Quote:

---

the worst of all time was Jimmy Carter.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Why was that, exactly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Why was that, exactly?

---

He had no evil bones in his body, and didn't know how to play the game.
He 'allowed' the CIA to 'forget' to install the sand-shields in the Iran rescue choppers so that they couldn't rescue the hostages- what a loser.

(At least that's all I can come up with...)

Carterfanisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Bush got over 3000 Americans killed on 9/11,...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Certainly. It's as valid - and stupid - a claim as the claim that Carter got Americans held hostage. I was pointing out the ludicrousness of either claim, in a roundabout way. The fact that either man was in the Oval Office when these things transpired doesn't make them personally responsible, but that fact gets conveniently forgotted more often than not.

Some of you guys on the right don't really *get* satire, do you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Bush got over 3000 Americans killed on 9/11,...

---

Care to explain this one so I know you are not just "parroting" what other people say?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

So you think it is ludicrous to blame Bush for the 4000 dead servicepeople in Iraq as well?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Why was that, exactly?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Some of you guys on the right don't really *get* satire, do you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Some of you guys on the right don't really *get* satire, do you?

---

I think most folks in the RWED are intelligent enough to appreciate satire....when it's done well and presented as such. Some of your posts are outright or borderline flamebait, so when someone takes you to task on something you often go defensive and claim satire. It's tricky to pull that off consistently and be believable. I do enjoy your posts regardless of our differences of opinion on things.

---

Quote:

---

So... Do we have a deal? Can we call a lie a lie, no matter who makes it up and retells it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
He's been claiming, over and over and over (four times now, at least - that's how many times he's done it in front of the press) that Iran is training Al Qaeda. He's been corrected REPEATEDLY, and told that there's a chasm of difference between the Sunni in Iran and the Shi'ia in Al Qaeda - and he's acknowledged that fact, and says he "misspoke" - and then he goes right out and does it AGAIN!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
It may be deeply divided but at one point it was deeply sincerely divided to the tune of 70/ 30 in favor of any democrat.

Clinton and supporters need to get real. In this kind of race there is only 1 winner. And while being a close second may be a point of pride it still means - you lost.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fletch2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
He's been claiming, over and over and over (four times now, at least - that's how many times he's done it in front of the press) that Iran is training Al Qaeda. He's been corrected REPEATEDLY, and told that there's a chasm of difference between the Sunni in Iran and the Shi'ia in Al Qaeda - and he's acknowledged that fact, and says he "misspoke" - and then he goes right out and does it AGAIN!

---

Small point, the Iranians are Shi'ia and Persian, Al Qaeda is principly Sunni and Arab. Both traditions see themselves as the one "correct" form of the Islamic faith, when you couple that with religious fanaticism -- and Al Qaeda will break with Islamic law and even kill other Sunni Muslims they dont think are "pure" enough-- you don't have a whole lot of common ground.

Al Queda operatives that fled into Iran in 2001 are still in jail there, and I suspect not being treated half as well as they would be at Gitmo.

---

Quote:

---

Potential problems for Obama
JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you see anything else, though, in these numbers that tell you how much of an issue this may be for him down the road, if he were to be the Democratic nominee?
ANDREW KOHUT: Well, we did a very in-depth look at how white Democrats view Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And what we found is that Obama has a glowing image and a more positive image than Mrs. Clinton.

But the problem for Obama among white Democrats is that a significant number of them have social beliefs and attitudes that lead to a negative view of Obama.

Critics of Obama, people who have an unfavorable view of him, are inclined to say equal rights have been pushed too far, are inclined to say that they disapprove of interracial dating, and that immigrants threaten our culture. These are Obama's critics.

And that's why we see working-class Democrats voting so much against Obama or for Hillary Clinton, because their own view, even though he has a positive image for most people, their own personal views are -- it's a threat to their own personal views.

Now, this is among the Democratic electorate. We get to a broader electorate, these same issues...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Including independents and the Republicans.

ANDREW KOHUT: ... including independents and Republicans. In fact, what we see is that, if people hold these attitudes, they are drawn to McCain irrespective of whether they're Republicans, Democrats, independents, or whatever demographic group they belong to.

This is a potential problem for him. He's certainly addressed it pretty positive -- pretty well among the Democratic electorate, but it could come back to be a campaign issue in the fall should he win the nomination.

---