http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turno..._Primaries.htm

Get out your calculator.:eek:

My claim is that the party affiliation of the percentage of citizens that vote are not an absolute guarantee of the leanings of the population as a whole. I'd love for you to explain how I am supposed to prove a negative.

The lack of proof is not proof.:rolleyes:

Twilight Flyer said:

And I don't recall blaming all Republicans... or even Conservatives. I believe "your" party has been co-opted" by the Moral Majority that is as dangerous to my civil liberties as the Taliban is to women in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the terms have become entrenched in political discussion, and both parties seem to vote a straight ticket these days, making them culpable for the radicals. I can't say that I know exactly what term YOU object to, but many of us Dems object to the perjorative label of "liberal."

I guess, then, we can agree on this. I certainly have never blamed anyone for their own choice or belief concerning when life begins. In fact, I am still giving it consideration. But, I couldn't help noticing over the years that more abortion clinics than maternity wards were bombed. I don't believe I have ever called you stupid or hateful for your beliefs. But, intolerance IS something that is associated with those who WOULD deny another citizen his own beliefs and rights. If I've used that term on you, without basis, I apologize.

Well..... I think that was unnecessary, but o.k. You DO know where that phrase comes from, right? A RELIGIOUS sect. Just sayin' ;)

No offense, but it was not the Liberals that brought about the downfall of Nazi Germany. In fact, I believe many European countries do quite well with a more Liberal constitution or government. But, that's another thread.

I stifled my impulse to say that your warning sounded just like the story of Soddom and Gomarrah. But, of course, there is no scientific proof that that ever happened. ;) Ooops! :eek:

In all seriousness, it is a shame that people feel so threatened by those who don't agree with them. Rather than sitting back and waiting for a "prophesied" downfall of the country due to our divisions.... I wish we could actually come together and find a way to "tolerate" each other. There's plenty of room here in this huge and wonderful country. But, perhaps that WOULD take some type of a Messiah. And, I don't delude myself by believing that either candidate IS such.

Well, if it is not, then there is something fundamentally wrong with our form of representative government and our forefathers' decision to set one up.

Oh, BTW.... that would not be a negative.... that would be an unknown. ;)

True. And it must really suck to make a claim that you cannot prove due to lack of proof. :D

I didn't make a claim. I stated a belief. It's clear you don't understand the difference.

Golfhobo, it would seem you did absolutely no reading of the material I suggested. If you had, you would realize that the "so-called attacks" have a basis in fact.
Would you like me to list them here for you and make it far more convenient?


http://townhall.com/columnists/Thoma...the_real_obama

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gla...list-new-party

http://web.archive.org/web/200103060...rg/up9610.html

http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-no...kes-connection

And, there's far more.


Barack Obama signed a contract with the "New Party" in 1995. Who holds that contract? Bill Ayers. Who is Bill Ayers? Weathermen Underground. Bomb the Pentagon. Set off some 24 bombs. By today's standards, Bill Ayers is a TERRORIST. Which means Barack Obama has SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH A TERRORIST. Please tell me that what you hear the man say in public and on debates, and to the press has anything at all to do with "THEIR AGENDA"? Are you willing to do the reading and answer my question? Or are you able to? You are one of the main ones that has been speaking so greatly in his favor. Now, please address MY comment.

Golfhobo - just one more thing. The financial mess we're in did not start with Bush. He did use very poor judgement in dealing with it, and did too little too late. But he did NOT start this ball rolling. Neither did Obama, for that matter. But, I have a real problem seeing that Obama really has anything close to a real solution in mind. There is little doubt in my mind that you haven't got the slightest idea just what the agenda is.

I almost fell for it, Rev. I almost quoted you from a few posts ago, where you said "my claim is that..." but I didn't. ;)

I may have been born at night.... but, it wasn't LAST night! :D

Yeah. I used your terminology. Sue me.

My original statement was this:

I do not believe that your claim is true. That is a belief, and is clearly something you do not comprehend.

So there.:)

Wind, I have read all your posts on several threads. I HAVE checked many if not all of your links, and even gone further on those BLOG sites including the bios of the author. But, I don't base my opinions on blogs, and rarely give much credence to them.

We won't go into what I think of BLOG SITES right now. Suffice it to say, I don't believe half of what I hear, and even less of what you say... WHEN you base your claims on what you read in blogsites.

I HAVE given some thought to what you have said, and I was close to a response. But, the MORE you flood this site with your vitriol, and innuendo, the less I feel compelled to answer.... and the harder it is to focus on one aspect of your concerns.

I figure, if I wait long enough, you will somehow tie Obama and the Weather Underground to a conspiracy to keep you from saving the World from the energy crisis with your Hydrogen thingie! At which point, I am off the hook! :D

I agree with you that Bush did not start this mess. But, his insistence, even as the sky was falling, that our economy was still strong...and McCain's lockstep agreement, shows me that BOTH of them are totally clueless, and unconcerned about the middle class. And, at least ONE of them was probably LYING through his teeth! :eek:

I don't know about you, but I don't want ANYONE in the White House who can't see or admit when a train is about to crash into the terminal!

I believe that Obama HAS a plan. I believe I've heard him explain it. I don't know if it will work.... but, I know what we HAVE is NOT working! And, I don't want more of the same!

I'm not saying McCain doesn't want to change things. I just don't believe he can. He still has at least ONE foot stuck on his side of the aisle. (and the other in the grave!) I just know that America was richer, stronger and more solvent under Clinton, and I want to see some policies that return us to that era. I believe that, if Clinton were in office POST 9-11, he would be more aggressive, as any president should. But, he would have taken a different tack to bring UBL to justice. It would have cost less money, fewer lives, and been more successful.

I don't know of any Presidential candidate who, at the last moment, had to withdraw from the race because his party OR the other suddenly found out something substantial about his character or associations. There IS a "vetting" process used in every campaign I've ever heard of.... until McCain and his veep pick!

The "blogoshere" that you rely on is full of lies, half-truths, innuendo and ego. The bar for investigative reporting was set by Woodward and Bernstein. Pretty much everything after that is trash. Heck, I could quadruple the number of links you gave for sites that would swear up and down that the Pentagon was hit by an American missile on 9-11! And it appears you might believe it! But, you could never explain to me where the missing passengers from that flight disappeared to! :rolleyes:

You go ahead and keep posting "breaking news" from your blogsites. Believe everything you read there, if that is what you are destined to do. But, don't expect me to get caught up in your hysteria. IF and when I choose to address the issue of Obama's radical past, it may be worth your wait. It might not. But, no amount of taunting or begging will change my timeline.