[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

besson admitting that the Dems are in trouble is almost as revelatory a change for him as admitting to belief in the Lord God of Israel.

They are in trouble, but so are the Republicans.

We will have to wait to see how things will shake out...

[Chongo]

Why Hillary is still eating Obama's dust
NYT: OBAMA COULD DO 'JUST AS WELL' AS CLINTON IN BIG STATES IF NOMINEE...

[Eug]

Polls

Clinton and Obama are now dead even at 47 percent among likely Democrats, according the newly released numbers. That number remains unchanged from a tracking poll released Saturday and represents a 5-point gain for Clinton since her Pennsylvania win.

Meanwhile, a Newsweek poll released Saturday also shows gains for Clinton, but finds the New York senator continuing to trail Obama. In that poll, Obama holds a 7 point lead over Clinton. That margin is more than half of the 19 point lead Obama held in a similar Newsweek poll taken shorlty before the Pennsylvania primary.

[besson3c]

Eug: the polls show swings after each victory in a state, it is not surprising to see a slight Clinton surge after PA. I wish the electorate weren't as dumb as to be influenced by the bandwagon effect (no matter who benefits from it), but...

Most predictions indicate that Obama will gain back everything he lost from PA in NC, and that Indiana will be very close either way leaving no meaningful impact on the delegate count. As it stands now, even including Florida and Michigan, Clinton comes up short in total delegates, and it is unlikely that the Supers will swing in her favor at the margin required for her to win.

Really, the polls are pretty much useless at this point if we are using delegate counts and popular vote as the sole means of choosing a victor (as we should). Even though I think the electorate as a whole is as dumb as a rock, I still believe that as long as we are saying that we are a Democracy that the delegate totals should be what is used to determine the nominee. As many of you may already know, the popular vote totals are meaningless for a number of reasons:

1) Many caucus states did not release popular vote totals

2) States differ in whether their primaries or caucuses are open, closed, and whether they invite independents. There have been examples of states that carry far more electoral weight turned out fewer voters due to being a closed primary

3) Months ago the Clinton camp was saying "it's all about the delegates", but that has changed now. Why should the rules change part way into the process? The same can be said for Michigan and Florida. Their state leadership should be blamed, not the DNC, not the political candidates (who agreed upon these very rules prior to the election). The irony of this is that the primary reason for pushing up their primaries (money) totally backfired. If they were to have held their primaries now, at a time when historically the race is usually called, they would be bringing in beaucoup advertising revenues into their respective states.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Eug: the polls show swings after each victory in a state, it is not surprising to see a slight Clinton surge after PA.

Uh, yeah, which is why I posted it. Some may have believed otherwise.

I wish the electorate weren't as dumb as to be influenced by the bandwagon effect (no matter who benefits from it), but...

The bandwagon effect is one of the reasons Obama did so well. It works both ways.

As it stands now, even including Florida and Michigan, Clinton comes up short in total delegates, and it is unlikely that the Supers will swing in her favor at the margin required for her to win.

No argument there... unless more of these "revelations" like Rev. Wright (again) starting showing up.

[BRussell]

It's totally irrelevant. Obama has won. It's over. The only thing that can happen is that Clinton can play the Mike Huckabee role for a while longer. I don't understand why the media keeps talking about who has to win this or that state - well, yes I do, they want something to talk about. But back in the real world, it's over, and has been for some time.

[Big Mac]

It's interesting you think that, BRussel. It looks a little different here in America. There's a race and a divided Democratic party. We'll be at the convention soon - it's not over by a long shot, and I am loving every second of it. Either way both candidates are unelectable, but they don't know that and are happily taking each other down. It's a really wonderful thing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The bandwagon effect is one of the reasons Obama did so well. It works both ways.

True.

No argument there... unless more of these "revelations" like Rev. Wright (again) starting showing up.

I kind of hope that he does and gets people actually talking about race in a meaningful way, building on what Obama started with his race speech in Philly. It is nothing short of disgusting how the media/political opponents of Obama have turned Wright into a fanatical, angry, anti-American, anti-white person cult-like figure. I'm glad that Obama didn't denounce him, because there was nothing to denounce.

It is *extremely* difficult to approach issues of race in ways that don't involve in mud slinging and purely emotional response, and Wright is to be commended for his attempts. To reduce the complexities of what he is saying (and they are indeed full of nuance and qualifications that aren't heard in the 10 second soundbytes) into these soundbytes is disgusting.

The very fact that there are so many knee jerk reactions about Wright in and of itself is excellent rationale behind why we as a nation do need to start talking about these issues in productive ways. It is wrong to tear somebody like Wright down for trying, it is time we stopped pretending that this issue doesn't exist.

Like I said before, Americans are really good at celebrating what is good about America, but are quick to turn a blind eye to what is not good.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's interesting you think that, BRussel. It looks a little different here in America. There's a race and a divided Democratic party. We'll be at the convention soon - it's not over by a long shot, and I am loving every second of it. Either way both candidates are unelectable, but they don't know that and are happily taking each other down. It's a really wonderful thing.

My pet project: to get people like you to start making points with some substance, rather than pure emotion. We are all well aware that you dislike both candidates and want McCain to win, but I've yet to hear a rational and reasoned argument why this is so.

This is precisely what makes Colbert's shtick so brilliant...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's interesting you think that, BRussel. It looks a little different here in America. There's a race and a divided Democratic party. We'll be at the convention soon - it's not over by a long shot, and I am loving every second of it. Either way both candidates are unelectable, but they don't know that and are happily taking each other down. It's a really wonderful thing.

It's the result of "Identity Politics" You don't vote for Obama, you're a racist. You don't vote for Hillary, you're a misogynist..

Identity Politics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Identity politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The very fact that there are so many knee jerk reactions about Wright in and of itself is excellent rationale behind why we as a nation do need to start talking about these issues in productive ways. It is wrong to tear somebody like Wright down for trying, it is time we stopped pretending that this issue doesn't exist.

What to you look like knee jerk reactions look like something else to many others. To others it looks like Obama sat around for 20 years while a virulently hateful man preached to him and guided him as an "advisor." Are you entirely sure you're capable of evaluating the subject with anything resembling objectivity?

Like I said before, Americans are really good at celebrating what is good about America, but are quick to turn a blind eye to what is not good.

I agree with that to an extent. Certainly the media likes to dwell on negative things. People don't like to hear negativity, but when the country has been confronted with major challenges in the past it has risen to meet them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What to you look like knee jerk reactions look like something else to many others. To others it looks like Obama sat around for 20 years while a virulently hateful man preached to him. Are you entirely sure you're capable of evaluating the subject with anything resembling objectivity?

Once again, he we are trying to deconstruct the characters of those involved rather than discussing what is actually being said.

Since an actual substatative debate seems like a pipe dream for the time being, I'll humor you... Would you be able to put together an argument that states what is hateful about Wright's sermons? Have you listened to more than just the 10 second clips?

I agree with that to an extent. Certainly the media likes to dwell on negative things. People don't like to hear negativity, but when the country has been confronted with major challenges in the past it has risen to meet them.

And would you say that we have addressed the differences in cultural chasms that occur across racial boundaries?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

We are all well aware that you dislike both candidates and want McCain to win, but I've yet to hear a rational and reasoned argument why this is so.

Wait, you don't know why I want McCain to win over your candidates? I posted a thread on it before McCain clinched the nomination.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ain+nomination

The big problem is, besson, you claim everyone you disagree with provides nothing substantive. Your argument is fallacious.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wait, you don't know why I want McCain to win over your candidates? I posted a thread on it before McCain clinched the nomination.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ain+nomination

The big problem is, besson, you claim everyone you disagree with provides nothing substantive. Your argument is fallacious.

I didn't remember this thread, I'll go over it and read it. Should I respond in here?

My grievances with your posting has nothing to do about whether or not I agree with you, it's based on sheer boredom of the repetition of you sharing your feelings, of which there is really no productive way to respond to.

I feel the exact same way when I read the idiotic comments on the CNN political ticker site, stuff like "Hillary is a liar OBAMA 08!!" (substitute McCain 08 in there too). There is absolutely nothing there we can sink our teeth into, and all this sort of posting does is potentially agitate, divide, and just turn up the volume on a message that is already cranked up nearly to its limits thanks to the failings of the mass media to actually report on substantive issues.

I would much rather us discuss McCain's economic policies or something than this sort of thing - even if I disagree with you in a deeply personal, enormously strong manner.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's interesting you think that, BRussel. It looks a little different here in America. There's a race and a divided Democratic party. We'll be at the convention soon - it's not over by a long shot, and I am loving every second of it. Either way both candidates are unelectable, but they don't know that and are happily taking each other down. It's a really wonderful thing.

It looks different only if you naively listen to the media, who of course want a race where none exists. I love it when they say "it's so important for X to win Indiana." Uh, no it's not important. The race is over. Obama won.

But I'm not sure why it's a wonderful thing to have one party (in your [wrong] view) being unelectable and taking each other down...

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They are in trouble, but so are the Republicans.

Damned right the Republicans are in trouble, they nominated a moderate Democrat, for God's sake. What's even worse, most have gotten comfortable with the idea.

Oh well, President McCain will definitely have no issues reaching across the aisle to make deals, he's been doing it since he was elected to congress.

But I'm not sure why it's a wonderful thing to have one party (in your [wrong] view) being unelectable and taking each other down...

As if you wouldn't be saying the same thing if the shoe were on a Republican's foot.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

But I'm not sure why it's a wonderful thing to have one party (in your [wrong] view) being unelectable and taking each other down...

You don't? Aren't political parties in general a bad thing, a (currently) necessary evil?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Damned right the Republicans are in trouble, they nominated a moderate Democrat, for God's sake. What's even worse, most have gotten comfortable with the idea.

Oh well, President McCain will definitely have no issues reaching across the aisle to make deals, he's been doing it since he was elected to congress.

Definitely more so than Bush, but I perceive one of the problems he is faced with now is figuring out who is base is, and how to toe the middle line in reaching across the aisle while being assured of some sort of support and backing.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Damned right the Republicans are in trouble, they nominated a moderate Democrat, for God's sake. What's even worse, most have gotten comfortable with the idea.

Haha! I was noticing that same thing. Back when the R's had a race on their hands, McCain made Big Mac sick to his stomach. Now he's positively celebratory about the idea. Funny.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Definitely more so than Bush, but I perceive one of the problems he is faced with now is figuring out who is base is, and how to toe the middle line in reaching across the aisle while being assured of some sort of support and backing.

Who's to say he needs backing? In 2004 people liked McCain because he had integrity, and he wasn't just a panderer. Then later they hated him because he realized you can't win without pandering so he started doing it. But once he's won (if that happens), how do we know he won't go back to the non-pandering integriCain of yester-yore?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who's to say he needs backing? In 2004 people liked McCain because he had integrity, and he wasn't just a panderer. Then later they hated him because he realized you can't win without pandering so he started doing it. But once he's won (if that happens), how do we know he won't go back to the non-pandering integriCain of yester-yore?

Well, he needs support within his own party to push through the legislation he wishes to push through, and since many people in his own party pander and have their own interests to cater to, he will have to find a balance, assuming he becomes our next president. Leading up to this point, there are all sorts of challenges with balancing appealing to voters while remaining consistent with his message. I think probably every candidate in history has had to struggle with that.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You don't? Aren't political parties in general a bad thing, a (currently) necessary evil?

Well even if I did believe that (and I don't), I don't see how one party self-destructing would be a good thing. I think that if there's a party that has self-destructed, it's the Rs - their embrace of "tax cuts increase revenues" and "global warming is a liberal lie" and "America can only be saved by torturing" - but I think that self-destruction is bad for the country, not good.

Then again, now I recall that BigMac has previously said the US would be better off if the Democrats ceased to exist and presumably there was a one-party state. So I guess it's consistent. I just don't get it.

[Big Mac]

No, I said that after that the Republicans could split between small and big government proponents.

[vmarks]

BRussell and BigMac make an obvious mistake. If the Democrat party self-destructs, those Democrats don't disappear and they don't become Republicans.

Most likely is that a new Democrat party is founded, with the same name, so as to take advantage of ballot access laws that in practice limit ballot access to parties that have had candidates elected in the past.

Less likely is that those Democrats found a new party or take over an existing one (greens, for example) and get to the hard work of changing ballot access laws to allow the new party access.

It's an interesting hypothetical, but one that I think is flawed. As much as the Democrat party self-destructs, it isn't going away. First time voter registrations are up for Democrats this year, while at the same time, non-first-time voters are defecting from Democrat to Republican in higher numbers than in the past. I do not know with any precision state by state to be able to say which is higher, so I'm predicting that the two balance each other.

[Eug]

The Democratic Party ain't going to self-destruct.

There may be turmoil, and they may lose the election, but that's quite a different kettle of fish.

[Chongo]

uh oh, PAPER: Enthusiastic Hillary Supporter ORGANIZED Rev. Wright at Press Club...


Somodevilla/Getty

The Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club event Monday, which was organized by Reynolds.

Is Jeremiah Wright a colossal disaster for Barack Obama or a press trick?
Errol Louis
Tuesday, April 29th 2008, 4:00 AM

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.

Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds.

A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister).
It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter

Political Radar: Gingrich: Wright May Be Deliberately Trying to Hurt Obama
Obama Heads for Superdelegate Edge - WSJ.com

[Macrobat]

Advice from someone who KNOWS how to get people elected.

Now, actually read it, folks, don't just see the author's name and kneejerk.

Dear Senator Obama ... | Print Article | Newsweek.com

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Advice from someone who KNOWS how to get people elected.

Now, actually read it, folks, don't just see the author's name and kneejerk.

Dear Senator Obama ... | Print Article | Newsweek.com

I wonder whether it's really worth dissecting this article... Is that what you intended?

[spacefreak]

It's do-over week at camp Obama, and all of the recent events (Fox News interview, Wright comments, Sharpton issue) are carefully orchestrated to redo the Obama disasters that showed he was completely unqualified for office.

To recreate the Philly debate disaster, Obama takes his rehearsed script over to Fox News with the hopes that people will forget his lack of understanding of key issues. Then Rev. Wright is thrown out to the media to recreate a situation that Obama screwed up in dealing with.

The Sharpton issue was created with the hopes that Obama can expand his support base beyond that of blacks and rich liberal elitists.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Is your cross-posting that some kind of self-referential joke about do-overs?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Is your cross-posting that some kind of self-referential joke about do-overs?

Do-overs usually indicate that one is unsatisfied with their initial performance. I on the other hand am completely confident in my initial performance... so confident that I had no problems posting my brilliant insight in this thread as well.

Seems to me plenty of people are saying the same exact things in multiple, similar threads. I figured I'd give it a whirl.

[tie]

To me, the big story this week was Clinton's adopting McCain's vacation gas tax vacation proposal. The idea is so stupid it shows that neither of them should be anywhere near the presidency.

Thomas Friedman has a decent op-ed on it today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/op...ml?ref=opinion

[Eug]

Originally Posted by tie 

To me, the big story this week was Clinton's adopting McCain's vacation gas tax vacation proposal. The idea is so stupid it shows that neither of them should be anywhere near the presidency.

Thomas Friedman has a decent op-ed on it today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/op...ml?ref=opinion

Yeah, that's pretty stupid. However, I suspect it may actually be popular.

[Captain Obvious]

lol

So now with the IN primary on the horizon Obama decides that Wright went too far and is outraged by his divisive comments. That's awesome!
It only took the risk of long term political and personal damage for Obama to step up and live up to some of those ideals he likes to tell everyone he has. Its a good lesson to teach people: You can no more disown your personal life long mentor than you can disown your race or even your grandmother. Unless of course it becomes politically expedient. Then its totally cool to piss on them.

Give it up for Barack Obama.
A man of integrity and principles

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tie 

To me, the big story this week was Clinton's adopting McCain's vacation gas tax vacation proposal. The idea is so stupid it shows that neither of them should be anywhere near the presidency.

Thomas Friedman has a decent op-ed on it today: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/op...ml?ref=opinion

I don't see the stupidity in removing part of the gas tax to give people a measure of temporary relief at the pump, unless you're contending that increased demand would compensate for the lack of tax and drive the price right back to where it currently is.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Unless of course it becomes politically expedient. Then its totally cool to piss on them.[/i]

It's more like, "Unless of course the guy keeps mouthing off in the press and implies that you're only denouncing him for the sake of political expediency."

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

lol

So now with the IN primary on the horizon Obama decides that Wright went too far and is outraged by his divisive comments. That's awesome!
It only took the risk of long term political and personal damage for Obama to step up and live up to some of those ideals he likes to tell everyone he has. Its a good lesson to teach people: You can no more disown your personal life long mentor than you can disown your race or even your grandmother. Unless of course it becomes politically expedient. Then its totally cool to piss on them.

Give it up for Barack Obama.
A man of integrity and principles

Heh, I'm sure you had negative things to say about the Wright situation prior to this week's events, right? So, in other words, there is really nothing Obama could have done that would have avoided your criticism of this issue.

[Big Mac]

Hey besson, I'm going to shock you with this post. I think Obama finally said the right thing in response to Wright. If he would have said that originally I would have called it a non issue. Unfortunately for Obama, he didn't make an explicitly clean break originally.

Looks, it's not that I think Obama is a bad guy. He's a very likable guy, and I think his heart is generally in the right place, as with most left-wing politicians. If he weren't so wrong on every substantive issue I could take his candidacy more seriously.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Hey besson, I'm going to shock you with this post. I think Obama finally said the right thing in response to Wright. If he would have said that originally I would have called it a non issue. Unfortunately for Obama, he didn't make an explicitly clean break originally.

Prior to this week, Wright had not said anything incriminating (although I still don't think what he said this week was). It would be wrong to disown somebody simply for a possible political gain, and speaking purely as a self-appointed political strategist, it would have looked bad to disown the person that was so close to your family for no good reason.

In my opinion, disowning somebody (or denouncing, or whatever the appropriate word is) should be based on ones moral beliefs, not out of political convenience.

Looks, it's not that I think Obama is a bad guy. He's a very likable guy, and I think his heart is generally in the right place, as with most left-wing politicians. If he weren't so wrong on every substantive issue I could take his candidacy more seriously.

I fully respect your opinion, and I would love it if we could actually talk about those substantive issues that you disagree with. I feel like a knuckle dragging, bottom feeding simpleton sometimes in hashing out these political gaffes with you guys on this board, but at the same time I'm oddly compelled to them... Perhaps it's the stopping to look at a car wreck sort of thing.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see the stupidity in removing part of the gas tax to give people a measure of temporary relief at the pump, unless you're contending that increased demand would compensate for the lack of tax and drive the price right back to where it currently is.

Of course you don't see it. Most people don't see it, as they can't see past the end of their nose, which is what got us in this mess in the first place. We just run around with blinders on, thinking that the future is next week.

[Chongo]

Hillary will be toast in Indiana if Obama can get an ad on the air to refute the one she is running

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 04/30/2008 | Clinton blasts Bush for not stopping a project Bill OK'd

Here's how Clinton tells it in a recent television ad she aired in Indiana.

"Right here, over 200 Hoosiers built parts that guided our military's smart bombs to their targets," the New York senator says.

"They were good jobs, but now, they're gone to China. And now America's defense relies on Chinese spare parts. George Bush could have stopped it, but he didn't. As your president, I will fight to keep good jobs here, and to turn this economy around. I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message because American workers should build America's defense."

Here's how she told it a few weeks ago at a union meeting in Washington.

"A Chinese company bought the company, called Magnequench, and they wanted to move the jobs to China. The people in Indiana protested, did everything they could to convince the Bush administration that this was a terrible mistake. Couldn't even get a hearing," she said.

"The jobs went to China, but so did the technology. And now the United States military has to buy the magnets we need for the smart bombs we invented from China," she said as the union members booed.

Here's the complete story.

In 1995, General Motors decided to sell the Indiana-based Magnequench to a Chinese-American consortium. The consortium included:

* San Huan New Materials and Hi-Tech Co, a company owned by the Chinese Academy of Sciences;
* Onfem Holdings, a company controlled by the State Nonferrous Metals Industry Administration in the Peoples Republic of China;
* Soros Fund Management, headed by George Soros;
* The Sextant Group, founded by Archibald Cox Jr.;(lawyer who served as U.S. Solicitor General under President John F. Kennedy, and later became best known as the first special prosecutor for the Watergate scandal.)

Soros, of course, is the wealthy investor who has contributed vast sums to Democratic candidates and liberal causes.

He's given more than $250,000 to Democratic campaign committees, tens of thousands to individual Democratic candidates, and about $2.5 million to the liberal group, Moveon.org, according to Federal Election Commission records.

He's also contributed to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and to Obama's Senate and presidential campaigns. He contributed to Republican Sen. John McCain's first presidential campaign, in 1999, when he was running against Bush for the Republican nomination. Because Magnequench made magnets for smart bombs, the sale to a group including foreign owners required approval under a 1988 law.

After a 30-day review, the Clinton administration's Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which includes representatives of the Pentagon, approved the sale in 1995.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Of course you don't see it. Most people don't see it, as they can't see past the end of their nose, which is what got us in this mess in the first place. We just run around with blinders on, thinking that the future is next week.

Wow, that was a really cogent and substantive response.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see the stupidity in removing part of the gas tax to give people a measure of temporary relief at the pump, unless you're contending that increased demand would compensate for the lack of tax and drive the price right back to where it currently is.

I thought the Republican motto is "how are we going to pay for this", besides borrow more money from China to pay the Saudis?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

BRussell and BigMac make an obvious mistake. If the Democrat party self-destructs, those Democrats don't disappear and they don't become Republicans.

It's the Democratic Party, by the way.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I don't see the stupidity in removing part of the gas tax to give people a measure of temporary relief at the pump, unless you're contending that increased demand would compensate for the lack of tax and drive the price right back to where it currently is.

Of you course you don't, that's why I have you on ignore. But since other people might be wondering, the gas tax provides work and maintenance on U.S. highways and other transportation projects with over $10 billion in funding. It is already underfunded even with the $10 billion. How are you going to pay for that? Borrow more money from China? Making gas cheaper alleviates our reliance on foreign oil how exactly? It's not going to help your pocket. You'll save a whopping $2 a week (assuming you fill up once a week.) Man, I stay up late at night wondering what I'm going to do with my extra 28 cents a day.

It is the dumbest idea I've heard in a very long time. For freakin' 28 cents we get to put our country into debt another $10 billion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's the Democratic Party, by the way.

they wish.

[Shaddim]

FWIW, I feel the gas tax cut is stupid too, ranks right up there with the stimulus package.

"Hey, let's borrow money from competitors, then give it to our people so they can buy stuff manufactured by the people we're borrowing from, sure beats actually trying to work on the problem."

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

they wish.

No, that's the name of the party.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No, that's the name of the party.

It's clear that you only listen to the liberal media. The actual name of the party is the Dimeocrat party.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No, that's the name of the party.

/facepalm

They're the Democratic Party, but they not been democratic for years.