The Sarah Palin Thread (You can see Russia from this thread)

[USMC]

All you dems are just mad because she had ignited the base and now we're gonna win:D


Or maybe dems just know a political maneuver when they see one... :o

[Marx]

All you dems are just mad because she had ignited the base and now we're gonna win:D

Or maybe dems just know a political maneuver when they see one... :o

Well said USMC.

[Hobgoblin]

All you dems are just mad because she had ignited the base and now we're gonna win:D

Not likely. :oldrazz: Our base is just as ignited.

[lazur]

From Time.com....love it:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839724-1,00.html



The article continues at the link above.

You should also point out that because of Palin, Alaska has a 5 - 9 billion dollar surplus. She also gave $1200 back to every resident of Alaska.

Now tell me - does that qualify as being fiscally conservative or would you prefer to continue talking about the airplane she did INDEED sell? Or how about the Bridge to Nowhere that wasn't built because of her (not Congress') decision?

[jaguarr]

All you dems are just mad because she had ignited the base and now we're gonna win:D

She's a political stunt and not much else. All fluff and no substance. She's the political equivalent of popcorn; might be tasty at first but there's no sustenance to it and you can only eat so much before you start to feel sick and it plugs you up. So gobble it up like a good little RNC Sheep. It will catch up with you.

And she's ignited the Democratic base just as much as the Republican base. In a couple of weeks, she won't even be a factor as the hoopla around her dies down; especially with the McCain campaign keeping her so sequestered and away from the media (thus limiting her exposure).

jag

[sinewave]

They really, really need to listen to the words of the song; they are not about a nice person at all. At least Roger Fisher has found the silver lining from all of this with his royalties from the song going to the Obama campaign and stating that now the McCain Campaign is officially supporting Obama financially. :funny:

that's awesome. well played, mr. fisher!

[RAMORE]

Or maybe dems just know a political maneuver when they see one... :o

Maneuver or not we are now going to win hands down:up:

[Marx]

REPORT: PALIN TAPPED TRAVEL ALLOWANCE WHILE AT HOME
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses





(Here we go...again.)

[lazur]

Or maybe dems just know a political maneuver when they see one... :o

Yeah, because dems never have their own political maneuvers. :rolleyes:

If you want to fault someone for the current state of the two campaigns, blame Obama for putting his pride over his common sense when he decided NOT to bring Hillary on as VP. Had he done that, Palin would be irrelevant.

So ... instead of blaming the republicans for 'scheming' during a political campaign, you should be looking at your own party's nomination for President as the real source of blame...

[marcofthebeast]

So why not advocate and push for reforms for these programs so that they are more effective and fair and do what they are intended to do rather than just saying "you're on your own, deal with it"? Your Mom got a raw deal at the end, but I'm willing to bet she was grateful for the help up to that point. Just nixing the whole thing because of policies that weren't working isn't a solution. And, to be honest, it kind of makes you just sound bitter about the whole thing.

jag

I admit that the programs maybe a bit better today. We'll come to a point when we realize that people will abuse the system no matter how refined it is. When you take away someones onus you take away their will to succeed. Sure people will live stable lives. I would rather live however I want with uncertainty then live stable with a government leash around my neck.

When it comes down to personal preference I always side with individual freedom.

[jaguarr]

I admit that the programs maybe a bit better today. We'll come to a point when we realize that people will abuse the system no matter how refined it is. When you take away someones onus you take away their will to succeed. Sure people will live stable lives. I would rather live however I want with uncertainty then live stable with a government leash around my neck.

When it comes down to personal preference I always side with individual freedom.

How is government assistance, intended to help people get back on their feet as functional and contributing members of society in any way related to individual freedom? :huh:

jag

[lazur]

She's a political stunt and not much else. All fluff and no substance. She's the political equivalent of popcorn; might be tasty at first but there's no sustenance to it and you can only eat so much before you start to feel sick and it plugs you up. So gobble it up like a good little RNC Sheep. It will catch up with you.

And she's ignited the Democratic base just as much as the Republican base. In a couple of weeks, she won't even be a factor as the hoopla around her dies down; especially with the McCain campaign keeping her so sequestered and away from the media (thus limiting her exposure).

jag

Sarah Palin bowled over a 20 plus year senator, and former Governor of Alaska, with ease during the debates and during her campaign for the gubernatorial office. She took down corrupt politicians and did not apologize for it. What makes you think she's all fluff? I get the feeling that you will be shocked by her ability to debate when she faces off against Biden.

Truthfully, I can't wait to see it. :)

[lazur]

REPORT: PALIN TAPPED TRAVEL ALLOWANCE WHILE AT HOME
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses





(Here we go...again.)

Read the story. It explains the whole thing. She was permitted the expense because she was working 600 miles away.

Just another side-swipe that will go nowhere.

[sinewave]

My point isn't that the child shouldn't be taken care of. The child SHOULD be taken care of. But why do taxpayers always have to foot the bill?

Why doesn't government work with the private sector to cover those who fall through the cracks? Why does it always have to be, spend, spend, spend, instead of partnering with citizens, faith based groups and big industry to help solve problems instead of having the government try to solve them all?

maybe because big industry can't be trusted due to their desire to place profit ahead of anything else. that's what i don't get about these extreme anti-tax conservative ideals. they think it's a good idea to do away with taxes altogether and just let private industry handle everything, but the country would fall apart under that type of plan due to a lack of quality work due to corporations cutting corners everywhere they can. our infrastructure would crumble completely while rich people raked in the dough. that's not a healthy society.

[jaguarr]

Maneuver or not we are now going to win hands down:up:

Haha! Okay, man. We'll see where things are at come election day. Republicans seem to have this odd sense of bravado since their post-convention bump (which is steadily dropping back down every day following it).

REPORT: PALIN TAPPED TRAVEL ALLOWANCE WHILE AT HOME
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080909/ap_on_el_pr/palin_travel_expenses





(Here we go...again.)

Haha! She truly is the gift that keeps on giving.

jag

[lazur]

maybe because big industry can't be trusted due to their desire to place profit ahead of anything else. that's what i don't get about these extreme anti-tax conservative ideals. they think it's a good idea to do away with taxes altogether and just let private industry handle everything, but the country would fall apart under that type of plan due to a lack of quality work due to corporations cutting corners everywhere they can. our infrastructure would crumble completely while rich people raked in the dough. that's not a healthy society.

Ah okay, so society is completely incapable of taking care of people. The only entity capable of taking care of people is Papa Government, because at the head of every corporation is an evil, greedy overlord who would let children starve if it came right down to it. Gotcha. Makes perfect liberal (socialism) sense, though it completely goes against not only the truth, but what the US stands for.

And how can you even seriously answer this question? There is no answer, because it's never been tried in the last 100 years. Our country is not ONLY our government. Our country is its people, who ARE the most giving, charitable people on the planet. Yet asking our government to 'partner' with non-government entities is a bad thing? Right. Let's not solve any of our own problems. Let's let Papa Government do it all for us.

[Lightning Strykez!]

All you dems are just mad because she had ignited the base and now we're gonna win:D

:whatever:

No one here is mad. What is there to ignite? Culture Wars? Yeah, she's certainly ignited that, but that's fine. Her Tina Feyesque ways does not ensure her base a win at all. Especially since she apparently doesn't even understand something as simple as Fannie Mae.

By the way, this so-called bounce that McCain enjoyed recently is practically erased again. People are already tired of "McWar/Female 08". :lmao:

[jaguarr]

Read the story. It explains the whole thing. She was permitted the expense because she was working 600 miles away.

Just another side-swipe that will go nowhere.

An analysis of travel statements filed by the governor, now John McCain's Republican running mate, shows she claimed the per diem allowance on 312 occasions when she was home in Wasilla and that she billed taxpayers $43,490 for travel by her husband and children.

jag

[marcofthebeast]

How is government assistance, intended to help people get back on their feet as functional and contributing members of society in any way related to individual freedom? :huh:

jag

You have to sacrifice a lot a of personal freedom just to join these programs. You have to live under circumstances that the government dictates to be able to benefit at all from these programs. If you make so much as ten cents over their limit you are dropped from their system and thrown in jail or fined on charges of welfare fraud. This still happens today. You in effect give up a lot of freedom.

[Mr Sparkle]

Yeah, because dems never have their own political maneuvers. :rolleyes:

If you want to fault someone for the current state of the two campaigns, blame Obama for putting his pride over his common sense when he decided NOT to bring Hillary on as VP. Had he done that, Palin would be irrelevant.

So ... instead of blaming the republicans for 'scheming' during a political campaign, you should be looking at your own party's nomination for President as the real source of blame...

:huh: so....the democrats are to blame for the GOP's political maneuvering?
you're kidding right?

you...you can't be serious.
do you like, let another person post with your SN during election time or do you temporarily insane during this season?

[Marx]

Sarah Palin bowled over a 20 plus year senator, and former Governor of Alaska, with ease during the debates and during her campaign for the office. She took down corrupt politicians and did not apologize for it. What makes you think she's all fluff? I get the feeling that you will be shocked by her ability to debate when she faces off against Biden.

Truthfully, I can't wait to see it. :)

She's so much against corrupt politicians that she is finding herself under investigation for ethics?

She's so much against pork-barrel spending and pet projects that she lobbied FOR 'The Bridge to Nowhere?'

She's so much for supporting unwed teen mothers that she cuts financing for programs that support them?


:huh:

[jaguarr]

Sarah Palin bowled over a 20 plus year senator, and former Governor of Alaska, with ease during the debates and during her campaign for the gubernatorial office. She took down corrupt politicians and did not apologize for it. What makes you think she's all fluff? I get the feeling that you will be shocked by her ability to debate when she faces off against Biden.

Truthfully, I can't wait to see it. :)

Do you want butter with your Sarah? :)

jag

[sinewave]

Yeah, because dems never have their own political maneuvers. :rolleyes:

If you want to fault someone for the current state of the two campaigns, blame Obama for putting his pride over his common sense when he decided NOT to bring Hillary on as VP. Had he done that, Palin would be irrelevant.

So ... instead of blaming the republicans for 'scheming' during a political campaign, you should be looking at your own party's nomination for President as the real source of blame...

have you ever once in your life blamed your own party for anything? i swear, you are one of the most unapologetically biased person i've ever seen.

[Marx]

have you ever once in your life blamed your own party for anything? i swear, you are one of the most unapologetically biased person i've ever seen.

Partisan blinders are fun, aren't they? :whatever:

[Lightning Strykez!]

She's a political stunt and not much else. All fluff and no substance. She's the political equivalent of popcorn; might be tasty at first but there's no sustenance to it and you can only eat so much before you start to feel sick and it plugs you up.

:lmao:


And she's ignited the Democratic base just as much as the Republican base. In a couple of weeks, she won't even be a factor as the hoopla around her dies down; especially with the McCain campaign keeping her so sequestered and away from the media (thus limiting her exposure).
jag

Honestly, I think she is creeping out more people than the media is letting on. My coworkers (who are mostly all women by the way) think she's the epitome of wack, and her fanatical "GUNZ! BABIEZ! BIBLEZ!" approach is a real turn-off for them.

She is essentially the flavor of the week...which interestingly enough underscores the enduring appeal of Obama, considering some thought he would be nothing more than the same thing himself 19 months ago. ;)

[lazur]

jag

"State officials told The Post her claims — nearly $17,000 over 19 months — were permitted because her "duty station" is Juneau, the capital, and she was in Wasilla 600 miles away. The governor moved to Juneau last year but often stays in Wasilla and works 45 miles away, in a state office in Anchorage."

"Overall, Palin's travel spending pales in comparison with that of predecessor Frank Murkowski, who charged $463,000 for air fare in 2006. Palin charged $93,000 in 2007."

[USMC]

Yeah, because dems never have their own political maneuvers. :rolleyes:

is that your only tactic? I never said dems don't... :huh:

Honestly, this back and forth "maneuver" of your own to take a discussion about one thing and flip it to your own without any kind of real counterargument is interesting, if not predictable, to say the least. :yay:

If you want to fault someone for the current state of the two campaigns, blame Obama for putting his pride over his common sense when he decided NOT to bring Hillary on as VP. Had he done that, Palin would be irrelevant.

Biden was a great choice (though certainly not my first one) simply because he shores up any foreign experience that Obama lacks. Palin only has her vagina to ignite the tired old Republicans. Obama's choice was smart poilital maneuvering (yeah, I agree they do it to, imagine that... :whatever:) McCain's non-choice (as it wasn't his choice, but rather his party's) of Palin was simply made because she is a woman. For that, thank god Hilary wasn't chosen... I'll take quality over breasts any day. :yay:

So ... instead of blaming the republicans for 'scheming' during a political campaign, you should be looking at your own party's nomination for President as the real source of blame...

"Blaming"? "Scheming"? What are you on about? :huh: Seems once again, it is hard for you to discuss one issue without turning it around to bring up something else.

Your tactics are old and tired. Just like John McCain.

:o

[USMC]

Read the story. It explains the whole thing. She was permitted the expense because she was working 600 miles away.

Just another side-swipe that will go nowhere.


That was part of the article...

she used per diem money while at home in Wasilla...

what, again, are you on about?:huh:

[lazur]

is that your only tactic? I never said dems don't... :huh:

Honestly, this back and forth "maneuver" of your own to take a discussion about one thing and flip it to your own without any kind of real counterargument is interesting, if not predictable, to say the least. :yay:

Nope, simply drawing parallels when dems lean on the 'republicans bad! dems good!' argument...

Biden was a great choice (though certainly not my first one) simply because he shores up any foreign experience that Obama lacks. Palin only has her vagina to ignite the tired old Republicans. Obama's choice was smart poilital maneuvering (yeah, I agree they do it to, imagine that... :whatever:) McCain's non-choice (as it wasn't his choice, but rather his party's) of Palin was simply made because she is a woman. For that, thank god Hilary wasn't chosen... I'll take quality over breasts any day. :yay:

Sounds a bit sexist to me, but okay...

Biden is inconsequential to the democratic ticket. Had Obama picked Hillary, the dems would be leading in the polls today. But rather than admit that your famed politician made a mistake, that's what you come back with?

Obama made a poor decision, or shall I just assume the way you do that it wasn't Obama's decision at all - it was his party's?

Speaking of which, how would YOU know that McCain didn't pick Palin, but the party did? Do you also have a crystal ball?

"Blaming"? "Scheming"? What are you on about? :huh: Seems once again, it is hard for you to discuss one issue without turning it around to bring up something else.

Your tactics are old and tired. Just like John McCain.

:o

Yeah, countering the non-sense you dems are going on and on about is a terrible tactic. Unfortunately for you, it's not the republicans who sound tired right now - it's the dems with their continued non-sensical and sexist attacks against our next female VP.

[Marx]

Palin and the 'Bridge to Nowhere'
w_Iy_weXdvY

[jaguarr]

Palin only has her vagina to ignite the tired old Republicans.

LMFAO! :lmao: I almost spit out lunch reading that.

jag

[sinewave]

Ah okay, so society is completely incapable of taking care of people. The only entity capable of taking care of people is Papa Government, because at the head of every corporation is an evil, greedy overlord who would let children starve if it came right down to it. Gotcha. Makes perfect liberal (socialism) sense, though it completely goes against not only the truth, but what the US stands for.

And how can you even seriously answer this question? There is no answer, because it's never been tried in the last 100 years. Our country is not ONLY our government. Our country is its people, who ARE the most giving, charitable people on the planet. Yet asking our government to 'partner' with non-government entities is a bad thing? Right. Let's not solve any of our own problems. Let's let Papa Government do it all for us.

hey, look at that, you can respond to my posts. now go back and respond to the ones i posted yesterday and then bumped again this morning, please.

why are youre posts always littered with the standard far-right catch phrases thinly veiled smears like "socialism" and "papa government"?

our government isn't the evil entity you far-right folks try to make out to be. need i remind you that the politicians are elected by the people to represent them and their concerns? if you're taking that out of their hands and giving it to a handful of corporations who value profit over everything else, how do you think that will turn out?

in general, progressive societies have a higher quality of life. think about that for a second.

it's like everything is "money, money, money" to you conservatives. "the dirty liberals want to take my money that i was gonna spend on a new gas-guzzler and force teenagers to get pregnant and then have abortions!"

your kool-aid mustache is showing, dude.

[lazur]

That was part of the article...

she used per diem money while at home in Wasilla...

what, again, are you on about?:huh:

Yeah, and STATE OFFICIALS said it was permitted. Just because she was Governor doesn't mean that her expenses didn't need to be approved.

This is a non-story. But hey, spend as much time as you want on it, and that goes for the media, too. The more you all rant and rave about Palin, the more attractive she becomes to the American public.

[Marx]

Yeah, countering the non-sense you dems are going on and on about is a terrible tactic. Unfortunately for you, it's not the republicans who sound tired right now - it's the dems with their continued non-sensical and sexist attacks against our next female VP.

How about you try looking up the definition of sexist. I am beyond tired of hardcore Republicans bashing anyone who tries to criticize Palin's 'lack of experience' and standing on the issues as sexist. Congratulations, you have just proven your ignorance.

If someone were saying 'Palin is a woman...and a woman's place is in the kitchen,' then THAT is sexist. To question her policies and experience IS NOT. Try a different argument Lazur. One based on reasoning instead of ignorance.

[RAMORE]

She's a political stunt and not much else. All fluff and no substance. She's the political equivalent of popcorn; might be tasty at first but there's no sustenance to it and you can only eat so much before you start to feel sick and it plugs you up. So gobble it up like a good little RNC Sheep. It will catch up with you.

And she's ignited the Democratic base just as much as the Republican base. In a couple of weeks, she won't even be a factor as the hoopla around her dies down; especially with the McCain campaign keeping her so sequestered and away from the media (thus limiting her exposure).

jag

Whatever, she's got Interviews later this week and out campaigning on her own right now raising Obama type money and crowds:grin:

[EdRyder]

Palin and the 'Bridge to Nowhere'
w_Iy_weXdvY

:lmao: That newscasters accent was off the chain.I want to hear all of my news from him now on.

[lazur]

hey, look at that, you can respond to my posts. now go back and respond to the ones i posted yesterday and then bumped again this morning, please.

why are youre posts always littered with the standard far-right catch phrases thinly veiled smears like "socialism" and "papa government"?

our government isn't the evil entity you far-right folks try to make out to be. need i remind you that the politicians are elected by the people to represent them and their concerns? if you're taking that out of their hands and giving it to a handful of corporations who value profit over everything else, how do you think that will turn out?

in general, progressive societies have a higher quality of life. think about that for a second.

it's like everything is "money, money, money" to you conservatives. "the dirty liberals want to take my money that i was gonna spend on a new gas-guzzler and force teenagers to get pregnant and then have abortions!"

your kool-aid mustache is showing, dude.

Hey, I'm all for government programs WHERE NECESSARY. But I do believe that society has an obligation to help its own citizens. There is plenty of wealth in this country, and you will find that most of these evil corporations actually respond quite nicely to requests for charity donations. Heck, the government could provide incentives to corporations that feed the hungry, house the homeless, help pay for teenage moms to go to school.

But noooo, let's make the taxpayer foot the entire bill instead of relying on our system of capitalism and good will.

As for your other posts, I don't have time to respond to every post. Remember, as a centrist, you dems have me outgunned by at least 20 to 1. It's all I can do to respond to the five who regularly follow me around. (Not that I mind because it's actually fun to participate on a board where I'm outnumbered politically.)

But if I get some time, I'll give it a shot.

[RAMORE]

yeah, because dems never have their own political maneuvers. :rolleyes:

If you want to fault someone for the current state of the two campaigns, blame obama for putting his pride over his common sense when he decided not to bring hillary on as vp. Had he done that, palin would be irrelevant.

So ... Instead of blaming the republicans for 'scheming' during a political campaign, you should be looking at your own party's nomination for president as the real source of blame...

amen!

[Gilpesh]

Whatever, she's got Interviews later this week and out campaigning on her own right now raising Obama type money and crowds:grin:

Interview. One.

And it is barely an interview at that. :whatever:

[DorkyFresh]

Palin and the 'Bridge to Nowhere'
w_Iy_weXdvY
they really need to drop the 'bridge to nowhere' argument. it's obvious that she was completely for it and only was against it because she couldn't make it happen. i posted something earlier that didn't get any responses but you might find it interesting to say the least...

6Ttqv_0y0R4

[lazur]

Interview. One.

And it is barely an interview at that. :whatever:

Let me guess ... your crystal ball already showed you the Gibson/Palin interview, which gave you the context you needed in order to actually make that statement?

[lazur]

pretty damaging. i posted something earlier that didn't get any responses but you might find it interesting to say the least...

Um, changing her mind on a 400 million dollar bridge is not 'damaging' no matter how many people say it is...

[jaguarr]

Whatever, she's got Interviews later this week and out campaigning on her own right now raising Obama type money and crowds:grin:

She's got one softball interview with Charlie Gibson in which all the questions have been pre-screened so she can give canned answers that she's been coached on (and were probably written for her). And yeah...she's not raising Obama type money....unless you count the $10M Obama's campaign raised from California alone immediately following her speech at the convention. :hehe:

jag

[jaguarr]

Um, changing her mind on a 400 million dollar bridge is not 'damaging' no matter how many people say it is...

When she's constantly going on about how she was always against it even though she's on record as having supported it it's damaging. ;)

jag

[Marx]

PALIN ON OBAMA (BEFORE she became the VP nominee)
jO6dmBm1SFw&feature=related

[USMC]

Nope, simply drawing parallels when dems lean on the 'republicans bad! dems good!' argument...

I'm not a democrat... :huh:

Sounds a bit sexist to me, but okay...

I should hope so, since that is what I was going for...

Biden is inconsequential to the democratic ticket. Had Obama picked Hillary, the dems would be leading in the polls today. But rather than admit that your famed politician made a mistake, that's what you come back with?

No... I thought it was clear that I am glad Hilary wasn't chosen... it shows me that Obama is more intelligent than McCain's camp... he chose substance over a quick upswing in poll numbers. And while I readily admit that choosing Hilary could have made a big difference, he knew well enough that it could have had the opposite effect as well. Choosing someone as experienced as Biden, someone who has the power of foreign experience as opposed to Hilary, was the intelligent choice as it will help him ease voters who are uncomfortable with Obama in those areas.

Palin does nothing but the opposite. She has boobs, she's young, and the Republicans clearly needed someone to help ease the voters who are uncomfortable with an old, white Republican who voted with Bush 90% of the time.

Obama made a poor decision, or shall I just assume the way you do that it wasn't Obama's decision at all - it was his party's?

Assume all day long, if it helps you sleep at night. :shrug:

Speaking of which, how would YOU know that McCain didn't pick Palin, but the party did? Do you also have a crystal ball?

No crystal ball, just common sense with facts thrown in for good measure... :cwink:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2353876.htm

Yeah, countering the non-sense you dems are going on and on about is a terrible tactic. Unfortunately for you, it's not the republicans who sound tired right now - it's the dems with their continued non-sensical and sexist attacks against our next female VP.

Palin herself said that any woman running for such a high office should expect tougher questions and examination by nature of being a woman and should basically work harder without whining about it. She said this before she was "vetted" (haha) for McCain. Republicans, IMO, made it sexist by inviting someone like her on the ticket for no good reason other than she has boobs in the first place... :whatever:

Again, I'm not a democrat... I research both sides extensively and come to a consensus therein.

Like any intelligent, non-biased human being should do when electing the most powerful person in the world. :huh:

[Marx]

here's something even better...

6Ttqv_0y0R4



quit talking about Bristol! remember, Palin wants her family left out of this!!! :woot::oldrazz::word:

they really need to drop the 'bridge to nowhere' argument. it's obvious that she was completely for it and only was against it because she couldn't make it happen. i posted something earlier that didn't get any responses but you might find it interesting to say the least...

Wow...I didn't see that post before. What a hypocrit. :whatever:

[EdRyder]

When she's constantly going on about how she was always against it even though she's on record as having supported it it's damaging. ;)

jag

Dont forget that they still took the earmark, just didnt build the bridge.

[jaguarr]

Dont forget that they still took the earmark, just didnt build the bridge.

Yay! Free money! It's the Federal Lotto!

jag

[RAMORE]

How about you try looking up the definition of sexist. I am beyond tired of hardcore Republicans bashing anyone who tries to criticize Palin's 'lack of experience' and standing on the issues as sexist. Congratulations, you have just proven your ignorance.

If someone were saying 'Palin is a woman...and a woman's place is in the kitchen,' then THAT is sexist. To question her policies and experience IS NOT. Try a different argument Lazur. One based on reasoning instead of ignorance.

So USMC saying the only thing she contributes is her Vagina isn't Sexist? And Jag and others laughing at it isn't sexist...well I guess that would just be in poor taste. You guys disgust me sometimes.:csad:

[Superman]

NBtbG5xjFBY It's about time someone called McCain on what he, and then Palin, Has been doing for a long time now.

They have been LYING!!!

Not "misrepresent" themselves, Not "Stretching the truth", They have been flat out LYING!

[lazur]

When she's constantly going on about how she was always against it even though she's on record as having supported it it's damaging. ;)

jag

I do agree that she needs to shut up about it. Beyond that, it's insignificant.

But why is no one talking about the 5 - 9 billion dollar surplus in Alaska Palin was responsible for when discussing her 'fiscal conservatism' (or, as dems claim, lack of it)?

[Darthphere]

Because she herself doesn't talk about it?

[RAMORE]

Interview. One.

And it is barely an interview at that. :whatever:

How is it not an interview? They specifically told him nothing is off limits ask what you want?

[Marx]

So USMC saying the only thing she contributes is her Vagina isn't Sexist? And Jag and others laughing at it isn't sexist...well I guess that would just be in poor taste. You guys disgust me sometimes.:csad:

Ok RAMORE let me ask you this - Why do you believe that Sarah Palin was chosen as the VP candidate? OVER someone like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tom Ridge, Tim Pawlenty, Joe Lieberman, Linda Lingle, Olene Smith Walker, or even M. Jodi Rell?

Honest question.

[jaguarr]

So USMC saying the only thing she contributes is her Vagina isn't Sexist? And Jag and others laughing at it isn't sexist...well I guess that would just be in poor taste. You guys disgust me sometimes.:csad:

How many cracks at Hillary did you take that were sexist when she was a threat, whether here or in real life? Answer me that. :)

jag

[USMC]

I do agree that she needs to shut up about it. Beyond that, it's insignificant.

But why is no one talking about the 5 - 9 billion dollar surplus in Alaska Palin was responsible for when discussing her 'fiscal conservatism' (or, as dems claim, lack of it)?


Maybe they're too busy talking about the 31 earmarks totaling $197 million, that Palin requested... more, per person, than any other state... :huh:

Even McCain was against it... before she was "vetted" for his side-kick, that is. :o

[USMC]

It's about time someone called McCain on what he, and then Palin, Has been doing for a long time now.

They have been LYING!!!

Not "misrepresent" themselves, Not "Stretching the truth", They have been flat out LYING!


Hey Supes. :)

[Superman]

I'm not a democrat... Hey USMC, Good to see you again.:woot:

So have you made up your mind yet? Want to tell us who you are looking at for Nov.?

I was just wondering because it sounded like you might go McCain awhile back. I was wondering if you still feel that way.:yay:

[Matt]

Here's a wacky idea...how about we stop discussing who is sexist, and who isn't and y'know...discuss Sarah Palin.

[Darthphere]

Here's a wacky idea...how about we stop discussing who is sexist, and who isn't and y'know...discuss Sarah Palin.

Isn't that what we're doing?:huh:

[Superman]

Hey Supes. :) Again, Hey USMC.:oldrazz::woot:

[jaguarr]

I do agree that she needs to shut up about it. Beyond that, it's insignificant.

But why is no one talking about the 5 - 9 billion dollar surplus in Alaska Palin was responsible for when discussing her 'fiscal conservatism' (or, as dems claim, lack of it)?

She did that by raising the revenue taxes on oil companies; something the Republicans don't want to talk about. It scares them. :o

jag

[Matt]

Isn't that what we're doing?:huh:

Okay, lets discuss Sarah Palin in a way that does not involve her vagina. :oldrazz: :cwink:

There are so many valid critiques of her. To play the gender card is exactly what the McCain camp wants because then they can say "YOU'RE BEING SEXIST!"

[lazur]

Maybe they're too busy talking about the 31 earmarks totaling $197 million, that Palin requested... more, per person, than any other state... :huh:

Even McCain was against it... before she was "vetted" for his side-kick, that is. :o

Well if you're going to talk about 197 million in earmarks that she requested, then you should also talk about the 1 billion in earmarks that Obama requested, or 1 million per DAY every day that he has been in the Senate...

Fair is fair.

[Mr Sparkle]

Whatever, she's got Interviews later this week and out campaigning on her own right now raising Obama type money and crowds:grin:

:huh: didn't the GOP say that was a bad thing?

so basically, they took everything they criticized about Obama, added a vagina a pregnant teenage daughter and christian fundamentalism and now it's good?:huh:

hahahahahahahahaha!

[RAMORE]

How many cracks at Hillary did you take that were sexist when she was a threat, whether here or in real life? Answer me that. :)

jag

Too many. It was wrong then and it's wrong now and if the media doesn't watch it Hillary is going to have to step up and defend palin and then that will be a disaster for Obama and the dems.

[USMC]

So USMC saying the only thing she contributes is her Vagina isn't Sexist? And Jag and others laughing at it isn't sexist...well I guess that would just be in poor taste. You guys disgust me sometimes.:csad:


Of course it's sexist, Ramone... which is the only reason the McCain camp (not McCain) wanted her in the first place!!! They saw Obama not pick Hilary and knew that the best way to grab those disenfranchised Hilary supporters was to choose a woman that not many people knew much about to cause a "shock" and "reignite" the Republican base.

Seriously, there are SO MANY more experienced men AND women in the Republican party that would have made more sense for McCain as President. Not McCain as running for President.

:yay:

[Darthphere]

Too many. It was wrong then and it's wrong now and if the media doesn't watch it Hillary is going to have to step up and defend palin and then that will be a disaster for Obama and the dems.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You can't honestly believe that will happen, right?

[lazur]

Too many. It was wrong then and it's wrong now and if the media doesn't watch it Hillary is going to have to step up and defend palin and then that will be a disaster for Obama and the dems.

Exactly ... the media, through its bashing of Palin in particular, is going to win this election for the republicans...

[Mr Sparkle]

Well if you're going to talk about 197 million in earmarks that she requested, then you should also talk about the 1 billion in earmarks that Obama requested, or 1 million per DAY every day that he has been in the Senate...

Fair is fair.

so, then, you agree with Obama's earmarks?:huh:

[Matt]

Of course it's sexist, Ramone... which is the only reason the McCain camp (not McCain) wanted her in the first place!!! They saw Obama not pick Hilary and knew that the best way to grab those disenfranchised Hilary supporters was to choose a woman that not many people knew much about to cause a "shock" and "reignite" the Republican base.

Seriously, there are SO MANY more experienced men AND women in the Republican party that would have made more sense for McCain as President. Not McCain as running for President.

:yay:

Yeah, isn't that just the story of this election though? Be it Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton we are discussing there are so many better, more qualified choices for the Presidency...yet we just got the ones who look good running for President. It is kind of a sad statement on our Democracy :csad:

[jaguarr]

:eek:

There's ANOTHER bridge project!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/05/palin-yet-to-say-no-thanks-to-other-big-earmarks/

Palin yet to say 'no thanks' to other big earmarks
Jim McElhatton (Contact)
Friday, September 5, 2008

Sen. John McCain joins his running mate, Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and her family, after she accepted her party's nomination at the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn., Wednesday, September 3, 2008. (Mary F. Calvert / The Washington Times)

Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, accepts her party's nomination at the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Energy Center in St. Paul, Minn., Wednesday, September 3, 2008. (Mary F. Calvert / The Washington Times)

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has said repeatedly that she told Congress "thanks but no thanks" to the notorious bridge-to-nowhere project derided nationally as an example of pork-barrel spending. But some are waiting to see whether she'll also pull the plug on another big earmark dubbed "Don Young Way" that could benefit her hometown.

Named after Alaska's lone member in the U.S. House, Republican Rep. Don Young, the Knik Arm Bridge proposal was one of two so-called "bridges to nowhere" that won more than $400 million combined through congressional earmarks in 2005. If built, it would span two miles of Cook Inlet and link Anchorage to nearby Matanuska-Susitna Borough.

Mrs. Palin, a surprise pick last week as Sen. John McCain's vice-presidential running mate, nixed a bridge proposal last year that would have spanned the Clarence Strait from Gravina Island, home to about 50 people, to Ketchikan Island.

"I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere," she said in a speech to the Republican National Convention on Wednesday. "If our state wanted to build a bridge, we were going to build it ourselves."

However, the Knik Arm Bridge project remains alive - for now. Though she had expressed support for the project, Mrs. Palin called for a complete review of the plans this summer. Amid uproar about both projects, Congress in 2005 allowed Alaska to keep funding for the Anchorage and Gravina bridges, but said the state could spend the money on other projects instead.

In 2003, Diane Keller, who became mayor of Wasilla after Mrs. Palin left office, testified before Congress that the project would reduce traffic congestion in Wasilla.

"If the Knik Arm Crossing is built, then an even greater congestion problem in and out of Wasilla may be avoided," Mrs. Keller testified.

The Knik Arm Bridge and Toll Authority referred questions about the status of the project to state Department of Transportation and Public Facilities spokesman Roger Wetherell, who said the project would link "two strategic ports and facilitate the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline." He also said plans call for private financing in addition to state and federal money.

Critics say the project carries an estimated price tag of up to a half-billion dollars, including private money, and that the public funds could be put to better use.

"We absolutely would want to see the project canceled," said Lois Epstein, director of the nonprofit Alaska Transportation Priorities Project. "We've got a lot of dirt roads people would like to see paved."

After Mrs. Palin hailed her state's rejection of the bridge to nowhere, Democratic critics scoured her years as mayor and governor for earmark requests. Earlier this year, she sought dozens of earmarks on behalf of the state in a request to Sen. Ted Stevens.

"Sarah Palin is not the reformer that the McCain campaign claims she is and her support for the types of earmarks McCain rails against is one more example," Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera said.

But Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella said the governor has a record of cleaning up corrupt earmarks.

"As mayor, Governor Palin worked within the confines of the current system to get results that were in the best interest of her city. She saw firsthand how the earmark system was broken and put waste before critical needs," Miss Comella said.

"It´s the reason why as governor she cut back on earmarks, saved Alaska taxpayers money and helped clean up a corrupt system."

Mr. McCain has railed against earmarks and said he has never requested a pork-barrel project for his home state of Arizona during his two decades in Congress.

This week, Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense issued a report showing that as mayor of Wasilla, Mrs. Palin helped secure nearly $27 million in earmarks for her community. Under Mrs. Palin, the town also hired a powerful lobbying firm, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, whose partners included a former chief of staff to Mr. Stevens.

The earmarks secured for Wasilla included $1.5 million for water and sewer improvements, $15 million for a commuter rail project and a $500,000 for a shelter for homeless youths, the taxpayers group said.

"When she became mayor, she certainly figured out how to turn on the tap to get them funding," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "As governor, she moved on to request earmarks, though to a lesser extent than her predecessors."

jag

[USMC]

Well if you're going to talk about 197 million in earmarks that she requested, then you should also talk about the 1 billion in earmarks that Obama requested, or 1 million per DAY every day that he has been in the Senate...

Fair is fair.


I don't care about earmarks... :huh: The fair question is brought up because McCain has made such a huge case for not wanting them... and then choosing (haha) a VP like Palin.

Again with the switching the argument thing. Address what Sarah Palin is doing, since this is the Sarah Palin thread. More than happy to discuss Obama in the Obama thread, if you want... :huh:

:whatever:

[jaguarr]

Too many. It was wrong then and it's wrong now and if the media doesn't watch it Hillary is going to have to step up and defend palin and then that will be a disaster for Obama and the dems.

So, in other words, you have no room to talk when others make sexist jokes. Got it.

And if you think Hillary will EVER defend Palin....LOL! Okay, man...


jag

[USMC]

Hey USMC, Good to see you again.:woot:

So have you made up your mind yet? Want to tell us who you are looking at for Nov.?

I was just wondering because it sounded like you might go McCain awhile back. I was wondering if you still feel that way.:yay:

Oh, I had my slight doubts, but after seeing this last week, I am 100% Obama all the way!

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html

[Gilpesh]

How is it not an interview? They specifically told him nothing is off limits ask what you want?

It's not in one sitting... it's split in two parts. Meaning the first part probably won't be hard hitting journalism... unless he wants to ruin the second half. And also, the second half is for Good Morning America, and I don't remember the last time there was a hard hitting interview on it.

Although, maybe Gibson will surprise everyone and actually be tough and take off the kid-gloves that everyone has been treating Palin with.

[EdRyder]

Well if you're going to talk about 197 million in earmarks that she requested, then you should also talk about the 1 billion in earmarks that Obama requested, or 1 million per DAY every day that he has been in the Senate...

Fair is fair.

First= I know for a fact Obamas earmarks are way way more than that.

Second= If you look deeper than just the numbers, You will find that the majority of the largest earmarks were for military defense contracts.

[kane9321]

Okay, lets discuss Sarah Palin in a way that does not involve her vagina. :oldrazz: :cwink:

There are so many valid critiques of her. To play the gender card is exactly what the McCain camp wants because then they can say "YOU'RE BEING SEXIST!"

EDITED: Inappropriate language.

[Superman]

Oh, I had my slight doubts, but after seeing this last week, I am 100% Obama all the way!

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.htmlLOL I knew you wouldn't let me down in the end. :woot: :up:

[jaguarr]

Yeah, isn't that just the story of this election though? Be it Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton we are discussing there are so many better, more qualified choices for the Presidency...yet we just got the ones who look good running for President. It is kind of a sad statement on our Democracy :csad:

You know what? If McCain had chosen Olympia Snow or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, we wouldn't even be really having all this hub-bub, because both of those women are highly qualified. No, they aren't as purdy as Palin (by a longshot :o ), but they are very accomplished, qualified women who could absolutely step in as President if something happened to McCain and leave people confident they'd be able to handle it and handle it well. Palin does a few things for McCain that the other female choices couldn't, though:

1. She panders to the far right Christian base, something McCain was shakey on.

2. She's youthful and provides Old Man McCain some balance over the issue of his age (at least I think that was the intent, though I think it's highlighting his age more than anything).

3. She's "down home" and "folksy", which appeals to a certain voter base.

4. She appeals to that conservative female voter demographic and potentially disenfranchised Hillary supporters.

5. She brings a lot of controversy to the table with her and thus a lot of media attention (and this is the primary reason I think the McCain Campaign chose her). She's become their rockstar and may be able to sustain that if they can contain all the scandals surrounding her (which is becoming more and more difficult; I think they underestimated this part of her even if they understood there was potential collateral damage in choosing her which I have my doubts they had a FULL grasp of all the scandals that this woman has around her). Plus, she's easily controlled by the McCain Campaign, which is a plus for them (though I have a feeling she could be their Frankenstein's Monster if she gets off her chain). This helps take the focus off the fact that McCain's really got no platform to run on. He hasn't mapped out his plans for hardly anything and what little he has is a disaster (like his economic "plan"). Between Palin and his continual attacking on Obama, McCain's gotten away without really saying much of anything about not just what he wants to do but how he'd do it. His entire campaign is centered around Obama and what he's doing, and Palin is a further distraction to contribute to that.

jag

[sinewave]

Hey, I'm all for government programs WHERE NECESSARY. But I do believe that society has an obligation to help its own citizens. There is plenty of wealth in this country, and you will find that most of these evil corporations actually respond quite nicely to requests for charity donations. Heck, the government could provide incentives to corporations that feed the hungry, house the homeless, help pay for teenage moms to go to school.

But noooo, let's make the taxpayer foot the entire bill instead of relying on our system of capitalism and good will.

As for your other posts, I don't have time to respond to every post. Remember, as a centrist, you dems have me outgunned by at least 20 to 1. It's all I can do to respond to the five who regularly follow me around. (Not that I mind because it's actually fun to participate on a board where I'm outnumbered politically.)

But if I get some time, I'll give it a shot.

a centrist?!? oh dear lord. your delusion is deeper-seated than i thought. would a centrist cling to every talking point from one party while blaming the other for everything wrong in the country?

you actually asked jag to explain why he thinks the republicans are responsible for the current state of the country yesterday. you know, the party the held all three branches of government for 5 of the last 8 years? it's mind-numbing how blindly partisan you are.

since you won't go back to my post from yesterday, let me re-post a portion of it for you to respond to.

ok, lemme see if i've got this straight. we need to give big tax breaks to rich people because they're the ones who own businesses and they want to take that money and invest it in hiring more people to make them more money so there's continual growth and america is wealthy and powerful and nobody ****s with us 'cause we're so badass, right? then how do you explain the situation we're in now with 8 years of republican rule and bush's tax cuts? haven't there been a ton of companies that have shipped jobs overseas while collecting huge sums of money from tax breaks? and bush's solution to this was basically "well, re-educate yourself in another field and quit whining, stupid!" how about the economy? how's that been going under these brilliant republican demi-gods and goddesses? more republican rule! yay rich america!

[danoyse]

Here's a wacky idea...how about we stop discussing who is sexist, and who isn't and y'know...discuss Sarah Palin.

I second that, and while we're at it...enough with using Palin's anatomy as a qualification. As one of the few (I think?) females on this board, it gets tiresome.

Thank you.

[Matt]

You know what? If McCain had chosen Olympia Snow or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, we wouldn't even be really having all this hub-bub, because both of those women are highly qualified. No, they aren't as purdy as Palin (by a longshot :o ), but they are very accomplished, qualified women who could absolutely step in as President if something happened to McCain and leave people confident they'd be able to handle it and handle it well. Palin does a few things for McCain that the other female choices couldn't, though:

1. She panders to the far right Christian base, something McCain was shakey on.

2. She's youthful and provides Old Man McCain some balance over the issue of his age (at least I think that was the intent, though I think it's highlighting his age more than anything).

3. She's "down home" and "folksy", which appeals to a certain voter base.

4. She appeals to that conservative female voter demographic and potentially disenfranchised Hillary supporters.

5. She brings a lot of controversy to the table with her and thus a lot of media attention (and this is the primary reason I think the McCain Campaign chose her). She's become their rockstar and may be able to sustain that if they can contain all the scandals surrounding her (which is becoming more and more difficult; I think they underestimated this part of her even if they understood there was potential collateral damage in choosing her which I have my doubts they had a FULL grasp of all the scandals that this woman has around her). Plus, she's easily controlled by the McCain Campaign, which is a plus for them (though I have a feeling she could be their Frankenstein's Monster if she gets off her chain). This helps take the focus off the fact that McCain's really got no platform to run on. He hasn't mapped out his plans for hardly anything and what little he has is a disaster (like his economic "plan"). Between Palin and his continual attacking on Obama, McCain's gotten away without really saying much of anything about not just what he wants to do but how he'd do it. His entire campaign is centered around Obama and what he's doing, and Palin is a further distraction to contribute to that.

jag

I don't neccessarily disagree with any of that...but it still hardly makes the case for Obama to say Palin cannot step in if something happens to McCain but Obama can have the job on day one...y'know, being as both have laughable qualifications.

[Marx]

Ok RAMORE let me ask you this - Why do you believe that Sarah Palin was chosen as the VP candidate? OVER someone like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tom Ridge, Tim Pawlenty, Joe Lieberman, Linda Lingle, Olene Smith Walker, or even M. Jodi Rell?

Honest question.

Still waiting for an answer...

[jaguarr]

I don't neccessarily disagree with any of that...but it still hardly makes the case for Obama to say Palin cannot step in if something happens to McCain but Obama can have the job on day one...y'know, being as both have laughable qualifications.

Oh, I know. But it also completely disarms the one argument McCain had against Obama. McCain went on and on for months about how experience was paramount and that a VP candidate should be ready to step into the office of President from day one. And then he brought in Alaskan Soccer-Mom as his VP choice. :huh: He nullified his own argument and makes himself look hypocritical.

jag

[Matt]

Oh, I know. But it also completely disarms the one argument McCain had against Obama. McCain went on and on for months about how experience was paramount and that a VP candidate should be ready to step into the office of President from day one. And then he brought in Alaskan Soccer-Mom as his VP choice. :huh: He nullified his own argument and makes himself look hypocritical.

jag

Yeah, I just can't get my head wrapped around it. What was McCain thinking? Did his advisors give a collective face slap? Who thought Palin was a good idea? She brought energy and media attention to the campaign, but took McCain's strongest weapon out of his hands.

However, the best Republican surrogate to address this has been Romney, when he replied to the question of Palin's experience with "She won't have the big chair on day one, its very unlikely something will happen to McCain on his first day in office and being Vice-President is the best training one can get." If the McCain camp can get that message across articulately (and I sort of doubt they can)...then they may be able to play the experience card.

[USMC]

You know what? If McCain had chosen Olympia Snow or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, we wouldn't even be really having all this hub-bub, because both of those women are highly qualified.
jag


BINGO.:o

[jaguarr]

Yeah, I just can't get my head wrapped around it. What was McCain thinking? Did his advisors give a collective face slap? Who thought Palin was a good idea? She brought energy and media attention to the campaign, but took McCain's strongest weapon out of his hands.

However, the best Republican surrogate to address this has been Romney, when he replied to the question of Palin's experience with "She won't have the big chair on day one, its very unlikely something will happen to McCain on his first day in office and being Vice-President is the best training one can get." If the McCain camp can get that message across articulately (and I sort of doubt they can)...then they may be able to play the experience card.

Hillary's already out there telling her loyal zombies "No way. No McCain. No Palin." Hillary's detachable jaw trumps Mitt's hair any day.

jag

[USMC]

I second that, and while we're at it...enough with using Palin's anatomy as a qualification. As one of the few (I think?) females on this board, it gets tiresome.

Thank you.


Ok, can I at least say "female gender humanoid species"... :oldrazz:

[danoyse]

Ok, can I at least say "female gender humanoid species"... :oldrazz:

As long as no one is obnoxious or vulgar about it, you can say whatever you want.

[USMC]

Boo Yah! :woot:

[Gilpesh]

Yeah, I just can't get my head wrapped around it. What was McCain thinking? Did his advisors give a collective face slap? Who thought Palin was a good idea?

The way everyone talks about it, it sounds like he wanted someone else as his VP pick but was told not to. Although that's just at "rumor/doesn't sound really crazy" stage of news.

[jaguarr]

As long as no one is obnoxious or vulgar about it, you can say whatever you want.

Mmmmm......pork-barrel earmarks! Yessssss! *lickslipssucksteethtouchesnipples*

jag

[Superman]

Yeah, I just can't get my head wrapped around it. What was McCain thinking? Did his advisors give a collective face slap? Who thought Palin was a good idea? She brought energy and media attention to the campaign, but took McCain's strongest weapon out of his hands.

However, the best Republican surrogate to address this has been Romney, when he replied to the question of Palin's experience with "She won't have the big chair on day one, its very unlikely something will happen to McCain on his first day in office and being Vice-President is the best training one can get." If the McCain camp can get that message across articulately (and I sort of doubt they can)...then they may be able to play the experience card.It's my understanding that, And this comes from a few reporters with the McCain camp, McCain wanted Lieberman or Romney. It was McCain's own people that pushed Palin on him.

Why? I have no ideal, But I've heard that a few times here and there on the news.:huh:

[Marx]

The way everyone talks about it, it sounds like he wanted someone else as his VP pick but was told not to. Although that's just at "rumor/doesn't sound really crazy" stage of news.

If he truly had had his way, I strongly believe he would have picked Lieberman.

[Superman]

If it is true and McCain really did want Lieberman or Romney it begs to question....

Who's in charge in the McCain camp? McCain or the people who work for him?:huh:

[sinewave]

Um, changing her mind on a 400 million dollar bridge is not 'damaging' no matter how many people say it is...

why are you, a self-described "centrist", letting her off on continuing to claim she was against it all along when there's proof she wasn't and that it's central to her claim of being against pork barrel politics? that doesn't sound very objective on your part. you've attacked obama for flip-flopping on any number of things, but now you say "eh, who cares. it's not damaging" when it's a republican? can you not see why people call you out on your insane bias all the time? go ahead and tell me, "well, you're just as biased" or change the subject to obama, like you always do. you'd make a great bullet-proof vest with all the deflecting you do.

[sinewave]

So USMC saying the only thing she contributes is her Vagina isn't Sexist? And Jag and others laughing at it isn't sexist...well I guess that would just be in poor taste. You guys disgust me sometimes.:csad:

did you even watch the rnc? they were walking around with buttons that said "the hottest governor from the coolest state" and referring to her as a "vpilf". that's not being sexist?

[The Senator]

So no one else finds it to be a huge double standard that Palin and the GOP doesn't want the media to talk about her teenage daughter's pregnancy, yet they keep promoting the fact that she's the mother of a special needs child and has a son being deployed to Iraq? :huh:

I mean... isn't that hypocrisy in its purest form?

"Don't talk about my family! My daughter's pregnancy is none of your business! Evil, elitist media! :cmad:"
"Hey media: My family is so awesome... my son Track is serving in Iraq; and my son Trig has down syndrome but I chose to keep him anyway! And let's not forget about how cool the First Dude is!"

:huh:

[RAMORE]

Ok RAMORE let me ask you this - Why do you believe that Sarah Palin was chosen as the VP candidate? OVER someone like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tom Ridge, Tim Pawlenty, Joe Lieberman, Linda Lingle, Olene Smith Walker, or even M. Jodi Rell?

Honest question.

Well my pick for pres Was Huckabee. Didn't agree with everything but he was closes to me morally. He was my pick for VP also.

But onto your question, She was picked for all of these reasons:

Her morals-she energises the base (mcain was lacking in true conservatives and he can't win without us)

Her Maverick Status-percieved or not reinforces his (percieved or not)

Energy Reform-She wants to drill for Oil now and is the governor of the biggest state in the union having to do with energy independance

Her Looks-Mcain is old and ugly and he knows it Palin is young and good looking (this would be the same comment if he chose a guy)

She's a Woman-This is not the sole or even the biggest reason but it sure doesn't hurt to get some more voters although it will alienat some Pubs.

[terry78]

If it is true and McCain really did want Lieberman or Romney it begs to question....

Who's in charge in the McCain camp? McCain or the people who work for him?:huh:

Two of them, there always are...a master and an apprentice.

But which is the master and which is the apprentice?

[The Senator]

did you even wathc the rnc? they were walking around with buttons that said "the hottest governor from the coolest state" and referring to her as a "vpilf". that's not being sexist?

Um, Republicans are so perfect, the words 'sexist' and 'racist' aren't even in their vocabulary!

[jaguarr]

So no one else finds it to be a huge double standard that Palin and the GOP doesn't want the media to talk about her teenage daughter's pregnancy, yet they keep promoting the fact that she's the mother of a special needs child and has a son being deployed to Iraq? :huh:

I mean... isn't that hypocrisy in its purest form?

"Don't talk about my family! My daughter's pregnancy is none of your business! Evil, elitist media! :cmad:"
"Hey media: My family is so awesome... my son Track is serving in Iraq; and my son Trig has down syndrome but I chose to keep him anyway! And let's not forget about how cool the First Dude is!"

:huh:

Yes, it's terribly hypocritical and a double-standard to be sure.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

"maverick status"?

[lazur]

a centrist?!? oh dear lord. your delusion is deeper-seated than i thought. would a centrist cling to every talking point from one party while blaming the other for everything wrong in the country?

you actually asked jag to explain why he thinks the republicans are responsible for the current state of the country yesterday. you know, the party the held all three branches of government for 5 of the last 8 years? it's mind-numbing how blindly partisan you are.

Your opinion is your opinion. I vote for the candidate that I believe has America's best interests in mind - not a particular party's.

That said, there's a lot I agree with Obama on, but the question in my mind isn't what he says - it's what he'll be able to do. He is not a leader and has never been a leader, politically or professionally, so the question of 'delivery' becomes sharper to me. And in this respect, McCain wins.

since you won't go back to my post from yesterday, let me re-post a portion of it for you to respond to:

ok, lemme see if i've got this straight. we need to give big tax breaks to rich people because they're the ones who own businesses and they want to take that money and invest it in hiring more people to make them more money so there's continual growth and america is wealthy and powerful and nobody ****s with us 'cause we're so badass, right? then how do you explain the situation we're in now with 8 years of republican rule and bush's tax cuts? haven't there been a ton of companies that have shipped jobs overseas while collecting huge sums of money from tax breaks? and bush's solution to this was basically "well, re-educate yourself in another field and quit whining, stupid!" how about the economy? how's that been going under these brilliant republican demi-gods and goddesses? more republican rule! yay rich america!

It's possible to distinguish between 'rich private citizens' and 'small businesses' which employ over 50% of our workforce. However, I do agree that outsourcing isn't the answer. But at the same time, neither is raising taxes. I mean, if your incentive to small businesses is 'we're going to tax the crap out of you, but you can't outsource,' I hardly call that a solution at all, and it'll result in an even HIGHER unemployment rate. This is, after all, a FREE COUNTRY, remember? If companies want to outsource and/or spend their own money to grow their business in a way THEY (not you or Papa Government) see fit, they should be able to. Otherwise, we may as well stop calling this a republic or a democracy, and get on with the socialist agenda. And if that happens, companies that now employ thousands of employees will simply move their operations overseas, to a place that doesn't take half of their revenue so they can redistribute it to 'those less fortunate.'

As for the economy, you show that you know absolutely nothing about economics if you're willing to blame our economy entirely on the republicans. Our economy has been heading for a crash since long before Bush took office, and it has more to do with the Federal Reserve than Bush's tax cuts.

One other thing you should look up, if you care to: Under Bush, because of his tax cuts, the revenue of the government grew 20% from when Clinton was in office. That arguably doesn't say a lot since we are spending far more than we should, but a fact is a fact. Raising taxes stifles growth. Lowering taxes stimulates growth. That's an economics fact that you will find in just about every political economics book written since the beginning of time.

But hey, elect Obama and get those taxes raised! Then when unemployment soars above 10%, you won't be able to blame Bush anymore...

[Marx]

Yes, it's terribly hypocritical and a double-standard to be sure.

jag

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Well, maybe a couple around here. :oldrazz:

[Marx]

Well my pick for pres Was Huckabee. Didn't agree with everything but he was closes to me morally. He was my pick for VP also.

But onto your question, She was picked for all of these reasons:

Her morals-she energises the base (mcain was lacking in true conservatives and he can't win without us)

Her Maverick Status-percieved or not reinforces his (percieved or not)

Energy Reform-She wants to drill for Oil now and is the governor of the biggest state in the union having to do with energy independance

Her Looks-Mcain is old and ugly and he knows it Palin is young and good looking (this would be the same comment if he chose a guy)

She's a Woman-This is not the sole or even the biggest reason but it sure doesn't hurt to get some more voters although it will alienat some Pubs.

I appreciate your answer RAMORE.

[lazur]

Yes, it's terribly hypocritical and a double-standard to be sure.

jag

Okay, so assuming that Palin suddenly said, "Okay, let's talk about my knocked up daughter," what then are you going to do? Accuse her of being a bad mother? I mean, how much of a story is really here, and is it important when contrasted against the issues?

No, it's not, and the only purpose for this type of discussion is to egg on the media even more in a frivolous attempt to somehow discredit her as a mother, which somehow (don't ask me where the logic is on this one) means she can't be VP because of it? I didn't realize that women with pregnant teen daughters were automatically disqualified from running for public office...

[RAMORE]

:huh: didn't the GOP say that was a bad thing?

so basically, they took everything they criticized about Obama, added a vagina a pregnant teenage daughter and christian fundamentalism and now it's good?:huh:

hahahahahahahahaha!

I never said it was bad he was raising money or that he had little experience. By the way that whole statement after Obama is uncalled for.

[RAMORE]

So, in other words, you have no room to talk when others make sexist jokes. Got it.

And if you think Hillary will EVER defend Palin....LOL! Okay, man...


jag

I can talk I wasn't ever sexist towards her. You watch they keep it up she'll feel obligated, obama will lose and she'll get to run in 4.

[jaguarr]

Okay, so assuming that Palin suddenly said, "Okay, let's talk about my knocked up daughter," what then are you going to do? Accuse her of being a bad mother? I mean, how much of a story is really here, and is it important when contrasted against the issues?

No, it's not, and the only purpose for this type of discussion is to egg on the media even more in a frivolous attempt to somehow discredit her as a mother, which somehow (don't ask me where the logic is on this one) means she can't be VP because of it? I didn't realize that women with pregnant teen daughters were automatically disqualified from running for public office...

Actually, if she said "Let's talk about my pregnant teenage daughter" I'd want to hear a frank discussion about her insistence on abstinence-only education and whether her views on it have changed at all since that development.

jag

[jaguarr]

I can talk I wasn't ever sexist towards her. You watch they keep it up she'll feel obligated, obama will lose and she'll get to run in 4.

Hillary wants to be the first woman in the White House. Period. Palin is a threat to that part of her legacy. She'll never defend Palin. She may not go out of her way to attack her directly, but she'll never defend her.

jag

[Mr Sparkle]

I never said it was bad he was raising money or that he had little experience. By the way that whole statement after Obama is uncalled for.

:huh: I never said YOU I said the GOP said it ( they did ) and while "uncalled for" it is dead on.

[lazur]

Actually, if she said "Let's talk about my pregnant teenage daughter" I'd want to hear a frank discussion about her insistence on abstinence-only education and whether her views on it have changed at all since that development.

jag

Oh, okay, so if I tell my son not to beat up other kids, and then I join an 'anti-beating up other kids' group, and my son then does beat someone up, it means I no longer possess the character to remain a part of that group, or that I should suddenly stop believing that kids shouldn't beat other kids up?

What are you getting at? The kid got pregnant. That doesn't mean her mother stopped believing in (or should change her position on) abstinence ... Hello?

[Superman]

So no one else finds it to be a huge double standard that Palin and the GOP doesn't want the media to talk about her teenage daughter's pregnancy, yet they keep promoting the fact that she's the mother of a special needs child and has a son being deployed to Iraq? :huh:

I mean... isn't that hypocrisy in its purest form?

"Don't talk about my family! My daughter's pregnancy is none of your business! Evil, elitist media! :cmad:"
"Hey media: My family is so awesome... my son Track is serving in Iraq; and my son Trig has down syndrome but I chose to keep him anyway! And let's not forget about how cool the First Dude is!"

:huh:Isn't it a tad bit dangerous for them to be talking so much about the son that's going to Iraq?

It seems to me that he and his company would be BIG targets for the bad guys over there.

Isn't that why they pulled Harry back to the UK after it came out that he was in Afghanistan?:huh:

Then again, They may be hoping that all the press will get the army to say that it's too dangerous to send him and keep him in the US. It wouldn't surprise me.

It would be a slick way to keep him from going.:whatever:

[The Senator]

Okay, so assuming that Palin suddenly said, "Okay, let's talk about my knocked up daughter," what then are you going to do? Accuse her of being a bad mother? I mean, how much of a story is really here, and is it important when contrasted against the issues?

No, it's not, and the only purpose for this type of discussion is to egg on the media even more in a frivolous attempt to somehow discredit her as a mother, which somehow (don't ask me where the logic is on this one) means she can't be VP because of it? I didn't realize that women with pregnant teen daughters were automatically disqualified from running for public office...

I believe that candidates who run on a platform of "strong family values" ought to practice what they preach. Sarah Palin certainly didn't practice any of the malarkey she's been spewing from the podium, obviously, as her teenage daughter is now pregnant and expecting. Yet, for some reason, she thinks she's qualified to help lead a country on such a platform when she couldn't even manage what was going on under her own roof?

If Palin wasn't such a furious advocate of "strong family values," then I would say that this should slide. But she isn't. So, she deserves to be scrutinized for running a campaign based on a character issue she has demonstrated bad character towards. Hypocrisy deserves to be exposed of any candidate, and such hypocrisy deserves to be discussed openly in American politics.

(and since the big bad media isn't allowed to talk about her secessionist days or how she was before the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, what else does the media have to dissect? How much she looooooves mooseburgers and non-prescription glasses to help her look smart? :huh:)

[Mr Sparkle]

Oh, okay, so if I tell my son not to beat up other kids, and then I join an 'anti-beating up other kids' group, and my son then does beat someone up, it means I no longer possess the character to remain a part of that group, or that I should suddenly stop believing that kids shouldn't beat other kids up?

What are you getting at? The kid got pregnant. That doesn't mean her mother stopped believing in (or should change her position on) abstinence ... Hello?

he would ask that question, because he would want to know.

jesus what is wrong with you today?

[The Senator]

Oh, okay, so if I tell my son not to beat up other kids, and then I join an 'anti-beating up other kids' group, and my son then does beat someone up, it means I no longer possess the character to remain a part of that group, or that I should suddenly stop believing that kids shouldn't beat other kids up?

What are you getting at? The kid got pregnant. That doesn't mean her mother stopped believing in (or should change her position on) abstinence ... Hello?

No... it just means she can't actually practice what she preaches, and makes me wonder whether she can actually live up to some of the values she claims she is for when she can't manage them at home....

[RAMORE]

You know what? If McCain had chosen Olympia Snow or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, we wouldn't even be really having all this hub-bub, because both of those women are highly qualified. No, they aren't as purdy as Palin (by a longshot :o ), but they are very accomplished, qualified women who could absolutely step in as President if something happened to McCain and leave people confident they'd be able to handle it and handle it well. Palin does a few things for McCain that the other female choices couldn't, though:

1. She panders to the far right Christian base, something McCain was shakey on.

2. She's youthful and provides Old Man McCain some balance over the issue of his age (at least I think that was the intent, though I think it's highlighting his age more than anything).

3. She's "down home" and "folksy", which appeals to a certain voter base.

4. She appeals to that conservative female voter demographic and potentially disenfranchised Hillary supporters.

5. She brings a lot of controversy to the table with her and thus a lot of media attention (and this is the primary reason I think the McCain Campaign chose her). She's become their rockstar and may be able to sustain that if they can contain all the scandals surrounding her (which is becoming more and more difficult; I think they underestimated this part of her even if they understood there was potential collateral damage in choosing her which I have my doubts they had a FULL grasp of all the scandals that this woman has around her). Plus, she's easily controlled by the McCain Campaign, which is a plus for them (though I have a feeling she could be their Frankenstein's Monster if she gets off her chain). This helps take the focus off the fact that McCain's really got no platform to run on. He hasn't mapped out his plans for hardly anything and what little he has is a disaster (like his economic "plan"). Between Palin and his continual attacking on Obama, McCain's gotten away without really saying much of anything about not just what he wants to do but how he'd do it. His entire campaign is centered around Obama and what he's doing, and Palin is a further distraction to contribute to that.

jag


If he pick any woman yall would be calling foul.

1. It's not pandering if she believes it. The rest of your statment is correct.

2. Agreed

3. Agreed

4. Agreed

5. She brings a lot of controversy to the table with her and thus a lot of media attention (and this is the primary reason I think the McCain Campaign chose her). She's become their rockstar and may be able to sustain that if they can contain all the scandals surrounding her. I agree with this much of what you said.

See how close we actually are:D:wow:

[Marx]

If he pick any woman yall would be calling foul.

1. It's not pandering if she believes it. The rest of your statment is correct.

2. Agreed

3. Agreed

4. Agreed

5. She brings a lot of controversy to the table with her and thus a lot of media attention (and this is the primary reason I think the McCain Campaign chose her). She's become their rockstar and may be able to sustain that if they can contain all the scandals surrounding her. I agree with this much of what you said.

See how close we actually are:D:wow:

If he had picked Linda Lingle, M Jodi Rell, or Kay Bailey Hutchison - we would not be having this discussion.

[RAMORE]

I appreciate your answer RAMORE.

Sorry it took so long to answer i'm at work and phone kept ringing:D

Hey i'm not going to shy away from the benefits of her being a woman brings i'm just saying I don't believe you would base your whole end game on something that would ultimately be so apparent to everyone as to make you look shallow.

[Mr Sparkle]

"yall"?

[RAMORE]

I believe that candidates who run on a platform of "strong family values" ought to practice what they preach. Sarah Palin certainly didn't practice any of the malarkey she's been spewing from the podium, obviously, as her teenage daughter is now pregnant and expecting. Yet, for some reason, she thinks she's qualified to help lead a country on such a platform when she couldn't even manage what was going on under her own roof?

If Palin wasn't such a furious advocate of "strong family values," then I would say that this should slide. But she isn't. So, she deserves to be scrutinized for running a campaign based on a character issue she has demonstrated bad character towards. Hypocrisy deserves to be exposed of any candidate, and such hypocrisy deserves to be discussed openly in American politics.

(and since the big bad media isn't allowed to talk about her secessionist days or how she was before the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it, what else does the media have to dissect? How much she looooooves mooseburgers and non-prescription glasses to help her look smart? :huh:)


The only malarky I see is this^ You can't make your kids do everything right. Your not always with them 24/7. We can aspire to greatness and being the best we can be we might not reach it but we can aspire to it at least.

[RAMORE]

he would ask that question, because he would want to know.

jesus what is wrong with you today?

It's a valid point.

[RAMORE]

If he had picked Linda Lingle, M Jodi Rell, or Kay Bailey Hutchison - we would not be having this discussion.

You may not have but plenty would immediately assume the worst regardless. I still say he should have picked Condi but he never could have because that would have cemented the 3rd bush term the dems are pushing.

[RAMORE]

"yall"?

What i'm from the south?

[sinewave]

Your opinion is your opinion. I vote for the candidate that I believe has America's best interests in mind - not a particular party's.

That said, there's a lot I agree with Obama on, but the question in my mind isn't what he says - it's what he'll be able to do. He is not a leader and has never been a leader, politically or professionally, so the question of 'delivery' becomes sharper to me. And in this respect, McCain wins.

he's leading his campaign pretty damn impressively. nobody thought he had a chance when he announced his intent to run, but he's pulled in record donations. does that tell you nothing about his leadership abilities? he was also a community leader, a faith-based one at that, you know, the type of program that the republicans allocate money to but then dis when someone from the democratic party notes on his resume. plus, he leads his constituents, who must trust him since they voted for him.

It's possible to distinguish between 'rich private citizens' and 'small businesses' which employ over 50% of our workforce. However, I do agree that outsourcing isn't the answer. But at the same time, neither is raising taxes. I mean, if your incentive to small businesses is 'we're going to tax the crap out of you, but you can't outsource,' I hardly call that a solution at all, and it'll result in an even HIGHER unemployment rate. This is, after all, a FREE COUNTRY, remember? If companies want to outsource and/or spend their own money to grow their business in a way THEY (not you or Papa Government) see fit, they should be able to. Otherwise, we may as well stop calling this a republic or a democracy, and get on with the socialist agenda. And if that happens, companies that now employ thousands of employees will simply move their operations overseas, to a place that doesn't take half of their revenue so they can redistribute it to 'those less fortunate.'

As for the economy, you show that you know absolutely nothing about economics if you're willing to blame our economy entirely on the republicans. Our economy has been heading for a crash since long before Bush took office, and it has more to do with the Federal Reserve than Bush's tax cuts.

One other thing you should look up, if you care to: Under Bush, because of his tax cuts, the revenue of the government grew 20% from when Clinton was in office. That arguably doesn't say a lot since we are spending far more than we should, but a fact is a fact. Raising taxes stifles growth. Lowering taxes stimulates growth. That's an economics fact that you will find in just about every political economics book written since the beginning of time.

But hey, elect Obama and get those taxes raised! Then when unemployment soars above 10%, you won't be able to blame Bush anymore...

first of all, thanks for responding to this. not once did i mention that the solution for ending outsourcing is to raise taxes on those companies. i'm in favor of repealing the tax incentives on those companies that are doing it and giving those that don't do it more tax incentives. i just don't agree that cutting taxes on the wealthiest one percent in this country is the way to straighten out our economy. if you try to argue that those one percent are all business owners and it hampers their business growth because they file their taxes personally and avoid capital gains taxes, why not just make a law saying that if you make about a certain amount and own a business, then you automatically have to file a capital gains tax? just close the friggin' loophole.

are you seriously trying to pin the economy on bill clinton? because that's what i'm hearing when you say "As for the economy, you show that you know absolutely nothing about economics if you're willing to blame our economy entirely on the republicans. Our economy has been heading for a crash since long before Bush took office, and it has more to do with the Federal Reserve than Bush's tax cuts." we had a surplus, not a deficit, when clinton left office. you really can't bring yourself to admit that the republicans have steered this country in the wrong direction, can you? i'm willing to bet you'd be blaming the dems if they had been in power over the last 8 years with the same results.

[sinewave]

Oh, okay, so if I tell my son not to beat up other kids, and then I join an 'anti-beating up other kids' group, and my son then does beat someone up, it means I no longer possess the character to remain a part of that group, or that I should suddenly stop believing that kids shouldn't beat other kids up?

What are you getting at? The kid got pregnant. That doesn't mean her mother stopped believing in (or should change her position on) abstinence ... Hello?

it kind of proves that her preferred method of preventing unwanted pregnancies, promoting abstinence, doesn't exactly work all that well if her own daughter couldn't adhere to it. if biden came out against date-rape and then we find out that his son was a date-rapist, how do you think the media, especially the right-wing media, would react to that?

[lazur]

he's leading his campaign pretty damn impressively. nobody thought he had a chance when he announced his intent to run, but he's pulled in record donations. does that tell you nothing about his leadership abilities? he was also a community leader, a faith-based one at that, you know, the type of program that the republicans allocate money to but then dis when someone from the democratic party notes on his resume. plus, he leads his constituents, who must trust him since they voted for him.

I understand what you're saying, and I DO respect people who serve as community leaders, particularly in Obama's case because he turned down a big paycheck to do that.

HOWEVER, a senatorial position and/or a community leader position does not provide someone with leadership experience. You aren't making decisions and leading people. You are legislating to the desires of your constituents, which is nowhere near the same thing.

That's not to say that he's incapable of being an executive, but it does leave a lot to question in terms of what he SAYS he can do and what he can really do. I think there's a certain level of naivety in his idealism. But who knows, that could also be a good thing.

first of all, thanks for responding to this. not once did i mention that the solution for ending outsourcing is to raise taxes on those companies. i'm in favor of repealing the tax incentives on those companies that are doing it and giving those that don't do it more tax incentives. i just don't agree that cutting taxes on the wealthiest one percent in this country is the way to straighten out our economy. if you try to argue that those one percent are all business owners and it hampers their business growth because they file their taxes personally and avoid capital gains taxes, why not just make a law saying that if you make about a certain amount and own a business, then you automatically have to file a capital gains tax? just close the friggin' loophole.

You're quite welcome, and thanks for articulating your point. I agree with you, actually. But the question in my mind is, can this really be delivered by a senator with zero experience making policy decisions in an executive role? Maybe, maybe not.

are you seriously trying to pin the economy on bill clinton? because that's what i'm hearing when you say "As for the economy, you show that you know absolutely nothing about economics if you're willing to blame our economy entirely on the republicans. Our economy has been heading for a crash since long before Bush took office, and it has more to do with the Federal Reserve than Bush's tax cuts." we had a surplus, not a deficit, when clinton left office. you really can't bring yourself to admit that the republicans have steered this country in the wrong direction, can you? i'm willing to bet you'd be blaming the dems if they had been in power over the 8 years with the same results.

Dude, I voted for Clinton. To this day, I still consider him to be one of the best presidents I'll have the experience of seeing in my life.

The downfall of the economy began under Wilson in 1913 when the Federal Reserve act was passed. It's waaaaay too deep of a subject to get into in this thread, though.

[jaguarr]

Oh, okay, so if I tell my son not to beat up other kids, and then I join an 'anti-beating up other kids' group, and my son then does beat someone up, it means I no longer possess the character to remain a part of that group, or that I should suddenly stop believing that kids shouldn't beat other kids up?

It depends. Does this "anti-beating up other kids" group your in charge of want to legislate your views and rules on every other parent? Because then it sort of undermines your argument that all you have to do is teach kids not to beat other kids up and they won't because your own son did just that. There's the rub.



What are you getting at? The kid got pregnant. That doesn't mean her mother stopped believing in (or should change her position on) abstinence ... Hello?

Don't be thick. The issue isn't that the kid got pregnant. That's merely an aside to the fact that her mother wants to legislate her beliefs that abstinence-only education should be taught in schools instead of the more wholistic approach that is used today to encompass all the facts and types of birth control, not just abstinence. In that light, her own daughter's pregnancy highlights the ineffectiveness of the policy she pushes. THAT is why it's an issue.

jag

[sinewave]

If he had picked Linda Lingle, M Jodi Rell, or Kay Bailey Hutchison - we would not be having this discussion.

i prefer olympia snowe. maine, *****es!

[jaguarr]

If he pick any woman yall would be calling foul.


Except...for....Olympia Snow or Kay Bailey Hutchinson...or other experienced women like them, as I said. :huh:

jag

[lazur]

it kind of proves that her preferred method of preventing unwanted pregnancies, promoting abstinence, doesn't exactly work all that well if her own daughter couldn't adhere to it. if biden came out against date-rape and then we find out that his son was a date-rapist, how do you think the media, especially the right-wing media, would react to that?

Um, no, it proves no such damned thing. Teenagers make bad decisions that you cannot always fault their parents for. It doesn't matter how good the parents are - kids do stupid things.

And I would still be on Biden's side. Just because your kid does something idiotic doesn't mean that you must now adopt that idiocy and change your position.

[The Senator]

The only malarky I see is this^ You can't make your kids do everything right. Your not always with them 24/7. We can aspire to greatness and being the best we can be we might not reach it but we can aspire to it at least.

So then... you believe that she should tell voters what to believe in, but she doesn't have a responsibility to follow what she believes in? :huh:

It's like if a rapist was running for office, and told his constituents not to rape women. Yeah, that's awesome rhetoric, and many people believe it-- but why should we take someone seriously on an issue when they themselves have shown how hard it is to exhibit control over it in their own lives?

[lazur]

It depends. Does this "anti-beating up other kids" group your in charge of want to legislate your views and rules on every other parent? Because then it sort of undermines your argument that all you have to do is teach kids not to beat other kids up and they won't because your own son did just that. There's the rub.




Don't be thick. The issue isn't that the kid got pregnant. That's merely an aside to the fact that her mother wants to legislate her beliefs that abstinence-only education should be taught in schools instead of the more wholistic approach that is used today to encompass all the facts and types of birth control, not just abstinence. In that light, her own daughter's pregnancy highlights the ineffectiveness of the policy she pushes. THAT is why it's an issue.

jag

I agree with you that sex-ed should remain in schools. However, I also believe abstinence should be taught as well.

Not much more needs to be said than that.

[JackMercy]

I still say he should have picked Condi but he never could have because that would have cemented the 3rd bush term the dems are pushing.

He also didn't pick her because "Condi" already told him privately that she's an Obama girl...

:word:

[Gilpesh]

Teenagers make bad decisions that you cannot always fault their parents for. It doesn't matter how good the parents are - kids do stupid things.

KP7Z0nMuPZ8

[jaguarr]

I agree with you that sex-ed should remain in schools. However, I also believe abstinence should be taught as well.

Not much more needs to be said than that.

Absolutely. Abstinence is ONE form of birth control. It's not the ONLY form and it should be a part of a COMPLETE sex-ed curriculum. Palin favors abstinence-only sex-ed and I have a problem with that. That's the only reason her daughter's pregnancy gets highlighted so much; because it shines a giant spotlight on how much of a failure abstinence-only sex-ed is.

jag

[Gilpesh]

Mathews may be so biased it hurts...

But I have to say, his "Thanks, but no thanks" counter on Palin's speeches was hilarious.

And the magic number was seven.

[Lightning Strykez!]

McCain's gotten away without really saying much of anything about not just what he wants to do but how he'd do it. His entire campaign is centered around Obama and what he's doing, and Palin is a further distraction to contribute to that.

jag

That is so true Jag. Just the other night I was thinking, "Man, this campaign is completely 100% reactionary to what Obama's folks are doing, rather than being proactive for the Republican base.

I have a feeling this lack of originality and focus on the issues will cost them.

[rdh007]

KP7Z0nMuPZ8

In fairness, lazur is not BillO. Having said that, I enjoyed that clip along with Rove vs. Rove. :up:

[RAMORE]

KP7Z0nMuPZ8

Now that was funny:grin: Be careful what you say especially if it's on tape...duh!

[Gilpesh]

In fairness, lazur is not BillO. Having said that, I enjoyed that clip along with Rove vs. Rove. :up:

OH REALLY!


:oldrazz: I know rdh.

I was just showing a clip of one of his like minded independents reacting. :hehe:

[sinewave]

I understand what you're saying, and I DO respect people who serve as community leaders, particularly in Obama's case because he turned down a big paycheck to do that.

HOWEVER, a senatorial position and/or a community leader position does not provide someone with leadership experience. You aren't making decisions and leading people. You are legislating to the desires of your constituents, which is nowhere near the same thing.

That's not to say that he's incapable of being an executive, but it does leave a lot to question in terms of what he SAYS he can do and what he can really do. I think there's a certain level of naivety in his idealism. But who knows, that could also be a good thing.

i have never denied that he's very inexperienced, relative to past presidential candidates, but the way i see it, he makes up for it with his pragmatic, thoughtful demeanor, intelligence and judgment with certain decisions in his brief time in the senate that have turned out to be true, like covert strikes against al qaeda operatives in pakistan (which the cia actually successfully acheived) and calling for the withdrawal of troops from iraq and re-allocating them to afghanistan (which bush just outlined his plan to do today). he'll also have a valuable asset in joe biden and all the foreign relations and everyday experience that he brings to the table. inexperience doesn't necessarily mean he'll automatically fail. so, when i contrast that with mccain's faux-maverick persona, his support of a number of bush's policies, his admitted lack of economic know-how, his sudden selling out of his ideals, his choice of running mate and the fact that he's using the economic policy written by a key figure in the enron scandal, it's an easy decision for me.

You're quite welcome, and thanks for articulating your point. I agree with you, actually. But the question in my mind is, can this really be delivered by a senator with zero experience making policy decisions in an executive role? Maybe, maybe not.

i get the impression that obama's a quick learner. he's obviously very bright, after being elected the first black president of the harvard law review (a huge honor), graduating magna cum laude at harvard and then going on to teach at the university of chicago law school. i'm not too worried about him catching on fairly quickly. he's been heavily invested in all facets of presidential responsibilities since he's been striving for that role for almost two years now.

Dude, I voted for Clinton. To this day, I still consider him to be one of the best presidents I'll have the experience of seeing in my life.

The downfall of the economy began under Wilson in 1913 when the Federal Reserve act was passed. It's waaaaay too deep of a subject to get into in this thread, though.

i know, i remember you mentioning that before, but i still don't get how you can say that the best way to fix our economy is to continue with bush's tax cuts if they haven't helped at all during this recent economic downturn. that, to me, it's the most telling sign that they don't work. there's a book out called "unequal democracy" by larry bartels, a non-partisan, non-political princeton academic that concludes that the economy and quality of life are better under democratic rule than republican. it might be worth checking out, if you're interested.

[lazur]

KP7Z0nMuPZ8

You don't need to invoke Bill O'Reilly since I don't agree with the man on everything. What he said about Spears was asinine.

[lazur]

i have never denied that he's very inexperienced, relative to past presidential candidates, but the way i see it, he makes up for it with his pragmatic, thoughtful demeanor, intelligence and judgment with certain decisions in his brief time in the senate that have turned out to be true, like covert strikes against al qaeda operatives in pakistan (which the cia actually successfully acheived) and calling for the withdrawal of troops from iraq and re-allocating them to afghanistan (which bush just outlined his plan to do today). he'll also have a valuable asset in joe biden and all the foreign relations and everyday experience that he brings to the table. inexperience doesn't necessarily mean he'll automatically fail. so, when i contrast that with mccain's faux-maverick persona, his support of a number of bush's policies, his admitted lack of economic know-how, his sudden selling out of his ideals, his choice of running mate and the fact that he's using the economic policy written by a key figure in the enron scandal, it's an easy decision for me.



i get the impression that obama's a quick learner. he's obviously very bright, after being elected the first black president of the harvard law review (a huge honor), graduating magna cum laude at harvard and then going on to teach at the university of chicago law school. i'm not too worried about him catching on fairly quickly. he's been heavily invested in all facets of presidential responsibilities since he's been striving for that role for almost two years now.



i know, i remember you mentioning that before, but i still don't get how you can say that the best way to fix our economy is to continue with bush's tax cuts if they haven't helped at all during this recent economic downturn. that, to me, it's the most telling sign that they don't work. there's a book out called "unequal democracy" by larry bartels, a non-partisan, non-political princeton academic that concludes that the economy and quality of life are better under democratic rule than republican. it might be worth checking out, if you're interested.

Bush's tax cuts have LESSENED the impact of a horrible economic system. It is a fact that raising taxes does not stimulate an economy - cutting taxes does.

The problem, imo, isn't that Bush gave us tax cuts. The problem is that Bush gave us tax cuts in an economic system that is broken, and has been broken for nearly 100 years...

Raising taxes will only further exacerbate the problem.

But hey, a sure fire way to get me to vote for Obama is for Obama to announce that he will dismantle the federal reserve and then incorporate a fair tax. There's 13 trillion dollars sitting in overseas accounts because of the ridiculous tax burden - and because it's simply not safe in an economy that may fail miserably any day now - that could be moved back into our economy. Our economic system is SO BAD that there is enough private money in foreign accounts to actually pay off our national debt. What does that tell you?

[SuBe]

It's like if a rapist was running for office, and told his constituents not to rape women. Bill Clinton ring a bell?

[Franklin Richards]

Bill Clinton doesn't need to rape a woman. He can have anyone he wants.


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[jaguarr]

Bill Clinton ring a bell?

Are you accusing Bill Clinton of rape? Seriously?

jag

[sinewave]

Um, no, it proves no such damned thing. Teenagers make bad decisions that you cannot always fault their parents for. It doesn't matter how good the parents are - kids do stupid things.

And I would still be on Biden's side. Just because your kid does something idiotic doesn't mean that you must now adopt that idiocy and change your position.

just when i think we're making progress, you do something like this again. my point, and that lousy copy-cat jag's apparently :oldrazz:, is that she wants to legislate that the only sex ed taught in schools is abstinence-only, solely on the basis that it's the only way to avoid, 100%, getting pregnant. so, to have her own daughter go and get knocked-up after, i can only assume, following her mother's advice on abstinence, makes that plan look really, really ineffective. it's not that hard to wrap your brain around, man. just step outside your head for a second and give in to a different point of view, just this once.

[SuBe]

Are you accusing Bill Clinton of rape? Seriously?

jag
yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

[USMC]

No, it's not, and the only purpose for this type of discussion is to egg on the media even more in a frivolous attempt to somehow discredit her as a mother, which somehow (don't ask me where the logic is on this one) means she can't be VP because of it? I didn't realize that women with pregnant teen daughters were automatically disqualified from running for public office...

I'm more concerned about her infant child... she clearly shouldn't be running for this position.

[jaguarr]

yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

I like the part about where he was found guilty of her accusations. Oh, wait....that never happened.

jag

[sinewave]

Bush's tax cuts have LESSENED the impact of a horrible economic system. It is a fact that raising taxes does not stimulate an economy - cutting taxes does.

The problem, imo, isn't that Bush gave us tax cuts. The problem is that Bush gave us tax cuts in an economic system that is broken, and has been broken for nearly 100 years...

Raising taxes will only further exacerbate the problem.

But hey, a sure fire way to get me to vote for Obama is for Obama to announce that he will dismantle the federal reserve and then incorporate a fair tax. There's 13 trillion dollars sitting in overseas accounts because of the ridiculous tax burden - and because it's simply not safe in an economy that may fail miserably any day now - that could be moved back into our economy. Our economic system is SO BAD that there is enough private money in foreign accounts to actually pay off our national debt. What does that tell you?

never gonna happen, no matter who's in office. this country runs fine the way it is. it's not perfect, not by a long shot. but we'll always have taxes and they'll always be a necessary evil because we need them to pay for a plethora of things from education, to infrastructure to the military. i've already made my feelings on mass privatization quite clear, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. hopefully we'll see if your theory is right when obama wins the election. :woot:

[USMC]

Don't be thick. The issue isn't that the kid got pregnant. That's merely an aside to the fact that her mother wants to legislate her beliefs that abstinence-only education should be taught in schools instead of the more holistic approach that is used today to encompass all the facts and types of birth control, not just abstinence. In that light, her own daughter's pregnancy highlights the ineffectiveness of the policy she pushes. THAT is why it's an issue.

jag

You are on fire today, jag! Right on! :woot: :up:

[USMC]

I agree with you that sex-ed should remain in schools. However, I also believe abstinence should be taught as well.

Not much more needs to be said than that.

Except that she only wants one of those things... :huh:

What's next? "Pray the gay away"?

Oh wait... :o

[Knives]

You know what? If McCain had chosen Olympia Snow or Kay Bailey Hutchinson, we wouldn't even be really having all this hub-bub, because both of those women are highly qualified. No, they aren't as purdy as Palin (by a longshot :o ), but they are very accomplished, qualified women who could absolutely step in as President if something happened to McCain and leave people confident they'd be able to handle it and handle it well. Palin does a few things for McCain that the other female choices couldn't, though:

1. She panders to the far right Christian base, something McCain was shakey on.

2. She's youthful and provides Old Man McCain some balance over the issue of his age (at least I think that was the intent, though I think it's highlighting his age more than anything).

3. She's "down home" and "folksy", which appeals to a certain voter base.

4. She appeals to that conservative female voter demographic and potentially disenfranchised Hillary supporters.

5. She brings a lot of controversy to the table with her and thus a lot of media attention (and this is the primary reason I think the McCain Campaign chose her). She's become their rockstar and may be able to sustain that if they can contain all the scandals surrounding her (which is becoming more and more difficult; I think they underestimated this part of her even if they understood there was potential collateral damage in choosing her which I have my doubts they had a FULL grasp of all the scandals that this woman has around her). Plus, she's easily controlled by the McCain Campaign, which is a plus for them (though I have a feeling she could be their Frankenstein's Monster if she gets off her chain). This helps take the focus off the fact that McCain's really got no platform to run on. He hasn't mapped out his plans for hardly anything and what little he has is a disaster (like his economic "plan"). Between Palin and his continual attacking on Obama, McCain's gotten away without really saying much of anything about not just what he wants to do but how he'd do it. His entire campaign is centered around Obama and what he's doing, and Palin is a further distraction to contribute to that.

jag

It appears to be working! He's ahead in the polls. Are there any signs of his lead diminishing or is it a trend? For all this nonsense, thier utter lack of ANY issues, tne endless Palin parade the media has been drowning in even with all her lies, people are falling over themselves for this woman and McCain is within a grasp of winning this thing on basically NOTHING but lies and slander. It's incredible how LITTLE the issues or the TRUTH seem to matter to anybody.

[jaguarr]

It appears to be working! He's ahead in the polls. Are there any signs of his lead diminishing or is it a trend? For all this nonsense, thier utter lack of ANY issues, tne endless Palin parade the media has been drowning in even with all her lies, people are falling over themselves for this woman and McCain is within a grasp of winning this thing on basically NOTHING but lies and slander. It's incredible how LITTLE the issues or the TRUTH seem to matter to anybody.

Their back to being in a tie in some of the polls. McCain's post-convention bump is coming to an end (and pretty quickly, I might add). Polls don't mean much at this point, anyway. Too early in the process. So try not to be so negative about it. You're going to give yourself an ulcer.

jag

[sasquatchs]

Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html)

Obama to Palin: 'Don't Mock the Constitution' (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/obama_to_palin_dont_mock_the_c.html)

Surprised the latter didn't get any play yesterday

[Knives]

Their back to being in a tie in some of the polls. McCain's post-convention bump is coming to an end (and pretty quickly, I might add). Polls don't mean much at this point, anyway. Too early in the process. So try not to be so negative about it. You're going to give yourself an ulcer.

jag

Yes I am. WIth good reason. THis same crap happened in 2004 the exact same way its happening now. Only difference is Obama isn't laying on his back and getting run over like Kerry did. My concern is if enough people will actually vote for him or get side tracked by this garbage the McCain campaign is shuffling out there. Its going to come down to the debates, and if Obama hammers McCain, then he will be in an excellent position to win this thing. I have no fear that Biden will swallow Palin alive. He's already begun elevating her and making her look far stronger then she is, which is an excellent tactic.

[DorkyFresh]

i love this...

OfLDjmKfigw
W3DZZNZFxeI

...too bad we probably won't be seeing that kind of footage on the big news networks.

[danoyse]

So no one else finds it to be a huge double standard that Palin and the GOP doesn't want the media to talk about her teenage daughter's pregnancy, yet they keep promoting the fact that she's the mother of a special needs child and has a son being deployed to Iraq? :huh:

I mean... isn't that hypocrisy in its purest form?

"Don't talk about my family! My daughter's pregnancy is none of your business! Evil, elitist media! :cmad:"
"Hey media: My family is so awesome... my son Track is serving in Iraq; and my son Trig has down syndrome but I chose to keep him anyway! And let's not forget about how cool the First Dude is!"

:huh:

You left out the part about her son being deployed on 9/11.

My sister was talking to her best friend whose husband is in Iraq right now, and she was saying that her group of Army-wives friends are pretty livid with Palin for saying when and where he was being deployed (I didn't hear it, but apparently she was saying exactly where in Iraq he was going), because you're not supposed to publicly say stuff like that.

[lazur]

just when i think we're making progress, you do something like this again. my point, and that lousy copy-cat jag's apparently :oldrazz:, is that she wants to legislate that the only sex ed taught in schools is abstinence-only, solely on the basis that it's the only way to avoid, 100%, getting pregnant. so, to have her own daughter go and get knocked-up after, i can only assume, following her mother's advice on abstinence, makes that plan look really, really ineffective. it's not that hard to wrap your brain around, man. just step outside your head for a second and give in to a different point of view, just this once.

I completely understand that point of view, but I disagree with it, or shall I say, I don't believe that it would look ineffective if they handle it tactfully. I think most parents can easily relate to her predicament. She could take the approach from the perspective of a parent who's been through it, and still believes in abstinence.

That said, I absolutely believe that sex-ed should be taught in our schools. There are too many lazy parents out there. But I also wouldn't mind a lesson on abstinence thrown into the mix, you know what I mean? I have a 16 year old daughter, and I could use the help...

[sinewave]

I completely understand that point of view, but I disagree with it, or shall I say, I don't believe that it would look ineffective if they handle it tactfully. I think most parents can easily relate to her predicament. She could take the approach from the perspective of a parent who's been through it, and still believes in abstinence.

That said, I absolutely believe that sex-ed should be taught in our schools. There are too many lazy parents out there. But I also wouldn't mind a lesson on abstinence thrown into the mix, you know what I mean? I have a 16 year old daughter, and I could use the help...

my god, i think we actually agree on something! :wow:

[Marx]

Did anyone see the piece that CBS just did on Palin and the 'Bridge to Nowhere' in their 'Reality Check' segment?

:funny:

Priceless!

[kainedamo]

i love this...

OfLDjmKfigw
W3DZZNZFxeI

...too bad we probably won't be seeing that kind of footage on the big news networks.

Great vids that prove Palin is a liar.

[Marx]

RICK DAVIS LIES ABOUT THE 'BRIDGE TO NOWHERE'
94eGRMmX00g





(I like the very first comment on the blog.)

[ShadowBoxing]

Great vids that prove Palin is a liar.
You can't spell Sarah Palin without liar.

[danoyse]

I completely understand that point of view, but I disagree with it, or shall I say, I don't believe that it would look ineffective if they handle it tactfully. I think most parents can easily relate to her predicament. She could take the approach from the perspective of a parent who's been through it, and still believes in abstinence.

That said, I absolutely believe that sex-ed should be taught in our schools. There are too many lazy parents out there. But I also wouldn't mind a lesson on abstinence thrown into the mix, you know what I mean? I have a 16 year old daughter, and I could use the help...

Agreed. I think abstinence would be the most preferable option taught, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and let them know how to protect themselves and what the consequences of unprotected sex are...because there are scarier things than unwanted pregnancies they could get from it.

As far as Palin, I have no interest in prying into her personal family life. I don't need to know what she did or didn't tell her daughter. But I would be curious to see if her views on abstinence of has changed since this has happened...and why she believed this was better than sex-ed. Because even if she didn't have a pregnant daughter I'm trying to understand why anyone in their right mind would think this is better than giving kids all the facts they need in sex-ed.

[kainedamo]

RICK DAVIS LIES ABOUT THE 'BRIDGE TO NOWHERE'
94eGRMmX00g


From Fox, no less.

[ShadowBoxing]

RICK DAVIS LIES ABOUT THE 'BRIDGE TO NOWHERE'
94eGRMmX00g

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa...whoa...whoa...did Chris F***ing Wallace just take someone to town.:wow:

[Marx]

From Fox, no less.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa...whoa...whoa...did Chris F***ing Wallace just take someone to town.:wow:

It should say something to people when the Republican ticket is being called out on lies on FOX News!

[Darthphere]

Chris Wallace is a pretty decent journalist, going back to the whole Clinton thing as well.

[ShadowBoxing]

It should say something to people when the Republican ticket is being called out on lies on FOX News!
"ummm, Chris, you aren't suppose to do that".

[SuBe]

It should say something to people when the Republican ticket is being called out on lies on FOX News!
Maybe it's because FoxNews isn't as biased as you thought they were?

Maybe they are a little more to the center than you thought?

Maybe it's because all of the Cable News you watch are so far left, the center looks like the right?

Just say'n:word:

[Hobgoblin]

You left out the part about her son being deployed on 9/11.

My sister was talking to her best friend whose husband is in Iraq right now, and she was saying that her group of Army-wives friends are pretty livid with Palin for saying when and where he was being deployed (I didn't hear it, but apparently she was saying exactly where in Iraq he was going), because you're not supposed to publicly say stuff like that.

So Palin is basically Geraldo? :csad: Great.

[kainedamo]

What's it matter. She's Sarah Palin. She can get away with anything.

[Hobgoblin]

What's it matter. She's Sarah Palin. She can get away with anything.

Not once the debates start. Everyone will be under a microscope.

[Raiden]

Maybe it's because FoxNews isn't as biased as you thought they were?

Maybe they are a little more to the center than you thought?

Maybe it's because all of the Cable News you watch are so far left, the center looks like the right?

Just say'n:word:

Um...no.

[Marx]

Maybe it's because FoxNews isn't as biased as you thought they were?

One anchor that leans a little more to the center than a bible thumping still isn't my idea of good, quality programming. It's still not a 'fair and balanced' news network.


Maybe they are a little more to the center than you thought?


See above.


Maybe it's because all of the Cable News you watch are so far left, the center looks like the right?

Just say'n:word:

I take in all aspects of the media - Liberal and Conservative.

Just say'n:oldrazz:

[DACrowe]

RICK DAVIS LIES ABOUT THE 'BRIDGE TO NOWHERE'
94eGRMmX00g





(I like the very first comment on the blog.)

:wow: :wow:

When Fox News (mind you it is one of their reporters not named Hume, and not their jackasses in primetime) takes you down for being a hypocrite...you know there is some big holes in your campaign.

[Marx]

GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN'S ADDRESS TO THE AIP (The Alaskan Independent Party, in March, 2008)
F4iCDBIAde8&feature=related

[kane9321]

mmmmm

[ShadowBoxing]

Pretty standard I'd say.

[Marx]

REPORT: PALIN AND THE TROOPER SCANDAL (Take a look at the poll at the end of this video that asks if Alaskans believe Palin's story)
tQx42Tsz5NQ&feature=user

[Lightning Strykez!]

You can't spell Sarah Palin without liar.

Zing! :hehe::up:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Maybe it's because FoxNews isn't as biased as you thought they were?

Maybe they are a little more to the center than you thought?

Maybe it's because all of the Cable News you watch are so far left, the center looks like the right?

Just say'n:word:

No, I think we may be seeing the impact of NBC's recent anchor demotions. FOX is known for being extremely hard-right at times, and all eyes are on it and it's fellow networks for unbiased reporting right now. It's just a more sensitive issue at this time, so they're throwing us a bone.

Don't expect it to last. :whatever:

[Marx]

PALIN PLUGS RON PAUL AND MITT ROMNEY IN INTERVIEW (2:30 minute mark)
MV9rW25bT5o&feature=related

[Marx]

BILL MAHER ON PALIN
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/09/blitzer.bill.maher.interview.cnn

[lazur]

No, I think we may be seeing the impact of NBC's recent anchor demotions. FOX is known for being extremely hard-right at times, and all eyes are on it and it's fellow networks for unbiased reporting right now. It's just a more sensitive issue at this time, so they're throwing us a bone.

Don't expect it to last. :whatever:

You must not watch Fox News all that much. I'm not quite sure how you can have any opinion on this at all, since if you did actually watch Fox News, you'd realize how outlandish your claim is.

And again, we're talking hard news (ie Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, etc.) - not the tabloid commentators that exist on EVERY NEWS STATION.

[Lightning Strykez!]

You must not watch Fox News all that much. I'm not quite sure how you can have any opinion on this at all, since if you did actually watch Fox News, you'd realize how outlandish your claim is.

Posts like the above truly make me wonder if you're a plant or affiliated in some way with the RNC. :whatever:

Stop being such a Repub-nazi. We don't employ the think-tank concept here at the Hype. Just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't mean it's "outlandish". I'm entitled to my perspective, and it dictates to me that FOX is a biased network that is totally in the tank for the Republican Party.

Live with it.


And again, we're talking hard news (ie Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, etc.) - not the tabloid commentators that exist on EVERY NEWS STATION.

Again, I am well aware of what we're talking about here. You are not what's necessary to remind me of the context of the conversation.

[danoyse]

You must not watch Fox News all that much. I'm not quite sure how you can have any opinion on this at all, since if you did actually watch Fox News, you'd realize how outlandish your claim is.

And again, we're talking hard news (ie Chris Wallace, Brit Hume, etc.) - not the tabloid commentators that exist on EVERY NEWS STATION.

No, I don't watch Fox News...because I feel it's so blatantly biased that it makes me sick to watch. And keep in mind, I used to work for Fox.

Yes, I realize that all news networks are biased, mostly to the left. They're owned by big corporations with their own political leanings, and it's difficult to find any that are truly 'fair and balanced'. I'm convinced that an unbiased network does not exist.

Fox doesn't reflect my politics, so I don't watch it. I'm disgusted with the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, so I don't watch them either. It's as simple as that.

[Arc-Light]

Any .000001% chance I would ever have had in voting for Republicans again was completely gone after this clip.

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2008/09/jon-stewart-ann.html

It made me sick and left me in disbelief. What a bunch of elitist hypocrites.

Well if you look up Hypocrisy you will find this.....http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/party_republican.jpg

[Superman]

Isn't it a tad bit dangerous for them to be talking so much about the son that's going to Iraq?

It seems to me that he and his company would be BIG targets for the bad guys over there.

Isn't that why they pulled Harry back to the UK after it came out that he was in Afghanistan?:huh:

Then again, They may be hoping that all the press will get the army to say that it's too dangerous to send him and keep him in the US. It wouldn't surprise me.

It would be a slick way to keep him from going.:whatever:Nothing???

OK:csad:

[Gilpesh]

Supes, if anything that just shows her glaringly inadequacy in the foreign affairs department...

She doesn't even know what other mothers of soldiers understand without even being told about it.

[RAMORE]

Well if you look up Hypocrisy you will find this.....http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/party_republican.jpg

Could we please stick to the issues (there are plenty)

[The Senator]

Well if you look up Hypocrisy you will find this.....http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/party_republican.jpg

I'm not sure if that's a case of hypocrisy.

I mean, why an Elephant would drape the American flag certainly is absurd, since the only elephants we have in America are either in zoos, pianos, or on "The View." (http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/11/2007-11-05Rosie.jpg)

Though I find it ironic that a party which is all for America and buying American-made goods would ignore perfectly good, strong American animals such as the alligator or grizzly bear in favor of an elephant as its mascot. For shame, GOP. For shame. :csad:

[Arc-Light]

I'm not sure if that's a case of hypocrisy.

I mean, why an Elephant would drape the American flag certainly is absurd, since the only elephants we have in America are either in zoos, pianos, or on "The View." (http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/11/2007-11-05Rosie.jpg)

Though I find it ironic that a party which is all for America and buying American-made goods would ignore perfectly good, strong American animals such as the alligator or grizzly bear in favor of an elephant as its mascot. For shame, GOP. For shame. :csad:

You are right i apologize to all elephants and the American flag.

[Yerzrinot]

If I'm correct she's claimed that the war in Iraq is a mission from god. What a nutcase.

Would any of the GOP fan boys like to explain how Palin is qualified? Any jackass can become the mayor of a city of 9,000 people.

[lazur]

Posts like the above truly make me wonder if you're a plant or affiliated in some way with the RNC. :whatever:

Stop being such a Repub-nazi. We don't employ the think-tank concept here at the Hype. Just because you don't agree with my opinion doesn't mean it's "outlandish". I'm entitled to my perspective, and it dictates to me that FOX is a biased network that is totally in the tank for the Republican Party.

Live with it.

I forgot that dems only watch news and media they agree with. Pardon me.

And I'm not a republican, much less a 'repub-nazi' - whatever that is.

Still, I'm interested in knowing who you believe is biased at Fox *other* than a few of the talking heads such as O'Reilly and Hannity.

Again, I am well aware of what we're talking about here. You are not what's necessary to remind me of the context of the conversation.

Duh.

[Handsome Rob]

If I'm correct she's claimed that the war in Iraq is a mission from god. What a nutcase.

Would any of the GOP fan boys like to explain how Palin is qualified? Any jackass can become the mayor of a city of 9,000 people.

Did you forget she was also elected governor of a state? Or, do you find that a selective reading of someone's record makes it easier to attack their inexperience on? In that case, how is Obama qualified? Any idiot can become a community organizer. :huh:

Oh, and Palin is ACTUALLY qualified for the same reasons Obama, Biden, and McCain are qualified--read the Constitution.

[lazur]

Well if you look up Hypocrisy you will find this.....http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/INBuckeye/party_republican.jpg

Hypocrisy runs both ways .... http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/PhotozOnline/Album%20Two/Democrat_Party_Donkey_Symbol.jpg

After all, if we're talking 'flip-flopping,' Sarah Palin doesn't hold a candle to Barack Obama.

[Schlosser85]

Well, for one, she keeps repeating the patently false claim that she said "thanks, but thanks, to the bridge to nowhere".

Oh and apparently she also supports shooting wolves from helicopters to keep them from decimating the caribou herds (humans, not wolves, are the only ones who do that in the first place), and demanded polar bears stay off the endangered species list.

About as honest and compassionate as most conservative "Christians".

[Matt]

Am I the only person who thinks the idea of a bridge to no where sounds friggin awesome?

[danoyse]

I forgot that dems only watch news and media they agree with. Pardon me.

You know, I think everyone who doesn't like Fox is stating the reasons they don't like it fairly, and also admitted that they realize the other news outlets are biased. I don't see anyone saying that they "only watch news and media they agree with."

People are entitled not to like Fox. It's that simple.

[kane9321]

wha...Mr wallace...whoa

[jaguarr]

Am I the only person who thinks the idea of a bridge to no where sounds friggin awesome?

We'd all pitch in so you had enough for the toll to cross it. :oldrazz:


:lmao:

(Sorry. Couldn't resist that one, Matt.)

jag

[Gilpesh]

People are entitled not to like Fox. It's that simple.

Stop being a sexist and a POW dis-respecter. :oldrazz:

[terry78]

You can put lipstick on a pig, but an Alaskan will still **** it. :o

[lazur]

You know, I think everyone who doesn't like Fox is stating the reasons they don't like it fairly, and also admitted that they realize the other news outlets are biased. I don't see anyone saying that they "only watch news and media they agree with."

People are entitled not to like Fox. It's that simple.

Sure, I understand that. But I'm trying to get people to distinguish between the hard news and some of the idiotic commentators that Fox and other networks have on staff.

As far as hearing reasons stated fairly, maybe so. Objectively? Probably not. I believe that one cannot 'objectively' hate a news station because of a couple of commentators. Chris Wallace is a perfect example of what is represented by Fox in the hard news.

[C.F. Kane]

After all, if we're talking 'flip-flopping,' Sarah Palin doesn't hold a candle to Barack Obama.

Yes, you're right that it's silly to compare a presidential nominee to a vice-presidential nominee. But the main thing that's getting people in a row is the fact that McCain believes this person to be qualified enough for the presidency. The people who criticize Palin aren't necessarily worried about Palin's qualifications per se. They're worried about McCain's judgment.

[kane9321]

You can put lipstick on a pig, but an Alaskan will still **** it. :o

ouch..funny though:woot:

[Lightning Strykez!]

I forgot that dems only watch news and media they agree with. Pardon me.

First of all, I'm an independent. Secondly, stop jumping to condescending conclusions. Jesus....:whatever:



And I'm not a republican, much less a 'repub-nazi' - whatever that is.

Allow me to enlighten you then.

Hitler & Co. essentially felt that it was their way or the highway. There was no tolerance for other lines of thinking. You behave in much the same manner on this board. You are incapable of seeing validity in anyone else's posts, and your unreasonable approach to converting everyone to your high-minded notions is absolutely the stuff of disgusting.

Lazur, you have yet to learn the true art of debate--which means conceding when others may possibly have a point. It means graciously acknowledging that others may view things differently than you, and that they can do so while not being deficient in the thinking department. Sadly, that concept is lost on you.

And since you defend all things republican--and unabashedly so, I might add--I've dubbed you the intolerant repub-nazi that you're behaving like. Don't like the title? Learn to acquiesce and respect the views of others without being so ****ing snarky. Not every post deserves a retort from you.

Done.

[lazur]

Yes, you're right that it's silly to compare a presidential nominee to a vice-presidential nominee. But the main thing that's getting people in a row is the fact that McCain believes this person to be qualified enough for the presidency. The people who criticize Palin aren't necessarily worried about Palin's qualifications per se. They're worried about McCain's judgment.

Well, whose judgment is responsible for believing Obama is qualified? I'm not sure I can buy into the whole 'qualification' argument simply because if you're going to pluck apart the experience of Palin, one must also attribute the same level of inexperience to Obama. Neither is more qualified than the other, but each is qualified in their own ways.

On the other hand, if you have what you believe are legitimate concerns about her character and/or ability, that's a different topic. But for me, I'm actually quite tired of the whole 'inexperienced' argument. It is what it is, and the people who are running for office are going to still be running for office whether we disagree on whether they should be or not...

[lazur]

First of all, I'm an independent. Secondly, stop jumping to condescending conclusions. Jesus....:whatever:

Of course. Everyone on the SHH is an 'independent' - haven't you heard? :o

Allow me to enlighten you then.

Hitler & Co. essentially felt that it was their way or the highway. There was no tolerance for other lines of thinking. You behave in much the same manner on this board. You are incapable of seeing validity in anyone else's posts, and your unreasonable approach to converting everyone to your high-minded notions is absolutely the stuff of disgusting.

You don't know me from Adam. Therefore, that you'd sit here and pretend to know about everything I've posted and every position I've taken gives a great deal of insight into what appears to be your insulting egocentric nature. Because if you did know me, you'd know that what you just posted is compete and utter garbage, especially the comparison to Hitler.

Let me break out very basic language for you: People have opinions. I do and you do. Just because you believe something is a certain way doesn't mean I should or would want to stoop to a level low enough to allow me to categorize you in with a fascist murderer of millions of people. On the one hand, you accuse me of having an unreasonable approach, yet you, who barely knows me at all, can jump to all of the unreasonable and uninformed conclusions you like, and then make very, very idiotic comparisons.

Lazur, you have yet to learn the true art of debate--which means conceding when others may possibly have a point. It means graciously acknowledging that others may view things differently than you, and that they can do so while not being deficient in the thinking department. Sadly, that concept is lost on you.

Well, I appreciate your words of wisdom, but you've climbing yourself onto a pretty high horse ... When you decide to stop dispensing your knowledge with a sermon-like arrogance, let me know, and then we can discuss 'debating.'

And since you defend all things republican--and unabashedly so, I might add--I've dubbed you the intolerant repub-nazi that you're behaving like. Don't like the title? Learn to acquiesce and respect the views of others without being so ****ing snarky. Not every post deserves a retort from you.

Done.

If you knew me, you'd know I don't defend all things republican. However, I do call BS on others who attack republican OR democratic politicians unfairly.

And I could just as easily dub you the 'dem-nazi' but I tend to avoid school-ground antics that are haphazardly masked as congeniality for the sake of boosting my online ego on a message board.

Perhaps you should do the same, friend.

[jaguarr]

Well, whose judgment is responsible for believing Obama is qualified?

Um. The MILLIONS of people who NOMINATED him through their voting? Palin didn't go through that qualification. ;)

jag

[lazur]

Um. The MILLIONS of people who NOMINATED him through their voting? Palin didn't go through that qualification. ;)

jag

Which means that if millions of people didn't have a problem nominating someone with next to no experience, the argument against Palin's experience doesn't hold any water.

[jaguarr]

Which means that if millions of people didn't have a problem nominating someone with next to no experience, the argument against Palin's experience doesn't hold any water.

I've never really argued the experience issue. For me, I'm more concerned about her record, her policies, her judgment (and McCain's) and the HUGE amount of scandals that swirl around her like a bunch of floaters in the bowl.

jag

[kainedamo]

Which means that if millions of people didn't have a problem nominating someone with next to no experience, the argument against Palin's experience doesn't hold any water.

Illogical.

It could simply be that *gasp* many people that voted Obama as the democratic nominee actually do believe that he is experienced enough for the job.

Your argument holds no water.

[StrainedEyes]

I've never really argued the experience issue. For me, I'm more concerned about her record, her policies, her judgment (and McCain's) and the HUGE amount of scandals that swirl around her like a bunch of floaters in the bowl.

jag

That was gross.

[Lightning Strykez!]

You don't know me from Adam. Therefore, that you'd sit here and pretend to know about everything I've posted and every position I've taken give a great deal of insight into your egocentric nature. Because if you did know me, you'd know that what you just posted is compete and utter garbage, especially the comparison to Hitler.


I don't have to "know you from Adam". You are a poster here, and I'm making my assessment based on your posts on this board. And that is sufficient enough for me.

And I apologize if my Hitler/Nazi analogy hurts your feelings but I felt it was necessary to draw such a strong comparison so that you could see just how unreasonable and unyielding you've been coming across lately. You attack EVERYONE'S position on a daily basis, and it appears to be done just to piss us off as a collective. Stop. Just...stop.


Let me break out very basic language for you: People have opinions. I do and you do. Just because you believe something is a certain way doesn't mean I should or would want to stoop to a level low enough to allow me to categorize you in with a fascist murderer of millions of people. On the one hand, you accuse me of having an unreasonable approach, yet you, who barely knows me at all, can jump to all of the unreasonable and uninformed conclusions you like, and then make very, very idiotic comparisons.

Where is all this "You don't know me" stuff coming from? :confused: You're 100% correct: I don't know anything about you as a person and to be frank, I really don't care. Let's be clear: I'm not attacking you as a person. I'm addressing your on-line approach on this board with your posts. Let's call it your "online personality," shall we? :cool:



Well, I appreciate your words of wisdom, but you've climbing yourself onto a pretty high horse ... When you decide to stop dispensing your knowledge with a sermon-like arrogance, let me know, and then we can discuss 'debating.'

Chile, the horse ain't that high. Trust me. :whatever:



If you knew me, you'd know I don't defend all things republican. However, I do call BS on others who attack republican OR democratic politicians unfairly.


Again, I don't know you. And I don't have to. I'm only referring to your trolling and I can only go by the posts you've made here--which I read daily. People here have given you ample evidence to support their claims every day, yet in your book they are attacking politicians "unfairly." It's like no one here has access to credible information but you. :whatever:


And I could just as easily dub you the 'dem-nazi' but I tend to avoid school-ground antics that are haphazardly masked as congeniality for the sake of boosting my online ego on a message board.

Perhaps you should do the same, friend.

:lmao:

Believe me when I say, that this has nothing to do with ego boosting, nor am I making an effort to be "congenial". I simply don't like the way you talk to others here. Period. And that's why I'm calling you out on it.

All I am asking is to try being a bit more respectful of others and stop picking a bone with literally every goddamn post users make here that you don't agree with. Sometimes it's just okay to let it go. You are like a moth to a flame, man...it's like you can't resist antagonizing others just to keep **** going. Stop. :dry:

Now, I've said all I have to say on this subject. If there's more you can contact me on PM. Let's get back on topic, cool?

[StrainedEyes]

Which means that if millions of people didn't have a problem nominating someone with next to no experience, the argument against Palin's experience doesn't hold any water.

Experience isn't everything.

[bunk]

So maybe as early as Friday for this first Palin interview?

[ManofmyWord]

Watched another rally for McCain just now. I swear, I know all of her lines before she says them now.

Luxary Jet on Ebay.
USA! USA!
Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to nowhere, we'd build it ourselves.
USA! USA!
Pipeline.
USA! USA!
Fought the Good ole Boys.
USA! USA!
McCain actually fought for you.

Getting Really really, old.

[StrainedEyes]

Watched another rally for McCain just now. I swear, I know all of her lines before she says them now.

Luxary Jet on Ebay.
USA! USA!
Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to nowhere, we'd build it ourselves.
USA! USA!
Pipeline.
USA! USA!
Fought the Good ole Boys.
USA! USA!
McCain actually fought for you.

Getting Really really, old.

It's a little weird how tightly they are keeping her. She's like a VP robot who's next firmware update won't be ready until the day of the "interview"

[jaguarr]

That was gross.

Hey, I tried to go with an analogy that fit. :o

jag

[Lightning Strykez!]

Watched another rally for McCain just now. I swear, I know all of her lines before she says them now.

Luxary Jet on Ebay.
USA! USA!
Thanks but no thanks on that Bridge to nowhere, we'd build it ourselves.
USA! USA!
Pipeline.
USA! USA!
Fought the Good ole Boys.
USA! USA!
McCain actually fought for you.

Getting Really really, old.


LOL

Yeah I noticed that the themes are not that diverse. But to be fair, Obama was saying the same thing for a while too. How many different contexts can he use the term "fundamentally"? :p

[Excel]

Yes, Palin seems to say literally the exact same thing everytime we see her.

[StrainedEyes]

Yes, Palin seems to say literally the exact same thing everytime we see her.

It's because she's being told to. She isn't allowed to deviate or to answer questions.

[SuperT]

Yes, she does repeat the same crap. My friend went to one of their campaign stops the other day, and she said she was just repeating lines from her speech last week. She said it was absolutely ridiculous.

She said "And McCain was just standing there cheesing like a retarded cheshire cat." I don't think she picked up on her double entendre there. Horrible I know. lol

[Gilpesh]

It's because she's being told to. She isn't allowed to deviate or to answer questions.

Now I hate to reference Hardball because Mathews isn't that unbias...

But the other day he had a counter on Palin's speeches. And since her being picked... she has used the "Thanks but no thanks" line in that exact phrasing... 7 times. Even after people are starting to call her out on it.

[StrainedEyes]

Now I hate to reference Hardball because Mathews isn't that unbias...

But the other day he had a counter on Palin's speeches. And since her being picked... she has used the "Thanks but no thanks" line in that exact phrasing... 7 times. Even after people are starting to call her out on it.

I hate her "I thought the private jet, was a little much, so I put it on EBAY!" line.

[Lightning Strykez!]

since her being picked... she has used the "Thanks but no thanks" line in that exact phrasing... 7 times. Even after people are starting to call her out on it.

It would be an effective line if she had actually used it in real life. :whatever: And she certainly didn't say "no thanks" to the $$$ she kept.

[StrainedEyes]

It would be an effective line if she had actually used it in real life. :whatever: And she certainly didn't say "no thanks" to the $$$ she kept.

Well, that's where the "Thanks" comes in.

[Excel]

Just wait for the debates when they cant spout bs without getting called on it...should be funny.

[Gilpesh]

It would be an effective line if she had actually used it in real life. :whatever: And she certainly didn't say "no thanks" to the $$$ she kept.

And it doesn't help when her "killing" the plan was more of a "yeah whatever... we're not doing it" than a strong political stance against pork barrel projects.

[ShadowBoxing]

Just wait for the debates when they cant spout bs without getting called on it...should be funny.
Biden just needs to try to make her expand upon her points, and we can pray she says something really stupid like she did in her last speech ("We stayed and fought Al Qaeda in Iraq").

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, that's where the "Thanks" comes in.

:lmao:

So true! :woot:

[kainedamo]

Biden just needs to try to make her expand upon her points, and we can pray she says something really stupid like she did in her last speech ("We stayed and fought Al Qaeda in Iraq").

She said that??

[RAMORE]

First of all, I'm an independent. Secondly, stop jumping to condescending conclusions. Jesus....:whatever:




Allow me to enlighten you then.

Hitler & Co. essentially felt that it was their way or the highway. There was no tolerance for other lines of thinking. You behave in much the same manner on this board. You are incapable of seeing validity in anyone else's posts, and your unreasonable approach to converting everyone to your high-minded notions is absolutely the stuff of disgusting.


Done.

I could agree with this statement except all of you "palin haters" for lack of a better term since your not all dems seem to treat be acting to some extent like the statement above. When I make a statement of opinion i'm jumped on and told that it's crazy and that i'm: stupid, wrong, young, naieve....whatever it is.:huh:

[Lightning Strykez!]

Biden just needs to try to make her expand upon her points, and we can pray she says something really stupid like she did in her last speech ("We stayed and fought Al Qaeda in Iraq").

I think it's an interesting tactic that Joe's been using of late. He has been really talking her up as if to say he thinks he'll be the underdog in the debates. My opinion? Joe is going to eat her alive.

Speaking of eating...I gotta head out for lunch. Check you all later.

[ShadowBoxing]

She said that??
I'm paraphrasing, but yes, she said Al Qaeda was who we were fighting in Iraq. I think she might have the IQ of a Playboy bunny at this point.

[ManofmyWord]

A McCain Campaign Advisor just got grilled on the Lipstick thing on MSNBC and avoided why Palin won't comment on it. She was played the McCain Lipstick comment from the primaries and just said: "It doesn't matter what he said, it's up to the American people"

Jesus.

[RAMORE]

I've never really argued the experience issue. For me, I'm more concerned about her record, her policies, her judgment (and McCain's) and the HUGE amount of scandals that swirl around her like a bunch of floaters in the bowl.

jag

:wow:I completely agree with this!:wow:
















If you changed the person to Obama:oldrazz:

[Marx]

It's a little weird how tightly they are keeping her. She's like a VP robot who's next firmware update won't be ready until the day of the "interview"

Yes, Palin seems to say literally the exact same thing everytime we see her.

It's because she's being told to. She isn't allowed to deviate or to answer questions.

Pull Palin out of the box. Push her up on stage. Pull her off the stage. Put her back in the box. Repeat as necessary.

It's really pathetic.

[ShadowBoxing]

I think it's an interesting tactic that Joe's been using of late. He has been really talking her up as if to say he thinks he'll be the underdog in the debates. My opinion? Joe is going to eat her alive.

"I'm going to punch you right in the Ovaries".

[jaguarr]

I hate her "I thought the private jet, was a little much, so I put it on EBAY!" line.

Not private jet, LUXURY jet. That's what she called it. A "luxury" jet. Never mind that she forgot to mention that ~60% of it's service time was spent flying convicts from Alaska to Arizona since Alaska doesn't have a prison to keep their criminals in. :o

jag

[StrainedEyes]

Not private jet, LUXURY jet. That's what she called it. A "luxury" jet. Never mind that she forgot to mention that ~60% of it's service time was spent flying convicts from Alaska to Arizona since Alaska doesn't have a prison to keep their criminals in. :o

jag

It's the programmer's fault.

[RAMORE]

No, I think we may be seeing the impact of NBC's recent anchor demotions. FOX is known for being extremely hard-right at times, and all eyes are on it and it's fellow networks for unbiased reporting right now. It's just a more sensitive issue at this time, so they're throwing us a bone.

Don't expect it to last. :whatever:


I agree all the networks piss me off for being biased:cmad:

You can have all the "commentators" you want who can give their opinion just call them that don't front it as unbiased news report and that they are journalist you know? Man I miss Tim Russert:csad: