WE Blog

Boxlick…your atypical “Christian” like Hagee or Parsley…bigot, racist, and dumbass.

‘must have attended’ as opposed to ‘must have gone to attended’.
Typing too fast and not rereading as the individual being addressed is considered not worthy of the time, but other readers are.

I really liked Hillary until she turned weasel. She agreed with the DNC on Florida and that other state. Now she wants “all” of the votes counted. And she wants to use funny math to make it look like she should be the Democratic candidate. If Hillary had a lick of sense, she’b be doing all she could to lock in her position to run for president in 2016.

When the Republicans beat you Democrats like a drum in the ‘08 presidential elections, remember that it was Hillary and her supporters that handed you another 8 years of Republican rule.

H. Clinton needs to pull out the Gore Mantra’s from the 2000 election and see if they work now. You know, like, “Your vote doesn’t count,” or “Appointed politicians and judges are deciding your vote, you have no say.”

Maybe it work the second time around or not.

I always find you can interchange politician and weasel with no loss of meaning. The democrats have such a mishmash of ways to disenfranchise voters that it isn’t funny, and they masquerade as the party of the people. When it comes to the convention and the Super-delegates overrule the people, maybe people will understand and dump party affiliations.

BlueJay,Posted May 24, 2008 at 10:55 am |
“Boxlock” is aka “Regular”
“Senator Clinton’s math, and political assessments are sound. She is continuing with the process implemented by the Democratic party and attempting to convince the delegates that SHE is the best candidate for President. This is her right.”

Know what BlueJay, I agree with you to an extent.
I don’t like or trust Hillary, she really scares me as to what damage she could potentially do to this country. BUT…she a is WAY, WAY the better candidate than Obama. I can’t believe people are drooling over him like they seem to be.

Got’a run, weekend activities to attend to. Inspite of our ‘cross’ words and differences of opinion…you have a very good Memorial Day weekend and if blogging continue to give um hell.

Boxlick…you’re still a dumbass and unable to keep your word (not calling me Naive).

True to the Bush-ass-kisser you are, it does not surprise me that you cannot be civil or true to your word.

Sucks to be you.

darkanonm
Posted May 24, 2008 at 11:19 am | Permalink

I always find you can interchange politician and weasel with no loss of meaning……

Excellent post!

Just in case you want to watch her say it:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/101403.html

Is that what all you Hilary supporters are hoping for? That Obama gets assassinated?

I’m not surprised at this from you Nathan.

Not a bit. And you’ve lost the ability to lower my opinion of you any further a LONG time ago.

Senator Clinton is staying in the race because the race is not over and she feels she is the best nominee. She has merely pointed out previous Democratic party history where the nomination process was drawn out.

And of course, unlike the Republican primary process which is winner take all and double quick!, he Democratic nomination process is DESIGNED to be measured and thoughtful. Senator Clinton is working within that process.

We can see the wisdom of this on the part of the Democratic party. We still have TWO good candidates.

You cons are stuck with McCain.

And as far as what some people might be wishing for? We KNOW the cons are very concerned as to who the VP for McCain will be. They want a Romney or a Thompson. Then they hope John McCain will expire before his term does.

Bluejay,

Do you want to include the unofficial “popular vote” numbers from the caucus states?

And which candidate(s) got the “uncommitted” votes in Michigan, where Obama’s name was not on the ballot?

From header,

“Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter explains why Hillary Clinton’s latest argument — that she is winning the popular vote — doesn’t add up.”

http://www.newsweek.com/id/138109

CF2K, where are you coming up with this stuff?
“Well. Evidently you have issues at black men having sex with white women.”
I don’t recall ever bringing it up or even being involved in a discussion about that.
You need to clarify.

cosmos how do your questions have anything to do with what I have posted here?

I’ll answer them anyway.

No, I do not want to include the caucus numbers.

I was AT a caucus. A bigger clusterf%#$ I never saw.

Let Senator Clinton have the votes she won in Michigan

“Let Senator Clinton have the votes she won in Michigan”

You know, give her the votes she agreed in writing would not count!

BlueJay posted May 24, 2008 at 5:07 pm

“cosmos how do your questions have anything to do with what I have posted here?”

BlueJay posted May 24, 2008 at 10:55 am

“Senator Clinton’s math, and political assessments are sound. She is continuing with the process implemented by the Democratic party and attempting to convince the delegates that SHE is the best candidate for President. This is her right.”

The “math” on this thread is re the “popular votes”.

Have you read the link that is the basis for this thread?

‘Clinton’s fuzzy math on votes’
Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter explains why Hillary Clinton’s latest argument — that she is winning the popular vote — doesn’t add up. It’s also sure to poison efforts to unite the Democratic Party.

‘The Problem With Clinton’s Popular Vote Math’
http://www.newsweek.com/id/138109

And BlueJay, do you believe that the word “ideas”, without any modifier(s), always means “good ideas”, “brilliant ideas”, “beneficial ideas”, etc?

2FCK’ed,
My post at the beginning of this thread had absolutely NOTHING to do with race or focusing in on back men and white women, nor did it have anything to do with a “lesbian subtext”. You are sick in the head to come up with that.
That comment if anything was race neutral, it NEVER even occurred to me, even after you made that STUPID ACCUSATION in your post. That ‘joke’ was a dig at Hillary’s brain dead comment about staying in the Presidential race because something ‘might happen’ to Obama like what happened to Bobby Kennedy.
It was a comment about her very dark soul. One consumed by raw ambition to where the possible assassination of an opponent is something to ponder in a strategic way. Otherwise, why is murder on her mind?
My post was tying together John Hinckley and the culmination of an effort to impress actress Jodie Foster by the assassination of a President.
2FCK’ed, you reveal that you are the racist and that those thoughts are on your mind…they certainly were NOT on mine.
Fella, you are one sick dude, get some help.

“Hillary’s brain dead comment about staying in the Presidential race because something ‘might happen’ to Obama like what happened to Bobby Kennedy.”

Prove your assertion or admit that you are a liar.

Boxlock James does not cite the source of his headline upthread.

Yeah, the New York Post.

And just how does that “respected” publication and James Boxlock turn….

““My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it,” she said, dismissing calls to drop out. “

into…

” staying in the Presidential race because something ‘might happen’ to Obama like what happened to Bobby Kennedy.”?

Simple. They lie. And because Senator Clinton is a public figure, they get away with it.

If Senator Clinton were not a public figure, James Boxlock could easily be convicted libel.

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?”

Yep, that was an incredibly close primary race… /sarcasm OFF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_1992

“The convention met in New York City, and the official [delegate] tally was:

* Bill Clinton 3372
* Jerry Brown 596
* Paul Tsongas 289
…”

BlueJay,
Don’t blow a gasket with me, calling me a liar.
It’s all over the news and they all have come to very nearly the same conclusion.
I don’t know what she meant, don’t much care, I don’t like her or Obama, but regardless that was a very STUPID, IGNORANT thing for her to say.
You like her, fine it’s a free country for you to do so, I don’t and I am equally free to express what I like or not.
Beside, I didn’t write those articles, ‘I just reads them, laughs at them, and passes them on to you’. Go get pissed at them, not me.

I don’t have to read those articles to know that they wouldn’t make the jump you did James.

And my gaskets are fine. You lied. I caught you. It isn’t the first time and won’t be the last.

THIS is who you Obamaniacs say we can build coalitions with? Seems you’ve started already even?

Pass.

BlueJay posted May 24, 2008 at 9:20 pm

“I don’t owe you or Obama any favors. But here’s a freebie. Back off. That or invite backlash.”

That’s an odd reaction to my pointing out that Bill Clinton ended up with over five and 1/2 more delegates than Jerry Brown.

That “ideas” only means “ideas”, not “good ideas”.

And that Senator Clinton’s “popular vote” math has many flaws.

It seems that all that BlueJay has is threats.

And I don’t care if she stays in the race. But with the small number of primary delegates left, and the large number of superdelegates endorsing (or switching from Clinton) to Obama, she does not seem to have a chance.

No one here thinks they could sway you from your opinion and support of Senator Clinton. Several tried to show you the full context of some of the Obama remarks you quote inaccurately. You repeat parts out of context because then the meanings can be what you’ve made up your mind to.

Obamma never said what you repeat about Republicans being the party of ideas. You take it completely out of context and it has a different meaning just like some are trying to attribute to Senator Clinton’s words about the RFK assassination. You seem to hear what Senator Clinton “really means” no matter the words used but fail to even consider you may not be correct in your “hearing” of something Senator Obama said.

So I’ve stopped trying to discuss this subject with you. I don’t think you are being open to honest discussion.

Hmm all I find are opinion pieces.

Here is mine.

It was Senator Clinton that called out Obama in debate on his “the Republicans were the party of ideas” remark in a debate. It was Senator Clinton that got him to clarify that those ideas were bad.

lindainks55,

Well said at 10:23 pm. That basically sums up the situation.

“I don’t think you are being open to honest discussion.”

I’m sorry linda. But I don’t think you are open minded here either.

I think you have caught Obama fever.

You can afford I guess to hope that the right wing can be worked with.

Well I don’t find any hope in working with people that hate me. And I don’t see any change coming when the harbinger of “change” wants to work with those same people.

You Obama folks, if you win? You better learn to love and better treat your new enemies.

Because I don’t think you can trust your new friends.

I looked for and found the whole quote cosmos.

What else do you want?

I think conventional wisdom was pretty good before the cons got hold of it and so radically changed things.

How am I wrong?

I also went looking for Obama’s pro Reagan comments.

I found them too.

“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

This guy wants to be the black Ronald Reagan and he is getting there by pretending to be a Democrat.

Just like Reagan did after he sold out.

Blue Jay:

“Another poster I never figured for an Obama supporter would have been cosmos.

“You are dedicated to substance and science and logic cosmos. How is it you line up with a candidate who is all smoke and mirrors?

“You COULD show that Obama has substance. You COULD explain just how naive wishing for hope and change and working with the enemy could be productive.

“Instead you just question and insult me. A grudging Clinton supporter.”

Not even going to be nice about this.

Bullsh*t. Cosmos did with you what he typically does, provide citations and addressed arguments. You made an argument about the popular vote, and cosmos directly addressed the arguments.

People tend to get irritated when arguments are blithely ignored.

Also, you keep repeating the same meme about Obama “…clearly wanted to extend positive kudos to the Republican party.” The inaccuracy of this claim has been pointed out to you before.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/peas_in_a_pod.html

Factcheck is a NON-partisan site. Note how on both these links they also nail Obama on inaccurate things he said.

The “Obama praised Republicans as the party of ideas” mantra is misleading at best, and more accurately just plain wrong. This has been pointed out to you, with sources, before. You, however, just keep repeating it as if no one has ever addressed it.

From ksagnostics first link….

Clinton: [He] has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote. … They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to deficit and debt.

Obama pushed back, saying he had never endorsed such notions:

Clinton: [You] talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.

Obama: I didn’t say they were good ones.

Clinton: Well, you can read the context of it.

Obama: Well, I didn’t say they were good ones. …

Clinton: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented…

We can’t speak to how things “came across” to Clinton, but we’ve listened to the entire interview and to our ears, it’s just flatly false that Obama said he “really liked the ideas of the Republicans.” Clinton is referring to what Obama told the editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal. A video is available on the Internet.
Here’s what Obama actually said in the portion to which Clinton referred:

Obama (Jan. 14, 2008): The Republican approach has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.

There’s a difference between praising someone for having ideas and praising the idea itself. Obama is doing the former – and just as clearly not doing the latter. He says the GOP approach has “played itself out,” for example.

AGAIN I ask.

If the “GOP approach has played itself out”?

WHY does he insist on working with them?

Oh and thanks ksagnostic for the help.

Senator Clinton called out Obama on his take that the GOP was the party of ideas.

It was only her who got him to twice try and lie and say “I did not say they were good ones.”

Well my take is Obama certainly DID sound like he thought the GOP ideas were good ones.

His remarks about Reagan would only seem to confirm that.

I fight. It’s what I do.

I am sorry that so many people who I otherwise respect think that pandering is the answer.

I won’t shut up and sing. I don’t like or trust the music.

Goodnight and have at me.

Boxlick,

Nobody else got your convoluted, sophomoric, and unfunny joke, either. That’s a negative reflection on the teller, not the hearer.

Boxlicker,

Looking through the comment thread, it’s pretty clear nobody else knew what the hell you were talking about, either. You’d be well-advised to stick to the unintentional comedy rather than trying to be deliberately funny.

You really are so stupid that you think you’re smart; hence your talking down to others who are several steps ahead of you. Pretty much like George Bush, come to think of it.

Weird double-post thing going on with WordPress.

No matter: Boxlicker needs to hear things repeatedly, and in a slightly varying fashion, for them to sink in.

(j)ok(e)observer,

Only when it’s you–or Boxlicker–who’s lurking there.

Feel like a guilty racist in denial much, OKIE?

Remarkable JR.

You actually post the relevant part of the Factcheck article and then simply dismiss it by saying:

“Senator Clinton called out Obama on his take that the GOP was the party of ideas.

“It was only her who got him to twice try and lie and say ‘I did not say they were good ones.’”

What Obama said you copied in black and white. To read that and then say he “lied” about what he said, when it is evident from the very quotation you pasted into your post he didn’t, is remarkable.

To be blunt, you make up your mind based on what appears to be a completely emotional response, and you won’t budge to the point that you don’t even recognize when you are undercutting your own argument. The fact is, Republicans were seen as the “party of ideas” and the “party of change” in the 1980’s and the 1990’s. Many of those ideas, arising from combinations of articles of faith among different “conservative” populations, were and are quite bad, but they have wrought a powerful influence on our political landscape.

There are reasons to question an Obama candidacy, but the idea that Obama is a stealth conservative is not one of them. Your stubborn belief to the contrary does not reflect reality.

“I’ve posted my concerns. They are in Obama’s own words.”

In the case mentioned above, they are from your spin on Obama’s own words, which did not imply what you interpreted them to say.

“Forgive an observation. But? Do you or any Obmama supporter have much ground to stand on while you insult my grasp on reality?”

Yes, “we” do, when you continue to put meaning into words and statements that are not there. Like I said, you undercut your own argument with what you posted. That does suggest a disconnect from reality.

“YOU have bought into empty rhetoric. ‘Hope’”

Now you are projecting.

“Hope for what? That if we are real nice to the cons they will be nice back. Sorry. Not realistic.”

1) What is not realistic is the idea that the “cons” can simply be punished and dismissed. Here is reality for you, Jay. The majority of people who are obsessed with politics in this country see themselves as coalition conservatives. There is no large audience out there for beating down the conservatives, for punishing them. Even when there is wide scale dissatisfaction with the right, and there is right now, there is not wide scale interest in seeing the right “get theirs”. There is interest in moving on. Punishing the right will simply turn off the foul weather voters in the middle and even those on the left who simply want to move on.

2) Hillary, despite your apparent desperate belief to the contrary, is not the angel of vengance when it comes to the right. Her history as a Senator is one of pragmitism, and taking stands that seem to be the least costly politically. Here is the dirty little secret about the Iraq war. Few politicians of either party wanted to seem “soft” when confronted with claims of the next big threat, even if they themselves were skeptical. Hillary was one of the people who took the pragmatic way out. If you are looking for Hillary to be the one who will “fight” the cons to the point of making them scream uncle, you are looking at an idealized Hillary that bears little resemblence to the one in reality.

3) De you know why the Clinton presidency became stronger after the reversals of 1994? The reason was that while Clinton offered to work with the Repubican majority on some things, he held firm on others. When the Republican majority tried to press what they saw as an advantage, they looked like the unreasonable ones. One of the ways to beat the right is to isolate them, and the best way to do that is to make them look like the unreasonable people who will not compromise and work well with others. Since this perception has some basis in reality, it is a viable strategy. If however, you oppose every idea simply because it is “republican”, you simply isolate yourself. Do you remember the late ’80’s and early ’90’s in Kansas politics, and the Democratic strategy then as articulated by one Marvin Barcus? He was one of the people in the KDP who tried to play the Christian Right against the “traditional, now labeled moderate” Republicans. They succeeded in doing so to a certain extent, and turned the Democrats into a third party, and ultimate strengthened the Christian Right within the Republican party.

“‘Change’? Damn I’ve seen enough BAD change in my lifetime already. What good is gonna come from skipping along with the people who gave us that?”

Well, obviously we need change. I am skeptical that we will have much meaningful change in the way politics are done in this country. But, if we can change the direction of this country, particularly in judicial appointments (we are approaching a crisis in the ideological balance of federal courts), we need to try to do that.

“‘Yes we can!’ Again, can what?

“Oh I give you. Your movement is strong. Even kinda creepy scary in a way. But even with all that money and chanting and fainting, there is still enough reservation to keep a second candidate close at hand.”

The race is over. I just hope that the damage to Democratic presidential hopes is not irreversible (and BTW, I blame both Clinton and Obama supporters for this situation, but I do apportion more blame to the former).

Boxlick,

Takes a doofus like (j)ok(e)observer to understand a doofus like you, evidently.

Leaving aside your grammatical ineptitude (”she is my most favorite actress,” “Hillery Clinton”), the connection you try to establish is, well, just lame. Specifically, if John Hinckley shot Reagan to impress Jodi Foster, and you’re saying that Hillary is “like” John Hinckley, what, then are you saying she is DOING in order to impress Jodi Foster? Assassinating Barack Obama herself? For your comparison to work, you’d have to say something like that. But then you introduce the scenario of Barack Obama and Jodi Foster having sex, which is a non sequitir that confuses your comparison.

The joke that *I* referenced was funny precisely because it put the actions of Menachem Begin and John Hinkley on the same level. Your joke makes the Hillary haters laugh, and everybody else laugh in incredulity at what juvenile dolts they are.

You still haven’t explained how sidetracking into the interracial sex reference between Barack Obama and Jodi Foster helped the joke. All you’ve said is that it is “completely beside the point.” But I believe I HAVE explained what doing so says about you, and about your intended audience. The fact that you did, when it was beside the point, testifies to your and their bigoted racial attitudes.

So, let’s review: you and your fellow Wingnuts laugh reflexively at the “Hillery (sic) Clinton” / John Hinkley shorthand, but you, Boxlick, can’t sustain the internal logic of your own joke. So you toss in a little interracial sex to get another cheap laugh, and congratulate yourself on how clever you are.

You are a stupid, stupid, stupid man, Boxlick. I believe it would be difficult for me to show this more convincingly than you yourself have.

“Clinton stated she was not pulling out of the race yet because ‘things can happen’, ”

Got a link with that quote word for word?

And I mean word for word from Senator Clinton. Not an Obama love slave like Keith Olberman or a con kook like you boxy james.

Put up or shut up.

Oh and by the way?

CF could cut you to ribbons.

But that would expose more of your surface area to the air. And I don’t think we want the place stunk up like that.

Oh, and here’s the link:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/clinton-calls-vp-chatter-completely-untrue/

Oh BlueJay, you DemLib Ignoranus, (that’s a person who’s BOTH STUPID and an ASSHOLE), like most DemLibs, but you typify the term.
The 2000 election wasn’t stolen, the Republicans saved it from being stolen, and fortunately the DebLibs screwed that up like everything else they touch.
Besides you had a dufus for a candidate, and he’s still out there being a dufus today.

cosmos?

See the movie I recommended.

Then come and we will discuss “hope”, “change”, and “the party of ideas”.

In the meantime? What side are you on?

What side is Obama on when he has supporters who take ME to task instead of a con liar?

Speaking of him…

And Boxy James?

The 2000 election WAS most definitely stolen.

My 14 year old and I watched the movie. I am so proud of him now. He told me after the movie,

“Dad, I don’t like politics. But I know why you hate Republicans so much now. I hate them too. If I was there when those Republicans stopped counting the votes, I would have seriously kicked some ass.”

And the math is getting even worse for Clinton,

‘Weekend delegate update: Obama 6-1 ‘
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/26/1065538.aspx
“Obama picked up six delegates to Clinton’s one over the weekend.
…
Obama is 51.5 delegates away from the required 2,026, according the NBC NEWS counts.

(We are also checking to see if we will adjust Alaska’s count. NBC had a 9-4 split for Obama, but according to AP, Obama picked up both statewide PLEOs. That would give a 10-3 split there. We will update if adjusted.)”

‘Cardoza switches to Obama
Valley endorsements help put senator 49 delegates away from party’s nomination’
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080526/A_NEWS/805260322
“In a signal that the Democratic Party’s superdelegates have begun to shift firmly for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Rep. Dennis Cardoza – a former supporter of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton – has switched sides to support Obama.

Fresno Rep. Jim Costa also announced he would get off the fence and endorse Obama.”

Boxlick,

“The 2000 election wasn’t stolen, the Republicans saved it from being stolen.”

Oh. You mean by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush throwing tens of thousands of eligible black voters off the rolls who were going to “steal”–by which you mean, ‘vote in’–the election.

You really are a racist cocksucker, Boxlicker. It’s no surprise that you proudly belong to the party of racist cocksuckers.

BlueJay posted May 26, 2008 at 11:15 pm

“I falsely claimed nothing.”

Okay… prove it!

Give us a credible link with Obama’s exact quote saying that you’re an “irresponsible” parent today, if you cannot afford the huge cost of child health insurance.

IIRC, that is basically what you posted that he said.

And I do remember the 2000 election — the dysfunctional MSM attacking Gore, and giving Bush a pass, the people I know who voted against Gore, just because he was Clinton’s VP, etc.

BlueJay posted May 26, 2008 at 11:47 pm

” ” Give us a credible link with Obama’s exact quote saying that you’re an “irresponsible” parent today, if you cannot afford the huge cost of child health insurance.”

Well I never said that. ”

BlueJay… didn’t you post earlier as ‘J R’?

J R posted March 11, 2008 at 9:23 pm
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/obama-slaps-down-talk-of-being-vp/#comment-311316

“Yeah “dots” I really liked when he lauded Reagan and called the Republicans the party of ideas.

Then he REALLY sold me when he said parents who can’t afford health insurance for their kids are irresponsible.“

BlueJay,

I am not trying to “steamroll” the nomination process.

And your opinions, and your votes are your responsibility — not mine.

I suggest that you write up all of your research, thoughts, etc on the 2008 primary and general election. Then seal it, and give it to your son, to be opened when he is old enough to vote.

CF2K, posted;
“You really are a racist cocksucker, Boxlicker. It’s no surprise that you proudly belong to the party of racist cocksuckers.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/clinton%e2%80%99s-fuzzy-math-on-votes/#comment-357704

Hey everybody…I don’t want any of you to miss the intellectual midget’s comments above, and how he accuses others of racism when he is the racist.
His complete loss of control over a simple disagreement about his alleged accusation the 2000 election was stolen.
Please read his vulgarity and the shallowness of his argument, with NO support for his position.
It’s something I should not feel probably but I can’t help take delight in seeing the explosive temper and frustration he has, as quite simply he deserves every bit of of the torment he obviously is letting control him.
CF2K, you are a sad example of human being, if in fact that’s what you are and not some alien, ha.
He is also a ‘Ignoranus’, (that’s a person who’s BOTH STUPID and an ASSHOLE)
Have a nice day Ingnoranus, which of course is impossible being you and all.

Dear Boxlick,

I’ll make this real simple, for a simpleton such as yourself: were thousands of eligible African-American voters illicitly scrubbed from Florida’s voting rolls prior to the 2000 Presidential election, or were they not?

Because if they were–and they were–then your accusation that Democrats were trying to “steal” the election is exposed as the completely dishonest propaganda that it is. That doesn’t even TOUCH the Republican refusal to let all the votes be counted–as per Florida law. What were you afraid of, Boxlick? That a majority of voters were going to “steal” an election? Hate democracy much, Boxlick?

When scoundrels LIE and pretend to be victims, Boxlick, it typically is because they’re trying to get away with some reprobate behavior. If you’re going to lie, Boxlick, you should expect to have everything possible thrown at you.

Of course, you wisely ignore the substantive claim in my post, given that, as per Repuke strategy, when the facts are against you, make stuff up as a distraction. I’m not the issue, Boxlick. Your dishonest and the thievery of your political party–THAT’s the issue.

Oh, and Boxlick? If you call people “assholes,” you can expect to be called a “cocksucker.” Respect is earned. And at the moment, you’re operating at a bit of a deficit.

Cap’N,

And on that cue, I’ll mention, as I so often do, Lance DeHaven-Smith’s research, which shows that, based on a count of spoiled ballots (including overvotes in which the intent of the voter was clear), Gore received 46,000 clear-intent overvotes to George Bush’s 17,000. The majority of Gore’s overvotes were African-American votes.

And why DID African-Americans have such a relatively higher rate of overvoting, anyway?

“RinR: For your research, you merged this set of data with detailed profiles of Florida’s electoral precincts. What did you find?

LdHS: One of the things I found that hadn’t been reported anywhere is, if you look at where those votes occurred, they were in predominantly black precincts. And (when you look at) the history of black voting in Florida, these are people that have been disenfranchised, intimidated. In the history of the early 20th century, black votes would be thrown out on technicalities, like they would use an X instead of a check mark.

So you can understand why African Americans would be so careful, checking off Gore’s name on the list of candidates and also writing Gore’s name in the space for write-in votes. But because of the way the vote-counting machines work, this had the opposite effect: the machines threw out their ballots.”

So, never mind that Florida law was clear that where the intent of the voter could be discerned, the vote should count: Repukes didn’t want those votes to count, and they successfully pulled out all the stops–legal, common-sensical, rational–to prevent them from doing so.

DeHaven-Smith, who is a political independent, by the way, also goes about assigning blame where it is due: to Republican Governor and Bush sibling Jeb Bush.

“By 1998, Jeb Bush…went about really consolidating authority, and it became a very partisan system. And at that point, frankly, my political orientation quit mattering. What started mattering to me was having a democracy, having a government that was actually responsive.

One of the things I would hear a lot is people would say, well, if the Democrats were in, they would do the same thing. And I thought about that, and…my conclusion…is “hell no, they wouldn’t.” I know the Democrats; I know Reuben Askew. That guy would have been an absolute maniac about being technically and legally and ethically straightforward and correct in the application of the law. If there had been a recount under his administration, he would have been bending over backwards to make sure it was right.”

http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/winter2005/features/battlefield.html

So, Boxlick, if your argument is that Republicans had to keep Democrats from “stealing” an election, well, golly, Boxlick, who DO those voters belonging to the majority think they are to get to decide an election. The nerve!

Boxlick,

And just so can make no mistake regarding my utter contempt for you, here is the superlative commentary on the Bush crime family’s unforgivable theft of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida: Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.

“There was one exact moment, in fact, when I knew for sure that Al Gore would Never be President of the United States, no matter what the experts were saying — and that was when the whole Bush family suddenly appeared on TV and openly scoffed at the idea of Gore winning Florida. It was Nonsense, said the Candidate, Utter nonsense. … Anybody who believed Bush had lost Florida was a Fool. The Media, all of them, were Liars & Dunces or treacherous whores trying to sabotage his victory.

They were strong words and people said he was Bluffing. But I knew better. Of course Bush would win Florida. Losing was out of the question. Here was the whole bloody Family laughing & hooting & sneering at the dumbness of the whole world on National TV.

The old man was the real tip-off. The leer on his face was almost frightening. It was like looking into the eyes of a tall hyena with a living sheep in its mouth. The sheep’s fate was sealed, and so was Al Gore’s. … Everything since then has been political flotsam & Gibberish.”

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=906189

You support and defend the scum who stole a Presidential election. By extension, Boxlicker, you ARE the very scum who did so. “Scum” is a much nicer word than the others I could use. But I don’t think there’s another one that’s as appropriate.

From the link above

“Thompson now lives in a fortified compound near Aspen, Colo.”

This is often touted as a sign of mental illness or other some dastardly motive of those on the ultra right, and quite possibly, a correct assessment.

By the way, Do I think BUSH Stole the eleciton? No.
Do I think his presidency (notice small p) has been a disaster? Yes.

My brother has HBO and DVR’d the movie for me.

”

or the court which made the decision as to which votes were legitimate and which weren’t.”

Uh huh. You mean the Supreme Court in a split decision straight in line with Bush the elder who appointed some of them.

And as the movie shows, for the first and ONLY time before or since, or maybe ever, the decision applied to that case ONLY.

The movie also shows the INCREDIBLE break down in voting and counting the votes. It made me ashamed to be an American. There are third world countries that have better systems.

But then counting votes and counting them fairly does not tend to favor Republicans.

My brother is an Obama supporter. After the movie, I asked him “Are THOSE the people you think we can work with?”

He had to admit the idea tasted a little less appetizing.

Monkeyhawk,

Indeed. Funny how, when blow jobs are mentioned, homosexuality is the first thing out of fleettwood’s mouth. As it were.

The cocksucking isn’t the problem, fleettwood. The homophobia is.