Even if not an anomaly, it won't carry over. On one of the worst economic days in memory, Obama's going to test better than McCain. But that will fade somewhat from memory as we get farther from the event.

SI

Another Hollywood actor sounds off against Palin. This time it's Chevy Chase saying Tina Fey didn't portray Palin as negatively as he would have liked..............

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...18574#26718574

Christmas Vacation FTW!

I haven't seen this noted in the current discussion. It was brought up after Obama spoke today and claimed that the current economic crisis is based in the S&L problems in the 1980s. A much more likely cause for our current problems was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the later years of the Clinton administration. It allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Below is the general info from Wikipedia for those wanting to know more..........

Glass-Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hotline/FD tracking poll shows a 46-42 Obama lead, but as mentioned earlier it does have a smaller sample size than other polls.

And Blame Clinton comes out again on page 96, so desperate.

Palin supports $600 million 'other' bridge project - Yahoo! News


Im not necessarily opposed to the bridge or the improvements but it'll be interesting to see how McCain handles the inevitable flip flop on the issue.

The Gramm that's listed is Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor. Anyone want to ask why McCain's cribbing his econ plan from one of the guys that caused the current mess?

Ok, let's go through and see.


You mean the Bush Doctrine that Obama didn't know about, which was among 7 different Bush Doctrines that are out there? I actually don't think Gibson's is even the "widely accepted one".

Who was just saying that's not what she meant on this issue? Every post on it linked to included an article detailing the various Bush Doctrines or Obama's lack of understanding of it, etc.


Someone may have posted "that's not what she meant" about the statement, but I don't remember it.


I thought people said that the aide was wrong, but it may not be the same thing as the candidate actually said.

Now if you want to go ahead and say the Obama aide was wrong in what she said, go ahead. Though the "that's not what she meant" thing doesn't seem to hold up, especially not with those statments.

Read his initial statements compared to the White House. He was pushing a much tougher line.

Right, only one side gets to use the 'thats not what s/he meant' out.

Understood, but that was an open expression of opinion in the media. Had Obama made his remarks in an open forum, then the two would be comparable.

So I said that I don't recall anyone saying "that's not what she meant" for Palin (or McCain) without supporting documentation and you can't even come back with a link showing someone saying it? That's telling.

And if we could just back up a second... since when did Obama say "that's not what she meant" referring to the comments of his PR person?

Don't be trying to act like you really want both sides playing fairly.

You won't find me arguing for Phil Gramm. I'm not much of a fan. However, since you agree that it did cause the current mess, we now have to deal with the reality that this could have been avoided to a large extent if the Clinton Administration would have heeded the warnings of the report issued in 1987 that predicted that the events of today would occur if the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed.

Who?

Oh, did you mean Douglas Holtz-Eakin?

FT.com / Home UK / UK - Douglas Holtz-Eakin

Link? I thought the last 10 pages of this thread and it's links would suffice cuz honestly, like Arles and Chief have said, it's useless. I am, IMO, asking for things that both sides should want, honesty, transparency, no 527 ads, etc. but the GOP and it's supporters (even on here) spin spin spin away instead of saying, "Yes we want that stuff too." (Some of the leftists do too but the scales are not even, in the campaign[s] or on here). I mean shit, they even abused Factcheck.org and had Rove say it cant be trusted, AUFKM!?

AFAIK, I said I dont necessarily agree that Obama shouldve talked foreign policy to the Iraqi leader. If we assume the article is truthful and the guy cited was honest I said, I agree with you all and wish that there was an open line of communication to W and those in charge. I have doubts that that exists and wonder where else there is to go when that avenue is shut down. I dont think anyone doubts W's unwillingness to work with Dems and especially Dems with aspirations and some leverage.

Throughout this thread I have conceded to both sides when something is right, wrong, done well, or not executed well but it seems Im the only one who is willing to do so. You obviously dont see it the same way.

He has said the same thing in public numerous times.

wow, so Gramm wasn't? still doesnt have his ear? spinster:


The only reason he was 'officially' taken from that role was due to his 'whiners' comment. So is there duct tape over his mouth?

If you could provide where he stated in public that he didn't want to draw down the troops until after the current administration was gone, that would be great. I haven't seen anything like that from his public comments. Obama's stance has been to remove them ASAP. I haven't seen anything about ASAP as long as it's done by the next administration.

That 1987 report was not a warning report at all. It was a report prepared by the research arm of Congress that listed both the pros and cons of repealing the act. It was 12 years between the publishing of the report, and the repeal of the act. The problem wasn't necessarily the repeal of the act, it was the squashing of the oversight pieces that should have been put in place after the repeal was passed. The banks pretty much got a blank check to do as they pleased without the oversights in place.

But the concerns about the oversight issue and the merger issues were both cited in that report. That report was created because the banking industry had been pursuing a repeal since 1980. That report was directly related to an extremely similar bill that had been circulated for years. I understand that they presented both pros and cons, but the cons in that report ended up being spot-on, albeit 20 years before they were proven right.

Sarah Palin's reputation survived her interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson.

The same cannot be said for Charlie Gibson.

On my radio show last week, I twice defended Barack Obama. Once, against those conservatives who took a comment made by Obama in an interview with George Stephanopoulos out of context and suggested that Obama had inadvertently admitted he was a Muslim. And again, when I contended that Obama did not imply that Palin was a pig in his now famous "lipstick on a pig" reference.

I mention this only because I want to assume that people of good will on both sides can still be honest about what transpires politically. And in this instance what transpired was that Gibson intended to humiliate Palin.

It wasn't even subtle. Virtually everything Gibson did and virtually every question he posed was designed to trap, or trick, or demean Gov. Palin. There are views of his face that so reek of contempt that anyone shown photos of his look would immediately identify it as contemptuous.

But one series of questions, in particular, blew any cover of impartiality and revealed Gibson's aim to humiliate Palin.

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 worldview?

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

When he asked Palin whether she agreed with the Bush Doctrine without defining it, he gave the game away. He lost any pretense of fairness. Asking the same unanswerable question three times had one purpose -- to humiliate the woman. That was not merely partisan. It was mean.

I couldn't answer it -- and I have been steeped in international affairs since I was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs in the 1970s. I have since been to 82 countries, and have lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. Most Americans would consider a candidate for national office who had such a resume qualified as regards international relations. Yet I had no clue how to answer Gibson's question.

I had no clue because there is no right answer. There are at least four doctrines that are called "Bush Doctrine," which means that there is no "Bush Doctrine." It is a term bereft of meaning, as became abundantly clear when Gibson finally explained what he was referring to:

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 -- the right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?

That's the Bush Doctrine? "The right to preemptive attack of a country that was planning an attack on America?"

Isn't that just common sense? What country in history has thought it did not have the right to attack those planning to attack it? I learned the "Bush Doctrine" when I was a student at yeshiva in the fourth grade, when I was taught a famous Talmudic dictum from about 1,800 years ago: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise early and kill him."

And preemptive attack is exactly what happened in June 1967, when Israel attacked Egypt and Syria because those countries were planning to attack Israel. Would any American president before George W. Bush have acted differently than Israel did? Of course not. Did they all believe in the Bush Doctrine?

That is how Gibson added foolishness to his meanness.

All the interview did was reconfirm that Republicans running for office run against both their Democratic opponent and the mainstream news media.

This year it is more obvious than ever. The press's beatification of Obama is so obvious, so constant (how many covers of Newsweek and Time has Obama been on?) that media credibility even among many non-conservatives has been hurt.

Let me put this another way. Charlie Gibson showed far greater hostility toward the Republican vice-presidential candidate than Dan Rather did in his interview with Saddam Hussein or Mike Wallace did in his interview with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Which reminds me of another Talmudic dictum: "Those who are merciful to the cruel will be cruel to the merciful."

We might call it the media's Gibson Doctrine: Confront Republicans, act obsequious toward tyrants.

The Gibson Doctrine

Gramm still advocates for McCain, but to believe that only Gramm had McCain's ear on economic policies is utterly insane, even when he was considered the chief economic advisor. There have been a motley crew of free market idealists and pragmatic moderates throughout. I doubt Gramm has been informing McCain the last few days, when McCain has been talking about having a commission (9/11 commission like) to evaluate the entire industry.

why would you doubt Gramm's informance on one day vs. the next outside of it's convenience for your stance?

Cause obviously Gramm would have never advised this.

I was with him a decent amount on this article. The Bush Doctrine thing was stupid and was clearly meant as a trap and the article stated it well. At least until the buzzword "mainstream media" and the usual drivel oozed out in the last few paragraphs.

SI

Just curious, what specifically do you disagree with in his last few paragraphs?

The house vote on this was 362 YEA - 57 NAY, so it didn't really matter what the Clinton Administration thought, a veto more than likely would have been overridden. So the blame falls back to the feet of the bill authors.

That's fine, but that to me shows what $200M can buy you more than anything else. That doesn't dismiss the fact that there were some major issues that were not addressed due to greasy palms. Just because the bill is veto-proof doesn't mean he couldn't veto it on principal. The whole thing just reeks of buy-offs.

I hope the banking industry is enjoying the fruits of their lobby efforts. :(

Prager is fine when he's criticizing Gibson, not so much when runs into OMG Liberal Media in Black Helicopters Fixing Election hysteria.

Like ive pointed out to the righties on here who cant fathom someone being able to be open to both sides and be honest. I dont care that she didnt know. I didnt necessarily like how she squirmed in her chair although I can understand her moment of concern considering the prep work Im sure her handlers had with her (not a sleight by any means). Whether or not she picked the Doctrine that Gibson was thinking of, I honestly dont give a shit ISid, so screw off. Im not a fan of Obama talking politics with foreign heads of state in an effort to steer decisions (if thats true).

My personal problem is that I AM able to see both sides and see what I believe is lies, scams, insinuations, spin, etc. and try to point it out. The best most enlightening thing Ive read is when Arles said that he, and others, dont want to be fair and balanced and are biased. I shouldve realized that long ago and unfortunately what couldve been an 'analytical' thread turned into a soapbox for both sides where you'll slam eachother, refuse evidence to the contrary, spin stuff that cant be spun without lying, and do or accept all kinds of unethical, borderline immoral behavior for the greater good of winning office and the spoils that come with it. I just wont and dont and that is probably a bad thing for my health.

So please, go on, spin away.

LOL

Flasch186: The Great Purveyor of Truth in the FOFC Universe. :)

the bane of my existence and it does cause me problems in RL too since I dont have much grey area except in my hair.

Problem is, you probably think so, but don't realize how biased you end up sounding. It's kind of like the MSNBC. I'm sure they thought they were able to see both sides and see the lies and spin on both, etc., but didn't realized they were incredibly slanted to the left and the reaction to their convention co-anchor pairing of Olbermann and Matthews caught them completely off-guard as a result.

ok, hence my "I Believe" which your brain doesnt see in my sentence. I think for your eyes, its a big white blank space there but trust me, it says, "I believe". Can you see it if it's in quotes? hit refresh.

Sorry if that came out sounding meaner that I was intending (I wasn't intending to be mean)... but we all have our biases and our posts will show that, even if we believe we are trying to be fair.

After that edit... I'm taking back my last post and requoting you (emphasis added by me... do you also "believe" you are able to see both sides, or as put there, you are completely sure of it?):


I'll add another quote


Do you "believe" you are open to both sides and are being honest?

...and this is meaningful? Here is a classic example of the "s/he meant" but the right are going to immasculate the statement to mean that the left's idea of a tax cut will only get people to buy a small item, like a toaster, etc. This is just what I was talking about, sillyness, lying, and spin...like teaching sex-ed in Kindergarten:

It's my brain. Im not completely sure of anything but I 'Believe' I am open minded and can see through some of the smoke you and the other spun people on both sides put out there. Am I sure of anything? Probably not, not as sure as some of the people in this thread are about what so and so meant when they said XY or Z.

and to your edit: yes and yes, and the comment righties is because theyre seemingly the ones who think I am not. Maybe that's coincidental but it seems to be par. I dont believe in media bias, I dont believe that Palin traveled to Iraq in the way she meant, I dont believe in anti-choice when it comes to abortion rights, I dont believe that being a POW alone is a resume for President, I dont believe that blacks or whites should vote based on race, I dont believe in trickle down economics, etc. etc. so NO, I dont agree with the GOP's platform as it's executed although ex-religious right, much of their platform I think most American's could. However, as stated before the platform as written and campaigned upon has not been, historically, how the right have behaved in leadership positions. ugh.

I'm not sure it's a good idea for the Republicans to keep mentioning that Obama has a tax cut plan. That just seems like a bad idea from an objectively strategic point of view.

That is just so hard to judge of yourself. I think there plenty of people that feel they are able to fairly see both sides, but I don't think there are very many that do. I know I try. I've actually open my eyes so much that a few years ago I changed my whole political world-view. I still try my best to be fair of what I hear and read.

I will also admit that, unlike some, I do not know everything. My opinon on what I think is best may be: a)wrong, b) may just be what is best for me, c) may even be what I think is best for me and is actually not. That is actually the truth for everyone here, even the most died-in-the-wool "I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong" pundit for both sides. Those are the people that in the end really scare me. I have seen that "take a hard stand and stick with it" attitude sink more ships than drive them safely home. There is a fine line between "sticking to your guns" and "sticking with a stupid idea."

Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that most people believe they are fair, when in actuality they are at the very least some-what biased. Even most likely you.

The interesting thing about the article... the toaster thing isn't the most important issue... its Biden saying he doesn't know any economists who are saying tax increases (even just on the wealthy) would hurt the economy... but I guess that can be lessened if they focus on the Republicans talking about toasters.

That's what I mean by the bias on both sides, even if they think they are being "fair" and "honest".

Why? What's your motivation?

Bingo. That's exactly the point. Most people think they are being fair and honest to both sides. I actually respect those who come out and say, "I'm biased", because they are actually seeing clearly and realizing no one is truly fair and honest; everyone has their own biases and their own version of reality.

The ones I'm scared of are the ones who are sure they are being fair and honest to both sides while unacknowledging their own biases, which color any analysis they may do.

hence the diatribe about the word 'believe'. Others that wash their hands and say, "I am biased" I think have 'given up' in a way. I just think that some things should cross party lines, or race, religion, etc. one of which is honesty and I guess I continue, probably to my diminishment of sanity, to hope for that to be true.

hmmm, good question and not sure why. I think it has to do with a feeling of 'wrongdoing' when a lie is permitted to be put forth, but it's a very good question and Im not sure of the answer outside of my own personal fabric.

Ditto. I think the majority of voters (who are in the middle class level, not the upper-class level) would like to hear more about a Dem cutting taxes.

It's also hard to have it both ways. To act holier than thou and act above it all and parsing through the BS of both sides and then fall back on "I believe" when called on it.

Which you posted while I typed. :)

I can answer for me. I try to see past the spin on both sides because I have become completely jaded. I'm just tired of being lied to, even though I know whomever I support is going to do just that. I just try to find the kernel of truth in the political world of spin. In the end, it is who I believe will not lie about the things that matter most, or at least will most likely move things in the right direction.

I am not trying to act holier than thou although I ask back why would my desire to have honesty and all the other things Ive stomped about about, mean I am acting holier than anyone else? Doesnt everyone want honesty? Perhaps if the answer is "no" that might be enlightening for me because that is an issue for me. I feel like Im standing in a circle that everyone would agree should be there, uphold honesty, but no one wants to be in the circle and instead wants to tout their own side to the diminishment of said honesty.

And Im not falling back on 'believe', you asked. In my head it's a position but could I be wrong? sure, who the fuck knows but in my life, the only 1 i live, my thoughts are as accurate as yours are to you.

Ideally most wants honesty in campaigns. Ideally (there are a good deal of people, I'd argue that just want their side to win... to Hell with honesty). However, slamming the dishonesty of on side while seemingly ignoring the dishonesty of another is quite common, even amongst those that want honesty.

Like I said before, there are different versions of the truth. People advance what they consider to be the truth, but that may and will vary due to the person.

Like this horseshit, whatever the outcome of the investigation, the truth should be allowed to be found out:


GOP lawmakers sue to stop Palin investigation - Yahoo! News

and ISid, I'd love to post lies from Obama, but like I said before theyre hard to find. Media bias? Im sure the right would like us to think so but there just isnt as much to grab in regards to spin and lying.

Plenty on Factcheck. Someone went there to post some lies and misstatements on his convention speech when someone said Obama doesn't have the lies.

can Factcheck be trusted? Im kidding. Would you like me to count the lies that are on there and which side theyre attributed too, to prove my point? Perhaps theyre just bias.

A couple things on the probe:

I agree that French should step down. The "October Surprise" comment was incredibly fucking stupid and stuff like that jeopardizes the investigation.

However, I'm also wondering how this can be a partisan investigation when the GOP has control of the state house? The article above states that it is a bipartisan investigation.

I disagree quite a bit on the last point. I think there are a large number of people who don't care what "the other side" think, whoever "the other side" is, and don't even strive for fair. If you are completely shut off and don't think "the other side" has any good ideas, then there's no use even letting those people participate in the discourse. Even better is that these types typically pick a side for no rational reason before there is a real reason to do so and then just start collecting facts that only support one side (there is a term for this in poly sci, but I forget what it is).

However, if you have chosen "your side" as opposed to "the other side" because you line up better with "your side"- there will frequently be times when "your side" has it wrong and "the other side" has it right because in a binary system with incongruous sides, there are bound to be times when things don't always match up. You might even change sides if the sides or your beliefs move enough.

That's why I draw a huge line between intentionally misleading and one-sided when compared with the idea of a person who thinks they are right but comes to the table open to look at "the other side".

SI

ty :)

You really honestly believe most people don't "believe" they are fair? You're more jaded than I am.

Maybe there is a disconect between "large number" in Sterlings post and the "most" in mine. In a world of a billions of people, there are a large number of anything. But I think if you took a survey of people and asked "Do you think you are fair" the majority would say yes.

I think a lot of people believe they are infallible or close to it. Not on every topic but when you ask people on a micro level about a lot of things, in their mind, they know they are right. And I'm not excusing myself. That doesn't necessarily mean they think they are unfair- but that they don't think there is room for debate so something, a fact, an idea, a person that suggests they are wrong- they don't know what to do with it.

And maybe that doesn't fit into my above paradigm of people. They fall into the cracks between the zealots and the open minded. And I really should have accounted for that.

That said, there's still that bad side of the coin, especially in this thread, and I know we have seen the posts. There is a lot of dismissing of bad actions under the guise of "means to an end". Not only that but a lot of attacking the messenger solely rather than trying to assimilate the message or debate the merits of said message in the context of the messenger and that's a pretty clean symptom of pure spin.

But, yeah, in the end, I think a lot of people in this thread believe they are 100% right and even if you showed them complete contradictory and damning evidence, their first response would not be to consider the message but rather to attack the messenger.

It's as I've said for years now- if we had another Watergate now, no one would know or give it the ample attention it deserved. One half would defend the perpetrators to their dying breath as having been set up, spun, and impugned upon. While the other would be 100% right but the message so blunted that it would not be seen as the black and white issue that it should be. It could even be argued that we've had much worse but the message and impact have been so muddled.

And, in the end, another problem that has arisen is that there is a belief that every story has two fair and equal sides and that simply isn't true. When arguing what color the daytime, cloudless sky is, the blue side should get about 90% of the press and argument time while red, purple, green, etc- should get token time and strength, AT MOST.

SI

I kindof accounted for this in the next post. I think a fairly substantial majority think they are fair. I do, however, think there are a decent percentage (far less than 50%, but can't put a number on) who will say or do anything to prove themselves right *even when they know they are wrong*, which I think is a very important distinction.

In something like politics, particularly in an election cycle, those numbers skew a lot higher than among the general populace as politics is self-selecting.

SI

Actually, you seem to be saying exactly what I said. I'm still wondering where the disagreement is.

I suppose you're correct in that I really didn't disagree with your statement at all. Tho, again, as previously stated- I think the percentage of it happening in a political thread or political actions is much higher than among the average collection of people so you can't just say "the average person is like this" when we aren't dealing with the average person with average motivations.

I suppose the better phrasing would not be "I disagree quite a bit on the last point" but rather "I think there needs to be an addendum or expansion on that last point"

SI

Oh, no doubt about it. In a political thread there is a lot of down-right intentional or at the very least intellectual dishonesty. That is politics.

If you are so for honesty and anti-lying, counting all the lies and coming up with a final number is pretty silly. You should be angry at both sides and not trying to see which one has more or try to score points that way (after all, which lies are more severe are usually in the eye of the beholder).

Rasmussen Reports™: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.

New York Poll, Obama 55 McCain 42. Previous Rasmussen poll (8/04) was Obama 52 McCain 32.

Yeah, it's narrowed, but it looks like the effect of conventions in solidifying base voters than any real shift, since both candidate's totals went up. This certainly looks alot better than that Siena poll, which showed only a 5 pt lead in NY.

:+1:

You're mixing two different issues. He's never opposed troop reductions. He has spoken out against signing a Status of Forces Agreement. If, and it's a big if, what is being reported is accurate the discussion was over the Status of Forces Agreement. President Bush could withdraw troops tomorrow without the Iraq government involved.

Sure he's not the only economic advisor, but especially during the primaries he was easily the closest and most influential. McCain and Gramm have a strong friendship that dates to the Clinton years. If you look at any economic policy that McCain has advocated this campaign you'll find it's remarkably similar to things Gramm advocates.

have you read any of my posts? or do you just discount them at the first word/sentence. Ive said I hate ALL 527 and ALL Lying. Yes, there are some lies that are more egregious than others IMO and each person can decide that on their own. IMO, IMFO, there have been worse and quantifiably more on one side of this race than the other but that doesnt mean 1, not 1, lie is ok. Whats the matter with you?

Seems to fly in the face of your "count the lies" rhetoric, doesn't it (ie, what does that prove exactly when you even say some lies are more egregious than others)? Perhaps I can ask you what's the matter with you? Or does the criteria change based on trying to score a point?

Besides, I think the number of lies for each side on Factcheck may be very much closer than you believe.

wow, for example. Palin's slip as to what % AK provides is not as eggregious as the misleading ad about Obama teaching Kindergarten kids sex ed. And I said, if your reading comprehension is sharp that that value will be different to each person.

Of course. And Obama saying he could pay for every dime of spending isn't as egregious as continuing the incredibly misleading McCain wants a 100 year war in Iraq or trying to insinuate McCain is going to have special tax breaks for just oil companies.

But the counting of total lies on Factcheck (which you did say) seems absolutely ridiculous in trying to prove a point.

your sarcasm detector needs work.

If that was sarcasm, it was piss poor.

Was the 'It's hard to find lies from Obama' thing also sarcasm?

whatever man, its pointless.

Please, expose the lies from both camps when they come up and rail on the wrongness of them. It'll be good for your soul.

To that, I can only say: likewise

I look forward to you railing on some lies from the right or agreeing that the left did something good or right or that you disagree with something from your camp. Wanna see my latest time i disagreed with something on the left and agreed with people on the right?....scroll up.

Electoral college counts from the sites we've been quoting...

Real Clear Politics Obama 273-265
Electoral-Vote McCain 257-247
538 McCain 288-250

I wouldn't worry about that last one Obama fans. After all, Vegas Vic says that 538 is biased and we should trust RCP.

OK.

Its been 2 weeks and Palin has done one interview and taken 0 questions from anybody not named Charles Gibson. Nobody. Not even questions from citizens at rallies. Palin supporters, doesn't this make you wonder? Maybe just a little? Go ahead, Issiddqui. Its ok to vent. Tell McCain you want to hear what she stands for.

You do realize I was a BIG TIME Senator Clinton supporter right? And no, I'm not backing Senator McCain because Senator Obama won... I'm a Republican who liked Senator Clinton. I also voted for Senator Kerry in 2004.

Hell, why don't you ask JIMG what kind of Republican / right winger I am?

I think you can find plenty that I think the Democrats have done right.

Do you really not know what she stands for? Seriously? What exactly are you curious about?

terrific I look forward to you being disappointed in ALL lying going on no matter the side.

Seriously. The woman, excuse me, "reformer" couldn't tell Gibson three things she would change about the Bush administration. Three things? Seriously?

So Flash, could you do me a favor and point out some instance in the 80+ pages of this thread where you were this hyperbolic and freaked out by an Obama lie? Especially given the fact (and yes, it's a truthy truthful fact) that Palin never tried to or did fire a librarian over any sort of proposed book banning?

I havnt been because, AFAIK, he hasnt attempted to subvert an investigation into finding out something. So far this is the pinnacle of what is ticking me off.

I was wrong when I said she fired the Librarian or tried to, only tried to figure out how to ban books she didnt like, AFAIK. Which Im against. Although still today some papers are saying she did try to fire her so Im not sure if she did or didnt but regardless, its all bad in this dept. Banning of books, enquiring about banning books, etc. all bad.

I'm under no illusions about what politics is.

Hi Arles.

Was that intended to be an insult?

And now you're trying to say that the only thing that'll outrage you is an attempted subversion of an investigation?

God Flasch, when will you try for the truth in things?? Are you telling me I can't spend five minutes searching through this thread for a post when you were just outraged over something McCain/Palin did that didn't involve the investigation in Alaska?

I agree with this article. Backs up what JoninGA said about North Carolina.

I wonder how we'd all do if we had to argue for the other side. What arguments would we make? How would we spin the various stories coming out? That might be a fun separate thread.

I'm the last guy to ever support Bush, but he's the President and can negotiate whatever he wants.

Great idea. Wouldn't last long though. I think Flasch and Molson would be confused about which side they were on. Issidiqui and me....we'd probably break character.

Im allowed to get mad at more than one thing and banning books is/was pretty high up there. Subverting an investigation that at one time was supported by the person being investigated is pretty high up there too.

arguing for the either side would be easy:

Palin is a Maverick and will fight for Change. McCain is a war hero and is so strong and patriotic in his love for this country that it can never be doubted that he will always stand up strong for America. These 2 are for securing our country against the evil that is islamic terrorism. They will make permanent the tax cuts that W put in place thus spurring the economy on. They will slash earmarks and spending. They will make for smaller government and fight to make health care affordable for everyone. They will defend the unborn's right to life and work with Congress to enact legislation for the betterment of our country. They want to drill more and then try to expand into alternative energy sources.

how am i doing?

When RCP puts up their final electoral college map on Monday, November 3, you can take it to the bank.

If the bank hasnt filed chapter 11. ba da bump.