COUNT ALL VOTES, what is so hard about that?May 31st, 2008 - 19:43:14

I’m watching the DNC Rules Committee’s hilarious farce of a hearing right now. The Democrats are tearing themselves apart before our very eyes. Right now, the members are listening to a proposal from the Michigan Democrats to… Well, it seems like they want to allocate the Michigan Delegates 69-59 Clinton, a number which they appear to have arrived at through the scientific method of pulling it out of one’s ass. Literally, I’m sitting here watching representatives of one of the supposedly great parties in the land trying to decide who wins by guessing who people might have voted for.

I’m not making this up. At this moment, the people who want to decide the Democratic Nomination are trying to surmise who write-in voters might have voted for, and trying to project results based on exit polls.

Speaking of “counting every vote”, a few other interesting tidbits.

As of now, if you count every single person who went and voted in a Democratic Primary or Caucus, more Democrats have voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. After all, is said and done, when you count every vote, Hillary Clinton is going to lead the popular vote among all Democrats by, oh, half a million votes or so.

Oh, I know, I know – that’s the rules and all of that. And I don’t have anything against that. But one wonders what happened to all of the Democrats in 2000 who were outraged, outraged at the idea of the person who got the most votes not winning the election. The rules weren’t the rules when they were making up new ways of count the Florida ballots eight years ago.

This is also interesting. Barack Obama, it seems, won his first election by having all of his opponents’ names thrown off of the ballot – with his primary challenger being removed for having some of the names on her nomination petitions printed rather than in cursive writing. And we all know that he won his Senate election by default. He’s winning this nomination here as a result of the same back room tactics.

Report this comment

NoharnessMay 31st, 2008 - 19:55:19

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnNmwqM2zmw

Further, deponents sayeth not.

Report this comment

CharlesMay 31st, 2008 - 20:30:42

Someone pass the popcorn...

Report this comment

Hillary Changing the rulesMay 31st, 2008 - 20:43:19

Two very big problems with Hillary's arguments.

1) The democratic nomination process is NOT based on the popular vote. It has been based on state delegates for decades. If you want to change this rule

It is like saying after you lost a football game by 21-17 and you decide arbitrarily to say that a touchdown no longer counts for 6 points but rather 4 points. How actually thinks that is fair??

2) Second point is if you even had an argument for the popular vote case you are not counting all the votes in the caucus states as they don't record popular vote. So now you are disenfranchising all the caucus states. But apparently Hillary doesn't care about them because that would not help her losing case.

Report this comment

SP4:May 31st, 2008 - 20:53:51

ausshgesuchnight.(?)

Report this comment

SP4: Dear Chairman BrewerMay 31st, 2008 - 21:07:15

'Republicans 'never fail to remind the voters of Michigan how the Democrats have ignored Michigan, don't care about Michigan and don't deserve the support of Michigan's voters in the fall,' warned Mark Brewer, chairman of the state's Democratic Party. '

As I am fond of saying, and especially to you here and now, that does not make the Republicans wrong.

Chairman Brewer, it is all your doing, because the democrats have raped the voter there for the last 40 years. They are however, responsible for voting for you, so they deserve whatever they choose.


Now,Chairman Brewer, let's take a look at your state:

Business moving out as fast as it can

People leaving as fast as they can

Record murder stats in Detroit - congradulations

Record tax increases - golly what a surprise

Flat tax revenue growth - come see us, we'll intro you to Aurther Laffer

terrible livability - see for yourself

HUGE class distinctions

Having Republican leadership would be the BEST thing that ever happened to Michigan. Maybe this is the year the voters wake up.

Report this comment

BRAVOMay 31st, 2008 - 21:15:58

Wunderbar, tut SP4 es wieder !

Er ust das grosste ding seit aufgeschnittenem brot.

Report this comment

Obama is an idiot.May 31st, 2008 - 21:22:54

'Obama says his ears too big for Rushmore '

(and his brain is too small)

Democrat Barack Obama paid an unscheduled late-night visit to Mount Rushmore Friday, visiting the national memorial at closing time and joking that his ears were too big to ever be included in such a display. […]

He did express curiosity about the filming of a chase scene in “North by Northwest,” Alfred Hitchcock’s 1959 classic starring Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint that included a death-defying scramble over Rushmore’s presidential faces.

“How did they get up there in the first place?” he asked ranger Wesley Jensen.

“They didn’t. It was a movie set,” Jensen told him.

“Pretty spiffy, isn’t it,” said the Illinois senator, summing up his overall impressions.

ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0yiknRBE30J2EVtaA6z_0K6GJKwD910GB2G0

Well, maybe the Young Gaffer’s friends in Hollywood can explain how movies get made, at least before they actually keep their promises and bug out for Italy.

Report this comment

Barack Obama – Muslim apostateMay 31st, 2008 - 21:32:39

By Shireen K. Burki
Abridged:

Stafford, Va. - Osama bin Laden must be chuckling in his safe house. After all, the 2008 campaign could very well give Al Qaeda the ultimate propaganda tool: President Barack Hussein Obama, Muslim apostate.

The fact that Senator Obama – the son of a Muslim father – insists he was never a Muslim before becoming Christian is irrelevant to bin Laden. In bin Laden's eyes, Obama is a murtad fitri, the worst type of apostate, because he was blessed by Allah to be born into the true faith of Islam.

There are two types of apostates according to sharia (Islamic law) and the Hadith....

The first type is murtad milli, one who converted to Islam and later renounced the faith. The second, and most egregious, type is murtad fitri. It refers to a person born of a Muslim father who renounces his birthright. Two recent examples of the latter are Magdi Allam (a male Egyptian who converted to Catholicism in Italy) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Somali-born woman who's now an atheist). Both now face death threats.

According to Islamic jurisprudence, children of a Muslim father – even an apparently nonpracticing one, such as Obama's father, and irrespective of the mother's faith – are automatically Muslims. Most Muslims around the world agree: A child of a Muslim father is a Muslim. Period.

Should Obama become US commander in chief, there is a strong likelihood that Al Qaeda's media arm, As-Sahab, will exploit his background to argue that an apostate is leading the global war on terror (read: attacks against fellow Muslims). This perception would be leveraged to galvanize sympathizers into action.

Remember: Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to restore the caliphate (the Islamic form of government that would preside over the community of believers) and expand Dar al Islam ('Abode of Islam'). Reaching it requires a long war against all – Muslim and non-Muslim – who don't share its extremist Wahhabi worldview.

Al Qaeda, though, has struggled recently to recruit volunteers for this jihad. While bin Laden retains significant support as someone willing to stand up for Muslim concerns, most Muslims abhor Al Qaeda's terrorist methods whose primary targets are innocent noncombatants.

But an apostate as head of the United States could change this equation. It would be a propaganda boost for Al Qaeda's mission. All one has to do is read Al Qaeda's public statements to recognize how frequently it makes baseless apostasy accusations against fellow Muslims who challenge its message or actions.

That's why Obama is bin Laden's dream candidate.

[...]

So far, Al Qaeda has been conspicuously quiet on Obama's candidacy. But that should not come as a surprise. Hoping Obama gets elected, they're probably waiting until he's taken the oath of office to begin branding him a traitor to the faith of his fathers.

Islamic terrorists know that the long road to success lies in stoking the 'clash of civilizations.' To reach their goal of restoring the Caliphate in a form that fits their worldview, they need massive numbers of Muslims to join their global jihad.

Bin Laden and his followers have already shown their willingness to exploit real or imagined religious schisms to expand their support base. So it's not hard to imagine bin Laden praying that Obama wins this November.

news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080519/cm_csm/yburki

Report this comment

SP4: Well Sheik...May 31st, 2008 - 21:39:37

'Bin Laden and his followers have already shown their willingness to exploit real or imagined religious schisms to expand their support base. So it's not hard to imagine bin Laden praying that Obama wins this November.'

Hard to disagree with that....

Report this comment