2008 Primaries Thread

I imagine she's been confused ever since her parents tried to raise her as both a Jew AND a Mormon lolz

(also lol at celeb HRC supporter calling anyone else "corporate anti-worker")

even so, the point stands that if Paul's contention was that a small boat can't hurt a US Navy warship, he's dangerously wrong.

I'm not about to hazard a guess about what Paul's contention was, but to me at the time it sounded like a refreshing breath of skepticism into an increasingly bellicose game of escalation.

i mean, paul lives in a universe where most people think an IRGC flotilla is gonna speed up the charleston tomorrow if we don't kill everyone west of the river jordan

-- gff, Friday, January 11, 2008 4:33 PM (30 minutes ago)

of course u kno i meant EAST whoops

an increasingly bellicose game of escalation

oh its all just empty sabre-rattling. neither side has anything to gain from open confrontation, and everything to gain from maintaining this stupid facade of threats and accusations. Both sides are playing this game for internal and regional political reasons.

ie, Iran gets to look like the "big Muslim power standing up to the US" and the Bush admin gets to keep its fearmongering amped up to 11.

i believe this is true, but i also believe that this does not mean that an actual really bad crisis could result. as noted somewhere today, these types of small time encounters with ships have precipitated huge crises before, and there is no reliable communication line between the parties by which to avert needless escalation. plus, some very influential people really really want escalation.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/i/k/cheney_drevil.jpg

u only needs one of ahmedinejad in his members only splendor rite

YBoth sides have) everything to gain from maintaining this stupid facade of threats and accusations. Both sides are playing this game for internal and regional political reasons.

Very true. Expect more sabre-rattling through the GE, at least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZArWe8o_hI

۞_۟۞

holllly shit

not a big story campaign-wise but nice to see professional douchebag/attack dog sid blumenthal get busted
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/01/11/blumenthal-on-the-boil.aspx

Posted By: rudyg (January 11, 2008 at 8:49 PM)

How come this is only being reported now?Days after the NH primary.I hate the Clintons,I hope the American people wake the *** up and dont take a step backwards.

http://i12.tinypic.com/6wohd89.jpg

this a nice van

unclerico.jpg

what's in that youtube clip guyz?

can't watch at work

Jockin on Ron Paul a la "Baby Got Back." You ain't missing much.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/01/11/kennedy.aspx

Obama and HRC really want Kerry and/or Ted Kennedy's endorsement? Seems a bit like the Kiss of Death to me.

any endorsements are good for news coverage gets the spotlight off yr rival etc

The Baby Primary - http://www.slate.com/id/2181495/

My rules were simple:

1. No actual kissing. No Democrat or Republican is putting saliva on Baby Dahlia.
2. No pictures with former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. He's way too creepy.

McCain conflates trading with Arab nations with trading with al-Qaida. "I don’t want to trade with al-Qaida, all they want to trade is burqas," he says, smiling smugly. "I don’t want to travel with them, all they want is one-way tickets."

I'm not about to hazard a guess about what Paul's contention was, but to me at the time it sounded like a refreshing breath of skepticism into an increasingly bellicose game of escalation.

-- o. nate, Friday, 11 January 2008 23:05 (Yesterday) Link

the point he was making was the incident could be used as another 'reason' to go to war w/iran just as the gulf of tonkin incident ultimately gave johnson the authority to escalate the vietnam war.

if this statement came from kucinich what you all think? (or substitue someone from the anti-war left you respect) i.f. stone was one of the first people to be skeptical of the gulf of tonkin incident at the time. dude was way on the left, but he was right for being skeptical and actually did some journalism to back up his suspicions.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123054/2180708/2180709/2181461/02Garnick-Giuliani-1.jpg

he is eating that babies soul

isn't my grammar terrible?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v208/jcoombs/12591162_763402.gif

told you!

zang!

I heard some ass on Gwen Ifill's Washington Week say Edwards is done. SHOOT EM ALL.

http://i3.tinypic.com/8e9k4qw.gif

Perrin on the Paul bigot revival:

Whatever Paul actually believes about minorities and queers is not the real concern here. What bothers liberals, TNR's James Kirchik among them, is that Paul is the only presidential candidate who is seriously running against the state. This includes anti-imperialism and calls to end the Drug War. Given that Hillary and Obama are nowhere near this mindset -- quite the opposite -- means that anyone who is must be a bad person. If those newsletters didn't exist, hit men like Kirchik and the libloggers who support him would find something else to smear Paul with. Because, at bottom, they oppose any dismantling of the war state (recall Kos' shitting all over Kucinich). They simply want their preferred candidates to run the machine instead.

For TNR, there's another angle to its anti-Paul attack: Israel. Paul wants to end U.S. military aid to Israel, and is critical of Israeli aggression (he's also critical of Hezbollah and Hamas, but that doesn't count). This simply won't do for Democrats and many liberals, who either support Israeli violence and occupation, or are at best mum on the topic.

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/01/pauling.html

thats the stupidest fucking thing youve ever posted

which of the major candidates policy proposals would, in practicality, amount to a genocide of non-white americans?

I heard some ass on Gwen Ifill's Washington Week say Edwards is done. SHOOT EM ALL.

morbs reppin for the last white guy standing

Ron Paul on Civil Rights

* No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
* Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
* Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
* Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

"genocide"s an awful big word for you to toss around, ethan.

So this Perrin fellow is pretty much a fuckin' retard, I gather?

you forgot:

* voted YES on pro-genocide bill

im not saying ron paul wants to put black folks in gas ovens but destroying every federal protection & taking us back to jim crow days doesnt bode well

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is that blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'

xp - I'm sure the states would step up the plate. God knows Alabama and Mississippi have spotless civil rights records.

don't forget that shining beacon of tolerance and humanity known as texas

ethan i don't even know how to respond to your point. i'm not trying to make ron paul out to be something he isn't. i tend to agree w/much of what he says about foreign policy and i think ghouliani (who has falwell on his team)or huckabee would be much more dangerous for the rights of people here and abroad. but its a moot point because we all know ron paul isn't going anywhere anyway. i could find good things to say about different candidates, but that doesn't mean i support everything they say or what you think the outcomes of their policies would be.

he must really be ghouliani if he's got a dead guy on his team.

more mistake son my part. good now everyone can disregard everything ive ever said.

my god atwater was such a horrible fuck

to saw that 'fiscal conservatism' is racist or code for it or whatever maybe makes sense for atwater to say in that context. but it is also part of a real american intellectual tradition that can't easily be dismissed by racist smears or because racist politicians. i have no knowledge or interest the kind of politics atwater is describing or the kind he is a part of (if you want to say they are different) so i can't speak to it.