Posted by playa2:

Imho Obama choosing Biden was to try to win the presidential election, not the best man for the job.

Joe Biden to me is just like the republicans. That was the 1st compromise move by Obama.

Bill Richardson was his best choice , but by picking him he would have easily lost the election.

We need someone else who promotes change just in case the neo-cons who took out JFK choose to take out obama if he wins the presidency .

Plan A for the neocons was to allow Hillary to get the democratic nomination and have business as usual but from a democratic side,so after that fell thru plan B was to get a guy like a biden , just in case obama gets assasinated.

On the other shoe you have uninformed americans who believes what the republicans have been feeding them about the war on terror and freedom for americans .

This fall election is gonna be like a sci-fi movie , you don't know who's gonna be defeated, assassinated or dethroned.

[Edited by - playa2 on 23-08-2008 18:57]

Posted by 4949:

Posted by Markji:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BigSm00th:

haha briggs how does he not bring what hillary would bring or even close? all hillary "brought" to the table was her experience -- i'd rather have biden's 30 years in the senate and years heading the senate foreign relations committee and senate judiciary committee. hillary's credentials don't even come close, and try to reply to me without mentioning or implying her husband bill.

Its pretty simple bigsmooth--Hillary had more popular votes than Obama and was clearly on a huge momentum run as the thing ended. Her following is huge much greater than the next pick--remember Biden was in this thing to--how did he do vote wise compared to Hillary? Im not thrilled either way to be honest.

Exactly! An Obama-Hillary ticket would have had a clean female sweep, a clean minority sweep, a strong base of younger voters (who voted for Obama) and a strong base of older voters (who voted for Hillary). The only person they would have had to convince was the white male voter and we already know a lot of them voted for one or the other.

Well, picking Biden helped the white male vote a little better, but also compromised the female and age group votes. Bad move.

4949,

You don't know women if you think Hillary would have been a clean female sweep. There are a ton of women that DETEST Hillary Clinton.

And by minority you mean who exactly? You would be way off base if you are assuming that most Latinos, Asians, and other ethnicities are going to automatically vote for Obama simply because he is half black. Predicting voting patterns is a little more complex then people just voting on someone being a minority or having the same genitalia as them.

Bitty, your comments have been very clear and thoughtful. I am glad to hear that all woman aren't automatically for Hillary. That they will think and make a decision based on more than race or gender.

4949 - Obama could have picked someone else, like Hillary, to gain a political/electoral advantage. Instead he made an executive decision and picked Biden who is the most qualified person to be VP and help govern the country. Obama is already showing his qualifications for being Chief Executive. The votes will come.



[Edited by - markji on 08-23-2008 4:42 PM]

Hey, like I said, you don't have' to believe anything I say, okay? This board acts like it's the do all of who makes it into the white house. I'm simply pointing out some facts that I think hurt us. And obviously bitty is one of the one's who finds Hillary disgusting. For what? Who knows?!

4949,
You are right that more woman supported Hillary because she is a woman. I do hope that those who were Democrats will support Obama.

Posted by Markji:

Posted by playa2:

I hope he goes with Richardson , the govenor of New Mexico.

I wouldn't trust any of the other candidates for Obama.

William Blaine "Bill" Richardson III (born November 15, 1947) is the current Governor of New Mexico and was a candidate for the 2008 Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States. He was involved in several diplomatic efforts as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and afterwards. He emphasized foreign policy issues during his Presidential run. He has previously served as a U.S. Representative, Ambassador to the United Nations, and as the U.S. Secretary of Energy.[1] He was chairman of the 2004 Democratic National Convention as well as Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association in 2005 and 2006, overseeing the Democrats' re-capturing of a majority of the country's governorships. Richardson has been recognized for negotiating the release of hostages, American servicemen, and political prisoners in North Korea, Iraq, and Cuba.

Richardson is highly qualified and who would be a very good choice. They may not feel he is from a large state and so pass on him. But he is Hispanic (I believe 3/4) and that will help all over the country.


[Edited by - markji on 08-21-2008 07:24 AM]

Posted by 4949:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BigSm00th:

haha briggs how does he not bring what hillary would bring or even close? all hillary "brought" to the table was her experience -- i'd rather have biden's 30 years in the senate and years heading the senate foreign relations committee and senate judiciary committee. hillary's credentials don't even come close, and try to reply to me without mentioning or implying her husband bill.

Its pretty simple bigsmooth--Hillary had more popular votes than Obama and was clearly on a huge momentum run as the thing ended. Her following is huge much greater than the next pick--remember Biden was in this thing to--how did he do vote wise compared to Hillary? Im not thrilled either way to be honest.

Exactly! An Obama-Hillary ticket would have had a clean female sweep, a clean minority sweep, a strong base of younger voters (who voted for Obama) and a strong base of older voters (who voted for Hillary). The only person they would have had to convince was the white male voter and we already know a lot of them voted for one or the other.

Well, picking Biden helped the white male vote a little better, but also compromised the female and age group votes. Bad move.

4949,

You don't know women if you think Hillary would have been a clean female sweep. There are a ton of women that DETEST Hillary Clinton.

And by minority you mean who exactly? You would be way off base if you are assuming that most Latinos, Asians, and other ethnicities are going to automatically vote for Obama simply because he is half black. Predicting voting patterns is a little more complex then people just voting on someone being a minority or having the same genitalia as them.

bitty, where do you get these ideas at? You did it to me when it was just Hillary and Obama going at it. Can't we agree on anything?

Have you forgotten that Hillary got most of the Latino vote? And didn't Obama win the rest of those who did not' vote for her? Did you know that she basically had a 60 to 40 across the board win with women voters? I think according to those numbers, YES' they would have won most of those votes!

The numbers don't lie. I myself took notes, state by state and those are the numbers that exist. They are official numbers and demographically, they are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

I made a small sample case of the numbers, and you brought nothing. Make the case for whatever the case you are making. And I'm not quite sure what case you are making. At what point do you take alienation seriously? We can't afford to alienate anyone.

Lets first take into account the source of your "numbers" the Democratic Primaries. Last time I check Hillary has not run in a General National election. So you are missing a tremendous portion which is Conservative, Independent women and what candidate they might lean towards. I concede that most Liberal women would vote for Hillary but Conservative, Moderate women is by no means a lock for Hillary. Unless of course you ran some secret National ballot that you would like to share with the class?

There are many women in this country that employ their own judgment and intellect when selecting a candidate. For the 8 years that I have been voting I have never once voted for a candidate because of the color of their skin nor because of their gender. Though I do acknowledge that some people do but one thing I am certain of is that if Obama loses this Presidential election it won't because he didn't select Billary as his running mate.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BigSm00th:

haha briggs how does he not bring what hillary would bring or even close? all hillary "brought" to the table was her experience -- i'd rather have biden's 30 years in the senate and years heading the senate foreign relations committee and senate judiciary committee. hillary's credentials don't even come close, and try to reply to me without mentioning or implying her husband bill.

Its pretty simple bigsmooth--Hillary had more popular votes than Obama and was clearly on a huge momentum run as the thing ended. Her following is huge much greater than the next pick--remember Biden was in this thing to--how did he do vote wise compared to Hillary? Im not thrilled either way to be honest.

Exactly! An Obama-Hillary ticket would have had a clean female sweep, a clean minority sweep, a strong base of younger voters (who voted for Obama) and a strong base of older voters (who voted for Hillary). The only person they would have had to convince was the white male voter and we already know a lot of them voted for one or the other.

Well, picking Biden helped the white male vote a little better, but also compromised the female and age group votes. Bad move.

4949,

You don't know women if you think Hillary would have been a clean female sweep. There are a ton of women that DETEST Hillary Clinton.

And by minority you mean who exactly? You would be way off base if you are assuming that most Latinos, Asians, and other ethnicities are going to automatically vote for Obama simply because he is half black. Predicting voting patterns is a little more complex then people just voting on someone being a minority or having the same genitalia as them.

bitty, where do you get these ideas at? You did it to me when it was just Hillary and Obama going at it. Can't we agree on anything?

Have you forgotten that Hillary got most of the Latino vote? And didn't Obama win the rest of those who did not' vote for her? Did you know that she basically had a 60 to 40 across the board win with women voters? I think according to those numbers, YES' they would have won most of those votes!

The numbers don't lie. I myself took notes, state by state and those are the numbers that exist. They are official numbers and demographically, they are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

I made a small sample case of the numbers, and you brought nothing. Make the case for whatever the case you are making. And I'm not quite sure what case you are making. At what point do you take alienation seriously? We can't afford to alienate anyone.

Lets first take into account the source of your "numbers" the Democratic Primaries. Last time I check Hillary has not run in a General National election. So you are missing a tremendous portion which is Conservative, Independent women and what candidate they might lean towards. I concede that most Liberal women would vote for Hillary but Conservative, Moderate women is by no means a lock for Hillary. Unless of course you ran some secret National ballot that you would like to share with the class?

There are many women in this country that employ their own judgment and intellect when selecting a candidate. For the 8 years that I have been voting I have never once voted for a candidate because of the color of their skin nor because of their gender. Though I do acknowledge that some people do but one thing I am certain of is that if Obama loses this Presidential election it won't because he didn't select Billary as his running mate.

Wow, I didn't know I was in the presence of such expertise. You been voting for how long now? Eight whole years?

So why don't you tell us what's going to happen? How is it going to go down? So tell me how the moderate, liberal, conservative, independent women are going to vote, because obviously, I have no clue?

Let me make myself clear here. I never mentioned anything about any of those women groups or how they voted. All I know is she got a very good portion of those female votes. You can determine for yourself what she got and for what reason, but I was trying to make a different point here. If you hate the woman then fine. Don't use what I say to fuel your hatred of her. Thank you.

Look, I don't mean to be 'mean' about it, but tell me what I don't understand?



[Edited by - 4949 on 08-24-2008 12:11 AM]

Posted by BigSm00th:

would obama putting bayh on his ticket as sec. of state appease the clinton ppl?

maybe hillary can be made honorary first lady and she can tack on 4 more years of experience on to her resume?

Posted by 4949:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by BigSm00th:

haha briggs how does he not bring what hillary would bring or even close? all hillary "brought" to the table was her experience -- i'd rather have biden's 30 years in the senate and years heading the senate foreign relations committee and senate judiciary committee. hillary's credentials don't even come close, and try to reply to me without mentioning or implying her husband bill.

Its pretty simple bigsmooth--Hillary had more popular votes than Obama and was clearly on a huge momentum run as the thing ended. Her following is huge much greater than the next pick--remember Biden was in this thing to--how did he do vote wise compared to Hillary? Im not thrilled either way to be honest.

Exactly! An Obama-Hillary ticket would have had a clean female sweep, a clean minority sweep, a strong base of younger voters (who voted for Obama) and a strong base of older voters (who voted for Hillary). The only person they would have had to convince was the white male voter and we already know a lot of them voted for one or the other.

Well, picking Biden helped the white male vote a little better, but also compromised the female and age group votes. Bad move.

4949,

You don't know women if you think Hillary would have been a clean female sweep. There are a ton of women that DETEST Hillary Clinton.

And by minority you mean who exactly? You would be way off base if you are assuming that most Latinos, Asians, and other ethnicities are going to automatically vote for Obama simply because he is half black. Predicting voting patterns is a little more complex then people just voting on someone being a minority or having the same genitalia as them.

bitty, where do you get these ideas at? You did it to me when it was just Hillary and Obama going at it. Can't we agree on anything?

Have you forgotten that Hillary got most of the Latino vote? And didn't Obama win the rest of those who did not' vote for her? Did you know that she basically had a 60 to 40 across the board win with women voters? I think according to those numbers, YES' they would have won most of those votes!

The numbers don't lie. I myself took notes, state by state and those are the numbers that exist. They are official numbers and demographically, they are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

I made a small sample case of the numbers, and you brought nothing. Make the case for whatever the case you are making. And I'm not quite sure what case you are making. At what point do you take alienation seriously? We can't afford to alienate anyone.

Lets first take into account the source of your "numbers" the Democratic Primaries. Last time I check Hillary has not run in a General National election. So you are missing a tremendous portion which is Conservative, Independent women and what candidate they might lean towards. I concede that most Liberal women would vote for Hillary but Conservative, Moderate women is by no means a lock for Hillary. Unless of course you ran some secret National ballot that you would like to share with the class?

There are many women in this country that employ their own judgment and intellect when selecting a candidate. For the 8 years that I have been voting I have never once voted for a candidate because of the color of their skin nor because of their gender. Though I do acknowledge that some people do but one thing I am certain of is that if Obama loses this Presidential election it won't because he didn't select Billary as his running mate.

Wow, I didn't know I was in the presence of such expertise. You been voting for how long now? Eight whole years?

So why don't you tell us what's going to happen? How is it going to go down? So tell me how the moderate, liberal, conservative, independent women are going to vote, because obviously, I have no clue?

Let me make myself clear here. I never mentioned anything about any of those women groups or how they voted. All I know is she got a very good portion of those female votes. You can determine for yourself what she got and for what reason, but I was trying to make a different point here. If you hate the woman then fine. Don't use what I say to fuel your hatred of her. Thank you.

Look, I don't mean to be 'mean' about it, but tell me what I don't understand?

[Edited by - 4949 on 08-24-2008 12:11 AM]

Bitty's point - Hillary ran in "Democractic Party" primaries where only registered Democrats voted. Maybe some independent or Republican women registered Dem in order to support Hillary because they like her??? But the vast majoriy were Dems. So we don't know how she would actually do with the Independent and Republican women.

IMO, Hillary would do well with Independent political woman. But so should Obama vs McCain.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by bitty41:

As for business owners. The majority of the business owners in the US are small business owners. The majority of them are not outsourcing their jobs and are providing the country(despite our recent problems) with the highest standard of living in the world. Business owners are not just the "evil corporate CEO's" that we hear about so often.

But how many of them are using undocumented workers while paying them near slave wages?

Again, another stereotype. Small business owners run all types of businesses from low tech to high tech. The majority of them are just working on their own to get away from the corporate world and run their own show. The overwhelming majority of them hire educated and trained american workers. As bad as unemployment is, it's only at about 5%. In general if you work hard and are educated you are not going to stay unemployed for long. I repeat, in general

[Edited by - bippity10 on 22-08-2008 6:19 PM]

I meant to clarify in Capitalist society you need checks and balances particularly with the business community. It's too easy for people to be lured into greedy tendencies. In reference in your above post yes in terms of the numbers right now in 2008 and we are not talking about a huge workforce. But more and more businesses are catching onto the fact that cheap labor can be had and the government is going to do very little to prevent them from seeking cheap labor; either through just shipping the jobs to countries with almost non-existent labor laws or through finding undocumented workers in this country who are willing to work incredibly long hours, with no health benefits, and low wages. So sure you personally maybe a upstanding business man who only hires college educated, trained workers, but there are more and more business owners (small and big) who don't share your Patriotic outlook when it comes to their work force.


Joe Biden I think is a solid pick. There is no one politician out there that I could say that I like everything he's said or done professionally. Out of the other choices floated around Evan Byah or Hillary both of whom I absolutely detest and find to be untrustworthy.
But I think Biden can serve a vital purpose which is the "attack dog".

[Edited by - bitty41 on 08-23-2008 5:12 PM]

People start businesses to make money. It is not their obligation to hire americans or keep all jobs in the states. If you start a business you can run it however you please. Business owners want to make money and have the right to run their businesses the way they want. If we want to keep jobs in the states we need to get government less involved. Stop penalizing companies with high taxes and giving them incentive to look elsehwere for profits. Government needs to find ways to give companies incentives to keep jobs onshore, or create conditions that encourage this type of behavior. But this culture of "business is evil" and "tax the evil corporate heads" that we have in this country does the exact opposite. I'll tell you right now, I run a business. I love the guys that work for me. I do whatever I can to make my business succesfull and hope they make money as well. I root for all of them. But if my taxes go off I will be in a position that I have to lay off 1 or 2 guys. Am I evil or am I just doing what I started the business for, which is make money for myself?

Now I agree with you that in the global market place many companies are moving jobs offshore. Yet when you look at quarter after quarter in the states we generally have the same total number of jobs in the states today as we did 4 and 8 years ago. Will it stay that way? If the government continues to meddle in business in order to satisfy our current love affair with class warfare more jobs will be moved offshore as businesses try to cut costs.

I guess its "everyman for himself" huh? Damn its too bad that this isn't 1980's you would have been frothing at the mouth with Reagan's two terms. But if you haven't been paying attention all the so-called watch group government agencies. FDA, SEC, EPA, have become almost powerless and YOU WANT EVEN LESS REGULATION. Riddle me this if business is more successful with less government influence then explain why during the time of the most economic prosperity (1945-60) government's influence in business was strong?

If you are TRULY for little or not government influence in business then lets have a total free for all. Let street drug dealers go legit, let anyone sell weapons, make prostitution legal, allow people to sell anything they want with no government input. Lets also take away laws that protect child labor, minimum wage, safety practices, etc.

This is why you can't have political arguments. As soon as someone raises a point you don't agree with, just dismiss it and try to make it absurd. You started out strong and raised a great point that was worth debating with. But your second paragraph takes the argument to an irrelevant level. No where did I say free for all. No where did I say every man for himself. There are subtleties to every argument. The world isn't made up of crazy liberals and gun toting conservatives. We need to stop paying attention to talk radio and realize that the majority of our public is middle of the road. Not every argument in politics needs to be conservative vs. liberal grrrr.

I'm just expressing reality. Business owners do not go into business to create jobs. They go in business to provide a product or service or make a profit for themselves. I started my business because I saw an opportunity, not because I wanted to create jobs. If they can't make a profit they will cut costs. If they cut costs many times it's the worker that pays the price. So I believe that government needs to create an environment that is not hostile to corporate CEO's and business owners. But instead creates an environment that encourages them to keep jobs in the states. That encourages innovation.

Now, let me get my gun, my bible and let me watch some Bill O'Reilly. Yeeeesh.

Less government involvement in business has never led to long-term prosperity in this country. Right now in almost every prosperous country there is heavy government involvement. China perfect example; that has been under Communist rule yet they have been able to prosper. The EU countries have extremely high taxes and; not only their own government involvement but that of the EU standards has also found financial success. So I am curious where you get the idea that American businesses suffer under heavy government involvement? Before the Great Depression American business had almost no checks and balances; next thing the stock market crashes.

So I am just suggesting that if you truly feel that way then lets go full out Capitalist society allow everyone to make money anyway they can. Because where do you draw the proverbial line in the sand? You felt comfortable calling for less government restrictions when it came to your business but now when I start including other less savory businesses its a problem then government needs to be involved right? So my point is that unless you want this country to turn into a society out of a bad action film we need government involvement in business. Because as you clearly stated a business' only loyalty lays with profits thus the importance of government regulation.


Your talking about fighting over some small peanuts I'm talking about this country' self-preservation. Because the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow and the middle class disappears there will either be a violent revolution or the rise of some Totalitarian government. Now do either of these options sound particularly nice to you? The middle class is essential to a country' stability and as we erode worker's rights and jobs that only contributes to the middle classes financial collapse.

Posted by BigSm00th:

would obama putting bayh on his ticket as sec. of state appease the clinton ppl?

maybe hillary can be made honorary first lady and she can tack on 4 more years of experience on to her resume?