NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

I really, really hope this is just a joke. I know it's hard to tell over the internet when someone is joking, maybe that's the case here, right?

Unfortunately, I have this uneasy little feeling that it's not a joke.

So what does the Independence Party of America want? Independence from the continent? Do you buy I Can't Believe It's Not Butter because you can't believe it's not butter? Do you believe Disneyland is really it's own land?

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!

Um, no. With hieroglyphics, at least we had the Rosetta Stone. Bushevism is an alien language all to itself.

Irrelevent.

Simple question - why is it sexist when Obama does it, but not when McCain does it?

The ages old answer:

It's Okay If You're A Republican

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/12/mccain-on-the-view-i-havent-changed/


“I’m the same person and I have the same principles, and the same issues whether it be spending, whether it be climate change, whether it be the war on Iraq, whether it be torture of prisoners – no matter what it is… I’m the same guy,” McCain said.

Well, the bolded ones a blatatant lie.

Its sad to me that the only one who is calling McRambo on this Maverik bull is The fucking View.

Oh, and this is funny:
“I’ve asked Senator Obama to join me in town hall meetings all across America,” he said. “I have requested this time after time.”

“That would be good for Sarah and Joe Biden too,” Behar interjected.

To much laughter and applause Walters offered, “You bring us Sarah Palin and we’ll bring you Barack Obama.”


Of course, since the Republicans already tried to get Palin out of the VP debates because they know she'll get slaughtered, McCain wont take them up on it.

I have an idea: during a speech, Palin should read the entire dictionary. Then, Obama can't say anything, because Palin will have used EVERY WORD he could think of, meaning he'll HAVE to be referring to her!

I have an idea: during a speech, Palin should read the entire dictionary. Then, Obama can't say anything, because Palin will have used EVERY WORD he could think of, meaning he'll HAVE to be referring to her!

Dictionaries are for elitest intellectuals.

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?

Again, kind of hoping this is a joke, but I'm afraid it's not.

Go back and carefully read what I wrote. SOME members of NAMBLA (not NAMBLA itself) are democrats. Reading comprehension is your friend. That information is easily obtained through the wikipedia, and through a brief investigation of some of the members of NAMBLA themselves. To be fair, some Republicans are also members of NAMBLA - which statement I'm sure is going to have some of the Obamanites immediately proclaiming it to be the party of child pornography and sex. Go ahead, don't disappoint me.

This is the part of the day where you baselessly attack people for posting something completely innocuous, right?

The Republican Party is the party of child pornography and sex.

Again, kind of hoping this is a joke, but I'm afraid it's not.

Go back and carefully read what I wrote. SOME members of NAMBLA (not NAMBLA itself) are democrats. Reading comprehension is your friend. That information is easily obtained through the wikipedia, and through a brief investigation of some of the members of NAMBLA themselves. To be fair, some Republicans are also members of NAMBLA - which statement I'm sure is going to have some of the Obamanites immediately proclaiming it to be the party of child pornography and sex. Go ahead, don't disappoint me.

This is the part of the day where you baselessly attack people for posting something completely innocuous, right?

Problem is, NAMBLA doesnt post their member list.

Of course, since the Republicans already tried to get Palin out of the VP debates because they know she'll get slaughtered, McCain wont take them up on it.

Strange, the only place I can find validation for this statement is right here on this forum post. Of course, I KNOW an Obamanite wouldn't make something up, so please, let us know where to find the proof.

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...

Am I expecting too much, when I expect you to know what 'independence' means?

Are you perhaps under the impression that the Alaskan Independence Party is part of the four-party coalition that calls itself the Independence Party of America? (Independence Party of New York, Independence Party of Minnesota, Independent Green Party of Virginia and Reform Party of Pennsylvania).

Is it as simple as - you don't see a difference between an 'Independence Party of Alaska' and The 'Alaskan Independence Party'?

I wonder if you've even looked at the AIP's website...

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.

The, why is it a 'personal insult' when Obama says it, but not when McCain says it?

You evade a lot.

Strange, the only place I can find validation for this statement is right here on this forum post. Of course, I KNOW an Obamanite wouldn't make something up, so please, let us know where to find the proof.

Their website, for starters.


So, why dont you show me where you saw their post of their member list. I mean, its not like youre a liar or a bullshitter or anything, but I dont believe you, because youre a liar and a bullshitter.



EDIT: Especially because saying youre a member of NAMBLA would be like saying I AM A CHILD MOLESTER

I really, really hope this is just a joke. I know it's hard to tell over the internet when someone is joking, maybe that's the case here, right?

Unfortunately, I have this uneasy little feeling that it's not a joke.

So what does the Independence Party of America want? Independence from the continent? Do you buy I Can't Believe It's Not Butter because you can't believe it's not butter? Do you believe Disneyland is really it's own land?

Have you even bothered to investigate what the AIP claims as it's goals?

Have you even bothered to investigate what the AIP claims as it's goals?

Platform and Goal
of the
Alaskan Independence Party

Preamble
We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.

Platform
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

1 To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.

2 To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

3 To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.

4 To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.

Etc., etc., etc. Link (http://www.akip.org/platform.html)

Looks liks you're wrong. Their first issue says full compliance with the US constitution...

Have you even bothered to investigate what the AIP claims as it's goals?

Yes. I've also read their platform...you know, the one where they say:

We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

Which, strangely enough, states NOTHING about secession. I know, I know, with a name like the Alaskan Independence Party, it's a real shocker, but there you have it.

Platform and Goal
of the
Alaskan Independence Party

Preamble
We affirm that all political power is inherent in the people; that all government originates with the people, is founded on their will only, is instituted to protect the rights of the individual; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal protection under the law. We stand on a firm constitutional foundation.

Platform
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

1 To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.

2 To support and defend States' Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

3 To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.

4 To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word "privilege" in the Alaska statutes.

Etc., etc., etc. Link (http://www.akip.org/platform.html)

Looks liks you're wrong. Their first issue says full compliance with the US constitution...


"The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences"

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


"QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE

Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?

A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

Q: Would I lose my U.S. citizenship?

A: Depending on the form of independence, several forms of citizenship would be possible, including the retention of U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. However, considering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline.

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

Looks like you're wrong.

Several months ago, many Obamalites were huffing and puffing about the Democratic Party's new 50 state strategy (http://www.alternet.org/election08/87191/obama_and_howard_dean_team_up_to_recast_the_political_map/).

I suggested that was not such a great strategy, whilst defending Clinton's expand the base strategy.

What have the Democrats gained to date and how is Obama implimenting the "new strategy"?

Looking at this map today, it would appear that little has been gained by this "new strategy" and there may even be losses:

Obama 268 McCain 270

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Sep12.png

For comparison, there is the RCP election map (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=10).

It appears that the red Staters are tough to move?

Yes. I've also read their platform...you know, the one where they say:

We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

Which, strangely enough, states NOTHING about secession. I know, I know, with a name like the Alaskan Independence Party, it's a real shocker, but there you have it.

The fact that you failed to pay any more attention than that to the site, is a weakness in your own argument, not mine.

[QUOTE=Knights of Liberty;14006592]Their website, for starters.


So, why dont you show me where you saw their post of their member list. I mean, its not like youre a liar or a bullshitter or anything, but I dont believe you, because youre a liar and a bullshitter./QUOTE]

See, I don't call you a liar and a bullshitter because of your statements on the AIP...but I guess I'm just polite that way. :)

No, NAMBLA doesn't publish their member lists. Yes, enough members of NAMBLA have been tracked down over the last 20 years to give a pretty good idea that their political parties range all over the board - from Communist to Democratic to Republican. Again, go back and read my original comments. You might be shocked to find I didn't say every member of NAMBLA was a democrat. Even the NAMBLA bulletins state their politics are across the board, and they should know.

Again, kind of hoping this is a joke, but I'm afraid it's not.

Go back and carefully read what I wrote. SOME members of NAMBLA (not NAMBLA itself) are democrats. Reading comprehension is your friend. That information is easily obtained through the wikipedia, and through a brief investigation of some of the members of NAMBLA themselves. To be fair, some Republicans are also members of NAMBLA - which statement I'm sure is going to have some of the Obamanites immediately proclaiming it to be the party of child pornography and sex. Go ahead, don't disappoint me.

This is the part of the day where you baselessly attack people for posting something completely innocuous, right?

No you didn't. You said "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?". Which means you either believe that people who vote Democrat are all members of the party, or that you believe party leaders are in NAMBLA. Since you provide, once again, no source for your baseless slander it's difficult to tell how to take it.

So, why dont you show me where you saw their post of their member list. I mean, its not like youre a liar or a bullshitter or anything, but I dont believe you, because youre a liar and a bullshitter./QUOTE]

See, I don't call you a liar and a bullshitter because of your statements on the AIP...but I guess I'm just polite that way. :)

No, NAMBLA doesn't publish their member lists. Yes, enough members of NAMBLA have been tracked down over the last 20 years to give a pretty good idea that their political parties range all over the board - from Communist to Democratic to Republican. Again, go back and read my original comments. You might be shocked to find I didn't say every member of NAMBLA was a democrat. Even the NAMBLA bulletins state their politics are across the board, and they should know.

The problem is - you did say "That information is easily obtained through the wikipedia, and through a brief investigation of some of the members of NAMBLA themselves".

Okay - where is the information on NAMBLA membership available, so that we can check it against the membership listing for the Democrats?

Several months ago, many Obamalites were huffing and puffing about the Democratic Party's new 50 state strategy (http://www.alternet.org/election08/87191/obama_and_howard_dean_team_up_to_recast_the_political_map/).

I suggested that was not such a great strategy, whilst defending Clinton's expand the base strategy.

and you are still wrong, because you don't understand the point of either the strategy or the nature of post convention bounces

An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

Looks like you're wrong.

No you didn't. You said "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?". Which means you either believe that people who vote Democrat are all members of the party, or that you believe party leaders are in NAMBLA. Since you provide, once again, no source for your baseless slander it's difficult to tell how to take it.

With over 72 million registered members, the Democratic Party is home to an ideologically diverse base. Liberals form by far the largest and most influential ideological demographic within the party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Oh noes! Could it be! Could it possibly be that, within the US, to be a member of a political party, all you have to do is check in that little bitty box!?

and you are still wrong, because you don't understand the point of either the strategy or the nature of post convention bounces
I think I understand the strategy well. Spend resources in an area that you are unlikely to win to force the other guy that has more resources into defending his territory, with a long term goal of building your meagre presence in an area that you are not generally well received in.

Brillance!! :rolleyes:

The post convention bounce should not even be an issue here. The mere fact that the Republicans lead the Dems at this stage is incredible considering the politics of the past 8 years.

Looks like you're wrong.

Because complete secession is only one of the options they list, alongside territory status, commonwealth status and 'becoming a state'?

Seriously did you even pay attention?

They are claiming that Alaska still has the option to 'become a state'. They are further saying that earlier 'statehood' votes were null and void.

That means, they are already claiming that they are simply an unrecognised free agent - a legal status much like the Confederacy claimed.

The link I posted even explains how the party was founded for the purpose of secession. They advocate secession. They promote secession. They want a referendum with secession on the table. It doesn't MATTER if they talk about other things, or if not EVERY member is pro-secession... They are a secessionist party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Oh noes! Could it be! Could it possibly be that, within the US, to be a member of a political party, all you have to do is check in that little bitty box!?

So... what? Statistically, some Democrats may or might be also members of NAMBLA? Speculative. The probability says it's possible, as a statistic - but you didn't claim it as a statistic.

So - the onus is still on you to provide a source linking NAMBLA-membership with confirmed membership in the Democratic Party.

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

The fact that you failed to pay any more attention than that to the site, is a weakness in your own argument, not mine.

Your own link says nothing other than they want a re-vote that they feel was wrongly phrased before and illegally accomplished...

Additionally:

Many in the AIP support INDEPENDENCE. Some support COMMONWEALTH and others support STATEHOOD.
http://www.akip.org/issues.html#25

I think I understand the strategy well. Spend resources in an area that you are unlikely to win to force the other guy that has more resources into defending his territory, with a long term goal of building your meagre presence in an area that you are not generally well received in.

Brillance!! :rolleyes:


And your own source suggests they may have gained as many as 20-30 seats out of it, right?

How many seats would it take to have reversed the last election result, I forget?


The post convention bounce should not even be an issue here. The mere fact that the Republicans lead the Dems at this stage is incredible considering the politics of the past 8 years.

But, post-Convention bounce is always a factor. It varies how much.

You're right - considering what a shambles the current regime has been, even a post-Convention bounce shouldn't be enough to make a difference in favour of the GOP candidate. Which is why McCain is practically shitting his pants to distance himself from his own party.

The crazy thing is... some people are listening. How they manage to convince themselves that the GOP has picked a candidate that OPPOSES the GOP, I'll never know.

Your own link says nothing other than they want a re-vote that they feel was wrongly phrased before and illegally accomplished...


That, quite simply, is a lie.

My link also says that the party was founded for the express purpose of 'independence'.


Additionally:

Many in the AIP support INDEPENDENCE. Some support COMMONWEALTH and others support STATEHOOD.
http://www.akip.org/issues.html#25

And... what? Because there are some moderates, the AIP isn't pro-secession?

So - because there are some moderate Republicans, it's not a conservative party? Because there are some centrist Democrats, they're not a more leftwing party?

If you read the faq, almost every question is about what would happen if Alaska secedes. Obviously, both those who frequently-ask those questions, and those who frequently-answer them... consider secession to be a fairly central issue.

I think I understand the strategy well. Spend resources in an area that you are unlikely to win to force the other guy that has more resources into defending his territory, with a long term goal of building your meagre presence in an area that you are not generally well received in.

Brillance!! :rolleyes:

so how are those down ballot races doing? how about the state parties? do you even know?

The post convention bounce should not even be an issue here. The mere fact that the Republicans lead the Dems at this stage is incredible considering the politics of the past 8 years.

the best mccain is able to do, at the top of the only bounce he'll get barring an obama implosion, is bring it to a statistical tie nationwide, and up by a single electoral vote. if obama gains any ground as the bounce recedes, obama wins. obama even just flips one of nebraska's congressional districts, obama wins. and obama is a fucking closer, which you should know by now.

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

Pointing out the Dems are quite capable of dirty politics and sloganeering, or pointing out that Kerry and Gore are boring people to listen to and that a boring personality hampers you in an election based on said dirty politics and sloganeering?

so how are those down ballot races doing? how about the state parties? do you even know?
Ah ha....I lured you into my trap!! :)

Now about those down ballot races....

Battle for Congress Suddenly Looks Competitive (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110263/Battle-Congress-Suddenly-Looks-Competitive.aspx)

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ceu3dpcibu6vverkerg8hg.gif

A potential shift in fortunes for the Republicans in Congress is seen in the latest USA Today/Gallup survey, with the Democrats now leading the Republicans by just 3 percentage points, 48% to 45%, in voters' "generic ballot" preferences for Congress. This is down from consistent double-digit Democratic leads seen on this measure over the past year.

the best mccain is able to do, at the top of the only bounce he'll get barring an obama implosion, is bring it to a statistical tie nationwide, and up by a single electoral vote. if obama gains any ground as the bounce recedes, obama wins. obama even just flips one of nebraska's congressional districts, obama wins. and obama is a fucking closer, which you should know by now.
Yeah....he is closer alright. A closer of doors. He slammed it shut on Hillary and Co.

Edit: BTW, towards the end of the Democratic nomination, it was Hillary that was the better closer. Obama has petered out since and has lost the wind in his sails.

How is Obama doing in his campaigning in those "States that matter"?


Yup....he was in Idaho (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/states/id/)way back in Feb.

How about Nebraska (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/ne/) where he might need that 1 ECV? Oh yeah, he was there in ummmm Feb.

How about that all important State of Ohio (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/tracker/candidates/barack-obama/states/oh/)? Better, but his minimal presence, plus his flip flop on Free Trade has seen him lose support?

And yet, he has had 37 events in DC even though it only has 3 ECV and supports him like by 90% of the population.

He only has a month and a half left, and there are 50 States. Hmmm.

The, why is it a 'personal insult' when Obama says it, but not when McCain says it?

You evade a lot.

Because Palin recently used the word "lipstick" in a speech, therefore rendering any possible use of it by a political opponent to be an automatic reference to her.

Duh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

Oh noes! Could it be! Could it possibly be that, within the US, to be a member of a political party, all you have to do is check in that little bitty box!?

You're counting every person who votes Democrat as a party member? How odd. I always thought of the party being organizers and elected officials.

What's shallow and thoughtless?

Pointing out the Dems are quite capable of dirty politics and sloganeering, or pointing out that Kerry and Gore are boring people to listen to and that a boring personality hampers you in an election based on said dirty politics and sloganeering?
No. Something else. It's in the thread, but nobody cares anymore but you.

No. Something else. It's in the thread, but nobody cares anymore but you.
Cut the attitude, please.

You called me "shallow and thoughtless". I'd like either an explanation or an apology.

EDIT: You're very keen (quite rightly) on posters backing up their assertions and not making unfounded statements. So, take your own advice: explain why I'm "shallow and thoughtless", or how I've misconstrued you.

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?

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.

You've answered it, but your answer has been double-talk and horseshit.

Palin comparing them to put-bulls doesn't preclude ANYONE from using the "lipstick on a pig" trope, okay? News agencies from across the nation and spectrum of spin have repeatedly said that it's a perfectly viable "folksy" idiom used across the country.

The fact that you seem determined to assert that "lipstick" one time or, we're forced to assume, any word Palin utters can't be used in any way by anyone opposing her without it being automatically sexist is beyond absurd.

You've answered it, but your answer has been double-talk and horseshit.

Palin comparing them to put-bulls doesn't preclude ANYONE from using the "lipstick on a pig" trope, okay? News agencies from across the nation and spectrum of spin have repeatedly said that it's a perfectly viable "folksy" idiom used across the country.

The fact that you seem determined to assert that "lipstick" one time or, we're forced to assume, any word Palin utters can't be used in any way by anyone opposing her without it being automatically sexist is beyond absurd.

Reading skills and reading retention are your friends, please utilize them whenever possible...

Your bolded accusation there is incompatible with your quote of me in your own post, where I said: I didn't say it was sexist, I said it was a personal insult against Palin and perhaps all Hockey Moms...

How exactly did I call this an automatically sexist attack? I did not and you quoted me to prove I am correct. Thanks.

Are you Americans sure that you are having an election in November?

Yesterday, I was in Buffalo and Niagara Falls N.Y. and I did not see any Obama signs and zero bumper stickers. You would think that those two cities would be awash with Obama signs?

For the first two weeks of August, I was in Woodland, San Francisco, Glendale, and L.A. CA, and again, no real signs that an election was imminent.

I did see some street vendors selling Obama gear, or at least trying to, in Hollywood.

I didn't really see anything meaningful in regards to the election.

Are you Americans sure that you are having an election in November?

Yesterday, I was in Buffalo and Niagara Falls N.Y. and I did not see any Obama signs and zero bumper stickers. You would think that those two cities would be awash with Obama signs?

For the first two weeks of August, I was in Woodland, San Francisco, Glendale, and L.A. CA, and again, no real signs that an election was imminent.

I did see some street vendors selling Obama gear, or at least trying to, in Hollywood.

I didn't really see anything meaningful in regards to the election.

When you raise as much money as these two parties have, you spend it on TV, 'Net & radio, not signs.

When you raise as much money as these two parties have, you spend it on TV, 'Net & radio, not signs.
then thank God that I didn't watch any TV down there. :)

then thank God that I didn't watch any TV down there. :)

Yes, yes, yes, you are Canadian and therefore morally superior, we get it.

Give over, Intangelon, a mild sociable joke just calls for a mild sociable reply. (Yours might be intended as a mild sociable reply, too -- if so, sorry for sticking my nose in, but a smiley would have helped me get it.)

Give over, Intangelon, a mild sociable joke just calls for a mild sociable reply. (Yours might be intended as a mild sociable reply, too -- if so, sorry for sticking my nose in, but a smiley would have helped me get it.)

You caught me.

No smiley was intended, I must admit. I'm just a bit weary of the righteous Canadian bit, that's all. I recognize the faults of my nation's ruling class, but I'm not part of it. I vote. I check facts and discuss reality with people who are buying the okey-doke not every day, but at least once a week when I overhear another turd sliding into the political punchbowl.

However founded, CH's rant has become tiresome. But you're right, of course.

CanuckHeaven, I apologize for my remark.

I'm getting frustrated at the horseshit that this election is becoming, and that the GOP is lying and making gross distortions all over again and that there's nothing I can do about it. We just had a new thread go up about an immigration ad that was ONLY RELEASED IN SPANISH in order to take advantage of immigrants' potential to be grievously misled in their own language about Obama not supporting a bill McCain himself no longer supports, for crying out loud!

I shouldn't have let my overall frustration boil over into irritation that easily ignited. I am sorry.

You caught me.

No smiley was intended, I must admit. I'm just a bit weary of the righteous Canadian bit, that's all. I recognize the faults of my nation's ruling class, but I'm not part of it. I vote. I check facts and discuss reality with people who are buying the okey-doke not every day, but at least once a week when I overhear another turd sliding into the political punchbowl.

However founded, CH's rant has become tiresome. But you're right, of course.

Canuck Heaven, I apologize for my remark.

On the other hand, considering Canada did have Stephen Harper- a major Bush licker- as Prime Minister for a while at least it's kind of sanctimonious to act if the nation was completely clean of the mess.

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".

But that would work with an orange. Reminds me of a comic, wish I could find it, one person is eating an orange and another person walks up holding a bunch of grapes, the person with the grapes says "What's that orange thing you have there" The other says "an orange" the guy with the orange asks the guy with the grapes "what are those purple things you have there" the other guy responds "A bunch of purples"

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

So and that means it alright and the Democrats can do it too.

Yesterday, I was in Buffalo and Niagara Falls N.Y. and I did not see any Obama signs and zero bumper stickers. You would think that those two cities would be awash with Obama signs?

For the first two weeks of August, I was in Woodland, San Francisco, Glendale, and L.A. CA, and again, no real signs that an election was imminent

I can't speak to any of the other areas, but I spent the summer in the bay area and saw plenty of Obama signs. I also ran into people campaigning on the street.

Maybe you just weren't in the right neighborhoods?

<snip>apology<snip>

Handsomely said.
<snip> We just had a new thread go up about an immigration ad that was ONLY RELEASED IN SPANISH in order to take advantage of immigrants' potential to be grievously misled in their own language about Obama not supporting a bill McCain himself no longer supports, for crying out loud!
I was just reading the Spanish ad thread. I'm posting an iggerunt furriner question there.

You're counting every person who votes Democrat as a party member? How odd. I always thought of the party being organizers and elected officials.

All you have to do to be a member of a political party in the US is check the box. Party organizers, party officials, elected party representatives, etc. are all members of the party, but they do not make up the entire party. They might be the core, but the actual party (at least with the two major parties) encompasses millions of voices.

I can't speak to any of the other areas, but I spent the summer in the bay area and saw plenty of Obama signs. I also ran into people campaigning on the street.

Maybe you just weren't in the right neighborhoods?

Some parts of the bay area are just special. Around here we see a lot of the local political party signs up, but I don't think I've seen a single McCain/Palin OR Obama/Biden sign up.

So, aside from what are essentially opinions, who has the best strategy to win this election, a lot of pundits point out that Barack Obama supporters are somewhat invisible since they're new voters. I think Jocabia pointed out that the polls may well be favouring Barack Obama in reality since they tend to poll likely voters, that is, those who've voted before.

"Let me offer what I think is the most important undercurrent question of next year's election: have Americans tired of conservatism, or have they merely tired of corrupt and incompetent conservatism?"

As in, is the current sentiment against the Republicans or just against the Bush administration?

The problem is, we don't know the answer, and we won't know until probably the early hours of Wednesday, November 5. If Barack Obama wins, no matter how narrowly, we can speak of a nation that wanted a change, of course. If John McCain ekes it out, we can conclude that enough Americans were given enough reason to think twice. Conservative governance will continue.

Yet it's also about more than that, it's about two different approaches to how to win, one that worked against Hillary Clinton.

Usually, Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns have roughly the same theory of how to win. It's just that Republicans are better at implementing the theory. But this time, the Obama camp has a completely different theory. It's why they're not as nervous now as some of their extremely fretful supporters are.

This is the field operation versus the news-cycle election.

Plouffe laid out the theory: the Obama camp isn't that panicked about news cycles, we're looking longer term, he said. Team Obama has sunk massive amounts of money into a huge number of field offices in competitive states (some conservative states aren't worth fighting in and liberal states are in the bag already). At the last comprehensive count, the Obama campaign had 336 field offices around the country, and McCain 101.

This translates into...

Democrats have gained 2 million voters in the last two years, while the Republicans have lost 334,000. Numbers for 2008 alone look like this in some important states: Colorado, 66,516 Democrats to 13,352 Republicans; Florida, 209,422 Democrats to 77,196 Republicans; Iowa, 69,301 Democrats to 7,515 Republicans; Pennsylvania, 98,137 Democrats to just 289 Republicans.

The Obama people are betting that the investment will pay off. It is their belief, Plouffe said in Denver, that most people pay more attention to their co-workers and neighbours than they do to television talking heads. And with all those neighbours and co-workers spreading the word on election day, they say they feel good about the situation they've created. Field, they say, will trump news cycle.

So while John McCain may seem to be riding high, it may not be the true case.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/13/uselections2008.usa)

When the primary was going on, Obama' s crew polluted my town (well part of NYC) wth so many posters it was disgusting but Obama tried hard but he lost my city and my state. He cant buy votes but it looked like he was gonna win in November until Sarah Palin was chosen and EXCITED her base. Plus she's a VP-ILF.

He cant buy votes but it looked like he was gonna win in November until Sarah Palin was chosen and EXCITED her base. Plus she's a VP-ILF.

Just like Dick Cheney. Mmmm...

Are you Americans sure that you are having an election in November?

Yesterday, I was in Buffalo and Niagara Falls N.Y. and I did not see any Obama signs and zero bumper stickers. You would think that those two cities would be awash with Obama signs?

For the first two weeks of August, I was in Woodland, San Francisco, Glendale, and L.A. CA, and again, no real signs that an election was imminent.

I did see some street vendors selling Obama gear, or at least trying to, in Hollywood.

I didn't really see anything meaningful in regards to the election.

You were in New York and California, both states that are almost assuredly going Democrat in the election. Neither campaign is really pushing anything around here. There is a fair amount of Obama posters and stickers about San Francisco, but really having one of those around here is akin to having a bumper sticker that says, "I like liking things"-it almost goes without saying. We don't get a lot of political ads, either, except for local elections. Go to a 'battleground' state and there you'll see the stereotypical sign peppered yard.

And you can't look a brother up? At least I could have looked in your eyes and been able to say, "Dude, really?"

I can't speak to any of the other areas, but I spent the summer in the bay area and saw plenty of Obama signs. I also ran into people campaigning on the street.

Maybe you just weren't in the right neighborhoods?
I believe that the neighbourhoods that I mentioned offer a wide range of demographics, and I drove from Sacramento to L.A. and as Shultzy would say..."I see nothing".

You were in New York and California, both states that are almost assuredly going Democrat in the election. Neither campaign is really pushing anything around here. There is a fair amount of Obama posters and stickers about San Francisco, but really having one of those around here is akin to having a bumper sticker that says, "I like liking things"-it almost goes without saying. We don't get a lot of political ads, either, except for local elections. Go to a 'battleground' state and there you'll see the stereotypical sign peppered yard.
Well that makes sense to a degree.

And you can't look a brother up? At least I could have looked in your eyes and been able to say, "Dude, really?"
When I was in CA, I didn't have time to change my mind let alone look up a "brother", only to say to him, "yeah, really dude". :)

Plus she's a VP-ILF.

Just like Dick Cheney. Mmmm...

*throws up*:p

You were in New York and California, both states that are almost assuredly going Democrat in the election. Neither campaign is really pushing anything around here. There is a fair amount of Obama posters and stickers about San Francisco, but really having one of those around here is akin to having a bumper sticker that says, "I like liking things"-it almost goes without saying. We don't get a lot of political ads, either, except for local elections. Go to a 'battleground' state and there you'll see the stereotypical sign peppered yard.

And you can't look a brother up? At least I could have looked in your eyes and been able to say, "Dude, really?"

In IL, only in the super conservative DuPage County will one see signs and bumper stickers. Everywhere else, nodda.


Thats because, as you said, IL is garunteed to go Obama.

CanuckHeaven, I apologize for my remark.
Apology accepted, although I really don't think one was necessary. I share your frustration, albeit for different reasons. See below.

I'm getting frustrated at the horseshit that this election is becoming, and that the GOP is lying and making gross distortions all over again and that there's nothing I can do about it. We just had a new thread go up about an immigration ad that was ONLY RELEASED IN SPANISH in order to take advantage of immigrants' potential to be grievously misled in their own language about Obama not supporting a bill McCain himself no longer supports, for crying out loud!
When the wheels start to fall off, people naturally look for someone to blame. Democrats in this election seem to enjoy playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun. All my adult life, I have felt an affinity to the Democratic Party. Not this time around.....I feel a major disconnect and all has been detailed in my "rant" as you are wont to call it. IF the Democrats fail to achieve the White House, it won't be due to GOP lies, and distortions...it will be due to Democrats committing political suicide.

On the other hand, considering Canada did have Stephen Harper- a major Bush licker- as Prime Minister for a while at least it's kind of sanctimonious to act if the nation was completely clean of the mess.
Harper is STILL the Prime Minister, even though there is an election underway. My fear is that he could score a majority government and that bodes ill for Canada. Right now, I feel a major disconnect with the current crop of Liberals, but I will be holding my nose while voting for them this time.

When the primary was going on, Obama' s crew polluted my town (well part of NYC) wth so many posters it was disgusting but Obama tried hard but he lost my city and my state. He cant buy votes but it looked like he was gonna win in November until Sarah Palin was chosen and EXCITED her base. Plus she's a VP-ILF.

So, you're claiming Obama can't "buy his way" into the electorate (by campaigning, how dare he) but Palin can slut HER way into the electorate (by VPILF-ing)?

Nice.

So, aside from what are essentially opinions, who has the best strategy to win this election, a lot of pundits point out that Barack Obama supporters are somewhat invisible since they're new voters. I think Jocabia pointed out that the polls may well be favouring Barack Obama in reality since they tend to poll likely voters, that is, those who've voted before.

As in, is the current sentiment against the Republicans or just against the Bush administration?

Yet it's also about more than that, it's about two different approaches to how to win, one that worked against Hillary Clinton.

This translates into...

So while John McCain may seem to be riding high, it may not be the true case.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/13/uselections2008.usa)
While the article in itself is very interesting, I refer you back to this post (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14007021&postcount=285).

Obama may have "energized" many voters way back then during the primaries/caucuses, but can he close the deal? Since those primaries/caucuses, Obama has had to backtrack on some important issues, such as free trade, and as a result, Ohio which was tilting towards Obama is now sliding back into the McCain camp.

This erosion started before the DNC and RNC (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/election_2008/electoral_count_no_toss_ups.html#previous_changes):

Interesting to note to is that some Blue States are drifting into the toss up variety.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1234556120080914


Just an interesting little tidbit.

500,000 new donars is really solid, especially in one month. The GOP got a lot of new donars too because of Plain and McCain also did well. But Obama seems to have done better both in the new donars and in the money earned department.

It seems while Palin excited a lot of people, she frightened more.

This is just mind-blowing. Apparently, Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove thinks that the latest campaign ads have gone too far:

Rove: McCain went 'too far' in adsStory Highlights

(CNN) -- Former Bush adviser Karl Rove said Sunday that Sen. John McCain had gone "one step too far" in some of his recent ads attacking Sen. Barack Obama.


Karl Rove said both candidates are guilty of going too far in their attacks.

Rove has leveled similar criticism against Obama.

"McCain has gone in some of his ads -- similarly gone one step too far," he told Fox News, "and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."

The Obama campaign immediately leaped on the quote.

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said McCain's ads have gone too far," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a statement sent to reporters minutes after Rove's on-air comments. Rove masterminded both of President Bush's successful White House bids.

Rove said both candidates need to "be careful" about their attacks on each other.

"They ought to -- there ought to be an adult who says, 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and won't we get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?' " he said.

Obama on Saturday accused McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of avoiding the issues to "distort" his record.

"They're going to talk about pigs, and they're going to talk about lipstick; they're going to talk about Paris Hilton, they're going to talk about Britney Spears. They will try to distort my record, and they will try to undermine your trust in what the Democrats intend to do," he said at a stop in Manchester, New Hampshire.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds criticized Obama for showing "zero restraint," considering what Gulf Coast residents were facing after Hurricane Ike. Bounds said the "attacks mark a new low from Barack Obama."

The Obama campaign shot back and accused McCain of "cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history."

McCain said last week that he thinks the tone of the campaign would be different had Obama agreed to appear with him in town hall meetings across the country.

Both McCain and Obama laid low on Sunday. McCain attended a NASCAR race in Loudon, New Hampshire.

Obama had no public events scheduled, but Sen. Hillary Clinton hit the trail for him in Akron, Ohio.

Clinton repeated her campaign one-liner -- "No way, no how, no McCain, no Palin."

The New York senator said "all that McCain and Palin offer is four more years of the same failed policies and wrong direction and disappointment and difficulties that have confronted our country."

"Barack and I may have started out on two separate paths, but we are on one journey now," she said.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign announced Sunday that it had raised $66 million in August. The new total bests the campaign's previous high of $55 million, which came in February during his tough primary fight with Clinton.

The Obama campaign said more than half a million new donors contributed in August, when the Illinois senator accepted the Democratic presidential nomination and named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. The campaign had more than $77 million in cash on hand at the end of August, compared with about $66 million in July.

On September 1, McCain's campaign reported raising $47 million in August. That haul also set a monthly record for the Arizona senator, whose campaign says it received a financial shot in the arm after McCain picked Palin to join the ticket.

Obama has rejected public financing, calling the system "broken" -- a decision that frees him to continue raising money for November.

McCain has accepted federal matching funds for his general election campaign, giving him $84 million to spend for November. The money comes with strict spending limits, but the Republican National Committee's victory fund can continue to raise and spend money on his behalf.

With Palin on the campaign trail, McCain has been seeing increased numbers and energy at his campaign events.

The two will hold joint town hall meetings sometime early this week.

A McCain adviser said early plans are to hold the town halls in western Michigan and Wisconsin, although the exact details of where and when they will be held are still being worked out.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

When Karl Rove thinks you've crossed the line, you have REALLY crossed the line. This is, after all, the man who masterminded the "swift boat" ads against Kerry in 2004, and the spreading of a rumor that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child just before the 2000 GOP South Carolina primary. He had some criticism for Obama, but more of it seems to have been directed at McCain.

Also note the part I bolded: "McCain said last week that he thinks the tone of the campaign would be different had Obama agreed to appear with him in town hall meetings across the country."

Petty much, Senator McCain?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1234556120080914


Just an interesting little tidbit.

500,000 new donars is really solid, especially in one month. The GOP got a lot of new donars too because of Plain and McCain also did well. But Obama seems to have done better both in the new donars and in the money earned department.

It seems while Palin excited a lot of people, she frightened more.

For god's sake, man, it's spelled "donors."

For god's sake, man, it's spelled "donors."

Maybe he's confusing them with dinars?

Maybe he's confusing them with dinars?

That makes even less sense. Hell, I even agree with the sentiments of his post. But that egregious, anal raping of the English language couldn't be allowed to stand.

For fuck's sake, people, use a spell checker!

For fuck's sake, people, use a spell checker!

No.

That makes even less sense. Hell, I even agree with the sentiments of his post. But that egregious, anal raping of the English language couldn't be allowed to stand.

For fuck's sake, people, use a spell checker!

I was...it was a money pun...

You know what, I'll just not do it anymore. People never get it.

I was...it was a money pun...

You know what, I'll just not do it anymore. People never get it.

I got it. It was kind of silly, but I got it.:D

Also note the part I bolded: "McCain said last week that he thinks the tone of the campaign would be different had Obama agreed to appear with him in town hall meetings across the country."


Funny.


So McRambo admits he's basically throwing a hissy fit because Obama didnt play the game he wanted to.

I was...it was a money pun...

You know what, I'll just not do it anymore. People never get it.

No, I get it. I just didn't think a reference to Middle Eastern currency was that funny.

So, you're claiming Obama can't "buy his way" into the electorate (by campaigning, how dare he) but Palin can slut HER way into the electorate (by VPILF-ing)?

Nice.
? what does me thinking Palin is a VPILF have to do with anything about "slut.'' She does not out slut the other candidates 5-1 in states like PA and lose. that was a sexist comment and I'm not even a republican.

No, I get it. I just didn't think a reference to Middle Eastern currency was that funny.

Fair enough.

Funny.


So McRambo admits he's basically throwing a hissy fit because Obama didnt play the game he wanted to.

And it's helping him in the polls.

? what does me thinking Palin is a VPILF have to do with anything about "slut.'' She does not out slut the other candidates 5-1 in states like PA and lose. that was a sexist comment and I'm not even a republican.
oh dont let heikoku bait you. he heaps sexist comments on palin all the time. it means nothing.

Interesting as things heat up. I still believe Sarah Palin is a horrible pick. In the short term she helped amazingly. As she continues to be vetted by the media (those brave enough) she looks weaker and weaker.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The abuse of power investigation against Sarah Palin, Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential candidate, took a potentially ominous turn for her party on Friday when state lawmakers voted to subpoena her husband.
ADVERTISEMENT

Republican efforts to delay the probe until after the Nov. 4 election were thwarted when GOP State Sen. Charlie Huggins, who represents Palin's hometown of Wasilla, sided with Democrats. "Let's just get the facts on the table," said Huggins, who appeared in camouflage pants to vote during a break from moose hunting.

The Senate committee acted at the request of investigator Stephen Branchflower, who is gathering evidence on whether Gov. Palin abused her power by firing Walt Monegan, the state's director of public safety. Critics charge she fired Monegan after he refused to dismiss Mike Wooten, a state trooper who had a messy divorce from the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was let go because of a budget dispute.

Thomas Van Flein, the Palins' private attorney now representing her as governor, did not immediately return calls for comment. In a broadcast interview, Palin said she welcomed the investigation.

"There's nothing to hide," she said in an interview with ABC's Charles Gibson. "Commissioner Monegan has said, 'The governor never asked me to fire him, the governor's husband never asked me to fire him,' and we never did. I never pressured him to hire or fire anybody."

Branchflower said he wants to interview the governor, but omitted her from the 13-person list of subpoena targets he presented to the lawmakers overseeing his investigation.

He said Todd Palin is "such a central figure. ... I think one should be issued for him."

Palin, cast at last week's Republican National Convention as a supportive husband, oil rig worker and championship snowmachine racer, has emerged in the days since as also a powerful figure in his wife's administration. Despite holding no government position, he attends official meetings and is copied on e-mails concerning state business.

While Todd Palin's role in the dismissal of Monegan is unknown, the request for a subpoena suggests he spurned earlier calls to testify voluntarily. Monegan voluntarily submitted to an interview earlier in the week.

Nor was it immediately clear whether Van Flein was representing Todd Palin as well as the governor in the investigation. Van Flein is working at taxpayer expense to represent the governor in her personal and official capacity.

The subpoenas, which were approved for 12 state employees in addition to Todd Palin, instantly gave a new, national significance to what until recently was a controversy confined to Alaska.

The McCain campaign released a statement from Alaska Lt. Governor Sean Parnell, blaming Democrats.

"I'm disappointed by the complete hijacking of what should be a fair and objective process," the Republican said, calling the investigation a "smear."

The investigation — dubbed "Troopergate" — began before Palin was chosen as Sen. John McCain's running mate. Since then, Palin's supporters have argued that the investigation is politically motivated, and urged lawmakers to turn the matter over to the three-member State Personnel Board, which is appointed by the governor and charged with handling ethics complaints.

In his presentation to lawmakers, Branchflower revealed evidence that the governor's office interceded to try to have Wooten's worker's compensation claim denied.

An employee at a company that handles such claims for the state, Harbor Adjustment Service, told Branchflower that the company's owner said "the governor's office wanted the claim denied."

One of the subpoenas issued Friday was for the company's owner, Murlene Wilkes. Branchflower said he had an informal conversation with Wilkes in August, and believes she was lying when she said she had never been contacted by the governor's office. Wilkes did not immediately return a telephone call.

Monegan says he received repeated e-mails and phone calls from Palin, her husband and her staff expressing dismay over Wooten's continued employment.

One member of Palin's administration was caught on tape discussing personal information about Wooten, raising questions of how he knew those details.

Branchflower also asked for a subpoena for the phone records of one Palin administration official, Frank Bailey. Bailey was recorded calling an Alaska State Trooper lieutenant and discussing confidential information about Wooten, including his job application and worker's compensation claim. In a deposition taken by Palin's attorney, he testified that he never saw Wooten's file, but instead received the information from Todd Palin.

Clearly the entire Alaskan congress is sexist.

Clearly the entire Alaskan congress is sexist.

Yes. When Karl Rove says that your campaign has "gone on step too far...beyond the 100% truth mark" you are really getting sleazy.

Interesting as things heat up. I still believe Sarah Palin is a horrible pick. In the short term she helped amazingly. As she continues to be vetted by the media (those brave enough) she looks weaker and weaker.
Yup, she is looking weaker and weaker all the time:

Palimania Spreads-- 10,000 Show Up For 3,500 Seats in Carson City (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/palimania-strikes-reno-10000-show-up.html)

Palin arrives Sat. night; Obama to visit Golden (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=99667&provider=top)

Palin will be at the Jefferson County Fairgrounds in Golden on Monday morning. That event begins at 9 a.m. There are no tickets remaining.
I wonder why they call it Palimania????

Yup, she is looking weaker and weaker all the time:

Palimania Spreads-- 10,000 Show Up For 3,500 Seats in Carson City (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/palimania-strikes-reno-10000-show-up.html)

Palin arrives Sat. night; Obama to visit Golden (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=99667&provider=top)


I wonder why they call it Palimania????

Just admit that you want to see 4 More Years of Bushevism just so you can say "I Told You So" and be done with it.

Yup, she is looking weaker and weaker all the time:

Palimania Spreads-- 10,000 Show Up For 3,500 Seats in Carson City (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/palimania-strikes-reno-10000-show-up.html)

Palin arrives Sat. night; Obama to visit Golden (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=99667&provider=top)


I wonder why they call it Palimania????



If Obama wins, you plan on unilaterally declaring war on the U.S., don't you? Don't you guys have an election coming up? Why don't you concern yourself with that and quit heckling us about ours? WTF is it to you who got the Dem's nomination or who wins the election? Why don't you just admit that you're trolling and be done with it?

If Obama wins, you plan on unilaterally declaring war on the U.S., don't you? Don't you guys have an election coming up? Why don't you concern yourself with that and quit heckling us about ours? WTF is it to you who got the Dem's nomination or who wins the election? Why don't you just admit that you're trolling and be done with it?

So...let me get this straight. When a foreigner supports Obama, clearly they are wise and intelligent and all US citizens should listen to him/her.

But when one says Obama sucks, he's just trolling.

Just wanted to get my definitions straight. :)

Just admit that you want to see 4 More Years of Bushevism just so you can say "I Told You So" and be done with it.
I think I explained myself fairly well here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13952504&postcount=272):

My feelings are all over the place right now. I don't like what I am seeing from the Democrat supporters this time around, and I really do like Nader's platform over Obama's.

And there is also the other scenario that was brought forward earlier in that it would be better to have a weak 4 year term by McCain followed by 8 years of Democrats, rather than a weak 4 year run by Obama followed by 8 years of Republicans.
and we also discussed the issue (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13812024&postcount=1644)awhile ago.

It would appear that the only way for the Democratic Party to lose this election, would be to continue do the things they have done up to this point. Is redemption available after all this nonsense to date? My guess is that they will continue to run the stop signals.

If Obama wins, you plan on unilaterally declaring war on the U.S., don't you? Don't you guys have an election coming up? Why don't you concern yourself with that and quit heckling us about ours? WTF is it to you who got the Dem's nomination or who wins the election? Why don't you just admit that you're trolling and be done with it?
I would suggest your post is more in line with trolling?

At any rate, Canada has a large interest in the US election for a multitude of reasons, especially concerning our economy and foreign affairs.

Yup, she is looking weaker and weaker all the time:

Palimania Spreads-- 10,000 Show Up For 3,500 Seats in Carson City (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/palimania-strikes-reno-10000-show-up.html)

Palin arrives Sat. night; Obama to visit Golden (http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=99667&provider=top)


I wonder why they call it Palimania????

Yes, she is looking weaker all the time. Who is the "they" you speak of here? The more time she spends in the media spotlight the more her weaknesses are starting to show. Her first interviews with Charlie Gibson have shown her to be a bright woman, but nowhere near ready to be President. I'll even throw you a bone and say I'd rather see Hillary Clinton win over Palin.

She does great with stump speeches which can only get you so far. Let her continue to do interviews and see her struggle. Let her do a press junket and watch her scripted message break down. There is still plenty of race left. It's easy to give a speech when there's no one to rebut your BS and call you out on it. The press corp will not just accept "we can see Russia from Alaska dontchaknow?" as foreign policy experience. Joe Biden isn't going to sit back and smile when she says "Barack Obama hasn't worked across the aisle... (except 2 major laws with Lugar and Coburn). Anyone worth their weight can deliver a speech. It takes someone a little more well versed when there's actually a challenger.

The media and the Obama campaign are figuring out how to deal with Palin. They media were attack dogs with Hillary, and now suddenly they are toothless. Everyone is trying to find a way to criticize Palin that won't be seen as sexist or biased. Obama is starting to do a good job of it. Biden is starting to get his swagger on and take her to task. Look this week for there to be more heat put on Palin. A lot happens in 7 weeks. She's going to have to stop the "thanks but no thanks..." crap because she's being called on it. She's going to be required to talk about what reform she will actually bring. She's going to be taken to task on her understanding of world affairs when she stands across from Joe Biden. Keep your spiteful excitement for now. "They" may be calling it Pallimania now, but they were also calling Barack Obama a worldwide "celebrity" a few weeks ago. News cycles will change, but to change the euphemism, "you can't put powdered sugar on shit and call it a donut."

Good night folks.

So...let me get this straight. When a foreigner supports Obama, clearly they are wise and intelligent and all US citizens should listen to him/her.

But when one says Obama sucks, he's just trolling.

Just wanted to get my definitions straight. :)

When did I ever say that?

Yes, she is looking weaker all the time. Who is the "they" you speak of here? The more time she spends in the media spotlight the more her weaknesses are starting to show. Her first interviews with Charlie Gibson have shown her to be a bright woman, but nowhere near ready to be President. I'll even throw you a bone and say I'd rather see Hillary Clinton win over Palin.

She does great with stump speeches which can only get you so far. Let her continue to do interviews and see her struggle. Let her do a press junket and watch her scripted message break down. There is still plenty of race left. It's easy to give a speech when there's no one to rebut your BS and call you out on it. The press corp will not just accept "we can see Russia from Alaska dontchaknow?" as foreign policy experience. Joe Biden isn't going to sit back and smile when she says "Barack Obama hasn't worked across the aisle... (except 2 major laws with Lugar and Coburn). Anyone worth their weight can deliver a speech. It takes someone a little more well versed when there's actually a challenger.

The media and the Obama campaign are figuring out how to deal with Palin. They media were attack dogs with Hillary, and now suddenly they are toothless. Everyone is trying to find a way to criticize Palin that won't be seen as sexist or biased. Obama is starting to do a good job of it. Biden is starting to get his swagger on and take her to task. Look this week for there to be more heat put on Palin. A lot happens in 7 weeks. She's going to have to stop the "thanks but no thanks..." crap because she's being called on it. She's going to be required to talk about what reform she will actually bring. She's going to be taken to task on her understanding of world affairs when she stands across from Joe Biden. Keep your spiteful excitement for now. "They" may be calling it Pallimania now, but they were also calling Barack Obama a worldwide "celebrity" a few weeks ago. News cycles will change, but to change the euphemism, "you can't put powdered sugar on shit and call it a donut."
Yup, that is exactly what the Obama camp needs to concentrate on....attacking Sarah Palin. What that does is take the heat off of promoting the "change you can count on", which is bagging down.

Obama's "You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." line was a masterful stroke of re-enforcing his sexist slant.

To Barringtonia: In regards to that "bridge to nowhere", guess who voted to fund that project? You guessed it, Obama and Biden (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-264).

To Barringtonia: In regards to that "bridge to nowhere", guess who voted to fund that project? You guessed it, Obama and Biden (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-264).

And? So? Therefore? Palin's the one crowing about how she "killed" it. Is that all you've got?


Never mind, I withdraw the question. That IS all you've got.

And? So? Therefore? Palin's the one crowing about how she "killed" it. Is that all you've got?


Never mind, I withdraw the question. That IS all you've got.
And what are you adding to the discussion, and yet you accuse me of trolling.

You don't want to know the facts related to the story?

CH, Maineiacs -- I wanna see a clean fight, no hitting below the belt, no eye-gouging, ear-chewing or personal remarks, orright?

Maybe he's confusing them with dinars?
or po0ssibly doners, as in doner kebabs.

or po0ssibly doners, as in doner kebabs.

Damn you beat me to it. 500,00 new doner kebabs to Obama, lets hope they aren't all lamb with garlic sauce ones otherwise the White House is going to reek.

oh dont let heikoku bait you. he heaps sexist comments on palin all the time. it means nothing.

They'd be sexist if she were a woman, she would be a woman if she were human. Ergo, not sexist.

But I digress: My point was that the guy was claiming Obama "can't buy" votes, as if campaining were buying votes, and yet argues for Palin that she's a Vice-President he'd like to fuck. So, yes.

Karl Rove thinks the campaigning is getting too dirty;

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

Wow. You know you've gone too far when Karl Rove thinks you've gone too far. :tongue:

And on the lighter side: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ni_-AWIKI

:)

Heikoku, re the post I deleted, specifically, this:

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

If you can link me to any CH posts replying directly to you, I'll go back and delete them, too.

You've both shown previous inability to deal with each other reasonably on this topic. Until I see evidence in your exchanges with other posters that you've developed some degree of restraint, my limitation stands.

...
She does great with stump speeches which can only get you so far. Let her continue to do interviews and see her struggle. Let her do a press junket and watch her scripted message break down. There is still plenty of race left. It's easy to give a speech when there's no one to rebut your BS and call you out on it. The press corp will not just accept "we can see Russia from Alaska dontchaknow?" as foreign policy experience.

Let's fix that for you:

He (Obama) does great with stump speeches which can only get you so far. Let him continue to do one on one interviews and see him struggle (some more). Let him do a press junket and watch his scripted message break down (with stuttering wishy-washy answers and STILL need 'clarification press releases' the next day to clarify how he didn't mean what it sounded like he said). There is still plenty of race left. It's easy to give a speech when there's no one to rebut your BS and call you out on it. The press corp will not just accept "we can work bipartisian dontchaknow?" as a policy experience. ...

... News cycles will change, but to change the euphemism, "you can't put powdered sugar on shit and call it a donut."

You mean like how McCain is measurably a better bipartisan choice than Obama is and the press is starting to catch on?

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.

But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.
An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

To Barringtonia: In regards to that "bridge to nowhere", guess who voted to fund that project? You guessed it, Obama and Biden (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-264).

And McCain artfully dodged being on record about it by not voting. And there was exactly one senator who voted against it.

But don't let the rest of the facts get in the way of that lovely portrait you're trying to paint.

And McCain artfully dodged being on record about it by not voting. And there was exactly one senator who voted against it.

But don't let the rest of the facts get in the way of that lovely portrait you're trying to paint.

The one senator who voted against it. Evan Bayh of Indiana. Yay!

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

You mean the piece of rag that had an editorial calling for a coup in my country in 2002? Why the hell should anyone use it for anything besides lining birdcages? Why the hell should anyone use ITS STAFF for anything besides lining birdcages?

Let's fix that for you:

He (Obama) does great with stump speeches which can only get you so far. Let him continue to do one on one interviews and see him struggle (some more). Let him do a press junket and watch his scripted message break down (with stuttering wishy-washy answers and STILL need 'clarification press releases' the next day to clarify how he didn't mean what it sounded like he said). There is still plenty of race left. It's easy to give a speech when there's no one to rebut your BS and call you out on it. The press corp will not just accept "we can work bipartisian dontchaknow?" as a policy experience. ...



You mean like how McCain is measurably a better bipartisan choice than Obama is and the press is starting to catch on?

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.

But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.
An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

Shame how he votes with Bush 90% of the time though.

They'd be sexist if she were a woman, she would be a woman if she were human. Ergo, not sexist.

But I digress: My point was that the guy was claiming Obama "can't buy" votes, as if campaining were buying votes, and yet argues for Palin that she's a Vice-President he'd like to fuck. So, yes.

You are acting no better than those you rail against. I would daresay you're even worse, because while you profess beliefs in tolerance, free speech, and various other social liberal ideas, you'll happily dehumanize and compartmentalize your opposition in the exact same way.

You wonder why we get upset. This is why.

To Barringtonia: In regards to that "bridge to nowhere", guess who voted to fund that project? You guessed it, Obama and Biden (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2005-264).
obama is not running on a platform of having cancelled the bridge to nowhere.

palin is.


obama's record on it is irrelevant.

palin, as any governor would have, completely supported the bridge when it was going to be paid for by the feds and, as any governor would have, cancelled it when they de-authorized the project. and she, as any governor would have, KEPT THE MONEY allocated for it and spent it on other projects.

to now say that she is some kind of reformer for having opposed the bridge to nowhere is an outright lie.

obama is not running on a platform of having cancelled the bridge to nowhere.

palin is.


obama's record on it is irrelevant.

palin, as any governor would have, completely supported the bridge when it was going to be paid for by the feds and, as any governor would have, cancelled it when they de-authorized the project. and she, as any governor would have, KEPT THE MONEY allocated for it and spent it on other projects.

to now say that she is some kind of reformer for having opposed the bridge to nowhere is an outright lie.


It's not a lie. She ended the bridge, period, end of story. She's a reformer because she reformed how Alaskan government works, toughened up it's stance in favor of the people vs. the big oil companies that had been abusing their favored position with politicians and the government before she came on the scene there. She's a reformer because she vetoed half a billion dollars of Alaskan pork barrel waste (in state), she's a reformer because she's cut the cost of running the Alaskan government including her own office and she's brought the benefits of that savings back the people of her state.

She's brought real proven reform,' not hypothosized fantasy talk about bipartisanship that doesn't exist,' not double talk about ending a war while secretly striving to prolong and create failure for your own political positioning like Obama has done:

LINK (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=1)

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Looks like Obamas the liar, not Palin.

It's not a lie. She ended the bridge, period, end of story. She's a reformer because she reformed how Alaskan government works, toughened up it's stance in favor of the people vs. the big oil companies that had been abusing their favored position with politicians and the government before she came on the scene there. She's a reformer because she vetoed half a billion dollars of Alaskan pork barrel waste (in state), she's a reformer because she's cut the cost of running the Alaskan government including her own office and she's brought the benefits of that savings back the people of her state.

She's brought real proven reform,' not hypothosized fantasy talk about bipartisanship that doesn't exist,' not double talk about ending a war while secretly striving to prolong and create failure for your own political positioning like Obama has done:

LINK (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=1)

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Looks like Obamas the liar, not Palin.
how do you like that kool-aid?

if you dont find that killing the project after it was not going to be funded by the feds and keeping the money then pretending to have been against the project to be a lie and that keeping the money makes her some kind of reformer there is something wrong with your logic sensor.

and trying to blur the issue with some kind of attack on obama does not change anything about palin.

how do you like that kool-aid?

if you dont find that killing the project after it was not going to be funded by the feds and keeping the money then pretending to have been against the project to be a lie and that keeping the money makes her some kind of reformer there is something wrong with your logic sensor.

and trying to blur the issue with some kind of attack on obama does not change anything about palin.

She would have been a bad governor to NOT keep the money to spend it on other transportation infrastructure. Are you somehow against road projects in general or just the fact that Palin has been a great success for the people she represents?

Think about your argument for a second... first you say they decided not to fund it, and then you say she kept the money... Hmmm, sounds like you have a logistical problem there. Perhaps they weren't going to fund it any further, but clearly, if she kept the money, they must have written at least one check, hm?

She has consistently said that she wants to reform the earmark process, not end it. Make government transparent, bring the back room deals to the light of day, ending the lobbyists making deals with Congress in secret and keeping those deal out of the public eye.

Palin has cut requests for Alaskan earmarks, by something like 20% in her second year over her first and her first was a cut from the years of other governors before her. Her position is clear and only mucked up by those that want to try and discredit her but don't really know what they are talking about, shes said publicly even before she was selected for the VP slot that political realities require Alaskans to think differently about earmarks.

Palins record shows that requests have been made in a transparent fashion and are not hidden from public view as earmark requests have been in the past. She IS a reformer, you just don't want to admit it. There are other issues she's not perfectly in-line with McCain on either, as there are issues that Biden and Obama aren't perfectly aligned with each other too. It's to be expected, and as this sort of attack seems to be about the best that the left has to offer against Palin, she's in pretty good shape. The more the people find out, the more they are going to like her. But since day one, the insane negative accusations have been flooding the internet, and just like the others, these misleading accusations like yours will be shown to be baseless as well.

It's not a lie. She ended the bridge, period, end of story. She's a reformer because she reformed how Alaskan government works, toughened up it's stance in favor of the people vs. the big oil companies that had been abusing their favored position with politicians and the government before she came on the scene there. She's a reformer because she vetoed half a billion dollars of Alaskan pork barrel waste (in state), she's a reformer because she's cut the cost of running the Alaskan government including her own office and she's brought the benefits of that savings back the people of her state.

She supported the bridge until it became politically unpopular to do so. Only then did she oppose the bridge. She then kept the pork barrel money for her state instead of returning it to the taxpayers. She didn't do anything brave or risky, she merely went along with the political tide.

She supported the bridge until it became politically unpopular to do so. Only then did she oppose the bridge. She then kept the pork barrel money for her state instead of returning it to the taxpayers. She didn't do anything brave or risky, she merely went along with the political tide.

but then she brazenly lied about it for political gain, despite video evidence that would make her look like a fucking retard for doing so. that's brave, right?

but then she brazenly lied about it for political gain, despite video evidence that would make her look like a fucking retard for doing so. that's brave, right?

In the same sense that holding a gazelle carcas in front of a starving lion can be considered "brave".

It's not a lie. She ended the bridge, period, end of story.

Of course, she did this after making campaign promises to get the bridges (there were, two, actually) built. She still kept the money, but claims to have told Congress "no thanks" for it.

She's a reformer because she reformed how Alaskan government works, toughened up it's stance in favor of the people vs. the big oil companies that had been abusing their favored position with politicians and the government before she came on the scene there.

If you say so.

She's a reformer because she vetoed half a billion dollars of Alaskan pork barrel waste (in state),

Which is what? 2% of the total budget?

she's a reformer because she's cut the cost of running the Alaskan government including her own office and she's brought the benefits of that savings back the people of her state.

Like charging per diem for days she spent at home?

She would have been a bad governor to NOT keep the money to spend it on other transportation infrastructure. Are you somehow against road projects in general or just the fact that Palin has been a great success for the people she represents?

She would be a bad governor to refuse earmarks for her state? Don't tell McCain, considering that he's holding her up as exactly the kind of "reformer" that would do so. (not to mention her own claims to have done so).

Think about your argument for a second... first you say they decided not to fund it, and then you say she kept the money... Hmmm, sounds like you have a logistical problem there. Perhaps they weren't going to fund it any further, but clearly, if she kept the money, they must have written at least one check, hm?

Ah, someone who is woefully uninformed about the situation. Why am I not surprised. The "bridge(s) to nowhere" (yes, there were two of them) were going to be funded by an earmark. However, there was national coverage and people were upset about it. So the language specifically denoting the money for the bridges was removed, but the money was still earmarked for Asaksa.

Palin, while campaigning, promised those in the two affected communities that the bridges would be built. She even funded a true "road to nowhere" that now runs right up to where one of the bridges would have been built. Then she killed the project.

She did not tell Congress, "thanks, but no thanks." She did not oppose the project, at least not from the start. What she did was promise a couple of communities that they would get their bridges, tell Congress "thank you so much for this money," and then spend it on something else.

In the same sense that holding a gazelle carcas in front of a starving lion can be considered "brave".

Or perhaps, pointing really hard at Palin so that people don't notice what Obama and Biden are doing?

Biden requested as revealed to me via Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/projects.php?action=view&category=&type=Project&proj_id=1330)website, shows that he requested money for 116 projects in Delaware worth $342.2 million. The requests included $17 million for one company, W. L. Gore and Associates, makers of Gore-Tex fabrics, to supply equipment to the Delaware National Guard.

This kind of earmarking, in which a specific company is named, is the sort of spending that Obama has said he would not allow in the future....

Taxpayers for Common Sense Vice President Steve Ellis said in an email this afternoon that his nonpartisan budget watchdog group calculates Sen. Joe Biden made 116 requests in the 2009 federal budget for special federal projects called earmarks. Biden’s requests totaled $323 million.

Lawmakers typically obtain only a fraction of the money they request. In the 2008 fiscal year, Biden obtained $85 million in earmarks, Taxpayers for Common Sense estimated.

Biden, the Democrats’ candidate for vice president, made more requests for 2009 than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential candidate.

Palin filed 31 requests totaling almost $200 million on behalf of her state for federal projects for the 2009 fiscal year that starts Oct. 1.
LINK (http://polhudson.lohudblogs.com/2008/09/12/bidens-earmark-requests/)

Whack bang that damned boomerang again!

She would have been a bad governor to NOT keep the money to spend it on other transportation infrastructure. Are you somehow against road projects in general or just the fact that Palin has been a great success for the people she represents?

Think about your argument for a second... first you say they decided not to fund it, and then you say she kept the money... Hmmm, sounds like you have a logistical problem there. Perhaps they weren't going to fund it any further, but clearly, if she kept the money, they must have written at least one check, hm?

She has consistently said that she wants to reform the earmark process, not end it. Make government transparent, bring the back room deals to the light of day, ending the lobbyists making deals with Congress in secret and keeping those deal out of the public eye.

Palin has cut requests for Alaskan earmarks, by something like 20% in her second year over her first and her first was a cut from the years of other governors before her. Her position is clear and only mucked up by those that want to try and discredit her but don't really know what they are talking about, shes said publicly even before she was selected for the VP slot that political realities require Alaskans to think differently about earmarks.

Palins record shows that requests have been made in a transparent fashion and are not hidden from public view as earmark requests have been in the past. She IS a reformer, you just don't want to admit it. There are other issues she's not perfectly in-line with McCain on either, as there are issues that Biden and Obama aren't perfectly aligned with each other too. It's to be expected, and as this sort of attack seems to be about the best that the left has to offer against Palin, she's in pretty good shape. The more the people find out, the more they are going to like her. But since day one, the insane negative accusations have been flooding the internet, and just like the others, these misleading accusations like yours will be shown to be baseless as well.
m not saying that she SHOULD have opposed the bridge.

im saying she DIDNT and that to claim otherwise is a lie.

and if REFORM is kicking out the last (very corrupt) administration and replacing them with your unqualified friends from wasilla then its REFORM when the bloods push the crips out of a neighborhood.

It's not a lie. She ended the bridge, period, end of story. She's a reformer because she reformed how Alaskan government works, toughened up it's stance in favor of the people vs. the big oil companies that had been abusing their favored position with politicians and the government before she came on the scene there. She's a reformer because she vetoed half a billion dollars of Alaskan pork barrel waste (in state), she's a reformer because she's cut the cost of running the Alaskan government including her own office and she's brought the benefits of that savings back the people of her state.


I was going to make a more detailed response to your "same shit, different thread," but Dempublicents has already done the job for me.

Your argument that Palin is a maverick reformer hangs from such a dubious thread it is ridiculous.

Especially the part about standing up to big oil companies. She's supported big oil with one exception: she imposed a windfall profits tax -- which she and McCain opposing doing on a national scale.

You just need to admit you like Palin because of her radical religious agenda.

Or perhaps, pointing really hard at Palin so that people don't notice what Obama and Biden are doing?

Right, and what you're doing isn't exactly the same thing. Point at Obama and Biden real hard so people don't notice how bad Palin actually is.

Tell me, are you going to actually address the fact that Palin supported the bridge project until opinion turned against her, or are you going to link to another article and go "OMG OBAMAZ BAD 2!!!"

Or perhaps, pointing really hard at Palin so that people don't notice what Obama and Biden are doing?

Biden requested as revealed to me via Taxpayers for Common Sense (http://www.taxpayer.net/projects.php?action=view&category=&type=Project&proj_id=1330)website, shows that he requested money for 116 projects in Delaware worth $342.2 million.

ah, and obama and biden have made opposition to earmarks the centerpiece of their campaign, i take it?

what's that you say? they have not?! then what exactly are we supposed to get out of this revelation?

I'm reposting this article from Michael Kinsley of Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839724-1,00.html) (emphasis added), because Baldy ducked out on responding to it before the other thread on this got closed:

Sarah Palin thinks she is a better American than you because she comes from a small town, and a superior human being because she isn't a journalist and has never lived in Washington and likes to watch her kids play hockey. Although Palin praised John McCain in her acceptance speech as a man who puts the good of his country ahead of partisan politics, McCain pretty much proved the opposite with his selection of a running mate whose main asset is her ability to reignite the culture wars. So maybe Governor Palin does represent everything that is good and fine about America, as she herself maintains. But spare us, please, any talk about how she is a tough fiscal conservative.

Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said "No, thanks" to the famous "bridge to nowhere" (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said "Yes, please" until the project became a symbol and political albatross.

Back to reality. Of the 50 states, Alaska ranks No. 1 in taxes per resident and No. 1 in spending per resident. Its tax burden per resident is 2 1/2 times the national average; its spending, more than double. The trick is that Alaska's government spends money on its own citizens and taxes the rest of us to pay for it. Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.

Alaska is, in essence, an adjunct member of OPEC. It has four different taxes on oil, which produce more than 89% of the state's unrestricted revenue. On average, three-quarters of the value of a barrel of oil is taken by the state government before that oil is permitted to leave the state. Alaska residents each get a yearly check for about $2,000 from oil revenues, plus an additional $1,200 pushed through by Palin last year to take advantage of rising oil prices. Any sympathy the governor of Alaska expresses for folks in the lower 48 who are suffering from high gas prices or can't afford to heat their homes is strictly crocodile tears.

As if it couldn't support itself, Alaska also ranks No. 1, year after year, in money it sucks in from Washington. In 2005 (the most recent figures), according to the Tax Foundation, Alaska ranked 18th in federal taxes paid per resident ($5,434) but first in federal spending received per resident ($13,950). Its ratio of federal spending received to federal taxes paid ranks third among the 50 states, and in the absolute amount it receives from Washington over and above the amount it sends to Washington, Alaska ranks No. 1.

Under the state constitution, the governor of Alaska has unusually strong powers to shape the state budget. At the Republican National Convention, Palin bragged that she had vetoed "nearly $500 million" in state spending during her two years as governor. This amounts to less than 2% of the proposed budget. That's how much this warrior for you (the people) against it (the government) could find in wasteful spending under her control.

One thing Barack Obama and McCain disagree on is an oil windfall–profits tax. McCain is against it, on the theory that it is a tax and therefore bad, and also that it would discourage domestic production. Obama is for it, on the theory that if oil companies can make a nice profit when oil sells for $50 per bbl., they can still make a nice profit when it sells for more than $100, even if the government takes a bit and spreads the money around to those who are hurting from higher oil prices.

Although Palin's words side with McCain in this dispute, her actions side with Obama. Her major legislative accomplishment has been to revamp Alaska's windfall-profits tax in order to increase the state's take. Alaska calls it a "clear and equitable share" tax. The state assumes that extracting oil from the tundra costs about $25 per bbl. and takes as much as 75% of the difference between that and the sale price.

Why is a windfall-profits tax good for Alaska but not for the U.S.? Well, it's obvious, isn't it? People in Alaska are better than people in the rest of the U.S. They're more American. Although there are small towns and farms and high school hockey teams in the lower 48, there are fewer down here, per capita, than in Alaska. And there are many more journalists and pollsters and city dwellers and other undesirables who might benefit if every American had the same right to leech off the government as do the good citizens of Sarah Palin's Alaska.


Now I know that floating around the internet are some quibbles about Kinsley's numbers. Feel free to bring them on, Baldy, but try to actually reply to the content of the charges against Palin and her "maverick reform."

I was going to make a more detailed response to your "same shit, different thread," but Dempublicents has already done the job for me.

Your argument that Palin is a maverick reformer hangs from such a dubious thread it is ridiculous.

Especially the part about standing up to big oil companies. She's supported big oil with one exception: she imposed a windfall profits tax -- which she and McCain opposing doing on a national scale.

You just need to admit you like Palin because of her radical religious agenda.
that windfall profits tax makes me laugh every time i read about it.

its good for alaska but horrifying for the united states.

that windfall profits tax makes me laugh every time i read about it.

its good for alaska but horrifying for the united states.

Maybe the oil companies in Alaska are different.

Or something.

Of course, she did this after making campaign promises to get the bridges (there were, two, actually) built. She still kept the money, but claims to have told Congress "no thanks" for it.

You know, there is the other possibility, the reality one. Before getting a job, we think we will do this and that, but once in the job we find that the nuances don't always meet our previous expectations. Palin has shown that she adapts to those changes in expectations and meets change and enacts reform. She has executive experience in this area that we can see how she has progressed. It all good about her in the end.


Like charging per diem for days she spent at home? Which home? The governor of Alaska lives in the official residence, the one in Juneau. When in Wasilla, the governor is not at 'home' she is working away from home. How convenient for you to forget that so you can pretend that shes cheating the system. No one has accused Sarah Palin of asking for more than she is allowed, actually, they say she would be allowed MORE per diem than she's been asking for, but I notice you don't mention things like that.

She would be a bad governor to refuse earmarks for her state? Don't tell McCain, considering that he's holding her up as exactly the kind of "reformer" that would do so. (not to mention her own claims to have done so).

Money already in the bank should be spent on the peoples needs, like transportation infrastructure.

Ah, someone who is woefully uninformed about the situation. Why am I not surprised. The "bridge(s) to nowhere" (yes, there were two of them) were going to be funded by an earmark. However, there was national coverage and people were upset about it. So the language specifically denoting the money for the bridges was removed, but the money was still earmarked for Alaska.

Palin, while campaigning, promised those in the two affected communities that the bridges would be built. She even funded a true "road to nowhere" that now runs right up to where one of the bridges would have been built. Then she killed the project.

She did not tell Congress, "thanks, but no thanks." She did not oppose the project, at least not from the start. What she did was promise a couple of communities that they would get their bridges, tell Congress "thank you so much for this money," and then spend it on something else.

As I already said above, Before getting a job, we think we will do one thing but we then find that the nuances of a situation don't always meet our previous expectations.

Palin has shown that she adapts to those changes in expectations and meets change and enacts reform. You think the Democrats will somehow meet ALL of their promises if they are victorious? Democrats Broken Promises (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/02/broken-promises/)over the last two years, and you try to pick on Palin not making a bridge to serve 50 people as somehow the epitome of political promise breaking? Funny.

It's funny how the liberals are saying things about McCain and Palin which are supposed to be bad things about them because the Republicans aren't suppose to like it, even though those things are frequently things the Dems are supposed to agree with, such as immigration reform, things the democrats are supposed to be in favor of but attack McCain for now. As if they've decided that screw the outcome of the issues, ignore that tidbit that we actually agree with it, attack attack attack and hope it pays off in the end :rolleyes:

Palin has shown that she adapts to those changes in expectations and meets change and enacts reform. You think the Democrats will somehow meet ALL of their promises if they are victorious? Democrats Broken Promises (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/02/broken-promises/)over the last two years, and you try to pick on Palin not making a bridge to serve 50 people as somehow the epitome of political promise breaking? Funny.

It's funny how the liberals are saying things about McCain and Palin which are supposed to be bad things about them because the Republicans aren't suppose to like it, even though those things are frequently things the Dems are supposed to agree with, such as immigration reform, things the democrats are supposed to be in favor of but attack McCain for now. As if they've decided that screw the outcome of the issues, ignore that tidbit that we actually agree with it, attack attack attack and hope it pays off in the end :rolleyes:

Funny how Palin's "adapting to change" would be called "flip-flopping" if she were a Democrat.

Funny how the issue isn't whether or not Palin broke a promise about the bridge, but whether she is now lying about it.

Funny how you complain about "attack attack attack" but try to deflect criticism of Palin by pointing to alleged faults of the Democrats.

And, it is especially funny that after (in the other thread) complaining that Kinsley's Time Magazine article was some biased blog, you cite an editorial in the Washington Times written by Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner that is low on specifics, but unsuprisingly criticizes the Democratic majority.

ah, and obama and biden have made opposition to earmarks the centerpiece of their campaign, i take it?

what's that you say? they have not?! then what exactly are we supposed to get out of this revelation?

That Obama and Biden aren't willing to stick to their guns on positions they never claimed to hold in the first place.

Duh.

I'm reposting this article from Michael Kinsley of Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839724-1,00.html) (emphasis added), because Baldy ducked out on responding to it before the other thread on this got closed:

....

Flat out lie on your part there... I did respond to it. I asked (using different words) if this type of post, posting an editorial piece as your argument, was somehow acceptable debate methodology on NSG? And I pointed out that what am I supposed to do, am I now allowed to post the entire opinion pieces of other sources like http://www.weeklystandard.com/ to match your source opinion by opinion? Apparently that was too subtle of a hint for you though. Perhaps YOU should type what YOU think about this situation or quote a piece for support and source etc., but to post an entire opinion that someone else wrote and then use it here as your entire argument is bad form to say the least or perhaps simply disingenuous on your part entirely?

How about you start by telling which of those supposed expose points of Sarah Palin you are actually against yourself?

Maybe the oil companies in Alaska are different.

Or something.

I would say that if anything, they are even worse down here than they were up there. And thats a very good reason to want someone like Sarah Palin to get involved in cleaning up the corruption between the big oil companies and the government officials that are supposed to be in oversight positions. As last weeks sex and oil scandals revealed, the entire industry government system needs a reform, we can only hope that McCain is smart enough to let Palin start to clean up that mess once they are elected. Even if Obama is elected, he would be smart to put Palin in charge of overseeing the Oil and Gas relations with government...

You know, there is the other possibility, the reality one. Before getting a job, we think we will do this and that, but once in the job we find that the nuances don't always meet our previous expectations. Palin has shown that she adapts to those changes in expectations and meets change and enacts reform. She has executive experience in this area that we can see how she has progressed. It all good about her in the end.

Yes, which is why she hasn't pretended to have been opposed to it all along, right?

Oh, wait....

Which home? The governor of Alaska lives in the official residence, the one in Juneau. When in Wasilla, the governor is not at 'home' she is working away from home.

I work from home sometimes. My actual house. I don't get to charge per diem. You know why? Because I don't incur any travel-related costs for sitting at home and working.

How convenient for you to forget that so you can pretend that shes cheating the system. No one has accused Sarah Palin of asking for more than she is allowed, actually, they say she would be allowed MORE per diem than she's been asking for, but I notice you don't mention things like that.

Who are "they"?

Money already in the bank should be spent on the peoples needs, like transportation infrastructure.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about money "already in the bank". We are talking about accepting or refusing extra funds.

As I already said above, Before getting a job, we think we will do one thing but we then find that the nuances of a situation don't always meet our previous expectations.

And we don't generally try and pretend like our opinions were never different.

You'd have a point here if Palin had apologized to the constituents she had made promises to and explained why she had changed her mind.

Instead, she's pretending that it never happened.

Palin has shown that she adapts to those changes in expectations and meets change and enacts reform. You think the Democrats will somehow meet ALL of their promises if they are victorious?

Of course not. But I'm not going to call them "reformers" for failing to do so, especially not if they later act like they never even made those promises.

It's funny how the liberals are saying things about McCain and Palin which are supposed to be bad things about them because the Republicans aren't suppose to like it, even though those things are frequently things the Dems are supposed to agree with, such as immigration reform, things the democrats are supposed to be in favor of but attack McCain for now.

Eh? The only person I hear making a big deal attacking others on immigration reform is McCain - you know, the one who made a Spanish-language only ad attacking Obama for his stance on an immigration bill that they both voted identically on?

Flat out lie on your part there... I did respond to it. I asked (using different words) if this type of post, posting an editorial piece as your argument, was somehow acceptable debate methodology on NSG? And I pointed out that what am I supposed to do, am I now allowed to post the entire opinion pieces of other sources like http://www.weeklystandard.com/ to match your source opinion by opinion? Apparently that was too subtle of a hint for you though. Perhaps YOU should type what YOU think about this situation or quote a piece for support and source etc., but to post an entire opinion that someone else wrote and then use it here as your entire argument is bad form to say the least or perhaps simply disingenuous on your part entirely?

How about you start by telling which of those supposed expose points of Sarah Palin you are actually against yourself?

This "response" is just as non-responsive as the one you made in the other post. Somehow complaining that I didn't re-write Kinsley's points into my own words doesn't deal with the substance of the arguments made.

But to humor you:

1) Palin can't claim to be a fiscal conservative based on her record in Alaska. Facts are stubborn things.

2) Alaska's oil taxes harm the rest of the country to benefit Alaska and Palin supports that. Palin/McCain oppose oil taxes that would benefit the entire country.

3) Alaska lives off of the exact type of earmarks and federal spending that Palin claims to oppose.

4) Palin's alleged budget-cutting amounts to less than 2% of the Alaska budget.

5) The truth about the "bridge to nowhere" is that Palin is a liar and a hypocrite.

Need I go on?

This "response" is just as non-responsive as the one you made in the other post. Somehow complaining that I didn't re-write Kinsley's points into my own words doesn't deal with the substance of the arguments made.

But to humor you:

1) Palin can't claim to be a fiscal conservative based on her record in Alaska. Facts are stubborn things.

Since when do YOU support fiscal conservatism? Is that your complaint with her? She isn't fiscal conservative enough for The Cat-Tribe?

2) Alaska's oil taxes harm the rest of the country to benefit Alaska and Palin supports that. Palin/McCain oppose oil taxes that would benefit the entire country.

Alaska is forced to sell it's oil to the American market only, which is actually fine by me, BUT it means that they don't get fair market value for their oil on a frequent basis. Alaskans government have been giving the oil companies special deals that inflate their profits at the cost of the Alaskans who should have gotten more for their resources. Palin is fixing that corruption. Taxing the oil companies fairly does NOT harm the rest of the country. Your opinion piece is wrong on that.

3) Alaska lives off of the exact type of earmarks and federal spending that Palin claims to oppose.

Alaska's entire history is based on earmarks and government subsidies, and Sarah Palin is trying to reform that process and make Alaska more self reliant, I fail to see your objection to this. You want the situation to continue as it was before Palin? Or are you actually on Palins side and you think it should be reformed but she's in the wrong political party than you so you can't agree with her even when you agree with her?

4) Palin's alleged budget-cutting amounts to less than 2% of the Alaska budget.

And you are for more budget cuts? Which cuts did you want her to make that she didn't make? Or did you want her to spend more?

5) The truth about the "bridge to nowhere" is that Palin is a liar and a hypocrite.

IPUKED arguments are so easy you just can't stay away can you? Source your and Dems, claim that Sarah ever said she was always against the bridge?

Need I go on?

Hopefully the next time you'll actually have an issue you are for that she is against, or an issue that you are against that she is for in your post.

I work from home sometimes. My actual house. I don't get to charge per diem. You know why? Because I don't incur any travel-related costs for sitting at home and working.

You have a house provided by your job in one location and you have your own house in a different location 600 miles away and you don't charge per diem to work at the house 600 miles away from the job location? No, your situation is perhaps different?

Who are "they"? The state HR workers that were interviewed about the per diem rules in Alaska and Governor Palins pay requests.

Irrelevant. We aren't talking about money "already in the bank". We are talking about accepting or refusing extra funds.

Money already in the bank is money in the bank, despite who made the deposit. Nothing illegal about spending your own money.

Yes, which is why she hasn't pretended to have been opposed to it all along, right?

Oh, wait....

And we don't generally try and pretend like our opinions were never different.

Instead, she's pretending that it never happened.

Of course not. But I'm not going to call them "reformers" for failing to do so, especially not if they later act like they never even made those promises.

You have a source for that repeated claim of yours? Source that shows her saying she was never for the bridge? I think you are exaggerating your perception of the claims Sarah Palin has made.

Eh? The only person I hear making a big deal attacking others on immigration reform is McCain - you know, the one who made a Spanish-language only ad attacking Obama for his stance on an immigration bill that they both voted identically on?

So you are saying that you agree with McCains immigration reform proposals, the ones that were defeated, right? Good, me too. Of course, President Bush agreed with it too so it's probably kinda hard to say we need to disagree with Bush's position on every issue isn't it?

You are acting no better than those you rail against. I would daresay you're even worse, because while you profess beliefs in tolerance, free speech, and various other social liberal ideas, you'll happily dehumanize and compartmentalize your opposition in the exact same way.

You wonder why we get upset. This is why.

Oh, no, I never wondered why you get upset - in fact, it IS a pretty understandable reaction. But surely you will notice that before taking that much crap as sexist (Clinton), America-hater (Iraq), etc, I sort of learned their behavior. Do I emulate it well?

Yup, that is exactly what the Obama camp needs to concentrate on....attacking Sarah Palin. What that does is take the heat off of promoting the "change you can count on", which is bagging down.

Obama's "You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." line was a masterful stroke of re-enforcing his sexist slant.

Maybe you don't understand some of the common analogies
made in the US. These remarks were made by John McCain about Hillary's healthcare plan. The very same remark was made by Dick Cheney as well. Were they being sexist as well? Obama even continued on with another analogy in a similar vein. Anyone who tries to claim that those comments were about Sarah is either stupid, or they are being intentionally ignorant. Also, "it's change you can believe in."

They need to keep getting their message out of what they want to do. Biden must step up the attacks for sure. Why? Because that's all they've been getting from McCain/Palin at the current time. If they don't hit back hard they are playing the Kerry game. There's a reason candidates go negative, because it works. I don't like it, but that's what the majority of the American public responds to.

They'd be sexist if she were a woman, she would be a woman if she were human. Ergo, not sexist.

But I digress: My point was that the guy was claiming Obama "can't buy" votes, as if campaining were buying votes, and yet argues for Palin that she's a Vice-President he'd like to fuck. So, yes.

Geez Heikoku, you're getting as bad as CH and Balder with this crap. It's not productive to debate. You are doing nothing more than making the Obama side of the discussion look petty and small. I respectful request you cease this action.

I would say that if anything, they are even worse down here than they were up there.

...which is why Palin thinks we should be less harsh on them down here?

And thats a very good reason to want someone like Sarah Palin to get involved in cleaning up the corruption between the big oil companies and the government officials that are supposed to be in oversight positions. As last weeks sex and oil scandals revealed, the entire industry government system needs a reform, we can only hope that McCain is smart enough to let Palin start to clean up that mess once they are elected. Even if Obama is elected, he would be smart to put Palin in charge of overseeing the Oil and Gas relations with government...

Hmmmm. Do you think she'd go back to favoring windfall profits taxes under an Obama admin?

[QUOTE=Balderdash71964;14012704]Let's fix that for you:

He (Obama) does great with stump speeches which can only get you so far. Let him continue to do one on one interviews and see him struggle (some more). Let him do a press junket and watch his scripted message break down (with stuttering wishy-washy answers and STILL need 'clarification press releases' the next day to clarify how he didn't mean what it sounded like he said). There is still plenty of race left. It's easy to give a speech when there's no one to rebut your BS and call you out on it. The press corp will not just accept "we can work bipartisian dontchaknow?" as a policy experience. ...

Fail. Why you might ask? Obama has already done press junkets, late night interviews, interviews with Fox News and other major media players. He's done the daytime circuit and major interviews with every major news outlet there is. If you can say the same about Palin (which you could but you'dbe lying) then I will acquiesce to your position. I know that thoughtful and nuanced answers are not good for the sound byte crowd, but sound bytes do not make sound policy.



You mean like how McCain is measurably a better bipartisan choice than Obama is and the press is starting to catch on?

With calls for change in Washington dominating the campaign, both Mr. Obama, the Democrats' presidential nominee, and Mr. McCain, his Republican opponent, have claimed the mantle of bipartisanship.

But since 2005, Mr. McCain has led as chief sponsor of 82 bills, on which he had 120 Democratic co-sponsors out of 220 total, for an average of 55 percent. He worked with Democrats on 50 of his bills, and of those, 37 times Democrats outnumber Republicans as co-sponsors.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, sponsored 120 bills, of which Republicans co-sponsored just 26, and on only five bills did Republicans outnumber Democrats. Mr. Obama gained 522 total Democratic co-sponsors but only 75 Republicans, for an average of 13 percent of his co-sponsors.
An Obama campaign spokesman declined to comment on The Times analysis.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/

Thank you for providing us with this information. I won't even go as far as to criticise the Times, as I like them for a lot of stuff. You will, of course, have to admit they have a right sided bias. You've just shown that both men work across party lines. I appreciate your willingness to show Barack Obama works across party lines regardless of Palin's stump speech. You want to lend any more assistance to my argument? :eek:

It's not a lie. She ended the bridge, period, end of story. She's a reformer because she reformed how Alaskan government works, toughened up it's stance in favor of the people vs. the big oil companies that had been abusing their favored position with politicians and the government before she came on the scene there. She's a reformer because she vetoed half a billion dollars of Alaskan pork barrel waste (in state), she's a reformer because she's cut the cost of running the Alaskan government including her own office and she's brought the benefits of that savings back the people of her state.

She's brought real proven reform,' not hypothosized fantasy talk about bipartisanship that doesn't exist,' not double talk about ending a war while secretly striving to prolong and create failure for your own political positioning like Obama has done:

LINK (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?&page=1)

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Looks like Obamas the liar, not Palin.

She only ended it after the rest of the country caught on and killed the remainder of the funding. She called it a positive when running for governor. She kept the money for the project to spend on other initiatives in her state. That's not really a reform. She also worked to get hundreds of millions in earmarks while mayor of Wasilla and while governor. She is twisting the truth and nearing outright dishonesty. You already proved with your link he's worked in a bipartisan manner. Thank you again for that. You'd also have to discount his work with Lugar and Coburn for your statement to be true. Come on, stop saying crap we can easily dispute with google searches.

She would have been a bad governor to NOT keep the money to spend it on other transportation infrastructure. Are you somehow against road projects in general or just the fact that Palin has been a great success for the people she represents?

Think about your argument for a second... first you say they decided not to fund it, and then you say she kept the money... Hmmm, sounds like you have a logistical problem there. Perhaps they weren't going to fund it any further, but clearly, if she kept the money, they must have written at least one check, hm?

She has consistently said that she wants to reform the earmark process, not end it. Make government transparent, bring the back room deals to the light of day, ending the lobbyists making deals with Congress in secret and keeping those deal out of the public eye.

Palin has cut requests for Alaskan earmarks, by something like 20% in her second year over her first and her first was a cut from the years of other governors before her. Her position is clear and only mucked up by those that want to try and discredit her but don't really know what they are talking about, shes said publicly even before she was selected for the VP slot that political realities require Alaskans to think differently about earmarks.

Palins record shows that requests have been made in a transparent fashion and are not hidden from public view as earmark requests have been in the past. She IS a reformer, you just don't want to admit it. There are other issues she's not perfectly in-line with McCain on either, as there are issues that Biden and Obama aren't perfectly aligned with each other too. It's to be expected, and as this sort of attack seems to be about the best that the left has to offer against Palin, she's in pretty good shape. The more the people find out, the more they are going to like her. But since day one, the insane negative accusations have been flooding the internet, and just like the others, these misleading accusations like yours will be shown to be baseless as well.

No, they funded it to a point. They refused to complete the funding and that's when she killed it. It's like me giving you 5k for something that costs 12k. I refuse to give you the remaining 7k so you "kill" the deal. You then refuse to give me my money back. Now, I could sue you to get it back, or cut my losses at that point. She's only been on stage for 2 weeks. Let's give it some more time.

You have a house provided by your job in one location and you have your own house in a different location 600 miles away and you don't charge per diem to work at the house 600 miles away from the job location?

I don't see how the fact that she is provided with a house makes it any different. The truth of the matter is that per diem costs are job-related travel costs. Wanting to be at home is not job-related travel.

If there was a meeting in Wasila to which she had to travel from Juneau, that would be appropriate use of per diem costs. "I just want to be at home" is not an appropriate use, as nothing about being governor required her to be in Wasila. It was a personal choice.

It's sort of like me going to visit my mother in another city because I want to see her, working from her house, and charging my job the cost of my visit. Well, it's like that except for the fact that I would get *fired* for doing so.

The state HR workers that were interviewed about the per diem rules in Alaska and Governor Palins pay requests.

So they think she should have been getting more money for her own convenience?

Money already in the bank is money in the bank, despite who made the deposit. Nothing illegal about spending your own money.

Nothing illegal, no. But pretending to have said "no, thank you" to the money when what you really said, was "Thank you very much and I'm glad I can now spend it however I please" is dishonesty, whether you want to admit or not.

You have a source for that repeated claim of yours? Source that shows her saying she was never for the bridge? I think you are exaggerating your perception of the claims Sarah Palin has made.

You're right. Claiming to have said "Thanks, but no thanks" and calling it a "bridge to nowhere" (the name devised by those who oppose it) means, "I was for it but I changed my mind when the political tide turned against it."

So you are saying that you agree with McCains immigration reform proposals, the ones that were defeated, right? Good, me too. Of course, President Bush agreed with it too so it's probably kinda hard to say we need to disagree with Bush's position on every issue isn't it?

No, I'm saying that McCain is being dishonest by attacking Obama's voting record on McCain's bill, since they have the exact same voting record on it.

I respectful request you cease this action.

...I will on account of the sheer STYLE of this request.

I'm a sucker for style. :D

I was going to make a more detailed response to your "same shit, different thread," but Dempublicents has already done the job for me.

Your argument that Palin is a maverick reformer hangs from such a dubious thread it is ridiculous.

Especially the part about standing up to big oil companies. She's supported big oil with one exception: she imposed a windfall profits tax -- which she and McCain opposing doing on a national scale.

You just need to admit you like Palin because of her radical religious agenda.

Welcome back Sir. I always like your injection of logic. Even when we are on opposite sides of an issue I respect you highly.

As last weeks sex and oil scandals revealed...
... firing everybody and replacing them with your high school buddies is a bad policy. That was the Bush policy that got us heckuvajob-Brownie at FEMA, and those bozos at the Interior department you are speaking of, among many others. It is also the way Palin has done everything, her whole career.

Flat out lie on your part there... I did respond to it. I asked (using different words) if this type of post, posting an editorial piece as your argument, was somehow acceptable debate methodology on NSG? And I pointed out that what am I supposed to do, am I now allowed to post the entire opinion pieces of other sources like http://www.weeklystandard.com/ to match your source opinion by opinion? Apparently that was too subtle of a hint for you though. Perhaps YOU should type what YOU think about this situation or quote a piece for support and source etc., but to post an entire opinion that someone else wrote and then use it here as your entire argument is bad form to say the least or perhaps simply disingenuous on your part entirely?

How about you start by telling which of those supposed expose points of Sarah Palin you are actually against yourself?

You mean like the editorial you used from the washington times. Op-ED pieces are not all that bad. They are only wrong if they are not researched and based on pure emotion. If they are substantitaed with evidence they are capable of being used. For instance, I write an Op-ED where I sight factcheck.org. Factcheck.org is a respected source for both Democrats and Republicans. Is my information false simply because it's an op-ED? Or is ist valid because I used factual resources to back it up. Please, refute what Kinsley said instead of ad hominem.

Well so far the McCain campaign strikes me as the biggest and most shameless liars of the two.

And on that note:

Dishonesty is nothing new in politics. I spent much of 2000 -- my first year at The Times -- trying to alert readers to the blatant dishonesty of the Bush campaign’s claims about taxes, spending and Social Security.

But I can’t think of any precedent, at least in America, for the blizzard of lies since the Republican convention. The Bush campaign’s lies in 2000 were artful -- you needed some grasp of arithmetic to realize that you were being conned. This year, however, the McCain campaign keeps making assertions that anyone with an Internet connection can disprove in a minute, and repeating these assertions over and over again.
Still, how upset should we be about the McCain campaign’s lies? I mean, politics ain’t beanbag, and all that.

One answer is that the muck being hurled by the McCain campaign is preventing a debate on real issues -- on whether the country really wants, for example, to continue the economic policies of the last eight years.

But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.

I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.

I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.

And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?

What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,577825,00.html

...I will on account of the sheer STYLE of this request.

I'm a sucker for style. :D

Thank you Sir. I'm back to work now. My boss doesn't pay me for this :(

... firing everybody and replacing them with your high school buddies is a bad policy. That was the Bush policy that got us heckuvajob-Brownie at FEMA, and those bozos at the Interior department you are speaking of, among many others. It is also the way Palin has done everything, her whole career.

It certainly seems like that.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?bl&ex=1221624000&en=afcd714ae3b553ae&ei=5087%0A)
Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five schoolmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.

When Ms. Palin had to cut her first state budget, she avoided the legion of frustrated legislators and mayors. Instead, she huddled with her budget director and her husband, Todd, an oil field worker who is not a state employee, and vetoed millions of dollars of legislative projects.
Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.
Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.
Many lawmakers contend that Ms. Palin is overly reliant on a small inner circle that leaves her isolated. Democrats and Republicans alike describe her as often missing in action. Since taking office in 2007, Ms. Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, some 600 miles to the north of the governor’s mansion in Juneau, records show.

During the last legislative session, some lawmakers became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing “Where’s Sarah?” pins.

Many politicians say they typically learn of her initiatives — and vetoes — from news releases.

This seems like another 4 years of Bush in the making... It really does follow a disturbing trend!

Since when do YOU support fiscal conservatism? Is that your complaint with her? She isn't fiscal conservative enough for The Cat-Tribe?

Alaska is forced to sell it's oil to the American market only, which is actually fine by me, BUT it means that they don't get fair market value for their oil on a frequent basis. Alaskans government have been giving the oil companies special deals that inflate their profits at the cost of the Alaskans who should have gotten more for their resources. Palin is fixing that corruption. Taxing the oil companies fairly does NOT harm the rest of the country. Your opinion piece is wrong on that.

Alaska's entire history is based on earmarks and government subsidies, and Sarah Palin is trying to reform that process and make Alaska more self reliant, I fail to see your objection to this. You want the situation to continue as it was before Palin? Or are you actually on Palins side and you think it should be reformed but she's in the wrong political party than you so you can't agree with her even when you agree with her?

And you are for more budget cuts? Which cuts did you want her to make that she didn't make? Or did you want her to spend more?

IPUKED arguments are so easy you just can't stay away can you? Source your and Dems, claim that Sarah ever said she was always against the bridge?

Hopefully the next time you'll actually have an issue you are for that she is against, or an issue that you are against that she is for in your post.

Meh. You seem to forget you are trying to sell the "Palin is a reformer" product to the rest of us.

I have plenty of reasons not to like Palin, and I (unlike you) have been honest in saying her record as a small-town mayor and small-state governor don't play a big factor in my assessment of her. She supports a radical religious agenda that you agree with and I don't. That is the real source of this dispute -- but you've been unwilling to admit that.

So, I've been arguing in your ballpark so to speak, by discussing Palin's less than impressive credentials.

She and the McCain camp have been openly misleading the American public about Palin's record in several respects. One of those respects is on the "bridge to nowhere."

Regardless, it may suprise you, but not all liberals love taxation and spending. I like keeping my money in my own pocket as well and I don't care for government inefficiency. But I care even less for someone who claims to be for lower taxes and less spending, but has a record of the opposite. (Particularly as mayor, where she left Wasilla mired in debt.)

And, BTW, can you back up your claims that Palin is seeking to reform her states association with big oil and cut back on its dependence on federal spending? My look at Palin's most recent budgets doesn't support your assertions. I'd hate to think you just made that stuff up because it sounded good.

Once again you appear to believe Palin walks on water regardless of the facts you are presented with. Any argument that disagrees with you is either ignored or labeled with your stupid IPUKED motto.

Snip.

Requesting clarification on the meaning of "IPUKED".

Requesting clarification on the meaning of "IPUKED".

It means "Insult Palin Until Kosher Eat Dog". Balderdash uses it to paint any claims about Palin that he doesn't want to address as sexism.

It means "Insult Palin Until Kosher Eat Dog". Balderdash uses it to paint any claims about Palin that he doesn't want to address as sexism.

Oh, I see, but how often...

*Watches as a pig wearing lipstick runs by*

Odd. Anyways, how often does that occur? It's not like people don't...

*Watches as the pig wearing lipstick runs by, chased by a mob of photographers*

Wow. Well, moving on, it's not like people don't discuss the issues, is it?

Oh, I see, but how often...

*Watches as a pig wearing lipstick runs by*

Odd. Anyways, how often does that occur?
hey, if it has lipstick on are you SURE its a pig?

Oh, I see, but how often...

*Watches as a pig wearing lipstick runs by*

Odd. Anyways, how often does that occur?

Every time someone tries to dress McCain up as anything other than more of the same old shit.

hey, if it has lipstick on are you SURE its a pig?

Yep. I'm in Brazil, not Alaska.

You have a house provided by your job in one location and you have your own house in a different location 600 miles away and you don't charge per diem to work at the house 600 miles away from the job location?

No, I do not. Why not? Because a per diem is designed to cover extra living expenses incurred as a result of the job, as such:

1) she did not, as a result of her job, have to work at her own house. As you said, her office provided her a place to live, free of charge. Thus, any expenses she incurred as a result of living at her house, 600 miles away, were not expenses incurred as a result of her job. Her job did not require her to incur those expenses. Her job did not require her to travel 600 miles. her job gave her a place to live.

She chose, on her own free will, to reject the house that her job provided her with, and thus she chose, of her own free will, to incur any extraneous expenses. They are not business expenses because she did not have to spend them in the course of business. A per diem is only designed to cover business related expenses, IE those expenses necessarily occurred as a result of doing business. Since she chose to reject the housing provided for her, chose to maintain a base on her own residence, they aren't business related.

2) A per diem is a payment designed to cover extra business expenses incurred as a result of doing business, above and beyond any normal, typical, day to day expenses. How in the world can she be saddled with extra expenses, above and beyond normal, when she is living in her own home. The home she owned, and paid for, regardless of whether she lived there or not.

The only expense she might have incurred is travel, and I don't see why the taxpayers should be obligated to pay for her travel expenses to and from her home 600 miles away, when she, of her own free will, rejected the home provided for her, free of charge, by the very same taxpayers she wanted more money from.

Obama's "You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." line was a masterful stroke of re-enforcing his sexist slant.

And was about policy, not persons.

But, I notice you don't ever care to refer to the CONTEXT of the comment.

(Was it 'sexist' when McCain said it actually as a specific attack on Hillary, a year earlier?)

(Was it 'sexist' when McCain said it actually as a specific attack on Hillary, a year earlier?)

Of course! Just like how this book is sexist:

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/15070000/15071652.JPG

And was about policy, not persons.

But, I notice you don't ever care to refer to the CONTEXT of the comment.

(Was it 'sexist' when McCain said it actually as a specific attack on Hillary, a year earlier?)

With Canuck anyone who says anything bad about Hillary's campaign or policies is sexist.

The democratic primary thread rang with accusations of sexism for dozens of pages.

Let's fix that for you:

[INDENT]He (Obama) does great with stump speeches which can only get you so far. Let him continue to do one on one interviews and see him struggle (some more).

No, really... did you see his interviews with Bill O'Reilly? He handled himself very well. Until I saw those interviews, I'd been willing to accept him as simply 'better than the opposition' (which isn't saying much). I can totally picture him as president now.

But Sarah Palin's interviews with Charlie Gibson? Just painful. Claiming foreign policy relevence because 'you can see Russia' from Alaska? She didn't even know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

If you haven't seen the interviews (by either of the people just mentioned), you really should see if you can find them on Youtube.

You're just looking impossibly partisan, right now.

It's not a lie. She ended the bridge, period, end of story.

Can you source that? I was under the impression she backed it - then joined in condemning it once it was sinking.

Claiming foreign policy relevence because 'you can see Russia' from Alaska? She didn't even know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?I find it hilarious that she didn't own a passport until about a year ago and then managed to miss the countries she travelled to.

Can you source that? I was under the impression she backed it - then joined in condemning it once it was sinking.

Your impression would be 100% correct:

A Bridge Too Far

Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.

Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.

When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”

Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.

The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.

And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.

Source (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html).

You know, there is the other possibility, the reality one. Before getting a job, we think we will do this and that, but once in the job we find that the nuances don't always meet our previous expectations. Palin has shown that she adapts to those changes in expectations


So... she flip-flopped?


Which home? The governor of Alaska lives in the official residence, the one in Juneau. When in Wasilla, the governor is not at 'home' she is working away from home. How convenient for you to forget that so you can pretend that shes cheating the system.


Do you actually know what a per diem is? Your argument here resembles the blind men arguing about the elephant...


No one has accused Sarah Palin of asking for more than she is allowed, actually, they say she would be allowed MORE per diem than she's been asking for, but I notice you don't mention things like that.


The 'amount' isn't tha source of the complaint. Claiming 'per diem' when per diem isn't DUE, is the issue.


Money already in the bank should be spent on the peoples needs, like transportation infrastructure.


Does that defence work in legal cases of fraud?

Because - that's what you're arguing here - she defrauded the people by claiming support, defrauded the federal government by taking their money under false pretences, and then spent the proceeds on her own pet projects.

No, really... did you see his interviews with Bill O'Reilly? He handled himself very well. Until I saw those interviews, I'd been willing to accept him as simply 'better than the opposition' (which isn't saying much). I can totally picture him as president now.

But Sarah Palin's interviews with Charlie Gibson? Just painful. Claiming foreign policy relevence because 'you can see Russia' from Alaska? She didn't even know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

If you haven't seen the interviews (by either of the people just mentioned), you really should see if you can find them on Youtube.

You're just looking impossibly partisan, right now.
i had forgottten about that interview. thanks for the reminder.

im watching it now. he's doing a good job.

No, I do not. Why not? Because a per diem is designed to cover extra living expenses incurred as a result of the job, as such:

1) she did not, as a result of her job, have to work at her own house. As you said, her office provided her a place to live, free of charge. Thus, any expenses she incurred as a result of living at her house, 600 miles away, were not expenses incurred as a result of her job. Her job did not require her to incur those expenses. Her job did not require her to travel 600 miles. her job gave her a place to live.

She chose, on her own free will, to reject the house that her job provided her with, and thus she chose, of her own free will, to incur any extraneous expenses. They are not business expenses because she did not have to spend them in the course of business. A per diem is only designed to cover business related expenses, IE those expenses necessarily occurred as a result of doing business. Since she chose to reject the housing provided for her, chose to maintain a base on her own residence, they aren't business related.

2) A per diem is a payment designed to cover extra business expenses incurred as a result of doing business, above and beyond any normal, typical, day to day expenses. How in the world can she be saddled with extra expenses, above and beyond normal, when she is living in her own home. The home she owned, and paid for, regardless of whether she lived there or not.

The only expense she might have incurred is travel, and I don't see why the taxpayers should be obligated to pay for her travel expenses to and from her home 600 miles away, when she, of her own free will, rejected the home provided for her, free of charge, by the very same taxpayers she wanted more money from.


You do know where Wasilla is, right? It's within daily commuting distance to Anchorage, that's where it is, the largest city in Alaska, apparently about 40% of the states population is there. You also know that the Alaskan governor would like to move the state Capital to Anchorage, right, to remove the need to commute there from Juneau which is over eight hundred miles driving distance and six hundred miles flying, right? You recognize that the governor has much work to do in both locations right? And you would have it that per diem is paid in Juneau instead of Anchorage? She stays in Wasilla when there is work for her in Anchorage.


EDIT: this last part was meant for The CatTribe, my apologies Neo Art... You keep trying to pretend like shes doing something wrong though, you've already exposed yourself.

You may actually agree with her positions as often as you disagree with them, you already said you don't agree with the positions of your own arguments against her. Clearly then, you're as partisan as you can get, and since you don't even agree with your own arguments positions, does that make you a self described forum troll?

You do know where Wasilla is, right? It's within daily commuting distance to Anchorage, that's where it is, the largest city in Alaska, apparently about 40% of the states population is there. You also know that the Alaskan governor would like to move the state Capital to Anchorage, right, to remove the need to commute there from Juneau which is over eight hundred miles driving distance and six hundred miles flying, right? You recognize that the governor has much work to do in both locations right? And you would have it that per diem is paid in Juneau instead of Anchorage? She stays in Wasilla when there is work for her in Anchorage. You keep trying to pretend like shes doing something wrong though, you've already exposed yourself.

You may actually agree with her positions as often as you disagree with them, you already said you don't agree with the positions of your own arguments against her. Clearly then, you're as partisan as you can get, and since you don't even agree with your own arguments positions, does that make you a self described forum troll?
she shouldnt have a per diem for either place. one is home, one is paid for already.

not that she did anything illegal as i understand it.

Snip.

Oh, SURE he's trolling! How dare he expect Palin to follow the Law? That's not only trolling, that's sexist!

Neo Art, you sexist pig! You are...

*Watches as McCain tries to put lipstick on Neo*

JUST AN IDIOM! Wait... What am I saying, McCain doesn't believe idioms exist. Idioms are sexist.

And on it fucking goes.

You do know where Wasilla is, right? It's within daily commuting distance to Anchorage, that's where it is, the largest city in Alaska, apparently about 40% of the states population is there. You also know that the Alaskan governor would like to move the state Capital to Anchorage, right, to remove the need to commute there from Juneau which is over eight hundred miles driving distance and six hundred miles flying, right? You recognize that the governor has much work to do in both locations right? And you would have it that per diem is paid in Juneau instead of Anchorage? She stays in Wasilla when there is work for her in Anchorage. You keep trying to pretend like shes doing something wrong though, you've already exposed yourself.

You may actually agree with her positions as often as you disagree with them, you already said you don't agree with the positions of your own arguments against her. Clearly then, you're as partisan as you can get, and since you don't even agree with your own arguments positions, does that make you a self described forum troll?

Do you recognize what a per diem is?

she shouldnt have a per diem for either place. one is home, one is paid for already.

not that she did anything illegal as i understand it.

It's not necessarily a 'legal' issue. But Alaska has already had a scandal almost the perfect copy of this one, and so - the general consensus MUST be that, if you can't go to jail for it, it is at least 'naughty'.

It would be illegal, I believe, if her 'employer' chose to describe it as such. Per diem is a specific type of funding, and they could easily decide to point out that she's not using it for it's (strict) intended purpose - in which case, it would be fraud.

Sarah Palin's innocence or guilt, relies on the kindness of strangers.

It means "Insult Palin Until Kosher Eat Dog". Balderdash uses it to paint any claims about Palin that he doesn't want to address as sexism.

That ridiculously stupid and inaccurate acronym reminded me of something. This is something I've noticed when it comes to humor and the parties/ideologies in general.

Democrats/Liberals seem to be better at satire and parody than Republicans/Conservatives. If it requires a bit subtlety, or more than one step from set up to delivery, it's probably Left humor. Again, generally.

Meanwhile, the Republican/Conservatives tend to excel at slapstick or one-liners. If it's an obvious joke made with broad characterizations rather than something specific or detailed, it's probably Right humor. Once again, generally.

Once I had that thought, I asked myself why that would be the case, and for the longest time, I couldn't figure it out. Then it came to me as I recalled my childhood and adolescence in public school. Those who were "in charge" socially tended to be those who could impose themselves into the spotlilght through a few means: physical/athletic prowess, beauty, money, popularity or some other kind of mass-appeal or mass-imposition quality. Intelligence and subtlety were almost never part of the imposition equation.

In short, if you could kick many kids' asses or out-dress, out-look, or out-do them in any way deemed socially normal, you had the upper hand. As such, developing a sense of humor more complex than tripping a kid in the hallway or hurling the slang-current epithet in the lunchroom or embarrassing someone in gym class simply wasn't necessary.

Meanwhile, those subject to those embarrassments turned to their minds and their chosen interests for solace. Way back it was books, for some it still is, though books share time with computers, video games, the Internet, music sub-genres, and many more options (though the overall sense of persecution seems less now when I taught MS/HS, than it was when I was in MS/HS). As such, their humor was more sophisticated, and included the idea that with enough subterfuge, you could make fun of those who embarrassed you so cleverly that the targets might not notice they were being lampooned until it was too late and the barb delivered (or sometimes not at all).

So those who sling the one-liners and the basic name-calling go on to be, what, businessmen, or other things loosely considered to be Conservative leaning. (Am I the only one who remembers George Bush the Elder actually calling Clinton and Gore "Bozo" and "Ozone" during the 1992 campaign?)

Those who crafted satire and parody went on to be, what, professors, or other things loosely considered to be Liberal -- allowing, of course, for exceptions all over the place. (Am I the only one who remembers the Clintons' parody of the Republicans' "Harry & Louise" attack on their attempt at national health-care?)

I know this is probably far too much thinking put into this idea, but can anyone else corroborate this idea, even a little?

No, really... did you see his interviews with Bill O'Reilly? He handled himself very well. Until I saw those interviews, I'd been willing to accept him as simply 'better than the opposition' (which isn't saying much). I can totally picture him as president now.

But Sarah Palin's interviews with Charlie Gibson? Just painful. Claiming foreign policy relevence because 'you can see Russia' from Alaska? She didn't even know what the "Bush Doctrine" is?

If you haven't seen the interviews (by either of the people just mentioned), you really should see if you can find them on Youtube.

You're just looking impossibly partisan, right now.

He looked all wishy washy and unable to explain himself except when the scripted answers were applicable. I will however give him kudos for going on the show at all. I suspect it was getting to the point that he had to go on because O'Reilly had been calling him out for months...


But he did it, and I wonder how many of the anti-war groups are pissed off about him doing it? He 'almost' even conceded that the 'surge' might possibly, maybe, depending on how you look at it, not utterly failed, not completely and not yet, anyway.... lol

This guy doesn't think McCain's plans for the budget and oil are anything to write home about.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/john-mccains-bi.html

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/images/2008/09/13/earmarks.gif

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/images/2008/09/13/drill.jpg

she shouldnt have a per diem for either place. one is home, one is paid for already.

not that she did anything illegal as i understand it.

It should be per diem, its still forty miles one way to Anchorage. She's saving them money by staying in her own house whenever she can but she shouldn't have to bite the whole bullet everytime, it's the states fault for having the capital in the wrong place (it was right fifty years ago, maybe).

Does that defence work in legal cases of fraud?

On Wednesday November 16, 2005 : Congress stripped the specific earmark allocation of federal funds for the two bridges in the bill, without changing the amount of money allocated for use by Alaska.

Wow...kind of looks like Congress said Alaska could use the money without earmarking where it went, doesn't it? Maybe, just maybe, she didn't defraud the country of that money, but used it as it was allocated by Congress? Nah, that would mean she isn't the horrible fiend you all like to paint her as.

All states get earmarks and federal funding. Federal funding, on its own, is not the evil it's being painted right now. Earmarks for absurd things isn't the best of options, of course, but every state has them. And, here's a shocker, while Palin likely did seek some earmarks on her own, every earmark requested by the State of Alaska doesn't fall directly into her lap.

Neither side is innocent on this or on many, many other issues.

He looked all wishy washy and unable to explain himself except when the scripted answers were applicable. I will however give him kudos for going on the show at all. I suspect it was getting to the point that he had to go on because O'Reilly had been calling him out for months...


Only if thats what you wanted to see, which we all know thats EXACTLY what you wanted to see. He could have been flawless and youd say the exact same thing.

But he did it, and I wonder how many of the anti-war groups are pissed off about him doing it? He 'almost' even conceded that the 'surge' might possibly, maybe, depending on how you look at it, not utterly failed, not completely and not yet, anyway.... lol

Of course he said it may be working. Everyone will concede that it may be working. We wont know till much much later after all this is said and done. And he didnt have to concede anything. His position has always been he'll talk to the commanders on the ground. He did talk to the commanders on the ground and reformed his opinion. Its called looking at the facts and basing your opinion off that. I know thats a totally alien concept to you right wingers, but to most of us, we call that "reasonable" and "responsible" leadership.

It should be per diem, its still forty miles one way to Anchorage. She's saving them money by staying in her own house whenever she can but she shouldn't have to bite the whole bullet everytime, it's the states fault for having the capital in the wrong place (it was right fifty years ago, maybe).

And being the head of the state, shes partly responsible.


But, Im just being sexist. We all know Palin is a saint.

It should be per diem, its still forty miles one way to Anchorage. She's saving them money by staying in her own house whenever she can but she shouldn't have to bite the whole bullet everytime, it's the states fault for having the capital in the wrong place (it was right fifty years ago, maybe).
thats not how per diems work.

so i was just looking at the huffington post and they are all over this story like stink on shit. (oh thats not sexist is it?)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/palin-tax-mystery-enters_n_126553.html

and are suggesting that palin needs to release her tax returns so we can all see that she paid the proper tax on all that per diem money and the expenses for her family travel that she was reimbursed for.

its common for all presidential and VP candidates to release a few years worth of tax returns isnt it?

Your impression would be 100% correct:



Source (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html).

I notice Baldy ignored this.

I notice Baldy ignored this.

I believe it's the third time he's ignored it.

I believe it's the third time he's ignored it.

Because it flies in the face of his belief that Palin is the Virgin Mary reincarnated.

Because it flies in the face of his belief that Palin is the Virgin Mary reincarnated.

Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Because it flies in the face of his belief that Palin is the Virgin Mary reincarnated.

Well, with 5 kids, virgin she ain't.

Well, with 5 kids, virgin she ain't.

Immaculate conception. Duh.


Sexist.


Palin is too pure to have evil, dirty, filthy sex. And never mind the fact that she was pregent before they eloped. Thats just a vile sexist malicious rumor started by the Evil Liberal Sexist Media. Saint Palin would never have premarital sex.

Sexist.

*Puts three in his own head*

*Puts three in his own head*

Three? Why three? Whats that supposed to mean?

Sexist.

He looked all wishy washy and unable to explain himself except when the scripted answers were applicable.


Maybe you weren't watching the same interviews. Tallish, short-heired chap, yes? The one who actually had Bill O'Reilly agreeing with his points?


I will however give him kudos for going on the show at all.


That'ds unexpectedly magnanimous of you, whatever could prompt such...


I suspect it was getting to the point that he had to go on because O'Reilly had been calling him out for months...


Ah, nevermind. It was just the bait, for this rather tepid switch.


But he did it, and I wonder how many of the anti-war groups are pissed off about him doing it? He 'almost' even conceded that the 'surge' might possibly, maybe, depending on how you look at it, not utterly failed, not completely and not yet, anyway.... lol

I thought it was quite a piece of work, actually. Obama took on a hostile crowd, and - while he didn't win every point, he certainly ended up looking like he could hold his own.

I've seen nothing quite like it with McCain. The softball interview Palin got was nowhere near as masterfully handled.

I'd quite like to see them ALL take that kind of exposure, actually.

It should be per diem, its still forty miles one way to Anchorage. She's saving them money by staying in her own house whenever she can but she shouldn't have to bite the whole bullet everytime, it's the states fault for having the capital in the wrong place (it was right fifty years ago, maybe).

Why should it be per diem?

What 'expense' was the per diem spent on?

Maybe you weren't watching the same interviews. Tallish, short-heired chap, yes? The one who actually had Bill O'Reilly agreeing with his points?


Yeah, Ive been noticing that too. Not only did he get O'reilly to agree with him, O'reilly was much less of a dick to him and seemed to actually like him.


I enjoyed it very much. And I never thought Id say that about anything on O'reilly. Ever.

I've seen nothing quite like it with McCain.

McCain was a POW! He doesnt have to be interviewed! You hate our troops!

The softball interview Palin got was nowhere near as masterfully handled.



Softball? Rather then Baseball? Are you only using the term "softball" in relation to anything remotely related to Palin because women play softball? Huh? HUH?!?


Sexist.

On Wednesday November 16, 2005 : Congress stripped the specific earmark allocation of federal funds for the two bridges in the bill, without changing the amount of money allocated for use by Alaska.

Wow...kind of looks like Congress said Alaska could use the money without earmarking where it went, doesn't it? Maybe, just maybe, she didn't defraud the country of that money, but used it as it was allocated by Congress? Nah, that would mean she isn't the horrible fiend you all like to paint her as.

All states get earmarks and federal funding. Federal funding, on its own, is not the evil it's being painted right now. Earmarks for absurd things isn't the best of options, of course, but every state has them. And, here's a shocker, while Palin likely did seek some earmarks on her own, every earmark requested by the State of Alaska doesn't fall directly into her lap.


Obtaining money under false pretences would be fraud, yes?

Regarding the federal funding thing... you're kinda shooting your load there... I've never argued that federal funding WAS bad, so arguing my own argument TO me is wasting your ammo.


Neither side is innocent on this or on many, many other issues.

Either side?

Which other party is claiming they single-handedly stopped the Bridge to Nowhere project?

I thought it was quite a piece of work, actually. Obama took on a hostile crowd, and - while he didn't win every point, he certainly ended up looking like he could hold his own.

I've seen nothing quite like it with McCain. The softball interview Palin got was nowhere near as masterfully handled.

I'd quite like to see them ALL take that kind of exposure, actually.

id like it too. they all need to go on shows with people who like them and people who dont. to take that risk that they will say something that can be used against them later.

if they cant risk it now, how can they do the job later?

Obtaining money under false pretences would be fraud, yes?

Accepting money Congress is handing out without attaching a specific earmark to it isn't fraud. Blame Congress on this one - they should have specified if they wanted it used for any particular project.

Either side?

Which other party is claiming they single-handedly stopped the Bridge to Nowhere project?

330 billion dollars in earmarks for Biden - just for 2009.

740 billion dollars in earmarks for Obama in a 3 year period - although I will grant that he's made none this year, although that's more of a political gesture than any long-standing change of heart, I believe.

Kind of silly to attack a person on how many earmarks they've requested when you've not only trumped that amount, but beaten it into the dirt and shot its grandmother.

This is change we can believe in?

No, Palin isn't innocent here - but neither are Obama or Biden.

id like it too. they all need to go on shows with people who like them and people who dont. to take that risk that they will say something that can be used against them later.

if they cant risk it now, how can they do the job later?

Well, I can understand why McCain doesn't want to. He has a history of saying really fucking stupid shit. Not to mention, he's a poor public speaker of the Bush mould, which is a bad combination. It means you either get ststic or Tourettes. Neither of which makes for a good interview.

Well - good as in 'fun to watch', maybe...

Palin reacts well to scripts. She's a moderately convincing public speaker, but she's got holes in her knowledge you could drive RUSSIA through. You can't really risk a serious critical audience when you are so clueless about your own party that you don't even RECOGNISE the justification for war.

I notice she also says 'nu-ku-ler', just like Dubya.

About Biden, I am a bit of a tabula rasa. He seems coherent enough in transcription, but I'm not really familiar with 'his work'. And Obama has already taken - perhaps the ultimate hostile crowd.

So - I'd like to see it, but I don't think it's going to happen. I don't think we're going to see any pretence of a fair fight, from the right.

Accepting money Congress is handing out without attaching a specific earmark to it isn't fraud. Blame Congress on this one - they should have specified if they wanted it used for any particular project.


We're not talking about 'accepting money' - that's you shifting the goalposts.

We're talking about the avenue by which the money was CLAIMED in the first place. Either she backed the bridge, or she didn't... right? If she backed it, she claimed in good faith... but she's lying if she says she was an opponent. If she OPPOSED it, she could be telling the truth about her stance, but it means she CLAIMED money from the federal government, under false pretences.

So - liar, or fraud? You choose.


330 billion dollars in earmarks for Biden - just for 2009.

740 billion dollars in earmarks for Obama in a 3 year period - although I will grant that he's made none this year, although that's more of a political gesture than any long-standing change of heart, I believe.

Kind of silly to attack a person on how many earmarks they've requested when you've not only trumped that amount, but beaten it into the dirt and shot its grandmother.

This is change we can believe in?

No, Palin isn't innocent here - but neither are Obama or Biden.

What are you talking about?

Did either Obama or Biden say they had never tried to allocate funds? No.

But, Palin DID say that she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Again - you're trying to shift the goalposts. She's not 'innocent' because she's being tried for a 'crime' which is entirely of her own making - she lied.

She's 'guilty' because she didn't do what she SAYS she did.

Obama and Biden (to my knowledge) have not made those claims, so they are 'innocent' in THIS matter. No matter HOW MANY allocations they may have overseen.

Accepting money Congress is handing out without attaching a specific earmark to it isn't fraud. Blame Congress on this one - they should have specified if they wanted it used for any particular project.



330 billion dollars in earmarks for Biden - just for 2009.

740 billion dollars in earmarks for Obama in a 3 year period - although I will grant that he's made none this year, although that's more of a political gesture than any long-standing change of heart, I believe.

Kind of silly to attack a person on how many earmarks they've requested when you've not only trumped that amount, but beaten it into the dirt and shot its grandmother.

This is change we can believe in?

No, Palin isn't innocent here - but neither are Obama or Biden.
no one cares about how much in earmarks anyone gets.

we care about who claims to be against them AND take them.

now as i understand it mcccain doesnt do earmarks. so when HE campaigns against earmarks and claims he doesnt do them its all to the good. its true AND its consistent.

but when he claims that PALIN is against them and has refused them, its not true and its slimey to continue to do it when its obvious that he must know its not true.

no one cares about how much in earmarks anyone gets.

we care about who claims to be against them AND take them.

now as i understand it mcccain doesnt do earmarks. so when HE campaigns against earmarks and claims he doesnt do them its all to the good. its true AND its consistent.

but when he claims that PALIN is against them and has refused them, its not true and its slimey to continue to do it when its obvious that he must know its not true.


Exactly. I dont care about earmarks. I care about LYING.

Yeah, Ive been noticing that too. Not only did he get O'reilly to agree with him, O'reilly was much less of a dick to him and seemed to actually like him.


I think it bodes well for Obama's future in politics, even if he's unsuccessful this November, that he can handle such a hostile crowd, under such pressing circumstances... with such grace and facility.

He'd make a good Foreign Minister. Or President, maybe.


I enjoyed it very much. And I never thought Id say that about anything on O'reilly. Ever.


I enjoyed it, also.


McCain was a POW! He doesnt have to be interviewed! You hate our troops!


No, I hate freedom. The troops are a smokescreen.


Softball? Rather then Baseball? Are you only using the term "softball" in relation to anything remotely related to Palin because women play softball? Huh? HUH?!?


Softball because every question was an easy throw. I'd never deliberately place Sarah Palin, the description 'soft', and the word 'balls' in a sentence by choice.


Sexist.

Calling me sexist is sexist, you sexist pig. And not a lipsticked pig, either.

What are you talking about?

Did either Obama or Biden say they had never tried to allocate funds? No.

So, when Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project" he was only joking, right? I mean, sure, he was 15 days late for April Fool's day, but maybe he didn't look on the calendar.

It was after that statement he chose a running mate who requested 330 billion dollars in earmarks for 2009, in case you haven't checked your calendar.

As for the bridge - the money was, indeed, originally allocated for this bridge. Congress CHOSE to strip the wording requiring the money be used for the bridge. They chose to give the money to Alaska without specifying where it needed to be used. This isn't fraud on Palin's part. Whether she originally supported the bridge or not (and I'm not saying she didn't support it, the facts are clear there), once the wording was stripped from the bill, she legally could use that money in pretty much any way she chose, as long as it went towards the state of Alaska. This is not fraud. Look it up.

Three? Why three? Whats that supposed to mean?

Sexist.

I know you're joking, but I'll take this moment to make the remark that if Hillary Clinton didn't act like Tommy DeVito, McCain wouldn't get his secretary, I mean, his VP nominee, to do the same.

So, when Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project" he was only joking, right? I mean, sure, he was 15 days late for April Fool's day, but maybe he didn't look on the calendar.

It was after that statement he chose a running mate who requested 330 billion dollars in earmarks for 2009, in case you haven't checked your calendar.

As for the bridge - the money was, indeed, originally allocated for this bridge. Congress CHOSE to strip the wording requiring the money be used for the bridge. They chose to give the money to Alaska without specifying where it needed to be used. This isn't fraud on Palin's part. Whether she originally supported the bridge or not (and I'm not saying she didn't support it, the facts are clear there), once the wording was stripped from the bill, she legally could use that money in pretty much any way she chose, as long as it went towards the state of Alaska. This is not fraud. Look it up.
here's your problem

if you want to talk about obama, we can talk about obama. he is far from perfect.

but you cant use obama's stance on earmarks as a defense of palin. diverting the subject is not answering the criticism.

here's your problem

if you want to talk about obama, we can talk about obama. he is far from perfect.

but you cant use obama's stance on earmarks as a defense of palin. diverting the subject is not answering the criticism.

Strangely enough, I wasn't. Check my comments earlier - Palin is just as guilty here as Obama/Biden. However, the attacks by Obama/Biden on Palin are incredibly hypocritical given the facts.

So, when Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project" he was only joking, right? I mean, sure, he was 15 days late for April Fool's day, but maybe he didn't look on the calendar.

It was after that statement he chose a running mate who requested 330 billion dollars in earmarks for 2009, in case you haven't checked your calendar.


Keywords: "a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project".

Obama isn't against funding projects. He is in favour of funding projects based on merit.

There's no conflict there.


Palin, on the other hand, should never have kicked that particular bees-nest.


As for the bridge - the money was, indeed, originally allocated for this bridge. Congress CHOSE to strip the wording requiring the money be used for the bridge. They chose to give the money to Alaska without specifying where it needed to be used. This isn't fraud on Palin's part. Whether she originally supported the bridge or not (and I'm not saying she didn't support it, the facts are clear there), once the wording was stripped from the bill, she legally could use that money in pretty much any way she chose, as long as it went towards the state of Alaska. This is not fraud. Look it up.

Wrong. SPENDING the money isn't the part that makes it fraud.

Before telling me to look it up, perhaps you should have checked it yourself.

If I ask you to invest in my goldmine, and then - when you give me the money - I hightail it to Hawaii, and spend 6 months on the beach... I would defrauded you when I took the money under false pretences. It doesn't matter if I call you from the airport and you tell me 'fine, I don't care how you spend it'.

Strangely enough, I wasn't. Check my comments earlier - Palin is just as guilty here as Obama/Biden.


No, she's MORE guilty. They are each being emasured here by their own claims.


However, the attacks by Obama/Biden on Palin are incredibly hypocritical given the facts.

Not really.

Strangely enough, I wasn't. Check my comments earlier - Palin is just as guilty here as Obama/Biden. However, the attacks by Obama/Biden on Palin are incredibly hypocritical given the facts.
oh im sorry i missed your quote by obama criticizing her on the bridge and earmarks. could you repost it for me?

Keywords: "a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project".

Obama isn't against funding projects. He is in favour of funding projects based on merit.

Okay, then, let's look at some of the meritorious earmarks of Obama/Biden, shall we?

Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show.

Oyster Revitalization in Delaware Bay
Army Corps of Engineers
To continue a large-scale shell planting and seed transplant program in the New Jersey and Delaware waters of the Delaware Bay. It will increase the abundance of the oyster, population thereby improving water quality and habitat.
Request: $2,000,000

Emerging Enterprise Center
New Castle County Chamber of Commerce, New Castle, DE
For the creation of the Emerging Enterprise Center. Funds will be used to (1) fully fit-out the Center’s incubator space with walls and office doors, which currently do not exist; (2) construct 4,000 feet of laboratory pace; (3) purchase conference room audio/visual equipment; and (4) fund the initial operating costs including salaries and overhead.
Request: $500,000

Grand Opera House Renovations
Grand Opera House, Wilmington, DE
To upgrade and replace systems in this historic theater.
Request: $1,000,000

I could go on and on and on...

If I ask you to invest in my goldmine, and then - when you give me the money - I hightail it to Hawaii, and spend 6 months on the beach... I would defrauded you when I took the money under false pretences. It doesn't matter if I call you from the airport and you tell me 'fine, I don't care how you spend it'.

Nope, but if you ask me to invest in your gold mine, and we write up an agreement, and I cross out the part of the agreement that specifies you have to spend it on the gold mine and instead write in "spend it however you choose", then if you choose to spend it in Hawaii, I have no legal recourse.

oh im sorry i missed your quote by obama criticizing her on the bridge and earmarks. could you repost it for me?

Obama: "I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she's change, and that's great," Obama said. "She's a skillful politician. But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up."

Okay, then, let's look at some of the meritorious earmarks of Obama/Biden, shall we?

Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show.

Oyster Revitalization in Delaware Bay
Army Corps of Engineers
To continue a large-scale shell planting and seed transplant program in the New Jersey and Delaware waters of the Delaware Bay. It will increase the abundance of the oyster, population thereby improving water quality and habitat.
Request: $2,000,000

Emerging Enterprise Center
New Castle County Chamber of Commerce, New Castle, DE
For the creation of the Emerging Enterprise Center. Funds will be used to (1) fully fit-out the Center’s incubator space with walls and office doors, which currently do not exist; (2) construct 4,000 feet of laboratory pace; (3) purchase conference room audio/visual equipment; and (4) fund the initial operating costs including salaries and overhead.
Request: $500,000

Grand Opera House Renovations
Grand Opera House, Wilmington, DE
To upgrade and replace systems in this historic theater.
Request: $1,000,000

I could go on and on and on...

Tell me what point you prove. No one said Obama or Biden dont use earmarks. The quote you mentioned is Obama saying that earmarks should be awarded based on merit. Clearly, he felt those had merit.


Youre quote proves Obama and Biden use earmarks. Which no one denys. Especially not Obama or Biden.


Palin uses earmarks. And she DENYS it. Do you understand now?

Obama: "I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she's change, and that's great," Obama said. "She's a skillful politician. But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up."

And I dont see why this comment is a bad thing?

Palin uses earmarks. And she DENYS it. Do you understand now?

Obama claims he's against earmarks. And then, get this, he picks a running mate who gets billions and billions and billions of dollars in earmarks. Do you understand now?

Bashing someone for getting earmarks while taking them yourself is hypocritical.

Obama claims he's against earmarks.

When? You have yet to provide a quote that proves this point.

And I dont see why this comment is a bad thing?

Because, oddly enough, this is EXACTLY what Obama did. Exactly. 790 billion dollars in earmarks for 3 years. Then, when earmarks are an agenda, he's suddenly against them. And still chooses a running mate who has gotten billions in earmarks this year.

As I said earlier, neither side is innocent in this matter.

Because, oddly enough, this is EXACTLY what Obama did. Exactly. 790 billion dollars in earmarks for 3 years. Then, when earmarks are an agenda, he's suddenly against them. And still chooses a running mate who has gotten billions in earmarks this year.

As I said earlier, neither side is innocent in this matter.

Hes never said hes against earmarks.

Obama: "I know the governor of Alaska has been saying she's change, and that's great," Obama said. "She's a skillful politician. But, you know, when you've been taking all these earmarks when it's convenient, and then suddenly you're the champion anti-earmark person, that's not change. Come on! I mean, words mean something, you can't just make stuff up."
and that doesnt make obama WRONG but it does make him a hypocrit because he said "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project" and he still participates in the earmark system and has nominated a VP that does too?

bit of a stretch...

not that he is immune to hypocrisy. he IS a politician after all.

When? You have yet to provide a quote that proves this point.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project".

On his own website:

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. (from his own website).

Shame he doesn't apply that to his running mate, or to his own past history.

not that he is immune to hypocrisy. he IS a politician after all.

Pretty much applies to all politicians.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project".

so how does saying earmarks shouldn't be based on seniority translate into being against earmarks in general? He's just saying that funding allocation should be based on the merit of the project, not the tenure of the proposing congress person.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project".

Exactly. Earmarks will be given based on merit. Not on seniority. He hasnt gone against this yet.

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. (from his own website).

Again, no conflict here. He said he slash earmarks and is against spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny. Its a way of combating corruption. He hasnt said hes against earmarks.

There is absolutally no hypocrisy here.

He hasnt said hes AGAINST earmarks. Palin HAS.

This isnt that hard. What are you on?

Okay, then, let's look at some of the meritorious earmarks of Obama/Biden, shall we?

Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show.

Oyster Revitalization in Delaware Bay
Army Corps of Engineers
To continue a large-scale shell planting and seed transplant program in the New Jersey and Delaware waters of the Delaware Bay. It will increase the abundance of the oyster, population thereby improving water quality and habitat.
Request: $2,000,000

Emerging Enterprise Center
New Castle County Chamber of Commerce, New Castle, DE
For the creation of the Emerging Enterprise Center. Funds will be used to (1) fully fit-out the Center’s incubator space with walls and office doors, which currently do not exist; (2) construct 4,000 feet of laboratory pace; (3) purchase conference room audio/visual equipment; and (4) fund the initial operating costs including salaries and overhead.
Request: $500,000

Grand Opera House Renovations
Grand Opera House, Wilmington, DE
To upgrade and replace systems in this historic theater.
Request: $1,000,000

I could go on and on and on...


A million dollar upgrade to a culture centre, a half million dollar small business incubator, a two million dollar ecological porject...

What's your point? You oppose small businesses?

I don't see anything there that's THAT objectionable. All seem fairly worth. And that's... what 3.5 million dollars? Compared to The Bridge to Nowehere?

Is that the point you're trying to make?

The problem is - all this is irrelevent. Obama never said "We won't help small businesses", so asking for an allocation there isn't conflicting any pre-established posture.

You're just not getting it, are you - it isn't the spending that was the problem - it was that she OPPOSED it AFTER she endorsed it. She signed-on, got the money, then pretended she killed it.


Nope, but if you ask me to invest in your gold mine, and we write up an agreement, and I cross out the part of the agreement that specifies you have to spend it on the gold mine and instead write in "spend it however you choose", then if you choose to spend it in Hawaii, I have no legal recourse.

If we write up the agreement, and we sign, and then I take your money - and THEN I change what I'm going to spend it on... you still have recourse, even if you later amend the document.

Obama claims he's against earmarks. And then, get this, he picks a running mate who gets billions and billions and billions of dollars in earmarks. Do you understand now?

Bashing someone for getting earmarks while taking them yourself is hypocritical.

The quote you posted didn't say that.

It said that someone can't say they're a champion for opposing earmarks, and then just lap up the allocations when they come round.

Which is what Sarah Palin has been doing.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project".

On his own website:

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. (from his own website).

Shame he doesn't apply that to his running mate, or to his own past history.

There's no conflict. Where are you seeing one?

He says he doesn't like low-merit allocations. He says it should be fairer. He says it should be transparent. He says he want to reduce the overall allocation spend. He says everything should be open and visible.

None of that conflicts what he does.

Geez Heikoku, you're getting as bad as CH and Balder with this crap. It's not productive to debate. You are doing nothing more than making the Obama side of the discussion look petty and small. I respectful request you cease this action.
And I respectfully request that you lose the flamebait. We can stay on topic without it? :)

Let's look at some of Obama's earmarks then, shall we?

Obama Requested $1.6 Million To The University Of Illinois College Of ACES For The Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, 3/31/06]

Obama Requested $2 Million For The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, 3/31/06]

Obama Requested $1 Million For The Chicago Botanical Garden To Support Its Seed Bank And Plant Conservation Center.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, 4/6/06]

Wow! Soybeans and cows and gardens, oh my. How meritorious. Let's look at a few more.

Obama Requested $500,000 For The Lakeview Museum To support Its Planetarium For Central Illinois Regional Museum.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, 4/6/06]

Obama Requested $500,000 For Water Distribution Upgrades In The Village Of Oakwood. In 2006, Obama requested $500,000 for the Village of Oakwood to support its Water Distribution Upgrades.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]+


Obama Requested $5 Million For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources Demonstration Asian Carp barrier Project.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $1 Million To Support The Asian Carp Barrier Operations And Maintenance Funds For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $7 million For The Wheaton Sanitary District to support its Water Environment Research Foundation.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $1.5 million For The Illinois State Geological Survey To Support Its Central Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition Project.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $335,000 For The Chicago Zoological Society Of The Brookfield Zoo To Support Its Excellence Through Diversity Program[Obama Request Letter To Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education, 4/5/06]

Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could!

Let's look at some of Obama's earmarks then, shall we?

Obama Requested $1.6 Million To The University Of Illinois College Of ACES For The Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, 3/31/06]

Obama Requested $2 Million For The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, 3/31/06]

Obama Requested $1 Million For The Chicago Botanical Garden To Support Its Seed Bank And Plant Conservation Center.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, 4/6/06]

Wow! Soybeans and cows and gardens, oh my. How meritorious. Let's look at a few more.

Obama Requested $500,000 For The Lakeview Museum To support Its Planetarium For Central Illinois Regional Museum.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, 4/6/06]

Obama Requested $500,000 For Water Distribution Upgrades In The Village Of Oakwood. In 2006, Obama requested $500,000 for the Village of Oakwood to support its Water Distribution Upgrades.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]+


Obama Requested $5 Million For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources Demonstration Asian Carp barrier Project.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $1 Million To Support The Asian Carp Barrier Operations And Maintenance Funds For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $7 million For The Wheaton Sanitary District to support its Water Environment Research Foundation.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $1.5 million For The Illinois State Geological Survey To Support Its Central Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition Project.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $335,000 For The Chicago Zoological Society Of The Brookfield Zoo To Support Its Excellence Through Diversity Program[Obama Request Letter To Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education, 4/5/06]

Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could!



All of these are earmarks for education, environmental conservation, and infastructure. All of them are worthy causes.

But, you are missing the point.

Obama has never said he is against earmarks. Never. Ever. So his use of earmarks is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. We can debate later whether these are worthy causes (I believe they are). Not the point.

The point is, he is being consistant, while Palin who has used earmark and claims she doesnt and is against them is not consistant. In fact, she is L-Y-I-N-G.

Being delibertaly obtuse is not cute.

Let's look at some of Obama's earmarks then, shall we?

Obama Requested $1.6 Million To The University Of Illinois College Of ACES For The Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, 3/31/06]

Obama Requested $2 Million For The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies, 3/31/06]

Obama Requested $1 Million For The Chicago Botanical Garden To Support Its Seed Bank And Plant Conservation Center.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, 4/6/06]

Wow! Soybeans and cows and gardens, oh my. How meritorious. Let's look at a few more. Yeah, solving world hunger, where's the merit in that?!

Obama Requested $500,000 For The Lakeview Museum To support Its Planetarium For Central Illinois Regional Museum.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, 4/6/06] Sweet zombie jesus, he's asking for funding to improve the community's science education, what a bastard!

Obama Requested $500,000 For Water Distribution Upgrades In The Village Of Oakwood. In 2006, Obama requested $500,000 for the Village of Oakwood to support its Water Distribution Upgrades.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]+Holy shit, what a selfish git. Wanting to get people water!


Obama Requested $5 Million For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources Demonstration Asian Carp barrier Project.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $1 Million To Support The Asian Carp Barrier Operations And Maintenance Funds For The Illinois Department Of Natural Resources.[Obama Request Letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $7 million For The Wheaton Sanitary District to support its Water Environment Research Foundation.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 4/7/06]Environmental protection? Fucking hippy!

Obama Requested $1.5 million For The Illinois State Geological Survey To Support Its Central Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition Project.[Obama Request Letter To The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, 4/7/06]

Obama Requested $335,000 For The Chicago Zoological Society Of The Brookfield Zoo To Support Its Excellence Through Diversity Program[Obama Request Letter To Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Education, 4/5/06] ZOMG, he wants to find out if there are any fault lines around Chicago, one of the largest cities in the country, and wants to fund zoos!

Yeah, solving world hunger, where's the merit in that?!
Sweet zombie jesus, he's asking for funding to improve the community's science education, what a bastard!
Holy shit, what a selfish git. Wanting to get people water!

Environmental protection? Fucking hippy!
ZOMG, he wants to find out if there are any fault lines around Chicago, one of the largest cities in the country, and wants to fund zoos!

This is the part where Aard changes the subject or ignores you.

Let's look at some of Obama's earmarks then, shall we?


Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could!

you have a problem with those?

the only ones that *I* have a problem with (without looking them up) is the planetarium and the zoo diversity program...less than $1million.

you have a problem with those?

the only ones that *I* have a problem with (without looking them up) is the planetarium and the zoo diversity program...less than $1million.

Both scientific projects, and both capable of being draws for their community. Education and trade in small packages. Even the parts you feel are the weakest links are not without merit.

Both scientific projects, and both capable of being draws for their community. Education and trade in small packages. Even the parts you feel are the weakest links are not without merit.

Ash meant there wasnt enough money put into them.

EDIT: this last part was meant for The CatTribe, my apologies Neo Art... You keep trying to pretend like shes doing something wrong though, you've already exposed yourself.

You may actually agree with her positions as often as you disagree with them, you already said you don't agree with the positions of your own arguments against her. Clearly then, you're as partisan as you can get, and since you don't even agree with your own arguments positions, does that make you a self described forum troll?

Okay. Now you've moved from the unbelievable to the undecipherable.

Maybe you'd like to try that again in English.

Okay, then, let's look at some of the meritorious earmarks of Obama/Biden, shall we?

Sen. Barack Obama sought more than $3.4 million in congressional earmarks for clients of the lobbyist son of his Democratic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, records show.

Oyster Revitalization in Delaware Bay
Army Corps of Engineers
To continue a large-scale shell planting and seed transplant program in the New Jersey and Delaware waters of the Delaware Bay. It will increase the abundance of the oyster, population thereby improving water quality and habitat.
Request: $2,000,000

Requesting money to help witht the environmental decay of an area is a bad thing? Maintaining aquatic environments is essential not only to sea life, but to the life of terrestrial animals as well. I see this project as having merit.

Emerging Enterprise Center
New Castle County Chamber of Commerce, New Castle, DE
For the creation of the Emerging Enterprise Center. Funds will be used to (1) fully fit-out the Center’s incubator space with walls and office doors, which currently do not exist; (2) construct 4,000 feet of laboratory pace; (3) purchase conference room audio/visual equipment; and (4) fund the initial operating costs including salaries and overhead.
Request: $500,000

What is the goal of an "Emerging Enterprise Center?" It's to create new jobs in the scientific fields to help foster American ingenuity. We need to be the world leader in emerging technologies as we have been over the past century. We are the inventors, the creators, the visionaries. Sure, Japan may perfect the technology after we create it, but the intellectual property is ours. I see this project as having merit.


Grand Opera House Renovations
Grand Opera House, Wilmington, DE
To upgrade and replace systems in this historic theater.
Request: $1,000,000

This is the one area I agree with you on. I'm not all that big on historical societies and preservationsists of this nature. There's no need to hold on tightly to the past.

I could go on and on and on...

Please do. I went 2 for 3 here. I like them hitting odds.



Nope, but if you ask me to invest in your gold mine, and we write up an agreement, and I cross out the part of the agreement that specifies you have to spend it on the gold mine and instead write in "spend it however you choose", then if you choose to spend it in Hawaii, I have no legal recourse.


Except in the case of Obama the spending was done where it was allocated.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Obama said on April 15th of this year, and I quote, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project".

Right, if the project has merit he's for it. This is not inconsistent.

On his own website:

Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public. (from his own website).

Shame he doesn't apply that to his running mate, or to his own past history.


The numers you quotes are far too high. I'd like to se where you can source them from? Particularly 790 billion. He has done exactly that. He passed legislation with Coburn (bipartisan) to make government funding more transparent. So the public is made aware of the funding decidions and as you nicely stated "reading comprehension is not your thing." Words matter.

so how does saying earmarks shouldn't be based on seniority translate into being against earmarks in general? He's just saying that funding allocation should be based on the merit of the project, not the tenure of the proposing congress person.

It's not. It's a not so subtle plea for Arde to turn one statement into another. Obama is against earmarks given out simply because someone is a ranking member. He thinks that they should have merit and should be open to public disclosure. He has work bipartisanly to make this law a reality. What's the frequency Kenneth?"

Anyone who tries to claim that those comments were about Sarah is either stupid, or they are being intentionally ignorant.
I guess only Obama knows for sure? I personally think it was directly pointed towards Palin's pitbull with lipstick remark, and as such was a sexist remark. The fact that you cannot prove that it wasn't directed at Palin, neither makes me "stupid" or "intentionally ignorant".

Also, "it's change you can believe in."
Okay, have it your way (http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/change-you-can-count-on-dark-tshirt/292928476).

They need to keep getting their message out of what they want to do. Biden must step up the attacks for sure. Why? Because that's all they've been getting from McCain/Palin at the current time. If they don't hit back hard they are playing the Kerry game. There's a reason candidates go negative, because it works. I don't like it, but that's what the majority of the American public responds to.
Obama cannot rise above that by carrying on with his message?

And I respectfully request that you lose the flamebait. We can stay on topic without it? :)

Right, you've been so incredibly honest and beyond reproach. Far be it from me to point out that your sries of sexism are bullshit. You just want to go to bat against Obama because he is not Hillary. You will side with McCain/Palin even though they do not fit your agenda. You'd rather go against the guy whose positipons are more like Hillary than not out of spite. You bait with every post continuing the same tired mantra. It's old and peop[le are tired of it, or haven't you noticed?

I guess only Obama knows for sure? I personally think it was directly pointed towards Palin's pitbull with lipstick remark, and as such was a sexist remark. The fact that you cannot prove that it wasn't directed at Palin, neither makes me "stupid" or "intentionally ignorant".

Here's where your misunderstanding of idioms in America fails. You want it to be about Palin because it fits your "Obama is sexist" crap.

[Now it turns out that no less a Republican stalwart than Vice President Dick Cheney used the expression frequently during his last national election. One moment took place at his final 2004 campaign rally, with his wife, Lynne, providing the warm-up, in Jackson, Wyo. It went like this:

Lynne Cheney:

... John Kerry has a completely and totally weak record on national security issues, that he's had a record for 30 years of weakness on national security issues. But --

The vice president, interrupting:

Well, he's working very hard to cover it up. Now, we got into the campaign, of course, and he's trying hard to cover up the fact that he voted against the first Gulf War; against Operation Desert Storm; voted against most of the weapons systems that President Reagan used to keep the peace and win the Cold War. But the point is that no matter how hard he tries, no matter how much spin he tries to put on it, that you can't cover that record up with a little tough talk during the course of the campaign, that as we say in Wyoming, you can put all the lipstick you want on a pig, but in the end of the day, it's still a pig./QUOTE]

Was Dick Cheney calling John Kerry a pig? How dare he.

[QUOTE]Meanwhile, McCain may have conveniently forgotten (hey, the dude's, like, really old) that he once used the same analogy in a 2007 Chicago Tribune article about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's healthcare plan. And I didn't hear anything about Hillary demanding an apology.

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," McCain is quoted as saying about Clinton's proposal


Was John McCain calling Hillary Clinton a pig? No, he was using an idiom. So yes, I am accusing you of being willfully ignorant of the use of this idiom in America. Obama then followed it up with another, "you can wrap and old fish new paper..." The ridiculous feigned anger by you and the McCain campaign is sickening.


Okay, have it your way (http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/change-you-can-count-on-dark-tshirt/292928476).


Obama cannot rise above that by carrying on with his message?

Oh wouldn't it be great if American politics were all about the issues. I seem to remember two Democrats who wanted to "rise above" the conventional politics. Their names were Gore and Kerry. How'd they doo by the way? Going negative works and it shows for McCain right now. You have to be willing to fight sometimes, not just turn the other cheek.

Yeah, solving world hunger, where's the merit in that?!
Sweet zombie jesus, he's asking for funding to improve the community's science education, what a bastard!
Holy shit, what a selfish git. Wanting to get people water!

Environmental protection? Fucking hippy!
ZOMG, he wants to find out if there are any fault lines around Chicago, one of the largest cities in the country, and wants to fund zoos!

It's those damned Zoos again! Always being cheap and money grubbing and running our banks!

Ash meant there wasnt enough money put into them.

Ah, but.... oh.

Then.... yeah!

I just came across an article that details my biggest fear regarding Obama.

I have consistently tried to keep this in focus on these threads here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13723831&postcount=1202), here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13748758&postcount=113), and here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13786277&postcount=1177), because I truly do think it is important to understand where Obama wants to go with foreign policy. In his "The War We Need to Win (http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php)" speech, Obama clears states that he is going to continue the War on Terror, and he lays out the battlefields.

From the article I just read (http://www.slate.com/id/2200134/):

Recent accounts of murderous violence in the capital cities of two of our allies, India and Afghanistan, make it appear overwhelmingly probable that the bombs were not the work of local or homegrown "insurgents" but were orchestrated by agents of the Pakistani ISI. This is a fantastically unacceptable state of affairs, which needs to be given its right name of state-sponsored terrorism. Meanwhile, and on Pakistani soil and under the very noses of its army and the ISI, the city of Quetta and the so-called Federally Administered Tribal Areas are becoming the incubating ground of a reorganized and protected al-Qaida. Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq. Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.
Bottom line? Caveat emptor!!

This is the one area I agree with you on. I'm not all that big on historical societies and preservationsists of this nature. There's no need to hold on tightly to the past.


It has to be said - in terms of refurbishing a historical site, a cool million is not that big a deal.

I don't necessarily agree with 'preservation' for the sake of preservation... the town where I worked recently, did a major overhaul on their 'historical' courthouse. A courthouse?

That project was probably a half million, just for that.

Factor in the cultural nature of the venue in question, and an opera house overheaul can be considered somewhere between constructing a living museum, and invigorating tourism. So - art, education AND commerce.

I guess only Obama knows for sure? I personally think it was directly pointed towards Palin's pitbull with lipstick remark, and as such was a sexist remark. The fact that you cannot prove that it wasn't directed at Palin, neither makes me "stupid" or "intentionally ignorant".


Anyone who has watched the entire presentation knows it wasn't about Palin.


"Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except... and, I guess his whole angle is "Watch out, George Bush! Except for economic policy, healthcare policy tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics.... we're really gonna shake things up in Washington".

That's not change.

That's just calling something... the same thing - something different.

But, you can't.... you know, you can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig."

Here's a link to it, on Youtube, if you don't like my transcription:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg


If you're curious - here's McCain's MUCH earlier 'lipstick on a pig' reference:



***voice offscreen: "I notice in your speech, you avoided any comparison of your plan to Hillary Clinton's plan. I'm curious - can you or your staff put a price-tag, on what we see coming out of her campaign..."

("for Hillary care"? That's what it sounds like - I can't make out the end og the question.)

McCain: "No but I... there's many things that concern me about it. It's vaguely... not vaguely but eerily reminiscent of what they tried back in 1993.
I think they put some lipstick on the pig but it's still a pig."


And a link to this one, on Youtube, if you wanted it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlN3JpWLF2w&feature=related


Or, we could ask Obama himself:

"...what their campaign has done this morning, is the same game that has people sick and tired of politics in this country. They seize on an inncoent remark, ty to take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad, because they KNOW that it's catnip for the newsmedia.

Some of you may have.. I'm assuming you guys heard this watching the news.

I'm talking about John McCains economic policies. I say "This is more of the same. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."

And suddenly, they say "Oh, you must be talking about the Governor of Alaska".

And, yep - here's the link, if you want it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLgm1I8bVVE&feature=related


So - yes, we can 'prove' it wasn't about Sarah Palin. Which means you're either pretending not to know, or you really don't know. Which is it?

You can't claim the excuse you don't know anymore - the question just got put to bed.


So - are you going to drop this game now?

Snip.

The fun thing is, YOU managed to prove a NEGATIVE.

Anyone who has watched the entire presentation knows it wasn't about Palin.

Here's a link to it, on Youtube, if you don't like my transcription:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPd4yk0x-eg
I did see that clip before making comment, and my opinion still stands.

If you're curious - here's McCain's MUCH earlier 'lipstick on a pig' reference:

And a link to this one, on Youtube, if you wanted it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlN3JpWLF2w&feature=related
Clearly McCain was talking about the healthcare policy, not Hillary.

Or, we could ask Obama himself:

And, yep - here's the link, if you want it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLgm1I8bVVE&feature=related

So - yes, we can 'prove' it wasn't about Sarah Palin. Which means you're either pretending not to know, or you really don't know. Which is it?
That is definitely not proof, unless of course you believe that Obama is incapable of telling a lie?

You can't claim the excuse you don't know anymore - the question just got put to bed.

So - are you going to drop this game now?
Only Obama knows the truth of the matter. In the meantime, I get to make a discernment about "his" truth(s).

Since we cannot unequivocably know the truth, then I am more than willing to drop the issue, so that we can deal with more meaty matters.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010930.html


A rape kit is a sexual assault forensic evidence kit, used to collect DNA that can be used in criminal proceedings to assist in the conviction of those who commit sex crimes. The kit is performed as soon as possible after a sexual assault or attack has been committed. It is usually humiliating and uncomfortable for the victim-imagine enduring that and then paying $1200 just so that the criminal who assaulted you might be caught.



Clearly she is a feminist.

The more I read about this woman, the more I hate her. And I mean hate. If McRambo wins, and he dies, and she becomes president, I might assassinate her. I really might.

EDIT: This ones for you Baldy!

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/03/wasilla-in-debt/

During her term in office, Palin cut property taxes and other small taxes on business. But as the Anchorage Daily News points out, “She wasn’t doing this by shrinking government.” During her tenure, the budget of Wasilla (population 5,469 in 2000) “apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million.”

When Palin left office in 2002, Wasilla had “racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt,” or roughly $3,000 of debt per resident.


Explain that one.

She seems to be a reformer, but not the good kind.

EDIT EDIT: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html

In case someone wants to shout down my source because its a blog.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010930.html

I wonder if having a rape kit administered constitutes health care. What if a victim's insurer refused to pay the cost, claiming it's not covered as a health care examination?

Clearly McCain was talking about the healthcare policy, not Hillary.

No shit.:rolleyes: And Obama was talking about McCain's policies, not about Palin. The context of the comments was quite similar. Give it up with this moronic vendetta you have for one of our politicians. Hey, perhaps I should hijack a tread with complaints about Stephen Harper or Stéphane Dion?

It should be per diem, its still forty miles one way to Anchorage. She's saving them money by staying in her own house whenever she can but she shouldn't have to bite the whole bullet everytime, it's the states fault for having the capital in the wrong place (it was right fifty years ago, maybe).

Per diem isn't paid out for money saved.

It's paid out for money spent by the employee above normal costs. In other words, she get reimbursed for gas driving to Anchorage. If she has to buy a meal while visiting Anchorage, that gets reimbursed as well.

Charging them for a day or night spent at her own home or a meal eaten there, on the other hand, is still inappropriate.

No shit.:rolleyes: And Obama was talking about McCain's policies, not about Palin. The context of the comments was quite similar. Give it up with this moronic vendetta you have for one of our politicians. Hey, perhaps I should hijack a tread with complaints about Stephen Harper or Stéphane Dion?

Hype up Doin and make totally undefendable and outright false claims about how great she is and how awful her opponent would be for the country you dont live in. Make all these wild, unsupported declarations about her impending victory, and do not be discouraged about consistantly being wrong, but keep making them. And then cry sexism whenever anyone tells you you are wrong.


Only then, young grasshopper, will you have truely become CH.

I did see that clip before making comment, and my opinion still stands.


Clearly McCain was talking about the healthcare policy, not Hillary.


That is definitely not proof, unless of course you believe that Obama is incapable of telling a lie?


Only Obama knows the truth of the matter. In the meantime, I get to make a discernment about "his" truth(s).

Since we cannot unequivocably know the truth, then I am more than willing to drop the issue, so that we can deal with more meaty matters.

Right, so you are willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, but you refuse to do the same for Obama. Thanks for proving once again you are just against Obama. "Clearly"

EDIT: This ones for you Baldy!

http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/09/03/wasilla-in-debt/

Explain that one.

She seems to be a reformer, but not the good kind.

EDIT EDIT: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html

In case someone wants to shout down my source because its a blog.

If you get your source from a self described Democrat favoring blog, and then they link to a story that has their soundbite in self described Democrat 'nugget;' Other nuggets Democrats hope reporters will mine over the next two months: Of course you are only going to get half the story.

If you would bother to search even a tiny little bit, you could have found that even Wiki has that listed in their Mayoralty of Sarah Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin)

When Palin took office, she inherited a long-term city debt of just over a million dollars, and that debt increased to about $25 million by the time she left office. The big-ticket items responsible for the debt were: $14.7 million for the new multi-use sports complex; $5.5 million for street projects; and $3 million for water improvement projects. Because of economic growth, Keller anticipates that Wasilla can stop charging that extra .5 percent sales tax two years sooner than expected.

And since the biggest chunk was for the sports center...

During her second term as mayor, Palin introduced a ballot measure proposing construction of the municipal sports center to be financed by the 0.5% sales tax increase.[29] The $14.7 million Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex was built on time and under budget, but the city lost an additional $1.3 million due to an eminent domain lawsuit caused by a failure to obtain legal ownership of the property before beginning construction.[29] In 2001, the judge hearing the initial property dispute had ruled for the city and the city's attorney advised the city to proceed with construction; subsequently the judge reversed himself and ruled that the city had never signed the proper papers.[29][30]

CBS News obtained 86 pages of city council documents that show Palin sought to justify the tax increase to fund the sports complex in part because the private sector had not stepped in to fill the gap. She writes that the ice rink offers an opportunity for government to stop a social ill like drug abuse or juvenile delinquency before it starts.

Do you have a problem with civic improvement projects, like teen centers and youth programs? If you do, then let at it, she's guilty. As for me, I don't have a problem with those kinds of programs, in fact, I'm for them. They should do more of that stuff.

If you get your source from a self described Democrat favoring blog, and then they link to a story that has their soundbite in self described Democrat 'nugget;' Other nuggets Democrats hope reporters will mine over the next two months: Of course you are only going to get half the story.

If you would bother to search even a tiny little bit, you could have found that even Wiki has that listed in their Mayoralty of Sarah Palin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin)

When Palin took office, she inherited a long-term city debt of just over a million dollars, and that debt increased to about $25 million by the time she left office. The big-ticket items responsible for the debt were: $14.7 million for the new multi-use sports complex; $5.5 million for street projects; and $3 million for water improvement projects. Because of economic growth, Keller anticipates that Wasilla can stop charging that extra .5 percent sales tax two years sooner than expected.

And since the biggest chunk was for the sports center...

During her second term as mayor, Palin introduced a ballot measure proposing construction of the municipal sports center to be financed by the 0.5% sales tax increase.[29] The $14.7 million Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex was built on time and under budget, but the city lost an additional $1.3 million due to an eminent domain lawsuit caused by a failure to obtain legal ownership of the property before beginning construction.[29] In 2001, the judge hearing the initial property dispute had ruled for the city and the city's attorney advised the city to proceed with construction; subsequently the judge reversed himself and ruled that the city had never signed the proper papers.[29][30]

CBS News obtained 86 pages of city council documents that show Palin sought to justify the tax increase to fund the sports complex in part because the private sector had not stepped in to fill the gap. She writes that the ice rink offers an opportunity for government to stop a social ill like drug abuse or juvenile delinquency before it starts.

Do you have a problem with civic improvement projects, like teen centers and youth programs? If you do, then let at it, she's guilty. As for me, I don't have a problem with those kinds of programs, in fact, I'm for them. The should do more of that stuff.


No, Im all for them. But she needs to stop pretending like shes a fiscal conservative when she has a record of increasing debt and big spending.


Or are you going to pretend that Palin increasing debt and spending big is still being a fiscal conservative?


Oh, and what do you have to say about her charging rape victims for the rape kits? Or is that undefendable even to you?