2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Paul McEnery]

People should not be voting because of just one issue. I'd never vote for Rudy Giuliani, for instance, even though I happen to agree with him on gun control. They shouldn't be thinking "how will this person becoming President affect ME?" They should be thinking "how will this person becoming President affect the WORLD?" But they're too goddamn selfish. :mad:

Yeah, but.

Rudy doesn't actually have a vagina, but he does dress like someone who has a vagina.

Therefore he's better than Obama!

See?

[Danny Donovan]

The McCain campaign has now graduated in the realm of foreign policy from normal everyday idiocy to cartoon superidiocy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080911/ap_on_el_pr/palin_interview):



Can everyone stop with the lies that Georgia is a free country that was totally blameless in the recent crisis?

While we're at it, how about we take a good, hard look at why the McCain campaign is lockstep with the Bushies in their apparent goal of making the U.S. and NATO hostages to fortune for the sake of a corrupt third world strongman?

"I'm not saying I want another Cold War, unless I do."

I'm sorry. but if these two "geniuses" win, we deserve everything that happens to us.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm sorry. but if these two "geniuses" win, we deserve everything that happens to us.

It'll be time to form the West Coast Independence Party. AKA, the Can We Be Part of Canada Please Party.

I've got to come up with a better acronym than that, though.

[Adam C]

It'll be time to form the West Coast Independence Party. AKA, the Can We Be Part of Canada Please Party.

I've got to come up with a better acronym than that, though.

How about the more neutral sounding "Californian Reform Alliance Party"? That's a MUCH better acronym!

[Sabrinaset]

Canada? Who'd want to join a country that doesn't even honor it's most famous athlete with so much as a provincial holiday?

That's right! Bret Hart Day ... Dumb Canadians don't know what they're missing!

[Paul McEnery]

Canada? Who'd want to join a country that doesn't even honor it's most famous athlete with so much as a provincial holiday?

That's right! Bret Hart Day ... Dumb Canadians don't know what they're missing!

The fun thing would be that we would outnumber them. Though I reckon we should sign up Mexico as well, just to make it a clean sweep.

My name for this new country is All the Left Side and the Top Bits (Except Alaska). It's not snappy, but it's straight-shootin' and direct!

Then we invade Alaska. Because the name's too long.

[Adam C]

The fun thing would be that we would outnumber them. Though I reckon we should sign up Mexico as well, just to make it a clean sweep.

My name for this new country is All the Left Side and the Top Bits (Except Alaska). It's not snappy, but it's straight-shootin' and direct!

Reminds me of when Rick Mercer suggested that we should merge with Cuba just to piss off Washington.

"And the best part of all is that the name Canuba is MUCH more Canadian than Canada!"

[Danny Donovan]

Canada? Who'd want to join a country that doesn't even honor it's most famous athlete with so much as a provincial holiday?

That's right! Bret Hart Day ... Dumb Canadians don't know what they're missing!

He's the best there is, best there was, best there ever will be!

plus he played the genie in a Canadian stage production of Aladdin.

[Adam C]

Canada? Who'd want to join a country that doesn't even honor it's most famous athlete with so much as a provincial holiday?

Hey don't look at me! It's Alberta who missed the ball here!

[DavidAllred]

Mostly, I dislike her using her 'womb belongs to Jesus' as an in with the religious right wing of the Republican party. That's one of the very first things people on that side talked about--how she had a special needs kids and didn't abort, like one of those damned dirty liberals.

I'm with you on that whole thing. I don't believe something as complex as abortion benefits when people polarize to one side or the other. Pain and Obama are opposite extreme sides. McCain has flopped all over the map on this issue. Biden is probably the one who is most consistant.

[TomStillwell]

The bridge actually went somewhere at that stage.



Source?



So what exactly did she do all day in her office?



An investigation that will turn up nothing, since she wanted the officer in question fired for legitimate reasons of abusing his position and the guy she directly fired wasn't doing his job by firing the officer.



No one's perfect, and that was her mayoral administration.



So does every other state. When did she say she was opposed to earmarks? And even if she did try to acquire them, she wasn't in a position to STOP them, so she might as well use a resource that's available to improve the lives of Alaskans.



Source?



Yes, because as we know, people who have similar political beliefs ARE EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY.



Source and why is it bad to make sure that things get done even if she's not the one who's doing it?




There's been ONE example I've found of it crying sexism when it shouldn't be and the other example I've seen is idiots who claim she should be taking care of her baby instead of being in office, which no one would be asking a man to do, which IS sexism.



I don't think it's wise politically to do so, but if that's what she believes, then fine.



Evidence?



You know, when someone says "abstinence-only" sex education, do they mean that they teach that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent such things in consensual relationships, or some bogus claim that they drive out any and all other kinds of sex education? Because I fail to see that kind of education ever occurring. And as for creationism, I want both a source and a definition of creationism in this context.



While I'd appreciate a source on this one, I will admit that's scummy.



Source?



Or she doesn't trust the press to be objective, which I sure as hell don't.



Or they report it all the time, it's just they can't find any legitimately juicy scandals.

I'm kind of amazed at how woefully uninformed you are and yet you can legally vote.


http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/03d0f10a32

[BnL]

The bridge actually went somewhere at that stage.

Huh? The bridge was to go from Gravina Island (population: about 50) to the mainland all along.

Source?

Here you go. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/does-anything-c.html)

So what exactly did she do all day in her office?

Beats me!

An investigation that will turn up nothing, since she wanted the officer in question fired for legitimate reasons of abusing his position and the guy she directly fired wasn't doing his job by firing the officer.

Then why was she, three years earlier (prior to her becoming Governor) warned by a judge to stop harassing her ex-brother in law? And why did officials describe the over a dozen complaints she lodged as being "not job-related"? (http://www.newsweek.com/id/158140)

No one's perfect, and that was her mayoral administration.

No one is claiming she has to be perfect, but if she's running as a fiscal conservative, she better have a better record than having put a small town $20 million in debt.

So does every other state. When did she say she was opposed to earmarks? And even if she did try to acquire them, she wasn't in a position to STOP them, so she might as well use a resource that's available to improve the lives of Alaskans.

On Friday, when McCain introduced her as his running mate, she said she "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending," the legislative technique used to slip projects into appropriations bills without rigorous congressional review. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-earmarks1-2008sep01,0,6108885.story)

Source?

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.

"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line. (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10216)

Yes, because as we know, people who have similar political beliefs ARE EXACTLY THE SAME IN EVERY WAY.

In the ways that matter, for the leader of the free world, yes.

Source and why is it bad to make sure that things get done even if she's not the one who's doing it?


During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to a recall campaign. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/info/kilkenny.asp)

It's not a bad thing that someone was getting things done. It's a bad thing that she's being hailed for her tremendous executive experience, when much of that work was done by someone else.

There's been ONE example I've found of it crying sexism when it shouldn't be and the other example I've seen is idiots who claim she should be taking care of her baby instead of being in office, which no one would be asking a man to do, which IS sexism.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/mccain-campaign.html

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/obama_did_not_call_sarah_palin.php

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Sexism_complaints_no_longer_whining.html?showall

I don't think it's wise politically to do so, but if that's what she believes, then fine.

It's not "fine." When a politician is using God as a prop to push through policy, that's a problem. It's a way to silence opposition because who can dare speak against God's wishes?

Evidence?

Sarah and her husband, Todd Palin, issued a statement saying they are "proud of Bristol's decision [emphasis mine] to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/01/palin.daughter/index.html)

Palin opposes abortion and rejects the view that pregnancies caused by rape and incest should be exceptions. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hW9DgefdzDY24fe3O9gJ5MvkhS9gD92VTI180)

You know, when someone says "abstinence-only" sex education, do they mean that they teach that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to prevent such things in consensual relationships, or some bogus claim that they drive out any and all other kinds of sex education? Because I fail to see that kind of education ever occurring. And as for creationism, I want both a source and a definition of creationism in this context.

Yes, abstinence-only means they teach only abstinence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only) Comprehensive sex education includes abstinence at the ideal, but offers information about safe sex for those who don't wish to abstain.


John McCain's vice-presidential pick, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, is an evangelical Protestant with a strong record of opposition to abortion and an openness to teaching creationism in the public schools. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2008/08/sarah_palin_on.html)

While I'd appreciate a source on this one, I will admit that's scummy.

While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests. (http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt)

Source?

While Sarah was mayor of Wasilla, she tried to fire our highly respected city librarian because the librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the city librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/info/kilkenny.asp)

Or she doesn't trust the press to be objective, which I sure as hell don't.

To which I say, assuming you're right: get over it. You can't hide just because the press is saying mean things. Not if you're trying to be President or Vice President of the United States and prove that you can stare down our enemies abroad. If you can't face a few tough questions from reporters, how can we believe you'll protect us from hostile nations?

Or they report it all the time, it's just they can't find any legitimately juicy scandals.

Or not. There's plenty of meat to report on. Palin's lies are easily proven. The evidence is out there, but almost no one in the mainstream media is pressing the matter.

[BnL]

I'm kind of amazed at how woefully uninformed you are and yet you can legally vote.


http://www.factcheck.org

Jeez, why didn't I just do that? I just wasted over an hour hunting down links. :tongue:

[a. non]

That's an Epic Win if i ever saw one

[West Mantooth]

Can everyone stop with the lies that Georgia is a free country that was totally blameless in the recent crisis?

While we're at it, how about we take a good, hard look at why the McCain campaign is lockstep with the Bushies in their apparent goal of making the U.S. and NATO hostages to fortune for the sake of a corrupt third world strongman?

"I'm not saying I want another Cold War, unless I do."


I bet, if you ask most Americans, they'll say Russia bullied Georgia for no reason because we think in black and white terms, and because Putin's a jerk.

[section 8]

So, how do you feel about her belief that she can "pray the gay people straight to make them 'normal'"....?

I'm Insulted!
To think the implication that someone could be as abnormal as i, simply by being attracted to the same sex...SHAME!!

[Cam63]

I REALLY like the Lynda now.

[section 8]

I bet, if you ask most Americans, they'll say Russia bullied Georgia for no reason because we think in black and white terms, and because Putin's a jerk.

And his name sounds Flatulent

[section 8]

WHAT?! No "Walks into a bar" joke?!

[LtMarvel]

Canada? Who'd want to join a country that doesn't even honor it's most famous athlete with so much as a provincial holiday?

That's right! Bret Hart Day ... Dumb Canadians don't know what they're missing!
Brett Hull day, you mean?

[Infra-Man]

I think there are two songs that spring to mind with this election, and they are two things I'll take away from this first election in my adult life that I've actually followed with more than just a superficial interest...

If the McCain/Palin ticket wins, it'll fuel my disillusionment and my sense of a cynical, despairing world filled with superstitious, illogical, impulsive mooks, and one run by their lessers. With Iraq, Iran, Russia, and now Venezuela in the mix (looks like Chavez wants the the US Ambassador out); with the economy showing limited growth and the country sinking further into debt; with youthful apathy and rising fuel prices; well, it'll be one helluva weird time and my first taste of extreme (we're talking dogs and cats living together extreme) anxiety for the world--bitter, strange, like wilted, unwashed mesclun. And for that, there's only "I'm Afraid of Americans" by David Bowie.

But regardless of who wins, I think I've come to understand that change isn't passive and that I need to do my own part somehow--whether it be acts of armchair philanthropy or actually engaging with the community--rather than just kvetching about how nothing's getting done. Maybe it's Obama's line that we're the ones we've been waiting for or The Hold Steady line that we are our only saviors (and we've got to build something [this summer]), but hey, now's not the time to sit back. If all the idealism is going to get sucked out of me by the metaphorical vampires of the world, I'm at least going to grab some stakes and some garlic and take the fight to them before the sun goes down. I will beat those fucking vampires funky. And for that, there's only "Get Up, Get Into it, Get Involved" by James Brown.

[40footwolf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAlxUChYpj4

Who does she think is falling for this shit?

Way too many people, apparently.

[Infra-Man]

This is worse... total deer in the headlights moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU

EDIT:
And this...

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

[rick]

Sick?

No.

Crazy?

I doubt it.

A back-peddling, lying lightweight?

Certainly.

[BnL]

This really should've been posted in the election thread.

[40footwolf]

I'm sorry, I didn't see it.

[Nick Soapdish]

Jeez, why didn't I just do that? I just wasted over an hour hunting down links. :tongue:

I thought that you were just showing off that you actually follow some politics. :tongue:

[Spiffy]

Hey! It sounds like you are trying to put lipstick on a pig here! :wink:

Why does her accent sound so Minnesotan to me? Not her politics, but definitely her accent.

[DaeJi]

It's funny, Gloria Steinem slams Palin and Camille Paglia almost fawns over her. Did... did we end in Bizarro World?

[Adam C]

...and now Venezuela in the mix (looks like Chavez wants the the US Ambassador out)...

Well that's largely in solidarity with Bolivia after it kicked the US ambassador (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7610915.stm) out of its country because Morales felt that the US was backing opposition groups in Bolivia.

To be fair his claims aren't exactly unfounded (http://www.alternet.org/story/77572/). Nor is this exactly a new tactic for the U.S. in Latin America.

[joe27]

she seems likable enough. i imagine people who are big on likability like her quite a bit.

hey, and don't call her names!! :mad:
totally uncalled for.

[Black Vespa]

yeah...she does come across as a light weight. - i bet all the late-night cram sessions on foreign leaders, countries and policy is giving her tired-head.

[Red Jack]

I give the thread title a HUGE "thumbs up!"

Spit take!

[Briareos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAlxUChYpj4

Who does she think is falling for this shit?

Way too many people, apparently.

Yes when all the people in the 57 states see this Obama is sure to win!!!

[Briareos]

Oh PLEASE. There's a seemingly endless supply of rational reasons to hate Palin.

Literally every part of her record that she references in her stump speeches are lies.

She didn't oppose the Bridge To Nowhere. Part of her gubernatorial campaign was based on her support for it.

She didn't sell the governor's jet on eBay at a profit for the Alaskan people. It actually wound up costing them money to get rid of it.

She has no experience as "commander in chief" of the Alaskan National Guard. She's never been involved in any decision making, not even on occasions where they were deployed for state emergencies.

She's not a reformer. She's facing an investigation for corruption.

She's not fiscally conservative. She wracked up $20 million in debt for the small town of Wasilla, when she was mayor.

She's not opposed to earmarks. As governor, she hired lobbyists to secure more earmarks for her state.

She's not opposed to wasteful spending and federal pork. She secured more federal funds for her state, per capita, than any other state, by far. She also kept the more than $200 million given to her for the Bridge to Nowhere, and spent it on, among other things, a road leading to the then-canceled bridge.

She's not an agent of change. Her blatant dishonesty, and the McCain/Palin platform both make her pretty much identical to Bush.

Her highly touted "executive experience" consists mostly of her abdicating all her executive power to administrators and surrogates.

But wait, there's more reasons to hate her.

She's used as a shield to deflect and distract from any valid criticism. If you have something negative to say about her, it MUST be sexism.

She has invoked God in order to promote political policy (the War In Iraq is "a task from God." The proposed gas pipeline is "God's will.").

She gave her teenage daughter a choice (at least, according to her) about how to deal with her pregnancy, while wishing to deny that opportunity from others, even in cases of rape and incest.

She favors abstinence-only sex education and teaching creationism alongside evolution, regardless of the lack of the legitimacy of those things.

She charged rape victims for the cost of their own rape kits as mayor, until state law prohibited the practice.

She inquired about how she could go about banning books in Wasilla. When the librarian resisted, she attempted to fire her, until a backlash caused her to back off. But she's still demonstrated a willingness to fire anyone who is not a yes-man.

She has hidden from the media, except under very controlled conditions, which casts doubt on her ability to stand up to scrutiny, and her knowledge of various issues of importance to the nation.

And the part that makes it all so frustrating is that the media, for the most part, doesn't call her on any of this stuff. It'll get better ratings and sell more papers if the race is close, so the media consciously downplays all of Palin's obvious weaknesses.

And that's just the stuff off the top of my head.

So yeah, I hate Palin, and for lots of good reasons. After 8 years of Bush, and the prospect of another 4 years of more of the same...yeah, I get fired up about that. So what? It's the appropriate reaction, in my opinion.

Most of what you list are lies....

[Nick Soapdish]

A couple of YouTube videos:

This one is John McCain contradicting himself--basically clips of him saying one thing and later clips completely contradicting that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLuqxXwG4nE

This is about Sarah Palin's record as mayor and as governor. I like that it sourced the quotes but I dislike the cheap shot near the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l40juADZacw

Is the first one the clips that were put together by the Daily Show? It's been removed.

Okay, but my question was: since the ostensible distaste for Palin is that she hadn't done anything on a national level before her nomination, which is a criticism that had been used against Obama and poo-poohed...

What had he done nationally or globally affecting before his nomination?

I think if we're going to criticize her, it should be for the things you mention (provided one's against them in the first place), rather than just doing the "I'm rubber, you're glue" routine.


--Dazz

One of my criticisms of the Republican ticket was over her lack of experience. But it was also a criticism of McCain. He's saying that he was full of it when he was criticizing Obama's experience. Or he's saying that he doesn't think that the primary role of the VP is important (either because there is no need to be concerned that he'll die or he doesn't care what happens to the country afterwards). Or he's desperate. (This one gets more worrisome later.)

I was also criticizing her inexperience because all I knew about her was the Republican talking points and a couple quotes - like her wondering what it was that a vice-president did.

I was also criticizing her because of the ethics investigation which has nothing to do with her experience. And then for all of the positions about her as I learned them.


BnL listed about a dozen of them on the other thread. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=237902)

That's kind of two different issues being used to reinforce the other, there.


I also remember Democrats back in the day saying that McCain was the right kind of Republican, but now that he's the opponent, he's a lunatic with his finger on the button.

It's true that Obama hasn't made fun of McCain getting shot down five times, yes. But his supporters, some in this very thread, have made them. Is that the same, no, not exactly, but it gives me some insight into the thinking. The Democratic candidate doesn't have to do the slinging because his supporters will gladly do it for him, with a viciousness that rivals the Republicans. And, considering how jumpy same supporters are at anything that even remotely approaches criticism of their candidate...well, I find it worse. If that's how it is now, I can't imagine how it will be when Obama faces tougher, more intense, and less sympathetic scrutiny. Will everything said about Obama be racism in action? Will everything be an active undermining of the good and virtuous of the world?



I don't know. I think they are the same degree in two different realms of play. The Republicans go for the outright jugular strike with nasty accusations...while it seems to me the Democrats go for the sneaky ass-kissy sidling up next to whoever's needed to assure the vote. Even if it flies directly in the face of previous statements and positional beliefs. And then nobody seems to notice.

--Dazz

"Back in the day", McCain said

He opposed the Bush tax cuts.
He was in favor of Roe vs. Wade.
He abhorred the influence of the religious right on the Republican party.
He didn't think the Iraq war would be difficult.
He opposed off-shore drilling.


And I'm sure that I'm forgetting a bunch, but it's really late.

He's flopped on all of those (although he now says that many knew the Iraq war would be difficult, not necessarily that he was one of those).

The number of people in a town and state have nothing to do with how that state is run (the land mass versus population thing is obsfucation), since no matter the population, it's run exactly the same as other states. With income and budget generally proportionate to other states, it's a bit of a disingenuous dodge to downplay the leading of a state as somehow lacking.
Unless she seriously tanked Alaska, which, according to all evidence, is actually doing pretty well.


Well, income and budget isn't generally proportionate when you talk about Alaska. They get huge bucks from oil revenues. And they get tons of money from Washington in earmarks (more per any other state per capita) despite her valiant fight against herself asking for them.

And about how the town was run ...

She was forced to hire an administrator by the town council because of how she was running the town.
She raised residents' taxes while lowering corporate taxes (which raised revenues).
And despite that raised revenue, she took a town of about 7000 (according to their website) from zero debt when she became mayor to over $20 M. That's about $3000 per resident.

[BnL]

Most of what you list are lies....

Oh? Please explain, since I posted sources for all of those claims in a later post.

[40footwolf]

I feel like that was a sarcastic quip that didn't quite work.

[the heckler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAlxUChYpj4
Sarah Palin is a sick crazy bitch

Who does she think is falling for this shit?

Way too many people, apparently.

shes just rookie republican governor.. shes probably doing the best she can considering she was just thrown into the fray. whats threatening is her popularity right now.. im guessing her novelty will die off by the election, and Biden will own her in the debates. that is if he dosent say something crazy lol.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Problem is if Biden does destroy her in the debates and people start feeling sorry for her and decide to side with McCain out of sympathy.

[40footwolf]

Problem is if Biden does destroy her in the debates and people start feeling sorry for her and decide to side with McCain out of sympathy.
God, I wish that were a joke.

But that's probably exactly what's going to happen.

[PatrickG]

Problem is if Biden does destroy her in the debates and people start feeling sorry for her and decide to side with McCain out of sympathy.

Geez.

People shouldn't feel sympathy for someone who loses a debate -- man, woman or child --when the stakes are high.

Say I'm debating someone who says that we should use nuclear weapons as a bargaining point in trade with the UK.

At that point, I should be able to tear into that person verbally, even if it's my own grandmother, and people should still sympathize with me.

I don't expect Palin to make that point and I don't expect Biden to throw any punches. I threw that out there because it's a non-partisan example of stupidity.

We should be prepared to destroy anyone in leadership on a policy level and even their supporters should feel no sympathy if that puts them in tears.

We need to be merciless and tasteless and inhumanly rational in vetting our leaders.

Personally, I think anyone running for high office should have to submit to at least one tasteless and offensive interview without complaint, with questions calculated to be crass and hurtful. Not because it's a good thing but because we need to see how somebody with access to nuclear launch codes reacts to being spat on.

Now, I don't think that should be the norm and I'm against passive aggressive dirty politics... But I want to see every major candidate for every high office subjected to an organized, planned and impolite verbal curbstomping to know their character rather than listen to them preach about how much character they have.

[EMeadow]

Brett Hull day, you mean?

That is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo grounds for FIVE MOVES OF DOOM! and a sharpshooter! :biggrin:

[EMeadow]

Deleted for duplication

[KPhoebe]

I think she's wrong, and unethical, and warmongering, and promotes instutionalised discrimination against women and queer folk.

Calling her a sick, crazy bitch is a failure to say something substantive about Palin, but it's also a distraction from the really horrible things she's actively promoting.

[BnL]

OK, because I'm obsessive-compulsive, and I'm sure someone may point out that one of my sources is a letter, and not a verified news article (which is a fair criticism), I'll give proper sources on those and a few other points.

She didn't oppose the Bridge To Nowhere. Part of her gubernatorial campaign was based on her support for it.

This is Palin's most frequent lie, and the most easily debunked, which is probably why Linkara didn't challenge it the first time. But just in the interest of completeness, here's the link to an article I linked to before in response to a different point, but which also describes her flip flop on the Bridge To Nowhere. (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901)

She has no experience as "commander in chief" of the Alaskan National Guard. She's never been involved in any decision making, not even on occasions where they were deployed for state emergencies.

However, the governor has no command authority overseas or anywhere in the United States other than Alaska, said Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, the service commander of the Alaska National Guard.
.......
"We've deployed individuals in state service all over the state under Sarah Palin," he said. “We had defense men down in Seward for the (Mount) Marathon run doing security.

"Out west and northwest we had erosion problems, and the National Guard was involved in some of the protection out there. About three days ago, the Army National Guard picked up a lady from Little Diomede (Island) . . . at the request of state troopers."

Did Palin directly approve each of those activities?

No, Campbell said. The governor has granted him the authority to act on his own in most cases, including life-or-death emergencies — when a quick response is required — and minor day-to-day operations (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/51665.html)

Her highly touted "executive experience" consists mostly of her abdicating all her executive power to administrators and surrogates.

Ms. Palin, who had campaigned promising to cut her own full-time salary, reduced it from about $68,000 to about $64,000, but she also hired a city administrator, John Cramer, adding a salary to the payroll.

Critics said Republican leaders installed Mr. Cramer, who was closely tied to a powerful local state lawmaker, Lyda Green. Ms. Green, who is retiring this year as Senate president, endorsed Ms. Palin in her campaign for mayor but became one of her biggest critics when Ms. Palin was governor.

Tensions did ease eventually in Wasilla, and Mr. Cramer is given some of the credit, supporters and opponents of Ms. Palin said. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?pagewanted=2&hp)

Now granted, I probably overstated, based on Anne Kilkenny's highly publicized letter (In which none of the claims have been debunked, while the vast majority have been verified. This particular claim has yet to be properly investigated. Still, until it's confirmed, it is hearsay.), but not by that much. Between this and the stuff about her inflated status as "commander-in-chief" of the Alaska National Guard, it's not exactly a glowing endorsement of her much exalted "executive experience."

She inquired about how she could go about banning books in Wasilla. When the librarian resisted, she attempted to fire her, until a backlash caused her to back off. But she's still demonstrated a willingness to fire anyone who is not a yes-man.

Palin's church at the time, the Assembly of God, had been pushing for the removal a book called "Pastor I Am Gay" from local bookstores, according to the book's author Pastor Howard Bess, of the Church of the Covenant in nearby Palmer, Alaska.

"And she was one of them," said Bess, "this whole thing of controlling information, censorship, that's part of the scene," said Bess.

According to coverage in the local newspaper, the Frontiersman, Palin asked the librarian at a meeting "if she would object to censorship even if people were circling the library in protest about a book."

The report quotes the librarian as responding, "I told her clearly I will fight anyone who tries to indicate what books can go on the library shelves."

The same week that Palin raised the issue she fired Baker (then using her married name Emmons) as librarian, claiming she was not "loyal" to the new administration and had supported Palin's opponent in the election.
...................
The local newspaper reporter who covered the controversy, Paul Stuart, claims he was later told by the librarian that Palin wanted three specific books removed from the library. (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5766173&page=1)

And about her firing anyone who isn't a yes-man:

Early in her tenure as mayor, the city council threatened to recall her over accusations that she fired the city’s police chief, Irl Stambaugh, and the library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, without warning. She accused them in a letter saying: “I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment …” (The Anchorage Daily News, via nexis)

Ultimately, Palin let the library director have her job back; though Stambaugh’s position was not returned. The police chief took the matter to court, where a judge sided with Palin, saying city law allows the mayor to fire the police chief without cause.

When questioned by the Anchorage Daily News at the time, Palin refused to give details on how Stambaugh had not supported her, saying only: ”You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you.” (http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate)

Now, we all expect politicians to lie about stuff now and then, and fluff up their records here and there. But in Palin's case, her entire record being promoted to the public is majorly trumped up and distorted, when it's not a blatant lie (which is most often the case). Her resume is paper thin, and her list of offenses a mile long. She wasn't chosen for her record or for what she can do to improve America, because she has absolutely nothing to offer. That couldn't be more clear. She was chosen as a cynical tactic, purely to win over gullible voters, and nothing more. She's a prop. A tool to help the Republican leadership cling to power and make themselves and their buddies richer. Nothing more. Bottom line: she's not cut out for the job, any way you slice it. But boy, can she ever look purty while delivering one hell of a speech! Of course, she didn't WRITE the speech...but then, no puppet can talk on it's own, can it.

[Corrina]

FYI, all the Sarah Palin threads are here now.

Because I don't feel like policing them all. The only thread that does not have a redirect was the latest.

Because I should be the only sick, crazy bitch on CBR.

(Also, because I just don't like that subject heading.)

[Infra-Man]

Yes when all the people in the 57 states see this Obama is sure to win!!!

Sure, the 57 states thing is one of Obama's dumb blunders, sure, but when you spend weeks in seclusion trying to cram for your first big test and you swing and miss when Charlie Gibson gives you an underhand pitch... that's scary.

She didn't firggin' know what The Bush Doctrine is. I mean, come on! If you are running on a presidential ticket, you should know where the current president stands on the use of preventive war. Period. Full stop.

She's never met with a foreign head of state and touts the proximity of Russia as a one of her international relations bona fides? That seeing Russia from an island off Alaska means something?

She is one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's clear she is just not qualified for the job and that her grasp on the issues is as weak as a limp hamster paw.

[the4thpip]

FYI, all the Sarah Palin threads are here now.

Because I don't feel like policing them all. The only thread that does not have a redirect was the latest.

Because I should be the only sick, crazy bitch on CBR.

(Also, because I just don't like that subject heading.)

I agree... "Sick, crazy tosspot" would have had much more relevance. :wink:

[Infra-Man]

Will race matter in the election? Here's a piece from All Things Considered yesterday:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94523754

[the4thpip]

Sure, the 57 states thing is one of Obama's dumb blunders, sure, but when you spend weeks in seclusion trying to cram for your first big test and you swing and miss when Charlie Gibson gives you an underhand pitch... that's scary.

She didn't firggin' know what The Bush Doctrine is. I mean, come on! If you are running on a presidential ticket, you should know where the current president stands on the use of preventive war. Period. Full stop.

She's never met with a foreign head of state and touts the proximity of Russia as a one of her international relations bona fides? That seeing Russia from an island off Alaska means something?

She is one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's clear she is just not qualified for the job and that her grasp on the issues is as weak as a limp hamster paw.

And Gibson repeated and rephrased the question - so unlike Obama's gaffe, it is clear that she did not mishear or misspeak here. She just does not know. I don't think even Briareos seriously claims that Obama thinks there are 57 states.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: Bush -- What do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His worldview?

GIBSON: Well, the Bush Doctrine, [unintelligible] September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hellbent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though...

GIBSON: The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a pre-emptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against the American people, we have every right to defend our country.

[Infra-Man]

And Gibson repeated and rephrased the question - so unlike Obama's gaffe, it is clear that she did not mishear or misspeak here. She just does not know. I don't think even Briareos seriously claims that Obama thinks there are 57 states.

And it's not like "The Bush Doctrine" is a new phrase or a phrase that only liberals use. The Bush Doctrine was coined in late 2001 or early 2002 by neoconservatives or the PNAC people, for the love of Pete, and has been used again and again in various media reports whether it be The Weekly Standard or through PBS's Frontline. John McCain himself discussed The Bush Doctrine in the documentary Why We Fight (the recent one, not the old Capra one). I even friggin' knew what The Bush Doctrine is, and I'm just some schmuck living in Brooklyn.

[LtMarvel]

It's true that Obama hasn't made fun of McCain getting shot down five times, yes. But his supporters, some in this very thread, have made them. Is that the same, no, not exactly, but it gives me some insight into the thinking.

Dazzler, I remember making fun of McCain because he had started to reference POW in all his answers, including Jay Leno's "How many houses do you own?"

I don't remember anyone making fun of him being shot down.

[KevinTBrown]

Sure, the 57 states thing is one of Obama's dumb blunders, sure, but when you spend weeks in seclusion trying to cram for your first big test and you swing and miss when Charlie Gibson gives you an underhand pitch... that's scary.

She didn't firggin' know what The Bush Doctrine is. I mean, come on! If you are running on a presidential ticket, you should know where the current president stands on the use of preventive war. Period. Full stop.

She's never met with a foreign head of state and touts the proximity of Russia as a one of her international relations bona fides? That seeing Russia from an island off Alaska means something?

She is one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's clear she is just not qualified for the job and that her grasp on the issues is as weak as a limp hamster paw.

Um, Canada is a tad closer to Alaska than Russia... :wink:

[KevinTBrown]

Dazzler, I remember making fun of McCain because he had started to reference POW in all his answers, including Jay Leno's "How many houses do you own?"

I don't remember anyone making fun of him being shot down.

Actually, Jon Stewart has made fun of it.

[Infra-Man]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what?

Misleading absentee ballot forms being sent by McCain campaign (http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/09/misleading-absentee-ballot-forms-being.html)

Just listening to the substitute host, Lee Rayburn, on the Thom Hartmann show:

"Misleading" absentee ballot applications are being mailed out by the McCain campaign to registered Democratic voters in purple states. The return addresses are inaccurate, as well as other information. "Misleading, lying" mailers are going out in Florida and other purple states. It's a caging tactic.

Calls are coming in verifying that this is happening in small towns, as well as larger ones.

The host is trying to determine the scale of this subversion of our democracy.

Here we go again.

UPDATE: It's happening in Pennsylvania, too. The ballots have included multiple ballots, sender address is a new address while return address is from old city clerk's office... The I'm trying to type this as he says it, and it may not be clear, since I miss some. I apologize for that.

Fraud. Election fraud. Hopefully the local authorities can help, or the local Obama offices. Calling the media could help, too.

A caller: Robocalls asking if you're interested in an absentee ballot. Or, notifying the voter that the ballot will be mailed back postage paid to the National Republican Committee.

Another caller from Detroit. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida: That's where the absentee ballots are being sent to Obama voters. Add Missouri to that, per one of our commenters.

You can be sure McCain isn't doing this because he wants every vote counted.

UPDATE: A North Carolina caller got THREE of them. In the phone book there's a street address, but on the form, it's a P.O. Box, per the caller.

California caller from registrar's office: McCain should take the application for absentee and submit within 3 days. But the applications will most likely be held for the 3 days and "die". They'll most likely submit the Republican ones, and throw away the Democratic ones.

The return address for the request card goes to the wrong city clerk office address, per Rayburn.

Michigan caller: Wrong home address, and then, wrong city clerk address on the one he got. He donated to Obama, but not a Democrat, so he wonders if that's how they found him.

Hey media? There's a real story here.

UPDATE: Add Oregon to the list.

And Virginia:
"I am a mail carrier in Virgina & delived about 20 of those yesterday. They are sent out bulk mail, so if you refuse them, they just go in the trash."

[the4thpip]

And it's not like "The Bush Doctrine" is a new phrase or a phrase that only liberals use. The Bush Doctrine was coined in late 2001 or early 2002 by neoconservatives or the PNAC people, for the love of Pete, and has been used again and again in various media reports whether it be The Weekly Standard or through PBS's Frontline. John McCain himself discussed The Bush Doctrine in the documentary Why We Fight (the recent one, not the old Capra one). I even friggin' knew what The Bush Doctrine is, and I'm just some schmuck living in Brooklyn.

516.000 google hits for "bush doctrine" and 795.000 without the quotation marks.

[Typo Lad]

And now, for more stories in the news ...

Biden says Hillary might have been a better pick than him. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html) ]

Those comments scare me.

[Chris Hansbrough]

Sure, the 57 states thing is one of Obama's dumb blunders, sure, but when you spend weeks in seclusion trying to cram for your first big test and you swing and miss when Charlie Gibson gives you an underhand pitch... that's scary.

She didn't firggin' know what The Bush Doctrine is. I mean, come on! If you are running on a presidential ticket, you should know where the current president stands on the use of preventive war. Period. Full stop.

She's never met with a foreign head of state and touts the proximity of Russia as a one of her international relations bona fides? That seeing Russia from an island off Alaska means something?

She is one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's clear she is just not qualified for the job and that her grasp on the issues is as weak as a limp hamster paw.

how anyone doesn't comprehend that he was making a joke is beyond me. does the subtle pause not give some clue?

[Stressfactor]

What disheartens me is the fact that McCain seems to need Palin in order to be popular to his own party.

I wonder in the Republicans are thinking they backed the wrong horse?

No matter who wins this election, though, I'd bet dollars to donughts that the Republicans will run Palin in four years. Cause I seriously doubt that, considering his age now, voters will be willing to take a chance on McCain four years down the line... if he's still alive then even.

[the4thpip]

The Washington Post this morning reports -- in a story titled "Palin Links Iraq to 9/11, A View Discarded by Bush" -- that at her son's troop deployment ceremony Thursday, Gov. Sarah Palin made remarks that seemed to some to directly link the 9/11 attacks to the war in Iraq.

"You'll be there in service to the same cause of freedom from tyranny and from violence," Palin said. "You'll be there to defend the innocent from enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans. You'll be there because American can never go back to that false sense security that came before September 11, 2001."

The McCain-Palin campaign says Palin was not saying Iraqis carried out the 9/11 attacks, but rather that she was speaking generally of jihadis, Al Qaeda in Iraq as representative of a global ideology.

What do you think?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/palin-iraq-and.html

I guess she did watch some Cheney tapes to figure out how being a VP works...

[Infra-Man]

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/1237/mccainhandonface1uy5.jpg

[Charles RB]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what?

Misleading absentee ballot forms being sent by McCain campaign (http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/09/misleading-absentee-ballot-forms-being.html)

Bloody hellfire. Was the Republican rulebook written by Norman Osborn or what?

[LtMarvel]

"This election is not about issues." Rick Davis, McCain campaign manager.


Is that because your side's stance on the issues is weak compared to your opponent's?

[the4thpip]

McCain camp broke 9/11 truce

The two presidential campaigns had declared a truce for the anniversary of 9/11. Traditional campaigning, especially of the negative sort, was supposed to be put on hold. But John McCain's campaign, it's now clear, broke that truce -- and did so with an ad that nonpartisan watchdog FactCheck.org calls "particularly egregious" for its distortions.

FactCheck is also responsible for noticing the violation of the truce; it caught the McCain camp airing the ad in Denver on Thursday, the seventh anniversary of 9/11. And there's another glaring sign I just noticed -- if you look at the YouTube page for the ad, it says the video was added on September 11, 2008.

The spot itself, titled "Disrespectful," is more pushback against criticism of Sarah Palin. In this case, as with other similar ads the McCain camp has put out, the criticism discussed is largely fictional. FactCheck has three points summing up the distortions in the ad:

* The ad says "they said she was doing 'what she was told.'" But the Obama adviser who's being quoted didn't accuse Palin of meekly following orders. What he actually said is that she made a false claim about Obama's legislative record and added, "maybe that's what she was told."
* It says "they lashed out at Sarah Palin; dismissed her as 'good looking,'" But "they" didn't lash out at all. Obama -- who is the one pictured -- didn't say anything like that. The only one the McCain campaign quotes is Obama's running mate, Biden, and he actually offered the remark as a compliment. Biden said the "obvious" difference between Palin and himself is "she's good looking."
* The ad says Obama was "disrespectful" when he accused Palin of "lying" about her record. But the truth is Palin's claim to have "said no" to the "bridge to nowhere" is indeed a dubious one, as we and many have pointed out.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/12/truce_ad/index.html

[KevinTBrown]

Obama sharpens his attack on McCain. (http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/obama)

The focus needs to be on McCain and not Palin from this point forward, and that ad does it.

[the4thpip]

OK.

But one last look at Palin before she fades into obscurity.

http://images.salon.com/comics/boll/2008/09/11/boll/story.gif

[Typo Lad]

Ooo.

My dad's all pundity in one of the largest Jewish newspapers (http://www.forward.com/articles/14184/)

[the4thpip]

Ooo.

My dad's all pundity in one of the largest Jewish newspapers (http://www.forward.com/articles/14184/)

Good article - but would have been better if he'd used the word "tosspot."

[Buzz Dixon]

Most of what you list are lies....Then the ones that aren't are still more than sufficient to deny her the Veep slot.

[TCJohnson]

She favors abstinence-only sex education and teaching creationism alongside evolution, regardless of the lack of the legitimacy of those things.

To be fair, she made a campaign promise not to require creationism be taught in schools in Alaska, and so far has kept that promise.

[Matt Doc Martin]

Most of what you list are lies....

Actually, all of what he listed was either fact or opinion.

Learn the difference. What you say is either idiocy or lies.

[Danny Donovan]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, what?

Misleading absentee ballot forms being sent by McCain campaign (http://thepoliticalcarnival.blogspot.com/2008/09/misleading-absentee-ballot-forms-being.html)

I got one of those things... I dunno if I still have it or if I tossed it out. I was half tempted to send it to the Huffington Post or something, because even though this "absentee" ballot was sent to me in VA for some odd reason, the place to return it for processing is in Dobson, NC.

So they could be stacking votes by registering one person in two states. Specifically ones that are "purple" like NC with a high African American and Youth vote.

I lived in North Carolina for 7 years. But I have lived and voted in VA for 4. So why would the RNC want me to register in NC, when it is not the state of my permanent residence?

Stupid, stupid conservative creatures.

[EdContradictory]

Any conservative care to defend Palin's performance in her interview? I'm just curious to hear the opposing viewpoint to "awful."

[Matt Doc Martin]

Any conservative care to defend Palin's performance in her interview? I'm just curious to hear the opposing viewpoint to "awful."


Great. Invite some dipshit like Bri Bri, the inbred guy, to blather on about how she will be better than Jesus for the country.

[Paul McEnery]

Great. Invite some dipshit like Bri Bri, the inbred guy, to blather on about how she will be better than Jesus for the country.

And how good has Jesus been for the country? :evilsmile:

[Corrina]

Any conservative care to defend Palin's performance in her interview? I'm just curious to hear the opposing viewpoint to "awful."

I think the defense of the interview will fall along the lines of "being natural in front of a camera is not a job description for President. What matters is that she can do that job and her answers, if tentative, prove that."

Of course, I keep wondering if she can't stand up to Charlie Gibson (he's no Mike Wallace), how is she doing to do with Putin?

[Matt Doc Martin]

And how good has Jesus been for the country? :evilsmile:

As good as Santa Claus and a stable Ross Perot.

[Paul McEnery]

I think the defense of the interview will fall along the lines of "being natural in front of a camera is not a job description for President. What matters is that she can do that job and her answers, if tentative, prove that."

Of course, I keep wondering if she can't stand up to Charlie Gibson (he's no Mike Wallace), how is she doing to do with Putin?

While Europeans yearn for Obama, Putin salivates over McCain/Palin.

[KevinTBrown]

Biden releases 10YEARS of tax returns. (http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/biden_finances)

Ball is in your court now, Sarah. :wink:



And, yeah, Biden is 100% middle class, regardless of his Congressional seat.

[lucasb]

Biden releases 10YEARS of tax returns. (http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/biden_finances)

Ball is in your court now, Sarah. :wink:



And, yeah, Biden is 100% middle class, regardless of his Congressional seat.

Seems to me that Obama selected Biden as his VP, to help him run the country.

McCain selected Palin as his VP, to help him win the election.

That's the essential difference.

[Paul McEnery]

Seems to me that Obama selected Biden as his VP, to help him run the country.

McCain selected Palin as his VP, to help him win the election.

That's the essential difference.

She's his Vanna White.

Anyone remember who Vanna White's frontman was?

[EdContradictory]

She's his Vanna White.

Anyone remember who Vanna White's frontman was?

Is. Wheel of Fortune's still on the air, man.

And it's Pat Sajak.

[EdContradictory]

I think the defense of the interview will fall along the lines of "being natural in front of a camera is not a job description for President. What matters is that she can do that job and her answers, if tentative, prove that."

But none of her answers proved that.:confused:

[Adam C]

I think the defense of the interview will fall along the lines of "being natural in front of a camera is not a job description for President. What matters is that she can do that job and her answers, if tentative, prove that."

Of course, I keep wondering if she can't stand up to Charlie Gibson (he's no Mike Wallace), how is she doing to do with Putin?

Over on the Comm board Ray Rivard commented on her performance (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7546290&postcount=4517) during the interview, noting that she looked like a deer in headlights, despite being given lightweight questions that she was clearly rehearsed for.

So I watched it and yeah... Her answers don't have any substance and communicate the idea she doesn't have any clue what she is talking about. And they all sound like she studiously rehearsed these, and even then they are difficult for her. To underscore this point:

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly over the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?

PALIN: Theyre our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.


She doesn't have any business being near executive office if this is her response.

[EdContradictory]

By that rationale a ton of governors are foreign policy experts because their states border foreign countries.

They can walk to Canada, Palin can only look at Russia!

[KevinTBrown]

More on Biden's release of his taxes. (http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080912/pl_politico/13397)

Quotable: News reports from Alaska have said that Palin collected per diem travel payments even when she was at home, and the Obama-Biden campaign wants reporters to see if she paid taxes on it.

[the4thpip]

Never call The View a fluff show again!

McCain faced one of his toughest TV interviews ever there. Barbara Walters says "we know these things are lies" about his spots yet he stands by them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html

Listen to the audience react to his Roe v Wade comments in the second clip.

[Evan Waters]

Holy shit.

First Paris Hilton and now this.

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Holy shit.

First Paris Hilton and now this.

It's big sign when not only Paris Hilton rips you apart (which is like seppeku level shame), but the View picks you apart as well.

No wonder they're avoiding the media... Their stances and conduct are so bad anyone can mangle them on camera. The Daily Show has been doing it for months.

[Infra-Man]

Never call The View a fluff show again!

McCain faced one of his toughest TV interviews ever there. Barbara Walters says "we know these things are lies" about his spots yet he stands by them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html

Listen to the audience react to his Roe v Wade comments in the second clip.

Obama's campaign has issued this statement based on McCain's appearance on The View:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/obama-camp-steps-up-attac_n_126014.html

Today on "The View," John McCain defended his campaign's latest ad campaign, which has been debunked repeatedly as both false and sleazy. In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election.

That last line is pretty damn hardcore.

[Paul McEnery]

Obama's campaign has issued this statement based on McCain's appearance on The View:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/obama-camp-steps-up-attac_n_126014.html



That last line is pretty damn hardcore.

To be fair, it's the only strategy available to him if he wants to win.

Disgustingly, the polls say that it's working.

Pray god everything we're saying about the polls missing the cellphone generation turns out to be true.

[Michael P]

On the other hand, what does it say about the traditional news media that the people who've asked him the toughest questions to date have included Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg?

[Arrogantcur]

She didn't firggin' know what The Bush Doctrine is. I mean, come on! If you are running on a presidential ticket, you should know where the current president stands on the use of preventive war. Period. Full stop.

Damn straight. I know what the Bush Doctrine is, and as a matter of fact brought it up here recently. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7503885&postcount=30) Plenty of U.S. citizens know what the Bush Doctrine is. All you need to do is read about the presidency of George W. Bush, and you'll read about the Bush Doctrine. You don't even have to read a lot about him.

Anybody who claims that she did know what it was, stop. Just stop. When Gibson asked her about it, she talked about his world view, she talked about how he had made some mistakes, etc. She seemed to think he was asking her "what's your opinion of President Bush?" Only after he clarified what the Bush Doctrine was did she begin talking about the use of preemptive force (and in my opinion she is wrong about the rightness of the Doctrine. You don't attack somebody who hasn't attacked you or one of your allies. Period).

If you're hoping to succeed a President and his VP, you oughtta know all about what they did. You oughtta know about the mistakes they made, the stuff they did right, the situations they created that you are inheriting, etc. The fact that Palin doesn't know this stuff SHOULD be cause for concern among all voters.

Oh, and being able to see Russia from Alaska? Is that supposed to impress anybody? Goddamn...ok Sarah, unless the part of the Russian coast you can see happens to be a favourite fishing spot for Vladimir Putin, and unless you have frequently taken a boat over there to sit down and chat with him, then that doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience. If being able to merely see another country counted as foreign policy experience, astronauts who have seen the whole planet from orbit would have more foreign policy experience than any politician. :rolleyes:

Any conservative care to defend Palin's performance in her interview? I'm just curious to hear the opposing viewpoint to "awful."

Oh Novaaaayyyyaaaa? Apparently you're a conservative now. Would you care to defend? :redface:

She's his Vanna White.

Anyone remember who Vanna White's frontman was?

I had to think about it for a minute, but Pat Sajak. I only know that because I've actually watched Wheel of Fortune now and then. People who'd never seen the show would probably have heard of Vanna, but not Pat.

[Paul McEnery]

I had to think about it for a minute, but Pat Sajak. I only know that because I've actually watched Wheel of Fortune now and then. People who'd never seen the show would probably have heard of Vanna, but not Pat.

Which would be my sad little point.

Then again, I've never seen Pat Sajak naked.

[Corrina]

On the other hand, what does it say about the traditional news media that the people who've asked him the toughest questions to date have included Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg?

Joy's a tough cookie. I wouldn't want to mess with her.

Also, comedians are good at zingers.

[Michael P]

Joy's a tough cookie. I wouldn't want to mess with her.

Also, comedians are good at zingers.

Yeah, but c'mon, shouldn't people whose actual job it is to do this have beaten them to it, is what I'm saying.

[Arrogantcur]

Yeah, but c'mon, shouldn't people whose actual job it is to do this have beaten them to it, is what I'm saying.

Yeah, they should have.

Something I forgot to mention before:

-Palin is on record describing the Iraq War as "a task that is from God."

-Last night Palin told Gibson, in response to him quoting that statement, that we should never presume to know the will of God.

If this isn't a classic example of a flip-flop, I don't know what is. I want to see the Obama campaign play this up, ask "which is it, Sarah?"

I'd also like to quote something from a certain unnamed poster's blog, written in the comments section by that unnamed poster. Here it is...

Palin has done more than Obama ever could on gay rights. And -- mind -- Obama gave credence to "while we may disagree on gay marriage" during his "historic speech."

A shiny new donkey to the first person who can point out what's wrong with the second part of that statement (never mind the first). Please, unnamed poster, insult our intelligence some more. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Oh Christ, McCain's started to refer to his opposition as "the Democrat Party." There goes the last little shred of his aversion to partisan politics.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, but c'mon, shouldn't people whose actual job it is to do this have beaten them to it, is what I'm saying.

It's simple.

The comedians are the journalists because the journalists are clowns.

[Sabrinaset]

Yeah, but c'mon, shouldn't people whose actual job it is to do this have beaten them to it, is what I'm saying.

"Too cowardly to confront my anxieties, I had life's black comedy explained to me by the Comedian himself during the Crimebusters fiasco in '66. I'm sure you remember. He discussed nuclear war's inevitability, describing my future role as 'smartest guy on the cinder'... and opened my eyes. Only the best comedians accomplish that."

[Corrina]

Yeah, they should have.



I think McCain left himself open with them because they're supposed to be lightweights. They were fairly easy on Michele Obama and McCain's wife, Cindy. But I think the reasoning there was to get insight into the wives--not grill them because they're not running for office.

McCain's also been on there before and done fine. But, of course, he wasn't basing his campaign ads on provable lies then, either.

[Danny Donovan]

"Too cowardly to confront my anxieties, I had life's black comedy explained to me by the Comedian himself during the Crimebusters fiasco in '66. I'm sure you remember. He discussed nuclear war's inevitability, describing my future role as 'smartest guy on the cinder'... and opened my eyes. Only the best comedians accomplish that."

Watchmen reference for the win.

But honestly think about it, our toughest journalists are Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olbermann. Two comedians and a sportscaster.

[Infra-Man]

But honestly think about it, our toughest journalists are Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Keith Olbermann. Two comedians and a sportscaster.

It sounds like a pitch for a sitcom, but the unfunny part is it's true.

[Corrina]

Palin can't even get facts about Alaska right.

:sigh:

I realize my view of her is irrationally angry but I would be angry at anyone who didn't know the basic facts of the state of which they are governor:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html

[Charles RB]

Palin can't even get facts about Alaska right.


It's entirely possible she does know the facts, but is assuming those outside Alaska don't and she can get away with lying to look more impressive.

I don't know which option is worse.

[Royal]

To put simply....

Sarah Palin is Kimbo Slice.

An individual who has little to no experiance in their selected fields who've hooked up with the best for help and are riding a steadily rising wave of hype that will eventually pull them under and drown them in the end.

They also rely on their shortcomings or bad excuses when asked the tough questions.

[KevinTBrown]

Here's hoping that America can get past the fact that she's a MILF and realize how much of a "piece of fluff" she is.....

[Novaya Havoc]

Oh Novaaaayyyyaaaa? Apparently you're a conservative now. Would you care to defend? :redface:


Palin did darn well. Gibson hammered her on FP. Sure. Of course. FP is not why Palin is on the ticket, nor do I think that the electorate is looking to Palin regarding matters of FP.

FP "a-ha!" moments will only appease those in the tank for Obama. You want to talk sexism, then also note that the majority of the electorate will feel more comfortable with Palin as #2 (as a woman) and want to hear the "woman" talk "domestic" issues. After all, there is a reason we call these "domestic" issues. The phrase "Domestic" in and of itself carries a gender bias.

She stumbled on the "Bush Doctrine." Obama supporters will scream she's a raving idiot who does not know what it is (while these critics scramble to wiki to read about it for themselves, mind), but Palin refused to be trapped into a "Bush III!" line. Binary answers are silly, and very few politicians give binary answers.

Obama has rarely, if ever, given binary answers to charged questions.

The latter interviews? On energy and social "thoughts?" Palin knocked it out of the park. Heck, she went on record -- on record -- refusing to say homosexuality is a "choice." So much for the "PRAY THE GAY AWAY!" sabre-rattling.

She did say she is for the overturning of Roe. But she followed with a respect for personal beliefs, and candidly expressed she was sharing her own personal -- and not necessarily policy -- beliefs.

Palin handled herself with aplomb. Was she weak in the first segment on FP? Yes. But Palin is not on the ticket for FP. The electorate does not expect her to be the FP expert.

She sailed through the parts shown tonight, and will continue to boost McCain's support.

FWIW, this is how I see the electoral map on Nov 5:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction.png

[Royal]

Hahahahahaha!

That map is so wrong.

[Danny Donovan]

FWIW, this is how I see the electoral map on Nov 5:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction.png


Oh for the love of... Power Point can be fun but those numbers make no sense compared to voter demographic or anything else...

The Hillary people are not that damn important. "18 million" in a country of hundreds of millions. I don't see any independents jumping for joy because some dumbass lady is picked.

I hope if this ticket DOES win, everyone is perfectly happy to see this country turn into one giant smoldering hole on the globe.

[Michael P]

The Hillary people are not that damn important.

I wouldn't say that, but I would say that the Hillary people who are out of touch with reality enough to vote McCain/Palin are not important at all. The post-primary equivalent of Ron Paul voters, really.

[KevinTBrown]

FWIW, this is how I see the electoral map on Nov 5:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction.png

Total bullshit.

WI and MI Obama holds nothing less than a 7 point lead, and that hasn't changed since he's been the "presumptive" nominee.

In PA, he took a McCain lead of 7 (as of July) and made it his lead with about a 3-4 point lead... and it's increasing. And the entire New England area is solidly Democrat. Any "red states" there is wishful thinking on your part and won't happen. Not so long as Kennedy is a force in any way.

OH is definitely in play and has been slowly moving closer to Obama each and every day. And, finally, CO and NM are going to swing Democrat, specially with Richardson backing Obama.

If McCain is lucky, he'll garner 245 electoral votes.

[KevinTBrown]

By the way, he got the map from here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

THAT'S how it currently looks with no swing states according to the polls. Obama 273 to McCain 265.

[Bruce Wayne Jr.]

An individual who has little to no experiance in their selected fields who've hooked up with the best for help and are riding a steadily rising wave of hype that will eventually pull them under and drown them in the end.

They also rely on their shortcomings or bad excuses when asked the tough questions.

If you hadn't said otherwise, I would have swore you were comparing her to George Bush Jr.

[Evan Waters]

The latter interviews? On energy and social "thoughts?" Palin knocked it out of the park. Heck, she went on record -- on record -- refusing to say homosexuality is a "choice." So much for the "PRAY THE GAY AWAY!" sabre-rattling.

She did say she is for the overturning of Roe. But she followed with a respect for personal beliefs, and candidly expressed she was sharing her own personal -- and not necessarily policy -- beliefs.

And I'm sure she'll hold to that- she'll be a Compassionate Conservative, a Uniter, Not a Divider.

Policy matters. On what POLICY are McCain/Palin superior? Oh, right, she has ovaries.

[Bruce Wayne Jr.]

You want to talk sexism, then also note that the majority of the electorate will feel more comfortable with Palin as #2 (as a woman) and want to hear the "woman" talk "domestic" issues. After all, there is a reason we call these "domestic" issues. The phrase "Domestic" in and of itself carries a gender bias.


Hilarious! And with sight gags!

[Novaya Havoc]

Total bullshit.

WI and MI Obama holds nothing less than a 7 point lead, and that hasn't changed since he's been the "presumptive" nominee.


Are you kidding? The latest polling shows Obama up in MI by 1 point. One. After Kwame, and without strong support amongst the labor rank-and-file, Obama will lose MI.

Wisconsin? That might be Obama. But I am sure as anything that Michigan will be McCain this year.

By the way, he got the map from here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10

THAT'S how it currently looks with no swing states according to the polls. Obama 273 to McCain 265.

And? On this date in 2004, Kerry was up higher in EV polling than Obama is currently. We saw how that worked out.

Point:

Obama will not flip any southern state, not even Virginia.
Obama will not flip the mountain west. MAYBE New Mexico, but not Colorado.
Obama will not flip Florida or Ohio.
Obama will probably flip Iowa, since he pandered so strongly there regarding:

Michigan. Which will flip McCain.
And New Hampshire will probably flip McCain.

I think Wisconsin and Pennsylvania will flip McCain, but those are just bonuses to this end. McCain flips Michigan while holding Ohio and Florida -- with the rest of the Bush/Kerry Map -- and it's over. Iowa be damned.

[Royal]

If you hadn't said otherwise, I would have swore you were comparing her to George Bush Jr.

Wow...now that I think of it....

[Arrogantcur]

She stumbled on the "Bush Doctrine." Obama supporters will scream she's a raving idiot who does not know what it is (while these critics scramble to wiki to read about it for themselves, mind)...

Oh please. I'm an Obama supporter and not only am I familiar with the Bush Doctrine without having to look it up, but I was familiar with it before Palin was asked about it. I already linked to a post I made that proves just that, but I'll link to it again now:

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=7503885&postcount=30

And hey, if she doesn't bring foreign policy knowledge or experience to the table, then what the hell DOES she have to offer? She doesn't know much about anything outside of Alaska, which she hasn't governed for very long.. She hasn't spent much time in Washington, which I consider a liability rather than an asset.

I believe she's there for three reasons:

1. to appease those among the religious right who feel McCain isn't conservative enough;
2. to manipulate weak-minded and bitter Hillary supporters who are stupid enough to want to vote for a woman, any woman at all;
3. to manipulate weak-minded heterosexual male voters who are stupid enough to think "she's hot! I think I'll vote for her, even though I don't know anything about her!"

Heck, she went on record -- on record -- refusing to say homosexuality is a "choice." So much for the "PRAY THE GAY AWAY!" sabre-rattling.

This is supposed to impress me somehow? :rolleyes:

That reminds me of how you took an Obama quote out of context on your blog, though. Karl Rove would be proud of you.

Now I'll explain what you did, as if you don't already know.

You mention Obama said "we may disagree on gay marriage" and implied that this was him saying "I, Barack Obama, am against gay marriage."

No he isn't. If you bothered to watch his speech, you know that he was addressing REPUBLICANS when he said "we may disagree on gay marriage." Meaning that he, Barack Obama, feels that gay people out to have that right.

You knew this and you chose to slander the guy anyway. Classy.

Please, cite ONE example of Barack Obama casting a vote in the Senate--hell, either Senate--that was somehow anti-LGBT. So far all you've come up with is "oh boo hoo, he never marched in a gay pride parade like Hillary! He must be a homophobe!"

[Evan Waters]

And you're dodging the point. You're essentially saying she'll win because you want her to win because you think electing a woman is more important than any of the issues.

You still have not morally justified electing an anti-choice, laissez-faire, pro-bombing-Iran ticket solely because Obama supporters were mean to Hilary. What matters more, progress or personal scores?

[LtMarvel]

It's the economy, stupid.

No way Michigan goes McCain...

[bfrank]

Palin did darn well. Gibson hammered her on FP. Sure. Of course. FP is not why Palin is on the ticket, nor do I think that the electorate is looking to Palin regarding matters of FP.

FP "a-ha!" moments will only appease those in the tank for Obama. You want to talk sexism, then also note that the majority of the electorate will feel more comfortable with Palin as #2 (as a woman) and want to hear the "woman" talk "domestic" issues. After all, there is a reason we call these "domestic" issues. The phrase "Domestic" in and of itself carries a gender bias.

She stumbled on the "Bush Doctrine." Obama supporters will scream she's a raving idiot who does not know what it is (while these critics scramble to wiki to read about it for themselves, mind), but Palin refused to be trapped into a "Bush III!" line. Binary answers are silly, and very few politicians give binary answers.

Obama has rarely, if ever, given binary answers to charged questions.

The latter interviews? On energy and social "thoughts?" Palin knocked it out of the park. Heck, she went on record -- on record -- refusing to say homosexuality is a "choice." So much for the "PRAY THE GAY AWAY!" sabre-rattling.

She did say she is for the overturning of Roe. But she followed with a respect for personal beliefs, and candidly expressed she was sharing her own personal -- and not necessarily policy -- beliefs.

Palin handled herself with aplomb. Was she weak in the first segment on FP? Yes. But Palin is not on the ticket for FP. The electorate does not expect her to be the FP expert.

She sailed through the parts shown tonight, and will continue to boost McCain's support.

FWIW, this is how I see the electoral map on Nov 5:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction.png


Weren't you a Hilary supporter?

[Royal]

Are you kidding? The latest polling shows Obama up in MI by 1 point. One. After Kwame, and without strong support amongst the labor rank-and-file, Obama will lose MI.


Michigan. Which will flip McCain.


As a Michigander, I would like to say Bull. Shit.

A gridlocking state Republican party mixed with a dishonest Federal Gov. has made us hungry dogs. The energy policies as well as the ability to develop the Volt has become a bit of hope for our industrial community. Add to that the ability to double output in sugar beet growth and we can become the new sultans.

There is no way we'll turn Red. No matter how hard you try to tie Kwame to Obama.

But of course you want A new Republican Govt.

In that case, I can not be resposible for what happens when hungry dogs break out of their yard.

[Danny Donovan]

Obama will not flip any southern state, not even Virginia.
.

I live IN Virginia.

There is a campaign headquarters about 5 blocks from my house. There is NO love for McCain in the wider populated areas. The only place he still has sway is out in the boonies and around the blue ridge area.

There are an abnormally large percentage of African American voters, (similar to NC) Plus the fact we have a democratic governor and Senator.

VA has been turning blue since 2006.

VA and NC will go Democrat. NC is a strong possibility of staying red, especially if the same crap goes on when I lived there. Further up in deliverance country blacks were intimidated from the polls, some with violence... BUT even the "good ol' boys" are tired of this crap.

[Evan Waters]

Weren't you a Hilary supporter?

Yes, and spiting Obama is more important than making anything better in this blighted country. Or improving our relations overseas.

[Arrogantcur]

The latter interviews? On energy and social "thoughts?" Palin knocked it out of the park.

Energy issues...hmmm...I didn't catch that but I'm gonna take a guess at what she said. Tell me if I'm right.

I bet it was something along the lines of "We should drill in ANWR as soon as we can, fuck the environment, fuck the animals. We must have oil, no matter what the cost to the planet."

How close was that? :biggrin:

EDIT: Weren't you a Hilary supporter?

Yeah, and he's somehow deluded himself into thinking that Palin is as good as Hillary...maybe even BETTER! :redface:

[bfrank]

Yes, and spiting Obama is more important than making anything better in this blighted country. Or improving our relations overseas.

Just wanted to be justified in calling her an idiot....thanks!

[KevinTBrown]

Are you kidding? The latest polling shows Obama up in MI by 1 point. One. After Kwame, and without strong support amongst the labor rank-and-file, Obama will lose MI.

Wisconsin? That might be Obama. But I am sure as anything that Michigan will be McCain this year.



And? On this date in 2004, Kerry was up higher in EV polling than Obama is currently. We saw how that worked out.

Point:

Obama will not flip any southern state, not even Virginia.
Obama will not flip the mountain west. MAYBE New Mexico, but not Colorado.
Obama will not flip Florida or Ohio.
Obama will probably flip Iowa, since he pandered so strongly there regarding:

Michigan. Which will flip McCain.
And New Hampshire will probably flip McCain.

I think Wisconsin and Pennsylvania will flip McCain, but those are just bonuses to this end. McCain flips Michigan while holding Ohio and Florida -- with the rest of the Bush/Kerry Map -- and it's over. Iowa be damned.

I was wrong about MI... it's a 5 point lead for Obama according to Rasmussen. It's just WI that has the 7 point lead for Obama.

No idea about OH, it's not showing on Rasmussen, but it's very much in play according to other polls. McCain's lead has actually shrunk since Palin was announced and there was no bounce there after the convention.

PA shows a 2 point Obama lead.



Let's see where things are after the debates....

But your map is still fucking bullshit and you know it.

[Novaya Havoc]

Or, hey, let's play some other hypotheticals:

McCain holds Ohio and Florida -- which are appearing ever out of reach for Obama -- and takes Michigan. Even if Obama takes Virginia and Colorado while holding New Hampshire:

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction_1.png


Or? What if Obama keeps Michigan and New Hampshire, while taking Iowa and Colorado, with the rest of the Kerry/Bush map preserved?

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction_2.png

I stand by the map I presented. Unless Obama is planning on keeping the Kerry map (and I am sure some states will flip, like NH and MI), and taking more than Iowa and Colorado, he loses.

[Evan Waters]

Your refusal to support your case for McCain/Palin with any actual issues, in favor of showing more "ha ha, Obama loses!' mockups, tells me one thing.

You don't want McCain and Palin to win because they'll make the country better. You want them to win to PUNISH the Democrats who did not back Clinton. That's all this is, you want to be able to stand and gloat and say "you should have gone with Hilary!" and who cares if the dollar falls further and the coast lines rise? You'll have the satisfaction of being right.

You are a narcissist. You don't care about the welfare of the people. You care about winning.

[Royal]

We are not fucking leaning. We are standing!

[Sabrinaset]

You know, Lester C. is taking an Abnormal Psychology class. Maybe we should call him in here to do a study of Novaya and help explain him for us? Sure, Kramer has more experience with this kind of stuff, but he doesn't stop by here much anymore.

[Novaya Havoc]

As a Michigander, I would like to say Bull. Shit.

A gridlocking state Republican party mixed with a dishonest Federal Gov. has made us hungry dogs. The energy policies as well as the ability to develop the Volt has become a bit of hope for our industrial community. Add to that the ability to double output in sugar beet growth and we can become the new sultans.

There is no way we'll turn Red. No matter how hard you try to tie Kwame to Obama.

But of course you want A new Republican Govt.

In that case, I can not be resposible for what happens when hungry dogs break out of their yard.

I am a Michigander. I've met Gov. Granholm numerous times and campaigned for her. When my mom mentioned my name when she was speaking on Healthcare at Sparrow, Granholm's eyes lit up and gave my mom a huge hug and asked how I am.

I'm being realistic. Granholm is unpopular state-wide. Kwame is going to be in jail. The Detroit rank and file are eating their own over Kwame and it will hurt GOTV.

I like the Volt. I blogged about the Volt when it was first unveiled. The union rank and file is not behind Obama, and couple that with an anarchic Detroit political machine over Kwame, Granholm's low numbers, the primary fracas, and good ol' "Bradley effect" and you have a state that will swing Republican.

Trust.

[KevinTBrown]

Just wanted to be justified in calling her an idiot....thanks!

Novaya is a guy.




And you're still playing "fast and loose" with your map, Novaya.

One map you have MI going to Obama, but not VT. Another you have VT and not MI.... All you're doing is playing games and not looking at facts as they stand. Hence the reason I provided the link for people to see the REAL map as it currently stands.

After the debates, especially the VP debate, McCain is going to start losing states. GUARANTEED.

By the way, when did the Palins release their tax forms....? Oh. Wait. They haven't......

[Evan Waters]

And more evading the issues.

[Arrogantcur]

You know, normally I don't consider it fair to dogpile on somebody like this...for them to get five or ten negative responses to their post and give them more flak than they can possibly respond to...

...but in this case? I'm fine with it.

After the way McCain and Palin have conducted themselves, I have no respect or sympathy for anybody who supports them.

[Novaya Havoc]

Your refusal to support your case for McCain/Palin with any actual issues, in favor of showing more "ha ha, Obama loses!' mockups, tells me one thing.

You don't want McCain and Palin to win because they'll make the country better. You want them to win to PUNISH the Democrats who did not back Clinton. That's all this is, you want to be able to stand and gloat and say "you should have gone with Hilary!" and who cares if the dollar falls further and the coast lines rise? You'll have the satisfaction of being right.

You are a narcissist. You don't care about the welfare of the people. You care about winning.

So? One person, one vote. It's not my fault the Democrats decided to deviate from the Yellow Brick Road toward the White House. They burned all their energy in the primary, chastising and denigrating those "low info!" Hillary supporters.

They screwed Florida and Michigan, ridiculed Ohio and Pennsylvania, and said Hillary's "tears" melted the "Granite State" of New Hampshire. All while they kept delusions that places like Georgia, North Carolina, and -- according to Markos Moulitsas on Daily Kos -- the great "swing state" of Alaska would be swept into Obama-mania.

Now we're hoping Democrats can hold onto the Kerry states.

He won't. The Democrats threw the rust belt under the bus via Obama. And the rust belt will swing us onto a McCain Train.

As far as policy? Why talk it? If I did, you would denigrate me and call me "4 More Years!" or more of the same. But, sure, I'll oblige:

1. Domestic drilling is good.
2. Cutting the bureaucracy is good.

And I disagree with Republicans on other levels, but on these facts, I must call to wit:

1. Against Bush tax cuts. But Obama now says he's for continuing them due to the "recession."
2. Against the war. Neither candidate is committed to full redeployment.
3. Pro-Abortion. Neither party will touch Roe, as it is better used as a sabre to rattle than to actually change.
4. Pro-Gay. Neither ticket is strong in this area.
5. Pro-Energy. Same shit, different day. Both talk renewables, but the Republicans talk about renewables in long-term, domestic production of fossil fuels now.
6. Healthcare. The only reason it was even a part of the Democratic debate is because of Hillary Clinton and her long-standing record on it. Neither candidate will move on healthcare.

[Arrogantcur]

I am a Michigander.

I thought you lived in Chicago.

...I live in Chicago. Obama's home State

Chicago is a State? Okay, if you say so. :tongue:

Your refusal to support your case for McCain/Palin with any actual issues, in favor of showing more "ha ha, Obama loses!' mockups, tells me one thing.

You don't want McCain and Palin to win because they'll make the country better. You want them to win to PUNISH the Democrats who did not back Clinton. That's all this is, you want to be able to stand and gloat and say "you should have gone with Hilary!" and who cares if the dollar falls further and the coast lines rise? You'll have the satisfaction of being right.

You are a narcissist. You don't care about the welfare of the people. You care about winning.

*APPLAUSE* :cool:

[Novaya Havoc]

Novaya is a guy.




And you're still playing "fast and loose" with your map, Novaya.

One map you have MI going to Obama, but not VT. Another you have VT and not MI.... All you're doing is playing games and not looking at facts as they stand. Hence the reason I provided the link for people to see the REAL map as it currently stands.

No. I'm not.

VT is Vermont. Vermont is "Solid Obama" on all three maps. On the first map, I predict New Hampshire will go McCain.

On the latter two, I give Obama New Hampshire (along with other states) but show how Obama will lose if he cannot win the big swing states. And these are states he is not performing well in. He is not performing better than Kerry.

Michigan I flip on the latter two maps because I am convinced McCain will take Michigan this cycle, and thus, many other states will be irrelevant, unless Obama can flip multiple former red ones. And even if he takes Michigan and flips a couple (IA and CO) he will still lose.


After the debates, especially the VP debate, McCain is going to start losing states. GUARANTEED.

Yes. Just like Hillary's PA debate really cost her. It cost her big.

But then again, Obama didn't want any more debates after that one.

Tell you much?

[Novaya Havoc]

I thought you lived in Chicago.

I do. But I was born in Michigan and am still a Michigan resident. It's not a bizarre occurrance.


Chicago is a State? Okay, if you say so. :tongue:

OMG! I am undone!

Do you not realize that this -- and I will say it -- "elitist" word-parsing is exactly the reason that Democrats continue to lose national elections? "HA HA NOVAYA IS AN IDIOT HE SAID CHICAGO IS A STATE!"

Yes. When I drive outside of the city limits, I truly believe I am in either Wisconsin, Iowa, or Missouri. Chicago is a "State." You want to post a youtube saying "Novaya Havoc's thoughts on Chicago being a state!" while reposting the clip from "Miss Teen South Carolina" as the Obamacans have with regard to Sarah Palin?

Give me a break. You know what I meant. This type of line -- the "low info voter!" -- is exactly what rallied Hillary Clinton her electoral support, even as the media screamed that she was such an evil, counter-productive, raving, selfish bitch for not letting Obama take his rightful crown. Hillary did what she did for the party.

The Republicans do not have that grace. And they will win if you keep this type of stuff up amongst the rank and file.

After all, that attitude isn't working out too well in polling right now, is it? We all thought "HER DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT!!!" would sink Palin after all, right?

Huh. Thought not.

You want to win? Attitude asjustment. Trust.

[Royal]

I am a Michigander.

Kinda hard to say that when you live in The Chill.

I'm being realistic. Granholm is unpopular state-wide. Kwame is going to be in jail. The Detroit rank and file are eating their own over Kwame and it will hurt GOTV.

No one gives a fuck about what happens in Detroit when they're worried about their next home payment and how the hell they're going to feed their kids.

I like the Volt. I blogged about the Volt when it was first unveiled. The union rank and file is not behind Obama, and couple that with an aracarchic Detroit political machine over Kwame, Granholm's low numbers, the primary fracas, and good ol' "Bradley effect" and you have a state that will swing Republican.

Trust.

And yet we gave Granholm another term because the last fucker was going to make us eat soap!

Tell you what. You take a good hard look at the Tri Valley and then come back telling me this. I damn well bet you'll change your tune.

[Evan Waters]

As far as policy? Why talk it? If I did, you would denigrate me and call me "4 More Years!" or more of the same. But, sure, I'll oblige:

1. Domestic drilling is good.

In the sense that handing a recovering smoker an entire carton of Marlboros is good. We need to break our addiction.

2. Cutting the bureaucracy is good.

Everyone says that, but what does it actually translate to? What specifically will McCain cut and where? Will it just be needless bureaucracy, or essential service?

1. Against Bush tax cuts. But Obama now says he's for continuing them due to the "recession."

McCain wants 'em permanent, and Obama is going to eliminate tax breaks for the oil companies and companies shipping jobs overseas. McCain is offering no tax relief for the middle class, where Obama is.

2. Against the war. Neither candidate is committed to full redeployment.

But McCain seems willing to continue the same policies, especially when it comes to poking the bear over in Iran.

3. Pro-Abortion. Neither party will touch Roe, as it is better used as a sabre to rattle than to actually change.

But the Executive Branch can make minor changes that make abortion law more or less restrictive. See also the stem cell issue.

4. Pro-Gay. Neither ticket is strong in this area.

What's McCain's stance on gays in the military?

5. Pro-Energy. Same shit, different day. Both talk renewables, but the Republicans talk about renewables in long-term, domestic production of fossil fuels now.

Which translates to not moving to renewables. We need to shift on this now, not 50 years from now. The clock is ticking.

6. Healthcare. The only reason it was even a part of the Democratic debate is because of Hillary Clinton and her long-standing record on it. Neither candidate will move on healthcare.

Bull shit. Healthcare remains an issue, and neither party can ignore it. McCain's plan would effectively end corporate purchasing of health care and grant individual rebates to purchase it, which sounds great until you realize that HMOs can still reject any applicant who has a pre-existing condition. And you think he won't veto a more socialized plan if the Dems send it to him?

So, let's tally up the scores.

So far, you have "I like oil"- the oil companies have plenty of domestic land that they're allowed to drill on that they haven't explored, but somehow ANWR is our only hope- and "less bureaucracy", which is one of those nice things politicians say that never translates to anything, because most people on the legislative and executive level don't understand the workings of bureaucracies enough to know what is and isn't essential.

Yeah, I can see why you're fired up about this.

[Arrogantcur]

2. Against the war. Neither candidate is committed to full redeployment.

McCain is now, and has always been, for the war. Obama? Not so much.

My big problem with Hillary was that she not only voted to give Bush authorization to declare war, but she never apologized for it. John Edwards was a big enough person to apologize for his vote, to admit he was wrong, and I admire that. That was the guy I wanted to see get the nomination over both Obama and Clinton. (Before I knew about his affair, of course, which would've made it easier for McCain to beat him in the general election.)

Also, McCain opposed the latest version of the G.I. Bill. Why? Because he (along with George W. Bush) figured that if people started going to college instead of staying in the military indefinitely, there wouldn't be as many troops. And that would be BAD. :eek:

That's just one reason not to vote for him. I could give you a lot more. But for a reasonable, sane person that ought to be reason enough.

[Arrogantcur]

OMG! I am undone!

Do you not realize that this -- and I will say it -- "elitist" word-parsing is exactly the reason that Democrats continue to lose national elections? "HA HA NOVAYA IS AN IDIOT HE SAID CHICAGO IS A STATE!"

*shrug*

The Republicans do not have that grace. And they will win if you keep this type of stuff up amongst the rank and file.

Oh yeah. If the Republicans win it's MY fault. Gotcha. *chuckles*

After all, that attitude isn't working out too well in polling right now, is it? We all thought "HER DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT!!!" would sink Palin after all, right?

Huh. Thought not.

You want to win? Attitude asjustment. Trust.

I suppose you think that every negative thing said about her daughter came from the Obama campaign.

Obama said that children should be off-limits. He never made it into an issue, despite what the McCain camp would have you believe, despite what they may have already tricked you into believing.

Unless you have proof of some connection between Obama's campaign and anybody who said anything negative about Bristol Palin or Sarah Palin's parenting skills, you're grasping at straws.

It wasn't the Obama campaign who decided to make this ugly. None of the speeches at the DNC were as abusive as Giuliani's and Palin's speeches at the RNC. How warped does your view of the world have to be in order for you to see these people as the good guys? They're nothing more than schoolyard bullies.

EDIT:


But the Executive Branch can make minor changes that make abortion law more or less restrictive. See also the stem cell issue.

They've already made partial birth abortion illegal. So anybody who thinks that other forms of abortion can't be similarly outlawed under another Republican pro-life President is kidding themselves.

[Evan Waters]

So? One person, one vote. It's not my fault the Democrats decided to deviate from the Yellow Brick Road toward the White House. They burned all their energy in the primary, chastising and denigrating those "low info!" Hillary supporters.

And so you admit it. Your anger clouds your reason. You want to punish us for not going your way.

Hillary would've been a fine President. But she just chose the wrong tactic. When Obama was getting people fired up and offering hope for change, Hilary decided to be the one who said "now let's be realistic about this, the sky isn't gonna open up..." And that's not what we need. We need to believe that we are going to change things for the better, because if we don't we never will.

And you know what? Chances are Obama would be a better executive for Clinton to work with than McCain would. Her career isn't over, after all, she's still a Senator, and she's been a firsthand witness to the frustration the Democratic party has experienced trying to get legislation past GOP filibustering and an executive who vetoes everything they send up as a matter of principle. She realizes we need a Democrat in the White House in order to make real progress.

And I bet she remembers that Bush looked like a moderate and an easy one-term wonder back in 2000. Can we take that risk again?

[Arrogantcur]

Hillary would've been a fine President. But she just chose the wrong tactic. When Obama was getting people fired up and offering hope for change, Hilary decided to be the one who said "now let's be realistic about this, the sky isn't gonna open up..."

Let's not forget that she also said Obama wasn't a Muslim "as far as I know."

Or the 3 AM spot.

Or the fact that she said both her and John McCain would be better suited to the Presidency than Obama.

I used to like Hillary. If she's permanently switched targets and is now going to help sink McCain's chances of winning, I'm glad she's on the right side again.

But the things I mention above, and others? Sleazy, Hill. Very sleazy.

[kingdom2000]

So? One person, one vote. It's not my fault the Democrats decided to deviate from the Yellow Brick Road toward the White House. They burned all their energy in the primary, chastising and denigrating those "low info!" Hillary supporters.

They screwed Florida and Michigan, ridiculed Ohio and Pennsylvania, and said Hillary's "tears" melted the "Granite State" of New Hampshire. All while they kept delusions that places like Georgia, North Carolina, and -- according to Markos Moulitsas on Daily Kos -- the great "swing state" of Alaska would be swept into Obama-mania.

Now we're hoping Democrats can hold onto the Kerry states.

He won't. The Democrats threw the rust belt under the bus via Obama. And the rust belt will swing us onto a McCain Train.

As far as policy? Why talk it? If I did, you would denigrate me and call me "4 More Years!" or more of the same. But, sure, I'll oblige:

1. Domestic drilling is good.
2. Cutting the bureaucracy is good.

And I disagree with Republicans on other levels, but on these facts, I must call to wit:

1. Against Bush tax cuts. But Obama now says he's for continuing them due to the "recession."
2. Against the war. Neither candidate is committed to full redeployment.
3. Pro-Abortion. Neither party will touch Roe, as it is better used as a sabre to rattle than to actually change.
4. Pro-Gay. Neither ticket is strong in this area.
5. Pro-Energy. Same shit, different day. Both talk renewables, but the Republicans talk about renewables in long-term, domestic production of fossil fuels now.
6. Healthcare. The only reason it was even a part of the Democratic debate is because of Hillary Clinton and her long-standing record on it. Neither candidate will move on healthcare.

Well I'll be damned. A response with more substance then its a woman. Sadly it appears "my feelings where hurt" remains the strongest validation but progress is progress.

1. Domestic drilling will do nothing. I think about 70%+ of our oil comes from here. At most drilling will change that % by a 1 or 2 percent, take about 10-15 years before it hits the market and have almost no impact on oil prices (because OPEC would control that drilled oil and thus the amount that is allowed to hit market). Its a dirty useless bandaid.
2) Republicans have NEVER reduced government. Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc all GREW government. You and others really need to pull your head out of your asses on this one because getting seriousily tired of that excuse when it has ZERO basis in history.
---------
1) Well yeah can't really disagree but then the quickest way to lose is to say "I will raise taxes!"
2) Also true, neither wants to stuck when Iraq ineviable explodes into violence when we leave (those that don't think it will once again need to study history. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable with American blood).
3) McCain has repeatedly said he is now pro-choice. Palin, who is quite literally a heartbeat away from the presidency (remember mccain has had two heart attacks), has demostrated a complete and utter hatred of abortion under all circumstances. A law will not be inacted to overturn Roe. The goal is to get the Supreme Court to do it. The new president will probably be able to choose two Supreme Court justices. If it is McCain that will stack the deck is such a way to guartantee Roe gets overturned. Thats a hell of a gamble to make on your (false) assumption.
4) While somewhat true, the base loves Palin so yeah I doubt she is a friend to gays. Will either candiate actively do anything to hurt or help gays? No probably not. But will either candidate block attempts to hurt them? McCain/Palin definitly not. Obama/Biden probably. This is based more on republican history (which party led banning gay marriage admendments again? yeah repubs) then individual history.
5) Republicans are talking more of the same. Same oil dependency (still OPEC regardless of country of origin) same energy problem, same rich companies in charge of our dependency. Democrats are at least willing to discuss a geniune attempt at finding new sources of energy rather then more of the same.
6) Yeah, sadly thanks to the absolute stranglehold that insurance companies have on congress, no initiative stands a snowballs chance. Having said that, the McCain has said there is no problems, nothing needs to be done, let the market will out. At least Obama has acknowledged a problem exists and introduced a healthcare plan to address it. I rather have the guy that sees the problems then the guy that ignores the problem.

But hey congrats for looking deeper then "lookey! one em has a vagina!"

[Novaya Havoc]

Attacks from all sides! Bonus round! It's a Daily TRIPLE! Take that, Trebek!

Kinda hard to say that when you live in The Chill.

No one gives a fuck about what happens in Detroit when they're worried about their next home payment and how the hell they're going to feed their kids.

And yet we gave Granholm another term because the last fucker was going to make us eat soap!

Tell you what. You take a good hard look at the Tri Valley and then come back telling me this. I damn well bet you'll change your tune.

Honey-chile. You want to say that in the Tri-Cities you have never met a person that says they hate Kwame -- and by extension -- corrupt Detroit? I hear that even from Obama supporters. Obama supporters just say that Kwame & Obama are different and should not be compared. Independents? Not so much.

You think Saul Azunis will ignore that golden opportunity?

I am from Lansing. My permanent residence is in Lansing. Yes, the economy is suffering. The electorate trusted in Granholm (and I still do!) but her approval rate is still tanking. Screaming about this won't fix it: the electorate is dead-set. You have a Dem structure in Michigan that has a Gov. with low approval ratings, a corrupt "black" city with a felon for a former Mayor, and a party that blew $10m on a primary election in which Obama removed his name!

Really? Tri-cities or not, Lansing or not, the election will not be won in Saginaw, Ingham, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. Trust. Michigan will go red, red, red this year.

After all, we are the same state that re-elected Granholm by 14 points but -- in the same year -- Constitutionally banned Affirmative Action by 16.

People do love to split their tickets.

1. In the sense that handing a recovering smoker an entire carton of Marlboros is good. We need to break our addiction.

2. Everyone says that, but what does it actually translate to? What specifically will McCain cut and where? Will it just be needless bureaucracy, or essential service?

3. McCain wants 'em permanent, and Obama is going to eliminate tax breaks for the oil companies and companies shipping jobs overseas. McCain is offering no tax relief for the middle class, where Obama is.

4. But McCain seems willing to continue the same policies, especially when it comes to poking the bear over in Iran.

5. But the Executive Branch can make minor changes that make abortion law more or less restrictive. See also the stem cell issue.

6. What's McCain's stance on gays in the military?

7. Which translates to not moving to renewables. We need to shift on this now, not 50 years from now. The clock is ticking.

8. Bull shit. Healthcare remains an issue, and neither party can ignore it. McCain's plan would effectively end corporate purchasing of health care and grant individual rebates to purchase it, which sounds great until you realize that HMOs can still reject any applicant who has a pre-existing condition. And you think he won't veto a more socialized plan if the Dems send it to him?

So, let's tally up the scores.

So far, you have "I like oil"- the oil companies have plenty of domestic land that they're allowed to drill on that they haven't explored, but somehow ANWR is our only hope- and "less bureaucracy", which is one of those nice things politicians say that never translates to anything, because most people on the legislative and executive level don't understand the workings of bureaucracies enough to know what is and isn't essential.

Yeah, I can see why you're fired up about this.

Responses:

1. Straw man. Besides, everyone recognizes we need to "break" the addiction. Palin and McCain have talked renewables, but are cognizant enough to recognize you can't just go from a pack of Marlboros to celery sticks (to use your analogy).

Renewables have their place. I am pro-Nuclear energy. Are you? The left cries about it because of the waste. They are against drilling because of the environment. They are against "clean coal" because it's not quite-so-clean.

All are valid concerns. But to act like we can become a "WIND and SOLAR NATION if we only just tried!" is just as silly as saying teaching abstinence-only will lower STD and pregnancy transmission rates.

Energy independence is key. You want to talk transit? Say, investment in rail and sustainable communities over suburban sprawl? That could be fun. Unfortunately, neither party talks this line. Instead we wax poetic about the horrors of our "addiction!!!!" to "OIL!"

2. We don't know. Has Palin cut essential services? No. Has McCain been against pork? Yes. Those are identifiable records. Not rhetoric, and not sabre-rattling.

Tell me where McCain or Palin cut an essential service, and we'll talk. If not? Have fun with the lofty rhetoric and party-lining.

3. Obama also said he was going to roll-back the Bush tax cuts. Then the polls dipped, and he said he would keep them because it would be bad in a recession to repeal them.

Reaganomics, much? Again on the rhetoric. Obama has no record on this. And, by his own admission, Obama is fine with keeping these tax cuts permanent as long as there is a nuanced reason as to why.

4. Poking what bear? Didn't Obama talk tough on Pakistan? If you think that Obama will remove all US Military from Iraq, and talk peace around the world, I invite you back to 2006 when the Democrats promised the electorate they would end the war Congressionally.

He has said we must continue a presence there for stability reasons. Scale back, yes. Redeploy? No. And Obama has talked tough on Iran, Pakistan, and Russia/Georgia (but he adds "Diplomacy First!" ooookay!).

5. No, they can't. The legislature and the judiciary can strike down E.O.'s if they are beyond the scope of executive power. And, again, what have McCain or Palin ever said or demonstrated on their records that would make abortion or embryonic stem cell (Palin is FOR adult stem cell research, mind) 100% illegal.

Nada. Try again. By this token, rights and indies can say that Obama will use executive privilege to make Abortions free at every nightclub across America's inner cities. Stop the sabre-rattle.

6. DADT and DOMA will not be decided by the President. Or the legislature. It will be decided by the electorate or the bench. This is the case with all gay rights, like it or lump it.

Mind: Sarah Palin did not say homosexuality was a choice, and she will not argue with others' personal beliefs on this topic. I dare you to find better from a Republican national ticket candidate on this topic.

7. Bullshit on its face. Everyone wants renewable expansion. Renewables will never constitute the majority of the American energy supply. Nuclear could (ala France). Never solar, wind, or geothermal. That's a freaking (ironic phrase!) pipe-dream.

8. Obama has been really silent on Healthcare aside from "HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!" since Hillary dropped out. Why? He is not motivated on this topic.

Healthcare will not be addressed under an Obama or a McCain administration. Fact of life. Yes, healthcare is important. You might see some work on prescription drug costs from each camp, but nothing on universal insurance coverage.

So there you go. Nuance. Have fun!

Now:

Round 3! FIGHT!

McCain is now, and has always been, for the war. Obama? Not so much.

BS BS BS BS BS BS and you know it.

He was against the war because he was not in a position to actually vote on it. And let's not bring up "ghost candidate" Joe Biden into this. Since he is such the Foreign Policy exemplar compared to rural outhouse-usin', gun-shootin' Sarah Palin, how did he vote again?

Oh, the paragon of experience!

You know, Sarah Palin didn't vote for the war either.

And yet, Obama voted for funding the war every single time during his Senatorial tenure. Sarah Palin did not enact any policy with regard to the war what-so-ever.

So, sure. Bring up Obama's "State Senator without influence!" 2002 speech. Really. Let's.


My big problem with Hillary was that she not only voted to give Bush authorization to declare war, but she never apologized for it. John Edwards was a big enough person to apologize for his vote, to admit he was wrong, and I admire that. That was the guy I wanted to see get the nomination over both Obama and Clinton. (Before I knew about his affair, of course, which would've made it easier for McCain to beat him in the general election.)

Biden? Joe Biden? Calling Joe Biden! Why can't we find Joe Biden? Oh, wait. He's experienced on foreign policy! He's smarter than Sarah Palin!

But why won't we discuss Joe Biden while you trash Hillary for the same exact position?

Huh. I wonder.


Also, McCain opposed the latest version of the G.I. Bill. Why? Because he (along with George W. Bush) figured that if people started going to college instead of staying in the military indefinitely, there wouldn't be as many troops. And that would be BAD. :eek:

That's just one reason not to vote for him. I could give you a lot more. But for a reasonable, sane person that ought to be reason enough.

I agree with you on the G.I. Bill. That much we can agree on.

But I am still paging Joe Biden.

[Sabrinaset]

Let's not forget that she also said Obama wasn't a Muslim "as far as I know."

Or the 3 AM spot.

Or the fact that she said both her and John McCain would be better suited to the Presidency than Obama.

But on the positive side, the bravery she displayed doging sniper fire in Bosnia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc)was a definite plus!

[Buzz Dixon]

I've said this befoere, I'll say it again:

Any state where 10% or more of the population is African-American is going for Obama.

That means ALL of the Deep South.

I'll add this to my prediction:

Any state where 5% of the population is Hispanic will not vote for a ticket that has Palin on it.

I would speculate that Novaya Havoc is located in Herkimer but her spelling, grammar, and syntax are too good.

[kingdom2000]

Energy independence is key. You want to talk transit? Say, investment in rail and sustainable communities over suburban sprawl? That could be fun. Unfortunately, neither party talks this line. Instead we wax poetic about the horrors of our "addiction!!!!" to "OIL!"

4. Poking what bear? Didn't Obama talk tough on Pakistan? If you think that Obama will remove all US Military from Iraq, and talk peace around the world, I invite you back to 2006 when the Democrats promised the electorate they would end the war Congressionally.

He has said we must continue a presence there for stability reasons. Scale back, yes. Redeploy? No. And Obama has talked tough on Iran, Pakistan, and Russia/Georgia (but he adds "Diplomacy First!" ooookay!).

More or less agreed on the other issues (see my previous post)
1) Again, your talking like the country the oil comes means anything. It doesn't. A small group controls oil. The control the drilling, the volume, everything. Gas is about to go up. Some of it is because of assumptions about the hurricane. About 50 cents is because the oil cartel decided to reduce production by 500,000 barrels of oil a day for no other reason then just because. So your talk is nonsense because it doesn't address to core problem.

4) McCain has promised exactly what that is better? A hundred year war if I remember right. Whatever it takes to achieve a "victory" that he refuses to define.

As far as I can tell have gone from vagina and hurt feelings to vagina, hurt feelings and disappointment with obama. Voting AGAINST someone is a valid reason, thats about the only reason that Obama is in this election and why its close. But do you really think more of the same is the solution? Look at McCain's record, look at his promises and while he is rephrasing it, he is essentially promising just that. Is that an acceptable solution to you or is your hurt feelings, disappointment and having a vagina more important?

[Novaya Havoc]

I've said this befoere, I'll say it again:

Any state where 10% or more of the population is African-American is going for McCain.

That means ALL of the Deep South.

I'll add this to my prediction:

Any state where 5% of the population is Hispanic will not vote for a ticket that has Palin on it.

I would speculate that Novaya Havoc is located in Herkimer but her spelling, grammar, and syntax are too good.

Wha? This makes no sense.

Obama will hemhorrage Latino support. Anecdotal evidence aside (and I have it), you have Latinos breaking overwhelmingly to Hillary.

Many latinos live in a strong matriarchal culture. McCain has a good record on immigration and a stronger relationship with the latino community than Obama does.

Sarah Palin's pro-life, pro-religion values will play better to many latinos. And coupled with McCain's immigration stances?

No dice. The southwest will be McCain's stomping grounds. Puerto Ricans voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. Latinos of all backgrounds did, too, in other states.

The Latino vote is not solid Obama.

[Evan Waters]

1. Straw man. Besides, everyone recognizes we need to "break" the addiction. Palin and McCain have talked renewables, but are cognizant enough to recognize you can't just go from a pack of Marlboros to celery sticks (to use your analogy).

And their answer is to buy more cigarettes. Sorry, no.

Renewables have their place. I am pro-Nuclear energy. Are you? The left cries about it because of the waste.

Ever read MightyGodKing's blog? Nuclear power is expensive and isn't going to get much cheaper or much more efficient if we want to keep it safe, and we're running low on uranium.

They are against drilling because of the environment. They are against "clean coal" because it's not quite-so-clean.

Well, the entire point of fighting carbon emissions is to reduce them, yes.

All are valid concerns. But to act like we can become a "WIND and SOLAR NATION if we only just tried!" is just as silly as saying teaching abstinence-only will lower STD and pregnancy transmission rates.

It's not a question of "just trying". It's a question of making sacrifices. Of being tough with emissions standards and creating more incentives to use clean energy and to research it further. The GOP wants to sit back and let the market decide everything. We're doing that now. The market isn't moving fast enough. The ice caps are melting.

Energy independence is key.

And ANWR will not help with that for at least 10 years.

2. We don't know. Has Palin cut essential services? No. Has McCain been against pork? Yes.

He's said he's against pork. What he has actually done to fight it?

4. Poking what bear?

Short version: McCain acts all too willing to use military force against Iran. Doing this would ensure the country swings even harder to the right and create a whole new generation of terrorists. We can't afford it.

He has said we must continue a presence there for stability reasons. Scale back, yes. Redeploy? No. And Obama has talked tough on Iran, Pakistan, and Russia/Georgia (but he adds "Diplomacy First!" ooookay!).

And right now the entire GOP basically acts like diplomacy is equal to appeasement and is the last refuge of cowards. This has not helped our international standing. "Diplomacy first" is kind of important.

5. No, they can't. The legislature and the judiciary can strike down E.O.'s if they are beyond the scope of executive power.

And over the past eight years the scope of executive power has grown considerably.

6. DADT and DOMA will not be decided by the President. Or the legislature. It will be decided by the electorate or the bench. This is the case with all gay rights, like it or lump it.

Why can't DADT be decided by the legislature?

Mind: Sarah Palin did not say homosexuality was a choice, and she will not argue with others' personal beliefs on this topic. I dare you to find better from a Republican national ticket candidate on this topic.

That's why I'm not voting Republican until the party undergoes massive internal reforms, which giving them four more years in the White House WILL NOT HELP.

The anti-gay element must be purged from our political parties. Preferably with fire.

7. Bullshit on its face. Everyone wants renewable expansion. Renewables will never constitute the majority of the American energy supply.

So, global warming can't be fought.

Nuclear could (ala France). Never solar, wind, or geothermal. That's a freaking (ironic phrase!) pipe-dream.

Yes, technological advancement is a fool's paradise. Whale oil will always be needed to light our lamps!

8. Obama has been really silent on Healthcare aside from "HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!" since Hillary dropped out.

And let's say Hilary authors a Healthcare bill- which President would you say is more likely to veto such a bill?

[kingdom2000]

I've said this befoere, I'll say it again:

Any state where 10% or more of the population is African-American is going for McCain.

That means ALL of the Deep South.

I'll add this to my prediction:

Any state where 5% of the population is Hispanic will not vote for a ticket that has Palin on it.

I would speculate that Novaya Havoc is located in Herkimer but her spelling, grammar, and syntax are too good.

End result is the deep south isn't going to vote a black man into office. Not in the numbers that are needed. In much of the south there are enough hispanics, mexicans and blacks to give Obama a landslide victory. However, I am willing to bet less then 5% will even bother to show up at the polls. The ONLY way Obama is going to win this election is turnout. Those groups, the poor and the young, despite all their ra-ra ness, is simply not going to turn out in the required numbers.

Frankly, at this point, it will take a miracle for Obama to win. All I can say is, much like Bush, I will sit back, shake my head, and say "I told you so" (again) when McCain accomplishes absolutely nothing beyond continuing our march to corporate facism. Not intentionally mind you but when your campaign staff is made up almost entirely of lobbyiests, those who in turn get nice high level positions in a McCain white house and in turn get to help set the agenda, well the result is going to be nothing but.

[Black Atom]

I've said this befoere, I'll say it again:

Any state where 10% or more of the population is African-American is going for McCain.


That seems counter-intuitive. Why do you say that?

[Novaya Havoc]

More or less agreed on the other issues.
1) Again, your talking like the country the oil comes means anything. It doesn't. A small group controls oil. The control the drilling, the volume, everything. Gas is about to go up. Some of it is because of assumptions about the hurricane. About 50 cents is because the oil cartel decided to reduce production by 500,000 barrels of oil a day for no other reason then just because. So your talk is nonsense because it doesn't address to core problem.

And? What is Obama's alternative to this? What is his plan? You say the domestic oil market is fluctuating in response to gulf hurricanes.

So the Dakotas don't get quite so much wind -- electricity bills won't fluctuate under the Obama plan?
Cloudy spell in the sun belt -- electricity bills won't fluctuate under the Obama plan?

And how will we cover the costs of convering our vehicles, homes, and baser things such as lawnmowers and tractors to these "renewable" sources? By what? Making Americans buy new heating systems, new cars, and new lawnmowers? What's the opportunity cost, there?

"I have the ability to save a lot on fuel! But I must buy a new car for $28,000 to do so! I will recuperate my costs in x years!"

We need to build a renewable infrastructure. But that will happen by the end of our lifetimes. We will not "get off" of fossil fuels, and it's silly to think that we will.


4) McCain has promised exactly what that is better? A hundred year war if I remember right. Whatever it takes to achieve a "victory" that he refuses to define.

No, you don't remember right. Besides "Victory!!!" and "keeping the peace" mean the same thing: American men and women in Iraq. The troops in Iraq are not "combat" troops that are fighting a war. They are keeping peace.

You can frame the presence all you want, but the presence there will remain the same. Republicans will frame it as a fight, Democrats will frame it as peace-keeping. But the mission will still be the same.

Both sides agree the Iraqis need to take some control over their "own destiny."
They disagree on the framing. It's a sales tactic.

If you think that Obama will withdraw all US military presence in Iraq, I -- like the other poster -- invite you back to 2006 where Congressional Democrats promised us the same thing if given control.

We're in Iraq. We broke it, we bought it, and it will stay.


As far as I can tell have gone from vagina and hurt feelings to vagina, hurt feelings and disappointment with obama. Voting AGAINST someone is a valid reason, thats about the only reason that Obama is in this election and why its close. But do you really think more of the same is the solution? Look at McCain's record, look at his promises and while he is rephrasing it, he is essentially promising just that. Is that an acceptable solution to you or is your hurt feelings, disappointment and having a vagina more important?

McCain isn't more of the same.

Do you think all, say, vegetarian people are alike in thought and ideology?

Why would you say the same of a political party affiliation? An "R" doesn't mean that they are in total lock-step.

"More of the same" is a nice catch-phrase for people on your side. It won't catch on for the electorate. There is nothing about McCain -- and especially not Palin -- that look or sound like Bush/Cheney. Would you, by the same token, say Obama-Biden are just like Pelosi and Reid?

Probably not.

It's not more of the same. And that's the damn truth.

[Evan Waters]

McCain isn't more of the same.

He voted with Bush NINETY PERCENT of the time. He hasn't offered to actually change anything in specific.

[Arrogantcur]

BS BS BS BS BS BS and you know it.

He was against the war because he was not in a position to actually vote on it. And let's not bring up "ghost candidate" Joe Biden into this. Since he is such the Foreign Policy exemplar compared to rural outhouse-usin', gun-shootin' Sarah Palin, how did he vote again?

I hope that Biden admitted at some point that he was wrong to vote for it. If not, I'm disappointed in him.

But the first time I ever saw footage of Biden was when John Ashcroft was testifying before Congress. Biden did not go easy on him, and I respected that. So he made a good first impression. I wish I could find a clip of that on YouTube. I can't.

You know, Sarah Palin didn't vote for the war either.

Neither did she say it was wrong, because she believes it is "a task that is from God." Interesting phrasing, btw.

So let's see...over here you have Obama, who can't vote against the war in the runup to it, and he says "this is wrong." Over there you have Sarah Palin, who can't vote against the war, and she either offers no opinion or she says that it was the right thing to do.

Who's got the history of being more anti-war? No contest. It's Obama.

And yet, Obama voted for funding the war every single time during his Senatorial tenure.

It wasn't just Obama, it was the whole frickin' spineless Democratic Congress! Now am I happy that he joined them in caving when they were in that standoff with Bush over funding? No. But it's not like this one guy, Barack Obama, said "you know what we should do? We should just give Bush everything he wants," and everybody else went "Yeah, that's exactly what we should do! Let's listen to Barack Obama!"

You can legitimately blame him, and a lot of other Senators and Representatives, for not doing everything in their power to put a stop to the war. But you can't put more blame on him than on McCain.

For the record, I'm not happy about other moves toward the center Obama's taken either, such as his vote on FISA. But he hasn't lost my vote yet because he's taken the right stance more often than he has the wrong one.

McCain has taken the wrong stance more often than he's taken the right one, and as long as we're talking about hypocritical votes why don't we talk about how McCain voted against a bill that would've outlawed waterboarding. So much for being against torture.

Biden? Joe Biden? Calling Joe Biden! Why can't we find Joe Biden? Oh, wait. He's experienced on foreign policy! He's smarter than Sarah Palin!

For one thing, one of those people (Biden) stopped being pro-war some time ago.

Biden isn't perfect. Honestly, I shook my head when he made those infamous comments about Barack Obama being the first articulate, clean, etc. black man to run during the primaries. I don't know what the hell he was thinking.

Here's what I'll say about Biden. He KNOWS more than Palin does. He knows more about the world, and he knows more about Washington. So does Obama, for that matter.

So okay, you might say, fine, he knows stuff (to borrow a catchphrase). How's his judgment? As far as I know, his judgment is hit and miss. But hit and miss is still better than McCain's judgment from 2004 to the present and better than Palin's judgment during her entire tenure as Governor.

[Novaya Havoc]

I will not respond to you after this, for I hate multi-quoting.

And their answer is to buy more cigarettes. Sorry, no.

Ever read MightyGodKing's blog? Nuclear power is expensive and isn't going to get much cheaper or much more efficient if we want to keep it safe, and we're running low on uranium.

Well, the entire point of fighting carbon emissions is to reduce them, yes.

It's not a question of "just trying". It's a question of making sacrifices. Of being tough with emissions standards and creating more incentives to use clean energy and to research it further. The GOP wants to sit back and let the market decide everything. We're doing that now. The market isn't moving fast enough. The ice caps are melting.

And ANWR will not help with that for at least 10 years.

He's said he's against pork. What he has actually done to fight it?

Short version: McCain acts all too willing to use military force against Iran. Doing this would ensure the country swings even harder to the right and create a whole new generation of terrorists. We can't afford it.

And right now the entire GOP basically acts like diplomacy is equal to appeasement and is the last refuge of cowards. This has not helped our international standing. "Diplomacy first" is kind of important.

And over the past eight years the scope of executive power has grown considerably.

Why can't DADT be decided by the legislature?

That's why I'm not voting Republican until the party undergoes massive internal reforms, which giving them four more years in the White House WILL NOT HELP.

The anti-gay element must be purged from our political parties. Preferably with fire.

So, global warming can't be fought.

Yes, technological advancement is a fool's paradise. Whale oil will always be needed to light our lamps!

And let's say Hilary authors a Healthcare bill- which President would you say is more likely to veto such a bill?

1. Weak response. Buying into the "addiction" frame without addressing my point.
2. Spent uranium can be re-enriched with the correct technology. It is expensive, but high-output. Can you say the same for renewables? No.
3. Carbon emissions don't mean much to the general electorate. Choir preaching.
4. Fear-mongering on "ice caps melting!" Ha! No dice. If you care so much, turn your computer off and grow your own vegetables in a straw hut. Renewables have their place, but are not a panacea. If you think they are, then there is not hope for you.
5. And? Renewables alone will? No. You need both.
6. McCain didn't vote for Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" pork. Obama did. Need more?
7. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Teddy Roosevelt. Talking tough and going to war are two different things. Rhetoric argument.
8. Agreed. And? You would probably say this is a good thing for Obama. Would he reject executive authority? Do you think it's okay for Obama to wield it but not ? Apply the same standard.
9. DADT? Two-fold. 1. It would involve going out on a limb on principle. Congressional representatives will not do that. 2. Democrats control the Congress now. Have they done anything on DADT? Even during a war? Interesting.
10. Anti-gay? It's campaign rhetoric. Demonstrate how any gay rights have been revoked. Anywhere. Yes, constitutional referenda have locked States out from marriage/civil unions, but are gays worse off than before? No. By the same token, have Democrats been out fighting like hell to overturn this legislation/constitutional referenda? No. Projection.
11. Bullshit, and this is why your line is just straw men. Global warming can be fought. To ask that the nation switch to an energy supply comprised mostly of renewables is like asking everyone to bring their own bags everywhere they shop. It is not feasable given our state right now. The "but only if we [i]tried!" canard will not work, and it will not gain you votes.
12. See above. You're slipping.
13. Who would more likely sign it? Obama. Will the Congress ever pass such a bill that Hillary "authored?" Not likely. Otherwise we would already have this pressure under this Democratic Congress.


Done. No more bullet points for you. I refuse to engage in cyclical word-vomit.

[Novaya Havoc]

I hope that Biden admitted at some point that he was wrong to vote for it. If not, I'm disappointed in him.

But the first time I ever saw footage of Biden was when John Ashcroft was testifying before Congress. Biden did not go easy on him, and I respected that. So he made a good first impression. I wish I could find a clip of that on YouTube. I can't.

Biden also bitch-slapped Anita Hill and, by extension, helped to put Clarence Thomas on our Supreme Court.

True? Or False?


Neither did she say it was wrong, because she believes it is "a task that is from God." Interesting phrasing, btw.

So let's see...over here you have Obama, who can't vote against the war in the runup to it, and he says "this is wrong." Over there you have Sarah Palin, who can't vote against the war, and she either offers no opinion or she says that it was the right thing to do.

Who's got the history of being more anti-war? No contest. It's Obama.

You're talking rhetoric. Palin clarified those out-of-context remarks in her Gibson interview. Parsing "a task that is from god!" is akin to parsing "I want someone to explain to me what exactly is it that the VP does every day?"

Slamming God and faith in matters of life and death (war) is only giving this election away. And I am by no means a devout Catholic. But look at it on its face: Sarah Palin basically said that we hope that we are doing God's will -- and -- by extension -- doing "what's right." It's ultimately a task from God in that we are doing something good for the world.

Catholics often give medals of St. Christopher to freinds and family going on long journeys. Many light candles to Mary/the Guadalupe. By saying we have to pray that there is a plan for the soldiers, and that our leaders are exercising what is right, is essentially "supporting the troops."

You can pray that troops are saved, lives are not lost, and it is still a prayer for the same thing. Sarah Palin did not say that God wanted us in Iraq, or that God willed it. But rather, as she put it:


Pray for our military -- [my son Track's] going to be deployed in September to Iraq. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country -- that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure we are praying for. That there is a plan, and that plan is God's plan. So bless them with your prayers -- your prayers of protection over our soldiers.

That does not mean that God wants us to wage war. Not that this is a holy war.

Sarah Palin basically said "my son's life is in God's hands. Pray that he, along with our other soldiers, are doing God's work via man's action."

Essentially, "let them not die in vain."

That they are doing what is right.

To frame this as "GOD WANTS US TO GO TO WAR!" is wrong. The reality is that she hopes that this is task is righteous, via man's actions. That there is a "greater purpose." And any person of faith would hope that times of trouble have a divine plan that justify obsticles.

How this is out of the mainstream is beyond me.


It wasn't just Obama, it was the whole frickin' spineless Democratic Congress! Now am I happy that he joined them in caving when they were in that standoff with Bush over funding? No. But it's not like this one guy, Barack Obama, said "you know what we should do? We should just give Bush everything he wants," and everybody else went "Yeah, that's exactly what we should do! Let's listen to Barack Obama!"

And? To that, it sounds like "More of the same." You can't say Obama was this principled voice against the war, and then now say it was all Democrats. You underscore my point: Obama is just that -- a "do nothing" Democrat with no principle.



For one thing, one of those people (Biden) stopped being pro-war some time ago.

Biden isn't perfect. Honestly, I shook my head when he made those infamous comments about Barack Obama being the first articulate, clean, etc. black man to run during the primaries. I don't know what the hell he was thinking.

Here's what I'll say about Biden. He KNOWS more than Palin does. He knows more about the world, and he knows more about Washington. So does Obama, for that matter.

And? Hillary knew more than Obama did. Yet you just harangued Hillary over the war and phantom "racism!" ghosts yet now defend Biden. "He was wrong, but he is smart!"

Your choice. You can't knock Hillary and then puppet Biden. You can't say Biden knows more than Palin as a Washington Insider, and then say Hillary does not know more than Barack Obama.

That's the point. You're all hypocrites.

[Evan Waters]

1. Weak response. Buying into the "addiction" frame without addressing my point.
2. Spent uranium can be re-enriched with the correct technology. It is expensive, but high-output. Can you say the same for renewables? No.
3. Carbon emissions don't mean much to the general electorate. Choir preaching.

So, the general electorate doesn't believe in carbon emissions, therefore they objectively aren't a problem? I didn't realize reality was created by consensus.

4. Fear-mongering on "ice caps melting!" Ha! No dice.

Arctic becomes an island as ice melts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/31/eaarctic131.xml). This is from the Telegraph, a slightly right-leaning newspaper in the UK.

If you care so much, turn your computer off and grow your own vegetables in a straw hut. Renewables have their place, but are not a panacea. If you think they are, then there is not hope for you.

Ah, yes, the "only hippies care about global warming" argument.

Me shutting my computer off won't do it. There needs to be change at the policy level.

5. And? Renewables alone will? No. You need both.

But the whole ANWR thing is just another excuse not to make any sacrifices. "Oil costs are high, but don't worry about driving less or using less electricity. We can just get more!"

6. McCain didn't vote for Stevens' "Bridge to Nowhere" pork. Obama did. Need more?

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only item in that bill. They tend to be rather big.

7. "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Teddy Roosevelt. Talking tough and going to war are two different things. Rhetoric argument.

And currently our rhetoric has the world thinking we're a bunch of deranged trigger-happy lunatics. This has not been helpful.

8. Agreed. And? You would probably say this is a good thing for Obama. Would he reject executive authority? Do you think it's okay for Obama to wield it but not ? Apply the same standard.

He wouldn't use it to further restrict stem cell research, I imagine. But no, I don't think executive authority should keep growing. I think it should be scaled back. Nobody's offered to do this, but one party in particular has abused this trust much more than the other as of late.

9. DADT? Two-fold. 1. It would involve going out on a limb on principle. Congressional representatives will not do that. 2. Democrats control the Congress now. Have they done anything on DADT? Even during a war? Interesting.

It would have a better chance being repealed under Obama than McCain.

10. Anti-gay? It's campaign rhetoric. Demonstrate how any gay rights have been revoked. Anywhere. Yes, constitutional referenda have locked States out from marriage/civil unions, but are gays worse off than before? No.

Well, when you're near the bottom there's not much further to fall.

Are you seriously going to argue to me that the GOP is not anti-gay, or isn't any more anti-gay than the Democratic party?

Because if so, you're completely out of it.


11. Bullshit, and this is why your line is just straw men. Global warming can be fought.

And you're saying it can't, so we should just find a bunch of oil.

To ask that the nation switch to an energy supply comprised mostly of renewables is like asking everyone to bring their own bags everywhere they shop. It is not feasable given our state right now. The "but only if we [i]tried!" canard will not work, and it will not gain you votes.

I'm not stumping for votes. I'm saying we need to take action now because it is in fact kind of essential.

It's not "if only", it's "we don't have a choice." We either change our energy policy or we suffer catastrophic consequences.

13. Who would more likely sign it? Obama. Will the Congress ever pass such a bill that Hillary "authored?" Not likely. Otherwise we would already have this pressure under this Democratic Congress.

Why would Hillary bother to introduce a bill that Bush would be guaranteed to veto?

Done. No more bullet points for you. I refuse to engage in cyclical word-vomit.

So, let's see. So far, you've argued:

Global warming can be fought, but not by actually, you know, reducing our carbon emissions or making any changes to where we get our energy. That's just not possible. Obviously it will be fixed by... magic, I guess.

And in the meantime, we desperately need to drill for oil in a region where there may or may not be enough to lower gas prices a modest amount after about a decade. Because absolutely nothing will change in that time.

Also, the GOP is welcoming of gays and lesbians.

Abortion policy will not change ever.

McCain voted against something that Sarah Palin favored before she opposed.

Letting Ahmadinejad continue to play his game of feigning persecution is effective diplomacy.

I can see the campaign slogans now: "McCain/Palin: Not as bad as all that!"

"McCain/Palin: Our flaws have been somewhat exaggerated."

"McCain/Palin: One woman is as good as another."

"McCain/Palin: Eh. Could do worse."

[Novaya Havoc]

So, the general electorate doesn't believe in carbon emissions, therefore they objectively aren't a problem? I didn't realize reality was created by consensus.



Arctic becomes an island as ice melts (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/08/31/eaarctic131.xml). This is from the Telegraph, a slightly right-leaning newspaper in the UK.



Ah, yes, the "only hippies care about global warming" argument.

Me shutting my computer off won't do it. There needs to be change at the policy level.



But the whole ANWR thing is just another excuse not to make any sacrifices. "Oil costs are high, but don't worry about driving less or using less electricity. We can just get more!"



I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only item in that bill. They tend to be rather big.



And currently our rhetoric has the world thinking we're a bunch of deranged trigger-happy lunatics. This has not been helpful.



He wouldn't use it to further restrict stem cell research, I imagine. But no, I don't think executive authority should keep growing. I think it should be scaled back. Nobody's offered to do this, but one party in particular has abused this trust much more than the other as of late.



It would have a better chance being repealed under Obama than McCain.



Well, when you're near the bottom there's not much further to fall.

Are you seriously going to argue to me that the GOP is not anti-gay, or isn't any more anti-gay than the Democratic party?

Because if so, you're completely out of it.




And you're saying it can't, so we should just find a bunch of oil.



I'm not stumping for votes. I'm saying we need to take action now because it is in fact kind of essential.

It's not "if only", it's "we don't have a choice." We either change our energy policy or we suffer catastrophic consequences.



Why would Hillary bother to introduce a bill that Bush would be guaranteed to veto?



So, let's see. So far, you've argued:

Global warming can be fought, but not by actually, you know, reducing our carbon emissions or making any changes to where we get our energy. That's just not possible. Obviously it will be fixed by... magic, I guess.

And in the meantime, we desperately need to drill for oil in a region where there may or may not be enough to lower gas prices a modest amount after about a decade. Because absolutely nothing will change in that time.

Also, the GOP is welcoming of gays and lesbians.

Abortion policy will not change ever.

McCain voted against something that Sarah Palin favored before she opposed.

Letting Ahmadinejad continue to play his game of feigning persecution is effective diplomacy.

I can see the campaign slogans now: "McCain/Palin: Not as bad as all that!"

"McCain/Palin: Our flaws have been somewhat exaggerated."

"McCain/Palin: One woman is as good as another."

"McCain/Palin: Eh. Could do worse."

tl;dr. But I did read the ending part with your LOLOLOLOL?! slogans. Just because it was at the end of this quote.

What part of "I won't respond to lists anymore" do you not understand?

TL;DR. But I am sure it is more of the same.

[BnL]

Just a note. The whole line about the "do-nothing Democratic congress" is not entirely accurate. While they hold majorities, they're too slim to overcome Republican filibusters.

[K-DoG7p7]

Just a note. The whole line about the "do-nothing Democratic congress" is not entirely accurate. While they hold majorities, they're too slim to overcome Republican filibusters.

didn't they raise the minimum wage and stuff? (hell even I know that)

[FalconX2000]

Dammit, stop feeding the troll!!!

[Novaya Havoc]

didn't they raise the minimum wage and stuff? (hell even I know that)

Wonderful. Now all the hemhorraging middle-income, rust-belt jobs can be supplanted by a higer minimum wage retail job. WIN FOR AMERICA!

Dammit, stop feeding the troll!!!

I'm a troll because I argue effectively? Wouldn't be the first time I've heard that.

[Buzz Dixon]

That seems counter-intuitive. Why do you say that?Mistype; went back and fixed it.

[Bruce Wayne Jr.]

Dammit, stop feeding the troll!!!

Now now... be nice.

Novaya, sir, I have personally found your positions in this thread to be ferociously entertaining, and I'd like to thank everyone for their attempts at arguing for sanity.

Trust.

[Buzz Dixon]

Evan, there's enough uranium to keep us fully powered for 5 Billion years.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/how-long-can-uranium-last-for-nuclear.html

The big challenge is disposal, but we may not want to put it too far away. When omnivorous fusion reactors finally go online in a century or two we can burn the existing waste in them.

[Buzz Dixon]

...and for everyone else, remember, this year the Republicans got nuthin'. They've admited it by claiming the race is on personalities, not issues, even as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac go under and require a Federal buy out.

People will vote their pocket books. The economy is not improving for mnost voters, just those in the top percentages.

Andrew Sullivan has postulated what the GOP wants is to make Democrats -- Obama specifically -- mad. It reduces the strength of the Democrat position if the GOP can achieve that.

So...stay cool, stay calm, stay collected. Based on the history of American election cycles, the troll and his/her cronies will be weeping in the outer darkness for at least a quarter of a century.

[the4thpip]

It's entirely possible she does know the facts, but is assuming those outside Alaska don't and she can get away with lying to look more impressive.

I don't know which option is worse.

Well, she keeps getting caught in lies, like when she says she did not, in the past say that global warming is not man made. (video in the link). (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ABC_Palin_lied_about_global_warming_0912.html)Also :

Tapper also fact-checked Palin's response to the question, "Have you ever met a foreign head of state."

Her response was, "I have not, and I think if you go back in history, and if you ask that question of many vice-presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you."

However, Tapper reports that all living vice-presidents, back to Walter Mondale in 1976, had met foreign heads of state before being elected. Internet posters have now suggested that the most recent vice-president not to have done so was Calvin Coolidge in 1920. Very much like Palin, Coolidge had been elected governor of Massachusetts just two years earlier, after having previously held only local offices.

It has been noted of Coolidge that when he succeeded to the presidency on the death of Warren Harding, he "was not a forceful leader in matters of foreign affairs and often deferred to his secretary of state." During his administration, the US retreated from involvement in world affairs, helping sow the seeds of World War II a decade later.

[the4thpip]

We talked about this, what, a week ago? Now it is reaching the mainstream press:

When Palin was mayor, Wasilla billed rape victims for examinations

When Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor of her hometown of Wasilla, the town forced sexual assault victims to foot the bill for their own rape kits, the Anchorage Daily News reported.

Palin was in office for four year of the practice until it drew the ire of state lawmakers, who passed a bill to end it in 2000.

Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft sponsored the bill and said he was disappointed that asking the Wasilla police department to stop didn't work, the. He added that it is unlikely Palin wasn't aware of the policy.

Former Gov. Tony Knowles said Wasilla was the city which sparked the complaints that led to the bill, McClatchy reported.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said, answering a reporter's question.

Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, denied that the Alaskan governor ever supported the policy.

She said Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." To suggest otherwise, she said, is a "misrepresentation of her commitment to supporting victims and bringing violent criminals to justice."

The Anchorage Daily News quoted Wasilla police chief Charlie Fannon as objecting to the legislation which overturned his department policy of making the rape victims pay for their own examinations.

The Wasilla Police Department estimated that the cost of paying for the rape kits itself came to between $5,000 and $14,000 a year, Associated Press reported.
(...)



http://rawstory.com/news/2008/When_Palin_was_mayor_Wasilla_billed_0912.html

[the4thpip]

Evan, there's enough uranium to keep us fully powered for 5 Billion years.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/how-long-can-uranium-last-for-nuclear.html
.

Funny. I read an article in a highly respected news magazine where several scientists said that it's more like 100 years, if no new power plants are added. Gonna have to study your source when I get back from the AIDS conference I now have to head off to.

[FalconX2000]

This has been the best 12 minutes so far from Rachel Maddow's new show imo.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26676363#26667175

[Tages]

I'm a troll because I argue effectively? Wouldn't be the first time I've heard that.

No, because you're acting like a shrill, obnoxious halfwit going on about some stupid sour grapes trip where you'd rather see this country speed merrily along the road to Hell than witness the man who bested your favorite candidate triumph.

And right now you couldn't be happier because instead of deal with whatever issues are driving you to this behavior you get to vent bile at strangers on the internet and get some sort of weird validation through it.

Seriously. I'm not usually one for amateur psychoanalysis, but you're radiating a personality disorder that can be seen from orbit.

And FYI, screaming "Sexist!" at people before analyzing the rationality of their expressed concerns, or saying that one ticket has a "pro-religion" message (seriously, what does that even mean? Palin approves of the existence of religion? Are Obama and Biden anti-religion? Religion-neutral?) isn't arguing effectively.

[Tages]

Evan, there's enough uranium to keep us fully powered for 5 Billion years.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/how-long-can-uranium-last-for-nuclear.html

The big challenge is disposal, but we may not want to put it too far away. When omnivorous fusion reactors finally go online in a century or two we can burn the existing waste in them.

Making a switch to Thorium opens up a much larger reserve of fuel (not to mention, it's much easier and safer to get).

[BnL]

didn't they raise the minimum wage and stuff? (hell even I know that)

Yes, but only because they piggybacked it onto some other legislation for Katrina relief, veterans care and a couple of other things.

They also DID try to keep their promise about forcing a troop withdrawal by adding conditions to a funding bill for a timetable for withdrawal, but it was vetoed by Bush. They had to resubmit the funding bill without the timetable stipulations, or else risk a backlash, because the troops would be without proper provisions in a warzone without the funding.

[LtMarvel]

So? One person, one vote. It's not my fault the Democrats decided to deviate from the Yellow Brick Road toward the White House. They burned all their energy in the primary, chastising and denigrating those "low info!" Hillary supporters.

They screwed Florida and Michigan, ridiculed Ohio and Pennsylvania, and said Hillary's "tears" melted the "Granite State" of New Hampshire. All while they kept delusions that places like Georgia, North Carolina, and -- according to Markos Moulitsas on Daily Kos -- the great "swing state" of Alaska would be swept into Obama-mania.

Now we're hoping Democrats can hold onto the Kerry states.

He won't. The Democrats threw the rust belt under the bus via Obama. And the rust belt will swing us onto a McCain Train.

As far as policy? Why talk it? If I did, you would denigrate me and call me "4 More Years!" or more of the same. But, sure, I'll oblige:

1. Domestic drilling is good.
2. Cutting the bureaucracy is good.

And I disagree with Republicans on other levels, but on these facts, I must call to wit:

1. Against Bush tax cuts. But Obama now says he's for continuing them due to the "recession."
2. Against the war. Neither candidate is committed to full redeployment.
3. Pro-Abortion. Neither party will touch Roe, as it is better used as a sabre to rattle than to actually change.
4. Pro-Gay. Neither ticket is strong in this area.
5. Pro-Energy. Same shit, different day. Both talk renewables, but the Republicans talk about renewables in long-term, domestic production of fossil fuels now.
6. Healthcare. The only reason it was even a part of the Democratic debate is because of Hillary Clinton and her long-standing record on it. Neither candidate will move on healthcare.
I have been following www.electoral-vote.com One thing McCain has not done yet in the is campaign is take the lead in a Kerry state. Not one state poll. Pailn/convention bounce didn't even do it.

I don't know how anyone could speculate that McCain is going to pick up a Kerry state at this point. What do you think is going to change in this year of anti-GOP?

[KevinTBrown]

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction_1.png

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo135/stopsmearingpalin/electoral_prediction_2.png



And you're still playing "fast and loose" with your map, Novaya.

One map you have MI going to Obama, but not VT. Another you have VT and not MI.... All you're doing is playing games and not looking at facts as they stand. Hence the reason I provided the link for people to see the REAL map as it currently stands.


VT is Vermont. Vermont is "Solid Obama" on all three maps. On the first map, I predict New Hampshire will go McCain.

I meant VA and not VT. Simple mistype. Otherwise, my statement reamins the same.






By the way, have the Palins released their tax forms yet?

[Infra-Man]

Dammit, stop feeding the troll!!!

To be fair, he's not a troll, but merely a severely troubled individual who's treating politics like a Celtics/Lakers grudge match or a way to receive punitive damages for whatever reason.

He's everything wrong with contemporary politics, and worse, he's one of these...
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/3782/attentionwhoretp9.jpg

As for arguing effectively, a whackjob in an asylum can keep claiming to be sane, but that doesn't make it so.

[Infra-Man]

A popular vote/electoral vote split?


Polls are all over the place and the RNC convention bump is umbumping and may unbump further as new scrutiny is placed on Palin's anemic swings at Charlie Gibson's underhand pitches and the McCain campaign's outright lies about Obama (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), so right now it's all in flux.

But The New Republic wonders if Obama may win the electoral vote while losing the popular vote (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/09/12/a-popular-electoral-vote-split.aspx).

[Infra-Man]

Today's sick-sad comedy, a man in Florida is putting an inflammatory anti-Obama sign on his lawn.

The sign reads "OBAMA HALF-BREED MUSLIN"

And no, that is not a typo.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/10/obama_sign_in_yard_stirs_up_neighbors.html?refresh =1?=dumbass


An important lesson to the bigoted mooks out there:

If you're going to show your hatred for a group, consult the dictionary before making your sign. If you don't know what a dictionary is, be sure to look it up in an encyclopedia. If you don't know what an encyclopedia is, look it up in the dictionary.

[Crowley]

Palin is for Aerial hunting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU

fucking bizarre.

[Black Vespa]

In the sense that handing a recovering smoker an entire carton of Marlboros is good. We need to break our addiction.




that is a ridiculous analogy.

[Black Vespa]

i don't know about the most of you, but i find it far-reaching and desperate to attack a candidate's age and alleged lacking of the ability to use email...what are they going to attack next? - his ability to reply to a text message? - - there is no substance to these attacks. that goes for both parties....obama was supposed to be the bigger man, and mccain was supposed to talk proposed policies, etc. - -neither, NEITHER have done this...the others that post on this board can go on showing their transparent allegiance to one party of the other, - i think it's funny.

[Corrina]

I think while a candidate might not know how to text message, having some real understanding of communication on the internet and how it's affected people's daily lives is really important in a presidential candidate.

It's one, a huge part of our economy (a good part of our business world), and, two, one of the biggest social changes since the invention of daily mail.

[Crowley]

I think while a candidate might not know how to text message, having some real understanding of communication on the internet and how it's affected people's daily lives is really important in a presidential candidate.

It's one, a huge part of our economy (a good part of our business world), and, two, one of the biggest social changes since the invention of daily mail.

I agree...

You can't get a real professional job nowadays without having at fundamental internet savvy... why should anyone get the top job if they don't have that basic skill set?

[Evan Waters]

I think while a candidate might not know how to text message, having some real understanding of communication on the internet and how it's affected people's daily lives is really important in a presidential candidate.

It's one, a huge part of our economy (a good part of our business world), and, two, one of the biggest social changes since the invention of daily mail.

Indeed, though it's not a deal breaker,Obama favors Net Neutrality while McCain is saying "let the market decide" yet again.

[FalconX2000]

Today's sick-sad comedy, a man in Florida is putting an inflammatory anti-Obama sign on his lawn.

The sign reads "OBAMA HALF-BREED MUSLIN"

And no, that is not a typo.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/10/obama_sign_in_yard_stirs_up_neighbors.html?refresh =1?=dumbass


An important lesson to the bigoted mooks out there:

If you're going to show your hatred for a group, consult the dictionary before making your sign. If you don't know what a dictionary is, be sure to look it up in an encyclopedia. If you don't know what an encyclopedia is, look it up in the dictionary.

Actually, I'm pretty glad it turns out this way. It better shows how retarded his views are.

[Charles RB]

She stumbled on the "Bush Doctrine." Obama supporters will scream she's a raving idiot who does not know what it is

Of course. She's a prospective VP for the Republicans who stumbled on the international politics doctrine of the current Republican president. If she knew the answer, why did she stumble?

Why are you defending her ignorance of what her own party's current president is doing, actions which will have direct bearing on her if she becomes VP?

She did say she is for the overturning of Roe. But she followed with a respect for personal beliefs, and candidly expressed she was sharing her own personal -- and not necessarily policy -- beliefs.

And you believe that? That's... trusting of you.


I hope if this ticket DOES win, everyone is perfectly happy to see this country turn into one giant smoldering hole on the globe.

I know Putin will be!



I stand by the map I presented.

For which you provided no evidence.

It's not my fault the Democrats decided to deviate from the Yellow Brick Road toward the White House

This implies Hilary would've ensured they won. This is illogical though - if she had that great a level of popular support, she would not have lost. And she did.

Then she urged her supporters to vote for Obama.

But, sure, I'll oblige:

1. Domestic drilling is good.

First off, McCain previously was against it because it would not have enough of an impact in American energy, and AFAIK there wasn't a swathe of evidence since then which showed it would.

Secondly, Obama is supporting domestic drilling as part of a wider energy policy.

2. Cutting the bureaucracy is good.

And you're sure they will actually do this?

Also, Palin is not exactly known for fiscal conservatism - more for bringing in deficits in Alaska that were not there before. She is known for cutting people who she thinks won't be unswaveringly loyal, however.

This type of line -- the "low info voter!" -- is exactly what rallied Hillary Clinton her electoral support

She lost. That means she had LESS support than the person who won.

This is how it works. It doesn't work differently because your favoured candidate was the loser.


Against Bush tax cuts. But Obama now says he's for continuing them due to the "recession."

And then afterwards he's going to remove them and bring in different tax policies. Your point?

2. Against the war.

And McCain is more belligerent over Iran and Russia.

4. Pro-Gay. Neither ticket is strong in this area.

McCain's outwardly against gay marriage, Obama isn't.

Has Palin cut essential services? No. Has McCain been against pork? Yes. Those are identifiable records

It's also an identifiable record that Palin has been involved in federal pork and was previously criticised over this by McCain.

Also that when Palin was mayor, the town's police were charging rape victims for the use of rape kits.


I wouldn't say that, but I would say that the Hillary people who are out of touch with reality enough to vote McCain/Palin are not important at all. The post-primary equivalent of Ron Paul voters, really.

OW. Now THAT'S a diss.

[the4thpip]

Today's sick-sad comedy, a man in Florida is putting an inflammatory anti-Obama sign on his lawn.

The sign reads "OBAMA HALF-BREED MUSLIN"

And no, that is not a typo.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2008/9/10/obama_sign_in_yard_stirs_up_neighbors.html?refresh =1?=dumbass


An important lesson to the bigoted mooks out there:

If you're going to show your hatred for a group, consult the dictionary before making your sign. If you don't know what a dictionary is, be sure to look it up in an encyclopedia. If you don't know what an encyclopedia is, look it up in the dictionary.

Maybe it was this guy?

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/moran-7512.jpg

[FalconX2000]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i7K20RiBJeMQhhTZUST64ABObHjAD935VJT00

I was wondering where the hell Biden was...

[Kevinroc]

A politico article about why McCain has gone so negative.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13412.html

[Black Vespa]

I think while a candidate might not know how to text message, having some real understanding of communication on the internet and how it's affected people's daily lives is really important in a presidential candidate.

It's one, a huge part of our economy (a good part of our business world), and, two, one of the biggest social changes since the invention of daily mail.


you're making more out of the internet than is there. "huge" part of our economy?....part of the economy...sure...but not the be all end all...we could live without it.

lets tap the brakes on touting just how important the internet is...especially when its a feeble support to a petty attack on a political ad.

[the4thpip]

you're making more out of the internet than is there. "huge" part of our economy?....part of the economy...sure...but not the be all end all...we could live without it.

lets tap the brakes on touting just how important the internet is...especially when its a feeble support to a petty attack on a political ad.

The Internet is easily as big a change to our lifestyle as motor vehicles, fertilizer and television. It just does not stink as much as those three.

[Black Vespa]

The Internet is easily as big a change to our lifestyle as motor vehicles, fertilizer and television. It just does not stink as much as those three.

we don't need tv or internet....they're nothing more than technological luxuries...we can live with out them...why others insist on over inflating their values is beyond me.

[kingdom2000]

Your choice. You can't knock Hillary and then puppet Biden. You can't say Biden knows more than Palin as a Washington Insider, and then say Hillary does not know more than Barack Obama.

That's the point. You're all hypocrites.

LOL you are. You talk all this stuff about the issues and then you can't help yourself but get back to the real reason - Hillary. Who holds the exact same beliefs and policies desires as Obama. Yet Obama's isn't good enough but Hillary's is. You have essentially spent the last 5 pages making an argument on why Hillary wouldn't have been a good candidate for President. Replace Obama with Hillary and your arguments hold. Do you even realize that? Are you so married to the concept of getting a woman in the white house no matter what that you are willing to talk yourself into anything. Going by your OWN argument, if it was a Hilary/? ticket vs McCain/? you would have no choice but to vote for McCain basesd on yoru own policy "beliefs" (which the above show is just smoke and BS). God your pathetic. Your no better then people that are voting for Obama just because he is black. "Making history" should be subvertient for making a choice you believe is best for the country.

[Chris Hansbrough]

we don't need tv or internet....they're nothing more than technological luxuries...we can live with out them...why others insist on over inflating their values is beyond me.

yes you are right when it comes to technology it's not important to know about things that are a huge percentage of not just technological but also economic advancements. not important at all

[kingdom2000]

I think while a candidate might not know how to text message, having some real understanding of communication on the internet and how it's affected people's daily lives is really important in a presidential candidate.

It's one, a huge part of our economy (a good part of our business world), and, two, one of the biggest social changes since the invention of daily mail.

Yeah kind of is. Considering that the telecoms have not ended their mission to end net neutrality, considering that states and others are trying to start taxking the web and specific websites (see NY and Amazon) and considering the tactics of the RIAA and MPAA, a canidates technical knowledge is more then a bit important.

Now, Obama and co should try to frame the attack in those terms but at this point being nice hasn't worked so its time Obama adopts republicans methods as they are proven to be very effective.

[the4thpip]

we don't need tv or internet....they're nothing more than technological luxuries...we can live with out them...why others insist on over inflating their values is beyond me.

For one thing, it makes it a hell of a lot harder for rulers, or anyone, to lie to people. Sure, it encourages some lies (photo shop etc), but I bet you anything that it has unveiled and help unveil many more lies than it has caused.

Why do you think dictatorships like China and Iran try so hard to control the Internet - and fail?

It has dramatically sped up research. About 12 years ago, I spent an entire day in a library as an intern trying to find a single quote. 8 hours. I tried it again the other day, and it took me 20 seconds on the Internets.

It allows for global movements. The "fair trade" movement would not have grown as fast and as big as it has without the internet.

The internet will keep my generation from having to fear loneliness in our old age. It's already doing that for many of the generation before mine.

There isn't a thing more powerful in the world than knowledge. There isn't a trait more important to humans than communication. The internet kicked both of those into overdrive.

It's not even possible to overestimate what the Internet has done, is doing, and will doing for the human race.

[Black Vespa]

yes you are right when it comes to technology it's not important to know about things that are a huge percentage of not just technological but also economic advancements. not important at all


at this point, you can live without it....it is NOT essential to life.

[Black Vespa]

For one thing, it makes it a hell of a lot harder for rulers, or anyone, to lie to people. Sure, it encourages some lies (photo shop etc), but I bet you anything that it has unveiled and help unveil many more lies than it has caused.

Why do you think dictatorships like China and Iran try so hard to control the Internet - and fail?

It has dramatically sped up research. About 12 years ago, I spent an entire day in a library as an intern trying to find a single quote. 8 hours. I tried it again the other day, and it took me 20 seconds on the Internets.

It allows for global movements. The "fair trade" movement would not have grown as fast and as big as it has without the internet.

The internet will keep my generation from having to fear loneliness in our old age. It's already doing that for many of the generation before mine.

There isn't a thing more powerful in the world than knowledge. There isn't a trait more important to humans than communication. The internet kicked both of those into overdrive.

It's not even possible to overestimate what the Internet has done, is doing, and will doing for the human race.


meh....it's still overrated.

[Sabrinaset]

And now, for more stories in the news ...

A couple stories on the Palin interview ... ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire ... (http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/)

...and it looks like ABC did some "creative editing" (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview) Say it isn't so!

Pamela Anderson should maybe leave politics to the politicians ... (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24333997-5006003,00.html)

"It's like a really bad Disney movie. The hockey mom, you know, ''Oh, I'm just a hockey mom''... and she's facing down (Russian) President Putin... It's totally absurd... It's a really terrifying possibility," he added.

Okay, maybe it's just me, but I can easily see these kind of attacks backfiring. That and the fact that two of my aunts and my Mom, who were sports moms themselves, could easily stare down Putin.

Biden lives up to his gaffe-filled reputation. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/america/biden.php)

More polling news, including this curious bit ... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ap_poll)

Fully 47 percent say Obama lacks the proper experience — an even worse reading than the 36 percent who had the same criticism about McCain running mate Sarah Palin, serving her second year as Alaska governor after being a small-town mayor.

[the4thpip]

meh....it's still overrated.

Thanks for putting so much effort into your argument. :rolleyes:

[Grazzt]

Okay, maybe it's just me, but I can easily see these kind of attacks backfiring. That and the fact that two of my aunts and my Mom, who were sports moms themselves, could easily stare down Putin.

I...don't know about that. Putin is pretty terrifying. I bet he'd infect them with some sort of radioactive material.

Really, the best way to deal with people like him is to undermine their authority, not challenge it directly.

More polling news, including this curious bit ... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080912/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_ap_poll)

I imagine the Republican machine is just better at getting their message out there.

For fun, mightygodking made a set of election themed Magic: The Gathering cards. In two parts, here (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/09/02/stab-at-relevance/#comments) and here (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/09/10/stab-at-relevance-2-the-stabbening/#comments).

[Buzz Dixon]

Okay, if it were proven that Barack Obama didn't actually visit Iraq even though he and his campaign and his running mate claimed he visited Iraq, that would be a Very Big Deal, wouldn't it, and more than reason enough not to vote for him and his running mate, correct?































...I think you all know where I'm going with this...:wink:
:biggrin:
:tongue:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/she-lied-about.html

[Chris Hansbrough]

at this point, you can live without it....it is NOT essential to life.
so by that right the only thing you should have to know about to be president is how to eat breathe and fuck......well then again shelter is important so I guess that does qualify mccain

[FalconX2000]

we don't need tv or internet....they're nothing more than technological luxuries...we can live with out them...why others insist on over inflating their values is beyond me.

If you're talking about being essential to life, then no. No single technology is absolutely essential to human civilization. Nevertheless, technology is important to us, because it lets us do the things we want to do better, faster and more easily than we otherwise would be able to. By that measure, the Internet is easily one of mankind's most important creations ever, right up there with the aeroplane and the combustion engine.

[LtMarvel]

I...don't know about that. Putin is pretty terrifying. I bet he'd infect them with some sort of radioactive material.

Really, the best way to deal with people like him is to undermine their authority, not challenge it directly.



I imagine the Republican machine is just better at getting their message out there.

For fun, mightygodking made a set of election themed Magic: The Gathering cards. In two parts, here (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/09/02/stab-at-relevance/#comments) and here (http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/09/10/stab-at-relevance-2-the-stabbening/#comments).
Those Magic cards are gold!

[Black Vespa]

Thanks for putting so much effort into your argument. :rolleyes:


sorry - at the time, i had my 19 month old son in my lap, - he wasn't vibing on the bulletin board post.

[Black Vespa]

so by that right the only thing you should have to know about to be president is how to eat breathe and fuck......well then again shelter is important so I guess that does qualify mccain


that's an asinine statement, and you know it.

[Black Vespa]

so by that right the only thing you should have to know about to be president is how to eat breathe and fuck......well then again shelter is important so I guess that does qualify mccain

nice way of insulting the previous other 40 some-odd presidents that didn't have the internet around when they were doing their term(s). --that argument makes no f-cking sense. try again.

[Chris Hansbrough]

nice way of insulting the previous other 40 some-odd presidents that didn't have the internet around when they were doing their term(s). --that argument makes no f-cking sense. try again.

it makes a fuckload more sense than your completely inane it's not important to know about because it's not a neccesity to live. I just took your massive dose of fucking stupid and expanded on it to it's conclusion

[Black Vespa]

it makes a fuckload more sense than your completely inane it's not important to know about because it's not a neccesity to live. I just took your massive dose of fucking stupid and expanded on it to it's conclusion


wow....and was it the least bit NECESSARY to go on insulting and cursing at someone that has their own valid opinion?

btw, i stand by what i said. I could stop utilizing the internet tomorrow and my world would not revert back to 1987. that goes for anyone. I guess what i'm saying is their needs to be a counter to all this inflated worth of the internet. it's not that great of an invention. - we don't NEED it as a society, and would do just FINE without it.

[Evan Waters]

nice way of insulting the previous other 40 some-odd presidents that didn't have the internet around when they were doing their term(s). --that argument makes no f-cking sense. try again.

That's... not the point at all.

The point is that NOW, the Internet is an important part of our everyday lives and of global commerce, and politicians, since they can pass laws that affect the Internet, should have some idea of how it works. It's not a deal breaker for me, but I count it as another plus in the Obama column.

[Black Vespa]

That's... not the point at all.

The point is that NOW, the Internet is an important part of our everyday lives and of global commerce, and politicians, since they can pass laws that affect the Internet, should have some idea of how it works. It's not a deal breaker for me, but I count it as another plus in the Obama column.



asserting an asinine response WAS his point...go find someone else to pile on

[Chris Hansbrough]

asserting an asinine response WAS his point...go find someone else to pile on

actually implying your arguement was inane and stupid was the point of the post. Why? because your point is inane and stupid.

If the internet were to suddenly dissapear the US economy would be annihilated.

[kingdom2000]

wow....and was it the least bit NECESSARY to go on insulting and cursing at someone that has their own valid opinion?

btw, i stand by what i said. I could stop utilizing the internet tomorrow and my world would not revert back to 1987. that goes for anyone. I guess what i'm saying is their needs to be a counter to all this inflated worth of the internet. it's not that great of an invention. - we don't NEED it as a society, and would do just FINE without it.

You do realize that works for any tech over the 1000 years or so. Most isn't needed but it sure is nice to have. Your also completly and apparently with ignorant pride the economic impact the Internet has on the global economy. There would thousands and thousands of businesses that would cease to exist if the Internet went away and the jobs they create. Iwpuld have thought the bubble burst not that long ago would have illustrated the internets importance but I guess history and the economy, much liked mcsame, is beyond your understanding.

[Crowley]

nice way of insulting the previous other 40 some-odd presidents that didn't have the internet around when they were doing their term(s). --that argument makes no f-cking sense. try again.

Presidents have to keep up with the times at the risk of losing elections.

Witness the Kennedy-Nixon debates. Nixon didn't have full understanding of how important television was going to be and got trounced by Kennedy.

If you're going to get a professional job today... you have to have at least a basic understanding of the internet. Our economy has indeed become defendant on it. To say otherwise is foolish.

Newspapers and magazines are dissipating because of it. Mom and Pop stores have a new and different economic model.

Not understanding that, not understanding that companies live and die by YouTube videos, news cycles, social networking sites, blogs is ignorant and a very valid concern in electing a leader.

Especially one claiming that the other candidate is out of touch.

[Jake V]

wow....and was it the least bit NECESSARY to go on insulting and cursing at someone that has their own valid opinion?

btw, i stand by what i said. I could stop utilizing the internet tomorrow and my world would not revert back to 1987. that goes for anyone. I guess what i'm saying is their needs to be a counter to all this inflated worth of the internet. it's not that great of an invention. - we don't NEED it as a society, and would do just FINE without it.

I dunno, aren't nationally and internationally networked computers kind of essential to modern society?

[BnL]

btw, i stand by what i said. I could stop utilizing the internet tomorrow and my world would not revert back to 1987. that goes for anyone.

My life would not have been the same without the internet. It allows one to network with like-minded people and have access to information about pretty much everything. As a gay kid growing up in the suburbs, in the computer age, it meant the world to me that I could connect with other people like myself, and in fact discover who I am. I was an isolated, unpopular kid dealing with his sexuality, and I may well have wound up killing myself from the loneliness and stifling environment I was in, had I not found an outlet in the internet. And it wouldn't have been a unique story, either.

[BnL]

Oh, let me also say that I did think that the Obama ad could have been more tastefully done, but it does raise valid concerns about McCain. It also not like it only pointed out that he doesn't know about computers. It was building up to the zinger at the end, which is that he's just another cog in the political machine in Washington, as evidenced by his voting with Bush 90% of the time.

I also am disappointed in ABC News, because their editing of Palin's interview was pretty sleazy. In most of the cases, it didn't make that much difference in how she came across to me, because it still sounded like she was reciting her rehearsed answers, and faking it when she forgot them. But still, it was manipulative to edit things to further emphasize this point. The two most damning parts of the interview, her lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine and her claiming that being able to see Russia from Alaska counts as foreign policy experience, still stand.

[Black Vespa]

and that ad that went out?-- What a blatant and feable attempt to throw away any merit, career, stance on policies, that the opposition has made to the moments leading to the election process. it's a blatant and dishonest attempt at trying to shed some negative light that was not a NON-issue... what i find even more ridiculous is how so many people have clung to the notion that mccain is out of touch b/c he doesn't use email. but i guess it doesn't matter too much, considering the only people taking that bait are the ones that need it.

OMG LOLZ!!! He doesn't use EMAIL! HOWOUTTA TOUCH CAN YOU BE?! HE'S 404!!! LHU IF HE IS PREZ! WHAT A N00B! WHAT AN OAP!

OBAMA 4EVER WOOT! TTYL!

[Black Vespa]

actually implying your arguement was inane and stupid was the point of the post. Why? because your point is inane and stupid.

If the internet were to suddenly dissapear the US economy would be annihilated.


okay, - i submit to the notion that i took the argument outside the realm of logic in regards to the internet's effect on social life, economy, science, etc. you're right. I will concede that I've made some ridiculous assertions.

i should have been making a point of how ridiculous the ad was, in the first place.

[Novaya Havoc]

I also am disappointed in ABC News, because their editing of Palin's interview was pretty sleazy. In most of the cases, it didn't make that much difference in how she came across to me, because it still sounded like she was reciting her rehearsed answers, and faking it when she forgot them. But still, it was manipulative to edit things to further emphasize this point. The two most damning parts of the interview, her lack of knowledge of the Bush Doctrine and her claiming that being able to see Russia from Alaska counts as foreign policy experience, still stand.

Then maybe you should read Palin's remarks, uneditied and in full especially re. the "I can see Russia from Alaska!" hack edit.

The omitted parts are in bold.

-----
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
-----

And on "War with Russia!"

-----

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

-----

But read the full transcript for yourself. She also said she has met foreign Heads of State re: international trade, but not diplomatic heads of state (linking with her aired comment of "I have not, but if you look back at other VP candidates..." follow up)

But hey. Read the transcript for yourself. She also says she "hates war." Now I wonder why that wasn't aired?

[Paul McEnery]

at this point, you can live without it....it is NOT essential to life.

You are foolishly thinking that the internet is just you bullshitting on this forum.

In fact, it's a massive part of the retail economy, and all businesses absolutely depend upon it.

On top of that, with more people telecommuting to save real commuting costs, that's even more importance.

That and the fact that, in real money, no, people can't live without it; the economy would most likely collapse.

[Black Vespa]

You are foolishly thinking that the internet is just you bullshitting on this forum.

In fact, it's a massive part of the retail economy, and all businesses absolutely depend upon it.

On top of that, with more people telecommuting to save real commuting costs, that's even more importance.

That and the fact that, in real money, no, people can't live without it; the economy would most likely collapse.


hey! before you get all twitchy with your trigger finger there, take the time to follow the thread all the way through.

[Paul McEnery]

hey! before you get all twitchy with your trigger finger there, take the time to follow the thread all the way through.

Fair point. :biggrin:

[Charles RB]

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

Inaccurate - Canada is Alaska's next door neighbour.

Presumably she was saying otherwise to attach herself to a current foreign policy issue.

[KevinTBrown]

you're making more out of the internet than is there. "huge" part of our economy?....part of the economy...sure...but not the be all end all...we could live without it.

lets tap the brakes on touting just how important the internet is...especially when its a feeble support to a petty attack on a political ad.

Working in the financial business as I do, without the internet at least 75% (and under-estimating) of the work could not get done. Hell, without email alone I couldn't do my job at all!

So, yes, computers and the internet and all it provides is VITAL to the economy of this country and foreign countries as well.

If we have someone leading this country who has no fucking idea in how to do something as simple as an email, that's just idiotic. My mother, who is older than McCain, is computer and email literate. So he has no excuse whatsoever.....

[section 8]

A lot of people shop, Bankl, Pay bills, rent movies, and do all sorts of things online.


.....just sayin'

[Novaya Havoc]

Inaccurate - Canada is Alaska's next door neighbour.

Presumably she was saying otherwise to attach herself to a current foreign policy issue.


... Come again?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/National-atlas-alaska.png

[Black Vespa]

okay, - i submit to the notion that i took the argument outside the realm of logic in regards to the internet's effect on social life, economy, science, etc. you're right. I will concede that I've made some ridiculous assertions.

i should have been making a point of how ridiculous the ad was, in the first place.

quoting myself.

[KevinTBrown]

... Come again?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/National-atlas-alaska.png

You're totally dense aren't you...?

Look at the fucking map you just posted.

I'll give you a small hint: ALASKA AND CANADA SHARE A COMMON BORDER! THEY'RE FUCKING CONNECTED!

[Sabrinaset]

If we have someone leading this country who has no fucking idea in how to do something as simple as an email, that's just idiotic. My mother, who is older than McCain, is computer and email literate. So he has no excuse whatsoever.....

You know, the problem I have with bashing McCain for not being computer literate is that everyone has holes in their knowledge of the world. And as old as McCain is, as much as a digital immigrant that he would have to be, I can't really begrudge him for that. I mean, I grew up with computers everywhere, and while I can't do photoshop with them, I can do nearly everything else. I vaguely remember reading a few stories years ago about Bill Clinton keeping millions of dollars in his checking account, when he seemed unaware that keeping them in savings was a better idea. And heck, I come on here, and I read about Adam C, McEnery, BeetleBum, and Black Atom talking about Paine, Kant, Aquinas, and Locke ... and I don't know John Locke from a padlock.

Now, bashing McCain because of where he stands? No problem there. Or if there's a good joke to be made over something silly, sure! But the computer literacy always seemed a bit silly to me. Besides, my lil bratty brother is completely computer literate ... and all he does is download Asian porn all day. So knowing computers is not necessarily a good thing here!

[Novaya Havoc]

You're totally dense aren't you...?

Look at the fucking map you just posted.

I'll give you a small hint: ALASKA AND CANADA SHARE A COMMON BORDER! THEY'RE FUCKING CONNECTED!

Yes. I do see that Alaska and Canada share a land border. Without you, I would have never understood this!

You want to say that Alaska (the U.S.) and Russia are not "neighbors" due to to less than 100 miles of water, then that's on you.

To wit: is France the geopolitical neighbor of the United Kingdom?
Is Indonesia the geopolitical neighbor of Australia?
Is Japan the geopolitical neighbor of the Koreas, China, and Russia?

Or no?

[Kevinroc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1221357608-XmQUMW7uDDOqlhq6ApXDLw

The New York Times looks at Palin and anyone that isn't crazy will be scared of what the Times has found out...

[Corrina]

This is one reason why computer literacy is important:

Many companies that sell stocks have programs that are designed to sell once the stock hits a certain price. And when the market drops, they go into play.

This is a lot of what caused the crash in 1987 (1988?). The stocks went low, the computer programs sold, as they were designed to do, the stocks went lower, more programs clicked into place and....so on.

I believe that had to change that system after that crash.

It is entirely possible that McCain could find a good adviser on these issues. But I would prefer someone who has a better clue as to how the system works.

[Black Vespa]

You know, the problem I have with bashing McCain for not being computer literate is that everyone has holes in their knowledge of the world. And as old as McCain is, as much as a digital immigrant that he would have to be, I can't really begrudge him for that. I mean, I grew up with computers everywhere, and while I can't do photoshop with them, I can do nearly everything else. I vaguely remember reading a few stories years ago about Bill Clinton keeping millions of dollars in his checking account, when he seemed unaware that keeping them in savings was a better idea. And heck, I come on here, and I read about Adam C, McEnery, BeetleBum, and Black Atom talking about Paine, Kant, Aquinas, and Locke ... and I don't know John Locke from a padlock.

Now, bashing McCain because of where he stands? No problem there. Or if there's a good joke to be made over something silly, sure! But the computer literacy always seemed a bit silly to me. Besides, my lil bratty brother is completely computer literate ... and all he does is download Asian porn all day. So knowing computers is not necessarily a good thing here!


well said.

[Charles RB]

... Come again?


If you're going to say "...come again?" about that, you probably shouldn't post an image showing Alaska is attached to Canada.

You want to say that Alaska (the U.S.) and Russia are not "neighbors" due to to less than 100 miles of water

They're not next-door neighbours, no. Because there's a sea in the way. And there isn't with Canada.

While there is merely a road between my house and the one directly facing it, we are not next-door neighbours.

Of course, oddly, you're not mentioning the "next-door" part despite trying to counter my response, focusing on "next-door", to Palin using the term "next-door". It's almost like you're changing the goalposts.

It's like that because you are.

[Sabrinaset]

This is one reason why computer literacy is important:

Many companies that sell stocks have programs that are designed to sell once the stock hits a certain price. And when the market drops, they go into play.

This is a lot of what caused the crash in 1987 (1988?). The stocks went low, the computer programs sold, as they were designed to do, the stocks went lower, more programs clicked into place and....so on.

I believe that had to change that system after that crash.

It is entirely possible that McCain could find a good adviser on these issues. But I would prefer someone who has a better clue as to how the system works.

But using that logic, Obama would be a terrible President because he doesn't know anything about say, health care, while McCain probably knows a lot more since as old as he is, he's seen far more doctors. Or that I'd make a better President than the both of them combined. Okay, I'm being a bit silly (surprise!) but the thing is, both these guys are going to have advisors for everything. I'm less concerned with what they know abut some esoteric topic and more concerned with their morals, ethics, policy positions, ability to lead, delegate, and inspire.

[KevinTBrown]

Yes. I do see that Alaska and Canada share a land border. Without you, I would have never understood this!

You want to say that Alaska (the U.S.) and Russia are not "neighbors" due to to less than 100 miles of water, then that's on you.

To wit: is France the geopolitical neighbor of the United Kingdom?
Is Indonesia the geopolitical neighbor of Australia?
Is Japan the geopolitical neighbor of the Koreas, China, and Russia?

Or no?

And DUBLIN is a hell of a lot closer to Moscow (capital of Russia) than the state capital of Juneau is.... About 2,600 miles closer.

To go one better.FLYING from DC to Juneau, with a stop in Seattle, is about 3,220 miles. It's 4,340 miles to Moscow.

Oh, and it's 1,735 miles between Dublin and Moscow.



Being close to the border means jack shit. Being closer to where the actual government leaders are is far more important.

[KevinTBrown]

But using that logic, Obama would be a terrible President because he doesn't know anything about say, health care, while McCain probably knows a lot more since as old as he is, he's seen far more doctors. Or that I'd make a better President than the both of them combined. Okay, I'm being a bit silly (surprise!) but the thing is, both these guys are going to have advisors for everything. I'm less concerned with what they know abut some esoteric topic and more concerned with their morals, ethics, policy positions, ability to lead, delegate, and inspire.

Would you feel more comfortable with a guy who can immediately read an email, handle using a computer and could send out a response with no help whatsoever; or one who needs to hand if off to an aide, wait for them to read it to him (hoping the aide reads it properly) or even print it out and then dictate back a response?

GRANTED, as President, neither one will be that hands on, but if there was a time when such a situation occured, who do you want at the ready then?

[West Mantooth]

[QUOTE=Novaya Havoc;7554663

To wit: is France the geopolitical neighbor of the United Kingdom?
Is Indonesia the geopolitical neighbor of Australia?
Is Japan the geopolitical neighbor of the Koreas, China, and Russia?

Or no?[/QUOTE]


I bet if you asked the heads of those countries, they wouldn't say they've never been to their geopolitical neighbors.

Do you think Putin even knew who this chick was? Does she have Putin's phone number let alone the ear of an actual Russian official?

[Crowley]

You know, the problem I have with bashing McCain for not being computer literate is that everyone has holes in their knowledge of the world. And as old as McCain is, as much as a digital immigrant that he would have to be, I can't really begrudge him for that. I mean, I grew up with computers everywhere, and while I can't do photoshop with them, I can do nearly everything else. I vaguely remember reading a few stories years ago about Bill Clinton keeping millions of dollars in his checking account, when he seemed unaware that keeping them in savings was a better idea. And heck, I come on here, and I read about Adam C, McEnery, BeetleBum, and Black Atom talking about Paine, Kant, Aquinas, and Locke ... and I don't know John Locke from a padlock.

Now, bashing McCain because of where he stands? No problem there. Or if there's a good joke to be made over something silly, sure! But the computer literacy always seemed a bit silly to me. Besides, my lil bratty brother is completely computer literate ... and all he does is download Asian porn all day. So knowing computers is not necessarily a good thing here!

My almost 80yo grandmother has been using e-mail and surfing the internet since the late 90's... if she can do it, the next president should be able to do it.

[Corrina]

As for the 'net being an issue, it's not in the top three of my issues that I want a president to have hands on experience.

Btw, I know you were making a joke but McCain doesn't have any hands on experience with the health care that most of us receive. He's been eligible for the free health care given veterans and their families since birth. And now he's fully covered in his job as a Senator. He's got zero experience in the health care system that most Americans are dealing with.

So, to me, I want my next President to have:

1. A good working knowledge of global history. This is so key to perspective on Iraq/Iran and other global conflicts. McCain can't even get Iran & Iraq straight.

2. Have a plan for creating alternate energy sources. As I've said, I checked way back before McCain & Obama were the nominees, before the gas $$$ crisis. Hilary Clinton & Obama had good, solid plans. McCain had basically squat.

3. Have some way to hold corporations accountable for sending jobs overseas. They're not at all now. This is why when I call for tech support on a lot of things, I get someone halfway across the world. They are usually very pleasant and nice but I honestly would prefer to deal with someone who I can understand a lot better, especially when I'm pissed at my router/Vista/etc.

Yeah, reform of the health care system would be nice. I don't hold out much hope there.

Competence would also be nice. And McCain's proven to me by how he's running his campaign that he's not the guy to give a chance. He makes decisions in such a scattershot way that I don't trust him.

So, leaves Obama.

[Corrina]

My browser is glitching on me.

That last line should be "So, that leaves Obama for me."

[Sabrinaset]

Would you feel more comfortable with a guy who can immediately read an email, handle using a computer and could send out a response with no help whatsoever; or one who needs to hand if off to an aide, wait for them to read it to him (hoping the aide reads it properly) or even print it out and then dictate back a response?

GRANTED, as President, neither one will be that hands on, but if there was a time when such a situation occured, who do you want at the ready then?

The thing is, both of these guys are going to have secretaries and interns doing all that for them anyways, so the concept that Obama can play World of Warcraft on his cell phone while McCain can't isn't much of a selling point to me. I can see the humor in it though, but that's about it. Now, which one of them can deal with the economy, the law, stuff like that ..?

[BnL]

Then maybe you should read Palin's remarks, uneditied and in full especially re. the "I can see Russia from Alaska!" hack edit.

I did read it, and like I said, the full context of the Russia/Alaska quote doesn't change my perception of her response. She was asked how Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her insight into foreign policy. Her response was that it's a small world, they're our neighbors, and you can see Russia from an island in Alaska. While all of that is true, it doesn't amount to foreign policy insight. It's a feeble defense of her fluffed up "foreign policy experience" that's been touted so much by the McCain campaign.

And her response to the conflict between Russia and Georgia demonstrates a severe bias in favor of Georgia, with or without the edit ("We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia."). Georgia is not blameless in this conflict, but Palin was given instructions to speak in support of Georgia because of the Georgian lobbyist on McCain's advisory staff. The unreasonable one-sidedness and veiled threats are not going to win us any favors with Russia.

[mattx110]

The thing is, both of these guys are going to have secretaries and interns doing all that for them anyways, so the concept that Obama can play World of Warcraft on his cell phone while McCain can't isn't much of a selling point to me. I can see the humor in it though, but that's about it. Now, which one of them can deal with the economy, the law, stuff like that ..?
The president has to be able to send an email.

the white house runs on outlook. It's an office building. Have you ever worked in an office and had someone higher up than you not be able to use their computer despite it being in their job description? Trust me, it's not fun.