0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 04:31 am
blatham wrote:


Did anyone really watch this debate? Hillary didn't actually do what Edwards claimed, that is, express two opposing opinions on one thing.


Yes she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEh2XWSheg
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 04:33 am
Damn, woiyo. You gonna cop to bein busted, or you gonna try to bluster a way out of it?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 05:53 am
snood wrote:
Damn, woiyo. You gonna cop to bein busted, or you gonna try to bluster a way out of it?


Please translate into English.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 08:57 am
Quote:
BTW, Blatham - you appear to follow both Limbaugh and O'Reilly far more closely than I. Why?

george

These two people account for perhaps two percent of the conservative movement voices that I attend to. And I attend so as to understand what is going on in contemporary American politics. The mythologies and the cliches and the boilerplate assumptions obscure and distort. A broad survey is the only way to get perspective on the actual reality of things, so well as we might approach that.

More deeply, I treasure the 'american experiment' far more profoundly than most here understand and I believe I have good reason to suppose that this experiment in liberty, always tenuous, humans being as they are, may very well come acropper as a consequence of this modern conservative movement.

I fear you won't ever get around to Krugman's latest book. I wish that you'd take the tip from your friends thomas, dyslexia and myself, America-lovers all. At the very least, and after backing some old ideas into a corner and instructing them to shut the phuck up, do read this piece by tomasky from the NYRB...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20813
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:05 am
mysteryman wrote:
blatham,
FYI, you said...

Quote:
Limbaugh yesterday described Obama and Edwards as having delivered "blistering attacks" on Hillary at the debate.


No, he didnt.
He was reporting on what several newspapers and commentators said.
He was quoting others.


Yes, that is so. Did you gain some impression that he disagreed with those descriptions? And did you like how he drew that word (and the other synonyms) out, voice dropping down into cavernous pitch... blisssssteringggg...?

Had no idea you were a listener.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:09 am
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:


Did anyone really watch this debate? Hillary didn't actually do what Edwards claimed, that is, express two opposing opinions on one thing.


Yes she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEh2XWSheg

I saw the debate. Feel free to paste in a transcript of the relevant part and make your case.

And, if you care to educate yourself further, Spitzer was questioned by Matthews on hardball yesterday. I'm sure you can find that interview.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:15 am
woiyo wrote:
snood wrote:
Damn, woiyo. You gonna cop to bein busted, or you gonna try to bluster a way out of it?


Please translate into English.


I think what snood is saying, if we were to express it in the sort of dialect preferred by guys in pickup trucks, is that bethie caught you up in a needless lie and he's wondering whether you will have the personal wherewithall to just admit it so that the rest of us (none of whom haven't fibbed or phucked up themselves) can consider that future conversation with you has some value.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 09:51 am
blatham wrote:
woiyo wrote:
snood wrote:
Damn, woiyo. You gonna cop to bein busted, or you gonna try to bluster a way out of it?


Please translate into English.


I think what snood is saying, if we were to express it in the sort of dialect preferred by guys in pickup trucks, is that bethie caught you up in a needless lie and he's wondering whether you will have the personal wherewithall to just admit it so that the rest of us (none of whom haven't fibbed or phucked up themselves) can consider that future conversation with you has some value.


What the "EFF" are you talking about? I think your pants are too tight and effecting the blood flow to your pea brain, you arrogant asshole.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 11:39 am
blatham wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:


Did anyone really watch this debate? Hillary didn't actually do what Edwards claimed, that is, express two opposing opinions on one thing.


Yes she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEh2XWSheg

I saw the debate. Feel free to paste in a transcript of the relevant part and make your case.

And, if you care to educate yourself further, Spitzer was questioned by Matthews on hardball yesterday. I'm sure you can find that interview.


The relevant part is right in front of you on youtube.

Russert asks her a "yes" or "no" question...if she supports Spritzer's position on giving illegals drivers licenses and she blathers on about how we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform(whatever that means).

She tries to take both sides of the issue to try an appeal to the most voters and comes off looking like an ass when the other candidates call her on it.

She won't give Spritzer her full support and say "yes, we should give illegals licenses to drive", but she won't say "no, this is a bad idea" either. She is talking out of both sides of her mouth. To me, all she is showing is she is indecisive and can't be trusted.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 02:46 pm
woiyo wrote:
snood wrote:
Damn, woiyo. You gonna cop to bein busted, or you gonna try to bluster a way out of it?


Please translate into English.


Your post analyzing the debate was lifted from Drudge. You did not write it.

Putz.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 05:24 pm
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:
Did anyone really watch this debate? Hillary didn't actually do what Edwards claimed, that is, express two opposing opinions on one thing.

Yes she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEh2XWSheg

I saw the debate. Feel free to paste in a transcript of the relevant part and make your case.

Russert asks her a "yes" or "no" question...if she supports Spritzer's position on giving illegals drivers licenses [..].

She won't give Spritzer her full support and say "yes, we should give illegals licenses to drive", but she won't say "no, this is a bad idea" either.

Hm. Refusing to say either yes or no, craven though it might be Not Equal "expressing two opposing opinions on one thing".
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 06:00 pm
Interesting.

When the national SEIU union declined to endorse a president candidate country-wide and returned the decision whom to endorse to state unions, it was widely perceived to be a heavy blow for Edwards, who had worked hard to court the SEIU.

But now that in state after state, local union members have become engaged in the discussion whom to endorse in a way they would never have been if the endorsement had been prescribed from above, and in state after state opt for Edwards, he may in fact be much better off. After all, the union members are now individually invested in the candidate in a way they were never in Gephardt in '04.

Thats what Marc Ambinder argues at the Atlantic. One hitch: in Iowa, at least, the AFSCME, which supports Hillary, is much more influential than the SEIU.

Quote:
In 2008, What Does Labor Support Mean?

In 2004, Dick Gephardt brought 23 unions to the Iowa caucuses; all told, he had the paper support of more than 96,000 members in that state alone.

He finished fourth and dropped out.

So is it even worth writing about the potential boon of labor support in 2008?

Most of Gephardt's union endorsements were presented to the rank and file from their executive boards. Few of the unions back then had a true grassroots process to determine who the endorsee would be.

Grassroots legitimacy was never developed, and union members in Iowa wound up voting for their favorite candidates... just not the candidate who happened to be the favorite of union leaders in Washington.

This year, the candidates are fighting union-by-union, even local-by-local in some cases for endorsements.

When John Edwards failed to secure enough support on the SEIU's board for an international endorsement, the union threw the process back to its state councils. And that forced Edwards to work the process -- to do direct member to member engagement, to earn it on the ground. It also allowed Barack Obama to play a spoiler's role.

The SEIU's decision made every state council endorsement process as complicated and detail focused as an international union endorsement and maybe even more valuable.

In New Hampshire, Edwards won the member straw poll, the political education committee vote and, finally, after some tense weeks, the executive board. But the combat was so fierce and the members so split that the controversy over his endorsement may, in that state, reduce its effect.

Or it could strengthen it. Indeed, in 12 states Edwards has fought for the SEIU endorsement against Obama, primarily, and against the word of Bill Clinton, who tends to telephone members of state SEIU boards to lobby on behalf of his wife.

Since Edwards's partisans in these union affiliates have fought to win the endorsement, they're more heavily invested in the outcome of Edwards's campaign. They might be prompted to work harder and longer on his behalf. [..]

It's true that SEIU members are limited to member-to-member contact -- phone banking, door knocking, letter-writing, and the ROI may be along the high end of marginal.

The 90,000 SEIU members in Massachusetts, for example, can cross the border and lobby their NH brothers and sisters. Importantly -- again -- the Massachusetts SEIU chose to endorse Edwards on their own.

Iowa's AFSCME 61 is one of the biggest locals in Iowa and its support will certainly help Hillary Clinton in vote-dense parts of the state. (She needs more help in rural parts of the state -- parts owned, at the moment, by Edwards, who has visited all 99 Iowa counties..twice).
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 06:11 pm
Category "Damn..!"

Quote:
"Beefing Up: [Patrick Healy, The New York Times]: "Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to spend roughly half of November campaigning in Iowa, according to her advisers [..]"
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:38 pm
blatham wrote:
Quote:
BTW, Blatham - you appear to follow both Limbaugh and O'Reilly far more closely than I. Why?

george

These two people account for perhaps two percent of the conservative movement voices that I attend to. And I attend so as to understand what is going on in contemporary American politics. The mythologies and the cliches and the boilerplate assumptions obscure and distort. A broad survey is the only way to get perspective on the actual reality of things, so well as we might approach that.

More deeply, I treasure the 'american experiment' far more profoundly than most here understand and I believe I have good reason to suppose that this experiment in liberty, always tenuous, humans being as they are, may very well come acropper as a consequence of this modern conservative movement.

I fear you won't ever get around to Krugman's latest book. I wish that you'd take the tip from your friends thomas, dyslexia and myself, America-lovers all. At the very least, and after backing some old ideas into a corner and instructing them to shut the phuck up, do read this piece by tomasky from the NYRB...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20813


Well I did read the Tomasky piece you linked. Interesting. He starts out describing what he calls the excessively combatative and partisan character of the Conservative movement, implicitly contrasting that with the supposed non sectarian, serene objectivity of "progressives". He then goes on to say what a neat guy and accomplished economist Krugman is and to - at great length - rationalize his transformation into a rabid, sectarian, combatative left-wing progressive, bent on demolishing the evil forces of the Republican Right.

I was particularly amused with the irony and self-righteous hypocrisy that pervaded the article, though I doubt that the author - in his self righteous pomposity - was at all aware of it.

Frankly I don't spend much time reading contemporary political commentary - of either side in these struggles. The histories of these movements are clear enough, as are the various issues on which they are contending today. I don't believe that wading through the opinions of self-appointed spokesmen of either side will improve either my understanding of the issues or of the motives of the contending parties.

I have enough boyhood memories of the ethnic, organized labor, and progressive/socialist intellectual stew that made up Democrat politics and electioneering, as well as the activities of the counter 'anti New Deal' forces that opposed them, to realize that very little of lasting import has changed - only the formats are different. It also reminds me that the "American Experiment" has always involved hard political combat between opposing forces, and that contemporary sages - on both sides - have always predicted doom and the unraveling of the social contract at the hands of their dark, dark foes.

Instead my reading focuses on things I must do - an utterly boring tract on the valuation of companies by various accounting methods; details of the rapidly advancing process of licensing of seven new nuclear powerplants in the U.S.; and on other stuff that I really like - just finished two interesting volumes of History you may well find interesting - "The Middle Sea" by John Norwich (a history of the Mediterranean); and "Rites of Peace" by Adam Zamoyski (Napoleon's fall and the Congress of Vienna). Not only were they enjoyable for the historical color and the many slants on the human character they provide - they also refresh my appreciation for just how nasty are those vile Europeans whom I am reputed to so loathe. (Though I do admire Metternich). Also there was "Faust in Copenhagen", a wonderful character study of the early 20th century physicists who created quantum theory (Bohr, Dirac, Heisenburg, Pauli, Gamov, and the rest), written by an American physicist, Gino Segre. Fascinating.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Nov, 2007 10:51 pm
nimh wrote:
But now that in state after state, local union members have become engaged in the discussion whom to endorse in a way they would never have been if the endorsement had been prescribed from above, and in state after state opt for Edwards, he may in fact be much better off. After all, the union members are now individually invested in the candidate in a way they were never in Gephardt in '04.



Nimh,

The American labor movement is nearly dead. Private sector membership is low and declining fast. In general industries and companies infected with organized labor are in decline and being outclassed by their competitors. Only membership of government workers and teachers unions is growing.

Unions make their endorsements and remain an exceptionally large source of the funding for Democrats, however their political power is very limited - a shadow of what it once was.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 02:55 am
blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blatham,
FYI, you said...

Quote:
Limbaugh yesterday described Obama and Edwards as having delivered "blistering attacks" on Hillary at the debate.


No, he didnt.
He was reporting on what several newspapers and commentators said.
He was quoting others.


Yes, that is so. Did you gain some impression that he disagreed with those descriptions? And did you like how he drew that word (and the other synonyms) out, voice dropping down into cavernous pitch... blisssssteringggg...?

Had no idea you were a listener.


I'm not a regular listener.
But depending on where I am,its just about the only thing I can get on the radio in my truck
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 05:38 am
georgeob1 wrote:
The American labor movement is nearly dead. Private sector membership is low and declining fast.

Partly because companies use every means possible to prevent unionisation, in ways that would never fly in Europe, and the Bush administration especially has made a mockery of the federal agency meant to oversee the process, turning it into yes-men for the industry side.

Union decline far predates the Bush era of course, but the way the Bush admin has actually actively undermined and hollowed out the federal agency intended to settle labor disputes, the same way they've actively discouraged the environmental regulations & oversight agency from policing industry violations and the tax agencies from seeking out and punishing corporate tax evaders, has been particularly scandalous.

But gratifyingly, the labour movement has actually revived somewhat in those same Bush years, becoming more active again and mobilising their members in ways unseen for a decade and a half. A union like the SEIU is growing and has about two million members - not bad for a union of just one labour market sector, considering the long previous decline of unionism.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 12:32 pm
nimh wrote:

Union decline far predates the Bush era of course, but the way the Bush admin has actually actively undermined and hollowed out the federal agency intended to settle labor disputes, the same way they've actively discouraged the environmental regulations & oversight agency from policing industry violations and the tax agencies from seeking out and punishing corporate tax evaders, has been particularly scandalous.
.


I think you have got your facts wrong here. Industrial unions are collapsing fast by virtue of their failure to organize support among the workers of new and growing industries, and on their generally bad influence on the economic health of those which they do infect. As a result there are very few disputes involving organized labor which the Federal Department of Labor or ther NLRB can influence or ajudicate. These agencies and the Federal government have no legal standing for the resolution of labor disputes involving states, municipal government or its own bureaucratic agencies - and these are the only areas in which union membership is growing.

I run a company that makes a good deal of money designing and constructing the environmental remedies mandated by the EPA on businesses large and small. I can tell you that there has been no detectable lack of enforcement or dilution of standards - except in a few cases where the requirements were demonstrated to be far more environmentally harmful than the problem they are intended to correct.

I don't have any particular knowledge of the arcane details of tax collection and enforcement, however I can tell you that I have seen no lack of energy and action on their part - this on the heels of a detailed and exhausted IRS audit of the company.

I think you are merely reciting a few prefabricated prejudices - blowing smoke.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 01:19 pm
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:
CerealKiller wrote:
blatham wrote:


Did anyone really watch this debate? Hillary didn't actually do what Edwards claimed, that is, express two opposing opinions on one thing.


Yes she did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDEh2XWSheg

I saw the debate. Feel free to paste in a transcript of the relevant part and make your case.

And, if you care to educate yourself further, Spitzer was questioned by Matthews on hardball yesterday. I'm sure you can find that interview.


The relevant part is right in front of you on youtube.

Russert asks her a "yes" or "no" question...if she supports Spritzer's position on giving illegals drivers licenses and she blathers on about how we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform(whatever that means).

She tries to take both sides of the issue to try an appeal to the most voters and comes off looking like an ass when the other candidates call her on it.

She won't give Spritzer her full support and say "yes, we should give illegals licenses to drive", but she won't say "no, this is a bad idea" either. She is talking out of both sides of her mouth. To me, all she is showing is she is indecisive and can't be trusted.

As is pointed out to you above by nimh, you claimed she had contradicted herself and what you describe here isn't contradiction. There is a refusal to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. But now I'll give you a a study assignment. It will constitute 100% of your final grade. Dig up from youtube either a Perino briefing or the last Bush Q and A with reporters and count the number of refusals to give a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Hand it in by the end of Monday.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2007 01:34 pm
woiyo wrote:
blatham wrote:
woiyo wrote:
snood wrote:
Damn, woiyo. You gonna cop to bein busted, or you gonna try to bluster a way out of it?


Please translate into English.


I think what snood is saying, if we were to express it in the sort of dialect preferred by guys in pickup trucks, is that bethie caught you up in a needless lie and he's wondering whether you will have the personal wherewithall to just admit it so that the rest of us (none of whom haven't fibbed or phucked up themselves) can consider that future conversation with you has some value.


What the "EFF" are you talking about? I think your pants are too tight and effecting the blood flow to your pea brain, you arrogant ****.


Pssst... you ain't lookin' a winner here, putz
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/05/2022 at 01:15:00