Obama Wins!

[xavier]

I am a far left liberal and you are a far right conservative.

I'd really like to hear your explanations how I am "far-right conservative".

[xavier]

For me, understanding how the world actually works, and doing nothing to change it IS guilty... and there's really no merit.
You could use that knowledge to warn others about bad actions, instead to justify this way who does wrong.

First, you have to understand there is a history here of Victor talking nonsense and not responding when he's called on it.

And I would like to hear your explanation on how pursuing legal action against W is going to "change it". Any policy blunders implemented by the Bush administration can (and many probably will) be reversed by the incoming administration.

[VictorMoran]

Actuality Xavier it is I who had called on your fallacies and nonsense positions and recomendations.
You have being wrong in each and every one of them, just back and read the record.
You usually end with “I am in the real world and it is I who know stuffâ€

[jacmoe]

Hey, hey Victor - behave!
You are way out of line.

[xavier]

Actuality Xavier it is I who had called on your fallacies and nonsense positions and recomendations.
You have being wrong in each and every one of them, just back and read the record.

Saying something, doesn't make it true, at least not here in the real world.

Again, you dodge the question -- I asked you what makes me, to your estimation, "conservative", other than the fact that I disagree with most of your blatherings in this forum...

[xavier]

BTW, FWIW, I've been wanting to pound my chest on this one for a while now:

From March 8 of this year:

http://www.ogre3d.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=39687

My analysis: an Obama candidacy wins in a landslide, or a Clinton candidacy guarantees another Republican president. Any takers?

Nice to know I can still call 'em.

[jacmoe]

And now, Ladies and Gentlemen:
Let's put our differences aside and change the world. The past is the past and the future are belong to us.

Obama would probably have said something like that..

[edit]

Nice to know I can still call 'em.

Heh!

[warmi]

BTW, FWIW, I've been wanting to pound my chest on this one for a while now:

From March 8 of this year:

http://www.ogre3d.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=39687

My analysis: an Obama candidacy wins in a landslide, or a Clinton candidacy guarantees another Republican president. Any takers?

Nice to know I can still call 'em.

Yeah, you were right 50% ... there is no way of knowing if having Hillary on the ticket wouldn't produce a real landslide as opposed to Obama's decisive victory

[VictorMoran]

Hey, hey Victor - behave!
You are way out of line.

??
Aren’t you going to call on Xavier for doing the same?

Again, you dodge the question -- I asked you what makes me, to your estimation, "conservative", other than the fact that I disagree with most of your blatherings in this forum...

I would say that asking for forgiveness for Karl Rove,
a man that destroyed the career of many political opponents even people from in his own team.
A man that conspired to make false indictment of political opponents on the eve of an elections, just to create doubts of the voters.
A man that gave away the name of an active secret agent, to create a media controversy just because the report they provided disproved the reasons for going to war (remember the yellow K tubes).

Do you want more? I have a million. Weren't you the one who once said that (paraphrasing) “I have no compassion for the people who had seen their property value go way below the value for they owe to the bank ....â€

[xavier]

Yeah, you were right 50% ... there is no way of knowing if having Hillary on the ticket wouldn't produce a real landslide as opposed to Obama's decisive victory

hehe -- my definitions of "landslide" coincided with those on fivethirtyeight.com. 360 counts as a landslide in that context.

As for Hillary, the Newsweek behind-the-campaign-scenes series that just came out, confirms my suspicions that Bill was hurting her more than helping, and while Bill was around, there was really no way in hell that she was going to be asked to veep.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167582

Truly fascinating article(s)...

[xavier]

I would say that asking for forgiveness for Karl Rove,

Except that that is not what I am doing. I am saying that the American people see no point in (nor have the stomach for) belaboring the mere fact of the Bush adminstration -- they just want it to go away, and dragging us through years of legal proceedings simply validates its existence, something most people would like to forget.

There is a difference between "forgiveness" and "forgetting". Your overbearing partisanship prevents you from seeing that for some reason -- it's the same partisanship that, also for some reason, makes you think I'm Republican and conservative (instead of independent and centrist, which I am), a mistake you've made, on the record, countless times in various threads in this forum.

You are so far left, in other words, that anyone who isn't 100% with you, is 100% against you.

Do you deny this?

[jacmoe]

Hey, hey Victor - behave!
You are way out of line.

??
Aren’t you going to call on Xavier for doing the same?

No, he's beyond reach.

[_tommo_]

First, you have to understand there is a history here of Victor talking nonsense and not responding when he's called on it.

And I would like to hear your explanation on how pursuing legal action against W is going to "change it". Any policy blunders implemented by the Bush administration can (and many probably will) be reversed by the incoming administration.

Well, I wasn't defending Victor, nor I'm well documented on the Rove case, but i saw a potentially awful way of thinking in your cinycal reasoning... because you are right, now in USA the next administration will take care of the problems for you...
but in a country where the next administration will only continue forcing the law for its own privileges, your laissez-faire ways would only allow them to continue undisturbed.
So, for me, when someone does something wrong, it must be accused of it. Simple as that...

[xavier]

Except that the Democrats' own PAC that was formed in the wake of the Clinton "impeachment", was formed to urge everyone to "move on" (in fact, it's called MoveOn.Org). I find it not the least bit disingenuous of Victor to want to extract his pound of flesh from Bush, and yet align himself with those who would rather we "move on".

That's all I am asking -- move on, people. It's done, he's out of power on Jan 20th, and is (and has been for some time) largely irrelevant. If the international community for some reason wants to being up Bush or members of his administration on some form of charges, go for it. America is just tired of him and tired of hearing about him, so we're not likely going to do it.

And this is the reality I would like Victor to acknowledge -- it's not going to happen, so lets look at how, three days ago, the prospects for the future became much brighter, instead of brooding on about the past.

[VictorMoran]

Except that the Democrats' own PAC that was formed in the wake of the Clinton "impeachment", was formed to urge everyone to "move on" (in fact, it's called MoveOn.Org). I find it not the least bit disingenuous of Victor to want to extract his pound of flesh from Bush, and yet align himself with those who would rather we "move on".

This is why I say you make stuff up and hope people will agree with you because you are an authority in the forum.
I made a post in solidarity with Johnhpus post and you immediately aimed your guns to attack me.
You keep posting Cliché’ phrases (“want to extract his pound of flesh from Bushâ€

[Game_Ender]

Karl Rove and Bill O’ Reilly still think they are in control and are now lecturing Borak Obama and the Democrats in how they should govern. It is like they think they are the righteous owner of the country and they leased to the democrat for a short period of time.

Where did you hear that? They weren't telling anyone how to govern, the only negative thing they talked about was if Obama was up the job of being president. That's a legitimate question to have of anyone who's trying to be president, McCain included.

I just hope you are not sitting with Rove and O’ Reilly

I sit with Rove, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. when I hope that Obama's presidency has a positive effect on America.

[warmi]

[quote="VictorMoran"]
Please stop speaking for “most people, and for the American peopleâ€

[Zool]

BTW, FWIW, I've been wanting to pound my chest on this one for a while now:

From March 8 of this year:

http://www.ogre3d.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=39687

My analysis: an Obama candidacy wins in a landslide, or a Clinton candidacy guarantees another Republican president. Any takers?

Nice to know I can still call 'em.

I highly doubt that Obama would've won if the economy didn't crash after the Republican convention.

[VictorMoran]

Where did you hear that? They weren't telling anyone how to govern, the only negative thing they talked about was if Obama was up the job of being president. That's a legitimate question to have of anyone who's trying to be president, McCain included.

At the time of that show He was not trying to be the president, he was the elected president.
I think it has to do with the fact that Rove was part of the team that lost and O’ Reilly was a cheerleader for that team.
They had 8 years 6 of which they had total control and we all know where that had taken us.
Karl Rove, Bill O’ Reilly and Fox News should lay low and sit this one down.
They should had put to practice those advises back when they squandered the nation.
Who the hell they thing they are questioning if Obama is up to the Job, didn’t 53% of the American people just answered that question?

Do you remember O’ Reilly asking if Bush was up to the job, back in 2000?
I do remember him being very respectful of Bush and never bringing up a question like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUNFirBG ... re=related

Please stop speaking for “most people, and for the American peopleâ€

[weshowe]

I suspect that ratings for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show will increase with the change in leadership.

As for "punishing Rove", you need to start with something he did that was illegal. You haven't listed anything yet that isn't just a difference of opinion. If there was any evidence he violated any laws, he would already be indicted... remember the Democrats have controlled Congress for two years now.

Here in the U.S., we don't jail the outgoing administration. Mr. O isn't going to allow it to start on his watch, because he will be out of there no later than 2016 and he will not want to set a precedent. It just won't happen, not Rove, not Bush, no one.

<* Wes *>

[VictorMoran]

As for "punishing Rove", you need to start with something he did that was illegal. You haven't listed anything yet that isn't just a difference of opinion. If there was any evidence he violated any laws, he would already be indicted... remember the Democrats have controlled Congress for two years now.

Well to start, I think the penalty for violation a congressional subpoena is called Contempt of Congress and it mandate jail time.
It really is a very big deal but who is counting.
In this case Rove is suspected of being the master mind of very high crimes while he was working in the white house.
There had been people who had been caught in the act and for that they had gone to prison
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3CXCOpM ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYY7igv6oA8

Here in the U.S., we don't jail the outgoing administration.

right on, I could not agree more with you, I believe that people suspected of crimes do get investigated thought.
There are plenty of sample of that, Richard Nixon comes to mind.

Mr. O isn't going to allow it to start on his watch, because he will be out of there no later than 2016 and he will not want to set a precedent.

Once again you and I are in the same page.
I still think that in 2012 or 20016 Borak Obama, being a professor of Constitutional Law, will still agree that people suspected of committing crime should be investigated.

[weshowe]

Victor:

The Dems have had control of congress for two years, and if they had any evidence of Karl Rove's complicity in any criminal actions, he would be indicted. They tried very hard to nail him over the phony CIA "outing" affair and didn't succeed. Mr. Rove is no more likely to be indicted than Dick Morris or Newt Gingrich.

The name-calling isn't over yet, because the sitting party will not take any blame for being the cause of the recent meltdown, in spite of controlling the Congressional oversight panel for the last two years.

I'll go out on a limb here at little, as Xavier did (BTW, I never mentioned how helpful your book was to me) and suggest that Mr. Obama will meet with no more success in his administration than Jimmy Carter did, and for all the same reasons... splits in his Democratic majority between the liberal and moderate poles will cripple his legislative agendas. Add to that the Republicans, who will once again discover party unity.

"May you live in interesting times".

[VictorMoran]

The name-calling isn't over yet, because the sitting party will not take any blame for being the cause of the recent meltdown, in spite of controlling the Congressional oversight panel for the last two years.

Isn’t it true that the senate of the past two years was divided 49 Democrats, 49 Republican and 2 independent?
Isn’t it true that the reason Harry Reid was the leader of the senate was that the two independent senators voted with the Democrats because they won elections registered as democrats,
and because of that they have to caucus in the Democratic side of the congress.
Isn’t it true that Joe Lieberman was one of the two independent senators, a man that actively campaign to defeat the Democrats in any way he can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rta9YjI ... re=related
It is hard to believe that Lieberman is a Democrat.

If your answerer to all of the above questions is yes, them maybe you tell me how the Democrats could do anything other than setting the agenda in congress, while the republican opposed each and every bill?
Plus, on top of that, president Busg vetoed every bills the Democrats managed to pass.

I'll go out on a limb here at little, as Xavier did and suggest that Mr. Obama will meet with no more success in his administration than Jimmy Carter did, and for all the same reasons....

Obama has not even started yet, and you are adding him to the list Democrat so called failures.
Few weeks ago that list was made by Carter, Clinton, and minorities (blacks and hispanics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1R1nvnoNUE
Is that a wish of yours or is that part of the new talking point we will be listening in conservative media?

[VictorMoran]

I suspect that ratings for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show will increase with the change in leadership.

Maybe now that important guess will be in short supply for Fox New, the rating won’t be as good.
We all saw how bill O’ Reilly keep asking for people to come to his show.
I got to the point that his started to use his invitations as black mailing weapons.
“Come to my show for 30 minute so that I can beat MSNBC. If you do not come to my show I will send my reporters to dig dirt, and I release a juicy steamy gossip that will destroy you.
I am desperate I need rating, I will do anything, please do not go to CNN, MSNBC or Comedy Central …â€

[warmi]

I suspect that ratings for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's show will increase with the change in leadership.

Maybe now that important guess will be in short supply for Fox New, the rating won’t be as good.
We all saw how bill O’ Reilly keep asking for people to come to his show.
I got to the point that his started to use his invitations as black mailing weapons.
“Come to my show for 30 minute so that I can beat MSNBC. If you do not come to my show I will send my reporters to dig dirt, and I release a juicy steamy gossip that will destroy you.
I am desperate I need rating, I will do anything, please do not go to CNN, MSNBC or Comedy Central …â€