Posted by Markji:

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.

She got 18 million votes. The women across the board were 60 to 40. Nuff said.

Posted by 4949:

Hey bitty. Why don't you drop the psychological bull**** and start telling me who the moderate, liberal, conservative and independent women are voting for, by how much and what the turnout is going to be. I don't know a thing about women, so you need to educate me. I want numbers and the percentage of those groups of women. I need an answer on that.

Posted by bitty41:

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.

So Bitty, you are saying there is no middle ground? It's heavy involvement or no involvement from government? That's what debate has become? If you disagree than you must be on the extreme? I blame talk radio for this ridiculous notion.

Economies in other countries sound great when you are complaining about your own. Despite our complaints(many legitimate) when you look at the big picture we still have the HIGHEST STANDARD OF LIVING WORLD WIDE. Ask someone from another country why they came to the states? There first answer is almost aways, opportunity. I work with a large English, Middle East and French business world. They say the biggest problems with their economies is that once you are born into a specific class you stay in that class. If you are rich you stay rich. If you are poor you stay poor. If you are middle class you stay middle class with little or no chance of ever improving your lot. Where as America at least gives you the opportunity to get out of your class and make money if you know how do it.

The key for us, in my view is for us to focus more on improving our educational systems so the poor can experience the gains that others have. You can't fight the global economy, like it or not, it's here and countries will outsource jobs. We need to create conditions that encourage innovation and job creation. by penalizing the bottom line of companies you are doing exactly what you say you want to prevent. You are causing them to cut costs. Where is the first place companies go to cut costs? You get the point.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Hey bitty. Why don't you drop the psychological bull**** and start telling me who the moderate, liberal, conservative and independent women are voting for, by how much and what the turnout is going to be. I don't know a thing about women, so you need to educate me. I want numbers and the percentage of those groups of women. I need an answer on that.

Let me see if I can explain this in the simplest terms possible.

I CANNOT PREDICT SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. I have never proclaimed to have a crystal ball that shows me the future. Is this clear enough for you because I don't know what other ways I can make you understand.

Oh yeah, but you sure do like coming around and telling people they don't know what their talking about right? Now that you been put on the spot, you have no answers, is that it? You told me 'I don't know anything about women' which obviously makes you an expert. You used big words like moderates, independents, liberals and conservatives, but you really didn't anything about them yourself. did you?

I didn't claim to know anything about women. What I said is what the numbers told me and that's all I know. And using those numbers, strong established numbers, I thought it was a mistake to take Biden, because I don't think it really helps the cause. But I guess we'll see what happens now.

I just saw the report yesterday in the U.S.A. Today that only 47% of Clinton's backers are strongly behind Obama. These are the facts that I'm addressing and trying to get people to understand. I am stressing that Clinton's supporters have jumped ship and that report and other reports I heard via public radio, internet, etc. suggests that is very true. Rather than fight over whether you like Hillary or not is pointless. Getting as many of those voters back, to back Obama is the goal. Oh' and by the way, I been voting for 29 years now. So I think I know something' about voters and trends and basically, it all comes down to demographics and the key subjects those demos support which can be extremely complicated. Especially now.

Posted by 4949:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by 4949:

Hey bitty. Why don't you drop the psychological bull**** and start telling me who the moderate, liberal, conservative and independent women are voting for, by how much and what the turnout is going to be. I don't know a thing about women, so you need to educate me. I want numbers and the percentage of those groups of women. I need an answer on that.

Let me see if I can explain this in the simplest terms possible.

I CANNOT PREDICT SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. I have never proclaimed to have a crystal ball that shows me the future. Is this clear enough for you because I don't know what other ways I can make you understand.

Oh yeah, but you sure do like coming around and telling people they don't know what their talking about right? Now that you been put on the spot, you have no answers, is that it? You told me 'I don't know anything about women' which obviously makes you an expert. You used big words like moderates, independents, liberals and conservatives, but you really didn't anything about them yourself. did you?

I didn't claim to know anything about women. What I said is what the numbers told me and that's all I know. And using those numbers, strong established numbers, I thought it was a mistake to take Biden, because I don't think it really helps the cause. But I guess we'll see what happens now.

I just saw the report yesterday in the U.S.A. Today that only 47% of Clinton's backers are strongly behind Obama. These are the facts that I'm addressing and trying to get people to understand. I am stressing that Clinton's supporters have jumped ship and that report and other reports I heard via public radio, internet, etc. suggests that is very true. Rather than fight over whether you like Hillary or not is pointless. Getting as many of those voters back, to back Obama is the goal. Oh' and by the way, I been voting for 29 years now. So I think I know something' about voters and trends and basically, it all comes down to demographics and the key subjects those demos support which can be extremely complicated. Especially now.

I was in polite company and I'm trying to pay you some amount of respect.

In 2004 Howard Dean had a huge base of supporters but when he lost in the Primaries did you see them bitching about how he got cheated etc. We as women want an even playing field not extra advantages. This was her nomination to lose I'll repeat this was her nomination to lose. And lost it she did and now there is this sense of self-entitlement and bitterness because Obama is the nominee.

So it boils down to this any self-respecting Democrat who chooses to vote for McCain (who has done very little to further women issues) because Hillary lost the nomination are bitter and spiteful Hillary Clinton supporters, Rethug operatives, or people who are just flat out racists and are looking for a "legitimate reason" not to vote for Obama. This is a dead issue she has dropped out the race move the hell on. Edwards was my first choice but when he bowed out I never once considered voting for the Republican nominee. Obama and Clinton do not vary in the full scheme of things on issues.

I can't even argue with you anymore because I find your posts to be annoying and whiny. If you wanted to discuss the issues where Clinton and Obama diverge that is something worth talking about but this embittered Clinton supporter drivel is not worth discussing.