|
Quote:
Fatigue and overuse of the term "lie". The real, intended deceptions just get lumped with with all the crap until nobody cares anymore. |
Quote:
that's alluding to it, but not necessarily doing it. still...promising. |
Quote:
We invaded Pakistan yesterday. |
Quote:
The "spin" is a subpoena plastered on a message board as some kind of evidence of guilt. OF COURSE he's subpoenad. Who was it earlier in the thread that posted, all fired up, that Palin's legal fund was being supported by...gasp...her employer (the State of Alaska). Hey, maybe there's a real, damming, story out there somewhere. By the time it's dug up nobody's going to give a shit because people are SO FIRED UP to post the slightest, most remotely negative news about someone, no matter how meaningless. I mean, Jesus, somebody got a SUBPOENA? I've gotten at least 10 subpoenas this year so far. One time I actually spent 10 minutes making photo copies in response. |
Quote:
I agree, but where do you draw the line? You saw the snopes article I posted with the rumors that Obama is that anti-Christ. That wasn't included. It's a tough call, but when it's his own web page, it's a place people are looking to for that information specifically, so it can't hurt to err on the side of having too much info. |
Quote:
About Friggen' time. The thing is, Pakistan is fine with this. They just don't want to be seen within their country as allowing it. |
Quote:
Not sure that's true with the leadership change in Pakistan. |
Quote:
I'm pretty sure the civilians who live in the area we invaded aren't OK with it. |
Quote:
Maybe, but then the timing of this is interesting. Maybe we've had more military operations in Pakistan the last 7 years than anyone knows about. |
Quote:
but the real question is do you care? |
Quote:
Screw them, this is Al Qaeda's safest haven in the world. I thought even Democrats were on board with this "right war". |
Quote:
This is just conjecture, but I think we're doing this for a few reasons. One, with the change in leadership we aren't as tied to the leadership anymore. It's not as important for us to keep the current leadership in place, so destabilizing them doesn't carry as much risk. Two, I really think Bush want's to get Bin Laden before he leaves office and is ramping up activities to do so. |
Quote:
Not really. It's tough to get a handle on it. If someone says something in a speech that turns out not to be true my assumption is that they were mistaken, rather than it was a "lie". When it's a Democrat looking for dirt on the other side (or vice versa), I don't put a whole lot of stock in someone trying to make a huge deal out of something that isn't a concrete deception. I guess my tipping point is when after a speech, someone somewhere posts a list of all the errors from factcheck.org or whatever it is, and calls them "lies". Hey, it's great somebody's checking on all this stuff, but a lot of times it's just not a black/white issue, and things can be looked at in a number of ways. Remember Bush going nuts on Gore at one of the debates after Gore said Bush owned a lumber company? Afterwards everyone went to look to see if he did, and it was kind of a grey area. So to liberals, Bush was a liar, and to conservatives, Gore was a liar for brining it up in the first place. And they were really all full of shit. |
Quote:
So you're all for killing innocent people? That's fantastic. Do you have a certain number in mind? How many until it's unacceptable? |
Quote:
I'm going to say 10,000 is too many. Edit: A joke. I didn't say anything about killing civilians intentionally. But some civilian casulties are unavoidable in even worthwhile military operations. If you think otherwise you're even more radical than say, Michael Moore, who supported combat operations in Afghanistan (and, I'm going to assume, WWII). |
Quote:
Well that's a much better response than "screw them" -- except for joking around about it. |
Quote:
(Plus if you look up RoE, we've had this authority with regards to both Syria and Iran since at least fall 2004 - somewhere on wikileaks they have the actual RoE posted outlining the ability to cross the borders.) |
Quote:
Again, I wasn't talking about killing anyone, I was responding to someone saying that the civilians in the tribal areas of Northwest Pakistan might not "be OK with" the US "invading" there. And to that, I affirm, "screw them". I don't particularly care what they're "OK" with. Is a civilian even a civilian if they give safe haven to Al-Qaeda? |
Quote:
Seriously? Or was that sarcasm (which you don't do a lot of IMO, which is why I'm not sure). I'd say that's the most likely spin and that LMcG's guess was a good one. Then again, spin or not, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that there might indeed be more than few Republican Party members in Alaska who would like to see Palin cut off at the knees, drawn, quartered, and the pieces scattered by placing them inside an oil pipeline. |
unfortunately the tipping point is coming if not already reached when foreign countries state that any foreign incursion will result in a declaration of war, and that may be ok with you but as Molson pointed out, it may not be black and white. So we send some troops to secure georgia and Russia declares war in conjunction with Pakistan, Syria, Iran, etc. etc. etc.
The idea of respecting another countries borders needs to be balanced with that countries willingness to go to war. Funny that the righties seem to use this equation when deciding which countries to run incursions into but dont use the same equation when seeing why Russia felt it ok to fight with Georgia. |
Quote:
I dont think I was being sarcastic but it was a while ago :) I mean that the party may get a nice email letting them know which way the flag needs to fly. not sure though, dont care though, really. all I want is for the sun to shine on the truth, whatever that may be. |
Quote:
Everybody uses that equation, but its not inconsistent to feel the US is right to go into northwest Pakistan and also that Russia was wrong to go into Georgia. Both are arguable points, I guess, but they can be judged on their own merits, they're completely different situations. And even the individual situations can be broken down - someone can see Russia's point of view, but still don't want them to gain influence for the security of their own country (whether it be the US, or the Ukraine) And yes, I think McCain is (comically) wrong when he tries to make broad points like, "in the 21st century, soverign nations don't invade other soverign nations" where obviously there's a tipping point where even Michael Moore would support invading a soverign nation (and the tipping point for McCain is of course far lower). Every situation is different. |
"If you are better off than you were eight years ago ... John McCain is your man.
Pretty bold statement by Obama. Unless you have had a serious medical issue, have committed a felony, or are over 40 years old, who isn't better off than they were 8 years ago? If none of that applies to you, and you're worse off than you were in 2000, I think your problems go way beyond George W. Bush, and I don't think Obama will be able to save you. He's really hitting hard this message that our economy is in near-ruins, but is that really the case, is that really resonating with people? I know a lot of people have bought houses they couldn't afford and then lost them in those 8 years, but even they're just back where they started (and hopefully have better employment than they did 8 years ago). |
Quote:
neither one is right or wrong, per se...it simply is another domino. The question is, will that domino cause other dominoes to fall. Obviously Russia answered the equation with a "no" or "not only is it 'no' but other former satellites will be watching this and think twice going forward.'" The equation is exactly the same but the variables may be slightly different so do not be shocked by the outcome as it is the policy makers that need to do a much much MUCH better job of speculating and forecasting the dominoes to fall. If anything one could argue that that has been W's weakest aspect...forecasting what is to come and Im not only talking about militarily. For the W example you could say, 'ownership society' vs. the housing bubble v. low interest rates v. the run up of derivitives v. the financial implosion v. katrina, etc. etc. etc. |
Quote:
I nominate this for dumbest statement in this thread (or at least in recent memory). wow. just wow. |
Quote:
EIGHT years is a long time to get your shit together. If you can't, you're not good at life. Sorry. I can see the hardship of losing your job. It doesn't take 8 years to recover from that. Maybe if you had your life savings in Enron stock, I'll add that as an exception. There's some others I missed. At the very least, you should have close to 8 years more job experience. 8 years of good credit built up (barring one of the exceptions). 8 years further along on your mortage (or maybe you've gone from renting/buying, or you're renting a nicer place). That stuff stagnates over time, but between 20-40 years old, you need to be seeing some improvements over an 8 year period or you're doing something wrong that the president ain't gonna fix. I think there was a poll once here about whether you're better off that you were over some time frame. In this age group, it's automatic, you don't have to do too much. |
The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Quote:
I think that recent events have left Andrew Sullivan just a wee bit perturbed. :) |
I'd love to see a list of these McCain "lies", and I swear I'll look at them with an open mind and see if I find them alarming. Is there an online depository of McCain lies?
|
Quote:
The fault with this is you're assuming that nothing could have happened in the past eight years to lower your standard of living. It's possible to have been better off in 2006 and no worse off than you were in 2000. |
I should note that even though Obama just told me, and a great majority of people 18-40 to vote for McCain, I'm still not going to.
|
Quote:
"better off" and "standard of living" aren't necessarily the same thing, though I see your point about the timing of years. I think you're "better off" if you have the same standard of living, but make more money, have better job prospects, and have more saved for retirement. It's REALLY hard to go backwards entirely. |
Quote:
I'm failing to understand your logic for several reasons: A) You're sticking to this 8 years thing, as if everything bad only happened the moment Bush was inaugurated. B) Even if you do recover that doesn't mean you're better off than you were 8 years ago, especially if you had to take money from your savings to get by, lost your health benefits and had to have surgery, etc. C) It's all about matter of perceptions. In a USA Today/Gallup poll, 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country and only 18% are satisfied. The same poll at this point in Clinton's 2nd term 63% were satisfied to 33% unsatisfied. Furthermore, ABC News has a consumer confidence index, which ranges on a scale from +100 to -100. The all-time high was in January 2000 when it was +38. Currently it stands at -47. D) We can argue about how good the economy actually was or who was actually responsible for it, but the perception is that Clinton did a great job and Bush did a terrible job. It would be stupid for Obama to not try and take advantage of this. |
do I have a second to the motion? :)
|
There's also the fact that molson stuck in the "or are over 40 years old" clause in his list of calamities. I don't think Obama was only talking about people aged 20-40 in his speech, and it seems weird to make that assumption.
|
Quote:
Obama's smart to hit the economy hard, no question. I just thought the comment was a little silly. I wasn't making a broader point about the economy, and I'm just focussing on the 8 years Obama did in the comment. Anyone here want to admit they're worse off than they were 8 years ago? I don't see how that's possible without something terrible happening. |
Quote:
Right, I'm sure he wasn't limiting his comment at all, I just think it's funny that he told the great majority of people under 40 that "McCain's you're man". They'll vote for him anyway, so it's not a big deal. I think it's somewhere more likely to be 50 and worse off than you were at 42, but that's still a minority. |
How is it defined, Mo? Financially? Happiness level? closer to goals? alive? I mean shit, Im closer to the death day so, no?
|
I'm probably no better overall than I was eight years ago and my net worth may be lower. I'm a lot better than I was three years ago, but that was after a pretty good fall.
I don't know the numbers, but I can certainly see how you could be worse off than eight years ago. If had had lost my job or house over the past three or four years, I'd likely be worse off. A catastrophic illness that led to bankruptcy would also likely make me worse off. |
Quote:
Okay, so if he's not limiting his comment to under 40-year olds, why are you doing it for him? Are you trying to say that most voters are under 40 (doubtful), and that most of those people will vote for him? In that case, he'd be all set and not even need to be doing any campaigning! |
Quote:
I don't know. If I was drinking with friends at a bar though, and we were talking about our lives the last 8 years, it'd be pretty damn depressing if someone even felt they were worse off then they were in 2000. |
I thought it was obvious that Obama is doing a riff on Reagan's 1980 strategy against Carter. That's where the "Are you better off?" thing came from.
The thing is most people do not feel that they are better off than they were 8 years ago, and clearly feel that things are only going to get worse. It's a little harder for Obama since he's not running against an incumbent, but it is still the incumbent party and he needs to hammer this home. |
Quote:
Yeah it really is a mess, the economy. I just came from a meeting with the CFO of the client company I am an IT PM at. The meeting was to let me know the company has decided to cut 60% of there projects and that includes most of the projects left in my team. So, now I have to go tell the 4 people in my team since they are not salaried perms that they should start looking for a new job.:( |
I've decided that I'm probably biased on this because I graduated college in 2000. So the Bush years about been about huge life gains for everyone I know, because we started at around zero when Bush was sworn in.
2000-2008 is the time my peers found careers, bought a house, got promoted, got marrried, started saving for retirement, etc. There's no way 2008-2016 will see that kind of rate of improvement, no matter who's president. |
Quote:
{scratches head} Financially you mean? Yeah, I'd say we are ... but that doesn't have a hell of a lot to do with who has been President or in Congress. Has a lot more to do with shifts within our industry that were influenced by the free market than it has to do with government, policy, etc. |
Quote:
Don't think anyone would disagree with that. After I lost my second job in less than a year I was pretty depressed. |
My mom and sister have both lost their jobs and are on state health care, which in GA is something to be desired. My budget (from the NIH) which was promised and on target to double, was frozen and is now being reduced annually (especially if you account that new funds are only being made available for bioterrorism related projects).
So, uhm, yeah, things are pretty much the worst they've been for me and my family, but thankfully we planned well and are able to weather the storm for now. Sadly, many people aren't in the same situation. |
I'm actually much, much better off than I was 8 years ago. My salary has more than doubled since then and I stand to make more this year than I ever have.
But I still plan to vote for Obama eventhough he's telling me to vote for McCain. :) |
I'd say I'm better off, but the prices on everything are just killing any kind of financial momentum I'm trying to build.
Utilities and Energy costs are taking up way too much of my check in relation to where they were in 2000. |
A little more detail on the subpoena for Palin's husband and some other documents:
Lawmakers vote to subpoena Palin's husband, aides - CNN.com Quote:
|
I'm still amazed that drinking while driving your patrol car and Tasering your ten year old only gets you a five day suspension. I'm thinking for most folks those two items would earn you a court date, hefty fine, and maybe even some jail time.
|
regardless, he served his punishment and anything more than that wouldve needed to have been given out appropriately. If she did intervene to pressure him to be fired than she overstepped her bounds, if she didnt than she didnt and that would be a good thing for her and probably the country. either way, the truth needs to be found out so I hope all parties agree to cooperate with the investigation.
|
Quote:
For you, maybe. But I can almost guarantee that, as an aggregate (so anecdotal evidence need not apply), the people who graduated in 1992 will be a lot better off over their career than those of us who graduated around 2000. The tech boom in the 90s artificially inflated salaries as well as employment numbers. Just considering the unemployment numbers: they're 4.0 in 2000 and 6.1 now so that's likely 2.1% of the population who is worse off. Unemployment numbers are those who are looking for work so this can't be discounted with "maybe they just chose to not work" or something. Or how about that per capita income versus inflation has been pretty much flat (a slight increase) but income disparity has gotten much greater. So, while the per capita doesn't move much, more money has gone to the highest 1% so the other 99% have actually lost money. So, just talking financially, a lot of people are in the same place (or worse) they were 8 years ago which is a step backwards when you account for your argument of "EIGHT years is a long time to get your shit together. If you can't, you're not good at life. Sorry." SI |
Ok, this campaign is getting really weird. I was just riding through the town where I work, and there was a big digital billboard with a campaign message.
Sarah Palin America's Hockey Mom For Vice President There was no mention of McCain on the billboard. Does anyone else ever remember a VP campaign billboard? Poster? Road sign? |
With all of the bad news for Obama poll wise, I think it's only right to point out a couple of state polls that came out today where Obama is leading:
+2 in Washington, and +3 in New Jersey. |
+3 in New Jersey? Wow. That seems as wonky as the NC polling. Wonder if it's because the poll's registered as opposed to likely voters.
|
Quote:
Just wondering ... was that board just off I-75 somewhere around the 120 Loop? IIRC, there's a building owner with a private billboard/message board there who sometimes puts up political messages/endorsements seemingly of his own accord (as I understand it). |
Bay Buchanan (GOP strategist) just said on AC360 that the media is helping the GOP keep the spotlight on Palin and personality and thus helping them 'win'. Write this date down for when the GOP cry 'liberal media bias'. Again, if it's ratings (which Palin is garnering) then it'll lead.
|
Newsweek national poll shows a 46-46 tie.
|
It is really interesting to see how others perceive the economy. In the building trades industry things are running wide open. Engineering firms have a fair amount of work, and contractors are picking and choosing jobs. Some are even having difficulty finding bodies.
I think that a big problem that we are having is that we are becoming unbalanced in our economy. Sure, high tech jobs are great, but we need more workers doing more low tech, skilled labor sort of jobs. We have a glut of high tech workers which has resulted in lower pay rates because there are so many of them. We need more balance. |
Quote:
How can you be so certain of the outcome when those who started in 1992 still have half their career to complete and those in 2000 have more than half their career to complete. People who started in 1955 can argue the ecomony was much better than it was for those who started in 1975, but statistics may very well show the people who started in 1975 after completing a 30 year career were better off after 30 years than those who started in 1955 were after 30 years. The tech boom and bust of the 90's is just one of many booms and busts in a dynamic and vibrant economy. Quote:
This is silly and does not even make sense. Comparing the highest 1% which is a very small number of people to 99% a much larger group is confusing at best. How about we take an extreme example of your method. More money has gone to the single richest household in America, therefore EVERYONE else actually lost money. Quote:
There is credence to improving over time. Very few people stay in the bottom quintile of the U.S. ecomony based on census data. In fact if you grauate high school, get married (and stay married) & keep a job (work more hours per week) you are likely to increase your annual income year over year. That generally gets you to a place where you are better off than you were before. |
Intrade has McCain at 50.8, Obama at 48.7. This is the first time McCain's been pricier since before either had emerged as a frontrunner.
Looking at RCP's electoral map, the following states are tossups: Nevada (5) New Mexico (5) Colorado (9) Michigan (17) Indiana (11) Ohio (20) Pennsylvania (21) Virginia (13) New Hampshire (4) Obama is likely to win 217 electoral votes, McCain 216. The magic number is, of course, 270. So Obama needs to collect 53 evs from the tossups, McCain 54. Edit: my guess is Obama swings Nevada and New Hampshire, McCain gets Colorado and New Mexico, making the score Obama 226, McCain 230, and leaving these 5 states to decide the election: Michigan (17) Indiana (11) Ohio (20) Pennsylvania (21) Virginia (13) |
Quote:
Many Versions of 'Bush Doctrine' - washingtonpost.com Quote:
And interestingly enough: Political Radar: Obama: Clinton Would Continue "Bush Doctrine" Quote:
So... uh... are you embarrassed that Obama has no idea what it is either? Or perhaps, ready to admit that there really isn't ONE "Bush Doctrine"? |
Fixed a really dumb mistake in my last post. I'm still pretty comfortable saying that the most important states are Ohio and Pennsylvania; if they manage to split these two, then it looks like it will come down to Indiana, Michigan, and Virginia, whoever wins 2 of those 3 will be the next President; but if either Obama or McCain wins both OH and PA they will probably be our next president.
|
Quote:
This seemed to be a "gotcha" question from Gibson but I don't think her failure to understand exactly what he meant will go down badly with an audience who were similarly confused. The "go to war over Georgia" criticism is over the top as well. But he did have a "gotcha" point and failed to recognise it when he asked her what she meant by referring to the Iraq war as "God's war". She even painted herself even further into a corner by saying that no one could possibly know what God's will was. Realising that she then had difficulty explaining why she thought it God's war she struggled and switched onto a totally different track about her son in Iraq. Gibson should have insisted on an answer and moved on to why she believed drilling in ANWR was "God's plan". But he fluffed it. |
Quote:
I'll respectfully disagree. In the western battleground, I think Obama carries New Mexico, but loses Colorado and Nevada. |
Well, I'll be surprised if Obama wins New Mexico. That's the one tossup state I feel sure about.
|
Quote:
It's a very close race there, and he'll get a lot of support from Bill Richardson, whom I would have voted for if he had gotten the Democratic nomination. |
Quote:
No. |
Quote:
No I think he will carry our fair state of Colorado and New Mexico but lose Nevada. He really needs to win Pennsylvania and maybe Virginia or Ohio to have a shot with this goofy electoral college shit. |
Quote:
Well, we'll find out. There are a large number of stylistic differences between Obama and Richardson, some of which I think explains Richardson's popularity in the slightly Republican-leaning state. Obama just doesn't feel like the kind of pol that appeals to most people in this state. my $.02 |
Quote:
Apologies if you've explained this before Vic, but I'm curious: Why yes on Richardson but no on Obama? |
Quote:
That's all well and good, but you're not running for VP. l might expect you to have that reaction. As someone who is John McCain's running mate, l'd be disappointed in you. |
Quote:
Obama's running for president, and he has no clue what it is. I wonder if Bush knows what it is. |
Forget the Bush Doctrine. Who cares. I'm worried about her not being able to name three things that she would change about the Bush administration.
|
Quote:
y'know, every now and then it's ok to admit when something doesnt go right. |
Quote:
This argument would have more validity if she had enunciated anything that could be considered the Bush doctrine. Instead she described a policy that was replaced by Bush. At least some conservatives get this and don't rush to defend her irregardless of facts. From National Review's Rich Lowry: Quote:
|
Quote:
Based on this, my prediction would be that McCain wins Indiana, Ohio and Virginia. Obama wins Pennsylvania and Michigan. |
She's kind of like Hulk Hogan.
She's got good mic skills, and can play to the crowd, but after the taking of the 4th punch where she waves her fingers and blows her cheeks up while stomping around in a circle to get "hulked" up, and after she drops the final leg drop, and the music hits the crowd is in a roar. Then when you start to analyze his true in ring abilities you find out that she's lacking in the execution dept. |
Quote:
hahahahahahaha - coming from you, that's just - hahahahahahahah By the way, according to wiki, scholars idenitfy 7 different "Bush Doctrines" Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But seriously, I asked this before. Why do you give a shit? Can you stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt for one friggen day? Do you think you change one person's mind with this constant, irrelevant garbage or is this some version of message board masturbation? The message to me, like with Kerry, is that an Obama candidacy can't stand on it's own. It needs constant bullshit to support itself. ace1914 is absolutely right - he's worried McCain will be McSame. Fair point. We can disagree, but it's a legitimate political discussion. This bullshit about bush doctrines and 90% of what you bring to the table just makes me turn my stomach more and more about democrats, even though I agree with them on policies far more than Republicans. You can't even see your own smugness and obnoxiousness. I've thought this before, but maybe I need to say it to follow through, I gotta get the hell out of this thread. I encourage any other non-robots to do the same, so the Obamaniacs and sit around and have a circle jerk. |
Quote:
You may have gotten one thing right. Politics is like Wrestling..........:lol: |
Quote:
You should read some of my posts from the last 3 pages where I was fawning about her abilities and defending her and saying she got it right, etc. You missed those? Just like another person at FOFC you choose not to like me due to our disagreements about politics and thats ok. I get along fine with Jon and we're probably about as opposite as they come. Eh, the sand is not a good place for your head to be buried. And the reason I care to expose lying is becuase it should be exposed. Hypocrisy and lies are not a thing to just let go by. |
Quote:
What universe are you in where you only read stuff like this coming from one side? Do you ignore posts from SFL Cat, Vegas Vic, and others on the right? (Note: I didn't include Jon because he seems to be committed to intelligent discussion lately). Quote:
Um, Obama isn't the one that ran an ad accusing his opponent of wanting to teach sex ed to Kindergarteners. Obama didn't run an ad accusing his opponent of sexism for using the same exact phrase that he's used in the past. Obama didn't try to use factcheck.org in their ads only to have factcheck.org turn around and say such usage was a lie. Quote:
Again, you really puzzle me with your ability to only see stuff coming from the leftists in this discussion. How do you do it? |
Quote:
Not bad but you left out the most important detail: she puts butts in seats. I'd rather watch paint dry than see Hogan in the ring, but if I've got to sell tickets then I'm a fool not to consider booking him if he's available. |
you, my friend, are exactly right and that is kind of what I meant on the whole but thanks for clarifying.
|
I'm kindof liking this Hulk Hogan analogy. Can bad Photoshop be far behind ;)
SI |
Quote:
I figured as much but I felt like that point needed to be made specifically. Heck, I'll carry the analogy another step further and illustrate the dilemma I think McCain faced/faces. I'm a promoter, I want to run a workrate based promotion but I'm running in the red. I've got a roster that I like (whether enough fans do or not) and I want to give them a chance to shine on a bigger stage. But in order to do that I have to first find a way to stay in business. Hogan is available and will work cheap. Isn't it hard not to figure "He's only one match on the card each night" and look at the good I can do for the business & for my workers if I just hold my nose & put up with him for a while? |
When it comes crashing down, and it hurts inside,
ya' gotta take a stand, it don't help to hide, Well, you hurt my friends, and you hurt my pride, I gotta be a woman; I can't let it slide, I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans, I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life! I feel strong about right and wrong, And I don't take trouble for very long, I got something deep inside of me, and fighting is the thing that keeps us free, I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans, I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life! Well you hurt my friends, and you hurt my pride, I gotta be Alaskan; I can't let it slide, I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans, I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life! I am a real American, Fight for the rights of republicans, I am a real American, fight for what's right, fight for pro-life! |
Quote:
If I was your accountant (no Jew jokes) I'd tell you to sign him up. |
Quote:
Yep. That really brings up something that I don't think has gotten much play (or any for that matter), something that's a potentially interesting sidebar to all this if we could manage to detach from it. How unhappy about the choice is McCain deep down inside? Could make for an interesting read if someday someone writes a behind-the-scenes tell all about a McCain/Palin adminstration. |
Well he certainly couldnt have gotten the fever with the alternative picks bantered about, than he did with Palin. I questioned the choice originally as lunacy but I was shortsighted, at least more shortsighted than McCain and those in his camp who were pushing for Palin. If anything I respect his ability to see the field more since picking her. It may not turn out to be the best choice IQ wise for the country (and I mean no slright there) as Leiberman, Romney, etc. may have had more 'experience' in the things that would help the country in the long run but it certainly flipped the dining room table on its end.
|
Well crap, while we're going through doctrines we better quiz everyone on the Truman Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine at the same time.
Look, I can certainly understand the pertinence of the question, but I have not heard any of the other candidates asked the same question. Does Obama know what it is? Does Biden or McCain? Still, if we want to move away from such policies does it really matter? |
Quote:
Of course, and that was part of the goal after the very well done Democratic Convention. If McCain picked a Pawlenty/Romney type, he'd be behind by 5 points right now. The safe pick would have been disastrous. Palin is very charismatic and it wasn't simply exaggeration when the right was saying she's the Republican Obama. |
Quote:
I think he thought he'd get some fever by picking a Democrat. However, his thinking was faulty for a couple of reasons. Lieberman isn't really viewed as a Democrat anymore, and I think he forgot how terrible a campaigner Lieberman has been in the past. |
Quote:
I'll bet if you asked them all now, they'd know ;) |
Quote:
OTOH, looking back on it, it was probably a great idea that Liebermann was floated out there. I realize to Dems Liebermann isn't considered a Democrat, but to Independents and Republicans (moderate Republicans would take note) he sure is (there is more than just a national security record). |
Quote:
Richardson is a centrist Democrat from the now extinct DLC. Once it got down to Obama and Hillary Clinton, I made up my mind that I was voting for McCain. If McCain hadn't gotten the Republican nomination, I probably would have voted for Obama, but I wouldn't have been very enthusiastic about it. He and Hillary Clinton are just too far to the left of my political views. I'm still a registered Democrat, and this is the first time I've voted for a Republican for president, although I've voted for several Republicans in state and local races. |
Gallup tracking continues to narrow. McCain up 47-45 now.
|
As you know, my election choice boils down to what legislation is passed/vetoed/compromised to nothing (as well as vice-versa - limiting executive powers). Here's a good example of two future legislations that must not be passed and the only way that can happen is to have a split-party Legislature/Executive (assumiung Executive have guts):
Quote:
|
Quote:
George Will is off his rocker. Seriously, the fairness doctrine?? Of all the issues that you could attack the Democrats for, he brings up the fairness doctrine. I am strongly against bringing back the fairness doctrine (probably more than an average voter), yet it never occurred to me as an issue of importance in this election. Even worse, I did a quick check to determine Obama's stance on the issue and he is against bringing the fairness doctrine back. And secret balloting in union voting is really a pivotal issue? Really? I'm baffled. |
Quote:
C'mon, Bucc. I haven't seen anything about those as "legislative priorities" for anyone. SI |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:23 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.