Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '10 00:01 / 2 edits
    Nate Silver (a solid Dem) now makes her a 3-1 dog.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/538-model-posits-brown-as-31-favorite.html

    Recent polls now have Brown as a moderate to big favorite.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latestpolls/2010.html

    Brown to win now trading at 78 on Intrade.

    This one is gonna really sting. I'm gonna be really curious to see how the WH spins this one if Coakley doesn't pull it off. I guess they'll throw her under the bus and say she ran a lousy campaign or something.
  2. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '10 00:14
    Oh, and FMF (and others, I guess), I'm not the only one who noticed the intensity of the online Brown supporters.

    From the pen of the Great (Democrat) Nate Silver:

    the energy, focus and enthusiasm of those in the online right has been something to behold, and will be a force to be reckoned with even if their candidate should lose this race.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/25-0.html
  3. 19 Jan '10 00:37
    Originally posted by sh76
    Oh, and FMF (and others, I guess), I'm not the only one who noticed the intensity of the online Brown supporters.

    From the pen of the Great (Democrat) Nate Silver:

    the energy, focus and enthusiasm of those in the online right has been something to behold, and will be a force to be reckoned with even if their candidate should lose this race.

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/25-0.html
    Coakley is a piece of work. She calls Curt Schilling a Yankees fan. Then she says their are no Taliban in Afghanastan.

    Taliban attackers strike at heart of Afghanistan's capital
    GARDEZ, Afghanistan -- Seven Taliban attackers, including a suicide bomber driving an ambulance, hit the center of Kabul on Monday morning, killing five people, wounding at least 71 and demonstrating their ability to strike at the hub of the U.S.-backed Afghan government.
    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1432095.html

    Her like most in the Dem party are in a alternate universe.
    prediction- USAP will be here very soon running to her defense saying "that was taken out of context!!! that was taken out of context!!!

    Heres the video you be the judge:
    http://lmliberty.com/2010/01/13/democrat-candidate-martha-coakley-no-taliban-in-afghanistan/
  4. 19 Jan '10 00:50
    It looks like she's as big an idiot as Ford. Having no clue about what's going on in the world isn't limited to Dems.
  5. 19 Jan '10 01:09
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Coakley is a piece of work. She calls Curt Schilling a Yankees fan. Then she says their are no Taliban in Afghanastan.

    [b]Taliban attackers strike at heart of Afghanistan's capital

    GARDEZ, Afghanistan -- Seven Taliban attackers, including a suicide bomber driving an ambulance, hit the center of Kabul on Monday morning, killing five people, wou ...[text shortened]...
    http://lmliberty.com/2010/01/13/democrat-candidate-martha-coakley-no-taliban-in-afghanistan/[/b]
    Your link didn't work. But how about this? How about I provide the FULL context and then let everyone decide if she was talking about the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

    That's fair, right? Letting everyone decide for themselves?

    COAKLEY: I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was -- and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They're gone. They're not there anymore. They're in, apparently Yemen, they're in Pakistan. Let's focus our efforts on where Al Qaeda is and not always decide that we need to --

    GERGEN: Would you then send troops into Yemen where Al Qaeda is?

    COAKLEY: No, I -- that's exactly the point. This is not about sending troops everywhere we think Al Qaeda may be, or where they're training. We have all kinds of resources at our disposal, including CIA, our allies who work with us. And the focus should be getting the appropriate information on individuals who are trained, who represent a threat to us, and use the force necessary to go after those individuals.


    Uther, how many times do you have to get fooled by your Conservative blogs? How many times do they have to make an a$$ of you before you stop taking them seriously?
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '10 01:35
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Your link didn't work. But how about this? How about I provide the FULL context and then let everyone decide if she was talking about the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

    That's fair, right? Letting everyone decide for themselves?

    [quote]COAKLEY: I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was -- and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in beca ...[text shortened]... w many times do they have to make an a$$ of you before you stop taking them seriously?
    Seems like she was referring to "terrorists," not AQ specifically.

    I will say I'm not sure I see the consistency in having "supported" "the mission in Afghanistan ... because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists" and then saying in the next sentence, "This is not about sending troops everywhere we think Al Qaeda may be, or where they're training."

    I'm a little confused. Does she believe in sending troops to places that are harboring Al Qaeda and terrorists in general or not?
  7. 19 Jan '10 02:04
    Originally posted by sh76
    Seems like she was referring to "terrorists," not AQ specifically.

    I will say I'm not sure I see the consistency in having "supported" "the mission in Afghanistan ... because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists" and then saying in the next sentence, "This is not about sending troops everywhere we think Al Qaeda may be, or where they' ...[text shortened]... ending troops to places that are harboring Al Qaeda and terrorists in general or not?
    A fair question and we can get into a discussion about what she actually said. But the point is to have an *honest* conversation.
  8. 19 Jan '10 03:31
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    Your link didn't work. But how about this? How about I provide the FULL context and then let everyone decide if she was talking about the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

    That's fair, right? Letting everyone decide for themselves?

    [quote]COAKLEY: I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was -- and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in beca ...[text shortened]... w many times do they have to make an a$$ of you before you stop taking them seriously?
    This is what the woman said,
    When asked about the prospects for victory in Afghanistan, Martha Coakley had this to say:

    "I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."

    She is specifically speaking of the Taliban.
  9. 19 Jan '10 03:34
    All of this is meaningless. Tomorrow will be the election. Let's hope for the best and see if we can't get a Republican elected in Mass.
  10. 19 Jan '10 04:07
    Originally posted by Eladar
    All of this is meaningless. Tomorrow will be the election. Let's hope for the best and see if we can't get a Republican elected in Mass.
    Agreed. He has a 9 point lead as of a couple of hours ago, I heard.
  11. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    19 Jan '10 04:56
    I find it strange that Coakley hasn't spoken a word in any of the ads I've seen over the past week, letting the star power of her support time do the talking for her.

    Brown on the other hand has personally appeared in every ad I've seen.

    Quite a contrast.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Jan '10 05:06
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [Coakley] is specifically speaking of the Taliban.
    She clearly is not talking about the Taliban. But your sincerity is noted. As is the effect it has on your reading comprehension.

    he're is the quote in question: "I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."
  13. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    19 Jan '10 05:14
    Originally posted by sh76
    Seems like she was referring to "terrorists," not AQ specifically.

    I will say I'm not sure I see the consistency in having "supported" "the mission in Afghanistan ... because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists" and then saying in the next sentence, "This is not about sending troops everywhere we think Al Qaeda may be, or where they' ...[text shortened]... ending troops to places that are harboring Al Qaeda and terrorists in general or not?
    Sounds to me like she prefers to use the necessary force after they've already been fully trained....and assigned a mission....and boarded the plane....then we'll get those evil-doers! We'll arrest them and send them to court for a wee bit 'o plea barginin' to get info on more individuals that have been fully trained...and assigned a mission.....and boarded a plane....
  14. 19 Jan '10 05:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    [b]Coakley is a piece of work. She calls Curt Schilling a Yankees fan. Then she says their are no Taliban in Afghanastan.
    I think she is the Democrats Sarah Palin. Perhaps she can get a job at PMSNBC after she loses the election.
  15. Standard member monster truck
    Walleye Guy
    19 Jan '10 05:28
    Originally posted by whodey
    I think she is the Democrats Sarah Palin. Perhaps she can get a job at PMSNBC after she loses the election.
    I find it odd that these folks that are supposed to represent the working class are so completely disconnected from them. It's almost like they're freakin' Republicans or sumptin'?