http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/networks-interrupt-clinto_n_87485.html

Fuck CNN.


[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 9:57:50 AM

Uh, they were displaying both of their speeches onscreen at the time, it looks like they just switched from hers to his. Even more relevant because they had just called the primary in his favor, who do you want to see talk more, the winner or loser?


This is a non-issue, like every Obama-hate-related topic you post.

2/20/2008 10:00:58 AM

^ Actually, it's kinda never happened before. It's customary for the winner to wait to wait until the loser finishes speaking before they come on. Please stop talking out of your ass.

Also, this is a media hate thread. Not an Obama hate thread.

My problems with Obama are more substansive and can be found in a single thread called "Why do you support Obama?".

There, I argue that his health care proposals are flawed, that his stance on climate change is confused, and that position on Iraq is at best unclear and at worse horrible for the people of Iraq. These are the three biggest issues for me in this campaign. Obama fails on all counts.

And I'm sure you have plenty of good reasons to support Obama. So why don't you get to the Support Obama thread and list them? Let's talk policy, shall we?

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 10:08:25 AM

Mainly because I don't live in a dorm and haven't for several years. Also considering they had JUST called the primaries during her speech, and she was sure as hell not giving a concession speech (actually she was just bashing Obama in her speech) I'd hardly say it was a loser first winner second thing.


So why don't you sit around your "creepy log cabin" and hunger for whatever Clinton/McCain/Paul offers. I'll simply relax and enjoy my life and when it comes time to vote in November (because I know NC's vote won't matter in the primary, just like the last presidential election, and the one before that, I'm sure you are too young to remember those though) I'll cast my vote for whomever I deem to be the best for this country and myself. In the meantime I'm not going to waste my time on hating any of the candidates because it's a waste of time and my time is very precious.


I like how you edit your posts to take out so much of the inflammatory shit after I post

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 10:21:15 AM

^ edits have a time stamp dumbass. I made my last edit at 10:18, you did not even post until 10:21. And the only inflammatory thing I posted was suggesting that you continue to sit around your dorm and "hunger for change".


Now, if you want to talk policy, see my other thread. If you want to talk about how I'm not talking about policy in everything I post, then I guess we're done.

2/20/2008 11:01:19 AM

Obama STOLE Clinton's TV time

He's a fucking THIEF

Quote :

"Obama The Thief by Lerone D. Wilson The events surrounding recent accusations of plagiarism on behalf of presidential candidate Barack Obama have spawned a detailed investigation into his past, which has yielded some troubling results. According to a recent investigation, Obama is a thief as well as a plagiarist. According to reports, in 1997 Obama visited a Chicago area party store and withdrew a penny from the ‘take a penny leave a penny’ cup, in order to pay for some items. Nevertheless, upon his next visit to the store, he failed to repay the penny. Juan Sent is the proprietor of the store, and says he remembers the day clearly. “I remember waiting for him to leave a penny in the jar. I even slid it closer to him as he was standing in line. But when it came his turn to pay, he merely paid for his items and left,” Sent says. The Clinton campaign responded to the situation today, calling the events “troubling.” “If Obama can’t be trusted with a ‘take a penny leave a penny,’ how can he be trusted with the United States Treasury?” a spokesperson noted in a press conference. Meanwhile, Clinton surrogate Robert Johnson was rumored to have remarked that “black people just can’t be trusted with money,” reaffirming his support for Hillary Clinton. But in a characteristic dodge by the Obama campaign, a spokesperson refused to even acknowledge the story, calling it “false” and “a ridiculous assertion unworthy of comment.” Obama’s larcenous behavior doesn’t end there, however. According to Clinton insiders, he stole the past ten elections. “Clintons don’t lose like this. Ten straight? Come on, that’s just embarrassing. Clearly he stole these elections just like he stole that penny,” a staffer said on the condition of anonymity. While the accusation appears a bit outlandish, it is one of the few that convincingly explains Sen. Obama’s recent unchecked Obamanation. "

2/20/2008 11:35:24 AM

Quote :

"Socks``: It's customary for the winner to wait to wait until the loser finishes speaking before they come on."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also customary for the loser to call and concede defeat to the winner?

2/20/2008 12:38:44 PM

he stole ur jerbs!

2/20/2008 12:47:58 PM

Actually Socks you are dead wrong.

Obama had set his victory speech at a certain time, and I even heard CNN report that 'he was coming up in a moment'....then all of a sudden in which is a classic strategic pre-emptive move, the Clinton camp pushed her out there to try to push out his speech to a later time. So actually, SHE was the one off schedule.

In addition, she has not publically congratulated Obama on the past god knows how many states now making her even more of the loser. AND on top of that, she pretends like the primary never existed in her speeches which well....is honestly a big FUCK you to all the workers, campaign drivers, voters, and support she received in Wisconsin.

And you expect Obama to reschedule for all that bullshit? Fuck that, and fuck her. 0-10.

2/20/2008 12:50:20 PM

The messiah always takes precedence.



SAVE US, OBAMA! IF YOU WANT SALVATION, SING ALONG WITH THIS SPIRITUAL NOW!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CZvsCo5JWI4

2/20/2008 12:50:29 PM

Quote :

"The Clinton campaign responded to the situation today, calling the events “troubling.” “If Obama can’t be trusted with a ‘take a penny leave a penny,’ how can he be trusted with the United States Treasury?” a spokesperson noted in a press conference."

LOLZ

2/20/2008 12:51:34 PM

2/20/2008 12:57:36 PM

^ Not even close. The economy is the number one voter issue right now--and in case you haven't noticed, things have been going well in Iraq.

2/20/2008 1:02:41 PM

LOL. yeah right dude, the whole thing is peachy. It's a clusterfuck from the very beginning and there is nothing going well whatsoever.

If anything there is an improvement on what was toxic shit to just plain shit. Wow, things are going great.

2/20/2008 1:08:13 PM

The OP is funny, because people always refer to CNN as the "Clinton News Network." I guess whatever is convenient for Socks``'s pro-White agenda.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 1:12 PM. Reason : tf]

2/20/2008 1:11:47 PM

How the fuck does not liking Obama make me pro-white?

I'm pro-policy. Obama is pro-charisma.
That's why I don't like him.

2/20/2008 1:13:30 PM

Well the military plan laid out by the generals in charge started to work and result in better stability for the region. They've captured documents from al qaeda insiders saying their numbers have fallen greatly and that they lack enough fighters to put up any good resistance. They've been pushed into the countryside, and that at least relieves some of the pressure on the major city centers so that things can slowly (very slowly) return to normal there.

I'm not saying it wasn't a ridiculously mismanaged operation that hemorrhaged cash like there was no tomorrow and cost a lot of a LOT of people their lives, but at the very least the smoldering embers are starting to wink out one by one.

That's why Iraq isn't as big an issue any more. If they can't show US vehicles getting blown up every day on the news and go "WHY SIXTY SOLDIERS WERE JUST KILLED THIS WEEK!!!" then people treat it as less of an issue. Things there aren't perfect, but they're hardly as bad as they were, which makes people think we could probably stick around a little longer until we've accomplished some arbitrary goal as laid out by the military planners involved with the operation.

As for the interruption business: Lewl. That's all I've got. Who really gives a shit?

2/20/2008 1:17:22 PM

I'm gonna have to say, that regardless of whose fault it is that the speeches coincided... it's a pretty obvious decision to switch to the winner's speech.

Oh, and there's this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/clinton-calls-to-congratu_n_87492.html

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 1:23:59 PM

I'm assuming from the crickets coming from your side of the thread that you didn't hear my question about custom, Socks``, so I'll repeat it for you free of charge:

Quote :

"Socks``: It's customary for the winner to wait to wait until the loser finishes speaking before they come on."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also customary for the loser to call and concede defeat to the winner?

2/20/2008 1:44:11 PM

Quote :

"LOL. yeah right dude, the whole thing is peachy. It's a clusterfuck from the very beginning and there is nothing going well whatsoever. If anything there is an improvement on what was toxic shit to just plain shit. Wow, things are going great."

Kainen

At no point did I use the word "peachy" concerning Iraq or anything else, for that matter--that was your spin. In any event, I rightly corrected you about the most important issue to voters--and according to every poll I've seen, Iraq isn't it.

1. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/index.html

2.

Quote :

"CBS News Poll. Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2008. N=1,232 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. 'What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?' Open-ended Economy/Jobs - 38% War in Iraq - 21 Health care - 6 Immigration - 4 Terrorism (general) - 3 Poverty/Homelessness - 3 Other - 20 Unsure - 5"

http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

3. Trust on Issues
It's the Economy: 'Very Important' to 80% of Likely Vote

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues/trust_on_issues

As the old saying goes, it's the economy, stupid. Don't just type out of your ass--do some research.

^ PS: I'll answer for him: A call conceding defeat and a concession speech are two different events that occur at different times. FYI.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 1:44:56 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/20/wuspols520.xml

2/20/2008 2:08:22 PM

Gamecat

I didn't respond because it isn't the point of my thread. This is a thread about CNN showing clear favor for Obama. But if you insist.

Quote :

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it also customary for the loser to call and concede defeat to the winner?"

Yes, it is. And Hillary did call last night and congratulated Obama on his victory.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/19/clinton-calls-to-congratu_n_87492.html

If you're going to repeat someone else's talking points, you should probably get them right.

What would make more sense to ask would be "isn't it customary for the loser to publiclly concede defeat to the winner in their concession speech". Maybe. I can't think of instance before Clinton, but I do not know for sure.

Or you might have bitched about Hillary not congratulating Obama in previous primaries. Though, I guess that would be a bit off topic and a bit irrelevant since Hillary has congratulated Obama on the primary in question.

In any case, I agree that Hillary's behavior makes her look like a poor loser. And appearances are everything in this election (as you clearly demonstrate). But next time you want to groan about something so persistantly, google it first. kkthnx.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:21 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 2:19:13 PM

one thing is for sure: this was the worst obama speech i've seen yet. unlike the potomac speech (which i thought was his best to date), last night he looked tired and like he was just going through the motions. his voice did not have his characteristic power. i'm sure he's tired and all, but maybe he should have just mustered up the energy to do a good 10 minute speech instead of a bad 40 minute one.

2/20/2008 2:22:15 PM

^ Yah, I hate it when my politicians don't entertain me. I mean, I'm so used to Obama shooting hoops for the camera, dancing with Ellen Degenerous(sp), riffing with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, and talking (and talking and talking) in a loud voice about Hope and Chainge. How can I be expected to sit through 40 mits of some middle age guy blabbling on and on about stuff.

Yes We Can...vote on personality.
I mean, look how well that worked in the 2000 election.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:26 PM. Reason : kids. ]

2/20/2008 2:25:23 PM

^^Yeah, I agree... When I saw him speak up here at UMD, he did a much better job. The campaign has got to be wearing down on him... but he still pulled off a better speech than any of his opponents could (not to say that has much at all to do with his ability to lead the country out of Bush's Quagmire).

^ Yeah, so lets elect some freak who LOVES war and can't raise his arms past his chest.

We know Hillary's done

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2008 2:26:29 PM

^^ummm. he said pretty much the same things he said in the VA speech. he just said them far better in VA. i really don't know what point you're trying to make.

but leave it to a clinton supporter to assume that since it was a bad speech, it contained more substance. IT DIDN'T. IT WAS THE SAME CONTENT HE'S BEEN SAYING FOR A WHILE NOW.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 2:28:42 PM

^ that actually wasn't what I was saying at all. I was only making fun of you for bitching about how Obama didn't entertain you last night. You were complaining about style and nothing else annoys me more. I didn't mean to imply that people can only be boring when they talk about policy. Though, I guess, I can see how you got that impression. I mean, when else are people more boring than talking about the issues?

2/20/2008 3:00:56 PM

Are you saying it's wrong to be impressed by someone who wants to be the next President who is a good orator and has similar beliefs to what you believe, especially after a failed President who's oration skills fails to impress even the mentally retarded?

2/20/2008 3:02:54 PM

Aww...the backhandedness. I've missed it.

Wouldn't it be so much nicer if your candidate didn't have to give concession speeches like it was her job?

Don't answer that. Couldn't resist.

2/20/2008 3:03:18 PM

SkankinMonkey,

I'm still waiting on you to elaborate on what Obama believes that you believe (as requested earlier). What policies does he advocate that you think are good ideas AND think are better than other candidates in the field?

If you care to get specific, go to "Why Do You Support Obama?".

Now, with regards to your question, I think Obama is all hat and no cattle. He talks a good deal about change, but flounders on the specifics (like he has done in almost every debate). Even his supporters acknowledge this. I remember Carl Bernstein after the debate b4 Super Tuesday on CNN saying "Well, Hillary Demonstrated she could be the best secretary of health and human services in the history of this country. But let's face it, that isn't all there is to being President."

Very true. There is so much more. Like being able to speak so well. Style is great. So long as it comes AFTER substance. That isn't the case with Obama.

2/20/2008 3:11:16 PM

^^^^no, he didn't "entertain me" as much as he clearly can do. he looked tired. the material seemed old. that is all. stop making any comment on style as an inherent admission of caring about nothing else.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 3:13:03 PM

Ok, I'll feed the troll on this, but not in the way you want. Instead I'll tell you what I don't like about other candidates.

Clinton:
She's always been up for censorship in relation to video games/music and that pisses me off to no end.
She also refuses to admit that she made a mistake in voting for the war, something that made Edwards win my admiration. You can be human and a politician at the same time.
She hasn't even seemed the least bit interested in fixing 'the drug war.'
She supports NAFTA.
I don't like dynastic politics.
She supports super delegates.

McCain:
He started sucking up to the religious right after standing up to them years ago.
He supports continuing the war in Iraq.
He supports extending 'the war on terror.'
He doesn't support a humans right to their own body.
He doesn't support our right to privacy.
etc.

That's all you get.

2/20/2008 3:19:17 PM

Socks`` your major argument against Obama and the people who support Obama is that you think his stances on major policy facing America is wrong. No matter how many times people point to his plan, you always come back with, "he's such a great speaker." Give it a rest.

2/20/2008 3:20:04 PM

Quote :

"Clinton: She's always been up for censorship in relation to video games/music and that pisses me off to no end. She also refuses to admit that she made a mistake in voting for the war, something that made Edwards win my admiration. You can be human and a politician at the same time. She hasn't even seemed the least bit interested in fixing 'the drug war.' She supports NAFTA. I don't like dynastic politics. She supports super delegates. "

Actually, Clinton was against NAFTA.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html
Good job on doing your home work. But anyways I consider that a point against her. How can you not like NAFTA if you've ever taken an economic course?

Aside from that your only complaints are style or political BS related (it's not that she voted for the war, or what she will do in the future, it's that she wont admit a mistake--the same could be said of Obama on excluding mandates). It's not what she's done or will do, it's what she "seems" like. Oh, I forgot, you also don't like her position on violence in video games. The age to vote should be upped to 25.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 3:29:02 PM

Quote :

"it's not that she voted for the war, or what she will do in the future, it's that she wont admit a mistake--the same could be said of Obama on excluding mandates"

excluding mandates is PART OF HIS PLAN. how is that the same as "not admitting a mistake"

2/20/2008 3:30:27 PM

That's great, I'll be 26 when the election comes around.

2/20/2008 3:30:34 PM

not to mention how is her stance on the drug war and censorship a "style" issue?

2/20/2008 3:34:27 PM

sarijoul,

because it was a bad call that's constraining his ability to change his policy? After folks started pointing out how excluding a mandate while forcing insurance companies to sell policies would drive up costs of insurance, he tried to split the difference. He said "okay, well, we'll punnish anyone that waits until they're sick to buy insurance".

Of course, the best this adjustment can hope for is to achieve exactly the same outcome as a mandate. If he would admit he was wrong, he could drop this "punishment" nonsense and simplify his proposal.

But hey, things must only be a mistake if the TV says they are.

2/20/2008 3:34:54 PM

^x5Her campaign is based upon taking credit for the actions of her husband while he was in the White House. I guess she is now making it into an a la carte type deal now.

Also, I refuse to vote for anyone who calls Kosovo Kosova. For someone with her "Foreign Policy Experience," that is a major fuck up.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 3:35:03 PM

Obviously. Censorship and privacy are just small issues that no one really cares about, right?

2/20/2008 3:35:27 PM

and speaking of style. do you have a single post that doesn't include rolly eyes?


[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 3:36:09 PM

sarijoul,

Because Skankin Monkey's complaint isn't that Hillary is for or against the drug war. It's that she "doesn't seem interested". It isn't her position that matters to him, it's the appearance of her position.

And I included his complaint on censorship in my original post.

Quote :

"Oh, I forgot, you also don't like her position on violence in video games. The age to vote should be upped to 25. "

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:37 PM. Reason : ``]

2/20/2008 3:37:02 PM

The issue that she isn't 'interested' means she's fine with the status quo. This isn't a style issue, it's a policy issue. Don't be an idiot.

2/20/2008 3:37:51 PM

^^yes you did, post-edit and with an insult to boot.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 3:37:55 PM

Skankin,

What makes you think she is fine with the status quo? This isn't a major issue for me, but just a little googling shows that she doesn't want non-violent drug offenders serving prision time.
http://ontheissues.org/Domestic/Hillary_Clinton_Drugs.htm

Quote :

"We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration. Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007 "

JEEZ man do you do ANY research?

2/20/2008 3:41:51 PM

I do agree with her on that point, which I believe is something she shares with Obama, and to an extent *gasp* Bush.


However, I'm talking about the legalization of substances such as marijuana, psylocibin, etc. Or at least regulation along the lines of alcohol/tobacco.

And also getting rid of the stupid drug enforcement laws that allow land/property seizure without a conviction.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 3:43:51 PM

^ No candidate supports that. So how can you hold it against her alone?

Oh yah. Because Obama speaks so well.

2/20/2008 3:45:30 PM

Obama has hinted towards decriminalization, which is a step in the right direction.


Are you so delusional that you think any given candidate will perfectly match my/your views? What kind of tool are you?

It's obvious that you're trolling now. Write something with some actual thought in it or this is over.

2/20/2008 3:47:29 PM

come on Socks``, what is your excuse for he major Foreign policy mistake with Kosovo? I thought she was ready to be commander and chief on day one.

2/20/2008 3:49:44 PM

^ Obama's made it clear in this campaign he is against legalizing mary jane. A few years ago he was saying a lot things, but nothing seemed to happen when he got into office. At best his position is confused, at worst, he's saying whatever he has to say to win over his audiences.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080131/NATIon/896961936/1001

Don't worry about responding. You're right. This is over.

2/20/2008 3:51:37 PM