CNN has called Ohio for Obama as well, and with NC, FL showing slim Obama leads and dead heats in VA and IN, chances are McCain's not going to sweep all the other battleground states. Looks like he's got Missouri though, for what good it'll do...
...Weird. Considering the exit polling, Obama might take South Dakota.
EDIT: Wait, according to the exit polls he might not have Missouri either...
Initial results are trickling in... currently Obama has a lead in Florida and North Carolina, with McCain leading in Kentucky, Georgia, Indiana, and Virginia... but these results don't say much, evidenced by the fact that Obama currently has a slim lead in South Carolina...
...and it'll probably be gone before the next person posts.
EDIT: Just realized that there are no actual results for VT but despite that CNN has already decided it's going to Obama...
"Plundering" doesn't really give that type of picture in my mind, Hado. You can't really "plunder" a reward for doing good, plundering is more of a "We beat you in X way, and now we're taking Y" type of imagery.
"Plundering" was mentioned by Wagner, not Muthee. Muthee said that "the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous," without ever talking about taking anything from the rich.
Pretty crazy, but I wouldn't say that Wagner's positions reflect anything on Palin. It's kind of like how Rev. Wright's nonsense doesn't say anything about Obama.
The anointment thing seems more serious, but Muthee's statement could be construed as a reference to the good getting rewarded in Heaven.
That doesnt mean anything though, because he does not expect anything from you.
Chances are, any random person you save will never be in a position to save you in return. Therefore, when choosing whether or not to save someone, you should not expect any future service or favor from the person you'd be saving.
If both people would want and expect help then there is a mutual obligation to help.
Wanting help and expecting help are different things. I want Warren Buffet to give me a million dollars, but I don't expect Warren Buffet to give me a million dollars.
While I dont agree fully with the above (To me he sounds rather absurd) I can state that I would never want a woman to be president or a major figure in goverment (they can be in congress but on the supream court which we have and as a president I would be horrified if they did) because for the most part he is correct on one thing.
Men have a desire to defend honor and are very headstrong this just is true for almost all men.
Women are irrational and emotional. This isnt bad for family, friends, or community but for government it is indeed very bad.
I cant say I agree with you but you do have a few things in that very sexist post that do indeed have a grain of truth in them.
If by "honor" you mean "pride/ego"... I fail to see how the generalization of males as arrogant is good in leadership.
It's never the average, stereotypical people that make for good leaders - in either gender. The best leaders are always people who break the mold.
The vast, vast majority of people in both genders are unsuited to be President of the United States for one reason or another. It's not like the male half of the nation is ready to step into the Oval Office at a moment's notice.
And your argument isn't a crass broad generalization? Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are two women - hardly representative of the entire gender, even if you narrow it down to current political figures. And that's not even arguing whether or not the judgements you made about them are correct. I'm in no mood to debate that, but I'd at least call them sentient.
It's kind of a leading argument, because no matter how someone reacts (unless they agree with you) you can just say "You wouldn't think that way if they hadn't brainwashed you!"
In addition, your argument does nothing to support the claim that women cannot feel emotions and that they are not sentient. I suppose you'd call the accomplishments of Marie Curie the result of the "monkeys banging on typewriters" effect?
Did you just get rejected/dumped/divorced or something?
My only point is Obama has some questions concerning his background and he's very liberal. But there's a legion of people who don't care to the point that they won't even debate these facts. Don't believe me? Just watch NBC news. It's so incredibly important how much Sarah Palin's clothes cost but we won't even say the name Bill Ayers.
Palin spending tons of money on clothing seems like an indicator that she'll continue to waste money if elected. On the other hand, Bill Ayers is a respected professor and authority on education who in the past did some terrible things. People don't even debate that because they don't see how it reflects on Obama's character, or even more importantly, whether or not he can fix the problems facing the nation.
Look, Obama has publicly denounced Ayers' radical past actions. Ayers is not a supporter of his campaign. I guess it's valid to say that there's a legion of people who don't care about things that, in the grand scheme of things, don't matter. The whole Ayers thing was just the McCain campaign grasping at straws to find some dirt in Obama's past. It didn't work.
Now that I think about it, that's a good way to describe just about everything the McCain campaign's been doing recently. All it's done is stir up portions of the base, and possiby even turned off some undecided voters. And it creates a vicous cycle as some of those riled-up supporters go further and try to create "dirt" themselves, like the one in the article in the first post.
(One final point about the Ayers story vs. Palin's clothes: which would be more likely to show up in the news a year after a hypothetical victory for the relevant candidate: Past acquaintances of Obama, or Sarah Palin wasting tons of (taxpayer/donor) money on clothing? Probably the latter.)
Not likely, Obama's had generally had double digit leads in the polls there.
Well, two of the seats the Dems are looking to pick up haven't even closed polling yet.
...Weird. Considering the exit polling, Obama might take South Dakota.
EDIT: Wait, according to the exit polls he might not have Missouri either...
This CNN Election Center seems really stupid. It'll probably make a little more sense once more votes have come in.
...and it'll probably be gone before the next person posts.
EDIT: Just realized that there are no actual results for VT but despite that CNN has already decided it's going to Obama...
The issue is what they'll do after they screw up.
I love this.
...so will all his teachers call him Captain?
"Plundering" was mentioned by Wagner, not Muthee. Muthee said that "the wealth of the wicked is stored up for the righteous," without ever talking about taking anything from the rich.
The anointment thing seems more serious, but Muthee's statement could be construed as a reference to the good getting rewarded in Heaven.
Chances are, any random person you save will never be in a position to save you in return. Therefore, when choosing whether or not to save someone, you should not expect any future service or favor from the person you'd be saving.
Wanting help and expecting help are different things. I want Warren Buffet to give me a million dollars, but I don't expect Warren Buffet to give me a million dollars.
If by "honor" you mean "pride/ego"... I fail to see how the generalization of males as arrogant is good in leadership.
It's never the average, stereotypical people that make for good leaders - in either gender. The best leaders are always people who break the mold.
The vast, vast majority of people in both genders are unsuited to be President of the United States for one reason or another. It's not like the male half of the nation is ready to step into the Oval Office at a moment's notice.
In addition, your argument does nothing to support the claim that women cannot feel emotions and that they are not sentient. I suppose you'd call the accomplishments of Marie Curie the result of the "monkeys banging on typewriters" effect?
Did you just get rejected/dumped/divorced or something?
Palin spending tons of money on clothing seems like an indicator that she'll continue to waste money if elected. On the other hand, Bill Ayers is a respected professor and authority on education who in the past did some terrible things. People don't even debate that because they don't see how it reflects on Obama's character, or even more importantly, whether or not he can fix the problems facing the nation.
Look, Obama has publicly denounced Ayers' radical past actions. Ayers is not a supporter of his campaign. I guess it's valid to say that there's a legion of people who don't care about things that, in the grand scheme of things, don't matter. The whole Ayers thing was just the McCain campaign grasping at straws to find some dirt in Obama's past. It didn't work.
Now that I think about it, that's a good way to describe just about everything the McCain campaign's been doing recently. All it's done is stir up portions of the base, and possiby even turned off some undecided voters. And it creates a vicous cycle as some of those riled-up supporters go further and try to create "dirt" themselves, like the one in the article in the first post.
(One final point about the Ayers story vs. Palin's clothes: which would be more likely to show up in the news a year after a hypothetical victory for the relevant candidate: Past acquaintances of Obama, or Sarah Palin wasting tons of (taxpayer/donor) money on clothing? Probably the latter.)