930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: chaz on September 01, 2008, 02:52:00 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html)
I find it seriously hard to believe that McCain knew about this before choosing Palin as VP candidate....
-
If he really knew prior to announcing the pick, he's an even bigger idiot than I initially thought he was for making it.
-
5 months pregnant?
Whew, off the hook then.
-
i feel the times have changed beyond people really caring that the girl is young and preggers and needing to get married quick. we see with eyes viewing directly at what happens around us all the time and how such actions effect the deeper meaning . . . unless of course you're old enough to care about social security and how it will relate to you, then i'm sure in- between episodes of "matlock" and "murder she wrote" you feel this is a (fox)news worthy tragedy. i feel the real problem with the vp is that you have a party that looks at the fact that if john mcdonalds happy meal heart stops three months in, then we might just have a hillary (clone) in the white house. 'and who wants that?,' they mutter with their martinis and meandering looks at those bars that attract the shitty capital hill types.
-
Apart from the sex organs, she and Hillary have absolutely nothing in common.
So she's far from a Hillary clone.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Apart from the sex organs, she and Hillary have absolutely nothing in common.
So she's far from a Hillary clone.
but a lot of people still think that obama is a muslim terrorist that will turn our country into the next middle east, or something like that, if he is elected. people see "woman" and they think "hillary" because that's what/who they were exposed to.
-
Diddy told me we can't vote for Palin because she's never even seen a black person.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Diddy told me we can't vote for Palin because she's never even seen a black person.
the only problem is that diddy tries not to meet black people either, unless they are holding an umbrella for him, or he shoots them to start an east coast/west coast fued that will "remove" his main reason for not being the center of attention.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Apart from the sex organs, she and Hillary have absolutely nothing in common.
So she's far from a Hillary clone.
but a lot of people still think that obama is a muslim terrorist that will turn our country into the next middle east, or something like that, if he is elected. people see "woman" and they think "hillary" because that's what/who they were exposed to. [/b]
Yeah...I know that's essentially why he picked her. Call me naive but I refuse to believe that bitter female Hillary voters would rather vote against their own interests than for Obama (way more of a Hillary clone politically/ideologically than Palin).
-
The initial report made by the McCain campaign indicated that McCain knew this before making his final selection and had decided to continue making Palin the pick because her daughter was keeping the baby.
Smackette's first reaction: this is what happens when mommy's not around enough, which prompted me to spit my Mountain Dew acroos the room this morning.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Yeah...I know that's essentially why he picked her. Call me naive but I refuse to believe that bitter female Hillary voters would rather vote against their own interests than for Obama (way more of a Hillary clone politically/ideologically than Palin).
Every woman and Hillary Supporter I asked this weekend (some of whom even changed their registration to the Republican party) said they would be voting for Obama now (I asked easily over two dozen and not all from SF or even CA). Only one Hillary supporter I've asked is still voting for McCain.
-
Palin IS NOT an attempt to steal Hillary voters. Palin is an attempt to solidify the evangelical base.
-
He could've made a few other (more sensable) picks if that's really what he was aiming to do.
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Palin IS NOT an attempt to steal Hillary voters. Palin is an attempt to solidify the evangelical base.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
He could've made a few other (more sensable) picks if that's really what he was aiming to do.
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Palin IS NOT an attempt to steal Hillary voters. Palin is an attempt to solidify the evangelical base.
[/b]
Exactly. Then why not pick Tim Pawlenty? He's the President of the National Asociation of Evangelicals!!!!
More experience, has balanced more budgets in a swing state no less, had a passport before last year,[/b] can speak about alternative energy solutions, as far as I know neither of his teen daughters are pregnant either...
-
McCain also denies not knowing that the Palins have a development deal for a reality show on E! to be called "Praisin' Palins"
-
She hit the nail on the head with that reaction. Celeste said the same exact thing.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Smackette's first reaction: this is what happens when mommy's not around enough, which prompted me to spit my Mountain Dew acroos the room this morning.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
as far as I know neither of his teen daughters are pregnant either...
Do you have photos of Pawlenty's teenage daughters?
-
they get slutty to the third power.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Smackette's first reaction: this is what happens when mommy's not around enough, which prompted me to spit my Mountain Dew acroos the room this morning.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Apart from the sex organs, she and Hillary have absolutely nothing in common.
So she's far from a Hillary clone.
but a lot of people still think that obama is a muslim terrorist that will turn our country into the next middle east, or something like that, if he is elected. people see "woman" and they think "hillary" because that's what/who they were exposed to. [/b]
Who? I think this belongs in your conspiracy theory thread.
:D :eek:
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
McCain also denies not knowing that the Palins have a development deal for a reality show on E! to be called "Praisin' Palins"
Best post of yesterday. lol. "Raisin Palins" could work too. ;)
When I heard, my jaw dropped and rather than gasp, I surprised myself and laughed. If I had a Mountain Dew, I would have shot it through my nose.
I also feel badly for the her infant boy who seems to be babysat an awful lot by her 17 year old.
Am I the only one who thinks of Van Halen's "Hot For Teacher" video when they see Palin?
-
the left/dems seems to be getting a bit nervous? no?
-
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=176097566 (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=176097566)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
the left/dems seems to be getting a bit nervous? no?
I cant even imagine a world where a republican nominee could win this election. All Obama needs is Florida, Colorado and Virginia and its goodnight McCain.
The only real question is whether the Obama supporters will come out on the 4th. Traditionally, counting on black voters has been sketchy at best. If they come out , its over, if not....we're gonna be up all night watching CNN again.
This year, feels different, i think he's gonna win by 8+ points.
-
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v640/x1x/juneaujuno.png" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
the left/dems seems to be getting a bit nervous? no?
Nope
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/)
-
website is so biased.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
The initial report made by the McCain campaign indicated that McCain knew this before making his final selection and had decided to continue making Palin the pick because her daughter was keeping the baby.
Smackette's first reaction: this is what happens when mommy's not around enough, which prompted me to spit my Mountain Dew acroos the room this morning.
You have Mountain Dew for breakfast???!!!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
website is so biased.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html)
CNN has the same map almost. Do you think McCain can take the upper midwest?
electoral map, cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/electoral.map/index.html)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
website is so biased.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/03/frequently-asked-questions-last-revised.html)
Try any of these, then:
Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
Electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com)
Real Clear Politics Electoral Map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10)
Intrade Prediction Markets (http://www.intrade.com/)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
the left/dems seems to be getting a bit nervous? no?
Pawlenty, Huckabee, Joe Lieberman or even Sam fucking Brownback would've made me nervous. This pick honestly has me wondering if McCain really wants to win anymore.
-
Maybe he's casting around for a new girlfriend/wife. It's a great way to meet chicks.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/synthpudor/2808403325_219ec1e61e.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
is it me or does Palini look like Tina Fey?
<img src="http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tina-fey-30-rock.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
It's you...and everyone else who has made that comment since this news broke :D
I still think she looks like:
<img src="http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p13/gismonzales/KarenWalker.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by very sonick:
is it me or does Palini look like Tina Fey?
<img src="http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tina-fey-30-rock.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
I won't call you crazy, but I'd be more than happy to place money on it.
-
given that the majority of the country are stupid people, I won't be surprised if he doesn't win.
Originally posted by manimtired:
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
-
considering i dont know you and will most likely never meet you i think ill hold off on the betting.
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
given that the majority of the country are stupid people, I won't be surprised if he doesn't win.
Originally posted by manimtired:
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
[/b]
i bet youre a real genius.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
It's you...and everyone else who has made that comment since this news broke :D
I still think she looks like:
Hot for teacher lady! :p
(And NO on Tina Fey. Btw, Anyone see the "30 Rock" episode when they were doing PR/commerical to get the Republican black vote?)
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
It's you...and everyone else who has made that comment since this news broke :D
sorry , I was away all weekend not watching the news.
but its always nice how this board loves to point out whenever you have an unoriginal thought or idea!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
then who do you think will win?
my wife is voting for this guy:
<img src="http://acandidworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/barr.jpeg" alt=" - " />
-
mccain
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Maybe he's casting around for a new girlfriend/wife. It's a great way to meet chicks.
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/synthpudor/2808403325_219ec1e61e.jpg" alt=" - " />
VOTE MILF 08
Were can I get that bumper sticker?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
mccain
i bet you're a real genius.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Maybe he's casting around for a new girlfriend/wife. It's a great way to meet chicks.
VOTE MILF 08
Were can I get that bumper sticker? [/b]
technically we're in GILF territory now.
-
Going back to this pregnant daughter business, I can't help but feel bad for the dad. Poor guy just wanted to get laid like any other teenage boy and now he's being forced into marriage. Not to mention that he'll be surrounded by the press for anywhere between the next two months
and 8.5 years (hopefully for his sake and the country's, it's the former).
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
mccain
i bet you're a real genius. [/b]
well if not obama i will have to say i feel mccain is the likely winner. you dont think so?
-
i am enjoying the use of bristol's bun in the oven to examine mccain's terrible track record with sex education.
mccain and palin working to overturn roe v wade is one of the scariest things - to me - that would be the result of another republican in the white house.
'McCain's record on issues surrounding teen pregnancy and contraceptives during his more than two decades in the Senate indicates that he and Palin have similar views. Until Monday, when the subject surfaced in a deeply personal manner, teen pregnancy and sex education were not issues in the national political campaign.
Palin herself said she opposes funding sexual-education programs in Alaska. '
source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/02/politics/main4406313.shtml?)
-
This is what really blows my mind:
With time running out ?? and as Mr. McCain discarded two safer choices, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, as too predictable ?? he turned to Ms. Palin. He had his first face-to-face interview with her on Thursday and offered her the job moments later. Advisers to Mr. Pawlenty and another of the finalists on Mr. McCain??s list described an intensive vetting process for those candidates that lasted one to two months.
??They didn??t seriously consider her until four or five days from the time she was picked, before she was asked, maybe the Thursday or Friday before,? said a Republican close to the campaign. ??This was really kind of rushed at the end, because John didn??t get what he wanted. He wanted to do Joe or Ridge.?
***
People familiar with the process said Ms. Palin had responded to a standard form with more than 70 questions. Although The Washington Post quoted advisers to Mr. McCain on Sunday as saying Ms. Palin had been subjected to an F.B.I. background check, an F.B.I. official said Monday the bureau did not vet potential candidates and had not known of her selection until it was made public.
***
In Alaska, several state leaders and local officials said they knew of no efforts by the McCain campaign to find out more information about Ms. Palin before the announcement of her selection, Although campaigns are typically discreet when they make inquiries into potential running mates, officials in Alaska said Monday they thought it was peculiar that no one in the state had the slightest hint that Ms. Palin might be under consideration.
??They didn??t speak to anyone in the Legislature, they didn??t speak to anyone in the business community,? said Lyda Green, the State Senate president, who lives in Wasilla, where Ms. Palin served as mayor.
Representative Gail Phillips, a Republican and former speaker of the State House, said the widespread surprise in Alaska when Ms. Palin was named to the ticket made her wonder how intensively the McCain campaign had vetted her.
??I started calling around and asking, and I have not been able to find one person that was called,? Ms. Phillips said. ??I called 30 to 40 people, political leaders, business leaders, community leaders. Not one of them had heard. Alaska is a very small community, we know people all over, but I haven??t found anybody who was asked anything.?
The current mayor of Wasilla, Dianne M. Keller, said she had not heard of any efforts to look into Ms. Palin??s background. And Randy Ruedrich, the state Republican Party chairman, said he knew nothing of any vetting that had been conducted.
State Senator Hollis French, a Democrat who is directing the ethics investigation, said that no one asked him about the allegations. ??I heard not a word, not a single contact,? he said.
____________________
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=politics)
-
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
Palin herself said she opposes funding sexual-education programs in Alaska. '
Blows my mind that the state of Alaska does not require sex-ed. Oh well, maybe it'll be implemented. ;)
-
<img src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_uExTzMIDd1Y/R2O5nKq9_tI/AAAAAAAAATE/At2bb_K_3ao/s400/Sarah-Palin-Vogue.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
the preggers daughter is one thing, but the fact that she liked lobbiest and pork as mayor is really blowing my mind. that's like mccains biggest thing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?wpisrc=newsletter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?wpisrc=newsletter)
-
its all locked up for obama right? why all the fuss about this chick?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
its all locked up for obama right? why all the fuss about this chick?
Because she locked it up for him.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the preggers daughter is one thing, but the fact that she liked lobbiest and pork as mayor is really blowing my mind. that's like mccains biggest thing
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?wpisrc=newsletter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?wpisrc=newsletter)
don't forget those pesky polar bears getting in the way of her oil!
-
i think johnny's ok with the polar bears
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html?wpisrc=newsletter
Okay, sorry, sonick, she does look like Tina Fey in that photo.
-
It just gets better and better:
McCain Camp Didn't Search Palin's Hometown Newspaper Archives for Information About Her (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/mccain-camp-didnt-search_n_122823.html)
-
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Maybe he's casting around for a new girlfriend/wife. It's a great way to meet chicks.
VOTE MILF 08
Were can I get that bumper sticker? [/b]
technically we're in GILF territory now. [/b]
True, very true, plus she's coughed out five sprogs out of that thang so probably like throwing a hotdog down a back alley at this point....then again, there's always anal!!!! :eek:
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think johnny's ok with the polar bears
Palin opposes the Bush administration's decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne earlier this month to try to overturn his decision.
Palin argues there isn't enough evidence to support a listing, and she fears it will harm oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04)
-
the boyfriend sounds like s real winner
On his MySpace page, Johnston boasts, "I'm a f - - -in' redneck" who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes.
"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s- - - and just f - - -in' chillin' I guess."
"Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass," he added.
He also claims to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."
-
You really want John McCain to be president, when he selects somebody this carelessly?
Palin was a member of a political party that supported secession from the Union (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_alaska_independence_party.php)
-
shes also a nazi, racist and daughter of satan.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
shes also a nazi, racist and daughter of satan.
No, she's none of those things. But she's all of the things we've posted about here. Are you going to open your eyes and perhaps get angry at your candidate for completely screwing over your party's chances of winning the White House?
-
werent you a hillary supporter? i dont think she's hurt his chances at all.
-
who cares about the dumb daughter.
there's nothing else to do in alaska besides drink and fuck.
there's nothign else to do in alaska when you have a huge house all to your self, you are 17, you are having all night parties cause daddy is snow mobile racing or working on an oil rig and mommy is governer, besides drink adn fuck
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
werent you a hillary supporter? i dont think she's hurt his chances at all.
No, I wasn't. Just wait a week, maybe two weeks, and we'll see where the race is at.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
shes also a nazi, racist and daughter of satan.
No, she's none of those things. But she's all of the things we've posted about here. Are you going to open your eyes and perhaps get angry at your candidate for completely screwing over your party's chances of winning the White House? [/b]
Of course not. When do Republicans EVER talk about their own ideas? All they do is rip apart the Democratic candidate.
Cue: Completely unintelligent sarcastic comment from Manimtired that continues to say absolutely nothing about his own position while shitting all over the Democrats because that is all he is capable of. You're like the Red Lobster of political discourse.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
werent you a hillary supporter? i dont think she's hurt his chances at all.
No, I wasn't. Just wait a week, maybe two weeks, and we'll see where the race is at. [/b]
Predicting Biden's famous quote: "Sorry, Governor, you are no Hillary Clinton."
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
its all locked up for obama right? why all the fuss about this chick?
Because she locked it up for him. [/b]
while i think this is funny, i doubt its true. I think McCain really holds no control over this.
I dont know if we are fussing over her, just talking about the big news of the weekend.
(though i dont see a Joe Biden thread on here do i?)
-
can we just talk about Biden's handsome son?? :)
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
shes also a nazi, racist and daughter of satan.
No, she's none of those things. But she's all of the things we've posted about here. Are you going to open your eyes and perhaps get angry at your candidate for completely screwing over your party's chances of winning the White House? [/b]
Of course not. When do Republicans EVER talk about their own ideas? All they do is rip apart the Democratic candidate.
Cue: Completely unintelligent sarcastic comment from Manimtired that continues to say absolutely nothing about his own position while shitting all over the Democrats because that is all he is capable of. You're like the Red Lobster of political discourse. [/b]
stfu
all im saying is that you all are talking about "omg how could mccain make this horrible choice" and im saying that it seems youre a bit uneasy/nervous about the pick.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
stfu
all im saying is that you all are talking about "omg how could mccain make this horrible choice" and im saying that it seems youre a bit uneasy/nervous about the pick.
Replace "uneasy/nervous" with "giddy/elated," and you nailed it right on the head.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
shes also a nazi, racist and daughter of satan.
No, she's none of those things. But she's all of the things we've posted about here. Are you going to open your eyes and perhaps get angry at your candidate for completely screwing over your party's chances of winning the White House? [/b]
Of course not. When do Republicans EVER talk about their own ideas? All they do is rip apart the Democratic candidate.
Cue: Completely unintelligent sarcastic comment from Manimtired that continues to say absolutely nothing about his own position while shitting all over the Democrats because that is all he is capable of. You're like the Red Lobster of political discourse. [/b]
stfu
all im saying is that you all are talking about "omg how could mccain make this horrible choice" and im saying that it seems youre a bit uneasy/nervous about the pick. [/b]
for me it's less that he made a horrible choice (and he did, she's as unqualified as she is insane) but rather HOW he made it. the biggest takeaway should be that mccain's first executive decision, and a damn important one at that, was made pretty much on a whim. he met her ONCE before he picked her, not counting the final interview or whatever. he didn't care to collect all the facts and basically went with his gut. i think we've seen how that strategy works...
-
you guys seem totally giddy/elated. my bad.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
True, very true, plus she's coughed out five sprogs out of that thang so probably like throwing a hotdog down a back alley at this point....then again, there's always anal!!!! :eek:
My hat is off to you sir...this post was true poetry.
-
If McCain gets a "do over" I'll lose my sh*t. Time will tell, but perhaps Obama will be able to say "Checkmate!"
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you guys seem totally giddy/elated. my bad.
you mean, mccains bad.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
then who do you think will win?
my wife is voting for this guy:
<img src="http://acandidworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/barr.jpeg" alt=" - " /> [/b]
I'm 90% sure I'm voting for him too. I'm sick of this lesser of two evils thing. I'll vote my conscience from here on out. And yes, my conscience tells me to vote for smallest possible government, regardless of how realistic the candidates chances are.
-
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think johnny's ok with the polar bears
Palin opposes the Bush administration's decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne earlier this month to try to overturn his decision.
Palin argues there isn't enough evidence to support a listing, and she fears it will harm oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04) [/b]
There's a damn good reason not to name Polar bears as endangered, the fact that they are doing just fine.
linkage (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
(though i dont see a Joe Biden thread on here do i?)
true. course, since we're talking about the vp nominees' children, who cares about joe (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93954519&ft=1&f=1012) biden's (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-24-Biden-son_N.htm?csp=34) son (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08312008/business/bidens_son_in_fund_suit_126918.htm).
it's nice to be back and see everyone's smiling faces.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think johnny's ok with the polar bears
Palin opposes the Bush administration's decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne earlier this month to try to overturn his decision.
Palin argues there isn't enough evidence to support a listing, and she fears it will harm oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04) [/b]
There's a damn good reason not to name Polar bears as endangered, the fact that they are doing just fine.
linkage (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm) [/b]
you monster!! how can you post a link saying that the polar bear population is not endagered.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think johnny's ok with the polar bears
Palin opposes the Bush administration's decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne earlier this month to try to overturn his decision.
Palin argues there isn't enough evidence to support a listing, and she fears it will harm oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiV2WBHEmiS0_TAkxcdOD_WFHDkAD92S4MS04) [/b]
There's a damn good reason not to name Polar bears as endangered, the fact that they are doing just fine.
linkage (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm) [/b]
you monster!! how can you post a link saying that the polar bear population is not endagered. [/b]
*rolls eyes* they aren't endangered. which is the point, they are threatened. please learn to read.
and come to think of it, since when do you believe in science?
-
nice try but you fail.
-
Yeah, Bob Barr is a real smart choice for president. The man whose biggest accomplishments were sticking "Reagan" on National Airport, and leading the charge of immorality against once-married Clinton despite being married three times and being photographed -- while married to his third wife -- licking cream off the tits of a stripper while in Congress. The guy who, as a prosecutor, was well-known for lying and concealing evidence in order to win cases. Who also paid for one of his wives to have an abortion despite a 100% record of voting against other people's right to have one. Who has been repeatedly been cited for refusing to pay child support to his first two wives.
But Bob Barr is only being the best Bob Barr that Bob Barr can be, Bob Barr that is.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
then who do you think will win?
my wife is voting for this guy:
<img src="http://acandidworld.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/barr.jpeg" alt=" - " /> [/b]
I'm 90% sure I'm voting for him too. I'm sick of this lesser of two evils thing. I'll vote my conscience from here on out. And yes, my conscience tells me to vote for smallest possible government, regardless of how realistic the candidates chances are. [/b]
Uh-oh....here come the Naderites!!!
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Yeah, Bob Barr is a real smart choice for president. The man whose biggest accomplishments were sticking "Reagan" on National Airport, and leading the charge of immorality against once-married Clinton despite being married three times and being photographed -- while married to his third wife -- licking cream off the tits of a stripper while in Congress. The guy who, as a prosecutor, was well-known for lying and concealing evidence in order to win cases. Who also paid for one of his wives to have an abortion despite a 100% record of voting against other people's right to have one. Who has been repeatedly been cited for refusing to pay child support to his first two wives.
But Bob Barr is only being the best Bob Barr that Bob Barr can be, Bob Barr that is.
Damn it, don't go convincing me it's a choice of 3 evils. As I see it here's the breakdown.
1. Barr, with all of the hoopla you just mentioned (some I knew about, other tidbits are new to me)
2. McCain, real danger of being 4 more year's of crazy neo-con, Bush 2.0 (instead of the renegade centrist I liked back in 2000) and to boot picks a VP w/ very little experience while he's the oldest presidential candidate ever, and has had bouts with melanoma.
3. Obama, who also has very little experience and totes the democratic party line that more laws and federal government handling everything solves the world's problems.
You tell me, shall I defect to the Constitution party? Every politician is covered in some kind of crap, I'm just hoping to vote for one that's mildly able to run the country and whose stated policies aren't completely contrary to my ideals. Is that too much to ask?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by very sonick:
(though i dont see a Joe Biden thread on here do i?)
true. course, since we're talking about the vp nominees' children, who cares about joe (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93954519&ft=1&f=1012) biden's (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-24-Biden-son_N.htm?csp=34) son (http://www.nypost.com/seven/08312008/business/bidens_son_in_fund_suit_126918.htm).
it's nice to be back and see everyone's smiling faces. [/b]
maybe palin could get her successor to hire him
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
nice try but you fail.
please post something intelligent, just once!!! so we can at least know you are a real person posting.
two other thoughts.
1. The picture in that polar bear article makes polar bears look endangered.
2. to mank, Bob Barr is Libertarian not Green party. The Green Party does have a nominee Cynthia someone or other. and if you cant decide between black Obama and woman Palin...shes a black woman!!!! But i dont know much about her.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
nice try but you fail.
please post something intelligent, just once!!! so we can at least know you are a real person posting.
two other thoughts.
1. The picture in that polar bear article makes polar bears look endangered.
2. to mank, Bob Barr is Libertarian not Green party. The Green Party does have a nominee Cynthia someone or other. and if you cant decide between black Obama and woman Palin...shes a black woman!!!! But i dont know much about her. [/b]
I was referring to wasting your vote when America is clearly a two party system, wether we care to admit it or not.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
nice try but you fail.
please post something intelligent, just once!!! so we can at least know you are a real person posting.
two other thoughts.
1. The picture in that polar bear article makes polar bears look endangered.
2. to mank, Bob Barr is Libertarian not Green party. The Green Party does have a nominee Cynthia someone or other. and if you cant decide between black Obama and woman Palin...shes a black woman!!!! But i dont know much about her. [/b]
I was referring to wasting your vote when America is clearly a two party system, wether we care to admit it or not. [/b]
correct. but understand this. the Green Party is to the Democrats what the Libertarians are to the Republicans.
so she can vote for a third party without taking votes from the Dem nominee. (as many did voting for Nader...another reason why i think Obama can win now cause he's not running).
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
shes also a nazi, racist and daughter of satan.
No, she's none of those things. But she's all of the things we've posted about here. Are you going to open your eyes and perhaps get angry at your candidate for completely screwing over your party's chances of winning the White House? [/b]
Of course not. When do Republicans EVER talk about their own ideas? All they do is rip apart the Democratic candidate.
Cue: Completely unintelligent sarcastic comment from Manimtired that continues to say absolutely nothing about his own position while shitting all over the Democrats because that is all he is capable of. You're like the Red Lobster of political discourse. [/b]
stfu
all im saying is that you all are talking about "omg how could mccain make this horrible choice" and im saying that it seems youre a bit uneasy/nervous about the pick. [/b]
How about posting valid reasons as to why she's not a horrible pick? You know; something with actual substance? Most of us have given you many reasons otherwise from relevant news sources and you've done nothing to counter them but lob juvenile insults.
The waiting for manimtired to produce something continues...
-
Just...wow. What a week for McCain:
McCain's Campaign Manager Says Election Is Not About The Issues (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/McCain_manager_Election_not_about_issues.html)
-
I can top that one.
McCain: "Obama is a sexist!" (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1928744420080902)
So this is what watching someone hang himself is like...
-
Has McCain blamed the media for causing him to choose Palin yet?
-
she is a solid conservative. what else would you like to know?
-
I miss GGW's presence in political threads. I never agreed with him but the man knows how to argue for his candidate. And yes, that included Bush in '04.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
I was referring to wasting your vote when America is clearly a two party system, wether we care to admit it or not. [/QB]
And it will stay that way with that kind of thinking. Looking towards the future, I believe that this country will become so fragmented demographically that two parties really won't be able to be able to speak to the majority of Americans. Things just aren't that simple anymore.
-
God...Lieberman is as slimy as ever.
He made my skin crawl in '00 which is essentially why I didn't vote for Gore (Nader) and he's even worse now.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
nice try but you fail.
please post something intelligent, just once!!! so we can at least know you are a real person posting.
two other thoughts.
1. The picture in that polar bear article makes polar bears look endangered.
2. to mank, Bob Barr is Libertarian not Green party. The Green Party does have a nominee Cynthia someone or other. and if you cant decide between black Obama and woman Palin...shes a black woman!!!! But i dont know much about her. [/b]
I was referring to wasting your vote when America is clearly a two party system, wether we care to admit it or not. [/b]
correct. but understand this. the Green Party is to the Democrats what the Libertarians are to the Republicans.
so she can vote for a third party without taking votes from the Dem nominee. (as many did voting for Nader...another reason why i think Obama can win now cause he's not running). [/b]
Agreed, but I think Dems are more prone to vote outside party lines than republicans, who tend to be more loyal to their party....or should that be brainwashed by their party?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
she is a solid conservative. what else would you like to know?
So is Ted Nugent. Seriously, that's the best you've got?
-
What are the requirements for being a solid conservative nowadays anyway? With the way that word's been twisted and mangled over the last 8 years, I don't know how to define it anymore.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by manimtired:
she is a solid conservative. what else would you like to know?
So is Ted Nugent. Seriously, that's the best you've got? [/b]
i dont really feel like wasting my time convincing some liberal why im voting for a conservative ticket. especially over the internet.
still saying..you guys just seem a tad bit on edge for her to be such a terrible pick that will surely lose mccain the election. lol.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
I miss GGW's presence in political threads. I never agreed with him but the man knows how to argue for his candidate. And yes, that included Bush in '04.
Who was it that argued their views incessantly then didn't vote b/c the line was too long? (I'm not saying it was ggw, I'm curious who it was b/c it was funny & ironic.)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
still saying..you guys just seem a tad bit on edge for her to be such a terrible pick that will surely lose mccain the election. lol.
after the way the elections went in 2000 and 2004, and knowing there's even a possibility of more of the same shit for the next 4 years, i'm unaware of a single dem/liberal who isn't terrified about this election.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by manimtired:
she is a solid conservative. what else would you like to know?
So is Ted Nugent. Seriously, that's the best you've got? [/b]
Hey, I just saw him in Cleveland. His tour bus has two license plates - one from Montana and the other read "No Skinny Chicks".
-
Originally posted by Greer Zoller:
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
I miss GGW's presence in political threads. I never agreed with him but the man knows how to argue for his candidate. And yes, that included Bush in '04.
Who was it that argued their views incessantly then didn't vote b/c the line was too long? (I'm not saying it was ggw, I'm curious who it was b/c it was funny & ironic.) [/b]
That I don't remember.
-
this guy isnt terrified, he's giddy and elated.
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by manimtired:
stfu
all im saying is that you all are talking about "omg how could mccain make this horrible choice" and im saying that it seems youre a bit uneasy/nervous about the pick.
Replace "uneasy/nervous" with "giddy/elated," and you nailed it right on the head. [/b]
-
I'm not terrified either. But I am concerned about those who are over confident and those who are overly lowering the expectations of Governor Palin in such a way that she can only succeed in the debate. We've seen this before...
-
listen to smackie - he is a wise one
Originally posted by vansmack:
I'm not terrified either. But I am concerned about those who are over confident and those who are overly lowering the expectations of Governor Palin in such a way that she can only succeed in the debate. We've seen this before...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by manimtired:
she is a solid conservative. what else would you like to know?
So is Ted Nugent. Seriously, that's the best you've got? [/b]
i dont really feel like wasting my time convincing some liberal why im voting for a conservative ticket. especially over the internet.
still saying..you guys just seem a tad bit on edge for her to be such a terrible pick that will surely lose mccain the election. lol. [/b]
.
my dentist called McCain a "dumb shit" this morning.
thought that was funny and somewhat relevant.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I'm not terrified either. But I am concerned about those who are over confident and those who are overly lowering the expectations of Governor Palin in such a way that she can only succeed in the debate. We've seen this before...
i think the jokes are funny and all, but she will have little impact on the election results one way or the other. moderate republicans will get over it and undecideds will base their decisions on something else
basically her love of pork barrel spending makes me forget king kev for a couple of days
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by vansmack:
I'm not terrified either. But I am concerned about those who are over confident and those who are overly lowering the expectations of Governor Palin in such a way that she can only succeed in the debate. We've seen this before...
i think the jokes are funny and all, but she will have little impact on the election results one way or the other. moderate republicans will get over it and undecideds will base their decisions on something else
basically her love of pork barrel spending makes me forget king kev for a couple of days [/b]
The thing is, the Republicans were able to concoct a complete and blatant lie about John Kerry's military service in 2004, and that might have been enough to sway a few states.
The point being, if a guy who spent the Vietnam era drinking beer at home can paint his opponent -- who won numerous combat medals for his wartime service -- as someone who doesn't understand war, anything is possible. The Republicans have demonstrated again and again that manipulation and outright lying wins elections (Max Cleland anyone?), and they will gleefully do it again this year.
Because it's so much easier to lie about the other candidate's record than to actually, y'know, come up with a compelling argument for your own.
And has manimtired come up with anything? No, he just douches that he's too busy to justify his position, while having plenty of time to smear shit in other threads. Interesting, that.
-
you should end all your posts with "lol" that way you can get the message across that you are laughing at everyone!!!
-
i think you missed the point of this thread, or me posting in it i should say. it wasnt "i love mccain/palin and let me tell you why i love them and why he'll be the best prez evr!!!!" it was that you libs are not "elated" by the choice of Palin but rather are a little nervous about it. LoL
-
no matter how many times you say that its not going to make it true. should liberals be worried? now if he had picked Liebermann...oh man!
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
no matter how many times you say that its not going to make it true. should liberals be worried? now if he had picked Liebermann...oh man!
tell me youre joking?
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
no matter how many times you say that its not going to make it true. should liberals be worried? now if he had picked Liebermann...oh man!
one thing conservatives and liberals can agree on, everybody hates lieberman
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
no matter how many times you say that its not going to make it true. should liberals be worried? now if he had picked Liebermann...oh man!
tell me youre joking? [/b]
just trying to coax a complete thought out of you....alas, another 4 word reply
i would say you are the king of one liners but you usually dont even get that much down.
(and yes, i was joking about the senator)
-
ur clever.
-
so I blog occasionally (http://wearevotingyes.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-problem-why-john-mccain-missed.html), and wrote a big thing on Palin, if anybody is curious to read it.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
so I blog occasionally (http://wearevotingyes.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-problem-why-john-mccain-missed.html), and wrote a big thing on Palin, if anybody is curious to read it.
Excellent blog post, I quite agree with a great deal of it. Extra points for being dispassionate and non-partisan in your analysis. There's one thing that I wonder about however. The female Republican base.
Immediately after watching Palin's speech in Ohio when she was first announced, I realized that she is going to be adored by every rural down home republican wife in the country. I have a hunch that there are a great deal of women out there in "America's heartland" that are die-hard about supporting their way of life. We're talking the part of the country that hunts, goes to church, farms, joins 4-H and FFA, and fills small towns everywhere from the mountains of Idaho to the swamps of Georgia. How many of these women that are social conservatives but have never been political going to up and vote this time simply because of Palin? I think it'll be a far from negligible number.
I'll admit I have no idea of stats on this demographic, whether most of them tend to vote or not, but I sense this could be huge. Beware the "hockey/soccer/football" moms of middle America.
-
all of this is really well and good but because of the electoral system it doesnt really matter much if every single person in Idaho and Georgia vote for McCain. Its all about states and if McCain cant find a way to gain a hold of the upper midwest AND florida while making sure he doesnt lose any of the square states (New Mexico or Colorado mainly) which are normally red, its gonna be a long November 4th for him.
popular vote just doesnt matter.
-
This joke just wrote itself. (http://adage.com/agencynews/article?article_id=130713)
LOL @ Carat!
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
is it me or does Palini look like Tina Fey?
<img src="http://bittenandbound.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/tina-fey-30-rock.jpg" alt=" - " />
THANK YOU! I've been thinking JUST THAT since I heard of this lady.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
it was that you libs are not "elated" by the choice of Palin but rather are a little nervous about it. LoL
I was a little nervous about it at first, because I assumed McCain's people vetted her properly, and it seemed a clever pick. And then all the details of her unsavory past and present started trickling out.
Now I'm more nervous that McCain might ditch her quickly and pick someone qualified, in which case her cloud of scandals and inexperience will be long-forgotten by election day.
ps - Tina Fey = much hotter
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
ps - Tina Fey = much hotter [/QB]
sure is
<img src="http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/02/fey.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by manimtired:
it was that you libs are not "elated" by the choice of Palin but rather are a little nervous about it. LoL
I was a little nervous about it at first, because I assumed McCain's people vetted her properly, and it seemed a clever pick. And then all the details of her unsavory past and present started trickling out.
Now I'm more nervous that McCain might ditch her quickly and pick someone qualified, in which case her cloud of scandals and inexperience will be long-forgotten by election day.
ps - Tina Fey = much hotter [/b]
unsavory past? weather underground associations, rev. wright, rezko, plagerism...ill take our tickets unsavory past over the dems ticket any day.
-
Based on the limited exposure I've seen on Palin via CSPAN she comes off as a intelligent well spoken individual. However, based on whats been uncovered on her she is also lacking in common sense, isn't very worldly and probably raised in a very insular environment.
She will probably preform well in the debates and clearly has lots of poise. Of course the debates are pretty pointless at this point, as candidates rarely directly answer the question asked. Just find some why to spew their normally rhetoric.
She's a puppet under the control of neo-conservatives who will make damn sure she stays on message for the next few months. Those same neo-cons who are causing life long moderate conservatives who routinely voted Republicans, like my dad, to potential vote for another candidate.
Having neo-conservatives values is hardly a primary qualification to be the VP who is potentially a half-heartbeat away from being the president. Can you imagine what the rest of the free world would make of someone who thinks Creationism should be taught in schools?
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
life long moderate conservatives who routinely voted Republicans, like my dad, to potential vote for another candidate.
My dad voted for Bush twice and can't bring himself to vote Repug again... he's going for Obama.
There are a whole lot of intelligent Republicans who don't believe that a modern country should teach the Creation myth as "science" in its schools. McCain, who is loathed by the right wing "base," had a chance to broaden the party's appeal and seize it back from the fundies. He's blown it with Mrs. Wouldn't-Talk-to-Her-Daughter-About-Condoms.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
unsavory past? weather underground associations, rev. wright, rezko, plagerism...ill take our tickets unsavory past over the dems ticket any day.
oh please the whole rev. wright association is so overblown.... being critical of the US from the pulpit is called freedom of speech, it only got more attention because of the fiery nature of it's delivery.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by kosmo:
life long moderate conservatives who routinely voted Republicans, like my dad, to potential vote for another candidate.
My dad voted for Bush twice and can't bring himself to vote Repug again... he's going for Obama.
There are a whole lot of intelligent Republicans who don't believe that a modern country should teach the Creation myth as "science" in its schools. McCain, who is loathed by the right wing "base," had a chance to broaden the party's appeal and seize it back from the fundies. He's blown it with Mrs. Wouldn't-Talk-to-Her-Daughter-About-Condoms. [/b]
my uncle, another longtime Republican, is livid about about what Bush has done to this country. so much so he actually considered pulling together money from other liked minded contacts, in order to run an ad critical of bush in the new york times.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by kosmo:
life long moderate conservatives who routinely voted Republicans, like my dad, to potential vote for another candidate.
My dad voted for Bush twice and can't bring himself to vote Repug again... he's going for Obama.
[/b]
it is at this point where a viable third party would be helpful. while it was conceivable that i wouldn't vote for mccain (namely if he picked romney), there was no way in hell that i would ever vote for obama. that leaves me with bob barr or whatever comes of this ron paul convention, and i simply disagree with them on a number of other issues. in other words, the democratic party and obama is not a viable alternative for what i believe in. now, i know vansmack will tell me that the republican party doesn't represent what i believe in either, which is a fair point, but i am simply not a democrat.
-
don't blame me... I voted John Anderson in 1980
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by kosmo:
life long moderate conservatives who routinely voted Republicans, like my dad, to potential vote for another candidate.
My dad voted for Bush twice and can't bring himself to vote Repug again... he's going for Obama.
[/b]
it is at this point where a viable third party would be helpful. while it was conceivable that i wouldn't vote for mccain (namely if he picked romney), there was no way in hell that i would ever vote for obama. that leaves me with bob barr or whatever comes of this ron paul convention, and i simply disagree with them on a number of other issues. in other words, the democratic party and obama is not a viable alternative for what i believe in. now, i know vansmack will tell me that the republican party doesn't represent what i believe in either, which is a fair point, but i am simply not a democrat. [/b]
A third party will never win in this country, and therefore will only serve as a spoiler in elections.
The real answer is to infiltrate the Republican Party and take it back from the religious zealots. Republicans once advocated an approach of small government, fiscal responsibility, and minimal international interventionism, and relative libertarianist instincts with regards to personal issues. It is hard to imagine anything further from that than the modern Republicans.
The Democrats have their issues too, of course, but at least they are not dependent on a base of wild-eyed slackjaws.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
A third party will never win in this country, and therefore will only serve as a spoiler in elections.
The real answer is to infiltrate the Republican Party and take it back from the religious zealots. Republicans once advocated an approach of small government, fiscal responsibility, and minimal international interventionism, and relative libertarianist instincts with regards to personal issues. It is hard to imagine anything further from that than the modern Republicans.
The Democrats have their issues too, of course, but at least they are not dependent on a base of wild-eyed slackjaws. [/QB]
see, that's elitist and certainly doesn't help anyone. :)
what's funny is that except for the interventionist part, i think that's predominately what mccain (and palin) stand for. where we get all messed up is where they stand on social issues.
but i do certainly agree with your characterization of the republican party of yore. . .although, the minimal interventionist policies (I take that to mean military) have gone out the window since that also aligns itself with economic protectionism, which i adamantly oppose (and is why i'm not a Libertarian, with a big L). it was much easier to have limited involvement with the rest of the world when it took some time to cross those oceans.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by callat703:
so I blog occasionally (http://wearevotingyes.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-problem-why-john-mccain-missed.html), and wrote a big thing on Palin, if anybody is curious to read it.
Excellent blog post, I quite agree with a great deal of it. Extra points for being dispassionate and non-partisan in your analysis. [/b]
Thanks!
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
but at least they are not dependent on a base of wild-eyed slackjaws. [/b]
see, that's elitist and certainly doesn't help anyone. :)
[/QB]
I actually don't think it's elitist, given that I think religious fanatics (what I call slackjaws) are a minority, just such a vocal and well-organized one that they are treated as a majority.
I think one of the biggest social problems facing our world today is ignorance-based religious fanaticism. Whether that's Christian fundamentalism in the US, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. They all feed off the same fears and have similar goals.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-mike-murphy_n_123647.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-mike-murphy_n_123647.html)
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-mike-murphy_n_123647.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-mike-murphy_n_123647.html)
Posted in the YouTube link above.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I actually don't think it's elitist, given that I think religious fanatics (what I call slackjaws) are a minority, just such a vocal and well-organized one that they are treated as a majority. [/QB]
and, i'm not at all surprised by your response.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by kosmo:
life long moderate conservatives who routinely voted Republicans, like my dad, to potential vote for another candidate.
My dad voted for Bush twice and can't bring himself to vote Repug again... he's going for Obama.
[/b]
it is at this point where a viable third party would be helpful. while it was conceivable that i wouldn't vote for mccain (namely if he picked romney), there was no way in hell that i would ever vote for obama. that leaves me with bob barr or whatever comes of this ron paul convention, and i simply disagree with them on a number of other issues. in other words, the democratic party and obama is not a viable alternative for what i believe in. now, i know vansmack will tell me that the republican party doesn't represent what i believe in either, which is a fair point, but i am simply not a democrat. [/b]
A third party will never win in this country, and therefore will only serve as a spoiler in elections.
The real answer is to infiltrate the Republican Party and take it back from the religious zealots. Republicans once advocated an approach of small government, fiscal responsibility, and minimal international interventionism, and relative libertarianist instincts with regards to personal issues. It is hard to imagine anything further from that than the modern Republicans.
The Democrats have their issues too, of course, but at least they are not dependent on a base of wild-eyed slackjaws. [/b]
Funny thing is, taking back the Republican party from the evangelical neo-cons is precisely what Ron Paul was all about. What he continues to be all about. Unfortunately, Paul himself is
not a good speaker, he handles interviews terribly, and he was too gung ho about emphasizing small government goals that were years if not decades away from being achievable. Hence he came off looking like a loon.
The Ron Paul phenomenon is part of why I'm more likely to vote 3rd party this year. There's a sizable minority out there that can be tapped to start a bit of a political uprising and perhaps even form a political party that is more Republican in the old school sense. Non-interventionist, limited government, fiscal responsibility, personal freedoms emphasized (which means gay marriage and abortion legal).
Political parties do change in America, where has the Whig party gone for example? Also, Prior to the 60's the south was known as the "solid south" and voted overwhelmingly Democrat. Republican party was party of Lincoln and freeing of the slaves. What turned the whole south red was LBJ and his "great society" reforms going horribly awry, together with his presiding over quite a lot of the desegregation and civil rights movements. White southerners deserted the Dems in droves and that's how the Republicans got saddled with the crazy evangelicals.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by manimtired:
it was that you libs are not "elated" by the choice of Palin but rather are a little nervous about it. LoL
I was a little nervous about it at first, because I assumed McCain's people vetted her properly, and it seemed a clever pick. And then all the details of her unsavory past and present started trickling out.
Now I'm more nervous that McCain might ditch her quickly and pick someone qualified, in which case her cloud of scandals and inexperience will be long-forgotten by election day.
ps - Tina Fey = much hotter [/b]
unsavory past? weather underground associations, rev. wright, rezko, plagerism...ill take our tickets unsavory past over the dems ticket any day. [/b]
you are so concerned with unsavory pasts and associations and yet you voted for a president whose brother was involved in a collapsed savings and loan that cost the US taxpayers One Billion dollars to bail out. the same savings and loan scandal that mccain was involved as part of the Keating Five.
and biden was cleared of those plagiarism charges.
-
third parties need in part to develop at the grass roots level in order to make in roads into the political landscape.... however, given the way districts are drawn these days and the political machines created by both sides, the chances of a third party candidate winning a seat in the house of representative is slim to nil. the same applies to some extent to county politics, local school boards,etc... depressing actually...
-
weather underground..would you like to speak on obamas relationship with ayers? or is that just blown out of proportion too?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
weather underground..would you like to speak on obamas relationship with ayers? or is that just blown out of proportion too?
is he still a member of the weather underground?
-
Seems to me that there's a pretty big difference between someone who knows someone who was in the Weather Underground, decades ago, and someone who was, herself, a member of a secessionist group within recent memory.
I can't wait until they dig up any writings or statements she may have made during her time with that group... that'll be interesting...
given her gun fetishism I bet she has ties to the militia movement as well...
-
in 2001 on 9/11 he said "2004 interview, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" He replied I??ve thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it??s impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don??t think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."...but ya, i guess he decided that was a bad org to be in as a college professor. so did he quit? did he denounce the actions of the WG?
-
also...everyone tune into MSNBC (fox news is so bias!!!!!) to watch the response to palins speech.
-
So I'm sitting here watching Rudy and think I need to vomit.....
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
also...everyone tune into MSNBC (fox news is so bias!!!!!) to watch the response to palins speech.
I don't think anyone here would argue with you that Olberman is essentially the liberal equivalent of O'Reilly (minus the beligerent personality plus about 50 IQ points).
Oh and Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough aren't exactly leftists.
-
no but you dont see oreilly on actual news casts (daily)..only on his editorial show. not the same on msnbc. and i admit fox has a hard right bias...lefties just cant admit the same about other channels.
-
home run for conservatives...are you guys as giddy as me??!!??!
-
She's doing a lot better than I thought she would; I'll give you that.
She's also stretching/bending/breaking the truth here and there but that's about par for the course.
And yes, MSNBC does have more of a liberal slant over all. It was only a matter of time before a network capitalized on that market.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
weather underground..would you like to speak on obamas relationship with ayers? or is that just blown out of proportion too?
Obama was 8 years old. I know, I know, kids can be such trouble at that age....
Really, you've run out of straws to grasp when the last thing you've got is the Weather Underground thing. No, this isn't an epic failing on your part. It's just pathetic. You're not even trying anymore.
-
obama wasnt a cohort of his when he was 8 years old ..
-
It's cool that the Republican base has now fully and enthusiastically rallied behind Palin... it'll help ensure that as she crashes and burns over the coming weeks, they won't be able to cut themselves loose from her in time to save the election.
-
just like 2000 and 2004. olberman seems as giddy as 703...
-
So after watching bits and pieces of it again, I think she really got only one point across.
"I can be just as much of a dirty pandering politician as my runningmate."
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Seems to me that there's a pretty big difference between someone who knows someone who was in the Weather Underground, decades ago, and someone who was, herself, a member of a secessionist group within recent memory.
I can't wait until they dig up any writings or statements she may have made during her time with that group... that'll be interesting...
that is patently false (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/palin-and-the-a.html)
ayers, who obama has called a friend, is an unrepentant domestic terrorist who has admitted that he wished he had done more damage.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
don't blame me... I voted John Anderson in 1980
Me too. I even attended a fund raiser for him at the Bayou featuring Todd Rundgren and Ian Hunter. A viable 3rd party, no matter how long it takes to get on par, is this country's only hope for anything but the same ol same ol.
-
i like how obama gets stick for ayers and mccain gets a free pass on being one of the keating 5
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i like how obama gets stick for ayers and mccain gets a free pass on being one of the keating 5
seconded! it's amazing how one's past only matters if your a democrat and a republican war hero...
it took all of about 30 seconds of huckabees speech to make me ill and leave the room last night. kosmette was pretty sickened by rudy's as well..
-
so.....we all know that not everyone over 18 actually votes on election day, but suppose they did...suppose it was mandatory. would a republican really ever have a chance in hell?
-
In many ways Palin reminds me a great deal of GW Bush circa 1996. . . .when he emerged on the national scene at the RNC Convention. She has thrived with a simple focused ideology and natural charisma. She is a great lobbyist. She can sell the message with great enthusiasm and charisma and charm. . . . whatever the message is and whatever connection to reality it has.
On another note, the dems get accused of empty rhetoric by republicans who now pimp this 'country first' theme. so much empty rhetoric being sold by the republicans. and the republicans love this theme of washington is broken and it takes us mavericks to fix it. that was bush's theme and it seems that he purposely tried to break washington e.g. w/ underfunding to agencies like FDA, EPA, 'Brownie' etc. Fool me once . . . not gonna fool me again. Republicans want 'washington' to not work . . . not to work better, but not to work. . . until their policies result in a crisis that they are forced to react to by an outraged public. but they spew empty rhetoric conveying the opposite.
-
Speaking of empty rhetoric, it's kind of amazing to hear Republicans calling for "change" and railing against "Washington" when they've controlled Washington for the last eight years. They must really think their base is stupid to buy that line.
And since the Enquirer got the Edwards story right, people might be more inclined to take this one (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/mccain-camp-battles-natio_n_123696.html) seriously....
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
so.....we all know that not everyone over 18 actually votes on election day, but suppose they did...suppose it was mandatory. would a republican really ever have a chance in hell?
they would only vote if they could post some winded blog into the inner clock of how the cogs of brain controlled time made them do it. or if it came with a free downloadable soundtrack.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
so.....we all know that not everyone over 18 actually votes on election day, but suppose they did...suppose it was mandatory. would a republican really ever have a chance in hell?
seeing how the 2004 election had record turnout im not sure thats true.
vote or die.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
so.....we all know that not everyone over 18 actually votes on election day, but suppose they did...suppose it was mandatory. would a republican really ever have a chance in hell?
seeing how the 2004 election had record turnout im not sure thats true.
vote or die. [/b]
the free downloadable track is a good idea.
that 2004 turnout , while record, wasnt even 60% of voting population.
-
Now, I'm not one to really buy into the "liberal bias" in the media, but even I find this ridiculous:
;)
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
And yes, MSNBC does have more of a liberal slant over all. It was only a matter of time before a network capitalized on that market.
This is sarcasm right? The great majority of virtually all mainstream media has a liberal slant.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Now, I'm not one to really buy into the "liberal bias" in the media, but even I find this ridiculous:
;)
this might be my new screen saver
-
keith olberman looked like his head was going to explode from anger last night...line of the night was "she reminds me of reese witherspoons character from election" lol. sexist much keith?
-
kosmette thought some the speeches last night sounded like high school class presidential hopeful speeches as well. does that make her sexist?
oh wait... sexist must be the new word the cult leaders want their members to repeat endlessly this week.
besides how is it sexist to compare her to a fictional character in a movie that happens to be female. (scratches heads)
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
kosmette thought some the speeches last night sounded like high school class presidential hopeful speeches as well. does that make her sexist?
oh wait... sexist must be the new word the cult leaders want their members to repeat endlessly this week.
besides how is it sexist to compare her to a fictional character in a movie that happens to be female. (scratches heads)
my g/f (a democrat) thought it was a low blow. ya know..obama reminds me of (insert name of black guy running for high school office in a movie).
you seem angry again today kosmo...relax. you guys have this one in the bag.
-
are you still mumbling about people being angry?
-
i think its gone from giddy, to nervous, to angry to down right bummed out in this thread. but NO, it has not, b/c sonick tells me so.
-
i'm pretty giddy that the gop's convention seems to be centered around blaming the media. thats a losing strategy if i ever saw one
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think its gone from giddy, to nervous, to angry to down right bummed out in this thread. but NO, it has not, b/c sonick tells me so.
we'll see whos giddy on November 5th.
-
thems fightin words.
-
i'm still confused as to how making your daughter have the baby and get married to a guy that doenst want her is the right thing to do.
what would really be good is if palin's baby boy turned out to be her daughters but i'm sure they'd find a way to spin that too
-
I bet that Levi kid is praying that McCain does not win the election. If he does, he will be stuck in a shotgun marriage to his babymomma for at least four years, or even eight, Republican operatives will hunt him to the end of the earth. Bet he wishes he wrapped his rascal!
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I bet that Levi kid is praying that McCain does not win the election. If he does, he will be stuck in a shotgun marriage to his babymomma for at least four years, or even eight, Republican operatives will hunt him to the end of the earth. Bet he wishes he wrapped his rascal!
Are you kidding?? That punk is set for life....will never have to put in a full days work and can go bang any Alaskan floosie he wants because they'll keep it swept under the rug no matter what. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal if you ask me.
-
You must either have a very large cock or a very fat wallet for a Democrat to stoop to dating you. :p
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
kosmette thought some the speeches last night sounded like high school class presidential hopeful speeches as well. does that make her sexist?
oh wait... sexist must be the new word the cult leaders want their members to repeat endlessly this week.
besides how is it sexist to compare her to a fictional character in a movie that happens to be female. (scratches heads)
my g/f (a democrat) thought it was a low blow. ya know..obama reminds me of (insert name of black guy running for high school office in a movie).
you seem angry again today kosmo...relax. you guys have this one in the bag. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Cali:
i'm still confused as to how making your daughter have the baby and get married to a guy that doenst want her is the right thing to do.
what would really be good is if palin's baby boy turned out to be her daughters but i'm sure they'd find a way to spin that too
Well, the way a social conservative would answer that question is that first off, abortion is murder, so keeping the baby is moral victory number one. Second, the way I heard it the couple were engaged before they knew of the pregnancy (we won't get into high school engagements, yes I think they're stupid too) so who's to say he doesn't want her? Third, by marrying before the baby is born you've averted the child being a bastard, which doesn't necessarily mean much to a lot of people in this day and age, but may mean quite a bit to certain segments of society, so moral victory number two. Also, where has it been said that Bristol is "being made to have the baby"? This could very well be her own decision based on her own set of morals. The father could very easily be all for keeping the kid as well for same reasons.
For social conservatives, sex before marriage is a heck of a lot smaller a sin than either abortion or having a baby out of wedlock. Hence why having the baby and getting hitched is going to be seen as a good example by the evangelical right.
BTW, I don't necessarily endorse any of these positions, just providing an answer to your confusion.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
For social conservatives, sex before marriage is a heck of a lot smaller a sin than either abortion or having a baby out of wedlock. Hence why having the baby and getting hitched is going to be seen as a good example by the evangelical right.
I used to date a girl who was a staunch Catholic conservative, so I got a fair degree of insight into that world. She had a whole lot of Catholic girlfriends, who all were staunchly pro-life and also very much about "wait until marriage," but one by one, they got knocked up, and very shortly after, engaged. Despite all the abstinence talk, that seems to be increasingly the normal path for young people in conservative circles -- when everyone around you is a hypocrite you're not necessarily going to notice your own hypocrisy.
Babies having babies is the norm in all Fundamentalist societies, whether it's the Taliban or the American right.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I used to date a girl who was a staunch Catholic conservative, so I got a fair degree of insight into that world. She had a whole lot of Catholic girlfriends, who all were staunchly pro-life and also very much about "wait until marriage," but one by one, they got knocked up, and very shortly after, engaged. Despite all the abstinence talk, that seems to be increasingly the normal path for young people in conservative circles -- when everyone around you is a hypocrite you're not necessarily going to notice your own hypocrisy. [/QB]
so, what is wrong with that? it's as if the only normal reaction there would have been to get an abortion. . .why is it so hard to understand that keeping the baby and getting married is a normal reaction to them and not at all hypocritical?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I used to date a girl who was a staunch Catholic conservative, so I got a fair degree of insight into that world. She had a whole lot of Catholic girlfriends, who all were staunchly pro-life and also very much about "wait until marriage," but one by one, they got knocked up, and very shortly after, engaged. Despite all the abstinence talk, that seems to be increasingly the normal path for young people in conservative circles -- when everyone around you is a hypocrite you're not necessarily going to notice your own hypocrisy. [/b]
so, what is wrong with that? it's as if the only normal reaction there would have been to get an abortion. . .why is it so hard to understand that keeping the baby and getting married is a normal reaction to them and not at all hypocritical? [/QB]
The hypocritical part 1) preaching abstinence until marriage when almost nobody actually does that; and 2) refusing to teach kids about birth control as a matter of public policy.
Getting pregnant and married as a teenager is usually a pretty good guarantee of an unhappy life. Unless you're a governor's daughter. Life happens, but use a condom and life happens a lot less, and when you're mature enough to deal with it. I am not judging the girl, I am judging the mom and the Republicans for holding her up as an example.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
I used to date a girl who was a staunch Catholic conservative, so I got a fair degree of insight into that world. She had a whole lot of Catholic girlfriends, who all were staunchly pro-life and also very much about "wait until marriage," but one by one, they got knocked up, and very shortly after, engaged. Despite all the abstinence talk, that seems to be increasingly the normal path for young people in conservative circles -- when everyone around you is a hypocrite you're not necessarily going to notice your own hypocrisy. [/b]
so, what is wrong with that? it's as if the only normal reaction there would have been to get an abortion. . .why is it so hard to understand that keeping the baby and getting married is a normal reaction to them and not at all hypocritical? [/b]
The hypocritical part 1) preaching abstinence until marriage when almost nobody actually does that; and 2) refusing to teach kids about birth control as a matter of public policy. [/QB]
you didn't answer my question.
let me ask you this question- do you think educating kids on the evils of drug use reduces drug use? do you think teaching kids in drivers education about aggressive driving reduces aggressive driving? we could teach all sorts of sex education, and it would probably not make a lick of difference in teen pregnancy rates, because, as you noted, they're gonna have sex anyway.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
[QB]
Getting pregnant and married as a teenager is usually a pretty good guarantee of an unhappy life. Unless you're a governor's daughter. Life happens, but use a condom and life happens a lot less, and when you're mature enough to deal with it. /QB]
yeah, let's ask barack obama's mother.. . .
-
Wrong woman, wrong message, indeed.
God, I love Gloria Steinem. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
you didn't answer my question.
I did answer your question, you evidently didn't read my answer.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yeah, let's ask barack obama's mother.. . .
well you could, but shes dead, happy life!
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, what is wrong with that?
Because of it's effect on the crime rate?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
let me ask you this question- do you think educating kids on the evils of drug use reduces drug use?
Yes
do you think teaching kids in drivers education about aggressive driving reduces aggressive driving?
Yes
we could teach all sorts of sex education, and it would probably not make a lick of difference in teen pregnancy rates, because, as you noted, they're gonna have sex anyway.
Well of course they're going to have sex anyway, but they will use protection more if they're taught to.
My answers to your questions are obvious. If you teach kids the harmful effects of drugs, it will reduce drug use. Will it eliminate it? Of course not. Will plenty of kids still use drugs? Of course. But for some of those kids hearing it, the message will get through. Conversely, if you refuse to teach kids about the evils of drug use, you will have more drug use happening. Same applies to the other examples you provided. I couldn't tell from what you wrote if you think prevention education is useful or useless, but I'd say it's pretty clear that it has its place.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
you didn't answer my question.
I did answer your question, you evidently didn't read my answer. [/b]
no, you didn't. but, i can, in fact, assume that you either use protection or get an abortion in your world. . .and the fact that she (and other misguided souls like her) did neither is sufficient grounds to ridicule her and those policies.
-
I did answer your question, and the fact that you either willfully or sincerely didn't understand my answer, leads me to believe there is not much point in discussing this further with you. Have a good day.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
You must either have a very large cock or a very fat wallet for a Democrat to stoop to dating you. :p
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
kosmette thought some the speeches last night sounded like high school class presidential hopeful speeches as well. does that make her sexist?
oh wait... sexist must be the new word the cult leaders want their members to repeat endlessly this week.
besides how is it sexist to compare her to a fictional character in a movie that happens to be female. (scratches heads)
my g/f (a democrat) thought it was a low blow. ya know..obama reminds me of (insert name of black guy running for high school office in a movie).
you seem angry again today kosmo...relax. you guys have this one in the bag. [/b]
[/b]
im just good lookin'
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
no, you didn't. but, i can, in fact, assume that you either use protection or get an abortion in your world. . .and the fact that she (and other misguided souls like her) did neither is sufficient grounds to ridicule her and those policies.
Come on Venerable, even you have to admit there is a lot of irony behind the woman who makes the decision to argue for or against the teaching of contraception in schools for the "largest state in the union" having a daughter who gets pregnant while she herself is, in fact,pregnant?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
im just good lookin'
Well, we knew she wasn't with you for your brains or your charm so it must be that. Good for you.
And for the record, I'm ugly as shit...
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by Arthwys:
For social conservatives, sex before marriage is a heck of a lot smaller a sin than either abortion or having a baby out of wedlock. Hence why having the baby and getting hitched is going to be seen as a good example by the evangelical right.
I used to date a girl who was a staunch Catholic conservative, so I got a fair degree of insight into that world. She had a whole lot of Catholic girlfriends, who all were staunchly pro-life and also very much about "wait until marriage," but one by one, they got knocked up, and very shortly after, engaged. Despite all the abstinence talk, that seems to be increasingly the normal path for young people in conservative circles -- when everyone around you is a hypocrite you're not necessarily going to notice your own hypocrisy.
Babies having babies is the norm in all Fundamentalist societies, whether it's the Taliban or the American right. [/b]
catholic girls are the biggest cock hungry whores out there....I thought everyone knew that.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
My answers to your questions are obvious. If you teach kids the harmful effects of drugs, it will reduce drug use. Will it eliminate it? Of course not. Will plenty of kids still use drugs? Of course. But for some of those kids hearing it, the message will get through. Conversely, if you refuse to teach kids about the evils of drug use, you will have more drug use happening. Same applies to the other examples you provided. I couldn't tell from what you wrote if you think prevention education is useful or useless, but I'd say it's pretty clear that it has its place.
what i'm basically getting is that kids are stupid and don't ultimately care what teachers tell them. kids who want to do drugs, will do drugs, no matter how much education; kids who drive fast and get into accidents will still do the same thing no matter how much education you give them. . . but what do i know. (http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by manimtired:
im just good lookin'
Well, we knew she wasn't with you for your brains or your charm so it must be that. Good for you.
And for the record, I'm ugly as shit... [/b]
sorry i dont sit here writing novels on a music clubs message board to justify my political decisions. i actually just enjoy getting you lefties worked up..honestly..and it seems ive succeeded. i bet you are ugly..thats why youre so surly.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Come on Venerable, even you have to admit there is a lot of irony behind the woman who makes the decision to argue for or against the teaching of contraception in schools for the "largest state in the union" having a daughter who gets pregnant while she herself is, in fact,pregnant?
that maybe true, and it is certainly amusing to people. what i'm simply getting at is even with safe-sex education, how do we know she still wouldn't have gotten pregnant; as well as the underlying assumption by people that she should have just got an abortion.
-
My in-laws seem quite happy, though technically they were 21 when it happened.
And none of their relatives were governors, as far as I know.
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Getting pregnant and married as a teenager is usually a pretty good guarantee of an unhappy life. Unless you're a governor's daughter. Life happens, but use a condom and life happens a lot less, and when you're mature enough to deal with it. I am not judging the girl, I am judging the mom and the Republicans for holding her up as an example. [/QB]
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yeah, let's ask barack obama's mother.. . .
well you could, but shes dead, happy life! [/b]
well, i'm sure that if she were alive, herr doom would certainly tell her that her baby barack would be a drag on her life and society at large since she was an unwed teenage mother.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, i'm sure that if she were alive, herr doom would certainly tell her that her baby barack would be a drag on her life and society at large since she was an unwed teenage mother.
She wasn't unwed.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think its gone from giddy, to nervous, to angry to down right bummed out in this thread. but NO, it has not, b/c sonick tells me so.
I don't think anyone is nervous or angry. Maybe a little glib but that's still a part of the giddiness. :p
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
and biden was cleared of those plagiarism charges.
btw, i just wanted to address this. . .i frankly don't know how he was cleared of this charge. slate has two (two!!!) articles on this, so i would perhaps direct you to (http://www.slate.com/id/2198597/) them (http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/).
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, i'm sure that if she were alive, herr doom would certainly tell her that her baby barack would be a drag on her life and society at large since she was an unwed teenage mother.
She wasn't unwed. [/b]
but, the point stays the same, no? even obama has noted that he was born to a teenage mother.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but, the point stays the same, no? even obama has noted that he was born to a teenage mother.
i really dont give a shit about the point, just correcting your mistake, if her kid wants to have a kid, more power to her, doesnt make me think any more or less of Palin, her beliefs give me all I need to know about her
the only thing the kid thing does is make me think even less of republicans who moralize when its not their own house, didnt think it was possible
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
that maybe true, and it is certainly amusing to people. what i'm simply getting at is even with safe-sex education, how do we know she still wouldn't have gotten pregnant; as well as the underlying assumption by people that she should have just got an abortion.
For the record, I've never said she should have an abortion, but I'm not shy about saying she should at least have that option available to her should she want to choose it.
But the point you're missing is that those who teach safe-sex also talk about the value of abstinence. As a matter of fact, any good teacher will lead with it.
The Evangelicals who talk about abstinence don't talk about the value of safe-sex (they tend to discount it all together), and that's how you get situations like the one we have here. No one's saying you shouldn't talk about absitnenece or that teaching safe-sex would have prevented the outcome in this case, but we are allowed to attack the policies of Governor Palin and use situtations like the one she's facing here as examples as to why her policies on abstinenece only are misguided.
That, my friend, is not off limits, and worthy of a debate without being disregarded as an unfair liberal attack.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by kosmo:
and biden was cleared of those plagiarism charges.
btw, i just wanted to address this. . .i frankly don't know how he was cleared of this charge. slate has two (two!!!) articles on this, so i would perhaps direct you to (http://www.slate.com/id/2198597/) them (http://www.slate.com/id/2198543/). [/b]
He was cleared of the charge because if you put a spotlight on any political stump speech, you're going to find plenty to poo-poo.
As these articles say, and then quickly gloss over, Biden repeatedly cited Kinnock when giving the speeches but neglected to in approximately 5 percent of the speeches he gave in that time period. The other charges are all based on a tsk-tsk level of nuance.
But if you really think this is relevant, go ahead and ignore the guy's decades of legislative work and accomplishments because he made a sloppy error 20+ years ago. That will reveal the depth of your convictions.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but, the point stays the same, no? even obama has noted that he was born to a teenage mother.
i really dont give a shit about the point, just correcting your mistake, if her kid wants to have a kid, more power to her, doesnt make me think any more or less of Palin, her beliefs give me all I need to know about her[/b]
well, according to her wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham), obama's mom got pregnant before she got married, and the wedding was a direct result of the pregnancy. . .you can "correct" me all you want, but the facts are still the same.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
But if you really think this is relevant, go ahead and ignore the guy's decades of legislative work and accomplishments because he made a sloppy error 20+ years ago. That will reveal the depth of your convictions.
and, as the article notes, the stealing of kinnock's life story is only one part of biden's history. it points out a number of other discrepancies that biden made during that campaign, and that no one has bothered to check if he's done anything since.
and yes, by all means, let's not forget his landmark bankruptcy bill that got signed a few years ago that has been a boon to consumers. . it has been so succesful, that obama already wants to change it (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/obama_bankruptcy.html). but, of course, that is simply only one instance and one not worth noting.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, according to her wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham), obama's mom got pregnant before she got married, and the wedding was a direct result of the pregnancy. . .you can "correct" me all you want, but the facts are still the same.
jesus christ, why do i bother, this board is fucking stupid these days, right so she was a mother as soon as conception I get it
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Relaxer:
But if you really think this is relevant, go ahead and ignore the guy's decades of legislative work and accomplishments because he made a sloppy error 20+ years ago. That will reveal the depth of your convictions.
and, as the article notes, the stealing of kinnock's life story is only one part of biden's history. it points out a number of other discrepancies that biden made during that campaign, and that no one has bothered to check if he's done anything since.
and yes, by all means, let's not forget his landmark bankruptcy bill that got signed a few years ago that has been a boon to consumers. . it has been so succesful, that obama already wants to change it (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/obama_bankruptcy.html). but, of course, that is simply only one instance and one not worth noting. [/b]
so...thats a reason to vote for obama as mccain voted for it?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
so...thats a reason to vote for obama as mccain voted for it?
does this help? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121950541258566467.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
that maybe true, and it is certainly amusing to people. what i'm simply getting at is even with safe-sex education, how do we know she still wouldn't have gotten pregnant; as well as the underlying assumption by people that she should have just got an abortion.
For the record, I've never said she should have an abortion, but I'm not shy about saying she should at least have that option available to her should she want to choose it.
But the point you're missing is that those who teach safe-sex also talk about the value of abstinence. As a matter of fact, any good teacher will lead with it.
The Evangelicals who talk about abstinence don't talk about the value of safe-sex (they tend to discount it all together), and that's how you get situations like the one we have here. No one's saying you shouldn't talk about absitnenece or that teaching safe-sex would have prevented the outcome in this case, but we are allowed to attack the policies of Governor Palin and use situtations like the one she's facing here as examples as to why her policies on abstinenece only are misguided.
That, my friend, is not off limits, and worthy of a debate without being disregarded as an unfair liberal attack. [/b]
well said but i think the point will still be missed
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, according to her wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham), obama's mom got pregnant before she got married, and the wedding was a direct result of the pregnancy. . .you can "correct" me all you want, but the facts are still the same.
jesus christ, why do i bother, this board is fucking stupid these days, right so she was a mother as soon as conception I get it [/b]
I thought I read somewhere that his dad nailed some white trailer trash bitch or something like that...and that statement came from a man of the cloth.
I wonder how many 930 board members are married and how many are having sex?
-
So after listening to the first boring half of McCains speech last night, i did decide one thing. Things should improve from now no matter WHO is elected.
-
i watched the speech last night but dont remember it b/c i was nearing black out drunk from watching the shitty ass redskins. skins sucking + jack daniels = wat.
-
if Palin's daughter got pregnant as a result of rape, would she be pro-life?
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
if Palin's daughter got pregnant as a result of rape, would she be pro-life?
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep brah.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
if Palin's daughter got pregnant as a result of rape, would she be pro-life?
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep brah. [/b]
brah?? really? what decade are you living in?
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
if Palin's daughter got pregnant as a result of rape, would she be pro-life?
she says she would be
-
oh come on, it's Friday..mr. asswipe...
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
if Palin's daughter got pregnant as a result of rape, would she be pro-life?
deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep brah. [/b]
-
sonick picks up well on sarcasm.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
sonick picks up well on sarcasm.
your sarcasm leaves no excuse for using "brah" unless this has turned into some kind of Dave Matthews Band forum...
-
go on...
-
during mccain's speech last night, i kept expecting shots of people in the crowd doing beer bongs and chest bumping.
they also managed to provide plenty of blue and green shots of him for the Colbert Nation to chew on as well...
he pledges to veto Pork project, but i'm willing to bet that there will suddenly be a number of so called "Moving America Forward" initiatives coming from Neo-Cons what wont get vetoed by him.
and did anyway notice that Palin has retained that beauty queen wave? talk about acting elitist...
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
during mccain's speech last night, i kept expecting shots of people in the crowd doing beer bongs and chest bumping.
they also managed to provide plenty of blue and green shots of him for the Colbert Nation to chew on as well...
he pledges to veto Pork project, but i'm willing to bet that there will suddenly be a number of so called "Moving America Forward" initiatives coming from Neo-Cons what wont get vetoed by him.
and did anyway notice that Palin has retained that beauty queen wave? talk about acting elitist...
attacking the wave...strong point.
-
i dont watch Comedy Central cause it doesnt come in HD so i get everything late...in case you're in the same boat...this made me laugh this morning
linq (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
i dont watch Comedy Central cause it doesnt come in HD so i get everything late...in case you're in the same boat...this made me laugh this morning
linq (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086)
probably the best TDS segment in a long while. just great stuff.
-
i guess...the jokes wrote themselves there
-
talk about a resume..
Obama, only 24, struck board members as "awesome" and "extremely impressive," and they quickly hired him, at $13,000 a year, plus $2,000 for a car--a beat-up blue Honda Civic, which Obama drove for the next three years organizing more than twenty congregations to change their neighborhoods.
Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama--and hundreds of other organizers--did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. But it did change the young man who became the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, and it provides clues to his worldview as he bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
during mccain's speech last night, i kept expecting shots of people in the crowd doing beer bongs and chest bumping.
they also managed to provide plenty of blue and green shots of him for the Colbert Nation to chew on as well...
he pledges to veto Pork project, but i'm willing to bet that there will suddenly be a number of so called "Moving America Forward" initiatives coming from Neo-Cons what wont get vetoed by him.
and did anyway notice that Palin has retained that beauty queen wave? talk about acting elitist...
attacking the wave...strong point. [/b]
if a fist bump can be called a terrorist greeting, then i think that waving to us like we are all subjects is the act of elitist who thinks she a queen above us...
-
i have no idea what youre talking about. terrorist greeting? wat.
-
Jesus was a community organizer, but never a mayor.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
talk about a resume..
Obama, only 24, struck board members as "awesome" and "extremely impressive," and they quickly hired him, at $13,000 a year, plus $2,000 for a car--a beat-up blue Honda Civic, which Obama drove for the next three years organizing more than twenty congregations to change their neighborhoods.
Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama--and hundreds of other organizers--did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. But it did change the young man who became the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, and it provides clues to his worldview as he bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.
so you are on board with the whole attacking people who help others? bravo
I guess he went straight from that to running for president, nothing in the middle there
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Jesus was a community organizer, but never a mayor.
awesome
-
More thoughts on the Palin pick (http://wearevotingyes.blogspot.com/2008/09/transformation-of-republican-party.html), and how it seems to be working into the GOP strategy.
-
do you think he would have voted for the war if he were in the senate at the time? i bet he would have..like the majority of the dems.
-
UPDATE: Apparently Sarah Palin is leaving the campaign trail to hole up in Alaska for awhile. (http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/palin-leaves-campaign-trail-flees-north/) This is less than a week after Sarah Palin was announced as the VP choice, and she is already disappearing from public view? Is this indicative of the GOP's control over her image? Are we not going to get a chance to really learn what Sarah Palin is all about?
What? You think one can learn foreign policy overnight? It will take a least week...
Which reminds me, I have never seen a dream candidate fall so out of favor as I have with John McCain and the Economist. The lovefest was difficult for me to read for a long time, but they are feeling so betrayed at this point. As if last week's "Bring back the Real McCain" cover wasn't enough, they are ape shit about the Palin choice. (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12066224&fsrc=nwlgafree)
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
talk about a resume..
Obama, only 24, struck board members as "awesome" and "extremely impressive," and they quickly hired him, at $13,000 a year, plus $2,000 for a car--a beat-up blue Honda Civic, which Obama drove for the next three years organizing more than twenty congregations to change their neighborhoods.
Despite some meaningful victories, the work of Obama--and hundreds of other organizers--did not transform the South Side or restore lost industries. But it did change the young man who became the junior senator from Illinois in 2004, and it provides clues to his worldview as he bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.
so you are on board with the whole attacking people who help others? bravo
I guess he went straight from that to running for president, nothing in the middle there [/b]
and it's interesting that this is a faith based intiative... something the bush whitehouse promoted during his tenure... it really is amazing how two-faced the mccain campaign on such issues... clearily it wasn't the correct type of faith based intiative
-
I don't think Jesus would have voted for the war or served in the senate.
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you think he would have voted for the war if he were in the senate at the time? i bet he would have..like the majority of the dems.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you think he would have voted for the war if he were in the senate at the time? i bet he would have..like the majority of the dems.
we can speculate all we want, but the fact is that at the start of the war it was very unpopular for anybody to be against the war, and he was publicly
you were probably for the war so you dont remember what it was like to be against the war then, any hint of it and you hated america and were a friend of terrorists, oh and hated our troops
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you think he would have voted for the war if he were in the senate at the time? i bet he would have..like the majority of the dems.
you are wrong here.
barack against war 2002 (http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm)
Obama went on to explain that ??I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequence of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequence. I know that an invasion of Iraq without clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.?
In November 2003, he told the Chicago Sun-Times that had he been in the Senate, he would have voted against the President??s $87.5 billion supplemental appropriations package for Iraq and Afghanistan. ??I think it enables the Bush administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people or to the troops who are making sacrifices,? he said.
-
its a lot easier to be "against the war" when you dont have to actually vote on it.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
its a lot easier to be "against the war" when you dont have to actually vote on it.
thats great, doesnt change the fact that he was against the war, and I say again, it wasn't easy for any public figure to be against the war back then, he could have just as easily appealed to the masses and said "yeah, lets go get those fuckers that attacked us" (even though they didnt)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
its a lot easier to be "against the war" when you dont have to actually vote on it.
give up man, you lose on this one. Obama was always against the stupid war and he never would've voted for it. get over it.
-
do you think mccain would have spoken for pilate to free jesus or barabbas?
i say barabbas due to his disdain of community organizers. plus he likes secessionists
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
do you think mccain would have spoken for pilate to free jesus or barabbas?
i say barabbas due to his disdain of community organizers. plus he likes secessionists
i'd say he'd support whoever was best for israel.
anyway. . .peter and paul were more of the community activists.
-
"This morning, some snoopy bitch dug up a stat which names Wasilla??that podunk town Palin mayored for all those years??as the meth capital of Alaska, with no less than 40-percent of calls to a child??s protection agency nearby stemming from meth related home visits."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/wasillas-meth-problem-mad_n_123996.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/wasillas-meth-problem-mad_n_123996.html)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i have no idea what youre talking about. terrorist greeting? wat.
awhile back at a event obama and his wife exchanged a fist bump as a friendly greeting between the two of them... some in the media started speculating that it was some sort of terrorist greeting and not just you know a fist bump between husband and wife.
so it's only fair that i think that palin considers herself royalty...
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i have no idea what youre talking about. terrorist greeting? wat.
awhile back at a event obama and his wife exchanged a fist bump as a friendly greeting between the two of them... some in the media started speculating that it was some sort of terrorist greeting and not just you know a fist bump between husband and wife.
so it's only fair that i think that palin considers herself royalty... [/b]
yes, the moose hunting, gun shootin' lady considers herself royalty.
you arent going to turn the "elite" issue around here...you libs earned it.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i have no idea what youre talking about. terrorist greeting? wat.
awhile back at a event obama and his wife exchanged a fist bump as a friendly greeting between the two of them... some in the media started speculating that it was some sort of terrorist greeting and not just you know a fist bump between husband and wife.
so it's only fair that i think that palin considers herself royalty... [/b]
yes, the moose hunting, gun shootin' lady considers herself royalty.
you arent going to turn the "elite" issue around here...you libs earned it. [/b]
besure to refer to your daily briefing sheet when answering this question...
how exactly have the libs earned the elite label?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
UPDATE: Apparently Sarah Palin is leaving the campaign trail to hole up in Alaska for awhile. (http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/palin-leaves-campaign-trail-flees-north/) This is less than a week after Sarah Palin was announced as the VP choice, and she is already disappearing from public view? Is this indicative of the GOP's control over her image? Are we not going to get a chance to really learn what Sarah Palin is all about?
What? You think one can learn foreign policy overnight? It will take a least week...
Which reminds me, I have never seen a dream candidate fall so out of favor as I have with John McCain and the Economist. The lovefest was difficult for me to read for a long time, but they are feeling so betrayed at this point. As if last week's "Bring back the Real McCain" cover wasn't enough, they are ape shit about the Palin choice. (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12066224&fsrc=nwlgafree) [/b]
apparently Palin isn't going on interview shows... can you imagine her on the Daily Show, it would be even more hilarious if she were on Colbert show...
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i have no idea what youre talking about. terrorist greeting? wat.
awhile back at a event obama and his wife exchanged a fist bump as a friendly greeting between the two of them... some in the media started speculating that it was some sort of terrorist greeting and not just you know a fist bump between husband and wife.
so it's only fair that i think that palin considers herself royalty... [/b]
yes, the moose hunting, gun shootin' lady considers herself royalty.
you arent going to turn the "elite" issue around here...you libs earned it. [/b]
besure to refer to your daily briefing sheet when answering this question...
i didnt make the rules. i just follow them.
how exactly have the libs earned the elite label? [/b]
-
When Obama came to South Chicago, he believed in community organizing; within two-and-a-half years--by the time he and Jerry Kellman went for their late October walk around Harvard's campus--he was clearly growing disillusioned. Now, having fashioned a political identity in near-total opposition to the core principles of his one-time profession, Obama's bid for the presidency may come down to this: Is he willing to rediscover--and put into practice--one of the main principles he followed as a twentysomething activist all those years ago? (http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2e0a7836-b897-4155-864c-25e791ff0f50)
-
where in the hell is GGW?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
When Obama came to South Chicago, he believed in community organizing; within two-and-a-half years--by the time he and Jerry Kellman went for their late October walk around Harvard's campus--he was clearly growing disillusioned. Now, having fashioned a political identity in near-total opposition to the core principles of his one-time profession, Obama's bid for the presidency may come down to this: Is he willing to rediscover--and put into practice--one of the main principles he followed as a twentysomething activist all those years ago? (http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2e0a7836-b897-4155-864c-25e791ff0f50)
what point are you making exactly?
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
When Obama came to South Chicago, he believed in community organizing; within two-and-a-half years--by the time he and Jerry Kellman went for their late October walk around Harvard's campus--he was clearly growing disillusioned. Now, having fashioned a political identity in near-total opposition to the core principles of his one-time profession, Obama's bid for the presidency may come down to this: Is he willing to rediscover--and put into practice--one of the main principles he followed as a twentysomething activist all those years ago? (http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2e0a7836-b897-4155-864c-25e791ff0f50)
what point are you making exactly? [/b]
it's not my point, it's the new republic's point. geez, it's not like i linked to a weekly standard article.
that and i found it to be an interesting take on his community organizing experience. . .
-
i know it was the articles point, but normally when you post a snippet of an article you are responding to something, i read the entire article and did not understand which part you were focusing on, i think its a pretty flattering portrait
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
i know it was the articles point, but normally when you post a snippet of an article you are responding to something, i read the entire article and did not understand which part you were focusing on, i think its a pretty flattering portrait
geez. . .touchy, aren't we?
like i can't link to an article that is interesting and, while it is a generally favorable portrait, it does note obama's changing view on his community organizer experience. just how much did it shape his underlying beliefs and how he has backed away from earlier assertions that relied heavily on it.
-
what about my response was touchy? seriously i was curious because after reading the whole thing i didnt get which part you were posting it for
as far as changing views, i dont think his views on community organizing are what is important, what important is that he has that experience and made choices in his life based on that
-
We really should get a drink at some point, the three of us.
It would be just like old times...
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
what about my response was touchy? seriously i was curious because after reading the whole thing i didnt get which part you were posting it for
as far as changing views, i dont think his views on community organizing are what is important, what important is that he has that experience and made choices in his life based on that
oh, and it didn't appear that he was a terribly successful community organizer. . .plus, it just reinforces the position that he isn't anything but a politician. that, i think, is one take-away that can be made from that article. in order to "change" whatever he thinks needs to be change, he'd have to become a politican. hell, fred thompson said substantially the same thing on the tonight show.
why must you assume i'm always going to be negative? just because i think obama is a socialist and is more than willing to do and say anything to get himself elected, doesn't mean i don't think there are admirable traits and experiences. after all, he does come from a broken home, and we know how hard that can be.
-
i took the exact opposite away from it than you did on him being a politician, he became a politician for reasons other than the glory, he saw a problem as a community organizer and thought the solution to fixing that problem was through politics
most people dont become a small businessman or whatever else is GOP approved to make change, well at least not the kind of change we are talking about
i wish he was a socialist, but its a pretty ridiculous notion that he is
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it just reinforces the position that he isn't anything but a politician. that, i think, is one take-away that can be made from that article.
or this article written six weeks earlier (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?printable=) that unfortunately got glossed over because of the controversial cover. personally, i like that obama better than the change zombie he had to be to beat hillary.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
apparently Palin isn't going on interview shows... can you imagine her on the Daily Show, it would be even more hilarious if she were on Colbert show...
Forget Biden. I wanna see Palin debate Tina Fey.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
i wish he was a socialist, but its a pretty ridiculous notion that he is
amen to that. you americans dont know a real socialist from squat.
if he was really socialist...you might call him......a CANADIAN!!!!! :)
-
Originally posted by twangirl:
where in the hell is GGW?
No shit...
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
[qb]amen to that. you americans dont know a real socialist from squat.
if he was really socialist...you might call him......a CANADIAN!!!!! :) [qb]
What's the difference between a Hockey Dad and a Pit Bull?
SOCIALISM!! HAHAHA . . . . uhhh, get it?
-
Originally posted by BookerT:
Originally posted by very sonick:
i dont watch Comedy Central cause it doesnt come in HD so i get everything late...in case you're in the same boat...this made me laugh this morning
linq (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086)
probably the best TDS segment in a long while. just great stuff. [/b]
I think friday's episode should be required watching for anyone who accuses the Dems of being flip floppers on issues and watch the segment where mccain acceptence speech parrots bush's acceptence speech...
must see link (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184111&title=john-mccains-big-acceptance)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
But the point you're missing is that those who teach safe-sex also talk about the value of abstinence. As a matter of fact, any good teacher will lead with it.
it appears that palin agrees (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story).
i think we can put this thing to rest.
-
Well of course she would agree, now. You know, after both she and her daughter were knocked up, premaritally.
I wonder if John fucked Cindy without a condom when he was cheating on his crippled first wife?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by vansmack:
But the point you're missing is that those who teach safe-sex also talk about the value of abstinence. As a matter of fact, any good teacher will lead with it.
it appears that palin agrees (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story).
i think we can put this thing to rest. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it appears that palin agrees (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story).
i think we can put this thing to rest.
That is good to hear and I was pointing out flaws in Evangelicals more so than Gov Palin, so let's not be to quick to put this one to rest. The Evangelical's have a long way to go on this argument.
I'll have to find the link, but I was referring to when I pointed out the policies of Gov Palin were amounts of money Alaska appopriated for abstinence-until-marriage programs being substantially more than she appropriated for other safe-sex based programs. You, of all people, should understand the "what you say" vs. "what you do" argument - it's the core of your problems with the Republican party (and presumably Senator Obama as well based your comments in this thread).
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Well of course she would agree, now. You know, after both she and her daughter were knocked up, premaritally.
I wonder if John fucked Cindy without a condom when he was cheating on his crippled first wife?
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by vansmack:
But the point you're missing is that those who teach safe-sex also talk about the value of abstinence. As a matter of fact, any good teacher will lead with it.
it appears that palin agrees (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story).
i think we can put this thing to rest. [/b]
[/b]
someone seems cranky. did you just read the polls or something?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it appears that palin agrees (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story).
i think we can put this thing to rest.
That is good to hear and I was pointing out flaws in Evangelicals more so than Gov Palin, so let's not be to quick to put this one to rest. The Evangelical's have a long way to go on this argument.
I'll have to find the link, but I was referring to when I pointed out the policies of Gov Palin were amounts of money Alaska appopriated for abstinence-until-marriage programs being substantially more than she appropriated for other safe-sex based programs. You, of all people, should understand the "what you say" vs. "what you do" argument - it's the core of your problems with the Republican party (and presumably Senator Obama as well based your comments in this thread). [/b]
fair enough. . .and from the la times article, it appears that palin makes an distinction between safe sex education versus "explicit" safe sex education. i have no idea what explicit means though.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
fair enough. . .and from the la times article, it appears that palin makes an distinction between safe sex education versus "explicit" safe sex education. i have no idea what explicit means though.
Haha...I didn't either (although I did raise an eye brow when I read that). I assumed any conversation about "explicit" and "non-explicit" safe-sex education would have to take place in the NSFW thread.
I hope the Dems are smart enough to make any differences between McCains thoughts and Palin's thoughts on safe-sex teaching a non-issue (unless of course they show actual policy that might be diffferent then her published statements), because anything that paints Palin further to the left would not be helpful. Of course, the Repubs would want to do the same because they need Palin to look way right for the base.
-
Hey, wouldn't it be great if Sarah Palin did an interview or a press conference to answer some of these questions?
Just one of those off the wall thoughts...
-
Isn't she scheduled to be on Good Morning America?
Maybe she could also do the View.
Originally posted by callat703:
Hey, wouldn't it be great if Sarah Palin did an interview or a press conference to answer some of these questions?
Just one of those off the wall thoughts...
-
will she do the interview in tongues?
-
Middle aged evangelical males everywhere are hoping the answer to this one is "yes".
Originally posted by very sonick:
will she do the interview in tongues?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Hey, wouldn't it be great if Sarah Palin did an interview or a press conference to answer some of these questions?
Just one of those off the wall thoughts...
yeah, maybe she'll go on oprah. oh wait. . . . .
-
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
yet congress starts every day with a prayer.....and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
yet congress starts every day with a prayer.....and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency. [/b]
Oh don't get me started.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
Yes, your feelings reflect many on the British opinion of American Politics:
The Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics. This is as true on the left as on the right.
The Economist, Sept 4. (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=most_commented&story_id=12066224&fsrc=nwlgafree)
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
yet congress starts every day with a prayer.....and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency. [/b]
Oh don't get me started. [/b]
yeah, i'd rather not go on with this, since i disagree with your premise to begin with, but that's not really a discussion i want to have today.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yeah, maybe she'll go on oprah. oh wait. . . . .
This was a mistake, although consistent with her not having any Presidential candidates on the show (Obama was on before he announced his candidacy).
She should have had Palin on to discuss women's issues with Hillary Clinton (which she wouldn't have agreed to), then reminded America that she has refused your invitation every day until the election.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it appears that palin makes an distinction between safe sex education versus "explicit" safe sex education. i have no idea what explicit means though.
Probably like that the sex education bit in Monty Python's Meaning of Life. I know that's how I was taught. Of course I was home-schooled.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
Actually it's nowhere within the constitution that America maintain a separation of church and state. That phrase and the ideal meant by it literally is from Thomas Jefferson, specifically in a letter he wrote in 1802 to a congregation of Baptists.
The closest thing we've got is the first amendment. And all that says is freedom of religion, congress can't establish an official religion by law, or stop anyone from freely exercising their own religion.
Note that having "In God We Trust" on money, praying before the opening of congress, and "one nation under God" aren't laws, they're just official traditions maintained by people whose religion has been the majority culture of America from its founding until the present time.
-
sometimes the jokes write themselves, other times we have jon steward to fill in the blanks (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card).
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
sometimes the jokes write themselves, other times we have jon steward to fill in the blanks (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card).
That's so two pages ago... (http://www.930.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=017801;p=6)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
As a somewhat outsider it seems that religion is a huge issue when picking a president for a country that has seperation of church from state.
yet congress starts every day with a prayer.....and "in god we trust" is on every form of currency. [/b]
Oh don't get me started. [/b]
yeah, i'd rather not go on with this, since i disagree with your premise to begin with, but that's not really a discussion i want to have today. [/b]
Agreed....your posts are very enlightening to me for the most part, and this is a topic that is not just a right/wrong issue so lets leave it alone.
As for your constitution....you all brag about it's the only unchanged constitution in the world, and that's very nice and all. So if it's unchanged what are these "amendments" you all speak of, and why do you think everyone else has changed their constitutions? Because it's a totally different world from when the originial constitutions were first written. It's called changing with the times doodles.
*playing devils advocate a little here, with a ring of sincerity in my opinions. But you all love your constitution so no offense intended, just expressing what a lot of Europeans feel about it.
-
Michael Palin for President (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos)
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Agreed....your posts are very enlightening to me for the most part, and this is a topic that is not just a right/wrong issue so lets leave it alone.
As for your constitution....you all brag about it's the only unchanged constitution in the world, and that's very nice and all. So if it's unchanged what are these "amendments" you all speak of, and why do you think everyone else has changed their constitutions? Because it's a totally different world from when the originial constitutions were first written. It's called changing with the times doodles.
*playing devils advocate a little here, with a ring of sincerity in my opinions. But you all love your constitution so no offense intended, just expressing what a lot of Europeans feel about it.
just for the record, i agree with what arthwys wrote about the church and state thing. to go any further would really require a long drawn out discussion on a number of issues that don't need to be discussed today.
and i haven't heard the "unchanged" part before. i've heard the oldest constitution (although, i want to say that rhode island or connecticut also may have a claim of sorts), but that's primarily because england doesn't have a "constitution" but rather uses a common law understanding based, loosely, on the magna carta and moving forward from there. other than that, most other countries didn't have democratically elected leaders, or at least not continuously since before 1789.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Michael Palin for President (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos)
Brilliant. Now I know who to vote for, hands down.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Michael Palin for President (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos)
Brilliant. Now I know who to vote for, hands down. [/b]
Me too - Palin/Biden.
-
let's pray away the gay. What a brilliant idea.
-
A little speaking in tongues will have ya craving vag in a jiffy.
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
let's pray away the gay. What a brilliant idea.
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
let's pray away the gay. What a brilliant idea.
Unless you're a catholic priests then you praise the gay by all accounts.
I was given a message from God to go gay yesterday. I was in B&N in the antique/collectables aisle trying to value an old Bulova watch I own. The watch book was on the bottom shelf but I wasn't paying full attention because I was trying to get a sneak peak down the shirt of the hot chick sitting on the floor close by and grabbed the book next to it by mistake. I had skimmed through 3 or 4 pages before my brain registered I was looking at blokes going at it. The book was titled "gay sex positions"
This begs the question "what was that book doing in the antique/collectables aisle?" The best senario we could come up with was a married couple were in the store together and the husband is a closet and almost got caught so jammed the book onto the shelf in haste before his missus saw what he was reading.
-
I find it hard to believe they would have something that explicit (gay or straight) in a Barnes and Noble.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
let's pray away the gay. What a brilliant idea.
Unless you're a catholic priests then you praise the gay by all accounts.
I was given a message from God to go gay yesterday. I was in B&N in the antique/collectables aisle trying to value an old Bulova watch I own. The watch book was on the bottom shelf but I wasn't paying full attention because I was trying to get a sneak peak down the shirt of the hot chick sitting on the floor close by and grabbed the book next to it by mistake. I had skimmed through 3 or 4 pages before my brain registered I was looking at blokes going at it. The book was titled "gay sex positions"
This begs the question "what was that book doing in the antique/collectables aisle?" The best senario we could come up with was a married couple were in the store together and the husband is a closet and almost got caught so jammed the book onto the shelf in haste before his missus saw what he was reading. [/b]
-
In other news, former hook-up of Mary Kate Olson Lance Armstrong has announced that he will begin biking again. Apparently he's good at it or something. No word from Kate Hudson's reps on what she thinks.
When asked for his thoughts, Armstrong friend Matthew McConaughey took his shirt off and had sex.
-
And if they did, it most likely wouldn't be left out in the open.
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I find it hard to believe they would have something that explicit (gay or straight) in a Barnes and Noble.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
let's pray away the gay. What a brilliant idea.
Unless you're a catholic priests then you praise the gay by all accounts.
I was given a message from God to go gay yesterday. I was in B&N in the antique/collectables aisle trying to value an old Bulova watch I own. The watch book was on the bottom shelf but I wasn't paying full attention because I was trying to get a sneak peak down the shirt of the hot chick sitting on the floor close by and grabbed the book next to it by mistake. I had skimmed through 3 or 4 pages before my brain registered I was looking at blokes going at it. The book was titled "gay sex positions"
This begs the question "what was that book doing in the antique/collectables aisle?" The best senario we could come up with was a married couple were in the store together and the husband is a closet and almost got caught so jammed the book onto the shelf in haste before his missus saw what he was reading. [/b]
[/b]
-
books on antiques sounds pretty gay to begin with
-
Were the pictures of old dudes?
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
This begs the question "what was that book doing in the antique/collectables aisle?"
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I find it hard to believe they would have something that explicit (gay or straight) in a Barnes and Noble.
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
let's pray away the gay. What a brilliant idea.
Unless you're a catholic priests then you praise the gay by all accounts.
I was given a message from God to go gay yesterday. I was in B&N in the antique/collectables aisle trying to value an old Bulova watch I own. The watch book was on the bottom shelf but I wasn't paying full attention because I was trying to get a sneak peak down the shirt of the hot chick sitting on the floor close by and grabbed the book next to it by mistake. I had skimmed through 3 or 4 pages before my brain registered I was looking at blokes going at it. The book was titled "gay sex positions"
This begs the question "what was that book doing in the antique/collectables aisle?" The best senario we could come up with was a married couple were in the store together and the husband is a closet and almost got caught so jammed the book onto the shelf in haste before his missus saw what he was reading. [/b]
[/b]
<img src="http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/14300000/14300775.JPG" alt=" - " />
There was no penetration, or even willy shots, so not xxx, just blokes simulating gay sex I suppose you'd call it....either way, it wasn't pleasant.
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
In other news, former hook-up of Mary Kate Olson Lance Armstrong has announced that he will begin biking again. Apparently he's good at it or something. No word from Kate Hudson's reps on what she thinks.
When asked for his thoughts, Armstrong friend Matthew McConaughey took his shirt off and had sex.....with himself
Lance Armstrong will not be seen competing in Le Tour, he had to re-register so he could compete in a mountain bike event, in which he came second btw.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Me too - Palin/Biden.
When did we give you the right to vote?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Me too - Palin/Biden.
When did we give you the right to vote? [/b]
Since I passed the citizenship test about 15 years ago.
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Since I passed the citizenship test about 15 years ago.
That's right. I remember offering to block your citizenship but you took care of that before I met you...
-
once again, obama shows he's a different type of politician, running a different type of campaign. . .errr. . . maybe (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html) not (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php). hey, i understand why he's doing it, but maybe he shouldn't have said he wasn't going to do it or use such groups in the first place. . .
-
interesting that there are 527 groups making ads for mccain. whole worlds gone mad
-
Thanks for reminding me to get that check in. I'm even going to do it in honor of you...
Which address shall I have them send the thank you to?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
once again, obama shows he's a different type of politician, running a different type of campaign. . .errr. . . maybe (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html) not (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php). hey, i understand why he's doing it, but maybe he shouldn't have said he wasn't going to do it or use such groups in the first place. . .
i don't get your first point. he's forgoing public financing, so he needs to work a little harder at raising cash since he can't let the national party do it for him. is this somehow different from what he said? i don't remember him saying anything about his campaign financing that would be "different". to me, it seems you're attacking something for being not "different" when he never said it would be different. it is, however, a tad worrying that his financing strategy isn't working out as well as he hoped it would.
as for the 527s, it just means that he's beginning to sink to the GOP's level. he's not as much better as the republicans as he claimed to be... but he's still better :D
-
It will be OK if after the ad runs he denounces them publicy. That's what Bush taught us anyway...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
maybe he shouldn't have said he wasn't going to do it or use such groups in the first place. . .
Should he have sued them, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35376-2004Aug26.html) denounced them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-kornbluth/john-mccain-strenuously-o_b_98724.html), and then met with them? (http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/08/14/prnewswire200808141125PR_NEWS_USPR_____DCTH001.html)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
once again, obama shows he's a different type of politician, running a different type of campaign. . .errr. . . maybe (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html) not (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/quietly_obama_campaign_flashes.php). hey, i understand why he's doing it, but maybe he shouldn't have said he wasn't going to do it or use such groups in the first place. . .
i don't get your first point. he's forgoing public financing, so he needs to work a little harder at raising cash since he can't let the national party do it for him. is this somehow different from what he said? i don't remember him saying anything about his campaign financing that would be "different". to me, it seems you're attacking something for being not "different" when he never said it would be different. it is, however, a tad worrying that his financing strategy isn't working out as well as he hoped it would.
as for the 527s, it just means that he's beginning to sink to the GOP's level. he's not as much better as the republicans as he claimed to be... but he's still better :D [/b]
oh, perhaps you've forgotten that obama said (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0207/Obama_Wants_Public_Financing_Option.html) he'd use public financing if the republican nominee agreed to public financing, which mccain said he would and obama knew it. guess what happened (http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20080619/pl_cq_politics/politics2900695)?
like i said, i understand why he did it, but he shouldn't have said he wasn't going to do it in the first place.
as for the 527s, again, obama made clear that he didn't want to use them, but now that it's becoming bumpy, he's moving ahead with them. his campaign going into this election season was premised that he's a different type of politician, yet time and time again, he's proving that's he's just the same old type of politician.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
maybe he shouldn't have said he wasn't going to do it or use such groups in the first place. . .
Should he have sued them, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35376-2004Aug26.html) denounced them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-kornbluth/john-mccain-strenuously-o_b_98724.html), and then met with them? (http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2008/08/14/prnewswire200808141125PR_NEWS_USPR_____DCTH001.html) [/b]
how dare you use a forbes.com article against me.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
as for the 527s, again, obama made clear that he didn't want to use them, but now that it's becoming bumpy, he's moving ahead with them. his campaign going into this election season was premised that he's a different type of politician, yet time and time again, he's proving that's he's just the same old type of politician.
Uh, McCain did the exact same thing, and under the same pretenses. The only "Maverick" thing he did was to physically meet with them. Hell, even W was smart enough to send Dick.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
how dare you use a forbes.com article against me.
Come on...I used Wapo and Huffington as well.
No weak sauce here.
-
you know what joke doesnt write itself? lipstick on a pig...well at least not any longer
-
Talk about a huge misstep.
Yeah we all know what he meant by that comment and that McCain used it a few months ago but that won't stop McCain's people from pouncing on it repeatedly and using it between now and the election.
And...it'll work.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you know what joke doesnt write itself? lipstick on a pig...well at least not any longer
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
[qb] he's not as much better as the republicans as he claimed to be... but he's still better :D [/b]
Yeah, it's like deciding if you'd like herpes or just good old fashioned crabs.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Talk about a huge misstep.
Yeah we all know what he meant by that comment and that McCain used it a few months ago but that won't stop McCain's people from pouncing on it repeatedly and using it between now and the election.
And...it'll work.
i dont know, he may have overplayed his hand here. i'd come up with an ad right away along the lines of john mccain: so out of touch he doesnt even know what he's said
folks hate when you twist around country-ish phrases like that
-
Does anyone really give a f*ck about earmarks? Who presided over the policies that led to a $407 billion deficit AND that didn't even pay for a properly functioning government. That's real money.
Also, its telling that mccain and the president are trying so desperately to co-opt obama's ideas. Change. Transferring troops to afganistan. Chasing Bin Laden after all these years. They react . . . but don't act.
Obama should jump on the idea that McCain is embracing Change . . . and how that makes sense since he looks like he's changed from a so-called maverick to another rove-crafted neocon lobbyist.
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Talk about a huge misstep.
Yeah we all know what he meant by that comment and that McCain used it a few months ago but that won't stop McCain's people from pouncing on it repeatedly and using it between now and the election.
And...it'll work.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you know what joke doesnt write itself? lipstick on a pig...well at least not any longer
[/b]
if america is going to vote because of crap like this, its no wonder why you guys pick shitty leaders.
who cares why the dollar is in the pooper, lets just make sure our next president doesnt make any un-politically correct remarks!
dumb
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
if america is going to vote because of crap like this, its no wonder why you guys pick shitty leaders.
What do you mean "you guys"?
-
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Talk about a huge misstep.
I agree with Gods Shoeshine on this one.
This is not John Kerry, who would let it fester for three days before a response.
"Spare me the phony outrage."
Perfect.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by very sonick:
if america is going to vote because of crap like this, its no wonder why you guys pick shitty leaders.
What do you mean "you guys"? [/b]
Americans.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
There's one thing that I wonder about however. The female Republican base.
Immediately after watching Palin's speech in Ohio when she was first announced, I realized that she is going to be adored by every rural down home republican wife in the country. I have a hunch that there are a great deal of women out there in "America's heartland" that are die-hard about supporting their way of life. We're talking the part of the country that hunts, goes to church, farms, joins 4-H and FFA, and fills small towns everywhere from the mountains of Idaho to the swamps of Georgia. How many of these women that are social conservatives but have never been political going to up and vote this time simply because of Palin? I think it'll be a far from negligible number.
I'll admit I have no idea of stats on this demographic, whether most of them tend to vote or not, but I sense this could be huge. Beware the "hockey/soccer/football" moms of middle America.
Washington post just ran a story saying precisely what I was saying a week ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903045_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/09/AR2008090903045_pf.html)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Talk about a huge misstep.
I agree with Gods Shoeshine on this one.
This is not John Kerry, who would let it fester for three days before a response.
"Spare me the phony outrage."
Perfect. [/b]
i have no doubt that he was not referring to palin with the lipstick on a pig any more than he was referring to mccain with the next line about an old fish.
but. . .i think it's obvious obama should have chosen better metaphors, especially considering palin's lipstick line at the convention. and the republicans are gonna use it. . .the same way the dems would use any stupid off-the-cuff remark by any republican. . .macaca, anyone?
and we'll see if the mccain campaign overplayed. . .probably, but can't really tell right now.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i think it's obvious obama should have chosen better metaphors, especially considering palin's lipstick line at the convention.
I'm not so sure it wasn't done intentionally.
Using a line that everyone knew would would spark controversy knowing full well that you had the defense of saying "Many Republicans have said the same thing... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2CJW2skP8U)" to simply point out the hyper-sensitivity of the Republicans around the woman issue is not a bad play. Start pointing out the boy who cries wolf so that if there really is a wolf someday....
Obama's Response was perfect. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26640762#26640762) It wasn't an apology, and it shouldn't have been.
But you're right, only time will tell if the Repubs over played their hand or the Obama response doesn't get the same air play tonight. But I think it will pay dividends later when Biden steps in it...
Oh, and Nancy Pfotenhauer is quickly becoming my replacement for Karl Rove on whatever list I have/had him on.
-
Originally posted by ixkpd-bk:
Wrong woman, wrong message, indeed.
God, I love Gloria Steinem. (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story)
paglia responds (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i think it's obvious obama should have chosen better metaphors, especially considering palin's lipstick line at the convention.
I'm not so sure it wasn't done intentionally.
Using a line that everyone knew would would spark controversy knowing full well that you had the defense of saying "Many Republicans have said the same thing... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2CJW2skP8U)" to simply point out the hyper-sensitivity of the Republicans around the woman issue is not a bad play. Start pointing out the boy who cries wolf so that if there really is a wolf someday.... [/b]
are you saying that this is potentially a trap? surely he could have come up with something more clever.
-
i just didnt realize that pitbulls were so easily offended
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
paglia responds (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/)
TLDR.
-
While her rants usually bore me, this one was interesting.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
paglia responds (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/)
TLDR. [/b]
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Talk about a huge misstep.
Yeah we all know what he meant by that comment and that McCain used it a few months ago but that won't stop McCain's people from pouncing on it repeatedly and using it between now and the election.
And...it'll work.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you know what joke doesnt write itself? lipstick on a pig...well at least not any longer
[/b]
if america is going to vote because of crap like this, its no wonder why you guys pick shitty leaders.
who cares why the dollar is in the pooper, lets just make sure our next president doesnt make any un-politically correct remarks!
dumb [/b]
Yes, a lot of voters are in fact that dumb.
But Obama did respond perfectly and swiftly which I didn't expect him to do.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
This is not John Kerry, who would let it fester for three days before a response.
"Spare me the phony outrage."
Perfect.
so, how should obama react to this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall)?
-
I know this has nothing to do with anything but wtf kinda name is Trig? Will her next kid be named Calc? Or Tangent?
-
Don't you use the google?
The name Trig is a Norse word meaning "true" and "brave victory,"
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
I know this has nothing to do with anything but wtf kinda name is Trig? Will her next kid be named Calc? Or Tangent?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, how should obama react to this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall)?
He won't have to. If true, she'll probably step down on her own.
Why couldn't she have said:
"everyone seems to tout her best qualification as choosing not have an abortion. Look around you, many women have done that over the years. At least she had a choice."
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by vansmack:
This is not John Kerry, who would let it fester for three days before a response.
"Spare me the phony outrage."
Perfect.
so, how should obama react to this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall)? [/b]
I loves it. The comments to that story are just great.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, how should obama react to this (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/SC_Dem_chair_Palin_primary_qualification_is_she_hasnt_had_an_abortion_.html?showall)?
He won't have to. If true, she'll probably step down on her own. [/b]
she should have stepped down last march when she ruled that colbert couldn't be on the democratic primary ballot. . .i mean, colbert was out-polling joe biden!
in any event. . .actually, i agree with you that obama shouldn't say anything. i just think this whole thing is amusing.
-
just when i was wondering what happened to joe biden, he opens his mouth (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html):
"Make no mistake about this," Biden responded. "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let??s get that straight. She??s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she??s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she??s first rate, I mean that sincerely, she??s first rate, so let??s get that straight."
-
i cant believe conservatives are all of a sudden up in arms about political correctness. I guess when it suits them.
-
The McCain campaign reminds me of a modern day Bernard Hopkins fight. Ugly . . . crafty as hell . . . possibly effective depending on how the opponent adjusts.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
just when i was wondering what happened to joe biden, he opens his mouth (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html):
There's nothing wrong with that statement. Palin would say something similar, except that the list would be 3 dozen long.
Whenever you guys are ready to talk about the issues, the American people are waiting.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
i cant believe conservatives are all of a sudden up in arms about political correctness. I guess when it suits them.
They did call me to ask what was the definition of "Sexist" was...they were pretty sure it didn't exist until this month.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Whenever you guys are ready to talk about the issues, the American people are waiting.
thats sexist
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Whenever you guys are ready to talk about the issues, the American people are waiting.
exactly what i am thinking. every night. drives me crazy. maybe they dont knw anything about the issues!
-
You give the American people too much credit.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
just when i was wondering what happened to joe biden, he opens his mouth (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html):
There's nothing wrong with that statement. Palin would say something similar, except that the list would be 3 dozen long.
Whenever you guys are ready to talk about the issues, the American people are waiting. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
You give the American people too much credit.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
just when i was wondering what happened to joe biden, he opens his mouth (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html):
There's nothing wrong with that statement. Palin would say something similar, except that the list would be 3 dozen long.
Whenever you guys are ready to talk about the issues, the American people are waiting. [/b]
[/b]
no, you dont give them enough.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
just when i was wondering what happened to joe biden, he opens his mouth (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html):
There's nothing wrong with that statement. Palin would say something similar, except that the list would be 3 dozen long.
[/b]
see, a VP can that they are honored to have been picked over a long list of other qualified people. i find it very amusing for a VP candidate to say that someone else would have been a better pick (and, by extension, the presidential candidate made a bad choice). . .unless they are positioning themself to step aside.
-
lets not even start on how sorry canada is..LOL
and look, some dudes even wrote an article on how nervous the lefties are. double LOL
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357.html)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
lets not even start on how sorry canada is..LOL
and look, some dudes even wrote an article on how nervous the lefties are. double LOL
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13357.html)
hahahahahaha. the politico wrote a pro-republican article? thanks for the insight. wonder if the wsj or ibd will follow suit.
-
yes..they made up all those quotes as well. idiot.
-
I think the fact that Bush got the most votes in 2004 says it all when it comes to the American people.
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
You give the American people too much credit.
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
just when i was wondering what happened to joe biden, he opens his mouth (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html):
There's nothing wrong with that statement. Palin would say something similar, except that the list would be 3 dozen long.
Whenever you guys are ready to talk about the issues, the American people are waiting. [/b]
[/b]
no, you dont give them enough. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I think the fact that Bush got the most votes in 2004 says it all when it comes to the American people.
but he didn't in 2000, so there is hope.
-
its already starting...the dems lose b/c everyone but themselves are just soooooo stupid.
who's moving to canada this time around after we steal the election?
-
Yes, but in 2000 he was running against a formidable Clinton/Gore record and still got nearly as many votes. In 2004, he was running with his own records, and won more votes.
Face it, the American people are conservative by nature. The Republicans are always going to have home field advantage. Unless the black people keep having more children than white people.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I think the fact that Bush got the most votes in 2004 says it all when it comes to the American people.
but he didn't in 2000, so there is hope. [/b]
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
but he didn't in 2000, so there is hope.
There's plenty of hope. These polls are all post convention bump. I'm not worried. She's going to have to speak at some point, and the Dems are prepared to talk about the issues - a battle I'm convinced we'll win and one that the voters want to hear about.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
yes..they made up all those quotes as well. idiot.
"frustration" and "concern" does not equal "nervous."
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
but he didn't in 2000, so there is hope.
There's plenty of hope. These polls are all post convention bump. I'm not worried. She's going to have to speak at some point, and the Dems are prepared to talk about the issues - a battle I'm convinced we'll win and one that the voters want to hear about. [/b]
how reliable are polls these days anyway. dont you have to have a home phone and answer unknown name, unknown number calls to participate?
after realizing this last week, i have started to answer these calls. got a pollster yesterday
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
but he didn't in 2000, so there is hope.
There's plenty of hope. These polls are all post convention bump. I'm not worried. She's going to have to speak at some point, and the Dems are prepared to talk about the issues - a battle I'm convinced we'll win and one that the voters want to hear about. [/b]
mccains choice of a conservative VP has made him shoot up in the polls so obviously they want to hear and vote for liberal ideas.
-
convention bump...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
lets not even start on how sorry canada is..LOL
i double dare you to even attempt to back that ignoramus statement up. in fact, i triple dare you. with something intelligent please.
go....
-
pretty funny (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdRVQ4xwwmQ)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
mccains choice of a conservative VP has made him shoot up in the polls so obviously they want to hear and vote for liberal ideas.
This election is not about the base, it's about the independents. Each poll lists a large number of undecided's and they want to hear where each platform is on the issues.
That's how this election will be won or lost.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
convention bump...
manimtired lol bump
-
i guess you can smoke weed in BC but thats all I can think of..
-
let me know when the "bump" has ended..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i guess you can smoke weed in BC but thats all I can think of..
big surprise.
-
youre a socialist lib..of course you think canadas great. how is paying all that tax coming along?
-
thats sexist
-
im sorry.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
mccains choice of a conservative VP has made him shoot up in the polls so obviously they want to hear and vote for liberal ideas.
when engaging in political debate, doing so with intelligence will improve your chances of being taken seriously.
-
what was false about what i said? now go ahead and use some big words....
PJ dood!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
youre a socialist lib..of course you think canadas great. how is paying all that tax coming along?
you dont know what i am "manimtired" do you?
is everyone in Canada a socialist? do they all love paying lots of taxes? does everyone smoke weed? and play hockey?
not only do you have zero idea what any other country is like, you dont have much idea of your own.
and furthermore, you dont even know who you are discussing these matter with, as i live in America and have since 1995. you couldnt really be a dumber mother fucker could you?
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
youre a socialist lib..of course you think canadas great. how is paying all that tax coming along?
you dont know what i am "manimtired" do you?
is everyone in Canada a socialist? do they all love paying lots of taxes? does everyone smoke weed? and play hockey?
not only do you have zero idea what any other country is like, you dont have much idea of your own.
and furthermore, you dont even know who you are discussing these matter with, as i live in America and have since 1995. you couldnt really be a dumber mother fucker could you? [/b]
touch a nerve?
-
nah, i'm with sonick. you're making it hard to have an intelligent conversation.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
nah, i'm with sonick. you're being a dick AND making it hard to have an intelligent conversation.
congrats.
please let me bask in your supreme intellect. go.
-
I don't think anything intelligent has been uttered on this board since flawd last appeared.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
nah, i'm with sonick. you're making it hard to have an intelligent conversation.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
please let me bask in your supreme intellect. go.
you'll need my respect before i indulge any of your requests. besides, at this point we've lost each other.
charlie: good point.
-
you take this board really seriously dont you?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
but he didn't in 2000, so there is hope.
There's plenty of hope. These polls are all post convention bump. I'm not worried. She's going to have to speak at some point, and the Dems are prepared to talk about the issues - a battle I'm convinced we'll win and one that the voters want to hear about. [/b]
i can't wait to count the number of times obama says "uhhh" and "you know" . . .and multiply that by the number of times biden says "literally"
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i can't wait to count the number of times obama says "uhhh" and "you know" . . .and multiply that by the number of times biden says "literally"
Did you know that McCain is a POW and a Maverick and Palin is a hockey mom who chose not to have an abortion?
I can't wait to talk about the issues and multiply that by the number of independent votes.
-
I thought Palin is a pig?
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
[
is everyone in Canada a socialist? do they all love paying lots of taxes? does everyone smoke weed? and play hockey?
while couched in it's own folksy socialism, canada has been led by a conservative prime minister for the past few years, albeit through a minority government. . but, with the recent call for new elections, it's expected that he'll end up with a majority government. . .
as has happened in italy, germany, and , presumably, in england, whenever brown gets around to calling for a new election. france, while not necessarily "conservative," is alot more US friendly under sarkozy than before.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i can't wait to count the number of times obama says "uhhh" and "you know" . . .and multiply that by the number of times biden says "literally"
Did you know that McCain is a POW and a Maverick and Palin is a hockey mom who chose not to have an abortion?
I can't wait to talk about the issues and multiply that by the number of independent votes. [/b]
me neither..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110137/McCain-Now-Winning-Majority-Independents.aspx)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i can't wait to count the number of times obama says "uhhh" and "you know" . . .and multiply that by the number of times biden says "literally"
Did you know that McCain is a POW and a Maverick and Palin is a hockey mom who chose not to have an abortion?
I can't wait to talk about the issues and multiply that by the number of independent votes. [/b]
glad to see you've got the new talking points.
-
Can someone please tell me what it means to be an independent voter?
I mean, I'm a registered independent, but I have probably voted for a democrat 95% of the time.
Despite what Ralph Nader says, there clearly are some defining differences between democrats and republicans.
What I don't understand is why there are so many Americans who call themselves "independent". Are they so weak in their beliefs that they can be do easily swayed between candidates? Are they people who are only motivated by "who can do the most for ME ME ME"? Are they people who don't give a shit about issues and only vote based on candidate personality? Are they people whose beliefs are such that the dems match some of their beliefs and the pubs match others?
I don't get it.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Can someone please tell me what it means to be an independent voter?
I mean, I'm a registered independent, but I have probably voted for a democrat 95% of the time.
Despite what Ralph Nader says, there clearly are some defining differences between democrats and republicans.
What I don't understand is why there are so many Americans who call themselves "independent". Are they so weak in their beliefs that they can be do easily swayed between candidates? Are they people who are only motivated by "who can do the most for ME ME ME"? Are they people who don't give a shit about issues and only vote based on candidate personality? Are they people whose beliefs are such that the dems match some of their beliefs and the pubs match others?
I don't get it.
saying youre an "independent" voter is just a means to sound open minded and sophisticated in a political argument/discussion.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by manimtired:
yes..they made up all those quotes as well. idiot.
"frustration" and "concern" does not equal "nervous." [/b]
The Mobius Truth Squad demands an apology.
-
do words like "jitters" and "worry" relate to nervousness?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaWaPymjJ3rk&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaWaPymjJ3rk&refer=worldwide)
-
those are the reporter's words not the quotes
-
youre right. the dems seem ultra confident right now and it shows. my bad. my perception of reality is off.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
youre right. the dems seem ultra confident right now and it shows. my bad. my perception of reality is off.
confidence just sets you up to be defeated, my friend.
-
remind me again why confidence (or lack thereof) about this election is relevant....
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do words like "jitters" and "worry" relate to nervousness?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaWaPymjJ3rk&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aaWaPymjJ3rk&refer=worldwide)
although you tried to cover yourself by changing the issue . . . the words you focus on in this article 'jitters' and 'worry' are again the words of a biased reporter and not quotes from anyone of note. Apologize!
-
nothing really but it can effect voter turnout. momentum is a factor.
-
affect?
Originally posted by manimtired:
nothing really but it can effect voter turnout. momentum is a factor.
-
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/11/us/11obama-600.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
now that's sexist
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
affect?
Originally posted by manimtired:
nothing really but it can effect voter turnout. momentum is a factor.
[/b]
youve won this battle, but not the war..
-
<img src="http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/imagestore/2008/9/11/a76bb6f4-4991-4774-bb9f-993441f8594a.jpg" alt=" - " />
not that it needs it, but you can add your own caption here (http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/default.aspx?tiid=596818#step2).
-
<img src="http://remotecontrol.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/miss-south-carolina.jpg" alt=" - " />
once a beauty queen contestant always a beauty queen contestant..
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
<img src="http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/imagestore/2008/9/11/a76bb6f4-4991-4774-bb9f-993441f8594a.jpg" alt=" - " />
not that it needs it, but you can add your own caption here (http://mine.icanhascheezburger.com/default.aspx?tiid=596818#step2).
"I thought pinatas hung from the ceiling"
or
Who's the black private dick
That's a sex machine to all the chicks?
(Shaft!)
or
"Say hello to my little light saber"
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
youre right. the dems seem ultra confident right now and it shows. my bad. my perception of reality is off.
maybe it is (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
youre right. the dems seem ultra confident right now and it shows. my bad. my perception of reality is off.
maybe it is (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html) [/b]
LOL..i bet Bush thinks McCain will win too..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
youre right. the dems seem ultra confident right now and it shows. my bad. my perception of reality is off.
maybe it is (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/campaign.wrap/index.html) [/b]
LOL..i bet Bush thinks McCain will win too.. [/b]
so confidence doesnt mean dirt then does it? thanks for disproving your own point!
-
there's a difference in confidence and spouting out the party line ..nice try though.
ps..you know bill and hillary both want obama to lose.
-
www.twitter.com/fakesarahpalin (http://www.twitter.com/fakesarahpalin)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
there's a difference in confidence and spouting out the party line ..nice try though.
ps..you know bill and hillary both want obama to lose.
i doubt that also.
but come back again later when you want to be proven stupid again ;)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
there's a difference in confidence and spouting out the party line ..nice try though.
ps..you know bill and hillary both want obama to lose.
i doubt that also.
but come back again later when you want to be proven stupid again ;) [/b]
i just shot down your idiotic statement and im also right about the clintons wanting obama to lose so she can run in 08. you sir, just cant face reality and have proven so throughout this post. moron.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
there's a difference in confidence and spouting out the party line ..nice try though.
ps..you know bill and hillary both want obama to lose.
i doubt that also.
but come back again later when you want to be proven stupid again ;) [/b]
i just shot down your idiotic statement and im also right about the clintons wanting obama to lose so she can run in 08. you sir, just cant face reality and have proven so throughout this post. moron. [/b]
what do you know Clinton? Did he tell you? or are you just making wild accusations?
everyone is confident they are going to win this thing right now, just face it and move on.
why is that so hard for you?
-
she ran in 08 and lost
-
damn foiled again..i mean 2012.
yes, i was in harlem hanging out with bill and he told me.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by azaghal1981:
Talk about a huge misstep.
Yeah we all know what he meant by that comment and that McCain used it a few months ago but that won't stop McCain's people from pouncing on it repeatedly and using it between now and the election.
And...it'll work.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you know what joke doesnt write itself? lipstick on a pig...well at least not any longer
[/b]
if america is going to vote because of crap like this, its no wonder why you guys pick shitty leaders.
who cares why the dollar is in the pooper, lets just make sure our next president doesnt make any un-politically correct remarks!
dumb [/b]
Dumb indeed. (http://www.electoral-vote.com/)
-
my dream palin interview senario is her on the colbert report..
final question would along the lines of
Ted Stevens. Great Senator or Greatest Senator or all times?
or
John McCain. Great President or Greatest President of all times?
however, the absurdist in my thinks this would get some serious guffaws...
Morris Minnifield. Great Astronaut or Greatest Astronaut of all times?
-
Anyone see the photo of Palin in Newsweek?...And people went apesh*t over the Miley Cyrus' photo spread. :roll:
-
Link please?
Originally posted by Greer Zoller:
Anyone see the photo of Palin in Newsweek?...And people went apesh*t over the Miley Cyrus' photo spread. :roll:
-
Newsweek Palintology (http://www.newsweek.com/id/157696/page/1)
I see the picture from last week's issue...In this article in print, Palin is swaddled in the American flag, trademark glasses and coiffed hair intact.
(If you google Newsweek Palintology there are tons of comments and perhaps pictures)
-
Originally posted by Greer Zoller:
Anyone see the photo of Palin in Newsweek?...And people went apesh*t over the Miley Cyrus' photo spread. :roll:
???
-
Palin is totally boring the hell out of me.
I suppose if McCain wins i'll go back and read all of these articles, but otherwise, in 7 weeks we'll forget all about her and i'll feel as i've wasted my time!
-
his worldview! take that charlie gibson, bark bark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)
-
She's less hot after I heard her voice, Charlie.
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
his worldview! take that charlie gibson, bark bark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Palin is totally boring the hell out of me.
I'm done too. After seeing the goofy photo in Newsweek, (you would not see a male candidate in the same type of photo) and all of the hoopla surrounding her, her five minutes with me is up. Onto the issues and more importantly, Nov. 4!
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
his worldview! take that charlie gibson, bark bark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)
charlie got lost in a blizzard of words
-
Maybe, just maybe the Obama camp are holding off on putting up a fight against McCain's baseless alligations because they have an october surprise in store that will include a video of the good senator from Arizona getting down with his very old bad self along with Larry Craig at blowoff?
After trying to understand why they aren't fighting back, it's the best answer I can come up with.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
his worldview! take that charlie gibson, bark bark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)
My mother-in-law, who probably hates me as much as any woman I've never slept with, called Smackette last night after that question and said "Tell [vansmack] that I'll be voting for his candidate. That woman doesn't know anything." Charlie.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
his worldview! take that charlie gibson, bark bark (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU)
My mother-in-law, who probably hates me as much as any woman I've never slept with, called Smackette last night after that question and said "Tell [vansmack] that I'll be voting for his candidate. That woman doesn't know anything." Charlie. [/b]
i'm going to assume that you are referring to palin's not understanding gibson's question (http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/09/sarah-palin-and.html) about the bush doctrine and not the substance (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/obamas_right_war.php) of the policy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559163/Obama-would-send-US-troops-into-Pakistan.html).
one more fun link (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391).
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i'm going to assume that you are referring to palin's not understanding gibson's question (http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/09/sarah-palin-and.html) about the bush doctrine and not the substance (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/obamas_right_war.php) of the policy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559163/Obama-would-send-US-troops-into-Pakistan.html).
one more fun link (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391).
I didn't ask her specifically, Charlie, but...I...think...she...might have been, um, referring to this one, which I'm pretty sure, Charlie, is not English:
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
Charlie.
-
clearly mrs smackie-in-law is a sexist
-
charlie
-
David Frum, from National Review, on Sarah Palin's interview:
Palin Reviewed
She's under-informed and over-confident.
But there was no "macaca" moment, so she survives.
Those who wish to believe in her will continue to believe in her.
As for the rest - well it's a 6 in 7 chance that McCain makes it to the end of his first term. That's pretty good!
David Frum's Diary on National Review Online (http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDg2NWEzNmJhYmY0ZDRmMmI5ZDkzOGMyOWMyMmEyODQ=)
-
lets compare palins "charlies" to obamas "ums" from both their appearences last, um, night.
-
instead, lets compare how many times each one linked iraq and 9/11
-
are you libs more afraid of mccain or palin? it seems palin..amirite?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i'm going to assume that you are referring to palin's not understanding gibson's question (http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2008/09/sarah-palin-and.html) about the bush doctrine and not the substance (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/obamas_right_war.php) of the policy (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1559163/Obama-would-send-US-troops-into-Pakistan.html).
one more fun link (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/9/11/20922/5391).
I didn't ask her specifically, Charlie, but...I...think...she...might have been, um, referring to this one, which I'm pretty sure, Charlie, is not English:
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
Charlie. [/b]
again, how is that different from obama's position? or, are you just criticizing her syntax?
August 2007 (http://www.cfr.org/publication/13974/obamas_speech_at_woodrow_wilson_center.html%3Cbr%3E)
"So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world??s most dangerous weapons. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America."
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
lets compare palins "charlies" to obamas "ums" from both their appearences last, um, night.
What an intelligent and poignant comparison to make when we're involved in two wars, the economy is in the shitter, and numerous foreign crises abound.
But yah, let's talk about verbal tics. That's the best you've got.
-
so you like obama's position?
-
McCain Lies on the View today:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/mccain_talks_up_palin_as_a_ref.php (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/09/mccain_talks_up_palin_as_a_ref.php)
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday running mate Sarah Palin has never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor when in fact she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year.
McCain made the comments as he appeared on the ABC television show "The View" as part of his effort to woo women to his candidacy.
The Arizona senator said the GOP vice presidential nominee would be good for the country because she would reform government, and specifically cited curbing federal spending for earmarks.
When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: "Not as governor she didn't."
-
Originally posted by Relaxer:
Originally posted by manimtired:
lets compare palins "charlies" to obamas "ums" from both their appearences last, um, night.
What an intelligent and poignant comparison to make when we're involved in two wars, the economy is in the shitter, and numerous foreign crises abound.
But yah, let's talk about verbal tics. That's the best you've got. [/b]
i guess you didnt put my post in context of the last couple posts. please shut up.
-
One is a hotheaded jerk, and the other is a clueless hockey mom. Both have talent, but neither are presidential material.
Originally posted by manimtired:
are you libs more afraid of mccain or palin? it seems palin..amirite?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
One is a hotheaded jerk, and the other is a clueless hockey mom. Both have talent, but neither are presidential material.
Originally posted by manimtired:
are you libs more afraid of mccain or palin? it seems palin..amirite?
[/b]
and obama is? :roll: :roll:
-
The best choice of anybody who ran...
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
One is a hotheaded jerk, and the other is a clueless hockey mom. Both have talent, but neither are presidential material.
Originally posted by manimtired:
are you libs more afraid of mccain or palin? it seems palin..amirite?
[/b]
and obama is? :roll: :roll: [/b]
-
ummmmmmm..ya. obviously the most qualified out of all the people who ran. stop posting.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
so you like obama's position?
this isn't about whether i like it or not, i am finding it amusing that the issue being discussed is not all that substantially different than what obama has said. i think obama and mccain's position on foreign terrorism and pre-emptive attacks are relatively similiar.
clinton already criticized obama's position as being a "bush doctrine lite". . so, take that however you want.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
again, how is that different from obama's position? or, are you just criticizing her syntax?
I see the problem here Charlie...She's not Obama! And that stance is exactly what McCain attacked Obama for throughout the campaign - you know, for negotiating with foreign countries instead of bombing the hell out of them as any true American would...Charlie.
-
This back and forth is fine and good, but nobody is discussing the issues here at all. I'm very curious to know what the McCain/Palin supporters thought of her interview, and of McCain's apparent lies on the View today. For more info:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html)
Yes, it is the Huffington Post. Yes, it is a liberal media source. But they're still reporting on what happened.
-
why didn't charlie just ask her if she believed in anticipatory self-defense? did ANYONE know what the bush doctrine is??
i'm amazed how similar she is to george w. bush. flip sides of the same coin.
-
thats not the reverend write/bill ayers i knew...
do you think obamas lying about that?
-
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
again, how is that different from obama's position? or, are you just criticizing her syntax?
I see the problem here Charlie...She's not Obama! And that stance is exactly what McCain attacked Obama for throughout the campaign - you know, for negotiating with foreign countries instead of bombing the hell out of them as any true American would...Charlie. [/b]
No, McCain criticized Obama for saying he would negotiate with countries that harbor terrorists and terrorist leaders, which is a different issue.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?
ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?
hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
No, McCain criticized Obama for saying he would negotiate with countries that harbor terrorists and terrorist leaders, which is a different issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Charlie, but you just posted a link that said Obama supports going into Pakistan to chase terrorists out, even without Zadari's permission. Charlie.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?
ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?
hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun. [/b]
are you attempting to say that black people (hypothetically) want to enslave white people and make crack legal? interesting idea there, david duke.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
No, McCain criticized Obama for saying he would negotiate with countries that harbor terrorists and terrorist leaders, which is a different issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Charlie, but you just posted a link that said Obama supports going into Pakistan to chase terrorists out, even without Zadari's permission. Charlie. [/b]
yeah. . .and. . . . . . . .which one is obama gonna do? attack terrorists or negotiate first, presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists. which inconsistency do you support?
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?
ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?
hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun. [/b]
are you attempting to say that black people (hypothetically) want to enslave white people and make crack legal? interesting idea there, david duke. [/b]
no i was pointing out how completely idiotic your post was.
-
Charlie ... isn't that what people called the VC back in the day? Not McCain! (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL)
sorry, i know that's off-topic, don't want to distract from the wonderful discourse in here.
charlie.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yeah. . .and. . . . . . . .which one is obama gonna do? attack terrorists or negotiate first, presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists. which inconsistency do you support?
Zadari is no terrorist, he's the President of Pakistan, Charlie.
I was saying that no country in the world houses more terrorists or poses a greater terrorist threat to this country than Pakistan, and Obama has already said what he would do in Pakistan if he were President.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
so you like obama's position?
this isn't about whether i like it or not, i am finding it amusing that the issue being discussed is not all that substantially different than what obama has said. i think obama and mccain's position on foreign terrorism and pre-emptive attacks are relatively similiar.
clinton already criticized obama's position as being a "bush doctrine lite". . so, take that however you want. [/b]
i think people are zonging her for sounding like she's trying to cram a talking point into an answer and not really sounding like she understands what position she's taking, regardless of whether its right or wrong
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think people are zonging her for sounding like she's trying to cram a talking point into an answer and not really sounding like she understands what position she's taking, regardless of whether its right or wrong
You forgot to say Charlie...
-
how sexist of me
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i think people are zonging her for sounding like she's trying to cram a talking point into an answer and not really sounding like she understands what position she's taking, regardless of whether its right or wrong
ok, that's a fair point. . .and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but taking her on over a position that is very similiar to obama's is just kind of strange.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by walkonby:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by walkonby:
in twenty or so years from now, lets just say for the sake of arguement, and not that i really believe this to be true. let's just say that it is revealed that bush did steal the election(s), rework the truth about iraq, plot/plan/commit nine eleven to open a moment within this country to rally behind a war, and then just let the profit machine do what it does best as we the american people did nothing to investigate it or even attempt to stop it, and that we even voted back into office another bush croney because the vice president is a cool hockey mom who exploits her children for popularity points, just to keep up the fine work of a government that controls you . . . will you care or feel the least bit bad about it?
ok..lets say, just for the sake of argument, that obama really hung around weather underground members and was a member of an anti american racist church and then we elected him to office and he enslaved white people and made crack legal? would you feel the least bit bad?
hypotheticals, well half hypotheticals in my case, are fun. [/b]
are you attempting to say that black people (hypothetically) want to enslave white people and make crack legal? interesting idea there, david duke. [/b]
no i was pointing out how completely idiotic your post was. [/b]
then why didn't you just say that. what i posted could be a possibility. what you said seemed to be an embedded fantasy of hope.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
ok, that's a fair point. . .and i don't necessarily disagree with that. but taking her on over a position that is very similiar to obama's is just kind of strange.
Republican's didn't point out where policy differences were between Biden and Obama? We would have done this sooner if we knew anything about her stances....
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yeah. . .and. . . . . . . .which one is obama gonna do? attack terrorists or negotiate first, presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists. which inconsistency do you support?
Zadari is no terrorist, he's the President of Pakistan, Charlie.
I was saying that no country in the world houses more terrorists or poses a greater terrorist threat to this country than Pakistan, and Obama has already said what he would do in Pakistan if he were President. [/b]
yeah, which i've linked to above. . .and that would be to attack terrorists. so, what's your point?
now, is there a political risk associated with that. . of course, and both mccain and obama would need to take that into account.
-
walkonby...you got me. well played. i owe you a beer.
-
There's already a McCain ad online blasting the Obama campaign for the sexist, inherently paternalistic accusations that Sarah Palin simply recited talking points. Charlie. (I'll add taht she recites them with the passion of a sportscaster that doesn't understand the sport their talking about. Charlie). Charlie. CNN.com is reporting that the quote actually came from g's shoeshine on the 930 forum. Charlie. McCain denied this and accused the democrats of being "nervous". Charlie.
-
You've completely lost me. Explain what you meant by this:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists.
It's not about Zadari or any perceived ties to terrorists. It's about Pakistan not being able or willing to do anything about the Western Provinces, a stance we can no longer tolerate and which is why the US attacked inside of Pakistan again last night. Nobody thinks that Zadari is encouraging their behavior, just that's he's not capable of adequately dealing with it, and if he were to agree to US troops in Pakistan, his already weak government would crumble. There is no inconsistency in this stance between Bush, McCain, Biden, or Obama. Of course Palin didn't say yes last night, but her answer was pretty much a yes.
So again, what's your point?
Sorry, forgot to add my Charlie.
-
good call on not using the word god charlie
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no i was pointing out how completely idiotic your post was.
I'm a hardcore fiscal and governmental (not social) conservative, so I appreciate you fighting the good fight, but still thought your post sounded more idiotic. If you're gonna jump into debates about politics with liberals, don't just keep using rude antagonistic messageboard-speak. Saying things like "stop posting", is puerile and not constructive.
Most regulars on this board are half-obsessed music dorks that love to analyze and critique anything in an intellectual way. To use to a common idiom from this board, this isn't the WHFstival messageboard! By which I mean, stop just "pointing out how completely idiotic" someone's post may have been by mocking them, point out the idiocy you perceive by actually refuting their statements with facts you can back up. What you're doing now is proving to the many liberal leaning types on this board that conservatives are morons that just shout their own rhetoric because they don't have any real answers to hard questions.
-
GTFO.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
walkonby...you got me. well played. i owe you a beer.
i smell sarcasm, but it is ok. i never like to talk politics with anyone. dread it like the plague. always leads to someone getting upset, and then maybe name calling and eye scratching. i loved the eighties, when you would ask someone, "who are you voting for?" and they would basically cuss you out and tell you to get your f*&ing nose out of their business.
but yes, i would love to have a beer sometime. with anybody here. i like beer. i like people. we fine forumers need to stick together through thick and thin. carry on wayward children.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
GTFO.
I rest my case.
...Charlie
-
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative. How does that make you feel venerable? Charlie.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by manimtired:
GTFO.
I rest my case.
...Charlie [/b]
your use of the word "charlie" makes me think youre an obama supporter and thus making your previous post complete BS..meaning I mad you mwad. GT"um"FO...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by manimtired:
GTFO.
I rest my case.
...Charlie [/b]
your use of the word "charlie" makes me think youre an obama supporter and thus making your previous post complete BS..meaning I mad you mwad. GT"um"FO... [/b]
Mostly my use of Charlie means that it was annoying the hell out of me that she kept saying it. And I find it hilarious that this board picked up on it and ran with it.
-
it's amusing to me, as a citizen of the world living in the States, to read all of your posts about the presidential race.
personally, given the huge damage that W has done to the perception of americans in the world, i think that in this election there's only one way to go. to even think of the possibility of (at least) 4 years of McCain/palin gives me nausea. Saw palin's interview yesterday and her vision of world affairs is just frightening ("we cant blink" about the use of military force was a striking line that she used many times). i cant rescue anything about her performance, and it was very annoying how many times she use that "Charlie".
I will be very disappointed if McCain wins, i think the world believe that America is a country that stands (or stood at least) for good things, but i dont see McCain/Palin as the leadership that will give back America's reputation in that matter.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative. How does that make you feel venerable? Charlie.
Woot.
Vote of confidence from boardie w/ almost 10,000 posts: check.
Finally passing 500 posts myself after 5 1/2 years: check.
Guess this means I'm not quite lurking anymore.
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative. How does that make you feel venerable? Charlie.
Woot.
Vote of confidence from boardie w/ almost 10,000 posts: check.
Finally passing 500 posts myself after 5 1/2 years: check.
Guess this means I'm not quite lurking anymore. [/b]
who are you voting for?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
You've completely lost me. Explain what you meant by this:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
presuming we believe that zadari is a terrorist leader or has ties to terrorists.
It's not about Zadari or any perceived ties to terrorists. It's about Pakistan not being able or willing to do anything about the Western Provinces, a stance we can no longer tolerate and which is why the US attacked inside of Pakistan again last night. Nobody thinks that Zadari is encouraging their behavior, just that's he's not capable of adequately dealing with it, and if he were to agree to US troops in Pakistan, his already weak government would crumble. There is no inconsistency in this stance between Bush, McCain, Biden, or Obama. Of course Palin didn't say yes last night, but her answer was pretty much a yes.
So again, what's your point?
Sorry, forgot to add my Charlie. [/b]
brah. . .we're saying the exact thing. . .you'd rather just argue about it. which, of course, goes back to my original point about the quote. . .if she's parroting the same thing as mccain and obama, then what's the big to-do on the policy in question?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative. How does that make you feel venerable? Charlie.
well, i don't like that he can be used for hipster points; that's how i get invited to so many parties.
-
Who am I voting for? Hard question. I think Obama is too far to the left for me on almost everything, and McCain I no longer respect so much because of all the social conservative ass-kissing he's done in the last 2 years. Crazy dude that he was, I leaned towards Ron Paul, but he lost. Thought about Bob Barr, but find him kinda flip-floppy and generally get the vibe that he's untrustworthy. Green party definitely not, Constitution party are ok but silly social conservative types.
So I have yet to make a decision. It will probably end up a lesser of 5 evils kind of choice for me.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative.
agreed, his dismantling of manamitired was masterful. mind you, the last few volleys were an example of giving some one enough rope to hang them self.
i have many conservative friends that i have intelligent debates with. manamitired is doing nothing here to prop up his side, it's frustrating.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative.
agreed, his dismantling of manamitired was masterful. mind you, the last few volleys were an example of giving some one enough rope to hang them self.
i have many conservative friends that i have intelligent debates with. manamitired is doing nothing here to prop up his side, it's frustrating. [/b]
like i said many pages back. i entered this thread to point out that the dems seemed so nervous (even though they said they are surely not) after all the palin bashing began. i will vote for the repub ticket out of the "lesser of two evils" mindset. i am not a huge mccain fan by any means. i stated clearly the point of me being in here was to piss off you libs...and clearly its worked.
sweetcell..shouldnt you be at an abba or petshop boys show?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
sweetcell..shouldnt you be at an abba or petshop boys show?
excellent argument.
i know that conservatives can stick to the issues, why do you insist on upholding the current stereotype?
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative.
agreed, his dismantling of manamitired was masterful. mind you, the last few volleys were an example of giving some one enough rope to hang them self.
i have many conservative friends that i have intelligent debates with. manamitired is doing nothing here to prop up his side, it's frustrating. [/b]
thats interesting, i have very few conservative friends who will barely ever engage me in a political discussion and when we do i am usually discredited as being Canadian socialist.
therefore i usually sit on the outsides of these debates and notice that while the conservative debater usually comes up with more zingers and attacks, its usually the liberal who tries sticking to important points and statistics.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by manimtired:
sweetcell..shouldnt you be at an abba or petshop boys show?
excellent argument.
i know that conservatives can stick to the issues, why do you insist on upholding the current stereotype? [/b]
see the post you quoted this from.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Arthwys is my new favorite conservative.
agreed, his dismantling of manamitired was masterful. mind you, the last few volleys were an example of giving some one enough rope to hang them self.
i have many conservative friends that i have intelligent debates with. manamitired is doing nothing here to prop up his side, it's frustrating. [/b]
thats interesting, i have very few conservative friends who will barely ever engage me in a political discussion and when we do i am usually discredited as being Canadian socialist.
therefore i usually sit on the outsides of these debates and notice that while the conservative debater usually comes up with more zingers and attacks, its usually the liberal who tries sticking to important points and statistics. [/b]
you ARE a canadian socialist..are you afraid to admit it?
-
John McCain, Liar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk)
-
Originally posted by callat703:
John McCain, Liar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk)
congratulatons, you are the first person in history to catch a politician lying.
the fact still remains that as governor, palin has significantly cut the earmark requests coming from the governor's office, and has the support of Sen. Tom Coburn on this issue.
of course, we shouldn't bother with discussing the earmarks (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/13/obamas-2006-earmarks-the-crown-family/) Obama requested for the University of Chicago Hospital, which employees his wife (who got a sizable raise after he was elected) and number one fan Valerie Jarrett (who has already been the topic of an earlier post), or the money earmarked to his friend James Crown. yes, he's a different type of politican alright.
nevertheless, tip of the cap to you.
however, let us agree on something: both a senator and governor act as a clearinghouse, or sorts for these requests. or least they should be. so, these "earmarks" could be coming from a number of places. so, the state of alaska has one number coming from, for example, various departments, agencies and municipalities throughout the state (anchorage daily news says for FY09, palin, via the "governor's office," asked for $100+ million in earmarks). now, on an individual senator basis, people come in and ask the senator or petition the senator for help building or funding something, and, presumably, if he and his staff think it's worthwhile, they make a request. is that a fair description?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
congratulatons, you are the first person in history to catch a politician lying.
http://www.politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
congratulatons, you are the first person in history to catch a politician lying.
http://www.politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com) [/b]
politifact misses one thing about the computer claim about mccain. mccain can't (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=) type (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html) because he can't bend his arms due to injuries sustained while. . .oh, you know.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
congratulatons, you are the first person in history to catch a politician lying.
http://www.politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com) [/b]
politifact misses one thing about the computer claim about mccain. mccain can't (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=) type (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html) because he can't bend his arms due to injuries sustained while. . .oh, you know. [/b]
however, not being able to type is not a barrier to being able to operator a computer... just ask Stephen Hawking and numerous others who use voice recognition and alternative data entry methods to use computers.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
congratulatons, you are the first person in history to catch a politician lying.
http://www.politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com) [/b]
politifact misses one thing about the computer claim about mccain. mccain can't (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=) type (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html) because he can't bend his arms due to injuries sustained while. . .oh, you know. [/b]
however, not being able to type is not a barrier to being able to operator a computer... just ask Stephen Hawking and numerous others who use voice recognition and alternative data entry methods to use computers. [/b]
youre really grasping here arent you?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
congratulatons, you are the first person in history to catch a politician lying.
http://www.politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com) [/b]
politifact misses one thing about the computer claim about mccain. mccain can't (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=) type (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html) because he can't bend his arms due to injuries sustained while. . .oh, you know. [/b]
however, not being able to type is not a barrier to being able to operator a computer... just ask Stephen Hawking and numerous others who use voice recognition and alternative data entry methods to use computers. [/b]
youre really grasping here arent you? [/b]
how is grasping to point out that people come over disabilities to perform normal everyday tasks...
-
thats what secretaries are for. remember that billy clinton said he only sent 1 email during his 8 years in office. do you find fault in that as well?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
youre really grasping here arent you?
manimtired
Member # 2836
"lets compare palins "charlies" to obamas "ums" from both their appearences last, um, night."
-
you really dont grasp the concept of context do you?
-
You've made 16 posts in just this one thread in 24 hours. Maybe you need to take a break from all this typing you're doing. Go outside, get some fresh air. Or is all you do is type and type and type? What a stud.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
thats what secretaries are for. remember that billy clinton said he only sent 1 email during his 8 years in office. do you find fault in that as well?
NO
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
thats what secretaries are for. remember that billy clinton said he only sent 1 email during his 8 years in office. do you find fault in that as well?
NO [/b]
didnt think so
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
]politifact misses one thing about the computer claim about mccain. mccain can't (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=) type (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html) because he can't bend his arms due to injuries sustained while. . .oh, you know. [/b]
however, not being able to type is not a barrier to being able to operator a computer... just ask Stephen Hawking and numerous others who use voice recognition and alternative data entry methods to use computers. [/QB]
and, according to one of the articles i linked to, mccain dictates. . .he was a pioneer (http://www.slate.com/id/74812/) in organizing using the internet during the 2000 campaign. and, is it really in obama's best interest to let mccain bring up his POW experience again?
would you run an ad against new york governor david paterson accusing him of being so out of touch and unable to relate to traffic concerns because he doesn't know how to drive?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
politifact misses one thing about the computer claim about mccain. mccain can't (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTliMTNiZjg5ZDEwZWNiZDYwZWFjN2JlNjNjNjkxZmM=) type (http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/0529/053_print.html) because he can't bend his arms due to injuries sustained while. . .oh, you know.
Yep, nobody with arms, let alone arms that have limited mobility, can use a computer.
If only there were a place where a federal employee with disabilities could get help on how to use these fancy new machines at work... (http://www.ada.gov/)
-
Tina Fey for VP!
-
one email in 8 years
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
one email in 8 years
how many has bush sent in 7.5 years?
-
84
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
84
interesting - what's your source on that? i read/saw that bush did use e-mail (albeit sparingly) before he got to the white house, but once there he stopped because of security concerns and time constraints.
and while i have your attention: much has been made of obama's "lack of experience", yet... Mrs Palin, who has been the governor of a state with a population of 670,000 for less than two years, is the most inexperienced candidate for a mainstream party in modern history. (source) (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12066224)
maybe it's because she's "just" candidate for VP? i might go for that were it not for the fact that the candidate for prez is 74 years old.
-
This thread went all sunday without anyone linking
this piece of journalistic brilliance? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
<waits for generic "but oh nos! The NYT is biased!" comment from manimtired>
CHARLIE
-
sweetcell understands sarcasm.
-
"you're gonna eat...a bowl of chow mein...and be hungry real soon....I predict!"
Originally posted by manimtired:
84
-
yeah, i meant to link to that great "palin hires her friends and fires her enemies" NYT article. dinner got in the way.
Originally posted by manimtired:
sweetcell understands sarcasm.
that was sarcasm? my bad. you gave no indication of it nor do you have a track record of sarcasm.
-
ok :)
-
*GASP* you mean to tell me that an executive has the gall to replace staff with people they are better familiar with and are more in line with their policy goals??? for sure nothing like that has ever happened before. . .
i'm guessing this (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html) didn't make many newspapers. . .let's see what happens now (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/brothers-grim-is-lehman-next.html)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
*GASP* you mean to tell me that an executive has the gall to replace staff with people they are better familiar with and are more in line with their policy goals???
thanks for not addressing the issue, once again: it's not that she hired her friends, it's that she hired her incompetent friends. since when does being a real estate agent who "likes cows" qualify one to be head of the division of agriculture?!? putting beliefs and loyalty ahead of ability leads to sh*t like what we saw at FEMA during katrina.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
for sure nothing like that has ever happened before. . .
indeed, thanks to bush & cheney it's been a political way of life for the past 7 years.
-
I'd be very careful what I wished for here...
Florida Federation of Republican Women urge Oprah Boycott (http://www.ffrw.net/ffrwinthemedia.html)
-
Heck of a job, Brownie!
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I'd be very careful what I wished for here...
Florida Federation of Republican Women urge Oprah Boycott (http://www.ffrw.net/ffrwinthemedia.html)
i was hoping to see Oprah kick her lily white ass, actually!
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by vansmack:
I'd be very careful what I wished for here...
Florida Federation of Republican Women urge Oprah Boycott (http://www.ffrw.net/ffrwinthemedia.html)
i was hoping to see Oprah kick her lily white ass, actually! [/b]
I was thinking more along the lines of how carefully orchestrated the Campaign has handled her interviews. If Oprah has a change of heart, this could quickly become "Palin Snubs Oprah request" which could be more damaging.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by vansmack:
I'd be very careful what I wished for here...
Florida Federation of Republican Women urge Oprah Boycott (http://www.ffrw.net/ffrwinthemedia.html)
i was hoping to see Oprah kick her lily white ass, actually! [/b]
i'm surprised that she wants to appear on Oprah, unless all of Oprah's interviews are touchy feely...
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
i'm surprised that she wants to appear on Oprah,
That was my point. I don't think that she does (or that the campaign wants her to). She was the obvious choice for The View, but instead it was McCain.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by kosmo:
i'm surprised that she wants to appear on Oprah,
That was my point. I don't think that she does (or that the campaign wants her to). She was the obvious choice for The View, but instead it was McCain. [/b]
i think this is just another example of drudge creating the narrative and other people running with it. . .whether or not palin ever wanted to go on it in the first place.
-
yeah i dont know that anybody really wanted palin on oprah other than matty
my thought is its dangerous to make women chose between palin and oprah. cause if youre asking me to boycott the steelers to support obama, i'm voting for nader
-
there has been too much partisanship in this thread. let's get down with something that both the right and left can agree upon: An Immodest Proposal: Time for a Sex Tax (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/an-immodest-proposal-time-for-a-sex-tax/)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
there has been too much partisanship in this thread. let's get down with something that both the right and left can agree upon: An Immodest Proposal: Time for a Sex Tax (http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/an-immodest-proposal-time-for-a-sex-tax/)
do you mean. . . . thingy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6OJLytnfNk)?
-
since i haven't seen it on here yet, i figure i'll link to this article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0) about obama trying to pressure iraq to delay agreeing to a troop withdrawal until the next administration.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
since i haven't seen it on here yet, i figure i'll link to this article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0) about obama trying to pressure iraq to delay agreeing to a troop withdrawal until the next administration.
Wait. Bush is trying to get the troops out?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Wait. Bush is trying to get the troops out?
been a while since we've had one of these, so here goes: POTW.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by vansmack:
Wait. Bush is trying to get the troops out?
been a while since we've had one of these, so here goes: POTW. [/b]
yet. . .what was it you said earlier. . oh yeah. . .
Originally posted by sweetcell:
thanks for not addressing the issue, once again:
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yet. . .what was it you said earlier. . oh yeah. . .
Originally posted by sweetcell:
thanks for not addressing the issue, once again:
[/b]
At least Sweetcell got it....
My point was that the premise of the Op ed, notice it's not an article of news, which only cites one person with little quips from others, none of which are a full sentence, was that there were negotiations underway for troop withdrawl with the current administration, and that is a contention I don't believe to be true.
Therefore, if there is no negotitation underway, why would the next President ask that no decision be made until the next administration?
-
the POTW was awarded in the category of "topical zinger". it's called having a sense of humor, do try it some time :p
in terms of addressing the issue: there is none. see smackie's post, above.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
since i haven't seen it on here yet, i figure i'll link to this article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0) about obama trying to pressure iraq to delay agreeing to a troop withdrawal until the next administration.
Editorials and articles aren't exactly synnonymous, you know.
And posting a NYP editorial is akin to posting a NYT editorial (the NYP tend to lie a wee bit more in weak attempts to support their opinions, though).
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
once again, obama shows he's a different type of politician, running a different type of campaign. . .errr. . . maybe (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html)
They have people like you to thank...
Obama Raises Record $66 Million in a Month (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/us/politics/15donors.html)
CHICAGO ?? Senator Barack Obama raised more money in August than any presidential candidate has ever recorded in a one-month period, with his campaign disclosing on Sunday that it collected $66 million and drew 500,000 first-time donors to his candidacy.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
My point was that the premise of the Op ed, notice it's not an article of news, which only cites one person with little quips from others, none of which are a full sentence, was that there were negotiations underway for troop withdrawl with the current administration, and that is a contention I don't believe to be true.
Therefore, if there is no negotitation underway, why would the next President ask that no decision be made until the next administration?
Bush announced Tuesday that he plans to order 8,000 more combat
and support troops out of Iraq by February. (http://www.ktla.com/pages/content_landing_page/?Bush-Announces-Iraq-Troop-Withdrawals-=1&blockID=52513&feedID=1198).
and, no negotiations (http://kdka.com/topstories/Iraq.troop.withdrawal.2.799905.html)?
"I told Sen. Obama (that) Iraqi and American negotiations regarding this are ongoing, and today new Iraqi-American negotiations on this agreement have started with Iraqi written proposals and have a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," he said. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
"I told Sen. Obama (that) Iraqi and American negotiations regarding this are ongoing, and today new Iraqi-American negotiations on this agreement have started with Iraqi written proposals and have a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," he said. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html)
Why did you leave this part out?
The Bush administration has opposed timetables for troop withdrawals. But al-Maliki and President Bush last week agreed to a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" on troop cuts.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Bush announced Tuesday that he plans to order 8,000 more combat
and support troops out of Iraq by February. (http://www.ktla.com/pages/content_landing_page/?Bush-Announces-Iraq-Troop-Withdrawals-=1&blockID=52513&feedID=1198).
And this part?
In a speech at the National Defense University, Bush said more
troops may be withdrawn in the first half of 2009 if conditions
improve. But that decision will soon be up to his successor.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
"I told Sen. Obama (that) Iraqi and American negotiations regarding this are ongoing, and today new Iraqi-American negotiations on this agreement have started with Iraqi written proposals and have a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," he said. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/obama.mideast/index.html)
Why did you leave this part out?
The Bush administration has opposed timetables for troop withdrawals. But al-Maliki and President Bush last week agreed to a "general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals" on troop cuts.
[/b]
there is no substantive difference between the two, at least with regards to negotiations, that's why they are called negotiations.
i don't disagree that a lot of this is going to be left with the next administration, but to say that there haven't been any negotiations on troop withdrawal is simply wrong. the NYP op-ed was very clearly referring to when obama was in iraq and negotiations on the future of u.s. troops in iraq were being discussed.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but to say that there haven't been any negotiations on troop withdrawal is simply wrong.
Would it make you feel better if I said "serious negotiations"? "Aspirational goals" doesn't mean crap and you know it.
8000 troops of a force of 146,000 is likely a number consistent with those that would not be able to serve a third term of duty. I'm sure the rate of term retention is substanially more than the ~ 6% that is being discussed here.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but to say that there haven't been any negotiations on troop withdrawal is simply wrong.
Would it make you feel better if I said "serious negotiations"? "Aspirational goals" doesn't mean crap and you know it.
[/b]
oh, that makes me all warm and fuzzy. . .
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
oh, that makes me all warm and fuzzy. . .
That might be the most liberal thing I've heard you say...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
since i haven't seen it on here yet, i figure i'll link to this article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0) about obama trying to pressure iraq to delay agreeing to a troop withdrawal until the next administration.
Venerable, I've been asked to tell you:
...that know who Amir Taheri is?and expect more from them than slander, innuendo and lies. expect NEWS! (http://nemokc.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-delays-withdrawing-troops.html)
-
Anyone wanna match the politician to the salaries? Can choose between Biden, McCain and Obama.
Senator A pays his 27 male staffers an average salary of $56K a year, but pays his 30 female staffers an average salary of $45K a year.
Senator B pays his 15 male staffers an average salary of $85K a year, but pays his 25 female staffers an average salary of $56K a year.
Senator C pays his 17 male staffers an average of $53K a year, but pays his 25 female staffers an average salary of $56K a year.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
since i haven't seen it on here yet, i figure i'll link to this article (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0) about obama trying to pressure iraq to delay agreeing to a troop withdrawal until the next administration.
Venerable, I've been asked to tell you:
...that know who Amir Taheri is?and expect more from them than slander, innuendo and lies. expect NEWS! (http://nemokc.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-delays-withdrawing-troops.html) [/b]
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hi9TDNHvuBZpFsO8ZbiFYsnbIl3A).
Ok, so we are left, again, with nuances as to what is really being discussed. so, obama told the iraqis not to do something, be it this stragetic framework agreement or negotiations for a withdrawal. doesn't the framework agreement have to be based on some idea of a withdrawal? i think both could be telling the truth, at least from their own perpsectives. in any event, it still shows obama interfering with the ability of the current president to make progress on the future of u.s. involvement in iraq.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
once again, obama shows he's a different type of politician, running a different type of campaign. . .errr. . . maybe (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html)
They have people like you to thank...
Obama Raises Record $66 Million in a Month (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/us/politics/15donors.html)
CHICAGO ?? Senator Barack Obama raised more money in August than any presidential candidate has ever recorded in a one-month period, with his campaign disclosing on Sunday that it collected $66 million and drew 500,000 first-time donors to his candidacy. [/b]
yeah. . it's a great time to host a fundraiser at $28.5K (http://www.drudgereport.com/flashbh.htm) a plate. who needs to worry about the economy (http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/cnns-crowley-obama-team-wanted-horrific-wall-street-headlines.html) at that price.
-
<img src="http://www.nomaas.org/images/drudge_siren.gif" alt=" - " />
i thought the fundementals of the economy were still good
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i thought the fundementals of the economy were still good
that's the point.
-
"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week."
I actually laughed at the claim (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_blackberry) and the response.
-
well at least McCain had his staffers back (incidentally my old boss.....sad to see him shilling like this), unlike that horrible Obama who blames his staff for things
"A McCain aide later dismissed the remark as "a boneheaded joke by a staffer.""
Originally posted by vansmack:
"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week."
I actually laughed at the claim (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_blackberry) and the response.
-
Originally posted by brennser:
well at least McCain had his staffers back (incidentally my old boss.....sad to see him shilling like this), unlike that horrible Obama who blames his staff for things
"A McCain aide later dismissed the remark as "a boneheaded joke by a staffer.""
yeah. . .a joke. . .that's so much worse than having a campaign representative tell canada that obama has no intention of renegotiating NAFTA despite obama saying he was going to renegotiate NAFTA.
-
I love how this election is turning out exactly as I called it with Barack "Paper Tiger" Obama -- the professional campaigner who has spent more time running for offices over the last 15 years then actually accomplishing anything as he uses the backs of his constituents as stepping stones -- getting revealed as the naked emperor he is. At this rate, McCain could take 310 electoral votes against such an unelectable, ideologically divisive, impotent charlatan.
I'm basically dusting off the Hillary signs in anticipation for 2012 at this point. (If the Clintons feel like bailing the Democratic Party out after their primary-season adultery, that is.)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i thought the fundementals of the economy were still good
that's the point. [/b]
so obama was doing what he should do?
-
Note that the McCain surge in the polls is already fading out, and fading out fast:
Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
Still not too worried about the outcome. The economy is going to completely negate the Palin impact, and require her to have more nuanced, detailed policy positions. Obama's sharper focus on McCain's record is also having an impact.
My prediction: Obama back up by 2-3 points in the polls within two weeks; he might even open a larger lead than that. Then we hit the debates and the game changes again.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i thought the fundementals of the economy were still good
that's the point. [/b]
so obama was doing what he should do? [/b]
but that's not what he said...
Originally posted by vansmack:
"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week."
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.
-
You leave Barbara Streisand out of this....
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.
i dont think obama has ever said that the economy is bad for people that can afford $28k a plate dinners (according to drudge). in fact, isnt that his whole point, that the rich have benefitted from deregulation on the backs of the middle class, yet still seem protected from the economic down turn?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.
Yes, clearly the economic problem resides with people who can afford a $28.5k per plate fundraiser and $2,000 ticket prices. Especially those supporting a candidate that wants to increase taxes on the rich to help support the middle and lower class.
In fact, we should probably cut taxes for every donor attending this fundraiser...
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
You leave Barbara Streisand out of this....
<img src="http://mystuffs.uw.hu/pic/112.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.
i dont think obama has ever said that the economy is bad for people that can afford $28k a plate dinners (according to drudge). in fact, isnt that his whole point, that the rich have benefitted from deregulation on the backs of the middle class, yet still seem protected from the economic down turn? [/b]
do i really need to re-post the list of congressmen who have gotten the most money in campaign donations from freddie mac, fannie mae and lehman brothers. it's almost like you don't care.
as for banking deregulation. . .would someone let me know when the gramm-leach-bliley act was passed? thanks.
-
your logic is getting more and more tortured as this thread progresses - what is your point here?
are you implying that McCain has postponed fundraising out of respect for the bad economy? I don't think McCain is being portrayed as out of touch by the media, maybe by the Obama campaign but not the media. Everyone knows he's had the media in his pocket for years until this recent barrage of lies and distortions caused some of them to wake up and take notice.
High dollar fundraising is part and parcel of this noxious political process.
so, if the economy is in such terrible shape, as the obama campaign says, then it's quite something to head out for a $28.5K a plate fundraising event, followed by another $2,000 a ticket event to hear barbara streisand sing. surely if a republican had said such a thing, then went off to a high-paying fundraiser, he/she would be accused of being out-of-touch with the electorate. instead, the press says nothing and let's obama float on by as they continually protect him.
-
its not that i dont care about the economy, its that i dont care to think that there is some vast media conspiracy protecting obama
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
do i really need to re-post the list of congressmen who have gotten the most money in campaign donations from freddie mac, fannie mae and lehman brothers. it's almost like you don't care.
Sure. But you could you break it down for me between individuals in lower and middle management (presumably thousands) vs. decision makers at the top (say, about 50)?
-
Originally posted by brennser:
your logic is getting more and more tortured as this thread progresses - what is your point here?
are you implying that McCain has postponed fundraising out of respect for the bad economy? I don't think McCain is being portrayed as out of touch by the media, maybe by the Obama campaign but not the media. Everyone knows he's had the media in his pocket for years until this recent barrage of lies and distortions caused some of them to wake up and take notice.
High dollar fundraising is part and parcel of this noxious political process.
i'm implying that if a republican was doing what obama was doing. . .saying the economy is in the dumps then jetting off to, let's say, texas to hob-nob with, how about, oil executives, people would be up in arms. as it is, obama says the economy is in terrible shape, then jet's off to california to hob-nob with hollywood, and no one says a thing.
and thank you for saying this is an absolutely normal part of the election process. . .change you can believe in indeed.
-
which republican is saying or has said the economy is bad
-
since it's getting late in the day out there in d.c., and no one has guessed, i'd figure i'd give you the answers.
senator a is obama
senator b is biden
senator c is mccain
why. . .lookie there. . mccain's female staffers make more than his male staffers, on average. also, why does obama have more staff than either biden or mccain. . .i have no idea, just asking.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Anyone wanna match the politician to the salaries? Can choose between Biden, McCain and Obama.
Senator A pays his 27 male staffers an average salary of $56K a year, but pays his 30 female staffers an average salary of $45K a year.
Senator B pays his 15 male staffers an average salary of $85K a year, but pays his 25 female staffers an average salary of $56K a year.
Senator C pays his 17 male staffers an average of $53K a year, but pays his 25 female staffers an average salary of $56K a year.
-
so its ok for mccain to say things are fine before jetting off to his multi million dollar fundraisers?
-
I don't think Obama's (or McCain's) fundraising is in anyway hypocrital. Its a voluntary payment/investment. How does the donation hurt any individuals? You can't claim price gauging on a voluntary payment.
However, McCain/Palin have (past tense?) scored points with more retarded arguments lately ("I put the thing on ebay") so I could see them saying with a straightface "How can Obama accept $66 million in one month while American families are hurting" and then demand he use the money to send each American a 25 cent stimulus check.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
as for banking deregulation. . .would someone let me know when the gramm-leach-bliley act was passed? thanks.
Sure. 1999.
It was 54-44 in the Senate (53 Republicans and 1 Dem voting yes, 44 Democrats and no Republicans voting no, and 1 Rep voting "Present" and 1 repub not voting.)
In the House it was:
Yeas Nays NV
Republican 207(Y) 5(N) 10 (NV)
Democratic 155 (Y) 51(N) 5(NV)
Independent 1(Y)
TOTALS 362 57 15
And signed into law by President Clinton.
The Bills Author, Senator Phil Graham, left Congress and is now a VP at UBS Investment Bank, the world's biggest manager of other people's money, and was Presidential Co-Chair of John McCains campaign and his most senior economic advisor until July. While advising the McCain campaign, Gramm was being paid by UBS to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis.
Since then he has been seen with McCain during the campaign, and continues to be an unofficial adviser on economic and financial matters.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
senator a is obama
senator b is biden
senator c is mccain
I don't see sex. I only see competence.
-
thats sexist, charlie
-
also, it sure doesnt pay to work on the hill. damn
-
Originally posted by brennser:
so its ok for mccain to say things are fine before jetting off to his multi million dollar fundraisers?
that would be more honest than what obama said. if mccain believes, rightly or wrongly, that the "fundamentals" are strong, then goes out an fundraises, at least he's being consistent. and the democrats can ridicule his statement on the economy. . .it's the exact opposite scene with obama. . .says the economy is in the dumps and then goes high stakes fundraising. yes, he has to do it, since he said no to public funding. if all these rich democrats want their taxes raised, fine, but there's nothing keeping them from paying more to the government right now. the government takes checks, money orders and credit cards.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
also, it sure doesnt pay to work on the hill. damn
for real, exactly what i was thinking....
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
[if all these rich democrats want their taxes raised, fine, but there's nothing keeping them from paying more to the government right now. the government takes checks, money orders and credit cards.
I'm far from rich, but you know that I willingly let the Government withhold more than the proper amount from my wages and give it back to me in the Spring interest free as a tax rebate, and I'm not opposed to a tax increase on the next tax level, which I may be at someday when Smackette earns a real pay check. I'm happy to give my fair share and some to this country.
I'm also a volunteer of my time to government sponsored events, but you folks have made that a punchline now...
-
If Obama thinks there is a problem with the economy, and he thinks he can do a better job than his opponent, he would be extremely irresponsible not to do everything in his power to win the election - including maximizing his fundraising efforts.
His responsibility is to use the money to put himself in the best position to win the election. Period.
-
Serious question: if I were to go to Michigan and get my driver's license up there and list a family member's house as my residence, would I be allowed to vote in Michigan in November, or am I stuck voting in Virginia?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
as for banking deregulation. . .would someone let me know when the gramm-leach-bliley act was passed? thanks.
Sure. 1999.
And signed into law by President Clinton.
[/b]
thanks, that's all i needed. . .
as for phil gramm and ubs. . .
opensecrets says obama has received $405,000 from UBS this cycle and mccain has received $140,000 this cycle.
btw, only of interest to vansmack and me. . .the university of california is his number 2 contributor at $611,000?!?! only goldman sachs has given more.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
His responsibility is to use the money to put himself in the best position to win the election. Period.
If Obama wanted to do the responsible thing as opposed to the egotistical thing, he would cease campaigning and allow Biden to become the nominee. Destroying America and setting the Democratic Party and social progress back 6 decades is in no way responsible.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
opensecrets says obama has received $405,000 from UBS this cycle and mccain has received $140,000 this cycle.
Leeman Brothers employees gave Obama almost 10 million dollars so far.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Sure. But you could you break it down for me between individuals in lower and middle management (presumably thousands) vs. decision makers at the top (say, about 50)?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by Mobius:
His responsibility is to use the money to put himself in the best position to win the election. Period.
If Obama wanted to do the responsible thing as opposed to the egotistical thing, he would cease campaigning and allow Biden to become the nominee. Destroying America and setting the Democratic Party and social progress back 6 decades is in no way responsible. [/b]
His responsibility as a candidate.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
senator a is obama
senator b is biden
senator c is mccain
I don't see sex. I only see competence. [/b]
well, i guess mcccain finds more competent women (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/is-mccains-sena.html).
"Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women."
-
did you get laid off from your job, venerable?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, i guess mcccain finds more competent women (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/is-mccains-sena.html).
"Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women."
thank you for saving me the trouble of looking this up, this was just as i suspected.... the reason why mccain pays his women more than his men: he has more higher-ranking women on his staff. this is indeed a good thing, but it proves NOTHING about mccain's stance on pay equity - which was the implication of your deceitful "which senator is a-b-c" quiz.
-
Why don't you guys start talking about what the candidates will actually do? Then you could disagree on policy, and perhaps reach some consensus on what directions y'all think the country should head in.
Just a thought.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Why don't you guys start talking about what the candidates will actually do?
Because the majority of this board are Obamaphiles and Obama's consistent track record once winning an election is (a) accomplishing nothing of substance for the electorate and (b) immediately campaigning for a more powerful office.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
thank you for saving me the trouble of looking this up, this was just as i suspected.... the reason why mccain pays his women more than his men: he has more higher-ranking women on his staff. this is indeed a good thing, but it proves NOTHING about mccain's stance on pay equity - which was the implication of your deceitful "which senator is a-b-c" quiz.
how does it prove nothing? whatever mccain's "stance," he has hired and placed more women at higher levels in his staff than either obama or biden. so, you can either talk about pay equity or you can do something about it. you can either talk about putting women in to higher ranking positions, or you can put women into higher ranking positions. which one would you choose?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
Why don't you guys start talking about what the candidates will actually do?
Because the majority of this board are Obamaphiles and Obama's consistent track record once winning an election is (a) accomplishing nothing of substance for the electorate and (b) immediately campaigning for a more powerful office. [/b]
can you kindly explain why Senator Clinton represents the state of New York and not say the ones where she lived before becoming First Lady such as Illinois or Arkansas. Or how about one those sexy flyover states or a red state?
-
Let's not go back there.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Because the majority of this board are Obamaphiles and Obama's consistent track record once winning an election is (a) accomplishing nothing of substance for the electorate and (b) immediately campaigning for a more powerful office.
OK - tell me all about McCain's policies...
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
While advising the McCain campaign, Gramm was being paid by UBS to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis.
speaking of the mortgage crisis. . .ladies and gentlemen, obama advisor austan goolsbee (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29scene.html)!
-
I love how your response to Phil Gramm was "well more UBS employees give to Obama then McCain" and then you point to Goolsbee, who was wrong in his analysis without ever once acknowledging that McCain's economic advisor drafted this de-regulation legislation that is ABSOLUTLEY responsible for this mess. Just so I get ahead of your next delfection "sure Phil Gramm wrote it, but Clinton should have vetoed it!" - or how about the 54 Republican Senators shouldn't have let him get away with it!
So, answer me how Phil Gramm is not responsible for this legislation.
And to answer the question about what the candidates will do about it, I suspect that McCain will make Phil Gramm his Secretary of the Treasury. Sleep well tonight....
-
So is the GOP secretly on a campaign to get America comfortable with increasingly stupid Presidents?
Why would they do this? Because that enables puppetmasters that the American public might find unpalatable to be the real forces in Government.
If you think about it, who was the last intelligent Republican President?
That would be Richard Milhous Nixon, whom despite his many flaws was inarguably bright and well-educated.
Consider the cast since then:
Ronald Reagan -- main career, actor; brief Governor stint; evidently descending into senility even before beginning his first term
George HW Bush might seem like an exception, until you consider his foolhardy VP, Dan Quayle, remembering again the long-term GOP goal of dumbing down the public's expectation of the land's highest offices
Even during the Clinton years, the Republican "revolution" in the House was driven by pandering to wild-eyed, poorly educated slackjaws, the gun-loving militia "movement," religious nutters, and fixations primarily on non-policy matters such as the President's penis and real estate investments
George Dubya Bush -- perhaps the most ineffective, least intelligent, weak executive ever, with the country primarily run by Cheney and his shadowy cabal
It's hard to imagine topping Dubya, but the beady-eyed Palin, who blatantly speaks from a script every time she opens her mouth and has trouble even forming those scripted words, tops him.
And McCain, once a man possessed of great dignity, is now debasing himself by campaigning on non-issues such as whether Obama was referring to Miss Piggy with his "lipstick" comment.
If McCain wins, the odds are very high that Palin will ascend to the Presidency.
It's hard to imagine that true Conservatives -- I mean the types who are educated, and appreciate limited but effective government -- I'm not talking the frothing mouthed ideologues who have hijacked the GOP, who take the Bible literally, and are more concerned with stem cells than the economy -- can be very comfortable with that thought.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
I love how your response to Phil Gramm was "well more UBS employees give to Obama then McCain" and then you point to Goolsbee, who was wrong in his analysis without ever once acknowledging that McCain's economic advisor drafted this de-regulation legislation that is ABSOLUTLEY responsible for this mess. Just so I get ahead of your next delfection "sure Phil Gramm wrote it, but Clinton should have vetoed it!" - or how about the 54 Republican Senators shouldn't have let him get away with it!
So, answer me how Phil Gramm is not responsible for this legislation.
wait. . .according to this (http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/1104grm.htm), gramm-leach-bliley passed by a 90-8 senate vote, not the 54-44 vote you said previously (the House voted 362-57). btw, biden voted yea (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354), but it appears that mccain missed the vote.
so, it wasn't just republicans pushing this onto clinton (who still could have vetoed it, but probably supported it), lots of senators and representatives voted for it.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
thank you for saving me the trouble of looking this up, this was just as i suspected.... the reason why mccain pays his women more than his men: he has more higher-ranking women on his staff. this is indeed a good thing, but it proves NOTHING about mccain's stance on pay equity - which was the implication of your deceitful "which senator is a-b-c" quiz.
how does it prove nothing? whatever mccain's "stance," he has hired and placed more women at higher levels in his staff than either obama or biden. so, you can either talk about pay equity or you can do something about it. you can either talk about putting women in to higher ranking positions, or you can put women into higher ranking positions. which one would you choose? [/b]
what it proves is that mccain doesn't believe in paying women equally. he has more women than men in high positions, yet average women's salary is the same as men. if women were paid equally, womens' average salary would be higher then men since there are more women in high-paying positions. THAT is what i was getting at - the initial "guess which senator pays his women most" implied that mccain practiced pay equity, when in fact it appears that he doesn't. although i will give him credit for being an economic rationalist when it comes to staffing: place competent women in high positions, they're cheaper than men!
and i'd advise you to be careful when getting preachy about the republicans' support of womens' rights. come back to me when the GOP believes that a women is allowed doing what she wants with her body.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
what it proves is that mccain doesn't believe in paying women equally. he has more women than men in high positions, yet average women's salary is the same as men. if women were paid equally, womens' average salary would be higher then men since there are more women in high-paying positions. THAT is what i was getting at - the initial "guess which senator pays his women most" implied that mccain practiced pay equity, when in fact it appears that he doesn't. although i will give him credit for being an economic rationalist when it comes to staffing: place competent women in high positions, they're cheaper than men!
then pity the poor female obama staffers. . .there are 5 more than mccain and they're getting paid, on average, $10k less than women who work for mccain.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
then pity the poor female obama staffers. . .there are 5 more than mccain and they're getting paid, on average, $10k less than women who work for mccain.
obama's ladies are being paid less - because they are in lower-paying positions. i'd expect admin assistants to be paid less than senior advisers.
what was your point again?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
wait. . .according to this (http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/1104grm.htm),
You tell me. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105)
Yours must be the conference vote.
And here is the conference house vote. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
obama's ladies are being paid less - because they are in lower-paying positions. i'd expect admin assistants to be paid less than senior advisers.
what was your point again?
I love this justification. "Obama has a long record of hiring women as secretaries and calling them sweetie, but apparently not appointing them to any position of any importance! What's a you problem?"
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
I love this justification. "Obama has a long record of hiring women as secretaries and calling them sweetie, but apparently not appointing them to any position of any importance! What's a you problem?"
hi jules! you seem to be a latecomer to the discussion, and you've obviously misunderstood the intent of what i said, so let me bring you up to speed: this was not a justification of anyone's HR practices. i was pointing out that having more women in higher positions will naturally lead to higher average salary. Venerable seemed to be making two supposedly unrelated points about mccain, when in fact they are flip sides of the same coin.
however, mccain isn't practicing pay parity: he has more women in higher positions, yet on average they make the same as their lower-ranking male counterparts. hiring women into higher positions but not paying them accordingly ain't much of a horn to toot.
the real problem is that we only have very partial data about the two candidates' staff's make-up, and here we are making generalizations about their views on gender and pay equity.
addressing your lies: obama does have women in high positions around him, just not as many as mccain - good for the old man. obama does not have a record of calling anyone on his staff "sweetie". he did use "sweetie" when referring to a reporter (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080516-obama-sweetie,0,6146874.story) recently. much has been made of it, yet strangely enough the reporter at whom the term was directed took no offense - another right wing-sponsored tempest in a teacup. even if he did use that term with one of his staff, it would still be much less misogynistic than dictating to women what they can do with their bodies.
congrats on stirring up a bee's nest of non-issue. OMG OBAMA USED THE WORD "SWEETIE"! HE WAS PROBABLY THINKING "LIPSTICK" TOO!!! it's a good thing this election will be decided on the candidates' usage of diminutives :roll:
-
I'm hearing talk that if McCain is elected, Sarah Palin is going to push for a constitutional amendment outlawing blowjobs and porn. These are the stakes people.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
congrats on stirring up a bee's nest of non-issue.
Have you READ Julian's America?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week."
well, i guess obama was feeling lonely (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-inflates.html)
In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. That??s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didn??t even show up to vote."
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
however, mccain isn't practicing pay parity: he has more women in higher positions, yet on average they make the same as their lower-ranking male counterparts. hiring women into higher positions but not paying them accordingly ain't much of a horn to toot.
the real problem is that we only have very partial data about the two candidates' staff's make-up, and here we are making generalizations about their views on gender and pay equity.
addressing your lies: obama does have women in high positions around him, just not as many as mccain - good for the old man.
oh sweetcell. . .in the comparison between the 3 senators, it's readily apparent that mccain is the only one of the three who pays their female staffers more than their male staffers, on average. you can call it whatever you want, that fact still remains a fact.
see, there's this webpage called legistorm (http://www.legistorm.com/), which has the salaries of congressional staffers. what we find is that first of all, obama spent more on his staff than mccain, $1.3 million for obama and $1.03 million for mccain. let's look at the legislative director. . .obama's LD is a guy who makes $60K, mccain's LD is a female who makes $65K. conveniently, mccain's female LD is the highest paid staffer on mccain's staff and higher than any staffer on obama's staff.
as noted earlier:
"Only one of Obama's five best-paid Senate staffers is a woman. Of McCain's five best-paid Senate staffers, three are women.
Of Obama's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, seven are women. Of McCain's top 20 salaried Senate staffers, 13 are women."
so, mccain has 25 female staffers, of which 13 are 20 of the highest paid staffers. obama has 30 female staffers of which only 7 are among the top 20 paid staffers. whether or not mccain is the paragon of equal pay, women are more likely to be paid higher working for mccain than for obama. if there's any result that can be reached from these numbers, it's that congressional staff get paid like crap, regardless of gender.
-
i could say that mccain picks people on vaginas over merit. but i wouldnt do that, cause thats sexist charlie
and you were wrong on the media giving obama slack on the fundraiser. was even on access hollywood last night
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by vansmack:
"If John McCain hadn't said that 'the fundamentals of our economy are strong' on the day of one of our nation's worst financial crises, the claim that he invented the BlackBerry would have been the most preposterous thing said all week."
well, i guess obama was feeling lonely (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-inflates.html)
In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. That??s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didn??t even show up to vote." [/b]
You always have to read all of what Jake Tapper has to write:
"The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008, Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle class along the lines of what Obama proposed."
That is true.
Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class families. Clinton??s approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies."
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
wait. . .according to this (http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/1104grm.htm),
You tell me. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105)
Yours must be the conference vote.
And here is the conference house vote. (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml) [/b]
surely you don't need me to explain legislative process. . .the senate vote you link to is the initial senate vote on the bill. . however, due to differences between the house and the senate versions, it goes to conference. . .the conference report is the compromise between the two houses. . .so, yes, mine was on the conference report, which is the version of the bill that was signed by clinton, yours was on the version that ended up in conference.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
You always have to read all of what Jake Tapper has to write:
"The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008, Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle class along the lines of what Obama proposed."
That is true.
Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class families. Clinton??s approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies."
well then, how convenient of him to not vote on his own proposal.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well then, how convenient of him to not vote on his own proposal.
You mean the proposal that passed 81-16 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Economic_Stimulus_Bill_of_2008#Senate_Version), two days after Super Tuesday? While Obama was locked in a heated primary campaign with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards? And the proposal that John McCain did not vote on, despite being present in Washington?
Tell me, how would Obama's vote have affected the known outcome?
EDIT: I double checked on McCain's vote; while the source I link to above says McCain did not vote on it, I believe it refers to the cloture vote, and not the final vote on the bill itself. McCain voted yes to the bill itself (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=17019&can_id=53270).
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Note that the McCain surge in the polls is already fading out, and fading out fast:
Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
Still not too worried about the outcome. The economy is going to completely negate the Palin impact, and require her to have more nuanced, detailed policy positions. Obama's sharper focus on McCain's record is also having an impact.
My prediction: Obama back up by 2-3 points in the polls within two weeks; he might even open a larger lead than that. Then we hit the debates and the game changes again.
This trend continues:
Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls - 9.17 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
Today's Gallup poll has Obama up by 2 points. I may revise my prediction above and guess that Obama will be up 4-6 points going into the debates.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
well, i guess obama was feeling lonely (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-inflates.html)
In Vienna, Ohio, this afternoon, McCain said that Obama today "claimed that the Congressional stimulus package was his idea. That??s news to those of us in Congress who supported it. Senator Obama didn??t even show up to vote."
You always have to read all of what Jake Tapper has to write:
"The Obama campaign argues that in January 2008, Obama "was the only candidate to propose a fiscal stimulus plan centered on tax rebate checks for the broad majority of Americans. The bipartisan bill that passed less than a month later was centered on rebate checks to the broad middle class along the lines of what Obama proposed."
That is true.
Obama proposed a tax rebate aimed at middle class families. Clinton??s approach, conversely, focused on specific programs targeted at individuak problems, such as home-heating and mortgage subsidies." [/b]
yes, let's read more of jake tapper while we at it. . .
"those involved in the drafting of the legislation say it was more a matter of agreeing on a good idea and was not a matter of, as Obama claimed, his proposal having "formed the basis for a bipartisan stimulus package that passed the Congress."
-
why did you cut off "But though the bill that eventually passed more closely resembled Obama's than either Clinton's or McCain's"
besides, blog with no named sources
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
why did you cut off "But though the bill that eventually passed more closely resembled Obama's than either Clinton's or McCain's"
besides, blog with no named sources
the point remains the same. . .while the first stimulus package was similiar to what obama presented, the posting (and references to the washington post) made clear that congressional authors and negotiators weren't using the obama package as their blueprint.
we can quote and re-quote all we want from that posting. . .the point still remains that obama did not have nearly the input, if any at all, on what the final stimulus package looked like. he could have stated the relation between his plan and what was eventually passed a number of different ways, but by inflating his own worth and importance, his statement is almost entirely false.
-
No comment. (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Yahoo_inbox_2008)
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
No comment. (http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_Yahoo_inbox_2008)
Link is down, presumably due to high traffic. Can you reprint?
-
I recommend checking out the new, two minute long ad Obama is airing in battleground states. Just him speaking to the camera about the economy:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1799203760 (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185304443/bctid1799203760)
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Link is down, presumably due to high traffic. Can you reprint?
Circa midnight Tuesday the 16th of September (EST) activists loosely affiliated with the group 'anonymous' gained access to U.S. Republican Party Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account gov.palin@yahoo.com and passed information to Wikileaks. Governor Palin has come under criticism for using private email accounts to conduct government business and in the process avoid transparency laws. The zip archive made available by Wikileaks contains screen shots of Palin's inbox, two example emails, address book and a couple of family photos. The list of correspondence, together with the account name, appears to re-enforce the criticism. Wikileaks may release additional emails should they be of political substance.
Note: The 'ctunnel.com' in the browser screen shots is a proxy service used to prevent the activists from being traced.
-
I guess nobody told her that one of the big reasons not to use a personal email account as governor is internet security.
-
Is it just me, or is the email thing a pretty big deal? Doesn't that reflect a pretty serious oversight in security? Who else may have hacked into Sarah Palin's email account? What else might she have discussed there?
-
vital military secrets might have been leaked
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
vital military secrets might have been leaked
Perhaps not vital military secrets, but how about sensitive information about Alaska's oil infrastructure?
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Sure. But you could you break it down for me between individuals in lower and middle management (presumably thousands) vs. decision makers at the top (say, about 50)?
according to this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_el_pr/wall_street_politics;_ylt=AsYWhzGlDCZzbF6bYjHT9BWyFz4D), which is probably incomplete, "Merrill Lynch & Co.'s chief executive, for example, has raised more than $500,000 for McCain's campaign. Obama has received at least $1.5 million collected by three senior executives at Lehman Brothers.....Three executives from Goldman Sachs Group Inc. have raised at least half a million dollars for Obama. That firm is Obama's top source of campaign money overall; its employees have contributed more than $690,000 to his campaign, according to the center."
So, looks like Obama is still getting more money from both the "decision makers" and the regular employees.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Is it just me, or is the email thing a pretty big deal? Doesn't that reflect a pretty serious oversight in security? Who else may have hacked into Sarah Palin's email account? What else might she have discussed there?
fair enough. . but. . .isn't hacking illegal? i hope that they can track down this "anonymous" person. . .i mean, how many people can possibly have that name. ohhhhh.
-
you know what else is illegal? doing state business on a yahoo account
edit: i really dont want to argue the legality of the yahoo account, but it certainly is unethical and silly
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
Is it just me, or is the email thing a pretty big deal? Doesn't that reflect a pretty serious oversight in security? Who else may have hacked into Sarah Palin's email account? What else might she have discussed there?
fair enough. . but. . .isn't hacking illegal? i hope that they can track down this "anonymous" person. . .i mean, how many people can possibly have that name. ohhhhh. [/b]
Absolutely it is illegal, and I'm not saying they should have done it. But they DID do it, and showed her that her account is vulnerable. What about the people who could have hacked this account and never said a word?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
you know what else is illegal? doing state business on a yahoo account
edit: i really dont want to argue the legality of the yahoo account, but it certainly is unethical and silly
ok. . .because the rules are different for each state, so the legality is an open question.
-
These people would've tried hacking Obama's email accounts, but he's never actually handled any governmental business whatsoever so it'd be a colossal waste of time.
-
Venerable, a wise Law School professor once beat me down after an exam by writing on my exam...
"While you may or not be right, I'll never know because you don't go deep enough into the issues...kind of like the USA Today."
That's a fair assessment of my thoughts on you this past week.
-
mccain should have announed Palin on Halloween, theres no way any one person will be able to take this media abuse for 2 months.
-
Originally posted by vansmack:
Venerable, a wise Law School professor once beat me down after an exam by writing on my exam...
was it nicole parra. . .i'd let her beat me down.
btw, how dare you compare megan (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/hindsight_regulation.php) mcardle (http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/what_should_bush_have_done.php) to the usa today (http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/lehman-brothers.php). . .
-
No sir. It was a priest, but I'll gladly let him know that you're looking to be beaten.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Absolutely it is illegal, and I'm not saying they should have done it. But they DID do it, and showed her that her account is vulnerable. What about the people who could have hacked this account and never said a word?
all i can say is that whatever the reasons behind it, this is just another attempt by obama supporters to show how far they'll go to get their candidate elected. we can have a civil debate about whether or not using private email accounts is ethical, but to purposefully and willingly go about to hack into a person's private email account is not only illegal, but just wrong. have you guys no sense of decency?
after trying once again to silence (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-mediasep17,0,6325137.story) anyone who dares write a book criticizing obama, his supporters then go out of their way to do this.
all i can say is that if this does get a lot of press, no one is going to care what's in the email accounts, all people are gonna care about is this blatant invasion of a politician's privacy simply because she is the vp candidate running against obama. where are the privacy advocates? where is the outrage about this? instead, i get a "yeah, they shouldn't have done it, but that sure showed her."
-
It's kind of ironic to hear Republicans bleating about illicit invasion of privacy.
Also, what kind of idiot conducts official business with a Yahoo account?
-
I don't think anyone cares what Sarah Palin was emailing to her kids, but if you are conducting official business through your yahoo account you are ipso facto HIDING SOMETHING, and if that's the case, and you're busted, then you're busted.
Its not as though her yahoo account was hacked and we discovered she was governing elusively. We already knew from vaarious sources she used her yahoo account to purposely avoid accountability and if those were her intentions and it backfired I have no sympathy. Again, any truly personal emails should remailn personal and if they're not its a problem, but emails that are related to her duties as Governor are another story.
-
I just want to know two things:
* Did the emails contain lots of "lol's" and emoticons?
* Did the recipients of these emails click through to the advertisements inserted by Yahoo into the messages?
It would have been better if she used gmail. much more street cred than yahoo.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
I don't think anyone cares what Sarah Palin was emailing to her kids, but if you are conducting official business through your yahoo account you are ipso facto HIDING SOMETHING, and if that's the case, and you're busted, then you're busted.
It's now being suggested that she is guilty of destroying evidence for deleting those accounts after they were found out...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by callat703:
Absolutely it is illegal, and I'm not saying they should have done it. But they DID do it, and showed her that her account is vulnerable. What about the people who could have hacked this account and never said a word?
all i can say is that whatever the reasons behind it, this is just another attempt by obama supporters to show how far they'll go to get their candidate elected. we can have a civil debate about whether or not using private email accounts is ethical, but to purposefully and willingly go about to hack into a person's private email account is not only illegal, but just wrong. have you guys no sense of decency?
[/b]
Oh come on, really? Hackers don't care about politics. They care about hacking. That's why there aren't any political messages contained in what they released to the public, and they went out of their way to publish relatively innocuous emails that don't smear Sarah Palin. They just show that they were able to successfully perform a hack.
And don't question my decency. I've said that hacking is illegal and they shouldn't have done it. But if Sarah Palin - who, in case you've forgotten, is running for VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES - wasn't completely naive about internet security, she never would have given them a reason or a chance to hack into an account containing government information in the first place.
There is NO indication that anybody from the Obama campaign or anybody supporting Obama had anything to do with this, or that politics motivated the action.
If the same hackers had knowledge and access to a personal email account for Obama, Biden or McCain, I'm willing to bet they'd have done the exact same thing.
On another note, where the hell was the McCain camp on this? Do you think they knew she had a personal email account to use for government purposes? Do you think they would have let her keep that email account active once she entered the race if they HAD known? And if they DID let her keep that account active, what does that say about McCain's complicity in using private email for official purposes?
I agree with you that this IS an invasion of privacy, and an unfortunate one. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean Sarah Palin doesn't have to be accountable for what was in that email inbox. Once busted, you're busted.
Take this as an analogy. Let's say some people had broken into the governor's mansion in Alaska, and found the governor growing marijuana in the green house. They then took some photos that they released to the world. They didn't steal anything, and they left a note tied to the door saying that they should be more careful about security. Do you mean to imply that we would dismiss those photos and the issue because the photos were obtained illegally?
-
when you run for public office - and especially when you're running for the highest office in the land - you should expect additional scrutiny. the republicans have a track record of considering themselves above the rules, use of un-official e-mail accounts to conduct official business is par for the course. seriously folks, do we want another 4 years of such deceptions?
speaking of hiding information: John McCain's health records must be released (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvesa49zSIM). i haven't been following this story closely, but based on that video it appears that mccain hasn't provided enough info about his fitness to be president... and his fitness is in question.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
This trend continues:
Real Clear Politics Poll of Polls - 9.17 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)
Today's Gallup poll has Obama up by 2 points. I may revise my prediction above and guess that Obama will be up 4-6 points going into the debates.
Hmmm....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/110473/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-44.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110473/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-44.aspx)
-
since when is guessing a password hacking?
Most hackers are narcissistic libertarians anyway.
-
this is the type of person who is going to determine the election outcome:
That sentiment is echoed by Beth Seidel, a factory worker in Cleveland who works the third shift so she can take her son to school and then to practices for the four sports he plays. Pausing recently at a Wal-Mart, she said: "Honestly, I don't know what to do. I really don't want to vote for McCain. You can tell he only cares about rich people. Sarah Palin wears glasses that cost $300. McCain's wife wears Gucci clothes. Which means they don't know anything about people like me." Into that stew of assumptions, she adds: "I hear that Obama's a Muslim. If he is a Muslim, that would be a problem, because the terrorists already attacked us." (He's not.)
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Also, what kind of idiot conducts official business with a Yahoo account?
she derserves what she gets.
-
And we want to trust Sarah Palin with the vice presidency?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha.html (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/palin-e-mail-ha.html)
"As detailed in the postings, the Palin hack didn't require any real skill. Instead, the hacker simply reset Palin's password using her birthdate, ZIP code and information about where she met her spouse -- the security question on her Yahoo account, which was answered (Wasilla High) by a simple Google search.
The simplicity of the attack, of course, makes it no less illegal.
The hacker said that he read all of the e-mails in the Palin account and found "nothing incriminating, nothing that would derail her campaign as I had hoped. All I saw was personal stuff, some clerical stuff from when she was governor?. And pictures of her family."
This kid is clearly an idiot who shouldn't have done this. But this is alarming that getting into her email was this simple.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
This kid is clearly an idiot who shouldn't have done this. But this is alarming that getting into her email was this simple.
Well isn't that more of an issue with Yahoo email security than with Sarah Palin?
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by callat703:
This kid is clearly an idiot who shouldn't have done this. But this is alarming that getting into her email was this simple.
Well isn't that more of an issue with Yahoo email security than with Sarah Palin? [/b]
If you're governor of a state and using that email address for official state business, are you really going to put something THIS simple as your security question? Maybe a better point - would you even USE a security question?
And the obvious point - don't use a freakin' Yahoo email address when you're governor or running for VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
-
Yup, hacking is illegal. So is bypassing Alaska's laws regarding Government records and communications. So I'd call it even.
I don't know the details of Alaska law, but if you work for Uncle Sam and you're using personal email for work purposes and using sloppy password techniques, you can get fired... I imagine state laws are not unsimilar.
I've lost track of Palin scandals... apparently her eldest preggo daughter was known as "makeout queen" as early as 15 years old, and is a confirmed pothead.
Normally I'd say good on her (and you can sort of understand why Levi saw this party gal and decided he'd like to tap that -- although weaseling your way into a guv'nor's daughter's knickers is likely a bad move whether Republican or Democrat). None of it would be anyone's business were it not for Republican sanctimony on these issues. If you're going to tell others how to live their lives, then I'd say your own personal life is fair game if it's not in sync with your preaching.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Mobius:
Originally posted by callat703:
This kid is clearly an idiot who shouldn't have done this. But this is alarming that getting into her email was this simple.
Well isn't that more of an issue with Yahoo email security than with Sarah Palin? [/b]
If you're governor of a state and using that email address for official state business, are you really going to put something THIS simple as your security question? Maybe a better point - would you even USE a security question?
And the obvious point - don't use a freakin' Yahoo email address when you're governor or running for VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. [/b]
Well its two separate issues. If she's using Yahoo to circumvent government accountability than its all on her. And she sucks. But are there specific emails showing this? I'm not sure (didn't read them and haven't read stories). If there aren't then . . . well. . . she should have nothing to hide. I mean she's a clean living Christian raising a clean living Christian family . . . right??
-
this is my final post on this topic. . and the responses to my previous post here have simply re-inforced my belief about this election.....this is truly a sad day for democracy and freedom.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
this is my final post on this topic. . and the responses to my previous post here have simply re-inforced my belief about this election.....this is truly a sad day for democracy and freedom.
that is rich
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
this is my final post on this topic. . and the responses to my previous post here have simply re-inforced my belief about this election.....this is truly a sad day for democracy and freedom.
haha. . . everything was right on target until yesterday.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
this is my final post on this topic. . and the responses to my previous post here have simply re-inforced my belief about this election.....this is truly a sad day for democracy and freedom.
it's reinforced mine too - that political fanboys and fangirls will stick by their party no matter what, including going against the party line. people will distort, ignore, try turning tables through vapid counter-accusations, feign indignation, refuse to discuss the issue, and generally do whatever it takes to maintain their core belief... everything except admit that the other side has a valid point.
sad day for democracy and freedom (of thought) indeed.
-
I have no idea what you guys are talking about.
-
how about those pesky plumbers that use to work at Watergate?
-
<img src="http://www.cbsundstrom.com/fuckyoujohnmccain.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
This is too ridiculous to not post on here.
Watch this clip (http://wearevotingyes.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-interviewed-by-katie-couric.html) of Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin.
Can somebody tell me when we started being concerned about Russia invading Alaska?
-
even though i dont understand whats going on, i think i slightly disagree with you. lets suspend the democratic process until we can come to a compromise
ps MAVERICK
-
Originally posted by callat703:
This is too ridiculous to not post on here.
Watch this clip (http://wearevotingyes.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-interviewed-by-katie-couric.html) of Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin.
Can somebody tell me when we started being concerned about Russia invading Alaska?
what in fucks name is she speaking of? she needs some good ole fashioned slick political question dodging lessons.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
what in fucks name is she speaking of? she needs some good ole fashioned slick political question dodging lessons.
She's had those lessons and still can't hack it...
-
Oh snap, Heart. That was awesome.
-
That Katie Couric interview is really getting a lot of attention now. Palin is totally tanking. She came out of the gate OK for her party, but now when she talks she sound like she has no confidence and just lacks command of the subject matter.
-
He's also known as the maverick though.
Katie Couric: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
Sarah Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie - that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.
Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you've said Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?
Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.
Couric: I'm just going to ask you one more time - not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.
Palin: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.
-
this was another doozy from the Couric interview
"So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions."
Reducing taxes has to accompany tax reductions? Ya don't say! Not to mention that McCains health reform proposal involves a tax increase for anyone currently covered through their employer.
-
is she related to Dan Quayle?
-
where did manimtired go?
-
So it looks like McCain will show up tonight for the debate after all, and resume his campaign.
What a ruse that was.....
-
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/ (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/)
-
SEXISM MAVERICK
-
Good for Katie Couric for actually asking a follow-up question when given a rare opportunity to examine the vp candidate - probing follow-up questions have been all to rare from the media.
-
Footage from the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qQKdHxeMkk)
-
This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Splash News
-
im still here. whats up?
-
this series of Future Election Headlines as predicted by the Daily Show writers in Entertainment Weekly made me snort
"Biden, In Slip Calls Palin "Tappable"
"Biden apologizes, retracts Palin "Tappable" remark"
Biden apologizes for calling Palin "Not Tappable"
Biden tapes own mouth shut
-
Any chance Obama may end up taking Florida? if he were to win there, that would be it for McCain.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html)
-
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Any chance Obama may end up taking Florida? if he were to win there, that would be it for McCain.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_mccain_vs_obama-418.html)
sarah silverman's gonna deliver florida (http://thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html)
-
For the record, I too am circum-super-sized.
And no, I don't see McCain losing Florida.
-
if i was obama , i would let him have Florida. all he really needs is Ohio and the upper midwest and hes got like 290.
-
I think, after today's financial meltdown and what is likely in store for the next few days, Obama could win in a landslide. If the Dow continues to fall, I don't think it is out of the question that he takes most of the battleground states. We'll see.
Of course, if that were to happen, he won't have an economy to run when he takes office...
-
If Ohio and Florida were to go to McCain, would securing PA, MI, WI, MN, Iowa... plus CO and NM be enough for Obama? Would he still need Virginia?
-
If OH, FL, NH, VA went to McCain and the rest of the states you listed to Obama, it'd be 269-269.
-
In many ways, I think this illustrates the choice between the candidates:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/campaign.wrap/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/campaign.wrap/index.html)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
is she related to Dan Quayle?
She makes Quayle look smart... it reminds me of how Dubya makes his daddy look like he was a good president.
-
In an interview aired Tuesday on "The CBS Evening News," anchor Katie Couric asked Palin what publications she had read to stay informed and to understand the world.
"I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media," Palin replied. Asked for examples, she said, "Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years."
Asked again for an example, Palin told Couric: "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Alaska is like a microcosm of America."
wow and people really love this lady.
-
not only is palin an energy expert, she is a legal expert too! (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/02/ec.cbs.interview.cnn). not that a VP needs to know anything about the supreme court other than roe v. wade... (compare to biden's responses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBt0r9Exv2I)).
-
I wonder if she'll get read her Miranda Rights when she gets indicted in Troopergate...
-
Will all of you be terribly disappointed if Palin actually does well tonight?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Will all of you be terribly disappointed if Palin actually does well tonight?
Honestly, yes. I'm hoping for a major embarrassment for the GOP, though it is unlikely we'll get it since these things are so scripted.
-
sorta, in as much as i'd feel i had been deprived of some expected entertainment. but it would certainly make the election very very interesting.
i'm not putting it past her (it's not as if the bar has been set very high for her), i love a good surprise, but what would constitute "does well" for palin? actually answering the question with a statement of fact or on-topic informed opinion, instead of generalities and bumper-sticker slogans?
-
"does well"=appears competent, rather than the train wreck she was in the Katie Couric interview.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
sorta, in as much as i'd feel i had been deprived of some expected entertainment. but it would certainly make the election very very interesting.
i'm not putting it past her (it's not as if the bar has been set very high for her), i love a good surprise, but what would constitute "does well" for palin? actually answering the question with a statement of fact or on-topic informed opinion, instead of generalities and bumper-sticker slogans?
-
i think she'll do ok. with debates people tend to see what they want and i think thats what we'll get here. i think the press and a good segment of the population smell blood in the water though
but yeah her not screwing up would be like a nascar race with no wrecks. same with joe, i suppose
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Will all of you be terribly disappointed if Palin actually does well tonight?
Honestly, yes. I'm hoping for a major embarrassment for the GOP, though it is unlikely we'll get it since these things are so scripted. [/b]
i think Palin will do pretty well because i dont think its in Biden's best interest to attack her. Biden should be focusing on McCain, not Palin.
Now, if Biden wanted to play dirty he could probably tear her apart, but there's the risk of him getting all excited and saying something stupid while doing so.
I predict Biden to attack McCain, Palin to say a bunch of shit we dont understand and CNN calls it a "draw". Obama will be 9 points ahead by next Tuesday.
I simply cant imagine what would cause Obama to lose this election right now.
-
What if he called McCain a slack jawed cripple and Palin a beady eyed mother of a slut?
Originally posted by very sonick:
I simply cant imagine what would cause Obama to lose this election right now.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What if he called McCain a slack jawed cripple and Palin a beady eyed mother of a slut?
Originally posted by very sonick:
I simply cant imagine what would cause Obama to lose this election right now.
[/b]
now thats some "straight talk"!!
-
i think the fact that hes black could cause him to lose the election.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
In an interview aired Tuesday on "The CBS Evening News," anchor Katie Couric asked Palin what publications she had read to stay informed and to understand the world.
"I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media," Palin replied. Asked for examples, she said, "Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years."
Asked again for an example, Palin told Couric: "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."
Wow. That's a series of statements worthy of W.
-
i read the internet and watch the news on tv to stay informed and understand the world. very few actual "publications"
-
that's not acceptable for a VP candidate. She couldn't come up with something? What about PEOPLE magazine?
Originally posted by manimtired:
i read the internet and watch the news on tv to stay informed and understand the world. very few actual "publications"
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i read the internet and watch the news on tv to stay informed and understand the world. very few actual "publications"
Have you seen this actual clip? It's painful to watch, like an episode of The Office or Curb Your Enthusiasm. How can you be an apologist for this candidate that is so very clearly WAY out of her depth?
I'd be pissed at my party for allowing such an unqualified person get the nod for VP, not blindly supporting her despite overwhelming evidence that the GOP screwed the pooch big time putting her in this position.
-
how was her not saying what papers she reads "out of her depth"?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think the fact that hes black could cause him to lose the election.
if obama does lose, you'd be right.
the missus is from kentucky, and she assured me the reason why clinton won the primary there - despite the fact that her campaign was sinking at the time and that locals despised her east-coast elitism - was because so people simply refused to vote for an african-american, no matter how unpalatable the alternative is.
it's still shocking to me that in this day, folks still fall back on such knee-jerk reactions. sad that we're still so far from MLK's dream.
Originally posted by manimtired:
i read the internet and watch the news on tv to stay informed and understand the world. very few actual "publications"
fine, then she could have said "i get my information online", and rattled off a few websites. and even you, an obviously techno-savvy individual, say "very few" - not "none". if pressed, i'll bet that you could some up with a newspaper or a mag that you flip through. it just points to either her lack of intellectual curiosity, or need to hide her true self. neither make for a good political leader, IMO.
-
so are the whites not voting for obama b/c he's black make this country racist or the blacks voting for obama b/c he is black make us racist? or both?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was her not saying what papers she reads "out of her depth"?
she should be able to answer softball questions
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was her not saying what papers she reads "out of her depth"?
Have you not been paying attention?
OK, forget the newpaper issue, and answer this one question. Do you honestly think this woman is qualified to be VP, or President?
-
i know a lot of white people voting for obama. Does that make them a traitor to their own race?
Originally posted by manimtired:
so are the whites not voting for obama b/c he's black make this country racist or the blacks voting for obama b/c he is black make us racist? or both?
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was her not saying what papers she reads "out of her depth"?
Have you not been paying attention?
OK, forget the newpaper issue, and answer this one question. Do you honestly think this woman is qualified to be VP, or President? [/b]
just as much so as obama the failed "community organizer" and short term senator.
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
i know a lot of white people voting for obama. Does that make them a traitor to their own race?
Originally posted by manimtired:
so are the whites not voting for obama b/c he's black make this country racist or the blacks voting for obama b/c he is black make us racist? or both?
[/b]
wat
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was her not saying what papers she reads "out of her depth"?
Have you not been paying attention?
OK, forget the newpaper issue, and answer this one question. Do you honestly think this woman is qualified to be VP, or President? [/b]
just as much so as obama the failed "community organizer" and short term senator. [/b]
It's a yes or no question. Please answer it.
-
yes
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was her not saying what papers she reads "out of her depth"?
she should be able to answer softball questions [/b]
especially one that's factual - either you read publications or you don't. if you do, name them. if you don't, say so.
best palin analogy i've heard recently: her answers were like "a high-schooler trying to BS her way through a book report for a book she didn't read".
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
yes
Well then god help us if your candidate wins.
-
i think palin has been advised to not give specifics . her advisors have handled her very poorly and i think she is just so afraid of that "gotcha" question at this point. do you honestly believe that the governor of alaska, and a former sports journalist, does not read any sort of news? i think the debate tonight will tell a lot if she strays away from the defensive stance shes been in and lets "loose" per say.
-
thank you chaz..i feel the same way about you.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think palin has been advised to not give specifics . her advisors have handled her very poorly and i think she is just so afraid of that "gotcha" question at this point. do you honestly believe that the governor of alaska, and a former sports journalist, does not read any sort of news? i think the debate tonight will tell a lot if she strays away from the defensive stance shes been in and lets "loose" per say.
As I inferred a few posts ago, or at least meant to, my conclusion that she is not fit to lead goes far beyond this gaffe with the newspaper question. But if you stand behind this lady, good for you. BTW, and I hate to be the one to tell you this, she's blowing this election for you and yours, and has become a laughingstock even among your own party (in much the way the wooden John Kerry was in '04).
-
glad to know you know so much about my own party. you'd think you guys won already.
-
Her Couric interview sounded like me when I've interviewed for a job I wasn't qualified for.
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was her not saying what papers she reads "out of her depth"?
she should be able to answer softball questions [/b]
especially one that's factual - either you read publications or you don't. if you do, name them. if you don't, say so.
best palin analogy i've heard recently: her answers were like "a high-schooler trying to BS her way through a book report for a book she didn't read". [/b]
-
surely you cant actually mean this stuff you are saying.
-
No, I actually have interviewed for jobs that I wasn't qualified for.
Originally posted by very sonick:
surely you cant actually mean this stuff you are saying.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
surely you cant actually mean this stuff you are saying.
i think the same of you sonick..i surely do.
-
whoops...double post
-
So who is coming to my Obama inauguration party?
McCain is pulling out of Michigan (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html?showall)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
surely you cant actually mean this stuff you are saying.
Please don't call him Shirley.
-
shirley is way better than "chaz"..if that is your real name. if so, do you own a jeep?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
So who is coming to my Obama inauguration party?
McCain is pulling out of Michigan (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html?showall)
there's a strategy that would've worked for that Palin girl's boyfriend....
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
shirley is way better than "chaz"..if that is your real name. if so, do you own a jeep?
Someone's getting testy.......
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
shirley is way better than "chaz"..if that is your real name. if so, do you own a jeep?
i bet manimtired would whip all of our butts in a "your momma" joke contest.
-
you dont think the name chaz has a "bro/jock" feel to it? really?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think she is just so afraid of that "gotcha" question at this point.
the problem is, at this point anything beyond "how are you today?" is potentially a gotcha question.
i must admit, you gotta admire GOP strategists. candidate can't deal with simple questions? re-brand the questions as "gotchas" - problem solved! it's all a media conspiracy to put words in her mouth! she's trying to answer in vague generalities, and they're cornering her into actually answering the question.
because i can't link enough to this article: What it's like to debate Sarah Palin (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1001/p09s01-coop.htm).
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you honestly believe that the governor of alaska, and a former sports journalist, does not read any sort of news?
i know, that would be like saying that the former governor of texas doesn't read newspapers... oh, wait. FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by callat703:
So who is coming to my Obama inauguration party?
McCain is pulling out of Michigan (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_pulling_out_of_Michigan.html?showall)
there's a strategy that would've worked for that Palin girl's boyfriend.... [/b]
POTW
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you dont think the name chaz has a "bro/jock" feel to it? really?
not that this is of any relevance, but not really. a lot of my friends over the years have called me Chaz (my real name is Charlie, fyi) and i'm far from being a "bro\jock", and I'm sure they would not characterize me as such.
it's a screen name. get over it. now let's get back to talking about what a bafoon your candidate is for choosing such an unqualified running mate.
-
sorry chaz. would you say biden is more qualified to be president than obama?
-
by about 1,000 times, yes. in fact, i think he might be more capable than Obama.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
sorry chaz. would you say biden is more qualified to be president than obama?
From a standpoint of experince probably yes. From an electability standpoint, no.
-
so obama is just an empty suit capable of giving a good speech to get elected. i hear ya..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
so obama is just an empty suit capable of giving a good speech to get elected. i hear ya..
Yes that's exactly what i'm saying!
You're funny.
-
lol
-
rotflmao!
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
by about 1,000 times, yes. in fact, i think he might be more capable than Obama.
i misread, Biden is more capable than Palin by 1,000 times, and maybe more than Obama.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
so obama is just an empty suit capable of giving a good speech to get elected. i hear ya..
hey, man. for the last 8 years we had an empty suit that sucked at giving speeches so at least we're improving a little!!!
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by very sonick:
by about 1,000 times, yes. in fact, i think he might be more capable than Obama.
i misread, Biden is more capable than Palin by 1,000 times, and maybe more than Obama. [/b]
and why is obama qualified again?
-
the same reason W was qualified.
-
Originally posted by xneverwherex:
the same reason W was qualified.
um..ya. go on...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by very sonick:
by about 1,000 times, yes. in fact, i think he might be more capable than Obama.
i misread, Biden is more capable than Palin by 1,000 times, and maybe more than Obama. [/b]
and why is obama qualified again? [/b]
Well for starters, he's got a familiarity and command of the issues faced by the US (unlike Palin) but this should hardly be considered a qualification...or should it?
Civil Rights Lawyer
8 years in Illinois senate
3 years as a U.S senator
Opposed Iraq war from the start
Supports tax cuts for working americans, not money grubbing corporations.
Promote changes to NAFTA to keep jobs in US and increase environmental protections
That's enough for me, though I could go on.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
[Well for starters, he's got a familiarity and command of the issues faced by the US (unlike Palin) but this should hardly be considered a qualification...or should it?
Civil Rights Lawyer
8 years in Illinois senate
3 years as a U.S senator
Opposed Iraq war from the start
Supports tax cuts for working americans, not money grubbing corporations.
Promote changes to NAFTA to keep jobs in US and increase environmental protections
That's enough for me, though I could go on.
dude! youre supposed to answer a question with a question
-
actually, he's more qualified: he knows how washington works, he's met foreign leaders, he's negotiated, he's participated in the creation of federal laws - NOT UNLIKE MCCAIN. has obama been doing it since dinosaurs roamed the earth? no. does mccain have more experience? certainly. but i just can't see how barack is UNqualified. was he not born in the US?
deep down inside, i wonder if right wingnuts really believe the "obama isn't qualified" argument. they obviously don't like obama for various reasons but can't really nail him for anything, but somehow the "he's not qualified" routine has stuck. let's not forget he also wants to teach sex education in kindergarten, right?
<img src="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-sarah-palin-empty-chair-gotcha-question.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
using that logic any senator is qualified to be president. too bad the hardly ever get elected. so it seems a lot of people dont agree with you.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by very sonick:
by about 1,000 times, yes. in fact, i think he might be more capable than Obama.
i misread, Biden is more capable than Palin by 1,000 times, and maybe more than Obama. [/b]
and why is obama qualified again? [/b]
If I were allowed to vote, I would consider qualified not necessarily by things they have done, but things I believe them capable of doing.
First off, I share a lot of his liberal viewpoints on economy, jobs and healthcare. I believe he himself is more in touch with how to get America's economny globalized without necessarily just sending all jobs elsewhere.
Secondly, I think he is vastly more intelligent than McCain and will be able to choose a competent cabinet and other appointed officials.
and besides qualifications, i cant stand social conservatism, Obama seems to be much less of a douche and i think other countries leaders will be more receptive of him.
I realize i have given much more of a detailed response than you are capable of manimtired, but i will end with this...
if you were going to apply for a new job, would you apply for one in which you already knew how to do or one you wanted to prove you could?
-
8 years state senate...LOL
3 years in senate...LOL
and tax cuts! lets see what your taxes look like if he gets elected.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
using that logic any senator is qualified to be president. too bad the hardly ever get elected. so it seems a lot of people dont agree with you.
using your logic we won't have a new president at all, seeing as they are both senators.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by very sonick:
by about 1,000 times, yes. in fact, i think he might be more capable than Obama.
i misread, Biden is more capable than Palin by 1,000 times, and maybe more than Obama. [/b]
and why is obama qualified again? [/b]
If I were allowed to vote, I would consider qualified not necessarily by things they have done, but things I believe them capable of doing.
thats right youre canadian and think canada is a superior country to the US..makes sense.
First off, I share a lot of his liberal viewpoints on economy, jobs and healthcare. I believe he himself is more in touch with how to get America's economny globalized without necessarily just sending all jobs elsewhere.
Secondly, I think he is vastly more intelligent than McCain and will be able to choose a competent cabinet and other appointed officials.
and besides qualifications, i cant stand social conservatism, Obama seems to be much less of a douche and i think other countries leaders will be more receptive of him.
I realize i have given much more of a detailed response than you are capable of manimtired, but i will end with this...
if you were going to apply for a new job, would you apply for one in which you already knew how to do or one you wanted to prove you could? [/b]
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
deep down inside, i wonder if right wingnuts really believe the "obama isn't qualified" argument. they obviously don't like obama for various reasons but can't really nail him for anything, but somehow the "he's not qualified" routine has stuck.
i know why and it makes me think of Blazing Saddles when everyone was like "our new sheriff is a niiiii"
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
using that logic any senator is qualified to be president. too bad the hardly ever get elected. so it seems a lot of people dont agree with you.
using your logic we won't have a new president at all, seeing as they are both senators. [/b]
im not even responding to this..
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
deep down inside, i wonder if right wingnuts really believe the "obama isn't qualified" argument. they obviously don't like obama for various reasons but can't really nail him for anything, but somehow the "he's not qualified" routine has stuck.
i know why and it makes me think of Blazing Saddles when everyone was like "our new sheriff is a niiiii" [/b]
and the racist card is played.
-
manimtired is even better at answering questiosn than Palin...i think he responded to me, but he must have gone to the McCain school of HTML and it got lost in my quote.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
deep down inside, i wonder if right wingnuts really believe the "obama isn't qualified" argument. they obviously don't like obama for various reasons but can't really nail him for anything, but somehow the "he's not qualified" routine has stuck.
i know why and it makes me think of Blazing Saddles when everyone was like "our new sheriff is a niiiii" [/b]
and the racist card is played. [/b]
oh thats your card, sorry! mr. "obama wont win because he's black"
and i believe its the "race card" genius.
-
you got me sonic. crazy internet.
can you also spell out to us why you believe canada is superior to the united states...go on..
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
using that logic any senator is qualified to be president. too bad the hardly ever get elected. so it seems a lot of people dont agree with you.
using your logic we won't have a new president at all, seeing as they are both senators. [/b]
actually mccain is MORE of a senator so less likely to be elected
-
is there a difference between the two cards? did you not infer that such people are racists??
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you got me sonic. crazy internet.
can you also spell out to us why you believe canada is superior to the united states...go on..
when you can quote me saying that.
-
you dont believe that?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
using that logic any senator is qualified to be president. too bad the hardly ever get elected. so it seems a lot of people dont agree with you.
using your logic we won't have a new president at all, seeing as they are both senators. [/b]
im not even responding to this.. [/b]
that's your best post today.
-
LOL..chaz.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you dont believe that?
no i dont. why do you think i live here you dumb shit!
-
also..do all canadians get pissed if you attempt to bring a flask into a rock n roll show? sonic...
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
you dont believe that?
no i dont. why do you think i live here you dumb shit! [/b]
b/c canada sucks? at least we agree on something.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
is there a difference between the two cards? did you not infer that such people are racists??
i inferred the same thing that you did. that some of them are.
you arent now denying saying that Obama wouldn't win because he was black are you?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
you dont believe that?
no i dont. why do you think i live here you dumb shit! [/b]
b/c canada sucks? at least we agree on something. [/b]
no we agree on nothing. I believe both countries have great benefits and curious downfalls. why do i feel like i am talking to Sawyer from Lost?
-
no..i was saying that i feel the fact that over 90% of black people voting for him might be b/c he's black.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no..i was saying that i feel the fact that over 90% of black people voting for him might be b/c he's black.
nooooooo what the hell are you talking about
this is what you said
"i think the fact that hes black could cause him to lose the election."
-
oh...that was another post where i said the thing about 90% of blacks voting for him...
ya..i'll say racism works both ways. do you think race ways heavily with that whole 90% of blacks voting for him. this would make it seem to me that the dems are relying more on the whole "race card".
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
oh...that was another post where i said the thing about 90% of blacks voting for him...
ya..i'll say racism works both ways. do you think race ways heavily with that whole 90% of blacks voting for him. this would make it seem to me that the dems are relying more on the whole "race card".
if you actually think 90% of african americans are even going to go out and vote next month...then you should be aware that McCain might not get 100 electoral votes, right?
if you can give me a real number difference between the blacks voting for Obama solely on race and the white voting for McCain solely on Obama's race than i'll believe you , until then i believe its about even.
-
alright..aure. time to go home. its been fun once again.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
deep down inside, i wonder if right wingnuts really believe the "obama isn't qualified" argument. they obviously don't like obama for various reasons but can't really nail him for anything, but somehow the "he's not qualified" routine has stuck.
i know why and it makes me think of Blazing Saddles when everyone was like "our new sheriff is a niiiii" [/b]
and in other news, did you know that obama is a muslim terrorist? it's true! he's an unqualified muslim terrorist who wants to teach sex ed in kindergarten!!! thank god we have palin to straight-talk us back from the brink. Originally posted by manimtired:
im not even responding to this..
because you can't - you got owned.
-
you got me..i didnt know he was a senator. so owned. PJ dude. you totally got the point.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you got me sonic. crazy internet.
can you also spell out to us why you believe canada is superior to the united states...go on..
well i will say canada's comedians are far superior than anything the US will ever have. Kids in the Hall. Need I say more! oh wait also the greatest sport. Hockey. Obviously Palin lives in the wrong country, we all know its not an American sport.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs)
-
(I'm so excited to be going to Kentucky next weekend)
-
Originally posted by Samantha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wroj0FLvzs)
can someone please explain to me what the dude says @ 1:50?!? the man is channeling boomhauer!
kentucky is beautiful, have fun!
-
stay on the coasts!!!! everyone is like that in middle america!!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
stay on the coasts!!!! everyone is like that in middle america!!
your ignorance is showing again.
-
so is your wittiness. PJ.
-
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
so is your wittiness. PJ.
my wittiness is as obvious as your ignorance? awesome.
what's with the "PJ"? am i being compared to pearl jam? i don't get it.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by manimtired:
so is your wittiness. PJ.
my wittiness is as obvious as your ignorance? awesome.
what's with the "PJ"? am i being compared to pearl jam? i don't get it. [/b]
you're not THAT witty, sweetie.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by manimtired:
so is your wittiness. PJ.
my wittiness is as obvious as your ignorance? awesome.
what's with the "PJ"? am i being compared to pearl jam? i don't get it. [/b]
<img src="http://www.seatwave.com/FileStore/SEASON/IMAGE/pj-harvey_000816_MainPicture.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
While reading about Republicans against Maverick McCain - I came across this article written by one Pat Buchanan. My favorite part is where he voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg (assuming Buchanan has his facts straight).
http://republicansagainstmaverickmccain.com/our_mission.php (http://republicansagainstmaverickmccain.com/our_mission.php) - my new favorite blog
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/01/pjb-why-mccain-would-be-worse-than-bush/ (http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/01/pjb-why-mccain-would-be-worse-than-bush/)
January 25, 2008
PJB: Why McCain Would be Worse Than Bush
by Patrick J. Buchanan
In 2004, the voters of Arizona, by 56 percent to 44 percent, enacted Proposition 200, requiring proof of citizenship before an individual may vote or receive state benefits. Forty-six percent of Hispanics voted for Prop. 200, giving the lie to those who say Hispanics support the illegal invasion of their country.
Over 190,000 Arizonans petitioned to put Prop. 200 on the ballot. As it simply required proof of citizenship before receiving the benefits and privileges of citizenship, who could oppose it? Answer: the entire GOP congressional delegation, led by Sen. John McCain.
This is the same John McCain who battled the border fence and colluded with Teddy Kennedy on the amnesty bill rejected by Congress last year after a national uproar.
Bottom line: If the presidential race is between Hillary and Amnesty John, the border security battle is over and lost. As Laura Ingraham asks, ??If Congress passes McCain-Kennedy in 2009, would President McCain sign it??
For conservatives, the stakes could not be higher.
For on the great controversies, McCain has sided as often with the Democrats and the Big Media that pay him court as with conservatives.
Where President Bush has been bravest, on taxes and judges, McCain has been his nemesis. Not only did McCain vote against the Bush tax cuts twice, he colluded to sell out the most conservative of the Bush nominees to the courts.
In 1993, McCain voted to confirm ACLU liberal and pro-abortion Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But when Bush set out to restore constitutionalism, McCain colluded with Democrats who wanted to retain power to kill Bush??s most conservative nominees.
McCain helped form the Gang of 14, including seven Democrats, who agreed to block a GOP Senate from using the ??nuclear option? ?? allowing a simple GOP majority to break a Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees ?? unless the seven Democrats approved. McCain thus conspired with liberals to put at risk the most courageous conservatives nominees of President Bush.
With his record of voting for liberal justices Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and of colluding with Democrats in their campaign to kill the most conservative Bush nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain will nominate and fight for the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
In the battle over campaign finance reform, McCain colluded again. The McCain-Feingold law denies to gun folks and right-to-lifers their basic First Amendment right to name friends and foes in ads run before elections.
As for the policies that have transparently failed Bush and the nation, McCain remains an obdurate advocate.
After America has run five straight record trade deficits that have denuded the nation of thousands of factories and 3 million manufacturing jobs, McCain is still babbling on about Smoot-Hawley.
??When you study history, every time we??ve adopted protectionism, we??ve paid a very heavy price,? McCain told a Detroit paper after informing Michiganders their auto jobs are never coming back.
But what history is John McCain talking about?
Was the Tariff of 1816, which saved infant U.S. industries from the malicious dumping by British merchants after the War of 1812, a failure? Were Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, John Calhoun and Henry Clay fools to support President Madison??s tariff?
From Abraham Lincoln through Calvin Coolidge, the Republican Party ?? the Party of Protection ?? put 12 presidents in the White House to two for the Democrats, and the United States became the mightiest industrial power in history, producing 42 percent of the world??s manufactured goods.
This is failure ?? while Bush free trade is a success? Tell it to Ohio.
Even Hillary Clinton, whose husband enacted NAFTA with McCain??s support, has begun to question the NAFTA paradigm. Not McCain.
Where Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon came to office determined to extricate the nation with honor from a war whose costs had begun to outweigh any benefit, McCain is talking about spending 50 or 100 years in Iraq.
Where Bush, by moving NATO onto Russia??s doorstep, planting bases in Central Asia and intervening in the affairs of Russia??s neighbors, has undone the work of Reagan in making Russia a friend, he sounds like George McGovern alongside the braying McCain, who can??t wait to get into Vladimir Putin??s face.
Where Bush finally cleansed his administration of neocons, if not of their legacy, a McCain candidacy is the last, best hope of a neocon restoration and new military adventures in the Middle East.
If Rudy Giuliani founders in Florida, neocons will be chanting, ??Mac is back!?
The three issues that ruined the Bush presidency are this misbegotten war in Iraq, the failure to secure America??s borders from invasion and a mindless trade policy that has destroyed the dollar and left foreigners with $5 trillion to buy up America at fire-sale prices.
McCain remains an unthinking advocate of all three.
But where Bush was at his best, on taxes and judges, McCain was collaborating with Hillary. The question conservatives may face if McCain is nominated is not whom should I vote for, but should I vote.
-
from a Vivian Girls gig...not sure if they were actually the ones who sold them (maybe someone else on the bill)
<img src="http://www.makemajormoves.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/dangerdangergallery_03.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Russian reaction to Sarah Palin and the GOP ticket. They pretty much nail it and I find no reason to believe the international community at large would feel any different.
link (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/sais/nexteurope/2008/10/russians_palin_who.html)
-
i like this one from as well from the post...
This, McCain and his female Sancho Panza say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago, such as with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist. But the McCain-Palin charges have come just as the Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed.
In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seems surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep."
George Will
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100802926.html)
-
i'm assuming some policy wonk/DC insider here will know the answers to this: do US senators have to undergo any sort of background check? they have access to info that would require security clearance- do they need to get one before taking office?
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
i'm assuming some policy wonk/DC insider here will know the answers to this: do US senators have to undergo any sort of background check? they have access to info that would require security clearance- do they need to get one before taking office?
No. I'm sure they get this clearance after being elected, but there is not a requirement that they be able to pass a background check as other federal or state employees might undergo.
-
Heh, Chaz, thank you for posting that, I was wondering what the Russians thought of Palin's inanity. Putin himself must be rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of America's intellectual and leadership stature becoming so thoroughly debased if she wins.
Sweetcell, a background check might be required for members of Congress to view classified information, but to require such a check just to hold office would be unconstitutional. Most Congressmen and Senators don't access this information anyway, you have to sit on certain committees and be of certain stature.
-
palin rally at its finest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U54xJFEOzk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U54xJFEOzk)
and the church:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-09/new-footage-from-inside-palins-church/#gallery=12;page=1 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-09/new-footage-from-inside-palins-church/#gallery=12;page=1)
-
for julian:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93PPVH81 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h21ZbzgPbTVRftcJPT5vkHkonY5QD93PPVH81)
-
LOL...
-
this is why you don't put political signs in your yard:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/09/america/toronto.php (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/09/america/toronto.php)
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Heh, Chaz, thank you for posting that, I was wondering what the Russians thought of Palin
<img src="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-vladimir-putin-sarah-come-back-alaska-live-sigh.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
maybe they should just leave this seat empty (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5997043&page=1).
-
Another great nugget:
While McCain unveiled a new campaign speech Monday, his running mate stuck largely to her usual script -- devoting nearly as much time to discussing the special needs of her son Trig, the need to expand drilling for oil and natural gas, and reforming Washington as to McCain's economic plan.
The crowd waited for hours for Palin to arrive and chanted "No-bama!" and "We want Fox!" in the run-up to her speech.
The crowd was so large that some supporters standing far back from the stage began chanting "Louder, louder!" midway through Palin's speech after she had paid homage to military veterans in the crowd.
Palin, who assumed they were protesters, said in response to the chants, "I hope those protesters have the courage and honor to give veterans thanks for their right to protest."
-
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/oct/13/cause-divorce-et-father-names-baby-sarah-mccain-pa/?partner=RSS (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/oct/13/cause-divorce-et-father-names-baby-sarah-mccain-pa/?partner=RSS)
ELIZABETHTON, Tenn. ?? A new father has secretly named his baby girl Sarah McCain Palin after the Republican ticket for president and vice president.
Mark Ciptak of Elizabethton put that name on the documents for the girl??s birth certificate, ignoring the name Ava Grace, which he and his wife had picked earlier.
??I don??t think she believes me yet,? he told the Kingsport Times-News for a story to be published Tuesday. ??It??s going to take some more convincing.?
Ciptak, a blood bank employee for the American Red Cross, said he named his third child after John McCain and Sarah Palin to ??to get the word out? about the campaign.
??I took one for the cause,? he said. ??I can??t give a lot of financial support for the (McCain/Palin) campaign. I do have a sign up in my yard, but I can do very little.?
-
that's almost as good as the people in england who named their brat metallica.
-
<img src="http://www.slowpokecomics.com/uploaded_images/hussein_sign-705571.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3291/2943833750_eb8343533c_o.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
could someone explain to me what is the point of fake voter registrations (some as ridiculous as "Donald Duck")? it's not names on the list that gets you elected, it's votes. one needs to show government ID to get to vote. having donald duck on the voters list is pointless unless you have someone with a driver's license that says he's donald duck.
only advantage that comes to mind is public perception: hoping to "psych out" the other side with huge pre-election numbers & making them feel the election is a foregone conclusion, in hopes that they don't bother showing up on Nov 4. maybe. but otherwise, you're just hurting your cause with registration fraud.
am i missing something? just seems stupid and irresponsible, not to mention illegal and reprehensible.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15biracial.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15biracial.html)
an excerpt:
??He??s going to tear up the rose bushes and plant a watermelon patch,? said James Halsey, chuckling, while standing in the Wal-Mart parking lot with fellow workers in the environmental cleanup business. ??I just don??t think we??ll ever have a black president.?
-
Weird...I wonder what Mankie was doing in Mobile, Alabama?
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15biracial.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15biracial.html)
an excerpt:
??He??s going to tear up the rose bushes and plant a watermelon patch,? said James Halsey, chuckling, while standing in the Wal-Mart parking lot with fellow workers in the environmental cleanup business. ??I just don??t think we??ll ever have a black president.?
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
could someone explain to me what is the point of fake voter registrations (some as ridiculous as "Donald Duck")? it's not names on the list that gets you elected, it's votes. one needs to show government ID to get to vote. having donald duck on the voters list is pointless unless you have someone with a driver's license that says he's donald duck.
only advantage that comes to mind is public perception: hoping to "psych out" the other side with huge pre-election numbers & making them feel the election is a foregone conclusion, in hopes that they don't bother showing up on Nov 4. maybe. but otherwise, you're just hurting your cause with registration fraud.
am i missing something? just seems stupid and irresponsible, not to mention illegal and reprehensible.
it sounds like someone filling out the form as a joke. if you were doing something systemically at least make it a plausible name. like you say its not really voter fraud unless someone shows up and tries to vote under an incorrect name. in most states groups like acorn are required to turn in all of their forms including the obviously suspicious ones
i still think john mccain should stop palling around (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Acorn_pushes_back_hugs_McCain.html) with these people though
-
didn't you hear ACORN is old news.... it's been replaced by Jesse Jackson suggesting Obama is going to fundamentally change US policy towards Israel... of course Jackson doesn't advise or speak for Obama's, but none of that's important to the McCain campaign...
-
how much palling around has been done
-
So is anyone considering bumping up their retirement contributions now that stocks can be had at a relatively low price?
-
yes. thinking about fishing around for some undervalued stocks to hold for 3+ years
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
So is anyone considering bumping up their retirement contributions now that stocks can be had at a relatively low price?
everyone better be. its a great time to invest!
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
could someone explain to me what is the point of fake voter registrations (some as ridiculous as "Donald Duck")? it's not names on the list that gets you elected, it's votes. one needs to show government ID to get to vote. having donald duck on the voters list is pointless unless you have someone with a driver's license that says he's donald duck.
am i missing something? just seems stupid and irresponsible, not to mention illegal and reprehensible.
ive never once shown an ID to vote in NYC. I just tell them my name, and sign on a line and they match it up against my signature. I cant remember the explanation I got about why I didnt need ID, but thats cool with me. I always wondered what they'd say when I pulled out a Virginia driver's license, even tho Im registered to vote in New York.
-
Just following up on this story (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081015/D93QN0K00.html):
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - A married congressman who faces accusations that he had an affair with a former aide and paid her to keep quiet about it also was having an affair with a second woman around the same time, a person close to his campaign told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
.....
Mahoney, 52, won his seat in 2006 while promising to return morals and family values to Washington in the aftermath of the resignation of former Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Foley. Foley stepped down when it was revealed he sent lurid Internet messages to male teenage pages who had worked on Capitol Hill. Foley was later cleared of criminal wrongdoing by state and federal authorities.
-
I'm guessing ACORN is going to be what bitter right-wingers spend the next eight years bleating about to no avail, kinda like they spent the Clinton years bitching about Whitewater and Vince Foster and wondering why nobody cared.
-
blow out.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111124/Gallup-Daily-Likely-Voters-Traditional.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111124/Gallup-Daily-Likely-Voters-Traditional.aspx)
-
I'd like a blow out, but as long as THAT ONE wins I'm happy! :)
The 8-year era of ignorance and religious superstition is almost over...
-
edgy post
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
blow out.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111124/Gallup-Daily-Likely-Voters-Traditional.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111124/Gallup-Daily-Likely-Voters-Traditional.aspx)
yet on the same site
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111121/Gallup-Daily-Likely-Voters-Expanded.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111121/Gallup-Daily-Likely-Voters-Expanded.aspx)
-
wow... powerful pro-choice/anti-Palin ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IS0PJdE0Cs)
-
Will Ohio disenfranchise thousands on technicalities? (http://www.wearevotingyes.com/2008/10/voter-registration-ridiculousness-how.html)
UPDATED with census data.
-
when is the release date of Nailin' Paylin?? LOL
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
could someone explain to me what is the point of fake voter registrations
apparently, part of the answer lies in the fact that some voter registrars were paid based on the number of votes they bring in. instead of hitting the pavement, they sit at home and fill in form after form with fake names.
so it's not a huge left-wing conspiracy to stuff the ballot boxes, it's some shmoe's getting paid while not doing his job. one would have hoped that there was some sort of quality control, tho... if hundreds of forms have the exact same signature, you'd think someone should notice that before they bring them to the elections committee.
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
when is the release date of Nailin' Paylin?? LOL
obama passed up the chance to tap it last night... such a gentlemen is he :D
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
such a gentlemen is he :D
what is it with obama and the yoda-talk?!?
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
could someone explain to me what is the point of fake voter registrations
apparently, part of the answer lies in the fact that some voter registrars were paid based on the number of votes they bring in. instead of hitting the pavement, they sit at home and fill in form after form with fake names.
so it's not a huge left-wing conspiracy to stuff the ballot boxes, it's some shmoe's getting paid while not doing his job. one would have hoped that there was some sort of quality control, tho... if hundreds of forms have the exact same signature, you'd think someone should notice that before they bring them to the elections committee. [/b]
I don't know why this isn't plainly obvious to anyone who bothers to ponder this for a moment. Do they really think some schmuck is going to stroll into the local polling place and say "I'm Mickey Mouse and I'm here to vote!"
-
i wonder how many of those fake registrations were republican?
-
WashPost endorses Obama. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
-
It's pretty suspicious that last night McCain brings up ACORN and today the FBI announces an investigation.
If ACORN were actually endeavoring to commit fraud, one would imagine they wouldn't be using obviously fake names, but rather real-sounding names. It seems more likely that Republican operatives trying to sabotage voter registration would submit names like "Mickey Mouse."
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
If ACORN were actually endeavoring to commit fraud, one would imagine they wouldn't be using obviously fake names, but rather real-sounding names. It seems more likely that Republican operatives trying to sabotage voter registration would submit names like "Mickey Mouse."
Well, ACORN canvassers actually did register the entire roster of the Dallas Cowboys in Las Vegas; those are all real-sounding names. ACORN actually registered a real 8 year old girl in Connecticut. ACORN actually registered the same guy 73 times.
Maybe it's the same people who used the names "Doodad Pro" and ??Jgtj Jfggjjfgj? to donate (http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/FEC_Should_Begin_Obama_Audit_Now.html) to the Obama campaign (http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403).
-
the washington post endorsed obama??????!!!!!! who next the new york times???!!!!
-
Oh, right. The liberal media and all that.
-
go on...
-
it's a "gotcha" endorsement.
-
<img src="http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/426/joetheplumber.gif" alt=" - " />
a screenshot from one of mccain's latest ads...
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV8uEzGuvfc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV8uEzGuvfc)
-
As I've said, the Republicans spent 8 years during the Clinton Administration indignantly bleating about Whitewater, Travelgate, and other made-up "outrages." This ACORN stuff tells me they've already shifted into sore loser mode, and this is what we're going to be hearing from them for the next 8 years... while the rest of the country moves on.
Really looking forward to freeing this country from the clutches of the beady-eyed, willfully ignorant, religiously superstitious republican "base."
-
So would you say that the Democrats have been in sore loser mode for the last eight years? Or is it only possible for Republicans to be sore losers?
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
As I've said, the Republicans spent 8 years during the Clinton Administration indignantly bleating about Whitewater, Travelgate, and other made-up "outrages." This ACORN stuff tells me they've already shifted into sore loser mode, and this is what we're going to be hearing from them for the next 8 years... while the rest of the country moves on.
Really looking forward to freeing this country from the clutches of the beady-eyed, willfully ignorant, religiously superstitious republican "base."
-
Um, I might remind you that the Democrats did not lose the 2000 election.
-
um, they did. get over it.
-
ur dum
-
i dont remember al gore being president. when was this?
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
So would you say that the Democrats have been in sore loser mode for the last eight years? Or is it only possible for Republicans to be sore losers?
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
As I've said, the Republicans spent 8 years during the Clinton Administration indignantly bleating about Whitewater, Travelgate, and other made-up "outrages." This ACORN stuff tells me they've already shifted into sore loser mode, and this is what we're going to be hearing from them for the next 8 years... while the rest of the country moves on.
Really looking forward to freeing this country from the clutches of the beady-eyed, willfully ignorant, religiously superstitious republican "base."
[/b]
Damn right the dems have been in sore loser mode for the last 7+ years....look at what they did to the financial state of the country to get back at us.....
-
Originally posted by Ever Circling Skeletal Family:
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
So would you say that the Democrats have been in sore loser mode for the last eight years? Or is it only possible for Republicans to be sore losers?
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
As I've said, the Republicans spent 8 years during the Clinton Administration indignantly bleating about Whitewater, Travelgate, and other made-up "outrages." This ACORN stuff tells me they've already shifted into sore loser mode, and this is what we're going to be hearing from them for the next 8 years... while the rest of the country moves on.
Really looking forward to freeing this country from the clutches of the beady-eyed, willfully ignorant, religiously superstitious republican "base."
[/b]
Damn right the dems have been in sore loser mode for the last 7+ years....look at what they did to the financial state of the country to get back at us..... [/b]
POTW :D
-
In response to a third-grader's question, "What does the Vice President do??
Palin
"[T]hey??re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom," she said.
later
Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for Palin, said the Alaska governor was simply answering the question in a way a third-grader could understand.
"Governor Palin was responding to a third grader's inquiry," she said. "She was explaining in terms a third-grader could understand that the vice-president is also president of the U.S. Senate."
-
maybe another $150k in clothes (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14805.html) will help
-
this video is pretty interesting, it seems that there are a couple of tolerant pro McCain republicans...
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/20/this-room-feels-like-its-going-to-explode-2/ (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/20/this-room-feels-like-its-going-to-explode-2/)
-
Originally posted by lagas:
this video is pretty interesting, it seems that there are a couple of tolerant pro McCain republicans...
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/20/this-room-feels-like-its-going-to-explode-2/ (http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/20/this-room-feels-like-its-going-to-explode-2/)
i dont even see a "couple" of tolerant people in this clip! i love manhattan.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI)
-
What's the difference between Sarah Palin's vagina and Sarah Palin's mouth?
-
energy!
-
Earlier today I saw a photo of Palin wearing a bandana type scarf around her neck. (Sorry, not in a format I can easily post a link to here.) It was a red, white and blue scarf with the word 'vote' and lots of jackasses all over it...further proving my theory that there is absolutely no real difference between either party. As funny as that is now, I know we will all be crying and bitching a whole lot later regardless of which ass clown and their side-kick wins.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What's the difference between Sarah Palin's vagina and Sarah Palin's mouth?
Yahoo! Answers™ knows (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081021111122AAXHR7I).
so wrong.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i dont remember al gore being president. when was this?
he said Gore won the election.
-
not with electoral votes. get over it
-
<img src="http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/10/18/128688276033086173.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
way to go after those undecided voters johnny boy...
John McCain lashed out at President Bush's record on a host of issues Wednesday, perhaps the Arizona senator's harshest criticism to date of his party's standard-bearer for the last eight years.
"Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously," McCain told the Washington Times when asked to name his criticisms of the current president.
"Those are just some of them," McCain said, laughing.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
way to go after those undecided voters johnny boy...
John McCain lashed out at President Bush's record on a host of issues Wednesday, perhaps the Arizona senator's harshest criticism to date of his party's standard-bearer for the last eight years.
"Spending, the conduct of the war in Iraq for years, growth in the size of government, larger than any time since the Great Society, laying a $10 trillion debt on future generations of America, owing $500 billion to China, obviously, failure to both enforce and modernize the [financial] regulatory agencies that were designed for the 1930s and certainly not for the 21st century, failure to address the issue of climate change seriously," McCain told the Washington Times when asked to name his criticisms of the current president.
"Those are just some of them," McCain said, laughing.
Its just a shame that there weren't real Mavericks like John McCain in Washington to stand up to these policies he now criticizes. This guy will say or do anything to get elected.
-
speaking on undecided voters...
I think anyone who hasnt decided yet, is lazy or theres something wrong with them. What exactly are these people waiting for to happen? Do you think some crazy thing is going to happen the week before? Are you really planning on maybe deciding on who to vote for based on a media gaffe on November 2nd?
By now, everyone should have read up, watched up, whatevered up on the candidates. No ones going to make any policy changes now!
And for those saying, "I just want to see if anyone makes a big last minute mistake" well , i dont think that makes you undecided.
Anyone claiming to be "undecided" at this point is just being difficult.
-
the best part about all of this is the Obama campaign doesn't really need to make Palin an issue, because McCain provides plenty of fodder on his own to take issue with.
anyone watch the incredible painful interview with McCain and Palin last night? McCain was about to burst a blood vessel over the Libermann quote about how new presidents are tested... and Palin clearly has no idea what she's talking just witness her answer on pre-conditions...
-
Wow a real meeting of the minds here...
View co-host hitting the trail
Posted: 12:52 PM ET
Hasselbeck is set to hit the campaign trail.
(CNN) ?? Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the lone conservative on the daytime talk-show "The View," is set to campaign with Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin this weekend.
Hasselbeck, who often clashes with her co-hosts over the presidential election, said Thursday the Alaska governor had asked her to participate in a weekend rally in Florida.
"Governor Palin asked me to be with her this Sunday to introduce her at the rallies in Florida and I am more than honored to be there," Hasselbeck said. "So I will be flying there to travel with her and meet some pretty interesting people, I have a feeling. So that's an honor, I am excited to do it, and I'll have some stories on Monday."
Palin is set to campaign in Iowa, Indiana, and Florida this weekend.
Hasselbeck has engaged in repeated arguments with co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, and Sherri Shepherd on-air over the presidential candidates, especially after the show's unexpectedly hard-hitting interview with John McCain last month.
-
hahahah
why didnt mccain just pick hasselsack for his running mate? she's hotter
-
at least palins still out campaigning...they had to pull bidens ass off so he wouldnt say anymore stupid shit. can you imagine if palin thought jobs was a 3 letter word? oh you guys would have been lolin'
-
I don't think she's undecided....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4wQfQtpDAc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4wQfQtpDAc)
-
maybe they should get jessica alba to help biden
-
Of course they still have Palin out there campaigning precisely because she DOES say stupid shit. And her dumb fans eat it right up.
Originally posted by manimtired:
at least palins still out campaigning...they had to pull bidens ass off so he wouldnt say anymore stupid shit. can you imagine if palin thought jobs was a 3 letter word? oh you guys would have been lolin'
-
ummm...ya.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
at least palins still out campaigning...they had to pull bidens ass off so he wouldnt say anymore stupid shit. can you imagine if palin thought jobs was a 3 letter word? oh you guys would have been lolin'
huh?
-
Looks like Biden is out there to me.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/joe-biden/ (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/joe-biden/)
Rush Limbaugh must have been putting out incorrect info to Manimtired.
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
at least palins still out campaigning...they had to pull bidens ass off so he wouldnt say anymore stupid shit. can you imagine if palin thought jobs was a 3 letter word? oh you guys would have been lolin'
huh? [/b]
-
he was pulled for two days after his "he'll be tested" remark. guess he needed a little guidance on how not to spout remarkably stupid shit before getting back out there. carry on....JOBS!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
he was pulled for two days after his "he'll be tested" remark. guess he needed a little guidance on how not to spout remarkably stupid shit before getting back out there. carry on....JOBS!
stupid shit like "My Fellow Prisoners" John McCain 10/8/08 Allentown, PA.
-
57 states...we can go on like this...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
57 states...we can go on like this...
you are like , the most tired poster any messageboard has ever seen. my 5 year old nephew text messages me with more interesting thoughts.
-
you just cannot grasp context.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
at least palins still out campaigning...they had to pull bidens ass off so he wouldnt say anymore stupid shit. can you imagine if palin thought jobs was a 3 letter word? oh you guys would have been lolin'
You are funny.
-
you just cannot grasp what an actual issue is....
-
my issue was that biden came out and said that the US would be hit with a big international crisis if/when obama is elected in his first 6 months in office...you came back with a speaking gaff. get it dood?
-
I'd say that we are in the midst of 2 or 3 major international crises right now.
-
thats great and all but has nothing to do with what we're talking about. k thx.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
my issue was that biden came out and said that the US would be hit with a big international crisis if/when obama is elected in his first 6 months in office...you came back with a speaking gaff. get it dood?
did Biden say Obama was going to fail taking on this crisis? or did he just say he'd be challenged?
oor thats just what he meant
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
thats great and all but has nothing to do with what we're talking about. k thx.
you mean you're actually talking about something? no!!
-
he said that "you might not like our response." what does that mean?
-
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Biden_Obama_will_be_tested.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Biden_Obama_will_be_tested.html)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
he said that "you might not like our response." what does that mean?
i dunno , you heard him say it, what does that mean to you?
-
well ..."apprear that we were not right" or whatever....what does that mean to you. that he'll kick some ass like bush!!!???
-
i think it would mean that he'd probably use some force and all the lefties would be up in arms that he didnt "give peace a chance"...but thas just me.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
well ..."apprear that we were not right" or whatever....what does that mean to you. that he'll kick some ass like bush!!!???
i dont even know the quote you're speaking of, and you are INcapable of giving your opinion, arent you? Tell us what you got from that Joe Biden comment. and dont state it in a question.
-
i just posted the link and gave a response. keep up.
-
Thank god the pinko liberal media isn't giving this story the same coverage it did to Palin's $150K wardrobe charged to the campaign or all those "trade missions" between Alaska and Russia.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i just posted the link and gave a response. keep up.
be a pal and show me, por favor. I cant seem to find it unless its in one our other 16 political threads.
-
"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."
so are you saying we shouldnt use force 'tired? not sure what your issue is
-
its right above you sonick...
im saying that the anti war left might not be very happy with the use of force....dont you think thats what biden meant? or no?
-
notice how when Liberman says it becomes a "talking point" and when Biden says it becomes an "issue" ...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
its right above you sonick...
im saying that the anti war left might not be very happy with the use of force....dont you think thats what biden meant? or no?
you're response came from that link came while i was posting mine. and i havent listened to it or read it or whatrever because i am working.
but even so, doesnt sound like a gaffe to me.
sounds like the straight talk express is on the blue side now!
-
if the candidates were telephones:
<img src="http://www.twilightearth.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/candidate-phone-use.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
my issue was that biden came out and said that the US would be hit with a big international crisis if/when obama is elected in his first 6 months in office...
Originally posted by manimtired:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Biden_Obama_will_be_tested.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Biden_Obama_will_be_tested.html)
'tired, are you really that stupid and gullible? right-wingnuts have twisted this into "international crisis will occur BECAUSE obama is elected". you really have to want to believe that to ignore what was actually said.
let me explain it to you: biden was saying that he foresees an international crisis coming (doesn't take a crystal ball to predict something like that), and obama will have to face it because he's president (and he'll face it successfully, blah blah blah). he's saying that shits goin' down, and that whoever is in the white house - and it will be obama - will be tested by challenges. should mccain be in the white house, he'd be tested by them too. for an analogy, bush has been tested by afghanistan, the war in iraq, the economy, etc (and, for the most part, he's failed. fyi.)
this was also biden going on the offensive on a topic that mccain has had an edge on: tough-nosed international relations. good for the dems.
maybe the GOP is taking issue with someone predicting an international crisis? ok, take issue with the pessimistic outlook. not much of issue there... again.
-
i love how everything obama and biden say has to be "explained" afterwards...
but thanks for clearing that up..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i love how everything obama and biden say has to be "explained" afterwards...
but thanks for clearing that up..
Yeah, we definitely don't want a president that "explains" things.
-
well they arent the ones that explain it..the apologists do.
-
You know, after 23 pages and 900 posts I still don't think I've heard manimtired say one concrete thing about policies and qualifications of the GOP ticket and exactly why this duo is getting his vote.
Care to start now?
-
Originally posted by chaz:
You know, after 23 pages and 900 posts I still don't think I've heard manimtired say one concrete thing about policies and qualifications of the GOP ticket and exactly why this duo is getting his vote.
Care to start now?
I highly doubt it.
-
qualifications? LOLOLOL...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i love how everything obama and biden say has to be "explained" afterwards...
but thanks for clearing that up..
and they dont "explain" everything palin says? right...
-
And btw, "They don't suck" is not a valid response.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
qualifications? LOLOLOL...
Your answer is just like your candidate....old, tired, more of the same.
Thanks for helping me understand that you actually have no real idea why you support your candidate.
-
not a socialist...
he could get a security clearance in the united states...
much more experience in government..and life...(iinsert old joke)
better tax plan...
ok "chaz"
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i love how everything obama and biden say has to be "explained" afterwards...
but thanks for clearing that up..
LOL
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i love how everything obama and biden say has to be "explained" afterwards...
but thanks for clearing that up..
only needs to be explained to you, buddy.
-
ya...just to me. it hasnt been an issue.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
not a socialist...
he could get a security clearance in the united states...
much more experience in government..and life...(iinsert old joke)
better tax plan...
ok "chaz"
While I could argue every one of your points except for the experience part, I applaud you for finally saying something direct.
BTW, how does rolling back the tax breaks that the previous administration gave to the ultra rich and to corporations qualify him as a socialist? I think you've been watching too many Palin speeches on youtube.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
he could get a security clearance in the united states...
and obama couldnt?
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Originally posted by manimtired:
not a socialist...
he could get a security clearance in the united states...
much more experience in government..and life...(iinsert old joke)
better tax plan...
ok "chaz"
While I could argue every one of your points except for the experience part, I applaud you for finally saying something direct.
BTW, how does rolling back the tax breaks that the previous administration gave to the ultra rich and to corporations qualify him as a socialist? I think you've been watching too many Palin speeches on youtube. [/b]
and not enough of "maverick" mccain on youtube...
-
"spread the wealth around" aka income redistribution...although since its not on his website im sure you'll disagree this will be a goal of his...even though he said it out loud (sweetcell will now explain)...
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by manimtired:
he could get a security clearance in the united states...
and obama couldnt? [/b]
as a man who has been given a TSS clearance i dont believe so..no.
-
ok i dont think mccain could
-
well in a BI they ask you "have you ever had any relation to persons who have attacked the united states"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about so ill take your word for it...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
"spread the wealth around" aka income redistribution...although since its not on his website im sure you'll disagree this will be a goal of his...even though he said it out loud (sweetcell will now explain)...
sort of like what happens in Alaska every year and what Palin benefited from...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i love how everything obama and biden say has to be "explained" afterwards...
but thanks for clearing that up..
Can you explain the last 8 years?
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
"spread the wealth around" aka income redistribution...although since its not on his website im sure you'll disagree this will be a goal of his...even though he said it out loud (sweetcell will now explain)...
sort of like what happens in Alaska every year and what Palin benefited from... [/b]
yes.you are right. wat.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by manimtired:
he could get a security clearance in the united states...
and obama couldnt? [/b]
as a man who has been given a TSS clearance i dont believe so..no. [/b]
in two weeks he's about to get a pretty damn big clearance.
-
ya sonick....YA!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
"spread the wealth around" aka income redistribution...although since its not on his website im sure you'll disagree this will be a goal of his...even though he said it out loud (sweetcell will now explain)...
sort of like what happens in Alaska every year and what Palin benefited from... [/b]
yes.you are right. wat. [/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
well in a BI they ask you "have you ever had any relation to persons who have attacked the united states"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about so ill take your word for it...
There you go again, watching too many palin speeches on youtube.
Could you please explain what you understand the relationship is between obama and ayers? Please be as specific as you are able to be. No "wats" or "lols" please.
And I'm not trying to be snarky (well except in first paragraph)...I REALLY want to know what you feel the nature of their relationship is.
-
btw, is TSS like Top Secret Secret or something?
-
ayers was a domestic terrorist. unless you are a complete kool aid drinker dumbass you know that obama knew this and sat on boards with him and kicked off his political career for the IL senate in his house...am i lying? or was obama just too clueless to know all this?
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
btw, is TSS like Top Secret Secret or something?
top secret security...fed talk. guess google didnt pull that up for you...
-
i wouldnt go around bragging about clearances on a public board, but hey im not 'tired
if youre really going to worry about security clearances, id worry about palin the most. her husbands involvment in aip would be the larger threat to national security
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
btw, is TSS like Top Secret Secret or something?
top secret security...fed talk. guess google didnt pull that up for you... [/b]
why google when i can just ask you, do you have to be an asshole about everything?
I remember my last job, we were working in NGIC and NMIC buildings and whenever we went into a room everyone turned off their computer and stared at us. One time we went in a room with a whiteboard and 3 guys stood in front of it all spread out so we couldnt read it. It was funny. Too bad i cant be in the cool Secret America club :(
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
kicked off his political career for the IL senate in his house...am i lying?
YES
-
Maybe they were just drawing pictures of boobs?
Originally posted by very sonick:
One time we went in a room with a whiteboard and 3 guys stood in front of it all spread out so we couldnt read it.
-
thanks god's sshine..ill watch my back
didnt think so sonick.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
kicked off his political career for the IL senate in his house...am i lying?
YES [/b]
no
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ayers was a domestic terrorist. unless you are a complete kool aid drinker dumbass you know that obama knew this and sat on boards with him and kicked off his political career for the IL senate in his house...am i lying? or was obama just too clueless to know all this?
so is everyone who associates with him dangerous? UIC, they must all be terrorists too!!! (they are the Flames...)
-
not everyone...just the domestic terrorists types.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
kicked off his political career for the IL senate in his house...am i lying?
YES [/b]
no [/b]
believe what ever you want... but it has stated many times over that it was a different candidate who kicked off their campaign at ayers house...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
not everyone...just the domestic terrorists types.
no, everyone that associates with Ayers. not Obama.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
thanks god's sshine..ill watch my back
didnt think so sonick.
didnt think what?
-
who was this "different" candidate?
-
as in you checked google and it didnt come up...aka you dont know what youre talking about when it comes to gaining a security clearance.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
believe what ever you want... but it has stated many times over that it was a different candidate who kicked off their campaign at ayers house...
what does that mean? it wasn't obama? that would in fact differ from several accounts.
btw, please let me know when this happens to an obama supporter:
A knife-wielding man robbed a Texas woman and etched a "B" into her face after he saw a John McCain bumper sticker on the woman's car, Pittsburgh police said. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
as in you checked google and it didnt come up...aka you dont know what youre talking about when it comes to gaining a security clearance.
I never checked google. I just asked you. And i wasnt "talking about" gaining a security clearance. all i said was i bet Obama will be a big one in two weeks.
i think you were arguing security clearances with other people.
Also, since we're talking clearance. I have Confidential Clearance. so, I do know what that is. I just have never heard of anything over Top Secret.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ayers was a domestic terrorist. unless you are a complete kool aid drinker dumbass you know that obama knew this and sat on boards with him and kicked off his political career for the IL senate in his house...am i lying? or was obama just too clueless to know all this?
i don't deny anything ayers has done, but hello, the fact that they were both appointed to the Woods Fund Board hardly demonstrates anything besides...that. The "event" held at ayers home has been constantly arugued over...may have happened may have not. It's almost urban legend now i have not seen anyone able to definitively say it happened at all, esp. not the way it's been portrayed.
Clearly these guys traveled in some of the same circles in chicago in the mid 90's that's about all that is clear.
Do you think Obama is a domestic terrorist? Do you think he is anti-american?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, please let me know when this happens to an obama supporter:
A knife-wielding man robbed a Texas woman and etched a "B" into her face after he saw a John McCain bumper sticker on the woman's car, Pittsburgh police said. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)
Certainly an awful, awful story.
But Obama supporters have also been attacked, as have other McCain supporters:
http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/10/19/local_news/doc48fa891c6397b889391842.txt (http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/10/19/local_news/doc48fa891c6397b889391842.txt)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/assaulted-canvasser-speak_b_136261.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/assaulted-canvasser-speak_b_136261.html)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html)
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/greensboro_reporter_assaulted_at_rally (http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/greensboro_reporter_assaulted_at_rally)
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
as in you checked google and it didnt come up...aka you dont know what youre talking about when it comes to gaining a security clearance.
I never checked google. I just asked you. And i wasnt "talking about" gaining a security clearance. all i said was i bet Obama will be a big one in two weeks.
i think you were arguing security clearances with other people.
Also, since we're talking clearance. I have Confidential Clearance. so, I do know what that is. I just have never heard of anything over Top Secret. [/b]
i think he has no problem rubbing elbows with domestic terrorists which causes me concern...unless, like he said, he had no idea..or he was straight up lying.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
i don't deny anything ayers has done, but hello, the fact that they were both appointed to the Woods Fund Board hardly demonstrates anything besides...that. The "event" held at ayers home has been constantly arugued over...may have happened may have not. It's almost urban legend now i have not seen anyone able to definitively say it happened at all, esp. not the way it's been portrayed.
this (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3FC289D8-3048-5C12-009AD5180C22FF0B) seems pretty definitive.
what is know about the two are these points:
1) obama and ayers were both on the team that received funding for the annenberg challenge- an exercise that was a complete failure, waste of money, and, my own editorial, possible illegal mis-use of funds.
2) shortly after receiving the funds for annenberg, both obama and ayers ended up on the woods fund for several years, including after 2001 and ayers' "i don't regret the bombings" statement. i might add here that the woods fund, while both obama and ayers were on the board, also gave ACORN several hundred thousands of dollars to do their thing.
3) both obama and ayers were part of a UIC symposium (put together by one michelle obama) on education
4) as linked to above, there was a meeting at ayers' house where then-state sen. alice palmer either did or did not declare obama as heir apparent. the discrepancy is not whether palmer and obama were at ayers' house, the discrepancy is that palmer does not recall going to ayers' house to declare obama her heir; palmer remembers ayers' saying that obama would be her successor. after failing in her run for congress that year, palmer then tried to take back her seat, at which point obama and his lawyers engaged in a tried-and-true chicago effort, successfully, to get palmer off the ballot (along with every other candidate for state senate running against him).
those are known and provable facts. . .
-
so wait, no Ayers is playing dirty politics in Illinois, too?
whats your point here.
seems as though you guys are just trying to find any fishy business you can find...but it doesnt all tie together very well.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
so wait, no Ayers is playing dirty politics in Illinois, too?
i don't think i insinuated that at all. . .i simply stated what people have been asking for- what's the relation between obama and ayers.
the point about all of this is that obama does not have one, solid answer to this (or acorn for that matter). . .he simply obfuscates, gives half-answers, and then changes his statements. it's very clear that ayers' wasn't simply some guy who lives in his neighborhood. . .he was, in fact, something more. just like jeremiah wright wasn't simply some pastor in his neighborhood. just like tony rezko wasn't simply some guy selling property next door to him. just like acorn wasn't simply some group that he did work for on a lawsuit. . .
at some point, a pattern develops here people. . . .
-
But it's totally plausible, in fact probable, that while Obama may have a relationship or friendship with Ayers that has nothing to do with terrorism or anything remotely like that.
Yet if Obama was to admit to it, people would get the wrong idea, so he's denying it.
sound about right?
-
Patterns can develop anywhere if you look hard enough for them.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
well in a BI they ask you "have you ever had any relation to persons who have attacked the united states"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about so ill take your word for it...
i'm trying to decide which i think is greater: your ignorance or your deceit.
yes, they ask those questions. newsflash: answering "yes" doesn't disqualify you from getting clearance. it means that someone will ask you questions about it during the interview, and will look in to who this these people are and what your relationship with them was. and what would they find? someone who was active 35 years ago, never killed anyone, blah blah. he would have passed.
the questionnaire also asks "have you ever used illegal drugs". saying yes doesn't disqualify you either. if it did, W Bush wouldn't have passed either :roll:
now you're the one who appears to not know what you're talking about. shocker. let me put in terms that you might understand: STFU LOL.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
But it's totally plausible, in fact probable, that while Obama may have a relationship or friendship with Ayers that has nothing to do with terrorism or anything remotely like that.
Yet if Obama was to admit to it, people would get the wrong idea, so he's denying it.
sound about right?
i certainly would agree, and have in previous discussions about this topic, that obama himself is not a terrorist. . .he should explain it...he has not once fully explained his work or association with bill ayers. i would expect that if he does, you'd find that their work was on the very fringe of the far left. .you can read one view of the results here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20081014/bs_ibd_ibd/20081014issues01).
of course, isn't obama a different type of politician...the answer is, of course not.
my frustration in talking about all of this is that on one hand, people are drawn to him because of his message of hope and change, and "i can bring people together" and "i'm a different type of politician" yet, when things are brought up showing that he is in fact no different than any other politician, it's explained away by, but he's a politician.
at least be consistent people. . .if you support him because you think he'll bring the troops home, fine, even though he won't; if you support him because you think deregulation caused our current economic crisis, fine, even though it didn't; if you support him because you hate all republicans, fine. . .i don't have a response to that. simply spouting off hope and change as a reason is complete b/s; he's hoping you won't notice the change, change for the worse.
-
To me, the hope/change argument is best summed up in this statement from Christopher Buckley:
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren??t going to get us out of this pit we??ve dug for ourselves.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/2/ (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/2/)
Some other conservatives have said different things - and I think this is the crux of the argument. To me, the hope/change argument is not about a different type of campaigning, or trying to get elected (and for the record, I think Obama has largely avoided most Rovian campaigning tactics, which involve personal character assassination). Most of the criticism of the "different kind of politician argument" has been centered around the political game of the campaign. Governance is not the same.
I see the hope/change argument as about restoring a sense of pragmatism to government - discussing issues openly and thoughtfully to arrive at the best conclusions, and governing accordingly towards the middle to achieve given results. I have many reasons for believing Barack Obama will do this as president (his answers on abortion, his reaction to the economic crisis, his coalition of advisers, his broad bipartisan support) - and that is what the change argument is about for me.
I also support him for some of the other reasons you mentioned, and others you didn't mention. But I think there is room for the hope/change argument if you look at it differently.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
my frustration in talking about all of this is that on one hand, people are drawn to him because of his message of hope and change, and "i can bring people together" and "i'm a different type of politician" yet, when things are brought up showing that he is in fact no different than any other politician, it's explained away by, but he's a politician.
he's a politician, running against another politician for a political office.
and more people think that Obama the politician is better than McCain the politician. Its very simple and i think way more people see it that way than you are making it out to be.
but i guess its no fun when you look at it that way.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
ayers' "i don't regret the bombings" statement.
he said that he regretted not having done enough, and this was taken to mean bombings. ayers has denounced terrorism.
Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication. The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again," as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility." Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion.
In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as "... inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade." Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.
(...)
In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism ?? individual, group and official".
(...)
"The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by manimtired:
well in a BI they ask you "have you ever had any relation to persons who have attacked the united states"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about so ill take your word for it...
i'm trying to decide which i think is greater: your ignorance or your deceit.
yes, they ask those questions. newsflash: answering "yes" doesn't disqualify you from getting clearance. it means that someone will ask you questions about it during the interview, and will look in to who this these people are and what your relationship with them was. and what would they find? someone who was active 35 years ago, never killed anyone, blah blah. he would have passed.
the questionnaire also asks "have you ever used illegal drugs". saying yes doesn't disqualify you either. if it did, W Bush wouldn't have passed either :roll:
now you're the one who appears to not know what you're talking about. shocker. let me put in terms that you might understand: STFU LOL. [/b]
i guess obama would have to lie about the drug thing too huh?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Some other conservatives have said different things - and I think this is the crux of the argument. To me, the hope/change argument is not about a different type of campaigning, or trying to get elected - which is what the criticism of Obama has largely been about in this respect. I see it as about restoring a sense of pragmatism to government - discussing issues openly and thoughtfully to arrive at the best conclusions, and governing accordingly towards the middle to achieve given results.
I have many reasons for believing Barack Obama will do this as president (his answers on abortion, his reaction to the economic crisis, his coalition of advisers, his broad bipartisan support) - and that is what the change argument is about for me.
that is fair enough. . .personally, i think we have a fundamental difference about "best conclusions", but that's simply our own philosophy. but that also means that he has to work harder to get my vote, and, frankly, i see him as just another politician willing to say anything to get elected (oh, and i don't support his tax policy).
sometimes, and i came to this conclusion shortly after my previous post, i feel like ed rooney trying to catch ferris. . .and nov. 4 will be whether the public is jennifer grey and covers for him.
-
its ok to bomb government buildings if you dont kill anyone...are you serious????? you are clearly the one who has no clue what youre talking about
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i guess obama would have to lie about the drug thing too huh?
you missed the point: they wouldn't have to lie. say "yes" to the drug question, and you'll be asked about your drug use. if it's deemed to not be an issue, the interview moves on.
-
no...if you just say yes you most likely do not "pass go"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about.
-
in response to bebe...
i'm behind obama because i support his energy plan and because he will bring into the White House the best qualified people to serve with him, regardless ofparty affiliation. no more partisan hacks in top positions along the lines of ashcroft, gonzales and brownie...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no...if you just say yes you most likely do not "pass go"...but then again you have no idea what youre talking about.
that is simply not true.
-
i know many people, i look at these, that answer yes and they are dismissed right away...then again they arent applying for receptionist jobs. yes, it is possible, but its getting harder and harder to get a "pass" by answering yes to the "drug" question.
-
nm
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
my frustration in talking about all of this is that on one hand, people are drawn to him because of his message of hope and change, and "i can bring people together" and "i'm a different type of politician" yet, when things are brought up showing that he is in fact no different than any other politician, it's explained away by, but he's a politician.
he's a politician, running against another politician for a political office.
and more people think that Obama the politician is better than McCain the politician. Its very simple and i think way more people see it that way than you are making it out to be.
but i guess its no fun when you look at it that way. [/b]
many people level the criticism that obama is too much of a "politician's politician", that he's too slick, that he'll do anything to get elected... as sonick pointed out, getting elected is what politicians do. and if you have the patience, read this story: Seeing White House From a Cell in Hanoi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/12/AR2008101202306_pf.html). it's long. it paints mccain as someone who couldn't make it to the top ranks of the navy like the other men in his family, so his desire and family's expectation of leadership led him into politics - elected office is easier than earning stars. why is he a senator for arizona, a state he never lived in until he sought public office? But where should McCain run? "We discussed Florida, because he'd been a resident there," Cohen remembers. "But the thinking became that he should run in Arizona. . . . His wife was from there. And Arizona was conservative."
Arizona also appeared attractive for reasons that had nothing to do with ideology: Its population was booming, which meant it would receive one new congressional seat in time for the 1982 elections. Equally important, its explosive growth rate -- behind only Nevada's and Alaska's -- meant that more than 950,000 residents would be moving to Arizona during the 1980s, a whole new bloc of voters that McCain and his allies believed would be unmoved by charges that a political upstart from out of state was a carpetbagger.
(...)
Four years later, enjoying a big lead in the polls on the eve of that Senate election, McCain turned to an aide who had asked whether, all things being equal, he'd rather be the commander of a naval fleet squadron than a senator. "Well, all things aren't equal," McCain began. "But if I keep this lead, win and become senator, maybe my mother will finally get off my back for leaving the Navy."
seems kinda cynical to me. personally, i don't think it really matters that much, but people who criticize obama the politician should be aware that the same criticisms can be leveled against mcccain the politician.
-
It's interesting that as far as I can tell, nobody here has much positive to say about McCain and especially Palin.
In fact, it seems like the McCain/Palin types are entirely fixated on Obama. And it's not even on what Obama says he would do as President, it's on personality characteristics and fuzzy mostly-disproven rumors.
Seems like rather insubstantive reasoning, to me.
Fact is, you can't be a true conservative and support today's Republican party. Conservatism is about limited government, whether in people's private lives or international adventurism. The Republican party either needs to reform its ways (which is why I am hoping they get severely spanked in this election, beyond merely losing) or a new party needs to form. The current fetus-fetishizing, religious superstition-based fringe GOP is not going to last.
You guys are gonna lose in November -- might as well start thinking about why, and restoring some intelligence and integrity to American conservatism.
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
in response to bebe...
i'm behind obama because i support his energy plan and because he will bring into the White House the best qualified people to serve with him, regardless ofparty affiliation. no more partisan hacks in top positions along the lines of ashcroft, gonzales and brownie...
energy plan? how is it any different than mccain's? they both want renewables, they both support efficiency measures. . .mccain is more pro-nuclear than obama (which is truly the only way to meet our growing energy needs if you want to talk about carbon), and mccain wants to let states decide if they want to drill off their shore. if anything, mccain's energy policy is more robust than obama's.....
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Fact is, you can't be a true conservative and support today's Republican party. Conservatism is about limited government, whether in people's private lives or international adventurism. The Republican party either needs to reform its ways (which is why I am hoping they get severely spanked in this election, beyond merely losing) or a new party needs to form. The current fetus-fetishizing, religious superstition-based fringe GOP is not going to last.
and that is the promise that i see in mccain. . .regardless of his statements to satisfy the religious right, i know that he is fundamentally an economic conservative and federalist...that certain decisions should be left to the states, which is why, fundamentally, i am still a republican, smaller government, states rights and free trade (i'm not a Libertarian because i disagree with the Libertarian party's view of foreign policy). the reluctant acceptance between libertarian/federalists and religious conservatives should be questioned and hopefully broken. . .
btw, even though i am far from religious, i am offended by people calling religion a superstition....religion brings comfort and joy to billions of people around the world. i hope that you didn't mean it that way, but that you instead mean the moralizing aspect of the religious "right," the "you're gonna burn in hell" part.
-
doomie, i agree with you on the right's obama fixation and the need for conservative reform. i don't agree, however, that this election is in the bag for the dems. i have two fears.
one is that rove & co drop a dirty bomb in the days leading up to nov 4 - a rumor, an insinuation, a cheap shot below the belt - something that will cause damage with the undecided and that the dems won't have time to defend themselves against in the last days. this is the conspiracy theorist in me talking. should this turn out to be true: ironically, this was what killed mccain's campaign in north carolina in 2000.
the other is the Bradley effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect) (it frustrates me to no end that race is such an issue in this country... but it is). between this effect and the error margin of opinion polls, i cringe a little whenever a blue gloats about polling results favorable for obama. some say there might be a reverse Bradley effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect#Possible_reverse_Bradley_Effect) at play, but i fear that this is already reflected in the poll numbers. the previously-mentioned effect isn't.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, even though i am far from religious, i am offended by people calling religion a superstition....religion brings comfort and joy to billions of people around the world. i hope that you didn't mean it that way, but that you instead mean the moralizing aspect of the religious "right," the "you're gonna burn in hell" part.
i think that's an expressions of frustration against the pervasiveness of religion in today's supposedly modern, secular society. a religious extremists minority has, in several instances, successfully imposed its views on the rest of society. the problem is that to many, "bringing comfort and joy to billions of people around the world" isn't a solid foundation for public policy. religion is due respect, but not power.
like yourself, a lot of republicans don't kowtow to the religious minority. however, it's kinda gross how the current GOP party does. the GOP has a lock on that vote and won't relinquish it in favor of a return to its true values. boo.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, even though i am far from religious, i am offended by people calling religion a superstition....religion brings comfort and joy to billions of people around the world. i hope that you didn't mean it that way, but that you instead mean the moralizing aspect of the religious "right," the "you're gonna burn in hell" part.
i think that's an expressions of frustration against the pervasiveness of religion in today's supposedly modern, secular society. a religious extremists minority has, in several instances, successfully imposed its views on the rest of society. the problem is that to many, "bringing comfort and joy to billions of people around the world" isn't a solid foundation for public policy. religion is due respect, but not power.[/b]
see, i don't have a problem with the "pervasiveness" of religion. . .the u.s., for all intents and purposes, is NOT a secular country, it is a Christian country. i disagree with the attempts by secularists to rid this country of any and all of its religious identities. i don't see why there can't be a christmas tree on city owned property. . .these are not only symbols of christianity, they are also symbols of our history as a people.
-
i'm with you on that one - the christian tradition is part of what this country is. people who object to a person's right to display a manger are barking up the wrong tree.
but a christmas tree, and other symbols, doesn't oppress me. same can't be said for limiting my access to potentially life-saving technologies, birth control, the subjugation of science in the name of belief, etc. that's the shit i object to - and falls under the realm of public policy. let's not mix respect of religion and its authority to dictate my well-being and freedom. logically, IMO, one cannot demand that government stay out of the private sphere and then grant the church that right.
-
When I refer to superstition, I am specifically referring to religious fundamentalism, and the religious right, not religion in general.
And the US is NOT a "Christian country." It is a country with a large Christian majority and a mainstream Christianity-influenced culture. But there is no official faith. There is a huge difference.
-
I agree with Doom.
theres no "for all intents and purposes" about it.
this is why i would vote democrat.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i don't have a problem with the "pervasiveness" of religion. . .the u.s., for all intents and purposes, is NOT a secular country, it is a Christian country. i disagree with the attempts by secularists to rid this country of any and all of its religious identities. i don't see why there can't be a christmas tree on city owned property. . .these are not only symbols of christianity, they are also symbols of our history as a people. [/b]
its very simple. separate church and state. you are free to practice religion in any way you want, and display all the mangers you want. and the government is separate. that's america.
-
This is why the U.S. is falling apart. Because we have turned our back on God.
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
When I refer to superstition, I am specifically referring to religious fundamentalism, and the religious right, not religion in general.
And the US is NOT a "Christian country." It is a country with a large Christian majority and a mainstream Christianity-influenced culture. But there is no official faith. There is a huge difference.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
sometimes, and i came to this conclusion shortly after my previous post, i feel like ed rooney trying to catch ferris. . .and nov. 4 will be whether the public is jennifer grey and covers for him.
i like how you cast yourself as the villain in this analogy
-
http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1008/563913.html (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/1008/563913.html)
Joe McCain calls 911 while stuck in traffic in Alexandria. Not really news, but hilarious all the same:
Alexandria (web|news) - A 911 tape, reportedly of Sen. John McCain (web|news|bio) 's brother Joe, could prove controversial for the McCain camp since the call was not for an emergency, but rather to complain about being stuck in traffic.
The call came into Alexandria's 911 system on October 21.
Operator: 911 state your emergency
Caller: It's not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?
Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic? (pause)
Caller: "(Expletive) you." (caller hangs up)
The complaint call about traffic on the Wilson Bridge forced the 911 dispatcher to call back. The voice mail on the other end, appears to belong to Joe McCain, brother of presidential candidate, John McCain.
"Hi this is Joe McCain. I can't take this message now because I'm involved in a very (inaudible) important political project. I hope on November 4th we have elected John."
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, please let me know when this happens to an obama supporter:
A knife-wielding man robbed a Texas woman and etched a "B" into her face after he saw a John McCain bumper sticker on the woman's car, Pittsburgh police said. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)
they should be out asking all big black men to write a "B", if it is backwards they have their man
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D940VEM01&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D940VEM01&show_article=1)
maybe its true, but its awesome that you jumped at the chance to use the story
-
those arent very good friends to let her go to an atm by herself in that neighborhood
-
it would be super funny if perhaps it was found that the wound was self inflicted. the "B" looked right as i drew it in the mirror!
-
i dont know if funny is the word id use
-
how are those polls lookin, manimtired?
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
i'm with you on that one - the christian tradition is part of what this country is. people who object to a person's right to display a manger are barking up the wrong tree.
but a christmas tree, and other symbols, doesn't oppress me. same can't be said for limiting my access to potentially life-saving technologies, birth control, the subjugation of science in the name of belief, etc. that's the shit i object to - and falls under the realm of public policy. let's not mix respect of religion and its authority to dictate my well-being and freedom. logically, IMO, one cannot demand that government stay out of the private sphere and then grant the church that right.
ok, that's what i thought. . and i should have made that clearer in my responses. . .i would agree that religion should not play a role in setting policy- i waver, however, in the role morals and ethics play in those determinations. . .and i would agree that morals and ethics are too often voiced and grounded in overtly religious tones.
as for doom, i completely disagree, the u.s. is most definately a christian country, in fact, the most christian in the history of the world; look at the money, look at our founding documents, look at our pledge, look at almost every single federal building. . .our country was founded by "christians," (i know, the founding fathers were deists, but i'm also including the pilgrims in that statement), using christian ideals, remember the declaration of independence? it references a creator-god for giving humans our "inalienable" rights. . .how is that anything but christian?
there is no separation of church and state in the constitution. . .it's very simple. the constitution means that the government shall not create a state religion, ala the church of england and the english government, which is very different than keeping religion out of government, which is, in essence what secularists have been striving for...
i'll give you an example- the first europeans to come to california were franciscan missionaries who founded 21 missions, up and down the state, from san diego to sonoma in the late 1700s and early 1800s (other than for military reasons, such as the founding of san diego, monterey and san francisco, missions are often the foundation those cities, such as santa clara and sonoma). today, many of these missions are in terrible shape due to a number of circumstances such as age, erosion and earthquakes. several years ago, sen. boxer was able to appropriate money to go to the upkeep of these missions, including some for seismic retrofitting. the americans united for separation of church and state threatened to sue the government over those funds simply because they were going to help these missions. many of these missions no longer function as houses of worship, and more than that, these are historical buildings of great importance to the creation of the state of california. . .it's this extreme devotion to secularism that annoys me to no end. . .
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, please let me know when this happens to an obama supporter:
A knife-wielding man robbed a Texas woman and etched a "B" into her face after he saw a John McCain bumper sticker on the woman's car, Pittsburgh police said. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)
they should be out asking all big black men to write a "B", if it is backwards they have their man
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D940VEM01&show_article=1 (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D940VEM01&show_article=1)
maybe its true, but its awesome that you jumped at the chance to use the story [/b]
At the risk of sounding crass I didn't want to say so at the time, but this story sounded fishy and just a bit too sensational to me from the start....
-
Hah!! she didn't even have the sense to not make the "B" backwards.....damn mirrors turning everything around....hardly looks like it was done with a knife either, looks more like a nail file!
<img src="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01014/ashley-todd_1014533f.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
as for doom, i completely disagree, the u.s. is most definately a christian country, in fact, the most christian in the history of the world; look at the money, look at our founding documents, look at our pledge, look at almost every single federal building. . .our country was founded by "christians," (i know, the founding fathers were deists, but i'm also including the pilgrims in that statement), using christian ideals, remember the declaration of independence? it references a creator-god for giving humans our "inalienable" rights. . .how is that anything but christian?
it still comes down to the first amendment and while many of the historical parts of America and much of the money may come from christians and christians may believe themselves to hold the power here, it still does not make it a christian country.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-
most christian country in the history of the world? little bit of hyperbole there
-
Police sources tell KDKA that a campaign worker has now confessed to making up a story that a mugger attacked her and cut the letter B in her face after seeing her McCain bumper sticker.
http://kdka.com/ (http://kdka.com/)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
"inalienable" rights.
i think god gives us "unalienable" rights.
-
thats fucked up. damn texans trying to give pittsburgh a bad name
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
most christian country in the history of the world? little bit of hyperbole there
ummm, no. on sheer numbers, the u.s. has the most "christians" than any country; the u.s. has a larger percentage of their population declaring they are part of some christian denomination. . .i do not think it hyperbole to claim that at all.
now, being a christian means many different things. . .recent studies, while showing decreases in church attendence, also show an increase in people calling themselves "christian." in other words, an increasing number of people believe in a personal Christian God, that they have a relationship with God that no longer requires the use of a minister or pastor.
-
we have more christians than any other country, but certainly not the highest percentage. we have more people of irish decent here than any other country (including ireland) but that doesnt make us the most irish country in the history of the world. it just means we're a big country
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
we have more christians than any other country, but certainly not the highest percentage. we have more people of irish decent here than any other country (including ireland) but that doesnt make us the most irish country in the history of the world. it just means we're a big country
I dont know, i think it might be the highest percentage. (besides Italy) at least top 10
-
most of south america is around 95% christian, and there always the vatican. i couldnt find anything better than this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country)
if someone has something better id love to see it
-
Advocating a separation of church and state is not an anti-religious sentiment. Jefferson understood that mixing the two causes the perversion of both. Thanks to the separation of church and state this country is a great place to be religious . . . or not religious. A pseudo-libertarian should understand this.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Advocating a separation of church and state is not an anti-religious sentiment. Jefferson understood that mixing the two causes the perversion of both. Thanks to the separation of church and state this country is a great place to be religious . . . or not religious. A pseudo-libertarian should understand this.
that is true, but it's being used for anti-religous purposes. people have the right to worship or not worship (or believe for that matter) since their is no government sponsored church of worship or government-forced church attendance.
but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution, it's in a supreme court decision from the 50s that used a letter that jefferson wrote in the 1820s, which is funny since jefferson was in france when the contitution was being debated; not exactly federalist papers material. i will grant that jefferson was in "constant" contact with madison, so far as mail via ship then over land allowed for constant contact.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
we have more people of irish decent here than any other country (including ireland) but that doesnt make us the most irish country in the history of the world. it just means we're a big country
it doesn't make us irish because we're americans.
-
how did this thread turn into a discussion about religion? b-o-r-i-n-g!
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
we have more people of irish decent here than any other country (including ireland) but that doesnt make us the most irish country in the history of the world. it just means we're a big country
it doesn't make us irish because we're americans. [/b]
im glad you agree
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution,
neither is a "right to privacy"
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution,
neither is a "right to privacy" [/b]
you are correct, no matter how much noted constitutional scholar joe biden says it is.
-
it could be argued that a complete seperation of church and state is not in the first amendment(although jefferson's letter was written in 1802, not the 20's - which is immaterial to this argument) but once you blur the line, then its a two way street with state being able to encroach on religion provided they do not establish a state religion. for me thats a slippery slope that no church nor worshipper should want
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution,
neither is a "right to privacy" [/b]
you are correct, no matter how much noted constitutional scholar joe biden says it is. [/b]
oh but i suppose thats different.
-
I think the idea that the government is perpetually trying to take people's right to worship away is a red herring that is constantly held forth by the Christian Right as a way of amassing ever more power.
As far as separation of church and state being nowhere in the Constitution but in a Supreme Court decision, it is still the law of the land unless the Supreme Court overturns it. One nice thing about an Obama administration is we'll start moving away from that kind of craziness with new court appointments.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
it could be argued that a complete seperation of church and state is not in the first amendment(although jefferson's letter was written in 1802, not the 20's - which is immaterial to this argument) but once you blur the line, then its a two way street with state being able to encroach on religion provided they do not establish a state religion. for me thats a slippery slope that no church nor worshipper should want
it's all a matter of what you mean by encroach. for me, putting a christmas tree on public grounds, having an easter egg hunt (or simply calling it easter for that matter) or even having a cross on public lands as a memorial are not government sponsored religion. . .they are rather symbols that, while religious in nature, have taken on greater non-religious meaning in our culture. in other words, these very symbols have taken on meanings beyond their original religious affiliation. . .we have an easter bunny and hunt for easter eggs; we have a christmas tree that may or may not have an angel or a star at the top of it (our tree has elvis on it, but he was a god among men)...they are all part of the ceremony of the holiday, albeit christian holidays, but usurped by a number of other non-religious associations (number 1 being the desire to get people out and buy stuff).
do i want a vocal christian-based prayer before the start of every school day, no, but i see nothing wrong with the ability of students to pray on school grounds.
i recognize that the image that the cross portrays is christian in nature because that was one way that romans practiced the death penalty, crucificion, at the same time, using the cross as a sign for remembrance and reverence for the dead, for example, is not the state endorsing a religion. do i want the cross nailed up on a wall in every school or in every courthouse, of course not, but that shouldn't cloud our ability to say there are reasonable circumstances where these religious-based symbols is not government sponsoring one religion over another since these symbols have taken on different meanings...and that is my beef with secularists (and, honestly, multi-culturalists as well) in this country. . .
i do realize that what i'm comfortable with may not be the same as everyone else. . .each one of us does our own bout of rationalizing our views to meet our other chosen beliefs and opinions. and that's all fine. . .
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
but, separation of church and state is nowhere in the constitution,
neither is a "right to privacy" [/b]
you are correct, no matter how much noted constitutional scholar joe biden says it is. [/b]
oh but i suppose thats different. [/b]
ummm. . .i don't think there's a constitutionally protected right to privacy. . .a number of states certainly have that in their constitutions, which is fine and all. . .but to argue that the u.s. constitution protects peoples' right to privacy is something i wouldn't necessarily agree with...if the constitution is silent on an issue, then i'm inclined to say that it's a state matter.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
As far as separation of church and state being nowhere in the Constitution but in a Supreme Court decision, it is still the law of the land unless the Supreme Court overturns it. One nice thing about an Obama administration is we'll start moving away from that kind of craziness with new court appointments.
you mean trying to understand what the constitution means instead of trying to make the constitution mean what we want it to say? yeah, that's total craziness.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it's all a matter of what you mean by encroach. for me, putting a christmas tree on public grounds, having an easter egg hunt (or simply calling it easter for that matter) or even having a cross on public lands as a memorial are not government sponsored religion. . .they are rather symbols that, while religious in nature, have taken on greater non-religious meaning in our culture. in other words, these very symbols have taken on meanings beyond their original religious affiliation. . .we have an easter bunny and hunt for easter eggs; we have a christmas tree that may or may not have an angel or a star at the top of it (our tree has elvis on it, but he was a god among men)...they are all part of the ceremony of the holiday, albeit christian holidays, but usurped by a number of other non-religious associations (number 1 being the desire to get people out and buy stuff).
do i want a vocal christian-based prayer before the start of every school day, no, but i see nothing wrong with the ability of students to pray on school grounds.
i recognize that the image that the cross portrays is christian in nature because that was one way that romans practiced the death penalty, crucificion, at the same time, using the cross as a sign for remembrance and reverence for the dead, for example, is not the state endorsing a religion. do i want the cross nailed up on a wall in every school or in every courthouse, of course not, but that shouldn't cloud our ability to say there are reasonable circumstances where these religious-based symbols is not government sponsoring one religion over another since these symbols have taken on different meanings...and that is my beef with secularists (and, honestly, multi-culturalists as well) in this country. . .
i do realize that what i'm comfortable with may not be the same as everyone else. . .each one of us does our own bout of rationalizing our views to meet our other chosen beliefs and opinions. and that's all fine. . .
personally i dont really disagree, but the issue when dealing with religion, is people dont look to compromise, because if you compromise your faith you burn forever. government needs reason and faith needs the suspension of reason, it is best to keep them seperate
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
As far as separation of church and state being nowhere in the Constitution but in a Supreme Court decision, it is still the law of the land unless the Supreme Court overturns it. One nice thing about an Obama administration is we'll start moving away from that kind of craziness with new court appointments.
you mean trying to understand what the constitution means instead of trying to make the constitution mean what we want it to say? yeah, that's total craziness. [/b]
you're both doing that now. you and you're "Christian America"
-
Bede, insisting the US is a Christian Nation is, inherently, to insist that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians are second-class citizens.
Given the amount of rationalization you're going through to arrive at your conclusions, I've got to believe that you see it that way.
Beyond that... yawn.
-
back to something more interesting, this a quote from the Myspace of the girl who faked the Obama attack:
"Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her cloths off, but its better if you do."
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:dNPAoAhExjwJ:profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friendID%3D8513159+www.myspace.com/rabbitrocker&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1& gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:dNPAoAhExjwJ:profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friendID%3D8513159+www.myspace.com/rabbitrocker&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
-
It just gets better and better...
Joe the Plumber for Congress!!! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/24/joe-the-plumber-open-to-2010-run/)
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Bede, insisting the US is a Christian Nation is, inherently, to insist that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians are second-class citizens.
Given the amount of rationalization you're going through to arrive at your conclusions, I've got to believe that you see it that way.
Beyond that... yawn.
why would i think that? every citizen, regardless of background and circumstance, have exactly the same rights and abilities as anyone else. everyone of us has the ability and freedom to become whatever we want if we work hard enough for it. . .just because the u.s. is a christian nation doesn't mean it discriminates against other religions. we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Bede, insisting the US is a Christian Nation is, inherently, to insist that Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians are second-class citizens.
Given the amount of rationalization you're going through to arrive at your conclusions, I've got to believe that you see it that way.
Beyond that... yawn.
why would i think that? every citizen, regardless of background and circumstance, have exactly the same rights and abilities as anyone else. everyone of us has the ability and freedom to become whatever we want if we work hard enough for it. . .just because the u.s. is a christian nation doesn't mean it discriminates against other religions. we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. [/b]
Calling it a Christian Nation is inherently discriminatory.
Do you think the United States is an Aryan nation because most people are white?
Keep your God to yourself.
-
No freedom FROM religion? WTF? That's just crazy talk....
-
bede and this thread are kind of creeping me out now.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
No freedom FROM religion? WTF? That's just crazy talk....
I think Bede is quoting Joe Lieberman, from one of Lieberman's early attempts to kiss up to the religious right. But yeah, it's crazy talk -- religio-fascist talk.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by chaz:
No freedom FROM religion? WTF? That's just crazy talk....
I think Bede is quoting Joe Lieberman, from one of Lieberman's early attempts to kiss up to the religious right. But yeah, it's crazy talk -- religio-fascist talk. [/b]
lieberman said it? had no idea, just trying to make it sound good. anyway, let's keep the intolerance and hate out of this, ok? remember, i agree fundamentally with your and sweetcell's overall points about injecting religion into policy. . .
btw, i don't answer race questions because i believe that race should be irrelevant to whether one succeeds or not. . .and when obama comes out and says class will be the basis for need and not race, i'll agree with him.
-
<img src="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-john-mccain-i-licked-them-theyre-mine.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
not that this should be unexpected coming from the palin camp but....
in Palin first policy speech today in which she is calling for increased funding for special needs children, she goes on belittle earmark spending on such frivolous things like fruit fly research... turns out that a certain type of protein discovered via fruit fly research might lead to advance in the research of autism... guess doing anything involving research is beyond the grasp of palin and her handlers, it's makes the most sense just to string together a bunch of talking point together and call it policy.
it's not a gaff or blunder, it's just plain incompetence
-
Oof.
Palin going rogue (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html)
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
, she goes on belittle earmark spending on such frivolous things like fruit fly research... turns out that a certain type of protein discovered via fruit fly research might lead to advance in the research of autism...
I'm with her on this one, I couldn't give a rats arse about fruit flies with autism.
;)
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Oof.
Palin going rogue (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/index.html)
when looking at the example set over the past 8 years, palin is more qualified to be VP than i gave her credit for.
-
Largest Alaskan Newspaper endorses Obama
Obama for president
Palin's rise captivates us but nation needs a steady hand
...
http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/567867.html (http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/567867.html)
-
check drudge when biden gets all heated by real questions...awwwww
-
at least biden is getting real questions
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge when biden gets all heated by real questions...awwwww
No reason to check Drudge, Obama/Biden are on their way not just to a slim victory but a resounding landslide...
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge when biden gets all heated by real questions...awwwww
No reason to check Drudge, Obama/Biden are on their way not just to a slim victory but a resounding landslide... [/b]
lol
-
on cnn.com there was this...
"McCain brushed off polls that show him trailing Obama, saying those numbers are "all over the map.""
all over the ELECTORAL map!!! "lol".
-
Originally posted:
McCain brushed off polls that show him trailing Obama, saying "lol".
-
Originally posted
Palin brushed off polls that show McCain trailing Obama, saying "lol, charlie".
-
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
-
Did you lose your job a month ago or so?
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain.
-
You mean the ad paid for by Obama's campaign :)
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain. [/b]
-
I saw a chart, I think in the NY Times, that indicated that we'd see a bit more money back from McCain than Obama. And we're nowhere near 250K per year.
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain. [/b]
-
<img src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp10-27-08b.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
You mean the ad paid for by Obama's campaign :)
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain. [/b]
[/b]
doesnt matter, its on drudge must be true
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
You mean the ad paid for by Obama's campaign :)
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain. [/b]
[/b]
I didnt see that, but now it appears to be gone. I wish manimtired would link these cool stories he speaks of , cause i am too busy to be searching through the disgusting layout that is Drudgereport.com.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I saw a chart, I think in the NY Times, that indicated that we'd see a bit more money back from McCain than Obama. And we're nowhere near 250K per year.
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain. [/b]
[/b]
we're getting there and my wife says...soon we'll have to vote republican.
(thats right, i thnk i'll be able to vote next election)
-
I know you're joking about soon having to vote Republican!
But the difference for us was very minor in favor of McCain. I guess if we made more McCain would benefit us more. Ah, maybe when my wife goes back to work full time.
Still, I don't think I'll ever vote for a Republican presidential candidate...at least not where the two parties currently are in the spectrum.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
I know you're joking about soon having to vote Republican!
she just meant moneywise, soon we'd be better off financially. I still dont put myself first often enough to ever consider myself a republican. :p
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by nkotb:
You mean the ad paid for by Obama's campaign :)
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
check drudge again for some interesting obama nuggets on wealth redistribution.
if i do that little calculator at the top of the homepage, it looks like i get $1677 in tax cuts under Obama, but none under McCain. [/b]
[/b]
I didnt see that, but now it appears to be gone. I wish manimtired would link these cool stories he speaks of , cause i am too busy to be searching through the disgusting layout that is Drudgereport.com. [/b]
don't worry you'll hear all about this... and i'm sorry but i can't believe that McCain is running with it... someone posted on youtube and old radio interview with some supposedly juice comments about re-distribution, all taken out of context of course...
here's what i want to know... did the mccain campaign actual verify what was posted on youtube wasn't edited or altered in any way? i highly doubt it...
-
how was it taken out of context?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was it taken out of context?
it was on drudge... seriously does america really want a person so desperate to become president that they use stellar journalistic skills of drudge as a talking point?
-
he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?
its not news.
-
Where exactly in this quote does Obama advocate for the redistribution of wealth via courts? I'm not a lawyer or play one on TV, but what I believe he is advocating that change should happen first via community action and then via the courts. One could say he's against judical legislation...
"One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change"
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was it taken out of context?
it was on drudge... [/b]
it's also on ABC (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html). . .
the plain reading of at least what jake tapper posted is more troubling, at least to me, on his view of the warren court and the constitution.
however, i find this statement amusing:
"As Obama has said before and written about, he believes that change comes from the bottom up ?? not from the corridors of Washington."
so, how does he think he can effectuate change if change doesn't come from washington?
regardless of all that. . it is still evident that he believes government redistribution of wealth is a policy that should be enhanced and encouraged. . .in this interview, he merely notes, wistfully, that the court couldn't do it, because the constitution has "negative liberties" in it that make it difficult through judicial activism. well, the constitution is there precisely to limit what government can do, something obama apparently believes is a bad idea.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?
Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well. Ever hear of those farm subsidies? Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by very sonick:
he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?
Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well. Ever hear of those farm subsidies? Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable. [/b]
Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal. Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?
-
The Reps redistribute the wealth to the super rich and corporations in order to effectuate this 'trickle down' theory. That's all I'm saying...they just redistribute differently.
I know they're all guilty of supporting immense farm subsidies, but the Rs, then, need to stop pretending they are completely innocent in welfare and redistribution of wealth. It's just the tax and spend liberals, though it is Bush that has created the highest deficit and largest government of them all.
Hey, would 'small' government give a crap if John married Betty or Bob? I don't think so...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by very sonick:
he's for re-distribution of wealth, so what?
Republicans are for redistribution of wealth as well. Ever hear of those farm subsidies? Oh my god, what they do with sugar subsidies is simply unbelievable. [/b]
Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal. Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol? [/b]
McCain?
no, cant be, because he said
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"
(http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm)
-
Here's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html) a chart, though it's not a calculator. I get a bit more back from McCain, but I get money back under Obama as well. And the point is, I'm fine. I think it's more important that a family making $50K gets 3.5 times as much back under Obama. That's where the world of hurt is.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
The Reps redistribute the wealth to the super rich and corporations in order to effectuate this 'trickle down' theory. That's all I'm saying...they just redistribute differently.
I know they're all guilty of supporting immense farm subsidies, but the Rs, then, need to stop pretending they are completely innocent in welfare and redistribution of wealth. It's just the tax and spend liberals, though it is Bush that has created the highest deficit and largest government of them all.
Hey, would 'small' government give a crap if John married Betty or Bob? I don't think so...
if that's all your saying, the you used an especially non-useful parallel with farm subsidies, especially since the most recent farm bill is one of the worst one in decades, all effectuated under a democratic congress.
that being said, you are right that the republicans from the election of W have made the situation worse. the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy (of course, the economic theory is that only the well-to-do have the means and ability to inject capital into markets, therefore, government shouldn't limit the ability of people to do that), whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.
and it has nothing to do about whether small government should care about who people marry, it's that government of any size shouldn't care- government should not be dictating to people and limiting people how they live their life, be it socially or economically.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal. Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?
McCain?
no, cant be, because he said
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"
(http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm) [/b]
how convenient you neglect this statement- "In Grinnell, McCain said he still opposes subsidies"
as i'm sure you can note, this is about subsidies. even in the article above, it still states that mccain is against ethanol subsidies. in fact, mccain has stated he supports dropping the tariff on brazilian sugar-based ethanol, coupled with killing corn-based ethanol subsidies here, let them compete and see how it works. i don't think it takes a genius to realize and note the travesty that ethanol subsidies have had on the price of food worldwide.
i will note my own trepidation about brazilian sugar-based ethanol only because i wonder how many acres of rainforest are being tilled under to increase sugar production. .and if the u.s. does drop its tariffs, what effects would that have.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Oh please. . .farm subsidies know no party, and are one of the many terrible legacies of the New Deal. Btw, any idea as to which major party candidate would like to do away with a lot of those farm subsidies. like the one on ethanol?
McCain?
no, cant be, because he said
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,"
(http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/11/13/8393132/index.htm) [/b]
how convenient you neglect this statement- "In Grinnell, McCain said he still opposes subsidies"
as i'm sure you can note, this is about subsidies. even in the article above, it still states that mccain is against ethanol subsidies. in fact, mccain has stated he supports dropping the tariff on brazilian sugar-based ethanol, coupled with killing corn-based ethanol subsidies here, let them compete and see how it works. i don't think it takes a genius to realize and note the travesty that ethanol subsidies have had on the price of food worldwide.
i will note my own trepidation about brazilian sugar-based ethanol only because i wonder how many acres of rainforest are being tilled under to increase sugar production. .and if the u.s. does drop its tariffs, what effects would that have. [/b]
or how about you leave out the whole article which is about him saying whatever voters want to hear, which is basically what you accuse his opponent of.
nice try, but try as you might, McCain is just another politician with crappy dead end policies.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
nice try, but try as you might, McCain is just another politician with crappy dead end policies.
well, if you are correct, congratulations on supporting the same crappy dead end policies- change you can believe in.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy... whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.
So the loss of $115K to a person making up to $2.5 million limits their ability to 'make money' and is crippling to them as investors and consumers? Man, I feel bad now, I didn't know things were so tight for millionaires.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by very sonick:
nice try, but try as you might, McCain is just another politician with crappy dead end policies.
well, if you are correct, congratulations on supporting the same crappy dead end policies- change you can believe in. [/b]
you're welcome!
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy... whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.
So the loss of $115K to a person making up to $2.5 million limits their ability to 'make money' and is crippling to them as investors and consumers? Man, I feel bad now, I didn't know things were so tight for millionaires. [/b]
how many jobs could be created with that $115K? how many jobs are lost because of the absence of that $115K in the market? that's a $115K lost capital that could be re-invested in a number of private projects. instead, the government becomes the beneficiary, and becomes more wasteful spending. let people spend their money, not the government.
-
Obama's remarks came in a long interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. (The full transcript is here, and audio is here.) Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net -- to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court's rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.
"What the critics are missing is that the term 'redistribution' didn??t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer," Sunstein said. "What he??s saying ?? this is the irony of it ?? he??s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals."
The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.
"One other area where the civil rights area has changed... is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution -- how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early '70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, 'You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that's not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can't get into."
Later in the interview, Obama seemed to concur with conservative and mainstream liberal scholars on the court's more modest view of its powers:
"Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts," he said. "You know the institution just isn't structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district, and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html?showall (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1008/Obama_advisor_pushes_back_on_redistribution.html?showall)
no race baiting stories to push today Bede?
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by very sonick:
nice try, but try as you might, McCain is just another politician with crappy dead end policies.
well, if you are correct, congratulations on supporting the same crappy dead end policies- change you can believe in. [/b]
you're welcome! [/b]
i'm so happy you are looking forward to continued increasing food prices, stupid subsidies to farmers who should, instead, be encouraged to grow other crops; no, let's keep paying farmers to grow corn so that we can have corn-based ethanol, a product that uses more energy than it creates; a product that can only be transported via trucks, and not by pipelines. so glad to see that you simply don't care. . .
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
no race baiting stories to push today Bede?
my abc news link didn't suffice for you?
i don't know what you mean by "race". . .race is unimportant. now, if you notice, class is what matters.
-
we can "discuss" back and forth all day long whether or not Obama is really a radical socialist at heart, but i doubt even he can turn the country into a socialist state overnight, unless he has the complete backing of the military, etc...
we can also debate the merits of Obama's and McCain plans for the future...
however, i will never vote for McCain... early on in the primary season i at least could appreciate what he had to say, when he was doing some straight talking... at around the same time obama came of as entirely to slick and was a bit oft putting...
but then the straight talk bus got bus jacked on the way to the republican convention and he became a sound byte politician spouting core values in opposition to my own... he acted un-presidential during the beginning of the financial meltdown... the reality of his advanced age set in... and i really questioned his ability to make decisions when he added palin to the ticket... palin alone would cause me not to vote for him, as she absolutely does not represent my beliefs in anyway..
is obama the absolute best candidate there is for president right? Yes... seeing as there isn't a governor running with a law degree and phd's in economic on the side who was once a five star general with foreign policy and energy expertise.
like it or not Obama gets my vote because he's clear vision to get this country on the right track...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i don't know what you mean by "race". . .race is unimportant. now, if you notice, class is what matters.
oh ok, because i thought a made up story about a white girl being attacked by a big black man was a about race, not class, mea culpa
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the difference between what obama is saying and what republicans are supposed to be doing is that republicans don't want government to limit the ability of someone to become wealthy... whereas, obama is quietly all about limiting the ability of people to make money and have government tell people how much money they can make (through potentially crippling tax hikes), then take that money and give it away.
So the loss of $115K to a person making up to $2.5 million limits their ability to 'make money' and is crippling to them as investors and consumers? Man, I feel bad now, I didn't know things were so tight for millionaires. [/b]
how many jobs could be created with that $115K? how many jobs are lost because of the absence of that $115K in the market? that's a $115K lost capital that could be re-invested in a number of private projects. instead, the government becomes the beneficiary, and becomes more wasteful spending. let people spend their money, not the government. [/b]
This answer insinuates that a FAMILY (note this is family INCOME, not corporate revenue - so even if the millionaire is a dentist, this is his take home pay) will be taking that 'extra cash' and investing in a company, or in some way that CREATES jobs -- outside of the consumer side trickle, trickle. Okay, maybe they pay a tutor to get the kids into Brown when you tie this to "new jobs." You got me. Job lost. Trickle, trickle, trickle. A family making $2.5 mil isn't cancelling all their traveling for the year on this....
And I'm out.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by kosmo:
Originally posted by manimtired:
how was it taken out of context?
it was on drudge... [/b]
it's also on ABC (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/mccain-to-attac.html). . .
the plain reading of at least what jake tapper posted is more troubling, at least to me, on his view of the warren court and the constitution. [/b]
"In the interview, Obama went into extensive detail to explain why the courts should not get into that business of 'redistributing' wealth. Obama??s point ?? and what he called a tragedy ?? was that legal victories in the Civil Rights led too many people to rely on the courts to change society for the better. That view is shared by conservative judges and legal scholars across the country.
next non-issue, please.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i'm so happy you are looking forward to continued increasing food prices, stupid subsidies to farmers who should, instead, be encouraged to grow other crops; no, let's keep paying farmers to grow corn so that we can have corn-based ethanol, a product that uses more energy than it creates; a product that can only be transported via trucks, and not by pipelines. so glad to see that you simply don't care. . .
I have 2 points to this.
a) while i would rather prices not keep getting higher and i would not like paying for farmers to grow more corn than they need, i also dont feel the need to just drill oil til we're blue in the face pretending that its only a temporary solution while people are padding their pockets and screwing the future. Ethanol is a crappy scenario, one that i dont necesaarily agree with Obama on. But i think McCain is only politically motivated on the issue, somerthing that would probably change if he became president.
2) I do care, bede. But since i am not allowed to vote in this country, i do not feel the need to kiss one of these mens' ass. McCain is an old lying wannabe maverick who likes to think he'll take on anyone but only on his way to the top .... which he would achieve next week, then all of those meaningful promises become meaningless. Obama is a young liberal mind perhaps with socialist tendencies (bringing me back to my canadian heritage!). His policies wont work either. so it comes down to this.
the comprimised policies of Obama's look better to me than the comprimised ones of McCain.
but if i had to vote...well....
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
we can "discuss" back and forth all day long whether or not Obama is really a radical socialist at heart, but i doubt even he can turn the country into a socialist state overnight, unless he has the complete backing of the military, etc...
we can also debate the merits of Obama's and McCain plans for the future...
however, i will never vote for McCain... early on in the primary season i at least could appreciate what he had to say, when he was doing some straight talking... at around the same time obama came of as entirely to slick and was a bit oft putting...
but then the straight talk bus got bus jacked on the way to the republican convention and he became a sound byte politician spouting core values in opposition to my own... he acted un-presidential during the beginning of the financial meltdown... the reality of his advanced age set in... and i really questioned his ability to make decisions when he added palin to the ticket... palin alone would cause me not to vote for him, as she absolutely does not represent my beliefs in anyway..
is obama the absolute best candidate there is for president right? Yes... seeing as there isn't a governor running with a law degree and phd's in economic on the side who was once a five star general with foreign policy and energy expertise.
like it or not Obama gets my vote because he's clear vision to get this country on the right track...
kosmo, i appreciate your candor and i do not necessarily disagree with your statements on john mccain.
like you and mccain, obama does not represent my beliefs or views on government policies, nor do i support or believe in his clear vision. couple that with a Dem. controlled congress, i honestly doubt his ability to either say no or stand up to congress where and when it's needed. we'll see whether he is a jimmy carter, unable to rein in a dem congress, or an lbj, forcing his will onto congress. . .i'm inclined to believe he'll be like the former.
-
i still can't believe that the mccain went with the story as how drudge presented it... i don't even think drudge was responsible for the youtube posting... looked like it had already been uploaded several times on you tube, with the same out of context commentary added...
i knew listening to what was in the clip wasn't the entire interview...
really do we want as president someone so desperate to be elected be goes with something posted youtube...
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i don't know what you mean by "race". . .race is unimportant. now, if you notice, class is what matters.
oh ok, because i thought a made up story about a white girl being attacked by a big black man was a about race, not class, mea culpa [/b]
it didn't matter to me what race the person was. . .i simply pointed it out because it was an obama supporter attacking a mccain supporter- a point that callat sure understood. since she's a liar, i hope the authorities convict her for all sorts of misdemeanors and felonies befitting the crime.
-
Stevens guilty on all counts
WASHINGTON (CNN) ?? A jury Monday found U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska guilty on all seven counts of making false statements on Senate disclosure forms.
***
and did you hear about the 2.8 million dollar road built from his house to his favorite restaurant?
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
early on in the primary season i at least could appreciate what he had to say, when he was doing some straight talking...
It was long before this that he changed, I even gave money to the man in 2000, which means I still get constant fund raising appeals from him, but he was damaged by that campaign and I think really believes that the only way he can win is to kiss up to those that were bent to destroy him in 2000. That more than anything shows somebody who will do anything to win, whether or not Obama is like that I dont care. Obama is my choice due to policy, no matter what the mankies and julians of the world have to say. I really believe that presidential elections are more about the government that the will be created by the person we elect, rather than the person themselves. Which is why Hillary would never have worked for me because she would bring in the same kind of useless dems that make up the leadership of congress, and McCain would never work because he is too close with too many people on the right now. None of these candidates are my first choice which is why its so frustrating that this board makes everything so personal.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it didn't matter to me what race the person was. . .i simply pointed it out because it was an obama supporter attacking a mccain supporter- a point that callat sure understood. since she's a liar, i hope the authorities convict her for all sorts of misdemeanors and felonies befitting the crime.
I didn't think it mattered to you what the race of the person was, which is why it bothered me that you chose to throw it out there like that, and that you didnt even acknowledge (unless I somehow missed it) how fucked up it was. Because cleary the intent of the screwed up chick was to make it look like a race issue.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
I have 2 points to this.
a) while i would rather prices not keep getting higher and i would not like paying for farmers to grow more corn than they need, i also dont feel the need to just drill oil til we're blue in the face pretending that its only a temporary solution while people are padding their pockets and screwing the future. Ethanol is a crappy scenario, one that i dont necesaarily agree with Obama on. But i think McCain is only politically motivated on the issue, somerthing that would probably change if he became president.
2) I do care, bede. But since i am not allowed to vote in this country, i do not feel the need to kiss one of these mens' ass. McCain is an old lying wannabe maverick who likes to think he'll take on anyone but only on his way to the top .... which he would achieve next week, then all of those meaningful promises become meaningless. Obama is a young liberal mind perhaps with socialist tendencies (bringing me back to my canadian heritage!). His policies wont work either. so it comes down to this.
the comprimised policies of Obama's look better to me than the comprimised ones of McCain.
but if i had to vote...well....
again, how do you not differentiate between ethanol the product and subsidies supporting the viability of ethanol? we can go back and forth on whether or not mccain said this or that about ethanol, but the facts still remain that he does not support subsidizing ethanol.
as for oil. . .we can keep ignoring what oil we have here (and, not to mention, the benefit of our own environmental regulations), or we can allow other countries (perhaps less friendly to us, and certainly with far weaker environmental regulations) to drill. for over 10 years now, opponents have said it would take 10 years for delivery to have an impact. . .that oil 10 years ago sure would have been helpful earlier this year, no? nevertheless, i also think that we have to figure out how to use less oil- domestically produced oil is simply one step in weaning ourselves off of foreign oil (although, i might add, we would continue to receive oil from countries like canada and mexico). isn't it better to have some additional amount of oil come from domestic sources than our current already small amount?
we do need to figure out new sources of energy. . .but it is simply infeasible, technologically and economically, to do any of that right now, or even in the next 5-7 years. we can follow the pickens plan, and have everyone run on natural gas (and continue to line his pockets), or we can try to move things to electricity (here's the problem- we'll have to build more power plants, and renewables ain't gonna be able to meet that new load). . .or some other form of energy that hasn't been figured out yet. . .
the question, and one of the few differences between obama and mccain on energy, is who do you want funding the research? obama says spend more government money; mccain says, let private interests do it. my take on it all is, i know there are people doing this research, without any government subsidy or funding. . .if they want to spend their money on it already, why should the government using our tax dollar give them more money to do what they are already doing?
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
it didn't matter to me what race the person was. . .i simply pointed it out because it was an obama supporter attacking a mccain supporter- a point that callat sure understood. since she's a liar, i hope the authorities convict her for all sorts of misdemeanors and felonies befitting the crime.
I didn't think it mattered to you what the race of the person was, which is why it bothered me that you chose to throw it out there like that, and that you didnt even acknowledge (unless I somehow missed it) how fucked up it was. Because cleary the intent of the screwed up chick was to make it look like a race issue. [/b]
i completely didn't see it that way. but, that shouldn't be a surprise to some people here, like you. to me, it more fit the narrative that violence by obama supporters upon mccain supporters (i'm using violence loosely, from shooting up mccain signs and trying to set them on fire, to obama supporters at obama speeches yelling "stone her" and the c word when he talks about palin) being underreported by the MSN compared to the goings on of mccain supporters.
you're right, if i had interpreted it completely in a race-based fashion, i doubt i would have posted it . .but i'm a post-race person. :)
-
so wait are you really colbert in disguise?
-
soooooooo, remember how the repubs tried making an issue out of biden's statement that obama will be tested by an international crisis? guess what: Pentagon Panel: Biden Was Right, Prep for 'Crisis' (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/10/pentagon-panel.html). let's chalk that up as "biden was right", shall we? not that acknowledgment of reality has been the GOP's strong suit as of late.
-
Pretty hard not to interpret that chick's actions in terms of racist intent, especially since she specifically disguised her made-up attacker as black, and apparently sought out an ATM in a "bad" part of town. Not to mention the storied tradition in the deep south of white women's trumped-up allegations of black men's wrongdoings being the basis for lynchings.
I'd also note (without insinuating anything) that more racists than not claim to be race-blind (and may even believe it themselves).
Racism check: If you instantly believed the girl's story that a huge black Obama supporter carved a "B" in her face, a story that was overtly ridiculous from the get-go for a whole host of reasons, you too may be a closet racist.
ps -- Sweetcell, it appears the liberal media has infiltrated the Pentagon. ;)
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Racism check: If you instantly believed the girl's story that a huge black Obama supporter carved a "B" in her face, a story that was overtly ridiculous from the get-go for a whole host of reasons, you too may be a closet racist.
ahhh yes, the dreaded, if you're not a racist, you're a racist screed, coupled with the "southern white woman=racist" corollary. . .looks like your handlers trained you well.
as i said previously, it didn't matter to me what race the person was, i read it as "an obama supporter"......you're attitude sure isn't conducive for moving this country forward.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Racism check: If you instantly believed the girl's story that a huge black Obama supporter carved a "B" in her face, a story that was overtly ridiculous from the get-go for a whole host of reasons, you too may be a closet racist.
ahhh yes, the dreaded, if you're not a racist, you're a racist screed, coupled with the "southern white woman=racist" corollary. . .looks like your handlers trained you well.
as i said previously, it didn't matter to me what race the person was, i read it as "an obama supporter"......you're attitude sure isn't conducive for moving this country forward. [/b]
Actually, it's "southern white woman who fakes attacks by black guy is a racist" corrollary.
The fact that you think it requires "training" by "handlers" to notice that's fucked up speaks volumes.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
The fact that you think it requires "training" by "handlers" to notice that's fucked up speaks volumes.
so, now you're calling me a racist? nice. how progressive. . .
-
If you can't see that there's a race element there, then you've got an issue somewhere. That's all I'm saying.
I think it was you who a couple of days ago also said Obama would have to convince you that as president he would assess need based on class and not race? Was that you?
-
Originally posted by kosmo:
so wait are you really colbert in disguise?
that made me LOL.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
If you can't see that there's a race element there, then you've got an issue somewhere. That's all I'm saying.
I think it was you who a couple of days ago also said Obama would have to convince you that as president he would assess need based on class and not race? Was that you?
not exactly. . .i said that i would hope that obama, as he has hinted to previously, as president he would change need-based programs from being based on race to being based on class. . .it doesn't matter whether a poor person is black or white or any other race, they are still poor. a move away from race based decisions to more class based would have my support, and would probably do more good.
-
i wonder what alaskan marxist offered up this little ditty...
"And Alaska??we??re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it??s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs. ? It??s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans."
new york elite media representing (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/09/22/080922fa_fact_gourevitch?printable=true)
-
To down-play the role that race is playing in this election is ridiculous.....Race is playing an enourmous role in this election.
Probably about 1/3 of the FTE's at the organization I work for are out on the organization dime participating in Get out the Vote activities in various battleground states. This org has about 500 employees at HQ , not to mention a local presence in all 50 states, running a machine that represents about 1.5 million people all over the country. It's a lot of freakin' votes.
We're getting an alarming number of reports stating that potentional voters are straight up telling them they won't vote for Obama because he's black.
For many (including me) this election is about more than just politics, it's about emotion and restoring the image of the US abroad. Not to mention bucking back at a machine that has us involved in a war we perceive to be unjust and a subtle erosion of the civil liberties that make America.....America.
Honestly, nothing would make me happier than seeing the blood boil in the veins of racists in this country and the protectors of the good ol' boy's network upon realizing that their new Commander in Chief is a black man. The upstart in me wants to just crush any machinery that a person like that believes in.
But all that said, put all that aside and take a pure look at policy and my vote is still clear.
We all know on this board who will get our votes next week. I can't wait to cast mine, especially living in VA, knowing that my state will play an historical role in this election.
Cheers to all the spirited debate in this thread.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
We all know on this board who will get our votes next week. I can't wait to cast mine, especially living in VA, knowing that my state will play an historical role in this election.
More states should use the Oregon Vote by Mail system, I voted several days ago for Obama and Jeff Merkley and against mandatory drug sentences, felt great.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
to me, it more fit the narrative that violence by obama supporters upon mccain supporters (i'm using violence loosely, from shooting up mccain signs and trying to set them on fire, to obama supporters at obama speeches yelling "stone her" and the c word when he talks about palin) being underreported by the MSN compared to the goings on of mccain supporters.
whatever makes you sleep at night, bede. hope you're kidding yourself, 'cause you ain't kidding anyone else. why hasn't the media been reporting mccain-on-obama violence? because there hasn't been enough to report on. guess whose campaign started the "terrorist" and "kill him" taunts? (hint: they are a staple at palin rallies). the lopsidedness of violence against obama vs violence against mccain isn't even close, but congrats on pulling yet another classic from the GOP playbook: painting oneself as a victim when in fact one is the main aggressor. not saying it doesn't happen - there is evidence that it has - but it's been decidedly one-sided. the one story that managed to raise above the fray - "white southern GOP volunteer attacked by evil black obama supporter" - turned out to be a complete fabrication. ya know what isn't false? ATF Says It Broke Up Tennessee Plot to Kill Obama, Other Blacks (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajck7UOaFSLg) (oooooh, that's that "race" thing again). another link (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/28/two-charged-in-plot-to-kill-obama-101-others/).
and i'm still waiting for a reply on my previous link, Pentagon Panel: Biden Was Right, Prep for 'Crisis' (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/10/pentagon-panel.html) (third post on this page). oh, that's right, because there is no defensible reply - so best to ignore inconvenient truths. GOP has been busted. again.
moral bankruptcy may soon be knocking on the GOP's door.
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by chaz:
We all know on this board who will get our votes next week. I can't wait to cast mine, especially living in VA, knowing that my state will play an historical role in this election.
More states should use the Oregon Vote by Mail system, I voted several days ago for Obama and Jeff Merkley and against mandatory drug sentences, felt great. [/b]
one of the questions on the Maryland ballot this year is to start early voting processes.
-
The animosity continues.... no, I don't care which side attacks which, it's all stupid...using mace this time.
http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News (http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News)
-
I understand the difficulties and complexities in meeting any level of increased energy independence. Little of note will be ready in the next 5-7 years, and what renewable generation becomes available is going to be extremely difficult to connect to the grid -- building new transmission may be the most difficult endeavor of the overall energy industry (and many renewable sources are necessarily remotely located). Until we get towns,cities, counties and states to get into this fight and see beyond their parochial perspectives, we're going to lose. Same story with nuclear, which is a road we simply have to take.
That said, drilling for oil in US territory will do little to no good. Not only will it not be available for 7 - 10 years, or impact prices until 2030, when it is available, it will be sold on a global market. We may well see much of that head off into the sunset to China, where they have a greater availability of refineries to convert oil to gasoline.
And, if folks have this pie in the sky notion that oil and gasoline will be much more plentiful, the incentives for private R&D are dampened. Alas, that's what happens. The drill baby drill story is largely a fairy tale, and is making our situation worse as time marches on.
-
and mccain might maverick out of drilling anyway
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
and mccain might maverick out of drilling anyway
wouldn't that make him unamerican flip flopper?
-
hes already flip flopped on this
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
to me, it more fit the narrative that violence by obama supporters upon mccain supporters (i'm using violence loosely, from shooting up mccain signs and trying to set them on fire, to obama supporters at obama speeches yelling "stone her" and the c word when he talks about palin) being underreported by the MSN compared to the goings on of mccain supporters.
whatever makes you sleep at night, bede. hope you're kidding yourself, 'cause you ain't kidding anyone else. why hasn't the media been reporting mccain-on-obama violence? because there hasn't been enough to report on. guess whose campaign started the "terrorist" and "kill him" taunts? (hint: they are a staple at palin rallies). the lopsidedness of violence against obama vs violence against mccain isn't even close, but congrats on pulling yet another classic from the GOP playbook: painting oneself as a victim when in fact one is the main aggressor. not saying it doesn't happen - there is evidence that it has - but it's been decidedly one-sided. the one story that managed to raise above the fray - "white southern GOP volunteer attacked by evil black obama supporter" - turned out to be a complete fabrication. ya know what isn't false? ATF Says It Broke Up Tennessee Plot to Kill Obama, Other Blacks (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajck7UOaFSLg) (oooooh, that's that "race" thing again). another link (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/28/two-charged-in-plot-to-kill-obama-101-others/).
and i'm still waiting for a reply on my previous link, Pentagon Panel: Biden Was Right, Prep for 'Crisis' (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/10/pentagon-panel.html) (third post on this page). oh, that's right, because there is no defensible reply - so best to ignore inconvenient truths. GOP has been busted. again.
moral bankruptcy may soon be knocking on the GOP's door. [/b]
yes, let's attack me because i don't fit in your neat little vision of the racist republican. . .how progressive and open y'all are. . .
biden's point was not that a new president will be tested, biden's point was that right now, people are coming up with ways specifically tied to obama. . .to test his mettle as a president. he was right to reference kennedy, because that was exactly what krushchev was planning with him. krushchev knew that he wouldn't be able to get away with it while ike was president, and probably wouldn't get away with if nixon won, but with kennedy, why not? and when the bay of pigs happened, that simply re-inforced krushchev's belief about kennedy. but, as biden told the crowd, don't worry about how obama will respond because ol joe biden will be there. how that is supposed to allay my fears, i don't know.
the lack of any historical understanding on this board is astounding.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the lack of any historical understanding on this board is astounding.
you know , all this time i never had you pegged for a smug knowitall.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
To down-play the role that race is playing in this election is ridiculous.....Race is playing an enourmous role in this election.
But all that said, put all that aside and take a pure look at policy and my vote is still clear.
We all know on this board who will get our votes next week. I can't wait to cast mine, especially living in VA, knowing that my state will play an historical role in this election.
Cheers to all the spirited debate in this thread.
i downplay race because it's unimportant to me- i even refuse to answer questions on surveys about what race i am, because i believe that it doesn't matter. rather, i am an american. . .we all are americans, at least those of who who are citizens. :)
i won't deny that race is an issue in the campaign, but i don't acknowledge it in my personal views or opinions because it's irrelevant to me. according to doom, that makes me a racist.
as much as i'm sure y'all are fascinated in how i can come to such vastly different conclusions on policy, i am just as fascinated in how obvious the choice is for me. i remember a few years ago someone posted a political quiz that asked a series of questions about your political philosophy and it spat out an answer. . .i remember that ggw and i were way out in libertarian land. . .and people like markie and rhett (i think) wondered how we got our scores. i won't speak for ggw, but i fundamentally that government is not the cure, it's the disease. it's why it upsets me to no end reading and listening to obama and biden blame deregulation on the current economic mess, a vote, i might add, that biden supported. if i had any small amount of belief that obama would support free trade, if i had any amount of belief that obama would veto certain bills that i expect to come in his first 100 days such as those that will limit free speech (fairness doctrine), or limit free assembly and association (union card check laws), for example, i'd be less bombastic and stand-offish. but i don't.
you are right, chaz. . .we all know how we're voting. . i'm just sad that people believe that all of this is a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
yes, let's attack me because i don't fit in your neat little vision of the racist republican. . .how progressive and open y'all are. . .
i definitely didn't mean to attack you, not sure where you saw that, but i apologies if you felt that i was. i thoroughly enjoy your presence in this thread. i don't agree with your ideas, but i certainly enjoy hearing them and arguing them.
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
biden's point was not that a new president will be tested, biden's point was that right now, people are coming up with ways specifically tied to obama. . .to test his mettle as a president. he was right to reference kennedy, because that was exactly what krushchev was planning with him. krushchev knew that he wouldn't be able to get away with it while ike was president, and probably wouldn't get away with if nixon won, but with kennedy, why not? and when the bay of pigs happened, that simply re-inforced krushchev's belief about kennedy. but, as biden told the crowd, don't worry about how obama will respond because ol joe biden will be there. how that is supposed to allay my fears, i don't know.
that was not his point AT ALL. his point was that obama will be tested, because he'll be president. mccain will not be tested, because he'll be back in the senate - i.e. not the president.
do you really think enemies are making plans that depend on who is president? do you really think they fear mccain and think obama is a roll-over? "sh*t, we were going to attack the US and take hostages, but now that big bad daddy mccain is in the oval office we'd better go back to farming"?!? the notion that only the GOP can assure the country's safety is a crock. this is playong on people's fear... quick, let's raise the threat level to purple based on sources that can't be disclosed.
the abundance of self-delusion on this board is astounding :p
-
Alright, I'm come clean.
I'm voting for Arthways for president and Walkonby for VP.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
that was not his point AT ALL. his point was that obama will be tested, because he'll be president. mccain will not be tested, because he'll be back in the senate - i.e. not the president.
do you really think enemies are making plans that depend on who is president? do you really think they fear mccain and think obama is a roll-over? "sh*t, we were going to attack the US and take hostages, but now that big bad daddy mccain is in the oval office we'd better go back to farming"?!?
i don't think anyone knows. . .i do know that historically, upon regime changes, enemies of that government typically devise plans to test the willingness of the next leader. as noted previously, that's exactly what krushchev tried to do with kennedy over cuba. we will have to agree to disagree with biden's intention. . .to which i find your explanation unsupportable.
This is exactly what Biden said (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html):
"Watch, we??re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.?
i don't know how else to take it.....
He continues-
??I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,? Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. ??And he??s gonna need help. And the kind of help he??s gonna need is, he??s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we??re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it??s not gonna be apparent initially, it??s not gonna be apparent that we??re right.?
we can all call mccain a war-monger. . .but how is what biden said really any different. . .snl was right to mock him and murtha last week.
-
From Pulitzer Prize winner Anne Applebaum. Bolding is mine:
Why McCain Lost Me
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, October 28, 2008; A17
Yesterday, while reading the latest polling data on John McCain, Sarah Palin and their appeal -- or growing lack of it -- to " independent women voters" it suddenly dawned on me: I am one of these elusive independent female voters, and I have the credentials to prove it. For the past couple of decades, I've sometimes voted Democratic, sometimes Republican. I'm even a registered independent, though I did think of switching to vote for John McCain in 2000. But because the last political party I truly felt comfortable with was Thatcher's Conservative Party (I lived in England in the 1980s and 1990s), I didn't actually do it.
The larger point, though, is that if I'm not voting for McCain -- and, after a long struggle, I've realized that I can't -- maybe it's worth explaining why, for I suspect there are other independent voters who feel the same. Particularly because it's not his campaign, disjointed though that has been, that finally repulses me: It's his rapidly deteriorating, increasingly anti-intellectual, no longer even recognizably conservative Republican Party. His problems are not technical; they do not have to do with ads, fundraising or tactics, as some have suggested. They are institutional; they have to do with his colleagues, advisers and supporters.
I should say here that I know McCain, slightly: He spoke at a party given for a book I wrote a few years ago, though I think that was as much about the subject (communist prison camps) as the author. But it's not his personality I admire most. Far more important is his knowledge of foreign affairs, an understanding that goes well beyond an ability to name the Pakistani president. McCain knows not only the names, he knows the people; and by this I mean not just foreign presidents but foreign members of parliament, foreign journalists, foreign generals. He goes to Germany every year, visits Vietnam often. He can talk intelligently about Belarus and Uzbekistan; I've heard him do it. Let's just say that's one of the things that distinguish him from our current president, who once confessed that "this foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."
Another thing I liked about McCain was the deliberate distance he always kept from the nuttier wing of his party and, simultaneously, the loyalty he's shown to a recognizably conservative budgetary philosophy. Fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets, sober spending -- all of these principles have been brushed away as so much nonsense for the past eight years by Republicans more interested in grandstanding about how much they hate Washington. McCain was one of the few who kept talking about them. He was also one of a shockingly few to understand that there is nothing American, let alone conservative, about torture, and that a battle for civilized values could not be won by uncivilized means.
Finally, I admired McCain's willingness to tackle politically risky issues such as immigration, the debate about which has long been drenched in hypocrisy. Those who want to ban it are illogically denying both the role that immigrants, especially the millions of illegal immigrants, already play in the U.S. economy as well as the improbability of forced deportations; those who want to allow it without restriction don't acknowledge the security risks. McCain tried to put together a bipartisan coalition in an effort to find a rational solution. He failed -- blocked by the ideologues in his party.
If these traits appealed to me, they probably would have appealed to other independents, too. Why, then, has McCain spent the past four months running away from them? The appointment of Palin -- inspired by his closest colleagues -- turned out not to be a "maverick" move but, rather, a concession to those Republicans who think foreign policy can be conducted using a series of cliches and those in his party who shout down the federal government while quietly raking in federal subsidies. Although McCain has one of the best records for bipartisanship in the Senate, he's let his campaign appeal to his party's extremes. Though he is a true foreign policy intellectual, his supporters cultivate ignorance and fear: Watch Sean Hannity's " Barack Obama and Friends: A History of Radicalism" on YouTube if you don't believe me. Worse, McCain has -- in a fatal effort to appeal to the least thoughtful, most partisan elements of his base -- moved away from his previous positions on torture and immigration. Maybe that's all tactics, and maybe the "real" McCain will ditch the awful ideologues after Nov. 4, if by some miracle he happens to win. But how can I know that will happen?
Here's what I do know: I would give anything to rewrite history and make McCain president in 2000. But in 2008, I don't think I can vote for him. Barack Obama is indeed the least experienced, least tested candidate in modern presidential history. But at least if he wins, I can be sure that the mobs who cry "terrorist" at the sound of Obama's name will be kept far, far away from the White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702406_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702406_pf.html)
applebaumletters@washpost.com
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
that was not his point AT ALL. his point was that obama will be tested, because he'll be president. mccain will not be tested, because he'll be back in the senate - i.e. not the president.
do you really think enemies are making plans that depend on who is president? do you really think they fear mccain and think obama is a roll-over? "sh*t, we were going to attack the US and take hostages, but now that big bad daddy mccain is in the oval office we'd better go back to farming"?!?
i don't think anyone knows. . .i do know that historically, upon regime changes, enemies of that government typically devise plans to test the willingness of the next leader. as noted previously, that's exactly what krushchev tried to do with kennedy over cuba. we will have to agree to disagree with biden's intention. . .to which i find your explanation unsupportable.
This is exactly what Biden said (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html):
"Watch, we??re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.?
i don't know how else to take it.....
He continues-
??I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,? Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. ??And he??s gonna need help. And the kind of help he??s gonna need is, he??s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we??re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it??s not gonna be apparent initially, it??s not gonna be apparent that we??re right.?
we can all call mccain a war-monger. . .but how is what biden said really any different. . .snl was right to mock him and murtha last week. [/b]
i just find it funny that i heard so many people, when Biden got picked as Obama's running mate, that Biden is the type of guy who can't keep his mouth shut and puts his foot in his mouth and says stuff contradictory and stuff that doesnt make sense.
Yet now, we're dissecting his every word and meaning as though this man doesnt totally speak off the cuff almost all of the time.
"a generated crisis"? do you believe he meant a terror attack? Was it just a way to distinguish a crisis other than the "economic crisis" as to not sound as though he didnt think that as a "crisis".
What is an ungenerated crisis?
My meaning from this was that sometime shortly Obama was going to have to make some large decision fast, probably internationally. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, whatever. and that when he does make that choice, America cant afford to go off the deepend and immediately declare another useless war or some other kneejerk reaction as if Bush was still in power.
-
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Alright, I'm come clean.
I'm voting for Arthways for president and Walkonby for VP.
For what do I deserve that particular honor? Remember I'm the crazy that's voting Libertarian, not because Barr's great, he's kind of a douche, but because the Republican party has been the ignorant chest-beating party for a long time, and well, the Dems have their hearts in the right places, but are just plain wrong more often than not.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
i just find it funny that i heard so many people, when Biden got picked as Obama's running mate, that Biden is the type of guy who can't keep his mouth shut and puts his foot in his mouth and says stuff contradictory and stuff that doesnt make sense.
Yet now, we're dissecting his every word and meaning as though this man doesnt totally speak off the cuff almost all of the time.
"a generated crisis"? do you believe he meant a terror attack? Was it just a way to distinguish a crisis other than the "economic crisis" as to not sound as though he didnt think that as a "crisis".
What is an ungenerated crisis?
My meaning from this was that sometime shortly Obama was going to have to make some large decision fast, probably internationally. Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, whatever. and that when he does make that choice, America cant afford to go off the deepend and immediately declare another useless war or some other kneejerk reaction as if Bush was still in power.
when he's merely a senator, he's "ahh, shucks, look what joe said," but he's the vp nominee. . .with the way y'all have been treating palin, i just assumed that you'd look at biden the same way. . .oh, darn it, there i go again.
i don't think it can be any more clear. . .biden is talking about a military crisis. . .how would you propose that pakistan create an economic crisis for america? ooooh, i hear pakistan has a great housing market, let's invest, surely they have plenty of money and wouldn't dare sell us smart capitalists phony mortgages.
i certainly hope that the left is prepared for obama not bringing the troops in iraq home, but keeping them in the middle east. . .as smackie and i argued before he left for his 2 month pilgrimage, both mccain and obama agree on afghanistan and pakistan- there are two disagreements, 1) mccain wants to finish iraq and leave it, hopefully stable in a few years; obama now wants to shift troops from iraq to afghanistan, but still leave a sizable force there for security for a few years and 2) obama is more willing to do stragetic attacks inside pakistan than mccain.
i read biden's statement to be exactly what you say it isn't. . .that he's asking for your trust that they have made the right decision to bomb somewhere; the only thing that's different between what biden said and bush is that biden is telling people they're gonna do it, but don't worry about it, TRUST US, we're gonna do the same thing, but we're different. what's the line from "baba o'riley"- meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
when he's merely a senator, he's "ahh, shucks, look what joe said," but he's the vp nominee. . .with the way y'all have been treating palin, i just assumed that you'd look at biden the same way. . .oh, darn it, there i go again.
Personally, i dont hang on every word Palin says. I dont like her, thats true, but while it may be correct what you said in general, it certainly doesnt pertain to me. I laugh at the idiotic things both of them have said.
i don't think it can be any more clear. . .biden is talking about a military crisis. . .how would you propose that pakistan create an economic crisis for america? ooooh, i hear pakistan has a great housing market, let's invest, surely they have plenty of money and wouldn't dare sell us smart capitalists phony mortgages.
isnt that what i said??
i certainly hope that the left is prepared for obama not bringing the troops in iraq home, but keeping them in the middle east. . .as smackie and i argued before he left for his 2 month pilgrimage, both mccain and obama agree on afghanistan and pakistan- there are two disagreements, 1) mccain wants to finish iraq and leave it, hopefully stable in a few years; obama now wants to shift troops from iraq to afghanistan, but still leave a sizable force there for security for a few years and 2) obama is more willing to do stragetic attacks inside pakistan than mccain.
i read biden's statement to be exactly what you say it isn't. . .that he's asking for your trust that they have made the right decision to bomb somewhere; the only thing that's different between what biden said and bush is that biden is telling people they're gonna do it, but don't worry about it, TRUST US, we're gonna do the same thing, but we're different. what's the line from "baba o'riley"- meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
again, i believe thats what i said it meant.
I also hope that Liberals do not think the troops are coming home. Personally, I am in agreeance with Obama that the US should focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan and less on Iraq, and I dont expect this crap in the middle east to be over by any means soon. or ever.
I think a huge problem with the Iraq war, and i bet you can find a survey about it, is that Americans felt they were lied to about it. Biden is trying to say that we can't have that anymore, that America cant continue fighting wars against terrorists without its citizens support.
We are taking the same meaning out of his comment, we just feel differently about it. would you agree?
-
Originally posted by Arthwys:
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Alright, I'm come clean.
I'm voting for Arthways for president and Walkonby for VP.
For what do I deserve that particular honor? Remember I'm the crazy that's voting Libertarian, not because Barr's great, he's kind of a douche, but because the Republican party has been the ignorant chest-beating party for a long time, and well, the Dems have their hearts in the right places, but are just plain wrong more often than not. [/b]
Because things I've seen you post previously are the closest to how I believe as oppossed to anyone else on this board. You just stated them much more eloquently.
I'm seriously considering writing in Ron Paul but haven't decided yet for sure. One thing I do know for sure is that there is no fucking way in Hell that I will vote for either McCain or Obama as I fully believe they are a pair of puppets controlled by the very same evil master. Neither in anyway represent me. I will NOT give in.
For those who believe this is a wasted vote, too bad. I must vote my heart and conscience and cannot for the life of me justify voting for either of the major parties. In my opinion, the only wasted vote is no vote at all. Then again, 'ol George Bush's cousin who owns the Diebold machines may just step in and rig the votes again. :roll:
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
again, i believe thats what i said it meant.
I also hope that Liberals do not think the troops are coming home. Personally, I am in agreeance with Obama that the US should focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan and less on Iraq, and I dont expect this crap in the middle east to be over by any means soon. or ever.
I think a huge problem with the Iraq war, and i bet you can find a survey about it, is that Americans felt they were lied to about it. Biden is trying to say that we can't have that anymore, that America cant continue fighting wars against terrorists without its citizens support.
We are taking the same meaning out of his comment, we just feel differently about it. would you agree?
hmmm, that maybe true. . .what i think accounts for the differences is that you believe that obama's policy on the middle east will be different than mccain's. i think they would basically be the same- but remember, this is all couched in biden's belief that somewhere forces are aligning to test obama, and that obama may do some crazy things, but don't worry, we will do them for the right reasons. . .now, if that's something you are fine with, then we do agree in our interpretations. i just find it funny that in mccain, that's a negative, but in obama, that's a positive.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by very sonick:
again, i believe thats what i said it meant.
I also hope that Liberals do not think the troops are coming home. Personally, I am in agreeance with Obama that the US should focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan and less on Iraq, and I dont expect this crap in the middle east to be over by any means soon. or ever.
I think a huge problem with the Iraq war, and i bet you can find a survey about it, is that Americans felt they were lied to about it. Biden is trying to say that we can't have that anymore, that America cant continue fighting wars against terrorists without its citizens support.
We are taking the same meaning out of his comment, we just feel differently about it. would you agree?
hmmm, that maybe true. . .what i think accounts for the differences is that you believe that obama's policy on the middle east will be different than mccain's. i think they would basically be the same- but remember, this is all couched in biden's belief that somewhere forces are aligning to test obama, and that obama may do some crazy things, but don't worry, we will do them for the right reasons. . .now, if that's something you are fine with, then we do agree in our interpretations. i just find it funny that in mccain, that's a negative, but in obama, that's a positive. [/b]
we agree again. :) I think that McCain is very capable of handling the situation in the middle east. I do think Obama could do just as well (or bad if you are a glass half empty person). and i think both of them will handle things better than the current adminstration did in the past.
Personally the issue on foreign policy is a wash for me when considering the candidates. Does this mean i should have just kept my mouth shut on this issue?
-
i also think that if McCain wins the election and this crisis happens (and it will no matter who gets elected) that Americans should stand behind their leader, to a certain extent of course. questioning authority is cool sometimes but all the time, its obnoxious.
-
but why me as vp? to cause total chaos and destroy all things sacred about the position? oh wait. palin could still win.
-
the larger issue than how mccain and obama will continue to handle the botched situations in iraq and afghanistan is how they will handle new foreign policy obsticals that will emerge while they are in office. mccain loved the iraq war and still thinks the concept was good if the execution was poor. obama didnt like the iraq war to begin with and realizes that it was not a sound policy decision. for me thats the clear difference
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
but why me as vp? to cause total chaos and destroy all things sacred about the position? oh wait. palin could still win.
For one, you know about and maybe even understand Project Bluebeam. Secondly, you would provide a nice out of the box open minded balance to Arthways' very logical approach. A bit of checks and balances administration at the top.
Have to admit that if some weird series of events happen (staged or otherwise), the thought of Palin as President scares me even more than MaCain or Obama.
Have to leave for work. Later.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the larger issue than how mccain and obama will continue to handle the botched situations in iraq and afghanistan is how they will handle new foreign policy obsticals that will emerge while they are in office. mccain loved the iraq war and still thinks the concept was good if the execution was poor. obama didnt like the iraq war to begin with and realizes that it was not a sound policy decision. for me thats the clear difference
regardless of their beliefs, one of them will inherit iraq. . .whether obama opposed the war or not or mccain supported the war or not, becomes irrelevant. . .what matters is what are they going to do about it. both of them, yes both of them, are going to keep some amount of troops in iraq. . .both of them are going to re-deploy troops in afghanistan. short of obama deciding to evacuate from the middle east, however much he opposed the iraq war isn't going to make a lick of difference in the execution of whatever strategy either men choose. believing that because he opposed the iraq war means he'll have a better understanding of what to do with iraq is unfounded.
-
thats not what i said at all
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
regardless of their beliefs, one of them will inherit iraq. . .whether obama opposed the war or not or mccain supported the war or not, becomes irrelevant. . .what matters is what are they going to do about it. both of them, yes both of them, are going to keep some amount of troops in iraq. . .both of them are going to re-deploy troops in afghanistan. short of obama deciding to evacuate from the middle east, however much he opposed the iraq war isn't going to make a lick of difference in the execution of whatever strategy either men choose. believing that because he opposed the iraq war means he'll have a better understanding of what to do with iraq is unfounded.
As he noted, this isn't what he said. The point is about judgment in getting our troops INTO conflict. Either of them has a mess on their hands in Iraq - but I believe Shoeshine's point was about what a potential president might do in the future as related to other potential conflicts.
The candidates' respective stances on Iraq are simply not irrelevant - they're enormously valuable insights into what their views are on the appropriate uses of American forces.
-
Uh, what?
'Joe the Plumber' Backs Claim That Obama Would Bring 'Death to Israel' (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/joe-plumber-backs-claim-obama-bring-death-israel/)
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
what's the line from "baba o'riley"- meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
minor aside: classic rock fail. the line is from "won't get fooled again." you expect boardees to take your opinions on policy seriously, when you can't even get THAT right?!? :p
(joking, kidding, making a funny, no not serious, notice the use of smiley, etc...)
-
Originally posted by callat703:
As he noted, this isn't what he said. The point is about judgment in getting our troops INTO conflict. Either of them has a mess on their hands in Iraq - but I believe Shoeshine's point was about what a potential president might do in the future as related to other potential conflicts.
The candidates' respective stances on Iraq are simply not irrelevant - they're enormously valuable insights into what their views are on the appropriate uses of American forces.
i understand all that, i'm simply disputing the underlying logic that since obama opposed the war in iraq he has a better understanding of strategy and use of force than mccain, simply because mccain supported the war in iraq. i don't understand how that makes any sense. if anything, mccain very early on understood that bush's strategy was wrong. . .yet, that very same understanding of strategy and how to use force is immediately discarded because of his support of the war in iraq.
it's one thing to support obama because you are against the war and so was obama. . .it's another thing completely to say that because he was against the war, he's able to make better choices about war than someone who was for the war.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
what's the line from "baba o'riley"- meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
minor aside: classic rock fail. the line is from "won't get fooled again." you expect boardees to take your opinions on policy seriously, when you can't even get THAT right?!? :p
(joking, kidding, making a funny, no not serious, notice the use of smiley, etc...) [/b]
oh, i can't believe i messed that up. i had baby o'riley in my mind and transposed the endings. ugh. . .
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
Uh, what?
'Joe the Plumber' Backs Claim That Obama Would Bring 'Death to Israel' (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/joe-plumber-backs-claim-obama-bring-death-israel/)
The fact that they are even carting this guy out there to shill for them is just more than I can comprehend.
"I love America. I hope it remains a democracy, not a socialist society. ... If you look at spreading the wealth, that's honestly right out of Karl Marx's mouth," Wurzelbacher said.
"No one can debate that. That's not my opinion. That's fact."
There you have it, straight from Joe the Plumber. Obama is a Marxist. It's fact.
How much you want to bet ol' Joe didn't even know who Karl Marx was until last week?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i understand all that, i'm simply disputing the underlying logic that since obama opposed the war in iraq he has a better understanding of strategy and use of force than mccain, simply because mccain supported the war in iraq. i don't understand how that makes any sense.
Unless I missed something, nobody is using that "underlying logic." I haven't seen anybody here make the contention that you're objecting to. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read every word of this thread, so if I missed it, apologies - but I don't think anybody has said "because Obama opposed the war he's better equipped to deal with the current situation in Iraq."
Now, if you'd like to discuss the question of judgment related to entering war in general, that seems very much related to what the conversations on the board have been.
-
Palin - Plumber in 2012!!!
I love it. That's the ticket I'm waiting for. Now THAT will be a great thread.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
i understand all that, i'm simply disputing the underlying logic that since obama opposed the war in iraq he has a better understanding of strategy and use of force than mccain, simply because mccain supported the war in iraq. i don't understand how that makes any sense.
Unless I missed something, nobody is using that "underlying logic." I haven't seen anybody here make the contention that you're objecting to. I'll be honest in saying I haven't read every word of this thread, so if I missed it, apologies - but I don't think anybody has said "because Obama opposed the war he's better equipped to deal with the current situation in Iraq."
Now, if you'd like to discuss the question of judgment related to entering war in general, that seems very much related to what the conversations on the board have been. [/b]
this is what mr. shoeshine said-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the larger issue than how mccain and obama will continue to handle the botched situations in iraq and afghanistan is how they will handle new foreign policy obsticals that will emerge while they are in office. mccain loved the iraq war and still thinks the concept was good if the execution was poor. obama didnt like the iraq war to begin with and realizes that it was not a sound policy decision. for me thats the clear difference
now, your clarification of shoeshine's post is that he's talking about the judgment of each candidate in making decisions about going to war. . .it's clear that the assumption is predicated on a personal view that the iraq war was wrong. . .putting the two together clearly implicates that because obama knew that iraq was wrong (and that mccain supported the iraq war), obama will have better judgment on when to use force than mccain, because mccain supported the war in iraq. . .shoeshine, by relying on past experience (obama opposing the war=sound policy decision; mccain supporting the war=risky and unsound policy decision) to determine how the two would react to future events, draws a conclusion that because obama opposed the iraq war, he'll have a better judgment on when and how to use force than mccain, who supported the unsound policy decision on iraq. i simply do not understand that logic- now, i will admit that i may be missing something here, but so far i don't know why it is. . .
while mccain may have supported the war, he certainly opposed the way it was carried out- surely that is just as valid a position, if not moreso, on judgment and military strategy. since the end of the first gulf war, it's been an unfortunate belief amongst the miliary advisors inside the subsequent adminstrations (both clinton and bush ii, until petraeus) that american air superiority and technology outweighs sheer numbers on the ground....mccain, being a military man, knows that's not a sound ground-war strategy (just like powell and schwartzkopf from gulf war i). . .by saying that his judgment is flawed because he supported the iraq war is unsupportable.
i realize that my initial tie to a future war in iraq was misleading- i thought that my second post was more accurate.
again, i don't know what i'm missing. . .
-
does the fact that people who do not qualify for a job, aka me and you, who argue these points of politics like mad clockwork, have anything to do with the fact that we should not be arguing these points in the first place? as if we are scientists combating mentally at each other's test tube throats about the ongoing, never solved equation of some shit or another. i don't argue car mechanics or directing an eleven minute short film with other people i meet or talk to, even strangers in a restaurant, because neither of i qualify for either position in this person that makes me. politics should be a job: you are intrigued by it as a child so you study it in school, where you can get out your "need to talk it over" phases, then you form a career around it. other people (the kicker) such as you and me again, can only talk about it in the form of written (mail, no email) correspondences to their personal state or federal official(s) about the states of affairs. think of the jobs. always think of the jobs and the peaceful state of mind the country would relish in, without the tv/magazine/books/this place/and me rambling on, that would be created. the end of neo politics as we know it.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
oh, i can't believe i messed that up. i had baby o'riley in my mind and transposed the endings. ugh. . .
"baba o'riley" :p
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
does the fact that people who do not qualify for a job, aka me and you, who argue these points of politics like mad clockwork, have anything to do with the fact that we should not be arguing these points in the first place? as if we are scientists combating mentally at each other's test tube throats about the ongoing, never solved equation of some shit or another. i don't argue car mechanics or directing an eleven minute short film with other people i meet or talk to, even strangers in a restaurant, because neither of i qualify for either position in this person that makes me. politics should be a job: you are intrigued by it as a child so you study it in school, where you can get out your "need to talk it over" phases, then you form a career around it. other people (the kicker) such as you and me again, can only talk about it in the form of written (mail, no email) correspondences to their personal state or federal official(s) about the states of affairs. think of the jobs. always think of the jobs and the peaceful state of mind the country would relish in, without the tv/magazine/books/this place/and me rambling on, that would be created. the end of neo politics as we know it.
all the eleven-minute shorts in the world aren't going to affect me if i choose not to let them. i'm not responsible for choosing which mechanic works at which garage, if i'm not happy with a mechanic i'm not going to be stuck with his/her decisions for 4 years.
-
you're so cute.
-
McCain is one of the few American politicians in either party with the courage and conviction to stand up to protectionist populism. By contrast, Obama embodies protectionism. .... McCain has voted 88% of the time against bills creating trade barriers, and 90% of the time against export subsidies for US producers. Few other senators have such a splendid record.
Obama has served a much shorter time in the Senate, and avoided voting on many key issues. He has voted against trade barriers only 36% of the time. He supported export subsidies on the two occasions on which he voted, a 100% protectionist record in this regard. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Columnists/Where_McCain_scores_over_Obama/articleshow/3641429.cms)
perhaps one of the more industrious of you will take up greg mankiw's challenge (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/10/view-from-india.html): "If any of my economist friends who are working for Obama wants to defend his positions on ethanol subsidies, tariffs on Chinese goods, the Byrd amendment, etc., shoot me an email, and I will gladly post it for my blog readers. But I am not holding my breath."
-
i have to go to one of these.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397701/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27397701/)
-
at 2:50 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oro2Yh9HoEM), palin reacts to a question about her possibly being chosen as mccain's running mate: "as for that VP talk all the time, i tell ya i still can't answer that question until somebody answer for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day? i'm used to being very productive and working very hard every day..." - because the vice-president doesn't have to work or anything...
she then goes on to say that she want to make sure a VP nomination brings good things "especially for alaskans" (like more earmarks, per chance?). yeah, she's ready for national politics and seeing the country as a whole.
-
wow, i think bede took 100xs as many words to spin out of my post as i did posting. and i still dont see how the candidates prewar stances are completely irrelevant. or maybe i'm missing something
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
at 2:50 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oro2Yh9HoEM), palin reacts to a question about her possibly being chosen as mccain's running mate: "as for that VP talk all the time, i tell ya i still can't answer that question until somebody answer for me, what is it exactly that the VP does every day? i'm used to being very productive and working very hard every day..." - because the vice-president doesn't have to work or anything...
she then goes on to say that she want to make sure a VP nomination brings good things "especially for alaskans" (like more earmarks, per chance?). yeah, she's ready for national politics and seeing the country as a whole.
ugh. . .i don't want to get into this topic again. . let's just say that while palin amusingly wonders what's the role of the vp, biden confidently declares that he knows what the role of the vp is and that it's part of the executive branch, except that it's not. as for your editorial comment on earmarks- that's simply wrong. while governor, she has reduced the requests for earmarks coming from her office and the state. . .really, do we have to go over this allllll again?
from an ny times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27reynolds.html):
THE presidential campaign has taken a detour into a dispute over the constitutional status of the vice presidency. It all started when Sarah Palin asserted in her debate with Joe Biden that the vice president should play an important role in the legislative branch.
Ms. Palin has been roundly mocked for her claim. But she was probably right.
Article I of the Constitution, which describes the authority of the legislative branch, says that ??the vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.? Aside from the job of replacing a president who dies or is unable to serve, the only vice presidential duties that are spelled out in the Constitution are legislative in character.
so, would you rather have someone who declares they don't know something and wants to learn or someone who claims to know something, but is astoundingly wrong? seems to me that, in keeping with the character of people on this board, they'd rather have the person who admits they don't know and wants to learn. i'm willing to stipulate the efficacy of a particular person's actual desire to want to learn.
-
the ability of bede to take one thing and systematically twist it into something completely different is whats really astounding on this board! now before you go saying that by saying that i mean this and by this i must mean that and if thats the case i must mean this....i meant that as a compliment. you must have learned that at a fancy college.
-
well my take on Palin is that she under the impression that the President of the Senate is some how equivalent in power to the Speaker of the House, which just isn't the case.
The President of the Senate has historically been a ceremonial position and the VP doesn't usually mix-it up on set the agenda of the Senate.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
from an ny times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27reynolds.html):
THE presidential campaign has taken a detour into a dispute over the constitutional status of the vice presidency. It all started when Sarah Palin asserted in her debate with Joe Biden that the vice president should play an important role in the legislative branch.
Ms. Palin has been roundly mocked for her claim. But she was probably right.
Article I of the Constitution, which describes the authority of the legislative branch, says that ??the vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.? Aside from the job of replacing a president who dies or is unable to serve, the only vice presidential duties that are spelled out in the Constitution are legislative in character.
so, would you rather have someone who declares they don't know something and wants to learn or someone who claims to know something, but is astoundingly wrong? seems to me that, in keeping with the character of people on this board, they'd rather have the person who admits they don't know and wants to learn. i'm willing to stipulate the efficacy of a particular person's actual desire to want to learn.
isnt that the same instapundit author you linked a few weeks back?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
let's just say that while palin amusingly wonders what's the role of the vp, biden confidently declares that he knows what the role of the vp is and that it's part of the executive branch, except that it's not.
i'd rather have someone who has a valid but disputable interpretation, vs. someone who has no fucking clue at all. complete and her bit about using the office of VP to do good things for alaska further shows that she isn't ready for the national stage. personally, i don't find that amusing.
i thought the repubs were dead-set against learning on the job... oh, wait, that only applies to the other side.
-
sweetcell can you even vote?
-
<img src="http://dailyabuse.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/111304_vote_or_die.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
sweetcell can you even vote?
i obviously cant answer for him, but since you asked that....i am wondering if i can...i didnt think i could but now i am unsure.
-
you cant. dont try.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you cant. dont try.
you know, i thought about trying just to see if i could or to see if they really just let anyone vote.
my situation is confusing, i have had 2 GC's and am married to a citizen. I was told by some that i had to wait 3 years after being married but now i am believing i could have applied sooner since i was already here before i got married.
Either way, its not like i could get naturalized by next week anyway. 1 less Obama vote you have to worry about manimtired. I live in Maryland anyway so not like it really matters.
-
ooh, maryland . . . the new northern virginia.
-
nope, not currently eligible to vote. yes, eligible to have an opinion.
your point? lemme guess, you're going to dismiss me because i can't vote (invariably with a most thoughtful argument along the lines of "STFU"). sorry buddy, i'll be spouting off as much as the next guy. this board - and the right to an opinion - isn't limited to eligible voters. my hope is to influence those who can. been living here 10 years, elections affect me.
if i was pro-mccain, 100% guaranteed you wouldn't be making an issue of this. how about choosing a real issue and discussing that? LOL.
sonick: what's a "GC"? (i'm unfamiliar with that abbreviation, in this context).
-
LOL. u mad?
-
GC - grand children. hes rhetts age..
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
sonick: what's a "GC"? (i'm unfamiliar with that abbreviation, in this context).
green card.
-
The Endorsement from Hell (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26kristof.html?_r=3&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
John McCain isn??t boasting about a new endorsement, one of the very, very few he has received from overseas. It came a few days ago:
??Al Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election,? read a commentary on a password-protected Islamist Web site that is closely linked to Al Qaeda and often disseminates the group??s propaganda.
The endorsement left the McCain campaign sputtering, and noting helplessly that Hamas appears to prefer Barack Obama. Al Qaeda??s apparent enthusiasm for Mr. McCain is manifestly not reciprocated.
***
Later, from the same article:
Yet the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn??t a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Joseph Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him.
??From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,? said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.
-
no reverse psychology being used by those clever terrorists...nope, none at all.
-
http://augustafreepress.com/2008/09/22/webcast-richard-clarke-stumps-for-obama/ (http://augustafreepress.com/2008/09/22/webcast-richard-clarke-stumps-for-obama/)
http://ndnblog.org/node/2445 (http://ndnblog.org/node/2445)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no reverse psychology being used by those clever terrorists...nope, none at all.
Yeah, Al Qaeda are total libs man, you know they are dying for some of that sweet sweet socialism
-
joseph nye the government guy, lol, edgy
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
no reverse psychology being used by those clever terrorists...nope, none at all.
Yeah, Al Qaeda are total libs man, you know they are dying for some of that sweet sweet socialism [/b]
i think they prefer "soft power" over getting killed. way to grasp the subject at hand.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think they prefer "soft power" over getting killed. way to grasp the subject at hand.
thank god we have you to see in to the terrorist voters mind, because they totally got killed under Bush, remember that day Osama was killed, that was awesome
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
no reverse psychology being used by those clever terrorists...nope, none at all.
Yeah, Al Qaeda are total libs man, you know they are dying for some of that sweet sweet socialism [/b]
post of the week. "sweet sweet socialism"
-
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think they prefer "soft power" over getting killed. way to grasp the subject at hand.
thank god we have you to see in to the terrorist voters mind, because they totally got killed under Bush, remember that day Osama was killed, that was awesome [/b]
:roll: :roll:
-
:) :( :o :D ;) :p :cool: :roll:
-
dude, i am giddy with excitement to see manimtired's posts on November 5th. its gonna be so sweeet, sweet like socialism
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
dude, i am giddy with excitement to see manimtired's posts on November 5th. its gonna be so sweeet, sweet like socialism
part of me thinks somehow dems will find a way to blow it, kind of how red sox fans used to feel, so I will hold off on excitement, but I am sure his posts will be short either way
-
canadians wanting to choose the US president is like me wanting to pick the coach of the cowboys...even if i lived in dallas.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
canadians wanting to choose the US president is like me wanting to pick the coach of the cowboys...even if i lived in dallas.
complete analogy fail.
-
i think its spot on. whats my analogy?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
canadians wanting to choose the US president is like me wanting to pick the coach of the cowboys...even if i lived in dallas.
Look, its not only canadians, it's the whole world who wants the US to choose Obama as president. After 8 years of complete disaster in every major issue (except, I must say, AIDS fight in the world), everybody will welcome change in the White House.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
let's just say that while palin amusingly wonders what's the role of the vp, biden confidently declares that he knows what the role of the vp is and that it's part of the executive branch, except that it's not.
i'd rather have someone who has a valid but disputable interpretation, vs. someone who has no fucking clue at all. complete and her bit about using the office of VP to do good things for alaska further shows that she isn't ready for the national stage. personally, i don't find that amusing.
i thought the repubs were dead-set against learning on the job... oh, wait, that only applies to the other side. [/b]
you're so funny. . .
biden first- for someone who has claimed that he is an expert on the constitution and smarter than most people, i do find it funny that he is more often than not wrong on a number of things, the role and duties of the vp being one of them.
palin- i'm simply pointing out the discrepancy between criticising republicans for being obstinate, versus admitting when someone doesn't know something.
from the lack of consensus here on the board, it seems like a lot of people don't know what is the role of the vp.
sonick. . .while i did go to a private college, it certainly wasn't no fancy pants college. . .it was in texas, seersucker is about the fanciest pants you'll find. i was actually really conservative before going there, but being around religious conservatives, i realized that a lot of them couldn't think themselves out a paper bag. . .so, i moved towards the libertarians, who i also don't fully agree with, but the dems hold nothing of interest for me. so, here i am. . .stuck.
-
Originally posted by lagas:
Originally posted by manimtired:
canadians wanting to choose the US president is like me wanting to pick the coach of the cowboys...even if i lived in dallas.
Look, its not only canadians, it's the whole world who wants the US to choose Obama as president. After 8 years of complete disaster in every major issue (except, I must say, AIDS fight in the world), everybody will welcome change in the White House. [/b]
my analogy works with your post too!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think its spot on. whats my analogy?
dude, it breaks down on so many levels. let's start with this: NO ONE chooses the cowboys head coach except cowboys management. the person who just moved to dallas doesn't choose him any more than a life-long resident.
the head coach's policy decisions have NO bearing on the populations freedom and well-being unless they choose to let it. head coach can't change tax policy, foreign policy, trade policy, etc etc etc.
shall i go on?
to recap: president of the usa not equal to football coach. "LOL."
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
canadians wanting to choose the US president is like me wanting to pick the coach of the cowboys...even if i lived in dallas.
well, careful slim, cause I have lived here for 14 years, I married an american woman, and on 2012, i'll be voting for Obama's re-election. :)
(see next post for clarification)_
-
Originally posted by lagas:
Look, its not only canadians, it's the whole world who wants the US to choose Obama as president. After 8 years of complete disaster in every major issue (except, I must say, AIDS fight in the world), everybody will welcome change in the White House.
there are at least two issues that should be addressed here- 1) i agree that there are a lot of people around the world who want obama to become president because he is viewed as more enlightened, and believe that his foreign policy will be different. . .i don't dispute that contention...
however, 2) i believe that trade will become a sticking point, and that an obama administration, coupled with a congress hell-bent on using populism to suck the life out of free-market capitalism, by throwing up trade barriers and insisting on unreasonable terms for trade treaties, will cause increased havoc. the world is heavily integrated (as friedman calls it, the world is flat), and as much as obama and congress would like to, we can't simply raise tariffs and block foreign trade because that's not how the world works anymore. free trade and agreements bringing down trade barriers are essential to the continued economic growth of not just the u.s., but of the rest of the world. and having obama threaten to pull out of NAFTA or attempt to re-negotiate NAFTA would be a terrible decision; whatever we think we can get, Canada and Mexico are more than happy to take something else away. As I posted yesterday, there is concern in India about trade, there is also concern in europe (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggHxjYOjEMGJcNQGflXNdwx4Sckw) about trade. . .
of course, i dispute the contention that we should make our decisions based on what the world thinks- foreign intervention in american politics was a great concern of the founding fathers, and it is clear that it is still a concern today.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
sonick. . .while i did go to a private college, it certainly wasn't no fancy pants college. . .it was in texas, seersucker is about the fanciest pants you'll find. i was actually really conservative before going there, but being around religious conservatives, i realized that a lot of them couldn't think themselves out a paper bag. . .so, i moved towards the libertarians, who i also don't fully agree with, but the dems hold nothing of interest for me. so, here i am. . .stuck.
you are in the situation my wife is in, cept she came from the other side, she was very liberal (maybe thats why she fell for a socialist canadian boy) but as time has gone on (and she got a job with a finance company and got her MBA) she's been scolding the big government and economic policies (read: tax and spend) of the Democrats. Her moral values are still quite liberal but she's finding herself more and more torn.
She's not voting for Obama but is even less inclined to vote McCain and her preaching endlessly the need for any sort of 3rd party is wearing off on me.
also, while in the heat of the discussion it may come off that i am some sort of "fan" of Obama. its not true. I would choose him over McCain easily. but think hes a somewhat poor substitute for Clinton and generally his best quality is that i think he may very well change washington and our country. whether he makes it better or worse is abour 50-50 in my mind. But i'll just be excited to see something change.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think its spot on. whats my analogy?
dude, it breaks down on so many levels. let's start with this: NO ONE chooses the cowboys head coach except cowboys management. the person who just moved to dallas doesn't choose him any more than a life-long resident.
the head coach's policy decisions have NO bearing on the populations freedom and well-being unless they choose to let it. head coach can't change tax policy, foreign policy, trade policy, etc etc etc.
shall i go on?
to recap: president of the usa not equal to football coach. "LOL." [/b]
lol. i think you know what i was getting at..aka the US isnt canada's "home team" per say so why should i believe canadians would choose whats in the best interest of the US...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
canadians wanting to choose the US president is like me wanting to pick the coach of the cowboys...even if i lived in dallas.
allow me to add something else. me, sweetcell and many other people who came here from somewhere else and are showing passion for our new home should make you happy. I know a lot of americans who simply dont give a shit, and thats the real sad part.
-
if you dont want to argue over what branch of government the vp is in doesnt mean you can treat your view as fact
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
lol. i think you know what i was getting at..aka the US isnt canada's "home team" per say so why should i believe canadians would choose whats in the best interest of the US...
you think me and sweetie are trying to sabotage your government?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
if you dont want to argue over what branch of government the vp is in doesnt mean you can treat your view as fact
except that it is. :p
-
except its not
times infinity!
-
<img src="http://www.forumspile.com/Stop-Kitten.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
lol. i think you know what i was getting at..aka the US isnt canada's "home team" per say so why should i believe canadians would choose whats in the best interest of the US...
you think me and sweetie are trying to sabotage your government? [/b]
the fact you both support our gov going socialist... then yes.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
except its not
times infinity!
argh. . .the duties and role of the vp are described in article 1 of the constitution, which is about the legislature- the vp is to be the president of the senate. . .the vp's sole role in regards to the executive is when the president dies, where, as president of the senate, the vp is next in the line of succession; there is no other role, duty or responsbility delegated to the vp in article 2. . .tell me how i'm wrong.
-
isnt your point that Biden is wrong about what the VP does and Palin has no idea.
does this sum up the argument?
-
the vice president is elected in an executive fashion, and given an executive title. his minor legislative role is certainly smaller than the executive powers given to the senate in article ii
-
at the end of the day, i dont care about palin, or biden for that matter. i will admit to being a little disappointed in mccain for nominating someone he hardly knows, though
-
in the interest of breaking things up, i present to you 'Song for Sarah' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9V_aOCga0). I want to Fly in to Your airspase! I made A teliscop for YOU!
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by lagas:
Look, its not only canadians, it's the whole world who wants the US to choose Obama as president. After 8 years of complete disaster in every major issue (except, I must say, AIDS fight in the world), everybody will welcome change in the White House.
there are at least two issues that should be addressed here- 1) i agree that there are a lot of people around the world who want obama to become president because he is viewed as more enlightened, and believe that his foreign policy will be different. . .i don't dispute that contention...
however, 2) i believe that trade will become a sticking point, and that an obama administration, coupled with a congress hell-bent on using populism to suck the life out of free-market capitalism, by throwing up trade barriers and insisting on unreasonable terms for trade treaties, will cause increased havoc. the world is heavily integrated (as friedman calls it, the world is flat), and as much as obama and congress would like to, we can't simply raise tariffs and block foreign trade because that's not how the world works anymore. free trade and agreements bringing down trade barriers are essential to the continued economic growth of not just the u.s., but of the rest of the world. and having obama threaten to pull out of NAFTA or attempt to re-negotiate NAFTA would be a terrible decision; whatever we think we can get, Canada and Mexico are more than happy to take something else away. As I posted yesterday, there is concern in India about trade, there is also concern in europe (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggHxjYOjEMGJcNQGflXNdwx4Sckw) about trade. . .
of course, i dispute the contention that we should make our decisions based on what the world thinks- foreign intervention in american politics was a great concern of the founding fathers, and it is clear that it is still a concern today. [/b]
I agree that trade's not a strong issue for the dems, true, but, in the eyes of the world, this election is larger than trade. I see the enthusiasm in my fellow Chileans citizens who see this election with genuine interest, specially the Obama's campaign...It's also true that the voter's shouldn't base their decisions on the preference of the rest of the world, but there must be something right about Obama if a large majority of the global village approves his approach to a large majority of issues that face not only America, but the planet as well....
-
the real question is, what are your feelings on matías fernández
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the vice president is elected in an executive fashion, and given an executive title. his minor legislative role is certainly smaller than the executive powers given to the senate in article ii
the vp has ZERO executive powers, his sole duty is to replace the president either when the president dies or is declared incapacitated; as president of the senate (a legislative title), he is the presiding officer and shall cast any tie-breaking vote. . .the vice president, under the language of the constitution, is the person that comes in second in the voting. only after aaron burr mucked things up was the 12th amendment passed clarifying the electoral process.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
and having obama threaten to pull out of NAFTA or attempt to re-negotiate NAFTA would be a terrible decision;
i'll put a fair amount of money that Obama's NAFTA talk was a load of BS. he's not pulling out of NAFTA...no way.
-
second in voting for head of the executive branch. president of the senate is at best a secondary title to vice president. being the replacement for the president is far more important than taking an executive role over the senate. even in this instance they name him 'president' of the senate denoting an executive role
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
i'll put a fair amount of money that Obama's NAFTA talk was a load of BS. he's not pulling out of NAFTA...no way.
i'm not willing to take a stance specifically on obama, but protectionist presidents generally govern with an open mind to fair trade once elected
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the real question is, what are your feelings on matías fernández
do you mean Matigol?
-
the one that sits on villarreal's bench. he was rumored to be coming to england last summer
edit: yes matigol
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
the one that sits on villarreal's bench. he was rumored to be coming to england last summer
edit: yes matigol
yes, he's having a tough time in Villa...maybe a change in scenery will do good for him, Pellegrini's pretty tough, he doesnt have good relationships with other Chileans players in general (see when he was HC in River Plate with Marcelo Salas)... either Italy or England should be a good change for him, IMO
-
Originally posted by lagas:
I agree that trade's not a strong issue for the dems, true, but, in the eyes of the world, this election is larger than trade. I see the enthusiasm in my fellow Chileans citizens who see this election with genuine interest, specially the Obama's campaign...It's also true that the voter's shouldn't base their decisions on the preference of the rest of the world, but there must be something right about Obama if a large majority of the global village approves his approach to a large majority of issues that face not only America, but the planet as well....
and that's exactly why any such influence be limited....the large majority of the "global village" would support a yellow dog for u.s. president as long as it was a "democrat."
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by very sonick:
i'll put a fair amount of money that Obama's NAFTA talk was a load of BS. he's not pulling out of NAFTA...no way.
i'm not willing to take a stance specifically on obama, but protectionist presidents generally govern with an open mind to fair trade once elected [/b]
fair trade. . .pshaw. . .just another word for protectionist- yes, let's trade, but only by my rules. i think this is one area where arthwys and i probably disagree (i think it was arthwys who posted about ron paul and fair trade not free trade, but i could be wrong)
so, you think that obama promising to renegotiate NAFTA was a lie? wow. . .color me shocked. . .just another broken promise. change you can believe in!
-
im sorry, i meant to say free trade not fair.
ill assume the nafta question was not directed at me
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
im sorry, i meant to say free trade not fair.
ill assume the nafta question was not directed at me
you are correct, sir!
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, you think that obama promising to renegotiate NAFTA was a lie? wow. . .color me shocked. . .just another broken promise. change you can believe in!
i never heard him promise to renegotiate NAFTA and furthermore, i said he wouldnt pull out of it. you're twisting again.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the vp has ZERO executive powers, his sole duty is to replace the president either when the president dies or is declared incapacitated; as president of the senate (a legislative title), he is the presiding officer and shall cast any tie-breaking vote. . .
aside: cheney seems to have a different interpretation of what the VP does. cheney having his own special interpretation of the constitution - shocking!
aside over, back to chatter about and around the '08 election.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
so, you think that obama promising to renegotiate NAFTA was a lie? wow. . .color me shocked. . .just another broken promise. change you can believe in!
i never heard him promise to renegotiate NAFTA and furthermore, i said he wouldnt pull out of it. you're twisting again. [/b]
from the globe and mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080227.wprimarydebate27/BNStory/usElection2008/home):
Mr. Obama agreed with Ms. Clinton's stand. ??I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about,? he said. ??I think, actually, Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage.
now, what did Clinton say?
??I'm confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, that we will be able to renegotiate,? Ms. Clinton said.
according to the hill (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-renews-promise-on-nafta-card-check-2008-09-01.html), obama reiterated his plan to renegotiate NAFTA (along with passing union card check legislation, which is terrible in its own right).
as stephen harper noted (http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_21962.aspx): "Canada is the United States' No. 1 supplier of energy. We are a secure and stable supplier," he said, standing at a lecturn next to Bush and Calderon.
Canada exported some 2.4 million barrels of oil a day in 2007 to the United States, worth about $55 billion. Along with natural gas and electricity exports, Canada is the largest foreign source of energy for the American market.
"That is of critical importance to the future of the United States," said Harper.
"And if we had to look at this kind of a (renegotiation) option, I think quite frankly, you know, we would be in an even stronger position now than we were 20 years ago. And we'll be in a stronger position in the future."
more from harper (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/28/harper-nafta.html): "If any American government ever chose to make the mistake of opening [NAFTA], we would have something we would want to talk about as well."
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
the vp has ZERO executive powers, his sole duty is to replace the president either when the president dies or is declared incapacitated; as president of the senate (a legislative title), he is the presiding officer and shall cast any tie-breaking vote. . .
aside: cheney seems to have a different interpretation of what the VP does. cheney having his own special interpretation of the constitution - shocking!
aside over, back to chatter about and around the '08 election. [/b]
correct. . .and cheney's interpretation of the role of the vp is the issue, since he basically used legal protections afforded to legislative offices (which historically has included the office of the vp) to cover work associated with executive decision-making (a violation of the separation of powers). i think where shoeshine and i ended up is that we both agreed the vp can't be both, they can only be one or the other- i say the vp is legislative, he says the vp is executive; but we both agreed that biden was wrong in his explanation.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
correct. . .and cheney's interpretation of the role of the vp is the issue, since he basically used legal protections afforded to legislative offices (which historically has included the office of the vp) to cover work associated with executive decision-making (a violation of the separation of powers). i think where shoeshine and i ended up is that we both agreed the vp can't be both, they can only be one or the other- i say the vp is legislative, he says the vp is executive; but we both agreed that biden was wrong in his explanation.
yes, this is true
-
i guess al queda had a change of heart.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)
-
are they using reverse psychology again
-
42
Originally posted by manimtired:
i guess al queda had a change of heart.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49T76620081030?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)
-
Obviously, some of them are Dems, some are Repubs.
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
are they using reverse psychology again
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
biden confidently declares that he knows what the role of the vp is and that it's part of the executive branch, except that it's not.
Cheney disagrees with you. He has often cited his executive privilege to deny congressional information requests.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
biden confidently declares that he knows what the role of the vp is and that it's part of the executive branch, except that it's not.
Cheney disagrees with you. He has often cited his executive privilege to deny congressional information requests. [/b]
see above. . .we've already gone over this.
-
Hey Bede! Apparently Nick Kristof reads this forum and wrote a column for you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/opinion/30kristof.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/opinion/30kristof.html)
-
<img src="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/political-pictures-barack-obama-change.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
the AP is reporting
"Joe The Plumber Hires Eddie Money's Publicity Team, Eyes Book"
guess they only handout development deals to b-list and above instacelebrites... books deals for the rest :roll:
-
Eddie Money has put out two albums of original material in the last 20 years. Hope Joe the Plumber is equally prolific in his book writing and country music career.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
biden confidently declares that he knows what the role of the vp is and that it's part of the executive branch, except that it's not.
Cheney disagrees with you. He has often cited his executive privilege to deny congressional information requests. [/b]
see above. . .we've already gone over this. [/b]
Sorry...I can't get through this whole thread all at once and answer as i read (which is in dribs and drabs, obviously!)...I'll shut up for the balance...
-
you dont have to shut up bags, bede is just getting a bit worked up.
-
i'm just flabbergasted by this latest Palin assertion... not only is this pandering beyond belief but just completely wrong..
the gist of is that she can't be criticized by the press because of how she is campaigning, never mind that a free press is a basic premise of the first amendment.
Palin: First Amendment Rights Threatened By Criticism
In a conservative radio interview that aired in Washington, D.C. Friday morning, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin said she fears her First Amendment rights may be threatened by "attacks" from reporters who suggest she is engaging in a negative campaign against Barack Obama.
Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."
Salon's Glenn Greenwald explains why this argument is frighteningly wrong:
If anything, Palin has this exactly backwards, since one thing that the First Amendment does actually guarantee is a free press. Thus, when the press criticizes a political candidate and a Governor such as Palin, that is a classic example of First Amendment rights being exercised, not abridged.
This isn't only about profound ignorance regarding our basic liberties, though it is obviously that. Palin here is also giving voice here to the standard right-wing grievance instinct: that it's inherently unfair when they're criticized. And now, apparently, it's even unconstitutional.
According to Palin, what the Founders intended with the First Amendment was that political candidates for the most powerful offices in the country and Governors of states would be free to say whatever they want without being criticized in the newspapers. The First Amendment was meant to ensure that powerful political officials would not be "attacked" in the papers. It is even possible to imagine more breathaking ignorance from someone holding high office and running for even higher office?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/palin-criticism-threatens_n_139729.html)
-
So how badly are the Republicans going to get smacked down tomorrow?
Can I start gloating now?
Where's Manimtired?
-
right here
-
Please, please remember to go and vote, and please don't be discouraged by long lines.
-
Are you suggesting that some people are clueless enough that they might forget to go and vote?
Those people probably shouldn't be voting anyway.
Originally posted by callat703:
Please, please remember to go and vote.
-
And if you have time, VOLUNTEER... people are needed in Virginia. This site will tell you how to sign up for get out the vote efforts.
http://www.virginiaforobama.com/ (http://www.virginiaforobama.com/)
Send Palin back to the traler par^H^H^H Wasilla!
-
don't remember this being mentioned here:
Virginia bogus flyer grounded; police consider charges (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/virginia-bogus-flyer-grounded-police-consider-charges/)
"It said Republicans and Independents leaning Republican should vote on November 4 ?? Election Day ?? and Democrats and Independents leaning Democratic to vote the following day."
Update: No charges in fake VA flyer case (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/update-no-charges-in-fake-va-flyer-case/)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
don't remember this being mentioned here:
Virginia bogus flyer grounded; police consider charges (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/virginia-bogus-flyer-grounded-police-consider-charges/)
"It said Republicans and Independents leaning Republican should vote on November 4 ?? Election Day ?? and Democrats and Independents leaning Democratic to vote the following day."
Update: No charges in fake VA flyer case (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/update-no-charges-in-fake-va-flyer-case/)
this happens every election. if youre that stupid to buy this flyer you shouldnt be able to vote.
-
did you make the flyer?
-
yes
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
So how badly are the Republicans going to get smacked down tomorrow?
Can I start gloating now?
Where's Manimtired?
you cannot start gloating now. (because as Rhett would say, you arent Obama so you're not really winning anything)
but really, it does look like it will be a beating in every sense of the word. I will be shocked and awed to see Obama lose, but will enjoy watching states like VA and NC and others (Montana??) go to Obama.
I wont be watching CNN though as my political hero George Stephanopolous will be on ABC.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
yes
how are those polls?
-
Is Stephanopoulos really your hero? He seemed respectable enough until the Democratic debate a few months back that he and Gibson moderated... in that debate, they both came across as amateurish hacks.
-
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Is Stephanopoulos really your hero? He seemed respectable enough until the Democratic debate a few months back that he and Gibson moderated... in that debate, they both came across as amateurish hacks.
Did you ever see "the war room" about the Clinton campaign in 1992? i didnt watch him comment on the debates, perhaps reporting isnt his strong suit. but him and Carville came up with some pretty crazy shit back in the day.
-
those polls? we'll see how the only poll that matters shapes up tomorrow. remember those exit polls in 2004?
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
So how badly are the Republicans going to get smacked down tomorrow?
Can I start gloating now?
Where's Manimtired?
you cannot start gloating now. (because as Rhett would say, you arent Obama so you're not really winning anything)
but really, it does look like it will be a beating in every sense of the word. I will be shocked and awed to see Obama lose, but will enjoy watching states like VA and NC and others (Montana??) go to Obama. [/b]
you and doomie are giving me ulcers. this is SO not in the bag. i'm predicting an obama win, but it won't be the landslide people are predicting. i'm also predicting that montana will remain red but it will be close - which in itself is a victory.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
don't remember this being mentioned here:
Virginia bogus flyer grounded; police consider charges (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/virginia-bogus-flyer-grounded-police-consider-charges/)
"It said Republicans and Independents leaning Republican should vote on November 4 ?? Election Day ?? and Democrats and Independents leaning Democratic to vote the following day."
Update: No charges in fake VA flyer case (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/03/update-no-charges-in-fake-va-flyer-case/)
this happens every election. if youre that stupid to buy this flyer you shouldnt be able to vote. [/b]
Gotta agree with the tired man on this one. You've got to be pretty fucking stupid to fall for this one.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
this happens every election.
excellent argument, would totally stand up in court. funny, repubs weren't bleating that line when it came to false voter registration cards. how strange.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by manimtired:
this happens every election.
excellent argument, would totally stand up in court. funny, repubs weren't bleating that line when it came to false voter registration cards. how strange. [/b]
Remarkable indeed!
-
Starbucks is offering a free tall cup of coffee to voters, and Ben and Jerry's says it will hand out a free scoop of ice cream to voters between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. local time, depending on where you live.
In addition, participating Krispy Kreme stores will offer customers sporting an "I Voted" sticker a free "star-shaped donut with patriotic sprinkles."
If you live in Chicago, the Eli's Cheesecake Company of Chicago says it "will reward voters with a free slice of Chicago's favorite dessert, simply by presenting their voting receipt at Eli's Cheesecake World, 6701 W. Forest Preserve Drive, from Tuesday, Nov. 4 through Friday, Nov. 7 from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m."
And "if you don't
-
sweetcell who are you not voting for today? lol.
-
i wonder if the banks will give out suckers to all those who voted today?
-
it's a good day for democracy
-
i live in the country. country like andy griffith. i love it. but sometimes the people make me laugh. there is a wonderful rumour going on "rond here" that if obama loses, the blacks of major cities, especially dc, will riot. no wonder ratdog ticket sales at the warner on wed/thur. are so horrible.
-
Originally posted by walkonby:
no wonder ratdog ticket sales at the warner on wed/thur. are so horrible.
i have a different reason for that...
-
actually, bobby can't bring 'em in like he used to. dark star orch. have taken the green jacket.
-
If those pesky blacks would just buy Ratdog tickets instead of having riot plans, all would be right with the world!
Originally posted by walkonby:
i live in the country. country like andy griffith. i love it. but sometimes the people make me laugh. there is a wonderful rumour going on "rond here" that if obama loses, the blacks of major cities, especially dc, will riot. no wonder ratdog ticket sales at the warner on wed/thur. are so horrible.
-
perhaps they'll open with: you win again ---> he's gone ---> dancing in the steeet ----> fire on the mountain.
-
A message from David Byrne.
Pardon the bulk mailing. I Can't Vote. I am an immigrant with a Green Card and, therefore, I am not eligible to vote in a federal election. ... On Election Day, I see my neighbors heading to the nearby elementary school to cast their ballots. The voting booth joint is a great leveler; the whole neighborhood - rich, poor, old, young, decrepit and spunky - they all turn out in one day.
But most of you can vote. What can I say? The Republicans have made us less safe than before 9/11, bankrupted this economy, started an illegal war they can't - and don't intend to - finish, removed what sympathy (after 9/11) and respect the world had for the US, and have robbed US citizens of many of their basic rights.
Global warming? What's that? Science and education? Investment in our future? No, thanks - we'll stick with a good 'ole hockey mom. Ignorant, and fucking proud of it, as is always the case.
Although it looks like a shoo-in, it ain't over 'til Florida. And there are plenty of racists in this country who will vote against their own best interests. So please, get to your local elementary school, post office, town hall, or whatever, and cast your vote and make this a country we can all be proud of. We can get out of this mess, and life can be better than it is.
David Byrne
NYC
-
thanks for posting that nonsense by an idiot.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
thanks for posting that nonsense by an idiot.
David Byrne is smarter and more talented than you and your whole entire family put together.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
thanks for posting that nonsense by an idiot.
Ha ha ha...hence the title of this thread...sometimes the jokes really do write themselves.
-
hopefully you get to shut up tomorrow and forever.
Originally posted by manimtired:
thanks for posting that nonsense by an idiot.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
thanks for posting that nonsense by an idiot.
David Byrne is smarter and more talented than you and your whole entire family put together. [/b]
yes..he has proved this through his shitty 80s pop band. lol wut.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
thanks for posting that nonsense by an idiot.
David Byrne is smarter and more talented than you and your whole entire family put together. [/b]
yes..he has proved this through his shitty 80s pop band. lol wut. [/b]
he could have been in Milli Vanilli and still been more talented than you, sir.
-
you seem testy today...arent you in celebration mode?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you seem testy today...arent you in celebration mode?
you know, its fairly easy to poke fun at you and still remain in a good, exciting, celebratory mood. In fact, I am so excited I cant even get any work done today.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
thanks for posting that nonsense by an idiot.
oh, the irony...
-
yes..that milli vanilli comment was HILARIOUS!!! the wit..oh the wit..
-
sweetcell..you going to vote with that big fella in the "c**t" shirt? wait...you cant vote. LOL. neither can the other guy with the wit...swary.
-
i think you are the one whos testy!
maybe you should stop and by some tissues on the way home from work.
-
no...im not a whiner/baby like you lefties.
-
no wingnuts just bleat...
-
were you bleating for the last 8 years?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no...im not a whiner/baby like you lefties.
this is a pretty funny statement considering which party did all the whining during this campaign...
-
what was mccain whining about?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
were you bleating for the last 8 years?
nope just watched intelligent people get organized and deliver a strong message...
were it not for joe the plumber, various forms of propaganda, jumping up and down any time a "shift" in Obama's policy was detected, the McCain campaign would have probably just stalled around the time of the third debate... either that or discuss some actual issues like health care, education, clean coal, fruit fly research, etc
-
god forbid a citizen ask obama a question. that really pissed you guys off huh?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
god forbid a citizen ask obama a question. that really pissed you guys off huh?
:roll:
-
the question did not even apply to him because he's not making that kind of money...lol
he was trolling....just like you, ya know. ;)
Originally posted by manimtired:
god forbid a citizen ask obama a question. that really pissed you guys off huh?
-
show me where he was tied to mccain before he asked this question.
-
a question didnt apply to the person who asked it....
this is the most ridiculous statement made on this board to date. good job.
-
dood, he can't even BUY a business for $250,000..he's not even a licensed plumber!!!
Originally posted by manimtired:
a question didnt apply to the person who asked it....
-
so if i asked..
if i were to win the lottery how much would i be taxed?...the question is invalid b/c i had not yet won the lottery?
or something like..
what is the cost of caring for a dog...but i dont own a dog..the question is invalid?
ummm...k.
-
joe the plubming apprentice
-
i bet he can spell plumbing.
-
you ask your mama that...see what she says.
Originally posted by manimtired:
what is the cost of caring for a dog...but i dont own a dog..the question is invalid?
ummm...k.
-
see..you get called out for your idiocy and you go with an insult. nice.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i bet he can spell plumbing.
i'd be careful about branching out into new realms of stupidity, buddy. we're used to your ideological non-starters, but you might wanna stay away from grammar and syntax. your inability to distinguish between "your" and "you're", for example, is embarrassing. just sayin'.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i bet he can spell plumbing.
i'd be careful about branching out into new realms of stupidity, buddy. we're used to your ideological non-starters, but you might wanna stay away from grammar and syntax. your inability to distinguish between "your" and "you're", for example, is embarrassing. just sayin'. [/b]
wot
-
"youre" canadian. thats enough for you to exit thread..are you celebrating with your ginormous gay pal yet?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
show me where he was tied to mccain before he asked this question.
who cares if he was tied to mccain or not... it seems pretty obvious to me that the "palling around with terrorists" angle wasn't gaining him any new voters, so instead they happen upon a taped conversation Obama has with some dude where he tried in depth to explain this policy and used some poorly chosen words to make his point. now because of three little words all of a sudden the McCain campaign has a new set of ist's and ism's they can throw around... then of course there's the old radio interview which keywords are again taken out of context...
did you see the colbert report where they had the actually Socialist Part Presidential candidate on where he called Obama and McCain capitalist's? until Obama proposes that the workers start owning factories he's still very much a capitalist...
and if want to see some wealth spreading head on up to Alaska...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
"youre" canadian. thats enough for you to exit thread..are you celebrating with your ginormous gay pal yet?
wot lol
-
i love getting you all up in a tizzy!!! its like a precursor to the McCain concession speech!!
-
and please post my "youre' and "your" mishaps...kthx.
-
what tizzy?
-
The problem is that Joe the "Plumber" didn't ask the question hypothetically. He asked as if it really applied to him...that he really has the $250,000 to buy his own business! :eek:
Originally posted by manimtired:
so if i asked..
if i were to win the lottery how much would i be taxed?...the question is invalid b/c i had not yet won the lottery?
or something like..
what is the cost of caring for a dog...but i dont own a dog..the question is invalid?
ummm...k.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by manimtired:
show me where he was tied to mccain before he asked this question.
who cares if he was tied to mccain or not... it seems pretty obvious to me that the "palling around with terrorists" angle wasn't gaining him any new voters, so instead they happen upon a taped conversation Obama has with some dude where he tried in depth to explain this policy and used some poorly chosen words to make his point. now because of three little words all of a sudden the McCain campaign has a new set of ist's and ism's they can throw around... then of course there's the old radio interview which keywords are again taken out of context...
did you see the colbert report where they had the actually Socialist Part Presidential candidate on where he called Obama and McCain capitalist's? until Obama proposes that the workers start owning factories he's still very much a capitalist...
and if want to see some wealth spreading head on up to Alaska... [/b]
no..i dont get my news from the colbert report.
(insert fox news or talk radio comeback here)
-
Originally posted by wanderlust j. marshmallow:
The problem is that Joe the "Plumber" didn't ask the question hypothetically. He asked as if it really applied to him...that he really has the $250,000 to buy his own business! :eek:
Originally posted by manimtired:
so if i asked..
if i were to win the lottery how much would i be taxed?...the question is invalid b/c i had not yet won the lottery?
or something like..
what is the cost of caring for a dog...but i dont own a dog..the question is invalid?
ummm...k.
[/b]
these are called hypothetical questions and can prove useful in figuring out someones vision for the future.
-
hey what happened to Venerable Bede? it says he's "unregistered" all of a sudden.
-
you were brainwashed by Ann Coulter.
-
the wit has transferred to marshmellow. i hate ann coulter btw.
-
My prediction:
Total count: Obama, 364 | McCain, 174
I have Obama winning all of the Kerry states, plus: Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri.
And some final thoughts are posted here. (http://www.wearevotingyes.com/2008/11/november-4th-2008.html)
-
lol wut
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
hey what happened to Venerable Bede? it says he's "unregistered" all of a sudden.
Venerable Bebe's profile got wiped away on Friday along with myself, thatguy and a couple others... unfortunately i have no way of contacting him in order to recreate it, so i'm trying to find away to restore it or wait until vansmack is not so pre-occupied to reach out to him.
he has not been banned just missing in action at the moment...
-
ok, thanks for clarification, kosmo. even though he's so damn conservative, i like his insight.
my prediction is as follows:
Obama to take all Kerry states, plus Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina and Florida.
Obama 333
McCain 205
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
the wit has transferred to marshmellow. i hate ann coulter btw.
wot slurp slurp lol
-
you are one GODLESS MF!
<img src="http://frighteningprospect.com/images/fun/vote-palinbadge300x370.png" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by manimtired:
the wit has transferred to marshmellow. i hate ann coulter btw.
-
cool "chaz"
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
cool "chaz"
wot lol
-
i'm not quite as confident as you folks... as i wrote earlier today: "i'm seeing this as much more of a cliff-hanger. i'm predicting obama with ~290-300, with confirmation of a win not coming until the early hours of tomorrow morning."
Originally posted by manimtired:
and please post my "youre' and "your" mishaps...kthx.
just 2 pages back: Originally posted by manimtired:
this happens every election. if youre that stupid to buy this flyer you shouldnt be able to vote.
don't have time to search more (where's the search function for this board?!?)
-
where is the mistake there? wtf?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
where is the mistake there? wtf?
Surely you can't be serious?
I am serious, and please don't call me Shirley.
-
ir you are (youre) that stupid....
???
-
gurgle gurgle
-
ummmm...please show me the error in my ways?
does canada not use conjunctions?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ir you are (youre) that stupid....
???
quit trying to make this some kind of grammatical argument pointing out peoples typos and lets focus on the real topic.
Democrats taking back the white house AND having control of both the Senate and the House.
boo yeah baby. within 2 years we'll all be having abortions, marrying our brothers and giving all of our money to people who dont want to get a job!!!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
if you are (youre) that stupid....
???
-
listen..how is my use of youre wrong there? i didnt bring it up!
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
ir you are (youre) that stupid....
???
quit trying to make this some kind of grammatical argument pointing out peoples typos and lets focus on the real topic.
Democrats taking back the white house AND having control of both the Senate and the House.
boo yeah baby. within 2 years we'll all be having abortions, marrying our brothers and giving all of our money to people who dont want to get a job!!! [/b]
can we annex canada while we are at it?
-
I'm having an abortion right now, and I'm not even pregnant! I just felt like exercising my right to choose.
-
sweetcell doesnt know the difference between youre and your for real..thats LOLOL.
-
??You??re? is always a contraction of ??you are.? If you??ve written ??you??re,? try substituting ??you are.? If it doesn??t work, the word you want is ??your.? Your writing will improve if you??re careful about this.
If someone thanks you, write back ??you??re welcome? for ??you are welcome.?
harrumph squirt lol wot
-
Originally posted by chaz:
I'm having an abortion right now, and I'm not even pregnant! I just felt like exercising my right to choose.
i'm assuming it was not done for "health" reasons...
-
nice try chaz but FAIL
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
nice try chaz but FAIL
don't you mean "chaz"?
-
its your unfortunate nickname..whatever
-
yawn
-
do you get the difference between youre and your?
-
double yawn
YOU'RE boring me now.
-
do you mean your and youre or me's and mine's?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you get the difference between youre and your?
Wait...I've got it...the difference is an "e"!
Damn trick questions.
-
well youre a step ahead of sweetcell.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
its your unfortunate nickname..whatever
By the way, proper english would have been "It's your unfortunate nickname"
-
does sweetcell know this?
-
I can barely wait til 7pm!!!!!
and i got a raise today, and free coffee!!!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ummmm...please show me the error in my ways?
does canada not use conjunctions?
OMG this is great. you are (YOU'RE) wrong, and you keep repeating the mistake. you really do follow in the steps of your idol g w bush!
your: a possessive pronoun, "watch your mouth", "what have you done with your money?"
you're: a contraction of "you are", so "you are welcome" = "you're welcome", "you are an idiot" = "you're manimtired."
you used conjunction, wrong: a part of speech that connects two words or phrases together, like "and", "or", "but", etc.
you should have used contraction: two words shortened into one with the use of an apostrophe, like "you're", "i'll", "let's".
there is no "youre" in the english language. none. here's a novel idea: look it up.
this is too easy. how many more ways could you be WRONG?
Originally posted by manimtired:
sweetcell doesnt know the difference between youre and your for real..thats LOLOL.
you are such a classic. only thing greater than your ignorance is your (misplaced) self-confidence. learn about this here (http://www.salon.com/env/mind_reader/2008/09/22/voter_choice/), scientific version here (http://gagne.homedns.org/~tgagne/contrib/unskilled.html). you have something in common with palin.
i hope you feel really really stupid right now... you might have an idea of how you're perceived here. maybe.
-
Grammatic smackdown!!
-
now i'm confused.
-
Guys, this is boring as shit. I can't believe I'm about to type this, but can we please talk about the election?
-
now really. who actually uses apostrophes and correct punctuation and what not on this board. its better than ur which is atrocious.
-
yes...sweetcell. i was creating my own word. lol. who'd you vote for?
-
This is a picture of McCain voting today. Is he using the old paper ballots because those new fangled voting machines are just "too darn complicated"??? <img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/POLITICS/11/04/mccain/art.mccain.voting.ap.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
you didnt answer if your obese gay pal was coming over to party
...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you didnt answer if your obese gay pal was coming over to party
...
Wow, the closer this comes to being over the classier you get.
-
come on, dont you know personal attacks are a sort of medium in the republican party!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you didnt answer if your obese gay pal was coming over to party
...
Hey mods, are we really tolerating this stuff now? manimtired isn't the only one guilty of personal attacks, but it does seem to me that his are a bit more biting and mean spirited. and I think people are responding to them with name calling of their own.
-
do you remember the man in questions shirt posted on here that he gloated about?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
do you remember the man in questions shirt posted on here that he gloated about?
You mean the other board member who I've met and think is a good guy? Yes, I do. And I think you're over the line and being disrespectful.
-
and i dont care. cry about it.
-
let manimtired vent... he's frustrated and embarrassed. he needs to lash out, to expect a rational or mature reaction from him would be a bit much.
who did i vote for? i don't have the right to vote, but i do have the right to an opinion. and i know for a fact that i had a strong influenced two people's vote so i participated a bit. and manimtired, like palin, also did their bit to help the undecided.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
and i dont care. cry about it.
And that's my point. I've always viewed this board as a sort of community - and I believe many folks on here agree. You admittedly don't care about that community, or the people that take part in this forum. You're happy to insult and disrespect them personally.
Hence: mods? What gives?
-
it means that when insults get thrown one way "sarah palin is a "cu*t" many dont care..but making fun of the man in said shirt.. they care..
cry about it.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
it means that when insults get thrown one way "sarah palin is a "cu*t" many dont care..but making fun of the man in said shirt.. they care..
cry about it.
Sarah Palin isn't a member of this forum. Unless, of course, you are Sarah Palin...
-
busted.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
it means that when insults get thrown one way "sarah palin is a "cu*t" many dont care..but making fun of the man in said shirt.. they care..
cry about it.
aww, did we hurt your feelers by insulting your hockey mommy? WE SOWWY!
-
not really, no..just pointing out the left bias on the board.
who did you vote for?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
not really, no..just pointing out the left bias on the board.
who did you vote for?
who did your girlfriend vote for?
-
mccain
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
mccain
is that what she told you?
ROTFLMAO!
-
one hour until the first polls close!
edit: not entirely true, "The first polls closed at 6 p.m. ET in parts of Indiana, Kentucky and New Hampshire." (link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/election.president/index.html)). i meant one hour until all polls in certain states (like VA) close.
-
yes..she's not a socialist..i hope.
-
Obama is up in New Hampshire
32-16!!!
-
SS in the NYT... anyone vote here?
<img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/11/04/us/04voters_600.11.jpg" alt=" - " />
Voters at Woodlin Elementary School in Silver Spring, Md.
from Polls Begin Closing in Final Hours of Epic Campaign (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/us/politics/05campaign.html?). in the "more photos" slideshow: pix of Nottaway Park in Vienna, Va., George Washington Middle School in Alexandria, Va., and Ritchie Coliseum at the University of Maryland.
-
My boring photo essay of canvassing and sign-planting in VA today in an effort to turn VA blue!!! Gobama!!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexdc/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexdc/)
-
that was boring. why no pics of you?
-
i'm sorry but you have been warned about this specific name calling manimtired and don't play the victim with me either... i'm willing to let it slide once or twice, but really get annoyed when it's done repeatedly with what appears to be done with malice...
i a couple weeks ago called for a general cease and desist on the name calling and it appeared to have stuck for awhile...
i will same some of the feuds here have been amusing, but most not so much...
-
rut row...the internet is srs biz
-
so i have a question. if sweetcell and i arent supposed to be voicing our opinions cause we cant vote, would you hold the same opinion for US citizens who are under 18?
-
i didnt say to hold youre opinions im just loling at you.
-
then again i assume you hold the same opinions as 16 year old punx.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
then again i assume you hold the same opinions as 16 year old punx.
oh, the irony... again.
-
youre and your
-
yes..all the conservative 16 year old mall punx. are you wearing your "fuck racism" shirt tonight?
-
now you're making no sense, are you watching the numbers come in?????
-
Pennsylvania and New Hampshire!!!
Pack your bags and move to Oklahoma, manimtired!
-
ill stay in the red state of VA
-
cnn hasnt called those yet, i know ABC has though
-
well northern VA is NOT red...
Originally posted by manimtired:
ill stay in the red state of VA
-
my area is korean
-
north korea or south? :D
Originally posted by manimtired:
my area is korean
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ill stay in the red state of VA
watch it turn blue once the nova vote comes in....
-
doubt it
-
pennsylvania HAS to hurt man, has to hurt
-
it goes dem all the time..wut. lived in pittsburgh for 4 years...union people want a pay out.
-
the graphics CNN plays before making each projection are really annoying. cut the fricken theatrics and get to the numbers. stop making the election look like more of a game show than it already does.
new pet peeve: telling us they're ready to make another projection... right after this commercial break.
-
Manimtired, are these exit polls a liberal media conspiracy?
-
probably
-
GO BUCKEYES!!!
i'm so glad to be proven wrong... this may turn out to be a great night after all. loved the spiel about how this result, if it holds, shows that the USA can, by and large, claim to have gotten over its racial past. not gone, not ignored - just dealt with.
-
our poor racist country...why would you move to such a place? ur buddy make you move?
-
may no attention to exit polls...
-
i'm getting excited but trying to remember that Obama still has NOT taken a 2004 Bush state. and until he does....
-
kozmo...wat?
-
we got OH and hes closing fast in VA......our long national nightmare almost over
-
Ohio has just been called for Obama...
it's over for McBush/Failin...
-
doomie: beat me to it.
let the party begin.
-
NEW MEXICO!!! Stick a fork in McCains ass.....he's done!!!
-
your buddy there?
-
nice, great day for america, you guys arent so bad after all!
-
please leave so you can vote in CA...so sorry.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
your buddy there?
you're really caught up on that, aren't you? care to elaborate? i know, i know, you're grasping at this point. you go ahead and have your temper tantrum. let me know when you're done.
unfortunately, ixp-bk isn't with me tonight - wish he was, tho, he's always a hoot.
and congrats on getting the your/you're thing right (and not using "youre"). maybe my lesson paid off for you.
-
Manimtired, shouldn't you be the one leaving? Your views are being repudiated all over the nation....
I actually bought noisemakers ... if McCain concedes early enough I'm going out and celebrating...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
please leave so you can vote in CA...so sorry.
sorry to you my friend, i wont be leaving and i'll be voting for Obams re-election on 2012!
-
its your buddy, buddy. you guys get down to some pet shop boys?
-
the story coming out of the biltmore hotel is so symbolic: when the results started going south for the GOP, they turned off off the news and cranked up the hank williams jr. there is an ongoing attempt to ignore the obvious (as someone noted, the majority of people there have blackberries/pagers/iphones/etc), everyone is smiling and nodding to the beat... but the hammer is about to fall.
and the band played on as the ship sank, the waiters served more champagne... and everyone played along.
-
too bad you had nothing to do with it...is it hockey season yet?
-
Manimtired, are you still assuming the reports are wrong and McCain will win?
-
nooooo...congrats dems! i think you pulled it off! i can only hope im wrong in the morning. hope you guys have cushy fed jobs like me. you win.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
nooooo...congrats dems! i think you pulled it off! i can only hope im wrong in the morning. hope you guys have cushy fed jobs like me. you win.
Even better...I have a cushy union job..the ultimate evil...
PS - Don't know if you noticed but it looks like VA is tilting blue. So sorry.....maybe Utah would be a better fit for you???
-
wont get your secret vote anymore....but who cares
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
but who cares
I care. :)
-
you"'" re for real happy about that? are you that poor?
-
I'm happy that our country is proving that it is a better place than those of your ilk would have us believe. :)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you"'" re for real happy about that? are you that poor?
actually ABC just ran the numbers that from Exit polls for people whos household income was $200,000 plus, 53% voted for Obama.
you need to get rid of a LOT of your stereotypes, pal!!!
-
my ilk? yes, people that make 80gs or over are evil. im sorry youre poor and have to rely on unions for your check. sucks.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
hope you guys have cushy fed jobs like me.
actually, i would best most of us WORK for a living.
-
did you even see the bamas opinion on secret ballots for union votes? prolly not. lolz
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
Originally posted by manimtired:
hope you guys have cushy fed jobs like me.
actually, i would best most of us WORK for a living. [/b]
so clueless...
-
I have a union job, make over 80k and work my ass off, as do my co-workers. Cheers.
-
you work a lift?
-
it would explain a lot...
-
no i screw in lightbulbs
-
Manimtired, I'm glad you're here tonight so we can enjoy rubbing this in :D
PWNED!
-
you drive a forklift. FAIL.
-
i must say seeing how manhattan went insanely for obama as did the bronx makes me so happy. the whole virginia thing is stressing me out - but its nice to see that FFX only has 60% reporting and arlington has about the same and they will go heavily towards obama.
guess mccain will really be insisting on those military votes to be counted. although at this point - when my home state of california comes in - im celebrating! as long as they vote no on 8 ill be equally ecstatic!
-
alright lefties. you win. im going to bed. spread the wealth. later.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
you drive a forklift. FAIL.
can't you read i'm a member of local lightbulb 101.....
they gave me a double super secret clearance just like you. after 10 years i'm finally allowed to change the lightbulbs in the ladie's restroom (only after one of my union sisters has cleared the area of the female persuasion). it's hard work those things burn out all the time.
-
so fox news just called virginia - and what do you know - it went to Obama. so if its on fox, it must be true!
-
:D
-
ur fat and ugly
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ur fat and ugly
trouble sleeping?
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
ur fat and ugly
once again, sticking to the issues. manimtired: you're done. good night. save yourself from yet more embarrassment. seeeeeeeee ya.
-
11:00 EST: CNN predicts that barack obama will be the next president of the US.
-
so what are us godless liberals looking forward to?
me i looking forward to hanging out with the mainstream media liberal elites doing hookers and blow, paling around with terrorists, hoping the daily show doesn't lose it's zing, researching and cataloging everything future republican presidential candidates have ever said on and off the record for some future october suprises and oh spreading around manintired's wealth....
-
ur canadian;.
-
is that beast not fat and ugly? come on now......
-
Don't give up hope yet, there's still that absentee ballot lawsuit in VA hanging in the balance...
-
hanging lightbulbs is srs biz
-
obama cant make you skinny,,,,or can he?
-
well, he certainly couldn't make you intelligent. i don't think anyone can. not until brain transplants are an option...
-
credit where credit is due - mccain gave a very gracious concession speech.....his moronic supporters are asshats though (I specifically mean the ones in phoenix booing obama) - even mccain looked embarrassed at their total lack of class
-
am i lying?
-
Wow it really wasn't even close. Cheers everyone. I'm so happy I don't really even know what to say, except that I really wish I didn't have to be on a plane to CA at 8:30 am tomorrow.
-
mainmtired, its like the biggest
LOLZ EVERRRRRRR!!!!!! seriously though, he;s the prez now, and the duty of americans is to stand by him, at least til he fucks up!!!!
goodnight folks!!!!
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Wow it really wasn't even close. Cheers everyone. I'm so happy I don't really even know what to say, except that I really wish I didn't have to be on a plane to CA at 8:30 am tomorrow.
I'm headed to Chicago in the morning.....PARTY TIME!!
-
I hopped in my car about an hour ago when I heard VA was lost. My goal was to go down to the White House and make some noise at the current inhabitant and his douche-y supporters... but I drove into a party instead. DC is going nuts... horns honking and people cheering everywhere.
I don't say this lightly, this is one of this nation's proudest moments!
-
and obama just gave an amazing speech...
-
Originally posted by brennser:
Originally posted by chaz:
Wow it really wasn't even close. Cheers everyone. I'm so happy I don't really even know what to say, except that I really wish I didn't have to be on a plane to CA at 8:30 am tomorrow.
I'm headed to Chicago in the morning.....PARTY TIME!! [/b]
Work or pleasure?
I'm off to Sacramento for work...think I'll take in the Dark Knight at an Imax theater near my hotel and then the other night see the Crystal Stilts.....
It's work, but I'm gonna try to get some celebrating in while I'm there!!!!
-
Work, but like you gonna try and get some partying in - there thru Fri
-
this is what is going on at 14th and U!
<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/3004844220_a8f96823f3.jpg" alt=" - " /> (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexdc/3004844220/)
-
me too back on friday night cheers everyone one we fucking did it!!!!!
-
i also look forward to not having to put my hand over my heart during the national anthem...
it's too bad that the loud mouth bush kissing wackjob from Minn would get the big liberal boot to curb, but unfortunately she clung on barely to return... i'm guessin' she is going home the next cycle and shutout when coming back to dc...
the good news is that it's very possible that MD's Eastern Shore may go blue, which does signal the end of the world :D just say no to carpet baggin' wingnuts... of course it's never a good sign for the republican candidate when the incumbent republican representative who lost in a bitter primary endorses the democratic candidate
lastly, wonder if we'll get some rockin' inaugural events... Pearl Jam victory party at the club anyone!
has hannity's head exploded yet?
-
sweetcell...did you and your boy party?
-
It appears that Bob Barr cost McCain both NC and Missouri. Maybe Indiana and other states too?
Is the country ready for four years of Republican whining and complaining about Bob Barr costing them the election?
-
i think we'll just have to run an actual republican in 4 years that can get the conservative vote out.
-
I don't think there are enough true conservatives left for that strategy to work anymore.
I think the race would have been closer with Tom Ridge as the VP choice.
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think we'll just have to run an actual republican in 4 years that can get the conservative vote out.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think we'll just have to run an actual republican in 4 years that can get the conservative vote out.
ROTFLMAO LOLZ because McCain may have been a "real" conservative in wingnut terms, bututhe sure pandered and tried his hardest to win them over, while fiscally responsible conservatives just shook their and wondered what happened to their party... p.s. McCain might have done better running as vintage McCain
so when exactly does the Conservative off start between Giulani, Romney, Huckabee, and god forbid Palin... i guessin' the pandering starts soon...
-
give it up, dude. sweetcell is engaged...
go to your room and play with your dildo.
Originally posted by manimtired:
sweetcell...did you and your boy party?
-
Bobby Jindahl 2016!
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think we'll just have to run an actual republican in 4 years that can get the conservative vote out.
ROTFLMAO LOLZ because McCain may have been a "real" conservative in wingnut terms, bututhe sure pandered and tried his hardest to win them over, while fiscally responsible conservatives just shook their and wondered what happened to their party... p.s. McCain might have done better running as vintage McCain
so when exactly does the Conservative off start between Giulani, Romney, Huckabee, and god forbid Palin... i guessin' the pandering starts soon... [/b]
-
i think when obama doesnt supply free gas and pay for peoples mortgages there will be some bewildered people. wtf.
-
mccain was the one buying mortgages
-
wonder how long it's going to take before gas prices jump back up... i smell a vast rightwing conspiracy to get them lowered right before election in order to sway votes, must be due to all the drilling baby...
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think when obama doesnt supply free gas and pay for peoples mortgages there will be some bewildered people. wtf.
now you're just sounding pitiful. My boss is from Utah and undeniably conservative and at least she's acting mature about this.
-
i didnt say it..an obama supporter did...did you not see the video?
-
i didnt say it..an obama supporter did...did you not see the video?
-
nope must have missed that one.... too busy watching videos of mccain supporters calling obama a Muslim or claiming his birth certificate was fake
-
here you go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI)
-
YAWN
-
no, you're generally just sounding pitiful. it wasnt just that comment ;)
-
whats "yawn" about it? you said you hadnt seen it and i posted it. was she a republican plant?
-
You know, I'm reticent to step in this shitheap of a thread, but the only people being immature in this thread are the ones who continue to respond to a certain boardie who's clearly just trying to get a rise out of you.
Same thing I said back during the brian wallace debacle: if you act as though you cannot see their posts, they'll go away.
-
ive stated several times my intent was to get a rise out of people in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
You know, I'm reticent to step in this shitheap of a thread, but the only people being immature in this thread are the ones who continue to respond to a certain boardie who's clearly just trying to get a rise out of you.
i see your point, but i think we're just kind of laughing at him now.
-
what are you laughing about?
-
i was a the white house last night - what a great street party. several thousand people going nuts. pix soon.
for manimtired:
Well, Ive been afraid of changing
cause Ive built my life around you
But time makes you bolder
Children get older
Im getting older too
Oh, take my love, take it down
Climb a mountain and turn around
If you see my reflection in the snow covered hills
Well the landslide will bring it down
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
i was a the white house last night - what a great street party. several thousand people going nuts. pix soon.
for manimtired:
Well, Ive been afraid of changing
cause Ive built my life around you
But time makes you bolder
Children get older
Im getting older too
Oh, take my love, take it down
Climb a mountain and turn around
If you see my reflection in the snow covered hills
Well the landslide will bring it down
SP played that for the first time since 1994 last night.
-
im sure you are a big sp fan ...fits in with your "alternative" taste in music.
-
i think basically that instead of trying to hold a normal conversation, you are simply trying to get a rise out of people. you are failing, but claim to be succeeding. I am not sure whether you really believe that you are succeeding or not, or whether your claims to succeed is a last ditch effort to get a rise out of people.
its funny, because i am not sure why you feel the need to have an internet persona different from your real personality. and the fact that you cant explain it leads me to believe that you dont even know yourself why.
perhaps you are succeeding in frustrating people at times, but thats only because of your childish posts. and if thats really all the ammo you have, then i guess you have to use it.
-
its really only working on you and kosmo..
-
Palin / Plumber in 2012!!!
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
you are failing, but claim to be succeeding.
Do you, kosmo, and sweetcell continue to give him attention and respond to everything he says? Then he's succeeding.
-
lol
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
SP played that for the first time since 1994 last night.
must have brought the house down! acoustic or electric?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by very sonick:
you are failing, but claim to be succeeding.
Do you, kosmo, and sweetcell continue to give him attention and respond to everything he says? Then he's succeeding. [/b]
he's only succeeding in keeping the discussion going. but even then i might disagree because this election is still something i am enjoying discussing. and when i'm done talking about it , i wont keep coming in this thread just to see what he's saying. I believe Kosmo and Sweetie are in the same boat.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
SP played that for the first time since 1994 last night.
must have brought the house down! acoustic or electric? [/b]
I think acoustic.
<img src="http://hipstersunited.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/1of1.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://hipstersunited.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/2of2.jpg" alt=" - " />
Might be best setlist since reformation.
-
do you enjoy talking about all the other elections around the world you cant vote in?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
SP played that for the first time since 1994 last night.
must have brought the house down! acoustic or electric? [/b]
I think acoustic. [/b]
you think? you weren't there? or you don't quite remember b/c of drinking? :p
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
you think? you weren't there? or you don't quite remember b/c of drinking? :p
I wasn't there, the shows were in Toronto. Their playing the same setlist in DC the middle of next week so there's no point in going to multiple shows.
-
I'm willing to agree to the terms of Julian's brokered cease fire in order to make this board less divisive when it come to politics... and should i ever cross paths with manimtired i will gladly buy him a beer with his own money...
-
Julian,
Can I request that Libermann be fair game here?
regards
kosmo
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Can I request that Libermann be fair game here?
Lieberman is interesting discussion. If he simply didn't support Obama (as myself and many other Democrats refused to do) that's one thing, but this is on the back of him refusing to back Democratic ideals on any social issues and his own state refusing him as the Democratic nominee. It's sort of a 3 strikes situation. I can understand them letting him caucus with them, but I can also understand refusing to let him in anymore either.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
i was a the white house last night - what a great street party. several thousand people going nuts. pix soon.
up on http://www.wearevotingyes.com/2008/11/200-am-at-white-house-november-5.html (http://www.wearevotingyes.com/2008/11/200-am-at-white-house-november-5.html)
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Can I request that Libermann be fair game here?
Lieberman is interesting discussion. If he simply didn't support Obama (as myself and many other Democrats refused to do) that's one thing, but this is on the back of him refusing to back Democratic ideals on any social issues and his own state refusing him as the Democratic nominee. It's sort of a 3 strikes situation. I can understand them letting him caucus with them, but I can also understand refusing to let him in anymore either. [/b]
i vote just him a weenie who could probably have his cake and eat it too for the meantime... it will be interesting to see what happens the next time he's up for re-election
-
I think the immediate issue is, does a Democratic Senate, who doesn't need him for a majority and wouldn't have 60 even with him, really want to give him a posh committee chairmanship?
-
well there are four senate seats still in "play" so it's possible for the magic 60... he'd probably be more valuable to the dems if he were more maverick than weasel...
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
well there are four senate seats still in "play" so it's possible for the magic 60...
There is no way the Democrats win in Georgia. The only reason it's considered "too close to call" is because in that state someone must have 50% and the republican has 49.8%, the democrat around 47% and the libertarian almost 3%. In a run-off, who do you think those libertarians are voting for?
Also it's highly unlikely Alaska goes Dem. Stevens leads by a little under 4,000 votes with 40,000 absentee ballots (traditionally heavy Republican) left to be counted.
Minnesota and Oregon are viable chances though. But still, I don't think any sane person gives the democrats a punter's chance to win all 4 of those.
-
agreed... it's a tough call for sure on libermann..
-
it wouldnt be for me, kick his butt out!
-
<img src="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/political-pictures-barack-obama-high-road.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/political-pictures-barack-obama-president.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
mods...sweetcells post is racist.
-
Lieberman is a douche... he's got to go. It's hard to imagine that even the Republicans whose asses he kisses respect him. His approach bought him some power in a closely divided Senate... those days are gone for good now.
I don't know what's wrong with Connecticut... he must bring home a lot of pork.
-
i miss this thread already. So the conversation at work this mrning was that apparently some people believe that this early voting thing was somethin concocted by liberals to allow people to vote more than once.
discuss.
-
the markets seem to like the obama win.
-
no comment at this time
-
You mean he didn't fix it already? Man, I wasted my vote :(
Originally posted by manimtired:
the markets seem to like the obama win.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
You mean he didn't fix it already? Man, I wasted my vote :(
Originally posted by manimtired:
the markets seem to like the obama win.
[/b]
LOL!
-
no, they are just reacting amazingly bad to his win.
-
you are right, i mean, i could have sworn that just minutes after Obama won the election, families across America were going to start paying up on their mortgages and going Christmas shopping.
-
Don't forget all of the terrorists dying horrible deaths ala Raiders of the Lost Ark:
<img src="http://londonist.com/attachments/sizemore/toht.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by very sonick:
you are right, i mean, i could have sworn that just minutes after Obama won the election, families across America were going to start paying up on their mortgages and going Christmas shopping.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no, they are just reacting amazingly bad to his win.
indeed, that's the only thing the markets are reacting to. your understanding of politics is surpassed only by your understanding of economics.
-
what a disappointment!
-
youre right...the election of a US president has no effect on the market. none.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i really dont think obama will win. call me crazy.
hey remember this from page 1 of the thread?
:D
-
i also thought you could vote throughout most of the thread. wrong there too..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no, they are just reacting amazingly bad to his win.
Who cares? The markets have acted no differently than they have over the past few months. When underlying fundamentals improve, the market will respond in kind.
As you surely know, the markets have been fluctuating wildly for the past few months - with no apparent rhyme or reason other than fundamental econominc problems primarily caused by the breakdown of banking/credit/real estate markets.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aj_ayFUP0riQ&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aj_ayFUP0riQ&refer=worldwide)
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081105/wall_street.html (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081105/wall_street.html)
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i also thought you could vote throughout most of the thread. wrong there too..
if you were reading, you would have known 5 days into this thread, 2 months ago. but i am not surprised is blew past ya!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aj_ayFUP0riQ&refer=worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aj_ayFUP0riQ&refer=worldwide)
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081105/wall_street.html (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081105/wall_street.html)
Exactly. The market continues to react to an ongoing economic slowdown . . . caused by fundamental economic problems that will take time to work themselves out.
-
no obama jitters. none..k
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no obama jitters. none..k
i think we can ALL agree that with how unsteady the market is, that anyone whos not at least a bit concerned at how ANY new president will affect the market , let along a younger pres, is simply not paying much attention. i'm wondering why manimtired believes it to be a point he needs bringing up. would the market be any different in McCain had won?
-
biggest post election dip ever...jus' sayin'
-
but only because the previous day was the biggest election day rally. and dont tell me it rallied on the prospect of McCain winning cause thats just too outlandish!
-
LOL
http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280 (http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280)
-
In trying to have a serious and thoughtful conversation on this (tough, I know, given the parties involved), historically speaking, what other election has happened during the course of a huge economic cluster like we're in now? Have there been any? Obviously markets ebb and flow, but is this situation unique? I'm sure Bede or GGW would know...
Originally posted by manimtired:
biggest post election dip ever...jus' sayin'
-
In trying to have a serious and thoughtful conversation on this (tough, I know, given the parties involved), historically speaking, what other election has happened during the course of a huge economic cluster like we're in now? Have there been any? Obviously markets ebb and flow, but is this situation unique? I'm sure Bede or GGW would know...
Originally posted by manimtired:
biggest post election dip ever...jus' sayin'
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
In trying to have a serious and thoughtful conversation on this (tough, I know, given the parties involved)
give it up and just succumb to the dirty insults and the LOLzers.
-
Originally posted by nkotb:
In trying to have a serious and thoughtful conversation on this (tough, I know, given the parties involved), historically speaking, what other election has happened during the course of a huge economic cluster like we're in now? Have there been any? Obviously markets ebb and flow, but is this situation unique? I'm sure Bede or GGW would know...
Originally posted by manimtired:
biggest post election dip ever...jus' sayin'
[/b]
Actually, nkotb, heres my take. This morning a lot of crappy news was announced, bad retail news came out today as well as news from Dept of Labor on unemployment soured the markets big time. There are constantly reports coming out whether its federally or from sectors or even large companies. These reports are on sales, profits or trends depending. If its good news, stocks usually go up, if its bad news stocks plunge.
not being sure about the new leader of the US is definitely there somewhat, but its probably only 20% or so.
i like to use http://www.djnewsplus.com/ (http://www.djnewsplus.com/) the Dow Jones news site to round up all important economic news. Its not as comprehensive as some but it covers all the announcements that have an overall effect on the market.
-
In fact nkotb, here you go
http://www.djnewsplus.com/article/SB122597675121080335.html?mod=h&a=Mark+to+Market&h=Obama+Rally+Turns+Out+To+Be+Illusory (http://www.djnewsplus.com/article/SB122597675121080335.html?mod=h&a=Mark+to+Market&h=Obama+Rally+Turns+Out+To+Be+Illusory)
Obama Rally Turns Out To Be Illusory
By JIM MURPHY
A DOW JONES NEWSWIRES COLUMN
NEW YORK -- There was, after all, no Obama Rally in the U.S. stock market.
Tuesday's 305-point gain in the Dow Jones Industrial Average was succeeded by Wednesday's 486-point plunge in the DJIA.
In fairness to President-elect Obama, the gusty gains in the three major stock averages on Tuesday and the lusty losses in the three averages on Wednesday had nothing to do with him.
It was, as was said in the 1992 presidential campaign, "the economy, stupid."
The main drag on U.S. stocks Wednesday appeared to be the approximately six-point fall in the services sector index in October, which was released at 10 a.m. EST by the Institute for Supply Management. The ISM index, at just above 50 in September, plunged from expansion territory to firmly in contraction mode in October. The services index was just, as I presciently noted on Wednesday morning, playing catch-up with ISM's manufacturing index, which we learned from the October report is wallowing in the neighborhood of 38.
In the U.S., service sector jobs account for about 80% of the economy, which is a surefire indication of how important it is when the bottom appears to be falling out of the so-called non-manufacturing sector.
The sharp contraction in the ISM services index also depressed stocks, I believe, because it strengthened the market's foreboding that the worst is yet to come. Indeed, most economists that I've heard or read believe the fourth or current calendar quarter will be the nadir of this recession. They believe the economy will stage an extremely modest recovery in the four quarters of 2009 -- a recovery so modest as to have the professionals arguing among themselves about whether it ought to be called a recovery at all.
We won't have to wait long for the next piece of really bad news. Friday morning, we'll learn that nonfarm payrolls dropped in October by at least 200,000 jobs and the unemployment rate shot up to at least 6.3% from 6.1% in September.
While we're waiting for the October jobs report, we can chew and digest another not-insignificant economic indicator, which is the report on U.S. productivity and unit labor costs in the third quarter.
The already-reported fractional contraction in 3Q gross domestic product almost guarantees that productivity for the same quarter fell sharply.
Here at Dow Jones Newswires, the median forecast of the economists we surveyed is that Q3 productivity rose by only 0.4% following a quite respectable gain of 4.3% in the second quarter.
The flip side of productivity is unit labor costs. It follows as the night the day that, if productivity moves more than nominally in either direction, unit labor costs will move in the opposite direction. That is why the Dow Jones forecast of a 0.4% rise in Q3 productivity brings with it the forecast of a 3.0% increase in unit labor costs (ULC) following a 0.5% decline in ULC for the second quarter.
The productivity report will be released at 8:30 a.m. EST.
The other 8:30 a.m. indicator is weekly jobless claims for the week ended Saturday, Nov. 1. The emphasis here will be, as it has been recently, on continuing claims, that is, a head count of the number of claimants who remain on the benefit rolls from week to week to week.
If the Dow Jones forecast for first-time jobless claims in the latest week is on target, it will only strengthen the focus on continuing claims. Our forecast is that initial claims were unchanged at 479,000 from the previous week.
-
http://in.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idINN0531971420081105 (http://in.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idINN0531971420081105)
-
ahh, good point manimtired, and here i thought jobs and businesses were the key to the stock market
-
carter (misery index) to reagan....looks like the markets jumped.
sorry you dont like those numbers..
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
carter (misery index) to reagan....looks like the markets jumped.
sorry you dont like those numbers..
do you?
-
no but someone asked if a president was ever elected in a similar time of a bad economy...so i provided that link. sorry.
-
no apologies! heres an interesting link, from a while back.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E4DF1738F931A15754C0A9649C8B63 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E4DF1738F931A15754C0A9649C8B63)
Market Place; President Bush is in a bad way, at least according to the Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks.
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: July 22, 2002
PRESIDENT BUSH, who marked his 18th month in office this weekend, is off to the worst start of any president in the last 75 years.
At least, that is, as measured by the performance of the Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks.
With the plunge in stock prices over the last nine weeks, the S.& P. 500 has now fallen 36.9 percent since Mr. Bush was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001. That is the worst record for any president, as measured by the S.& P., which dates back to 1927, and is nearly twice as bad as the record compiled over the first 18 months of Herbert Hoover's administration.
But the bad start may not herald anything harmful to Mr. Bush if he seeks a second term in 2004. For history suggests that presidents who get off to a bad start in the stock market often recover, as voters are quite willing to blame their predecessors for early economic problems. That appears to be especially true if the previous president was from a different party.
Conversely, great beginnings often go unrewarded by voters, who by the time a re-election campaign rolls around are likely to want to know what a president has done for them lately.
In fact, for a president, taking a recession early in a term has sometimes proved to be a good move. Consider Richard M. Nixon, until now the president with the worst first 18 months in office, at least as measured by the stock market. The S.& P. 500 fell 23.6 percent over his first 18 months, but it rallied and was nearing record levels by the time he ran again, winning in a landslide.
A bad start was no big problem for Ronald Reagan, either. His stock market record after 18 months showed a decline of 12.3 percent. But soon after, the big bull market of the 1980's began. He too won a second term in a landslide.
After 18 months of both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, the country was in a recession. That hurt the Republicans in both midterm elections, but the downturn was forgotten by the time of the re-election campaign, and both men were given credit by voters for the recovery.
That can be contrasted with the performance of the two recent presidents who were defeated in their second campaigns. Jimmy Carter never persuaded voters of his economic expertise, even though a weak start, with the S.& P. off 4.8 percent in his first 18 months, was followed by a much stronger finish. President Carter suffered a recession not during his early days, when it might have been attributed to his predecessor, but during his re-election year.
Then there was the first President Bush. The stock market soared early in his term, and by the time he had been in office 18 months the S.& P. 500 was up 26.2 percent. But his recession was just beginning then, and the economy never appeared very strong thereafter. He was blamed for the downturn, and his sparkling early performance did him no good in 1992, when Bill Clinton sent him packing.
Mr. Clinton went on to win re-election easily, despite a ho-hum first 18 months. He then became only the third president since the Civil War to avoid having his administration marred by a recession. But just like Lyndon Johnson, whose term in office was also recession-free, Mr. Clinton was unable to persuade the voters to applaud such excellent economic performance by voting for his vice president. (The other president without a recession was James A. Garfield, who served for only six months before he was assassinated in 1881.)
Hoover, of course, was not only defeated when he ran for re-election but also remained so unpopular that Democrats used his memory as a campaign issue for decades. It was not his first 18 months that hurt him, but the fact that he was unable to get the country out of the Depression.
If Mr. Bush is bothered by the record of having the worst start of any president, perhaps he can gain reassurance from the fact that he looks better if the Dow Jones industrial average is used as the benchmark.
That average is down only 24.3 percent since he took office, leaving his record slightly better than Hoover's, which showed a decline of 24.8 percent over the same period. But the Bush performance in the first 18 months lags every other president's since the index was begun in 1896.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
http://in.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idINN0531971420081105 (http://in.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idINN0531971420081105)
Interesting to note that the previous biggest drop following an election was after the 1932 election of Franklin Roosevelt. Of course at the time we were in the midst of the Great Depression. And of course he was elected 4 times and is considered one of our greatest Presidents. And his New Deal helped us emerge from the Great Depression.
I still think these figures are reflections on the market and have little if nothing to do with an actual reaction to the election. More like selling gains after a run-up towards the election (sell the news).
-
It's interesting, but it's also completely void of any historical perspective. Looking at numbers is one thing, but knowing the exact nature of what was happening is another. Still, you can draw some conclusions.
Look at FDR; he had drops of -4.51 (his first term) and -2.39 during two of this post-election years. I think he wound up doing alright after that...hell, he was elected four times.
Originally posted by manimtired:
no but someone asked if a president was ever elected in a similar time of a bad economy...so i provided that link. sorry.
-
Also, what Mobius said.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
no apologies! heres an interesting link, from a while back.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E4DF1738F931A15754C0A9649C8B63 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E05E4DF1738F931A15754C0A9649C8B63)
Market Place; President Bush is in a bad way, at least according to the Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks.
By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: July 22, 2002
PRESIDENT BUSH, who marked his 18th month in office this weekend, is off to the worst start of any president in the last 75 years.
At least, that is, as measured by the performance of the Standard & Poor's index of 500 stocks.
With the plunge in stock prices over the last nine weeks, the S.& P. 500 has now fallen 36.9 percent since Mr. Bush was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2001. That is the worst record for any president, as measured by the S.& P., which dates back to 1927, and is nearly twice as bad as the record compiled over the first 18 months of Herbert Hoover's administration.
But the bad start may not herald anything harmful to Mr. Bush if he seeks a second term in 2004. For history suggests that presidents who get off to a bad start in the stock market often recover, as voters are quite willing to blame their predecessors for early economic problems. That appears to be especially true if the previous president was from a different party.
Conversely, great beginnings often go unrewarded by voters, who by the time a re-election campaign rolls around are likely to want to know what a president has done for them lately.
In fact, for a president, taking a recession early in a term has sometimes proved to be a good move. Consider Richard M. Nixon, until now the president with the worst first 18 months in office, at least as measured by the stock market. The S.& P. 500 fell 23.6 percent over his first 18 months, but it rallied and was nearing record levels by the time he ran again, winning in a landslide.
A bad start was no big problem for Ronald Reagan, either. His stock market record after 18 months showed a decline of 12.3 percent. But soon after, the big bull market of the 1980's began. He too won a second term in a landslide.
After 18 months of both the Nixon and Reagan administrations, the country was in a recession. That hurt the Republicans in both midterm elections, but the downturn was forgotten by the time of the re-election campaign, and both men were given credit by voters for the recovery.
That can be contrasted with the performance of the two recent presidents who were defeated in their second campaigns. Jimmy Carter never persuaded voters of his economic expertise, even though a weak start, with the S.& P. off 4.8 percent in his first 18 months, was followed by a much stronger finish. President Carter suffered a recession not during his early days, when it might have been attributed to his predecessor, but during his re-election year.
Then there was the first President Bush. The stock market soared early in his term, and by the time he had been in office 18 months the S.& P. 500 was up 26.2 percent. But his recession was just beginning then, and the economy never appeared very strong thereafter. He was blamed for the downturn, and his sparkling early performance did him no good in 1992, when Bill Clinton sent him packing.
Mr. Clinton went on to win re-election easily, despite a ho-hum first 18 months. He then became only the third president since the Civil War to avoid having his administration marred by a recession. But just like Lyndon Johnson, whose term in office was also recession-free, Mr. Clinton was unable to persuade the voters to applaud such excellent economic performance by voting for his vice president. (The other president without a recession was James A. Garfield, who served for only six months before he was assassinated in 1881.)
Hoover, of course, was not only defeated when he ran for re-election but also remained so unpopular that Democrats used his memory as a campaign issue for decades. It was not his first 18 months that hurt him, but the fact that he was unable to get the country out of the Depression.
If Mr. Bush is bothered by the record of having the worst start of any president, perhaps he can gain reassurance from the fact that he looks better if the Dow Jones industrial average is used as the benchmark.
That average is down only 24.3 percent since he took office, leaving his record slightly better than Hoover's, which showed a decline of 24.8 percent over the same period. But the Bush performance in the first 18 months lags every other president's since the index was begun in 1896.
nothing to do with the election that year.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
no but someone asked if a president was ever elected in a similar time of a bad economy...so i provided that link. sorry.
wait. what did your article prove? it showed percentage change the day after an election but it didnt give any other information, so i find your link to be of almost no help at all, since it did not gauge whether the economy was good or bad. so in 2004 the dow rose 1 point but from where? and did it go from 9000 to 10,000 or 12,000 to 13,000? While that link was a good start, it doesnt say much on its own.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
nothing to do with the election that year.
it has to do with the economy and the market during te election and re-election of a president. because honestly, the election affecting the market may last 1 or 2 weeks, but Obama's presidency may affect the market for 4 years (or more). so thats really what we should be focusing on.
-
i think it possibly shows investors reactions to the proposed policies of an incoming president.
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think it possibly shows investors reactions to the proposed policies of an incoming president.
whoa, a rare insightful post from you!!! congratulations. I disagree, but am impressed nonetheless.
-
ty
-
try again. Maybe ask your Finance teacher...oh wait, are you in kindergarten? :)
Originally posted by manimtired:
i think it possibly shows investors reactions to the proposed policies of an incoming president.
-
i think youre wrong. so there.
-
Stocks plunge as anxious investors ponder impact of Obama presidency on business, economy
NEW YORK (AP) -- A case of postelection nerves sent Wall Street plunging Wednesday as investors absorbed a stream of bad economic news and wondered how a Barack Obama presidency will help the country weather a possibly severe recession. Volatility returned to the market, with the Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 500 points and all the major indexes tumbling more than 5 percent.
-
i dont think you have any understanding of the stock market do you?
-
i think manimtired might actually be stupider and a bigger cool-aid drinker than palin.
his frustration is kinda cute.
-
Originally posted by very sonick:
i like to use http://www.djnewsplus.com/ (http://www.djnewsplus.com/) the Dow Jones news site to round up all important economic news. Its not as comprehensive as some but it covers all the announcements that have an overall effect on the market.
independent, researched news sources? eff that, i get my info from manimtired.
Originally posted by manimtired:
http://in.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idINN0531971420081105 (http://in.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idINN0531971420081105)
notice how the article didn't say that the election was in any way related to the drop... no causation implied.
-
yes all these links im posting from right wing resources like the AP and Reuters is just like sippin' kool aid.
-
the stock markets would be SOARING today if we had elected the guy who said
"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well I should."
-
I mean, right off the bat, they mentioned "stream of bad economic news," which I hardly thing can related to anything election related. Granted, they mention "wondered" about Obama's policies, but it's definite preceded by more shitty news.
Originally posted by manimtired:
Stocks plunge as anxious investors ponder impact of Obama presidency on business, economy
NEW YORK (AP) -- A case of postelection nerves sent Wall Street plunging Wednesday as investors absorbed a stream of bad economic news and wondered how a Barack Obama presidency will help the country weather a possibly severe recession. Volatility returned to the market, with the Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 500 points and all the major indexes tumbling more than 5 percent.
-
<img src="http://www.crasscommerce.com/images/art/political/126-Americas-Barack.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
continuing to resist strong urges to post in this thread
-
Originally posted by callat703:
My prediction:
Total count: Obama, 364 | McCain, 174
I have Obama winning all of the Kerry states, plus: Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Missouri.
And some final thoughts are posted here. (http://www.wearevotingyes.com/2008/11/november-4th-2008.html)
Was almost right; looks like Obama might get Missouri AND Indiana.
-
posted 09-02-2008 10:43 AM Originally posted by very sonick:
This year, feels different, i think he's gonna win by 8+ points.
and my bold prediction from 9/2 was pretty close too!
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Was almost right; looks like Obama might get Missouri AND Indiana.
what make you think he might get missouri? CNN has mccain in the lead by 8000.
and i've never been so happy to be wrong in a personal prediction :)
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
Originally posted by callat703:
Was almost right; looks like Obama might get Missouri AND Indiana.
what make you think he might get missouri? CNN has mccain in the lead by 8000.
and i've never been so happy to be wrong in a personal prediction :) [/b]
Oh, did it swing back the other way? Last I checked, Obama was leading there too.
I think anywhere it is that close, provisional balloting and absentee ballots - which take longer to count - are going to benefit Obama far more than McCain.
If he doesn't get Missouri, then I got the number right - just flipped Indiana/Missouri.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
I think anywhere it is that close, provisional balloting and absentee ballots - which take longer to count - are going to benefit Obama far more than McCain.
Absentee ballots 99.999% of the time favor Republicans.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
I think anywhere it is that close, provisional balloting and absentee ballots - which take longer to count - are going to benefit Obama far more than McCain.
Absentee ballots 99.999% of the time favor Republicans. [/b]
Where is the proof of this in this election?
-
Originally posted by callat703:
Where is the proof of this in this election?
You're right, no statistics are relevant prior to 2008. :roll: Who files the majority of absentee ballots? The military. Who does the military overwhelmingly support? Republicans.
If you want to argue against conventional wisdom, how about you show me absentee ballot figures that show the Dems had a better "get out the absentee ballot" program in other states in 2008?
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
Where is the proof of this in this election?
You're right, no statistics are relevant prior to 2008. :roll: Who files the majority of absentee ballots? The military. Who does the military overwhelmingly support? Republicans.
If you want to argue against conventional wisdom, how about you show me absentee ballot figures that show the Dems had a better "get out the absentee ballot" program in other states in 2008? [/b]
You mean like in Washington DC, where all early voting was conducted by absentee ballot?
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=77754&catid=188 (http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=77754&catid=188)
I'm just asking you for the proof of what you're saying - including the two statements you just made, about the military filing the majority of absentee ballots and that the military overwhelmingly supports the GOP in this election. I haven't seen those stats, and I'd like to.
And yes, I do think conventional wisdom, based upon previous elections, is less useful in an election with record turnout and different demographic breakdowns.
-
Originally posted by callat703:
And yes, I do think conventional wisdom, based upon previous elections, is less useful in an election with record turnout and different demographic breakdowns.
With record turnout, McCain had 6,000 more votes than Obama in the at the polls voting. What leads you to believe absentee ballots are going to break differently? You're the one arguing against conventional wisdom, what's your basis for doing so?
-
Actually, I'm not going to discuss issues with anyone who isn't aware that (a) absentee ballots traditionally break heavily for Republicans, and (b) active members of the military overwhelmingly vote Republican, yes, even when Obama is the democrat. (Actually, probably especially since he wants to "end" the war and then they'll be considered "losers" and have nothing to live for.)
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/poll-troops-support-mccain/ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/poll-troops-support-mccain/)
I'm sure Obama had a 40 point turnaround in the final week with members of the military.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Originally posted by callat703:
And yes, I do think conventional wisdom, based upon previous elections, is less useful in an election with record turnout and different demographic breakdowns.
With record turnout, McCain had 6,000 more votes than Obama in the at the polls voting. What leads you to believe absentee ballots are going to break differently? You're the one arguing against conventional wisdom, what's your basis for doing so? [/b]
Because, like in Washington DC, early voting in Missouri is conducted by absentee ballot. And the Obama campaign - across the board - was far better at getting out the early vote.
http://www.kmov.com/news/Election/missouri/stories/kmov_election_080922_earlyvoting.9f6f20c1.html (http://www.kmov.com/news/Election/missouri/stories/kmov_election_080922_earlyvoting.9f6f20c1.html)
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Actually, I'm not going to discuss issues with anyone who isn't aware that (a) absentee ballots traditionally break heavily for Republicans, and (b) active members of the military overwhelmingly vote Republican, yes, even when Obama is the democrat. (Actually, probably especially since he wants to "end" the war and then they'll be considered "losers" and have nothing to live for.)
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/poll-troops-support-mccain/ (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/21/poll-troops-support-mccain/)
I'm sure Obama had a 40 point turnaround in the final week with members of the military.
Ahh yes, good poll to cite:
"The Military Times, which publishes the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times and Air Force Times, polled 80,000 subscribers from Sept 22 to Sept. 29. The non-scientific survey gathered 4,300 respondents -- all of them registered and eligible to vote."
and later:
The Military Times offered certain caveats for its poll, which was open only to its 80,000 subscribers. Responses were entirely voluntary and were not focused on a representative sample of the public, as scientific polls are. The troops polled were also somewhat older than average enlisted service members and included more officers than is representative of the military as a whole.
Come on Julian. You're going to be that condescending when you clearly didn't even read the source you posted? And you really think the Military Times subscriber list is an accurate sample of military personnel?
And I didn't say I thought you were wrong, I said I wanted proof. And you provide a non-scientific survey from the Military Times. Right.
-
Not only that, even if that poll is accurate, it doesn't prove anything.
Show me numbers that prove that military absentee ballots are substantially more prevalent than say, college student absentee ballots. I don't know if you're right or not - but I'm curious to know what is factual and what is conjecture.
-
Try this as a source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-troops6-2008nov06,0,7144850.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-troops6-2008nov06,0,7144850.story)
In Tuesday's election, 15% of voters were military veterans, and 54% of them voted for John McCain -- a 3-point decrease from Bush's take in 2004, according to the National Election Pool exit poll.
In addition, campaign support for Democratic presidential candidates also increased during the just-ended election cycle. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks political donations, said that through 2007, Democrats received 40% of the $804,000 in contributions from uniformed service members, up from 18% in 2000.
The center said that by the end of August 2008, Obama had received more money from military donors with overseas addresses -- $74,650 compared with $16,600 for McCain -- as well as from employees of the uniformed branches: $340,400 compared with $321,500.
The most comprehensive look at the military vote is an annual survey by the privately owned Military Times newspaper, which in a voluntary poll of 4,300 subscribers in September found overwhelming support for McCain, 68%, compared with 23% for Obama.
But Feaver noted that the Military Times surveys tend to target older officers, who are far more conservative than younger enlisted personnel.
It is a factor that seemed clear Wednesday in east Baghdad, where six of seven soldiers at a base interviewed at random said they backed Obama.
-
Originally posted by Julian, certified WEBLEBRITY:
Actually, I'm not going to discuss issues with anyone who isn't aware that (a) absentee ballots traditionally break heavily for Republicans
This may be true, but there was a lot about this election that was NOT traditional, especially in terms of record voter turnout across the board, including absentee voting. So even if this has been a documented fact in the past, it may not be relevant to this election.
-
Originally posted by twangirl:
This may be true, but there was a lot about this election that was NOT traditional, especially in terms of record voter turnout across the board, including absentee voting. So even if this has been a documented fact in the past, it may not be relevant to this election.
If one is going to argue that the traditional patterns of absentee ballots don't count, THAT PERSON is the one who needs evidence of the abnormality, not the person armed with 40+ years of voting records. And no, going "a lot of things weren't traditional" doesn't certify that we're in crazy world and up is down and all the red states voted blue and blue states, red, and absentee ballots are now going strongly Democratic.
-
i did hear on NPR something about how early voting and absentee voting and such couldn't be counted as heavy republican like in years past, but i was only partly paying attention and dont feel like looking it up at this hour, maybe tomorow. But callat703 MAY have somewhat of a point. Either way, it didnt look like Missouri was going to go Obama, but it doesnt much matter anyway.
-
interesting read: Maps of the 2008 US presidential election results (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/)
summary: geographic map of presidential election results gives impression that republicans won the election:
<img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer512.png" alt=" - " />
but if you scale the sizes of counties to be proportional to their population, you get a map that clearly shows that the dems won:
<img src="http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycartredblue512.png" alt=" - " />
incidentally, the above is also how one typicaly inteprets a map when high on acid.
-
mods!!! if i would to say the latter map was how people interpreted the map on crack id be racist!!! flag this and ban him!!!
-
Originally posted by manimtired:
mods!!! if i would to say the latter map was how people interpreted the map on crack id be racist!!! flag this and ban him!!!
only if you equated crack with a certain race
-
canadians mostly
-
oh hai
-
btw, does anyone have a good read or info on when the electoral college changes? i mean isnt there some amount of time when they re-figure out how many votes each state gets? i looked but couldnt find anything off the bat. i am assuming at some point they change, no?
-
nevermind, i done found it!
-
What are people still debating in this thread?
-
Originally posted by Doctor Hussein Doom:
What are people still debating in this thread?
to fair i think some interesting discussion going at the moment, but i'm choosing to stay out of the fray ... looking back through this thread there was a times some interesting discussion going on too..
there are now some interesting stories from inside the campaigns that would be worthy of discussion, so many we can reconvene in the new year when we're all less burnt out...
-
one of the most moving things about this election result has been what it's meant for my african-american friends: it's a hopeful sign that they might finally be living in a truly post-racist america. pundits have said tons about what it might do for the future of race relations in this country, but the immediate effect has been undeniable. as one of my black friend's IM away message reads, "I can finally tell me kids they can grow up to be anything they want to be - and not feel like I'm lying". i've seen grown men cry with tears of joy about having a black president.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
we can reconvene in the new year
Forum Party II!
-
wrong button
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
Interesting to note that the previous biggest drop following an election was after the 1932 election of Franklin Roosevelt. Of course at the time we were in the midst of the Great Depression. And of course he was elected 4 times and is considered one of our greatest Presidents. And his New Deal helped us emerge from the Great Depression.
I still think these figures are reflections on the market and have little if nothing to do with an actual reaction to the election. More like selling gains after a run-up towards the election (sell the news).
now that my account has been re-activated, i must respond to this statement. . .
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409).
and, to get myself in tip-top shape to discuss economic theory in times of economic panics, i am reading this-
<img src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51KWZYnMjSL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA240_SH20_OU01_.jpg" alt=" - " />
and yes, the drop last wednesday exceeded the one day drop after the election of FDR in 1932. but FDR didn't bring us out of the great depression, world war 2 did, and to argue otherwise is a serious lack of historical understanding. by all accounts, the depression ended in 1943, in the middle of WWII. . .a monkey could have been president at that time and the country would have come out of the depression.....the problem is the previous decade, where unemployment numbers during the 30s averaged near 18%; fdr's policies likely hurt more than help the economy. of course, i seriously doubt that another 4 years of hoover's policies would have done any better, mainly because hoover's policies were a new deal-lite, so to speak. after 1930 and hoover kicking out andrew mellon, social policies were economic policies. . .and did little to nothing to ease unemployment or the economy. . .
-
I didn't say FDR got us out of the great depression. but he also didn't get us into the great depression. a Great Depression is an economic, not a political occurance. As a political leader FDR took action to improve the conditions of Americans during the Depression and he helped restore America's confidence and optimism . . . and that cannot be underestimated. When conditions changed, we were ready.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
I didn't say FDR got us out of the great depression. but he also didn't get us into the great depression. a Great Depression is an economic, not a political occurance. As a political leader FDR took action to improve the conditions of Americans during the Depression and he helped restore America's confidence and optimism . . . and that cannot be underestimated. When conditions changed, we were ready.
i think it can be argued whether his actions improved the situation. . .there is evidence to show that his policies made things much worse, economically. . .which means we either look at the economic actions of his presidency, which appear to have made things worse, or we can look at how he raised morale, which undoubtedly made things look better. so, you might not have a job, but he made you feel like the government was doing something, even if that something was making it even more difficult for you to get a job.
btw, the UCLA paper argues that FDR did put us into the great depression. . .the paper posits that BUT FOR FDR's economic policies, the country would have come out of the recession by 1934. . .FDR's policies hindered economic recovery throughout the decade, and only WWII finally brought the country out of the depression, and brought down unemployment rates. politics, in the role of government interfering in the market, can play a role in economics, often a disastrous one. fdr and the new deal is a classic example of that. . .
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
btw, the UCLA paper argues that FDR did put us into the great depression. . .the paper posits that BUT FOR FDR's economic policies, the country would have come out of the recession by 1934. . .FDR's policies hindered economic recovery throughout the decade, and only WWII finally brought the country out of the depression, and brought down unemployment rates. politics, in the role of government interfering in the market, can play a role in economics, often a disastrous one. fdr and the new deal is a classic example of that. . .
FYI, that's one paper's academic interpretation of history. let's not take it for proven fact. isn't hard to dredge up 100 papers that "prove" that FDR got the country out of the recession with his policies.
-
Originally posted by sweetcell:
FYI, that's one paper's interpretation of history. let's not take it for proven fact. isn't hard to dredge up 100 papers that "prove" that FDR got the country out of the recession.
i'm not disputing the "FDR got the county out of the recession," but it wasn't so much due to FDR's policies, at least as implemented in the 30s, as much as it was he was president for most of WWII and changes to his economic policies as a result of hostilities that brought the country out of the depression. i'm pointing out, and the paper presented data and evidence, that FDR's policies did more harm to the economy during the 30s than help. the unemployment figures are but one evidence of that- unemployment under FDR never broke 10% until the run up to WWII in 1940, by that time, FDR had begun to back away from the pro-union/protectionist policies of the 30s realizing that a) it was likely the u.s. would need to get involved in the conflict and better start building and b) government was hurting more than helping create goods that could be sold to allies (lend-lease program). . .by finally untethering business from the various governmental-controlled aspects of the economy, the economy was finally able to start growing. . .
of course, numbers can be manipulated however one wants to. . .but, how one interprets these findings is going to be based on how one views the government- should the government be passive or active in the monitoring of the economy. guess where i sit?
-
The paper sounds interesting and worth reading. I'm very wary of revisionist history. Hindsight is 20/20, you're free to make conclusions that would not have necessarily played out as you predicted, and various factors, social and other, may not be fully appreciated. Some people argue that the Beatles were the worst band ever, you know.
-
Originally posted by Mobius:
The paper sounds interesting and worth reading. I'm very wary of revisionist history. Hindsight is 20/20, you're free to make conclusions that would not have necessarily played out as you predicted, and various factors, social and other, may not be fully appreciated. Some people argue that the Beatles were the worst band ever, you know.
yeah, i'm leery of revisionist history too. . .but that's mainly because original revisionist history was written by the left, such as howard zinn or eric foner. . .liberal revisionists take on the gilded age and its greed and corruption, conservative revisionists take on wilson, fdr and the warren court and the excesses of government interference. you say tomato, i say tomahto. . .
-
the truth is that the New Deal wasn??t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.??s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.
....
But the new administration should try not to emulate a less successful aspect of the New Deal: its inadequate response to the Great Depression itself.
Now, there??s a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it??s important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.
That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the ??30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful ??not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.?
Read the rest for yourselves, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin) or continue your silly argument, I don't care.
-
It's silly to claim that World War II got us out of the Depression as a way of arguing that Government spending a la the New Deal is ineffective. World War II is nothing less than the most massive public works program in history. The logical conclusion to draw is that had FDR been facing a peacetime scenario, he should have amped up Government spending even more.
Nothing short of a monstrous infrastructure program is what is needed now. Unparallelled, staggering government investment focused on the sectors of the economy which will breed the largest multiplier effects.
My vote is for huge investment in a high speed national rail network to rival the Interstate system in its scope, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to nuclear energy and green technology development. I would also devote renewed effort to boosting public education.
Finally I'd ship anyone who still thinks Ayn Rand offers serious insight into how our world works off to Gitmo. ;)
-
Originally posted by Doctor Hussein Doom:
It's silly to claim that World War II got us out of the Depression as a way of arguing that Government spending a la the New Deal is ineffective. World War II is nothing less than the most massive public works program in history. The logical conclusion to draw is that had FDR been facing a peacetime scenario, he should have amped up Government spending even more.
Nothing short of a monstrous infrastructure program is what is needed now. Unparallelled, staggering government investment focused on the sectors of the economy which will breed the largest multiplier effects.
My vote is for huge investment in a high speed national rail network to rival the Interstate system in its scope, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to nuclear energy and green technology development. I would also devote renewed effort to boosting public education.
Finally I'd ship anyone who still thinks Ayn Rand offers serious insight into how our world works off to Gitmo. ;)
who's ayn rand? yeah, i know who she is, but, honestly, i've never read her.
i can only assume that the rest of this post is a joke it's so preposterous.
it matters what government is doing restricting the free movement of capital and allowing business to operate efficiently. by propping up wages, setting prices and setting output, the government arbitrarily intervened in the market in the face of well settled economic theory. bernanke in his books blamed the Fed for restricting capital, which caused panic in the markets, but through FDR's policies of intervening and causing havoc most definitely hindered business from recovering after the panics.
for some reason, i would imagine the Keynes himself would question the wisdom of increasing government spending and adding onto our current deficits.
-
are you two going to say the same thing over and over again for the next few weeks?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)
ok, just watch the whole thing cause its funny, k?
-
sonick - that's f*ckin hilarious. the first related video link is pretty funny too - mccain gets barack'rolled!
<img src="http://media.villagevoice.com/2728362.28.jpg" alt=" - " />
"Barack Star"
from Obama Action Figures, in the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/slideshow/view/184152/)
-
If you cut gov't spending during recessions, you deepen the recession. Deficits are a concern, but should be the focus during times of growth. During recessions there are more important concerns. This is Economics 101.
One way to reduce the rate of growth in the deficit is to get out of the war in Iraq, which I expect the Obama Administration will be working on diligently. Wars do not have an optimal multiplier effect anyway.
-
fixed the pic - apparently the Village Voice doesn't like you linking to their images
Originally posted by sweetcell:
<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3228/3023076488_35a6b9ce40_o.jpg" alt=" - " />
"Barack Star"
from Obama Action Figures, in the Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/slideshow/view/184152/)
-
for manimtired: Pretty in Mink: Conservative Leading Ladies (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeautyShots/popup?id=6306477).
mmmmmmmmmmmm, coulter...
-
More tasty nuggets in the Bristol Palin saga
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20247953,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines
-
so apparently the 2008 election was a kind of a big deal around here
-
so apparently the 2008 election was a kind of a big deal around here
I heard it was a sellout.
-
so apparently the 2008 election was a kind of a big deal around here
I heard it was a sellout.
Don't you mean buyout?
-
Same thing. Either way, good jokes; unfortunately, it's all on us.
I'm calling it now. I fear that our next new naked emperor will be that slime ball Rick Perry, now governor of Texas. Yet another one who shows one card while actually playing a completely different and opposite one.
-
Oops, it's a 700,000 prang... Hapless blonde crashes her Bentley into a Merc, Porsche, Ferrari and Aston Martin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019340/Hapless-blonde-crashes-250k-Bentley-FOUR-supercars.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
-
i'm not sure what is worse with that story . . . the cars involved, or the hordes of people surrounding the accident gawking and holding up cell phones cameras.
-
http://www.myplaydirect.com/acdc/monopoly-ac-dc-collector-s-edition/details/25938605
listen to the money talk.
-
"There's Gonna Be Some Rockin' when one of the world?s best-selling bands teams up with the world?s most popular board game to bring you the ultimate AC/DC experience."
I always knew there was something missing from their shows...
-
Oops, it's a 700,000 prang... Hapless blonde crashes her Bentley into a Merc, Porsche, Ferrari and Aston Martin (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019340/Hapless-blonde-crashes-250k-Bentley-FOUR-supercars.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)
It's Monte Carlo though...the DC equivelent would be a Camry hitting an Accord which pranged a Elantra that rear ended a Maxima that side swiped a Mazda 323.
I bet the owners just dumped those cars. They wouldn't have fixed them. Trust me, I've seen it happen down here. "I don't want it back, just sell me a new one"
-
Another case of a bizarre news event that sets up an array of even crazier comments.
Police Nab Alleged Zit-Popper Grossing Out Fast-Food Customers (http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2011/08/10/police-nap-alleged-zit-popper-grossing-out-fast-food-customers)
-
Yes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/marianne-gingrich-newts-ex-wife-says-he-wanted-open-marriage/2012/01/19/gIQAJzgwAQ_story.html?hpid=z2