The Goat Pen

DooKSucks wrote:IB:

Were those pro-lifers who blew up clinics peaceful? Are the right wing nuts in Montana and Idaho peaceful?

MLK was very liberal. He supported policies like reparations and other redistributionist policies. He wanted more government intervention, not less. He preached personal responsibility, but he believed in an active social welfare state. Look at his fucking writings and speeches, you dense mother fucker.

Also, you don't know a goddamned thing about the South and its politics. Hell, most "Dixiecrats"/Southern Republicans are all for government intervention when it benefits them. They're some of the most hypocritical fuckers on earth. They scream about small government but don't mind the government intervening when they want it.

Hell, the grandson of Harry Dent is a good friend of mine. I went to law school with him. I have forgotten more about politics in this region than you will ever fucking know. So, go take a pistol, load it, put it in your mouth and pull the trigger. Hell, you will probably fuck that up. So, just go stand in front of a train.

I cant believe you idiots are still giving IB the time of day.

DooKSucks wrote:IB:

Were those pro-lifers who blew up clinics peaceful? Are the right wing nuts in Montana and Idaho peaceful?

MLK was very liberal. He supported policies like reparations and other redistributionist policies. He wanted more government intervention, not less. He preached personal responsibility, but he believed in an active social welfare state. Look at his fucking writings and speeches, you dense mother fucker.

Sounds like he was against affirmative action.

And what has anybody in Montana or Idaho done?

BTW so do all females over 18 have now have to register for selective service?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 ... -to-women/

UNIONS SUFFER STEEP DECLINE IN MEMBERSHIP...

More losses in four years under Obama than eight years under Bush...

Jungle Rat wrote: I cant believe you idiots are still giving IB the time of day.

Post of the day.

sardis wrote:Prof and IB need a firm theology lesson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvH0p4iN ... ata_player

IB doesn't need your "theology lesson." He's already a member of your team - a shining example of Protestantism at its most erudite.

JD's odds-on favorite to be the next POTUS just found her 2016 campaign slogan:



The PAH is a lawyer. In a legal case where four people are dead thanks to someone's blatant incompetence/negligence, I wonder how the "What does it matter?" legal defense would fly in her book.

Avelda King the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. wrote an amazing article, "A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK's Legacy".

This is the most articulate piece I could find to substantiate the claim that Martin Luther King was a Republican. She claims her grandfather, Dr. martin Luther King, Sr. or "Daddy King", was a Republican and her father was a Republican.

The quote used by IB to prove that MLK was a Republican. JUST READ IT IB. Note what you said.

Here's a hint: Niece and father

IB's relentless support of Boston College and Creighton has me questioning his Protestantism...

If you ask me, he seems a little chummy with Mormonism too.

That wouldn't be too surprising. Mormonism is just the ten thousandth expression of Protestantism invented in the past century.

Professor Tiger wrote:JD's odds-on favorite to be the next POTUS just found her 2016 campaign slogan:



The PAH is a lawyer. In a legal case where four people are dead thanks to someone's blatant incompetence/negligence, I wonder how the "What does it matter?" legal defense would fly in her book.

Thankfully, the GOP will continue to step on their weenies in trying to make this an issue, not realizing that 1) Hillary has a hole card that will sink all of these bozos, and 2) if the Republicans who've been "read in" on Benghazi are backing off/staying silent, this is a non-starter.

The echo chamber (Rush/Fox/Breitbart) are rattling this thing around, but the typical reactions among John/Jane Q. Public range from: "Why the hell would anyone want to work in Libya?" to "Hillary looks really good in square framed glasses."

Everyone mourns 4 dead Americans, but let's can the high-dudgeon. If there is blame that extends beyond the murderous pigs who did the actual killing, it starts with the obstructionist GOP House of Representatives that - while doing very little - did find the gumption to cut diplomatic security:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchan ... ity-budget

Since retaking control in 2010, House Republicans have aggressively cut spending at the State Department in general and embassy security in particular. Chaffetz and Issa and their colleagues voted to pay for far less security than the State Department requested in 2011 and again this year.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/ ... -security/

For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration’s request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

MEANWHILE

All the media posturing that the GOPis doing is probably having an opposite effect:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she ... on-shines/

For Hillary, the testimony was a triumphant capstone on her term as the chief U.S. diplomat. If Hillary had not dealt with the Benghazi affair before she left office, she could have been viewed as a failure and a weakling. Instead, she came blazing onto Capitol Hill in true Hillary style, concluding the Libya drama on her terms and exiting the Washington stage to regroup for her next adventure – a new book, global speeches or a presidential run.

Hillary’s loyal base — and it is ever growing among millennial women — likes the “Athena” Hillary, the wise warrior who slays Republicans (especially men) with iciness and harshness. They want her to be Madame President in four years. They long for her to be tough, emotionally, intelligent and even funny. In her swan song, she gave them that Hillary to remember.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpol ... in-fl.html

In a hypothetical 2016 match-up, Clinton leads Rubio by 4 points[IN HIS HOME STATE OF FLORIDA!], 50% to 46%, and she beats Bush by 5 points, 49% to 44%. Both of these modest leads are within the poll’s margin of error. The main reason Clinton leads both candidates is her strong appeal among moderates, who favor her 63% to 29% over Bush and 63% to 32% over Rubio.

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-hil ... ent-2013-1

The poll found that 91 percent of Democrats, 65 percent of Independents and a high of 37 percent of Republicans view Clinton favorably. The poll comes on the day Clinton testified before House and Senate committees on the September terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

She is also seen favorably by a majority of all ideological groups, including 49 percent of conservatives. An astounding 79 percent of self-identified moderates also said they viewed her favorably.

The GOP Intelligentsia is looking at Hillary through a 1994 lens and fails to see how much the electorate has changed since they defeated her health care plan 18 years ago. Their best bet is to hope that a 68/69 year old Mrs. Clinton decides that she's tired of the spotlight and doesn't want to run.

If you all were amazed at the way African Americans came out to support BHO, just wait until you see Hillary go through a primary season/coronation unopposed. Every PAH from Kittery, Maine to Chula Vista, California will unite behind her.

Professor Tiger wrote:If you ask me, he seems a little chummy with Mormonism too.

That wouldn't be too surprising. Mormonism is just the ten thousandth expression of Protestantism invented in the past century.

Or maybe he was drawn to the multiple divine authorities or the ostentatious houses of worship.

What if Obama supports Biden?

"This is the most articulate piece I could find to substantiate the claim that Martin Luther King was a Republican."

How articulate does one have to be to substantiate something of this nature? Even if it's not true, it can't be very difficult to formulate an articulate lie. "MLK was a republican." How much more articulate can you get?

sardis wrote:What if Obama supports Biden?

Bill will call in his favor.

It will present an interesting problem . . . the key being to get Biden to make an honest assessment of his chances. At 74, he'd be 5 years OLDER than Reagan when he got elected. I LIKE Biden - his kooky public persona belies a tough, smart dealmaker who can get things done.

Thing is - America's not much into electing people with kooky public personas. Being a crotchety old man with a kooky public persona only makes it worse.

Assuming Hillary decides she doesn't want to run - the Dems could be up the creek if they run Biden vs. a mid-40ish, smart, personable moderate.

Fortunately, there are no smart, personable moderates in the GOP - or at least none after they go through the vetting of the Tea Party and the Gauntlet of the primary system. A pro-choice, pro-equal pay for women, pro-amnesty Republican would be a monster for Dems - but s/he'd never make it past New Hampshire.

sardis wrote:What if Obama supports Biden?

Hard to say since we're 30-36 months out. If the country is in the dumper, Biden would run from Obama (or not run at all).

If the picture is rosey, there's still no guarantee that Barry's endorsement would help Biden all that much. Gore should have wiped the floor with dubya but even with Bill Clinton's support he couldn't get it done.

There are already polls out that show Hillary with a 4 pt. lead over Marco Rubio and a 5 pt. lead over Jeb Bush. I suspect shes got a much wider lead than that over ol' Joe, but I can't find that particular poll number. I'm with JD - I think it's her's to lose.

bluetick wrote:

sardis wrote:What if Obama supports Biden?

Hard to say since we're 30-36 months out. If the country is in the dumper, Biden would run from Obama (or not run at all).

If the picture is rosey, there's still no guarantee that Barry's endorsement would help Biden all that much. Gore should have wiped the floor with dubya but even with Bill Clinton's support he couldn't get it done.

There are already polls out that show Hillary with a 4 pt. lead over Marco Rubio and a 5 pt. lead over Jeb Bush. I suspect shes got a much wider lead than that over ol' Joe, but I can't find that particular poll number. I'm with JD - I think it's her's to lose.

The 2000 race was interesting - Gore won the popular vote (not going to recap the Florida travesty) and as I much as I blamed him for not taking his home state of Tennessee, I cannot ignore the fact that Gore lost a small percentage of voters BECAUSE of Bill. In short, some people voted for Bush, Nader or didn't vote as a way of punishing Bill!

I was working in Hollywood at the time and couldn't believe the number of (liberal white women, mostly) who weren't voting for Gore because of Monica Lewinsky!

[Gore lost Florida by 543 votes . . . Nader got 100,000 votes in Florida . . . we might not ever have had 9-11 or two wars . . . ]

In any event, those are the self-same women who will support Hillary by the millions.

Obama has more clout than the Clintons, and knowing him, he just may want to prove that in 2016.

i don't think Gore's loss had anything to do with people wanting to punish Clinton. I think Gore lost because he was an arrogant douuche.

"What if Obama supports Biden?"

It doesn't take much effort to transmogrify "Obama-Biden" into "Osama bin Laden"...

" At 74, he'd be 5 years OLDER than Reagan when he got elected."

Hils will be pushing 70 herself by 2016...