Wednesday May 7th.

Bman wrote:

IrishGuy wrote:I was at home sick all day yesterday. I got 3 phone calls from Clinton pushers asking if I was going to go vote for Hillary. I told each one of them no I voted for Obama. (I didn't vote) One of the callers called at 5:30 PM. Didn't the polls close at 6:00?

yea the polls closed at 6. WTF ... why would we close the polls at 6 pm, when most work till at least 5????? Talk about disenfranchising the white collar vote who votes for Obama. lol, had to get one last plug in there.

I do think our polls should have stayed open longer ... give more people the chance to vote.

Good question Bman. I'm curious when other states' polls closed. If a good portion of them were later, then that's just one more example of how Indiana 'can' be behind the times.

I think closing the polls at 6 is a tactic that Hillary came up with to keep Obama down.

Here's a thought. Does anyone else see the irony of Democrats complaining that Bush "stole" the 2004 election because he didn't win the popular vote, and yet Hillary could get the nomination (albeit not likely) by way of the superdelegates despite losing the delegate count?

Markwes wrote:I think closing the polls at 6 is a tactic that Hillary came up with to keep Obama down.

Here's a thought. Does anyone else see the irony of Democrats complaining that Bush "stole" the 2004 election because he didn't win the popular vote, and yet Hillary could get the nomination (albeit not likely) by way of the superdelegates despite losing the delegate count?

Wasn't it the 2000 election against Mr. Greenjeans, er Gore? But anyway, yeah, you're right. It is VERY ironic!

Cincy Fan 44 wrote:

Markwes wrote:I think closing the polls at 6 is a tactic that Hillary came up with to keep Obama down.

Here's a thought. Does anyone else see the irony of Democrats complaining that Bush "stole" the 2004 election because he didn't win the popular vote, and yet Hillary could get the nomination (albeit not likely) by way of the superdelegates despite losing the delegate count?

Wasn't it the 2000 election against Mr. Greenjeans, er Gore? But anyway, yeah, you're right. It is VERY ironic!

I will say that I think all votes should always be counted if they were cast legally and according to the rule. With that said, the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated at the convention. Florida and Michigan should have played by the rules set down from the DNC and that the Clinton campaign approved. For Hillary now to be running around SCREECHING about this is hypocritical at this juncture, but all delegates from both states will be seated at the convention so all 50 states will be given the chance to cast their delegates.

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and Barack has won the popular vote in this primary election ... both should have won their elections. Seems I am pretty consistent and the democratic party is pretty consistent.

If voting is that important to you you can find time to get to the polls. Besides, they have to end at 6:00 so people can hear who won on the evening news, after all, that's what is important.

Doesn't matter, if Obama gets the nomination all the female democrats will be pissed that "a man" won, and if Clinton gets the nod it'll be another example of whitey holding the black man down. Good job dem's, you just lost the election.

cardinal5150 wrote:If voting is that important to you you can find time to get to the polls. Besides, they have to end at 6:00 so people can hear who won on the evening news, after all, that's what is important.

Doesn't matter, if Obama gets the nomination all the female democrats will be pissed that "a man" won, and if Clinton gets the nod it'll be another example of whitey holding the black man down. Good job dem's, you just lost the election.

We will be holding hands and singing Kumbaya at our convention. Card, bend over your taxes are going up!!!!

Markwes wrote:The Obama fanatics remind me of the zombies in Night of the Living Dead, except instead of walking around saying "brains, brains", they are saying "change, change".

Markwes Do me a big favor and look up the word "Liberal" and then look up the word "Conservative"

Please!!

Then tell me which fits your centered engery

Markwes wrote:The Obama fanatics remind me of the zombies in Night of the Living Dead, except instead of walking around saying "brains, brains", they are saying "change, change".

Yeah, that was an episode of South Park. Except they were referring to change as in the money variety and it was homeless people.

Mort wrote:

Markwes wrote:The Obama fanatics remind me of the zombies in Night of the Living Dead, except instead of walking around saying "brains, brains", they are saying "change, change".

Markwes Do me a big favor and look up the word "Liberal" and then look up the word "Conservative"

Please!!

Then tell me which fits your centered engery

Hmmm, not sure what you're getting at there Mort...

Mort wrote:I think its good to be progressive to a certain point and I think its good to hang on to good old fashion values.

I think the trick is to not be extreme in any stance you take but most of all to be accepting to change and others changing with it.

It would be nice if it worked this way, too bad for the citizens that politicians see it the complete opposite.

LTRT wrote:

Mort wrote:I think its good to be progressive to a certain point and I think its good to hang on to good old fashion values.

I think the trick is to not be extreme in any stance you take but most of all to be accepting to change and others changing with it.

It would be nice if it worked this way, too bad for the citizens that politicians see it the complete opposite.

Completely agree. Just how did they get in office anyhow?

I was merely making an observation that some followers of Obama act like mindless zombies. They might not know his stance on issues but he has a catchy slogan and is someone new on the national scene and has charisma. I can "put down", as you say, Republicans too because I don't feel McCain is the party's best candidate. But that's fine if you want to discuss what a liberal is. I did as you requested and here are some of the definitons I found for "liberalism" on dictionary.com that pertain to the word as it used in politics:

1. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

2. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.

3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

4. a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution

5. an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market .

6. In the twentieth century, a viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state.

Out of these, #4 is the only one I see that mentions anything about "change", so I'm not sure where your definition came from. As far as both sides being too far left or right, I would agree, especially now that each side is trying to get the support of their party. Right now, I don't see that any of the candidates offer anything special. My beef in my original post was about people who get caught up in the hype and think Obama is the big saviour and all of their problems will be solved if he gets elected.

Liberal - A tree hugger who wants to give away everyones money to the poor

Conservative - A gun nazi who wants to build their mansion on the backs of the poor


That fair for everyone?

cardinal5150 wrote:Liberal - A tree hugger who wants to give away everyones money to the poor

Conservative - A gun nazi who wants to build their mansion on the backs of the poor


That fair for everyone?

Do the gun nazis "cling" to their guns, or just sleep with them in bed?

cardinal5150 wrote:Liberal - A tree hugger who wants to give away everyones money to the poor

Conservative - A gun nazi who wants to build their mansion on the backs of the poor


That fair for everyone?

If you're fishing for an honest answer... these seem very polarized characterizations as opposed to standardized immutable definitions. But isn't that a tell tale sign that such fierce two-party political pandering has an extreme effect on our personal "standards"?

IMHO, Take two big steps back and look at the definitions as they are. Try not to attach "spin" adjectives that attempt to antagonize emotional response. "United we stand" was around Waaaaaaay before this election race.

I think the Right Wing knows this year the electorate is FED up with business as usual and the failed policies of the past. I think the right wing fear a "change" candidate (either Obama or McCain) because the Right Wing does not want to give up power. McCain is really no change but some on the far right (evangelibans) fear that he is a wolf in sheep clothing and we ALL know that Barack Obama is CHANGE from Washington as usual.

I want change ...

Bman wrote:I want change ...

Then look in your pockets Bman!!!

I think McCain will do what he's always done, piss of the extremists and do what he feels is right for the country. Only now he'll have the power to direct us instead of having to play to the hands of his party. If he gets elected, why would he continue to make them happy over himself? It's not like he would run for another office after being President.

I think he's doing what he needs to do to keep the conservatives happy while appealing to the independents as a middle of the road candidate who wants to move the country forward over all other things. By keeping quiet he's doing a good job. I think this gas tax holiday will be a focal point for Obama, but it'll be hard to tell blue collar workers that McCain is bad because he wanted to give them a $ break on gas. That just doesn't make sense to most people.

Regardless, as long as Hillary isn't around I think the campaigns will focus on issues.. hopefully..

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:Liberal - A tree hugger who wants to give away everyones money to the poor

Conservative - A gun nazi who wants to build their mansion on the backs of the poor


That fair for everyone?

If you're fishing for an honest answer... these seem very polarized characterizations as opposed to standardized immutable definitions. But isn't that a tell tale sign that such fierce two-party political pandering has an extreme effect on our personal "standards"?

IMHO, Take two big steps back and look at the definitions as they are. Try not to attach "spin" adjectives that attempt to antagonize emotional response. "United we stand" was around Waaaaaaay before this election race.

i was making a joke...

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:Liberal - A tree hugger who wants to give away everyones money to the poor

Conservative - A gun nazi who wants to build their mansion on the backs of the poor


That fair for everyone?

If you're fishing for an honest answer... these seem very polarized characterizations as opposed to standardized immutable definitions. But isn't that a tell tale sign that such fierce two-party political pandering has an extreme effect on our personal "standards"?

IMHO, Take two big steps back and look at the definitions as they are. Try not to attach "spin" adjectives that attempt to antagonize emotional response. "United we stand" was around Waaaaaaay before this election race.

i was making a joke...

I figured... but no joke, this is exactly the picture I hear painted by Fox News, Beck, Hannity, Savage and other extremists. I guess Fair and Balanced means we'll give the wacko's equal talk time

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:Liberal - A tree hugger who wants to give away everyones money to the poor

Conservative - A gun nazi who wants to build their mansion on the backs of the poor


That fair for everyone?

If you're fishing for an honest answer... these seem very polarized characterizations as opposed to standardized immutable definitions. But isn't that a tell tale sign that such fierce two-party political pandering has an extreme effect on our personal "standards"?

IMHO, Take two big steps back and look at the definitions as they are. Try not to attach "spin" adjectives that attempt to antagonize emotional response. "United we stand" was around Waaaaaaay before this election race.

i was making a joke...

I figured... but no joke, this is exactly the picture I hear painted by Fox News, Beck, Hannity, Savage and other extremists. I guess Fair and Balanced means we'll give the wacko's equal talk time

Humm, seems like you forgot to mention CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, MoveOn.org, AirAmerica, DailyKos, HuffingtonPost and the list goes on and on and on.

It's more the stereotype that was around looooooooooong before Fox news became the republican party media outlet.. Liberals have always been the tree huggers and conservatives the yuppies.

I agree with you Markwes Obama throws out these slogans and they eat them up!

He kinda scares me I still can't believe any of these people that are running

When you get down to it there really isn't anyone to vote for either side

Its really a shame the last two elections were the same

I'll bet the euros are laughing at us

I think the people that come here to post are great people all of you and I really enjoy coming here and reading what you all have to say and for that I say

"THANKS TO ALL OF YOU, FOR BEING YOU ! "

ps: I also think if Obama gets elected he could quit possibly get in the same situation that JFK got in....