|
Handicapping Iowa...
"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? Eisboch |
Handicapping Iowa...
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote: There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans. I'm not sure about that at all. I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :) My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably correct. The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates, much more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an otherwise red state. People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for a breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual" candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination. Edwards is still a remote possibility however. Eisboch More than twice as many Democrats came out to the caucuses than Republicans. That in itself says a lot about the excitement Dems have for their candidates, and the lack of excitement Repubs have for theirs. CBS News reported that the Republican turnout was much higher than it was last election cycle. Excitement is high on both sides for this event, selecting the respective nominees from both parties. Add in the crazy procedures the Dems use in the Iowa caucuses, and the time it takes. You have to be motivated to hang around for two hours for that madness. Contrast that with the Repub caucus procedure...just make a mark on a paper ballot and go home. What about the report Fox News report that the Iowa Cacuses don't accurately reflect the way Iowans vote in the general election? John McCain is too conservative for my taste on several issues, but he'd be a more than competent president. I do worry about his age, though. I don't think the Repubs are wise enough to nominate him. If McCain doesn't win in New Hampshire he is gone. He may stick around through South Carolina, however, Huckabee will get the South Carolina vote. Romney! Ha! Romney has a hairdo, a lot of nice suits, and a lot of money, but he has flip-flopped on so many big issues, he makes John Kerry look like a guy wearing concrete overshoes. Romney comes across as more presidential than Kerry could ever dream of. My ideal Republican candidate, though, is Mike Huckabee. He's just perfect for the GOP. He is perfect for the Democrats. If he was on your slate he would win your party's nomination. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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? Nobody gives. Gives money to either one. They couldn't put together a national organization. Both have been in the Senate too long and people know where the both stand and they are not national candidate material. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have absolutely noting in their Senate records, they haven't actually done anything except show up for some votes. No track record means they can say what they want and people will believe them. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 03:34:36 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "HK" wrote in message m... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 13:00:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: I'm thinking Obama gets out with a lead of three or four points over Edwards in second and Clinton a very close third to Edwards - say within a point or two. Did I call that one right or what? More interesting to me, since I don't care which Dem wins the nomination, so long as the winning Dem wins the election is this: The total number of voters in Iowa who came out on a really cold night to vote for Democratic candidates was well over 200,000, significantly more than came out to vote for the Republicans. In Iowa, a red state that Bush carried in 2004. There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans. 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. Can we agree to stop using Kristians? It's insulting and not neccessary. 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****. With pandering, what is politics but for pandering? Come on - he's attractive to them because he's one of them and based on his largely Pro-Life stance. What they don't realise is that he's a Democrat in every other sense of the word - a true Fred Harris style populist. What concerns me is that ALL new presidents are in danger of being crushed by an onslaught of powerful influences who have publicity machines that are as powerful as the president's. I want someone who's capable of saying "Get the phuque outta my office and don't EVER come back." I don't know about either Huckabee or Obama. For reasons I can't explain, I think McCain's capable of that. Lee Iacocca, too, but he's too smart to run for president. |
Handicapping Iowa...
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? Eisboch They read the handwriting on the wall. I really like Biden, by the way, but I never thought he had a chance. Dodd is articulate, but he's never gotten anywhere as a national pol. Maybe it is the ghost of his father hanging over him. -- George W. Bush - the 43rd Best President Ever! |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Jim" wrote in message
... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote: There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans. I'm not sure about that at all. I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :) My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably correct. The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates, much more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an otherwise red state. People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for a breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual" candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination. Edwards is still a remote possibility however. Eisboch Oh heavenly father, I pray that Eisboch is wrong. Go Romney Yeah. Multiple choice Romney. |
Handicapping Iowa...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:12:08 -0500, HK wrote: There's going to be a landslide vote for the Democratic candidate in November. The populace is tired of the S.O.S. from the Republicans. I'm not sure about that at all. I'd argue the point, but it wouldn't change your mind. :) My sense, after seeing the results in Iowa, is that Harry is probably correct. The Democrats came out in force (numbers) to support their candidates, much more so than the Republicans came forth to support theirs in an otherwise red state. People have had it with the current state of affairs and are looking for a breath of fresh air, I think. That includes the "business as usual" candidates of both parties like Clinton and McCain, so it really only leaves Obama and possibly Romney. I don't think Romney would stand a chance against Obama, even if he manages to get the nomination. Edwards is still a remote possibility however. Eisboch Oh heavenly father, I pray that Eisboch is wrong. Go Romney Yeah. Multiple choice Romney. I don't understand why anyone would be "for" Romney, unless they were in to haircuts and haberdashery. There's nothing under than $2500 suit. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"HK" wrote in message
... John McCain is too conservative for my taste on several issues, but he'd be a more than competent president. I do worry about his age, though. I don't think the Repubs are wise enough to nominate him. My dad's 86 and still runs a company. His intelligence, energy and competence are almost intimidating to people who haven't worked with him for a while. Never count anyone out because of age. I think McCain would do just fine. And, I don't think he'd cave in completely to the religious right. I wonder when we'll have a candidate who's ready to kick the jambs out from under the right wing religious freaks by addressing the issues that concern them, but in ways that they hate (because those ways make sense). |
Handicapping Iowa...
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
|
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. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said "He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as having the same view - which you can't with any certainty. "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... 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. I suspect you're on your way out the door in a little while, so you're trying to end the discussion by stonewalling with a misused word. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Without cutting & pasting definitions from elsewhere, and without providing links, please provide YOUR definition of the word "bigot". I'll give you mine, by example: Bigot: I don't like black people. Realist: I don't like this particular black person because he raped a woman. http://www.nysmostwanted.com/295.htm Bigot: I don't like religious people. Realist: I don't like religious people who think their book is more important than human beings in another country. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said "He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as having the same view - which you can't with any certainty. "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry. OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven to be ineffective. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... 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. Well said. You can't ask for more than that. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Jan 4, 5:18�am, JG2U wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:34:43 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: I read an account that said more than half of the Republicans attending caucus in Iowa described themselves as "born again" or "evangelical" Christians. Romney actually led among the Republicans who didn't arrive in a chruch bus, so you weren't completely unfounded in your Republican guesstimate. That's a good point and reading through the post mortems this morning, that one jumped out as an interesting data point. � Notice how the media makes sure to drive home the "evangelical Christian" phrase, over and over. �They've made it an issue... to give godless liberals something to rally against. �Look how well it's working right here on this NG. I don't think the "godless liberals" are ralllying against "evangelical Christians". Huckabee's meteoric rise in a race that 90 days ago was heavily handicapped for Guiliani or (maybe) Mitt is certainly legitimate reality, but nobody is "rallying against" Huckabee by noting much of his support comes from people who share his fundamentalist values. Certainly no more than people would be "rallying against" Obama by noting he has many supporters among racial minorities or "rallying against" Clinton by noting she has many supporters among politically active women. My parents and siblings all vote Republican. Given a chance, some of them would vote for anybody *except* Romney, due to his "Mormonism". (Pretty funny, considering we are all not-so-distant cousins of Joseph Smith - his grandmother was a Gould from our ancestral home in Topsfield, MA.) I'd like to think in general that the evangelical vote isn't "rallied against" another Republican- and that their support for Huckabee is truly proactive rather than reactive. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:41:26 -0500, HK wrote:
My fear is that despite his qualities, in a general election, whitey isn't going to vote for "the black guy." Many knowledgable people said that about Iowa also, including quite a few Iowans. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:08:02 -0500, HK wrote:
I find Romney totally obnoxious and a flip-flopping panderer. Than he will win for sure. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "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. I'm old enough to recognize a tool when I see one. Which other groups do you partition into those you like and those you call bad names? What is your pet name for muslims that advocate policies you dislike? How about those minorities that propose things that you disagree with? What are your names for them? Latinos and what? African-Americans and what? Gays and what? del |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "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. I'm old enough to recognize a tool when I see one. Which other groups do you partition into those you like and those you call bad names? What is your pet name for muslims that advocate policies you dislike? How about those minorities that propose things that you disagree with? What are your names for them? Latinos and what? African-Americans and what? Gays and what? del Kristian: Someone who uses their religion to defeat humanitarian programs in countries they really don't care about. Christian: Someone who doesn't. That's your answer. It's perfectly accurate. |
Handicapping Iowa...
wrote in message
... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:42:26 -0500, HK wrote: I'm hoping the Republicans nominate the Huckster, the Paul, or, best of all, the Fred. The strange thing is "The Fred" might actually end up being the most electible of the bunch. People have short memories and name recognition may be more important than substance. If Fred puts on his best Law and Order suit, sits in that mahogony office and gives us some of his country wisdom speeches in a series of October ads, people will probably vote for him. He is probably the perfect "anti-Obama" and "anti-Clinton" candidate. Americans are not very sophistocated when it comes right down to it. Most of them make decisions based on what they see on TV. That is why the advertising industry makes so much money The candidates should be fined $25,000.00 every time they say "folks". |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said "He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as having the same view - which you can't with any certainty. "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry. OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven to be ineffective. You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a distinction, you are painting with a broad brush. If you weren't biased you would have used different language to demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind. Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things different. It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting words to create a negative impression. It is what it is. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:36:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote: 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. Nicely stated. Well done. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said "He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as having the same view - which you can't with any certainty. "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry. OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven to be ineffective. You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a distinction, you are painting with a broad brush. If you weren't biased you would have used different language to demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind. Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things different. It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting words to create a negative impression. It is what it is. I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book written by people who were nothing special. Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The Handmaid's Tale"? |
Handicapping Iowa...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said "He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as having the same view - which you can't with any certainty. "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry. OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven to be ineffective. You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a distinction, you are painting with a broad brush. If you weren't biased you would have used different language to demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind. Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things different. It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting words to create a negative impression. It is what it is. I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book written by people who were nothing special. Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The Handmaid's Tale"? What? Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains? I'm shocked. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said "He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as having the same view - which you can't with any certainty. "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry. OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven to be ineffective. You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a distinction, you are painting with a broad brush. If you weren't biased you would have used different language to demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind. Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things different. It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting words to create a negative impression. It is what it is. Well said. -- John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:28:53 -0500, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:43:28 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:08:41 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: I know a few deeply religious evangelical types. They're not all Kristians Then why label them as such? You didn't make a distinction - you said "He's successfully pandering to right wing Kristians, and it's working." You labeled an entire class of people - Kristians - as having the same view - which you can't with any certainty. "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability." By definition, it's hate speech which is bigotry. OK. The Kristians are a SUBSET of Christianity. They're the ones who are happy to see people die, while their sect supports policies which are proven to be ineffective. You cannot label one without tarring the other. The very fact that you use a K instead of a C demonstrates that - you aren't making a distinction, you are painting with a broad brush. If you weren't biased you would have used different language to demonstrate and differentiate between those who have an extreme view and those who don't. Kristians are not a subset of Christianity. As far as I know, the only Kristians are those that exist in your mind. Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. Just as there are liberals who believe in the Great Humanist Paradigm in which unicorns play in elysian fields filled with fresh fruit and the lions lay with the lambs while all of mankind lives in peace and harmony with mutual understanding and tolerance for all things different. It's a trait of the biased to denigrate and dismiss anything that doesn't fit within a specific world view or issue with caustic language. Discussions can't begin or end without making a comment about the lack of comprehension or intelligence or age or adjusting words to create a negative impression. It is what it is. I get a bit extreme when a cult uses its influence to force humanitarians to withhold what is, for all intents and purposes, medication. It's especially annoying when the cult is based on a literal interpretation of a book written by people who were nothing special. Would it be right if I decided to create a society based on the book "The Handmaid's Tale"? What? Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains? I'm shocked. And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind. -- John H |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. I have no problem with such people so long as they don't try to shove their "limited and literal view of the world and their faith" on the rest of us. When they do - and they do - then I think I have an obligation to push back, and to push back hard. When the idiot who currently occupies the White House promulgated "Jesus Day" in Texas while he was governor there, I would have hauled his ass into federal court had I been a Texan. The fact that he and his administration use their simple-minded, limited and literal view of the world to deny access to condoms to Africans who are suffering through an AIDs epidemic makes me believe that there is something really and truly wrong with their belief system. But, hey, I'm a pessimist. I fully expect that if Barack Obama is the Democrat nominee, one of those geniuses with their limited and literal view of the world and their faith will try to assassinate him. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"John H." wrote in message
... What? Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains? I'm shocked. And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind. -- John H Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith? A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith. |
Handicapping Iowa...
"HK" wrote in message
... On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:12:41 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Are there fundamentalist Christians who have a somewhat limited and literal view of the world and their faith - of course there are. I have no problem with such people so long as they don't try to shove their "limited and literal view of the world and their faith" on the rest of us. When they do - and they do - then I think I have an obligation to push back, and to push back hard. When the idiot who currently occupies the White House promulgated "Jesus Day" in Texas while he was governor there, I would have hauled his ass into federal court had I been a Texan. The fact that he and his administration use their simple-minded, limited and literal view of the world to deny access to condoms to Africans who are suffering through an AIDs epidemic makes me believe that there is something really and truly wrong with their belief system. But, hey, I'm a pessimist. I fully expect that if Barack Obama is the Democrat nominee, one of those geniuses with their limited and literal view of the world and their faith will try to assassinate him. I was just thinking the same thing. Obama had better watch his step. No hotel balconies for him. |
Handicapping Iowa...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:49:03 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . What? Are you saying the bible is NOT the word of god taken down by man to be believed literally and followed precisely, no matter how many translations and mistranslations and myths and folklore tales it contains? I'm shocked. And JimH considers you such a tribute to mankind. -- John H Q: If I could prove the existence of god, would you then have faith? A: If you could prove the existence of god, I wouldn't need faith. Better stick with Harry, Doug. You guys go well together. -- John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com