Sunday's editorial discussing their chosen ones for both is online.
Barack Obama for the Democrats. No surprise.
John McCain for the Republicans. No surprise.
Key reasons for the McCain endorsement: "very sensible positions on immigration, fiscal policy, global warming and tax cuts." Disturbingly, no surprise.
Notes on McCain's temperament: he "is willing to admit mistakes, forgive and find common ground with adversaries." Does that include his fellow Republicans or just the Democrats with whom the P-I likes him to agree?
UPDATE: The Times weighs in with its predicted backing of McCain too and at least deserves credit for being more thoughtful and in-depth than the P-I. The Times emphasizes McCain's valorous life story and resume which is a fair point, even if one disagrees with McCain.
Of course, however, there is the ritualistic MSM praise for the issues on which McCain has thrust his finger into the eye of the GOP with vigor. That and the editorial board playing electoral muse about what's best for the GOP just doesn't sit well with me given my deep concern about McCain's actual electoral prospects...it being tough to win a close election and all when a not insignificant number of Republicans don't want to actually show up to vote for the Republican.
UPDATE II: update itself edited for clarity.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 02, 2008 04:36 PM | Email ThisMaybe there is. If so it suggests that some people should not vote because theirs is not an informed vote (in my opinion, obviously).
The argument that it is our obligation to vote is a bad argument. That it is our obligation to cast and informed vote is a better argument.
The question is whether the PI helps inform or simply propagandizes. An informed voter would have an opinion on that question too.
Posted by: Dick on February 2, 2008 05:01 PMMaybe there is. If so it suggests that some people should not vote because theirs is not an informed vote (in my opinion, obviously).
The argument that it is our obligation to vote is a bad argument. That it is our obligation to cast and informed vote is a better argument.
The question is whether the PI helps inform or simply propagandizes. An informed voter would have an opinion on that question too.
Posted by Dick at February 2, 2008 05:01 PM
Ditto that for all those listeners of Rush Limbaugh.
Maybe Ann Coulter is on to something. Lets just all vote for Hillary and get it over with.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 2, 2008 07:17 PMDude, you giving up? I thought you like to fight to the bitter end? If you are wimping out on me, I'll just have to fight with Duffman. I can assure you if Billary lands its butt at the Big House, you will be barfing every day.
Posted by: WVH on February 2, 2008 08:00 PMI guess I have to fight with you. You said:
"This is not going to fare well with Mrs Clinton - she'll remember our mayor and newspaper when she's elected POTUS."
Does this mean that we will find the lot of them face down in a Park and all the life will be gone from their bodies? I suppose no one would know anything, will not have seen anything and we can all say move along, nothing there?
Posted by: WVH on February 2, 2008 08:05 PMEverybody repeat after me: BACK TO THE FUTURE!
Beyond that, when the P.I. endorses a Republican for being "sensible" on positions, it only means he has given in to the radical left agenda. A "sensible" position for the P.I. is complete lunacy for any thoughtful conservative or independent.
McCain is one tough S.O.B. and I respect that but I really have serious misgivings about his positions on the very things that the P.I. deems "sensible". Another point on McCain. I think that if he gets the GOP nomination, within days the media will start beating him over the head with the Keating 5 thing and you can bet that his every mention in the news will be followed with a "part of the Keating 5 scandal".
If only the Pee Eye was so honest. But they aren't and we all know that. Right?
Since HillBill has as much chance of getting elected president as you do, I'm sure that they're quaking in the face of your bizarre little taunt.
Posted by: Hinton on February 2, 2008 09:38 PMWhy?
Because if you watch the polls, he is ahead of both Hillary and Obama continuously.
Bottom Line
I won't vote for that B or any democrap because of their neverending massive government spending plans continually ripping off the public.
I'll support McCain!
I will never vote for John McCain and I am not alone on this. If the GOP wants to commit suicide, they can do it without me.
Posted by: AP on February 3, 2008 12:22 AMDisturbingly? I disagree with McCain on all of these issues, but there I do not find his positions disturbing. I just think they aren't the best ones. Why do you, and others on this site, need to be so dogmatic about your politics? Hillary Clinton thinks that the best way to do health care is through the government, therefore she is a socialist, big-government tyrant. Couldn't you just say you disagree with her?
Another example:
"Maybe there is. If so it suggests that some people should not vote because theirs is not an informed vote (in my opinion, obviously)."
Let me get this straight... Their's is not an informed vote because you think that they are wrong? I hope you see the lunacy in that.
The reason the PI endorsed these McCain and Obama is not because they think they are right all the time, it is because they believe that these two are reasonable, mature human beings, willing to work towards solutions, even if it means giving up some ground on their own positions. Yall should pause and consider for a second that maybe you aren't right 100% of the time, and that maybe those darn liberals have at least one or two bright ideas up their sleeves. America would be a stronger nation if you did.
Posted by: Noble on February 3, 2008 02:16 AMSuch as? Hopefully they will spare us some of their past bright ideas like the "War on Poverty". That turned out so well.
If libs are so smart perhaps one of you can explain why they continually let dangerous killers out of prison so they can prey on innocent citizens. We've had 4 deaths locally since December...or didn't you people notice?
Socialized medical care, the cost of which will make medicare seem a pauper's pension
Huge increase in taxes on gasoline and diesel
Public employee unions gaining increased political power
Huge tax and fee increases for all who work for a living
Closure of Gitmo and application of U.S. citizen's rights to unlawful, non-uniformed foreign combatants (read "terrorists")
Sodomite marriage and hate crime laws for anyone (including pastors and priests) who dare speak out against the evil of homosexuality
Federally funded abortion on demand
Drastic cuts in military spending and prepardness (look to the 90's and late 70's for examples)
Open borders with abundant and costly social programs for illegal aliens
Face to face negotiations, on equal terms with lying, evil, terrorist-sponsoring states such as Syria and Iran
Abandonment of our middle eastern ally, Israel, and increased support for Palistinian terrorist groups
Appointment of leftist judges who interpret cases based on their "feelings", rather than the law
Overwhelming and unprecendented environmental laws which will totally stifle economic development
Huge investment of funds in defunct public schools
Get ready, America, for the demise of your nation as we once knew it.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 3, 2008 08:06 AM
Hillary on her campaign website claims that she will, "Cut the minority dropout rate in half."
There wouldn't be a huge "minority dropout" rate if Democrats hadn't spent the past 40 years deliberately destroying the traditional family, celebrating single parenthood, and sneering at "Christian values".
Ah. I love the sound of sanctimonious, liberal preaching at closing time.
You'll all vote for McCain because you're all too gutless not to. - Have Another Doughnut
But what I love more is the sound of a union goon telling conservatives what they're going to do and how they're going to vote.
No. Won't be voting for McCain.
No shirt. No shoes. No dice.
What a bunch of garbage.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 10:20 AMAre you sick of Huckabee too? Last I checked, he has only won one state thus far. The GOP's biggest base is their anti-statist coalition, which they risk losing by nominating McCain or Huckabee.
I'm not voting for McCain. Any of you Republicans who support McCain because he is electable are totally wrong.
Show up on the 9th to your local caucus and support Romney! Let's dump that loose cannon McCain now and save the GOP!
Posted by: AP on February 3, 2008 10:37 AMThe media is already calling a McCain nomination a done deal. I hope that isn't true after next Tuesday.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 10:44 AM1. In some schools in Seattle, the real dropout rate is about 45%. In some big city school in Philly, NYC, Baltimore, and DC the rate approaches almost 90%. More of the same is not going to cure this issue.
2. This comment from:
Clinton Health Plan May Mean Tapping Pay
Feb 3, 1:04 PM (ET)
By CHARLES BABINGTON
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080203/D8UJ05EO0.html
3. Some of you seem to think that you can sit out the next four or eight years. You can't because there are some things that are done politically which will permanently change this culture and once the geni is out of the bottle, it is out. If you want a hint of where this country would go under Billary see this EU model:
Employment and Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council - ESPHCA
The ESPHCA Council helps to shape EU policies in employment, social, health and consumer affairs. It brings these policy areas together in order to share best practice and to develop a long term strategy for meeting EU goals.
ESPHCA meets formally four times a year, in either Brussels or Luxembourg. There will be three informal meetings during the UK Presidency.
The meetings are attended by ministers for employment, social protection, consumer protection, health and equal opportunities from each of the Member States.
The responsibilities of the ESPHCA include:
Promoting Employment
Promoting adaptable labour markets and a skilled and adaptable workforce
Employment practice and working conditions
Health and Safety in the working environment
Social security and social protection
Gender Equality
Anti-discrimination
Social Inclusion
Corporate Social Responsibility
Health care
Consumer Protection
These areas are discussed at a European level to share best practice and to understand how policies in these fields can contribute to longer term strategic goals for the EU.
ESPHCA - Presidency Priorities
http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1079979841880
Sorry, you don't have four or eight years to twiddle your thumbs. You make a decision now and you will live with whatever the consequences.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 11:15 AMIf education is number one with you, would you not support the party that has always advocated school choice?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 11:31 AMHave you stopped beating your wife?
Again, tell us how you liberals have failed public education despite years and years of massive funding.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 11:37 AMThe right of a small town in Missouri to deal with the cost and crime caused by the influx of illegal aliens has been upheld by a federal judge who ruled the community's ordinance penalizing local companies that hire undocumented workers is not pre-empted by federal law, does not discriminate against Hispanics and does not violate due-process rights or state law.
'You are going to see this decision quoted by cities across the country'
I HOPE SO!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 3, 2008 11:45 AMThere are some dems that are quality people and yes, I would vote for a dem that is a quality candidate. I don't vote for or against any candidate because of religion, race, gender, or party label. I vote for candidates on the basis of their positions. I actually research individuals, and when your party hints strongly to candidates like Ron Paul that David Duke associations not only do not help him, but certainly don't help the republican party, then I will look at your party. Until then, I vote for candidates, not party.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 11:53 AMSheesh. Find me anywhere WVH where the Reublican Party has advocated David Duke or racism of any kind. You know darned well they don't. Why do you seem to be obsessed with labeling Republicans as the party of racism?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 12:06 PMWhen there is a Democrat candidate that is pro-life, pro-defense, supports educational choice, defends the 2nd Amendment, opposes gay marriage,and believes in cutting taxes I might just vote for them...just before they are drummed out of the party.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 12:23 PMThat's right Duffman. How dare we on the right protest policies we disagree with?
Street protest is only acceptable if the left is doing it, complete with the usual socialist organizers. After all, they are the experts.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 12:45 PMYup, you're right, it's not about selfishness with HillBill....it's about POWER! Power to shove it up the back door of every white male in America, and perhaps men of color also. I can't see why any self-respecting man would vote for her, unless perhaps his mother didn't spank him enough when he was a child....or maybe he likes being spanked.
Posted by: Saltherring on February 3, 2008 01:28 PMIt's enough to make any reasonable person sick.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 01:35 PMOh and by the way, which party exploits gender and race for its own ends?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 01:41 PMAll these media endorsements for McCain look suspiciously like payback.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 3, 2008 02:24 PMI think its more like the mainstream liberal media is endorsing McCain knowing many conservatives won't vote for him, and liberals will all vote for Hillary. It's a con.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 02:32 PMOne reaction of the NRA at least, was to try to buy and/or create its own media outlets in order to sidestep this.
Posted by: russell_garrard on February 3, 2008 03:23 PMThis is what I said in reference to Paul who is running as a republican:
" I actually research individuals, and when your party hints strongly to candidates like Ron Paul that David Duke associations not only do not help him, but certainly don't help the republican party, then I will look at your party. Until then, I vote for candidates, not party.'
Now, when has your party asked Paul to do the kind of speech that Mitt Romney did when questions arose about his religion? Several of your current party leaders would be happy as clams if Paul won the nomination. It is interesting that when David Duke actually ran, the national party reprimanded him for his views and made it clear they wanted nothing to do with him specifically. Has Paul specifically distanced himself from Duke? You probably have read TNR and Medved, so Paul is warmly welcomed into your fold? Truth is that were Paul your nominee, party people would support him, some in spite of the David Duke KKK association and probably a few would be happy with that association.
If I was a conspriacy theorist: I would think that they are opposing him now so they can will be credible when they try to convince us that he is not great but someone we should vote for come November ... mark my words.
Posted by: John McDonald on February 3, 2008 04:43 PMYou might find this site of interest:
http://www.il-democrats.org/conservativedemocrats.html
A small group, but growing. Also, there are some great dem public servants like State Auditor, Brian Sonntag.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 04:47 PMYou might find this site of interest:
http://www.il-democrats.org/conservativedemocrats.html
A small group, but growing. Also, there are some great dem public servants like State Auditor, Brian Sonntag.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 04:47 PMI hope that you are new to the process and just don't have a clue because you are a newby. You said:
"It'll be interesting to see how you (and others, herein) acclimate to her as POTUS. If she earns it, will you give her some credit or will to chalk it up to happen-stance? :)"
What has she ever earned? She is the classic kept woman, despite what lame feminists want people to believe. There has been a split in the feminist movement ever since Friedan and others who were formerly known as ladies who lunch in Scarsdale got bored with their lives and pink color working class women who are to busy to be bored reluctantly joined forces. The beneficiaries of the movement have and are the upper class women who simply increased their family income and take of the economic pie. Earned it, pleeeze, that is why it is called Billary.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 04:53 PMCome up with some factual evidence to back up what you say WVH and we'll have a discussion.
Over and over WVH you seem to want to tie the Republican Party to racism. As I said before it seems to be an obsession. Can you come up with a single piece of Republican sponsored legislation since the founding of the party that might support that?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 05:07 PM1. Do you deny Ron Paul's association with Duke as set forth in TNR? According to one of the local papers, he might win your caucuses here?
2. Out of four Paul supporters, who knows if they are republicans, only one specifically stated that they disavow the KKK and groups like them and David Duke and individuals like them, that was Travis/Lysander. Oh, that's right, he didn't get to be a PCO in your party. Truth is it would take a scientific poll to conclusively prove or disprove my theory. But, I don't see Paul making a Mitt Romney speeech, do you and he is running as a republican, one of your own.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 05:21 PMYour point is?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 05:25 PMI think there is undeniably racism in the fringes in the far-right (elements of the soldier-of-fortune crowd) just is there is anti-semitism in the fringe of the left (Louis F crowd). However the vast majority of Republicans, and Americans, want nothing more than to unite as a nation and move forward, and to relegate racism to the dustbin of history. The fringe racists are close to irrelevant and do not deserve so much of our attention.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 3, 2008 05:53 PMNo axe to grind, if you don't want my vote and that of others like me, no worries, you won't get it.
Now, gentlemen, read carefully, this is what I said:
Do you deny Ron Paul's association with Duke as set forth in TNR? According to one of the local papers, he might win your caucuses here?
The specific comment dealt with his associations.
The key question is he willing to do a Mitt Romney? You know, birds of a feather flock together.
Now, Bill keeps bringing up Byrd, which is true, but many of you think that Ron Paul is the go-to-guy, his associations are current, not from decades ago. Duke hypes him on his web site. We are talking here and now.
Ron Paul is running as a republican, he is on the republican debates, his gaggle will be at your party caucuses. So, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, are you telling me it is not a duck? Who said so, did your national organization say that he is not a republican. No axe, to grind, Bill. Just pointing out one reason this will probably remain a one party state and why your "party" as opposed to some of your quality candidates will not attract the broad base you need to move beyond limited pockets in this state.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 06:44 PMYou are one sick chick.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 3, 2008 07:43 PMI attended the symphony earlier and saw a very interesting program with a Brahams symphony. I could care less about these two teams.
Oh, I am one sick chick because you really don't have an answer to my comments other than to attack. That seems to be your only means of response when you can't make a cogent argument. You really have no answer, and neither does your party. So, I guess you will call all the dems who will be elected, sick because you have no answer. You, like your party are a loser.
Now, Russell do you happen to have a more cogent response?
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 07:49 PMAnd as for Duke touting Ron Paul, to mean that is moot. The question is, does Ron Paul tout Duke? I doubt it, but if I'm wrong I'll be the first to denounce Ron Paul.
I can only restate what I said above, that racism is a serious charge and requires objective evidence. If he denies being a racist, I have to take him at his word unless I can come up with some pretty solid proof to the contrary. BTW there are lots of ducks at the local park where I go to run, and I've never noticed any of them trying to hide the fact that they were ducks.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 3, 2008 08:17 PMObama over Clinton - YES ! He may be more liberal than her on his voting record, but believe he will work better with Congress than her, inspire more people and it is clearly time to move beyond the Bush's and Clinton's, lest we desire to become a banana republic. Obama has more of a worldly view than any other candidate, having lived overseas. Clinton's attitude of entitlement to be President shows all over and is turning more voters off.
Posted by: KS on February 3, 2008 08:24 PMIf the comments had spell check we would all be saved from looking like a dufus. I agree with you to a point that we take people at their word. But, let's use the example of someone who has given up drinking, but they haven't cut their ties to their old drinking buddies. I don't know that is the case with Paul, but I find it curious that he couldn't bring himself to do what Romney did.
I only speak for myself, but if Paul shows big in your caucuses, the dems will beat every republican over the head with Paul and his associations. Expect the TNR to be literally handed out on street corners. One party rule really does not benefit anyone and I don't think your party has a clue how to expand its base and attract more voters. I suppose going after the Paul gaggle is one answer. Maybe that is the only answer your party is seeking.
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 08:31 PMAnyway, I think the truth is that most Paul supporters are not Republicans. I think most are either Libertarians or anti-war people. Unfortunately there isn't anymore much overlap between Libertarians and Republicans. Most Libertarians I know are as contemptuous of R's as D's Ron Paul is pretty much an outcast among R's, especially for his foreign policy.
And the Republicans are not a purist outfit, while the libertarians, including Paul, are.
Anyway, nice connecting w/ you again.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 3, 2008 08:51 PMHere is proof in a press release @
http://www.ronpaul2008.com
February 3, 2008 11:45 am EST
Q4 FEC Reports: Ron Paul Receives More Military Donations Than All Other Republicans Combined
Total military donations nearly as much as the total of all other remaining candidates - Republican and Democrat
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - According to newly released FEC reports, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has received more military donations than the other three remaining Republican candidates combined.
"The latest numbers make it clear: the troops support Ron Paul," said Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "Dr. Paul has worked his entire career working for veterans, and has many awards and endorsements due to his dedication to their cause."
A search of the FEC database by employer reveals that Dr. Paul has received 1160 donations from military donors, nearly triple that of John McCain, and more than McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee combined.
Dr. Paul's total military donations of $249 thousand are almost as much as the $260 thousand of combined donations received by the other five remaining candidates.
Congressman Paul is no stranger to military support. Former president Ronald Reagan once said, "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country!"
According to the FEC reports, these are the total number and amount of military donations for each of the presidential candidates*:
Ron Paul: 1160 $249k
John McCain: 438 $83k
Mike Huckabee: 126 $37k
Mitt Romney: 126 $24k
Barack Obama: 443 $76k
Hillary Clinton: 154 $41k
*Methodology: Searched FEC reports for occupation/employer contains: "Army" "Navy" "USN" "USAF" "Air Force" "Marine" "USMC" "Coast Guard" "USCG" then removed duplicates and non-military occupations (i.e. "marine repair")
Bruce again: it seems to me that if you care about the troops, you should want to bring them home. At least, that is what a lot of them say they want.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 09:08 PMI don't totally know how you feel, since I voted for Nader twice because I really didn't like any of the candidates, he was kinda like none of the above. I have voted for a candidate with a snowball's chance. But, the zeal of you followers of Paul is a bit like Scientology and you seem to be the movement's Tom Cruise. Your candidate even if he shows well in WA and Alaska still has a snowball's chance because the grandees of your "host" do not want to see their organization go down in flames. Trust me, I've been around elites and before they would let Dr. No have the football, Romney and Mc Cain would join hands singing Cumbaya. The best you and your merry little band can hope is that the elites of both parties will steal his workable ideas and declare that they have found the road to change. I hope you have some good counseling lined up when Dude deflates. Oh, wait, he has millions is he going to be taking care of his followers needs?
Posted by: WVH on February 3, 2008 09:18 PMI wouldn't be surprised if even Stephan Sharkansky would identify himself as a pro-war-on-terror small "l" libertarian Republican.
A libertarian is just a fan of individual rights and limited government. We have major divisions on such issues as immigration, abortion and the war in Iraq. But anyone who wants the size of government to shrink, including spending and taxes, and who believes that individuals, not groups, have rights to life, liberty and property, is really libertarian in basic outlook.
We have our rights because we are individuals, and our rights are equal regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc.
The founders of this country would be called libertarians if they lived today.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on February 3, 2008 09:24 PMAlso, I was struck by an article in Reason Mag back in '04. They asked about 25 prominent libertarian-types how they planned to vote. Some were Reason staffers, and some well-knowns like Richard Epstein & Drew Carey. The winner was Kerry, Bush 2nd, and Badnarik 3rd. From that it would appear that the old libertarian-Republican connection is very frayed.
Posted by: russell garrard on February 4, 2008 05:44 AMGezzzzzzzz he's a nut. With a EGO that won't quit.
That makes me really wonder about you now.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 4, 2008 07:41 AMI also suspect she teaches school. Lord help the children she indoctrinates.
Read a few of her posts on this thread...you'll get the idea.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 07:56 AMBut Nader............ gezzzzz what a loney toon!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 4, 2008 09:01 AMThe lefties that troll here pretending to be other than what they are amuse me. They are the same tiresome people that call talk shows and claim they "voted for Bush". When you've accepted moral relativism lying is nothing.
WVH uses endless amounts of bandwidth trying prove that because Ron Paul is a Republican therefore Republicans are racists.
I've challenged her repeatedly to name a single piece of Republican legislation since the founding of the party that she would consider racist. She can't of course. She's just another phony liberal that loves to paint conservatives and Republicans as racists. Hmmm, are people on the left actually more biased and prejudiced than those on the right?
It's not her fault, she's probably been brainwashed by the lefts' very effective brainwashing machine since she was in daycare.
Being a good liberal requires a lot of knee-jerkism. Typically, all of their friends and co-workers are liberals. They all hate Bush and the Republicans. They live in an urban, liberal bubble. I think that's particularly true in the case of WVH, whom I strongly suspect teaches school at some level. And so it goes.
The games these people play.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 09:50 AM1. Yes I voted for Nader and I may vote for him again if I don't like the choices, Nader is none of the above since there is no line which says none of the above.
Bill C.
2.You are an idiot. You can't make an intelligent argument about any thing. Your only line of response is to use terms like "phony" or "leftist" sometimes in the same sentence. Your mental wattage is less than a forty watt bulb so you use the really old debate trick used by third rate teams which is attack, never respond to the question, but attempt to define the question in a manner that even you could answer.
3. Now, if you are representative of the rank and file of an opposition party, it is hard to know whether one is conversing with republicans, libertarians or right wing wackos, the opposition party is in deep do do because all you have is a bunch of ideologues who neither want or know how to expand the franchise. You can't make coherent arguments and have no strategy for competing in urban areas or the larger counties.
4. Hopefully, there are more in your "party" "movement" or whatever resemble people like Russell or even Travis/Lysander when and if he ever gets over his Paul fixation because they may have deeply held beliefs, but are at least interested in going out and bringing others to their cause.
Bill C if you didn't have the convenient response to every question of labeling, you couldn't respond and you wouldn't know a cohert argument if one slapped you and gave you directions to a point.
Looks like there is no opposition in this state loyal or otherwise and we will be one party for years to come.
Posted by: WVH on February 4, 2008 10:03 AM1. I've challenged her repeatedly to name a single piece of Republican legislation since the founding of the party that she would consider racist. She can't of course. She's just another phony liberal that loves to paint conservatives and Republicans as racists. Hmmm, are people on the left actually more biased and prejudiced than those on the right?
An example of a third rate debate trick of redefining the issue to something even an idiot could answer, that would be you, Bill C.
2. Yeah, ain't it great! WVH isn't even smart enough to avoid spilling her liberal beans. Anyone who voted for Nader is way out there.
The lefties
No, just as many of your fellow Paultards and yes you have outed yourself as a Paul supporter will vote for Paul because they simply don't like the choices, same was true of many who voted for Nader, it says nothing other than there was no line "none of the above."
3. Being a good liberal requires a lot of knee-jerkism. Typically, all of their friends and co-workers are liberals. They all hate Bush and the Republicans. They live in an urban, liberal bubble
Really, I went to college in a rural area and have traveled widely. Bet I know more types of people than you and read more widely. You continually show your ignorance by labeling everything you simply can't comprehend, which is just about everything.
Now where did you go to undergraduate school? was it in a rural, urban, or suburban area?
Do you know people who live in areas different from where you live?
Do you read widely from a variety of sources?
Is the only thing you are able to do is label "They live in an urban, liberal bubble...."
Oh yes, you have outed yourself as a Paul supporter. That would make you really delusional.
Posted by: WVH on February 4, 2008 10:14 AMYou are too much, WVH.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 10:22 AMDo you read widely from a variety of sources?"
No, I sit on my porch all day long with a shotgun in my lap.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 10:31 AM1. Oh so now I am angry, what about sick because I didn't watch the superbowl but went to the symphony?
2. Still didn't answer any questions about the breadth of your knowledge and experience about college and range of people you know.
3. The reason you label people is you have a very limited range of life experience so you project your limitations on to others.
No Bill, I am not angry, I am just not ignorant like you and that makes you angry. It is called projection, a psycological term and yes, you can get help.
Think we have exhausted this topic, until we spar again.
Posted by: WVH on February 4, 2008 10:35 AMAnd who might you be anonymous
poster "comeonkids"?
Oh, I've figured it out, you are a nutcase troll.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 4, 2008 05:12 PMBill C. is my sparing buddy. I like to fight with him. Throw out a topic and we will fight about it. When I am not fighting with him, I converse with others. Still, learning how to argue with pals like Bill C is training for pushing school reform. It is a bit like building muscles without the steroids, of course.
Posted by: WVH on February 4, 2008 09:30 PMI'm just teasing. I make typos here all the time and never seem to catch them until I've hit the "post" button. You could beat me up all day long over them. I'm thankful you don't!
Funny you should mention building muscles. That's kind of my specialty. I can show anyone how to stay in shape without any equipment, costly trips to the gym, or the awful recent fad involving injecting human growth hormones. It only takes about 10-minutes every couple of days and a bit of walking, or biking. We've made fitness far more complicated than it has to be.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on February 5, 2008 08:40 AM