US General Election - McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden - Polls,Pundits, & Popcorn [Archive] - Page 5

Khadgar

19-09-2008, 21:33

No no no. This may be the dirtiest, sleeziest election in some time, but its not even close to whos doing it. This is the nicest I have ever seen the democrats be, to ANYBODY.

Like I said, its the dirtiest election with the most lies ever told, but its one side, and one side alone that is making it this bad.

John McCain's (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842030,00.html?xid=rss-politics-cnn) Chewbacca Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense):
Politics has always been lousy with blather and chicanery. But there are rules and traditions too. In the early weeks of the general-election campaign, a consensus has grown in the political community — a consensus that ranges from practitioners like Karl Rove to commentators like, well, me — that John McCain has allowed his campaign to slip the normal bounds of political propriety. The situation has gotten so intense that we in the media have slipped our normal rules as well. Usually when a candidate tells something less than the truth, we mince words. We use euphemisms like mendacity and inaccuracy ... or, as the Associated Press put it, "McCain's claims skirt facts." But increasing numbers of otherwise sober observers, even such august institutions as the New York Times editorial board, are calling John McCain a liar. You might well ask, What has McCain done to deserve this? What unwritten rules did he break? Are his transgressions of degree or of kind?

Almost every politician stretches the truth. We journalists try to point out the exaggerations and criticize them, then let the voters decide. When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth — Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government — but McCain's untruth illuminates a general policy direction, which is sketchy but sort of within the bounds. (Obama's plan would increase government regulation of the drug and insurance industries.) Obama has done this sort of thing too. In July, he accused McCain of supporting the foreign buyout of an American company that could lead to the loss of about 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio. McCain did support the deal, but the job loss comes many years later and was not anticipated at the time. That, however, is where the moral equivalency between these two campaigns ends.

McCain's lies have ranged from the annoying to the sleazy, and the problem is in both degree and kind. His campaign has been a ceaseless assault on his opponent's character and policies, featuring a consistent—and witting—disdain for the truth. Even after 38 million Americans heard Obama say in his speech at the Democratic National Convention that he was open to offshore oil-drilling and building new nuclear-power plants, McCain flatly said in his acceptance speech that Obama opposed both. Normal political practice would be for McCain to say, "Obama says he's 'open to' offshore drilling, but he's always opposed it. How can we believe him?" This persistence in repeating demonstrably false charges is something new in presidential politics.

Worse than the lies have been the smears. McCain ran a television ad claiming that Obama favored "comprehensive" sex education for kindergartners. (Obama favored a bill that would have warned kindergartners about sexual predators and improper touching.) The accusation that Obama was referring to Sarah Palin when he said McCain's effort to remarket his economic policies was putting "lipstick on a pig" was another clearly misleading attack — an obnoxious attempt to divert attention from Palin's lack of fitness for the job and the recklessness with which McCain chose her. McCain's assault on the "élite media" for spreading rumors about Palin's personal life — actually, the culprits were a few bloggers and the tabloid press — was more of the same. And that gets us close to the real problem here. The McCain camp has decided that its candidate can't win honorably, on the issues, so it has resorted to transparent and phony diversions.

This new strategy emerged during the first week of Obama's overseas trip in late July. McCain had been intending to contrast his alleged foreign policy expertise and toughness with Obama's inexperience and alleged weakness. McCain wanted to "win" the Iraq war and face down the Iranians. But those issues became moot when the Iraqis said they favored Obama's withdrawal plan and the Bush Administration started talking to the Iranians. At that point, McCain committed his original sin — out of pique, I believe — questioning Obama's patriotism, saying the Democrat would rather lose a war than lose an election. Ever since, McCain's campaign has been a series of snide and demeaning ads accompanied by the daily gush of untruths that have now been widely documented and exposed. The strategy is an obvious attempt to camouflage the current unpopularity of his Republican brand, the insubstantiality of his vice-presidential choice, and his agreement on most issues — especially economic matters — with an exceedingly unpopular President.

The good news is that the vile times may be ending. The coming debates will decide this race, and it isn't easy to tell lies when your opponent is standing right next to you. The Wall Street collapse demands a more sober campaign as well. But these dreadful weeks should not be forgotten. John McCain has raised serious questions about whether he has the character to lead the nation. He has defaced his beloved military code of honor. He has run a dirty campaign. Throw enough bullshit and confuse the voters into liking you.

Free Soviets

19-09-2008, 22:20

If anything, this will make evangelicals like her more. Really the only thing they might criticize is that he let the witch escape instead of killing her.

have i mentioned recently that it scares the crap out of me that these people aren't mocked and shamed into silence, let alone given respectability and a platform from which to spread their cancer?

Gauthier

19-09-2008, 22:36

have i mentioned recently that it scares the crap out of me that these people aren't mocked and shamed into silence, let alone given respectability and a platform from which to spread their cancer?

Something about the Evangelic Right Wing.

Incompetent business executives not only avoid punishment, but actually receive a bonus and/or promotion. (GWB, Enron, Tyco, etc. etc.)

Radicalism amongst outsiders are reviled (Ebil Mozlemz, Jeremiah Wright etc. etc.) but Radicalism amongst their own are praised and spread even further.

Heikoku 2

19-09-2008, 22:51

Well of course! They're the liberal media, so they're attacking the Wright!

*Groans!*

Knights of Liberty

20-09-2008, 00:05

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/19/mccain-lights-up-obama/

Awwww so cute!

Hey McCain, you remember how many houses you own? How may of them are you in danger of losing?

Hows that for a "populist message"?

Zombie PotatoHeads

20-09-2008, 04:34

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110533/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Now-Leads-McCain-Points.aspx

Obama now enjoys a 5 point lead over McCain. McCain's numbers are mid way between his record high and low.
I can't believe McCain's getting 44% support. 44 people maybe, but 44%?!

Maineiacs

20-09-2008, 04:41

I can't believe McCain's getting 44% support. 44 people maybe, but 44%?!

P.T. Barnum once said "You can fool some of the people some of the time." Well, apparently you can fool 44% of the people all of the time.

The Black Forrest

20-09-2008, 05:18

Gauthier

20-09-2008, 05:39

Gravlen

20-09-2008, 13:17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZKQDyL5gzc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZKQDyL5gzc)

"In a Palin and McCain administration"? Has she been bumped up to the top of the ticket now?

Ashmoria

20-09-2008, 14:38

I had a question after listening how McCain will fix wall street.

What was his vote on repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which opened the door to the mess of today.

The Gramm(stop whining you whiners!)-Leach-Bliley effectively repealed the act.

So I went looking for the vote and was not surprised by the Hero, maverick, outsiders vote.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105

What is surprising is the fact nobody seems to be making use of this? Or maybe they are waiting?
its all obama's fault. why doesnt he OWN UP TO IT?

ya know, when i heard mccain say that yesterday i was waiting for him to own up to his own culpability in the mess. after all he is more of a washington insider than obama is so if its obama's fault then it is all the more his own fault. only a hypocrit would demand that someone else confess when he has not confessed his own greater fault.

but it turns out that taking money from fanny mae people for your campaign makes it all your fault and if you received MORE money from them you are MORE at fault. (although since mccain also received FM money he should also own up to culpability under this theory even if it is less)

Ashmoria

20-09-2008, 14:39

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZKQDyL5gzc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZKQDyL5gzc)

"In a Palin and McCain administration"? Has she been bumped up to the top of the ticket now?
you didnt know this? why else do people wait hours to see her then leave while he is speaking so they can avoid traffic?

Free Soviets

20-09-2008, 15:12

I can't believe McCain's getting 44% support. 44 people maybe, but 44%?!

well, he automatically gets the 27% crazification factor, so subtract that out and we only have 17% in need of explanation.

Ashmoria

20-09-2008, 15:16

well, he automatically gets the 27% crazification factor, so subtract that out and we only have 17% in need of explanation.
is the "cant vote for a black guy but cant admit its because he is black" contingent included in the 27%?

at least 17% is supporting mccain out of fear of democrats. "tax and spend baby killin' socialists" dontcha know.

CthulhuFhtagn

20-09-2008, 15:19

well, he automatically gets the 27% crazification factor, so subtract that out and we only have 17% in need of explanation.

Self-proclaimed libertarians?

CthulhuFhtagn

20-09-2008, 15:20

Catholics?

Ashmoria

20-09-2008, 15:22

Catholics?
but biden is catholic so that should drive the catholic vote to obama (if people are acting on stupid criteria of support)

CthulhuFhtagn

20-09-2008, 15:23

but biden is catholic so that should drive the catholic vote to obama (if people are acting on stupid criteria of support)

Biden's also pro-choice.

Ashmoria

20-09-2008, 15:37

Biden's also pro-choice.
yeah. so that leaves out the "same as the rest of the population" percentage of catholics who would never vote for a democrat because of that baby-killin' thing. but should bring in those who have no other reason to vote for either candidate--a larger percentage than i am comfortable believing exists (but probably does)

Free Soviets

20-09-2008, 15:40

is the "cant vote for a black guy but cant admit its because he is black" contingent included in the 27%?

at least 17% is supporting mccain out of fear of democrats. "tax and spend baby killin' socialists" dontcha know.

well, the second is part of the crazification factor in its original use - defined by the people that voted for alan keyes rather than obama in the il senate race, which factored out all the other relevant variables and just left a politically established brilliant guy vs. a carpetbagging nutjob. given that definition, i'm not sure where to put the polite racists.

i think a significant portion of the 17% is probably made up of people who still think mccain is something he's not based on the way the media has treated him for decades.

Ashmoria

20-09-2008, 15:47

well, the second is part of the crazification factor in its original use - defined by the people that voted for alan keyes rather than obama in the il senate race, which factored out all the other relevant variables and just left a politically established brilliant guy vs. a carpetbagging nutjob. given that definition, i'm not sure where to put the polite racists.

i think a significant portion of the 17% is probably made up of people who still think mccain is something he's not based on the way the media has treated him for decades.
me too. i think his support will drop after the debates where he will have to act sane and make points that....well not that he believes in....that go along with his current strategy but are still far different from what people remember liking about him

mccain isnt the man he used to be. he has sold out all his values and he is getting more and more drifty in his mind. (as evidenced by his inability to remember that he was talking to a spanish reporter and his unwillingness to stop and clarify just who she was asking him about)

CanuckHeaven

20-09-2008, 20:57

Many on here have suggested that an Obama presidency would be better for Canada. I certainly wasn't convinced of that and this article (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080919%2fobamamccain_080920)suggests why I should be concerned:

While many Canadians, including NDP Leader Jack Layton, have a blatant crush on presidential hopeful Barack Obama, experts aren't convinced Canada would be better off with the charismatic Democrat in the White House.

"On pocketbook issues, the sensible thing to do would be to hope for a McCain presidency," said Greg Anderson, a U.S. foreign policy expert at the University of Alberta's political science department.

Faced with an economic downturn and the Wall Street investment meltdown, a Democratic president would be more likely to build protectionist walls around the U.S. economy -- which would have dire effects on Canadian industry, Anderson told CTV.ca.

"That could be very bad news," he said.

Anderson also pointed to Obama's campaign rhetoric regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement's "devastating" effects on the U.S. economy as potentially harmful, as it sends a negative message about trade and could signal a shift with Canada's largest trading partner.

While Obama has softened his stance on NAFTA, Anderson said the Democrat would be more likely to implement stiffer regulations on American industry.

"I think you're going to see a flurry to place new regulations on the financial sector," said Anderson, forcing regulators in Canada to respond.

On Friday, regulators here were mulling a ban on short-selling stocks after the U.S. decided to suspend the practice.

McCain, meanwhile, would be "more resistant" to increased red tape.

Obama's position on fossil fuels could also pose problems for our resource-based economy.

Recently, Obama's top energy adviser Jason Grume said emission levels from Alberta's oil sands were "unacceptably high" and could conflict with a proposal to green the U.S. economy.
That and I also don't see Obama as a "dove".

Gauthier

20-09-2008, 21:00

Muravyets

20-09-2008, 21:04

So now you're changing your justification for a McCain win from "They Should Have Picked Hillary" to "Canada Doesn't Think Obama Would Be a Good Leader."

Niiiice.
And it only took him 69 pages to figure out that nobody in the US gives a flip whether a Canadian liked Hillary better.

Khadgar

20-09-2008, 22:32

And it only took him 69 pages to figure out that nobody in the US gives a flip whether a Canadian liked Hillary better.

And ironically if Obama was anti-Kyoto he'd use that to whine.

CthulhuFhtagn

20-09-2008, 22:35

So basically Canada's equivalent of Kansas doesn't like Obama. Oh my God that is so surprising. No one could have foreseen such a shocking development. Next thing you know there will be a creationist movement there.

Kyronea

20-09-2008, 23:52

Grave_n_idle

21-09-2008, 01:01

The "Liberal Media"™ inaction as usual.

Everytime 'The Left' even approaches the tactics of 'The Right', they get disproportionately attacked. Everytime the media tries to hold the same microscope to 'The Right' that they would use on 'The Left', they get disproportionately attacked.

I've tried to work out why, and I think I finally have it cracked. We are so used to our conservative politicians lying, cheating and stealing that we have almost come to accept that as the new equilibrium. We don't hold them accountable to the same standards we use for our liberals - but the standards we use(d) for other, more or less corrupt, conservatives.

It's the only theory that explains McCain. Compared to Bush, maybe not so bad.

Our Conservatives are held accountable in proportion to our lowest element, and our Liberals to our paragons. That's why McCain is getting a prety much free ride.

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 01:02

Uh huh.

Keep in mind this is an editorial from an extremely conservative part of Canada that is pretty much your equivalent of our Bible Belt.

Methinks I'll take the rest of Canada's opinions over Alberta's.
Where do you get your facts from? The article is by CTV which is based in Toronto, an extremely liberal city, but he does write some articles for the Globe and Mail, which is a conservative newspaper, but it is also based in Toronto.

How you tie this into religion is beyond me.

Grave_n_idle

21-09-2008, 01:13

Where do you get your facts from? The article is by CTV which is based in Toronto, an extremely liberal city, but he does write some articles for the Globe and Mail, which is a conservative newspaper, but it is also based in Toronto.

How you tie this into religion is beyond me.

The "Bible Belt" is the area of the US that basically fits into several categories - southern, largely rural, low population density, generally low cost of living, generally non-Catholic Christian, disproportionately low ethnic representation, often disproportionate rights accorded based on colour, race, religion, sex.

However - I think what Kyronea was getting at, is that the Bible Belt is also (considered) disproportionately extreme, conservative and extreme conservative. The 'Bible' in Bible belt may be confusing you - it wasn't a religious reference.

Muravyets

21-09-2008, 02:40

Everytime 'The Left' even approaches the tactics of 'The Right', they get disproportionately attacked. Everytime the media tries to hold the same microscope to 'The Right' that they would use on 'The Left', they get disproportionately attacked.

I've tried to work out why, and I think I finally have it cracked. We are so used to our conservative politicians lying, cheating and stealing that we have almost come to accept that as the new equilibrium. We don't hold them accountable to the same standards we use for our liberals - but the standards we use(d) for other, more or less corrupt, conservatives.

It's the only theory that explains McCain. Compared to Bush, maybe not so bad.

Our Conservatives are held accountable in proportion to our lowest element, and our Liberals to our paragons. That's why McCain is getting a prety much free ride.
Another possible explanation:

NOT famous for being liberals:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1077/648831547_368d3c4b95.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/money/.element/img/1.0/sections/mag/fortune/fortune500/2007/snapshots/48_time_warner.jpg

http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/clear-channel2.jpg

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 04:00

The "Bible Belt" is the area of the US that basically fits into several categories - southern, largely rural, low population density, generally low cost of living, generally non-Catholic Christian, disproportionately low ethnic representation, often disproportionate rights accorded based on colour, race, religion, sex.

However - I think what Kyronea was getting at, is that the Bible Belt is also (considered) disproportionately extreme, conservative and extreme conservative. The 'Bible' in Bible belt may be confusing you - it wasn't a religious reference.

This.

Knights of Liberty

21-09-2008, 04:08

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 04:13

Well, I cant vote for Obama now. According to this guy, he might not be as good for Canada's pocket book.

Screw worrying about our economy and voting for who would handle that better, Im voting with Canada's in mind.

Was this really supposed to convince anyone?:rolleyes:
Actually, no. However, IF you had read the first sentence of my original post regarding this matter, perhaps you would have understood why I posted it?

Many on here have suggested that an Obama presidency would be better for Canada. I certainly wasn't convinced of that and this article (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/abc/home/contentposting.aspx?isfa=1&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V3&showbyline=True&newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20080919%2fobamamccain_080920)suggests why I should be concerned:

That and I also don't see Obama as a "dove".

Knights of Liberty

21-09-2008, 04:17

Actually, no. However, IF you had read the first sentence of my original post regarding this matter, perhaps you would have understood why I posted it?

Then your burning strawmen, because "many" have made no such claim.

More importantly, one guy's opinion =/= facts nor does it equal a whole country's.

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 04:46

Actually, no. However, IF you had read the first sentence of my original post regarding this matter, perhaps you would have understood why I posted it?

Do you have some links to posts making this claim?

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 04:46

Then your burning strawmen, because "many" have made no such claim.
So rather than take my word for it, you would rather just call me a liar?

More importantly, one guy's opinion =/= facts nor does it equal a whole country's.
IF you read the article, then you would know that to be true. There was no false pretense or hidden agenda.

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 04:50

So rather than take my word for it, you would rather just call me a liar?

Your credibility is essentially non-existent. Hence, I reiterate my request for evidence.

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 04:55

Your credibility is essentially non-existent. Hence, I reiterate my request for evidence.
Since you put it that way, then I really don't care if you believe me or not. :tongue:

Edit: please don't hijack the thread any further. Thanks.

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 05:08

It's not a hijack to ask for proof for a claim you've made. You claim that many posters have argued that Obama would be better for Canada. We do not remember this happening, so we are asking you to provide evidence for your claim.

Either provide it or drop the argument.

Maineiacs

21-09-2008, 05:14

Am I alone in having the song "I saw the Witchdoctor" in my head now? Ironic because I fucking hate that song.

Thanks to you, I do.

"Ooo-ee-oo-ah-ah. Ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang"

Thanks a lot.:p

Muravyets

21-09-2008, 05:20

Thanks to you, I do.

"Ooo-ee-oo-ah-ah. Ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang"

Thanks a lot.:p
*shoots Maineiacs* Thanks, loads. Now it's in my head, too.

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 05:20

Thanks to you, I do.

"Ooo-ee-oo-ah-ah. Ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang"

Thanks a lot.:p

It's "Ching-chang wadda wadda." :p

Zombie PotatoHeads

21-09-2008, 05:24

To be fair to CH, many on this forum have argued that an Obama presidency would be better for the world, which of course includes Canada.

It's slightly disingenuous of CH though. What most posters are referring to is that World opinion of the US would improve markedly which, if managed correctly, would be a huge boon to the US foreign affairs.
Either that or the likelihood of a US invasion of Iran and prolonged encampment in Iraq would be reduced to almost zero - either/both of which would be of great benefit to the World (and of course the US).
But then CH being duplicitous is hardly a surprise.

Zombie PotatoHeads

21-09-2008, 05:30

it's official, the republican campaign is being run by the onion.
http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html
Hang on a mo:
Obama's dad is Kenyan.
Palin's pastor is Kenyan.

coincidence? I think not.

Intangelon

21-09-2008, 05:31

It's "Ching-chang wadda wadda." :p

Nope.

http://digitaldreamdoor.nutsie.com/pages/lyrics2/nov_witchdoc.html

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 05:32

Hang on a mo:
Obama's dad is Kenyan.
Palin's pastor is Kenyan.

coincidence? I think not.

If Palin's dad is a black preacher, I will freak out.

Intangelon: ...I have been mishearing the song this entire time. :(

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 05:36

Maineiacs

21-09-2008, 05:42

*shoots Maineiacs* Thanks, loads. Now it's in my head, too.

*bullet bounces off mithril vest*:p

It's "Ching-chang wadda wadda." :p

I beg to differ...

I told the witch doctor I was in love with you
I told the witch doctor you didn't love me too
And then the witch doctor, he told me what to do
He said that ....

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang

I told the witch doctor you didn't love me true
I told the witch doctor you didn't love me nice
And then the witch doctor, he game me this advice
He said to ...

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang

Now, you've been keeping love from me
Just like you were a miser
And I'll admit I wasn't very smart
So I went out and found myself
A guy that's so much wiser
And he taught me the way to win your heart

My friend the witch doctor, he taught me what to say
My friend the witch doctor, he taught me what to do
I know that you'll be mine when I say this to you
Oh, Baby ....

Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang...
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang

http://www.songlyrics.com/song-lyrics/David+Seville/Miscellaneous/Witch+Doctor/207335.html:p

Ardchoille

21-09-2008, 05:46

We don't hold them accountable to the same standards we use for our liberals - but the standards we use(d) for other, more or less corrupt, conservatives.

Similarly, I tend to hold people who can debate intelligently to higher standards that the "i n00ks U!!!!" idiots.

Which is why I bother commenting, disappointedly, on posts such as these:

And it only took him 69 pages to figure out that nobody in the US gives a flip whether a Canadian liked Hillary better.

Your credibility is essentially non-existent. Hence, I reiterate my request for evidence.

Look, I get it; I'm pretty sure CH gets it: your views differ from his. I have had words with him on how he puts those views. It seems to me he's been more careful of late. If he can make the effort, you can too. It doesn't come across as affectionate banter, it comes across as petty sniping.

Let's not go into the "I'm entitled to ask for proof" argument. You are. Now that you've stated what it is you want proven, the ball's in CH's court. If he chooses.

It's up to him to weigh up whether the point is so self-evident it doesn't need proof; whether other posters will consider he has dodged a legitimate query; whether you're using spin to discredit his argument; whether you've exposed a logical flaw that needs mending; whatever.

But there's a point where repeatedly asking for proof of every detail becomes harrassment and does drag a thread off-topic. Please (collectively, not just Kyronea) avoid it.

EDIT: Damn you, Maineiacs. Just when I'd worked myself up to bering serious, too.

Zombie PotatoHeads

21-09-2008, 05:55

Let's see....you say to be fair to me......then you attack. Nice touch.:rolleyes:
yes, because pointing out your delibrate mudding of other people's posts is 'attacking' you isn't it?
poor CH. the violins are scratching just for you.

Muravyets

21-09-2008, 05:59

Look, I'm doing my best to ignore CH (I have him on ignore, but I can still see his posts when they are quoted by other posters), but seriously, how much of this nonsense are people expected to tolerate? I think if a person manages go to a whole week or more without responding to his bait, they could be forgiven one little snap that isn't even likely to provoke a renewal of hostilities. It's not like it's unprovoked.

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 06:03

Similarly, I tend to hold people who can debate intelligently to higher standards that the "i n00ks U!!!!" idiots.

Which is why I bother commenting, disappointedly, on posts such as these:

Look, I get it; I'm pretty sure CH gets it: your views differ from his. I have had words with him on how he puts those views. It seems to me he's been more careful of late. If he can make the effort, you can too. It doesn't come across as affectionate banter, it comes across as petty sniping.

Let's not go into the "I'm entitled to ask for proof" argument. You are. Now that you've stated what it is you want proven, the ball's in CH's court. If he chooses.

It's up to him to weigh up whether the point is so self-evident it doesn't need proof; whether other posters will consider he has dodged a legitimate query; whether you're using spin to discredit his argument; whether you've exposed a logical flaw that needs mending; whatever.

But there's a point where repeatedly asking for proof of every detail becomes harrassment and does drag a thread off-topic. Please (collectively, not just Kyronea) avoid it.

EDIT: Damn you, Maineiacs. Just when I'd worked myself up to bering serious, too.
Message acknowledged and understood.

Muravyets: At this point, I don't think it really matters. CanuckHeaven does not seem likely to listen to our arguments all that much anymore than we are his, and the silent lurker readers have pretty much been shown what they have been shown by now. All we're really doing is reiterating the same arguments using whatever new information comes our way.

Zombie PotatoHeads

21-09-2008, 06:08

If McCain/Palin gets in, we only have Mike Judge to blame. He's been secretly paving the way for them to get for years now, using subliminal means:
http://ronpaulblogs.com/files/2008/03/mccainclinch.jpg
vs
http://z.about.com/d/animatedtv/1/7/Y/o/koh_DeathPicksCotton_gr1f.jpg

http://www.alaskareport.com/images/sarah_palin3.jpg
vs
http://www.humanforsale.com/images/peggy-hill.jpg

Damn you, Mike Judge!

Ardchoille

21-09-2008, 06:14

CanuckHeaven does not seem likely to listen to our arguments all that much anymore than we are his, and the silent lurker readers have pretty much been shown what they have been shown by now.

^This.

I know I'm playing Jiminy Cricket. That's my job.

*Sings irritatingly, Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide*

Incidentally, I hate Jiminy Cricket. Almost as much as Ja-Ja Binks.

Gauthier

21-09-2008, 06:35

Kyronea

21-09-2008, 07:11

Mike Judge also created Idiocracy. Yeah, I think the bastich planned all this from the very beginning.

:mp5:

No wonder that movie was so bad. It had to have been one of the worst pieces of shit I've ever had the misfortune to watch.

Heikoku 2

21-09-2008, 07:25

^This.

I know I'm playing Jiminy Cricket. That's my job.

*Sings irritatingly, Always Let Your Conscience Be Your Guide*

Incidentally, I hate Jiminy Cricket. Almost as much as Ja-Ja Binks.

You do realize that "conscience" is the superego, and ALWAYS letting it have its way, over both ego and id, is pretty unhealthy... o_O

It'd be basically guiding oneself through how much "others like you". All the time.

Incidentally, you don't get to kill cats with me on watch. >.>

*Cat person* :p

(But why were you planning to?)

Knights of Liberty

21-09-2008, 07:42

Ardchoille

21-09-2008, 08:21

You do realize that "conscience" is the superego, and ALWAYS letting it have its way, over both ego and id, is pretty unhealthy... o_O

Incidentally, you don't get to kill cats with me on watch. >.>

*Cat person* :p

(But why were you planning to?)

1. My conscience is healthily suppressed. How else would I mod?

2. I had called back my post to alter "bering", which I expected some smartypants to turn into a Palin reference, into "being". I wanted to strangle all smartypants.

Plus, I was suffering a deep unsatisfiable desire to strangle a couple of posters on another forum.

Also, my son has driven us over our monthly download limit, and I'm not asking what he was downloading, mind, but everything is x50 slow, and I'm not allowed to strangle my son, he being taller and stronger than I am.

Meanwhile, the cat was in the process of trying to steal my lunch, which I shouldn't have been eating at the computer, anyway.

Somehow, these factors combined, possibly with the assistance of a furry back foot on the "submit" button, to create a double post.

A double post! :$

Ergo, felinicide seemed attractive.

I think you make a great jiminy and arent nearly as obnoxious.

Pft, I can do obnoxious, too.

Heikoku 2

21-09-2008, 08:45

felinicide

Felicide.

(And then Ard went on to buy a ticket to Brazil and strangle Heikoku for using an actual dictionary just to be obnoxious by correcting her on a little-used word. No court would ever convict her.) :D

See? Now your strangling urges are dealt with! This was all a clever ploy to save the cat from felinicide! :D

*Waits for the irony to be pointed out...

Zombie PotatoHeads

21-09-2008, 09:50

Felicide.
why do you want to kill a girl named Felicity?

Proof as to the just plain weird nature of Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt3iNhPY8jg

There's nothing so sacred it can't be used to make money from!

Hairless Kitten

21-09-2008, 10:01

Oh it are elections in USA?

I thought that all that political news was about a promotion of a new toothpaste.
The one that is brushing whiter than white.

Barringtonia

21-09-2008, 10:15

Oh it are elections in USA?

I thought that all that political news was about a promotion of a new toothpaste.
The one that is brushing whiter than white.

No, that's McCleans (http://www.macleans.co.uk/) though their new Shine & White is quite the tingle to the teeth, it's actually just another false promise by an old product, simply with new marketing.

I can see where the confusion comes from.

Khadgar

21-09-2008, 12:22

Cannot think of a name

21-09-2008, 12:26

Obama's lead over McCain grows increasingly wide:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110551/Gallup-Daily-Obama-50-McCain-44.aspx

He's up 6 points now.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ finally shows him winning the electoral race.

I'm not saying it doesn't cheer me up a little, but there are four debates to go and still a lot of time.

Although, what we've been talking about with the cell phone thing-the number cruncher at fivethirtyeight has it at about 2.8 points. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/estimating-cellphone-effect-22-points.html)

Hairless Kitten

21-09-2008, 12:29

I can't help it, but I already hate the 2 candidates. They are too much in the news with no news. I really hate them.

Khadgar

21-09-2008, 12:31

I'm not saying it doesn't cheer me up a little, but there are four debates to go and still a lot of time.

Although, what we've been talking about with the cell phone thing-the number cruncher at fivethirtyeight has it at about 2.8 points. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/estimating-cellphone-effect-22-points.html)

I can't imagine the debates going well for McCain.

Cannot think of a name

21-09-2008, 12:44

I can't imagine the debates going well for McCain.

Thats what we said about Gore Bush and Kerry Bush, though...I just don't want to get too excited yet...

Ashmoria

21-09-2008, 13:29

I can't help it, but I already hate the 2 candidates. They are too much in the news with no news. I really hate them.
getting undecided independents to hate politics is a political ploy.

y'all are too hard for the campaigns' operatives to predict so getting you out of the picture makes it easier for them to concentrate on their base. that way getting more nutcase conservatives to the polls (or nutcase liberals) is easier and far more effective than getting people who cant manage to care that much to swing their way.

so every time you are feeling so pissed that you vow to stay home and vote for none of the bastards remember that that is what they are hoping you'll do. (you specifically)

Maineiacs

21-09-2008, 14:55

Thats what we said about Gore Bush and Kerry Bush, though...I just don't want to get too excited yet...

Bush didn't win those debates, Gore and Kerry lost them. Both were walking bottles of valium. Obama isn't Gore or Kerry. Like him or hate him, you have to admit that he's one hell of an orator. Probably the best this country has produced in the last 40 years.

Milks Empire

21-09-2008, 15:17

In short, people are idiots.

I wish I could dispute you there. Unfortunately, there's too much evidence that this is true. Look at Election '04, where people chose to reinstall a regime they claimed they didn't like.

Forsakia

21-09-2008, 15:20

Hairless Kitten

21-09-2008, 15:24

Muravyets

21-09-2008, 15:29

In the end, it doesn't matter. If you elect one or the other, your country will not change a lot. 99,9999% will remain the same.
They are just spending billion $ to convince you that a real change will occur, while in reality it's not possible.

With that money, we could do other things. Making me extreme rich by instance.
Always thinking only of yourself. Typical. That's another thing that will never change, I suppose? :tongue:

Thanks, but if I'm going to let anyone waste my time and money, I think it'll be the ones asking me pick which of them will get the power to launch nukes.

Cannot think of a name

21-09-2008, 16:20

Bush didn't win those debates, Gore and Kerry lost them. Both were walking bottles of valium. Obama isn't Gore or Kerry. Like him or hate him, you have to admit that he's one hell of an orator. Probably the best this country has produced in the last 40 years.
Yeah, but they've spent the last few months convincing themselves that Obama doesn't work well 'off book'...not that I agree with them, and if you go back to the archived Peanut Galleries on the last debates, I didn't think Kerry did that badly at the time. It's the 'rabble' I'm worried about.
In the end, it doesn't matter. If you elect one or the other, your country will not change a lot. 99,9999% will remain the same.
They are just spending billion $ to convince you that a real change will occur, while in reality it's not possible.

With that money, we could do other things. Making me extreme rich by instance.

Yeah, I remember when I believed that, back before 2000...those were good, innocent times...

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 16:35

Bush didn't win those debates, Gore and Kerry lost them. Both were walking bottles of valium. Obama isn't Gore or Kerry. Like him or hate him, you have to admit that he's one hell of an orator. Probably the best this country has produced in the last 40 years.
That is really the problem with Obama......great orator.....little substance. He is just another politician that will say and do anything to get your vote.

He threw his grandmother under the bus. He threw his pastor under the bus. He threw Bill under the bus, and then he threw Hillary under the bus. Be careful when you are waiting for the bus and Obama is the driver. :tongue:

The Cat-Tribe

21-09-2008, 16:45

Please tell us, oh great one, why exactly Ralph Nader is the most qualified and best candidate for President of the United States. Because I have the strong feeling you don't actually know that much about Nader's candidacy.

I know he doesn't have a vagina, so he doesn't meet your usual criteria for high office.

Still waiting for an answer from CH.

Still waiting for some proof that his views regarding the Presidential race are anything other than a temper tantrum over Senator Clinton.

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 16:45

All depends on outside events really, how the economy goes, if Russia makes a move or another act of terrorrism occurs. That'll determine what people will think about during the debates and at the ballot box.
I believe that you do have a good point there. I honestly believe that the Bin Laden tape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video#Public_response)that surfaced affected the outcome of the election in 2004:

The 2004 tape boosted the popularity of American President George W. Bush. President Bush opened up a six-point lead over his opponent Senator John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast.[3]

Internationally, the possibility that the video could have been faked was expressed.

Ashmoria

21-09-2008, 17:26

Laerod

21-09-2008, 17:29

Cannot think of a name

21-09-2008, 18:28

That is really the problem with Obama......great orator.....little substance. He is just another politician that will say and do anything to get your vote.
I have a hard time believing that you have a problem with this. You zealously defended someone whose campaign took away two states primaries and then, when they needed the votes, cried on and on about how those votes mattered. You'll forgive me if this accusation coming from you rings hollow, even if you were to give the oft called for citation to back it.

He threw his grandmother under the bus. He threw his pastor under the bus. He threw Bill under the bus, and then he threw Hillary under the bus. Be careful when you are waiting for the bus and Obama is the driver. :tongue:
Enough with the fucking bus. And Bill and Hillary didn't get thrown under the bus, they were beaten in a primary. Learn the difference sometime.

Knights of Liberty

21-09-2008, 20:29

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acVoMK3FiuqQ&refer=home

I have a feeling this will become a central campaign issue.

Laerod

21-09-2008, 20:41

Because he enjoys inflicting himself upon us.

Sort of like an octogenarian flasher.
You breached the 10K, and I see you've put your newly found powers to good use =P

Grave_n_idle

21-09-2008, 21:53

He's up 6 points now.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/ finally shows him winning the electoral race.

I read that as 'electoral rape'.

Considering the clusterfuck that this election run has been (on both sides, though some parties may be more guilty than others), it seems strangely appropriate.

Grave_n_idle

21-09-2008, 21:57

That is really the problem with Obama......great orator.....little substance. He is just another politician that will say and do anything to get your vote.

He threw his grandmother under the bus. He threw his pastor under the bus. He threw Bill under the bus, and then he threw Hillary under the bus. Be careful when you are waiting for the bus and Obama is the driver. :tongue:

No one actually says anyone 'threw someone under the bus'.

Considering you've said you'd support the McCain-Palin ticket (and all the selling-out-of-alleged-principles that go with THAT) I think I'll take your evaluation with a pinch of salt, thanks.

CanuckHeaven

21-09-2008, 21:59

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=acVoMK3FiuqQ&refer=home

I have a feeling this will become a central campaign issue.
The proposal appears to have support of both the Republicans and Democrats.

I would think that the biggest issue would be that both parties may have difficulty implementing their election promises when they take office.

Maineiacs

22-09-2008, 00:14

No I don't. His Berlin speech was fuckin' awful.

No, it wasn't.

Laerod

22-09-2008, 00:18

No, it wasn't.I was there. Believe me, it sucked.

Aresion

22-09-2008, 00:19

he's still not charismatic, though, at least he wasn't up until his acceptance speech.

CthulhuFhtagn

22-09-2008, 00:23

I was there. Believe me, it sucked.

Was it the good kind of sucking?

Cannot think of a name

22-09-2008, 00:36

Kyronea

22-09-2008, 04:03

Yeah, but they've spent the last few months convincing themselves that Obama doesn't work well 'off book'...not that I agree with them, and if you go back to the archived Peanut Galleries on the last debates, I didn't think Kerry did that badly at the time. It's the 'rabble' I'm worried about.

Yeah, I remember when I believed that, back before 2000...those were good, innocent times...

The real potential problem will come from the possibility that while Obama will be fantastic when you watch the debate, he won't be as good at the sound bites game that will no doubt be played, especially if the Republicans start dancing to "Let's Take Stuff Out Of Context!"

Kyronea

22-09-2008, 04:36

I was there. Believe me, it sucked.

Clarify, bitte.

Liuzzo

22-09-2008, 05:42

fivethirtyeight is showing Obama making some good progress.

I'm a math/computer geek type of guy. I like what statistics shows and Nate is a very good statistician. There's something to be said for gut feeling and other elements. I just happen to think numbers are the best way to look at most situations. Take for instance...I played three ncaa pools and won them all. One actually placed 42nd in the nation on yahoo. I selected boxes the past two weeks for a random pool for a couple of games. Two games and I won three quarters. Given that I bought a total of 5 boxes per 100 total possibilities for a total of 20 dollars. I won 150 dollars and put out 20, so I'm up 130. I used math to figure out what boxes were most likely to hit regardless of what the box categories would be. I'm not pointing this out to toot my own horn (maybe a little). I'm pointing it out to say that math matters and Nate is as good as they come when running trials with stats. The Palimania is starting to fizzle out. Obama is looking stronger every day and I'm glad.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Laerod

22-09-2008, 09:26

Clarify, bitte.It had no zing. Sure, there was the occasional bit of cheering, but overall the vast majority didn't get hyped up. Every person I was with agreed that it was a pretty lame speech, even my sister, who's been shunning me as a traitor for not wanting to vote for the Messiah and throwing my vote away for Nader.

Laerod

22-09-2008, 09:27

Was it the good kind of sucking?No, the "are you done yet?" kind.

Kyronea

22-09-2008, 09:48

It had no zing. Sure, there was the occasional bit of cheering, but overall the vast majority didn't get hyped up. Every person I was with agreed that it was a pretty lame speech, even my sister, who's been shunning me as a traitor for not wanting to vote for the Messiah and throwing my vote away for Nader.

So, basically, it was a speech written for an American audience, and since Germans aren't Americans, the cultural differences worked to Obama's disadvantage?

(I suspect he'd be seen as a better speaker had the speech been made for a German audience, but that wasn't about to happen given that Obama would've been criticized across the board for various things had he done that.)

Laerod

22-09-2008, 09:52

So, basically, it was a speech written for an American audience, and since Germans aren't Americans, the cultural differences worked to Obama's disadvantage?

(I suspect he'd be seen as a better speaker had the speech been made for a German audience, but that wasn't about to happen given that Obama would've been criticized across the board for various things had he done that.)Well, consider that both my sister and I are Americans and that a lot of the friends with us were as well. Sure, it was tailored for an American audience, which is probably why it was so bad. The three main points I remember were "This is the history of your city (as we Americans fondly remember it", "Our allies will be called to do their duty", and "End nuclear proliferation". The first was rather meh, the second wasn't popular at all, but the third received cheering.

Kyronea

22-09-2008, 10:00

Well, consider that both my sister and I are Americans and that a lot of the friends with us were as well. Sure, it was tailored for an American audience, which is probably why it was so bad. The three main points I remember were "This is the history of your city (as we Americans fondly remember it", "Our allies will be called to do their duty", and "End nuclear proliferation". The first was rather meh, the second wasn't popular at all, but the third received cheering.

Well, he did the best he could with the material. He's a good orator when given good material, but even the best orators would suck if their scripts were written by, say, TAI, or SL.

Peisandros

22-09-2008, 10:16

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

Good site that one, thanks for that.

Kyronea

22-09-2008, 10:51

Good site that one, thanks for that.

No it isn't. It's an obvious pro-Obama site. Pure garbage.

Fonzica

22-09-2008, 11:04

No it isn't. It's an obvious pro-Obama site. Pure garbage.

I took a statistics course last semester, and a lot of his mathematical reasoning seemed right on the ball. Bias or not, I couldn't fault him on his statistical methods.

Cannot think of a name

22-09-2008, 11:07

I took a statistics course last semester, and a lot of his mathematical reasoning seemed right on the ball. Bias or not, I couldn't fault him on his statistical methods.

He felt that transparency in his system was important, and that included the fact that he is an Obama supporter. The core of his website is the mathematical analysis, which is also transparent and made waves by being the most accurate predictor of the primary outcomes. The opinion blog pieces are in fact taken from a pro-Obama point of view, but the math is math.

Maineiacs

22-09-2008, 11:42

No it isn't. It's an obvious pro-Obama site. Pure garbage.

And yet he had McCain ahead in the electoral college just last week.

Zombie PotatoHeads

22-09-2008, 11:49

Still waiting for an answer from CH.

Still waiting for some proof that his views regarding the Presidential race are anything other than a temper tantrum over Senator Clinton.
Hey, wait in line!
I'm still waiting for him to answer my two questions:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14020644&postcount=911

methinks we'll both be waiting a very loooonnnng time...

Ashmoria

22-09-2008, 14:59

The real potential problem will come from the possibility that while Obama will be fantastic when you watch the debate, he won't be as good at the sound bites game that will no doubt be played, especially if the Republicans start dancing to "Let's Take Stuff Out Of Context!"
both sides will do that. thats why its good to watch all the debates yourself so you can say "thats not what he said" when some idiot friend tells you that obama admitted to being a moslem or mccain forgot how many feet he has.

Khadgar

22-09-2008, 15:29

both sides will do that. thats why its good to watch all the debates yourself so you can say "thats not what he said" when some idiot friend tells you that obama admitted to being a moslem or mccain forgot how many feet he has.

Meh, I doubt I'll watch them. Less infuriating to catch the recap on FactCheck.

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 15:30

they need just a simple majority to pass. Clarence Thomas - that outstanding proponent of affirmative action and womens rights - squeaked in 52-48.
Right now, the Senate is 49-all, with two independents. All GOP need is to have those 2 indys vote along with them and the judge nomination is done and dusted. Heck, just 1 voting for and 1 abstaining would do it, afaik!

As you didn't bother answering my questions previously, I'll ask them again:
1. Considering the oldest serving member of SCOTUS is 88, do you think he will last serving out another 4 years?
2. Considering the already publicly stated views of McCain & Palin, do you think they would nominate a judge for SCOTUS whose viewpoints are more in line with the 4 judges who voted against upholding Roe v Wade? Bearing in mind that those four judges were all nominated by the Bushes.

They're simple yes/no questions so it surely can't be too hard for you to answer.
In all honesty. a simple yes or no answer would not do justice to the question at hand and would rely strictly on pure speculation.

Since 7 of the current 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, one would assume that technically Roe v. Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Dissents)could be overturned at any time if it was simply a matter of partisan politics only.

Political leanings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Political_leanings)

Now that I have answered your questions, perhaps you could tell me what nation you used to post under, that I am familiar with, before you picked up this new nation?

EDIT: which 4 judges "voted against upholding Roe v Wade"?

Fonzica

22-09-2008, 15:34

In all honesty. a simple yes or no answer would not do justice to the question at hand and would rely strictly on pure speculation.

Since 7 of the current 9 judges were appointed by Republican Presidents, one would assume that technically Roe v. Wade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Dissents)could be overturned at any time if it was simply a matter of partisan politics only.

Political leanings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Political_leanings)

Now that I have answered your questions, perhaps you could tell me what nation you used to post under, that I am familiar with, before you picked up this new nation?

You haven't answered his questions. He asked "do you think they would nominate a judge for SCOTUS whose viewpoints are more in line with the 4 judges who voted against upholding Roe v Wade?", and you had no answer for him on that. You just gave some rhetoric about how it 'could' be overturned at any time if it was a partisan political matter. He asked you if you think that McCain would pick candidates who would vote objective on the issue, or if he would specifically pick candidates who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and you didn't answer. It's not a partisan matter, it's a simple matter of 4 vs. 5, with McCain getting to pick someone who will basically have the deciding vote. Just answer the question.

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 15:36

The real potential problem will come from the possibility that while Obama will be fantastic when you watch the debate, he won't be as good at the sound bites game that will no doubt be played, especially if the Republicans start dancing to "Let's Take Stuff Out Of Context!"
Of course Democrats would never take anything out of context, or play "the sound bites game"? :rolleyes:

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 15:42

You haven't answered his questions. He asked "do you think they would nominate a judge for SCOTUS whose viewpoints are more in line with the 4 judges who voted against upholding Roe v Wade?", and you had no answer for him on that. You just gave some rhetoric about how it 'could' be overturned at any time if it was a partisan political matter. He asked you if you think that McCain would pick candidates who would vote objective on the issue, or if he would specifically pick candidates who would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and you didn't answer. It's not a partisan matter, it's a simple matter of 4 vs. 5, with McCain getting to pick someone who will basically have the deciding vote. Just answer the question.
No need to go ballistic. I believe that I answered it the best way possible. While McCain may appoint someone that holds conservative views, those views may or may not lead to the decision that McCain desires in Roe v. Wade. There are no guarantees?

Also, if Roe v. Wade is re-visited it still could be overturned without any further nominations to the existing court? That is a real possibility that no one has explored?

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 15:49

He asked "do you think they would nominate a judge for SCOTUS whose viewpoints are more in line with the 4 judges who voted against upholding Roe v Wade.
Again, same question I asked Zombie:

Which 4 judges are you referring to?

Fonzica

22-09-2008, 15:49

Pirated Corsairs

22-09-2008, 15:53

Dempublicents1

22-09-2008, 16:02

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 16:09

It seems unlikely, based on the opinions of the current justices, that it will be overturned without further nominations.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that it would be overturned without further nominations. Does that not make it all the more imperative that McCain not win? If Roe v. Wade is in danger as it is, wouldn't it be of great importance to make damn sure that it is protected by making sure the person who gets to decide who gets to be the deciding vote is not somebody who has stated that he wants it overturned?
So the singlemost important issue of this election is not to elect a politician that may nominate a judge to the SCOTUS that may not get affirmed by a Democrat Senate and if that person did get affirmed by the Senate, said judge may or may not support the overturn of Roe v. Wade, even though SCOTUS could overturn said decision with or without the potential nominee?

Interesting.....

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 16:18

Your article suggests that this would be a cause of concern with any Democratic president.
The article suggests a concern for Canadians as a whole. I certainly would have concerns with either Hillary or Obama in this matter, but I certainly believe that I could live with it.

Are you now saying that you'd favor McCain over Clinton?
Of course not. The clincher for me is Obama's foreign policy.

BTW, I think my sig tells my preferences for the next 2 elections.

Pirated Corsairs

22-09-2008, 16:22

So the singlemost important issue of this election is not to elect a politician that may nominate a judge to the SCOTUS that may not get affirmed by a Democrat Senate and if that person did get affirmed by the Senate, said judge may or may not support the overturn of Roe v. Wade, even though SCOTUS could overturn said decision with or without the potential nominee?

Interesting.....

I'm not sure how much you follow American politics outside of this presidential race, but...
The Senate confirmation is, essentially, likely to be a very small issue. All McCain would need to do is keep appointing anti-choice judges. Then, even if they were legitimately not qualified, if the Dems keep denying them, the backlash will be against the "obstructionist" Democrats. Because most politicians want to get re-elected (shocker), eventually, they'd let one in and Roe would go from being possibly vaguely a little bit threatened to almost certainly overturned for a generation.

Yes, SCOTUS *could* overturn Roe anyway. But it is incredibly unlikely-- any challenge is likely to be defeated 5-4. However, if McCain gets a single appointment, it will likely go the other way.

Further, you are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed it was "the single most important issue in this election," as you claim I did, just that it is of a very great importance. You may not think reproductive rights are an important issue, but I think they are huge.

However, a justice likely to overturn Roe is also likely to vote with the conservatives on other issues. When cases come, for example, to defend the rights of homosexuals, or of non-Christians, or whoever, the justices that a McCain (and especially a Palin, if it comes to that) administration would appoint would be decidedly conservative (that is, against the rights of these people).

Khadgar

22-09-2008, 16:38

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html

CNN finally picks up on the Wasilla rape kit debacle.

Dempublicents1

22-09-2008, 17:01

Bush didn't win those debates, Gore and Kerry lost them. Both were walking bottles of valium. Obama isn't Gore or Kerry. Like him or hate him, you have to admit that he's one hell of an orator. Probably the best this country has produced in the last 40 years.

Of course, that could be a problem. "Great orator" somehow equates to "elitist" for many people. The fact that Obama will talk to debate moderators and US citizens like adults who can actually understand the issues could end up being a point against him with those who just want to hear black & white/ yes or no answers.

Zombie PotatoHeads

22-09-2008, 17:13

No need to go ballistic. I believe that I answered it the best way possible. While McCain may appoint someone that holds conservative views, those views may or may not lead to the decision that McCain desires in Roe v. Wade. There are no guarantees?

Also, if Roe v. Wade is re-visited it still could be overturned without any further nominations to the existing court? That is a real possibility that no one has explored?
How sweet it is to feel wanted. One does have to wonder why you felt the need to constantly demand an answer from someone not online. Almost as if you felt multiple postings without reply 'prove' your point.

fyi, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were the dissenting ones in the Nebraska case. Rehnquist is no longer on the court - he's been replaced by Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee.

Pertinent are the reasons given for wanting that type of abortion banned:
Thomas said the Casey decision made it clear that not all abortion regulations are "unwarranted and that the states may express profound respect for fetal life."
Scalia: "The method of killing a human child ... proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion." Demanding a "health exception," he wrote, "is to give live-birth abortion free rein."
Kennedy objected on the basis that the court was undermining a state's right to decide what is a "critical and legitimate" abortion statute within its boundaries.

From what I see, only one of those 3 is actually looking at the legal aspects. Thomas and Scalia are solely looking at the emotive side. Something I really don't feel comfortable with - Justices making law based on their feelings, not legalities.

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.partialbirth.02/

That was in 2000. The last time a specific type of abortion ban was upheld was in 2007. It was upheld 5-4.
And guess who they were?
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html

Kennedy is 72, Thomas is 60, Scalia is 72, Alito is 58 and Roberts is 53.
Roberts and Alito are Bush Jnr appointees, Thomas is a Bush Snr appointee and Scalia and Kennedy are Reagan appointees. Notice something there?

Kennedy is the key here. He is usually the swing vote for such conscience issues. These two instances, he voted against abortion but it's unlikely he'd go so far as to overturn Roe v Wade.

However, given the other 4 Justices open opinions on the matter, they would. They just need one more Justice with them. Justice John Stevens is 88, and considered one of the most liberal Justices. Realistically, he's not going to last out another 4 years.

Seems to me, you've backed yourself into a corner but refuse to admit it so strike out at everything.
Yes it's possible a President McCain might back a very liberal judge for Supreme Court Justice. Oh it's soooo possible.
And yes it's slightly more possible he might back a conservative judge whose viewpoint is that Roe v Wade is sacrosanct.
But do you honestly believe that?
Do you honestly believe that McCain, who has openly stated he thinks Roe v Wade was a mistake, and who has as his veep a woman who believes all forms of abortion (not just some, but ALL forms of abortion) should be banned - even in cases of rape or incest - do you honestly believe he would, if given the chance, NOT nominate a judge who holds his views about Roe v Wade?
Are you really that duplicitous to yourself?

And to answer yet another one of your posts directed at me - no, it's not the main issue of this election campaign but it is a very important one. Note the ages of the anti-abortion judges. 3 of them are under 60. Another 50-something appointee by a conservative President would mean them serving for the next 20+ years. Serving AND making/interpreting law for the next 20, maybe even 30 years.
And before you point out that's only 4, Scalia is 72, so could well sit for another 10-15 years easily. During that time, we'll have another GOP Presidency, definitely. And also during that time, Ruth Ginsburg, the next oldest at 75 and also one of the most liberal of Justices will have retired.

As Corsairs points out, this isn't just about Roe v Wade, it's about every liberal issue out there. Homosexual rights, Affirmative action, wire-tapping, executive power, POW rights, etc etc etc.

Zombie PotatoHeads

22-09-2008, 17:18

McCain has another 'senior' moment:
McCain says economy in crisis
Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who only a week ago said the economy was fundamentally sound, now says the U.S. financial system is facing a major crisis.
Speaking Monday on NBC's "Today" show McCain said, "We are in the most serious crisis since World War II."
He also said that despite the ballooning national debt he would not raise taxes if elected president.
McCain said "history shows us that if you raise people's taxes in tough economic times that makes problems worse."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_economy

McCain's mind in action: The economy is sound! no it isn't! yes it is! no it isn't! where are my pants? wait..what was I thinking about again?

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 17:22

I'm not sure how much you follow American politics outside of this presidential race, but...
The Senate confirmation is, essentially, likely to be a very small issue. All McCain would need to do is keep appointing anti-choice judges. Then, even if they were legitimately not qualified, if the Dems keep denying them, the backlash will be against the "obstructionist" Democrats. Because most politicians want to get re-elected (shocker), eventually, they'd let one in and Roe would go from being possibly vaguely a little bit threatened to almost certainly overturned for a generation.
So the singlemost important criteria for a SCOTUS nominee is whether they will support Roe. v. Wade or not?

Yes, SCOTUS *could* overturn Roe anyway. But it is incredibly unlikely-- any challenge is likely to be defeated 5-4.
You base this on what?

However, if McCain gets a single appointment, it will likely go the other way.
Pure speculation as I demonstrated earlier?

Further, you are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed it was "the single most important issue in this election," as you claim I did, just that it is of a very great importance. You may not think reproductive rights are an important issue, but I think they are huge.
You are suggesting that McCain shouldn't be elected because of his stance on this issue....I quote your words:

If Roe v. Wade is in danger as it is, wouldn't it be of great importance to make damn sure that it is protected by making sure the person who gets to decide who gets to be the deciding vote is not somebody who has stated that he wants it overturned?

However, a justice likely to overturn Roe is also likely to vote with the conservatives on other issues. When cases come, for example, to defend the rights of homosexuals, or of non-Christians, or whoever, the justices that a McCain (and especially a Palin, if it comes to that) administration would appoint would be decidedly conservative (that is, against the rights of these people).
What is the job of the SCOTUS? Is it not to interpret the rule of law based on the Constitution?

Pirated Corsairs

22-09-2008, 17:43

So the singlemost important criteria for a SCOTUS nominee is whether they will support Roe. v. Wade or not?

Well, it's a vastly important issue. But, as I said, any Justice who would oppose reproductive rights would likely oppose other rights.

You base this on what?

Essentially, there are 4 conservative judges and 4 liberal judges. The swing is Justice Kennedy. Looking at his record, he is willing to put restrictions on abortion, but not overturn Roe entirely.

Pure speculation as I demonstrated earlier?

You did no such thing. You asserted it was pure speculation. You tried to use the Senate confirmation as a barrier, but, as I pointed out, that is, in reality, barely an issue.

You are suggesting that McCain shouldn't be elected because of his stance on this issue....I quote your words:

Yes, I said it would be of great importance. And thus, it would be a reason not to vote for McCain-- but not the only reason.

What is the job of the SCOTUS? Is it not to interpret the rule of law based on the Constitution?

And some conservative judges would remove reproductive rights.

Dempublicents1

22-09-2008, 17:48

Someone had noted with some (feigned) dismay about the lack of lawn signs in this election. Here is another reasonable explanation behind their absence on both sides. (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/breaking-obama-campaign-organizers.html) Good riddance, says I...

There's also homeowner's associations. Some of them won't let you have yard signs.*

Meanies.

*But they can't control what I put on the Jeep that we rarely use. BUAHAHA.

Tmutarakhan

22-09-2008, 18:09

So the singlemost important criteria for a SCOTUS nominee is whether they will support Roe. v. Wade or not?
That will be, not just the most important criterion, but essentially the ONLY criterion, that a McCain/Palin administration will look at.

Dempublicents1

22-09-2008, 18:21

So the singlemost important criteria for a SCOTUS nominee is whether they will support Roe. v. Wade or not?

It's more a matter of whether or not they will uphold the individual rights protected by the Constitution.

Abortion is a specific and very high profile example.

You base this on what?

How about past voting records?

At this particular point, any abortion case is most likely to be decided 5-4 in one direction or the other, with Kennedy as the deciding vote. Kennedy tends to modulate his decisions even when he does side with the conservatives, so he'd be highly unlikely to actually overturn Roe v. Wade or Casey, although he might agree with rulings that weaken them.

Pure speculation as I demonstrated earlier?

If by "pure speculation", you mean, "We can't know for sure but we can make educated guesses," sure.

CanuckHeaven

22-09-2008, 18:47

It's more a matter of whether or not they will uphold the individual rights protected by the Constitution.

Abortion is a specific and very high profile example.
Are abortion laws in fact "individual rights protected by the Constitution"?

Food for thought:

Legal criticisms by liberal scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Legal_criticisms_by_liberal_scholars

Roef

22-09-2008, 18:55

Mccain is horrible! He will be just like bush! Not that i dont like crazy people, but i think Obama is better. He's not my kinda guy to, but better than McCain...
What an ugly name anyway... MCCAIN! Its like someone going to the toilet (if you know what i mean)... BAH!

Khadgar

22-09-2008, 19:20

Knights of Liberty

22-09-2008, 19:25

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html

CNN finally picks up on the Wasilla rape kit debacle.

Bout damn time the media grew their balls back.

Kyronea

22-09-2008, 19:33

He felt that transparency in his system was important, and that included the fact that he is an Obama supporter. The core of his website is the mathematical analysis, which is also transparent and made waves by being the most accurate predictor of the primary outcomes. The opinion blog pieces are in fact taken from a pro-Obama point of view, but the math is math.

Oh, wait, this is that guy?

Sorry, I take back what I said. I thought it was someone else.

Kyronea

22-09-2008, 19:34

Of course Democrats would never take anything out of context, or play "the sound bites game"? :rolleyes:

I never said they wouldn't. I simply said he wouldn't be as good at it. If anything, I am acknowledging he will play the game.

The Cat-Tribe

22-09-2008, 20:00

Are abortion laws in fact "individual rights protected by the Constitution"?

Food for thought:

Legal criticisms by liberal scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Legal_criticisms_by_liberal_scholars

Is this really what you have sunk to? Using Wikipedia blurbs to criticize abortion rights?

And, for the record, liberal scholars criticizing specifics about Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is very, very different from those same scholars believing abortion rights are "not in fact 'individual rights protected by the Constitution.'"

Regardless, whether or not one can critique Roe isn't very relevant. There are now 35 years of precedent built on and clarifying Roe. Before you shoot your mouth off again about abortion rights, you might want to read Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833), 505 U.S. 833 (1992). For now, I won't quote extensively from Casey in hopes that it won't be necessary to convince you that you are on the wrong track.

BTW, what do Nader/Gonzalez and Hillary Clinton think of abortion rights? Oh, yeah, Nader/Gonzalez has endorsed NOW's position on the issue and Senator Clinton is a strong support of the pro-choice movement.

Dempublicents1

22-09-2008, 20:04

Are abortion laws in fact "individual rights protected by the Constitution"?

Um....no. No law is a "right protected by the Constitution."

Is the right to one's own body - including the ability to determine how and when others use it - such a right? Absolutely.

Khadgar

22-09-2008, 20:05

Bout damn time the media grew their balls back.

If they had any balls they'd take politicians to task over their lies.

Heikoku 2

22-09-2008, 20:06

Is this really what you have sunk to? Using Wikipedia blurbs to criticize abortion rights?

Essentially: SOMEONE WITH A VAGINA MUST BE IN THE WHITE HOUSE, NO MATTER HOW MANY OTHER PEOPLE WITH VAGINAS HAVE TO SUFFER IN HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE PAIN! AND THAT'S PROGRESS! Somehow...

CthulhuFhtagn

22-09-2008, 20:25

And, for the record, liberal scholars criticizing specifics about Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html), 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is very, very different from those same scholars believing abortion rights are "not in fact 'individual rights protected by the Constitution.'"

Isn't the criticism that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional from their perspective that it is far too limiting? 'Cause that's kind of the opposite of believing that abortion rights aren't protected.

Knights of Liberty

23-09-2008, 02:38

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/22/mccain-aide-blows-gasket-rips-new-york-times/

Damn New York Times, asking tough questions and printing the truth. Why cant you be like that paragon of Media integrity like Fox News and suck the GOP's flacid dick?

By the way, the Times – not surprisingly – hasn’t cowered and apologized. Instead, the executive editor released a standard statement.

“The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively,” Keller wrote. “It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisers. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.”

Translation: Suck it McCain.

Zombie PotatoHeads

23-09-2008, 03:13

I noticed Schmidt successfully managed to not answer the question, though. Typical Rovian tactic: attack the reporter and their media outlet to avoid answering anything.

What's sad is that it worked, as no other reporter there had the balls to re-ask the question. Which speaks volumes about the level of journalistic integrity in the US MSM.
It also makes one pause to wonder, "If the NYT is a liberal mouth-piece, proof of which is it asks these questions, then surely all other MSM's aren't because they don't ask these questions". But that can't be right, because we all 'know' that all MSM is liberal!

Did you read the comments? fascinating stuff to see a republican mind at work. All attacked the NYT as liberal trash, but none actually referred to the question itself. Rovian hive-mind in action.

Fonzica

23-09-2008, 05:00

Are abortion laws in fact "individual rights protected by the Constitution"?

Food for thought:

Legal criticisms by liberal scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Legal_criticisms_by_liberal_scholars

So now you're trying to defend McBush's anti-abortion stance, despite your earlier in the year preferred candidate Clinton being extremely pro-choice?

Clearly, you have demonstrated through your posts, that you are not looking at this election by issues, but by good ol' right-wing looney republicanism. I'd say that it's not too far of a stretch to say that you're just faking the whole Nadar '08/Clinton '12 thing to try and sway dissassociated Clinton voters into voting for McBush.

Since you have committed a flip-flop of the highest order on abortion issues, it is clearly very easy to say you're not considering issues in this election, and that your bias towards one candidate is showing thoroughly. Funny thing is, your flip-flop is only half way. On one hand, you want McBush to win so he can remove abortion rights, and you're defending his stance on abortion rights. On the other hand, you still support Clinton who, if anything, wants more abortion rights. Either you support McBush out of nothing but spite, and you just want to be able to say "I was right, the democrats should have chosen Clintin" and then poke your tongue out, or you never supported Clinton and were always for the evangelical conservative ticket and are just feining support for Clinton. Because NO ONE could genuinely support both Clinton and McCain, unless they were completely retarded. Since you don't seem to be completely retarded, it must be something else. So what is it?

Svalbardania

23-09-2008, 05:42

*snip*
Because NO ONE could genuinely support both Clinton and McCain, unless they were completely retarded. Since you don't seem to be completely retarded, it must be something else. So what is it?

Oh snap!

I wish CH would answer this, just this question. It's pleasant, you're outright saying he's intelligent and clever, and asking for a reasonable response.

Unfortunately, I can see this being derided as flaming.

Heikoku 2

23-09-2008, 05:46

you're outright saying he's intelligent and clever

Well, no, he's saying CH isn't retarded. :p

Liuzzo

23-09-2008, 06:01

No it isn't. It's an obvious pro-Obama site. Pure garbage.

Somehow I think this must be a joke. Just last week it had Obama trailing McCain by about 30-40 EC points. It has gone back and forth. As of right now it shows that Palimania is losing its steam, and people are learning how much the McCain/Palin campaign is willing to lie and distort to win. Factcheck.org is keeping them both honest and I applaud their work.

Jocabia

23-09-2008, 06:22

Are abortion laws in fact "individual rights protected by the Constitution"?

Food for thought:

Legal criticisms by liberal scholars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Legal_criticisms_by_liberal_scholars

Seriously? I mean, seriously? This is where you've landed?

The issues with your post have been adequately addressed, but I simply can't imagine how you can have reached this level of cognitive dissonance.

Svalbardania

23-09-2008, 06:32

Well, no, he's saying CH isn't retarded. :p

Well, ok, he's implying CH is a reasonable person. Which is good. Flattery can get you a lot which bullying can't.

Svalbardania

23-09-2008, 06:34

Somehow I think this must be a joke. Just last week it had Obama trailing McCain by about 30-40 EC points. It has gone back and forth. As of right now it shows that Palimania is losing its steam, and people are learning how much the McCain/Palin campaign is willing to lie and distort to win. Factcheck.org is keeping them both honest and I applaud their work.

As was mentioned earlier, the maths behind the site is (are?) completely unbiased. It's just the the opinion pieces and everything else is. Which is fine, people are allowed to present their opinion, as long as the facts are not distorted. Which in the this case they are not. So all is well. It is a quality site.

You with us?

Liuzzo

23-09-2008, 06:34

Seriously? I mean, seriously? This is where you've landed?

The issues with your post have been adequately addressed, but I simply can't imagine how you can have reached this level of cognitive dissonance.

Yes you can. We've gone through this so many times before. I believe it very much as it's a consistent pattern.

Liuzzo

23-09-2008, 06:41

As was mentioned earlier, the maths behind the site is (are?) completely unbiased. It's just the the opinion pieces and everything else is. Which is fine, people are allowed to present their opinion, as long as the facts are not distorted. Which in the this case they are not. So all is well. It is a quality site.

You with us?

I have always been completely with you. I was the one who just presented the site. I've been pushing this site for quite a while now. Please don't speak to me as if I do not understand this site. I've followed Nate since he was predicting football and baseball stats and records. He is an Obama supporter and I respect him for his opinions. He uses a lot of mathematical evidence to promote his points. I applaud him and love his work.

Svalbardania

23-09-2008, 06:50

I have always been completely with you. I was the one who just presented the site. I've been pushing this site for quite a while now. Please don't speak to me as if I do not understand this site. I've followed Nate since he was predicting football and baseball stats and records. He is an Obama supporter and I respect him for his opinions. He uses a lot of mathematical evidence to promote his points. I applaud him and love his work.

Oh no, I'm sorry if that came out wrong. I totally support the site, I think it rocks, and I know you were the one who brought it up. I hadn't seen it until you showed me. I was just clarifying why somebody said it was Obama-biased. Probably it was a lack of readong comprehension on my part, but I got the impression you disagreed with the fact that there is an Obama bias.

Liuzzo

23-09-2008, 06:58

Oh no, I'm sorry if that came out wrong. I totally support the site, I think it rocks, and I know you were the one who brought it up. I hadn't seen it until you showed me. I was just clarifying why somebody said it was Obama-biased. Probably it was a lack of readong comprehension on my part, but I got the impression you disagreed with the fact that there is an Obama bias.

There's no Obama bias in the math. The bias comes from Nate himself and he admits he is biased. It still doesn't change the statistics and trials he puts forth. The math is solid, and he uses them to support his position. I was objecting not that it had obama bias, but the claim that it was "pure garbage." Calling it pure garbage is just shit unless said posters wants to refute the math.

Barringtonia

23-09-2008, 07:13

A fun article...

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/22/opinion/edkristof.php)

A Pew Research Center survey released a few days ago found that only half of Americans correctly know that Obama is a Christian. Meanwhile, 13 percent of registered voters say that he is a Muslim, compared with 12 percent in June and 10 percent in March.

More ominously, a rising share - now 16 percent - say they aren't sure about his religion because they've heard "different things" about it.

When I've traveled around the country, particularly to my childhood home in rural Oregon, I've been struck by the number of people who ask something like: That Obama - is he really a Christian? Isn't he a Muslim or something? Didn't he take his oath of office on the Koran?

In fact, of course, Obama took his oath on the Bible, not - as the rumors have it - on the Koran. He is far more active in church than McCain is.

(Just imagine for a moment if it were the black candidate in this election, rather than the white candidate, who was born in Central America, was an indifferent churchgoer, had graduated near the bottom of his university class, had dumped his first wife, had regularly displayed an explosive and profane temper, and had referred to the Pakistani-Iraqi border ... .)

In conservative Christian circles and on Christian radio stations, there are even widespread theories that Obama just may be the Antichrist. Seriously.

John Green, of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, says that about 10 percent of Americans believe America may be in the Book of Revelation's "end times" and are on the lookout for the Antichrist.

A constant barrage of e-mail and broadcasts suggest that Obama just may be it.

No matter how liberal this board might be, we're not even close compared to the other side.

Svalbardania

23-09-2008, 07:33

A fun article...

Link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/22/opinion/edkristof.php)

No matter how liberal this board might be, we're not even close compared to the other side.

Lol.

Gauthier

23-09-2008, 07:38

Lol.

It's funny until you realize these are the very same morons who put Dear Leader into office.

Twice.

:eek::eek2::eek::eek2::eek::eek2:

Svalbardania

23-09-2008, 08:30

It's funny until you realize these are the very same morons who put Dear Leader into office.

Twice.

:eek::eek2::eek::eek2::eek::eek2:

I'm reduced to laughing out of fear. :(

Heikoku 2

23-09-2008, 14:34

Look at the bright side: When Obama wins, people who think he's "M0zlem" or the Antichrist will suffer due to the fear for 4 to 8 years, something which I, personally, will enjoy, and you might as well.

Laerod

23-09-2008, 14:43

No matter how liberal this board might be, we're not even close compared to the other side.Reality and its liberal bias be damned!

Heikoku 2

23-09-2008, 17:06

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/Chris_Rock_The_Patriots_got_a_lot_of_points_too_but_they_lost_to_the_Giants.html

Chris Rock, spot on. :D

CthulhuFhtagn

23-09-2008, 17:29

I'm reduced to laughing out of fear. :(

Don't worry. Some day the rapture will come and God will take them away so we don't have to deal with them anymore. It's really the best for all involved parties. We don't have to be surrounded by the nutjobs, the nutjobs get to have their own paradise, and God can shoot skeet for the next couple of eons.

Knights of Liberty

23-09-2008, 18:45

Don't worry. Some day the rapture will come and God will take them away so we don't have to deal with them anymore. It's really the best for all involved parties. We don't have to be surrounded by the nutjobs, the nutjobs get to have their own paradise, and God can shoot skeet for the next couple of eons.

And those that arent raptured will take refuge in Alaska.

Awesome article:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/09/in_defense_of_the_new_york_tim.html

The bottom line: The McCain campaign just doesn’t want anyone to call them out on anything. It hopes to intimidate reporters and discredit those who try to give an honest account of the campaign. As Joe Klein noted on his blog, Schmidt’s theory must be that “if he complains enough about press bias, we mainstream sorts will cower, cringe and try to seek false equivalences between the two campaigns.” Here’s hoping that there is great resistance to cowering and cringing.

To be fair to the McCain campaign, I dont blame them for trying this, I mean, its worked wonders for the GOP in the past.

CthulhuFhtagn

23-09-2008, 19:17

Well I'll be damned. Some time in the past few weeks the media's testicles dropped.

Knights of Liberty

23-09-2008, 19:20

Well I'll be damned. Some time in the past few weeks the media's testicles dropped.

Yeah, all of a sudden the medias got a backbone. I guess they got tired of the GOP kicking them in the teeth.

Grave_n_idle

23-09-2008, 19:21

Yeah, all of a sudden the medias got a backbone. I guess they got tired of the GOP kicking them in the teeth.

I don't think that particular biological process is called 'kicking'...

Heikoku 2

23-09-2008, 19:22

Yeah, all of a sudden the medias got a backbone. I guess they got tired of the GOP kicking them in the teeth.

Magnificent! Let them gut that cursed, cancerous, repulsive bastard!

Heikoku 2

23-09-2008, 19:23

I don't think that particular biological process is called 'kicking'...

And the place isn't called "teeth" either?

Grave_n_idle

23-09-2008, 19:28

And the place isn't called "teeth" either?

That's about what I was thinking. :)

Khadgar

23-09-2008, 19:36

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/23/media-presses-mccain-campaign-for-access-to-palin-meeting/

Less than 30 seconds of seeing her chat with Karzai. Banning most media from seeing the meeting. Is it any wonder the media is turning against McCain?

Ashmoria

23-09-2008, 19:55

Khadgar

23-09-2008, 19:56

i wonder if the various leaders are going to comment on their meetings.

One could begin to get the impression that McCain's handlers don't trust Palin to stick to the message around the media. Or that she's so inept she can't handle questions. The latter seems unlikely from a governor.

Ashmoria

23-09-2008, 20:00

One could begin to get the impression that McCain's handlers don't trust Palin to stick to the message around the media. Or that she's so inept she can't handle questions. The latter seems unlikely from a governor.
mccain's handlers seem to know something that we dont (or only think we do). they keep making excuses for mccain's gaffes that put him in a bad light (he really doesnt want to meet with the president of spain) and they keep palin well away from the press.

they seem to have no confidence in their candidates.

Khadgar

23-09-2008, 20:06

mccain's handlers seem to know something that we dont (or only think we do). they keep making excuses for mccain's gaffes that put him in a bad light (he really doesnt want to meet with the president of spain) and they keep palin well away from the press.

they seem to have no confidence in their candidates.

It's remarkably effective.

Cannot think of a name

23-09-2008, 21:33

“What is his name?,” Palin asked.

“Mirwais,” Karzai responded. “Mirwais, which means, ‘The Light of the House.’”

“Oh nice,” Palin responded.

“He is the only one we have,” remarked Karzai.
She can make small talk with foreign leaders...um...good? I guess it's better than not being able to...

After 29 seconds observing the meeting, CNN and other photographers covering the meeting were escorted out of the room.

Later, McCain-Palin press representatives chalked up the restrictions to a “mix-up, a miscommunication among staff.” The full pool — a print and wires reporter, along with a television producer — was then allowed in to observe Palin’s meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe for 15-20 seconds.
"When we said 'mistake' we meant you were there too long to hear the sensitive small talk..."

Laerod

23-09-2008, 21:40

CthulhuFhtagn

23-09-2008, 22:59

Heikoku 2

23-09-2008, 23:03

Cannot think of a name

23-09-2008, 23:03

Wait, isn't Palin a member of that Christian sect that believes in the coming rapture? You know, the one with all those members who continually advocate the United States starting a full scale nuclear war in order to usher in said rapture?
I'm not saying I'd be surprised, but I'd still need a really reliable source. That kind of thing ends up in a feedback loop of confirmation pretty fast and then we look as stupid as the "Obama swore in on a Quran" crowd.

Tmutarakhan

23-09-2008, 23:07

I'm not saying I'd be surprised, but I'd still need a really reliable source. That kind of thing ends up in a feedback loop of confirmation pretty fast and then we look as stupid as the "Obama swore in on a Quran" crowd.How about the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/09/refuge_statedont_publish_yet.cfm), complete with a video of her standing by her pastor while he's in full rant?

Heikoku 2

23-09-2008, 23:16

How about the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/09/refuge_statedont_publish_yet.cfm), complete with a video of her standing by her pastor while he's in full rant?

Gods...

Again, people, MOVE, this is not a drill, urbi et orbi, let this be KNOWN! E-mail this, talk about this, swing staters, tattoo this on your foreheads! Dying is the day worth living for! I can't do much, but you, Americans, CAN!

CthulhuFhtagn

23-09-2008, 23:19

How about the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/09/refuge_statedont_publish_yet.cfm), complete with a video of her standing by her pastor while he's in full rant?

That connects her to the rapture people. As for advocating nuclear war I know it's been done many times on RaptureReady, but I don't recall it ever really being reported.

Tmutarakhan

23-09-2008, 23:25

I don't know of a direct connection to the "nuclear war is God's plan" type of people, but Palin was very casual when Charlie Gibson asked her if we should go to war with Russia, "maybe that's what it takes" or something to that effect.

Tmutarakhan

23-09-2008, 23:39

Palin credits her election as governor to the divine intercession invoked by a witch hunter from Kenya (http://www.alternet.org/election08/99118/sarah_palin_linked_her_electoral_success_to_prayer_of_kenyan_witch_hunter/) (this source also has video links).

Knights of Liberty

23-09-2008, 23:46

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/23/why-wont-sarah-palin-talk-to-the-press/

John McCain’s chief honcho in New York, Representative Peter King, compared her to some of the immortals of rock ‘n roll.

“She’s become like the Beatles or U2,” King said. “She’s got a certain celebrity status now – people want to see her; they want to hear her.”

Again, proves that its only a democrat celebrity that is "out of touch".

Oh, this is good.

Andrew Sullivan is creative in his criticism calling the McCain campaign’s handling of Palin “sexist” citing a different set of rules are applied for media access to Palin and “devising less onerous debate rules for a female candidate.” His advice to the beleagured press pool? Revolt!

“Fight back, you hacks! Demand access,” Sullivan writes. “Demand accountability! It’s our duty. If we cannot ask questions of a total newbie six weeks before an election in which she could become president of the country, then the First Amendment is pointless.”

Like I said, it seems suddenly the press (or at least some of them) grew themselves some balls.

Deus Malum

24-09-2008, 00:53

It was probably around the point when they realized that if they didn't start using them, they wouldn't have 'em for long.

Svalbardania

24-09-2008, 00:58

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/23/why-wont-sarah-palin-talk-to-the-press/

Again, proves that its only a democrat celebrity that is unelectable.
Sad but true. I wonder if Obama will run an ad on this.

Like I said, it seems suddenly the press (or at least some of them) grew themselves some balls.

We can only hope. I would be much happier if they did. In the same way I would be moderately chuffed if I won the world's largest lottery on the same day as having an orgy with Helena Bonham Carter, Jennifer Hawkins, Alessandra Ambrosio and Natasha Stott Despoja.

Whilst eating enchiladas.

And moose.

(The chocolate variety that is)

Knights of Liberty

24-09-2008, 01:53

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/23/palin-adviser-on-karzai-uribe-and-kissinger-meetings/

In her meeting with Karzai, they spoke about the resurgence of violence in Afghanistan, rights for women in his country

Palin probably wanted to know how best to institute the repressive laws a lot of the Middle East has regarding women into the US.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/23/meetings_with_foreign_leaders.html

But really, Palin is more qualified then Biden.

Kyronea

24-09-2008, 02:15

There's no Obama bias in the math. The bias comes from Nate himself and he admits he is biased. It still doesn't change the statistics and trials he puts forth. The math is solid, and he uses them to support his position. I was objecting not that it had obama bias, but the claim that it was "pure garbage." Calling it pure garbage is just shit unless said posters wants to refute the math.

And as I said before, I hadn't realized this was that person. I thought it was someone else.

Since I know it's the person who's math is not even remotely suspect, I can accept it.

Gauthier

24-09-2008, 02:27

Wonder why the Colorado AG would take the supposed assassination on Obama lightheartedly?

Maybe it's an endemic attitude:

Elementary Student Suspended For Anti-Obama Shirt
(http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=965A18D45E69D41B102A5F1B626BB079?contentId=7490636&version=10&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1)

Well, aside from the whole bit about school dress codes, the fact that the kid thinks Obama is a terrorist's best friend is a tragicomedy and a fine one at that. Apparently Junior missed out on the part where Dear Leader drove up terrorist recruitment by invading Iraq and that 2004 campaign video where Osama Bin Ladin encouraged people to re-elect Bush by threatening attacks if he was re-elected.

Oh and here's a hilarious bit from daddy:

The boy's father Dann Dalton describes himself as a "proud conservative" who has taken part in some controversial anti-abortion protests. Dalton says the school made a major mistake by suspending his son for wearing the shirt.

"It's the public school system," Dalton says. "Let's be honest, it's full of liberal loons."

"Proud Conservative."

Proud that a business manager more incompetent than everyone at Fanny, Freddy and AIG combined was placed in charge of the nation for 8 Years to run it into the ground like everything else he's been put in charge of?

Proud that the said incompetent business manager took the world's opinion of the U.S. in the tragic aftermath of 9-11 and magically made it gone down the shitter like that copy of the Qu'ran was supposed to have?

Proud that while crying out that Obama is a terrorist's best friend, Beloved Dear Leader made people want to join insurgency groups to where Bin Ladin pitched in to his re-election campaign gratis?

Proud that while he's afraid of "Tax and Spend Liberals" that the nation is jacking up the tax anyways and spending the revenue to bail out greedy and/or incompetent businesses that just happen to be lucky enough to be holding onto a Dead Man's Switch that'll blow up the world's economy if they let go?

Nero had a lot more humility while fiddling, that's for sure.

Damn, I wish I was Jon Stewart right now. I could do this shit real funny then.

Barringtonia

24-09-2008, 02:28

It was not apparent yesterday whether the resurfacing of a Brazilian ballerina and former model, with whom McCain had a fling as a young sailor during a visit to Rio de Janeiro 51 years ago, would add to his woes.

Maria Gracinda Teixeira, 77, who was tracked down by local media last week, said she was the woman McCain wistfully recalled - though did not name - in his 1999 memoir, Faith of My Fathers.

51 years ago, 77....

Seriously, has the media nothing better to do?

Gauthier

24-09-2008, 02:31

51 years ago, 77....

Seriously, has the media nothing better to do?

Only because "Obama is Bin Ladin's Sleeper Agent" is so passé.

Barringtonia

24-09-2008, 02:36

Only because "Obama is Bin Ladin's Sleeper Agent" is so passé.

It's from a longer article about cars, apparently John McCain has 13 cars, 4 of them are FOREIGN!

Burn him!

Seriously, when you're having to factor in the cars you drive...

It really is low season for reporting as we wait for the first debate.

Kyronea

24-09-2008, 02:47

Wonder why the Colorado AG would take the supposed assassination on Obama lightheartedly?

Maybe it's an endemic attitude:

Elementary Student Suspended For Anti-Obama Shirt
(http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=965A18D45E69D41B102A5F1B626BB079?contentId=7490636&version=10&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1)

Well, aside from the whole bit about school dress codes, the fact that the kid thinks Obama is a terrorist's best friend is a tragicomedy and a fine one at that. Apparently Junior missed out on the part where Dear Leader drove up terrorist recruitment by invading Iraq and that 2004 campaign video where Osama Bin Ladin encouraged people to re-elect Bush by threatening attacks if he was re-elected.

Oh and here's a hilarious bit from daddy:

"Proud Conservative."

Proud that a business manager more incompetent than everyone at Fanny, Freddy and AIG combined was placed in charge of the nation for 8 Years to run it into the ground like everything else he's been put in charge of?

Proud that the said incompetent business manager took the world's opinion of the U.S. in the tragic aftermath of 9-11 and magically made it gone down the shitter like that copy of the Qu'ran was supposed to have?

Proud that while crying out that Obama is a terrorist's best friend, Beloved Dear Leader made people want to join insurgency groups to where Bin Ladin pitched in to his re-election campaign gratis?

Proud that while he's afraid of "Tax and Spend Liberals" that the nation is jacking up the tax anyways and spending the revenue to bail out greedy and/or incompetent businesses that just happen to be lucky enough to be holding onto a Dead Man's Switch that'll blow up the world's economy if they let go?

Nero had a lot more humility while fiddling, that's for sure.

Damn, I wish I was Jon Stewart right now. I could do this shit real funny then.

That quote of his is going to be super fun to use for lots of things.

"It's the environment. Let's be honest: it's full of liberal loons."

"It's the government. Let's be honest: it's full of liberal loons."

"It's the Kingdom of Heaven. Let's be honest: it's full of liberal loons."

Svalbardania

24-09-2008, 03:01

That quote of his is going to be super fun to use for lots of things.

"It's the environment. Let's be honest: it's full of liberal loons."

"It's the government. Let's be honest: it's full of liberal loons."

"It's the Kingdom of Heaven. Let's be honest: it's full of liberal loons."

"It's NSG. Let's be honest: it's full of liberal loons."

Blouman Empire

24-09-2008, 03:09

*snip*

But I am sure that if the boy rocked up saying, McCain means Bush gets a 3rd term, then you would all be having the same laugh as now.

Liuzzo

24-09-2008, 03:13

Well I'll be damned. Some time in the past few weeks the media's testicles dropped.

McCain's campaign chair caught lying about lobbyist ties to Freddie Mac. Is there any integrity left in this campaign?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/w24davis.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Copiosa Scotia

24-09-2008, 03:15

“She’s become like the Beatles or U2,” King said. “She’s got a certain celebrity status now – people want to see her; they want to hear her.”

"And the only way this can continue is if people are never allowed to see or hear her." :tongue:

Liuzzo

24-09-2008, 03:21

And as I said before, I hadn't realized this was that person. I thought it was someone else.

Since I know it's the person who's math is not even remotely suspect, I can accept it.

Then we are in agreement sir.

Liuzzo

24-09-2008, 03:28

Wonder why the Colorado AG would take the supposed assassination on Obama lightheartedly?

Maybe it's an endemic attitude:

Elementary Student Suspended For Anti-Obama Shirt
(http://www.myfoxcolorado.com/myfox/pages/News/Politics/Detail;jsessionid=965A18D45E69D41B102A5F1B626BB079?contentId=7490636&version=10&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.14.1&sflg=1)

Well, aside from the whole bit about school dress codes, the fact that the kid thinks Obama is a terrorist's best friend is a tragicomedy and a fine one at that. Apparently Junior missed out on the part where Dear Leader drove up terrorist recruitment by invading Iraq and that 2004 campaign video where Osama Bin Ladin encouraged people to re-elect Bush by threatening attacks if he was re-elected.

Oh and here's a hilarious bit from daddy:

"Proud Conservative."

Proud that a business manager more incompetent than everyone at Fanny, Freddy and AIG combined was placed in charge of the nation for 8 Years to run it into the ground like everything else he's been put in charge of?

Proud that the said incompetent business manager took the world's opinion of the U.S. in the tragic aftermath of 9-11 and magically made it gone down the shitter like that copy of the Qu'ran was supposed to have?

Proud that while crying out that Obama is a terrorist's best friend, Beloved Dear Leader made people want to join insurgency groups to where Bin Ladin pitched in to his re-election campaign gratis?

Proud that while he's afraid of "Tax and Spend Liberals" that the nation is jacking up the tax anyways and spending the revenue to bail out greedy and/or incompetent businesses that just happen to be lucky enough to be holding onto a Dead Man's Switch that'll blow up the world's economy if they let go?

Nero had a lot more humility while fiddling, that's for sure.

Damn, I wish I was Jon Stewart right now. I could do this shit real funny then.

This will be thrown out. "Bong hits for Jesus" case anyone?

Free Soviets

24-09-2008, 03:29

McCain's campaign chair caught lying about lobbyist ties to Freddie Mac. Is there any integrity left in this campaign?

i object to the implication that it started with any

Knights of Liberty

24-09-2008, 03:31

But I am sure that if the boy rocked up saying, McCain means Bush gets a 3rd term, then you would all be having the same laugh as now.

Whats your point here man? Some conservative loon opened his mouth and said something stupid, and we're laughing at the moron.

I dont understand what double standard your trying to point out, unless you want me to laugh at a liberal? Find me an Al Gore quote. Ill laugh at it Im almost positive.

EDIT: Oh wow, this happened in Aurora, IL? Ill be honost guys, I live near Aurora and some of my friends lived in it. I can safely say this doesnt suprise me, because the vast majority of people in Aurora are white trash or idiots.

CthulhuFhtagn

24-09-2008, 03:32

i object to the implication that it started with any

Well, it started with the less metaphorical kind of integrity. I mean if you pumped McCain full of water it'd stay in McCain.

No wait, you're right.

Man I'm classy tonight.

Blouman Empire

24-09-2008, 03:42

Whats your point here man? Some conservative loon opened his mouth and said something stupid, and we're laughing at the moron.

I dont understand what double standard your trying to point out, unless you want me to laugh at a liberal? Find me an Al Gore quote. Ill laugh at it Im almost positive.

EDIT: Oh wow, this happened in Aurora, IL? Ill be honost guys, I live near Aurora and some of my friends lived in it. I can safely say this doesnt suprise me, because the vast majority of people in Aurora are white trash or idiots.

My point is that I hope you guys would act the same way if the boy was against McCain and for Obama.

Knights of Liberty

24-09-2008, 03:45

My point is that I hope you guys would act the same way if the boy was against McCain and for Obama.

Act what way? I could give two shits what this 11 year old kid thinks or if he wears a shirt that just declares how uninformed he is. Its clear he just watches Bill O'riely and Sean Hannity with daddy (who is a fucking idiot, poor kid) and formed his woefully misguided opinion based on that. But he is entitled to hold this pathetic "views", and I can just hope that as he grows up and joins us in the real world he changes his views.

What is funny is his fathers idiotic commnet. And stupid comments are funny no matter how someone votes.

EDIT: Heres the thing. Obama has no terrorist connections and is not "their best friend". There is nothing to base that off of but scare tactics and misinformation. However, it is very fair to accuse McCain of being akin to a Bush third term, because that is based in fact (like that he voted with Bush 90% of the time). So, no, to answer your question, I wouldnt act the same way, because one is a blatant lie, and the other is based in truth. Dont try to pretend like they are the same.

Besides, this kid was suspended for being defiant when he was told he was violating the dress cod. Schools are allowed to A)have dress codes and B)suspend disrespectful students.

Oh, and for the record, this kid is a pussy. Making a political statement, great, I approve in principle. I like political statements. But then dont whine and cry when you get in trouble for your political statement. It comes with the territory. You take the consequences of your "rebellion", because thats part of making a political statement. You dont cry to daddy. Grow up kido.

CanuckHeaven

24-09-2008, 04:31

So now you're trying to defend McBush's anti-abortion stance, despite your earlier in the year preferred candidate Clinton being extremely pro-choice?
Where am I defending McCain's "anti-abortion stance"? I am not. what I am doing is calling Obama supporters on their fear based tactics and inserting some facts that seem to be lost on some here.

What I do like is Nader's response (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm)to this and I have tried to suggest the sane thing earlier:

Roe v. Wade is not at risk, even from GOP Supreme Court

The Supreme Court justices viewed as anti abortion had three chances to overturn Roe v. Wade and did not. Republican Party operatives tell people in Washington all the time that they are not about to destroy the party on this issue but have to promote the rhetoric to keep the support of the party's antiabortion wing.

Clearly, you have demonstrated through your posts, that you are not looking at this election by issues, but by good ol' right-wing looney republicanism.
If anyone is not looking at issues, it is again those that are looking for ANY kind of dirt to throw. Suggesting that I have any kind of rapport with "right-wing looney republicanism", suggests that you just proved my point.

I'd say that it's not too far of a stretch to say that you're just faking the whole Nadar '08/Clinton '12 thing to try and sway dissassociated Clinton voters into voting for McBush.
I would love to see Nader win. It would certainly change the "old boys network" in both of the established parties. Neither major party deserves to win this election, but especially the Democrats because of their penchant for shooting themselves in the foot. It would appear on the surface that the Republican party is certainly far more capable of coming together when it is crunch time.

Since you have committed a flip-flop of the highest order on abortion issues, it is clearly very easy to say you're not considering issues in this election,
I have been pro choice all my adult life. My first wife had an abortion before I met her when she was 16. I have always believed that a woman's choice to abort has always been a matter between her, her doctor and her God.

I am starting to re-evaluate my position on this matter. It appears that abortion has become more like a means for contraception, and clearly that should change. The abortion laws should be changed to cut down on unnecessary carnage and to help eleviate the traumatic situation that abortive women have.

and that your bias towards one candidate is showing thoroughly.
I would prefer Hillary, but she is ineligible, so yeah Nader.

Funny thing is, your flip-flop is only half way. On one hand, you want McBush to win so he can remove abortion rights, and you're defending his stance on abortion rights.
Wrong. see above.

On the other hand, you still support Clinton who, if anything, wants more abortion rights.
She doesn't support "more abortion rights", she is pro choice (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Abortion.htm), not pro abortion.

Either you support McBush out of nothing but spite, and you just want to be able to say "I was right, the democrats should have chosen Clintin"
I think my position is pretty clear? Yes, the Dems should have chosen Hillary on the ticket. Not doing so, is one of too many mistakes that the Dems have committed. The Dems do not deserve to win this election. The overheated rhetoric, the anger and outpouring of hatred have left me kind of numb.

This article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/liberals_warnings_about_obama.html)details some of the problems that the party faces.

Knights of Liberty

24-09-2008, 04:59

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303094.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Ah, so thats were the media got their balls from. House Democrats.

Oh wait, that implies that House Democrats ever had balls.

I am most displeased, and on this note, I am going to bed (I often go to bed angry during election session). Night.

Gauthier

24-09-2008, 05:01

But I am sure that if the boy rocked up saying, McCain means Bush gets a 3rd term, then you would all be having the same laugh as now.

School rules are school rules. I wouldn't be crying out Freedom of Speech if that's what you were expecting.

The Cat-Tribe

24-09-2008, 05:07

*snip*

Besides, this kid was suspended for being defiant when he was told he was violating the dress cod. Schools are allowed to A)have dress codes and B)suspend disrespectful students.

Oh, and for the record, this kid is a pussy. Making a political statement, great, I approve in principle. I like political statements. But then dont whine and cry when you get in trouble for your political statement. It comes with the territory. You take the consequences of your "rebellion", because thats part of making a political statement. You dont cry to daddy. Grow up kido.

School rules are school rules. I wouldn't be crying out Freedom of Speech if that's what you were expecting.

What school rule or dress code did this student violate? If the Fox News article is to be relied on (and that is the only source cited so far), there is nothing said about a dress code.

And, yes, I do think this violates the young man's freedom of speech. Unlike conservatives like Justice Thomas, I think students retain free speech rights in schools. Including the right to wear political t-shirts of which some may not approve.

Blouman Empire

24-09-2008, 05:25

Act what way? I could give two shits what this 11 year old kid thinks or if he wears a shirt that just declares how uninformed he is. Its clear he just watches Bill O'riely and Sean Hannity with daddy (who is a fucking idiot, poor kid) and formed his woefully misguided opinion based on that. But he is entitled to hold this pathetic "views", and I can just hope that as he grows up and joins us in the real world he changes his views.

What is funny is his fathers idiotic commnet. And stupid comments are funny no matter how someone votes.

EDIT: Heres the thing. Obama has no terrorist connections and is not "their best friend". There is nothing to base that off of but scare tactics and misinformation. However, it is very fair to accuse McCain of being akin to a Bush third term, because that is based in fact (like that he voted with Bush 90% of the time). So, no, to answer your question, I wouldnt act the same way, because one is a blatant lie, and the other is based in truth. Dont try to pretend like they are the same.

Besides, this kid was suspended for being defiant when he was told he was violating the dress cod. Schools are allowed to A)have dress codes and B)suspend disrespectful students.

Oh, and for the record, this kid is a pussy. Making a political statement, great, I approve in principle. I like political statements. But then dont whine and cry when you get in trouble for your political statement. It comes with the territory. You take the consequences of your "rebellion", because thats part of making a political statement. You dont cry to daddy. Grow up kido.

1) You instantly assume, that to be a "best friend" to terrorists means that he has connections to terrorists. This may not be the case at all he may hold that Obama's views on foreign policy will help terrorists, thus the quip about being their "best friend". (Even if this isn't the case he may or more to the point his father may be able to point some speech by Obama that he will use as evidence)

2) Let me rephrase what he might have on his t-shirt then, "McCain supports the genocide of Iraq" A quip that is talking about Iraq being invaded and is some how a genocide on the Iraqi people.

3) The students were asked to wear something red blue and white to show their patriotism to their good country, hardly against the dress code, as his t-shirt was red/blue/white. But that is neither here nor there, I am not saying anything about him being suspended.

I am glad you say that stupid comments are funny regardless of their view even if it is exactly in line with yours, just checking to see if everyone on here is the same.

The Cat-Tribe

24-09-2008, 05:38

I am starting to re-evaluate my position on this matter. It appears that abortion has become more like a means for contraception, and clearly that should change. The abortion laws should be changed to cut down on unnecessary carnage and to help eleviate the traumatic situation that abortive women have.

I may or may not come back to the rest of your nonsense (especially given how selective you are in responding to challenges).

But this part bore comment. Research shows that abortion has not been used (at least in the U.S.) as a means of contraception. In fact, studies show that fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. link (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html) Regardless, the solution is not a restriction on abortion rights, but rather the promotion of comprehensive sex education and wide availability of birth control. Both things that McCain/Palin are against.

I have no idea what you mean by "unnecessary carnage," but restricting abortion laws causes more deaths because the rate of overall abortions don't decrease but the number of unsafe abortions increase. link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13394148&postcount=88)

As for alleged trauma, abortion causes less than pregnancy and definitely less trauma than forcing a women to carry a baby to birth against her will. link (http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.html)

The Cat-Tribe

24-09-2008, 05:44

Where am I defending McCain's "anti-abortion stance"? I am not. what I am doing is calling Obama supporters on their fear based tactics and inserting some facts that seem to be lost on some here.

What I do like is Nader's response (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm)to this and I have tried to suggest the sane thing earlier:

Roe v. Wade is not at risk, even from GOP Supreme Court

Sen. John McCain's Record on Choice (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html)

Sen. John McCain served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1986 and in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to present. During his four years in the House, then-Rep. McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. Ten of these votes were anti-choice. In the Senate, Sen. McCain has cast 119 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues, 115 of which were anti-choice.

In addition to his solidly anti-choice record, Sen. McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce the need for abortion.

More on Sen. McCain's anti-choice record (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf) (pdf)

Take action! Learn more about McCain's record and find out how you can help stop him. Visit MeetTheRealMcCain.com. (http://www.meettherealmccain.com/)

EDIT: Public Statements about Choice:
A selection of Sen. McCain's public statements on this issue is below.

In response to a question about abortion posed by Pastor Rick Warren, McCain responded that he believes life begins "at the moment of conception." He continued, "I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment, that's my commitment to you."
[Transcript, Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, August 16, 2008. http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-05.txt]

Sen. McCain told Chris Matthews, "the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values."
[Transcript, Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 15, 2008.]

"I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I’m very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen." McCain explained further that he "will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts" to fill future court vacancies.
[Transcript, Republican Presidential Candidates Participate in a Debate, May 3, 2007, and Carl Tobias, On judges, don’t doubt McCain’s conservatism: He pledges to appoint clones of Alito and Roberts, Christian Science Monitor, February 11, 2008.]

"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."
[Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008. http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539 (accessed January 30, 2008.)]

On the Federal Abortion Ban, Sen. McCain said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
[Press release, April 18, 2007 (accessed February 4, 2008). http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/f96d220f-b10d-48fe-aee9-d69c0d2802c3.htm]

Sen. McCain said that he has supported "the rights of the unborn" for 24 years "without changing, without wavering."
[Michael Finnegan, Republicans Enter the Ring in Iowa; At a Key Party Dinner, Frontrunners for the Presidential Nomination Take a Beating From Lesser-Known Rivals, L.A. Times, April 15, 2007.]

When asked about whether he supported supplying condoms to Africa to assist in the fight against HIV/AIDS, McCain had the following exchange with a reporter:
Reporter: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.
Reporter: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
[Adam Nagourney, McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention, The New York Times, March 16, 2007.]

Discussing his pro-life voting record, McCain said, "I have many, many votes and it's been consistent. And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years... [M]y record is clear. And I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little... misleading.... As you know I don't support Roe v. Wade... I thought it was a bad decision, and I think that the decision should be made in the states."
[Transcript, The Full McCain: An Interview, National Review, March 5, 2007. http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MTMxOWRkYjgyNDhjOTU5ZTY2OWU2ZTg2ZmUxMzQ1NjQ=]

"I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned."
[Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, The New York Times, February 24, 2007.]

Sen. McCain's 2008 presidential campaign website states that he "believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned."
[John McCain for President 2008 campaign website, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life (accessed February 4, 2008.) http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm]

Jocabia

24-09-2008, 05:56

Sen. John McCain's Record on Choice (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/mccain.html)

Sen. John McCain served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983 to 1986 and in the U.S. Senate from 1987 to present. During his four years in the House, then-Rep. McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. Ten of these votes were anti-choice. In the Senate, Sen. McCain has cast 119 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues, 115 of which were anti-choice.

In addition to his solidly anti-choice record, Sen. McCain has never cosponsored or supported legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy or reduce the need for abortion.

More on Sen. McCain's anti-choice record (http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/mccain_fact_sheet.pdf) (pdf)

Take action! Learn more about McCain's record and find out how you can help stop him. Visit MeetTheRealMcCain.com. (http://www.meettherealmccain.com/)

EDIT: Public Statements about Choice:
A selection of Sen. McCain's public statements on this issue is below.

In response to a question about abortion posed by Pastor Rick Warren, McCain responded that he believes life begins "at the moment of conception." He continued, "I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment, that's my commitment to you."
[Transcript, Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, August 16, 2008. http://www.rickwarrennews.com/transcript/civil_forum_transcript-05.txt]

Sen. McCain told Chris Matthews, "the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values."
[Transcript, Hardball with Chris Matthews, April 15, 2008.]

"I’m proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. I’m very proud to have played a very small role in making that happen." McCain explained further that he "will try to find clones of Alito and Roberts" to fill future court vacancies.
[Transcript, Republican Presidential Candidates Participate in a Debate, May 3, 2007, and Carl Tobias, On judges, don’t doubt McCain’s conservatism: He pledges to appoint clones of Alito and Roberts, Christian Science Monitor, February 11, 2008.]

"If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."
[Statement by Sen. McCain read by Sen. Sam Brownback at the March for Life in Washington, DC, January 22, 2008. http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=26539 (accessed January 30, 2008.)]

On the Federal Abortion Ban, Sen. McCain said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children. It also clearly speaks to the importance of nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges who interpret the law as it is written, and do not usurp the authority of Congress and state legislatures. As we move forward, it is critically important that our party continues to stand on the side of life."
[Press release, April 18, 2007 (accessed February 4, 2008). http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/f96d220f-b10d-48fe-aee9-d69c0d2802c3.htm]

Sen. McCain said that he has supported "the rights of the unborn" for 24 years "without changing, without wavering."
[Michael Finnegan, Republicans Enter the Ring in Iowa; At a Key Party Dinner, Frontrunners for the Presidential Nomination Take a Beating From Lesser-Known Rivals, L.A. Times, April 15, 2007.]

When asked about whether he supported supplying condoms to Africa to assist in the fight against HIV/AIDS, McCain had the following exchange with a reporter:
Reporter: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.
Reporter: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
[Adam Nagourney, McCain Stumbles on H.I.V. Prevention, The New York Times, March 16, 2007.]

Discussing his pro-life voting record, McCain said, "I have many, many votes and it's been consistent. And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL throughout all those years... [M]y record is clear. And I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record because sometimes rhetoric can be a little... misleading.... As you know I don't support Roe v. Wade... I thought it was a bad decision, and I think that the decision should be made in the states."
[Transcript, The Full McCain: An Interview, National Review, March 5, 2007. http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MTMxOWRkYjgyNDhjOTU5ZTY2OWU2ZTg2ZmUxMzQ1NjQ=]

"I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned."
[Ann Althouse, Rudy & Mitt Hem & Haw on Abortion, The New York Times, February 24, 2007.]

Sen. McCain's 2008 presidential campaign website states that he "believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned."
[John McCain for President 2008 campaign website, On the Issues: Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life (accessed February 4, 2008.) http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm]

One thing that CH has been very consistant on has been his very clear denial of anything he views as a benefit to Obama. He refused to consider very real evidence that Obama was winning the primaries, evidence that obviously proved overwhelming. He refused to consider very real evidence that Obama and Hillary lined up on nearly every issue.

Now he refuses to acknowledge very real evidence that Palin is pandering. He refuses to acknowledge very real evidence that McCain represents everything that is opposite of what Clinton stood for. Whether he claims to support Nader or not, he's in these threads defending McCain and there could be nothing less genuine. If McCain were running about Hillary his argument would be the exact polar opposite and I doubt there is a person who questions this fact.

More importantly, look at why he doesn't want Dems to win. They "shot themselves in the foot". Nothing substantive. They deserve to lose so they should lose. He won't even listen to questions about who is better for the country.

I, like you, want to believe that CH is willing to go back to being the reasonable person I remember, but at some point one has to follow the evidence. The evidence found in this thread and every election thread is that CH is unwilling to actually consider evidence. So debate the points because others are looking on, but in addressing CH directly it's clearly a waste of breath.

Count Nucula

24-09-2008, 06:01

Can't you see how biased Teh Librul Media™ is against John McCain?

You say it in such a sarcastic manner, as if to imply that it's not true, and it would be funny if it weren't true, but in fact it IS true. The liberal media (and I do NOT mean that sarcastically) IS biased, if not against John McCain, then at least in favor of Barack Hussein Osama.

Jocabia

24-09-2008, 06:03

You say it in such a sarcastic manner, as if to imply that it's not true, and it would be funny if it weren't true, but in fact it IS true. The liberal media (and I do NOT mean that sarcastically) IS biased, if not against John McCain, then at least in favor of Barack Hussein Osama.

Nice. Original. No one has every thought to post such things.

Heikoku 2

24-09-2008, 06:04

Snip BS, and... Barack Hussein Osama.

Do you think you're clever for this or what?

Edit: Dammit, Jocabia, must you beat me to every two-post wonder? :p

Laerod

24-09-2008, 10:01

Ifreann

24-09-2008, 10:18

Prove this statement.

Don't tell me you seriously expect him to come back? What with our obvious liberal bias and all.

Trans Fatty Acids

24-09-2008, 11:23

Don't tell me you seriously expect him to come back? What with our obvious liberal bias and all.

Liberal bias? Wait, are we actually the mainstream media? I hope so, because then I can get paid for wading through these threads.

Laerod

24-09-2008, 11:38

Don't tell me you seriously expect him to come back? What with our obvious liberal bias and all.Ha, I am no money-grubbing liberal!

Agenda07

24-09-2008, 13:06

Has anyone read this yet: apparently Palin's wacky pastor is a full blown witch hunter (http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html):

According to the Christian Science Monitor, six months of fervent prayer and research identified the source of the witchcraft as a local woman called Mama Jane, who ran a “divination” centre called the Emmanuel Clinic.

Her alleged involvement in fortune-telling and the fact that she lived near the site of a number of fatal car accidents led Pastor Muthee to publicly declare her a witch responsible for the town’s ills, and order her to offer her up her soul for salvation or leave Kiambu.

Says the Monitor, “Muthee held a crusade that “brought about 200 people to Christ”.” They set up round-the-clock prayer intercession in the basement of a grocery store and eventually, says the pastor “the demonic influence – the ‘principality’ over Kiambu –was broken”, and Mama Jane fled the town.

According to accounts of the witchhunt circulated on evangelical websites such as Prayer Links Ministries, after Pastor Muthee declared Mama Jane a witch, the townspeople became suspicious and began to turn on her, demanding that she be stoned. Public outrage eventually led the police to raid her home, where they fired gunshots, killing a pet python which they believed to be a demon.

After Mama Jane was questioned by police – and released – she decided it was time to leave town, the account says.

Pastor Muthee has frequently referred to this witchhunt in his sermons as an example of the power of “spiritual warfare”.

Presumably all US posters will have already been informed about this by the evil liberal media? Or not?

Zombie PotatoHeads

24-09-2008, 13:45

“What is his name?,” Palin asked.
“Mirwais,” Karzai responded. “Mirwais, which means, ‘The Light of the House.’”
“Oh nice,” Palin responded.
“He is the only one we have,” remarked Karzai.
after the press were kicked out:
“My daughter's called Piper,” Palin responded. “I named her after a snow mobile!”
“oh...uh...ohhh-kayyy,” remarked Karzai.

Muravyets

24-09-2008, 13:54

Has anyone read this yet: apparently Palin's wacky pastor is a full blown witch hunter (http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/09/palin-linked-el.html):

Presumably all US posters will have already been informed about this by the evil liberal media? Or not?
Yep. We're aware of that one. Yep, Witchfinder General. Yep. *starts drinking again*

Pirated Corsairs

24-09-2008, 13:59

Yep. We're aware of that one. Yep, Witchfinder General. Yep. *starts drinking again*

Yeah, we're aware of it, but how much of America is? Teh evul librul media has hardly picked this up at all, especially compared to Rev. Wright.

Zombie PotatoHeads

24-09-2008, 13:59

It's from a longer article about cars, apparently John McCain has 13 cars, 4 of them are FOREIGN!

Burn him!

Seriously, when you're having to factor in the cars you drive...

It really is low season for reporting as we wait for the first debate.
tbh, it's of some interest as McCain constantly promotes himself as a man of the people while painting Obama as elitist.
So the fact that McCain is the one with 7 houses and 13 cars, while Obama has just one of each does merit a couple of column inches. As for 4 of them being foreign: Again, when McCain campaigns in Michigan about keeping jobs in America then his choice of cars does become of interest.

Muravyets

24-09-2008, 14:01

Yeah, we're aware of it, but how much of America is? Teh evul librul media has hardly picked this up at all, especially compared to Rev. Wright.
Oh, but I'm confident that everyone who would think it's just wonderful is fully aware of it. :headbang:

Zombie PotatoHeads

24-09-2008, 14:41

once again, we see IOKIYAR in action with Sarah Palin, the self-styled enemy of 'good ol boys' networks:
WASILLA, Alaska – Gov. Sarah Palin lives by the maxim that all politics is local, not to mention personal.

So when there was a vacancy at the state Agriculture Department, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as a qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency.

Ms. Havemeister was one of at least five high school classmates Ms. Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.
Sarah Palin hired friends (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-palin_14pol.ART.State.Edition1.26e9372.html)

Oh, and in case anyone's wondering why Palin's lawyers are demanding that the Troopergate (ugh how I hate the adding of -gate to every political scandal) issue be reviewed not by Legislature but by state Personnel Board, arguing the Legislature is 'biased' and the board is impartial: The board's members are appointed by the Governor.
There are three on the board: Debra English, Laura Plenert and Alfred Tamagni, Sr. Oh, and btw, English was appointed by Palin and Tamagni donated $400 towards Palin's 2006 Governor election.
impartial indeed. so very impartial.

Fonzica

24-09-2008, 14:45

*snip*

So, how have the democrats shot themselves in the foot? Clinton and Obama agree on almost every issue. Clinton fully supports Obama as the democrats presidential candidate, and she will be voting for Obama, not McCain in November.

Unless... it could be... like you said a few weeks ago... that the democrats didn't choose a female candidate. B-b-but... that would make you sexist. How can the gender of a candidate affect their performance in office? You yourself said the repubs did what the dems should have done, which was nominate a female candidate. But that's a sexist view. Surely, you're not sexist. Are you?

Either you've completely flip-flopped on the issues, or you just want to say you were right that they should have chosen Clinton, or you genuinely think McCain is closer to Clinton than Obama (which would make you thoroughly retarded), or you're not looking at the election on issues at all, but meerly on gender, but that would make you sexist.

So, are you stupid, a flip-flopper, retarded, or sexist?

Tmutarakhan

24-09-2008, 15:02

The liberal media (and I do NOT mean that sarcastically) IS biased, if not against John McCain, then at least in favor of Balack Hussein Osama.
Fixed.

Free Soviets

24-09-2008, 15:07

So, how have the democrats shot themselves in the foot?

usually they do it by cowering in fear when republicans say that somebody somewhere might at some point say boo, though that is pretty clearly not what ch is talking about, given the clinton does it as much as anyone else.

i've moved on from believing this all to be some elaborate piece of performance art - which was never tenable anyway, but way more generous than the alternatives. now i just think that ch is a racist struggling to come up with some reason, any reason, to oppose the black guy without immediately being seen through for the racist he is.

Knights of Liberty

24-09-2008, 15:14

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5873320&page=1

Obama now leads McCain among likely voters by 52 percent to 43 percent, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

An earlier ABC News/Washington Post poll on Sept. 7 found that on trust to handle the nation's economy, Obama led McCain by about five percentage points.

"Now it's up to a 14-point lead for Obama on trust to handle the economy," Stephanopoulos said.

Buwhahahaha

You say it in such a sarcastic manner, as if to imply that it's not true, and it would be funny if it weren't true, but in fact it IS true. The liberal media (and I do NOT mean that sarcastically) IS biased, if not against John McCain, then at least in favor of Barack Hussein Osama.

Which is why John McCain called the media his "base" right?

Fonzica

24-09-2008, 15:26

I'll like to add that http://www.electoral-vote.com, one of the sites CH linked as 'proof' that the dems should have picked Clinton over Obama, has shown Obama to have an even bigger lead than he did yesterday when I checked. He went from 273 up to 282. Which is a lot better than a week ago when he was actually behind McBush. This is the result of Colorado giving Obama a 2% lead over McBush. Perhaps related to the attempted assassination?

Knights of Liberty

24-09-2008, 15:27

And, yes, I do think this violates the young man's freedom of speech. Unlike conservatives like Justice Thomas, I think students retain free speech rights in schools. Including the right to wear political t-shirts of which some may not approve.

And you misunderstand my point. I would agree with you 110%. The point I am making is (aside from this kid having an extra chromosome) his dad is an idiot, and when I read his comment much laughter ensued.

My other point, which I stand by is this kid is a pussy.

EDIT: Ill be the first to say I misunderstood the whole dress code thing and retract my statement. However, (for the sake of arguement) I believe Tinker said that a student did not give their constitutional rights up at the door as long as it didnt interfere with the learning environment, and one could make the arguement that this child's shirt would indeed interfere with the learning environment, and thus the school was well within their bounds to ask him to remove it.

CthulhuFhtagn

24-09-2008, 16:06

Fixed.

More like IRAQ Hussein Osama.

Heikoku 2

24-09-2008, 16:15

More like IRAQ Hussein Osama.

Remember the morons from WV who went "Ah had enough of Hussein" and "Ah can't vote for someone of the other race" thinking they were being clever on TDS?

Free Soviets

24-09-2008, 16:59

This is the result of Colorado giving Obama a 2% lead over McBush. Perhaps related to the attempted assassination?

more related to the utter collapse of the convention bounce, palin dragging mccain's numbers down a half point or so, and the economic disaster. the numbers have shifted everywhere.

Heikoku 2

24-09-2008, 17:04

more related to the utter collapse of the convention bounce, palin dragging mccain's numbers down a half point or so, and the economic disaster. the numbers have shifted everywhere.

More specifically:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667.html?hpid=topnews

9%. And Obama crossed the 50% barrier. And that not even counting the huge amounts of money and skill Obama invested in GOTV operations.

Khadgar

24-09-2008, 17:13

More specifically:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303667.html?hpid=topnews

9%. And Obama crossed the 50% barrier. And that not even counting the huge amounts of money and skill Obama invested in GOTV operations.

I find that poll number quite unlikely, several others have McCain doing competitively against all odds.

Free Soviets

24-09-2008, 17:16

I find that poll number quite unlikely, several others have McCain doing competitively against all odds.

recently?

538 has had obama topping 300 electoral votes for a couple days now

Christmahanikwanzikah

24-09-2008, 17:18

I wouldn't trust these polls for as far as I can throw McCain.

>.>

Christmahanikwanzikah

24-09-2008, 17:21

Also, ugh, with current economic fears, it's unlikely that voters are going to vote to increase taxes or spending to fund our crumbling infrastructure, and this makes me a very sad panda. :(

Free Soviets

24-09-2008, 17:23

Also, ugh, with current economic fears, it's unlikely that voters are going to vote to increase taxes or spending to fund our crumbling infrastructure, and this makes me a very sad panda. :(

i don't know about that - fdr and his policies aren't exactly unpopular compared to the republican plan. as the economy comes to the fore, democrats do better in polling.

Knights of Liberty

24-09-2008, 17:24

Also, ugh, with current economic fears, it's unlikely that voters are going to vote to increase taxes or spending to fund our crumbling infrastructure, and this makes me a very sad panda. :(

Except Obama is up in the polls on who is trusted with the economy by 14%.

Something about his rival saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong and wanting to continue giving the rich and corperations tax cuts Im sure.

Christmahanikwanzikah

24-09-2008, 17:33

Except Obama is up in the polls on who is trusted with the economy by 14%.

Something about his rival saying the fundamentals of the economy are strong and wanting to continue giving the rich and corperations tax cuts Im sure.

Well, yeah... Dems do better when the economy is an issue because of their principles.

What I'm worried about, for starters, is that our roads, which were designed and built in the 50s and 60s, were only built to be in operation until around or before this decade. I'm curious to see whether Obama is going to support sweeping projects like FDR and Ike or just cut back on spending now.

Ashmoria

24-09-2008, 17:35

Well, yeah... Dems do better when the economy is an issue because of their principles.

What I'm worried about, for starters, is that our roads, which were designed and built in the 50s and 60s, were only built to be in operation until around or before this decade. I'm curious to see whether Obama is going to support sweeping projects like FDR and Ike or just cut back on spending now.
me too. i know he WANTS to but getting the money to do it will be a big problem.

Grave_n_idle

24-09-2008, 17:44

Where am I defending McCain's "anti-abortion stance"? I am not. what I am doing is calling Obama supporters on their fear based tactics and inserting some facts that seem to be lost on some here.

'Fear-based tactics' would imply that McCain wouldn't try to overturn Roe vs Wade, and would further suggest that McCain was somehow being attributed values he doesn't have.

The problem is - McCain has said he WANTS to overturn Roe vs Wade, that he would work - as president - specifically to overturn Roe vs Wade, and that he would (ab)use his position specifically to change the balance of power in the courts, to overturn Roe vs Wade.

'Fear-based tactics' are called 'reality' when they refer to something real.

What I do like is Nader's response (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Abortion.htm)to this and I have tried to suggest the sane thing earlier:

Roe v. Wade is not at risk, even from GOP Supreme Court

Which is lovely, but unfortunately, it's bullshit.

It implies there's some kind of conspiracy in government to maintain the conflict, and I'm going to want some kind of evidence to accept that kind of conspiracy theory.

If anyone is not looking at issues, it is again those that are looking for ANY kind of dirt to throw. Suggesting that I have any kind of rapport with "right-wing looney republicanism", suggests that you just proved my point.

Sorry... you YOURSELF said you found yourself identifying with the Republicans (one candidate for which is practically a clone of Bush/Rove policy, and the other of which is a theocratic extremist) in this election.

If you don't want people to assume you have some kind of rapport with it, don't SAY you do.

I would love to see Nader win. It would certainly change the "old boys network" in both of the established parties. Neither major party deserves to win this election, but especially the Democrats because of their penchant for shooting themselves in the foot.

So... 'shooting yourself in the foot' (which, let's face it - is a nonsense phrase) is a good reason to 'not deserve' to win?

I'm curious - in what way (apart from constant bleating about Hillary not being on the ticket) have the Democrats 'shot themselves in the foot'?

It would appear on the surface that the Republican party is certainly far more capable of coming together when it is crunch time.

Like... how the Republican party has actually come out to make a public statement that it won't let the McCain/Palin ticket honour their pledges?

I have been pro choice all my adult life. My first wife had an abortion before I met her when she was 16. I have always believed that a woman's choice to abort has always been a matter between her, her doctor and her God.

I am starting to re-evaluate my position on this matter.

You don't believe that a woman's choice is "a matter between her, her doctor and her God"?

It appears that abortion has become more like a means for contraception, and clearly that should change.

Why? Because you say so?

Her uterus, her business.

She doesn't support "more abortion rights",

She supports more than her Republican counterparts.

I think my position is pretty clear? Yes, the Dems should have chosen Hillary on the ticket. Not doing so, is one of too many mistakes that the Dems have committed. The Dems do not deserve to win this election.

Thanks for clarifying: "...my position is pretty clear? Yes, the Dems should have chosen Hillary on the ticket". Down our way, this would be called a 'one-trick-pony'.

Dempublicents1

24-09-2008, 18:03

This will be thrown out. "Bong hits for Jesus" case anyone?

You never know. This was actual political speech and thus might be held to be protected.

CanuckHeaven

24-09-2008, 18:34

Well after enduring an ongoing barrage from the Obamalites about Obama's naiive 50 State strategy, it would appear that the Obama campaign is shifting focus. :eek2:

I guess that some States DO matter more than others!!

Obama Scales Back His 50-State Strategy (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1843532,00.html)

"At the end of the day, some states are going to matter more than others," says Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. "If our registration efforts go very well in Georgia, Georgia will be in play. If they don't go well, they won't be in play. The map is getting bigger for us, not smaller."
The following comment echoes what I stated earlier in this thread:

"It is interesting to note that the Obama campaign is starting to pull down some of their efforts to extend the map, as they like to put it, into states that otherwise wouldn't be in play in an election cycle like this," McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis said Monday. "We assume, without fanfare, that he has pulled out of Alaska, where he spent a good deal of media money over the course of the summer. And [I] look forward to him continuing to spend his money in states that we hold significant leads."
Still more:

Although his enormous fund-raising still gives Obama more routes to the White House than McCain, the contracting playing field does narrow the Democrat's potential paths to the presidency. Now that a northern front — including Alaska, Montana and North Dakota — looks out of reach, Obama has four central ways to win it all:

— Hold the states John Kerry won in 2004 (which are in the Northeast, upper Midwest and West Coast), plus Ohio, where Obama has invested in more than 70 offices, or Florida, where his campaign recently pledged to spend almost $40 million over the remaining six weeks.

— Take back parts of the South, winning Virginia, North Carolina and, maybe —just maybe — Georgia.

— Have a strong showing in the Mountain West, winning Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.

"You had Obama spend the better part of the summer trying to make this race into a 20- [to] 25-state battleground, but he's reined this in a little bit to 11 or 12 states, and potentially less, closer to Election Day," says Evan Tracey, president of TNS's Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks campaign advertising. "It's all about Ohio, and after that, the other areas are a hedge."
Also as I noted in this thread and earlier ones, the 50 State strategy, perhaps may have actually put some of the Blue States into play.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14018262&postcount=769

NationStates Jolt Archive

US General Election - McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden - Polls,Pundits, & Popcorn - Page 5