Handicapping Iowa...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.


THere's nothing bigoted about pointing out that the current
administration uses its small-minded concept of Christianity to prevent
the distribution of condoms.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part
of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by
people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.


Bigot? I define that as disliking a certain type of person for stupid
reasons, like the color of their skin. Meanwhile, you know nothing about the
person inside the skin. I dislike a certain sect of Christians because of
something tangible they have done, and will continue to do. Tangible. Not
the color of their skin, or the simple existence of their religion, but the
things they do. They want to control other people's lives, and they'll quote
from their books to "prove" that they're right. Some of these lunatics
actually believe they OWN their wives.

I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians.
I've spoken at length to two of them about what one of the sects tries to
do, in terms of meddling with programs that have an actual chance of making
people's lives better. They find this behavior reprehensible. You should,
too. If you need proof that this happens, I'll find it for you. It's nothing
new, or hidden. It was big news during the early years of the Bush-2
administration. I believe they also hounded Clinton with their nonsense.

Pretending a certain subset of people is nonexistent does not work, Tom.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:55:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...

I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.

I noticed something this morning that surprised me. I realize that
politicians are .... well, politicians, but this was still surprising and it
makes me wonder what is really going on:

Yesterday I watched Biden and Dodd being interviewed. Both recognized and
acknowledged their respective slim chances in Iowa, but hoped for the best.
Dodd in particular indicated that beyond Iowa he expected support for him to
surge later in the primary season and was confident of his chances.

After the first "contest" both folded and went home. What gives?

Well, I can't speak to Biden - don't actually know much about him
other than what I've seen on TV interviews and the like.

The only reason Dodd was in the race was to build up his compaign fund
for the next Senate race and some leverage to position himself for
possible VP or a Cabinet post should a Democrat win.

I could be wrong though - I have a history with Dodd going back to his
Second Congressional District days and I don't like him so my view
point of him as an empty suit may be biased. :)

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:55:01 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
...

I have no problems with any of the Democratic frontrunners winning the
nomination. I've always liked Mrs. Clinton, I think Obama is aces, and I
think Edwards' heart is in precisely the right place.

I noticed something this morning that surprised me. I realize that
politicians are .... well, politicians, but this was still surprising and
it
makes me wonder what is really going on:

Yesterday I watched Biden and Dodd being interviewed. Both recognized and
acknowledged their respective slim chances in Iowa, but hoped for the
best.
Dodd in particular indicated that beyond Iowa he expected support for him
to
surge later in the primary season and was confident of his chances.

After the first "contest" both folded and went home. What gives?

Well, I can't speak to Biden - don't actually know much about him
other than what I've seen on TV interviews and the like.

The only reason Dodd was in the race was to build up his compaign fund
for the next Senate race and some leverage to position himself for
possible VP or a Cabinet post should a Democrat win.

I could be wrong though - I have a history with Dodd going back to his
Second Congressional District days and I don't like him so my view
point of him as an empty suit may be biased. :)


Dodd's pretty much normal, as politicians go:


No one is sure what convinced President Clinton to approve such an ambitious
escalation in the War on Drugs. But some observers at the time speculated
that the critical factor was a conversation with Sen. Christopher Dodd, the
Connecticut Democrat, whose state is home to the helicopter manufacturer
Sikorsky Aircraft. In early 2000, Clinton unveiled Plan Colombia - and
Sikorksy promptly received an order for eighteen of its Blackhawk
helicopters at a cost of $15 million each. "Much has been made of the notion
that this was Dodd looking to sell Blackhawks to Colombia," Beers tells me.
He pauses before adding, "I am not in a position to tell you it didn't
happen."

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate.
He's dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians,
and it's working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could
be a real problem.

Why do you misspell "Christian"? Is it a form of hate speech? Are you
attempting to suppress religion?

Handicapping Iowa...
 

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate.
He's dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and
it's working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could be a
real problem.

Why do you misspell "Christian"? Is it a form of hate speech? Are you
attempting to suppress religion?


There are real Christians, and then there are Kristians.

How old are you? I can explain more about this issue, but it would help if I
had some idea of how long you've been alive, so I know how much detail
you'll require.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:07:48 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.

Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.

THere's nothing bigoted about pointing out that the current
administration uses its small-minded concept of Christianity to prevent
the distribution of condoms.

Didn't think you were a bigot either.

Unfortunate.

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:07:48 -0500, HK wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:12:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I use that term to describe the sect that meddles a bit too much, to the
point of trying to prevent the distribution of condoms in Africa as part of
our AIDS prevention assistance. You know why, and you know they're wrong.
People are dying, and these Kristians are trying to connect condoms with
loose morals because of something they read in an old book written by people
who were no holier than you or I. It's pure bull****.
Odd - I never thought of you as a bigot.

I'm disappointed.
THere's nothing bigoted about pointing out that the current
administration uses its small-minded concept of Christianity to prevent
the distribution of condoms.

Didn't think you were a bigot either.

Unfortunate.


Surely you are not denying the Bush Admin uses its religious
"underpinnings" as an excuse to prevent distribution of condoms in Africa.

--
George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever!

Handicapping Iowa...
 

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:23:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...


There'd better be a landslide if Huckabee is the Republican candidate.
He's dangerous. He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and
it's working. If they see him as more ethical than Bush, he could be a
real problem.

Why do you misspell "Christian"? Is it a form of hate speech? Are you
attempting to suppress religion?


There are real Christians, and then there are Kristians.

How old are you? I can explain more about this issue, but it would help if I
had some idea of how long you've been alive, so I know how much detail
you'll require.


You're just trying hard to emulate your hero, Harry. You're getting there
Doug, but keep working.
--
John H

Handicapping Iowa...
 

Harry Krause wrote:

I was surprised but not displeased by Obama's win in Iowa. He's a very
appealing guy, and articulate. My fear is that despite his qualities, in a
general election, whitey isn't going to vote for "the black guy."


Eisboch wrote:

I think your age is showing Harry. �Things have changed, and for the better.
The young crowd really don't have the remnants of racial prejudices that
many in our generation still harbor.


I see merit in both points. I agree with Eisboch that if not the first
then certainly the second generation of people born after the era of
MLK-style struggle for black equality in the US are much less
prejudiced than their parents and grandparents. The young people I
have overheard discussing this issue currently seem to ascribe various
behaviors once many considered endemic to the black race more to
economic circumstances than to any racial predispositions.

Educated, articulate, intelligent people (like the majority of the
current candidates for POTUS) can an do represent a wide swath of
racial and cultural backgrounds. Even if Hillary's campaign ultimately
tanks (possible- people just don't "like her" that miuch), she has
done a lot to pave the way for future qualified women to run for
POTUS. Likewise, Obama's mixed race heritage has dampened any future
"shock" of seeing a very seriously competitive not-entirely-white
contender for the highest office in the land.

But Harry has a good point as well. Elections are decided not by the
general senitment of the population, but by the sentiments of those
who show up at the polls. The young people who are less racist than
the average person in previous generations are notoriously apathetic
voters. College campuses excepted. The oldsters who clearly remember
segregated schools, restuarants, drinking fountains, neighborhoods,
etc (and may still secretly think it wasn't such a bad system) belong
to an age group that more often votes conservative Republican. And
vote they do. Put woman or a non-white on the final ballot, and there
will be caravans of ambulances hauling people to the polling places
from every retirement and nursing home in the red states.
And to be fair, many of those same outdated attitudes also exist among
some members of the older generations in some of the blue states-
perhaps just not quite as commonly as in places where slavery and/or
segregation were once popular legal institutions.

Obama's biggest political disadvantage may ultimately turn out to be
his middle name. I have heard some of the right wing talk hosts stop
using his first name entirely, and emphasize the middle; "In Iowa
today,
presidential wannabe *HUSSEIN* Obama spoke against the basic Christian
principle of Creationsim...."

May the best candidates win the nominations of the respective parties,
and may the best candidate among the two finalists (regardless of
party) win in November.