Huh. The polls were off big time again in South Carolina, predicting 38-percent of the vote for Barack Obama, when he actually pulled in over 55-percent. And yet nobody is leveling charges of election fraud, like the did in New Hampshire. Hmm. I wonder why?
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
Cus noone take black voters seriously?
Does anyone know how the Mormons will choose a new Prophet?
What happens if the Mitter gets the call? Which would he rather be .. confidant of the Deity or US Prexy?
hard choice.
SeattleJew: The Donkeys want my people’s vote and need it to win, but they don’t take my people seriously. As the vote loomed, black people came out in droves in the end, with the last minute comments of Bill Clinton saying if Hilary loses it will be because of black voting patterns. People took a real burn and decided to slap them silly.
Goldy, of course. Obama was expected to win. He just kicked ass. Also I bet most of the poll samplings taken were not representative of the South Carolina populace.
I realize Don’t Feed the Trolls Moby Troll can’t comprehend black issues.
I suspect the speculation about polls being rigged in N.H. were Karl Rove’s operatives at work. They want to create a history of a variance between polling results and the actual election so that when they (the Republicans) try to steal the election again in November the public won’t take them seriously.
#2: Willard won’t get the call. Apparently you have to be about 85 just to be considered.
But if I could buy stock in his church, I would in a heartbeat.
Goldy is voting for Clinton. That’s pretty obvious. But isn’t he always saying how progressive he is? (Personally, I believe he’s progressive in name only, not in action). And isn’t Obama more progressive than Clinton? I wonder why he’s not supporting the more progressive candidate? Hmmm.
rhp6033: You still are living that garbage you wrote in #6? How can you justify that crap?
I call BULLSHITTIUM!
If you set aside race, gender and personal issues, Obama is not the most progressive candidate in the race. In fact his past record and his current policies on most issues are the least progressive of the three remaining candidates. That said, I’d happily vote for Obama, Clinton or Edwards for President, because they all represent a dramatic change from the current administration. What disturbs me in this race so far is not so much the actions of the candidates, but the rhetoric of their supporters. How many Obama supporters have you heard say that if Hillary gets the nomination they’ll refuse to vote for her. How juvenile, selfish, and ultimately self destructive is that position. Seriously, you’d rather have President McCain, Romney or Huckabee than President Clinton?
ewp: The reason Obama supporters will not vote for Hilary is the attacks and attitude of her donkey supporters.
I think some blacks see how the donkey party takes them for granted. I hope more wake up.
Charlie Rangel – shame on you.
Plain and simple.
ewp, first off, the race is between Clinton and Obama. Edwards is out of it, so you can stop mentioning him. If you are telling me you think Clinton is just as progressive as Obama, that tells me you don’t know much about the candidates. I’m not surprised Goldstein is backing Clinton. Unabashedly liberal, my ass. More like unabashedly pragmatic. Nothing wrong with being pragmatic. I just like being lied to.
rhp6033: So I guess Toni Morrison’s support of Obama is another Karl Rove or Karl Rove operative actions?
http://apnews.myway.com/articl.....UDQ80.html
Wow it’s in the NY Times so the NEW Donkeys have to accept it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01.....tner=MYWAY
rhp6033: Wow it’s in the NY Times so the NEW Donkeys have to accept it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01.....=TOPIXNEWS
@15 So you are “Black?” Sure! That explains the utter ignorance and mean spiritidness of your posts.
As for me .. I am an American and that is why I will vote for BHO. Who are you, unlucky puddy, going to vote for? Farrakhan> Ron Paul?
Hillary, BHO, Edwards .. they area all PATRIOTS.
No one is crying election fraud because there’s no republicans to blame. Democrats know their minions vote early and often.
Goldy, the answer to your question is because you are willfully ignorant.
SC
Problems with E-Voting
NH
SOS does a great job securing the ballots
NH can’t seem to account for memory cards either during recount
For you evolutionists among the 16%ers:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
Democrats know
Republicans and the freaks in their pay lie all the time.
I also doubt Obama’s progressive credentials – his health care plan doesn’t cover everybody, he’s opposed to reforming the General Mining Law of 1872 (possibly the worst law we have on the books), and when have you known the guy to take a huge political risk?
Not necessarily saying Hillary is more progressive, just saying it’s very debatable.
SeattleJew: I already made a statement on that. If you can’t read or comprehend posts from various threads, sucks to be you doesn’t it?
Polls off?
It’s pretty hard to get a representative sample in the days of cell phone only households.
PuddyFreak right now will throw the lever for Obama if he’s the nominee. Of course he’ll make long nonsensical tortured excuses mixed in with a lot of name-calling contradicting all his right wing bullshit.
But…
If John Edwards is Obama’s running mate…
PFreak is McCain’s all the way.
Please everyone:
Support John Edwards when you caucus. If John Edwards has enough delegates to be a Kingmaker. He will:
a) persuade either Hillary or Obama to strengthen their health care proposals – publically
b) return and reject insurance, pharma, Iraq contractor and all corporate lobbyist money
c) persuade the major candidates to state that their campaigns and administrations will never be beholden to corporate interests – publically
d) accept John Edwards as a running mate.
Aside from JE getting the nomination, this is our best shot at a progressive White House in 2009.
because there’s no republicans to blame. Democrats know
that Republicans and the freaks in their pay promulgate lies and fear.
Marvin, when the Republicans asked the donkey to have their South Carolina primary the same day the donkey said no. Now that the outcome was worse for Heilary than expected, sucks to be them.
CluelessGoon@24: You can Yell Libby Blather all you want. You can make tortuous excuses for your Edwards support.
And to think you tried to come off as an Eisenhower Republican. Eisenhower wasn’t a racist. History proves it. You on the other hand can’t seem to find the pixels to reject headless lucy. So I know where you stand, and it ain’t as Eisenhower.
What a joke you are Clueless. Keep up the good work. You make the New Progressive Donkey proud.
. Eisenhower wasn’t a racist. History proves it.
Are you saying I am? When have I ever made an issue of anyone’s skin color? You’re the one who called me a “Lilly White Boy”. Need the cite?
How long did you hold that inside before you couldn’t help yourself any longer?
the pixels to reject headless lucy
I don’t support HL.
I.REJECT.YOU!
and your right wing bullshit – the able danger, the gorelick wall, the cites from WSJ Editorial, Newswhackos, Wingnut Daily, the Moonie Times, purveying ACVR, your fearmongering, your hatred
Get it now?
@25 YLB
YLB says:
Please everyone:
Support John Edwards when you caucus. If John Edwards has enough delegates to be a Kingmaker. He will:
a) persuade either Hillary or Obama to strengthen their health care proposals – publically
In any poractical way all the plans are identical. The diferences are tactics to get this implimented. I am certain thta all three prexy-to-bees would feel comfportable with the others’ propsals as a first step.
b) return and reject insurance, pharma, Iraq contractor and all corporate lobbyist money
First BHO has not taken any. Second, the influence of these moneys is no more or less importnat than similar dollars from other intersts groups. The best assurance of success would be to get a super strong bipartian leadershio to move this through.
c) persuade the major candidates to state that their campaigns and administrations will never be beholden to corporate interests – publically
Sure and pledge to the flag. This is nto a substantive issue. I would rather see specific pledges on issues like tax poicy. We need real tax reform and soon.
d) accept John Edwards as a running mate.
Why? It si not liley that he could run as Prexie for eicht years. If he is the good guy you think he is, he can be more useful a secty of commerce or (esp) as AG!!!!
Aside from JE getting the nomination, this is our best shot at a progressive White House in 2009.
Almost forgot – cites from Murdoch publications.
I’ll pull a Beck on you:
You’re a sick, twisted freak.
@22 THE Puddybud The Prognosticator… says:
SeattleJew: I already made a statement on that. If you can’t read or comprehend posts from various threads, sucks to be you doesn’t it?
That is a very profound statement, esp., for a four letter word that might refer to almost anything in the preceeding discourse.
If you are referring to your claim to be “Black.” pardon me sucker but I have no reason to accept that. You seem much more like a soret pinkish gray to me. Like one of those shaved poodles? Is that what you are?
30 – SJ
Obama’s economic advisers are farther to the right than most people know. One of them actually said that expensive health care was good for the economy. Krugman found a lot lacking in BHO’s original health care proposal. Obama may have moderated since then – I don’t know. Krugman’s analysis:
http://tinyurl.com/2f5vrt
Libertarian economics pundit Megan McArdle with the Atlantic is an Obama supporter and exactly because of Obama’s economics team one of which comes from the University of Chicago.
Here’s Obama’s contributions by sector:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pre.....cycle=2008
The picture isn’t that pretty.
This election has to be about change. You speak loudest to the corporations by what you do with the money but then you should also communicate to the people what you’ve done and what it means. I want to see the nominee follow through on this.
I thought about Edwards as AG. This would be good but there’s no way Edwards can enforce a deal like this.
For the same reason that it cannot be comprehended that a Clinton nomination will equal four more years of Republican rule in the white house. Two years of Clinton control with a Dem majority of both houses (92-94) produced nothing. The remaining 10 were capitulation to corporatism. Best to nominate the devil we don’t know in this case. Team Clinton=No Thanks.
Ahhhhhh but Clueless Idiot you do support headless lucy. I’ve asked you twelve times (I’ve counted them) to reject his racism. You chose not to. And you claim to be an Eisenhower Republican. Ike integrated the military, something Truman didn’t do!
The Gorelick wall was real. Care to bring up the small citation of Slade Gorton again while I bitch slap you down again with what he really said?
The Gorelick wall was real just ask Kathleen Rowley and Ass’t US Atty Mary Jo White. Good try.
And there was a program called Able Danger. http://www.defenselink.mil/adv.....soryid=104
Yes Murdoch has great publications. Better than the drug pusher George Soros, who pays no US income taxes whom you support drinking all of his warm white sticky kool-aid from all those whack-job sites Kos, Media Matters, CAP, etc.!
What an idiot!
TheJew@32:
Ask GBS if I ain’t black. Once you know the truth, the truth sets you free.
I was writing about my Obama support answering your own stupid question. Did you forget your own question second sentence second line post #16?
Why yes you did. You are a liberal, with a memory in microseconds.
35 – Ok I’ll say it again.
I don’t support racially charged statements, usages of racial slurs even if done in jest or to make fun of the other side’s use of racial politics.
I.REJECT.RIGHT.WING.BULLSHIT!!!
I.DON’T.DANCE.TO.A.RIGHT.WING.BULLSHIT.SALESMAN’S.TUNE!!!
35 – Again:
Here is a sick twisted freak in the act of lying:
Here’s what Slade Gorton said:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/23jr8o
Able Danger was a real program but it did not detect Atta’s activity and it did not mean that 9/11 was Bill Clinton’s fault like you right wing bullshitters believe. Gorton again:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3246v5
Deluded fool!
BILL….. brack! brack! BILL! …… I WILL NOT LET THAT HALFBREED MOCHACHINO MOOOSLIM TAKE MY PLACE AS LEADER!
BILL….. brack! brack! BILL! BRING MY A LAMP DAMMIT!
BILL….. brack! brack! BILL! WHAT GUN DID WE USE ON VINCE?
BILL….. brack! brack! BILL! CAN WE GETT THAT BOY ON A PLANE???
BILL….. brack! brack! BILL! …… I WILL NOT LET THAT HALFBREED MOCHACHINO MOOOSLIM TAKE MY PLACE AS LEADER!
Vote for me…kisses, Hitlary
38 – I should clarify that the “sick twisted freak” is:
Puddybud.
Slade Gorton should be commended for his forthrightness.
correcting the bold left by the troll.
What Do Barack Obama And A Dewers On The Rocks Have In Common?
They both “inspire” Ted Kennedy.
Cracks me up that the drunk talked about “waves” and “the shore” in his speech… what a conscienceless murdering prisk that fat drunk is.
Truth outs at the NYT – the economy great under Bush
Vasko Kohlmayer
This is what Sheryl Stolberg writes today in the New York Times on page A1 in White House Memo:
Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over an economic climate that would be the envy of most presidents. Yet much to the consternation of his political advisors, he has had trouble getting credit for it…
Bush presiding over a great economy? This will surely come as a great shock to many of the NYT faithful who for the past seven years have been daily fed with stories suggesting the opposite.
As to Bush’s not getting credit, can the relentless stream of badmouthing and distortions spewed by the NYT and their collaborators in the mainstream media have anything to do with it?
The great economic performance under Bush all the more remarkable for the fact that this president faced an extraordinarily difficult set of circumstances: an inherited recession, terrorists attacks and record high oil prices. And yet with solid growth, low unemployment and low non-oil inflation, the American economy is not in recession, despite what some would have you believe.
It is just too bad that ‘the newspaper of record’ has been working for all these years so hard to conceal this fact. But as the saying goes truth will eventually out, even when it has to come from the
donkey’sasses own mouth.Deadbeat Democrats…. isn’t that redundant?
One-in-three freshmen, 13 “Blue Dogs,” haven’t paid bills from 2006 campaign…
U.S. Representative Tim Mahoney is one of 16 freshmen Democrat who failed to pay their 2006 bills on time. At nearly $500,000 in debt, Mahoney is the biggest deadbeat in his class.
Here’s Krugman’s analysis:
Now that’s funny.
45 – Oh. Are your changing the subject after being beat down about Gorton?
You have been beat down PLoser. Eat it!
Bush presiding over a great economy?
That did not produce nearly as many jobs as under Clinton, increased poverty, left millions without health insurance and left those with health insurance vulnerable to bankruptcy.
and where is it now?
Going into the tank.
Nice try.
BILL… brack! brack! BILL! …… I WILL NOT LET THAT HALFBREED MOCHACHINO MOOOSLIM TAKE MY PLACE AS LEADER!
BILL… brack! brack! BILL! BRING ME A LAMP, DAMMIT!
BILL… brack! brack! BILL! WHAT GUN DID WE USE ON VINCE?
BILL… brack! brack! BILL! CAN WE GET THAT BOY ON A PLANE???
BILL… brack! brack! BILL! …… I WILL NOT LET THAT HALFBREED MOCHACHINO MOOOSLIM TAKE MY PLACE AS LEADER!
Vote for me…kisses, Hitlary
Just try and stay out of my way. Just try! I’ll get you, my pretty and your little dog too!
Who ever thought a little
girlhalfbreed mochacino mooooslim like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness?“Ohhhhh… What a world! What a world!”
PFool – One of your right wing friends is calling Barack Obama a Muslim.
In fact a LOT of the crowd you run with and carry water for is calling Obama a Muslim. Even right here on this comment board.
How can you? …
Here comes November…
Clueless Clueless Clueless: Using the 9/11 Commission Report Page 271:
“The report itself only mentions the wall a few times, mostly to underscore how “misunderstood” it was (page 271):
Jane sent an email to the Cole case agent explaining that according to the NSLU, the case could be opened only as an intelligence matter, and that if Mihdhar was found, only designated intelligence agents could conduct or even be present at any interview. She appears to have misunderstood the complex rules that could apply to this situation.
The FBI agent angrily responded:
Whatever has happened to this someday someone will die and wall or not the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain problems. Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL, is getting the most protection.
Jane replied that she was not making up the rules; she claimed that they were in the relevant manual and ordered by the [FISA] Court and every office of the FBI is required to follow them including FBI NY.
It is now clear that everyone involved was confused about the rules governing the sharing and use of information gathered in intelligence channels.”
The New York Post as I entered before has Mary Jo White’s second memo: http://www.nypost.com/postopin...../51981.htm
“This is not an area where it is safe or prudent to build unnecessary walls or to compartmentalize our knowledge of any possible players, plans or activities,” wrote White, herself a Clinton appointee.
“The single biggest mistake we can make in attempting to combat terrorism is to insulate the criminal side of the house from the intelligence side of the house, unless such insulation is absolutely necessary. Excessive conservatism . . . can have deadly results.”
She added: “We must face the reality that the way we are proceeding now is inherently and in actuality very dangerous.”
50 – I’m done with your dingleberry picking bullshit Stupes.
You’ve been beat down and I know you’ll always deny it.
So I’ll just attack you on what your right wing peeps are saying about Obama.
It’s your ugly crowd and you’re stuck with them!!
If Obama’s the nominee, oh man, is it going to get nasty from your ugly crowd.
I’m going to make sure you’re going to see it all here.
SeattleJew says:
@15 So you are “Black?” Sure!
That explains the utter ignorance and mean spiritidness of your posts.
… !!!????
Food for thought: the left likes to accuse others of being “anti-science”. But with the ultrasound and fetal monitoring equipment we have today, it’s actually the Left in the case of abortion/child killing who are being “anti-science” when they say about a pregnancy “it’s just a blob of tissue.” there’s no way you can know what we know today and mindlessly refer to an in utero baby as “just a blob of tissue”.
Puddy,
Get a grip, man. There is going to be a NEW WORLD ORDER, it just isn’t going to be what you conservatives envisioned it to be.
Looks like Obama will really be the “first black president” and the Dems will increase their majorities in both houses of the congress.
You/we are witnessing history in the making; the passing of the modern day conservative movement and the rebirth of our liberal roots.
This country was founded on liberal ideals that run counter to the ideals of social and religous conservative people. Like a rubberband we routinely stretch the other way, but eventually, liberalism wins the day and we snap back to where we should be as a nation — liberal.
The rubberband has already snapped back into position in the voters minds, election day will validate the mindset shift.
With Obama or Hillary as president for the next 8 years there will be several SC Justices retiring and a liberal president will appoint them and a liberal senate will confirm them without too much problem. If there is obstructionism from the right, will just deploy the nuclear option and redesign the rules of the senate. Of course your side won’t be able to rail against it since you guys thought it to be the appropriate remedy.
There is a serious shift in political demographics underway in the United States. When you look at the stats so far, the democrats are pulling in younger and younger voters all the time. While the Republican party is getting older — like FOX News viewership.
In the end, this spells a major politcal shift that has already taken place in America and this November will prove it beyond any shadow of doubt.
A true mandate is upon us and it is to reverse the policies of the last 28 years that started in earnest with Ronald Reagan.
We gave conservatism an honsest shot. You’ve had the reigns of the White house 20 of the last 28 years and mostly controlled congress since ’94. From 2000-2006 you had exactly what your party has aspired to for so many decades, control of all three branches of government. The only thing your party demonstrated is that the principles of conservatism are not better at governing than those of our liberal foundings and thus, we are returing to roots.
Conservatives will be judged as being on the wrong side of history on every major issue: National defense, supporting the troops, the War on Terror, fiscal policies, civial liberties, upholding and defending the Constitution, all the major issues of the day are not be trusted to convservatives and/or Republicans any longer.
Better find a new cause celeb. The abortion, gays, god and flag burning days are over.
Time for mature, honest leadership in the country again.
GBS: I stated my Obama position. Notice how the baby Clueless runs when he’s whupped.
Idiots like Ted Stevens lost our way. Others have not. Ted became corrupted by Robert $5BM earmarks.
Doesn’t whack-jobs like Clueless scare you?
I seem to remember you are a history student, what do you remember about Oliver Wendell Holmes and his Eugenics calls against poor and black people? How about Progressivism in the early 1900s? How donkeys jumped all over Margaret Sanger’s calls?
Clueless can’t answer these issues.
Then (Randi) Rhodes said that ‘they,’ the people who got RFK and MLK, tried to poison Democrats Leahy and Dashell with anthrax. Anthrax went only to Democrats, so our first bioterror attack was run by the half-vast right-wing conspiracy.
Here’s what really happened, as reported in last week’s Newsweek in an excerpt from Jacob Weisberg’s recent book:
In a November 2001 speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Cheney offered this definition [of the Bush Doctrine]: “We will hold those who harbor terrorists, those who provide sanctuary to terrorists, responsible for their acts.”
But by the time Cheney spoke those words, a second wave of terrorism had already exposed the inadequacy of Doctrine 2.0. The anthrax attacks in New York and Washington created a sense of vulnerability that was in many respects greater than the mass murder at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Inside the administration, the October bioterror attacks had a larger impact than is generally appreciated—one in many ways bigger than 9/11. Without the anthrax attacks, Bush probably would not have invaded Iraq.
At that point, nearly everyone involved in national security assumed there would be another wave of terrorist attacks. The daily intelligence summary substantiated this panic; “chatter” was at record levels. In an effort to understand the potential threat, Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby ordered up a briefing on a war game, known as “Dark Winter,” which modeled a smallpox outbreak in an American city in much the way “continuity of government” exercises Cheney had participated in during the 1980s simulated nuclear catastrophe.
According to a source close to Bush, Cheney swiftly reported back to the Oval Office with a sobering message: the United States was essentially defenseless against the most likely form of assault, a biological attack. “I sat through the most gruesome briefing in the Oval Office about anthrax, how it could spread, and how we had no defenses,” Bush’s first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, told me in the summer of 2007. “Dick Cheney was the strongest advocate of the possibility of attack and need to prepare for it.”
Then on October 4 the worst fears inside the White House were realized. Bush choked up as he thanked government workers in a morning speech at the State Department. Ari Fleischer reports that he had “never before and never since seen the president look as tired and as troubled as he did that morning.” When they returned to the White House, Bush called Fleischer into his office and explained the reason: he had just learned that a Florida man had been stricken with anthrax. Bush feared it was the dreaded second wave.
Another anthrax letter, never recovered (or at least never disclosed), was apparently sent to the White House. On October 22, anthrax was found on an automated slitter used to open letters at a Secret Service facility in an undisclosed location some miles away. This meant the White House was a target of biological terrorism.
(Fair-Use copyright infringement, blah blah blah)
This is necessary context for judging Bush and Cheney. This is the world we were in then, 2001, and that we’re in now. We’ve learned to forget that dangers even greater than perceived presidential ineptitude surround us.
55 – Because stuff that happened in the early part of the last century has no bearing on what’s real today.
Except to the ugly choir of voices in your empty head.
Obama will be the 1st HALF BREED MULLATO MOOOOSLIM… DON’T WORRY I GOT A LAMP AND I AIN’T AFRAIS TO USE IT AGAINST THAT MOCHACHINO WANNABE
Vote ME, kisses Hitlary
Obama will be the 1st HALF BREED MULLATO CRACK SMOKIN MOOOOSLIm DON’T WORRY I GOT A LAMP AND I AIN’T AFRAIS TO USE IT AGAINST THAT MOCHACHINO WANNABE
Vote ME, kisses Hitlary
CLuelessImbecile@55 are you paying attention?
Heilary said she’s a early 1900s Progressive Democrat? Well WTF does that mean? You need to look at history. But you are an American History imbecile.
Goldy-A thirty point difference usually means that everybody gets it the guy actually won…good grief.
And if you are a HRC supporter, how do you suggest we enforce mandates on health insurance?
How do you justify the Iraq AND Iran war votes?
How do you justify an ex-President with security council clearance having free rein without accountability in the WH? You don’t think that cuts against the constitution just a tad?
You got some splainin’ to do son.
60 – Not that it matters but cite? url?
Oh I forgot you don’t
stroke yourself offcite more than once at a time.Puddy,
Hillary was a Republican back in the early 60’s, you know, back when the Republican National Committee adopted the Republican Southern Strategy to repress blacks in the political process. We discussed that issue throughly so no need to plow that field again.
The important thing, regardless of history is what is your preception today and for the future. You know Sen. Byrd used to be a grand poo-bah in the KKK. Today, he’s a totally different man and rebukes his past and racism.
That’s progress and that is how someone should be judged.
Hillary, Barack, or John are not racists. Neither is any one running on the Republican ticket. At least, I want to belive that and have no reason to believe otherwise.
The one question no Republican will ask the voters this year is the now famous Ronald Reagan line:
“Are you better off now then you were 4 years ago?”
The answer the majority of Americans will say is “NO!”
As with all things cylical, and politics is very cyclical, the change has come. How radically the change will be revealed in November.
What are the Republicans really going to run on?
Lower wages?
Higher energy costs?
Fragile economy?
Weak housing markets?
Higher gasoline costs?
Bigger government?
Intrusive government?
Unaffordable health insurance?
Rising poverty level?
The reality is, and I know you refuse to admit it fully, but the Republican party has lost its way. This always happens to socially conservative mindsets in any society. History, my friend, always repeats itself negatively whenever socially conservative peoples try to limit others freedoms, liberties, or rights. And not just in this country. It happens everywhere.
Puddy at 9:
As you know, I will admit when I make a mistake as to a statement of fact.
I admitted that I made a data error in calculating the historical DJIA of the Bush Presidency. He’s not doing as bad as I thought, but that’s not saying much.
When I said that modern Americans wouldn’t stand for an election result which gave the popular vote to one candidate but the electoral count to the other, I was wrong.
When I said that no American President would be so callous of the lives of American servicement and the Democratic process that he would manufacture a cause to get us into an unnecessary war, I was wrong.
When I said that no modern American political party would intentionally deprive American servicemen overseas of the vote, just because they might vote for the opposing candidate, I was wrong (Ohio 2004).
But I’m not willing to say I was wrong re: Rove and the New Hampshire elections. As I said in my post, I “suspect” Rove. I don’t have any evidence. I might never have any evidence. But considering his past history, it is entirely plausable. I’ve learned that if you expect the worst from that man, you are more likely to be correct than not.