Wade Jarvis wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
And, yeah... Palin's not ready: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/08/AR2008090801907.html
Bare in mind that the Washington Post is one of the most GOP friendly papers printed.

LOL That article is a joke. Just another guy who will never know why she was not there trying to act like he does.

That made no sense at all.

Quote:

The only people who were not ready were the democrats. They were ready and prepared to bash Romney and the others considered to be on the short list for VP. They sure got screwed when Palin was picked.

Seems that MOST news outlets were wondering WTF was up too... Hell, most republicans had the face happening for the first few days too.

Quote:

No one really saw it coming nor did they see the verbal beatdown she delivered at convention coming.

You mean the misdirection (or as I like to say BS) about the "bridge to nowhere" or how she "took on the Republicans?" Please. The "verbal beat down" was more like what you'd hear from Howard Stern on his WNBC days, inflated, self-important and mostly spurrious.

Quote:

Unlike Obama she can speak without a teleprompter (hers did not pause during the apluase breaks so it was far ahead of her) at the convention yet she still seemed confident and calm. Not an easy task with the enormous pressure on her. You should hear Obama stammer and stutter when he does not have a teleprompter. My point is it is easy to speak when you say what you mean and don't have to filter everything you say to make sure your position would poll well.

ORLY?

First off, where did you hear that her Teleprompter got ahead of her?

Second, What difference does it make? Gilligan can memorize a speech... I don't honestly care about prepared speeches, especially when you're talking about basically... nothing. I care about ideas, and if you want to hear someone's thoughts it's usually better to get a candid response, and to be honest, the Video I linked is about what I had expected from her. Do you really want someone that says "Can someone explain to me what it is that the vice president actually does?" with CANDOR, in the VP's office? I mean is she really the right person for the office?

Quote:

If some of you would get off the partisan bashing and really take a look at what she has accomplished you would see she is more likely to bring change than either of the liars who change their mind for political expediency running for president. Does the fact that she has an 82% approval rating mean anything to you guys. It should. How many governor or congressman or senators do you know with an 82% approval rating?

It's not partisan, if Obama had put her on the ticket I'd wonder what the hell he was doing as well! As far as liars go, it's politics, get real: truth is relative to the situation and history. Also, bare in mind that 82% approval means nothing when you don't have the question to go along with it. If you mean her track record as Governor, great: what great reforms did she accomplish? Other than supporting a "bridge to nowhere" and taking the money for it, and then doing nothing about it.

Quote:

Lets cut the BS. You want change I want change we all want change. Honestly who is most likely to deliver it Biden or Palin. How can you defend Obama as the agent of change when he picks a lifelong politician for VP.

Biden has been doing the job for a long time, Palin hasn't. Would you give a newly licensed 16 year old the keys to your Viper? I sure as hell wouldn't.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

For a tough "maverick" and a badass "hockey mom", they sure are butthurt easily

{quote=Comcast News]NORFOLK, Va. — Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is accusing John McCain's campaign of "lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics" in claiming he had made a sexist comment against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Obama on Wednesday called the Republicans' criticism of his use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" a "made-up controversy."

On a campaign stop Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain economic policies as more of the same from the Bush administration. He said: "You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

McCain's campaign has accused Obama of "smearing" Palin in "offensive and disgraceful" comments.

Bad Ace Design wrote:For a tough "maverick" and a badass "hockey mom", they sure are butthurt easily

{quote=Comcast News]NORFOLK, Va. — Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is accusing John McCain's campaign of "lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics" in claiming he had made a sexist comment against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Obama on Wednesday called the Republicans' criticism of his use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" a "made-up controversy."

On a campaign stop Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain economic policies as more of the same from the Bush administration. He said: "You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

McCain's campaign has accused Obama of "smearing" Palin in "offensive and disgraceful" comments.

So much for Obama being the politics of change and not going negative. I think he is just can't stand the thought of loosing and is desperate. If you guys were not so stuck on him you would see he is not the politics of change.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Just a real quickie...


What if McCain/Palin either one had said the "you can put a monkey in a suit and teach him to do tricks but it's still a monkey in a suit" line???

Think nobody would get pissie???






"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"

*Note*
This computer I have at work sucks. It does not always like to quote. Sometimes it will sometimes it won't. It keeps saying it needs me to up the virtual minimum memory...I don't know if that will fix it's quoting problem though. Anyway that is why I am going to respond without quotes.
*Note*


GAM wrote:
"First off, where did you hear that her Teleprompter got ahead of her?
Second, What difference does it make?"

My response:
First off. Does it matter where I got it? Nope your point is still the same either way. I will answer the question because it should be known I do have reputable sources for all info my info. I am not the type of guy to go making stuff up. It was reported by Sean Hanity and before you start with the "but he is a conservative" I trust his word on it. He would not lie about it. I think many of you should get the other side of the story before posting up your one sided bashing. Hanity is a great place to get. If you really think he is wrong-give him a call.

Second I already stated my point perhaps you should go back and re-read it.

GAM wrote:
"It's not partisan, if Obama had put her on the ticket I'd wonder what the hell he was doing as well! As far as liars go, it's politics, get real: truth is relative to the situation and history. Also, bare in mind that 82% approval means nothing when you don't have the question to go along with it. If you mean her track record as Governor, great: what great reforms did she accomplish? Other than supporting a "bridge to nowhere" and taking the money for it, and then doing nothing about it."

My response:
I am not going to call you a liar but I have a hard time believing your bias is not coming into play here. You are the only one that will really know.
I strongly disagree that her 82% approval rate means nothing. That is among the people who know here best Alaskans. They were well aware of her and all the controversy long before you and I. Again your bias is showing strong. If you were not biased you could name the reforms she has done.

I will start the list for you.
1 Sold the jet the previous governor had purchased at taxpayer expense which was unneeded.
2 Decided she could cook her own meals instead of the taxpayers paying for a chef.
3 When the heating costs rose drastically she fought for and succeeded in getting the people an energy rebate.
4 Took Alaska which had a budget deficit to having a state saving account.
5 Exposed a corrupt governor and also the head of the Alaska republican party.

GAM wrote:
"Biden has been doing the job for a long time, Palin hasn't."

My response:
This is one of those places where you can't have it both ways unless you are a hypocrite. You want Obama because he is new and spouts about change and you soak it up like a sponge without examining his record. You are basically saying even though Obama does not have experience it is OK for him but not for Palin. Obama has never been Mayor or Governor and has not been held accountable for making executive decisions. He has only severed at most half a term as a US Senator before running for president. He has the furthest left voting record of all the Senators and voted present as a cop out often. That is not going to bring the country together.
Palin has served as Mayor and as Governor. I know many try and diminish the fact that she was mayor of a small town. What is not mentioned is that she was Governor of the largest state and also the sate with the most natural resources and has an 82% approval rate. The truth is when you are mayor of a town that size people know you and are more aware of what you are doing than they are their Senators. The same goes for Governor. You are held more accountable when you hold those public positions than you are as a Senator.

But then you turn it around and say it is OK that Biden is a lifetime politician. So the question becomes do you want experience or not. It all boils down to what specific experience. You say Obama being a Senator is good enough. I say Palin does have more executive experience than Obama but is not a Washington insider like Biden or McCain. The best of both worlds. She is a conservative but is not afraid to risk her entire political career to expose a corrupt member of her own party. I respect that. Things are not always about right vs left sometimes it is more about right vs wrong. Like I said she exposed the wrong doing in her own party. For all the talk about change Obama does he does not have any examples of it like Palin does.
I strongly feel that she is the most sincere and does the least political pandering out of McCain, Obama, and Biden.








Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:11 AM


FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

john317(AKA Gary the Old guy) wrote:Just a real quickie...


What if McCain/Palin either one had said the "you can put a monkey in a suit and teach him to do tricks but it's still a monkey in a suit" line???

Think nobody would get pissie???

LOL In that case Monkey would automatically be a racist remarks.

Just for fun Bidens racist comment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM19YOqs7hU



Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:30 AM


FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Bad Ace Design wrote:For a tough "maverick" and a badass "hockey mom", they sure are butthurt easily

{quote=Comcast News]NORFOLK, Va. — Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is accusing John McCain's campaign of "lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics" in claiming he had made a sexist comment against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Obama on Wednesday called the Republicans' criticism of his use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" a "made-up controversy."

On a campaign stop Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain economic policies as more of the same from the Bush administration. He said: "You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

McCain's campaign has accused Obama of "smearing" Palin in "offensive and disgraceful" comments.

Better yet here is the video decide for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utHZ7zYytLk

Now listen to him deny it. The average person is not that stupid. They will see this for what it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd-MtTpaB4E

Notice in the first video at 44 seconds into it he kind of hesitates and stammers before he spits it out. Innocent my ass. He knew how it was going sound. I don't care that he said it and neither do most americans. If you are going to say it then either
1 have the balls to stand behind your comment
2 or retract it and apologize

Lying about it should not be an option. As you can see this is not the politics of change, this is exactly what a typical politician would do duck dodge and weasel out of standing behind what you said.

This is a big political mistake for him. He should have just said "Yes I did take a swipe at her...she made a lipstick joke and I made one right back" or better yet just kept his mouth shut seeing as how he is on shaky ground with undecided woman who have been leaning towards McCain lately.







Edited 6 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, September 10, 2008 11:56 AM


FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Wade: Speaking of Work computers f**king up, mine did...

I'll post when I get home.

Also, it's nice to see that you're taking that grand old republican standard as your Signature

Anyhow...

Teleprompter: BS.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/palin-teleprompter-didnt_n_123949.html
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/The_teleprompter_did_not_break.html <-- From someone that was there, and is actually republican.

You really should question (or at least confirm from a non-Fox news source) what Hannity says, with some exceptions he's pretty much off base (at best) or (usually) talking about something he really has no clue about.

Also, I'm guessing you didn't read my bit but I'll restate it: Prepared speeches don't mean a whole lot if you want to take the measure of a person: A candid response is worth it's weight in gold.


Biased GAM Yep, I'm biased. I want whats best for all Americans because I'm sick and tired of seeing most of you get f*cked by the upper 1%. I also have said a few times that I actually like McCain, and think he's a good candidate but not for this election... for 2000 & 2004: I really think he would have been a better President.

Anyhow, the list of Palin's accomplishments:
1 Sold the jet the previous governor had purchased at taxpayer expense which was unneeded.
And cost the People of the State of Alaska over $700,000 in the sale of the aircraft, and displaced about 20 jobs in doing so. But what's 20 jobs?
2 Decided she could cook her own meals instead of the taxpayers paying for a chef. Incorrect, sorta... The Gubernatorial Chef is still employed, but works in the State Legislature's lounge. It's not a cost saving measure if the chef is still working for the state BTW.
3 When the heating costs rose drastically she fought for and succeeded in getting the people an energy rebate.
Succeeded? The matter is still in State legislature and instead of being $1200, it's currently at $250. Want to try that one again?
4 Took Alaska which had a budget deficit to having a state saving account.
- She's also taking a Travel per Diem for the last 300 days while she was at home.
- http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/521329.html
- She's also taken over $475 million for the Bridges to no-where fiasco, which she campaigned for (which is about 180 degrees against what the Mavericks ad says) which McCain has said that money would have prevented the Minneapolis bridge collapse. - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/04/mccain-blames-congress-for-bridge-collapse/
5 Exposed a corrupt governor and also the head of the Alaska republican party.
Governor? No.
Senator? Yes, but she's still with him politically. - http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html
Congressman? Yes.
She's also quite corrupt herself. You see, pressuring to have your soon-to-be Ex-Brother in-law booted out of public office only to replace him with a person that has a history of sexual harassment... that's a booboo and a nono. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746477267499109.html


There's more.
I'll post when I get home.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I feel your pain with the computers screwing up. I suck at typing so what I post takes me forever to type out so it is a huge loss for me at times.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Also, it's nice to see that you're taking that grand old republican standard as your Signature

What exactly do you mean by that?

As for the teleprompter What were you trying to prove by posting two links? The first was redundant because it was nothing more than a short version linking the second. Next time please just post the relavant link. In the end it boils down to nothing more than he said she said. Neither of us were there so neither of us will ever know for sure. Besides I agree written speeches are not worth much. And yes I did read your response. If you are going to take the time to type it in response to me the least I can do is read it regaurdless of if I disagree or not.

Why would I confirm from a non fox source? It seems to me to be the only place to get more than the leftist biased veiw. Do you disagree with me that the mainstream media is left biased?

If you feel Hanity is wrong call him on it. Literally call him He will take your call and atleast show you respect.

It is not just the top 1% that has been @!#$ us if by 1% you meant money earners. Keep in mind they also pay way more in taxes.

Lets not forget in the US the more you make the more they take. We have way more than enough welfare like programs. The poor are poor because they choose to be. I truly believe if you are not happy with how much money you make in this country you have noone to blame but yourself. If you live in poverty you have noone to blame but yourself.

As for the jet. Had Ted Stevens not purchased it they would not have lost money which is still better than the cost of the unneeded jet. As for the jobs. Good for her that is 20 less unneeded salaries.

As for the chef that is spitting hairs. We don't know if it just so happened that there was an open position where she works now or if had she not gone to work there they would have hired another.

250 is better than nothing. I bet money there is still alot of behind the scenes politics going on there.

This is as far as I can go with this now as I have to head to my other job. I can't even say I will post more later today. I have been working from 7:30am until about 10pm the past couple weeks and tonight looks to be no different.








FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Wade Jarvis wrote:I feel your pain with the computers screwing up. I suck at typing so what I post takes me forever to type out so it is a huge loss for me at times.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Also, it's nice to see that you're taking that grand old republican standard as your Signature

What exactly do you mean by that?

Wasn't it JFK.. you know... he was on the GOP's ticket... right?

Okay, it was sarcasm... I've called Reagan a fiendishly Liberal president because he originally proposed the Brady Bill (And why not? it was his Press secretary that was shot in 82 I think).

Quote:

As for the teleprompter What were you trying to prove by posting two links? The first was redundant because it was nothing more than a short version linking the second. Next time please just post the relavant link. In the end it boils down to nothing more than he said she said. Neither of us were there so neither of us will ever know for sure. Besides I agree written speeches are not worth much. And yes I did read your response. If you are going to take the time to type it in response to me the least I can do is read it regaurdless of if I disagree or not.

If you acknowledge the response it helps

As far as that is concerned, it's 2 people that were there and said they checked the teleprompter vs. Sean Hannity who's basically another Fox-republican butt-boy.

Quote:

Why would I confirm from a non fox source? It seems to me to be the only place to get more than the leftist biased veiw. Do you disagree with me that the mainstream media is left biased?

Wade, Yes, I completely disagree. And I'll tell you why in a nutshell:

The myth of a liberal media arose in the early 70s under Richard Nixon, who was catching hell day in and out for dropping the ball in Vietnam and consistently costing American lives. He was adamantly against all news sources that wouldn't report things from a Right wing point of view. At that point, the problem with Nixon's idea was that most news sources were reporting objectively. Most credible News sources (ie, Reporting news, most news outlets like Reuters/AP... ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN when not editorializing) don't slant facts one way or the other because News is news. If you want to talk about non-leftist editorial, okay, once in a while you'll get it but it's pretty clearly editorial on most networks... Fox on the other foot, not so much that I've seen, they tend to present opinion as fact.

To be frank, I don't usually pay attention past the actual News portions because... y'know... I like to think for myself. I'll admit, I've read Hannity's book (Save your time... it's unintentionally funny, and that's not a good thing when he's trying to be serious), I've read a couple of Ann Coulter's books... and realistically, they're pretty thin on objective facts: they'll spin a bunch of facts, but they'll usually miss the original point that was made. Hell, Bernie Goldstein (more on point) made an ass of himself trying to make a Discovery Channel documentary on butterflies into a left-wing plot to skew the media.

I'll put it this way: FactCheck.org (totally non-partisan, they'll go after either dems/reps or whomever... they're trustworthy), Mediamatters.org (which is non-profit but anti-conservative), wikipedia (with references for facts)... You need to check and recheck. I don't have a problem with someone from Fox saying 2+2=5, but if you do the math, and it doesn't come up true, you had best check what you're being told. I won't say that every fact or postulate need exhaustively be back-checked, but if your BS detector goes buggy, no matter who's doing the talking: you had better check for yourself.

Quote:


If you feel Hanity is wrong call him on it. Literally call him He will take your call and atleast show you respect.

Something tells me that a nationally syndicated talking head won't do that without cutting you off. Bill O-Reilly does it daily, Hannity cuts off Coombes quite literally on every counter-point (watch for it, Coombes can barely counter a point before Hannity changes tack or cuts him off completely... assuming he's not just agreeing out of hand).

Quote:

It is not just the top 1% that has been @!#$ us if by 1% you meant money earners. Keep in mind they also pay way more in taxes.

Really... How do you think they got rich? Not by paying taxes, I'll tell you that much. Most keep their money out of the US, or arrange for the company that's paying them to pay them as a personal services contract (ie, the money goes into a sheltered business agreement, and it's therefore not taxable... It's one of the nice things about having a company buisness address as a box in the Cayman Islands). You do realize that the income cap for all taxes and deductions is about $90,000... right? You pay taxes on income up to $90,000, and then over that you pay nothing, it's treated as a capital gains IIRC. And most people that make that kind of money are smart enough to get an accountant and a tax lawyer to shelter the rest.

Quote:

Lets not forget in the US the more you make the more they take. We have way more than enough welfare like programs. The poor are poor because they choose to be. I truly believe if you are not happy with how much money you make in this country you have noone to blame but yourself. If you live in poverty you have noone to blame but yourself.

Try living poor for a week. Most are born into it, and can't get out of it: Can you HONESTLY look at the squalor some of these people live in and say to yourself that they want to live like that? Usually they don't know how to do better for themselves, and unless the US is radically different than Canada, you're not getting classes on how to budget, save, invest and plan for the future.

BTW: Welfare in the USA is a joke: if you want to talk about people that abuse the system, that's fine, I don't like that idea either, but really, it's not as if most people want to live that way.

Quote:

As for the jet. Had Ted Stevens not purchased it they would not have lost money which is still better than the cost of the unneeded jet. As for the jobs. Good for her that is 20 less unneeded salaries.

You do realize that in most cases it would be cheaper to have the Jet and be able to conduct business in it than have to travel commercially and lose the down time? There's a reason that multi-billion corporations have jets. Alaska has enough state business internationally to make that jet a worth while expense. I won't argue it's expensive, but 2.8 million dollars vs. not having to book state legislators on commercial flights for international business: it's a write off.

Quote:


As for the chef that is spitting hairs. We don't know if it just so happened that there was an open position where she works now or if had she not gone to work there they would have hired another.

Hey, you brought it up.

I don't know honestly, but it would stand to reason that if there was just a line cook and now there's a chef (the difference is usually two zeros on the cheque) there was no savings.

Quote:

250 is better than nothing. I bet money there is still alot of behind the scenes politics going on there.

It's still in the state senate, so that's no bet I'd bet on whether or not they'd get that $250. My money is on yes, but I doubt it'll happen this or next year.

Quote:

This is as far as I can go with this now as I have to head to my other job. I can't even say I will post more later today. I have been working from 7:30am until about 10pm the past couple weeks and tonight looks to be no different.

I feel your pain. Up until August, I was working roughly 80 hours a week between both my jobs.
Have a good one



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Wade - I work my ass off. My dad as worked his ass off every day to support his kids, as did my mom. Guess what? We are all struggling financially. I haven't even owned a house yet at age 26. It sure as hell isn't for laziness. Are you a millionaire? If not then its because you choose not to be. I'm sure that is the case. The real world doesn't work according to Republican philosophy(not that it works too much better according to liberal philosophy). Some people get ahead, many others do not. Look up the great depression, and tell me that those people choose to be poor. That rhetoric is so @!#$ ignorant it isn't funny.

That "Liberal Media" myth that is repeated over and over is nothing more than a slogan to motivate the base and as cover for any time the media reports something unfavorable about Conservatives. Its petty handy to be able to dismiss anything unfavorable about you that comes out - even if it is 1100% true - as "liberal bias media" smears. Then the base you buys that lie just dismisses whatever it was as "a Liberal plot" etc. Consider the way John Edwards just dismissed the allegations against him as "tabloid talk" - trade that for "Liberal media" if coming from a Republican and you get the idea how that works.

Of course it is funny that McCain once referred to the media as "his base," but now all a sudden they are back to being the enemy.

As for Obama - he was something pre-US senate race - he was quite successful as a IL legislator. I already published a link to his accomplishments there. Note that one of them was to prevent housing for closure. The housing market isn't superb where I live, but it is NOTHING like what most of the nation is facing. Thank you Obama. Now if "executive experience" is all you need, then why not choose a VP with alot more of it. The GOP has alot better to offer than her.

But if "Executive experience" is all that is all that matters, why then why not put IL's Governor to be president? I'm kidding about that one - I hate that corrupt idiot. I've hated him for a long time. And yes he is a Democrat and I can't stand him. No way in hell should he be president or anything close to it. I wouldn't put him in charge of a fast food restaurant. There are things alot more important that what experience you have. That is almost last on my list. But if the GOP wanted to before talk experience, why did they pick her? They should have reinforced that message with someone who HAS enough experience if they really believed that is what is important.

Since the tone has changed from "experience" to "executive experience" (no doubt because of the inclusion of Hoe Biden - more experienced than McCain and better national security credentials to boot), does that suddenly mean that Palin is more ready to be president than is John McCain? I think not. As much as I've been increasingly disgusted with him since his 2006+ transformation(and BTW he was once my favorite politician hands down), he would be leagues and leagues ahead of Palin. She couldn't hold a candle to him.

And as far as every attack on Palin being "partisan," well how about this -

Quote:

The reaction wasn't so rosy elsewhere. State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to give her the news.

"She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Green, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

The Republican Senate President - from her own state - has no confidence in her at all. Nuff said.




Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

im just really sick of hearing about McCain's military experience and all that bs
he was almost the worst in his class, and a horrible pilot which is part of the reason why he became a POW

themarin8r wrote:im just really sick of hearing about McCain's military experience and all that bs
he was almost the worst in his class, and a horrible pilot which is part of the reason why he became a POW

that maybe true, and just how many planes did he crash again? Yet they kept giving him more - I "wonder" if that is because of his four star admiral father? He obviously didn't choose to be a POW, he got shot down. None the less, just because he wasn't a particularly good soldier doesn't detract from the fact that his service was honorable. But was does detract from this is how he plays the POW card in response to any and every criticism.

His service has nothing to do with his politics and how he would run things - which is the real issue here. But according to the McCain campaign, this election is not about issues. They are actually saying this?! Apparently real issues are no reason to vote for a candidate?! This from the same camp that ran adds accusing Obama of simply being a celebrity...






Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in
America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the
same in any country. - Hermann Goring

No comments on this?



Bad Ace Design wrote:

For a tough "maverick" and a badass "hockey mom", they sure are butthurt easily

{quote=Comcast News]NORFOLK, Va. — Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is accusing John McCain's campaign of "lies and phony outrage and Swift-boat politics" in claiming he had made a sexist comment against vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Obama on Wednesday called the Republicans' criticism of his use of the phrase "lipstick on a pig" a "made-up controversy."

On a campaign stop Tuesday, Obama criticized McCain economic policies as more of the same from the Bush administration. He said: "You can put lipstick on a pig ... it's still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still going to stink after eight years."

McCain's campaign has accused Obama of "smearing" Palin in "offensive and disgraceful" comments.


Better yet here is the video decide for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utHZ7zYytLk

Now listen to him deny it. The average person is not that stupid. They will see this for what it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd-MtTpaB4E

Notice in the first video at 44 seconds into it he kind of hesitates and stammers before he spits it out. Innocent my ass. He knew how it was going sound. I don't care that he said it and neither do most americans. If you are going to say it then either
1 have the balls to stand behind your comment
2 or retract it and apologize

Lying about it should not be an option. As you can see this is not the politics of change, this is exactly what a typical politician would do duck dodge and weasel out of standing behind what you said.

This is a big political mistake for him. He should have just said "Yes I did take a swipe at her...she made a lipstick joke and I made one right back" or better yet just kept his mouth shut seeing as how he is on shaky ground with undecided woman who have been leaning towards McCain lately.




FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Quote:

But according to the McCain campaign, this election is not about issues. They are actually saying this?! Apparently real issues are no reason to vote for a candidate?!

I kinda agree with that, every candidate promised to address issues sense... forever, and haven't done @!#$ about it. I rather vote for someone that put.. Oh, IDN, his country before himself at least once in his life..

And on that note, I'm guessing you have never done anything like that, selfless service.

Quote:

im just really sick of hearing about McCain's military experience and all that bs
he was almost the worst in his class, and a horrible pilot which is part of the reason why he became a POW

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Well its not real hard to smear someone that by thier own experience has sought to end many freedoms during their short reign as mayor of Alaska

That dumb cunt actually makes rape victims pay for thier own exams and also wants them to bear the demon spawn of the ppl they were raped by with no option for abortion.

If McCain was truly putting his country first he wouldn't be running for office in the first place because anyone in their right mind knows the last thing this country needs is more cowboy my way or the highway, guns, babies and Jesus bull@!#$ from someone that still thinks its the 20th century and likely won't even live out his first term.



1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85

Taetsch Z-24 wrote:

Quote:

But according to the McCain campaign, this election is not about issues. They are actually saying this?! Apparently real issues are no reason to vote for a candidate?!

I kinda agree with that, every candidate promised to address issues sense... forever, and haven't done @!#$ about it. I rather vote for someone that put.. Oh, IDN, his country before himself at least once in his life..

And on that note, I'm guessing you have never done anything like that, selfless service.

Quote:

im just really sick of hearing about McCain's military experience and all that bs
he was almost the worst in his class, and a horrible pilot which is part of the reason why he became a POW

Chris

i have no problem with him serving his country
he deserves being recognized for that
but all this talk about serving his country makes him a great leader and blah blah blah is a bunch of horse @!#$
he was a @!#$ty pilot and THAT was the reason he became a POW and THAT is his answer to everything
at this point, they need to stop trumpeting his military service, no matter how good or bad his record was, and start talking about issues because, frankly, that is what an election is about.
and no, i have not served and probably will not serve, but having close relatives who have, i DO know what it takes to actually be a GOOD serviceman or servicewoman as they were towards the top of their class in their respective disciplines and put forth hard work and effort and have served or will be serving in Iraq. I may not know first hand, and i may not have served, but that does not make me less of a person than you or anyone else who has, and that is what McCain is trying to pull with his military service.

I didn't read most of this thread, but this made me laugh...

Bad Ace Design wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Well played McCain. He will capture the votes from Hillary.

No she won't. Hillary grew with her supporters, and developed a very strong relationship with them. quote]

I guess she did this by changing her accent based on where in the country she was, right?

This response is to GAM

First off factcheck.org is not un-partial they may claim be but I had a perfect example of either bad information or spin they used in mind about 6 months ago. I did not know anyone actually trusted that site the example was so bad. You are the only one to mention it and like I said this was months ago. I am having trouble remembering exactly what was said and the exact sound clip that proved them wrong. But trust me I am not making this up. Maybe if you get some free time you might want to take another look at their credibility.

I disagree with you about media bias and we most likely won't see eye to eye on it. I will say that when I first heard of it I was not convinced but after seeing how Palin has been attacked and asked harder questions by the media than Obama and hearing and seeing all the things that are not in Obama's favor that get overlooked by the media I see it clearly. If it did not exist I don't think you would have seen Palin make the coments clearly directed towards the media at the convention and then people shouting NBC NBC NBC aftarwards. From everything I gather it is what has lead to the change in position at NBC for Olberman and that other guy (his name eludes me at the moment)

The only other thing I want to mention is that I have lived poor. In fact I left home at 17 with nothing more than the clothes I was wearing and no money. I was homeless at one time while I was still in high school. I have lived in a condemed house that was cockroach infested. I still stayed in school and graduated. I also worked saved up just enough money to buy a 250 dollar car so I had a way to get to work and a place to sleep that was not roach infested. At that time I was still trying to buy food for myself and clothes from goodwill. I wound up living in it for about a month parked just blocks from where I worked making just over minimum wage. I know what it is like to be poor. I also know that if you work hard and make smart decisions you can pull yourself up. By the time I was 19 I had a management position a liveable but not great wage at the same job where I used to sleep in my car just blocks from. I no longer lived in horrid conditions. I had ditched the life of crime I was headed towards. Life is much better for me now, but it is because I work for it.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

I have: They're still the most likely to unspin things... Look at it this way: they were on Obama, McCain and Palin and stated the facts without editorial in the one clip I posted. If you can find that link, I'd like to see it, but I doubt it'll do anything, when you have the alternatives (ie. Drudge (GOP funded), Move On.org (Privately and donor funded, but they do the courtesy of at least not trying to appear unbiased)) they're really closer to the truth. On the flip side: I haven't seen nor heard of Fox News reporting much of anything negative about either Palin nor McCain with the exception of Clarification that Palin's new baby is not her Daughter's child. I'll admit though, that I'm getting a lot less news from TV. I prefer print media, and again, I don't usually read editorial... facts are facts.

As far as questioning candidates: there should really be no hard questions. You should know precisely where you stand at any one time given your information state at the time. It's part of the reason I really don't have a big problem with people changing stances on issues (as long as there's no blood or money being exchanged), information changes and updates. However, with regards to Palin specifically with her ideas about teaching only abstinence to teens, and to top that off making abortion illegal in all cases... the facts are pretty clear that kids that learn nothing about sex are far and beyond more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and have sexually transmitted infections than those who do learn about safer sex practices. I'm not understating abstinence, it's the only 100% effective way to prevent all that, but kids are going to experiment no matter what... why not give them the straight dope on what they're doing? Scientia potentia est, and forewarned is fore armed. I know at least 4 people that were blocked from taking sex ed, and they all have at least 1 kid that they didn't plan for nor want.

And living poor, I've been there too, I was kicked out at 16, and again at 18. I know about living at the YMCA and hoofing it to school (I went with education, even though it was tough as hell to get the funds) and all that. I also know that I wouldn't be where I'm at today without a LOT of luck. I have a good job, I make a good living, but realistically I've seen people following the same path as me, and they slipped off. I was lucky in that I got Employment Insurance after Compaq/HP ever so nicely shut up support operations in North America (thanks for making it cheaper to put North Americans out of work Dubya, 'preciate that one) that kept me and my GF fed and with a roof over our heads. I took day labour jobs, cash jobs, I sold my computer (which was my primary job-finding source), dumped my car for a more affordable one and basically did everything I could and I still ended up being out of work for over 18 months. There is indeed such a think as being too educated, and if it weren't for a considerable amount of luck and duly neglecting my post secondary education on my applications, I'd have ended up farther in the hole than I did. Up until about a year ago I was driving an old X-ray cassette delivery vehicle as my daily driver with about 200,000 miles on it. (yes, miles) it's a 2000 Alero and it's just about to give up the ghost.

I'm not knocking what you went through, but, had someone higher up the scale than you decided your job was expendable or surplus and fired you: where do you think you might be? A lot of people are in that position, I was, and I certainly didn't choose nor want to be poor. If you doubt me, there's about 3500 people that worked on the Compaq project with Adecco that got the boot because there was a greater tax advantage for Compaq to outsource to a company that set up shop in India. Again, I didn't choose to be unemployed, but a lot of us had to be unemployed and poor for a long time. Circumstance and geography more often dictates poverty than individual drive... in my experience.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I'd just like to add how much fun it is having Taetsch and Rodimus posting in this thread

Wade and GAM, mucho respect for both of you. I sure as hell have never been well-off, but I'm thankful that I've always had a roof over my head and a family behind me.

On a lighter note, is it true Ron Paul was looking at Palin as a potential VP?




11 speaker JL Audio stereo setup for sale:
http://www.j-body.org/classifieds/audio/52021/

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
As far as questioning candidates: there should really be no hard questions. You should know precisely where you stand at any one time given your information state at the time. It's part of the reason I really don't have a big problem with people changing stances on issues (as long as there's no blood or money being exchanged), information changes and updates. However, with regards to Palin specifically with her ideas about teaching only abstinence to teens, and to top that off making abortion illegal in all cases... the facts are pretty clear that kids that learn nothing about sex are far and beyond more likely to have unwanted pregnancies and have sexually transmitted infections than those who do learn about safer sex practices. I'm not understating abstinence, it's the only 100% effective way to prevent all that, but kids are going to experiment no matter what... why not give them the straight dope on what they're doing? Scientia potentia est, and forewarned is fore armed. I know at least 4 people that were blocked from taking sex ed, and they all have at least 1 kid that they didn't plan for nor want.

Quote:



I strongly agree with you on this. This is where I think Palin is wrong. This is also where I differ from the Republican or conservative cause as well as I am not a highly religous person.

I am really on the fence when it comes to abortion. Somedays I think killing the living is killing regaurdless of how far along the fetus is and the baby should be put up for adoption. Otherdays I come to the realization that a mother may not take care of a baby she does not want while she is pregnant meaning drinking doing drugs ect.

I have made up my mind that pregnancy resulting from rape should be allowed to be aborted but only under strict conditions.

I really don't want to spark a abortion debate with all this. I think fighting over abortion misses the real issue of preventing pregnancy and STD's in the first place. I also think there are far more important issues facing the next president.

I also don't think any pro-life president is going to be able to ban all abortions or even try at this time.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, September 11, 2008 8:50 PM


FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

themarin8r wrote:
but all this talk about serving his country makes him a great leader and blah blah blah is a bunch of horse @!#$

and no, i have not served and probably will not serve, .

Well, i guess you would have been against Washington back in 1789 then hey?

Sorry Josh, I like to stand up for what i Believe in, and no, i don't want to explain myself to you. call me like Wade does some time, but at least i made ya smile!

Chris






"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

Just watch Sarah Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson

All I can say is wow....I really hope people wake up and see how bad it will be if McCain is elected and something happens to him and she is President!

Some info from the interview:

Palin on what it would take to invade Russia:

When Gibson said if under the NATO treaty, the United States would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Palin responded:

"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.

"And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable," she told Gibson.



Palin asked about the Bush Doctrine... She doesn't know:

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view?

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.


Palin on her National Security Credentials... It's about "energy independence"

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?


PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

Wade Jarvis wrote:I think many of you should get the other side of the story before posting up your one sided bashing.

Pot meet Kettle

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.