I Own My Vote Virtual Democratic Platform Survey Results
By Ani on August 8, 2008 at 10:45 PM in Barack Obama, DNC, Democratic Platform, Hillary Clinton, IOwnMyVote.com
SAT A.M. UPDATE: THE PLATFORM COMMITTEE IS ON C-SPAN LIVE NOW.
With thanks to all who participated, we are posting the results of those who voted in this I Own My Vote survey.
I Own My Vote created a unique virtual platform meeting. I Own My Vote’s original goal was that over 1,000 people would participate in order to demonstrate a real commitment to the positions we articulate.
To the organizers’ delight, the total number of responses was 2,938.
Tomorrow, approximately 180 members of the national Platform committee will meet in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (If you’d like to join tomorrow’s events, click on this link for directions and e-mail luswife@yahoo . com (Proud Military Mom’s e-mail address). We will receive first-person reports during the day from Proud Military Mom and others on site.
All but three platform issues were agreed on by about 95% or better of those voting. The notable exception, predictably, was the major split was regarding the platform ‘Unjust and Foolish Wars,’ which also posited reinstatement of the draft (as proposed by New York Rep. Charlie Rangel) where there was a 60% agree - 40% disagree split. LGBT issues resulted in a 90%-10% split. The Defense of Labor issue resulted in a 93.5%-6.4% split.
The full text of each platform issue and exact voting results/percentages are listed below:
1. Equal Rights Amendment
The Democratic Party apologizes to all women for removing the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment from John Kerry’s 2004 Democratic National Convention Platform. The Equal Rights Amendment must be passed during the next congressional session.
AGREE 2837; 96.5% / DISAGREE 101; 3.4%
2. Universal Healthcare
The Democratic Party will use all available means to create a system of universal healthcare under which 100% of the population will be covered by comprehensive health insurance. The Democratic Party and its leaders will oppose any efforts to redefine the term “universal healthcare” to mean any policy that insures less than 100% of the population. We believe that Senator Hillary Clinton’s health care plan is the most effective way to create a system of universal healthcare for all Americans. The United States must mandate that all citizens have health insurance.
AGREE 2831; 96.3% / DISAGREE 107; 3.6%
3. One Person One Vote
In our democratic system, every adult person is entitled to one vote. The 2008 primaries illustrated that a caucus vote is worth more than a primary vote because each delegate elected by caucus represents less voters than each delegate elected by primary. Caucuses allow party officials to exert undue influence and coercion over voters. Caucuses are immune from federal oversight, while primaries are subject to federal election law. Therefore, the Democratic Party will forbid caucuses in all future nominating processes and will require all states to conduct primaries to select their delegates to future national conventions.
AGREE 2882; 98.0% / DISAGREE 56; 1.9%
4. Fair Reflection
The Democratic Party and Senator Obama apologize to the voters of Michigan for supporting a delegate selection plan that allotted pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention through a method that substituted the judgment of members of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee for the judgment of Michigan’s voters.
AGREE 2806; 95.5% / DISAGREE 132; 4.4%
5. No Geographic Preference
No state is more important than any other state. No voter is more important than any other voter. The Democratic Party has engaged in a practice that has given preference to some states over others. In the future the Democratic National Committee will not give preference to any state in scheduling the primary elections. So long as all states hold their primaries within a prescribed window of time, the Democratic Party will not penalize any state for scheduling its primary before or after any other, even if as a result all states schedule their primaries for the same day.
AGREE 2850; 97.0% / DISAGREE 88; 2.9%
6. Discrimination
The Democratic Party will not tolerate discrimination based on race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or nation of origin. The Democratic Party leadership, including the DNC executive committee, presidential and vice-presidential nominees, House and Senate leadership, and members of all committees within the Democratic National Committee, will from this point forward publicly defend candidates and officeholders who are attacked on any of these bases in the media.
AGREE 2876; 97.8% / DISAGREE 62; 2.1%
7. Prevention of Unjust and Foolish Wars
The Democratic Party opposes all unjust and foolish wars. The key to preventing unjust and foolish wars is an informed electorate with a vested interest in the nation’s military policies who will hold Congress accountable. Relying on a volunteer military constituted of paid soldiers and contractors insulates the vast majority of Americans from the dangers and consequences of our nation’s military actions. The Democratic Party opposes any disproportionate impact such military composition has on individuals, families, and communities based on race, economic status, economic opportunity, or educational level.
Barack Obama has inspired young people everywhere to support him. The Democratic Party believes that these young people are the key to stopping unjust and foolish wars. Therefore, the Democratic Party supports the reinstatement of the draft as proposed by Congressman Charlie Rangel of New York.
AGREE 1776; 60.4% / DISAGREE 1162; 39.5%
8. A Fair, Open, and Legitimate Convention
It is in the best interests of Party unity that there be no question about the legitimacy of the electoral process. The election of the Democratic nominees for the offices of president and vice president shall take place at the Democratic National Convention. Party leaders shall not do anything to discourage or suppress the delegate vote at the Democratic National Convention. In the event that any candidate receives more than 25% of the popular vote for president, his or her name shall be automatically entered into nomination for the office of president of the united states and the secretary of the convention shall take a roll call vote of all the delegates. In this eventuality, the party shall not nominate any candidate for president by acclimation.
AGREE 2885; 98.1% / DISAGREE 53; 1.8%
9. LGBT Rights
All members of the Democratic Party, led by the nominee for President, will work together to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and to provide equal federal benefits to all married couples, with marriage defined by the state or country where the marriage was solemnized. The Democratic Party will also use all means to ensure that the same benefits that exist for married couples exist for all civil unions. Further, the Democratic Party and its elected officials will not fund or promote any educational material or organization that spreads a message of hate or discrimination against LGBT people.
AGREE 2657; 90.4% / DISAGREE 281; 9.5%
10. Defense of Labor
The Justice Department has oversight of some labor unions such as the Teamsters because of a history of union leadership misusing union dues and pension funds. The Democratic Party supports the working class and unionized labor. Therefore, the Democratic Party supports continued Justice Department oversight of those labor unions to which such oversight currently applies.
AGREE 2748; 93.5% / DISAGREE 190; 6.4%
Many thanks again for adding your voice to this important survey.
Bummer. There are still Dems out there that do not realize that LGBT folks are at the bottom rung of the ladder and could use a ’straight’ hand up. I am thankful that the number disagreeing is so low, though. Just wish it weren’t even there…
Thanks for all the hard work compiling all of this info.
I totally agree. But on the upside, as you noticed, less than 10% were against GLBT equality. That’s real progress. Look how long it’s taken the ERA to get where it is?! As long as we don’t give up and MAKE the democratic party fight for equality for all, we’ll eventually get there.
The same for women! I can’t understand it
What can I say…..we rock!!
Wow! Interesting indeed!
I am glad to see we are split no the draft issue. Otherwise I’d be a bit worried I was in the wrong place. Whew!
Ok so what or where do we go from here? On to Pittsburgh (then Denver)? MOM is going!! GOOD LUCK MILITARY MOM and the OTHER!
It’s a worthy platform! WE do ROCK!
ON the draft issue
I said no
typos first damn thing
(yawn) sigh ho hum
As far as discrimination goes people seem to forget about other protected classes such as the disabled.
I did not hear but a few words about the disabled in this campaign and they came from Hillary.
Obama said nothing.
Actually, Obama talks about people with disabilities frequently. And here is his policy paper on it, with lots of specific policy proposals: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/DisabilityPlanFactSheet.pdf
Oh brother, can’t Obama actually speak about the issues rather than have people go to his website? You do know that the people he needs to vote for him don’t go to websites? You know all those bitter, gun toting, churchgoing white folks too busy working (look it up) to hang on the web all day? Obviously not.
He does talk about it. I posted this for folks here who self-evidently do go on-line.
Oh, we do go online, but I stay away from cesspools.
oh gee the weasel gets everywhere…
that book will be a long time coming if you spend all your time here
Debbie Does Dumbass - you’re a lying sack of shit.
Oblowme lets the handicapped freeze in the projects he sponsored his homey convicted felon Rezko rip-off the taxpayers to the tune of millions over.
There you go — dumb idiot bots –
Some TRUTH — Obama is a lying sack of sh*t.
Obama did not give a DAMN about the poor folk in his very own district.
Debbie is one busy troll who has totally spammed and hijacked another thread. Don’t feed her!
He did not write any position papers. Hell he did not write any when on the Harvard Law Review….NEXT.
Give it up debbie. BO has less than zero credibility.
So he can talk, what has he ever done for people with disabilities?
Actions, as they say, speak louder than words. Even Obama’s words.
Maybe inflating your tires will prevent disability?
So, let me get this: You couldn’t get 3000 people to vote on your platform?
Interesting.
Meanwhile –
http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_10132731
Will there be any phallic symbols this time? The Kenyan citizen can make speeches but he wont win.
How the fuck do these two things even compare?
“Debbie” is a contrarian piece of shit, just another passive aggressive Obamabot using the same tired old mind fucks….insults through pretty pretensions of concern, outright misinformation and lies, rebutting arguments with irrelevant topics. The never ending arrogance.
I just read through the previous post and CAN NOT BELIEVE SUCH A MORON gets paid to publish seven-chapter books. What fucking kind of books are those DEBBIE? Your editor allows you to jam shitload of pages into seven long chapters? Unlikely. Also unlikely is a dipshit such as you ever ever EVER covering anything as a reporter, not even for the neighborhood glad wrag weekly.
Thank you for that — that was a great spit take on the computer screen!
Indeed, how do they compare?
One requires people to sit at a computer screen and thus takes very little effort, yet fewer than 3000 participated. The other required a series of phone calls and the people will have to travel to participate and thus required more effort.
The one where little effort was involved had 5% (3000/60,000) of the involvement compared to the one with more effort. I think that is a real marker as to the respective strength of the groups.
What a ludicrous comparison. I hope you leave this factoid out of your upcoming piece of shit fiction because it fails to take into account the clickthrough rate…which many companies are dying to improve on.
60,000 people wanted to see a concert/speech. So fucking what? 250 million people know about Obama, and a good portion are paying attention to the upcoming convention. But how many people received the invite to take the I Own My Vote survey? What is the number of impressions for that site? 3,000 out of how many viewers was it directly marketed to? Let’s work with that percentage instead of something pulled from the air.
Why didn’t you invite more people to participate? It would seem like you have a very small mailing list.
Debbie I don’t think you understand that when a person works full time and is busy raising a family, they don’t have time to stay on the pc the way paid Obama bloggers do. Most of my friends work and don’t have the option to stay glued to the pc. By the way, they are the ones paying taxes that Congress seems all to willing to give away as if there was no end, your messiah in particular.
Mr. Debbie and the other young white thugs with nothing to do this summer have no idea what it’s like to work and raise a family.
I’m sure his mom did her best not to raise a brat, but it happens.
Gee, Debbie, why don’t you go ask MoveOn.org why they couldn’t even get 10% of their purported membership to vote on the endorsement of Barack Obama? MoveOn constantly includes the “fact” that it has “over 3.2 million members”, yet a little over 280,000 people took time to endorse either Barry or Hillary. From calculations made by this “typical white person” (who voted for the African-American Vivien Figures for the Senate but wouldn’t vote for the hybrid Barack Obama if a gun were held to my head), that comes to roughly 8.75% of the total “membership”.
debbie is an anchovy…remember debbie does dallas
it is now in reruns…in GAZA
Maybe debbie is Kos in sheeple clothing??
The HuffPo said the platform meetings held by the Obama people only got between 2-15 people each. That is kinda low, don’t you think? Also, this would be a more apt comparison.
How do you know who is filling mile high stadium? It could very well be people like us. I would love to be there booing.
Well, we can all see how many people are booing. I, for one, will be very interested to compare the PUMA protesters at Denver with the 15,000 expected to be at the Ron Paul counter-convention in Minneapolis. The Ron Paul folks rented the basketball stadium and the former Governor will be there.
You sure know a lot about the repugs…I wonder why…hmmmmmmmm. Lower case debbie is a republican mole.
Or a male Obama troll hiding behind a women’s name.
That’s my guess.
a big hairy guy living in Gaza.
NObama in NOvember
Will there be free beer and bratwurst? A rock concert? Oh, I forgot Obummer IS the rock star.
BTW, which of those platform items does McCain agree with?
You tell us, we’re democrats.
I thought you were McCain voters.
Gawd you’re a twit. We’re not voting for Mccain, we’re voting against Barky. I thought you were supposed to be a “political writer”. Politics 101. Or is that a little too nuanced for you?
Very interesting. Most voters vote for a candidate.
He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.
Dingbat. Most people vote when they’re pissed about something. Otherwise the average joe won’t get off the couch. You are a newbie. But I’m glad No Quarter can be of assistance in your education.
Bots be alarmed.
Scripts and teleprompters are for kids.
Get thee to a rigorous critical analysis university course, and then up and beyond the multiple levels of a competitive career ladder.
No “special needs” skippers either.
Perhaps then, seasoned and logical rationale will obviate the need for zealotry for your “cause.”
thetowncrier
Funny! My career is quite well established and my degrees are numerous.
Tell it to the hand. I can lie about myself as well on the internet. In my experience, most people assume an identity on the net they wish they were.
"debbie"It's obvious after reading your comments the career is limited, and if you do indeed have degrees, they are, no doubt, from non-accredited institutions.
You are on the $. She just doesn’t get it.
There are lots of good books on voting behavior I could recommend to you. Some are university press books; others are from the trade press. None of them agree with your “theory” of voting behavior.
Well you’d better tell it to my profs, ’cause that’s what I learned as a poly sci major. Most people never get off their asses to vote unless they’re angry. Only die hard fanatics like those of us who blog about politics vote no matter what.
Why don’t you recommend your Top 10 reading list somewhere else–like at the Obamatron Convention? I’m sure everyone will be fascinated with the selections. You might even sign a few while you’re at it–for all the Miss Deb devotees in the world.
Sorry, but no one here is buying.
Frankly, I think it’s time to ignore Miss Debbie, whose only purpose in life is to disrupt any and all discussion.
We don’t want her to get a big head like the “O”, do we?
Bye-bye. See you in November.
No, many of us Democrats have been holding our noses and voting for Democratic candidates for a long, long time. This year the Democratic candidate is so repugnant along with his followers, we will hold our noses and vote for the Republican.
Most voters vote for a candidate
Three Hail Mary’s!
CORRECTION; Most voters THINK they vote for a candidate.
Are you stark raving mad? A political writer??? WTF??
where did you get your post grad? from the bottom of HARP’s toilet?
Well, when the Democrats offer a candidate that I want to vote FOR, then I’ll vote FOR that candidate. Until then, not only will I vote AGAINST Barry Oboreme, I’ll vote FOR Cynthia McKinney. (Voting FOR an African-American AND a woman in one fell swoop. Of course, with the Greens you get it all. BOTH their Presidential AND Vice-Presidential candidates are African-American women, and the VP candidate also has Latino credentials to boot.)
Hillary as the Democratic PRESIDENTIAL nominee is the ONLY way the Dems get my vote at the top of the ballot. Barring that, I’m going Green.
I voted for DEMS longer than you have been alive, but I live in Michiganistan, where Party Bosses will change your vote. It seems Dean, Brazile and the DNC wanted Obama to win so badly that they decided to “Award” 45% of the Delegates to Obama. I think the Party needs a Name Change, they have no understanding of what DEMOCRACY MEANS. Every DEM I know in Michiganistan will be voting for McCain, I can trust him to do the right thing.
This should go to the Supreme Court. Our whole process of vetting, nominating and going by the book re: Rules Committee, (along with the media bias), is more than enough. Elections will not do anything.
The Supreme Court doesn’t get involved in intra-party matters. There’s a lot of case law on it, but, in brief, the first amendment right of free association means that private organizations can make their own rules.
Do you mean like these ones?
Rule 11.A. of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention states the following:
11. TIMING OF THE DELEGATE SELECTION PROCESS
A. No meetings, caucuses, conventions or primaries which constitute the first determining stage in the presidential nomination process (the date of the primary in primary states, and the date of the first tier caucus in caucus states) may be held prior to the first Tuesday in February or after the second Tuesday in June in the calendar year of the national convention. Provided, however, that the Iowa precinct caucuses may be held no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the Nevada first-tier caucuses may be held no earlier than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February; that the New Hampshire primary may be held no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February; and that the South Carolina primary may be held no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. In no instance may a state which scheduled delegate selection procedures on or between the first Tuesday in February and the second Tuesday in June 1984 move out of compliance with the provisions of this rule.
We already know that Florida and Michigan violated Rule 11.A. by moving their primaries to a date before the first Tuesday in February. There is no argument there, but what about Iowa, New Hampshire, and yes, South Carolina too.
Rule 11.A specifically set the date for the primaries & caucuses for those three states as “no earlier than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February” (Iowa), “no earlier than 14 days before the first Tuesday in February” (New Hampshire), and “no earlier than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February” (South Carolina).
Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That’s more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That’s more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That’s more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February.
Under Rule 11.A., five states were in violation of the Democratic National Committee’s Delegate Selection Rules, and as such, all five states should have been punished under Rule 20.C.1.a.
Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent. In addition, none of the members of the Democratic National Committee and no other unpledged delegate allocated pursuant to Rule 8.A. from that state shall be permitted to vote as members of the state’s delegation. In determining the actual number of delegates or alternates by which the state’s delegation is to be reduced, any fraction below .5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any fraction of .5 or greater shall be rounded up to the next nearest whole number.
Yes, you read that right; under Rule 20.C.1.a., Florida, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and South Carolina would have all lost their super delegates and had their pledged delegates reduced by half since they all violated Rule 11.A.
However, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina weren’t punished fairly. In fact, they weren’t punished at all.
And what about Florida & Michigan?
Well, we all know what happened to them.
Instead of strictly adhering to Rule 20.C.1.a. and reducing their pledged delegates by 50%, the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee decided to take it a step further. The DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee exercised the authority granted to them by Rules 20.C.5. and 20.C.6. which allowed them to “impose sanctions the Committee deems appropriate.” And what were those sanctions the Committee deemed appropriate? Stripping two of the largest states in the union of all their votes at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Ladies & Gentlemen, this is what happens when the rules aren’t applied equally and fairly. And as I said before, this mess is a result of the DNC Rules & Bylaws Committee not applying the rules equally and fairly.
So, the next time someone starts talking about the rules, might I suggest two courses of action:
1.) Read the damn rules first!
-and-
2.) Let them know that the rules were bent to allow for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina to keep their preferred first-in-the-nation status.
Yep - rules like that.
If you can cite a single Supreme Court case where they got involved in party rules in the last 50 years, I’d be very interested in hearing about it. They don’t consider it in their purview because of the freedom of association issue.
As usual, you completely miss the point…Phttt.
Candy said
I then pointed out that party rules are not litigated by the Supreme Court.
How as that missing the point?
You have been fun to play with but now you becoming tiresome:
U.S. Supreme Court
Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)
Democratic Party v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette
No. 79-1631
Argued December 8, 1980
Decided February 25, 1981
450 U.S. 107
Syllabus
Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party’s National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those delegates are bound to vote at the Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Thus, while Wisconsin’s open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate the National Party’s rules, the State’s mandate that primary results shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State’s delegates at the National Convention does. When the National Party indicated that Wisconsin delegates would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention because the Wisconsin delegate selection system violated the National Party’s rules, an original action was brought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, seeking a declaration that such system was constitutional as applied to appellants (the National Party and Democratic National Committee) and that they could not lawfully refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation. Concluding, inter alia, that the State had not impermissibly impaired the National Party’s freedom of political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the State’s delegate selection system was constitutional and binding upon appellants, and that they could not refuse to seat delegates chosen in accord with Wisconsin law.
Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party’s rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 450 U. S. 120-126.
(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and
Page 450 U. S. 108
this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 450 U. S. 120-122.
(b) Wisconsin’s asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State’s substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party. Pp. 450 U. S. 124-126.
93 Wis.2d 473, 287 N.W.2d 519, reversed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 450 U. S. 126.
Page 450 U. S. 109
Did you even read this? It completely supports what I said - the party can set its own rules under their right of freedom of association.
You said… “party rules are not litigated by the Supreme Court”… This was obviously litigated.
OK - You got me there.
I didn’t mean that they don’t take cases but rather that they basically don’t allow states to set rules about intraparty matters. They have to take the case to overrule state laws regulating parties.
Tsk,Tsk… Now you are using WORM rules.
debbie… i tell you to blow me, but i’m afraid even the idea of it would make me throw up. so… never mind.
why are you even here you windbag? we don’t give a rat’s ass what you have to say. don’t you get it? we HATE obama here. he’s a cheater, liar, thug, fake, phonybaloney, racist, misogynist pig, narcissistic fascist, lying control freak, UNQUALIFIED to be president on SO many levels and a bona fide JERK… and frankly, anyone who supports him has proven to me their IQ is somewhere in the low teens. i have ZERO respect for obamabots. zero. you all remind me of nazis. so…
debbie… don’t blow me, PLEASE!! just go away and spout your CRAP where people give a sh*t. freak.
P.U.M.A.
Hillary ‘08
the truth is a short cut to where you’ll end up anyway.
I find you interesting to observe. You sure like to call people names and use sexualized statements in insulting and demeaning ways. And respect is a BIG issue for folks here. It’s really quite intriguing to see.
Using terms like “interesting” and “intriguing to observe” is amazingly arrogant. I find you revolting, because you are so un-selfaware. You just go through life thinking you’re better than what you are “observing” rather than actually being a part of it. Buffoonish actually and part of the problem.
Are you writing about Kuccinich by any chance, for your seven-chapter politcal masterpiece?
To the contrary, I’m quite certain that others would have their own observations of me. I would never think that my own point of view is the one and final truth, but of course that doesn’t interfere with my own ability to reach conclusions based on observations.
I love it when trolls know they’ve been handed their asses, they get all introspective and deep. Trying to prove how superior they are. Nothing says ‘I’m insecure about my intellect’ like using a shitload of fifty cent words.
So you see my vocabulary as one of 50 cent words. Huh. That’s how I normally write and talk.
Oh riiiight. You order lattes at Starbucks like that? Damn, you’re an ass. And a really bad liar.
I don’t like lattes. I got done with those in the 1980s. They’re overrated.
GOT DONE? You’re a college grad who uses the term GOT DONE? Yikes.
Hey, I like the phrase. It’s very common where I live. It’s a colloquialism.
Would that be Kew Gardens?
Naw Mate, I’d say Flatbush.
AngryWhitePerson -
Perfect score!
Actually, it’s a Martian diet cookbook.
Not only did you nail her with humor, you used the word
for extra credit points!
Ya know Debster,
I like you. You are the reason millions will be voting for McCain or whomever.
You’re also the reason some folk will be writing in Hillary where their states allow it.
Obama can write all the policies he wants on his website. Funny when it comes to actual voting he tends to change his mind.
Cheney’s energy bill and FISA? NAFTA and the wink and nod to the Canadian government? Anyone? Bueller?
Where are his Illinois state Senate papers? Why hasn’t he released his medical records? What happened to his college thesis?
Funny how all pf his papers are ‘lost’.
Yet he’s quick to accuse others of not releasing information.
Where’s his press conference with an original birth certificate? McCain did that when his citizenship was questioned.
Love ya! Keep digging.
I’m the reason? Wow, I didn’t know I had so much power. I mean, you folks can’t get 4000 people to an on-line survey but I can affect millions.
Hey, it doesn’t sound likely to me, but I guess you think so.
We should be careful and discriminating in all the advice we give. We should be especially careful in giving advice that we would not think of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to avoid giving counsel which we don’t follow when it damages those who take us at our word.
I didn’t mean that you personally have that much power. I was referring to Obama and his supporters like you and you know it.
I’m just stating my personal opinion. I don’t have any power either.
Where have I heard this type of argument before? Oh yeah, Bush supporters.
(Just in case!)
PETITION:
Mr. Obama has refused to produce a physical certified, stamped copy of his birth certificate. An electronically-displayed image displayed by his official campaign website has been alleged to be a forgery. We request that the FEC require Mr. Obama to authorize the FEC to obtainan official copy of his birth certificate and if he does not produce the authorization that the FEC reject his registration as a presidential candidate.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Federal-Elections-Commssion/index.html
Why don’t you file a lawsuit in federal court? That would get press attention but an on-line petition — well, no.
In fact, let me recommend a lawyer to you. Heidi Li Feldman is a professor of law at Georgetown and a leader of the Denver Group. Here’s her web page at Georgetown Law School http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/facinfo/tab_faculty.cfm?Status=Faculty&ID=252
She is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton.