Still there will be more
I can't begin to count the ways that conservatives have murdered people, from the million or so Little Nero and Big Dick are killing in Iraq and Afghanistan to those additional numbers who died when they ignored warnings of an attack from Al Qaeda, when they deliberately refused to allow relief to New Orleans, when they encouraged insurance companies to refuse lifesaving medical care to people who had already paid for it, and so on, and so on - and never mind the astonishing theft of services and a future for all those people who've lost pensions they worked to earn at Enron and the airlines and wherever else these things are going on. And these people who have destroyed so many lives will never see a day in jail. But by they gods, at least Marion Jones got time for breaking the law!
And Wendy Whitaker broke the law when, at the age of 17, she went down on her 15-year-old boyfriend (which I'm sure ruined him for life), so now she's on the sex offenders register and 11 years later being hounded out of her home while she's trying to settle down with her husband. To protect the children. And Maria Ventura broke the law by being in the country illegally, so it was just and proper that when she was arrested, here children were abandoned on the shoulder of the interstate at 2:00 in the morning.
Perhaps Obama's team keeps floating some of the worst choices in the world (most of whom are either Republicans or might as well be) in order to remind people that there really are worse VP choices than Hillary Clinton? Because, really, that's the only good reason I can think of for continuing to do this. Because people are starting to wonder whether there will be a place for Democrats in an Obama administration.
I bet the Iraqis are really glad we liberated from the threat of violence and torture and rape rooms and...clean water.
Barbie learns math not so hard.
Is Lee Stranahan looking to be the Joe Lieberman of his generation?
- Original article
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger
- July 27, 2008
There will be more
Hopefully the convention will force Obama
to take Hillary as VP. She does control almost half the delegates. The libtards dont want to win anyway. Hillary as VP is our only chance.
I still believe that Hillary
I still believe that Hillary will somehow steal the nomination from Obama. What fun it will be watching the freaks and the race pimps in the streets of Denver during the convention.
You are a racist
I really need to know. If I am going to accept your Jesus as my Personal Lord and Savior, who should I hate in order to be just like Him?
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
I wonder why Clinton didn't take a big trip like Obama?
Was it the massive campaign debt? Or the fact that she lost the nomination?
By f u bush2July 27, 2008 - 10:33pm
Thank Dog that she will have absolutely no role in the Obama Administration. Her & LIEberman can go job hunting together after they both lose their Senate seats in 2012.
George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.
By Guy FawkesJuly 27, 2008 - 10:55pm
Thank dog indeed!
You know it would be nice to have some party unity. But some of these Hillary supporters are real pricks.
Anyone but Hillary for NY Senate 2012!
You libtards are some sick
mother fuckers. Hopefully you will all join the green party after this massive defeat. The Clinton 2012 campaign is well under way. You people will never be forgiven for the way you fucked up our certain win this year. Go away.
By hufflarry2000July 27, 2008 - 11:02pm
It better be! She's going to have to fight very hard to stop a true progressive from stealing her Senate seat while Barack's running for his second presidential term.
George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.
By Guy FawkesJuly 27, 2008 - 11:07pm
Nice!
You know if Obama did lose, it would be funny watching Clinton try to run again. She would be out before it got to New Hampshire.
The good part is she would have to go for broke. Let go of her senate seat and campaign for president. Well she might actually try to run for both offices. That would be pretty funny to see.
I am sure that after the Obama disaster
she will have no problem getting the nomination. She got more votes in the primary anyway. I just dont think we true Dems will forgive you libtards for fucking up a sure thing.
By hufflarry2000July 27, 2008 - 11:14pm
Huff. You are an idiot. Your candidate lost. Give it a rest.
By hufflarry2000July 27, 2008 - 11:14pm
This is the kind of statement that defines the stupidity of Clinton supporters. No wonder she lost.
Proven facts are not stupid
they are facts that you libtards dont like.
By hufflarry2000July 27, 2008 - 11:02pm
Another admission of sabotage from a Hillary supporter. Unity be damned!
ummm... Hillary would have won big
your candidate is going to lose big. The voters chose Hillary in the primaries. It is you libtards who sabotaged the party. Go green, asswipes.
By hufflarry2000July 27, 2008 - 11:17pm
When I see you cultish Hillary supporters whining I can only think one thing: I'm so glad she lost.
This race is already over
We are getting ready for 2012. If we survive McCain.
By hufflarry2000July 27, 2008 - 11:20pm
I didn't care so much who beat her but I was just happy to see that presumptuous and aristocratic Clinton lose. I thought the joy would fade but Larry keeps the joy alive.
By hufflarry2000July 27, 2008 - 11:20pm
I'm glad that she's finally given up on her presidential aspirations. Like I said; she'd better be getting ready to try & retain her Senate seat in 2012. Here she is reflecting on her chances of doing that.
Actually, I think you're all being idiots.
Look, you had two very similar candidates in terms of their voting records and their beliefs.
They both campaigned hard and were unkind to each other.
They both did things that were potentially destructive.
For some reason, you seem to think one was good and the other was evil.
You're wrong.
Hufflarry, If you thought "liberals" were more likely to support Obama, your're wrong. Without open primaries, it's quite likely Obama would have lost, because before Texas, Hillary was winning far more of the actual Democratic vote, and it was Republicans and independents who were weighting the election toward Obama. They voted for him because they thought he'd be less liberal than Hillary. Don't blame liberals for your condidate's loss.
And the rest of you, you're not helping. If you thought Obama was any more of a progressive, you were blinded by your Hillary-hatred. He's an ambitious guy who saw a chance and grabbed it, even though he actually ran to the right of Hillary. He had a smarter, nastier campaign manager doing his dirty work and god knows Axelrod is slicker than Mark Penn, but you're crazy if you think your support for Obama kept a DINO from getting the nomination. They are both more conservative than the party base, and neither is a paragon of progressivism.
So just stop it. If you want Obama to win, you'd better start thinking of ways to help him win instead of trying to convince people that they shouldn't vote for him, which is what you appear to be doing now.
AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow.
I did not say liberals
were more likely to support Obama. I said LIBTARDS were. I call people who are not Democrats and who would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances LIBTARDS. There are many of these people on this board. Most traditional liberals voted for Hillary as did most Democrats. This is why she won all the big states. Otherwise, I agree with your post. It is because of libtards that we will lose again. I hope I am wrong.
By hufflarry2000July 28, 2008 - 12:11am
Larry you are banking on Obama losing. YOU are the problem.
Real Dems and real liberals chose Hillary
a sure winner. YOU chose a sure loser. Go join the Green party.
By hufflarry2000July 28, 2008 - 12:17am
Larry you are banking on Hillary losing. YOU are the problem.
hufflarry2000 is the biggest idiot I have ever seen!
Will you just take a look at your posts for the last several months. You have NEVER added anything of value to ANY conversation. Yes, I am getting really annoyed with you. So much so that I created a login name just to taunt you. Please do continue proving how unintelligent you are by repeating the "she got more votes" line without debating it. How can you claim that she got more votes in the Democratic Primary when caucus states don't count towards the "vote count"?? How can you sit there and actually repeat such nonsense? And then not debate it when asked?? Why can't you concede that it isn't votes that decide the Democratic Primary, it's delegates.
Please do us all a favor and go away. You fit in nicely with the people over at hcsfjm.com. Please go "vent your angry" [sic] there. I'm pretty sure you sound just like Ed Hale. He is a life long member of the Democrat [sic] party just like you.
I claim she got more votes
because she got more votes. You can cry, whine, kick and scream, but the fact is she got more votes and it is well documented. I dont care what you think about anything.
By hufflarry2000July 28, 2008 - 11:38am
Another example of how fucking retarded you are. You keep saying this and it doesn't mean shit. It means even less than the fact that Gore vote more votes than Bush. We all know what happened in Florida but you keep bringing the vote totals up in that race too and it doesn't mean shit. What happened in Florida affected the electoral college which cost Gore the win which was truly his.
You are pathetic.
And yet you still cant change the fact
that Hillary got more votes in the primaries than Obama did. Nothing you say or do changes that fact because it is published and documented all over.
By hufflarry2000July 28, 2008 - 12:24pm
And you still can't stop repeating meaningless trivia.
How is this for trivia: Albany is the capital of NY. And nothing you can do will change that.
Makes about as much sense.
Thanks for reminding me of who the loser was though: Clinton.
There you go again!
1st: the "votes" cannot be counted in a way that means anything. How can you include the caucus states in the "vote count"? Please do answer this time.
I don't like the rules of the primary, it should be one person one vote. But Obama didn't make the rules, he just played by them.
2nd: it's not the "vote count" that decides the Democratic Primary, IT'S THE DELEGATE COUNT. Please do remark on this too.
3rd: Provide the "well documented" sources that show Hillary got more votes. I'll take a guess that it's either from noquarterusa.net, Fox News, or hcsfjm.com. OF course, once again, the "vote count" is meaningless.
For the last time
Hillary got more votes in the primaries than Obama, that is a fact and was documented at realclearpolitics.com.
REALCLEARPOLITICS?!?
That's a conservative blog. I would call their findings questionable to say the least.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
From RealClearPolitics.com:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_c...
Notice that in the original article, the lines showing Obama winning the vote count is shown first and is highlighted in yellow (because this is the official count).
So much for your clearly documented "fact" hufflarry2000.
That is not the official count
you forgot MI. People in MI vote. Obama got 59 delegates in MI but zero popular votes as he was not on the ballot.
Are you really that dense?!
I used a site you pointed to for your documented "fact"!
My site is correct.
You dont want to count MI.
Once again, since your are
Once again, since your are either too dense or unwilling to read correctly:
The statistics I posted above ARE from your site.
I'll say it again, the numbers are from realclearpolitics.com, the site you cited.
Yes and when ALL the PRIMARY votes
are counted, Hillary has 280,000 more than Obama.
By hufflarry2000July 28, 2008 - 4:33pm
Most of the US is in North America and you can't change that fact. More trivia for the idiot.
280k? A fraction of a percent.
By hufflarry3000July 28, 2008 - 4:26pm
I noticed this HL3000 character appeared right after hatey's sock puppets got banned. The very day. I assume this is hatey since he was mimicking my handle with one puppet. Then this one shows up with an alteration of Huff's.
This s is very annoying. If you do this you are only trying to cause confusion and not participate. If you are noy hatey then change your name if you want to be taken seriously. If you are hatey then you were banned and you should leave now.
You're assumptions are
You're assumptions are incorrect.
I'm sorry that this is annoying for you. Hufflarry2000 annoys me beyond belief, so I guess I know how you feel.
I do have another moniker but I'm sure you'll never guess it.
By AvedonJuly 27, 2008 - 11:55pm
Thank you for that bit of pious moral clarity on a Sunday night. It was much appreciated, it brought me back to my Judeo-Christian roots.
NOW I should be able to crawl inside the heads of the Founding Fathers & determine their actual intent.
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, JACKASS...
TEAM BILLARY HAD BETTER CAMPAIGN STRONG FOR OBAMA OR THE ONLY "Clinton 2012 Campaign"... WILL BE THE NEW YORK CAMPAIGN TO DUMP CLINTON FROM HER SENATE SEAT.
Do you eat with that dirty mouth?
Do you eat with that dirty mouth?
glue-huffer (aka huflarry 2000)
Wow... What the hell is glue-huffer's major malfunction??
Gallop shows Obama with his biggest lead yet... and the cadidates haven't even stood side by side yet.
Imagine the first debate... The verile, youthful, competent, agent of change, Editor of the Harvard Law Review... standing next to the ancient, angry, fact-confused, flip-flopping symbol of right-wing extremism, greed and corruption WHO GRADUATED IN THE BOTTOM 1/2 OF ONE PERCENT OF HIS CLASS (who wouldn't have gotten that far but for HIS DADDY'S INFLUENCE).
=======================
And yet glue-huffer continues to badmouth Obama's better-than-even chances of being our next president day after day after day with a desperate, pathetic mantra of "Obama Must Lose So That Hillary May Win"
And why?... Because of some bizarre obsession with Hillary Clinton and a childish inability to accept her self-inflicted primary defeat.
Some children just never learned how to deal with not getting their way.
(No subject)
When did I ever say I wanted Obama to lose?
I said he WILL lose not that I wanted that to happen.
Oh give me a fucking break.
STEP ASIDE, JACKASS... OR YOU AND YOUR PRECIOUS BILLARY WILL GET RUN OVER.
TIME AND TIDE WAIT FOR NO JACKASS.
======================
P.S. Something wrong with your "REPLY" button there, KOOK!??... Or is every drop of spittle that oozes from the corner of your Billary obsessed pie-hole cause for starting a new thread??
Could be
maybe you can think of something to help me. You sure helped those inner city poor people in northern climates with your great idea of giving them "paper bags with handles on them" to carry their groceries in. Goofball.
how about this for an idea:
Stop posting here and go to hcsfjm.com where your rantings would fit right in. You and Ed Hale could spend all day writing your lies about Obama.
Name one lie I said about Obama.
You cant. You lie.
better than one, here's two:
You said Obama won't win.
You said Obama didn't get the most votes in the primary.
That's not being untruthful...
... That's being a Billary-obsessed moron. Not the same thing.
Uhhh... OK, the "Hillary got the most votes" thing is spin that stretches credulity to the breaking point...YUP! THAT'S A LIE!
Ummm...
Am I supposed to know what the fuck your talking about??
... YOU'RE NUTS!