Author Topic: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...  (Read 2092396 times)

godsshoeshine

  • Member
  • Posts: 4826
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1110 on: September 02, 2008, 02:51:00 pm »
does that mean you will be voting obama so he gets the ill fated term?
o/\o

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1111 on: September 02, 2008, 05:06:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  uhh, Obama blames his uh, staff, uh, again. . . .
yeah, because his staff said a few things he preferred they didnt means he will choose just a horrible cabinet, nice try but a bit of a reach
 
 he chose people who took him from having no chance to be president to being pretty close to president, some pretty good choices

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1112 on: September 02, 2008, 05:15:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  uhh, Obama blames his uh, staff, uh, again. . . .
yeah, because his staff said a few things he preferred they didnt means he will choose just a horrible cabinet, nice try but a bit of a reach
 
 he chose people who took him from having no chance to be president to being pretty close to president, some pretty good choices [/b]
you mean,  like these people?
OU812

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1113 on: September 02, 2008, 05:17:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   
Quote
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  uhh, Obama blames his uh, staff, uh, again. . . .
yeah, because his staff said a few things he preferred they didnt means he will choose just a horrible cabinet, nice try but a bit of a reach
 
 he chose people who took him from having no chance to be president to being pretty close to president, some pretty good choices [/b]
you mean,  like these people? [/b]
and that's all without mentioning austen goolsbee, wesley clark, samantha power, and tony mcpeak
OU812

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1114 on: September 02, 2008, 06:35:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 and that's all without mentioning austen goolsbee, wesley clark, samantha power, and tony mcpeak
so this is about people who say what they are thinking and are deemed wrong because of the political climate rather than because of what they are saying? then totally, samantha power is an idiot, you win

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1115 on: September 02, 2008, 06:53:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 and that's all without mentioning austen goolsbee, wesley clark, samantha power, and tony mcpeak
so this is about people who say what they are thinking and are deemed wrong because of the political climate rather than because of what they are saying? then totally, samantha power is an idiot, you win [/b]
no, this is about people that obama has relied on for advice and are out there "speaking on his behalf," and who then say something controversial (goolsbee on nafta, power on israel, clark on mccain, mcpeak on iraq, among other things), then obama has to come out and say they aren't speaking for him, and then they get shuffled away.  in other words, there is in fact a clear history of obama having staffers and other surrogates go out there and then have to have obama come out and distance himself from them.  while these people may not be "incompetent," their viewpoints can surely be questioned, especially with the number of instances where obama has had to backtrack.
OU812

ratioci nation

  • Member
  • Posts: 4463
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1116 on: September 02, 2008, 08:27:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 no, this is about people that obama has relied on for advice and are out there "speaking on his behalf," and who then say something controversial (goolsbee on nafta, power on israel, clark on mccain, mcpeak on iraq, among other things), then obama has to come out and say they aren't speaking for him, and then they get shuffled away.  in other words, there is in fact a clear history of obama having staffers and other surrogates go out there and then have to have obama come out and distance himself from them.  while these people may not be "incompetent," their viewpoints can surely be questioned, especially with the number of instances where obama has had to backtrack.
i think its more about the stupid feigned outrage people have over every comment made, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what Wesley Clark said, the reaction made it wrong, its the same reason McCain thinks POW excuses everything

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1117 on: September 02, 2008, 08:31:00 pm »
Since I'm in LA for my fantasy football draft, I'm going to ignore the political conversation for a day and share a travel story...
 
 So I'm getting on my flight and I walk past the emergency aisle that I elected not to spend the extra $15 on for a seat.  Sure enough there's a hot Euro chick sitting in the seat next to the seat I pased up.  Damn it!
 
 So as I walk to my seat and check the amount of cash i have to try to buy the seat, two smoking hot blondes are walking towards my row.  What are the chances?  It was certainly my lucky day as Sarah and Lindsay took up the other two seats in my row and were heading to LA for a performance.  They're dancers.  Legitimate dancers, that is.   And we had some bubbly to celebrate their upcoming breakout performance. Good luck ladies - smackie's rooting for you, even if the amount of bubbly jeopardizes his fantasy prowess.
27>34

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1118 on: September 03, 2008, 02:43:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  i think its more about the stupid feigned outrage people have over every comment made, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what Wesley Clark said, the reaction made it wrong, its the same reason McCain thinks POW excuses everything
then perhaps obama should be more supportive of their positions, instead of throwing them under the bus and saying they don't speak for me. . .it just seems to me again and again that surrogates and staffers do something, people react, and obama comes in and says they messed up and/or they don't speak for me.  he may well rely on some very competent people, but he doesn't do a very good job of supporting them.
OU812

brennser

  • Member
  • Posts: 3758
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1119 on: September 03, 2008, 02:45:00 pm »
and McCain does do a good job of supporting his people who go "off message"?
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   
Quote
Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  i think its more about the stupid feigned outrage people have over every comment made, there was absolutely nothing wrong with what Wesley Clark said, the reaction made it wrong, its the same reason McCain thinks POW excuses everything
then perhaps obama should be more supportive of their positions, instead of throwing them under the bus and saying they don't speak for me. . .it just seems to me again and again that surrogates and staffers do something, people react, and obama comes in and says they messed up and/or they don't speak for me.  he may well rely on some very competent people, but he doesn't do a very good job of supporting them. [/b]

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1120 on: September 03, 2008, 03:10:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by brennser:
  and McCain does do a good job of supporting his people who go "off message"?
 
i don't know.  i'm simply questioning pollard's statement about obama hiring competent people.
 
 are there policy questions that should have a reasonable discussion- yes.  And to pollard's other point about the reaction, i agree with that.  but, obama appears to have a tendency to blame others (either by "misrepresenting" him or not speaking for him) and not himself for hiring them in the first place.  after all, they must have something in common with obama for him to have even been listening to them in the first place, right?
OU812

brennser

  • Member
  • Posts: 3758
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1121 on: September 03, 2008, 03:48:00 pm »
thats some pretty convoluted logic on your part - to take 3 or 4 isolated examples and use it to say he hasn't hired competent people
 
 first off I think pollard is referring to the fact that reps and dems alike are pretty impressed with the campaign apparatus he has put together, few leaks, stays on message etc etc - compare and contrast with the campaign machinations of the just about anyone else in this years race, McCain, Clinton, Thompson, Giulani
 
 this stuff doesn't happen by accident, it all starts at the top and so I think Obama deserves a lot of credit for both running a tight ship and hiring competent people
 
 In such a huge campaign you're always going to have verbal gaffes, people thinking they are off the record etc etc and fuck-ups are inevitable.....those fuck-ups are then inevitably blown way out of proportion by a salivating 24 hour news cycle - ok so samantha power called hill the pill a monster - is that really as bad or even worse than McCain chuckling with glee as someone referred to Hillary as a bitch?
 
 McCain did prety much the exact same thing with Phil Gramm and the whiners comment and John Goodman and the "we have no uninsured because there are ERs" comment
 
 how many campaign managers and other senior has mccain hired and fired over the last 18 months? Versus Obama? what does that say about their relative tendency to blame others?
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   
Quote
Originally posted by brennser:
  and McCain does do a good job of supporting his people who go "off message"?
 
i don't know.  i'm simply questioning pollard's statement about obama hiring competent people.
 
 are there policy questions that should have a reasonable discussion- yes.  And to pollard's other point about the reaction, i agree with that.  but, obama appears to have a tendency to blame others (either by "misrepresenting" him or not speaking for him) and not himself for hiring them in the first place.  after all, they must have something in common with obama for him to have even been listening to them in the first place, right? [/b]

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1122 on: September 03, 2008, 03:53:00 pm »
September 3, 2008
 Op-Ed Columnist
 And Then There Was One
 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
 
 
 As we emerge from Labor Day, college students are gathering back on campuses not only to start the fall semester, but also, in some cases, to vote for the first time in a presidential election. There is no bigger issue on campuses these days than environment/energy. Going into this election, I thought that ?? for the first time ?? we would have a choice between two ??green? candidates. That view is no longer operative ?? and college students (and everyone else) need to understand that.
 
 With his choice of Sarah Palin ?? the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change ?? for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.
 
 Given the fact that Senator McCain deliberately avoided voting on all eight attempts to pass a bill extending the vital tax credits and production subsidies to expand our wind and solar industries, and given his support for lowering the gasoline tax in a reckless giveaway that would only promote more gasoline consumption and intensify our addiction to oil, and given his desire to make more oil-drilling, not innovation around renewable energy, the centerpiece of his energy policy ?? in an effort to mislead voters that support for drilling today would translate into lower prices at the pump today ?? McCain has forfeited any claim to be a green candidate.
 
 So please, students, when McCain comes to your campus and flashes a few posters of wind turbines and solar panels, ask him why he has been AWOL when it came to Congress supporting these new technologies.
 
 ??Back in June, the Republican Party had a round-up,? said Carl Pope, the executive director of the Sierra Club. ??One of the unbranded cattle ?? a wizened old maverick name John McCain ?? finally got roped. Then they branded him with a big ??Lazy O?? ?? George Bush??s brand, where the O stands for oil. No more maverick.
 
 ??One of McCain??s last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,? added Pope, ??yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ??The jury is still out on global warming.?? She??s the one hanging the jury ?? and John McCain is going to let her.?
 
 Indeed, Palin??s much ballyhooed confrontations with the oil industry have all been about who should get more of the windfall profits, not how to end our addiction.
 
 Barack Obama should be doing more to promote his green agenda, but at least he had the courage, in the heat of a Democratic primary, not to pander to voters by calling for a lifting of the gasoline tax. And while he has come out for a limited expansion of offshore drilling, he has refrained from misleading voters that this is in any way a solution to our energy problems.
 
 I am not against a limited expansion of off-shore drilling now. But it is a complete sideshow. By constantly pounding into voters that his energy focus is to ??drill, drill, drill,? McCain is diverting attention from what should be one of the central issues in this election: who has the better plan to promote massive innovation around clean power technologies and energy efficiency.
 
 Why? Because renewable energy technologies ?? what I call ??E.T.? ?? are going to constitute the next great global industry. They will rival and probably surpass ??I.T.? ?? information technology. The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not.
 
 Palin??s nomination for vice president and her desire to allow drilling in the Alaskan wilderness ??reminded me of a lunch I had three and half years ago with one of the Russian trade attachés,? global trade consultant Edward Goldberg said to me. ??After much wine, this gentleman told me that his country was very pleased that the Bush administration wanted to drill in the Alaskan wilderness. In his opinion, the amount of product one could actually derive from there was negligible in terms of needs. However, it signified that the Bush administration was not planning to do anything to create alternative energy, which of course would threaten the economic growth of Russia.?
 
 So, college students, don??t let anyone tell you that on the issue of green, this election is not important. It is vitally important, and the alternatives could not be more black and white.
27>34

Venerable Bede

  • Member
  • Posts: 3863
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1123 on: September 03, 2008, 04:51:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by brennser:
  thats some pretty convoluted logic on your part - to take 3 or 4 isolated examples and use it to say he hasn't hired competent people
 
 first off I think pollard is referring to the fact that reps and dems alike are pretty impressed with the campaign apparatus he has put together, few leaks, stays on message etc etc - compare and contrast with the campaign machinations of the just about anyone else in this years race, McCain, Clinton, Thompson, Giulani
 
 this stuff doesn't happen by accident, it all starts at the top and so I think Obama deserves a lot of credit for both running a tight ship and hiring competent people
 
 In such a huge campaign you're always going to have verbal gaffes, people thinking they are off the record etc etc and fuck-ups are inevitable.....those fuck-ups are then inevitably blown way out of proportion by a salivating 24 hour news cycle - ok so samantha power called hill the pill a monster - is that really as bad or even worse than McCain chuckling with glee as someone referred to Hillary as a bitch?
 
 McCain did prety much the exact same thing with Phil Gramm and the whiners comment and John Goodman and the "we have no uninsured because there are ERs" comment
 
no, i and the politico article listed a few more than 4 or 5. . .at some point a trend starts to develop.  the boston globe article noted a few more.  and these aren't primarily the off-the-record type of events and verbal gaffes.  these are people that he has aligned himself with, people he has hired to inform his campaign, people that he has relied on, and when they become a problem he all of sudden ejects them.  let's not forget what he did to his grandmother and jeremiah wright.  when they become policially inexpedient, he dumps them.
 
 of course, that's what happens during a campaign.  you try to control the narrative, and you give a speech saying how they don't speak for you and whatnot, and people move on.  what i'm getting at is this ultimately shows that the obama campaign is fundamentally no different than any other campaign, despite the media and his supporters' best efforts.  he is not a different type of politician- he's just another politician trying to get your vote.
 
 btw, phil gramm was right- we are a nation of whiners.  much like the much beloved obama advisors, the reaction is what got him fired, not the statement.
OU812

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19722
Re: Things Smackie Thinks You Need to Know...
« Reply #1124 on: September 04, 2008, 08:06:00 am »
When the Vansmack's and the Venerable's go wine tasting in Napa or Sonoma, Smackie likes to play a game called count the minorities.  The rules are simple: count every minority you see who is not working (ie, no limo drivers and no harvesters).  In many 8 hour trips, the highest I've gotten to is 4.  After three+ hours of the 20K people at the RNC last night, I got to 3, not counting Lynn Swann, whom I've never really thought of as black. Or Republican.
 
 For all the charges of Elitism thrown in the direction of the Dems, how an Ivy League education or community organizer became a punchline is beyond me.
 
 When watching a convention, you anticipate a lot of digs of the other party and their candidate.  Unlike Smackette who walked out occassionally, I actually enjoyed most of them.  But the one chant that had me banging my head against the coffee table last night was the "Drill, Baby, Drill" chant. For every conservative who's quick to point out that there's not enough farm land in America to produce enough ethanol to meet America's fuel demand, how they so blatantly ignore the fact that there's not enough American oil to meet America's fuel demand either continues to baffle me.  The idea that America can one day no longer be reliant on Foreign oil is a misnomer.  The only way this would be possible is for America to no longer be dependent on oil at all.  I'm all for states deciding on their own to allow for drilling off their coasts - if CA wants to be smart enough to say no because it only puts off the inevitable, they should have that right.  If FL wants to reap in taxes from oil companies to shore up their economic woes, fine.  But the real chant should be pump, baby, pump, not drill, baby, drill.  If you want to make an impact now, you have to pump now because the new drilling won't have any effect on supply (or price) for 10 years.  Any new drilling should be contingent on a portion of the proftis being used to find alternatives, lest we put our selves right back in this position 10 years from now with no new drilling opportunities. At a minimum, the drilling should be contingent on renewing the tax subsidies for investing in renewable energies like wind and solar powers.  The Republican's are putting too much emphasis on drilling, ignoring the real problem of overall dependence on oil, and it would be a shame for America if it were a winning argument in this election.
 
 I thought Governor Palin did an excellent job with her prepared remarks.  Even her attacks were done with quite a bit of charm and I see that working quite well against Biden.  While I disagreed with much of the content on energy, it was delivered with such confidence that you can tell she has command of the subject.  That was in stark contrast to her delivery of remarks on Foreign Policy. They were delivered in a much different tone and demeanor, way too clearly being read, and seemed forced.  It will be interesting to see how she does on her feet against the press corps on the campaign trail and in a debate when she's not reading from a teleprompter.  Her grabbing Trig at the first chance she could for the photo op reassured my theory that they had hoped to keep Bristol's bump quiet a little longer then they were able to - remember at the announcement of Palin as the VP choice, Trig never left Bristol's arms (nor did the odd blanket leave her chest), which I thought odd because it missed a great chance for a photo opp.  Well, we found out why...
 
 Nonetheless, the Republican's had to be pleased with last night - right up until McCain walked out with the mic and said maybe two words before akwardly standing out there with the mic not knowing what to do with millions of people watching.  How about you tell people how excited you are and that you'll be back tomorrow night?  Aamzing...
 
 Was I the only one who kept thinking any minute now she's going to say "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night!" ?
27>34