McCain: we got some of that change thing too!


Off-Topic Discussions

1,301 to 1,341 of 1,341 << first < prev | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

kessukoofah wrote:
out of curiosity (and to try and get this back to a relevent topic), when do you begin to teach sex-ed when homeschooling?

We covered the general idea of reproduction the year before last, explaining about eggs, sperm, fertilization, etc. That would have made them Ten, Nine, Seven and Six. My girls (currently nine and eight) will be covering puberty and the like this year. I tend to come at this issue from a 'farmer's' perspective. The act of procreation isn't and shouldn't be a big mystery. We see cows, dogs, cats, (even our pet frogs) doing it. But there's no need to dwell upon the issue, except as it arises - which means we've talked about pregnancies when we see pregnant women, the role of parents, etc.

As for drugs, we've discussed what they are, why they're bad for you, the effects of alcohol on the brain and whatnot. I tend to listen to talk radio a lot and so my kids are probably as well versed in the politics of the day as its possible to be at their young age.

Liberty's Edge

veector wrote:
Wicht wrote:
Azzy wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
makes me want to home school
Just as long as you keep in mind that home schooling comes with its own set of issues.

Which are?

- Kids unadjusted to an authority figure which is not their parent.

- Kids unadjusted to social bonding/networking.
- Kids at vastly different educational levels than their peers which can promote social isolation.

EDIT: I'm not saying you shouldn't home-school if that's what you really want, but there are many things kids get from a school environment that they can't get being taught one-on-one.

Correct. There are programs to get home schooled children to interact with other home schooled children, but you're generally limited by who else in the area is home schooling, and the children vary in age ranges. That said, I'm not disparaging home schooling, just letting you know that it's not perfect either.

One of my sisters, and a friend of mine have both home schooled. Lastknightleft, So if you're really interested I could probably troll them up for info.

Scarab Sages

Wicht wrote:
kessukoofah wrote:
out of curiosity (and to try and get this back to a relevent topic), when do you begin to teach sex-ed when homeschooling?

We covered the general idea of reproduction the year before last, explaining about eggs, sperm, fertilization, etc. That would have made them Ten, Nine, Seven and Six. My girls (currently nine and eight) will be covering puberty and the like this year. I tend to come at this issue from a 'farmer's' perspective. The act of procreation isn't and shouldn't be a big mystery. We see cows, dogs, cats, (even our pet frogs) doing it. But there's no need to dwell upon the issue, except as it arises - which means we've talked about pregnancies when we see pregnant women, the role of parents, etc.

As for drugs, we've discussed what they are, why they're bad for you, the effects of alcohol on the brain and whatnot. I tend to listen to talk radio a lot and so my kids are probably as well versed in the politics of the day as its possible to be at their young age.

and is this age typical of homeschooling itself, or more just a choice you made? like have you discussed ti with the other homeschooling people you talk to? one of the "plusses" i've found in public schools is that they usually teach everything at uniform levels, so grade 4 (or was it 5...long time ago) is the beginning of sex-ed. grade 6 is drugs...or more in depth anyway. and it's like that at most of the schools i've seen.

Liberty's Edge

Emperor7 wrote:
Home schooling can be great. Better than a lot of schools. But it also can be a lot worse.

Quite true.


Russ Taylor wrote:
As far as the lipstick thing goes - McCain uses the lipstick on a pig analogy for some of Hillary's policies. So basically, the Rs can back the hell off on the mock outrage.

Given the recent humorous comments of Palin about her being a hockey mom, it was an extremely poor choice of words on Obama's part. Whether he was intentionally trying to be sexist, who can say, but given the audience reaction, it is a bit silly to act like that wasn't what at least some of the crowd were thinking.

EDIT: It should be noted that the "Lipstick on a Pig" phrase seems to be the new democrat party slogan. Why they have choosen that particular terminology I wouldn't hazard to guess. Of course it could be worse, some dem could suggest that Palin's only qualification is not having an abortion.

Liberty's Edge

Emperor7 wrote:

ith all of us blowhards here you should be able to handle some rinky dink hurricane.

Seriously, prayers for all of you this weekend.

Agreed. Stay safe.

Scarab Sages

kessukoofah wrote:
and is this age typical of homeschooling itself, or more just a choice you made? like have you discussed ti with the other homeschooling people you talk to? one of the "plusses" i've found in public schools is that they usually teach everything at uniform levels, so grade 4 (or was it 5...long time ago) is the beginning of sex-ed. grade 6 is drugs...or more in depth anyway. and it's like that at most of the schools i've seen.

I honestly have no idea at what age other homeschoolers teach these things. Its not something that comes up in conversation. :)

That said, I appreciate the flexibility of being able to introduce it to my children in a natural way as the need and topic arises.

Personally, I think I had one lesson on it the whole time I was in public school (class of 91) and I figured most of it out for myself. As a subject in the public schools I think its importance is vastly overated. In reality, the key to keeping kids away from underage sex, drugs and the like is not massive educational programs. Study after study show that it is time spent with parents. Girls with solid father figures intheir lives are less likely to get pregnant, kids that eat dinner with their folks everynight do less drugs, etc., etc..

Scarab Sages

Azzy wrote:
One of my sisters, and a friend of mine have both home schooled. Lastknightleft, So if you're really interested I could probably troll them up for info.

Its worth noting that the rules for homeschooling change from state to state. Anyone interested should find out what the guidelines are in their state.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Emperor7 wrote:
With all of us blowhards here you should be able to handle some rinky dink hurricane.

Me? No problem. The fragile overhead power lines? Different story!

Emperor7 wrote:
Seriously, prayers for all of you this weekend.
Thanks. I appreciate the thought. Looks like the eye will miss us, but we'll be within the big rain and wind bands. Have to wait and see.

Gah. Nasty. Best of luck to you and yours!

Scarab Sages

Wicht wrote:
kessukoofah wrote:
and is this age typical of homeschooling itself, or more just a choice you made? like have you discussed ti with the other homeschooling people you talk to? one of the "plusses" i've found in public schools is that they usually teach everything at uniform levels, so grade 4 (or was it 5...long time ago) is the beginning of sex-ed. grade 6 is drugs...or more in depth anyway. and it's like that at most of the schools i've seen.

I honestly have no idea at what age other homeschoolers teach these things. Its not something that comes up in conversation. :)

That said, I appreciate the flexibility of being able to introduce it to my children in a natural way as the need and topic arises.

Personally, I think I had one lesson on it the whole time I was in public school (class of 91) and I figured most of it out for myself. As a subject in the public schools I think its importance is vastly overated. In reality, the key to keeping kids away from underage sex, drugs and the like is not massive educational programs. Study after study show that it is time spent with parents. Girls with solid father figures intheir lives are less likely to get pregnant, kids that eat dinner with their folks everynight do less drugs, etc., etc..

You're absolutely right. which is what I said earlier. It falls on the parents to think and rather then doing it, they're washing their hands of it, relying on schools and then blaming them. which is why now there's a giant call to teach it in school, when it's not the school's job. I absolutely hate parents that do that. "oh no! my little angel is pregnant at 15! oh why oh why didn't the school tell her that unprotected sex is bad before this could have happened?" in fact, that's going on my top ten pet peeves list. as number 12. I'm just lucky my parents were responsible and took an active part in my rearing. you see way too many parents dodging questions these days. it's always "when you're older", and then something happnes and suddenly that awkward talk doesn't seem like it would have been so bad.

Liberty's Edge

Wicht wrote:
In reality, the key to keeping kids away from underage sex, drugs and the like is not massive educational programs. Study after study show that it is time spent with parents. Girls with solid father figures intheir lives are less likely to get pregnant, kids that eat dinner with their folks everynight do less drugs, etc., etc..

[sarcasm]C'mon, now, most parents don't want to hear that -- let's blame Hollywood, video games, television, rock, and D&D for what's wrong with children. We can't have parents actually take responsibility. [/sarcasm]


Azzy wrote:
[sarcasm]C'mon, now, most parents don't want to hear that -- let's blame Hollywood, video games, television, rock, and D&D for what's wrong with children. We can't have parents actually take responsibility. [/sarcasm]

No one in America wants to take responsibility for anything.


Russ Taylor wrote:
As far as the lipstick thing goes - McCain uses the lipstick on a pig analogy for some of Hillary's policies. So basically, the Rs can back the hell off on the mock outrage.

Seconded- talk about trying to find something to be indignant about.

Obama and his wife were refered to as "uppity" by the Georgia GOP- considering what used to follow that descriptor, I'd say the Obamas have a much stronger case for indignation.
Anyway, of one was to resort to such a spin-heavy set of criteria, then I guess McCain is an even more sexist pig, since he was actually making a direct reference to a woman.
Spare us the faux indigence and hair trigger need to find something to get outraged over.
So suddenly Palin owns the word lipstick? This is her contribution to democracy? Once you look past the said lipstick, Palin is just another parochial, candy covered philistine, albeit one that went to charm school. This whole storm in a tea cup is the worst of McCain's martyrdom line and Karl Rove's character assassination (oh yeah, did I forget to mention that he's now a "consultant" for the McCain campaign?). You know you must be desperate when you hire the chap whose people came up with the lie that your adopted child was actually the result of a liason with a prostitute and ran with this slander in North Carolina back in '04.
Mavericks my arse. Pathetic.


kessukoofah wrote:
It falls on the parents to think and rather then doing it, they're washing their hands of it, relying on schools and then blaming them. which is why now there's a giant call to teach it in school, when it's not the school's job. I absolutely hate parents that do that. "oh no! my little angel is pregnant at 15! oh why oh why didn't the school tell her that unprotected sex is bad before this could have happened?"

The school district where I taught switched to abstinence-only, but some fool took that to mean "tell them not to do anything and hope they know what those things are." So then I had girls staying after class to ask me if it was possible to get preganant by kissing -- I was the science teacher, after all, so I must know how things worked, and "family life education" didn't address the birds and bees. Sad. Most of the parents had their heads in the sand, and didn't see anything suggestive about their little angel wanting a tongue ring and a "tramp stamp" at age 14, dressing like a prostitute, and spending all weekend at parties.

What gets me is that the kids were 50/50, half doing things that would choke a goat, and the other half believing that God would smite them if they ever had sex except for procreation within marriage. No one seemed to acknowledge that there might be a middle ground between those extremes.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
kessukoofah wrote:
It falls on the parents to think and rather then doing it, they're washing their hands of it, relying on schools and then blaming them. which is why now there's a giant call to teach it in school, when it's not the school's job. I absolutely hate parents that do that. "oh no! my little angel is pregnant at 15! oh why oh why didn't the school tell her that unprotected sex is bad before this could have happened?"
The school district where I taught switched to abstinence-only, but some fool took that to mean "tell them not to do anything and hope they know what those things are." So then I had girls staying after class to ask me if it was possible to get preganant by kissing -- I was the science teacher, after all, so I must know how things worked, and "family life education" didn't address the birds and bees. Sad.

and what's worse is that (and i got this from a chem teacher i know who went through it) when the kids ask (it was a group of girls in his case too) and you answer? suddenly you have parents angry at you for it. the teacher was almost slapped with sexual harassment or something and he ended up leaving there a year or so later. despite the fact that all he did was clear up their misconceptions.

also, those are the exaclt parents i'm talking about. the ones that let their kids go out like that and are obviously just ignoring the fact that they've grown up.

Dark Archive

veector wrote:
kessukoofah wrote:
also, I can't believe that article was in time. I actually refused to read beyond the first sentance. I'm all for articles that are opinion instead of fact, but one's that start "X thinks he's better" is just bad writing.
If you read the article to the end, you'll see why he makes that statement.

The problem I have with it having read the whole article is the same that I had in the beginning. This is an opinion piece disguised as a news article. It was an editorial, and it should have been labeled as such. Let's just assume that everything he says in the editorial is true. There is no counter argument, which is important in balanced journalism, and the only source that he cites is one who's credibility and impartiality has been called into question. Therefore, it should be labeled as an opinion and not presented as news. That has been my complaint from the beginning.

Liberty's Edge

Lou wrote:
Azzy wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Azzy wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Lou wrote:
stuff
question: if someone cannot afford insurance, why would they think they could afford a child?
Why would someone who could afford insurance in the previous year think that the cost of the same insurance would raise above what they can afford in the coming year?

why would someone who's insurance went up that dramatically drop the insurance so they could keep their cable tv? i find it hilarious that more people own two or more televisions, have cable tv, buy video game consoles, wear $200 tennis shoes and drive late model cars than have health insurance.

misplaced priorities, i guess...

I find it quite amusing that this is immediately assumed to be the case whenever cracks emerge in the picture of the status quo -- yes, by all means, let's blame the victim shall we (nothing helps like making things up about them and assuming the worst)? That solves everything. They shouldn't have worn that red dress.

I think this is precisely the thing Lou was talking about with Attribution Error.

Yep.

"for it is of utmost importance to NEVER hold ANYONE responsible for their own circumstances. if they are poor, they must be a "victim"..."

Liberal Proverbs 1:22

Liberty's Edge

Lou wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
Snorter wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
voting isn't a "right" as people generally define "rights". it is a "priveledge". were it a "right", something like a felony conviction wouldn't bar someone from voting.

How does that work, in the US?

Are convicted felons only prevented from voting while they are serving time, or does it extend, after their release?
There is not a hard and fast rule as it is up to the states. Currently, only Kentucky and Virginia maintain a lifelong ban of felon voters. Most other states allow you to apply for your voting rights to be reenstates after you have completed your sentance and your parole or probation.
Is that correct? States can stop you from voting on a federal level after you serve time. If so, I didn't know that.

states all handle voter registration differently. in texas, you can have your voting rights reinstated two years after you're done with everything dealing with your case (i.e. parole/supervised release)

Liberty's Edge

CourtFool wrote:
Azzy wrote:
[sarcasm]C'mon, now, most parents don't want to hear that -- let's blame Hollywood, video games, television, rock, and D&D for what's wrong with children. We can't have parents actually take responsibility. [/sarcasm]
No one in America wants to take responsibility for anything.

no kidding, but, you know, we can always get the government to hold our hands like children...

Sovereign Court

firbolg wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
As far as the lipstick thing goes - McCain uses the lipstick on a pig analogy for some of Hillary's policies. So basically, the Rs can back the hell off on the mock outrage.

Seconded- talk about trying to find something to be indignant about.

Obama and his wife were refered to as "uppity" by the Georgia GOP- considering what used to follow that descriptor, I'd say the Obamas have a much stronger case for indignation.
Anyway, of one was to resort to such a spin-heavy set of criteria, then I guess McCain is an even more sexist pig, since he was actually making a direct reference to a woman.
Spare us the faux indigence and hair trigger need to find something to get outraged over.
So suddenly Palin owns the word lipstick? This is her contribution to democracy? Once you look past the said lipstick, Palin is just another parochial, candy covered philistine, albeit one that went to charm school. This whole storm in a tea cup is the worst of McCain's martyrdom line and Karl Rove's character assassination (oh yeah, did I forget to mention that he's now a "consultant" for the McCain campaign?). You know you must be desperate when you hire the chap whose people came up with the lie that your adopted child was actually the result of a liason with a prostitute and ran with this slander in North Carolina back in '04.
Mavericks my arse. Pathetic.

I agree, the fake outrage tactics are just stretching for a controversy and are annoying. But then again, Republicans seem to have the swift-boating tactic down to a science. Just like the celebrity comment, something will catch at some point...


Callous Jack wrote:
firbolg wrote:
Russ Taylor wrote:
As far as the lipstick thing goes - McCain uses the lipstick on a pig analogy for some of Hillary's policies. So basically, the Rs can back the hell off on the mock outrage.

Seconded- talk about trying to find something to be indignant about.

Obama and his wife were refered to as "uppity" by the Georgia GOP- considering what used to follow that descriptor, I'd say the Obamas have a much stronger case for indignation.
Anyway, of one was to resort to such a spin-heavy set of criteria, then I guess McCain is an even more sexist pig, since he was actually making a direct reference to a woman.
Spare us the faux indigence and hair trigger need to find something to get outraged over.
So suddenly Palin owns the word lipstick? This is her contribution to democracy? Once you look past the said lipstick, Palin is just another parochial, candy covered philistine, albeit one that went to charm school. This whole storm in a tea cup is the worst of McCain's martyrdom line and Karl Rove's character assassination (oh yeah, did I forget to mention that he's now a "consultant" for the McCain campaign?). You know you must be desperate when you hire the chap whose people came up with the lie that your adopted child was actually the result of a liason with a prostitute and ran with this slander in North Carolina back in '04.
Mavericks my arse. Pathetic.
I agree, the fake outrage tactics are just stretching for a controversy and are annoying. But then again, Republicans seem to have the swift-boating tactic down to a science. Just like the celebrity comment, something will catch at some point...

What I find humorous is some people can't even bring themselves to admit that the choice of words was poor. I mean Obama had already been labeled sexist by some Clinton supporters. To make that choice of words, whether it was his intention or not (see the guy who use a word that means stingy) the choice of phrase was probably poor. I fail to see why people are so partisan to even admit that to themselves. Should his use of the phrase, "Can put lipstick on a pig [pause for crowd to start laughing], but it is still a pig." bother people, no. Does it for some. Yes.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:
What I find humorous is some people can't even bring themselves to admit that the choice of words was poor. I mean Obama had already been labeled sexist by some Clinton supporters. To make that choice of words, whether it was his intention or not (see the guy who use a word that means stingy) the choice of phrase was probably poor. I fail to see why people are so partisan to even admit that to themselves.

lol... when will the "outrages" stop coming...


Callous Jack wrote:
pres man wrote:
What I find humorous is some people can't even bring themselves to admit that the choice of words was poor. I mean Obama had already been labeled sexist by some Clinton supporters. To make that choice of words, whether it was his intention or not (see the guy who use a word that means stingy) the choice of phrase was probably poor. I fail to see why people are so partisan to even admit that to themselves.
lol... when will the "outrages" stop coming...

It is not outrage to say someone made a piss poor choice of a turn of phrase. One can suggest that a person's rhetoric was poorly choosen on an occasion without getting upset. As I said before, it is a bonehead comment, something I would expect from Biden but not Obama.


pres man wrote:
something I would expect from Biden but not Obama.

Well put.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
pres man wrote:
What I find humorous is some people can't even bring themselves to admit that the choice of words was poor. I mean Obama had already been labeled sexist by some Clinton supporters. To make that choice of words, whether it was his intention or not (see the guy who use a word that means stingy) the choice of phrase was probably poor. I fail to see why people are so partisan to even admit that to themselves.
lol... when will the "outrages" stop coming...
It is not outrage to say someone made a piss poor choice of a turn of phrase. One can suggest that a person's rhetoric was poorly choosen on an occasion without getting upset. As I said before, it is a bonehead comment, something I would expect from Biden but not Obama.

Gee whiz, we better go have a talk with McCain since he said the same thing... Oh wait, it's okay because he's on "your side." lol

Liberty's Edge

houstonderek wrote:

"for it is of utmost importance to NEVER hold ANYONE responsible for their own circumstances. if they are poor, they must be a "victim"..."

Liberal Proverbs 1:22

How nicely you paint with a broad brush. I never claimed that all who are poor or incapable of affording insurance are victims or not there due their own fault. You, however, ARE suggesting that ALL who are poor or incapable of affording insurance are at fault and that's that.

So, which "Conservative Proverb" does your "blame the victim" ideology come from?

Dark Archive

pres man wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
pres man wrote:
What I find humorous is some people can't even bring themselves to admit that the choice of words was poor. I mean Obama had already been labeled sexist by some Clinton supporters. To make that choice of words, whether it was his intention or not (see the guy who use a word that means stingy) the choice of phrase was probably poor. I fail to see why people are so partisan to even admit that to themselves.
lol... when will the "outrages" stop coming...
It is not outrage to say someone made a piss poor choice of a turn of phrase. One can suggest that a person's rhetoric was poorly choosen on an occasion without getting upset. As I said before, it is a bonehead comment, something I would expect from Biden but not Obama.

Kind of like asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up so everyone could see him? Biden did that in Washington State yesterday.

Sovereign Court

David Fryer wrote:
Kind of like asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up so everyone could see him? Biden did that in Washington State yesterday.

Yeah, a silly mistake and I'm sure he's kicking himself for it but nothing to get outraged over.

Liberty's Edge

Azzy wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

"for it is of utmost importance to NEVER hold ANYONE responsible for their own circumstances. if they are poor, they must be a "victim"..."

Liberal Proverbs 1:22

How nicely you paint with a broad brush. I never claimed that all who are poor or incapable of affording insurance are victims or not there due their own fault. You, however, ARE suggesting that ALL who are poor or incapable of affording insurance are at fault and that's that.

So, which "Conservative Proverb" does your "blame the victim" ideology come from?

my libertarian proverb is as such: "i am more than willing to help you voluntarily, with my time and money, as i can afford, if, through no fault of your own or pure dumb luck, you find yourself in poor circumstances. (this includes people like children born to $#!^@y parents, disaster victims, the mentally handicapped, victims of drunk drivers or other negligence beyond their control, and the like).

however, i am not willing to support your a$$ if you continually make s#!^@y decisions in your life. (this includes otherwise healthy and robust individuals who "can't find a job", addicts who won't avail themselves of the literally THOUSANDS of programs designed to help them, people who have three or four kids they already cannot afford and won't take the steps to insure they don't get pregnant again, people who smoke, drink or eat to excess then get heart disease, lung cancer, type 2 diabetes, etc, people who blame anyone but themselves for their life circumstances when no one held a gun to their heads and made them make bad decisions, people who don't read the fine print, adults who contract certain diseases through unsafe sex (i give teenagers a pass there (its a parenting issue at that point), adults should know better by now), and, frankly, anyone who thinks their "entitled" to anything they've never made an honest effort to secure for themselves.

the vehicle by which i chose to extend a helping hand to those in need is called "charity". this vehicle has proven time and time again to be MUCH more efficient at actually getting most of the money entrusted to it to the people in need, without wasting upwards of 90% on bureaucracy"

Liberty's Edge

Azzy wrote:
houstonderek wrote:

"for it is of utmost importance to NEVER hold ANYONE responsible for their own circumstances. if they are poor, they must be a "victim"..."

Liberal Proverbs 1:22

How nicely you paint with a broad brush. I never claimed that all who are poor or incapable of affording insurance are victims or not there due their own fault. You, however, ARE suggesting that ALL who are poor or incapable of affording insurance are at fault and that's that.

So, which "Conservative Proverb" does your "blame the victim" ideology come from?

and i love the word "victim". talk about painting with a broad brush. if you can't hack it in life, you're a "victim"!

it still amazes me that evolution and natural selection is never applied, by the left, to the human animal...

[edit: azzy, dude, i so want to game with you, i love the banter :)]

Dark Archive

Callous Jack wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
Kind of like asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up so everyone could see him? Biden did that in Washington State yesterday.
Yeah, a silly mistake and I'm sure he's kicking himself for it but nothing to get outraged over.

Yeah, I don't sense a lot of outrage over it. It's more "there goes Biden, sticking his foot in his mouth again."


Callous Jack wrote:
pres man wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
pres man wrote:
What I find humorous is some people can't even bring themselves to admit that the choice of words was poor. I mean Obama had already been labeled sexist by some Clinton supporters. To make that choice of words, whether it was his intention or not (see the guy who use a word that means stingy) the choice of phrase was probably poor. I fail to see why people are so partisan to even admit that to themselves.
lol... when will the "outrages" stop coming...
It is not outrage to say someone made a piss poor choice of a turn of phrase. One can suggest that a person's rhetoric was poorly choosen on an occasion without getting upset. As I said before, it is a bonehead comment, something I would expect from Biden but not Obama.
Gee whiz, we better go have a talk with McCain since he said the same thing... Oh wait, it's okay because he's on "your side." lol

So your argument is what exactly. That the phrase was a GOOD choice by Obama because

1)it was the best that this gifted orator could come up with?
or
2)McCain said something similar about Clinton so it is ok to disrespect women as long as it happens equally?

I mean really, it was a piss poor choice of words by Obama. Was McCain's doing it, any better? No, McCain was a moron for saying it about Hillary. Guess what, sometimes people say bonehead crap. Obama did this time, which is sad considering he is already having trouble with people who feel he was sexist to Hillary (whether he actually was or not).

Sovereign Court

David Fryer wrote:
Callous Jack wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
Kind of like asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up so everyone could see him? Biden did that in Washington State yesterday.
Yeah, a silly mistake and I'm sure he's kicking himself for it but nothing to get outraged over.
Yeah, I don't sense a lot of outrage over it. It's more "there goes Biden, sticking his foot in his mouth again."

Yeah, that seems to be his standard MO.

Dark Archive

Did you see that Joe Biden said that Hillary might have been a better vp pick for Obama? Is it coincidence that he said that the day before Obama meets with Don Clintononi in New York? Is it possible that tomorrow's breaking news will be "Obama dumps Biden, Hillary is now VP candidate?"


David Fryer wrote:
Did you see that Joe Biden said that Hillary might have been a better vp pick for Obama? Is it coincidence that he said that the day before Obama meets with Don Clintononi in New York? Is it possible that tomorrow's breaking news will be "Obama dumps Biden, Hillary is now VP candidate?"

I think there's too much bad blood between Obama and Clinton for that to happen. But, who knows? Anything can happen.

Sovereign Court

okay been gone for a while let me backtrack...

First the Palin comment I was refering to was the "gods mission in iraq" which when viewed in it's entirety merely has her in her own church having the audacity to say pray that what they are doing is gods..."

second Thanks to those of you who offered advice and info on homeschooling, but I think I'll wait till my wife at least gets pregnant to actually look into homeschooling. :)

Third I'm not outraged in the slightest by Obama's comment but I agree that it was a piss poor decision on his part and here's the thing, I think it was intentional, I think he knew exactly what would come of it so he could say "see this is the republican party playing their old tricks" without realizing that the reason they use those tricks is because they are in fact quite effective.

And I remember hillary supporters calling out McCain as sexist for the exact same thing. The problem I find with comment outrage is that both sides are only willing to apply it to the opposite side.

And finally the article about Palin thinking that she's better than everyone else. I read it in it's entirety and I don't even doubt the facts. But here's the thing, I've seen pictures of daily life in alaska, and I've spoken to people who have both lived and visited Alaska. I would wait to hold judgement on the fact that she holds money back for alaskans till I see a comparison of living expenses in comparison to the lower 48. I mean c'mon the place is a frozen wasteland half the dang year and the light can be gone for weeks at a time. Do you have any idea how much greater an alaskans energy burden is over say a kansan or a new yorker? for all we know that money is just enough to cover energy expenses so that citizens are working for a decent life instead of working to pay their 800 dollar heating bill. Once all of those factors are taken into account I'll be more willing to pass judgement.

Well I'm off to bed, I'll talk to you guys more later.

Dark Archive

The latest attack on Palin is to say, "well Jesus was a community organizer and Pilate was a governer."

Scarab Sages

David Fryer wrote:
The latest attack on Palin is to say, "well Jesus was a community organizer and Pilate was a governer."

That's an awful rude thing to imply about President Clinton. :)

Liberty's Edge

David Fryer wrote:
The latest attack on Palin is to say, "well Jesus was a community organizer and Pilate was a governer."

The ruder quote was South Carolina Democratic Committee Chair Carol Fowler saying of Palin: "Her only qualification for VP is that she didn't have an abortion."


David Fryer wrote:
The latest attack on Palin is to say, "well Jesus was a community organizer and Pilate was a governer."

Ever since Palin was announced as the VP candidate, the democrats have lost their mind. Do they realize the more they attack Palin, the more sympathy she gets from the public?

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Garydee wrote:
Ever since Palin was announced as the VP candidate, the democrats have lost their mind. Do they realize the more they attack Palin, the more sympathy she gets from the public?

I don't really see a rebuttal to her ridiculous convention line as being an attack.


McCain Distorts FactCheck.org reporting

Scarab Sages

Russ Taylor wrote:
Garydee wrote:
Ever since Palin was announced as the VP candidate, the democrats have lost their mind. Do they realize the more they attack Palin, the more sympathy she gets from the public?
I don't really see a rebuttal to her ridiculous convention line as being an attack.

i assume you are meaning the line about mayors being similar to community organizers, only with responsibilities. In what way is this line ridiculous?

I also wonder if you really think trying to compare a person with Pontius Pilate is not an attack of a rather slanderous nature.

Personally I find the attack ridiculous on a number of levels. If Jesus was a community organizer then the term is so broad as to be meaningless. And to point out the Pilate was a governor is to paint with such a broad brush as to insult all governors, a good percentage of which are democrats.

Dark Archive

veector wrote:
McCain Distorts FactCheck.org reporting

Well, this is what I was talking about earlier, about FactCheck.Org being more friendly to Obama than to McCain. Does that ad actually mention Obama? According to the text that they themselves give, it does not say that Obama is the source of the attacks they were referring to. It simply shows a photo of Obama. In the broader view, who benefits from the attacks against Palin? Obama does, and so it is perfectly legitimate to show Obama's picture when discussing attacks on Palin, just to remind everyone that even if he is not the one making them, he is the one who benefits from them.


David Fryer wrote:
Obama does, and so it is perfectly legitimate to show Obama's picture when discussing attacks on Palin, just to remind everyone that even if he is not the one making them, he is the one who benefits from them.

To take this logic a bit further, say you work at the gun counter at the local Wal-Mart. A series of gruesome murders have caused people to seek protection; your business is booming. Nonetheless, it would NOT be OK to put your picture up when describing these murders, just to remind people that you're benefitting from them. That's a fairly far-fetched example, but it should be easy to think of slightly less extreme ones that are still equally inappropriate.


veector wrote:
McCain Distorts FactCheck.org reporting

Anybody else catch this at the end.

]Footnote: At least one Obama spokesman has repeated an allegation that we debunked in our story, that Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan. However, the Obama campaign was not the originator of the claim. [/quote wrote:

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
Obama does, and so it is perfectly legitimate to show Obama's picture when discussing attacks on Palin, just to remind everyone that even if he is not the one making them, he is the one who benefits from them.
To take this logic a bit further, say you work at the gun counter at the local Wal-Mart. A series of gruesome murders have caused people to seek protection; your business is booming. Nonetheless, it would NOT be OK to put your picture up when describing these murders, just to remind people that you're benefitting from them. That's a fairly far-fetched example, but it should be easy to think of slightly less extreme ones that are still equally inappropriate.

I don't see how the murders benefit the employee at the Wal-Mart gun counter. In order for it to benefit the store, it must result in a positive for them, they benefit from the sale, but not from the murder. On the other hand, Obama does benefit from the attacks.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Wicht wrote:

i assume you are meaning the line about mayors being similar to community organizers, only with responsibilities. In what way is this line ridiculous?

It belittles an occupation that does a lot of good for the world - I would say more good than being a corrupt (see earmarks) small-town mayor.

Being a community organizer isn't a "would you like fries with that" job, you're responsible for promoting the well-being of the community.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
David Fryer wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
David Fryer wrote:
Obama does, and so it is perfectly legitimate to show Obama's picture when discussing attacks on Palin, just to remind everyone that even if he is not the one making them, he is the one who benefits from them.
To take this logic a bit further, say you work at the gun counter at the local Wal-Mart. A series of gruesome murders have caused people to seek protection; your business is booming. Nonetheless, it would NOT be OK to put your picture up when describing these murders, just to remind people that you're benefitting from them. That's a fairly far-fetched example, but it should be easy to think of slightly less extreme ones that are still equally inappropriate.
I don't see how the murders benefit the employee at the Wal-Mart gun counter. In order for it to benefit the store, it must result in a positive for them, they benefit from the sale, but not from the murder. On the other hand, Obama does benefit from the attacks.

Are you trying to say that most voters would not have come away with the clear impression that Obama had said these things? Sorry, that's either naive in the extreme or special pleading as if we put up a picture of John McCain when playing Osama bin Laden's latest tape because he benefits from people being frightened of terrorism, I suspect you might say that was not appropriate (and you'd be right).


*poodles on the political thread*

1 to 50 of 1,341 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / McCain: we got some of that change thing too! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.