Who should Obama choose for Vice President?

[BroncoBuff]

Personally, I'd choose Mike Bloomberg. Three reasons:

1. "Mayor Bloomberg will be my 'point man' on the economy, he is the best qualified man in the country to fix what's wrong with the economy, and make it work again for middle and working class American."

2. Ted Strickland might get you Ohio, but Bloomberg gets you FLORIDA, and...

3. All your problems with Jewish voters e v a p o r a t e . . .


He is organized and VERY competent - even brilliant. And he would definitely do it - he's the outgoing mayor, a Democrat at heart, and he aspires to higher office.

[BroncoBuff]

Mary Landrieu would be the best LOOKING vice president we ever had...

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/3750/69117810be3.jpg

She looks kinda like a girlfriend I had in high school, Dina something...

I said she's "popular," I meant in Washington, in the Senate and in the party, supposedly she was on Kerry's short list in '04. She faces a tough reelection as Louisiana senator this fall, though.

[baja]

She looks like a John Elway that never drank...

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Mary Landrieu would be the best LOOKING vice president we ever had...

Thanks to the efforts of the "liberal" media, there are a lot of red state rubes out there who think Mary Landrieu was responsible for the botched response to Katrina.

Better pass.

[BroncoBuff]

Thanks to the efforts of the "liberal" media, there are a lot of red state rubes out there who think Mary Landrieu was responsible for the botched response to Katrina.

Better pass.

Is that right? I thought she was the one at the point of the relief efforts. Guess the truth wouldn't matter much to them though.

September 3, that's the Saturday there: http://landrieu.senate.gov/releases/05/2005903E12.html

Very interesting graphic map showing hour by hour Katrina flooding the city: http://www.nola.com/katrina/graphics/flashflood.swf

[BroncoInferno]

I'd probably go with Richardson. He helps with the Hispanic community, and in terms of experience he is second to none with executive, congressional, and foreign policy experience. The only downside with him is he doesn't perform well in the soundbyte debate format.

[cutthemdown]

Bloomberg I don't think would take it but maybe.

I think Jim Webb from that list. Hilliary is too unlikeable and would probably rather just go back and finish in the senate if she loses.

I'm curious no black VP choices on that list? Don't you think Obama will at least consider another black person?

[cutthemdown]

what about a real shocker like Colin Powell?

[BroncoBuff]

Powell's too tied to Iraq, though not so much due to his own faults. And yes, I seriously doubt any black man as running-mate.

Bloomberg would definitely do it ... he can't run for mayor again, and he loves public life. He even toyed wth spending a quarter-billion of his own dollars on an independent run (Hagel was his prospective VP).

I love Bloomberg ... he's a hyper-effiecient problem-solver. He ran the mayor's office from a huge bullpen office setup with him in the middle. Anybody could approach him with any question or concern. Apparently it was super-efficient. Like I said, Obama could peg him as "my point man on the economy." I'm not sure there's anybody in America better qualified to spearhead an economic recovery team. Oh, and he gets you FLORIDA!

[Bronco Jamus]

Personally, I'd choose Mike Bloomberg. Three reasons:

1. "Mayor Bloomberg will be my 'point man' on the economy, he is the best qualified man in the country to fix what's wrong with the economy, and make it work again for middle and working class American."

2. Ted Strickland might get you Ohio, but Bloomberg gets you FLORIDA, and...

3. All your problems with Jewish voters e v a p o r a t e . . .


He is organized and VERY competent - even brilliant. And he would definitely do it - he's the outgoing mayor, a Democrat at heart, and he aspires to higher office.

The VP doesn't do the budget. The position oversees the senate. Richardson is the only guy on that list I would trust to make a deciding vote in the Senate.

[Bronco Jamus]

what about a real shocker like Colin Powell?

He'd be my SOS if he'd take it.

[BroncoBuff]

The VP doesn't do the budget. The position oversees the senate.

Well, basically yes. That's the VP's express Constitutional duty, to preside over the Senate. But good luck telling our current VP his duties are strictly limited like that.

No, there's no reason in the world why Obama could not appoint his VP as chairman of a commission, or a "blue ribbon panel" to fix the economy and make it work for middle and working class Americans. He could do the same thing if Bloomberg were Secretary of Treasury, or of Commerce ... or even were he a private citizen.

[Spider]

Dick Gephardt ....... Strong politician , lost out to a lying sack of liquid crap and pond scum sucking Thune ..... But when you got alot of Dildos with vocal cords ( aka living person in South Dakota) what can you expect

[BroncsRule]

Another choice not on the list: Wesley Clark. Gets the same (maybe better) response than Powell from the Hawk/Veteran crowd - performs very well in front of the camera - can think on his feet, would do well in debates and "town halls".

[BroncsRule]

That said - my first choice is Edwards. Hill probably makes for the "strongest" ticket..

[elsid13]

Another choice not on the list: Wesley Clark. Gets the same (maybe better) response than Powell from the Hawk/Veteran crowd - performs very well in front of the camera - can think on his feet, would do well in debates and "town halls".

Clark has been surprising quiet, I doubt that make a run at because of his last experience in the public eye.

[Spider]

Another choice not on the list: Wesley Clark. Gets the same (maybe better) response than Powell from the Hawk/Veteran crowd - performs very well in front of the camera - can think on his feet, would do well in debates and "town halls".

Man Wesley Clark was my Candidate ........But I would rather much see him do Kindasleezy Rices job

[BroncsRule]

Agreed Spide - If neither Bloomberg or Clark are the choice for Veep - hopefully they would agree to serve in the cabinet.

There are the makings of a progressive "dream team" cabinet out there.

[BroncsRule]

Clark has been surprising quiet, I doubt that make a run at because of his last experience in the public eye.

What'd I miss? What happened to Wess?

[Spider]

Agreed Spide - If neither Bloomberg or Clark are the choice for Veep - hopefully they would agree to serve in the cabinet.

There are the makings of a progressive "dream team" cabinet out there.

I hope so .......

[elsid13]

What'd I miss? What happened to Wess?

Just that he stated that after the run in Vermont last time, that felt that he wasn't sure that public political spotlight was one he wanted on him all the time.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is that right? I thought she was the one at the point of the relief efforts. Guess the truth wouldn't matter much to them though.



My point exactly.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Evan Bayh for VP, Edwards for Attorney General, Wes Clark for Sec. of Defense.

http://bayh.senate.gov/

[BroncoBuff]

Man Wesley Clark was my Candidate ........
Another choice not on the list: Wesley Clark.
Arrgghhh!@%#$ left him off the list, sorry. He'd be a very good choice if national security was the #1 issue for voters, for a foreign-policy/military lacking resume like Obama's, nothing beats having the SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER on the ticket :~ohyah!:

But I think the economy is job #1. Itz thee econimmy, stoopid. And Mike Bloomberg is akin to the Supreme Allied Commander on economic issues.

[BroncoBuff]

There are the makings of a progressive "dream team" cabinet out there.
Definitely ...

Attorney General: John Edwards
Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel
Nat'l Security Advisor: Wesley Clark
Secretary of State: Colin Powell (?)
Treasury or Commerce: Mike Bloomberg

"Team of Rivals"

[Florida_Bronco]

I dunno much about Bloomberg, but if he really can help the economy I say go for it.

[BarefootKicker]

Kathleen Sebelius. The governor of Kansas. 60 year old white female governor of a red state with legit progressive cred. People give her sh!t over her lackluster response to the state of the union, however, she takes care of a lot of the demographic issues Obama might have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Sebelius

[Northman]

She looks like a John Elway that never drank...


Hilarious! Hilarious! LOL

[Traveler]

Almost anyone but HRC. Her "assasination" comment, while I don't think she could be that monstrous, definitely gave cover for Obama to take her off her short list.

My choices would be either Richardson or Sebelius.

[W*GS]

Bill Ritter, current CO governor. Get him the hell out of here!

[Dudeskey]

Definitely ...

Attorney General: John Edwards
Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel
Nat'l Security Advisor: Wesley Clark
Secretary of State: Colin Powell (?)
Treasury or Commerce: Mike Bloomberg

"Team of Rivals"

Does Edwards have any experience in constitutional law? Personally I'd rather see a Pat Leahy as AG & Wesley Clark @ secretary of defense.

[TheDave]

Wheres the Chuck Norris option... Now that would be a formidable ticket.

[BroncoInferno]

Definitely ...

Attorney General: John Edwards
Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel
Nat'l Security Advisor: Wesley Clark
Secretary of State: Colin Powell (?)
Treasury or Commerce: Mike Bloomberg

"Team of Rivals"

Joe Biden needs to be in the cabinet somewhere. I think he'd make a great Sec. of State. Don't see much chance of Powell taking or even being offered that role.

[BroncoBuff]

Joe Biden needs to be in the cabinet somewhere. I think he'd make a great Sec. of State. Don't see much chance of Powell taking or even being offered that role.

Agreed on both counts ... though Biden would be a good Senate majority leader, too. I'm sick of that milquetoast Harry Reid.

[cutthemdown]

So what's funny then is McCain has a better chance of picking a black for his running mate then Obama does?

[SoCalBronco]

Almost anyone but HRC. Her "assasination" comment, while I don't think she could be that monstrous.

I dunno...the Clintons have a pretty high body count. If I were Obama, I would not select Hillary for that reason (the body count), in addition to the fact that she would likely be an electoral albatross around his neck.

[theAPAOps5]

Man Wesley Clark was my Candidate ........But I would rather much see him do Kindasleezy Rices job

Spider please don't take this as an attack as its not. But Wesley Clark is a piece of ****. He was my step-dads commanding general twice. He was a horrible leader, a horrible person, and an all around prick. If he made it to Obamas VP I would vote McCain and I don't agree with anything McCain stands for.

[Spider]

Spider please don't take this as an attack as its not. But Wesley Clark is a piece of ****. He was my step-dads commanding general twice. He was a horrible leader, a horrible person, and an all around prick. If he made it to Obamas VP I would vote McCain and I don't agree with anything McCain stands for.
I didnt know this .......... But damn good post , you related a opinion based on your familys history with him , not some off the wing nut job blog ...... I respect your opinion on this .....

[cutthemdown]

I dunno...the Clintons have a pretty high body count. If I were Obama, I would not select Hillary for that reason (the body count), in addition to the fact that she would likely be an electoral albatross around his neck.

If anything he will set out to dismantle the Clinton machine that still exists. There will be no Democratic hug/kiss makeup for the Clintons and Obama. Also the people the Clintons helped into power who went with Obama will never be able to go back. Guys like Richardson and maybe soon Gore.

This is a stunning defeat for the Clintons. With Bush leaving office and Jeb seemingly having little shot at duplicating his brothers rise signals the end of an era of American politics. Here's to the next era.

[Rohirrim]

I think Jim Webb would be the best choice. A lot of blue collar whites (where Obama is weakest) really respect Webb. So he'll help in Penn, Ohio, the Eastern Coastal states, etc. If he picks that slimy reptile Richardson, I'm voting third party.

[broncofan7]

Joe Lieberman:) all kidding aside I believe that Evan Bayh is the best choice....1)white male from a 2) working class midwest state who has the ability to commnicate in an effective and "less condescending way" than say Edwards --In addition, all this talk of offending the 'jewish vote' and nominating Bloomberg is really moot as the Jewish voting block, although financially powerful, is such a small group in the majority of states NOT named NY & FL that it is not necessary to placate them in November. (only after the election when setting up the Cabinet)

[theAPAOps5]

He really needs someone who is going to appeal to the working class blue collar workers. Its his biggest weakness. I don't know how well Edwards will appeal to the northern democrats. Richardson might be a wise choice but might not be strong enough a candidate.

I would go with someone who can appeal to the undecided and republican undecided votes as well as the blue collar working stiff. But alas besides Foneco is there really a candidate that could fill those needs.

[Spider]

I think Jim Webb would be the best choice. A lot of blue collar whites (where Obama is weakest) really respect Webb. So he'll help in Penn, Ohio, the Eastern Coastal states, etc. If he picks that slimy reptile Richardson, I'm voting third party.

Jim webb , If Obama got out of line Webb could put him back in , in a matter of seconds , I dont fear men , but Webb is one that I would give a wide path to

[BroncoBuff]

I dunno...the Clintons have a pretty high body count. If I were Obama, I would not select Hillary for that reason (the body count), in addition to the fact that she would likely be an electoral albatross around his neck.

Hillary is out of the question, no chance whatsoever. She's burned way too many bridges.

[theAPAOps5]

Hillary is out of the question, no chance whatsoever. She's burned way too many bridges.

I would have thought it a possibility until she dropped the assassination bomb. She is really acting like a spoiled child now.

[Arkie]

Definitely ...

Attorney General: John Edwards
Secretary of Defense: Chuck Hagel
Nat'l Security Advisor: Wesley Clark
Secretary of State: Colin Powell (?)
Treasury or Commerce: Mike Bloomberg

"Team of Rivals"

John Edwards is a selfish attorney. I respect Wesley Clark. That's a good choice.

[Spider]

I looked it up Appa Opps ............I had no idea .....Wesley Clark and his High noon moment could have triggered WW3

[Pseudofool]

I really like Jim Webb--that is until I found out he penned some atrocious articles about women in the military as a young man, and in the nineties, though not nearly as bad. The point is that MSM will paint him as a sexist, and will probably stick.

Sebelius is interesting pick, but she doesn't help Obama on national security, and beyond her gender, family line, and home state, I'm not sure what she brings to the table as a far as actual qualifications.

Clark could certainly be a choice, but some of the things he's said on the MSM (like we should as a patriotic duty, join the military) don't jive with me.
Evan Bayh I think will be the choice, from a rust belt state, young-ish, Clinton supporter. Though I'm not sure what he brings to the table.

Bill Richardson (secratary of state?) could be another choice, as well as the governor from Arizona, Janet Napelotano (sp?).

Personally, I'd like Edwards, and the Obama/Edwards ticket is polling the best (pretty much because noone knows any of the others).

I'd really hope they stay away from Strickland and Rendell.

[Pseudofool]

John Edwards is a selfish attorney.Yeah his poverty stance is all for show...

[Arkie]

Yeah his poverty stance is all for show...

explain

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Edwards has defended a lot of regular working Americans against big corporations who were trying to f*@k them. The very opposite of "selfish."

[W*GS]

Edwards has defended a lot of regular working Americans against big corporations who were trying to f*@k them. The very opposite of "selfish."

Did he do it for free, or was he merely going after the deep pockets so he could be much enriched thereby?

[theAPAOps5]

I looked it up Appa Opps ............I had no idea .....Wesley Clark and his High noon moment could have triggered WW3

Exactly, that ordeal could have gotten very messy.

[Spider]

Exactly, that ordeal could have gotten very messy.

thanks for the info ..... If I dont know something , I will take time to look it up ...

[theAPAOps5]

thanks for the info ..... If I dont know something , I will take time to look it up ...

Its a shame his ego and zest for war get in the way of his intelligence. He graduated first in his class from West Point and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. He obviously is extremely intelligent.

[Spider]

Its a shame his ego and zest for war get in the way of his intelligence. He graduated first in his class from West Point and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. He obviously is extremely intelligent.

Intelligent and smart are 2 different things , what i mean is Clark may have a brilliant military mind , but dumb as a box of rocks as to what his military plans effect and consciences to the general public .....

[theAPAOps5]

Intelligent and smart are 2 different things , what i mean is Clark may have a brilliant military mind , but dumb as a box of rocks as to what his military plans effect and consciences to the general public .....

I would say he is smart. And I can't stand the guy. But he just has too big an ego. He really fractured military relations with European allies when he was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.

[Spider]

I would say he is smart. And I can't stand the guy. But he just has too big an ego. He really fractured military relations with European allies when he was Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.
But he never forgot Poland ;D
yeah cant have a guy like that in Charge ..

[BroncoBuff]

I think Jim Webb would be the best choice. A lot of blue collar whites (where Obama is weakest) really respect Webb. So he'll help in Penn, Ohio, the Eastern Coastal states, etc. If he picks that slimy reptile Richardson, I'm voting third party.

I'm curious ... was he a "slimy reptile" before he went Judas on your girl Hillary? :~ohyah!:

LABF and broncofan7 are correct, Evan Bayh is almost certainly on the short list, as may be Kathleen Sebelius and Wesley Clark. I'll wait a month and start another poll.

[BroncoBuff]

Did he do it for free, or was he merely going after the deep pockets so he could be much enriched thereby?

Indecipherable post. What does it mean?

John Edwards favors policies that would cost HIM perhaps a million dollars or more. If you're rich like he is, and you favor repealing tax cuts for the wealthy and even support tax HIKES for the wealthy, you're advocating against your own economic interests. That's refreshing in today's America.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Indecipherable post. What does it mean?

John Edwards favors policies that would cost HIM perhaps a million dollars or more. If you're rich like he is, and you favor repealing tax cuts for the wealthy and even support tax HIKES for the wealthy, you're advocating against your own economic interests. That's refreshing in today's America.

Exactly.

That's what makes Edwards' critics sound so idiotic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Indecipherable post. What does it mean?

John Edwards favors policies that would cost HIM perhaps a million dollars or more. If you're rich like he is, and you favor repealing tax cuts for the wealthy and even support tax HIKES for the wealthy, you're advocating against your own economic interests. That's refreshing in today's America.

I'm sure you're aware of the attempts by Big Pharma to get the sort of legislation that would prevent you (or your family) from suing them if one of their products made you sick or killed you.

W*GS and the other corporate brownie hounds who condemn the kind of work Edwards does are essentially the same people who side with Big Pharma in the aforementioned instance.

Disgusting, really.

[W*GS]

W*GS and the other corporate brownie hounds who condemn the kind of work Edwards does are essentially the same people who side with Big Pharma in the aforementioned instance.

LABF and his ilk are essentially the same people who side with Big Brother. No amount of State control and regulation is too much for them.

Care to retract your idiotic comment?

[W*GS]

Indecipherable post. What does it mean?

Edwards didn't make his millions as a lawyer out of the pure goodness of his heart, as LABF alleges.

Edwards is a big ol' phony, and anyone who buys his line of bull**** is a reprehrensible moron.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

W*GS with the straw man already?

Out of ammo so soon?

Go figure.

[BroncoInferno]

If he picks that slimy reptile Richardson, I'm voting third party.

Curious to know why you say this, Ro. Richardson's experience is barely rivaled in the history of the nation. How many folks have been a govenor, a congressman, and held two foreign relations cabinet posts? Just curious to know why you don't like him.

[BroncoInferno]

Edwards didn't make his millions as a lawyer out of the pure goodness of his heart, as LABF alleges.

Edwards is a big ol' phony, and anyone who buys his line of bull**** is a reprehrensible moron.

So it isn't possible to make millions and be a decent human being? But isn't that what the ol' ivory tower libertarians tell us peons?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So it isn't possible to make millions and be a decent human being?

A claim to the contrary would fly in the face of W*GS' entire free market ideology, would it not?

(But then, W*GS has always been a walking contradiction.)


But isn't that what the ol' ivory tower libertarians tell us peons?

:yep:

[BroncoBuff]

If he picks that slimy reptile Richardson, I'm voting third party.Curious to know why you say this, Ro ... Just curious to know why you don't like him.
Roh's just ticked off cause Richardson went all Judas on his girl Hillary ;D

[W*GS]

So it isn't possible to make millions and be a decent human being?

In Edwards' case, he's a posturing phony.

[W*GS]

A claim to the contrary would fly in the face of W*GS' entire free market ideology, would it not?

Being rich is no guarantee of being moral, in any system.

However, in your ideology, being rich is immoral, period.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unfounded claims (i.e., Edwards is a phony) and straw man arguments (i.e., I have claimed that being wealthy is immoral) are all W*GS has left in the tank.

Pitiful, really. :pity:

[Rohirrim]

Curious to know why you say this, Ro. Richardson's experience is barely rivaled in the history of the nation. How many folks have been a govenor, a congressman, and held two foreign relations cabinet posts? Just curious to know why you don't like him.

He didn't just stick a knife in the back of the Clintons - two people who had helped him and lifted him up his entire career - he twisted it. All in hopes of claiming for himself a VP slot, and this after he had given his personal assurance to his old buddy Bubba that he wouldn't publicly endorse Obama. If he'll do it to his "friends" he'll do it to you. I put him just down the scale of slime from Joe Leiberman.

[Spider]

Being rich is no guarantee of being moral, in any system.

However, in your ideology, being rich is immoral, period.

you are running out of gas ...so I wont pick on for awhile

[elsid13]

I don't think it will be Webb, to many personal issues that might make him not a good national candidate. Plus I doubt that DNC will want him to pick other senator with the potential to control the that chamber this November.

I would like for current or former House of Representative that has strong foreign policy experience.

[W*GS]

Unfounded claims (i.e., Edwards is a phony)

See

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/hillary-edwards-tough-1928255-big-foreign
http://www.slate.com/id/2177874/#edwardsbluff
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1513954.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/how-to-bring-america-toge_b_71052.html

and straw man arguments (i.e., I have claimed that being wealthy is immoral) are all W*GS has left in the tank.

You view the rich as a priori morally suspect.

On the other hand, you live by unfounded claims and strawmen, but your hypocrisy knows no bounds...

[TexanBob]

Obama has a death wish if he puts Hillary on the ticket - and I think he knows it.

He would be smarter to add a feminist that can win back the Hillary vote - someone like Barbara Boxer.

[cutthemdown]

Obama has a death wish if he puts Hillary on the ticket - and I think he knows it.

He would be smarter to add a feminist that can win back the Hillary vote - someone like Barbara Boxer.


uuuuuuuug boxer? no friggin way he put boxer on the ticket. Do you people even follow politics?

[BroncoBuff]

However, in your ideology, being rich is immoral, period.
Your arguments are so incoherent, W*GS, that blatant contradictions like this one fly past with the regular clockwork of Southwest shuttles at LAX ....

It's one or the other. Either 1) LABF believes "being rich is immoral, period," or 2) LABF likes John Edwards because he's taken in by Edward's phoniness. You cannot have both.

[SoCalBronco]

I'm not a Democrat and I will not be voting for Mr. Obama but here are my thoughts on who he would be well served by and ill served by:

Very Good/Good Choices:

Evan Bayh- Moderate, family man with a great deal of experience, competence and also looks good. Can definitely appeal to the white working class voters who are resisting Obama. Also would definitely put Indiana in play. A high quality selection.

Joe Biden- Would add alot of gravitas to the ticket. Does not really add alot from an electoral standpoint, although he would probably ease fears about Obama being inexperienced in foreign policy matters. Would be very, very useful in that area. Another high quality choice.

Mark Warner- This could definitely tip a purple Virginia into the blue category. A rising star in the party and his record as a successful governor in a quasi-southern state might help on racial and experience issues.

Jane Harman- This name has never come up anywhere that I know of, but this is a very, very competent lady, especially on defense/intelligence issues. She has an outstanding record on these issues in the House, so she would help to cover that weakness, is also a moderate blue-dog democrat, has alot of legislative experience and can help bring back the Hillary women. She is somewhat older (in her 60s, altho she looks good) and would be hurt by the fact that it would probably be pushing it to win an election with a ticket lacking a single white male on it, but from an individual perspective, in the abstract, she would be a great choice.

Jim Webb- Has great military appeal to offset McCain, is undoubtedly a rising star and could probably swing Virginia to the Democrats. He does have a legislative experience problem, like Obama does, and a legitimate argument could be made that Obama needs someone on the ticket that knows the legislative machinery inside out so that the agenda could be advanced (kind of like how Cheney's expertise helped Bush in that area). That Webb has even less Senate experience is a problem, but its still a good choice all in all.

Ted Strickland- Would be able to clinch Ohio for the Democrats. GOP faces almost impossible electoral math without Ohio. Adds age, experience, executive experience, middle class white appeal. Very good pick, esp. for rust belt states.

Questionable Choices:

Gen. Wesley Clark- He obviously adds the military element, but doesn't do much else. He possesses no legislative experience or administrative experience from a government POV. Just not very well rounded and adds only a limited electoral benefit.

John Edwards- He might help sow up some white working class support, but he doesn't play well in public. He comes across as too arrogant, too elitist and his language is too anti-business. There's a sizeable section of the center that is turned off by how far to the left Edwards likes to play. He does not add any southern states or even his own North Carolina to the equation.

Hillary Clinton- Tremendous intelligence and competence, undoubtedly a real expert on health care and education matters. Supremely talented and hard working, but an electoral albatross. Possesses even worse PR than Edwards. Can't shake the cold, calculating ice queen image. Has negatives consistently in the toxic 40-45% range. Would energize the Republican base. The Clintons also have a high body count that Obama should be concerned about if he chose her.

Bill Richardson- Does not add anything electorally, outside of New Mexico. Hispanics have had some trepidation towards Obama, but I suspect that they'll fall into line during the fall, whether or not Richardson is on the ticket. Two minorities on the same ticket will not help with middle class, midwestern and southern white voters.

Claire McCaskill- Also lacks a great deal of legislative experience. Might solidify women and might be able to clinch Missouri for Obama, but her support in the primary only gave him the smallest of victories. She has been loyal to him from the start but the VP spot is way over her head.

Mary Landrieu- Pro-life position makes it alot more difficult for Obama to get back the Hillary female voters, even though Landrieu is a woman. A bit too conservative for the party's taste. Will not win Louisiana for the Dems or any other southern states. Probably not qualified for such a position (given that she owes much of her electoral success to her last name), although she does have aesthetic appeal. Has some Katrina taint on her, whether its deserved or not.

Michael Bloomberg- Only appeal seems to be solidifying the jewish vote, which is only significant, from a purely quantitative POV in Florida. His strengths (vast personal fortune) are not needed by the ferocious Obama money machine. Just doesn't add alot electorally.

[Pseudofool]

Why does anyone engage W*GS in any kind of political discussion when we all know he's just going to brandish his liberaterian delusions.

Seriously, as if the private sector is any less institutionalized, corrupt, or bueracratic than the public sector, save the check on the private sector is money rather than votes. Seriously delusional thinking. I mean how narscistic and completely unaltruistic does a person have to be to believe so fully in a liberatarian utopia. Compelling.

[Pseudofool]

I will not be voting for Mr. ObamaJust curious why you are so decided. Can Obama (or McCain) do anything to change your mind?

[SoCalBronco]

Just curious why you are so decided. Can Obama (or McCain) do anything to change your mind?

Well, first of all, I'm a Republican, albeit a moderate one. I find Obama's voting record on a number of issues way too liberal for my tastes. I've always liked John McCain, I like his moderate appeal, I like his ability to be pragmatic and compromise. I like him alot on spending issues, where he has compiled a great record. I don't think this is an appropriate time for a vast expansion of government programs and services (most notably on health care). I would rather use the funds raised from various tax increases (which I don't mind) to pay down the deficit instead. There was a detailed study done earlier that talked about the combined increase in spending of all proposals advanced by the three major candidates and McCain, not surprisingly, came out with the smallest bill. First and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative, not a supply sider. I'm on the John Kasich-Warren Rudman wing of fiscal conservatism that values fiscal discipline more than tax cuts. Tax cuts are nice, but only if they are offset by spending decreases. I like McCain's record in this area, although I wish he would not have flip flopped on the Bush tax cuts, he was right the first time when he said we couldn't afford it, but I understand why he had to do it. I am a bit put off by how aggressive McCain seems to be on the war, but on balance, I still like him a great deal. I don't think Obama has the necessary experience for the Presidency and I just dont like his policy preferences on many issues. I wouldn't vote for Clinton either, although I greatly respect her intellect.

[W*GS]

It's one or the other. Either 1) LABF believes "being rich is immoral, period," or 2) LABF likes John Edwards because he's taken in by Edward's phoniness. You cannot have both.

I'm not one being self-contradictory; LABF is. He detests folks richer than he is, and he's bought into Edwards' populist bull**** hook, line, and sinker.

Explain to him the problems with his dogma, since my years of attempting to do so have failed miserably. He's just as driven by simplistic, binary, bumper-sticker-level sloganeering as he ever was.

[W*GS]

Why does anyone engage W*GS in any kind of political discussion when we all know he's just going to brandish his liberaterian delusions.

Those who believe in government as savior of all are the ones with the need for a reality check, not me.

Seriously, as if the private sector is any less institutionalized, corrupt, or bueracratic than the public sector, save the check on the private sector is money rather than votes.

With the private sector, one has choice. One does not have choice in dealing with the State.

I mean how narscistic and completely unaltruistic does a person have to be to believe so fully in a liberatarian utopia. Compelling.

Obviously, you know nothing of libertarianism.

Not only that, your spelling sucks ****.

[Pseudofool]

Well, first of all, I'm a Republican, albeit a moderate one. I find Obama's voting record on a number of issues way too liberal for my tastes. I've always liked John McCain, I like his moderate appeal, I like his ability to be pragmatic and compromise. I like him alot on spending issues, where he has compiled a great record. I don't think this is an appropriate time for a vast expansion of government programs and services (most notably on health care). I would rather use the funds raised from various tax increases (which I don't mind) to pay down the deficit instead. There was a detailed study done earlier that talked about the combined increase in spending of all proposals advanced by the three major candidates and McCain, not surprisingly, came out with the smallest bill. First and foremost, I am a fiscal conservative, not a supply sider. I'm on the John Kasich-Warren Rudman wing of fiscal conservatism that values fiscal discipline more than tax cuts. Tax cuts are nice, but only if they are offset by spending decreases. I like McCain's record in this area, although I wish he would not have flip flopped on the Bush tax cuts, he was right the first time when he said we couldn't afford it, but I understand why he had to do it. I am a bit put off by how aggressive McCain seems to be on the war, but on balance, I still like him a great deal. I don't think Obama has the necessary experience for the Presidency and I just dont like his policy preferences on many issues. I wouldn't vote for Clinton either, although I greatly respect her intellect.Thanks, makes sense. I'd still be concerned about McCain's ability to curb spending without ending the war, and with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. I'm not sure where you stand on civil liberties, but there's two Justices due to retire, and I'm also worried McCain will try to please the base with his appointments.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why does anyone engage W*GS in any kind of political discussion when we all know he's just going to brandish his liberaterian delusions.

Seriously, as if the private sector is any less institutionalized, corrupt, or bueracratic than the public sector, save the check on the private sector is money rather than votes. Seriously delusional thinking. I mean how narscistic and completely unaltruistic does a person have to be to believe so fully in a liberatarian utopia. Compelling.

QFT. :yep:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your arguments are so incoherent, W*GS, that blatant contradictions like this one fly past with the regular clockwork of Southwest shuttles at LAX ....

It's one or the other. Either 1) LABF believes "being rich is immoral, period," or 2) LABF likes John Edwards because he's taken in by Edward's phoniness. You cannot have both.

:yep:

Funny - he claims he's not a repub or a neocon, but his Edwards smears are indistinguishable from those we hear from Limbaugh and O'Liely. Ha!

[W*GS]

Funny - he claims he's not a repub or a neocon, but his Edwards smears are indistinguishable from those we hear from Limbaugh and O'Liely.

What "smears"? Edwards is a phony, simply put. That others have noticed doesn't make me like them.

Lame-ass argument, LABF, but we expect little else from you.

[Pseudofool]

Those who believe in government as savior of all are the ones with the need for a reality check, not me.I'm cynical of the government. I more cynical of private sector. No ones suggesting that the gov't is the savior--but rather elected officials might have our interests slightly more in mind than out-for-profit corporations.



With the private sector, one has choice. One does not have choice in dealing with the State.This is absurd. We don't live in a dictatorship. We can vote. The private sector offers the illusion of choice, how different is Exxon and Shell? Coke and Pepsi? McDs and BK? Lays and Pringles? The private sector isn't interested in giving us choices, they sell products to meet our most base desires (greed, gluttony, pride, etc.) which aren't very choice-driven. In fact, some argue that the private sector Manufactures Consent (a complete lack of choice), see Chomsky.



Obviously, you know nothing of libertarianism.

Not only that, your spelling sucks ****.The wonderful world where all people can spell and lose who can't are exiled to fend for themselves. I'd be fine with libertarianism, if before we instated it, we spread all the guns, money, land, and capital out equally before the social revolution starts. Otherwise, libertarianism always privileges those who already have lots of guns, capital, and land or those who are completely devoid of any moral restraint.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm cynical of the government. I more cynical of private sector. No ones suggesting that the gov't is the savior--but rather elected officials might have our interests slightly more in mind than out-for-profit corporations.


And at least (theoretically speaking, anyway) we can fire our public servants when they fail to represent us.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Otherwise, libertarianism always privileges those who already have lots of guns, capital, and land or those who are completely devoid of any moral restraint.

That's W*GS in a nutshell.

[cutthemdown]

Thanks, makes sense. I'd still be concerned about McCain's ability to curb spending without ending the war, and with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. I'm not sure where you stand on civil liberties, but there's two Justices due to retire, and I'm also worried McCain will try to please the base with his appointments.

one thing that makes me more comfortable with McCain is his experience. I worry Obama may get pushed around by his own party.

[cutthemdown]

[QUOTE=Pseudofool;1968809]I'm cynical of the government. I more cynical of private sector. No ones suggesting that the gov't is the savior--but rather elected officials might have our interests slightly more in mind than out-for-profit corporations.

Being in govt is nothing more then a job you get paid for. They do it to make a living not to help you.


This is absurd. We don't live in a dictatorship. We can vote. The private sector offers the illusion of choice, how different is Exxon and Shell? Coke and Pepsi? McDs and BK? Lays and Pringles? The private sector isn't interested in giving us choices, they sell products to meet our most base desires (greed, gluttony, pride, etc.) which aren't very choice-driven. In fact, some argue that the private sector Manufactures Consent (a complete lack of choice), see Chomsky.

Just as a question what choices do you want from exxon and shell? They both exist because we need competition to keep prices down, it's not because we need a choice when it comes to what type of fuel we buy. Gas is gas right?
Besides how different are politicians? they are all the same to me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

one thing that makes me more comfortable with McCain is his experience. I worry Obama may get pushed around by his own party.

But you had no reservations about Bush's inexperience and the extent to which he was pushed around by the neocons and other powerful lobbies and interests?

At any rate, unlike Bush, Obama is probably smart enough to surround himself with experienced advisors (and actually listen to them when they offer advice.)

[spdirty]

Joe Arpaio

[cutthemdown]

But you had no reservations about Bush's inexperience and the extent to which he was pushed around by the neocons and other powerful lobbies and interests?

At any rate, unlike Bush, Obama is probably smart enough to surround himself with experienced advisors (and actually listen to them when they offer advice.)

actually I have said many times that I thought Bush's inexperience showed in his presidency. Should we just say experience means nothing because Bush was inexperienced? That makes little sense to me. You say Obama probably smart enough but that doesn't seem like you stepping up and saying you do think he has enough experience. If anything it sounds like you are saying Bush stunk so repubs have no right to question anything. Dems need to realize simply not being Bush is not going to be enough.

[cutthemdown]

Also I voted for McCain over Bush in the first election primary. Funny thing is I liked McCain a whole lot more back then. I understand he did what he had to do to appease the right wing of the party, but I preferred him when he was more the mavrick.

I honestly don't see McCain as a neocon. Do you really see him as that conservative?

Also exactly what are the necon postitions? I'm a little confused as to what exactly those posistions are.

[Pseudofool]

one thing that makes me more comfortable with McCain is his experience. I worry Obama may get pushed around by his own party.We'll he's stood up to Hillary pretty well. A good test will be his selection for VP and what ends up happening with Florida and Michigan. Of course, McCain 2008 isn't McCain 2000--he's clearly pandered more to his party this election cycle.

[BroncoBuff]

Very Good/Good Choices:
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Mark Warner
Jane Harman
Jim Webb
Ted Strickland

Questionable Choices:

Gen. Wesley Clark
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton
Bill Richardson
Claire McCaskill
Mary Landrieu- Pro-life position makes it alot more difficult for Obama to get back the Hillary female voters
Michael Bloomberg- Only appeal seems to be Jewish vote in Florida. Just doesn't add alot electorally.

Excellent post, refreshingly candid coming from a Republican.

I did not know Landrieu was pro-life, it seems so unlikely from a female Democrat. Hadn't thought about McCaskill, she so recently came on the scene (been around just 16 months), but she is very competent, and she endorsed Obama from day one. Jane Harman is too old, but she would love to get away from arch-enemy Nancy Pelosi (mee-ow!). I hate to say it, but whatever simmering resentment there is now with female voters over Hillary, they WILL come home. I saw where publicizing McCain's pro-life position is tops on Axelrod's list ... apparently not many folks know he is pro-life.

I'm surprised you put Bloomberg in the "questionable" list, and call his helping in Florida "not much" electorally. Seriously? I think the Jewish vote could be a key swing, because McCain is SO pro-Israel, and Obama has failed to connect with them.

Mark Warner is a very interesting choice, and even Republicans have to like Jim Webb. But VA might go blue even without these two favorite sons on the ticket.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

actually I have said many times that I thought Bush's inexperience showed in his presidency.

That's putting it extremely mildly!

Should we just say experience means nothing because Bush was inexperienced? That makes little sense to me.

No.

What I said was that, unlike Bush, Obama seems intelligent enough to surround himself with experienced and competent advisors and, more importantly, to know when to listen to them.



You say Obama probably smart enough but that doesn't seem like you stepping up and saying you do think he has enough experience.

I am saying that talent, brains, and a proper sense of humility (qualities that Bush completely lacks) can compensate for lack of experience.



If anything it sounds like you are saying Bush stunk so repubs have no right to question anything.

No - I would say that repubs have as much right to question as anyone, but they also have a huge credibility problem and have given the American people good reason to question their integrity, judgment, their party's ability to govern, etc. The last eight years are proof.

[BroncoBuff]

Excellent post, refreshingly candid coming from a Republican.

I did not know Landrieu was pro-life, it seems so unlikely from a female Democrat. Hadn't thought about McCaskill, she so recently came on the scene (been around just 16 months), but she is very competent, and she endorsed Obama from day one. Jane Harman is too old, but she would love to get away from arch-enemy Nancy Pelosi (mee-ow!). I hate to say it, but whatever simmering resentment there is now with female voters over Hillary, they WILL come home. I saw where publicizing McCain's pro-life position is tops on Axelrod's list ... apparently not many folks know he is pro-life.

I'm surprised you put Bloomberg in the "questionable" list, and call his helping in Florida "not much" electorally. Seriously? I think the Jewish vote could be a key swing, because McCain is SO pro-Israel, and Obama has failed to connect with them.

Mark Warner is a very interesting choice, and even Republicans have to like Jim Webb. But VA might go blue even without these two favorite sons on the ticket.



I think I'm changing my vote from Bloomberg to Ted Strickland. Ohio is just too freaking huge for words, and I love Gibson acoustic guitars:

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper867/stills/2j8f8t14.jpg
Ted Strickland's wife Frances sings his praises on the campaign trail

[SoCalBronco]

I think Sen. O'Brien of Washington would be a really good choice, too. No one seems to be talking about him, cause Patty Murray attention whores and gets all the press there, but Obama would definitely be helping himself there with that pick.

[Pseudofool]

Being in govt is nothing more then a job you get paid for. They do it to make a living not to help you.Pretty cynical view of gov't; that's a pretty undemocratic view--maybe we should just go back to a monarchy?
Just as a question what choices do you want from exxon and shell? They both exist because we need competition to keep prices down, it's not because we need a choice when it comes to what type of fuel we buy. Gas is gas right? True competition exists only when they offer different products to meet the same needs. Gas maybe gas, but energy is not energy. If Shell offered hydrogen cells (I know, a pie in the sky idea, but it's an example) and Exxon offered oil, I'd have choice. Just like if Chevy offered solar/wind/electric powered car, and Ford offered a gas-guzzler, I'd have a real choice. Most of the choices the private sector supplies are purely aesthetic and hardly substantial.

[W*GS]

I'm cynical of the government. I more cynical of private sector. No ones suggesting that the gov't is the savior--but rather elected officials might have our interests slightly more in mind than out-for-profit corporations.

You oughta do stand-up, because you can deliver some real laughers.

I'll give you a hint - profit isn't evil.

This is absurd. We don't live in a dictatorship. We can vote.

According to LABF, votes are irrelevant.

The private sector offers the illusion of choice, how different is Exxon and Shell? Coke and Pepsi? McDs and BK? Lays and Pringles? The private sector isn't interested in giving us choices, they sell products to meet our most base desires (greed, gluttony, pride, etc.) which aren't very choice-driven. In fact, some argue that the private sector Manufactures Consent (a complete lack of choice), see Chomsky.

Ah yes, the linguistics expert who thinks he knows politics and economics too. He should stick to his words, and leave his lefty ideas in the dustbin of history.

The wonderful world where all people can spell and lose who can't are exiled to fend for themselves. I'd be fine with libertarianism, if before we instated it, we spread all the guns, money, land, and capital out equally before the social revolution starts. Otherwise, libertarianism always privileges those who already have lots of guns, capital, and land or those who are completely devoid of any moral restraint.

Really. Do tell.

Whereas the bureaucrats and politicians who arise from this cesspool of villainy and base desires are made of saintlier stuff, and will act honorably and morally to protect us from ourselves and each other, right?

What you smokin'?

[W*GS]

That's W*GS in a nutshell.

Coming from a proven liar, your opinions of me have very little weight.

****head.

[cbs1177]

didn't read thru whole thread but I think wesley clark is ideal vp for obama of course I dont' want him to win but that is the strongest vp I can think of for him if I wanted him to win. clark could sway some southern states his way if he was gun ho also depends on what mc cain does for vp. this is the most interseting pres race in history some many tangibles.

[Kaylore]

Evan Bayh. It rounds out that ticket. Or maybe someone older to pull in the granny vote. That's what I'd do anyway.

[cutthemdown]

Pretty cynical view of gov't; that's a pretty undemocratic view--maybe we should just go back to a monarchy?
True competition exists only when they offer different products to meet the same needs. Gas maybe gas, but energy is not energy. If Shell offered hydrogen cells (I know, a pie in the sky idea, but it's an example) and Exxon offered oil, I'd have choice. Just like if Chevy offered solar/wind/electric powered car, and Ford offered a gas-guzzler, I'd have a real choice. Most of the choices the private sector supplies are purely aesthetic and hardly substantial.

nothing is stopping you from starting an energy company or building solar powered cars. When the market bears out for those things to be profitable then it will happen. Until then capitalism rules. Besides car companies do offer different types of vehicles, they aren't all the same or all gas guzzlers.

[theAPAOps5]

didn't read thru whole thread but I think wesley clark is ideal vp for obama of course I dont' want him to win but that is the strongest vp I can think of for him if I wanted him to win. clark could sway some southern states his way if he was gun ho also depends on what mc cain does for vp. this is the most interseting pres race in history some many tangibles.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Wes Clark is one of the biggest douche bag **** heads to ever wear the 4th star. I would vote for anyone running against him or whomever he is made VP. This guy would be a horrible President. Foreign policy while already fractured would become non-existent.

[Pseudofool]

nothing is stopping you from starting an energy company or building solar powered cars. When the market bears out for those things to be profitable then it will happen. Until then capitalism rules. Besides car companies do offer different types of vehicles, they aren't all the same or all gas guzzlers.I don't think you understand how restrictive and monopolistic our economy really is. Say if the Congress were to propose a bill grant me tons for money to fund my new fangled energy source, all the industries (many, many) that depend and profit from high oil prices will absolutely work hard to stop me. More than that, to start a company you need capital, and those with lots of capital already have a stake in our current economic MO--that's not me, probably not you--and such people can make more money by keeping the status quo than starting a risky clean energy company.

Seriously, there's nothing "free" about the market.

[cutthemdown]

I don't think you understand how restrictive and monopolistic our economy really is. Say if the Congress were to propose a bill grant me tons for money to fund my new fangled energy source, all the industries (many, many) that depend and profit from high oil prices will absolutely work hard to stop me. More than that, to start a company you need capital, and those with lots of capital already have a stake in our current economic MO--that's not me, probably not you--and such people can make more money by keeping the status quo than starting a risky clean energy company.

Seriously, there's nothing "free" about the market.

I don't think you understand how capitalism really works. It's not the govt job to give you money to start any kind of business. If the energy you speak of was profitable for the energy companies to switch to then they would. Everything is controlled by how much money you can make doing it. Until it makes since financially to move away from oil we should and will keep using it as the main source of energy for the country. There is a lot of fossil fuels left.

If anything we should be exploring how to burn all this coal we have and not ruin the environment at the same time. You hit the nail on the head in that it doesn't make sense for a company to start a risky clean energy program when they know it will cost them money to do so. The status quo as you put it is market driven and you can't change it.

I realize govt encourage growth in certain sectors through tax incentives and grants and loans. IMO they are already doing a lot of that to encourage alternative fuels. They can't however just force it because it would damage the economy.

[Pseudofool]

You oughta do stand-up, because you can deliver some real laughers.:thanku:

I'll give you a hint - profit isn't evil.I don't believe in evil, but I do believe that profit-driven economy feeds off of the base desires of people and in conjunction with public corporations become profits of profits of profits beasts, that are so far removed from actual needs, so spread thin at accountability level that there's no glimmer of human conscience that yes, I'd suggest that profit-lead-life does not serve humans well. It makes a FEW of us fat and cushy, but of course, our lifestyle depends on lower class of the third world, which we can ignore, or we believe if they just worked at that factory harder they'd be able to get that Lexus.



According to LABF, votes are irrelevant.I'm talking to you, not to LABF. You can't just conflate different posters to prove your pet points. Actually, I don't think you have any points, you just like bather like some deluded King--I say the Emperor has no clothes.



Ah yes, the linguistics expert who thinks he knows politics and economics too. He should stick to his words, and leave his lefty ideas in the dustbin of history.Chomsky wrote his linguistics book when he was in 20s, he hasn't done linguistics for fifty years. He's been writing about social theory for a long time. His contributions to Linguistics, if you ask me, are absurd. I'm not sure why a person can only be an expert in one area, or you think there expertise and intelligence at one thing hurts them somehow in their approach to another. I'm sure Chomsky is far more educated in economic theory than either you or I.

Whereas the bureaucrats and politicians who arise from this cesspool of villainy and base desires are made of saintlier stuff, and will act honorably and morally to protect us from ourselves and each other, right?

What you smokin'?You must be talking about Republicans. Seriously, I'm under no illusions about the people in gov't. But the choice between an elected official or some CEO is an easy one when it comes issues like my health, my security, and my education. I'll take Obama you can have Cheney.

Why does somebody like Bloomberg, who has all the money in the world, become the Mayor of NYC, a position where he has little power to increase his profits?

[W*GS]

I don't believe in evil, but I do believe that profit-driven economy feeds off of the base desires of people and in conjunction with public corporations become profits of profits of profits beasts, that are so far removed from actual needs, so spread thin at accountability level that there's no glimmer of human conscience that yes, I'd suggest that profit-lead-life does not serve humans well. It makes a FEW of us fat and cushy, but of course, our lifestyle depends on lower class of the third world, which we can ignore, or we believe if they just worked at that factory harder they'd be able to get that Lexus.

You're either a Marxist or a Christian. Only they, deluded souls that they are, believe the above bilge.

I'm talking to you, not to LABF. You can't just conflate different posters to prove your pet points. Actually, I don't think you have any points, you just like bather like some deluded King--I say the Emperor has no clothes.

Here's a question for you - would you rather our economy be set up like our political system, i.e., once every four years, you get to "vote" for one of two or three kinds of bread, one of two kinds of cars, one of two kinds of ice cream, and so on, and once the election is done and the results tabulated, everyone has to buy just that one kind of bread, one kind of ice cream, and one kind of car, until the next election?

Puts your "[T]he private sector offers the illusion of choice" comment right into the ****ter.

I'm sure Chomsky is far more educated in economic theory than either you or I.

I doubt that - he's a left-winger, and their ideology has been dead for almost 20 years now, for purely practical reasons. Only Cubans and North Koreans, pretty much, still suffer from the application of the left's sad economic dogma.

You must be talking about Republicans. Seriously, I'm under no illusions about the people in gov't. But the choice between an elected official or some CEO is an easy one when it comes issues like my health, my security, and my education. I'll take Obama you can have Cheney.

I'll take neither. I'm responsible for my health, my security, and my education, not Big Mother. Get that pacifier out of your mouth, get yourself potty-trained, and quit acting like a full-sized baby.

Why does somebody like Bloomberg, who has all the money in the world, become the Mayor of NYC, a position where he has little power to increase his profits?

Because he's a power-hungry asshole who knows that real power resides in the State?

[Pseudofool]

I don't think you understand how capitalism really works. It's not the govt job to give you money to start any kind of business.
Of course the gov't never subsidizes corporate enterprises, or research into new economic endeavors. Oh wait, yes, they do. Don't confuse ideal capitalism with the way our current economy functions. I was simply playing out your hypothetical notion of ME starting this company.
If the energy you speak of was profitable for the energy companies to switch to then they would. No that's not the way it works. Companies can't simply switch, they have some much capital and assets invested in this particular fuel source that it will be crazy costly for them to "switch"--your imagining this taking place on paper and not the real world. It doesn't matter if wind power (or whatever) is profitable, it needs to be so profitable that it overrides the cost of "switching over" AND more profitable then a finite fuel source which an industry has complete control over. Fossil fuels WILL always be more profitable because companies can control the supply.
Until it makes since financially to move away from oil we should and will keep using it as the main source of energy for the country. There is a lot of fossil fuels left.Why should? That's absurd. Oil is going to get increasingly more expensive; it's a pollutant, etc. etc. Sometimes human needs have to outweigh financial needs. That's why need gov't, otherwise we'd all be covered in DDT.

If anything we should be exploring how to burn all this coal we have and not ruin the environment at the same time. Obama has suggest as much.
The status quo as you put it is market driven and you can't change it."market" is too general a word. There's much that can be done to change the structure of our economy. Giving tax incentives, or even subsidizing fuel efficient cars, taxing Oil companies, and using the money to build highspeed trains and public transportation (I know these aren't ideal), but the point is we can control the demand side, to drive prices down, or allow to another industry to emerge.

IMO they are already doing a lot of that to encourage alternative fuels. They can't however just force it because it would damage the economy.Really, you think they are doing enough? Can you site a specific law to show how much funding they are actually giving? And you don't think that high gas prices are damaging the economy? Seriously?

1) Put all freight on HighSpeed trains and limit Diesel engines to heavy equipment and in-city/in-county distribution of goods.
2) Go Europe and build Metros, "L"s, Subways, Trolleys, and electric Bus systems in every city with more than 200,000 people.
3) Give automanufactures subsidy and tax incentives to build fuel efficient cars.
This will be costly in the SHORT TERM, but it will be far less costly in the LONG TERM.

[Pseudofool]

You're either a Marxist or a Christian. Only they, deluded souls that they are, believe the above bilge.I'm not so pathetic, or intellectually small as to brand myself as either. Marxist's offshoots have a lot to offer in examining the ways in which social hierarchy, ideology indoctrination, and the economy function. But Marx and the 20th century offshoots offer little in solutions. I'm not so foolish as to simply give the government all the capital and call it day, nor am I so foolish as to give all the capital (save for a little to the people) to faceless corporations. There's just not a lot of social theory being written today, nor classes and disciplines studying it, and so there's a great lack of real world solutions. Identifying the problems is easy, I admit that. But it takes courage, and hard work, to investigate real solutions to this really messed up economy.

Here's a question for you - would you rather our economy be set up like our political system, i.e., once every four years, you get to "vote" for one of two or three kinds of bread, one of two kinds of cars, one of two kinds of ice cream, and so on, and once the election is done and the results tabulated, everyone has to buy just that one kind of bread, one kind of ice cream, and one kind of car, until the next election?This is just a really dumb hypothetical. Really, really dumb. Absurd. It's idiotic straw man. My grandma can make a better straw man to take down.

Real choice went away when corporations cut out Mom and Pop stores. There was real choice when I could go to a few different Bakeries, Butcher shops, etc. etc. I know this is an old argument, but there's validity to it; the differences in manufactured goods are only so big, because the manufacturing streamlines the possibilities. While people from different cultures, be it Latvian, Thai, or Persian made food and goods in a multiplicity of ways that aren't so narrow as packaged goods.

I doubt that - he's a left-winger, and their ideology has been dead for almost 20 years now, for purely practical reasons. Only Cubans and North Koreans, pretty much, still suffer from the application of the left's sad economic dogma.So, someone's ideological or political stance undercuts how educated or well read or well-informed someone is? You speak the words of bigot and an elitist. Are you really so narcissistic, so self-deluded.
I'll take neither. I'm responsible for my health, my security, and my education, not Big Mother. Get that pacifier out of your mouth, get yourself potty-trained, and quit acting like a full-sized baby.More self delusion. I hope when you need that appendix removed that you have some handy scissors, because odds are that the surgeon you'd need would have received some gov't assistance along the way to becoming a Doctor. And how's the fallout shelter project going? Good? Great.

Because he's a power-hungry a-hole who knows that real power resides in the State?Mayors really don't have much power. But OKAY.

[W*GS]

I'm not so pathetic, or intellectually small as to brand myself as either. Marxist's offshoots have a lot to offer in examining the ways in which social hierarchy, ideology indoctrination, and the economy function.

Actually, they do not. Marx' entire "theory" was based on falsehoods and lies. Marx (and his offshoots) are about as useful for studying economics as Ptolemy is for studying the motion of the planets.

But Marx and the 20th century offshoots offer little in solutions. I'm not so foolish as to simply give the government all the capital and call it day, nor am I so foolish as to give all the capital (save for a little to the people) to faceless corporations.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

There's just not a lot of social theory being written today, nor classes and disciplines studying it, and so there's a great lack of real world solutions. Identifying the problems is easy, I admit that. But it takes courage, and hard work, to investigate real solutions to this really messed up economy.

The real solutions involve getting the government out of its entrenched position as arbiter of nearly everything. You know, what happened when the assholes influenced by Marx (and his offshoots) got into power. The Constitution is a damned good document - return to that, and this "messed up economy" would be a lot better.

This is just a really dumb hypothetical. Really, really dumb. Absurd. It's idiotic straw man. My grandma can make a better straw man to take down.

Like I said, your statement "[T]he private sector offers the illusion of choice" just goes right into the ****ter.

Real choice went away when corporations cut out Mom and Pop stores.

Mom and Pop stores couldn't compete - and in places like France, we see how well protecting producers at the expense of consumers works. NOT.

So, someone's ideological or political stance undercuts how educated or well read or well-informed someone is? You speak the words of bigot and an elitist.

How is it bigoted or elitist to note that certain dogmas are incompatible with reality and thus the views of those who hold them are suspect? Just how credible is someone who excuses and rationalizes away the Khmer Rouge's genocide?

More self delusion.

Who's responsible for your health? Who's responsible for your security? Who's responsible for your education?

Mayors really don't have much power. But OKAY.

Tell the gun shop owners he's had harassed that Bloomberg doesn't have much power. Or the federal agents whose investigations were compromised while Bloomberg's Keystone Kops were screwing around...

[Pseudofool]

Actually, they do not. Marx' entire "theory" was based on falsehoods and lies. Marx (and his offshoots) are about as useful for studying economics as Ptolemy is for studying the motion of the planets.Actually? I doubt you've read a word of Marx. The discipline of Historical Materialism started with Marx. His methodology has been reproduced in every discipline in the Humanities and Social Sciences. You are out of your element. I doubt you've ever taken a graduate course in any kind Theory, whether it be social, economic, literary, historical, anthropological or whathaveyou. You are speaking out of your Bigot arse.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.Doesn't this apply to free market thinking in general?

You know, what happened when the a-holes influenced by Marx (and his offshoots) got into power.This is an easy straw man. Communism is a powerful idea that was used as soporific to let the masses hand over their capital to an elite view. What we called Communism was really an oligarchy dictatorship. The Constitution is a damned good document - return to that, and this "messed up economy" would be a lot better.Yeah that 3/5ths a person worked out really well for Black Americans. If you had it your way Slavery would still exist--unless the private sector would have somehow realized that paying Black people was more profitable. Jesus, you are deluded. Every instance of civil liberty progress in the past 250 years has been IN SPITE of the private sector.
"[T]he private sector offers the illusion of choice" just goes right into the ****ter.Because you built a delusional strawman? WTF? Do you even understand debate? Declaring victory, does not mean that you've logically established any basis for your claim. I stand by my statement that the private sector offers the illusion of choice.
Mom and Pop stores couldn't compete - and in places like France, we see how well protecting producers at the expense of consumers works. NOT.
They couldn't offer cheap goods true, but that wasn't the issue, it's that choice has been eroded in the name of profit. I think you're admitting as much right here. If stock market didn't exist, and we didn't allow businesses to incorporate, Mom and Pop would probably be just fine.

How is it bigoted or elitist to note that certain dogmas are incompatible with reality and thus the views of those who hold them are suspect?
How is it bigoted or elitist to note that certain dogmas are incompatible with reality and thus the views of those who hold them are suspect? Anyone who claims to "Know" or "Perceive" reality better than someone else is sophist, an elitist, and a bigot. Any Philosophy 101 student knows that "reality" exists in the mind has filtered sense data that is communicated through a network of ideology.
Just how credible is someone who excuses and rationalizes away the Khmer Rouge's genocide?I'd like to see a credible source on this. I know he wrote two essays in 1970 on Cambodia, but I seriously doubt he rationalized anything. Did you use your NeoconGoogle to dig that up? Edit: I read up quickly on this--he wasn't rationalizing anything, he was suggesting that America's policies in South East Asia and Vietnam in particular during the sixties and seventies led to the starvation of mass amounts of people, the people that Rouge massacred. He's not rationalizing a damn thing, though a neocon might twist it that way.

Who's responsible for your health? Who's responsible for your security? Who's responsible for your education?Everyone, including me. Your smoke stack makes my lungs hurt, can use my hand-made tank to roll your house down as a means of cure. That's the world you are proposing.
Tell the gun shop owners he's had harassed that Bloomberg doesn't have much power. Or the federal agents whose investigations were compromised while Bloomberg's Keystone Kops were screwing around...It's the economy stupid. Of course, I was talking in terms about affecting the economy, not a few questionable policy decisions or scandal. I'm no fan of Bloomberg, he was an example, not an argument.

The more you talk the more glad I am I don't share a fence with you. You are one of least neighborly (at least ideologically) people I've encountered.

[BroncoBuff]

I think Sen. O'Brien of Washington would be a really good choice, too. No one seems to be talking about him, cause Patty Murray attention whores and gets all the press there, but Obama would definitely be helping himself there with that pick.

I'm flattered.

But they say every Senator sees a preident when they look in the mirror 8')

[W*GS]

Actually? I doubt you've read a word of Marx. The discipline of Historical Materialism started with Marx. His methodology has been reproduced in every discipline in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

And it's no wonder most people view the pseudoscientific -ologies with disdain. I can't say for certain that those "disciplines" are as full of bull**** as Marx was, but what they claim sure comes across as giant stinking piles of hooey.

Marx' theories were more informed by his chronic boils than any facts.

You are out of your element. I doubt you've ever taken a graduate course in any kind Theory, whether it be social, economic, literary, historical, anthropological or whathaveyou.

You're wrong. Simply put, Marx is nonsense and everything that has been done using his theories has led to more deaths and human suffering than any other idea in history.

Communism is a powerful idea that was used as soporific to let the masses hand over their capital to an elite view. What we called Communism was really an oligarchy dictatorship.

Communism was Marxism put into practice. It "works" only so long as the dictator (a natural outcome of the ideology) is willing to have millions murdered each and every year, to keep them in line. As soon as the bullets quit being used to blow people's brains out, it completely and utterly fails.

If you had it your way Slavery would still exist

**** you, prick.

They couldn't offer cheap goods true, but that wasn't the issue, it's that choice has been eroded in the name of profit.

How much choice is there in a small dry goods store?

I think you're admitting as much right here. If stock market didn't exist, and we didn't allow businesses to incorporate, Mom and Pop would probably be just fine.

And we'd be living in a giant version of North Korea. You'd probably like that.

Anyone who claims to "Know" or "Perceive" reality better than someone else is sophist, an elitist, and a bigot. Any Philosophy 101 student knows that "reality" exists in the mind has filtered sense data that is communicated through a network of ideology.

Please feel free to test this idea by walking off the nearest cliff. If your ideology and filtered sense data makes you certain that you will not come to harm, then there's no risk.

I'd like to see a credible source on this.

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

for starters. Chomsky rationalized away one of the absolute worst horrors ever perpetrated on humans, all because of his ideology. In that regard, he has more in common with those ****wad Holocaust deniers than you're willing to admit.

Everyone, including me. Your smoke stack makes my lungs hurt, can use my hand-made tank to roll your house down as a means of cure. That's the world you are proposing.

No. The world you're proposing is "1984".

The more you talk the more glad I am I don't share a fence with you. You are one of least neighborly (at least ideologically) people I've encountered.

So go move to Cuba, where you can be with your ideological brethren.

[Pseudofool]

And it's no wonder most people view the pseudoscientific -ologies with disdain. I can't say for certain that those "disciplines" are as full of bull**** as Marx was, but what they claim sure comes across as giant stinking piles of hooey.

Marx' theories were more informed by his chronic boils than any facts.Be specific, let's see you quote some passages of Marx; prove to me that you've read anything beyond the Communist Manifesto. Otherwise, your just speculating, right?

You're wrong. Simply put, Marx is nonsense and everything that has been done using his theories has led to more deaths and human suffering than any other idea in history.Putting things simply is a way to admit you don't know, which is fine with me. You don't know what your talking about, and haven't read enough to speak with authority. You can't see how much of the modern world, whether we call it capitalistic or socialism or communism is predicated by methodology and scrutiny that Marx sought out. I don't agree with the man, but I appreciate his academic enterprise.
Communism was Marxism put into practice. It "works" only so long as the dictator (a natural outcome of the ideology) is willing to have millions murdered each and every year, to keep them in line. As soon as the bullets quit being used to blow people's brains out, it completely and utterly fails.What are you talking about, under Marx's communism the gov't would dissolve (problematic I know) not become a dictatorship. Your sensationalizing your argument because your full of crap.

**** you, prick.Yes Masta'.

How much choice is there in a small dry goods store?
As many choices as there are languages you dope. Culinary practices are as unique as language. And we are losing an aesthetic and cultural diversity in the name of profits.
And we'd be living in a giant version of North Korea. You'd probably like that.Sensationalism doesn't become you. You wonder why people call you a neocon. You just invoked an axis of evil when it's not even related to the topic. Buzzword politics is the proganda of neoconism.
Please feel free to test this idea by walking off the nearest cliff. If your ideology and filtered sense data makes you certain that you will not come to harm, then there's no risk.WTF? Here's another absurd strawman for you to argue against. Are you capable of intellectual discussion or must you always resort to sensational, absurd hypotheticals. I've seen you do it numerous times to a dozen different posters. You're not fooling anyone.
http://jim.com/chomsdis.htmSeriously your credible source is jim.com a blatant libertarian website. Why not use douchebag.com as a secondary source?
No. The world you're proposing is "1984"I don't think I've revealed exactly how I'd proceed. In fact, I've admitted that there's sheer lack of new ideas in social theory. Another sensational buzzword--1984--from our resident neocon.
So go move to Cuba, where you can be with your ideological brethren.I'm not a communist you schmuck. Why don't you go move to a desert island where you can have your "free" market and the private industry can function unabated. Seriously, I wonder how you handle it when my dog would **** in your yard.

[BarefootKicker]

I think Sen. O'Brien of Washington would be a really good choice, too. No one seems to be talking about him, cause Patty Murray attention whores and gets all the press there, but Obama would definitely be helping himself there with that pick.


As a Washington State resident, I'm curious as to who you mean by Senator O'Brien? Patty Murray is one of our Senators, but our other Senator is Maria Cantwell....

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow!

W*GS is getting taken out behind the woodshed on this thread!

[SoCalBronco]

As a Washington State resident, I'm curious as to who you mean by Senator O'Brien? Patty Murray is one of our Senators, but our other Senator is Maria Cantwell....

No...your REAL other Senator is Mr. Casey O'Brien. One of the few Democrats I could support. Your state should be proud of this favorite son. I would gain a great deal of respect for Mr. Obama if he chose him.

Maria Cantwell? Pfft.

[Ray Finkle]

Hey BB,
I hate to burst your bubble but the only person you listed that is in consideration is Webb....

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No...your REAL other Senator is Mr. Casey O'Brien. Who? Cantwell and Murray are the WA Senators. And the state Senate has no 'O'Brien'.

[W*GS]

Wow!

W*GS is getting taken out behind the woodshed on this thread!

Only in your wet dreams.

Calling me a neocon (without any proof that the label applies) is just "Pseudofool"'s way of avoiding defense of his arguments. He's as full of **** as you are, LABF.

[W*GS]

Be specific, let's see you quote some passages of Marx; prove to me that you've read anything beyond the Communist Manifesto. Otherwise, your just speculating, right?

Wrong. His labour theory of value was refuted, as was his historical materialism. Marxism is a religious faith, full of untestable hypotheses - there's precious little science in it at all, despite Marx' claims to the contrary.

You can't see how much of the modern world, whether we call it capitalistic or socialism or communism is predicated by methodology and scrutiny that Marx sought out. I don't agree with the man, but I appreciate his academic enterprise.

The man was a fraud who used bogus data to support his theories. He was a liar. Period.

As many choices as there are languages you dope. Culinary practices are as unique as language. And we are losing an aesthetic and cultural diversity in the name of profits.

Not at all. How many Mom and Pop stores offered the same wide range of kinds of foods common in today's grocery stores? If anything, today's consumers suffer from an excess of choice.

Buzzword politics is the proganda of neoconism.

Calling me a neocon is "buzzword politics", ergo, you're a neocon, by your own standard, asshole.

You haven't come up with one single post of mine in which I've explicitly supported some aspect of the neocon agenda. You've merely labelled me as one, and left it at that. You're full of ****, and you know it.

Are you capable of intellectual discussion or must you always resort to sensational, absurd hypotheticals.

It's called the Socratic Method, ya moron - teasing out the implicit assumptions in your arguments and seeing if they withstand skeptical scrutiny. Obviously, your "reality is in the eye of the beholder" does not, by virtue of the simple scenario I offered.

Seriously your credible source is jim.com a blatant libertarian website.

Mere ad hominem. Got anything better?

Seriously, I wonder how you handle it when my dog would **** in your yard.

I'd make you eat his feces.

[Pseudofool]

Ok, I ask you to be specific, you can't; you haven't read any Marx, or any Althusser or any Adorno, or any social theory written recently.

The Socratic method doesn't not include sensational strawmen.

You don't see how drawing North Korea into argument makes you like a neocon? You're beyond convincing.

ad hominem is an attack on persons credibility based on unlegitmate factors. Like: "don't trust men with mustaches". You used an BIASED INTERNET source to stake your credibility. You wouldn't pass freshman composition with such citations.

Like I said, why does anyone bother with you. I can see why you are libertarian --your lack of willingness to help others and take help from others probably stems from the fact that no one could possible stand to be around you. Beyond your family, I can't imagine anyone really going out of their way for you--poor sap.

[BroncoBuff]

Who? Cantwell and Murray are the WA Senators. And the state Senate has no 'O'Brien'.

I am a . s h a d o w . Senator. Knowitall

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I am a . s h a d o w . Senator. KnowitallAh, I get it now :notworthy

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok, I ask you to be specific, you can't; you haven't read any Marx, or any Althusser or any Adorno, or any social theory written recently.


That would be way too advanced for W*GS.

He still doesn't even understand such basics as the difference between liberalism and socialism. :giggle:

[W*GS]

Ok, I ask you to be specific, you can't; you haven't read any Marx, or any Althusser or any Adorno, or any social theory written recently.

You haven't read any Hayek, von Mises, or Friedman, all of whom blow Marx away. Marxism is a faith, nothing more.

The Socratic method doesn't not include sensational strawmen.

You asked for it by stating "[T]he private sector offers the illusion of choice". Don't blame me for pointing out how asinine that statement was/

You don't see how drawing North Korea into argument makes you like a neocon? You're beyond convincing.

Eliminating the basic essentials of the modern market economy (stocks and incorporation) makes it like North Korea. Another straightforward conclusion from one of your silly comments.

ad hominem is an attack on persons credibility based on unlegitmate factors. Like: "don't trust men with mustaches". You used an BIASED INTERNET source to stake your credibility. You wouldn't pass freshman composition with such citations.

The word is "irrelevant", not "unlegitmate".

Dismissing an argument because it comes from a libertarian website doesn't invalidate the argument, i.e., "don't trust libertarian websites". Doesn't refute the argument in any way.

Like I said, why does anyone bother with you. I can see why you are libertarian --your lack of willingness to help others and take help from others probably stems from the fact that no one could possible stand to be around you. Beyond your family, I can't imagine anyone really going out of their way for you--poor sap.

You couldn't be more wrong. But what's another idiotic comment when you've made a whole stack of moronic assertions already? Libertarians aren't assholes - that's what Republicans (neocons included) and Democrats are.

[W*GS]

He still doesn't even understand such basics as the difference between liberalism and socialism.

Thus sayeth the nutless coward.

You're a socialist, you're just too much of a chicken**** to admit it.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Libertarians aren't a-holes - that's what Republicans (neocons included) and Democrats are.Probably one of the stupidest posts you have ever made. Seems you have been reduced to nothing more than elementary name calling and stereotyping.

[W*GS]

Probably one of the stupidest posts you have ever made. Seems you have been reduced to nothing more than elementary name calling and stereotyping.

McCain and Clinton aren't assholes, then. Thanks for clarifying that for us!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Probably one of the stupidest posts you have ever made. Seems you have been reduced to nothing more than elementary name calling and stereotyping.

Has W*GS' input on this board ever consisted of anything more than elementary name-calling and stereotyping?

Oh yeah - I almost forget deflection and obfuscation. :D

http://www.bartcop.com/gas-stupid-people.jpg

[Pseudofool]

You haven't read any Hayek, von Mises, or Friedman, all of whom blow Marx away. Marxism is a faith, nothing more.I'm not condemning them as hacks either. You can't criticize what you don't have direct knowledge of...that's intellectually dishonest. Cite specific passages, and give your own analysis, you are relying on myth and hearsay for your argument which is school yard logic.
You asked for itWhat are you some kind of bully now? Because I say something you disagree with gives you permission to draw sensational strawmen? Again, you are intellectually dishonest.
Eliminating the basic essentials of the modern market economy (stocks and incorporation) makes it like North Korea. Another straightforward conclusion from one of your silly comments.Extrapolation doesn't suit you. I never suggested to "eliminate the basic essentials of the modern market economy," I was looking historically at our current economic **** hole. The basic essentials of any economy is workers--for which you have no regard, and no remote understanding of how your privileged job/position is based on a system where people because of their class, race, or thirdworldness have to do the crap jobs. Again your "conclusion" is intellectually dishonest. We don't know what the US would look like had the "corporate" legislation of the late 19th century had not been passed.
Dismissing an argument because it comes from a libertarian website doesn't invalidate the argument, i.e., "don't trust libertarian websites". Doesn't refute the argument in any way.This just in: websites, in general, are not credible resources. Would using a clip from FoxNews be a credible source to you? Or a advertisement from Moveon.org? I should surely hope not. Again, you are intellectually dishonest.
But what's another idiotic comment when you've made a whole stack of moronic assertions already? Libertarians aren't a-holes - that's what Republicans (neocons included) and Democrats are.If there's credibility to your thinking, why aren't people coming to your defense? Why does seemingly everyone on this board think you are full of crap? If your so sound in your ideas, why do you need to resort to name calling, and question my intelligence as opposed to the merits of my ideas.

Maybe you don't believe in the same ideas as a Neocon, you simply practice the same kind of intellectual dishonesty (there's WMD's in Iraq/your BS above), create similarly sensational strawmen (al qaida and sadam will nuke us/my ideas lead one to jump off a cliff), cite similarly shaky sources (Cheney's questionable intelligence/a website from you), and finally resort to the same kind of name-calling (terrorist..appeaser/moron..socialist). It's not so much what you believe but how you engage reality and those around you that make you a Neocon, and that I'm sure you've personally benefited from eight years of Bush.

Take the highroad, and don't reply.

[W*GS]

I'm not condemning them as hacks either. You can't criticize what you don't have direct knowledge of...that's intellectually dishonest. Cite specific passages, and give your own analysis, you are relying on myth and hearsay for your argument which is school yard logic.

"Myth and hearsay"? Hardly. How about history? Every country that has put Marx' ideas into practice has turned into a hellhole. Your reply will be "but they didn't practice genuine Marxism", which is load of ****.

What are you some kind of bully now? Because I say something you disagree with gives you permission to draw sensational strawmen? Again, you are intellectually dishonest.

It's not that we disagree, it's that you make stupid comments.

Extrapolation doesn't suit you. I never suggested to "eliminate the basic essentials of the modern market economy," I was looking historically at our current economic **** hole.

The economy is in somewhat poor shape right now not because Mom-n-Pop retail shrivelled, or because there are corporations, or because there's such a thing as the DJIA. It's far more complicated than that.

The basic essentials of any economy is workers--for which you have no regard, and no remote understanding of how your privileged job/position is based on a system where people because of their class, race, or thirdworldness have to do the crap jobs.

Spoken like a true Marxist ****wad (but I repeat myself). I'm a worker, asswipe - but I also have investments. How does your Marxist dogma compute that? Oh, and I've done crap jobs myself.

At one time, my wife ran her own company - where does entrepreneurism fit into your Marxist dogma? Did she exploit herself?

Again your "conclusion" is intellectually dishonest. We don't know what the US would look like had the "corporate" legislation of the late 19th century had not been passed.

The same argument applies to you - on the other hand, we know what places without any corporations look like. North Korea is an example.

This just in: websites, in general, are not credible resources.

Why? Because they're websites? That's bull****.

If there's credibility to your thinking, why aren't people coming to your defense? Why does seemingly everyone on this board think you are full of crap?

Because being popular isn't worth ****, and it's far more important to be right. Because I'm not a rep whore. Because I don't rely on lame-ass bandwagon appeals. Because LABF is a sniveling coward and a proven liar.

If your so sound in your ideas, why do you need to resort to name calling, and question my intelligence as opposed to the merits of my ideas.

I question the intelligence of anyone who makes stupid comments as you have.

Maybe you don't believe in the same ideas as a Neocon, you simply practice the same kind of intellectual dishonesty (there's WMD's in Iraq/your BS above),

You haven't shown I'm intellectually dishonest - you merely state it.

create similarly sensational strawmen (al qaida and sadam will nuke us/my ideas lead one to jump off a cliff),

Not what I said, but you're too damned clueless.

cite similarly shaky sources (Cheney's questionable intelligence/a website from you),

You didn't refute a single piece of evidence that was provided that showed that Chomsky lied. That it was on a libertarian website is irrelevant.

and finally resort to the same kind of name-calling (terrorist..appeaser/moron..socialist).

Don't pass off that **** - calling me a neocon was your first mistake. Of many. Not only are you a moron, you're a stinking hypocrite, too.

It's not so much what you believe but how you engage reality and those around you that make you a Neocon, and that I'm sure you've personally benefited from eight years of Bush.

Now you're just pulling **** out of your ass. You don't know anything about me - so shove your assumptions right back where they came from.

Besides, redefining "neocon" to be a set of tactics, rather than an agenda and a set of beliefs, may give you an intellectual woody, but it's transparently obvious that you've done so just to have something (pathetically negligible as it is) to hang your argument on. All you've truly accomplished is hanging yourself. You're suffering delusions of mediocrity.

Take the highroad, and don't reply.

Translation: "Let me have the last word, and engage in baseless attacks without retort, 'cuz dammit, you're just too mean to me!"

Bugger off.

[W*GS]

Has W*GS' input on this board ever consisted of anything more than elementary name-calling and stereotyping?

You do it all the time, jerkoff. Quitcherbitchin, ya lying wuss.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Seems you have been reduced to nothing more than elementary name calling and stereotyping.

There he goes proving you right once again. Ha!

[Pseudofool]

I also have investmentsYou mean you make money without working, how hard working of you, how American, how democratic, how free market, how elitist, how biased, how neocon...

You can have the last word to whatever blather point you want, the fact that you use your wife as an example in your argument than state that I don't know anything about you suggests just how deep-seated your delusions is. I hope you spend your Bush tax cuts while they last.

Seriously, W*GS, at what point, at mountain of evidence, at what logical argument could you admit that you are wrong? Is there a singular path to humility for you? If the burden of proving you wrong is impossible, it's completely silly to accuse those who argue against you of "not refuting my arguments".

This is my way of taking the high road by not dissecting every statement you make, I've done so once before. If you want to write a coherent paragraph, please do, and you can have the last word--this mode of spliced responce isn't real discourse (though I doubt you have any "investment" in real discourse).

BTW: If you really thought I was a moron you'd ignore me, as my sentences would hold no weight, have no persuasion with anyone, right?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

McCain and Clinton aren't a-holes, then. Thanks for clarifying that for us!Your statement didn't single out anyone but pointed to everyone EXCEPT Libertarians. Maybe you should revisit that post since you seem to have forgotten it already.

Now you have an example of "clarification".

[W*GS]

You mean you make money without working, how hard working of you, how American, how democratic, how free market, how elitist, how biased, how neocon...

Millions and millions of Americans have investments - hell, Beerslug's job is intimately tied to the concept. Is he a neocon?

Obviously, anyone who doesn't fit into your Marxism-tainted world is a "neocon", i.e., a handy little slur you can sling around because you're too ****ing lazy (and simplistic) to actually bother to make an argument.

You can have the last word to whatever blather point you want, the fact that you use your wife as an example in your argument than state that I don't know anything about you suggests just how deep-seated your delusions is. I hope you spend your Bush tax cuts while they last.

"My "delusions is"? Hunh? You're so flustered you're incoherent.

For someone steeped in the Marxist faith, entrepreneurs and investment-owning workers must be dismissed, because they just don't fit into the scripture. As per usual for a religion, reality is rejected in lieu of the dogma.

Seriously, W*GS, at what point, at mountain of evidence, at what logical argument could you admit that you are wrong? Is there a singular path to humility for you? If the burden of proving you wrong is impossible, it's completely silly to accuse those who argue against you of "not refuting my arguments".

I can be proven wrong - but you have to bring your "A" game to do so. Spitting out slurs, smears and unfounded accusations ain't gonna work. Labeling me a "neocon" just because it's easy is not the way to do it.

This is my way of taking the high road by not dissecting every statement you make, I've done so once before. If you want to write a coherent paragraph, please do, and you can have the last word--this mode of spliced responce isn't real discourse (though I doubt you have any "investment" in real discourse).

Coming from a moron who thinks name-calling is the epitome of debate, it's quite hypocritical. You don't even understand my arguments. You're strictly junior varsity - and an internet bulletin board is hardly major-league. You've failed, badly, here - you wouldn't stand a chance in a real debate.

BTW: If you really thought I was a moron you'd ignore me, as my sentences would hold no weight, have no persuasion with anyone, right?

I resent being labeled without any data, proof, or evidence. It was your choice to reveal your biases and ignorance to all; I merely provided a flashlight to illuminate them.

Thanks for playing!

[W*GS]

Your statement didn't single out anyone but pointed to everyone EXCEPT Libertarians. Maybe you should revisit that post since you seem to have forgotten it already.

Now you have an example of "clarification".

It's not that libertarians cannot be assholes; however, Democrats and Republicans are, by definition.

[Pseudofool]

Thanks for playing!(w*gs speak)Last Word. Nah-Nah, Nah, Nah.(/w*gs speak)

[W*GS]

Poor 'fool.

[Pseudofool]

Poor 'fool.(w*ron*gs speak) Nah Nah. Last word. Nah Nah. (/w*ron*gs speak)

[W*GS]

The asterisk does have a meaning, but you haven't been around 'Net messaging systems for long enough to know. Think "K*ldi*s" or "G*rd*n" from the old t.p.misc days.

[cbs1177]

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Wes Clark is one of the biggest douche bag **** heads to ever wear the 4th star. I would vote for anyone running against him or whomever he is made VP. This guy would be a horrible President. Foreign policy while already fractured would become non-existent.

that was my intentions.

[BroncoBuff]

Hey BB,
I hate to burst your bubble but the only person you listed that is in consideration is Webb....
Not true (unless you have inside info ???). Edwards, Clinton, Hagel, Richardson and Strickland are all being discussed online and on Sunday Morning shows, as well as cable news shows.

I added my choice Bloomberg, and a woman Landrieu because she was on Kerry's list four years ago.

[Bob]

Not true (unless you have inside info ???). Edwards, Clinton, Hagel, Richardson and Strickland are all being discussed online and on Sunday Morning shows, as well as cable news shows.

I added my choice Bloomberg, and a woman Landrieu because she was on Kerry's list four years ago.

Bloomberg is not a bad option -- the more the economy worsens, the more it might be helpful to get someone like him. However, not sure geographicly if Bloomberg makes sense. Dems have NY already, and Bloomberg doesnt draw a crowd outside of NY -- so I think that pragmaticly he should go after Edwards, or Richardson who would bring him more actual votes...

[BroncoBuff]

Bloomberg is not a bad option -- the more the economy worsens, the more it might be helpful to get someone like him. However, not sure geographicly if Bloomberg makes sense. Dems have NY already, and Bloomberg doesnt draw a crowd outside of NY -- so I think that pragmaticly he should go after Edwards, or Richardson who would bring him more actual votes...
So interesting you say that ... my views on this issue, identity politics as affecting voters, were crystallized this weekend on The Chris Matthews Show. Guest Kathleen Parker talked about how the 90% Democratic Sheriffs and local politicians in the State of Louisiana have strongly endorsed and are working hard on new Governor Bobby Jindal's plans, and were embracng his leadership, despite the fact he is very young, nerdish, effete, and of Indian heritage. When she talked to these sheriffs and pols, she heard from them enough to conclude that (especially in light of catastrophic recovery and prevention) that the idea we select our leaders based on ethnicity, macho, or who we want to have a beer with is OLD NEWS, and has been or is being overtaken by a yearning for competence and intellect.


In Mike Bloomberg, we have perhaps the #1 best qualified man in America to fix the economy. A self-made billionaire, he's been an extremely effective open-door problem solver as mayor of New York. And in the catastrophic recovery from Bushco, I think working class Joe Six-packs in Ohio and Pennsylvania would prefer this kind of roll-up-your-sleeves intellectual competence over somebody who reminds them of what they see in the mirror - per Parker's observations in a post-partisan, hurricane-ravaged Louisiana.

Plus Bloomberg is basically a liberal, a great friend of Hillary, ambitious, and outgoing as mayor in one year. Perfect. Obama can sell him as "my point man on the economy." Plus he DOES have an electoral map bonus outside NY/NJ ... he would give Obama's numbers a real boost in Florida, and all of Obama's Jewish voter problems would disappear overnight. Which would be a ZINGER to McCain, whose unabashed Israel-support is winning over Jewish voters as we speak. Bloomberg would probably force McCain's hand to select Charlie Crist as a veep - because McCain simply must have Florida. I am SO HOPING he picks Crist ... another all gray-haired white male that voters outside Florida have never heard of. :thumbsup:

[mhgaffney]

Personally, I'd choose Mike Bloomberg. Three reasons:

1. "Mayor Bloomberg will be my 'point man' on the economy, he is the best qualified man in the country to fix what's wrong with the economy, and make it work again for middle and working class American."

2. Ted Strickland might get you Ohio, but Bloomberg gets you FLORIDA, and...

3. All your problems with Jewish voters e v a p o r a t e . . .


He is organized and VERY competent - even brilliant. And he would definitely do it - he's the outgoing mayor, a Democrat at heart, and he aspires to higher office.

Strange that Sam Nunn was not on your list. Nunn is Obama's best pick, IMO.

After Obama groveled before AIPAC and vowed to keep Jerusalem unified (meaning: it cannot become an international city, capital of both Israel and a Palestinan state) he probably won the bidding war to wooo jewish voters.

The price, of course, will be high -- indeed, heavier than the world can bear -- no chance for a peace settlement.

[BroncoBuff]

Yeah gaff, my list was kinda weak ... I'm gonna re-do it in a month or so.

You're right, Sam Nunn is definitely being considered. Let's see.... an older, powerful southern senator on the ticket with a young, northern liberal "change" Democratic candidate ...? hmmm... where have we seen that before? 1960, 1988 ... 2008?

I say no because Nunn is 69 or 70 freaking years old. I think the Obama people think they might put Georgia in play with Sam Nunn, but I'm not buying that. He's too old for a "change" candidate.

[Crushaholic]

Kathleen Sebelius should be the VP choice for a couple of reasons (wanting her out of the state is, shockingly, not one of them ;D ). Obama won this state by a HUGE margin. Democrats here very much respect Sebelius and it would the best chance for a Democrat presidential candidate to win Kansas. Secondly, her father was governor of Ohio in the 70s and she could help Obama possibly win the crucial state of Ohio.

[cutthemdown]

Kathleen Sebelius should be the VP choice for a couple of reasons (wanting her out of the state is, shockingly, not one of them ;D ). Obama won this state by a HUGE margin. Democrats here very much respect Sebelius and it would the best chance for a Democrat presidential candidate to win Kansas. Secondly, her father was governor of Ohio in the 70s and she could help Obama possibly win the crucial state of Ohio.

Picking a woman would be shrewd move for Obama. It wouldn't appease all of Hilliary's backers but probably would grab a significant chunk.

A lot of people think he should go Latino but the more I think about that the more i think Obamas camp my fear that would de-energize the white vote. I think a white female would be a strong choice.

[Ray Finkle]

Not true (unless you have inside info ???). Edwards, Clinton, Hagel, Richardson and Strickland are all being discussed online and on Sunday Morning shows, as well as cable news shows.

I added my choice Bloomberg, and a woman Landrieu because she was on Kerry's list four years ago.

still wrong on that on BB....I bet good money it's Webb or W. Clark....very good money.

[Hogan11]

F Bloomberg

That is all.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

still wrong on that on BB....I bet good money it's Webb or W. Clark....very good money.

Clark in the mix would be awesome - but I'd rather see him in a cabinet position like NSA or Defense Secretary.

[Breaker]

Write in vote:

Satan