The Next President of the USA will be?

[Pb Derigable]

not from the city no, but saying Rod would appoint Rezko to fill Barack's Senate position is crazy talk.

well yeah i know, i would assume Lisa Madigan would take it over, becasue she will have the best win the seat in 2010.

[Nathan]

Hillary said if she wins we are out of there in 60 days. What are you talking about dude???

When did I say Hillary would keep us in Iraq? You definitely did not read my post. Maybe you need glasses?

I was trying to point out why McCain is more evil then Obama. That had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary.

Seriously... half the problem I have in debating you and DRUNK is that the two of you never read my posts. You read, maybe, the first half of the first sentence of each paragraph and assume the rest. And as a result, you get it wrong and respond to things I never said (you claim I said I don't care about the election when it was DRUNK who said that, and now you seem to think I said Hillary would keep us in Iraq when I wasn't even talking about her).

Could you stop it, please? I don't think it's funny.

[Nathan]

Of for fuck's sake! With every fucking post you prove me right!

I think its hilarious that you are even on a thread that you "dont care about".

I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why dont you go back to the Spats thread? Oh yeah, I forgot, its gone. What a heartbreaker.

Not a heartbreaker. A fucking blessing. Thank God it's gone.

Go vote for whoever you want to. Its your right. Im not tryingn to push like some on here. Im just saying that I think Hillary is the only logical choice.

Well I disagree. In fact, I don't particularly like any of the candidates. Nothing about this shit about not caring.

My name isn't DRUNK, bud. We are NOT the same person. Quit confusing us.

I wish that we had JFK or RFK or Teddy Roosevelt but we dont.

I agree with Teddy, but JFK? What good did he do?

And as for reading your posts, its impossible to read all the posts as people come and go on their PC's. And the posts get jumped on. This is one thread I try andn go back on. But after reading one of Hermits posts Im brain dead when Im finished. Too long for the average Joe.

I'm not asking you to respond quickly! I'm asking you read my post in their entirety and to QUIT RESPONDING TO SHIT I NEVER SAID!

[Electrophile]

If you don't like Hermit's posts, put him on ignore. That way, you don't have to read them. You know, I think it's sad when people would bitch about someone writing at length and articulately about a subject, but have no issues when people write shit like this:

"O rly? Fuck u, u suck. Lyk totally." Hermit is one of the most well-spoken people on this site, whether you agree with what he says or not. The fact you'd prefer he sound like the majority of the uneducated people in this world is a cryin' shame.

[Nathan]

If you don't like Hermit's posts, put him on ignore. That way, you don't have to read them. You know, I think it's sad when people would bitch about someone writing at length and articulately about a subject, but have no issues when people write shit like this:

"O rly? Fuck u, u suck. Lyk totally." Hermit is one of the most well-spoken people on this site, whether you agree with what he says or not. The fact you'd prefer he sound like the majority of the uneducated people in this world is a cryin' shame.

Amen.

With Hermit, at the very least, his posts are readable, and at the very most, you know they're being typed by a very intelligent person.

Hermit also reads posts and only responds to what's in the post, unlike some people on the net *coughoverthehillscough*.

[Dzldoc]

All this yakaty yak for who is running for second place?

[Pb Derigable]

If you don't like Hermit's posts, put him on ignore. That way, you don't have to read them. You know, I think it's sad when people would bitch about someone writing at length and articulately about a subject, but have no issues when people write shit like this:

"O rly? Fuck u, u suck. Lyk totally." Hermit is one of the most well-spoken people on this site, whether you agree with what he says or not. The fact you'd prefer he sound like the majority of the uneducated people in this world is a cryin' shame.

Electobile, you talk about spraying raid on people, but yet almost 100% of the people think you should turn that raid around and spray some in your mouth. Hermit knows what he is getting into and he is more than capable of enough to defend him and his ideas.

[Electrophile]

Like I'm reading the post of someone who addresses me, but can't spell my name right. For fuck's sake, it's right there. That's like misspelling Led Zeppelin when it's at the top of the browser page. Get it together.

[Nathan]

Oh you are such a know it all jerk Nathan. Give me a break. You said you werent voting. Calling me names now? Is that the best you can do? And who is asking you Electro? You have to stick your nose into everyone else's coversation. Like you are more intelligent than me. I think not. I know better. You are a loud mouth just like Nathan. Hermit is worth talking to. Neither of you idiots are.

This is pointless. Utterly and completely pointless.

Either you need glasses or you just don't know how to read english.

YOU'RE the fucking know-it-all jerk! You consistently respond to things I NEVER POSTED!

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU TO QUIT RESPONDING TO SHIT I NEVER POSTED!

Yes, I said I'm considering not voting. I still am. That does NOT mean I'm NOT going to vote, nor does it mean I don't care about who runs the country I was fucking born in. It means that I am disappointed in and disillusioned with the three candidates we have to choose from!

And yet you keep telling me I said I don't care and keep bashing me for saying that when I NEVER SAID IT! IT WAS FUCKING DRUNK WHO SAID IT!

And you're getting pissed at me for calling you out on it because... what? You don't want to respond to what I'm actually saying? You feel better confusing me with DRUNK?

WHY do you consistently respond to something I never said, diss me on something I never said, then get pissed at me when I defend myself by saying I never said it?

[zosodude13]

soooooooo....

what do you guys think about North Carolina and Indiana?

[Nathan]

You have the wrong guy you moron. Im talking to someone else. and I dont know what the hell you are talking about with this Drunk stuff. Im done with you.

Oh. Now I have the wrong guy...

Let's see:

I start by posting this:

Who does one vote for in this fucked up election?

This is my first election, and the more learn, the less I want to vote. At the beginning, we had some great candidates on both sides. Ron Paul, John Edwards... now it's down to Primordial McCain, Double-talking Obama, and the dynamic duo Batman and Robin hated, Billary.

I don't want McCain because the last thing our economy needs is another 100 years in Iraq. Yeah, I respect his patriotism for this country, but his ideals are flawed. He supports torture when he was tortured, he believes we are going to spend another 100 years in Iraq... NO WAY!

I don't want Obama because he's a double-talker with a slick message and a hidden agenda. You don't know whether or not to trust him.

I don't want Billary because, for one thing, it's time for the Bush's and the Clinton's to step down. They've ruled the White House for way to long. We need another family in there. Plus, Hillary's health care plan, while very good on paper, is extrememly Unconstitutional just based on the fact the her plan includes forcing everyone onto health care. Plus, what with all scandals surrounding the Clinton family and Hillary herself (Whitewater, Travelgate, the Dubai Port Deal, The Kaplan Connection, etc), I don't want to put my trust in her.

I'm seriously considering not voting.

I wish Ron Paul had more support. He'd be a better candidate, IMO.

Then, a few pages later, I post this:

They are calling her the winner, and I've no doubt she will win PA (to be honest I would have been surprised if she lost it), but only 36% of the precincts are reporting in, and she's only winning by an 7% to 8% margin, which really isn't much. Give it more time. By the time we have 50% of the precincts reporting, if she's still winning and her margin hasn't decreased (it may or it may not... I can't project this one like I can do sometimes), then I'd say it's fair to put all your eggs in one basket.

But for now, keep at least one, maybe two, eggs out of that basket.

ETA:

42% precincts reporting, and her margin increased to 10%. Go ahead and put that second egg in the basket. Go ahead and put the other one in the basket, too, but keep your hand on it...

ETA 2:

44% and her margin has decresed by 2%. lift the egg out a little.

Oh, and if you're online but only here, click this link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21229229?GT1=43001

And watch. You'll have to refresh every once in a while.

ETA 3:

My last update. Watch the link above.

45% of Precincts reporting, Hillary has 54%, Barack has 46%.

I gotta log off. Later.

Then you (yes, you) respond with this little gem:

OK Mr I dont care who wins. If you dont care why are you watching and posting? Let the big Obama guns come out of the closet tonight. You may live another day, but tonight belongs to Hillary. GO HILLARY!!! YEAH!!!!!

So I respond with this:

I think you're confusing me with DRUNK. I care who our next President is. Of all three I do think Obama is the lesser of all evils... however, the more I read about all three of them (McCain, Clinton, and Obama), the more angry I get that Ron Paul and John Edwards aren't still in the running.

Bringing up DRUNK because he is the one who said he didn't care who won and all that...

You then respond to wanna be drummer saying this:

Now I didnt pick a quarrel with you. But this young dude said fuck the election earler today. Just giving him some good medicine. and if Hillary had lost Hermit would already be on here rubbing my nose in it. the fight goes on. And the dream never dies.

Saying that I said "fuck the election" earlier that same day, which I never said or intimated in that initial post.

I, assuming you ignored me (which you didn't, obviously, so I apologize for that), said this:

I responded to you:

But you ignored me:

For what it's worth, this is what I actually said:

In summary: I don't not care. I just don't like any of the three remaining candidates, and I'm having trouble deciding who is the least of three evils. And while I still lean towards Obama... that could change now.

You responded with this:

I didnt ignore you. I was off line. And didnt see the post. You could always vote for Nader as he says he is running again, the moron. To me Hillary is not evil. Nor is McCain. But Obama scares me the most as he is the mystery man. The Republicans saved their better candidates for 2112 knowing full well that whoever runs will pay for Bush's mistakes. Bill Clinton's dumb ass fling with Monica certainly cost Gore the white house in my opinion. And probably hurt Kerry too. Maybe Hillary would have been better off divorcing him after winning the Senate. Reagan was divorced and won the Presidency.

After I responded to you, you respond back to me, claiming I said that Hillary would keep us in Iraq when I wasn't even talking about her.

So I said, rather bruskly but justifiably:

When did I say Hillary would keep us in Iraq? You definitely did not read my post. Maybe you need glasses?

I was trying to point out why McCain is more evil then Obama. That had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary.

Seriously... half the problem I have in debating you and DRUNK is that the two of you never read my posts. You read, maybe, the first half of the first sentence of each paragraph and assume the rest. And as a result, you get it wrong and respond to things I never said (you claim I said I don't care about the election when it was DRUNK who said that, and now you seem to think I said Hillary would keep us in Iraq when I wasn't even talking about her).

Could you stop it, please? I don't think it's funny.

Then you got extremely sarcastic with me:

I think its hilarious that you are even on a thread that you "dont care about". why dont you go back to the Spats thread? Oh yeah, I forgot, its gone. What a heartbreaker. Go vote for whoever you want to. Its your right. Im not tryingn to push like some on here. Im just saying that I think Hillary is the only logical choice. I wish that we had JFK or RFK or Teddy Roosevelt but we dont. And as for reading your posts, its impossible to read all the posts as people come and go on their PC's. And the posts get jumped on. This is one thread I try andn go back on. But after reading one of Hermits posts Im brain dead when Im finished. Too long for the average Joe.

Now, before I go and forget why I'm making this post, I think it's quite obvious that I have the right guy and that you were responding to me. So unless there are two overthehills, it's fair to say that you've been responding to me and I've been responding to you.

Also, you shout at me for name-calling in yet a third instance of you calling me out for something I didn't post (going through my posts with you, I never ONCE called you anything, simply said that you had a bad habit of responding to things in my posts that weren't there), then you called me a know-it-all jerk and a moron.

Since you're completely ignoring the point of everything I've been saying to you (QUIT RESPONDING TO SHIT I NEVER SAID WHEN YOU RESPOND TO MY POSTS) I think it's a much better bet to say I'm the one who's done with you.

[Pb Derigable]

Indiana is a G.O.P. state. It has the same demographic as Penn. she does not have to spend as much to be effective as in Penn. she has new life,people actually think she has a chance. so an obama win in Indy would be an upset IMHO. she'll get her ass handed to her in NC but she may close the gap by a few percentage point but still lose by double digits.

[Nathan]

You did name call me you slimy little piss ant. Go away and dont bother me with your ignorant ranting.

Where?

[Nathan]

coughoverthehillscough?? what does that shit mean.

Really? That's name-calling?

What does that make calling me a moron, a piss-ant, a know-it-all jerk, etc?

What I meant was that unlike Hermit, you have a bad habit of responding to things in my posts I never posted. There is no "name" associated with that. So beyond calling you "different from Hermit," I wasn't calling you anything.

And your forum name is overthehillsandfaraway, is it not, or do you consider that name-calling, too?

[Electrophile]

Okay, icantquityoubabe.

[Mattmc1973]

Okay, icantquityoubabe.

Hey, that's overthehillsandquittingyoubabe to you. Or is it icantquityoucuzyouarefarawayoverthehills? I forget.

[Hotplant]

Politics!

[zosodude13]

Hey, that's overthehillsandquittingyoubabe to you. Or is it icantquityoucuzyouarefarawayoverthehills? I forget.

icantquityoubabe+ledzeppIV+overthehillsandfaraway=

the same old shit

[Hermit]

And who is asking you Electro? You have to stick your nose into everyone else's coversation. Like you are more intelligent than me. I think not. I know better. You are a loud mouth just like Nathan. Hermit is worth talking to. Neither of you idiots are.

Electobile, you talk about spraying raid on people, but yet almost 100% of the people think you should turn that raid around and spray some in your mouth. Hermit knows what he is getting into and he is more than capable of enough to defend him and his ideas.

Those comments are totally uncalled for.

Liz attacked no one here, so why are you responding to her comments (which weren't directed at either of you personally) with personal attacks? If'n I do say so myself,.. I think she made a pretty darn astute observation [ ]. If you dispute her point, then by all means put forth a mature, intelligent counter-argument. Your personal attacks merely serve to make yourselves look immature and.. worse: mean-spirited.

Liz and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye on things; we've had our disagreements and clashes. But in the big picture she's A-ok in my books, and despite our differences I do count her among my friends here at this board. I will challenge her when I disagree with her (both with regard to content and style), I will tease her and play with her, and I will also stand up for her.. I'll stand with her.. when I feel she's being unfairly attacked, as is the case now.

I also consider you two friends, and if I think you're being unfairly attacked I'll stand up for you as well. But in this case I'm calling you on your unnecessary and mean-spirited attacks on Liz. I'm in no position to tell either of you what to do,.. but it seems to me apologies are in order.

We'll see if either of you are big enough to do the right thing.

heck,.. and while I'm at it..

overthehills,.. with all due respect, friend, it seems to me that Nathan has been making a legitimate point. My observation has been that you do tend to respond to things out of context at times. (Your fiction-based attacks on Obama and your unnecessary personal attack on Liz notwithstanding), you seem to me to be a generally friendly and sincere person; so I don't think its with malice that you take things out of context; I think its a simple matter of carelessness. Specifically with regard to Nathan, you did attribute a comment to him that he never made. When he it pointed it out to you, you didn't acknowledge your mistake; instead you got defensive and the dispute spiraled into silliness and.. unfortunately.. enmity. Had you merely acknowledged that Nathan never said he 'doesn't care' (it was DRUNK who said that), the dispute you two have been having would have been nipped in the bud,.. it seems to me.

Feelings and passions tend to get heated in political debates, but in the big picture of things there's nothing being discussed in this thread that warrants any of us feeling angry and hateful toward each other. If you and Nathan met in real life over a beer or two, I bet you'd get along famously. I'm guessing that'd be the case with any/all (or at least most) of us. So please don't let your political passions get the better of you here, bud. You might consider simply acknowledging that you mistakenly attributed DRUNK's "I don't care" comment to Nathan, and you might perhaps offer Nathan an olive branch. Seems to me Nathan's a pretty reasonable and friendly dude; I've no doubt he'd accept your peace offering and would be quite willing to let bygones be bygones.

Peace brothers,

oh yeah,.. one last thing..

Go Obama!!

Seal the deal in N. Carolina!!

[edited for typos]

[Pb Derigable]

Do any of you jackasses actually READ the shit you say anymore or do you just puke on the keyboard and press "add reply"? I think all the xenophobes, homophobes, bigots and racists come to roost here and God only knows why. So much hatred.....too fucking much. A poster here PMd me to thank me for defending her on this board, because apparently it's not a day on the LZ message board without the bigot parade marching through.

Like I said, you wonder why the quality of the board is decreasing and then you read shit like this and you don't wonder anymore. This site needs a stronger can of Raid.

[Pb Derigable]

Liberal Rapture

http://www.liberalrapture.com/labels/Rev.%20Wright.html

An ongoing fascination I have with the Snob-gate story is the ongoing cluelessness of the Obamites. None of them seem to understand why Obama's remarks in San Francisco are so offensive to so many people. They truly don't get it: including the man himself. Obama did not say he was wrong, merely that he did not say it very well.

What he said was, in essence, Marxist. The masses are stupid but needed. If they were not stupid they would not use guns and religion as an opiate. Obama has yet to refute this sentiment. His supporters are befuddled that everyone can't see the inherent wisdom of Saint Obama's remarks. Tom Dashle, a man who as minority leader lost his seat in South Dakota, defended Obama's remarks forcefully. Instead of responding to the basic class-ism Obama put in play the Obamites react with an indefensible defense.

Sensing that Ohio and Pennsylvania may now be lost in November to Mccain, Obamites insist they can make it up with Virginia and Colorado. All I can say is - they think we're the stupid ones. Even on the off - very off - chance Obama could win Colorado and Virginia the electoral college votes would still leave a 19 vote gap. They can't even do simple math. (Hey Arugulas - there is a calulator on your Iphones). Floridians are rightfully livid. There is no reasonable argument against seating all those delegates and counting all those votes. It is a heist by high end criminals to steal millions of votes.

The 1952 election looks like it may be the go to template here. War hero vs. egghead. The egghead loses. In 1952 young people were over the moon for Stevenson and his edicts issued from on high. 2004 is instructive as well. I doubt, to this day, Kerry understands why the windsurfing photo op was such a debacle. Gee, doesn't every one in Scranton windsurf? BTW: Morianna Huffington approved the piece from David Geffen's yacht in the South Pacific. Nice work if you can get it.

It is increasingly impossible to imagine "President Obama". I have no idea what is going to happen anymore. I have assumed it was over for Clinton about 45322 times since January. And onward she marches. The misogynist (read: almost all) media, the Wrong Rev. Dean and the spoiled elites have been after her with the long knives since last Fall. She still has a brutal fight ahead if she is going to pull this off. I have some hope now - but not much. She has conducted herself with stunning tact. Despite the Obamite horsecrap about her "throwing the kitchen sink" she has hardly laid a glove on him - to mix the metaphors. I respect her restraint but I do not like it. Obama is a very strong candidate, until you get to know him. If she really would "do anything to win" she would have dropped the Wright bomb in January. She did not drop it at all. If she really would "do anything" Obama's state senate no shows, his pals, the terrorist William Ayres, and the slumlord Rezko would have been on everyone lips in February. I promise you, Boone Pickens, is salivating at the prospect of dumping millions this Fall into the project of ensuring we know who Obama really is.

As Lynne in Lakeland said to me on the phone today: You can't win a general election with a coalition of African- Americans and people who buy brie.

One last note: I am fed up with being called a racist every time I post something critical of Obama. I know plenty of other who have had it with this Obamite meme as well. Frankly, the only thing left remotely intersting about BHO is his bi-racial background. The rest is errant, dishonest nonsense: a life populated by bombers, slumlords, and lies. I am sick to death of being threatened by the "you're a racist!" verbal rifle butt. I am not a racist. Anyone who thinks a white voter who opposes Obama is by default a racist is, in fact, a racist.

Besides all you Obamites: stop being such wimps - come to the actual fight. Stop cowering behind rhetorical straw men. Let's slam it for our candidates on merit, in the real world.

Oh yeah, you can't do that since you don't live in reality.

still these to will take on any fight except the one the one in Iraq.

[Hermit]

Pb,.. the above quote from Liz that you posted was not from this thread. I never said Liz doesn't have her shortcomings or that she's not capable of being mean-spirited. I've called her on that a number of times. However, what she said in another thread has no bearing on what she said in this thread, and what she said in another thread does not excuse or justify you being mean-spirited toward her in response to what she said in this thread.

It seems to me that the point she made in this thread was perfectly reasonable and thoughtful. Her comment wasn't directed at you personally, so I don't understand why you took it personally and responded with a personal attack against her.

Again I say.. if you disagree with what she said in this thread, then by all means provide a thoughtful counter-argument. It seems fairly obvious to me that your responses so far are indicative of the fact that you're not able to thoughtfully address (either in agreement or disagreement) the point she made. In that regard, it seems to me that she's won that particular debate.

[wanna be drummer]

Go back and read your posts on page 94 (#s 1878 and 1880) and then go to page 95 and read your posts #s 1881 and 1882. The proof is in the pudding.

Just to clear thigns up, you are icantquityoubabe right? If you're trying to hide it, you're doing a terrible job of it. You haven't changed a bit

[THE FIRST LEDZEP]

I THINK WBD MEANS THIS....................................

"Good morning. In less than an hour, aircraft from here will join others from around the world.

And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in the history of mankind. "Mankind."

That word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore.

We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps it's fate that today is the Fourth of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom...

Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution... but from annihilation. We are fighting for our right to live.

To exist. And should we win the day, the Fourth of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day the world declared in one voice:

"We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight!" We're going to live on! We're going to survive!

Today we celebrate our Independence Day!"

[Pb Derigable]

Pb,.. the above quote from Liz that you posted was not from this thread. I never said Liz doesn't have her shortcomings or that she's not capable of being mean-spirited. I've called her on that a number of times. However, what she said in another thread has no bearing on what she said in this thread, and what she said in another thread does not excuse or justify you being mean-spirited toward her in response to what she said in this thread.

It seems to me that the point she made in this thread was perfectly reasonable and thoughtful. Her comment wasn't directed at you personally, so I don't understand why you took it personally and responded with a personal attack against her.

Again I say.. if you disagree with what she said in this thread, then by all means provide a thoughtful counter-argument. It seems fairly obvious to me that your responses so far are indicative of the fact that you're not able to thoughtfully address (either in agreement or disagreement) the point she made. In that regard, it seems to me that she's won that particular debate.

Than stop calling Overthehillsandfaraway, Icantquityoubabe.you are bringing up past bullshit,that has nothing to do with the thread. Just like i did.