Today, I am Darn Proud to be an American (like I am everyday)!

[93legendti]

Way to go John!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080829/pl_afp/usvote??????vp_080829145108;_ylt=AgsWUqiFNdLKHirv. xZs7lNh24cA

[johnnymossville]

John, It looks like you picked the right person for the job. Thank You.

[Ray]

He's taking a huge gamble. I guess he figured he had to. I doubt it will work, but I'm usually wrong...

-Ray

[csm]

I don't see his pick as any more a gamble than Biden was for ?????. I think once the next round of the the campaign season gets underway things will get very interesting. so far all I've heard from BOTH sides is a lot of empty rhetoric and pie-in-sky promises that are not grounded in reality.
for once though, I don't think either side is a losing proposition. and I don't know that a vote for ?????? is a vote against ????? like it was during the Bush-Gore and Bush Kerry elections.

[johnnymossville]

Ray, Do you think it's that much of a gamble really? From what I've read so far, she's a fine lady with a record many Americans will be happy to support.

I see it as a wise choice. Actually, I think Biden is a wise choice for ????? also, (One of his few, though I suspect Biden wasn't chosen by him) considering his lack of much real world experience.

[csm]

ha I just realized why folks were mispelling the names!

[Len J]

Let's see:

inexperienced, corrupt republican govenor from oil rich state - check

using her political position to get rid of people she doesn'tlike - check

clueless and bends definitions in regards to endagered species act -check

is not bothered by the corruption of her fellow party/state members- check

sounds like a fine fit

More of the same.

Len

[csm]

wait, were you describing the AK governor for all of the "checks" cuz about half could apply to the dem candidate.

[Ray]

Ray, Do you think it's that much of a gamble really? From what I've read so far, she's a fine lady with a record many Americans will be happy to support.
Yeah, strategically, I think its a very big gamble, for reasons I explained in the other thread on last night's speech. Here it is if interested:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=584563&postcount=72

Doesn't mean she isn't a fine lady, but its a record that I seriously doubt MOST Americans would be happy to support. Many? Sure, depending on definitions. It tells me they didn't think they could win with a guy in the #2 spot, which I find surprising, but, as a Barack guy, encouraging.

-Ray

[csm]

at risk of further antagonizing folks.... she's kinda hot too.

[Ray]

at risk of further antagonizing folks.... she's kinda hot too.
She ought to be - she was the runner up Miss Alaska several years back. OK, she's qualified :cool:

-Ray

[zap]

Let's see:

inexperienced, corrupt republican govenor from oil rich state - check

using her political position to get rid of people she doesn'tlike - check

clueless and bends definitions in regards to endagered species act -check

is not bothered by the corruption of her fellow party/state members- check

sounds like a fine fit

More of the same.

Len

Huh, were did this come from.

From wiki.

Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. Palin successfully killed the Bridge to Nowhere project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending.[10][11] "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."[12]

She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young[13] and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings.[10]

In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.[12] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%.[14]

[djg21]

He's taking a huge gamble. I guess he figured he had to. I doubt it will work, but I'm usually wrong...

-Ray

At first, I was convinced that J "W" Mc -- was the Manchurian candidate. But with this VP pick, he seems to be making every effort to affirmatively ensure a Ob--- Victory. Excellent!

Thank you Mr. Bush, er McC.

[Ahneida Ride]

Instead of telling ya how good it's gonna be, Show us your voting
records.

List your promises, from the last time you ran and state which ones you
materialized and the reasons for your failures.

I am tired of these love fests from party A and B.
I am tired of the corruption, self promotion and lies from Party A and B.

Time for a third party.

[Len J]

Huh, were did this come from.

From wiki.

Highlights of Governor Palin's tenure include a successful push for an ethics bill, and also shelving pork-barrel projects supported by fellow Republicans. Palin successfully killed the Bridge to Nowhere project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending.[10][11] "Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on 'federal dollars,' as the state does today."[12]

She has challenged the state's Republican leaders, helping to launch a campaign by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell to unseat U.S. Congressman Don Young[13] and publicly challenging Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings.[10]

In 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.[12] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin's approval rating at 80%.[14]

She is nder investigation for having someone she didn't like in the state police fired.

She came ot against Stevens after supporting him when public opinion blew that way.

She is fighting inclusion of the Polar Bears on the endangered species list.

Look it all up.

"But Palin’s seemingly bright future was clouded in late July when the state legislature voted to hire an independent investigator to find out whether she tried to have a state official fire her ex-brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper.

The allegation was made by former Department of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, whom Palin fired in mid-July.

Palin told CNBC’s Larry Kudlow in an interview on Aug. 1. “So I look forward to any kind of investigation or questions being asked because I’ve got nothing to hide.”

Palin also reacted to the indictment of Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens by calling it “very dismaying.” She added, “Hopefully though, this won’t be a distraction and get people’s minds off what has to be done in the grand scheme of things.”"



Len

[Cdub]

Will be an interesting contest

reads like both sides has plenty of skeletons.

[Kirk007]

Well at least ?????? will carry Alaska and all those electoral votes. Did you see Stevens won his primary even though he's under indictment? Look at the Governors, Senators and Congress persons from Alaska and their records on issues - that is one conservative state.

[Climb01742]

most VP debates are snooze-fests but this one could kinda entertaining.

[Ray]

most VP debates are snooze-fests but this one could kinda entertaining.
I dunno. I just heard her introduction and was underwhelmed. I think Biden's major risk is gonna be looking like too much of a bully because I suspect he'd rip her limb from limb in a debate. But that sort of thing can backfire, so he's gonna have to take his 'nice' pills that day.

-Ray

[Elefantino]

Is she a cyclist?

[thwart]

that is one conservative state They vote with their pocketbooks... if it's oil-related in Alaska, it must be good.

Or at least that's the way it seems.

If you're playing from behind, you must take risks to win... this forces the O-ama camp to use Hillary much more, I would think. If they can persuade her to do so, anyway.

[johnmdesigner]

As Americans we have high expectations of our elected Presidents. Their power however is rather limited.

Whoever is elected will probably be unable to change the partisan voting that occurs in Washington.

They will be unable to punish the banks (and the borrowers) who created the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Already in NYC the banks have racked up so many losses that they will not be paying taxes for years. We saw this in the savings and loan crisis a few years ago. You and I will end up paying for the disaster.

They will find no “graceful” escape from the Iraq war that will allow wounded parties on both sides to be satisfied.

The energy crisis will continue because without bi-partisan support no meaningful alternatives to oil will be available to consumers. China and Europe continue to close energy deals with countries we find unacceptable yet we have no agreement on the best way to solve our own energy shortages.

Elected officials will continue to propagate the myth that China is bad. Bad or good China is the largest purchaser of our bad debt in the world. GB and the current government can complain all they want about human rights and lost jobs but they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to their obligation to China. It’s time that the American voter got wise to the effects of globalization. We looked the other way at China’s HR record when it meant cheap prices at Wal-Mart. You can’t have it both ways.

And the American auto industry goes to Congress this week begging for a financial bail-out because they cannot find a way to sustain their businesses on their own. They made bad business decisions (again you and I will pay for it).

People have to realize that in order to effect real change sacrifices have to be made by ALL.

And that’s something that an elected official of 4 years has very little control over.

When these issues receive meaningful public debate then we will see who the best candidate is. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening.

I just hope that the next elected president will not resort in words to the same level of hypocrisy we have experienced in the last administration.

It is amusing to spend your lunch hour on a bike forum talking about the merits (or lack) of VP candidates. It just saddens me though if this is going to be the level of discussion in this campaign.

[Elefantino]

As Americans we have high expectations of our elected Presidents. Their power however is rather limited.

Whoever is elected will probably be unable to change the partisan voting that occurs in Washington.

They will be unable to punish the banks (and the borrowers) who created the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Already in NYC the banks have racked up so many losses that they will not be paying taxes for years. We saw this in the savings and loan crisis a few years ago. You and I will end up paying for the disaster.

They will find no “graceful” escape from the Iraq war that will allow wounded parties on both sides to be satisfied.

The energy crisis will continue because without bi-partisan support no meaningful alternatives to oil will be available to consumers. China and Europe continue to close energy deals with countries we find unacceptable yet we have no agreement on the best way to solve our own energy shortages.

Elected officials will continue to propagate the myth that China is bad. Bad or good China is the largest purchaser of our bad debt in the world. GB and the current government can complain all they want about human rights and lost jobs but they don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to their obligation to China. It’s time that the American voter got wise to the effects of globalization. We looked the other way at China’s HR record when it meant cheap prices at Wal-Mart. You can’t have it both ways.

And the American auto industry goes to Congress this week begging for a financial bail-out because they cannot find a way to sustain their businesses on their own. They made bad business decisions (again you and I will pay for it).

People have to realize that in order to effect real change sacrifices have to be made by ALL.

And that’s something that an elected official of 4 years has very little control over.

When these issues receive meaningful public debate then we will see who the best candidate is. Unfortunately I don’t see that happening.

I just hope that the next elected president will not resort in words to the same level of hypocrisy we have experienced in the last administration.

It is amusing to spend your lunch hour on a bike forum talking about the merits (or lack) of VP candidates. It just saddens me though if this is going to be the level of discussion in this campaign.

POTY!!!

[Ginger]

I just listened to both M's introduction of his running mate, and part of his running mate's speech.

First, they need new speech writers.

Second. Wow...I'm rather offended...When M drops dead in the oval office, I certainly wouldn't have an issue with a strong woman in the office, but they didn't do even a half decent job of projecting that capability.


Johnmdesigner: good post. (I missed it when I was posting...)

[michael white]

When M drops dead in the oval office


you mean if Barack invites him over for coffee . . . ?

[gregrams]

They are going crazy over at MSNBC. A total melt down is underway over there :D
They are saying she has no foreign policy experience :no:
So the Democratic candidate for President and the republican candidate for VP are both qualified for VP.

I think Biden will retire for health reasons and the Bitch will be back. Its that or they (the Dems) get blown out of the water. :banana:

[bironi]

Anyone remember Dan Quayle? First Ken, now Barbie. Hey it worked then. :beer:

[Kirk007]

johnmdesigner - Hey, this is too much reality for us all to handle this morning!

[johnnymossville]

johnmdesigner, good post. Your issues are all points well taken and issues that many Americans would rather sweep under the rug.

[cfacink]

He has already lost

[torquer]

Look at the Governors, Senators and Congress persons from Alaska and their records on issues - that is one conservative state.
Some conservatism: $13,788 per capita federal expenditures (highest in nation)/$7,215 per capita taxes paid (mid-pack); and that's before the bridge to nowhere funds were appropriated.
And they get their noses all out of joint when New Jersey tree huggers (65 cents expended in state for every $1.00 paid in taxes) object to drilling in the arctic preserve.
Nothing like gettin' the government off your back (just keep those checks coming)!

http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm

[Ginger]

I think Biden will retire for health reasons and the Bitch will be back.

Nah, She got something out of that...perhaps we'll be seeing Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

[gregrams]

So she can surrender to the Iranians or to her buddies the Russians. :no:

[mschol17]

It just shows that McCain is more interested in politics than in governance. I'm sure she's a wonderful woman with an interesting story, but how can she help "defeat evil" as McCain claims he will?
A small town mayor may be a great person to have coffee with, but with the presidential candidate a 4 time cancer survivor and oldest candidate ever, are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?

[1centaur]

Some conservatism: $13,788 per capita federal expenditures (highest in nation)/$7,215 per capita taxes paid (mid-pack); and that's before the bridge to nowhere funds were appropriated.
And they get their noses all out of joint when New Jersey tree huggers (65 cents expended in state for every $1.00 paid in taxes) object to drilling in the arctic preserve.
Nothing like gettin' the government off your back (just keep those checks coming)!

http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm

Um, 700k people sure skews the statistics. Also, note what they spend the money on (from Wikipedia):

Employment is primarily in government and industries such as natural resource extraction, shipping, and transportation. Military bases are a significant component of the economy in both Fairbanks and Anchorage.

[michael white]

It just shows that McCain is more interested in politics than in governance. I'm sure she's a wonderful woman with an interesting story, but how can she help "defeat evil" as McCain claims he will?
A small town mayor may be a great person to have coffee with, but with the presidential candidate a 4 time cancer survivor and oldest candidate ever, are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?


actually, my guess is she would have a much, much better chance of following Bin Laden to the gates of hell than good ol windy ever would. You know, she's actually a hunter, etc.

[johnnymossville]

It just shows that McCain is more interested in politics than in governance. I'm sure she's a wonderful woman with an interesting story, but how can she help "defeat evil" as McCain claims he will?
A small town mayor may be a great person to have coffee with, but with the presidential candidate a 4 time cancer survivor and oldest candidate ever, are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?

Head of the Alaska National Guard, and Mayor, then Governor of a state is more real world experience than the other guy (block party organizer) dealing with most things. The experience angle doesn't wash. She's for VP also, the other guy is running for Pres.

Age discrimination is a slippery slope also.

[AndreS]

He has already lost


You fail to take into account the Dems recent ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.



--------------------

[Louis]

Way to go John!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080829/pl_afp/usvote??????vp_080829145108;_ylt=AgsWUqiFNdLKHirv. xZs7lNh24cA

Since empowered women in politics are obviously so important to you, I assume you were a big Hillary supporter? :)

[FlaRider]

Speaking of gambles....electing Obama is probably the biggest one of all.

[zap]

snipped

She is nder investigation for having someone she didn't like in the state police fired.

She came ot against Stevens after supporting him when public opinion blew that way.

She is fighting inclusion of the Polar Bears on the endangered species list.

Look it all up.



Yes, much was reported and read weeks ago.

Your first post was rather odd, your second in line with what was reported minus the matter that established republicans in Alaska are out to get her.

[Louis]

Seems to me that much of politics these days is simply, "I don't care if s/he's a bum, as long as s/he's my bum." Just ask Ted Stevens.

[mschol17]

Head of the Alaska National Guard, and Mayor, then Governor of a state is more real world experience than the other guy (block party organizer) dealing with most things. The experience angle doesn't wash. She's for VP also, the other guy is running for Pres.

Age discrimination is a slippery slope also.

I don't get why age "discrimination" is an issue. While ones race or gender doesn't have any bearing on performance, it is a basic fact that certain skills diminish as you age. Pilots are forced to retire at 65, and they're only responsible for 300 people or so.

Real world experience? Palin was Mayor of a town with 6000 people and head of a state with huge oil tax revenues and barely more people than DC. Tell me those management decisions are the same as a senator who ran a flawlessly executed national campaign. Obama has proven himself a leader by running and winning a national campagin. For 18 months he's been tested on the national stage. For the last 18 months Sarah Palin has been governor of a state whose legislature is in session 60 days a year.

If the argument is about experience than make it about experience. If it's about judgement make it about judgement. But don't try to say Obama hasn't accomplished anything, because that is patently false.

[csm]

kinda funny that folks supporting ohbama want change and then decry the very change they want when the other side heads that way.
if she's such a bad choice than surely ohbama/biden can win.
perhaps they fear that it is a ticket that may very well win and they will be forced on the sidelines for another 4-8 years.
I think hillary is running scared and can not afford for ohbama to win. it is likely that he could carry a second term. that would in effect negate any chance she could have for a follow-up run at the presidency. we'd have to wait another 17 yrs or so for chelsea to get of age to take a shot.

[Viper]

It was a brilliant move on McCain's part, but she was chosen ONLY because she is a she. It's a sexist choice on McCain's part as Palin lacks any qualification for VP other than her gender. By choosing Palin, the RNC is seeking a softer, kinder, gentler perspective of McCain for the voters of America, especially the undecided and moreso, the female lobby that supported Ms. Clinton. Palin does offer McCain an injection of social conservative sentiment as she is outspoken against gay marriage/rights and very clear on her pro-life/Christian faith.

We have a fight, the pairs are matched...game on.

[johnnymossville]

...For 18 months he's been tested on the national stage....


By your argument then, Karl Rove should be President for Life? He won elections with a not so great orator.

[93legendti]

It just shows that McCain is more interested in politics than in governance. I'm sure she's a wonderful woman with an interesting story, but how can she help "defeat evil" as McCain claims he will?
A small town mayor may be a great person to have coffee with, but with the presidential candidate a 4 time cancer survivor and oldest candidate ever, are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?
This is a surreal moment.

You won't vote for McCain-Palin because "are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?"

But you would vote for Obama??!? A man so singularly UNQUALIFIED he has to tout "community organizing" as a qualification for President.

And then there's Sen Biden: he said he did NOT want to be VP. He ran several times for President and each time his OWN party said "no, you are not fit to be nominated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20...7aOJiIhE_PCw5R4

This time, Sen. Biden finished fifth (5th) in Iowa. Are you sure you want as your VP a person who's never been able to persuade even his own constituents that he can "think about dealing with the rest of the world"?

Are you saying only Democrats running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?
Are you saying only men running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?

Gov. Palin is more qualified to be President tahn Sen. Obama. Just ask Sen Biden:

"...Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naive way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive, “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”

Biden also said last year of his now-running mate, that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is...”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080823/pl_politico/12735

[mschol17]

By your argument then, Karl Rove should be President for Life? He won elections with a not so great orator.

No, I'm just saying his abilities have been shown. Just because someone has political abilities doesn't mean they should be in the White House (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc). I'm saying that this "experience" b.s. is just that, let's talk ideas and policies and where the candidates want to lead the country.

The thing about Palin is that she doesn't deserve the position. She hasn't "won" the VP through a tough national election; she was appointed for purely political reasons (let's try to get the disaffected Hillary supporters).

Viper's analysis is spot on.


She believes creationism should be taught for goodness sake.

[Ray]

She believes creationism should be taught for goodness sake.
She also backed Pat Buchanon's 3rd party run in 2000. You know, the one he launched after Bush (THIS Bush) got the Republican nomination because Bush wasn't right-wing ENOUGH!

I like her, but I wouldn't vote for her for nuttin...

Not like I was gonna anyway.

-Ray

[mschol17]

Are you saying only Democrats running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?
Are you saying only men running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?


Not at all. I look forward to Gov. Palin proving herself worthy of this nomination. I think capability is far more important than experience. I'm just arguing that McCain has based his whole argument on experience, and then he makes this selection. It doesn't fit.

Please don't accuse me of gender discrimination, since I never implied anything close to that. I would think that if he wanted a woman someone like Hutchinson would fit his message a lot better.

[93legendti]

No, I'm just saying his abilities have been shown. Just because someone has political abilities doesn't mean they should be in the White House (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc). I'm saying that this "experience" b.s. is just that, let's talk ideas and policies and where the candidates want to lead the country.

The thing about Palin is that she doesn't deserve the position. She hasn't "won" the VP through a tough national election; she was appointed for purely political reasons (let's try to get the disaffected Hillary supporters).

Viper's analysis is spot on.


She believes creationism should be taught for goodness sake.

Surreal moment II:

Did Sen. Biden "win" the VP through a tough national election? He finsihed fifth in Iowa as a Presdiential candidate - what does that win you??!?
Here's a flash: VP's are chosen by the nominee of the party. "Deserving" the position is for the nominee to determine.

The agent of change; the different type of candidate, Sen. Obama - you know, the one against Washington insiders and lobbyists picks Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823...x0.hBVnoYth24cA

"Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence
By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press WriterSat Aug 23, 5:02 AM ET

The candidate of change went with the status quo.

...He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — ...The Biden selection is the next logistical step in an ????? campaign that has become more negative — a strategic decision that may be necessary but threatens to run counter to his image.

...A senior ????? adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said his boss has expressed impatience with what he calls a "reverence" inside his campaign for his message of change and new politics. In other words, ????? is willing — even eager — to risk what got him this far if it gets him to the White House.

Biden brings a lot to the table. An expert on national security, the Delaware senator voted in 2002 to authorize military intervention in Iraq...

After all, Biden is anything but a change agent, having been in office longer than half of all Americans have been alive. Longer than ??????.

...And there's the 2007 ABC interview in which Biden said he would stand by an earlier statement that ????? was not ready to serve as president.

It seems ????? is worried that some voters are starting to agree.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Ron Fournier has covered national politics for The Associated Press for nearly 20 years."

[Hellhammer]

This is why people start their own forums. Go for a ride.

[Seramount]

Choosing Palin is a crafty selection...plays to the Hillary-was-robbed pouters, also gets the bubba "I'd hit it" crowd aroused, er involved...

[johnnymossville]

This is why people start their own forums. Go for a ride.

Yeah, I just OD'd on all of it myself. I need a good ride and maybe a :beer:

[Charles M]

In the last 24 years I have voted for both parties candidates.


I vote for the guy I think has the better ability to make ultimate decisions... Nothing more.



John McCain was one of the 5 dumbest people in his graduating class of 899... and as it turns out, he wouldn't have qualified on brain power to be there in thr first place, so I guess that's 5 better than we should have expected.


I've been in Arixona for 12 years and have never, ever been impressed with anything about John McCain beyond his ability to survive capture and his ability to Marry-up.


I think Bush was a devisive fool. I think John McCain is more honrable, but even less bright.


I don't think either man is as qualified as I would like, but I'll take the smarter man in that case...

[michael white]

talking points of a politician, are simply that. Left or right. No one in their right mind would take them very seriously as fact.

the reason O Bama is qualified is because he's gonna win. And also because he's great at politics and will be a great president. if those qualifications don't mean anything to someone, that's cool

. And if the GOP thought they had a prayer of stopping him, you sure as hell know they wouldn't have gone at him with the Alaska chick, whose name escapes me right now.

[gomez308]

This is a surreal moment.

You won't vote for McCain-Palin because "are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?"

But you would vote for Obama??!? A man so singularly UNQUALIFIED he has to tout "community organizing" as a qualification for President.

And then there's Sen Biden: he said he did NOT want to be VP. He ran several times for President and each time his OWN party said "no, you are not fit to be nominated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20...7aOJiIhE_PCw5R4

This time, Sen. Biden finished fifth (5th) in Iowa. Are you sure you want as your VP a person who's never been able to persuade even his own constituents that he can "think about dealing with the rest of the world"?

Are you saying only Democrats running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?
Are you saying only men running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?

Gov. Palin is more qualified to be President tahn Sen. Obama. Just ask Sen Biden:

"...Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naive way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive, “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”

Biden also said last year of his now-running mate, that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is...”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080823/pl_politico/12735

THANK YOU. Can I buy you a beer or 6? :beer:

[Marcusaurelius]

This is a surreal moment.

You won't vote for McCain-Palin because "are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?"

But you would vote for Obama??!? A man so singularly UNQUALIFIED he has to tout "community organizing" as a qualification for President.

And then there's Sen Biden: he said he did NOT want to be VP. He ran several times for President and each time his OWN party said "no, you are not fit to be nominated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20...7aOJiIhE_PCw5R4

This time, Sen. Biden finished fifth (5th) in Iowa. Are you sure you want as your VP a person who's never been able to persuade even his own constituents that he can "think about dealing with the rest of the world"?

Are you saying only Democrats running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?
Are you saying only men running for Pres/VP can be inexperienced?

Gov. Palin is more qualified to be President tahn Sen. Obama. Just ask Sen Biden:

"...Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naive way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive, “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”

Biden also said last year of his now-running mate, that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is...”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080823/pl_politico/12735





Well I think your comments are just a little absurd to say that because someone cares about a less affluent community is somehow inferior to someone who works in an oil rich affluent state.

Or to use quote from one dubious politician to prop up another dubious politician is just a little ridiculous.

I think as a class of policitians most politicians are corrupt and pander to the lowest common denominator. To someone think one is somehow much better than another to me--is just--absurd.

[csm]

the election is november and you're convinced it's a wrap? sounds like hopeful thinking at best. the campaign is just getting started. from the talking points all over the liberal media today, I get an entirely different take.
heard someone say that mcane should have crossed party lines and gone with lieberman. if lieberman is so wonderful, doesn't it make more sense that ohbama should have taken him? my thoughts are that the dems are realizing (rather abruptly too) that they've made an error backing ohbama and getting giddy over biden.
the race is far from over; one would think that ohbama would have had a bigger bump in the polls than 6 pts or so from the convention.
this is the first race in a long time that has caught my attention and gotten me excited.
and seriously, when are the democrats gonna get over the gore-bush election. it's over. it was 8 yrs ago. move on.

[mschol17]

I was arguing that the past 18 months proved Obama was up to the challenge, regardless of his resume. Not that you have to win an election to be a VP. I guess I phrased my statement wrong.

I did't mean to start a giant argument, I was just saying let's argue ideas.

I'm done.

[93legendti]

Not at all. I look forward to Gov. Palin proving herself worthy of this nomination. I think capability is far more important than experience. I'm just arguing that McCain has based his whole argument on experience, and then he makes this selection. It doesn't fit.

Please don't accuse me of gender discrimination, since I never implied anything close to that. I would think that if he wanted a woman someone like Hutchinson would fit his message a lot better.

mschol,

You said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschol17
It just shows that McCain is more interested in politics than in governance. I'm sure she's a wonderful woman with an interesting story, but how can she help "defeat evil" as McCain claims he will?
A small town mayor may be a great person to have coffee with, but with the presidential candidate a 4 time cancer survivor and oldest candidate ever, are you sure you want somebody who's never had to think about dealing with the rest of the world in charge?

Since she is more qualified than Sen. Obama (she's been a mayor and a governor), I have no clue how you could seriously ask your question unless you think different rules apply to Democrats and/or men.

She's a woman and she's pro-life. McCain had the guts to do what Obama didn't - pick a woman to be his running mate. She energizes the base; energizes women and she energizes middle America. I wonder how hard Hillary will campaign for Obama now.:)

Obama blew it with his VP pick. It was his Howard Dean "yeehawwwwwwwwwwwwwww" moment.

[93legendti]

THANK YOU. Can I buy you a beer or 6? :beer:
My pleasure. I don't drink, so 6 power bars (Cliff) or inner tubes would be fine. :D

[93legendti]

Well I think your comments are just a little absurd to say that because someone cares about a less affluent community is somehow inferior to someone who works in an oil rich affluent state....To someone think one is somehow much better than another to me--is just--absurd.


Did I say/post that? If so when and where?

[Viper]

This is why people start their own forums. Go for a ride.

e-PALIN

:D

I'm off to the LBS, tis' a sad day when trying to find a Campy 10 chain becomes work as Shimano has taken over my LBS's; they'll have to rip my Campy shifters from my cold, dead hands. I need a LLS, a Local Lightsaber Store.

[johnnymossville]

Only problem with picking Hillary as VP was that the national debt would have ballooned out of control even more with all the food testers and car starters he would have had to hire. She was never an option.

Billary right now want nothing more than to see Obama defeated. They are a political machine that only care about one thing, themselves and power. The media and far left wing fringe defeated Billary this time around by looking the other way on so many of the block party organizers faults, but will be in their camp in 4 years. You can bet on that.

Obama will run to the center from now until election (They started already) to get as many votes as he can, but it won't be enough. Billary will have lost the battle, but won the bigger war coming.

[csm]

johnnymossville said it much better than I did.

[TMB]

Let's see:

inexperienced, corrupt republican govenor from oil rich state - check

using her political position to get rid of people she doesn'tlike - check

clueless and bends definitions in regards to endagered species act -check

is not bothered by the corruption of her fellow party/state members- check

sounds like a fine fit

More of the same.

Len

I've seen this post before .................

[Samster]

i think it comes down to this.

1. if you think this country really needs a wealth transfer (the richer to the poorer) because class disparity will mess-up this country then you should vote obama.

2. if you want to keep your money for your own purposes and let everyone figure out how to get out of their own messes, you vote mccain.

there are complications, like health care, social security, a war on multiple fronts and homeland security. but i like to keep it simple.

so based on that, i will choose whomever i choose to choose.

[Louis]

Sam, you know enough about economics to know that it's not a zero-sum game.

[Charles M]

Ah yes...


Lets keep it simple.


Simply the way we want to see it. :)

[Samster]

Sam, you know enough about economics to know that it's not a zero-sum game.i don't think in absolutes. you sound sore. :)

[Samster]

Ah yes...


Lets keep it simple.


Simply the way we want to see it. :)
hey, it's as complicated as you make it. :)

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=93legendti]

Since she is more qualified than Sen. Obama (she's been a mayor and a governor)....]

So what? Bush was Governor of Texas and look what we got. I'll take brains over winning elections any day.

And ATMO unfortunately a lot more is at stake than whether one thinks government should look out for folks vs. the self-reliant get your own money model. The problem with get your own is there's not enough stuff to go around, at least not if 5% take 95% of the stuff (unless those 5% decide to kill off, intentionally or neglectfully, much of the other 95%). Look after yourself works right up until the time those without decide to try and take it or until we use so much of it (energy, food water) and dump so much of our waste on the "other guy" or our planet because there's no strong government to protect the commons that we drown in our own sh**. Population dynamics, finite resources, and human weakness to neither look much beyond the next meal nor appreciate how our individual actions and desires impact us as a species are going to prove to be (already are in many places) a very nasty combination. I don't think we can sustain much more of the pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality as it fails to account for that impact on any one other than the bootstrapper.

[michael white]

johnnymossville said it much better than I did.

actually what he said was the most nonsensical thing I've read in days. Ok, folks, here's the deal:
The GOP is the author of the biggest deficit, most insane spending in world history.

the last time the Clintons were in DC, they were the most disciplined fiscal conservatives of the modern era.

so, boil it down: GOP equals mad insane economy wreckers
Clintons equal balanced budget, peace, a chicken in every pot.
It's a true, lasting legacy.

you have to dissociate yourself from all facts and be some sort of imbecile crackhead like Rush (I forgot: also obese and bald) to argue with that.

see, it's so easy to beat the GOP, anyone can do it and it's about to happen again.

best,
mw

[chuckroast]

Politics has at least one thing in common with sports. We can trash talk all we want but utimately the teams line up and play.

I personally think the game got a lot closer this week.

[Samster]

the thing that really stands out for me is the emotional polarization that seems to be happening. people are voting their hearts (not their heads) and there seems to be an inability to see the other side (on both sides.)

this generally makes for bad decision making, but people are people.

i think we will have record voter turnouts this year. :) :) :)

[OtayBW]

There is nothing I can see that would make me want her 'a heartbeat away' from the President if Mr. McCain bought it. It's ironic that perhaps the major criticism leveled at Obama has been lack of foreign policy experience, and now the Repubs field a VP candidate with even less experience. Amazing...

[Len J]

I've seen this post before .................

It was too good not to use.

I thought I noted it was from another board.

Len

[1centaur]

Ok, folks, here's the deal:
The GOP is the author of the biggest deficit, most insane spending in world history.

the last time the Clintons were in DC, they were the most disciplined fiscal conservatives of the modern era.

so, boil it down: GOP equals mad insane economy wreckers
Clintons equal balanced budget, peace, a chicken in every pot.
It's a true, lasting legacy.

you have to dissociate yourself from all facts and be some sort of imbecile crackhead like Rush (I forgot: also obese and bald) to argue with that.


Just checked the mirror and, no, not fat nor bald, nor do I take drugs, but I have done well for an imbecile.

The Clintons were not fiscal conservatives. They were political weather vanes dealing with the Contract with America/Gingrich/Rubin/bond market/Republican congress who benefited enormously from the Internet boom and no 9/11s when it came to deficits. They were not such rabid lefties that they risked the mid-term election, and frankly I would have expected the same from Hillary.

Bush had a recession and a military exercise that even Bill would have chosen (Afghanistan - his second chance at Bin Laden - maybe O'bama could have pointed him to the right cave) and then made the Iraq mistake, but deficits are not just about what puts them over the top they are about every dollar spent, and on that score it's pretty hard to say that Democrats are fiscal conservatives. Frankly, politicians in general don't get that label, with anyone targeting earmarks beaten up in the Senate cloak room as far as I can tell.

As far as that goes, tax cuts have led to revenue increases for the government fairly consistently (argued before on this board) and Dems pretty much want to plea fiscal conservatism only as an excuse to raise taxes.

Here's an easy challenge for a fiscally conservative O'bama: Come into office and start slashing spending left and right, not just military spending but all sorts of programs and earmarks BEFORE he demands "the biggest tax increase in history" as the Republicans will call it. Maybe then I'll start believing fiscal conservatism is more than a slogan designed to deceive, that we must all share the sacrifice. I did not notice that part in the Democratic platform, though maybe I was blinded by the bit about not discriminating on the basis of language.

[OtayBW]

Just checked the mirror and, no, not fat nor bald, nor do I take drugs, but I have done well for an imbecile.

The Clintons were not fiscal conservatives. They were political weather vanes dealing with the Contract with America/Gingrich/Rubin/bond market/Republican congress who benefited enormously from the Internet boom and no 9/11s when it came to deficits. They were not such rabid lefties that they risked the mid-term election, and frankly I would have expected the same from Hillary.
Bush had a recession and a military exercise that even Bill would have chosen (Afghanistan - his second chance at Bin Laden - maybe O'bama could have pointed him to the right cave) and then made the Iraq mistake, but deficits are not just about what puts them over the top they are about every dollar spent, and on that score it's pretty hard to say that Democrats are fiscal conservatives. Frankly, politicians in general don't get that label, with anyone targeting earmarks beaten up in the Senate cloak room as far as I can tell.

As far as that goes, tax cuts have led to revenue increases for the government fairly consistently (argued before on this board) and Dems pretty much want to plea fiscal conservatism only as an excuse to raise taxes.

Here's an easy challenge for a fiscally conservative O'bama: Come into office and start slashing spending left and right, not just military spending but all sorts of programs and earmarks BEFORE he demands "the biggest tax increase in history" as the Republicans will call it. Maybe then I'll start believing fiscal conservatism is more than a slogan designed to deceive, that we must all share the sacrifice. I did not notice that part in the Democratic platform, though maybe I was blinded by the bit about not discriminating on the basis of language.
Nope. I don't buy it. Even setting Bush's recession aside for the moment, Iraq (that little 'military exercise') was not inevitable by any stretch. The only thing inevitable about it was poor planning ('Mission Accomplished' ?!?), a $1 trillion cost (and rising rapidly), the >4K US casualties, and the huge negative impact on oil speculation and cost. And of course, there are the secondary effects on Constitutional rights, treatment of prisoners, etc. ....but I digress...

Let's just say we disagree.

[1centaur]

I called Iraq a mistake and did not imply it was inevitable. Afghanistan was the one both would have done.

[michael white]

Nope. I don't buy it. Even setting Bush's recession aside for the moment, Iraq (that little 'military exercise') was not inevitable by any stretch. The only thing inevitable about it was poor planning ('Mission Accomplished' ?!?), a $1 trillion cost (and rising rapidly), the >4K US casualties, and the huge negative impact on oil speculation and cost. And of course, there are the secondary effects on Constitutional rights, treatment of prisoners, etc. ....but I digress...

Let's just say we disagree.


other minor secondary effects include not only a legacy of near-complete isolation in world events, but I would say contemptuous disregard shown by Russia--an open disregard shown to America as a weakened superpower--which had not happened in decades (that is, prior to Chickenhawks). Lots of other effects, too, of course--which are only propelling O bama.

[MilanoTom]

i think it comes down to this.

1. if you think this country really needs a wealth transfer (the richer to the poorer) because class disparity will mess-up this country then you should vote obama.

2. if you want to keep your money for your own purposes and let everyone figure out how to get out of their own messes, you vote mccain.

there are complications, like health care, social security, a war on multiple fronts and homeland security. but i like to keep it simple.

so based on that, i will choose whomever i choose to choose.

Simplicity is how we got into the current mess.

A good bit of that wealth may have been generated on an uneven playing field, atmo. What you call a "wealth transfer" might be called "equitable taxation" by others. This country, which is still the greatest country in the world, made it possible for them to achieve their wealth, but then they don't want to pay anything back to keep the country a land of opportunity for others, even when the money would come from what would reasonably be called surplus.

We have in many ways become a nation of incredibly selfish individuals, with many graduating to the level of heartless b*stards. Most of us have more than enough "stuff," but far too many are not willing to lift a finger to help anyone less fortunate. I listen to the local talk radio stations and hear old geezers (and young geezers-in-training) talk about how charities and the church (rather than the government) should be helping the poor, but guess what? My state has one of the lowest per capita levels of donation to charity. I don't get it.

Phil Gramm was right about there being plenty of whiners around. He was wrong about who they were. Personally, I think they're the ones who b*tch about being taxed to death while they have a brand new wide screen television in the living room and two new cars in the driveway. I think, however, he should have called it a "moral recession" instead of a "mental recession." It's shameful that so many Americans would gladly put thousands of their countrymen out of work if it means an extra hundred bucks in a 401k or a television that's ten bucks cheaper at Wal Mart.

Regards.
Tom

[Blue Jays]

Interesting thread.

[cadence90]

Gov. Palin is more qualified to be President tahn Sen. Obama. Just ask Sen Biden:

"...Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naive way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive, “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”

Biden also said last year of his now-running mate, that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is...”

Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden are more qualified to be President than Gov. Palin. Just ask Gov. Palin.

"As for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that V.P. slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

Gov. Palin herself made that statement, ONE month ago....

As for experience (and the issue that she is more experienced than Obama) where is it?

Miss Wasilla.
Runner-up Miss Alaska.
4 years on Wasilla City Council.
6 years as Wasilla Mayor.

Wasilla is a small town of 6,500, roughly the population of my high school. Was my high school Principal "experienced" enough to be VP or President of the US?

20 months Gov. of Alaska.

20 months is roughly the length of the Primary campaigns.

Experience? Maybe on runways or in fishing, but I just don't see the governmental credentials being lauded, especially those which are supposed to be so superior to Obama's.

[93legendti]

Both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden are more qualified to be President than Gov. Palin. Just ask Gov. Palin.

...Experience? Maybe on runways or in fishing, but I just don't see the governmental credentials being lauded, especially those which are supposed to be so superior to Obama's.

Most non-sexists would agree that Gov. Palin's experience beats community organizing, writing 2 books, hearing Rev. Wright for 20 years (but not listening), chumming around with a Weather Undergound terrorist and running for President - instead of being in the Senate. Those same non-sexists might also agree the President and VP have different jobs.


Timeline of Palin's life and career By The Associated Press
Fri Aug 29, 5:16 PM ET



A timeline of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's life and career:

___

Feb. 11, 1964 — Born in Sandpoint, Idaho.

1982 — Graduated from Wasilla High School in Wasilla, Alaska.

1987 — Graduated with a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.

August 29, 1988 — Married Todd Palin, whom she would have five children with.

1992-1996 — Entered public life, serving two terms on the Wasilla City Council.

1996-2002 — Elected mayor of Wasilla City, Alaska, for two terms until term limits forced her from office.

2002 — Lost her first statewide campaign for the GOP nomination for lieutenant governor.

2002 — Frank Murkowski left the Senate to become governor and named Palin chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

2003 — Split with the party leaders by battling Randy Ruedrich, the head of Alaska's Republican Party.

2006 — Upset then-Gov. Murkowski in the Republican primary, then defeated former two-term Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat, in the general election.

2007 — Pressured lawmakers to get the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act passed, to build a natural gas pipeline to deliver 35 trillion cubic feet of North Slope natural gas to market.

Aug. 29, 2008 — Chosen as Sen. John McCain's vice-presidential running mate in the 2008 election.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_ge/cvn_palin_timeline&printer=1;_ylt=AuWGsovZepm.UCHNzNv3QYRh24cA

[michael white]

Gov. Palin's experience http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_ge/cvn_palin_timeline&printer=1;_ylt=AuWGsovZepm.UCHNzNv3QYRh24cA

ok, long post, but the question was: what experience does she have to take over the Presidency when McCain has his fifth bout with cancer? because I don't see it.
just wonderin.

I don't know . . . if he really wanted to win, don't ya think he would've picked
Condi?

[MilanoTom]

Most non-sexists would agree that Gov. Palin's experience beats community organizing, writing 2 books, hearing Rev. Wright for 20 years (but not listening), chumming around with a Weather Undergound terrorist and running for President - instead of being in the Senate. Those same non-sexists might also agree the President and VP have different jobs.


Timeline of Palin's life and career By The Associated Press
Fri Aug 29, 5:16 PM ET



A timeline of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's life and career:

___

Feb. 11, 1964 — Born in Sandpoint, Idaho.

1982 — Graduated from Wasilla High School in Wasilla, Alaska.

1987 — Graduated with a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.

August 29, 1988 — Married Todd Palin, whom she would have five children with.

1992-1996 — Entered public life, serving two terms on the Wasilla City Council.

1996-2002 — Elected mayor of Wasilla City, Alaska, for two terms until term limits forced her from office.

2002 — Lost her first statewide campaign for the GOP nomination for lieutenant governor.

2002 — Frank Murkowski left the Senate to become governor and named Palin chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

2003 — Split with the party leaders by battling Randy Ruedrich, the head of Alaska's Republican Party.

2006 — Upset then-Gov. Murkowski in the Republican primary, then defeated former two-term Gov. Tony Knowles, a Democrat, in the general election.

2007 — Pressured lawmakers to get the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act passed, to build a natural gas pipeline to deliver 35 trillion cubic feet of North Slope natural gas to market.

Aug. 29, 2008 — Chosen as Sen. John McCain's vice-presidential running mate in the 2008 election.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080829/ap_on_el_ge/cvn_palin_timeline&printer=1;_ylt=AuWGsovZepm.UCHNzNv3QYRh24cA

Was this timeline supposed to somehow impress? I don't see much in there to qualify one to potentially become President, but I guess to some people, the village idiot would be qualified if there was an R after his or her name (and, as a plus, is willing to build a pipeline), and that nobody with a D after his or her name is qualified.

I can't say I'm a big fan of Obama (this election is going to be a nose-holder for me), but at least he picked a qualified (although plagerizing) running mate.

Regards.
Tom

[93legendti]

Let's remember Obama's words from last night:
"...I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington...
For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said, "Enough," to the politics of the past. You understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same, old politics with the same, old players and expect a different result.

You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.
(APPLAUSE)

Change happens -- change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that, as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming, because I've seen it, because I've lived it..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/29/america/28textobama.php

[93legendti]

:)

[MilanoTom]

Let's remember Obama's words from last night:
"...I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington...
For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said, "Enough," to the politics of the past. You understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same, old politics with the same, old players and expect a different result.

You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.
(APPLAUSE)

Change happens -- change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that, as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming, because I've seen it, because I've lived it..."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/29/america/28textobama.php

Fair enough. That still doesn't mean she's qualified.

From AOL news:

"More recently, she has come under the scrutiny of an investigation by the Republican-controlled legislature into the possibility that she ordered the dismissal of Alaska's public safety commissioner because he would not fire her former brother-in-law as a state trooper."

I guess maybe she is qualified to follow in the footsteps of Dick Chaney.

Tom

[Louis]

I'm amazed by the amount of energy you folks can muster for this type conversation. Such idealists! IMO the Blue - Red, Left - Right, Liberal - Conservative, Commie – Fascist conflict is pointless. The terms of the debate in the US haven’t changed in ages, and I see no reason why it will any time soon, promised Change notwithstanding.

Louis

[Kirk007]

I'm amazed by the amount of energy you folks can muster for this type conversation.

Louis

Friday before a long holiday; much more entertaining than work.

[cadence90]

Most non-sexists would agree that Gov. Palin's experience beats community organizing, writing 2 books, hearing Rev. Wright for 20 years (but not listening), chumming around with a Weather Undergound terrorist and running for President - instead of being in the Senate. Those same non-sexists might also agree the President and VP have different jobs.


Timeline of Palin's life and career By The Associated Press


I don't find that timeline in any way remarkable given the position to which she has been nominated, while on the other hand I find your summation of Obama's career particularly and violently skewed, and I don't understand at all your use of the word "non-sexist" twice.

[Fixed]

yeah she is great she has a b.a. in : journalism from u of idaho ..
and first loser in a beauty contest
cheers :beer:

[michael white]

hey bro, don't knock the U. of Idaho. . . I once lived in Moscow, it's cool. Otherwise, fire away . . .

[Hellhammer]

I'm done with you idiots. This was supposed to be about bicycles. Simple bicycles, remember?

[Louis]

I'm done with you idiots. This was supposed to be about bicycles. Simple bicycles, remember?

In that case, start an interesting thread about simple bikes and we'll go from there.

Example: Why I don't like fillet brazed frames. There, I said it. For some reason I've never liked the look. I love lugs, but fillets just don't do it for me.

OK HH, now it's your turn.

[Dekonick]

Campy!

[Louis]

sucks !!!!!!

[jhcakilmer]

Wow, what energy, I love it!!

I don't understand McCain's choice....seems very politically motivated. I think Obama made the smart move, with an older, more experienced VP. He's not flashy, or trendy.....been in DC, knows the system, has solid experience, and seems very capable.

There has been some discussion, that McCain choice a woman to steal Clinton voters......to me this seems unbelievable? It assumes that a great deal of women voters, are only voting based on sex. Because otherwise they are polar opposites!!

I respect McCain's service, and integrity, but I just can't see how a reasonable person could continuely support the republican policies. They really need to start re-thinking about how they can change to help this country. I really think there are individuals that care on both sides of the aisle.....some of them just need to take a reality check, and see how the majority of people live in this country.

[TMB]

Wow, what energy, I love it!!

I don't understand McCain's choice....seems very politically motivated.

.

Exactly what have any of these people done in the last 2 years that wasn't "politically motivated"?

I can't for the life of me understand that comment - this is politics, of course it is politically motivated ...........

Obama's pick is every bit as political (that is all they know), it just fits your prism better.

[stuckey]

The old one is 72 my Grandparents are that age...
There is not really a dimes difference between the two parties they both work for the same corporate masters. Maybe someday in this country a party will field working class candidates but I fear the country will crumble before that day. On to a new election of puppets for the elite and lets get back to bikes.
Shimano sucks and is made by children who should be in second grade.

[jhcakilmer]

Exactly what have any of these people done in the last 2 years that wasn't "politically motivated"?

I can't for the life of me understand that comment - this is politics, of course it is politically motivated ...........

Obama's pick is every bit as political (that is all they know), it just fits your prism better.


I agree, I did not make a complete statement.

What I meant is that it seems he made a choice based on who he thought would get him elected, and not necessarily who would compliment him, and enhance his tenure as president.

On the other hand, I'd say Biden was a poor choice, based on electability. He's done poorly in national elections, so I don't think he would bring many, if any additional voters to Obama's campain. But he does have a wealth of experience, national and international, that would benefit Obama in the white house.

[toaster]

Sarah Palin, America's first GILF!

[Dekonick]

At least both Kerry and Bush ride bikes...

[jcmuellner]

Everything johnmdesigner mentioned in his post seems direct and correct, but this is the defining one:

People have to realize that in order to effect real change sacrifices have to be made by ALL.

I'm tired of hearing that we have to have a free market and see big companies making really poor decisions falling on my (and my daughter's) shoulders.

The biggest issue in this country is a lack of personal responsibility and a too short attention span. Both have cost us dearly.

[93legendti]

At least both Kerry and Bush ride bikes...
She's a runner - 7-10 miles a day, often at midnight in the Alaskan summer...

[Samster]

The biggest issue in this country is a lack of personal responsibility and a too short attention span. Both have cost us dearly.agreed. but you have to admit that bush/cheney have taken some overly simplistic and underplanned action steps (this is coming from a fan of simplicity), a few too many constitutional liberties, and a somewhat immature approach to building personal wealth at the expense of public initiatives (the list is longer, but i'll stop here).

while the national population's ADD and lack of accountability are clear and rampant, public administration isn't supposed to take advantage of it. this is what makes the republican win so difficult at the moment. clinton abused his family's trust, but i think it's very safe to say that bush has abused the national trust. he's made the republican task exceptionally difficult this year.

[Samster]

Simplicity is how we got into the current mess.
i agree with a bunch of your points, but i don't think it's as simple as your opening statement implies. imo. :rolleyes:

[Samster]

Campy!
sucks !!!!!!
b@stards. fighting words! gloves are off now.

[1centaur]

There has been some discussion, that McCain choice a woman to steal Clinton voters......to me this seems unbelievable? It assumes that a great deal of women voters, are only voting based on sex. Because otherwise they are polar opposites!!

Sorry to say but you need a bit more credulity. Not that much, since this won't get mcCain the win, but it will get him more votes. Why do I think so? I have listened to a lot of women around me, and women on the news, talk over the last few months, and the number who say they just want a woman (because it's about time) in the WH has been very depressing. They truly were not saying they wanted Hillary - they barely referenced her accomplishments (which were not many) - they started and finished with gender. It was absolutely pathetic, but it was undeniable. If Hillary was not a woman, she never would have run because she did not have the background (yes more than Obama by a mile, but without his communication skills and thereby his perceived potential for greatness).

As for Palin, McCain's team did tons of personalized polling before he made this pick. Based on the discussion I heard from his camp last night, the theme he picked up was that she would get conservatives big time (many of whom were thinking of sitting it out) and women to some extent. Not the hard core liberals who were going to vote Dem no matter what and just wanted a woman over Obama, but the soccer mom centrists who want to feel good about their pick and like Obama's spirit and are a little wary of McCain's crusty old man thing. Palin softens him and makes him seem younger just as Biden makes Obama seem more experienced. I think most people on this board who like to examine tiny details like lugs and cable stops are not the target for McCain's calculation, but I highly doubt it was made without strong support from the polling data.

BTW, if McCain has picked Lieberman, it would have been considered the Geezer Ticket. What a disaster that would have been. I'm sure the Dems are disappointed not to have that pair to pick on.

[1centaur]

I'm done with you idiots. This was supposed to be about bicycles. Simple bicycles, remember?

And it was going so well:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/search.php?searchid=470971

[Fixed]

you need to hang with some smarter women imho

[michael white]

Sorry to say but you need a bit more credulity. Not that much, since this won't get mcCain the win, but it will get him more votes. Why do I think so? I have listened to a lot of women around me, and women on the news, talk over the last few months, and the number who say they just want a woman (because it's about time) in the WH has been very depressing. They truly were not saying they wanted Hillary - they barely referenced her accomplishments (which were not many) - they started and finished with gender. It was absolutely pathetic, but it was undeniable. If Hillary was not a woman, she never would have run because she did not have the background (yes more than Obama by a mile, but without his communication skills and thereby his perceived potential for greatness).

As for Palin, McCain's team did tons of personalized polling before he made this pick. Based on the discussion I heard from his camp last night, the theme he picked up was that she would get conservatives big time (many of whom were thinking of sitting it out) and women to some extent. Not the hard core liberals who were going to vote Dem no matter what and just wanted a woman over Obama, but the soccer mom centrists who want to feel good about their pick and like Obama's spirit and are a little wary of McCain's crusty old man thing. Palin softens him and makes him seem younger just as Biden makes Obama seem more experienced. I think most people on this board who like to examine tiny details like lugs and cable stops are not the target for McCain's calculation, but I highly doubt it was made without strong support from the polling data.

BTW, if McCain has picked Lieberman, it would have been considered the Geezer Ticket. What a disaster that would have been. I'm sure the Dems are disappointed not to have that pair to pick on.

you're right, the Dems would've loved JL with JM. However, all things considered, I think we'll be pretty happy with the current situation, esp when the VP debates come up.

(sure beats Edwards vs. DC)

[1centaur]

To fixed, yes it would seem that way but the ones around me were mostly smart and accomplished by any objective standard.

To michael white: gotta watch out for situations with only downside. There was great glee when Kerry was going to debate Bush for all the reasons you would imagine, and expectations were set very low by the Bush team, then Bush came out very well prepped and seemed smarter than, for the most part, he has since, creating a let down for Kerry expectations. Biden is glib and experienced and quick with the one liners while Palin is just an almost beauty queen. But she got where she is for a reason and most importantly if you accept my argument for why she was picked to attract women voters, he can't be seen as acting arrogantly superior to her. He's good at sounding arrogant - that's part of how his humor works. Careful debate prep will be crucial on both sides.

Edwards vs. Cheney was painful. There, arrogance at callow youth was the point and played pretty well considering Edwards' sales skills. But at the end they seemed like two ships passing in the night with nothing accomplished.

[93legendti]

By the time the VP debates roll around Biden will have plagarized again; insulted another minority group and insulted women. He will tell us again that Pres. Bush was wrong on Iraq, even though the Democrat Senator from the 1973 Class voted FOR the War and AGAINST the Surge and stated this ???el:


Gov. Palin will hand Sen. Biden his lunch during the debates. I wish they were today!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20...7aOJiIhE_PCw5R4
"A statesman known for slips of his tongue
Eamon Javers, Jonathan MartinSat Aug 23, 2:44 AM ET

...For all that, though, the likeliest attacks on Biden are all matters of public record, and often problems of his own making.

Biden, who dropped out of the 1988 Democratic primary after he was accused of lifting sections of his stump speech about his humble origins from British Labour party leader Neil Kinnock, more recently took heat in 2006, when he said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

...More substantively, Biden supported the 2002 resolution that authorized the war in Iraq — a resolution that ????? opposed and, in the primaries at least, painted as “the most important foreign policy decision in a generation.”

...In 2002, he said that America had “no choice but to eliminate” Saddam Hussein.

While preparing for his own run at the party’s nomination last year, he took several shots at ?????’s inexperience, warning that “if the Democrats think we’re going to be able to nominate someone who can win without that person being able to table unimpeachable credentials on national security and foreign policy, I think we’re making a tragic mistake.”

When ????? gave a speech saying he’d send troops into Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and the Pakistani government was unwilling to act, Biden told NPR that “It’s a well-intentioned notion he has, but it’s a very naive way of thinking how you’re going to conduct foreign policy,” adding of his then-rival, in a remark Republicans are sure to revive, “Having talking points on foreign policy doesn’t get you there.”

Biden also said last year of his now-running mate, that “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” He may also see clips from his 1988 presidential run, when he ran an ad in which the narrator warns:

”The White House isn't a place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power ... the economic future of the next generation,'' the narrator of Biden's 1988 ad for the Democratic nomination said. "The president has got to know the territory.”

Biden, 65, came to Congress at the age of 30, meaning he’s spent more than half his life in the institution, which Republicans will surely charge makes him an unsuitable running mate for a candidate of change.

Another moment likely to be used against him is his Aug. 2, 2005, "Daily Show" appearance in which Jon Stewart asked him of a potential 2008 run, “You may end up going against a Senate colleague, perhaps ??????, perhaps Frist?”

Biden replied, “John ?????? is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John ??????, because I think the country would be better off — be well off no matter who ...”

Biden's long tenure in the Senate cuts against ?????’s change message, even as it insulates the first-term Illinois senator from charges that he’s too green for the White House.

Biden has accepted $5,133,072 in contributions from lawyers and lobbyists since 2003. ????? does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists.

...One of Biden's sons, Hunter, is a registered Washington lobbyist in a year in which ????? has been excoriating lobbyists and the culture of corruption in Washington. The younger Biden is a name partner at the firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair and seems to have specialized in lobbying for just the kind of earmark spending by Congress that ????? has vowed to slash. Republican insiders say the party is likely to make an issue of Biden's family lobbying ties.

Also expect to hear more about Biden's close ties with credit card companies. His largest contributor, based on total contributions by employees, over the past five years has been MBNA, the Delaware-based bank aquired in 2005 by Bank of America that, until then, was the world's largest independent credit card issuer and a major supporter of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that Biden crossed the aisle to support.

Top five donors (including employee donations):
MBNA Corp. (Delaware-based bank acquired in 2005 by Bank of America)
Pachulski, Stang (law firm with major Delaware officers)
Young, Conaway (large Delaware law firm)
Law Office of Peter Angelos (mid-Atlantic trial law firm)
Simmons Cooper (national trial law firm)

Top five industry group contributors:
Lawyers/law firms
Real estate
Retired
Securities & investment
Miscellaneous finance

Alexander Burns contributed to this story."

[Fixed]

imho biden was a bad pick as was mccain's
imho
cheers

[michael white]

To fixed, yes it would seem that way but the ones around me were mostly smart and accomplished by any objective standard.

To michael white: gotta watch out for situations with only downside. There was great glee when Kerry was going to debate Bush for all the reasons you would imagine, and expectations were set very low by the Bush team, then Bush came out very well prepped and seemed smarter than, for the most part, he has since, creating a let down for Kerry expectations. Biden is glib and experienced and quick with the one liners while Palin is just an almost beauty queen. But she got where she is for a reason and most importantly if you accept my argument for why she was picked to attract women voters, he can't be seen as acting arrogantly superior to her. He's good at sounding arrogant - that's part of how his humor works. Careful debate prep will be crucial on both sides.

Edwards vs. Cheney was painful. There, arrogance at callow youth was the point and played pretty well considering Edwards' sales skills. But at the end they seemed like two ships passing in the night with nothing accomplished.

Yes I agree with everything you say. Bush was ready for Kerry, and it surprised a lot of folks. We'll see about this one . . . . but Obama and his team are calling the shots now, not Biden, and so far this team has showed some very impressive instincts--most of us Dems expect that to continue, esp with the tradewinds blowing as they are. McCain has had a pretty good last month.

[OtayBW]

Most non-sexists would agree that Gov. Palin's experience beats community organizing, ...[snip]
I call BS on this. Playing the gender/sexist card is a cheap diversionary and divisive tactic that has no relevance here. No one that I can see is giving her any less credit because she is a woman. I have no problem with that at all. She just doesn't have the credentials to be one 'heartbeat away', irrespective of gender....not even close.

[Ray]

you need to hang with some smarter women imho
I agree with you Fixed, but its not just the smart ones who get to vote! OTOH, my wife is a teacher in a school full of women teachers in a relatively centrist area of the Philly burbs. They were all in school yesterday prepping for the start of school on Tuesday when the pick was announced. My wife indicated that EVERYone in her school thought it was really condescending to assume that women would just vote for her because she was a woman. So that's encouraging to me, but I know there are many women who will react differently.

I'm pretty amazed by this pick for a couple of reasons. It shows that McCain really didn't think he had a chance to win with a less risky pick. Given the recent polling, I found that surprising, but his staff thought they had a ceiling of about 45% that they just weren't going to exceed. So, to me with my obvious preferences, that's just friggin' WONDERFUL news.

But I do think its a remarkably cynical pick from a guy who's always talking about 'country first'. Is it country first for a 72 year old cancer survivor to pick someone he'd met ONCE who basically admitted in an interview that she really hadn't thought about the Iraq war much, she just sort of hoped we had a plan to get out? Don't get me wrong, I really like her based on what I've heard from her, and in some ways she's been a true reformer (althought I disagree with her completely on a lot of important stuff - mostly social issues). But to be commander in chief in a frickin' INSTANT? I know, I know, Obama has limited experience too, but he's had to sell himself for 19 months of damn tough campaigning to get to the position he's in and I don't think anyone would argue he isn't serious and well informed on foreign policy, even if he hasn't had to deal with it that much first hand. In any case, its a valid reason not to vote for him in the general if you don't like it, but you can't say he hasn't earned the right to be in it. That's a little different than plucking someone out of thin air for the VP. He had every right to do, and we have every right to criticize him for it.

That said, if McCain was so sure he was gonna lose, this can't hurt him politically (just the country - hey, COUNTRY FIRST!). So what if he loses by more instead of less? And she will definitely help with the hard core right wing base, on both cultural and economic issues, which McCain was in trouble with. And she'll probably pull a few women in who might not have voted otherwise. I don't think she'll pull many votes who would have otherwise gone to Obama, but she'll probably help him some overall. Unless other people see it as being as cynical as I do. I hope its not enough, but I'm too much of a pessimist to feel confident of an Obama win until he's been sworn in and maybe not even then.

We are cursed to live in interesting times.

-Ray

[93legendti]

I call BS on this. Playing the gender/sexist card is a cheap diversionary and divisive tactic that has no relevance here. No one that I can see is giving here any less credit because she is a woman. I have no problem with that at all. She just doesn't have the credentials to be one 'heartbeat away', irrespective of gender.

Then you should have calld b.s. earlier posts such as this:
...The thing about Palin is that she doesn't deserve the position. She hasn't "won" the VP through a tough national election; she was appointed for purely political reasons (let's try to get the disaffected Hillary supporters)...

This has been posted about the VP choices:

Sen. Obama's choice of a male VP pick was "smart". Sen. McCain's choice of a female VP pick was "political".

Sen. Biden "deserved" the pick (Really? Finishing fifth in Iowa entitles you to be "one heartbeat away from the Presidency"? Dropping out of the '88 Race due to plagarism entitles him to be :one heartbeat away from the Presidency"? ) Gov. Palin doe not "deserve" the pick.


Here's an entire thread of b.s.:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=49866&page=2

If the same have been posted about Sen. Obama, I can only imagine the flames.

Sorry, I see a double standard highlighted by sexism...funny it comes from the party that is supposed to be all about women's rights. :rolleyes:

[Boundgear]

She might as well be the mayor of alaska. No offense to alaskans, but your total population is equivalent Memphis. Not exactly big potatoes. Imagine for a moment the lady from alaska taking over where richard chay-knee left off... She's over her head and I feel bad for her. Harriet Miers 2.

My thoughts in general:
POTUS should be a thoughtful person with a huge personality. Should be gifted with enough brains to parse the information given to him/her at any point and enough personality to get the troops/states/industry/CIA/national politicians to effect whatever s/he has decided after weighing the facts. And not need too much sleep.

A proper VPOTUS pick should be a Parliamentarian. Should know laws, how to work the channels, which people can effect the change/law/war in the best way. Someone who has seen how a govn'ers mansion or the inside of the senate/house works. Dealt with a disaster, is unflappable in private. Can gather large amounts of info and bring them to the POTUS. Can work with a staff that consists of the entire political landscape and work behind the scenes. And not need too much sleep.

I'll let you decide which party is qualified for those rolls. I, being an ivy league, small town liberal, east coast, CSA arugula eating, white collar, taxachusetts living, friend to married gay people (with adorable interracial children), kinda know who I'll vote for. I'm looking forward to the debates even more now. :banana:

[Ray]

I, being an ivy league, small town liberal, east coast, CSA arugula eating, white collar, taxachusetts living, friend to married gay people (with adorable interracial children), kinda know who I'll vote for. I'm looking forward to the debates even more now. :banana:
What about latte sipping? I think that's a requirement. I'm big on latte sipping, although I'm not sure if its quite as bad if you're really into the gear and make your own. Can't stand arugula though, unless its well disguised in a salad.

-Ray

[Boundgear]

I make my own espressos, don't drink milk, help a local roaster design their graphics. I forgot I'm also an "art fag" (even though I'm straight).

I'm everything wrong with 'ermerica. :beer:

[dsteady]

Head of the Alaska National Guard, and Mayor, then Governor of a state is more real world experience than the other guy (block party organizer) dealing with most things. The experience angle doesn't wash. . . .

Jmossville, I can't help noticing here and in the other thread (see: "Community Whiners") that you don't miss a chance to ridicule the idea of a "community organizing."

You will be surprised, I guess, to learn that there are many Americans who are systemically shut-out from the many rights and freedoms that most of us here take for granted. Community organizers fight for the these people's rights and freedoms, and in so doing they fight for all of our rights freedoms. They are civic warriors, if you will. (You remember civics? It used to be taught in high school, but curiously it has been gutted from today's curriculum). Some people are actually naive enough to believe that if one of us is not free than none of us are free. I know, it's a ghastly thought.

Just something for you to contemplate as you enjoy your Labor Day Weekend.

Peace.
Daniel

[Samster]

Can't stand arugula though, unless its well disguised in a salad.maybe you need to change parties. :)

[Viper]

I, being an ivy league, small town liberal, east coast, CSA arugula eating, white collar, taxachusetts living, friend to married gay people (with adorable interracial children), kinda know who I'll vote for. I'm looking forward to the debates even more now. :banana:

Do you eat red meat? Ride Campy or Shimano? Own CHiPS action figures as a kid or was it The Bionic Man/Evil Knievel*? Model your squint after Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood? Important details!

PS. Are you John Kerry? :D

* = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGGCVE2lKY

[OtayBW]

Then you should have calld b.s. earlier posts such as this:

I think it is clear that she was in large measure picked for the ticket because of her ability to connect and possibly 'steal' votes from women. So, there is a clear connection there - no secret. However, her gender has no bearing on her qualifications whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

Let's just agree that it is not a sexist/gender issue, and perphaps you could avoid promulgating the issue further in order to leverage an otherwise weak argument.

[Ray]

I make my own espressos, don't drink milk, help a local roaster design their graphics. I forgot I'm also an "art fag" (even though I'm straight).

I'm everything wrong with 'ermerica. :beer:
OK, straight espresso. Now we're talking. Damn, you are evil... I rarely go public about the straight shots though, except in the monthly commie meetings :cool:

maybe you need to change parties. :)

Haven't you ever heard of the big-tent party? Or is that just what the new veep is giving the Republican frat boys these days? Badda Bump! :rolleyes:

-Ray

[michael white]

What about latte sipping? I think that's a requirement. I'm big on latte sipping, although I'm not sure if its quite as bad if you're really into the gear and make your own. Can't stand arugula though, unless its well disguised in a salad.

-Ray

I like latte too, though I live in a red state and cling to my gun, sort of . . .

color me confused?

[Ray]

I like latte too, though I live in a red state and cling to my gun, sort of . . .

color me confused?
Why, the espresso too bitter for ya?

[michael white]

closet wimp.

[girlie]

closet wimp.

wimps are people too.

girlie

[Boundgear]

Do you eat red meat? Ride Campy or Shimano? Own CHiPS action figures as a kid or was it The Bionic Man/Evil Knievel*? Model your squint after Steve McQueen or Clint Eastwood? [/url]
I stopped eating meat 19 years ago. When I was 13.

I ride suzue track hubs with no shifty bits... but my future xcross bike will have rival on it.

I'm slightly too young to be chipps/bionic man demographic. I loved transformers and GI Joe though.

and McQueen, no question.

oh, and I don't understand or like baseball. I'm a commie. I'm gunna go fire up the 'spresso maker. Long live the left!

[93legendti]

I think it is clear that she was in large measure picked for the ticket because of her ability to connect and possibly 'steal' votes from women. So, there is a clear connection there - no secret. However, her gender has no bearing on her qualifications whatsoever as far as I'm concerned.

Let's just agree that it is not a sexist/gender issue, and perphaps you could avoid promulgating the issue further in order to leverage an otherwise weak argument.

Sorry, can't agree. I am sorry you don't know sexism and hypocrisy when you see it.


I am SURE Dems will continue to use the sexism card, just as Obama used the racist card ("They're going to say I look different...I have a funny name...")- to their detriment.

The Dems put up the WEAKEST and least ready to lead candidate for President in their history, with NO executive experience, and they DARE claim a VP with actual executive experience is "inexperienced".
Obama's claim to fame is: community organizing, writing 2 books, hearing Rev. Wright for 20 years (but not listening), chumming around with a Weather Underground terrorist and running for President - instead of being in the Senate.

Sen. Obama has the AUDACITY to say:

"...I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington...
For 18 long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said, "Enough," to the politics of the past. You understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same, old politics with the same, old players and expect a different result.You have shown what history teaches us, that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.

(APPLAUSE)

Change happens -- change happens because the American people demand it, because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.
America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that, as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming, because I've seen it, because I've lived it..."

But, according to Dems, "change" and risking "same old politics, with the same old players" only applies to men and Democrats and not women or Republicans. That is why Biden "deserved" the VP pick and is a "good" pick??!?!

THAT is sexism and hypocrisy. THAT is the Democrat Party.

("Steal votes from women"?!?!. GET serious. Democrats do NOT own "women's" votes. The sexism is uncanny!)

[girlie]

My friend pointed out to me that possibly it is a good thing they grabbed her because she is a female.....perhaps that means women are being considered as a demographic and a voice that needs to be heard. She proposed to me that it is a step forward even if it's a bit sideways.
Maybe?
I'm liberal so either way not going to change my vote. Oh and even if I am girlie.....I have been for the O.....not against the H rather for the O.
girlie

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=93legendti]

THAT is sexism and hypocrisy. THAT is the Democrat Party. [unquote]

Which would make it different from the Repubican Party how? Oh yeah, they actually care about people who haven't quite made it into the $5 million ownership society.

Generalizations are dangerous, and usually unhelpful. Both parties have huge issues. I read your cuts about Obama and Biden, and think back to Cheney/Bush. How so many of them would have and still do apply so accurately to that pair.

I wasn't here then; I don't know if you are a Bush/Cheney fan, but maybe you see how unfit this pair was/is under the same criteria you offer (particularly if you think, like I do, that Executive experience is primarily valuable only if you accomplish something positive and is in fact a huge mark against someone for a higher position if that person has proven to be incompetent at lesser positions - as Bush had, repeatedly). Maybe Palin has what it takes - but the it is not significant experience.

McCain is the one who brought the experience fight on, and he's the one who shot that argument in the foot by adding Palin to the ticket. How can you dis Obama for lack of experience but wrap your arms around Palin is support? You might want to look in the mirror before throwing the word hypocrisy around too much. It's something that is not limited to Democrats or liberals. Any yeah, I've been there too; haven't we all? I guess there's a reason my favorite line from Lewis Carroll is quoting Humpty Dumpty: Words mean what I say they mean, no more, no less, and my all time favorite, although I forget the author ( I think its a fav of Scalia as well): Consistency is the hobglobben of little minds.

Ok, I've violated by pledge to take the weekend off from this stuff. Gotta go ride a Kirk!

[93legendti]

[QUOTE=93legendti]

THAT is sexism and hypocrisy. THAT is the Democrat Party. [unquote]

Which would make it different from the Repubican Party how? Oh yeah, they actually care about people who haven't quite made it into the $5 million ownership society.

Generalizations are dangerous, and usually unhelpful...

Funny, you post in repsonse to a post about hypocrisy that "Generalizations are dangerous, and usually unhelpful"

and then you post:


"Which would make it different from the Repubican Party how? Oh yeah, they actually care about people who haven't quite made it into the $5 million ownership society."

Hypocritical and sad.

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=Kirk007]

Funny, you post in repsonse to a post about hypocrisy that "Generalizations are dangerous, and usually unhelpful"

and then you post:


"Which would make it different from the Repubican Party how? Oh yeah, they actually care about people who haven't quite made it into the $5 million ownership society."

Hypocritical and sad.

yes the statement was made to illustrate the point! Sorry you didn't get it. Did it sting a bit more because it was aimed at a group that you believe stands for more than my characterization? Is that what made you miss the intentional irony? Does it help illustrate why your generalizations provoke lengthy responses here? (oh and I guess I'm also a hypocrite as I said I was done with politics for the weekend and here I am. Oh well, I can live with that.

[Pete Serotta]

Please lets chill.......This thread is good food for thought and conversation. Lets keep it at a NON personal level. THANKS :D :beer:

[Onno]

[QUOTE=93legendti]
and my all time favorite, although I forget the author ( I think its a fav of Scalia as well): Consistency is the hobglobben of little minds.

Ok, I've violated by pledge to take the weekend off from this stuff. Gotta go ride a Kirk!

That's from Emerson, I think the essay "Self-Reliance." The whole quote is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." But what, in the end, is a "foolish consistency" as opposed to a wise one? It's whatever you think it is, which is pretty much what this thread is about. If you are an undying fan of the party or person, inconsistencies seem trivial. If you are determined to stick it to them, are convinced of the moral turpitude of those you're examining, then all inconsistencies are moral crimes.

[OtayBW]

But, according to Dems, "change" and risking "same old politics, with the same old players" only applies to men and Democrats and not women or Republicans. That is why ????? "deserved" the VP pick and is a "good" pick??!?!

THAT is sexism and hypocrisy. THAT is the Democrat Party.

("Steal votes from women"?!?!. GET serious. Democrats do NOT own "women's" votes. The sexism is uncanny!)

Not even close, pal. Proposing change and commenting on risking the same old politics has NOTHING to do with sexism - particularly when the politics of the last 8+ years has led from one major disaster to another. Again, that's simply the typical divisiness that comes with the turf of the politics you espouse. You seem to be seeing hypocracy in everything, while not recognizing that it occurs in your own party as well - and then you link it to sexism?????? Unbelievable. Your description of the 'problem' here seems to come mostly from a myopic viewpoint and a contorted explanation for what really doesn't jive.

If you think that the new VP pick was nominated purely because of her accomplishments, particularly over some of the other likely more qualified prospects, and not because of many potential 'Hillary' votes - which in fact has been acknowledged as such by plenty of Republican pundits on the news shows in the last 2 days - then you really do appear to have your head in the sand. :rolleyes:

Hillarious (no pun intended). ...

[michael white]

Obviously, ????? has qualities that vast numbers of Americans, especially highly educated Americans as well as others, value over a thick resume, and time will tell if what the polls say comes to pass. It usually does, and it probably will. If some don't agree with what millions of Americans vote for, that's cool, they can dissent if they want.

??????'s VP pick is obviously a shot in the dark. He doesn't know her, hasn't worked with her, so it is absolutely fair to say it's a shot in the dark. She's pretty, a female, probably a cool person, who knows. I don't, and neither does John ??????, and this pick might turn into a referendum on his judgment.

Any male who calls the Dems sexist should probably wait and see who the women vote for . . . (no smiley face)

[Viper]

I'm liberal so either way not going to change my vote. girlie

Translation = "I'm not so open-minded after all."

Source:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broad-minded

Please define liberal as it can be misleading. Liberal is defined by Merriam Webster (see fifth offering above) as "Broad-minded...tolerant of varied views...inclined to condone minor departures from conventional behavior." It is not broad of mind to declare, "I am liberal so either way not going to change my vote."

Living in NY, it is common place to speak with Democrats and when they say, "Democrats, liberals are the most open-minded people" I often quietly chuckle; those to the far left or the far right are much less open-minded, broad-minded than they know. Oh they'll listen and agree with you, if you think and speak like they do. Arrogance knows not blue versus red, it's derived from shades of green.

A person with an open mind would indeed, have the capacity and ability to change their vote! If one defines themselves as liberal whose vote cannot be changed, it lends to the premise that person is not using all levels of their heart and mind, they are blindly dedicated to their party. Kool Aid comes in several different flavors and just as the far right offers theirs ice cold, the left's water bottles retain the identical level of chill.

PS. I was too young to vote for Reagan, but I wish I had some Reagan Under Roos to this day. That said, I've supported Mr. O-ba-ma both in words and financial support for the last eight months. Even Alex P. Keaton can be wrong, like R2D2, as C3PO said, "From time to time." Was Han a Libertarian Pirate and Leia a bleeding-hearted liberal Princess...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkEKIw0FU6Y






:beer:

[ti_boi]

Translation = "I'm not so open-minded after all."

Source:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broad-minded

Please define liberal as it can be misleading. Liberal is defined by Merriam Webster (see fifth offering above) as "Broad-minded...tolerant of varied views...inclined to condone minor departures from conventional behavior." It is not broad of mind to declare, "I am liberal so either way not going to change my vote."

Living in NY, it is common place to speak with Democrats and when they say, "Democrats, liberals are the most open-minded people" I often quietly chuckle; those to the far left or the far right are much less open-minded, broad-minded than they know. Oh they'll listen and agree with you, if you think and speak like they do. Arrogance knows not blue versus red, it's derived from shades of green.

A person with an open mind would indeed, have the capacity and ability to change their vote! If one defines themselves as liberal whose vote cannot be changed, it lends to the premise that person is not using all levels of their heart and mind, they are blindly dedicated to their party. Kool Aid comes in several different flavors and just as the far right offers theirs ice cold, the left's water bottles retain the identical level of chill.

PS. I was too young to vote for Reagan, but I wish I had some Reagan Under Roos to this day. That said, I've supported Mr. O-ba-ma both in words and financial support for the last eight months. Even Alex P. Keaton can be wrong, like R2D2, as C3PO said, "From time to time." Was Han a Libertarian Pirate and Leia a bleeding-hearted liberal Princess...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkEKIw0FU6Y






:beer:


Yeah and......so where it is written that I have to 'tolerate' another term from incompetent republicants. The country and my pocketbook cannot take it.

[girlie]

Translation = "I'm not so open-minded after all."

Source:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broad-minded

Please define liberal as it can be misleading. Liberal is defined by Merriam Webster (see fifth offering above) as "Broad-minded...tolerant of varied views...inclined to condone minor departures from conventional behavior." It is not broad of mind to declare, "I am liberal so either way not going to change my vote."

:beer:


liberal = I'll demonstrate through example.
Busted on verbiage......I'll have some beer.

Now where's my beer!

[93legendti]

Not even close, pal. Proposing change and commenting on risking the same old politics has NOTHING to do with sexism - ...

Hillarious (no pun intended)...

Well, how could Gov. ????? NOT be change and NOT be the same old politics - I thought she had no experience. :rolleyes:

Interesting for all of her "lack of experience", Gov. ????? she went to Iraq before ????? went - and he only went because ?????? backed him into a corner.

Obviously, ????? has qualities that vast numbers of Americans, especially highly educated Americans as well as others, value over a thick resume, and time will tell if what the polls say comes to pass. It usually does, and it probably will. If some don't agree with what millions of Americans vote for, that's cool, they can dissent if they want.

??????'s VP pick is obviously a shot in the dark. He doesn't know her, hasn't worked with her, so it is absolutely fair to say it's a shot in the dark. She's pretty, a female, probably a cool person, who knows. I don't, and neither does John ??????, and this pick might turn into a referendum on his judgment.

Any male who calls the Dems sexist should probably wait and see who the women vote for . . . (no smiley face)

If "highly educated Americans" think the best combination is a VP (from the old politics) who said "I do not want to be VP" and who also this said last year about ????? :"I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is...”

Then, I'd need to see their diplomas.

Interesting that a "thick resume" is not "necessary" for a Democrat to be a feasible candidate for President, but those same "highly educated Americans" think that it is for a Republican VP candiate (and can't see that, in reality, it is "thicker" than the Democrat running for President).

[Ray]

Interesting that a "thick resume" is not "necessary" for a Democrat to be a feasible candidate for President, but those same "highly educated Americans" think that it is for a Republican VP candiate (and can't see that, in reality, it is "thicker" than the Democrat running for President).
If Sarah P went through a gauntlet of primaries and won over more "qualified" candidates who threw every foreign and domestic policy question at her imaginable and, despite lack of direct experience, showed a real knowledge and understanding of these issues (even if I disagreed with her!), then I'd say she was qualified ENOUGH. She'd earned the right to be there. Conversely, if Barack had picked a relatively short term governor like Kaine or Sebalious, even though I really like them, I'd think the Republicans would be perfectly justified in picking on their lack of qualifications until the cows came home. Just like Democrats are gonna go after Sarah P. The John M camp gets this btw - a quote from Politico:

“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top McCaain official said wryly.

Ya think?

To equalize things, I propose that in addition to the regularly scheduled debates, Barack has an additional debate with Sarah and John has an additional debate with Joe. I think experience, knowledge, and judgment would be out there for all to see and judge for themselves.

-Ray

[Louis]

St Louis often hosts a presidential debate but this year we drew the Veep debate. When I found out about this last week I was bummed out.

For some reason, I think this year the under-card is going to be just as important as the headliners...

[93legendti]

If Sarah ????? went through a gauntlet of primaries and won over more "qualified" candidates who threw every foreign and domestic policy question at her imaginable and, despite lack of direct experience, showed a real knowledge and understanding of these issues (even if I disagreed with her!), then I'd say she was qualified ENOUGH. She'd earned the right to be there. Conversely, if ????? had picked a relatively short term governor like Kaine or Sebalious, even though I really like them, I'd think the Republicans would be perfectly justified in picking on their lack of qualifications until the cows came home. Just like Democrats are gonna go after ?????. The ?????? camp gets this btw - a quote from Politico:

“I think we’re going to have to examine our tag line, ‘dangerously inexperienced,’” a top ?????? official said wryly.

Ya think?

To equalize things, I propose that in addition to the regularly scheduled debates, ????? has an additional debate with ????? and ?????? has an additional debate with ?????. I think experience, knowledge, and judgment would be out there for all to see and judge for themselves.

-Ray

I see we are back to "earning" VP slots.


Ray, how many Presidential campaigns has Joe ????? been thru? Each time he was found wanting by the Party and its supporters - the same ones who know tout him as a good VP pick! Seems by the definition above he is NOT qualified to be VP. Does failure as a Presidential candidate earns you the right to be VP?

FWIW, calling Iran a "tiny" country that "was not a threat" shows a profound lack of understanding of foreign policy. Of course, after that mulligan, B.O. did a do over and told Israelis that Iran WAS dangerous and WAS a threat.

I'm glad B.O. (trying to avoid ?????!) picked J.B. It was a gift for the Republicans. Old school; insider; loose cannon; quote machine and, as we've seen, mean.

[Ray]

St Louis often hosts a presidential debate but this year we drew the Veep debate. When I found out about this last week I was bummed out.

For some reason, I think this year the under-card is going to be just as important as the headliners...
It could be entertaining, but I doubt 'important'. Remember Bentson vs Quayle? Very entertaining and illuminating. Remember Dukakis in a tank and answering clinically when asked how he'd react if his wife was raped and killed? Remember how that election came out? I don't think the under-card ended up making any difference at all.

-Ray

[michael white]

as to resume, it's not very important at all in my book. I'm an academic who has spent a lifetime listening and analyzing what humans say and write, and that's pretty much how I look at politicians too.

Sarah ????? is perfectly qualified according to the Constitution. So let's just say she's qualified.

We'll see how it plays out.

[OtayBW]

Well, how could Gov. ????? NOT be change and NOT be the same old politics - I thought she had no experience. :rolleyes:

Interesting for all of her "lack of experience", Gov. ????? she went to Iraq before ????? went - and he only went because ?????? backed him into a corner.

Oh happy day - she's gone to visit the troops. Why don't we just appoint her Sec'y of Defense with all that experience she gained!?! Once again, you rely on FLUFF to divert attention from the real matter, which, in this case is that the ??????/????? ticket would have a 'no end in sight policy' for an exit strategy in Iraq, while even Mr. Bush and the Iraqis have now decided it best to set a target date to at least begin the process of withdrawal. Talk about out of touch...... Unbelievable!... :p :p :p

[93legendti]

as to resume, it's not very important at all in my book. I'm an academic who has spent a lifetime listening and analyzing what humans say and write, and that's pretty much how I look at politicians too.

Sarah ????? is perfectly qualified according to the Constitution. So let's just say she's qualified.

We'll see how it plays out.
You got it!

[93legendti]

Oh happy day - she's gone to visit the troops. Why don't we just appoint her Sec'y of Defense with all that experience she gained!?! Once again, you rely on FLUFF to divert attention from the real matter, which, in this case is that the ??????/????? ticket would have a 'no end in sight policy' for an exit strategy in Iraq, while even Mr. Bush and the Iraqis have now decided it best to set a target date to at least begin the process. Talk about out of touch...... Unbelievable!... :p :p :p

Our troops are still in S. Korea, Italy, Japan, Phillipines, Afghanistan and Germany. :) Anyway, J.M. has said troops will be withdrawn from Iraq, when it is prudent and not to keep a campaign promsie.

On the "Unbelievable!" front, during the last election, Pres. Bush sought to bring home some of the ~215,000 US troops overseas, but NOT in Iraq or Afghanistan, and Sen. Kerry and General Clark criticized Pres. Bush, saying:

"...At the Pentagon, defense officials said a "significant portion" of the 60,000 to 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilian personnel in question would come out of Europe, including about 30,000 troops in two heavy divisions in Germany. ...KERRY ADVISERS CRITICIZE MOVE

Advisers to Democratic presidential rival John Kerry warned the plan could make America more vulnerable.

"This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national security," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

"As we face a global war on terror with al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces," asserted Clark, a former supreme commander of all NATO forces in Europe..."

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/17/content_366109.htm
-

[Louis]

It could be entertaining, but I doubt 'important'.

Three possibilities that may affect voters:

1) SarahP impresses with her knowledge of the issues, assuaging some of the doubt about her lack of experience.

2) SarahP bombs, making it painfully obvious how unprepared she is.

3) JoeB is seen to be patronizing or does something stupid that results in a backlash against him and the rest of the ticket.

[Kirk007]

If "highly educated Americans" think the best combination is a VP (from the old politics) who said "I do not want to be VP" and who also this said last year about ????? :"I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is...”

Then, I'd need to see their diplomas. Translation: what a bunch of idiots

Best? Well, I'll stand by "better than the alternative":

Diplomas and "Resume"

University of Virginia, BA with Distinction
University of Colorado School of Law, Order of Coif
Adjunct Professor, University of Oregon School of Law
20 years "education" as a private practice attorney representing corporations and wealthy individuals (I get the "big business" point of view of the world). Partner in one international and one small boutique law firm (a member of the ownership society I guess).
Small business (environmental non-profit) CEO for 6 years: 22 employees, 4 regional offices. (I get both running a business and the "liberal environmentalist" point of view)

That qualify or am I an uneducated idiot?

Interesting that a "thick resume" is not "necessary" for a Democrat to be a feasible candidate for President, but those same "highly educated Americans" think that it is for a Republican VP candiate (and can't see that, in reality, it is "thicker" than the Democrat running for President).

Your wearing out this old tune; this is much, much more than R vs. D; experience vs lack thereof; insider vs outsider. I'm sure we will see many voters breaking from their registered parties, on both sides, and the independents will go both ways as well. Overbroad labels obscure the real debate. Perhaps its time for this discussion to go to the differing views on governance and the role of government, the real substance of the debate, instead of labeling and questioning the intelligence of those whose world view differs.

It is the "differentism" that is so pervasive in this country, and so encouraged by trash talking talk radio jockeys and TV commentators, and the consequent inability to respect and tolerate; and to communicate without resort to ad hominem mud slinging, those who are different than ourselves that's really ripping our society apart. Diploma checking? I'd like to see those of persons who believe that the crap they are hearing on TV and radio from these folks is truthful and accurate; or better yet, the diplomas of the hate and fear mongers themselves.

[soulspinner]

[QUOTE=93legendti]

Since she is more qualified than Sen. ????? (she's been a mayor and a governor)....]

So what? Bush was Governor of Texas and look what we got. I'll take brains over winning elections any day.

And ATMO unfortunately a lot more is at stake than whether one thinks government should look out for folks vs. the self-reliant get your own money model. The problem with get your own is there's not enough stuff to go around, at least not if 5% take 95% of the stuff (unless those 5% decide to kill off, intentionally or neglectfully, much of the other 95%). Look after yourself works right up until the time those without decide to try and take it or until we use so much of it (energy, food water) and dump so much of our waste on the "other guy" or our planet because there's no strong government to protect the commons that we drown in our own sh**. Population dynamics, finite resources, and human weakness to neither look much beyond the next meal nor appreciate how our individual actions and desires impact us as a species are going to prove to be (already are in many places) a very nasty combination. I don't think we can sustain much more of the pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality as it fails to account for that impact on any one other than the bootstrapper.

This rings true to me...

[soulspinner]

She might as well be the mayor of alaska. No offense to alaskans, but your total population is equivalent Memphis. Not exactly big potatoes. Imagine for a moment the lady from alaska taking over where richard chay-knee left off... She's over her head and I feel bad for her. Harriet Miers 2.

My thoughts in general:
POTUS should be a thoughtful person with a huge personality. Should be gifted with enough brains to parse the information given to him/her at any point and enough personality to get the troops/states/industry/CIA/national politicians to effect whatever s/he has decided after weighing the facts. And not need too much sleep.

A proper VPOTUS pick should be a Parliamentarian. Should know laws, how to work the channels, which people can effect the change/law/war in the best way. Someone who has seen how a govn'ers mansion or the inside of the senate/house works. Dealt with a disaster, is unflappable in private. Can gather large amounts of info and bring them to the POTUS. Can work with a staff that consists of the entire political landscape and work behind the scenes. And not need too much sleep.

I'll let you decide which party is qualified for those rolls. I, being an ivy league, small town liberal, east coast, CSA arugula eating, white collar, taxachusetts living, friend to married gay people (with adorable interracial children), kinda know who I'll vote for. I'm looking forward to the debates even more now. :banana:

I hear shes a better shot than Cheney :p

[Fixed]

Translation: what a bunch of idiots

Best? Well, I'll stand by "better than the alternative":

Diplomas and "Resume"

University of Virginia, BA with Distinction
University of Colorado School of Law, Order of Coif
Adjunct Professor, University of Oregon School of Law
20 years "education" as a private practice attorney representing corporations and wealthy individuals (I get the "big business" point of view of the world). Partner in one international and one small boutique law firm (a member of the ownership society I guess).
Small business (environmental non-profit) CEO for 6 years: 22 employees, 4 regional offices. (I get both running a business and the "liberal environmentalist" point of view)

That qualify or am I an uneducated idiot?



Your wearing out this old tune; this is much, much more than R vs. D; experience vs lack thereof; insider vs outsider. I'm sure we will see many voters breaking from their registered parties, on both sides, and the independents will go both ways as well. Overbroad labels obscure the real debate. Perhaps its time for this discussion to go to the differing views on governance and the role of government, the real substance of the debate, instead of labeling and questioning the intelligence of those whose world view differs.

It is the "differentism" that is so pervasive in this country, and so encouraged by trash talking talk radio jockeys and TV commentators, and the consequent inability to respect and tolerate; and to communicate without resort to ad hominem mud slinging, those who are different than ourselves that's really ripping our society apart. Diploma checking? I'd like to see those of persons who believe that the crap they are hearing on TV and radio from these folks is truthful and accurate; or better yet, the diplomas of the hate and fear mongers themselves.
wow man you must be brilliant nice post
cheers
The Order of the Coif is an honor society for United States law school graduates. A student at an American law school who earns a Juris Doctor degree and graduates in the top 10 percent of his or her class is eligible for membership if the student's law school has a chapter of the Order.

[Ray]

.

[Ray]

I see we are back to "earning" VP slots.

I'm not saying he didn't have the right to pick her and I'm not saying she doesn't have the right to be there. I'm just saying the Dems have every right in the world to trash her on her qualifications. Just like you guys have gone after Barack up until now, but may do less of in light of putting her on the ticket.

Barack has held up VERY well to the harsh glare of a national campaign. We'll see how she does. I hope this doesn't destroy her career like being picked at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons did for Quayle. As conservatives go, I kind of like her.

-Ray

[OtayBW]

As we face a global war on terror with al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces," asserted Clark, a former supreme commander of all NATO forces in Europe..."[/I]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-08/17/content_366109.htm
-
Gee - I'm wondering how they developed such a strong global network when they originally were on the ropes in Afghanistan? I know: we'll take our eye off the ball and, pursue some other crap 'objective' in IRAQ!!, and then wonder why AlQaeda had spread...and then we'll create such unplanned chaos that they'll be drawn there. Yes - your arguments are right out of the Republican playbook and unbelievable indeed. :p :p :p

BTW - Clark was recently (and foolishly) critical of McC's military record and is an Ob supported last time I checked, so I think you have mixed your metaphors.

[Boundgear]

Hay legend, he did use the word tiny. Let's look at exactly what he said:

strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet, we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'

In best practices, you talk to a country before you eff um up. You should be man enough to talk to an enemy face to face. That's how my reading comprehension skills read that quote.



edit: by the way, I agree that Bi den has failed at the national run every time he has thrown his hat in. but, really, Nixon, Bush 1, and other (R) candidates ran up to 3 times before winning. there is nothing wrong with trying a few times. But there does seem to be something different to the way he failed a buncha times. I'm with you on that.

[93legendti]

...BTW - Clark was recently (and foolishly) critical of McC's military record and is an Ob supported last time I checked, so I think you have mixed your metaphors.

Sorry you missed the point. Let's try it in a more obvious way:

"...At the Pentagon, defense officials said a "significant portion" of the 60,000 to 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilian personnel in question would come out of Europe, including about 30,000 troops in two heavy divisions in Germany. ...KERRY ADVISERS CRITICIZE MOVE

..."This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national security," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark..."
The irony of this Democratic complaint is that:

US troops have been in Europe and S. Korea for 60 and 50 years, respectively, yet Democrats complain about US troops in Iraq for the past 5 years and the few more years necessary to finish the job.

US troops in these areas are not needed. Germany is united, Japan is an ally. WW II ended. The Korean War ended. It is ironic that taking troops from areas that have known peace for 50-60 years is dangerous, but taking US troops out of Iraq, when the war is not yet over, is not.

It's the same old Democrat playbook of the last 8 years - complain about what ever the President does, no matter how hypocritical it is:

Don't act "unilaterally" in Iraq and heed the Europeans; "talk" directly to Iran and don't leave it to the Europeans to take care of.

Leave troops in Europe forever; take troops out of Iraq ASAP.

War in Kosovo is good; war in Iraq is bad.

Pres. Clinton could say in 2003 that Iraq had unaccounted for WMD's; Pres. Bush could not.

Pres Bush was responsible for Katrina; but the Democrat Governor of La. and Democrat Mayor of New Orleans were not.

It's why I left the Democrat Party.

[DukeHorn]

Hmmm, no qualms with ????? endorsing the teaching of creationism in school? I mean nothing wrong with having anti-intellectuals running our service-oriented industries and muzzling our scientists, right? It's all so red state Americana. Racist talk protected by the Bill of Rights, but having scientists talk about their data bad (want to talk to some of my NASA or NIH buddies?).

Leaving the Democratic Party? Was that over Kosovo? Really? Hmmm, you left a party over a bombing campaign but have no qualms about being lied to by our current president into opening a second theater of war. Wow, how logically consistent. /golfclap

I mean who's obtuse enough to criticize ????? for his inexperience and then use ?????'s own words in pumping ?????? We all know that ?????? just ruined one of his best arguments concerning ?????. It's like an SNL parody.

The big difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that we weren't already in Afghanistan chasing bin Laden. The last I heard it was Osama that we were going after. I forgot what military training manual I studied that that endorsed opening up a second war without completing the first one.

PS When was the last shooting engagement(s) in Korea and Germany? Oh yeah, go ahead and ignore those relevant facts when coming up with empty arguments....

[93legendti]

Hmmm, no qualms with ????? endorsing the teaching of creationism in school? I mean nothing wrong with having anti-intellectuals running our service-oriented industries and muzzling our scientists, right? It's all so red state Americana. Racist talk protected by the Bill of Rights, but having scientists talk about their data bad (want to talk to some of my NASA or NIH buddies?).

Leaving the Democratic Party? Was that over Kosovo? Really? Hmmm, you left a party over a bombing campaign but have no qualms about being lied to by our current president into opening a second theater of war. Wow, how logically consistent. /golfclap

I mean who's obtuse enough to criticize ????? for his inexperience and then use ?????'s own words in pumping ?????? We all know that ?????? just ruined one of his best arguments concerning ?????. It's like an SNL parody.

The big difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that we weren't already in Afghanistan chasing bin Laden. The last I heard it was Osama that we were going after. I forgot what military training manual I studied that that endorsed opening up a second war without completing the first one.

PS When was the last shooting engagement(s) in Korea and Germany? Oh yeah, go ahead and ignore those relevant facts when coming up with empty arguments....

Well, thanks for calling me a racist. I am J E W ish. My children go to J E W ish Day Schools and they are taught that G-d created the world - as I was when I went to the same schools. The same G-d that I pray to every day. If that means I am an anti-intellectual, then thank G-d I am not one. I'd rather be who I am.

Thanks for making my point about Korea and Germany. What the heck are we doing spending billions keeping 200,000 troops overseas where there aren't shooting engagements? Why woud Gen. Clark say it was reckless to remove soldiers from places where there haven't been shooting engagements for 50 and 60 years?

VP nominee Sen. Joe ????? said we were right to invade Iraq and take out Saddam. I'll let him speak to your comment.

No, I approved of Kosovo, I left shortly thereafter, after voting for Mondale, Dukakis and Clinton 2 x, Pres. Bush was the first Republican I voted for.

Please be civil in your response(s). If not, I will not reply. Thanks so much.

[OtayBW]

It's the same old Democrat playbook of the last 8 years - complain about what ever the President does, no matter how hypocritical it is.....
Oh please...speaking of missing the point: Nothing like being an apologist for the worst administration and continuous series of blunders the likes of which this country has rarely seen. Yeah, from attacks on Constitutional rights to diminished international stature, to trillions of expenses, and needless death, to 'you're doing a great job there Brownie', Mr. Bush has done nothing to merit criticism - unless, as I've said, your head is ...well, somewhere. Not sure how else you could justify giving carte blanche to the President in view of all that he has done.

[93legendti]

Hold the phone! The Democrats DO believe in G-d! :rolleyes: Moore sat next to Pres. Carter at the last DNC Convention, so we know how important he is to the party:



"Former DNC Chair Laughs About Gustav's Timing to Hit N'Orleans
For those unfamiliar, Donald Fowler was the national chairman of the Democratic National Committee between 1995 and 1997.
According to the video embedded right, Fowler, on a plane from Denver to Charlotte following the recently concluded Democratic National Convention, was joking with Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) about the timing of Hurricane Gustav potentially hitting New Orleans when the Republicans start their convention.

At least that's what it appears he's talking about:

Plus they think the hurricane's going to hit (starts laughing) New Orleans about the time they start. The timing, at least it appears now, that it'll be there Monday. That just demonstrates God's on our side

Given that Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise (R) has reportedly asked Michael Moore to apologize for similar comments made on MSNBC's "Countdown" Friday evening, one should think Fowler will also come under some scrutiny."

Stay tuned."
AND:


"Michael Moore: Hurricane Coming During GOP Convention 'Proof There Is a God in Heaven'
Controversial filmmaker admits he's delighted to see a natural disaster potentially interfere with the Republican event.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/30/2008 12:13:18 AM


"...To liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, the bounds are seemingly endless...His latest outrage occurred on MSNBC’s August 29 “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and when he commented about the coincidental timing of an unfortunate disaster – the potential for Hurricane Gustav to make landfall at the beginning of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn.


“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said, laughing. “To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”



http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2071496/posts

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/08/30/former-dnc-chair-laughs-about-timing-gustav-hitting-n-o
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080830000004.aspx

Nice people. :rolleyes:

[Kirk007]

Hold the phone! The Democrats DO believe in G-d!

It is posssible to believe in god and evolution. Millions do, many of them democrats. The point of the earlier post was whether you want a VP who supports the further erosion of the Constitutional separation of church and state by teaching creationism as a science. ATMO the lack of a rigorous science education, and the attacks on evolutionary theory have combined to undermine our country's reasoning when it comes to protecting other species and the commons. If you believe a creator made all of this a short time ago, and put it here exclusively for our use, and can either with a wave of his/her hand clean up all of our messes (or is coming any day now to take us to a better place) then I can understand at least to a small degree how people can continue to view the earth and its resources as something to use up and generally trash. Talk about sad, that's sad.






Nice people. :rolleyes:

Yes, there are idiots in the world and they cross party lines. You think no one in the Republican party ever wishes bad fortune on, oh say, Candidate O?

Our party system and the "parties" have huge problems (shoot our whole system has huge problems; if it was me I'd impose short term limits and have serious campaign finance reform and return the government to the people and out of the corporation's pockets.) Individual people also, clearly, have problems. Yet, equating groups of individuals (parties) and tarring them with the sins of individuals is again, one of our big problems in this country.

I think you need to go ride that beautiful new Kirk (great call on the Erickson post btw - I've got two of 'em and luv 'em) and let this thread die. I intend to do the same.

[Big Dan]

McCain proved once more that he is an irresponsible lunatic.
He should scare the crap out of any rational person out there.

[Louis]

Hold the phone! The Democrats DO believe in G-d!

No way! Everyone knows that most of them are heathens. I've heard that many of them (B Ob. included) hold black masses and sacrifice virgins on a regular basis. The truly evil ones are atheists.

I'm not sure why they are allowed to remain in this country. Perhaps the entire lot should be herded into concentration camps or reservations. That would be a good "Solution." :)

[Blue Jays]

Some real doozies posted in this thread!

[Pete Serotta]

:no: :no:


No way! Everyone knows that most of them are heathens. I've heard that many of them (B Ob. included) hold black masses and sacrifice virgins on a regular basis. The truly evil ones are atheists.

I'm not sure why they are allowed to remain in this country. Perhaps the entire lot should be herded into concentration camps or reservations. That would be a good "Solution." :)

[soulspinner]

McCain proved once more that he is an irresponsible lunatic.
He should scare the crap out of any rational person out there.


The extreme right complained so he dragged her into this. She will be dragging her down infant to all the NSC meetings right? The book rights are already done...

[93legendti]

The extreme right complained so he dragged her into this. She will be dragging her down infant to all the NSC meetings right? The book rights are already done...

As I said, sexist. When John Edwards was campaigning with his cancer stricken wife it was OK:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=39403&highlight=edwards%27+wife

B.O. has young children on the stump and JFK had even younger children in the White House. I hope the Dems keep this up, it will only help J.M.

[Ray]

Please guys, can we just let this one go. I'm as into the political discussions as anyone, but they were pretty civil for a while. Maybe its because we're into the heat of the campaign now and emotions are running hotter, but this is the kind of thread that got 'em banned a few months ago. It hasn't gotten quite as bad as some, but there have been some really personal attacks, if not at one another, at each other's candidates and parties. I'm clear in my preferences, but I try (I'm sure I occasionally fail, but I try) not to put blanket attacks on parties or people. Where I disagree with McCane or find him cynical, I say so and try to say why. But just saying "the XXXXX party is a morally bankrupt bunch of idiots, thieves, and fools" or "Candidate XXXX eats worms and is evil to his or her core" doesn't add ANYTHING to the discussion, gets tempers even hotter, and causes the threads to descend well and fully into uselessness. And its coming from both sides very clearly.

So please, this thread should probably just end. There will surely be more to come. But despite the hot emotions and raw feelings that are sure to be there, PLEEEEEEZE lets try to keep the discussions civil instead of using terms like "morally bankrupt" and "irresponsible lunatic". To the extent Tim Russert, errrr, Adam can dig up an instance or two of me doing the same, I apologize and pledge to try my damndest to stay away from that kind of thing in the next couple of months.

-Ray

[Climb01742]

Please guys, can we just let this one go. I'm as into the political discussions as anyone, but they were pretty civil for a while. Maybe its because we're into the heat of the campaign now and emotions are running hotter, but this is the kind of thread that got 'em banned a few months ago. It hasn't gotten quite as bad as some, but there have been some really personal attacks, if not at one another, at each other's candidates and parties. I'm clear in my preferences, but I try (I'm sure I occasionally fail, but I try) not to put blanket attacks on parties or people. Where I disagree with McCane or find him cynical, I say so and try to say why. But just saying "the XXXXX party is a morally bankrupt bunch of idiots, thieves, and fools" or "Candidate XXXX eats worms and is evil to his or her core" doesn't add ANYTHING to the discussion, gets tempers even hotter, and causes the threads to descend well and fully into uselessness. And its coming from both sides very clearly.

So please, this thread should probably just end. There will surely be more to come. But despite the hot emotions and raw feelings that are sure to be there, PLEEEEEEZE lets try to keep the discussions civil instead of using terms like "morally bankrupt" and "irresponsible lunatic". To the extent Tim Russert, errrr, Adam can dig up an instance or two of me doing the same, I apologize and pledge to try my damndest to stay away from that kind of thing in the next couple of months.

-Ray

+1
i'll pledge, too, to try my darnest to keep any posts of mine above the political belt.

[soulspinner]

As I said, sexist. When John Edwards was campaigning with his cancer stricken wife it was OK:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=39403&highlight=edwards%27+wife

B.O. has young children on the stump and JFK had even younger children in the White House. I hope the Dems keep this up, it will only help J.M.


I was no less cynical about them, dont assume its because Im a Dem. Power changes everyone....OK, Ill let it go. 80 miles in so far this weekend with a day to go and it sbeautiful here. Pump em up and bring the camera. :cool:

[Samster]

Some real doozies posted in this thread!
all heat. no light.

[Onno]

The title of the thread is absurd enough (it's illogical)--perhaps we can let it die now?

[Viper]

Let's see and hear what Mrs. Pal-in has to offer during the debates. Can she communicate effectively, will the American people believe what is in her heart and mind? Will Obam-a come across as Kirby the dentist and Mc-Cain, the Abominable Snow Monster?

The decision to select Sarah Pal-in was simple, she offers Mc-Cain what he doesn't have and needs, social conservatism. This lady walks the walk, she raised five children, rode the politcal ladder, embraces God, guns and reading glasses (which drive men mad) while keeping her child who has Down's Syndrome, rather than aborting him; these are the key elements which the base of the Republican Party enjoy. Mrs. Pa-lin does not appear to be a shrinking violet, but the debates will expose or expand her ability to commincate to the American voters. Can she stand toe to toe with one of the most savvy of Washington regulars, Mr. Bid-en?

Time will tell.

[93legendti]

The title of the thread is absurd enough (it's illogical)--perhaps we can let it die now?

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=38266

[girlie]

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=38266

I think it was "like I am everyday"
That's the part I found funny....hell I'm not even proud to be myself everyday :D

[93legendti]

I think it was "like I am everyday"
That's the part I found funny....hell I'm not even proud to be myself everyday :D

I doubt it...hypocrisy abounds.

Sorry to dissapoint, I AM proud to be an American everyday.

[girlie]

I doubt it...hypocrisy abounds.

Sorry to dissapoint, I AM proud to be an American everyday.

And there in lies the problem imho.
Off to ride my bicycle.

girlie

[Pete Serotta]

a new day and a new week....moving on. Please feel free to open another thread. ;)