Support NeoGAF

[maynerd]

Triumph is awesome.

 

[mosaic]

Triumph is awesome.

For us to poop on! Am I right?

 

[Triumph]

For us to poop on! Am I right?

Not until the third date, I'm afraid.

 

[mckmas8808]

Truman was a badass. As both a politican and as a leader.

The bombing in Japan was horribly depressing and did indeed murder endless innocent lives. But it HAD to be done. Japan needed to be shaken drastically for them to give up the fight. Truman, as a strong leader did the right thing even though it was a dangerous thing.

Don't fuck with Truman:

Sometimes when people say this it makes me think this is exactly why Bin Laden and them boys loved killing 3,000 innocent Americans during 9/11. Damn Cheebs using that thinking 9/11 was good and fuck it, it had to be done. We needed 3,000 people to die on that day.

 

[Cheebs]

Sometimes when people say this it makes me think this is exactly why Bin Laden and them boys loved killing 3,000 innocent Americans during 9/11. Damn Cheebs using that thinking 9/11 was good and fuck it, it had to be done. We needed 3,000 people to die on that day.

Did you just compare 9/11 to the bombing of Japan? An un-provoked terrorist attack = an attack in the middle of a war Japan STARTED with us?

*MORE* would have died if Truman did not bomb Japan. Japan, unlike Germany rather die than surrender and would have dragged the war on till its entire country collapsed. Truman had to take a drastic and sudden move to end the war.

He had NO option other than bombing Japan. And he 100% made the right call. And history has redeemed him in that decision.

 

[mckmas8808]

Chris Bowers with some real talk.



OpenLeft

Now that is some real talk. Wow this thing really looks bad for Hillary.

 

[KRS7]

Is there any way Obama can get enough delegates to allow FL and MI to be seated as is while still securing the nomination?

 

[artredis1980]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/i-was-sleep-dep.html

Clinton says Sleep deprivation caused her to 'mispeak' about Bosnia


tell me Mrs Clinton, will you declare war with a country when you pick up the phone at 3 AM and say 'I mispoke' on that as well?

 

[Tamanon]

U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing on behalf of several small political parties, that the law's provision giving the list of voters' partisan preference only to the Democratic and Republican parties violated the rights of other parties.

Yeah, he wasn't talking about the primary at all... but rather the practice of giving the voters' contact info to the parties.

Which means that the proposed revote is "unconstitutional" because it depended on not allowing anyone who voted in the Republican primary to vote again.

 

[mckmas8808]

Did you just compare 9/11 to the bombing of Japan? An un-provoked terrorist attack = an attack in the middle of a war Japan STARTED with us?

*MORE* would have died if Truman did not bomb Japan. Japan, unlike Germany rather die than surrender and would have dragged the war on till its entire country collapsed. Truman had to take a drastic and sudden move to end the war.

He had NO option other than bombing Japan. And he 100% made the right call. And history has redeemed him in that decision.

No history doesn't completely say that at all. That's one way of looking at it. Some say we didn't have to kill 200,000+ people.

It just fucking pisses me off that when we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people it was completely right, but when Bin Laden kills 3,000 innocent people it's the worst attack of the 21st century. :/

It's total bullshit!

 

[Cheebs]

OpenLeft is awesome but to be fair he did endorse Obama

 

[artredis1980]

OpenLeft is awesome but to be fair he did endorse Obama

NY times endorsed Hillary, will we discredit everything they say about Clinton or Obama as well?

 

[User 10639]

No history doesn't completely say that at all. That's one way of looking at it. Some say we didn't have to kill 200,000+ people.

It just fucking pisses me off that when we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people it was completely right, but when Bin Laden kills 3,000 innocent people it's the worst attack of the 21st century. :/

Again, WWII just isn't comparable to ANY other conflict 'cept perhaps WWI, and then only remotely; we're talking about the biggest, most devastating war in history here. Not really comparable to 9/11.

I don't defend Truman's decision, but I do understand the reasons behind it - to force surrender and end a conflict that might've escalated into a land invasion of Japan, which could have caused many more deaths amongst Japanese and U.S. soldiers and probably Japanese civilians too.

I just don't think it had to be the A-bomb, although I understand the reasons behind that decision as well. Look at events in history in context, not out of it.

 

[Triumph]

Is there any way Obama can get enough delegates to allow FL and MI to be seated as is while still securing the nomination?

http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/ is your friend.

To summarize, tho, there are 580 unallocated pledged delegates still out there, most of which are in states yet to hold elections (345 of which will be decided by May 6th in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina). There are also 18 delegates currently pledged to John Edwards. Finally, there are 338 superdelegates that have yet to endorse.

Without MI and FL, the first candidate to 2024 wins. With MI and FL, the first candidate to 2208 wins.

Here's how it stands w/out MI and FL:

Obama 1406 pledged, 210 super, 1616 total
Clinton 1249 pledged, 246 super, 1495 total
Edwards 18 pledged, 18 total

Here's how it would be w/ MI and FL:

Obama 1473 pledged, 215 super, 1688 total
Clinton 1427 pledged, 261 super, 1688 total
Edwards 31 pledged, 31 total
Uncommitted 55 pledged (from MI primary where Obama and Edwards weren't on the ballot)

I'd imagine any deal would have the 55 "uncommitted" delegates from MI going to Obama. So...

Obama 1528 pledged, 215 super, 1743 total
Clinton 1427 pledged, 246 super, 1688 total
Edwards 31 pledged, 31 total

So, if Obama finishes at least 32 delegates ahead of Clinton (to make sure of no treachery from Edwards) I'd say that it's a pretty decent likelihood they'll be seated. Probably with half-votes so they get some kind of penalty, which they (FL and MI) should be fine with since that's the same thing the GOP did.

 

[artredis1980]

Bloomberg to Endorse Obama?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bloomberg-obama0326mar26,0,271476.story

- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has said his endorsement is up for grabs in the presidential race, planned to appear Thursday at an event with Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bloomberg was to introduce the Illinois senator at a speech on the economy at a Manhattan college.

The billionaire mayor had considered his own independent presidential campaign but said a month ago that he had decided not to run. His focus, he said at the time, would be on getting the candidates to embrace a bipartisan approach.

 

[scorcho]

No history doesn't completely say that at all. That's one way of looking at it. Some say we didn't have to kill 200,000+ people.

It just fucking pisses me off that when we kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people it was completely right, but when Bin Laden kills 3,000 innocent people it's the worst attack of the 21st century. :/

It's total bullshit!

the only other alternative to end the war (remember the whole world was in one, right?) would've been a massive ground invasion by the Allied forces to make Japan surrender, which would've killed massively more on either side than the nuclear bomb. there's some research out there that shows maybe Japan would've been more receptive to a surrender had the Allied forces/US negotiated differently, but it's very speculative.

 

[XxenobladerxX]

Bloomberg to Endorse Obama?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bloomberg-obama0326mar26,0,271476.story

- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has said his endorsement is up for grabs in the presidential race, planned to appear Thursday at an event with Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bloomberg was to introduce the Illinois senator at a speech on the economy at a Manhattan college.

The billionaire mayor had considered his own independent presidential campaign but said a month ago that he had decided not to run. His focus, he said at the time, would be on getting the candidates to embrace a bipartisan approach.

HUGE news if true. Probably not though.

 

[Tamanon]

Bloomberg to Endorse Obama?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bloomberg-obama0326mar26,0,271476.story

- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has said his endorsement is up for grabs in the presidential race, planned to appear Thursday at an event with Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bloomberg was to introduce the Illinois senator at a speech on the economy at a Manhattan college.

The billionaire mayor had considered his own independent presidential campaign but said a month ago that he had decided not to run. His focus, he said at the time, would be on getting the candidates to embrace a bipartisan approach.

Wow, if true, that's a pretty huge endorsement, especially for his economic credentials.

 

[topsyturvy]

Obviously you weren't, as you can see from your posts. You point blank stated that black people would come around after Hillary stole the nomination. I disputed that and you kept insisting your view was the correct one... for fucks sakes why do you think you got called a melon headed retard? Because I thought there would be guaranteed riots? GTFO with that shit.

Spin and spin, little Hillary supporter. You're full of shit, and yes, you're a fucking idiot.

So i didn't agree with you at all today? I challenge and provoked this whole fucked up argument/prediction? What?

How it started

and now a few testy pages later we're here. I still fail to see where i insisted that my view was correct between page 59 and the current one. You was the only one to say that my view/prediction was simply wrong and your view was completely right...here.

I understand that my views and candidate of choice is differ and/or disliked around here but i shouldn't have to defend every single damn thing i point out. No matter how much you try to convince yourself that i'm the bad guy here, you fail to understand that everyone have different views then yourself.

 

[v1cious]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/i-was-sleep-dep.html

Clinton says Sleep deprivation caused her to 'mispeak' about Bosnia

 

[mckmas8808]

Again, WWII just isn't comparable to ANY other conflict 'cept perhaps WWI, and then only remotely; we're talking about the biggest, most devastating war in history here. Not really comparable to 9/11.

I don't defend Truman's decision, but I do understand the reasons behind it - to force surrender and end a conflict that might've escalated into a land invasion of Japan, which could have caused many more deaths amongst Japanese and U.S. soldiers and probably Japanese civilians too.

I just don't think it had to be the A-bomb, although I understand the reasons behind that decision as well. Look at events in history in context, not out of it.

I understand the context and I understand why he done it. I just hate the way we Americans (some not Americans) say it was good that we killed thousands of innocent people in Japan. I hate hearing that.

I hate that it was done. And I wish it could have come to an end without purposely killing over 200,000 innocents.

 

[Triumph]

So i didn't agree with you at all today? I challenge and provoked this whole fucked up argument/prediction? What?

How it all started

and now a few testy pages later we're here. I still fail to see where i insisted that my view was correct between page 59 and the current one. You was the only one to say that my view/prediction was simply wrong and your view was completely right...here.

I understand that my views and candidate of choice is differ and/or disliked around here but i shouldn't have to defend every single damn thing i point out. No matter how much you try to convince yourself that i'm the bad guy here, you fail to understand that everyone have different views then yourself and the majority of this thread..

I would like to go ahead and disabuse you of your notions, but since you linked to something other than "what started all this" for that link it's kind of hard to do so.

I'll just content myself with saying that you're full of shit- you WERE saying for pages that there wouldn't be depressed AA turnout should she be the nominee. It's blatantly obvious, and now you're trying to retcon and I'm not buying it.

Finally, you're an idiot.

 

[topsyturvy]

I would like to go ahead and disabuse you of your notions, but since you linked to something other than "what started all this" for that link it's kind of hard to do so.

I'll just content myself with saying that you're full of shit- you WERE saying for pages that there wouldn't be depressed AA turnout should she be the nominee. It's blatantly obvious, and now you're trying to retcon and I'm not buying it.

Finally, you're an idiot.

fine, whatever. I'm the bad guy.

 

[Triumph]

fine, whatever. I'm the bad guy.

I never said that you're a bad guy. Idiots can be good guys.

 

[mckmas8808]

the only other alternative to end the war (remember the whole world was in one, right?) would've been a massive ground invasion by the Allied forces to make Japan surrender, which would've killed massively more on either side than the nuclear bomb. there's some research out there that shows maybe Japan would've been more receptive to a surrender had the Allied forces/US negotiated differently, but it's very speculative.

And isn't it also speculative to say that they wouldn't have surrender without a nuke dropped on them?

 

[User 10639]

Nobody thinks that the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki was a good thing; just that it was necessary.

Again, the alternative to bombing was a land invasion of Japan, which could have caused far more civilian and military casualties on both sides.

I do think that it could have been done effectively without nuclear weapons, ala the firebombing of Dresden, which would have saved both cities from the nuclear fallout that ensued. I suppose that's my only real criticism of it, though.

EDIT: IIRC, they didn't surrender until after both bombs had been dropped - three days apart from each other. Plenty of time to surrender. Course, that was arguably because Hirohito didn't want to lose his power, but w/e.

 

[topsyturvy]

I never said that you're a bad guy. Idiots can be good guys.

Riiight, what would you fall under?

Bloomberg to Endorse Obama?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bloomberg-obama0326mar26,0,271476.story

- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has said his endorsement is up for grabs in the presidential race, planned to appear Thursday at an event with Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bloomberg was to introduce the Illinois senator at a speech on the economy at a Manhattan college.

The billionaire mayor had considered his own independent presidential campaign but said a month ago that he had decided not to run. His focus, he said at the time, would be on getting the candidates to embrace a bipartisan approach.

Now this is O snap worthy.

 

[Cheebs]

The fact so many had to die was horrible. Of course.

But Japan's mindset in terms of war is far different than that of Europe and America. As the war stood that day, it seemed like Japan would only surrender if America did something drastically damaging. The war could have lasted into the 50's without the bombing potentially.

 

[Triumph]

Riiight, what would you fall under?

First of all, I gotta say: nice edit. It takes real cajones to come back and type in that witty response you weren't quite quick enough to come up with the first time around.

If I gotta say, I would label myself a righteous ass kicker.

 

[Hitokage]

I do think that it could have been done effectively without nuclear weapons, ala the firebombing of Dresden, which would have saved both cities from the nuclear fallout that ensued. I suppose that's my only real criticism of it, though.

Except we were already firebombing the living shit out of Japan at large.

 

[maynerd]

I don't want to get into a debate about the bomb and japan but I have to say maybe the 1st one was something people could justify or even say was right but the 2nd bomb probably was not necessary. Especially since it was a mere 3 days after the first.

 

[KRS7]

This thread has jumped right off its pretty wide tracks.

Yes, the Japanese were fucked up in WWII and probably wouldn't have surrendered. But no it wasn't a great thing to bomb them. It was necessary for the protection of Obama, Japan. Now we are back on track.

 

[topsyturvy]

First of all, I gotta say: nice edit. It takes real cajones to come back and type in that witty response you weren't quite quick enough to come up with the first time around.

Sure, pat yourself on the back there buddy. You're pathetic.

 

[User 10639]

Except we were already firebombing the living shit out of Japan at large.

Yeah, I need to brush up on my WWII history a bit, 'cause I completely forgot that.

I don't want to get into a debate about the bomb and japan but I have to say maybe the 1st one was something people could justify or even say was right but the 2nd bomb probably was not necessary. Especially since it was a mere 3 days after the first.

Well, we're already in a debate. Three days is not enough time to surrender, though?


Also, this thread is totally, completely boring, so I'm fine with talking about Truman/WWII even though it's totally, completely off topic. :lol

 

[maynerd]

Yeah, I need to brush up on my WWII history a bit, 'cause I completely forgot that. Well, we're already in a debate. Three days is not enough time to surrender, though?

Maybe now it would be but back then that may not have been enough time to asess the damage, coordinate what to do next, etc...

 

[ari]

Sure, pat yourself on the back there buddy. You're pathetic.

Both of you guys should just shut the fuck up.

Its clear that both of you fuckers is trying to bait each other in a fucking ban or what not. PLEASE BE QUIET.

topsyturvy stop replying and go away.

triumph get over yourself.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Chris Bowers with some real talk.

6.0% is greater than the margin by which Bill Clinton won the 1992 election, and also greater than the margin by which Republicans won the 2002 midterms.

OpenLeft

how can anyone see that fact... and not realize where the media bias actually goes..

So, now that we all know that Clinton's Bosnia comments were an outright lie, I'd like to know your comments and reaction to this. You and other conveniently sling mud then conveniently choose to ignore the whole issue and jump on some other random topic when the facts come out. Why are you supporting a candidate who is so easily willing to exaggerate, embellish, and outright lie to impress people, and what does that say about her character?

i love how these direct questions seem to be ignored.. :lol

 

[Bishman]

Bloomberg to Endorse Obama?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bloomberg-obama0326mar26,0,271476.story

- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has said his endorsement is up for grabs in the presidential race, planned to appear Thursday at an event with Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bloomberg was to introduce the Illinois senator at a speech on the economy at a Manhattan college.

The billionaire mayor had considered his own independent presidential campaign but said a month ago that he had decided not to run. His focus, he said at the time, would be on getting the candidates to embrace a bipartisan approach.

Big news if this happens.

 

[maynerd]

This looks cool. Anyone play the 2004 version?

http://www.politicalmachine.com/

OH SNAP no mac version?

 

[speculawyer]

Probably already talked about . . . but I gotta say the Hillary ~= Tonya Harding stuff is really funny. :lol

'Dems fear Hillary's "Tonya Harding" option'

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Bloomberg to Endorse Obama?

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--bloomberg-obama0326mar26,0,271476.story

- Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has said his endorsement is up for grabs in the presidential race, planned to appear Thursday at an event with Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

Bloomberg was to introduce the Illinois senator at a speech on the economy at a Manhattan college.

The billionaire mayor had considered his own independent presidential campaign but said a month ago that he had decided not to run. His focus, he said at the time, would be on getting the candidates to embrace a bipartisan approach.

NO WAY!

 

[XxenobladerxX]

I'm pretty sure its fake.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

Bloomberg is not a superdelegate anyway
I doubt this news very much

 

[Incognito]

OpenLeft is awesome but to be fair he did endorse Obama

openleft's endorsement of obama (member voted and super majority approved) somehow conflicts with the salient facts in bower's analysis?

 

[ralexand]

Bloomberg is not a superdelegate anyway
I doubt this news very much

Why? Is that a bogus site? Are you saying Bloomberg will not introduce him?

 

[APF]

So now Hillary has a better record of leveling with he American people than Obama?

I thought the question was about McCain and Obama? Are you so full of rage and hatred that all you see in your violent red world is the screaming visage of the former First Lady? Get a life.

 

[v1cious]

NO WAY!

it's not an endorsement, he's just introducing him.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

it's not an endorsement, he's just introducing him.

why does he have to do the intro?

 

[Farmboy]

I already linked the 'do it yourself' delegate calculator over at Slate. Now Jay Cost of RCP's HorseRaceblog has a popular vote Excel sheet that's mighty nice. Number-crunching = fun!

 

[syllogism]

He is just offering Obama some soft support, but it's pretty clear he favors Obama over Hillary. Apparently Obama campaign even said it's not an endorsement and this isn't the first time Obama and Bloomberg have appeared together in public.