NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone who wants to start a McCain/Obama thread, go ahead.

Okay, I will be the trailblazer....

Note to Mods.....if you don't like the title....then change it.

Latest polls show a large swing towards the Republicans:

Poll: Convention lifts McCain over Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm)

WASHINGTON — The Republican National Convention has given John McCain and his party a significant boost, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken over the weekend shows, as running mate Sarah Palin helps close an "enthusiasm gap" that has dogged the GOP all year.

McCain leads Democrat Barack Obama by 50%-46% among registered voters, the Republican's biggest advantage since January and a turnaround from the USA TODAY poll taken just before the convention opened in St. Paul. Then, he lagged by 7 percentage points.

The convention bounce has helped not only McCain but also attitudes toward Republican congressional candidates and the GOP in general.

"The Republicans had a very successful convention and, at least initially, the selection of Sarah Palin has made a big difference," says political scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. "He's in a far better position than his people imagined he would be in at this point."
I am not surprised, but it is still along way to the election.

What is your thoughts on this?

This thread has no actual content in it. I'm not trying to be a dick, but CH, what's the question?

I think that we must hope for change and be audacious about it.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

If you weren't born knowing all the answers, then you're unfit to lead.

As for all those years before he became President that George W. Bush was an abject failure in life, well... he was pacing himself. :p

Latest polls show a large swing towards the Republicans

its called a convention bounce. happens almost every time. obama got one too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2764497789_063cbd35f0_o.png

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

There is no problem...to anyone who puts any effort toward rational thinking.

its called a convention bounce. happens almost every time. obama got one too.

In the case, the Republicans do seem to have gotten a bigger convention bounce. But that isn't really incredibly surprising. Palin was a surprising (and thus relatively exciting) pick. In addition to the media coverage of the convention, there has been non-stop discussion of Palin - even on shows like Entertainment Tonight. Comparatively, there has been almost no media coverage of Obama or his campaign since the announcement that Palin would be McCain's running mate.

Now that the general election campaigning will be getting into full swing, I'd expect that bounce to level back out.


I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

I think the idea is that someone who can change his mind (or just further clarify a position that was misunderstood to begin with) isn't principled. If you have principles, you always stand by them, even if they're wrong.

Or something. I don't get it either.

I think the idea is that someone who can change his mind (or just further clarify a position that was misunderstood to begin with) isn't principled. If you have principles, you always stand by them, even if they're wrong.

Or something. I don't get it either.

Principled stands are different than making policy. Policy decisions should be subject to review and even revision when new information presents itself. Principles are an over-arching scheme that suggest initial direction. The facts can even make principles evolve, or at least they should.

Latest polls show a large swing towards the Republicans:

Poll: Convention lifts McCain over Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm)


I am not surprised, but it is still along way to the election.

What is your thoughts on this?

I agree. It is a long way to the election. It is also interesting that McCain enjoyed a larger number of viewers for his acceptance speech than did Obama.

I've also noticed that there are many voter drives locally, that are geared to get out the black vote... presumably for Obama. I wonder if that means Georgia is now a battleground state?

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

Well that depends entirely on the facts which changed the candidate's mind. If the fact is that changing economic circumstances now mean that the previous policy is no longer appropriate then the change is somewhat understandable.

If the fact is that people in a swing state won't vote for the candidate unless he changes his opinion then that is fairly unprincipled.

Fortunately, given that both candidates like to change their minds it sort of renders the argument from both sides invalid.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?
Maybe you can chalk this up to short term memory loss? Yeah, it's been an issue that has been around for ages...

If politicians were able to be influenced by logic, there wouldn't be a problem. They aren't. They're influenced by constituents.

I agree. It is a long way to the election. It is also interesting that McCain enjoyed a larger number of viewers for his acceptance speech than did Obama.

I've also noticed that there are many voter drives locally, that are geared to get out the black vote... presumably for Obama. I wonder if that means Georgia is now a battleground state?

Yes, Georgia somewhat of a battleground state this time around, though it does pretty solidly lean McCain. It's not out of the question for it to go blue, though. I know at my university, we've been working pretty hard to increase voter registration among students, and are going to try to have a solid GOTV campaign come November 4.

Essentially, (and this part is my own analysis; I am no expert, but I do know a bit) if there's a solid turnout in Atlanta, and in the University towns, Obama could win the state, especially if Bob Barr draws enough of the vote (On that note, Barr '08!!! :D)

its called a convention bounce. happens almost every time. obama got one too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2764497789_063cbd35f0_o.png

Exactly. Anyone who didnt expect McCain to be in the lead post-convention is a fool.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

Because American politics has become a game of "my way or the highway", where changing ones mind to do comprimise or new facts is somehow seen as weakness. Apperantly the new game is all about stubbornly holding to your views, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The game become more people since Dubya has championed it. Rather then being seen as foolish, stupid, stubborn, and self destructive like it should be, and would be in any other area of life, it is somehow seen as noble, brave, and praise worthy in American politics.

In short, people are idiots.

Yes, Georgia somewhat of a battleground state this time around, though it does pretty solidly lean McCain. It's not out of the question for it to go blue, though. I know at my university, we've been working pretty hard to increase voter registration among students, and are going to try to have a solid GOTV campaign come November 4.

Essentially, (and this part is my own analysis; I am no expert, but I do know a bit) if there's a solid turnout in Atlanta, and in the University towns, Obama could win the state, especially if Bob Barr draws enough of the vote (On that note, Barr '08!!! :D)
Where do University students vote? At their homes, or where they attend college? My daughter always got an absentee ballot when she was at B.U.

Anyway, if the big, metro(Atlanta and Savannah, I suppose) counties go for Obama, then the state probably will, too. There just aren't enough votes in the rest of the state.

Most of us don't have that high an opinion of Bob Barr. The remarkable defeat that he suffered when he tried to run against John Linder is evidence of that.

It would be interesting to see Georgia in play. We'd get a lot more attention than we usually do.

US General Election - Michael Palin vs. Osama bin Laden...

Orrrrrr.... didn't I read that entirely correctly?

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible. Wherein lies the problem?

The problem lies in who the voters are voting for - if a candidate changes his position, that's fine, if it's really a change in position. But when he goes from venue to venue, tailoring his message and position to each particular bloc of voters...well, who are you looking at there? How can you really tell what his position on the issues is?

And this is what Obama does - he'll say one thing in Georgia, and turn around the next day and say something else in San Francisco. This is not changing his mind on the issues, this is pandering to the voters. If he gets to the White House, I'm fairly sure nobody knows what he'll do.

The problem lies in who the voters are voting for - if a candidate changes his position, that's fine, if it's really a change in position. But when he goes from venue to venue, tailoring his message and position to each particular bloc of voters...well, who are you looking at there? How can you really tell what his position on the issues is?

And this is what Obama does - he'll say one thing in Georgia, and turn around the next day and say something else in San Francisco. This is not changing his mind on the issues, this is pandering to the voters. If he gets to the White House, I'm fairly sure nobody knows what he'll do.

Source?

Well since you've gone offline we'll assume it never happened then.

If you have principles, you always stand by them, even if they're wrong.

Problem is, Dear Leader has clearly demonstrated that sticking to your beliefs especially when they're wrong has disastrous consequences. Even more if you happen to be the leader of any significant number of people at the time.

Because American politics has become a game of "my way or the highway", where changing ones mind to do comprimise or new facts is somehow seen as weakness. Apperantly the new game is all about stubbornly holding to your views, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The game become more people since Dubya has championed it. Rather then being seen as foolish, stupid, stubborn, and self destructive like it should be, and would be in any other area of life, it is somehow seen as noble, brave, and praise worthy in American politics.

In short, people are idiots.

These are the very same people who look up to Paris Hilton and keep Reality Television Shows a constant ratings grabbers. If Dear Leader declared in a State of the Union Address that anal sex would fight terrorism, the country would actually manage to get fucked in the ass even more than it is now with the current administration.

Thats democracy for you... rule by the prolfic stupid and clever orators...

However no-ones come up with a better system yet :(

And this is what Obama does - he'll say one thing in Georgia, and turn around the next day and say something else in San Francisco. This is not changing his mind on the issues, this is pandering to the voters. If he gets to the White House, I'm fairly sure nobody knows what he'll do.

You got evidence for that, or are you doing what you normally do, throw bullshit around?

McCain will win over all, but die only a few days into his term due to a heart attack/Palin devouring his soul causing Palin to become president, from which she will rule with a backwards fist causing the USA to completely collapse due to economic and domestic terrorism caused by Obama's lost (it'll be like 2000 close), eventually leading to Obama becoming First President of the Second United States of America (comprised of the states that highly favor him)

Palin will attempt to retake these seceding states and end up having her USA invaded by collation forces comprised of UK/Russia/Canada/France/etc.


BEHOLD!

THE FUTURE!

Exactly. Anyone who didnt expect McCain to be in the lead post-convention is a fool.
Hmmmm. Are you calling yourself a fool (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13991456&postcount=227)?

Yes, Georgia somewhat of a battleground state this time around, though it does pretty solidly lean McCain. It's not out of the question for it to go blue, though. I know at my university, we've been working pretty hard to increase voter registration among students, and are going to try to have a solid GOTV campaign come November 4.

Essentially, (and this part is my own analysis; I am no expert, but I do know a bit) if there's a solid turnout in Atlanta, and in the University towns, Obama could win the state, especially if Bob Barr draws enough of the vote (On that note, Barr '08!!! :D)

=)

IIRC, in the primaries, Obama pulled more votes on his own than the top three Republican candidates. If he can keep that excitement gap up in this state - and continue to pull out a lot of new voters who haven't participated before, it's possible.

It would still be a longshot, but it is possible. =)

And I heard Karl Rove in an interview talking about how much Obama is going to regret "wasting" money in GA. Would he bring that up if it didn't worry him?

Where do University students vote? At their homes, or where they attend college? My daughter always got an absentee ballot when she was at B.U.

Depends on personal preference, really. We typically encourage people to register in Athens so they don't have to go through the hassle of requesting the request form, then sending in the request form, then the absentee ballot, or of driving several hours on a Tuesday (while class is in session). Some choose to stay registered wherever they come from, though.

Anyway, if the big, metro(Atlanta and Savannah, I suppose) counties go for Obama, then the state probably will, too. There just aren't enough votes in the rest of the state.

I wouldn't completely discount the college towns. Both Athens and Milledgeville have enough students to tip the balance if the race ends up close (and if Obama takes the state, rest assured, it probably will be very close)


Most of us don't have that high an opinion of Bob Barr. The remarkable defeat that he suffered when he tried to run against John Linder is evidence of that.

Well, I hope enough of you can change your minds on that. ;)


It would be interesting to see Georgia in play. We'd get a lot more attention than we usually do.

Oh yeah. We're actually getting television ads and stuff!

its called a convention bounce. happens almost every time. obama got one too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2764497789_063cbd35f0_o.png

moar data!

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080909DailyUpdateGraph2_j8b6v3.gif

its called a convention bounce. happens almost every time. obama got one too.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3172/2764497789_063cbd35f0_o.png

So why has nobody worked out that all they have to do is hold a convention 7 days before election day and they'll win?!

by the way, what are the units of bounce, exactly?

=)

IIRC, in the primaries, Obama pulled more votes on his own than the top three Republican candidates. If he can keep that excitement gap up in this state - and continue to pull out a lot of new voters who haven't participated before, it's possible.

It would still be a longshot, but it is possible. =)

And I heard Karl Rove in an interview talking about how much Obama is going to regret "wasting" money in GA. Would he bring that up if it didn't worry him?

The interesting thing is that he doesn't necessarily need to win the state for his money here to be well-spent. The thing is, because of the excellent grassroots organizing, the huge number of people willing to volunteer their time (especially, as I keep stressing, students), he can get a lot more mileage for his money than a traditional campaign. So he only needs to spend a little bit here to force the McCain campaign to spend a good bit more than that to defend.

Now, consider-- if Obama can force McCain to outspend him in a state like Georgia, when Obama has such impressive fundrasing power compared to McCain, what does that mean for the rest of the race? Think how much of a financial advantage it gives him in other states. If we can flip the state, that's just icing on the cake.

Again, that's just my analysis, and I'm certainly no expert.

Depends on personal preference, really. We typically encourage people to register in Athens so they don't have to go through the hassle of requesting the request form, then sending in the request form, then the absentee ballot, or of driving several hours on a Tuesday (while class is in session). Some choose to stay registered wherever they come from, though.

It has to do with whatever you have listed as a permanent residence, doesn't it?

I wouldn't completely discount the college towns. Both Athens and Milledgeville have enough students to tip the balance if the race ends up close (and if Obama takes the state, rest assured, it probably will be very close)

Macon could be a factor as well.

My big question is, why does everyone in this damn country believe the lie that John McCain is a maverik?

My big question is, why does everyone in this damn country believe the lie that John McCain is a maverik?

because he keeps saying it and nobody with a platform contradicts him

Where do University students vote? At their homes, or where they attend college?

either but not both

because he keeps saying it and nobody with a platform contradicts him

And thus we get to why I am very very irritated with the Obama campaign right now. They have no teeth.


McCain's camp slanders him like no tomorrow, goes after his parents, his wife, everything. Yet he wont even fire back about little things.


I understand being the bigger man, but when its issue based (like McCain being a maverik) why not go for it?


I also think that in American politics (judging by the last two presidential elections) the bigger man tends to, you know, lose.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

I brought this up last time round. People say 'flip-flopper', which obviously is intended to make it some kind of insult or accusation.

I've never seen 'flip-flopping' as a bad thing. If your head feels like it's going to get stuck between the bars, you don't keep pushing towards the fence just because you started. The second you realise your plan is stupid, you stop.

And thus we get to why I am very very irritated with the Obama campaign right now. They have no teeth.

McCain's camp slanders him like no tomorrow, goes after his parents, his wife, everything. Yet he wont even fire back about little things.

I understand being the bigger man, but when its issue based (like McCain being a maverik) why not go for it?

I also think that in American politics (judging by the last two presidential elections) the bigger man tends to, you know, lose.

I'm still wondering if Hillary is going to make herself useful. Since she's effectively out-of-the-picture now, but still has a loyal fanbase and a lot of clout, she could really cause some harm to Palin and/or McCain if she took up the serious job of attack dog.

I'm still wondering if Hillary is going to make herself useful. Since she's effectively out-of-the-picture now, but still has a loyal fanbase and a lot of clout, she could really cause some harm to Palin and/or McCain if she took up the serious job of attack dog.

Doubtful.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9VRMevycLjQJp8Y2KbMGAUZAV8QD932PDQO0




Bill on the other hand...he could be a very useful tool.

So why has nobody worked out that all they have to do is hold a convention 7 days before election day and they'll win?!

Probably because that's illegal.

because he keeps saying it and nobody with a platform contradicts him

Were you not listening to Obama's acceptance speech? He called McCain on it there and several times since.

Doubtful.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9VRMevycLjQJp8Y2KbMGAUZAV8QD932PDQO0

Bill on the other hand...he could be a very useful tool.

Given the fact that the Republicans seem to be lowered to the level of declaring everything sexist... I'm not sure. But then - if anyone can lift themselves above it and score some points DESPITE that, it's would be Bill.

Even if you don't like his politics, you have to admit that guy was a great 'politician'.

Were you not listening to Obama's acceptance speech? He called McCain on it there and several times since.

Can't you see how biased Teh Librul Media™ is against John McCain? How dare they constantly broadcast that vicious mudslinging attack from that ebil mozlem Hussein Obama while being mute on Beloved Leader McCain's...

... oh wait.

a better question is why is mccain claiming to be like 200 years old in those ads about how he, rather than samuel maverick, is the original maverick?

a better question is why is mccain claiming to be like 200 years old in those ads about how he, rather than samuel maverick, is the original maverick?
the original maverick isnt necessarily a good role model

well not for anyone but politicians.

Can't you see how biased Teh Librul Media™ is against John McCain? How dare they constantly broadcast that vicious mudslinging attack from that ebil mozlem Hussein Obama while being mute on Beloved Leader McCain's...

... oh wait.

Wait....since the media loves McCain and is giving him a free pass...and since the Republicans say that the evil media has a dirty liberal bias...that means that....



MCCAIN IS THE LIBERAL CANDIDATE!

What is your thoughts on this?

Post-convention boost, plus the coverage of Palin (as in, she's getting attention he wasn't getting previously) make for a temporary boost. The "Base Boost" is what's driving this at the moment, but there's only so much base. The Republicans can't turn it up to 13, so to say.

I suspect, as always, the campaign will settle out before the first debate to "dead heat." Whoever wins the first debate will win by an insignificant amount, will be trounced in the second debate because they got cocky, and will squeak by in the third debate.

Oddly enough, more people will likely watch the VP debate, because Palin will be there, and there's only one of them. Biden must, by necessity, be careful. He cannot, under any circumstances, come across the way Lazio did with Hillary. If he does, then we're looking at Biden being an awful pick, and all of us admitting you were right: It should have been Hill-dawg.

What Biden must do is come across not as Palin's scolding father or doting grandfather, but as a teacher...a highly respected, amiable teacher. Paternalism won't win him points.

I'm trying to think of what else. Palin is dangerous territory for both parties. Like a nuclear reactor, if she melts down, McCain is screwed, but if the Obama and Biden get into her space (or are perceived as doing so), they're dicked. McCain gambled...he put all of his chips in, and he's only holding a pair of sixes.

Don't worry...I've thought a lot more on this matter...you'll hear plenty. I know your lives are riding on it.

Wait....since the media loves McCain and is giving him a free pass...and since the Republicans say that the evil media has a dirty liberal bias...that means that....



MCCAIN IS THE LIBERAL CANDIDATE!
Which makes sense when you consider it in an international context, given that liberal tends to be used to refer to right-wingers rather than left-wingers.

Which makes sense when you consider it in an international context, given that liberal tends to be used to refer to right-wingers rather than left-wingers.

Ummm....in what international context? Ive never heard of liberal refered to right wingers.

Ummm....in what international context? Ive never heard of liberal refered to right wingers.

They are more right wing than left-wing in the 'economic liberal' sense. But more left wing than right wing in the "We don't need ur lawz!" sense.

As has been referenced many times on the forums, somebody considered 'left wing' in the USA might be considered 'right wing' in some European countries.

And it probably also depends which way you are facing.

So why has nobody worked out that all they have to do is hold a convention 7 days before election day and they'll win?!
There are deadlines for getting your name on the ballots. Dubya almost didn't even get his name on the ballot in Illinois last time (I don't remember the details, but it was pretty funny at the time).

by the way, what are the units of bounce, exactly?
Percentage points in the polls.

There are deadlines for getting your name on the ballots.

hmm, is having a convention a requirement for that though? it seems unlikely - certainly not all third parties choose candidates at conventions, since some of them are literally just some guy.

Ummm....in what international context? Ive never heard of liberal refered to right wingers.
British and Australian, at least. Possibly other places.

British and Australian, at least. Possibly other places.

A little less so now, in the UK (at least)... but that's because the 'Left' wing of British politics has become more like a slightly-less-right-wing.

And this is what Obama does - he'll say one thing in Georgia, and turn around the next day and say something else in San Francisco. This is not changing his mind on the issues, this is pandering to the voters. If he gets to the White House, I'm fairly sure nobody knows what he'll do.

Those of you wondering as to the source of this probably didn't listen to Sarah Palin's speech, it's a line straight out of that. She was saying that the good people of Wasilla don't like Mr. Smartypants who talk out the side of their mouth with their fancy degrees and stuff. One line to Georgia, one line to San Francisco, she didn't source it either.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?

...which leads directly into this. The real question is why do Americans not trust intelligent people, why do they always prefer the straight-talking, cigar-chewing cowboy, sure he has a drinking problem, sure he did that bad thing in the past but he's rehabilitated in the eyes of the Lord now, a true patriot.

Gil Scott Heron put it best and people should listen to the original of this song, it's one of the very best political songs on America out there and it remains relevant.

The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment someone always came to save America at the last moment especially in B movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at like a B movie.

Full song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80JoQY3Oelk&feature=related) - it's a doozie as well.

Here's a topic:

I've noticed quite a few people on either side of the aisle raising the point that <candidate> has changed his/her opinion on a given topic, and is therefore "a flip-flopper". I don't remember this being an issue before the Kerry campaign, but now being branded a flip-flopper is somehow horrible.
The Republicans effectively tagged Kerry with the "flip-flopper" tag and it stuck, even though Dubya was a master at them. I remember defending Kerry on these boards, but we know the end results.

As far as this election is concerned, Obama does seem to be playing the flip-flop game to garner support and I think it is already costing him. More on that below.

Given that politics is a game of compromise, and that decisions are necessarily made before all the facts are in, somebody please explain to me in tiny words why changing your mind after hearing more facts is a bad thing. I'd like my leaders to be able to be persuaded by a reasoned and reasonable argument. Wherein lies the problem?
Compromise is admirable when it is done for a noble cause. When politicians use gimmicks to achieve their goals then they are seen as just another politician.

When Obama was running against Clinton in Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Kentucky, he was an anti-free trade crusader:

THEN:

During The Primaries, Barack Obama Pledged To Unilaterally Renegotiate NAFTA. NBC'S TIM RUSSERT: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" OBAMA: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)

NOW:

In The General Election, Barack Obama Now Says His Words Were "Overheated And Amplified." "In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA. 'Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,' he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA 'devastating' and 'a big mistake,' despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy." (Nina Easton, "Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All," Fortune, 6/18/08)
Yup....rhetoric indeed, and if you notice the polls in States such as Indiana and Ohio, the then and now aspect of his campaign has cost him.

Comprehensive Obama flip flop list (http://www.nelsonguirado.com/index.php/asymmetric/2008/07/09/comprehensive-obama-flip-flop-list)

*snip*

Yet none of this is why flip-flopper sticks because all sides change their position according to the political winds and it would be churlish to suggest they didn't.

The reason it sticks it that it feeds into a certain type of American psyche that says intelligence cannot be trusted, that the liberal elite look down on the ordinary hard working American, the same type that FOX has studied, branded and markets its product to, the same type that Sarah Palin reaches out to in talking about her small-town roots.

Flip-flopping is not so much about changing one's mind, it's about 'hiding one's true intentions', having an secret agenda to destroy the American way of life.

That's why it works, it feeds into prejudice and no party feeds prejudice better than the Republicans, it started with Nixon and it's been refined into a compact product.

The worst is that it's become this kind of meme, that people can just throw with little justification.

There was a great article I read on the difference between 'nuance' and 'flip-flopping' yet America doesn't want nuance, it wants good and evil, black and white, the cowboy and the Indian.

The Republicans have cornered the market on cowboy, everyone else is a shifty in'jun, a double-dealing, two-faced ne-er-do-well, all fancy talk and no action.

In a way it's genius marketing, no good for America though.

Those of you wondering as to the source of this probably didn't listen to Sarah Palin's speech, it's a line straight out of that. She was saying that the good people of Wasilla don't like Mr. Smartypants who talk out the side of their mouth with their fancy degrees and stuff. One line to Georgia, one line to San Francisco, she didn't source it either.

...which leads directly into this. The real question is why do Americans not trust intelligent people, why do they always prefer the straight-talking, cigar-chewing cowboy, sure he has a drinking problem, sure he did that bad thing in the past but he's rehabilitated in the eyes of the Lord now, a true patriot.

Gil Scott Heron put it best and people should listen to the original of this song, it's one of the very best political songs on America out there and it remains relevant.

The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment someone always came to save America at the last moment especially in B movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at like a B movie.

Full song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80JoQY3Oelk&feature=related) - it's a doozie as well.

The Evangelicals who have hijacked the Republican Party are by their very nature anti-intelluctual. After all, religion and science almost never get along historically. The fact that people would elect an incompetent business manager to the Presidency for 8 straight years on the basis that he's "A Good Christian Man" that everyone can have a beer with pretty much says it all.

America as a whole is going through Underachiever's Spite. "I'm not intellectual and PROUD OF IT." Revolt of the Village Idiots. Inmates in charge of the asylum. So on and so forth.

The Evangelicals who have hijacked the Republican Party are by their very nature anti-intelluctual. After all, religion and science almost never get along historically. The fact that people would elect an incompetent business manager to the Presidency for 8 straight years on the basis that he's "A Good Christian Man" that everyone can have a beer with pretty much says it all.


Maybe if an attack ad came out focusing on just that sort of problem. Say, a caricature of Bush burning the Constitution and going "Don't worry, I'm a good Christian man" followed by caricatures of Rednecks cheering, followed by other goofs like a dump truck full of dead bodies being dumped into cemeteries while scooping babies to dump in distant warzones again to the line of "Don't worry, I'm a good Christian man." Maybe include things like setting the White House alight with gasoline, or bulldozing schools and replacing textbooks with bibles.

It culminates with Bush shaking hands with McCain, and him going "Don't worry, he's a good Christian man." Incidentally, McCain is holding a tank of gasoline and a lit match.

Maybe, just maybe, it might work.

Those of you wondering as to the source of this probably didn't listen to Sarah Palin's speech, it's a line straight out of that. She was saying that the good people of Wasilla don't like Mr. Smartypants who talk out the side of their mouth with their fancy degrees and stuff. One line to Georgia, one line to San Francisco, she didn't source it either.

Oddly enough, I didn't listen to her speech. I caught bits and pieces, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't one of them. However, it does illustrate the point that it's exactly what Obama is doing.

Oddly enough, I didn't listen to her speech. I caught bits and pieces, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't one of them. However, it does illustrate the point that it's exactly what Obama is doing.

It doesn't because you've not proven it actually happened.

Oddly enough, I didn't listen to her speech. I caught bits and pieces, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't one of them. However, it does illustrate the point that it's exactly what Obama is doing.

Whatever dude...

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26535811/page/2/)

John McCain isn't marketing himself to specific demographics? Give me a break, they have specific software that mails information down to the address.

Karl Rove mastered the demographic message, as his protege, I doubt Steve Schmidt is doing any different.

I think this was a good article, I normally don't care too much for Joe Klein, I consider him a bit of a prima donna as evidenced by his hissy fit when outed as the author of Primary Colours but I think this is a pretty good insight...

This small-c conservatism is, in part, a calculation. Obama doesn't want to seem angry or threatening, for obvious reasons. But it is also a reflection of who he really is: a fellow who does not like to disappoint anyone, who is obsessed with finding common ground. That may be a great advantage in a President at this ugly moment in our history — but I would feel more comfortable with Obama if he took an occasional play from John McCain's book of partisan transgressions and gored some Democratic oxen. It would be nice if he, say, challenged the teachers' unions, which didn't support him anyway and whose work rules choke out any chance of creative experimentation in the public-school system. Or if he stood against the atrocious Farm Bill, which spreads unnecessary fiscal fertilizer upon an already profitable industry. Or if he didn't feel the need to promise a tax cut to 95% of American families.

When people wonder why Democrats rarely attack, it's because they're too afraid of losing, if they upset someone they'll be bitten, and they've been bitten before. Some people seem to think Barack Obama is a shoe-in but I don't think Barack Obama does, I think he's very aware that small mistakes are magnified far greater than any a Republican candidate would be, or is, for the same.

The problem is that Democrats have far higher expectations of their candidate and will criticise their own more readily than Republicans, who merely expect lower taxes and an aggressive foreign policy - remember 'read my lips'? - given conservative social values are in place.

This all gives Barack Obama less leeway, means he's more open to attack that makes an impact, makes him more conservative and nuanced in his approach.

But Obama's weakness for undue prudence seems downright virtuous compared with the recklessness that McCain showed in choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate. He had months to make this choice, but he allowed it to come down to a chaotic scramble in the last week — a reaction, it seems, to the fact that the Republican Party elders had vetoed his first two choices, Senator Joe Lieberman and former governor Tom Ridge. McCain wasn't going to give the bosses the choice they wanted — Mitt Romney — and he cast about, deciding on Palin, an occasional maverick, at the last minute. He had never worked with the governor. He had spoken to her a few times. His team, it now seems clear, had not vetted her very well. In her first appearance alongside McCain, she claimed to oppose the "bridge to nowhere," that Alaskan icon of pork mythology, but she had supported the bridge until it was clear that the hullabaloo would prevent it from being built.

Regardless, I think John McCain hit on a stroke of good luck in picking Sarah Palin, almost too good a stroke, I almost feel this is an Obama vs. Palin election battle.

The Palin selection — peremptory, petulant — was another example of McCain's preference for the politics of gesture over the politics of substance, as is his sudden fondness for oil exploration ("Drill here, drill now.") and hair-trigger bellicosity abroad (Syria, Iran, Russia). His lack of interest in actual governance is disappointing; his aversion to contemplation seems truly alarming. He has done us all a favor with this pick: he has shown us exactly what sort of President he would be.

Let's not hope it's 'will be'.

Link (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1838571,00.html)

That's why it works, it feeds into prejudice and no party feeds prejudice better than the Republicans, it started with Nixon and it's been refined into a compact product.
Perhaps Republicans refine it but Democrats are also very guilty.

The worst is that it's become this kind of meme, that people can just throw with little justification.
Yeah and both sides do it.

The Republicans have cornered the market on cowboy, everyone else is a shifty in'jun, a double-dealing, two-faced ne-er-do-well, all fancy talk and no action.
It is no longer about cowboys and Indians, it as about different philosophies in life. I was confronted by many "liberals" on these boards because I had the audacity to make this claim:

That is exactly my point. The Republicans are actually making progress. That is good for womens rights, even if Sarah Palin may have some different views regarding womens rights, she is still advancing the cause for women as a whole.
I also stated:

And through all of what you wrote, you perhaps missed the most crucial element regarding women's rights.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are both women and they have rights as women, even though their goals may be diametrically opposed on certain issues, the fact remains that their rights should be respected.
That is what this difference is all about. There is a general lack of respect for each others rights.

I was confronted by many "liberals" on these boards because I had the audacity to make this claim:


That's not audacity, that's just nonsense. No envelope is being pushed by being the second US party to suggest a female VP. No envelope is being pushed by being the second US party THIS YEAR to push for a woman in the Whitehouse.

You weren't confronted for audacity, you were confronted because you were talking crap.


That is what this difference is all about. There is a general lack of respect for each others rights.

Palin will try to overturn abortion rights. Palin will try to overturn the prospect of equal rights for homsexuals. Palin will attempt to remove the right to freedom of religion.

Which rights is it that the Democrats are failing to respect, again?

That's not audacity, that's just nonsense. No envelope is being pushed by being the second US party to suggest a female VP. No envelope is being pushed by being the second US party THIS YEAR to push for a woman in the Whitehouse.

You weren't confronted for audacity, you were confronted because you were talking crap.
Again I am confronted. The fact remains that for the FIRST time, Republicans are pointing forward a woman for executive office. That is progress no matter how fine you want the slices.

Palin will try to overturn abortion rights. Palin will try to overturn the prospect of equal rights for homsexuals. Palin will attempt to remove the right to freedom of religion.

Which rights is it that the Democrats are failing to respect, again?
So then, whose rights are more important......Democrats or Republican? Are Republican women even allowed to have rights, and if they are, who sets the limitation to those rights?

I found this article interesting:

Red-State Feminism (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0908kh.html)

BTW, do you have any links that support your claim(s) in regards to Palin's "agenda"?

Again I am confronted.


And again, it's not for audacity, but for the nonsensical quality of your comment.


The fact remains that for the FIRST time, Republicans are pointing forward a woman for executive office.


Your emphasis is all wrong, here - let me show you what you SHOULD have written:

"For the first time, REPUBLICANS are pointing forward a woman for executive office".

Big difference.


That is progress no matter how fine you want the slices.


Not if you define it in terms of actual progress.

Putting forward a woman is nothing new. Not in the world, not in the US... not even in the whitehouse race. It's not even new for this year.

On the other hand, putting forward a candidate who is anti-choice, anti-gay, and anti-separation-of-church-and-state is the exact opposite of progress - no matter what junk is in said candidate's trunk.


So then, whose rights are more important......Democrats or Republican?


What are you on about?


Are Republican women even allowed to have rights, and if they are, who sets the limitation to those rights?


Again. The Republican candidate wants to remove rights... from Republicans AND Democrats. WHy don't you answer the question - which rights are the Dems removing?


I found this article interesting:

Red-State Feminism (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0908kh.html)


And I thought it was horseshit. It paints a world where feminists are either earthy-hockey-moms-from-bumfuck, nowhere... or hoity toity rich bitches sipping lattes in NY. It pretends that the rural feminist is somehow an earthmother, desperately in-touch with her sacred femininity, and the city feminist is a butchbitch icequeen, who fucks for pleasure or not at all. It cerates an illusion that feminists can't be married, and certainly can't be women.

All in all - it's horseshit.


BTW, do you have any links that support your claim(s) in regards to Palin's "agenda"?

Ah - there's the problem. Down our way, we actually base our estimations of people on what they say, and what they do.

Which rights is it that the Democrats are failing to respect, again?

The right to make America a theocracy and take away other people's rights?

The right to make America a theocracy and take away other people's rights?

It's not just me, right?

I'm not the only one seeing a disconnect in the apparent argument?

Has anyone been watching the O'Reilly - Obama interviews, they border on okay, I think O'Reilly almost likes Barack Obama...

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

That's pt.ii of what I think is a 6 part interview, I originally thought Barack Obama was insane to go on that show but it might be a reasonable move. Sure there's those who'll scoff at anything Barack Obama says but if there are undecideds on FOX, I think he manages his sentences quite well by talking about O'Reilly's viewers when making a point, pushing O'Reilly to agree.

Has anyone been watching the O'Reilly - Obama interviews, they border on okay, I think O'Reilly almost likes Barack Obama...
Aye. I get FOX News myself and watch the O'Reilly factor to convince myself that Americans are stupid. But actually, he was sort of reasonable with Obama, although Obama dodged questions like nobody's business.

Aye. I get FOX News myself and watch the O'Reilly factor to convince myself that Americans are stupid. But actually, he was sort of reasonable with Obama, although Obama dodged questions like nobody's business.

Yeah, he does, it's a little 'Breakfast Club 'answer the question!' to be honest.

Yet the media aren't exactly fair in their questions, where an abortion question is framed as 'do you support killing babies?', 'well, it's not so much...', 'do you or don't you?', 'no but, see, they're not really...', 'answer the question!'

Confrontational interviewing doesn't necessarily get the issues out.

Yeah, he does, it's a little 'Breakfast Club 'answer the question!' to be honest.

Yet the media aren't exactly fair in their questions, where an abortion question is framed as 'do you support killing babies?', 'well, it's not so much...', 'do you or don't you?', 'no but, see, they're not really...', 'answer the question!'

Confrontational interviewing doesn't necessarily get the issues out.
Aye the O'Reilly Factor is not exactly challenging journalism in any way :tongue:

It's not just me, right?

I'm not the only one seeing a disconnect in the apparent argument?

Well, you have to remember, cognitive dissonance is a prerequisite for some people to take a stance. Either that or be just a plain two faced hypocrite by advancing two separate arguments that conflict with one another as the untarnishable truth. Sort of like an blacksmith selling unbreakable shields and unstoppable spears in the same store.

Saying that a woman who is strongly against woman's rights in a position of power to take away those rights is a step forward for women is well, retarded. Unless of course, this person strongly believes that women should have no rights. Then the woman in power is merely a convenient tool to do away with those rights, easily turned against and disposed off once she has served her purpose.

The latter point might be a bit telling about certain posters here no?

The latter point might be a bit telling about certain posters here no?

Evangelical Bushevism.

Latest polls show a large swing towards the Republicans:

Poll: Convention lifts McCain over Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-poll_N.htm)


I am not surprised, but it is still along way to the election.

What is your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that there's a bounce being seen here and in the next couple of weeks it will draw more flat. Right now there's little known about Palin and a lot of he said she said crap. Barack Obama has faced scrutiny for 18 months in the eye of the public and the media. Give the people time to properly vet Palin and then we can talk about where to go from there. Right now there's this pushback against the evil media picking on a woman. It's really sad, because the very same people were all for it when the target was Hillary Clinton. I guess it's only misogyny when it's a Republican woman?

This is the perfect summation. (http://vodpod.com/watch/986901-jon-stewart-dressing-down-gop)

Oddly enough, I didn't listen to her speech. I caught bits and pieces, but I'm fairly certain that wasn't one of them. However, it does illustrate the point that it's exactly what Obama is doing.

Yeah, still waiting on that proof.


I know its shocking that other conservative wing nuts might make the exact same baseless claims you do, and that it doesnt really prove anything aside from crazy thinks a like.

You got evidence for that, or are you doing what you normally do, throw bullshit around?

The key words there are from talking points. Mentioning "San Fransisco" is like a conservative lightning rod codeword that means "the gay agenda." This is why Ard used it, and that's why Palin used it. They want to make it as if people from San Fransisco are not really Americans. "Real Americans" are from small towns. You didn't know that?

The real success in picking Sarah Palin has been the enormous, generally positive coverage of her. Any issues she has seem relatively unimportant to the public, and I'd say the positives outweigh the negatives right now.

The feeling is familiar. I had it four years ago and four years before that: a sinking feeling in the stomach. It's a kind of physical pessimism which says: "It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more."

So you can understand my pessimism. But it's now combined with a rising frustration. I watch as the Democrats stumble, uncertain how to take on Sarah Palin. Fight too hard, and the Republican machine, echoed by the ditto-heads in the conservative commentariat on talk radio and cable TV, will brand Democrats sexist, elitist snobs, patronising a small-town woman. Do nothing, and Palin's rise will continue unchecked, her novelty making even Obama look stale, her star power energising and motivating the Republican base.

So somehow Palin slips out of reach, no revelation - no matter how jaw-dropping or career-ending were it applied to a normal candidate - doing sufficient damage to slow her apparent march to power, dragging the charisma-deprived McCain behind her.

Actually, this article is not meant to be about Sarah Palin but it's become impossible to talk about this election without talking about her.

The subject of the article is global perception of America were the Republicans to win.

If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.

And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that "the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race".

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the "candidate of Europe" and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/uselections2008.barackobama)

Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, "historical decline". Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is "not about the issues."

Of course this is what the campaign will be about. Who youd rather have a beer with. Not the issues. It hasnt been for the past 8 years.

I dont get it. I love my drinking buddies. I love the guys I hang with at the bars. But I wouldnt want 99% of them to be president.

*snip*

That's just it. They're claiming that she shouldn't be criticized for her utter lack of anything on the national stage. They're claiming she shouldn't be criticized for her corruption. They're claiming that she shouldn't be criticized for her contradictory "values.

And they're claiming that it shouldn't be done because it's sexist. And to do so, to claim that a woman needs to be handled with softer gloves IS sexist. This is exactly what the Republicans are banking on. That they can make that sexist claim and get away with it.

And it's not just them. Look at CH's argument. When we attack Palin's attempts to remove rights we're removing the "rights" of a woman in some unexplained way. He doesn't feel the need to actually support the statement, because once she got on the ticket the accusation was enough.

Picking a woman for the ticket simply because she's a woman is not a step forward for Republicans or feminists. It demonstrates their contempt for women, that they didn't actually even attempt to choose someone more in line with the campaign thus far, simply assuming any woman was as good as any other.

If Americans endorse McCain's picking, they will be endorsing that very idea, that any woman is as good as any other when it comes to the whitehouse, but when it's a man, we need to examine every decision they've ever made.

And it's not just them. Look at CH's argument. When we attack Palin's attempts to remove rights we're removing the "rights" of a woman in some unexplained way. He doesn't feel the need to actually support the statement, because once she got on the ticket the accusation was enough.


Twice now I've tried to pin CH on the specific issue of rights being removed, and both times he's pulled the kind of Houdini escape tricks that have become so familiar already, in the wake of Palin's selection.


If Americans endorse McCain's picking, they will be endorsing that very idea, that any woman is as good as any other when it comes to the whitehouse, but when it's a man, we need to examine every decision they've ever made.

This reminds me of a thought - Palin and McCain are being presented as an alternative. As mavericks (no less).and agents of change.

Excuse me?

If McCain gets in - which party is going to be gaining? Which overall party agenda will it further?

McCain and Palin are change? My arse.

In talking about global opinion, many Americans might say, 'well who gives a shit what the world thinks'. Well, most of the Middle East thinks America will never let a Barack Obama win, to the point of conspiracy theory.

Here's another conspiracy theory widely held in the Middle East:

Seven years later, it remains conventional wisdom here that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda could not have been solely responsible for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that the United States and Israel had to have been involved in their planning, if not their execution, too.

This is not the conclusion of a scientific survey, but it is what routinely comes up in conversations around the region — in a shopping mall in Dubai, in a park in Algiers, in a café in Riyadh and all over Cairo.

"Look, I don't believe what your governments and press say. It just can't be true," said Ahmed Issab, 26, a Syrian engineer who lives and works in the United Arab Emirates. "Why would they tell the truth? I think the U.S. organized this so that they had an excuse to invade Iraq for the oil."

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/09/africa/09cairo.php?page=2)

The problem is that where people think the US is inherently anti-Middle East, which, let's face it, large swathes of the American population are, it gives people no incentive not to support terrorism against the US, if not active support, at least passive support.

That such ideas persist represents the first failure in the fight against terrorism — the inability to convince people here that the United States is, indeed, waging a campaign against terrorism, not a crusade against Muslims.

"The United States should be concerned because in order to tell people that there is a real evil, they too have to believe it in order to help you," said Mushairy al-Thaidy, a columnist in the Saudi-owned regional newspaper Asharq al Awsat. "Otherwise, it will diminish your ability to fight terrorism. It is not the kind of battle you can fight on your own; it is a collective battle."

A John McCain presidency would simply entrench the belief.

The single greatest proof, in most people's eyes, was the invasion of Iraq. Trying to convince people here that it was not a quest for oil or a war on Muslims is like convincing many Americans that it was, and that the 9/11 attacks were the first step.

A vote for John McCain is not a vote for a future free of terrorism, it's a vote for the continuation.

Beyond the issues, beyond personality, global opinion does matter in this election, people's perception of America feeds directly into whether they look to it as a leader or an oppressor, and only 1 vote can change the current perception.

I feel that these are the kinds of arguments that Democrats should be making, attacking Sarah Palin doesn't really help much, calling out the Republicans on minor details, it appears to be petty bickering when this election is about so much more.

So then, whose rights are more important......Democrats or Republican? Are Republican women even allowed to have rights, and if they are, who sets the limitation to those rights?
What 'Republican women' rights?
The right to prevent all women from having an abortion, should she choose?
The right to prevent gays from enjoying the same legal protections and benefits that married couples do?
The right to prevent everyone having access to full sex ed?
The right to prevent everyone from worshipping as they please?

What rights exactly are the Dems wanting to take away from Republican women? Other than the right to prevent rights for others that is.

Here's a poser for you: Do you honestly think, had Hilary not run for nomination, McCain would have ever considered Palin for VP?


I see, sadly, that it's working: women are supporting McCain more now than Obama. Apparently it really does not matter what they say, just their gender.
Further proof of McCain's patronising and cynical attitude towards women is that he's set up a "truth squadron" (ohhh...military term there: he's a war hero did you know?) to "combat the lies and slander in the media against Palin" (if it's slander, why not sue?)
Why is this patronising towards women? The team is made up almost solely of women.

And it's not just them. Look at CH's argument. When we attack Palin's attempts to remove rights we're removing the "rights" of a woman in some unexplained way. He doesn't feel the need to actually support the statement, because once she got on the ticket the accusation was enough.

Picking a woman for the ticket simply because she's a woman is not a step forward for Republicans or feminists. It demonstrates their contempt for women, that they didn't actually even attempt to choose someone more in line with the campaign thus far, simply assuming any woman was as good as any other.
All those republicans crying, "sexism" whenever something - anything - is made mention about Palin which isn't 100% positive: What were they saying about Pelosi when she became Speaker (and thus, technically, 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency)?
My guess is that it's not sexist to denigrate, abuse and smear in every slanderous way possible if the woman in question:
1. is a Democrat; and
2. got there on her own merit.

I don't quite understand how is it sexist of the Democratic party to have the third most powerful politician in the USA a woman. Perhaps some other people on this forum can answer that for me.

My thoughts are that there's a bounce being seen here and in the next couple of weeks it will draw more flat. Right now there's little known about Palin and a lot of he said she said crap. Barack Obama has faced scrutiny for 18 months in the eye of the public and the media. Give the people time to properly vet Palin and then we can talk about where to go from there. Right now there's this pushback against the evil media picking on a woman. It's really sad, because the very same people were all for it when the target was Hillary Clinton. I guess it's only misogyny when it's a Republican woman?

This is the perfect summation. (http://vodpod.com/watch/986901-jon-stewart-dressing-down-gop)
The real concern for Democrats at this point is that they should have had an insurmountable lead throughout the Republican convention, given the politics of the past 8 years and Bush's poor performance rating.

As far as the Clinton thing is concerned, the Democrats can blame themselves for their own immolation. "The very same people were all for it when the target was Hillary Clinton" were Obama supporters and the press and the Republicans ate it up.

As far as the gender situation is concerned, the Democrats, after trashing Clinton, now are in the unenviable postion of trashing Palin. Doesn't look good for Democrats.

The key words there are from talking points. Mentioning "San Fransisco" is like a conservative lightning rod codeword that means "the gay agenda." This is why Ard used it, and that's why Palin used it. They want to make it as if people from San Fransisco are not really Americans. "Real Americans" are from small towns. You didn't know that?

I don't know why everyone has to single out San Francisco is the "gay" town, like NYC doesn't have just as many gays (or more, considering the population). It's the flags, isn't it? They had to go and hang those damn cheery flags all over the Castro, the bastards.

The key words there are from talking points. Mentioning "San Fransisco" is like a conservative lightning rod codeword that means "the gay agenda." This is why Ard used it, and that's why Palin used it. They want to make it as if people from San Fransisco are not really Americans. "Real Americans" are from small towns. You didn't know that?
It's the whole, nudge nudge wink wink thing innit?
Like you can't be racist anymore, so when you tell jokes instead of saying n-i-g-g-e-r, you use a person's name like "Washington" and then smirk knowingly.

Yeah, still waiting on that proof.

I know its shocking that other conservative wing nuts might make the exact same baseless claims you do, and that it doesnt really prove anything aside from crazy thinks a like.

Shockingly enough, some of us have lives and jobs outside of this. :)

At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama Says Clearly That Jerusalem Should Be The "Undivided" Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

One Day After The AIPAC Conference, Barack Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)


The Wall Street Journal Reported That Barack Obama Would Consider Lowering Corporate Taxes. "Sen. Obama's nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn't say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system." (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08)

Barack Obama Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America." OBAMA: "And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts ... I think is the exact wrong prescription for America." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/4/08)


In September 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Don't Think That We Can Take Nuclear Power Off The Table". "I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)

In December 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Am Not A Nuclear Energy Proponent". "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Town Hall Event, Newton, IA, 12/30/07)

Barack Obama Says He Would Debate John McCain "Anywhere, Anytime." OBAMA: "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed." (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/08)

However, Barack Obama Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings. "Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain's greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above." (Editorial, "Obama's Big Words Ring Hollow," St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/08)

Shockingly enough, some of us have lives and jobs outside of this. :)

Few of these are actually contradictory, and none are evidence that he's saying one thing to certain people and another to different people.

At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Barack Obama Says Clearly That Jerusalem Should Be The "Undivided" Capital Of Israel. Obama: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At The Annual AIPAC Policy Conference, Arlington, VA, 6/4/08)

One Day After The AIPAC Conference, Barack Obama Said The Future Of Jerusalem Would Have To Be Negotiated By Israel And The Palestinians. CNN's Candy Crowley: "I want to ask you about something you said in AIPAC yesterday. You said that Jerusalem must remain undivided. Do Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem in the future?" Obama: "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 6/5/08)

Undivided doesn't exclude different parties having a say, it simply asks that the city is not split.

The Wall Street Journal Reported That Barack Obama Would Consider Lowering Corporate Taxes. "Sen. Obama's nod to lowering corporate taxes comes as Republicans have been attacking him for proposals that would raise the cost of doing business, such as his pledge to raise the tax rate on capital gains, and his vow to increase the top income-tax rates, which are often used by small, unincorporated enterprises. He didn't say how deeply he would cut the rate, but said it could be trimmed in return for reducing corporate tax breaks, simplifying the tax system." (Bob Davis and Amy Chozick, "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut In Business Tax," The Wall Street Journal, 6/17/08)

Barack Obama Called Corporate Tax Cuts "The Exact Wrong Prescription For America." OBAMA: "And his proposals, which are essentially $300 billion worth of corporate tax cuts ... I think is the exact wrong prescription for America." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/4/08)

The second quote talks of the amount not the action.

In September 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Don't Think That We Can Take Nuclear Power Off The Table". "I don't think that we can take nuclear power off the table. What we have to make sure of is that we have the capacity to store it properly and safely, and that we reduce whatever threats might come from terrorism." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)

In December 2007, Barack Obama Said "I Am Not A Nuclear Energy Proponent". "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Town Hall Event, Newton, IA, 12/30/07)

So, he's not a nuclear energy proponent but you can't take it off the table.

Barack Obama Says He Would Debate John McCain "Anywhere, Anytime." OBAMA: "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy. If John McCain wants to meet me anywhere, anytime, to have a debate about our respective policies in Iraq, Iran, the Middle East or around the world, that is a conversation I am happy to have. Because I believe that there is no separation between John McCain and George Bush when it comes to our Middle East policy and I think their policy has failed." (Barack Obama, Media Availability, Watertown, SD, 5/16/08)

However, Barack Obama Has Rejected Joint Town Hall Meetings. "Avoiding town hall meetings and rejecting public campaign financing may be predictable strategies for minimizing one of McCain's greatest strengths and exploiting one of his key weaknesses. But they pull Obama down into the cynical political calculations he pledged to rise above." (Editorial, "Obama's Big Words Ring Hollow," St. Petersburg Times, 6/20/08)

I'll grant this one to some extent, I could argue particulars but then I'd be buying into the idea that all this had any point.

There's tons of videos on John McCain to similar effect.

So what?

The Republicans always manage to drag down debate to this level, and the Democrats have been very guilty of it as well this time, especially over Sarah Palin and I believe it's costing them.

This election is so much more important than this form of petty parsing over the exact meaning of words, where people are talking generalities one day and specifics the next, which is really the essence of your quotes above.

It's about a country's direction, regression or progression and what, exactly, America stands for. John McCain stands for regressive policies, policies that have placed the American economy in very poor shape and his solution is to increase those policies.

He simply loses on foreign policy because America will have little global respect, and, in fact, America as a whole will be seen as regressive rather than just George Bush if you elect John McCain.

He hurts your pocket and your global standing.

As far as the Clinton thing is concerned, the Democrats can blame themselves for their own immolation. "The very same people were all for it when the target was Hillary Clinton" were Obama supporters and the press and the Republicans ate it up.


No, because Liuzzo is also talking crap.

I object to the Republicans suggesting that EVERY criticism is a lie, a slander, a sexist jab, Obama smearing the candidate, etc.

Yet - I was not one of Obama's supporters during the primaries. I thought he was an outside candidate, and was pretty sure Clinton would get the nod, all the way up until superdelegates started slipping.

This idea that there is a uniform core of people smearing Clinton, then smearing Palin is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Most people have no problem with Clinton being a woman - they might not have agreed with her politics. Most people have no problem with Palin being a woman, they just might not agree with her politics. Different extents, maybe. What I disliked about Clinton has histoically been her 'authoritarian' approach to social issues. What I dislike about Palin is the same thing, but a thousand times worse.

Making out that that is a sexist attack, would be like suggesting that you have to like both Kucinich and Cheney, or you're being sexist against men.

It's obviously, transparently bullshit. And keeping on claiming (as the Republicans are doing) that it is unfair to keep targetting this ONE candidate, is asking for special exception based on gender - and that IS sexist.

The real concern for Democrats at this point is that they should have had an insurmountable lead throughout the Republican convention, given the politics of the past 8 years and Bush's poor performance rating.

As far as the Clinton thing is concerned, the Democrats can blame themselves for their own immolation. "The very same people were all for it when the target was Hillary Clinton" were Obama supporters and the press and the Republicans ate it up.

As far as the gender situation is concerned, the Democrats, after trashing Clinton, now are in the unenviable postion of trashing Palin. Doesn't look good for Democrats.

I notice you again didn't answer the question. What rights are being denied Republican women?

Meanwhile, how dare Obama run against a woman. That bastard. First, he dared run against Hillary. Now, he dares to run against McCain. Clearly, if he weren't a sexist, he would step aside and give it to any woman who walks by.

Regardless, I think John McCain hit on a stroke of good luck in picking Sarah Palin, almost too good a stroke, I almost feel this is an Obama vs. Palin election battle.

I think I'm right.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/11/uselections2008.johnmccain)

McCain, who has struggled for months to attract more than a few hundred people to his events, seemed overcome by the sight of so many people spilling out over a lush green Virginia lawn. "I am so grateful for this turnout," he shouted.

But the crowds, with their Republican red T-shirts and "No-bama, Go-mama" badges, were not entirely there for McCain. Some admitted they may not even have bothered to go out to vote for McCain in November if he had not chosen Palin as his running mate. "She definitely for me makes it a slam dunk," said Brian Sullivan, a photographer. "He was already my pick anyway, but this makes it a slam dunk."

Who's running for President exactly?

On stage yesterday Palin, in red high heels with her trademark severe suit, dispensed with her cosy preamble about being a hockey mum and raising five children. She made a bold play for Obama's message of change, accusing the Democrat of being blind to the changes underway in Iraq. "Our opponent, he still can't bring himself to acknowledge that coming victory in Iraq," she said.

Palin then went on to the populist economic themes that resonate with Republican voters fed up with the Bush administration's high spending on the Iraq war: her claim to slashing bloated state budgets in Alaska. "I put the state's chequebook online for all the world to see," she said. "That state luxury jet - that was a little over the top - so I put it on eBay." Then she told how she blocked a wasteful bridge project.

...and still lying.

"I told Congress thanks, but no thanks, for that bridge to nowhere."

FOX continues to run this on the ticker below the presenters, it's extraordinary. Can nothing be done about this?

FOX continues to run this on the ticker below the presenters, it's extraordinary. Can nothing be done about this?

Is FOX saying she said this or is FOX saying that this is what she did? Because there is a difference. And if you hate FOX so much why do you watch it, though when I turned on the TV today it had someone on FOX hitting out on a former whip of the White house who was trying to garner support for Palin.

Is FOX saying she said this or is FOX saying that this is what she did? Because there is a difference. And if you hate FOX so much why do you watch it, though when I turned on the TV today it had someone on FOX hitting out on a former whip of the White house who was trying to garner support for Palin.

I watch FOX for various reasons, partly to prevent myself from being overly biased by trying to understand the other point of view, partly to get an overall picture and, admittedly, sometimes because it's simply an entertainment channel.

The ticker reads as though the her claim to have put a stop to it out of opposition to the idea is simply fact.

I hate FOX for what it represents, the apex of partisan reporting to the extent that it simply lies, it really does, the shift from reporting news to creating news to sell a product.

I hate the Daily Mail for the same reason but at least FOX has an element of entertainment, the Daily Mail is simply vicious, damaging and nasty.

from your quote:
"Palin then went on to the populist economic themes that resonate with Republican voters fed up with the Bush administration's high spending."
so let's get this straight: Republican supporters are sick to the teeth with the amount of money a Republican President is spending, so they're going to show their displeasure by voting for a Republican candidate who has supported said free-spending Republican President 90% of the time and who vows to continue said Republican President's policies.
And this somehow makes perfect sense to them.

y'know, they should scrap the term, "Cognitive disonance" and replace it with "Republican Supporter". They really should.

"I've hated the last 8 years of this Presidency, which is why I'm supporting the candidate who promises to continue along the exact same path for the next 4 years!"

snip Obama = flipflopper crapola
I see you're still pushing the same old tired 'Obama's a flipflopper' line. Do you think if you post the same missive in every thread, it makes it relevant or true.
Here was my reply to your previous attempt of tarring Obama with the flipflopper brush. It'd make a nice change if you found time outside your busy schedule to reply to it THIS time:

As for McCain, here's a few of his more choice ones:
2008 McCain" “This is the same organization (Iran Revolutionary Guard) that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote.”
2007 McCain: Missed that vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on September 26, 2007. Obama was in New Hampshire and McCain was in New York instead of being in the Senate chamber for the vote in question.

2008 McCain: "I am not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be."
2004 McCain: "Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits"
2003 McCain: "As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed."

2008 McCain, on the Death tax: "most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax” and “in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation"
2008 McCain: 'the estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books"

2008 McCain: "I am in favor of doing whatever’s necessary to save the Everglades."
2007 McCain, on supporting Bush's veto for $2 billion in funding for the restoration of the Everglades national park: "I believe that we should be passing a bill that will authorize legitimate, needed projects without sacrificing fiscal responsibility."

2008 McCain: Calls for the international community to target Iran for the kind of worldwide sanctions regime applied to apartheid-era South Africa.
1986 McCain: voted against sanctions on South Africa on at least six occasions.

2008 McCain, on job losses in Michegan: "I won't give false hopes that somehow we can bring back lost jobs.... it isn’t government’s job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats."
2008 McCain: "I will fight for new jobs and the state won’t be left behind"

2008 McCain, on Hurrican Katrina/New Orleans: "I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground."
2005/06 McCain: Twice voted against a commission to study the government’s response to Katrina; Opposed three separate emergency funding measures providing relief to Katrina victims, including the extension of five months of Medicaid benefits; Made just one public tour of New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina.

2008 McCain: "I will vote against this 'controversial immigration legislation'... We've got to secure the borders first." (Jan 30, TV debate)
2008 McCain: "At a moment of great difficulty in my campaign, when my critics said it would be political suicide for me to do so, I helped author with Senator Kennedy comprehensive immigration reform, and fought for its passag. Obama declined to cast some of those tough votes....These (Latin Americans who died attempting to cross the border) simply were God's children who wanted to be Americans." (Speaking at the National Council of La Raza conference)
2006 McCain: Votes for said 'controversial immigration legislation'
2005 McCain: Co-Sponsors, with Ted Kennedy, said 'controversial immigration legislation'.

On the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act,which would allowe "illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military."
2003 McCain: co-sponored and supported DREAM legislation
2005 McCain: co-sponored and supported DREAM legislation
2007 McCain: co-sponored and supported DREAM legislation
October 2007 McCain: absented himself from voting on DREAM bill; now against it: "I will vote against anything until we secure the borders."


In case you haven't noticed, the big difference here is you accusing Obama of flipflopping based on him changing what/how he phrases his ideas. McCain, on the other hand claims the complete opposite of things he HAS done.

Or is flatout lying okay with you, as long as it's McCain (or indeed any Republican)?

I watch FOX for various reasons, partly to prevent myself from being overly biased by trying to understand the other point of view, partly to get an overall picture and, admittedly, sometimes because it's simply an entertainment channel.

The ticker reads as though the her claim to have put a stop to it out of opposition to the idea is simply fact.

I hate FOX for what it represents, the apex of partisan reporting to the extent that it simply lies, it really does, the shift from reporting news to creating news to sell a product.

I hate the Daily Mail for the same reason but at least FOX has an element of entertainment, the Daily Mail is simply vicious, damaging and nasty.

Not only that, it flagrantly lies and gets away with what Jason Blair and Stephen Glass were fucking nailed for on a daily basis.

http://www.whiterose.org/michael/images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg

y'know, they should scrap the term, "Cognitive disonance" and replace it with "Republican Supporter". They really should.

have you read bob altemeyer's "the authoritarians (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/)"? fucking frightening.

have you read bob altemeyer's "the authoritarians (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/)"? fucking frightening.
I don't know if I really want to!
It'll prob make me feel very frightened and nauseous.

Strange that most of these have years in between them...oddly enough, people can change their opinions and views over a period of years. Let's look at some of the ones that are a bit closer together though, shall we?


2008 McCain, on the Death tax: "most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax” and “in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation"
2008 McCain: 'the estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books"

Estate tax /= Inheritance tax. Look it up.

2008 McCain: "I am in favor of doing whatever’s necessary to save the Everglades."
2007 McCain, on supporting Bush's veto for $2 billion in funding for the restoration of the Everglades national park: "I believe that we should be passing a bill that will authorize legitimate, needed projects without sacrificing fiscal responsibility."

Requiring fiscal responsibility /= hating the Everglades. If someone proposed a bill to piss 2 billion dollars down the drain and said it was for "saving" the Everglades, I would hope he'd vote against it.

2008 McCain, on job losses in Michegan: "I won't give false hopes that somehow we can bring back lost jobs.... it isn’t government’s job to protect buggy factories and haberdashers when cars replaced carriages and men stopped wearing hats."
2008 McCain: "I will fight for new jobs and the state won’t be left behind"

Getting back old jobs /= creating new jobs. Really, can't you do better than this?

Not saying McCain's perfect, I'm just saying that little weasel Obama is FAR worse. He's got so many strings attached to him, I'm surprised he doesn't jump around like a puppet.

Strange that most of these have years in between them...oddly enough, people can change their opinions and views over a period of years. Let's look at some of the ones that are a bit closer together though, shall we?.
Oh my. So people can change their opinions can they? It's okay for McCain to 'change his opinion' which means outright lying in telling people he won't vote for something he has already done but when Obama 'cahnges his opinion', it's dispicable and makes him a flip-flopper. Tell me: do you even read what you write?

Estate tax /= Inheritance tax. Look it up.
I did and - guess what? - "the state version is called either an estate tax or an inheritance tax": Meaning they view it as one and the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_tax
Try again.

Requiring fiscal responsibility /= hating the Everglades. If someone proposed a bill to piss 2 billion dollars down the drain and said it was for "saving" the Everglades, I would hope he'd vote against it.
Do you not understand "I will do WHATEVER'S NECESSARY" means?
Obviously not. And neither does McCain.

Fair dos on the 'jobs' quote. McCain could well be meaning creating new industry, rather than supporting old.

Really, can't you do better than this?
Can't you?
I gave nine examples, you managed to just reply to three. Mmmm...why is that?

Strange that most of these have years in between them...oddly enough, people can change their opinions and views over a period of years. Let's look at some of the ones that are a bit closer together though, shall we?
So telling people in 2008 that he 'supported every investigation in Hurricane Katrina' when in fact he voted AGAINST several investigations just 2 years early is 'just changing his opinion over a period of years'?

Telling people in 2008 he's against the Immigration Bill he co-sponsored yet in the SAME year telling others (Latinos oddly enough) that he's fought long and hard for said Bill is 'just changing his opinion over a period of years'?

Telling people in 2008 that he voted for condemning Iranian Revolutionary Guard in 2007, where in fact he did no such thing is 'just changing his opinion over a period of years'?

Supporting and voting for the DREAM bill from 2003-early 2007 then telling people in late 2007 that he'll "vote against anything" is 'just changing his opinion over a period of years'?

Telling people in 2008 that he'll never privatise Social Security yet in 2003 and 2004 coming out strongly for privatisation is 'just changing his opinion over a period of years'?

We're not talking about decades here (other than the SA apartheid issue), just 4 years at the most.
I mean really. you're going to have to do better than dismiss it with such a pathetic attempt as 'just changing his opinion over a period of years'

The real concern for Democrats at this point is that they should have had an insurmountable lead throughout the Republican convention, given the politics of the past 8 years and Bush's poor performance rating.

As far as the Clinton thing is concerned, the Democrats can blame themselves for their own immolation. "The very same people were all for it when the target was Hillary Clinton" were Obama supporters and the press and the Republicans ate it up.

As far as the gender situation is concerned, the Democrats, after trashing Clinton, now are in the unenviable postion of trashing Palin. Doesn't look good for Democrats.

I'm not really all that worried at this point. I'm not even going to comment on the Hillary things except to say she is not the victim. She slung just as much mud as she got back. Saying it was a conspiracy against Clinton is just bullshit. She was beaten on the issues. That's it, end of Hillary Clinton but kissing. END IT!

As for trashing Sarah Palin...Claiming that she needs to be treated differently because she is a woman is the definition of sexism. The sexes are supposed to be equal, so treat them that way. A woman wants to get into a game that is primarily filled with men that's great. She wants to be treated differently because she has a vagina? That's wrong. Palin deserves to be attacked on issues. She lies about earmarks. She lies about Barack Obama's record. She lies about her record on the environment and taxes. That's why she should be attacked. It has nothing to do with being a woman.

I don't know why everyone has to single out San Francisco is the "gay" town, like NYC doesn't have just as many gays (or more, considering the population). It's the flags, isn't it? They had to go and hang those damn cheery flags all over the Castro, the bastards.

It's the buzzword for gay. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is what it is.

It's the whole, nudge nudge wink wink thing innit?
Like you can't be racist anymore, so when you tell jokes instead of saying n-i-g-g-e-r, you use a person's name like "Washington" and then smirk knowingly.

Someone I work with used to say it's getting late when black people were around. The idea was that it gets darker as it gets later. He realized i wasn't on the same "team" by my facial expressions.

So telling people in 2008 that he 'supported every investigation in Hurricane Katrina' when in fact he voted AGAINST several investigations just 2 years early is 'just changing his opinion over a period of years'?

Want to see something so funny it almost makes you cry?

Where was John McCain, who told people he'd have been 'on the ground' at Katrina when it hit landfall?

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/bush-mccain-katrina-3.jpg

Celebrating his birthday with George Bush with a birthday cake on a runway.

Are the tears rolling down my cheeks from laughing or crying?

Hard to say.

Want to see something so funny it almost makes you cry?

Where was John McCain, who told people he'd have been 'on the ground' at Katrina when it hit landfall?

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/bush-mccain-katrina-3.jpg

Celebrating his birthday with George Bush with a birthday cake on a runway.

Are the tears rolling down my cheeks from laughing or crying?

Hard to say.


McCain was a POW! He was tortured! How dare you slander him!

And now, the stupidity has begun. What was promised as a high-road campaign that already began taking lower and lower-road exits has now fully degenerated.

From the incredibly stupid "lipstick on a pig" GOP distraction to Elisabeth Hasselbeck doing her right-wing shill bit by jabbing at Michelle Obama for providing a list of subjects she wouldn't discuss when on The View (despite never asking Cindy McCain about ANYthing remotely pointed when she was on) -- it's become the circus most of us knew it would become. Obama has tried to handle the distractions and jabbing as calmly as he can, but he's got to find some way to showcase the juvenile tactics of his opponents' sling-factory without either degenerating to their level or stoically absorbing blow after blow (Kerry's mistake).

Regardless of how it's handled, I do not look forward to the next 54 days.

And now, the stupidity has begun. What was promised as a high-road campaign that already began taking lower and lower-road exits has now fully degenerated.

From the incredibly stupid "lipstick on a pig" GOP distraction to Elisabeth Hasselbeck doing her right-wing shill bit by jabbing at Michelle Obama for providing a list of subjects she wouldn't discuss when on The View (despite never asking Cindy McCain about ANYthing remotely pointed when she was on) -- it's become the circus most of us knew it would become. Obama has tried to handle the distractions and jabbing as calmly as he can, but he's got to find some way to showcase the juvenile tactics of his opponents' sling-factory without either degenerating to their level or stoically absorbing blow after blow (Kerry's mistake).

Regardless of how it's handled, I do not look forward to the next 54 days.

And with the typical American demographics being self-absorbed short attention span morons who make Reality Television and Right Wing Media a constant hit, it'll be a miracle if Obama can slam the Noise Machine on its spine with authority.

And now, the stupidity has begun. What was promised as a high-road campaign that already began taking lower and lower-road exits has now fully degenerated.

From the incredibly stupid "lipstick on a pig" GOP distraction to Elisabeth Hasselbeck doing her right-wing shill bit by jabbing at Michelle Obama for providing a list of subjects she wouldn't discuss when on The View (despite never asking Cindy McCain about ANYthing remotely pointed when she was on) -- it's become the circus most of us knew it would become. Obama has tried to handle the distractions and jabbing as calmly as he can, but he's got to find some way to showcase the juvenile tactics of his opponents' sling-factory without either degenerating to their level or stoically absorbing blow after blow (Kerry's mistake).

Regardless of how it's handled, I do not look forward to the next 54 days.

He needs to sic Biden on 'em.

He needs to sic Biden on 'em.

I suppose. Since trying to "rise above" by not responding basically screwed Kerry, I've been hoping for a kind of Jon Stewart-esque withering assault of fact-based sarcasm or indeed SOMETHING that puts this kind of schoolyard crap behind us.

I am not holding my breath on either point.

I suppose. Since trying to "rise above" by not responding basically screwed Kerry, I've been hoping for a kind of Jon Stewart-esque withering assault of fact-based sarcasm or indeed SOMETHING that puts this kind of schoolyard crap behind us.

I am not holding my breath on either point.

The day the schoolyard crap is placed behind is about the time Reality Television withers and crumbles away like the alien vegetation that it is. Unfortunately that's not looking feasible in the immediate future.

Jon Stewart needs to be contracted to Obama's campaign team though.

Regardless of how it's handled, I do not look forward to the next 54 days.

I'm so glad I live in a tent in the desert and don't have to put up with any more of the election than I want to.

Not really, I hate this place but it does have it's perks.

I'm so glad I live in a tent in the desert and don't have to put up with any more of the election than I want to.

Not really, I hate this place but it does have it's perks.

Wait until the War on Terra gets expanded to the desert and you're taken in as An Enemy Combatant.

Want to see something so funny it almost makes you cry?

Where was John McCain, who told people he'd have been 'on the ground' at Katrina when it hit landfall?

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/bush-mccain-katrina-3.jpg

Celebrating his birthday with George Bush with a birthday cake on a runway.
He's so open to parody I can't believe Obama's campaign people haven't latched on to these things.
Show McCain saying those, "I've fully supported everything the govt has done about Katrina" while flashing his voting record on this. Follow by his attack on how Bush did nothing with the photo of the two of them sharing a birthday cake the day it hit.
Do the same for his immigration stance: Instances from the Senate of McCain urging ppl other senators to support his bill + his speech to Latino crowds about how much he's fought for his bill + his TV debate where he states he'll never vote for his bill.
There's so many to choose from!
It's so easy, it's embarassing.

Wait until the War on Terra gets expanded to the desert and you're taken in as An Enemy Combatant.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing out here, only not as an "enemy combatant".

He's so open to parody I can't believe Obama's campaign people haven't latched on to these things.
Show McCain saying those, "I've fully supported everything the govt has done about Katrina" while flashing his voting record on this. Follow by his attack on how Bush did nothing with the photo of the two of them sharing a birthday cake the day it hit.
Do the same for his immigration stance: Instances from the Senate of McCain urging ppl other senators to support his bill + his speech to Latino crowds about how much he's fought for his bill + his TV debate where he states he'll never vote for his bill.
There's so many to choose from!
It's so easy, it's embarassing.

Indeed...

Campaigning in Iowa last fall, McCain argued that Clinton was rehashing the old reform she had promoted as first lady: 'I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.'

I mean honestly, and that's what this election is about?

Epitomised by the fact that Sarah Palin has just done a Vogue shoot.

This will be another election that the Democrats lose.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm doing out here, only not as an "enemy combatant".Didja reenlist or where you never out to begin with?

Didja reenlist or where you never out to begin with?

A combination of the two. I was in the Individual Ready Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Ready_Reserve) for 3.5 years (while I was in school) but my semester in France completely drained me financially, so I needed money and joined the Guard. Luckily I ended up with an extremely cake deployment (this time) far from anything nasty going on. When I get back my state forbids us from deploying again for 3 years, in which time I'll be out again, so it's actually working out well. I've got all of my bills and about half of my student loans paid off. I suppose I could have done the private contractor thing if I really just wanted the money, but their vehicles are rather more explodable than ours.

I watch FOX for various reasons, partly to prevent myself from being overly biased by trying to understand the other point of view, partly to get an overall picture and, admittedly, sometimes because it's simply an entertainment channel.

The ticker reads as though the her claim to have put a stop to it out of opposition to the idea is simply fact.

I hate FOX for what it represents, the apex of partisan reporting to the extent that it simply lies, it really does, the shift from reporting news to creating news to sell a product.

I hate the Daily Mail for the same reason but at least FOX has an element of entertainment, the Daily Mail is simply vicious, damaging and nasty.

Yes actually after I posted this I was thinking about some of the commentators I hate and I was wondering why do I read their opinion columns, and I came up with the exact same reasons you did, while Phillip Adams pisses me off to a great extent he does sometimes give me a good laugh about his pro communist tirades. I don't mean anything by the question.

It is a shame that FOX not to mention many many other news services have also done this one one side of the political spectrum or the other. I can't say anything about the Daily Mail as I very very rarely read it. About the ticker ok yeah, I don't think there is much we can do about it apart from buying Newscorp out, lets pool our resources together.

Just a question Barry my memory is failing me but are you in Britain or the US? Also did you see my response in your sub prime crisis thread about how you can see those two journal articles? And you should have a look at my sig and follow the link if you are still interested, it is a short slide show that (sort of) shows how the crisis happened in a humorous way.

Want to see something so funny it almost makes you cry?

Where was John McCain, who told people he'd have been 'on the ground' at Katrina when it hit landfall?

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/bush-mccain-katrina-3.jpg

Celebrating his birthday with George Bush with a birthday cake on a runway.

Are the tears rolling down my cheeks from laughing or crying?

Hard to say.

Did he say he was on the ground in New Orleans? If not then simply saying he was on the ground is completely factual.

A combination of the two. I was in the Individual Ready Reserve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Ready_Reserve) for 3.5 years (while I was in school) but my semester in France completely drained me financially, so I needed money and joined the Guard. Luckily I ended up with an extremely cake deployment (this time) far from anything nasty going on. When I get back my state forbids us from deploying again for 3 years, in which time I'll be out again, so it's actually working out well. I've got all of my bills and about half of my student loans paid off. I suppose I could have done the private contractor thing if I really just wanted the money, but their vehicles are rather more explodable than ours.Stay safe, then. =)

Did he say he was on the ground in New Orleans? If not then simply saying he was on the ground is completely factual.

Your logic is impeccable, I stand corrected :$

Yes actually after I posted this I was thinking about some of the commentators I hate and I was wondering why do I read their opinion columns, and I came up with the exact same reasons you did, while Phillip Adams pisses me off to a great extent he does sometimes give me a good laugh about his pro communist tirades. I don't mean anything by the question.

It is a shame that FOX not to mention many many other news services have also done this one one side of the political spectrum or the other. I can't say anything about the Daily Mail as I very very rarely read it. About the ticker ok yeah, I don't think there is much we can do about it apart from buying Newscorp out, lets pool our resources together.

Just a question Barry my memory is failing me but are you in Britain or the US? Also did you see my response in your sub prime crisis thread about how you can see those two journal articles? And you should have a look at my sig and follow the link if you are still interested, it is a short slide show that (sort of) shows how the crisis happened in a humorous way.

I didn't register, I read up on it though, I live in HK, I'll check the link.

He needs to sic Biden on 'em.

And I dont know why he hasnt! Biden has a reputation for being a hot head with a hair trigger. Thats why I always liked him. Hes got balls. I just wish theyd slip him out of his leash.


Im also waiting for Bill and Hillary to go on the offensive. They did say theyd campaign for him. Have yet to see that.

And I dont know why he hasnt! Biden has a reputation for being a hot head with a hair trigger. Thats why I always liked him. Hes got balls. I just wish theyd slip him out of his leash.


Im also waiting for Bill and Hillary to go on the offensive. They did say theyd campaign for him. Have yet to see that.

Don't hold your breath. I hate to be this cynical, but I'm thinking the Clintons would much rather run in 2012 than truly support Obama.

Don't hold your breath. I hate to be this cynical, but I'm thinking the Clintons would much rather run in 2012 than truly support Obama.

I know. I was being tounge in cheeck.


Tone cant be transfered over the internet very well.

Don't hold your breath. I hate to be this cynical, but I'm thinking the Clintons would much rather run in 2012 than truly support Obama.

I'm trying to decide...

If the Dems learned nothing from 2004... then what we're seeing now, is what we're going to get. The Republicans pulling the same sort of tricks they have done, sexism, genderism, casual bigotry, theocratic politics... and a handful of playground banter that - while ridiculous - still sticks.

If the Dems learned ANYTHING in 2004... then what we're seeing now is the calm before the storm, letting the Republicans blow their wad, letting it drift by - but with the last 14 days of the election (roughly the upper limit of the voter demographic memory, it seems) being an absolute shitstorm massacre on every front.

I know which one I hope it is.

I mean honestly, and that's what this election is about?

Epitomised by the fact that Sarah Palin has just done a Vogue shoot.


Yeah, but mentioning vogue is sexist, while suggesting that your opposition's female politicans are tarted-up barnyard fauna is.... ummm. No, I got nothing.

Don't hold your breath. I hate to be this cynical, but I'm thinking the Clintons would much rather run in 2012 than truly support Obama.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/09/bill-clinton-pr.html


Apperantly I am incorrect. Bills going out on the campaign trail.

Also in an AP article I read in the paper, Hillary apperantly has been out there campaigning for him since the convention.

From one of the commentaries:
Don't know what all the to-do was about the "lipstick on a pig" remark. Seems to be Obama was just calling a spade a spade...

I'm trying to decide...

If the Dems learned nothing from 2004... then what we're seeing now, is what we're going to get. The Republicans pulling the same sort of tricks they have done, sexism, genderism, casual bigotry, theocratic politics... and a handful of playground banter that - while ridiculous - still sticks.

If the Dems learned ANYTHING in 2004... then what we're seeing now is the calm before the storm, letting the Republicans blow their wad, letting it drift by - but with the last 14 days of the election (roughly the upper limit of the voter demographic memory, it seems) being an absolute shitstorm massacre on every front.

I know which one I hope it is.

You and me both.

I find it really kinda stupid that nobody's pointed out that since in no way was Obama's use of a common barnyard turn-of-phrase meant to call Palin a pig, that a WOMAN in the GOP was the one I heard on the radio trying to trump this charge up. How can a woman who does such a thing, no matter which party it's for, look herself in the mirror?

From one of the commentaries:
Don't know what all the to-do was about the "lipstick on a pig" remark. Seems to be Obama was just calling a spade a spade...

Nice!

Now, if the Dems were at all like the GOP have been, some Black DNC official would call in to some talking-head show and say it was disparaging to use that phrase because it was calling Obama a "spade".

Especially when it's been made clear that he's only half-spade.

You and me both.

I find it really kinda stupid that nobody's pointed out that since in no way was Obama's use of a common barnyard turn-of-phrase meant to call Palin a pig, that a WOMAN in the GOP was the one I heard on the radio trying to trump this charge up. How can a woman who does such a thing, no matter which party it's for, look herself in the mirror?

Everything counts, in large amounts - as a wise philosopher once wrote.

When you look at the sort or ideological loops people have had to jump through recently, to stay with the Republican ticket...

No longer the party of minimum government - look at the increases they've made in the last 8 years.

No longer the party of 'fiscal conservatism' - look at the economy over the last 8 years.

No longer the party of 'personal responsibility', or even of 'conservatism'. What's conservative about changing the law? What's conservative about change, fullstop?

In the last election, the GOP had to get behind the idea that it was better to elect a man who avoided military service, during a war... than it was to choose a decorated frontline soldier. In this election, the GOP has to get behind the idea that - in war time, you NEED a soldier.

In the last election, the GOP had to get behind the idea that change was bad, that altering course is 'flip-flopping' and is inherently wrong. In this election, the GOP has to get behind the idea that their candidate IS an agent for change (allegedly).

In the last election, the GOP had to get behind the idea of party lines - loyalty to the cause. In this election, the GOP has to get behind the idea that the bulk of the party will be best represented by someone who is RUNNING on a ticket, of NOT representing Republicans. (***)


This is so far beyond doublethink. Pretending a comment was an insult, is peanuts compared to what they have to do, every day.

(***) I have to mention - this has been bugging me. McCain is running as a Maverick. So... which party will make up the bulk of his inner circle? Which constituents will he be serving, primarily? Are we seriously supposed to believe he'll be an entirely non-partisan president? If the Republican PARTY thought that was the case... they'd have kicked him to the kerb before it started.

From one of the commentaries:
Don't know what all the to-do was about the "lipstick on a pig" remark. Seems to be Obama was just calling a spade a spade...

McCain used the same phrase to describe Hillary.

Apperantly its only sexism when democrats do it.

McCain used the same phrase to describe Hillary.

Apperantly its only sexism when democrats do it.

Sexism. Infidelity. Homosexuality.

It's Okay If You're A Republican.

The tradition continues.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews



Its official. Palin knows jack.fucking.shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews



Its official. Palin knows jack.fucking.shit.

Not to defend her, but, looking at that article, it seems like she's linking now-Iraq to Al Qaida, not before-Iraq. There is a difference. Her son is not going there to topple Hussein, he's dead and has been for some time.

McCain used the same phrase to describe Hillary.

Apperantly its only sexism when democrats do it.
TIME has a good article about how used it is in the world of US politics:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840392,00.html?imw=Y

McCain's used it twice against Hilary (last time was just 4 months ago in May), but never against Obama. But hey, that's not sexist right?
Oh yes, of course not. Republicans =/= sexist, racist, morally corrupt
silly me. I forgot again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews



Its official. Palin knows jack.fucking.shit.

Now hang on KOL read the article fully before jumping the gun, she says "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." Which is sort of true since the article also says "But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion." So yes the tropps heading over there are to protect innocent Iraqis against millitant groups that are apart of Al-Qaeda or allied with them are in Iraq

Sexism. Infidelity. Homosexuality.

It's Okay If You're A Republican.

The tradition continues.

Well at least they are consistent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103789.html?hpid=topnews

Its official. Palin knows jack.fucking.shit.
From the Article:
'McCain advisers are "seriously considering" having McCain and Palin campaign together on the road. It would be an unusual arrangement -- running mates traditionally split up to cover as much ground as possible -- but aides believe it would help brand McCain and Palin as a single unit.'

So Sarah needs to have Daddy McCain to hold her hand now. Lord knows they can't afford for her to go off on her own. Think of all the trouble she might get in!

Funny how, on a day of remembrance where both Obama and McCain 'agreed' to not be political it was still thought okay by the McCain crowd for Palin to make a political speech. IOKIYAR I guess.

Has no-one thought to call her 'Palindrome - it's "Bush" spelt backwards!' yet? Or am I the first?

Stay safe, then. =)

Much appreciated.

I got this message on facebook earlier today, and thought it summed up things quite well...

I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....(hope I'm not offending anyone)

* If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're "exotic, different."
* If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
* If you name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are unstable.
* If you attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system, while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very responsible.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, *much* clearer now.

From the Article:
'McCain advisers are "seriously considering" having McCain and Palin campaign together on the road. It would be an unusual arrangement -- running mates traditionally split up to cover as much ground as possible -- but aides believe it would help brand McCain and Palin as a single unit.'

So Sarah needs to have Daddy McCain to hold her hand now. Lord knows they can't afford for her to go off on her own. Think of all the trouble she might get in!

Funny how, on a day of remembrance where both Obama and McCain 'agreed' to not be political it was still thought okay by the McCain crowd for Palin to make a political speech. IOKIYAR I guess.

Has no-one thought to call her 'Palindrome - it's "Bush" spelt backwards!' yet? Or am I the first?

More likely it's to have Palin with McCain rather than the other way around. No one is excited about the pasty old white guy. She is interesting, in the Jerry Springer kind of way. Also the joke is too cerebral. The knuckle draggers would never get it.

TIME has a good article about how used it is in the world of US politics:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840392,00.html?imw=Y

McCain's used it twice against Hilary (last time was just 4 months ago in May), but never against Obama. But hey, that's not sexist right?
Oh yes, of course not. Republicans =/= sexist, racist, morally corrupt
silly me. I forgot again.

All those arguments are simple obfuscation of the simple reality...there are only two scenarios that readily 'explain' Obama's remarks.

1: Obama was completely oblivious to the fact that for an entire week the most talked about lady in America was referred to by the word Lipstick at every drinking fountain from the east coast to the west coast, and every little town in the middle. That the media and internet communications had been flooded with Palin's name and her lipstick comment. But apparently unaware of this, Obama used the phrase with lipstick on a pig innocently and unaware of the implications. Entirely out of touch with his own country's current events.

2: Obama strategically decided to use the term, fully aware of the implications and knowing full well what the response would be but he decided to use it anyway and was prepared with his defense in advance, allowing him to use the word and put the insult into the minds of the hearer AND feign innocence of wrong doing afterward.

IF 1: than Obama is willfully ignorant and/or entirely incapable of representing the US in foreign relations because clearly he is incapable of understanding even his own culture, how can we expect him to not insult someone else's and or misrepresent us, if he can so readily put his own foot in his mouth here and not even be willing or able to accept responsibility for it afterwords.

OR 2: Then Obama is a liar for denying that he intentionally put the Lipstick to a Pig phrase out there because of the Hockey Mom.

Neither bodes well for Obama as a President.

All those arguments are simple obfuscation of the simple reality...there are only two scenarios that readily 'explain' Obama's remarks.

1) the phrase 'lipstick on a pig' is good old american english
2) republicans are whiners

IF 1: than Obama is willfully ignorant and/or entirely incapable of representing the US in foreign relations because clearly he is incapable of understanding even his own culture, how can we expect him to not insult someone else's and or misrepresent us, if he can so readily put his own foot in his mouth here and not even be willing or able to accept responsibility for it afterwords

But a woman in her forties who only got her passport earlier this year is fully able to handle US foreign relations, while Obama, a mere black man with a degree specialising in foreign relations is incapable. Yes. You make lots of sense. You don't at all make yourself sound like an idiot with that argument. Nope. Makes perfect sense.

But a woman in her forties who only got her passport earlier this year is fully able to handle US foreign relations, while Obama, a mere black man with a degree specialising in foreign relations is incapable. Yes. You make lots of sense. You don't at all make yourself sound like an idiot with that argument. Nope. Makes perfect sense.

Actually, I think the answer is option 2. Obama knows exactly what he did and did it on purpose. If you think Obama wasn't insightful enough to predict the result when the speech was written, then you have to believe he's willfully ignorant of his own culture.

But hey, nice "IPUKED" argument you have there. (Insult Palin Until Kosher Eat Dog)

Actually, I think the answer is option 2. Obama knows exactly what he did and did it on purpose. If you think Obama wasn't insightful enough to predict the result when the speech was written, then you have to believe he's willfully ignorant of his own culture.

But hey, nice "IPUKED" argument you have there. (Insult Palin Until Kosher Eat Dog)

Nice way to completely dodge the fact that you tried to criticise Obama for something that your prefered candidate is in much more need of criticism for. You know, attack the other guy, and when they attack you back, try and distract them because you can't take a real hit.

Nice way to completely dodge the fact that you tried to criticise Obama for something that your prefered candidate is in much more need of criticism for. You know, attack the other guy, and when they attack you back, try and distract them because you can't take a real hit.

I didn't dodge anything.

Are you interpreting Obama as not insightful enough to have predicted the affect of his words when the speech was written? If so, then it explains why you think I insulted him.

As for me, I think he's too careful with his words to have done something like that by accident, thus, I think he did it on purpose. From your point of view though, if you think Obama did it without understanding the affect of his choice of words would have, I suppose you think he doesn't know whats going on around him in his own country, thus you think I insulted him by pointing it out.

But hey, nice "IPUKED" argument you have there. (Insult Palin Until Kosher Eat Dog)

Wait what? That's the dumbest backronym I've ever seen.

Wait what? That's the dumbest backronym I've ever seen.

It's an accurate description of the strategy being used....

It's an accurate description of the strategy being used....

No. It's crying and whining whenever someone makes numerous good points against you, and then adds in a little insult for effect, while you're fumbling about trying to make a good point that won't get refuted several times over several pages.

It's an accurate description of the strategy being used....

no...it's not. It's not even English.

no...it's not. It's not even English.

I'm trying to figure out what Kosher Eat Dog means. If you insult Palin enough all the Jews will start munching on Fido? I so confused.

I'm trying to figure out what Kosher Eat Dog means. If you insult Palin enough all the Jews will start munching on Fido? I so confused.

Never stop insulting Palin, it's the strategy they are using, Kosher will never eat dog, thus, it's like, until hell freezes over... And the use of that type of argument is similar to puking...

no...it's not. It's not even English.

perhaps that is what makes it accurate?

I'm trying to figure out what Kosher Eat Dog means. If you insult Palin enough all the Jews will start munching on Fido? I so confused.

I think it means the plan is to insult Palin until people who follow kosher laws eat dogs (which is, of course, never).

The problem is "kosher eat dogs" is a nonsensical phrase. It's meaningless. Something that is "kosher" means that it complies with the Kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws. "Kosher" beef is thus beef that meets all the rules of the Kashrut. "Kosher" can't DO anything since "Kosher" isn't a noun, it's an adjective. "Kosher eat dogs" is as meaningless as saying "round plays soccer". Those words have no meaning when put together in that configuration.

I think it means the plan is to insult Palin until people who follow kosher laws eat dogs (which is, of course, never).

The problem is "kosher eat dogs" is a nonsensical phrase. It's meaningless. Something that is "kosher" means that it complies with the Kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws. "Kosher" beef is thus beef that meets all the rules of the Kashrut. "Kosher" can't DO anything since "Kosher" isn't a noun, it's an adjective. "Kosher eat dogs" is as meaningless as saying "round plays soccer"

Fine, nobody ever described someone else as Kosher? My friend Joe, he's Kosher...

Fine, nobody ever described someone else as Kosher?

actually, no, not really. Some things may be described as "kosher", in a general sense, meaning that it's fit for a particular purpose, but nobody is ever described AS kosher. People are described as KEEPING kosher. But to say "Joe is kosher" is to mean, in a literal sense, that Joe conforms to the jewish dietary laws, not in the sense that he himself follows them for HIS dietary purposes, but rather that he, himself, is fit for eating.

"until Kosher eat dogs" is meaningless and nonsensical.

actually, no, not really. Some things may be described as "kosher", in a general sense, meaning that it's fit for a particular purpose, but nobody is ever described AS kosher. People are described as KEEPING kosher. But to say "Joe is kosher" is to mean, in a literal sense, that Joe conforms to the jewish dietary laws, not in the sense that he himself follows them for HIS dietary purposes, but rather that he, himself, is fit for eating.

"until Kosher eat dogs" is meaningless and nonsensical.

You figured out what it meant before I told you, thus, nonsensical is technically an incorrect analysis. Is it not?

Fine, nobody ever described someone else as Kosher? My friend Joe, he's Kosher...

I'll keep that in mind if I ever want to eat Joe.

I'll keep that in mind if I ever want to eat Joe.

Next you'll be telling me aint, aint a word? I'll feel so sad.

You figured out what it meant before I told you, thus, nonsensical is technically an incorrect analysis. Is it not?

adj.

1. Lacking intelligible meaning
2. Foolish; absurd

though if you wish for your command of the English language to be called "foolish and absurd" rather than "nonsensical" it makes no difference to me. Or absurd, incongruous, inviting ridicule. All within the definition.

adj.

1. Lacking intelligible meaning
2. Foolish; absurd

though if you wish for your command of the English language to be called "foolish and absurd" rather than "nonsensical" it makes no difference to me.


lol, you try to edit by deletion the dictionary's description to try and win an argument?

2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.

clearly, it wasn't that either, as you figured out what the idea was as well as what the words meant. Calling it foolish and absurd is an argument, calling it nonsensical was incorrect and you have a hard time even conceding that. lol some more.

lol, you try to edit by deletion the dictionary's description to try and win an argument?

2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.

clearly, it wasn't that either, as you figured out what the idea was as well as what the words meant. Calling it foolish and absurd is an argument, calling it nonsensical was incorrect and you have a hard time even conceding that. lol some more.

Ummm....I don't think you know how a dictionary definition works, do you? Words preceding and following a semi-colon ( ; ) are synonyms of the word being defined. Hence, in the definition of "nonsensical" it lists "foolish" and "absurd" which precede and follow semicolons.

However text that follows a colon ( : ) is used to be demonstrative of how the word being defined is used in a sentence.

Thus the full line of text "Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas." means that "foolish" and "absurd" are synonyms of "nonsensical" and the text" nonsensical ideas", while not being part of the definition of nonsensical (indeed, defining "nonsensical" as "nonsensical" would be pretty...well...nonsensical). Rather the text "nonsensical ideas", because it is preceded by a colon, is showing you how to use the word in a fucking sentence.

I left it out because it's not part of the definition of the word.

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


soooooo obama's greatest experience comes from running a political campaign....?
my bro said that obama has not authored a single piece of legislation...(he heard this while in DC as a page...so it might not be true...I know there is a difference between sponsored and authored but I don't really know what it is)

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


soooooo obama's greatest experience comes from running a political campaign....?
my bro said that obama has not authored a single piece of legislation...(he heard this while in DC as a page...so it might not be true...I know there is a difference between sponsored and authored but I don't really know what it is)

Shhh.. If you're going to repeat idiotic rumors without knowing, just lurk and read for a while.

Also factcheck.org is your friend.

Actually, I think the answer is option 2. Obama knows exactly what he did and did it on purpose. If you think Obama wasn't insightful enough to predict the result when the speech was written, then you have to believe he's willfully ignorant of his own culture.

But hey, nice "IPUKED" argument you have there. (Insult Palin Until Kosher Eat Dog)

Was the insulting part saying she was in her forties, or that she only got her passport this year...?

It's an accurate description of the strategy being used....

No it isn't, because it's being flashed about in exactly the same manner as the recent crop of Republicans calling ANYTHING they don't want to answer "sexism", "a smear" or "lies".

Even worse, it's being applied dishonestly. You're playing that card when you KNOW there was no insult.

Ummm....I don't think you know how a dictionary definition works, do you? Words preceding and following a semi-colon ( ; ) are synonyms of the word being defined. Hence, in the definition of "nonsensical" it lists "foolish" and "absurd" which precede and follow semicolons.

However text that follows a colon ( : ) is used to be demonstrative of how the word being defined is used in a sentence.

Thus the full line of text "Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas." means that "foolish" and "absurd" are synonyms of "nonsensical" and the text" nonsensical ideas", while not being part of the definition of nonsensical (indeed, defining "nonsensical" as "nonsensical" would be pretty...well...nonsensical). Rather the text "nonsensical ideas", because it is preceded by a colon, is showing you how to use the word in a fucking sentence.

I left it out because it's not part of the definition of the word.

Really, so in the end, you think 'discernible intent' is not a part of descriptive words? You think describing something that has discernible meaning (as you yourself understood the acronym is proof of) is not evidence that the word is not nonsensical?

1. Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words.
2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.

Clearly, according to you then, your use of the word nonsensical in describing the acronym IPUKED, was itself nonsensical, as you did understand the words, you just didn't like them.

Or, perhaps, truth lies elsewhare. Such as, common usage of words or phrases do not always meet the technical definition of diectionary english, yet they are understood by the common man on the street all the same.

Never stop insulting Palin, it's the strategy they are using, Kosher will never eat dog, thus, it's like, until hell freezes over... And the use of that type of argument is similar to puking...

They sell Kosher hotdogs at Ingles...

actually, no, not really. Some things may be described as "kosher", in a general sense, meaning that it's fit for a particular purpose, but nobody is ever described AS kosher. People are described as KEEPING kosher. But to say "Joe is kosher" is to mean, in a literal sense, that Joe conforms to the jewish dietary laws, not in the sense that he himself follows them for HIS dietary purposes, but rather that he, himself, is fit for eating.

"until Kosher eat dogs" is meaningless and nonsensical.

Actually, down our way, we described all sorts of things as 'kosher', which had nothing to do with religion.

So, Baldy's example of Joe being Kosher... would be perfectly acceptable down our way. It would mean he was a guy you could trust. A cool dude.

It wouldn't mean he didn't eat hotdogs, though.

Baldy's cute little acronym isn't as smart as he thinks it is.

Really, so in the end, you think 'discernible intent' is not a part of descriptive words? You think describing something that has discernible meaning (as you yourself did) is a proper place to us the descriptive word nonsensical?

1. Lacking intelligible meaning: a nonsensical jumble of words.
2. Foolish; absurd: nonsensical ideas.



Yes, because the fact that something has a discernible meaning (despite being a horrible butchery of the English language) does not stop it from being foolish or absurd

Clearly, according to you then, your use of the word nonsensical in describing the acronym IPUKED, was itself nonsensical.

I'm not 100% positive, but at this point I'm pretty certain that you don't actually know how to speak English.

Or, perhaps, truth lies elsewhare. Such as, common usage of words or phrases do not always meet the technical definition of diectionary english, yet they are understood by the common man on the street all the same.

Oh I truly admit that languages evolve and meanings can change. However, I have not, in my entire life, ever heard the word "kosher" used as a noun. To whit: "Joe is Kosher". Kosher used as an adjective. "Kosher eat dogs". Kosher used as a noun.

I'm also pretty certain you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Was the insulting part saying she was in her forties, or that she only got her passport this year...?

the IPUKED part was trying to switch away from the Obama intent explanation and instead try to refocus on Palin. It wasn't a rebuttal, it was an IPUKED strategy response.

Actually, down our way, we described all sorts of things as 'kosher', which had nothing to do with religion.

So, Baldy's example of Joe being Kosher... would be perfectly acceptable down our way. It would mean he was a guy you could trust. A cool dude.

It wouldn't mean he didn't eat hotdogs, though.

Baldy's cute little acronym isn't as smart as he thinks it is.

I did say that kosher, in a lose and GENERAL sense, meant "fit for a particular purpose". If you mean "he's kosher" to mean he's alright, he's ok, and an upstanding guy, alright, fine, I accept that's a common use of the word.

as an adjective. not a noun.

"Joe is kosher" meaning joe is alright? fine, ok.

When was the last time you ever heard someone say "hey look at that kosher over there"?

Actually, I think the answer is option 2. Obama knows exactly what he did and did it on purpose. If you think Obama wasn't insightful enough to predict the result when the speech was written, then you have to believe he's willfully ignorant of his own culture.

Or maybe that he just gives our culture too much credit. No reasonable person would read or listen to the speech and think it was a sexist comment directed at Sarah Palin. Obama clearly should treat US citizens like unreasonable children who need their hands held. :rolleyes:

the IPUKED part was trying to switch away from the Obama intent explanation and instead try to refocus on Palin. It wasn't a rebuttal, it was an IPUKED strategy response.

You're right it wasn't a rebuttal.

If it's intent was to show that the focus was changed - you applied it incorrectly - because you are either admitting that Obama was being insulted (rather than having his credentials honestly assessed), OR you're claiming it's ONLY an insult when you focus the same lens on Palin.

So - it's either partisan, or sexist - but it's not accurate or appropriate either way.

the IPUKED part was trying to switch away from the Obama intent explanation and instead try to refocus on Palin. It wasn't a rebuttal, it was an IPUKED strategy response.

Okay, stop using the stupid backronym that's derailed discussion for two pages now. It's a distraction from the core matter. McCain is Bush the Third, and Palin's only experience is at screwing the American people to benefit her own career.

from the fact check site you gace me (bTW thanks, I luv it already)

"She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.""

so there goes that one about her wanting aslaka to secede from the union...granted McCain and Co have gotten their facts wrong too, but just wanted to make sure we all know that obama isn't perfect in his information, or disinformation...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/school_funding_misleads.html

I did say that kosher, in a lose and GENERAL sense, meant "fit for a particular purpose". If you mean "he's kosher" to mean he's alright, he's ok, and an upstanding guy, alright, fine, I accept that's a common use of the word.


Right - and the point I was making is that - even under those terms - the 'common usage' that Baldy wants to invoke - it's still a nonsense, because the common usage has nothing to do with what you can eat.


as an adjective. not a noun.

"Joe is kosher" meaning joe is alright? fine, ok.

When was the last time you ever heard someone say "hey look at that kosher over there"?

Well, I heard Baldy say something a bit like that earlier... but, apart from that... I got nothing.

from the fact check site you gace me (bTW thanks, I luv it already)

"She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska's schools. She has said that students should be allowed to "debate both sides" of the evolution question, but she also said creationism "doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.""

so there goes that one about her wanting aslaka to secede from the union...granted McCain and Co have gotten their facts wrong too, but just wanted to make sure we all know that obama isn't perfect in his information, or disinformation...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/school_funding_misleads.html

I'm fairly sure that it was her husband who was in that party. I'm not certain as he's rarely been mentioned and frankly is irrelevant.

Yes, because the fact that something has a discernible meaning (despite being a horrible butchery of the English language) does not stop it from being foolish or absurd

I agree with you being able to call it foolish or absurd. I disagreed with your use of nonsensical, because the dictionary definition of nonsensical means you can't understand it or you can't make heads or tails of it...

I'm not 100% positive, but at this point I'm pretty certain that you don't actually know how to speak English.

Ah, there you go. Nicely done. :rolleyes:

Oh I truly admit that languages evolve and meanings can change. However, I have not, in my entire life, ever heard the word "kosher" used as a noun. To whit: "Joe is Kosher". Kosher used as an adjective. "Kosher eat dogs". Kosher used as a noun.

I'm also pretty certain you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Whether you've heard of it or not, calling a group of people by a term they do to represnt them is not normally a problem for the average Joe in the American public. For example, when I say, Soccer Mom, most people know that I'm not talking about the mother of all soccer. From your example here, I'm not so sure you are able to follow along...

Okay, stop using the stupid backronym that's derailed discussion for two pages now. It's a distraction from the core matter.

It's actually an interesting social experiment, though.

The Republicans have picked a female VP candidate, and have derailed the entire discussion by quibbling about whether the Democrats are being 'sexist' on totally random stuff.

Baldy intends to vote Republican, and has entirely derailed the discussion by quibbling about whether his nonsense phrase has value.

It's an interesting 'monkey see, monkey do' phenomenon.

I'm fairly sure that it was her husband who was in that party. I'm not certain as he's rarely been mentioned and frankly is irrelevant.

I'm not sure that's true. I think if a prominent candidate was shown to have.. .for example, a communist spouse - it would work very badly for them.

To show a prominent candidate has a secessionist spouse, is not entirely irrelevent.

Okay, stop using the stupid backronym that's derailed discussion for two pages now. It's a distraction from the core matter. McCain is Bush the Third, and Palin's only experience is at screwing the American people to benefit her own career.

LMAO How can I stop saying IPUKED, when you keep doing it! LOL

anybody got a link to show us it was her spouse? factcheck said nothing about it?

LMAO How can I stop saying IPUKED, when you keep doing it! LOL

It's easy. You just stop.

Or, and here's a radical suggestion, if you feel you [b]must[/i] use it, depsite it's drawbacks - only apply it when it's relevent.

So - no making stuff up, and no pretending that non-insults are insults... or applying it to changes of focus.

I have all kinds of confidence in you. I just know you can do this, if you put your mind to it.

I agree with you being able to call it foolish or absurd. I disagreed with your use of nonsensical, because the dictionary definition of nonsensical means you can't understand it or you can't make heads or tails of it...

Except for the definition that I just gave you, that is.

You do know how to read, right? You know what a dictionary is, right? You understand that words often have more than one meaning?

This sinking in at all? Even a little bit?

Whether you've heard of it or not, calling a group of people by a term they do to represnt them is not normally a problem for the average Joe in the American public. For example, when I say, Soccer Mom, most people know that I'm not talking about the mother of all soccer. From your example here, I'm not so sure you are able to follow along...

Alright, let's settle this fairly easily.

Give me another example of the word "kosher" being used as a noun

anybody got a link to show us it was her spouse? factcheck said nothing about it?

I'll find one. He was registered as a member of the Alaska Independence Party in two separate election cycles. She wasn't - but did record a video 'welcome' for them.

EDIT:


"Todd Palin, Longtime Former AIP Member
September 02, 2008 5:11 PM

Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time."

That said, Fenumiai says that Palin's husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared.

LMAO How can I stop saying IPUKED, when you keep doing it! LOL

Right. Three pages is definitely enough.

*invokes her executive powers of ignore*

Except for the definition that I just gave you, that is.

You do know how to read, right? You know what a dictionary is, right? You understand that words often have more than one meaning?

This sinking in at all? Even a little bit?

That looks like a nice response for the next person that challenges the definition of IPUKED. Thanks, I might use it.

Alright, let's settle this fairly easily.

Give me another example of the word "kosher" being used as a noun

The thing that the grocery store clerk points at when answering the question: What is Kosher?

The thing that the grocery store clerk points at when answering the question: What is Kosher?

Yup, that settles it. You really don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Here's a hint. When someone asks me "what is red?" and I point to an apple, the thing I'm pointing to isn't actually CALLED "a red".

–noun
3. Informal. kosher food: Let's eat kosher tonight.
–verb (used with object)
4. Judaism. to make kosher: to kosher meat by salting.
—Idiom
5. keep kosher, to adhere to the dietary laws of Judaism.
his example was crap, but it is a noun.

(oh and thanks for the link...well he's been in the past but its been 6 years so thats something, I think that does make it irrelevant.)

wow, while i am not going to really get into this "debate" but ..... someone needs to go back to grammar class.

you can indeed say joe is kosher because IS can be followed by an adjective. (i seriously doubt that joe IS kosher but im not going to find a rabbi to ask about cannibalism)

you however cannot use an adjective as the subject of a sentence (unless for some reason you are talking about the word or concept itself) so "kosher eat dog" makes no sense unless you are leaving out the assumed word "people" and can reasonably expect that anyone hearing that odd phrase would automatically add it in their minds.

as in "insult palin until kosher (people) eat dog" which is still an incorrect use of kosher but at least its not grammatically incorrect.

Yup, that settles it. You really don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Here's a hint. When someone asks me "what is red?" and I point to an apple, the thing I'm pointing to isn't actually CALLED "a red".

Maybe the apple has communist leanings! Did you ever think of that, huh? :tongue:

Yup, that settles it. You really don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Here's a hint. When someone asks me "what is red?" and I point to an apple, the thing I'm pointing to isn't actually CALLED "a red".

LOL, I didn't use the term noun, you did. I described something. What if it's an Orange?

wow, while i am not going to really get into this "debate" but ..... someone needs to go back to grammar class.

you can indeed say joe is kosher because IS can be followed by an adjective. (i seriously doubt that joe IS kosher but im not going to find a rabbi to ask about cannibalism)

you however cannot use an adjective as the subject of a sentence (unless for some reason you are talking about the word or concept itself) so "kosher eat dog" makes no sense unless you are leaving out the assumed word "people" and can reasonably expect that anyone hearing that odd phrase would automatically add it in their minds.

as in "insult palin until kosher (people) eat dog" which is still an incorrect use of kosher but at least its not grammatically incorrect.

quite, the only way to make that sentence both grammatically and definitionally correct is to say "insult Palin until people who keep kosher eat dog".

Which doesn't make for such a witty accronym.

Also, human being can't be kosher. They lack the necessary feet and regugatitive stomachs.

LOL, I didn't use the term noun, you did. I described something. What if it's an Orange?

That's true, you didn't use the term "noun," as you are apparently totally unfamiliar with it. You simply tried to make something the subject of a clause, which grammatically requires that it be a noun or pronoun.

Seriously, most of us learned this in, like, third grade...

LOL, I didn't use the term noun, you did. I described something.

Give me another example of the word "kosher" being used as a noun

You do realized, this is what I asked you, yes?

quite, the only way to make that sentence both grammatically and definitionally correct is to say "insult Palin until people who keep kosher eat dog".

Which doesn't make for such a witty accronym.

Also, human being can't be kosher. They lack the necessary feet and regugatitive stomachs.
i was sure that they wouldnt be kosher even if they had those qualifications. but i would not presume to make that claim since i am only vaguely aquainted with the rules.

i was sure that they wouldnt be kosher even if they had those qualifications. but i would not presume to make that claim since i am only vaguely aquainted with the rules.

I'm not necessarily sure that there's a specific rule that says "people aren't kosher". Rather the way kashrut works is, everything is not kosher, unless it meets the specific criteria that make it so. I don't know if there is a line that says humans aren't kosher, but they don't have cloven hooves or chew cud, so they're not.

...
as in "insult palin until kosher (people) eat dog" which is still an incorrect use of kosher but at least its not grammatically incorrect.

Agreed. Entirely.

I'm not necessarily sure that there's a specific rule that says "people aren't kosher". Rather the way kashrut works is, everything is not kosher, unless it meets the specific criteria that make it so. I don't know if there is a line that says humans aren't kosher, but they don't have cloven hooves or chew cud, so they're not.

They can, however -- and this election cycle is ample proof -- be bottom feeders. If shellfish is a no-no, so are DNC and RNC party hacks.

I'm not necessarily sure that there's a specific rule that says "people aren't kosher". Rather the way kashrut works is, everything is not kosher, unless it meets the specific criteria that make it so. I don't know if there is a line that says humans aren't kosher, but they don't have cloven hooves or chew cud, so they're not.

IIRC, there are specific rules against cannibalism, in addition to the "hooves and chews the cud" thing, so humans would probably be an exception if they did have hooves and a different digestive system. =)

Or maybe that he just gives our culture too much credit. No reasonable person would read or listen to the speech and think it was a sexist comment directed at Sarah Palin. Obama clearly should treat US citizens like unreasonable children who need their hands held. :rolleyes:

Why not? I appears to have worked for the GOP in the last eight years or so.

I agree with you being able to call it foolish or absurd. I disagreed with your use of nonsensical, because the dictionary definition of nonsensical means you can't understand it or you can't make heads or tails of it...



Ah, there you go. Nicely done. :rolleyes:



Whether you've heard of it or not, calling a group of people by a term they do to represnt them is not normally a problem for the average Joe in the American public. For example, when I say, Soccer Mom, most people know that I'm not talking about the mother of all soccer. From your example here, I'm not so sure you are able to follow along...

Dance! Dance, little leprechaun! Do the Goalpost Tarantella until you're dizzy with a self-righteous alternate reality so deep that even Timothy Leary would have said "wow, man, you are, like OUT there."

Or maybe that he just gives our culture too much credit. No reasonable person would read or listen to the speech and think it was a sexist comment directed at Sarah Palin. Obama clearly should treat US citizens like unreasonable children who need their hands held. :rolleyes:

This is consitantly Obama' biggest "weakness". He treats and talks to the American people like they are adults, forgeting that they are really dumb as shit.


This happened with Bush/Gore and it happened with Bush/Kerry. One side tries to have an intellegent discussion. The other side talks folksy, drinks beer, and flings school yard insults.

In all honosty, Im convinced the American people dont want to be treated like adults.

One side tries to have an intellegent discussion. The other side talks folksy, drinks beer, and flings school yard insults...


That's so funny, especially since Obama has been saying that he can use the Pig Lipstick metaphor specifically because the other side uses it too. It appears that despite your claims to the contrary neither side is trying to have an intelligent discussion, Obama talks trash just like everyone else. Obama claiming he's not going to insult someone in the same speech paragraphs as having done so...

One side tries to have an intellegent discussion
Come now, the Dems aren't above mudslinging, empty rhetoric and image-crafting.

This happened with Bush/Gore and it happened with Bush/Kerry.
To be fair, they were also fucking boring men; especially Kerry.

Come now, the Dems aren't above mudslinging, empty rhetoric and image-crafting.


To be fair, they were also fucking boring men; especially Kerry.
Thanks for providing evidence that suggests that Americans are not the only shallow and thoughtless voters in the world.

That's so funny, especially since Obama has been saying that he can use the Pig Lipstick metaphor specifically because the other side uses it too. It appears that despite your claims to the contrary neither side is trying to have an intelligent discussion, Obama talks trash just like everyone else. Obama claiming he's not going to insult someone in the same speech paragraphs as having done so...

Only the delusional, the idiot, or Karl Rove would see the comment about lipstick on a pig as anything but the use of American slang.

Tell me Blady, was it sexist when McCain used it to describe Hillary? And I want an answer, I wont let you weasle out of it.

Obama does talk trash, but its issue based.

That's so funny, especially since Obama has been saying that he can use the Pig Lipstick metaphor specifically because the other side uses it too.

Actually, I think what he's been doing is pointing out that the other side uses it, so they clearly don't actually think it's sexist.

It's a metaphor, and one used fairly often. There's nothing inherently unintelligent or insulting about using a metaphor.

LOL, I didn't use the term noun, you did. I described something. What if it's an Orange?

Then it wouldn't rhyme.

Thanks for providing evidence that suggests that Americans are not the only shallow and thoughtless voters in the world.

To be fair, one can notice something like that without thinking it's relevant to how one should vote. The truth of the matter is, Kerry didn't really excite people - he was rather boring. He was the least worst candidate, but that doesn't tend to get people revved up.

To be fair, one can notice something like that without thinking it's relevant to how one should vote. The truth of the matter is, Kerry didn't really excite people - he was rather boring. He was the least worst candidate, but that doesn't tend to get people revved up.
My point, though, was that it doesn't help matters to, essentially, ecourage shallow, thoughtless voting by saying what amounts to, "Yeah, but they were boring." Presidents are not supposed to be picked for entertainment value.

I'm not sure that's true. I think if a prominent candidate was shown to have.. .for example, a communist spouse - it would work very badly for them.

To show a prominent candidate has a secessionist spouse, is not entirely irrelevent.

It's interesting. Obama distorts facts and presents them as truth. Gravenidle distorts the facts and presents them as truth. Guess it's another case of monkey see, monkey do.

First, for those who are simply reading blogs on the internet and not bothering to do their research:

http://www.akip.org/platform.html

Some members of the party are, indeed, for secession. Then again, some members of the Democratic party are for child pornography and sex - you are aware there are NAMBLA members in the Democratic party, right?

This doesn't mean the Democratic party is for child pornography & sex - most reasonable people can see that. Unfortunately, reason rarely enters the field when Obamanites are slavering over a juicy piece of tenderloin.

Now, finally, before the hordes descend - Yes, McCain also distorts the truth. So does Palin. So does Biden. So does...every other politician on the face of the planet. That's politics.

It's interesting. Obama distorts facts and presents them as truth. Gravenidle distorts the facts and presents them as truth. Guess it's another case of monkey see, monkey do.

First, for those who are simply reading blogs on the internet and not bothering to do their research:

http://www.akip.org/platform.html

Some members of the party are, indeed, for secession. Then again, some members of the Democratic party are for child pornography and sex - you are aware there are NAMBLA members in the Democratic party, right?

This doesn't mean the Democratic party is for child pornography & sex - most reasonable people can see that. Unfortunately, reason rarely enters the field when Obamanites are slavering over a juicy piece of tenderloin.

Now, finally, before the hordes descend - Yes, McCain also distorts the truth. So does Palin. So does Biden. So does...every other politician on the face of the planet. That's politics.

And this is the portion of your day where you post baseless bullshit and go offline when challenged right?

Let's just hurry that second part along. Source?

First, for those who are simply reading blogs on the internet and not bothering to do their research:

http://www.akip.org/platform.html

Holy crap theyre more insane then I assumed. Thanks, now Im convinced that they are a terrible group.

you are aware there are NAMBLA members in the Democratic party, right?


And as Mark Folley showed, they are in the Republican party also.

My point, though, was that it doesn't help matters to, essentially, ecourage shallow, thoughtless voting by saying what amounts to, "Yeah, but they were boring." Presidents are not supposed to be picked for entertainment value.

*Agrees*

Though having an inspiring leader is a bonus.

It's interesting. Obama distorts facts and presents them as truth. Gravenidle distorts the facts and presents them as truth. Guess it's another case of monkey see, monkey do.

First, for those who are simply reading blogs on the internet and not bothering to do their research:

http://www.akip.org/platform.html

Some members of the party are, indeed, for secession. Then again, some members of the Democratic party are for child pornography and sex - you are aware there are NAMBLA members in the Democratic party, right?

This doesn't mean the Democratic party is for child pornography & sex - most reasonable people can see that. Unfortunately, reason rarely enters the field when Obamanites are slavering over a juicy piece of tenderloin.

Now, finally, before the hordes descend - Yes, McCain also distorts the truth. So does Palin. So does Biden. So does...every other politician on the face of the planet. That's politics.
well now, i didnt see anything about secession in the platform and yet when you go to their FAQ page, they talk about it extensively.

http://www.akip.org/faqs.html

when you go to the democratic party site, there is no discussion of how anyone wants to legalize sex with children--after all that is not a founding proposition of the democratic party.

My point, though, was that it doesn't help matters to, essentially, ecourage shallow, thoughtless voting by saying what amounts to, "Yeah, but they were boring." Presidents are not supposed to be picked for entertainment value.

And when Americans voted for a President on entertainment value, we ended up with 8 Years of Bushevism. Let that be a lesson.

And as Mark Folley showed, they are in the Republican party also.

But... but... FOXNews told me that dirty pedophile Foley's a Democrat!!

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg

well now, i didnt see anything about secession in the platform and yet when you go to their FAQ page, they talk about it extensively.

http://www.akip.org/faqs.html

when you go to the democratic party site, there is no discussion of how anyone wants to legalize sex with children--after all that is not a founding proposition of the democratic party.

Shhhh! "Doing your research" is restricted to looking at one page. You aren't supposed to explore the rest of it!

But... but... FOXNews told me that dirty pedophile Foley's a Democrat!!

http://www.bradblog.com/Images/FoxOReilly_MarkFoleyDEM_100306.jpg

Im in fact now waiting for Aardweasels to say that Foley was a democrat and not a Republican and thus my point is irrelevent.

Shhhh! "Doing your research" is restricted to looking at one page. You aren't supposed to explore the rest of it!
dammit, i keep forgetting that part!

Im in fact now waiting for Aardweasels to say that Foley was a democrat and not a Republican and thus my point is irrelevent.

Going to take a while, as he has predictably gone offline.

Going to take a while, as he has predictably gone offline.
I kind of like the hit-and-run acts. They give me time to eat and do laundry and stuff.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5789742&page=1


Alaska's state legislators are all sexist pigs.

Actually, I think what he's been doing is pointing out that the other side uses it, so they clearly don't actually think it's sexist.

It's a metaphor, and one used fairly often. There's nothing inherently unintelligent or insulting about using a metaphor.

So you've chosen option 1, Obama is too unobservant to have noticed that the most talked about person in America was currently known via the self description of "lipstick." Personally, I gave him more credit than that, but meh, perhaps you are right and he is unaware of his environment and audience.

So you've chosen option 1, Obama is too unobservant to have noticed that the most talked about person in America was currently known via the self description of "lipstick." Personally, I gave him more credit than that, but meh, perhaps you are right and he is unaware of his environment and audience.



Still waiting Baldy.


Was it sexist when McCain used the term in regards to Hillary?


Youre not wiggling out of this one.

Still waiting Baldy.

Was it sexist when McCain used the term in regards to Hillary?

Youre not wiggling out of this one.


Many pages ago, I answered that. I pick option 2, some of you think he was option 1.



1: Obama was completely oblivious to the fact that for an entire week the most talked about lady in America was referred to by the word Lipstick at every drinking fountain from the east coast to the west coast, and every little town in the middle. That the media and internet communications had been flooded with Palin's name and her lipstick comment. But apparently unaware of this, Obama used the phrase with lipstick on a pig innocently and unaware of the implications. Entirely out of touch with his own country's current events.

2: Obama strategically decided to use the term, fully aware of the implications and knowing full well what the response would be but he decided to use it anyway and was prepared with his defense in advance, allowing him to use the word and put the insult into the minds of the hearer AND feign innocence of wrong doing afterward.

IF 1: than Obama is willfully ignorant and/or entirely incapable of representing the US in foreign relations because clearly he is incapable of understanding even his own culture, how can we expect him to not insult someone else's and or misrepresent us, if he can so readily put his own foot in his mouth here and not even be willing or able to accept responsibility for it afterwords.

OR 2: Then Obama is a liar for denying that he intentionally put the Lipstick to a Pig phrase out there because of the Hockey Mom.


edit: If the Lipstick on a Pig isn't a sexist insult, it is an insult against Palin specifically and perhaps Hockey Moms in general. But pretending like the audience wouldn't make the connection after the week of media before Obama's use of the metaphor is a display of ignorance or stupidity or intentional, you pick.

Many pages ago, I asnwered that. I pick option 2, some of you think he was option 1.

Quote yourself then. Or reanswer.

Youre not wiggling out of this one.

1: Obama was completely oblivious to the fact that for an entire week the most talked about lady in America was referred to by the word Lipstick at every drinking fountain from the east coast to the west coast, and every little town in the middle. That the media and internet communications had been flooded with Palin's name and her lipstick comment. But apparently unaware of this, Obama used the phrase with lipstick on a pig innocently and unaware of the implications. Entirely out of touch with his own country's current events.

2: Obama strategically decided to use the term, fully aware of the implications and knowing full well what the response would be but he decided to use it anyway and was prepared with his defense in advance, allowing him to use the word and put the insult into the minds of the hearer AND feign innocence of wrong doing afterward.

IF 1: than Obama is willfully ignorant and/or entirely incapable of representing the US in foreign relations because clearly he is incapable of understanding even his own culture, how can we expect him to not insult someone else's and or misrepresent us, if he can so readily put his own foot in his mouth here and not even be willing or able to accept responsibility for it afterwords.

OR 2: Then Obama is a liar for denying that he intentionally put the Lipstick to a Pig phrase out there because of the Hockey Mom.[/INDENT]


I pick neither. I think he used a common term in American slang that McCain and many other politicians have used, and the Republican spin machine began to QQ and cry sexism because they know that when it comes to issues they dont have a leg to stand on. Their goal is to distract as much as possible.


Anyway, Ill ask you again. Was it sexism when McCain used the EXACT SAME TERM in regards to Hillary?

Quote yourself then. Or reanswer.

I pick neither. I think he used a common term in American slang that McCain and many other politicians have used, and the Republican spin machine began to QQ and cry sexism because they know that when it comes to issues they dont have a leg to stand on. Their goal is to distract as much as possible.

Your answer is actually a combination of 1 and 2. You think he's too stupid to have seen the connection being made, AND you think he's using the prepared with his defense in advance, allowing him to use the word and put the insult into the minds of the hearer AND feign innocence of wrong doing afterward.

I give him more credit than that, he picks his words too carefully to think he's too dumb to 'hear' what he's saying.

Anyway, Ill ask you again. Was it sexism when McCain used the EXACT SAME TERM in regards to Hillary?


I edited my post above while you were writing apparently...

So you've chosen option 1, Obama is too unobservant to have noticed that the most talked about person in America was currently known via the self description of "lipstick." Personally, I gave him more credit than that, but meh, perhaps you are right and he is unaware of his environment and audience.

Or perhaps option #3. He thought that when he used a common American expression, one that he and his opponent both have a history of using in the past, that the American public, by and large, wouldn’t be so outrageously partisan and utterly devoid of understanding that they’d actually assume he was calling someone a pig just because she happens to use the word “lipstick” to describe herself.

I see he gravely overestimated you.

But I don’t think it matters much. I mean, let’s be honest here, the kind of people that would jump on his comment about putting lipstick on a pig, and run around screaming that he called Palin a sow…well…they weren’t really going to vote for him anyway, were they?

It’s not like he was really counting on votes from people like you, who bend all rules of logic, common sense and rationality to try and justify their foaming at the mouth hatred of the man.

Face it. he used this expression before, McCain used this expression before. It's a well known idiom. The fact that Palin also uses the word "lipstick" doesn't suddenly change what it means.

Although, we're pretty well experienced by now in how you like to make up whole new meanings for things to justify your inanity.

edit: If the Lipstick on a Pig isn't a sexist insult, it is an insult against Palin specifically and perhaps Hockey Moms in general.

How is something not in any way directed at Palin an insult to Palin? You're losing it Baldy.

you know, I hope for Baldy's sense McCain doesn't have a fondness for oreos.

edit: wait a minute, wait a minute. Isn't this poster, who is now saying that “lipstick on a pig” when said by McCain isn’t sexist, but is when said by Obama, because of the connotations of “lipstick” to Sarah Palin, the SAME EXACT GUY who posted a few months back wondering why, if it was OK to say Bush looks like a chimp, is it not ok to put Obama’s name on a shirt with a monkey?

Does the phrase “context” only exist when it suits you

Your answer is actually a combination of 1 and 2. You think he's too stupid to have seen the connection being made, AND you think he's using the prepared with his defense in advance, allowing him to use the word and put the insult into the minds of the hearer AND feign innocence of wrong doing afterward.

I give him more credit than that, he picks his words too carefully to think he's too dumb to 'hear' what he's saying.


No, I said what I said. I didnt combine one or two. Im saying its a standard comment in Amerian English that yoyre pretending was something it wasnt.

edit: If the Lipstick on a Pig isn't a sexist insult, it is an insult against Palin specifically and perhaps Hockey Moms in general.

So its OK when McCain said it? Gotcha. And Hockey Mom's in general? Really? Tell me, where are you getting this? Or is this just your typical Hanity esq rhetoric from you?

Your answer exposes to us exactly what we KNEW it would be. Youre a hypocrit.

But pretending like the audience wouldn't make the connection after the week of media before Obama's use of the metaphor is a display of ignorance or stupidity or intentional, you pick.

Neither. It was a comment that the Republican party is making a big deal about it because McCain is weak on the issues, and if people start actually paying attention to what matters in this campaign, theyll realize that McCain will make an awful leader and in no way represents their best interests.

you know, I hope for Baldy's sense McCain doesn't have a fondness for oreos.

edit: wait a minute, wait a minute. Isn't this poster, who is now saying that “lipstick on a pig” when said by McCain isn’t sexist, but is when said by Obama, because of the connotations of “lipstick” to Sarah Palin, the SAME EXACT GUY who posted a few months back wondering why, if it was OK to say Bush looks like a chimp, is it not ok to put Obama’s name on a shirt with a monkey?

Does the phrase “context” only exist when it suits you

No no no. It wouldnt be racist or race baiting if McCain did it. It would just be an innocent comment that teh ebil librul medeah seized on to damage the reputation of a war hero. Now if OBAMA asked for an Oreo, it would be race baiting.

So you've chosen option 1,

No, I think your options are idiotic and are formed with the already set opinion that there is something specifically wrong with Obama.

Obama is too unobservant to have noticed that the most talked about person in America was currently known via the self description of "lipstick."

She wasn't known by any such thing. She was known to have made a joke in which she compared herself (and all other hockey moms) to a pit bull. Lipstick was the punchline - the difference between them.

It wasn't anything that made the word "lipstick" exclusive to referring to Palin.

Personally, I gave him more credit than that, but meh, perhaps you are right and he is unaware of his environment and audience.

Like I said, it would appear that he gave his audience too much credit. Reasonable people would not think that Sarah Palin's use of the word "lipstick" in a joke somehow gave her exclusive use of the word or that any further use of the word must necessarily refer to her.

Apparently, Obama shouldn't give the American public credit for being made up of reasonable people.

1: Obama was completely oblivious to the fact that for an entire week the most talked about lady in America was referred to by the word Lipstick at every drinking fountain from the east coast to the west coast, and every little town in the middle. That the media and internet communications had been flooded with Palin's name and her lipstick comment. But apparently unaware of this, Obama used the phrase with lipstick on a pig innocently and unaware of the implications. Entirely out of touch with his own country's current events.

Not unaware of the implications. Unaware that idiots would make up implications.

Lipstick is a fairly common word in the English language. The fact that one particular politician used it in a joke doesn't somehow give her exclusive use of it.

edit: If the Lipstick on a Pig isn't a sexist insult, it is an insult against Palin specifically and perhaps Hockey Moms in general.

The lipstick on a pig comment was not in any way directed at hockey moms, or at Palin. It was directed at the way the Republicans try to label their policies.

Anyway, Ill ask you again. Was it sexism when McCain used the EXACT SAME TERM in regards to Hillary?

Of course not. Clinton didn't make a lipstick joke about herself. Clearly, it can only be sexism if someone has recently made a joke involving lipstick. Duh.

Or perhaps option #3. He thought that when he used a common American expression, one that he and his opponent both have a history of using in the past, that the American public, by and large, wouldn’t be so outrageously partisan and utterly devoid of understanding that they’d actually assume he was calling someone a pig just because she happens to use the word “lipstick” to describe herself.

I see he gravely overestimated you.

But I don’t think it matters much. I mean, let’s be honest here, the kind of people that would jump on his comment about putting lipstick on a pig, and run around screaming that he called Palin a sow…well…they weren’t really going to vote for him anyway, were they?

It’s not like he was really counting on votes from people like you, who bend all rules of logic, common sense and rationality to try and justify their foaming at the mouth hatred of the man.

Face it. he used this expression before, McCain used this expression before. It's a well known idiom. The fact that Palin also uses the word "lipstick" doesn't suddenly change what it means.

Although, we're pretty well experienced by now in how you like to make up whole new meanings for things to justify your inanity.

You do realize that you haven't created an option 3, you've simply tried to explain away Obama's option 1., too stupid to have seen it coming.

you know, I hope for Baldy's sense McCain doesn't have a fondness for oreos.

edit: wait a minute, wait a minute. Isn't this poster, who is now saying that “lipstick on a pig” when said by McCain isn’t sexist, but is when said by Obama, because of the connotations of “lipstick” to Sarah Palin, the SAME EXACT GUY who posted a few months back wondering why, if it was OK to say Bush looks like a chimp, is it not ok to put Obama’s name on a shirt with a monkey?

Does the phrase “context” only exist when it suits you

That's actually a perfect example. McCain can NOT, and should not be allowed to start getting away with 'Oreo' comments. He should,and so far has, been able to avoid talking about topics with the phrases like Oreo or, this is a "Black and White" isse or we should look at this issue as a Black and White solution etc.,. McCain has to stay away from the word with double meanings that could be taken as an attack on Obama simply for being black.

If is made by accident, then he should apologize and learn from his lesson and not do it again.

As to Obama and Curious George, which side of the arugment were you on? And why?

You do realize that you haven't created an option 3, you've simply tried to explain away Obama's option 1., too stupid to have seen it coming.

I call it an overestimation of the intelligence and civility of the republicans.

No, I think your options are idiotic and are formed with the already set opinion that there is something specifically wrong with Obama.

She wasn't known by any such thing. She was known to have made a joke in which she compared herself (and all other hockey moms) to a pit bull. Lipstick was the punchline - the difference between them.

It wasn't anything that made the word "lipstick" exclusive to referring to Palin.

Like I said, it would appear that he gave his audience too much credit. Reasonable people would not think that Sarah Palin's use of the word "lipstick" in a joke somehow gave her exclusive use of the word or that any further use of the word must necessarily refer to her.

Apparently, Obama shouldn't give the American public credit for being made up of reasonable people.

Not unaware of the implications. Unaware that idiots would make up implications.

Lipstick is a fairly common word in the English language. The fact that one particular politician used it in a joke doesn't somehow give her exclusive use of it.

The lipstick on a pig comment was not in any way directed at hockey moms, or at Palin. It was directed at the way the Republicans try to label their policies.

Of course not. Clinton didn't make a lipstick joke about herself. Clearly, it can only be sexism if someone has recently made a joke involving lipstick. Duh.

This whole post was just one big variation of making excuses for why Obama didn't see this coming for saying what he was about to say the day the speech was written. He was utterly blindsided by the 'lipstick' being applied to Palin after mentioning Republicans and Karl Rove style politics etc.,.

Really, if you guys are rooting for him and all, it seems like you would give him a little more credit than that, but whatever. Perhaps you like candidates that get caught utterly by surprise and ill prepared.

As for me, I still think he knew exactly what he was doing and what was going to happen and was all ready with his defenses before he said it. I seem to have more respect for his intellectual and strategic preparations than you all do.

My point, though, was that it doesn't help matters to, essentially, ecourage shallow, thoughtless voting by saying what amounts to, "Yeah, but they were boring." Presidents are not supposed to be picked for entertainment value.

Not so since TV. Without televised debates in 1960, we'd have never had Kennedy.

So you've chosen option 1, Obama is too unobservant to have noticed that the most talked about person in America was currently known via the self description of "lipstick." Personally, I gave him more credit than that, but meh, perhaps you are right and he is unaware of his environment and audience.

Good grief, Baldy, she used "lipstick" as part of a JOKE describing "hockey moms" in a speech! You're so far in denial, you're speaking in heiroglyphics!

It's interesting. Obama distorts facts and presents them as truth. Gravenidle distorts the facts and presents them as truth. Guess it's another case of monkey see, monkey do.

First, for those who are simply reading blogs on the internet and not bothering to do their research:

http://www.akip.org/platform.html

Some members of the party are, indeed, for secession.

I assume you know which party we were talking about.

I assume you know what that party is called.

I assume you know what that name means.

If I'm assuming too much, feel free to stop me.

If the party is an 'alaskan independence party', describing them as pro-secession isn't really a distortion.

...
Good grief, Baldy, she used "lipstick" as part of a JOKE describing "hockey moms" in a speech! You're so far in denial, you're speaking in heiroglyphics!

Right :rolleyes: Palin is self described as 'Hockey Mom' and then she tell us how tough Hockey Moms are by comparing them to pitbulls, yet you never caught the connection?

This whole post was just one big variation of making excuses for why Obama didn't see this coming ...

Irrelevent.

Simple question - why is it sexist when Obama does it, but not when McCain does it?

...
If the party is an 'alaskan independence party', describing them as pro-secession isn't really a distortion.

OMYGoodness LMAO

Then ALL of them are secessionists? Like Independence Party of Texas, Independence Party of Massachusetts, Independence Party of Minnesota etc.,.

And here I thought Ross Perot started a third party to combat the Dems and Republicans...

Irrelevent.

Simple question - why is it sexist when Obama does it, but not when McCain does it?

I didn't say it was sexist, I said it was a personal insult against Palin and perhaps all Hockey Moms...

Do any of you guys read the rest of the thread, I've answered this more than once.