pacino wrote:I disagree. It greatly modernized thought within the church. The church no longer stated it was the one true faith

The stuff in the catechism that says all non Catholics aren't necessarily going to hell, or the ecumenical stuff of the past 50 years is by no means the church backing down in it's consideration that it's the one true faith.

I mean, the creed hasn't been changed since 1274 (and it's origins go back farther than the compilation of the bible): "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." - that doesn't sound like backing down to me, and it sure isn't recent.

pacino wrote: and also recognized freedom of religion. Those are very vital changes IMO, and completely due to modern pressures.

I'll give you this one, but what significant change has occurred in the past 500 years?

dajafi wrote:

meatball wrote:Obama's speech was for a set time, Hillary chose to pre-empt it, according to CNN. It would be one thing if it was a true concession speech, but if we're talking political politeness here, she hasn't once congratulated him in any of the last 9 contests, which is supposed to be a kind of tradition. Instead, she doesn't acknowledge it at all, and calls his wins "insignificant".

Yeah, I was trying to figure out why Wisconsin doesn't count--it's not a caucus, there aren't many African-Americans... I'm sure Mark Penn will come up with something. That's why he gets the big bucks. (No other reason suggests itself.)

I think the Obama people were pissed after 48 hours of relentless attacks and distortions from the Clintons--capped by her failure to congratulate him. The pre-empting wasn't very nice, but I get why they did it.

Meanwhile, MSNBC is again perilously close to dancing on Clinton's political grave. Not good...

Yeah, I really wish them and CNN would ease up off Obama's jock for a while. I am fearing Obama backlash in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

VoxOrion wrote:

pacino wrote:I disagree. It greatly modernized thought within the church. The church no longer stated it was the one true faith

The stuff in the catechism that says all non Catholics aren't necessarily going to hell, or the ecumenical stuff of the past 50 years is by no means the church backing down in it's consideration that it's the one true faith.

I mean, the creed hasn't been changed since 1274 (and it's origins go back farther than the compilation of the bible): "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." - that doesn't sound like backing down to me, and it sure isn't recent.

pacino wrote: and also recognized freedom of religion. Those are very vital changes IMO, and completely due to modern pressures.

I'll give you this one, but what significant change has occurred in the past 500 years?

Start your own god damned religious thread.

Does Hillary use the N word at home more than Obama uses the C word when they talk about each other? I'd have to say it is probably pretty darn close.

Disco Stu wrote:Does Hillary use the N word at home more than Obama uses the C word when they talk about each other? I'd have to say it is probably pretty darn close.

There's no way Hillary says the N word. There's almost no way Obama says the C word.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:Does Hillary use the N word at home more than Obama uses the C word when they talk about each other? I'd have to say it is probably pretty darn close.

There's no way Hillary says the N word. There's almost no way Obama says the C word.

So, you are saying Obama says it the most. And that McCain leads them both in these categories.

Be better if Obama referred to Hillary as the N-word at home and Hillary referred to Obama as the C-word.

Disco Stu wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:Does Hillary use the N word at home more than Obama uses the C word when they talk about each other? I'd have to say it is probably pretty darn close.

There's no way Hillary says the N word. There's almost no way Obama says the C word.

So, you are saying Obama says it the most. And that McCain leads them both in these categories.

I'd guess the most probable outcome would be McCain saying the C word.

McCain calls them both gooks

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I have not felt better about our chances in November since about November 2002 when I was convinced Gore was going to lose to Bush in 2004 and Clinton was going to lose to generic Republican X in 2008.

I don't follow? Obama has a pretty darn good speech here.

Maybe because it seems Obama's the typical Dem nominee... an ideal candidate in the eyes of Democrats, but likely unelectable in the general election because he's too far to the left.

As I posted about a month ago... my intuition tells me McCain will be the next prez.

Phan In Phlorida wrote:Maybe because it seems Obama's the typical Dem nominee... an ideal candidate in the eyes of Democrats, but likely unelectable in the general election because he's too far to the left.

With respect... has this ever happened since 1972?

'76: Carter, not ideal to liberals (too mainstream, too southern) but won
'80: liberals wanted the lefty-er Ted Kennedy, but he barely fell short (and cemented the conventional wisdom that not only is it impossible to primary a sitting president successfully, it kills the party when you try)
'84: "upscale" liberals wanted Hart, and African-Americans wanted Jackson; they settled, in every sense of the word, for Mondale, and got nuked
'88: nobody thought Dukakis was "ideal," but the other guys imploded in various ways (aside from Jackson, who was unelectable) and they settled again
'92: Clinton ran against Democratic orthodoxy, which pissed liberals off at the time (now we love it, for some reason), and won a weird election
'00: Dems tried the next-in-line thing with Gore, but few were excited about him and a couple million idiots (*raises hand, waves, blasts off own foot*) voted for Nader
'04: Nobody thought Kerry was "ideal"; the great left hero was Dean, but he didn't know how to run a campaign.

Obama is the first time at least since '72 when your theory might make any sense at all. And the case certainly hasn't yet been made that he's "too far to the left." His opponent is a newfound believer in the Tax Fairy who fundamentally agrees with the premises of the Bush era, or at least claims to do so; if Obama is the political strategist he seems to be, based on the primary campaign, this should work out okay.

They didnt "settle" for Mondale. Hart wouldve won if he didnt have the sex scandal on the boat.

dajafi wrote: His opponent is a newfound believer in the Tax Fairy who fundamentally agrees with the premises of the Bush era, or at least claims to do so; if Obama is the political strategist he seems to be, based on the primary campaign, this should work out okay.

I'm amazed at how the left has painted John McCain as against tax cuts based on one vote. McCain has an average rating of 82.7 percent in the Americans for Tax Reform scorecard since 1994. He hasn't voted for tax cuts every time, notably 2003, but he's voted for tax cuts most times. His position opposing the permanent repeal of the estate tax remains the same. He's opposed.

Does the country want someone who considers each bill individually or someone who doesn't look at bills and votes based on the party line every time? [ahem] Obama [ahem]

Don't answer that. The truth is irrelevant. The left is selling the lie that John McCain is "a newfound believer in the Tax Fairy who fundamentally agrees with the premises of the Bush era" neither of which are true. But then who cares about the truth if it lying gets Obama elected?

The Red Tornado wrote:They didnt "settle" for Mondale. Hart wouldve won if he didnt have the sex scandal on the boat.

Different year. They settled on Fritz in '84; Hart was caught on the "Monkey Business" in '87, which torched him for the following year (when he otherwise might have won in a walk).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx

Loyalties aside, this is hysterical. The Clintons are pushing this, but I think they're missing the point. Obama's done more substantial work in the Senate than Hillary has (ethics reform, non-proliferation legislation with Dick Lugar). This surrogate is just a total moron.

dajafi wrote:

The Red Tornado wrote:They didnt "settle" for Mondale. Hart wouldve won if he didnt have the sex scandal on the boat.

Different year. They settled on Fritz in '84; Hart was caught on the "Monkey Business" in '87, which torched him for the following year (when he otherwise might have won in a walk).

ahhh yes, it all blends together

dajafi wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx

Loyalties aside, this is hysterical. The Clintons are pushing this, but I think they're missing the point. Obama's done more substantial work in the Senate than Hillary has (ethics reform, non-proliferation legislation with Dick Lugar). This surrogate is just a total moron.

I couldn't link to the video but I read the article on CNN. What a freakin' idiot that woman is. You would think that people would know how to prepare to be interviewed. Did she think she was going to be interviewed for cooking tips? I guess she was just caught off guard but on that kinda stage you shouldn't be caught off guard.

I actually thought she compounded the problem with the second answer:

"Well no I don't think it is. Because I think one of the things that Sen. Obama does is he inspires. He's able to lay out a vision, he's able to lay out solutions."

He lays out solutions yet she can't name any of them. It was almost as if Clinton wrote her answers out for her. Dope!

It was a guy, dave Judging by his looks, he might have been able to give some good barbecue tips, though...

But you're right--a terrible job by the "surrogate," and a lousy prep job by the campaign. Thing about the Obama campaign, though, is that they generally don't repeat their mistakes: I'd bet the farm that nobody who goes on TV for Obama through the duration of this political year will do so without being briefed. Compare that to the Clintons who leak, spin and smear day after day--mostly serving to undermine their own cause.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMZYz5GvBBA[/youtube]

Huckabee goes off.

Note that he doesn't attack McCain at all here--which is smart. If anything, I read this as a slam at Bush, the ultimate "coronation" candidate eight years ago despite McCain's best efforts at the time. And I love the slam at Fleischer, that little scumbag.

His remark about 20-hour days also reminds me of something I was thinking about again last night: how frickin' hard it must be to run for president. It amazes me that any of them can do it; that McCain, at his age and with his past injuries, maintains such a pace is pretty spectacular.

I like him more every time he speaks. Dems seem to want Clinton to drop out to clear the way for Obama. I'm glad Mike Huckabee is staying in. John McCain should work for the votes he gets now and in the general election.