NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

Could we please stop using the false, misleading, and emotionally charged term "unborn child" when what we are discussing is either a fetus or an embryo?

unborn child

An "unborn child" is like an "unfucked orgy". It doesn't exist because it was never done.

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?

Large portions of that aren't actually insane in anyway. You could however have brought up something that indicates that she may have some form of MPD. She is allegedly FOR equal rights for gays but AGAINST gay marriage. So either she has more than one personality, or she's lying.

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?

You owe me a keyboard.

An "unborn child" is like an "unfucked orgy". It doesn't exist because it was never done.

Make that TWO keyboards. And more coke, it keeps winding up on my keyboard instead of in me.

Large portions of that aren't actually insane in anyway. You could however have brought up something that indicates that she may have some form of MPD. She is allegedly FOR equal rights for gays but AGAINST gay marriage. So either she has more than one personality, or she's lying.
She can be crazy and a liar at the same time. Why limit the woman?

In any event, whether she's insane, or it's insanity to make her VP, either way it's all aboard the crazy train with her.

Could we please stop using the false, misleading, and emotionally charged term "unborn child" when what we are discussing is either a fetus or an embryo?

yes and while we are at it lets only refer to humans as humans or homosapiens. No more declaring them people and attaching personalities. Just because a term is dry and scientific does not make said term more correct.

Everyone knows CH was the first in line to buy into I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary.

<snip> I'm surprised you didn't recognize it, since virtually everything you say on these forums is relative only to your reality ...<snip>.

*sigh* I quote these only as examples. There's too much low-level sniping going on. The following modly remarks are directed generally, not individually: (1) Argue the post, not the poster. (2) If you've been sniping, cut it out.

Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?

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

Another example. Okay, it's a standard debating trick to focus on someone's rhetorical flourish and insist that it be supported in factual detail. Too much of it, and you're a one-trick pony. That becomes annoying to other posters, which leads to flaming and flamebaiting. Don't.

Okay, that's it. You're on ignore.

HEAR YE, HEAR YE!

Now we see CH defending McCain's vice-presidential pick ...<snip>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?

See what Kyronea just did, CH, Heikoku? That's the way it's done. However, I can't make you do it.

What I can do is this: Heikoku 2, CanuckHeaven, do not discuss each other's past, present or future posts on the American election 2008. In addition, should there be any occurrence of your evident mutual sensitivity carrying over into discussions on other topics, you can expect mod action.

See what Kyronea just did, CH, Heikoku? That's the way it's done. However, I can't make you do it.

"Okay, that's it." He's on Ignore. :p

You're not getting that keyboard, Redwulf. ;)

Thank you.

*sigh* I quote these only as examples. There's too much low-level sniping going on. The following modly remarks are directed generally, not individually: (1) Argue the post, not the poster. (2) If you've been sniping, cut it out.



Another example. Okay, it's a standard debating trick to focus on someone's rhetorical flourish and insist that it be supported in factual detail. Too much of it, and you're a one-trick pony. That becomes annoying to other posters, which leads to flaming and flamebaiting. Don't.


Due to the above, I'll have to put him on ignore as well. Sorry, and thanks for the reminder.

Due to the above, I'll have to put him on ignore as well. Sorry, and thanks for the reminder.

You're your own best advisor, Murayvets. I think of the Ignore function as something to use if your reaction to another poster has become so toxic that the mere sight of their name compels you to mock, attack or personally denigrate them.

I've never had to use it, but my garden does get dug over far more often than it really needs. I think the dog gets taken for far too many walks, too, but he doesn't.:wink:

BTW, my comment about rhetorical flourishes was not aimed at you. If I recall correctly, you made a minor rhetorical flourish; you're not to blame for it being needlessly skewered, roasted, minced and regurgitated.

You're your own best advisor, Murayvets. I think of the Ignore function as something to use if your reaction to another poster has become so toxic that the mere sight of their name compels you to mock, attack or personally denigrate them.
*puts the entirety of NSG on ignore save Ashmoria and Redwulf*

Thanks!

You're your own best advisor, Murayvets. I think of the Ignore function as something to use if your reaction to another poster has become so toxic that the mere sight of their name compels you to mock, attack or personally denigrate them.

I've never had to use it, but my garden does get dug over far more often than it really needs. I think the dog gets taken for far too many walks, too, but he doesn't.:wink:
:D Good points.

I use the ignore function rarely and as a "time out" measure. I've never kept anyone on it more than a couple of months. I figure my best bet to avoid rising to someone's bait is not to see it dangling until my mood improves.

*puts the entirety of NSG on ignore save Ashmoria and Redwulf*

Thanks!

What?! Even me? :(

BTW, my comment about rhetorical flourishes was not aimed at you. If I recall correctly, you made a minor rhetorical flourish; you're not to blame for it being needlessly skewered, roasted, minced and regurgitated.
Thanks. :) But I am to blame for letting a certain person get under my skin even for a minute. My tolerance levels this summer are too low. Ignore is my friend.

What?! Even me? :(

I think you annoyed me before......once.........in 2006.

*puts the entirety of NSG on ignore save Ashmoria and Redwulf*

Thanks!

*suddenly feels like chopped liver*

Maybe they can believe it's not Hillary Clinton... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/31/cnn-poll-obama-49-mccain-48/)

Men appear to have a slightly favorably opinion of Palin than women; 41 percent of men view her favorably, five points higher than women.
...
Three quarters of all voters think McCain chose a female running mate specifically because he thought adding a woman to the Republican ticket would help him win in November.

“If McCain was hoping to boost his share of the women's vote, it didn't work,” Holland said.

“Women now appear slightly more likely to vote for Obama than they did a week ago, 53 percent now, compared to 50 percent.
Also-
Fifty percent say she is unqualified to assume the presidency if that becomes necessary; 45 percent say she’s prepared for the White House.

In recent history, the only running mate to earn less confidence from the public was Vice President Dan Quayle in 1992.
Well, at least she beat Dan Quayle...

Now, granted, the lead line in this particular survey is that the race is still close-
On the eve of the Republican convention, a new national poll suggests the race for the White House remains dead even.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Sunday night shows the Obama-Biden ticket leading the McCain-Palin ticket by one point, 49 percent to 48 percent, a statistical dead heat.

The survey was conducted Friday through Sunday, after both the conclusion of the Democratic convention and McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate.

A previous CNN poll, taken just one week earlier, suggested the race between Sens. McCain, R-Arizona, and Obama, D-Illinois, was tied at 47 percent each.

“The convention — and particularly Obama's speech — seems to be well-received. And the selection of Sarah Palin as the GOP running mate, also seems to be well-received. So why is the race still a virtual tie? Probably because the two events created equal and opposite bounces — assuming that either one created a bounce at all,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
The poll is fairly adrift of Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109903/Gallup-Daily-ObamaBiden-Ticket-Leads-Points.aspx), which itself is down two points from yesterday and draws fewer conclusions-
Though down slightly from the eight-point lead Obama held mid-convention, this represents a clear improvement for the Democratic candidate's positioning in the campaign compared to a week ago when the race was about tied. The last Gallup update conducted entirely before Obama's convention and vice presidential announcement was based on interviews conducted Aug. 20-22, and showed Obama up by two points, 46% to 44%. (To view the complete trend since March 7, 2008 click here.)

As the recent trend shows, Obama did not gain any additional support in the poll since his generally well-reviewed acceptance speech on Thursday night. However, the Aug. 28-30 field period also includes two days of interviewing since the Friday morning announcement by McCain that he has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to join him on the Republican ticket. Thus, it is unclear whether the full positive impact on national voters of the Democratic convention or Obama's speech would have been greater if not for the Palin announcement.
Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) has a rosier picture of the Palin pick-
There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.
Compare this-
Palin herself made a good first impression and is now viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide. Her counterpart, Joe Biden, is viewed favorably by 48%.
to this-
So far, according to the poll, four in 10 Americans are not familiar with Palin. Thirty-eight percent of those questioned viewed her favorably and 21 percent unfavorably.

To undermine my whole post, it seems that this is the truest thing-
the more significant numbers will come a week from now after the nation has a chance to learn more about her.

I was unable to find a poll that gave 'awesome' as an option.

*puts the entirety of NSG on ignore save Ashmoria and Redwulf*

Thanks!

Fine, I didn't want you to read my posts anyway...[/sour grapes]

I will say this Palin move has me curious as my first response was "who?" It would not matter to me if she was a master at her job. I don't like McCain and I will not give her a chance because of that.

Never mind the fact that after "nosing" around, I still wouldn't vote for her as I don't like her politics. The experience thing is a BS argument. Length of service is no indicator of a good leader.

If she was picked as a pandering move, it's more effective I think for the male vote. I was surprised to hear a couple registered Democrats say they were going to vote for McCain because of this choice. However, they went on to mention they were afraid of Obama because he was the secret Muslim candidate?!?!?! Ignorance and stupidity can abound these days. I wonder how many people have even read the Constitution? The fact he could be a diehard Muslim means absolutely NOTHING to the running of this country. The Constitution protects us from Religious mandates.

So where do I have issues with Palin?

She is one of typical prolife hypocrites. Typical in that they will yabber on about life being sacred in matters of abortion and yet are all for executing criminals. I have no issues people who are truly prolife. That's their thing and I am ok with it.

Drilling as a solution? It's no solution. Excluding the fact that it would take 10 years to realize anything from the field; it does not address the issue of oil dependecy. We don't have the reserves equal to that that of the ME. Also, people forget the oil we get from these wells could very well end up being sent over seas.

Instead of trying to extend the use of the gas combustion engine, we should be looking to replace it.

She sounds like she believes business before environment. This is just as bad as environment before business. We need to find a balance between the two. She could not do this.

The ethics thing comes to mind.

Granted I don't know her that well but I am looking out of curiosity.

One thing that is funny? The term feminist always annoyed me to no end. However, the republicans have turned me into one.

-edit-

Whoops I forgot her Creationist stance. Big minus for me......

Maybe they can believe it's not Hillary Clinton... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/31/cnn-poll-obama-49-mccain-48/)


Also-

Well, at least she beat Dan Quayle...

Now, granted, the lead line in this particular survey is that the race is still close-

The poll is fairly adrift of Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109903/Gallup-Daily-ObamaBiden-Ticket-Leads-Points.aspx), which itself is down two points from yesterday and draws fewer conclusions-

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) has a rosier picture of the Palin pick-

Compare this-

to this-


To undermine my whole post, it seems that this is the truest thing-


I was unable to find a poll that gave 'awesome' as an option.

My impression from all of this is that while it gives McCain a temporary initial boost, that's all it will be. And if anything, it'll be a lot weaker than it would have been.

No doubt Hurricane Gustav will contribute to that, especially with the scaled down Republican convention. McCain might've caused Obama's boost from the DNC to dissipate more rapidly than it would have otherwise, but his boost will do the exact same.

My issue with Palin is creationism let alone pro-life. There's 3 SC seats up for grabs in the next administration I think - do people really want this?

A belief in creationism enters into my definition of insane.

I also suspect John McCain is in the early stages of senile dementia but I don't care to present any evidence.

Anyway, I suspect his temper will blow before the election.

I think you annoyed me before......once.........in 2006.
Wow, and I thought I was unforgiving...

Maybe they can believe it's not Hillary Clinton... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/31/cnn-poll-obama-49-mccain-48/)


Also-

Well, at least she beat Dan Quayle...

Now, granted, the lead line in this particular survey is that the race is still close-

The poll is fairly adrift of Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/109903/Gallup-Daily-ObamaBiden-Ticket-Leads-Points.aspx), which itself is down two points from yesterday and draws fewer conclusions-

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) has a rosier picture of the Palin pick-

Compare this-

to this-


To undermine my whole post, it seems that this is the truest thing-


I was unable to find a poll that gave 'awesome' as an option.
Your post made me feel better and then made me feel worse and then left me back where I started. Thanks for the minicoaster ride. :tongue:

Your post made me feel better and then made me feel worse and then left me back where I started. Thanks for the minicoaster ride. :tongue:

That's me, the kinda funky thrill ride at the end of the midway that takes up the last of your tickets but you weren't sure you'd go on it because the operator looks a little sketchy.

My issue with Palin is creationism let alone pro-life. There's 3 SC seats up for grabs in the next administration I think - do people really want this?

A belief in creationism enters into my definition of insane.

I also suspect John McCain is in the early stages of senile dementia but I don't care to present any evidence.

Anyway, I suspect his temper will blow before the election.

There are really three Supreme Court nominations up for the next administration?!

This election suddenly became far more important than I had realized. We cannot afford to have McCain as President. We cannot.

yes and while we are at it lets only refer to humans as humans or homosapiens. No more declaring them people and attaching personalities. Just because a term is dry and scientific does not make said term more correct.

No, the fact that fetuses and embryos are not yet children makes the terms more correct than "unborn child" - a term which is factually in error as well as an oxymoron.

Well, I've read through this entire thread now. Yes, all 52 pages of it. And what I have learned from this thread is the following:

Palin was nothing more than a desperate grab by McCain to try and get some of the disheartened Hillary voters, as well as a few others who might get up to vote purely on the basis of genetalia. She was chosen by McCain not because she was the best candidate, but because he had nothing to lose. This was a risky gamble with no foresight as to the consequences if, god forbid, he wins.

She is not fit for the position. She has had less than two years state experience, and none on a national level. In the (likely) event of McCain's death during office, she would make a horribly inadequate president. Her pick was a selfish decision by McCain, in that it clearly shows that he wants to win, rather than wants what's best for his country.

She reminds me of Maggie Thatch. Scary, no?

She claims to be feminist, yet is against freedom of choice, and indeed, wants to inflict pain and suffering onto women simply because they got knocked up (the mental and physical pain and suffering of having to have a child you don't want). Sounds like a classic contradiction.

She is bias towards oil companies (her husband working for BP and all). This will do nothing beneficial to the US, or the world as a whole. Fossil fuels will need to be replaced, and soon. She is clearly not for this.

McCain was feeling lonely, and wanted some arm candy by his side to make him feel better about losing this election.

Obama and the dems will have to play their cards right to win this election, but it can be done.

Before her nomination, I was convinced Obama needed to win and McCain needed to lose. Now, that idea has been magnified many many times.

A McCain victory would be perceived by the republicans as a justification for the Bush years, so we would see nothing but a continuation of the failed Bush politics of the past 8 years, something which the US simply cannot afford.

Just my thoughts.

Well, I've read through this entire thread now. Yes, all 52 pages of it. And what I have learned from this thread is the following:

Palin was nothing more than a desperate grab by McCain to try and get some of the disheartened Hillary voters, as well as a few others who might get up to vote purely on the basis of genetalia. She was chosen by McCain not because she was the best candidate, but because he had nothing to lose. This was a risky gamble with no foresight as to the consequences if, god forbid, he wins.

She is not fit for the position. She has had less than two years state experience, and none on a national level. In the (likely) event of McCain's death during office, she would make a horribly inadequate president. Her pick was a selfish decision by McCain, in that it clearly shows that he wants to win, rather than wants what's best for his country.

She reminds me of Maggie Thatch. Scary, no?

She claims to be feminist, yet is against freedom of choice, and indeed, wants to inflict pain and suffering onto women simply because they got knocked up (the mental and physical pain and suffering of having to have a child you don't want). Sounds like a classic contradiction.

She is bias towards oil companies (her husband working for BP and all). This will do nothing beneficial to the US, or the world as a whole. Fossil fuels will need to be replaced, and soon. She is clearly not for this.

McCain was feeling lonely, and wanted some arm candy by his side to make him feel better about losing this election.

Obama and the dems will have to play their cards right to win this election, but it can be done.

Before her nomination, I was convinced Obama needed to win and McCain needed to lose. Now, that idea has been magnified many many times.

A McCain victory would be perceived by the republicans as a justification for the Bush years, so we would see nothing but a continuation of the failed Bush politics of the past 8 years, something which the US simply cannot afford.

Just my thoughts.
Nicely expressed, and thanks for getting us back on track. :)

I would also point out that, if she should become president in the event of McCain's death or incapacitation, everything you've pointed out above PLUS her particular social and political philosophies would make her a willing puppet to corporate special interests. Do we want more of that so much that we would be willing to set up the ideal person to give it to us?

JuNii's attempts to argue that a VP candidate should be held to a different skills standard than a presidential candidate were nonsense, obviously, because the whole point of having a VP is to hold a replacement president in reserve, just in case. Anyone who looks at a VP candidate as anything other than a potential president is being a fool, in my opinion.

If a ticket is put together well, both Pres and VP candidates will have presidential skills and qualities. Both should be seen as viable president material. Now people can argue about Obama's experience level versus Palin's all day long, but one cannot get around the fact that Biden is a shitload more presidential than Palin could ever be twisted or slanted to seem. In choosing Biden, Obama has indicated that he is planning to build a cabinet that will and can carry out the work of the nation's government. In choosing Palin, McCain has shown that he isn't even thinking about that at this point. What does he think will happen if he wins -- that he'll get to pick a "real" VP, once the "marketing" VP has done her job?

If a president dies or becomes incapacitated and the VP steps in, it's not like if both of them died, the next links down the chain of command were to step in. Those lower officials are appointees. BOTH the president and the VP are elected by the people. We could say the others were forced upon us by circumstance, but we can't say that about a VP we voted for. The VP is not just a decoration to a presidential candidate. He/she is an elected official, and American voters need to remember that and choose BOTH accordingly.

EDIT: Another thing to remember is that, because the VP is elected, if McCain/Palin win and it turns out she really is as disastrous as she could be, she cannot be replaced, unlike those lower officials. A president can fire and replace appointees at will. He can't do that with an official elected by the people.

I'll be honest. I often wish we would go back to the original way this was done -- when the VP was the loser of the general election. :) I would think that would tend to keep the voters focused on what they were voting for.

All I want to know is does conservapedia refer to her as the first affirmitive action vice president in the way it refers to Obama as the first affirmitive action president?

All I want to know is does conservapedia refer to her as the first affirmitive action vice president in the way it refers to Obama as the first affirmitive action president?

They're Conservapedia, are we to expect them to behave like reasonable people?

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

I married the reasonable one, and pretty much ignore everyone else. It gets worse though - at least the older generation are just racist, sexist homophobic assholes who think you shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen unless you're Christian.

The next generations are libertarians. It's like watching the genepool slide into hell.

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?

It's the fact that they call themselves 'feminists' (which, as I'm sure you've heard) is about bringing equality between the sexes - and then object to basic fundamental equality in rights.

It's called hypocrisy.

Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?


She didn't.

And pretending she did is neither useful, nor constructive.

She didn't.

And pretending she did is neither useful, nor constructive.
Nit picking much? She is the one that used quotation marks (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13972251&postcount=721) not me. I took it on face value that she was actually quoting Palin.

It's the fact that they call themselves 'feminists' (which, as I'm sure you've heard) is about bringing equality between the sexes - and then object to basic fundamental equality in rights.

It's called hypocrisy.

No, it is called giving the unborn child his/her right to life.

Nit picking much? She is the one that used quotation marks (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13972251&postcount=721) not me. I took it on face value that she was actually quoting Palin.

She didn't say she was quoting anyone, at all.

I immediately assumed she was making a kind of 'in character' comment, to explain what the perceived problem (Which I believe is the vidicated position, actually).

In absence of citation, quotation marks just mean that something is being 'said'.

It's not really nitpicking to point out that you are attacking someone else based on your own failure to understand.

Another example. Okay, it's a standard debating trick to focus on someone's rhetorical flourish and insist that it be supported in factual detail. Too much of it, and you're a one-trick pony. That becomes annoying to other posters, which leads to flaming and flamebaiting. Don't.

Nit picking much? She is the one that used quotation marks (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13972251&postcount=721) not me. I took it on face value that she was actually quoting Palin.
Ahem...

No, it is called giving the unborn child his/her right to life.

I think you're missing the point.

Here's what you wrote:

"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?

Here's what I wrote:

"It's the fact that they call themselves 'feminists' (which, as I'm sure you've heard) is about bringing equality between the sexes - and then object to basic fundamental equality in rights.

It's called hypocrisy."

You asked why they were being called insane, whether it was about an (appeal to emotion) issue of abortion, or if there were some other issue.

I explained that the 'problem' was being perceived as a conflict of interests. The idea of promoting equality between the genders, and then stating as an additional platform, an intent to remove sexual rights from women... is either illogical, or pure hypocrisy.

I don't want to discuss whether it's abortion or baby-murder. I don't want to discuss with you whether women should have abortion rights or not. I have absolutely no interest in your perspectives on the issue, and those perspectives are TOTALLY irrelevent to the question you had asked, and I had answered.


If you want to debate if abortion is right or not, start another thread, and I'll wipe the floor with every pre-Victorian concoction you can manufacture. But that isn't this thread.

She didn't say she was quoting anyone, at all.

I immediately assumed she was making a kind of 'in character' comment, to explain what the perceived problem (Which I believe is the vidicated position, actually).

In absence of citation, quotation marks just mean that something is being 'said'.

It's not really nitpicking to point out that you are attacking someone else based on your own failure to understand.
I guess my "failure to understand", as far as you are concerned, is based on a difference between your "assumption" and mine.

Ahem...
Ahem? Give me a break. You have been whacking at the sides throughout.

Ahem? Give me a break. You have been whacking at the sides throughout.

Okey dokey, Pokey.

I guess my "failure to understand", as far as you are concerned, is based on a difference between your "assumption" and mine.

Are you saying you DID understand? If so - why pretend you didn't?

It's not about "as far as" I am "concerned". Either you understood it, or you didn't. And, I can't change that. I did, however, explain to you that she wasn't 'quoting' anyone.

I honestly don't know why you are still talking to me about it. Go tell her you get it, now, and you retract your attack.

Are you saying you DID understand? If so - why pretend you didn't?

It's not about "as far as" I am "concerned". Either you understood it, or you didn't. And, I can't change that. I did, however, explain to you that she wasn't 'quoting' anyone.

I honestly don't know why you are still talking to me about it. Go tell her you get it, now, and you retract your attack.
I am talking to you because you are the one who picked the scab. There is nothing for me to apologize for in that it wasn't me who created the misconception about Sarah Palin's sanity.

I am talking to you because you are the one who picked the scab. There is nothing for me to apologize for in that it wasn't me who created the misconception about Sarah Palin's sanity.

Here's what you said:

"Then attributing that quote to Sarah Palin was not particulary useful or constructive?

It wasn't attributed to Sarah Palin. Or anyone.

Thus, attacking it as 'not particularly useful or constructive', based on the false premise you claim... means it was you that "picked the scab". All I did, was point out that no such attribution was made, which you claim was nit-picking?

Nit-Picking? So - what... whether she said what you claim she said or not... is a trivial detail, not worth consideration?

I told you, I've explained to you where you went wrong, and I have no real interest in you trying to make some big argument about it. You were wrong - I showed you where you were wrong. Job done, as far as I'm concerned.

Job done, as far as I'm concerned.
Good!! Perhaps you will sleep well tonight as a result.

Good!! Perhaps you will sleep well tonight as a result.

Errr, yeah. Probably.

Thanks?

Sarah Palin...Isn't she Alaska's first Muslim governor?

Hey, it's worth a shot.

I am talking to you because you are the one who picked the scab. There is nothing for me to apologize for in that it wasn't me who created the misconception about Sarah Palin's sanity.

Which isn't relelevant to her in-character summary of the issue. You chose to launch an attack based on an obvious misconception. You KNEW it was a misconception and did it on purpose, which is why Ard pointed it out.

No one here believes you're completely unfamiliar with rhetoric, but if you'd actually like to continue to pretend that you aren't, I'll be happy to explain rhetoric to you. Start a thread. Till then, your feigned ignorance of rhetoric is baiting or a hijack.

I married the reasonable one, and pretty much ignore everyone else. It gets worse though - at least the older generation are just racist, sexist homophobic assholes who think you shouldn't be allowed to be a citizen unless you're Christian.

The next generations are libertarians. It's like watching the genepool slide into hell.
Wait, you married a member of my family?

Seriously though, you're right. It's so ridiculous.

Sadly when I'm in South Carolina for awhile my family members in the South are going to want to see me. :(

No, it is called giving the unborn child his/her right to life.
A) No one has a right to use another person's body against that person's will. Period.

B) This is not an abortion thread.

Oh hey, look at this...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-palin-daughter_N.htm

Oh hey, look at this...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-01-palin-daughter_N.htm

All over these forums already. In fact, it has its own thread;)

Nit picking much? She is the one that used quotation marks (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13972251&postcount=721) not me. I took it on face value that she was actually quoting Palin.

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

All over these forums already. In fact, it has its own thread;)

Oh. Well, since it's relevant to this thread, it's probably good that it's here now too.

CanuckHeaven, warned (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13965459&postcount=544) once. Advised (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13973455&postcount=758) once. Since I'm not getting through to you any other way, banned once, for 24 hours; reason, see my comments in the earlier infraction note.

Grave_n_idle, "picking the scab" is a pretty accurate description of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13974582&postcount=785). CH didn't need to reply to it, but you didn't need to open up that particular discussion again; it'd been dealt with. To see the original post, you would have had to at least skim the ensuing discussion, so you were not unaware of the situation. Warned.

Celtlund and opponents, the abortion topic queue is down the street. Please shut the door gently on your way out.

Fonzica, the issue is relevant, but, judging by the volume of response, it needs its own thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=564769). This one will do fine for other issues related to the Republicans' VP candidate.

Anyone else hearing noises that McCain's going to drop Palin from the ticket?

Anyone else hearing noises that McCain's going to drop Palin from the ticket?

I doubt he will, as his judgement is already being called into question. Now he has to stay the course and make it seem like he knew all this all along, rather then he just did a piss poor job investigating her.


But, if he did drop her I would find it hilarious.


Can you source where you heard this?

Anyone else hearing noises that McCain's going to drop Palin from the ticket?

I'd put that in the same catagory as the 'rumors' that the Democratic delegates where thinking of doing a switch-a-roo at the convention and nominating someone else. She's bringin' in the dough (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5700022&page=1), and he's finally getting the base. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/01/us/politics/01poll.html?ref=todayspaper)

If he bails on her now he'll look worse. They're painting his decision as bold-if they go back on that it's hard to spin that narrative.

I think it's just pundits filling air space.

I doubt he will, as his judgement is already being called into question. Now he has to stay the course and make it seem like he knew all this all along, rather then he just did a piss poor job investigating her.


But, if he did drop her I would find it hilarious.


Can you source where you heard this?

Might have already been linked, it came out a couple of hours ago and I looked through the last few pages to check, but at any rate (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/us/politics/02vetting.html?em):


Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin’s background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.

Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.

While there was no sign that her formal nomination this week was in jeopardy, the questions swirling around Ms. Palin on the first day of the Republican National Convention, already disrupted by Hurricane Gustav, brought anxiety to Republicans who worried that Democrats would use the selection of Ms. Palin to question Mr. McCain’s judgment and his ability to make crucial decisions.

At the least, Republicans close to the campaign said it was increasingly apparent that Ms. Palin had been selected as Mr. McCain’s running mate with more haste than McCain advisers initially described.

I think it's just pundits filling air space.

Ah well, a girl can dream.

Also, from the same article:

Although The Washington Post quoted advisers to Mr. McCain on Sunday as saying Ms. Palin had been subjected to an F.B.I. background check, an F.B.I. official said Monday the bureau did not vet potential candidates and had not known of her selection until it was made public.

Anyone else hearing noises that McCain's going to drop Palin from the ticket?

It's true...

John McCain has revealed that his apparent choice of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running-mate was, as many observers predicted, a carefully-staged hoax. "Yeah, right," McCain campaign manager Rick Davis said of Palin, laughing with reporters. "As if! What do we look like, a bunch of complete lackwits? You guys will believe anything."

McCain's actual running mate will be a ham sandwich.

The sandwich, said by analysts to be "a little light on the ham," has never held any public office and is incapable of speech or rational thought. It is thought that the choice will solidify McCain's credentials as a "maverick."

"John McCain makes decisions with his gut," said Davis. "That's what Americans like, right?"

Some Democrats questioned whether a sandwich was qualified to be the Vice President of the United States, let alone President if anything should happen to McCain, 72.

Republican spokesmen fired back that any attempt to criticize the sandwich in any way would constitute a display of bigotry.

"Sandwiches are as American as apple pie," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers, "and it's just like the Democrats to attack them, and, by implication, our entire American way of life, and, by further extension, the very human act of eating, and, by even further extension, life itself, and, by extensive extension, the very concept of existence, both for human beings, and indeed, for the entire universe and, perhaps, even alternative universes."

He suggested that Democrats would probably favor some more "Middle-Eastern-sounding food," such as "kabobs or tacos or something."

Link (http://philosoraptor.blogspot.com/2008/08/ham-sandwich-mccains-actual-choice-for.html)

Also, from the same article:

For the love of Jeff...

Ah well, a girl can dream.

Okay, you've been seriously confusing me for awhile now.

Are you male or female? I ask because you're constantly giving impressions of both.

Okay, you've been seriously confusing me for awhile now.

Are you male or female? I ask because you're constantly giving impressions of both.

I am? I didn't know that. This has happened before! How did I confuse you?

I am of the female sex and gender, although right now I'm wearing a pair of guy's boxers because they're really comfy.

Grave_n_idle, "picking the scab" is a pretty accurate description of this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13974582&postcount=785). CH didn't need to reply to it, but you didn't need to open up that particular discussion again; it'd been dealt with. To see the original post, you would have had to at least skim the ensuing discussion, so you were not unaware of the situation. Warned.


"To see the original post" I would have to hit the button that takes me to where I left off the last time I browsed the forum, actually. Whch means I would be reading posts in roughly the order they were posted in, and replying to them in the same fashion. Which is what I did. Which is what I always do.

Sometimes it means I duplicate what someone else has posted, but I'm much more likely to respond to everything that is directed in my direction, than by trying to remember which posts to go back and look for. Especially in a fast-paced thread.

As far as I know, that's not an infringement of any rules.

So - what you are effectively 'warning' me for - is for replying to a post someone made.


The other thing that occurs to me, is that you said it had been 'dealt with'.

Did I miss it? All I saw was this:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13973455&postcount=758

Which explicitly states that it is NOT addressing any specific posters, and further claims that the posts it references are only being used as examples.

It doesn't say it's 'dealt with'. It doesn't say to leave it alone. Indeed, it suggests exactly the opposite.

I'm not one of the three specific people you did comment on. As such, even now, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't have commented on that post.

If you want me to put CH on ignore, you can tell me to put CH on ignore, and I'll do it, but otherwise I'll debate with him exactly the same as I debate with anyone else - and that means I won't let him get away with the kind of lazy debate trickery that I oppose in everyone else. I'm not going to make a special allowance just because he's incapable of debating without causing a fuss.

I'm warned. Okay. Got it. But you're going to have to ban me to stop me from disagreeing with you on this, or taking someone like CH to task when they use those kind of tactics.

I am? I didn't know that. This has happened before! How did I confuse you?

I am of the female sex and gender, although right now I'm wearing a pair of guy's boxers because they're really comfy.

I think the confusion more stemmed from others being convinced you were a guy and identifying you as such.

Though you have sent other mixed signals...I can't recall any specifics, but they're there.

GnI, I'll answer in more detail when I get home. One point I didn't make clear enough: "Warned" just meant "warned", not bell, book and candle official warning.

GnI, I'll answer in more detail when I get home. One point I didn't make clear enough: "Warned" just meant "warned", not bell, book and candle official warning.

It's still part of a recognised escalation - in this case, for responding to a post that no one had said was out of bounds, and for not breaking any of the established forum rules.

I'm sure you can see why that might be considered inappropriate.

GnI, I'll answer in more detail when I get home. One point I didn't make clear enough: "Warned" just meant "warned", not bell, book and candle official warning.

Ard, you know why you're such a bad moderator?

'Cause you got a fever...and the only cure...is more cow bell.

That's a Christopher Walken Joke. Not a Will Ferrell joke.

Inconsistent capitalization of the word joke was deliberate and illustrative.

MODEDIT: Any more of that from you and you get to meet my boyfriend from dear old Miskatonic U.

<snip>So - what you are effectively 'warning' me for - is for replying to a post someone made.

The other thing that occurs to me, is that you said it had been 'dealt with'.

No. I was warning you for reopening a topic hijack that had already been, to my mind, effectively dealt with by these posts (most recent first):

Which isn't relelevant to her in-character summary of the issue. You chose to launch an attack based on an obvious misconception. You KNEW it was a misconception and did it on purpose, which is why Ard pointed it out.

No one here believes you're completely unfamiliar with rhetoric, but if you'd actually like to continue to pretend that you aren't, I'll be happy to explain rhetoric to you. Start a thread. Till then, your feigned ignorance of rhetoric is baiting or a hijack.

Can you please show me where she claimed she was quoting Palin? I don't see it in her post.

As Smunkee said, she did not attribute that quote to anyone. But fyi, Palin is a member of Feminists for Life.


Didn't do that. Nice try though.

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

That is, the other posters in this thread had already dealt with Canuck Heaven's misconception. I can see how you misunderstood my comment, since mods frequently post that this or that has been "dealt with". But posters do, and largely should, police themselves, and I thought they'd done so effectively until you responded to CH, thus renewing the off-topic debate.

Knowing when to let something go is not making special allowances, or letting other debaters get away with lazy debate trickery. It's just not hogging the microphone.

At the risk of doing that myself, I'm also going to comment on this: But you're going to have to ban me to stop me from disagreeing with you on this <snip>.

Normally I'd take that as a rhetorical flourish, too, like the one that, as far as I can tell, innocently started off this whole diversion off many, many pages back:

<snip>In any event, whether she's insane, or it's insanity to make her VP, either way it's all aboard the crazy train with her.

But this is the third time in a week I've seen someone suggesting that mods would ban someone who disagreed with them. Certainly, as Fris said recently, there's not a one of us who haven't been -- I think he said "assholes", but I'm too lazy to find the quote -- on occasion, but if any of us banned people just for disagreeing with us, first the other players would jump on us, then the other mods would shred us, then Max would think of something colourful and disrespectful to do to the lifeless remains.

EDIT: Just saw your post, GnI. With me, escalation starts when you don't listen to warnings. "Warn" is "don't keep doing that!"

I am surprised at the lack of comment regarding Palin's speech last night. She certainly took some broad swipes at Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin)and did much to dispel the notion that she was only picked just because she has a "vagina", as some posters here have eluded to.

Palin met with Republican governors Thursday and said afterward that leading a state means you have to make decisions and not just vote "present."

"We don't have a 'present' button as governor — we are expected to lead, we are expected to take action and not just vote 'present,'" said Palin, who is in her first term as Alaska's governor. "So there's a big difference, of course, between the executive and legislative branches and our experience."

Palin was referring to Obama's days in the Illinois Senate, when he voted "present" dozens of times among the thousands of votes he cast in his eight years there. The move is common among Illinois lawmakers, but has become a favorite Republican complaint about Obama.

In a fundraising letter issued Thursday, she wrote that "the Obama-Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward me, my family and John McCain. The misinformation and flat-out lies must be corrected."
looks like the gloves are off and it should be an interesting 60 plus days until the election.

I am surprised at the lack of comment regarding Palin's speech last night. She certainly took some broad swipes at Obama (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin)and did much to dispel the notion that she was only picked just because she has a "vagina", as some posters here have eluded to.


On the contrary, have you been paying any attention to the official GOP voices recently?

How do you reconcile arguing that 'absitnence only education' works, with your own child being pregnant, and unmarried, at 17?

GOP response - to even ask that question is sexist.

What impact might it have that the VP's husband is a member of a Secessionist movement?

GOP response - to even ask that question is sexist.

What response is there to the allegation that power was abused in the removal of a high rank office, based on personal issues?

GOP response - to even ask that question is sexist.


Since Palin was announced, everything the Democrats say or do, is being catalogued as a sexist 'smear campaign'.

She was picked because she has a vagina.


looks like the gloves are off and it should be an interesting 60 plus days until the election.

Not really. The Republicans are not afraid of going after families, and the Democrats won't. The Republicans are set to avoid all the issues by obfuscation, and the Democrats are stuck giving actual answers.

It will either be a Democrat win because people are sick of Bush, and want to punish the GOP - or it will be a Republican win because people are apparently willing to accept any handful of shit the GOP gives them.

Frankly - I'd put money on a Republican win, right now.

/snip
She was picked because she has a vagina.
Uhhmmm, that's sexist.

did I do it right?

Uhhmmm, that's sexist.

did I do it right?

The problem with your argument is that it COULD be argued to be sexist. You're supposed to apply it carte-blanche to anything, no matter how ridiculous.

Remember the first page of the text book? Little Johnny and Lil' Sarah are sitting playing with blocks, and the cutely illustrated Baby 'Bama asks if he can play too? And Little Johnny and Lil' Sarah smash him humourously to the ground, whilst decrying his sexism?

Remember, claiming sexism when there IS sexism is UnAmerican.

On the contrary, have you been paying any attention to the official GOP voices recently?

How do you reconcile arguing that 'absitnence only education' works, with your own child being pregnant, and unmarried, at 17?

GOP response - to even ask that question is sexist.

What impact might it have that the VP's husband is a member of a Secessionist movement?

GOP response - to even ask that question is sexist.

What response is there to the allegation that power was abused in the removal of a high rank office, based on personal issues?

GOP response - to even ask that question is sexist.
Where do I find these question/response issues that you raised?

Since Palin was announced, everything the Democrats say or do, is being catalogued as a sexist 'smear campaign'.
To be quite honest with you, I have witnessed a large amount of "sexist" comments posted here by Obama supporters. I am rather saddened by that to say the least.

She was picked because she has a vagina.
Do you truly believe that?

Not really. The Republicans are not afraid of going after families, and the Democrats won't.
If you take these boards into account, it appears that the opposite is true.

The Republicans are set to avoid all the issues by obfuscation, and the Democrats are stuck giving actual answers.
The Republicans will have to give answers, just like the Democrats do. Determining which ones are telling the truth will be the difficult task.

It will either be a Democrat win because people are sick of Bush, and want to punish the GOP
6 months ago, I was quite prepared to expect an easy Democrat win. So much nonsense has happened since then, I believe that it will unlikely that the Democrats can pull off a win.

- or it will be a Republican win because people are apparently willing to accept any handful of shit the GOP gives them.

Frankly - I'd put money on a Republican win, right now.
People were willing to "accept any handful of shit the GOP gave them" 4 years ago, and sadly, I think the same will happen once again.

Do you truly believe that?

That someone of her level of qualifications would never have been picked if she were instead a male? Oh yes. I think most people in the US take that as a given.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/daily-show-takes-on-the-s_n_123908.html

That someone of her level of qualifications would never have been picked if she were instead a male? Oh yes. I think most people in the US take that as a given.
i certainly do. or that if such an inexperienced man were chosen he would have been fully vetted before he was chosen.

Do you truly believe that?

If we took Sarah Palin as is, with her political experience and views and record, and gave her a penis, do you think she would have been nominated by the Republicans? Do you think they would have otherwise nominated a 20 month governor of the smallest state in the country, with multiple skeletons in her closet, if she were a man?

There were multiple potential candidates that were much more qualified than she. There were multiple candidates that appealed to their base more than she. There were multiple potential candidates that were less controversial than she.

The only reason she was nominated is because she appeals to people like you, disaffected Clinton supporters.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/daily-show-takes-on-the-s_n_123908.html

for serious

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/daily-show-takes-on-the-s_n_123908.html
Very humourous indeed.

and great examples of hypocrisy from people who cry sexism when it suits them

*snip*

You seem to be pussy-footing around the issue and instead sniping at Obama supporters, so let me ask you straight out:

Do you think Sarah Palin should be the next Vice-President of the United States?

Related questions:

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be the US VP?

What policies of Sarah Palin would be good for the US or the world?

EDIT: I'd also like to see some of those who said Sarah Palin was an awesome/great/good choice answer these questions. It seems to me whether or not Palin was a smart strategic choice is different from whether she is a choice that is good for the U.S.

Well he had to pick a Woman...he didnt have a choice there cause it was a major weapon in Obama's arsenal that he would make history with his presidency...

However, that being said, there were far better choices out there, the current senator from alaska for example, lol...20 Months as a Governor and Childbirth just dont cut it for VP Credentials...

Now, normally I wouldnt care about credentials...there aren't any qualified US Presidents and Vice Presidents, the only one was Woodrow Wilson who had a degree in Political Science, and people seem to hate him for no reason...

But, since McCain turned it into an issue, it has to be looked at, and with a VP with so little experience, i wonder how he's going to be able to attack Obama anymore, his only real argument against him that ive seen is his inexperience, yet he has far more experience than Sarah Palin...

I think McCain may have shot himself in the foot here....

If we took Sarah Palin as is, with her political experience and views and record, and gave her a penis, do you think she would have been nominated by the Republicans? Do you think they would have otherwise nominated a 20 month governor of the smallest state in the country, with multiple skeletons in her closet, if she were a man?
She has less skeletons in the closet?

There were multiple potential candidates that were much more qualified than she. There were multiple candidates that appealed to their base more than she. There were multiple potential candidates that were less controversial than she.
From what I understand, Palin helps bring in the social and fiscal conservatives. She was not hired JUST because she has a vagina.

The only reason she was nominated is because she appeals to people like you, disaffected Clinton supporters.
The emocrats blew a golden opportunity to break two barriers in this election. I honestly believe that by not persuing both opportunities that they won't achieve either goal. Certainly the Palin selection will attract a fair number of Clinton Democrats and I can clearly understand why.

I am glad to see that Republicans are giving such a great opportunity for the advancement of women.

One great thing about the Republican pick is that it guarantees that there will be either a black President or a female Vice President. History in the making.

and great examples of hypocrisy from people who cry sexism when it suits them
Yet the hypocrisy is a disease affecting both parties?

From what I understand, Palin helps bring in the social and fiscal conservatives. She was not hired JUST because she has a vagina.




I had to laugh at that...Its so cute how some people can believe things like that...

The emocrats blew a golden opportunity to break two barriers in this election. I honestly believe that by not persuing both opportunities that they won't achieve either goal. Certainly the Palin selection will attract a fair number of Clinton Democrats and I can clearly understand why.

Explain why. If it's so clear why she will attract Clinton Democrats, even though the only thing they have in common is genitalia, explain why she will draw Clinton supporters. The woman shares almost no political views in common with Clinton. The only thing that could attract a voter to Clinton that would also attract a voter to Palin is their gender.


I am glad to see that Republicans are giving such a great opportunity for the advancement of women.

24 years after the Democrats did it. How terribly progressive of them.

Perhaps you could answer my question in your next post, instead of dancing around and avoiding an actual debate.

Why would a Clinton supporter vote for Sarah Palin?

Yet the hypocrisy is a disease affecting both parties?

Well I'd say it doesn't have anything to do with parties. I'd say it's more whiner specific... "My candidate is a woman so if you say something bad about her it's sexism!"

There's very little substance to those arguments and are fall back positions for someone who is unable to make a case for their candidate so they feel the need to maintain a strange and ineffective defense that does nothing to advance the debate on the real issues.

Disagreeing with a candidates positions/amount of experience does not automatically equal sexism/racism. I'd bet that more often then not, those things aren't taken into consideration when evaluating a candidates worthiness.

We've seen the polls that showed a majority of people who did vote based on race/ gender favored Hillary Clinton so do we assume that Hillary supporters are sexist because of who they vote for? Or are they Racist because of who they aren't voting for? It seems that those Hillary Clinton supporters who would vote for Palin because of her gender (because let's face it, her policies are NOTHING like Hillary's) are truly sexist and just like the hypocrites in that video I linked to.

You seem to be pussy-footing around the issue and instead sniping at Obama supporters, so let me ask you straight out:

Do you think Sarah Palin should be the next Vice-President of the United States?

Related questions:

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be the US VP?

What policies of Sarah Palin would be good for the US or the world?

EDIT: I'd also like to see some of those who said Sarah Palin was an awesome/great/good choice answer these questions. It seems to me whether or not Palin was a smart strategic choice is different from whether she is a choice that is good for the U.S.
You'll be waiting a long time. I have not yet seen anyone say anything about what they think Palin could do for the country as VP or President, if it came to that. It is my opinion that she was picked only as a strategic campaign move, and, frankly, I feel that the lack of anyone talking about her great policy positions gives support to my opinion.

From what I understand, Palin helps bring in the social and fiscal conservatives. She was not hired JUST because she has a vagina.


so true.

there is also the fact that she is one of the few governors in the country who are shorter than john mccain.

You seem to be pussy-footing around the issue and instead sniping at Obama supporters, so let me ask you straight out:

Do you think Sarah Palin should be the next Vice-President of the United States?
I thought my siggy would be evidence as to who I support for VP and that would be Matt Gonzales.

Related questions:

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be the US VP?
I don't see why not.

What policies of Sarah Palin would be good for the US or the world?
I really don't know enough about her policies to give an educated opinion.

Where do I find these question/response issues that you raised?


I don't know. I've picked them up off the radio, tv.... yahoo news, over the last few days. I couldn't tell you what I heard where - but I'm willing to bet a google search would instantly throw you GOP 'sexist' claims being thrown around like candy.


To be quite honest with you, I have witnessed a large amount of "sexist" comments posted here by Obama supporters. I am rather saddened by that to say the least.


Which is irrelevent. I think anyone who would vote for the current Republican party (note: I said current, this post-80's incarnation is, in my opinion, a very different creature to the 'classical Republican') is a tool of evil. But, what one thinks or knows about the SUPPORTERS isn't necessarily a realistic interpretation of the party.

Sometimes Obama-supporters might be sexist. I don't think you can level that claim - at all - at the actual current Obama campaign.


Do you truly believe that?


Yes, I truly do. I think they were so set on Obama picking Hillary, that they had a handful of strong male candidates lined up, and nothing ready if Obama didn't chose the 'obvious candidate'. So they flailed desparately, and got the first thing that would bite. She clearly wasn't vetted, she said herself she hadn't expected the nomination.

Given the large number of better candidates, the only thing setting Palin aside, is that she's a woman-running-for-VP.

The fact that she has militantly rightwing views was a lucky bonus.


If you take these boards into account, it appears that the opposite is true.


Again, as well you know - the people discussing matters on these boards are very unlikely to be the actual candidates. McCain has been unafraid to target families - even children (who can forget his comments on how ugly he thinks Chelsea Clinton is?), but the Obama camp have pretty strictly behaved themselves.

And, to be honest, I think that's going to cost them - but they're damned if they do, and they're damned if they don't.


The Republicans will have to give answers, just like the Democrats do. Determining which ones are telling the truth will be the difficult task.


I believe Sarah Palin made a speech today, attacking what she called 'Democrat Lies' and attacking Obama and Biden, and then refused to take questions.


6 months ago, I was quite prepared to expect an easy Democrat win. So much nonsense has happened since then, I believe that it will unlikely that the Democrats can pull off a win.


Nonsense?

Ah - the Democratic process, you mean?


People were willing to "accept any handful of shit the GOP gave them" 4 years ago, and sadly, I think the same will happen once again.

Agreed. The odds are heavily against the Dems. We are still entangled in Bush's war in Iraq, and voters rarely change parties while a conflict is ongoing. The economy is falling into (if not through) recession, and American voters NEVER vote for the party that controls the Senate (which Dems theoretically do) under those circumstances.

And, to be honest, if we've learned anything from the last 8 years, it's that the Republicans present a version of 'everyman' that is a barely literate bigot... and, for some reason, voters lap it up.

Well I'd say it doesn't have anything to do with parties. I'd say it's more whiner specific... "My candidate is a woman so if you say something bad about her it's sexism!"

There's very little substance to those arguments and are fall back positions for someone who is unable to make a case for their candidate so they feel the need to maintain a strange and ineffective defense that does nothing to advance the debate on the real issues.

Disagreeing with a candidates positions/amount of experience does not automatically equal sexism/racism. I'd bet that more often then not, those things aren't taken into consideration when evaluating a candidates worthiness.

We've seen the polls that showed a majority of people who did vote based on race/ gender favored Hillary Clinton so do we assume that Hillary supporters are sexist because of who they vote for? Or are they Racist because of who they aren't voting for? It seems that those Hillary Clinton supporters who would vote for Palin because of her gender (because let's face it, her policies are NOTHING like Hillary's) are truly sexist and just like the hypocrites in that video I linked to.
I think that there has been enough sexism/racism, and indeed hatred, within the Democrat party this year, and that it will seriously hamper their chances to succeed at the polls this year.

For the first time in my life, I feel a disconnect from the Democrat party. I find myself starting to get in touch with the deeply buried conservative aspects of my nature.

The emocrats blew a golden opportunity to break two barriers in this election. I honestly believe that by not persuing both opportunities that they won't achieve either goal. Certainly the Palin selection will attract a fair number of Clinton Democrats and I can clearly understand why.


There is nothing about Palin that would bring in a Clinton voter - except, maybe, if someone is purely voting to elect a female politician. WHich WOULD be selecting her because she has a vagina - even if you phrase it more diplomatically.

As for 'the chance to break two barriers'... that would have made the Democrat offering a 'token' offering. It would have been a gimmick presidential campaign. And, apparently, the Democrats were too sincere for that.

As it is, it WAS a landmark, in it's own right - the Democrats came within a tiny distance of actually running Hillary as their PRESIDENTIAL choice. The Republicans went for the old standard of an old white guy in a suit. Sarah Palin is a token VP, and if she had any more respect for herself and other female politicans, or any less pure political ambition, she'd have told the GOP to shove it up their collective asses.


I am glad to see that Republicans are giving such a great opportunity for the advancement of women.


How can repeating something already done a quarter of a century ago (by their opposition), and topped a quarter of a year ago (by their opposition)... possibly be considered worthy of the title of 'advancement'?


One great thing about the Republican pick is that it guarantees that there will be either a black President or a female Vice President. History in the making.

It is, however, a sad lookout, if the first female VP is elected purely on the strength of the fact that Americans aren't yet willing to accept a black president.

I think that there has been enough sexism/racism, and indeed hatred, within the Democrat party this year, and that it will seriously hamper their chances to succeed at the polls this year.

For the first time in my life, I feel a disconnect from the Democrat party. I find myself starting to get in touch with the deeply buried conservative aspects of my nature.

That's nothing to do with the schisms in the Democrat party. If you could choose to vote for reductions of rights, and promulgation of a religious agenda, then your affiliation to the Democrats is purely lipservice - schisms or no.

That's nothing to do with the schisms in the Democrat party. If you could choose to vote for reductions of rights, and promulgation of a religious agenda, then your affiliation to the Democrats is purely lipservice - schisms or no.

They wouldn't be Democrats. They'd be Millercrats.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are relying on Reality Television Audiences to be their biggest voting block. Given how I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary is getting a free ride from The Liberal Media™, unfortunately appealing to the lowest common denominator still works.

They wouldn't be Democrats. They'd be Millercrats.

Unfortunately, the Republicans are relying on Reality Television Audiences to be their biggest voting block. Given how I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary is getting a free ride from The Liberal Media™, unfortunately appealing to the lowest common denominator still works.

It has done for years. Bush Jr played practically a 'grotesque' of 'redneck asshole', and rode it to two terms. Palin has apparently taken a book from the same shelf (even down to the 'The War in Iraq is God's Will'), and she's the new media darling.

That's nothing to do with the schisms in the Democrat party. If you could choose to vote for reductions of rights, and promulgation of a religious agenda, then your affiliation to the Democrats is purely lipservice - schisms or no.
It has lots to do with the "schisms" in the Democrat party. I have been there. I have fought hard for human rights all my life. The Democrats are so busy fighting themselves that the other party is going to win by default. They, the Republicans, play rally round the flag better then the current crop of Democrats.

The biggest problem in US politics is that there are only 2 viable parties. As it stands right now, Nader's platform (http://www.votenader.org/issues/)would better represent my goals.

It has lots to do with the "schisms" in the Democrat party. I have been there. I have fought hard for human rights all my life. The Democrats are so busy fighting themselves

Prove it. Now. Youve been tooting this horn for a long time, and now, by all indication, things have healed enough to a point where Obama is still going to win (last Gallup poll has him at 50% to McRambo's 42%). So, show me, recent, updated data showing that there is a "schism" in the party. Not some idiot pundit shooting his mouth off. Not some idiot angry Hillary supporter crying her eyes out over sexism. Some statistics. Some hard data.


So, to sum it up. Source please.

It has lots to do with the "schisms" in the Democrat party. I have been there. I have fought hard for human rights all my life. The Democrats are so busy fighting themselves that the other party is going to win by default. They, the Republicans, play rally round the flag better then the current crop of Democrats.

The biggest problem in US politics is that there are only 2 viable parties. As it stands right now, Nader's platform (http://www.votenader.org/issues/)would better represent my goals.

Um. Forgive me if I take your concerns about schisms in the Democratic Party with a grain of salt, given that you are (1) Canadian, (2) supporting the Green Party, and (3) been doing your best on these forums to encourage schisms in the Democratic Party.*

*And you call it the "Democrat party."

Prove it. Now. Youve been tooting this horn for a long time, and now, by all indication, things have healed enough to a point where Obama is still going to win (last Gallup poll has him at 50% to McRambo's 42%). So, show me, recent, updated data showing that there is a "schism" in the party. Not some idiot pundit shooting his mouth off. Not some idiot angry Hillary supporter crying her eyes out over sexism. Some statistics. Some hard data.


So, to sum it up. Source please.
Despite your ongoing personal attacks, you fail to understand that it is outpourings such as you offer here that present part of the problem that I have detailed.

I am saddened that you fail to understand that.

Despite your ongoing personal attacks, you fail to understand that it is outpourings such as you offer here that present part of the problem that I have detailed.

I am saddened that you fail to understand that.

Excuse me, pot, but have you met kettle?

Um. Forgive me if I take your concerns about schisms in the Democratic Party with a grain of salt, given that you are (1) Canadian, (2) supporting the Green Party, and (3) been doing your best on these forums to encourage schisms in the Democratic Party.*

*And you call it the "Democrat party."

Cat-Tribe, as usual, your underlying basis is misinformed.

Intent and agenda have NOTHING to do with legal or political matters.

If they did, legislative intent would be a central and abiding tenant of the canons of construction.

And your constant demand for precision of use of language is not helpful. Rigorous clarity has no place in politics or law.

I think that there has been enough sexism/racism, and indeed hatred, within the Democrat party this year, and that it will seriously hamper their chances to succeed at the polls this year.

For the first time in my life, I feel a disconnect from the Democrat party. I find myself starting to get in touch with the deeply buried conservative aspects of my nature.
well good for you. feel free to vote republican if that is your preference.....

oh yeah, you cant.

well good for you. feel free to vote republican if that is your preference.....

oh yeah, you cant.

Don't be so dismissive, Ashmo.

CanuckHeaven's hamhanded threat of "touching" his inner conservative and withdrawing his critical support from the Democratic Party in the name of punitive petulance is hardly invalidated by the premise that his support is definitely moot.

Hardly, I say. Hardly.

Um. Forgive me if I take your concerns about schisms in the Democratic Party with a grain of salt, given that you are (1) Canadian, (2) supporting the Green Party, and (3) been doing your best on these forums to encourage schisms in the Democratic Party.*

*And you call it the "Democrat party."
Because I am Canadian, I am unable to see the "schisms in the Democratic Party"? Understanding why I would support the Green Party would be a better focus of your concern? And I actually was encouraging a Democratic Party victory until those in the party felt more inclined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Because I am Canadian, I am unable to see the "schisms in the Democratic Party"? Understanding why I would support the Green Party would be a better focus of your concern? And I actually was encouraging a Democratic Party victory until those in the party felt more inclined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Is this prognostication made with the same formidable prescience that led you to infer that Obama would never get the nomination?

If your inditement of sexism, racist, et cetera is sincere, you might do what Senator Clinton has done and recognize (eventually) that a Party by definition is not about your sole preference.

CanuckHeaven's hamhanded threat of "touching" his inner conservative

That's GROSS! :eek2:

i am kinda looking forward to hearing hillary clinton blast ms palin's assertion that she is hillarys stand in.

ms clinton should be free to shred ms palin in a way that those mean men cant because it would be sexist of them.

i am kinda looking forward to hearing hillary clinton blast ms palin's assertion that she is hillarys stand in.

ms clinton should be free to shred ms palin in a way that those mean men cant because it would be sexist of them.

Oh, the Republican party will still decry sexism, I have no doubt. They don't think of Hilary as a woman, remember? She's a hard nasty lesbian bitch.
But that's not sexism cause it comes from GOP, okay? And if you try to say otherwise, that's because you're being sexist towards Palin.
got that?

good.

freedom is slavery yaddayaddayadda...

This is one of the funniest thing I have ever seen. Showing the hypocrisy of right wing pundits.

http://vodpod.com/watch/986530-sarah-palin-gender-card-the-daily-show-comedy-central

You seem to be pussy-footing around the issue and instead sniping at Obama supporters, so let me ask you straight out:

Do you think Sarah Palin should be the next Vice-President of the United States?

Related questions:

Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be the US VP?

What policies of Sarah Palin would be good for the US or the world?

We asked Seth to answer your questions:
1. Putting Country First - Her membership in the Alaska Independence Party proves that she's exactly the kind of leader America needs: the kind that will always put country first -- even if that country happens to be The Republic of Alaska. Obama claims he loves America -- but has he ever loved it enough to favor seceding from it? It's called tough love, Senator. Look into it.

2. Independence - Sarah hates indicted Senator Ted Stevens, but raised money for him. She hates the "bridge to nowhere," but supported it. She wants to shatter Hillary's glass ceiling, but wears t-shirts touting the size of her boobs. We're dealing with an innovative politician; one who refuses to be categorized. Obama may call himself the candidate of "change," but Sarah Pailen's (sp?) entire political life has been about saying one thing, and then doing another. Now that's "change we can believe in."

3. Family Values - This is someone who's not afraid to preach abstinence for your daughter, even though her own unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. This is someone who's not afraid to hop on a plane from Texas to Alaska while she's in premature labor. This is someone who's not afraid to hit the campaign trail with a 5-month-old special needs baby. That's what I call dedication to family. Obama, on the other hand? A Muslim.

4. Intellect - Yes, Sarah recently admitted that she didn't know exactly what it was the Vice President did. Yes, she wants creationism taught in public schools. Yes, she doesn't believe global warming is manmade. But I'd like to point out the fact that she wears glasses -- and that's not something dumb people generally do. Obama? No glasses.

5. Military Affairs - As Governor, Pollen (sp?) is authorized to deploy Alaska's National Guard in times of emergency. And while the Guard's Adjunct General admits that she plays no role in national defense, and isn't briefed on military exercises, the fact is -- she's been photographed holding a machine gun, while Obama has yet to wield so much as a .38 for the cameras. When it comes to keeping me safe, that's all I need to know.

6. Foreign Affairs - While Obama likes to take Middle East tours, meet with Europe's leaders, and brag about his running mate being the foreign policy voice of the Senate, he can't hold a candle to Palenn's (sp?) understanding of today's complex, dangerous world. Yes, Sarah admitted that she hadn't paid much attention to the war in Iraq, but she knew enough to rightly call it a "task from God." Yes, she's only left North America once in her life, but her experience as a local sportscaster gave her the ability to follow events as they unfold at lightning speed. And as Cindy McCain pointed out, while Barack Obama was sipping lattes in Cambridge Square, Sarah Pinkston (sp?) was staring down the barrel of Putin's Kalashnikov -- a one woman wall keeping America safe from invasion.

7. Restoring America's Image - Who better than a former beauty queen to add some new luster to America's battered image? Paylen (sp?) will take a proverbial can of Aqua Net to our nation's unruly hair, and apply liberal (no pun intended) amounts of blush to Lady Liberty's cheekbones. In a word, she'll dazzle the world with her charm and style. Even the most anti-Western extremists will melt when they see the People and Vanity Fair spreads of Sarah warming her fur-lined extremities over burning science textbooks. And how would Obama restore our leadership in the world? The question we should be asking is: why does he only have two children, while Sarah has at least twice that number? What does Senator Obama have against America's children?

8. Her Soul - In one 15-minute meeting, and one follow-up phone call, John McCain was able to determine that Sarah was more than his running mate -- she was his "soul mate." Not only that, but that she was more qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office than any Republican on earth. Yes, this is a testament to the power and quickness of McCain's decision making. But it's also a testament to the power of Sarah Payton's (sp?) soul. As a Muslim, it's not even clear that Obama has a soul.

So is Sarah Pillston (sp?) qualified to be Vice President? To be one bad biopsy away from being the most powerful human being on earth? To lead America back to prominence and prosperity, while keeping us safe from a world of ever-changing threats?

In her own words: "Yup...yup."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/8-reasons-sarah-palin-is_b_123294.html

well good for you. feel free to vote republican if that is your preference.....

oh yeah, you cant.
But my step-children and sister in law who live in California can. But I would never encourage them to vote for the Republicans. ;)

They might however be attracted to Palin.

But my step-children and sister in law who live in California can. But I would never encourage them to vote for the Republicans. ;)

They might however be attracted to Palin.

Why would they be attracted to Palin?

We asked Seth to answer your questions:
1. Putting Country First - Her membership in the Alaska Independence Party proves that she's exactly the kind of leader America needs: the kind that will always put country first -- even if that country happens to be The Republic of Alaska. Obama claims he loves America -- but has he ever loved it enough to favor seceding from it? It's called tough love, Senator. Look into it.

2. Independence - Sarah hates indicted Senator Ted Stevens, but raised money for him. She hates the "bridge to nowhere," but supported it. She wants to shatter Hillary's glass ceiling, but wears t-shirts touting the size of her boobs. We're dealing with an innovative politician; one who refuses to be categorized. Obama may call himself the candidate of "change," but Sarah Pailen's (sp?) entire political life has been about saying one thing, and then doing another. Now that's "change we can believe in."

3. Family Values - This is someone who's not afraid to preach abstinence for your daughter, even though her own unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant. This is someone who's not afraid to hop on a plane from Texas to Alaska while she's in premature labor. This is someone who's not afraid to hit the campaign trail with a 5-month-old special needs baby. That's what I call dedication to family. Obama, on the other hand? A Muslim.

4. Intellect - Yes, Sarah recently admitted that she didn't know exactly what it was the Vice President did. Yes, she wants creationism taught in public schools. Yes, she doesn't believe global warming is manmade. But I'd like to point out the fact that she wears glasses -- and that's not something dumb people generally do. Obama? No glasses.

5. Military Affairs - As Governor, Pollen (sp?) is authorized to deploy Alaska's National Guard in times of emergency. And while the Guard's Adjunct General admits that she plays no role in national defense, and isn't briefed on military exercises, the fact is -- she's been photographed holding a machine gun, while Obama has yet to wield so much as a .38 for the cameras. When it comes to keeping me safe, that's all I need to know.

6. Foreign Affairs - While Obama likes to take Middle East tours, meet with Europe's leaders, and brag about his running mate being the foreign policy voice of the Senate, he can't hold a candle to Palenn's (sp?) understanding of today's complex, dangerous world. Yes, Sarah admitted that she hadn't paid much attention to the war in Iraq, but she knew enough to rightly call it a "task from God." Yes, she's only left North America once in her life, but her experience as a local sportscaster gave her the ability to follow events as they unfold at lightning speed. And as Cindy McCain pointed out, while Barack Obama was sipping lattes in Cambridge Square, Sarah Pinkston (sp?) was staring down the barrel of Putin's Kalashnikov -- a one woman wall keeping America safe from invasion.

7. Restoring America's Image - Who better than a former beauty queen to add some new luster to America's battered image? Paylen (sp?) will take a proverbial can of Aqua Net to our nation's unruly hair, and apply liberal (no pun intended) amounts of blush to Lady Liberty's cheekbones. In a word, she'll dazzle the world with her charm and style. Even the most anti-Western extremists will melt when they see the People and Vanity Fair spreads of Sarah warming her fur-lined extremities over burning science textbooks. And how would Obama restore our leadership in the world? The question we should be asking is: why does he only have two children, while Sarah has at least twice that number? What does Senator Obama have against America's children?

8. Her Soul - In one 15-minute meeting, and one follow-up phone call, John McCain was able to determine that Sarah was more than his running mate -- she was his "soul mate." Not only that, but that she was more qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office than any Republican on earth. Yes, this is a testament to the power and quickness of McCain's decision making. But it's also a testament to the power of Sarah Payton's (sp?) soul. As a Muslim, it's not even clear that Obama has a soul.

So is Sarah Pillston (sp?) qualified to be Vice President? To be one bad biopsy away from being the most powerful human being on earth? To lead America back to prominence and prosperity, while keeping us safe from a world of ever-changing threats?

In her own words: "Yup...yup."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/8-reasons-sarah-palin-is_b_123294.html

It's a shame that a great American Woman like I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary has to settle for the Vice Presidency while that dirty Muslim Al-Qaeda sleeper operative Hussein Obama was allowed by the traitorous Deathocrats to be their Presidential candidate, instead of being detained in Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant and interrogated for the latest plans and locations of his master Osama Bin Ladin.

Why would they be attracted to Palin?
Because of the religious aspect.

Why would a Clinton supporter vote for Sarah Palin?

Because they want revenge, supposedly.

But according to this article from CNN.com, a fair number of Hillary supporters are very skeptical of McCain's choosing of Palin.

As Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Sen. John McCain's pick for vice president, makes her case to the convention Wednesday night, Republicans hope she will sway Democratic women toward their ticket.


McCain announced that Palin, here in February, will be his running mate on the Republican presidential ticket.

Palin already has been working on that.

"It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary [Clinton] left 18 million cracks in the highest and hardest glass ceiling in America, but it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all," she said as McCain introduced her as his choice Friday.

But some of the most ardent Clinton supporters --- even those still loath to vote for Sen. Barack Obama -- found McCain's choice of Palin patronizing.

"Well, first were just laughing. I mean laughing not in the sense of 'Oh my God, what has he done?' but "Does he think that's really going to work?'" Allida Black, a Clinton supporter for Obama, said.

"I mean does he think that women voters who are with Hillary is some Lego block ... you can take out a red one and put in a green one?"

She said Palin and Clinton have only gender in common. Palin is anti-abortion rights, belongs to the National Rifle Association and is a conservative Republican. And she's been critical of Clinton, calling the New York senator's charges of "sexist" news coverage -- whining.

"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about the excess criticism or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn't do us any good," Palin told Newsweek magazine in March.

That's not to say all Clinton supporters would be averse to a McCain-Palin ticket. A group called PUMA, which stands for "Party Unity My A**", were Clinton supporters -- both women and men --who are threatening to vote McCain.

The McCain camp has been aggressively courting those disaffected with Obama, especially after he announced Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as his running mate. Watch more on Palin's readiness to lead »

Just as the Democrats' convention was getting started in Denver, Colorado, last week, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee unveiled four TV ads geared toward Clinton supporters.

The most recent McCain ad involved the famous Hillary Clinton "3 a.m." spot and will be aired during the convention. The 30-second spot uses footage from Clinton's original ad and declares, "Hillary's right."

The ad, which ran in key battleground states and specifically in Denver last week, also goes a step further than the New York senator's original ad, in detailing what it claims are the national security threats the United States faces.

Clinton, speaking to a member of the New York delegation in Denver on August 25, said she was opposed to Republicans using her words against Obama.

But it is still unclear as to how many will go the way of the PUMA. Read more on the PUMA movement

A recent Rutgers University study said historically, women don't vote for a candidate because a woman is on the ticket. They tend to vote Democratic.

That happened in 1984 for former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the first female vice presidential of a major political party. Despite the historic nature of the race, her addition to Walter Mondale's ticket proved fruitless.

The Mondale-Ferraro ticket lost big time to President Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush that year: 525 electoral votes to Mondale's 13.

Reagan carried 49 out of the 50 states, with Mondale's only electoral votes coming from Minnesota -- his home state -- and the District of Columbia.

Ferraro's ties to New York, which is a notoriously blue state, were unsuccessful for the ticket.

In that race, 44 percent of Democratic women voters and 56 percent of their Republican counterparts voted in the presidential race; 51 percent of all voters were women, according to exit polling.

Twenty-four years later, there's another woman on a presidential ticket -- this time a Republican. It's something that Ferraro hopes will not bring sexism back into the campaign.

"I believe that people will look back and assess how Hillary was treated by the media during the campaign primaries. And it remains to be seen whether or not the ugly head of sexism -- in the media -- will raise its head again," said Ferraro on August 29, the day after Obama's speech at Invesco field.

"I have always said that I wish I would have never been the only woman, until now," she said last Friday.

But if Democratic women were swayed this year, it was toward a woman in their own party. iReport.com: Are you a woman backing Palin?

That woman was Hillary Clinton , and it wasn't because of her gender, but what they pointed to as her experience and fitness to lead the country.

Claudine Montano, initially a Clinton supporter, said last week at the Democratic convention that not many Clinton backers will support McCain after Clinton's rousing speech endorsing Obama.

"I think when they heard Hillary ... they will go with Obama," said Montano, a New Mexico resident who is not a delegate.

Pledged Clinton delegate Anne Price Mills, with tears in her eyes, said Clinton was "presidential" on August 26.

Price Mills, of Washington state, was a staunch Clinton supporter. As for her vote in November?

"Obama has two months," she said. "I won't vote for McCain, but [Obama] has to get me here, and I haven't connected with him." Read more on Clinton supporters on the fence

Palin has five children. Her 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. Palin recently had a Down syndrome baby. Anti-abortion groups and conservatives have praised her and her daughter's decisions to keep their babies.

Elder statesman of the evangelical movement, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, released a statement lauding the Palins for acting in keeping with the group's policies and practices:

"We have always encouraged the parents to love and support their children and always advised the girls to see their pregnancies through, even though there will of course be challenges along the way. That is what the Palins are doing, and they should be commended once again for not just talking about their pro-life and pro-family values, but living them out even in the midst of trying circumstances," his statement said.


But an anti-abortion stance is unlikely to sway Democratic women.

A recent survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows that the issue of choice can have a large impact on the election.

The poll, conducted May 29-June 8, showed: Pro-choice is an issue that swings key blocs of women voters to Obama's side.

Obama gains 13 points among pro-choice independent women -- who make up 9 percent of the sample -- and 9 points among pro-choice Republican women, who account for 5 percent of the sample, according to the poll.


"Among pro-choice independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal to moderate Republican women, the issue of abortion produces a larger advantage for Democrats than the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care," according to the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/NARAL poll report.

Also, a recent New York Times article looked at working mothers and found both support and criticism that Palin might not be able to handle a big family and the role of vice presidency at the same time and reservations about her going back to work right after giving birth to a disabled baby.

http://cgi.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/02/palin.women/index.html

So, if this was McCain's intent, I'd say it met with limited success at best. I think it more likely that he did it to:

1) rally the social conservatives, and
2) dampen the significance of the first African-American to win the nomination of a major party.

...

hey, did you hear that you and me have something in common with palin? turns out that amongst the 5 colleges she went to over the course of her 6 year college career, she hit our common one. twice.

But my step-children and sister in law who live in California can. But I would never encourage them to vote for the Republicans. ;)

They might however be attracted to Palin.
i would encourage them to vote for their preference no matter what yours or mine might be.

i would encourage them to vote for their preference no matter what yours or mine might be.

even if their preferences are stupid?

i would encourage them to vote for their preference no matter what yours or mine might be.

Even if their preference is for the continuation of a criminally willful ignorant and stubborn farce of a government headed by someone noted for sucessive bankrupcies?

i would encourage them to vote for their preference no matter what yours or mine might be.
I definitely would encourage them to exercise their democratic right to vote. Their vote should be as a result of their own political awareness, and not coercion by another party.

even if their preferences are stupid?
yup

...

Even if their preference is for the continuation of a criminally willful ignorant and stubborn farce of a government headed by someone noted for sucessive bankrupcies?
yup

...

i am kinda looking forward to hearing hillary clinton blast ms palin's assertion that she is hillarys stand in.

ms clinton should be free to shred ms palin in a way that those mean men cant because it would be sexist of them.
Cat fight! Meow!

Cat fight! Meow!

*insert "cougar" joke here*

Question, is there any problem in referring to Sarah Palin by her title, Prop Vagina?

Question, is there any problem in referring to Sarah Palin by her title, Prop Vagina?

The proper title is I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary. A substitute product marketed to disgruntled PUMA Democrats who miss the taste of the real thing.

The proper title is I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary. A substitute product marketed to disgruntled PUMA Democrats who miss the taste of the real thing.

No, that's the proper NAME. The proper TITLE AND NAME would be "Prop Vagina I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary". Also known as "Utsuk ittuupuq ittugalak unataqti atuinnasivuq ni uingiqpaa nanuk niqi", or "Vagina senile old warrior uses to steal the polar bear meat" in Inuit.

(Yes, I actually went online and used a dictionary to make a non-structured translation. But now I can call her "Utsuk ittuupuq ittugalak unataqti atuinnasivuq ni uingiqpaa nanuk niqi". :p)

Question, is there any problem in referring to Sarah Palin by her title, Prop Vagina?
yes

...

Despite your ongoing personal attacks, you fail to understand that it is outpourings such as you offer here that present part of the problem that I have detailed.

I am saddened that you fail to understand that.

So, you have no source then? And when called for a source, you cry foul and declare it is a personal attack?


So, let me get this straight, you have no sources, statistics, or data to show there is a schism in the democratic party?

Thats it. Im sick of your inability to actually debate and Im sick of your inability to back up anything you said. Youre going on ignore.

A person, no matter how much you dislike her, is not a "prop vagina".

A "prop vagina" is what Andy Dick wanted for Christmas at 13.

A "prop vagina" is what Andy Dick wanted for Christmas at 13.

And what John McCain wanted for Election at 72.

A person, no matter how much you dislike her, is not a "prop vagina".

A "prop vagina" is what Andy Dick wanted for Christmas at 13.

No, a prop vagina is what Andy Dick ought to have been made into. Something that can be repeatedly fucked up without guilt. Jon Lovitt had the right idea. RIP Phil Hartman.

Youre going on ignore.
Thank you!!

BTW is anyone else getting irritated that the Republicans keep belittling Obama's experiance as a community organizer?

"What a bastard Obama is! He was a community organizer and helped get kids off drugs! What a fucktard!"

BTW is anyone else getting irritated that the Republicans keep belittling Obama's experiance as a community organizer?

"What a bastard Obama is! He was a community organizer and helped get kids off drugs! What a fucktard!"

If he keeps kids off drugs, how are the private contractor prisons and placebo manufacturers going to make their profits?

BTW is anyone else getting irritated that the Republicans keep belittling Obama's experiance as a community organizer?

"What a bastard Obama is! He was a community organizer and helped get kids off drugs! What a fucktard!"

Didn't someone just post an article about that? Or did I just read it somewhere else?

BTW is anyone else getting irritated that the Republicans keep belittling Obama's experiance as a community organizer?

"What a bastard Obama is! He was a community organizer and helped get kids off drugs! What a fucktard!"
Surely you know by now that you're not meant, or expected, to analyse their message, just smirk at it.
"omg! a community-organiser! how gay is that!" giggle giggle snort.

Surely you know by now that you're not meant, or expected, to analyse their message, just smirk at it.
"omg! a community-organiser! how gay is that!" giggle giggle snort.

"*Giggle* He actually cares about ******s *giggle giggle*."

No, a prop vagina is what Andy Dick ought to have been made into. Something that can be repeatedly fucked up without guilt. Jon Lovitt had the right idea. RIP Phil Hartman.

True dat.

BTW is anyone else getting irritated that the Republicans keep belittling Obama's experiance as a community organizer?

"What a bastard Obama is! He was a community organizer and helped get kids off drugs! What a fucktard!"
i felt that they were saying that he should have gotten a REAL job and have made some serious money like any respectable republican would have.

"*Giggle* He actually cares about ******s *giggle giggle*."

"He tryin' ta raise dem so they kin be convurted inta dirty Mozlemz and sooeyside bommers for his boss Bin Laddy!"

Didn't someone just post an article about that? Or did I just read it somewhere else?
it was in Palin's speech. She said something along the lines of, "You can compare a mayor of a small town to being like a community organiser - except, of course, a mayor actually does something"

To GOP, helping kids off drugs isn't considered useful or something to be admired. And they're actually proud enough to state this openly.

To GOP, helping kids off drugs isn't considered useful or something to be admired. And they're actually proud enough to state this openly.

Like I said, keeping kids off of drugs diminishes profit sources for their private prison and pharmaceutical industry bedmates.

it was in Palin's speech. She said something along the lines of, "You can compare a mayor of a small town to being like a community organiser - except, of course, a mayor actually does something"

To GOP, helping kids off drugs isn't considered useful or something to be admired. And they're actually proud enough to state this openly.

It should come as a suprise to no one that Republicans dont care about black people or poor people. Thus they consider anyones attempts to help them out to b a waste of time.


If youre suprised by this you either live outside the US or have been under a rock since the 1930s.

i felt that they were saying that he should have gotten a REAL job and have made some serious money like any respectable republican would have.

i think it was more like ****** ****** ******

i think it was more like ****** ****** ******

holy fuck, censorship?!

holy fuck, censorship?!

Palin has taken over Nationstates.

It should come as a suprise to no one that Republicans dont care about black people or poor people. Thus they consider anyones attempts to help them out to b a waste of time.


If youre suprised by this you either live outside the US or have been under a rock since the 1930s.
Kanye West tried to tell you all.

Kanye West tried to tell you all.

The only problem with that was...it came from Kanye West.

holy fuck, censorship?!
yeah so give us a few letters, pat, so we can figure out the puzzle.

Palin has taken over Nationstates.

I, for one, welcome our new uptight, pre-menopausal Overlady.

I, for one, welcome our new uptight, pre-menopausal Overlady.

Oh please, if it had been Hillary who took over you'd be setting up an underground resistance by now. :p

I didn't catch Palin's speech last night (I'm gonna watch it tomorrow after work on youtube), but I really liked Mccain's speech tonight.

I'm about 90% sure I'm gonna vote for him rather than Obama.

yeah so give us a few letters, pat, so we can figure out the puzzle.

what do racists say to put uppity 'community organizers' in their place?


also, when did this censorship happen?

I didn't catch Palin's speech last night (I'm gonna watch it tomorrow after work on youtube), but I really liked Mccain's speech tonight.

I'm about 90% sure I'm gonna vote for him rather than Obama.
On the basis of that one speech? Why?

what do racists say to put uppity 'community organizers' in their place?


also, when did this censorship happen?
Apparently, when you weren't looking.

Thank you!!

What the hell is the point of you even being here if all you're aiming for is getting put on ignore by everyone? Isn't there somewhere else you can troll?

what do racists say to put uppity 'community organizers' in their place?


also, when did this censorship happen?
its been a few weeks.

i first noticed it when i mentioned in a post that john mccain had called his wife a **** for saying his hair looked funny.

its been a few weeks.

i first noticed it when i mentioned in a post that john mccain had called his wife a **** for saying his hair looked funny.

i did a quick test, and it looks like just **** and ****** are out, while kike, gook, motherfucker, etc. are all in. weird.

On the basis of that one speech? Why?


.

Not just one speech. I'm still open, but I'm pretty sure I'm gonna vote for McCain.

I just don't agree with what I've heard from Obama. I'm going to research both candidates more (watching their speeches, debates, looking at their policies, etc), but again, I'm pretty sure I'm gonna vote for McCain.

Plus, McCain's a war hero, from a family of military men. That is a big plus.

Plus, McCain's a war hero, from a family of military men. That is a big plus.

Oh, youre one of those people who is more likely to vote for a vet eh?


Tell me then, did you vote for Kerry? Or do you just mean being a Republican war hero is a big plus?

Plus, McCain's a war hero, from a family of military men. That is a big plus.

Which history has shown us to have absolutely no leaning on their ability to run a country. Seriously, is that all it takes to be considered for presidency these days? Going to a foreign country, shooting up its populace, and coming back alive?

Tell me then, did you vote for Kerry? Or do you just mean being a Republican war hero is a big plus?

Oh please, if spending most of a war being detained and constantly interrogated was a slam-dunk qualification for the Presidency then the entire Muslim community at Guantanamo Bay could run for the White House.

Oh please, if spending most of a war being detained and constantly interrogated was a slam-dunk qualification for the Presidency then the entire Muslim community at Guantanamo Bay could run for the White House.

which reminds me, as anyone asked bush if he thinks mccain was tortured?

Oh please, if spending most of a war being detained and constantly interrogated was a slam-dunk qualification for the Presidency then the entire Muslim community at Guantanamo Bay could run for the White House.

This is true.

Not just one speech. I'm still open, but I'm pretty sure I'm gonna vote for McCain.

I just don't agree with what I've heard from Obama. I'm going to research both candidates more (watching their speeches, debates, looking at their policies, etc), but again, I'm pretty sure I'm gonna vote for McCain.
Okay...

Plus, McCain's a war hero, from a family of military men. That is a big plus.
Why is that a big plus?

Oh, youre one of those people who is more likely to vote for a vet eh?


Tell me then, did you vote for Kerry? Or do you just mean being a Republican war hero is a big plus?

I wasn't old enough to vote last election.

Which history has shown us to have absolutely no leaning on their ability to run a country. Seriously, is that all it takes to be considered for presidency these days? Going to a foreign country, shooting up its populace, and coming back alive?

It shows dedication to the country. A willingness to serve and sacrifice.

Okay...


Why is that a big plus?

See above.

Also, why would it not be a plus?

It shows dedication to the country. A willingness to serve and sacrifice.


Would you trust him to perform open heart surgery on you then? Nothing that you've listed indicates his competence in leading a country, or for that matter, dealing with foreign powers with anything other than the barrel of a gun (or bombs in his case).

Seriously, drop the national service angle and take up some points that talk about whether he is competent for the job or not.

Would you trust him to perform open heart surgery on you then? Nothing that you've listed indicates his competence in leading a country, or for that matter, dealing with foreign powers with anything other than the barrel of a gun (or bombs in his case).

and he isn't actually competent at that either, given his record

I wasn't old enough to vote last election.



It shows dedication to the country. A willingness to serve and sacrifice.



See above.

Also, why would it not be a plus?
Because it doesn't guarantee the skills and/or temperament to do the job. Wanting to be helpful is not enough.

And other things can show dedication to the country and a willingness to serve and sacrifice, too. Otherwise, according to your argument, there were no patriotic presidents who were civilians.

it was in Palin's speech. She said something along the lines of, "You can compare a mayor of a small town to being like a community organiser - except, of course, a mayor actually does something"

Yeah, that, but I also read an op ed contending that point in her speech. I thought I'd read it on here, but I'll link to it just in case:

Dallas Morning News - Why do Republicans mock "community organizer" role? (http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/09/why-do-republic.html)

I didn't catch Palin's speech last night (I'm gonna watch it tomorrow after work on youtube), but I really liked Mccain's speech tonight.

I'm about 90% sure I'm gonna vote for him rather than Obama.

There's a surprise.

i did a quick test, and it looks like just **** and ****** are out, while kike, gook, motherfucker, etc. are all in. weird.

Urgh. I cringe just seeing those first two words.

Of course, it makes sense the second one isn't banned--didn't McCain himself use it before?

Would you trust him to perform open heart surgery on you then? Nothing that you've listed indicates his competence in leading a country, or for that matter, dealing with foreign powers with anything other than the barrel of a gun (or bombs in his case).

Seriously, drop the national service angle and take up some points that talk about whether he is competent for the job or not.

Nothing Obama has done indicates he would be qualified at leading a country either...

But, McCain had served in government for what, 20+ years? I'd say he has enough experience.

Because it doesn't guarantee the skills and/or temperament to do the job. Wanting to be helpful is not enough.

And other things can show dedication to the country and a willingness to serve and sacrifice, too. Otherwise, according to your argument, there were no patriotic presidents who were civilians.

The hell?

Serving int he military shows great dedication to the country. I'm not saying presidents or would be presidents who never served in the military are not patriotic by any means. I'm saying that having a military record shows one's patriotism, willingness to serve and sacrifice quite easily- and I dare say shows more patriotism than just about any other profession.

I wasn't old enough to vote last election.

It shows dedication to the country. A willingness to serve and sacrifice.

See above.

Also, why would it not be a plus?

Serving and sacrifice doesn't make you a great leader.

Being a military man doesn't make you a great President. The shrub, poppy Bush, and General Grant for example.....

Serving and sacrifice doesn't make you a great leader.

Being a military man doesn't make you a great President. The shrub, poppy Bush, and General Grant for example.....

The only "military accomplishment" Shrub ever had was sitting in an airmen's bar pretending he was a war hero like Poppy by downing (shots of) Kamikazes.

Serving and sacrifice doesn't make you a great leader.

Being a military man doesn't make you a great President. The shrub, poppy Bush, and General Grant for example.....

True. Its a great plus for getting elected, as it shows dedication.

McCain's years in government plus military service make him ready to be a leader.

But like I said, there's still a possibility I'll vote for Obama, just not a large one. I'm looking forward to the debates!

True. Its a great plus for getting elected, as it shows dedication.

McCain's years in government plus military service make him ready to be a leader.

But like I said, there's still a possibility I'll vote for Obama, just not a large one. I'm looking forward to the debates!

...you might want to look backward to the debates. We've had a few.

...you might want to look backward to the debates. We've had a few.

I'd rather see the one on one debates.

And I did watch most the previous debates.

Nothing Obama has done indicates he would be qualified at leading a country either...

Really, so how much leadership experience does John McCain have? Please not, I like John McCain just less than Obama. You're not really talking about leadership though. You are talking about the much blathered about "executive experience. If we were simply talking about "leadership" than I would say Obama has the following leadership experience:

1. Barack Obama has a Harvard Law Degree and was the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review. The president of the Harvard Law Review often goes on to become a clerk for a Federal Court of Appeals judge then for an associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Instead, he went back to Chicago to work on a voter registration drive that resulted in voter registration in Chicago's 19 predominantly black wards outnumbering those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards for the first time in Chicago's history.

2. He led people in Chicago during his community organizer days. It's funny though, the other day the RNC was holding up "service" signs. Their VP choice then went on to chastise Barack Obama for being a community organizer and giving his time in service. When he was doing this work he raised voter registration in the districts where African American are the majority to having more voters than the 1districts where Caucasians were the majority.

3. In the Illinois Senate Barack managed to help more children get health insurance than ever before. He also helped to get more people off welfare in a welfare to work program. He did this while reaching across the aisle and working with the Republicans.

4. He taught Constitutional Law and Civil Rights Law. During this time he represented indigent people pro-bono.

5. He served 8 years as a Senator in Illinois and now 3 in DC. 11 years of experience is not "little."

6. In the Illinois State Senate, this meant working with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided over $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Senator Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.

7. His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars are spent. He has also been the lead voice in championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress.

8. He also worked across party lines to pass laws to prevent non-proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. He did this with Richard Lugar, a Republican.

9. Obama's foreign policy experience includes graduating from Columbia University with a degree in political science with an emphasis on international relations. In the U.S. Senate Obama is unique among Senators in that he serves on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues including the Foreign Relations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs committees and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations which is responsible fore U.S. relations with European countries, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. When comparing Obama's foreign policy experience with other candidates for President you have Democrat Joseph Biden who is Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Democrat Hillary Clinton who is a member of the Armed Services Committee and John McCain who is the Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee yet there is no Senator except for Barack Obama who serves on three of the four committees that deal with foreign policy.


From Liuzzo to give credit where it is due since I was feeling too lazy to type it all up when it was already there. Foreign policy experience, community service, senate experience, legislature experience, many of these are aspects which a presidency must show some competency or learn very quickly if they are to do their job competently.


But, McCain had served in government for what, 20+ years? I'd say he has enough experience.

Then stop yakking about his military service, which has absolutely nothing to do with political ability, and start talking about his track record in those 20 years. Talking about military service as if it was a valid point is the sort of Chewbacca defense I expect the slimiest of lawyers to pull out.

From Liuzzo to give credit where it is due since I was feeling too lazy to type it all up when it was already there. Foreign policy experience, community service, senate experience, legislature experience, many of these are aspects which a presidency must show some competency or learn very quickly if they are to do their job competently.



Then stop yakking about his military service, which has absolutely nothing to do with political ability, and start talking about his track record in those 20 years. Talking about military service as if it was a valid point is the sort of Chewbacca defense I expect the slimiest of lawyers to pull out.

Why the fuck is his military experience NOT relevant?
It shows goddamn devotion, dedication, service, and sacrifice to the country. All good qualities in a leader.

His track record, from my understanding, has been one of fighting spending, and trying to work for the good of the nation. No, I haven't reviewed his career in depth as of now. I plan on looking more into in the near future.

As I said before, I'm not 100% sure on my decisicion. And why the hell am I even being attacked for saying this?!

I say I'm not 100% sure, and people still attack what I say.

What are you all, a bunch of Obama attack bots or something?!

What the hell is the point of you even being here if all you're aiming for is getting put on ignore by everyone? Isn't there somewhere else you can troll?
Some posters come here to debate and learn a little about the world around them. Some come here to hurl insults, denigrate women, and behave in an obnoxious manner. If the latter puts me on ignore, then I am grateful.

It certainly isn't my goal to have others put me on ignore. however, c'est la vie.

4 years ago, I was squarely behind Kerry for the Presidency and certainly didn't experience anything like what has been going on since I stated that I was supporting Hillary Clinton this time. The Obama folks have been less than kind ever since.

As far as Palin is concerned, I am not Republican minded at all, but I think it is great that they selected her to run as VP.

Why the fuck is his military experience NOT relevant?
It shows goddamn devotion, dedication, service, and sacrifice to the country. All good qualities in a leader.

His track record, from my understanding, has been one of fighting spending, and trying to work for the good of the nation. No, I haven't reviewed his career in depth as of now. I plan on looking more into in the near future.

As I said before, I'm not 100% sure on my decisicion. And why the hell am I even being attacked for saying this?!

I say I'm not 100% sure, and people still attack what I say.

What are you all, a bunch of Obama attack bots or something?!
Calm down, there, Job, it's not really all that bad.

They're not jumping on you for saying that you're not 100%, they're arguing the weight and and properties that you are assigning a line on the resume. And that's what McCain's service is, a line on the resume. Sure, you can learn something about the candidate from their service-but you can't glean everything you need to from just the fact that they served. Nor is it a check box. These aren't one to one comparisons.

The way that you state it, you imply that the only way to show dedication and service to your country is to grab a gun and volunteer to shoot people from another country. This is a narrow view of service. While it might be an unfortunate reality that national defense is an important element of statehood, it is not the only way to show devotion to or serve the people within. By inflating the importance of McCain's method while dismissing Obama's because it didn't come with explosions is narrow.

You're not being attacked, you're being challenged on that assumption. It's pretty much how it works-if you put an assertion out there, especially in a place like this, you open it to challenge.

Talking about military service as if it was a valid point is the sort of Chewbacca defense I expect the slimiest of lawyers to pull out.
Dwight David Eisenhower would probably disagree with you on that point?

Calm down, there, Job, it's not really all that bad.

They're not jumping on you for saying that you're not 100%, they're arguing the weight and and properties that you are assigning a line on the resume. And that's what McCain's service is, a line on the resume. Sure, you can learn something about the candidate from their service-but you can't glean everything you need to from just the fact that they served. Nor is it a check box. These aren't one to one comparisons.

The way that you state it, you imply that the only way to show dedication and service to your country is to grab a gun and volunteer to shoot people from another country. This is a narrow view of service. While it might be an unfortunate reality that national defense is an important element of statehood, it is not the only way to show devotion to or serve the people within. By inflating the importance of McCain's method while dismissing Obama's because it didn't come with explosions is narrow.

You're not being attacked, you're being challenged on that assumption. It's pretty much how it works-if you put an assertion out there, especially in a place like this, you open it to challenge.

I never said that military service are the only ways to show service and devotion.

Obama seems to have shown great service and devotion as well. They seem about equal in the service and devotion regard- until you remember McCain was tortured for a number of years, and came back ready to serve in the government. In my opinion his military service outweighs Obama's community service.

That's my view.

I never said being in the military is the only way to show service.

As I said in another thread, people are reading too much into other people's posts. (and I'm sure I do it too sometimes- I'm sure everyone does)

Why the fuck is his military experience NOT relevant?


Because it does not show one iota of his ability to do things unrelated to the military. Foreign affairs comes to mind. Service in the military will not teach you anything about how to deal with foreign cultures, world politics or even the basic niceties of international dealings. What about the economy? Does he know what the people he is supposed to lead know? These things you cannot pick up in the military.


It shows goddamn devotion, dedication, service, and sacrifice to the country. All good qualities in a leader.

All good qualities in a soldier. Not necessarily a leader. Above all, a leader, a good one, must know how to grasp what his people need and how to deliver it. An uncaring leader needs none of that, but I suspect nobody wants a leader who doesn't care a bit about them. The country cannot survive without its people, and any leader who places country above its people will doom both.

Devotion, dedication, service and sacrifice to the country are also good traits to have in emergency services doctors. Does that mean that alone will make a doctor qualified? Again I ask, would you let McCain perform open heart surgery on you?

McCain has served in the military. He knows sacrifice and he knows dedication. All well and good. But that accounts for nothing as to how well he will serve as a leader of a nation.

Not every soldier is meant to be a leader after all.


His track record, from my understanding, has been one of fighting spending, and trying to work for the good of the nation. No, I haven't reviewed his career in depth as of now. I plan on looking more into in the near future.


Then do so, but do not overly weigh his military career. He is not running for a military post, but a civilian one with vastly different responsibilities.


As I said before, I'm not 100% sure on my decisicion. And why the hell am I even being attacked for saying this?!

For saying you aren't 100% sure? Or for saying that his military experience is the biggest current factor in making the decision to support him for presidency?

I have not touched the former.


What are you all, a bunch of Obama attack bots or something?!

Ultimately, whether Obama or McCain wins is immaterial to me. I am far more likely to be done in by my own government than be affected directly by the decisions of either of the two in any tangible way. But I oppose the lies and obfuscation thrown about, not necessarily by you, as a matter of principle.

I never said that military service are the only ways to show service and devotion.

Obama seems to have shown great service and devotion as well. They seem about equal in the service and devotion regard- until you remember McCain was tortured for a number of years, and came back ready to serve in the government. In my opinion his military service outweighs Obama's community service.

That's my view.

I never said being in the military is the only way to show service.

As I said in another thread, people are reading too much into other people's posts. (and I'm sure I do it too sometimes- I'm sure everyone does)

What's unclear is how that actually translates. If Obama had been kidnapped and tortured by an inner city gang they'd then be even?

There is nothing inherently out of place for McCain to come back and continue in Naval career service, it was essentially the family business-his father was an Admiral.

Is it hardship? Obama was raised by a single mother who worked himself up to an easy ticket-only to turn back to those growing up in poor conditions and find ways to raise them up and involve them in the process.

This is what I'm talking about with weight. What about being captured and tortured is it that creates what seems to be your defining characteristic? Sure, it's admirable in that if it was me I would have been a whimpering mess in the corner to the point where they might stop torturing me because it's just too embarrassing to everyone involved.

As a bench mark, you need to be more specific and clear about how this directly applies. Are you creating a precedent that presidents need to tortured first? As glibly pointed out by people paraphrasing Jon Stewart, this qualifies everyone in Guantanamo Bay.

His track record, from my understanding, has been one of fighting spending, and trying to work for the good of the nation. No, I haven't reviewed his career in depth as of now. I plan on looking more into in the near future.
Be sure to look up about the Keating Five when you do review his Senatorial career.
My word yes, totally incorruptible.

As I said before, I'm not 100% sure on my decisicion. And why the hell am I even being attacked for saying this?!
maybe cause it's obvious to everyone else that you are sure of your decision and are just using uncertainly to attack.
I haven't seen you question McCain's ability to be president at all, just always Obama.
Do us a favour and just come right out and say you support McCain. At least then you'd have some respectability. All this, "I'm honestly not sure who to support, but McCain is great and Obama isn't" just comes across as sad at best and irritating at worst.

John McCain should also cut down on the Botox injections, he's beginning to look plastic.

John McCain should also cut down on the Botox injections, he's beginning to look plastic.

That's called Muppetitis. It's a side-effect of having Halliburton's hand shoved up your ass too often.

That's called Muppetitis. It's a side-effect of having Halliburton's hand shoved up your ass too often.

Astronauts trying to check if they can actually see the Great Wall of China are reporting that they're being blinded by the reflection from his head.

It's almost astonishing, this big round shiny head, stick a Nike sticker on it and you could use it for a game of 5-a-side football.

I'm worried if he gets upset, it'll just explode and it's not like he's renown for his nonchalant manner.

Astronauts trying to check if they can actually see the Great Wall of China are reporting that they're being blinded by the reflection from his head.

It's almost astonishing, this big round shiny head, stick a Nike sticker on it and you could use it for a game of 5-a-side football.

I'm worried if he gets upset, it'll just explode and it's not like he's renown for his nonchalant manner.

Considering how tautly stretched it is, I suspect they have to keep his head moist at all times. Expect frequent commercial breaks during presidential debates to remoisten it. The lights on stage are very drying and we don't want his skin to split open on national TV, do we?

...do we?

Considering how tautly stretched it is, I suspect they have to keep his head moist at all times. Expect frequent commercial breaks during presidential debates to remoisten it. The lights on stage are very drying and we don't want his skin to split open on national TV, do we?

...do we?

I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. The alternative creates a very disturbing mental image.

I have to admit, I was moved by his presentation of "loving my country" credentials with regard to service in the military and the POW narrative. I know it's played up for effect, but it needs very little embellishment to be effective.

That said, I also noticed that at every opportunity, even when it seemed really inappropriate, the audience burst into sycophantic cheers and applause, even while the Senator from Arizona was in mid-sentence. That and the fact that most of those cheers were of the mechanical "U-S-A" variety that always seem to make me feel a little uncomfortable for their automaticity and mindlessness, makes me wonder if McCain's supremely self-sacrificial serenade to the nation is, in and of itself, an instant pass to the White House.

It makes me wish that it had been a McCain-Obama ticket. That sure would've pissed off those self-righteous E. Van Jellicle cats I keep hearing about.

I have to admit, I was moved by his presentation of "loving my country" credentials with regard to service in the military and the POW narrative. I know it's played up for effect, but it needs very little embellishment to be effective.

That said, I also noticed that at every opportunity, even when it seemed really inappropriate, the audience burst into sycophantic cheers and applause, even while the Senator from Arizona was in mid-sentence. That and the fact that most of those cheers were of the mechanical "U-S-A" variety that always seem to make me feel a little uncomfortable for their automaticity and mindlessness, makes me wonder if McCain's supremely self-sacrificial serenade to the nation is, in and of itself, an instant pass to the White House.

It makes me wish that it had been a McCain-Obama ticket. That sure would've pissed off those self-righteous E. Van Jellicle cats I keep hearing about.


Sure, and I read a very sympathetic article on John McCain today in the IHT.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/04/america/mccain.php

It's long.

I have to say I like the guy, I just can't accept the party he represents, I think it's a shame he's had to pander to the very worst aspects of that party and I'm really not a fan of Sarah Palin.

The Botox, though, is simply laughable, the plasticity and false shiny sheen seems a perfect metaphor for his evolved position from someone who took on a party and was destroyed by it, thus taking on the mask of he requires to gain the vote of the most regressive part of his electoral base.

Sure, and I read a very sympathetic article on John McCain today in the IHT.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/04/america/mccain.php

It's long.

I have to say I like the guy, I just can't accept the party he represents, I think it's a shame he's had to pander to the very worst aspects of that party and I'm really not a fan of Sarah Palin.

The Botox, though, is simply laughable, the plasticity and false shiny sheen seems a perfect metaphor for his evolved position from someone who took on a party and was destroyed by it, thus taking on the mask of he requires to gain the vote of the most regressive part of his electoral base.

Excellent point.

If I could vote for the McCain of 2000, who'd never heard of Palin and who called televangelists "agents of intolerance", I would. He's shown himself to be just another opportunist. A highly respectable, decorated and dedicated one, but an opportunist nonetheless.

Excellent point.

If I could vote for the McCain of 2000, who'd never heard of Palin and who called televangelists "agents of intolerance", I would. He's shown himself to be just another opportunist. A highly respectable, decorated and dedicated one, but an opportunist nonetheless.

Yep, it's a tragedy. The True Maverick John McCain died in the 2000 Campaign and was replaced by a Bushevik Pod Thing.

Yep, it's a tragedy. The True Maverick John McCain died in the 2000 Campaign and was replaced by a Bushevik Pod Thing.

Yeah. I expect, if he wins, to see him point at the camera, open his mouth and make that screeching noise like Donald Sutherland at the end of the 1970's remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Yep, it's a tragedy. The True Maverick John McCain died in the 2000 Campaign and was replaced by a Bushevik Pod Thing.

I truly think thats one of the great tradgedies of US Presidential politics. He would have made a brilliant VP to Obama back then.

I have to admit, I was moved by his presentation of "loving my country" credentials with regard to service in the military and the POW narrative. I know it's played up for effect, but it needs very little embellishment to be effective.

That said, I also noticed that at every opportunity, even when it seemed really inappropriate, the audience burst into sycophantic cheers and applause, even while the Senator from Arizona was in mid-sentence. That and the fact that most of those cheers were of the mechanical "U-S-A" variety that always seem to make me feel a little uncomfortable for their automaticity and mindlessness, makes me wonder if McCain's supremely self-sacrificial serenade to the nation is, in and of itself, an instant pass to the White House.

It makes me wish that it had been a McCain-Obama ticket. That sure would've pissed off those self-righteous E. Van Jellicle cats I keep hearing about.
E. Van Jellico, you mean:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Edward_Jellico


Anyway, I had to stop listening to the speech about halfway through because of those said maniacal cheers. They were extremely disturbing.

I'm also more than halfway certain they were intentionally staged to make McCain look as good as possible to audiences on television, radio, and the Internet. McCain's presence needs as much boost as it can, because he can't really out-Obama Obama, to use the phrase an NPR analyst was using, in that he simply can't deliver speeches as well.

I also felt his speech didn't seem like much more than empty rhetoric, and though I thought the same of Obama's, with McCain it was just...painful. Obama at least made his rhetoric worth listening to. McCain didn't, not in my opinion.

Excellent point.

If I could vote for the McCain of 2000, who'd never heard of Palin and who called televangelists "agents of intolerance", I would. He's shown himself to be just another opportunist. A highly respectable, decorated and dedicated one, but an opportunist nonetheless.
He sold out the second he hired all those obscene Bush goons who so happily smeared and destroyed him in the 2000 primaries. How he could even sit in the same room, let alone hire, the Bush campaign people who made such disgusting slander about him is beyond me. Only way I can see is by completely disregarding all his morals and honour.

If the comments on the BBC forums are anything to go by, I fear for America:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5306&edition=2&ttl=20080905122840
Here's a few of the more choice ones:
"Fraud. What about a man who was born and raised a Muslim, and went to a Muslim school, and now denies it and claims to be an evangelical christian?"

"Why do men who find themselves on the liberal left of politics have such a problem with strong, powerful political women?
Is it an erectile dysfunction thing?
Can you only get off on women you have power over?
Why resort to base and sexist attacks?
Why attack her daughter?
You liberal left lot preach equality and fairness yet your true fascisitic, sexist and anti female beliefs really are here for all to see and read today."

"Do the self-loathers of the left actually love anything (other than the sound of their own voice)? Is all just varying degrees of loathing and derision?"

"Obama is a really bad judge of character - no wonder Hamas, Hezbollah & a raft of other theocratical dictatorial loonies are rooting for him - as well as the EU liberal left."

And that's from looking through just the first 5 pages - and this is the BBC, not Fox!
FOX must be extremely proud of themselves. Their strategies are obviously working.

Only way I can see is by completely disregarding all his morals and honour.

mccain has always been a hack. this isn't the first time he's shamelessly reinvented himself as the opposite of what he proclaimed he was before.

Rudy had a great line in his speech at the RNC. He said, Change isnt inherently good its just a different direction, and Hope isnt a strategy, its what you do when you lack one.

I never said that military service are the only ways to show service and devotion.

Obama seems to have shown great service and devotion as well. They seem about equal in the service and devotion regard- until you remember McCain was tortured for a number of years, and came back ready to serve in the government. In my opinion his military service outweighs Obama's community service.

So if someone in Southside Chicago had stabbed Obama several times in a brutal attack during his work as a community organizer, his community service would have the same weight as McCain's?

It has lots to do with the "schisms" in the Democrat party. I have been there. I have fought hard for human rights all my life. The Democrats are so busy fighting themselves that the other party is going to win by default. They, the Republicans, play rally round the flag better then the current crop of Democrats.

The biggest problem in US politics is that there are only 2 viable parties. As it stands right now, Nader's platform (http://www.votenader.org/issues/)would better represent my goals.

What you said was - that you were getting in touch with the conservative aspects, and then you present Nader. Given a spectrum of Nader, Obama and McCain - Nader is not the conservative candidate.

So, either Nader (while perhaps matching your interests most accurately) is NOT who you were talking about switching to, or you - yourself - have just been caught buying into the exact same 'two party' trap. i.e. You don't like Democrat infighting, so you move towards Republicans.

The problem in American politics is that Americans have very short memories. They get so caught up in whatever the latest bit of 'flash' is, that they forget they were taking it in the ass with a rolled-up copy of the Constitution last weekend.

On the Nader thing - I actually agree. I agree with pretty much everything Nader stands for, with the exception of his support for Affirmative Action. But, you were talking about getting in touch with the little Conservative inside you - when did you decide to jump ships?

mccain has always been a hack. this isn't the first time he's shamelessly reinvented himself as the opposite of what he proclaimed he was before.
true dat. What I should have said was, "Only way I can see is by completely disregarding what little he had left of all his morals and honor"

I still can't quite see how his POW experience, as some on this board, the republican party, it's supporters and indeed he himself hammer on and on about, makes him so suitably qualified to be president. Sure it shows he once had (and prob still has) an incredible amount of stoicism and bravery, but is that going to help him make the correct decisions when facing down Iran, North Korea, China (esp over it's Darfur and Sudan involvements) let alone making correct economic/financial decisions to rescue the US economy from recession?
I can't quite connect being stuck in a bamboo cage for 5 years as giving one the necessary financial nous to deal with the economic crisis facing the US.

I notice a great deal of his speech was about being bipartisan, which is what Obama has been touting his entire campaign. This makes Obama a flip-flopper, but McCain savy and noble.
Just waiting now for FOX to claim Obama is copying McCain by calling for bipartisan talks.
And then for the dittoheads to eagerly agree and post it in the media, on this forum and everywhere else.
*sigh*

Okay...


Why is that a big plus?

Duh, obvious? What use would an American president be, that wasn't comfortable with killing people?

Nothing Obama has done indicates he would be qualified at leading a country either...

But, McCain had served in government for what, 20+ years? I'd say he has enough experience.
Quality of experience is at least as important as quantity, if not more.

Over those 20+ years, I have seen McCain go from an honorable public servant to a compliant lapdog of corporate special interests, from an independent thinker who worked free of party divisions to a slave of the Republican party line. 20+ years of decline is not better than a shorter career of improvement, in my opinion.

The hell?

Serving int he military shows great dedication to the country. I'm not saying presidents or would be presidents who never served in the military are not patriotic by any means. I'm saying that having a military record shows one's patriotism, willingness to serve and sacrifice quite easily- and I dare say shows more patriotism than just about any other profession.
So...you're not saying civilian presidents were less patriotic, but you are saying that a military career shows more patriotism? Um... contradict yourself much?

And you still have not addressed the question of whether just being dedicated to your country makes you qualified to lead it.

True. Its a great plus for getting elected, as it shows dedication.

McCain's years in government plus military service make him ready to be a leader.

But like I said, there's still a possibility I'll vote for Obama, just not a large one. I'm looking forward to the debates!
Choosing a president based on how he looks in election campaign ads with images of his medals and the flag floating around him is a very shallow way to vote.

If this is your first presidential election, please don't blow it. Base your pick on the candidates' policies, for the love of everything lovable, please.

Choosing a president based on how he looks in election campaign ads with images of his medals and the flag floating around him is a very shallow way to vote.

If this is your first presidential election, please don't blow it. Base your pick on the candidates' policies, for the love of everything lovable, please.

Of course, given Trollgaard's "America, Fuck Yeah" mentality, he'll look at the policies and think that diplomacy is an inherently bad thing, and therefore still conclude he must vote for McCain.

If people want to talk experience, the fact is that the only real experience one can look at is how well either candidate organise their campaign because what we're really looking at is managing an administration.

On this score, Barack Obama is simply miles ahead, John McCain nearly went bankrupt and only won because his opponents were simply unelectable. Giuliani was a joke, Huckabee was beyond a joke and Romney, who I personally felt was the best Republican candidate, is quite simply an alien, a smart one perhaps but no Republican voter is going to support an alien.

John McCain didn't so much win as not lose, and his party knows that.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, won a very hard fought campaign and, although I think he had some advantages, those advantages were gained by clever messaging and a very intelligently run team.

He has a 50-state strategy with grassroot teams working in those states, he was possibly the best at utilising the Internet.

If one wanted someone who could manage something of the size and scale of America, and let's remember that the difference between the candidates is not so much policy as what they represent, then the real determining factor is management.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, an objective, intelligent voter would support Barack Obama. That's not to say he has blind support on a large scale, he does, it's simply that if you look at the best way forward for America, whether that means investing in the future of America or easing international relations, he's the intelligent choice.

He may not be perfect, and all I really see in objection is 'he has no experience' or 'taxessss', which are both merely memes, slogans and both wrong, but he's just the better candidate.

Of course, given Trollgaard's "America, Fuck Yeah" mentality, he'll look at the policies and think that diplomacy is an inherently bad thing, and therefore still conclude he must vote for McCain.
Oh, well, that's a given. I'm just sick of all this coy play-acting. "Oh, but I just feel helplessly drawn by his dedication and sacrifice. It's like being caught in the gravitational field of a black hole. I'd like to be able to want to vote for Obama, I really, really would, but I just can't resist the pull of McCain's glorious war record." :starry eyes and hearts:

I agree completely with ZombiePotatoheads (and it's funny to write that :p) that he's just a McCain supporter putting on the old "I just can't make up my mind between McCain who seems so wonderful in so many ways and Obama who doesn't" act. This is nothing but a ploy to try to cast doubt on Obama. It's really just an indirect attack.

Quite. It’s like that oft use, too clever by half “well, I was going to vote for Obama but…” followed by “his wife is a terrorist” or “he’s too elitist” or any number of right wing talking points. Please, don’t insult my intelligence by claiming you were going to vote for a man, but some Karl Rove dreampt up bullshit convinced you to vote for a man that is his political opposite in almost every way.

Yes, you were so ready to vote for a pro choice liberal, but then his wife gave him a fist bump so now you’re voting for a right wing borderline theocrat. Please

Choosing a president based on how he looks in election campaign ads with images of his medals and the flag floating around him is a very shallow way to vote.

If this is your first presidential election, please don't blow it. Base your pick on the candidates' policies, for the love of everything lovable, please.

This we agree on.

I also noticed that at every opportunity, even when it seemed really inappropriate, the audience burst into sycophantic cheers and applause, even while the Senator from Arizona was in mid-sentence. That and the fact that most of those cheers were of the mechanical "U-S-A" variety ...

Those weren't sycophantic cheers. They were attempts to drown out the effects of protesters who appeared in the hall. NBC News cut away each time to show some moron or another trying to disrupt the nomination speech with obnoxious banners, body paint, or other idiocy. The violent ones were carried out by security - the polite ones were merely drowned out or blocked from camera view by Republican loyalist signs.

I'm not a McCain fan by any stretch, but these people do more harm to their own causes than to McCain. Give him (and us) his 45 minutes in the spotlight, and stop being assholes on national TV.

...and if anyone thinks John McCain's economic policies are going to work, enjoy, and remember...

Economic mess (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/05/marketturmoil.economicgrowth)

Jobs data released this afternoon showed that unemployment in the US soared to its highest level in nearly five years in August, as the credit crunch continues to takes it toll on the country's already fragile economy.

The US Labour Department said that employment in the US outside the agricultural sector fell 84,000 in August, exceeding economists' expectations of a 75,000 drop.

There was also an unexpected increase in the country's unemployment rate last month, to 6.1% - the highest since December 2003. Analysts has expected it to remain steady at 5.7%.

The worst since the Tech bubble, 9/11 and SARS could be considered factors, and the administration can't even blame these factors this time, and it's worse.

Yet people think they can trust the Republicans on economics, that lowering taxes, which they don't even do for the average person, matters.

The figures were "very ugly across the board," said Boris Schlossberg at GFT Forex, New York. "The most startling thing for the market was this huge jump in the unemployment rate. That's the highest number in five years.

"The jobless rate suggests that the climate for job expansion has become much more difficult and suggests we are probably going to have a much harder fourth quarter facing us."

Yet the same policies will turn this time around....sure.

"This is not a flight to quality, it is simply a flight," said Alan Ruskin, chief international strategist at RBS Greenwich Capital.

8 years of administration, seriously.

Wake up.

Quite. It’s like that oft use, too clever by half “well, I was going to vote for Obama but…” followed by “his wife is a terrorist” or “he’s too elitist” or any number of right wing talking points. Please, don’t insult my intelligence by claiming you were going to vote for a man, but some Karl Rove dreampt up bullshit convinced you to vote for a man that is his political opposite in almost every way.

Yes, you were so ready to vote for a pro choice liberal, but then his wife gave him a fist bump so now you’re voting for a right wing borderline theocrat. Please

Yes, exactly. This also goes for the people who were absolutely in love with Clinton and suddenly they aren't promoting McCain because they're bitter. It's really because the guy who stands for the opposite of Clinton is the best the choice.

Yes, exactly. This also goes for the people who were absolutely in love with Clinton and suddenly they aren't promoting McCain because they're bitter.

You mean Obama, surely? or am I misunderstanding?

You mean Obama, surely? or am I misunderstanding?

No, McCain. Some people, no names need be mentioned, are suddenly promoting McCain but claim it's not because they're bitter. Yet, they also promoted Clinton. You can't switch to McCain if you really believed in Clinton. They are polar opposites. Claiming one changed to McCain on the issues after supporting Clinton is ludicrous.

(The original was poor wording. Is that clearer?)

You mean Obama, surely? or am I misunderstanding?

He's saying that they claim to be supporting McCain not because they are bitter over losing, but because he is the best candidate. Despite, you know, disagreeing with their first choice on almost every issue.

EDIT:
Curses, sniped again!

(I thought your original wording was fine, by the way)

true dat. What I should have said was, "Only way I can see is by completely disregarding what little he had left of all his morals and honor"

I still can't quite see how his POW experience, as some on this board, the republican party, it's supporters and indeed he himself hammer on and on about, makes him so suitably qualified to be president. Sure it shows he once had (and prob still has) an incredible amount of stoicism and bravery, but is that going to help him make the correct decisions when facing down Iran, North Korea, China (esp over it's Darfur and Sudan involvements) let alone making correct economic/financial decisions to rescue the US economy from recession?
I can't quite connect being stuck in a bamboo cage for 5 years as giving one the necessary financial nous to deal with the economic crisis facing the US.

I notice a great deal of his speech was about being bipartisan, which is what Obama has been touting his entire campaign. This makes Obama a flip-flopper, but McCain savy and noble.
Just waiting now for FOX to claim Obama is copying McCain by calling for bipartisan talks.
And then for the dittoheads to eagerly agree and post it in the media, on this forum and everywhere else.
*sigh*
when mccain talks about being bipartisan and says that he will put have members of the other party in his cabinet he is talking about JOE LIEBERMAN and nothing else.

Those weren't sycophantic cheers. They were attempts to drown out the effects of protesters who appeared in the hall. NBC News cut away each time to show some moron or another trying to disrupt the nomination speech with obnoxious banners, body paint, or other idiocy. The violent ones were carried out by security - the polite ones were merely drowned out or blocked from camera view by Republican loyalist signs.

I'm not a McCain fan by any stretch, but these people do more harm to their own causes than to McCain. Give him (and us) his 45 minutes in the spotlight, and stop being assholes on national TV.
ohhhh i wondered what that was all about. i cant LOOK at the screen much when mccain is speaking--he creeps me out--so i didnt see any of that happening.

Quite. It’s like that oft use, too clever by half “well, I was going to vote for Obama but…” followed by “his wife is a terrorist” or “he’s too elitist” or any number of right wing talking points. Please, don’t insult my intelligence by claiming you were going to vote for a man, but some Karl Rove dreampt up bullshit convinced you to vote for a man that is his political opposite in almost every way.

Yes, you were so ready to vote for a pro choice liberal, but then his wife gave him a fist bump so now you’re voting for a right wing borderline theocrat. Please

Heres the sad thing. I really do believe that some Americans out there are dumb enough to be prepared to vote for Obama, and then decide they will vote for McCain after the Right Wing Scare Mongering Machine kicks in. Remember a lot of Americans dont vote based on issues, they vote based on "personality", "likability", "how much they love 'merica" or some other such nonsense.


So, either people who say "I was going to vote for Obama but then I found out hes an ebil Muslim and his wife hates whitey and now Im voting McCain" is either insulting our intellegence, or it means your a naive fool who buys whatever crap Fox News spoon feeds you. Neither label is very endearing.

(The original was poor wording. Is that clearer?)

yes, gotcha

Those weren't sycophantic cheers. They were attempts to drown out the effects of protesters who appeared in the hall.
The only that McCain, as opposed to the infiltrating protestors, got the crowd roused and making noise if when he was drawing (generally dishonest) contrasts with Obama, and fired up the crowd to shout BOOOOOO! at him. He did this same thing in the infamous "lime green background" speech the night Obama clinched the nomination. Does he really want to psychologically associate himself in everybody's mind with jeering mobs?

Because it does not show one iota of his ability to do things unrelated to the military. Foreign affairs comes to mind. Service in the military will not teach you anything about how to deal with foreign cultures,

Sure it does, you deal with them by shooting them and dropping bombs on them.

Considering how tautly stretched it is, I suspect they have to keep his head moist at all times. Expect frequent commercial breaks during presidential debates to remoisten it. The lights on stage are very drying and we don't want his skin to split open on national TV, do we?

...do we?

I'm gonna go with "no" on this one. The alternative creates a very disturbing mental image.

I just wonder what kind of monstrosity would come wriggling out of the torn flesh of it's John McCaine disguise.

I just wonder what kind of monstrosity would come wriggling out of the torn flesh of it's John McCaine disguise.

Dick Cheney.

Those weren't sycophantic cheers. They were attempts to drown out the effects of protesters who appeared in the hall. NBC News cut away each time to show some moron or another trying to disrupt the nomination speech with obnoxious banners, body paint, or other idiocy. The violent ones were carried out by security - the polite ones were merely drowned out or blocked from camera view by Republican loyalist signs.

I'm not a McCain fan by any stretch, but these people do more harm to their own causes than to McCain. Give him (and us) his 45 minutes in the spotlight, and stop being assholes on national TV.

I saw them, too. I'll admit I had the TV muted for a couple of phone calls that came in, and saw the protesters. The one who knew how to do it was the guy with the sign reading "McCain votes against veterans." Your point is entirely valid and correct. Nobody (as far as we could see from the broadcast) did that kind of crap during the Dems' love-fest. Seems to me all stuff like that does is rile up and solidify McCain's supporters and shows those few (and I mean truly few) on the fence a really bad side of his opposition. As soon as anyone wonders aloud "did Obama approve those protests?", the GOP instantly gains sympathy.

He sold out the second he hired all those obscene Bush goons who so happily smeared and destroyed him in the 2000 primaries. How he could even sit in the same room, let alone hire, the Bush campaign people who made such disgusting slander about him is beyond me. Only way I can see is by completely disregarding all his morals and honour.

If the comments on the BBC forums are anything to go by, I fear for America:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=5306&edition=2&ttl=20080905122840
Here's a few of the more choice ones:
"Fraud. What about a man who was born and raised a Muslim, and went to a Muslim school, and now denies it and claims to be an evangelical christian?"

"Why do men who find themselves on the liberal left of politics have such a problem with strong, powerful political women?
Is it an erectile dysfunction thing?
Can you only get off on women you have power over?
Why resort to base and sexist attacks?
Why attack her daughter?
You liberal left lot preach equality and fairness yet your true fascisitic, sexist and anti female beliefs really are here for all to see and read today."

"Do the self-loathers of the left actually love anything (other than the sound of their own voice)? Is all just varying degrees of loathing and derision?"

"Obama is a really bad judge of character - no wonder Hamas, Hezbollah & a raft of other theocratical dictatorial loonies are rooting for him - as well as the EU liberal left."

And that's from looking through just the first 5 pages - and this is the BBC, not Fox!
FOX must be extremely proud of themselves. Their strategies are obviously working.

Wow. Just wow.

Just waiting now for FOX to claim Obama is copying McCain by calling for bipartisan talks.
And then for the dittoheads to eagerly agree and post it in the media, on this forum and everywhere else.
*sigh*

The United States is all ready overwhelmed by a zombie epidemic. Unfortunately it's not the clearly blatant flesh-eating kind that can be put down with massive cerebral trauma. These zombies don't have much of a brain to begin with and their bite spreads Bushevism.

I saw them, too. I'll admit I had the TV muted for a couple of phone calls that came in, and saw the protesters. The one who knew how to do it was the guy with the sign reading "McCain votes against veterans." Your point is entirely valid and correct. Nobody (as far as we could see from the broadcast) did that kind of crap during the Dems' love-fest. Seems to me all stuff like that does is rile up and solidify McCain's supporters and shows those few (and I mean truly few) on the fence a really bad side of his opposition. As soon as anyone wonders aloud "did Obama approve those protests?", the GOP instantly gains sympathy.

Wow. Just wow.

The BBC is an international site as it is. Looks like a beachhead of Busheviks posting their usual ebil librul crap there.

And now, a song by Moxy Fruvous:

THE GREATEST MAN IN AMERICA

Ditto...ditto...ditto...ditto [four part vocals on a dominant 7, sharp 9]

Coming from Canada
We love those leaders
Who personify the US way to be
There was JFK, and LBJ
And WKRP
But of these there is
Not one to rival
The greatest person of them all
He's a megalo with a healthy glow
He's the man called Rush Limbaugh

He's a dose of P.T. Barnum
With a Mussolini twist
There in the limousine parked on the lawn
He's a goofy Genghis Khan

Not since Jesus Christ has the world seen someone
With such widely syndicated views
Hundreds of years from now
They'll celebrate Rushmas!
(And Rush-HaShana for the Jews)
Watch him pull the plug on feminazis
Paranoid minorities and gays
He's a burning bush with a network push
Sure to start a country-wide blaze

He taught me to love and praise Charlton Heston
Oliver North is quite a good man, too
Forget Al & Tipper, let's bring back the Gipper
And Joe McCarthy, too

I was a troubled soul
Consumed by voices
Advocating special interest groups and vice
'Til Rush rushed to my sweet rescue
Now I'll never, ever have to think twice
So let's sign a check for Limbaugh-ism
Restore the moral fundamental core
Then we'll pump the debt
And start a Tet offensive on the poor

It's a mystery in the making (everybody!)
But distinctly upper class (well, not everybody, heh)
Yes, sir, I'll get the door
Roll the carpet on the floor
For a man (for a man)
For a man (such a man)
For a man
With his head up his...

Ditto?
Ditto?
Ditto.
Ditto!

...Ask us the name of the king
It's Rush!

A person, no matter how much you dislike her, is not a "prop vagina".

What if said person is a giant plastic vulva with the word "emet" engraved upon it?

What if said person is a giant plastic vulva with the word "emet" engraved upon it?

Just don't rub off the first Hebrew letter or it grows a set of razor teeth and turns into MAnn Coulter.

Oh, the Republican party will still decry sexism, I have no doubt. They don't think of Hilary as a woman, remember? She's a hard nasty lesbian bitch.
They learned that from the Democrats?

They learned that from the Democrats?

Bitter, party of one?

They learned that from the Democrats?

Where does that come from?

Where does that come from?
The obvious sources? It is one thing to decry that the Republicans are sexist, and another to realize that way too many Democrats revealed that they too have the same problem. It comes from comments on these threads and from comments on other blogs and comments on other news stories. I couldn't believe the amount of slurs that were thrown at Hillary throughout this campaign. And now a number of Democrats/supporters are throwing around the same sexists comments about Palin. I think the issue of sexism is a wash.

Edit: actually in this campaign it is not totally a wash in that the Republicans actually nominated a woman for VP.

They learned that from the Democrats?

wut?

And Canuck...what happened to you? You probably don't remember me, but a few years ago, we used to encounter each other quite a bit, back when I was a festering neocon. And we got along. We weren't dicks, just presenting other points of view. And I remember you well.

Now, I'm an anarchocapitalist, and you're back in full force, but now you're all grumpy.

New CH makes me sad. :(

They learned that from the Democrats?

Well, there's one thing you've learned from Hillary: how to be snide, sarcastic, and nasty while painting yourself as the victim.

The obvious sources? It is one thing to decry that the Republicans are sexist, and another to realize that way too many Democrats revealed that they too have the same problem. It comes from comments on these threads and from comments on other blogs and comments on other news stories. I couldn't believe the amount of slurs that were thrown at Hillary throughout this campaign. And now a number of Democrats/supporters are throwing around the same sexists comments about Palin. I think the issue of sexism is a wash.

Edit: actually in this campaign it is not totally a wash in that the Republicans actually nominated a woman for VP.

Blogs, comments, and this forum =/= the Democrats.

Again. For like, the fifth time, or something.

Edit: actually in this campaign it is not totally a wash in that the Republicans actually nominated a woman for VP.

Well aren't you just the progressive little female rights crusader? Nevermind the fact that, if she had her way, Sarah Palin would strip away one of the most important rights women have gained in the past 30 years, or that the Republicans are 24 years late to the female VP candidate party. No, that's not important. The Republicans nominated a woman, and that alone is something we should cheer.

Who's really the sexist here? You are touting a candidate merely because of her gender. You've shown, through your blind support for a VP candidate who is diametrically opposed to Clinton, that your ultimate consideration is gender. Experience, political views, policies; all can be damned. Palin's a girl, and that makes her good enough.

Well aren't you just the progressive little female rights crusader? Nevermind the fact that, if she had her way, Sarah Palin would strip away one of the most important rights women have gained in the past 30 years, or that the Republicans are 24 years late to the female VP candidate party. No, that's not important. The Republicans nominated a woman, and that alone is something we should cheer.

Who's really the sexist here? You are touting a candidate merely because of her gender. You've shown, through your blind support for a VP candidate who is diametrically opposed to Clinton, that your ultimate consideration is gender. Experience, political views, policies; all can be damned. Palin's a girl, and that makes her good enough.

It's not a total wash, because the Republicans nominated a woman.

They didn't nominate anyone who wasn't 'white'. They didn't nominate anyone that goes against the evangelical base. They DID nominate someone who would sign law to remove the right to govern your own uterus. They DID nominate someone who would remove the right to marry outside of certain strict parameters. Indeed - that would be willing to amend the constitution as such. They DID nominate someone who would remove separation of church and state in schools.

But none of that matters, because she pees sitting down. And that's progress. (Especially if you ignore the fact that America is becoming part of an increasingly shrinking club that has kept women out of the top offices... and that other parties even IN America have gone at least this far, already).

I thought my siggy would be evidence as to who I support for VP and that would be Matt Gonzales.

So you don't think that Palin should be VP? My, you sexist pig.

... or perhaps some of our criticisms of her actually have merit?

BTW, it is Matt Gonzalez, but if you really cared you'd know that.

I don't see why not.

Obviously, if you are willing to support Nader/Gonzalez, your standards of qualifications aren't that high.

Forgive those of us that think a few years running a very small town and less than 2 years running Alaska makes one less qualified to be in charge of the U.S. Executive Branch than actually being a figure in national politics -- after all, we're just being sexist.

I really don't know enough about her policies to give an educated opinion.

Yet you feel confident opining that those of us that oppose her are just being sexist.

Physician, heal thyself.

Because I am Canadian, I am unable to see the "schisms in the Democratic Party"? Understanding why I would support the Green Party would be a better focus of your concern? And I actually was encouraging a Democratic Party victory until those in the party felt more inclined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Do I really need to elaborate here?

Your participation in the Democratic Party is theoretical at best.

Your devotion to the U.S. Democratic Party appears to be a single candidate deep.

You appear to put personal pique over principles.

By your own characterization, your support for the Democratic Party hinges on whether or not the Democrats are doing what you think they should do strategically. But despite this claim to want to support the winnner, you also claim you now support a guaranteed loser.

Your devotion to your current candidate is so shallow that you failed to note my mistake in characterizing Nader as the Green Party candidate. He isn't. Cynthia McKinney is.

So, no, I don't give your thoughts on "schisms" in the Democratic Party a lot of weight. They appear to be based on nothing more than your own personal bitterness.

And, although I think I know why you say you support Nader and I don't really give a shit as to your putative justifications, perhaps your rationalizations would be amusing. Feel free to share on why supporting Nader is better for the U.S. and/or the world than actually electing Obama.

As far as Palin is concerned, I am not Republican minded at all, but I think it is great that they selected her to run as VP.

You have yet to give any reason why it is "great" other than her gender and a few mistatements by someone that admits he doesn't really know her political positions.

The obvious sources? It is one thing to decry that the Republicans are sexist, and another to realize that way too many Democrats revealed that they too have the same problem. It comes from comments on these threads and from comments on other blogs and comments on other news stories. I couldn't believe the amount of slurs that were thrown at Hillary throughout this campaign. And now a number of Democrats/supporters are throwing around the same sexists comments about Palin. I think the issue of sexism is a wash.

A few over-the-top comments by people on these forums hardly is evidence of a significant problem with the Democratic Party -- especially as many of those comments came from sources other than Democrats.

Please point to where actual Democratic Party members have said sexist things about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin.

Now, compare whatever stray comments you can come up with with the misogynist policies of McCain and Palin and the Republican Party.

The two don't come close to being a wash.

Edit: actually in this campaign it is not totally a wash in that the Republicans actually nominated a woman for VP.

There you go again. Praising the Republicans solely for having a vagina on the ticket.

It's not a total wash, because the Republicans nominated a woman.

They didn't nominate anyone who wasn't 'white'. They didn't nominate anyone that goes against the evangelical base. They DID nominate someone who would sign law to remove the right to govern your own uterus. They DID nominate someone who would remove the right to marry outside of certain strict parameters. Indeed - that would be willing to amend the constitution as such. They DID nominate someone who would remove separation of church and state in schools.

But none of that matters, because she pees sitting down. And that's progress. (Especially if you ignore the fact that America is becoming part of an increasingly shrinking club that has kept women out of the top offices... and that other parties even IN America have gone at least this far, already).

See, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not about it being progress. I don't see how it's progressive for the Republicans to do what the Democrats did a quarter century ago, in a year where the Democrats very nearly nominated a woman for the actual presidency. I guess we can say, sure, it's progress for the Republicans, but for the United States as a nation, it's not progressive; it's been done before.

Well, there's one thing you've learned from Hillary: how to be snide, sarcastic, and nasty while painting yourself as the victim.
You can be quite sure that I did not learn that from Hillary. So many nasty comments have been directed towards Hillary by Obama supporters, that I started to question why they were doing that. I am at a loss trying to figure it out.

For one to suggest that the Republicans have eminent domain in regards to sexism is for one not to look in the mirror, or for one not to see the truth.

Go ahead and peruse the Sarah Palin threads, or the old Hillary Clinton nomination threads and you will see exactly what I mean.

See, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not about it being progress. I don't see how it's progressive for the Republicans to do what the Democrats did a quarter century ago, in a year where the Democrats very nearly nominated a woman for the actual presidency. I guess we can say, sure, it's progress for the Republicans, but for the United States as a nation, it's not progressive; it's been done before.

It was sarcasm, my friend.

In the UK, a female politician in a high ranking position isn't that big a deal, for some reason. And the UK certainly isn't that outstanding... I can cast around to half a dozen places - right off the top of my head - that have (now, or have had) female politicians in the highest offices.

The fact that it's a big deal - at all - in the US, kind of makes a bit of a joke of the whole 'progress' argument, anyway. Especially since - as you just said, and as I pointed out earlier, the Democrats have already done exactly the same thing (a while back, now) AND almost ran a female candidate for the position ABOVE vp.

You can be quite sure that I did not learn that from Hillary. So many nasty comments have been directed towards Hillary by Obama supporters, that I started to question why they were doing that. I am at a loss trying to figure it out.

For one to suggest that the Republicans have eminent domain in regards to sexism is for one not to look in the mirror, or for one not to see the truth.

Go ahead and peruse the Sarah Palin threads, or the old Hillary Clinton nomination threads and you will see exactly what I mean.

Which threads did Barack Obama post in? Which ones did John McCain post in?

Oh yeah - none of them. Because debate threads on NS, while OBVIOUSLY incredibly important, are NOT the official mouthpieces of the Republican and Democrat parties.

This whole 'yeah, but someone said' line is horseshit. If you can't show that Democrats IN THE PARTY were doing what Republicans IN THE PARTY are doing, your point is worthless.