NationStates Jolt Archive

How many of those will see her as a gimmick
Probably loads.
and how many of those will see McCain's "He's inexperient" argument weaken?
About as many as will see Obama's "I'm against Washington!" pish weaken due to him picking Joe Biden : As many as are informed of what kind of hypocricy it is.
dont be silly.
Aww :(
no one votes for the guy they dont like because of the person he chose for VP.

and in this case the piss poor pandering is so obvious that it might piss off more of those independents than please them.
We shall see when it comes 'round to the election I guess.

I don't think we'll see legions of women flocking to McCain's banner overnight, but the kind of people who will see it for what it is - blatent pandering - will probably be voting Obama anyway.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836384597&play=1

Let's see ... your answer to questions about Palin's qualifications, lack of name recognition, and right-wing views is a link to a video where Palin discusses how we should drill in ANWR (which is unacceptable and won't solve our energy crisis), how cozy she is with Big Oil, and how she dismisses the importance of changing to an economy based on alternative and renewable fuels -- instead she wants to continue our dependence on carbon fuels.

First, the video doesn't answer the questions raised.

Second, the video only further convinces me that the woman shouldn't be given more power.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836384597&play=1

How does that answer the question?

It's a simple question. What is your answer?

Can a person with 2 years of experience on the state level and none on the federal level with little to no relevant experience otherwise be qualified for President?

Why don't you just go look up any abortion poll by demographics. More women are against the status quo than men are. Republican or Democrat. Something like 60% of women believe abortions should be more restricted in the US than they are now.

If these numbers are true you should be able to back it up. Also, more restricted does not mean pro-life. I believe abortion should have restrictions, but I am certainly not pro-life.

The fact that he has a woman on-board and Obama doesn't?

Can't really hurt with the vast sea of independent voters floating about at the moment.

It isn't going to help when people look past the the "OMG GIRL" factor and really try to picture her as President of the Senate and McCain's possible replacement in the (very) likely event of his death in office.

The fact that he has a woman on-board and Obama doesn't?

Can't really hurt with the vast sea of independent voters floating about at the moment.
what is going to hurt mccain is the issue of judgement.

the first decision that a presidential candidate makes publicly is his choice for vp.

that choice reveals so much about a candidates mindset. what he values, how he calculates his chances, whatever.

so obama picks joe biden. joe has good points and bad points, he isnt an edgy choice, he isnt the choice of CHANGE. but at least biden knows everything and every one and would be able to step into the presidency with little problem. he covers the basic job of a VP--being able to replace the president in an emergency--and has some political bases covered--he can help obama with the blue collar vote.

mccain picks sarah palin. she has 20 months of being the governor of a state with a tiny population--the equivalent of being mayor of charlotte north carolina for 2 years. she isnt ready for the one basic job of the VP--to replace the president in case of emergency. she has no compelling qualifications for the job otherwise--alaska will go republican anyway, she reinforces the base that should already be voting republican, she....well i cant think of anything else. yeah she is a woman but there are dozens of better qualified republican women.

obama passes the test of picking a reasonable running mate and mccain fails.

thats bad judgement and thats a problem.

It isn't going to help when people look past the the "OMG GIRL" factor and really try to picture her as President of the Senate and McCain's possible replacement in the (very) likely event of his death in office.
Thinking is for Democrat voters.

I can understand what McCain is going for, and there's certainly immense short-term gains, but I don't think this ploy will work in the long run.

For one, neither she nor McCain is even close to Obama when it comes to speaking ability, or Biden for that matter. When the debates come around I expect a thorough face-crush. The Republicans will probably look bad, but this is really only minor.

On the real issues though, she's very attached to oil companies. It's rather hard to talk about energy independence when the VP you handpicked is on the leash of one of the major forces keeping us on oil. Of course, it makes sense that oil companies would see no reason to invest in alternative fuels or allow them to compete when they're making such ridiculous profits, so they can't exactly be blamed, but it's bad in the long term for the US. And ultimately, I know quite a few people that will be placing their ballot primarily on the question of energy.

When it comes to "feminists", I really don't think she resonates very well. She's "pro-life", (something less than 1% of the US can really claim to be), whereas the majority of feminists are "pro-choice".

And for nabbing Hillary supporters, most of her supporters already were ready to vote for Obama before the DNC. After Hillary, Bill, and Barak's speeches, I have no doubt that very few of them are considering voting for the Republicans (although there may still be a few that don't plan on voting). As for the one's that might be persuaded by Palin, they're most likely in an already red state in the first place, so there's very little potential loss for the Democrats there.

Nope, wrong topic thread. Prove me a liar if you like.

That's not really how it works. You make an assertion and it is yours to back up.

Because generally when someone makes a claim, especially one as specious as the one you tried to make, they have the good sense to at least attempt to back their claim up with facts. Failing to do so tends to reflect negatively on the validity of the claim.

Besides, it doesn't matter that more women are against the status quo than men are. It matters what proportion of women are pro-life, and what are pro-choice. Hell it matters what proportion of people in general are pro-choice and what are pro-life.

So here's some numbers:




And as far as gender goes:


So sure, there's an even split on the issue of the status quo. But your claim about the number of women in this country who are against abortion rights is empty and hollow.

Edit: Oops. Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

Asked to be proven a liar and received ones wishes...check.

How does that answer the question?

It's a simple question. What is your answer?

Can a person with 2 years of experience on the state level and none on the federal level with little to no relevant experience otherwise be qualified for President?

She will have two years of executive expierence, and thats two years more than all three of the men on the two tickets combined.

Are you being purposefully ignorant? Palin is pro-life. She wants abortions to be not permitted. She matches up with 24% of the female population, according to those statistics. Someone who wants abortions to be generally available is pro-choice. Someone who wants abortions to be available, but more strictly regulated, is also pro-choice. 37% pro-choice plus 37% pro-choice is 74% pro-choice. Versus 24% pro-life.

Your original claim was not


That was you moving the goalposts. Your original claim was


And you were proven wrong. You were wrong.

Yeah, I don't get what balderdash is trying to do here. It's just nonsensical to look at the something that's red and call it black.

Let's see ... your answer to questions about Palin's qualifications, lack of name recognition, and right-wing views is a link to a video where Palin discusses how we should drill in ANWR (which is unacceptable and won't solve our energy crisis), how cozy she is with Big Oil, and how she dismisses the importance of changing to an economy based on alternative and renewable fuels -- instead she wants to continue our dependence on carbon fuels.

First, the video doesn't answer the questions raised.

Second, the video only further convinces me that the woman shouldn't be given more power.

Of course you don't like her, she's a conservative.

what is going to hurt mccain is the issue of judgement.

the first decision that a presidential candidate makes publicly is his choice for vp.

that choice reveals so much about a candidates mindset. what he values, how he calculates his chances, whatever.

so obama picks joe biden. joe has good points and bad points, he isnt an edgy choice, he isnt the choice of CHANGE. but at least biden knows everything and every one and would be able to step into the presidency with little problem. he covers the basic job of a VP--being able to replace the president in an emergency--and has some political bases covered--he can help obama with the blue collar vote.
Pretty dubious about how much he can help Obama with the blue-collar vote, but aye. If he could turn his voice down, say, 20 decibels, and miss out a few unimportant words here and there, he'd be an OK president.
mccain picks sarah palin. she has 20 months of being the governor of a state with a tiny population--the equivalent of being mayor of charlotte north carolina for 2 years. she isnt ready for the one basic job of the VP--to replace the president in case of emergency. she has no compelling qualifications for the job otherwise--alaska will go republican anyway, she reinforces the base that should already be voting republican, she....well i cant think of anything else. yeah she is a woman but there are dozens of better qualified republican women.
I would guess that the fact that she hasn't had enough time to vote in particular patterns yet could help McCain with regards to 'flip-flopping'. But aye, other than 'she's a woman', absolutely nothing going for her.
obama passes the test of picking a reasonable running mate and mccain fails.

thats bad judgement and thats a problem.
If people acted sensibly, we'd have had a Clinton (president) -Obama (VP) ticket from just about the word go, and the Dems would be up by about 100% to 0, but they don't. I really, really do hope that Obama wins (if only to give the world a bit of a rethink about the US in general), but with a McCain-Palin ticket, I think he'll get beaten.

By the way - a not ENTIRELY relevant but still somewhat interesting thought occurs - what if your future president dies in the race? Does the VP pick a new VP?

She will have two years of executive expierence, and thats two years more than all three of the men on the two tickets combined.

And Bush had four times her experience as a governor, but it didn't help with his clusterfuck of a presidency.

By the way - a not ENTIRELY relevant but still somewhat interesting thought occurs - what if your future president dies in the race? Does the VP pick a new VP?
i assume that the party would nominate another presidential candidate if there is enough time.

if not, the vp candidate isnt in the running for president.

And Bush had four times her experience as a governor, but it didn't help with his clusterfuck of a presidency.

Every republican is Bush now? lol

And Bush had four times her experience as a governor, but it didn't help with his clusterfuck of a presidency.
Not that I'm mad about Bush or anything, but President =/= Person Actually In Charge. In his case it was basically a Cheney/Rummy presidency, then just a Cheney one.

Every republican is Bush now? lol
Never said that, now, did I? You're the one using gubernatorial experience as a positive, I'm simply pointing out how little it matters.

Not that I'm mad about Bush or anything, but President =/= Person Actually In Charge. In his case it was basically a Cheney/Rummy presidency, then just a Cheney one.

The cabal was larger than that, I think. But whoever held the puppet strings, Bush didn't gain anything from his time as governor that made him more able to lead the country. Probably why he was so suitable a figurehead in the first place, really.

Those bashing Sarah Palin in favor of Obama are just showing their ignorance and hypocrisy. Frankly, I doubt there is one politician in the world any of us can agree with 100%. They all have viewpoints we agree or disagree with to a greater or lesser extent.

I've read Palin's history, I've considered her experience.

20 months as governor of Alaska and being part time mayor of a town of 6,500 is great experience? Really?


Frankly, I find her a much more palatable and capable candidate than a junior senator who has, through his history, used underhanded techniques and outright lies to progress his campaigns forward

Really, you must be able to substantiate clearly these lies. I mean, nothing that is left to subjective opinion. Actually catching him in lies right?


, and a 30-year Washington insider who brings no change to the broken Washington politics at all.


Ooooh, I just realized you weren't talking about McCain here.

While I'm not a huge McCain fan, I find I can, with a whole heart, support Sarah Palin 100%. And so I will be voting for McCain this year.




For those who say the VP pick has had no affect, I'm afraid you're wrong there - the Democratic VP pick probably had no affect. Biden is a 30-year Washington insider. He doesn't reflect change, he reflects Obama's pressing need have someone experienced on his ticket.

Right, so McCain attacks Obama for not having experience so he picks someone with even less legislative experience. It all makes perfect sense to me right now. I mean, you can't out inexperience a...I think you get the picture.


And that's not just because of his short time as a senator - it's because he has spent the entire time he's been a politician avoiding the issues. He sidesteps better than a square-dancer, and flip-flops more than a trout on the deck of a fishing boat.

Meaningless platitudes, innuendo, and subjective memory...CHECK!

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has proven she's willing to go toe-to-toe with existing party politics and do what's right for the people she's representing. I was willing to vote for Hillary because, even though I disagreed with some of her positions, she was delightfully centrist and was willing to make changes that would benefit the country. Now I will support Sarah Palin, even though I disagree with some of her positions, she's delightfully centrist and is willing to make changes to benefit the country. Since I wasn't willing to support either presidential candidate, I might as well make my pick based on their VP choice.

I don't think being investigated for ethics violations is going to be an extremely positive thing. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4400271.shtml

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/palin-ethics-investigation/

August 29, 2008, 1:14 pm
Palin Ethics Investigation
By Michael Luo

DENVER— A state ethics probe that was launched just a few weeks ago is already drawing attention in the opening moments of her debut as the Republican vice presidential pick is Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

An independent investigator appointed by a panel of state legislators earlier this month is looking into whether Ms. Palin dismissed a top law enforcement official in her administration because he failed to fire a state trooper, Mike Wooten, who went through a messy divorce with Ms. Palin’s sister.

The investigation follows on the heels of Ms. Palin’s abrupt decision in mid-July to dismiss Walt Monegan, her Public Safety Commissioner. Ms. Palin said she wanted to take the department in a different direction, but questions emerged after Mr. Monegan said he felt pressured to fire Mr. Wooten.

Mr. Monegan said members of Ms. Palin’s administration, as well Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, and the governor herself talked to him about Mr. Wooten.

Mr. Monegan told the Anchorage Daily News that Mr. Palin showed him some of the findings of a private investigator the family had hired and accused him of variety of misdeeds, including drunk driving and child abuse.

Mr. Palin told the newspaper he feared for his wife’s safety and said that Mr. Wooten had made threats against her and her family.

As part of efforts to demonstrate she welcomed the inquiry, Ms. Palin asked the state’s attorney general to look into the allegations as well.

Earlier this month, she released an audio recording of a top aide pressing a police lieutenant about why no action had been taken against Mr. Wooten, given the allegations against him. She also disclosed there had been more two dozen inquiries from members of her staff to the public safety department about him, but she said she only knew about some of the inquiries and had played no role in them.

Excerpts of the audio recording Ms. Palin released showed Frank Bailey, the state’s director of boards and commissions, pushing Lt. Rodney Dial in February about Mr. Wooten.

“Todd and Sarah are scratching their heads, ‘Why on earth hasn’t this, why is this guy still representing the department?’ He’s a horrible recruiting tool, you know,” Mr. Bailey told the lieutenant

I'm not saying she's a horrible person because of this, just that it raises some questions. It not only raises questions about her lack of experience, but possible her lack of judgment.

Never said that, now, did I? You're the one using gubernatorial experience as a positive, I'm simply pointing out how little it matters.
....

And I'm simply pointing out that Bush's history is not the same as every other Republican Governor's history.

Here's an article about Sarah Palin from July 2007, before even I was on her bandwagon for VP (last Spring).

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp?pg=1

...
I'm not saying she's a horrible person because of this, just that it raises some questions. It not only raises questions about her lack of experience, but possible her lack of judgment.

You don't run corrupt politicians out of town without making enemies.

She resigned in January 2004 as head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after complaining to the office of Governor Frank Murkowski and to state Attorney General Gregg Renkes about ethical violations by another commissioner, Randy Ruedrich, who was also Republican state chairman.

State law barred Palin from speaking out publicly about ethical violations and corruption. But she was vindicated later in 2004 when Ruedrich, who'd been reconfirmed as state chairman, agreed to pay a $12,000 fine for breaking state ethics laws. She became a hero in the eyes of the public and the press, and the bane of Republican leaders.

In 2005, she continued to take on
the Republican establishment by joining Eric Croft, a Democrat, in lodging an ethics complaint against Renkes, who was not only attorney general but also a long-time adviser and campaign manager for Murkowski. The governor reprimanded Renkes and said the case was closed. It wasn't. Renkes resigned a few weeks later, and Palin was again hailed as a hero.

wow, mccain apparently made this decision last night. she wasn't even in the running as of two days ago.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/how-palin-came.html

On face value, this appears to be an awesome choice.

The Republicans have done what the Democrats should have done.

Hillary Clinton should have been on the Democrat ticket.

Majority of Dems want Clinton to be V.P. (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/majority-of-dems-want-clinton-to-be-vp/)

Obama failed to do the right thing.

The Republicans certainly look more progressive with this pick, and I think it will seal the deal when the votes are counted in November.

First, this is from May 13th. Second, just picking a woman does not make you "progressive." Three, the Republicans picking a woman is more "progressive" than the Democrats picking a black man? Are you even Fing serious with this. Just admit it CH, you wanted Hillary at all costs and you're now so bitter you have decided to give logic the month off.

So, one ISSUE won't make you not vote for a candidate, but a fake story about going to the gym will?

It's not a fake story if you really believe it!!!! Damn you!!!! If he said Obama avoided the troops (even though it was the Pentagon that gave the order) then he avoided them. How dare you question the factual basis of something we already know has no basis.

wow, mccain apparently made this decision last night. she wasn't even in the running as of two days ago.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/how-palin-came.html
He'll probably call a press conference today and tell them he had the most weirdest dream where he named a woman as his VP, before asking one of the reporters to change his Depends for him.

wow, mccain apparently made this decision last night. she wasn't even in the running as of two days ago.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/how-palin-came.html

Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President website was created in February 2007. That's a bit longer than McCain has been the nominee.

First, this is from May 13th. Second, just picking a woman does not make you "progressive." Three, the Republicans picking a woman is more "progressive" than the Democrats picking a black man? Are you even Fing serious with this. Just admit it CH, you wanted Hillary at all costs and you're now so bitter you have decided to give logic the month off.

You're really going to sit there and post that Black men vs. Women in the work force, are somehow worth evaluating one against the other as to which is more worthy than the other?

Then how's this? Black men were able to vote before white women were, and more recently, black men today get paid more money than white women in equal employment conditions. According to your idea then shouldn't women's equality issues be rated as more progressive then black male issues? :rolleyes:

Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President website was created in February 2007. That's a bit longer than McCain has been the nominee.

yeah, and the draft al gore thing has been going on since 2001. so?

yeah, and the draft al gore thing has been going on since 2001. so?

It's not like the idea of Sarah for VP was pulled out of McCains butt two days ago. Regardless of anything a anti-Palin journalist wants to imagine for a story the night after the selection is made public.

Please. You are the one that started this "debate" off with a comparison of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton and claiming the Republicans had done what the Democrats should have done.

There is no rational comparison. It was a silly "point." Just admit you were wrong. It won't hurt that much.

As for your and Chumbly's subsequent argument that Palin is relatively progressive compared to parts of her party, that is (1) rather like saying one of my cats is rather more qualified to be President than the other one and (2) not particularly true given her extremely conservative views on most issues on which her opinion is known.

I actually think it would cause CH's world to collapse. Seriously CH, stop the bullshit. You said that the Reps did what the Dems should have. Unless you meant that the Democrats should have nominated Palin then you were referring to her being a woman. It was a stupid comment and you know it. Now moce on and try to debate why you think she was a great choice. That is, besides that she is a woman.

Now, be fair: I made ONE remark about her looks after the mod thing.

H2, it's still immature and you should stop completely.

It's not like the idea of Sarah for VP was pulled out of McCains butt two days ago.

except it was. she wasn't on his radar as a serious choice at all. he impulsively decided to gamble - perhaps because it actually is a good gamble since he's mainly a joke candidate already.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836384597&play=1

Hmm, her talking about drilling in Alaska proves her to be experienced? Please let me know what you were trying to allude to by linking to this with no comment. You still didn't answer that since you feel she is experienced, does this make Obama experienced as well?

The fact that he has a woman on-board and Obama doesn't?

Can't really hurt with the vast sea of independent voters floating about at the moment.

Right. It matters because she's got a va-jay-jay. Got it.

H2, it's still immature and you should stop completely.

I'll have to assume you folks respect me quite a bit, then. If only because you expect from me (saying the stuff I said about two specific women) more than from him:

A woman possibly ascending to such high office in the republic is very immoral indeed, but to the governess' credit she seems like she would make a better president than Obama, Biden, AND McCain.

(General reference)...

This isn't a "He does it too" argument, mind you. It's more among the lines of "well, at least I'm not a full-fledged troll". :p

Let's see ... your answer to questions about Palin's qualifications, lack of name recognition, and right-wing views is a link to a video where Palin discusses how we should drill in ANWR (which is unacceptable and won't solve our energy crisis), how cozy she is with Big Oil, and how she dismisses the importance of changing to an economy based on alternative and renewable fuels -- instead she wants to continue our dependence on carbon fuels.

First, the video doesn't answer the questions raised.

Second, the video only further convinces me that the woman shouldn't be given more power.

Yeah, I didn't get it either. It seemed to be the equivalent of when someone says, "yeah, I got nothing."

Of course you don't like her, she's a conservative.

And you still avoid the simple questions.

It's not like the idea of Sarah for VP was pulled out of McCains butt two days ago.
I shudder to think about what is pulled out of his wrinkly septuagenarian ass.

Hmm, her talking about drilling in Alaska proves her to be experienced? Please let me know what you were trying to allude to by linking to this with no comment. You still didn't answer that since you feel she is experienced, does this make Obama experienced as well?

Her drilling oil and saving money and putting it to work by giving it back to the people and saving it and investing it in renewable energy sources for the future shows that she's more than a flash in the pan politician, she's the real deal. I would that she was President rather than McCain, Obama or Biden.

I would that she went to Washington and started to clean the house, find the corruption and root it out. Then steadily implement an energy program that utilized what we have here in America until renewable sources are ready to take over. Additionally, she's a fiscal and social conservative, I'm not denying it, I like it. I see no reason to talk about Obama, I don't agree with him too much, except last night he said he was for nukes and clean coal, and I noticed that the audience quit clapping when he said those things. Funny that, but I suppose it is because he suddenly sounded like McCain.

I shudder to think about what is pulled out of his wrinkly septuagenarian ass.

Okay, I got duly punished for whatever I said about Sarah Prop-lin by having to think about THAT.

You're really going to sit there and post that Black men vs. Women in the work force, are somehow worth evaluating one against the other as to which is more worthy than the other?

Then how's this? Black men were able to vote before white women were, and more recently, black men today get paid more money than white women in equal employment conditions. According to your idea then shouldn't women's equality issues be rated as more progressive then black male issues? :rolleyes:

Wow, this comment shows an utter lack of the fact that Palin's nomination is not really progressive compared to the Democrats who did it over two decades ago. Siding with CH is going to be a losing proposition for you. Picking a woman as your running mate doesn't make you a champion for women's issues either. I still await your response that I, Jacobia, and TCT have requested time and time again.

Next, your comment requires that I suspend my understanding of history. Yes, it is true that black men were given the right to vote before women. However, do you remember things like literacy tests, poll taxes, loyalty oaths? Sure black men were given the right to vote, they just weren't given the education to be able to pass the tests to vote. Sure black men were allowed to vote, they just couldn't afford the poll taxes to vote. Sure they were given the right to vote, but they were intimidated openly at polling places. Sure they were given the right to vote, but were intimidated and threatened that they would be fired if they went down to their local polling places and exercised this right. I'd have to ignore Jim Crowe laws and segregation to agree with your supposition. Would you like to continue to show your ignorance of American history, or do I have to keep doing it for you?

So black men didn't truly get to exercise their "right to vote" until the Voting Rights Act of 1965! Even then only a pittance of black people were registered to vote. So save your eye rolling for someone who's a little bit slower of wit. You have been tried, measured, and found wanting in this argument. :rolleyes:

The Voting Rights Act Ensuring Dignity and Democracy

By Representative John Lewis

We have made tremendous progress since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). Gone are the poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that were used to deny African American citizens the right to register to vote. In 1965, only 7 percent of the African Americans in Mississippi were registered to vote—the lowest percentage across the South and the nation. Today over 70 percent of black Mississippians are registered to vote. In 1964 only 300 black elected officials had been elected nationwide; today there are over 9,100 in state and local jurisdictions around the country, including seventy-one members of Congress of African American, Latino, Native American, or Asian descent.

We have indeed come a long way, but we have a great distance to travel before this nation achieves the full measure of equality that democracy requires. While some would argue that our progress since 1965 suggests there is no need to renew the VRA, described by the U.S. Department of Justice as the “most successful piece of civil rights legislation ever adopted by the U.S. Congress.” Yet it is crucial to remember this legislation was enacted to strike down legalized segregation, an aberration of the law that occurred well after the advances of the Reconstruction period.

In the mid- to late 1800s three African Americans represented Alabama in the U.S. Congress. Only decades later state and local governments were barred from registering black voters. The Jim Crow segregation I experienced as a child was developed specifically to stop the strides gained during Reconstruction. It is through this lens of history, then, that we must view our present circumstances.

Lessons of History

When I was growing up in rural Alabama, I experienced the systematic dehumanization of African Americans in the South. The worst kind of oppression existed. In Lowness County, Alabama, 80 percent of the residents were African American, but none were registered to vote. All across the Deep South, people who tried to register to vote or who encouraged black citizens to register were arrested, jailed, beaten, and killed. Some were fired from their jobs, separated from their families, evicted from their homes, and threatened with the loss of everything they had.

Members of right-wing groups such as the White Citizens Council and the John Birch Society regularly advised state registrars on specific ways to prevent black voter registration. One of their most effective tools was the so-called literacy test. In Alabama, this was a sixty-eight-question survey about obscure aspects of state and federal regulation. Citizens might be asked to recite verbatim long portions of the U.S. Constitution. Some were even asked irrelevant questions such as the number of bubbles in a bar of soap. Black people with Ph.D. and M.A. degrees were routinely told they did not read well enough to pass the test.

In response, the civil rights movement sponsored voter registration drives and peaceful demonstrations across the South. During one such protest in Marion, Alabama, a young man named Jimmie Lee Jackson was killed trying to protect his mother and grandfather from an onslaught of police who had ambushed a group of protestors singing freedom songs outside a jail. At his funeral, James Bevel, a Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) activist, said we should walk from Selma to Montgomery and lay Jackson’s body at the feet of Governor Wallace. That idea took hold, and the Selma to Montgomery march was born.

On March 7, 1965, we never expected to reach Montgomery. We knew that there would be a confrontation. We expected mass arrests and rough treatment, but never anything worse than that. Hosea Williams of the SCLC and I, chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, were chosen to lead the march. When we reached the Edmund Pettus Bridge, we saw line after line of Alabama state troopers facing us. We were ordered to disperse, but we refused to turn around. Instead, we kneeled to pray. Before we barely began, the troopers swooped down on the crowd with bullwhips and billy clubs, trampling people with horses and beating nonviolent protestors with nightsticks. They shot a toxic form of tear gas into the crowd. Numerous people were badly beaten, including me. That brutal conflict was the turning point in the quest for voting rights. Scenes of the event were broadcast nationwide, and many Americans were outraged.

On March 15, President Lyndon Johnson made what I believe was the most moving speech ever delivered before the U.S. Congress. He said,

I speak today for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. . . . At times history and fate meet at a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man’s unending search for freedom. So it was in Lexington and Concord. So it was a century ago in Appomattox. So it was last week in Selma, Alabama.

By August 6, both Houses of Congress passed the VRA with overwhelming majorities and signed it into law.

How the VRA Works

Several provisions lie at the core of the VRA and have guaranteed millions of minority voters the right to vote and power at the polling place. Some are permanent, but others are not and were renewed in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 1992. Preeminent among the former is Section 2, closely reflecting the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting the use of any voting practices that might result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color. Likewise, Section 4(a) forbade any “test or device” for registering or voting, which was essential in abolishing poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like. Criminal and civil sanctions against persons interfering with the right to vote, failing to comply with the VRA, or committing voter fraud are found in Sections 11 and 12.

However, four crucial provisions of the VRA will expire in 2007 unless the Congress votes to renew them. Section 4(b) provides that any jurisdiction in which a “test or device” was used for voting and in which less than half of voting age residents were registered or voted in the 1964, 1968, or 1972 presidential elections is covered by the enforcement provisions of Section 5. This section, perhaps the most important in the entire Act and also up for renewal, requires that political divisions with a documented history of discrimination submit any potential changes to their voting laws to the U.S. Attorney General or to federal judges for “preclearance” before the laws take effect. Hence, the federal government essentially has the power to stop discriminatory voting changes before they are enacted into law. Therefore Section 5 also serves as a significant deterrent to the advancement of discriminatory legislation, making jurisdictions seriously consider the impact of changes they propose. Also essential to curtailing discrimination have been the provisions that allow the Attorney General to assign federal examiners and observers to these jurisdictions to monitor elections. Finally, bilingual voting requirements have been imposed on certain jurisdictions that have significant minority populations who have limited English proficiency—i.e., Native Americans, Latinos, or other new citizens who are trying to learn English. These requirements can also fade away in 2007.

The viability of the VRA must be maintained. Just as in 1982—when a congressional report noted numerous instances where Section 5 jurisdictions had ignored their preclearance requirements, widespread violations of at-large elections, and continuing problems with the gerrymandering of electoral boundary lines—problems flourish. In 2004, for example, in Waller County, Texas, the county attorney general told students at Prairie View A & M University, a historically black school, that they did not meet the residency requirements to vote and that they could be criminally prosecuted, fined, or imprisoned if they attempted to vote. In South Dakota, a federal court recently detailed two decades of systematic voting rights abuses against Native Americans, noting that the state had violated Section 5 more than 800 times. In June 2004, Suffolk County, New York, officials reached agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, settling allegations that the county had discriminated against Spanish-speaking voters. And in my home state of Georgia, the state legislature recently passed a bill eliminating twelve of the seventeen forms of identification currently allowed at the polls, which will likely have an unfair impact upon the poor, the elderly, and minorities seeking to exercise their most essential right.

While the VRA has indeed been successful and has revolutionized enfranchisement in America during the past forty years, a plethora of reasons remain to justify aggressively monitoring voting practices under its current provisions. This is not a partisan issue; it is a question of protecting American democracy. Does our system of government require the unfair advantages of oppression, discrimination, and misinformation to prevail? Does our commitment to equal justice and equal access truly encompass every American citizen? These were the only true questions that faced President Johnson, the U.S. Congress, and the American people in 1965, and they are the only questions we have to answer when we consider reauthorization today. Let us indeed continue to ensure the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy here in America as we export those values around the world.



John Lewis has been in the U.S. House of Representatives since January 1987, serving Georgia’s Fifth Congressional District.

Hmm, her talking about drilling in Alaska proves her to be experienced?
It does prove two things:
1. How completely under the thumb she is by the oil companies
2. How completely under the thumb CNBC is by GOP. Those were some of the worst soft-ball questions I've ever heard. The interviewer was basically answering her questions for her. Does this really pass for in-depth reporting on US TV?

"So you're saying it (the drilling) is a tiny little footprint and it (the wildlife area) is so expansive, so massive, it'lll have neglible effect if we are to see drilling there on the wildlife and on the community"

"President Bush has tried this (ANWR) twice and not got this done. Why do you think we are unable to get it done?"

These are hard-hitting investigative questions?!

Wow, this comment shows an utter lack of the fact that Palin's nomination is not really progressive compared to the Democrats who did it over two decades ago. ...snipped endless ranting...

The point was that I'm not going to compare black issues with women's equality. Pray tell what we should do about a black woman's issues?

Perhaps you want to pretend one is more important than the other, but I find that all inequality issues should be addressed, without prejudice and without the priority of one over the other that you would have us use.

Her drilling oil and saving money and putting it to work by giving it back to the people and saving it and investing it in renewable energy sources for the future shows that she's more than a flash in the pan politician, she's the real deal. I would that she was President rather than McCain, Obama or Biden.

I would that she went to Washington and started to clean the house, find the corruption and root it out. Then steadily implement an energy program that utilized what we have here in America until renewable sources are ready to take over. Additionally, she's a fiscal and social conservative, I'm not denying it, I like it. I see no reason to talk about Obama, I don't agree with him too much, except last night he said he was for nukes and clean coal, and I noticed that the audience quit clapping when he said those things. Funny that, but I suppose it is because he suddenly sounded like McCain.

He sounded like his own man. A man who doesn't just go with the party line. Aren't we supposed to revere "mavericks?" Do you think she is unique in working towards alternative energy sources? Do you think this idea is revolutionary? If you do then maybe you haven't been paying attention.

Google searches are your friend (http://www.google.com/search?q=states+leading+the+way+in+alternative+energy+sources&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

I'm off to bed. She is still inexperienced and this makes the McCain argument null and void. You thinking she can go to Washington and "clean house" shows you to be reaching here. She's not going to run into the Senate and suddenly change the whole place. Not to mention, isn't there a Senator from her state that is under investigation she could have helped to clean up? The same guy who McCain constantly talks about with earmarks for a "bridge to nowhere." Good night all.

It does prove two things:
1. How completely under the thumb she is by the oil companies
2. How completely under the thumb CNBC is by GOP. Those were some of the worst soft-ball questions I've ever heard. The interviewer was basically answering her questions for her. Does this really pass for in-depth reporting on US TV?

"So you're saying it (the drilling) is a tiny little footprint and it (the wildlife area) is so expansive, so massive, it'lll have neglible effect if we are to see drilling there on the wildlife and on the community"

"President Bush has tried this (ANWR) twice and not got this done. Why do you think we are unable to get it done?"

These are hard-hitting investigative questions?!

Your ignorance is showing. On both CNBC being a GOP puppet and Palin being under the thumb of the big oil companies. FYI: the NBC brand of news is the most unashamedly anti-Bush programing on air and the big Oil companies are getting taxed by Palin's administration more than any other administration has taxed them in the history of the United States.

The point was that I'm not going to compare black issues with women's equality. Pray tell what we should do about a black woman's issues?

Perhaps you want to pretend one is more important than the other, but I find that all inequality issues should be addressed, without prejudice and without the priority of one over the other that you would have us use.

So why did you even bring it up? My point was that there was no difference to CH. Nominating a woman and nominating a black man are both progressive things that Americans should be proud of. My comment was to call CH out on his bullshit, not get into a debate on who has been harmed more. It is no more progressive to nominated a woman than it is to nominate a black man. The best person for the job is who we should choose. She still lacks experience and that's McCain's major attack on Obama. The choice of Palin does more harm than good in my opinion. It looks like a lot of others agree via the poll and subsequent posts. Be blessed all.

...
I'm off to bed. She is still inexperienced and this makes the McCain argument null and void. You thinking she can go to Washington and "clean house" shows you to be reaching here. She's not going to run into the Senate and suddenly change the whole place. Not to mention, isn't there a Senator from her state that is under investigation she could have helped to clean up? The same guy who McCain constantly talks about with earmarks for a "bridge to nowhere." Good night all.

Ignorance is your friend it seems. Palin is the one that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Palin has been removing republican corruption from Alaskan politics since she has been in office. Her record so far is more than admirable.

The point was that I'm not going to compare black issues with women's equality. Pray tell what we should do about a black woman's issues?

Perhaps you want to pretend one is more important than the other, but I find that all inequality issues should be addressed, without prejudice and without the priority of one over the other that you would have us use.

CH's comment was that it was progressive. It's no more fucking progressive than nominating a black man. Further, the endless ranting you snipped was historical perspective. It was to refute your claim that somehow women are more worthy of the progressive label (as per CH) than a black man. It's you and CH who first made the comparison. I just called bullshit.

the big Oil companies are getting taxed by Palin's administration more than any other administration has taxed them in the history of the United States.

I'm certain you have something to prove that statement, right?

Ignorance is your friend it seems. Palin is the one that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Palin has been removing republican corruption from Alaskan politics since she has been in office. Her record so far is more than admirable.

You calling me ignorant after I have pointed out your lack of knowledge on many levels is just funny. She didn't stop the bridge project. The project was stopped because it was $329 million dollars short of full funding. It means that there wasn't money to build the damn thing and she realized it was $329 million in the red. Good thing she can recognize a $329 million dollar deficit. How did she find a line item so small?

On Friday, Alaska decided the bridge really was going nowhere, officially abandoning the project in Ketchikan that became a national symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.

While the move closes a chapter that has brought the state reams of ridicule, it also leaves open wounds in a community that fought for decades to get federal help.

"We went through political hot water -- tons of it -- and not just nationally but internationally," Ketchikan-Gateway Borough Mayor Joe Williams said. "We have nothing to show for it."

The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on one island in southeastern Alaska, to its airport on another nearby island.

Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.

"We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island," the Republican governor said. "The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge."

Your ignorance is showing. On both CNBC being a GOP puppet and Palin being under the thumb of the big oil companies. FYI: the NBC brand of news is the most unashamedly anti-Bush programing on air and the big Oil companies are getting taxed by Palin's administration more than any other administration has taxed them in the history of the United States.
Oh of course she's against the Oil companies. That's why her husband works for BP, why she's for ANWR and that's why she opposed putting the Polar Bear on the endangered Species list on the basis it might mean blocking areas from oil exploration and drilling.
Yup. All valid proofs that she is completely free of oil company influence.

Ignorance is your friend it seems. Palin is the one that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Palin has been removing republican corruption from Alaskan politics since she has been in office. Her record so far is more than admirable.

Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Maybe I've missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming. Now, Charles Homans, who knows Alaska well, says Palin's anti-corruption instincts are fairly solid (she sold off the gubenatorial jet upon taking office, for one), and a casual Nexis search suggests that she's fiscally conservative (insofar as that term makes sense in a quasi-socialist state like Alaska), but this hardly looks like the "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment everyone's making it out to be.

P.S. Here's a piece that Palin's special counsel, John Katz, wrote in March of this year for the Juneau Empire, assuring the Alaskan public that Palin was still very much in favor of earmarks, but sadly needed to scale back her requests somewhat (to "only" 31 earmarks this year—down from 54 last year) in response to "unwanted attention" from Congress and the press.

Damn, stumped by the truth again. Any more talking points you'd like me to refute with simple google searches? (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx)

I'm certain you have something to prove that statement, right?

(10/03/07 00:14:42)
JUNEAU -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has released a bill proposing to boost oil taxes for the second straight year, setting the stage for a battle with major petroleum producers.

Palin's bill, released to lawmakers late Monday, would boost Alaska's net profits tax from 22.5 percent to 25 percent.

Legislators have until Oct. 18 to digest the contents of the 46-page bill before returning to Juneau for a special session, where they will reconsider a tax increase passed last year called the Petroleum Profits Tax.

Behind the scenes machinations during the tax debate last year formed the basis of federal corruption charges against several former lawmakers. That prompted Palin to revisit the tax plan she called tainted and a failure.

Besides raising the tax rate, Palin's new bill would not allow oil companies to claim a tax deduction for equipment maintenance repairs that stem from an "unscheduled interruption of, or reduction in the rate of oil or gas production." The goal is to not reward inadequate maintenance.

Palin calls her plan Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES. Department of Revenue Commissioner Patrick Galvin said Tuesday it is a better bill than last year's Petroleum Profits Tax.
snip
Oil company executives have spoken out against a second tax change in as many years, saying it's not conducive to stimulating future investment in North Slope exploration and production. Galvin said that was not surprising.

"It's expected that any group looking at a potential tax increase is going to oppose it," Galvin said. "They have a right to participate in public discussion."

Leading the opposition is the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade organization whose members include North Slope lease holders Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC.
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/pipeline/v-printer/story/27652.html

But Palin also pushed through a tax increase on oil and gas producers last year that doubled the state's energy revenues to more than $10 billion.

That increase was blasted by BP and ConocoPhillips, who cited it a reason they postponed new projects in the state.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/palin_energy_dc

I'm certain you have something to prove that statement, right?

He's sort of right. But this just looks even worse for her. Republicans on a national scale are calling a "windfall profits" tax a stupid idea. I happen to agree that it's not really the best idea. However, can you name a govorner who actually pushed through this type of idea?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html

Republicans in Congress this June united to defeat a proposed windfall tax on oil companies, deriding it as a bad idea that would discourage investment in U.S. oil exploration.

Things worked out far differently in the GOP stronghold of Alaska, a state whose economic fate is closely tied to the oil industry.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.

At a time when Americans are feeling the pinch at the gasoline pump and oil companies are racking up record profits, Alaska's choice foreshadows one of the sharpest debates in the upcoming presidential election.

Democrat Barack Obama supports a national windfall-profits tax, while Republican John McCain opposes it.

Alaska collected an estimated $6 billion from the new tax during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. That helped push the state's total oil revenue — from new and existing taxes, as well as royalties — to more than $10 billion, double the amount received last year.

While many other states are confronting big budget deficits because of the troubled economy, Alaska officials are in the enviable position of exploring new ways to spend the state's multibillion-dollar budget surplus.

Some of that new cash will end up in the wallets of Alaska's residents.

Palin's administration last week gained legislative approval for a special $1,200 payment to every Alaskan to help cope with gas prices, which are among the highest in the country.

That check will come on top of the annual dividend of about $2,000 that each resident could receive this year from an oil-wealth savings account.

State Sen. Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat who supported the windfall tax, said the oil companies " ... were literally printing money on the North Slope. We decided to strike the balance a little bit more on our side."

The industry, however, warns new taxes are already discouraging future exploration and development in newer, more expensive projects needed to boost waning production in Alaska's oil patches.

"Clearly, from the investor standpoint, Alaska has become a less attractive place to invest exploration and production dollars," said Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.

Edit: she actually used the windfall profits tax to give a rebate incentive to the people of Alaska. What party's nominee had suggested giving out additional stimulus checks partly from windfall taxes on oil companies? Oh right, that's Barack Obama again. Seriously, bed time. It's almost 3AM EST. God Bless and good night.

You calling me ignorant after I have pointed out your lack of knowledge on many levels is just funny. She didn't stop the bridge project. The project was stopped because it was $329 million dollars short of full funding. It means that there wasn't money to build the damn thing and she realized it was $329 million in the red. Good thing she can recognize a $329 million dollar deficit. How did she find a line item so small?

$329 million short on a $398 million bridge, no less. How they didn't the notice they only had 17% of the funding is beyond me. I could see something costing in the billions being several hundred million short and not noticing immediately, but this is un-understandable.

Damn, stumped by the truth again. Any more talking points you'd like me to refute with simple google searches? (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx)

You're using blogs as evidence? funny that. You said earlier that you called bullshit, but I think you simply stepped in it.

snip

Hey, you are able to back up your statements!

He's sort of right. But this just looks even worse for her. Republicans on a national scale are calling a "windfall profits" tax a stupid idea. I happen to agree that it's not really the best idea. However, can you name a govorner who actually pushed through this type of idea?

Oh, I already knew she had. I just wanted to see him source something.

You're using blogs as evidence?

Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

He sourced a blog that sourced a newspaper article.

You realize that doesn't support the statement you made, right?

"the big Oil companies are getting taxed by Palin's administration more than any other administration has taxed them in the history of the United States."

That was the statement you were asked to support. You were not asked if she increased it during her LESS THAN TWO YEARS in office.

He sourced a blog that sourced a newspaper article.

It's a blog. Perhaps I should start sourcing pro Palin blogs? would that be credible? I think not. I linked to them to prove they exist and to show dates that they've existed, but to use an opinion piece is not evidence.

You realize that doesn't support the statement you made, right?

"the big Oil companies are getting taxed by Palin's administration more than any other administration has taxed them in the history of the United States."

That was the statement you were asked to support. You were not asked if she increased it during her LESS THAN TWO YEARS in office.

That was from a quote of her from the video I already linked to previously. If she was wrong, then I am wrong as well.

Hey, you are able to back up your statements!



Oh, I already knew she had. I just wanted to see him source something.

Except he didn't actually back up his statements. He showed she'd increased taxes. That wasn't the statement he made.

That was from a quote of her from the video I already linked to previously. If she was wrong, then I am wrong as well.

She's not here, so I hope you won't mind if we ask YOU to source YOUR claims since we can't ask her.

I'll wait.

It's a blog. Perhaps I should start sourcing pro Palin blogs? would that be credible? I think not. I linked to them to prove they exist and to show dates that they've existed, but to use an opinion piece is not evidence.

He gave a quote from Palin and gave a source. The source is readily available and easily inspected. That's a proper source. You fail.

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510378.html

She's not here, so I hope you won't mind if we ask YOU to source YOUR claims since we can't ask her.

I'll wait.

You're a funny loser. You nitpick at nonsense and think you have the bull by the ring in his nose. I already made my case, you disagree with my conclusion, fine, present your own. You obfuscate every discussion with irrelevant minutia and then claim victory when your opponents discover that you don't actually retain information given but continue onward like a blind horse pulling a cart... But whatever, for the others that are reading...

The tax level proposed in ACES would make Alaska “the highest cost place to operate in North America — significantly more expensive than operating in the Gulf of Mexico” or in Alberta, Rinehart said. Alaska is not an average place to do business: “Our resources are expensive to get out of the ground” and will become more expensive as heavy oil is developed. Distance from market is also an issue, he said: The oil has to be sent through an 800-mile pipeline and then shipped thousands of miles to markets on the West Coast.
“This is all about the future,” Rinehart said. “These oil fields will last a long time but they’ll require a lot of investment in a climate that encourages investment.”

Galvin said the state has “to acknowledge that each time we raise our taxes we have a bigger bite of the amount of revenue that comes into a company.” While comparisons to other governments depend somewhat on which economist you ask, at $60 oil Alaska under ACES would be at 68 percent of marginal government take, Galvin said.

ACES would place Alaska “significantly higher” than its peers, “other royalty and tax governments,” he said.
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/200707472.shtml

And you don't have to AKS ME, you can WATCH the VIDEO

He gave a quote from Palin and gave a source. The source is readily available and easily inspected. That's a proper source. You fail.

http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/510378.html

Really? Every Hannity Quote of Obama if sourced is accurate then in it's portrayal? Bad conclusion you've come to there.

You're a funny loser.

Nothing shows that you're losing the debate than playground tactics like these. How about we keep the flames on the stove. We're all adults here. You're quite capable of acting like one, current post aside.

You nitpick at nonsense and think you have the bull by the ring in his nose. I already made my case, you disagree with my conclusion, fine, present your own. You obfuscate every discussion with irrelevant minutia and then claim victory when your opponents discover that you don't actually retain information given but continue onward like a blind horse pulling a cart... But whatever, for the others that are reading...

The tax level proposed in ACES would make Alaska “the highest cost place to operate in North America — significantly more expensive than operating in the Gulf of Mexico” or in Alberta, Rinehart said. Alaska is not an average place to do business: “Our resources are expensive to get out of the ground” and will become more expensive as heavy oil is developed. Distance from market is also an issue, he said: The oil has to be sent through an 800-mile pipeline and then shipped thousands of miles to markets on the West Coast.
“This is all about the future,” Rinehart said. “These oil fields will last a long time but they’ll require a lot of investment in a climate that encourages investment.”

Galvin said the state has “to acknowledge that each time we raise our taxes we have a bigger bite of the amount of revenue that comes into a company.” While comparisons to other governments depend somewhat on which economist you ask, at $60 oil Alaska under ACES would be at 68 percent of marginal government take, Galvin said.

ACES would place Alaska “significantly higher” than its peers, “other royalty and tax governments,” he said.
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/200707472.shtml

And you don't have to AKS ME, you can WATCH the VIDEO

Still doesn't support your claim. Do you need to read your claim again perhaps?

Maybe flaming me again will help.

How about instead of blaming me because you don't know the difference between unsupportable hyperbole and rational discourse, you instead trying only saying things you actually have evidence for. Sound fair?

I mean, you didn't accept a source because you couldn't read it correctly and now you want me to accept that something is true because someone else said it was true. I want you to actually support your claims or stop making them. That's how a rational debate works.

Really? Every Hannity Quote of Obama if sourced is accurate then in it's portrayal? Bad conclusion you've come to there.

I don't accuse Hannity of misquoting Obama unless they either didn't source their quote or I looked at their source for the quote and it said something else. Neither is the case here.

What is the case here is that you ignorantly claimed his source was a blog, when in fact it was a direct quote from the article. This is a quote of her and you've not shown any reason to doubt that this is her stance. None.

So do you have anything to actually offer or are you just going to complain because you got caught not paying attention?

...
I mean, you didn't accept a source because you couldn't read it correctly and now you want me to accept that something is true because someone else said it was true. I want you to actually support your claims or stop making them. That's how a rational debate works.

LOL OMGoodness you are so banal. I never wanted or expected you to accept anything I say. You are so very funny sometimes. Perhaps you should simply refute me than pretend I don't have a right to say what I say.

LOL OMGoodness you are so banal. I never wanted or expected you to accept anything I say. You are so very funny sometimes. Perhaps you should simply refute me than pretend I don't have a right to say what I say.

I can't refute unsourced claimes.

I say you're a child molester. Prove me wrong.

See how that works. That's why sources for your claims are required and that why accusing a source of misquoting actually needs a little evidence. You've got neither sources that backup the claims you actually made, nor evidence for your accusations against sources others have provided. I gave you the original source.

Let's get to the point. Are you still disputing that she said she supported building that bridge in an interview while she was running?

I don't accuse Hannity of misquoting Obama unless they either didn't source their quote or I looked at their source for the quote and it said something else. Neither is the case here.

What is the case here is that you ignorantly claimed his source was a blog, when in fact it was a direct quote from the article. This is a quote of her and you've not shown any reason to doubt that this is her stance. None.

So do you have anything to actually offer or are you just going to complain because you got caught not paying attention?

I already told you where the source for my information came from. It wasn't from that article and I never said it was. If you want to research the source of the original statement feel free. Watch the CNBC interview. Pretending you've caught me in some sort of Jocabian conundrum is your fancy, not reality.

I can't refute unsourced claimes.

I say you're a child molester. Prove me wrong.

See how that works. That's why sources for your claims are required and that why accusing a source of misquoting actually needs a little evidence. You've got neither sources that backup the claims you actually made, nor evidence for your accusations against sources others have provided. I gave you the original source.


I did source my statement and I linked it, now you're just lying. You should feel bad I think

Let's get to the point. Are you still disputing that she said she supported building that bridge in an interview while she was running?

Now you are imagining things. When did I dispute that. Perhaps you are lying again?

I already told you where the source for my information came from. It wasn't from that article and I never said it was. If you want to research the source of the original statement feel free. Watch the CNBC interview. Pretending you've caught me in some sort of Jocabian conundrum is your fancy, not reality.

Um, did you quote the wrong post?

The post you're replying to is talking about your accusation that the quote of Palin saying she'd build the bridge isn't accurate. Do you want to revise?

I don't want to support your claims for you. That's your job. As was pointed out earlier, the YOU in YOUr claims makes it pretty obvious who is responsible for evidencing them.

Again, if I say you're a child molester, is it on you to prove me wrong?

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

I did source my statement and I linked it, now you're just lying. You should feel bad I think



Now you are imagining things. When did I dispute that. Perhaps you are lying again?

You didn't source the claim you made. You sourced that she'd raised taxes, something no one disputed. You've not demonstrated for a moment that she's taxed them more than any administration in history. Not at all.

Meanwhile, you avoided the point. You disputed the source of the quote, a direct quote of Governor Palin saying she wanted to see the bridge built. Are you actually claiming that she didn't say that?

As for whether I'm imagining things -

You're using blogs as evidence? funny that. You said earlier that you called bullshit, but I think you simply stepped in it.

Hmmmm... yeah, that's probably not disputing. I'm sure you were agreeing and I just got confused.

Um, did you quote the wrong post?

The post you're replying to is talking about your accusation that the quote of Palin saying she'd build the bridge isn't accurate. Do you want to revise?

I don't want to support your claims for you. That's your job. As was pointed out earlier, the YOU in YOUr claims makes it pretty obvious who is responsible for evidencing them.

Again, if I say you're a child molester, is it on you to prove me wrong?

Any post from you is the same as another, probably incorrect and off on a tangent. I said his source was a blog, I didn't address specifics of the bridge other than to say she's the one that ended it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PJzMHObabo
Quality.

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

It really does seem like that, doesn't it?

1: Palin was against the bridge project.
2: No, she wasn't. It ran out of money. She supports the bridge project.
1: No, she doesn't.
2: *source*
1: That's a blog
2: No, it's a quote from her with a sourced article
1: It's a blog
2: *link to direct article*
1: You're a loser.
2: Do you dispute that she said that quote?
1: When did I ever dispute that quote?

wait...wait...wait. Getting past the whole, "I don't need to prove anything" kerfluffle that's been going on the past few pages, is really the best thing GOP-supporters can say about Palin is that she's no supporter of Big Oil 'cause she's taxing them into the dirt?
Think about that for a second.

She's GOP's poster VP cause she's advocates raising taxes on big business?

GOP, the party which steadfastly promotes tax-cuts and roundly attacks tax increases, is championing this woman because she's doing exactly the opposite of what their policies are?

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

And now, of course, the hypocrisy will gear up full steam as all dittoheads laud her for her tax-hungry policies whilst condemning Obama for his ones (real or made-up).

You didn't source the claim you made. You sourced that she'd raised taxes, something no one disputed. You've not demonstrated for a moment that she's taxed them more than any administration in history. Not at all...

The video man, the video on CNBC, she made the claim in the interview that she was currently taxing the oil companies more than they have ever been taxed before by the US and I repeated it. AND I said if she was wrong then I am wrong. I think you need a dictionary again if you say, Not at all. This conversing with you, as usual, becomes a bore and a pointless exercises, your imaginary point is probably well made in your head but it's endlessly repetitive and nonsensical and never ending. Unless you have another point other than you don't like and disagree with my statement about the amount of taxed imposed, then there is nothing else to be said here.

Any post from you is the same as another, probably incorrect and off on a tangent. I said his source was a blog, I didn't address specifics of the bridge other than to say she's the one that ended it.

Well, given you're not actually reading them and just attacking the poster, I'd say you're porbably telling the truth in saying you don't see a difference. That doesn't address the actual point, now does it.

His link was a blog. His source was an interview with a direct quote. You know the difference?

The video man, the video on CNBC, she made the claim in the interview that she was currently taxing the oil companies more than they have ever been taxed before by the US and I repeated it. AND I said if she was wrong then I am wrong. I think you need a dictionary again if you say, Not at all. This, as usual with you, become a bore and pointless, your imaginary point is probably well made in your head but it's endlessly repetitive and nonsensical and never ending. Unless you have another point than you don't like and disagree with my statement, then there is nothing else to be said here.

However, she is not the one who claimed it here. You are.

Are you claiming you just regurgitated her words without giving her credit? That's pretty shady.

So you don't actually support the claims you make, but you just accept what politicians say as gospel. Interesting that is. Does wonders for credibility.

Regardless, she's not a source for the accuracy of the claim. All linking to her does is show that someone else made the same claim.

It really does seem like that, doesn't it?

1: Palin was against the bridge project.
2: No, she wasn't. It ran out of money. She supports the bridge project.
1: No, she doesn't.
2: *source*
1: That's a blog
2: No, it's a quote from her with a sourced article
1: It's a blog
2: *link to direct article*
1: You're a loser.
2: Do you dispute that she said that quote?
1: When did I ever dispute that quote?
3: *silly video*

Fixed. :)

wait...wait...wait. Getting past the whole, "I don't need to prove anything" kerfluffle that's been going on the past few pages, is really the best thing GOP-supporters can say about Palin is that she's no supporter of Big Oil 'cause she's taxing them into the dirt?
Think about that for a second.

She's GOP's poster VP cause she's advocates raising taxes on big business?

GOP, the party which steadfastly promotes tax-cuts and roundly attacks tax increases, is championing this woman because she's doing exactly the opposite of what their policies are?

Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

And now, of course, the hypocrisy will gear up full steam as all dittoheads laud her for her tax-hungry policies whilst condemning Obama for his ones (real or made-up).


You mean like Obama suddenly being in favor of off shore drilling and clean coal power plants? You mean that kind of something wrong with this picture?

Fixed. :)

Ah, the crescendo at the end of the peice. And with that, good night, young clown. May your dreams be filled with mud and images of me naked, possibly together.

Good night, gentlemen.

You mean like Obama suddenly being in favor of off shore drilling and clean coal power plants? You mean that kind of something wrong with this picture?

Except he isn't in favor of off shore drilling. He's against it. He's always been against it. He's said he's willing to compromise on it if it gets his policies passed. Your claim is like saying I'm in favor of paying more for the car I bought because I came up on the price during negotiations. Reality disagrees with you once again.

Did he say that in the speech yesterday? I don't think so, you are making things up. He never said compromise during his speech, but he said drilling and clean coal power... you didn't source your statement. You expect us to just accept your unsourced material? don't you know how it works. You make a statement, you have to back it up. Perhaps we just expect too much from you if you can't stay on topic and keep a source log of every statement you make about what Obama might or might not believe..... ad nauseum

You mean like Obama suddenly being in favor of off shore drilling and clean coal power plants? You mean that kind of something wrong with this picture?
and thus it starts. Attack the opposition rather than explain one's own position.

Well done on ignoring everything but your own hatred towards the left.

and thus it starts. Attack the opposition rather than explain one's own position.

Well done on ignoring everything but your own hatred towards the left.

MWaahahahahah

LOL

*wipes away tear*

Okay then. Just out of curiosity though, do you have every other poster blocked from your view and you address mine alone like they exist in a vacuum?

MWaahahahahah

LOL

*wipes away tear*

Okay then. Just out of curiosity though, do you have every other poster blocked from your view and you address mine alone like they exist in a vacuum?
Not at all. I just curious as to why you are unable to answer anyone's direct questions. Everyone else on this thread has been able to.

Not at all. I just curious as to why you are unable to answer anyone's direct questions. Everyone else on this thread has been able to.

I've already linked to more news articles and sources than anyone else, funny you would think otherwise.

Heres another, listen to a radio recording of a news break that has Palin pissing off the big Oil companies by her high taxes in Alaska.

http://aprn.org/2007/12/19/palin-signs-new-oil-tax-into-law/

make sure you push play and have your speakers on.

Did he say that in the speech yesterday? I don't think so, you are making things up. He never said compromise during his speech, but he said drilling and clean coal power... you didn't source your statement. You expect us to just accept your unsourced material? don't you know how it works. You make a statement, you have to back it up. Perhaps we just expect too much from you if you can't stay on topic and keep a source log of every statement you make about what Obama might or might not believe..... ad nauseum

I have no problem with sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/

He said he is still skeptical about drilling's potential to lower gas prices or reduce dependence on foreign oil.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the interview with the Florida paper, "and so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

The McCain camp was quick to applaud Obama's softening on the issue.

Not only did he mention that the point of his softening on the issue was to compromise, but he gave credit for drilling to the Republicans.

And that, my friend, is how sourcing should be and is done.

(Unfortunately, I'd assumed that since you brought it up, you'd actually done your homework. If you'd prefer, I'll try not to make unfair assumptions about your interest in finding out ALL the information on a topic YOU bring up from here on out. Fair?)

I've already linked to more news articles and sources than anyone else, funny you would think otherwise.

Heres another, listen to a radio recording of a news break that has Palin pissing off the big Oil companies by her high taxes in Alaska.

http://aprn.org/2007/12/19/palin-signs-new-oil-tax-into-law/

make sure you push play and have your speakers on.
And again, I have to query why we're meant to be so impressed with her (apparent) taxing the hell out the Oil Companies as this goes against everything GOP stands for. And indeed why you, as a diehard republican, keep harping on about her raising company tax as if that's a good thing especially when it's one of the main issues you, and GOP, have been attacking Obama on.

I don't expect you to answer, as doing so would be a first for you.

I've already linked to more news articles and sources than anyone else, funny you would think otherwise.

Heres another, listen to a radio recording of a news break that has Palin pissing off the big Oil companies by her high taxes in Alaska.

http://aprn.org/2007/12/19/palin-signs-new-oil-tax-into-law/

make sure you push play and have your speakers on.

Sources have to actually say what you claim. It's not just a matter of who offers the most links.

You've offered a source that made the same unsupported claim you did. You've offered a source that supported that she'd raised taxes, and even that they were high relative to other states, but still haven't support your claim that they are the highest in history.

Interestingly, her approach to the oil companies is yet another thing McCain has been bashing before he knew she would be his running mate. Man, is there anything positive one can say about her that hasn't already been said to be a disqualification by the McCain camp. You certainly haven't come up with anything thus far.

I have no problem with sources.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/

He said he is still skeptical about drilling's potential to lower gas prices or reduce dependence on foreign oil.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the interview with the Florida paper, "and so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

The McCain camp was quick to applaud Obama's softening on the issue.

Not only did he mention that the point of his softening on the issue was to compromise, but he gave credit for drilling to the Republicans.

And that, my friend, is how sourcing should be and is done.

(Unfortunately, I'd assumed that since you brought it up, you'd actually done your homework. If you'd prefer, I'll try not to make unfair assumptions about your interest in finding out ALL the information on a topic YOU bring up from here on out. Fair?)

The statement you made: Except he isn't in favor of off shore drilling. He's against it. He's always been against it. is not actually stated in your source. You are misreading it. According to your source, it says his stance is Nothing new. Therefore, he hasn't changed anything, you said he as always been against it, he says, according to your article, that he hasn't changed anything and he's willing to do it to get things done. Looks like you are too quick to make your own assumptions and transpose them onto your source... fail.

Try again, I'll wait.

And again, I have to query why we're meant to be so impressed with her (apparent) taxing the hell out the Oil Companies as this goes against everything GOP stands for. And indeed why you, as a diehard republican, keep harping on about her raising company tax as if that's a good thing especially when it's one of the main issues you, and GOP, have been attacking Obama on.

I don't expect you to answer, as doing so would be a first for you.

I'm not a republican, I voted for Paul Wellstone, twice.

Secondary point, you shouldn't be impressed by the taxing point, I made one simple statement in a singular post, Jocabia, as is customary for him, turned it into an epic marathon of irrelevant minutia.

(10/03/07 00:14:42)
JUNEAU -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has released a bill proposing to boost oil taxes for the second straight year, setting the stage for a battle with major petroleum producers.

Palin's bill, released to lawmakers late Monday, would boost Alaska's net profits tax from 22.5 percent to 25 percent.

Legislators have until Oct. 18 to digest the contents of the 46-page bill before returning to Juneau for a special session, where they will reconsider a tax increase passed last year called the Petroleum Profits Tax.

Behind the scenes machinations during the tax debate last year formed the basis of federal corruption charges against several former lawmakers. That prompted Palin to revisit the tax plan she called tainted and a failure.

Besides raising the tax rate, Palin's new bill would not allow oil companies to claim a tax deduction for equipment maintenance repairs that stem from an "unscheduled interruption of, or reduction in the rate of oil or gas production." The goal is to not reward inadequate maintenance.

Palin calls her plan Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share, or ACES. Department of Revenue Commissioner Patrick Galvin said Tuesday it is a better bill than last year's Petroleum Profits Tax.
snip
Oil company executives have spoken out against a second tax change in as many years, saying it's not conducive to stimulating future investment in North Slope exploration and production. Galvin said that was not surprising.

"It's expected that any group looking at a potential tax increase is going to oppose it," Galvin said. "They have a right to participate in public discussion."

Leading the opposition is the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an industry trade organization whose members include North Slope lease holders Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP PLC.
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/pipeline/v-printer/story/27652.html

But Palin also pushed through a tax increase on oil and gas producers last year that doubled the state's energy revenues to more than $10 billion.

That increase was blasted by BP and ConocoPhillips, who cited it a reason they postponed new projects in the state.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/palin_energy_dc

Maybe I missed it because it's 4:10 in the morning, but is the part you sniped the part that proves
the big Oil companies are getting taxed by Palin's administration more than any other administration has taxed them in the history of the United States.?

You're a funny loser. You nitpick at nonsense and think you have the bull by the ring in his nose. I already made my case, you disagree with my conclusion, fine, present your own. You obfuscate every discussion with irrelevant minutia and then claim victory when your opponents discover that you don't actually retain information given but continue onward like a blind horse pulling a cart... But whatever, for the others that are reading...

The tax level proposed in ACES would make Alaska “the highest cost place to operate in North America — significantly more expensive than operating in the Gulf of Mexico” or in Alberta, Rinehart said. Alaska is not an average place to do business: “Our resources are expensive to get out of the ground” and will become more expensive as heavy oil is developed. Distance from market is also an issue, he said: The oil has to be sent through an 800-mile pipeline and then shipped thousands of miles to markets on the West Coast.
“This is all about the future,” Rinehart said. “These oil fields will last a long time but they’ll require a lot of investment in a climate that encourages investment.”

Galvin said the state has “to acknowledge that each time we raise our taxes we have a bigger bite of the amount of revenue that comes into a company.” While comparisons to other governments depend somewhat on which economist you ask, at $60 oil Alaska under ACES would be at 68 percent of marginal government take, Galvin said.

ACES would place Alaska “significantly higher” than its peers, “other royalty and tax governments,” he said.
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/200707472.shtml

And you don't have to AKS ME, you can WATCH the VIDEO

What you've posted here still doesn't prove your claim.

Maybe I missed it because it's 4:10 in the morning, but is the part you sniped the part that proves
?

No, I got the second statement from her interview with the CNBC lady. She made the statement that they were taxing the oil companies more than any US government had taxed them before.... I repeated it.

The statement you made: Except he isn't in favor of off shore drilling. He's against it. He's always been against it. is not actually stated in your source. You are misreading it. According to your source, it says his stance is Nothing new. Therefore, he hasn't changed anything, you said he as always been against it, he says, according to your article, that he hasn't changed anything and he's willing to do it to get things done. Looks like you are too quick to make your own assumptions and transpose them onto your source... fail.

Try again, I'll wait.

But on Saturday morning, Obama said this "wasn't really a new position."

"I made a general point about the fact that we need to provide the American people some relief and that there has been constructive conversations between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate on this issue," he said during a press conference in Cape Canaveral.

"What I will not do, and this has always been my position, is to support a plan that suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems," Obama added.

"If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

The senator from Illinois has spoken out against offshore drilling since Sen. John McCain in June proposed striking down the federal moratorium banning offshore oil and gas drilling to help alleviate high gas prices.

Uh, I said he hasn't changed anything and that he's against it, as always. You admit he hasn't changed anything, so it appears you don't agree that he is against it.

The reason I bolded the bit I did is to show that while he's against it, he's willing to allow it in the spirit of compromise. As always, and as evidenced in the article, he doesn't believe it will actually help.

My "assumption" that he hasn't changed, you already agreed with, and my "assumption" that he is against drilling is directly supported by the article. The article directly says that he has spoken out against offshore drilling and you admitted that it isn't a change. Game. Set. Match.

No, I got the second statement from her interview with the CNBC lady. She made the statement that they were taxing the oil companies more than any US government had taxed them before.... I repeated it.

So you plagiarized. Okay. We accept that. However, what makes you think that this alleviates the need to actually support the claim? You obviously believed it to be true or you wouldn't have said it, right? So support it or admit you were wrong. Saying "well, it's her fault if I'm wrong" isn't an argument. It's a cop out.

I'm not a republican, I voted for Paul Wellstone, twice.

Secondary point, you shouldn't be impressed by the taxing point, I made one simple statement in a singular post, Jocabia, as is customary for him, turned it into an epic marathon of irrelevant minutia.
Ah yes. Thank you for not disappointing me but actually, y'know, answering a simple query.

Uh, I said he hasn't changed anything and that he's against it, as always. You admit he hasn't changed anything, so it appears you don't agree that he is against it.

The reason I bolded the bit I did is to show that while he's against it, he's willing to allow it in the spirit of compromise. As always, and as evidenced in the article, he doesn't believe it will actually help.

My "assumption" that he hasn't changed, you already agreed with, and my "assumption" that he is against drilling is directly supported by the article. If you can't read it, I can't help you.

You said he's always been against it, now he's not. You were wrong, you misstated what it says, or, you says he's a liar. make up your mind, source your statement that he's always been against it and now in his speech is says hes for it AND that he's not changed, nothing new. Those three things aren't compatible, either you are misrepresenting his positions or you don't understand what his positions is, according to your own source he hasn't changed his position, thus, your statement that he's always been against it is incorrect.

You said he's always been against it, now he's not. You were wrong, you misstated what it says, or, you says he's a liar. make up your mind, source your statement that he's always been against it and now in his speech is says hes for it AND that he's not changed, nothing new. Those three things aren't compatible, either you are misrepresenting his positions or you don't understand what his positions is, according to your own source he hasn't changed his position, thus, your statement that he's always been against it is incorrect.

He is still against it. The article demonstrates that he is position is that he's willing to compromise, not that he now supports offshore drilling. He is still against it.

As I pointed out, if I negotiate to pay more in a contract, does that mean that I shifted my position on what I originally wanted to pay, or that I realized that we'd be locked up if I didn't compromise?

Again, I don't agree his is now for it and he hasn't said that he is. You claim he is now for it, now put up or shut up. Source.

He is still against it. The article demonstrates that he is position is that he's willing to compromise, not that he now supports offshore drilling. He is still against it.

As I pointed out, if I negotiate to pay more in a contract, does that mean that I shifted my position on what I originally wanted to pay, or that I realized that we'd be locked up if I didn't compromise?

When did he say he was for offshore drilling?

Your interpretation of the article says what you want it to say. If you can't source your statement, then simply just say so. Don't misrepresent the quote, link a source, and say, it doesn't really say what I'm saying, but I'm linking a source so you just have to believe me... no, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. the source doesn't say what you said it says, thus, you fail. It's not complicated.

Your interpretation of the article says what you want it to say. If you can't source your statement, then simply just say so. Don't misrepresent the quote, link a source, and say, it doesn't really say what I'm saying, but I'm linking a source so you just have to believe me... no, I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. the source doesn't say what you said it says, thus, you fail. It's not complicated.

We'll set your lack of reading comprehension aside for the moment. I'm pretty well certain that anyone that reads that article will giggle at your assertions.

I showed him saying he is against it and that he is offering this in the spirit of compromise. That is what I claimed his position was.

What you claimed his position IS, is that he's now for it. Source YOUR claim. When did he say he was for it? You said it was in his speech yesterday, but his speech only mentions it as not being a long-term solution. He's credited offshore drilling to Republicans (unlike when you plagiarize their claims) and has remained against it as a solution. His speech continued to support that position, as do the quotes in the article I posted.

You said he's always been against it, now he's not. You were wrong, you misstated what it says, or, you says he's a liar. make up your mind, source your statement that he's always been against it and now in his speech is says hes for it AND that he's not changed, nothing new. Those three things aren't compatible, either you are misrepresenting his positions or you don't understand what his positions is, according to your own source he hasn't changed his position, thus, your statement that he's always been against it is incorrect.

Or you misunderstand or misrepresent his positions. Y'know. For the sake of completeness.

Or you misunderstand or misrepresent his positions. Y'know. For the sake of completeness.

I love these kinds of convos.

1: Obama is for offshore drilling which is a position he stole from the Republicans.
2: No, he isn't. He's willing to compromise, but he's against it and always has been.
1: Source?
2: Sure. *offers source*
1: Uh, that says his position has never changed. You claimed he was always against it.
2: Yeah, what do you think always means.
1: Well, he can't be always against it, if he's now for it.
2: Yes, I know, but he's not for it and you've not shown he is.
1: But you said he was always against it.

and so on...

Seriously, Balderdash, how on God's green earth can you think you're offering up a coherent argument?

Or you misunderstand or misrepresent his positions. Y'know. For the sake of completeness.

Oh no. Jocabia made a statement and represented it as fact, then he linked to an article that didn't actually say what he had said previously, then he wanted to move the goal posts and pretend like he had made the perfect example of how to source. But the simple reality is, he failed to produce a source that says what he said. Now he's all pissy about it but he doesn't want to actually have to produce a verbatim source...

I love these kinds of convos.

1: Obama is for offshore drilling which is a position he stole from the Republicans.
2: No, he isn't. He's willing to compromise, but he's against it and always has been.
1: Source?
2: Sure. *offers source*
1: Uh, that says his position has never changed. You claimed he was always against it.
2: Yeah, what do you think always means.
1: Well, he can't be always against it, if he's now for it.
2: Yes, I know, but he's not for it and you've not shown he is.
1: But you said he was always against it.

and so on...

Seriously, Balderdash, how on God's green earth can you think you're offering up a coherent argument?

You made a statement without a source, now you can't defend it, get over and move on, not a problem.

You made a statement without a source, now you can't defend it, get over and move on, not a problem.

I did source it. That you're unable to read isn't really my problem.

Meanwhile, can you support where Obama said he was for offshore drilling? I showed a quote where he said he didn't like it and a quote where he said he was willing to compromise to prevent a gridlock. That supports my claim. Now support yours.

Doesn't a willingness to compromise with the Republicans in this scenario almost immediately imply being against it?

I did source it. That you're unable to read isn't really my problem.

Meanwhile, can you support where Obama said he was for offshore drilling? I showed a quote where he said he didn't like it and a quote where he said he was willing to compromise to prevent a gridlock. That supports my claim. Now support yours.

Your source didn't say he was always against it and now he's for it. It said he's willing to do it and he hasn't changed his position. thus you and your source don't agree with each other. nice try though.

As to what he said the other day: from the Obama speech thread:
Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

He didn't say there that he was always against drilling and now changed his mind either. No, instead it just wrote a science fiction novel about what he hopes he can accomplish with ten years and 150 billions dollars.

Except he isn't in favor of off shore drilling. He's against it. He's always been against it. He's said he's willing to compromise on it if it gets his policies passed. Your claim is like saying I'm in favor of paying more for the car I bought because I came up on the price during negotiations. Reality disagrees with you once again.

Here is my original claim. Here are quotes of the article as compared to my claim.

Except he isn't in favor of off shore drilling. He's against it.

If we've got a plan on the table that I think meets the goals that America has to set and there are some things in there that I don't like, then obviously that's something that I would consider because that's the nature of how we govern in a democracy."

The senator from Illinois has spoken out against offshore drilling since Sen. John McCain in June proposed striking down the federal moratorium banning offshore oil and gas drilling to help alleviate high gas prices.

Hmmm... I claimed he isn't in favor of offshore drilling and that he's against it and the article claims he's spoken out against it since it entered the debate and quotes him saying he doesn't like it.



He's always been against it.

The senator from Illinois has spoken out against offshore drilling since Sen. John McCain in June proposed striking down the federal moratorium banning offshore oil and gas drilling to help alleviate high gas prices.

According to the article he has consistently been against offshore drilling.

He's said he's willing to compromise on it if it gets his policies passed.

But Friday, Obama admitted that something is better than nothing and praised a bipartisan energy plan from the Senate that combines alternative energy innovation, financial, nuclear energy and drilling proposals.

He said he is still skeptical about drilling's potential to lower gas prices or reduce dependence on foreign oil.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the interview with the Florida paper, "and so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Yup, that doesn't sound anything like compromise. How silly of me.

what he hopes he can accomplish with ten years and 150 billions dollars.

Investments, research, and car companies doing what could've been done years ago? sure, why not.

Your source didn't say he was always against it and now he's for it. It said he's willing to do it and he hasn't changed his position. thus you and your source don't agree with each other. nice try though.

I didn't say he's now for it. You did. I disagreed. So did the article. Seriously, are you really this unaware of the conversation or are you just screwing around?



As to what he said the other day: from the Obama speech thread:
Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy — wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

He didn't say there that he was always against drilling and now changed his mind either. No, instead it just wrote a science fiction novel about what he hopes he can accomplish with ten years and 150 billions dollars.

Um, you claimed he said he was for offshore drilling. Where does that speech say he's in favor of offshore drilling? He actually bashes it as a stop-gap measure at best.

I can't believe I have to keep regurgitating my posts and give a reading comprehension course in order for you to actually participate in the debate.

You claim there are shifting goalposts. Where? Please explain what about my claim has changed?

I claimed he was always against it. I still claim that.

I claimed he is against it now. I still claim that.

I claimed he is willing to do it in the spirit of compromise. I still claim that now.

Now that we've had several pages of "you show me your sources and I'll show you mine", please return to the actual topic of the thread.

(*Bouncers eject gentleman up the back who is shouting, "Rawwwrrr, them's some sources!! You ever seen sources like that? Show me more! More sources!!! MORE!!!"*)

So. Chicks from Alaska. Approve? Disapprove?

Now that we've had several pages of "you show me your sources and I'll show you mine", please return to the actual topic of the thread.

(*Bouncers eject gentleman up the back who is shouting, "Rawwwrrr, them's some sources!! You ever seen sources like that? Show me more! More sources!!! MORE!!!"*)

The problem is that this is relevant to Palin.

The argument is going to be that Palin doesn't undermine the campaign we've seen thus far.

That argument requires us to ignore that taxing oil companies was a bad idea according to Republicans and now they're claiming they picked her because it works.

That argument requires us to ignore that Obama was bashed for being outside the beltway and they picked her because it's a good thing.

That argument requires us to ignore that Obama was bashed for having to little national experience to be President and they picked her because she's ready to be President with NONE.

That argument requres us to ignore that Obama was told he was unqualified to speak on the subject of the military since he wasn't in it, and they picked her because she can speak on the subject because her son recently joined.

That argument requires us to ignore that they said Obama's state level experience was not relevant to the Presidency and they picked her when it's the only experience she's got.

The problem is that in the face of this kind of a wall of logic, it always becomes "but Obama once agreed with an idea the Republicans had first so, hey, look over there, something sparkly".

You may not like that. I may not like that. But the fact is this is political discourse in the American theatre.

Holy crap reading Baldy's posts makes my head hurt.


Anyway. After reading everyone's opinions so far, its safe to say mine havent changed. This is a piss poor choice. A ballsy gamble, but one that will blow up in McCain's face.

Holy crap reading Baldy's posts makes my head hurt.


Anyway. After reading everyone's opinions so far, its safe to say mine havent changed. This is a piss poor choice. A ballsy gamble, but one that will blow up in McCain's face.

There was this play I found on http://www.electoral-vote.com/ ...

The Veep: A Short Play in One Act

Sometimes fiction is a better vehicle for getting inside someone's mind. Besides, it's all we have. Here is a short play for two actors. Let's call them Schmidt, a tough, savvy consultant, and McCain, a candidate. All names have been changed to protect the innocent.
Schmidt: McCain, Get your ass over here and look at this map.

McCain: It's the U.S. with the states red and blue. Seen it before. What's your point?

Schmidt: Obama's gonna win all the Kerry States. You have a small chance to pick off New Hampshire but 60% of the people think you're pro choice. When they find out you've been pro life for 25 years, forget New Hampshire.

McCain: Where does that leave me?

Schmidt: Bush won 286 to 252.

McCain: Fine with me.

Schmidt: But wait a minute. Obama campaigned like crazy in Iowa. Won the caucuses big time. You barely set foot in the state. The people of Iowa take their caucuses very, very seriously. You insulted them. Make that 279 to 259.

McCain: I still win.

Schmidt: We're not done yet. Obama has been leading in New Mexico all year. State's full of Latinos. They preferred Clinton but they're still Democrats at heart. I think we're toast there. Now its 274 to 264.

McCain: A win is a win. Still better than Florida was.

Schmidt: Yeah, but now Obama is just 5 EVs short of a tie (which means it goes to the House and he'll win there) and 6 EVs short of a clean win. Look, there are six swing states this time: Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada. We have to win all six of them. Can't lose a single state or we're dead meat.

McCain: I'm a fighter. You know that. The gooks couldn't break me. I'll campaign like hell in all six. Don't worry.

Schmidt: I'm worried. We're 50-50 on all six. It's like flipping a coin six times and getting six heads. One chance in 64, roughly 2%. We have to do something dramatic. Something that will throw all calculations out the window. Something that completely shakes up everything. Something that gives us a fresh start. Gotta hit the RESET button.

McCain: Have something in mind?

Schmidt: Yeah. Pick a black or a woman for Veep.

McCain: You mean I can't pick Joe? He's my friend and a great guy.

Schmidt: Half the convention would walk out. Besides, Jews aren't a novelty any more. Thank Gore for that.

McCain:. Shit. But blacks are fine with me. Colin Powell is a great American and one of the most respected people in America.

Schmidt: He doesn't want the job

McCain: No sweat. Condi's the smartest woman I know. Mind like a bear trap. She'll run rings around Biden at the debate. She'll say: "I've been there. I talk to Putin every week. You're just an old windbag"

Schmidt: She's got "BUSH III" emblazoned on her forehead. And Obama is a happily married man with two adorable little girls, Condi's a single black woman who is apparently not much into families. Won't work. What about Kay [Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)]?

McCain: She's tired of the Washington rat race. She wants to go back to Texas. Be governor or something, you know like Ma Ferguson.

Schmidt: Ma's husband, the governor, was impeached and convicted. Ann Richards would be a better role model. What other women do we have?

McCain: Jodi [Rell] and Olympia [Snowe] are smart and popular but pro choice. The Base distusts me already. They'd mutiny.

Schmidt: Elizabeth Dole? Susan Collins?

McCain: With either of those we lose a Senate seat. I don't want to have 60 Democrats to deal with over there. Reid might grow a spine. Can't encourage that.

Schmidt: Lisa Murkowski?

McCain: Her dad appointed her. She won on her own later, but I don't need to deal with nepotism and cronyism. Smells like Bush. I'm a maverick, remember?

Schmidt: Got it. Some businesswomen? Sarah Palin?

McCain: Carly [Fiorina] is great on economics, but she nearly she ran her company into the ground so the board fired her and then gave her $40 million so she wouldn't feel bad. The 20,000 people she fired aren't too keen on her. Meg Whitman did a fantastic job at eBay but nobody's ever heard of her.

Schmidt: So Palin's the only one left? What about her?

McCain: I met her once, at a governors meeting. Cute as a button. She ran for Miss Alaska. Came in second. I woulda voted for her. But it's a real Hail Mary pass. She's popular up north there where the sun never shines (except for some minor problems when she tried to fire her state trooper brother-in-law). She was pregnant with a Down syndrome baby and didn't abort him. The Base will love that. Her hobbies are riding her motorcycle and hunting moose. The coal miners in Appalachia will go wild over her. How fast can we print a million 8x10 color photos of her for their lockers?

Schmidt: Fast. But what about her experience. I mean, she's only been governor a year and a half. What did she do before that?

McCain: I think she was mayor of some village with six igloos. Who cares? I think you're right we have to shake things up completely. Change the game. The Base will eat her up on abortion, the Hillary fans will see that we respect women (unlike their guy). We grab the mantle of reformers. The white guys will be transfixed by this hot chick who hunts moose. I get to be Maverick-in-chief. Sounds like a winner.

Schmidt: What about the debate with Biden? What if the moderator says: "What would you do if Russia invaded Georgia again?" and she says: "I'll get on Air Force One and fly to Atlanta immediately."

McCain: Most Americans can't find Georgia the state on a map, let alone Georgia the country. I'll get Lugar to tutor her on foreign policy. He knows everything about it. I'm sold. Let's go for it.

Curtain falls.

Thought it's funny and thought it actually adds to the debate.

Disclaimer: I do NOT claim to have written or to approve of McCain's remark of "cute as a button" on the play. If you wanna have this conversation, find a way to travel to works of fiction and take it up to the character.

Then PROVIDE me with this way to I can take MYSELF up to Morrigan. >.>

Her drilling oil and saving money and putting it to work by giving it back to the people and saving it and investing it in renewable energy sources for the future shows that she's more than a flash in the pan politician, she's the real deal.

Actually, holding the purse strings, saving money, investing it, saving it (again), and investing it again... makes her a real accountant - not politician.

Ignorance is your friend it seems. Palin is the one that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Palin has been removing republican corruption from Alaskan politics since she has been in office. Her record so far is more than admirable.

You ever stop and think - during an ad - about how they're selling the product?

They say "New and Improved", and you think "great, that's got to be really good!"... and then you sit and think about it, and you work out that if THIS product is 'new' and 'improved', that means the old product was comparitively carappy and old?


I've seen this a couple of times in Republican candidates right now... McCain is a 'maverick' because he doesn't toe the party line. So - what does that say about Republicans, in general? It says that they place party loyalty over constituent concerns.

Palin is 'sweeping corruption' out of Republican politics. What does that mean? It means Republicans are corrupt politicians.

Sure, they're phrasing it to best advantage, but what they're actually selling is slightly-less-corrupt and slightly-less-partisan... as a big ticket item.

I'm not a republican, I voted for Paul Wellstone, twice.

Secondary point, you shouldn't be impressed by the taxing point, I made one simple statement in a singular post, Jocabia, as is customary for him, turned it into an epic marathon of irrelevant minutia.

Your 'simple statement' can't be proved though, can it?

You're getting all bent out of shape because you made a pretty BIG claim, actually... and got asked to support it.

The best thing to do would have been to drop it. But, you'd rather fight it - without actually 'proving' it... and then attack other posters for daring to question it. Right?

The problem is ... <snip>

The problem is that NSG, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, is not a peer review panel for submissions to a professional journal, nor is it a viva voce for academic honours.

It is (again, despite occasional appearances to the contrary) a community of intelligent and literate people, but many of us have the attention span of a gnat, low tolerance for fustian and "tl;dr" customised as a keyboard command.

Your object should be to convince us, not to stone us into submission with a barrage of support material. Just link and list. Pay us the compliment of assuming that those who are interested are able to read and analyse for themselves and will be able to judge, without your or your opponent's help, whether your links have some gravitas or are pure puffery.

It would help if you imagine some Celestial Debate Moderator always on duty in your head, who says, "Well, I think we've explored that in sufficient detail, now what do you think about his/her stance on ..."

The problem is that NSG, despite occasional appearances to the contrary, is not a peer review panel for submissions to a professional journal, nor is it a viva voce for academic honours.

It is (again, despite occasional appearances to the contrary) a community of intelligent and literate people, but many of us have the attention span of a gnat, low tolerance for fustian and "tl;dr" customised as a keyboard command.

Your object should be to convince us, not to stone us into submission with a barrage of support material. Just link and list. Pay us the compliment of assuming that those who are interested are able to read and analyse for themselves and will be able to judge, without your or your opponent's help, whether your links have some gravitas or are pure puffery.

It would help if you imagine some Celestial Debate Moderator always on duty in your head, who says, "Well, I think we've explored that in sufficient detail, now what do you think about his/her stance on ..."

I disagree. This is one of the few forum's I've been involved in, online, that actually has a reasonable degree of debate rigour. I tend to think that there are quite a lot of people out there that are better able to debate, better equipped to use logic, better qualified to deal with data... for having honed their skills right here.

The problem with allowing Baldy's argument to stand - isn't that it needs to be beaten down, or that it has to be chopped to pieces. It is simply that, unless confronted, it stands, and is thus 'true' for the discussion.

When you have a claim made like 'Sarah Palin is not a friend of big oil, she's levied the highest taxes against them they've ever had', it's important to the topic to know if that IS true. It's also good practise to validate your claims.

The aim shouldn't be to convince each other - but to present arguments and support for them - and allow the facts to convince, or not.

Oh, I recognize that there was no one, not even Balderdash, who needed me to explain what was blindingly obvious about the article I linked. But where's the fun if I can't giggle about the similarities in our debate and the link from Lunatic or the Monty Python skit where "argument" just means being contrary.


I actually operate under the impression that there is an audience, and now that the site lists that audience, i have proof of that. I just don't particularly mind being the Dr. Ian Malcom character that has to stop every five minutes to explain things to the audience things that don't actually matter to the story. Hehe.

Besides, I know you're reading every election post making sure that everything is kosher and you know you love reading long, pedantic arguments about stuff that's obvious to everyone.

I disagree. This is one of the few forum's I've been involved in, online, that actually has a reasonable degree of debate rigour. I tend to think that there are quite a lot of people out there that are better able to debate, better equipped to use logic, better qualified to deal with data... for having honed their skills right here.

The problem with allowing Baldy's argument to stand - isn't that it needs to be beaten down, or that it has to be chopped to pieces. It is simply that, unless confronted, it stands, and is thus 'true' for the discussion.

When you have a claim made like 'Sarah Palin is not a friend of big oil, she's levied the highest taxes against them they've ever had', it's important to the topic to know if that IS true. It's also good practise to validate your claims.

The aim shouldn't be to convince each other - but to present arguments and support for them - and allow the facts to convince, or not.


She's referring to posts like the one where I dissected a rather obvious article because Balderdash was pretending it didn't support my point. She is correct it wasn't necessary. There is no possibility someone was going to read that and agree with Baldy.

I couldn't sleep so I was having a little fun, but it can't be nearly as amusing for Ard who reads through all of this.

There was this play I found on http://www.electoral-vote.com/ ...
This bit in the mini-play:
"What would you do if Russia invaded Georgia again?" and she says: "I'll get on Air Force One and fly to Atlanta immediately."
McCain: Most Americans can't find Georgia the state on a map, let alone Georgia the country.

reminded me of this:
http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2008/8/10aug13-there-are-no-stupid-questions-just-stupid-people.jpg

Snip.

I can't believe someone is ACTUALLY this dumb.

I take your point, GnI. I'm on the same wavelength -- just the facts, ma'am. (http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/dragnet.asp) And, yes, source them. Just not at interminable length and in excruciating detail.

My concern is with keeping forum debates on topics of non-specialist interest accessible to a broad span of players. Not "dumb it down", but "keep it digestible". Save the extreme erudition for the how-many-angels debates.

I don't want to threadjack the election topic any further, so I'll apply one of the skills I have learned here:

Jocabia, Balderdash, siddown for a bit and give someone else a go.*

EDIT 1: unless you're being kind to Me.
EDIT 2: Heikoku, Zombie PotatoHeads, for those much thanks.

*(New skill: directness.)

Instead of sitting down, can I fly to Ozzie and stalk the moderator that's everyone's favorite to annoy?

EDIT 2: Heikoku, Zombie PotatoHeads, for those much thanks.

o_O? Uhm, what are you thanking me for exac...

I guess I'll just take it. Welcome! ^_^

She's referring to posts like the one where I dissected a rather obvious article because Balderdash was pretending it didn't support my point. She is correct it wasn't necessary. There is no possibility someone was going to read that and agree with Baldy.

I couldn't sleep so I was having a little fun, but it can't be nearly as amusing for Ard who reads through all of this.

Aye. It doesn't necessarily have to be militant... but it should be rigourous. I admit, I hold NSer's to a higher standard than most people I talk to, but that's because I don't even try to properly debate with most people.

It's not peachy for the admins, but we (generally) self-police for the most part. Most of us.

@Heikoku: for the mini-play.

@ Jocabia: no. We have attack-bandicoots.

@Heikoku: for the mini-play.

@ Jocabia: no. We have attack-bandicoots.

Oh, I'm an expect on bandicoots. I pretended to be one in a game once.

The problem with allowing Baldy's argument to stand - isn't that it needs to be beaten down, or that it has to be chopped to pieces. It is simply that, unless confronted, it stands, and is thus 'true' for the discussion.


thats where you are wrong

EVERYONE reading the thread knows that baldy is wrong.

EVERYONE

there is no need to go on and on. it does not stand. the effort to get him to admit his fault is nothing but TEDIOUS.

ardchoille is right. all y'all have been doing is making the same point over and over again. the assumption that you need to type it out one more time or he WINS is silly. you won. there is no loss in letting him have the last (desperate) word.

Mccain's choice seems to be designed to target the white female voters that lost hope when Hillary lost the primaries.
It might work it might back fire. Just have to wait and see.

You're using blogs as evidence? funny that. You said earlier that you called bullshit, but I think you simply stepped in it.

Ah, but I guess you didn't click on the links in that op-ed piece. You see, if you take a few more minutes to learn where the info there came from you'd be more correct. Also, you keep failing to refute the claims I make and instead work on ad homenim crap. Here are some links from what I posted.

http://74.125.95.10/search?q=cache:RL3FJAhN1ksJ:gov.state.ak.us/archive.php%3Fid%3D623%26type%3D1+%22Ketchikan+desires+a+better+way+to+reach+the+airport,+but+the+%2 4398+million+bridge+is+not+the+answer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:RL3FJAhN1ksJ:gov.state.ak.us/archive.php%3Fid%3D623%26type%3D1+%22Ketchikan+desires+a+better+way+to+reach+the+airport,+but+the+%2 4398+million+bridge+is+not+the+answer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

and here (http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/031808/opi_258953362.shtml)

Perhaps you missed this?

Sarah Palin Was for the Bridge to Nowhere Before She was Against It
If this is one of her claims to reformist fame, well...

TNR Did Palin Really Fight The “Bridge To Nowhere”?
Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress.

You see, the quotes (important parts bolded above) were from a local paper, The Daily News. She seems to have flip-flopped on the issue, for lack of a better term. You see, using a blog that didn't account for sources and was simply an opinion would be wrong. Using a blog (from the New Republic might I add, hardly Joe Smo in his basement) that has links attached to substantiate the claims is different. See the difference? Either way, you have failed.

He sourced a blog that sourced a newspaper article.

Right, don't confuse him. :)

Kyahaha! Great news!

“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCain official said wryly.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/12997

It's a blog. Perhaps I should start sourcing pro Palin blogs? would that be credible? I think not. I linked to them to prove they exist and to show dates that they've existed, but to use an opinion piece is not evidence.

The opinion piece was linked to an actual news article. Are you denying that the news article was true? Did she not make those statements to the papers in Alaska? If you can refute she ever made that statement then fine. Otherwise your attempt to obfuscate the issue has failed. You can source a pro-Palin blog as long as there is something to back up what the blogger said. If it's simple an opinion piece with no substantiated evidence then it would be wrong.

Edit: I'd like to see you source anything except that one video which didn't even answer the questions you were asked.

Really? Every Hannity Quote of Obama if sourced is accurate then in it's portrayal? Bad conclusion you've come to there.

It was a factual bio profile that can be found on their local news site. It wasn't an opinion. It was from when Palin ran for governor. There's a great divide between Sean Hannity and the AND.

LOL OMGoodness you are so banal. I never wanted or expected you to accept anything I say. You are so very funny sometimes. Perhaps you should simply refute me than pretend I don't have a right to say what I say.

Deflection, obfuscation, failure to reply to information posted. The blog was sourced from a ADN article that gave A DIRECT QUOTE FROM PALIN HERSELF. If the quote was incorrect then she would have fought it, yes?

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

Wonderful.

It really does seem like that, doesn't it?

1: Palin was against the bridge project.
2: No, she wasn't. It ran out of money. She supports the bridge project.
1: No, she doesn't.
2: *source*
1: That's a blog
2: No, it's a quote from her with a sourced article
1: It's a blog
2: *link to direct article*
1: You're a loser.
2: Do you dispute that she said that quote?
1: When did I ever dispute that quote?

Perfect summary. Does he realize there's a quote function we use to go back over his bullshit? I made a claim, he refuted it by saying it was a blog. I pointed out that it was from a new article, he said it was a blog. He called some names, and then claimed he was never in opposition to the claim I made. It's pathetic really.

thats where you are wrong

EVERYONE reading the thread knows that baldy is wrong.

EVERYONE

there is no need to go on and on. it does not stand. the effort to get him to admit his fault is nothing but TEDIOUS.

ardchoille is right. all y'all have been doing is making the same point over and over again. the assumption that you need to type it out one more time or he WINS is silly. you won. there is no loss in letting him have the last (desperate) word.

*looks sheepish* But I was bored and being right is fun.

The race is becoming more interesting!

*looks sheepish* But I was bored and being right is fun.

Substitute "an asshole" for "right" and you'll know how I feel. Group hug?

The race is becoming more interesting!

Only because I'm rubbing your back while you read www.realclearpolitics.com

*looks sheepish* But I was bored and being right is fun.
i know. and its hard to not press your point when its so easy to do so.

we've all done it.

but there comes a time to respect your audience and let it go.

The McCain campaign dosent expect 18 million Hillary supporters men and women to vote republican. They are hoping 5 to 10 %. Enough to make a difference and win.

If they were to get 2, 3, or 18 million extra votes they would be in election heaven. They know that is not going to happen.

The nominiation of the Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin. if anything energizes and unites the Republican party base. Its supposed to appeal not just to Hillary women voters but to other women as well.

I hear Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has an 80 % + popularity rating in her state.

At least she has some executive experience . While she dosent have foreign policy experience, John McCain does.

On her fist official acceptance speech, she came across as a smart, intelligent, strong lady. With some preparation on foreign policy she can stand her own against Joe Biden in a debate.

If Barack Obama had offered the Vice spot to Hillary. Republicans would never have had a chance in heck to win.

If Barack Obama had offered the Vice spot to Hillary. Republicans would never have had a chance in heck to win.

If Barack Obama had offered the VP spot to Hillary, Republicans would never have had to use their VP's gender as a gimmick to TRY to win.

If Barack Obama had offered the Vice spot to Hillary. Republicans would never have had a chance in heck to win.

Such disingenous Bushevik bullshit. The Republicans were praying Obama would have picked Hillary as VP. Not only could they use the Washington Insider line like they're doing with Biden now there's the whole Clinton Package they could have used in attack ads.

I liked it when you were more honest with "Waaaahhh... Slick Willy didn't fight to keep Little Elian here in Miami, waaah... let's hand the country over to Dear Leader for eight shit years to get even, waaaaah!"

:rolleyes:

Gauthier, I did not vote for Al Gore because Bill Clinton did not help Al Gore out by not sending poor little Elian Gonzalez back to that communist socialist paradise dictatorship of Fidel and Raul you seem to like so much, or does not matter to you personally.

Even though their were polls at the time that Al Gore had more support among many Cuban Americans, more than most democrats usually get. I was not one of those Al Gore supporters.

While we can like a candidate or not such as President Bush no one really knows how 4 to 8 years are going to end like.

If Hillary had been Barack Obama's Vice, Republicans would not have had a chance in Heck to win.

You mean like Obama suddenly being in favor of off shore drilling and clean coal power plants? You mean that kind of something wrong with this picture?

Interesting. Here's a video from November 10, 2007 of Obama talking about clean coal technology and the environmental affects of not changing current positions. He talks about devoting more funding to alternative energy sources, including clean coal technology. He talks about spending 150 billion on solar, wind, and clean coal. So you're wrong that he flipped on this. It has been his position since early 2007. Notice, I'm linking to a video (http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/video-barack-obama-answers-a-question-about-clean-coal-technology/) that actually has some meaning to the conversation.

So you're wrong about clean coal technology and your only half right about drilling. See below for drilling.

Obama Opens the Door to Offshore Drilling

By Jonathan Weisman
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Sen. Barack Obama suggested he could accept an expansion of offshore oil drilling today if it is in a broader package of energy measures that would free the logjam on energy bills in Congress.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

Republicans have consistently said they could craft legislation that would expand oil exploration on the outer continental shelf without jeopardizing delicate shoreline habitats. But Democratic leaders in Congress have been ardently opposed. Environmental groups, a key constituency, have been unyielding in their opposition.

Instead, Democrats crafted a rhetorical answer to the GOP's drilling campaign, calling on the oil companies to begin oil drilling on the millions of acres both on and offshore that have already been leased to them but remain untapped. Obama has taken up that line as part of his standard stump speech.

But with rising gasoline prices, polls indicate the voters are increasingly with the Republicans, even here in Florida, where opposition to offshore drilling has always been strong. McCain switched his own position on the issue, and recently brought along with him Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who had been opposed.

Now Obama opened the door to his own shift.

"The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the Post interview. "And so we don't want gridlock. We want to get something done."

Obama, through his Senate office, issued a written statement welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators -- five from each party -- that would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the South Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if a state agrees to the oil and gas development along its coast. The states would share in revenues from oil and gas development.
Drilling bans along the Pacific coast and the Northeast would remain in place under this compromise.

The compromise "would repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels," Obama noted.

Wow, Obama being willing to compromise to get things done is a flip flop. Why can't he just hold firm to his policies and not try to work to get something accomplished? Damn I wish that Obama was more stubborn.

Did he say that in the speech yesterday? I don't think so, you are making things up. He never said compromise during his speech, but he said drilling and clean coal power... you didn't source your statement. You expect us to just accept your unsourced material? don't you know how it works. You make a statement, you have to back it up. Perhaps we just expect too much from you if you can't stay on topic and keep a source log of every statement you make about what Obama might or might not believe..... ad nauseum

See my sourcing on that issue from Nov. 10, 2007. WRONG again.

Maybe I missed it because it's 4:10 in the morning, but is the part you sniped the part that proves
?

Wow, he used the same source from ADN that I did when he told me I was using a weak blog. Using the same source means you must accept the original right? Otherwise I could throw is back as nothing worth noting.

Yeah, but being personally anti-abortion isn't the same as being politically opposed to the issue.
They are passing her off as being politically opposed however.

Gauthier, I did not vote for Al Gore because Bill Clinton did not help Al Gore out by not sending poor little Elian Gonzalez back to that communist socialist paradise dictatorship of Fidel and Raul you seem to like so much, or does not matter to you personally.

Even though their were polls at the time that Al Gore had more support among many Cuban Americans, more than most democrats usually get. I was not one of those Al Gore supporters.

While we can like a candidate or not such as President Bush no one really knows how 4 to 8 years are going to end like.

If Hillary had been Barack Obama's Vice, Republicans would not have had a chance in Heck to win.

Mira, pués lo te digo apenas una vez, y en tu lengua para que mejor me entiendas.

El niño fué usado como objecto de escena por los republicanos, para que obtenesen votos como el tuyo. A ellos no les importaba Elián. Y que tu vengas decir a nosotros que seamos "comunistas" o que "a nosotros no nos importa" lo qué hace Castro es, hablando de modo muy sencillo, una tentativa idiota de escapar al debate.

Mi español está un poco roto, admito, pero quiero creer que me entiendas.

With some preparation on foreign policy she can stand her own against Joe Biden in a debate

HAH!


Oh wait. When you say "hold her own against" did you mean "get eaten alive by"? Because then I agree.

Only because I'm rubbing your back while you read www.realclearpolitics.com

That's technically not my back...





Hey, I didn't say stop! :wink:

If Hillary had been Barack Obama's Vice, Republicans would not have had a chance in Heck to win.

I think the exact opposite. The Democrats would have lost by a landslide.

As an aside, is anyone else irked by the use of the term 'veep' to mean Vice President?

Shouldn't it be 'veepee' or 'VP'? Whenever I read 'veep', it rhymes with 'sheep' in my head.

As an aside, is anyone else irked by the use of the term 'veep' to mean Vice President?

Shouldn't it be 'veepee' or 'VP'? Whenever I read 'veep', it rhymes with 'sheep' in my head.

Of course it does. You're Scottish.

Of course it does. You're Scottish.

They always have "sheep" on their minds.... ;)

They always have "sheep" on their minds.... ;)
I think you're confusing them for the Welsh.

As an aside, is anyone else irked by the use of the term 'veep' to mean Vice President?

Shouldn't it be 'veepee' or 'VP'? Whenever I read 'veep', it rhymes with 'sheep' in my head.
yes but im used to it now.

I think you're confusing them for the Welsh.

The Scotts the Welsh. They are all the same. :wink:

Of course it does. You're Scottish.
*points to location*

It don't say 'Aberdeen', pal. I'm no teuchter. :p



The Scotts the Welsh. They are all the same. :wink:
I'd contend the Scots have better standing on the world stage when compared to our consonant-loving cousins. We might both be seen as hairy-ass barbarians with incomprehensible language, but at least us Scots have some sex appeal.

And whisky.

*points to location*

It don't say 'Aberdeen', pal. I'm no teuchter. :p
Heh, that's the first time I've seen 'teuchter' used on NSG. Congratulations :D

I don't know about how she'll affect his standing, but I think if McCain expects more female Democrats to vote for him, he's insulting their intelligence. For one, Sarah Palin is barely as experienced (mayor and governor) as some other VP candidates. And for two, they're not gonna drop everything they believe in just because Sarah Palin has a vagina, are they?

I don't know about how she'll affect his standing, but I think if McCain expects more female Democrats to vote for him, he's insulting their intelligence. For one, Sarah Palin is barely as experienced (mayor and governor) as some other VP candidates. And for two, they're not gonna drop everything they believe in just because Sarah Palin has a vagina, are they?
nope.

but if they were leaning mccain already but might not have bothered to vote at all, they might show up at the polls if they really like ms palin.

While we can like a candidate or not such as President Bush no one really knows how 4 to 8 years are going to end like.


That's codswallop. After 4 years, we all had a rough idea what 8 would be like. The astounding thing is... it kept getting worse.

but at least us Scots have some sex appeal.

And whisky.

Isn't that repeating yourself?

Heh, that's the first time I've seen 'teuchter' used on NSG. Congratulations :D
I use it on an almost weekly basis to poke fun at my flatmates; both of whom are from the Black Isle. It's like a totally different country up there.


Isn't that repeating yourself?
*stands on a hillside in nothing but a kilt, hair blowing in the wind, taking drams from a bottle of Laphroaig*

<snip>... rusty Spanish ...<snip>

what does I castrate is, speaking of very simple way, a stupid attempt to escape to the debate

Fortunately, Heikoku, your reputation for goodwill towards your fellow man and all-round loving kindness instantly freed my mind of any suspicion that you were threatening to mutilate a fellow poster.

Fortunately, Heikoku, your reputation for goodwill towards your fellow man and all-round loving kindness instantly freed my mind of any suspicion that you were threatening to mutilate a fellow poster.

I detect sarcasm;)

Fortunately, Heikoku, your reputation for goodwill towards your fellow man and all-round loving kindness instantly freed my mind of any suspicion that you were threatening to mutilate a fellow poster.

...I BEG of you, do NOT use online translators, if they were any good my profession would be out of business... -_-

Oh my God, they translated Fidel Castro's surname into "castrate"! :p

Want me to turn it to English?

Mira, pués lo te digo apenas una vez, y en tu lengua para que mejor me entiendas.

El niño fué usado como objecto de escena por los republicanos, para que obtenesen votos como el tuyo. A ellos no les importaba Elián. Y que tu vengas decir a nosotros que seamos "comunistas" o que "a nosotros no nos importa" lo qué hace Castro es, hablando de modo muy sencillo, una tentativa idiota de escapar al debate.

Mi español está un poco roto, admito, pero quiero creer que me entiendas.

"Look, because I'll only tell you once, and in your language so that you understand me better.

The boy was used as a prop by the Republicans, so they could obtain votes like yours. Elián did not matter to them. And that you come to tell us that we are "communists" or that "it doesn't matter to us" what Castro does is, speaking very simply, an idiotic attempt to escape debate.

My Spanish is a bit rusty, I admit, but I hope and think you understand me."

:p

I'd contend the Scots have better standing on the world stage when compared to our consonant-loving cousins. We might both be seen as hairy-ass barbarians with incomprehensible language, but at least us Scots have some sex appeal.
Also you lot won't immediately start talking in your own incomprehensible language as soon as a tourist walks into your shop. True, your Scot is most likely to just say, "See ye Jimmy, stitch this ya Ba'-heid!" but at least it is in English (sort of)

Also you lot won't immediately start talking in your own incomprehensible language as soon as a tourist walks into your shop.
Not if you're up in the northern West Coast, or on the Hebrides...

Not if you're up in the northern West Coast, or on the Hebrides...
Can anyone - even themselves - understand what the hell they're saying?
I figured it was still English, just so heavily Scottish it only sounded like a foreign language.

I figured it was still English, just so heavily Scottish it only sounded like a foreign language.
No, there's still a sizeable minority who speak the Gaelic. I have a smattering, but I couldn't hold a conversation.

And Scots-English is more than an accent; it's a seperate dialect. Moreover Scots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language) (distinct from Scots-English) is officially recognised by the UK government and the EU as a seperate language from English.

Interesting note.....so far the poll indicates that 62% believe that the Republican choice for VP is either good, great or awesome. Only 38% suggest that the pick was a bad choice.

Interesting note.....so far the poll indicates that 62% believe that the Republican choice for VP is either good, great or awesome. Only 38% suggest that the pick was a bad choice.

And if we were talking about a Romney pick, for instance, the polls would be...?

You're offering meaningless data with nothing to compare it to!

Most importantly, why is it that it matters so much that the candidate is a female? I'm not claiming Obama should be voted in because he's black, why do you claim Palin is a good choice because she's a woman?

Interesting note.....so far the poll indicates that 62% believe that the Republican choice for VP is either good, great or awesome. Only 38% suggest that the pick was a bad choice.

Well, it was a good move strategically. The other options were simply terrible in comparison, especially Pawlenty...seriously, what better way to revive the classic Dole/Kemp ticket than another no-name white guy?

Well, it was a good move strategically. The other options were simply terrible in comparison, especially Pawlenty...seriously, what better way to revive the classic Dole/Kemp ticket than another no-name white guy?
The Dems were going to pick a bone with whoever the GOP picked, so this pick makes it a tad more difficult to do so. It will be interesting to see the polls in the next few days.

The Dems were going to pick a bone with whoever the GOP picked, so this pick makes it a tad more difficult to do so. It will be interesting to see the polls in the next few days.

If they prove what we've been saying for the last few months, will you admit to being wrong?

Guys, I recently warned CanuckHeaven in another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13965459&postcount=544) not to continue fruitlessly raking up past exchanges. In the circumstances, it would be only polite not to keep asking him to do so.

I have a hard time with any poll that has "awesome" as an option...

The Dems were going to pick a bone with whoever the GOP picked, so this pick makes it a tad more difficult to do so. It will be interesting to see the polls in the next few days.

That was the goal. They needed to fill in McCain's vulnerabilities and boost the ticket's defensive strength, and in that regard they succeeded magnificently. However, this same move also creates some new ones, so it remains to be seen what will come of the move once the distortions surrounding the two parties' conventions are sorted out.

Interesting note.....so far the poll indicates that 62% believe that the Republican choice for VP is either good, great or awesome. Only 38% suggest that the pick was a bad choice.

I wonder how many were Obama supporters. I know I think she was an awesome pick. I suspect, however, that my reasoning for liking the pick differs a bit from a Republican.

(Actually, I said it was good, but my opinion has shifted slightly. I originally just thought it was good because it was so hacky. I had no idea the level of hackiness this pick really is.)

In response, Ralph Nader is getting a sex change.

In response, Ralph Nader is getting a sex change.

http://originaldo.com/ralph-nader-pearl-earrings.jpg

I will discontinue posting here a all I need to say has been said. I will come back possibly once something significant has happened regarding this situation. Have fun all.

I will discontinue posting here a all I need to say has been said. I will come back possibly once something significant has happened regarding this situation. Have fun all.

Bring tacos.

Bring tacos.
And burritos.

Interesting note.....so far the poll indicates that 62% believe that the Republican choice for VP is either good, great or awesome. Only 38% suggest that the pick was a bad choice.
The poll in itself is flawed though. Wouldn't surprise me if several Obama-supporters voted it was a good choice, as they think it'll do more harm than good to the McCain campaign.

In response, Ralph Nader is getting a sex change.
He's going grow a pair?

nope.

but if they were leaning mccain already but might not have bothered to vote at all, they might show up at the polls if they really like ms palin.

You got a point there. He's probably gonna get more female votes from the religious right, but I doubt Palin will convince any McCain voters.

You got a point there. He's probably gonna get more female votes from the religious right, but I doubt Palin will convince any McCain voters.
my husband says that the palin nomination is designed to energize the base (and pick up any woman stupid enough to vote for him solely because he has a female running mate)

the religious right are not excited by mccain. he not an overtly religious man. so by picking a very religious woman with impeccable pro-life credentials he gives them a reason to get out and vote for him.

unfortunately he is supposed to "run to the right" in the primaries then "run to the center" in the general election. this bone to the ultra-conservatives comes at a very bad time to convince the centrist independents to vote for him.

my husband says that the palin nomination is designed to energize the base (and pick up any woman stupid enough to vote for him solely because he has a female running mate)

the religious right are not excited by mccain. he not an overtly religious man. so by picking a very religious woman with impeccable pro-life credentials he gives them a reason to get out and vote for him.

unfortunately he is supposed to "run to the right" in the primaries then "run to the center" in the general election. this bone to the ultra-conservatives comes at a very bad time to convince the centrist independents to vote for him.
I'm still terrified of her. The more I hear of her, the more like a practical joke she sounds to me, but on the other hand, the more she sounds like crack cocaine for the radical religious right of the US. One of the worries for the Republican side was losing the crazy bible-humper vote, which nudged Bush over the top two times, because they didn't trust McCain. The worry was that these people would opt out of the election and not vote at all, and that the Republicans did not have enough of a non-humper base to be sure of beating the Dems. Early attempts to sell McCain to these people had a backfire effect, as the Dem side attacked him for flip-flopping and pandering and harangued the Jeebus-nuts that they were being lied to just to get their votes (because it would definitely benefit the Dems if these people did not turn out to the polls).

Such attacks cannot be made against Sarah Palin because she really, sincerely is as insane as she seems.

my husband says that the palin nomination is designed to energize the base (and pick up any woman stupid enough to vote for him solely because he has a female running mate)

the religious right are not excited by mccain. he not an overtly religious man. so by picking a very religious woman with impeccable pro-life credentials he gives them a reason to get out and vote for him.

unfortunately he is supposed to "run to the right" in the primaries then "run to the center" in the general election. this bone to the ultra-conservatives comes at a very bad time to convince the centrist independents to vote for him.

Whatever his plan was with that, I doubt it'll work.

You got a point there. He's probably gonna get more female votes from the religious right, but I doubt Palin will convince any McCain voters.

How many female voters are there in the religious right? I mean, there's plenty of women, but how many actually vote?

I'm still terrified of her. The more I hear of her, the more like a practical joke she sounds to me, but on the other hand, the more she sounds like crack cocaine for the radical religious right of the US. One of the worries for the Republican side was losing the crazy bible-humper vote, which nudged Bush over the top two times, because they didn't trust McCain. The worry was that these people would opt out of the election and not vote at all, and that the Republicans did not have enough of a non-humper base to be sure of beating the Dems. Early attempts to sell McCain to these people had a backfire effect, as the Dem side attacked him for flip-flopping and pandering and harangued the Jeebus-nuts that they were being lied to just to get their votes (because it would definitely benefit the Dems if these people did not turn out to the polls).

Such attacks cannot be made against Sarah Palin because she really, sincerely is as insane as she seems.
and these people LOVE to be pandered to.

so when the VP makes pretty much no difference to national politics and policies they might come out to vote for "their girl" when they would never bother to get out of bed or skip lunch to vote for mccain.

which is why mccain is in so much trouble. even though he won the nomination by a crushing margin, the republican elite dont like him and never have. so he has to be distracted from winning the REST of the vote needed to give him victory to throw bones to the base that should be behind him.

it can still be done but the big time republicans (and conservative radio talk show hosts) have to put their differences aside and start working hard for him.

they cannot rely (as they seem to be) on the US voters being unwilling to elect a black man no matter how much they agree with him.

what is beginning to scare ME is their complacency. they seem to feel no real need to fight for the centrist independents.

im hoping its for the above mentioned assumption that the US isnt ready for a black president and not because they are counting on a pre-election terrorst attack to scare the public into voting republican.

How many female voters are there in the religious right? I mean, there's plenty of women, but how many actually vote?
There are so many polls floating around that I find it nearly impossible to find the ones I want, so I'm sorry I can't back this up, but I do remember hearing during the last mid-term election that women show up at the polls in greater numbers than men overall, and that among the religious right, women voters are a strong presence. I wish I could find actual numbers, sorry.

How many female voters are there in the religious right? I mean, there's plenty of women, but how many actually vote?
they vote. not in huge numbers because no group in the US votes in huge numbers.

im wondering how many of them are turned OFF because a woman should never be in such a position of power over men. (maybe those women are the least likely to vote anyway?)

and these people LOVE to be pandered to.

so when the VP makes pretty much no difference to national politics and policies they might come out to vote for "their girl" when they would never bother to get out of bed or skip lunch to vote for mccain.

which is why mccain is in so much trouble. even though he won the nomination by a crushing margin, the republican elite dont like him and never have. so he has to be distracted from winning the REST of the vote needed to give him victory to throw bones to the base that should be behind him.

it can still be done but the big time republicans (and conservative radio talk show hosts) have to put their differences aside and start working hard for him.

they cannot rely (as they seem to be) on the US voters being unwilling to elect a black man no matter how much they agree with him.

what is beginning to scare ME is their complacency. they seem to feel no real need to fight for the centrist independents.

im hoping its for the above mentioned assumption that the US isnt ready for a black president and not because they are counting on a pre-election terrorst attack to scare the public into voting republican.
Personally, I think both parties are being equally complacent on that score, and I think it has more to do with a complacent assumption that US voters are brainlessly partisan and just will not vote across party lines no matter what. In that, I am afraid they may be correct.

I am afraid of that because the actual partisan split in the US is nearly 50/50, and elections usually hang on who can win the votes of fringe groups. We have seen this graphically (and disastrously, imo) demonstrated by the last two presidential elections. After 2000 and 2004, if the Dems have not gotten it through their stupid heads that they MUST -- ABSOLUTELY MUST -- steal mainstream Republican votes over to their side to have enough of a tally to win decisively, then I give up on US politics.

they vote. not in huge numbers because no group in the US votes in huge numbers.

im wondering how many of them are turned OFF because a woman should never be in such a position of power over men. (maybe those women are the least likely to vote anyway?)
Actually, I think the opposite effect happens -- I think they are more likely to vote for a woman who seems to be one of their own, because voting is one of the few powers accorded to these women, and they exercise it for all it's worth. Even the few women who espouse the position that women should not have the vote, often cast votes themselves. Rightwing-religious women seem eager to have women in public view who look and act like their ideal of what women should be. Palin suits the role perfectly -- she is relatively pretty and feminine-looking; she has long hair which she does up, and she wears obvious make-up and jewelry (usually crosses); she does not come across as aggressive or powerful or comfortable in the spotlight, but rather seems as if she would prefer to be in the background, supporting the people (men) who lead, while herself being strong in defense of "morals" and "family." All this is especially strong if she is compared to Hillary, who these women hated. She is ideally packaged to get these women to the polls to vote the Republican ticket.

All this is especially strong if she is compared to Hillary, who these women hated. She is ideally packaged to get these women to the polls to vote the Republican ticket.
Yeah.

After a review of Palin's positions, I think I'd retract my bit earlier about her being less conservative than much of her party; early reports about her positions, in the first few hours after her nomination, were misleading.

I think the race for the White House has just got (even more) interesting. It'll be intriguing to see where Obama's campaign goes from here. Both McCain and Obama seemingly need to change tack in their propaganda, and though last week I thought Obama (unless he seriously fucked up) was most probably going to win, I'm not so sure now.

McCain's still got a fight on his hands, but (contrary to some comments on this thread) I think from his perspective Palin was a good choice, and it seems to have galvanised th e Republican campaign.

You never know, we might even see the campaign fought on issues, not character-assassination.

How many female voters are there in the religious right? I mean, there's plenty of women, but how many actually vote?

If my mother-in-law and her family are anything to go by, lots of them vote. And they vote for who their husband tells them to.

If my mother-in-law and her family are anything to go by, lots of them vote. And they vote for who their husband tells them to.

No offense, but that's just sad.

No offense, but that's just sad.

No offense to me, certainly. I find it offensive in and of itself. Welcome to Georgia, that's how things are done round here.

You never know, we might even see the campaign fought on issues, not character-assassination.
I wouldn't bet on that.

No offense to me, certainly. I find it offensive in and of itself. Welcome to Georgia, that's how things are done round here.

And my mom wonders why I can't stand the rest of her family...

How many female voters are there in the religious right? I mean, there's plenty of women, but how many actually vote?

The ones that usually don't are probably gonna turn out because there's a woman.

Such attacks cannot be made against Sarah Palin because she really, sincerely is as insane as she seems.
Perhaps you could detail this "insanity" you speak of, in regards to Sarah Palin?

Perhaps you could detail this "insanity" you speak of, in regards to Sarah Palin?

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

It's kinda oxymoronic......or just moronic, your pick really.

"I want men and women to be equal, also I don't want women to have the same rights over their healthcare as men"

YYou never know, we might even see the campaign fought on issues, not character-assassination.

That would be a welcome change. Gee, a race for president based on the issues and what the candidates would do when elected....but it probably won't happen. :(

http://www.feministsforlife.org/

It's kinda oxymoronic......or just moronic, your pick really.

"I want men and women to be equal, also I don't want women to have the same rights over their healthcare as men"
I don't see that quote in the link you provided. Do you have a better link?

I don't see that quote in the link you provided. Do you have a better link?

I'm sorry, that quote was mine, pointing out how insane the group is.

I'm sorry, that quote was mine, pointing out how insane the group is.

Yeah, like this quote from that crazy website of morons...

Does a woman who is pregnant really have a choice on campus? Or is she forced to choose between having a baby and sacrificing her education and career plans?

Do parents, who are keenly aware that their education has a direct impact on their ability to take care of their family, have the resources and support they need and deserve in order to complete their education?

Our questions began after a Feminists for Life board member revealed her pregnancy in college and said, "Without housing on campus for me and my baby, without on-site daycare, without maternity coverage in my health insurance, it sure doesn’t feel like I have much of a free choice."
http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/perception.htm

Clearly you are saying that it's totally insane to fight for things like that. Women shouldn't be allowed to be pregnant and go to school at the same time :rolleyes:

That would be a welcome change. Gee, a race for president based on the issues and what the candidates would do when elected....but it probably won't happen. :(
Not with people parading around in 'Redefeat Communism' t-shirts and the like, probably not...

I'm sorry, that quote was mine, pointing out how insane the group is.

Why are you calling them insane? Because they believe in giving an unborn child the chance to live? Is this all about the abortion issue or is something else about them bugging you?

Not with people parading around in 'Redefeat Communism' t-shirts and the like, probably not...

That was the primary and they never talk about issues there. :( They just beat each other up and kiss and make up later. I wonder is all politicians are masochists?

That was the primary and they never talk about issues there. :( They just beat each other up and kiss and make up later. I wonder is all politicians are masochists?

Are we pretending that you wouldn't be wearing that shirt right now if she had won or been selected as VP? Okay...I'm going to pretend I'm a sea captain!

Why are you calling them insane? Because they believe in giving an unborn child the chance to live? Is this all about the abortion issue or is something else about them bugging you?

Do you understand what the word oxymoron means?

They are a group, of "feminists" who want to criminalize abortions.

Are we pretending that you wouldn't be wearing that shirt right now if she had won or been selected as VP? Okay...I'm going to pretend I'm a sea captain!

Actually if she had won I probably would vote for a third party candidate as there isn't much difference between Hillary and McCain. If she had been selected as VP, I would have had to buy a new shirt. Probably this one;

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-mcgovern.jpg

Do you understand what the word oxymoron means?

They are a group, of "feminists" who want to criminalize abortions.

Yes, they are feminists not feminazis. :eek2: So, why can't a woman be a feminist and against abortion? Isn't there something other than abortion that defines a feminist?

Yes, they are feminists not feminazis. :eek2: So, why can't a woman be a feminist and against abortion? Isn't there something other than abortion that defines a feminist?

Sure, a woman can not like abortion and be a feminist. I don't like abortion, I think it's often morally wrong.........however, I don't want to criminalize it.

I think a feminist would want women to be allowed to make choices about their healthcare, just.like.men.do.

Don't start in with all the crap about 'men can't abort pregnancies' either, or I'll seek to criminalize prostate tumor removal.

Yeah, like this quote from that crazy website of morons...

Does a woman who is pregnant really have a choice on campus? Or is she forced to choose between having a baby and sacrificing her education and career plans?

Do parents, who are keenly aware that their education has a direct impact on their ability to take care of their family, have the resources and support they need and deserve in order to complete their education?

Our questions began after a Feminists for Life board member revealed her pregnancy in college and said, "Without housing on campus for me and my baby, without on-site daycare, without maternity coverage in my health insurance, it sure doesn’t feel like I have much of a free choice."
http://www.feministsforlife.org/cop/perception.htm

Clearly you are saying that it's totally insane to fight for things like that. Women shouldn't be allowed to be pregnant and go to school at the same time :rolleyes:

What is totally insane is to think a primary solution to this problem is to force women to carry pregnancies to term whether they want to or not.

Yes, they are feminists not feminazis. :eek2: So, why can't a woman be a feminist and against abortion? Isn't there something other than abortion that defines a feminist?

Not that I expect to have a rational conversation about feminism or women's rights with someone that uses the term "feminazi," but pray tell what defines these women as feminists? They define themselves almost exclusively by their opposition to abortion -- with opposition to death with dignity and support for things like "father's rights" thrown in to make the conservative package complete.

I'm sorry, that quote was mine, pointing out how insane the group is.
Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?

BTW, still waiting for Muravyets reply to this:

Such attacks cannot be made against Sarah Palin because she really, sincerely is as insane as she seems.
Perhaps you could detail this "insanity" you speak of, in regards to Sarah Palin?

Actually if she had won I probably would vote for a third party candidate as there isn't much difference between Hillary and McCain. If she had been selected as VP, I would have had to buy a new shirt. Probably this one;

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-mcgovern.jpg

Okay, that's it. You're on ignore.

Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?
Didn't do that. Nice try though.

Perhaps you could detail this "insanity" you speak of, in regards to Sarah Palin?
Sure.

She is anti-choice. She is pro-death-penalty. She is a major supporter of teaching creationism in public schools in place of science. She is a major supporter of the gun lobby. Her environmental record stinks, as she supports plans that would cause massive damage to Alaska, other areas and US coastal waters. She is a religious fundamentalist who injects religion into her political work to an extent that borders on violation of the separation of church and state. She is a liar who pays lipservice to the environment and public interest while paying court to energy corporations, and who pays lipservice to civil rights while loudly championing movements and joining groups which seek to restrict, even gut, civil rights for women, gays, and minority religions.

I put all that together, and I see one crazy individual, and I think it would be insanity to put her in any position of power higher than the one the nuts in Alaska have already given her.

Clear enough?

<snip>

Clearly you are saying that it's totally insane to fight for things like that. Women shouldn't be allowed to be pregnant and go to school at the same time :rolleyes:
Strawmen must be fun to hit, since they don't hit back. Say, are they also full of candy, like pinatas?

Why are you calling them insane? Because they believe in giving an unborn child the chance to live? Is this all about the abortion issue or is something else about them bugging you?
I know you weren't asking me, but speaking just for myself, the bolded part would be reason enough, right there, ESPECIALLY as they back it up by lobbying to have abortion criminalized.

Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?
As Smunkee said, she did not attribute that quote to anyone. But fyi, Palin is a member of Feminists for Life.

BTW, still waiting for Muravyets reply to this:
Sorry, I was busy having a life on a mild, sunny afternoon. Your answer has been posted, above.

Okay, that's it. You're on ignore.

Why be react to trite like that? Could say you're buying this instead:

http://images.cafepress.com/product/283119608v3_350x350_Front.jpg

Sure.

She is anti-choice. She is pro-death-penalty. She is a major supporter of teaching creationism in public schools in place of science. She is a major supporter of the gun lobby.
None of the above makes her insane? You just don't like her choices?

Her environmental record stinks, as she supports plans that would cause massive damage to Alaska, other areas and US coastal waters.
She supports an environmentally safe method of extraction and control?

She is a religious fundamentalist who injects religion into her political work to an extent that borders on violation of the separation of church and state.
Any examples?

She is a liar who pays lipservice to the environment and public interest while paying court to energy corporations,
How does this relate to your claim of "insanity" and can you provide specifics?

and who pays lipservice to civil rights while loudly championing movements and joining groups which seek to restrict, even gut, civil rights for women, gays, and minority religions.
Civil rights can be entirely subjective? Again can you provide examples that would demonstrate that these actions are those of an "insane" person?

I put all that together, and I see one crazy individual, and I think it would be insanity to put her in any position of power higher than the one the nuts in Alaska have already given her.

Clear enough?
So in other words, your claim of "insanity" is relative to your reality but has no actual basis in fact?

None of the above makes her insane? You just don't like her choices?
I meant what I said.

She supports an environmentally safe method of extraction and control?
Are you asking me? If so, I'd say no, she doesn't. See my other comment about her being a liar.

Any examples?
As many as you provide. Her record is common knowledge. If you are considering voting for McCain, you really should look her up.

How does this relate to your claim of "insanity" and can you provide specifics?
It relates to the overall insanity of giving her power and the insanity of her positions which are completely inconsistent. And the specifics are part of her public record, too, in particular her support for drilling in wilderness areas and removal of environmental controls on industrial exploration and development.

Civil rights can be entirely subjective?
Again, are you asking me? In that case, no again, they can't be entirely subjective because rights are legal constructs, and thus not subjective.

Again can you provide examples that would demonstrate that these actions are those of an "insane" person?
She opposes gay marriage and supports the criminalization of abortion. Both of those contribute the insanity of the proposition to give her more power. The fact that she misrepresents her own record on these matters contributes to the insane inconsistencies of her statements and actions.

So in other words, your claim of "insanity" is relative to your reality but has no actual basis in fact?
It's called expressing an opinion.

I'm surprised you didn't recognize it, since virtually everything you say on these forums is relative only to your reality and has no actual basis in fact.

HEAR YE, HEAR YE!

Now we see CH defending McCain's vice-presidential pick, who opposes EVERYTHING, I repeat, EVERYTHING Clinton stood for, by the looks of it all only because of her internal pumbling!

Quooood erat...

DEMONSTRANDUM!

I swear, if I approach Biden with a pair of scissors in the middle of the night, will you stop pandering the moment you hear him talking in a high pitch?

HEAR YE, HEAR YE!

Now we see CH defending McCain's vice-presidential pick, who opposes EVERYTHING, I repeat, EVERYTHING Clinton stood for, by the looks of it all only because of her internal pumbling!

Quooood erat...

DEMONSTRANDUM!

I swear, if I approach Biden with a pair of scissors in the middle of the night, will you stop pandering the moment you hear him talking in a high pitch?

Everyone knows CH was the first in line to buy into I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary.

Everyone knows CH was the first in line to buy into I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary.

B-b-b-but... BUT SHE HAS A VAGINA! PROGRESS!!!

Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?

Can you please show me where she claimed she was quoting Palin? I don't see it in her post.

Everyone knows CH was the first in line to buy into I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary.

He's not just defending her. He's defending her positions as well. Because, of course, that's very consistent with the positions that he was defending of Hillary Clinton.

Not to mention that Palin is pretty commonly seen to be pro-American aggression, which is what he claimed turned him off of Obama (because it's aggressive to focus on the person who attacked you rather than just people who come from the same country, according to CH).

I wouldn't bet on that.

Depends on the size of the bet. I mean, if I put $1 on a long shot like that I'm not out much if I loose, but if I actually happen to win then I've made a vast profit (I mean, what are the odds, a million to one at least, right?).