No, seriously, why doesn't Larry Craig give up already?

[JonSetanta]

See, this is why I'm voting Obama. He's a simple guy.
All this GOP shit is fucking complex, with all the "Gays are an abomination" lecturing bullshit and then they go end up sucking cock in a public lavoratory.
What's the Mormon candidate going to do next? I'll bet that's no skeleton in his closet, it's a damned SLC graveyard.

I believe that's what most politics are about; vote for whomever pisses you off the least.
All I look for is some reliability in an individual, and policies that benefit me/my loved ones/my possible descendants directly.

I wouldn't care if a candidate was a baby-eating leper-raping Southern Baptist baboon/pig hybrid, if they enacted policies that resurrect the American economy without drawing us into more war, I'll vote for em.

[Iaimeki]

1191552789[/unixtime]]However, a LGBT blogger famous for outing closeted conservatives broke the story and the mainstream media picked it up. A homophobic, married GOPer was soliciting for hot, adulterous gay sex.

Who is that, out of curiosity? This seems like a blog I should be reading, or at least checking out occasionally.

[Lago_AM3P]

This guy right here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ro ... br]Michael Rogers is a gay rights activist in Washington D.C. whose blog came into the limelight after outing Virginia Representative Ed Schrock to punish him for his hypocrisy in voting for the Marriage Protection Act.


His blog isn't all that exciting, BTW.

[erik]

1191751024[/unixtime]]See, this is why I'm voting Obama.

So, you're voting in the Democratic primaries then?

1191751024[/unixtime]]I wouldn't care if a candidate was a baby-eating leper-raping Southern Baptist baboon/pig hybrid... I'll vote for em.

New Slogan:
A vote for Obama is a vote for a baby-eating leper raping Souther Baptist baboon/pig hybrid.
Catchy.

Anywho, in all seriousness, I don't imagine that Obama is going to be on a ticket unless it is P-Clinton/VP-Obama. Not this time anyway. I liked Obama almost as much as Clinton until his stupid hardline stance paraphrased as "If Pres. Musharraf won't go after the terrorists, we will." Now I like him significantly less than Clinton.

I can't honestly see the Republican party mustering a significant opposition to Hillary the way I could see them challenging Barack.

Lastly, I certainly can't trust Obama to handle our shitty economic downslide as I can trust a Clinton.

[Crissa]

Why would you like him less than Clinton at that point, when his position was actually less hawkish than hers?

-Crissa

[erik]

Because I'm a hueueueueueuge Bill Clinton fan and she got residual props from that.

[Lago_AM3P]

Because I'm a hueueueueueuge

You read Bartcop, don't you?

[Username17]

The question isn't one of dovishness or hawkishness, it's simple political education. Obama has come out with dove statements and hawk statements. So has Clinton. But one of Obama's hawk statements was that he would send troops into Northern Pakistan after Osama whether Musharaf objected or not.

And well.. the hell you will! Pakistan is a nuclear power. Real nuclear weapons, real missiles, real crazy. The "president" is fucking joke who just crowned himself for another term in which the opposition parties weren't even allowed to field candidates. It's a travesty. He's a bad man and we should be undermining his administration.

But you don't fucking send troops into such a country against the expressed wishes of the sitting military commander under any circumstances. You don't fucking do that because they have fucking nuclear weapons and are sitting right next to 1.1 billion people that they don't like.

I don't care if Zombie Robot Hitler is running around Islamabad exposing himself to young girls on the BBC - if the guy with the big red button says that your troops are staying home they are fucking staying home!

---

And that's why I support Hillary Clinton over Obama. She knows this shit. She doesn't get up in the morning and dis on strategic allies to the press. She doesn't say that we should seriously work on a policy that has a significant chance of killing half the population of the world in a nuclear holocaust. She's a pro. She knows what the diplomatic buzzwords mean.

And while that means that she won't come in with a radical rethinking of our Israel or Cuba policy (which is a shame), it also means that we can guaranty that she won't spontaneously radically rethink our "not starting world war 3" policy. Which is a price I'm willing to pay because I'm really attached to that policy.

-Username17

[JonSetanta]

1192025446[/unixtime]]Because I'm a hueueueueueuge Bill Clinton fan and she got residual props from that.

Ah, but that's mostly why I'm not voting for Hillary. Not to repeat the GOP, but IMO she's part of a Clinton legacy. While I did vote for Bill, I don't want more of the same.

[tzor]

So good I made it into a sig

[erik]

1192031278[/unixtime]]

Because I'm a hueueueueueuge

You read Bartcop, don't you?

I did from 1997-2001 thereabouts. I quit near 2002 because politics was getting too depressing for me to follow. I wonder what issue number he's on now or does he even count them anymore? (just checked, 2053... holy crap. I don't think I'll ever catch up... prol'ly won't even try)

And... what Frank said. I used to like Obama a lot as being almost as well liked as Hillary by me ain't nothin. When I heard on the radio that he stongly implied we'd get in Pakistan's shit, my jaw actually dropped as I wondered how fvcking nuts he must be and what political advisor had suggested that he raise the crazy bar up several notches. I stopped viewing him as a viable candidate right then and there.

With some tempering and schooling Obama might be groomed into an acceptable candidate, but not friggin yet. I'd actually be reluctant to see him as VP on Hillary's ticket due to his scary inexperience.

[Lago_AM3P]

With some tempering and schooling Obama might be groomed into an acceptable candidate, but not friggin yet. I'd actually be reluctant to see him as VP on Hillary's ticket due to his scary inexperience.

If Obama actually became president then that would probably undo all of the momentum the Democrats have generated from Republican fuckups.

This generation of the GOP is really goddamned nasty. Look what happened to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Obama just does not have the political connections or experience to avoid having his presidency come grinding to a screeching halt, regardless of his other negatives/positives. The same probably goes for John Edwards, too. The few political jabs he has suffered (such as that haircut) he's responded to very weakly. If he was actually president I'd also be worried about the administration being able to get anything done.

Hillary Clinton, at the very least, has shown herself to be aggressive and able to get support for her ideals. IF NOTHING ELSE she's the best one out of the three to whip the soft and wimpy Democratic party into shape. They've been handed pretty everything on a platter politically lately, what with the endless waves of sex scandals, a fracturing alliance of the conservative wings, the Iraqi war fuckup, and Bush's bizarre opposition to S-CHIP.

Aside from huge bonuses like not being dumb in international issues (you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Obama is dumber in this issue than some of the presidents we've had) my biggest concern right now is for someone to block the inevitable neoconservative resurgence.

[Lago_AM3P]

I did from 1997-2001 thereabouts. I quit near 2002 because politics was getting too depressing for me to follow.

After the Iraq war went into full swing I wussed out like a coward and stopped watching news so much. I withdrew altogether after John Kerry's defeat in 2004.

Though after the GOP got their asses massively handed to them in Nov. 2006 I started following politics again. I guess that makes me a fair-weather patriot, but you seriously have to understand that when 2005 rolled around I was so bummed about things in general that I just couldn't look at things.

Now Bush is starting to make noise with Iran now. I'm extremely anxious about this, especially since I have only about a year left. Shit, man, I only joined this service for the cushy job at a power plant.

[Neeek]

1192055154[/unixtime]]

And... what Frank said. I used to like Obama a lot as being almost as well liked as Hillary by me ain't nothin. When I heard on the radio that he stongly implied we'd get in Pakistan's shit,

He didn't say anything of the sort. What he said was that if we got conclusive proof that Osama was in a specific place in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government was unable to go after him, we'd do it ourselves. If you are under the impression that this is somehow a change to our existing policy, or really, our policy for the last hundred years, you really need to get a better look at our history. He also said that he would condition aid to Pakistan on their helping us with this sort of thing.

Beyond that, Pakistan is not a legitimate nuclear threat. The only country who they really want to nuke is India, and they can't nuke India because the fallout would devastate their country. That and China would wipe them off the planet for nuking someone so close to them.

Really, his foreign policy position is extremely in-depth and nuanced. The guy knows what he's doing and almost certainly has a better understand of the Islamic world than any of the other candidates, and any of us as well.

[CalibronXXX]

Any more insights into Obama's policies or character?

[erik]

1192062627[/unixtime]]Beyond that, Pakistan is not a legitimate nuclear threat. The only country who they really want to nuke is India, and they can't nuke India

Stop right there. They have nukes. That makes them a fvcking legitimate nuclear threat.

They can nuke India. All they need is to be crazy fvckers who don't care about consequences. They currently have a dictator in charge. That's just one person who has to be a crazy fvcker... and only for a short while.


Obama throwing tough talk around that we don't respect the sovreignty of a nuclear superpower... that's ominous. Especially when we are already in shit well past our ears in Iraq. We don't have the muscle anymore to act like we can invade every fvcking country that doesn't let us drop bombs on them, or doesn't obey orders based on our esteemed military intelligence

"Hey Pakistan, bomb the fvck out of these towns where we think terrorists are hiding. If you don't, we will. What? We never get shit like this wrong."

I guess that makes me a fair-weather patriot, but you seriously have to understand that when 2005 rolled around I was so bummed about things in general that I just couldn't look at things.

Hey, preaching to the choir here. I don't think I could have enjoyed life much at all if I didn't put my head in the sand during much of Bush's presidency. Koresh, please let it end soon.

[Crissa]

Also, you guys are matching a researched response by other candidates vs an off the cuff remark by Obama.

That's both unfair and silly.

The Dems right now have varying levels of Savvy, Charisma, Experience, and Leftism... Kucinich 9 12 11 18
Clinton 18 15 14 9
Obama 12 18 13 10
Edwards 14 13 18 14

(Dodd, Biden and Gre... Whatever his name is are all between these, though have more experience than all but Edwards, but no 18s.)

-Crissa

[CalibronXXX]

Hilary only ranks a 9 in leftism? Maybe I should start looking at her as a serious prospect(for voting for).

[Crissa]

Clinton is waaay on the Right side of the party. She's just a few steps from Lieberman and has only chosen the left side of the party on the party-line votes about half of the times in the last year.

She (and Dianne Feinstein, the Senator that includes Pelosi's district) generally defect to the right of the party on these votes. They both voted for the Iran resolution and for denouncing Move On's ad recently, as examples.

They are not very liberal, as Democrats go.

-Crissa

[CalibronXXX]

Thanks for the info, I'll be keeping a closer eye on her next year than I otherwise would have.

[tzor]

1192151377[/unixtime]]Hilary only ranks a 9 in leftism?

I think this is a good example of why real people can't be placed in terms of left and right because most scales deserve absolute loyality to all the causes du jour. How does a person's environmental record compare with a person's pro-choice record, and with her diplomatic/war record.

So she voted for the Iran resolution (vile righty she is).
She also voted against partial-birth abortion bans (vile lefty she is).
That's why governors generally have a better chance at the presidency than senators ... praise and honor for the non-participants. Consider that Obama's best defense for the whole question of Iraq was that at the time the vote was taken he wasn't there.

[Neeek]

1192198578[/unixtime]]Consider that Obama's best defense for the whole question of Iraq was that at the time the vote was taken he wasn't there.

No, his best defense is that he gave a speech before the vote that looks prophetic in retrospect. Obama correctly predicted what would happen if we invaded Iraq. Evidently, he has a better grasp of foreign policy than Hillary, Bush, Edwards, etc.

[Crissa]

tzor, remember, 'partial birth abortion bans' bans the practice of having a mother survive a failing late-term pregnancy.

-Crissa

[tzor]

The only problem is that people who make this claim do so in the spirit and style of Senator Mc Carthy. Seriously, the procedure requires a deliberate attempt to induce a breech birth. That in and of itself is a very dangerous procedure to the woman and if we are talking about a condition where the health of the mother is already in serious question the last thing one would want to do is create the potential to make it worse.

No partial birth abortions are simply a legal gimick because up until the point where the head leaves the woman you can kill it, but the moment it does the liberal mindset flips a 180% and now you went from hero to villian.

The answer to most failing pregnancies is "C-Section" but that more often than not results in a live baby. One can argue that there the procedure is being abused because of fear of doctors being sued, but then again they don't have the psudo-constitutional right of "secrecy" where they can hide the necessity or safety of their procedures because it's a "constitutional right."

[Crissa]

Isn't that risk-reward up to the doctor, not us, to determine?

What are we passing a law against, exactly? If a baby could live outside the mother, and it's killed at that point, isn't that already covered under law?

What does your position mean?

-Crissa