N A R A L

[MystikWizard]

If you want to hold out for some miracle that's your right, but to expect the whole world to stop and wait with you is unrealistic. Reading the writing on the wall and moving on is not being disloyal or divisive. It's being sensible.

Any support for Obama and dislike of Hillary is apparently being "divisive" by Nick's own personal definition. Instead of accepting the situation, he would rather continue his rants and draw this out. Both the President and McCain are now on offense against Obama and the Democratic Party, with no mention of Hillary. One can turn their back to the facts and the writing on the wall, but that isn't going to stop time. The world goes on ... with or without NickCole.

 

[NickCole]

If you want to hold out for some miracle that's your right, but to expect the whole world to stop and wait with you is unrealistic.

I call out a lie when I see it. And if a person has to lie to claim victory, that speaks volumes about what kind of man he is.

And I remind you that no matter how much you and Obama dismiss it half the Democratic voters have voted for Hillary and continue to support her -- that's a potent part of the "whole world." And Obama won't win without us.

 

[Supernature]

Influencing people to disloyalty is by no means a supernatural influence. It's a game of seduction and it's done all the time by smarmy people.

In endorsing Obama over Clinton, who's been fighting for women's rights for decades, NARAL was disloyal not only to Clinton but to their own affiliates and donor base. I'm well aware of Obama's seductive powers but as I've pointed out before, the history of where nations head when they're led by people who use seduction to get what they want is not good.

Ah..so Obama is the smarmy seducer who has hoodwinked NARAL into voting against their own interest? You seem so keen on supporting a woman's right to choose, but not so much on their right to choose another candidate. And as to your drawing comparisons between his "seductive powers" and those of (I assume) Hitler...just wow. You really should take this comedy routine on the road.

What, in Obama's campaign and message is more inspiring to women's productive rights or women's liberty than Clinton's campaign and message? And what has Clinton done to make a woman's reproductive rights organization unhappy with her?

Specifically on the subject of reproductive rights? Probably not much. They're pretty even. But generally Feminist aren't any more monolithic than any other voting block. There are many woman and ardent feminists who are quite put off by Hillary's campaign.

What has Clinton said and done that makes her candidacy unsupportable to a woman's reproductive rights org?

Aside from Bill and Mark Penn's association with Columbian Trade, the generally nasty tone of her campaign, her Gas Tax Holiday pandering, her race-baiting, and her willingness to elevate the Republican candidate above her democratic rival...hmm... *scratches head* I just can't imagine.

Could it be someone at NARAL sat down and thought about all those Iranian mothers and babies Hillary might OBLITERATE if Iran doesn't toe the line?

And I didn't say they should endorse Clinton. I think --as do other similar organizations, including affiliates of NARAL across the nation-- NARAL should not have endorsed either Democratic candidate. There's no reason to: they're both pro-choice. All the NARAL endorsement could possibly achieve is further dividing the party. That helps Obama "win" the nomination but it does absolutely nothing to further the cause of women's reproductive rights or unite the party for November.

I find the timing of their endorsement curious as well, but maybe NARAL wanted to send a message by doing it when they did. Regardless, chalking it up to Obama's nefarious seductive powers is plain ludicrous.

Oh ye student of human nature...I would love to get a look at those report cards.

 

[noah617]

And Obama won't win without us.

And that will be a happy day for you won't it? That seems to be your goal. You keep attributing words and ideas to Obama that have no basis in fact. You continuously try to put him in the most negative light and stoke division. It appears you won't be happy until the democratic party has been ripped in two and Obama and the party go down in flames. Then you can have your pyrrhic victory, the satisfaction of posting your "I told you so" thread.

 

[Glafna]

NickCole, I have tried to defend you in the past... but you are not making it fucking easy. Sit Down. Shut Up. And Listen.(This goes for any Obama supporters pulling the same shit as him).


Obama is accepting the endorsement because it is an endorsement. Because he accepts their support, does not necessarily mean he agrees with them.

NickCole, as to you asking what he done to deserve it? Who says he had to do anything, but convince the organization that he was the right candidate?


I would try to defend your position here, but all your doing is blowing hot air out of both ends. Stop this. Start being a fucking Democrat, and stop being a Clintonat. It is ONE POLITICAL PARTY!!!! It is NOT a battlefield to be fought, verbally and physically, between supporters of two candidates. And this goes for all of you, please either start debating in private, or keep it to actual political debate, keep out the personal insults and retaliatory statements, because I am sick of seeing the Republicans in a good light....

They don't have well-publicized infighting.

And on a final note, he is right, Obama will most likely need the Clinton supporters votes to win, but remember, it's the the same way for Clinton.....




Whew, some rant there....

 

[NickCole]

NickCole, I have tried to defend you in the past... but you are not making it fucking easy. Sit Down. Shut Up. And Listen.(This goes for any Obama supporters pulling the same shit as him).


....

I read your post and I listened.

And I will not shut up.

I come from a long line of people who've fought hard for what we believe in, sometimes against the kind of odds I face here (IOC7 is right, there are only a few of us supporting Hillary and a vast majority insulting us and our candidate) and we don't shut up.

I spoke and marched and fought in the 70s when we were told to shut up and keep our gay selves behind closed doors, I didn't shut up when I was told to in the 80s when we fought for AIDS attention and research and money, I didn't shut up when I was told to in 2000 when I kept pointing out the truth about George Bush and what it would lead to, and I will not shut up today no matter how much my "fellow Democrats" and fellow gay men insult me and attack me. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose but I will not shut up, sit down or stop fighting for what I believe in. And thanks for defending me.

 

[kallipolis]

Nick Cole

Your willingness to defend the democratic process, has my vote.

Apparent lost causes have winning ways, when they teach us that the struggles of the process reveal the quality of the democratic system.

More power to your pen.

 

[MystikWizard]

I read your post and I listened.

And I will not shut up.

I come from a long line of people who've fought hard for what we believe in, sometimes against the kind of odds I face here (IOC7 is right, there are only a few of us supporting Hillary and a vast majority insulting us and our candidate) and we don't shut up.

I spoke and marched and fought in the 70s when we were told to shut up and keep our gay selves behind closed doors, I didn't shut up when I was told to in the 80s when we fought for AIDS attention and research and money, I didn't shut up when I was told to in 2000 when I kept pointing out the truth about George Bush and what it would lead to, and I will not shut up today no matter how much my "fellow Democrats" and fellow gay men insult me and attack me. Sometimes we win and sometimes we lose but I will not shut up, sit down or stop fighting for what I believe in. And thanks for defending me.

And what do you honestly expect to change by coming on here on a Forum and ranting?

Is you ranting and bitching on this Forum going to prevent Obama from becoming the nominee? Of course
not.

Are you changing any minds on here in the process, by doing what you're doing? Again, the answer is No.

So you're basically arguing for the sake of arguing on this Forum and not accomplishing a damn thing in the process.

 

[NickCole]

And what do you honestly expect to change by coming on here on a Forum and ranting?

Is you ranting and bitching on this Forum going to prevent Obama from becoming the nominee? Of course
not.

Are you changing any minds on here in the process, by doing what you're doing? Again, the answer is No.

So you're basically arguing for the sake of arguing on this Forum and not accomplishing a damn thing in the process.

You know nothing about why I come here, what I use my time here for or what I do away from here. And it's none of your business. Nobody's forcing you to read my posts; in fact you keep announcing you have me on ignore and then you post responses to what I write.

But, as I've noticed with so many Obama supporters, you sure do enjoy personally attacking people who won't join the cult. Nasty destructive stuff. God help the United States if this cult lodges its fangs in the White House.

 

[MystikWizard]

You know nothing about why I come here, what I use my time here for or what I do away from here. And it's none of your business. Nobody's forcing you to read my posts; in fact you keep announcing you have me on ignore and then you post responses to what I write.

But, as I've noticed with so many Obama supporters, you sure do enjoy personally attacking people who won't join the cult. Nasty destructive stuff. God help the United States if this cult lodges its fangs in the White House.

I don't have to know why you come here and what you use your time for. I see the end result, and that's all that matters. Obama won't be stopped from becoming the nominee, despite your destructive and divisive rhetoric, and you aren't changing anyone's opinions.

So if you still think Hillary has a chance, I would suggest you go to Oregon or South Dakota and go campaign for her, then. Because you aren't accomplishing anything here, doing what you are doing.

 

[naked gent]

I come from a long line of people who've fought hard for what we believe in,

The sad thing is you no longer seem to fight for the "what" but rather the "who" you believe in.......even at the cost of the what.

If you were so percipient in 2000 regarding Bush do tell what you see in a future McCain administration which you find more attractive than a possible Obama administration?

 

[kallipolis]

The sad thing is you no longer seem to fight for the "what" but rather the "who" you believe in.......even at the cost of the what.

Quite the contrary from my bird's eye view. Nick Cole has provided me with an in depth, far reaching understanding of the Democratic Party primaries, that has taught me how well the democratic process is working in the United States.

I am grateful to Nick Cole and others for their teaching lessons.

 

[kallipolis]

Obama won't be stopped from becoming the nominee, despite your destructive and divisive rhetoric, and you aren't changing anyone's opinions.

Nick Cole's posts have changed my opinion. So he must be doing something worthwhile. In my case it is immaterial, for I am not a voter. But it does enable me to speak well of the United States democratic system, for the understandings that Nick Cole has provided for the distant observer.

 

[MystikWizard]

Obama won't be stopped from becoming the nominee, despite your destructive and divisive rhetoric, and you aren't changing anyone's opinions.

Nick Cole's posts have changed my opinion. So he must be doing something worthwhile. In my case it is immaterial, for I am not a voter. But it does enable me to speak well of the United States democratic system, for the understandings that Nick Cole has provided for the distant observer.

Well, good for you. The rhetoric has been going on for months and after all that time, we supposedly have 1 person who's mind he has supposedly changed ... despite the fact that you can't vote in our elections.

 

[kallipolis]

Well, good for you. The rhetoric has been going on for months and after all that time, we supposedly have 1 person who's mind he has supposedly changed ... despite the fact that you can't vote in our elections.

Whether one or one thousand people have been persuaded, is not the issue. Whether I vote or not, is not the matter. The matter is that we should be able to hear all opinions, even those that appear to disturb our own deep seated feelings, on the suitability of one candidate over another.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well, good for you. The rhetoric has been going on for months and after all that time, we supposedly have 1 person who's mind he has supposedly changed ... despite the fact that you can't vote in our elections.

Whether one or one thousand people have been persuaded, is not the issue. Whether I vote or not, is not the matter. The matter is that we should be able to hear all opinions, even those that appear to disturb our own deep seated feelings, on the suitability of one candidate over another.

Isn't that what conversation, debate, and dialogue from various perspectives, opinions, and ideas is all about?

For the life of me I can't understand how a thread about NARAL's change of endorsement from Clinton to Obama has turned into a tirade against NickCole himself.

I have a good mind to close this thread as it appears to have gotten off track.

 

[JayHawk]

It has gotten off track because people seemingly cannot argue a idea with attributing personal insult. Maybe it is the inherent instinct to be "top dog" or alpha male. You must prove not only are your ideas better but you are better.

For me if a idea or opinion is correct it only need be stated. It will flesh itself out if it is worthy or stink itself out if it is not worthy.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ It has more to do with the history of a certain poster and his ongoing problem of hasty generalizations to which the mods consistently turn a blind eye. This is why Springboksfan's suggestion was worthwhile, but too many voted against the reboot.

Since we're on the subject, could you be more specific?

If your argument is going to be because the Mods allow for opinions that dissent with your own, then we're guilty as charged.

 

[Supernature]

Isn't that what conversation, debate, and dialogue from various perspectives, opinions, and ideas is all about?

For the life of me I can't understand how a thread about NARAL's change of endorsement from Clinton to Obama has turned into a tirade against NickCole himself.

That could have something to do with the number of negative Obama threads NickCole creates in proportion to the number of positive Hillary threads he initiates. There's something about his (and a few others on both sides) habit of putting so much energy into talking down one candidate instead of talking up their candidate of choice that makes it harder to read his posts in a neutral context, at least for me. Each new thread starts to feel like the continuation of the same old argument.

But I wouldn't feel too bad for him: some people take a kind of perverse pleasure in placing themselves at odds with, what to them, seems like the "conventional wisdom". It's a common thing in forums like these.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Post 38, last paragraph.

No, that's not what I meant. Your failure to see post 38 is what I meant.

Oh, this post #38?

You know nothing about why I come here, what I use my time here for or what I do away from here. And it's none of your business. Nobody's forcing you to read my posts; in fact you keep announcing you have me on ignore and then you post responses to what I write.

But, as I've noticed with so many Obama supporters, you sure do enjoy personally attacking people who won't join the cult. Nasty destructive stuff. God help the United States if this cult lodges its fangs in the White House.

I take it that you're referring to the last paragraph of that post.

Yep, it sounds like a "nasty generalization," but no more nasty than some of the generalizations that I've read from those who support Obama on these boards, but yet the Mod Team has allowed most of those to go un-touched.

As I stated in another thread in this forum, this isn't "grade-school" so buck up and deal with it.

I, like many readers of this forum, have been reading how the Clinton and Obama supporters have been going after each other ad nasueum for months now.

You may not have noticed this, but I can count on one hand the number of posters in both sides of that debate who strive for nothing more than to continue the animosity.

It has been suggested that we segregate all of the Clinton and Obama threads from CE&P so that those five or so members can continue to slug it out while the rest of us continue about discussing other issues, and leave the rest of us alone.

The idea is beginning to gain some traction in my mind.