[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Larry: Didja read my paragraph in it’s entirety? Clearly not. “Yes, we’ve supported worse in our time”.

Read it again.

Plainly ignorant? Not so much.[/quote]

Actually, I did. A fair interpretation of “We’ve supported worse in our time” is to refer to our government “supporting” other despotic governments (Batista, Marcos, the Shah, etc., etc.), not an acknowledgement that our own US government imprisons people for years without charges or due process. Consequently, I stand by what I said, although I suppose in retrospect my tone was a bit harsh, but I am simply sick and tired of people who seem to think that by comparing the US to other crummy governments that the comparison somehow excuses the disgraceful actions of our own lawless government.

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dan: As far as Cuba goes, it’s a repressive dictatorship run by a murderous Stalinist thug who is long past his day. Cuba has imprisoned thousands whose only crime was trying to speak freely against the depredations of the Castro regime. Yes, we’ve supported worse in our time, but it doesn’t change what Fidel and his ilk represent. Cuba Libres and ice cream notwithstanding, he makes for a bad example.[/quote]

Um, news flash there Alan, ever heard of Guantanamo, or the other prisons in Eastern Europe or in Iraq in which the US government has imprisoned thousands without charge for many years, and tortured quite a few of them to the point of insanity, without any charges or due process? Aside from revealing your complete ignorance in light of reality, how is this better than Cuba? This plainly ignorant statement is quite revealing of your inherent bias and assumptions that you and your ilk always have but sweep under the rug, since you obviously can’t look at the truth, but as the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck….. .

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dan: As far as Cuba goes, it’s a repressive dictatorship run by a murderous Stalinist thug who is long past his day. Cuba has imprisoned thousands whose only crime was trying to speak freely against the depredations of the Castro regime. Yes, we’ve supported worse in our time, but it doesn’t change what Fidel and his ilk represent. Cuba Libres and ice cream notwithstanding, he makes for a bad example.[/quote]

Um, news flash there Alan, ever heard of Guantanamo, or the other prisons in Eastern Europe or in Iraq in which the US government has imprisoned thousands without charge for many years, and tortured quite a few of them to the point of insanity, without any charges or due process? Aside from revealing your complete ignorance in light of reality, how is this better than Cuba? This plainly ignorant statement is quite revealing of your inherent bias and assumptions that you and your ilk always have but sweep under the rug, since you obviously can’t look at the truth, but as the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck….. .

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dan: As far as Cuba goes, it’s a repressive dictatorship run by a murderous Stalinist thug who is long past his day. Cuba has imprisoned thousands whose only crime was trying to speak freely against the depredations of the Castro regime. Yes, we’ve supported worse in our time, but it doesn’t change what Fidel and his ilk represent. Cuba Libres and ice cream notwithstanding, he makes for a bad example.[/quote]

Um, news flash there Alan, ever heard of Guantanamo, or the other prisons in Eastern Europe or in Iraq in which the US government has imprisoned thousands without charge for many years, and tortured quite a few of them to the point of insanity, without any charges or due process? Aside from revealing your complete ignorance in light of reality, how is this better than Cuba? This plainly ignorant statement is quite revealing of your inherent bias and assumptions that you and your ilk always have but sweep under the rug, since you obviously can’t look at the truth, but as the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck….. .

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dan: As far as Cuba goes, it’s a repressive dictatorship run by a murderous Stalinist thug who is long past his day. Cuba has imprisoned thousands whose only crime was trying to speak freely against the depredations of the Castro regime. Yes, we’ve supported worse in our time, but it doesn’t change what Fidel and his ilk represent. Cuba Libres and ice cream notwithstanding, he makes for a bad example.[/quote]

Um, news flash there Alan, ever heard of Guantanamo, or the other prisons in Eastern Europe or in Iraq in which the US government has imprisoned thousands without charge for many years, and tortured quite a few of them to the point of insanity, without any charges or due process? Aside from revealing your complete ignorance in light of reality, how is this better than Cuba? This plainly ignorant statement is quite revealing of your inherent bias and assumptions that you and your ilk always have but sweep under the rug, since you obviously can’t look at the truth, but as the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck….. .

[larrylujack]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Dan: As far as Cuba goes, it’s a repressive dictatorship run by a murderous Stalinist thug who is long past his day. Cuba has imprisoned thousands whose only crime was trying to speak freely against the depredations of the Castro regime. Yes, we’ve supported worse in our time, but it doesn’t change what Fidel and his ilk represent. Cuba Libres and ice cream notwithstanding, he makes for a bad example.[/quote]

Um, news flash there Alan, ever heard of Guantanamo, or the other prisons in Eastern Europe or in Iraq in which the US government has imprisoned thousands without charge for many years, and tortured quite a few of them to the point of insanity, without any charges or due process? Aside from revealing your complete ignorance in light of reality, how is this better than Cuba? This plainly ignorant statement is quite revealing of your inherent bias and assumptions that you and your ilk always have but sweep under the rug, since you obviously can’t look at the truth, but as the saying goes, if it quacks like a duck….. .

[larrylujack]

this may save you a few bucks on an LCD
largest fine in antitrust in history.
And the beat goes 0n….

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,62048221,00.htm

capitalismcrooks,
meet the new boss, same as the old boss….

apparently, the Justice department only works when flat panel TVs cost too much…..hah hah ha, at least they have their priorities in order (torture, who cares, Guantanamo, whatever……), but TVs, OMG, must do something!!!!

[larrylujack]

this may save you a few bucks on an LCD
largest fine in antitrust in history.
And the beat goes 0n….

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,62048221,00.htm

capitalismcrooks,
meet the new boss, same as the old boss….

apparently, the Justice department only works when flat panel TVs cost too much…..hah hah ha, at least they have their priorities in order (torture, who cares, Guantanamo, whatever……), but TVs, OMG, must do something!!!!

[larrylujack]

this may save you a few bucks on an LCD
largest fine in antitrust in history.
And the beat goes 0n….

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,62048221,00.htm

capitalismcrooks,
meet the new boss, same as the old boss….

apparently, the Justice department only works when flat panel TVs cost too much…..hah hah ha, at least they have their priorities in order (torture, who cares, Guantanamo, whatever……), but TVs, OMG, must do something!!!!

[larrylujack]

this may save you a few bucks on an LCD
largest fine in antitrust in history.
And the beat goes 0n….

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,62048221,00.htm

capitalismcrooks,
meet the new boss, same as the old boss….

apparently, the Justice department only works when flat panel TVs cost too much…..hah hah ha, at least they have their priorities in order (torture, who cares, Guantanamo, whatever……), but TVs, OMG, must do something!!!!

[larrylujack]

this may save you a few bucks on an LCD
largest fine in antitrust in history.
And the beat goes 0n….

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,62048221,00.htm

capitalismcrooks,
meet the new boss, same as the old boss….

apparently, the Justice department only works when flat panel TVs cost too much…..hah hah ha, at least they have their priorities in order (torture, who cares, Guantanamo, whatever……), but TVs, OMG, must do something!!!!

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[larrylujack]

[quote=partypup][quote=partypup][quote=afx114]538.com is now giving McCain a 1.9% chance to win.

Home

McCain’s chances, in essence, boil down to the polling being significantly wrong, for such reasons as a Bradley Effect or “Shy Tory” Effect, or extreme complacency among Democratic voters. Our model recognizes that the actual margins of error in polling are much larger than the purported ones, and that when polls are wrong, they are often wrong in the same direction.

However, even if these phenomenon are manifest to some extent, it is unlikely that they are worth a full 6-7 points for McCain. Moreover, there are at least as many reasons to think that the polls are understating Obama’s support, because of such factors as the cellphone problem, his superior groundgame operation, and the substantial lead that he has built up among early voters.

[/quote]

Sorry, I meant to say:

“Even if McCain only gets 10% of these bitter folks, that’s 504,000 votes. In a contest that could come down to a few hundred thousand votes in each battleground state, those defections could be critical. Remember: Obama’s electoral lead is premised on leads within the margin of error in almost all battleground states.”

I had that number at 1.8 million in my earlier post, but 1.8 million would be 10% of Hilary’s entire voting population, as opposed to 10% of the 28% who stubbornly refuse to support Obama.

[/quote]
[/quote]
maybe it wil sink in with this thumping and definite defeat that the repubs are truly the party that is out of touch, no? time to rethink the shed I suppose.

[Author]

Posts