2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Tages]

It's true. I can has mindreading.

I looked him up, btw, and the pictures are great! 400 pounds of straight white guy poured into big gay rainbow spandex and the blackest poses (and facial hair) he can manage. Plus bling.

For some reason, I'm reminded of Sacha Cohen's amusing stunt at the wrestling match.

Eh? This dude?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Cena_With_Spinner_Belt.jpg

Where's the spandex and facial hair?

[Paul McEnery]

This dude.

http://www.geocities.com/slobhull1/PN

[BnL]

This dude.

http://www.geocities.com/slobhull1/PN

OMG. Why is there a cameltoe where his penis should be?

[section 8]

he's got a punchable face don't he?

[FalconX2000]

Well, it is possible to sell rap to wrestling fans ... in fact, that's how John Cena started out, by freestyling as he walked down the ramp to the ring. And the WWE has produced a rap CD or two which sold pretty well (I think). But the way WCW went about it was absolutely clueless. In fact, a few years before that, WCW's first rapping wrestler was a guy named PN News. He's awful. I mean, this guy could make Countdown look good.

Hey, I like Countdown!:tongue:

Only problem is Keith avoids bringing in people who would argue with much fervour against him.

[BnL]

Hey, I like Countdown!:tongue:

Only problem is Keith avoids bringing in people who would argue with much fervour against him.

I took it to mean the DC weekly series.

[KevinTBrown]

Getting back to the election year....

Let's see here.

John Edwards as an adulterer = scumbag.

Bill Clinton as an adulterer = dirty old man

John McCain as an adulterer = don't ask, don't tell.

Yeah, that's equal. :rolleyes:





For any and all who feel John Edwards is a scumbag (or something along those lines) for cheating on his wife while she was battling cancer, and if you're wholeheartedly behind John McCain for President... You're a fucking hypocrite if you vote for McCain while raking Edwards over the coals.



By the way, gotta "love" Politico for those "hard hitting" exposés: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12433.html

We're still less than 3 months from the election. Let's get in a debate or two first, shall we..?

[the4thpip]

Getting back to the election year....

Let's see here.

John Edwards as an adulterer = scumbag.

Bill Clinton as an adulterer = dirty old man

John McCain as an adulterer = don't ask, don't tell.

Yeah, that's equal. :rolleyes:





For any and all who feel John Edwards is a scumbag (or something along those lines) for cheating on his wife while she was battling cancer, and if you're wholeheartedly behind John McCain for President... You're a fucking hypocrite if you vote for McCain while raking Edwards over the coals.



You don't think John Edwards committed adultery just so people would be reminded of McCain cheating on his crippled wife with a much younger blonde, do you? :eek:

[bringthenoise]

You don't think John Edwards committed adultery just so people would be reminded of McCain cheating on his crippled wife with a much younger blonde, do you? :eek:

You've gotta admire his dedication to the party... sorta.:tongue:

[FalconX2000]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/11/obama-to-announce-vp-via-text-e-mail/

The first announcement of Obama's VP will be to all available supporters through text message.

[section 8]

Getting back to the election year....

Let's see here.

John Edwards as an adulterer = scumbag.

Bill Clinton as an adulterer = dirty old man

John McCain as an adulterer = don't ask, don't tell.

Yeah, that's equal. :rolleyes:





For any and all who feel John Edwards is a scumbag (or something along those lines) for cheating on his wife while she was battling cancer, and if you're wholeheartedly behind John McCain for President... You're a fucking hypocrite if you vote for McCain while raking Edwards over the coals.



By the way, gotta "love" Politico for those "hard hitting" exposés: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12433.html

We're still less than 3 months from the election. Let's get in a debate or two first, shall we..?

i agree completely, but then you could have started with George Washington and worked your way down the list from there.

What Edwards is truly guilty of is breaking the number one rule in politics: "Don't Get caught!"

[KevinTBrown]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/11/obama-to-announce-vp-via-text-e-mail/

The first announcement of Obama's VP will be to all available supporters through text message.

I saw that announcement elsewhere.


Of course this mean McCain won't get the message since he has no idea what a computer or cellphone is.... :tongue:

[Sabrinaset]

I took it to mean the DC weekly series.

That's what I meant, yeah. Maybe I should have said "Amazons Attack!" instead :redface:

Getting back to the election year....

Let's see here.

John Edwards as an adulterer = scumbag.

Bill Clinton as an adulterer = dirty old man

John McCain as an adulterer = don't ask, don't tell.

Yeah, that's equal.

Well, Edwards is too young to be a dirty old man. And I'm not voting McCain, but even I can see *some* extenuating circumstances for what happened there, Corrina has explained it better than I could. Edwards doesn't even have that. Heck, in a way it's worse when you consider the woman was apparently doing a campaign staffer around the same time John was. It's like at Edwards Campaign HQ, they were passing the women around like party favors or something! :eek:

You should be glad Edwards didn't get the nomination. You might as well have just handed the keys to the White House restroom to McCain if Edwards did get the nod.

By the way, gotta "love" Politico for those "hard hitting" exposés: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12433.html

We're still less than 3 months from the election. Let's get in a debate or two first, shall we..?

I thought you liked Politico ...:confused:

I saw that announcement elsewhere....Of course this mean McCain won't get the message since he has no idea what a computer or cellphone is....

http://www.cagle.com/news/3AMPhone/images/lester.jpg

[KevinTBrown]

I like Politico for some things, but they've been doing way too much "fluff" of late....

[section 8]

That's what I meant, yeah. Maybe I should have said "Amazons Attack!" instead :redface:



Well, Edwards is too young to be a dirty old man. And I'm not voting McCain, but even I can see *some* extenuating circumstances for what happened there, Corrina has explained it better than I could. Edwards doesn't even have that. Heck, in a way it's worse when you consider the woman was apparently doing a campaign staffer around the same time John was. It's like at Edwards Campaign HQ, they were passing the women around like party favors or something! :eek:

You should be glad Edwards didn't get the nomination. You might as well have just handed the keys to the White House restroom to McCain if Edwards did get the nod.
]

"Women" Plural? Who are the others? and "passing them around? were rape charges filed? Is it not more feasible that there was one woman, who *ahem* Got around?

It excuses nothing on the part of Edwards or said staffer,
but honestly Bree that strikes me as the kind of thing McCain would say.

[kingdom2000]

i agree completely, but then you could have started with George Washington and worked your way down the list from there.

What Edwards is truly guilty of is breaking the number one rule in politics: "Don't Get caught!"

Even worse, he got caught by the National Enquirer. He gave them credibility! The Enquirer! Now people are going to go "Edwards story was true, this one must be too!". It takes a special kind of fing up to get caught by the Enquirer of all things. I still can't get past them getting something major correct.

[section 8]

Even worse, he got caught by the National Enquirer. He gave them credibility! The Enquirer! Now people are going to go "Edwards story was true, this one must be too!". It takes a special kind of fing up to get caught by the Enquirer of all things. I still can't get past them getting something major correct.

and for that i might never forgive him.

[Paul McEnery]

You should be glad Edwards didn't get the nomination. You might as well have just handed the keys to the White House restroom to McCain if Edwards did get the nod.

So that's 1972 avoided. I hope.

[Tetsuo_man]

I'd have thought the man behind Flatliners would be for McCain.

George clooney is the one for obama in that article not shcumacher. I know not as funny.

[Paul McEnery]

George clooney is the one for obama in that article not shcumacher. I know not as funny.

What, someone clicks through to the articles? :biggrin:

But seriously, this is news?

[Sabrinaset]

What, someone clicks through to the articles? :biggrin:

But seriously, this is news?

It's a slow news day, and not everything has to be uber-serious. Besides, it's Clooney. He did a great job helping his father win, right? He might very well have the Kiss of Death!

Some more stories in the news ...

Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination! (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1) Well, we dodged TWO bullets for the price of one, then!

Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Democrat Convention to focus on unity, security, change. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080811/ap_on_el_pr/democratic_convention)

Wishful thinking, or ...? (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/aug/11/centrist-voters-tilt-from-obama/)

[Buzz Dixon]

Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination! (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1) Well, we dodged TWO bullets for the price of one, then! I'm trying to figure out what Wolfson's point is. Clinton had been caught cheating in the past, fessed up, promised not to do it again, then got caught doing it again and got clobbered when he perjured himself and suborned perjury in others.

So in a way Bill got a pre-election pass while Edwards didn't.

[PatrickG]

It's a slow news day, and not everything has to be uber-serious. Besides, it's Clooney. He did a great job helping his father win, right? He might very well have the Kiss of Death!

Some more stories in the news ...

Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination! (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1) Well, we dodged TWO bullets for the price of one, then!



Democrat Convention to focus on unity, security, change. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080811/ap_on_el_pr/democratic_convention)

Wishful thinking, or ...? (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/aug/11/centrist-voters-tilt-from-obama/)

And Edwards honoring his marriage vows would have resulted in Barack getting the nomination. I can play this game too.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm trying to figure out what Wolfson's point is. Clinton had been caught cheating in the past, fessed up, promised not to do it again, then got caught doing it again and got clobbered when he perjured himself and suborned perjury in others.

So in a way Bill got a pre-election pass while Edwards didn't.

At this point, it's just Hill's staffer playing the "What-if" game. The thing is, he has a point. What really killed Hill was the fact that for a long time before the caimpaign started, she was seen as The Inevitable Candidate, and Obama's win shattered that illusion. Had Hill won Iowa with Edwards out of the picture, it would have been much easier for her. She's not THAT far behind on delagates, actually, and I'm sure a lot of delegates would have gone her way had she been percieved as more inevitable, so to speak. Probably enough to put her over the top in numbers. But considering how much Hill herself was enabling Bills own proclivities, it's unlikely you'll ever hear her say this herself, I imagine.

If anything though, it proves that Edwards was right, there ARE two Americas. One for his wife, and another for his mistress :biggrin:

[Infra-Man]

Some more stories in the news ...

Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination! (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5553013&page=1) Well, we dodged TWO bullets for the price of one, then!

Gotta love the Clinton campaign blaming everyone but themselves (and especially Mark Penn) for their shortcomings. Wolfson always seemed like a bigger docuhe than McAuliffe.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12432.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080812.wobama12/BNStory/International/home
http://www.observer.com/2008/media/obama-campaign-issuing-policy-paperback-crown-print-300-000-copies-sept-9-release


The Obama campaign has written a book detailing his policy positions and will have it released by September 9th. The candidate wrote the forward and staffers wrote the essays.

300,000 copies will be printed as paperbacks and it will also be sold online as an E-book.

[KevinTBrown]

The GOP has an "Enthusiasm problem": http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=1157566

I love this quote: “Nobody likes a funeral,” said a Senate Republican press secretary who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

[KevinTBrown]

This one is for Bree: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080812/ts_alt_afp/usvoteobamarepublicans

[the4thpip]

This one is for Bree: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080812/ts_alt_afp/usvoteobamarepublicans

I take it that new movement has nothing to do with this existing one: http://www.republicansforobama.org/

[Sabrinaset]

They're both kinda interesting sites! Could use some better web design though...

Heh, I finally got to see the HRC memos the Atlantic had in one of their links!

[LtMarvel]

Already scaled-back GOP Convention short of funds (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gop10-2008aug10,0,1928236,full.story)

Cheney had CIA forge evidence in support of Iraq war (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html)
(If this is not enough for impeachment, what is?)

Enthusiasm gap (guess which side is winning/losing) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080812/pl_politico/12476;_ylt=AnXvvqcS.AlHl852P7bsgf.yFz4D)

[Sabrinaset]

Already scaled-back GOP Convention short of funds (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gop10-2008aug10,0,1928236,full.story)


Waaaaait a minute .... I remember posting the SAME story a month or so ago about the Democrat convention!

[LtMarvel]

Waaaaait a minute .... I remember posting the SAME story a month or so ago about the Democrat convention!
Really? Because I'm thinking booking Mile High Stadium for the acceptence speech isn't scaling back...

[Sabrinaset]

Really? Because I'm thinking booking Mile High Stadium for the acceptence speech isn't scaling back...

I can't find the post, but the story was either this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/us/politics/28convention.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) or this. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-dnc28-2008jul28,0,6528243.story)

[LtMarvel]

Huh. The Democrats were still in a race at the time of the story. I doubt they are still having the same problem now that the race is over. And they definitely haven't scaled back; they sold out Mile High Stadium!

[KevinTBrown]

McCain still thinks there's a cold war. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12500.html)


Me, I'm trying to figure out what the hell is his nose! :eek:

re: the pic in the article

[Briareos]

Already scaled-back GOP Convention short of funds (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gop10-2008aug10,0,1928236,full.story)

Cheney had CIA forge evidence in support of Iraq war (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12308.html)
(If this is not enough for impeachment, what is?)

Enthusiasm gap (guess which side is winning/losing) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080812/pl_politico/12476;_ylt=AnXvvqcS.AlHl852P7bsgf.yFz4D)

Why do you rely on a virulent anti-semite for your information about forign policy?

[Infra-Man]

Already scaled-back GOP Convention short of funds (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-gop10-2008aug10,0,1928236,full.story)

Oh snap! Looks like both parties have been having some fundraising setbacks. I need to see how the DNC is doing with the convention coming up.

[KevinTBrown]

Why do you rely on a virulent anti-semite for your information about forign policy?

What the FUCK are you talking about...?

[Briareos]

Oh, geez. M.O.M. I think I was nine or ten the first time I saw them and choked on my cereal. They were THAT BAD.

Do you know how they won the tag titles?

[Tages]

Why do you rely on a virulent anti-semite for your information about forign policy?

Either provide evidence that isn't just a pointless waste of time meant to distract from your ideological poverty or shut your fucking mouth.

[Briareos]

What the FUCK are you talking about...?

The person bringing all the "information" about the supposed CIA forgeries tying Iraq and Al Qaeda together is a notorius anti-semite who believe the holocaust was "over-promoted" and that the jews secretly run American foreign policy

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/19942

[Infra-Man]

The person bringing all the "information" about the supposed CIA forgeries tying Iraq and Al Qaeda together is a notorius anti-semite who believe the holocaust was "over-promoted" and that the jews secretly run American foreign policy

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/19942

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[Briareos]

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Uh so that letter he wrote which was posted word for word were he claims that the Holocaust is overpromoted and used for a zionist agenda is made up?

[Infra-Man]

Uh so that letter he wrote which was posted word for word were he claims that the Holocaust is overpromoted and used for a zionist agenda is made up?

No, but it has no bearing on the claims about misconduct leading up to the war in Iraq.

[Michael P]

Although oddly enough, I can't seem to find any corroboration of that claim.

Hey! Maybe all those Jews who control the media covered it up!

[Briareos]

No, but it has no bearing on the claims about misconduct leading up to the war in Iraq.

So your saying that a man who believes that a secret cabal of jews run the U.S. is trustworthy source?

[Infra-Man]

So your saying that a man who believes that a secret cabal of jews run the U.S. is trustworthy source?

I'm saying that these are independent issues and his warped beliefs have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the forgery the claim per se.

[Michael P]

Hunh. Looking closer at that link, Bri, it doesn't say that Ron Suskind is an anti-semite. It says Philip Giraldi is. Giraldi would be the one who has alleged that Doug Feith was the man who carried out the forgery.

So this doesn't call the *forgery* into question, but the identity of the man who committed it. Amazingly enough, Suskind has multiple sources on the forgery itself.

[Briareos]

Hunh. Looking closer at that link, Bri, it doesn't say that Ron Suskind is an anti-semite. It says Philip Giraldi is. Giraldi would be the one who has alleged that Doug Feith was the man who carried out the forgery.

So this doesn't call the *forgery* into question, but the identity of the man who committed it. Amazingly enough, Suskind has multiple sources on the forgery itself.

Yeah so the case is so strong that they have to use a anti-semite in order to sell it?

[Briareos]

Let's not forget that the Bush administration bent over backwords to say that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were not linked...

I'm sure everyone remembers Michael Moore editing out Rice's comment that they were not linked to pretend that they had said otherwise...

[Infra-Man]

Yeah so the case is so strong that they have to use a anti-semite in order to sell it?

I'll ask outright: How do Giraldi's beliefs have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the forgery claim?

[Adam C]

The person bringing all the "information" about the supposed CIA forgeries tying Iraq and Al Qaeda together is a notorius anti-semite who believe the holocaust was "over-promoted" and that the jews secretly run American foreign policy

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/19942

Except that he's not bringing all the information. Suskind's source (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93319762) for the forgery claim are CIA agents Robert Richer and John Maguire. Geraldi's claims (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/08/07/suskind-revisited/) about the letter are separate and actually dispute Suskind's claims.

[Adam C]

I'll ask outright: How do Giraldi's beliefs have any bearing on the truth or falsity of the forgery claim?

You might want to look at the Commentary magazine piece first before accepting these as Geraldi's "beliefs". Just a short go through and I found that the whole case for Geraldi believing that the media is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy is based on a column this column (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/article2.html) where he disputes the veracity about Israeli claims regarding the Iran nuclear weapons program and a letter to the Washington Post saying that it's coverage of a peace march failed to notice criticism of Israel over the Palestine issue. I'm still going through it, but it's looking more and more like a cheap hit job.

[Infra-Man]

You might want to look at the Commentary magazine piece first before accepting these as Geraldi's "beliefs". Just a short go through and I found that the whole case for Geraldi believing that the media is controlled by a Jewish conspiracy is based on a column this column (http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/article2.html) where he disputes the veracity about Israeli claims regarding the Iran nuclear weapons program and a letter to the Washington Post saying that it's coverage of a peace march failed to notice criticism of Israel over the Palestine issue. I'm still going through it, but it's looking more and more like a cheap hit job.

Ahh, interesting. The Commentary piece will definitely be interesting to cross reference and verify.

[LtMarvel]

I remember Press Secretary Ari Fleischer commenting that the tape in which Bin Ladin called Saddam Hussien an infidel as proof of the connection between the two.

Is that what you mean by bending over backwards denying there was a connection?

[LtMarvel]

As for the book's author:

Suskind, an engaging and confident Washingtonian, writes that the book was “one tough project.” He won the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, where he worked from 1993 to 2000.

I should also note that other publications have reports coming to the same conclusion..

[Typo Lad]

The person bringing all the "information" about the supposed CIA forgeries tying Iraq and Al Qaeda together is a notorius anti-semite who believe the holocaust was "over-promoted" and that the jews secretly run American foreign policy

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/19942

What? That's crazy talk.

"Secretly"?

Yeah right!

Let's not forget that the Bush administration bent over backwords to say that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were not linked...

*snort*

Sure they did.

[Infra-Man]

John McCain's "respectful" campaign apparently didn't get clearance to use a clip from Wayne's World in one of their recent ads. Mike Myers demanded that the ad be taken down for copyright reasons.

http://www.futuremajority.com/node/2316

And because the McCain campaign is "respectful," they issued this "respectful" statement on their website:

http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/Read.aspx?guid=271b9107-7174-4c9f-a621-077b5438c319

Obama's celebrity friends are bringing their considerable resources to bear in this election, hosting fundraisers at their estates in Geneva, offering advice on Middle East policy, and now threatening this campaign with legal action over our latest ad, "Fan Club."

The ad features kids talking about how "dreamy" Senator Obama is, how he brought a crowd to Taco Bell despite inclement weather, and how he is no less of an international superstar than U2 frontman Bono. Unfortunately, the final clip of Mike Myers and Dana Carvey doing their 'we're not worthy' bit from Wayne's World has spurred a celebrity backlash. Myers had his people call the campaign to demand that the video be removed from YouTube for copyright violation. Apparently, we are not, in fact, worthy.

So when will a journalist ask McCain himself why he reneged on his promise to run a respectful campaign without negative ads?

I suppose it's too much to ask of the press because that would require some actual journalism.

[FalconX2000]

That...I don't even see how this plays well politically. That's what a loser sounds like. It's like someone who knows he can't win so decides to be an ass and try to spoil the game for all the rest.

[EdContradictory]

That...I don't even see how this plays well politically. That's what a loser sounds like. It's like someone who knows he can't win so decides to be an ass and try to spoil the game for all the rest.
He knows he can't win without tearing Obama down. He can't win, he can only make the other guy lose.

[section 8]

Screw This!!

I'm voting for Gary Coleman!!!

[FalconX2000]

He knows he can't win without tearing Obama down. He can't win, he can only make the other guy lose.

I understood the intent behind the ads. I thought they were idiotic both intellectually and as a political ploy, but at least I could see what they wanted to accomplish.

Those paragraphs on McCain's site is the kind of whining you hear from forum trolls.

[KevinTBrown]

Well well well.... Now we know why McCain was soooooo upset about Georgia being invaded: http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist

[kingdom2000]

Well well well.... Now we know why McCain was soooooo upset about Georgia being invaded: http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080813/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist

I can't say I am surprised. McCain so nearly drowning in lobbiest on his staff, his campaign staff, his finances and so forth. The man has been bought and sold so many times I am surprised he can keep up with what he owes to who. I thought Ted Stevens was a whore but now I am starting to think McCain is his Madam (so to speak). Its pretty clear that much like Bush, McCain will essentially spend his first four years paying back all his business friends in whatever way they want for getting him into office. As we have already seen, getting business carte blanche is never a good thing as they will even destroy themselves with to much greed. Its "four more years" all over again.

[Infra-Man]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/13/1263768.aspx

New Barack Obama ad:
"Economics by John McCain. Support George Bush 95 percent of the time. Keep spending ten billion dollars a month for the war in Iraq while the Iraqis sell oil for record prices, giving Iraq a $79 billion oil surplus and hurting our economy."

McCain campaign response (empahsis mine):
"In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time, including the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which gave close to $3 billion in new giveaways to Big Oil -- a terrible policy that John McCain opposed. The truth is Barack Obama’s plan is a job killing machine that ignores the struggling economy and raises taxes on family savings, social security, and small businesses."

The definition of "lockstep":
noun
1. a standard procedure that is followed mindlessly; "the union's support had been in lockstep for years"
2. a manner of marching in file in which each person's leg moves with and behind the corresponding leg of the person ahead; "the prisoner's ankles were so chained together that they could only march in lockstep"

How can you be in lockstep with something when you're not in lockstep even half the time?

[Tages]

Ahh, interesting. The Commentary piece will definitely be interesting to cross reference and verify.

Commentary is a neocon rag that should not be considered a reliable source of information.

[the4thpip]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/08/12/tomo/story.jpg

[LtMarvel]

In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations.

Can we afford to have a President McCain?

[FalconX2000]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailcindy14-2008aug14,0,1560365.story

Cindy McCain's arm is in a sling after a handshake.


Yeah, it's carpel tunnel, and that's a nasty condition to have, but dammit I love the headline.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/13/1263768.aspx

New Barack Obama ad:
"Economics by John McCain. Support George Bush 95 percent of the time. Keep spending ten billion dollars a month for the war in Iraq while the Iraqis sell oil for record prices, giving Iraq a $79 billion oil surplus and hurting our economy."

McCain campaign response (empahsis mine):
"In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time, including the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which gave close to $3 billion in new giveaways to Big Oil -- a terrible policy that John McCain opposed. The truth is Barack Obama’s plan is a job killing machine that ignores the struggling economy and raises taxes on family savings, social security, and small businesses."

The definition of "lockstep":


How can you be in lockstep with something when you're not in lockstep even half the time?

Even if we took this in the best possible skewed, twisted light for McCain, it's still

Obama: You're 90% idiot!

McCain: Yeah? Well you're 50% idiot!

[EdContradictory]

How can you be in lockstep with something when you're not in lockstep even half the time?
McCain is attacking Obama for supporting something that Bush, the man McCain worked tirelessly to get re-elected, supported?

This am not Bizarro-Earth?

[FalconX2000]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html

A rather detailed economic policy endorsement from the Wall Street Journal, though admittedly one of the 2 endorsers is a former economic adviser.

[Royal]

Why do you rely on a virulent anti-semite for your information about forign policy?

Are the neo-cons that hellbent on saving a "legacy" that they have to resort to the tactics of David Miscavige?

tsk tsk.

[cactusmaac]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121867201724238901.html

A rather detailed economic policy endorsement from the Wall Street Journal, though admittedly one of the 2 endorsers is a former economic adviser.

Furman and Goolsbee are both Obama advisers. They most likely came up with his tax plan themselves.

[FalconX2000]

Furman and Goolsbee are both Obama advisers. They most likely came up with his tax plan themselves.

Furman is too? Thanks for pointing it out.

[Royal]

McCain does not attribute. (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258483)

[Infra-Man]

The very strange case of PUMA Con 08 (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/the_truth_about_puma_conference_08_you_cant_spell_ conference_without_c_o_n/)

Excerpts quoted below:

Back on July 15th the PUMAs announced, via The Confluence, that they were holding a pre-convention “PUMA Conference 08” in Washington, D.C. at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, home of the now-infamous, temper-tantrum-laden RBC meeting and “rally.” The PUMAs threw together a clunky conference web site containing limited (and hilarious) info and a registration form to sign up for the conference. This is what was initially promised on the front page:


Dear PUMAs,

The 2008 PUMA Conference Committee is ready to ROAR with these incredible conference deals! For the amazing price of $250, you will receive the following:

* Lodging at a FIVE STAR hotel – the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, D.C. for THREE nights (Thursday, Friday and Saturday)
* Breakfast on Saturday and Sunday.
* Lunch on Saturday.
* AND it also includes the price of the conference itself.

Mind boggling, crazy good isn’t it?

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE YOU REGISTER:
After the first 250 people register at the $250 price, IT IS GONE. As we are under tight time constraints with the hotel for numbers and commitment at this time, once you register there will be NO refunds. (Please reread that sentence before you register.)

If we do not have 250 registrants, we will be refunding monies MINUS the PayPal Fee (approximately $7.50).


And there it sat for several weeks until, with no fanfare at all, the front page blurb above was replaced with a curt:


Dear PUMAs,
We have now closed registration.

We will be emailing attendees with final arrangements Sunday and Monday, so check your email.

Email us with any questions at pumaconference@yahoo.com.

READY? So are we! Meet you in D.C!
~ PUMA Conference Committee



The implication being that they’d hit the 250 mark and the conference at the Wardman was SO FUCKING ON! Well, not quite.

[sic]

So the next day I decided to call the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel and see if the conference was still taking place there. Sure enough, the sales office told me there were only two conferences being held there that weekend and neither of them had anything to do with PUMAs or Just Say No Deal. I thought that was both mind boggling and crazy, but I had to split for the west coast and didn’t have time to dig any deeper. I guess HuffPo’s Diane Tucker didn’t call the Wardman in advance because she ended up wandering the halls of the hotel looking for the conference on Saturday.

[sic]

[Email from PUMA co-founder Will Bower to Huffington Post]: "The conference was moved to a new location. We made an agreement with all our participants that we would treat the proceedings as confidential. There was a great deal of information that was generated that our members want to disseminate to their colleagues in their own way."

[sic]

The truth? The overwhelming and unstoppable PUMA coalition that Bowers and other selected-not-elected leaders have repeatedly claimed numbers in the 2-2.5 million members range could only get together sixty people for the "conference" and, because they didn’t meet the 250 registrant requirement imposed by the Wardman, they had to move the conference to ... get this ... the Country Inn next to Dulles Airport in Sterling, VA.

The photos of the conference are, well... kinda sad.

[Nick Soapdish]

The very strange case of PUMA Con 08 (http://www.rumproast.com/index.php/site/comments/the_truth_about_puma_conference_08_you_cant_spell_ conference_without_c_o_n/)

Excerpts quoted below:



The photos of the conference are, well... kinda sad.

What is PUMA?

[Paul McEnery]

What is PUMA?

Party Unity My Ass.

Some nutball who can't get over Hilary losing the nomination, but then got all giddy because he found some other nutballs who made him feel all special by pissing and moaning over the phone at him lots.

Too bad for him, the air is all let out of his tires, especially since Hils herself is backing Obama.

[Infra-Man]

Party Unity My Ass.

Some nutball who can't get over Hilary losing the nomination, but then got all giddy because he found some other nutballs who made him feel all special by pissing and moaning over the phone at him lots.

Too bad for him, the air is all let out of his tires, especially since Hils herself is backing Obama.

There were two representatives from anti-Obama/pro-Clinton groups (PUMA and another one I can't remember the name of) on Hardball earlier tonight. The tires thing is kind of apt, actually, since both reps got deflated by Schuster while bumbling through their 10 minutes on TV.

[Michael P]

Party Unity My Ass.

Some nutball who can't get over Hilary losing the nomination, but then got all giddy because he found some other nutballs who made him feel all special by pissing and moaning over the phone at him lots.

Too bad for him, the air is all let out of his tires, especially since Hils herself is backing Obama.

So, basically, it's a "Yay Hillary" Meetup Group.

[the4thpip]

McCain does not attribute. (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/258483)

Ooops, looks like McCain just lost John Byrne's vote.

Oh wait, Byrne is British-Canadian anyway, isn't he?

[the4thpip]

An AP-Ipsos poll has Democrats up 18% in the congressional election...

Barack leads John 47 to 38 % among all Americans, and 47 to 41 among registered voters. Both good leads, but it's worth to continue to invest in "register to vote" drives.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/act_hit_cntr.cfm?id=4032&Region=us&PDF_name=mr080805-2topline.pdf

[the4thpip]

On the eve of the Democratic and Republican conventions, Blender polled Barack Obama and John McCain for their top 10 songs. Then we enlisted trusted sages Randy Newman and Girl Talk to analyze their picks.

http://www.blender.com/WhiteHouseDJBattle/articles/39518.aspx

As if I needed another reason to dislike McCain - he has 20% Abba on his list!! :eek:

[Michael P]

http://www.blender.com/WhiteHouseDJBattle/articles/39518.aspx

As if I needed another reason to dislike McCain - he has 20% Abba on his list!! :eek:

You have to wonder if he's just trying to capitalize on the Mamma Mia madness and pick up some more of the soccer mom vote. I mean, what other possible explanation can there be for it?

[the4thpip]

You have to wonder if he's just trying to capitalize on the Mamma Mia madness and pick up some more of the soccer mom vote. I mean, what other possible explanation can there be for it?

Half the PR people who compile that list are gay? Or Swedish? Or both?

http://www.bubbahunks.com/wp-content/freddie-ljungberg1.gif

[Infra-Man]

John McCain's campaign fails at copyright laws

http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/08/14/Jackson_Browne_sues_John_McCain/UPI-70481218740550/

Jackson Browne sues John McCain

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 14 (UPI) -- California singer-songwriter Jackson Browne has filed suit against Republican Sen. John McCain, charging copyright infringement and false endorsement.

Browne's suit comes in the wake of a new McCain television ad that uses Browne's 1978 hit "Running on Empty" in a television ad that mocks Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Browne, an Obama supporter, filed the action against the Arizona senator and the Republican National Committee in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the parties from using "Running on Empty" or any other Browne composition, as well as unspecified damages.

Browne will be releasing his first album of new material in six years, "Time of the Conqueror," on Sept. 23, accompanying it with a world tour.

First they use a Wayne's World clip without clearance for an ad, now this. Wonder what the next copyright violation will be.

[KevinTBrown]

Obama's campaign issues a 40-page rebuttal to Corsi's book of lies:

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080815/ap_on_el_pr/anti_obama_book

I love this comment: "Jerome Corsi is a discredited liar who is peddling another piece of garbage to continue the Bush-Cheney politics he helped perpetuate four years ago," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "His is just one of what will likely be many more lie-filled books rushed to print this election cycle, which are cobbled together from debunked Internet sources to make money and advance a partisan agenda. We will respond to these smears forcefully with all means at our disposal."

[darkhanamaru]

Half the PR people who compile that list are gay? Or Swedish? Or both?

http://www.bubbahunks.com/wp-content/freddie-ljungberg1.gif

leave freddie alone!!!!! he's hot and needs a new career!

......

is he really gay? can't remember.

[Royal]

http://www.blender.com/WhiteHouseDJBattle/articles/39518.aspx

As if I needed another reason to dislike McCain - he has 20% Abba on his list!! :eek:

McCain's is too ready made and hopelessly pandering.

No one (that I know) in NYC likes Mama Mia, but it's big in smaller areas.

Beach Boys is not only safe, but it's moth material to conservatives his age. He's also subcontiously a Mike Love fan. Probably turns up Kokomo.

Armstrong. Safe. Sinatra...safer upbeat.

Dooley. Too Safe. It's wrapped in bubblewrap.

Roy is interesting. Does he actually listen to the tune or is it nice to dance to?

[KevinTBrown]

And McCain's infidelity finally becomes an issue: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Bush_friend_and_Obama_supporter_raises_McCains_inf idelity.html

Of course, the GOP threatens to use the "Wright card".

The main difference there is McCain was fucking around behind his first wife's back and Wright just fucked up.

[Royal]

And McCain's infidelity finally becomes an issue: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0808/Bush_friend_and_Obama_supporter_raises_McCains_inf idelity.html

Of course, the GOP threatens to use the "Wright card".

The main difference there is McCain was fucking around behind his first wife's back and Wright just fucked up.

They also have a "GOP strategist" warning Obama away from character attacks, suggesting the party may play the Wright card if the Dems go down this road.

Should have thought about it before you pulled the "guilt by association" card. And if the dems don't see this as a bluff, I shall take it up as a member of the 3rd party.

McCain is a misogynist. He is no man. He's a fucking child. Real men don't leave their women because they lost their hot bod do to circumstances beyond their control.

[the4thpip]

leave freddie alone!!!!! he's hot and needs a new career!

......

is he really gay? can't remember.

I like to pretend to myself that he is.

[Buzz Dixon]

McCain is a misogynist. He is no man. He's a fucking child. Real men don't leave their women because they lost their hot bod do to circumstances beyond their control.It's a little more complex than that, since McCain had spent over 5 years in a POW camp. That sorta thing does have a negative effect on relationships. The combination of her accident, which by her own account changed her personality and outlook on life, thus making her a different person than the one who married McCain, and his torture, which doubtlessly changed his outlook on life, is what destroyed the relationship.

[rick]

It's a little more complex than that, since McCain had spent over 5 years in a POW camp. That sorta thing does have a negative effect on relationships. The combination of her accident, which by her own account changed her personality and outlook on life, thus making her a different person than the one who married McCain, and his torture, which doubtlessly changed his outlook on life, is what destroyed the relationship.


Or it could also just be that after being married for so many years, that he just couldn't stand her for another moment.

But whatever happened it definitly pissed off Nancy Reagan.....

McCain's broken marriage and fractured Reagan friendship
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,6546861.story)

[Matt Doc Martin]

It's a little more complex than that, since McCain had spent over 5 years in a POW camp. That sorta thing does have a negative effect on relationships. The combination of her accident, which by her own account changed her personality and outlook on life, thus making her a different person than the one who married McCain, and his torture, which doubtlessly changed his outlook on life, is what destroyed the relationship.

Just so long as he has a good reason to cheat.

[Samurai]

Just so long as he has a good reason to cheat.

He was divorced and then remarried... where is the proof he cheated?

[rick]

He was divorced and then remarried... where is the proof he cheated?


McCain himself admited to cheating Sam.

[the4thpip]

It's a little more complex than that, since McCain had spent over 5 years in a POW camp. That sorta thing does have a negative effect on relationships. The combination of her accident, which by her own account changed her personality and outlook on life, thus making her a different person than the one who married McCain, and his torture, which doubtlessly changed his outlook on life, is what destroyed the relationship.

That is not what the first Mrs McCain said in an interview I read. She said that their respective challenges had little to nothing to do with the breakup, but that it was down to John not wanting to be 40 years old and trying to be younger by being with a woman half his age.

[Corrina]

I really get very oogy when passing judgment on someone's marriage, whether it be Clinton or McCain or Edwards or Guiliani or Obama.

Now, Spitzer, I can pass judgment on because spending huge sums of money for an illegal enterprise that one has prosecuted in the past is just damn too stupid to live. Or too compulsive. Or whatever you call it. And the facts of the payments are clear. It's not heresy.

I have no idea what I can learn about public reports of the break-up of McCain's first marriage. First, I don't know the full story. And second, for all we really know, the first Mrs. McCain went crazy after her injuries and he's being a gentleman by not saying a word about it. Hey, I don't know if that's true. It's probably less likely to be true than McCain moving on without her to someone with more looks and money but here's the thing: I Don't Know.

It's like going after Anne Coulter's looks. There's so many damn reasons to blast her beyond her looks. With McCain, there's soo much good stuff on the record to blast him and we have to bring up the dissolution of a marriage that crumbled under pressures that most of us will never be under?

No, thanks. Not going there.

[Buzz Dixon]

The time line re McCain's first marriage is:

They marry
He goes to Vietnam and is captured for 5+ years
She's involved in a near fatal car accident that maims her
He returns from captivity
Marriage falls apart
He cheats while still married
They divorce
He remarries

There's a much different set of dynamics than what was at play with Edwards and Clinton.

However, to be fair, I'll give Edwards and Clinton the same consideration I give McCain...























.....after they spend 5+ years being tortured by Communists.

[KevinTBrown]

However, to be fair, I'll give Edwards and Clinton the same consideration I give McCain...




.....after they spend 5+ years being tortured by Communists.

A.K.A. the media.




:biggrin:

[Buzz Dixon]

Just finished watching the Saddleback Civic Forum re Rick Warren offering the same set of questions to Obama and McCain. as one of the talking heads afterwards observed, it was a laboratory perfect test of both candidates: More or less identical questions by the same interviewer in exactly the same environment.

Obama performed well, McCain performed better. I don't think either candidate made a serious gaffe (though each gave the other a sound bite that will doubtlessly find its way into attack ads). They answered in a straight forward manner most of the time, but both of them side stepped some issues as well.

I think the biggest negative for McCain in all this is, "Well, gosh, he's funny, he's personalable, but...geeze...he's old! And will he ever stop yapping about the Vietnam war?" Half the voters in this country were born after the Vietnam war; it is as meaningful to them as the Spanish-American War or the War of 1812.

Obama was bright and alert, but his presentation lacked the zing of McCain's. that being said, it seemed that he was actually listening to Warren's questions and responding, not firing off a pre-loaded campaign point. McCain often started answering Warren before Warren had even finished asking the question.

Bottom line: Neither was harmed, McCain probably picked up more supporters than Obama this round. I'd like to see more forums done in this format.

[Infra-Man]

McCain definitely came out on top in that forum. His answers were more succinct and direct and he got to showcase his affability. Obama seemed as if he was overanalyzing his word choice and phrasing, and wasn't really able to showcase the more likable parts of his personality since he was too mealy-mouthed.

Hopefully Obama gets a good debate coach because he's going to need to be more assertive and less prolix when he goes head-to-head with McCain.

[Michael P]

So Obama actually considered his answers and gave thoughtful responses, and McCain gave canned answers and at times seemed not to be even listening to the moderator, and McCain is the one who came off good?

Sometimes I just fucking hate this country.

[Samurai]

I agree that McCain clearly came out on top... it seemed to me that Obama was trying to avoid answering too many questions, and instead talk about related things in long-winded, rambling answers with too many umms and ahhhs (as usual when he's off teleprompter). Also, he had his head tilted about 30 degrees to the left... what was up with that?

[Samurai]

So Obama actually considered his answers and gave thoughtful responses, and McCain gave canned answers and at times seemed not to be even listening to the moderator, and McCain is the one who came off good?

Sometimes I just fucking hate this country.

Oooh, talk about a good soundbyte... :)

[Samurai]

http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/82952/At-Saddleback-Church,-Obama-Fails-to-Get-Back-in-the-Saddle.htm

At Saddleback Church, Obama Fails to Get Back in the Saddle
Posted by Robert Zimmer on 08.16.2008

McCain Shines While Obama’s Magic Appears to Have Been Left on Vacation

On Saturday night, Senator Barack Obama and his rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain, both appeared at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church to discuss the intersection of government and policy with faith and values. Before a nationally televised audience, Pastor Warren quizzed Obama and McCain (separately) about personal failings and the failings of America; abortion; the definition of marriage; social policy; and the relationship of faith-based charitable organizations vis-à-vis the government.

This was Obama's first high-profile public appearance after his weeklong Hawaiian vacation. He appeared first and though apparently in good spirits and rested, Obama was curiously listless, uninspiring, and in some cases simply boring with his legalistic, impersonal responses to deeply personal, profound – and fair – questions from Pastor Warren. McCain, in contrast, was crisp, funny, relaxed, focused, and seemingly genuine. At 71, McCain's energy onstage easily eclipsed the sleepy, professorial manner of Obama. McCain was specific and personal in discussing ideas and himself; Obama droned on in generalized, boilerplate banalities that shed no light on the nature of the man speaking. McCain could barely wait for Warren to finish his questions before pouncing and demonstrating an ease in wrapping his mind around any topic; Obama stuttered haltingly through his hour, his detachment making him appear more like a merely above-average law professor. A clear moral center and a clear set of governing principles seemed to emerge organically from McCain, whereas one got the sense that Obama is more comfortable with spirituality and morality as an abstract, intellectual zone where there is no wrong or right, merely a variety of interesting arguments.

Democrats should be concerned, and Republicans encouraged, as Senator Obama has looked smaller and distracted ever since his highly successful trip to the Middle East and Europe. Obama had little gravitas tonight when the moment required it. McCain looked not only like a president, but a man whom you can admire even if you don't agree with him on everything. It is increasingly difficult to tell what Obama's campaign is about, besides itself and oh, yeah, some basic boilerplate Democratic stuff.

The Obama who showed up tonight is going to lose to the McCain that showed up tonight if Obama doesn't shake off his ennui and wake back up. Summer vacation is over for Obama, and for most Americans soon as well. The American public generally starts to pay closer attention to presidential elections after Labor Day, which means Obama's campaign has some time to recalibrate. The Obama campaign should be glad most people were watching the Olympics on Saturday night. It was one of Obama's worst nights and John McCain's best of the campaign.

[kingdom2000]

....after they spend 5+ years being tortured by Communists.[/RIGHT]

I am getting sick and f#$@ing tired using his more then 35 years ago capativity as an excuse for McCain's bad behavior. Hell as far as I can tell he cheated on his wife because she was maimed not because he was tortured. I honestly don't care but quit citing the above as a bullshit excuse for shitty behavior. You either disagree with the action or you don't. The above could work as an explanation but its not being used that way.

Frankly considering the frequency it comes up as an excuse for verbal, memory, flip flipping and pretty much everything else under the sun for things done in the here and now rather then 20 or 30 years ago, its now become an excuse to NOT vote for him. If he starts a war are we all going to hear "he was tortured for fives years (35 years ago), what do you expect?" When he starts that war with Iran that no one wants or truly does do four more disastrous years of Bush, will "he was tortured for five years" going to continue to be an acceptable excuse? Should we put in office someone who is apparnetly showing unreliable behavior in critical thinking areas due to an experience from 35 years ago?

Hell he flip flipped on torture. He thinks tortue is a good thing and should be used and yet anytime he needs sympathy out comes the "whoa is me I was tortured so vote for me". Does anyone not see the contradiction there? Torture is wrong when he needs it for the endless supply of political currently it provides to the idiotic populace that eat that shit, but its ok otherwise. Oh but he was tortured for five years (35 years ago) so the contradictions and reversal is ok.

He will continue to trot that line for votes but you don't have to help him do it. The excuse is no longer acceptable and people need to stop eating it up and especially stop using it. I see it and pretty much any respect for someone's intelligence goes right out the window.

[FalconX2000]

I watched it. I think many people, including Chuck Todd, were looking at this from too much of a textbook perspective. This wasn't a debate. These were back to back conversation/interviews with the primary target audience being evangelicals. Obama, more so than McCain, needed to soften their disposition, get them to listen by saying something fresh.

Thus he talked in a personable way, which the format allowed for because there was no chance of him being cut off by McCain or the clock. Hell, he even stopped himself midway through "It's not about me, it's about...(would have said American people)" because he didn't want to spout rhetoric when asking a question about his greatest failing in life. He was fantastic.

[Buzz Dixon]

Thus he talked in a personable way, which the format allowed for because there was no chance of him being cut off by McCain or the clock. Hell, he even stopped himself midway through "It's not about me, it's about...(would have said American people)" because he didn't want to spout rhetoric when asking a question about his greatest failing in life. He was fantastic.That was a humorous reference to Rick Warren's book, THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE. It begins with "It's not about you."

[Adam C]

Oooh, talk about a good soundbyte... :)

Which of course will never top "It's not an anti-gay camp..."

[rick]

McCain did not come off better than Obama, he simply had an audience that was more receptive of his views then they were of Obamas.

Frankly it was a brave campaign action by Obama to go before a group that more or less, does not support him and do his best to give full and in-depth answers.

It didn't hurt McCain, this is true, but it certainly helped Obama.

[LtMarvel]

That was still more informative than Sam's last post...

[FalconX2000]

That was a humorous reference to Rick Warren's book, THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE. It begins with "It's not about you."

Ah, interesting perspective. Obama probably meant that, but alot of people would probably take it another way since they haven't read the book.

[Infra-Man]

So Obama actually considered his answers and gave thoughtful responses, and McCain gave canned answers and at times seemed not to be even listening to the moderator, and McCain is the one who came off good?

Given the perception game of politics, yes, McCain came out on top. Sure, he was playing to a politically sympathetic audience, but he was able to play up his campaign's message whereas Obama didn't have as much of a chance to shine save for a little scripture quoting.

It was good of the Obama campaign to do this, but I don't know that it helped him with the audience and the voting group he was speaking to (i.e., his abortion answer probably turned off a lot of evangelicals).

[Infra-Man]

McCain did not come off better than Obama, he simply had an audience that was more receptive of his views then they were of Obamas.

Frankly it was a brave campaign action by Obama to go before a group that more or less, does not support him and do his best to give full and in-depth answers.

It didn't hurt McCain, this is true, but it certainly helped Obama.

I think it probably helped McCain with the evangelicals, actually, since he outright stated that he's pro-life, that life starts at conception, that he'll have a pro-life administration, and that he would never have appointed the liberal judges on the Supreme Court.

[Corrina]

Given the perception game of politics, yes, McCain came out on top. Sure, he was playing to a politically sympathetic audience, but he was able to play up his campaign's message whereas Obama didn't have as much of a chance to shine save for a little scripture quoting.



It'll probably help Obama that pretty much everyone was watching the Olympics & Michael Phelps get his eight gold medal.

[Infra-Man]

I will say, three particular things McCain did last night did rub me the wrong way:

1) Suggesting that homeschooling provided as viable an education as a public or private school. My impression of most homeschooled children is that they are homeschooled because their parents don't want their children to learn about things that may cause them to question their faith; and that's the last thing we need, right? Independent thinkers? Pshaw.

2) His dismissive, anti-intellectual, and blunt-headed comments concerning a study of bears and their DNA that cost $3 million. What makes the scientific study of bears and their DNA an example of wasteful spending, particularly if this research adds to a body of other research that helps us understand the complexity and beauty of the world?

And furthermore, okay, that's $3 million for that study. What about the $2.4 billion we spend on the Iraq war each week, bucko?

3) His refusal to define who is rich in this country and resorting instead to the platitude (paraphrased) "Some people with a lot of wealth are not happy." Lots of middle class and poor people aren't happy either, you mook. At least have the brass to say some number.

[Paul McEnery]

I will say, three particular things McCain did last night did rub me the wrong way:

1) Suggesting that homeschooling provided as viable an education as a public or private school. My impression of most homeschooled children is that they are homeschooled because their parents don't want their children to learn about things that may cause them to question their faith; and that's the last thing we need, right? Independent thinkers? Pshaw.

2) His dismissive, anti-intellectual, and blunt-headed comments concerning a study of bears and their DNA that cost $3 million. What makes the scientific study of bears and their DNA an example of wasteful spending, particularly if this research adds to a body of other research that helps us understand the complexity and beauty of the world?

And furthermore, okay, that's $3 million for that study. What about the $2.4 billion we spend on the Iraq war each week, bucko?

3) His refusal to define who is rich in this country and resorting instead to the platitude (paraphrased) "Some people with a lot of wealth are not happy." Lots of middle class and poor people aren't happy either, you mook. At least have the brass to say some number.

Whether McCain did well depends on whether or not you like pandering to the far right.

He said he wouldn't have appointed any of the "liberal" Supreme Court judges. This makes him further to the right than Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan.

He said fetal rights begin at conception.

He declared himself a born-again Christian in a way that played along with Warren's line of thought; i.e. you're not a real Christian unless you've drunk the Fundamentalist Kool-Aid..

And as for home-schooling: You're absolutely right, Infra-Man; that's all about indoctrinating children into the cult.

[Buzz Dixon]

1) Suggesting that homeschooling provided as viable an education as a public or private school. My impression of most homeschooled children is that they are homeschooled because their parents don't want their children to learn about things that may cause them to question their faith; and that's the last thing we need, right? Independent thinkers? Pshaw.No, most home schooled kids are home schooled because parents want them to actually learn something. The majority of home schooled kids do better than their public school peers not just educationally but emotionally and socially as well. Home schooling does not mean no monitoring of their progress by the state; if one wishes to teach one's children at home one has to meet the criteria of one's state.

The big advantage home schooled kids have over public and private school kids is that they are not held back or distracted by other students who prefer being disruptive.

[Grazzt]

No, most home schooled kids are home schooled because parents want them to actually learn something. The majority of home schooled kids do better than their public school peers not just educationally but emotionally and socially as well. Home schooling does not mean no monitoring of their progress by the state; if one wishes to teach one's children at home one has to meet the criteria of one's state.

The big advantage home schooled kids have over public and private school kids is that they are not held back or distracted by other students who prefer being disruptive.

You know, the bolded part seems counterintuitive to me. I would imagine that not spending as much time around your peers would leave you far worse in those two areas, especially socially.

Also, while the number of children home schooled for religious or "moral" reasons isn't the majority, it's still 30%. That's a pretty large chunk.

[Samurai]

You know, the bolded part seems counterintuitive to me. I would imagine that not spending as much time around your peers would leave you far worse in those two areas, especially socially.

Also, while the number of children home schooled for religious or "moral" reasons isn't the majority, it's still 30%. That's a pretty large chunk.

Not if the kids would have been the targets of bullies and abuse, and their beliefs ridiculed and belittled.

[Grazzt]

Not if the kids would have been the targets of bullies and abuse, and their beliefs ridiculed and belittled.

Yes, you're saving them some pain, but you're also denying them the opportunity to experience different view points, meet and befriend people that their parents might not necessarily approve of, learn how to properly interact with people you don't really like or despise, etc.

[Infra-Man]

No, most home schooled kids are home schooled because parents want them to actually learn something. The majority of home schooled kids do better than their public school peers not just educationally but emotionally and socially as well. Home schooling does not mean no monitoring of their progress by the state; if one wishes to teach one's children at home one has to meet the criteria of one's state.

The big advantage home schooled kids have over public and private school kids is that they are not held back or distracted by other students who prefer being disruptive.

"Most" was probably a bad choice of words. I think there are merits to homeschooling in a couple of circumstances (e.g., an extremely gifted child whose intelligence is beyond his or her own peers, lack of good schools in the area, extreme physical or mental disabilities, etc.), but it seems like the religious matter creeps into many circumstances.

I checked out the stats on homeschooling compiled in 2003 by the National Center for Education Statistics that Grazzt seemed to cite. They had these results:

31% - Concern about environment of other schools
30% - To provide religious or moral instruction
16% - Dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools
9% - Other reasons
7% - Child has a physical or mental health problem
7% - Child has other special needs

I'm wondering how much of "Concern about environment of other schools" and "Dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools" involved an unstated religious component (e.g., concern about lack of prayer in school, sex education, evolution, etc.). The wording here is pretty broad.

It'd be interesting to see a better breakdown and analysis of reasons for homeschooling in the future, one in which parents who homeschool their children could list and rank five or so reasons they decided to homeschool their children (e.g., child is gifted, to provide religious/moral instruction, child is physically disabled, objection to sex education, objection to evolution, lack of academic rigor, school environment is harmful to child, etc.).

[Paul McEnery]

No, most home schooled kids are home schooled because parents want them to actually learn something.

No they aren't. From Wiki:

According to the U.S. DOE's "Homeschooling in the United States: 2003", 85 percent of homeschooling parents cited "the social environments of other forms of schooling" (including safety, drugs, bullying and negative peer-pressure) as an important reason why they homeschool. 72 percent cited "to provide religious or moral instruction" as an important reason, and 68 percent cited "dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools."[10] 7 percent cited "Child has physical or mental health problem", 7 percent cited "Child has other special needs", 9 percent cited "Other reasons" (including "child's choice," "allows parents more control of learning" and "flexibility").[10]

So that's 72% religious nuts and 14% developmental disorders.

The key figure here is the 68% "dissatisfaction with academic instruction", which I think we can all see, in the context of 72% religious nuts, means "might learn something I don't want them to".

[Infra-Man]

Whoa, 72%? Dayum. If that is the case, "most" is a fitting word for this discussion.

[Grazzt]

Whoa, 72%? Dayum. If that is the case, "most" is a fitting word for this discussion.

I suppose the stats we were using were based on "most important", whereas Paul's are all reasons.

[Infra-Man]

I suppose the stats we were using were based on "most important", whereas Paul's are all reasons.

Could be. The wording on surveys like this (both the question/prompt and the possible responses) would definitely affect the outcome of the numbers.

[Sabrinaset]

Yes, you're saving them some pain, but you're also denying them the opportunity to experience different view points, meet and befriend people that their parents might not necessarily approve of, learn how to properly interact with people you don't really like or despise, etc.

You'll never learn how to deal with those the correct way in jr. high or high school...and I say this as someone who spent her 9th grade on Independent Study. Essentially I was home-schooled that year. I'm glad I started college early and dealt with real people instead.

[Paul McEnery]

I suppose the stats we were using were based on "most important", whereas Paul's are all reasons.

Subtract the 33% from the 72%. That's 39%. 39 over 72 times 100 gives us 54% and change.

That's the percentage of religious nuts who are utterly dishonest.

[Grazzt]

You'll never learn how to deal with those the correct way in jr. high or high school...and I say this as someone who spent her 9th grade on Independent Study. Essentially I was home-schooled that year. I'm glad I started college early and dealt with real people instead.

Yes, but you are rather exceptional. I learned a lot about how to deal with idiots in high school, although I suppose some of that came from the part-time job I was working as well.

[beetlebum]

"Most" was probably a bad choice of words. I think there are merits to homeschooling in a couple of circumstances (e.g., an extremely gifted child whose intelligence is beyond his or her own peers, lack of good schools in the area, extreme physical or mental disabilities, etc.), but it seems like the religious matter creeps into many circumstances.

I checked out the stats on homeschooling compiled in 2003 by the National Center for Education Statistics that Grazzt seemed to cite. They had these results:

31% - Concern about environment of other schools
30% - To provide religious or moral instruction
16% - Dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools
9% - Other reasons
7% - Child has a physical or mental health problem
7% - Child has other special needs

I'm wondering how much of "Concern about environment of other schools" and "Dissatisfaction with academic instruction at other schools" involved an unstated religious component (e.g., concern about lack of prayer in school, sex education, evolution, etc.). The wording here is pretty broad.

It'd be interesting to see a better breakdown and analysis of reasons for homeschooling in the future, one in which parents who homeschool their children could list and rank five or so reasons they decided to homeschool their children (e.g., child is gifted, to provide religious/moral instruction, child is physically disabled, objection to sex education, objection to evolution, lack of academic rigor, school environment is harmful to child, etc.).


I would just like to point out that MacQuarrie home schooled his kids - and he's far from a religious nut.

There are many emergent factors that lead to homeschooling.

As this link (http://kapio.kcc.hawaii.edu/upload/fullnews.php?id=52) shows us, the US was ranked 18th out of 24 nations surveyed, in terms of education.

With that being said, I can understand why some parents would pull kids out of the public school system in order to educate them.

I myself was home schooled; but it was a choice that I made. During my sophomore year of high school, I chose to be home schooled because I was tired of all the drama, and the catty mean girl bs that went on in public schools.

And something that the opponents of home schooling seem to overlook is; in some cases, you can still attend all of the school functions and participate in on campus activities at certain high schools. I knew a girl who was also home schooled, and was still an active member of a local high school's cheerleading squad.

I myself had the option of attending school dances, and other on campus activities (I chose not to, but that was for other reasons.)

I just felt that attending a public school was too distracting, and that I needed a break. There are many decisions that I made during my teenage years that I eventually came to regret, but being home schooled was not one of them.

[Infra-Man]

I would just like to point out that MacQuarrie home schooled his kids - and he's far from a religious nut.

There are many emergent factors that lead to homeschooling.

As this link (http://kapio.kcc.hawaii.edu/upload/fullnews.php?id=52) shows us, the US was ranked 18th out of 24 nations surveyed, in terms of education.

With that being said, I can understand why some parents would pull kids out of the public school system in order to educate them.

I myself was home schooled; but it was a choice that I made. During my sophomore year of high school, I chose to be home schooled because I was tired of all the drama, and the catty mean girl bs that went on in public schools.

And something that the opponents of home schooling seem to overlook is; in some cases, you can still attend all of the school functions and participate in on campus activities at certain high schools. I knew a girl who was also home schooled, and was still an active member of a local high school's cheerleading squad.

I myself had the option of attending school dances, and other on campus activities (I chose not to, but that was for other reasons.)

I just felt that attending a public school was too distracting, and that I needed a break. There are many decisions that I made during my teenage years that I eventually came to regret, but being home schooled was not one of them.

I didn't mean to impugn all people who have been homeschooled or the parents who decided to homeschool their children. My initial post should have been worded better, so I'll make a few changes here in light of anecdotes and numbers I was not aware of.

That post should have addressed the audience McCain was speaking to (evangelicals) and how the suggestion of the viability of homeschool inferred that there was genuine intellectual credence to their religious motivations for homeschooling their children (e.g., objection to sex ed, lack of prayer in schools, objection to evolution, etc.), when in reality such motivations are geared at indoctrination and inhibiting independent thought rather than fostering a genuine hunger for new ideas and appreciating inquiry.

This taken in combination with McCain's claim that scientific research on the DNA of bears was a waste of taxpayer money plays to the anti-science and anti-intellectual viewpoints of the evangelical base, and his dismissal also lends credence (at least in the eyes of evangelicals) to these anti-science and anti-intellectual viewpoints.

[beetlebum]

I didn't mean to impugn all people who have been homeschooled or the parents who decided to homeschool their children. My initial post should have been worded better, so I'll make a few changes here in light of anecdotes and numbers I was not aware of.

That post should have addressed the audience McCain was speaking to (evangelicals) and how the suggestion of the viability of homeschool inferred that there was genuine intellectual credence to their religious motivations for homeschooling their children (e.g., objection to sex ed, lack of prayer in schools, objection to evolution, etc.), when in reality such motivations are geared at indoctrination and inhibiting independent thought rather than fostering a genuine hunger for new ideas and appreciating inquiry.

This taken in combination with McCain's claim that scientific research on the DNA of bears was a waste of taxpayer money plays to the anti-science and anti-intellectual viewpoints of the evangelical base, and his dismissal also lends credence to these anti-science and anti-intellectual viewpoints.

Ah - okay, gotcha. And hey, it's cool. :cool:

Also, I don't think that you were impugning people who were home schooled, or are currently home schooling their kids.

My post also addressed those who have pre-conceived assumptions about those who are home schooled, and I was trying to give them a different perspective on the issue.

[Infra-Man]

Ah - okay, gotcha. And hey, it's cool. :cool:

Also, I don't think that you were impugning people who were home schooled, or are currently home schooling their kids.

My post also addressed those who have pre-conceived assumptions about those who are home schooled, and I was trying to give them a different perspective on the issue.

I'm down with that. And hey, I learned something new today, so that's keen. I owe you a chocolate muffin.

[beetlebum]

I'm down with that. And hey, I learned something new today, so that's keen. I owe you a chocolate muffin.

And this is why Infra's one of my favourite posters. ;) :smile:

[Infra-Man]

And this is why Infra's one of my favourite posters. ;) :smile:

Ditto, beeb.

[Buzz Dixon]

You know, the bolded part seems counterintuitive to me. I would imagine that not spending as much time around your peers would leave you far worse in those two areas, especially socially.A lot of people think that, but fail to realize that home schooled kids are also participants in little league sports, arts and music classes outside the home, scouts, church activities, etc.

[Corrina]

Also, people forget that high school is not always the best place to learn social skills.

When I checked into homeschooling for my kids, I found there are a lot of local groups with activities at least twice a week. They would not have lacked for social interaction. A lot of gifted children end up in homeschooling because the school system just isn't set up to deal with them---gifted programs are considered a luxury. Or then the gifted kids cause a problem because they're bored out of their minds.

And so they end up in remedial programs instead of being challenged.

The guy who just won a bronze for Great Britain on the pommel horse was a constant behavior problem in school. They kept sending him to the gym as punishment and particularly to work out his anger on the pommel horse. It sorta backfired, but in a good way for him.

Obama was homeschooled by his mom to supplement some of his education when they were out of the country, IIRC. He would have been smart to mention this during the session.

[Sabrinaset]

Also, people forget that high school is not always the best place to learn social skills.

I could have stayed in school and learned how to use a gun just as fast as Daddy taught me at home. Maybe faster!

What ... that ISN'T what lunch break is for? :confused:

[beetlebum]

I could have stayed in school and learned how to use a gun just as fast as Daddy taught me at home. Maybe faster!

What ... that ISN'T what lunch break is for? :confused:

I thought it was for getting drunk behind the band room while trying to get the person that you're buying an ounce from to lower their prices.

http://www.fanforum.com/images/smilies/shrug.gif

[Michael P]

A lot of gifted children end up in homeschooling because the school system just isn't set up to deal with them---gifted programs are considered a luxury. Or then the gifted kids cause a problem because they're bored out of their minds.

And so they end up in remedial programs instead of being challenged.

This very nearly happened to me. My parents went so far as to get me IQ tested.

[section 8]

I could have stayed in school and learned how to use a gun just as fast as Daddy taught me at home. Maybe faster!

What ... that ISN'T what lunch break is for? :confused:

In my highschool we were searced for firearms...

anyone caught without one was issued one at the door.

[Paul McEnery]

Before we get carried away with the anecdotes about homeschooling, let's put it back into context. Homeschooling, for the religious right, is a trojan horse issue, just like school vouchers.

Heaven forfend we should think like a community, fund our schools properly, and all get the same high level of education, and all learn the same true things whether they're uncomfortable truths or not.

And heaven forfend the crazy Christians should have to think like members of the community rather than a cult who'll only join in if they can have their way.

[beetlebum]

Yes, I get that they're are Christians who do use the home schooling issue as a 'Trojan horse' for their agenda.

But the point that Sabrina, Corrina, and I were trying to make is that there are a variety of reasons why people choose to go into Independent Studies, or educate their kids at home.

Reforming our education system will take time. Until then, I don't see why people who felt the way I did should have to suffer in a public school system, when we could (or as I did) fare much better in intimate settings.

[Samurai]

Yes, I get that they're are Christians who do use the home schooling issue as a 'Trojan horse' for their agenda.

But the point that Sabrina, Corrina, and I were trying to make is that there are a variety of reasons why people choose to go into Independent Studies, or educate their kids at home.

Reforming our education system will take time. Until then, I don't see why people who felt the way I did should have to suffer in a public school system, when we could (or as I did) fare much better in intimate settings.

Because it's harder for you to receive the proper liberal indoctrination if you don't go to the schools liberals have spent so much time and effort to take over. Harder, but not impossible...

Still, with lines like "all learn the same true things whether they're uncomfortable truths or not", Paul shows that he's conserved about some kids growing up without the proper indoctrination, and such free thinkers could be very bad for his utopian society. They'll have to be censored and silenced later on in life, when it would just be so much easier to properly (re-)educate them when they are young...

[DavidAllred]

Heaven forfend we should think like a community, fund our schools properly, and all get the same high level of education, and all learn the same true things whether they're uncomfortable truths or not.

There's little evidence to support that funding our schools "properly" has had any effect on education over the past thirty years. In fact, there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. It's the same song and dance that politicians have been crying for the last 40 years, because my gosh, who could ever be against education spending???

[Paul McEnery]

And again, here we spot the far right playing "I know I am, but what are you?"

Since the far right thinks of education entirely in terms of indoctrination, naturally, the liberals must think that way too.

Heaven forfend there might be an objective reality out there we can discover through the scientific method.

[Paul McEnery]

There's little evidence to support that funding our schools "properly" has had any effect on education over the past thirty years. In fact, there's quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. It's the same song and dance that politicians have been crying for the last 40 years, because my gosh, who could ever be against education spending???

I got an excellent education through publicly funded schooling, so I'm pretty sure it must be possible.

I'm also pretty sure that public schools have been gutted over the last 30 years of Republican rule (bearing in mind that most of Clinton's presidency was dominated by Gingrich). Certainly the last seven and a half have had a lot of money wasted by Bush's idiotic ideas.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, I get that they're are Christians who do use the home schooling issue as a 'Trojan horse' for their agenda.

But the point that Sabrina, Corrina, and I were trying to make is that there are a variety of reasons why people choose to go into Independent Studies, or educate their kids at home.


For no more than 10% of the home school population.

Although I do recall one poor kid in England who had an insane Munchauseny father who lived his life through her, pushed her way over the top academically so that she went up to Oxford while still in her mid-teens, and boy was she a mess. Not in the least bit healthy, and that's part of the 10%, too.

I also note the goalpost shifting about additional schooling at home. That's not what home schooling means.

[beetlebum]

I wasn't moving the goal posts. Independent Studies is home schooling.

http://www.homeschool.com/resources01/IndependentStudy.asp

Also, I find your numbers to be very subjective, and this is nothing more than you playing semantics.

EDIT: I should also point out that Independent Studies means not attending classes on campus - though you are free to participate in after school activities at certain schools.

So technically - you're still home schooled.

[rick]

We get a lot of kids at the University who had been home schooled and almost to a one, they are well educated, but also almost to a one, they have no social skills to speak of.

So if you are going to home school, that's great, but you must, and I mean must make sure that your kid still has major interaction with other pepople their age, be that through scouting, church groups, sports leagues or whatever.

Otherwise the education part is pretty much wasted.

[Infra-Man]

We get a lot of kids at the University who had been home schooled and almost to a one, they are well educated, but also almost to a one, they have no social skills to speak of.

So if you are going to home school, that's great, but you must, and I mean must make sure that your kid still has major interaction with other pepople their age, be that through scouting, church groups, sports leagues or whatever.

Otherwise the education part is pretty much wasted.

What are admissions like for homeschooled kids at the university? They have to take the SAT or ACT, obviously, but what about grades, extra curricular activities, class credits, etc.?

[section 8]

Before we get carried away with the anecdotes about homeschooling, let's put it back into context. Homeschooling, for the religious right, is a trojan horse issue, just like school vouchers.

Heaven forfend we should think like a community, fund our schools properly, and all get the same high level of education, and all learn the same true things whether they're uncomfortable truths or not.

And heaven forfend the crazy Christians should have to think like members of the community rather than a cult who'll only join in if they can have their way.

Heaven forbid these same Christians feel like members of the community, rather than be called "crazy" by people who do not understand them nor have the desire to do so.

I used to date a girl who was home schooled, while she and her family were Christian, you would not know it unless you asked them about their beliefs.
they were down to earth, polite, ordinary people who had their own beliefs, and didn't look down upon those who didn't share those beliefs.

also, meeting this girl completely changed my view on home schooling, she was incredibly smart, clever, sexy , charming, and witty.


(naturally she had the power to destroy me completely)

[Infra-Man]

Because it's harder for you to receive the proper liberal indoctrination if you don't go to the schools liberals have spent so much time and effort to take over. Harder, but not impossible...

Still, with lines like "all learn the same true things whether they're uncomfortable truths or not", Paul shows that he's conserved about some kids growing up without the proper indoctrination, and such free thinkers could be very bad for his utopian society. They'll have to be censored and silenced later on in life, when it would just be so much easier to properly (re-)educate them when they are young...

Indoctrination per se has no political affiliation, so let's get all the "liberals, boogieboogieboogie-boo" and "conservatives, boogieboogieboogie-boo" crap out of the way and say that parents should teach their children to ask questions, to question authority, to love acquiring knowledge and being exposed to new ideas, and to love inquiry.

We need a plurality of ideas, that's for certain, but it's best that those who possess these ideas arrived at their ideas through critical thinking rather than by intellectual capitulation.

EDIT:
This goes for the the chowderheads who won't even consider the evidence for evolution as well as the jamooks that wear Che Guevara stuff but know absolutely nothing about Che or Castro.

[Michael P]

There's little evidence to support that funding our schools "properly" has had any effect on education over the past thirty years.

Probably because we haven't been funding them properly at all.

[Infra-Man]

Hey, guess what...

McCain was not in a "cone of silence" during the first half of the forum.

Video of CNN's Rick Sanchez asking Pastor Rick Warren about this (starts at about 50 seconds):
http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/08/video-pastor-rick-confirms-mccain-not.html

Transcript
SANCHEZ: Hey, let me ask you about this. Last night I heard you say that McCain would be in a cone of silence. And then a half hour into the event, I hear our guys here at our political desk announce that McCain has just arrived at the worship center. And I'm thinking, you know, hey, if he just arrived at the worship center, he couldn't have been in the cone of silence, right?

WARREN: Yeah, well, that's true, he was in a cone of, of, Secret Service motorcade, that's exactly for sure.

SANCHEZ: But you said, and I'm going to quote you, I'm going to press you just a little bit on this, because I love this cone of silence thing and I want to borrow this with my four kids at home, by the way. "We flipped a coin," you said, "and we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence." That's what you said. When you said that, did you think he was in the building?

WARREN: Actually, yes, I did. There was actually a question I got to Senator Obama in advance that I didn't get to Senator McCain because he wasn't there. I actually wrote down on a piece of paper the very first question because I wanted them both to be relaxed, and I said, "Here's the very first question," I gave it to both of them to ask that. But I also told Senator Obama that there was one question where I was going to ask for a commitment about "Would you allow a PEPFAR-type of President's emergency plan for orphans," and I thought if I was going to ask for a public commitment, I ought to let him know in advance. I got to tell Barack Obama that in advance, I did not get to tell John McCain that in advance.

SANCHEZ: Just out of fairness--I mean, look, this is CNN, we try to be as exact as we possibly can. I just wanted to get it on the record, and of course there are going to be people out there, Pastor, that say, "Well, if he wasn't there like a half hour after the event started, what would have stopped him from watching an event that was on all three channels"--that was on the radio, there's blackberries, there's the internet, there's everything else. I guess you don't know and I don't know whether he had the questions or not.

WARREN: You know what? In the first place, we asked him. We flat our asked him. Did you hear any of the deba--I mean, any of the discussion? And I trust the integrity of both John McCain and Barack Obama that they said they would abide by the rules. They knew the rules way in advance that I would not give them the questions. I did tell them all of the themes and went through all of the themes and said, "Here's the kind of questions, the themes I'm going to deal with, I'm probably going to throw out a question about the economy, I'm probably going to throw out a question about climate change," which, by the way, I never got to, and a number of other issues, but I would not give them the wording. For instance, it's one thing to say "I may ask you a question about the courts," but it's another question to say, "Which of the existing Supreme Court would you not appoint?"

SANCHEZ: And let's be fair. We called Senator McCain's office and they said "No, we did not listen, we did not know" so what you're saying is part of that we're just going to have to go on the honor system, and we certainly respect that.

[KevinTBrown]

Bobby Jindal, who's the Governor of LA as well as Indian-American, rules himself out as McCain's VP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080817/pl_afp/usvotevprepublicanjindal

I'd like to take this time to also rule myself out as McCain's running mate, too.

[DavidAllred]

Probably because we haven't been funding them properly at all.

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ed-trend.gif

I'm just not convinced that money is the answer. You see, it's never been a question of cost. It's always been a question of value. Until we raise the value of education among our over-saturated, "mom-and-dad will buy it for me" teenagers, not much is going to change.

PS -- check out those miserable Reagan years. About the only gains we had.

[rick]

What are admissions like for homeschooled kids at the university? They have to take the SAT or ACT, obviously, but what about grades, extra curricular activities, class credits, etc.?

One of the reason we get so many home schooled kids is that we have a special program designed to introduce students to regular university classes as well as help with placement.

[Nick Soapdish]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ed-trend.gif

I'm just not convinced that money is the answer. You see, it's never been a question of cost. It's always been a question of value. Until we raise the value of education among our over-saturated, "mom-and-dad will buy it for me" teenagers, not much is going to change.

PS -- check out those miserable Reagan years. About the only gains we had.

It's also a question of where we're spending our money.

I think that classroom size is an important issue.I got to take a bunch of gifted classes which were mandated to be much smaller. I also took some classes that were merely honors and they weren't. Sometimes, I could learn a lot in those classes and sometimes, the teacher could barely control the class. That was an issue much less often in the gifted classes - although putting a bunch of teenagers (that already think they know everything) together and having repeatedly emphasized to them that they're gifted can also lead to a certain amount of disrespect for those teachers. I know that I thought my freshman gifted biology teacher wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

There's also an issue of unequal distribution of money to schools. Since it's by property taxes, citizens feel that their property taxes should be going specifically to their school. So the newest high school in our town which serves the wealthiest part of our town (and moved their kids out of the other schools) also seems to be getting the most money for renovations and upgrades. And it's barely ten years old. Meanwhile, other schools are on the verge of falling apart.

I've heard that the administration is a bit top-heavy in terms of salary and in terms of number of employees. Not sure how accurate that is though. There is a bit of a problem with good teachers moving into the admin positions - either because of burnout or because it's where the money is.

But I agree that just putting more money into the problem isn't all of the solution. Some of the other parts of the solution simply aren't the government's place, but we should be attacking it from more than just the one angle.

[Joe Rice]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ed-trend.gif

I'm just not convinced that money is the answer. You see, it's never been a question of cost. It's always been a question of value. Until we raise the value of education among our over-saturated, "mom-and-dad will buy it for me" teenagers, not much is going to change.

PS -- check out those miserable Reagan years. About the only gains we had.

It's been said but it's not the money spent, it's where the money is spent.

[FalconX2000]

If high school teachers taught with a similar attitude to University lecturers (though of course with different content), I'd think it would improve schools immeasurably. I know I found class boring in primary and secondary school, ok when I went to Australia for foundation program and phenomenal now in University.

[Paul McEnery]

I wasn't moving the goal posts. Independent Studies is home schooling.

http://www.homeschool.com/resources01/IndependentStudy.asp

Also, I find your numbers to be very subjective, and this is nothing more than you playing semantics.

EDIT: I should also point out that Independent Studies means not attending classes on campus - though you are free to participate in after school activities at certain schools.

So technically - you're still home schooled.

No. Technically, you're really really not. You're enrolled. And it's only for grades 9-12. That's not home school. It's certainly not what the crazy Christians are after.

Also, the numbers aren't even slightly subjective. They're right there in the DOE study.

[beetlebum]

No. Technically, you're really really not. You're enrolled. And it's only for grades 9-12. That's not home school. It's certainly not what the crazy Christians are after.

Also, the numbers aren't even slightly subjective. They're right there in the DOE study.

Right; so the school district that I was once apart of and the State of California - which considers Independent Studies a part of home schooling - are wrong. :rolleyes:

Seriously.

http://www.trafford.gov.uk/EducationAndLearning/SchoolsAndColleges/HomeSchooling

http://www.mvwsd.org/index.php?Itemid=361&id=264&option=com_content&task=view

The Complete Idiot's Guide To Homeschooling. (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ur_qaNhWCdQC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=Independent+study+home+school&source=web&ots=flfI6JIu-E&sig=wiOhxkcnK9h7J0B4LWB-BHoMNL0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result)

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

California Private School Satellite Programs (http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/regional/CaliforniaCovers.htm)

Just because it's not done independently does not mean that it's not a part of home studies.

As they say on the playground, I do believe that you have just been schooled. ;)

As for the "subjective" part; I disagree.

Yes, there are Christians who educate their kids at home in order to indoctrinate them; but Corrina has admitted that she has looked into home schooling, and there are people like MacQ who feel that they can provide a better education for their kids than the public school system can.

And let's not forget about the anecdote Section 8 told. As I said earlier, there are many reasons why people choose to home school their kids - or to go into Independent Studies - and it's not fair to lump them in with the "fundies."

[the4thpip]

N

The big advantage home schooled kids have over public and private school kids is that they are not held back or distracted by other students who prefer being disruptive.

How will that prepare them for the work place? Have you ever watched "The Office"? :eek:

[Grazzt]

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/ed-trend.gif

I'm just not convinced that money is the answer. You see, it's never been a question of cost. It's always been a question of value. Until we raise the value of education among our over-saturated, "mom-and-dad will buy it for me" teenagers, not much is going to change.

PS -- check out those miserable Reagan years. About the only gains we had.

So how does that chart correspond with inflation? Does it factor in the fact that students need to learn more than they used to, to be competitive in a high-tech environment?

[cactusmaac]

Constant dollars means it's been adjusted for inflation\deflation.

[Grazzt]

Constant dollars means it's been adjusted for inflation\deflation.

Didn't see that. Thanks maac. :redface:

[the4thpip]

How much of that money has been going to the tests required under "No child left behind" in recent years, and how much of THAT wen to George's brother Neil Bush's company?

[DavidAllred]

One thing is for sure though, if you took that chart and showed progress among for black and Hispanic students, it would look different. I think the extra money in education is worth it for that reason alone.

Contrary to what most people will tell you, No Child Left Behind -- as flawed as the law is -- is doing exactly what it was designed to do. By forcing schools to focus on dissaggregated race and gender data, the law is able to direct money at the areas of greatest needs.

That's one reason why the last five years have given rise to better gains in minority reading scores than the previous 28 years combined.

Improved student achievement hi reading and mathematics is reported in the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last 5 years than in the previous 28 years combined; America's 13-year-olds earned the highest mathematics scores the test ever recorded; reading and math for African American and Hispanic 9-year-olds reached an all-time high; achievement gaps in reading and mathematics between White and African American 9-year-olds and between White and Hispanic 9-year-olds are at an all-time low; and 43 States and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (4th and 8th grade reading and mathematics).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200707/ai_n21280206/pg_7

The governments picture is more rosey than it really is:

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/results/progress/nation.html

[DavidAllred]

How much of that money has been going to the tests required under "No child left behind" in recent years, and how much of THAT wen to George's brother Neil Bush's company?

Yep, that's the real problem with NCLB and really any federal law. The money finds its hands into the strangest of places. That reading program endorsed by Bush was one of the WORST reading programs available.

[cactusmaac]

How much of that money has been going to the tests required under "No child left behind" in recent years, and how much of THAT wen to George's brother Neil Bush's company?

The graph ends in 2000.

[the4thpip]

The graph ends in 2000.

How convenient.

Do we have a graph that's less dusty?

[DavidAllred]

How convenient.

Do we have a graph that's less dusty?

It wouldn't matter. There just isn't a real correlation between funding schools and test scores... anyway you look at it. The failure of NCLB, in my opinion, is the focus on the test scores rather than an education that includes more Arts and Culture offerings.

Here's the most recent Reuters article I could find on correlation education spending with increased test results:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2438214220070524?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

Again, the places where it does seem to make the difference is in low-performing schools and with minorities, which again was the purpose of NCLB. I hope the next adminstration doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Last week I read an article linking generation-text to lower reading scores. It was interesting, the primary theory was that abbreviations and incomplete sentences often used in texting have translated into a dumbing down of the American teenager. I'll try to find the link.

[Paul McEnery]

It wouldn't matter. There just isn't a real correlation between funding schools and test scores... anyway you look at it. The failure of NCLB, in my opinion, is the focus on the test scores rather than an education that includes more Arts and Culture offerings.

Here's the most recent Reuters article I could find on correlation education spending with increased test results:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2438214220070524?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

Again, the places where it does seem to make the difference is in low-performing schools and with minorities, which again was the purpose of NCLB. I hope the next adminstration doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Last week I read an article linking generation-text to lower reading scores. It was interesting, the primary theory was that abbreviations and incomplete sentences often used in texting have translated into a dumbing down of the American teenager. I'll try to find the link.

I'd go a step further than that.

I know from experience exactly how useless testing is, because I learned pretty well how to ace tests, and have a degree in a subject about which I now know nothing, because all I did was work about a month before the exams to learn the answers I figured out would show up on the test. Then promptly forgot the whole lot of it. Then again, I suppose that's a useful skill to learn -- it's helped me in doing freelance writing, that's for sure.

But no amount of having to pass an exam can make you interested in a subject you have come to despise. All it does is add stress to your life. OTOH, I can still quote tons of pointless information from the subjects I did like, and it's 28 years on and counting for that stuff.

So surely it's a lot better to work on providing self-direction for kids to bone up on the stuff that suits them. There's no point at all in making a kid like me do shop or gym -- all I learned was resentment (how to make my escape, or at least amuse myself when supposedly doing something I couldn't care less about, was something I'd already figured out for myself; and I think most kids have that down pat).

I don't know. Does anyone here have a counter-example of having gained something from a subject they were forced to study, aside from a piece of paper that stopped meaning anything the moment they'd got into college or taken that first job?

[Corrina]

I was forced to study Coastal and Celestial Navigation at the Coast Guard Academy.

With a manual sextant.

Nobody does it that way anymore, of course, the satnav is much more accurate. But you still have to plot courses, as learned in Coastal Nav. The idea was to teach the basic principles of seamanship.

And while if I'd graduated, I'd have use for the coastal navigation skills, there's absolutely no reason to even remember the mathematical formula used for a manual sextant. It's way too complicated. People use calculators. :)

[Paul McEnery]

I was forced to study Coastal and Celestial Navigation at the Coast Guard Academy.

With a manual sextant.

Nobody does it that way anymore, of course, the satnav is much more accurate. But you still have to plot courses, as learned in Coastal Nav. The idea was to teach the basic principles of seamanship.

And while if I'd graduated, I'd have use for the coastal navigation skills, there's absolutely no reason to even remember the mathematical formula used for a manual sextant. It's way too complicated. People use calculators. :)

Heh. I actually approve of that one. You know, if you actually mean to be doing Coast Guard stuff. Because when that EMP goes off, or the Russkis shoot down our satellites, knowing how to use a sextant's a lot more useful than waving your knickers in the air and shouting "Coo-ee!".

Besides, it's tradition!

[kingdom2000]

It wouldn't matter. There just isn't a real correlation between funding schools and test scores... anyway you look at it. The failure of NCLB, in my opinion, is the focus on the test scores rather than an education that includes more Arts and Culture offerings.

Here's the most recent Reuters article I could find on correlation education spending with increased test results:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2438214220070524?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

Again, the places where it does seem to make the difference is in low-performing schools and with minorities, which again was the purpose of NCLB. I hope the next adminstration doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Last week I read an article linking generation-text to lower reading scores. It was interesting, the primary theory was that abbreviations and incomplete sentences often used in texting have translated into a dumbing down of the American teenager. I'll try to find the link.

I think its a gimme that the more money a district has, (unless corrupt) the more opportunities a student will have. As for "dumbing down" I don't know. Those tests measure a pretty narrow range of reading skills based on the "literature" standard. But if you think about it, this generation probably reads and writes more then any generation that came before so the skills can't be that bad. They just need to be refined, added to and enhanced. Sadly if literature classes are the same as when I was in school more then likely the teachers are only giving students a reason to hate books, writing and literature. My teachers sure squeezed it out of me for many years.

As for the spending bit, I am just going by my experience. I was educated in a very financially strapped county that had no opportunity to do much of anything accept meet basic requirements (well try but fail to). Number of computers in 1995 - one. Sport activities where only baseball, football, and basketball. Nothing else. It was cheerleading, student gov't, yearbook or nada for extra activities. The average school size around a thousand (average graduating class around 200 or less). I then moved (sadly after graduation) to a "rich" county and the opportunties where abudent. Swimming, hockey, diving, gymnastics, etc. After school opportunties rivaled colleges. The schools are huge (but not the classes themselves) which meant many many social opportunties and chances to connect. The net result is huge campuses having many opportunties to learn and experience many different things. That county is currently in the top percentile for the state. The hope is high school helps the generation figure out what they like and don't like so can focus on it for college but most of the time the only thing that happens is that passion gets squeezed out or never discovered.

And sadly, when it comes to budget crunches (say those brought on by pointless wars and rebuilding an apparently 18billion in the black country) education is the first to get cut.

[LtMarvel]

Cindy McCain refers herself as an only child. So the press have been calling her the only child of Jim Hensley.

But she's not (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93710952).

[Paul McEnery]

I think its a gimme that the more money a district has, (unless corrupt) the more opportunities a student will have. As for "dumbing down" I don't know. Those tests measure a pretty narrow range of reading skills based on the "literature" standard. But if you think about it, this generation probably reads and writes more then any generation that came before so the skills can't be that bad..

Oh, I assure you that they are.

The testing thing makes people more concerned about factual answers, and less concerned about the skills of interpretation and criticism.

It's one of the first things I noticed when I came to the States, that people weren't very good at reading between the lines, were inclined to believe what they were told on the basis of authority and nothing more, and were actively hostile to critical thinking.

And things haven't gotten any better.

[Briareos]

Yes, you're saving them some pain, but you're also denying them the opportunity to experience different view points, meet and befriend people that their parents might not necessarily approve of, learn how to properly interact with people you don't really like or despise, etc.

My god parents should have the right to determine who their children's friends are the HORROR!!!!!!

[kingdom2000]

Oh, I assure you that they are.

The testing thing makes people more concerned about factual answers, and less concerned about the skills of interpretation and criticism.

It's one of the first things I noticed when I came to the States, that people weren't very good at reading between the lines, were inclined to believe what they were told on the basis of authority and nothing more, and were actively hostile to critical thinking.

And things haven't gotten any better.

I wish I could disagree with that but I really can't. It amazes me how obvious things get by so many people. The press and politicans love it as it makes their jobs easier but it is tragic for our future security.

[Corrina]

Besides, it's tradition!

That's the reason for a lot of military stuff. :)

I agree, use of the sextant could potentially be helpful in an emergency. But not to me, since I didn't finish the last two years there. And if anyone can do that complicated math in an emergency, they are a better Coastie than I.

Though come to think of it, the math might have been due to being given the task of having the coordinates and working backward to see what star it was. Perhaps just taking the coordinates to cross-reference location might have been easier.

But they're really inaccurate, even by those who've had a lot of practice. That's because ships move up and down and throws off the measurements. No wonder so many ships got lost.

Higher physics is one that I didn't need, ever. Yes, I get it. Forces act on stuff. Equal and opposite reaction. Right. That's all i need to know, thanks.

Speaking of physics, word is now that McCain heard all the questions put to Obama and the responses before he had his turn at the debate last night. He claims to have been 'stuck in a motorcade' and didn't pay attention to Obama at all.

Uh-huh.

[Sabrinaset]

Here's some more election news...

Obama Facing Attacks From All Sides Over Abortion Record (http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/)

First, Senator Clinton accused him of lacking political backbone in voting "present" on a bill that, according to abortion rights advocates, undermined the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Now abortion foes are targeting him from the right over the same question: They say his opposition to legislation aimed at protecting infants born alive after a botched abortion demonstrates his extremism on the flash point social issue.

The conservative attacks have intensified in recent days, with opponents of legalized abortion sending out missives against Mr. Obama and a YouTube video circulating that casts his position on abortion as more extreme than even the most stalwart supporters of a woman's right to choose, including Mrs. Clinton and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12565.html)

Rep. Loretta Sanchez says she’s happy for the chance to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Democratic National Convention — and she predicts that as many as half of the Democrats in the House could join her.

Just how many former Clinton supporters will vote for the former first lady during the symbolic first ballot is anybody’s guess, but each of them will be called upon to do so — whether they want to or not.

No more hugs as Obama tears into McCain. (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080818/D92KF6RO0.html)

A day after Barack Obama and John McCain exchanged an embrace during a faith forum at a California megachurch, Obama called the U.S. economy a disaster thanks to "John McCain's president, George W. Bush," and chided his Republican rival's campaign team for trying to make him look unpatriotic and weak...

But Sunday, after praising the Arizona senator as a "genuine American patriot," the Democratic presidential hopeful got back to business - methodically tearing into McCain's health care, tax and energy policies and criticizing his advisers.

"McCain says 'Here's my plan, I'm going to drill here, drill now which is something he only came up with two months ago when he started looking at polling," Obama said of McCain's energy policy.

The GOP hopeful has become a vocal proponent of offshore oil drilling as a way to ease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and has criticized Obama for failing to embrace it as a way to help bring down oil prices. Obama noted that McCain had long opposed lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling.

The Illinois senator also criticized McCain's advisers as "the same old folks that brought you George W. Bush. The same team." He noted many had been lobbyists in Washington before McCain asked them to sever all lobbying ties.

DNC plan: Portray Obama as all-American. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26258253/)

One of the first images prime-time viewers will see of the Democratic National Convention next week is that of Michelle Obama, who will begin the four-day introduction of her husband, and her family, on her terms.

Like everything else at the orchestrated gala, that is by design.

Democrats face a number of imperatives at their convention, none trickier than making more voters comfortable with the prospect of putting a candidate with a most unusual background — the son of a black Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother, who grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia — and his family in the White House. No one, his advisers believe, makes the case better for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois than his wife, who will expand her profile by delivering one of the marquee speeches carried by television networks.

Gee, I hope Mark Penn isn't working for the DNC ... (http://www.theatlantic.com/a/green-penn-3-19-07.mhtml)

Penn identified with impressive specificity the very coalition of women and blue-collar workers that Clinton ended up winning a year later. But he also called Obama “unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun,” and wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”

You just KNOW McCain is gonna be using that ... and speaking of exercises in political idiocy ...

McCain protests NBC coverage (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12594.html)

Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign manager Rick Davis asked Sunday for a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, to protest what the campaign called signs that the network is "abandoning non-partisan coverage of the presidential race."

Davis made the request Sunday in a letter that is part of an aggressive effort by McCain to counter news coverage he considers critical.

In this case, the campaign is objecting to a statement by NBC's Andrea Mitchell on "Meet the Press" questioning whether McCain might have gotten a heads-up on some of the questions that were asked of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was the first candidate to be interviewed Saturday night by Pastor Rick Warren at a presidential forum on faith.

Criticizing the press on how you're covered ... that worked so WELL when Hillary did it! :rolleyes:

[Nick Soapdish]

It wouldn't matter. There just isn't a real correlation between funding schools and test scores... anyway you look at it. The failure of NCLB, in my opinion, is the focus on the test scores rather than an education that includes more Arts and Culture offerings.

Here's the most recent Reuters article I could find on correlation education spending with increased test results:

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2438214220070524?feedType=RSS&rpc=22

Again, the places where it does seem to make the difference is in low-performing schools and with minorities, which again was the purpose of NCLB. I hope the next adminstration doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Last week I read an article linking generation-text to lower reading scores. It was interesting, the primary theory was that abbreviations and incomplete sentences often used in texting have translated into a dumbing down of the American teenager. I'll try to find the link.

So more money helps out with the schools that don't get any. Why can't we just distribute money more equitably?

IMO, the problem with NCLB is two-fold. At least.

First is the over-emphasis on tests. All it shows is that you know the information specifically on the test. Sometimes, it doesn't even show that. Once, I nearly passed a test without even reading the questions, but by simply comparing the answers. But more importantly, the emphasis on the tests has forced teachers to teach specifically for the tests and I don't believe that they are broad enough to truly encompass a decent education. So all students are getting a focused education to remember some facts rather than a broader one that will teach them to think.

The second is funding ... and the lack thereof.

And I absolutely agree in the premise that netspeak and its ilk is hurting our reading ability. It's definitely hurting mine and I'm trying to avoid it.

[Samurai]

Oh, I assure you that they are.

The testing thing makes people more concerned about factual answers, and less concerned about the skills of interpretation and criticism.

It's one of the first things I noticed when I came to the States, that people weren't very good at reading between the lines, were inclined to believe what they were told on the basis of authority and nothing more, and were actively hostile to critical thinking.

And things haven't gotten any better.

What you mean is most Americans don't see the vast hidden conspiracies and secret hidden thoughts of other people the way you can.... for which I'm forever thankful.

[Paul McEnery]

"I know I am, but what are you?"







Well, keep things at the intellectual level everyone can follow, eh? :evilsmile:

[DavidAllred]

Oh, I assure you that they are.

The testing thing makes people more concerned about factual answers, and less concerned about the skills of interpretation and criticism.

It's one of the first things I noticed when I came to the States, that people weren't very good at reading between the lines, were inclined to believe what they were told on the basis of authority and nothing more, and were actively hostile to critical thinking.

And things haven't gotten any better.

I can't and don't disagree with any of this. In my soul, I know it has to be true.

The skeptic in me is faced with the unwavering fact however that ACT and SAT scores have been pretty much the standard for some time. It's not like testing just "appeared" after NCLB. And it's not like ACT and SAT scores weren't taking a hit before NCLB came around.

Testing is for the most part a non-factor. Or at least if it is a factor, one would be hard pressed to justify their claims.

When I applied for college 21 years ago, I resented the fact that an ACT or SAT test score held so much weight. They weren't really a measure of much then, so I don't expect they are now. I've met one person who scored perfect on the ACT and several who missed only one or two questions. And yet they couldn't think their way out of wet paper bag. Inductive reasoning is like speaking a foriegn language to them. Metaphor is lost on them. The idea of reading for pleasure is a waste of time.

Is teaching to the test making more of these poor souls? I have to believe it is, but I've no evidence to suggest this is the case, only my personal experience.

[kingdom2000]

What you mean is most Americans don't see the vast hidden conspiracies and secret hidden thoughts of other people the way you can.... for which I'm forever thankful.

I read that as people don't question enough. They don't look for the agendas that everyone has (yeah crazy thought but maybe those politicians do things for reasons beyond the "right" thing, or maybe the press glosses over certain details for a reason). They no longer at the part of the story they are not being told. They don't look at deeper meanings and attempt to understand or get the why of things. They just go "so-so says its that way and who am I to argue."

Hell for years this country had a debate about daring to question the President. That should have NEVER been a debate. It should have been a universal "well duh, of course I can" but so many are used to just falling in line that I don't think it ever occured to them. Thats just sad. It should make you cry that it doesn't even occur to US citizen to no longer question things, no longer really truly think for themselves anymore.

[Paul McEnery]

It should have been a universal "well duh, of course I can" .

Can? Must!

[LtMarvel]

Re: McCain's campaign complaint about NBC.

And the facts back up Mitchell's reporting.

Gee, Senator is it smart to attack reporting that is correct?

[Sabrinaset]

Re: McCain's campaign complaint about NBC.

And the facts back up Mitchell's reporting.

Gee, Senator is it smart to attack reporting that is correct?

You know, there are some things you just don't do. I mean, a candidate attacking the press on their coverage is like someone at a food place yelling at the waitress for no reason before you get your food. You really don't want to do that.

Am I the only person who sees this? Shouldn't McCain have learned from Hillary how badly that will end? I have no idea how he can miss something so obvious.

[Nick Soapdish]

You know, there are some things you just don't do. I mean, a candidate attacking the press on their coverage is like someone at a food place yelling at the waitress for no reason before you get your food. You really don't want to do that.

Am I the only person who sees this? Shouldn't McCain have learned from Hillary how badly that will end? I have no idea how he can miss something so obvious.

It plays well with the base.

Complain about liberal bias. If he continues to not get good coverage, it only proves it.

[section 8]

If the media is so Damned liberal, why cant i turn on a tv without hearing the words "liberal media" every five minutes?

[Samurai]

If the media is so Damned liberal, why cant i turn on a tv without hearing the words "liberal media" every five minutes?

Because turning the TV on and off doesn't change the channel, and it's currently on FOX? :biggrin:

Change it to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc and you won't hear about "liberal media bias" anymore, you'll just hear liberal media bias...

[FalconX2000]

There is no such thing as liberal media bias, at least on the TV, outside Keith Olbermann's show.

[section 8]

Because turning the TV on and off doesn't change the channel, and it's currently on FOX? :biggrin:

Change it to NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc and you won't hear about "liberal media bias" anymore, you'll just hear liberal media bias...

But they are ALL biased, Fox Leans to the right, Cnn and CBS to the left, To br honest i thought NBC leaned to the right, but i admit i never watch it.

The Closest thing to an Unbiased News source you'lll ever find is probably PBS' "News Hour" or BBC "World". but ANY news has to be filtered through the BS detector.

[Charles RB]

What you mean is most Americans don't see the vast hidden conspiracies and secret hidden thoughts of other people the way you can...

Dodgy personal agendas by politicians and countries playing silly buggers with other countries for their reasons are not "vast hidden conspiracies", they're common practice in politics.

[Typo Lad]

Re: McCain's campaign complaint about NBC.

And the facts back up Mitchell's reporting.

Gee, Senator is it smart to attack reporting that is correct?
Have we found any actual "facts"? Seems it's a bunch of people saying "it's possible".

[FalconX2000]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/18/revealed.obama.chicago/

A succinct article on Obama's community organiser days and how he ended up going to harvard and becoming a state senator.

[Royal]

Have we found any actual "facts"? Seems it's a bunch of people saying "it's possible".

Those are the facts. They're saying that it could be possible to get the questions from any form of communications these days.

Hell, I think the person who got the most heat in the situation is the moderator who lied about McCain's whereabouts.

Yell at someone for that is like yelling at someone for saying water is wet and could possibly support fish.

[Typo Lad]

Right, but we don't know that he had them, right? And his answers were the same answers he's given to the questions before, right? Mostly sticking to his own script?

[Royal]

Right, but we don't know that he had them, right? And his answers were the same answers he's given to the questions before, right? Mostly sticking to his own script?

Correct.

Honestly I don't care if he had them or not. I just think it's stupid to throw a tantrum when someone just states that it's easy to get the questions these days.

While they're at it, why don't they shake their fists in the air and yell about kids and that damned rock and roll music.

[KevinTBrown]

You just KNOW McCain is gonna be using that ... and speaking of exercises in political idiocy ...

McCain protests NBC coverage (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12594.html)



Criticizing the press on how you're covered ... that worked so WELL when Hillary did it! :rolleyes:

I love this quote from the article: Davis made the request Sunday in a letter that is part of an aggressive effort by McCain to counter news coverage he considers critical.


McCain campaign is becoming, according to Coach Boomer, a bunch of whiner babies.

[FalconX2000]

http://blogs.computerworld.com/president

Unsurprisingly, Obama is obliterating McCain in every way on the web.

[Paul McEnery]

Seems to me that McCain is just complaining about the media to make it seem to have liberal bias in order to shore up his base, though there's a nice element to the deception, which is that if there is any criticism of Obama, he can say: look, even the liberal media says...

But the terrible reality for him, and I'm sure it hurts, is that from a reporter's point of view, "First Black President?" is the story. McCain was used to being the story in the Republican run-up, that is, after "Huckabee: Psychopath or What?" and "Romney: Will He be in Thrall to his Magic Underpants?" we got "McCain: Not Dead Yet After All".

If McCain wants to be the story again, well, how's that going to work in his favour?
"Man With Hand in the Cookie Jar Wants More Cookies"
"Cunt Caller Calls Cunt -- Again!"
"McCain's Brain: Senile or Just Plain Ignant?"
not to mention the old favorite
"Candidate's Wife Found Drinking Nail Polish"

So no, he doesn't actually want the coverage at all. He just wants to keep pissing in the press pool so his base in the disgruntled lower middle classes can continue to identify with how put upon he is. Because that's the story he wants to be: McCain: The Little Engine That Could.

[KevinTBrown]

Obama rips McCain, rightfully so IMO, for questioning his patriotism and love for America: http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080819/ap_on_el_pr/obama

[Charles RB]

Democrat Barack Obama challenged his Republican opponent John McCain on Tuesday to stop questioning his "character and patriotism."

He can't. He'd then need to question Obama's policies, which means admitting he has some and then talking about parts of them.

[kingdom2000]

Republicans talk about issues? You have got to be kidding. They know the sheep can't handle issues. Besides character assassinations based on no information or facts is sooo much easier to do. Any case for McSame, talking about issues just reminds people that he really stands for "4 more years." Can't have that. If the sheep figure that out on their own (like that will happen) McBush is screwed and he knows it.

[Sabrinaset]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080818/sack.jpg

[Sabrinaset]

Obama appears ready to announce who his veep will be ... (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/19/america/19veep.php)

...and he's keeping everyone guessing. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802691.html?hpid=topnews)

http://www.cagle.com/working/080815/walthandelsman.jpg

Pelosi says God has blessed us with Obama! (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_I_will_win.html) Wow ... I didn't know Pelosi spoke for God!

[Royal]

http://blogs.computerworld.com/president

Unsurprisingly, Obama is obliterating McCain in every way on the web.

While getting Lessig to be internet advisor was a genius move, it still doesn't mean anything when your public still relys on an ignorant local media and radio drenched in neo-conservatism.

Sure it's locked the youth vote and the innovation community, you still got to worry about old white folk.

[Sabrinaset]

I'm somewhat hesitant to say this, but I'm afraid it's got to be said ... with the polls indicating McCain and Obama still tied, I hope if some of you talk to Republicans (or Conservatives) when it comes to persuading them to vote for Obama, you don't talk the same way there as some do here. It's a lot easier to talk that way here on CBR where the Conservatives are outnumbered by a wide margin, but it's not that way with the voting public. And let's face it, when you've got people discussing the other side as "sheep", a "public [that] still relys on an ignorant local media" and "old white folk" well ...Let's just say I hope some people aren't involved in the public outreach Obama needs to do to clench the win. In fact, maybe they shouldn't talk to them at all, because they'll only drive potential Obama voters further away.

[kingdom2000]

I'm somewhat hesitant to say this, but I'm afraid it's got to be said ... with the polls indicating McCain and Obama still tied, I hope if some of you talk to Republicans (or Conservatives) when it comes to persuading them to vote for Obama, you don't talk the same way there as some do here. It's a lot easier to talk that way here on CBR where the Conservatives are outnumbered by a wide margin, but it's not that way with the voting public. And let's face it, when you've got people discussing the other side as "sheep", a "public [that] still relys on an ignorant local media" and "old white folk" well ...Let's just say I hope some people aren't involved in the public outreach Obama needs to do to clench the win. In fact, maybe they shouldn't talk to them at all, because they'll only drive potential Obama voters further away.

While valid points, I personally have never found those supposed fence sitters. Most of the so-called "conservatives" I come across complain about Bush, complain about McCain and then go "they are all corrupt anyway so I am voting for McCain." Its been my experience that while you may the be exception to the rule, in general if people call themselves conservatives (and I noticed most don't even know what that means), they will vote for McCain so I am not talking them out of anything and really bothering to try. I call them sheep (yes some to their face) because they can't even be bothered to articulate WHY they are voting for McCain (or against Obama) beyond the continued myths of what the republican party supposedly represents that they can't be bothered to verify beyond tuning into Fox News every now and then.

[Royal]

I'm somewhat hesitant to say this, but I'm afraid it's got to be said ... with the polls indicating McCain and Obama still tied, I hope if some of you talk to Republicans (or Conservatives) when it comes to persuading them to vote for Obama, you don't talk the same way there as some do here. It's a lot easier to talk that way here on CBR where the Conservatives are outnumbered by a wide margin, but it's not that way with the voting public. And let's face it, when you've got people discussing the other side as "sheep", a "public [that] still relys on an ignorant local media" and "old white folk" well ...Let's just say I hope some people aren't involved in the public outreach Obama needs to do to clench the win. In fact, maybe they shouldn't talk to them at all, because they'll only drive potential Obama voters further away.

I'm not saying that the public are willingly relying on an ignorant local media. They can't help that the local media don't want to up their game. Instead of actually doing more homework and at least try to be better then the internet, they spurn falsehoods and halftruths about it.

And when I said old white folk, I didn't mean it negatively. they are the most consistant voters. Especially with Boomers getting older.

[Paul McEnery]

Never mind calling them sheep. Let's call them llamas.

Then we can say: Don't be a Llama, Vote for Obama!








Why are there two Ls in llama, anyway? Were they discovered by a Welshman?

[Charles RB]

Never mind calling them sheep. Let's call them llamas.

Then we can say: Don't be a Llama, Vote for Obama!

You joke, but if the Democrat Party saw that you'd be offered a job.

[Paul McEnery]

You joke, but if the Democrat Party saw that you'd be offered a job.

Don't get me started.

Your Sutra's Kama? Vote for Obama!

Are you Insane? Vote for McCain!

[darkhanamaru]

Don't get me started.

Your Sutra's Kama? Vote for Obama!

Are you Insane? Vote for McCain!

You're right. You shouldn't right marketing copy.

[Sabrinaset]

I can see McCain paying Paul top dollar to write marketing copy ...

... for Obama's campaign. :tongue:

[Paul McEnery]

You're right. You shouldn't right marketing copy.

I can see why I ought to do it rather than you!:tongue:

[Nick Soapdish]

While valid points, I personally have never found those supposed fence sitters. Most of the so-called "conservatives" I come across complain about Bush, complain about McCain and then go "they are all corrupt anyway so I am voting for McCain." Its been my experience that while you may the be exception to the rule, in general if people call themselves conservatives (and I noticed most don't even know what that means), they will vote for McCain so I am not talking them out of anything and really bothering to try. I call them sheep (yes some to their face) because they can't even be bothered to articulate WHY they are voting for McCain (or against Obama) beyond the continued myths of what the republican party supposedly represents that they can't be bothered to verify beyond tuning into Fox News every now and then.

But conservatives aren't necessarily the fence-sitters. A lot of Americans identify as independent and vote for personality, not party.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be sitting so many poll shifts and we wouldn't have had the hugely popular Bill Clinton (whom conservatives loathed) and the hugely popular Ronald Reagan.

I do understand the temptation.

I've seen so many interviews with prospective voters that say that they won't vote for Obama because he's a Muslim or because he's from another country. Or those that say that they aren't racist; they just don't want a black guy as president. Or one long interview that I read about a guy that's torn. He's read Obama talking about his faith in several articles and read about his long relationship with the church. But then his buddy down the street says that Obama's actually a Muslim so who knows? Can't he make qualitative assessments about the source of info and talk to his buddy about where he heard his stuff?

Nevertheless, there are a lot of undecided voters and not all of them are just finalizing their excuses about why they won't vote for the other guy. Insulting them is only going to guarantee that they vote the other way.

[Michael P]

But conservatives aren't necessarily the fence-sitters. A lot of Americans identify as independent and vote for personality, not party.


If that's the case, Obama has nothing to worry about.

[the4thpip]

Handy list of McCain lies:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/8/18/12743/1215

[the4thpip]

Right, but we don't know that he had them, right? And his answers were the same answers he's given to the questions before, right? Mostly sticking to his own script?

We do know that McCain was asked about the "cone of silence" as soon as he got on stage and had a chance to set the record straight. He chose to lie.

[FalconX2000]

http://www.cagle.com/working/080818/sack.jpg

That's funny stuff.:biggrin:

While getting Lessig to be internet advisor was a genius move, it still doesn't mean anything when your public still relys on an ignorant local media and radio drenched in neo-conservatism.

Sure it's locked the youth vote and the innovation community, you still got to worry about old white folk.

That is true. If Obama was doing as well on the whole spectrum as he was online, this race wouldn't be a contest right now.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26298215#26300349

Howard Fineman said that he had talked to 2 candidates and 2 insiders to get his info on the VP. 1 of the candidates was in the top 3 (Biden, Bayh, Kaine). He said that the candidate that talked to him had been told by Obama it would probably not be him.

He then goes on to say at the end of the clip that if its personal chemistry and doubling the change message, Obama will go with Bayh. If he wants experience, foreign policy credentials and debating prowess, he'll go with Biden.

That indicates to me that Bayh is the one out of the running.

[Charles RB]

Handy list of McCain lies:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/8/18/12743/1215


That's a lot of lies.

[Typo Lad]

We do know that McCain was asked about the "cone of silence" as soon as he got on stage and had a chance to set the record straight. He chose to lie.
He did?

I must have missed that.

In that case... boo. Poor form, sir.

[LtMarvel]

Handy list of McCain lies:

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/8/18/12743/1215
Which are scarier: the lies or the factual errors?

[Suzanne]

I'm sick of all these damn McCain adds during the Olympics. I wanna some from Obama, dammit! :tongue:

Seriously, if McCain wins, I will lose faith in this country.

[Infra-Man]

Seriously, if McCain wins, I will lose faith in this country.

I lost my faith in the decision-making and critical-thinking skills of this country around November 2004. Regardless who wins in November, it will take much more than a single election to restore my faith in the common sense of your average Joe or plain Jane.

[Michael P]

Hey, gang, apparently Obama voters are NERDS: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/mccain-staffer-slams.html

[Infra-Man]

Hey, gang, apparently Obama voters are NERDS: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/mccain-staffer-slams.html

Seems like Michael Goldfarb has a -2 to charisma.

[Grazzt]

Hey, gang, apparently Obama voters are NERDS: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/mccain-staffer-slams.html

This opens up a new possible running mate for McCain:

http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/misc/pictures/nerds.jpg

[Royal]

His people will look up and shout "Spare Him!" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12625.html)

And I will whisper "no"

[Paul McEnery]

This opens up a new possible running mate for McCain:

http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/misc/pictures/nerds.jpg

The Red Cross?

What, all of them at once?

[Royal]

This opens up a new possible running mate for McCain:

http://www.horrordvds.com/reviews/misc/pictures/nerds.jpg

He came out of the basement dude.

[FalconX2000]

Rachel

http://www.boston.com/ae/tv/blog/2008/08/_i_enjoy_keith.html

Maddow

http://gawker.com/5039463/rachel-maddow-americas-next-top-pundit

is

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/08/20/its-about-time/

getting

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6550666&articleid=CA6588996

her

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/19/rachel-maddow-gets-her-own-show-on-msnbc/

own

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/08/19/rachel-maddow-gets-her-own-show-on-msnbc/

show!

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/19/161133/955/1005/570567

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[LtMarvel]

Hey, gang, apparently Obama voters are NERDS: http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/mccain-staffer-slams.html
McCain will never make those saving throws vs intelligence now!

[Grazzt]

McCain will never make those saving throws vs intelligence now!

It was his dump stat anyway.

[Sabrinaset]

And now, some more election news ...

McCain now has the lead according to a Reuters/Zogby poll. (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1927197620080820?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)

In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

Sen. Joe Lieberman to speak at GOP convention. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92M49D01&show_article=1)

Bayh for Obama Veep? Or Kaine? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12659.html)

Reasons why Biden probably will NOT be Obama's Veep ... (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGRhNzJlMWY5NjdiNzhjMTRkYjMzNjYwOGJmYzNjMTY=)

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”


Obama says McCain "Doesn't know what he's up against" (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080820/D92LN0D00.html)

A combative Barack Obama said Tuesday that Republican John McCain "doesn't know what he's up against" in this election and challenged his rival to stop questioning his character and patriotism.

Obama, campaigning in a state where he hopes to become the first Democratic presidential candidate to win in more than three decades, implored his supporters to fight for the presidency.

"Our job in this election is not just 'win,' although I'm a big believer in winning," Obama said during the rally. "I don't intend to lose this election. John McCain doesn't know what he's up against."

Heavy hitters Carter and Gore among the many scheduled to take the podium. (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/19/gore-appear-invesco-field-during-dnc/) Kerry is speaking too, so bring your No-Doze. Oh ... this is interesting ...

Wednesday's theme is "Securing America's Future." The still-unnamed vice presidential nominee will be the primetime speaker. Former President Bill Clinton, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Daley and Kerry will speak that night as well.

Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson in the same building at the same night ... anyone else think there'll be some fireworks if Clinton sees "Judas" walking about?

[Corrina]

Nah, Clinton is a good salesperson, meaning he can turn on the charm to people that he doesn't like. Hilary isn't so good at it, but Bill is.

I caught a bit of the news tonight and they're saying Lieberman might be McCain's running mate???

I think that's a mistake on McCain's part, given the confusion of the people in the Bible Belt that I personally heard about Lieberman's religion. Plus, grabbing an independent is not going to help McCain get out the base Republicans.

What does everyone else think?

[Michael P]

I think picking Lieberman would be a great idea. If he wants to lose.

[Paul McEnery]

I think picking Lieberman would be a great idea. If he wants to lose.

I think the important thing is, he doesn't feel bad being picked up on his mistakes on camera by Lieberman. It'll be like Grumpy Old Men, with Cindy in the Ann Margaret role. They can go ice-fishing together!

[Buzz Dixon]

If I were Lieberman, I'd jump at the chance.

It would guarantee my place in history as the only person to be nominated for the veep slot in both parties. I'd be a Trivial Pursuit perennial.

[section 8]

Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson in the same building at the same night ... anyone else think there'll be some fireworks if Clinton sees "Judas" walking about?

Mr Bill(Clinton) is too mild mannered, besides i think he's proven by now to be a "Lover not a fighter"

Now Bill Richarson and James Carville in the same room, I'd pay good money to see THAT!"

(My money is on Carville if a fight breaks out btw)

[FalconX2000]

We already know voters think Obama can handle the economy better than McCain. We also know that voters consider the economy the top issue in this election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26316412#26316412

Now it seems that, according to the Wall Street Journal poll, 77% of voters believe John McCain would have policies would closely follow George W Bush's.
I know the Russia-Georgia conflict has unsurprisingly given McCain a perception advantage, but dammit...think voters. Think!

[Samurai]

We already know voters think Obama can handle the economy better than McCain.

Oh really?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN1948672420080820

McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

That margin reversed Obama's 4-point edge last month on the economy over McCain, an Arizona senator and former Vietnam prisoner of war who has admitted a lack of economic expertise and shows far greater interest in foreign and military policy.

McCain has been on the offensive against Obama during the last month over energy concerns, with polls showing strong majorities supporting his call for an expansion of offshore oil drilling as gasoline prices hover near $4 a gallon.

Obama had opposed new offshore drilling, but said recently he would support a limited expansion as part of a comprehensive energy program.

That was one of several recent policy shifts for Obama, as he positions himself for the general election battle. But Zogby said the changes could be taking a toll on Obama's support, particularly among Democrats and self-described liberals.

"That hairline difference between nuance and what appears to be flip-flopping is hurting him with liberal voters," Zogby said.

Obama's support among Democrats fell 9 percentage points this month to 74 percent, while McCain has the backing of 81 percent of Republicans. Support for Obama, an Illinois senator, fell 12 percentage points among liberals, with 10 percent of liberals still undecided compared to 9 percent of conservatives.