rickbob, do you vote?

eephour wrote:rickbob, do you vote?

he votes for adventure.

Rick Reuben wrote:Here's a totally amazing flip flop:

Minotaur029 on October 18, 2007 wrote:Edwards would be unbeatable in a general election.

Verify: http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=523641

and then this exchange from today:

rick reuben wrote:Too bad Edwards got pushed into the shadows when the media went to push the 'young black vs. the woman' battle. Edwards might have had broader appeal than either.

minotaur029 wrote:And yes, Edwards obviously would have had the broader appeal than either of them...another rich white waspy southerner!

Five months after Minotaur said that Edwards would have been unbeatable in a general election, Minotaur is sarcastically laughing at my exact same suggestion.

What a phony.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

You've changed your stance on 1) Rezko sinking Obama's ship. 2) Hillary beats McCain now, but not a couple weeks ago. 3) Your response to your illogical racist America/globalist stuff was to come at me with tired old Clocker Bob propaganda.

As for McCain beating Obama, I hadn't thought very hard about that potential contest yet. McCain was just coming back at that point (December), remember?

Get a job, Clocker Bob...a real job. Posting Ron Paul signs all over Chicago isn't gonna get you out of your dad's basement.

Saw a newsclip of Obama today, saying something along the lines of "if I win the most delegates, and I win the most states, and I win the popular vote, I think the superdelegates will be hard pressed not to nominate me".

That may well be what it comes down to. And there was also some interview stuff going on with one of the superdelegates, who's a 21 year old kid. WTF?!?!

I'm just a little bummed at Obama for saying, not that long ago, that there's no way he'd run for president in the next election, that he was gonna stay focused on doing his job as a senator, something like that. And here he is, running. He's still got my vote, if I was actually gonna vote.

Did everybody already talk about the NY Times story where they reported that Obama may have lied in his memoirs, to make it sound like he was more into drugs than he actually was in real life, based on the fact that when they interviewed a bunch of his friends from back then? And they insinuated that since he claimed to have been on the weed, the booze, and sometimes the blow, but nobody could corroborate that story, than maybe he was a closet junkie who was using even more than he portrayed in his memoirs? WTF?!?! Eat a dick, NY Times! A scabby one, seriously.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Minotaur029 wrote:And yes, Edwards obviously would have had the broader appeal than either of them...another rich white waspy southerner!

Minotaur029 wrote:I wasn't being sarcastic.

Don't lie.

You only changed your mind once on Edwards. That's a huge improvement for you.

This is hilarious. If Rick Reuben has done a search of my name and "Edwards" then he would have seen that I said John Edwards wins it 60%-40% over ANY Republican candidate about five times.

He didn't post that though, did he?








That's incredibly odd, don't you think?









You know, for Clocker Bob/Rick Reuben to do. Because he doesn't distort peoples' viewpoints and the context of their posts all the time. Right.

Is the sarcasm clear this time?

Rick Reuben wrote:What dangerously high negatives for Obama? Here's Minotaur today claiming that I am the only one expecting race to be a factor:

minotaur029 2-9-08 wrote:So, if you further discount the fact that Rick Reuben originally picked McCain to win the general election, his cynical dependence on racist America makes no sense.

What dangerously high negatives were you referring to, Minotaur, if you are throwing out race as a factor against Obama? Answer.

You really don't know how presidential politics work, do you? (in the real world, not Clocker Bob's liberatarian Disneyland). You're too busy reading/crying about the Federal Reserve to become familiar with basic election cycle jargon.

If the two Democratic candidates stay in the race long enough, and dish out enough dirt on the other, their negatives go up (just like you and me, retard).



In the age of the Internet, people can pass off whatever they want as facts. Clocker Bob is Exhibit A re: this widespread problem.

You are obviously ignorant of this subject.

Two people argue.

People don't like to hear it.

Hillary says "Obama is a total cunt. I saw him throw a baby."

Obama says "Not true, not true...also, Hillary crushed a baby skull with her cooter."


Bickering makes negatives go up. Lies, when repeated, become "true."

These are the "politics" that you engage in...and one by one, people will stop listening to you.

well having confessed to doing coke in college is something that may work for him, or just as easily be used to destroy him. it will depend very much on how he handles the dialog about his confessed drug use, which is one that the republicans will probably be eager to have.

1) Not a stoner, 2) Not a rich kid.

It's obvious. The more time two candidates spend trying to make the other look bad...it makes their "negatives" go up. The same is true of our current back and forth. Perhaps you know this...I'm guessing, however, that you're just fucking bonkers.

The "dangerously high negatives" I spoke of were in a future tense...potentially dangerously high negatives that would come about from a prolonged argument. As it is, Hillary is having trouble attacking Obama directly. This keeps his negatives lower.

Let me give you another example: Where were you from July 3rd, 2007 to July 20th, 2007? Were you banned by the moderators? Were you smoking crack? Perhaps you were smoking crack during that period that you were banned for abusing free speech. You tell me:

RR wrote:Put down the bong doodyhead!

People think: Isn't Minotaur a stoner?

THAT'S HOW YOU DRIVE UP NEGATIVES!

Like the Shellac song says (pardon the lameness), "Repeat the lie, that makes it true." You drive up my negatives by calling me a stoner and implying that I'm a rich boy, even though neither snipe is true.

You completely misunderstood/mischaracterized what I meant in the first place...and the prolonged bickering drives up both of our negatives, just like in a political contest.

Do. you. understand. yet?

The term "negatives" CAN be and IS used in an "attack-ad" context.

Example: do you view Rick Reuben favorably or unfavorably?

95% of the board answers: unfavorably.

Ta-da, HIGH NEGATIVES! Read a newspaper.

I've seen the term used the way you define it, too...but you can still blow me.