Front Office Football Central
Page 47 of 222 « First < 37383940414243444546 47 4849505152535455565797147 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

sabotai 08-31-2008 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1820930)
I figured it was more about not wanting to deal with the reality that it IS a political event

I'd say it's part what happened with Katrina, and part that some people on this board are having to deal with it directly and would like a place to vent, gets words of supports, etc. So, I guess in a way, part of it may be people not wanting to deal with the political aspect of it for now.

Quote:
Expecting people here to ignore that fact entirely seems pretty unrealistic, to the point of being pollyannic.

I would hope asking people not to be political asshats in one thread wouldn't be considered unrealistic or overly optimistic, but I have been wrong before in how low I think people are willing to go...

John Galt 08-31-2008 06:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 1820931)
John Galt, please post here at least 400 times day.
I think I'll pass. The animus Jon has toward me is not mutual. I really don't understand why he has wished me suffering on so many occasions or why my mere presence upsets him so much, but I have no desire to make him feel worse. I'll stick to my normal posting schedule (which has been about the same for the last couple of months so I don't know why Jon blames SFL Cat for bringing me out of hiding).

JonInMiddleGA 08-31-2008 06:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radii (Post 1820933)
and extremely offensive to a lot of people given the situation.

Just as the absurd waste of billions of dollars in Louisiana is to others.

Katrina quickly became a political event, FOFC didn't create that, it was a national phenomenon that was simply reflected here. Gustav is more political than weather before it even reaches land (to a degree that I find absurd beyond belief with regard to both parties since yesterday). And any storms in that region almost certainly will be as well for the foreseeable future.

sterlingice 08-31-2008 06:59 PM
EDIT: never mind, the ground has already been tread by others here

SI

Radii 08-31-2008 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1820941)
Katrina quickly became a political event, FOFC didn't create that, it was a national phenomenon that was simply reflected here. Gustav is more political than weather before it even reaches land (to a degree that I find absurd beyond belief with regard to both parties since yesterday). And any storms in that region almost certainly will be as well for the foreseeable future.


I agree with you completely and I'm very intrigued by the political aspects of Katrina, of the Katrina relief effort, of the decision whether to rebuild New Orleans after Katrina, and of the political take on Gustav even before it hits. And I actually *probably* agree with your views on at least half of these things.

My only point is that it seems like, much like we did with Katrina after a few boxings, it would be nice to maintain a place for people to discuss the safety of their friends and loved ones without being shouted down by all the rest of us whose only vested interest in the whole thing is politics.

JonInMiddleGA 08-31-2008 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radii (Post 1820955)
My only point is that it seems like, much like we did with Katrina after a few boxings, it would be nice to maintain a place for people to discuss the safety of their friends and loved ones without being shouted down by all the rest of us whose only vested interest in the whole thing is politics.

I guess what I'm getting at is that, while it might be nice, I'm not sure it's particularly realistic to expect. And heavy handed moderation would not be a desirable solution either, as it would be nothing more than a narrow attempt at artificially induced political (apolitical?) correctness.

Look, I genuinely & sincerely wish EF and the others the best of luck & hope this will turn out to be ultimately nothing more than a lot of worry with no significant damage but at the same time at this point I don't believe it's particularly realistic for them (i.e. the FOFC gulf area contingent) to expect that there isn't a political aspect to the surrounding discussion. But like it or not, their choice to remain in the area leaves them living in an area that's a political football and discussion of events there realistically include that aspect of things.

Alan T 08-31-2008 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1820964)
I guess what I'm getting at is that, while it might be nice, I'm not sure it's particularly realistic to expect. And heavy handed moderation would not be a desirable solution either, as it would be nothing more than a narrow attempt at artificially induced political (apolitical?) correctness.

Look, I genuinely & sincerely wish EF and the others the best of luck & hope this will turn out to be ultimately nothing more than a lot of worry with no significant damage but at the same time at this point I don't believe it's particularly realistic for them (i.e. the FOFC gulf area contingent) to expect that there isn't a political aspect to the surrounding discussion. But like it or not, their choice to remain in the area leaves them living in an area that's a political football and discussion of events there realistically include that aspect of things.


I fully agree with you that this storm has become a hotbed political issue overnight and as such the discussion of this storm has a pretty large political aspect that should be expected to be discussed in a place like this.

I don't think it is too much to ask though for people to seperate out threads. 1) Gustav discussions (political, financial, etc) .. and 2) Gustav well wishes and status updates. Whether the political discussion happens here in this thread or a different one, I can understand wanting to try to seperate out the threads.

flere-imsaho 08-31-2008 07:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1820799)
I put the pregnancy whackos in the same category as the Obama birth certificate nuts. If this is the level of paranoia and hatred you've gotten to it's time to pick up a new hobby.

Yup.


/looks at thread...

So, uh, can we get back to discussing polling results and electoral vote projections? :D

AENeuman 08-31-2008 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrosfan64 (Post 1820594)
You aren't killing a child. If the child was born with downs then of course you wouldn't lill them. To abort the fetus at 15 to 20 months, is far from killing a child or human. So your post is pretty dumb.

Aborting a fetus at 15 to 20 months is scrapping a blob of cells because they were the right material to build with.

Now i get it, astrosfan is an elephant

Crim 08-31-2008 10:04 PM
guffaw!

Maple Leafs 08-31-2008 10:48 PM
I dropped into this thread to see if anyone was talking about the "it's not her baby" rumors. I thought it would turn into a fun discussion.

This thread is not fun anymore.

Christ, some of you suck.

Arles 08-31-2008 11:32 PM
Aside from

1. this being her "obviously not pregnant" picture:



2. The fact that a 44-year old Sarah is about 500-times more likely to have a downs syndrome baby than her 16-year old daughter.

and

3. the two photos of her daughter already being dated at between 2 and 14 months BEFORE the daughter would have had to be pregnant.

I can see how the daily Kos came to this conclusion. Some crackpot journalism done over there.

Flasch186 08-31-2008 11:42 PM
i gotta tell ya, this supposed controversy I havnt wasted 1 nanosecond thinking about. It smelled like total and complete horseshit and I will assume it is until it blows up on TV or something. Absolute and utter horse crap and kind of a litmus test for me to see who, on both sides, is so biased to actually react to this sort of garbage, both as true or false. Just total and complete gutter that deserves no time on radar at all, IMO.

DaddyTorgo 08-31-2008 11:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1821079)
i gotta tell ya, this supposed controversy I havnt wasted 1 nanosecond thinking about. It smelled like total and complete horseshit and I will assume it is until it blows up on TV or something. Absolute and utter horse crap and kind of a litmus test for me to see who, on both sides, is so biased to actually react to this sort of garbage, both as true or false. Just total and complete gutter that deserves no time on radar at all, IMO.

wanna make sure I understand your position: it's horseshit garbage right? :D

Young Drachma 09-01-2008 01:03 AM
After the Edwards thing, nothing would surprise me anymore.

The story -- just using regular press accounts of what happened -- are just downright strange. It seemed strange to me when I first saw her on MSNBC online being introduced by McCain. I noticed she didn't go back to acknowledge the baby after giving her speech. It seemed strange to me.

Now that I notice at the campaign events in the past few days, the baby is always with the oldest daughter, that makes sense -- she's gotta be with someone, I guess -- but...I dunno, the whole thing just reeks of strangeness.

It'll get revealed in the next two weeks for sure. No way this things legs won't walk or fall off. The truth will come out and then we'll know.

But it's fishy for certain. And I thought about 10 minutes into it.

The only reason it's an issue is because she makes it an issue as part of her campaign bio. She basically says "I'm this moral person for making this decision..." when really, if it's not true, it obscures the absolute truth of what really happened and that's troubling judgment.

It won't affect my vote, it's just the principle of it.

Arles 09-01-2008 01:23 AM
OK, I'll bite. Let's say it is true (which I would peg at about a 5% chance). I'm not sure where the negative comes in? If true, she encouraged her daughter not to abort (and avoids becoming a hypocrite) and takes the press blows by claiming it's her child (thereby saving the 16-year old from a massive onslaught of uncalled-for attacks). Seems fairly noble to me and something that shows a willingness to take ownership for something she didn't create (a concept completely foreign to the current administration and congress).

Plus, given the feeding frenzy by the blogs when there was little (if any) to go on, I wouldn't have blamed her one bit for sparing her daughter from that spectacle.

All that said, there's virtually no chance it's true and short of a picture of the girl pregnant or giving birth, I'm not sure how anyone could prove the claim.

Groundhog 09-01-2008 01:33 AM
[captain obvious]It's almost as if politics is more about character assassination than the real issues. :( [/caption obvious]

Radii 09-01-2008 01:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1821153)
OK, I'll bite. Let's say it is true (which I would peg at about a 5% chance). I'm not sure where the negative comes in? If true, she encouraged her daughter not to abort (and avoids becoming a hypocrite) and takes the press blows by claiming it's her child (thereby saving the 16-year old from a massive onslaught of uncalled-for attacks). Seems fairly noble to me and something that shows a willingness to take ownership for something she didn't create (a concept completely foreign to the current administration and congress).


Agree completely, I don't see how this should matter at all.

However, she(and the McCain camp) would have had to have known it would become a story too and that some people would make a huge deal about it. Given how much research and background checking goes into choosing a running mate, and knowing that any and all skeletons are going to be found and displayed in front of the media, I am already slightly surprised to see her chose in light of the investigation because of the allegations against her over her ex-brother-in-law. In fact, I actually assume that is an open and shut deal and she did nothing at all wrong because if anything else were true it would seem to show ridiculously bad judgment by McCain in making his choice. If this kid story were to somehow be true(and I agree that the chances are extraordinarily slim)... well, I just have no idea how given these things McCain could have made this selection for VP.

Arles 09-01-2008 01:51 AM
The brother-in-law thing seems like a reach since it was determined she had cause to fire him (and the other person involved). For this situation, as skeleton's go it seems pretty minor. IMO, anyone harping on the child issue (even if true) will likely generate more sympathy to her than anything. In the end, both these events (even if the worst is true) still pale in comparison to the documented actions by Biden (plagiarism, 7-11 comments, among others), Obama (Rezko, Wright, Ayers) and even McCain (Keating 5, first wife).

If the worst people have on Palin is that she legally dismissed someone who happens to be her brother-in-law and she helped support her daughter to have and raise a special needs child, I doubt that's going to hurt her much. In politics these days, everyone has something in their past. And this seems to be fairly tame, all things considered.

Radii 09-01-2008 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1821162)
The brother-in-law thing seems like a reach since it was determined she had cause to fire him (and the other person involved). For this situation, as skeleton's go it seems pretty minor.

The difference to me, and the reason I see it as a somewhat suprising risk, is that its an active investigation, so it is potentially something that could make headlines multiple times if new info is revealed and is a lot more volatile than an event in the past that is long over and done with.

JPhillips 09-01-2008 08:16 AM
On the firing scandal, my understanding is that the brother-in-law is still in his job. I don't think the new public safety guy fired him.

It's going to bite her in the ass a little, especially since she's going to have to fly back to Alaska for a deposition at some point. IMO she pretty clearly stepped over the line, but the offense isn't that grave. It's another in a long line of political scandals that would have gone away had she fessed up to what she did early on and apologized.

Dutch 09-01-2008 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt (Post 1820658)
But Chief, it was that "stubborn defense" that, in my mind, earned the spurning of SFL Cat. I called him a "racist tool" only after he made it clear that his joke wasn't innocent at all.

Names, like many other things, can be a proxy for race. As an example, names can be the basis for hiring discrimination based upon race. Or for a more humorous example of how names can be strongly associated with race, see the Sports Guy's Reggie Cleveland All-Stars.

When you make fun of Obama's "ethnic sounding" name and associate it with a well-known terrorist, you are engaging in racially charged humor. And when you get indignant and attack anyone who calls you on your bad joke (as SFL Cat did), you pretty much show yourself to be uncaring that your joke might be racially offensive. He concluded by making another variation on the same bad joke and it was only at that time I called him a racist tool (to be fair, he could have been called a "tool" far sooner based upon his many ridiculously bad posts in this thread).

Jokes that use proxies for race are tough to make as Imus' famous "nappy-headed hoes" comment which made fun of the Rutgers' womens' basketball team's hair (and gender) illustrated. It's one thing to make such a joke, but to me it is much worse to continue to defend it and then make another variation on the same joke just to piss people off.

Edited to add: In all, I think SFL Cat got off pretty easy. Much worse things have been said to people who have done far less on this board. If you are going to make racial jokes in a politics thread, I don't think you should be surprised when you get called a racist.

I just think Obamamanics can't handle somebody making fun of their God.

Flasch186 09-01-2008 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1821162)
The brother-in-law thing seems like a reach since it was determined she had cause to fire him (and the other person involved). For this situation, as skeleton's go it seems pretty minor.

Now Arles, your jumping on the other side of the coin when it's convenient for your cause. this absolutely has legs. The Republican legislature is investigating it so you cant say it's partisan. The people that have been interviewed generally are supporting the fact that he was wrongfully fired. Her defense is that it was done without her knowledge. It is a falsehood to say that she was found to have had cause to fire him....that's simply untrue and the Legislative investigation continues.

What's good for the goose sir, you need to play it straight and be even when it's good for you and bad. I was in Alaska and this story was all over the news (along with the massacre of 160 Moose by some native groups in the North) but this has legs, seems to have meat on it, and her defense seems flimsy as shit considering she's on record as having reported the Cop as drinking on the job but an investigation proved that not only was the report without merit but that she wasn't in a proximity ever close enough to have witnessed any drinking on the job that entire day...she was in another city!

She said she never heard of this "pressure" to fire him and that it was all of her employees and assistants making the calls from her office although there is an email from her to the public safety director that discusses the matter. I understand your spin job Arles...I just see you as red through and through and ready to go into spin mode instead of "fair and honest" mode for the next 62 days or so.

Right?

lungs 09-01-2008 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1821217)
I just think Obamamanics can't handle somebody making fun of their God.

Gosh, I couldn't figure out why that stuff gets my blood boiling until you pointed that out!

Flasch186 09-01-2008 09:06 AM
so stupid, like youre not supposed to be a fan of your nominee. I guess it's better than the people who now support McCain who weren't even going to vote for him 2 weeks ago but somehow got a new jolt from Palin. I wish and sincerely hope that everyone who votes for their person truly supports their candidate. Must be a sore spot for the Republicans to have a candidate that they really dont like while the other side has a candidate that they do. so they "strike" out...kinda like a kid at the playground.

Swaggs 09-01-2008 09:20 AM
Because Palin has so little to judge her upon, I think the trooper issue is a little more important than some folks want to admit. Palin appears to have fired a capable official due to loyalty concerns rather than job performance concerns, which stinks of more cronyism. A similar issue occurred while she was mayor.

To boot, the replacement she appointed only lasted two weeks on the job because a sexual harrassment reprimand went uninvestigated and became a PR nightmare. For his two weeks on the job, he was given a $10,000 severance package, as well.

sterlingice 09-01-2008 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch (Post 1821217)
I just think Obamamanics can't handle somebody making fun of their God.



"Say your prayers, eat your vitamins, and vote Obama!" :D

SI

ace1914 09-01-2008 12:13 PM
Hopefully you guys are done.....


Does anyone know how to get tickets for the presidential debate in MS?

duckman 09-01-2008 12:19 PM
Palin announced that her daughter is pregnant and will marry the father.

Dutch 09-01-2008 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lungs (Post 1821224)
Gosh, I couldn't figure out why that stuff gets my blood boiling until you pointed that out!

You didn't know? He's even more effective that we thought!

samifan24 09-01-2008 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckman (Post 1821290)
Palin announced that her daughter is pregnant and will marry the father.

Does this kill the McCain-Palin momentum?

lungs 09-01-2008 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by samifan24 (Post 1821305)
Does this kill the McCain-Palin momentum?
Not sure why it would? So her daughter got knocked up. I'm an Obama guy and this is a non-issue to me, as should all children of candidates.

JPhillips 09-01-2008 01:01 PM
I have two thoughts on this. First she and the father should be left alone. Teenagers get pregnant sometimes and it shouldn't haunt her. It also really shouldn't be a part of the presidential discussion, but I'm sure it will be.

Second, I'll love to see the conservative commentators that went crazy over Jamie Spears try to deal with this.

terpkristin 09-01-2008 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duckman (Post 1821290)
Palin announced that her daughter is pregnant and will marry the father.

The announcement as I saw it was that her daughter "will keep the baby and marry the father." That they felt a need to say that the baby would be kept seems odd to me. Palin is staunchly against abortion, wanting it criminalized even in cases of rape and incest.

At the end of the day, I'm not sure why this is news, but given that this is the USA and this is how "news" is, it comes as no surprise that the so-called journalists are having a field day with it. This "news" should have no more relevance to the campaign than did Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. I suppose the only real difference in the "news" then and the "news" now is that Cheney's daughter was legally an adult, whereas Bristol Palin is not.

Nothing to see here, just move on..

/tk

Jas_lov 09-01-2008 01:08 PM
It shouldn't have too much effect. They were smart releasing this news when a hurricane is about to hit Lousiana as nobody cares about Palin's daughter right now. Some people will question whether Palin's attention should be elsewhere with 5 kids, one with down syndrome and another who is pregnant but I don't think it'll be much of an issue.

JonInMiddleGA 09-01-2008 01:10 PM
This choice just gets worse & worse. Biggest questions to me are:
a) When did Mama find out?
b) Did McCain know?

If he didn't but she did, he/his team are even dumber than I thought.

JPhillips 09-01-2008 01:12 PM
McCain's camp says he knew before choosing her. I wonder, though, if he knew she used to belong to the Alaska Independence Party.

Crapshoot 09-01-2008 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1821330)
This choice just gets worse & worse. Biggest questions to me are:
a) When did Mama find out?
b) Did McCain know?

If he didn't but she did, he/his team are even dumber than I thought.


You think its a big deal? I think social conservatives have convinced themselves that she's "their" pick, so the fact that her daughter's marrying the father (anyone want to take bets on how long that marriage will last?) will be their out clause - I went to see how it was playing at RedState, and that's exactly the angle.

FWIW, the answer to 2) is yes, as per the McCain campaign. Personally, I don't think its a big deal - 17 year olds get knocked up all the time.

larrymcg421 09-01-2008 01:30 PM
Personally, I don't care that her daughter is pregnant and I hope she gets left alone. It has nothing to do with Palin's qualifications for VP.

However, this is not a perfect world. So speaking from a political perspective, this was a bad choice from McCain. And I'm not sure which is worse. If he did know beforehand, then it's a stupid choice. If he didn't know beforehand, then he's got a shitty vetting process.

larrymcg421 09-01-2008 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 1821352)
You think its a big deal? I think social conservatives have convinced themselves that she's "their" pick, so the fact that her daughter's marrying the father (anyone want to take bets on how long that marriage will last?) will be their out clause - I went to see how it was playing at RedState, and that's exactly the angle.

FWIW, the answer to 2) is yes, as per the McCain campaign. Personally, I don't think its a big deal - 17 year olds get knocked up all the time.

Yeah, but it's a story. It's a few days of talking about this instead of "America First".

Warhammer 09-01-2008 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1821333)
McCain's camp says he knew before choosing her. I wonder, though, if he knew she used to belong to the Alaska Independence Party.

I don't think that is a big issue. Many politicians switch parties just to get ahead. I don't see it being a big deal.

Warhammer 09-01-2008 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1821222)
Now Arles, your jumping on the other side of the coin when it's convenient for your cause. this absolutely has legs. The Republican legislature is investigating it so you cant say it's partisan. The people that have been interviewed generally are supporting the fact that he was wrongfully fired. Her defense is that it was done without her knowledge. It is a falsehood to say that she was found to have had cause to fire him....that's simply untrue and the Legislative investigation continues.

To be fair though, she pissed off a lot of party republicans in Alaska exposing scandals and being an outsider candidate. There is a reason why she is so popular when the rest of the republicans in the state are not doing as well.

JPhillips 09-01-2008 01:39 PM
It's not that she switched parties, it's that she used to belong to a party that wants to see Alaska as an independent nation. I didn't even know there were Alaskan secessionists.

Warhammer 09-01-2008 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1821371)
It's not that she switched parties, it's that she used to belong to a party that wants to see Alaska as an independent nation. I didn't even know there were Alaskan secessionists.

That's part of my point. I don't think that is much of an issue to politicians. How many have we seen that have changed sides in debates when they switch from Democrat to Republican and vice-versa?

JPhillips 09-01-2008 01:55 PM
Again, you're missing the point. She, at least at one point, believed that Alaska should secede and be it's own nation. Did McCain bother to ask her what's up with that?

JonInMiddleGA 09-01-2008 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 1821352)
You think its a big deal?

{shrug} If they get away with it with the rel.right then apparently not. I'm just somewhat amazed that it doesn't neutralize the supposed advantage she brought with them. Ain't often that I'm truly surprised by something from that particular contingent but I am by this (if it is indeed brushed off lightly)

Quote:
FWIW, the answer to 2) is yes, as per the McCain campaign.

Thanks, I hadn't had a chance to look for that yet & probably wasn't going to get to it soon either. Then again, WTF else are they going to say "um, we were too stupid to look into this"?

Crapshoot 09-01-2008 02:00 PM
Meh, if people have issues with Palin herself, that's one thing - but her daughter having a kid isn't much of a sign of anything, IMO, and the Kossacks who try and run with it just come across as petty.

Young Drachma 09-01-2008 02:05 PM
Wow. Daughter is pregnant and will marry the father, eh? All along, I've felt bad for the girl, because this whole thing is a mess. But...I still say this story isn't over yet. Not that it ought to be a political story if it's just what they're telling us it is.

JonInMiddleGA 09-01-2008 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crapshoot (Post 1821388)
but her daughter having a kid isn't much of a sign of anything

I guess we disagree on that point. If nothing else, it's a sign of insufficient parental control/influence.

Combined with her questionable decision making regarding both carrying her recent child to term (my feeling) but largely abandoning it to her career almost immediately (more of an issue with the target) I'd say there's definitely some issues here that (theoretically) should not play well with the group she was apparently meant to cater to. And if she doesn't help with that group & simultaneously tosses away one of the biggest knocks on Obama, I'd say she might just be one of the worst veep choices in history.

Noop 09-01-2008 02:09 PM
Well the moral right don't seem to frown upon underage and unprotected sex.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.
Page 47 of 222 « First < 37383940414243444546 47 4849505152535455565797147 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.