[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's usually not this early, but other state legislatures decided to move their Primary dates up to be more "relevant", and Iowa and New Hampshire moved their dates up accordingly.

Yeah, that bothers me. But then again, why does Iowa go first? Because it called firsties long ago? Honestly, I don't know what a better option would be though. Have the the states who had the closest presidential races go first next time round?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's usually not this early, but other state legislatures decided to move their Primary dates up to be more "relevant", and Iowa and New Hampshire moved their dates up accordingly.

Yeah, see, they should all be on the same day. Doing them sequentially devalues the votes of some states. People get obsessed with voting for the winner, so by the time a few states have turned in results, people in the other states get stupid and start going with the frontrunner. The whole process makes the votes of the rational people in the latter states worth less.

But, hey, I'm in Florida, and the DNC doesn't think my vote should even count at all.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Out here in WA, our vote never counts

Re: fatasses. It's all context. I don't feel guilty telling a man his smile is too big, because millions of men haven't given themselves eating disorders while trying to slim down their smiles. Saying a woman shouldn't be president because she's too fat just doesn't sit right with me, and it's not out of any sympathy for Hillary if she happens to hear it, it's about the general public of women who might read this forum (Ha!), or who might listen to people who read this forum. Obviously what's said here won't make a whole lot of difference in that respect, on its own, but when it's another drop in a flood, contributing to it makes you a real dick.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Yeah, see, they should all be on the same day.

But that would be hard. Having them one at a time allows candidates to focus on each caucus individually. Edwards visited all 99 counties in Iowa.

[RAILhead]

What a bunch of sissies. Only you people took my comment about her fat arse as meaning "fat women shouldn't be allowed as President."

[chris v]

I'm just thrilled that Ron Paul got 10%. This will further embolden his campaign and supporters.

Giuliani? what a freaking joke, and I hope this is the beginning of the end of that lunatic's political career.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

What a bunch of sissies. Only you people took my comment about her fat arse as meaning "fat women shouldn't be allowed as President."

It is a little sad that it has to enter the discussion in the first place.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But that would be hard. Having them one at a time allows candidates to focus on each caucus individually. Edwards visited all 99 counties in Iowa.

It'd just turn it into more of a monetary game. Not to mention it'd be like having two presidential elections.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Giuliani? what a freaking joke.

I thought so too, until I heard he didn't even participate there, and was focused on other states.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I thought so too, until I heard he didn't even participate there, and was focused on other states.

Well, he's a joke of a human being, too, but I don't think his campaign was expecting to do that poorly. They did spend a lot of money -- he just didn't travel there.

[Dork.]

I think they shouldn't be on the same day, myself. I think staggering them helps guarantee candidates will get to all the states and actually talk to people.

I think Iowa and New Hampshire's status is well deserved, not just because of tradition but because they give a damn. From what I can tell, people there don't take these primary elections lightly. And I think all those states who moved their primaries up are going to be in for a shock, because this thing may not be firmly decided until the last few states come in. They may have just moved themselves out of relevance!

I'd be in favor of a four-month primary season, say from March to June. Put anywhere from one to five individual state elections on any given week to spread things out a bit. Rotate positions every now and then so nobody complains about going last all the time.

[wallinbl]

Yes, keep them staggered. That way, not all the votes really count. But, at least the politician will have come to your state. I don't care if someone comes to my state. I don't need their physical presence for anything. I don't fantasize that they actually listen to what the people say to them.

[nonhuman]

It seems to me that one solution would be for the parties to simply not release the results of the various primaries and caucuses until they've all occurred. That way the candidates can visit each state if they so desire, but the states that go first still won't have an inordinate amount of influence.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It seems to me that one solution would be for the parties to simply not release the results of the various primaries and caucuses until they've all occurred. That way the candidates can visit each state if they so desire, but the states that go first still won't have an inordinate amount of influence.

I like it.

[BadKosh]

Iowa means nothing.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Iowa means nothing.

It does if you are Dodd and Biden,(or 3rd, 4th etc) both who have bowed out of the race. I found it strange that CNN and MSNBC downplayed most of the night Obama's 9 point win and and focused on Huckabee's win over Romney

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It seems to me that one solution would be for the parties to simply not release the results of the various primaries and caucuses until they've all occurred. That way the candidates can visit each state if they so desire, but the states that go first still won't have an inordinate amount of influence.

You'd have to ban exit polls, too. And for a primary season that takes months to complete, someone will leak the info early.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It seems to me that one solution would be for the parties to simply not release the results of the various primaries and caucuses until they've all occurred. That way the candidates can visit each state if they so desire, but the states that go first still won't have an inordinate amount of influence.

It's public information. The news media would report it.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

You'd have to ban exit polls, too. And for a primary season that takes months to complete, someone will leak the info early.

That's the main problem, of course.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

It's public information. The news media would report it.

Why is it public information? These aren't public elections they're internal ones conducted by the parties which are private organizations, aren't they?

[Uncle Skeleton]

People want to micro-analyze, it's human nature. We don't want to wait for the big picture, we want to extrapolate. That's why primaries came about in the first place. If we find some magical way to take the air out of the primaries balloon, people will find some other mechanism to replace it. It's the same reason we've (almost) always had 2 parties despite the best efforts of the founding fathers. People prefer a narrowed choice to a huge free-for-all.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

What a bunch of sissies. Only you people took my comment about her fat arse as meaning "fat women shouldn't be allowed as President."

You're exaggerating. If someone had made an off-hand comment that they're glad Lieberman got his "jew-arse" handed to him, or Obama got his "nappy-headed arse" handed to him... yadda yadda yadda. The objection is that you thought the comment was worth making, not that the commenter supposedly thinks fat chicks, jews or whatever shouldn't be president.

[Eug]

Having one vote all on the same day doesn't prevent candidates from visiting your state.

Conversely, having staggered votes doesn't ensure candidates will visit your state.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think Iowa and New Hampshire's status is well deserved, not just because of tradition but because they give a damn. From what I can tell, people there don't take these primary elections lightly.

I think you overestimate the average Iowan and New Hamphiran. I've met lots several people from New Hamphire who don't give a sh!t about much.

Either that, or you underestimate the rest of the country.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for you Maury, stop the misogyny NOW.
You and Shaddim and ebuddy really are struggling with your hatred for this woman if you have the need to criticize her physical appearance so vociferously.

Oh puh-lease.
Get back to us after the next Ann Coulter thread.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

How many times have you ever seen Hillary's huge arse, either accidentally or deliberately?

I mean, when footage of the candidates comes on the air do you actually strive to see her arse just to be repelled by it?
Or is the accidental ass-shot on the TV that catches you off guard? Damn those news channels for pointing a camera at Hillary's ass.
<shakes fist in a mock rage intending to ridicule you>

Remember that video, years ago, of her and Bill dancing on the beach? She was in some type of swim suit. It really and truly scarred me for life.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

New Hamphiran

I believe the proper term is 'New Hamster'.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

As for you Maury, stop the misogyny NOW.

You and Shaddim and ebuddy really are struggling with your hatred for this woman if you have the need to criticize her physical appearance so vociferously. How about you stick to criticizing her smarmy insincerity and political desperation; You'll make more valid political arguments that way and be a lot closer to the truth as to why she is a terrible candidate (and would make a terrible president).

I don't know about you, but I like a good misogyny after a hard day's work. Helps ease the tension.

Listen Popeye, Democrats in here have been making "Bush looks like a chimp" jokes (and he does), and "Coulter is a man" jabs (she might be), for years. The liberals can now live with the "Hillary has a big mushy butt" (and she does) comments.

Just consider yourself lucky that most people have forgotten that she's a lesbian, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You and Shaddim and ebuddy really are struggling with your hatred for this woman if you have the need to criticize her physical appearance so vociferously.

Could you please copy-paste where I criticized Hillary at all? What the heck is going on with people around here? I mean we're just making up whatever now?

You'd better check to make sure there is no tie-ware on your machine. It's screwing with your posts.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I found it strange that CNN and MSNBC downplayed most of the night Obama's 9 point win and and focused on Huckabee's win over Romney

You wouldn't happen to be aping Rush's analysis?

I watched the repeats of all the coverage last night and I call bullshit.

I watched CNN (you know, the Clinton News Network) and Obama was all they talked about.

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Oh puh-lease.
Get back to us after the next Ann Coulter thread.

So we can point out how Democrats who attack Ann's appearance are huge misogynist assholes too?

Got the t-shirt already.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Do our votes still count? I guess the RNC isn't as bad as the DNC who went to court to disqualify our primary. They can have their pissing match about dates if they want, but where the hell do the get off deciding my vote doesn't count anymore?

You're right. If the Democrats somehow find a way to lose this election (an ability they have shown time and time again), Howard Dean's head will be on the chopping block.

It's not entirely fair, though. What choice does the DNC really have? If every state tries to leapfrog the other in perpetuity, where does it stop? The Republicans have always had better discipline than the Democrats, which is one reason why the Dems have been in decline so long. Now, the Dems have a unique opening because the Bush administration and the accompanying Congress have been such abysmal disasters. Let's hope they make the best of it.

Originally Posted by subego 

So we can point out how Democrats who attack Ann's appearance are huge misogynist assholes too?

Just because she's a hateful, bleach-blonde, giraffe-necked bitch doesn't make me a misogynist merely for pointing it out. Sorry, but anti-Semites (male or female) do not get a free pass by me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

Just because she's a hateful, bleach-blonde, giraffe-necked bitch doesn't make me a misogynist merely for pointing it out. Sorry, but anti-Semites (male or female) do not get a free pass by me.

So, the more dangerous your enemy becomes the weaker you allow your arguments to be?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by subego 

So we can point out how Democrats who attack Ann's appearance are huge misogynist assholes too?

And yet no one in this thread, -certainly not anyone accused by name in the post I responded to- did any such thing.

Meanwhile, in any Ann Coulter thread, people who are part of the political side that pretends to corner the market on "compassion" do in fact prove to be misogynist assholes when it comes to women they don't like.

I'd say, sure, it's fair to point out the blazing irony.

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, the more dangerous your enemy becomes the weaker you allow your arguments to be?

Not if you put it that way, no. But let's be honest -- she's an easy mark. How she gets on TV so often and sells so many books is frankly a mystery to me. Her ignorance, hatred, and lies are mistaken by some for patriotism, but most clear-seeing Americans know what she is: a bigoted slug in a dress. Here's one Jew in no need of her "perfecting" with Christianity. Such chutzpah!

I'm not sure who's worse, Coulter or Laura Ingraham, as far as pure snide nastiness goes. But at least Ingraham has a brain, however twisted.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And yet no one in this thread, -certainly not anyone accused by name in the post I responded to- did any such thing.

Well, now I have.

[subego]

NM.

Misunderstood the post I was responding to.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You're exaggerating. If someone had made an off-hand comment that they're glad Lieberman got his "jew-arse" handed to him, or Obama got his "nappy-headed arse" handed to him... yadda yadda yadda.

Geesh, look who's talking about exaggerating. I'm amazed anyone got their panties in a bind over the OP, other than feigning outrage just for the hell of it.

Oops, I used the term "panties in a bind", surely that must be misogynist.

Saying someone got their ass handed to them is a common phrase- it generally has nothing to do with the person's actual ass. Railroader just added the term 'huge'. So what? Maybe she does have a huge arse, who the hell really cares?

Trying to stretch that into some huge conspiracy of misogyny is just weak.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Nm

[subego]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Trying to stretch that into some huge conspiracy of misogyny is just weak.

You wouldn't describe American culture as heavily misogynist?

[subego]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I'm still puzzled that ANYONE could use me and misogamy in the same sentence.

I'll take this to be your true feelings, so I'm imagining you'd appreciate me going through the effort of explaining it.

This isn't about me being sensitive (I'm a dude, so it would be difficult for me to be directly affected), likewise, it's not really going to affect Hillary either. Hillary likely doesn't come here, and I'm sure she's heard worse. She made her own choice to enter the public sphere, so it's up to her to be made of stern enough stuff.

What this is about, is that society deems a woman's body image to be a legitimate target. All women. This includes the women you do like.

For the sake of those women, it would seem to me that you wouldn't want to contribute to that environment.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll take this to be your true feelings, so I'm imagining you'd appreciate me going through the effort of explaining it.

This isn't about me being sensitive (I'm a dude, so it would be difficult for me to be directly affected), likewise, it's not really going to affect Hillary either. Hillary likely doesn't come here, and I'm sure she's heard worse. She made her own choice to enter the public sphere, so it's up to her to be made of stern enough stuff.

What this is about, is that society deems a woman's body image to be a legitimate target. All women. This includes the women you do like.

For the sake of those women, it would seem to me that you wouldn't want to contribute to that environment.

No, from your post, I'd definitely say you're a woman.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Geesh, look who's talking about exaggerating. I'm amazed anyone got their panties in a bind over the OP, other than feigning outrage just for the hell of it.

Oops, I used the term "panties in a bind", surely that must be misogynist.

Saying someone got their ass handed to them is a common phrase- it generally has nothing to do with the person's actual ass. Railroader just added the term 'huge'. So what? Maybe she does have a huge arse, who the hell really cares?

Trying to stretch that into some huge conspiracy of misogyny is just weak.

Dude, it's RAILhead.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Listen Popeye, Democrats in here have been making "Bush looks like a chimp" jokes (and he does), and "Coulter is a man" jabs (she might be), for years. The liberals can now live with the "Hillary has a big mushy butt" (and she does) comments.

Attacking the way women look lacks class. This transcends politics.

I can't stand either Hillary or Ann, but that's irrelevant because this has nothing to do with politics.

[subego]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

No, from your post, I'd definitely say you're a woman.

You know what?

I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Oops, I used the term "panties in a bind", surely that must be misogynist.

Wait, why isn't it?

Saying someone got their ass handed to them is a common phrase- it generally has nothing to do with the person's actual ass. Railroader just added the term 'huge'. So what? Maybe she does have a huge arse, who the hell really cares?

So you're saying he could add any adjective in there and it wouldn't change the tone? "I'm glad she got her jew arse handed to her. What? Maybe she is a jew, who the hell cares?" "I'm glad he got his black arse handed to him. What? He's Black!" <-- You really don't see how adding one word changes it from cliché internet-toughguy to cliché internet-bigot?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "Stop it NOW!!!11!" but I don't mind telling him he crossed the line.

Trying to stretch that into some huge conspiracy of misogyny is just weak.

who said anything about conspiracy?

[besson3c]

Wow, this thread started off nicely and now has become who can call Hilary Clinton the most clever insult...

I submit "poopy pants" into this little fourth grade club we have going here.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Attacking the way women look lacks class. This transcends politics.

I can't stand either Hillary or Ann, but that's irrelevant because this has nothing to do with politics.

If this thread were about Coulter's Adam's apple I doubt you'd say an admonishing word.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If this thread were about Coulter's Adam's apple I doubt you'd say an admonishing word.

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Looks to me like they botched the operation.

The crowd goes wild and your fans swarm down onto the field. Amidst all the cheers and back slapping, reporters cluster around you to get a statement.

One of them asks "So, Karl. You just proved Doofy and Crash right! What are you going to do?"




I guess I'll see you at Disneyworld, Champ.

You stand corrected.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wow, this thread started off nicely and now has become who can call Hilary Clinton the most clever insult...

Some things never change.

[Chongo]

I don't see anything wrong with Hilary's butt

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

You stand corrected.

But, this thread wasn't about her Adam's apple, so we don't really know.

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by subego 

Attacking the way women look lacks class. This transcends politics.

I can't stand either Hillary or Ann, but that's irrelevant because this has nothing to do with politics.

Sadly, it does. Lots of women voted for Bill because they thought he was cute. Edwards isn't getting $400 haircuts for sh/ts and giggles. It's no secret, looking good can sway a lot of voters. It's a damn shame, but it's a fact of life.

In other news, if you haven't seen Obama's speech from last night, it's on MSNBC. I'm pretty sure he's getting my vote now. While everyone else is using the change buzzword, he's the only one who really comes off genuinely with it. And the main point of his whole campaign is to end the deviciveness of the past elections. No more ultra conservative bs vs. ultra liberal bs. And please don't label him as the latter. Sure he has some "liberal" policies, but he's also "conservative" on others. Namely the 2nd Ammendment. You won't hear him shouting "My cold dead hands," but he supports the right of Americans to bear arms. Last I checked that was one of the "conservative" movement's major policy points.

Which leads me to the most important point. Last night he said something very important. He's not afraid to take a stand on issues and follow that course; but if the people disagree with him and/or he realizes that he made a mistake, he's won't be afraid to fess up and do the right thing. Remember, no matter what policies a candidate believes in personally, they are ultimately our servants and must protect that sacred trust. Somehow that's been lost and he's one of the few who recognize that we need to get that back. One could argue Edwards is there too, but he's being too specific. Lobbyists aren't our only problem. The polarization of people into the far right and far left, which then breeds intolerance, is also a huge issue.