Front Office Football Central

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)

GrantDawg 09-16-2008 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1835337)
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.



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.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1835339)
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.


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.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1835344)
I am not acting 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.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 02:57 PM

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

Quote:

GOP lawmakers sue to stop Palin investigation

By STEVE QUINN, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago

JUNEAU, Alaska - Five Republican state lawmakers filed suit Tuesday to end the bipartisan investigation into Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's firing of the public safety commissioner even though the vice presidential candidate once said she welcomed the probe into allegations of abuse of power.

The lawsuit called the investigation "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None of the lawmakers who filed the suit in Anchorage Superior Court serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the investigation.

The scandal known as "Troopergate" gained national attention after Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose Palin as his running mate. Since then, Palin and the McCain campaign have sought to distance Palin from the controversy and have taken actions that could slow its resolution until after the November election.

Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July. Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.

Palin maintains that she fired (he didnt quit) Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. Still, she said in July that she'd welcome and cooperate with the investigation ordered by the Legislative Council. McCain campaign spokesman Ed O'Callaghan now calls the investigation "tainted."

On Tuesday, three state representatives and two state senators sued Democratic Sen. Hollis French, who is overseeing the investigation; Juneau Democratic Sen. Kim Elton, who heads the Legislative Council; independent investigator Steve Branchflower; and the Legislative Council itself.

The lawsuit seeks to either delay the investigation until after the Nov. 4 general election or remove French and Elton.

"There is no nonpartisan reason to complete this investigation until after the election," said Anchorage attorney Kevin G. Clarkson. "We just want to take the politics out of it and bring fairness back into it."

Clarkson said he and a nonprofit legal firm in Texas, Liberty Legal Institute, were donating their work on the suit. A phone message for French was not immediately returned.

The Legislative Council, made up of four Democrats and eight Republican, voted unanimously to investigate the circumstances of Monegan's dismissal. Although Monegan was an at-will employee who could be fired for almost any reason, lawmakers wanted to see whether Palin tried to use her office to settle a personal score with Wooten.

Last week the state Senate Judiciary Committee voted to issue subpoenas for Todd Palin as well as nearly a dozen others and to gain phone records of a top aide to the governor. The subpoenas seek to compel their cooperation in the investigation.

O'Callaghan said Monday that Sarah Palin, who was not subpoenaed, was unlikely to speak to Branchflower and that he didn't know if Todd Palin would challenge his subpoena. At the same time, the campaign released e-mails it claimed supported Sarah Palin's assertion that disagreements over budget were behind Monegan's firing.

Among the e-mails released was a farewell note by Monegan. In it, he suggested the governor had reason to believe she had lost his support, and he urged his former colleagues to communicate better with her.

"For anyone to lead effectively they must have the support of their team, and I had waited too long outside her door for her to believe that I supported her," he wrote. "Please, choose a different path."

Palin's lawyer has sought to have the three-member state Personnel Board take over to investigation, alleging that public statements made by French indicated the probe was politically motivated. French had said the results of the investigation could constitute an "October surprise" for the McCain campaign, and he later apologized.

The campaign insists that French, Branchflower and Monegan are friends, even though the men say they only know each other professionally and have never socialized. Democrats charged that the McCain campaign was trying to stall the investigation.

"Rather than cooperating with the investigation, the Republican presidential campaign is doing everything it can to stall and smear," said Patti Higgins, chairwoman of the Alaska Democratic Party.

McCain campaign spokeswoman Meg Stapleton denigrated Monegan at a news conference Monday, accusing the veteran law enforcement officer of "insubordination," "obstructionist conduct" and a "brazen refusal" to follow proper channels for requesting money.

When Monegan was fired, the governor offered to let him head the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Asked why someone with a history of insubordination would be given such a position, Stapleton said that without having to deal with a budget, Monegan would be able to focus on alcohol abuse issues.

The governor "respects the fact that he was respected in the community," she said.

Thomas Van Flein, a lawyer for the governor's office, cited the newly released e-mails Monday in asking the Personnel Board to find no probable cause for an ethics investigation.

In an interview Monday night, Monegan said Palin never raised concerns about his management. In fact, at an event in May, she singled him out and praised his efforts to reduce violence against native women.

"In my time as a commissioner, the governor has never talked to me about complaints about my efforts," Monegan said.

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.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 03:01 PM

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.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 03:04 PM

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.

larrymcg421 09-16-2008 03:05 PM

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.

sterlingice 09-16-2008 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1835329)
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.


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

Flasch186 09-16-2008 03:12 PM

ty :)

GrantDawg 09-16-2008 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1835360)
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



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

GrantDawg 09-16-2008 03:22 PM

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.

sterlingice 09-16-2008 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1835364)
You really honestly believe most people don't "believe" they are fair? You're more jaded than I am.


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

sterlingice 09-16-2008 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1835368)
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 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

GrantDawg 09-16-2008 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1835373)
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



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

sterlingice 09-16-2008 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg (Post 1835376)
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

GrantDawg 09-16-2008 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1835379)
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.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1835356)
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.


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).

TazFTW 09-16-2008 04:16 PM

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.

larrymcg421 09-16-2008 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TazFTW (Post 1835390)
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.

watravaler 09-16-2008 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2 (Post 1835358)
It is impossible to argue about politics without perpetuating the lies of whichever side you are for.

All this thread is is people regurgitating talking points and posting links to articles they very well may have just skimmed to prove some point to someone who cannot be convinced and that they will never meet.

To misquote Tip O'Neill, all politics is entertainment. Just like rooting for your favorite football team. Nothing good can come of any of it.


:+1:

JPhillips 09-16-2008 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan (Post 1835274)
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.


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.

JPhillips 09-16-2008 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1835284)
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.


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.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1835389)
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).


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?

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1835425)
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.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 05:43 PM

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.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1835431)
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.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 05:51 PM

your sarcasm detector needs work.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 05:55 PM

If that was sarcasm, it was piss poor.

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

Flasch186 09-16-2008 05:57 PM

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.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 06:01 PM

To that, I can only say: likewise

Flasch186 09-16-2008 06:06 PM

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.

larrymcg421 09-16-2008 06:07 PM

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.

ace1914 09-16-2008 06:10 PM

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.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1835443)
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.


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.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914 (Post 1835446)
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.


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

Flasch186 09-16-2008 06:16 PM

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

ace1914 09-16-2008 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1835449)
Do you really not know what she stands for? Seriously? What exactly are you curious about?


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

CamEdwards 09-16-2008 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1828428)
so you'd be cool if Troopergate turns out to be true in that she did do something wrong, because it'd be hidden by all the static. so spun you are that you'd be happy that the truth (if found that she acting unethically) would be 'hidden'.

If its true its true and you should be pissed too instead of pushing your angle. God, when will you strive for the truth in things?

she tried to fire the librarian, hello?!

you should be pissed at lies from both sides!!


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?

Flasch186 09-16-2008 06:26 PM

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.

Quote:

No, Palin is not a psychic — the list is bogus. Palin never ordered any specific books banned in Wasilla, according to numerous news accounts, although it was reported in local media at the time that she did ask the librarian, whom she unsuccessfully sought to fire, what the general policy was on removing books. Lie rating: 2 lipstick-pigs.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1835451)
terrific I look forward to you being disappointed in ALL lying going on no matter the side.


I'm under no illusions about what politics is.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 06:33 PM

Hi Arles.

ISiddiqui 09-16-2008 06:35 PM

Was that intended to be an insult?

CamEdwards 09-16-2008 06:37 PM

Quote:

She tried to fire the librarian, hello?!


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?

ace1914 09-16-2008 06:40 PM

Quote:

For Obama, Race Remains Elephant in the Room

By Michael Grunwald Monday, Sep. 15, 2008

On a swing through Pennsylvania last month, John McCain visited a Manheim Central High School football practice — not to ingratiate himself with the players, who weren't even old enough to vote, but to identify himself with the gritty, down-home, lunch-bucket values of small-town football. "This is a blue-collar town," Manheim's coach said in his introduction of McCain. "We don't have a lot of flashy athletes. We don't come out with a lot of flash." But the coach explained that his team works hard, plays with discipline and comes through in the end. "A lot like John McCain," he said.

If you're familiar with the code words of the sports world, you've probably already guessed that Manheim's players had something else in common with McCain: they were white. On the other hand, athletes who are described as "flashy" almost invariably have something in common with Barack Obama. I'm not saying the coach was trying to inject race into his discussion of flashiness. I'm saying that sometimes we talk about race even when we're not talking about race — in presidential politics as well as sports. Sports announcers have at least made an effort to shed their stereotypes; they occasionally describe black players as "scrappy" or "blue collar," adjectives that used to be reserved for whites. But for political pundits, "working class" or "blue collar" or even "small town" voters still means white; blacks have their own category.

Race is the elephant in the room of the 2008 campaign. In West Virginia's primary, one out of every four Hillary Clinton voters actually admitted to pollsters that race was a factor in their vote; that may be an Appalachian outlier, but even in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio the figure was a troubling 1 in 10. It's a tribute to America's racial progress that a biracial man born before Jim Crow died could come this close to the presidency, but if you believe that contemporary America is color-blind, you probably also believe the Georgia Congressman who recently called Obama "uppity," then claimed he had no idea it was a traditional Southern slur for blacks who didn't know their place. ("Uppity" often modified the slur everyone knows is a slur.) Blacks are still known as "minorities" because this is still a majority white country, and Obama is just as anxious to avoid running as "the black candidate" as McCain is anxious to avoid running as "the Republican candidate." (See photos of Barack Obama's family tree here.)

This is something to keep in mind now that the Thomas Friedmans and Arianna Huffingtons of the world are imploring Obama to get angry, to shed his above-the-fray cool and fight back against the McCain campaign's silly-season accusations that he's a charismatic chauvinist who wants to teach kindergartners how to have sex. Over the past 18 months, Obama has been attacked as a naive novice, an empty suit, a tax-and-spend liberal, an arugula-grazing élitist and a corrupt ward heeler, but the only attacks that clearly stung him involved the Rev. Jeremiah Wright — attacks that portrayed him as an angry black man under the influence of an even angrier black man.

Article....


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

larrymcg421 09-16-2008 06:40 PM

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.

adubroff 09-16-2008 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1835018)
Can't speak for anybody else, but I don't think a President should be negotiating major agreements that don't require congressional approval his last year in office.



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

ace1914 09-16-2008 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1835467)
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.


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.

Flasch186 09-16-2008 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards (Post 1835462)
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?


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?

Vegas Vic 09-16-2008 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1835444)
I wouldn't worry about that last one Obama fans. After all, Vegas Vic says that 538 is biased and we should trust RCP.


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

Flasch186 09-16-2008 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic (Post 1835473)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.

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