Obama wins. - Page 9

Haha - I don't mind restoring it as there was nothing wrong with it at all. For the record, I have deleted maybe 3 posts of mine ever. I don't feel like e-arguing. Also, it wasn't a protest - it was a statement of fact.

Anton's get restored because every other post he makes is deleted because he blatantly baits people. How mine would bait anyone, I'm not sure.

Oh and by the way, here is the text:
xoxo, the caricature.

PS - blindly negging anyone that might not speak in a 100% positive light about the candidate of your choice is no better than protesting incorrect statements.

And regarding my comments about Emanuel - the man is known for his highly partisan actions and slightly off-base reactions. A reporter pisses him off and what does he do? He sends him DEAD FISH (clearly logical and rational). Tony Blaire meets with Clinton after the Lewinsky scandal breaks and Rahm tells him prior to the meeting, "Don't f--- it up" (F what up? Why even bother saying that??).

For all this change and bipartisanship Obama preached and presented himself as - why bring in someone as your righthand man who is known for such practices? Now neg me all you want, but just keep in mind that you may see this post as illogical, inane, or incorrect but at least it's comprised of FACTS that can be supported. Not much incorrect or illogical with that... other than maybe Rahm's actions.

Also, Alyiah - I've noticed you like to neg a lot too in these kinds of threads. Why not participate in the discussion instead of just negging?

i want to have lauriebell's children

Well then those three posts you've ever deleted were in this thread. There was another post you deleted... in response to mononami or whatever his name is... he said foreign stocks went up and you posted a link to an article about US stocks that went down.

For someone who doesn't want to e-argue, you sure are doing a good job at it.

And I don't blindly neg. Please find any post that you believed I did this, and I will explain to you in detail why I did so, so that you cease to believe this falsity.

The archetypal conservatism you so disdain started in 1994. Remember the "Contract with America" and the great wave of conservatism that was ushered in by the Newt Gingrich led congress? Apparently to you the previous six years didn't count because the president at the time was a Democrat. You seem unaware of the fact that Clinton was a southern conservative Democrat and the only reason the Republicans tried to impeach him was to take the heat off their own cheating and drug abuse.

With a muslim president.

oh, too late.

Correct. The other one was actually one that I deleted and ended up discussing via PM.

Also, I don't restore all of Anton's posts - some are too embarrassing and lacking any content or thought for me to let other people be subjected to - unless everyone wants to be . There are approx 5-6 posts in this thread that I have not restored from him deleting.

I'm not really arguing above - I replied to your post and defended why I said what I said about Rahm a few pages back so that you could understand why I believe it to be a long four years if him being appointed CoS was an indicator of things to come.

I've PM'ed you because like I said above, I don't really like the e-fighting thing.

Blake is correct. The taking over of the republican party by people more interested in social-values warfare and the destruction of church-and-state divide is essentially has only taken place over the last 20 or so years. Prior to that the republican party was a totally different animal.

I love the wikipedia entry on conservativism, BTW:

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

we have edmond burke and the terms liberal conservativism and conservative liberalism in the same article, yay!

One thing people don't often realize is that liberalism and conservativism are not really opposed. Social liberals and social conservatives usually are, but that's not really the same thing...

Hey -- that's my fantasy. Hands off!

'Irregardless' is not a word (sorry, had to say that)

Assuming the dead fish story is true, I'm very disappointed. However, I think we should look at the whole picture, which won't happen until Obama chooses his entire Cabinet and staff. Please, give him some time, and don't giggle excitedly every time he appears to stumble. Jesus, if I did that every time W stumbled, I'd be in a straight jacket.

republican party died with goldwater

Unfortunately, yes - the dead and decomposing fish story is true:
Rahm Emanuel - TIME

www.kansascity.com | 11/06/2008 | Rahm Emanuel
(Also looks like he stabbed a dinner table when he considered some Democrats to not be as supportive as he would have liked during Clinton's first bid for the White House and called them dead. How eccentric....).


I agree with the bolded part - however, I do think that the tone is somewhat set with the CoS considering many equate it with being the #2 person. I only stated that if this appointment is an indicator (i.e. - he appoints people to his Cabinet who are similar in their partisanship and sometimes irrational ways) then I believe it will be a rough four years. JMO though.

It's a stupid word that should never have been accepted into the American lexicon because of its origin but, nonetheless, it is a word.

every time i want to disregard all of sev's ideas based on his deplorable political leanings, he throws down shit like this and, for at least a moment, i realize he's deserving of respect.

What is a word anyway?

Irregardless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i dont know anything about rahmbo but i hope hes fuckin nuts.

thats all.

edit: and the luca brasi sleeps with the fishes is a classy move actually

edit 2: just got off the phone with my rabbi and turns out rahm is nuts

Edit: eh, just ignore...

you are not authorized to use this word.

Not really, I just don't have anything useful to contribute to the original topic or the obama-bashing. So I just pressed buttons on the keyboard, closed my eyes, and pressed Submit.

I defer to Merriam-Webster, which supports both our viewpoints:

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Point taken.

Consider this, also (from nytimes.com, that bastian of liberal-ness) -- my highlights in blue:

"No incoming president in modern times has been so pressured to begin governing, in effect, before he is sworn into office. With that in mind, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden brought the group of high-profile financial and economic experts to confer.

Assembled to offer wide-ranging advice, the group of 17 included Mr. Summers and his predecessor as Treasury secretary, Robert E. Rubin; Paul A. Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman, and Eric E. Schmidt, the chief executive of Google. The billionaire investor Warren Buffett is to attend by speakerphone.

Other participants included Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa of Los Angeles; former Commerce Secretary William Daley; William Donaldson, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission; Anne Mulcahy, chairman and chief executive of Xerox; Laura Tyson, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, and Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm of Michigan."

JFC. That's a pretty impressive cadré -- and another indication of his character. If we see more of this, I think the Emanuel choice will hopefully fall into perspective.

Fingers crossed...

Actually, that only supports my viewpoint.

Sorry, I mean my other viewpoint, which was implied: you should never, ever use the word 'irregardless'.

I think UrbanDictionary says it best:

Ok - I'm done bothering, Anton.