Michael Moore said to Keith Olberman last night that Hurricane Gustav hitting right at the start of the Republican Convention was "proof that God exists." Meanwhile the former head of the DNC, his name escapes me right now, was caught on tape saying that Hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans yesterday was "proof that God is on our side." I wonder if Sebastian knows that they are taking his name in vain.
I expect what Moore said was intended as tongue-in-cheek. Even so, he comes across as an asshat.
Who is Michael Moore?
He is the director responsible for movies such as "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 911."
IMO any good points he might have made are overshadowed by his charisma of 5.
|
Check out this site comparing the McCain/Palin ticket to a mythical Tigh/Roslin ticket on BSG. The similarities are spooky.
As a conservative I have to say I find that site to be rather disturbing.As does any sane person, of any political or religious affiliation. In their world, all suicides are due to "Hollywood values," all murders are the result of "atheistic public schools," and the Loch Ness Monster is proof that dinosaurs made it on board the Ark. I also enjoy watching the SysOps ban people for not agreeing with erroneous "factual" statements.
I'm considering creating a strongly LE-aligned plane based on the Conservapedia universe; it would be a deadly challenge for PCs of all alignments. Maybe as part of a quest to destroy the CE-aligned Sword of Kos?
I had accidentally stumbled on the site while trying to find some D&D information. I was surprised that their entry about D&D was surprisingly balanced. I mean it was obviously written for a specific audience, but it was fairly good. I would recommend the entry for those people whose families are still very anti-D&D.
Michael Moore said to Keith Olberman last night that Hurricane Gustav hitting right at the start of the Republican Convention was "proof that God exists." Meanwhile the former head of the DNC, his name escapes me right now, was caught on tape saying that Hurricane Gustav hitting New Orleans yesterday was "proof that God is on our side." I wonder if Sebastian knows that they are taking his name in vain.I expect what Moore said was intended as tongue-in-cheek. Even so, he comes across as an asshat.
comes across as? moore (intentional) like he is.
|
Who is Michael Moore?He is the director responsible for movies such as "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 911."
IMO any good points he might have made are overshadowed by his charisma of 5.
Amongst other things. Like having little to no journalistic integrity and playing fast and loose with the facts.
And do keep in mind that I'm have strong socially liberal leanings.
|
|
Who is Michael Moore?He is the director responsible for movies such as "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 911."
IMO any good points he might have made are overshadowed by his charisma of 5.
I was just kidding anyhow, just wisht I wasn't. ;)
If the world was neck deep in urine, I wouldn't let him up in my tree.
I had accidentally stumbled on the site while trying to find some D&D information. I was surprised that their entry about D&D was surprisingly balanced. I mean it was obviously written for a specific audience, but it was fairly good. I would recommend the entry for those people whose families are still very anti-D&D.
Wow! Just read it, and was quite impressed. The SysOps must not have reviewed it yet; otherwise it would probably more closely resemble the other articles on Conservapedia:
"D&D is an example of , in that people convince themselves that they have great powers which of course only G-d has and conservatives know better but we all know that all liberals are too stupid to live and Obama is a Muslim terrorist! Some people may still play this evil product of our and , but anyone with an open mind will BOW DOWN TO ASCHAFLY! BOW DOWN, WORMS!"
I just have a simple and non-aggressive question for both sides of this coin. Are you really satisfied with having the see-saw form of politics that we have in this country? Why do we have just two viable choices? Why is it that one side or the other wins for a term or two and then the general approval switches? Why is it that we have more choices for toilet paper than in viable political candidates? I know some are more smooth than others. I know that some are rough. I know that some are generic brands and don’t reach the general consumer, but isn’t this America? Shouldn’t we have more of a choice than a coin toss? When is the time that the ‘land of democracy’ can get past a two party system? I don’t have any real solution to my answers, but I’m hoping that some of you out there can help me.
Well one thing to consider is primaries. While there are two major parties, individuals within those parties may vary on specific issues from the party's stated platform. Thus there is more diversity within the two parties than may be immediately evident. In the primaries we filter out all of the unviable candidates. Even if we had more choices of who to pick from, those candidates still would have probably lost.
Another problem is with the introduction of other parties. If say a new party entered the race and on 60% of the issues it was the same as the republicans, then they would end up splitting the votes based on those issues. This weakens both groups because now neither has a chance of winning and the other party that didn't support that 60% of the issues would have won. Thus the new small group is often blamed for causing the loss. This has happened wit the reform party and the green party in separate elections. Now if you had several viable third parties arise, that could fairly equally draw votes from the big two then it would be seen as less of an issue. I was actually half expecting to see Al Gore be the green party's candidate (especially if Hillary had won the dem's nomination).
One thing I always fine humorous is that a fringe element of the population complains about not getting representation. They are a fringe element, why should the majority of voters vote for them? Maybe in small districts they can have an impact where like minded individuals gather, but over the greater part of the country? If you want things that most people don't, how can really expect to have a reasonable chance?
I think other smaller parties should focus on local and small delegate (house of reps) elections and not try to get into the presidential elections any time soon. Voting for them in a presidental election is just too much of a shot in the foot in many cases. And for goodness, stop nominating flakes! It is hard to take these other parties serious when they have such wackos. "Dude, my platform is a pot plant in every closet and a box of twinkies in every cabinet."
[off-topic]The coin flip comment made me think of a batman graphic novel I read when I was in high school. The prisoners of arkham got loose and bats had to go in and try to restore order. While in there he found that the doctors had taken away two-faces coin and gave him a deck of cards so he could see more options. Two-face was paralyzed by the options and couldn't even decide to go to the bathroom, soiling himself where he sat. Batsy gave two-face back his coin. Near the end the prisoners captured bats and asked two-face to decide if they should kill him or not. Two-faced flipped his coin and said they should let batman go. In the last frame (or close to it), it shows two-face looking at the coin with the scarred side (side to kill batman) showing.
Besides, this could backfire for Obama like outing Dick Cheney's daughter did for John Kerry.
He didn't out her. She was already out and had been well discussed in the media as a lesbian back around 2000. I don't think his mention of Mary Cheney backfired in particular. Dick was pissed off, but you'd expect that he'd be upset about Kerry point out how far under the bus Dick was willing to throw her for the Bush administration.
|
|
Besides, this could backfire for Obama like outing Dick Cheney's daughter did for John Kerry.He didn't out her. She was already out and had been well discussed in the media as a lesbian back around 2000. I don't think his mention of Mary Cheney backfired in particular. Dick was pissed off, but you'd expect that he'd be upset about Kerry point out how far under the bus Dick was willing to throw her for the Bush administration.
Your right, I should have put quotes around the word outing. However, it could be said that it backfired since just after the election the Pew research group did a study and found that 3% of Bush voters had been Kerry voters until that incident. They felt that Mary's status was between her and her family and that the Kerry camp should not have used it to try and make a political point. Had that 3% remained in the Kerry camp, he would be president instead of Bush.
While in there he found that the doctors had taken away two-faces coin and gave him a deck of cards so he could see more options. Two-face was paralyzed by the options and couldn't even decide to go to the bathroom, soiling himself where he sat.
That’s why people like classes! It all makes sense now.
Your right, I should have put quotes around the word outing. However, it could be said that it backfired since just after the election the Pew research group did a study and found that 3% of Bush voters had been Kerry voters until that incident. They felt that Mary's status was between her and her family and that the Kerry camp should not have used it to try and make a political point. Had that 3% remained in the Kerry camp, he would be president instead of Bush.Besides, this could backfire for Obama like outing Dick Cheney's daughter did for John Kerry.He didn't out her. She was already out and had been well discussed in the media as a lesbian back around 2000. I don't think his mention of Mary Cheney backfired in particular. Dick was pissed off, but you'd expect that he'd be upset about Kerry point out how far under the bus Dick was willing to throw her for the Bush administration.
Assuming of course that the polls respondents were being honest (a problem with all polls).
I have not been able to understand the facination these last few days with Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Some people on other boards have even gone so far as to say that it should disqualify her from being veep. It happens people, even in religious households where strict abstinence values are taught. I'm of the opinion that if her daughter was out stumping for McCain and talking about abstinence and such, it would be okay to call her on it. However, her daughter has not put herself in the public spotlight, and we should respect her privacy. I also think that the left wing groups like the Daily Kos and Kieth Olberman who are putting out the rumors that Sarah Palin faked her last pregnancy to cover up the fact that her Down's Syndrome son is actually her grandson should be shunned for their iresponsible journalism. Besides, this could backfire for Obama like outing Dick Cheney's daughter did for John Kerry.
(emphasis mine)
With that statement I assume that you (and everyone else who approves of the above view on this whole matter) also respect the privacy of e.g. every homosexual man and woman and every pregnant woman, thusly supporting the gay marriage rights and every woman's right to an abortion since it's their private lives, not yours.|
|
I have not been able to understand the facination these last few days with Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Some people on other boards have even gone so far as to say that it should disqualify her from being veep. It happens people, even in religious households where strict abstinence values are taught. I'm of the opinion that if her daughter was out stumping for McCain and talking about abstinence and such, it would be okay to call her on it. However, her daughter has not put herself in the public spotlight, and we should respect her privacy. I also think that the left wing groups like the Daily Kos and Kieth Olberman who are putting out the rumors that Sarah Palin faked her last pregnancy to cover up the fact that her Down's Syndrome son is actually her grandson should be shunned for their iresponsible journalism. Besides, this could backfire for Obama like outing Dick Cheney's daughter did for John Kerry.(emphasis mine)
With that statement I assume that you (and everyone else who approves of the above view of this whole matter) also respect the privacy of e.g. every homosexual man and woman and every pregnant woman, thusly supporting the gay marriage rights and every woman's right to an abortion since it's their private lives, not yours.
An issue is different than a person. If the people involved in talking about Sarah Palin's daughter wanted to have an open and generic discussion about teen pregnancy, that is a completely different issue. They do not, they simply wish to smear Sarah Palin with it. They are not discussing the issue, they are attacking the person. I am not against discussing issues, I am against using a person's own problems as a wedge to discredit them. To say that we should not discuss issues just because we ask that the privacy of people be respected is intellectually dishonest, and is really just a veiled attempt at stifling speech. And for the record, my opinion is that the government should sanction civil unions for homosexual and heterosexual couple, and leave marriage to religions. I also am pro-choice, I just hope the choice is life. However, so long as there remains medical and psychological reasons that an abortion may need to be performed, it should remain legal.
|
|
While in there he found that the doctors had taken away two-faces coin and gave him a deck of cards so he could see more options. Two-face was paralyzed by the options and couldn't even decide to go to the bathroom, soiling himself where he sat.That’s why people like classes! It all makes sense now.
Always pimping your Hero agenda. *tsk tsk*
An issue is different than a person. If the people involved in talking about Sarah Palin's daughter wanted to have an open and generic discussion about teen pregnancy, that is a completely different issue. They do not, they simply wish to smear Sarah Palin with it. They are not discussing the issue, they are attacking the person. I am not against discussing issues, I am against using a person's own problems as a wedge to discredit them. To say that we should not discuss issues just because we ask that the privacy of people be respected is intellectually dishonest, and is really just a veiled attempt at stifling speech. And for the record, my opinion is that the government should sanction civil unions for homosexual and heterosexual couple, and leave marriage to religions. I also am pro-choice, I just hope the choice is life. However, so long as there remains medical and psychological reasons that an abortion may need to be performed, it should remain legal.I have not been able to understand the facination these last few days with Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Some people on other boards have even gone so far as to say that it should disqualify her from being veep. It happens people, even in religious households where strict abstinence values are taught. I'm of the opinion that if her daughter was out stumping for McCain and talking about abstinence and such, it would be okay to call her on it. However, her daughter has not put herself in the public spotlight, and we should respect her privacy. I also think that the left wing groups like the Daily Kos and Kieth Olberman who are putting out the rumors that Sarah Palin faked her last pregnancy to cover up the fact that her Down's Syndrome son is actually her grandson should be shunned for their iresponsible journalism. Besides, this could backfire for Obama like outing Dick Cheney's daughter did for John Kerry.(emphasis mine)
With that statement I assume that you (and everyone else who approves of the above view of this whole matter) also respect the privacy of e.g. every homosexual man and woman and every pregnant woman, thusly supporting the gay marriage rights and every woman's right to an abortion since it's their private lives, not yours.
I am thoroughly happy that this is your opinion and I fully agree with you. The reason I wanted to point it out is that a lot of people who want to make this a non-issue in the campaign and clamour for the privacy of the Palins are also people who have no problem with infringing on other people's privacy when it comes to the issues I mentioned and I find that to be hypocritical.
As an aside, I'm reading through the now closed W, the movie thread and I'm surprised in a positive way that so many agree with the notion that marriage really should be divided into a religious ceremony and a civil union section which have no bearing on each other. Something I've been hoping for years would be adopted to end the, IMO, ridiculous bickering about gay marriage.
I said I'd answer some of the earlier posts directed at my posts, so here goes:
There is no "christian church" that all christians and demoninations are members of, thus why I asked what "church" are speaking about? Since you could not be talking about a "christian church" because none exists. I was not sure if you aware of this, and thus wonder if there was a "secret christian church" out there that you believed exists.I think we can agree on primarily discussing the Christian church in this thread, since I'm sure the overwhelming majority of believers here belong to that particular faith.
Although "Christian church" is a bit ambiguous with all the different denominations which exists within it (if the teachings of Jesus and god are so infallible, how come all the different churches can't agree on them?).
My apologies, I used the wrong term. What I wanted to do was to say the "Christian faith" (of which there are many denominations).
Frankly, I don't know if they do or not as I am not a catholic. I was hestitant to claim they accept all of it and be branded as "putting words in their mouth", as you seem to think I am doing to you.Regarding my emphasis in your quote above:
A lot of science out there? Why not all of it?
If you don't know their position, why would you then use it in your example?
Also, please don't put forward the Catholic church as a shining example of religion supporting science. Need I mention more than their work to abolish condoms in AIDS ravaged countries in Africa? Or their stance on abortion? Stem cell research?What do those have to do with supporting science? Those are moral issues. Is the catholic church saying condoms are not effective against AIDS? Are they making that claim? Please show evidence of official church statements to this effect (and not just some crazy priest for example).
Vattnisse has already provided a very clear example of this.
Also, you might call it a moral issue, but it is clearly also a scientific (and social) issue. Science is involved in the development and production of contraceptives and HIV/AIDS medicine (and in the process of containing the virus); science is involved in the development of better and safer abortion techniques; science is clearly involved in stem cell research. How are these issues not scientific?Finally, stop putting forward claims that I have never made.You did suggest that being religious could harm a student's academic abilities. And yet many people who are religious do quite well in all fields of academics, including science.
And I still stand by those words. As bugleyman pointed out this doesn't mean that you can't do well in the field of academics. But if your staunch position is that evolution isn't true and that the earth is 6000 year old, then it will harm your academic abilities, because those opinions are simply not factually true.
|
|
Why, you’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site that’s supposed to be defending him against smears.
...
take it for what you will.
I'd take absolutely nothing of that. There's no permission required to redirect to a site. If I wished to, I could make a site called "Cheneyisachubbychaser.com", and redirect it to the White House Web site. Proving what, again?
That ip now has a PTR record of obamataxcut.com, btw.
cool. like i said, i'm not very tech savvy. i appreciate the info :)
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Damn Derek, I've never seen you show so much spirit before....the beautiful thing about not being beholden to any ideology is i get to look at things without blinders :)
Couldn't agree less with that statement. Out to screw the average American? In what way am I out to screw the average American?
I think back to all the generalizations made about me and mine, and I wonder how poeple would respond if I were to ever resort to same.
[EDIT] Sorry if anyone read this before it was finished. Was entered in prematurely. [EDIT]
I don't think Palin will fold. This will be over in a couple of days, a lot of people liked her speech. She has to know going in that even if it's not your direct opposition, some malcontent is going to poke through your life for meaningless drama to undercut your accomplishments.
I try really hard to raise my kids to be mindful of integrity and responsibility. But I'm not perfect, and they won't be either. If the 'unthinkable' occurs, the only choice I have is to stick by myprinciples and love my family. A mistake or a moment of weakness doesn't mean the principles are meningless, or that I'm a bad dad.
|
|
Damn Derek, I've never seen you show so much spirit before....the beautiful thing about not being beholden to any ideology is i get to look at things without blinders :)
Couldn't agree less with that statement. Out to screw the average American? In what way am I out to screw the average American?
I think back to all the generalizations made about me and mine, and I wonder how poeple would respond if I were to ever resort to same.
i wasn't aware you were a politician, sorry...
If you don't know their position, why would you then use it in your example?
Because while I may not know 100% of their positions I do know some of their positions. The catholic church has taken a lot of drumming over the years because of the whole Galileo deal. They have been making moves to not only apologize for that specific situation but to also move to embrace much more of science. For example, in recent years the catholic church has moved to much more acceptance of evolution, though they still hold that man is a "special creation".
Still the only reason why I brought it up was because you said the "christian church" and that is the only christian organization large enough to possibly fit that statement. You've said you use the wrong word, so I am happy to drop it if you are.
Also, you might call it a moral issue, but it is clearly also a scientific (and social) issue. Science is involved in the development and production of contraceptives and HIV/AIDS medicine (and in the process of containing the virus); science is involved in the development of better and safer abortion techniques; science is clearly involved in stem cell research. How are these issues not scientific?
I'm just going to say that is pretty weak there. Next thing you know someone will say that if someone chooses to walk they are against science since because you need science to build cars and make them better.
There are times when people can talk about whether you CAN do something, and then there are times people talk about whether you SHOULD do something. Saying you shouldn't do something isn't the same as saying it is impossible to do something.
Don't forget that the only experience the Bill Clinton had was running Arkansas.Heck, that's what people were saying about this Illinois Senator you know, the one who ran for President ... what's the name... Abraham Lincoln? ;-)
Well Slick Willy had experience living with Hillary. I mean if that don't prepare you for any kind of dangerous situation, I don't know what will.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
i wasn't aware you were a politician, sorry...
You didn't say anything about politicians, you said:
note to partisans on both sides: y'all are ALL complete [fill in the plural for beasts of burden]. get over yourselves. reality isn't black and white. you're ALL wrong, neither of your parties get jack done most of the time, and they're all out to screw the average american.
So...is there some presumption that you are right? Or should we all just tune you out and leave you alone with your self-importance.
Talking religion and politics might be fun and edifying if people weren't afraid comments like yours above were going to show up.
Apparently one of the advantages of being beholden to no ideology (whatever that phrase means), is that you can lump people you've never met into a group that doesn't exist and browbeat them with your own lack of accomplishment.
Actually, sounds a LOT like the Clintons.
|
|
i wasn't aware you were a politician, sorry...You didn't say anything about politicians, you said:
note to partisans on both sides: y'all are ALL complete [fill in the plural for beasts of burden]. get over yourselves. reality isn't black and white. you're ALL wrong, neither of your parties get jack done most of the time, and they're all out to screw the average american.
if you read the second part of the italizied quote, i was referring to the PARTIES (i.e. POLITICIANS) screwing people over.
So...is there some presumption that you are right? Or should we all just tune you out and leave you alone with your self-importance.
please, get over yourself.
Talking religion and politics might be fun and edifying if people weren't afraid comments like yours above were going to show up.
yeah, i know, i didn't drink the obama/mccain koolaid, so i'm not allowed an opinon of BOTH major parties...
Apparently one of the advantages of being beholden to no ideology (whatever that phrase means), is that you can lump people you've never met into a group that doesn't exist and browbeat them with your own lack of accomplishment.
no, the advantage of not being beholden to any particular ideoligy means i'm allowed to think, instead of spout off my chosen candidates talking points like they're gospel truth....
Actually, sounds a LOT like the Clintons.
in my lifetime, reagan and clinton were the only decent presidents. i'll have to wait at least four more years for a chance at another good one...
in my lifetime, reagan and clinton were the only decent presidents. i'll have to wait at least four more years for a chance at another good one...
I sorta liked Nixon, until he decided to eavesdrop on Americans and had to resign. Too bad that rule isn't still in effect...
|
|
in my lifetime, reagan and clinton were the only decent presidents. i'll have to wait at least four more years for a chance at another good one...I sorta liked Nixon, until he decided to eavesdrop on Americans and had to resign. Too bad that rule isn't still in effect...
no kidding...
i didn't like nixon much. price and wage controls? please...
i didn't like nixon much.
Maybe it was just in contrast to LBJ...
Maybe it was just in contrast to LBJ...
well, yeah. i can see that.
Nothing whispers "class" like press conference on the toilet.
hey, he was "down to earth"...
If I were heartless and unsympathetic, I might remark about him being down in the earth.
|
i wasn't aware you were a politician, sorry...You didn't say anything about politicians, you said:
note to partisans on both sides: y'all are ALL complete [fill in the plural for beasts of burden]. get over yourselves. reality isn't black and white. you're ALL wrong, neither of your parties get jack done most of the time, and they're all out to screw the average american.
So...is there some presumption that you are right? Or should we all just tune you out and leave you alone with your self-importance.
Talking religion and politics might be fun and edifying if people weren't afraid comments like yours above were going to show up.
Apparently one of the advantages of being beholden to no ideology (whatever that phrase means), is that you can lump people you've never met into a group that doesn't exist and browbeat them with your own lack of accomplishment.
Actually, sounds a LOT like the Clintons.
Hey, I was a huge supporter of the Clintons. Hell, and Mitt Romney(despite not liking his politics, I actually had to give him some props). You know what the biggest reason why is? I know where their money is coming from. They are rich. I am okay with this, most presidents have lots of money.
What worries me is presidential candidates without money. Because then you think to yourself, where is the cash coming from? The answer: special interests. I don't want my president to be beholden to anyone who isn't the American people. This is why I think that until the entire country adopts the measure already in place in New Jersey and Maine, where the government provides funding to run for office.
McCain-Feingold almost works, but its just not enough. There is a bill the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act. Until then, Every candidate who doesnt essentially fund themselves, owes someone something. So as yourself this, who does Obama owe? And further, who does McCain owe?
Don't trust either of these guys as far as you can throw them.
That said, I feel that that the government can provide quality solutions to problems. Bureaucracy is not a bad thing. it's what makes the government run. The bureaucracy just needs a tune-up and I say let's give it one.
Think of it,one of the reasons many are suffering right now is many state and local programs were recently discontinued and so the safety net there to catch them is weaker than it once was. I know that i personally got screwed out of 8000 dollars because a state program for tuition assistance was cancelled. The reason why is because the federal government cut the spending.
And to those of you libertarians out there, any thoughts that government deregulation is a good thing, the housing crisis is the proof that there is a need for it. The reason there are regulations on business is to protect us the consumer, not to screw over the producer.
As consumers, why wouldn't we favor regulation?
Let's just clean up the government, not cut out its legs from under it.
|
|
I personally liked Nixon. He did all sorts of great things and essentially just got caught doing all the same things that every administrations had been doing since Eisenhower.
And what's wrong with wage and price controls? The economy was in trouble and rather than just throw money at the problem he actually tried to do something. That's respectable. If Bush had done that, he may not have become QUITE so hated.(Though hed have still been George Bush....)
|
I think the biggest advantage Palin gives McCain is that she can, if she does her job right, draw the disgruntled Hillary supporters into McCain's camp while shoring up his support with the conservative base. Also, every time somebody brings up her inexperience, the answer will be that she has more executive experience than Obama does. After all, she's actually run something. They can't use their best weapon without painting Obama with the same brush. Well played John McCain.
Why would Palin draw disgruntled Hillary supporters? Does Palin support Hillary's plan for health insurance? Her stance on abortion? Her position on the war in Iraq? Y'all assume we are as interested in following t&a wheresoever it may lead as some men are; sorry pals, but we can look through that. I supported Hillary; Palin I don't know from Joe. There are women who support Palin, and there are women who support Hillary. Don't assume we are the same people. We share a gender, not politics.
I have not been able to understand the facination these last few days with Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant. Some people on other boards have even gone so far as to say that it should disqualify her from being veep. It happens people, even in religious households where strict abstinence values are taught. I'm of the opinion that if her daughter was out stumping for McCain and talking about abstinence and such, it would be okay to call her on it. However, her daughter has not put herself in the public spotlight, and we should respect her privacy. I also think that the left wing groups like the Daily Kos and Kieth Olberman who are putting out the rumors that Sarah Palin faked her last pregnancy to cover up the fact that her Down's Syndrome son is actually her grandson should be shunned for their iresponsible journalism. Besides, this could backfire for Obama like outing Dick Cheney's daughter did for John Kerry.
Abolutely David. I personally don't discount her at all because her daughter is pregnant. They are doing the right thing anyway and getting married, which I approve of. All I was saying as a Libertarian is that I would hope that the lesson that 'these things can happen in every household' will hopefully keep morality issues off the political spectrum. I am often prevented from voting Republican when I hear such views expressed, so I am hoping that Palin will not make a big deal of these issues. I am hoping as a level-headed practical person she won't. I admire people with strong moral stances, I just don't enjoy having their moral interpretations crammed down my throat.
Also, anyone who makes a big deal out of her having a handicapped child, as I have seen some do should be ashamed of themselves. It is a very hard burden to bear, as anyone who has to care for a special needs child knows. Saying she won't be able to do her job correctly is incredibly insulting to all of us who are productive members of society while caring for our loved ones.
in my lifetime, reagan and clinton were the only decent presidents. i'll have to wait at least four more years for a chance at another good one...I sorta liked Nixon, until he decided to eavesdrop on Americans and had to resign. Too bad that rule isn't still in effect...
Apropos of absolutely nothing, I was driving out of my development yesterday morning and there was this very old man driving out as well in front of me in a cherry '73 Thunderbird. The car had TWO Nixon/Agnew political bumper stickers on it! Now that says 'one owner' if nothing else does!
I do agree that if Nixon hadn't had been such a paranoid fool he could have gone down in history as an excellent president. He did cauterize the Vietnam wound and reach out to China. But anyone who has political 'watch lists' and does breakins to snoop and tapes everything is never going to redeem themselves in my eyes no matter what their track record was.
Also, anyone who makes a big deal out of her having a handicapped child, as I have seen some do should be ashamed of themselves. It is a very hard burden to bear, as anyone who has to care for a special needs child knows. Saying she won't be able to do her job correctly is incredibly insulting to all of us who are productive members of society while caring for our loved ones....
My wife's making a bit of a deal about it. She worked for United Cerebral Palsy for over a decade and that included working with kids with all sorts of developmental disabilities, including Down's. Her take on it is, since the baby's so young, the Palins don't even really know what they're in for yet, or how they're going to handle it. And that's not a good time for taking on massive national responsibilities precisely because it's a very hard burden to bear.
Of course, she also thought that Edwards should have quit the race to take better care of his wife too, and she was an Edwards supporter. But that's my wife. She thinks people need to take care of themselves and loved ones first before taking care of the country...
|
|
I think the biggest advantage Palin gives McCain is that she can, if she does her job right, draw the disgruntled Hillary supporters into McCain's camp while shoring up his support with the conservative base. Also, every time somebody brings up her inexperience, the answer will be that she has more executive experience than Obama does. After all, she's actually run something. They can't use their best weapon without painting Obama with the same brush. Well played John McCain.Why would Palin draw disgruntled Hillary supporters? Does Palin support Hillary's plan for health insurance? Her stance on abortion? Her position on the war in Iraq? Y'all assume we are as interested in following t&a wheresoever it may lead as some men are; sorry pals, but we can look through that. I supported Hillary; Palin I don't know from Joe. There are women who support Palin, and there are women who support Hillary. Don't assume we are the same people. We share a gender, not politics.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that every Hillary voter will support a McCain/Palin ticket. I'm saying that if she does her job right and sells their agenda well, she might, again might, draw in enough to make a difference. There are many people out there who did support Hillary because she was a woman. After all; on health care, abortion, and Iraq, Hillary and Barack have almost identical positions. I understand that experince played a big riole in the split, which is one reason that Obama selected Biden as his running mate. I'm just saying that I expect to see some trickle down effect of disgruntled Hillary supporters supporting Sarah Palin. It's not a T&A think, it's a gender politics thing.
|
|
Don't forget that the only experience the Bill Clinton had was running Arkansas.Heck, that's what people were saying about this Illinois Senator you know, the one who ran for President ... what's the name... Ah. Abraham Lincoln. ;-)
But I'm not the one saying that Sarah Palin should not be vice-president because of her lack of experience. It is the campaign of the guy who has even less experience than Palin that is saying she is too inexperienced to be vice-president.
|
|
I think the biggest advantage Palin gives McCain is that she can, if she does her job right, draw the disgruntled Hillary supporters into McCain's camp while shoring up his support with the conservative base. Also, every time somebody brings up her inexperience, the answer will be that she has more executive experience than Obama does. After all, she's actually run something. They can't use their best weapon without painting Obama with the same brush. Well played John McCain.Why would Palin draw disgruntled Hillary supporters? Does Palin support Hillary's plan for health insurance? Her stance on abortion? Her position on the war in Iraq? Y'all assume we are as interested in following t&a wheresoever it may lead as some men are; sorry pals, but we can look through that. I supported Hillary; Palin I don't know from Joe. There are women who support Palin, and there are women who support Hillary. Don't assume we are the same people. We share a gender, not politics.
i think a lot of people do not understand how much many clinton supporters LOATHE obama...
i think a lot of people do not understand how much many clinton supporters LOATHE obama...
I don't think there's really all that much of it compared to the number of supporters who really invested a lot, psychologically, into the idea that here was a woman finally about to break through the glass ceiling. And, now, are tremendously frustrated... even though their candidate lost fair and square.
If they really supported most of Clinton's positions (assuming Clinton did want something more than what Christopher Hitchens would call Clintonian Narcissism), they won't vote McCain. They'll support the Democratic platform.
Now, I'll give you that Clinton did have some appeal to middle-of-the-roaders that Obama hasn't had. But I seriously doubt that they really loathe Obama outside of the white sheet-wearing set.
I don't think loathing Obama is the right issue. It's frustration of heightened expectations.
|
|
Now, I'll give you that Clinton did have some appeal to middle-of-the-roaders that Obama hasn't had. But I seriously doubt that they really loathe Obama outside of the white sheet-wearing set.
no offense, but you don't have to wear a white sheet to be put off by obama's elitist leanings (san francisco, anyone?). hillary started kicking obama's @$$ in the latter half of the primaries, about the time obama started getting more exposure and hillary found her populist voice. (alas, too little, too late, but it exposed chinks in skippy the wonder candidate's armor...)
saying the only reason to loathe someone is because you're a racist is an intellectually bankrupt position, sorry.
with all of the bush fatigue, the worries about the economy, concerns about iraq, and other issues that have left the republicans vulnerable, the fact that it's a dead heat going into the republican convention tells me that obama isn't "all that" as a candidate. he should be leading by ten points, frankly, given all of the advantages the democrats have this year...
|
|
no offense, but you don't have to wear a white sheet to be put off by obama's elitist leanings (san francisco, anyone?).
I've gone there on vacation. It's a very cool town, with some really awesome museums and a park that beats the pants off of the one in New York City. (San Diego has a better zoo, IMO.)
I've never really understood why 'San Francisco' is used as an insult, other than the obvious homophobic stuff (spent a week or so there, didn't see a single gay person, that I know of...).