Plus the evolving Beatle Eras offered different tastes of Beatles music.
In other words, all their music doesn’t always sound the same. Can’t say that of too many bands.
Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)
-
I disagree. If MLK had not done what he did, then LBJ would not have been pressured by the people to do anything about it and thus, nothing would have been done.
LBJ was weak and caved into pressure by the people. He is not the hero and that’s what Hillary was trying to paint him out to be. The basic message was:
Obama may have hopes and dreams, but hopes and dreams are irrellevant. It will always take a rich white person to do it, and a poor black man will never accomplish anything.
At least, that’s what I heard from her speech. Then again, I noticed that the only time she cries is when she’s losing, and only as a political gambit, so that kind of colors my perceptions of everything she does. With her, there are no “weak” moments, not “accidents” no “coincidents.” Everything is a calculated, measured action and only when it goes wrong does she do something about it like apologize or fire someone in her staff.
This is a very cold, very conniving woman who is attempting to seek power over all of us. I don’t trust her.
-
Hillary’s point though is simply…
MLK w/o the action of LBJ: No Civil Rights Act COULD have happened.
LBJ alone COULD have enacted the Civil Rights Act w/o MLKWhich is true, as far as it goes…
-
@ncscswitch:
Hillary’s point though is simply…
MLK w/o the action of LBJ: No Civil Rights Act COULD have happened.
LBJ alone COULD have enacted the Civil Rights Act w/o MLKWhich is true, as far as it goes…
LBJ alone would not have enacted the Civil Rights Act.
MLK alone, would have eventually agitated any president to pass it. JFK would have, if he had lived long enough, and without MLK. But LBJ wasn’t interested until the civil unrest got so hard to control he had to do it.
The way Hillary said it, and I don’t care what she MEANT, what she SAID was that MLK was worthless, LBJ did it all and MLK did nothing but commit civil disobedience and cause domestic unrest.
And it is THAT message that will haunt her campaign from this day forward. That, the illegal fund raising, and all the rest. Meanwhile, she’s attempting to smear the black man, and keep him from getting ahead so she, a white woman, can take power. Another act that will haunt her campaign.
Either way, she’s damned if she does and damned if she don’t. If she does win, in November, I suspect she’ll have significantly less of a mandate then President Bush started his second term with.
-
well johnson did state with signing the civil rights act that he probably lost the south for the democratic party for good. and more sinster political machine may not have done it. so mlk might have needed johnson, at that time. maybe not.
-
@Cmdr:
This is a very cold, very conniving woman who is attempting to seek power over all of us. I don’t trust her.
Oh, please. You are just trying to find any reason to dislike her, and doing a terrible job of it.
There are plenty of reasons not to like her or her campaign, but you are just nitpicking.
No where did she say MLK was worthless; if she actually thought that, she wouldn’t have said she and Obama owe it to MLK to bring the country together.
Once again you are making crap up over nothing.
-
i can’t say the exacts on the speach, i heard the part she said and it did sound like she was saying what Jen said to me as well.
now that may not be what she ment, but it is how it sounded and how it sounded to others, other wise she wouldn’t be trying to mend the racal tensions with Obama now. i worded that wrong i know, but i can’t think of a better way to say it (i don’t have a speach writer after all or political stratagest to make sure i say things write). -
But I don’t have to find reasons to dislike her.
Anyone who is pro-big government, and she is just by the fact she is for universal health care CONTROLLED by the government, means you will NOT get my vote.
I just found it funny that her campaign again shows that the racists and sexists and classists and every other ist seems to be coming from one political party and it isn’t the republicans. It hasn’t BEEN the republicans for a very, VERY long time.
Add to this the media apologizing FOR her when they SHOULD be broadcasting it from the tops of the highest towers like they would if Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson had said the exact same thing, and it makes you wonder?
The basic thing is this:
Hillary thinks it takes dictates from the President to make change.
Mr. King thought it took action from the people to make change.One is imperial, the other is democratic. I, for one, agree with Mr. King, not Mrs. Bill Clinton. We fought to revolutions to escape from the tyranny of a monarchy, the Revolution AND the War of 1812 (the latter being our fault, BIG TIME.)
Anyway, BACK ON TOPIC!
Who thinks Mitt’s successes in Wyoming and Michigan are flukes, as my local media seems to put it?
Honestly, I think New Hampshire was a fluke, mainly because anyone who wanted too, could vote there. No need to establish residency or even to register before hand. That meant you could buss in anyone you wanted to vote any way you wanted.
Iowa, dunno.
But Michigan and Wyoming were probably the local residents voting. And, since Mitt’s won 2 primaries and came in second for 2 primaries, I find it incredulous for the media to keep claiming he is one loss away from dropping out. He IS the front runner at this point.
Anyone disagree?
-
he is and has been even before Michigan IMHO. he has been the most consistant of all the others. all the others for the most part have been hit or miss in the state primaries well Mitt has been top one or two in most (as you said).
i hope he can keep it up, he is the best man (or woman) for the job when it comes to the economy, better then most on the boarder, and although not the best on war he knows enough in buisness that i’m sure he would put the right person(s) incharge of it making him the best for the job in that area as well. how do i justify that? simple, i would rather have some one who knows they don’t got a clue in war time decisions but dose know how to read a resume and puts the best man (or woman) for the job there, then have a guy who has millitary experiance (although i think this is also important) or thinks they know how to run a war and blunder it through political compermise or poor decisions. i think McCain would compermise or just make blunders because i feel he would get his hands in too deep, Guiliani i think would do the same thing but make bigger mistakes. not that ether would be ill intended in this, i think they would both mean best but good intentions don’t work out like you always plan… accually they seldom do in the government. -
they are not running the mormom. even the calculating karl rove had to admit that once the new anti-mormom, scratch that––STRONGLY anti-mormom movie comes out in the summer, and it will get super hype from the media if romney is running, and it takes over 2 hours of peoples time to indoctrinate people to the story(and actual truth) of the mormom leaders being cold blooded killers, mass murderers actually, and that their religion is for fruitloops. (the garden of eden being in missouri, indians being the lost two tribes of isreal, jesus and the devil being brothers, etc. etc. etc. …no freaking way republicans are that stupid) no way people will vote for him in a national election. he flip-floped more than kerry. its sad that some would chose anyone else than McCain. and for what point. McCain is the best to defend the country, and he’s a social conservative. the point maybe being that rush and hannity and the ilk have spent way too long ripping on the man. who’s the only HONEST one out there. he does what he believes and the only time i’ve seen him recant was to the southern evangelicals, whose support is sadly very much needed to win an election.
the movie was made for the election year for the sole purpose of destroying romney if he is the candidate.
McCain has won one that MATTERS… and come in second in michigan who by God romney would have to win. his dad ran the state as governor for pete’s sake. McCain came in second. and he told the truth to michigan people, their jobs arent coming back. they are overseas for good. Romney just told the people what they wanted to hear, it wont make their lives any easier. McCain said he’d start programs to teach new skills, romney only said he’d get the jobs back…and no freakin chance of that happening the opportunist liar.
Huckabee is the only true challenge to McCain. everyone knows this. but McCain is still leading in a place where Huckabee has to win, s.carolina and all the bible beaters there.
McCain will win and be challenged by only Guiliani in the super tuesday BIG STATE primaries like texas, florida, cali, and so on. romney wont even come close.
and remember for michigan, the DAILY KOS wanted every liberal out there to vote for romney on purpose to keep him in the race b/c everyone knows he’s unelectable. perhaps daily kos"ian" liberals are the reason for romneys success. DA DA DA-na-na-na.
-
But McCain is the candidate the liberals want us to put up because he’s the most liberal of candidates.
Meanwhile, Romney is the most conservative of candidates, and when it really comes down to it, most republicans being polled are voting on issues, NOT RELIGION. We are not ruled by the religious. I know, that flies in the face of what the media’s been telling people for years, but it’s true.
-
why people bring religion into it like this is beyound me. i’m no fan of the Mormon religion but that is no reason to attack him. he has good plans and has done well on the job.
you argue that McCain dosn’t flip flop, thats true, but he holds true on things that make him un electable, his voting record shows that with his non conservative votes on issues that conservatives find important.
Romney has fliped on one issue that i know of, and that was Abortion, he went from pro abortion to anti abortion. pro when running for office and anti once in office and before sighning any thing into law. i have heard him explain that change and it was a good and to me heart felt ansower.
as for the auto industry, i hope that Romney was telling the truth, only time will tell on that though. the US needs to get manufacturing back in country and away from the globel market, it’s why Romney is best for the job when it comes to the economy, because he has plans to get jobs back into the nation in these areas and he is a buissness man with experiance in running buissness.on that McCain winning “one that matters” it’s why i don’t like the current system. we have people winning one of the first two states and people become convinced that these little states that have no real value in the numbers are now the “these are how it’s going to go so give up now” states. WY was as large a win as Ohio, Mich was as large a win number wise as 3 of the previous states. i think Romney won the only big win so far.
-
All the primaries matter. And Mitt is currently carrying the most delegates. However, if you look at the types of people who live in the areas where the primaries have already been taken and the voting laws of the areas, you see that the most conservative states have yet to have their primaries.
The Carolinas, Texas, etc. Meanwhile, the republicans that lean the most liberal have had their elections (Michigan, New Hampshire, etc) and McCain is losing even with them.
Another bench mark one could use is:
What candidate is the media touting? McCain. Why? Probably because he is most like them, that is to say, he’s the most liberal of the conservative candidates and thus, the one they are hoping the conservatives elect.
What candidate is the media slandering most? Romney. Why? probably because he is the most conservative of the candidates with the best ability to win the hearts of conservatives. Thus, Romney is most likely the candidate that the media fears most.
Let’s not forget that McCain was the media’s favorite for the republicans in 1999 and 2000 as well before George Bush beat him by being more conservative. That’s part of the problem with the liberal states holding primaries before conservative states, as well, they tend to skew the results a little. (People inherently want to jump on the band wagon of the winner, if the blue states go heavily for one guy or another, the red states may follow suit.)
And then, let’s also not forget the laundry list of initiatives that McCain has spearheaded and voted for. The conservatives of the corn belt and the conservatives of the west and south have not forgotten and because of them, while he may be able to make in-roads with the other side, he is unelectable by those conservatives as well.
There’s a reason I think we need a strong conservative for leadership. Not some wishy washy pansy who will crawl to the other side of the aisle and try to build a “team.” President Bush has taught us that building a “team” means doing whatever the other party wants (which he pretty much has, except for surrendering in Iraq in 2004) and taking all the blame when things go wrong.
Look what the democrats have done since they took Congress. They have done whatever THEY want and nothing the minority party wanted, no team building. Meanwhile, they have passed the buck and the blame for all the failures and tried to convince us that 2007 was all Bush’s fault.
Do we want another Bush (AKA McCain?) or do we want another Reagan/Bush Sr. (AKA Romney or Thompson?)
-
the other primaries dont matter at all.
before the season starts, people only point to iowa, s.carloina, and new hampshire. nevada and michigan are second tier and wyoming doesnt count. notice how nobody spent time in wyoming, and notice how democrats dont care about michigan b/c they got rid of ALL its delegates while the republicans got rid of half of them.
nevada counts, the democrats have been there already debating.
i would disagree. McCain is nothing like Bush. McCain i’m sure has a personal loathing of the man after 2000. McCain lost b/c of bush’s dishonest smear campaigns that were so brutal they caught McCain of guard. like the polls of people who said they didnt respect the man, which were dishonest doctored polls anyways. but they were useful. republicans that are plain partisan hate McCain b/c he wont play ball, he understands that there is another spectrum of american politics.
the only places McCain is different than bush is no tax cuts for the super wealthy, they are fine as is. there is no reason to put more money into individuals pockets. now i am for tax breaks to big business b/c business needs more cash to reinvest and grow. and he made sure in the campaign finance law that whoever runs smear campaigns had to state who funded the commercial and who its trying to benefit. (perhaps b/c of the bush dastardly tricks using anonymous smear ads against McCain, hmmmmmmm)
and sorry romney can never ever ever ever get southerners to want to vote for him. they dont view mormomism lightly.
and for the statement about religion doesnt matter, what if a satanist or scientoligist wanted to run for president. let me tell you, their religion would surely matter. b/c people trust peoples judgement for religion as much as they’d figure their judgement of policy matters.
Romney is just as calculating as clinton. how can you go from gay marriage supporting, illegal immigrant sanctuary supporting, pro abortion to all against. b/c he doesnt care. he just says what the constituents want.
-
Okay, let me rephrase. Any Judio-Christian religion is NOT the deciding issue.
How you stand on Illegal Immigration is a deciding issue. McCain is pro-Illegal Immigrants as his amnesty bills display.
How you stand on keeping the radio waves free is going to be an issue. McCain is pro gagging political commentators through the (un) fairness dotrine.
Being a Mormon means squat to just about everyone. Mormons still abide by a certain set of morality and ethics codes, which is all the “religious reich” wants. Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Christian, Jew, Luthren, whatever, as long as you have faith that there’s someone more powerful then you are and you believe that you must abide by certain ethics and morals, you will satisfy the religious needs of the Republican party.
Sure, there’s going to be a few whackos that won’t accept it. One is the guy who killed FDR because he was Catholic. But that didn’t stop FDR from getting elected!
Anyone who thinks McCain’s going to win this decisively is living in a dream world. Actually, I bet that McCain will not only lose, but lose BIG just like every other attempt he has made for the Republican Nomination. (1996, 2000 and now 2008.)
-
i did not know mcCain was pro fairness doctrine. :cry: but he would see it as then the news media should be less liberal, which it wont be. while he wants fairness on radio also. in all actuality, the news on tv would stay the same while the radio would be evicerated of conservative thought.
he means well in this, b/c he wants fairness on both sides, he just doesnt see that he’s being duped b/c it will only be implemented against conservatives. or maybe just maybe, hopefully, he’s lulling some to sleep until wham-o, he’s elected and doesnt care about placating the other side anymore. remember bush was the unity guy, he couldnt care less about democratic wants.
kennedy was not killed for being catholic…… :roll: i take it you mean JFK b/c FDR wasnt catholic.
i know some people didnt like the fact of him being catholic and president but that cant be why he was killed. way to many other big reasons that matter to the nation.
-
The only reason I know of for his assassination was because he was catholic and the anarchist did not want the Pope to be running the country. It’s the same thing that was brought up throughout his entire election.
And yes, McCain is duped often. He thinks Amnesty will stop illegal immigration. He thinks fairness doctrines will free up speech (which is already very free, the liberals own the broadcast news and the papers and most periodicals, the conservatives own the radio.)
-
I will lay a significant bet that Mitt loses in South Carolina.
Those are hard-core Southern Baptists and Pentecostal Holiness in that state, and they won;t vote for a Mormon that they think is a Satan influenced religion (sorry, that is their Dogma).
McCain wins SC. Republican race even muddier than it is now.
-
If Mitt does NOT win in SC, it will be Huckabee and only because he’s Baptist too. McCain loses in SC and NC and Texas and Mississippi and Alabama and every other traditionally conservative state in the union only winning in states that are blue or purple.
-
Sounds like we have a bet there Jen…
There is no “Whisper Campaign” against McCain in SC this time, and many folks who were caught up in the last one, are NOT happy about being suckered in by it.
McCain by 5% in SC.
-
Yeah, I think McCain will win in SC with a strong 2nd by Huckabee … I can’t wait until Super Tuesday!
Suggested Topics
