Cinch his reelection . . . a la Clinton '98?? Join the ranks of the delusional IAS. Clinton
didn't run for anything in '98.

What clinched Clinton's election in '96 was the Republicans nominated Dole. I'm quite sure they will do something equally stupid in the next general election, and THAT will clinch Obama's reelection.

IAS......


I did say "the Dems may lose both houses" ....I like to rile up the liberal base here. It will be tough for the Republicans to make a major gain in the Senate...with a handful of Republican retiring.

If the economy falls apart after all of this spending or major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil anything could happen in the mid-term elections.

By the way I think Laguy knew what you meant about comparing Obama and Clinton's chances of reelection. you meant say "94 instead of "98 but Laguy wouldn't give you the benefit of the doubt...he rather say you are delusional.

It is finally revealed: Both Beachman and IAS are copy editors for Fox Snooze!!

OTOH, maybe not. If you take the arithmetic mean of their two posts, you come up with the right year as if by some sort of perverted symbiosis between the two of them.

So I suppose their two posts in the aggregate, notwithstanding their glaring deficiencies, are too close to the truth to qualify as Fox-worthy.

In my defense, the court ordered breathalyzer in my car was not working correctly last night.

Which seats will Dems lose in the Senate in 2010, and which seats will Republicans be able to retain? Very simple guys, be specific.

How about Chris Dodd for a start.....they should be sending him the same place they sent Madoff.......

We're taking out Boxer. ;)

IAS-
Has the court ordered you to take std tests before re-entering the country yet? Are you sure the date screw-up is a sign of alcohol impairment? Could be tertiary stage syphilis dementia resulting from an infection of the lining of the brain. This could also explain the parallels between your political views and Beachman's.

Ok Beachman, Dodd is trailing right now. That's one, where are the other ten? Are you assuming that Republicans will be able to reclaim open seats in Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio? How about defending North Carolina?

Dems have a couple of vulnerable seats. Colorado, Nevada (probably not) and Connecticut. Connecticut won't elect a Republican to go along with dingbat Lieberman, and I seriously doubt that Republicans in Nevada can organize sufficiently to take down the Senate majority leader.

So try again, and Sancho, if you think that fucking Carly Fiorino, fired from HP for completely fucking up as CEO, is going to win in CA, you are obviously suffering from brain damage.

Catacony...what about "Sphincter" ..... I mean Specter in Pennsylvania what a real asshole........

And who's the Republican candidate in that race? What are the latest polls?

You really need to actually have some facts to back up your statement. Name the 11 pickups that Republicans will win, and provide evidence - polls, that kind of thing - that back you up. Then, show some evidence that shows Republicans defending the open seats in MO, OH and NH.

Catacony....I did say the Dems may lose both houses.....I like to stir up liberal emotions. Like I said if the band aids holding the economy fall off or there is a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

Now that Obama has told the World that we will treat terrorist like criminals and read them their Miranda rights anywhere in the World and they have better treatment and access in our legal system than most America citizens.. With the stability in Iraq falling apart and Obama playing political games with our military leaders and troops in Afghanistan.

Ok, so your response is basically "I'm an idiot who made a statement I can't remotely back up with fact, I just wanted to troll". That pretty much sums up all of your posts, correct?

Polanski the child molester ..... the long arm of the law caught up with him.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090928/ap_on_en_mo/eu_switzerland_polanski

What does the above post have to do with....oh, never mind.

Yeah, he's been deep in hiding over the last 3 decades. Hey, why didn't the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations ever bring him back? Sounds like Republicans are soft on crime after all.

Maybe the problem is Beachman has Tourette syndrome.

Yeah....I guess unless you read terrorists Miranda Rights on battlefields in other countries you are soft on crime. Can you believe it.....we our soldiers are now required to read Miranda Rights to enemies of the US fighting us anywhere in the World.

Another right wing distortion. Here's the story, you fucking moron: in 2002 the Supreme Court (ruled by right wingers) ruled that all people held on US soil by the US government must be read their rights ("Mirandized"). Since detainees are not prisoners of war (there is no declared war), and since they are held on US soil (US military bases, or transferred to holding facilities in the US), those who interrogate them (CIA/FBI/whoever) must read them their rights. Soldiers on the battlefield do NOT have to do so, and are not asked to do so.

Since many of these terrorists will be tried in US courts, the SC extended the idea of protection against self-incrimination offered by Miranda to those captured and incarcerated in US facilities. This will make it easier to try them.

Try getting your news from some source other than the pure propaganda mills of the fringe right, you nitwit.

BTW, this "story" broke back in June. It disappeared within days because everyone realized it was totally bogus...another right-wing paranoid fiction. Leechman, stopping drinking that Red Kool-Aid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4ul0spggaI

I am getting to the point where I have to agree with Bluestraveller that Beachman must be a fictional character I invented to make Republicans and right-wing fascists look like morons.

It is difficult work to come up with posts that are as stupid as "Beachman's" but I suppose someone has to do it.

Laguy-

If you are going to insist on continuing these stupid "Beachman" posts, could you at least try to make this "Beachman" character appear a bit less of a dull tool? Anyone who posts idiotic Youtube links such as the one above as "supporting evidence" for his twisted, moronic points is hard to take seriously.

Another option is to just be a bit funnier when making these stupid "Beachman" posts. I know idiocy is sometimes funny, but your "Beachman" is stupid to such a degree that if Obama ever imposes a "brain tax," Beachman will be exempt. So see if you can make your character "funny and stupid Beachman" rather than "totally stupid and boring Beachman." I know you can do better, Laguy.

I agree the Beachman character turned out to be quite a bore. To remedy this the next generation character I invented was politically moronic but this was at least partially counterbalanced by his being funny on occasion.

I'm actually rather proud of the IAS.

Ya means that was you in Jakarta? When you paying back the money you borrowed from me?

Funny at times, yes. Disease-ridden, but occasionally funny.

LAG,

It has certainly taken a while to pull the veil off your charade. I have said all along that no one is as stupid as Beachman. People like this do not exist in the United States.

But I want to thank you. I found Beachman boorish but it took a bit of creativity to invent such a total wonk.

BT,
You don't mean "wonk," which is a "studious or hardworking person." I think you mean "wanker," which is a jerkoff. Né?

LAguy if beachman is the result of the mental torment that you suffered then I made you watch fox news in New Orleans I formally apologize but in my defence we don't get fox or the comedy channel in South Africa and I got the two confused.

Branquinho ...........

Looks like you do your research on Yahoo Answers.
Your posting looks very similar..........you chabge a couple of word and make it like like your own bullshit.......

"That's false. In 2002, the Supreme Court, NOT the Obama administration, ruled that ALL people held on US soil BY the US government must be read their rights. Since detainees are captured and held on US soil--i.e. US military bases--our FBI/CIA/interrogators must read them their rights. However, soldiers on the battlefield do not have to do any such thing"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090927165144AAL2Sv3


Just because you read some interpretation on Yahoo Answers that doesn't mean it is true....

Have you actually read the Supreme Court ruling.......just like have you actually read the Health Care Bill...or do you do all you research on Yahoo Answers......?

Branquinho....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GRbya1xgcw

So Obama the "expert" in constitional law says that "of course not" terrorists shouldn't be read Miranda Rights.

So you are telling me that the Supreme Court ruling includes reading Miranda Rights to terrorists caught overseas.

So Obama must be wrong on this one or he has done a huge flip flop....your choice.....

Obama is starting to lose the media has has been able to control.....the snowball is starting to roll.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaonY65vZ00&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmY_vQKtL1g&feature=related


Robert Gibbs.....you liberals must be so proud of him.........

I am not a fan of Fox News because they are just as guilty of skewing the news to the right and most of the media is in skewing it to the left. But, you have to love in-your-face Helen Thomas.

Branquinho....


Where is your proof of a 2002 ruling by the Supreme Court that terrorists overseas "MUST" be read their Miranda Rights?


Your Yahoo Answers research is the only source you have....."you fucking moron." Either Obama knows constiotional law or he doesn't.


By the way did you see over the weekend Obama said he didn't even know that Acorn got federal funding what a fucking liar.

Branquinho....where is your source for the 2002 Supreme Court ruling you quoted. Looks like you are the one who get your liberal Kool Aid from website like Yahoo Answers.......maybe cause you are a Yahoo....

Branquinho......Still waiting for your proof........

Beachman is still

Get a life, you poor, pathetic creature.

Has there ever been a CH member so desperately in need of getting laid?

Shouldn't you be blaming Obama for Rio's getting the 2016 Olympics?

Bwana; I think your expecting too much out of Beachman here. I seriously doubt that he is able to think for himself, and only mouths what Rush, Foux News and the other right wing dingbats have to say.

If you want to lay any blame on a politician for Chicago not getting the 2016 games, I would suggest Bush and cheney get the blame.

If I thought he were intelligent enough to understand basic legal concepts, I would explain to Beachman that recent Supreme Court rulings (particularly on habeas corpus) essentially mean if those accused of terrorism against the United States are not read their Miranda rights, their subsequent trials would potentially be jeopardized and they might very well go free.

It probably is true they don't HAVE TO be read their Miranda rights, particularly if the United States wants only to do "catch and release" the terrorists, and maybe also pay them damages for doing so. However, if on the contrary the United States is serious about keeping them in prison (or even executing them) rather than releasing them, a failure to read them their Miranda rights potentially jeopardizes this possibility.

The Bush Administration was too dense to understand existing law in this regard (or in other regards as well). Clearly Beachman is similarly dense. The only thing the Obama administration is doing that is innovative relative to the Bush Administration is they follow established law, or, at least, make a good faith effort to do so.

Of course, one could argue the President has no obligation to follow established law, as Bush and Cheney seemed to. Taking this position undermines the very legitimacy of the Presidency as well as the United States itself. I suppose we could revert to being something like a banana republic, where there essentially is no rule of law, no legitimacy in the government, and ultimately an environment where military coups and the like reign supreme. But that would be Beachman's America, not mine.

And no, Beachman, I am not going to give you a further lesson on Constitutional law. If you seriously want to understand the above, you can find the cases on the internet, and then educate yourself about their implications.

(Message edited by LAguy on October 03, 2009)

(Message edited by LAguy on October 03, 2009)

I think the logic is that as Glen Beck has stated that Obama is a racist with an inherent hatred towards white people.

Therefore any setback or defeat (not matter how small) is a victory for the United States, and a defeat of racism.

The more Obama is defeated (independent of what it is), the better off the nation.

Is that so hard for liberals to understand? We have never had an evil, god hating, socialist, fascist, communist president until now. So if you are against evil, fascism and communism, you hate Obama or you are not American. Americans need to choose?

Shit, this thread is STILL going on!

BT, there is a growing anxiety that the right wing chatter like what you just illustrated is leading to a real danger that the a wing-nut will take the next step, and feel that assassination is the not only justified, but imperative.

I would wager that many of the listeners/viewers of trash like Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly already have fantasies about the president being assassinated.

You just have to hope the Secret Service knows what it is doing, and Obama doesn't do something stupid like try to work around his Secret Service protection.

So how would you compare hatred of Obama by the far right vs hatred of Bush by the far left? Pretty comparable I would say. I suspect 3-4 years ago, LAGuy himself would have casually contemplated assassinating Bush if only he had the means and thought he could get away with it. ;-)

"So how would you compare hatred of Obama by the far right vs hatred of Bush by the far left?"

Uhhhh . . . unjustified versus justified, respectively, although hatred of Bush went well beyond the far left.

OTOH, most of the Bush-hating moderates and left still wanted the U.S. to succeed, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or here at home.

The cheering by the far right that went down as a result of the U.S. losing its bid for the Olympics, cheering that was motivated by the hope that this country would fail so that Obama would lose, was absolutely disgraceful and a good indication of how wacky the far right has become.

I don't recall seeing people totting guns to Bush events. People spoke of impeachment, not violence. If you can't see a difference in those "reactions," it's time you moved to Florida and hooked up with your new soulmate.

The fringe right, with its long history of violence, doesn't believe in the rule of law.

You've made plenty of "debatable" statements here, IAS, which is cool, but suggesting that the hatred of the far right towards Obama is comparable to the left's reactions to Bush is completely ludicrous. That statement puts you on Beachman's turf.

I heard this statistic on NPR's Fresh Air interview with David Weigel. Threats against Obama are running 400% higher than against Bush.

My deepest fantasy was that Bush would be discredited, impeached and removed from office, not assassinated.

Right wing-nuts have always had a deep and strong undercurrent of violence. While there are examples of pure evil in "leftist" movements (Pol Pot), the undercurrents in todays new "conservatives" are here, now and growing.

---

quote:

NPR Fresh Air: David Weigel: The Remaking Of The Right
Is the conservative right undergoing a transformation? Journalist David Weigel thinks so. Weigel covers the Republican party for the online magazine The Washington Independent, where he's written about tea party protests, anti-health care activists, the "birther" movement and the recent Values Voter summit.

Weigel formerly covered national politics for the libertarian magazine Reason. He's also written for Slate, Time.com and The Nation.

---

Let me see, in the last 3 months, we have had the 9/12 protests, a demand for the president's birth certificate, call for a military coup, and the latest was a poll to determine if the president should be assassinated. That is in three months.

There was certainly frustration with Bush but nothing at this level. Let's not forget that Bush's popularity plummeted to less than 20%, and Obama is still in the high 50's. Imagine how much worse it could get if Obama's popularity fell.

I agree with Bwana, it is ludicrous to compare the left's frustration with Bush to what is happening in our country right now.

I honestly believe that we will see another Oklahoma City before Obama's presidency is over.

None of us wanted to see Bush die since that would have made Cheney president, and that crazy, evil fuck would have been asking for the nuke codes 20 seconds after getting sworn into office.

I get a kick out of the far right attacking Obama for lobbying for the Olympics and then gleefully celebrating us not getting it.

These are the same folks who wrap themselves in the American Flag every day and would have attacked Obama as "hating America" if he didn't go.

Here is a pretty funny clip from Jon Stewart about how the far right talking heads attacked anti-war protesters and encouraged people to separate themselves from these extremists, yet support the 9/12ers and the tea baggers as great patriotic Americans.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-september-14-2009/mad-men

Re: the Olympics, and who to blame, why would we get the games in the US when 95% of the world couldn't get a visa to attend?