I were Black and poor and a resident of Chicago's South Side (>90% black population )and I'd wonder why Obama lives in a deluxe home in Hyde Park and why he hires no Blacks to work in his home? Isn't the Nanny a Hispanic? Has he boycotted Jackson's RainBow group?
*************************************************************
Now, I ask Mr. Nimh, the Expert concerning Illinois politics(In reality, he knows only what he reads about Illinois in left wing journals) whether Dizzy Delicious is a RACIST. I hope that Mr. Nimh knows the definition of racism. Anyone who reads Mr, Delicious' post knows that he is stating fact.

Obama lives in a upper crust enclave.

Obama hires no blacks to work and has a Hispanic Nanny.

And, the height of hypoocrisy--Obama has boycotted Jackson's Rainbow group. Obama is more interested in his election than he is interested in helping the man who is the LEADER of the African-Americans in Chicago and has been the LEADER for years.


I will reiterate. I am praying that the Democrats make the horrible mistake of putting Obama up as V-P. It would be then I would be able to show Mr. Numm that Obama is popular only in 600 person surveys which are. at best, questionable.

What you do not know, Mr.Nimh, is although Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review( a most enviable and distinguished position), it is likely that he was elected to that spot by guilt ridden Whites who wanted to show how LIBERAL and UNBIASED they were.

What you don't know, I am sure, since you know NOTHING about American politics and certainly very little about Obama is that Obama was a "wimp" when he was President of the Law Review at Harvard.

In a book I am sure you have not read, Mr. Nimh, (Poisoned Ivy, St. Martin's press- New York 1994- written by Eleanor Kerlow--a self acknowleged liberal) subtitled "How egos,Ideology, and Power Politics almost ruined Harvard Law School" Kerlow wrote:

"Barack Obama had been the first African-American president to serve as the Review's president in 103 years, Obama was friendly and outgoing BUT THE CLASS SUCCEEDING HIM WANTED A TOUGHER EDITOR TO LEAD THEM"

Obama was a "wimp"
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:47 pm
You have proven again, Mr. Nimh..that when it comes to American Politics, you are obviously brain dead.

Please don't tell me that you do not know that the New Republic is a far left wing magazine. Everyone knows that in the USA. I am astonished that as many as 45 votes said NO. Those are the smart Democrats who know that Obama in the race for VP would cause the Democrats to implode.

The New Republic--Please don't make me laugh. That's akin to Pravda having taken a poll in Moscow as to who backed the Stalin regime!!!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:51 pm
Bernie, Where can one find a poll done by conservatives that shows they support Obama, because he'll take away votes from other democrats, or too many see him as "too liberal" like Jesse Jackson, et al?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:52 pm
Speaking of brain dead ....

This thread starts with this post:

sozobe wrote:
Didn't want to derail nimh's thread about Republicans. This can become the equivalent about Democrats
...
...
...


What do you think?
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 02:55 pm
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 28 Jul, 2006 03:06 pm
Also interesting - boy, isnt it like this topic has suddenly exploded in the Big World Outside too? - these two articles on the Washington Post's blog:

Quote:
2008: The Case Against Barack Obama

It's Too Soon, Senator

[..] the most compelling reason for Obama not to run for president is that by jumping too soon he could ruin one of the most promising Democratic political careers in recent memory.

If Obama decides to run in 2008 and doesn't wind up as either the presidential or vice presidential nominee, he would run the risk of being perceived as yesterday's news by voters should he try to run for national office again down the line. [..]

There is also a sense in Democratic circles that Obama is simply not ready to assume the role of spokesman for his party. They argue that Obama's considerable rhetorical skills belie a somewhat wet-behind-the-ears politician who is still trying to deal with his rapid rise to political fame. [..]

GOP operatives are only too happy to remind journalists that Obama has never had to run a general election campaign against a serious GOP candidate. [..] Republicans whisper that a wealth of negative information exists about Obama that has never received any real airing in the national media, though the mere fact that this kind of talk is being spread around may say more about GOP fears of an Obama candidacy than anything the Illinois senator may or may not have done.

Still, it remains to be seen how Obama would react to an opposition research document dump against him. He has generally been wary of confrontation with Republicans since coming to the Senate. [..]

The final reason Obama should stay out of the 2008 race can be boiled down to just three words -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. The New York senator is an overwhelming favorite for the nomination in 2008, thanks to a massive fundraising and organizational machine just waiting to be turned on.

If Obama chooses to run, he would need to get around Clinton in the primaries -- a formidable challenge given the preparations she and her campaign team have already made. Putting aside Clinton, there are several other well-known politicians -- Edwards and John Kerry jump to mind -- who have considerable financial and organizational resources that would complicate Obama's effort.

Why not wait four or eight years until he can be the "Hillary" of the presidential field, the odds-on nominee, rather than just one of a handful of candidates given a chance at winning the nomination?

Time is on Obama's side. Another four or eight years will allow him to polish his political skills and build the kind of network that would make him nearly unbeatable in a future primary fight. Should he jump in 2008, he runs the risk of being a has-been by 2012. If he waits, he can work on establishing political juggernaut status.


Quote:
2008: The Case for Barack Obama

Run Barack, Run!

In politics, timing is everything. If you pass on an opportunity, it might not come around again. Just ask former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo.

In the run-up to the 1992 election, Cuomo was widely seen as the frontunner for the Democratic nomination [..]. After two months of publicly hemming and hawing, Cuomo announced in December 1991 that he would not run [..].

The rest, as they say, is history. [..] By the time the office was open again in 2000, Cuomo had been out of the governor's mansion for six years [..].

Cuomo's cautionary tales hangs heavy over many Obama supporters. There's little question that Obama is the hottest political Democratic commodity in the country right now, drawing support from across the geographic and ideological spectrum. When 2,000 people show up to a state party dinner just for the chance to see Obama in person, it's clear there is an excitement level about him that no other Democratic politician (not even Hillary Rodham Clinton) can match.

[In the introduction, the article notes that "Democrats across the country want a piece of Obama -- his office says he gets 300 requests for appearance a week."]

Don't underestimate the excitement factor when it comes to presidential politics. Much of 2007 will be spent in the campaign trenches -- door-knocking, sending out mail pieces, urging small dollar donations, the kind of work that is far from glorious and can only be done well if there is a committed group of volunteers willing to do it.

For those who say Obama needs more seasoning before making a national bid, take a look at history. No senator has been directly elected president since John F. Kennedy in 1960, although scads have made the attempt. National polling shows the American public has soured considerably on Washington, and many Democratic insiders are coming to believe that the longer someone stays in Washington the less chance he or she has of being elected president.

[..] When George W. Bush made clear he would run for president in 2000, he had only six years of elected office under his belt -- and that in a state where the governor has strict limits on his power. [P]residential elections are not always decided by the candidate with the longest [..] political resume. A great candidate on paper doesn't always equal a great candidate in practice.

[..] As we have noted in this space before, the first hurdle that any serious presidential candidate must clear is a financial one. Given the likely frontloading of the nomination process (four states voting in a 15-day period in January 2008), only those candidates able to fund full campaign operations and expensive television advertising buys in multiple states will be competitive.

[..] At the moment, the candidates who appear to have the capacity to raise that kind of money are Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards (maybe), ex-Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. (Former Vice President Al Gore would also qualify for that list if he decided to run.)

Obama would immediately join that group. He raised and spent $14 million in the general election against Keyes in 2004. And [..] his Hopefund leadership PAC [has,] since its founding last year, [..] raised nearly $4 million -- putting it in the upper echelons of all leadership PACs currently operating.

The level of interest in Obama among the donor community and his fundraising base in Chicago (one of the Democratic fundraising hotspots) should erase any doubt that he could compete or eclipse every candidate but Clinton in the fundraising chase.

The other major factor recommending an Obama run in 2008 is his positioning on the Iraq war. Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 when the chamber passed the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. But Obama has said that he opposed the war all along, and he has been a frequent critic of the Bush administration's handling of the conflict.

This stance puts Obama in rarefied air, since Clinton, Edwards, Kerry and Bayh all voted for the resolution [..]. The only candidate likely to run (again, we are leaving Gore out of this debate) who has a so-called "clean" record on the war is Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who has not shown the capacity to raise the tens of millions he would need to be competitive.

Take all of that together and what's it spell? O-B-A-M-A 2008!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 54
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.23 seconds on 07/13/2025 at 05:44:20